Differences between copying and using for inspiration

[Australian Bushman]

Here's a place for discussion regarding the difference between copying art and using it properly for inspiration, what's right and what's not right. It follows on from an 'argument' over a work in progress entry for the Port map battle [ viewtopic.php?f=12&t=28502&start=120#p345128 ] which should be read, if not already, before reading on.

it's not remotely illegal, unethical, or immoral.

I think copying another artist's work not only without permission but without credit or acknowledgement is unethical and immoral, and I think you'll find that most if not all artists feel the same way.

have you not read the history of art and how everything comes from everything else?

Regarding the "history of art", it's not as simple as "everything comes from everything else". Artists don't simply copy other artists' work. Deconstruction takes place and individual ideas and techniques behind the piece is used to inspire a newly created artwork. Sure, 904's ship is recreated in another medium, but it's still copying the result of the original artist's creation, not using just an individual idea or technique as inspiration.

Speaking collectively, I think the trick to help yourself not copy someone else's work is to deconstruct your reference to find out what exactly inspires you about it. This often involves digging deep, thinking why your reference inspires you, not just scraping the surface by simply recreating something. That, and broaden your sources of inspiration so then you end up taking bits of inspiration from several sources rather than just one, risking making your work too similar.

[zombie@computer]

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." - Albert Einstein

Einstein spoke thruth and this is basically all i have to say about the subject.

Regarding the "history of art", it's not as simple as "everything comes from everything else". Artists don't simply copy other artists' work. Deconstruction takes place and individual ideas and techniques behind the piece is used to inspire a newly created artwork.

So its wrong to copy* someones work entirely, but okay to copy* that part of someones work that inspires you ?

*copy as in base your work on partly, not entirely

I also want to suggest to drop the subject of the map battle. This is not a court, nor a discussion about the rules of the map battles, but moreso on the abstract subject of copying art/originality/whatever. Lets keep it that way.

[Australian Bushman]

I didn't mean to focus too much on the map battle and put poor 904 under scrutiny. It's a good example and it's what started the discussion, but I'll leave it at that.

So its wrong to copy* someones work entirely, but okay to copy* that part of someones work that inspires you ?

*copy as in base your work on partly, not entirely

That's starting to sound a little vague, I sense a merry-go-round coming up.

But I think the essence of the problem is copying someone else's creation and using it as if it was your own. Not only that, but doing so without paying respect to the author for his/her creativity and effort, also.

[source-maps]

give it a rest please...

[Dionysos]

Copying intentionally and writing it off as your own is obviously "wrong". Then again, if everyone would do that only the truly creative ones would stand out, thus it would correct itself.

Copying in the sense of taking parts or ideas from others work has been around forever and will not, or even should, stop, ever. How many concept arts or drawings have ever "ripped off" the death star. It's all about culture and inspiration.

[cz_squishy]

[Kremator]

I advocate against flat-out copying but derivation is always fine, since people have been doing that since forever. What I am against, however, is using other people's work as a source of inspiration
and making no attempts to credit them - that is all to it.

If the artist is ok with you using his/her work as inspiration then fine - no questions asked. It's not strictly about morality but more so about paying respects to the work of the artist who created the piece; it is not an easy process and should his/her efforts helped you to reach a final product easier then by all means do it, but at least acknowledge them for what they did to help you.

That is all; people are going on a crusade about this as if it's a moral blasphemy and in some ways, depending on who you are - it could be. It is by no means a huge issue however, unless it's flat-out plagiarism, and it's not something you can define rules for either, everybody have their own perception of when "referencing" becomes "copying". Let's try not to argue about this and just encourage people to credit their sources/references/inspirations when able.

I am also a little offended by some of the people here who think this is overreaction/nonsense, I've tried my best to sound as moderate as possible - all of this are merely my suggestions, I'm not putting them down as cold, hard, facts.

I go to an art school and one of the things we stress the most is the need for acknowledgment for other artists should you use their content in any which way; plagiarism warrants an immediate F and the probability of being expelled.

Nobody likes to go unrecognized for their hard work.

[904]

Off course I have to give my opinion on this. I feel you are absolutely right, but what we'll see that it will become more and more difficult to distinguish between original and 'derived' work, since the rate at which we (humans) output new stuff everyday is astonishing and will only go faster every day.

And I will tell you that I had 2 very bad days after this incident.
Mostly because what I found absolutely amazing, is that it was assumed that I would deem you all (Interlopers) so stupid that I would get away with plagiarism without you noticing, plus that I was convicted of copying someone-else's work right off the bat and that a bunch of people jumped on the bashing bandwagon without verifying what was going on..
It was never my intention to copy anyone's work, nor did I realise that there were very strong similarities at moment of posting this shot. (altough I have seen that image a long time ago).
As far as I'm concerned, a WIP shot is a transient state towards a final shot. If I had kept it under the lid for a few iterations more, those similarities would have practically been gone.. And that is the truly sour part for me, because after this I couldn't find the energy to make anything out of it anymore.

Lessons learned: Interlopers still isn't that friendly community that we aim to be and be careful with posting WIP shots. And both are a real shame.

[Spike]

Using other's work without permission is unethical.

[ghost12332]

With Art & Music, if you think you can sum up the transitions between the genres and techniques with "everything comes from everything else" I think you need to be shot by firing squad.

Plagiarism is actual intention of using, copying, or modifying someones work. It is wrong and immoral, and as an artist I would gladly sue any bastard who did it to me.

"Inspiration" is a feeling hard to describe, but usually when it strikes you, there is no direct intention of taking sections or pieces from another persons work.

[srredfire]

Lessons learned: Interlopers still isn't that friendly community that we aim to be and be careful with posting WIP shots. And both are a real shame.

That's really sort of bullshit saying we aren't a friendly community because of your mistakes. I'm all for people getting inspiration from things, but honestly, if you look at your ship, and the one in the render, they look pretty much DEAD ON to each other. Don't jump on your high horse and start saying we're assholes because you got caught, or whatever.

I really don't have much against you 904, but I mean, come on. You're a grown man, and if I recall you have a kid, let's not play dumb here. It's gotten to the point where it's like, just say "Okay, I fucked up, I'm sorry, next time I will cite all credit." It's not that hard, sometimes you're just WRONG.

Either way, you can keep defending yourself, and saying that we're unfriendly flaming dickheads, but it looks pretty clear to me. Like I said, compare the two and look and they look extremely similar, and I find it hard to believe you didn't copy that.

So whatever, I could care less. I still find it weird you got to be design mod when the fact you don't have much "design" experience regarding Source. Your website is a mess, and has been since 2007, and tell me if I'm wrong, but you've never released anything, so. I don't see what got you to be in that position. /not flaming

In the end I don't give a shit, it's a forum and people do what they want, I'm never going to meet you, I don't want to, and there are a billion other things more important than arguing that you copied some stupid render for a mapping battle. It just bugs me when people automatically take the "You guys are assholes and I'm right" road and leave it at that.

[mky]

I don't think 904 would be blatantly copying an image to try and steal all the credit for himself. To be honest the shot he posted was probably less than 100 brushes... so what if the frame of this ship looks the same? I think you guys might have jumped to conclusions a little too fast in 904s case.

On that note however straight copying another persons work with permission is just terrible.

[unclep4ul]

Bastards!

[Mess]

I think interlopers is the friendliest and best hl2 community by far, and i think some people are taking this a little too seriously. Yes, it's wrong to completely rip off a concept without citing your sources, but inspiration comes from imitation so the trick is to take a basic concept and make it your own.

[Dionysos]

If the design of that platform was to prove so succesful that everybody started using and building it, no one would care if a model looked like it. As long as the details aren't exactly the same... I think this community really is quite friendly.

These things can happen by accident, people can think alike.