What Is Art Plagiarism? By Francis Leverett Golden

in abuse •  3 months ago


  • What Is Art Theft?
  • What Is Tracing?
  • What Is Art Paraphrasing?
  • Why Can't I Use Other People's Art as "Reference" to Make My Own Art?
  • How Can I Avoid Being Called on Art Plagiarism?

What Is Art Theft?

Art theft is defined as blatantly stealing a piece of artwork and posting it as your own. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Posting screencaptures saying that you "took them yourself" as though they were photographs, when in fact, those still images already existed--it's called a FRAME. :)
  • Adding text, clip art or other images to a piece. Putting a witty word bubble or a sprite on something doesn't make it yours.
  • Piecing together multiple images. No matter how cool it looks, Frankensteining multiple sprites together to make one sprite is direct art theft.
  • Drawing on top of someone else's already existing image.
  • Applying filters to an image, changing colors, or inverting its colors.

What Is Tracing?

Tracing is defined as blatantly copying the composition and structure of a work with little or no alteration, with the intent of claiming the by-product as your own. You "went through the motions" of reproducing the image, but the composition is identical to the original, with the intent for it to be identical. Examples of tracing include, but aren't limited to:

  • Tracing the original piece. Including photographs. No, changing what media a work is presented in doesn't change the fact that you traced it.
  • Tracing the original piece and coloring it. Yes, even applying different colors makes it art theft.
  • Tracing the original piece and flipping it backwards. And then coloring it.
  • Tracing the original piece and altering minor details, but leaving the same general composition. This last example leads into the concept of paraphrasing, so let's go on to that.

What Is Art Paraphrasing?

Literary plagiarism is a tangible, normally taught and understood moral that echoes the moral that "stealing is wrong." But, I don't get why it's not common understanding what it means to plagiarize art. So first, let's look at what literary plagiarism is: taking the original ideas in another's work and reproducing it with the intent of mimicking the original. This isn't just "tracing"--or, in the literary sense, copying word-for-word another's work, even when wording is rearranged or changed slightly. You may not be wholly quoting a work if you write it in your own words, but paraphrasing it is still stealing the ideas of the original piece. You're still stealing a paper if you keep the same thesis statement and supporting details, even if you wrote the paper entirely in your own words.

Similarly, art plagiarism is taking the basic composition of a piece of art and using that as basis to make your own image. Many examples I've seen of art plagiarism are really just tracings with minimal self-effort thrown in. You may not have a print-out of the "reference work" directly beneath your paper, and you may even be changing which character(s) are portrayed, but that still doesn't change the fact that the composition of a piece of art is the intellectual property of the original owner. (More on intellectual property later.) Let's go back to the example of what written paraphrased plagiarism is. You're still stealing artwork if you keep the same composition and specific details/arrangement, even if you changed which characters are portrayed and even if you drew the lines without tracing them. The specific combination of elements that together combine to form the overall composition of a work is the intellectual property of the original creator.

But, don't be fooled--just like it's art theft to combine multiple images into one image, it's art plagiarism to combine multiple "references" into a single piece. Identically copying any major element of another person's work is still art theft. (More on alluding to other works later.) If you were to give your character a keyblade that looks identical to Sora's, that's art plagiarism. You didn't make that design.

Why Can't I Use Other People's Art as "Reference" to Make My Own Art?

Referencing another piece of art on its own is not wrong. You may need an understanding of how a limb bends or a garment would hang/fold--it's okay to get a general idea for how tangible properties, bodies, and objects work. It's also okay to look at a body of works by a particular artist with the intent of mimicking their style for a particular piece.

It's not okay to pick up a work and "reference" the placement of essentially every element on the page, or take any one major element of that piece and say you thought of the design yourself.

Many people do not understand that all works--of any media--are protected by an understood copyright. Intellectual property is any idea that is entirely of one's own creation; an invention is a great example. You have to file for a patent so that everyone knows who got the original rights to the royalties; but, this is to protect the money involved in producing merchandise using the invention. You don't have to file for copyright every time you make something--it's understood that you had that idea, and it's yours. The "patent" is already understood when it comes to literature, art, and film--it's rarely about money when it comes to Internet media, it's about ownership.

The establishment of this inherent copyright is the reason why Creative Commons was established--it is the exception to the unspoken rule regarding the etiquette of intellectual property. Creative Commons is a form of licensing that explicitly states how the original creator will permit others to use his work. Creative Commons is NOT the standard for any piece you find online--the inherent copyright is. You must have explicit permission from the original creator of a piece in order to use it in any way that you can claim as your own.

One makes allusions, references, homages, and parodies by mimicking the original piece. This is the only acceptable reason and way to copy the original inspiration detail-for-detail, because the mere act of alluding to another work denounces your ownership of that idea. If you wanted to draw a picture of Sephiroth doing the pose for "The Vitruvian Man" as a parody of daVinci's original masterpiece, you would need to have the exact pose and style of composition in order for your audience to make that connection. Without these clues, your audience would not connect the two ideas you are attempting to link together. It's something akin to iconography in its workings.

It does NOT excuse your theft just to say that "referencing" the entirety of one picture for your own picture is "an homage to the original," or that the original "inspired you" to make the exact same piece, "only different." (More on identical reproductions later.)

Regardless, adding disclaimers to your pieces are a good way to let people know what the original work(s) was. No one could ever know every piece of art in existence--and as such, it's a good idea to explain where you got your ideas. Most of your audience will probably be very interested to read what inspired your art as well--it's no admission to guilt to explain where your inspiration came from! Background on why an artist did a piece always adds depth, value, and meaning to a piece. :)

Let's continue on to other reasons disclaimers are helpful.

How Can I Avoid Being Called on Art Plagiarism?

I cannot say this enough: Don't dupe your audience. If you made a work with the intent of copying or alluding to another work, SAY SO IN YOUR DESCRIPTION. deviantART gives you the ability to accompany your images with text for a better reason than tacking on Plz smilies, Internet slang, and nonsense--it's there for disclaimers!! If you made a piece with the intent of drawing it in another artist's style, then say, "Hey, I thought Dr. Crowler would look neat in Amano's style." If you are drawing a piece with the intent of making homage to a classic work, then say, "Okay, so I thought it would be awesome to draw some of Sartorius's Arcana Force Monsters like they're on a Horror Movie Poster from the 1950's. They just look like they're from that era of creature-making." And even if you were commissioned to mimic another person's artwork--even in your own style or with other characters--you need to say, "Jace commissioned me to draw Dr. Crowler in the same pose as 'The Birth of Venus'" or "Matt told me he'd like to see how I'd reproduce Jace's style, so here I am with this picture I did of Starscream and Megatron. I used his Transformers art as reference for how he draws machines."

Fan art can be drawn in the original artist's style--doing other things than the original images used for reference--because fan art in itself is a far more tolerated offense; regardless that it does breach "no derivative works" to make fan art or write fan fiction, you are never claiming the characters as your own, and you are (usually) never claiming that you designed them or the world they live in.

But, be aware that simply stating what your inspiration(s) and reference(s) were is never enough if you blatantly ripped off the original artwork. Making an identical copy of "Mona Lisa" is NOT an homage to daVinci. Drawing Dr. Crowler doing the exact same pose as the official lineart is NOT fan art of Dr. Crowler. NEITHER of these examples is an original piece, regardless that you made it--you still made it with the intent to make an identical copy of the original. The only exception to this rule--and it isn't a widely accepted exclusion, either--is when someone says, "I thought it would be good practice to paint Mona Lisa stroke-for-stroke in an exactly the same way as daVinci. The identical reproduction is a study of how I see that the artist could have composed his painting." (It's a bad example, I know, considering the blasphemy of saying acrylics/oils/etc. could ever recreate the organic palette of the "Mona Lisa." It's hard not to make a bad example here, though. Albeit mine is a bit humorous, considering why almost all of daVinci's works are incomplete...) This disclaimer discounts the artistic properties and intellectual property of the image. The sole gain of copying a piece identically is learning the process by which another artist did his works. When you start out learning to draw, it's okay to copy images identically or trace them--you learn how to do something by repeating someone else's processes over and over. Once you learn to draw, don't copy anymore--show the world what YOU can do, and make your OWN art. Walk on your own two legs--quit using someone else's for crutches. You have the power.

Golden, Francis Leverett. "What Is Art Plagiarism? (READ THIS)" 11 July 2009. deviantART. [DOA 01/29/2019] http://datenshikurai.deviantart.com/journal/21493555/

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

So this is your authoritative source?
Francis Leverett Golden, a nobody with no credentials from DeviantArt who has not contributed anything there to support his claim to be an artist and hobbyist, no credentials whatsoever, website or link to any source verifying his right and authority to speak on such matters; with a bare cupboard of no creations, and the only other thing one can find (on a web search) is a video on Vimeo that - now hold on to your seat: no explanation in the text whatsoever (who shot the video, date of the event, information about the band, possibly also their website, copyright status of the music etc). The name of the band and the event is in the title, yes, but that is not good enough: it is a BOOTLEG from a concert!

so much for your source!

To cite unreliable sources as justification for your widespread accusations of plagiarism among Steemit artists is unprofessional, ignorant and downright mean-spirited (which I suspect is your intent).

If you wanted to educate yourself about Plagiarism (and you sorely need education that seems to be lacking) then why not check Wikipedia and the cited reference material?
Now if you read through the information on there, and study the reference material cited, then, and maybe only then, can you claim to know anything about plagiarism.
Otherwise, you are what you are: a pretentious fool, self-appointed to be a arbiter of art postings on Steemit.
But then, you share these traits of uneducated pretentiousness with your source, Francis Leverett Golden.

And another thing: just posting or linking to the sources of the images you use does not make it OK for you to use, be that your various Jaguar images or illustrations like the one in this post, which would only be borderline Fair Use if you had written the title of the source (not just image linking to it) and commented on the article in question in your own words and, by copying Francis Leverett Golden's posting off DeviantArt word for word without asking and getting permission of the author (even though the author is as much of a fool as you are) but without any of your own commentary, then Fair Use can not be claimed and you are in violation of presumed copyright - citing the source is not enough!

The definition that fits you to a tee is found in the Urban Dictionary


Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.Plagiarism is considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics. It is subject to sanctions such as penalties, suspension, and even expulsion from school or work. Recently, cases of "extreme plagiarism" have been identified in academia. The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and originality as an ideal emerged in Europe in the 18th century, particularly with the Romantic movement.


@thermoplastic I think it's meaningless to argue with bigoted snobs, but at least all those artists and enthusiasts who are trying to earn some cryptos here know they don't need to feel intimidated by these ignorant trolls who lack any authority whatsoever. The motivation behind their denunciation is rooted in their inability to create anything by their own. In other words: They see plagiarism everywhere BECAUSE IT'S THEIR OWN FUCKING ISSUE!


You are making a colossal mistake, and you will soon find out why.


You just made a big mistake by threatening me.


Your colossal mistake is defending art plagiarists, and what you will find out soon is that "inspiration" is not a justification to plagiarize.
But I dont want to interrupt your mistake, please keep talking.


If you think you can intimidate @gric, you are sadly mistaken. Jaguars are his favorite breakfast food.
Mabe you should change your profile pic to this - and you have my permission as the © owner of this image to use it on your profile.
You are a mold on the body of our Steemit community. You are a nobody that just joined 3 months ago. You over-inflate your ego any further, you might explode! Because of your insignificance on the overall artistic landscape of Steemit, you are suffering from a form of Napoleon Complex - threatening @gric is a flaggable offence, and you will soon find out how our community will react!


Thank you for your opinion, but unfortunately for you and all the people defending blatant art plagiarists like akarantain, most of what you read in this post will become the rules of the cleaning community regarding art plagiarism. The was no threat, as said above the colossal mistake is defending art plagiarists, and what you will find out soon is that "inspiration" is not a justification to plagiarize. In any case go ahead and flag all you want, be my guest....


Thank you for your opinion.

Congratulations @jaguar.force! You have completed the following achievement on the Steem blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :

You got more than 50 replies. Your next target is to reach 100 replies.

Click here to view your Board
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

Support SteemitBoard's project! Vote for its witness and get one more award!

No love for the photobashers then? XD though I guess it depends on how well they do it, have watched some game industry friends cobbling together mattes by photobashing and then painting over and you'd be hard pressed to tell what photos they stole/incorporated.

Also think some allowances need to be made for people using/drawing over stock. And we probably need to be slow and gentle with the people who firmly believe that the image should stand on its own and refuse to write descriptions at all costs XD

Only bringing this up as things to consider before reporting/flagging/etc :) Am otherwise quite happy for more people to be noting stolen/plagiarised stuff, and to know what constitutes as stolen/plagiarised and thus avoid doing it.


@ryivhnn - If it is stock, then they have implied permission to use it, depending on a number of things (most stock is sold as a license to use). Some stock is creative commons (and it would depend on the license), but most stock you have to pay for, so it is yours to use without any restrictions, except if your license specifies a specific use only (you basically get what you pay for, and unrestricted licenses are costly).
As a artist, you would have access to a lot of stock here Stockfree Images if you join the site. There are other services available, like Megapixl - all you have to do is google for free stock.

If you use stuff that is in the public domain, then you can do with it what you want without any restrictions. Usually, copyright expires after 80 years or 100 years (depending on country) after the death of the author. Extensions are sometimes granted to heirs of the artist if they apply for it.

Here is a link for Public Domain Images on the Internet Archives Flickr Blog , the best source is the Internet Archives Website (you find the link on this page The Public Domain Review).

And here is another interesting exemption to copyright, and it is called Freedom of Panorama - otherwise you would not be allowed to publish photos of your holidays in Paris, for example.

Now to the part of your comment ".....cobbling together mattes by photobashing .....":
In the instance that an image has been altered adequately, one may be protected under a “de minimis” defense. This implies that the amount of the source that has been copied is small enough to be justified by court.

I have studied copyright issues for decades and have posted many times about it in my blogs and on my websites and networks.
Of course this Jaguar pretender troll has no clue about any of this.


Did you not realise I was defending use of stock and photobashing from the language I used?

Ps - clarifying that I am asking if my language was too colloquial and forgot to say your explanations are almost post worthy on their own.

Posted using Partiko iOS

Hello @jaguar.force, thank you for sharing this creative work! We just stopped by to say that you've been upvoted by the @creativecrypto magazine. The Creative Crypto is all about art on the blockchain and learning from creatives like you. Looking forward to crossing paths again soon. Steem on!

This post is quite helpful. Plagiarism in all its forms is something to take more seriously. I was previously on a poetry website and found some of my poetry altered by another user. It was not a pleasant experience.

I'm working on that list of artworks that need references. Keeping in mind the volume of posts I've added, this will take a while to go through.