You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Let your heart bloom. (Graphite + Watercolor: step by step process.)
minor details dont change the fact it is 99% traced, she made the grave mistake of trying to deceive curators
minor details dont change the fact it is 99% traced, she made the grave mistake of trying to deceive curators
No it's not. I can tell by a glance. she did more curvature to the veins. They're like little tridents. The ugly glow effect created by the artist who drew the anatomical reference not coloring around the veins likewise was not copied. She also didn't copy that ugly stripe effect on one of the arteries. She did however use a ruler, as she does often when drawing. She clearly needs to learn to be more original, but many people use reference drawings for things like hearts, that most people cannot just draw freehand. She just needs to learn to use multiple references and not copy so accurately.
Edit: If you're gonna talk about grave mistakes. You're accusing her multiple times of deception. Do you have any proof that she did this intentionally? No, because there's no way you could. No one can but her.
Hi @geekpowered, art paraphrasing is a tricky one. One cannot say the users intent was deceptive or otherwise. This is why I think it is important to treat failure to cite source of inspiration the same independent of perceived intent.
If we want users to be more careful to cite source of inspiration, the payout is the best route to effect that change. We also must understand there are persons who will intentionally omit the source of inspiration in order to embellish their talent which is not good for honest creators.
Jaguar may be a bit brusque in how they go about it but think there is a valid point behind the presentation.
P.S. I don't really agree with the character judgments JF is trying to assert. It could be an honest mistake but it would be fair game to flag for art paraphrasing despite their treatment of the user.
It's likely a derivative work...but it's debatable if the added originality is truly deserving of extensive flags. It wasn't just a copy, but a copy of a reference for simply a portion of a work. I personally really liked the mandala flowers. Treating everyone the same regardless of circumstance ignores the fact that every situation is different. It's not an exact copy. It's far closer than she should have done...but she also did a lot of originality in the rest of the work.
Additionally, it's actually a public domain image.
https://etc.usf.edu/clipart/50600/50687/50687_heart.htm
That doesnt change anything. still needs to be cited, plagiarism isnt about the use rights of the image, is about lack of attribution, no matter what the status of the image.
Its the same as if you quote or copy a part of a book that is in the public domain, you still need to give attribution.
yes there is:
do you see that?, well, that is the user implying she drawed it free hand, with or without reference, when its clearly traced from that reference or a similar one(there are many, thats just one), thats 100% deceptive for if something is traced you will obviously respect the proportions of what you are tracing,
saying that you are not good with proportions but that it came out ok, is like saying its not traced, which is obviously a lie, additionally as you mention the source of the tracing is not atrributed, so its plagiarism.
In any case, thank you for your feedback.
Did I say that it was freehand? I said I suck at proportions because I do, it's the worst part of the drawing for me, the less enjoyable, it takes me an awul amount of time because I use a ruler. So, seriously, don't call me a liar because of that. Decieve curators? I didn't even draw it for Steem, it was meant to be a gift for someone, and I decided to post it because this is what my blog is for. So to say I'm trying to "decieve" anyone is very harsh. I wouldn't be able to find the original one even if I wanted to because 80% of heart art in the internet use the same reference. I can't even imply that I drew it without a reference because it's almost impossible to draw something like this without one. But there, I linked a source, which I'm sure it's also not the original drawing, because like I said, it's the standard for most heart art. Thanks.
The original source is the one we say is the original source, its a picture originally published in an old anatomy book, from which all other sources come.
"General outlines, I'm the worst with proportions but it came out okay."
When you say that you are implying it was freehand and not traced, if not how could proportions could come out wrong if you are tracing it????????????????
Thats why in making that comment you are inducing curators to believe its drawed free hand, because the only way the proportions could come out wrong is if its freehand, for a traced work always respects the proportions by definition.
Also when you say that:
"My favorite part in ever drawing is shading, so I had fun and was actually surprised at how it turned out."
You are deceiving curators too, because the shading is copied from the source too, so what are you surprised of if the shading turned out just the same as the place from where you copied it????
Saying you are surprised about how it turned out implies its not copied.
"I didn't even draw it for Steem, it was meant to be a gift for someone"
Right, and you took the process pics to show the recipient of the gift??????????? Please.....
have a wonderful day!!
I'm sorry, are you okay? Is everything okay in your life? Do you even draw? If you do, then you know that proportions suck, and I can indeed, TRUST ME, fuck it up, even if I'm using a ruler. I don't know what you mean by TRACING, are you implying that I put my paper on top of the orginal one? Well, no, that's not how I do it.
About the shading, again, are you okay? I can't shade it backwards, for fucks sake, and OBVIOUSLY OHMYGOD OBVIOUSLY I can suck at shading, even using a reference, people mess shading ALL THE TIME, I used to SUCK at it. The technique I used here I HAD NEVER used before. So you obviously don't even know what I mean by "shading" do you? Obviously because "copying the shading" is the weirdest expression ever, if I'm making a portrait, or anything that ALREADY EXISTS, I have to mimic its shading. WTF. If you know something about graphite drawings then you know there are plenty of shading techniques, and this one I had never used before because it's not usually the way I do it, so seriously. Are you trolling me?
And as I just said, I posted it on steem BECAUSE THIS IS MY FUCKING BLOG. I took pics of the progress for steem, I DIDN'T DRAW IT FOR STEEM. I have never drawn something specifically for steem, and you're making the WHY very obvious.
No, I hadn't credited the source before, and that's your only valid argument, everything else is just ridiculous, please.
Ps: I hope you're having fun, or laughing, or something, because otherwise, the effort you have put into calling me a liar is just sad.
What tracing method you used is irrelevant, what is clear its that its traced.
Would love to see a video of how you trace with a ruler, looking forward to it.