See artist #184141
Posted under General
"Art theft" is a pretty loaded phrase to be using for something that doesn't actually take anything away from the original artist. It's also kind of ironic to be using that term on a site that hosts complete doujin scans as well as images stolen from pay sites like Patreon.
That being said, all that really matters as far as Danbooru is concerned is that images are of sufficient quality, which rules out most nude filters and lazy headshops. If the derivative work looks good enough to get approved on its own merits, it's allowed. There are plenty of images like post #2904224 and post #3451943 where the art was obviously traced but we don't have a problem with it.
kittey said:
We generally don’t distinguish between the two. I wouldn’t tag the original artist on the derivative/stolen work to avoid the risk of confusing the artist finder.
What about when the art is identical enough that it takes a real close look to discern the differences, like post #2276380?
The kind of thing other websites might refer to as a "vector trace."
We have a vector_trace tag, FYI.
kittey said:
I wouldn’t tag the original artist on the derivative/stolen work to avoid the risk of confusing the artist finder.
This doesn't make sense to me. If two artists deliberately collaborate on a work, they both contributed to it and they both get their names on it. If an artist freely releases the psd of an uncolored, unshaded or otherwise incomplete work and others polish it off, they both contributed and both get their names on it, even though there may be no direct communication between the first and second. But if someone traces something and tries to pass it off as their own work, the original artist's contribution ceases to exist?
iridescent_slime said:
"Art theft" is a pretty loaded phrase to be using for something that doesn't actually take anything away from the original artist. It's also kind of ironic to be using that term on a site that hosts complete doujin scans as well as images stolen from pay sites like Patreon.
One thing Danbooru tries very hard at (in general) is to preserve attribution. Most posts have a link to a page of information which will list every known social media account and web page for the artist. Many will even have links to DLsite, Toranoana, Patreon, Fanbox, Booth etc. where they can financially support the artist if they so choose. Do not underestimate the value of attribution. One post I recently uploaded had an artist comment "Credit me, you wankers". Not "do not repost", "credit me".
Yeah I agree, if the derivative work is just a trace/vector trace or an edit I'd still tag the original artist.
Arcana55 said:
But if someone traces something and tries to pass it off as their own work, the original artist's contribution ceases to exist?
I don't think that's exactly what's happening here. If two artists both directly contribute to a finished work, such as one doing the line work and the other coloring, then of course, yes, they should both have their names on it, as they were both responsible for the creation of the final product. In the case of someone taking an artist's work and editing it, with or without permission, such as creating a nude filter, then again, yes, the original artist and the person responsible for the edit should both be attributed as being responsible for the final product, at least in my opinion.
In the case of someone recreating someone else's work, whether by tracing or by hand, the argument becomes, "Well, can you really say the original artist "contributed" to the derivative work?" Artist One may have created the original work, but if the copy was a full recreation (and not just stolen outright with the thief's name attached in place of the actual creator), then they didn't have any direct involvement in its creation. As far as tagging goes, I think it's improper to put an artist's name on a work they didn't actually create, just because it's a copy (that is, a recreation, and not just a blatant theft) of something they did create.
I personally wouldn't want my name attached to a lower quality copy of something I made, I would just want something redirecting people to my copied work. And I think the Parent/Child system, along with the derivative_work tag, actually serves that purpose just fine. I also agree that having the original artist tagged on the copy could at the very least add unnecessary complication/confusion to ascertaining who actually made what.
iridescent_slime said:
If the derivative work looks good enough to get approved on its own merits, it's allowed.
Effort is also a factor. This is one reason why we don't allow posts with the artist's signature cropped or Photoshopped out - yes, the art still looks as good as the original, but the edit is very low-effort and only exists to remove attribution from the original artist.
With that being the case, I'd disagree with the assertion earlier in the thread that there is no difference between original and derivative work from a moderation standpoint. Something can be approved under the assumption that it's an original image, and then deleted after it becomes clear that it isn't. I would also speculate that the art linked in the OP may not have been posted or approved if the fact that they were traced was immediately clear, due to the quality gap between the original work and the traced versions.
blindVigil said:
I personally wouldn't want my name attached to a lower quality copy of something I made, I would just want something redirecting people to my copied work.
This is a fair point that certainly should be taken into account.
blindVigil said:
And I think the Parent/Child system, along with the derivative_work tag, actually serves that purpose just fine.
I am not 100% sure I agree here. Perhaps an added comment or something should be required in addition?
Whatever the case, I sure wish more people would discuss Bling Vigil’s argument, since it is among the strongest brought up in the whole discussion. Could it be that most of the people participating above did not even notice it?!