Please do not commission or trade with Aruku

[jcjc.livejournal.com]

Aruku is an artist who is well-know by lots of copy/trace behavior in Taiwan.
Because she got caought many times when she copy/trace other people's arts, she left the Taiwan group and being active in DA and FA in these 2 years.
We thought she may change, maybe she got the lesson, but recently, we found many of her arts was copy from other poeple's photos again!

This is an art trade by her:
http://a-ruku.deviantart.com/art/At-The-Borzoi-247025021
The pose is just copy from a photo, without credit giving:
http://i.imgur.com/dIS1s.jpg
And that's what she got:
http://dezzoi.deviantart.com/art/A-ruku-AT-251197192

Another art trade:
http://a-ruku.deviantart.com/art/AT-Wolf-Norf-221180062
The pose is just copy from other people's photo, without permission and credit giving:
http://treke.deviantart.com/art/Wolf-213462688
http://i.imgur.com/jbOjv.jpg
And that's what she got:
http://wolfroad.deviantart.com/art/Noble-hatred-208779049

This is a commission:
http://a-ruku.deviantart.com/art/Commission-Wolf-AkelaTaka-216393159
The pose, of course, copy from other people's photo, without permission and credit giving:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/delvingimages/318085651/sizes/l/in/photostream/
http://i.imgur.com/wsybe.jpg

Another commission:
http://a-ruku.deviantart.com/art/Commission-Wolf-Reka-245936608
The pose copy from other people's photo, without permission and credit giving again:
http://greensh.deviantart.com/art/Side-by-Side-239397806
http://i.imgur.com/qi6d7.jpg

Another commission:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6267199
The pose copy from other people's photo, without permission and credit giving:
http://greensh.deviantart.com/art/I-m-Talking-to-You-244296291
http://i.imgur.com/mifXE.jpg

Those are the proof what we found, we believe there are more....
Some parts even could be called tracing, not just getting reference....
http://i.imgur.com/hwskJ.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/vmw4n8.jpg

I'm not mean getting reference is wrong, we all can learn a lot by looking reference.

My point is, we all know if we use ref, we should ask the original's permission, or at least give them credits.
But she didn't, she just got some photos from the net and copy the pose.
So easy, then she got beautiful art trades or money.
I think that is kind of cheating, that is very unfair to other artists who works hard at their arts.
And after we point out these things to her, she just added these words in her art comments:
"I have reference photo of wolf in my work. And all threats, accusations and the like are notified so think before you write to me for there is a risk of notification."
Seems she never learns and still think she is right.

Using references without the original's permission or credit giving is kind of break copyright laws.
Besides we should just use refs for practicing, not for making money.
So that's why I'm here, I just want more people to know this thing.
Please do not commission or trade with her.
Thank you!

Comments

[leahtaur.livejournal.com]

Uh, I agree she is referencing too closely and may in fact be tracing. But professional artists of all stripes use references, even in pieces for profit. The difference is that they don't reference as closely as this artist does, and don't use one reference as a crutch for an entire piece of artwork.

[leahtaur.livejournal.com]

Again, no argument that what this artist is doing is shady -- I just wanted to disagree with your final paragraph, there.

[eenyuwolf.livejournal.com]

hmmm I have mixed feelings on this. It does seem as though the artist relies heavily on referencing other pieces, but I don't see it as though she is tracing. I see enough of a personal style and differences in the images.

But this also makes me wonder what people think about this topic. For example I will use myself; there is a whole section on DeviantART just for stock images; I'd like to assume that it is implied that these images are up for the general use to the public. I sometimes like to browse through these for ideas for poses or even to help with my anatomy. Should this not be done for commissioned work? Is it alright if sources are always cited?

I wold be very interested in hearing other opinions on this subject.

[misteroffense.livejournal.com]

I think if you're using an exact pose from a referenced photo, it should be cited in the artwork's description. If you're just checking a photo to, say, make sure the angle of a foot or hand looks right, then I don't think that's significant enough use of the photo to have to cite the original photographer.

In the case of the artist in OP's post, I would say they need to cite the original photographer that they referenced because their pieces are dangerously close. I may even call some of them tracing. There are ways to trace and still make it look unique. You just trace the basic pose from the photo then flesh it out on your own so every line isn't exact.

[dirtiran.livejournal.com]

If it were for learning purposes only (with credit to photographers), more loosely eyeballed just for a natural pose, or permission from/ credit given to the photographer if it’s this close... I could understand.

But selling such works as commissions and trades, with no mention to the original photographers at all, is rather shady in my opinion yes :/

I always rant when I see stuff like this as = I still don’t understand Whyyyyyyyyyyy people are scared to acknowledge their sources, it won’t make people like your art less, it will show you are an honest artist.

Allot of photographers on deviant art especially can actually be rather happy to allow you to reference for posing ect. Just, like any artist, they wish to have the right to –allow- or –deny- it, and have their due credit :/
And of course, there’s the hundreds of excellent stock artists, who again usually just want credit :/


/end rant Argh! ;)

[dirtiran.livejournal.com]

I should probably add though, as some may mistake me XD. I am not anti-referencing. Artists should reference, I know many great artists who do. I do, and there are ways other than what this artist is doing, to do so.

Pull up multiple photos to reference, create your own image by taking small tidbits from nature’s way of moving which photo’s express. But just tracing a whole image is not honest, nor leaving much of a window to learn for yourself :/

my two cents on the matter

[sephystabbity.livejournal.com]

I agree with you that a lot of artists use reference photos. I do it myself. but this one seems to be very dependent, perhaps too dependent on them, not just using them as a reference, from how accurately the image is copied over from the photo to the art, like every part of one aligns with the other's as if they were laid on top of one another. I feel a little uncomfortable about that level of tracery,

And I don't like that she uses other people's photos without crediting. Using a pose for reference is fine, but if she is going to use a reference this heavy from an image, even a stock image, shouldn't credit be given, if the original poster asks for credit to be given? Even if they don't ask to give it, unless they explicitly state that they don't need to be credited, I think they should be, for this close a copy.

Re: my two cents on the matter

[sephystabbity.livejournal.com]

Crap this was supposed to be a reply to a comment. Oh well, no point reposting it because it still addresses the matter at hand anways =\

[ocelotish]

I think her method of working would be fine if the photos were her own, or from stock she could use commercially. If I had to guess, I would think that some of the problem is that English doesn't appear to be the artist's first language, which makes everything a bit more confusing, at least on her end.

[otherscape.livejournal.com]

Except maybe #3 (because I've seen that pose a lot), that's pretty damning evidence of copying without crediting. It doesn't look like she traced it though as her style still bleeds through clearly.

"I have reference photo of wolf in my work. And all threats, accusations and the like are notified so think before you write to me for there is a risk of notification."

Is she planning to report you for pointing this out with while you have evidence to back this up? If it's on DA, chances are the admins won't see pointing out she's a thief as harassment. Though I'd doubt they'd do anything about the theft either.

Gift art is not illegal.

[film2edit.livejournal.com]

This is borderline, since they're photos. It can be argued that they're references. There isn't anything illegal about that. However from an artistic stand point, the line art itself is pretty boring and looks copied. That by itself wouldn't prompt me to pay her for a layout.

These are also considered gifts. It's like making a costume of Simba for a friend as a gift. No money was exchanged, and it's copying a major copyrighted and trade marked character.

Unless the original photographers really want to fight it, it probably won't go anywhere.

Re: Gift art is not illegal.

[moonsongwolf.livejournal.com]

Photography is protected by copyright just like any other creative art form. From a legal sense, at least in the US, making a drawing based on a photograph is considered derivative work: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf Meaning that she needs to have the permission of the photographer to use the photo for drawing reference if the resulting drawing was obviously created from that photo. However, since she's in Taiwan, there's really nothing to be done about it legally, even if the photographers did mind. It still looks poorly on her to not cite obvious sources or to have the photographers' permission.

Also, maybe I'm just not reading this correctly, but none of the linked images are gifts. The first two are trades for other art and the last three are commissions for money.

[wolf-goat.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't see any problem with what they're doing. They're not copying the photos exactly, just using the poses and referencing. Yeah, they could probably cite their references but I just don't even think that's necessary when the work is so different from the original source.

Reusing a pose only, especially from a photograph, is not art theft.

[dustmeat.livejournal.com]

It does not bother you that a lot of glaring mistakes in the wolf and dog anatomy are being made because the artist is copying too closely and cannot ad lib without muffing it up?

[wolfofwind.livejournal.com]

Ouch.. that's pretty blatant. :o

[thaily.livejournal.com]

Eeeeh, using reference usually suggests using multiple sources to help create an image that doesn't necessarily look like any of them. I daresay some of those lines are a little too close to be referenced, but I'm leaning more towards "lazy" than "dishonest" in regards to the artist's motivations, though not excluding either option.

I do have to say, damn you can get some nice art in trades in exchange for bad photo traces!

[dustmeat.livejournal.com]

Exactly!

[vellacraptor.livejournal.com]

The problem I see here is a lot of people use stock photos and what not, and that's well and good.
But she's dangerously close, and she's NOT using STOCK photographs; DA has a category for that and the images she's using are NOT in that category, nor does the photographer state that there's free use of the images.

I'd say someone note them and see what they think.

Or just leave it and steer clear of her, ha.

[kokopelle]

Yepper skipper. My photos are not considered stock. I get asked if people can use my pics straight-up in animal role playing sites. The answer is no. I don't want to open the door that would eventually lead to my work being used in a commercial enterprise, without my being compensated. Will I pursue this artist? No. Do I think it is lazy work? Yes.

Re: ruthdon64@yahoo.com

[thaily.livejournal.com]

This is spam, just in case anyone is unclear.

[obsidianwolfess.livejournal.com]

I think it's sad that rather than try to learn some basic anatomy, she'd rather copy over a photograph for profit. I feel sorry for the people who traded with her and paid her their hard earned money. It's one thing to reference a photo and redraw it, but you aren't learning anything if you just stick a sheet of tracing paper over a picture.

I feel that, from the last two links, it's pretty obvious that they were traces. http://i53.tinypic.com/vmw4n8.jpg pretty much says it all.

[dustmeat.livejournal.com]

Exactly!

[mazz.livejournal.com]

I use references for poses quite often.

Though I site my sources if I heavily reference a pose from a photo.
If she'd site her sources she would probably be in the clear and it wouldn't be such a huge deal.

Though looking at the overlays yea... those are traces which ISN'T something she should be doing.

[mazz.livejournal.com]

I know DA gives a crap less about art theft but if you report those traced pictures on FA they'll remove them.

We need someone who can speak her language to explain to her that tracing is not legal so she understands more what she is doing is incorrect.

[kayla-la.livejournal.com]

I always feel weird when these kinds of posts come up because 95% of the time, I don't reference photos or what have you. Usually only when it's something I'm unfamiliar with like a certain animal before I anthropomorphicize it. But normally, the only reference I have up is the character reference of who I'm drawing.

Nothing wrong with using refs, but it seems most people use them a lot, and it's encouraged to be a good artist, but it's just not something I usually think to do, so it's always weird to read the responses and wonder if I'm doing something wrong drawing from just my head most of the time.

[sbneko.livejournal.com]

No, you're not doing anything wrong at all! Everyone is different when it comes to that.

I actually don't use much refs, though I probably should more (to see what the real animals details are etc). I do sometimes reference poses, but majority of the time I don't, especially since most commissioners already have something in mind, if not already an image they want me to emulate.

I more so use them for those difficult, non real poses. As in, kinda floating in the air ones and dynamic ones. But it's because I can't even envision them myself, so after a while I probably won't need those references either.

[kohaku-chimaera.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of confused here.
I see a lot of people protecting the use of references--which I am totally for, in moderation--and yet, there this link: http://i53.tinypic.com/vmw4n8.jpg that pretty much proves in my opinion that these are traces.

Am I missing something here?

[sbneko.livejournal.com]

People get stuck on one topic a lot I've noticed haha.

They look like traces, but I always have a hard time fully deciding on it. I mean, I've seen people eyeball so well that it would overlay almost exactly. But, I will admit that her art seems off to me. It's nice and all, but it does have that sort of...static? feel to it, stiffness that you do get from tracing.

[kadaria.livejournal.com]

As a photographer who rarely has stock photos up I can tell you that I would be a little upset if I found out that someone was tracing or "heavily referencing" my work in a manner such as this.
I do more than snap some pics on a cell phone to get the shots I want. The equipment, software and traveling expenses I use cost me money. You didn't lay on your belly in fresh snowfall when it was 20F out in Mass. to get that picture, I did. Photographs are still considered artwork, I'm not sure why people think that the images they get through google are always free domain to be used like this.
The issue with this artist isn't just that they are referencing or tracing, but that they are using another person's protected work to do it and claiming it as their own. The photos linked as the references aren't stock images and have copyright on them. The overlays are very damming as well.

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

Yes - I've delved a bit into photography myself of my critters and it's not easy to get great shots!
First I have to plan a "scene" / theme / something different than I already have
Then I have to try to get the lighting right - flash just doesn't look as good as natural lighting
With my camera, to get a good in-focus shot with natural lighting, I need to use a tripod or other rest
And finally, go through all the photos and pick out the ones that are worth showing, and do any cropping / watermarking /etc.

All in all, it's several hours of work for maybe 3 photos I consider worthwhile, and that's for causal/amateur work!

I put my photos out there to be used for artistic refs too BUT if someone did something that could be obviously recognized as coming from my photo, I ask for credit.

[trimblecat.livejournal.com]

I'm a little confused here at the ethics surround what this artist has done.

They've copied (I won't use the word trace or ref yet) images without citing them, which is a big nono in my opinion. Even most stock uploaders ask for credit in the comments and some of those images aren't even in the stock area. Even if I ref something (Unless it's a rediculously loose eyeball) I cite it. I'll say it now. I find reffing totally fine if you're honest (AKA CITE) or use your own material.

Now here's what gets me. Even if I try really hard to eyeball copy an image I can't get the lines to flawlessly line up with more than two edges of the figure in the photo for any extended length. I can't understand how people could eyeball so flawlessly. It just seems rediculous inhuman to me. I see these images and all I can think of is the artist lowering opacity on the image and tracing the edges. Maybe it is possible and I just haven't seen it done in person enough, but I just can't quite fathom it.

Another thing I notice which has really begun to make me sweat a little is that artist who trace images will take the perspective transform on photoshop and warp the image making some lines match up, while other's don't fit at all.

Just my two bits.

[otherscape.livejournal.com]

It's actually not that hard if you do it a certain way. I eyeball and copy photos for practice sometimes. What I do is eyeball the basic shapes and structure of the subject with circles and other general shapes, then, if I want, I fill in the details from there. Eyeballing without the general shapes is a lot harder, but not impossible. You really just have to have extreme control over your pencil (or whatever you use) and have the ability to judge distances and directions of lines very well. Some people can do it naturally and some can't.

[vodzie.livejournal.com]

References are great, tracing (for anything other than specific learning purposes, especially for monetary gain) is not.

Seeing the last couple of links at the bottom with the overlays - on top of the already obvious anatomical errors that made it clear s/he didn't understand what they were drawing- was all I needed to see to convince me that she wasn't "using them to legitimately reference a pose" and was instead tracing/using them improperly/whatever.

All the debate about what is right or wrong about using reference is unnecessary in this case, I think. The overlays and simple mistakes are damning enough on their own. There is a right way to use references, and this is not it.

Copyrights on the photos themselves aside, even.

[likeshine.livejournal.com]

i don't think the issue here is that she is referencing. referencing is great! i use references all the time, and it boggles my little mind when people brag about not using reference. it's cool if you can do that, but don't belittle those who do!

the issue here is the tracing (yes, i do believe she is tracing large parts of each picture) photos in exchange for money. that is effed up. i would be very unhappy to know that my money (or effort in the case of an art trade) had gone towards something that was simply traced over (even partially) in that manner.

what confuses me is how random the anatomy mistakes are. like, the paws on every picture are drawn very strangely, but uniformly. one wolf is completely missing a lower jaw and another looks like it is wearing crooked false teeth. the borzoi looks quite fat, it's neck ruff connects to a foreleg and not a shoulder, and it's eyes are inexplicably tiny. so it's like she is tracing bits and pieces and attempting to fill in the blanks without actually understanding the form of the animal.

at any rate, a good Beware. thanks JC!

Yes~

[jcjc.livejournal.com]

Aww~ thank you so much Likeshine! ><
Finally someone understand what I'm trying to say~~~
Really thanks for your instruction about the anatomy parts!
That's what I can't explain clearly by my poor English...XD
Anyway, thank you so much! ^^

one more thing

[likeshine.livejournal.com]

i think the tracing bits of things (faces?) is very very apparent in her anthro work.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6288325/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6134052/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6306821/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6154990/

at any rate, it's dishonest.

i'll shut up now.

[slyminera.livejournal.com]

I'm actually not that surprised to see her posted here for this very reason.

I came across her TLK fanart not long ago and there's been a nagging in the back of my mind that I've seen some of them before and by other artists.

The fact that she's trying to hide all evidence of people pointing out that she could be tracing is pretty fishy to me also. From my own experience with art thieves, people that are innocent don't usually make attempts to hide accusations. :/

[aurastarlucario.livejournal.com]

Sorry, but I don't see anything wrong here.


Using references is just fine, and I can't
understand why it's such a taboo amongst furries. :C
You can't copyright a pose.
And you shouldn't have to give credit every. time. you use
a reference because mostly everyone does.

my opinion

[furrf0x.livejournal.com]

wait okay honestly I dont know her, how long has she been drawing or how much she has earned by commissions, but forgive me for what I want to say, its just my opinion, copying or taking a random photo I think doesnt really matter much, as long as it is not drawn "right exactly the same as it is shown in the photo" now giving credit the photographer well that is no need since it is just a photo, unless the photographer has posted in his/her gallery not to take the photos for self profit, theres really no need to ask permission to the photographer, now what it is "wrong" is to take others peoples art, and copy it, or sell it.

I dont really understand very well about grabbing a photo as reference to draw a "commission" but certainly ve never put myself to think about if thats wrong or doesnt really matter. Come on ya know your teacher or in school you might ever been told to "practice looking at photos or try to find anything as reference to improve drawing skill" but now that you re telling grabbing even a "X" photo and use it as a reference for a paid drawing is not right, then I am really confused, still my opinion to that case I think its just very small thing really, just dont mind what the other person do, one thing I am concerned is that, every person is different, we all have our own style, our own way to draw, there are people who need to look at reference so to make up mind, of course if you dont but you can easily visualize what you re going to draw without looking any reference is cool! ..well I can say this as an excuse, but still I dont matter, grabbing an "X" photo as a reference, as long as you re not drawing too similar as in the pic, and about the credit, really depends on the photographer, I believe you just need to ask permission if that piece is another person Art. Well just that.

Re: my opinion

[slyminera.livejournal.com]

"now giving credit the photographer well that is no need since it is just a photo, unless the photographer has posted in his/her gallery not to take the photos for self profit, theres really no need to ask permission to the photographer"

Wrong. Photography falls under the same copyright laws as anything else art-related, as it is a form of art. You do still need to ask permission and give proper credit when using a photograph.
Quoted from Photolaw.net's FAQ:
"Copyright protects original works of authorship that are fixed in tangible form. This includes photographs, literary works including non-fiction and fiction, letters, music as well as accompanying lyrics, sound recordings, pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, motion pictures, audiovisual works, computer software, and architectural works."

[agata tajchman (from livejournal.com)]

What the fuck? Are you okay?
Is that only one wolf or dog with that pose?
You CAN'T draw something correct if you don't know how exactly it looks.
It's NORMAL that she or he used some photos to do own artwork.
If you are using less than 30% of photo or picture it's not copying! She/he used just a pose, not even part of picture!
Person who wrote this stupid text is not an artist - is just a jealous deviantart kid with imagined problems!

[hamburger.livejournal.com]

I'm no longer a mod here, but I'm not sure if the others have this tagged.

They do not allow this kind of hostile language here, not to mention this is a post from almost three years ago.