Tracing: Legitimate Artistic Practice or Outright Cheating?

[kerstin-orion.livejournal.com]

Members, I present to you the be-all and end-all discussion post on tracing, heavy referencing, and the benefits or evils thereof. This can be about the use of legitimate source material, such as photos you took and stock that specifies free and unlimited use, or it can be about using whatever one finds on a Google search.

Feel free to quote copyright laws, court decisions, link to (in)famous artists, and describe your own use (or non-use) of tracing. Share whether you'd commission someone who traces, and why or why not.

=============================================

The reasoning for this post is that almost every post about an artist tracing tends to devolve into a back-and-forth of "tracing is good", "no, it's cheating".

Therefore, we mods decided to have a general discussion about it, where everyone can share their viewpoints on the matter.

After this date, this specific topic will no longer be allowed in any post reporting an artist for tracing. We will freeze any threads that start discussing this and redirect them to this post. This is to help the posts stay on topic (whether the person is tracing), not whether tracing is good or bad.

Comments

[cheeseyspoot.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's a big deal. If the artist is using stock photography/has permission who care~

[oceandezignz.livejournal.com]

If they're going to go the stock route, they better be paying for it. Or in the case of free stock from places like DA - private use would be better. If to be used in something making money - permission from the stock-artist would be ideal and credit a must.

And a lot of individuals DO care. Its like false advertising AND its confusing. For an example... I'm a face painter and in the past I've caught a woman at the local farmer's market using MY photos and the photos from MY place of employment as her advertising. But she cannot paint to my or my co-artist's caliber. Period. But she continues to use our images to draw in people who leave... very upset that they didn't get what they paid for. These same people come to me - notice how we are using THE SAME IMAGES (really these people where the ones who pointed this out to me) and are originally afraid they're not going to get their monies worth. I have to work harder to get them to see and believe me that my talent is my own, because someone else was too lazy or too scared to step out with their own talents.

That's why people need to care when it comes to tracing.

[rmoorcat.livejournal.com]

tracing is ok if used to learn, and does not go beyond that, so long as the original artist is credited.... thats an educational use and part of the copyright law fair use section, I posted on that awhile back.

[jakejynx.livejournal.com]

"After this date, this specific topic will no longer be allowed in any post reporting an artist for tracing."

Wait, you mean that you can no longer report people for tracing their commissions, or does this just mean that in a post which reports a tracer, there will be no debate about the topic of tracing?

[kerstin-orion.livejournal.com]

Yes, you can still report tracers.

In a post reporting a tracer, you can debate whether it's tracing or not, but you cannot debate whether tracing, in and of itself, is ok.

[puritikoneko.livejournal.com]

My personal opinion:

Tracing can be used as a tool to help an artist learn and can possibly be beneficial as long as it's used to LEARN and not used continuously as a crutch.

I also think that as long as the artist is tracing/referencing a stock photo that is there for that specific purpose with permission, it's alright. If the art is copyrighted to someone else and permission isn't granted, then I would have to say it's a no-go. The artist also shouldn't use anything they trace for profit, such as commissions and they're always sure to cite their sources.

And, in the end, I think it's better for someone to learn by REFERENCING over actually tracing, as it's a better way to learn.

[magusmanx.livejournal.com]

Tracing can be used to learn. Tracing, of any kind, should not be used for commissions. If you take your own photos, and trace over then you should inform the commissioner before hand. I know I wouldn't want something traced over a photo. Referencing I'm a bit more lenient on. I reference every now and then to try and see how a pose works. If you use several photos, and cite your sources, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[jono-m.livejournal.com]

My view is that it's generally alright as long as you either own the photo or you have the rights to use it like that, If you don't have the rights and you just want to use it for practice then don't upload it anywhere.

Noah Bradley and his group did a livestream on this and some other stuff recently http://www.awesomehorsestudios.com/s1e2-digital-lightboxing-and-reference/ but you have to pay to view it. I think the general summary is the same as what I said. Professional artists get asked about it all the time and what they say is generally the same.

I would probably commission someone who traces as long as it's from a photo and not someone elses drawing.

Thank you for making this post, it's definitely a heated issue that needs more definition.

[kuwaizair.livejournal.com]

but if it is not their photo? Like something from National Geographic?(even if the e-mail I got back from them says do not trace, do not copy our photos)

[kestral-kitsune.livejournal.com]

I think its useful as a learning tool only, but not for profit.

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

XD I still say outright tracing, even of your own photos, isn't going to look right. I know some amazing pro artists take their own photos and heavily reference them (because really, it's pretty awkward to get models to stand for you for days, why not if there's a camera?) but I'm going to maintain they do not TRACE, ie, blindly follow the outlines of the photo, etc; they use the photo as a close reference.

But if someone takes their own photos and does some kind of trace or photomanip, and that's their artistic technique and people like it, more power to them I guess. I just think it'll always look off compared to someone who knows the underlying structures and can adjust the photo to "look" the way our eyes like to see.

Tracing "for practice" will not improve your ability to understand the underling shape, just your ability to trace. Heavily referencing (not gridding, but drawing with shapes and proportions while referring back to the original image to see how they did things) can, though.

Legality wise, of course tracing non-public works is copyright infringement of non public works. I do believe "heavily referencing" is pretty much copying and thus infringement too, though of course if the image is changed enough that you can't be sure what the source is, then you're probably on the proper side of artistic referencing rather than copying.

[houndofloki.livejournal.com]

If it's for practice sake, or personal art, I think it's fine as long as the artist links to their reference material and either takes the photo themself or chooses free-use stock.

However, I tend to think that really heavy photo-referencing, and definitely tracing, are uncool for commissions unless the buyer has been informed and is okay with it. Even if it's a free-use stock or a photo you took yourself. Why do I think this? Because even though it may be legal, technically, the buyer is paying for original artwork. If you plan to trace or eyeball-copy a photo, it's only fair to let the buyer know so that they can decide whether or not they want to pay for a tracing or a copy.

I understand that there are exceptions (very close photolikenesses are usually the desired result of say, pet portrait commissions) but in general, I think the buyer should be informed beforehand if an artist plans or using these methods.

[morti-macabre.livejournal.com]

I've traced before when I was first starting to learn anatomy and stuff, and in my personal opinion it doesn't help AT ALL.

Referencing is a much better way to learn. Anatomy classes where you draw nude live models or still-life sets are a much more efficient way to learn in my personal experience. I've seen myself grow, I've seen classmates grow. Tracing does nothing but prove you can copy a line-- which is stupid.

That being said, if someone REALLY NEEDS TO TRACE, these following things better be adhered to:

1) DO NOT TRACE SOMETHING THAT IS NOT YOURS/FREE TO USE. Google is not your personal reservoir of pictures. Just because it shows up on Google does NOT mean it is free to use.

2) DO NOT SELL TRACED ART FOR COMMISSION WORK. This should be self explanatory but apparently it's not. It's lazy, unfair, and cheap.

3) CITE ALL SOURCES USED. Not that hard people.

4) DO NOT TRY TO PRETEND YOU WEREN'T TRACING. We can make layovers. You will be caught.

Annnnnddd that's my personal feelings on the subject.

[kerstin-orion.livejournal.com]

1. I agree.

2. I feel as long as the commissioner is informed, and the artist follows #1 and #3, it's fine, since the commissioner got a choice.

3. Indeed. Plus, a person who cites their refs looks more honest/professional to me, than someone who obviously reffed/traced but didn't cite.

4. Funny how that works, isn't it?

[everainsley]

Tracing -can- be used to learn, but it's crucially important that other methods are explored as well, instead of just becoming a human Xerox machine. I don't want to see that posted in a gallery though, even with credit, since it's a) pretty damn obvious if you've traced it and b) it's still not your work in the end.

It can be helpful to trace over a photo or picture to figure out the basic lines and shapes of something to get an idea of hoe everything connects (or doesn't connect if it's a drawing, in which case you take it as a "what not to do" lesson). Granted this kind of thing would not ever be used for a commission, or even a trade from me, though I do it for myself to learn. If it's ever posted, sources are cited, though I end up deleting/closing without saving them most of the time if it's digital, and never scanning traditional sketches.

[fallimar.livejournal.com]

I've always been under the impression that even as a learning tool tracing is kinda... pointless. If you're just copying, not really seeing, the underlying structure to something and translating that into what you're drawing, then you won't be able to extrapolate from that and create new works based on a solid grasp of structure.

For instance, referencing VS tracing a pose from a photo.
If you want to draw a pose that includes foreshortening, it's great to look at numerous photos, get a good grasp of how the process works and get a good image in your head of how you want your picture to look. You've got multiple points of reference and multiple sources to draw from, so you'll end up with something original, with the added benefit of having learned a good deal of anatomy and how it works. This, to me, is how it should be done, beginner or not.

Tracing a pose, you've got one reference. Even if you do learn from it, you've only got one example of anatomy, your art isn't going to look like yours and you won't improve fast at all.

Long story short, I don't buy the 'tracing is great for learning' schtick. It's nowhere near as good a tool as learning to use reference properly, and it kinda feels insulting to people who've never traced anything besides their own work for the sake of copying it on to another piece of paper/object!

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but I believe that's what this thread is for ;)

[synviver.livejournal.com]

I completely agree with all of this. :)

[akari.livejournal.com]

My personal thoughts are that tracing/eyeballing without owning the original matieral is acceptable as long as it isn't for any profit and only for the sake of artistic development or enjoyment.

Once you cross the line into "for profit", you should only trace/eyeball existing works/photographs that you own the copyright to- by either taking/drawing the photo yourself or buying/obtaining those rights from the person who does. When you make profit from someone else's copyright (and hard work) without their permission or their benefit, that is questionable on your part.

Now on the legal front, tracing/eyeballing falls under the derivative works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work) umbrella.

To pretty much copypasta most of the beginning of the wiki:

In the United States, the Copyright Act defines "derivative work" in 17 U.S.C. § 101:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

17 U.S.C. § 106) provides:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies...of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending....

One of the only legal ways to take a work and reuse it without out permission or rights appears to be "transformativeness" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformativeness). Taking the original work and altering/reproducing it in enough ways to bring new meaning/value to it that the original work did not contain.

Otherwise, you're operating against the original creator's rights and can be held liable for penalties if, theoretically, brought to court on the matter.

[slyminera.livejournal.com]

"One of the only legal ways to take a work and reuse it without out permission or rights appears to be "transformativeness". Taking the original work and altering/reproducing it in enough ways to bring new meaning/value to it that the original work did not contain."

And that right there is why DeviantART allows traced bases.

[slyminera.livejournal.com]

Speaking from my own experience, even if I do consider tracing somewhat of a learning tool, it isn't a very good one.

I traced Sailor Moon drawings when I was a kid for personal use. Did it help me learn to draw? Not really, but referencing/eyeballing from my favorite Manga series in later years did. Quite a bit, in fact.
Referencing is what finally helped me be confident enough to draw front-facing heads and bodies. Before that, I could only barely manage profiles.

I definitely agree that it should never be used for paid art. That's cheating the customer out of money by giving them something that basically already existed.
If you reference, remember to credit your sources (and get permission if it's not free stock)! It takes all of a few seconds to put "I used this image to help me with this part of the drawing" or what have you.
I can't count how many times I've seen a good friend of mine on DeviantART have one drawing of hers referenced from with no credit given, and she's usually pretty okay with people reffing her stuff as long as they credit her for the original.

[bambicandi.livejournal.com]

As long as the original creator of the source of work is ASKED and credited. Then it should be ok. Be it artwork, photo, photo stock, any imagery source. It belongs to someone and respect goes a long way.

I personally don't think it helps though, especially if derived from other's artwork as most end up learning to draw like them instead of developing, I feel anyway. Nor would I commission or trade with a tracer unless they agreed beforehand if they would create without external sources.

I'd suggest picking up an anatomy book and do studies to understand WHAT you are drawing instead of emulating the form from other peoples work.

[begin advert]
I highly recommend Anatomy: A Complete Guide for Artists by Joseph Sheppard (http://www.amazon.com/Anatomy-Complete-Artists-Joseph-Sheppard/dp/0486272796/ref=sr_1_19?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1319680091&sr=1-19) as a good starter book especially as it's rather cheap.

HIGHLY recommend. [/end advert]

[otherscape.livejournal.com]

I'd also highly recommend 'Classic Human Anatomy: The Artist's Guide to Form, Function, and Movement'. http://www.amazon.com/Classic-Human-Anatomy-Function-Movement/dp/0823024156

It's expensive, especially at the store, but it's a godsend. It features just about every bone and muscle in the body and tells you how they move and where they connect. It also has handy proportion tips and ways of simplifying the body. I don't think I've used any other human reference book since I've gotten it.

[darmit.livejournal.com]

I used to heavily reference/eyeball from poses made in a free 3d rendering program for my personal work. It did help me a bit, but I've found that I learn much better by just constructing my own pose, only using references to learn how a certain part of the body bends or whatever.

I personally don't think tracing copyrighted things is okay, or tracing for money. If you're tracing your own photo, let the commissioner know, to make sure they're okay with it.

We actually used to trace/project photos of ourselves onto large canvases in my old art class, as a side note.

[silvertales.livejournal.com]

My personal opinion? Tracing, even as a "learning tool," seems pretty useless. You're not actually learning anything. You're following lines, not figuring out the relationships between them or how to determine mass/shape in a 2-dimensional format.

Referencing is a more effective tool for the learning process as you go about trying to equate mass and shape and line and form by drawing what you see, whether from a photograph or from life. The more you draw from "life" the more you learn about WHAT you see and HOW you see it and how to translate onto paper. Once you can do that, you can go on to manipulate mass/shape/line/form and make it believable... or plausible at the very least. This is where you get into the debate over whether someone's grasp of anatomy/spatial relationships is "style" or just a lack of understanding, but that's a totally different issue.

Now, my personal opinion on referencing from a photograph is that if you didn't take the photo, whatever you're using should be stock or used with artist's permission; photography IS art and use without permission is theft. I'm also of the opinion that you should be citing all your sources for referenced images, and shouldn't be using them for commission work (unless the commissioner provides them for that purpose, either taken personally or with artist permission) or work-for-sale.

That said, I've traced my own work, but only for the purposes of enlarging and transferring to bigger board or canvas for painting or completing in traditional media. But, until someone comes up with a better way to transfer work to another surface, it'll have to do.

Just my $.02

[fallimar.livejournal.com]

exactly. I was getting worried with everyone up top there all saying it's great for learning - I still can't see how :P

[digitalis.livejournal.com]

Norman Rockwell projected the reference photos he took onto canvas and traced a great deal from them. Shooting your own reference photos and tracing them is an acceptable professional practice.

That said, usually traced work looks stiff and pretty obviously traced when I see it. If you have traced photos and the viewer can tell, you've done it wrong.

Using reference images for illustration is great! I usually have 6-7 images of whatever I'm referencing open while I'm working on a painting. Again, if you can make a piece that looks enough like a reference photo to tell which photo it was, you've done it wrong.

"Citing your refs" is not a professional practice. Like I said, if I'm working on a piece with a specific subject (a castle, a horse, etc) my art directors don't expect me to turn in a list of the reference I looked at.

Now if I'm doing pages of studies of a subject before the final illustration, where I am drawing as close as possible to what I see in the reference in order to better understand how it's consructed, I will mention they are studies from photos when I post the art.

[stormslegacy.livejournal.com]

THIS I've always thought the "cite your refs" thing (in regards to final works) was ridiculous. I've never heard of it before until Livejournal. people say it like it's gospel but I don't understand where it came from. Unless you are closely referencing a work I do not understand how this would work. It's like when people end submissions with

Art (c) Me
Characters (c) their owners

which I admit I do sometimes but don't believe that it holds any validity.

[otherscape.livejournal.com]

A perfect post for me to blurb on, because I've really wanted to. This is all from personal experience by the way.

Referencing:

To me, proper referencing is looking at many different images to see if you got what you drew right. Like drawing a bird's head in a particular position but then looking at multiple pictures of birds' heads to correct any mistakes, figuring out what you got wrong, and learning how to better construct it next time. For me, I'll usually draw a rough sketch of whatever I'm drawing and then use references, unless it's something I've never drawn before. I also think it's okay to reference non-stock images and not cite them. Rarely will the final pose look anything like the references I was using, and for most references it's only a quick check, so I don't think it's unethical in that situation to not cite (plus I use about 20+ references for one painting and often forget which ones I used). Not to mention I'll also study my anatomy books and formulate an original pose from there.

Copying:

I think this is where people are getting confused with referencing. To me, copying is, well, copying. You copy the pose of the subject instead of formulating your own. A lot of people call this referencing, which is why there's a lot of confusion. Copying is wonderful for practice. It's really useful for anatomy when copying the general shapes of the subject and seeing how it's constructed. Copying lines is also great practice for motor control.

Personally, I only copy for practice and save the original stuff for real artwork, though I'm kind of on the fence about using them for commissions. I guess it would depend on what it is.

Tracing:

The only good use I've ever gotten out of tracing was blocking in the general shapes to see how it's constructed. Tracing the lines doesn't help me. I'd never trace for a commission and make the customer pay full price either. It really lessens the value of the commission. If I did have to trace something in a commission, like use a SketchUp model for a complex building, I wouldn't charge as much for it. So yea, only trace for learning purposes or if you need to use a model, but don't use it as a crutch for your artwork.

[spiffystuff.livejournal.com]

Yes, this, precisely :)

Starting to draw a tank, then looking up photos of a tank to see what kind of doodads are attached, and drawing them in at a different angle is different than,

looking up a picture of a tank you like and "eyeballing" it into your piece, which is different than,

grabbing a picture of a tank and using it directly in your art through photomanips or by tracing lines

:P

[magickitsune.livejournal.com]

As everyone seems to be agreeing, I guess I don't have anything against tracing as long as the photo belongs to the artist (and the commissioner knows about it, if it's for money). That would be their own business and it wouldn't be hurting anyone.

Referencing is a pretty common tool among artists, and I think it's fine as long as it isn't blatant copying and sources are cited...For instance, I don't know how to draw cars and guns. So it would make sense for me to look at images of them and draw what I see. That's how we learn.

HOWEVER, I will say this. I would never commission an artist for a traced image. If I wanted that, I would just get the photograph. Or do it myself. There is absolutely no creativity to it, and I believe too many otherwise decent artists misuse it.

[magickitsune.livejournal.com]

I just want to say, this post have been very informative! I didn't realize at all that tracing and referencing had such acceptable places in professional art...

That said, I still don't think I would commission someone to trace the main focus of the image. Maybe background or specific objects. But it's still interesting to see how tracing can be used as a tool by people with the ability to use it correctly.

[familliaraver.livejournal.com]

If someone takes something that isn't theirs without permission or citing the source of the original author it's wrong. If they properly cite their references, I don't see a problem.

The real question is it ok to make a profit under the assumption that the commissioner is getting original art when in fact they are heavily tracing images they don't have the permission to copy, let alone sell as an original drawings.

So, if you found out you paid money for art and it was traced without you knowing it, would you still be ok with it?

[sorcererhuntres.livejournal.com]

Tracing really depends on how your'e doing it. Tracing personal art, sure go ahead! Do what ever you want. Tracing your own photos and stock images (with permission, designs, etc.) I'm cool with it, especially for difficult things like patterns and specific designs.

Commissions? Yeah go ahead provided all the legal junk is taken care of.

Tracing is a tool that many professional artists use and something that is looked down upon by amateur artists. Really, I think it takes talent to make a traced image NOT look traced. It's kind of like when people over use the burn tool. People who really know how to use it (and in moderation) can make beautiful things. Throw that tool in hands of an amateur and you got that SHINY DESU anime look.

I see tracing as the same thing.

I know plenty of professional muralists who use tracing as a tool, and work wonders with it. Their clients know it (and frankly don't care) I've only noticed tracing being looked down on as a problem on the internet and mostly in the furry fandom. Most other artists I speak to in real life (Unless influenced by the internet or furry fandom) feel that tracing is just a tool, much like photoshop is when you're working with traditional media.

tl;dr-Use it in moderation if you want as long as it's legal. Trace a vague gesture of a pose if it's too complicated, or perhaps that awkward angle on a tree or whatever. Tell your commissioners if you want, or don't. That's a personal decision.

I personally think tracing is too much of a hassle for me. I could never get it to NOT look traced and it would be so stiff and lifeless, like that infamous 'traced' look. I just don't have the talent it takes to make it look not traced if that makes sense. I do admire artists who have that talent, though. IDK if that makes me a bad person or not but /shrug.




QUESTION: Overall opinions-What about using a grid? It's technically not tracing, but I've seen it thrown in the same category? I know with any descriptive drawing I do, I always use a grid, sooo :o

[rileycostello.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on the difficult pattern/design front- I've had to print out a pattern I've made and had to trace it to translate it into traditional art because I JUST CANT REPLICATE IT ARGHGHGHGHGH.

But that was a brocade pattern lol and a nightmare.

I also agree with you on the professional front- some of the professional artists I know also do the same, though they don't just google an image and trace it up and be like 'dis art it is mien'

I think if a person traces as an amateur artist, 9/10 times it looks like it is and shows that the person doesn't really know how that thing works.

I have, in the past, had to heavily reference hands or paws- and usually I am taking pictures of my hands or my husband's hands or my dog or cat's paws, lol! Hands and feet are, however, the bane of my existence and death to me right now please.

I just don't like it when someone does a straight trace and you can tell and they're making money from it, it just kinda feels like they didn't work at it at all. :/

[made-of-tin.livejournal.com]

For a lot of my stuff I make basic background models in SketchUp (a free 3d modeling program, for those who didn't know) which I use to make scenes and I then paint or ink over them. Perspective is the bane of my existence, especially buildings (more than organic objects), so even making building blocks is incredibly helpful to make sure I'm not bungling anything, but I've always wondered if that was still tracing, even though the work is (almost entirely) my own.

It's mostly skeletal, as I add details when I do, but the framework is all from the program.

On another note, I do think it's perfectly fine to trace objects if you're trying to learn. I'm not sure about other people, but the easiest way for me to learn animal anatomy is to trace a couple pictures loosely. After that, I've gotten the flow the body takes, the shape of their head and limbs, and can continue to draw them on my own.

There are a lot of free, great online sources for poses and models, most of which I've only discovered recently.

If no one minds some pimping, there are some really good links here (http://umonnun.tumblr.com/post/11360970856/handy-art-link-megapost)

[sorcererhuntres.livejournal.com]

OOOOH don't mind me taking these links, there <3

[mgsfriedchicken.livejournal.com]

Tracing is okay as long as it's for learning purposes. This post is a good idea because there are too many posts where these debates turn into stupid drama wanks and kills the whole point of a_b.

[kerstin-orion.livejournal.com]

They certainly do tend to derail the original post, and end up going in circles. So we made a spot where people can discuss it to their hearts' content. :)

[astraldescent.livejournal.com]

Tracing is kinda okay if you are doing it solely for practice. Getting your hand used to drawing curved lines and stuff, it can honestly help with that. After having surgery on my arm for a nerve issue, I had to trace and learn to draw and write very slowly all over again. Tracing helped my hand get re-used to the movements I used to know well. Tracing your own photography, or other art of yours is obviously ok. (as long as you aren't selling the traces as original pieces)

But tracing in commission work, to me, is not okay whatsoever. Tracing other people's work without permission or purchasing the rights to the image is also not okay.

So in summation: If you own the stuff you're tracing, or if you are doing it solely for practice and DO NOT POST IT ONLINE or sell it... it's okay. If you are using art you don't own (like google image stuff) or doing it for commissioned work without saying so upfront... it is NOT okay.

Just my personal opinion.

[astraldescent.livejournal.com]

*Can't edit*
The reason I say not to post it online is so you don't misrepresent your skill level. I guess if you said you traced it, maybe it'd be okay as long as you owned whatever you were tracing. But if you don't... like you're tracing a magazine pic or something, best to keep it to yourself.