An interesting art theft situation
Aug. 9th, 2006 04:18 pmNormally, I don't really bother with these kinds of situations because people cry about pose theft. However, this case struck me as a bit saddening, not just because this is an actual trace, but the lying afterwards.
Apparently some users discovered som startling similarities to two works and posted them on an image board. Since the artist of the second piece was rather known, to preserve the discovery a flash was made of this.
You can see it as it contains nudity: http://www.gpknow.com/nobuyuki/copypasta4.swf
I actually have a copy of the two images and did a bit of research using photoshop. The lines match up rather perfectly, so this isn't a case of copying, but actual tracing.
We were trying to discover the original artist of the Blue Scaley and this apparently belongs to Neolucky: http://neolucky.deviantart.com
The first image was done in the year 2004 as you can see in the following galleries (her sig was removed from the piece):
http://neomonsterisland.com/kgglry/heisei/crystal/crystalgallery.html
http://neomonsterisland.com/kgglry/heisei/crystal/crystal2004.jpg
Now what I find most depressing about this situation is that the person who traced this image was actually asked about the situation. He gave the following excuses.
1. The blue scaley was actually his and he copied over the older piece to create a girl version of his character
2. The original artist actually copied him, and created a false copyright date on top of it.
I just thought I'd bring it to people's attention because I found that the lie was rather damaging to the original artist, so I hope people can determine for themselves the truth of the situation.
Thanks for everyone's time.
Apparently some users discovered som startling similarities to two works and posted them on an image board. Since the artist of the second piece was rather known, to preserve the discovery a flash was made of this.
You can see it as it contains nudity: http://www.gpknow.com/nobuyuki/copypasta4.swf
I actually have a copy of the two images and did a bit of research using photoshop. The lines match up rather perfectly, so this isn't a case of copying, but actual tracing.
We were trying to discover the original artist of the Blue Scaley and this apparently belongs to Neolucky: http://neolucky.deviantart.com
The first image was done in the year 2004 as you can see in the following galleries (her sig was removed from the piece):
http://neomonsterisland.com/kgglry/heisei/crystal/crystalgallery.html
http://neomonsterisland.com/kgglry/heisei/crystal/crystal2004.jpg
Now what I find most depressing about this situation is that the person who traced this image was actually asked about the situation. He gave the following excuses.
1. The blue scaley was actually his and he copied over the older piece to create a girl version of his character
2. The original artist actually copied him, and created a false copyright date on top of it.
I just thought I'd bring it to people's attention because I found that the lie was rather damaging to the original artist, so I hope people can determine for themselves the truth of the situation.
Thanks for everyone's time.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-09 11:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 12:04 am (UTC)thx@u userinfo
Gee must have misread the profile information of this community?
Date: 2006-08-10 12:06 am (UTC)But thanks for the heads up, I'll try to read better next time. ;)
Re: Gee must have misread the profile information of this community?
Date: 2006-08-10 03:23 am (UTC)I was just pointing you to a community that seems more of these type posts. Good luck to you all the same.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 12:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 03:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 12:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 12:06 am (UTC)Also copyright date says 2005 on the later work.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 12:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 12:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 12:45 am (UTC)I was given the impression this person traced Dark Nek0gami's image by what you were providing us. Neolucky's image looks a bit sloppy to me, honestly.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 12:50 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 12:56 am (UTC)It is sloppy, it's a sketch, not a cleaned up lineart. It's also what the Comission-client *wanted*.
I was new with a tablet in 2004, the tablet itself was only 4x5, not only that but I had Painter 7 at the time. The image was colored in Adobe Photodelux 2.0, an old, OLD program mind you. If you take a browse through my art site you will see the rest of my style, and how I've improved. it's been 2 and a half years SINCE that original image, remember that.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 01:06 am (UTC)When reading the above post I thought it was in his defense since your name was mentioned many times while his wasn't brought up once. I should have read a little closer.
Again, I apologise for my big mouth.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 01:10 am (UTC)I'm assuming his name wasn't brought up since the flash displays it pretty clearly.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 01:15 am (UTC)And yeah, I'm guessing the same. Usually the "theft"'s name is posted in the threads at least once XD
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 01:15 am (UTC)It's really sad to see that they're trying to damage your name with such a thing \: I love your work and this saddens me.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 03:24 am (UTC)Wow Turkey. That's very interesting.
no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 07:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 06:38 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-08-10 07:35 am (UTC)