What Do You Think About Theft?

[Seil]

That is a picture done by an artist named Linda Bergkvist - her DeviantArt account is here, and her website is here. There's been criticism about Linda's artwork, some critics being very vocal - particularly a person calling himself slickgreekgeo. One of her pictures was a Daily Deviation, and I like it, and commented so - that being how I met, and started a verbal war with Slick.

There have been some people who've stated that Linda is a thief, that she takes art from others and traces over it - their proof being this, this, and this. Linda has been alienated by some members of the artistry community, particularly here, if you look at the comments.

I do not believe that Linda is a thief, and have tried to defend her using what little I know about artistry - I've taken her pictures to two art teachers, and a number of artists - and the result has been the same. They've said that her art is precisely that - her art. Not anyone else's.

It leads me to ask - what do you guys think? Can anyone shed some light on the situation? (If anyone wants to see the PMs between Slikgreekgeo and me, just ask.)

More "evidence:"

Boat
Hair
Face
More Hair
Even More Hair

[pochercoaster]

I saw that thread of GFX Artist before. Referencing another person's art for a small thing such as armor on a horse... is borderline, but not outright copying. The thread on GFX artist shows that she overpainted another picture though.

Really, I don't see what's so hard about finding some good stock photos. It's not like there's a shortage of them or anything, especially on DA. I'm not saying that she isn't talented, but I have more respect for artists like SheIsPretty because she uses stock art, respects the rules of the stock artists, and doesn't hide the fact that she uses their photos.

I think the main problem is that she doesn't cite her sources. I know I've seen specific magazine ads referenced for many artworks on DA, but no mention of the ad! I've even see people -trace- certain ads and still not say anything.

[Grünspan]

Hmmm...interesting.
There are some similarities, that just look too ...uhm... similar.
Especially the fact, that some parts of her pictures are photorealistic and some aren´t (in the same picture), make it look like she just copy & pasted and then painted over it.
If you´re in that kind of art, painting over existing photographs, that is, you should at least quote the source(s).


Well, if she says, that this is her art and there were no sources of inspiration, then the term "thief" is appropiate; harsh but appropiate.

[katsielyonz]

A lot of artists use this technique. In fact, any number of art forums will tell you to learn to draw by using referances first. If you're getting ready to make a picture use whatever referance you have, or you can find. In order for it to be a copyright infringement less than 40% of it has to be your work, otherwise your golden. She hasn't done anything wrong and she isn't a thief. This is STANDARD PROCEDURE.

She's getting shit because for whatever weird reason it's not something you're supposed to let people know. And since it's easy for others to see, instead of having her own photos tucked away people just think she's full of it. Even if she's using photos in the way that they claim she is, it takes an enormous amount of skill to pull of the pictures she's managed to make. Seriously, if it were cheating than you would see other people doing this way more frequently.

It is possible to start drawing on a photo and then continue it in your own fashion, but like I said this is incredibly difficult in and of it's own right. She says she's been doing this for years, what's more likely is she just has a huge knack for observation. It's a skill you develop from using referances, THAT YOUR SUPPOSE TO DEVELOP.

If she's an artist she'll continue to art it up. That's what artists do. The fact that she's getting so much attention, positive or negative means she doing something right.

[CelesJessa]

Originally Posted by greekgodgeo

You're a good photo composer, nothing more. You are, and never will be, a true painter.

Le'gasp! How dare she? Maybe, to her(and many other people), what she is doing counts as painting.

I keep trying to make a big lengthy post about this, but I keep losing my thunder, so I'll just write what I feel. Really, art is the hardest thing to define as what qualifies as what.

I do not know this artist, I don't personally know her methods, and I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. She knows what she's doing, obviously. I trust the people who hire her are not morons, if she's getting hired into big art productions(working for the Golden Compass) Even if she is 'cheating' for some of her art, I doubt a big production like that would allow her to use the same 'cheating' methods, since that could mean a lawsuit for them.

And if she's lying, then so be it.

What matters to me is that she has amazing vision, and the capability to make what is in her mind/emotions translate in an image. And that, to me, is what art is about.

And, hey, maybe I'm sorely mistaken, but that's how I feel about it. Plus I think people are getting to caught up in either proving or disproving her.

[pochercoaster]

Originally Posted by Kat

In fact, any number of art forums will tell you to learn to draw by using referances first.

Yes... they teach you to draw. Not trace. Not overpaint. Draw from references, because it trains your eye. Tracing over a drawing doesn't teach you anything.

Now I'm not saying what she did was wrong, I'm just saying there is a difference between drawing form references and painting over them, and the debate is NOT whether she used references... the debate is whether she painted over them and, if so, if it's acceptable to do so, and whether or not she misleads people into thinking she does her work without overpainting.

I don't have the digital expertise to state whether or not she painted over them. The threads that were linked in the first post point out that different parts of her pictures are inconsistent, so *shrug*

As I stated before, I have tremendous respect for photomanipulation artists, provided they cite their sources. Maybe she's more of a hybrid, with some photomanip and some stuff she paints on her own. Then she should call it as such.

I'm feeling neutral on the issue :/

Originally Posted by Kat

In order for it to be a copyright infringement less than 40% of it has to be your work, otherwise your golden.

This is just a sidenote... How do you even measure whether an artwork is 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% copied? And I've heard people say 20% and 30% too. I'm not saying this rule doesn't exist, but I'm wondering where it comes from.

[katsielyonz]

This is just a sidenote... How do you even measure whether an artwork is 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% copied? And I've heard people say 20% and 30% too. I'm not saying this rule doesn't exist, but I'm wondering where it comes from.

I'm not really shure either. I worked in the Art Department at the college using photoshop for flyers, posters, pamphlets, doing whatever they needed. It was often we used other images or photos or whatnot and that issue came up a lot. Our Boss/Proffessor was the one who informed us, I've just taken him up on his word. Especially since it would be him to bite the bullets if any conflicts arose because of it.

The idea is that when you alter a photo you're changing it to reflect your own artistic expression. It would be no different than taking oils from bottles to create pictures out of them as long as they don't represent the original form. We judged it based on visual recognition. If we could look at the new image without seeing the old it was a-okay. If it looked like you just put down a new skin of color, without any thought other than to make it look different, it just didn't fly.

Anyway, that's where I get that from. I don't think she did anything wrong either way. There are a lot of artists and tech's who work with visual aids in the way that she's been accused of professionally. It's something a lot of people don't realize is done. But that's because what a lot of people also don't realize is it requires just as much skill. I'm not joking, try painting over a photograph and getting it to look just like the photograph and then add stuff on to blend in with it. It's the same set of skills.

[pochercoaster]

Originally Posted by katsielyonz

Anyway, that's where I get that from. I don't think she did anything wrong either way. There are a lot of artists and tech's who work with visual aids in the way that she's been accused of professionally. It's something a lot of people don't realize is done. But that's because what a lot of people also don't realize is it requires just as much skill. I'm not joking, try painting over a photograph and getting it to look just like the photograph and then add stuff on to blend in with it. It's the same set of skills.

I totally agree... as I stated in my last post, I have tremendous respect for photomanipulation artists. It's just that it seems like Enayla is misleading people into thinking she painted everything from scratch, which is a problem. There wouldn't have been a problem if she said "hey guys, I used some pictures from here and here."

[Magus]

No, no, if you use a photo for inspiration or another painting, you have to redraw it yourself, in my opinion. You can try and redraw it as close as you can, but from what I see she actually excised one part of a painting and stuck it into her own and then matched up the edges. She should've repainted it as closely as she could (or else she is apparently absolutely PERFECT at repainting).

That's my opinion, anyway. Personally it looks like she was just trying to save time or something--I think she has more than enough talent to have just painted it herself while looking at the other painting, so that's what she should've done instead of straight-up copying it into her painting.

[BetaRuler]

From the looks of it she doesn't even make prints, is she making money from using other peoples work?

You could go so far to say she's just doing like Brian does, Brian uses lot's of pictures for backgrounds and all the sprites from FF1 and 3, but we don't call him a thieving bast.

I think shes does pretty good even if she was just piecing bits together at least she's managed it pretty well, better than what I'd hope to be able to manage with my own mediocre drawing skills.