Question of photographic legality.

It all depends on the photo and its source. You need to know what the individual image's copyright status is, there's no easy way out. If it is not in the Public Domain, you have to get (and probably pay for) permission. The research is your job.

This is not quite what you're asking, but I thought it might be of interest - I have quite a few comic book artist friends (both mainstream published and self published/web published) and MANY (to the tune of almost all) use photographs (cityscapes, landscapes, buildings, etc.) as a base by tracing them. It's a great way to get around the legality of using actual photos and by the time the traced image goes through a few evolutions, it becomes something different than the original image.

And I know more artists who got their pants sued off for tracing photos. It's a question of how recognizable the art is from the original photograph.

Clip art tends to be available for a nominal fee, as well as stock photos. If you're really stuck, take your own pictures, and trace them to your heart's content.

myrmidon said:

This is not quite what you're asking, but I thought it might be of interest - I have quite a few comic book artist friends (both mainstream published and self published/web published) and MANY (to the tune of almost all) use photographs (cityscapes, landscapes, buildings, etc.) as a base by tracing them. It's a great way to get around the legality of using actual photos and by the time the traced image goes through a few evolutions, it becomes something different than the original image.

Click to expand...

Yeah, sort of like rewriting a story so many times that you can't recognize the original source.

Still, it's stealing from the creator, and I'm surprised it's not frowned upon when you consider, in your own words, that It's a great way to get around the legality of using actual photos and by the time the traced image goes through a few evolutions, it becomes something different than the original image.

Yeah, sort of like rewriting a story so many times that you can't recognize the original source.

Still, it's stealing from the creator, and I'm surprised it's not frowned upon when you consider, in your own words, that It's a great way to get around the legality of using actual photos and by the time the traced image goes through a few evolutions, it becomes something different than the original image.

Click to expand...

Maybe I wasn't being clear about what I meant by "trace"...it gets thrown around pretty casually in the art world I live in, but that doesn't mean anyone is okay with stealing or plagiarizing. Let me try to be more clear, in case that is the problem...

I don't know any legitimate published artists that don't trace to a degree...and that includes a lot of artistic fields from architects to graphic designers to comic book artists. It's a reference point and most artists don't have the time to go out and shoot everything they need a reference for, or the money to pay (usage fees for photos are astronomically priced - it would often be the artist's entire fee for the job) to buy images that they are only going to be reference and change dramatically.

I also have never seen any of their finished work and recognized whatever was originally traced. In the process from original sketch to final work it becomes different and their own, it becomes just one artist tool in an arsenal of many. I also don't believe any of these artists I know have ever been sued...so maybe we're talking about a different kind of "tracing" here. I'm talking about a photo (that is likely available in the public domain anyway - not a famous photograph that is recognizable by the population at large) and changing it to degree - I'd think at least 25% or more, so that it now becomes your own.

When I was younger and first considering trying to make a go of it as a mainstream comic book artist it was suggested to me (multiple times) when I went to the SD Comic Con and talked to the submissions people that I start tearing out and copying images of all sorts of things to build myself reference binders to draw and TRACE from (my male anatomy was hit and miss - still is, and my backgrounds were weak because I wasn't using enough reference).

What about collage artists? That's an entire field in which other art/images/etc., are co-opted and turned into something new...new ART. One of my best friends does this and she's brilliant with it. I also saw a show with collage art last year at Walter Reade Theater that was fantastic. Art comes in all forms and while I am in no way in favor of plagiarism that is also in no way what I'm talking about.

All that said, I've also never heard of such a thing as someone re-writing a story so many times that you can't recognize the original source...does this happen? I'm horrified to think of such a thing - but this doesn't seem at all the same to me...I can't imagine how the original idea wouldn't still be recognizable. And if it wasn't...if the idea/concept and actual words changed so much that it was now totally unrecognizable to the original is that plagiarism...or is that inspiration? I don't know...I got this great idea for a short story the other day from something Tina Fey said in a movie...is that plagiarism or inspiration (I hope it's the latter cause it's a great idea) and if it is plagiarism am I plagiarizing the writer that wrote the lines, or Tina Fey who SO sold me on them?

I guess I don't know how an image of the empire state building, captured by a thousand tourists a week and put on the web and then found and printed out and traced roughly for a comic layout, which then evolves through multiple stages of artwork and when completed looks nothing like the original snapshot is the same as taking someone's story idea (and words?) and reworking it to a degree that it is no longer considered plagiarized...?

But perhaps art school has confused me and led me astray? Were we talking about something different, or do you still feel that what I've described is stealing? I'd honestly like to know.

myrmidon, please don't tell people to trace (or rather, tell them it's okay). Or tell them that tracing is widespread and acceptable in art, because it's really not and it's something that can lose someone a lot of respect amongst their peers. Also, since you claim not to know any legitimate artists who don't trace, I'd like to direct you to James Gurney's blog. [/COLOR]
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/


Also, if you're referencing properly - which is using multiple images and have them sitting around for you to look over and create your drawing with - you never need to pay a cent, because you're not copyright infringing or even breaking taboo if you're doing it correctly, in the way that your final image is a distinctly new piece from the images you've looked over.
Also, in regards to college art - in my university we'd be frogmarched into the Dean's office if we violated copyright by using an image we weren't legally cleared to use, and quite possibly we'd be thrown out of the university.

I'm coming into this as someone about to move into professional illustration (currently finishing off my BA of Design, Illu. Major) so these are my two cents on this issue.

Firstly, to the OP as an artistic choice, photographic backgrounds may not be the best idea for your work - as an artist who reads comics, I have to say it throws me out a little. I'd rather see everything in the comic have been touched by the artist's hand and been flavoured by their style, and I always think a self-drawn background adds more to the comic than a photographic one.

That aside, just today there was a Photojojo post about the best free photos on the web, and about the Library of Congress, NASA and the New York Public Library all having their collections available online and with many copyright free images.
ETA: The photojojo link about best free photos on the web:
http://photojojo.com/content/guides/copyright-free-public-domain-photos/

Uh, second point - while using royalty free or public domain images or stock you've paid for (you can get some stock images on some sites for 20c so shop around if you're after stock) is fine, I'd advise you not to trace or really heavily eyeball some photographer's image. Eyeballing multiple images for reference purposes (as I mentioned above to myrmidon) is A-Ok, but if you're relying totally on replication of one image it's viewed (at least in the circles I'm in) as completely tasteless and disrespectful to your fellow artist, if it’s not an image you have permission to use (stock you've paid for, royalty free images, or public domain photos).

Feel free to question me further on any of these points, anyone.

White-Tean said:

myrmidon, please don't tell people to trace. Or tell them that tracing is widespread and acceptable in art, because it's really not and it's something that can lose someone a lot of respect amongst their peers. Also, since you claim not to know any legitimate artists who don't trace, I'd like to direct you to James Gurney's blog. [/color]
http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/


Also, if you're referencing properly - which is using multiple images and have them sitting around for you to look over and create your drawing with - you never need to pay a cent, because you're not copyright infringing or even breaking taboo if you're doing it correctly, in the way that your final image is a distinctly new piece from the images you've looked over.


I'm coming into this as someone about to move into professional illustration (currently finishing off my BA of Design, Illu. Major) so these are my two cents on this issue.

Click to expand...

Wow.

Okay, when I say I don't know anyone who doesn't trace to a degree in their career I meant I don't PERSONALLY know. I know dozens of artists (again, personally) who work in various artistic fields as previously mentioned. All of those people trace or have traced to some degree and none of them have been sued or would ever consider themselves as plagiarists because the images they use for reference and yes, sometimes tracing, change so drastically from the original that they become their own through the many stepped artistic process.

I also did not say that they're not using multiple references and doing it "correctly" as you state.

Let's take my empire state building example. Say for one panel of one page, that a comic book artist is getting paid only 100/page for (standard for any entry level cb artist) they need a partial bg shot of the empire state building. Said artist goes to google or flickr or whatever and prints out a handful of images. With those images scattered around their desk they trace the perspective of one of the random photographs and work a partial of that tracing into their background (with all their own other stuff in the foreground etc. of course). They now use the other reference images that better show the windows or the way the building is actually built to layer in some of their own details. Then they change everything a little bit more to make it work within their actual layout and then they ink it and color it (depending on how much of the artwork they are responsible for of course) At this point, the person who took the photograph while on vacation in new york six months ago, could not tell that this panel was taken from their photograph if it was assembled for them in a police line up. The image has been almost entirely changed. It now belongs to the new artsit who drew and redrew it, and used multiple references to get it how they wanted it, but yes, at one point in the process, traced part of the image.

Since you let me know where you're coming from, let me tell you where I'm coming from. I'm someone who graduated ten years ago from a serious art school with a degree in Sequential Art. I'm someone who has worked in and around arts ever since (though never really as an artist in my own right). Almost all of my friends are serious artists of some type or another, many of them wildly freaking successful, talented, well respected, and perhaps most importantly, making actual livings as working artists (no small feat). So I think my opinion and experiences are just as valid as yours and I was truthful about what I know to be accurate about working artists, so I don't appreciate you telling me what to tell people and what not to tell people, or implying that my very talented non-plagiarist friends will be "disrespected" by their peers for what is sometimes a small part of their entire process.

And quite honestly? Let me know when you're paying your rent as a freelance illustrator before you throw down the gauntlet of "how things are".

Your experiences are different than mine, and we're at totally different points in our life/careers, so I'd expect they'd be different, All I can ask is that you respect where I'm coming from and don't tell me what to share with people and I'll do the same for you and wish you good luck in your career.

White-Tean said:

Also, in regards to college art - in my university we'd be frogmarched into the Dean's office if we violated copyright by using an image we weren't legally cleared to use, and quite possibly we'd be thrown out of the university.

Click to expand...

Also, I missed this before...but do you understand I'm talking about the art of COLLAGE and not college/university art...which I don't even know what the latter would mean...but just to clarify, I was referencing COLLAGE.

Okay, I'm done and going to bed and possibly never coming back. Goodnight.

Oh, sorry, misread collage for college, whoops. Need more coffee, still catching up on sleep.

There’s a big difference between when you first said

I don't know any legitimate published artists that don't trace to a degree

Click to expand...

and your amendment that you it’d only that you don’t personally know any artists who don’t trace.

I also did not say that they're not using multiple references and doing it "correctly" as you state.

Click to expand...

I think it’s quite fair that I assumed

It's a reference point and most artists don't have the time to go out and shoot everything they need a reference for, or the money to pay (usage fees for photos are astronomically priced - it would often be the artist's entire fee for the job) to buy images that they are only going to be reference and change dramatically.

Click to expand...

To mean that whoever you were speaking of can’t be referencing correctly if they have to buy images, so I stand by that point.

Also, the way you’re now describing tracing:

Let's take my empire state building example. Say for one panel of one page, that a comic book artist is getting paid only 100/page for (standard for any entry level cb artist) they need a partial bg shot of the empire state building. Said artist goes to google or flickr or whatever and prints out a handful of images. With those images scattered around their desk they trace the perspective of one of the random photographs and work a partial of that tracing into their background (with all their own other stuff in the foreground etc. of course). They now use the other reference images that better show the windows or the way the building is actually built to layer in some of their own details. Then they change everything a little bit more to make it work within their actual layout and then they ink it and color it (depending on how much of the artwork they are responsible for of course) At this point, the person who took the photograph while on vacation in new york six months ago, could not tell that this panel was taken from their photograph if it was assembled for them in a police line up. The image has been almost entirely changed. It now belongs to the new artsit who drew and redrew it, and used multiple references to get it how they wanted it, but yes, at one point in the process, traced part of the image.

Click to expand...

It’s not really what tracing means – what you’re now describing as what you say tracing is – tracing the perspective of a building, and then the windows and adding in other details – is not what anyone would assume you meant when you say tracing, because that’s not really any shortcut when we’re talking about someone who can already draw – why would they trace something as basic as a building’s perspective – that’s not really a shortcut as opposed to wholly tracing an image (which would be fine for the OP to do, if it was royalty free, public domain or stock he had rights to as I already said).

And quite honestly? Let me know when you're paying your rent as a freelance illustrator before you throw down the gauntlet of "how things are".

Click to expand...

I do recall saying my reply was just my two cents and welcoming other’s questioning of it, but I’m kind of surprised when you’re saying your status as a friend of artists (which I am too, being that I’m just finishing off the loose ends of my degree, a lot of my friends are already professional artists) and having a degree is a perfectly valid background for having an opinion, yet the fact that I’ve got six months left before I graduate and am not working professionally when you yourself say you’ve never really worked as an artist in your own right is an issue. Argue with my points, but don’t get in a strop and demand I be working as an artist when you yourself don’t, in order to have an opinion.

Okay, I'm done and going to bed and possibly never coming back. Goodnight.

Click to expand...

I don’t exactly know how to answer the fact that you’re being so dramatic in a thread of sharing people’s opinions on an issue.

Let's give the thread a little rest before things get too exciting.

-Derek