Do You Consder Art Derived from Other's Art, Art?

[Burgy]

This is a discussion i've been having with a few pals and I wanted to see what you guys thought.

With the introduction of easily accessible photo manipulation tools and drawing outlets and it being easier to access other's artworks. "Art theft" has become an issue, well sort of. It's hard to define what art theft really is because you can take someone else's work and create someone else entirely and equally as beautiful but is that art theft or what is that? There is tracing and just straight up re-posting of other's artworks but what do you guys think?
What do you think about tracing? Photo manipulation? And anything else you can think of that could contribute to the conversation.

 

[littleuniverse]

Well, I think that reposting someone's art is a definite not to do. That's what I consider art theft. But tracing a reference photo for practice or for an aspect of your own piece is fine, as long as you change it somehow. And about recreating something entirely beautiful, that's basically describing most of the time fan art. Fan art by law is illegal, and technically art theft. Theres tons of videos about it that can explain this better.

"Art theft" has become an issue, well sort of. It's hard to define what art theft really is because you can take someone else's work and create someone else entirely and equally as beautiful but is that art theft or what is that?

I don't understand this part about taking someone's work and making it beautiful? And art theft is a really big problem. It makes it a lot harder to get your name out there when someone is taking credit for your hard work. I also find it just plain rude to take credit for someone's art. But I personally think as long as you create and not stealing another person's idea or artwork, you're fine. Fan art is okay in my honest opinion, but there are complications to it. Just when you make art that's derived, give credit.

 

[Burgy]

Well, I think that reposting someone's art is a definite not to do. That's what I consider art theft. But tracing a reference photo for practice or for an aspect of your own piece is fine, as long as you change it somehow. And about recreating something entirely beautiful, that's basically describing most of the time fan art. Fan art by law is illegal, and technically art theft. Theres tons of videos about it that can explain this better.

I don't understand this part about taking someone's work and making it beautiful? And art theft is a really big problem. It makes it a lot harder to get your name out there when someone is taking credit for your hard work. I also find it just plain rude to take credit for someone's art. But I personally think as long as you create and not stealing another person's idea or artwork, you're fine. Fan art is okay in my honest opinion, but there are complications to it. Just when you make art that's derived, give credit.

As in using assets from different artists or how a lot of graphical artists don't make their own art and use them as the subject in their designs and things

 

[oZzIIgk]

A perfect example of directly derivative art is the sampling of music. While I don't enjoy a lot of songs that sample the main parts of my favorite music, I still appreciate them as music and therefore as art.

 

[Takehiko]

I still consider it art because during the early stages of learning then it's something that you have to do in order to learn. Now when you get into the later stages it's a thing of if it's inspired of it or if you're stealing. Inspired meaning that it has certain elements of the other person, but if it's stolen then it will be something that doesn't even represent the artist who worked on it.

 

[KillerGum]

I believe derivative art is definitely art, although I am very liberal with what I consider "art" (IE: Any form of communication. And I am very liberal with what I consider "communication" too). I'm not 100% sure how I feel about making money from certain types of derivative art though, like making your own rap album using copyrighted instrumentals or throwing a filter over a picture (I'm aware that graphic art and design is more than that).

 

[FlusteredBat]

What is art? Art is an emotional argument highlighting the importance of any particular subject matter and the frivolousness of what is comparatively downplayed.

Originality comes not from content, but from construction. There is no such thing as original content. All ideas are fundamentally derived from natural observations which are owned by nobody.

Art in the modern world is objectively worthless (being infinitely reproducible). The only true value an artist can provide to their customers is the promise of continued work to satisfy a subjective appreciation. We don't buy music albums, we donate toward future albums. An artist's livelihood hinges upon reputation. It requires a significant degree of complacency and poor judgement to be defeated by mere imitators.

 

[Sarki Soliloquy]

Well, I think that reposting someone's art is a definite not to do. That's what I consider art theft. But tracing a reference photo for practice or for an aspect of your own piece is fine, as long as you change it somehow. And about recreating something entirely beautiful, that's basically describing most of the time fan art. Fan art by law is illegal, and technically art theft. Theres tons of videos about it that can explain this better.

I'm intrigued. Might I ask what law you are speaking about? Because from my understanding, fanart would only be illegal if the artist was selling their work under the precedent that its official material, violating copyright law.

Otherwise, since no one can seem to agree on a concrete definition to constitute art, the parameters are subjectively defined by the viewer. Personally, I consider fanart and other "derivative works" to be just as meritable as "original" art. They require technique and precision, evoke emotions, what have you. As for fanart, the bigger concern is whether you're creating something different from your subject piece rather than replicating it. In theory, you could make a carbon copy of someone else's piece. But if you weren't the original creator, it's less impressive since you're imitating what's been done before. And may the muses enervate all your creativity if you claim that your subject's your original design!

Originality is an illusion. Every single thought you'll ever have is paraphrased from knowledge derived by those who've communicated that knowledge before, which in turn, is built upon or directly taken from someone before them.

Moreover, I find it ironic that some of the most notable works of art can get away with direct adaptation of source material over fanworks. For example, Paradise Lost is basically a fanfiction of the Bible. Then you have much of the focus of Renaissance art depicting events from the aforementioned religious canon such as The Last Supper. The prevalence of Christian influence in European culture operates almost uncannily identical to a fandom.

 

[littleuniverse]

I'm intrigued. Might I ask what law you are speaking about? Because from my understanding, fanart would only be illegal if the artist was selling their work under the precedent that its official material, violating copyright law.

Otherwise, since no one can seem to agree on a concrete definition to constitute art, the parameters are subjectively defined by the viewer. Personally, I consider fanart and other "derivative works" to be just as meritable as "original" art. They require technique and precision, evoke emotions, what have you. As for fanart, the bigger concern is whether you're creating something different from your subject piece rather than replicating it. In theory, you could make a carbon copy of someone else's piece. But if you weren't the original creator, it's less impressive since you're imitating what's been done before. And may the muses enervate all your creativity if you claim that your subject's your original design!

Originality is an illusion. Every single thought you'll ever have is paraphrased from knowledge derived by those who've communicated that knowledge before, which in turn, is built upon or directly taken from someone before them.

Moreover, I find it ironic that some of the most notable works of art can get away with direct adaptation of source material over fanworks. For example, Paradise Lost is basically a fanfiction of the Bible. Then you have much of the focus of Renaissance art depicting events from the aforementioned religious canon such as The Last Supper. The prevalence of Christian influence in European culture operates almost uncannily identical to a fandom.

Let me explain myself. On what is art. I agree, originality is an illusion. We have thoughts based on what we perceive around us. This isn't new information. But how we express information can vary from person to person. Let's say we look at clouds and draw a specific cloud. You think one cloud looks like a dragon, but I think that same cloud as a face. We both saw the same thing, but we perceived it differently= expressed it differently.

My personal opinion. Like I said. Fan art is fine for me. It's pretty cool.

Now, onto the law stuff. The reason why there's stuff about the bible, Shakespeare and all that is because they're in public domain. Their authors are very dead and copyright laws don't apply to them. But America, particularly Disney, have made copyright law stretch over such a long time is that even if your dead, your creation is still protected under copyright law for 70-something years. So that way, no one can make a better Alice in wonderland than them. No one can make a better Peter Pan than them.

As for the legality of fan art. Like I said, is REALLY COMPLICATED.

There's a lot of specifics to fan art and what is legal or not legal. Long story short, sourced from deviant art's website:

"Fan art starts its life as a “derivative” work of the copyrighted original and, as a result, technically fan art is copyright infringement. It can also be a violation of trademark law and sometimes the actor’s rights of publicity if they are well represented in the fan art."

"Fan Art can be OK and qualify as “fair use” under the copyright and trademark laws; meaning that even if technically it’s an infringement and even if the copyright owner hates it, the way in which the fan art uses the original either completely transforms the original or uses the original in a small way that doesn’t harm the commercial interests of the copyright owners."

From KiRAWRa on Deviant Art:

"Copyright for derivative works applies only to the creativity that has been added to the original. For example, let's say you draw some fanart of Pikachu from Pokemon. You didn't use any of Nintendo's official Pikachu art in your drawing, and you interpreted Pikachu into your own unique style. This fanart counts as a derivative work instead of a copy, because you have made significant creative changes to the original character. This means that the fanart you have drawn is copyrighted to you. However, you did not create Pikachu and so you do not own the copyrights to Pikachu used in your drawing. Technically speaking, this means the very existence of your fanart is infringing on copyrights, because you have used a character that you do not own and do not have permission to use. More so, this also means the selling and reproduction of this fanart would further infringe on Nintendo's copyrights. "

 

[Sarki Soliloquy]

Let me explain myself. On what is art. I agree, originality is an illusion. We have thoughts based on what we perceive around us. This isn't new information. But how we express information can vary from person to person. Let's say we look at clouds and draw a specific cloud. You think one cloud looks like a dragon, but I think that same cloud as a face. We both saw the same thing, but we perceived it differently= expressed it differently.

Originality elucidates from how familiar ideas are constructed, like you exemplified. You can't generate new ideas without inferring from thoughtforms filtered through conscious existence. That's why we never get bored of the same storylines or genres. There's a sense of novelty in how the components execute that creates "new" pieces we never thought possible.

Now, onto the law stuff. The reason why there's stuff about the bible, Shakespeare and all that is because they're in public domain. Their authors are very dead and copyright laws don't apply to them. But America, particularly Disney, have made copyright law stretch over such a long time is that even if your dead, your creation is still protected under copyright law for 70-something years. So that way, no one can make a better Alice in wonderland than them. No one can make a better Peter Pan than them.

Copyright is a whole 'nother subject that I was evaluating that argument apart from to get to a point. Copyright didn't matter when those 15th-17th century artists painted or wrote about religious subjects that weren't their creation - not because those laws weren't instated during the period - but because they interpreted their source material in a unique way immediately discernible from the original. So it doesn't matter if the artist created said material.

Going back to the titular question of the artistic legitimacy of derivative works, most people won't chastise the integrity John Milton's Paradise Lost for directly using the Bible as source material. John Milton did not create the Biblical mythos and its characters, settings, etc. It's regarded as one of the most influential works in the English literary canon. Let's say I make a dojinshi manga about Fullmetal Alchemist. Himoru Arakawa created the source material, but I'm using it to tell a story different from the ones she already has.

From a functionalist perspective, both works are considered art because they stimulate our cognitive schemata for art (convey ideas through principles, make us feel something, etc.) But since both are derivative works and tell stories unique from the original, they can be judged on equal merits as the original - canonical accuracy nonwithstanding. Keep in mind I am not addressing critique here.

This goes back to my point about creation over replication when making fanart. I could sketch or trace a character render to the exact mark. It will still be artistically impressive, but I can't credit you beyond recreating the piece because it imitates what the creator originally made. Simply drawing the character in a different pose or with style altercations can make a huge difference.