Interesting…

Commenting on my last post, blogger genius MC Etcher said:

"A complete copy of the outfit doesn't seem very creative, but I don't know that it's stealing.

Also, even if you tried to copy the outfit exactly, there would be any number of small differences.

As long as you create the image from scratch, it's your image - stealing would only come into it if you're copying and pasting, making a few changes, and then posting it as your own work."

I find this whole subject very interesting. I've heard from a lot of professional artists that the way you learn to do something is find someone's work you admire and imitate them until you have it down. Eventually, your work is a mixture of so many different artist's work, plus your own spin on those techniques, that you develop your own style. Stylistically speaking, there's no such thing as stealing. If someone told me: "Hey, you draw eyes exactly the same way Adam Hughes does!", my response would be "Yeah, so?"

However, I think there's a difference between copying style and copying content.

Which brings me to Etcher's 'small differences' line. Is an imperfect copy really any less of a copy than a 'good' copy?

I was particularly interested in this line:

"As long as you create the image from scratch, it's your image - stealing would only come into it if you're copying and pasting, making a few changes, and then posting it as your own work."

I think (and correct me if I'm wrong) that Etcher is looking at this more from an 'effort' point of view. That if someone puts the time and work in to create an image from scratch, even if they're attempting to copy an existing image line for line, the result is a 'new' image.

Personally, I think doing that creates a legitimate piece of art, but I'd still consider that to be 'stealing'. For example, if I took a Spider-man poster and tried to draw it myself, line for line, I'd have a piece of art that would showcase, at least, my technical ability…but I think Marvel would have different point of view if I then claimed ownership and tried to sell prints.

I think it's a matter of walking a line between what is generic subject matter and what is specific intellectual property. For example, if I draw a child wizard complete with robe, pointy hat and magic wand, I'm safe to sell it. If I put round glasses, messy black hair and a lightning shaped scar on his forehead, I'd get in trouble.

This is my problem with drawing this fairy image. I almost always use reference when I'm drawing, For example, if I was drawing a wild west scene, I'd go on google search and find lots of pictures of cowboy hats, gun belts, duster jackets…because in order to draw something, you have to know what it looks like. However, in the case of the wild west picture, I know enough about the subject to know what's generic and what isn't. If I spot something I'd like to use in the fairy image, I have no idea if I'm just 'borrowing' a generic piece of jewelry or if I'm copying the 'fairy literature' version of the 'One Ring'