Stealing art is not cool

[Veia]

After seeing 1 star Ridley I was immediately hit with "I know this piece". Comparison under spoiler (just the part in question)

 

Tattoo on 1 star Ridley

 

Medusa tattoo by Antonietta Arnone Arts

[Observer_X]

Anyone more expert than me please correct what I am about to say if they know for sure that it is bullshit.

First and foremost, the draw on Ridley and the tattoo in the photo are similar, not identical in every minimum detail.

Second, as far as I know, tattoo art is not protected by copyright. I think I have lost count of the times I saw a friend with a new tattoo, with another friend saying "Hey, I want one like that too". When one enters in a tattoo shop and chooses a tattoo, he pays the tattoo artist time, not the copyright on the image he gets on his skin.

Third, the photo was published on the web, meaning that unless the author had put on the site a copyright warning, the image is for everyone to use at his leisure.

Fourth (and here we get back to the first), the developers are not reselling to HH players the photo, they only draw on one of their haremettes a tattoo similar to the one in the photo. As similar as the two are, I am prone to think that in case of a sue, in a tribunal that would be put anyway in the field "taking inspiration from", a right that is almost universally recognized. Just think at how many different anime characters the developers inspired to create almost every haremette in the harem.

In conclusion, drawing a tattoo similar to the one in the photo is different from claiming as property the image in the photo, and the developers did the first, not the second.

[Veia]

@Observer_X

1. It's not identical in every minimum detail but it's clearly traced - the differences are: one more snake head on top, weird orange ball, no top lashes and no wave to the tongue of bottom snake + ofc color.

2. As far as I know, if you're recreating irl person it's not breaking copyright of the artist because a tattoo should be considered a part of said person. Short google search later.

3. Just because it's on the web does not mean you can do whatever you want with it. "Online photos and graphics are protected by copyright law, just like any other original work. The photographer owns the copyright in the images from the moment she creates them, unless she is working for hire with an agency or other employer. In that case, the agency or employer owns the copyright. Copyright protection gives the owner the right to determine who copies, distributes or adapts the images for further use. The only way to legally use a copyrighted image is to obtain a license or an assignment from the copyright owner." (source). By your logic if you find an image that the artist is selling on their shop page you should be able to download the image and use it as you see fit, right? See the issue?

4. Tracing is not taking inspiration. All you need to look at is linework. If it's (almost) the same = tracing = not an inspiration. Inspiration would be - medusa head with shadowy wisps/wispy hair behind her. What would be considered an inspiration:

 

Common theme, similar framing and elements but both pieces are clearly different. It's not the case with Ridley. In case you can't see it, here you have my attempt at bad tracing with color added on both (under spoilers because it is used on the girl)

 

 

 regular tracing

added (minor) differences from right to left

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Veia
typo

[Observer_X]

@Veia, I'm not sure if I understood your point (no time to follow your links, sorry), but after reading your post, the first thing that came to my mind is what I wrote above, so I will rephrase that slightly here: as I said, I am not an expert, but I am prone to think that in case of a sue, a judge or a jury would feel very little difference between tracing and taking inspiration. Just my feeling.

[Veia]

@Observer_X since you're so set on this being inspiration, let's talk what is and what is not inspiration.

"Where is the line between inspiration and copying?

Copyright protects only the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves. For example, two artists may paint the same scene but portray them in ways that are slightly different, without infringing each other’s copyright. At the same time, the fact that the series Lost is copyright protected does not prevent you from writing a story about a number of people who are forced to live on a remote island after a plane crash.

Taking inspiration from someone else’s work is therefore acceptable, but in order to have copyright in your work and avoid infringement you need to create something original by using your own skill, labour, judgement and effort. Using another’s work is copyright infringement when ‘the work as a whole or any substantial part of it’ has been copied." (source)

"In general, if you want to substantially re-use someone else’s work – which includes copying, adapting or sharing it – you need to identify the copyright owners and obtain their permission. This process can be quite difficult at times, especially when dealing with complex copyright works like films.

Here are a couple of important things to remember:

1) Copyright arises automatically; no formalities, such as registration, are required. Because of this, even if there is no © symbol or any copyright information at all attached to the work, the work – unless it is very old – is still likely to be protected.

2) The fact that a work is publicly available – like a picture you find using Google Images search – does not allow you to freely re-use it.

(...)  In most countries, such as the UK, copyright expires 70 years after the author’s death. After that, the work is in the public domain, meaning that it can be re-used for free, without the need to ask for permission." (source)

 

As for "would it stand in court" question, I found a case that on the first look would appear similar:

Rogers v. Koons

  (picture source and the full story)

Wikipedia short:

"Art Rogers, a professional photographer, took a black-and-white photo of a man and a woman with their arms full of puppies. The photograph was simply entitled, Puppies, and was used on greeting cards and other generic merchandise.

Jeff Koons, an internationally known artist, found the picture on a postcard and wanted to make a sculpture based on the photograph for an art show on the theme of banality of everyday items. After removing the copyright label from the postcard, he gave it to his assistants with instructions on how to model the sculpture. He asked that as much detail be copied as possible, though the puppies were to be made blue, their noses exaggerated, and flowers to be added to the hair of the man and woman.(...) Upon discovering that his picture had been copied, Rogers sued Koons and the Sonnabend Gallery for copyright infringement. Koons admitted to having copied the image intentionally, but attempted to claim fair use by parody.

The Court found both "substantial similarity" and that Koons had access to the picture. The similarity was so close that the average lay person would recognize the copying, a measure for evaluation. Thus the sculpture was found to be a copy of the work by Rogers.On the issue of fair use, the court rejected the parody argument, as Koons could have constructed his parody of that general type of art without copying Rogers' specific work. That is, Koons was not commenting on Rogers' work specifically, and so his copying of that work did not fall under the fair use exception."

[DvDivXXX]

I don't have time to really dig in, but here:

1. Of course tracing is a copy-paste aka a ripoff. It's not just inspiration, a homage or a tribute. It sucks and is ethically wrong and artistically lazy AF.
    
2. Legal implications are a separate thing and can get very complicated. I'm not going there, and I encourage you not to either. This forum is not a court room. Please don't quote wikipedia or cite thousands of plagiarism stuff we don't need here, @Veia thanks.
    
3. This game's art team has resorted to tracing many times, although usually of the game's own previous artwork. It's lame and a big letdown every time. They do work under very tight deadlines and there were various times the team was just too small and/or weak to avoid such cheap tactics. I'm not saying the result doesn't suck, but I understand how it came to that. And I do hope they won't have to do this again.
    
4. A tattoo is just a format, almost like a poster or a T-shirt (not quite, as the tattoo artist has a style and technique that can impact the drawing). What matters first and foremost in terms of ownership is the drawing being applied as a tattoo, and who made that drawing. In this specific case, I'm not familiar with this tattoo artist, or the piece itself. It's a very classic theme and design, albeit well made and yes, it has a few specific parts you can definitely see were traced from the same source in the real-life tattoo and the drawn one in HH. Before throwing a fit over that, though, and especially painting the tattoo artist as a victim of plagiarism or whatever else massive exaggeration, let's take a few steps back, okay?
    
5. A/ I don't know who drew the original that was traced in either case. Maybe it's the tattoo artist, maybe not. If it's not, then it's whoever drew the actual piece that was traced in both cases you should care about.
   
   B/ This is just a tattoo on the character in a drawing, for the HH version. It's a minor detail, not the centerpiece and not an important part of the overall picture. Even if this tattoo was a pure copy-paste, it wouldn't be as important as you make it out to be. Let alone outrageous. She could just as easily have worn a T-shirt that exists in the real world, and it would have been a nod to the original artist at most. Certainly not anything outrageous. Chill!
   
   C/ "Stealing art" is a really strong bias in the way you're approaching this. Again, it's absolutely fine to discuss the artistic implications, but if you don't steer this thread away from the outrage and court room style bore fest, I'll have to shut it down eventually. "Copying" or more accurately "Tracing" would make a lot more sense for the type of feedback you were giving, here.

Cheers.

[Observer_X]

@Veia, applying your example to the first post, the court should demonstrate that Kinkoid artist intentionally browsed the net and copied Miss Arnone tattoo. Quite hard to demonstrate without Kinkoid artist confession, if you ask me. As it is often said in legal dramas, in a court it is not important what do you think you know, it is important only what you are able to prove. I am prone to think that the similarity between the photo and Ridley's pose would not be enough proof of guilty by itself.

In the end, I suppose that it is better to conclude that about the matter "tracing/inspiration" we agree on the fact that we don't agree (for one more time, right, @DvDivXXX?).

Edited May 1, 2021 by Observer_X

[Veia]

@DvDivXXX I agree on the derailing of the topic, I see no point in defending my position since I did participate in that, but I would also appreciate others keeping their legal opinions to themselves. After all I started this topic to point out an issue and not to start a debate on legalities. I'll try to do better.

By the way, I'm fairly sure the only reason I know this piece is because of a youtube video about tattoo copying (so yeah, it might be a copy of a copy but it's still not a good look).

[jyepie]

this entire game takes ideas from all different tv shows and movies. the entire game is based on parodies from existing characters.

but what bothered you was just some obscure tattoo that 99% of people wouldn't notice? lol. 

I'm not saying whether you are right or wrong,but, the entire game is based on parodies and homage of other art. 

tattoo artists already steal art from all over the place. tattoo art on itself uses art they didnt create.

should people have to pay Marvel every time someone gets a tattoo of the Avengers? 

same with Cosplay artists. cosplay girls sell pictures without paying copyright. 

Edited June 17, 2021 by jyepie

[lepidocter]

Hi. I work in the copyright field of my country.

More than quoting "laws", you should be aware about how the courts put in use such laws.

If the original tattoo artist can prove the design it's his own, he's completely fine to claim his artistic ownership rights and pursue the commercial use of the image.

Despite what all you THINK or BELIEVE, there are automatical assumption of ownership, that cover various field of use and distribution. Those are automatically granted rights by international copyright terms. THEN you can apply a recognized license to declare cessions or changes of rights. One of it is the derivative works comply, or distribution rights, there are many. Publishing a shot on Instagram is not a ceasing of onwership, try go read the Instagram copy notes please. Only distribution is.

The fact that individual X is doing an illegal, doesn't mean that YOU are safe from doing that illegal act. Try to tell a court "but criminals steal cars all day long, so it's not bad!", and check the reply.

The more as both we are discussing are commercial fields (that's why you're not get pursued by anime studios if you're doing cosplay: they don't sell costumes. But if you'll do a "Gucci cosplay", copying a dress from Gucci firm, you'll be pursued: you're competing with a copyrighted design that actually sell dresses). So there could be a material damage in the shape of lost incomes.

Tracing art is derivative (derivative is not "similar": is creating a product using another as the material base and as part of the production act - you can build an armchair starting from a chair wood and that will be derivative) and as long the author didn't granted explicitly the right of derivative work, you're in an illegal position and the original author CAN pursue you with a reasonable chance of winning: as probably there wasn't any damage in profits from the original artist, the judge will just call the removal of such design, pointing out the artistic ownership.

Anyway, as any other right in such field, is up to the owner to pursue or not. If the original designer doesn't claim, actual laws assume you're aware of the fact and you're fine with the conduit (implicit state of positive assertion) - it's sad, but practically Nations doesn't want to stuff courts of prosecutors that analyze EVERY single product on Earth to check for illegals. So responibility stand in who own the right.

This is not what I feel, believe or think. This is what will happen 100%.

On a moral sense, it's not a good move and being in an hurry is not a right claim (they are payed for their job that SURELY include a schedule, and again "I've stealed a car 'cause I was in an hurry" should sound bad to you like it sound to me).

ON A SECOND IMPORTANT NOTE:  the tattoo artist could have found the original design on some vector design site, so he cannot claim ownership. In such instance the  Kinkoid artist didn't do any illegal, as both are tracing from an (hopefully) free to derivate material.

Many of you probably know the anime No Game No Life: the light novels were pursued and retired from markets for a case of tracing parts of the inner illustrations from doujinshi material. It's a fitting example about how the perception of what you can do is in fact different from what you can legally do. It's way more complex.

Edited June 17, 2021 by lepidocter

[Peaches]

The tattoo isn't original. You can;t walk two blocks in Istanbul (or any other Hellenic country) without seeing a dozen images from Greek mythology. They put them on everything for tourists. Medusa heads are particularly popular (probably because there's no mistaking it)

[DvDivXXX]

Guys, no necro in general (that thread had been dead for a month), please. And also I'm a bit shocked to see this thread getting necroed and then revived with new walls of text in the exact direction that I had explicitly asked to stop derailing the thread back then...

I feel it's a nice compromise at this point to spare all three of you any warning or penalty by removing your posts, and to leave the massive legal advice from @lepidocter (and rather interesting in an of itself, albeit off-topic for this thread and, honestly, this forum) as is rather than having to remove it. This also means I'm closing this thread now. Because we were already pretty much done as far as this tiny nitpick and its relevant implications for this game and forum a month ago already. So now we are overcooked. ^^

Cheers.