You are welcome to look at the talkback but please consider that this article is over 7 months old before posting.
Forum - View topicNEWS: Kunihiko Ikuhara Sues Woman Who Claims Plagiarism of Illustrations
|
Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Rob19ny
Posts: 1722 |
|
||
|
Kuma shock! I think not. When you do the things that person did this was to be expected. I would like to see the works for comparison since she went to such lengths.
|
|||
|
|||
|
kuma991
Posts: 105 |
|
||
|
Imagine having the characters you created forever linked to the experience with this woman...
|
|||
|
|||
|
SciasSlash
Posts: 118 |
|
||
|
It's hard to know if there are or aren't similarities without seeing it for ourselves, but constantly emailing his friends and coworkers is a bridge too far even if there are, considering cases like the kyoani thing.
|
|||
|
|||
|
SquirrelSurrender
Posts: 27 |
|
||
|
...I guess. I have an art friend, who has a decent enough following on social media. I see their work in all sorts of media; comics, anime ect. This person has even worked for companies in an official manner and not been properly compensated through nefarious dealings and means. I don't know why everyone thinks industry has people's interests/well-being in mind. They exist to make money and not paying is cheaper than paying. I would more readily assume that most work has been lifted from amateur/semi-professional artists. So much so that I think instead of accusations and discussing whether or not somebody has stolen work; we should talk about what is the actual meaning behind stolen work. Art as this point in time is so largely derivative and with our near limitless access to works and their creators; it's hard to exist in a creative space and not be, intentionally or not, stealing.
|
|||
|
|||
|
DRosencraft
Posts: 666 |
|
||
|
I think part of the problem, and I don't know for certain where it comes from or how it became part of the zeitgeist, but there tends to be an expectation that anything created in the "art" sphere (a drawing, writing, music, etc.) it MUST be shared with everyone and thereafter be useable by everyone. The growing AI industry further muddies this discussion, as you then have a person instructing a computer to use someone else's work to create something else from it and then sell it back out ot the world.
People in general seem to be growingly comfortable with the idea that someone's artistic efforts can be utilized without their consent. In that lens, it's not hard to imagine someone fighting hard to gain recognition for the hard work they've put in to create something only for someone else to take it and gain some measure of fame and fortune from it. Imagine if you were Da Vinci and painted the Mona Lisa, only for some random other person to take it and claim it's theirs and be misattributed throughout history for your work, especially knowing how hard it can be for artists to gain even a basic living from their works. I think that in this specific case it is hard to know exactly what the reality is because we can't see the alleged original that is being claimed to have been stolen. Part of me wants to say that either way the person should have gone to court if they really thought their work had been stolen. But I also know from talking with lawyers in the field that such cases are rarely bought to court because of how hard it is to win and how nebulous the laws are on the topic. From an academic perspective it would be fascinating to know if they brought the issue to any lawyers at any point and what the lawyers had to say to them about the case. |
|||
|
|||
|
MFrontier
Posts: 11633 |
|
||
|
I think I'm siding with Ikuhara on this.
|
|||
|
|||
|
manapear
Posts: 1526 |
|
||
|
I'm curious how this will end. It could really go either way. I remember the scandal with Hanamura Mai and people still don't think she traces, even when it looks pretty obvious that's at least piecemealing other artwork without a direct trace. (Although it shows big time in her anatomy to make it obvious.) Sometimes it's a surprise when someone unexpected is tracing or using artwork that they didn't know was stolen.
|
|||
|
|||
|
SquirrelSurrender
Posts: 27 |
|
||
|
@DRosencraft
Art law is very weird to begin with, as recreations are legal to a certain degree if you change enough, you can't copyright an idea ect ect. Then conflate that with the average artist going up against a conglomerate media empire and it becomes pretty safe to assume that this is happening at a scale that would seem insane to the average fan. Even wildly successful creators claim of having been stiffed/had their work used in ways it was not intended ect. Look to stories by both Rob Liefeld, and Robert Kirkman in their dealings with Marvel to illustrate this issue befalling the artistic community, and these are megalithic creators. If even they in their massive success have myriad of stories detailing this abuse over artists, what can be hoped for the little guy. On top of that there is seemingly a narrative towards defending the accused /companies in these matters. The companies know the fans will fight their battle for them in the name of quality content over the ethics in creating that content which even further incentives the powers that be in the industry to further take advantage. |
|||
|
|||
|
AsleepBySunset
Posts: 214 |
|
||
|
I can't really see any comparison pics in the article, so I can't really take a side. To me, artistic plagiarism either involves copying someones art by tracing or by eyeballing (a good artist can copy a picture by only their eyeballs to the point where it looks traced without actually tracing it). Plagiarism could involve stitching together multiple pictures together eg, the leg here and the guitar there or involve copying only from one source. I don't really consider anything else plagiarism (excluding ai which I'm not going to bring into this), people can't copywrite a composition or a subject matter.
|
|||
|
|||
Yune Amagiri
 Posts: 947 Location: France |
|
||
|
We will probably never known the end of this story so i will stay on the fence.
However I've always reasoned as such: If there is no copyright and tracing was carried out then the plagiarist is wrong no question asked and therefore actions are then justified. If there is no copyright and no tracing was carried out then while it might seems harsh there is no reason other than ethical for the plagiarist to face penal issue, otherwise anyone could just claim whatever and considering than more and more creations are made by the day it will reach a point where nobody will dare creating. |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group