Disabled Winner Stripped of Art Prize for Ghibli Plagiarism

I don't think it's similar enough to call it plagiarism.

If you go make a character named "Dark Rock Slizer" as a variation of Hatsune Miku for Vocaloid songs. You think it was not "similiar" enough to get away from being accused of plagiarizing Black Rock Shooter?

This is so retarded, without specific intention is stated ahead of time (ie fan art or satire art whatever suits you) THIS is without a doubt, a plagiarism.

I see very close resemblance in segmented body parts (arms especially), depiction of a hand in resting position, pencil thin neck, ball shaped shoulder joints and even belt buckle-like feature on the waist is there just like Ghibli’s Laputa.

Her so called creation with Laputa as "motif" ripped off too many distinguishable features and idea as a work of art to just walk away. She didn't even "admit" she ripped off Laputa until she was caught for christ sake.

I would have agreed with you, until I saw the eyes. That's undeniably plagiarism.

Since she was so open about telling people that her work was based on Ghibli's work, I'm fairly certain this would fall under the same legal precedent that doujin get by under.

If there isn't any yet, most groups with fan-based work made would be on her side because fan work(parody etc.) tends publicize the original work and they wouldn't want to deal with legal loopholes on their currently free publicity. If 1 person gets nailed people would actually start getting official permission and shit that neither party wants to deal with in their silent symbiotic relationship.

anon@ 23:02:
I use nickname "Dark Rockslizer" since year 1998 as an artist and trading card game tourney player. It is one of my manga characters that I've never really made a decent story upon.

Black Rock Shooter appeared only recently, I was amazed about the similar name when I first heard of it too.

anon@ 23:02
you're right about the eyes, I failed to notice that at first.

> "Dark Rock Slizer" as a variation of Hatsune Miku for Vocaloid songs.

But that's tremendously specific and detailed, here, both the original robot and her golem are shitty simple geometric forms.

I couldn't draw Miku to save my life, but I could draw such a robot just fine.

Long armed robot with rectangular arms? That's simple, even natural, even the small one-eyed head is natural, so yes the woman admitted being influenced but I would have believed if she claimed it was original.

@Darkrockslizer

Sorry I did not intend to make it sound like I was accusing you or anything, but your ID was a perfect example that's all :)

Thinking this from another perspective, if she was truly inspired by Laputa robot and wasn't attempting to plagiarize then why the eyes, why the same body proportion? why the long arms? Why stop at textures and colors? Why not go further?

She doesn't deserve it either way.

yuriphoria @ 00:46
>here, both the original robot and her golem are shitty simple geometric forms.
Leave it up to otaku and/or weeaboos to bash on Ghibli films that have an infinite amount more artistic merit than Moeblob Shit Series #45759.

The form of the robot is completely identical to that of Ghibli. But that's not enough to be called out for plagiarism. It's plagiarism because the artist did not cite Ghibli as her source of inspiration **before** submitting her work.

Taking ideas from other sources and claiming them to be your own creation is plagiarism (see Kaavya Viswanathan). Taking ideas from other sources and publicly attributing your work those sources is not plagiarism. This should help clear up some of the awful parallels with no logical basis that Anon has made.

This picture is actually a scene in the movie. Inside the big dome before the battle, the only functioning robot stands like that, covered in moss in the areas colored yellow in this picture, and with that weird squirrel/fox thing from Nausicaa standing on its finger. I'd call that plagiarism.

Who cares if it's plagiarized? Doesn't changed the fact that it's done in some terrible modern art style.

Like arguing over whether a shit-sculpture is too similar to batman to be considered original.

I'm curious as to her artistic intent here, a description of which seems to be missing from Artefact's write-up. Given that she refused to accept this award in the end, she probably didn't intend to make this piece as a sort of homage to Ghibli.

However, I'm still interested to find out whether she intended it as such, or if she honestly intended to pass off a high-profile character from one of the most high-profile producers of animation in Japan.

Plagiarism isn't a big deal. It's an unnecessary capitalist convention.
Besides, aren't you using concepts and techniques developed by other artists in the past?

He does not have a lawyer, therefore he cannot exist?

I'm all for creative gnosticism, but that's kinda pushing it.

>>If this was okay then you should be totally okay when someone copied Mona Lisa with a twist and not say anything about it until someone finds out about it.

Well, that depends on a few things. Like so many things in life, it's not a binary issue. It's a continuum.

In your scenario I'm creating a forgery, attempting to pass off a work of my own as someone else's.

If I enter a short story contest and send in something I found on the internet, that's plagiarism.

Doing either but making changes, you enter the realm of copyright infringement (Mona Lisa with vulcan ears, The Midnight Meat Train with Kittens).

Plagiarism is presenting another's work as your own with intent to defraud. The Mona Lisa with a minor, unnoticeable change is attempting to defraud. Basing your work off another's is an homage. An homage can still be a copyright infringement.

You can look on the internet if you want, they're related terms all related to protecting creators and consumers.

After that you're past the continuum of creativity and talking about "Cheating".

Again, my Brass Totoro. If I enter that in a "Create a Character" competition, I'm bypassing an integral part of the contest. The spirit of the contest is who can create a character. I've certainly done something dishonest by using the bulk of someone else's labor as my own. I may deserve some credit for the execution of my work.

Now, I take the same sculpture and enter it into a metal working contest. The subject matter of the sculpture is not as important as the techniques I used to create it. The execution would out weigh the fact that it's not an original character. Same way if I did a meticulous sculpture of my father.

Both are copyright infringement. First case is copyright infringement with the intent to defraud and present someone else's work (character creation) as their own. The second case, the work I'm presenting (the metal working) is my own. So long as I don't claim it's an original character.

From the article it didn't sound like it was a "create a character" type competition, also she ever explicitly said the character of her own creation.

If her submission was the EXECUTION of the painting... copyright infringement.

If her submission was the CREATION of a character... plagiarism.

Plagiarism requires an intent to defraud.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she should have still won... she should cite her references for integrity sake and if she had maybe she still wins and no controversy.

But it's like calling someone a rapist when he grabbed your boob.
Assault is not rape, manslaughter is not murder, copyright infringement is not plagiarism.

Wrong...

It's been happening for many years now...

More like YOU haven't read much Sankaku. Or this even just this article.

No chink will decline the prize.

L2racist

Please learn 2 technology.

The 'magic box' is the user access mechanism, the interface.

The intertubes is the communications and delivery network.