Yunomi “Ultimate Plagiarist”


2ch has uncovered plagiarism so egregious as to make even Simmons blush, were he not utterly shameless.


Artist Yunomi, pictured, is known for illustrating a variety of highly popular Vocaloid MAD tunes (with views in the millions), a number of doujinshi and several album covers.

However 2ch’s investigations recently discovered that practically all her illustrations are traces of photographs, in some cases combining several photographs to create a composite illustration, and with a large proportion of the photos coming from a commercial sample library – with rights to each image costing in the region of $100.


The paragon of the plagiarist’s art-form – bike, riders, background and even bags based on illicit Photoshop usage:


Leave a Comment


  • Oh my God.. a few months ago I drew Gumi from Coward Montblanc and used a picture of her to look at… and I drew Datsu-Kun from Dappo Rock and looked at a picture of him… I ALSO DREW RIN AND LOOKED AT HER ACT 2 BOX ART!! Oh my God I’m gonna go to jail!! NO!!!

    Who fucking cares if she drew the same bike or background (or balloon, because, you know, that’s something to worry about). Come on, her art is FANTASTIC! I absolutely love her art style, it’s so beautiful! She could have 1. Tried drawing without tracing (and add different details) and/or 2. Said that she looked at photos for reference. I feel she also could have tried to find a stock image for the pose from Magnet, maybe even photo shop two people.

  • 2chan like to bitch about things don’t they…..
    just because someone has drawn or taken a photo of something that looks a little like what your doing does not mean that you copied them.

    there are so many pics there that are down right stupid cos i bet there’s thousands of pics all over the world just like it.

  • So… you’re not allowed to look on things that exists IRL to influence your art?
    Some of the Photo -> Art stuff I can see why people react, and the Art -> Plagiasied Art I can see.

    But most of the photo-infulence it’s “WOW POSES, WOW BUNNY, WOW BALLON, WOW BIKE” and such makes me just want to say Pathetic to those who whine.

  • Some people fail to see that a lot of pictures here were taken from stock photographies stores… You aren’t supposed to use them for free, that’s why the preview comes small and with a watermark.

    YunomiP already apologized on her blog btw.

  • Sigh with the internet theses days you cant even create a pic that you can call on your own as an originally made illustrations


    why so much hate towards Yunomi she already said sorry and she even brought down her illustrations

    2ch is really starting to annoy me a bit

    yes plagiarism is plagiarism but you dont have to rub it in deeper that that to just make a shit about and make the world notice so much it becomes a new world rule that limits freedom of speech

    oh well old news is old news i Hope Yunomi learn from her mistakes and try to make it more original that 2ch cant bash around

  • they mostly look like references to me, honestly. o_o most of those poses are very generic, you can’t pull out every single pose that seems slightly similar and say that all artists copied from each other. o_o


    This is nitpicking of the n-th degree.

    So if say a less artistically inclined person transforms a style as a set of formulas and then modifies them and creates an image based on them … is FUCKING COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT !?

    Oh yeah, I’m so gonna go patent Riemann’s integration of the 5th order tomorrow … 😀

    I understand that these are traced not mathematically composed, but, for example I was working on a program whose purpose was to take a set of curve functions as input and parametrically modify them to create good trace lines in various manga styles.

    I used it for some minor character artwork. It’s called synthetization, and there’s absolutely nothing illegal about extracting a pose from a picture (as long as the original artwork is not a stick figure itself).

  • Hey you guys miss the points.
    The problem is the photo Yunomi used has right and she didn’t pay only a few money. Much worse, the rights belongs to photographers or product maker so the person using there resorce has to add a footnote to acknowledge where the original rights belongs but she added a footnote “all rights reserved” (all rights belongs to me). Yes, she is a plagiarist.

  • The usage fee of the photograph used for the illustration was not paid.

    There is damage of the company which sells the photograph and profits had been obtained with the illustration using it.

  • I call bullshit, 2ch.

    Sorry, but half these don’t cut it for plagiarism. A couple are pretty clear-cut cases of using images for REFERENCE, and the rest are very likely coincidence. At most, two of those smacked of immediate duplication, and if they’re from a commercial archive with the ability to reproduce them for use, she might have the rights.

    Nothing makes it more clear-cut than 19, frankly. 2ch shows “evidence” that she “traced” from two different subjects. Bwuh? That’s impossible, unless she’s using a pretty common pose (some might even say iconic), like the adult representation of the fetal position. Something I’ve seen in dozens of movies and TV shows, usually with the woman naked. I bet if I were to flip and rotate the shot of Summer Glau in Firefly to 19, it’d match up pretty well too.

    Number 6-7? Freaking petty. Not a major issue, to my mind. Again, it’s a reference.

    The most hilarious bit is number 35’s bike. Yeah, the background is obvious and the pose is as well, but harping on the bike is just STUPID. Rei Hiroe “copies” actual guns in Black Lagoon, but is he plagiarizing by using real guns? Nope, he’s being more authentic.

    Look, I’m not ENTIRELY defending this broad, but calling her worse than Simmons is idiotic.

    For the most part I can’t find myself caring too much. Using a wide variety of references is okay for artists. Encouraged, in fact, because it helps the artist develop their skills. The funny bit is the worse than Simmons comment. Hell. No. Simmons took a bunch of images and poses from ONE source, traced them, and from what little I read of the story, actually leeched STORY elements from Bleach.

  • People are forgetting that the ‘real crime’ isn’t even entirely in the copyright issue with the stock images, but in the fact that this artist was tracing at all.

    Some of these images do seem to be just ‘drawing from reference’, something every artist does, but some really are obvious traces.

    Tracing is the kind of thing that may not seem like much to the normal person, but to other artists, it’s insulting for someone to get famous when not putting in as much work as real artists have to.

  • I’m divided by this one. In some cases they’re trying to prove the same link to multiple existing photos in the same way. In other cases she’s drawn objects that exist in real life (such as a guitar and bag) and you can’t very well cry wolf because the end product looks realistic.

    At the same time, others are more clear0cut and give weight to what would otherwise be pretty tenuous links.

  • There are a lot here that were referencing stockphotos, which is fine as it’s reference but if they had the chance to explain it was from a reference, that would be great, but a lot were copied directly in a way that can’t be looked over. The first Magnet example is a good case of ripping off art of someone else but the other cases are not valid as it could be seen as reference or inspiration. I am disappointed that she ripped off some artwork and photos so directly as I liked a lot of Dixie’s work.

  • doh. even if an artist draw the same picture, the ratio between this picture would not be the same. in this case, it’s pretty obvious that her picture is more the less 90% exactly the same which also proof of her existance of stealing people’s work.

  • Some of these are just sad. Like, some I can agree she just stole. But the dog? No shit it was took from a photo!
    Also some you can tell she just referenced. I’m not saying she didn’t steal at all, but some of these are just people overreacting because she was caught and now they’re trying ot find any more evidence to throw at her.

  • oh no. another artist drawing characters in generic poses. Some maybe be copies, but i mean come on, how many poses do you think a dog can be in? Do you want to see it on a unicycle next? Anyways not as bad as ssoulja boi

  • Points to take away from this article and comments:

    -We don’t give two shits if Yunomi plagiarized or not. Originality died a long time ago.

    -2ch retards don’t have lives. It is perfectly acceptable to troll their opinions, regardless of whether or not we’re rooting for an art thief or a saint.

  • What the! there’s about a lot of different body poses and animal angle images, which can be use for references, how come they’re calling it plagiarism!

    Plagiarism is stealing the original image and changing the original content, without the consent of the original owner.

    I’ve been doing a lot of photography and I even let my models pose in those angles and they’re calling it plagiarism!
    What! are different body poses copyrighted too?! WTF!

    References and Plagiarism are totally different.

    But I’m really amaze on how 2ch found these images, because some of these may be plagiarism especially the background image below.

    But still 2ch shouldn’t mix reference/coincidental images and plagiarism.

  • she is an artist. ever hear of appropriation? art school 101. so she used some images…so what. Her drawing turned some boring as fuck photos into something that someone could actually call art. deal with it.

    who the hell would pay for a photo of two girls kissing with headphones.

    you are all torrenting freaks who hardly every pay for shit, to judge this artist is complete shit.

  • …So using real life poses as a reference to draw characters is wrong? It’s not 2D copying at all; it’s natural. Humans move in different ways. Knock it off 2ch, this isn’t detective work at all.

  • There is nothing wrong here… its just a reference!

    And people really expect that an artist should know how a bike looks like with all of the details and everything? ? Nobody knows that! Unless the person work designing bikes. . .

  • Actually it doesn’t matter if she used real pics as source of inspiration. Once it’s drawn it’s a completely different and new thing. So yeah, she used that landscape as the base for her drawing. As if landscapes were rare to see.

    Seriously, she’s not using the images as her own, she’s creating new things out of existing images. If we go by the logic that this is plagiarism then WORSHIP plagiarism. I wouldn’t be defending her if she had used parts of other drawings though.

    RIAA style: you have copied this [insert content here] to your brain so you are infringing copyright. (actually I am infringing copyright since I got the example from a comment at TF but I slightly changed it. Just for the lulz).

  • lols man, secondly though if she bought the images rather than tracing them she has used them as reference image and some get altered here and there. thats what Photo librays are for same with nude model books which are a collection of various models. Its not plagirism.

    Also those photos minus the Gotei can easily been used as reference image.

  • Using photographic or artistic reference does not equal plagiarism. Animals, guitars, bikes, scenic backgrounds… these are all things that are difficult to draw accurately without reference. Try drawing something simply from your memory/imagination and see how great it turns out… I’ll bet you it’ll end up looking like shit.

  • i dont support that, but there were a few of those that were just plain idiotice, there are a thousand of photos of people doing the same poses, its called public domain, now there are others where its evident

  • Drawing based on IRL photos….is that considered plagarism? What i see to be plagarism is if the artist copies another’s drawings. Drawing based on photos is ok to me. And, as many before has mentioned, there are indeed some rather generic poses there…

  • You can’t really compare drwaings to actual photos and call it tracing. The reason why is because they are two completely different things. If she went for a more realistic style thus actually tracing the pohto I would agree. She however, just used those pictures as references.

    Almost every artist uses references. It’s actually part of the proces – pictures, models, a mirror. How else would you draw something that looks real?

    You can never be truly original. Aside from the sci-fi (works of fiction) and humanly imposible poses you can prety much find pictures of almost every pose out there.You just need time.

    Really? A person sitting in a chair, a couple riding a bike, two girls kissing, people hugging each other…you can’t seriously say that drawing any of those is tracing especially when even the angles of some pictures are completely different.

    Some artist even use real photos as basic layers to make the texture of the skin look more realistic.

    Oh and those sites that let you use stock photos for which you have to pay actually have a big watermark right across the picture which you can’t really remove if you don’t pay.

  • I don’t believe these are traced, every artist uses references like this. I am a professional artist, myself and everyone I work with has a huge collection of reference for making your art look how you want it to look.

  • This shit is some straight up retarded conspiracy shit. It doesn’t fucking matter what you draw, it could be the most random fucking pose ever, and there is bound to be an image or 2, or 500 fucking million of it on the internet already. I could understand if maybe this was totally ripping on some manga or something (like simmons) but this shit is just the most random shit. She drew a basic bike design ! oh shit ! omg, she drew a fucking basic bag design ! OMFG. HOLY SHIT! She drew a person playing guitar in a chair in perhaps one of the most common positions to sit in when playing a guitar. And no, the guitars aren’t even the same. The general body outline is similar, as semi hallow bodies tend to have similar shapes, however they are far from a perfect match/trace.

    Fucking crazy tinfoil hat trolls.

  • Honestly, this doesn’t look like she traced. Yeah there is a lot of similarities, but honestly? Come the fuck on, people have looked at other people for ages and drew what they saw. Using stuff for reference like that is hardly new. Any painter, any sculptor, they always had a model.

    Everything I see is so fucking common for what people pose for shit, I don’t see any of this “It’s all traced” shit. It looks like some home guardians got uppity and bored and did what people do when they try and find hidden messages in music; They catch some form of resemblance to shit and go crazy with it.

  • Some of these seem like they really are based on the photo(s), but others are really pushing it.

    I’m sure that for almost any drawn image of characters in some kind of pose, you could find a photo online depicting someone in a similar pose.

    Using a photo of a bag or a guitar is pretty standard for reference. And those aren’t photos limited to just a stock photo site. You could get them from the manufacturer, any store that sells them, or a number of other sources.

  • Some of them are obvious traces. But a lot of them barely even resemble the so called “evidence” shown. So different, that I doubt that they are even related at all, just slight resemblance by coincidence.

  • Thanks to these articles teaching me that poses are something you can apparently claim ownership to, I went out and copyrighted the “V” peace sign you make with your fingers.

    By my calculations, Japanese girls alone will make me the richest person on earth in roughly seven months.

  • Imagine if 2ch did something useful.

    Imagine if they turned their anal retentive bitching onto human dna and genetic engineering.

    Instead of nitpicking over drawings they’d turn their “find a flaw in anything anal retentive” gaze on fixing/enhancing the human genome.

    Their obsessive compulsive tendancies would remove all of the genes for hereditary diseases out of our dna and all women would either be gigantic breasted beauties or you’d have women that could age to 900 and still look loli…2ch could go either way on that.

    But instead of doing something good for the human race they’d search for the latest picture of “moe seiyuu x” riding a train and try to find that exact train and the seat she sat on so they can whack it to having their hand that close to the ass of their goddess of the week.

    • I’d like it if they used their talents to disrupt huge corporations. Frankly, none of ’em work for them and if they do they are nearly nuts, one of the reasons to be such a troll.

      Right now we are having the corporations essentially merge into a “World Superstate” right out of 1984. The more disruption, the better for everyone. China has a controlled economy, Japan is super-nationalist. If the big companies got hit in the gut and crawled off to die, they’d both be better off.

  • There is nothing wrong with using references, you can’t really copyright poses.

    Almost all good artists will tell you to use good references if you want to become a good artist, very few artists can draw perfectly without references. Most artists use references all the time people are just becoming more aware of it now with the internet.

  • Whats wrong with using references?
    True some do look traced, but the ones where they are comparing real photos with the art… she’s just using them as reference. No artist goes without using them.

  • Really at this point nothing is original anymore. Even if a source can’t be cited, there is one somewhere, vaguely tied to this piece of work. And any single piece could easily have one or hundreds of sources, and at some point feasibly listing all of them outpaces the effort to the piece in the first place. The real problem is when the artist does not acknowledge that this is occurring and being a dick about it.

  • It certainly is amazing how she was somehow able to “plagiarize” one pose from three different source photographs if you scour through thousands of images of an arm your eventually bound to find one that matches up if you resize and rotate it the right way. Its just really sad 2ch is willing to ruin someones career over such petty bullshit, but what do I know I’m just a filthy American thief that has no right to enjoy their culture that is currently one of their only worthwhile exports. Fuck those sexual frustrated pricks at 2ch!

  • Come one, plagiarism! I have seen some of the poses from the pics posted here hundred of times before.

    Also, 2ch’s investigations? lol give me a break, those who did this have way too much time on their hands.

    • If that is plagiarism, then nearly every picture on this world is a copy from something else.
      Even using a real reference like sitting on a chair, walking and such is plagiarism, if it was used for another picture.
      2ch – the plagiarism fag police on the Internet.
      I never took those idiots serious.

    • What a shame they aren’t very good at it then…

      Yes a few of those images are clear cases, but the majority of them just seem to be 2ch-ers jumping on the bandwagon, wanting to scream and jump around like a crazy monkey because that’s what everyone else is doing.

      Someone really need to explain to the jumping monkeys at 2ch that you can’t copyright poses or ideas, painting a picture with “girl sitting and playing guitar” or “guy sitting cross-legged” is not plagiarism even though there are 100+ painting and pics with almost the exact pose, and the pic with the paper planes are fucking facepalm – copyright does very much NOT cover ideas like “paperplanes on floor”.

      Shit like that makes me wanna explain to the 2ch idiots, with a baseball bat, just how boring entertainment would be if you could copyright ideas.

  • this is retarded, come on! Ok maybe she trace some image. But for cry out loud, if you search hard enough there will be images that similar to each other. Those people sure have lot of free time.

  • 2ch likes to cry a lot about plagiarism. No matter what an artists designs, unless it’s abstract art, there will be other instances of the elements incorporated somewhere else. Think about it; how many pictures have you seen where there’s a man and a woman hugging? If someone draws that kind of scenery, of course you’ll be able to find a photo/other image of it somewhere which looks like your drawing. And every art work these days is made up of a combination of different works; there is hardly any original artwork left in this world.

    • No not even abstract art is safe I remember reading something on here about an artist getting their award taken away because they did an abstract painting of a statue that was based on a popular character…

  • Some of these pictures are really simmonsed but not all of them. Why can’t she draw people in embryo pose? That pose is not copyrighted, and not even special. 2ch overdid it again.

  • simmonizing was much worse because they were exact scenes from bleach.

    yes it is bad, but at this point it’s hardly surprising. most if not all artists use references/traces to some degree, it’s just a matter of how much and how well you conceal it from the public that matters.

    even top artists like Tony and ishikei probably do it aswell.

  • next thing they are going to say that is copyright is a picture of the sidewalk or tree……this shit is dumb. who in their right mind would spend ALLLL that time trying to find the images that look alike.coming from a fellow artist i would use those images for references and cut the work time on alot of my work using photoshop.

  • Some of those comparisons are quite similar, but as it continued, the words ‘clutching’, ‘straws’ and ‘at’ came to mind. I mean some of those poses have been emulated so many times in so many formats, how can you not draw them with similarities.

  • I wonder if this is even a serious accusation, or if 2ch is just being silly.

    I mean you can’t seriously call 99% of that tracing or even copying. There is a very big difference between this and what other accused artists have done. I can’t help but feel this is an example of making a mountain out of a molehill.

    Also I don’t get the paper airplane pictures. What exactly is being copied in those three?

  • Some of these.are definitely plagiarism but others definitely aren’t. The Magnet ones?the fact that people cite three different drawings as the base kiiiiind of shows that maybe the idea isn’t original to begin with.

  • To the 2ch people, I hope you’re reading this and translating it.

    Get. A. Life.

    The obsession with the little things are just wasting your potential away. Go find a solution to cancer, instead of nitpicking the smallest things like a bunch of housewives. Go do charity. Promote world peace. Teach the future generation.

    And to this post? Gross exaggeration. If everything has to be built from scratch, every detail, every what not, there will be a lot less works out there.

    That’s not to say that copying without said permission is right, but stock photos and stuff that are okay to use? Go ahead and use them. Some of us don’t have multiple dildos stuck in the ass for trying to reference stuff.

  • —-play scene from “Cool Devices: Fallen Angel Rina” – super NERD; “you’ve RUINED the image of my angel Rina, I will not forgive you!” Rams dildo into girl who (was) a virgin.

    Fucking nerds…

    I am SO sick of them…

    This message is to Yumino, could someone forward it to her?


    Frankly, there’s this cool software called “Poser” that has realistic (and Anime) anatomy. Anyone accuses you in a public forum of “Simmonsing” just show them “Your” “Artistic dummy model approximation” and a “quick sketch you drew first”… The current version ain’t free, but e-bay is full of stores dumping earlier versions which you’d have used anyways;-) But I’m sure you’ve been using it:-)

    THEN, SUE the masturbation to furry porn NEET out of their lolicon pvc figure budget. “His allegations made it difficult to keep my job and I wasn’t selected for my own manga I’ve been proposing…”

    It IS a well established fact that independent artists working separately can indeed come up with the EXACT SAME IDEAS moreso when working within a “Limited” genre. An accusation of plagiarism you later “Prove” isn’t that can be turned into slander/libel instantly.

    —Oh, and for landscapes and sunsets you could do much with “Bryce” that could ‘coincidentally’ match some RL photo that some pathetic NEET soon to be sued and his parents make him get a job thinks he’s found a match…

    Join my group, join MANarchy!!!

  • triniking1234 says:

    Well some of them I’m worried about (like the Golgo13 one) but there’s really no big deal here.

    I mean, oh yeah someone drew a picture of two chicks kissing and it resembles this other pic of two girls kissing. That’s SO plagiarism.

  • Are these idiots serious?

    Taking a picture of something in 3d and drawing a 2d version of it with anime style stuff added to it isn’t plagiarism.

    I guess all of the manga artists that use those mannequein posing doll things are plagiarising that drawing doll.

    Anyone who draws scenery is guilty of simmonsing reality in 2ch’s bleary red eyes.

  • most of this is bullshit. The human body only has so many ranges of movement and there are only so many contemporary poses that you could use for such projects. You can most likely find 50 more poses identical to the ones posted here.

  • I like how that first one is apparently traced from five or six different sources to make the same thing.

    ’cause, y’know, lesyay that shows two girls about to kiss isn’t an extremely common thing, and it’s not like it just proved that 2ch needs to settle the fuck down and get a real hobby or a job or something.

  • Patent law

    In patent law, a reference is a document that can be used to show the state of knowledge at a given time and that therefore may make a claimed invention OBVIOUS or ANTICIPATED. Examples of references are patents of any country, magazine articles, Ph.D. theses that are indexed and thus accessible to those interested in finding information about the subject matter, and to some extent Internet material that is similarly accessible.


    she’s practically stealing money from the people who created the “referenced” images

    • Patents, copyright, and trademark are all different. Copyright applies to photographs and other “creative works,” patents apply to inventions, devices,etc. Patent law is irrelevant to this discussion.

  • After reading the comments it amazes me how many SanCom goers commend this thief. Not only is she a thief, she proved she is a talent less thief. The most boring pictures you could find processed to an even more boring drawing. Shame on her, shame on all you losers who praise this.

    • It’s pretty amazing that so many not only fail to understand the concept of a copyright applying to a photograph (and thus also to any derivative works), but also fail to see anything objectionable about someone filching 4 commercial photographs and Photoshopping them into a completely uncredited image.

      • Don’t forget, however, that while copyright covers “derivative” works, it does not extend to “transformative” works. Likewise, copyright protects a specific “expression” but not an “idea” (so the stock photos of the people and paper airplanes are themselves protected, but not the idea of a scene with paper airplanes scattered about … same with the other poses). The distinctions between these two pairs of terms are points of contention.

        Furthermore, while plagiarism and copyright infringement overlap like a Venn Diagram, not every instance of plagiarism (we can argue about what that terms means too) would be recognized as infringing by the courts. It’s not a 1 to 1 equivalency.

        Now with reference to Yunomi specifically:

        1) Her use of the photographs themselves (by which I mean including/incorporating the original image) in her artwork might get her in legal trouble. That seems like infringement, but her position isn’t hopelessly indefensible – the odds are just against her.

        2) If she actually, literally traced photographs, I think that would be an example of something we could criticize as plagiarism, but it’s debatable whether or not it’s copyright infringement- you could make good arguments for and against.

        3) As for using photographs for references (poses, clothes, props), that seems like something that is very much in the clear.

        Personally, I think fair use covers most (though maybe not all) of the posted examples. So, legally, speaking, I don’t think there’s too much going here. There, is however, plenty of room to argue about artistic integrity and ethics, etc. I’ve already written too much at this point, so I’ll just bow out now.

        • But Artefact, it’s ridiculous to compare an illustration and a photo and conclude that merely based on one common feature the artist’s a plagiarist. Maybe the layout or object was traced, but as ZUN said, every single creative thing is a derivative work…. the only issue is making sure that derivative one has sufficiently differed from the derived.

        • Fair use has nothing to do with the creation of derivative works, so that is a red herring.

          Also none of this is relevant to a Japanese artist or publishing environment. Fair use is not used in Japanese law, and large Japanese corporations with legal departments clearly take this seriously enough to lose large amounts of money by complying strictly. In the milieu in which she expects to be operating, what she has done is severely frowned upon.

          Whatever the legal case (and nobody is expecting her to get sued for this), that she is acting unethically and unprofessionally in presenting worked over photographs as her own work, and apparently profiting from them, seems beyond doubt.

          Finally, the level of reliance she is displaying on these “references” suggests she is none too accomplished an artist in any case.

      • If you genuinely believe this applies in this case then you are overreacting. If you are trolling then congratulations, I salute you sir.

        Copyright is not the issue here, 2ch idiocy is. The presumption that some holy grail of artistic creation exists which springs forth purely from the imagination disconnected completely from the world we live in is asinine. Is a landscape artist copying? Did Andy Warhol trace? What about photo-realist painters, why don’t they create original content from their imaginations instead of plagiarising what they see and recreate?

        What constitutes copyright violation is complex and varies with each case. Regarding the image of a bicycle you fail to note the egregious copyright violation in the photo of the couple riding a bicycle. Did whoever took that picture get permission from the holder of the ur-bicycle picture copyright holder? I bet they didn’t.

        What Yunomi did seems perfectly fine to me in most cases. One or two things may be arguable. The crux of this article is a “tempest in a teapot” (please note that this is a stock phrase in the public domain which I am using to express an opinion for which I am too lazy to come up with a totally original expression).

        The inhabitants of 2ch need to fap more, and worry less about image sources.

        • Artefact, you’re out of your mind.

          Internet uploaded information for research and referencing has been around since the web era began. To declare Yunomi a plagiarist because of referential drawing and back this fallacy up by foreign law and its threats means nothing; the most protection most artists have today is the Creative Commons License and the honor system of works. However, these drawings can easily be seen that though poses could have been used in reference (Or god forbid, people actually in some sort of body configuration beforehand), it’s not the simmonsizing that you so claim to fanfare.

          The fundamental point here is that these comparisons are too outside the scope of reasonable affirmation that it matters not what 2ch says, or anyone says for that matter; the level of common sense (Or lack thereof) here is really disconcerting.

          I’m rather disappointed you’d put your own credibility on the line to suck an ambiguous internet set of sour detective work.

        • But this doesn’t hurt anyone. She doesn’t steel money from the people who made the photos. Her works are for a complete different market. It’s not like when China make rip-offs.

          And many of those comparisons are just inappropriate fail.

        • Copyright and professional ethics are the issue here. She clearly has none, so what business does she have selling her services as an illustrator and giving interviews about her “work”?

          As others have stated, it is quite indisputable that a number of these images constitute copyright infringement.

          This might not be a big deal to a bunch of anonymous goons still bitter at 2ch’s gloating over their humiliation and possessing only the most rudimentary understanding of copyright, but in Japanese artistic circles this is precisely the sort of thing which gets manga and eroge withdrawn from publication.

          Who outed her is quite irrelevant.

  • Observe, rework/rethink, improve : that’s how every technique progresses… I’m totally comfortable with that as it doesn’t feel like a messy 30second job of photoshop accompanied with a “hey, mum ! look! all by myself!” claim

    if using a model and utterly reworking for the better is “bad”, so, what are artists “allowed” to draw ? non-existant lifeforms and purely conceptual stuff ?

    Would True Art be something like ? 😀

  • Some of these are borderline, much of it is just using the photos for reference (as most illustrators do). A lot of these aren’t problematic, even if she was tracing, because there’s enough original content in them to become something sufficiently different from the original. It’s not very creative, of course, which is a shame considering she’s obviously quite good.
    She does have a couple of images there that seem to utilise parts of the original photographs. Now THAT is plagiarism.

  • So wait if you use references you are tracing? So you can’t relly draw anything that resembles things in real life?
    Man I just learnt that all the greatest artist in the world are plagiarists…interesting

  • I’m seriously loosing my trust on the 2ch plagiarism police.. I do agree that some are blatantly traced but as for the others..; now they’re just searching for similar brand of product, possibly coincidental photos of ppl in identical obvious poses and then stamp anything that looks in common as plagiarised.

    And sorry Arte, I don’t think Simmons should start feeling embarassed now.

  • 2ch is just fucking japanese 4chan so would you think /b/tards are nice people that want to protect the copyright of some random generic pictures? no they just want to smear mud on other peoples faces, i dont give a shit if she used photos as reference only the gundam one goes a little too far. every 2ch said this and 2ch said that article is as interesting as browsing fucking /b/ and taking notes what those tards are writing.

  • I don’t see a problem with using images as reference. How else can people learn to draw? I don’t consider that Simmonsing.

    Now, tracing OTHER people’s artwork on the other hand, is Simmonsing.

  • Every commercial artist uses photo reference. I was even told by an actual real commercial artist that they would be “mad” not to do so because there was so much available on the internet.

  • Most of these ain’t plagiarism. She’s even using stock photos. Stock photos are actually meant for this purpose, some are free to use, some cost a little.

    Every artist does this, I mean copy poses. I’ve got some example pictures where Tsutomu Nihei, Oh! Great and Hirohiko Araki have done it. Most backgrounds nowadays in anime are overpainted or eyeballed straight from photographs KyoAni’s anime doesn’t have a background that’s not taken from somewhere. The word you should use is referencing.

    When you talk about plagiarism the questions are: how much of the picture is altered in someway compared to the original (there’s some percent rule I don’t remember exactly in my country), does the theme match to its original image and is the original image property of another artist in the first place.

  • There’s always a big issue regarding tracing over the net.

    From how I understand this topic, referencing or tracing is fine as long as you put effort into changing the details and composition that you make it into another piece of art and what you can call it as your own.

    The exception is, don’t copy the main concept of the image you are referencing or it’ll be just another pic that imitates someone else’s work.

    On Yumino’s case, some were OK like the 2 girls with headsets since she made it into something more artistic and different look but most were just blatant trace that hardly varies with the original.

  • I don’t really care. And that’s how artists work – they look and something and draw it.

    This is just another proof that 2ch can’t do any useful work only things no one cares about…

  • Most of those look really coincidental… like the person went out of their way to find something that looked similar just to be an ass.

    then again, I can’t deny that some of them look a little *too* similar.

  • Stupid news is stupid. Things like these are acceptable in the illustration industry. Heck some professional artists have done worse.

    Google “Greg Land swipes” and you’ll see how professional Marvel artist Greg Land literally plagiarized from FELLOW artists. Now that’s some bad shit.

    And this Yumino isn’t even a high profile artist…

  • I’m too lazy too log in, so I’m not a fucking random anon.

    References is good, and her artwork deserves to be complimented even if she’s using photographs as references. It is not an easy to trace(not literally), so this stuff are very minor (in my view at least).
    2ch people are just retarded fags, they didn’t making any effort to do stuff, instead, blaming others for their works. Seriously they’re stupid bunch of people living on earth.
    Even if she’s tracing photos, her works are still better.

    • I understand your point there.

      As long as you make a difference with the original and not copying your reference material’s concept. This tracing issue is really minor IMO, referencing isn’t that bad, even the pros do it.

  • OMG! Leonardo Da Vinci is also a plagiarist, he actually plagiarized the Mona Lisa when I did her portrait!!OMG! most all the Gundam series are a plagiary of the first serie!!OMG!! The J-Maids are a plagiarism of english maids. Oh my God, European girls cosplay are copying the J-Maid and that’s plagiarism…
    OMG!! Nothing in the world is actually original, where does this world end up… ^_^

  • I’m feeling the urge to drag some of these nit-pickng, basement-dwelling denizen of 2ch here over to the Philippines and maybe watch ’em keel over and die, mouths frothing and all, from the audacity of things here.

    Case in point: I do not understand the gravity of this issue, as people here won’t even find stuff like there worth their notice. Sure, outright plagiarism does not escape people’s attention but seems rather benign. Someone please explain it to me.

    Does 2ch really have THAT much free time?

    Oh, before someone accuses me of being a basement-dweller, I should point out that we have no basement– people here consider having your house with a basement bad luck.

      • And I bet you didn’t understand half of what I said.

        I was merely pointing out how nitpick-y this seemed to me, while referencing the basis of my opinion. I see nothing wrong with that and nor any reason for you to attack me for doing so aside from flat-out immaturity, which is not unexpected.

        • it all depends on how much they google your name

          im pretty sure that on a japanese search of he now the word plagiarism pops up on page one possibly. and her and plagiarism will definitely pop up.

          if you were looking at an artist and pauperism popped up, how much more would you look into it? would you see if its false accusations, here her side, or tell her she didn’t get the job as nicely as possible.

          im just taking a guess based on what happens is a girl said you touched her on a train, something that is widely known they lie about significantly enough that any other country would have reasonable doubt on there side. and i am guessing that if you aren’t 100% squeaky clean there that they wont give you a second look.

        • this is what happens when kids with to much free time dont play wow, they make there own games that could ruin peoples lives.

          trust me, if you are a professional at any level and they can do a search of your name and plagiarism, have fun finding employment.

        • …and no, I’m not accusing 2ch taking this seriously, whether they are or not doesn’t really matter. All I’m accusing them of is being too nitpick-y and having too much free time.

        • That I face it often enough that I would call it so should be proof enough of its audacity. Not that you would know. Also, while I do agree that things here could be better, I find it a decent enough place. Not everyone here wants to live in the smog-covered capital.

        • Have you considered 2ch isn’t being as serious as you think they are? And so what if your piece of shit homeland is so crappy if you’ve never left the home and faced this “audacity” that you’ve only seen about on the TV.

    • Filipino here. I think what anon here is pointing out is that we have a lot of comic artists working in American publications (Marvel, DC, etc) and based on our experience most of these things that Yumino did are actually acceptable in the illustration industry.

      As I pointed out below, there are far worse plagiarism done by already professional comic artists. And some of them have the nerve to copy fellow artists’ works.

      And Yumino isn’t even a high profile professional artist.

      • hey man i don’t mind you bickering with someone getting at you but can i at least remind you that it’s quite rude typing in your native language to the people out here who chat here who use english mostly.

  • Zomg she uses reference material, burn her at the stake!!!

    She still draws 30x better than any scrub posting here. It takes skill to translate 3d into a likable 2d only a fool would tell you otherwise.

    • Yeah, most of those poses are just references…

      Except the last one, which isn’t actually plagiarism, since most anime and even doujins and mangas use real backgrounds in rural, city, and school scenarios…

      Backgrounds are nothing new and it’s not really plagiarism…

      And she’s, in my opinion, not as worse as a certain someone…

      It’s not like she copied the actual facial expression/character design/crazy evil smile while holding a weapon and called it her own original manga…

      And besides, have you seen how much those images cost to use!?!

      It’s not like she could just say, “Hey I want to use this image as a background for a hentai doujin”…

      She makes MADs and doujins…Ear and eye porn…VO@ALOID ear and eye porn!!!

  • I can see some of it as possible plagiarism but then I don’t see too much of a problem using advertising photos for pose reference as true plagiarism. And in the last part, calming that using bags that really exist in one of the artists works as plagiarism seems to just mock the argument from within.

  • LanceRayne says:

    in some cases, using the picture for the most part as part of the image itself is fine.
    it’s when they use another artists rendition and copies it EXACTLY is when it’s plagiarism.
    at this time, in our day and age, it is near impossible to create an image that HASN’T been created before. that goes for music, books, movies… have fun finding a truly original idea. (the core of the media)

  • Peter Barton says:

    If she actually bought the images in question to use for tracing, then I have no problem with it. I view that the same as taking your own pictures and using them as a references.

    Now, if she was just using google search, then I have a problem. Worse is when someone goes to google image search, take the first image on the list, and use it as a background for your comic without even bothering to trace it. *cough*B^U*cough*

    edit: Oh, wait, she kind of did on that last picture. Fucking B^U

    • I can see a few of these images are traced, but the majority are references at best (like 29, yeah, it’s the same pose, too bad you can’t copyright a fucking POSE) and plain bullshit at worse (like 12, 22, 25, and 31).

      The Gundam trace, Golgo trace, and straight usage of the bicycle scene’s background are sad, but the rest are just crap a bunch of jealous hikkis threw together.

    • Shippoyasha says:

      Most of them, obvious trace..

      But the Golgo 13 one made me laugh out loud.

      I don’t think it’s a bad or a criminal thing to trace and all, just that the artistic integrity definitely takes a bit of a hit there if the ENTIRE COMPOSITION of the art is copied. I have no problems with backgrounds being traced. Backgrounds are traced in almost any anime/manga media unless you’re a god at making background art like Katsuhiro Otomo (Akira).

    • I don’t think 2ch could identify these in such numbers, but I guess I shouldn’t underestimate them. I’d say someone the artist knows or has access to her workspace spilled the beans though. All she needs to do is say it’s “homage” now.

    • I don’t see what’s wrong

      tracing other people’s art = summonsing

      tracing IRL photo or tracing them or just use them as they are = who cares ?

      and inb4 “how about the photograph’s copyright, huh ?”, I say “did the photograph asked authorization to anybody for taking this scenery into picture ?”

    • Even if she did buy the images, if she used them in her own works without acknowledging or obtaining permission from the original artists, that is still copyright infringement. I dabble in computer artwork myself, so I’ve had to become very familiar with this sort of situation.

      Plagiarism is to artists as piracy is to media companies. Each seems harmless to the outside observer, but each hurts the people who created the work.

      • “Even if she did buy the images, if she used them in her own works without acknowledging or obtaining permission from the original artists, that is still copyright infringement”

        The images are likely part of a stock photo package. In that case, she paid for a license which permits such usage, and does not require attribution to the original authors work.

      • Also, apparently she plagiarized a whole bunch of images with just one image, just goes to show how easy it is to find images similar to that one, it really is undeniable simmonsing, but the drama is totally not needed.

        It’s Japan, though, the place where the prime minister leaves his post because he couldn’t keep a single promise.

      • Peter Barton says:

        I imagine if there is a license for the image and part of the license allows for editing/using the work, then it shouldn’t be too big of a problem. It’s like how there are websites where you can buy music, or buy a license to use the music for whatever. If it says that an image can be copied, edited, whatever when you purchased the image, you wouldn’t need permission since that was outlined before the deal was made.

        Now, the problem I see is that if someone bought/took an image and there wasn’t anything written about being able to trace it for other works. That’s when it’s plagiarism an should be called out on. Either that or the seller was a moron and didn’t put any restrictions on the image and can’t really do anything about it at that point.

        • “I guess you don’t know much about “fair use” since you ignored the part of “fair use” that includes parody works. ”

          I guess you haven’t been able to figure out that parody would be included under the commentary/criticism part of the provided definition.

          Also, since these were images made for profit, it cannot be argued that she was trying to make some sort of statement about the original art. Therefore fair use doesn’t apply.

          Another point is that different websites and different artists give different permissions with their images when you purchase them. Sometimes they’ll state that you have the rights to display the images for personal use, however often permission for commercial use is expressly forbidden. This is one reason it’s so hard to enforce copyright protection.

        • I guess you don’t know much about “parody” since you don’t even know the definition. It isn’t simply altering it to a degree, parody is “a work created to mock, comment on, or make fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric or ironic imitation.”

          The intent of the artist wasn’t parody, it was simple marketing. She used it to make money, not to poke fun at someone.

        • I guess you don’t know much about “fair use” since you ignored the part of “fair use” that includes parody works. If a work is altered significantly from the original source it is protected under copyright law. Since the only parts that are similar to the original are the positioning of the characters and that the characters have little resemblance then these pictures would probably be protected under the parody clause of “fair use” under copyright law.

          PS. This is based on my knowledge of U.S. copyright law but I think Japan has a similar “fair use” doctrine.

        • Ok ok ok… If I go outside and take a few photos of the sunrise or people posing, put them on the net then someone uses them… It’s hurting no one and I would actually be honoured if it was used to make something amazing like some of her art. that’s not to say that is the case. but take the picture of the guitar or bike for example… It’s a fucking guitar! If you draw a picture of my guitar I wont complain… the company who makes the guitar wont complain. Would I also be wrong to assume some of the used photos are from advertisements? Ads are not art… you can have an artist draw a piece of art for a company and the artist will be paid but after that the company can do whatever they want with that art and they don’t even have to say who originally made it. AND ALSO some of these photos are either of nothing in particular or look crap… she has taken them and made something out of them… a painter can turn a few jars of paint and a blank canvas into a master piece just as she can turn a few shitty pictures into a master piece. and how, oh how does anyone know which pictures came first? either way, she can take a piece of shit and make it into a sculpture. *end rant*

        • If permission is given on the website it was downloaded from, then it’s true that no other permission is required as the website is assumed to have obtained all necessary permissions from the artist in question. However, unless it is explicitly stated that the images may be used, any derivative works using those images is considered copyright infringement.

          Regarding the “fair use” concept, it only applies if the image is used for (from wikipedia)”commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.” It doesn’t say that just because it’s found online that it can be freely used by anyone. Since the images were used by the artist to profit from, there is no way that it can be protected by the fair use doctrine. Taking the images, and using them for your own and then taking credit for them as original works is absolutely copyright infringement, whether or not it’s specifically plagiarism or not is a matter of definitions.

        • There is also the notion of ‘fair use’, when you use the background art of someone in a picture that is yours that has no diminishing of value for the original work in question.

          Unfortunately, a lot of people forget that ‘fair use’ is a f’ing hell lot more expansive than some people would like to believe it is.

      • “Even if she did buy the images, if she used them in her own works without acknowledging or obtaining permission from the original artists, that is still copyright infringement.”

        If she bought it, she doesn’t need to credit/acknowledge anything. It’s hers to own and use as she wants. That’s kinda what premium stock photos are for, you know. But free ones (like from DA) do require credits.

        • Well, considering she also drew something with an illustration from the disc of Turn A Gundam, I’d say that in at least that case, yes, she did plagiarize the very base structure of the original drawing. It was exactly the same as that Simmons guy who was drawing his “Incarnate” comic by tracing panels from Bleach.

          Regarding the use of photography, I dunno, I’m not in the know to consider it plagiarism, since for me it’s just taking models and I don’t know about those laws, which would be a good idea to be dug around and posted here by someone who does to illuminate ignorants like me.

          However, I completely disagree with Artefact’s “2ch has uncovered plagiarism so egregious as to make even Simmons blush, were he not utterly shameless” thing. I’m of the idea that Simmons might feel flattered…

          As someone who was taught drawing and painting by a teacher with years of experience, I find it odd to see someone accused of plagiarism, when those I know and I, myself were trained to draw complicated poses by using photographies when live models weren’t available and the human body is a mass of bones and flesh that can do a determined number of poses. I see it as trying to copyright the word “FUCK” as mine.

          I agree, however, that using a photography attributed to a person without permission is plagiarism. I see it on the grounds of me taking the Mona Lisa, adding some red for the lips, painting a mole under her eye, painting over the lower part of the hair to make it disappear, painting her remaining upper hair blonde, modify the background to make it red, modifying the clothes to look like a lab coat and say I just painted Akagi Ritsuko of Evangelion with an LCL tank for a backdrop.

        • Dude, it’s mostly poses. If she copied drawnings, your case would have something to stand on.

          But poses from photos? Are you retarded to even consider it copyright?

          You can find thousands of photons with same pose and use any of them as inspiration (and seriously, coping photo is not tracking…). You can also work other way – you can find any pose in manga, and find copyrighted photo that looks the same. IF photo was made after than manga, can we sue nature and photographer for plagiarism?

        • “here’s a newsflash ALL ARTISTS USE REFERENCES! if they didnt, they wouldnt improve and their drawings would look like shit”

          Yes but these are so obviously traced, the only original thing she has done on most of them is changed the clothes or hair. When you use reference you are supposed to look at a pose and then try and draw it yourself in your own style, not trace it or copy it completely.

        • Omfg, these 2ch kunts are f**king retarded. Do they not have a life? How f**ken bored can you be to seek out those pictures and match it up with Yunomi’s artwork? Her artwork is brilliant. So what if she’d referenced REAL life stills and appropriated it into her own artwork?? Does it not take talent to do it well? She obviously did it well because a lot of people like her work. These f**ked up 2chan haters should get a life, instead of devoting so much time on demeaning people’s work.

        • These are nearly all reference. And the use of the stock photo at the end probably means a fast deadline and needed a good background. Everyone’s so quick to hate on people, what the hell? Is it somehow NEW to everyone that every good artist in existence uses references? Of course they match the poses, because it’s ANATOMY and if it didn’t, it would then look and be incorrect.

          What the hell do those lifeless cretins think they’ve done here, anyway? They’re going to destroy a legitimate career because they can’t tell the difference between referencing and tracing? Seriously? This shit’s got to stop.

        • Stock photo sites will NOT sell photos where you have to credit or notify the photographer, thats crazy. You will only find that with free stock photos. They will also not sell photos where you cant artistically modify them, that would be completely ridiculous of a rule for a stock photo considering their usage. When you go to a pay stock photo site ALL photos have the same license rights determined by the website, the photographer must agree to those terms when they submit the photos.

        • About the poses…
          For example, if you take a picture of someone with their hands in the head (like pic015) it means that no one EVER will be able to reproduce a pose like that in any way?

          This planet is gonna explode anytime….

        • It depends on the rights. If the photograph’s right include that no credit has to be given in the permission then none has to be given. That’s the contract itself, each person and artist is different.

          Not to mention there seems to be a lot of photographs that are similar to the miku picture.. to me it just seems like a bunch of nonsense in that respect. I mean she was probably using similar pictures as reference, all artists do that. Even if the image is a background image tons of artists do that too, always have. That’s nothing new really at all..

        • Most of these are only examples of the same pose, not even close to a trace.

          2ch is just going overboard and playing the find related images game in most of these examples.

          Frankly, the BS of finding related images completely discredits the ones she actually may have/probably traced.

          I call BS on 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32.

        • 6,000-13,000 yen is nothing. Getty Images charges over a $1000 for a lot of photos. If shes a professional then its almost guaranteed that she paid for them as she can just expense the costs. Theres no reason for her to steal the photos unless shes an amateur, companies are more than happy to spend a couple hundred bucks in stock photos if it means saving time. The fact that theyre all stock photos suggests that they are all legally used, if she was stealing she probably would have used amateur and copyrighted magazine photos.

        • world, stop being obsessed with possessions. its a very capitalist thought to be anal about copyrights to THAT extreme. its degrading.

          try to stay away from the capitalist terms, like “plagerism”, “copyright”, etc., and just take her as an artist, using a photo she randomly finds on the internet, and paints it. Does that sound anything wrong to you?
          She obviously has no intention of evil doing, and she is not knocking money off those photographers or models, so what is there to shame?

          look, what about the photographers, are they giving full credits to every object in the “art piece”? the models are wearing clothes. the clothes are made by chinese child labors. the credit goes to western capitalist rich people, if you care about giving credits that much, considering it righteous, think about who is actually benefitting from it. think about more, those people are the ones who started the whole “copyright” craze.

        • There comes a point where you can’t always declare that someone is copying.

          When it comes to drawing being traced, that’s an issue.

          When it comes to redrawing it in your own way, that’s NOT an issue. It’s not as if taking a picture of a birthday cake with people around it is copied from a drawing of a birthday party.