Yunomi “Ultimate Plagiarist”

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.

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.

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.

Agree with b0122. I got nothing agains tracing. And more than half of this pictures are not even tracing, but the idea base for the drawing.

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.

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

why? coz the imagination can only do so much.

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..

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....

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.

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.

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.

"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.

"These f**ked up 2chan haters should get a life, instead of devoting so much time on demeaning people's work."

NEWSFLASH!!

It's 2ch...

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?

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.

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.

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.

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*

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.

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. "

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.

Drawing pictures generally proceeds from some kind of reference - usually a photo, sometimes another drawing or a real-life model.

IMHO the artist changed enough details so that this wasn't plagiarism.

really... these are generic poses, just because it looks similar to a photograph doesn't necessary mean plagiarism was intended.

if you look closely even the details of the hands are position differently.

i don't think there's such a thing as an original pose anymore.

Only a few look to be "inspired", many ( regardless of minor changes) are nearly 100% tracings and her cred as an "artist" is fully damaged and will take a lot to recover.

Some of them seemed like a stretch really...
And some of them are pretty generic poses.

i hope i don't get crucified for drawing a circle.

lol
i agree with you sir.

Actually this is relevant: I've heard of architects and sculptors suing/harassing photographers for taking pictures of buildings, sculptures, etc. I can't remember how all that worked out though ...

We have to protect the imaginary rights of the scenery. Where are the feminazis on this one?