I didn't even notice that until you pointed it out.

I don't see the image of yours you speak of, and last I checked it was not a crime to imitate poses that others have already thought up.

I don't see the problem here.

Oh, you'd be surprised the kind of witchhunts that'll happen when someone notices this.

Can you elaborate?

Isn't witch hunting against site rules? Its usually against most popular websites' rules.

Rules mean nothing to those who start bullshit because they just assume they are 1000% correct. Once thats done they just start spamming the admins and eventually they either ban that person and get an army of hate, or ask the artist to remove it. Its what i have seen in the past. I dont know if thats still a thing or not.

Heres how it should go down.

>Some artist uses an already used pose or finds inspiration from it to do something really similar (nothing wrong with that)
>Some people get mad and try to attack the person
>Artist should tell them to fuck off politely without actually saying fuck off
>Artist gets reported by idiots (Maybe? So you say)
>Artist doesn't get banned because drawing art isn't against the rules
>People keep harassing and can be banned for doing so.

If people are following that - and assuming they've done nothing wrong - I wouldn't worry about drawing art inspired by others or of similar likeness.

Not necessarily a witchhunt.... more like an artist calling their fans to attack a person (or the person's fans going on their own to harass an artist)

It happens. A lot. Maybe not on here, but on DA it's rampant. Maybe because the crowd is far younger over there, and a lot of them just trace off of a popular artist's work. Then the original artist finds out, makes a journal post about it, and then next thing you know that person gets a shitload of messages against them. I know because I used to do it a lot (but I was part of a group that researched thoroughly and encouraged new artists who stole art or traced to use references. Worse case, the user got banned).

The original artist may not explicitly call out to their fans to attack the other artist, but some do it anyways. Is it white-knighting? who really knows?

Using references isn't a bad thing. It's a great thing. I reference things all the time, from photos, other people's art, etc. Sometimes there's just one part I can't get the angle right on, and someone else has. But a lot of people usually assume that reference = theft and brigade hardcore. Sure, OP's reference was definitely toeing the line, but it honestly looked different enough to where I didn't recognize the pose.

StePandy did have every right to call OP out, but using a haughty little tone like that does nothing.

I didn't even get to see the picture in question because M-P-L seems to have removed it.

aw so the pic's gone for good because of that? aww dammit

Huh, even if I was familar with that comic I wouldn't have noticed unless pointed out. Good on you for owning up to it, but is it really against the rules? Although I'm very glad I saved your pic, It was a good one! XD

Maybe you could consider redrawing the discord or having the Tia on her own, so other's can appreciate it? X3

Using anything from another's artwork is plagiarism. It sucks, I know. I remember another artist getting a take down notice years ago by Nintendo for a piece of his art. He drew an arm weapon that changed shape and had different abilities. It did not look like Samus's arm weapon either. It was simply the concept that got him the notice.

StePandy's certainly not an official MLP artist. I wonder, does StePandy have some permission from Hasbro that you don't? Funny how StePandy is an admin of antiartthiefthedooms and he/she hit you for stealing art when technically, like any MLP artist, he/she does it all the time. Just seems a tad hypocritical to me.

That being said, you could still remove or redraw Discord.

That's... not true at all. Nintendo's a litigious POS.

Wholesale copying without sourcing is plagiarism. Transformative work or inspiration is fine and part of creative processes. Hell, most people will also have no problem with pose references either. Without seeing the piece, I can't judge whether it was tracing (which is a no-no), or just reference work.

Damn it, I screwed up again. I was confusing plagiarism and copyright.

(Redacted: "Funny how StePandy is an admin of antiartthiefthedooms and he/she hit you for stealing art when technically, like any MLP artist, he/she does it all the time. Just seems a tad hypocritical to me.")

"Plagiarism: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own." "If you take another person’s words, materials, images, etc. without citing them (i.e. if you pass someone else’s work off as your own), the work is plagiarized. This applies even if you have only copied a part, rather than the whole, of another’s work." (Wish I saw these when I looked earlier.)

I saw the picture before M-P-L took it down. I can't say if it was traced because it was slightly different, but it definitely was the same pose (Which M-P-L admitted to using) which unfortunately still counts. Claiming that part as transformative may have been a bit difficult.

If it wasnt traced, its reference material. You cant copyright a pose, and you cant strip the copyright down to individual bits of a thing. You need to take the work as a whole and compare it to the work as a whole.

This right here. Everybody references. Granted, one should give credit (which StePanda/Pandy did call him out for, rather rudely I might add), but we need to stop treating referencing like it's a terrible thing. The big problem is that artists are afraid to say "hey I referenced this" because of others witchhunting, or thinking they're not a "real artist" for using references (which is horseshit).

I reference from photos (I have an entire folder of stock photos I use for reference). I also reference from other artists (mostly parts, because I have problems with visualization). But I can draw a pose, and someone can say "Hey, this looks exactly like my pose" without me never having seen it (or me having seen it a while ago and completely forgetting. It happens).

Not even the greatest artists can draw 100% from memory all the time. And I've seen artists go "I made this pose, you can't draw this pose" and it's a rather generic pose. StePanda had every right to say "hey this pose looks like mine" because it was a little more complicated, but it's a huge grey area and I'm rambling now. XD

Did some more research.

"You cannot copyright a pose" this is correct. However, a pose can be plagiarized.

Even if you use others art as just reference material "and" you are just using a piece of aforementioned art that is uncopyrightable (such as a pose), it is still plagiarism if you don't cite the reference source(s). Most people don't care/mind or won't find out about such things, but that's the legality of it.

If M-P-L did not trace and also cited the source when the post was up, then there was nothing wrong. If that is the case, M-P-L can put the original back up and StePandy can whine all he wants. If not, an edit or redraw will be required first.

I strongly agree with MattsyKun except on 1 point. 1. Not "should give credit", but "needs to give credit".

I really hope M-P-L doesn't give up on the piece just yet.

If the pose is an entire piece on its own, I'd agree. But this whole thing's getting into actual legal grey area that hasn't caught up with digital art media.

If there isn't law that specifically separate digital art media issues from other art issues, the courts would more than likely refer to the already existing art laws.

It's pretty simple to me now though...

Did StePandy think up the pose? I haven't seen an earlier piece of art with that pose so I'm going to say yes here.
Can a pose be considered an idea? I'm going to say yes. (Look at the 1st definition of plagiarism in my 2nd post. Definition by Google)
Did M-P-L use said pose? I saw the art before it was taken down and I can say yes.
Was said pose used as part of an art piece? Yes. (Look at the 2nd definition of plagiarism in my 2nd post Definition from a museum web document)
Was the pose the primary focus of both pieces? No. Definitely no copyright issue here.
Was it traced? Idk, but if it was, that's a copyright issue.
Was the source cited? Only M-P-L and those that read carefully know for sure. (If yes, nothing wrong. If no, plagiarism.)

Update to my previous post:

I can now say with certainty that the pose was not traced.
The only legally non-grey left is whether M-P-L cited source in the post description.
That is the only obstacle left in determining whether the post was okay/not okay.

Good Artist Innovate.
Great Artists Steal from Good Artists.

Nice ones cite.

I don't know why people got upset. xD I saw the original pic over on derpibooru, and yeah, the pose is similar, but definitely -not- plagiarism. Christ. xD

.... If every drawing what had a pose similar to, or was based off of another, there would be no artwork on the internet...
Seriously, unless a drawing has been deliberately traced or edited from another, there is nothing wrong. Just saying mate..