4 ms·
An artist using an artbook as reference material = good An artist tracing an image in an artbook and selling it = bad Seems consistent to me
by tsukikage 3y ago
An artist using an artbook as reference material = good
An artist tracing an image in an artbook and selling it = bad
Seems consistent to me
- CptFribble 3y agoI think it's worth reframing this analogy: An artist using an artbook as reference material = good An artist with one billion arms, using every artbook ever published, creating millions of images per second in every possible style for fractions of a penny per image, outcompeting every other artist forever = bad
- space_fountain 3y agoI think I'm sympathetic to that idea, but the ethical consideration there isn't that it violates copyright. It's that it's disruptive to society/the economy. Or maybe one could argue that because it's owned?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- callalex 3y agoArt books are not free, they require paying a licensing fee to the rights holder.
- tsukikage 3y agoIf the artist stole the artbook from a shop, the problem is not that they are using it as a reference; the problem is that they stole it. Likewise if they download the pdf from a pirate site. It is a separate, different problem. You can tell because there would still be a problem even if they didn't then go on to produce art, or read it at all. If, however, the rights holder chooses to just give them away; or, y'know, puts them on their own website for anyone to look at - there is then no license fee to be paid for looking. Note that this still does not mean someone can make copies and sell them. That's a separate right. But using such materials as a reference is just fine, and people do this all the time.