Normally we handle disputes in private, but the member in question has made it very clear that they want a public statement made and public feedback given, so in this case I'm happy to make an exception.
Here's what happened:
This summer, a certain member entered into the art trade as a Devotee. Their example artworks immediately attracted concern from the mod team and from participants in the event, as they followed no specific style in a way that made many wonder if the work was traced.
After much deliberation, and taking into account feedback from other artists in the trade, we decided to move this person down to Dabbler. It was clear that the work was not up to the normal level of piece exchanged in the Devotee level, and we were hesitant to make the stronger accusation of tracing (which would be disqualifying) without any evidence. The member disagreed strongly when informed of this decision and promised to wow us with their final piece, so that we would have no choice but to let them into the Devotee division in the winter trade. We hoped that would be true!
The art trade moved ahead, and over the course of the months it ran, a few dogged members were able to locate all of the original artworks the submitted example images had been copied from, and submitted their findings to us. It is important to note that overlay comparisons didn't support the idea that they'd been traced; rather, it looked like a freehand drawing done with the original artworks as an exact, almost no details changed basis, rather than simply as a pose reference or the like.
Since the person had felt it was okay to claim those reproductions of other people's artworks as fully their own work and examples of what they could do as an artist, there was a lot of concern that the final piece that had been submitted to the trade might also fall into this category. Since it had taken all summer to track down the proof that the original three drawings were reproductions of other copyrighted works, we chose to just play it safe and immediately commissioned a replacement piece for the recipient so that they would not have to worry about getting a letter saying they had copied artwork in their character gallery.
About this time, the member in question sent Loki a PM saying they felt that their final piece for the art trade proved they should be in the Devotee level, and asked her to reconsider the earlier ruling going forward. Loki got busy, so I took over the conversation, and let the person know that we had recently become aware that their examples weren't really their own compositions, and that while referencing is a perfectly accepted practice, common and encouraged, there's a line where it's just plain copying, and that because it cast so much suspicion on the piece we'd had to replace it at our expense. The only responses I received basically said that the member was insulted we would think that.
Jump forward in time to this art trade, the member entered again with examples in a similar style, and we immediately received concerned PMs that people felt like they had seen those pictures somewhere before.
We hesitated because we once again didn't have immediate proof that the images were over-referenced or copied this time. Maybe the earlier incident had been enough of a warning to prevent it from happening again? Our eventual decision was that
1) we didn't want to spend another several months trying to find the original artworks it may have been copied from, if indeed it was, and risk maybe having to commission replacement art again, and
2) the art trade is an unusual event in that it is trust-based: each member has to trust that the other people in it are doing the work that they promised, and that the piece they are eventually gifted isn't traced or otherwise mainly a reproduction of someone else's work. Because it can be so hard to prove whether something is original or not, it's mainly on the honor system. We didn't think we could ask someone to extend that trust when it had already been violated once, and no understanding as to why we felt the social contract had been violated had ever been exhibited.
When told that we needed them to sit out the art trade, the member was understandably upset, and today posted a series of accusations on the art trade thread (since removed) asking us to provide proof that this year's works were over-referenced. I'll freely say that we can't right now; we just suspect. We could be wrong. We just aren't wanting to put our money on the line to vouch for someone who's been busted once before, nor are we wanting to talk someone into being okay with receiving a piece with that kind of suspicion in the artist's recent past.
What could this person do to dispel those suspicions, now that they've settled on them? Are they doomed to be an art trade pariah forever? That's a reasonable concern. I do think that a great first step would be an acknowledgement that the original three provided example images were not original work, and some indication that it's understood why that is so disturbing to us.
I'm happy to hear public feedback about how you think situations like this one should be handled in future art trades.
TL;DR: Someone submitted copied artworks as examples of their best work to the summer art trade and got caught. We don't know one way or another about the final work they gave to their trade partner, but to be safe we paid to have an artist do a new piece to replace it because there was so much suspicion on the artist after that discovery. We've decided not to let them participate in the winter art trade, and possibly more art trades going forward, because we feel that the art trade requires trust between members, and that that trust had been violated.
Here's what happened:
This summer, a certain member entered into the art trade as a Devotee. Their example artworks immediately attracted concern from the mod team and from participants in the event, as they followed no specific style in a way that made many wonder if the work was traced.
After much deliberation, and taking into account feedback from other artists in the trade, we decided to move this person down to Dabbler. It was clear that the work was not up to the normal level of piece exchanged in the Devotee level, and we were hesitant to make the stronger accusation of tracing (which would be disqualifying) without any evidence. The member disagreed strongly when informed of this decision and promised to wow us with their final piece, so that we would have no choice but to let them into the Devotee division in the winter trade. We hoped that would be true!
The art trade moved ahead, and over the course of the months it ran, a few dogged members were able to locate all of the original artworks the submitted example images had been copied from, and submitted their findings to us. It is important to note that overlay comparisons didn't support the idea that they'd been traced; rather, it looked like a freehand drawing done with the original artworks as an exact, almost no details changed basis, rather than simply as a pose reference or the like.
Since the person had felt it was okay to claim those reproductions of other people's artworks as fully their own work and examples of what they could do as an artist, there was a lot of concern that the final piece that had been submitted to the trade might also fall into this category. Since it had taken all summer to track down the proof that the original three drawings were reproductions of other copyrighted works, we chose to just play it safe and immediately commissioned a replacement piece for the recipient so that they would not have to worry about getting a letter saying they had copied artwork in their character gallery.
About this time, the member in question sent Loki a PM saying they felt that their final piece for the art trade proved they should be in the Devotee level, and asked her to reconsider the earlier ruling going forward. Loki got busy, so I took over the conversation, and let the person know that we had recently become aware that their examples weren't really their own compositions, and that while referencing is a perfectly accepted practice, common and encouraged, there's a line where it's just plain copying, and that because it cast so much suspicion on the piece we'd had to replace it at our expense. The only responses I received basically said that the member was insulted we would think that.
Jump forward in time to this art trade, the member entered again with examples in a similar style, and we immediately received concerned PMs that people felt like they had seen those pictures somewhere before.
We hesitated because we once again didn't have immediate proof that the images were over-referenced or copied this time. Maybe the earlier incident had been enough of a warning to prevent it from happening again? Our eventual decision was that
1) we didn't want to spend another several months trying to find the original artworks it may have been copied from, if indeed it was, and risk maybe having to commission replacement art again, and
2) the art trade is an unusual event in that it is trust-based: each member has to trust that the other people in it are doing the work that they promised, and that the piece they are eventually gifted isn't traced or otherwise mainly a reproduction of someone else's work. Because it can be so hard to prove whether something is original or not, it's mainly on the honor system. We didn't think we could ask someone to extend that trust when it had already been violated once, and no understanding as to why we felt the social contract had been violated had ever been exhibited.
When told that we needed them to sit out the art trade, the member was understandably upset, and today posted a series of accusations on the art trade thread (since removed) asking us to provide proof that this year's works were over-referenced. I'll freely say that we can't right now; we just suspect. We could be wrong. We just aren't wanting to put our money on the line to vouch for someone who's been busted once before, nor are we wanting to talk someone into being okay with receiving a piece with that kind of suspicion in the artist's recent past.
What could this person do to dispel those suspicions, now that they've settled on them? Are they doomed to be an art trade pariah forever? That's a reasonable concern. I do think that a great first step would be an acknowledgement that the original three provided example images were not original work, and some indication that it's understood why that is so disturbing to us.
I'm happy to hear public feedback about how you think situations like this one should be handled in future art trades.
TL;DR: Someone submitted copied artworks as examples of their best work to the summer art trade and got caught. We don't know one way or another about the final work they gave to their trade partner, but to be safe we paid to have an artist do a new piece to replace it because there was so much suspicion on the artist after that discovery. We've decided not to let them participate in the winter art trade, and possibly more art trades going forward, because we feel that the art trade requires trust between members, and that that trust had been violated.
I'm not an artist, but I have massive respect for those willing to put in the time and effort to become so. So it really pisses me off when people try to pass off copied work as their own.
Now as for this member, since they have shown that they are unwilling to accept the fact that they have been caught, let alone apologize, then I think they should be banned from the art trades indefinitely. The only way I think it would be fair to let them participate again would be if they admitted to the theft, publicly apologized and provided restitution for the replacement art commission.
Now as for this member, since they have shown that they are unwilling to accept the fact that they have been caught, let alone apologize, then I think they should be banned from the art trades indefinitely. The only way I think it would be fair to let them participate again would be if they admitted to the theft, publicly apologized and provided restitution for the replacement art commission.
It almost sounds to me like the member in question has a different definition of what 'original artwork' is. It might be a good idea to have some examples on hand to show people what we think constitutes as tracing, copying and 'no effort given'. It's a bit of a gray area sometimes, but having a starting point to show people "This is okay but this isn't" might help dispel inaccurate definitions people may have.
I've seen the pieces this member provided and I've seen some of the original images that they were copied from (I was a participant in that trade as well, had those same concerns and poked around a little as those examples looked really familiar to me, then found some of the originals). As an artist of over a decade and a half, I can honestly say that what they provided as examples were not portrayals of original artwork. What I saw were already existing Anime characters being replicated in drawings. Not traced, but replicated all the same, much the same way one would draw their favorite character from a cartoon by using official artwork as reference and copying everything from that original artwork. (Most of us have done this at one point or another throughout childhood and teen years. There's nothing wrong with that, provided you're only using that for your own private art collection - not as reference for a trade where you can't use that method.)
In a trade where we're supposed to draw each other's often unique, original characters, it's unfair for someone to use an existing Anime character as a base even if they change details about it, like hair color, to make it more like the recipient's character. It's also unfair to those artists who work really hard to draw something from scratch without relying on such examples to be their working base. Copying is not what this trade is about. Even if the member disagrees on the definition, I think any other participating artist presented with evidence from the Summer trade will agree that it was, in fact, copying.
Actions have consequences. The trade rules are explicitly clear that the artwork has to be original, and that tracing/copying is not allowed. If someone makes the conscious decision to break this rule, they have no business in these trades.
For people who are caught but refuse to admit they messed up, I think a permanent ban from entering is appropriate - at least until they make genuine efforts to apologize and can show, without a doubt, they've moved on from copying and can produce acceptable art without relying on other artwork. For those who admit to copying and apologize appropriately, a 1 year ban from entering the trades is appropriate. They still broke a very sensitive rule and violated trust, and that warrants some punishment to make sure they understand it is NOT acceptable.
Of course, any repeat violations on copying art should automatically result in a permanent ban from entering. I am more than willing to accept people make mistakes for a lot of different reasons, and I think second chances need to exist as people do change, but if you're given a second chance and ruin that one too, then I don't think you're really that interested in playing nice.
What constitutes a genuine apology/effort? I think a public one at least. Maybe with a good reason as to why they did it, so we can understand and help them. A good reason would be, "I feel like I'm not good enough on my own, so I used those images to copy from". A bad reason would be "I thought it would be okay". If someone for example feels insecure about their skill, I'm certain we're more than capable of giving them tips, critique and feedback while they practice until they can participate again. When they explain why they did it, it also shows self-reflection, something which I appreciate quite a lot and only leads to personal growth and accepting responsibility. All the signs of someone who is really sorry and wants to work hard not to mess up again.
I don't think demanding a restitution for the replacement commission is appropriate, because we can't expect people to pay real money for a free trade. Especially when they're minors, especially when it's something that is very human to do, even if it's wrong. And if they had to cheat to enter the trade, they're not quite at a point where a replacement art piece is doable or even accepted by the person who got the short end of the stick in the trade.
My own TL;DR: Actions have consequences, people should be punished for copying with a minimum 1 year ban, provided they genuinely apologize in public and show good efforts to earn the trust from the community back. Those who refuse to admit it despite being caught deserve a perma ban from entering. I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to pay money or re-do art because that's not part of the trade deal.
Edit: As an afterthought, I want to say I support the current decision of not letting them enter again, especially with the attitude shown. People who lie about this sort of thing and refuse to admit they lied when they were caught before, generally don't change their ways. It would be unfair to force someone to put on a fake smile and say "Thanks" for a piece they can't even trust to be genuine, and for RPR to have to put money into this to make up for that, when it can be prevented.
This user made their decision to say "But I didn't do that" even when confronted with the evidence from the previous trade. They made the choice to post a public rant to challenge the decision made by the mods. If they'd behaved with more grace and maturity and owned up to it, this wouldn't have happened and I'm sure a majority of the artists in the trade would have given them another chance. But they decided to not make that happen, and that's unfortunate.
I've seen the pieces this member provided and I've seen some of the original images that they were copied from (I was a participant in that trade as well, had those same concerns and poked around a little as those examples looked really familiar to me, then found some of the originals). As an artist of over a decade and a half, I can honestly say that what they provided as examples were not portrayals of original artwork. What I saw were already existing Anime characters being replicated in drawings. Not traced, but replicated all the same, much the same way one would draw their favorite character from a cartoon by using official artwork as reference and copying everything from that original artwork. (Most of us have done this at one point or another throughout childhood and teen years. There's nothing wrong with that, provided you're only using that for your own private art collection - not as reference for a trade where you can't use that method.)
In a trade where we're supposed to draw each other's often unique, original characters, it's unfair for someone to use an existing Anime character as a base even if they change details about it, like hair color, to make it more like the recipient's character. It's also unfair to those artists who work really hard to draw something from scratch without relying on such examples to be their working base. Copying is not what this trade is about. Even if the member disagrees on the definition, I think any other participating artist presented with evidence from the Summer trade will agree that it was, in fact, copying.
Actions have consequences. The trade rules are explicitly clear that the artwork has to be original, and that tracing/copying is not allowed. If someone makes the conscious decision to break this rule, they have no business in these trades.
For people who are caught but refuse to admit they messed up, I think a permanent ban from entering is appropriate - at least until they make genuine efforts to apologize and can show, without a doubt, they've moved on from copying and can produce acceptable art without relying on other artwork. For those who admit to copying and apologize appropriately, a 1 year ban from entering the trades is appropriate. They still broke a very sensitive rule and violated trust, and that warrants some punishment to make sure they understand it is NOT acceptable.
Of course, any repeat violations on copying art should automatically result in a permanent ban from entering. I am more than willing to accept people make mistakes for a lot of different reasons, and I think second chances need to exist as people do change, but if you're given a second chance and ruin that one too, then I don't think you're really that interested in playing nice.
What constitutes a genuine apology/effort? I think a public one at least. Maybe with a good reason as to why they did it, so we can understand and help them. A good reason would be, "I feel like I'm not good enough on my own, so I used those images to copy from". A bad reason would be "I thought it would be okay". If someone for example feels insecure about their skill, I'm certain we're more than capable of giving them tips, critique and feedback while they practice until they can participate again. When they explain why they did it, it also shows self-reflection, something which I appreciate quite a lot and only leads to personal growth and accepting responsibility. All the signs of someone who is really sorry and wants to work hard not to mess up again.
I don't think demanding a restitution for the replacement commission is appropriate, because we can't expect people to pay real money for a free trade. Especially when they're minors, especially when it's something that is very human to do, even if it's wrong. And if they had to cheat to enter the trade, they're not quite at a point where a replacement art piece is doable or even accepted by the person who got the short end of the stick in the trade.
My own TL;DR: Actions have consequences, people should be punished for copying with a minimum 1 year ban, provided they genuinely apologize in public and show good efforts to earn the trust from the community back. Those who refuse to admit it despite being caught deserve a perma ban from entering. I'm not in favor of forcing anyone to pay money or re-do art because that's not part of the trade deal.
Edit: As an afterthought, I want to say I support the current decision of not letting them enter again, especially with the attitude shown. People who lie about this sort of thing and refuse to admit they lied when they were caught before, generally don't change their ways. It would be unfair to force someone to put on a fake smile and say "Thanks" for a piece they can't even trust to be genuine, and for RPR to have to put money into this to make up for that, when it can be prevented.
This user made their decision to say "But I didn't do that" even when confronted with the evidence from the previous trade. They made the choice to post a public rant to challenge the decision made by the mods. If they'd behaved with more grace and maturity and owned up to it, this wouldn't have happened and I'm sure a majority of the artists in the trade would have given them another chance. But they decided to not make that happen, and that's unfortunate.
I think I've got to agree with both Sanne and Katia. It's not that the original issue was a problem, more of a faux pas, possibly born out of ignorance or misinterpretation.
But how they handled themselves, with denials, insults, accusations, and a great deal of childishness...
You don't get to steal someone else's stuff and call it your own, then get mad about it when you're caught. I suck at art, that's why I don't participate in art trades. I can imagine the mortification that someone would feel just receiving my trashy, crapped out, dolan duck-looking art. I would be enormously upset and angry if I had given someone something original and up to par, only to find out that what they sent in return was plagiarism. Or worse, not knowing and finding out as this person's trade partners were notified that "Hey, these are rip offs and copyright infringement."
I say that a semi permanent ban ought to be put into place, with possible reconsideration much further down the road.
But how they handled themselves, with denials, insults, accusations, and a great deal of childishness...
You don't get to steal someone else's stuff and call it your own, then get mad about it when you're caught. I suck at art, that's why I don't participate in art trades. I can imagine the mortification that someone would feel just receiving my trashy, crapped out, dolan duck-looking art. I would be enormously upset and angry if I had given someone something original and up to par, only to find out that what they sent in return was plagiarism. Or worse, not knowing and finding out as this person's trade partners were notified that "Hey, these are rip offs and copyright infringement."
I say that a semi permanent ban ought to be put into place, with possible reconsideration much further down the road.
i agree that a clear visual definition of what tracing is would be of benefit in future trades. perhaps an extra pledge added to the application form also ("i have read and understand the difference between tracing/copying and referencing."). it's not lie-proof obviously, but it will mean that all potential participants entering the trades should be aware of what's acceptable and what isn't. "i have read and understand the rules" isn't effective when someone believes that what they're doing isn't tracing/copying because they've changed or added some features.
i've looked up some good examples: http://orig01.deviantart.net/9cdb/f/2016/236/3/f/the_difference_is_clear_by_ninjakato-daf3q5j.png
http://img10.deviantart.net/bf22/i/2014/067/f/8/tracing_and_referencing_by_vengefulspirits-d78ds1g.png and i'd be willing to draw a guide of our own for this purpose (dunno if these artists would be comfortable with these being used).
i've looked up some good examples: http://orig01.deviantart.net/9cdb/f/2016/236/3/f/the_difference_is_clear_by_ninjakato-daf3q5j.png
http://img10.deviantart.net/bf22/i/2014/067/f/8/tracing_and_referencing_by_vengefulspirits-d78ds1g.png and i'd be willing to draw a guide of our own for this purpose (dunno if these artists would be comfortable with these being used).
I believe they should be blacklisted until there is substantial evidence that the one in question is no longer copying artwork. So, for the foreseeable future unless evidence otherwise is provided.
As an artist i take this sort of thing very seriously, though I generally will put it down to ignorance (which still doesn't mean its excuseable) unless otherwise disprove but a lack of willingness to understand why it has caused such a problem is understandably frustrating. Perhaps in time their understanding will grow, as their artistic style develops. That's how it worked for me.
As an artist i take this sort of thing very seriously, though I generally will put it down to ignorance (which still doesn't mean its excuseable) unless otherwise disprove but a lack of willingness to understand why it has caused such a problem is understandably frustrating. Perhaps in time their understanding will grow, as their artistic style develops. That's how it worked for me.
I am also for the idea that the user should be blacklisted from the events till otherwise proven that they are no longer copying/tracing. It's almost insulting to have all these artists come together to make something unique and special for someone else and then to have someone else come in and recreate something that has already been made and is arguably a popularly seen piece of work be offered.
I can get using something for reference if you cannot fully draw it from memory and would like something to go off of... but recreating it to a T or tracing it is definitely one of those things that crosses a line for being okay to give someone as a 'unique' piece when, in actuality, it is not unique.
I can get using something for reference if you cannot fully draw it from memory and would like something to go off of... but recreating it to a T or tracing it is definitely one of those things that crosses a line for being okay to give someone as a 'unique' piece when, in actuality, it is not unique.
I agree with what all the other people in this thread has said, but I want to add two things
- The burden of proof should be changed from the Moderators to the member in question. Any artist worth their salt who heavily references a picture can point to their source. In fact, if you look around sites such as Deviantart, you'll often see people crediting pose stock artists and other such resources. If the member in question wants to prove their art is not too close to the original they should be able to provide their references.
- I feel like the tutorials Rat linked are missing a vital detail - and that is the difference between referencing somebody elses art and referencing a resource provided to artists. To this day I still have to use references for even moderately complex poses. But I always use resources I have permission to use. I think this is a really big distinction.
- The burden of proof should be changed from the Moderators to the member in question. Any artist worth their salt who heavily references a picture can point to their source. In fact, if you look around sites such as Deviantart, you'll often see people crediting pose stock artists and other such resources. If the member in question wants to prove their art is not too close to the original they should be able to provide their references.
- I feel like the tutorials Rat linked are missing a vital detail - and that is the difference between referencing somebody elses art and referencing a resource provided to artists. To this day I still have to use references for even moderately complex poses. But I always use resources I have permission to use. I think this is a really big distinction.
The reason I mentioned restitution was that I believe my dad's saying of: The person who injures me is the one who needs to make me whole." In my mind they injured RPR financially and thus to earn forgiveness they should make the site whole again. Though I can understand Sanne's point, particularly if they are a minor.
Claine wrote:
But I always use resources I have permission to use. I think this is a really big distinction.
This is super important, yeah! Those links provided were more a response to this particular case, but I'm considering making a guide for us in the next couple days (pending mod approval) and will include this if so, along with why tracing stylized art is detrimental to progress as an artist.
rat wrote:
Claine wrote:
But I always use resources I have permission to use. I think this is a really big distinction.
This is super important, yeah! Those links provided were more a response to this particular case, but I'm considering making a guide for us in the next couple days (pending mod approval) and will include this if so, along with why tracing stylized art is detrimental to progress as an artist.
This is a good idea, but if you do end up making a guide, I would suggest separating that lattermost part into a different one, or else keeping it really short. Not because it's not important--it is!--but because any resource linked from the art trade rules should endeavor to be as concise as possible, since then people will be more likely to read the whole thing.
Heimdall wrote:
This is a good idea, but if you do end up making a guide, I would suggest separating that lattermost part into a different one, or else keeping it really short. Not because it's not important--it is!--but because any resource linked from the art trade rules should endeavor to be as concise as possible, since then people will be more likely to read the whole thing.
absolutely! it's going to essentially be a few simple definitions with pictures as examples - "tracing is... copying/heavy referencing is... loose referencing is...", a comment about artist permission, how it's unfair on a trade partner who put in 100% of their own work and didn't get 100% back, and about why tracing should be a learning tool and not a crutch. i've got approval now so i'll be working on it shortly, and i'll be consulting the mods to ensure the tone is friendly and impartial.
Thank you so much for the feedback, guys! 
I am reading every word and taking it to heart.
I am reading every word and taking it to heart.
This is all great feedback guys, and I know it will help me out in running the art trades moving forward. Also thank you rat for offering to make a guide! I think it will be very useful
You are on: Forums » Smalltalk » A recent art trade policy decision