RedRebellion: @WalmartBob: I have the feeling that I saw this pose somewhere, but then again, it's a pose in a certain angle. So I don't give two shits about it, asl ong as this is hot, WHICH IT IS.
Anonymous3(1): i'm 110% sure most of this was traced off of an Ishikei picture, just slightly modified in areas.
tits are slightly smaller, leg is angled further, slightly changed facial expression (mouth is almost literally the same shape save the tongue)
http://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2682886
Anonymous4(1): tits are slightly smaller, leg is angled further, slightly changed facial expression (mouth is almost literally the same shape save the tongue)
http://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2682886
ofag: @Anonymous, @WalmartBob:
Well, depends on your definition of trace. Some elements were definitaly traced, if you overlay the pictures, you can see the hip width, rib cage width, navel, and most importantly, those two skin-bends on the left side of her stomach line up perfectly.
Check for yourself, here are the pictures mirrored and shifted so they line up alright if you just switch between tabs: http://i.imgur.com/KauTJHk.png, http://i.imgur.com/JTy8NWS.png
So the general shape of the torso was clearly traced, although many of the details - leg shape, breast size, etc. were altered.
I would not condemn the picture entirely for this, but it definitely not a purely original work.
Noka: @ofag: Meh. The more I switch between them the more it looks like, to me, the artist probably just saw the picture you linked and got inspired by it. Even the general torso isn't really that traced; it looks different to me.
ofag: @WalmartBob: Again, it's spoiled by the details. The guy who made the "traced" picture did put a lot of work into it, and I would not strip him of the credit. But the chance of lining up the torso proportions this perfectly just by an accident is very, very tiny.
Farfegnugen: @ofag: I took the image you linked, flipped in GIMP, and switch between the two. Boob size is way different. Face shape is different. Mouth, nose, eyes is different spots. Ryuuko's left leg is farther back. Stomach is too dissimilar. I don't have to do a overlay, do I? Maybe, as Bob said, inspired, but not a trace.
ofag: @Farfegnugen: No, you don't need to overlay it, but it would be nice if you actually read what has been posted. Changing the size of boobs or rotating the leg angle is easy. When proving a trace, you don't do it by listing the differences, but the similarities. I can guarantee you it's fully possible to trace a pic, and yet change the details to such a degree that it's absolutely unrecognizable.
But getting details such as two tiny skin folds on the girl's side that close it's mathematically improbable.
Let me put it like that, since I questioned the definition of "traced" from the very beginning:
The creator of this picture might not have "traced it" literally, but he definitely had the other picture on a lower layer while drawing, and took some of the original lines as a guidance when putting his own. He did not just look at it once or twice for inspiration.
It's not an intrinsically wrong thing in my book, since the guy definitely did put a lot of effort into making it a new picture, and not just a shitty character swap. It's not a proof of the lack of ability on his side. But it's still a fact that he did not make the picture fully on his own.
Noka: @ofag: Mathematically improbable? Maybe. But it's almost a mathematical certainty no picture out there is so unique that, given enough time, you would be unable to find another picture so similar that it looks like one is a trace of the other.
Farfegnugen: @ofag: Then I going ask this, who cares? It's not a 100%, or ever 80%, trace, just similar. There's tons of images done in that position, are we going to question all of them? The only reason why trying to beat this down is because we had artist leave the site because they were either caught and/or just didn't want to deal with our shit. >>754985 is an example of this. Sometimes it was harmless use, and then others that made little effort to change it.
I generally don't care if it was a trace or not, unless it's pretty damn close to 1:1 copy, which is pretty much art theft at that point.
ofag: @Farfegnugen: Hey, don't ask me, ask Anon, he brought it up. I'm just investigating the case because I have some sort of mental compulsion to check such stuff out when I see it brought up. I've repeatedly said that I don't see harm in it.
Though, just as a single last point I'm going to mention that the fact both pictures are in very similar resolution, and one does not need to resize them to have the silhouettes line up. It adds another layer of improbability to this being an accident.
But, alright, I'm gonna drop the case now. I think arguments I provided should be convincing enough to anybody who really sees it as a wrongdoing, and want to take it further, while those who don't care, well, don't need to. It's still a really good looking picture.
- Reply
tits are slightly smaller, leg is angled further, slightly changed facial expression (mouth is almost literally the same shape save the tongue)
http://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2682886
http://gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=2682886
- Reply
- Reply
Well, depends on your definition of trace. Some elements were definitaly traced, if you overlay the pictures, you can see the hip width, rib cage width, navel, and most importantly, those two skin-bends on the left side of her stomach line up perfectly.
Check for yourself, here are the pictures mirrored and shifted so they line up alright if you just switch between tabs: http://i.imgur.com/KauTJHk.png, http://i.imgur.com/JTy8NWS.png
So the general shape of the torso was clearly traced, although many of the details - leg shape, breast size, etc. were altered.
I would not condemn the picture entirely for this, but it definitely not a purely original work.
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
- Reply
But getting details such as two tiny skin folds on the girl's side that close it's mathematically improbable.
Let me put it like that, since I questioned the definition of "traced" from the very beginning:
The creator of this picture might not have "traced it" literally, but he definitely had the other picture on a lower layer while drawing, and took some of the original lines as a guidance when putting his own. He did not just look at it once or twice for inspiration.
It's not an intrinsically wrong thing in my book, since the guy definitely did put a lot of effort into making it a new picture, and not just a shitty character swap. It's not a proof of the lack of ability on his side. But it's still a fact that he did not make the picture fully on his own.
- Reply
- Reply
I generally don't care if it was a trace or not, unless it's pretty damn close to 1:1 copy, which is pretty much art theft at that point.
- Reply
Though, just as a single last point I'm going to mention that the fact both pictures are in very similar resolution, and one does not need to resize them to have the silhouettes line up. It adds another layer of improbability to this being an accident.
But, alright, I'm gonna drop the case now. I think arguments I provided should be convincing enough to anybody who really sees it as a wrongdoing, and want to take it further, while those who don't care, well, don't need to. It's still a really good looking picture.