Derivation, reference or my own?

[Tamara2202]

Ok sorry if this is asked before. I couldn't find anything during search or maybe I didn't look properly, cause I don't know how to describe it. English isn't my native language.

I'm a bit lost in copyright things. All the legal stuff is kinda confusing for me. I just want to know, if I take an online course at drawing, to learn techniques on how to shade for instance, and how to draw eyes, the outcome will be different than the tutorial gives you. Is the outcome mine? Is it a derivation of the original in the tutorial, or are you taking the tutorial for reference? When I follow tutorials, but I'm changing the outcome to my style, is the outcome ok to sell? I think even the greatest artist need sometimes a hand at drawing an item

so my question is. The tutorial will still be copyrighted by the writer. But what about the outcome?

I hope you understand what I mean

thank you in advance

[mariposa-art]

If the "outcome" is still very recognizable as something that was very likely done by following that specific tutorial (so the person writing the tutorial can recognize—without being told—that you followed their tutorial) then I wouldn't try to sell it. Well, maybe sell it at some local fair or something, but still, it doesn't seem right somehow. But if for instance you're following a tutorial on how to paint some pears and oranges in oils, and in your painting, you change it to lemons and apples, then that would be okay to sell.

[Tamara2202]

thank you for your answer.

I'm trying to get more into cartoon drawing. There are loads of tutorials and how to's and step by step on the net. I just make them my own style, bigger noses, different eyes, weird hair. Maybe the pose will be a bit similar cause I'm struggling mostly with that. But can you see similarity? I don't think so.I don't know actually.

I do understand that tutorials are there to improve your techniques, or learn you something new, but I don't understand that you can't include the stuff you've learned into art you can sell even if you made it your own style, what's the use of tutorials then?

[Greg Long]

Whether they are different enough to be legal to sell or not would be a moot point in my opinion.
You should not be selling practice and/or learning pieces, particularly from tutorials. If asking people to spend money on art, it should be at least competent and original. If you found someone sold you something that had been copied how would you feel? If you are learning your trade, learn it well by all and any means, including copying, which is a very valid and long used method, but don't ask people to spend hard earned money on something that has little value other than it's value as a learning tool for you.

[Tamara2202]

Guess I didn't explain my self well than, cause it was just something I want to understand when it's a copy and when it's a derivation or using a tutorial as a reference. If your outcome is the same as the tutorial example of course that a straight copy. But you can twist and turn and interpretate tutorials different, so you can learn from it but use your own interpretation of the lesson learned. I've read your post as a bit harsh, so sorry I stepped on your toes

[Greg Long]

Originally Posted by Tamara2202

Guess I didn't explain my self well than, cause it was just something I want to understand when it's a copy and when it's a derivation or using a tutorial as a reference. If your outcome is the same as the tutorial example of course that a straight copy. But you can twist and turn and interpretate tutorials different, so you can learn from it but use your own interpretation of the lesson learned. I've read your post as a bit harsh, so sorry I stepped on your toes

I'm sorry if you read my post as harsh, but your original question read as you wanted to know could you sell works completed from following tutorials.
If you are following a tutorial the work is not your own, it is a copy done for learning purposes.
Tutorials are usually copyright protected, and use only given for educational purposes and selling the results will not be allowed.
To put your question in other terms, hopefully less harsh, a total beginner's attempt at following a tutorial will be nothing like the original, would you consider that fit for sale? If my reply seemed harsh, it may be that you are assuming we know what the resulting work looks like, even though we see no image.

As to whether it is a copy or a derivative can only really be decided by a court of law, if we saw both images we could give an opinion, but that is as far as anyone can say.

[mariposa-art]

Originally Posted by Greg Long

Tutorials are usually copyright protected, and use only given for educational purposes and selling the results will not be allowed.

Where is this written in copyright law? I'm confused.

As far as I know, copyright kicks in when the derivative work is similar enough to the original that a reasonable person could see that the derivative work was "derived" from the original. If it's been changed enough so the resemblance is no longer there, I fail to see how it's not "allowed" to sell the results. Who says? Who enforces this? How can it even be proven, if the resemblance is no longer there?

Going back to my original example, if someone follows a tutorial for a still life of pears and oranges, but in their painting (done by following the tutorial) they change it to apples and lemons, then it's probably different enough. (This is assuming there's not something else very distinguishing in the still life that would tip everyone off that the student followed the tutorial for the pears and oranges still life.)

If enough things are changed, then the tutorial becomes more of a "reference" instead of a slavishly, carefully-copied student work.

Now, one might say it's not wise to try to sell student work, but no one told me that, and I know I've sold work that was first created for practice. (In my case, it was figure drawing sketches done in life drawing class.) If someone likes the artwork, and it doesn't violate anyone's copyright, then why can't they sell it? I see a lot of obviously newbie work being put up for sale and occasionally it will sell. The buyer isn't blind; their eyes tell them the skill level of the artist whose work they're buying, and either they're willing to pay the price to own the work, or they aren't.

[Greg Long]

Originally Posted by mariposa-art

Where is this written in copyright law? I'm confused.

It is usually denoted by the copyright sign on the DVD, book or other media.

As far as I know, copyright kicks in when the derivative work is similar enough to the original that a reasonable person could see that the derivative work was "derived" from the original.

As the previous post stated, copyright is decided by a court of law. However artists, who are after all creative people, should be creative enough to avoid any need to decide if the art is similar enough or not.

[Tamara2202]

Thanks Mariposa, that's was kinda the thing which I wanted to know. If you can't see that you used a tutorial, who would know you even followed one. When will be inspiration become plagiarism? ( Good brainfood here).

[mariposa-art]

Originally Posted by Greg Long

It is usually denoted by the copyright sign on the DVD, book or other media.

Thanks, but what I'm more specifically asking is, where is it written that following a tutorial, but changing the outcome to such an extent that it is no longer recognizable—where is it written that that is a violation of copyright law, and if it is a violation, how is it enforceable, considering that the derivative work is no longer recognizable as being done by following the tutorial?

As the previous post stated, copyright is decided by a court of law. However artists, who are after all creative people, should be creative enough to avoid any need to decide if the art is similar enough or not.

It's not uncommon for an artist to find various pictures from Google images and use them as reference. As long as they're careful to not copy any one reference too closely they're fine, since their work doesn't resemble any one reference enough to be a violation.

This pdf ( http://www.arawindsor.com/uploads/Ar...yright_Law.pdf ) explains it:

• NOT ALLOWED: I find a copyrighted photo of a cardinal on a greeting card. I copy it exactly in my own medium, sign my name to it, and put it up for sale.
• NOT ALLOWED: I find an unusual shot of a cardinal on a professional photographer’s online gallery. I really like it and so I decide to paint it. Everything in my painting is identical except that I make the background a different color. I sell it as my own original work.
• ALLOWED: I use three or four reference shots – one from an encyclopedia, another from a birdwatcher’s manual, a magazine, etc. – to make sure my cardinal has overall good proportions and accurate details, but the composition is my own. The backdrop/props I paint from my head, or use a totally different set of reference photos. The final artwork is completely mine and I am allowed to do pretty much anything I want with it.

Artists use "reference" all the time like this. How is this bad?

As for the OP, we can't see what she's doing, but if—as I keep on saying—she's changed everything around so much that the writer of the tutorial can no longer tell that she used their tutorial, I fail to see what the issue is. And even if she used the "pose" in the tutorial, but everything else is drastically different, I still don't see what the issue is. As far as I know, poses can't be copyrighted.

[Greg Long]

Originally Posted by mariposa-art

Artists use "reference" all the time like this. How is this bad?

Where has it been said references are bad?

The OP stated:
I just want to know, if I take an online course at drawing, to learn techniques on how to shade for instance, and how to draw eyes, the outcome will be different than the tutorial gives you. Is the outcome mine? Is it a derivation of the original in the tutorial, or are you taking the tutorial for reference? When I follow tutorials, but I'm changing the outcome to my style, is the outcome ok to sell? I think even the greatest artist need sometimes a hand at drawing an item

This is not if I use images or tutorials for reference is it ok.
The outcome is the result of the OP copying the tutorial.

[mariposa-art]

Originally Posted by Greg Long

Where has it been said references are bad?

Well, it was a bit confusing, because both Tamara and I have been talking about using a tutorial but changing it to the point where it is very different. I repeatedly talked about the outcome of a tutorial being so different, that the creator of the tutorial wouldn't recognize it anymore.

Like I asked here (bolding added to highlight the particular issue I'm talking about):

As far as I know, copyright kicks in when the derivative work is similar enough to the original that a reasonable person could see that the derivative work was "derived" from the original. If it's been changed enough so the resemblance is no longer there, I fail to see how it's not "allowed" to sell the results. Who says? Who enforces this? How can it even be proven, if the resemblance is no longer there?

And then I asked the same thing again later. I'm not sure where the confusion lies here.

This is not if I use images or tutorials for reference is it ok.
The outcome is the result of the OP copying the tutorial.

While we can't see Tamara's work done from a tutorial, let's say for the sake of argument, she "follows" the tutorial but changes things around a lot. (This sounds like her aim, anyway.) So let's say it's changed around a lot, to the point where the tutorial author wouldn't recognize that she followed their tutorial. Would you consider this legal (under copyright law) or illegal? And if you think it would be illegal, how would it be enforceable or provable, since the "derivative" work is now so dramatically altered that it is no longer recognizable?

[Greg Long]

Originally Posted by mariposa-art

While we can't see Tamara's work done from a tutorial, let's say for the sake of argument, she "follows" the tutorial but changes things around a lot. (This sounds like her aim, anyway.) So let's say it's changed around a lot, to the point where the tutorial author wouldn't recognize that she followed their tutorial. Would you consider this legal (under copyright law) or illegal? And if you think it would be illegal, how would it be enforceable or provable, since the "derivative" work is now so dramatically altered that it is no longer recognizable?

This is a moot point. You are offering legal advice with no idea as to the amount of change or difference. When giving legal advice you err on safety, and avoid causing someone to have a false sense of legality. When you are assuming there is a high level of change you may be misleading the enquirer as to the standing of a certain work.
This thread is in the legal forum, asking for legal advice, while the forum disclaimer tells members that the advice is not competent legal advice, and

Unless otherwise stated, all information posted in the legal forum by WetCanvas members is not intended as legal advice, but merely as opinion and general information.

we should still be extremely careful about giving misleading or incorrect advice to others without obtaining all the facts, such as how much an image has changed.
Ifs and buts are all well and good in a discussion thread, but are not a good idea in a legal advice forum.

Well, it was a bit confusing, because both Tamara and I have been talking about using a tutorial but changing it to the point where it is very different.

Again, Tamara has not indicated the level of difference, she has said "the outcome will be different than the tutorial gives you" there is no indication as to the level of difference which is why I stated "if we saw both images we could give an opinion, but that is as far as anyone can say."
I should also point out that in your first post you said "If the "outcome" is still very recognizable as something that was very likely done by following that specific tutorial (so the person writing the tutorial can recognize—without being told—that you followed their tutorial) then I wouldn't try to sell it. Well, maybe sell it at some local fair or something" this is incorrect legal advice, wherever you sell items infringing copyright it is wrong. It is wrong whether the IP holder knows their IP rights have been violated or not.

[mariposa-art]

Originally Posted by Greg Long

This is a moot point. You are offering legal advice with no idea as to the amount of change or difference. When giving legal advice you err on safety, and avoid causing someone to have a false sense of legality.

We can discuss when something is "unrecognizable" or not, can't we?

The OP will have to use her judgement and take the risks. I think she realizes there are risks, and that the bar has been set high ("unrecognizable"). It's been made clear (by me anyway) that she'll have to change it around a lot for her to be free and clear to use it. But I don't think it's correct to suggest that even "unrecognizable" is not sufficient, or too risky.

Ifs and buts are all well and good in a discussion thread, but are not a good idea in a legal advice forum.

I quoted that PDF linked to earlier ( http://www.arawindsor.com/uploads/Ar...yright_Law.pdf ) for a reason. It outlines the specifics of what is and is not legal. I think she can get a pretty good idea of how to use a "reference" (and yes, that could include using a tutorial) from that document. Because according to that document (which is offering legal advice) referring to someone else's work without prior permission is not always illegal. Unless you are claiming that it actually is, and that PDF is giving out irresponsible advice?

I was very specific in asking, if she made the "outcome" unrecognizable, is it still illegal. But I get no yes or no. So if we can't even get a yes or no for "unrecognizable," then I think we can't get a yes or no for any form of referencing, even using several different photos and changing the work around so it's completely different. Because if "unrecognizable" isn't good enough or is still too risky, then forget ever using any reference, ever, unless you own it or have permission?

But if you think the PDF document is correct, and it is okay to reference several photos and/or change things so much so that it's a new work, why is it legal to do that, but following a tutorial but changing things so it's also a completely new work ("unrecognizable") is somehow too risky or not legal? This is the part that I find confusing.

I should also point out that in your first post you said "If the "outcome" is still very recognizable as something that was very likely done by following that specific tutorial (so the person writing the tutorial can recognize—without being told—that you followed their tutorial) then I wouldn't try to sell it. Well, maybe sell it at some local fair or something" this is incorrect legal advice, wherever you sell items infringing copyright it is wrong. It is wrong whether the IP holder knows their IP rights have been violated or not.

I also said that it "doesn't seem right somehow." It's still there for everyone to see, so I don't know why you edited that part out! I expressed my doubts about selling under those circumstances.

[Greg Long]

Originally Posted by mariposa-art

I also said that it "doesn't seem right somehow." It's still there for everyone to see, so I don't know why you edited that part out! I expressed my doubts about selling under those circumstances.

This is the point you seem to be missing, in legal issues there is no doubt. It is either legal or it is not. I am not commenting on moral issues, to which your doubts would be relevant, but they are irrelevant to the legal issue.

But if you think the PDF document is correct, and it is okay to reference several photos and/or change things so much so that it's a new work, why is it legal to do that, but following a tutorial but changing things so it's also a completely new work ("unrecognizable") is somehow too risky or not legal? This is the part that I find confusing.

If it is changed to a degree of being unrecognisable, it would usually be legal, but again with no images we cannot offer a valid opinion on this, and this is the crux of the matter, in legal issues it is far better to err on the side of safety than give an opinion that is indistinct and open to misinterpretation.
There is an old saying, never assume, it makes an ASS of U and ME, assuming Tamara is talking about a work being unrecognizable, where there is no evidence of this (she has only said you can twist and turn and interpretate tutorials different) so you are assuming a level of diversion there is no evidence of.
Tamara also said cause it was just something I want to understand when it's a copy and when it's a derivation or using a tutorial as a reference.
Again, without seeing the two images this cannot be answered, and any legal advice should be as I said in reply
As to whether it is a copy or a derivative can only really be decided by a court of law, if we saw both images we could give an opinion, but that is as far as anyone can say.

The substantive issue is that this forum is concerned with legal issues and advice on them, and we must be cogniscent of this when replying to questions. Assuming anything is not reccomended.