Fan Art bears resemblence to work of Michael Turner
On the left is a piece of art by the late Michael Turner, who passed away in June of this year. On the right is a submission in the Blizzard Fan Art Program, by Emiko Setsuna (or Dênakê). Tipster Ron pointed this out to us, figuring it was worth a mention. If you notice the two pictures look very similar, you're right. If you're not convinced, look very closely at the ladies' left hand, and how the fingers and thumb are placed.
I'm not ready to scream "plagiarism" here (or Laaaaaaaand!, if you're familiar with comics). The idea of "inspired art" and "homage" is very common, and there are only so many ways you can pose the humanoid body. The Blizzard Fan Art Program doesn't have a commentary feature, so it's possible Setsuna intended on crediting Michael Turner for the inspiration. If you consider the timing, especially, it's likely Setsuna was memorializing Turner, as he only passed away a few months ago.
Still, it does make me wish that the Fan Art section did have more information from the creator, so we could draw a conclusion more easily.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Fan stuff, Odds and ends, Comics, Fan art
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Braundo Sep 3rd 2008 2:44PM
If there's no message or credit on the image itself, I have no problem calling this plaigiarism.
VSpeck Sep 3rd 2008 2:49PM
Exactly. In the comic book world this is called a "swipe". As this pic is not sign "after Turner", it is 100% a swipe and not an homage.
Naix Sep 3rd 2008 2:54PM
As long as the piece of art is a certain percent changed it is yours. Clearly the color, shapes, focus are different.
To the untrained eye this may seam similar enough to be called a "swipe".
MDS Sep 3rd 2008 3:11PM
To Naix:
The 'percentage' thing is a fallacy. In any case, this is most certainly a 'swipe,' and while probably not illegal in this case, it's not something you do in polite company. My gimp-fu is weak, but it appears as if an overlapped comparison would pretty much answer whether or not it was traced. Answer looking personally to me like a yes, based on the hand closeup.
Naix Sep 3rd 2008 4:09PM
To MDS
I am sorry to inform you that art being changed by a large percentile and is now yours is by no means a 'fallacy'. Respected art universities decree that art changed enough to be your own is indeed your own. Again this piece has clearly been changed enough not to considered plagiarism.
-Colors have been changed
-Body positions changed (head, arms, and hair)
-Change in focus in depth and shadows
The only real similarities between the two are that its a woman, wearing a dress, with the arms out.
Kaiva Sep 3rd 2008 5:45PM
Speaking as someone who went to art shcool, this is what I was taught. If you are going to use someone elses artwork to create your own, you either need to
a) Credit the original artist, or
b) change the original work enough so that it is NOT RECOGNIZEABLE to its original form
This person did neither.
Additionally, Blizzard has removed fan art before for this very reason. In the first dozen or so pieces they ever excepted to their fan art program, a very similar situation happened where someone reproduced an illustration of a pandarean ninja/warrior. It was brought up on the forums, a CM said they didn't want to support that behavior, and the image was removed from the gallery.
Naix Sep 4th 2008 10:52AM
I too am speaking as someone who has went to an art school. This piece of artwork looks nothing like the artwork of Michael Turner. Clearly there is major major differences between the two.
Anonymous Sep 3rd 2008 2:45PM
Stop being an apologist and acknowledge that Emiko Setsuna's drawing is plagiarism.
SaintStryfe Sep 3rd 2008 2:49PM
No, not plagiarism.
MWO defines it as the transitive verb: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source. As an intransitive verb: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
Neither of those happened. It's a similar pose (not entirely original).
It's still a little close. Similar inspirations maybe? I can see why someone might feel it, but I'm not seeing it. Both pieces are great, though.
Verodio Sep 3rd 2008 2:51PM
Stolen plain and simple. It should be disqualified.
KateJaneway Sep 3rd 2008 2:52PM
How is this a valid article for a wow-news blog?
dAnixx Sep 3rd 2008 6:35PM
YES.
dAnixx Sep 3rd 2008 6:36PM
forget that plz >_< just plain fail
futurebiblehero Sep 3rd 2008 2:54PM
It appears that the original wasn't Photoshopped, but used as a reference. It's undoubtedly an amateur practice for anyone who's not going into Warhol territory, and it's lame, but there's no reason to draw and quarter someone for some half-assed fan-art.
If they actually won a prize for it, then there'd be reason for indignation. As it stands, you don't really know if that's just something they made for their guild and decided to share or if they actually thought they could win by cheating.
Either way, declaring "plagiarism" in fan-art seems a little much.
DirtyPriest Sep 4th 2008 2:03AM
You think because there is no money involved it's OK? This is about integrity! Something you may not understand. It's still plagiarism even if it is just fan art.
But you are right to some extent. Much like calling out a first grader who used tracing paper to draw his favorite super hero.
Arturis Sep 4th 2008 2:22AM
The way I taught myself to draw through the years is very similar to this - I would look at an image or style that I really liked and do my best to duplicate the reference image. First I would allow myself to look directly at the reference image. Then I would start again, the second time not allowing myself to look. Then a third sketch, but this time forcing myself to draw the character in a different pose or from a different angle. When I was 12, it was mostly pictures of TMNT and Gizmoduck, though as I got older I transitioned into comics (mostly Marvel's X-titles) as the basis of my inspiration. Eventually I learned to stop "copying" and to invent characters and a style of my own, though I'm still working on the style part to this day.
When you break it down, I don't really believe this is an example of plagiarism in art. Of the four types of artistic imagery - a truly original piece, a piece inspired by another person's art where similarities exist but the overall composition has changed, a plagiarized piece using elements and/or characters verbatim that are copyrighted, and attempts at forgery where an image is copied exactly as-is - This image falls clearly in the realm of "inspired by".
Of course thats just my two cents - do with them as you wish.
Arioch Sep 3rd 2008 2:57PM
What is this place, Elfwood now? How is this WoW news?
Keyra Sep 3rd 2008 4:18PM
Maybe because it's A) WoW and B) news? Just sayin'...
Ametrine Sep 3rd 2008 3:01PM
A character likeness can be copyrighted (and those stolen and plagiarized), but a pose cannot.
I could take a photo of myself posing like Spider-Man, but it would not be considered plagiarism of a Marvel license, since a pose, by itself, with no other ties to a character, is not inherently capable of having copyright or being plagiarized.
Yes, the pose is the same, but nothing else, so this, by technical definition, is not plagiarism, since nothing of the original character outside of (non-copyrightable and open-license) physical positioning is taken from the original reference image.
DirtyPriest Sep 4th 2008 5:40PM
Oh please.
You can have 1000 artists sit and draw a naked chick posing in front of a classroom and they'd all be different.
It is hardly just the pose.
This is an exact tracing... with tracing paper.