HOME | DD
Odeith β
2 da real Queens
Published: 2009-05-30 22:13:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 26770; Favourites: 1167; Downloads: 3576
Redirect to original
Description
odeith 2009Related content
Comments: 215
[link] should be added in the description of inspiration 
π: 0 β©: 0
This is awesome dude! Any tips for someone with little skill yet?
π: 0 β©: 0
This is the reference photo "Natural History" by Lithium Picnic
[link]
π: 0 β©: 0
At first I absolutely loved your work but I've realised it's not an original piece! Oh dear.
π: 0 β©: 0
Oh my....you really should've given credit to the photographer of the photo you copied...
π: 0 β©: 0
A have the photo you copied in my faves! It's also inspiring to me.
π: 0 β©: 0
I understand folks are upset about this, but the guy's been gone for almost 2 years. What's the point? He may or may not even come back, and I'm sure he has enough "please credit the original artist" comments to last the amount of time he's been gone and then some, if he ever does
π: 0 β©: 2
I've tried to email him to let him know about this on his website. Hope it get's to him. T_T
π: 0 β©: 1
Even if he was dead, he deserves the credit. Especially if you take into account that this very image has a history of being stolen for comercial purposes (some chinese phone company used it to market a device).
The author seems to care about the copyright of his creations, and it would be a nice gesture to give proper credit here.
π: 0 β©: 1
Oh, I totally agree with you! ~Odeith should credit the original artist, it would be wrong not to do so. No one should ever use/take someone's work without asking/crediting
I'm just saying that people are kind of beating the horse of "please credit the original artist" to death, to with a guy who's not even here to respond, now or maybe ever. I feel like the first 6 pages of comments should be enough to drive the point home.
However, I'm more annoyed with the person who featured this deviation, as I seriously doubt they're unaware of `lithiumpicnic 's work, yet they featured this artwork anyway, without any mention to the original artist either. They're not even bothering to explain themselves
π: 0 β©: 1
it is NOT lithiumpicnic's work. They are different photos on different mediums. So it can be just his inspiration. No credit required here.
π: 0 β©: 3
Holy shit, I can not believe so many people are under this presumption. If it was an exact copy in the same medium without credit, that would be plagiarism.
This is a derivative work. That's not the same thing as "inspiration". Making a derivative work without permission from the copyright holder IS a copyright violation.
Know what you're talking about before you spread this cancer any further.
π: 0 β©: 1
really? You know better than DA? they featured this artwork as DD and even the other one that you claim to be original. So they dont agree with you, which means there is NO copyright violation here.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes. In this case, I actually do. The GM made a mistake.
A single human being made a mistake. That does not make him an authority on copyright law, and it doesn't mean that everything dA does is right by a long shot.
As of this moment, I'm not even sure that even knows what has happened. There is no official contention, I have not been "overruled", and even if I was, he's not an authority on the matter.
You seem to want an excuse to steal other people's images. Good luck with that. If you take one of mine, I hope you have up to $50,000 plus court fees.
π: 0 β©: 1
I dont think is that stupid to make such a big mistake.
He is a community volunteer and knows the rules very well.
LOL why would i steal your tasteless nudes? Most of them looks like taken from others anyway, so called questionable "derivative" stuff. Even if i do, your DMCA crap is not valid in my country
π: 0 β©: 1
I never said he was stupid. He's probably just not familiar with [link]
Don't put words in my mouth.
And not that I give a rat's ass what your opinion on my photography is, but what you just did is called an "Ad Hominem", and is completely irrelevant to the argument.
As far as DMCA? deviantART is based in the United States, and it is valid here.
π: 0 β©: 0
you're haha
π: 0 β©: 0
I think takethef should at least mention what the author "forgot" to do. That this graffiti is based on a famous picture of Apnea by Lithium Picnic: [link]
π: 0 β©: 1
I knew I recognized that face. Credit should be given.
π: 0 β©: 2
maybe he used it as a reference but the photos are not the same. So no need for credit crap
π: 0 β©: 3
Wrong. This is a derivative work, and it's a copyright violation. It doesn't have to be an exact copy in the same medium. What you're talking about is plagiarism.
π: 0 β©: 1
so, if i accidentally draw a women who looks like this, it is not allowed eh? This is stupidity. Thats why copyright business model is outdated and should be abandoned.
π: 0 β©: 1
The likelihood of someone "accidentally" doing something so remarkably similar in so may ways is astronomical. Could it happen? Maybe. If you give a million monkeys a million typewriters and give them a million years, they might come up with Hamlet.
Making minor changes to someone else's work is not "inspiration". It's derivation, and yes, there are actually laws about it.
I'm not saying derivative works are bad. I've done them myself. [link] is as near to exact as I could of [link] (in a different medium). The difference is that I asked her permission to do so, and I credited her for it.
There was no "inspiration". I just liked the original, and wanted to see if I could practice my drawing skills by reproducing it.
Making derivative works without permission of the copyright holder IS a copyright violation.
Know what you're talking about before you spread this misinformation to others.
π: 0 β©: 0
Where do you get that from!? Of course credit is due as it is clear this artist used Lithium's work to do this. (You admitted it yourself.) This is not just a "photo" of Graffiti, this is the artist's work taken from Lithium.
π: 0 β©: 1
Even if it is Lithium's work, how do you he didnt get permission? Blind accusation is childish. And I didnt admit anything, i said "maybe".
π: 0 β©: 1
How does this in any way argue credit isn't needed? XD
It's not "blind" in anyway, nor such a statement have anything to do with my post. No credit was given, and to humor you,no statement of permission granted. It's blind to assume he had permission dear when the facts are staking up against him; Let alone think credit isn't necessary. If he does have permission, great, he needs to state he does and still give credit. Period.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think it's courteous to provide reference information. It's a very recognizable face, and to not credit the source seems wrong.
π: 0 β©: 0
You might find this interesting: [link]
π: 0 β©: 0
Pretty good street art but not sure that it deserved the DD, given that a photograph almost identical before it, is pretty well known around deviantART too,
π: 0 β©: 1
it is not identical and he deserves DD
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah it pretty much IS identical. Only the color an a small detail of the lettering thrown in. That is very, very small alternation.
π: 0 β©: 0
Despite you should pout credit on this, that to me is beside the point. You didn't trace this or Photo edit this; This is beautiful art, and graffiti as a matter of fact; The detail is superb and my jaw dropped when I realized it's a wall that had been painted. You did a lovely spin from the original photo, and the colour splash is gorgeous. Stunning quality and such excellent level of skill.
π: 0 β©: 0
While it would be nice if the artist linked to his inspiration, who here knows for sure that Odeith did not ask for permission to use the "original" as inspiration? First of all, this is a completely different medium than the photograph. This was hand painted with spray paint on a wall who knows how tall with a different color palette. Second, This is not plagiarism. Plagiarism is when you try to take credit for somebody else's work. Odeith obviously put work into this street art. His name is around the girl's neck. It's like ratting on Johannes Vermeer for painting the Girl with the Pearl Earring based on a real girl. Third, if you wanted to get rid of every piece of art that took inspiration from somewhere else there would be no art, no stories, no movies, no music. This is a great piece of work that took an exceptional amount of skill and time.
π: 0 β©: 2
It is blante plagiarism. He wasn't "inspired" by the work he copied it right down to each detail, not just the pose. Different color and some lettering added does not make it original and theirs to use. Nor using a different medium.
[link]
plagiarism:
1. The process of taking another personβs work, ideas, or words, and using them as if they were your own. Someone who does this is called a plagiarist
2. an idea, story, words, or music that you use in your work without explaining that you took them from someone else
Johannes Vermeer hired and used models, very different scenario.:/ It's a legal contract between people with permission.
π: 0 β©: 1
It's actually just copyright infringement, not blatant plagiarism. This is a derivative work. But it's still not right.
π: 0 β©: 1
Isn't it both? Last time I check plagiarism is also copyright infringemen :/
π: 0 β©: 1
It is. Plagiarism is the most obvious form of copyright infringement. Where people get fuzzy is when relatively insignificant changes are made (derivative).
π: 0 β©: 0
OMG DIFFERENT COLOR = ORIGINAL CONTENT GUYS
π: 0 β©: 1
It still doesn't deserve to be taken down because he took inspiration from a pre-existing photograph.
π: 0 β©: 3
Actually it does if it's proven this was done and posted with out the original copyright holder's permission.
If it can't be proven, Odeith should be allowed to keep it up only on the condition he gives proper credit, that goes for any and all works that are in his gallery.
π: 0 β©: 0
so for now inspiration = trace
I can go on and copy famous pictures (with different colors and maybe use different media, ofcourse) and its ok because, you know its "inspiration".... ahh and dont forget NOT giving credit!
yeah right...
π: 0 β©: 1
I DID say that he should have linked to the photograph. Also, it's really nobody's place but lithiumpicnic's to come forward and say that it should be taken down because for all anybody knows, Odeith asked permission more than two years ago to paint and post this image. Also, this probably wasn't traced and I didn't say to trace something was the same as being inspired by it. He is conveying how he felt when he looked at the picture. If you feel this way about this, then go to everything that a fan of something has done, drawn a character, used a character for a story, based anything off anything else and spam them, too, plagiarism police.
π: 0 β©: 1
Did you really saw the original picture? if so, what is that you think is "trace"? because if this isn't trace, I don't know what it is then... its the SAME picture with different COLORS and different MEDIA just because of that you think its "inspiration"? I mean if I see a pic I can daw it with my own colors and claim it as my own? ohh and just because I felt it should be with those colors, its my 'interpretation' of the original pic... There are ways of doing fan art, using real inspiration and doing things with your OWN style, and of course, GIVING CREDIT.
π: 0 β©: 0
| Next =>