I enjoy tracing, recoloring and recombining works of others.
I would like to upload. Is it OK to do so here?
I am no artist, I think what I do is a technical process, not creative one, but I guess users would like to find other works that I traced/colored, whatever.
Should I tag stuff with my name as artist? What is the proper way to do this?
Of course I always list source material in description.

If a trace were accepted, no, you would definitely not be tagged artist, the artist would be

If you're going to post traced art, you really shouldn't put yourself as the artist and don't be surprised that it might be deleted. Why? Because it's not your art. Sure you put in the effort on tracing it, but it's someone else's style and not your own. I don't encourage tracing at all so I can't really support you here dude :/

Might I add, a lot of artists don't want their work to be edited. To them, someone editing their work that probably took a long time to finish, is kinda a slap in the face.

My advice: Practice originality bro

Tagging self as artist feels wrong, that is why I ask what is currently practiced to group modified works by dude that modified them.

CamKitty said:
If a trace were accepted, no, you would definitely not be tagged artist, the artist would be

So how should I tag that this is a modified work?
Or do not tag, just put it in description?

Electronvolt said:
Tagging self as artist feels wrong, that is why I ask what is currently practiced to group modified works by dude that modified them.

So how should I tag that this is a modified work?
Or do not tag, just put it in description?

Use tag "edit" and parent post to the original.

Electronvolt said:
Tagging self as artist feels wrong, that is why I ask what is currently practiced to group modified works by dude that modified them.

So how should I tag that this is a modified work?
Or do not tag, just put it in description?

Considering the number of artists that do traces and still get creditted as artists, just post the original artist, post your name as artist, and add the tag "edit", then parent the original image to your child image, which is editted. If it's more than just a basic trace and recolour job, just tracing the posture/basic form but contains a lot of changes, then I wouldn't bother with noting it as an edit because of changing it enough for it to be recognized as an image apart from the previous ones.

123easy said:
...number of artists that do traces and still get creditted as artists

This is exactly what I observed. It confused me, so I asked.
My modifications usually are severe (raster style to vector, changed character, but i cannot draw so all basic shapes remain intact).

So I guess I will do just that if it is common practice.

Thanks for answers.

I have to say that while some traces are accepted, most are deleted as we have no way of knowing if the artist consented to it or not. Recolors and recombinations make us whole (joke) are also deleted on the grounds that a lot of artists do not wish for their art to be altered or recolored and we treat it as art theft at that point

However, if you do have permission from the artist, then by all means upload it, but be absolutely sure you always credit the artist, the original work, and link it to the original artist's submission page, then you may sometimes tag yourself as the artist depending on the degree of alteration. In most scenarios you will not tag yourself as the artist unless serious modification was made

Hold on. How the hell is it art theft? That's just silly. So many of the more popular artists trace (see all the ones that trace that damn Mega Milk image) yet they get accepted just fine and not noted for it beyond a comment or two. That makes no sense. An edit of the image itself being art theft is understandable, but tracing an outline and then drawing your own thing over the frame being art theft doesn't make sense at all.

CamKitty said:
If a trace were accepted, no, you would definitely not be tagged artist, the artist would be

I can't agree with that. Maybe if they were identical, but vast majority of the traces are inferior. And in many cases are so bad that the original artist doesn't want their name associated with it.

I think it should just be mentioned in the description, or preferably in the image itself. In the form of 'original artist' and 'traced by'.

I have to say that while some traces are accepted, most are deleted as we have no way of knowing if the artist consented to it or not.

Yet edits are almost always accepted, even when they're confirmed to be unauthorized? That seems a bit backwards to me: most artists seem to be bothered a lot more by edits than by traces. I can even think of some edits that never got removed, despite the artist submitting a takedown request. Such as post #34375

It's kind of hard to try to convince the artists that e621 isn't as bad as it used to be, when there's so many unauthorized edits floating around. I've tried asking some artists for a permission to upload stuff here, and the past experiences with this site seems to be the most common reason for refusal.

123easy said:
Hold on. How the hell is it art theft? That's just silly. So many of the more popular artists trace (see all the ones that trace that damn Mega Milk image) yet they get accepted just fine and not noted for it beyond a comment or two. That makes no sense. An edit of the image itself being art theft is understandable, but tracing an outline and then drawing your own thing over the frame being art theft doesn't make sense at all.

I'm not sure how op is defining "trace" but if he/she colors it or in any way alters the picture besides taking a picture and just mspainting the shit out of it, and as long as it is of similar to better quality than the original, and the original artist gave permission, I don't really see a problem with this being art theft or something like that, because it wouldn't be.

I personally akin tracing/editing without crediting the artist as artistic plagiarism. If it's not wholly your work, then you need to credit whose work it is.

That being said, as has been mentioned already, traces generally aren't accepted here and those that do tend to live short lives.

How is a trace and recolor any different than a musical artist doing a cover of a song? They are not required to ask permission for it, as long as the songwriter is credited (for royalty purposes).

I fail to understand the intense hatred for tracing. As long as the tracer/editor/recolorer credits the original artist, they should be allowed to upload. Is Marilyn Manson's cover of "Sweet Dreams" shitty just because he didn't write it? what about Elvis' cover of "Blue Suede Shoes?"

A reinterpretation of a work of art is valid. I think you should upload the hell out of it, credit the original artist, and go from there.

RedOctober said:
How is a trace and recolor any different than a musical artist doing a cover of a song? They are not required to ask permission for it, as long as the songwriter is credited (for royalty purposes).

I fail to understand the intense hatred for tracing. As long as the tracer/editor/recolorer credits the original artist, they should be allowed to upload. Is Marilyn Manson's cover of "Sweet Dreams" shitty just because he didn't write it? what about Elvis' cover of "Blue Suede Shoes?"

A reinterpretation of a work of art is valid. I think you should upload the hell out of it, credit the original artist, and go from there.

Actually, music artists must get permission from either the original artist or the governing estate to do any covers. One famous example is Weird Al's cover of "Gangsta Paradise", where Coolio had publicly stated that he never gave Weird Al permission to cover his song. Coolio met with Weird Al's manager and settled out-of-court for the grievance. If they didn't, Coolio would have been within his rights to sue Weird Al for royalties.

Another example was The Hangover 2, where the tattoo artist sued the movie studio because he didn't give permission for Mike Tyson's tattoo to be used on screen. They had to go back and alter every frame of the movie so that the tattoo was different enough to appease the artist.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Actually, music artists must get permission from either the original artist or the governing estate to do any covers. One famous example is Weird Al's cover of "Gangsta Paradise", where Coolio had publicly stated that he never gave Weird Al permission to cover his song. Coolio met with Weird Al's manager and settled out-of-court for the grievance. If they didn't, Coolio would have been within his rights to sue Weird Al for royalties.

Another example was The Hangover 2, where the tattoo artist sued the movie studio because he didn't give permission for Mike Tyson's tattoo to be used on screen. They had to go back and alter every frame of the movie so that the tattoo was different enough to appease the artist.

Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc. they don't need to. Commercial parody is still fair use. Of course not asking permission is a shitty way to go about things, which is why he traditionally does ask permission first, but that doesn't mean he's legally obligated to do so.

This however is different in the case of Mike Tyson's tattoo, as you can see immediately upon viewing the character's face (not Mike Tyson, who appears in the film as well, but the dentist character) that it is an exact copy of the tattoo in the original; as it was not parodic and did not qualify otherwise under fair use, he had every right to sue and would have won the case in all likelihood if he had not settled with Warner Bros., who now have to digitally edit every scene of the movie for the DVD release.

RedOctober said:
How is a trace and recolor any different than a musical artist doing a cover of a song? They are not required to ask permission for it, as long as the songwriter is credited (for royalty purposes).
A reinterpretation of a work of art is valid. I think you should upload the hell out of it, credit the original artist, and go from there.

The only problem I have with this logic is the whole "generated oc" concept. Stuff like that pony generator with the different colors and/or styles that are just edits on a specific program would be allowed by your plan. It's also a really douche-y thing to do if you take credit for someone else's work, when you put minimal effort via tracing/recoloring.

One of my concern about edits and traces is this:
Someone uploads the original work, then someone else takes that image and edits it poorly. The artist (or commissioner, or character owner) gets upset about the edit and wants all of their art removed from here. The user who uploaded the original work gets an another deletion or dozen on their record.

I've already seen that happen a couple of times.

I'd suggest having stricter quality standards for known edits and traces. If less of them get approved, there'll be less trouble about them.

123easy said:
Actually, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc. they don't need to. Commercial parody is still fair use. Of course not asking permission is a shitty way to go about things, which is why he traditionally does ask permission first, but that doesn't mean he's legally obligated to do so.

This however is different in the case of Mike Tyson's tattoo, as you can see immediately upon viewing the character's face (not Mike Tyson, who appears in the film as well, but the dentist character) that it is an exact copy of the tattoo in the original; as it was not parodic and did not qualify otherwise under fair use, he had every right to sue and would have won the case in all likelihood if he had not settled with Warner Bros., who now have to digitally edit every scene of the movie for the DVD release.

Fair Use is tricky, but it wouldn't have been covered by that because he would have had monetary gain as a result, thus the royalties.

In a nutshell, a trace, like any other submission to the site, is highly recommended to get artist permission before posting.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
[it] is highly recommended to get artist permission before posting.

That would be perfect.
But from experience (I post on other site, but SFW) I know that the more popular the artist the less chance of getting a response. Messages asking for permission just get drowned and no wonder — I bet there are tons of other messages that deserve an answer more.

So second best thing (actually first thing, instead of sending a message) is to look in "FAQ" on artist's page. That is where you should find a question:

>"Can I edit your art and post derivatives?"
>"Sure, just give credit." or "No, please don't."

Unfortunately one of the artists I want to derive from has no such question answered on FAQ page.

But, at the bottom of the page there is this:

All characters depicted on this tumblr are copyright their respective creators/owners/players/etc, no copyright infringement or violation is intended. Situations and scenarios are works of fan fiction between consenting fictional characters of legal age for all intents and purposes and not to be taken seriously or as canon at any level.

Really now, common sense.

Sure, no copyright infringement is intended, but drawing characters owned by some company IS copyright infrigment since artist does this without permission on paper (this is how I understand it, but I might be very wrong). It would be crazy if every artist had to ask for written permission, it is unreal.

But why it is OK? I think it is because artists make no money directly from it, or at least not in a way that could enrage character's owner to use his rights to take one down. It is a kind of silent permission.

So that is how I see "Company — Artist" relation.
I wonder if it translates to "Artist — Editors" relation.

But, after all, as mentioned above:

Really now, common sense.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Fair Use is tricky, but it wouldn't have been covered by that because he would have had monetary gain as a result, thus the royalties.

In a nutshell, a trace, like any other submission to the site, is highly recommended to get artist permission before posting.

Agreed on the highly recommended part, regardless.

However, Fair Use actually IS covered even though monetary gain resulted. The case I linked actually noted that directly- that monetary gain is ONE of the points they use to determine Fair Use, not the only one- something can fail some points of Fair Use while passing others and still be treated overall as a case of Fair Use.

It's a lot easier to go, "Oh, I heard different from my label, sorry bro. Here, have some money." than try and fight it. Really, that's why so many bullying tactics work, because it just takes a prohibitive amount of money to fight it even though you're in the right, so it's easier to just acquiesce and pay a smaller amount of money to them directly. It's sickening.

Electronvolt said:
...Sure, no copyright infringement is intended, but drawing characters owned by some company IS copyright infringment...

Short answer; This is Wrong.

Long answer; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103 details that copyright extends only as far as the original work used in the derived work. Parody is also protected under Fair Use, and making a shitty porn video called "My Little Pornys" that uses visual traits of the ponies from MLP:FiM is still parodic and the use of those identifying traits and other copywritten content in parody is protected. The same goes for things like Palcomix and their pornographic comics of characters like Sonic.

While a trace of the body outline would be derivative, if you drew something completely different based off that body outline, then only the outline could even be attempted to be claimed in a copyright claim; considering the volume of derivative work to actual new work, this claim would fail. You can't copyright a pose, after all (And I'm not just tossing that out there speciously.... someone tried, and failed; http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/12/hold_that_pose.php ).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1 in general is a great resource to read through to get a better understanding of US law and how copyright in general works, though it is written in legalese and highly formalized, like any work of law.

123easy said:
Agreed on the highly recommended part, regardless.

However, Fair Use actually IS covered even though monetary gain resulted. The case I linked actually noted that directly- that monetary gain is ONE of the points they use to determine Fair Use, not the only one- something can fail some points of Fair Use while passing others and still be treated overall as a case of Fair Use.

It's a lot easier to go, "Oh, I heard different from my label, sorry bro. Here, have some money." than try and fight it. Really, that's why so many bullying tactics work, because it just takes a prohibitive amount of money to fight it even though you're in the right, so it's easier to just acquiesce and pay a smaller amount of money to them directly. It's sickening.

Short answer; This is Wrong.

Long answer; http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103 details that copyright extends only as far as the original work used in the derived work. Parody is also protected under Fair Use, and making a shitty porn video called "My Little Pornys" that uses visual traits of the ponies from MLP:FiM is still parodic and the use of those identifying traits and other copywritten content in parody is protected. The same goes for things like Palcomix and their pornographic comics of characters like Sonic.

While a trace of the body outline would be derivative, if you drew something completely different based off that body outline, then only the outline could even be attempted to be claimed in a copyright claim; considering the volume of derivative work to actual new work, this claim would fail. You can't copyright a pose, after all (And I'm not just tossing that out there speciously.... someone tried, and failed; http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/12/hold_that_pose.php ).

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/chapter-1 in general is a great resource to read through to get a better understanding of US law and how copyright in general works, though it is written in legalese and highly formalized, like any work of law.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I don't think your source is a good example of the practice of Fair Use. One of the companies I run has to deal with Fair Use of copyright on a daily basis.

Regardless, the answer I'm giving is that if you're not going to credit the artist and you're going to plagiarize their work, the admins will proactively take it down, as they have been.

If we didn't take that stance, then we wouldn't be attracting new artists and/or new art to the site, in which the site runs on. We need to adopt policies that attract people to WANT to post their art here, as well as users who can appreciate it.

Achieving a healthy balance would be the best of both worlds, I think.

EDIT: Artist sand.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
Actually, music artists must get permission from either the original artist or the governing estate to do any covers.

They do not, as long as they pay royalties to the original copyright holder. But they do not need permission.

However, it is moot in the case of art that is available freely, and the trace is made available freely. If no one is profiting, there is no room for legal issues.

Moon_Moon said:
It's also a really douche-y thing to do if you take credit for someone else's work, when you put minimal effort via tracing/recoloring.

This is why I said the tracing artist needs to credit the original artist.

Genjar said:
One of my concern about edits and traces is this:
Someone uploads the original work, then someone else takes that image and edits it poorly. The artist (or commissioner, or character owner) gets upset about the edit and wants all of their art removed from here. The user who uploaded the original work gets an another deletion or dozen on their record.

I've already seen that happen a couple of times.

I'd suggest having stricter quality standards for known edits and traces. If less of them get approved, there'll be less trouble about them.

This is a reasonable concern. Even if it's unreasonable for an artist to get mad at someone tracing (provided credit is given), it'll happen and we don't want artists to pull down their stuff because we allowed a bad trace. But we would be denying ourselves the possibility of good art if we disallow it entirely. I again point to the music industry as an example. There are many instances where a cover became more popular than the original.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that traces and other derivative works without crediting the original artist is ok. Even if it's "allowed," it's really shitty and so the admins should, can, and will take it down. But if it is credited to the original, it should be allowed. Now, people can choose to hate it and downvote the shit out of it.

EDFDarkAngel1 said:
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, I don't think your source is a good example of the practice of Fair Use. One of the companies I run has to deal with Fair Use of copyright on a daily basis.

Regardless, the answer I'm giving is that if you're not going to credit the artist and you're going to plagiarize their work, the admins will proactively take it down, as they have been.

If we didn't take that stance, then we wouldn't be attracting new artist sand/or new art to the site, in which the site runs on. We need to adopt policies that attract people to WANT to post their art here, as well as users who can appreciate it.

Achieving a healthy balance would be the best of both worlds, I think.

I'm not saying that because it's Fair Use it should be allowed regardless. I'm just saying that Fair Use does cover those issues on a legal basis. Most cases where Fair Use comes into effect though, is because someone didn't ask permission, and that creates an antagonistic atmosphere, which is bad for everyone. This is why I keep saying that asking permission is the best way to go around doing things, and I'm not touching E6's actual policies which can be completely different from Fair Use itself, because you aren't legally restricted to only do so. Your explanation is perfectly reasonable.

EDIT: I opened this page too long ago before actually replying to the thread. Red's post wasn't there when I wrote this. Basically though, I agree with everything he said.