In order for a statement to qualify as libel, a party must be able to show that the statements made are untrue. Anyone with a working set of eyes can see there is an large amount of resemblance between the two images.
I agree it looks traced. Asserting that it looks traced is not libel. Saying the artist broke the law may be libel, since tracing it and modifying it substantially is in a grey area at worst right now, and very likely legal. And saying that Cryptic Torbie is breaking the law may harm his income, creating a real actionable damage.
>So it falls into a legal grey area. A court may determine if it’s illegal or fair use, not you.
>But either way it’s not illegal.
I think you may have contradicted yourself here?
Two different paragraphs on different topics. 1) Tracing someone else’s work for profit is in a legal grey area. It’s not illegal until after a court has found it’s illegal. No court has. I don’t think one ever would. 2) Failing to cite that you used someone else’s work as an inspiration/model for your own work
is not illegal, only probably scummy. No contradiction between those two statements because one refers to selling traced artwork (legal grey area), one refers to not crediting the person whose work you traced (not illegal).
3) Cryptic Torbie selling Zat’s unmodified original drawing
as his own would be fraudulent, clearly illegal. But nobody claims that happened.
@Wolfgang Anonymous
@Background Pony #D07B
What you don’t realize is the fact that he’s profiting off of the work of the other artist.
I realize that. Not giving a rat’s ass about something because it doesn’t matter and not realizing it are two very different things.
It’s very clear at least to me and others that I’ve talked to that he took way more than just a pose
I agree, I think he probably outright traced Zat’s picture. I still don’t give a rat’s ass, because there’s nothing wrong with doing that as long as his drawing was substantially modified from Zat’s. Which it was. Zat’s original is a modified copy of Hasbro’s intellectual property in the first place.
I don’t care whether or not you think that is legal, no one should take $20 for someone else’s work without the person’s permission.
He took $20 for his own work he put into making the new picture. He put in less work than if he drew the line art freehand, but it was still his work. Zat certainly didn’t draw the buyer’s OC, Cryptic Torbie did.
a recolor of someone else’s drawing is not worth $20.
Neither of these lousy drawings is worth $20. But if someone wanted to clop to a picture of his own OC in the pose that Zat drew, but in bondage gear and covered in semen, badly enough that he offered to pay Cryptic Torbie $20 to make it, then it would be worth $20. If you’re offering to draw it for $15 instead, then it’s worth $15.
And this is where the legal grey area comes in. If Zat was offering to make exactly what was requested, but for $30, and Cryptic Torbie was undercutting him by offering to trace and modify Zat’s drawing for $20, then it’s maybe worth $30, and Cryptic Torbie might be stealing Zat’s $30 even though he’s only making $20. But that presupposes that Zat’s open for commissions to re-do a 3-year old drawing with my OC, bondage gear, and semen. Otherwise it’s very unlikely to be illegal.
