Your joy of posting in Steem should not depend on getting credit for what is not yours and deceiving your audience.
Now that your charade is over you choose to leave, thats your choice and says a lot about you.
You had the option of citing your inspirations but you chose to steal and feed your vanity.

What's happening here?

https://steempeak.com/antiabuse/@jaguar.force/2syykr-art-plagiarism-case-48-caso-de-plagio-artistico-48-lucydyer

Yes. I saw this after doing some sleuthing. She's good to go if she provides sources? Did any of the original base images have licenses stating the image cannot be altered or reproduced? I'm a digital artist myself. I've caught true art fraudsters myself here as well. It was obvious to me the original portrait wasn't the portion of the art she was taking credit for and I recall a post where she had stated something like "I found the original on the internet." Photo manipulation is an artform these days, provided the artist is following standard practices. I make mine from scratch. It was obvious to me she wasn't starting from scratch. She was taking credit for the alterations.

Yup this is / should be painfully obvious. I don't think that anyone who supported @lucydyer's posting, myself included, was under the impression she was claiming to have created the original photos.

If you look at some of these works, the original is barely visible. The art wasn't even about the original image and that was painfully obvious as well.

exactly

How is it obvious?

Looking at this post alone, I see no mention that the work she did was just alterations of an original. She even says "New Art!" which would have me thinking even more that this is a brand new piece of work created from scratch.

You have to look at each individual post individually. This is the first post I've discovered of this person, and if I was just browsing through STEEM and stumbled upon her work I would assume she was the artist of the entire work.

yes the image has heavy copyright on it, and yes, if she provides sources from now on , she is good to go.

That's standard practice in these cases. I guess the ball is in her court now.

@lucydyer, a lot of good people have your back here. Respect those copyrights. Provide sources when necessary. Nobody will think any less of you. We already knew those weren't made from scratch. This has happened to people before and in the worst cases ALL of their pending rewards were removed and the posts were greyed out. Don't take whatever happened personally. It's not as bad as it seems.

Good job Jaguar, you managed to scare another good artist away from the platform when we are trying to bring more. She used a normal photo as her inspiration and we are rewarding her great skills of photomanipulating and use of filters. Whan she is doing takes great skill and it is not important that she is using some faces as her base to work on. You did exactly the same thing with another artist, very talented in making portraits with a pen because he did not provided a normal photo he used as inspiration.

Try to find real plagiarists and stop hunting the few artists still posting here, you are damaging all of us...

It is not our problem if the "artist" rather leave than have the basic decency of crediting and showing the sources. As @nonameslefttouse clearly stated, it is standard practice in these kind of transformative artwork.

What the fuck is going on?

You don’t need to leave based on one person’s opinion. Many have opinions, do your thing and let those who want to support you do so.

you still dont understand how a validation driven solipsistic mind works, apparently.

I understand how free will works and I also understand you aren’t the law here. Maybe kitty needs to have their claws trimmed as they are getting a bit out of hand. 🙂 Feel free to DM me, I as told you repeatedly, but this isn’t a game you want to play with me.

I see what happened now. Were you following and viewing her work? If so, would it be fair to say you knew she wasn't taking credit for the portrait? It was painfully obvious the art was added on top of an existing image but in this case, I don't think I ever saw her try to take credit for anything other than her additions. She wasn't trying to pass these off as created from scratch, which is something the real art fraudsters often attempt. At the same time it is customary to provide sources when doing this kind of work for profit, in most cases. There must be some happy middle ground stuff here somewhere?

Yes I was fully aware that the art was about taking existing things and making something new with them. I was not deceived in the slightest. I don’t feel she ever was implying anything else.

Yes to make it all kosher a source to the original image would be best as she is profiting from it, but I feel this is not plagiarism and I have no issue continuing to support her works.

Art is complex and individuals who keep trying to make it black and white or a blanket for all things are just wrong imo. To me this has to be taken case by case basis. If someone is tracing others works and not adding anything and then passing it off as their own, fine.. but that is not what is happening here and I disagree with Jaguars conclusions as well as his technique here.

If some of those originals came with the fine print stating they cannot be altered or reproduced, that's not good. There are plenty of fair use sources and even some photographers here would most likely allow her to have some fun. This doesn't have to be the end and this sucks because her blog here was just starting to take off.

These productions of hers aren't just simple push button filters. I see idiots all the time take a photo, apply a filter, then say,"I painted this." And they use those cheap filters everyone has on their phones and laptops. Those people can screw off with their feebleminded attempts at being an "artist."

> To me this has to be taken case by case basis.

Yup.

>If some of those originals came with the fine print stating they cannot be altered or reproduced, that's not good.

Thats the standard, default, automatically granted copyright under the Berne convention that every artistic creation, like a photograph, has, unless a more permissive licence like CC is explicitly expressed to cover the work. You cannot make derivative works of copyrighted works, without permission from the author, much less for profit, and much less without even crediting the original work. It is just wrong from every possible perspective.

Like you say, there are many images under Creative Commons licenses that she can use with no problem whatsoever. Also, you say it was evident to you that her works are not from scratch and that she was taking credit for the transformations, that is not the case, if you dont credit the original work, you are implicitly taking credit for the whole, just like if you write something and cite nothing. Moreover, if what she wants to take credit for is the transformations, then the audience needs to see the original image in the post, to see what exactly that transformation consists in, dont you think?
or how can you assess the transformation without seeing the original?

I'm aware. Assume copyright. That's the industry standard. Much of that exists to protect the work of the starving artist, so they don't have to lawyer up and fight corporate thieves.

You're right about providing sources. I can't argue this. Getting permission from the original creator is sometimes as easy as sending an email, if that's a requirement. She failed to follow standard practices.

This artform is welcome here but it does come with a lot of loose ends that need to be tied up before it can be published. It would be wrong to give some artists special treatment and let a few things slide. Fairness in a world that seems so unfair, right?

Well I hope you don't let a close-minded pedant who apparently couldn't recognize art if it burned their whiskers chase you off. I for one hope you keep posting here.

Close minded pedant my tail, if you don't have any other content to vote than this fraudulent pseudoart, its not my problem, and if it is the transformative talent that you praise, obviously we should be shown the original work too, so as to be able to assess and discern the transformation, if not your argument falls on the side of intellectual dishonesty, for how can you see the transformation or what is added if not shown the original?

In all honesty I should apologize for stooping to personal insult. I could have left an encouraging comment for Lucy without calling you names. So, my apologies. I know you do a lot of good for Steem. I think you are barking up the wrong tree here, but no need for incivility on my part.

While I have some mild agreement with Jaguar that any outside images used in a work could be cited I think they take their attacks too far in calling this plagiarism and are driving artists off the platform.

I really enjoy your work! You take images and transform them in such a cool way! I really hope you don't leave because of this, I will continue to support your posts!

I agree with Julia. You shouldnt let one asshole ruin it for you. Don't give him that kind of power.

The rest of the community supports you.

I believe @Jaguar.force has a point about citing the source but it is beautiful what you do to the images and I believe it is 'transformative' work so it may come under fair use in copyright law.
https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/
You should not let this one criticism make you leave Steem. Having being in my own heated discussions with Jaguar I don't think they are going about their mission in the correct way. Especially when it scares away real artists.
The area of copyright law has gray areas and your artwork fits that profile.

Yet another another charlatan that doesn't know or pretends not to know plagiarism and copyright law are separate concepts. We detect and report Plagiarism: the uncredited use of other peoples work/ideas, which is a type of fraud, it just happens that a lot of the time plagiarists infringe copyright law, but you can plagiarize something that is, for example, in the public domain and in that case you wouldnt be infringing copyright law. Hence, defending a plagiarist under the fair use doctrine, is completely missing the point or at worst being intellectually dishonest.
Within the context of the steem platform, where content is rewarded, the foremost important concept is plagiarism although technically speaking the TOS of all the front ends like steemit require you to respect copyright law too. It is very interesting to note, that when asked to cite sources this "real artist" decides to leave, it would almost seem as if the user considered that her artistry requires fraudulent practices like plagiarism to impress. Transformative art is great, but keep in mind that in order to be able to assess the level, degree and quality of the transformation you need to be shown the original, if not how can you appraise the transformation? It appears self evident that this "artist" relies on the hidden nature of the original work to impress, for obviously if she thought showing both the transformation and the original would make her look better she would do it. Instead what we get when asking for sources is: "I quit".
Which speaks volumes about whats really going on here, to those that have eyes to see.

This is not a grey area. This was a photograph taken from this site, how I understand it: https://www.kasiawojcik.com/bizuteria/srebrna/kolczyk-bold-01-silver,119

A friend of mine is a photographer. I know how much energy and time it takes to make a good picture. At least, you are dealing with living humans, you invite them to a real location, you use your physical effort to get to the place where you shoot. Afterwards you rework the pictures digitally on the computer, alter them until you are satisfied with your own standard and try to sell them for customers, websites, artist-magazines, fares etc. etc.

Now you come and say to the photographer something about a "grey area".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujwm8YrEgI4

In the Swedish photo magazine Kamera & Bild you could read the following about Copyright for pictures.

“”Can I change a picture, and then publish it without the author's permission?

You may not change an image without the author's permission. It is an infringement of the non-profit right where the author has the right to decide how the image is transmitted to the public.

Can I change a picture a lot so that it almost becomes a new image, and then publish it without the author's permission?

It is only when you have changed the image into unrecognizable from what it first looked like it could possibly be considered that you have created a new work and thus have not infringed copyright. Otherwise, you must always have the author's permission”.

> the author has the right to decide how the image is transmitted to the public.

Did you know, same is true for poetry/written work?.. It's a grey area when you'd be reading the source verbatim and crediting the author, but I wanted to create a podcast where I would read random poems taken from STEEM, but I looked into it and permission would still be needed even though I wasn't changing anything, for the reason quoted above, basically. What if the author did not want their poem read in my style, my voice, or even broadcast via audio?

Yep! It's gets that deep.

Can you tell us what happened? Who is robbing you your joy from posting on steem?