›

Greetings!

Welcome to Scifi-Meshes.com! Click one of these buttons to join in on the fun.

Sign In Register

Quick Links

Is it plagiarism?

JazzMann121JazzMann1210 Posts: 0Member
edited November 2011 in Technical Questions and Answers #1
Well, for my first post i thought id put forward a general question we should probably all ask ourselves as artists. Am i actually plagiarising?

here is an example, you've downloaded a model, say from this site. You dont particularly like the way a few things look on it so you tweak things until you have something that looks just that bit different.
Would t be wrong to publish this "new" model as your own work, or should you put reference to it's original creator.

in a way modifying a 3d model by adding and subtracting and modifying is like paraphrasing in text.

so, what would define plagiarism in terms of an altered 3d model and how much different does it have to be before you can call it your own work?
Post edited by JazzMann121 on

Posts

  • GuerrillaGuerrilla795 HelsinkiPosts: 2,867Administrator
    #2
    Yes, modifying a model and then publishing it would be plagiarizing (not to mention a bannable offense if you completely omit necessary credit). In general you should not go around modifying people's things without permission from the original author at all. We're pretty strict about this because we all depend on these nice artists sharing their nice things with us here, so we do our best to safeguard their hard work.

    So literally speaking, to call it your own work you build it from scratch. End of discussion. I realise there is content (and programs like Daz Studio or Poser for example) you can either purchase or find for free that grant you a license to use them anyway you wish with no credit necessary, but even then omitting the source is really bad form in my opinion. What exactly would you have to gain by leaving it out?
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • dleridleri171 Posts: 0Member
    #3
    In the case of altering someone's 3D model, it's best to credit them. If you've modified the model to such a degree that it doesn't resemble the original, then it's relatively safe to call it your own, but still, it's best to credit the original artist. Regardless of what you do, the original artist does deserve credit.
  • SchimpfySchimpfy396 Posts: 1,632Member
    #4
    dleri wrote: »
    In the case of altering someone's 3D model, it's best to credit them.

    Always true.
    dleri wrote: »
    If you've modified the model to such a degree that it doesn't resemble the original, then it's relatively safe to call it your own, but still, it's best to credit the original artist.

    Completely wrong. Like Guerilla said, if you don't make it from scratch it's not yours. Regardless of the amount of tweaking and modifying you do to someone else's model if even a single vertex remains unchanged it's not yours. Of course, if you are modifying someone's model so extensively why not just make your own?
  • backsteptbackstept2060 Posts: 922Member
    #5
    Juvat wrote: »
    Like IRML said, if you don't make it from scratch it's not yours. Regardless of the amount of tweaking and modifying you do to someone else's model if even a single vertex remains unchanged it's not yours. Of course, if you are modifying someone's model so extensively why not just make your own?
    you mean Guerrilla? :p

    There's a fundamental difference between traditional art and digital art. Traditional art, for example the Mona Lisa, if a copy were made it would be just that, a copy. The quality of the copy would depend on the medium used. It could be an artist painting their own copy, or a photograph etc, but the copy would still be a totally different work of art, and in the case of famous works of art everyone knows it's a copy and people don't put much value on them.
    Digital art is a whole different animal. You can copy a mesh and essentially it is the original. Making a change to a mesh is like drawing a mustache on the original Mona Lisa . . . there's no possible way you could call it your own. Well, you could, but once people find out the truth (and they will) they'll all know the mustache-drawing artist as a fraud.

    Always get permission, and if you don't get permission, don't try and pass it off as your own . . . the truth always comes out.
    Always credit the original author, even if you have permission to make changes to their art, just to be safe. :thumb:
  • SchimpfySchimpfy396 Posts: 1,632Member
    #6
    backstept wrote: »
    you mean Guerrilla? :p

    I know not of what you speak. :p

    Actually, I was just reading Dave's response to something else when I typed that...oops.
  • IRMLIRML253 Posts: 1,993Member
    #7
    I think guerilla's post was so awesome he just assumed I made it :D

    in serious though I agree with your post (number 4) 100%
  • SchimpfySchimpfy396 Posts: 1,632Member
    #8
    IRML wrote: »
    I think guerilla's post was so awesome he just assumed I made it :D

    in serious though I agree with your post (number 4) 100%

    Uh...exactly! ;)

    :thumb:
  • Chris2005Chris2005678 Posts: 3,097Member
    #9
    I agree with the others here... calling it your own, would be wrong... granted, I do extensively alter a model, not in the way of the geometry, but the lights, occasionally the textures, so I'll usually delete the lighting setup it comes with, and redo all that, but I still credit the original creator of the model, etc. but I never re-release it as my own model... since I'm not the creator of the model, I just tweaked it as it were.
    AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
    Gigabyte RTX 3080 Gaming OC 12GB
    1TB NVMe SSD, 2 x 1GB SATA SSD, 4TB external HDD
    32 GB RAM
    Windows 11 Pro
  • dleridleri171 Posts: 0Member
    #10
    Juvat wrote: »
    Always true.



    Completely wrong. Like Guerilla said, if you don't make it from scratch it's not yours. Regardless of the amount of tweaking and modifying you do to someone else's model if even a single vertex remains unchanged it's not yours. Of course, if you are modifying someone's model so extensively why not just make your own?

    How am I completely wrong when we both said the same thing?

    The rule is that you always credit the original artist regardless of the changes you make. I actually said that twice. The first time I got it right, but the second time I got it wrong?
  • IRMLIRML253 Posts: 1,993Member
    #11
    dleri wrote: »
    How am I completely wrong when we both said the same thing?

    The rule is that you always credit the original artist regardless of the changes you make. I actually said that twice. The first time I got it right, but the second time I got it wrong?
    you said:
    If you've modified the model to such a degree that it doesn't resemble the original, then it's relatively safe to call it your own

    which isn't right - if you 'modify' someone elses work it'll always be theirs no matter how many changes you make, if you want to call something your own you have to start from scratch
  • GuerrillaGuerrilla795 HelsinkiPosts: 2,867Administrator
    #12
    dleri wrote: »
    [...]If you've modified the model to such a degree that it doesn't resemble the original, then it's relatively safe to call it your own, but still, it's best to credit the original artist.

    I think people (myself included) only have an issue with this bit. Reworking someone else's stuff will never make it your own. Crediting in these cases is not just a nice gesture you should make, rather it is absolutely required.

    [edit] God damn ninjas everywhere...
    Comco: i entered it manually in the back end
    Join our fancy Discord Server!
  • JazzMann121JazzMann1210 Posts: 0Member
    #13
    just to make sure no one gets the wrong idea, i don't actually plan on calling a modified piece of work my own. Murdoch have one of the strictest plagiarism policies in West Australia. The practice becomes habit.

    but just one serious question, something i may need to/ want to do in the future;
    one method of building models that we brushed on at Uni was building one model around another, like using a schematic picture as per standard practice, just in 3d. Thoughts?
  • lennier1lennier1913 Posts: 1,280Member
    #14
    Retopology?
    Extremely useful if you have to work with data from a 3D scanner.
    ArtStation | DeviantArt
  • JazzMann121JazzMann1210 Posts: 0Member
    #15
    That links actually useful in so many ways :thumb:

    but yes, that's the idea, didn't get named in the lecture, as far as i remember.
  • wjasperswjaspers332 Posts: 0Member
    #16
    JazzMann121 wrote: »
    but just one serious question, something i may need to/ want to do in the future;
    one method of building models that we brushed on at Uni was building one model around another, like using a schematic picture as per standard practice, just in 3d. Thoughts?

    Where is the fun in that?
  • JazzMann121JazzMann1210 Posts: 0Member
    #17
    wjaspers wrote: »
    Where is the fun in that?

    Good point :D
Sign In or Register to comment.