Similar Looking Character Concepts

[vices]

Professional artists are always deriving inspiration from each other. How much borrowing is ok?

Post some pics of characters or concepts by different artists that look similar to each other ^^

[Andrew Sonea]

One thing to remember is that for examples like the first and last one, they are wearing armour...which is undoubtedly based on real historical armours. So you can't really say they are stealing from each other, more like reusing historical examples to to make their designs more believable.

[vices]

Yeah that's a funny idea too.. If there is a historical example that someone uses, and someone else gets inspiration from person A without knowing it's a historical example, is it a problem?

[TinyBird]

You'll also need to remember that there are also many character archetypes that also play into to stuff like this: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...lorsEvilColors though it isn't to say that this doesn't happen, especially in Japan: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShanaClone http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...ReiAyanamiExpy (and in the Dark Age of comics) where series latch onto character archetypes that are popular.

Though I don't really get the third image, it's the same character with palette swap and pasted on stock image?
Also, I'd note that like Andrew Sonea said, both the first and last one are based on real armor, especially since the last one is pretty much Lord Buckhurst's armor (which, as your own comparison image shows wasn't the only one that went with similar design, as black and white armor was used in the army during those ages to separate ranks):


Sometimes it's just good to remember that everything's been done, and sometimes people just want to draw things that are similar because they like them.

[Farvus]

The more I see examples of character design for games, the more I realise that I would totally burn out creatively if I ever worked in that specialisation for few years. Normally my fascination with drawing people comes from the story behind them but as a job of doing hundreds of turnarounds it would be no more than being make-up artists that just shuffles with archetypes.

[Elwell]

I don't get the purpose of this thread. Sometimes things look like other things. Sometimes it's coincidence. Sometimes it's a result of common origin. Sometimes it's a result of common function. Sometimes it's a result of overt reference (homage). Sometimes it's a result of covert reference (ripoff).

[NyeAlexandaFrayne]

To be fair I feel some artists take it a bit far and do strait up copy other artists designs, i had this the other day on devient art...

I commented on someones image that he obviously really likes Aaron Beck's work, turns now that he has now adjusted and re uploaded the image so it doesn't look as much like an image Aaron Beck created and i am now 'Deviously Denied' from commenting now.

[vices]

Yeah as a society we are pretty sensitive about the whole copying vs creating thing, as opposed to say countries like China or South Korea. Though interestingly South Koreans are beginning to take issue with copying.. I heard the artist in the first picture got slammed hard on some web forums for appearing to copy the drama

Elwell: I guess the point is to post pictures of similar looking characters..?

That archtype stuff is nifty, great way to see links between characters in a new way

[creeptool]

aren't you guys afraid to post your character designs because of copyrighst issues? by the way how would some one get there stuff copyrighted?

[TinyBird]

aren't you guys afraid to post your character designs because of copyrighst issues? by the way how would some one get there stuff copyrighted?

Why would you be afraid? I mean just saying that the chances of someone taking your design and starting to make loads of money is pretty slim. Like being afraid of posting ANY work because you know, somebody might steal it. Besides your stuff sill belongs to you, whether you pay for copyright or not: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/fa...al.html#mywork http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
Besides you don't copyright a character design, you trademark it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Registration
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-i-tra...-character.htm

[Stoat]

The more you know about something, the more you see subtle differences and the more important those differences seem to you. My husband who is, to say the least, not into bluegrass music can't tell one piece from another (old saying: there are only five bluegrass songs, and three of them are Soldier's Joy). But if you're into it, the differences are huge.

But to me, all Space Marines look exactly alike. Mechs, too.

[themegagod]

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

with that said, there are often many legal battles that go on in regards to creative properties. It's less so much as someone stealing the original, as much as it is, did they change it enough?
Think david bowies under pressure, versus vanilla ice's ice ice baby. Adding one additional note into the original song, gave him a legal case for creative ownership. So vanilla lost and had to pay some form of settlement, but creative stealing is almost a part of the job.
as a rule though, I have just recently read, that once a piece of work is solid, you own it. There is a certain level of copyright protection in the creators favor. But technically you do not own the idea or thought process. If you tell someone about an idea you are thinking of working on (let's say a cat girl in armor) if they draw this character, and don't give you any credit, they are legally in the okay.
But who knows how this may change in the near future with people buying fine art ideas/ immaterial art.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswee...t-s-ideas.html

But all in all, I guess the line for how much borrowing is okay, is a bit up to the moral conscious of the "copying" artist and the original creator.

[JFierce]

The only thing that's actual theft is number 3 where they just took parts of the original and pasted other shit on top.

[Elwell]

aren't you guys afraid to post your character designs because of copyrighst issues? by the way how would some one get there stuff copyrighted?

http://copyright.gov

[Elwell]

as a rule though, I have just recently read, that once a piece of work is solid, you own it. There is a certain level of copyright protection in the creators favor. But technically you do not own the idea or thought process. If you tell someone about an idea you are thinking of working on (let's say a cat girl in armor) if they draw this character, and don't give you any credit, they are legally in the okay.

The proceeding paragraph is such a confused muddle of right and wrong I don't know where to begin. Once again, intellectual property law is complicated, and the internet is FULL of misinformation. If you have any questions, refer to an official source like the copyright.gov link TinyBird and I posted.

[sone_one]

aren't you guys afraid to post your character designs because of copyrighst issues?

not at all... how big is the chance that someone takes a job-opportunity i would like to and be able to fill, by stealing my idea? i might be naive about that, but i see it as pretty slim to non existant. therefore im not really hurt. also if your design skills are good, youre save (not saying mine would be lol far from it), because amateurs can try to rip of the best ever design and still make it look like shit, because they pay attention to the wrong things (look at comparrisson 3 in this thread).

the only question is, would you rather not post your design or disfigure them by a watermark, getting no or a worse than possible exposure, or would you rather take the risk, because theres simply no better alternative?

[edit] also... whats a better proof, of the creation date of a certain piece, than posting it on a public platform only a few could influence date-wise?

[Yulai]

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."
Isn't the whole point of art to 'steal' ideas and revision them as your own? I really have no problems with most of the pictures you posted except the the third image which is blatantly a poorly photo-manipulated version of the original.

[dpaint]

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."
Isn't the whole point of art to 'steal' ideas and revision them as your own? I really have no problems with most of the pictures you posted except the the third image which is blatantly a poorly photo-manipulated version of the original.

This is why most people will never succeed at being an artist. Because that is not the point. If you have to ask what the point is or always take inspiration form some one else you aren't an artist and you will never be a professional.

[JeffX99]

Isn't the whole point of art to 'steal' ideas and revision them as your own?

Wow...what?

[themegagod]

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."
Isn't the whole point of art to 'steal' ideas and revision them as your own? I really have no problems with most of the pictures you posted except the the third image which is blatantly a poorly photo-manipulated version of the original.

Wow...what?

what is right...
If you are referring to stealing what the creator(s) of the universe have created (assuming you believe that way), than yeah okay, I can see that.
But the whole point of art is not to steal.
at least not for me.

Is it an aspect? of the learning process, sure. Of my creative process, I have been guilty of using reference sure- everyone does.
But do I want to copy someone elses work? NO
I don't even like copying my own work.
Art is about evolution- growth. Change, and expression.
Do I look at someone else's work with envy and respect, and think "man I wish I could do that". DUh. (yeah if you don't know what I mean by duh). Do I then redraw what they created? very rarely. Do I adopt their composition? Maybe. do I copy their subject? very very rarely.

I am influenced byy the work of others, all of the time. "Imitation is the greatest form of flattery". But this doesn't mean that I simply copy their work.
And Yulai, your post may be worded very wrongly, But to me the whole point is almost the opposite of what you seem to believe.
When I look at let's say the mona lisa, I see a very well done portrait. If I like it, I study how it is done. And yes, in time, my work may be effected so that it has many similarities to Divinci's work. Yes I may pose a portrait in the same way The mona lisa is.but that is far from the point of it. I'm not simply taking a photo and drawing a mustache on the face. the whole point is to learn, and to please the eye.
To me, copy is just a sign of learning.
Eventually, I hope to be skilled enough, that my work stands on it's own, not for "revision" of someone else's work, but rather for my work providing others insight into the world I see. I hope that one day someone will see my work, and imitate me. not copy, and revise, but be worthy of study from.

for me the whole point of art is growth, and personal expression; The showing of others the beauty I see, and hopefully effecting them in a positive way.

stealing ideas is accidental.

[JFierce]

Ideas are cheap. Execution is the hard part.
Though there are some artists where their execution is rather nice but their ideas suck.

[Yulai]

Yeah, that came out wrong. Firstly, the word I was looking for was re-envision not revision. Secondly, the whole point of my post was to state that there really is nothing new under the sun concept-wise and so as artists we need to take these old ideas and "re-see" them as something different-something beautiful. The quote I used: "Good artists copy, great artists steal.", was to show that just copying something will not make you a great artist, you need to truly understand and "steal" the essence of something to become great, as many of you have pointed out.

[JeffX99]

My larger issue was with "the whole point of art" comment. With this whole "nothing new under the sun" idea I also take issue. It always seems to break down to those that think everything has already been done and we're just re-hashing/re-combining things to mke them look new...vs. those that think there can be original thought. I fall into the second category. If you are of the first then I would ask at what point in history were all the ideas finally used up? At what point did we turn the corner and now can only "re-see" old ideas in new ways?

[Yulai]

I'm sorry you took offense, JeffX99. While I respect and understand where you are coming from, I still personally feel that everything has already been done in one form or another. When did this happened? I really don't know the answer to that. Again, I'm sorry and I really did not intend my comment to get this out of hand. I'll try not to make broad sweeping statements in the future.

[themegagod]

Yulai, don't back down, you haven't offended anyone, you just have a personal view, that others don't agree with. I think you made a good argument.

Ideas evolve exponentially. By using the skills and knowledge of those of the past, we can then build on them, and those in the future can use our ideas and so on and so forth. It's x squared. but I do have to disagree that there are no new ideas. true new ideas are harder to come by than they were in the past, but they aren't impossible. If you don't try for new ideas, you will never have one.

[JeffX99]

I'm sorry you took offense, JeffX99. While I respect and understand where you are coming from, I still personally feel that everything has already been done in one form or another. When did this happened? I really don't know the answer to that. Again, I'm sorry and I really did not intend my comment to get this out of hand. I'll try not to make broad sweeping statements in the future.

No offense taken Yulai - don't worry about that. Merely discussing the point, sorry if it came across harsh. And I don't mean this to sound patronizing or dismissive so please don't take it that way, but I've found that ususally people who feel "everything has already been done" don't have a very broad view of things. Basically it is more a point of philosophy than anything and it likely just gets down to the semantics involved. BUT, I will say that if you believe it has all been done...that implies there was a point at which it wasn't...and therefore a turning point.

[TinyBird]

With this whole "nothing new under the sun" idea I also take issue.

My point with that is mainly to counter those people who get huffy and neurotic out of the idea that they might be either accidentally/unconsciously copying someone or having influences or actually take offense to finding out that they actually aren't the only ones using things X and Z in design (especially when those things are usually very basic) or that there's similar characters/designs existing out there.
Life becomes much easier when you don't put too much pressure into making/expecting everything to be 100% original. And that it's okay to take inspiration from stuff that exists.

[QueenGwenevere]

In a way, everything ties into everything else (shared planet, shared culture, shared history, shared myths, shared universal human traits and experiences, etc.) So in THAT way, few things are going to be 100% pure never-before-seen-anything-remotely-like-it "original". On the other hand, you can (and should) have your own unique point of view on the shared experience of everything. That's how people can keep coming up with new stories even though there are supposedly only about a dozen basic stories in the world. Every storyteller worth their salt has their own take on the basic dozen stories, and that's what keeps them interesting.

Where people seem to run into problems is if they either get so paranoid about doing anything remotely similar to any existing art ever made anywhere that they freeze up and don't make any art at all; or if people use "everything-has-been-done-before" as an excuse to not even TRY to have a unique point of view.

Think for yourself, but don't freak out if you find out somebody else thought of something vaguely similar sometime, somewhere.

[JeffX99]

My point with that is mainly to counter those people who get huffy and neurotic out of the idea that they might be either accidentally/unconsciously copying someone or having influences or actually take offense to finding out that they actually aren't the only ones using things X and Z in design (especially when those things are usually very basic) or that there's similar characters/designs existing out there.
Life becomes much easier when you don't put too much pressure into making/expecting everything to be 100% original. And that it's okay to take inspiration from stuff that exists.

Absolutely...the opposite danger of that is the annoying pre-occupation in "academic, post-modern fine art" of forced originality - having to come up with something "original" simply for the sake of being original. The thing people forget is yeah, this may have been done before...but not by me. Sort of the philosophy of following a path...others have walked it but it opens new vistas for me.