Most of you probably don’t know this, but I’m a journalism major. As such, one of my required courses is Mass Communication Law. How does this pertain to DeviantART? Well, we covered a topic this past Thursday that may interest you. Copyright.

As I look around at this site, it has become pretty damn clear that a large number of people do not understand copyright law. Well, I hope that’s the case, else all the violations are blatant and intentional. I’d like to take this time to explain copyright and its laws to you all now, based off the class lecture.

Copyright was developed to protect intellectual property, i.e. original creations from someone’s mind. What does this cover? As taken from my notes, “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression”. These include literary works, music and lyrics, dramatic works, choreography, movies, sound recordings, and, most importantly for this talk, pictures, graphics, and works of art. These works must be originally created by the author, and are legally copyrighted the moment they are created. There is no requirement to register a copyright, though doing so helps provide prove of creation and ownership.

To summarize, as soon as an original work is created, it legally belongs to and is copyrighted by the creator. It must not contain unoriginal material, with the exception of compilations and the sort (though permission by the copyright holder must be obtained to publish works in a compilation).

Now that we’ve seen just what copyright covers, I’ll explain infringement. The following are all examples of copyright infringement, i.e. violation: public display, public distribution, reproduction, adaptation, and public performance. I will be focusing on reproduction and adaptation. Obviously, reproduction is the recreation or copying of a copyrighted piece, either for redistribution or, more commonly in art theft cases, to claim as one’s own art. Adaptation is very similar, with one key difference.

Adaptation is where an original work is reproduced, then changed slightly to appear as an entirely new work. This is a serious form of copyright infringement. To those of you familiar with copyright law, you may ask about fair use exceptions. However, fair use is a very limited exemption which covers the use of portions of copyrighted works for very specific purposes, or works that fall under Public Domain. These uses include criticism, commentary, news, reporting, teaching, scholarship, and/or research. Notice pose "referencing” is not in this list. Also remember that only small portions, such as short clips or excerpts, are covered. Public Domain works are works whose copyrights have expired, or works placed intentionally into Public Domain by the copyright holders. Just because it’s by a well-known artist, or posted frequently online, does not mean it is Public Domain.

At this point it becomes vital to mention that giving the original artist credit does not grant their permission for use. With all this information in mind, the only conclusion can be that openly taking one picture, reproducing and adapting it (by tracing or “redrawing” ), and then crediting the original artist is still very clearly a violation of copyright law. Any sale of said recreation further opens a case for monetary compensation via lawsuit by the original artist. In simpler terms, if you sell it, the original artist and thereby copyright holder can, and likely will, sue.

Another subject I would like to cover for a moment is taking parts of a work, such as specific markings on a character, or originally created hairstyles, that sort of thing. If something inspires you, like the general idea of a hairstyle, that’s one thing. However, taking that marking, outfit, specific hairstyle, etc. is still a violation of copyright. Basically, if you didn’t design it, don’t use it.

To summarize, in case I’ve not made myself clear, recreating another artist’s work (i.e. reproduction) and making changes to it (adapting), even while providing credit (reference), is breaking the law. Therefore, any violation of this law should be removed from DA, without regard to who the violator is, or their popularity. Crime is crime, and the blatant disregard for this on DA is shameful, motivating artists to withhold their best or most beloved creations for fear of theft.

Copyright was created to motivate original and creative activity. As a site designed for the same purpose, it becomes the duty of its owners to make more effort to enforce these regulations, not only for ethical implications, but because it is the law.

EDIT!!!
Here are some really good guidelines that found for me about what's acceptable and not as far as tracing and referencing. Be sure to read the captions so it's clear on what's ok and what's a no-no!

[link]
[link]
[link]

Also, someone made a point to comment with "...in the USA.". Um. Yeah? I'm a deviant based in the USA, Deviantart is a USA based company... I took a law class, in the USA, about US law... I figured it was clear. :3 On that note, it should probably be mentioned that BECAUSE DA is a USA based company, they are actually at high risk for legal action if they don't do a better job controlling all of these violations. Though, with the terms of service you agree to when you sign up, it's actually those VIOLATING the agreement that will likely take more of a fall than the company. Food for thought.

/EDIT!!!