does this look like a wip to you? topic moved.

and no, it doesn't particularly look like a rip.

The big bear is the accused rip.

I assume it is highly referenced. What does the artist itself say about it?

Highly relevant to topic.

*The lecture finger was in no way, shape, or form really necessary, but I just felt like being a big man. :D

I really don't see this as a rip. If every little thing that looked like something else was frowned upon, then art as a whole would become stagnant and very much so dead. 

Because if we start following the whole "it looks too much like mine" logic then over three fourths of the gallery would be in an uproar because of the "I made my piece in the (X) style".

This looks highly suspect to me. The head shape in particular is just way too similar for me to easily accept that it's just a coincidence.

I do not understand what the counter-proof is meant to demonstrate.

Its either heavily referenced, or ripped. The shading on both of pieces are really similar, and the head shape too. But there are some minor details that look different. Maybe that person could be looking at yours while doing theirs, and it ended up looking almost the same. There is no way to be sure though.

Greenraven; I am not so certain you grasp what I'm saying here, and I know I don't understand/see the relevancy in the things you've posted. You seem to be basing your post off of your ideals. Please correct me if I am wrong.

If it is at the very least reffed, I should still be able to ask the artist and his administrator to take down the reffed piece - this isn't just somebody's exploration into pixel art. This is an item being used on a site like Gaia Online. If wanted people to ref my work (which already serves a purpose beyond being my own personal art), I would expressly say so. And if this is a case of extreme referencing, the artist could have at least had the decency to ask first.

You wouldn't find anything that says so. I found the artwork on a site I'm registered at, and honestly the two are just too damn similar.

And no, they don't all look alike. I've seen enough to know.

Seems like to me he wanted to see how close he could get to looking like that particular style.

I honestly can't say if he accomplished that or not, since I've never played the game and am not familiar with that style.

Uh...no. Those pieces are the same because they are supposed to be the same, or similar.

And really, I should replace the word same with similar, because they really aren't the same at all.
And the nature of those images is not the same nature of the ones I last posted.

You might argue that that is also what the artist of the reffed bear wanted for their piece, but it doesn't matter - I don't want my work being referenced like this, to the point where it looks like all they've done is taken my piece and distorted it.


Edited by marova - 02 October 2009 at 3:05pm

Have you actually looked at the second image and analyzed it or what? It's incredibly hard to deny something deeper, like image distortion.

Well, I don't think I am.

I'd like to see how you'd react if you were in my shoes right now.

A) Guess what though? They're templates! My work is NOT a template, and it is not to be compared to/used as one. =/
I highly doubt there are 1000s of bears on the interwebz that look almost identical to mine. Highly doubt it.

B) Good for you that you feel that way, but what I'm asking for here in this thread is help with the evidence. If you cannot do anything other than try to tell me I'm wrong for pursuing this, or that I'm wasting my time, I have nothing more to say to you.

A) Go right ahead.

B) Actually, I didn't. Angel =/= me. I still don't even know what a rip is.

Okay, what's meant to be ripped here?
Are you saying you think the "Bridget" pink bear is a rip of the chibi-fied mini bear?
Or the chibi-fied mini bear is a rip of the large bear? Or the pink and chibi-fied bears are rips of the large bear?