After a few days I have got message that I need revision on my pixel art.

This art

and this one

I see no problems with this arts so I hope they can be accepted back asap.

Plagiarism does not fit right here because I used photos and somebody's artwork. I have also linked to photo which I used for both arts.

Really sad that other artists can use references and you can't JUST BECAUSE.

If I took any of your pixelart and photographed it nd just tweaked a bit of the hue or took one of your pixels and converted to vectors and just smoothed the weirdest bits it would be plagiarism.
I liked the pixel and you did a great job but you just crossed the line into plagiarism.
This applies to the John Lennon even tho you did alter the BG from the original.
Every art is its own thing and viewed on its own merit only.

Accuse a man in something without clear evidence. That's cool!

scwol, I’ve looked at the thumbnail of your “fall” piece (as it’s all I have to go on) and the reference photo you required. It’s clear that you tried to recreate that photo point-for-point as best you could. While I commend you on your ability to do so—I gave your piece a high rating when it was active—you didn’t try to remix or transform the image into something you could uniquely call your own.



Here’s a pic from PJ user Smilecythe that was posted earlier this year. Note that while Smilecythe used photo references for the character portraits, he both stylized the portraits and used them as part of a larger piece that parodies character select screens from the Streets of Rage series.



cure's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Redneck" falls along similar lines: rather than re-create the entire reference photo, cure re-creates the centerpiece of the photo, then adds a new background to it. He would later remake his own work with a new background and some edits to the main sprite.

Using reference pieces isn’t a necessarily bad thing. Trying to recreate them in pixel art can even be good practice. But if I’m reading the tea leaves correctly, PJ would rather you use those references as a jumping-off point for creating your own works and finding your own style, not to show off how well you can recreate a photograph.

In fairness, I’d posted that before you posted that comparison GIF. My statement still stands, but…yikes, that GIF is damning.

If I will draw main street of my town, will you remove my art cause street does not belongs to me? As for pixel art my art fits all the rules, and if you are strict about copyright, let's remove all art which has material registered by any company.

Even if author against the fact that I used his material (photo in the public access), I would like to see his personal written request to me. By the way, I did not draw for a commercial purpose. So I have got right to draw, don't I?

P.S. I wont write any more ironic words. Let's clear the situation. My art with John Winston Ono Lennon had as you say "original" background. So why it was removed? Art "Fall" fits all pixel art rules and denying it with plagiarizing just breaks my rights. Very intresting to look at yours double standards. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

scwol: Realize that in this case it's more about plagiarism than the reproduction process. You were honest about the source and put a fair (well, some) amount of manual work into it. Had this picture been based on your own photograph/art, it would probably have been approved. Works based on other artists material suffers a great reduction in approval tolerance.

Please don't try to make a "two wrongs make a right" defence, it's just annoying.

To reiterate, it's important that you're honest about your process. Manupix had to provide the references for both pieces, and you straight up lied about how you pixelled Fall – that says to me that you knew what you did was wrong, and tried to cover it up.


Sorry to belabour the point, and I'm glad you better understand pixeljoint's rules around this stuff now.