"Inspired" vs. Copying

Maybe she remembered seeing it somewhere, but forgot where and didn't know who to give credit to?

Who's to say both were inspired by another person's work? Maybe even a movie/film, book, play, etc.

I'm sorry, but I'm with Pilareta, that design skirts a very, very fine line. I could by the inspired but not copied story if there weren't such a blatent duplication of the concept. I agree that this shouldn't have been entered into a contest and the painter, whether or not she could remember the design or not, is displaying poor judgement in doing just that. It would be one thing if she'd put another creature in the cage, changed the feel of the cage...A LOT, or painted one wihtout the other. This is a blatant duplication of a concept and changing the colors up and adding a more detail does nothing to detract from that. The ways that the two pieces are similar would've weighed very heavily in the determination that this was a copied work. As it happens, the ways that they are similar are the very defining aspects of both pieces...THAT is where she should've made her changes.

CottonKandyClown wrote:Maybe she remembered seeing it somewhere, but forgot where and didn't know who to give credit to?

Who's to say both were inspired by another person's work? Maybe even a movie/film, book, play, etc.

Agreed! We don't know the whole story behind any of it...

i would be flattered it someone copied my work, but not for a contest its supposed to be your own designs not someone elses.

I'm not ready to throw stones, yet. Both are very different within the design. The body painting is so different! The ursala within a cage is similar, but not enough to burn her at the stack. It's like saying someone did a tiger/butterfly face body painting.

Based on the dates the pictures were posted. The newer designs is way better then the first one.

I'm a huge fan of FaceOff and a lot of the monsters are very similar to other people work in movies.

Everything has been more than once, and I agree that the 2nd one is better and different enough for it to count as her own. That's like saying you can't enter a tiger or sugar skull or clown in a contest. Isn't it your own if it is changed? She did a crazy awesome headpiece, the colors are different, etc. If you look at it for the differences it has rather than the similarities I think you would appreciate it more.

You can see both designs here:



As you can see, the body painting is more elaborated on the second one and the "gadget" (jail, robot) is better on the first one. But although I agree about the thin line between "inspired" and "copied", in this case I think she shouldn't have entered that design on the contest. Here is what "Cameleon Paint" wrote on the contest page 4 hours ago:
"cameleon paint (hace 4 horas | responder)
What a shame, this is a EXACT COPY of the work of the GREAT BODYPAINTER AND AIRBRUSH ARTIST ALEX HANSEN!!! WHO IS A WORLD CHAMPION IN BODYPAINT AND SPECIAL EFFECTS"
At least, she could have given credit to Alex...

Pilareta wrote:You can see both designs here:



As you can see, the body painting is more elaborated on the second one and the "gadget" (jail, robot) is better on the first one. But although I agree about the thin line between "inspired" and "copied", in this case I think she shouldn't have entered that design on the contest. Here is what "Cameleon Paint" wrote on the contest page 4 hours ago:
"cameleon paint (hace 4 horas | responder)
What a shame, this is a EXACT COPY of the work of the GREAT BODYPAINTER AND AIRBRUSH ARTIST ALEX HANSEN!!! WHO IS A WORLD CHAMPION IN BODYPAINT AND SPECIAL EFFECTS"
At least, she could have given credit to Alex...

After seeing the bigger picture, no pun intended! I agree, it is pretty darn close lol! She definitely should have at least said she was inspired by Alex. Shouldn't the judges have caught it though? They are professionals...that's why I thought maybe the idea WAS to redo someone else's work.

Wow, these pics make me think a little harder. I didn't notice the monitor face thing on the top of the cage being on both the 1st time around. Same exact idea.

Yea, I only saw that on the first one originally to! The paint is better on the 2nd one but the first one has a better cage/robot.

Agreed, after seeing the big picture, it does look like they were very much inspired and should have stated it!

Or... They were both inspired by the same thing (this is from 2009)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_MxQWRWfklyE/SrgAm72xSUI/AAAAAAAAB4Y/hQpfvCINsCU/s400/Dinosaur+cage+costume.jpg

LMAO Jenny!

That photo is actually labelled "Robot with me in a cage". I'm not sure why, since it's clearly a dinosaur, but it does make you go hmmmm...

It maybe has an animated/robot head? The guy is what creeps me out!lol

Yeah, Old Man In A Cage doesn't exactly get your creative juices flowing, does it?

I feel so inspired now!

Not at all! No juices of any kind flowing over here Jenny!

In all seriousness, this thread kind of makes me sad. I'm all for creativity and talent being rewarded but, really, who's to say their design is completely original and that anyone who does something similar is copying? The art we do is made of elements based around focal points in facial features. There are a finite number of combinations, not to mention that most of us share the same media and cultural influences. Concurrent development is inevitable.

I think a lot of the anger and resentment that come up around this kind of issue has to do with the difficulty women have with competition. If you truly think someone has "stolen" your original design, confront them. Don't bring in your friends, don't make vague passive aggressive posts, don't start targeted "philosophical" discussions. Deal with it directly, and then move on. We need to learn that success comes with being faster, better, and stronger than our competitors, not by undermining them.

And that's the truth. Pffffft.

I totally agree with you Jenny!

I do copy, from various artists and give them credits for that.
If they're ok, I'm ok! Starting to find my own style a bit, by doing the copying!

But.... I never, ever would use something like that in a competetion... Just feels wrong for the numbers two and three...

Btw: I thought I hadn't been copied till now, but Lisa Joy Young did a YouTube on wuppies, after I launched them!

It seems to me that the heart of the issue is context. As face painters, it is not a big deal to paint someone elses design at a party or event, we all take classes and learn other peoples designs and morph them into our own work. We support the teachers who put thier stuff out for us to buy, either on ytube or FABA TV at a convention or class. I am no body painter, but I assume that some of the same is true here, but it is a little more complicated, I gather, because that is where most of the broohaha seems to come in.

When it comes to posting a picture, or using a design in a contest or for profit or promotion of your own inspiration, that is very different. If you paint something to enter into a contest, or you put something out there to teach, or write a book, or make a video, you need to be original or cite your sources (just like writing a paper in college, you cannot copy someone without citation, or that is plagerism)

The issue for me is that these two things are tossed into the same generalized category of "copying" The kid in my chair does not need me to tell her that her mask was inspired by Marcela Murad, or that what I am painting is nearly exactly the same thing I saw her post on Facebook last week, but if I paint her design and take a picture of it, I should not publish it at my original work in a contest, sell myself as the creator of this design for my own promotion as a face paint design creator, or offer to teach a class on how to paint it. If I post a picture of it on my website to promote my skill as a painter for hire, that is fine. I list Marcela Murad as a painter who has been influential to me, and that is exactly what she is.

I guess I am saying that the thing that is really wrong with this picture is that it was clearly not an original thought and should not have been entered into a contest unless the rules of that contest clearly allowed people to take another artists design and interpret it, and the artist noted who they "covered." Should no one else be able to sing a Beatles song? Well, they cannot enter that into a contest for orginal song...but they could enter a singing competion.

The one thing that drives me crazy about this conversation is when it turns to the idea that using someone elses photos is in any way related to the copying, inpiration, and giving credit conversation or that being a new painter has anything to do with understanding how to be an ethical individual. Maybe I am just an old lady, but I think that everyone already knows right from wrong before they are a painter. I just don't think that there is much that is out of the realm of just plain old right and wrong here, and common sense is not really mittigated by the circumstances of being a face or body painter. Right is right, and wrong is wrong...just my two, or four cents.

Inspired.......we're all inspired by designs from others.
Even if you give them your exclusive twist , it's still a design from somebody else.

generally speaking:

If you don't want to be copied , stop facepainting. Because you can't stop people using your design.


I don't care if somebody uses a design i ''invented'' , I am flattered when they do

It means it's good enough to be copied

When people steal your pictures to use for i-don't-know-what : that's unacceptable !

Stealing a photo is wrong anywhere...heck, stealing anything is wrong

Being inspired is fine even copying a master face painter is fine, but don't go saying it's your design.

Don't enter it in a contest, if it's not been twisted and morphed into your own and you can tell it's not a copy! Note to self...never paint an ursala in a cage carried by a robot!


i know last yr I presented a few photos for a charity book. One was inspired by the Wolfe Bros and I clearly told him that it was. He did not put that in the book. So don't go judging and throwing the first stone because sometimes they don't always have control. I didn't make money off of it though so I guess it's still different I did learn my less though, not to do that again unless I know it would clearly be stated

I use to make childrens clothing and baby products yrs ago. My stuff was high end and after 4 yrs I had a nice customer base. One of my customers purchased a product and clearly copied it and started selling PDF patterns online! I do know what it feels like to have something copied and resold as their own. It's heartbreaking! It did make me walk away and this business fell into my lap

Totally agree with you cotton candy clown. A moral compass is universal.

I am always struck by the cases that violate the code as they are so clearly different than the extrainous things some people get hung up on with this issue. I see a clear red line. Focusing on false transgressions just blurs a clear distinction. It is not at all difficult to pick out what is wrong and what is right. Stealing is always wrong, misrepresenting yourself is always wrong. Copying, in and of itself, is not always wrong, copying is wrong based on the context in which the copy is used.

JennyNixe wrote:

I think a lot of the anger and resentment that come up around this kind of issue has to do with the difficulty women have with competition. If you truly think someone has "stolen" your original design, confront them. Don't bring in your friends, don't make vague passive aggressive posts, don't start targeted "philosophical" discussions. Deal with it directly, and then move on. We need to learn that success comes with being faster, better, and stronger than our competitors, not by undermining them.

And that's the truth. Pffffft.

Gender has no bearing in this conversation and I'm insulted that it would be entered into it as a means by which to devalue a legitimate discussion. Right and wrong has no gender identification. The judges probably didn't pick up on the copying because unless they have a running catalog in their heads, they may not have seen Alex's work. Even some people HERE, after looking at both images didn't see the issue...not until they were put side by side. I don't expect judge to be able to do that in the short time they are allowed to deliberate.

Success in competition comes with being faster, better and stronger, yes. But if your definition of faster, better and stronger allows for a blatent disregard of the basic tenents of ethical behavior and applauds anyone who is able to stomach sumitting a 'souped up' version of someone else's design for a competition, we'll have to agree to disagree. There are a lot of painters who are successful but unethical which makes their success a tainted reality that's doomed to fail. Please tell me how being faster, better and stronger apply in an instance when your competition is copying the works of others as a means of fast tracking their success? Tell me why that practice shouldn't be discussed at length. Tell me how the discussion of this practice is indicative of a woman's difficulty in dealing with competition?

Being a woman has nothing to do with determining what's right and wrong. Discussing a possible slight is not wrong and getting the support of your friends isn't wrong. You can believe that if I'm slighted, you will know about it...and if I feel the need to confide in my friends or to have a "philosophical" or even existential conversation about the slight, I'm going to do that too and my gender won't make me any less of a human being for having done it. I'm not a grin and bear it person and I don't believe that any one, man nor woman should sit quietly and handle such issue on the DL. The only one who benefits from that is the offender and the other unethical people out there who are primed to follow suit. These discussion educate and enlighten and are integral to the forward progression of this industry. If you don't like them, or you think less of us women for having them, you don't have to join them.