View Single Post
  #39  
Old 2017-07-09, 7:00pm
SGA's Avatar
SGA SGA is offline
Fried Cat
 
Join Date: Jan 02, 2011
Posts: 665
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sislonski View Post
Well first of all I'm not claiming the use of shards as my own, never have, never will, that's a basic technique that's been used for ages. My tutorial is on how to create an arrowhead.

you're right the implosion is nothing new, nor shards, nor encasing creased silver glass. Never claimed it to be. I think the point is being missed by many. It's not about claiming ownership of a basic technique, it's about claiming ownership on the process/steps into how it's used/manipulated to create a particular look or bead design. That's what makes the difference. That's the point. Which you did mention. That IS the difference!

Copying the "process" of how that "particular style of bead design" was created is the point . There's a difference. By then copying that process of creating that particular "style/design" then adding a flower to it , taking a better picture or explaining it better doesn't make it "not copying"

But that's just me. To each his own. And if someone wants to support an artist who I (and many others) deem to be a thief,(and I'm sure others who don't), by purchasing that tutorial then that's their choice. If you don't know then don't worry about it. This thread is not about condemning anyone buying tutorials, it was started to condem an artist who copies.

I never called AVTrout a thief for enjoying one thoroughly written tutorial over an unclear one, so don't put words into my mouth.

That being said, yes it was unfair (not extremely but maybe slightly) to be harsh towards her about buying a copied tutorial. Maybe she didn't realize it's copied. But if she did then again that's her choice.

Basically purchasing a tutorial you feel or know is probably a copy is supporting one artist who is taking Money away from a fellow artist. If you can't get the concept ask the original writer.

I purchased Kerri Fuhr's dragonfly tutorial, it was well written, great photos. In my mind I can't see why another artist needed to rewrite Kerri's tutorial, it never needed to be copied or rewritten. So you wrote it a bit differently, you used maybe different colors, so it's a dragonfly and no one owns dragonflies in your mind, so that's okay? Give me an F'n break!

I agree with your assessment of the tut writer in question. Kerri's tutorial is a very specific and yes, it's horrible it was copied. She does it consistently.

And if you want to say I'm putting words into your mouth, I'd appreciate it if you stop putting them into mine. I said nobody owns techniques. Although one may be associated with them, the technique becomes public domain over time because eventually everybody learns it. (Pleating and implosions) So buying a technique based tutorial is not necessarily theft support.

People *do* own style and a "look". The dragonfly tutorial is a perfect example. Raking dots tut (a technique, verrrry loose explanation here) and Kerri's application are two wildly different pdf's and it's impossible to recreate a method and explain it better than the original. There is only *one* way to make Kerri's dragonflies and she explained it thoroughly.



My point was that you accused Trout of supporting a thief when she didn't (that I saw) say WHO she purchased from or what tut she was referring to. It was a generic statement about standard techniques and why one person may prefer one technique tutorial over another. Technique. Not style.

Last edited by SGA; 2017-07-09 at 7:10pm.