Animation Source Forums

Hmm, this is quite a huge problem that I've been hearing about.

Personally as an artist (although I don't draw as much Balto-related art as I used to), I will admit that screenshots and pictures from the films are a good starting point if you are starting to learn how the characters look, but it doesn't mean that you should ALWAYS copy what you see. I remember when WQ first came out and I began learning how to draw Aleu, I would print out screenshots of her from different scenes and in different poses; however, I did not copy them - I merely used them to reference how she was supposed to look (markings, eye shape, etc.). I believe this is how artists should use these pictures - Just for references, not for COPYING.

Copying is not ART, that's STEALING.

However, I will admit to using official characters as a base for my own original characters. I don't COPY them though . . . I make it my own (or try to!).

I will also agree - it is hard to find true originality anymore. I think we KILLED it.

- Juuchan17

Though I admit most people lack of creativity when it comes to drawing (including me), I don't really see the problem in drawing Balto-like character or using Balto style on a Balto related website. The only art-thing that truly annoy me are those "render" thing because most of them are ugly and some people claim they have drawn this by themselves though you can see clearly they just used a screenshot and changed some features. I honestly think fan characters' pictures shouldn't be renders, unless it's Balto's pups (since they already exist) because it's boring and uncreative... and... would I dare to say "unrealistic" ? Because a Border Collie that has the same lineart as Jenna is just weird...
[By the way, why are there so many wolfdogs and husky mixes ont this website ? That's unrealistic too, it gives the impression that most people encounters wolves every day while they're walking with their dogs... anyway...]

When I was younger, I used photographs or screenshots of everything I wanted to draw as a reference. Why ? Because you cannot learn how to draw something without references. Even young artists use this technic when they copy paintings. On a Balto-related website, I'd say it's normal to try to draw in Balto-style and it doesn't mean you cannot draw your character in your own style.

I've learned how to draw deer (well, I still make a lot of mistakes actually) by drawing Bambi in disney's style, that doesn't mean I can't develop my own style (and I did), it's just a good way for beginners to learn. I don't think we should blame every new artist because they try to copy a style, we should only give them advice to progress and find their own style.
As long as they do not use a screenshot, change the colors and some features and claim they did it by themselves, there's no way we can say "you copy ! tell us your references !" . When I use references (for animals), I just say that I've used photographs and/or screenshots (I usually use many different pictures) but I don't give a link to all of them, and I still think I've did it myself because references are here to help me but I'm the one who try to draw something and it can take me hours to do so !

But what is originality anyway ?
Look at the art on DA : most lions are TLK like, even when you can find some variations. Artists, of course, will claim their lions are different but we can see similarities and we know where the artist found their inspiration.
Almost all wolves and dogs are look alike, especially among popular artists.
Anthropomorphic characters are usually look alike too.
Same for deer, skunk, humans among certain fandoms...
Why ?
Because people want to be popular or admire a style, they copy a style according to their fandom and sometimes succeed in making good art but it'll never be original.

As for artist on BS or from BS...
Well, Pample is the only one who truly found her style, her wolves and dogs have nothing to do with Balto anymore. But she also draw humans, cats, etc...

Being creative and original is hard. Not because no one can be, but because geniuses are rare. Most people on DA or on BS will never be "real artists" (EVEN those who are in art schools) as Picasso, Goya, Monet, Boticcelli, etc... (And it's the same for literature, most of the books that we read aren't written by geniuses and some aren't good at all). It has nothing to do with the Internet of with our time... It was exactly the same during the past : most "artists" copied what other artists had done to sell their art or follow the trend.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to be creative and draw something new, it's just mean that most people who complain about how "uncreative" everyone can be is most likely uncreative too (because being creative doesn't mean trying to draw something by ourselves and you know that since people who try will often be called "uncreative" too).

When I read some posts about arts on this forum, I often see artists who believe their art is better than other people's art, don't be pretentious, even the better lack of something for someone.

I also encourage that you can't learn to draw without reference. I stress this to almost every wolf-with-horse-anatomy new artist on here on a daily basis. But honestly, reference is looking at the real thing. Copying is copying a screenshot. There's a difference.

Just because members are a fan of something, it doesn't mean they should rip it off. (Unless it's a fan art. Many artists, myself including, draw the Balto characters in the Balto style as a fan fo the movie. But we still have our own) Like I'm a fan of Deni's art, and I made the mistake of copying her style because her anatomy isn't great. No artist has perfect anatomy. It's best to learn the anatomy before you stylize it. That's what new cartoonist's should do. I had to go back to the beginning because I didn't. Now I have my own style (Though I still make changes to it, I'm not entirely satisfied with it) and I'm proud of it.

Referencing from photos or anything without giving credit is wrong. Point blank. It doesn't matter if you spent hours on it, you still used something else to learn and it's only right to give links and credit. The only real reason I can think of why someone wouldn't link to a drawing is if they trace it, because they're afraid of being caught. Otherwise, what's the problem? If you can say "I used photo reference" you should be able to give credit appropriately by linking to the original, and respecting the photographer. (Or artist, if someone makes the mistake of copying anothers art)

Honestly, originality is anyone who tries to be original. Those are the ones who at least deserve to be told they have original art. MOST liosn are TLK but that doesn't make it an excuse. If everyone disobeyed the teacher, would you?

Ahnd there are much more original artist's on here than jsut Pample. She's not the only one. I'll make a list of them when I get back. *Goes to next class*

It all depends on what you want to do ! You can look at both pictures of the real thing and screenshot or fanarts. I think it's a good way to see how to draw something more cartoony, it doesn't mean you have to draw everything like what you saw on the screenshot or fanart but it helps.



Well, when I use pictures (mostly when I try to draw a dog or a wolf which doesn't happen often), I use so many of them (some that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the drawing I made) to understand what I'm drawing that I'm not sure I can remember all of them in the end. And when I use "screenshots", I actually watch the movie instead of screenshots...

I link the art I used when there's only one picture I tried to copy to learn from it (and to see whether I'm capable of copying a photograph even when I can't draw something correctly on my own). And I think that's the only time you need to give credit to what you used as references.


I can't agree with you.
1- There will always be someone to say "this art remind me of someone else" (and I must say that even those who like to think their art is original and unique make pictures that are "BS Style" or "TLK style",truth is Lionne-de-Matrix was the only original and good artist I saw on TLKS and Pample now has her own style which has no longer anything to do with most members here but I'm still waiting to see original art on BS) or "you're not original".
2- Real originality comes with real artist (geniuses) and it's also rare. If you visit a museum, you'll see many paintings that look alike though one may seem very different because most painters were good but they followed a genius in their art.

I'm pretty sure you (or anyone else) wouldn't say to someone that their art is original just because they said that they are trying to be original. It's something they cannot prove.

To me, what should be bannished from the fanart galleries are : renders (even the "good" ones) and linearts. I'm tired of seein Cats' linearts everywhere (even those who are not badly colored) and renders are never good (except as avatar)

I had to skim over your reply because I'm really pressed for time lately with school and will reply to it properly when I get a chance (And finish that list of original artists) but I'll reply to the last part.

Cat's lineart in fan art galleries is banned now anyway as is everyone's lineart. It's to be sent under Fan Images.