Toyotaro tracing

[UpFromTheSkies]

...it would take an obsessive fan to even notice.

It would take a fan who hasn't read the manga lately to notice. If you have, it's pretty obvious.

I don't think a casual fan who has read the manga once or twice is going to notice he copied the pose and framing of a single panel and be able to go back and find the exact one

[Jinzoningen MULE]

...it would take an obsessive fan to even notice.

It would take a fan who hasn't read the manga lately to notice. If you have, it's pretty obvious.

I don't think a casual fan who has read the manga once or twice is going to notice he copied the pose and framing of a single panel and be able to go back and find the exact one

Maybe I'm less casual than I thought, then.

[Faustus]

Toyotaro doesn't trace; he routinely pulls references. In the case of every one of these "homages" in Super the disposition of lines on the page is far too dissimilar to the source material. They just don't overlap, much less to an extent as to arouse any legitimate suspicion of "tracing."

While I do wish too he'd cut back on the homages a bit, one look at Beerus and Champa's skirmish at the start of chapter 5 -- or Goku and Frost's in chapter 10, or Trunks fighting and then resourcefully giving Black the slip in chapter 15 -- should tell you he's more than got it in him as a "battle choreographer," as it were.

As for the homages -- is it "shameful"? Surely that's not the word for it; it's deliberate and obvious and he's not trying to sneak one past you. But tiresome? In poor taste? You could make the case. It's an artistic issue, not an ethical one.

Say a sibling of yours types an essay for a Dragon Ball course. The next year, you take that same course, you're on your siblings computer (for whatever reason) and you notice that they still have a copy on their computer. Then, using the siblings paper as a reference, you write your own essay, making all the same points as she did, but you re-word and re-arrange everything. When you go to turn that essay in to your Dragon Ball professor, you tell him that you copied your siblings essay from the previous year. Is it still plagiarism?

There's a gulf of difference between a formal essay and the work of art, which can be and often is densely allusive. "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" and all that.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

There's a gulf of difference between a formal essay and the work of art, which often can be and often is densely allusive. "Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal" and all that.

I believe "Stealing from one is plagiarism, stealing from many is innovation" or whatever the actual proverb is would apply better here. Either way, this is hardly alluding, more like pasting.

[Doctor.]

I don't think a casual fan who has read the manga once or twice is going to notice he copied the pose and framing of a single panel and be able to go back and find the exact one

Not the case at all. Plenty of panels he uses as a reference are very iconic panels. If you've read the manga even once, and have a solid memory, then you're going to notice it.

There was a case of a comic book a handful of years back that traced from Tite Kubo's Bleach and I noticed instantly, way before I knew of the scandal, despite only having read Bleach once.

[z_cherub]

It would take a fan who hasn't read the manga lately to notice. If you have, it's pretty obvious.

I don't think a casual fan who has read the manga once or twice is going to notice he copied the pose and framing of a single panel and be able to go back and find the exact one

Maybe I'm less casual than I thought, then.

You have no credentials as an artist, or as someone in the comic/manga industry, & yet you're right at home throwing words like "plagiarism", "traced" & "theft" around about someone else's work despite multiple accounts from more experienced people than yourself to the contrary.

I don't known if casual is the opposite of credible in this case, but if it's anywhere in the ballpark, you sound plenty casual to me....

[Doctor.]

You have no credentials as an artist, or as someone in the comic/manga industry, & yet you're right at home throwing words like "plagiarism", "traced" & "theft" around about someone else's work despite multiple accounts from more experienced people than yourself to the contrary.

I don't known if casual is the opposite of credible in this case, but if it's anywhere in the ballpark, you sound plenty casual to me....

Plagiarism is a serious offense in the academic and critic world and everyone will be throwing around that term if they hold their belief to be true, as long as they provide a proper justification, that is. You don't need to be an artist yourself to know about the intricacies of art.

[Lord Beerus]

I wouldn't call it tracing per-se as it's not line-for-line the same images we see in the manga, but the similarities are very apparent. I'd put them down as homages. Very gratuitous references to manage, but homages nonetheless.

[z_cherub]

You have no credentials as an artist, or as someone in the comic/manga industry, & yet you're right at home throwing words like "plagiarism", "traced" & "theft" around about someone else's work despite multiple accounts from more experienced people than yourself to the contrary.

I don't known if casual is the opposite of credible in this case, but if it's anywhere in the ballpark, you sound plenty casual to me....

Plagiarism is a serious offense in the academic and critic world and everyone will be throwing around that term if they hold their belief to be true, as long as they provide a proper justification, that is. You don't need to be an artist yourself to know about the intricacies of art.

You also don't need to be an artist to understand that Toyotaro's work is heavily informed by and approved by AT, not "plagiarism" and not "traced"

You also don't need to be an attorney to understand that slander/libel are "serious offenses", but that hasn't slowed you down much, huh?

[Doctor.]

You also don't need to be an artist to understand that Toyotaro's work is heavily informed by and approved by AT, not "plagiarism" and not "traced"

You also don't need to be an attorney to understand that slander/libel are "serious offenses", but that hasn't slowed you down much, huh?

You need to slow down and stop taking criticism against Toyotaro personally. If you bothered to look at any of my other posts in this thread, you'd see I've stated multiple times that Toyotaro was not tracing and that he is not a plagiarist.

[z_cherub]

You also don't need to be an artist to understand that Toyotaro's work is heavily informed by and approved by AT, not "plagiarism" and not "traced"

You also don't need to be an attorney to understand that slander/libel are "serious offenses", but that hasn't slowed you down much, huh?

You need to slow down and stop taking criticism against Toyotaro personally. If you bothered to look at any of my other posts in this thread, you'd see I've stated multiple times that Toyotaro was not tracing and that he is not a plagiarist.

That was half directed at MULE - I've been getting your posts mixed up as this thread has warn on. Sorry.

[RehBeh]

Say a sibling of yours types an essay for a Dragon Ball course. The next year, you take that same course, you're on your siblings computer (for whatever reason) and you notice that they still have a copy on their computer. Then, using the siblings paper as a reference, you write your own essay, making all the same points as she did, but you re-word and re-arrange everything. When you go to turn that essay in to your Dragon Ball professor, you tell him that you copied your siblings essay from the previous year. Is it still plagiarism?

No. If i give credit and don't claim it as my own but another individual's work it's not plagiarism. Of course i will take zero for the essay, but i'm not a "plagiarist" i'm just a lazy motherfucker who can't do shit on his own.

Plagiarism consists of:
1;steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2;use (another's production) without crediting the source
3;commit literary theft
4;present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

If someone's "work" fall in this critiria he is plagiarism. If not, then he's not.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

No.

Let me tell you that you're wrong, and if you tried what I just described in a college... Well, you wouldn't last long.

[RehBeh]

No.

Let me tell you that you're wrong, and if you tried what I just described in a college... Well, you wouldn't last long.

That's what happens when you don't read the whole response. I even admitted that i won't last if i'll do something like that but who cares, right?

[Cetra]

I can see that a lot of people here neither study nor are they aware of full legal definition of plagiarism as well as the fact that there are various situations and respective country's definitions and criteria to meet to be called plagiarism.

[Jinzoningen MULE]

I can see that a lot of people here to neither study nor are they aware of full legal definition of plagiarism as well as the fact that there are various situations and respective country's definitions and criteria to meet to be called plagiarism.

I don't think anyone is even trying to be that hyper-literal.

[RehBeh]

I can see that a lot of people here neither study nor are they aware of full legal definition of plagiarism as well as the fact that there are various situations and respective country's definitions and criteria to meet to be called plagiarism.

While what you say is true, there are some criteria that define what plagiarism is who stay true from country to country.

Taken from Harvard Guide: In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn't matter whether the source is a published author, another student, a Web site without clear authorship, a Web site that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else's work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.

Taken form "Babiniotis dictionary". : Plagiarism: Taken ownership of another's intellectual work.

Form Oxford Dictionary: The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

And from the TheFreeDictionary: The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one's own creation. or taking the writings or literary concepts (a plot, characters, words) of another and selling and/or publishing them as one's own product. Quotes which are brief or are acknowledged as quotes do not constitute plagiarism. The actual author can bring a lawsuit for appropriation of his/her work and against the plagiarist, and recover the profits. Normally plagiarism is not a crime, but it can be used as the basis of a fraud charge or copyright infringement, if prior creation can be proved.

So far we have a basic and universally accepted term for plagiarism. Now onto the legal actions against it:
Plagiarism doesn't consist of students stoling idea's from each other which is the most simple. It has a plethora of forms like stealing idea's from an author. Plagiarism usually(in copyright lawsuits mostly) consists of someone stealing "parts" from an establised work other's made. For that reason courts find it difficult to determine it in most cases. Usually if there's concrete evidence supporting that someone "plagiarized" the courts job is easier and the "thieft" takes a penalty. But there's a but: Not every unauthorized taking of another's work constitutes plagiarism.(again taken from TheFreeDictionary). There are laws that protect the fair use of a "product" mostly for satire use.(example is TFS with DBZA). The whole plagiarism thing has exploded with the Internet rise, making it easier for potential thiefts and hardr for legal actions to take place.

To conclude this whole arguement plagiarism follows this scheme:
1;steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2;use (another's production) without crediting the source
3;commit literary theft
4;present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

If Toyotaro does that, then he plagiarizes. But since he openly admits that he uses Toriyama's work for his own work, plus Toriyama not making copyright lawsuits against him, i don't see how that's Plagiarism.

[Cetra]

I can see that a lot of people here neither study nor are they aware of full legal definition of plagiarism as well as the fact that there are various situations and respective country's definitions and criteria to meet to be called plagiarism.

[spoiler]While what you say is true, there are some criteria that define what plagiarism is who stay true from country to country.

Taken from Harvard Guide: In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn't matter whether the source is a published author, another student, a Web site without clear authorship, a Web site that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else's work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.

Taken form "Babiniotis dictionary". : Plagiarism: Taken ownership of another's intellectual work.

Form Oxford Dictionary: The practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

And from the TheFreeDictionary: The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one's own creation. or taking the writings or literary concepts (a plot, characters, words) of another and selling and/or publishing them as one's own product. Quotes which are brief or are acknowledged as quotes do not constitute plagiarism. The actual author can bring a lawsuit for appropriation of his/her work and against the plagiarist, and recover the profits. Normally plagiarism is not a crime, but it can be used as the basis of a fraud charge or copyright infringement, if prior creation can be proved.

So far we have a basic and universally accepted term for plagiarism. Now onto the legal actions against it:
Plagiarism doesn't consist of students stoling idea's from each other which is the most simple. It has a plethora of forms like stealing idea's from an author. Plagiarism usually(in copyright lawsuits mostly) consists of someone stealing "parts" from an establised work other's made. For that reason courts find it difficult to determine it in most cases. Usually if there's concrete evidence supporting that someone "plagiarized" the courts job is easier and the "thieft" takes a penalty. But there's a but: Not every unauthorized taking of another's work constitutes plagiarism.(again taken from TheFreeDictionary). There are laws that protect the fair use of a "product" mostly for satire use.(example is TFS with DBZA). The whole plagiarism thing has exploded with the Internet rise, making it easier for potential thiefts and hardr for legal actions to take place.

To conclude this whole arguement plagiarism follows this scheme:
1;steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
2;use (another's production) without crediting the source
3;commit literary theft
4;present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

If Toyotaro does that, then he plagiarizes. But since he openly admits that he uses Toriyama's work for his own work, plus Toriyama not making copyright lawsuits against him, i don't see how that's Plagiarism.[/spoiler]

You have provided a few definitions and therefore concluded your view about an overall idea. However, that is a very generalized idea. It is very well true that, if you make sure to provide sources and/or quotes/citations, et cetera, that you can be safe and credit those whose thoughts you have used. Therefore I even agree to an extent with your comment about Toyble and Toriyama and Toei as they do not have the slightest problem and Toyble is even in the area of legally and intellectually working with Dragon Ball. I see no problem with that. Technically speaking, just because nobody reacts does not mean there is not a problem when it comes to the original idea. I do not speak about Dragon Ball with this, but about everything - still, in case of Dragon Ball I agree with you, I would not call mere references as honor to a franchise "plagiarising" from an authorized person. Which other cases could I mention? First of all, your example of taking someone else's work and just saying "that is not from me" is not accepted. I cannot speak for your country but that is how it is here. However, not everything that was ever written is copyrighted. How can that be? Well, things are protected the more the look "individual". If you provide a text that merely consists of facts and/or definitions chances are there is less of a problem than something that is totally and obviously written by a person whose distinctive writing style you can see. Of course it is all up to situation x. In general, as said, quotes, sources and citations are the safe way to go. But do not think it is that easy. And there is even a wrong way to use quotes, sources and citations. That is also something you can/must learn while studying. Granted, not everyone does, though.

[RehBeh]

You have provided a few definitions and therefore concluded your view about an overall idea. However, that is a very generalized idea. It is very well true that, if you make sure to provide sources and/or quotes/citations, et cetera, that you can be safe and credit those whose thoughts you have used. Therefore I even agree to an extent with your comment about Toyble and Toriyama and Toei as they do not have the slightest problem and Toyble is even in the area of legally and intellectually working with Dragon Ball. I see no problem with that. Technically speaking, just because nobody reacts does not mean there is not a problem when it comes to the original idea. I do not speak about Dragon Ball with this, but about everything - still, in case of Dragon Ball I agree with you, I would not call mere references as honor to a franchise "plagiarising" from an authorized person. Which other cases could I mention? First of all, your example of taking someone else's work and just saying "that is not from me" is not accepted. I cannot speak for your country but that is how it is here. However, not everything that was ever written is copyrighted. How can that be? Well, things are protected the more the look "individual". If you provide a text that merely consists of facts and/or definitions chances are there is less of a problem than something that is totally and obviously written by a person whose distinctive writing style you can see. Of course it is all up to situation x. In general, as said, quotes, sources and citations are the safe way to go. But do not think it is that easy. And there is even a wrong way to use quotes, sources and citations. That is also something you can/must learn while studying. Granted, not everyone does, though.

Therefore I even agree to an extent with your comment about Toyble and Toriyama and Toei as they do not have the slightest problem and Toyble is even in the area of legally and intellectually working with Dragon Ball. I do not speak about Dragon Ball with this, but about everything - still, in case of Dragon Ball I agree with you, I would not call mere references as honor to a franchise "plagiarising" from an authorized person.

Well, i was mostly speaking about DragonBall, that's why i used it as the prime example.

First of all, your example of taking someone else's work and just saying "that is not from me" is not accepted. I know that's not accepted and is widelly received as a "bad" thing to do, but it's not plagiarism per say. There must be another word for this act but 'cause i'm a foreigner i'm not sure if it exists in the English Launguage, but were i live we use different ones.

However, not everything that was ever written is copyrighted. How can that be? Well, things are protected the more the look "individual". If you provide a text that merely consists of facts and/or definitions chances are there is less of a problem than something that is totally and obviously written by a person whose distinctive writing style you can see. Of course it is all up to situation x. In general, as said, quotes, sources and citations are the safe way to go. But do not think it is that easy. And there is even a wrong way to use quotes, sources and citations. That is also something you can/must learn while studying. Granted, not everyone does, though

Agree completely

[Yasai9001]

Tracing is more like.....Mastar Media.