incredible realistic computer graphics

[pugnax179]

i stared and watched in awe, was amazing

[Ksandra]

Just like every 3d artist codes their own software from scratch, amiright?

Glad you understood my sarcasm.

I've never seen someone reference stock in their work. If the stock's ToU doesn't require referencing (like the texture and model he used) you don't need to reference.

^ this. Even boytoy who works in 3D (he's a 3d technical artist), said it's not expected or rarely ever done.

You're (Aleth) making a mountain over something that never happens, and no one in 3D gives a shit about.

[Klutz]

Was very cool. Watched it twice, lol.

[Pooky]

Isn't not giving credit where credit due kinda douchebaggy anyway?

Absolutely, you should reference materials and source as required by the ToUA (Terms of Use Agreement)

The models were not stock.

The models were Public Domain, anyone can go to the exact site he did and get a hold of them, all allowed by the Google 3D warehouse TOUA.

Just because uncredited duplication occurs doesn't make it right.

I never said it was, I merely pointed out a very large example of it in agreement with the post I quoted. Ripping off someone elses work is down right scummy, but calling someone a plagiarist for using public domain or stock materials is ignorant. You're basically calling every graphic designer or digital artist on the planet a plagiarist for not making their own brushes, textures, photos ect.

Edit: I'm guessing you don't live off your artwork?

At the moment, no. I do however work for a publishing company, and have worked for one for the past decade.

[Aleth]

Naturally in art, science and CG everyone stands on the shoulders of giants.

I'm not saying he's a bad artist, but he certainly is on or across a line that is very important in this field. Many people are making the assumption he did everything on his own by virtue of his credits, down to painting textures/bump maps/spec maps etc.

Referencing is important to the progress of all these fields. It is not a trifle.

The claim of his credits is it's all his own work. It is not. There's no shade of grey there.

Edit: If I used stock models and textures in a CG short and didn't reference them, I'd get my ass handed to me.

Edit: Using someone else's spackle brush in PS seems a bit different from copy-pasta on a whole building as painstakingly modelled by some poor schlub.

[Pooky]

Naturally in art, science and CG everyone stands on the shoulders of giants.

I'm not saying he's a bad artist, but he certainly is on or across a line that is very important in this field. Many people are making the assumption he did everything on his own by virtue of his credits, down to painting textures/bump maps/spec maps etc.

Referencing is important to the progress of all these fields. It is not a trifle.

The claim of his credits is it's all his own work. It is not. There's no shade of grey there.

Do you even read replies, or just keep spewing ignorant bullshit?

Models: Public Domain, no need to reference. Textures: No need to reference based on the site's ToUA. He did everything right in terms of referencing sources.

[Aleth]

He may have fulfilled their terms of usage but that doesn't mean people seeing it are able to acknowledge that he didn't produce it all himself. His credits reinforce that belief.

Look at the comments on cgsociety and on the video itself. The majority are assuming he did it all.

Does that seem right?

Edit: If you made a showreel in order to obtain a job, you would still have to point out what you created yourself. This goes beyone legal and into moral ground. An employer would want to know just how much was his own work, for example. "I did it all myself" in the credits doesn't cover that properly.

TLDR: Public domain materials still aren't your work.

[Ksandra]

He may have fulfilled their terms of usage but that doesn't mean people seeing it are able to acknowledge that he didn't produce it all himself. His credits reinforce that belief.

Look at the comments on cgsociety and on the video itself. The majority are assuming he did it all.

Does that seem right?

If people are ignorant to the way things work in CG that is not his fault. Again, this is normal, people who work with cg don't credit stock images like pooky said. You keep trying to make him look out to be the bad guy for doing something that is considered standard in his field.

[Silenka]

That video was amazing and beautiful.

As for the debate, gotta go with SephYuyX on this one. I really hate the butthurt drama that goes on over artsy shit on the internets. I hate deviantart/LJ/etc bitches who sit there whining about credit because someone used their brushes or icons or whatever without properly crediting them. If I made a brush or something and someone used it I wouldn't send them hate mail going 'wah wah wah you stole my shit', I would be happy that my work is going on to better other peoples' work and not just my own. It means someone likes what I did and it'll spread of its own volition. It doesn't hurt to credit someone, but no one wants to sit there scrolling down a list of 500 names that goes all the way back to the person who invented Photoshop, either. I've seen some incredibly lame forum and community drama because some people just go really overboard with the bawwwing about credit and how they're princess artists and need to be ABSOLUTELY respected and credited because they used some stock footage to make an icon that someone likes and *gasp* actually decided to use! It's to the point of ridiculousness, and if this guy used stock/public domain models and skins then I don't see why he would go digging up every name of every person who uploaded stuff for others to use. He did all of the work with the tools he spent time getting for himself, he credited himself, I don't see what there is to cry about.

[Ksandra]

Edit: If you made a showreel in order to obtain a job, you would still have to point out what you created yourself. This goes beyone legal and into moral ground. An employer would want to know just how much was his own work, for example. "I did it all myself" in the credits doesn't cover that properly.

You've never made a demo reel have you? lol

[Baelorn]

Look at the comments on cgsociety and on the video itself. The majority are assuming he did it all.

I think this is what people are missing. Most people will look at this and think he built it from the ground up because the credits imply as much but it's simply not true.

A polite nod to those who made his video possible(or at least, much easier to make) would have been nice even if it wasn't required.

[Aleth]

Again, I'm not expecting him to have chased down every last person who contributed to his ability to make the video down to the invention of boolean logic or somesuch.

It is industry standard to state on showreels what you did and didn't make yourself.

This is regardless of what the makers of those materials care about in terms of credit.

You copy someone's homework, and the person you're copying doesn't care. Your teacher will want your hide.

You're only caring about who you're copying from. The audience/potential employers will want to know just how much of it you personally did.

[Aleth]

You've never made a demo reel have you? lol

Wrong.

What I've been saying (edit: regarding references) is what I have personally been told by London CG studios who have done the effects on many films you no doubt have seen. Maybe industry standards are less strict where you live.


edit: And games studios. Ever play a Sony game?

[Baelorn]

I really hate the butthurt drama that goes on over artsy shit on the internets. I hate deviantart/LJ/etc bitches who sit there whining about credit because someone used their brushes or icons or whatever without properly crediting them.

I think if someone spends hours of their time working on something that they plan to make freely available then a little credit isn't too much to ask for but that's just my opinion.

[Aleth]

I think if someone spends hours of their time working on something that they plan to make freely available then a little credit isn't too much to ask for but that's just my opinion.

This is right from the point of view of the person who created stuff he used if they care (many do, but not always).

The people watching also have a right to know (assuming it's ever used for academic/competition/employment/science purposes).

[Pooky]

I think this is what people are missing. Most people will look at this and think he built it from the ground up because the credits imply as much but it's simply not true.

A polite nod to those who made his video possible(or at least, much easier to make) would have been nice even if it wasn't required.

When writing a term paper, do you list Microsoft Word on your reference page? What about the company that owns the rights to the font you used? Or the paper company who's paper you printed it on? The manufacturer of your printer?

No, of course not. Why? Because its not required, and frankly its silly to think that you need to.

[Antithesis]

Man, Aleth has been trolling hard as fuck in this thread.

[Aleth]

You list the software you used (he did this).
You also state what assets you created (he did not do this).

Textures are assets. Models are assets. Software is not an asset.

I don't know if you have done CG in an academic environment, but you would know this.

Do you check out siggraph stuff. If you do do CG, you should!

[Pooky]

You list the software you used (he did this).
You also state what assets you created (he did not do this).

Textures are assets. Models are assets. Software is not an asset.

I don't know if you have done CG in an academic environment, but you would know this.

Do you check out siggraph stuff. If you do do CG, you should!

Here's the real problem with your thinking. Academic situations != real life. In published works, be it print or film, its not necessary to credit textures ect. You don't have to breakdown something pixel by pixel and cite everything.

No movie studio lists the font that the title, credits ect. use; by your reasoning those would have to be cited, making every movie in existence plagiarized.

Basically, shits not school.

[Aleth]

Man, Aleth has been trolling hard as fuck in this thread.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:b...-cool-face.jpg

Getting hired is real life.

If this were a for profit movie, then it wouldn't matter. No one would sue.

Seeing as, more than anything, it's a display of skill instead (artistic ability?), he should credit what was not his. People are being mislead, not necessarily by design, but it seems morally dubious.

Edit: If it were pure artistic expression that he wanted to achieve, perhaps it's less of an issue. When people are assuming you're a god for creating what you didn't though... seems off.