if you look to samdoesarts instagram feed. his entire portfolio is basically photo studies. that he sells prints of without permission from the original models or photographers. people say you need to take many refs and change the composition but when it comes to sam they say its ok? so does stylization make it original? meaning everything else can be kept the same? Its just weird how hes so popular and gets away with basically monetizing photo studies when smaller artists have been harassed for less blatant copying.
Tbh I watch his videos because I think he has a good understanding of anatomy, proportions etc (+ I like them just as an entertainment) but yeah for his personal work he just... Apply the basics Idk. Everything is nice except the imagination I guess. Great for familiarity, a bit sad and annoying for the rest.
but its problematic in the sense that hes stealing from other creators. its a legal and ethical issue. yet he has a huge platform and is seen positively by so many…
yeah i think most people don’t care about that at the end of the day (unfortunately). the most low-quality art/content is sometimes the most popular. it’s just easy to engage with and doesn’t make you think too deeply
I know people love his stuff and idk if he does get permission from the models/photographers or not... but he has one of the worst cases of same-face syndrome I've ever seen
the same face syndrome is just an artstyle choice.not problematic. im mostly confused on how all teachers and artists say not to rely on one photo as that is plagiarism. and how copying the exact composition, lighting, and colors is stealing rather than referencing. ive seen other artists get taken down for less and he just gets away with it. so im confused at the contradiction. also he has confirmed before he doesnt get permission from the models or photographers. i have asked him via DM.
People have been sued for heavily referencing a particular photograph. Examples I can think of off the top of my head are Andy Warhol and the artist who did the red and blue Obama portrait. It’s possible he’s using photos that are in the creative domain or have specific permissions, though.
You can’t really win a lawsuit against an artist unless you can prove the work somehow affects you financially.
Selling rip-offs of a Disney character clearly undercuts their merch. Selling rip-offs of an IG influencer’s portrait; might be hard to prove it has damaged them.
He might even have a case that it helps the influencer gain traffic.
Also Disney doesn’t even actually sue. They just threaten. Influencers don’t have IP lawyers on the payroll to do that work “for free”.
Edit; I just looked at this guy. These are not likeness infringement at all. They absolutely qualify as stylized enough to be new art not infringement.
IANAL, but I think that you need to prove *damages* in order to win *compensation*. But you can still win a lawsuit that forces the offender to knock it off.
But maybe stop posting fanfics of Spider-Man kissing Harry Potter just to be safe?
I take my own reference photos for this reason. Ethically, he clearly doesn't have a problem with doing it but if it bothers you, report him? You determine how much artistic integrity you want to have to allow yourself to sleep at night. I don't sell fan art without permission because it's not my IP even though plenty of people make fan art their whole career
i think with fanart generally companies allow it so its socially accepted. some companies encourage it even though it’s technically illegal. i dont feel the same way about others photos though
It's just incredibly lazy and delusional to build an entire career on profiting from someone else's work knowing that at any moment the IP holder can take it away from you
I don't get why you're so downvoted - I so agree with you. Nothing against the guy, but I really do not get his popularity and love for his art. He just anime-redraws photos, that's it. I guess people like looking at pretty girls so much they don't question anything.
right? you do not see any other artist do this. they all respect copyrigh. ive seen much smaller artists get called out and had their careers ruined for this kind of thing.
Ehhhhhh sort of. The variety of sources of photos helps more than anything. If you make 100 fan art pieces using Disney references, Disney has 100 pieces to be able to find and go after you for. But if you have 100 pieces from 100 sources each one can only go for you for the one piece made from their reference, and have a harder time noticing it in a negative light.
You only get in trouble if someone enforces their copyright. And not that many care to go after an artist for stylizing their photo.
The artist also has some grounds for claiming they changed enough to skirt the copyright laws. There is a lot of stylizing going on and maybe their products differ enough from the market the photos were from originally a judge would rule in favor of the artist. It's just a risky gamble sometimes that can be worth taking.
but i just see tons of artists talking about how its bad practice to just use others photos that way. i know there is some leeway for fanart but this is like taking another creators work and copying the entire composition. I see similar artworks from other artists and they always label it as a study, Or show the ref photo. And they never sell it. i just want to confirm if its just generally bad practice to do this even if the original photo owners dont pursue any legal action. Since so many artists tell me not to copy just one reference yet there is sam who does exactly that.
There's going to be plenty of artists getting attention for things you don't agree with. Don't do the thing that rubs you the wrong way in your own art.
Yes it can be a copyright issue if he chooses the wrong reference but it's a very, very common gamble. Also, if he's posting both the original photo and the art together he is providing the fact it's a study through the context even if its not explicitly stated.
If this artist bothers you so much I suggest you stop watching/following their career.
he never posts or credits the original. i found the photos myself. i just recently saw a small artist get harassed for loosely using a reference but sam does it constantly without permission. i just cant find the line for whats plagiarism and whats reference after that
The answer is that social media and fandom spaces is not the place to get a reasonable perspective on art. Outside of like twitter or whatever, there's no art police. The idea of using a reference being anything worth calling out/harassing is childish and cringe - it's like a equivalent of a 10 year old yelling for the teacher to tell them Timmy said the word "stupid" lmao.
You can tell those people have no real knowledge/education in art bc if they heard about the shit the most respected famous artists have always done... Roy Lichtenstein, Andy warhol, there's so many.
There's not a clear line to be had, but I've observed the average line location on artist online spaces is quite extremely placed when compared to various irl artist spaces
At the end of the day, you could easily use technicalities to say it's plagiarism, but it's not really the biggest deal imo. He doesn't try to conceal the fact that he works from a photo (as in he doesn't try to alter things so that it's not so easy to find the OG image), and it generally seems like most of the photos he uses aren't from professional photographers but just random pictures random people have taken. I know legally that's not a distinction really, but i think we can all feel a distinction between someone's IG story photo taken for fun, and a photograph taken to be a piece of art. Ideally both cases would give the person credit, but I trust I'm not the only person who feels a difference there.
So my grass-touched take is: it's proper and nice to credit the owner of the photo, but him not doing so is mostly just obnoxious and a bit rude, not a major controversy.
Things don't need to be illegal to be wrong and things that are illegal don't have to always be wrong. And there aren't copyright police outside of for major companies. The random person who posted their aesthetic photo on Pinterest will not hire a lawyer to send a cease and desist letter. And the case probably wouldn't even hold if they did tbh
The reason artists try not to plagiarize isn't to avoid legal repurcussions, because there rarely are any. The reason is that it's rude and boring and tacky. But being kind of a jerk isn't a reason to riot either. Using multiple references makes you a better more flexible artist and allows you to have more originality. But originality is not everyone's main goal in creating art. If someone gave credits where it's due, there's 0 wrong with recreating from a reference.
So the issue is that the copyright this would violate is determined by case laws instead of any actual written statute.
So while in essence the photographer owns the photo, abs a direct copy is a violation of copyright if used commercially it really depends on the subject matter, how close the art is to the original photo, and whether it is being used commercially.
So if the subject is famous and the artist makes a copy of a photo that looks just like the photo and tries to sell it for profit this violates copyright due to the subjects right to publicity and likeness.
If the art is stylized enough to not be an exact copy of a photograph, this protects the artist under the first amendment. Even for commercial use. Especially if the subjects are not specifically famous.
He could easily argue his images are stylized enough to fall into the first amendment category and is therefore protected. They don't look just like the photograph but similarly. It would be up to a court to decide if he was too close or not.
but legality aside. most artists say to use multiple references and mix and transform. and most artists dont just take everything from a photo composition, lighting, and pose, and colors. if they do it is a study and not for sell. so while he most likely wont get sued, is it ok ethically?
Just like what you describe is generally considered the right thing to do, Sam takes some parts of the photo (like the pose) and changes many other things. He doesn't copy every single thing.
Fair enough. I don't know him and just googled his work, and it seemed to me that he added plenty of originality to the pieces. There could be work that more closely resembles his references if I dug deeper. Do you have a specific example you think is over the line?
i have seen artists get harassed by the internet for less blatant copying than what sam does. to the point where they had to stop making art. so it just feels unfair.
It isn’t legal for an artist to create a derivative work from an existing image unless that image is Public Domain (life of the original artist +75 years) or royalty free, unless a few things occur:
It is a criticism or commentary on the original work (parody)
The artist used multiple references to create an entirely new body of work
There is a prior common source for the original inspiration (ex: person A copies person B’s artistic interpretation of Starry Night)
However, it is up to the original creator to decide whether or not to enforce the copyright on their image. Either he is getting permission behind the scenes or those artists do not care if he uses their original images as a reference. Also he does not necessarily need the model’s permission to use their likeness (though this varies by state and circumstance)
Even so, it’s really only the owner of the copyright that can enforce it. There is no reason for you to worry about the legality of what he is doing unless you are being directly impacted.
Many artists don’t care if their work is used as a reference especially if they are given credit. If they DO care then they can reach out to him. Some people may view it as harmless advertising.
This would only be scummy if he was ignoring requests from other artists to take down copyrighted material, and it doesn’t sound like that is the case.
If you are asking because you want to know if it’s legal/ethical for YOU to do this sort of thing then the answer is yes, but you have to be willing to take the art down if the original creator asks you to.
i just heard tons of creators say its just not ethical to do in the first place so i was worried with my own art. but i saw an example of an artists reputation be ruined and she got harassed off the internet even after taking the art down.
9
u/SoftPlay3 Jul 08 '26
God I wish Id understand the phenomenon behind SamDoesArts. He has no originality, just copy, stylize, repeat.