Username   Password  
Remember   Register   |   Forgot your password?

Inktober16 - bronze dagger

Inktober16 - bronze dagger

Inktober16 - bronze dagger by Firiel
Inktober16 - bronze dagger by Firiel

Description

Description
Firiel
detail of a bronze dagger, reffed from a photo on page 82 of the Jan2004 issue of National Geographic
(this drawing is for the artist’s personal practice and improvement and is not intended in any way to infringe on the copyright of NatGeo or the responsible photographer)

General Info

General Info
Ratings
None
Comments 3
Category Miscellaneous » Objects Media Ink or markers
Date Submitted Time Taken
Views 103 Reference
Favorites... 0 Keywords , , , , , , , , ,
Vote Score 0 License Berne Convention

Comments

Comments (3)

You are not authorized to comment here. Your must be registered and logged in to comment

TeeJay87 on October 20, 2016, 6:56:39 AM

TeeJay87 on
TeeJay87Looks like earlier variant of ancient Celtic dagger - those made during and after the wars with Ancient Rome tended to have narrower blade.


As for risk of copyright infringement, you don't need to worry about those when drawing weaponry - despite certain "tools of destruction" manufacturers had copyrighted mechanisms of their weapons, nobody is exercising those in front of any court. Look at such Russians, who have been ripping off stuff from the West at least since the beginning of their national identity; even "their famous Kalashnikov gun" wasn't developed by themselves, but it was copied from Germans:

- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/MP44_-_Tyskland_-_8x33mm_Kurz_-_Arm%C3%A9muse... this is German Sturmgewehr 44, designed by Hugo Schmeisser;

- https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/AK-47_type_II_Part_DM-ST-89-01131.jpg/1... this one is AK47, the most common variant of Kalashnikov gun (from 1947).

When you compare both rifles, it's visible at first glance, that all the Mikhail Kalashnikov had done was just simplifying the gun design, so it could be produced in masses. 70 years have passed and Schmeisser's descendants have never sued Kalashnikov in front of any court for copyright infringements; most probably because Russians never respect rulings of foreign courts.


The same is with the Celtic dagger you depicted - its manufacturers have been dead for over 2000 years, so there's no risk of having case at court just because of a sketch. ;)

Firiel on October 20, 2016, 2:54:32 PM

Firiel on
FirielIt wasn't the dagger itself I was worried about, so much as that the exact angle and lighting were copied from a photo somebody took and published in a major magazine within the last several years, and I'm not 100% certain whether copying to that level of detail without permission was a legal grey area since many photographers on art sites etc. prefer to be informed if you are using a photo they have taken of their animals or a sunset as an aid for your work. It is a good point, though, that the fact that the dagger itself is older than any copyright holders diminishes possible motivations for complaints. ;)

TeeJay87 on October 21, 2016, 3:32:25 AM

TeeJay87 on
TeeJay87Redrawing a photograph doesn't count as copyright infringement either, even if you depicted the entire NatGeo page with text and page markings. Such works are named "Pop art" and aren't considered as violation against author of the photograph. Andy Warhol is famous of painting items belonging to other companies; if I remember correctly, he depicted Coca-Cola cans https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/57/01/c9/5701c9ed99de12b2250dcb582113d8e3.jpg and Campbell's Tomato Soup cans https://1.bonami.cz/images/products/41/c6/41c6a95667-1000x1000.jpeg and none of the companies (Coca-Cola and Campbell's) are said to have sued him in lawsuit. I'm sure the previous one (Coca-Cola) would rather appreciate Andy for making free adverts of their flag product, rather than viewing him as design thief. ;)

Besides, if items such as weapons, consumables and so on had been copyrighted, everyone would had sued in lawsuit everyone just because they'd view someone drawings as "plagiarisms", which would flood courts with silly cases nobody sane is willing to handle. I'm unsure about courts in the United States, but in my homeland, nobody would take seriously a case started up by a photographer, who got upset that someone redrew his/her photograph of an object with paying attention to details. The photographer would waste money twice - for filling in his/her motion to the court, and for loosing the case as lacking reason.


Myself,  I believe photographs are the best reference pictures for drawing certain objects, especially those with complicated structure. For example, this February I've drawn a picture of the staple US Army infantry fighting vehicle known as M2 Bradley http://www.fanart-central.net/pictures/user/TeeJay87/848330/Pussycat-Fighting-Vehicle---Completed-Version - when I showed this work to couple of my pen friends from the States, who served in armed forces,  all of them immediately recognized the vehicle. Have to admit, I used as reference photograph of this vehicle found in Google https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Pi110904a1.jpg