I found this from your deleted blog

"Wow.

I waske up and there's all this mess.

I looked at the link posted and shocked myself... I loved that art style so much, that it must have "subconsciously stuck" in my mind.

I took this image from my sketchbook and made it all vector pretty, but I must have doodled it right after looking at that animation. I do that a lot... I borrow parts of faces, body shapes, eyes, noses (no noses) all of the above. This one didn't change much from what I borrowed (I also sketched down an owl from that site. Sooo sick).

My last few subs were based on a specific 1950's cartoon style, but they weren't stolen from anyone... I didn't invent the "look" by any means, but then again, SHAG didn't invent the Tiki.

Does that calm anyone's nerves? It's not really an excuse or anything, just an explination. I'll go in and change some more if it's really that big of a "red flag" for everyone... hell, I can just NOT submit it."

and I have to say, considering both girls were IDENTICAL aside from color, this is a pretty hard pill to swallow. Everyone is inspired by other peoples work, but thats pretty much a direct trace.

HE DID have an explanation, and it was a totally valid one that I completely sympathise with.

wow....you really believed that?

you seem to kinda be obsessing over this thing, dude. just chillax.

nah, to be honest, I would love to be proved wrong here, I love everything zach has put out

it just bugs me to know that everythin hes put out, could have been ripped from someone else

It's hard to keep track of what is from where in the mysterious realm of the sketchbook, original or reference.

and he has a point too I never checked out said traced piece although I did comment on that blog ..(after it had moved away from that) but nay way his other work is his own and so what if once he worked waaaaaaaay too close to someone elses style/image liek he said he doesnt need to submit it theres no need to think less of him for it ..

which one?

well, if sampling is an acceptable form of creating music, why can't something similar to it be an acceptable part of creating images?

ReasonantFish, actually I have never EVER had that problem

wullagaru, how can you be sure?

catdog, he deleted his blog, along with any link to his possible traced piece

thats completely different jackanapes

GIRLS FIGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you can't just make a statement like that without backing it up. how is it "completely different"?

when you pay homage to retro spot illustration, there's only so much originality you can bring to that style- the way eyes, mouths, etc are drawn.

i struggle all the time not to draw like jamie hewitt, mike mignola and mitch o'connell...i own nothing of thier stuff....but my damned photographic memory still like to dictate to my hands sometimes.

i am curious to see the two compared....i don't know what your'e talking about.

mike im only assuming but still he works in so many varied ways do you tink hes a serial tracer I mean come on ..

and yeah could we have teh link again .. cause I never looked at it

how much of an entire song would one sample make? a few %?

the piece im referring to in zachs thing was more like 80%

if you got a rolling stones song and changed a few lyrics and called it your own, then said, oh well I heard it on the radio, so it must have just been my memory and thats why its similar

something he hasn't subbed yet?
something he was just showing?

jeez, i get off for a few minutes and i miss out.

i have an example of EXACTLY what you're talking about. neil young's "borrowed tune" is pretty much just a cover of the stones' "lady jane" with the lyrics changed. though he does mention that in the song . . . it still fucking rocks.

Why is music different from art in terms of appropriation? Peter Saville does it all the time, and he's a better designer than most of us.

you can delete a blog?

and i would like to see these two pieces of art your talking about -

alot of stuff on here looks like its been copied, but most of them dont get printed so eh

I maintain that Rocketbird is just a cheap Sky Salamander ripoff.

(Please note that this foundless accusation is fueled by bitterness)

ok, enough with the stupid music comparisons

He traced (My eyes are good enough to know this) someone elses work, tried to pass it off as his own, he was found out, he made up some bogus excuse, and covered his tracks by deleting the original picture

and like I said, I would love to be proved wrong, if anyone has he original picture saved, that would have been a great help

The reason this bugs me so much, is because in the art world, theres way to many people ripping off other peoples work and claiming it for their own, its a major peeve of mine

haha sky salamander?

I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT

google knows all, I must say, hes pretty awesome

i still think you need to relax. and don't call my music comparisons stupid just because they make a valid counterpoint to your argument.

i wanna see!

its not a valid counterpoint jack

and i am relaxed, I just want to find an answer to this, Im sorry that you guys are able to believe such an excuse, but Ive seen many people try to cover their tracks.

yes, it is. explain again why it isn't. you're so curt with me, i'm actually starting to get offended a little.

Is kinda what like when puffydaddy redid that 80s song and didn't change anything.

im not trying to offend you, im sorry

was this song by neil young released on a CD or was it just a live recording?

Wow... stickymike... why are you obsessing about me? I shouldn't even BE on your mind. I explained what happened, and I am thanful to rachael raygun for pointing it out. I have stacks and stacks of art that I love and sometimes "influence" slips in there.

I wasn't sure about the art, so I shared it. I would have never noticed anything fishy about it if it wasn't for the keen eyes around here.

It was different enough to not get me sued, but it wasn't different enough to "profit from". So, i won't be submitting it.

Sheesh.

Now, go worry about something else.

it's on his BEST album, "tonight's the night". and you're forgiven. just, please, when you say i'm wrong about something, don't just say "you're wrong" like you've got all the answers and i wouldn't understand them if you told them to me.

Puffy changed it from a wife-stalking song to a tribut song. But, pretty much everything except for 4 words were the same. So, yes.

I'm still worried, about poof diddy kong

im sure he still had to get the rights to the song though catdog

and example of what happens when you dont get the rights....

In the 90sa band called The Verve had a song called Bittersweet Symphony, using a rolling stone sample in the music, without permission. This song became crazy popular, and they made millions.....untill they got sued by the Rolling Stones. Rolling Stones cut a deal with them, they got all the profits, and The Verve would be paid a one time payment of $10,000.

poof diddy kong

I think I love that. I might just have to steal it from you.

sting didn't mind the extra money- if he had any decency, he should've said no to permissions.

terrible song, terrible p diddy dance.

p diddy may be the antichrist.

i love how some rapper's rich friend who backed up so many tracks with is 'unh unh's has become such a mega millionaire producer/musician.

BUMP

Poof Diddy Kong
© ALAN IVESTER SPACH
all rights reserved

Rudeboy

Like I said, I know this was more then "inspiration" and Im only asking you to prove me wrong, to validate your other work.

my little doodle was never "crazy popular" and I didn't "make millions"... I'm still confused why stickymike has such a crush on me.

Validate?

You want to see my sketchbooks?

travis, I dont know if you know this

but.....


hes no longer P Diddy

hes just.....

Diddy

and yeh, if BIG never died, puffy would still be the guy in the back on the videos making UUH sounds

rudeboy invasion
on your radio station.
ska-
sweep the nation......

diddy kong killed biggy

no, the original illustration of the girl, that you "accidently" deleted

the notorious XIV