D&D General Plagiarised D&D art

[Dire Bare]

Could someone explain to me what the actual issue is here?

The issue? Like specifically what happened? Or, is plagiarizing art a bad thing?

OP is pretty clear to me, the book publisher DK plagiarized an image in their title "Myths & Legends", from art in the D&D 3E Monster Manual.

And that's bad. Bad for the original artist, Todd Lockwood. Bad for WotC, and bad for DK. Bad for the community. Plagiarism is a form of intellectual and artistic theft.

 

[Dire Bare]

The OP makes no mention of when the the first book mentioned was published or what the second book is which makes it hard to know which way the plagiarism goes.

Really?

I get that not everyone is familiar with the artwork in the D&D 3E Monster Manual, but . . . which image came first? The professionally drawn dragon or the poor trace of that dragon?

 

[ssvegeta555]

Really?

I get that not everyone is familiar with the artwork in the D&D 3E Monster Manual, but . . . which image came first? The professionally drawn dragon or the poor trace of that dragon?

I know was confused at first actually. I've never heard of the book the op mentioned but I recognized the green dragon from 3e MM. I thought the B&W dragon was done in the 70's or 80's because it seems of that era and style. Thought for a moment Sam Wood was tracing, not the other way around!

 

[Jadeite]

To make it clear, the Monster Manual art is the original. The DK contains lots of those "line art" images and it's pretty likely that most of them are traced in a similar way, but I haven't identified more D&D images as their source.
It's also not a RPG book but an encyclopedia by DK Random House.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Really?

I get that not everyone is familiar with the artwork in the D&D 3E Monster Manual, but . . . which image came first? The professionally drawn dragon or the poor trace of that dragon?

Yes, really. If people say they are confused by a post why is it hard to believe that people really are confused by a post?

 

[LordEntrails]

What exactly is wrong with the OP? They found an image that they feel is plagiarized from a D&D book, and decided to start a conversation about it on a D&D fan site.

You're on a tear aren't you? Reading all sorts of things into posts that are just not there and questioning others when they make simple statements.

Just so you are clear, I never said anything was wrong with the OP. And as others have pointed out, the OP was confusing to multiple people, even if it wasn't to you.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Really?

I get that not everyone is familiar with the artwork in the D&D 3E Monster Manual, but . . . which image came first? The professionally drawn dragon or the poor trace of that dragon?

Now I know the 3e MM had some instances fo bad art (the ape-taur), even dragon art (the sailfish metallics), but calling the green dragon a poor trace is just mean.

Oh, wait. You meant the other one.

 

[Umbran]

Thats what is really at stake here. Are you interested in saving a few bucks, or slowing the ongoing rot of our society?

Problem: "Ongoing rot" is not currently distinguishable from movement towards a post-scarcity utopia.

 

[Scribe]

Problem: "Ongoing rot" is not currently distinguishable from movement towards a post-scarcity utopia.

Out of all the sci-fi I have read and watched, a post-scarcity utopia is the least probable.

 

[Umbran]

Out of all the sci-fi I have read and watched, a post-scarcity utopia is the least probable.

shrug. Cynicism is self-fulfilling prophecy.