I'm pretty much with Todd on this. I just don't see how it can ok to take a copyrighted picture of someone, trace it, and call it your own art. When people started doing that in music and calling it sampling, the original artists were up in arms about it and wanted their fair share of the haul since the offending artists didn't have permission to use the original music on the new song. I really don't see the difference in this instance.

I can totally see where taking your own pics and using those would be acceptable. Either as training or producing art for a comic. I guess my main ossue comes from the fact that they are using someone else's art and passing it off as their own.

But, as Todd said, I'm no artist, so have a chai on me...

Ok time for me to throw in something akin to the discussion but a bit different...

What's your opinion on "rotoscoping"?

For those not familiar with the term it's basically taking filmed sequences and "tracing" them to create a type of animation, such as the sequences in Bakshi's "Lord of the Rings".

"(D)o you...see anything wrong with the copying the SI cover? Does that fall within the realm that you are articulating of using whatever tools are available?

See, for me that's not necessarly using whatever tool is available...because there are ways to get the gesture/pose from that photograph without tracing it directly.  Therefore, phototracing in this instance isn't necessarily a means to an end, but a technique all to itself.

Or is this an area where pros toe the line, and do not comment on the techniques of other pros, even when the layperson sees them as copyright infringement or theft?"

Personally, I think it falls short of intellectual theft...but it can be a gray area.  Would I do it?  No, not unless that was the assignment given to me by the editor/art director.  Again, there are more creative, transparent ways to use photoreference to capture a pose or likeness short of tracing line-for-line. 

John Mietus wrote: So, Ian, I take it you think Steranko was cheating when he used xeroxes of photos in his artwork? I'm getting the impression that the people who are shocked by this, or are objecting to it, are those who haven't tried to make a living at it.

Since this was something entirely different...

When I look at a drawing, one of the things that I admire about it is the craft that went in to representing the image exactly on the page...finding out that it was traced DOES diminish my regard for the skill used in it...sorry

But for the record, I didn't say shocked and I didn't object.

Someone else may have already said this; if so, excuse the redundant post.

For those whose opinion of a work is diminished by the knowledge it was traced, consider this before condemning the practice outright.  If tracing an image displays a lack of creativity and skill, give a photograph to a non-artist to trace and render as an illustration...and then compare it to the artist's version. 

I would be willing to bet that the non-artist's version would not look the same as the photograph itself, or the artist's version.

I'm not advocating the practice, merely trying to illustrate a point.  It's not necessarily as easy as it may look, and an artist does have to bring something to the table re skills in order to successfully pull it off.