Wow, Wizards really needs to better vet artists or indeed artwork at this point.

  • ddh
    link
    English
    263 months ago

    The more I look, the more these differ. Similar, for sure, but actually different. Can someone more familiar with what constitutes an infringement here chime in?

    • @Semjaza@lemmynsfw.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      143 months ago

      It looks to me like the mtg image used the figure from the Cyberpunk art as the base for the second figure, and made some slight changes.

      So it would be unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted artwork for profit, if I’m not mistaken. Could also be that it was mostly regurgitated by an AI and used as a base, which at this point would be even worse for Wizards’ PR I reckon.

      • Hildegarde
        link
        fedilink
        53 months ago

        It’s probably conventional image manipulation. Despite the news, not everything is AI. The old techniques still work.

    • @MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      113 months ago

      If you flip the art it becomes even more apparent. You can see the background follows a similar composition as well. Not sure if it would hold up in court as a one-off (assuming this is the only case of plagiarism), but certainly enough for WotC to drop the artist

      • ddh
        link
        English
        43 months ago

        Yeah true!

    • @criitz@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      63 months ago

      Im not an artist but it seems pretty obvious to me that one was copied directly from the other and drawn over.

    • @anguo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      53 months ago

      If you instead compare the foreground figure with the background one on the card, you’ll see that the art styles are fairly different. It becomes kind of obvious that the one in the back has been copy-pasted from the other artwork, then modified.