Ugh, This discussion again.
Let people do what they want.


Please dont start this.

but it's funneh
hopefully he doesn't "leave jsp for good"

This is the exact opposite of the point I've been trying to make.

In fact the only reason I didn't explicitly say that I don't think I'm better than people for not using certain resources was to completely avoid this type of argument in the first place.

I believe tutorials are vital to learning, almost all of my skills are learned through tutorials, but if you see someone create a signature that is the exact recreation of a tutorial there's got to be a point at which you consider it to not be their content even if its not ripped/cropped from the original.

This post was edited by ralphquestionmark on Jul 6 2013 11:20am

Not following a tutorial to the letter is useless and you've voided the whole intended process of learning from that one tutorial. It's like making a cake from recipe and you're like "Well this is all well and fine but I'm not going to put in the sugar that the recipe calls for because I want it to be my own." Yeah you made a cake and it'll look good to YOU but it'll taste like shit. Following tutorials is not ripping it's what the maker of the tutorial wanted when he/she made it. So I suggest doing them to the letter then later when you're working on something use the techniques you learned from copying others into making something new.


As far as using resources like C4d's and stocks etc. I'd have to politely disagree with you there as well. Not using something because you didn't personally make it is limiting yourself digitally. Follow in the foot steps of Android Jones and use EVERYTHING that you possibly can. We go digital because it offers an easier way to get from point A to B. Back to cooking again but you are rarely going to go out and milk a cow to eat your cereal in the morning. Maybe you will idk but just use whats there. We're digital to break limitations.

Okay. But in theory if someone uses the same resources they could potentially come up with something that is nearly identically if not (theoretically) the exact same replica of the original. Which is acceptable if you're trying to learn a technique. But if someone makes an exact replica of a tutorial they cant claim it to be their own. There has to be a certain point at which there is a quantifiable amount of deviation to allow it to be recognized as original to the creator.

On top of that when someone pays 1000fg for a signature in the request forum they're not paying for someone to follow a signature and make one with that specific amount of deviation to be called original.. are they?

But you can claim it as your own since you did the work. It's an age of knock offs and clones the only thing that matters is the end result. People in the request section are paying for results and could rarely if ever care about how that result is landed on. The point still stands if you made something be it a signature or whatever and you followed directions to make it then it is yours 100%. You can't take something that is already made and claim it as your own. If you took a shirt from X company and tore the tag off and put yours on and tell people you made it then you're wrong. If you take the exact same materials as X company uses and make the exact same shirt then yes that shirt is yours.

You're fighting over ownership, the thread started out as a complaint about consistiency in the quality of some user's created signatures.

You know... there's nothing bad in using images or anything from different sources to make your final product :/
Even in music it's like that (atleast rap / electro and such) They sample other music to make their music and there's nothing wrong with that.
I understand that you tried to make your signature from scratch as much as possible but i dont think it's worth it