Tracing is a seriously hot-button issue. It might even be the most popular "unpopular" opinion in every YouTube video I've seen. In this episode, we take a look at Butch Hartman and the ethics of tracing -- is it ever okay? And what are the rules to follow if you ARE tracing? Let me outline that for you here!
Tracing is a seriously hot-button issue. It might even be the most popular "unpopular" opinion in every YouTube video I've seen. In this episode, we take a look at Butch Hartman and the ethics of tracing -- is it ever okay? And what are the rules to follow if you ARE tracing? Let me outline that for you here!
Hey, I get it. Artwork is hard sometimes-- especially when you have to pump out a lot of art really quickly and there are customers that are paying for this hard work. Character designs, poses, angles, dynamic movements, composition, and color stories-- it can take hours to get just one piece done and done well. So you’ve been waiting patiently, and finally, you receive a stunning art piece on commission. You paid top dollar, and you’re thrilled!... But what if that beautiful art you paid for was not completely original? What if you found out that the artist traced the design? Suddenly, your one-of-a-kind piece of art is no better than reproduced TJ Maxx canvases.You might as well have just printed a copy of the original after a google search, right? Is there a time and a place for tracing in the art world? Where’s the line, and how can some artists not see it through their super-thin tracing paper?! Welcome, everyone, to ARTroversy, and this time, we’re getting super controversial!
Hello, my friends, it’s Brianna Rae from BrieIY, and welcome to my second episode of ARTroversy. I’m still getting used to the script thing, and naturally, the teacher in me is trying to come up with some sort of structure for this, and all I can think about doing is treating this like a lesson plan. I start off just with a little hook, (a bit of a teaser, if you will), explain the objectives, dive into some announcements and housekeeping, and then we find ourselves at our central learning task. If I do this enough, maybe eventually I can get the minutes down to a science and I’ll know exactly how long it’ll take and… i don’t know, maybe even what to talk about. Maybe someday I’ll have some real announcements other than my personal thoughts and feelings about how it’s going!
Either way, I started off really art-history heavy and with some pretty dark topics. The views were low, and they have stayed quite low, which was not super reassuring as I wanted to hopefully reach more people with this sort of style and maybe tap into some of the more “algorithm-favorable” tropes with that video. However, of the people that watched and listened to it, the response was really positive and there was a good amount of engagement. At this point, I’m thinking, “Ya know, sometimes it takes a couple tries for something to be done right and/or the see the results you want.” With all that out of the way, I’m once again going to swing wildly in the other direction from the tone of the last episode. This time, I wanted to explore maybe something a little lighter, a little more modern, and I have to imagine something much more of a hot-button topic for artists. That is, of course, tracing!
So once again, let me know what you think! Drop a comment, slide into the DMs, or leave a like if you like and we can see where this little project goes! Let’s get into it!
First of all, what is tracing? If you don’t know, the first set word in the Oxford Dictionary definition is “copy”. More specifically, to trace is to copy by drawing over somethings lines which would be visible through a piece of transparent paper. Now, in a world of digital art, tracing has become quite a bit easier. Instead of light boxes, or tracing against windows in the day time, digital artists are able to import images into their digital canvases, and trace anything available online, deleting the layer with minimal effort and losing all evidence that there was ever an “original”. I think we’ve all done this before. I remember tons of products available on those crazy infomercials between cartoons for fancy lightboxes and mirrors that allowed you to copy and “feel like an artist” or “create stunning images”, or whatever other wild marketing phrase was popular at the time. For little kids, can actually be super beneficial.
Through the process of tracing, children can learn control of their lines, how to hold pencils properly. Honestly, its a great exercise for developing fine-motor skills, but what are the implications past elementary school? What does it mean to be a teenager, and adult, and especially a professional artist who traces? Can such a simple trick really be that bad?
Um, well, let’s take a look at Butch Hartman for that.
Butch Hartman is an exceptional famous cartoonist and animator. He created popular Nickelodeon shows such as the Fairly OddParents and Danny Phantom (certainly two of my personal favorites). He spent 20 years working for Nickelodeon before leaving in 2018. His shows were beloved by many, myself included. As of now, he remains active on social media.
This is where things start to get a little… dicey. Hartman offers commissions through his website. The form takes different specifications a commissioner would be interested in purchasing. This includes specific characters, styles, and other information Hartman would require to determine the cost of creating the image. Once the requests are received, Hartman will reach out to clients individually with a quote and more clarifications on his pricing. From what I understand, and what is worth noting, is that Hartman’s commissions start off at a whopping $200!
This on it’s own is not an issue; many artists operate in a similar vein. This also allows for the creators to possibly reject certain commissions that are outside of their comfort zone and build their own boundaries, which is very important for mental health. In terms of pricing, it’s even reasonable to assume this price when you are such a big name and there is likely and incredibly high demand for his artwork, especially given the time and energy that goes into them.
Not only does Hartman provide the images to his fans who purchase the product, but he also shares both the products and often the processes of creating these images with his twitter followers. It was after sharing a commission he had completed of Mikasa Ackerman from the popular anime show, Attack on Titan, that some Twitter users noticed a striking similarity to another artist’s rendering of the character,
The drawings both are done looking up at the character as she looks down. The placement of the body, shoulders, hips, and hands are all nearly identical. One major difference, however, is the style of the drawings. Butch Hartman has a signature style which is more apparent in his famous cartoons. While the image clearly has more Hartman-style appeal, it’s hard to look past the idea that the positioning of the character may as well be a carbon-copy. It’s reasonable to believe that Hartman could have outlined the body positioning as simply filled in the details in his own style.
Twitter users flooded the replies with tags for the original artists, calling out a potential pattern of behavior with tracing works from smaller artists. Some shared the original artist’s work with comments such as “so, another traced one, huh butch?” or “are we dunking on butch hartman again?” implying this is not the first time that Hartman has had such allegations against him.
On Reddit, user Kiloueka shared in the Subreddit “Delusional Artists” another side-by-side of a Hartman commission which had evidently been traced. This case was made even more interesting when evaluating the hand position. Reddit user ThingInTheTub pointed out how the characters right hand, placed on the hip is inverted as what was originally a bent pinky finger had mysterialls become the thumb in Hartman’s work. The similarities extend to the placement of the character’s braid, the shoulder position, and even down to the wrinkles on her outfit.
Of course, in spite of all the call-outs and striking similarities, there has never been any definitive proof that Hartman has traced. So.. what’s the big deal? Who REALLY cares?
Well, I think it all comes back to the money of it all! Butch Hartman is well known and successful! It’s fairly possible that many of his commissions come from fans with nostalgia for some of their favorite childhood shows seeking a unique, custom piece of art designed just for them from an artist who made an impact on their life somehow, and with a $200 price tag, that’s certainly the expectation!
But suddenly, if Hartman is, in fact, tracing, several of the elements that make the expense worth-while are eliminated! It is no longer unique, nor custom-designed. If the person paying for this commission simply wanted a picture of a character, there are already thousands of images readily available for viewing online.
Of course, there are many reasons someone might want a commission outside of wanting an original. Maybe that just wanted something from Hartman, it doesn’t matter the method, but it’s safe to assume that commissions are made special, custom, and designed with the customer in mind. Tracing simply does not fit into this realm of commission.
Some have even taken to Twitter with the hashtag my200vsbutch200, showing off the difference in customization, color, and quality that comes from commissioning smaller artists who take pride in their completely original works, vs the alleged dishonesty from the famous cartoonist. This hashtag is honestly full of incredible artists who deserve recognition, so take a look at that if you’re interested.
But even with all that said… I still don’t necessarily think tracing is always a bad thing. It really does have its time and place in the art world. Now, I want to be very clear when I say that tracing is NOT an ethical way to produce art, but we cannot deny the benefits and even particular art styles that come out of tracing.
For example, a really popular service available through sites like Etsy and Fiverr is digitizing or cartoonizing photographs. These services are entirely based on tracing photos to specifically get them in a new style. I actually have sold a handful of these to family and friends for a variety of reasons. Some don’t have the tools/materials to create the these digitized images themselves. It might require drawing tablets or it might be too difficult to complete on a mobile phone. Some people simply don’t have the time and want to pay for the convenience of having another complete the task for them. Other customers honestly struggle with the coloring and shading and are simply displeased with their own attempts, or feel their understanding of which lines to go over creates a less appealing look. Or sometimes, the client might want customizations that aren’t readily available simply by running a ready-made image through a pencil-sketch filter.
For mother’s day last year, I actually had a purchase in which the client wanted to surprise his mother with a whole-family version of a photograph. His grandmother had recently passed away, and in the last picture they took as a family, his brother-in-law and sister were missing from the event. I was able to cut and blend two different photos so that the image would appear to have the entire family together. This includes adjusting poses and assumptions about highlights and shadows, and of course, a costume change for sister to blend into the matching outfits the rest of the family was wearing. I’ve also, in other works, cut out beer cans, cell phones, and repositioned hands and arms to show a more appealing or desirable pose in these family portraits. I’ve also added in crowns and medals to other images in which the customers wanted a particular photo or pose with their accomplishments.
This is an entire service/art form that is based around tracing, and something I’ve obviously done tons of times. So who am I to sit his and condemn Butch Hartman for doing something I’ve done quite a bit myself. There are a few key differences here, and after an evaluation of the allegation against Hartman, and the tens of thousands of unique opinions on the topic of tracing I’ve come across… I think I have developed a few key rules to tracing in the art world as ethically as possible. And spoiler alert, I think a lot of them overlap with academic plagiarism.
(1) Firstly, avoid tracing for monetary gain. This applies to both commissions, content creators or influencers who have monetized their work, and/or anyone who sells products. In terms of commissions, if you are tracing other images to ease the burden of design, form, or drafting work and someone is paying for an original, this is obviously unethical. One should never accept monetary rewards or even the dreaded EXPOSURE for selling unoriginal work, or essentially selling work that is not theirs. This is like listing another person’s bike on Craigslist and just giving it away to the highest bidder. If you’re thinking “well, someone already posted the image online! The customer could have had access to it anyway!” Okay, let me adjust my metaphor. Even if the bike is on the front lawn-- perhaps it was forgotten overnight by mistake, does that make it okay to take it? Absolutely not!
This same rule, again, applies to content creators. Some art YouTubers, for example, have been called out for tracing images in the past and posting speedpaints or these works on their social medias acting as though they are original. More frequent uploads with good engagement and views makes creators more money either from sponsorships or ads. Tracing can seem like an easy way to produce art quickly to appease the algorithm, which again, is tracing for monetary gain, in my humble opinion. Not to mention, I firmly believe if this is an issue of time, it could be just as impactful to spend one video making the original line work, and a second video with the colors and shading. It’s two birds with one stone...or I guess one art piece. I think watching both are equally as entertaining, so why not take advantage and make good quality artwork over a few videos? The argument seems silly to me. If Gabbie Hanna can post a video of her cleaning out her air filter with moderate success, certainly artists can post the process of creating line work.. Mistakes and all!
And another issue is anyone in product sales. This could be Etsy, Redbubble, or really any generic girl with a Cricut. Selling products like mugs, t-shirts, and stickers with other artists designs on them is HIGHLY unethical. I actually have a friend who just had this problem. She designed a tattoo for someone who then turned around, made it into a sticker. This person is now selling the design for monetary gain as their own without any credit to my friend. As a result, this person is making money from a design they spent no time and effort on, and can simply sit and collect that money without any of the effort that went into developing the work, OR having to pay a dime to the person who DID do that work.
(1a) Now for rule 1a, which is the exception to rule 1. Avoid tracing for monetary gain UNLESS the tracing is specifically what is being paid for. In the art of the digitized portraits, customers fully understand that there is a copy being made of their photos. This is what they want, AND they are providing their images to be copied voluntarily.
(2) Rule number two, never post traced artwork claiming it is your own. Oftentimes, we follow artists because we believe in their talent and enjoy their work. By posting unoriginal or traced work, it is, in my opinion, misleading an audience into following or engaging with your content. This, in turn, helps you grow and could lead to a monetary gain (refer back to rule one). But outside of that gain, it’s purely unethical to claim something as your own and/or original when it is decidedly not. Lying in and of itself is unethical, I don’t think that needs to be said. What MIGHT need to be said though is simply OMITTING that elements of a work were traced or copied also counts as lying or misleading an audience.
Rule number two also should apply to anyone on Facebook or private Instagrams posting works to their friends and family as well. The attention and praise is not deserved. Fishing for compliments and praise like that, I think, is just a morally ugly thing to do and I’m super not into it. That might just be me.
(3) Moving in the realm of where tracing MIGHT be okay. Rule number 3, If you do trace an element of an artwork, do everything you can to disclose and provide credit to the original artist. This goes right back to the idea of academic plagiarism. It’s important to say, “Hey, I recolored this artwork by [blank],” or “I struggled to get the shape of this build right, so I did use [So-and-So]’s image.” If the specific name of the artist is unavailable or difficult to find… linking back to the image you used can be an easy way to show effort in crediting the source of the material. I often find this is a safe bet when referencing other artwork as well. This is especially true if you’re going to post to public forums.
Actually, someone I went to school with took a picture of a pencil-sketch drawing his girlfriend had done from a reference of another artists work. Without fully understanding this fact, he posted it on Reddit saying “Hey! My girlfriend made this!” which then prompted a slew of internet hate around him and his girlfriend for copying another artist’s work and attempting to present it as her own. While it wasn’t exactly tracing, the design was pretty unique and original, so it was very evident it was not her own work. I’m also quite certain he just deactivated his Reddit account after that. Just another instance where disclosing your sources and being clear about how works came to be could have saved a whole lot of drama, even from a random person who was certainly not an influencer. Honesty and transparency can save a whole lot of heartache.
(3a) I want to add another addendum to a rule here, specifically in regards to referencing. Referencing is generally accepted and usually encouraged in the art community. So rule 3a, Keep references to realistic positioning and /shapes/ like bikes, body types, and hand gestures. These things don’t necessarily need credit because they aren’t unique or original. You can find multiple references of the same hand position, bike shapes, and bodily anatomy. These are good resources to keep works realistic that don’t necessarily need credit. Much like in the academic world, this falls under “general knowledge”. Everyone knows that the sky is blue, so you wouldn’t need to cite that in an academic paper. Just like you wouldn’t need to cite an image of a hand with the fingers splayed out. Realistically, you could see this anywhere.
(3b) OH, that reminds me of another addendum. Rule 3b! Recreating reference images of well-known items or celebrities should be credited as well. Particularly if the goal is to go for realism and essentially recreate the same image just in pencil. My thoughts on this are... Someone took that original photograph and probably owns the license to it, or sold it to some other magazine or company. If the rights to that reference photo are not public, be safe and cite the original image that inspired your recreation.
(4) Another branch on the academic plagiarism policies is rule 4, the 20% rule! If over 20% of an academic paper is pulled from other sources, generally, it is no longer considered your own work,, only an amalgamation of other works. For this reason, I think the same rules should apply in art. If you want to use someone else’s work to inspire or build your own, it needs to be transformative enough and truly add or build on something in a new way. For example, recoloring traced like work really isn’t transformative enough! The lines may be the only thing copied in a tracer’s mind, but there is so much more of the art impacted in this way. The lines obviously build the shapes. The way the shapes are organized, form and the layout of the page contributes to the overall composition. By tracing “only the lines”, really the artworks only change is color, most other aspects are the same. Art really is more than just line and color. Just because color fills more of the page doesn’t mean it’s 80% of the artwork that becomes original. Artists who trace should consider how the tracing impacts all elements of the artwork -- line, shape, form, space, texture, value, and color -- before crediting something as a “reference” as truly, it may be considered more a “collaboration” piece if the original impacts more than 20% of the overall work.
(5) Next, and nearing the end here in rule five. Tracing for personal use ONLY is honestly acceptable in my book. If you just want a particular drawing or something on a notebook cover for you to look at while it sits on your desk across the room… I don’t see any harm in that. There's no money, no clout, you save on ink prices and glue from not having to print it and stick it on. If you want to give up your time to trace something to have for an entirely personal reason… far be it from me to tell you no! Live your dreams queen, chances are, no one will know anyway if you’re not parading it around.
(5a)And finally, we have our final rule, which falls under 5. Our last rule, 5a, is that tracing for practice is not only OKAY but it is ENCOURAGED with the intent of making original works better. Let’s be real, hands are HARD guys. Any artist will tell you. If you’re messing around at home with your sketchbook and you want your hands to get better, tracing over some images of hands is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. It builds muscle memory and gives you a better understanding of the anatomy of the body part the more you’re able to recreate the images. The hope is that eventually, you’ll be able to back away from tracing, and then referencing, to start creating those hands from memory or constructing them from the smaller shapes in your new understanding of that anatomy.
Whew! I think that was it. In summation, the rules are ordered from the absolute nos to the probably yeses...
Rule 1, avoid profit from tracing
Rule 2. Don’t post traced work claiming it’s your own
Rule 3. If you trace any image or reference something original/licensed, provide credit.
Rule 4. If over 20% of your piece is unoriginal, it’s not a reference, it's a collaboration.
And Rule 5. Tracing for personal use ONLY is acceptable.
Now, I’m not saying any of this to make anyone feel bad. I think we’ve all made mistakes, myself included, but we can always make a choice to be better going forward. I’ve seen video after video and podcast after podcast complaining about how horrible tracing is, and unpopular opinions about how tracing is a good thing, but I thought it was important to dive into the nuance here. What matters here is intent, honesty, transparency, and equity (specifically equitable share of gains from the work put into an art piece, whether that is money or “exposure”. )
With all of that said, I think we’ve officially reached the end of Episode two of ARTroversy! I really enjoyed making this one. Of course, I’m going to cite my one major source for today which was an Article from TheFocus on the Butch Hartman situation. The rest came from my personal experiences and opinions. Now it’s your turn to let me know… do you agree or disagree with the rules? Are there any changes you’d make? Are there other exceptions? I’m interested to know!
Let me know in either the comments on the YouTube video. If you’re listening to the Podcast, you can find it by my name, BrieIY, thats B R I E I Y on Youtube. You can also send me your opinions on Twitter under the same username! I’m also still very much open to feedback on the Podcast so far, if you missed the last episode on the dark history behind the works of Artemisia Gentileschi, do take a watch slash listen and let me know all your thoughts on the series and feel free to drop any topic suggestions as well. I have a list of my own, but I’m sure there are some things I’m not thinking of.
Thank you so much for making it all the way to the end, and I will see you in the next one. Bye!