Art theft is taking the exact picture that someone else drew and claiming it as your own. It's pretty obvious all Firefox did was use the pic as a reference and she obviously DID draw it herself.
I agree that she did draw it herself. But I reckon that the definition of "art theft" is up for debate. I agree that it must be
plagiarism to steal an entire picture from someone else, but where does plagiarism
start?
It's easier when it comes to academia, such as doing essays and writing journal papers. The guideline I go on (which is backed up by various mark schemes) is that more or less
any amount of copying from other sources is allowed
if the student states very clearly the source/s they used
and makes it obvious in some way what in their essay is a direct quote, and what is paraphrasing. To show the difference, let me grab a
random Wikipedia entry I was looking at earlier.
If I was writing an essay on DSPS and started it with the paragraph:
Delayed sleep-phase syndrome (DSPS) is a long-term disorder of sleep timing. People with DSPS tend to fall asleep at late times, and also have difficulty waking up in the morning.
that would be plagiarism. Oh sure, I changed a whole two words - but I didn't make it clear that I was almost-quoting, nor did I say where I was quoting
from.
Were I instead to write:
Wikipedia defines Delayed sleep-phase syndrome (DSPS) as follows: "...a chronic disorder of sleep timing. People with DSPS tend to fall asleep at very late times, and also have difficulty waking up in the morning."
that would be just fine, because I've made clear my source and what in my text is a direct quote. Ideally, I should also include a [1] which will refer to a footnote which gives the URL of the website as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_syndrome and something like
Accessed 2007-02-18 19:06, as web-based sources can change or disappear on a daily basis - but it's clear what I said and what Wikipedia said.
How does this apply to art? "What is art?" is always up for debate - check out Marcel Duchamp's "
Fountain". If you can buy a urinal from a shop, sign it with a made-up name and submit it to a museum of modern art, then it's pretty obvious that the line between fair use and plagiarism is wonky.
What
I feel is that intentions are important. A big part of fanart is taking the character and creating the pose. Had FireFox been upfront and said "I couldn't figure out how to get Arcanine to pose properly so I borrowed the pose from this other artist" in the beginning, that'd have been ok, in my book. As it was, she was taking credit
not only for her original line art and shading but
also for the pose - something she doesn't have the right to claim. That's what makes it plagiarism to me.
Very interesting things happen when you take the lineart of FireFox's picture and put it on top of lilhasu's Arcanine. The similarity between them is more than 90% - the only main difference is the black shading. Other differences (such as the much shorter bent front paw in FireFox's) could be the result of paper slipping as the picture was traced. So I'm left questioning whether she simply used lilhasu's picture as inspiration, or whether she directly traced it. The former seems "allowable" to me, but the latter doesn't - even someone with my artistic skills could trace a picture. So, to me, the only time direct tracing seems acceptable is if you drastically change the shading in your version of it - which isn't the case here, as both have been coloured in Arcanine's usual colour scheme.
I don't think anyone can say for certain "Yes, this is theft" or "No, this isn't". Artists have been inspiring each other for centuries. But the problem is, by not being honest about the inspiration, FireFox has managed to cast suspicion over
all her work. Now suspicious people like me are left questioning whether
any of her artwork is original - which really sucks.
*pats Firefox and grins* I vouch for her. ^^ bring your complaints to ME, and I'll deal with 'em. *puffs self up and looks threatening, growls like a small humming bird flies* 
