This fucker is stupid. Oh, and a thief too.
Man, I'm wondering if it's a joke or something.



"His" :


Plus he has a SpeedyJoe rip, and I'm sure that tootbrush is a rip too, and likely some others (if not all).

Graphic DesignHumor

Hector Mansilla commented on December 4, 2012 4:00pm
Man, I hope it's like a 9 year old, cause anything older than 15 would be really sad.
Ben Geiger commented on December 4, 2012 4:15pm
sad people are jerks like this. SO MANY think because they add something stupid to it that of it is my work. IDIOTS NO you stole it and made it SLIGHTLY different! F-ING A's!
Amz Kelso commented on December 4, 2012 4:18pm
Wow, same silhouette and everything... He didn't even try to disguise it! I'm sure you've already reported it, but I will too for good measure. I hope they cancel his account...
Josh Ln commented on December 4, 2012 4:19pm
That's just pathetic. What a loser.
Angella Meanix commented on December 4, 2012 4:21pm
It's different though mostly. It has clouds and more length and different eyes and totally different color scheme and graphics in the background. I wouldn't worry too much. Yours is more graphic and his is more animated. In my eyes they are two different products. Just my opinion.
Sharon Turner commented on December 4, 2012 4:24pm
Not cool.
Schwimmt im Pool commented on December 4, 2012 4:26pm
woohooo so insolent it hurts. i also found some pics i definitely know from other artists. and for his work lacks quality i really think these are copied too:
Angella Meanix commented on December 4, 2012 4:26pm
must be frustrating though ... sorry you're dealing with that.
Schwimmt im Pool commented on December 4, 2012 4:28pm
@angela take a closer look - i think he copied the round parts of the serpent cause the edges are the same (just mirrored and resized)
Bill Pyle commented on December 4, 2012 4:31pm
Really Angela? Its a blatant rip. Its an exact trace, he just added a few extra backs. It looks like he copied Hector's and use the magic wand tool to make "his" version. You're blind if you don't see that.

As for the toothbrush, its a rip of Olly Moss' design. http://ollymoss.com//media/images/o/3.png The low quality of Jfoley's is a dead giveaway he copy and pasted Olly's, then blew it up so it would be printable.
KunstFabrik_StaticMovement Man… commented on December 4, 2012 4:42pm
Surely no Marcel Duchamp here! There was at least a clever thought to his works. This is clearly a thief! I think it would piss me off just as much if someone was taking a piece of my work and just changed to size, color and little on the look. It is certainly huge BS! Maybe you should put this one up as a cheap thief on FB (make it as public as you can! Thieves usually do not like that!) and certainly to S6.
Anders Teigene commented on December 4, 2012 4:45pm
For the toothbrush steal i think this one is a bit closer

Nick Nelson commented on December 4, 2012 4:50pm
Ha, this is some baaaaad bootlegging. Sorry you gotta deal with it; I'm sure if you report him to S6 he'll be swiftly deleted.

Found a few of the originals:
:: GaleStorm Artworks :: commented on December 4, 2012 5:12pm
What is S6's response?
Michal Jedinak commented on December 4, 2012 5:15pm
Whoa! It's like his creative method is using a broken copy machine on others' work. Sorry to see that here... Or anywhere else for that matter.
KunstFabrik_StaticMovement Man… commented on December 4, 2012 5:18pm
What fruitless , uninspired , sad life that person must be living.
Michael Creese commented on December 4, 2012 5:26pm
This person is using many other artist's ideas too. Ridiculous.
Pencil Me In ™ commented on December 4, 2012 5:29pm
Pencil Me In ™ commented on December 4, 2012 5:30pm
BTW, you're photo positioned next to this post is the best!
VerticalSynapse commented on December 4, 2012 5:59pm
Im currently writing a dissertation on plagiarism in art and design, the way ive been looking at it is there are several types of plagiarism that occur starting with straight up stealing and reselling to manipulation without giving credit to the original artist. The main issue arises when something is taken from influence of another artist and debates ensue over imitation vs stealing. I would love to use this issue as a case study in my dissertation as it falls straight into the whole "computer technology creates more opportunities to have work stolen" section im currently planning. And if it's alright with the commenter's here pulling a couple quotes would be extremely beneficial as well. :)

Edit* I have just noticed the accused has infact given credit for his 'inspiration' and would love to know everyones views on whether this amends the issue, thanks
notchildfriendly commented on December 4, 2012 6:18pm
I've just noticed he's 'kindly' gone through all of his work and commented and linked the originals as of today (yesterday if you're in AUS)... Epic Fail Save?!
VerticalSynapse commented on December 4, 2012 6:23pm
im afraid by doing so he has every right to produce these pieces, not one is an exact replica. This is very much like the work of Roy Lichtenstein/Andt Warhol, and very few disregard them as artists these days
Susan Marie commented on December 4, 2012 6:30pm
To me, inspiration is completely different. I've looked at other's work and been inspired to do a typographic piece, or to try and achieve a particular feel in my own work, but it always gets bent to my own purposes.
Bah> commented on December 4, 2012 7:08pm
This is actually quite troubling because I had previously entertained the idea of "remixing" artists work. I would argue that there's a very thin line between blatant theft and remixing if you will. I've always thought that at least at some measure posting "your take/your re-imagining" of an artists piece was okay.

It's not my intention to try and sell any remixes without the original artists consent, and I'd certainly go about remixing with a lot more finesse than this guy did.
Michael Creese commented on December 4, 2012 7:15pm
Yes, that is true VericalSynapse, but if you look at Andy Warhols work he did more than just modify someone else's art slightly. He took everyday items and elevated them to the status of art by placing them in different evironments altogether. He may have grabbed a Campbell's soup can or an Elvis photo or two, but he added new meaning to them. That's a bit different that what is going on here I think. Maybe I'm wrong on that one. Don't know.
Michael Creese commented on December 4, 2012 7:19pm
To clarify that a bit more ... Warhol presented the soup can as art. But he did not present it as art *after* someone else already did that. So he was inventing something unique, even though he was copying? I don't know how others feel about this issue, but that's the difference to me.
Michael Creese commented on December 4, 2012 7:22pm
If another artist had done a silkscreen of Marilyn in multiples before Warhol did, I'd say Warhol was copying. But he did it first. You find a lot of other artists doing this now, but to me it isn't art unless they are stating something new in their work. Just doing a bunch of Marilyn's on a page is really uninventive. OK I'm done with my three comment rant :)
Hector Mansilla commented on December 4, 2012 7:23pm
Man, how can people seriously consider this as not thievery? I didn't intend at all to start a debate on inspiration and whatnot, I think in this case it's so fucking blatant there shouldn't be room for debate.

On the other hand I'm glad most people see it how it is.
Hector Mansilla commented on December 4, 2012 7:24pm
Oh, and this was my response to his "inspiration" claims:

Hector Mansilla commented on December 4, 2012 7:20pm

Nope, that kind of lame-as-fuck-pseudo-inspired "repurposing" still counts as stealing. And just so you know, it looks like shit, like the rest of "your" "work".

Draw your own fucking things, nothing good comes easy.

And fuck off while you're at it.
VerticalSynapse commented on December 4, 2012 7:28pm
No your quite right with that explanation which is a point I do aim to make in regards to cambell cans and the elevation of an objects artistic status, there is one particular case with warhol I wish to look into aswell where he took a photograph of a person by the name of Patricia Caulfield and created a silk screen of it, [something that would take minutes] however this person didnt know at the time and later took him to court with Warhol settling by giving Patricia royalties. It amuses me as again simply giving credit at the time would have overthrown any court action.
When you spoke of elevating you had just reminded me of a particular sculpture entitled 'Fountain' - Marcel Duchamp, which was, basically, a urinal turned on its side
Michael Creese commented on December 4, 2012 7:37pm
I agree with you on that one Hector.
Angella Meanix commented on December 4, 2012 7:58pm
@madame potpourri I see what you mean. @bill pyle thanks for your insights about my lack of vision ~ actually I didn't see that as I am not a graphic artist. I was referring to the feel of the pieces and how they present to me overall- one seems more sophisticated in technique and overall appeal than the other. Just trying to be optimistic.
William Michael commented on December 4, 2012 8:22pm
theft is the highest compliment
S.G. DeCarlo commented on December 4, 2012 8:49pm
oh shit. i'd be pissed. Can you sue?

My art was recently stolen as well. The girl used to enter a competition to win One Direction tickets, hosted by Sharpie and Staples. Too bad I work for Sharpie and was a judge overseeing all the art. DISQUALIFIED!
Dianah B commented on December 4, 2012 9:01pm
OMG! He's a Xerox machine! Sad that this happens to you... but people whit no talent do this. :/ Did Society6 did something about that?
Michal Jedinak commented on December 5, 2012 2:47am
I agree with Michael Creese. If there's no new context, no new take or twist on already existing art object, it still counts as stealing, no matter how many disclaimers you accompany it with. Call it drawing exercise or fan art, but selling it doesn't seem right. I mean, what Mr. Bean did with Whistler's mother was more inspired than the rip-off of Hector's Sea Serpent ;o).
Daniel Bevis commented on December 5, 2012 5:22am
Not fucking cool at all.
Susan Marie commented on December 5, 2012 5:55am
Honestly, I'm absolutely loving this post. It even led me to question 1 or 2 of my own works, basically wondering if I'd stretched myself to the max in terms of originality. I tend to do a lot of appropriation art and experimenting with common aesthetics. But it's really important to add your own flavor to the overall work. I don't even see what this guy did as re-purposing or taking from inspiration, since the originals were created as art products and he copied them to be used as art products. There has to be some sort of higher order process, some sort of development going on in the work. In some of these he barely did any tweeking, and in the ones where he did, it's so poorly done as to give the idea that his main focus was on copying without copying.
Heather Doyle commented on December 5, 2012 6:41am
Can he even call ONE work an original? It's sad that when someone wants to half ass something without their own ideas supporting it that they still want to call it art.
I Draw Therefore I Am commented on December 5, 2012 9:46am
I have deleted my post out of respect and a few of the others. I did not mean for you to get so offended and take this to the next level. At least give me a chance to defend myself instead of putting me on blast and commenting on this "blog" sort of post like were 10 years old back on myspace. Both sides of the argument have valid points. I saw something and wanted to alter it. I enjoyed your work and wanted to make it my own. Sorry you took it the wrong way, Perhaps I should have contacted you prior but I feel it was a bit chilidish to post such a report. Best of luck with your work
Wharton commented on December 5, 2012 10:54am
How could people not be offended by your actions, you have copy and pasted someone else's work and are trying to make money out of other peoples ideas and techniques. Whats truly childish is browsing peoples work and adding a photoshop layer and claiming it as your own. Whats childish is your attitude.
I Draw Therefore I Am commented on December 5, 2012 11:08am
I have apologized, I have owned up to using other peoples intellecutal ideas, but altered them in my own liking. I think I have not acted in a childish way at all? Quite the contrary, in this situation. Wharton, starting a thread about it, and bashing someone without even telling them is childish.
Wharton commented on December 5, 2012 11:17am
I think plagiarism itself is an admittance of being childish, if you're too lazy/ untalented/ arrogant to think you can go around taking other peoples work and calling it your own.

I think posting a thread to alert other people to your behaviour is a responsible thing to do. Hector conceives and produces his own work in order to generate money, if you then take his ideas and a very large part of his design then you're effectively stealing from him. Its that simple.

Saying sorry after you've been caught doing something is nice, but sort of a no brainer, you shouldn't have done it in the first place and if you're entirely honest it must have crossed your mind that taking other peoples work as your own isn't entirely legit.
VerticalSynapse commented on December 5, 2012 11:23am
It's also in no way a crime I'm afraid, infact before the Romantic movement copying existing work was key to design. Absolute originality is a contemporary idea, it doesn't exist in this age. There's no point stating that someone is simply wrong, but dont get me wrong your opinion in these sorts of matters is important for art and design, otherwise it wouldn't be called controversy.
Pencil Me In ™ commented on December 5, 2012 11:51am
I think the major problem here is the fact that this site allows us as artists to generate an income doing what we love to do. No matter how simple or extravagant our work is, its still ours. It's amazing that we can make money doing this, so when someone else steals your idea aka steals money out of your pocket, that's when it becomes wrong. If it was recreated, just POSTED and not SOLD, I don't think anyone would be as angry. It's flattery, but it's stealing.
Wharton commented on December 5, 2012 11:55am
Being a dickhead isn't a crime, I get that. But I think we all possess a moral compass to one degree or another. Laws are nothing more than a general consensus on what is and isn't right, the general consensus here is that this is wrong.

I'm not sure tis just about the money either, its certainly an aspect. But if you work away on an idea and take the time to craft something and someone else swoops in attempts to take credit for it, isn't it natural to be pissed off?
Michal Jedinak commented on December 5, 2012 12:14pm
Jfoley11, don't you think that Hector's reaction has something to do with the fact that you didn't even bother to ask him if it's okay to use his design as an inspiration, and just made something very similar to his work with the intention to sell it? Without giving proper credit? You basically used his idea without consent and yet you seem to think HE should have contacted YOU before releasing his anger? Can you see, what's wrong with that? His reaction might have been a bit too angry, but for an artist defending his work I think it's understandable. Anyway, this thread is your chance to defend your position.
Hector Mansilla commented on December 5, 2012 12:27pm
I was gonna respond to the thief's accusations, but Chris and Mischo just did it for me, thanks you guys!

And yeah, it's not just about the money, it's about taking someone else's idea and passing it as your own. To the very least he could execute it better, like idea-and-composition-thief-extraordinaire Steven Toang (oh yes, I went there too).

And I have been called angry before, but part of it is just the way I speak/write. But I assure you that when people are being nice I can be a fucking charm ;(
I Draw Therefore I Am commented on December 5, 2012 12:30pm
Angry is an understatement and Wharton are you done being a brown noser? If you can't talk like an adult and have an itelligent conversation then keep your rude and profane comments to yourself please. Thank you. You guys say I copied and pasted the work but I clearly did not. I took their ideas yes I'm no saying its right but I did not copy and paste their work I changed it enough. You're treating this Like I committed murder
Hector Mansilla commented on December 5, 2012 12:35pm
Holyshit! I think it's the first time I've seen a thief being offended for being called out. I do not wish to engage in a "proper" discussion with you because you don't deserve it.

Bottom line: you're a fucking thief and I'm way fucking better than you. And your mama so fat that when her beeper goes off people think she's backing out.
Hector Mansilla commented on December 5, 2012 12:36pm
And why is Wharton a brown noser? Has it occurred to you that maybe we're friends? Or that maybe he honestly believes what he's saying?
Wharton commented on December 5, 2012 12:45pm
Dude, don't do dickheadish things and you won't be called a dickhead.

You may not have literally copy and pasted a design but you didn't do a great deal more. All of this negative attention you're garnering is of your own making. I think exaggerated comparisons between plagiarism and murder only highlights your immaturity.

Honestly, just suck it up, stop being 'inspired' by others and move on.
Your names not Steven is it?
Wharton commented on December 5, 2012 12:48pm
Brown nosing win, Hectors my FRIEND!
Hector Mansilla commented on December 5, 2012 12:53pm
Silence, plebe, I was merely making a point.
I Draw Therefore I Am commented on December 5, 2012 1:13pm
Alright guys you've made your point but to take it to such a level is completely unnecessary... And you need to stop the childish thing... I'm the only one acting mature in this situation what else do you want from me? I took down the print, I did take his idea and I ran with it. Crucify me for that. I enjoy his work and appreciate it and him as an artist, I should have asked him first before posting my work and I didn't. I have entry of my own work as well I saw something and thought how I could make it different, but to attack the situation with name calling, calling my art work shitty, bringing up my mom? I just don't understand why we have to be so immature and take it to that level. Again I enjoy his work sorry this got so out I hand but I took it off for him. Have any of you never been Inspired by others? Best of luck with your art work and sorry for offending you...
Bill Pyle commented on December 5, 2012 2:20pm
@VerticalSynapse what Jfoley did is very much so a crime. It is copyright infringement and Hector could easily sue over these rips.

@Jfoley11, the fact that you stole his designs in of itself is a childish thing to do. Not to mention that you've only given half assed apologies and don't seem to understand whatsoever that what you did is wrong. Even if you had asked for permission before hand, you didn't even come close to changing any of your pieces enough to the point where they could be considered your own. So no wonder nobody is having a civil conversation with you about this.
Pencil Me In ™ commented on December 5, 2012 2:27pm
I'm hoping Society6 will blog about this so that others can be aware.
I Draw Therefore I Am commented on December 5, 2012 3:08pm
Especially his piece was changed a lot extra torso pieces extra fins different color background different color monster different eyes different scales..... Please do tell me what was the same I would love to know
Wharton commented on December 5, 2012 4:10pm
The idea
Hector Mansilla commented on December 5, 2012 4:48pm
Extra fins? You mean the ones I drew and then you stole, copied and duplicated, those fins? If you really can't see what you're doing wrong you're too fucking stupid or fucking hopeless, perhaps both.

And I'm not even mad about my design in particular, that was just a little something I did for fun (but of course it was much easier to steal than my more elaborate work). But your general beliefs and attitude that you can just take other peple's creations, shitty them up and try to pass them as your own, and then defending your fucking stance (that only the douchiest of the douchiest ever do), now that is enraging.
Hector Mansilla commented on December 5, 2012 4:55pm
And despite what you might think, I'm not even all that mad. I know you didn't make any money with the stolen pieces, and I know that no one would ever think that you have half the talent of the artists you stole from.

This was more of a name and shame kind of post, I had no idea you were going to defend your thievery and thus make this a bigger deal than it originally was.

Just back off, take responsability, stop stealing, stop trying to justify stealing and if you're truly serious about illustration/design get working on improving your skills, coming up with your own ideas and developing a style of your own.
AGRIMONY // Aaron Thong commented on December 5, 2012 5:07pm
easiest thing to do in the future: contact the artist before doing an interpretation/inspiration/rip. It's not about legality, its just called being nice.
I Draw Therefore I Am commented on December 5, 2012 5:46pm
I wasn't defending the fact that I did it. I took responsibility for that on numerous occasions in This post but to constantly bash me as a person and to be ignorant enough to even bring my mother in this and call my work shit then yes I do need to say something. Again I understand I stole your idea, and took it in another direction but the way "you" in particular went about this situation was taking it to te next level and the name calling was very much excessive and unnecessary, again in numerous occasions I apologized but again, nothing on that monster was the same as yours at all I even added ripples in the water. Literarily everything was hanged in just saying that you could have handled this a lot better in stead of attacking me and my work personally
Hector Mansilla commented on December 5, 2012 5:58pm
Holyshit, you're fucking thick, and you're still hnaging onto that your mama joke? How the fuck do you even take that seriously?

And you know what? I'll never apologize for calling out a thief, and I'll never apologize for calling stolen work shitty and stolen ( at least STeven Toang's is just stolen).

So yeah, fuck off.
I Draw Therefore I Am commented on December 5, 2012 7:35pm
I'm not looking for an apology, just saying you went about it wrong. I don't see a need for this thread anymore... Well best of luck and all the " shit talking" aside I really do appreciate your work and keep it up
Michael Creese commented on December 5, 2012 9:50pm
Jfoley11: "nothing on that monster was the same as yours at all I even added ripples in the water."

I have to say the monster *is* the same. It's almost entirely the same composition. That was Hector's idea to draw it that way. I don't see at all how just adding a couple embelleshments "took it in another direction".
Sarajea commented on December 6, 2012 5:35am
"You guys say I copied and pasted the work but I clearly did not."

It looked like copy-paste to me.
Susan Marie commented on December 6, 2012 6:15am
Inquiring minds want to know, what did Steven copy?
Josh Ln commented on December 6, 2012 7:16am
This is the most interesting feed on s6.
Schwimmt im Pool commented on December 6, 2012 7:40am
haha, yah it kinda is.
Heather Doyle commented on December 6, 2012 1:12pm


and This:

http://society6.com/againstbound/Infi...-4Ie_Print (which is also Hector's)

There are a TON more ideas he's taken but he's also a really good artist and definitely puts his own style into it. Which doesn't make it right but at least he's not turning other's ideas into crap and putting more effort into making it his "own." I believe there's a thread on Threadless that was started to narc Steven out but I can't find it. I think he's taken these ideas as well...

http://society6.com/Monosteven/ocean-eSG_Print (?)
Hector Mansilla commented on December 6, 2012 1:40pm
He's got a shitload, it's reached the point when I've honestly wondered if any of the ideas he works on are his.

And it's a shame cause he clearly has the technique down, but he keeps copying other people's ideas and compositions. And since he's good technique-wise, it's alos harder to tell he's ripping without knowing the originals.
Hector Mansilla commented on December 6, 2012 1:45pm
Here's the thread Heather was referring to:

Heather Doyle commented on December 6, 2012 1:53pm
Totally forgot you started that one too, Hector. You're like the Chief of Design Police. You need a medal for your dedicated service of catching mind thieves =)
Amz Kelso commented on December 6, 2012 2:09pm
I don't understand why anyone can even ATTEMPT to defend this dude, or soften the fact with 'well, it's not that bad,' or 'it's flattering'... GUYS, he's STEALING WORK! No one is saying he is pure evil, just breaking the law! Put yourself in Hector's shoes!

There are differences between inspiration, appropriation and plagiarism, this crosses the line on all accounts and is just downright stealing. Whether or not Jfoley11 understood how heavy what he did was, he still did it- these are the consequences. It will NEVER be okay to take someone else's art and 'rework it' to make it your own. It doesn't matter how many pattern overlays, extra shapes, colour changes or resizes one makes, by directly taking someone else's work as the 'foundation' of your own piece it breaches copyright and is stealing intellectual property. Anyone who has studied copyright laws should know this!

Hector did the right thing, don't just stop at reporting someone to the art hosting website- CALL THEM OUT because chances are they are doing it with more than one piece, more than one artist, on more than one website. Whether it's from ignorance or stupidity, it is still STEALING. Just saying 'Oh well, what do you expect when you post online?' is not good enough. The interwebz is not a free-for-all! This post is not a personal dig or a personal attack, it's a consequence.

Legally, you can actually use the upload information (from any websites) of when something was posted, in court, to show that your work is the original. Same as actual sketches, if you can produce evidence of when your original sketch was made it stands legally (at least in Australia it does, I'm not sure about the USA? Anyone?).

This post is making me angry, I really have to stop reading the thread...

PS: Hector, you're a boss. . Good work, Mate! Sorry this has turned into a copyright chit-chat, but it's interesting to see what everyone's understanding of the issue is...
Hector Mansilla commented on December 6, 2012 2:38pm
Thanks for the support, girls :)

And I don't need a medal, but I could use some nunchucks.
Michael Creese commented on December 6, 2012 5:28pm
In regard to Amz's post, I spoke to a copyright lawyer at Starbucks, of all places, a few months ago. We were discussing the Apple Samsung suits, since Apple was suing over rounded corners on app icons. Then I asked him about copyright with art. He said that in the US, although copyright inherently belongs to the creator of a design unless signed over to another person, the creator cannot sue someone for damages unless they have actually filed for copyright on the image with the patent office. All you can really do is to tell someone to stop using your image. That would mean filing a copyright with the Patent Office for every single image you create. Not very practical in the real world.

So I guess that means if Apple did not have the patents, all they could do is ask Samsung to stop using their rounded corners on app icons. They could not get monetary damages without the patents.

If anyone knows more, of if this info about art copyrights is incorrect, I would love to hear.
Heather Doyle commented on December 7, 2012 6:06am
Yeah, nunchucks sound much more rewarding
Schwimmt im Pool commented on December 7, 2012 6:46am
@ michael i can only tell that it is different in other countries. in germany for example you have way more rights. you cannot rigister a piece of art at the patent office, but you automatically have all the rights of copyright (f.e. photographers get money in case someone illagally uses their images on the internet - and i even thought it is the same in the US in this particular case) however if your design is most about a colorsheme or a layout you can protect this here with a so called "Geschmacksmuster" (art) or "Gebrauchsmuster" (product design) which is more defined/specific and not only protects the "complete" work but also parts of it (as long as defined) so you could protect things like a red 10cm circle with a 1cm black dot in it on a black and withe photo... or something like this....
in the end it's always the same... law is difficult and expensive.
Susan Marie commented on December 7, 2012 7:23am
This makes me think of a design I came across on DBH that was an even worse example of what we're talking about.


This guy didn't get it either, and he wasn't nearly as nice about being called out for it. He didn't even put any technique at all into what he did. He just downloaded some stuff and slapped it all onto a shirt.
Amz Kelso commented on December 8, 2012 12:58am
Thanks Michael & Madame Potpourri, very interesting! We are pretty lucky here in Oz with automatic copyright & moral rights. Wish copyright was simpler for everyone everywhere...

Also, nunchucks, classic choice, Hector!
Pixel Pop commented on December 10, 2012 7:55pm
whoa. craptacular.