All you need to do is take one quick look in the art thread and you can tell that copy/pasted textures are a big deal. The general idea is that textures that came from source images are worth less than hand drawn textures.

My opinion is that making c/p textures is just as hard as creating art with a tablet or a pencil. It's not easy to morph images of cars or bikes into a good image or a robot or something like that. It is understandable that some things would be a little easier to create because the artist doesn't have to worry about the texturing or lighting and whatnot, but most of this is situational.

What are your opinions on this? Should c/p textures be less valuable because "less effort" was put into them?

It depends from what level of image is being stolen,

In the case of the entire head is copied off of google images it shouldn't be rewarded with 10k tc if it's stolen from somebody else however in the case of somebody using a small part of it like to get a texture of a bolt for a head they drew I think that's perfectly acceptable as long as you site your sources.

That isn't the type of cp I mean. I'm talking about taking a picture of a car or something along those lines and cutting pieces out of it and then morphing it to make an "original" texture

It's all effort based. Artists like Jebus are great at drawing and make a lot of tc from it. I think that as long as you credit/admit you did use c/p to make the head you did the value should be the same. It's the effort you put in that will make the value higher.

Like if somebody said "Yes I used c/p however I worked hard on this" and the head looks great I'd pay the same as if it were original.
If it looks like you put no effort into it and it's c/p it's not going to be worth much at all.

I think it's weird when people think something isn't worth as much because it is c/p. It only matters on how it looks. These people just really like the certain art and do this cheap way of getting the art for a lower price saying "it's c/p, so 15k" Take flyingmonk's sets for example; I would pay at least 100k for each of them.

So, I think of it as a small scam when people downgrade it for c/p.

A lot of c/p textures are plagiarized works and I think that's why it's a bit frowned upon by the community. There are some good ones out there and it does take a bit of effort to cut up edit and map it around the tori. It's a great alternative way for members that can't draw to exercise and show their creativity but artists that do it properly are few and far between. I have no problems with spending a good amount of tc on a c/p set if it fits my standards.

Flying monk is an example of GOOD copy paste.

He morphs an image to the point were we couldn't tell what it used to be.

FlyingMonk's sets are better than most "hand drawn" sets.
I personally think art should be valued on how it looks, rather than how it was made(or who it was made by).. so yea, c/p is fine in my books

yes, cutting and fitting someone elses work is a noteworthy excersize.


We dont see those often anymore, it was popular in 2009/2010, but has died out since then.

nowadays, CP is about using textures from 3D rigs and game files.
which I dont approve of, its blatant plagiarism and theft.
selling sets for USD made with textures that other people made, especially without consent, is unacceptable, no matter how much work they did on it.

A lot of digital art is made by copy pasting, blending, ...
It can produce some really nice works of art, take a look at this:
http://imgur.com/irT34qk

CP isn't bad in se, what mostly matters is what's being done after a certain sample was taken, how the artist manipulated aspects or maybe combinated some parts.