http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVRXsRwbafM
Mohith Mohan writes:
Mystique studios is a small animation studio based in India. We do all our production and post production work in blender. This is a small compilation our works. Check the video out in 720p.
Well we are planning for a feature film for Home video or TV for audience in India (though it will be done in English ) completely to be done using blender and different open source programs. We are trying to kind of create a blender revolution in India.
They don't have a website yet, but you can contact Mystique studios at [email protected]
66 Comments
Looks like some pretty slick stuff you got goin' there. Good luck on your film!
Nice.
Although I don't think it's a good idea to include works that you learned from tutorials. I know you added a bunch of extra stuff to them, but I can still see the remains of 3 of my tutorials in there.
As an artist myself, it just makes me a little mad that you are advertising your creative services on the back of some of my own ideas.
I'd appreciate if you refrained from that in future reels. Thanks.
Hey Andrew, I imagine you've read quite a number of tutorials in the past to get you up to speed with Blender, right? Where are the credits to them in your tutorials? ;-)
Come on, relax, grab a beer and have a laugh.
I don't think so. If there is proof that Price has ever put someone elses slightly-tweaked animation into a showreel and claimed it as his own, I have not seen it.
I wouldn't have a problem if this was just another animation on youtube, but it's his demoreel. That means he wants to be taken seriously as an artist and receive payment for his creative skills. That's a big deal.
In my opinion there is a huge difference between learning a technique then using that technique for future creations, and following a step by step tutorial. One involves your own creativity and the other is just simple instruction following.
If I copied the exact layout, colors and style of BlenderNation, using a wordpress tutorial that you created, then had the audacity to place it in my portfolio without giving you any credit. I'm sure you would agree that it's wrong. Me arguing that you originally learning your skills from WordPress tutorials too, wouldn't change anything.
To everyone else: I have no problem with you using my tutorials and placing them on youtube/flickr/deviantart in fact I encourage it! But please don't put them in your demoreel. They simply don't belong there.
I agree with Mr. Price. This sounds like intellectual property(ip) stealing honestly.
I am a follower of Andrew'sTuts and before reading the comments I recognized the similarities of his work. He should have been credited as he provides a lot to the community. But Mohit does have a right to show his portfolio and earn some money too. This is a complex situation.
Thank you for the read Andrew. I do fully agree that there is an epidemic of individuals who become reliant on tutorials for learning how to use software packages.
The largest point it seems to be missing though is that tutorials are rarely taught in terms of concepts. It is probably a greater sign of the times as you can observe the same issue with grade school in the United States. I think this is mostly because it is easier to explain how to do something as opposed to why it works. Because tutorials in and of themselves are an hour or more, I think a lot of individuals writing these tutorials feel hard pressed to distill their understanding to the steps involved to simply the steps themselves.
There is definitely a place for this kind of education, such as when you want to learn where to find functions in your tool, in our case Blender. But, it is disproportionally represented, at least in the "free" education sector of animation. Maybe a better solution would be separating the key concepts in the creation of scene into their own tutorials, while maintaining the creation of a scene as a whole by itself?
Anyways, thank you again for that read. As I am just now jumping into Blender education, it has provided me a few though points for when I try to pass on my own (limited) knowledge to others.
Hey Andrew,
Really sorry for not giving credit,we have learnt a lot from you and we are really thankful and grateful for your tutorials.Just because we thought we can try to do something something using blender ,we certainly have to learn from some where and hence these were our learning lessons but management wanted us to compile a demo so we just took up certain things that we did and just compiled it. I know it was mistake to put it on forum like this.And i promise that what we are trying to do is completely original from now on...just that we wanted to learn the software....so just compiled whatever we did while learning in to it......I completely agree that that phone smashing was a blunt idea...but other shots has our ideas though it is completely true that we have used technique that you taught in those scenes .Really sorry if we hurt you in any way.
heh...anonymous
I agree with Andrew, and as a fan of Andrew's tutorials he should at least be credited at the end of the video.
I agree with Andrew and John. I recognised one of Andrews tutorials in there and I think using the results of a tutorial in a showreel could show a lack of creativity, it certainly makes me wonder how much original content is in there. I also think that not crediting the tutorial shows a lack of integrity.
Agree with previous persons. And of course Andrew.
I'm learning by his lessons. It's obvious parts of Andrew's tutorials, this studio should produce more creations by them self.
There should be credited at the end of video.
(sorry for my poor English)
I'd like to start by saying I agree with all these agreements, though I'd like to explore this topic a bit further. While the iPhone smashing bit is blatantly Andrew Price's tutorial, at what point between copying a tutorial verbatim and having zero influence of a tutorial can one consider the work theirs?
My rule of thumb so far has been that if the finished piece's purpose is not prominently and solely showcasing a result derived from a tutorial, then it is its own work. But even now I am working on a project that is influenced heavily by at least 3 sources to create a cohesive whole; without them the scene would be nowhere near as interesting as it is now. James White speaks of 'back in the day' one had to learn mostly through experimentation, but the web's tutorials are a great resource, we would be doing a disservice not to use them.
I like to give credit where credit is due, but can one be overzealous by doing so on their demo reel? Listing every single resource one uses would be overwhelming to any viewer and may call into question what was the artist's original work, regardless of how much and to what extent the tutorials were used.
Long blurb, I know, thanks for reading!
Copy from one source, it's plagiarism; copy from many, it's research.
it is still "copying". the word "research" is either base on one of these qualitative or quantitative and conclude with critical analysis.
Andrew I have yet to watch your tutorials myself (and now I see that I should) but you are absolutely right
Andrew Kramer (of Video CoPilot fame) also has the same thing where awesome free AFX tutorials get used as some kind of feature by mediocre artists who fail to be as creative, So you can consider it 'Achievement Unlocked' Mr. Andrew Price.
To the people who made the show-reel:
-Lots of potential there but using things from a tutorial puts your whole skill-sets under doubt in the mind of the viewers so id consider creating something entirely your own for the showreel.
-The Music is confusing, it starts fine and builds up but then just when you start to get into it, it cuts off by the trains sequence which is just strange in a show-reel, IMO put one track for the whole thing and composite/edit the sequences around that while paying attention to the music (where it builds up, raging or calm) and apply the sequences that seem most appropriate.
From my perspective, I will never view a tutorial again. Everything I do will be learned from reading the manuals and reference materials. That way if something ends up looking similar to someone elses work, I will be able to say in all honesty that it was pure coincidence and not have to second-guess myself. Besides, if you have to learn how to do something from someone else, it's kind of a lack of personal vision.
I think that when making a video tutorial it's normal for others to use and 'evolve' the final result. I'm surprised that Andrew is upset. If someone has gone through the whole tutorial (and NOT download the finished .blend to use) he can use the result as he sees fit (since he/she made it even if following someone's footsteps). Giving credit to the tutorial maker would be nice but imho that's all.
it is just a matter of mohith lack of creativity and of course he should give credit. if that is the case blender, autodesk, houdini, lightwave should give credit to Walt & Disney for showing the world that animals can talk...
I think Andrew is totaly right, nobody has the right to look at a tutorial and then say they did it on there own, because thats what showreels are there for. Then the part with the crashing phone is rude and nothing more, they just changed two ore three settings, used another texture and posted it as their work. And if you are not crative enaugh to come up with your own ideas then atleast give Andrew credits, because he had to learn it the hard way, by trying it out.
Then on the other hand I love the way the outdoor lightening tutorial (or how ever it's called) was developed.
So in total I have nothing against using tutorials in projects, but credits should be given.
It's like food recipes. If you learn to make a meal from a cookbook, it's not your own creation.
While I agree mostly with what Andrew is saying, I have a hard time accepting that tutorial creators have exclusive rights to all derivatives of their tutorials. This mode of thought is essentially saying once someone posts a tutorial on how to shatter an iPhone, no one else has the right to use a iPhone shattering in their work for fear of someone saying they're only "emulating" the tutorial.
All art in someway is a derivative, arrived at by building on the techniques and styles that came before. As long as an artist makes an adaptation of the of a technique, the resulting art can still reflect an artist's creative vision.
I wonder how may CG artists did a shattered iPhone in Max or Maya before Andrew did one in Blender?
If you can find one, go ahead and post it!
If I'm not mistaken Andrew made one of the first (perhaps THE first) complete grass making tutorial in Blender. Does that means that every grass/meadow scene made since that is a copy or should give credit to Andrew? I guess not.
I'll put it this way. Tri-Star Pictures uses a Pegasus flying horse in their opening logo. Universal Pictures uses a spinning globe. It is commonly accepted that a new film company adopting either of these motifs as their official introductory sequence for their productions, would be on shaky legal ground.
No doubt about it! But Tri-Star doesn't own the Pegasus (beast taken from ancient Greek mythology) design. If I can make one (say landed eating some grass or apples or perhaps flying past the camera made out of lights) I can use it freely without having to mention Tri-Star or anyone. We're a bit off topic with your example BTW...
Actually I doubt you would get away with that. The law recognizes symbols that relate to certain companies, and in that circumstance I think you would lose the court battle. Just because you have a right to use an apple in your logo, doesn't mean you won't have Apple barking down your door immediately. Common sense really.
Fruit of the Loom, a clothing/underwear company has an apple on it's logo for a very long time now. I also think we're missing the point here. How many times will a 3D artist be asked to create a logo from scratch? Possibly not a single time. My point is that when you're releasing a tutorial on the web you should expect it to be copied to death. Jonathan Williamson (hope I'm not misspelling) has made an apple tutorial. If I make a fruit bowl full of apples on a dinning table and then the whole room could you call my scene Jonathan's rip off?
BTW We LOVE you and your tutorials cause we've all learned a trick or two (or more) by watching. Not a single doubt about it!
Think your somewhat missing the point a bit. A bowl of fruit on a table can by no means represent a demo reel, somthing which has been put forward in a professional manner in order to show off a company's *work* in order to get jobs and eventually make money...
Fair point. I don't think anyone is taking the position that a one-to-one copy of an original is acceptable. And it is true a motion picture company have to be insane to incorporate another company's logo into their own. In this instance, I'm referring to building on another's technique rather than outright plagiarism.
If, for example, a client comes to you and requests an animation of an iPhone breaking, most likely people familiar with Andrew's site will claim you took this idea from him, whether you watched his tutorial or not. If you have seen Andrew's tutorial, I would agree that your idea for a iPhone smashing against the ground had better bring something new to the table than what's presented in the original.
This is not a "hate Andrew" or "hate tutorials" rant. I appreciate all the hard effort these artists put in to their work and in giving back to the community. And certainly I believe in giving credit where credit is due, but I also agree with 1dimc0803's point... There are only so many ways to create things like grass in Blender, (or any other 3D package). And when someone else creates a grassy field or realistic looking ocean, it may or may not be thanks to a tutorial.
Actually I wasn't suggesting that he copied the grass scene. It was more:
-The smashed iPhone
-Rain scene, featuring parts from my railway, rain and lightning tutorials.
Whats annoying is that the artist actually HAS talent. I can see that through his other work. Putting these tutorials in the reel is unnecessary.
You make a good point and it's a good thing that the artist(s) promises to not do it again.
The artists made themselves look bad here.
The point of copyright and patents is to encourage innovation.
If people just rehashes other peoples' work, the world will be a boring place.
BTW, good thing that I read the comments.
First judgement I had is that Andrew is the one copying because this demo is from a Studio.
Never thought a group of people, for profit, will copy from a one-man-team.
Good thing that Mr Price is vigilant.
Any artist's motto regarding Intellectual Property should be "defend or lose it".
I make a lot of palmtrees using the Jonathan Williamson workflow. I give full credit when I do.
i know this is kinda in "moral grey" area but as a courtesy to artist , atleast specially with consideration to "iPhone" sequence , they should have attributed the inspiration .
The girl character needs to blink a few more times. Other than that, and setting aside the iPhone tutorial issue, I quite liked this reel.
Which other tutorials were ... used?
-outdoor lightning scene with the barrels (BTW the background in this shot sucks because the water is still)
-maybe the underwater scene
-and of probably the grass scene (which is okay in my point of view)
inspiration and techniques from tutorials are good, but that doesn't give you the right to copy them 1:1 and then say it's your creation. Think about the work Andrew Price invested in achieving the result + recording it, and then they come and do this scene in an hour. I think it is moraly incorrect, and this video has in my oppinion no special qualities that qualifies it to be featured on blendernation. Please note that this is my personal oppinion and I doen't want to discourage anyone to use tutorials for their projects.
Cheers and happy blending
Mohith:
You could cut the barrel scene and not lose a great deal, or replace it with another shot.
The iPhone shot is really distinctive. Personally I'd make it into a square device and/or put some sci-fi GUI on it.
Also having rewatched your reel, the shards coming off the iPhone look a little energetic.
///
Grass is kinda generic..what if I was making grass like I know how (2.49 era knowldege), then looked up 'make blender grass' online?
That's the thing. You need to put your own artistry into it. If all you have is a generic field of grass, it contributes to an overall generic scene. Find a way to put a little bit of ownership into it. It's all in the details.
Tell an Artist not knowing Andrews tutorial to do an animation of an iPhone smashing to the ground, and he will come up with a very diferent Animation than the one Andrew did.
This one here is clearly adopted from andrews tutorial.
The Grass scene is okay for itself, but together with the bunch of other adopted things from other Andrew-Tutorials, it seems there is more work of Andrew in this "showreel" than of Mystique Studios.
Noone says "every scene with grass in it has to mention Andrews Tuts", but this here is very different. This Showreel is kind of "look, I can do Blender tutorials"
+100!!!
If you don't want things copied, don't put them on the internet...
I am surprised at you guys. Tutorials are meant to be copied. The reason someone wants to post an image they made from a tutorial is to show what they can do. They are demonstrating their technical skills. For a lot of beginners, that's all they have. Every artist, that went to art school, shops around their portfolio of work after they graduate. They don't ever tell the source of the work in their portfolio. Moreover, 3D software is so technically challenging to work with there is even more of reason to demonstrate the skills you learned by displaying what you have learned so far.
Now, if they had gone into your collection of works (not tutorials) and copied something from there I would understand your pique. In that case it is a blatant rip-off of something that wasn't meant to be copied. But a tutorial? Ease up people!
Comparing it to classes is a good way of putting it, because class stuff does get into portfolios(disclaimer: I've only heard that, and it applied to art classes where there might be more variation between students, & I don't know how accepted it is.). Probably the biggest concern with showing class work is that it looks like stuff submitted by other prospective employees/freelancers, which raises a red flag. The barrels looked safe in my opinion because it was sufficiently changed and an animated ball was added, which was the focus. I've been unsure about the license for images that Andrew made for the barrels tutorial, though.
The iPhone image is so similar to Andrew's work that I'm split between the "class" and the "copyright" arguments. As small a change as it would be, changing the angle might be all it would need. Maybe even animating the camera movement. If I were re-using my work from the iPhone tutorial, I would have changed the damage a little(like a piece flying off at the camera) and changed the background. I also would have made a more cohesive musical arrangement, but that's a different story.
Those 2 are the only tutorials I recognized, so I can't comment on any others. However, the styles seem like a mis-match like you would see from somebody new to this stuff, and it's clear that this studio is indeed new to it if they're using class work. I hope their next demo reel uses stuff they created from scratch for their customers.
@b5116f1ef450dccb4aeffaee29af8d7f:disqus: now that is stupid. People put things up on the internet (like Andrew) to teach people how to use this software, that you would have difficulty learning yourself.
I am greatful that people like Andrew put these tutorials up, but think that you should learn the techniques and ways of doing different things from the tutorials (like how to blur a light, vignette, colour grading), and trying to incorporate them into your own work, not just make a still animated, or copy obvious portions from it (like copying models and such)
If you look at the images submitted for Blenderguru or The Nature Academy competitions (To make it clear, I'm speaking about competitions, not images showing people attempts/result after following the tutorials during the course), you will see many different images, made after following Andrew's tutorial. Although made from the same tutorials, they all show various ambiances and contain the own fingerprints of the artists, and they don't look like copies of the tutorial example.
I totally agree that when following step by step a tutorial, if the final result is identical to the given example, it doesn't show any creativity nor skill from the part of the student, and the image made has not its place in a show reel.
Teaching somebody a "Concept" using your tutorials isn't any sort of copying at all when those tutorial students use their own imagination in the actual scenes used ! I follow quite a lot of tutorials, including Andrew's which by the way are excellent. I watch the tutorials mainly to learn a concept and not his style. Unfortunately I have NEVER ever seen any tutorials anywhere on the entire internet which solely teaches "concepts" the (why, how and where) of Blender and 3D software, which I will greatly appreciate a whole lot. If any of those Big mouth tutorial creators could one day try to create tutorials ONLY teaching the concepts in 3D and especially Blender, THEY will be my GURUS in 3D. By the way, I also do not recommend using 3D tutorial creators' exact same works as your own creations ! That only shows that you are a student of that specific tutorial creator and that you haven't even started using your own imagination at all, which is leaching on the tutorial creator's fame.
Ok if you are talking about using tutorials in the demo reel I think there is a great difference between copying the step by step 1:1 and simply applying the Technic taught to make something of your own (I.e using a Kindle instead of an iPhone and making the shatter happen in a different manner)
The Latter could be included in a showreel and its legit even if its somewhat derivative but the former (using 1:1 result) is weak and basically a declaration that someone has technique without imagination.
A tutorial creator is not entitled to any special privileges unless he files a lawsuit (only apply in case of 1:1 result) however he is within rights to point out the show-reel's lameness and expose it for what its truly is and I don't anyone should begrudge him for that.
Call it Showreel,Demoreel or whatever, in the end it is mean to show what YOU can accomplish with YOUR skills and knowledge and if you can't back that up (for example by making a Nokia emit AR display projection from its screen or something) then you are lying to yourself and to your would be employer by insinuating that you have mastered the techniques associated with making something like that so I think that this is a problem beyond the legal issue.
Very interesting discussion.
I feel sympathetic with the feelings of Andrew (btw, thank you, I learned quite a bit from you), and also think that the smashed iPhone is too much blatantly adherent to the tutorial.
Anyway, are not tutorials meant to teach others? When they become so widely known to be spotted at first sight, they have also become "public dominion" imho.
Those guys from India look to me more simple minded than nasty: they are moving their first steps and, maybe, still building their website (!!).
All that said, @andrewpprice:disqus , let me say that there was some Andy (Warhol) who used time and again the Mona Lisa, without giving credit to Leonardo. You are known worldwide, have diligent pupils in other continents and, in the end, have been able to build all this from the generosity of Ton and Co., who never ask anyting from any Blender user. Stay happy, we all keep you in high esteem.
The Mona Lisa can be used royalty-free and without credit because it's old enough to have an expired copyright. Mickey Mouse is known worldwide, but Disney would have your hide if you used Mickey in a commercial project.
Personally, the iPhone drop is the only part I would have issues with, considering it's largely unchanged.
This is not a copyright issue. Everyone can cook up an iPhone following Andrew's directions, eventually with minor changes that would put lawyers out of game. Instead is definitely an issue of good manners: say thank you whenever it is appropriate.
I hope everyone be able to catch the benevolent irony of my remark when I put Andrew and Andy side by side.
I see no problem with the barrel scene. It's a bouncing ball, no sign of the "red barrels" that were mentioned in the tutorial, only the lighting setup, which is pretty basic. Lacking originality, yes, but fine.
The iPhone scene is probably the killer. For me, it was the weakest shot in the reel, simply because a iPhone doesn't shatter like that(I'm talking about the shards).
The train scene which Andrew mentions has probably parts from tutorials, but I didn't notice them in the first viewing. He used the techniques and applied them. That's what tutorials are for!
Andrew is partly at fault for this. Hopefully I don't sound too harsh, but he sucks the creativity out of the people who view the tutorials, as he creates final images, instead of a single part. This tutorial(http://www.3dworldmag.com/2011/08/18/distribute-rocks-across-a-plane-in-blender/1/) is a great example of that. This means that when the person watching the tutorial finishes it, he will see the image as finished, and therefore post it, possibly changing textures etc., but you could say the image is now ingrained with the technique. You have something to do with the model/techinque you learned, so you do it. BlenderCookies Palm tree, for example teaches you to make a palm tree. If Andrew did this tutorial, we would see beach scene as the preview image, rather than the palm tree.
Another example, reiterating the above: the outdoor lighting scene. I expected it to be a quick, 5 minute tutorial on how to setup realistic lighting, but instead I have to wait for Andrew to make the scene first.
Andrew gives us Ad tutorials, (smartphone ad), logo tutorials, and tells us that this is what you may come across in client work. If you do, then it will be most certainly be based around Andrews tutorial.
You could put it this way: Andrew has set a standard, and if clients want a Iphone to break like Andrew's, but with a different phone in a different situation, they can rely on people like this to create what they want, and look as good as the tutorial.
Sorry for the long rant. :(
Interesting. As I watched the demo-reel I started to get the feeling that a lot of the works were based off tutorials Id seen (the city one in particular I could tell was from Andrews tutorial series)
Its all a bit of a grey area it seems. But to me Id definetly agree with the idea that these pieces have no place in a professional demo reel. Mystique studios needs to take note of this, and its easy enough to see the negativity thats been generated here. Thats NOT what you want a demo-reel to achieve.
I have mixed feeling, although I am all for giving recognition to teacher or instructors I don't think its mandatory more of a curtsy. As an instructor you are passing on a skill so unless the skill you transferred over contains some proprietary processes or distinct art application that can be covered by a copyright law... c'est la vie.
Yes the skills are passed on, but any newby could have done the Iphone shot in a few hours, it has nothing to do in a showreel,because it's meant to show YOUR skills and creativity. Of course Andrew has no possibility to sue anyone, so people please stop talking about this stuff, this is a moral problem.
Then there is the barrel scene, beacuse I think it is pretty lame, beacause it uses a background image with a river that is still and pulls down the shot, which otherwise would have been fine.
Without having read the whole discussion I think the point is not that the original creator of the tutorials isn't getting any credit.
The point is that it looks/is unprofessional having tutorials in a showreel!
*On the tutorial use debate*
And this is why I prefer learning things on my own.
shame on you!, Mohith Mohan
Usualy I'm against infomercial/televangelist style that a "self called guru" has been using to promote himself in Blender community with tutorials about trivial things of Blender that anyone can learn with a little of research or techniques that had been used for years before his arrive to this world. Certainly 3d industry didn't start with him and today it's so easy to get free 3d models of an iphone or whatever you want to use it in your projects... and rendering grass is an "ancient technique"
But in this case my vote is for mr. overpriced... seriously Mohith Mohan, shame on you! there are way better artists in this community to try to imitate..... and your demo reel is suspiciously too similar to the work of free tutorials from other people.
Looks like everyone in this thread is well on their way to alienating everybody else!
This is not the reaction you would want when you post a demo reel. Never, never use tutorial derived material in a demo it just paints you as been devoid of any creativity and you come of as a bit of an amateur like you haven't advanced enough to start doing your own things.
When you start of learning anything the initial batch of stuff you do is derivative and a large portion of it is from tutorials but as you advance this stuff starts to naturally get displaced by your own stuff. The really shouldn't be anything in your reel that is derived from a tutorial it should all be your own work.
Right now I am left wondering how much you actually know if you are this dependent on tutorials to get by.
Well, I find more than a grain of wisdom in the words of jeffrey anderson and chromemonkey.
Make peace, not war, mates. Those Indian guys are supposedly very young people, eager to show what are able to do with Blender. I repeat myself, they do not even have a website ready, and state that they like to spread Blender in India. Maybe they show clumsiness and a bit of harshness in their choices, but nothing unforgettable, IMO.
A last remark, I amused myself with a little googling:
"ton roosendaal blender" = 167,000 results
"andrew price blender" = 206,000 results
Uhm... In my personal list of gratefulness, Ton scores very very high, even if he is less SEO savvy than others.
I'm sure next time we hear from them, they will have a nicer, self-inspired demo reel to show for themselves. At the moment though, they do deserve a bit of grilling. I think better now than later, because at least now they have inexperience to explain their actions, that simply won't hold up later.
I just hope they understand why this was unacceptable, that fringe between copying and original creation is surprisingly blurred for many new individuals. And it's hard to tell if they understand why it was a mistake in their response to Andrew.
C'mon, they apologize, don't ask that they cut their veins.
Moreover, as a former teacher myself, I'm in the mood to say that whoever choices to teach, ought to be glad in seeing other people learn from him/her.
On the other side, if one privileges the commercial aspect, no surprise if the sense of ownership prevails.
The original (and I hope, the lasting) spirit of the Blender community is of sharing and be generous, and this is not the last reason why I keep Blender on top of my tools.
I liked it overall, though i see it caused quite a stir amongst the people. I wouldn't personally want to do a 1 : 1 coy of someones work and say its mine but i don't see the problem with modifying work from a tutorial and putting my own spin on it, i personally find tutorials a valuable source for learning 3d tricks and techniques and i'd expect if i did a tutorial that people might copy it and use it as there own in whatever way it fits into their artistic vision, that's just me.