A recent disc case in which a user was banned for un-cited tracing of stock photos resulted in a lot of controversy, mainly predicated on the fact that we didn't have any language regarding art plagiarism in the rules and disputes between users and some staff over what constitutes art plagiarism.
A quick google search finds plenty of articles and discussions affirming that un-cited tracing is generally considered art plagiarism, though it can be acceptable if cited and if it is done for personal practice rather than public posting. General guidelines on the subject seem to be as follows:
1. If you are posting artwork publicly you should generally not trace.
2. If you do trace, it is imperative that you cite your source so you aren't passing it off as fully your own work.
3. A sufficiently heavy reference should also be cited (e.g. a dog from a picture translated to drawing that has the same breed, pose, coloring, relative dimensions, and miscellaneous details).
4. Don't trace from for-profit stock photos since those companies are vultures. (this one is more specific to us for legal reasons than it is a general rule)
5. If someone violates these rules, they’ll face disciplinary action equivalent to committing literary plagiarism.
What does everyone think about adding information to this effect to the site rules, should any of these guidelines be excluded or any not listed added, what precise language do you feel should be used, and where do you feel it should be located in the site rules?