Top
Best
New

Posted by zdw 14 hours ago

The curious case of retro demo scene graphics(www.datagubbe.se)
318 points | 80 comments
parasti 12 hours ago|
Focusing on "copying" seems like missing the forest for the trees. There's the copyright angle, but copyright laws are unnatural obstacles designed to give the original author some control over what happens after publishing. They're not fundamental, we made the laws.

What is fundamental is this: every artist starts out by copying the works of others. It's how you learn.

And in that framing, once you publish your derived work, there is only one question that arises - if you don't credit the original author but sign your own name, you're fundamentally misleading your audience. Your audience implicitly assumes you made the thing. Maybe you made 95% of it, but if you don't give due credit, it looks bad once your audience discovers that.

On more than one occasion my perception of an artist has shifted once I discovered the "brilliant work" they created was actually a remake of somebody else's brilliant work. It's a feeling of being misled. It's never a feeling of "wow, this guy is a total hack and has no ability of their own".

keyle 9 hours ago||
Exactly.

They wouldn't copy each other for copyright infringement as much as it was a mark of respect. They carried each other's arts as an evolution and respect towards each other rather than copying; all bringing a small twist on what was before.

darkwater 9 hours ago|||
> On more than one occasion my perception of an artist has shifted once I discovered the "brilliant work" they created was actually a remake of somebody else's brilliant work. It's a feeling of being misled.

The spirit of the famous - cited in the TFA as well - quote "great artists steal" is exactly that. If you don't know that the inspiration came from somewhere and believe that what an artist did was created in a vacuum, you will certainly think much higher of said artist.

aaron695 5 hours ago|||
[dead]
Asooka 6 hours ago||
This sounds so insane to me. If I own land and grow a tree on it, the tree and its fruits are private property forever (mine until I die, then inherited by my children, then their children, or sold, transferred, etc ad nauseam). At no point does the tree become "public", that would be utter nonsense. It is property. Why should my ideas then be anything different? They come from my head. I own myself, including my head, thus I should own the fruits of my head like I own the fruits of my tree and they should remain property forever. The fact that copyright expires is one of the great tragedies of modern life, though at least I can take solace in knowing I own my ideas until I die.
vidarh 5 hours ago|||
Copyright law exists exactly because it is universally accepted that ideas are not property: Copying an idea or expression of it does not deprive you of your ideas.

The entire notion of "intellectual property" is the creation of an artificial monopoly rooted in very distinct and separate goals from physical property that requires separate laws if you want to restrict copying or exploitation, because property law explicitly does not cover them.

Most copyright laws are also justified implicitly or directly in the legal texts allowing them as creating an incentive for the advancement of the arts and sciences - a temporary monopoly right granted by the state as a deviation from perceived "natural right" - on the belief that granting that right creates more benefits for the public than not having them, by encouraging the creation of more works.

And no copyright law protects your ideas. They protect the specific expression of them. Patents - which do protect ideas - are by design far more restricted and limited exactly because they are far more invasive in depriving the public of use of the very idea for the duration.

danparsonson 4 hours ago||||
Did you spend your entire life in isolation from the rest of human society? Because if not, then you have been influenced throughout your life in a multitude of subtle and not-so-subtle ways by the works of others. In what way, then, are the fruits of your head entirely yours? We're all standing on the shoulders of giants.
mrob 6 hours ago||||
Unlike the tree, nobody can take your idea away from you. You retain possession of your idea even if somebody copies it. It sounds insane to me to think you should get permanent control over other people's communication just because you had the idea before them.
Lerc 6 hours ago||||
Perhaps, but that is your tree, if someone takes a cutting from your tree and grows it into their own tree you shouldn't own that tree, your tree is still there.

Eventually you get to the point where someone asks why the tree is theirs and they say it's because someone in history planted it, they were a relative, so it is mine now. It is hard to assert a moral justification for long term hereditary ownership without inviting investigations on how it was those ancestors came to have the resources that caused the ownership to begin.

cess11 2 hours ago|||
Such a weird take. What are the similarities between your fantasies and land that to you make the philosophical convictions involved in private property laws applicable to those fantasies? Why isn't it good enough for you to fantasise about land and a tree, and why doesn't the answer to this undermine your reasoning?

Personally I'm not convinced by the arguments for private property, which makes your comparison even weirder than you likely intended.

GuB-42 6 hours ago||
> Theft from the outside world, however, is often taken lightly - especially when it comes to graphics.

One should not forget where the demoscene is coming from: crackers. The whole point of "intros" was to show off the skills of whoever cracked a piece of software. So obviously, the views demoscene held on intellectual property are not mainstream, if we can say it like that.

The shift to a more creative and law abiding art scene, led by adults and not rebellious teenagers is more recent development.

embedding-shape 5 hours ago||
I think very initially it was indeed so, crackers were the ones doing the intros. But very quickly the efforts got split, most of the time, the person doing the intro was a different person, the person doing the music was another person and finally another person was the one doing the actual crack. I don't think it took very long for this split to be the norm, even though very early I'm sure there was individuals doing all three pieces alone.
ebiester 4 hours ago||
They were different people, but they were in the same group and knew exactly what it was being used for.
embedding-shape 4 hours ago||
Yes, of course, I'm wasn't trying to claim the music/graphics was stolen by the cracker, or vice-versa, just that "show off the skills of whoever cracked a piece of software" isn't really accurately representing how the team's composition was, since they were different people.
Jare 2 hours ago||
I don't know about "recent"... demos for their own sake had clearly splintered off of the cracking scene by 1991, 35 years ago.
Findecanor 12 hours ago||
Demo scene graphics competitions these days tend to include work-in-progress images, as evidence of originality.

The Revision demo party is soon. From the competition rules for "Oldskool Graphics" [0]:

> Include exactly 10 (ten) working stages of your entry. All entries without plausible working stages will be disqualified.

Yikes...

The rules for "Modern Graphics" [1] and "Paintover" similarly also require work stages, but fewer.

[0]: https://2026.revision-party.net/competitions/oldskool/#oldsk...

[1]: https://2026.revision-party.net/competitions/graphics/#moder...

Sharlin 8 hours ago|
Was required back in the early 2000s already, but that’s not really what the article is about. It’s talking about derived work created by recreating another artist’s existing work in a different medium. Being able to provide WIP material is only evidence that the technical labor is yours, not that the artistic concept is original.
pixelpoet 12 hours ago||
As it happens I'm just on a train to Airbnb with large group of demoscene and fractal art friends, full week ahead of the Revision[0] demoparty! Hells yeah

My top pick for pixel art would be anything by Made of demogroup Bomb, don't have a good link to hand sorry and need to change trains etc. Also check this amazing pixel art book: https://www.themastersofpixelart.com/

[0] https://2026.revision-party.net/

pavlov 11 hours ago||
I have two pages in this book (Saffron/TBL).

I made the images in Deluxe Paint when I was 16-18 years old. It was a lovely surprise to be contacted two decades later by the author who wanted to print them in this beautiful book among many far more talented artists.

customguy 9 hours ago|||
Here you go! https://amiga.lychesis.net/sceners/Made.html

That whole site (and more) is worth checking out of course. My favorite pixel art image at the moment is this: https://amiga.lychesis.net/sceners/Facet.html#Facet_SamTakin...

kilpikaarna 9 hours ago|||
Made is still active in the demoscene and creating art for/with (the restrictions of) old platforms.

Check https://m4de.com/?tag=archives

imiric 10 hours ago|||
Those books look amazing! *_*

Snatched the collection. Thanks for mentioning it!

Razengan 10 hours ago|||
Oh man I wish I could have cool friends
pocksuppet 10 hours ago|||
Go to Revision and meet some
cess11 10 hours ago|||
See if there are any events close to where you live.

https://www.demoparty.net/

https://demozoo.org/parties/

myth_drannon 6 hours ago||
There are also Editions64K books https://www.editions64k.fr . But it's more Amiga scene oriented.
skrebbel 11 hours ago||
Let's not forget that most of these pictures were made by teenagers, doing the best they could (and hoping others didn't know about Boris Vallejo). The demoscene was very young back then. Copying is generally considered pretty lame in the demoscene these days.
itomato 5 hours ago||
Making something appear digitally that only exists in the far-away analog world still gets 'em.

If it's indistinguishable from the real thing but made without any of the traditional tools, it's remarkable, even if you think it's lame in any way at all.

_the_inflator 11 hours ago|||
Exactly. 12-16 was predominantly on the producer side.

The hidden deciding factor nevertheless was time. And that affected the whole production cycle: coding, graphics, music, crunching, copying, spreading (postal services!).

We had way more snow back then and we enjoyed working on something for hours till the wee hours.

18 was a deciding factor because after that military service killed quite a few scener careers.

Have a look at all the pr0n stuff pixel graphics that were cherished by the young studs as well as all the scroll texts as well as early disk magazines or pictures of programmers in computer magazines, with lots of profanity and simply stating age competition: 14 years old scolding 13 years old…

momocowcow 7 hours ago|||
It was considered "pretty lame" in the 90s, yet the best did it. It was just harder to figure it out.
vidarh 5 hours ago||
A lazy copy has of course always been lame, but it also depends on when in the 90s, and the platform.

There were plenty of images that amazed me back then even though I was perfectly aware of the source material. It depends on the platform, and the amount of effort going into recreating it. Reinterpreting an image for a C64 or Amiga with a restricted palette is a skill in itself. Copying it for a platform, or in a style / resolution / bitmap depth, where you might as well use a scanner, not so much (and so, of course, the accusations became more and more frequent, often warranted).

Copying it and trying to pass something off as original is of course also very different from acknowledging the original and letting the conversion stand on its own as what it is.

Sesse__ 10 hours ago||
> Copying is generally considered pretty lame in the demoscene these days.

You will still see plenty of e.g. SID covers of existing pop music, without anyone really batting an eyelid.

skrebbel 10 hours ago||
Fair. Pretty lame tho.
Sesse__ 9 hours ago||
That we can agree on.
galangalalgol 6 hours ago||
At least they know who to cite, even if they don't. I like to have a diffusion model generate an image of my desired subject in whatever media I choose then look at it as make something close but not quite the same. I'm copying tons of people I don't even know. But I am also just practicing and don't try to pass it off as my own creation.
theAurenVale 46 minutes ago||
constraints are what make demo scene art so good imo. when you have 64k to work with every single pixel has to earn its place. compare that to AI image gen where you can produce alot of variations at zero cost and somehow everything ends up looking less intresting. theres something about working within tight limits that forces real creative decisions instead of just iterating until somthing looks ok
onion2k 11 hours ago||
I grew up in the era of the Amiga and got into computing in some part due to demoes like Technological Death and Unreal. Not sure if 10 years is too new to be considered 'retro', but "Intrinsic Gravity" by Still is my favourite demo ever. It's lots of different scenes that transition beautifully from one to another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZxPhDC-r3w
JetSetIlly 12 hours ago||
> Farting around with Amigas in 2026 means actively choosing to make things harder for the sake of making things harder. Making that choice and still outsourcing the bulk of the craft and creative process is like claiming to be a passionate hobby cook while serving professionally catered dinners and pretending they're your own concoctions.

People wanting to explore the use of generative AI for vintage computers is happening not just for graphics but for code too.

I think in the case of code though, it's still interesting because I don't believe there's been any success yet. I hear of people having success with Claude in contemporary settings but it seems to fare less well when working for older computing platforms. There's a reason for that of course and it's worth exploring.

However, it will cease to be interesting as soon as the first person manages to create something substantial. At the point, the scene should probably shun it for the reasons stated in the quote.

roygbiv2 10 hours ago|
There's definitely been success in using generative AI for vintage Computers. Just the other day I got it to produce a bootable floppy for my Amiga 1200. It loads the network driver, uses BOOTP to get an ip address, connects to a server and then downloads code via UDP that it will then execute. I doubt you'll get it doing amazing graphical scenes like you see in the demo scene though.
JetSetIlly 9 hours ago||
I really meant in the coding realm, but it's interesting that it created a bootable floppy. That wouldn't be trivial.

Questions: 1) Which AI platform did you use? 2) Did it create a binary image of the floppy disk (an ADF perhaps)? If not, what form did it take?

amiga386 7 hours ago|||
> That wouldn't be trivial.

INSTALL DF0:

Just type that and your disk is bootable.

What I find mind-boggling is the handwave over the rest. "Loads the network driver" - ok, which one? There's no standard network driver, only a specification for writing drivers (SANA-II). Was it a driver for SLIP/PPP over the serial port, or a PCMCIA Ethernet adaptor, or something else? Was it a copy of a driver someone's already written?

Also, it would be madness to try doing this in a bootblock, or insinuating that the bootblock did it. Demo bootblocks take over the hardware and start using their loading routines, eschewing the main AmigaOS, and that's the implication of saying something was done in the bootblock (you have under 1KB of space so the first thing you need is your own loader).

What's much more mundane and normal is a standard bootblock which returns control to AmigaDOS and lets it run the startup-sequence, whereupon you can use normal files, libraries, devices, including a full suite of other people's networking software, including BOOTP (AmiTCP comes with a client) and TFTP (see Olaf Barthel's tftpclient: https://github.com/obarthel/amiga-sana-ii-tftpclient). But it stopped being the "bootblock" that did it as soon as it started AmigaDOS.

roygbiv2 8 hours ago|||
I used cursor with a mix of Gemini 3.1 and opus 4.6.

It referenced the Amiga ROM Kernel Reference Manual, appendix C to create a boot block in assembly. It's a raw sector-mapped image, the build process creates a blank adf, which then writes everything at it's fixed offsets and we go back with another tool to patch the bootblock with the right checksum so the kernel accepts it.

I copied that adf to the A1200 so I can then write it to a real floppy.

kilpikaarna 9 hours ago||
Man, this really brings one back to discovering https://gfxzone.planet-d.net/ sometime around 1999 (when this was already fading into the past because the scene was dying, PC with 24bit graphics and painting software pushing out DPaint andAmiga palette stuff etc), reading all the old interviews where "No Copy!/?" was a core issue and looking at the galleries.

"Danny leaves the scene" (because it's just a bunch of kids with scanners and he's got a job at Eidos now) never forget!

djmips 4 hours ago|
This is a lot of fun to check out. Thanks!
momocowcow 8 hours ago|
The famous spinning head from second reality is directly taken from the book "How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way". Check it out on page 72
More comments...