Over the past year or so, I've been steadily uploading high resolution versions of images to e621. During this time, I've noticed a strong trend toward using Patreon as a form of paywall to gate higher resolution images behind. At worst, artists will only provide a glorified thumbnail of 500x500 dimensions; at best, they'll deign to release one at a decent resolution of 2000x2000. Most common, however, is 1280x1280, which is probably not coincidentally the same archaic image dimension limit that FurAffinity imposes on initial upload.

Now that Zaush has decided to go the same route--someone I praised in the past for being one of the few popular artists still releasing their artwork for free in high resolution--I've decided to make this thread to bring to attention how Patreon is becoming its own form of paywall and whether or not this is a good thing for both artists and consumers.

For some background, the main reason why a lot of artists have chosen to go this route is because:
A) Commissions by themselves are often not reliable means of income and require either a part time or full time position on top of being a for-profit artist, and
B) Commissions do not provide the artist with a lot of creative freedom. OC-owners are typically stringent in their demands and picky about what situations that character is in. See: The average wording of character-owner takedown requests on e621, and imagine this tone during a full conversation settling on details of a commission. Yeah...

Combining the revenue of both commissions and Patreon pledges, artists of sufficient skill and speed can make a livable income with a greater semblance of creative freedom in this competitive and niche market.

There are of course several downsides to this approach, namely:
1) Users who do not directly financially support artists won't be able to see artwork in high or original resolution, and
2) High resolution versions of that artwork may never be released to the public at all, effectively reducing the artist's legacy to lossy, low res JPGs that might not be future-proof as a result. See: How we make fun of compressed-to-hell early 2000s images that seemed fine at the time, and also see the principle of generation loss

Both of these downsides can potentially be averted while still maintaining a steady revenue stream by switching from a 'gated' model to a 'deferred release' one. What this would entail is, instead of permanently locking higher resolution images behind a paywall, artists could settle on a timeframe in which only people who pledge will have access to those images, then release them to the public in higher resolution at a much later date. The previous suggestion could be accomplished either through not releasing images outright until the timeframe since creation has passed, or by only providing low-res versions as a teaser and then replacing those with the higher resolution version after the same specified time.

Personally, I'm all for artists making a livable wage off their art alone, and I am not complaining about them finding means of financial independence. What I am encouraging is thought about how this model can be fine-tuned to provide people with high resolution PNG images without losing artists their income.

What do you think? Do you think the current model is the best possible one for artists, or do you have suggestions for a more user-friendly one that still earns them similar or at least sustainable revenue?

Context sensitive hybrid:
Some artists use it as a tip jar, and provide X free of charge (immediately, in the future, on certain sites, etc.)
Some artists use it to paywall X, with variants, higher resolution, and exclusives.
Some artists do both, providing X with the promise of releasing variants, higher resolution, and exclusives in the not-so-near future; they're accessible immediately via Patreon though.

It depends on who is using the Patreon and why.

Frankly, revenue rates have gone down in a lot of places. If they feel the need to do this, they may as well go for it.

We only have a 2-year block on paywall content, so there's no "Permanent loss" unless nobody bothered to save the image. It can be posted after those two years are over.

Furrin_Gok said:
Frankly, revenue rates have gone down in a lot of places. If they feel the need to do this, they may as well go for it.

We only have a 2-year block on paywall content, so there's no "Permanent loss" unless nobody bothered to save the image. It can be posted after those two years are over.

That's legally still kinda iffy, and I imagine a lot of the folks who are buying Patreon-exlusive high res image packs aren't overlapping with the e621 crowd. I'm cognizant that artists can always ask to go DNP or conditional DNP, but I also imagine it does create some tension between artists and e621 by virtue of potential loss of revenue on older commercial work by default, as an opt-out.

Yeah, I'm still happy we have that post-2 year grace period, and I'll be posting a certain PWYW collection after it elapses (that was days later silently bumped to 50 cents min specifically to fuck with e621's policy and get previously uploaded posts deleted). Still a shame that this depends so heavily on a handful of e621 users buying all packs just to upload them later if the artist does not have a deferred release model.

Strongbird said:
That's legally still kinda iffy, and I imagine a lot of the folks who are buying Patreon-exlusive high res image packs aren't overlapping with the e621 crowd. I'm cognizant that artists can always ask to go DNP or conditional DNP, but I also imagine it does create some tension between artists and e621 by virtue of potential loss of revenue on older commercial work by default, as an opt-out.

Yeah, I'm still happy we have that post-2 year grace period, and I'll be posting a certain PWYW collection after it elapses (that was days later silently bumped to 0.50 cents min specifically to fuck with e621's policy and get previously uploaded posts deleted). Still a shame that this depends so heavily on a handful of e621 users buying all packs just to upload them later if the artist does not have a deferred release model.

They could have just requested a conditional to make users wait two years anyways. The silent half-dollar bump wasn't needed.

There's really not any loss of monetization after two years. Nobody's going to be paying much at that point, if at all.

Furrin_Gok said:
We only have a 2-year block on paywall content, so there's no "Permanent loss" unless nobody bothered to save the image. It can be posted after those two years are over.

Funny thing I have noticed with this, it seems like there's many users who do not care or even notice the difference between viewable and actual high quality resolution file. Might be also the reason why posts haven't been being replaced with paid larger versions, but of course patreon has only grown huge thing in the last couple years which could also be reason for that.

Over months as I have been janitor, one really large issue I have seen is that most artists do not use hole in furaffinitys system to post at higher resolution, then users posting here post from FA only, which means we are getting tons of 1280px JPG compressed stuff, even if the artist doesn't have patreon at all!

So it's not only patreon, as some popular sites like FA, tumblr and Twitter will always downscale and/or compress the content. With some animations it becomes really problematic when japanese artists only seem to know how to use gif and they only post them to pixiv and twitter, where neither stores it in original format. Bitch to handle with preservation and makes bear sad.

Also seen more and more patreon using artists doing all the things, meaning they tease the timed content then after certain amount of time only release downscaled version publicly. Not entirely sure how to make this any better as if artist has decided to make their artwork business instead of hobby, that means they have to handle their artwork as product, meaning preservation is secondary issue and if they are getting money, they do not even have to think about that kind of stuff. Only thing that can be done is to have masses to only give money to those who do not do stuff like this and even consider supporting more of those who do use patreon as tipjar only, but pretty sure it's same as telling everyone to stop preordering video games.

It sure is fun seeing entitled people who want everything for free hide it behind confusing fake logic. Never get tired of that.

Your post boils down to the idea that you should somehow be entitled to the highest resolution of an artist's work for free. Indeed you should not. You are not entitled to anything from an artist for free. Any art that an artist releases to the public is a gift you didn't earn, don't deserve, and apparently don't appreciate.

You are correct that, in addition to being incredibly unfun to do 90% of the time, commissions do not sustain a longterm income for artists. They do not sustain a longterm income for the vast majority of people - only for the few at the tip-top of their respective industries who are lucky enough to have frequent if not constant offers and be in high enough demand they can charge exorbitant prices and throw weight around & make demands. What sustains an income for most people is a relatively consistent salary, and wouldn't you know it, Patreon is nothing more than crowdfunding a creator's salary.

And while I am drawing my art for the public and therefore insist that the public can see it, the entire public does not actually pay that salary - certain people have the generosity to do so, and thus the artist should give them a bonus courtesy as a thank you and incentive, the founding principle of Patreon.

High resolution, where the normal resolution remains viewable, is a bonus courtesy.

If you are not supporting a creator, then you do not get that thank you courtesy, and that's all there is to it.

There are of course several downsides to this approach, namely:
1) Users who do not directly financially support artists won't be able to see artwork in high or original resolution, and
2) High resolution versions of that artwork may never be released to the public at all [...]

That is correct. Similarly, only people who "directly financially support artists" get to make artists draw the precise things that they want - that's called a commission.

This is how providing a service, product, or content that someone else wants works. If you aren't willing to pay for it, you must not want it very much.

As for "after two years it's OK to post" (an e621 rule I've been aware of for some time), that is incredibly sleazy. While I'm sure two years from now I'll hate everything I drew the last few months from today, many people still favorite my images from 2+ years ago and they still contribute to the massive volume that new Patrons would gain instant access to in addition to my regular updates. They are still a hook to encourage new Patrons, and that is why on every user page Patreon advertises how many Patron-only posts you could access by pledging.

I suppose I could loophole you guys by rereleasing old art in an updated pack every year.

[...] effectively reducing the artist's legacy to lossy, low res JPGs [...]

If any artist is allowing their work to be presented as an artifact-heavy JPG I don't have much faith their high resolution is in good quality either. That's lazy Patreon or not.

Yes, Fur Affinity fucks up your images unless you exploit their badly designed software. Spoilers: don't source from Fur Affinity. I post my work as PNG in both HD and SD to my Patreon, and my main account is on Inkbunny, neither of which fudges my image so far as I know.

By the way, artists are pressured to shittify public versions of their art so that art thieves & phishing sites can't use them as effectively. My 1.5 megapixel SD is high enough to make very small or shitty prints with and I am taking a huge risk by giving you that much. Again, this is my decision, not something you earned or are entitled to.

Both of these downsides can potentially be averted while still maintaining a steady revenue stream by switching from a 'gated' model to a 'deferred release' one. What this would entail is, instead of permanently locking higher resolution images behind a paywall, artists could settle on a timeframe in which only people who pledge will have access to those images, then release them to the public in higher resolution at a much later date. The previous suggestion could be accomplished either through not releasing images outright until the timeframe since creation has passed, or by only providing low-res versions as a teaser and then replacing those with the higher resolution version after the same specified time.

Or, instead of asking artists to go through a shitload more maintenance so you can get something for nothing, you can accept the actually fair system most artists are already using and pay them for the content you claim you want yet somehow aren't willing to pay anything for.

Personally, I'm all for artists making a livable wage off their art alone, and I am not complaining about them finding means of financial independence. What I am encouraging is thought about how this model can be fine-tuned to provide people with high resolution PNG images without losing artists their income.

That's funny. Both of those conditions can only be met if you pledge to the artist. Hmm.

The fact of the matter is you are getting much more than you've earned and complaining you're not getting more. That is not an endearing argument.

I think this problem naturally balances itself out.
#1 Everything is always worth exactly what someone wants to pay for it.

#2 90% of furry art is close enough to vector art that it can be converted and upscaled arbitrarily large without losing much from the artist's original canvas file.

The exceptions are things like OP's current avatar (post #1003454), that are unlikely to ever be seen in solid hi-res. Which is unfortunate since a lot of the really technically skilled artists from the 90s-2000s seemed to have crappy scanners and dialup modems.

If you can neural-net upscale or vectorize an image cleanly to somewhere around 8k resolution, you're approaching the limits of what an average human can perceive visually. An artist's true 'level of detail' often stops way below that.

--

The second half of this might be kind of a troll but it's still my actual opinion-
This type of art is purely a luxury item; it doesn't grow food or build cars. If the current economy sucks, YOU NEED TO KNOW HOW TO DO SOMETHING BESIDES FURRY PORN.

As to artists who hide things behind a paywall- typically it doesn't bother me. Statistically speaking, your best bet for a stable income (in the furry world) is to hop on whatever pop-culture bandwagon is happening at the moment, and draw lots of mass-produced crappy porn of it.

Over the past year I've seen maybe 20 things from zootopia, undertale and mlp *COMBINED* that looked like they objectively deserved to be upvoted based on high quality and/or unique ideas. And most of that wasn't porn.

The really good stuff will undoubtedly be preserved by someone, the moneygrab crap will be forgotten when their patreon page shuts down and they get a real job.

Ijerk said:
#2 90% of furry art is close enough to vector art that it can be converted and upscaled arbitrarily large without losing much from the artist's original canvas file.

except e621 typically doesn't allow artificially upscaled images. which i assume is partly why that one thread about an upscaling site got locked. plus, articially upscaled images tend to have a certain blurriness to them if i'm not mistaken and that's easily spotted when compared to the original pic.

treos said:
except e621 typically doesn't allow artificially upscaled images. which i assume is partly why that one thread about an upscaling site got locked. plus, articially upscaled images tend to have a certain blurriness to them if i'm not mistaken and that's easily spotted when compared to the original pic.

The above comment doesn't have anything to do with e6's upload policy. It means that, for a typical (furry) image, there is enough data present to turn that image into a series of math-based lines and gradients that (more or less)accurately represents the artist's original brush strokes, and can be scaled up infinitely without blurry edges appearing.

It also means that it's pointless for artists to hide hi-res versions behind paywalls. Unless they drawn in a textured or painterly style, which often can't be vectorized or upscaled easily.