Why are the standards so high for edits? It seems decent or high quality edits get deleted for not being good enough.

Funnily enough, there has been many acceptable edits which have caused artist to go full DNP here, because they despice others touching up their work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edits have as high standards as any other uploaded post here, however they are deemed according to the actual edit instead of the post as whole, so in many cases the where edit is something extremely simple as doodling nipple in ms paint or copy-pasting genitalia from one work to another, this is not something we would allow from fully original work at all, so why would we with edits? Simply because it has already acceptable post which we are already hosting in the background?

Similar to Source Filmmaker stuff, othervice T-posing renamon on TF2 map and hitting render with high quality settings would be acceptable for us. Instead we actually look what has been done with the renamon model.

Mairo said:
Funnily enough, there has been many acceptable edits which have caused artist to go full DNP here, because they despice others touching up their work ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edits have as high standards as any other uploaded post here, however they are deemed according to the actual edit instead of the post as whole, so in many cases the where edit is something extremely simple as doodling nipple in ms paint or copy-pasting genitalia from one work to another, this is not something we would allow from fully original work at all, so why would we with edits? Simply because it has already acceptable post which we are already hosting in the background?

Similar to Source Filmmaker stuff, othervice T-posing renamon on TF2 map and hitting render with high quality settings would be acceptable for us. Instead we actually look what has been done with the renamon model.

I'm probably going to offend people here but... it's amazing how much artists complain about things. Like, I get some of their concerns but they always make such a big deal out of everything

The two edits I thought were decent were 1442106 and 1753981.

Maybe your standards are too low.

Dutchnoob said:
I'm probably going to offend people here but... it's amazing how much artists complain about things. Like, I get some of their concerns but they always make such a big deal out of everything

Don't have this attitude.

Some artists are extremely controlling of their work. Others are extremely flexible.

Some go DNP over edits. Some say outright "hey, edit my work all you want!"

People have different feelings about what they create. They have different motivations for creating things.

Dutchnoob said:
I'm probably going to offend people here but... it's amazing how much artists complain about things. Like, I get some of their concerns but they always make such a big deal out of everything

So if you took holiday photos and shared them online, someone comes to you and says "You know what? your boobs are kinda small, so I made them bigger. Also added penis for you as well!" or made your first music track and someone comments "Yeah, this sucked balls, so I added my own basstrack to it." just how would that feel?

Like yes, there are many artists who love their stuff being edited and improved, but for majority it is a negative thing, it might feel like they have failed, it might feel violating that your characters gender is changed, they might feel like the edited part isn't up to their own personal standards, etc.

Don't just assume that you are entitled into someones work just because you can access it freely.

Dutchnoob said:
The two edits I thought were decent were 1442106 and 1753981.

post #1442106 I was actually laughing a bit because that should've never been approved. That's almost definition of ms paint edit, every portion that has been edited looks straight up wrong and incohesive compared to rest of the artwork, which is bad sign when it's uncensor edit.

Mairo said:
post #1442106 I was actually laughing a bit because that should've never been approved. That's almost definition of ms paint edit, every portion that has been edited looks straight up wrong and incohesive compared to rest of the artwork, which is bad sign when it's uncensor edit.

And that is why I hate uncensored edits, even if it's done decently. If I saw any uncensored pieces that turn out to be edits, I'll be pissed to say the least.

At least I do put it on my blacklist, but even then, this doesn't help much.

cerberusmod_3 said:
And that is why I hate uncensored edits, even if it's done decently. If I saw any uncensored pieces that turn out to be edits, I'll be pissed to say the least.

At least I do put it on my blacklist, but even then, this doesn't help much.

I don’t know, I’ve never looked at art with a microscope while jerking off

Dutchnoob said:
I'm probably going to offend people here but... it's amazing how much artists complain about things.

Stop disrespecting us and our work, please, and we'll have less to complain about. Seriously, it's frustrating when people show contempt for someone else's hard labor, then act offended when the originator gets upset over it.

Dutchnoob said:
The two edits I thought were decent were 1442106 and 1753981.

The first one is a low-quality edit if I ever saw one, and the second...

Editing scat into art that originally didn't feature it is just asking for trouble and tends to result in new additions to the DNP list. Many artists do not want to be labelled as scat-artists. If it was up to me, edits like that would be automatically rejected regardless of quality.

Genjar said:
The first one is a low-quality edit if I ever saw one, and the second...

Editing scat into art that originally didn't feature it is just asking for trouble and tends to result in new additions to the DNP list. Many artists do not want to be labelled as scat-artists. If it was up to me, edits like that would be automatically rejected regardless of quality.

I would guess that you mean unless the person had permission from the artist?

Personally I'd be fine with permission being required for any major content-changing edit. I think it'd be fine to allow minor things like de-censoring if it's done well, but mostly anything beyond that (including, like, gender-swaps)... I tend to think that's in the realm where permission is a good idea.

CCoyote said:
Stop disrespecting us and our work, please, and we'll have less to complain about. Seriously, it's frustrating when people show contempt for someone else's hard labor, then act offended when the originator gets upset over it.

I never disrespected you. Editing something isn't "showing contempt"

Genjar said:
The first one is a low-quality edit if I ever saw one, and the second...

Editing scat into art that originally didn't feature it is just asking for trouble and tends to result in new additions to the DNP list. Many artists do not want to be labelled as scat-artists. If it was up to me, edits like that would be automatically rejected regardless of quality.

Yeah, I get that, but shouldn't we ask the original artist first instead of just assuming they hate it?

Clawdragons said:
I would guess that you mean unless the person had permission from the artist?

No. There's no way for the staff to check if something is edited with permission (unless it is posted by the artist themselves). Considering that vast majority of edits are done without permission, the realistic course of action would be forbid second-hand edits altogether for such content.

Things get deleted for looking bad. If the edit can't at least match the original quality of the image, there's no point in keeping it and it's just some inferior copy. Using a really grainy downscale of something and then putting some mspaint brown on it doesn't magically make it the best thing ever and worth keeping. The image already looked like it was made of sand, adding insult to injury wasn't going to make it better.

Dutchnoob said:
I'm probably going to offend people here but... it's amazing how much artists complain about things. Like, I get some of their concerns but they always make such a big deal out of everything

>"haha silly artists making a big deal out of everything am i rite lol"
>artist requests a takedown of something
>"REEEEEEE HOW DARE ARTISTS DELETE THEIR WORK I SPENT A WHOLE 30 SECONDS TAGGING THAT REEEEEEE"

Maybe you shouldn't bite the hand that feeds.

Dutchnoob said:
I'm probably going to offend people here but... it's amazing how much artists complain about things. Like, I get some of their concerns but they always make such a big deal out of everything

Because more often than not their art is a major (if not the biggest/only) source of income for them. Their art could literally be their livelihood.

Dutchnoob said:
I never disrespected you. Editing something isn't "showing contempt"

Editing someone's art could be considered implying that the original work wasn't good enough as it was and needed to be 'fixed'.

Clawdragons said:
Personally I'd be fine with permission being required for any major content-changing edit. I think it'd be fine to allow minor things like de-censoring if it's done well, but mostly anything beyond that (including, like, gender-swaps)... I tend to think that's in the realm where permission is a good idea.

Um... Unless if some artists refuse to give/don't have any uncensored version, no mentions of asking artists' permissions to get the uncensored version? Some people suggested it on this site as far as I could known.

Dutchnoob said:
I never disrespected you. Editing something isn't "showing contempt"

Every time you take someone else's creation and edit it without their permission, you not only show contempt for them, but you also demonstrate contempt for copyright law. If you don't understand that, then you don't belong in the art community, because you don't respect the people around you.

If you're not sure how it works, find a textbook or take a class so you can educate yourself. Or even better, hire a lawyer.

Dutchnoob said:
Yeah, I get that, but shouldn't we ask the original artist first instead of just assuming they hate it?

NO! You ask the artist before[/i] you change their work!

MissChu said:
Editing someone's art could be considered implying that the original work wasn't good enough as it was and needed to be 'fixed'.

Yes, absolutely. Thank you for adding that. Additionally, artwork can be used to tell a story or communicate some meaning. Editing someone's work can destroy what they intended.

Even if the artist is just trying to turn on their audience, it's their vision for doing that, and unless they give permission, it's not okay to change it. If someone like @Dutchnoob wants a drawing with a different kink in it, then they should take some art lessons and make their own drawing.

Creating art is not an easy task. Creating good art requires years of practice, experimenting, buy expensive tools, and honing your craft. So when some noob shows up who hasn't invested any of that time or money, and they get their knickers in a knot because they added poop to your artwork and you didn't like it, yeah, it's irksome.

-----

Okay, I'mma stop editing and adding to this now, but yeah. Obviously I have strong feelings on the matter. People shouldn't scribble crap on other people's art and pretend it's valid.

Dutchnoob said:
I don’t know, I’ve never looked at art with a microscope while jerking off

Think about something you know a lot about. Say.... I dunno. Fishing. Fly fishing. And you're watching someone in a movie talk about fly fishing, and they're not doing it right. They're using the wrong equipment, they're using the wrong technique. The scene is supposed to be a heartwarming scene of bonding between two people while they talk about some serious things, but all you can focus on is that all of the fishing details are wrong. Your friend thought the scene was one of the best in the movie.

Not fishing? okay... how about the internet search? The computer whiz kid says "I'll just run a search...." types for 3 seconds, then is pulling up incredibly obscure information. like "It says he was sentenced to life in prison 40 years ago, but he escaped during a riot and while he probably drowned trying to escape from the island, his body was never recovered and he was never seen again. Except! there's a rumor that says that he washed up here, in our small town of Bleeding Shores. A man swears he saw him and his horrific one eyed face in the upstairs window of a house! And that house is.... ..... THIS ONE!" and meanwhile everyone who's ever tried to google anything obscure is ROLLING THEIR EYES SO HARD, because this sort of thing is the sort of thing you went up looking in your library at microfiche on, for a few days, trying to find out bits and pieces of a story.

Or the actual computer hacking, where they take their fingers furiously for a little bit, declare "I'm in!" and then the screen displays a computer OS from 15 years ago, and then they magically find the files they're looking for on the destop in a folder titled "evil mass corporation plan"

Orrrrr... the doctor saying "He just lost consciousness for a few minutes, he'll be fine." (no he won't. the movie 'conk on the head' to knock someone out without hurting them is utterly falsified. You don't get up 30 minutes later and scowl about it. You have brain damage. if you even wake up again at all. If you are unconscious for more than a few moments, you are in serious trouble.)

or or or or. how about hte fact that every bald eagle scream on TV or the movies isn't a bald eagle at all? or that the typical "horsey sounds' a lot of movies have are ' stallions wanting to fuck' or that the 'angry viscous attack dogs' are barely containing their excitement at getting to PLAY... or... or... or...

okay. my point is... some peopel pay more attention to some details more than others because they familiarize themselves with those things. it's something they understand and know about. they pay attention to it. A good friend of mine sometimes wishes she'd never studied anatomy for artists, because she has a hard time looking over the unrealistic and broken anatomy in a lot of otherwise gorgeous art. it still looks good, she says, but spines don't bend like that.

you don't have to fap with a microscope to notice something is off. you just have to be experienced with looking for that kinda thing.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Um... Unless if some artists refuse to give/don't have any uncensored version, no mentions of asking artists' permissions to get the uncensored version? Some people suggested it on this site as far as I could known.

I was thinking more of the high volume of Japanese artwork which is censored because it is mandated by the laws of that country.

But yes, if an artist puts out a censored image with the uncensored image being behind a paywall or something, that'd be a different situation.

Regarding Genjar's comment earlier, I meant "got permission and posted some evidence proving it" or something. In effect, it would be like a reverse DNP: edits would be deleted by default, unless there was verifiable evidence that the artist was fine with it (either by uploading it themselves, giving permission to someone else, or requesting edits be allowed of their work in general).

Clawdragons said:
Regarding Genjar's comment earlier, I meant "got permission and posted some evidence proving it" or something. In effect, it would be like a reverse DNP: edits would be deleted by default, unless there was verifiable evidence that the artist was fine with it (either by uploading it themselves, giving permission to someone else, or requesting edits be allowed of their work in general).

Wouldn't that be a lot of extra work for the sta--

Actually, it probably wouldn't be as much as I'm thinking, because the amount of uploaded edits would likely drop drastically.

Personally, I don't think that much of value would be lost if this site disallowed edits altogether. Vast majority of them are low-effort, and the amount of posters who have no respect for the artist is too high. Want something that fits your tastes better? Commission it, or draw it yourself. Don't just scribble over someone else's work.

And as for censored works, those are always censored for reason. Either it's done because the commissioner requested it, or the uncensored version is behind a paywall, or it's censored because of some law. No matter what the reason, spreading an uncensored version shows clear lack of respect for the artist (and commissioner, if applicable).

Dutchnoob said:
I don’t know, I’ve never looked at art with a microscope while jerking off

I wouldn't mind if we had less users thinking with their genitalia and actually thinking who they are effecting with their actions, were it artist or the websites goals or something else.

This is furry artwork archive, we do not care about pornographic value of uncensor edits, we care about the artistic value.

Genjar said:
And as for censored works, those are always censored for reason. Either it's done because the commissioner requested it, or the uncensored version is behind a paywall, or it's censored because of some law. No matter what the reason, spreading an uncensored version shows clear lack of respect for the artist (and commissioner, if applicable).

Also there are now machine learning alghorithms to do this automatically and what I have tested, they actually do much better job than majority of e621 editors. I would assume that for personal usage if someone really needs stuff uncensored then use that instead.

Genjar said:
Personally, I don't think that much of value would be lost if this site disallowed edits altogether. Vast majority of them are low-effort, and the amount of posters who have no respect for the artist is too high. Want something that fits your tastes better? Commission it, or draw it yourself. Don't just scribble over someone else's work.

So much this. Thank you. If it were possible, I'd make a motion that the site's administration implement this immediately.

@NotMeNotYou @Ratte @ICantRememberTheOtherAdministratorsRightNowSorry

Mairo said:
I wouldn't mind if we had less users thinking with their genitalia and actually thinking who they are effecting with their actions, were it artist or the websites goals or something else.

This is furry artwork archive, we do not care about pornographic value of uncensor edits, we care about the artistic value.

♥♥♥

Mairo said:
I wouldn't mind if we had less users thinking with their genitalia and actually thinking who they are effecting with their actions, were it artist or the websites goals or something else.

This is furry artwork archive, we do not care about pornographic value of uncensor edits, we care about the artistic value.

But it's a poooorn siiiiite. You're supposed to cater to the needs of my genitalia!

But on a more serious note, the biggest part of the furry fandom is the art. It's what the majority of the fandom is based around. Not generally the greatest idea of antagonize the core of your own fandom, OP. (Or was it drama that was the biggest part of the fandom? I forget. (I'm joking, I'm joking!))

CCoyote said:
So much this. Thank you. If it were possible, I'd make a motion that the site's administration implement this immediately.

I'd like this.

Ratte said:
I'd like this.

What would it take to make it happen?

I think a system put into place where ONLY authorized edits exist would probably be best. Just like how we do things with people who get distinct permission to post normally DNP artists. That'll probably limit most if not nearly all low effort edits, and also keep content creators happy

CCoyote said:
What would it take to make it happen?

It's ultimately up to NotMeNotYou. The most I can do is just say that I like the idea.

Genjar said:
Personally, I don't think that much of value would be lost if this site disallowed edits altogether.

CCoyote said:
So much this. Thank you. If it were possible, I'd make a motion that the site's administration implement this immediately.

1-

This sounds like a can of worms. Not all edits are low effort. Some artists don't mind edits. B&W images being fully colored for example.

Cane751 said:
1-

This sounds like a can of worms. Not all edits are low effort. Some artists don't mind edits. B&W images being fully colored for example.

Some artists can be fine with edits, but a lot aren't. That's honestly why I'm suggesting a possible "permission granted ONLY" edit policy

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
I think a system put into place where ONLY authorized edits exist would probably be best. Just like how we do things with people who get distinct permission to post normally DNP artists. That'll probably limit most if not nearly all low effort edits, and also keep content creators happy

This sounds like a great compromise.

I can only speak for myself, but after putting through a conditional DNP for edits I have given my permission to someone who asked me if it was OK. It felt 1000% better than just waking up to a posted edit of a commission I had done for someone else that they didn't ask to do or post.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
Some artists can be fine with edits, but a lot aren't. That's honestly why I'm suggesting a possible "permission granted ONLY" edit policy

I know. This suggestion is better than going full nuke.

The problem with the 'edits allowed with artist permission' is that we'd need a system of providing proof. Like, a screenshot of the artist giving consent with each upload. Could be more of a hassle than worthwhile.

MissChu said:
The problem with the 'edits allowed with artist permission' is that we'd need a system of providing proof. Like, a screenshot of the artist giving consent with each upload. Could be more of a hassle than worthwhile.

I would assume there's already a system of providing proof for DNP images that are posted with the artist's permission?

MissChu said:
The problem with the 'edits allowed with artist permission' is that we'd need a system of providing proof. Like, a screenshot of the artist giving consent with each upload. Could be more of a hassle than worthwhile.

I mean, we already do a "required proof of permission" thing with DNP artists giving permission to post here, why not do the same with edits? It'd pretty much work the same way, just in needing explicit proof that you had permission to edit rather than posting.

MissChu said:
Because more often than not their art is a major (if not the biggest/only) source of income for them. Their art could literally be their livelihood.

Editing someone's art could be considered implying that the original work wasn't good enough as it was and needed to be 'fixed'.

For the second one, you probably have self esteem issues if that's the case.

CCoyote said:
Every time you take someone else's creation and edit it without their permission, you not only show contempt for them, but you also demonstrate contempt for copyright law. If you don't understand that, then you don't belong in the art community, because you don't respect the people around you.

If you're not sure how it works, find a textbook or take a class so you can educate yourself. Or even better, hire a lawyer.

NO! You ask the artist before[/i] you change their work!Yes, absolutely. Thank you for adding that. Additionally, artwork can be used to tell a story or communicate some meaning. Editing someone's work can destroy what they intended. Even if the artist is just trying to turn on their audience, it's their vision for doing that, and unless they give permission, it's not okay to change it. If someone like @Dutchnoob wants a drawing with a different kink in it, then they should take some art lessons and make their own drawing.Creating art is not an easy task. Creating good art requires years of practice, experimenting, buy expensive tools, and honing your craft. So when some noob shows up who hasn't invested any of that time or money, and they get their knickers in a knot because they added poop to your artwork and you didn't like it, yeah, it's irksome.-----Okay, I'mma stop editing and adding to this now, but yeah. Obviously I have strong feelings on the matter. People shouldn't scribble crap on other people's art and pretend it's valid.

Are you threatening to sue me? That's an incredibly stupid thing to sue someone over

+1 for banning edits in general

Wether they'd only be accepted with explicit permission or just outright banned makes no difference to me

mabit said:
+1 for banning edits in general

Wether they'd only be accepted with explicit permission or just outright banned makes no difference to me

Why? I thought this was about respect towards artists. Not just banning them altogether. If an artist is cool with it, and it looks nice in general, why ban it?

Dutchnoob said:
Why? I thought this was about respect towards artists. Not just banning them altogether. If an artist is cool with it, and it looks nice in general, why ban it?

Sorry, but the way you were trying to start trouble up there makes me not want to respond to you. Hope that's understandable.

All my reasons for banning edits have been voiced in this topic already, I'm simply expressing my support to the motion

Dutchnoob said:
For the second one, you probably have self esteem issues if that's the case.

Sorry? Is there really a call for personal criticisms here? You made your complaint, I made some counter-points. It's still a matter of taking someone else's work and changing it because you can.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
I mean, we already do a "required proof of permission" thing with DNP artists giving permission to post here, why not do the same with edits? It'd pretty much work the same way, just in needing explicit proof that you had permission to edit rather than posting.

Okay, fair point. That makes sense, though I think having the opposite of the DNP should be in effect. All art is off limits unless specific permission is given, rather than all art being up for grabs and potentially rubbing artists the wrong way and having them join the DNP group.

Dutchnoob said:
Are you threatening to sue me? That's an incredibly stupid thing to sue someone over

First, no. Unlike most furry artists, I protect my intellectual property by keeping high resolution versions of my work off of the internet. Online images of my work are of insufficient resolution for e621's standards, intentionally so, and so my work has never showed up here. Believe me, I check.

Second, protecting intellectual property is not a stupid reason for suing someone. Just ask Disney or any other major production company.

Genjar said:
Personally, I don't think that much of value would be lost if this site disallowed edits altogether. Vast majority of them are low-effort, and the amount of posters who have no respect for the artist is too high. Want something that fits your tastes better? Commission it, or draw it yourself. Don't just scribble over someone else's work.

And as for censored works, those are always censored for reason. Either it's done because the commissioner requested it, or the uncensored version is behind a paywall, or it's censored because of some law. No matter what the reason, spreading an uncensored version shows clear lack of respect for the artist (and commissioner, if applicable).

But what if we accidentally deleted an uncensored artwork that isn't edited?

Also, why is Japan still sticks with the censorship law while other countries like Taiwan manages to get away with it?

Mairo said:
I wouldn't mind if we had less users thinking with their genitalia and actually thinking who they are effecting with their actions, were it artist or the websites goals or something else.

This is furry artwork archive, we do not care about pornographic value of uncensor edits, we care about the artistic value.

Agreed.

Mairo said:
Also there are now machine learning alghorithms to do this automatically and what I have tested, they actually do much better job than majority of e621 editors. I would assume that for personal usage if someone really needs stuff uncensored then use that instead.

You mean DeepCreamPy? Whatever this means, I'm not going to use it.

cerberusmod_3 said:
You mean DeepCreamPy? Whatever this means, I'm not going to use it.

That's the newest trend. There have been users trying to uncensor mosaic_censorship by utilizing waifu2x. Without saying, both of these practises are deleted the instant they are found out as low effort generator edits. But also, like I said, these things can actually do better job than many users doing these things manually, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of these have gotten trough if not disclosed and linked to original posts properly.

Then there are also features in photo manipulation softwares like content aware fill with photoshop and inpaint in g'mic for gimp, these might require some more manual tuning and working as they are general purpose and meant for photographs.

This also kinda highlights my point with edits, we (or at least I) do actually delete edits that are simply badly/cheaply made. I would almost first try to tighten that edits would require to be tagged with edit, to have description of what has been edited and parent/source to original version. These are crusial things for staff to make decisions and many edits slip by because some do not do these.

Clawdragons said:
I'd be fine with permission being required for any major content-changing edit.

DiceLovesBeingBlown said:
a system where ONLY authorized edits exist would probably be best.

With respect for two valued users I think this is a bad idea, both in itself and as a precedent. Posts should be evaluated for artistic value regardless of their source.

If there are two versions of an image, one B&W and one colored, these are both acceptable from an artist's gallery.
If there are two versions of an image, one B&W and one fan colored, these should both be acceptable (assuming artistic value).

If there are male and female versions of an image, they are both acceptable. I think this should be true even when one is a (quality) edit, either by the original artist or by another.

As CCoyote and MissChu point out, edits can be interpreted as disrespectful to the artist. And frankly so can posting an image without asking the artist for permission. Other users have noted correctly that the most polite thing for e6 to do would be to make everything, edited or not, DNP until artists say otherwise. In a perfect world we might make this a rule. But I think we can all recognize that this would cripple e6.

Posts would drop dramatically as users decide not to go through those extra steps. User engagement would drop, and with it tagging. Artists who speak a different language or cannot be reached would not have their work posted to e6. We would just be another gallery catering towards artists not users. We would fail our mission to be an archive for furry art.

All posts should be evaluated for artistic value. Edits should not be singled out and made DNP by default. The existing takedown system already allows artists to remove any posts they don't like that contain their work.

leomole said:
MissChu notes correctly that the most polite thing for e6 to do would be to make everything, edited or not, DNP until artists say otherwise. In a perfect world we might make this a rule. But I think we can all recognize that this would cripple e6.

Posts would drop dramatically as users decide not to go through those extra steps. User engagement would drop, and with it tagging. Artists who speak a different language or cannot be reached would not have their work posted to e6. We would just be another gallery catering towards artists not users. We would fail our mission to be an archive for furry art.

All posts should be evaluated for artistic value. Edits should not be singled out and made DNP by default. The existing takedown system already allows artists to remove any posts they don't like that contain their work.

I was only talking about an edit version of DNP, not DNP itself. I think DNP in its current iteration is fine enough, no need to tamper with things that aren't broken.

Oh I see. Sorry for misunderstanding, I'll edit my comment.

leomole said:
All posts should be evaluated for artistic value. Edits should not be singled out and made DNP by default. The existing takedown system already allows artists to remove any posts they don't like that contain their work.

That's one of the main points we're arguing against here. Why is it more right to "accept all edits, let annoyed artists submit takedowns" than to "don't accept edits unless the artist posts it themselves or gives explicit permission"

Currently, edit has a total of 12401 posts, while according to the stats page, e621 has a total of 1,747,330 image posts. That means that when we're talking about edits we are only talking about 0.7% of e621 posts which, should we disallow, would never have ultra dramatic impacts such as

leomole said:
But I think we can all recognize that this would cripple e6.

leomole said:
Posts would drop dramatically as users decide not to go through those extra steps. User engagement would drop, and with it tagging. Artists who speak a different language or cannot be reached would not have their work posted to e6. We would just be another gallery catering towards artists not users. We would fail our mission to be an archive for furry art.

There's also the entire "let's try to respect artists by not letting people scribble all over their hard work" but you don't seem too terribly concerned about that so we can leave that discussion for later

honestly i think that banning editing without permission is a good idea. not to mention the fact that 90% of the edits intended to "improve" and "fix" are really bad and just make the image worse, but also there is the issue that people are making changes to other people's original characters (that are often representation of the owner) and often also changing entirely the artist's original intention and meaning of the drawing just to cater own preferences.

the act of editing other people's art is often done in incredibly disrespectful manner and forcing people to ask permission for doing it would do real good. it would also eliminate those situations where artist find out that people have been posting unauthorized edits and decide to take down all of their art as result.

Mairo said:
That's the newest trend. There have been users trying to uncensor mosaic_censorship by utilizing waifu2x. Without saying, both of these practises are deleted the instant they are found out as low effort generator edits. But also, like I said, these things can actually do better job than many users doing these things manually, so it wouldn't surprise me if some of these have gotten trough if not disclosed and linked to original posts properly.

Then there are also features in photo manipulation softwares like content aware fill with photoshop and inpaint in g'mic for gimp, these might require some more manual tuning and working as they are general purpose and meant for photographs.

This also kinda highlights my point with edits, we (or at least I) do actually delete edits that are simply badly/cheaply made. I would almost first try to tighten that edits would require to be tagged with edit, to have description of what has been edited and parent/source to original version. These are crusial things for staff to make decisions and many edits slip by because some do not do these.

I personally sees edits as a cheap method of obtainig the uncensored version. Even machines can't do well. I would prefer if the artists who made various artwork for us should handle it on their own.

Not gonna lie, I would miss uncensor edits, but respecting artists is more important.

cerberusmod_3 said:
I personally sees edits as a cheap method of obtainig the uncensored version. Even machines can't do well. I would prefer if the artists who made various artwork for us should handle it on their own.

MyNameIsOver20charac said:
Not gonna lie, I would miss uncensor edits, but respecting artists is more important.

Today's uncensor techniques or algorithms could be completely outclassed by new algorithms at some later date.

As long as the censored images are available, they can be worked on later. Maybe hentai enthusiasts will code their own image viewer or plugin that automatically decensors an image instantly using AI.

Nothing beats artists providing decensored versions of their own work, unless they unexpectedly suck at drawing genitals. However, we shouldn't expect Japanese artists to provide these versions since they could get reported and face fines or imprisonment.

I apologize if any points I make have been adressed already, or slightly off from where the thread stands currently,
Anyone with a discontempt for edits is frankly guaranteed to also be the kind of person whos pretty cagey about most aspects of what they deem to be "theirs". Despite posting their work onto the internet. Where copy and paste is literally built into the very fabric of all relevent computing.
I primarially post edits I've come by from 4chan here, and many of them are a genuine improvement, or just a nice alternative over the originals at least. Not to say that the originals typically aren't good, but the kinds of edits I'm talking about include carefully coloured versions, hard translated versions of alternate language comics (which frequently nesessitate re-drawing a fair amount of art), and as a example with my icon here, a expanded version of that image, made months if not years after the original, among other types of edits.
Throwing the babies out with the bathwater because some prima donnas have a hissy fit about people coming along and doing anything to their artwork, even though again, this is the internet, is to be blunt, absurd. When you post things, on the internet, where if you don't have a understanding that people may come along and bust out their copies of photoshop and make some changes, the sorts of things that will happen, then you're genuinely delusional.
Low efort MS paint affairs that are clearly low effort, absolutely be more stingant, but some edits (admittedly semi-infrequently) can surpass the original to the point that to take them down would be a disservice to the original on principle that the edit added so much to it.
The notion that more artists than not have a problem with (good) edits seems kinda unfounded, bad edits and edits to cater to fetishes the original artist may not like yea, but I can only speak for the kinds of edits worth saving.
I don't know what the official consensus is, but I think chucking the edits would be miles worse than the time that the 'ever paid only' stuff was purged, because with much of that there was a good chance it was backed up elsewhere. Edits though, especially the stuff I come across, would genuinely possibly dissappear forever. Edits that again, can be so good that they almost supersede the originals in quality and effort.

Anonomn said:
Stuff

I'd just like to make sure I'm hearing you correctly and understanding your words the way you mean them.

Are you seriously calling artists prima donnas for wanting to protect something they created in the form they created it?

If so, this is exactly the kind of contempt I was referring to before. To the admin and for the record, this attitude in part is precisely why I think edits should be banned when an artist does not give explicit permission.

Anonomn said:
*snip*

Here's a hot take: Other people can have different world views than you or me, just disregarding how they feel about a subject because you yourself are ok with it is incredibly naive. Specially if you're outright insulting them at the same time.

Also this is not the "internet" in the broad sense you're talking about. This is a curated booru that can implement it's own rules. So no, "anyone can just post an edit" or "anyone can leak paid artwork" don't apply over here if people don't want them to.

What you are saying in that post basically is "I do not care about how artists feel about their work being edited because every once in a while I like the edited version better" and just putting your need for better jerk off material above other human being's feelings is not gonna convert too many people to your side of the argument

@CCoyote
I'd call a artist a prima donna for having issue with a edit purely on the principle that someone edited something they perceive that no one should be allowed to touch, which I know some artists have taken down art here for that exact reason. Low quality edits or edits that cater to a lower plane of degeneracy (scat, watersports, etc.) I can see a genuine case for getting upity about them being posted. A edit existing doesn't stop the original from existing, and wanting a genuinely good and harmless edit taken down because "It's my art and no one's allowed to touch it REEEEE" reeks of irrational cageyness.
There's definitely a seemingly hard split of opinion when it comes to content online. I can only say I follow a older school "If it's on the internet, it's there forever." stance where there's a expectation of no take backs if you post something anywhere online. I see that others feel that the word of the person who creates the original of something should dictate how it does or doesn't get distributed for reasons of wanting to respect how they want it to be distributed, but that notion from a realistic standpoint can only be naive at best. It's on a similar tier as fan edits of movies and fan mods, the originals exist, people have the means of changing them, so people will change them because they want to. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but frankly thinking that we should take away the option is disingenuous for what makes the internet we're all on special, that content, whether wholly new or modified from something that came before it, that couldn't exist otherwise can now be. Whether we want it to or not, assuming it's not actually doing anything malicious.

@mabit
I understand that not everyone holds the exact same opinion, that's exactly why I'm making my statements. That doesn't mean I have to pretend I don't find aspects of other peoples opinions absurd while doing so, there's reasons for having the opinions I do, and not having the opinions I don't.
Yes e621 isn't a proper archive, and I don't think it claims to be. It'd be nice if it was, given it won out the popularity contest for being remotely some sort of archival site and has one of the better interfaces, but I'm not trying to make a point of how good this place is to that end. My point more lies with the fact that the edits are going to exist whether the original artist has a hissy fit over them or not, and them possibly having a problem with (good) edits shouldn't impact whether someone has to take forever in tracking them down again or not, or just letting them disappear into the aether.
It's not that I don't care how artists feel per se, it's that it's not unreasonable to believe that if you post something to the internet anywhere, that anyone can come along and save that thing to their own storage. Then later on make edits to that thing, then proceed to post that again themselves. Of course not every edit is going to be the pinnacle of all edit work, but the fact that the edit does exist now means that it now exists on its own merits independent of the source of that edit, and we shouldn't immediately dismiss said edit because it hurts the original creator's feelings that it now exists, unless it's explicitly defamatory in which case absolutely take it down. Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and all that.

You have to understand, I come from a standpoint of 'chan culture, where art gets reposted over and over from all over, the source for said art is requested about as much as the art gets posted (when it doesn't have a legible signature or filename), and original content and edits come and go with the beat of the lifetime of any given thread. Lots of content's generated that does get lost to archives, much of which are edits of some sort. No one is the proprietor of the edits that get posted other than the anon the moment they decided to post it, and the notion that anyone should dictate otherwise is frankly absurd. Once something exists, it exists now. Where it came from may be a matter of curiosity, but ultimately irrelevant to what happens to it in the immediate and the future. I'm well aware not everyone online feels this way about image files for better or worse, I can only speak for what I can perceive to make sense.

@Anonomn
Thank you for demonstrating every point I've made in this discussion thusfar and reinforcing my position.

Also, both philosophically and legally, you're wrong. That's not an opinion; it's a fact upheld by courts around the world.

Anonomn said:
You have to understand, I come from a standpoint of 'chan culture, where art gets reposted over and over from all over, the source for said art is requested about as much as the art gets posted (when it doesn't have a legible signature or filename), and original content and edits come and go with the beat of the lifetime of any given thread. Lots of content's generated that does get lost to archives, much of which are edits of some sort. No one is the proprietor of the edits that get posted other than the anon the moment they decided to post it, and the notion that anyone should dictate otherwise is frankly absurd. Once something exists, it exists now. Where it came from may be a matter of curiosity, but ultimately irrelevant to what happens to it in the immediate and the future. I'm well aware not everyone online feels this way about image files for better or worse, I can only speak for what I can perceive to make sense.

Remix culture is a thing, but we respect the rights of artists on e621. You'll have to find some other arrrrrt arrrrrchive if you want to make 100% sure that edits or an artist's works do not get nuked by a takedown.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Today's uncensor techniques or algorithms could be completely outclassed by new algorithms at some later date.

As long as the censored images are available, they can be worked on later. Maybe hentai enthusiasts will code their own image viewer or plugin that automatically decensors an image instantly using AI.

Right, but using algorithms is no different from scribbling. Maybe it's better if we should make our own from scratch?

Lance_Armstrong said:
Nothing beats artists providing decensored versions of their own work, unless they unexpectedly suck at drawing genitals. However, we shouldn't expect Japanese artists to provide these versions since they could get reported and face fines or imprisonment.

Yeah, unless they post their work somewhere on site not hosted on Japan, or if some said sites are blocked by Japan, then VPNs will do.

Like Amakuchi and Kikunyi for example, who posts their uncensored work on Patreon, a site originated outside of Japan, but since Patreon is a crowdfunding site, paying is required to view their work. I'm astonished to see how these guy manages to get access to sites like these without getting into trouble, but then again, either Japan is unaware of them or they might have been using VPNs.

Man, those dirty peasant artists really should be happy that heroic anons decide to waste their precious time on some piece of random art to improve, and not even ask for compensation. Instead of just making their own art the glorious editors go out of their way to show the original "artist" how their work should have been done in the first place. And can you believe it that there are these so called "artists" out there that do not understand the unfathomable favor the based anon did in editing their work to suit the anon's preferences? They go on about some thing like "vision for their own work" and "respect for their labor" but where is the vision for the anon's preferences? Where is their respect for the anon's labor of using photoshop? Clearly if the penny-less artist wanted respect for their "hard" work they shouldn't have spent multiple decades studying worthless skills like composition, color theory, anatomy, perspective, shading, and similar; instead they should have just watched a single tutorial on youtube and become a shining knight of photoshop like the god-like editor posting from his mom's basement.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Remix culture is a thing

Remixes I can understand, but sampling? Hate it.

NotMeNotYou said:
Man, those dirty peasant artists really should be happy that heroic anons decide to waste their precious time on some piece of random art to improve, and not even ask for compensation. Instead of just making their own art the glorious editors go out of their way to show the original "artist" how their work should have been done in the first place. And can you believe it that there are these so called "artists" out there that do not understand the unfathomable favor the based anon did in editing their work to suit the anon's preferences? They go on about some thing like "vision for their own work" and "respect for their labor" but where is the vision for the anon's preferences? Where is their respect for the anon's labor of using photoshop? Clearly if the penny-less artist wanted respect for their "hard" work they shouldn't have spent multiple decades studying worthless skills like composition, color theory, anatomy, perspective, shading, and similar; instead they should have just watched a single tutorial on youtube and become a shining knight of photoshop like the god-like editor posting from his mom's basement.

I tried to fit in more sarcasm but couldn't. Oh well.

And here I thought Germans didn't know humor.

MissChu said:
And here I thought Germans didn't know humor.

Holy shit that made me laugh.

leomole said:
All posts should be evaluated for artistic value. Edits should not be singled out and made DNP by default.

mabit said:
That's one of the main points we're arguing against here.

...Yes, I know. That's why I'm discussing it?

mabit said:
0.7% of e621 posts which, should we disallow, would never have ultra dramatic impacts such as [crippling e6].

I think you misunderstood my comment. Please reread that paragraph. I mentioned crippling e6 as a potential consequence of making "everything, edited or not, DNP until artists say otherwise" not a consequence of banning edits.

mabit said:
There's also the entire "let's try to respect artists by not letting people scribble all over their hard work" but you don't seem too terribly concerned about that

Like I said in my comment, I recognize that e6 policy is not designed to be maximally respectful towards artists. For example we commonly get the complaint that all art should be DNP until artists say otherwise. Artists also often dislike our TWYS policy.

e6 was not set up for the benefit of artists. It's a user focused archive (that nevertheless has powerful tools for artists to control their art).

I would appreciate if you read my comments more carefully so that we could have a constructive discussion rather than rehashing points I've already made.

Anonomn said:
My point more lies with the fact that the edits are going to exist whether the original artist has a hissy fit over them or not, and them possibly having a problem with (good) edits shouldn't impact whether someone has to take forever in tracking them down again or not, or just letting them disappear into the aether.

It should absolutely impact that. As it has been stated time and time again (even in this very thread) e621 is concerned in upholding the rights of artists, trying to put your own need to easily find edits above that is so disgustingly disrespectful and naive that I honestly hope you're just making a joke in this paragraph.

Anonomn said:
It's not that I don't care how artists feel per se, it's that it's not unreasonable to believe that if you post something to the internet anywhere, that anyone can come along and save that thing to their own storage.[...]

I've already addressed this in my previous post. Nobody here is stupid, we know that this kind of stuff will happen all the time. We are saying that we want nothing to do with this kind of stuff.

Where you come from it might be ok to share stuff indiscriminately, be it leaked paid content, edits or etc. But not in here. Respecting the rights of artists and enforcing rules to protect them was one of the points that made this site get this popular and accepted by the entire community like this.

It's much easier to catch flies with honey than with vinegar. 'chans and their users could learn a lot from that, I know that very well as I've spent an embarrassing large amount of my years on them in the past.

Anonomn said:
[...]I'm well aware not everyone online feels this way about image files for better or worse, I can only speak for what I can perceive to make sense.

You see, the main mistake you've made there is assuming that you can only really see the world through your own point of view. We are never gonna get anywhere like that because then you'll only keep saying "but where I come from, we don't do it like that" in increasingly elaborate ways.

Again, I understand the whole culture you're coming from. It's expected for you to be the kind of person that doesn't really care about others and only looks at things from a really practical way. It's expected that people you talk to will just shrug off any insults you throw at them, while at the same time throwing some back. It is expected that any and all content is free for grabs, that anyone can modify and pass it around at any time.

This is not that kind of place though. This place only got so far and got respect as one of the main hubs for this community because, at some level, people showed empathy for others. I really do understand that where you're coming from you're supposed to be cold, not let people get to you, that you may see as caring for how other people feel as a sign of weakness.

I just want to ask you to reconsider that stance. Not for this random discussion about a minute detail in a rule, but for the sort of personality you'll have from this point of your life going forward. Statistically you're on your early twenties, so it's crucial for you to decide if that's the kind of attitude you'll want to have ingrained in your behavior for the rest of your adult life.

This is just some advice from someone that at some point was in that same environment and had the same sort of mindset, and thought it was best to leave it all behind

leomole said:
I would appreciate if you read my comments more carefully so that we could have a constructive discussion rather than rehashing points I've already made.

I apologize, I got quite confused when first reading your comment so I couldn't reply to it as well as I'd like.

You forgot to answer me this though:

mabit said:
Why is it more right to "accept all edits, let annoyed artists submit takedowns" than to "don't accept edits unless the artist posts it themselves or gives explicit permission"

If we already know that the system is not 100% fair to artists as you mentioned, why is it better to just leave things that way and not take steps to make it more fair?

Because defaulting to allow rather than DNP is better for users.

Requiring artist permission would cause experienced uploaders to take a ~10% hit (based on previous experiments in preemptively asking artists) but many uploaders would simply stop. Uploading of Japanese art would be decimated. Uploading of old art from inactive artists would stop, and that's something e6 currently does uniquely well.

Whereas the new upload form is a big step forwards, the additional effort and (critically) delay would be ten steps backwards. We should strive to make things easier not more difficult. Doing the opposite would set an unfortunate precedent. This applies to all posts, edits included.

@CCoyote
"Also, both philosophically and legally, you're wrong."
Oh you want to go down that route. Yea good luck trying to uphold any "But muh copyright" in a genuine court for artwork that doesn't do any actual damadge, because it's not commercial or defamatory, is possibly posted anonymously anyway, and the absurd fees associated with trying to take someone to court. If we're going to speak in more practical terms, fair use is still a thing, and most of what makes the internet special functions on it. Frankly any time brings up a "But it's illegal" argument when the issue at hand has nothing to do with money or actual physical harm to others, it's laughably pathetic at best.
Philosophically, yea no either. I've already made the point that not every edit exists to supersede the original, infact most don't, and not every edit is worth saving (low quality, only made to cater to low brow fetishes, etc.), but that leaves the ones that do have merit seperate from their sources. They create something new from something pre-existing that frequently deserves to exist as much as the original. Take my icon here again as a example, that was what was originally drawn by some anon many months if not years ago. Then another anon came along months later and expanded it to a full image, matching the original to the point that you'd be hard pressed to tell where one stops and the other starts, which requires its own level of artistic skill. (Would you be able to tell the original of post #1604761 was both hyper and futa?) Does that not hold merit seperate from the original to stand on it's own? It doesn't invalidate the original, I'm using it as my icon here for goodness sake, but it adds to it in a way the original didn't have, distinct from its source. Why would that be wrong?

@Lance Armstrong
That's the double edged sword for catering to others I guess. Can't be a perfect archive without gaining the ire of the people who want to control what happens to the art they've posted elsewhere. e621 takes the opposite stance to what would be nessissary for a perfect archive, and treads a careful line between trying to be functional and trying to appease the originators of the content that gets posted. Of course there's going to be disagreement on where that line is, that's why we have this thread here talking about it.

@mabit
I'll admit the initial statment there wasn't stated the best it could of, that was referring moreso to in the future, where the original artist(s) is/are either literally dead, or so far removed from the content that they don't care anymore. Deleting all of the (good) edits now would make tracking them down for people in the future far more difficult than need be if a popular repository had kept them from around the time of creation.
I only come off as cold about it because that's what the nature of the subject matter at hand is. Once something is posted, it's out there now, and it's completely out of the hands of whomever created the original(s). It gets dicy fast when we have multiple people disparate from each other adding and transforming artistic value from a original work. It's certainly a nice gesture to appease the original artists when they want the originals taken down, but what of something transformative? Who holds water then? My argument would be all or nothing, or at the very least keep the stuff worth saving.
'chan culture doesn't exist everywhere of course, but it only exists as a extension and hyperized version of internet culture as a whole. e621 doesn't subscribe to all that entails and I understand that, but while showing empathy for the originators of works is again a genuinely nice sentament when it's easy, that becomes more difficult when we get to things like "Well what about collabirations, both with and without the original/source being a factor, versions that only come about because of a quirk in a websites programming, or what if the artist just doesn't like it anymore, etc." This is a extreme example of course, but you don't show empathy to the actions of someone who physically destroys a priceless piece of artwork (a non issue for digital art, because copy/paste) because they don't like how it looks or it was made by their spouce and they had a falling out, or something equally fueled by irrational emotion.
Yet again, well aware that e621 doesn't follow this mindset, but at the end of the day, if archived properly, art exists far beyond the lifetime of the person who originally made it. Having that dissappear, and anything derived from it by others, is a disservice to that artwork and derivitives for anyone who may of enjoyed it long after whenever it may have originally existed. Again, needs of the many being of higher importance than the needs of the few, even if the few were where something came from, becaue you don't post art for yourself, even if you for whatever reason try to irrationally convince yourself otherwise, it's posted and shared for others. And it's with others that it holds value.

I'll be fine in the personality department, I'm not going to let a bunch of anons dictate how I'm going to react outside the context of a chan board. I'm still perfectly capable of enjoying something, even if I'm well aware it may not be the best or particularly good. And empathy for others comes with just as much strictly taking the situation and coming to a practical conclusion as it is bending to the whims of how others feel, even if that makes absolutely no sense without sufficient context. Thank you for the concern though.

Just to clarify, artists don't have a problem with someone downloading their art and modifying it just on it's own, right? There's no way you can stop that, and no one would actually know that it had occurred besides the editor themselves. Is the actual problem about sharing these edited images that detract from the original artist's intentions, which e621 currently facilitates?

I'm rather worried about what effect banning edits would have on colored images. I'm not talking about paint bucket colouring, I mean actual proper work done by legitimate colourists such as pawtsun who are able to improve images which would otherwise stay monochrome without them.

I know of many artists who just do linework, that's their speciality and it is what they like to create. They may choose not to colour their images for a variety of reasons. They may actually prefer it to be black and white or they may simply lack the time or desire to colour it themselves.

Asking for permission from both the artist and editor before posting these edits is quite understandable, as it is already recommended practice seek permission before uploading an artist's unedited images. The problem I can see with this is in regards to situations where communication is difficult or actually impossible. This happens with artists who are no longer online, those who are difficult to track down (such as imageboard artists), and where there is a language/culture barrier that causes the exact meaning of a message to be lost in translation.

Also, is it considered 'editing' (this thread's definition of 'edit' at least) when a person splices together images into a comic format, such as post #1731786? It isn't actually modifying the contents of the image in any way, merely packaging it in an alternative form. My rationale for doing these 'splices' is mostly due to how artists on Tumblr create comics by uploading each panel as a separate image in a single post. It is rather impractical to upload each panel separately, as they all have to be viewed on separate web-pages (on e621) even though they were originally intended to be viewed on a single web-page (on Tumblr). In this regard, I feel as though I am preserving the artistic intention in the transfer of a comic from one website to another.

JAKXXX3 said:
Also, is it considered 'editing' (this thread's definition of 'edit' at least) when a person splices together images into a comic format, such as post #1731786? It isn't actually modifying the contents of the image in any way, merely packaging it in an alternative form. My rationale for doing these 'splices' is mostly due to how artists on Tumblr create comics by uploading each panel as a separate image in a single post. It is rather impractical to upload each panel separately, as they all have to be viewed on separate web-pages (on e621) even though they were originally intended to be viewed on a single web-page (on Tumblr). In this regard, I feel as though I am preserving the artistic intention in the transfer of a comic from one website to another.

That's starting to be a bit slippery slope-ish. It's kind of clear that the editing we're discussing is substantial changes to the content of an image.

JAKXXX3 said:
Also, is it considered 'editing' (this thread's definition of 'edit' at least) when a person splices together images into a comic format, such as post #1731786? It isn't actually modifying the contents of the image in any way, merely packaging it in an alternative form. My rationale for doing these 'splices' is mostly due to how artists on Tumblr create comics by uploading each panel as a separate image in a single post. It is rather impractical to upload each panel separately, as they all have to be viewed on separate web-pages (on e621) even though they were originally intended to be viewed on a single web-page (on Tumblr). In this regard, I feel as though I am preserving the artistic intention in the transfer of a comic from one website to another.

This discussion is clearly about content that requires edit tag and where editor doesn't get tagged as artist.
Filetype conversions, small comics where panels have been combined into single post to avoid redundancy and improve readability, etc. are stuff we do not consider to be edits. The files have been edited, yes, but the content itself is technically untouched.

Even then, file handling from source is also somewhat discouraged unless it's necessary, as many users might not know what they are doing. e.g. post #1753624 is similar combination, but because only first panel is animated gif, now rest of the panels have reduced and incorrect colors and clearly visible color banding.

Frankly bringing edits into question to begin with was a recepie for that area of interests to become a mess.

Anonomn said:
@CCoyote
"Also, both philosophically and legally, you're wrong."
Oh you want to go down that route. Yea good luck trying to uphold any "But muh copyright" in a genuine court for artwork that doesn't do any actual damadge, because it's not commercial or defamatory, is possibly posted anonymously anyway, and the absurd fees associated with trying to take someone to court. If we're going to speak in more practical terms, fair use is still a thing, and most of what makes the internet special functions on it. Frankly any time brings up a "But it's illegal" argument when the issue at hand has nothing to do with money or actual physical harm to others, it's laughably pathetic at best.
Philosophically, yea no either. I've already made the point that not every edit exists to supersede the original, infact most don't, and not every edit is worth saving (low quality, only made to cater to low brow fetishes, etc.), but that leaves the ones that do have merit seperate from their sources. They create something new from something pre-existing that frequently deserves to exist as much as the original. Take my icon here again as a example, that was what was originally drawn by some anon many months if not years ago. Then another anon came along months later and expanded it to a full image, matching the original to the point that you'd be hard pressed to tell where one stops and the other starts, which requires its own level of artistic skill. (Would you be able to tell the original of post #1604761 was both hyper and futa?) Does that not hold merit seperate from the original to stand on it's own? It doesn't invalidate the original, I'm using it as my icon here for goodness sake, but it adds to it in a way the original didn't have, distinct from its source. Why would that be wrong?

Why waste so many words if you could have just summarized your opinion as follows:

1) Fuck the artist's rights; if they can't afford to sue for their rights they clearly don't matter.
2) Philosophically speaking we shouldn't prevent other people from taking things from artists and changing them to better suit your tastes.

Anonomn said:
@mabit
I'll admit the initial statment there wasn't stated the best it could of, that was referring moreso to in the future, where the original artist(s) is/are either literally dead, or so far removed from the content that they don't care anymore. Deleting all of the (good) edits now would make tracking them down for people in the future far more difficult than need be if a popular repository had kept them from around the time of creation.
I only come off as cold about it because that's what the nature of the subject matter at hand is. Once something is posted, it's out there now, and it's completely out of the hands of whomever created the original(s). It gets dicy fast when we have multiple people disparate from each other adding and transforming artistic value from a original work. It's certainly a nice gesture to appease the original artists when they want the originals taken down, but what of something transformative? Who holds water then? My argument would be all or nothing, or at the very least keep the stuff worth saving.

It's actually dry cut, the original artist holds all rights to the original, and is able to deny the publication of unauthorized derivative works. In cases of mutual collaborations both people share the rights and can piss into each other's cheerios and hinder publishing by the other party.
The original artist directly and heavily outweighs any editor unless the work has been transformed so heavily the original is no longer discernible, at which point it might actually enter fair use territory.

@Anonomn you're no longer discussing in good faith. The law is on the side of artists. I'm out.

MissChu said:
That's starting to be a bit slippery slope-ish. It's kind of clear that the editing we're discussing is substantial changes to the content of an image.

Mairo said:
This discussion is clearly about content that requires edit tag and where editor doesn't get tagged as artist.
Filetype conversions, small comics where panels have been combined into single post to avoid redundancy and improve readability, etc. are stuff we do not consider to be edits. The files have been edited, yes, but the content itself is technically untouched.

Well that's a relief, I'm still a bit worried about legitimately good colourists though.

@NotMeNotYou
Y'know, that's all well and good, in the realms of professional publications. On the internet, with virtual artwork, the rules play differently only because of the inherent nature of how data can be copy/pasted with zero impact to the original (along with the zero profit nature of the data in question), despite how much certain people try to claw and delude themselves to believe otherwise.
"Fuck the artist's rights; if they can't afford to sue for their rights they clearly don't matter."
I would never want to imply "It's tied to money" as to whether something should or shouldn't be done, but it is a practical reality when implicating and dealing with legal ramifications. Far more so would be trying to find the person you want to have a legal battle to begin with, because again, this is the internet. Actual tangable means of randomly getting peoples info is impracticle at best, unless they're retarded enough to leave their personal info out there for the world to see.
"Artists rights" went out the window the second it was posted online, because copy/paste is a thing that exists. If soneone were to physically steal a flash drive and upload images that they had zero intention of uploading, then absolutely because that's literal theft, but getting upity about what happens after someone uploads art on their own accord would be the same as hanging a sign in front of your house in clear view of everyone and getting angry if someone takes a picture of the sign. You can be like e621 and give into the whims of artists if you really want to, but like how Weird Al asks to do parodies of peoples songs even though there's zero legal reason he has to, it's purely just a good faith gesture.
"Philosophically speaking we shouldn't prevent other people from taking things from artists and changing them to better suit your tastes."
Take.
That's a interesting word to use.
With a (digital) edit, there's absolutely no taking involved. It's a copy, modified by someone else. The original is still exactly where it was before, left absolutely untouched. If someone were to hack into a personal account, delete the original and then upload the edit, then fair enough. But that's clearly not the kind of thing we're discussing.
Otherwise, don't be an ass about it, but generally pretty much. That's what entire communities of fan hacks and mods and the like are built around. If you really don't want people to do whatever with something you had made, the only thing to do is not post it.

It's only dry cut to how you described it if you want to appease the emotions of the originators of the content, and also really only applies in a professional publication context. Down here on the 'net, such feelings are so fickle and frequently impossible to discern for reasons of not being possible to find the people in question to find out anyway, if they're even alive, so how it (should) be dealt with is more to "If it exists, and it is good, then lets keep it, regardless of how it came to be, unless it got here via genuinely illegal means. (Someone died for it or you were suppoesd to pay for it or something).", because anything else just becomes a hot mess fast, like it is in the realms of professional publications where ip rights can get caught up in retardation for literal decades.

@CCoyote
I'm sorry that we're not going to be able to come to a consensus on this subject matter, we clearly fall hard on two opposite ends of moral standing with active reason for not conceding to the other. I find your standpoint hinging too hard on the emotions of how art came to be from the people who create it rather than treating art as it's own entity held by the people that come across and enjoy it, but it's still a opinion with sound reasoning behind it, even if I don't personally think it holds water in the long run.
Though using the "But it's illegal" as a crutch is a pretty weak argument, laws change on the whims of what people believe to be right, not what absolutely is or should be, because frequently there is no absolute. Slavery and its ilk were legal at one point, alcaholic beverages were illegal at another point in american history, and the juries still out on many of the exacts of what does and doesn't count for fair use.