Anonomn said:
@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.

The law quite literally doesn't care about something being digital or not since the implementation of the DMCA. In fact ensuring digital media receives the same protections as traditional media was a main drive behind the creation of that law. All works, whether they're privately done or as a professional publication receive the exact same legal copyright protections.
And suing people for that is fairly simple, most countries now force ISPs to keep tabs on who gets assigned what IP at what time, which can be combined with the need for sites to disclose information to law enforcements. As long as you live in a western country that observes the DMCA you are quite literally a valid target and rather easily found.

Anonomn said:
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.

Have you tried reading the actual law surrounding copyright protections for media? Because it is that cut and dry in the legal world. Any edit counts as direct derivative and is a form of plagiarism which can be fined. And again, whether something has been released professionally or not doesn't matter whether it's plagiarism or not, it just affects how much a person can pressed for damages. The cease and desist can be enforced regardless.

So yes, my heavily snarky response is factually correct, do some reading on the matter.

Anonomn said:
Take.
That's a interesting word to use.

Because clearly the word take always implies something is being removed. Just as saying "take a picture" now also means the object being photographed is removed from existence, right?
Maybe instead of resorting to pointless semantic arguments you could try and argue against the actual point?

Please see the second half of the response to CCoyote for what I have to say about that. Whether liked or not, the nature of internet art is a matter of relevency through obscurity and sheer volume. Stuff comes and goes so fast that it's 'lost' if it isn't adaquitely backed up, whether through no ones fault in relation to whom uploaded it because sites go down all the time, or because of active maliciousness because the creator doesn't understand the principle of "If it was online, it's there forever, especially if it was popular, it just becomes more of a pain to find again.", and there's so much of it that realistically policing its distribution around the entirety of it is literally impossible. On top of "law is not an absolute", "law is also only as effective as it is realistic to enforce, especially if at the end of the day there is no genuine harm being done."
Asking whether you should is a fruitless endeavor because where the split between "That's fine" and "That's wrong" is in completely different places for everyone, the only absolute is you can regardless.

I'm only being pedantic about the use of take in that context because it follows the same line of thought that equates theft and piracy (which is its own uphill battle because there's no proper term for what I'm substituting the word "piracy" for, much like how there's no proper term for "space-time"), where a physical action is confused with a parallel, but fundamentally different action in a different digital context space because of the nature of how those things exist. Piracy is (99.99% of the time) wrong, but that still doesn't make it "stealing", and copying something is equally worlds apart from taking something, substituting one for the other in that context changes the entire issue at hand.

So, what happened. Do all the edits disappear or what?

cerberusmod_3 said:
So, what happened. Do all the edits disappear or what?

Considering there is still 126 pages of 99 posts tagged with edit, they haven't been removed yet. And I don't think we're gonna retroactively remove edits, or at least not overnight...

We just continue discussing it. I'm against outright removing edits right now, but for artists having say on whether their artwork is ok to be edited or not. If they don't want their artwork edited, they should request Conditional_DNP or be on top of their takedowns. One thing that may work is paying attention to sources, and deleting any post that contains edited artwork whom's source says "do not edit"... but I fear that this would lead to "editors" purposely not adding sources in retort.

Siral_Exan said:
Considering there is still 126 pages of 99 posts tagged with edit, they haven't been removed yet. And I don't think we're gonna retroactively remove edits, or at least not overnight...

We just continue discussing it. I'm against removing edits, but for artists having say on whether their artwork is ok to be edited or not. If they don't want their artwork edited, they should request Conditional_DNP or be on top of their takedowns. One thing that may work is paying attention to sources, and deleting any post that contains edited artwork whom's source says "do not edit"... but I fear that this would lead to "editors" purposely not adding sources in retort.

Yeah. Even then, I'm not a big fan of edits, especially not those goddamn uncensored edits that plagues the entire Internet, just because people around the Internet hated it. This makes me feel anguished.

I don't have much of any feelings towards uncensored edits one way or the other, why is it you and/or other people hate them so much? Most uncensored versions I've seen are pretty well done, and is only really a pressing issue with art coming in from japan, the country with moronic censorship laws to the point the censorship barely does anything a fair amount of the time anyway, and I'm sure the artists would much rather just post them uncensored to begin with if they could / feel as though they could just do it anyway on foreign servers if they're gonna go through the effort of strategically putting the censor bars in places they're laughably ineffective anyway.

Anonomn said:
I don't have much of any feelings towards uncensored edits one way or the other, why is it you and/or other people hate them so much?

Because the same can be easily done with automated tools, so it usually counts as a low-effort edit. Releasing uncensored works publicly is usually pointless, just learn how to uncensor stuff for your own private use instead.

And if well done, uncensored art can potentially put the artist in trouble with the commissioner, or even the law. It's rather hard to prove that someone else uncensored it without permission. Which spooks off artists. There's numerous artists (Japanese in particular) who have stopped drawing NSFW for that reason: it's not worth the risk. Plus the constant begging from western users asking for 'uncensored version' gets tiresome. A lot of people don't seem to realize that they're literally asking the artist to break the law.

Anonomn said:
I don't have much of any feelings towards uncensored edits one way or the other, why is it you and/or other people hate them so much? Most uncensored versions I've seen are pretty well done, and is only really a pressing issue with art coming in from japan, the country with moronic censorship laws to the point the censorship barely does anything a fair amount of the time anyway, and I'm sure the artists would much rather just post them uncensored to begin with if they could / feel as though they could just do it anyway on foreign servers if they're gonna go through the effort of strategically putting the censor bars in places they're laughably ineffective anyway.

Why, because if it's an edit, then they aren't authentic. That's that.

Genjar said:
There's numerous artists (Japanese in particular) who have stopped drawing NSFW for that reason: it's not worth the risk.

I disagree. Many Japanese artists still draw them just because they certainly don't care about what others think of their work, as long as they enjoy them.

Genjar said:
Plus the constant begging from western users asking for 'uncensored version' gets tiresome. A lot of people don't seem to realize that they're literally asking the artist to break the law.

Well then, maybe they should just ignore them and find someone else that lives outside of Japan to follow or create their own work instead.

I have no idea how to draw though.

Genjar said:
Because the same can be easily done with automated tools, so it usually counts as a low-effort edit...

If it looks bad / done poorly then fair enough. I don't know how you'd be able to do a uncensor job automatically remotely to the point it looks decent though, are there any particular henious examples of this?
As for proving whether something is a decensor job or not, it's not difficult to either compare the earliest upload dates or compare the real uncensored version with the decensored version, so that's probably mostly a non-issue unless the authorities in question inanely refuse to listen to reason.

cerberusmod_3 said:
Why, because if it's an edit, then they aren't authentic. That's that.

You dislike them because of that? Seems kinda irrationally dismissive. Can't really understand hating some piece of artwork based on how it came to be, if whatever version you're looking at looks decent, then why care about how it got to where it is now?

Anonomn said:
You dislike them because of that? Seems kinda irrationally dismissive. Can't really understand hating some piece of artwork based on how it came to be, if whatever version you're looking at looks decent, then why care about how it got to where it is now?

Personally, edits are like Chinese bootleg products. I would prefer if the uncensored version is done by the original artists.

Coloring seems to be exceptions on some occasions, though.

cerberusmod_3 said:
(Words)

I mean, I'm sure most people would prefer a native uncensored version, but if that's not possible then a high quality artistic interpretation of what should be there is a decent alternitive if the censor bars are that much of a bother I'd of thought. Plus unlike a chinese bootleg which is 100% a fake copy of something, a decensor job is more like two artists drawing parts of a single image, regardless of whether they know each other or not.

Anonomn said:
I mean, I'm sure most people would prefer a native uncensored version, but if that's not possible then a high quality artistic interpretation of what should be there is a decent alternitive if the censor bars are that much of a bother I'd of thought. Plus unlike a chinese bootleg which is 100% a fake copy of something, a decensor job is more like two artists drawing parts of a single image, regardless of whether they know each other or not.

But even then, it's not the same thing, as they barely looked like what the artists had done, regardless if it's done decently. It's like someone tried to solve a puzzle, but can't because it's impossible.

Just look at this one, then look at that one. Can't you tell how inaccurate the former is?

Honestly, for the first one I don't notice any glaringly significant difference in style between the uncensored and censored version. Of course if we're going to hyper nitpick going back and forth then maybe there's some minor anomalies between the two, but it's not nearly apparent enough that it's a distraction, nor would you really know they were there if the censored one wasn't there to compare.
As for the second one, there doesn't seem to be a censored one to compare to, and frankly I couldn't really see where the base image starts and the edit job begins with that one, if it does at all.
For b/w lineart stuff, where most of the decensoring that I'm aware of happens with, it's even less of a issue because there's less variability with what it should look like given it's greyscale.

Anonomn said:
Honestly, for the first one I don't notice any glaringly significant difference in style between the uncensored and censored version. Of course if we're going to hyper nitpick going back and forth then maybe there's some minor anomalies between the two, but it's not nearly apparent enough that it's a distraction, nor would you really know they were there if the censored one wasn't there to compare.
As for the second one, there doesn't seem to be a censored one to compare to, and frankly I couldn't really see where the base image starts and the edit job begins with that one, if it does at all.
For b/w lineart stuff, where most of the decensoring that I'm aware of happens with, it's even less of a issue because there's less variability with what it should look like given it's greyscale.

I mean, it's supposed to be a comparison between these two types of uncensored picture. Both of thses pictures were done by the same artist, but the former was edited while the latter wasn't, because it was uploaded by said artist somewhere on Tumblr before Tumblr decided to shut down the 18+ content.

Just look at the genitalias between these two pictures, then you can tell the difference.

Well of course someone else isn't going to draw something absolutely 1:1 how someone else would have done it. That doesn't mean the efforts in the de-censored version don't match the rest of the art. Not even the same artist will draw something the exact same way every single time.
And the non-censored example is kinda hard to compare because it's a lizard with a clearly smooth general texture as opposed to the fluffier texture of the other. (Highlighted by, well, the highlights in the dragon one vs the lack of highlights in the braixen one) post #409103 might be a better point of comparison, but again, there's a difference between one having human genetals and the other having canine.
Personally, it matches close enough that I'd consider it fine. Again, the original without censoring by the original artist is obviously preferred, but if that's not a option, then a high quality edit that matches is fine.

For the Braixen, the difference is in the lines.

Look at the feet. the outline is a solid blackish line with variable width. (by which I mean.. the lines vary with pen pressure, and are thicker in some places and thinner in others.) however t he outline is always very present and bold. the finest lines are in her facial expression -- the furrows of her brow suggesting the shapes of her eyes and eyebrows.

However, her pussy is.... different. But it's easier to see on the human's hand and dick. the decensorer used brownish lines, which are much thinner, and seem a lot more... hmm. The original outline feels like it was drawn with long smooth strokes. The artist who decensored this used a lot of little strokes, leading to a slightly fuzzier appearance. You can see a very obvious place where the two artist's lines meet up on the hand and groin.

Past that, the original artwork is pretty simple in it's coloring: There is a main color (for her legs... the darker gray of her thighs), a lighter shade (on her knees and lower legs) and a darker shade (under the knee on the right, near her anus and under her bottom.) There is variation which helps lead to the furry texture... but that variation tends to be placed in large areas and with slow gradients.

however, if you look especially at the penis, there is a TON od detail. There are subtley shaded veins, you can see the suggestion of skin wrinkles stretching around the dick. the highlights on the penis head are smooth, fuzzy and finely detailed. the thumbnail is carefully carved out with a dozen different colors, all suggesting the shape of a finger nail.

In honesty, it's pretty nice colorwork!

But it doesn't match the rest of the image where the most complex shading issss probably her eyes.

These go beyond minor anomalies.

That said, we all have different opinions and perceptions, so please try to remember that while you don't notice it or don't care, others can and do. and others don't! no one is right or wrong to notice it or not.

Anonomn said:
Well of course someone else isn't going to draw something absolutely 1:1 how someone else would have done it. That doesn't mean the efforts in the de-censored version don't match the rest of the art. Not even the same artist will draw something the exact same way every single time.
And the non-censored example is kinda hard to compare because it's a lizard with a clearly smooth general texture as opposed to the fluffier texture of the other. (Highlighted by, well, the highlights in the dragon one vs the lack of highlights in the braixen one) post #409103 might be a better point of comparison, but again, there's a difference between one having human genetals and the other having canine.
Personally, it matches close enough that I'd consider it fine. Again, the original without censoring by the original artist is obviously preferred, but if that's not a option, then a high quality edit that matches is fine.

Clearly, you have a different taste in mind. The artist doesn't usually draw something like this.

As for the latter, I can't seems to find the one that compares exacly like the former and I agree that yours is better, though it's old (and has no penis), so this is the closest I could find.

SnowWolf said:
For the Braixen, the difference is in the lines.

Look at the feet. the outline is a solid blackish line with variable width. (by which I mean.. the lines vary with pen pressure, and are thicker in some places and thinner in others.) however t he outline is always very present and bold. the finest lines are in her facial expression -- the furrows of her brow suggesting the shapes of her eyes and eyebrows.

However, her pussy is.... different. But it's easier to see on the human's hand and dick. the decensorer used brownish lines, which are much thinner, and seem a lot more... hmm. The original outline feels like it was drawn with long smooth strokes. The artist who decensored this used a lot of little strokes, leading to a slightly fuzzier appearance. You can see a very obvious place where the two artist's lines meet up on the hand and groin.

Past that, the original artwork is pretty simple in it's coloring: There is a main color (for her legs... the darker gray of her thighs), a lighter shade (on her knees and lower legs) and a darker shade (under the knee on the right, near her anus and under her bottom.) There is variation which helps lead to the furry texture... but that variation tends to be placed in large areas and with slow gradients.

however, if you look especially at the penis, there is a TON od detail. There are subtley shaded veins, you can see the suggestion of skin wrinkles stretching around the dick. the highlights on the penis head are smooth, fuzzy and finely detailed. the thumbnail is carefully carved out with a dozen different colors, all suggesting the shape of a finger nail.

In honesty, it's pretty nice colorwork!

But it doesn't match the rest of the image where the most complex shading issss probably her eyes.

These go beyond minor anomalies.

That said, we all have different opinions and perceptions, so please try to remember that while you don't notice it or don't care, others can and do. and others don't! no one is right or wrong to notice it or not.

I do agree with that.