I'm not entirely sure where to credit shadman, in the artists section?

Chirmaya said:
You can put that information in the description. For an artist to be tagged, they need to put at least "collaboration-level" effort into the piece.

Source?

If a artist drew something, but another artist colored ect
You can just tag both people as artist. You can also use the description box to state who helped in what as far as the picture goes.

Artwork based off of other people's ideas or styles don't get tagged credit for who had the idea.

Meaning, if someone copies shadman's style on new images shadman doesn't get an artist tag. If someone actually collaborates on an image together with shadman he would get credit.

Jinx_Jackal said:
If a artist drew something, but another artist colored ect
You can just tag both people as artist. You can also use the description box to state who helped in what as far as the picture goes.

this isnt about that. the op is asking how crediting works when uploading fanart of shadman's fem sonic edits.

Hmm what about making shadman's post a parent post to any pics based on it?

Leafeon_TheGrasstype said:
Hmm what about making shadman's post a parent post to any pics based on it?

Nah, those were edited screenshots anyway.

Leafeon_TheGrasstype said:
Hmm what about making shadman's post a parent post to any pics based on it?

Imagine every bowsette post being a child of post #1663389

Leafeon_TheGrasstype said:
Hmm what about making shadman's post a parent post to any pics based on it?

no. that isnt what the post relation function is for. if you really need to credit it or group them together somehow, use a set, or write it in the description.

Seems anything involving Sonic and that movie related is being deleted by the mods anyway no matter how much effort is put into it.

Jookyloops said:
Seems anything involving Sonic and that movie related is being deleted by the mods anyway no matter how much effort is put into it.

this isnt what the thread is about :D?? also effort doesnt mean anything in the approval.

Jookyloops said:
Seems anything involving Sonic and that movie related is being deleted by the mods anyway no matter how much effort is put into it.

*rolls eyes*

sonic_movie has 48 posts. 8 are pending and have no been approved or deleted. There are 9 that have been deleted.

of the 9:

2 are inferior versions of otherwise approved posts.
1 is a screenshot from the trailer, EXCEPT someone edited the picture to give Sonic an attractive ass and hips. There are some really gross editing marks around parts of the picture where the person who made the edit did a poor job cutting out the original screenshot.
2 MORE are inferior versions of otherwise approved posts.
3 are also screenshots from the trailer with some edits. In order: they drew a mouth and eyes over a screenshot. Then boobs. then cum. it's still a screenshot from the trailer.
and the last one honestly is just really poor quality art.

sonic_the_hedgehog_(movie) has 12 images. None are pending. 3 have been deleted.

2 of them are reuploads of the "attractive ass" edit from above. Yes, this picture has been uploaded at least 3 times. It's still a screenshot that's been edited.
1 is also an edited screenshot. There are eyes and a pouty face. It's STILL an edited screenshot from the trailer.

So I think we can safely say: e621 does not like edited screenshots, or reuploads.

Pictures that have been approved: a lot of original artwork!

CLEARLY, this is a violation of the rules...

Oh.

wait.

Bad things to upload:

• Screen captures: Screenshots from games, still images from movies, video snippets from youtube, etc. etc

also:

• Memes / Image macros: Anything that is an (existing) image with some text slapped over it
• Exception: If the image has been drawn specifically for that particular meme then it's okay
• Low quality submissions: Highly visible artifacts, scribbles, low-quality photographs of traditional media (invest into a scanner, people!), 1000h in MSPaint images, computer generated mosaics, cropped images, anatomical diagrams, bad edits, screenshots, artificial upscales, etc. etc.

Previously deleted content

I do have concern about fact that we have at least 2 sonic-movie tags.

as for the original question:

Leafeon_TheGrasstype said:
Should new pics of sonic based on Shadman's edit be tagged as such?

I don't think so. it looks like a usual genderswapped sonic to me.

Except it's not screen capture, but derivative work based on screen capture.

Aka artistic work where people (usually) put effort to and (hopefully) be different enough from original.

Which would make it plain different from simple screen capture.

But thats my opinion, kinda grey area, which would fall under 'fair use'.

Jookyloops said:
Except it's not screen capture, but derivative work based on screen capture.

Aka artistic work where people (usually) put effort to and (hopefully) be different enough from original.

Which would make it plain different from simple screen capture.

But thats my opinion, kinda grey area, which would fall under 'fair use'.

this isnt about copyright issues. this is about the fact that screencaps are not allowed, and editing some tits on screencap doesnt make it any less of a screencap. it would be different if majority of the screencap was repainted, but these are screencaps with minor changes.

hiekkapillu said:
this isnt about copyright issues. this is about the fact that screencaps are not allowed, and editing some tits on screencap doesnt make it any less of a screencap. it would be different if majority of the screencap was repainted, but these are screencaps with minor changes.

I know it ain't about copyright issues, it's more about what would qualify as screen capture, which would really depend on original intent of the rule and subjective opinion of whoever is reviewing, which can differ from person to person. I just think current intepretation of the rule is bit too strict.

Anyway, I don't care about the issue enough to argue over it.

Jookyloops said:
Except it's not screen capture, but derivative work based on screen capture.

Except it IS.

Aka artistic work where people (usually) put effort to and (hopefully) be different enough from original.

I'm not saying that he didn't make something worth looking at or that he didn't put a lot of work into it.

I'm saying that screencaps are not allowed.

I'm comparing the edits to the original screen shots and this really isn't Complex Editing. It looks good! I'm sure everyone is enjoying it, and that's nice.

but it's a screenshot.

Jookyloops said:
it's more about what would qualify as screen capture, which would really depend on original intent of the rule and subjective opinion of whoever is reviewing, which can differ from person to person. I just think current intepretation of the rule is bit too strict.

This is basically the exact intent of the original rule. There's really been no debate about this behind closed doors. To the staff, this is pretty straightforward and unambiguous.

If someone would redraw, from scratch, these images, that'd be a different story, but, basically, no. This is not something we allow here. we've deleted many things like this over the years. We delete something like this every few weeks, even.

If we accepted this, we'd have to accept every screen cap from Dora the Explorer where someone's decided to make Swiper hyper, or Zootopia image where someone decided to edit in the yoga yak's yankee doodle.

No one wants this, I promise.

@SnowWolf what's the standing on animated screen edits such as this one
post #671698

EDIT: Also all it's child posts are screencap edits so those could probably be purged