Apparently Darkwitt, who did voice acting for some animations, got their credits removed from the posts? Any idea what happened?

thunderlucas said:
Apparently Darkwitt, who did voice acting for some animations, got their credits removed from the posts? Any idea what happened?

We don't tag VAs for artists, since that's intended for the people who worked on the visuals/animation of the post. VA information should be put in the description.

Oh goody, this thread again.

watsit said:
We don't tag VAs for artists, since that's intended for the people who worked on the visuals/animation of the post. VA information should be put in the description.

but why tho

strikerman said:
but why tho

https://e621.net/forum_topics/34828?page=1#forum_post_341562

thegreatwolfgang said:
https://e621.net/forum_topics/34828?page=1#forum_post_341562

I'm nothing if not stubborn

watsit said:
We don't tag VAs for artists, since that's intended for the people who worked on the visuals/animation of the post. VA information should be put in the description.

That's lame and I think the mods should put it to a community vote whether or not they want VAs credited. If this is a massively recurring issue, chances are public opinion on the matter is contrary to the rule

glitchtree said:
That's lame and I think the mods should put it to a community vote whether or not they want VAs credited. If this is a massively recurring issue, chances are public opinion on the matter is contrary to the rule

The fact this keeps coming up means it needs to be addressed not swept under the rug.
Artists deserve credit, and artists uncredited should start taking their art down.

glitchtree said:
That's lame and I think the mods should put it to a community vote whether or not they want VAs credited. If this is a massively recurring issue, chances are public opinion on the matter is contrary to the rule

Deciding matters like this with just a vote seems like a bad idea. Policy should be determined by what is right, not what is popular. If we put everything to a vote, we'd be allowing humans and banning dicknipples.
That said, getting opinions from more people is a good idea. I doubt many people would take issue with it.

glitchtree said:
That's lame and I think the mods should put it to a community vote whether or not they want VAs credited. If this is a massively recurring issue, chances are public opinion on the matter is contrary to the rule

They do get credit, in the descriptions.

demesejha said:
The fact this keeps coming up means it needs to be addressed not swept under the rug.
Artists deserve credit, and artists uncredited should start taking their art down.

I see that you decided to encourage it on Twitter. Very classy.

Other users are correct: voice actors currently get credited in the description.
They don't get an artist tag for the same reason 3D model creators don't get tagged: some of them also make artwork of their own, and we would like people to be able to tell those works apart from the ones where they simply contributed one part.
Plus, at the end of the day, e6 specializes in visual media. Voice acting is really not the focus here, so this problem had not been a priority.

My solution to the problem would be to introduce a new tag category specifically for contributors that wouldn't be classified as artists.
But that's a more complicated task on a technical level. It's not as simple as just clicking a button or adding a few lines of code.

bitwolfy said:

My solution to the problem would be to introduce a new tag category specifically for contributors that wouldn't be classified as artists.
But that's a more complicated task on a technical level. It's not as simple as just clicking a button or adding a few lines of code.

and yet it would genuinely improve the quality of the site. The fact that some voice actors individually had thousands of posts attributed to their invalid tag and that people come to the forums to complain every time one of those tags is posted proves there's a demand. E6 is super proud of it's tagging system, and I'll admit it's one of the best on the internet, but that doesn't mean it couldn't stand to be better and give people like VAs and comic writers credit they deserve

glitchtree said:
and yet it would genuinely improve the quality of the site. The fact that some voice actors individually had thousands of posts attributed to their invalid tag and that people come to the forums to complain every time one of those tags is posted proves there's a demand. E6 is super proud of it's tagging system, and I'll admit it's one of the best on the internet, but that doesn't mean it couldn't stand to be better and give people like VAs and comic writers credit they deserve

It's a dev time problem. Ultimately there's not much we can do but wait.

oozeenthusiast said:
It's a dev time problem. Ultimately there's not much we can do but wait.

Wait for what? as far as we know nobody is actively working on this, even in the background.

bitwolfy said:
My solution to the problem would be to introduce a new tag category specifically for contributors that wouldn't be classified as artists.
But that's a more complicated task on a technical level. It's not as simple as just clicking a button or adding a few lines of code.

And yet the lore category was made first? Not a dunk or anything, but if the lore cat was made, it’s abit silly that other contributors to a project/piece isn’t given tags. As said, not just VAs, but everything else too. I’m not expecting like, character owner, or commisioner to get it’s category, but as you said, contributor sounds like a good middle ground for non visual aspects of the piece.

benjiboyo said:
And yet the lore category was made first?

The Lore, Meta, and Invalid categories were made at the same time, when the whole site codebase was revamped. Since the whole site was being redone anyway, that would be the best time to add more categories. But now that the site codebase is stablized, it would be more complicated to fit it in without more work.

bitwolfy said:
I see that you decided to encourage it on Twitter. Very classy.

The classiest. Because it realistically should be done. Honestly 3d models with specific artstyles should also be tagged w their creators and that IS a visual medium. The way things are arbitrarily designated as not worth crediting is wrong.

I may be overly radical in my response to this but it is a real issue that needs an actual response not being swept under the rug.

demesejha said:
The classiest. Because it realistically should be done. Honestly 3d models with specific artstyles should also be tagged w their creators and that IS a visual medium. The way things are arbitrarily designated as not worth crediting is wrong.

I may be overly radical in my response to this but it is a real issue that needs an actual response not being swept under the rug.

Before somebody starts another new thread arguing about 3D model tagging, it has already been discussed before (i.e., topic #34032, topic #34032) and the response is still the same.

• If the artist had created the 3D post/model by themselves, then they should be tagged as the artist.
• If somebody else randomly took the artist's 3D model and created a post, then that somebody else should be tagged as the artist (and model creator be credited in the description).
• If the artist and somebody else officially collaborated and had equal hand in creating the post, then both should be tagged as the artists.

demesejha said:
The classiest. Because it realistically should be done.

Ouch!

Seriously though, the VA's are allowed to edit post descriptions just like everyone else. In fact, I wish more artists/authors/etc. would tag things like specific characters, but that's a different issue. Sigh...

alphamule said:
Ouch!

Seriously though, the VA's are allowed to edit post descriptions just like everyone else. In fact, I wish more artists/authors/etc. would tag things like specific characters, but that's a different issue. Sigh...

Most artist are just used to the much more lax tagging system of other sites. Which is like a major reason i gravitated to this site, the near obsessive tagging nature.

demesejha said:
I may be overly radical in my response to this but it is a real issue that needs an actual response not being swept under the rug.

An actual response was given. VA's don't get tagged as artists full-stop, and bitWolfy's said, "My solution to the problem would be to introduce a new tag category specifically for contributors that wouldn't be classified as artists.
But that's a more complicated task on a technical level. It's not as simple as just clicking a button or adding a few lines of code." And there are issues to work out about when exactly to tag who, e.g. tagging a professional actor or VA because it used an audio clip from some video.

Just because it's not the answer you want doesn't mean it's not getting a response.

I think a good temporary solution would be to create a set for the VA before staff invalidates the tag.

Not sure if they have the tools to do that easily though.

watsit said:
And there are issues to work out about when exactly to tag who, e.g. tagging a professional actor or VA because it used an audio clip from some video.

just tag them

kyiiel said:
I think a good temporary solution would be to create a set for the VA before staff invalidates the tag.

Not sure if they have the tools to do that easily though.

We already do that as a compromise for preserving existing VA credits, though many VA tags are just outright removed without much forethought.
You may want to echo your comment on this (non-descript) thread which intends to invalidate a list of VA tags, see topic #35360.

strikerman said:
just tag them

This. We already tag official artists.

Furthermore I genuinely dont understand this odd crediting issue. The (incorrect) argument that staff keeps levying is that its not part of visual medium.

This argument may seem bad faith but, can you honestly tell me that watching a movie entirely silently is the same experience? Or even that theyd be considered the same product?

Not crediting artists is shameful and it shouldnt be supported

kyiiel said:
I think a good temporary solution would be to create a set for the VA before staff invalidates the tag.

Not sure if they have the tools to do that easily though.

That... actually makes a lot of sense. I suppose you could do something like Google search/Grep on the descriptions, and then add them to a set?

demesejha said:
Furthermore I genuinely dont understand this odd crediting issue. The (incorrect) argument that staff keeps levying is that its not part of visual medium.

"...not the answer you want..." Meh, just make 15 more threads!

alphamule said:

"...not the answer you want..." Meh, just make 15 more threads!

Bullying Moderators into doing your bidding is always morally correct

glitchbun said:
Bullying Moderators into doing your bidding is always morally correct

As long as you're not a dick, I'm a fan of people speaking their mind.

demesejha said:
This. We already tag official artists.

Though we don't always tag third-party editors. You tag official collaborators, or third-party editors that have done significant work to the piece (beyond basic coloring or swapping a penis for a vag or adding breasts). So at what point would a third-party contributor (one that wasn't officially involved in making the piece, but their work is still used by it) add enough to a piece to be tagged?

demesejha said:
This argument may seem bad faith but, can you honestly tell me that watching a movie entirely silently is the same experience? Or even that theyd be considered the same product?

No one said it is or had to be. But this site is focused on visual art all the same.

demesejha said:
Not crediting artists is shameful and it shouldnt be supported

So we should tag every person that does a third-party edit to a piece, no matter how minor of an edit? Unless you want to claim editing art isn't itself artwork.

demesejha said:
This. We already tag official artists.

Furthermore I genuinely dont understand this odd crediting issue. The (incorrect) argument that staff keeps levying is that its not part of visual medium.

This argument may seem bad faith but, can you honestly tell me that watching a movie entirely silently is the same experience? Or even that theyd be considered the same product?

Not crediting artists is shameful and it shouldnt be supported

Okay, but they can get credit and do, right there in the description.

pyke said:
Okay, but they can get credit and do, right there in the description.

Does a mention in the description alone mean that they shouldn't be tagged?

Tags aren't for credit, they're for searchability. Tagging voice actors and model makers is valuable because I and presumably many other users often want to find more animation with similar attributes to animation we like.

I suppose it's only fair I weigh in on this.

Greetings. I am Darkwitt. I am a Voice Actor, yes. But what I do on these projects is not all I have done.

I am the sound designer on all the animations I was tagged in. Tabuley, Fuzzamorous, Ruaidri, Brolaren, Zoid, Meesh, and Igiveyoulemons have all done business with me as a sound designer and highly respect the work I do. While I will not pretend my craft is nearly as gifted and time intensive as the animators I've had the privilege to work with, my work is the result of over a decade of professional sound work.

This topic has been important to me since youtube, patreon, and many other websites do not allow me to showcase my work of NSFW nature. E621 is the only website that can provide a comprehensive list of what work I've done, which in turn, allows me to offer my services at a quick glance to animators who want to work with me. It is practically my NSFW Portfolio.

The tags literally assist me in providing more audio work for animations.

Sound work regularly tops the most popular of many animations. Hell, the first 'non sound' animation that is on the top scoring uses a song that literally became a meme thanks to it. I think it's fair to at least tag sound designers on the animations, since you have permitted in-betweeners, animatic artists, clean-up artists, and others to be credited on works, which do add up to the full experience.

Both IMDb and Newgrounds are willing to credit everyone attached to a project with their own tags, and while we try to mitigate this with descriptions and credits. Tags are still an important part of being able to allow fans of my content to find my work quickly and effectively.

Descriptions are a wonderful detail to find me on other websites, but if they want to find my audio content here, they're out of luck.

There are only a handful of sound artists in the furry community. and while I'm not going to implore we try offering our NSFW audio only content on here (since, as you said, it's a visual first website), I can name a great deal of sound designers who make the animation here all the better who go under-represented.

I understand one argument that has been presented is that 'every minor edit should be credited' as if it is burdensome. I can assure you if the work I, or other sound designers did was minor, I would not be able to make a career out of it doing it.

Nor would the comments on every post I work on be frequently filled with people giving a lot of positive feedback.

The website is a visual first medium, I respect that. but Voice Actors and Sound Designers enrich the experience as much as color can bring life to an image. And I know at least four voice actors who work between several animators for works here that would really benefit from being tagged.

If you are worried about the means of coding for the sake of including the small definition tag, I can assure you nearly every animator I have worked with would gladly just have me tagged as an artist.

I can guarantee there is an audience here interested in finding more of my audio work.

The way Model and Sound artiets are treated in the fandom actually makes it hard to do the job at all.

Everything darkwitt just said are all the same points I stand by.

I also agree that voice actors, sound designers, etc. should have artist tags. While the site is primarly visual, it's not exclusively, right?
We can always update the artist's wiki to specify what they do, if they do not do visual stuff.

At the end of the day, everything creative requires skill, time, and passion. It's all a form of art.
Hell, even programming can be considered art depending on how you look at it.

oozeenthusiast said:
Tags aren't for credit, they're for searchability. Tagging voice actors and model makers is valuable because I and presumably many other users often want to find more animation with similar attributes to animation we like.

I know this means nothing, but the 14 years I've been on this site, I've never once wanted to search or find someone based on the sound or voice in an animation.

m3g4p0n1 said:
I also agree that voice actors, sound designers, etc. should have artist tags. While the site is primarly visual, it's not exclusively, right?

A sound-only post won't be acceptable to post. Every post is visual, and only optionally has sound. However VAs and sound designers are handled, it won't be as Artist tags. As has been explained, just because someone does audio work doesn't mean they don't also do visual art, and we don't want the Artist tag to cover posts where they only do audio, vs ones where they only do visuals, vs ones where they do both. And we don't want the Artist category for a post to get flooded with everyone that may have voiced a moan or mixed together some stock sound effects on an animation (or for posts with music, every individual band member). Darkwitt brings up another case to think about; where they are sometimes a VA for a post, and sometimes a sound designer. Even with a separate Contributor category, it wouldn't distinguish between these two uses.

watsit said:
A sound-only post won't be acceptable to post. Every post is visual, and only optionally has sound. However VAs and sound designers are handled, it won't be as Artist tags. As has been explained, just because someone does audio work doesn't mean they don't also do visual art, and we don't want the Artist tag to cover posts where they only do audio, vs ones where they only do visuals, vs ones where they do both. And we don't want the Artist category for a post to get flooded with everyone that may have voiced a moan or mixed together some stock sound effects on an animation (or for posts with music, every individual band member). Darkwitt brings up another case to think about; where they are sometimes a VA for a post, and sometimes a sound designer. Even with a separate Contributor category, it wouldn't distinguish between these two uses.

Who is "we"?

strikerman said:
Who is "we"?

The people who don't want to mix audio and visual artists under Artist tags, including the admins.

Voice actors and sound designers deserve searchable credit. In a voice acted animation, they can contribute as much as the visual artists to the overall experience. If they can’t be tagged as “artists”, then a new “contributor” category could be made for voice actors, animators, colorists, et cetera.

watsit said:
The people who don't want to mix audio and visual artists under Artist tags, including the admins.

And meanwhile, numerous users here do want tags for audio artists. It doesn't need to be under the "Artist" category, but somewhere would be nice. This debate isn't one-sided.

strikerman said:
And meanwhile, numerous users here do want tags for audio artists. It doesn't need to be under the "Artist" category, but somewhere would be nice. This debate isn't one-sided.

As bitWolfy said, his preferred option would be to have some kind of Contributor category for VAs and other people who had a hand in non-visual aspects of the post (writers? proof-readers?), but it's not an easy thing to add to the site. Maybe it'll happen, depends if someone gets enough time to work on it without breaking or interrupting the site. But in the meantime, you can search descriptions.

watsit said:
A sound-only post won't be acceptable to post. Every post is visual, and only optionally has sound. However VAs and sound designers are handled, it won't be as Artist tags. As has been explained, just because someone does audio work doesn't mean they don't also do visual art, and we don't want the Artist tag to cover posts where they only do audio, vs ones where they only do visuals, vs ones where they do both. And we don't want the Artist category for a post to get flooded with everyone that may have voiced a moan or mixed together some stock sound effects on an animation (or for posts with music, every individual band member). Darkwitt brings up another case to think about; where they are sometimes a VA for a post, and sometimes a sound designer. Even with a separate Contributor category, it wouldn't distinguish between these two uses.

A Sound only post won't be acceptable to post.

I agree. as much as I'd love to post my Audio Dramas here, it would not make sense and just leave a great deal of blank windows. Perhaps one day if they had a medium to do this with, people like myself and Caudle would have a LOT more presence on this site with our content.

[ we don't want the Artist category for a post to get flooded with everyone that may have voiced a moan or mixed together some stock sound effects on an animation]

I can understand the situation with voice actors having single moans or the like, the musicians not being explicitly marked (especially if the song was not meant for the animation) and understand that would be something to consider implementing down the road. As for the 'Stock sounds' audio editing. I feel like that's splitting hairs. Whether the animation uses stock sounds or custom Foley (I use a little of both sometimes), It would be near impossible to discern which is which to someone inexperienced to the field and would ultimately be gatekeeping to anyone who attempts to do sound design for these projects.

Even so, stock sounds in animations is still a form of sound editing. timing, choice of audio, even the volume of it are all creative choices that do add to the piece.

using stock sounds as an example of this argument's lack of merit is similar to suggesting pixel art and sketches don't belong as tags because of their implied simplicity. Yet I have seen incredible works done with nothing but that medium.

As bitWolfy said, his preferred option would be to have some kind of Contributor category for VAs and other people who had a hand in non-visual aspects of the post (writers? proof-readers?), but it's not an easy thing to add to the site. Maybe it'll happen, depends if someone gets enough time to work on it without breaking or interrupting the site.

If a contributor category would be required for this to be implemented, what would be required to help make it happen? I have no problem with working towards helping Audio get a little better representation in the popular works that are posted here.
It may be an insignificant thing to some of the people who visit this site, but the ones who do use it, will find it invaluable.

If you need me to provide proof that such a tag would be widely used by the animators I work with, I will gladly approach them for their feedback.

Come to think of it, with everybody arguing to bring VAs/audio editors/3D modellers into the mix, will they share the same priority when it comes to takedowns?

Our takedown policy only covers artists (specifically, the artwork's copyright holder), commissioners, character owners, and publishers. Will contributors be included as well?

On another note, what about DoNotPost (DNP) requests? This one only covers artists for that matter.

thegreatwolfgang said:
Come to think of it, with everybody arguing to bring VAs/audio editors/3D modellers into the mix, will they share the same priority when it comes to takedowns?

Our takedown policy only covers artists (specifically, the artwork's copyright holder), commissioners, character owners, and publishers. Will contributors be included as well?

On another note, what about DoNotPost (DNP) requests? This one only covers artists for that matter.

I imagine it would be limited to the copyright holder. If a voice actor does work for hire, they don’t get to issue takedowns of work they don’t own.

darkwitt said:

A Sound only post won't be acceptable to post.

I agree. as much as I'd love to post my Audio Dramas here, it would not make sense and just leave a great deal of blank windows. Perhaps one day if they had a medium to do this with, people like myself and Caudle would have a LOT more presence on this site with our content.

[ we don't want the Artist category for a post to get flooded with everyone that may have voiced a moan or mixed together some stock sound effects on an animation]

I can understand the situation with voice actors having single moans or the like, the musicians not being explicitly marked (especially if the song was not meant for the animation) and understand that would be something to consider implementing down the road. As for the 'Stock sounds' audio editing. I feel like that's splitting hairs. Whether the animation uses stock sounds or custom Foley (I use a little of both sometimes), It would be near impossible to discern which is which to someone inexperienced to the field and would ultimately be gatekeeping to anyone who attempts to do sound design for these projects.

Even so, stock sounds in animations is still a form of sound editing. timing, choice of audio, even the volume of it are all creative choices that do add to the piece.

using stock sounds as an example of this argument's lack of merit is similar to suggesting pixel art and sketches don't belong as tags because of their implied simplicity. Yet I have seen incredible works done with nothing but that medium.

If a contributor category would be required for this to be implemented, what would be required to help make it happen? I have no problem with working towards helping Audio get a little better representation in the popular works that are posted here.
It may be an insignificant thing to some of the people who visit this site, but the ones who do use it, will find it invaluable.

If you need me to provide proof that such a tag would be widely used by the animators I work with, I will gladly approach them for their feedback.

The moderators aren't going to respond to you dude. You actually know what you're talking about, that's too hard for them to argue against and be stubborn about.

darkwitt said:
...
The tags literally assist me in providing more audio work for animations.
...
I can guarantee there is an audience here interested in finding more of my audio work.
...

Hmm, that begs the question of why the animations themselves don't have queue sheets and not just having tags or description mention you. This very issue is why movies ended up having extensive credits. Didn't the unions force it? :P

vulpes_artifex said:
I imagine it would limited to the copyright holder. If a voice actor does work for hire, they don’t get to issue takedowns of work they don’t own.

*cough*Starr*cough*Mazer*cough*

glitchbun said:
The moderators aren't going to respond to you dude. You actually know what you're talking about, that's too hard for them to argue against and be stubborn about.

That sounds a bit too needlesly passive agressive.

alphamule said:
Hmm, that begs the question of why the animations themselves don't have queue sheets and not just having tags or description mention you. This very issue is why movies ended up having extensive credits. Didn't the unions force it? :P

Yes. I don't understand why it falls entirely on us to enforce credit, when credit ought to be somewhere on the work itself.
Somewhere it would take an absurd amount of effort to edit the credit out - effort which serial reposters lack.

Artists have developed plenty of tools in the arms race against plagiarists and pirates.
From basic signatures and watermarks, to far more advanced techniques which can be used to determine EXACTLY which patron leaked their paid content. Use them.

If credit is not included on the work itself, then good luck finding everywhere else it can and will be reposted, and claiming your credit there.

Artists, collaborators, commissioners and character owners, should be more diligent about ALWAYS crediting each other. It's frustrating enough seeing commissioners upload art without tagging the artists. A mention in the description field is not enough - source it. Toss links to their socials. A new tag category is not enough. On that note, it feels like nearly everybody ignored us mentioning how difficult that would be, on a technical level.

I hate to "handwave" this away with "this issue is far more nuanced than it seems", or say anything else which gives the impression that we have better things to do. I'm not ignoring every other point made in this thread. We DO try discussing this in the staff channels, and we HAVE spitballed ideas. But you're expecting results RIGHT AWAY, when there is plenty of ground which you can be covering yourselves. Without waiting on us.

I know how that's going to come off. I can't force people to read everything exactly as I mean it, and take it to heart. I can't prevent people from quoting shit out of context. Paint us any way you want, but no matter how lazy or malicious people think we're being, it won't change the truth: EVERYONE has a part in this. The least you can do to make life that much easier for everyone involved, WITHOUT relying on us to do all of the work for you, is have the credit in the final product.

knotty_curls said:
A new tag category is not enough. On that note, it feels like nearly everybody ignored us mentioning how difficult that would be, on a technical level.

Adding to a tag would imply having to cite proof for every instance? I'm not even thinking of the technical level. This is pretty much going to require the VAs go and edit themselves into descriptions, and if tagging it becomes a thing, ditto. It's like Lore tags - there simply is too much investigation needed to do this for 3 million posts. People should be thinking of push versus pull in networking terms, or polling and interrupts in programming terms. Interested parties need to be already making sure they're in descriptions, and encouraging people they work with to do it when posting on their accounts at places like DA/FA/IB/etc. :/

knotty_curls said:
I can't prevent people from quoting shit out of context.

Gonna try not to. ;)

Oh, there aren't words for how much I wish a small credits screen on the end of animations would become the standard. It could be something so basic, like just a single screen that shows for a few seconds after the animation ends, listing things like:
Artist(s): name(s)
Soundwork/models/whatever: name(s)
Voice Actors:
Char A by coolvoiceactor
Char B by deepvoicemacgruff

And whatever else you need to credit, depending on what makes sense for that piece. I suspect it would depend on what went into it, but I could see things like models, programs, music, commissioner, character owners, whatever as possibly being worth a credit mention on it sometimes.

But it would be so nice to have even just the basic artist/character names/voice actors/etc information recorded and clear to check, because not everyone who posts it on FA or whatever bothers to explain anything in the description/tags on there either. Or it's somehow ambiguously worded (like I can't count how many times that I end up comparing different FA posts and I still can't figure out if they're the person who commissioned it FROM someone else, or the person who fulfilled a commission FOR someone else, just because of the way that they phrased it. So is it the Artist or person who paid for it? Especially hard if they tend to do some of both, but don't always sign their own work! It's painful how often the most basic of info may not be obvious to figure out!)

But if there's something that's clearly legible on the image or video, then you can more easily confirm or clarify everything else. And it is just so good! Just Bless those who do include that in some way on the art itself. Not to mention that links go down or get broken as people move on to other things. Today it might be obvious from both the character owner's post AND the artist's post. But in five years? The artist has rebranded under a different name or deleted some of their older work because they can do better now. And maybe that character owner dropped that fursona and/or old account two years ago. And the information gets completely lost exactly that easily. There's a lot of older posts on here that the credits can no longer be found or verified, because even though the search options are far better these days... the original posts and websites and accounts are all long gone. But the more clues that are on the art itself, then the more clues there are preserved that you can sometimes still find things from. Or at least do the best you can with. Nothing is just nothing though.

I mean I do get it. Once you are done making something, then you just want to be done. The last thing you want is to do an extra step. But once you have a system for it, it really only takes a few minutes to sign it or add a SM handle or type out some text to put along the edge. It can become almost automatic. And then it's on there forever, even if the commissioner forgot to link anything later. It's still one of the top ways to preserve the credit for something. Every time I see an artist do that, I think "oh thank god!". And the few times I've seen animations include a credits screen, it adds a professional touch and saves so many headaches!

So yeah, that's why I wish it really was more standard for creators to do.

knotty_curls said:
Yes. I don't understand why it falls entirely on us to enforce credit, when credit ought to be somewhere on the work itself.
Somewhere it would take an absurd amount of effort to edit the credit out - effort which serial reposters lack.

Artists have developed plenty of tools in the arms race against plagiarists and pirates.
From basic signatures and watermarks, to far more advanced techniques which can be used to determine EXACTLY which patron leaked their paid content. Use them.

If credit is not included on the work itself, then good luck finding everywhere else it can and will be reposted, and claiming your credit there.

Artists, collaborators, commissioners and character owners, should be more diligent about ALWAYS crediting each other. It's frustrating enough seeing commissioners upload art without tagging the artists. A mention in the description field is not enough - source it. Toss links to their socials. A new tag category is not enough. On that note, it feels like nearly everybody ignored us mentioning how difficult that would be, on a technical level.

I hate to "handwave" this away with "this issue is far more nuanced than it seems", or say anything else which gives the impression that we have better things to do. I'm not ignoring every other point made in this thread. We DO try discussing this in the staff channels, and we HAVE spitballed ideas. But you're expecting results RIGHT AWAY, when there is plenty of ground which you can be covering yourselves. Without waiting on us.

I know how that's going to come off. I can't force people to read everything exactly as I mean it, and take it to heart. I can't prevent people from quoting shit out of context. Paint us any way you want, but no matter how lazy or malicious people think we're being, it won't change the truth: EVERYONE has a part in this. The least you can do to make life that much easier for everyone involved, WITHOUT relying on us to do all of the work for you, is have the credit in the final product.

I understand what I am asking for in terms of credits and tagging. It would probably be a substantial undertaking if done in a way that required an overhaul of the website, which is the last thing I want. Metadata for sound effects is a tedious, and often difficult think to maintain credit to the people that deserve it. A Youtube Documentary went into detail about how this kind of thing can go wrong easily recently. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0twDETh6QaI

I've seen some viewers balk at credits; it disrupts flow for something like a single second animation or a loop. I wouldn't want to disrupt that either because as requested by my clients, they want the transition in the loop to be seamless.

Watermarks help in a lower third or corner sometimes, but across multiple websites, those @ tags aren't always uniform. I'm Darkwitt on FA, Darkwittdesigns on Twitter, etc. The priority is to minimize clicks for viewers to get where they want to go.

The issue is that, even with watermarks signatures and post credits, Those still cannot be easily searched if I cannot have an artist tag on the things I have worked on here. I've mitigated this somewhat by posting ads of whenever I finish a project on Furaffinity, Furry Network, Weasyl, Inkbunny, Twitter, and Ko-fi. And I have made a point to request to my animators to credit me wherever possible. But that has provided limited results in terms of traffic on E621, since most of 'my' art is either sound design work attached to somebody else, or artwork I commissioned that I did not draw (though I've seen some commissioners get their own artist tag. Whitekitten comes to mind.)

I'm not writing here for the sake of complaining and demanding instant gratification. I am introducing a dialogue as someone who both has a lot of experience working with animators in the NSFW and film industry and would like to offer my own experiences and expertise to find a way to get a little more representation in my respective field.

I would be more than eager to put in the work, as you stated, to try and make this feasible. From a technical standpoint, I am not a coder. But I have seen other websites handle similar means in a way that seems to be sensible. Newgrounds has metadata entries that can be filled for various positions. Though I understand that is more a multimedia platform than it is a image board.

Hypnohub.net marks artists who are making manipulations to turn the art into something relevant for the website as Artist_(Manipper) Which could be an easy workaround, depending on the tag. It might require separate tags for the artist as a visual medium and as an audio medium, but that could potentially be a compromise so you don't have to rip out the code to make this work.

As of right now, E621 is one of the best places for NSFW Furry animations to get visibility, to draw people towards other work without having to deal with other websites or Patreons. I love seeing my work here. I love seeing people enjoy my work. It's not just a hobby for me, but a professional revenue stream to help me make a living. I will gladly volunteer any time or resources to help make this happen. Just tell me what I need to do, and I will do whatever I can to make it happen.

I would be glad to help facilitate this if it means helping me get more animators the sound design they deserve, and my fellow sound designers a hell of a lot more visibility.

furrypickle said:
Oh, there aren't words for how much I wish a small credits screen on the end of animations would become the standard. It could be something so basic, like just a single screen that shows for a few seconds after the animation ends, listing things like:
Artist(s): name(s)
Soundwork/models/whatever: name(s)
Voice Actors:
Char A by coolvoiceactor
Char B by deepvoicemacgruff

And whatever else you need to credit, depending on what makes sense for that piece. I suspect it would depend on what went into it, but I could see things like models, programs, music, commissioner, character owners, whatever as possibly being worth a credit mention on it sometimes.

But it would be so nice to have even just the basic artist/character names/voice actors/etc information recorded and clear to check, because not everyone who posts it on FA or whatever bothers to explain anything in the description/tags on there either. Or it's somehow ambiguously worded (like I can't count how many times that I end up comparing different FA posts and I still can't figure out if they're the person who commissioned it FROM someone else, or the person who fulfilled a commission FOR someone else, just because of the way that they phrased it. So is it the Artist or person who paid for it? Especially hard if they tend to do some of both, but don't always sign their own work! It's painful how often the most basic of info may not be obvious to figure out!)

But if there's something that's clearly legible on the image or video, then you can more easily confirm or clarify everything else. And it is just so good! Just Bless those who do include that in some way on the art itself. Not to mention that links go down or get broken as people move on to other things. Today it might be obvious from both the character owner's post AND the artist's post. But in five years? The artist has rebranded under a different name or deleted some of their older work because they can do better now. And maybe that character owner dropped that fursona and/or old account two years ago. And the information gets completely lost exactly that easily. There's a lot of older posts on here that the credits can no longer be found or verified, because even though the search options are far better these days... the original posts and websites and accounts are all long gone. But the more clues that are on the art itself, then the more clues there are preserved that you can sometimes still find things from. Or at least do the best you can with. Nothing is just nothing though.

I mean I do get it. Once you are done making something, then you just want to be done. The last thing you want is to do an extra step. But once you have a system for it, it really only takes a few minutes to sign it or add a SM handle or type out some text to put along the edge. It can become almost automatic. And then it's on there forever, even if the commissioner forgot to link anything later. It's still one of the top ways to preserve the credit for something. Every time I see an artist do that, I think "oh thank god!". And the few times I've seen animations include a credits screen, it adds a professional touch and saves so many headaches!

So yeah, that's why I wish it really was more standard for creators to do.

Hell, even metadata with that being standard would be great, too. See: MP3 tags, DLL/EXE version_info, etc.

darkwitt said:
I've seen some viewers balk at credits; it disrupts flow for something like a single second animation or a loop. I wouldn't want to disrupt that either because as requested by my clients, they want the transition in the loop to be seamless.

Yeah, for GIF-style loops it makes no sense. Could still make sure to put it in description, since a lot of uploaders just copy and paste that when uploading.

kora_viridian said:
The trouble with embedded metadata is that it doesn't survive posting on any competent art site. Even FA manages to strip out some of the more obvious metadata elements on posts there.

This is because for every one person who uploads a file with full credits in the metadata, a thousand people will upload files that have metadata including their Windows user account name (which is sometimes their real name), camera/Photoshop/Premiere serial number (which can be Googled), a serial number identifying their PC (which can be Googled), etc. About 900 of those 1000 won't even know that information is in there, so it's easier for the art site to just silently drop the metadata, rather than refuse the upload or try to educate their users.

It might be appropriate for an art site to look at the metadata in the uploaded file and create a list of suggested tags based on that metadata, which the user can then choose to add to the post or not.

Some sites create tags automatically for photographs, based on some of the EXIF data in the photo (camera make, model, f-stop, exposure time). I know FurTrack does this, but it's an easier choice for them, since they only accept photos. I thought FA also did that at one time, but I'm not sure if they still do.

LOL, yeah, companies suck. That stuff should not be the default. Oh wells... Seems you could have whitelisted tags for it but of course someone will mess that up too. Idiots, too, are why we can't have nice things. Either people abusing it on purpose or just out of ignorance or whatever annoying reasons.

Extracting out the cuesheet or the like would make sense, to get around that.