There is a new cartoon by Harry Partridge that feature DOCTOR BEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/655933

I really like this cartoon, not because of the obvious, but because of the message.

In the past, I have seen my work and other people's work edited by other people that try to censor the content of what is shown. I know people ask me to make a bee-less picture, but I like to draw what I find to be fun to draw. Yet, it hurts when people reject it and tamper it to fit their style. I know this is making fun of the Batgirl Cover Controversy, but it does send out a message of creative freedom.

What do you guys think? Anyone have this scenario before?

I like to follow the scientific approach to it.

In science, any knowledge, hypotheses, theories and what have you belong to humanity as a whole, not to the person who discovered it.

It is expected, and encouraged, that everybody makes an effort to test and challenge everything, to overthrow stuff that is wrong, to prove things that work and don't work, and to generally just do your best.

How does this fit art?
If you release something it is free for all, if someone wants to add a dick, he may do so, if someone wants to change colors, they may do so, if they want to redraw it in a completely different style, the may do so.
The only thing that needs to be preserved is the original, thanks to the digital medium it is incredibly easy to make an unlimited number of copies without affecting the original, so even if someone makes a penis monster out of a bee, the original will always be there, unaffected by the atrocities committed to the copies.

However, if the original can't stay unaffected by alteration (most analog art, statues, paintings,...) there should be respect shown for the work of the artist, since it's unique, and any change done to it would destroy the original.

NotMeNotYou said:
I like to follow the scientific approach to it.

In science, any knowledge, hypotheses, theories and what have you belong to humanity as a whole, not to the person who discovered it.

It is expected, and encouraged, that everybody makes an effort to test and challenge everything, to overthrow stuff that is wrong, to prove things that work and don't work, and to generally just do your best.

How does this fit art?
If you release something it is free for all, if someone wants to add a dick, he may do so, if someone wants to change colors, they may do so, if they want to redraw it in a completely different style, the may do so.
The only thing that needs to be preserved is the original, thanks to the digital medium it is incredibly easy to make an unlimited number of copies without affecting the original, so even if someone makes a penis monster out of a bee, the original will always be there, unaffected by the atrocities committed to the copies.

However, if the original can't stay unaffected by alteration (most analog art, statues, paintings,...) there should be respect shown for the work of the artist, since it's unique, and any change done to it would destroy the original.

I see what you mean. Because it's out on the internet, it's free to cycle around and gain more exposure for the orignal artists (IF the editors are kind enough to give the source), yet there is no denying that some of the more enthusiastic artists out there that draw to express themselves aren't all comfortable with their ideologies in artform being skewed or altered. I believe if there are any edits done to free work, the editor should respect the artist's views before messing with their art. I've had artists that change pictures edited and the people have stated they respect my work, they just would like another version. That's fine. But what's wrong is when people change works of art out of spite or disgust of something that doesn't agree with them, whether it be innocent or not.

Qmannn said:
I had a lengthy response written up, but I think I can condense it down to one word: Why?

It might be just an ego thing, but wouldn't it hurt if you made something you were proud of only to have it changed, knowing that the person who did it thinks you're wrong for drawing it in the first place? Maybe it's just me.

NotMeNotYou said:
If you release something it is free for all, if someone wants to add a dick, he may do so, if someone wants to change colors, they may do so, if they want to redraw it in a completely different style, the may do so.

Not sure whether you are saying 'this is the way things are' or 'this is the way things should be'. The former is false (cosmetic edits like color or appendages are a clear infringement of copyright, in the case of most artistic licenses -- the notable exception being Creative Commons works).

"Redraw in a completely different style" has a much less dubious legal standing.

I.. partially agree with your implicit statement that censorship is not really happening here. I'd suggest that whether censorship is happening depends on how easy it is to trace the work back to its source. The obvious way to optimize that IMO is to be the foremost promoter of your own works.

BSting said:
It might be just an ego thing, but wouldn't it hurt if you made something you were proud of only to have it changed, knowing that the person who did it thinks you're wrong for drawing it in the first place?

Do you actually know that 'the person who did it thinks you're wrong for drawing it in the first place' (eg. because they have specifically stated that that is the case), or is that your assumption?

From what I recall of comments I've seen on your art, I would expect it's more likely that the person doing the edit finds the 'bee' element incongruous or a turn-off. Which is a matter of personal taste, not something that can be termed 'right' or 'wrong'.

Of course there may be people who do edits just to stir you up. But such people are plainly trolls, and AFAICS should be treated accordingly (ie. summarily dismissed). With them, there is no use in talking about what is reasonable, because they don't care about being reasonable.

Qmannn said:
How do you feel about fanart, open source projects, game mods, ect.?

Only those who believe in absolute quality and trolls would act as if they're making a correction by altering an image. Even if I completely hated the changes to my work, I'd take the fact that I produced something that somebody felt like making any kind of alteration to, especially if it's minor, as a compliment because that would imply that they probably liked most of what I produced and my style.

I'd be more concerned with being given the proper credit, especially if I intended to make a profit off of my work.

You know what, I'm starting to see the error of my ways. I still have the freedom of expression, I just need to give the other people the freedom to express their opinions from editing of my work. Maybe art is just more than the expression of the creator, but more of expression of the viewer. Huh...

NotMeNotYou said:
I like to follow the scientific approach to it.

In science, any knowledge, hypotheses, theories and what have you belong to humanity as a whole, not to the person who discovered it.

I don't see chemists who work for pharmaceuticals making drugs talking about how their medicines "belong to humanity as a whole" I see them religiously protecting their patents because they want to make fucking money off what they do. Why would people do work for free that can just be ripped off by anyone?

Oh but this kind of mentality is only okay for professional doctors and lawyers, not artists. Artists must accept that their work will be stolen. Because art isn't really something that society takes seriously, right?

Ozelot said:
I don't see chemists who work for pharmaceuticals making drugs talking about how their medicines "belong to humanity as a whole" I see them religiously protecting their patents because they want to make fucking money off what they do. Why would people do work for free that can just be ripped off by anyone?

I've never heard of a doctor or chemist discovering treatments because they want to save lives. It's all about the money.

https://books.google.com/books?id=L0gjBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=penicillin+patent

http://www.unitaid.eu/images/news/patentpool/mppf%20patent%20license%20full%20executed%20%28sept%202010%29-ns.pdf

http://battelle.org/about-us

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7490384.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4333627.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/jul/12/hiv-medicine-patents-drugs-companies

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/gene-patents-and-personalized-medicine/

Lance_Armstrong said:
It's all about the money.

http://americanactionforum.org/uploads/files/insights/rd.png

apparently so

Ozelot said:
http://americanactionforum.org/uploads/files/insights/rd.png

apparently so

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20111216/Research-reveals-role-of-government-funding-in-pharmaceutical-RD.aspx

Lance_Armstrong said:
http://www.news-medical.net/news/20111216/Research-reveals-role-of-government-funding-in-pharmaceutical-RD.aspx

so? what does that have to do with anything?

Ozelot said:
I don't see chemists who work for pharmaceuticals making drugs talking about how their medicines "belong to humanity as a whole" I see them religiously protecting their patents because they want to make fucking money off what they do. Why would people do work for free that can just be ripped off by anyone?

Oh but this kind of mentality is only okay for professional doctors and lawyers, not artists. Artists must accept that their work will be stolen. Because art isn't really something that society takes seriously, right?

That's not the scientists who keep it under lock, it's the CEOs and whatever investors want to make more money.
Also, I forgot to include that in my original reply but the edit or alteration should not be used to make money.

savageorange said:
Not sure whether you are saying 'this is the way things are' or 'this is the way things should be'. The former is false (cosmetic edits like color or appendages are a clear infringement of copyright, in the case of most artistic licenses -- the notable exception being Creative Commons works).

"Redraw in a completely different style" has a much less dubious legal standing.

I.. partially agree with your implicit statement that censorship is not really happening here. I'd suggest that whether censorship is happening depends on how easy it is to trace the work back to its source. The obvious way to optimize that IMO is to be the foremost promoter of your own works.

The way it should be.
If they don't make money off of the edits, and don't destroy/alter "the" original, and credit the original artist then there is simply no harm done to anybody, there is just more content than there was before.
(Edits and alterations to harass the original artist are obviously not part of the deal, if someone makes something for the sole purpose of pissing someone else off then that is obviously a problem and a dick move.)

BSting said:
I see what you mean. Because it's out on the internet, it's free to cycle around and gain more exposure for the orignal artists (IF the editors are kind enough to give the source), yet there is no denying that some of the more enthusiastic artists out there that draw to express themselves aren't all comfortable with their ideologies in artform being skewed or altered. I believe if there are any edits done to free work, the editor should respect the artist's views before messing with their art. I've had artists that change pictures edited and the people have stated they respect my work, they just would like another version. That's fine. But what's wrong is when people change works of art out of spite or disgust of something that doesn't agree with them, whether it be innocent or not.

That is part of my point, actually.
They do not mess with "the" art, they mess with a "copy" of the art.

The artist is still very much able to express themselves through the original they created, and are probably currently displaying in their gallery.
The editor isn't going to replace that piece in the gallery of the artist, there is nothing taken away from the original artist or the original art.

What may be interesting here, and give a bit better perspective of why I have this opinion:

NotMeNotYou said:
That's not the scientists who keep it under lock, it's the CEOs and whatever investors want to make more money.
Also, I forgot to include that in my original reply but the edit or alteration should not be used to make money.

lmao

The ceos and investors are the ones who support the industry so that the scientists can get paid to do their research, do you have no concept of economics whatsoever? or do you think we live in some world where things like r&d and industry could all just happen without economies? That the scientists could just continue to do their work without being paid living wages, not needing things like food and shelter to pay their rent with?

If that's the case, why do we still use money?

As they say, money is great, greed is good. Pursuing money as the ultimate goal of a project is fine and commendable. Unless you're a damn socialist commie.

Ozelot said:
so? what does that have to do with anything?

Some scientists literally do it for free and give the knowledge away.

Taxpayers fund medical research for the public benefit.

Pharmaceutical companies release drugs even though they know generic versions will appear in India.

Lawyers, doctors, etc. take on clients or patients for free. Some even risk contracting ebola.

Intellectual property that makes it to the Internet will become "stolen" forever.

You are wrong yet again.

Lance_Armstrong said:
Some scientists literally do it for free and give the knowledge away.

Some. The majority of them are paid for their work.

So when was the last time you went to a doctor or lawyer and demanded they help you for free? How did it work out?

Ozelot said:
Some. The majority of them are paid for their work.

So when was the last time you went to a doctor or lawyer and demanded they help you for free? How did it work out?

You may have heard of muh charity. It provides free, direct, personalized support services for people navigating the physical, practical, emotional and financial challenges of having cancer.

Lance_Armstrong said:
You may have heard of muh charity. It provides free, direct, personalized support services for people navigating the physical, practical, emotional and financial challenges of having cancer.

Charity organizations still run on money. If they didn't, why do they require charitable donations?

I also find it funny that on the front page of their website they have a picture of their CEO, some person with perfect make-up, teeth, and an expensive business dress on. Why is it that these big-name charity groups are always owned and run by the super-rich?

Ozelot said:
Charity organizations still run on money. If they didn't, why do they require charitable donations?

I also find it funny that on the front page of their website they have a picture of their CEO, some person with perfect make-up, teeth, and an expensive business dress on. Why is it that these big-name charity groups are always owned and run by the super-rich?

Charitable giving and volunteering are not capitalist acts. They may have tax benefits or reciprocal effects that improve profits, but unless you quantify the benefits of charity to outweigh spending it on yourself, it is "irrational". Many people do irrational things like give away art for free or treat people for free.

The super-rich have money to waste. You complain about super-rich involvement with charities, but they have connections that can help the charity get more money. Where's your complaint about the super-rich who buy another yacht instead of give to charity?

Lance_Armstrong said:
Charitable giving and volunteering are not capitalist acts. They may have tax benefits or reciprocal effects that improve profits, but unless you quantify the benefits of charity to outweigh spending it on yourself, it is "irrational". Many people do irrational things like give away art for free or treat people for free.

The super-rich have money to waste. You complain about super-rich involvement with charities, but they have connections that can help the charity get more money. Where's your complaint about the super-rich who buy another yacht instead of give to charity?

It isn't irrational. Those people are maximizing on their utility versus the opportunity cost of what they could do otherwise. This is basic economics.

The important thing to understand is not everyone, not even nearly most people will behave like that. Most of us are not super-rich or highly altruistic and will want things that are tangible and concrete in return for our goods, services, and time.

I don't draw free requests because I do not derive as much utility from it as if I had charged someone money for it. Most pharmaceutical chemists do not do research for free because they must pay for the livelihoods of themselves and their families.

wait what we are arguing about now and why

BSting said:
You know what, I'm starting to see the error of my ways. I still have the freedom of expression, I just need to give the other people the freedom to express their opinions from editing of my work. Maybe art is just more than the expression of the creator, but more of expression of the viewer. Huh...

Time to take it full circle and edit bees into other artists' work.

Ozelot said:
lmao

The ceos and investors are the ones who support the industry so that the scientists can get paid to do their research, do you have no concept of economics whatsoever? or do you think we live in some world where things like r&d and industry could all just happen without economies? That the scientists could just continue to do their work without being paid living wages, not needing things like food and shelter to pay their rent with?

If that's the case, why do we still use money?

As they say, money is great, greed is good. Pursuing money as the ultimate goal of a project is fine and commendable. Unless you're a damn socialist commie.

Do you know how much money scientist gets, how much money the CEOs get and how much money the industry earns?
Scientists get a fraction of the profits, yes, most of them work, research, and create drugs to make a living, but there is a difference between making a living and trying to bleed the economy dry.

Money is good, it allows the exchange of different goods against each other, and that much more freely than a direct trade system ever could, but there is a point where the desire to hoard becomes ridiculously stupid.

The scientists could still make money if the companies released the knowledge, for the simple reason that improvements are always possible, so they would have still work and purpose, and drugs need to be created as well, so they would also have work in that field.

Just because things get shared doesn't mean it can't still be utilized.

NotMeNotYou said:
Do you know how much money scientist gets, how much money the CEOs get and how much money the industry earns?
Scientists get a fraction of the profits, yes, most of them work, research, and create drugs to make a living, but there is a difference between making a living and trying to bleed the economy dry.

Money is good, it allows the exchange of different goods against each other, and that much more freely than a direct trade system ever could, but there is a point where the desire to hoard becomes ridiculously stupid.

The scientists could still make money if the companies released the knowledge, for the simple reason that improvements are always possible, so they would have still work and purpose, and drugs need to be created as well, so they would also have work in that field.

Just because things get shared doesn't mean it can't still be utilized.

Yet the researchers choose to work under the companies and CEOs because it gives them the best chance to profit on their work and make a living. You tried to compare the scientific method (which is a dumb comparison) with art trying to say that the products of an artists work should "be free for all" without even realizing that scientists work to make a living. Ridiculous.

BSting said:
It might be just an ego thing, but wouldn't it hurt if you made something you were proud of only to have it changed, knowing that the person who did it thinks you're wrong for drawing it in the first place? Maybe it's just me.

BSting said:
You know what, I'm starting to see the error of my ways. I still have the freedom of expression, I just need to give the other people the freedom to express their opinions from editing of my work. Maybe art is just more than the expression of the creator, but more of expression of the viewer. Huh...

I am not a lawyer,] but if you don't want people posting edited versions of your art, adopt a copyright license that does not permit deriatives, and request takedowns for any modified work that you don't approve of.You have every right to deny the ability of others to distribute modifications your works and there is no shame or stigma in doing so.

Ozelot said:
Yet the researchers choose to work under the companies and CEOs because it gives them the best chance to profit on their work and make a living. You tried to compare the scientific method (which is a dumb comparison) with art trying to say that the products of an artists work should "be free for all" without even realizing that scientists work to make a living. Ridiculous.

I actually had a long, angry rant written out, but I just realized I completely missed to mention something.

Everything I said in this thread only concerns free, digital art.

If people make money off of it, don't alter it, don't try to make money off of it.

If the art is freely available in the first place, no money is lost by making alterations, copies, edits. This is where the principle of scientific knowledge comes into effect, sharing is caring, the more people know about something, the better.

Also, I'd like add the "don't be a dick" rule, aka, if someone asks to leave something alone, honor it.

Catachan said:
I am not a lawyer,] but if you don't want people posting edited versions of your art, adopt a copyright license that does not permit deriatives, and request takedowns for any modified work that you don't approve of.You have every right to deny the ability of others to distribute modifications your works and there is no shame or stigma in doing so.

I seldom agree with catachan but you can indeed try this.

Also, BSting, this only my personal opinion on the matter, and how I would treat any free art that I create, I'm not saying you should change your view on the matter, but it never hurts considering it, even if you then disregard it.

Catachan said:
I am not a lawyer,] but if you don't want people posting edited versions of your art, adopt a copyright license that does not permit deriatives, and request takedowns for any modified work that you don't approve of.You have every right to deny the ability of others to distribute modifications your works and there is no shame or stigma in doing so.

You don't even have to adopt a specific license AFAIK -- Your work is copyrighted by default, regardless of any other circumstances like whether you are profiting from it or not. Maybe I was a little unclear when I stated earlier that minor edits are usually copyright infringements. This is mainly about Fair use , which only specifically applies in the US. BSting, if you are in the US, I suggest specifically looking at the Common misunderstandings section.

In the case of my particular post, I was mainly trying to encourage some perspective. There are lots of people doing the wrong thing, but whether it's gonna work better for you to make them stop it or accept it, is a case by case thing. eg. for trolls, they generally arrange things so they get more out of you reacting than you get out of reacting. Whereas if you are losing money as a result of the edit, there is something more substantial than hurt feelings at stake.

I agree with the practice of explicitly choosing a license in general, though -- it removes any 'I didn't know' defense, if correctly done. The CC family of licenses makes this easy, they provide a license name and a short blurb, the former maps in a fairly obvious way to the latter (eg. CC by-nc-nd 4.0 ->
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives) and they have enough licenses defined that there's probably one suitable for what you want.

NotMeNotYou said:
I actually had a long, angry rant written out, but I just realized I completely missed to mention something.

Everything I said in this thread only concerns free, digital art.

If people make money off of it, don't alter it, don't try to make money off of it.

If the art is freely available in the first place, no money is lost by making alterations, copies, edits. This is where the principle of scientific knowledge comes into effect, sharing is caring, the more people know about something, the better.

Also, I'd like add the "don't be a dick" rule, aka, if someone asks to leave something alone, honor it.

I seldom agree with catachan but you can indeed try this.

Also, BSting, this only my personal opinion on the matter, and how I would treat any free art that I create, I'm not saying you should change your view on the matter, but it never hurts considering it, even if you then disregard it.

You should only edit an artist's work if they have openly stated they are okay with it or if you have directly contacted them and they said yes. Period, it doesn't matter if it's free or not.

Doing otherwise is specifically rude. Yes, trolls will do it on purpose, because being rude is their idea of fun, but that doesn't mean we should all acquiesce to the behavior of trolls.

I don't buy this nonsense you are saying that because it's digital there are different rules than if it were traditional. Some person still put time and effort into something for it to be made. The process for making digital art versus traditional art is the exact same, they are just different toolsets.

Ozelot said:
You should only edit an artist's work if they have openly stated they are okay with it or if you have directly contacted them and they said yes. Period, it doesn't matter if it's free or not.

Doing otherwise is specifically rude. Yes, trolls will do it on purpose, because being rude is their idea of fun, but that doesn't mean we should all acquiesce to the behavior of trolls.

I don't buy this nonsense you are saying that because it's digital there are different rules than if it were traditional. Some person still put time and effort into something for it to be made. The process for making digital art versus traditional art is the exact same, they are just different toolsets.

Like I said, it's my personal opinion on how it should be, and how I would deal with it (if I were to release my own art, this isn't how I handle art from other people), everybody would win more in the long run if people would be more acceptable of the idea about having their work "open".

(As evidenced here, I asked ratte if she'd be okay if I request a template for other people to edit, and she was, so now there are already some 3rd party edits floating around)

I am a writer and an artist. I've been paid for both things, but I still consider myself mostly an amateur, so that may be useful for context for my opinion.

When I create something, be it a story or a piece of artwork, I want someone to enjoy it. That is my primary motivation. In many cases, I am the one who enjoys it - I draw and write for myself fairly frequently. But it also makes me happy to know that others have enjoyed something I made.

To that end, I have no problem with edits. An edit can do little but increase the number of people who can enjoy something. The original is left unchanged, so anyone who enjoys it as I made it can still do so. An edit just allows whatever it is to appeal to more people.

I don't see it as having anything to do with my vision, or censorship, or saying that what I did was wrong. I made something designed to appeal to a certain group, and someone else liked it enough that they wanted to put in the effort to make it appeal to a different, or larger, audience.

To make it a little bit more concrete, if I wrote a story with two female characters, I am trying to appeal to people who like two female characters engaging sexually together. If someone liked my writing, but felt that they would like it better if instead of two females, it was a female and a gigantic penis-monster that ejaculated poisonous needles... Well, that's not MY thing, but obviously it's theirs, and by making that edit, they (and maybe others too?) get enjoyment from it.

Thus, the edit actually assists my original goal of bringing people enjoyment, even if it's not something I'd do myself.

Though (as I said on another thread), if they had the attitude of "your original was wrong; It should have always been a poison-needle-spewing penis-beast", that'd annoy me, yeah, but I don't generally see that attitude among people who make edits.

And, of course, this only applies if your goal is to bring people enjoyment. If you are a professional, seeking to make money, your priorities will naturally differ.