I'm really getting tired of people consistently editing pictures. I'm not talking about someone adding a caption or changing a little aspect to make it cute or funny. I'm talking about people who edit a picture simply to Add/Remove/Replace a penis and/or pussy. I find it highly disrespectful when someone edits someone else's hard work merely to make it seem more "acceptable" for themselves. If you don't like it the way it is, avoid it. Don't mess with someone else's work just because you don't like how they did it.

the purpose of this site was to have high quality faps under one house. if someone edits it to share it, its made for benifit of the whole, so if oyu don't like it l2blacklist. also, your name makes me cry inside.

I do occasionally remove/edit some pictures I upload here. I though it will not annoy anybody as long as I don't claim I did the picture or I comment "HAI GUYS I EDITED THIS PICTURE PLZ COMMENT MY HARD WORK!" when I submit one.

I did not know that could hurt someone that much :V

ya, we can avoid pictures we don't like, but you can avoid edits too. oh blacklist you never let me down!

Unlocked for now.

Honestly, Ican't stand the edits, they are disrespectful to the artists and the characters that people have created. I know people like certain things, but is there really a point to making edits?

I honestly thought that edits were not even allowed on the site, and for the very reasons listed in the OP. I've had more than a few artists request that an edited version of their artwork be removed.

I swear I was told this when I first joined the site, and so thought it was just an understood rule. If this is not the case though, and not allowing edits would be a new rule, then I'd like to hear some feedback from people first.

i dont mind edits one bit, i can fap to more things

i honestly don't need to see sexually explicit images so in this case edits may suffice.

I like edits that don't suck.

Well, some edits are appreciated by certain group of users, like shopping out a dick on a well-drawn herm picture, etc.

I guess the main problem is that edits might be offensive (especially crappy recolors, e.g. post #118263 ) for an aritst and. therefore, might even cause a takedown request for all artist's stuff.

You know.. I wonder how car designers feel about people who modify their cars with body kits and wings and stickers.

They spend all that hard time designing a perfectly good looking car, only to have some jerk decide that they don't like the way it looks and that it needs to be changed.

I wonder if then this car designer creates an alter-ego on car enthusiast websites and trolls away on how cars should just left be as the designer intended, and not redesigned by some 19 year old with too much money and bad taste.

hg3300 said:
i honestly don't need to see sexually explicit images so in this case edits may suffice.

This isn't about censoring. It's about other people editing an artist's work in order to make it more appealing to themselves and others. Think "ew, I don't want this character to have a penis *photoshop* there, that vagina looks much better *post* Hey guys look what I did".

Jazz said:
Well, some edits are appreciated by certain group of users, like shopping out a dick on a well-drawn herm picture, etc.

I guess the main problem is that edits might be offensive (especially crappy recolors, e.g. post #118263 ) for an aritst and. therefore, might even cause a takedown request for all artist's stuff.

Basically, this. Some artists don't seem so bothered by it, and some are very much offended by it. E621 having a reputation of "that place where people edit artwork that isn't theirs just because they don't like something about it" (one of many things e621 is known for) doesn't really cast us in a terribly favorable light.

I'm trying to improve e621's reputation among artists as best I can (which I believe I've had some success doing), but then at the same time users are being allowed to post edited artwork, which some artists seem quite bothered by.

So I guess it's just a question of how far should I/we go.

i don't really care about edits that much. i can understand why people don't like edits, but for it to make them so angry as to do something, i don't understand (unless it is the artist him/her self of course). so where i stand on the issue: whatever the artist of the particular image stands on it. though my opinion doesn't matter. hope edits don't get banned, because some edits are actually pretty good.

Char said:
This isn't about censoring. It's about other people editing an artist's work in order to make it more appealing to themselves and others. Think "ew, I don't want this character to have a penis *photoshop* there, that vagina looks much better *post* Hey guys look what I did".

Editing to censor sexually explicit parts of an image is still editing.

i still don't understand what all the hufflepuff over editing pictures is about. if i drew and someone edited it to be homo, i wouldn't like it, but i'd just ask for it to be taken down. its not e6's fault as a whole if its one rouge user uploading stuff like that

NOU said:
i still don't understand what all the hufflepuff over editing pictures is about. if i drew and someone edited it to be homo, i wouldn't like it, but i'd just ask for it to be taken down. its not e6's fault as a whole if its one rouge user uploading stuff like that

NOU said:
what all the hufflepuff over

I laughed so hard my eye fell out. .(

In my opinion.. edits ought to be subject to the same basic rules of posting--is it a good edit? is it a well put together edit and does it really bring something different to the table then the original did?

In this case, photoshopping red fox into blue fox isn't doing anything 'worth while' (there are always exceptions to this rule - post #66734 is a much better vision of post #66654 ;) )

but removing a penis, or adding a pussy... Those CAN be substansial changes. are they well done? do they really bring something worth while? then let them stand.

But, I'd make it abundantly clear in every place that: 1) edits must be tagged, properly parented, the original artist must be tagged and credited (preferably also in the image itself "Art by So-and-so (URL) edit by suchandsuch.").. 2) that an edit will be pulled down if requested, all the artist has to do is ask. and make it 'easy' for an artist to say "I don't want anyone, ever, to post edits of my work" ... and have a 'do not edit' list.

might make it a little more artist friendly. :)

Change invites progress.

Those that disagree with this pursue their craft for the purpose of lording over others, rather than actually perpetuating the best they can be.

Furfags put artists on pedestals, ergo, they whine when you take out the nasty dog dick in an otherwise fantastic image.

As far as I'm concerned, when someone comes along and changes a piece of my artwork: It's no longer just my artwork. It's someone else adding to a canvas I happened to work on.

JustFrame said:
Change invites progress.

Those that disagree with this pursue their craft for the purpose of lording over others, rather than actually perpetuating the best they can be.

Furfags put artists on pedestals, ergo, they whine when you take out the nasty dog dick in an otherwise fantastic image.

As far as I'm concerned, when someone comes along and changes a piece of my artwork: It's no longer just my artwork. It's someone else adding to a canvas I happened to work on.

To me, it's not the artist, it's the character that's suffering.. I'm sure that artica hates it when you alter her character.. and I hate it when people alter Eli.. just to fap to.

but i like my faps, arctica's fappable without the cawk

Aurali said:
I'm sure that artica hates it when you alter her character..

Have you ever spoken to him? He's a cool guy, not the type to get bothered by anything short of someone actually pretending to be him.

Hat said:
Have you ever spoken to him? He's a cool guy, not the type to get bothered by anything short of someone actually pretending to be him.

Was using an example.

Aurali said:
To me, it's not the artist, it's the character that's suffering.. I'm sure that artica hates it when you alter her character.. and I hate it when people alter Eli.. just to fap to.

How does something that doesn't exist suffer?

JustFrame said:
How does something that doesn't exist suffer?

A character exists as part of it's creator's mind.

It can suffer in the same way that words can hurt, despite words not existing.

It can suffer in the same way that your name can be tarnished, despite the fact that your name does not exist, it is only a series of sounds that you assign to represent yourself.

Just like a memory can hurt, or a fantasy can bring you to tears, or a dream can make you long..

SnowWolf said:
A character exists as part of it's creator's mind.

That's just a very poetic way of stating that the artist is suffering. Which is counter intuitive to the original statement.

SnowWolf said:
A character exists as part of it's creator's mind.

Then what if the creator doesn't mind their work being edited? What if the character's personality wouldn't find the idea of his/her image being changed offensive?

It can go either way. I agree with the "see what the artist says" approach. Unless the artist explicitly forbids alterations to their work edits should be allowed.

JustFrame said:
That's just a very poetic way of stating that the artist is suffering. Which is counter intuitive to the original statement.

....Okay. My name is Bob. And Sally pays me 50$ to draw her character FoxyMittens. I draw FoxyMittens. Steve edits the image because he thinks FoxyMittens needs a cawk. I go "oh well." Sally is horrified, because FoxyMittens is a very dear part of her.

The artist in the above example does not suffer. The character--the owner of said character--does.

Not all art is "self portraits"... most art of specific characters are probably gifts, or commissions.

KloH0und said:
Then what if the creator doesn't mind their work being edited? What if the character's personality wouldn't find the idea of his/her image being changed offensive?

It can go either way. I agree with the "see what the artist says" approach. Unless the artist explicitly forbids alterations to their work edits should be allowed.

In that case, then go for it. but the artist, and the character, in this case, ought to have full rights to say something about the matter. I think it should be 'easier' to get an edit yanked down then to get you actual art removed... (ie, if I'm bob_fox, right now, I'd have to message people and ask them to take down art of FoxyMittens, if Sally doesn't like it. It ought to be that Foxy_mittens can request that the art of herself can be taken down, as long as there's reasonable cause to believe that foxy_mittens is FoxyMitten's and not an impostor. (ie, not new FA account, uploads, comments on the artist's copy of the image saying "oh wow, this is awesome" and so forth)

SnowWolf said:
....Okay. My name is Bob. And Sally pays me 50$ to draw her character FoxyMittens. I draw FoxyMittens. Steve edits the image because he thinks FoxyMittens needs a cawk. I go "oh well." Sally is horrified, because FoxyMittens is a very dear part of her.

The artist in the above example does not suffer. The character--the owner of said character--does.

No. That has nothing to do at all with the character suffering.

An owner of a character is an artist, who produced a character. The character doesn't suffer because it doesn't exist. The artist only suffers when he has an over bloated sense of attachment to his super-original work. Stop trying to flower it up.

See, no. Now you're changing the 'mood' of your original statement by redefining the word 'artist' to include things that are not typically considered 'artsy' ... a sentiment that is contrasting to the rest of your statement.

Also.... I can see you've never had a character that really spoke to you. I'm sorry. And I don't mean 'spoke to me' as in 'they sit on my shoulder and dictate my actions'... I mean I write a story with them, and they develop enough of an imaginary personality that I never have to stop and say "what would this character say?" or "and what would they do now?" Because the part of my brain that figured this things out is already supplying these answers. This is the same part of my brain that occasionally jerks the plot in an unexpected sort of direction that I never expect, and leave me, the author, scrambling to suddenly accommodate for these changes. this part of my brain occasionally has the character offer me an opinion on things. "Character Y would love this shirt." "character z would think this. or that. or this other thing".

This is not uncommon when you're writing. These are the best characters to write for because they always surprise you and they add an extra dimension to the story. not every character is like this. Not every story will have a character like this and not ever writer can DO this.. but just the same, you don't have to be a writer to do this.

Do some furry people-who-make-characters have an over bloated sense of attachment to not-so-original works? Sure. but does it change the fact that it's still an image that represents a character that they've conceived of, and personified.... or flat out represents themselves?

In any regard, I'm sorry that you've apparently never had characters in your head that were something more then mary-sue like puppets that chanced around in just the way you told them to. As a person with.. hmm... I think I have about three, at the moment, stirring sleepily around in the pack of my mind.... i can honestly say you'e missing out and I'm sorry. :)

all this said, If I drew art of my characters, I don't think i'd mind much if someone edited them to make them more pleasing to themselves. I'd just want credit.

As for the characters themselves.. Let me see...

Trav says, "oooh.. porn of me as a girl? sweet! I wanna see! I wunner i someone'd draw me fucking myself? ooh, or two guy-me's screwin'. Hee! What? naw, wankin' to that would just be weird. For me, I mean. if YOU wanna, go 'head. Can I watch? *leer*"

Rain turns beat red and tries to cover the artwork with his body and wonders why the hell you're looking, jesus christ, you damn perv.

Kairi blushes and isn't sure she'd want her boos to ever be THAT big... but... things the artwork might be interesting to show to someone special.... later, but really doesn't want anyone seeing it because it might get back to the wrong people and that could be very bad.... although....

So.. maybe I'm too creative for my own good. or maybe I have an over bloated sense of my characters. who knows. I guess the TL;DR point is, I'm on the other side of the divide as you and have no wish to change.

SnowWolf said:
TL;DR

Your characters don't exist. They are constructs of your mind. Something that doesn't exist cannot suffer.

Don't get me wrong, I know you have no wish to change. But that doesn't change the fact that you're delusional about this. Being stubborn doesn't negate the consequences of being incorrect.

Most furries envision their characters as nothing more than mary sues. They think they are entirely original and have total creative control over them. But this undermines two facets of fundamental character design:

1. No character is entirely original.

2. Any character design can be added to or altered.

The problem is most furries are not really artists in a professional sense. You clearly fit into this paradigm, as is evident by your opinions.

I can take any character you've made and entirely change them if I want to. Some people will argue that this is some how 'wrong' on some outward principal of ethics, but that doesn't change the fact that I -can do it- and it's easy enough to counter an ethical equation.

...Why was this opened again? All I see is drama, drama for miles.

Hm. I started o reply, but went off on a long tangent.. I"ll finish with this.

Yes. Characters are a construct of mind.
So is my personality.
So is your personality.

I have a friend who has "multiple personality disorder".
All of his other personalities were created by him at various points in his life. In his mind. But each personality is a unique person. they DO have separate fears, ambitions, goals, likes, and dislikes. They're all different people. yet they are all products of his mind. His personalities can suffer. his personalities can hurt. They don't exist with a separate body, but they still can feel.

Is it the same? not really, but it shares common elements. The ultimate question is, I think, where's the line between 'a character' and 'a personality'? it goes into all sorts of interesting questions about the mind and what we make real.

A lot of characters are one-or-two dimensional rip offs. goku-as-a-lion-but-with-my-emoness-and-humor. Or so forth. But. even if your character starts out as an albino simba rip off who's main goal in life is to kill hyenas and screw anything willing to bend over for you... after several years, that character has probably changed and grew up, just like the player did... and the character would probably (but not always) be very different from how they started.

And by that time, as a character evolves, don't they take on a life of their own? Of course, clearly, you can still take 'my' idea, and change it and modify it... and that's not a bad thing. the 'bad' is when the art, or the character, is only slightly modified-- a fur color changed, for example--and no credit is given to the person who made the character--however original or not-- and the person who made the art.

Some people will argue that this is some how 'wrong' on some outward principal of ethics, but that doesn't change the fact that I -can do it- and it's easy enough to counter an ethical equation.

I think this is the part where I'm suposed to use godwin's law...

;)

Anyway, my focus is more just.. credit where do. to artist, creator, authors... and to the characters who exist and hurt, in whatever small capacity, in our minds. :)

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
...Why was this opened again? All I see is drama, drama for miles.

honestly, I'm enjoying the pleasant debate. I'm not trying to dramafy anything really.

SnowWolf said:
clipped to not spam

I wholeheartedly disagree. As a writer, I make characters daily...but I'm not attached to them. They're not real in any way, and thinking they are will get me stuck back in treatment. Sure, credit goes for writing/drawing it, but in no way is the character unique to the person. It's not real, never will be real, and anyone who clings so tightly to the idea seriously needs some psychiatric help.

No offense.

It's a symptom of the Taking Everything Too Seriously plague. Everyone decides they've made something, gets a big head, and goes out of control with it. Once you realize you've just done the same thing as millions of other people now and in the past, then you're thinking sanely.

I won't continue to argue about the nature of characterization, with someone who actually believes an imaginary construction of ideas can feel pain. That's like believing a rock will stub your toe in retaliation for kicking it. Believe whatever falsifications you wish.

But in regards to the ethics of copying artwork and altering it, which is an entirely separate argument: Honestly, unless an artist keeps a private website that requires monetary compensation from it's users in order to access, I will never understand why artists decide to put their art on such an open-source ended media such as the internet if they really didn't expect people to copy, distribute, and alter it.

Granted, people who take undue credit for such artwork are swindlers. But if I didn't want my artwork fucked with, the last place I'd put it on is online.