can someone just delete that please? I happen to like twinkle-sez's work, and posting a stupid edit like that is just annoying and unfunny =(

Im not trying to stir drama or anything. but this guy is.

in fact, he should get a negative record for making a seriously bad post.

Erk said:
can someone just delete that please? I happen to like twinkle-sez's work, and posting a stupid edit like that is just annoying and unfunny =(

Im not trying to stir drama or anything. but this guy is.

in fact, he should get a negative record for making a seriously bad post.

LOL! Hahahahah
You got to be kidding? "Im not trying to stir drama or anything"
Ofcorse your not.
Why should it get deleted? It is better than twinkle sez sick scat shit any way. And he is in the credits so chil out.

Well, I find edits of picture as a copyright violation basically (except when artist gives permission to edit) and just disregard to artist.

But, wait, who cares?

@Jazz:

That's not quite how the law works. Under current copyright laws, the act of creation entitles you to ownership of the work and therefore you have the right to decide how it is used. This much is true.

The problem/loophole lies squarely within enforcement. What constitutes a violation?

The answer is somewhat complicated. Basically though, for all intents and purposes unless the violator is standing to make money from their theft or the artist is suffering a loss somehow from the use of their work, they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on. This goes especially for artwork posted online without any visible (c) information present.

Editing someones image for fun (assuming defamation of character isn't in the equation) isn't a violation of anything so long as you are not trying to sell it or claim it as your own.

If you edit something with watermarks all over it and the artist decides to be a bitch about it and take you to court, you could be in for more trouble than it was worth, however, so I'd still be careful.

As for the disregard, I'd consider it a compliment (possibly a backhanded one) that my art was worth someone's extra effort.

Oh, another interesting (c) anecdote:

Anti-copyright lobbyists have been trying to get the law changed for years so that artists would lose many of their rights to protecting their work. Keep yourself informed and let your senators know that the law should be kept as is, or at least any change should not endanger the livelihoods of the artist.

Well, I think the simplest way to define "violation" is violation of something directly stated by artist or license. Most of artists don't care about that, basically asking "not to distribute".

Anyway, well, I stated my opinion wrong too. Bad edits. They can directly harm to artist if distributed without information about edit.

I've seen your uploads few times but never thought about that.

Edits should be pretty amazing if you're going to post them, IMO. Slapping a pair of tits or a dick on something is neither clever, nor really neccessary - if you're that desperate to see a particular character with the wrong/any genitals, you might have issues.

I'm not a huge fan of edits in the first place because they tend to be either really terrible/predictable, or generate a ton of drama with the original artist.

As much as we have a ton of artists who use/like the site, we also have quite a few who merely tolerate it, and butchering their art is one of the easiest ways to switch them from indifferent to the work being up here, to getting pissed off and/or requesting their stuff removed. It sort of goes against the site's goal anyways - I mean, it's not promoting the artist's actual work, and it potentially gives an incorrect impression of that artist to people, or even worse, an outright upsetting impression. People are touchy with their creations, often for good reason, which is also why we try and work with them as much as we can to make this a site they WANT to have as a promotional tool for their talents, not a place where they should feel alienated.