Artists (in alphabetical order):

* @Lizardite: https://github.com/Lizardite/Drawings
* @Neitsuke: http://www.4shared.com/folder/riUjYnRa/SAI.html

_____________________

Yellowfin_Tuna said:
Nice of you too do this!

Not even remotely implying that every piece of digital art should have its source available (e.g. ai, psd, sai, svg, xcf), but it would be cool to see more artists give this sort of thing a shot when appropriate - provided they're confident in doing so.

_{Also, Bitbucket > Github. :V}

Many artists don't like their work to be modified.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. This is something I've wanted to do all along, unfortunately the means are not here yet really. So I've just declared that anyone wanting the original file can ask me for it and inspect and edit it if they want. It might be arrogant to think that anyone would want to do it but I've wanted to make it clear just in case. But, people don't like to directly ask for this sort of thing, so no one's asked me for base files yet really, among other reasons. It would be immensely helpful if sites like Fur Affinity would let you add attachments to uploads, for the base file (xcf/etc.), uncompressed file, notes, etc.

Everything should have its source available. It really sucks when you find some old picture or something and it has horrible JPG artifacts. Even if the compression is crystal clear it would be useful to have the base files of everything. For modification, etc., if someone objects I tell them that if you upload something to the internet, you really shouldn't complain about people spreading and altering it.

My things really aren't that good and like I said my means are lacking but I would still like to express interest and support for open source drawings.

link to license

Ratte said:
Many artists don't like their work to be modified.

Today I just told some artist on Skype that I edited one of his pictures for fun (Without posting it anywhere else at all) and man he got all mad and pissy about it pretty fast.

That's a good sight to see some actual artists being open like that and permit their stuff to be freely modified as much as they want. I really have no clue why most of the artists actually get mad about that

Neitsuke said:
Today I just told some artist on Skype that I edited one of his pictures for fun (Without posting it anywhere else at all) and man he got all mad and pissy about it pretty fast.

That's a good sight to see some actual artists being open like that and permit their stuff to be freely modified as much as they want. I really have no clue why most of the artists actually get mad about that

my uneducated guess is that most artists don't want people who would steal their pictures to have an even easier way to be able to remove the watermark of the original artist and replace it with that of their own website/name/advertisement in a VERY convincing manner

Most of the artists are indeed paranoid about the idea of getting their art stolen ; My best tip would simply to not bother with that at all (Of course you can flag for theft and stuff but other than that, just don't care too much)

The reason he gave me when I told him I edited his picture was, um, he just found that disrespectful that I did it without asking him first, which is pretty silly on its own because I did that for my own privacy to kill time and didn't post that anywhere else, not even shown that to other people at all. I shouldn't be asking people to do stupid edits, it feels unnecessary

Neitsuke said:
The reason he gave me when I told him I edited his picture was, um, he just found that disrespectful that I did it without asking him first, which is pretty silly on its own because I did that for my own privacy to kill time and didn't post that anywhere else, not even shown that to other people at all. I shouldn't be asking people to do stupid edits, it feels unnecessary

I can sympathize with both sides here. Like, I would be annoyed if you edited my picture and never uploaded it anywhere; it does feel disrespectful -- personal investment in art, etc.
But I can recognize that that feeling is irrational, and that such an act doesn't harm anyone (and also, that I have done edits without asking for a few reasons, one being that there are communities that actively encourage it , the other is it can be educational). So I also have the point of view that having to ask for permission to do such a thing privately is wrong.

Therefore, I would suggest to do the edits freely, as long as you aren't uploading them, but say nothing about it to the artist. A kind of polite social fiction, in recognition that nothing other than rustling of jimmies is going to be achieved by bringing it up, I guess.
(I'm mentally comparing it here to, something like.. Commenting 'I fapped to this' on someone's cute and probably-not-sexually-intended picture. Not anything -wrong- but kind of obnoxious.)

If you end up wanting to upload it, I think most of us could agree that that would be the point at which a person should ask the artist.

BTW, to back up Lance's somewhat cryptic post, if you want to opensource your art, yes, CreativeCommons licensing is probably your go-to option. GPL etc doesn't really work for art (in a logical sense -- the ideas employed in the GPL break down somewhat when you try to transfer them to artworks). You -can- put it in the public domain, but that well.. pretty much means anyone can do -anything- at all with it.

CC provide a system/wizard that makes it very easy to pick a CC license fitting your needs; CC is also supported by DeviantArt (and InkBunny, IIRC?)

Slightly OT: For game art, opengameart.org exists and I guess might be interesting for, say, a pixel artist that would enjoy seeing their work used in a game.

More general complaining: meh, we really need a better structured exchange format: PSD is kind of half-assed in terms of openness of spec, XCF is really only used by GIMP.. SVG is decent for vectors, and ORA is gaining a bit of traction as a general layered-raster-graphics exchange format, but is still little-known.

I just seriously have no idea why artists get pissy about that in a whole. I do understand that if someone edits your stuff without sourcing the artist or claiming the art to be his, then yeah I would get much more annoyed, but having someone simply doing some changes here and there shouldn't make you mad the slightest. One of the only reasons I feel that the reason why people get mad about it is because of the lack of overall control over what they do. They shouldn't even care that someone decided to just edit some picture because why the hell not. they're not vandalizing the original picture you submitted, so where's the problem ?

I do at times edit some picture I really like but wish a detail or two would be different with the purpose of uploading it here. Okay for a while now it mostly has been uncensoring, but I still sometimes color some sketches. I never once asked for permission because I simply feel like there's no reason to and no reason to be mad about it. They should actually feel flattered that someone actually took his time to continue a piece they actually like.

Talking about this whole open source drawings subject, this thread made me motivated to do the same (I actually wanted to do this for a long time but I didn't have any good place to dump everything, unless the place would be filled with ads or have some fees) so if anyone is curious a little, they can do whatever they want with my stuff HERE

Neitsuke said:
I just seriously have no idea why artists get pissy about that in a whole. I do understand that if someone edits your stuff without sourcing the artist or claiming the art to be his, then yeah I would get much more annoyed, but having someone simply doing some changes here and there shouldn't make you mad the slightest. One of the only reasons I feel that the reason why people get mad about it is because of the lack of overall control over what they do. They shouldn't even care that someone decided to just edit some picture because why the hell not. they're not vandalizing the original picture you submitted, so where's the problem ?

It's personal.
That's all.
"My project, my art, my property. I didn't consent to your involvement in this. "

(well, that and the fact that there are actually infinite reasons to get mad about anything at all.)

You don't have to agree with this kind of attitude, but it is a social reality in our admittedly competitive world. Even if you perfectly carry through the intent I had for the picture, I would probably still feel some sense of offense. The fact that I acknowledge the feeling of offense as fairly irrational (and hence are willing to use things like CC licenses) doesn't prevent it from happening.

Neitsuke said:
I just seriously have no idea why artists get pissy about that in a whole.

Art is a form of personal expression, especially if it's art of someone's fursona. You wouldn't want some stranger to edit your family photos, would you?

And in some cases, editing without permission can seem like criticism, especially in certain cultures (such as Japanese). It pretty much amounts to "your art is bad, here's how you should've drawn it". If you like the art, why would you change it?

Then there's bad quality edits, which -- if made public and not properly marked as an edit -- can make the artist seem bad and hurt their chances of getting commissions.

There's plenty of other reasons, but those are probably the major ones.

Family photos don't get uploaded to public booru sites with the intent to delight strangers viewing them... If the intention is something else, like promoting oneself, then it's worthless and is not to be listened to. An image by someone with selfish intentions is not worth viewing let alone editing. And I see editing ""art"" (again with that word, surely not helping everyone's overinflated egos) as a major honor. Spending time on someone else's picture, thinking it's good with potential for more. I wouldn't waste my time editing a bad picture.

When it comes to consent, as soon as you upload something to the Internet it basically becomes public property. Get realistic. The rules of the world won't just magically bend because some diva thinks he should have his cake and eat it too. You're responsible for all consequences of your actions -- even the unintended and unforeseen ones.

If there are bad edits, well, too bad, that's something you have to be ready for as well. Still, it's someone expressing their like for a picture and should be respected, from the "artist"'s perspective. And commissions? Surprise, again with the greed for money ruining good things... Someone with values like that is not worth anyone's attention and surely not worth editing.

And about stealing... It seems like unfounded paranoia to me. Everyone knows the legions of Original the Hedgehogs with enthusiastic "do not steal" labels on them, but how often does that really happen? You don't even need to apply signatures/watermarks to pictures. In this day and age it should be easy to disprove an illegitimate claim of a picture's ownership.

There are reasons, none of them being good. It's just entitled people, oh I'm sorry, "artists" thinking they have more rights than they really do. The foremost reason for uploading anything at all is for other people's enjoyment. Disallowing editing serves absolutely no one else, it's strictly a selfish thing to do and allows the egotism and "me, me, me" attitude of the "fandom" to fester. Sorry everyone but I see no other way around it.

ole said:
When it comes to consent, as soon as you upload something to the Internet it basically becomes public property.

Nope, copyright law still applies to stuff uploaded to the internet.

ole said:
If there are bad edits, well, too bad, that's something you have to be ready for as well. Still, it's someone expressing their like for a picture and should be respected, from the "artist"'s perspective.

the problem isn't when there are bad edits, its when bad edits are credited only to the original artist. when I first started doing freelance work one of my Illustrations got butchered and posted as a joke. I found it funny at the time and did not mind. The problem was later on when that image was posted by someone else elsewhere and got popular but was only credited to me.
If you googled my name when this happened you got my Facebook page first then two pages with that illustration and then my gallery which means that a client would see the very unprofessional image before my own page.

ole said:
And commissions? Surprise, again with the greed for money ruining good things... Someone with values like that is not worth anyone's attention and surely not worth editing.

It is not about the "greed" of the artist. Art is a trade you have to work for years to get skilled at and most need an education of some sort and at the very least some tools and that costs. Making the art takes time as well and if someone dedicates their life to this trade and you want to consume it then they should get paid.
You don't expect expect your car to be painted for free, how is art any different.

ole said:
And about stealing... It seems like unfounded paranoia to me. Everyone knows the legions of Original the Hedgehogs with enthusiastic "do not steal" labels on them, but how often does that really happen? You don't even need to apply signatures/watermarks to pictures. In this day and age it should be easy to disprove an illegitimate claim of a picture's ownership.

This happens a lot more than you'd think. in fact there are entire businesses built around going to student art shows and stealing their art concepts to use in ad campaigns and cheap product designs. And proving it is often harder then you would think with forged timestamped sketches.

ole said:
There are reasons, none of them being good. It's just entitled people, oh I'm sorry, "artists" thinking they have more rights than they really do.

Most independent artist actually think they have a lot fewer rights then they have. copyright law, and other laws protecting freelancers are abundant but can be hard to know about if you have not had to make use of them.

(That being said i like the CC license and use it a lot)

ole said:

I .. don't really see why you feel the need to argue for edits so much. Most of them are of minor value: decensors (or censors, in the case of 'that's not my fetish'), or regenders. If you go to, say, Pixelation, you can see valuable edits, that really provide a lot of information to an artist about errors they are making, in a way that helps them to fix it. Things like de/censors and regenders, are more or less "this wasn't quite to my preference, and now, it is." Well, okay. I don't think it's worth getting offended at such a thing. But I also don't see why people give a fuck about it being to their preference, since their preferences are as arbitrary and accidental as the artist's. If 'get the fuck over it's are to be applied here, then by all means let them be applied evenly, to all parties in equal measure.

ole said:
Family photos don't get uploaded to public booru sites with the intent to delight strangers viewing them... If the intention is something else, like promoting oneself, then it's worthless and is not to be listened to. An image by someone with selfish intentions is not worth viewing let alone editing. And I see editing ""art"" (again with that word, surely not helping everyone's overinflated egos) as a major honor. Spending time on someone else's picture, thinking it's good with potential for more. I wouldn't waste my time editing a bad picture.

I don't see why anyone feels like they even need to argue that, either. The fact that you are spending time on it and that is worth something, in no way negates people's tendency to take offense. I wouldn't disagree with an argument that, say, this tendency to take offense is caused by our general culture being too precious. Sure. But that culture is what exists to work with; people who take offense won't necessarily be particularly ego-driven or money-driven.. people adapt to the cultures they exist within. If you want to parody it or otherwise subvert that culture, sure, why not. But simply saying 'it doesn't matter' won't change anything. You have to actually get people to think 'it doesn't matter'. That takes more than simple defiance, it takes intelligence, planning, and cunning.

Genjar said:
You wouldn't want some stranger to edit your family photos, would you?

Photos are about real people and events while pictures are product of imagination, that's completely two different themes here

Genjar said:
And in some cases, editing without permission can seem like criticism, especially in certain cultures (such as Japanese). It pretty much amounts to "your art is bad, here's how you should've drawn it". If you like the art, why would you change it?

That's actually very weird to hear that they would think that people edit their pictures because they think the picture sucks so they want to make it look better. I can guarantee you that 99% of the edits people are doing, at least legitimate ones and minus the very crappy ones you sometimes manage to see before they get deleted, are simply about changing a detail or two and not to "enhance" the overall quality of the picture. Everyone is different and has subtle personal preferences. Artists shouldn't be pissy about this the slightest, unless, again, the dude never sourced the original artist/picture and /or the edit is very, very stupid or of poor quality

Neitsuke said:
Talking about this whole open source drawings subject, this thread made me motivated to do the same (I actually wanted to do this for a long time but I didn't have any good place to dump everything, unless the place would be filled with ads or have some fees) so if anyone is curious a little, they can do whatever they want with my stuff HERE

Yay cool! I've edited the first post and added this link too.

Neitsuke said:
I can guarantee you that 99% of the edits people are doing, at least legitimate ones and minus the very crappy ones you sometimes manage to see before they get deleted, are simply about changing a detail or two and not to "enhance" the overall quality of the picture. Everyone is different and has subtle personal preferences. Artists shouldn't be pissy about this the slightest, unless, again, the dude never sourced the original artist/picture and /or the edit is very, very stupid or of poor quality

Again, while I can agree with your assessment of why edits are done, I hesitate to agree with any such moral pronouncement 'Artists shouldn't be pissy about this.'.
Yeah, people get pissed off for dumb and even entirely illusory reasons. But claiming the moral high ground will always make me suspicious.

(moreso after ole's ironic post, admittedly)

They should at least not get mad about "legitimate" ones. I understand about those where they get no credits or it's just completely dumb, but overall they shouldn't bother too much about it.

Also, if the original poster would have the courtesy to edit his first post, I "moved" to Google Drive because one friend of mine said the website was full of ads, loading times and on top of that there's a bandwidth, so here's the new and definitively link https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-7MSKQdAnMnfjJRNlY2TDlGTExuZkRLVGJPNG5LM0ZsZlBGcG1ob2hldTAzejNMUy02cDA

Nothing ironic here, I call 'em how I see 'em.
Why would a "freelance artist" be involved with furry porn? If professionalism is such a concern then why not look for a legit art-related job, and not do dirty odd jobs, taking advantage of hormone-riddled teenagers with more money than sense. I really have no sympathy for people "monetizing" things that don't need it. The burden is on the person responsible for the published material, you can't just make up demands and expect people to obey. As it stands, everything is freely available and redistributable, and nobody can change that just by demanding they should be an exception and I see no reason to respect their wishes.

And for the record I really don't care what copyright law says, I care about what really benefits people in the long run and pissy "artists" poisoning the community with their diva attitudes has been a persistent problem and it's just getting worse.

Defiance is who I am, but it does take other means to convince and make people understand why. If you get too excited about arguing it just turns into insulting the opposition instead of trying to make them see the points of your view. It's just that things like free editing and redistribution (which are expressions of liking and not disliking as some think) are such glaringly obvious things to me that I get flabbergasted at people making their own claims of what should be allowed, with nothing but their own interests at mind, and moreso at people agreeing. I wonder why programmers won't suddenly get so defensive of their work, and close source on everything, when it's something that probably requires more of a time investment and training than drawing does. For the record I couldn't code my way out of a paper bag.

Oh and you're collecting lists in the OP now? Well like I said I could try to help by pooling in my own things too, if you'll allow it, but my files push over 100mb often so uploading them all right now isn't easily done. Maybe later but from one thing to another, in the past I've been thinking of forming a group whose members consent to the free (non-commercial) use of their images, etc.. Maybe something like that could be done sometime, to help people recognize those embracing the open source philosophy. Not to imply that non-members are all stupid divas. Just an idea, like I've said I definitely think the idea of "formally" open-sourcing pics is good and it might help everyone to have a more proper grouping of people who are open about things like modification and redistribution.

ole said:
Why would a "freelance artist" be involved with furry porn? If professionalism is such a concern then why not look for a legit art-related job

Simple explanation really. The furry fandom is a fandom and even professionals can be fans and take part in the fandom in their free time.

ole said:
I wonder why programmers won't suddenly get so defensive of their work, and close source on everything, when it's something that probably requires more of a time investment and training than drawing does.

A lot of programmers do though, just as a lot of artist release stuff under a CC licence.

Neitsuke said:
I just seriously have no idea why artists get pissy about that in a whole. I do understand that if someone edits your stuff without sourcing the artist or claiming the art to be his, then yeah I would get much more annoyed, but having someone simply doing some changes here and there shouldn't make you mad the slightest. One of the only reasons I feel that the reason why people get mad about it is because of the lack of overall control over what they do. They shouldn't even care that someone decided to just edit some picture because why the hell not. they're not vandalizing the original picture you submitted, so where's the problem ?

I do at times edit some picture I really like but wish a detail or two would be different with the purpose of uploading it here. Okay for a while now it mostly has been uncensoring, but I still sometimes color some sketches. I never once asked for permission because I simply feel like there's no reason to and no reason to be mad about it. They should actually feel flattered that someone actually took his time to continue a piece they actually like.

okay the thing you are not understanding is that for most of artists, art is very personal.

i always basically pour my soul into every single drawing that is not made for someone else and very often i use my art to process my own personal issues and thoughts so i would find it extremely insulting if someone just went and edited them without even asking for permission.
so yeah, everything except few drawings on this website tagged as mutisija is more or less personal art.

seriously the drawing editors are fucking with might have really deep and personal meaning for the artist and the editor might even completely ruin the meaning with the changes.

ole said:
Nothing ironic here, I call 'em how I see 'em.

On the contrary, you spent most of your post expressing an attitude of entitlement to make and view edits, and then promptly concluded your post by indicting as 'entitled' those who object to edits of material they created.

There are plenty of entitled people in the community. What you seem to be missing is that you are quite clearly one of them.

I wonder why programmers won't suddenly get so defensive of their work, and close source on everything, when it's something that probably requires more of a time investment and training than drawing does.

They do get defensive, actually, There is this thing which is pretty common in corporate programming, where a programmer will intentionally obfuscate code that they write, in order to be indispensible as the only person who understands it.

(it's also worth thinking about how much code is actually opensource, proportionately. It's still not a majority, that is for sure. Though it is slowly gaining ground.)

Comparing art to programming is a little problematic though, since programming is pretty literal encoding of pragmatic knowledge (= procedures to achieve specific results) and stylistic/aesthetic concerns aren't that important. Comparing programming to science is probably a lot closer to the mark.

(Though personally I consider programming and artistry to be somewhat similar, it's not a great similarity -- and most people seem to consider them much less similar, for example they don't seem willing to consider the idea that drawing-wise, a person is a drawing algorithm. People don't like the idea that people are algorithms, in general, I guess.)

(speaking as someone who can both code and draw their way out of a paper bag.)

As it stands, everything is freely available and redistributable

I'll note that this sentence does not include 'and editable'. Perhaps people 'should' have the presumption that their stuff will be edited if they put it on the Internet. But if so, no one has yet made a compelling case that we should change culture in that way, because the value thus obtained outweighs the social cost. All they have said is 'this makes no sense to me so it should change'.

I'd suggest that once you can explain why it actually does make sense, you would have a chance of changing it.

Mutisija said:
okay the thing you are not understanding is that for most of artists, art is very personal.

I do understand that yeah, some people are more sensitive about that than others, some are completely fine with the issue and some find that disgusting. What I am trying to say is, that an edit is not going to ruin your life or reputation, and it's not vandalizing your original picture unless that dude really wants to, but even if some moron just decided to draw dicks everywhere on the picture, you shouldn't get all emotive and behave like they just tore apart your original art, that's the message I want to give here. Now, again, if the dude pretends to be the original artist, doesn't credit anyone or uploads it on "his" personal gallery (Which is a completely different issue close to art theft) Then yeah, I can understand why the artist would get a minimum mad about it.

I myself pour my energy and my soul into what I draw, which most of these drawings are about kinks I have and such, which I don't know if I can call these personal or not (But even that I don't even know what personal can mean here beside drawing something that happened to you or, thoughts ? Pretty sure any drawing begins with a thought) and even if my drawings are not so great overall, I have absolutely no reason to get mad if someone decides to edit it however he does.

Again, I'm not saying you should not pretend like it didn't happen or "deal with it", but just don't make a big story about that. There are some "extreme" cases like, I don't know, someone making 90 edits of a picture or doing these all the time and have a Tumblr shrine dedicated to edits or something like that, I really don't get how artists would get pissy about that. I would find tracing much worse instead, or if one dude would "sign" on the picture "EDITED BY LOLNAMEHERE I'M AWESOME"

Bottom line : I can understand to some extend why people would be against it and be bothered with edits, I'm just "asking" them not to get so pissy when that occurs because no real harm has been done, unless like I said 9001 times no credits/art theft blablabla etc.

I do understand that yeah, some people are more sensitive about that than others, some are completely fine with the issue and some find that disgusting. What I am trying to say is, that an edit is not going to ruin your life or reputation, and it's not vandalizing your original picture unless that dude really wants to, but even if some moron just decided to draw dicks everywhere on the picture, you shouldn't get all emotive and behave like they just tore apart your original art, that's the message I want to give here. Now, again, if the dude pretends to be the original artist, doesn't credit anyone or uploads it on "his" personal gallery (Which is a completely different issue close to art theft) Then yeah, I can understand why the artist would get a minimum mad about it.

IMO this is a much more productive message than 'don't get so pissy, okay'? Showing that you understand where a person is coming from, and asking 'but is it really as important as it feels?' is a lot more constructive than the cliff-notes version (which I can understand you might come out with due to ongoing frustration)

Hope I'm not coming off overbearing here, I just wanted to emphasize that I really believe this is a much more effective approach than flatly suggesting that people need to get over themselves already.

Neitsuke said:
I do understand that yeah, some people are more sensitive about that than others, some are completely fine with the issue and some find that disgusting. What I am trying to say is, that an edit is not going to ruin your life or reputation, and it's not vandalizing your original picture unless that dude really wants to, but even if some moron just decided to draw dicks everywhere on the picture, you shouldn't get all emotive and behave like they just tore apart your original art, that's the message I want to give here.

you are still clearly not understanding how personal my art is for me and how deep and serious issues i am processing with it and how serious impact edits can have on me.
for example just as little edits like someone adding tits or penis for any of my cuntboy character would cause me panic attacks and severe gender dysphoria for weeks.

Mutisija said:
you are still clearly not understanding how personal my art is for me and how deep and serious issues i am processing with it and how serious impact edits can have on me.
for example just as little edits like someone adding tits or penis for any of my cuntboy character would cause me panic attacks and severe gender dysphoria for weeks.

Well, yeah. Something like that happened to me too. Someone did an edit that I found extremely repulsive, and I couldn't bring myself into drawing that character anymore. And then I simply lost interest in drawing altogether.

savageorange said:

How absurd, the fact is that "artists" are servants and need to be treated like so, otherwise they get get arrogant, and most people, spineless as they are, don't reject self-serving and arrogant behavior but simply accept and bow down, because they can't bear the thought of losing their precious porn. Accepting bad people and selfish behavior serves nobody, except very short-term interests which will eventually poison the community as a whole. As we have all seen, divas being divas has become so acceptable because people have not rejected it, to the point where demanding people to be decent and not irrationally selfish is seen as entitled. Artists are the ones entitled, doing anything and uploading publicly is a volunteer job, if you can't take its rigors you can just stop. What you can't do is make demands that everyone must treat you like a princess. The point is to make others happy.

And you can't get personally offended at every little thing. The world is a place of conflict. Rather than trying to weaken the expression of others to bring them down to your level and therefore weaken yourself as well, you must toughen yourself up. I attempt to put everything into every image and make them as good as possible in all aspects and the only time I don't work daily on an image is when a new Pokémon comes out. I have a deathly fear of judgement and I always get lightheaded and stall for time when checking the reception of a new pic. I'm really not good with words or people so making images is my purest form of expression for all the feelings I want to convey. Yet the reception is often not what I had hoped, but I shall not falter because I'm not allowed to. If someone tries to insult something that you really, really want to do, the correct answer is defiance. If you're being opposed by the wrong reasons, it must only increase your will to succeed. When the going gets tough, you must get tougher, that's what it means to be human. Giving up means admitting that the wrongful resistance has power over you; this is something you must never do.

This is our job, to try our hardest against all odds, all for the enjoyment of others. If you can't do that, it's the best for everyone to bow out for the moment rather than to weaken others and yourself. There's literally nothing wrong with not creating anything. The world is a tough place, and to make known the ideas you think are right and pure, you must be tougher yourself and face all challenges with passion and unyielding faith. All you have to do is forbid yourself from being weak, and the rest will follow.

ole said:
I wonder why programmers won't suddenly get so defensive of their work, and close source on everything, when it's something that probably requires more of a time investment and training than drawing does. For the record I couldn't code my way out of a paper bag.

I like people using my own code, because it proves me how skilled as programmer I am. And using these permissive licenses help other coders do that.

For programs and libraries I use the MIT license, which basically lets you do whatever you want to, be using it, renaming, modifying or even selling it; except blaming me if you manage somehow to set on fire your computer. It's basically nothing but a disclaimer.

And for code snippets or tests I use the WTFPL, which is a contraction of its real name: "Do What The Fuck You Want to Public License". Its only term and condition is that you must "do what the fuck you want to".

Mutisija said:
just as little edits like someone adding tits or penis for any of my cuntboy character would cause me panic attacks and severe gender dysphoria for weeks

Genjar said:
Someone did an edit that I found extremely repulsive, and I couldn't bring myself into drawing that character anymore. And then I simply lost interest in drawing altogether.

Okay, so I distanced myself from the topic because of these two, absurd reactions. It's one thing to get mad at someone editing your pictures without notifying you first, but saying that you got physically hurt over someone adding a dick or just feel like it's the end of your artist interests and career are just, silly. Seriously, when I read those two answers, I looked at the screen for one straight minute, and just left the forum at how ridiculous it sounds. That's like, me becomming disgusted about Audino because I don't know, I saw Roy McCloud's drawing of an Audino with breasts, hemipenese and a vagina altogether and that incident would cause the end of my interests for that Pokémon and leave the Pokéfandom altogether.

Now that I said that, this is pretty much my last reply on this thread, simply because I have nothing more to add without repeating myself over and over, plus now that I know that some people, can get physically hurt over harmless edits, and that kind of scares me to talk about it without causing certain mental harm now.

I don't like my work to be edited because I put a lot of time and energy into what I make, especially things I made for myself. It's worse if the edits are jokes, because that is a means of ruining something I poured a lot into just for "haha, look, I added a dick" or something just as pointless. My work is very personal and I put great care into every minor thing. I use it to explore characters and stories that I have only recently opened up about...I don't need people plastering their humor on these works. If I wanted my work to reflect the nature of the edits, regardless of the nature, I would have made the images that way in the first place.

If you want to do that kind of thing, you may do it on your own work.

ole said:
How absurd, the fact is that "artists" are servants and need to be treated like so, otherwise they get get arrogant, and most people, spineless as they are, don't reject self-serving and arrogant behavior but simply accept and bow down, because they can't bear the thought of losing their precious porn. Accepting bad people and selfish behavior serves nobody, except very short-term interests which will eventually poison the community as a whole.
As we have all seen, divas being divas has become so acceptable because people have not rejected it, to the point where demanding people to be decent and not irrationally selfish is seen as entitled.

This is all true.

It's also true that this is in no way a license to be disrespectful or thoughtless. Every action in society exists in a context.

Artists are the ones entitled, doing anything and uploading publicly is a volunteer job,

The amount of hypocrisy present in this single sentence is hilarious.
If you are demanding ANYTHING from a volunteer, you are entitled. By definition!. It's right there in the word volunteer. They don't have to do ANYTHING.

if you can't take its rigors you can just stop. What you can't do is make demands that everyone must treat you like a princess. The point is to make others happy.

No, that is not the point of art, it's just one thing you can do with art.

And you can't get personally offended at every little thing.

This is also true. And the rest of your post demonstrates, that any true idea, taken too far, can become unhinged from reality.

The world is a place of conflict. Rather than trying to weaken the expression of others to bring them down to your level and therefore weaken yourself as well, you must toughen yourself up. I attempt to put everything into every image and make them as good as possible in all aspects and the only time I don't work daily on an image is when a new Pokémon comes out. I have a deathly fear of judgement and I always get lightheaded and stall for time when checking the reception of a new pic. I'm really not good with words or people so making images is my purest form of expression for all the feelings I want to convey. Yet the reception is often not what I had hoped, but I shall not falter because I'm not allowed to. If someone tries to insult something that you really, really want to do, the correct answer is defiance.

Only if that is actually a good thing to do. You can really, really want to kill someone, for example. The correct answer is to consider the consequences and how they balance out, and decide whether doing this thing is appropriate or not.

Otherwise, you're just advocating acting like a sociopath.

If you're being opposed by the wrong reasons, it must only increase your will to succeed. When the going gets tough, you must get tougher, that's what it means to be human. Giving up means admitting that the wrongful resistance has power over you; this is something you must never do.

Giving up is sometimes a good thing, you know. Like, when you're wrong, it's much saner and better for all concerned to admit it, to give up your wrong idea, even if you're being opposed for the wrong reasons. A wrong idea is wrong and remains wrong whether your opposition are complete trolls or saints. Your opponent being an idiot does not, in fact, mean that you yourself are not also being an idiot.

This is our job, to try our hardest against all odds, all for the enjoyment of others.

You also exist and should be considered. Others happiness is a part of art, but not the only part. Most commercial artists, for example, are motivated at least in part by money. Even those who aren't really commercial -- only occasionally take commissions or work on projects -- are motivated to some degree by money. There are also mental health considerations -- for example, even if you have a lot of fans that like gory art, drawing a lot of stuff involving gore, death, and dismemberment is liable to fuck you up .. even if you happened to already be into gory stuff.

So yes, the artist is an actual person with needs that do deserve consideration, not an art-producing automaton.

If you can't do that, it's the best for everyone to bow out for the moment rather than to weaken others and yourself. There's literally nothing wrong with not creating anything. The world is a tough place, and to make known the ideas you think are right and pure, you must be tougher yourself and face all challenges with passion and unyielding faith.

Yeah, you're just sounding like a self-punishing zealot now.
Being strong all the time is better known as being rigid and incapable of learning.

I reiterate my earlier point: it is no less entitled to state that anyone may make edits, than to state that no-one may make edits. Whining is often a sign that you are thinking badly, but it doesn't mean that your opponent (in this case, a person who has done an edit) is therefore thinking correctly. Real life is complex and there is no substitute for intelligence.

The fact that Mutisja and Genjar's responses seem completely out of wack with reality, for example, doesn't mean that there is no merit in regulating edits to some degree. It just makes their responses out of wack with reality.

I'm not going to bother quoting and picking sentence by sentence because I'm better than that.
Wrong, it is the volunteers that are beholden to requirements, and not the ones they're supposedly helping. If you decide to help in something by volunteering, there are standards to be met. There are rules. There is such a thing as doing more harm than good when attempting to help which is exactly what we're seeing here. Just because something is free doesn't mean it's above criticism. If you think "artists" are above standards of decent behavior and respect of the rights of the end-user, then frankly I see your view as hilarious and misguided.

Motivations for art range from political to personal. All of it has those for some degree, but for the purposes of publicly sharing on the internet, the intention is for the enjoyment of others. If you don't think you can do that, then don't upload anything on public avenues where everything is expected to be shared. You can't just expect to take all the things you want and leave the ones you don't. If you upload something in public, then it'll be seen by many people, and shared and altered freely. It's all part of the same integrated package and trying to restrict the things about it that you don't want is pure arrogance. Even so, sharing and editing is NEVER a sign of dislike. If you don't accept something, you must attempt to negate its influence in your and everyone's world. Sharing and editing something is a mark of support. Like and support of something manifests in different ways. If there's some picture that people seem to notice for different reasons than intended, like pointing out unintended humor, that is support as well. They pay attention to something you made, and it should be honored. If someone really doesn't like an image, they would not acknowledge its existence: not viewing, not sharing, not editing, blacklisting the author. Paying attention in any way is showing support and acceptance.

Again with the killing, it's obvious to everyone that "do what you want" has the necessary morality clause, and that's what this is all about. The "rights" of "artists" don't supersede expected standards of behavior which is frankly something everyone has forgotten. End-users demand, artists provide out of altruism. The only thing to determine is whether the thing you really want affects people negatively. If there's some character you want to draw then you should do it no matter how hard it is or what anyone says. Assuming of course that there is no ulterior support of something that shouldn't be empowered. And I really don't see why selfish motivations should be respected. Just because what is provided and what is wanted match up superficially doesn't make it right. By viewing something, you're accepting the author's motivations.
If money is a motivation, then take it to somewhere it belongs -- if you have the guts. Exploiting the improvements in the technology of paying via the internet, and the decreased intelligence of those willing to pay is not something to be respected. If you choose to play and send images to the public, the rights of the end-users are paramount and your own feelings are secondary at best. You don't need to be so intense about it, but you have to understand that trying to have everyone beholden to rules and exceptions for you will only serve to harm everyone. Respecting the made-up rules concerning a single person will ONLY help that person, and harm everyone else. I really don't see any reason to respect that. The manifestation of emotion and personal feelings should be drained and minimized because they will only do harm, if they think they have something to say then it should be expressed by deeds (illustration, etc.) and not words. Outwardly, you should be an automaton, yes, a graceful form not showing the weakness of expressing your personal feelings from a position of too much power and influence.

Being strong means not giving up and doing all in your power to change the outcome. Willingness to learn is a mark of perseverance, not apathy. The ones not wanting to learn are the ones who've given up.
Disallowing edits no worse than allowing edits... How absurd. By accepting irrational restrictions you're only opening the way for more abuse. We have to say 'no' because upon acceptance, people in a position of power (publisher, artist, etc.) will only tighten their stranglehold to see how far they can go. And we've seen how far it's gone this far, the artist worship is out of control. Maybe I'm being too adamant about this, but really I see no reason not to give maximum rights to the end-user. And since I've expressed my stance, I have to go the distance, unfettered by the expectations of reticence in a community where everyone is afraid on stepping on anyone's toes. But I do grow tired of arguing about this with you since I see no reasons presented besides "my feelings". Maybe you should follow your own advice and give up since you seem to think I'm an idiot, and discussion is pointless if you don't view the opposing party as being on equal footing. I certainly don't...

ole said:
I'm not going to bother quoting and picking sentence by sentence because I'm better than that.

You should reconsider your position on this. It actually helps a lot with readability by breaking up a long discussion into context-specific chunks. It also helps to prevent (your own) replies from turning into a text wall of semi-related rambling*

*I'm not saying that this is what you did just now, this is just a general suggestion based on my own personal experience.

ole said:
How absurd, the fact is that "artists" are servants and need to be treated like so[...]

Being a 'servant' implies existing contracts and one party being paid for offered services.
You don't pay money, you don't have a servant.

Your entire argumentation boils down to one statement:
You want the 'end-user' to have all rights, and you don't want the artist to have any rights.

Artists are people, end-users are people, shouldn't the goal of anything be to treat everybody fairly instead of basically giving one group of people slave status?

Also, if you want to "improve" someone's image, why not create your own from the ground up with the traits you'd like to see in the other's image, instead taking the easy way out and just slapping on some edits?
Clearly if you care enough about something you can also go the extra mile and do the entire work yourself, and not piggyback on someone's work.

parasprite said:
You should reconsider your position on this. It actually helps a lot with readability by breaking up a long discussion into context-specific chunks. It also helps to prevent (your own) replies from turning into a text wall of semi-related rambling*

[/spoiler](even if it is a pain on mobile :V)[/spoiler]

*I'm not saying that this is what you did just now, this is just a general suggestion based on my own personal experience.

Maybe, browsing many different forums in the past, I've just come to associate it with internet warriors/trolls picking sentences apart instead of looking at the whole picture, and so refuse to do it myself even when there's good reason. And I do talk too much and about unrelated things which is why I try to abstain from it. Sorry.

NotMeNotYou said:

Using the word figuratively, but I do get too dramatic in my choice of words, but it's partially just refusing to be timid anymore. Still, I don't think the choice of wording is unmerited. Servitude, that is two classes of people coexisting, I think it's possible. It's just that I think that people should defend the inherent freedoms the internet gives us, so the artists of selfish intention get quashed down. From there, the only way to succeed is to respect the people that matter the most, that is the viewers or end-users. What we have right now is "artists" being as assholish as they want, to fans and others, and people put up with it. The only way out of this that I can see is suppressing the "artists" and enforcing and emphasizing the rights of the users until only the artists with truly good intentions are left. Within my ambit I've enforced this view on artists and myself, so maybe others will see it as harsh, but at least I try to practice what I preach. I'm sorry if it seems over the top but I really don't see any other way of getting people to behave.

Everyone being treated equally would be ideal, but I don't think it's possible here. People will naturally flock to artists, etc. and elevate them above others. Creator worship. Naturally this will cause them to get a big head, and they'll attempt to exploit their increased sphere of influence. People without the inherent morality to abstain from this have to be taught the standards of behavior the only way they know: results. Respect viewers = become popular. Disrespect viewers = become disliked and get no attention. Basic conditioning. Or maybe with rights you were referring to the right to declare modifications as contraband. This is something I really can't accept, since the means are always there, and trying to control the free exchange of information possible with the internet just seems absurd to me. People will still do it if they want to, it's just making it more difficult for them, the people who love a picture so much they spend their time to add to it and spread it around.

I do agree with the notion that it'd be better to make a whole new image. I would never release an edit, but I see no reason to deny the people who are brave enough to do it. Although, I think that people are too proud to spend time to make an image that is clearly derived from an existing one. At least I want to make an effort to make reference only to the source material and not something that another community member is responsible for. I bet there'd be people complaining about an image being clearly based off an existing one, even though it's basically advertising and at least I would see it as a great honor. But like I'm saying. Complaints that amount to irrational self-importance should be brushed off.

The hilarity continues in that you think that what I'm saying is something of my invention and not the common rights and responsibilities of all that everyone has forgotten about.. that's the way I see it. If the ideology which I gun for has never been, then I will make it so that it will happen. If not by words then deeds.

ole said:
I'm not going to bother quoting and picking sentence by sentence because I'm better than that.

Yeah, the fact that you think this makes you better rather than more dishonest.. doesn't reflect well on you.

There is a reason this format is used in debates. Addressing specific points specifically prevents speakers from obfuscating issues too much with unrelated or tangential discussion.

Wrong, it is the volunteers that are beholden to requirements, and not the ones they're supposedly helping. If you decide to help in something by volunteering, there are standards to be met. There are rules. There is such a thing as doing more harm than good when attempting to help which is exactly what we're seeing here.

There is. And you are doing it right now. In pursuit of supposed help you are advocating pointless brutality.

Volunteers are volunteers. If they don't want to perform up to standards, sure, they can leave. BUT THE STANDARDS ARE DEFINED BY THE COMMUNITY, not by you. You're just, like, some guy. There is basically zero reason to give your opinions special status here.

Just because something is free doesn't mean it's above criticism.

As a proponent of open-source .. everything.. this is very true.

If you think "artists" are above standards of decent behavior and respect of the rights of the end-user, then frankly I see your view as hilarious and misguided.

I have no such view. Respect of persons is completely different from submitting entirely to them. It is you, here, that is saying that artists do not deserve to be treated with ordinary respect and decency.

Also: 'the end user', much like everyone else, 'has' no rights. Rights are only relevant when talking about government and law enforcement, they are a complete red herring otherwise.

Motivations for art range from political to personal. All of it has those for some degree, but for the purposes of publicly sharing on the internet, the intention is for the enjoyment of others.

Wrong. That's why they put it on the internet : so somebody might enjoy it.
But that does not then mean that they are obligated to cater slavishly to those others enjoyment.

That is, frankly, ridiculous and inhumane. People have other things going on in their lives than art; Publishing art should not require much more than well.. the actual act of publishing.
Anyone who has seriously investigated the free culture or code movement knows that this is the kind of attitude they have. Everything is a bonus. Not your attitude of wretched entitlement.

If you don't think you can do that, then don't upload anything on public avenues where everything is expected to be shared. You can't just expect to take all the things you want and leave the ones you don't. If you upload something in public, then it'll be seen by many people, and shared and altered freely.

As I stated before, I do not agree that 'altered freely' is part of cultural expectations on the internet. 99% of the material published on the internet is either the original article, or a fanwork referencing the original article (rather than an edit).

If you want to alter cultural expectations so that being altered freely IS what is expected... Feel free. But you will have to ACTUALLY do so, not just arrogantly pretend that the way you want things to be is the way they already are.

It's all part of the same integrated package and trying to restrict the things about it that you don't want is pure arrogance. Even so, sharing and editing is NEVER a sign of dislike. If you don't accept something, you must attempt to negate its influence in your and everyone's world. Sharing and editing something is a mark of support. Like and support of something manifests in different ways. If there's some picture that people seem to notice for different reasons than intended, like pointing out unintended humor, that is support as well. They pay attention to something you made, and it should be honored. If someone really doesn't like an image, they would not acknowledge its existence: not viewing, not sharing, not editing, blacklisting the author. Paying attention in any way is showing support and acceptance.
[/quote]
See, I agree with this. I think I said so before. Almost all forms of attention are some kind of support.
Its just the part where you conclude from this that the artist should enslave themselves to popularity, that strikes me as completely off the planet. If they don't want edits, perhaps that is unrealistic; but if you know they don't want edits, it is nonetheless unquestionably disrespectful of them to go ahead and make edits. Whatever moral justification you may make to yourself, that is the very basics of how respect works.

Again with the killing, it's obvious to everyone that "do what you want" has the necessary morality clause, and that's what this is all about.
[/quote]
It's not obvious, clearly, or you would not.. even think.. of making this argument. I'm serious. What you are proposing is, to me, obviously immoral.

That's why I brought up killing. People DON'T have some constant, innate sense of morality. It comes and goes. Especially, they tend to ignore immoralities that facilitate something they like -- which is what I believe you are doing here.

If there's some character you want to draw then you should do it no matter how hard it is or what anyone says.
Assuming of course that there is no ulterior support of something that shouldn't be empowered.

Like I said, that's not morality. Desire is not the arbiter of whether anything is a good idea. Even if there is nothing bad about what you want to draw, there still can be other things in your life that it's much more important to handle than drawing stuff.

And I really don't see why selfish motivations should be respected. Just because what is provided and what is wanted match up superficially doesn't make it right. By viewing something, you're accepting the author's motivations.
If money is a motivation, then take it to somewhere it belongs -- if you have the guts. Exploiting the improvements in the technology of paying via the internet, and the decreased intelligence of those willing to pay is not something to be respected. If you choose to play and send images to the public, the rights of the end-users are paramount and your own feelings are secondary at best. You don't need to be so intense about it, but you have to understand that trying to have everyone beholden to rules and exceptions for you will only serve to harm everyone.
[/quote]
No, people want rules because it lets them know what to expect. Bad rules are harmful, of course, but good rules are beneficial to everyone involved, overall.

The manifestation of emotion and personal feelings should be drained and minimized because they will only do harm, if they think they have something to say then it should be expressed by deeds (illustration, etc.) and not words.

Outwardly, you should be an automaton, yes, a graceful form not showing the weakness of expressing your personal feelings from a position of too much power and influence.

Omni-ROFL.
Giga-LMAO.
Triple Tech! ROFLOFLOFLOFLOFLOLMAO.

Being strong means not giving up and doing all in your power to change the outcome. Willingness to learn is a mark of perseverance, not apathy. The ones not wanting to learn are the ones who've given up.
Disallowing edits no worse than allowing edits... How absurd. By accepting irrational restrictions you're only opening the way for more abuse.
[/quote]
But it is you saying that they are absurd. This is not obvious, and like I said, you're just some guy.

We have to say 'no' because upon acceptance, people in a position of power (publisher, artist, etc.) will only tighten their stranglehold to see how far they can go. And we've seen how far it's gone this far, the artist worship is out of control. Maybe I'm being too adamant about this, but really I see no reason not to give maximum rights to the end-user. And since I've expressed my stance, I have to go the distance, unfettered by the expectations of reticence in a community where everyone is afraid on stepping on anyone's toes. But I do grow tired of arguing about this with you since I see no reasons presented besides "my feelings".

"No reasons presented besides "My feelings"".
Then you're just wilfully blind. Plenty such arguments have been presented. Most of them revolve around respecting people's wishes being a general social good (which remains true despite certain persons exploiting it). Since you reject that, well..

You're just wrong. Hilariously and immorally so. What else can I say?

savageorange said:
The fact that Mutisja and Genjar's responses seem completely out of wack with reality, for example, doesn't mean that there is no merit in regulating edits to some degree. It just makes their responses out of wack with reality.

Whoa. Hold up. How the heck is it out of wack with reality?

I'm a visual learner. My brain works like a mind map: when I focus on a topic, it also brings to mind everything that's directly related.

And once the crappy edits got mixed in there, it literally became impossible for me to focus on producing good art of that character anymore. It's kinda like having a song stuck in your head, but visual.

Omni-ROFL.
Giga-LMAO.
Triple Tech! ROFLOFLOFLOFLOFLOLMAO.

Nice argument. Since you're just reduced to flailing around at this point, it's pointless to go on since there is no honor in beating on a downed opponent. I have no time for your nonsense, so why not just vanish from my sight, and save yourself the public humiliation.
You're just wrong. Hilariously and immorally so. What else can I say?

ole said:
Using the word figuratively, but I do get too dramatic in my choice of words, but it's partially just refusing to be timid anymore. Still, I don't think the choice of wording is unmerited. Servitude, that is two classes of people coexisting, I think it's possible. It's just that I think that people should defend the inherent freedoms the internet gives us, so the artists of selfish intention get quashed down. From there, the only way to succeed is to respect the people that matter the most, that is the viewers or end-users. What we have right now is "artists" being as assholish as they want, to fans and others, and people put up with it. The only way out of this that I can see is suppressing the "artists" and enforcing and emphasizing the rights of the users until only the artists with truly good intentions are left. Within my ambit I've enforced this view on artists and myself, so maybe others will see it as harsh, but at least I try to practice what I preach. I'm sorry if it seems over the top but I really don't see any other way of getting people to behave.

Why are you so hellbent on saying that artists must be people of a second class? Why do you want them to bent their knees to others?
What you want is two types of people coexisting by making one slaves of the other. Making them do arbitrary things just for the sake of the entertainment of the other.

ole said:
Everyone being treated equally would be ideal, but I don't think it's possible here. People will naturally flock to artists, etc. and elevate them above others. Creator worship. Naturally this will cause them to get a big head, and they'll attempt to exploit their increased sphere of influence. People without the inherent morality to abstain from this have to be taught the standards of behavior the only way they know: results. Respect viewers = become popular. Disrespect viewers = become disliked and get no attention. Basic conditioning. Or maybe with rights you were referring to the right to declare modifications as contraband. This is something I really can't accept, since the means are always there, and trying to control the free exchange of information possible with the internet just seems absurd to me. People will still do it if they want to, it's just making it more difficult for them, the people who love a picture so much they spend their time to add to it and spread it around.

I'm not saying artists need to have the right to forbid edits, I'm saying everybody should have common decency to adhere to the wishes of each other as long as nobody/nothing gets hurt.
Just as an example, if someone says "Please don't touch this, it took me a shit ton of time to make this." the first instinct of the listener shouldn't be to drop down their trousers drag their balls all over it while singing The Circle of Life.
It's just common decency to not be a dick if someone asks nicely, and if whatever results doesn't hurt you.

Of course, if the thing they made is a giant statue of a middle finger aimed at your lawn I'm very much in favor of dragging your balls (and eventually a sledgehammer) all over it, but my example requires that the created thing is benign in nature, and not aimed to hurt the listener or any other party.

Also, just because the tools are there doesn't mean they must be used at all costs, moderation and situational awareness are key, and sometimes it's just better to not use something.

ole said:
I do agree with the notion that it'd be better to make a whole new image. I would never release an edit, but I see no reason to deny the people who are brave enough to do it. Although, I think that people are too proud to spend time to make an image that is clearly derived from an existing one. At least I want to make an effort to make reference only to the source material and not something that another community member is responsible for. I bet there'd be people complaining about an image being clearly based off an existing one, even though it's basically advertising and at least I would see it as a great honor. But like I'm saying. Complaints that amount to irrational self-importance should be brushed off.

The hilarity continues in that you think that what I'm saying is something of my invention and not the common rights and responsibilities of all that everyone has forgotten about.. that's the way I see it. If the ideology which I gun for has never been, then I will make it so that it will happen. If not by words then deeds.

I'm somewhat sure it's mostly your invention in the context of art and general information transfer. In real life I'd say it comes closest to marxist communism, where the creators (be it food or other articles produced) don't own their products, but they are slaves to the system.

As a bottom line, I think your view is too extreme, and extremes never go well.
I want the tools for edits and everything to be there, but I want them to be used responsibly.
I want that everybody is treated equally and with respect, instead of that one party has to submit to the whims of the other.
- Important here is that in my opinion an artist saying "no" to edits of his own creation isn't as bad as the other party trampling over their request to not make edits.

ole said:

But Savageorange is not wrong. Savageorange arguments may me a bit emotional but they are defending a right that they have by law, their copyright.

The copyright holder has exclusive rights to create derivative works, including editing the original work.
Copyright is not void when you publish your stuff for free.
In fact the easiest way to prove that you created a work and therefor hold copyright in all countries that have signed the Berne Convention is to publish it online.

Just because something is accessible by you does not make it yours.

If you don't agree with these laws, and assuming you don't live in a dictatorship you can become involved in politics and change them. Assuming people really support your arguments as much as you claim this should not be that hard.
Until then stop pretending they don't exist. At the moment you are just encouraging people to break the law rather then doing something about it.

ole said:
Nice argument. Since you're just reduced to flailing around at this point, it's pointless to go on...

I find it funny that in your last post you said you don't quote individual arguments because you associate it with picking sentences apart instead of looking at the whole picture then in your next post you do the same thing to ignore his other arguments.

@ole:
Even though I do agree with the basis of your reasoning about the pitfalls of copyright law implementation, that's becoming increasingly difficult to do as your opinions become more and more unbalanced/extreme

As an example, 99%+ of pictures tagged with you as the artist are of pokémon, an existing copyright, with breasts. And 100% of them are existing copyrights

Following your own statement above about how everything on the internet should be freely modifiable, then nobody would put anything they didn't want edited/stolen/etc on the internet, which includes Intellectual Property associated with giant corporations such as Nintendo etc; so 100% of your art is now gone and nobody gets anything.

At the same time, there do exist people out there who take things a bit too far when it comes to things like this.
They expect to have full control of their content no matter what, where, or when the circumstance. Which more readily falls into the realm of delusion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(emphasis mine)

Treating subjective observations as fact can cause misunderstandings (I do it all the time)

That said, it's obvious that Mutisja and Genjar's responses seem unrelatable, but that's the point exactly;

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@everybody:
Even with benign intentions, it's hard (if not impossible) to empathize fully or understand the thought process and reasoning of someone else in situations like these. Which is why careful considerations should be made regarding things like (public) edits for humorous/parodic purposes etc.

The point here being: It's complicated; There are no 'sides'
i.e.

Unrelated to discussion:
@Lizardite:

Neitsuke said:
[...]

Also, if the original poster would have the courtesy to edit his first post, I "moved" to Google Drive because one friend of mine said the website was full of ads, loading times and on top of that there's a bandwidth, so here's the new and definitively link https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B-7MSKQdAnMnfjJRNlY2TDlGTExuZkRLVGJPNG5LM0ZsZlBGcG1ob2hldTAzejNMUy02cDA

How irritating, I was trying to preview and Cloudflare showed its ugly mug, and poof went the lengthy post and I had to rewrite it all over again. Well my fault for not being careful and copying the text before clicking preview...

NotMeNotYou said:

Like I said, the combination of creator worship and greed is a volatile combination and I think the only way to combat is is to make people realize the inherent freedoms the internet (the chosen publication method) gives us. Despite appearances I don't advocate for abolishing every single right artists have. They can release whatever they want, do it when they want, do it as slow as they want and quit whenever they want. The only thing I ask is to take responsibility. If the quality/subject/morality of the published content (author) is found questionable, it should be subject to criticism. Foremost, fans should be greatly respected. After all, it's pointless to publish anything if nobody sees it. The thing I'm the most irritated about here is the lack of respect for the (re)distribution channels of the internet. It's a great boon, allowing tons of people worldwide to see something you decide to publish, but it has its cons too. As soon as someone accesses published material, it can be freely edited and exchanged over the internet. Taking only the things you like and acting like you don't have to deal with the inherent flaws of the distribution method is what annoys me. Like said. Everyone has direct access to the published material, but you also have to accept that they have the means to redistribute it without consent as well.

RandomArcticFox said:
...

I admit it's a maverick approach to disregard copyright law, but like I've said, as it stands I don't really know if it should be respected. If I understand it right, as of now you could make something clearly based off existing commercial characters and scenarios, and claim copyright or even sell it. Since the internet allows great freedom, crossing boundaries, I think it's more feasible for people to respect their own rules that are sensible and right. But, as we've seen in this thread, that's a vague concept at the best of times. I know that my views and especially the way I express them seem extreme, but I really do think that it's best for people to just realize and respect the way the internet works, and stop attempting to fully control it.

I find it funny that in your last post you said you don't quote individual arguments because you associate it with picking sentences apart instead of looking at the whole picture then in your next post you do the same thing to ignore his other arguments.

In my defense that post was a mess of my unquoted text mixed with his comments, and the response to a point being a mindless barrage of catchphrases and nonsense was the straw that made me not take the post seriously at all.

titanmelon said:

In case it wasn't made clear, I indeed do not claim ownership of anything I've released. The characters, scenarios and concepts are all more or less based on existing things, and even the inspiration to begin drawing at all came from Pokemon. The only thing I would like is that nothing is sold or claimed. Not because I want the credit (I don't), but because it's not good for you to claim ownership of something you don't really own. I've mentioned of this in my page, including saying that I don't decide what gets tagged with copyright or "artist" tagging, but I probably forgot to say it here. Sorry. Also, the way I call artists "they" is not supposed to be condescending; I include myself in that group I speak of when it comes to rights and responsibilities, but I can't call myself an artist, the right to do that doesn't belong to me. If there is hint of condescension, I fall under it as well. I will take responsibility for my actions and try to practice what I preach.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(snips not directly related to me, for once)

If I may add my thoughts to this... again... I do try to put in great effort into everything I publish, but I'm also aware that people will just dismiss it as non-artistic pornography. I accept and respect that. The reasons for liking something may differ, between author and viewer, or among viewers. Sometimes often, there's something I'm really nervous about, and it turns out someone just made a crude joke about some unrelated aspect of the image, and people pay attention to that instead. That's fine as well. I don't think the intention is malevolent in cases like this. It's just showing affection in different ways. If people really hated something, they'd wish it out of existence instead of paying attention to it and basically advertising it.

Also sorry for the mess, I don't know if this kind of discussion/arguing/shitflinging flies here, but my concern is for the thread as a whole. If the moderators feel the need to do something, please redirect the punishment to me instead of the OP since he's done nothing wrong.

ole said:
Like I said, the combination of creator worship and greed is a volatile combination and I think the only way to combat is is to make people realize the inherent freedoms the internet (the chosen publication method) gives us. Despite appearances I don't advocate for abolishing every single right artists have. They can release whatever they want, do it when they want, do it as slow as they want and quit whenever they want. The only thing I ask is to take responsibility. If the quality/subject/morality of the published content (author) is found questionable, it should be subject to criticism. Foremost, fans should be greatly respected. After all, it's pointless to publish anything if nobody sees it. The thing I'm the most irritated about here is the lack of respect for the (re)distribution channels of the internet. It's a great boon, allowing tons of people worldwide to see something you decide to publish, but it has its cons too. As soon as someone accesses published material, it can be freely edited and exchanged over the internet. Taking only the things you like and acting like you don't have to deal with the inherent flaws of the distribution method is what annoys me. Like said. Everyone has direct access to the published material, but you also have to accept that they have the means to redistribute it without consent as well.

I'm not against "Freedom" of the internet, I'm against reckless and disrespecting behavior all around. There are great differences between redistribution and alteration, and there are also differences between different forms of redistribution itself.
You can use links to the original source to redistribute something, you can also redistribute it by mirroring it to another server. You can do this with free as well as with paid material, but my view on the matter is that it's most respectful to only share links whenever possible.
There are cases where mirroring stuff is better (bandwidth concerns mainly), but otherwise I'd respect the original source by only linking to them.
Comes with the drawback that it might get deleted, comes with the advantage that it may have been updated in the meantime.

It's a very, very delicate balance to give everybody the most possible, but I'd rather try to give everybody as much rights as possible, instead of cutting them left and right to make them equal.

RandomArcticFox said:
But Savageorange is not wrong. Savageorange arguments may me a bit emotional but they are defending a right that they have by law, their copyright.

I found it funny that they were seen as emotional, honestly. Rhetoric is an interesting tool. (though I admit I didn't hesitate to get every truthful jab in that I could.)

And I really don't care about copyright -- copyright is pretty broken, and not in a good way.

What I care about is that people keep producing art, and that the barrier to publishing art is not raised to a level that very few people can answer to -- in this case, recognizing and discrediting irrational feelings.
As far as I can tell, the idea that 'you can do things with a feeling other than a) blindly obey it or b) blindly repress it' seems to be foreign to 99% of people -- ie. they just plain HAVE NO TOOLS TO DO THE TASK OLE WOULD DEMAND OF THEM. Their emotional intelligence ranges from 'poor' to 'practically nonexistent'.

Holding artists to this standard means there would be a massive reduction in number of artists and amount of art; art would become much more elitist (than it already is!). People that otherwise might mature as artists in time, confronted with these unreasonable expectations, would most likely emotionally react to them and leave art. None of that, IME, is even remotely a good outcome.

If people weren't largely pretty irrational, ole's ideas might work, IMO. We have a largely similar view of what is ideal (people should strive to be rational, feelings are unreliable, culture should be free to the maximum extent possible.)

But since people are currently as a whole pretty irrational, the result of demanding this herculean task 'be rational, even if only about art' of them would largely be destructive.

Anybody who wants that to change must, as a pure pragmatic necessity, educate people, rather than raising barriers against them. People just don't respond positively to being told 'no, your concerns don't matter'.

ole said:
Nice argument.

Eh, I had to leave suddenly, had to put something in there. Might as well be humor.

Like I said above, it's about reasonable expectations. You don't appear to have reasonable (ie. realistically attainable) expectations for either yourself or others; yet you so unequivocally stand for your argument based in these expectations.

I admit I could have done something other than use your arguments as a platform to practice rhetoric. Massive inconsistency in your position is not really an excuse for that.

Genjar said:
Whoa. Hold up. How the heck is it out of wack with reality?

I'm a visual learner. My brain works like a mind map: when I focus on a topic, it also brings to mind everything that's directly related.

And once the crappy edits got mixed in there, it literally became impossible for me to focus on producing good art of that character anymore. It's kinda like having a song stuck in your head, but visual.

If you wanna do this thing, then sure:

Intellectual hygiene.
If something gets in your head that you don't want there, you need to either have a way to ignore it, or a way to get rid of it.
Because, well, are those edits actually important? If not, they need to be systematically dismissed.

(of which there are many ways, but they boil down to 'taking positive action', 'disregarding problematic thoughts' and 'focusing on constructive thoughts'. If I had that problem, I would aim to address it by the concrete method of drawing that character over and over -- not polished, just understandable drawings -- continually until I am physically incapable of continuing. That would in my estimate address it for me because it would empty my mind of other thoughts while filling it with the 'correct' thought (and hopefully attaching that to a memory of being satisfiedly exhausted). Clearly the exact response needs to be carefully tuned to the individual, but the general principles are globally applicable.)

On a more personal level, the idea that a mere edit could stop a human being intent on a purpose, seems out of wack. To me, that seems like a statement, however accidental, that that edit is more important than my intent to draw.

The idea is precisely culling the amount of incoming images/artists: the pile we have here is only growing, and with no one to regulate anything, the ones that succeed while being overly emotional and selfish will show the way for the artists of the future. If everything is accepted and nothing is invalidated, the bad parts will inevitably come on top. People being allowed to be overly controlling over their published material will be a contemporary problem, and one that will affect the future as well. I don't think the amount lessening is a bad thing at all, if the ones that won't get made would be by egotistic divas, they wouldn't have any value anyway. If you see my point, it's my view that the situation as it is breeds elitists; anyone can begin drawing and get worshipped. If the guarantee of everyone's adoration no matter the manners or morality is removed, I think the people getting into drawing will be the ones that really want to do it no matter how they'll get treated. If anyone will be an elitist, it'll be the viewers, as "the customer is always right" and I don't think it's a bad thing at all for people in general to be more demanding of artists.

It doesn't look like the fandom is shrinking anytime soon. More and more people have the means to view and produce material, and the fetish becomes more mainstream and acceptable. Therefore, the amount of artists and submissions will also increase. Artists being allowed rights that I view as unreasonable will cause increasingly adverse effects in the present and the future, that's what I think.
I realize it's a backwards approach to say "this is what everyone should do" and explain why afterwards, but it seems like others don't think of some things to be as obvious as I do. Sorry for the confusion.

NotMeNotYou said:
...

I respect the approach of trying to mediate a compromise that will satisfy (to a degree) all parties, but as detailed above I think it'll be worse in the long run to cater to demands that, although seem inconsequential, will cause unwarranted self-importance to grow in present and future artists.