FA+
Shop
Posting others' art
17 years ago
prependum
Let's try this. Even if the original artist says it's okay, I don't think you should stick work you ~did not do~ in your gallery, because that's not what your gallery is for.
No, I don't mean stealing and claiming it as your own. I mean posting commissions and gift art that you didn't create.
I don't understand this practice at all, and it shocks me that an art site continues to condone it. Your gallery is yours. Every submission page says "by (username)", with a copyright just above attributing it to you. Even the upload page says "Submit your art and images." The implication everywhere is, as is pretty typical for an art gallery, that you will be uploading art you made.
Why, then, are there so many accounts littered with every scribble the owner can possibly find that contains eir likeness? What did you do that makes you just as deserving to show off this work as the artist? Send someone twenty bucks over PayPal? Make up a super-creative persona that greatly resembles a fox with a funny haircut? How does that compare to years of practice and hours of work?
It's not yours. All you did was financially encourage someone to spend their limited time on something you would like. (No, you don't own the copyright, either; that only applies if the artist agreed in writing that it is a work made for hire. See here and here. Artists give permission, I know, but that's irrelevant; the point is that you did not create anything, and the very point of an art site is to show off things you created! It is embedded right down to the core code.)
I have even seen people take a commissioned work, alter it to suit eir needs without consulting the artist, and then post that. Words fail me.
It has been claimed many times that furry artists don't value their work, with painfully low commission prices held up as evidence. I think this speaks volumes louder.
I just don't get it. This is supposed to be an art site, and this community is supposed to be built on art and ride on artists' backs. Why do people who merely manage to scrounge up a few bucks insist on stealing the limelight from those with actual talent who exert real effort? Are we really that desperate for attention? Is someone else's art just a trophy to stick on your mantle? Look at me, look at me, someone drew my yiffy dragon murrsona~
ps: Just to head off this counter-argument since I've heard it time and time again: yes, I know the AUP specifically allows this, and no, that doesn't make it okay. I am also specifically disagreeing with the AUP. Being permitted to do something does not automatically make either the action or the rule good.
addendum
I have no problem with people disagreeing. I enjoy it; it makes things interesting. kalu, for example, disagrees with me but posted an interesting and well-thought-out response. I am taken aback, though, by the number of people who not only disagree, but insult me and then completely fail to understand why this irks me in the first place no matter how many times I explain. Thanks, furry community!
For the record, I dislike this practice merely because it is incorrect. It has nothing to do with giving credit. There are no deep severe practical consequences. It's just not the right thing to do. This may explain a little better.
It is unrelated to my original gripe, but the comments here have given me the sense that the general furry population -- artist or not -- really does have a tendency to treat art as just some trophy to show off. A lot of people have invoked "I give credit" as though it were an ultimate pass to do whatever they want with a work. That troubles me.
Was the original journal really this misleading? I tried to emphasize that my complaint is about creation, not permission.
addendum 2
WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING THIS IS A LOT OF COMMENTS
trackbacks:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554500/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554530/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554641/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554708/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554822/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554883/
Let's try this. Even if the original artist says it's okay, I don't think you should stick work you ~did not do~ in your gallery, because that's not what your gallery is for.
No, I don't mean stealing and claiming it as your own. I mean posting commissions and gift art that you didn't create.
I don't understand this practice at all, and it shocks me that an art site continues to condone it. Your gallery is yours. Every submission page says "by (username)", with a copyright just above attributing it to you. Even the upload page says "Submit your art and images." The implication everywhere is, as is pretty typical for an art gallery, that you will be uploading art you made.
Why, then, are there so many accounts littered with every scribble the owner can possibly find that contains eir likeness? What did you do that makes you just as deserving to show off this work as the artist? Send someone twenty bucks over PayPal? Make up a super-creative persona that greatly resembles a fox with a funny haircut? How does that compare to years of practice and hours of work?
It's not yours. All you did was financially encourage someone to spend their limited time on something you would like. (No, you don't own the copyright, either; that only applies if the artist agreed in writing that it is a work made for hire. See here and here. Artists give permission, I know, but that's irrelevant; the point is that you did not create anything, and the very point of an art site is to show off things you created! It is embedded right down to the core code.)
I have even seen people take a commissioned work, alter it to suit eir needs without consulting the artist, and then post that. Words fail me.
It has been claimed many times that furry artists don't value their work, with painfully low commission prices held up as evidence. I think this speaks volumes louder.
I just don't get it. This is supposed to be an art site, and this community is supposed to be built on art and ride on artists' backs. Why do people who merely manage to scrounge up a few bucks insist on stealing the limelight from those with actual talent who exert real effort? Are we really that desperate for attention? Is someone else's art just a trophy to stick on your mantle? Look at me, look at me, someone drew my yiffy dragon murrsona~
ps: Just to head off this counter-argument since I've heard it time and time again: yes, I know the AUP specifically allows this, and no, that doesn't make it okay. I am also specifically disagreeing with the AUP. Being permitted to do something does not automatically make either the action or the rule good.
addendum
I have no problem with people disagreeing. I enjoy it; it makes things interesting. kalu, for example, disagrees with me but posted an interesting and well-thought-out response. I am taken aback, though, by the number of people who not only disagree, but insult me and then completely fail to understand why this irks me in the first place no matter how many times I explain. Thanks, furry community!
For the record, I dislike this practice merely because it is incorrect. It has nothing to do with giving credit. There are no deep severe practical consequences. It's just not the right thing to do. This may explain a little better.
It is unrelated to my original gripe, but the comments here have given me the sense that the general furry population -- artist or not -- really does have a tendency to treat art as just some trophy to show off. A lot of people have invoked "I give credit" as though it were an ultimate pass to do whatever they want with a work. That troubles me.
Was the original journal really this misleading? I tried to emphasize that my complaint is about creation, not permission.
addendum 2
WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING THIS IS A LOT OF COMMENTS
trackbacks:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554500/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554530/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554641/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554708/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554822/
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/554883/
As for the "your pictures", well, i asked a guy if it was ok to upload it on my gallery, he told me "yes, it's ok, do whatever you want, it's YOURS right now, you paid for it" , so it depends on how you see it.
As for me, FA is not just a gallery, it's a place to socialize as well, so it's a matter of conceptions i'd say.
Someone can give you rights to anything you create, of course, but merely paying does not automatically do that. Which is still irrelevant, anyway; the works of Shakespeare are public domain, but you shouldn't be uploading those either.
What does socializing have to do with uploading work you didn't do to a part of the site designed to show off work you did?
Drawings i did, and others related to me, all the stuff that revolves around me (journals etc).
I share a part of my life here, through pictures and words.
It's good to bump sometimes into stuff people didn't do themselves, 'cause you're wondering who's the artist, or who's the character on that thing.
And then you see the comment "hey, something that xxx made for me" etc and you discover a new artist.
As i said, i think it's a matter of conception, you only see the arty part of it.
You said the site was designed to show off work i did. Yup.
Doesn't mean that it's the only use, only purpose it's meant to serve.
Proof, we can talk, create journals etc. So there are added features that made it more than a gallery.
For me FA is a space to get in touch with people, and the basic connector is art.
That's all.
hence why peeps use it.
You're taking over a space that has a specific, designed, useful purpose solely to garner attention.
It's essentially just a way to display art. Think of it as a virtual bedroom wall. That's how I would think of it if I did the same thing. I don't find much use for it personally so I don't, but I don't see a problem with other people doing it as long as
1- they have the artist's permission to post it
2- they link to the artist on the submission.
Of course, you should keep backups anyway.
It's a virtual bedroom wall labeled ART I DONE DID, though. Besides, if it's just a place to stash anything I think is cool, why can I only specifically upload commissions or gift art? Why is it different to upload anything I am not legally forbidden from uploading?
I personally ask the artist who have drawn for me if its okay to put their work on my page.
And no, simply paying does not give you any rights. At all. Quite frankly, the artist could decide you're not allowed to show it at all anywhere and be well within eir rights. Unless specifically written down otherwise, the artist retains full rights.
Not that that even matters at all. Permission or not, user galleries are for the user's art.
The point of an art site is not to be the biggest attention whore, and that's essentially what you're arguing for.
My account is my house. I put art I commissioned there. I'm even nice enough to itemise art other people made and put in their house which I like so you can go check it out too.
Oh, and both of the pictures I've uploaded to my gallery aren't uploaded here by the original artist. I'd rather like people to know who my character is, because otherwise I won't have references to commission more art. (There's something I actually did in my scraps because that's exactly what it is - (s)crap. I can't draw, and I don't claim to be able to.)
If this were merely your house, the administration would support uploading anything you think is interesting, which is not the case.
I agree that the automatic text that gets added may be confusing, ant it might be better if it were changed so it does not appear that all the FOR YOU submissions look like BY YOU submissions. But from what I've seen, everyone who posts a FOR YOU submission attributes the artist in the comment box, and often times even attributes the artist in the submission title. So anyone with basic literacy can tell the BY YOU from the FOR YOU after a moment's thought.
Museums hold pieces of art that are placed in a gallery setting
and that were purchased by someone else,
abut created by another....
[and yes I realize this is a year old, don't care]
I think the reason it sickened you is because you didn't expect me of all people to say such a thing. I am all for artist's rights! I have a good number of friends who create art and strive to make themselves better.
If a artist were to agree to draw for me knowing I am going to post it and they take my money I think that gives me a right to do it (though once again being me I would take it down in a heatbeat if they wanted me to remove it regardless of whatever was mentioned before money was given.). For me it would be kinda like someone consenting to sex, but then later going "Oh I was raped"... a bit of a stretch maybe, but I hope it gets my point across.
Yes this is a attempt to cover my ass, but it is also a attempt to set my views straight.
Adding links to a journal would keep it all in one place with even more ease, without wrecking what "gallery" means, wasting space for a duplicate upload, or nabbing attention from the original artist.
I'm under the impression that posting art has the opposite effect. I post art a few days after the original is posted, giving the original enough time to garner attention, the viewers that then look at my piece see that the art is done by said artist, which can lead to more views to the artists page.
Another argument, the two people who post work have different watchers. When the artist posts, they give attention to the characters involved, this can lead to visits and watches to the other account, in turn giving exposure to future artists who draw pictures for that person. When the poster puts up the 'duplicate', he is exposing the artist to a group of watchers that could otherwise not know of him/her, resulting in the potential of new watchers for that artist.
I don't see the problem in just occasionally posting a journal to say "hey here are some commissions I got recently". Watchers still see journals, too, and this completely eliminates the above problem.
Even worse is that you also upload your own work, so it becomes impossible to browse through only what you have created.
Also, it's that possibility for a person to visit the artist that benefits them, most won't, but some will.
In my case, I can spend hours following a trace through dozens of artists, resulting in the exposure and a +watch of many accounts, their future postings then expose me to even more accounts.
As for some of my own repostings having only a fraction of the original artist or even more in some cases, it all has to do with their popularity in respect to my own. Some could be long established on FA while others are just getting started, but no matter the case, I have watchers that they don't, therefore some of those watchers, just like I do on many occasions, could go 'hey that artist looks cool' and visit them, resulting in more exposure.
If you don't post the artwork but merely link to it or fave it, well, surprise: people will probably watch the artists directly instead of you! Isn't that what you want?
I still don't see why this chain of artist-finding requires you to upload to your gallery. If I'm interested in finding art relevant to the interests of a user, I look at eir favorites, where art you like that you didn't create generally goes.
Of course, you're making that process harder, too. Normally I could just stop looking through your gallery if I decide I don't like your art, but now I have to look through your entire gallery and all your favorites. I also have to open every single image in your gallery that I like to get at a userpage link, and if you forget to put the name in the title, I won't even know if it's made by you, a new artist, or an artist I'm already familiar with.
Linking or faving work does nothing if I don't have a solid watcher base, by building one up by posting work, I can then use that base to expose other artists.
In response to your last comment and your copywrite comment below me, in my case I always give credit to the artist. In addition, I state on both my profile and commission info page that I am not an artist and to check the submissions for who did the art.
I also saw you say something about the reposts getting comments and faves, my response to that:
-By the time I post, the original is getting little attention, therefore no new comments and faves
-Therefore the repost gets additional input that otherwise would have never been said
-My friends can comment directly to me on the submission
-Linking to the original submission not only gives a small spike of interest to it, it emphasizes the exposure to the artist
For many of them, it's just a deluded way to be popular/superior/elitist. They can't pull their heads out of "furry" far enough to see it for what it really is, simply keeping themselves inside that bubble. I think this is the biggest problem I have with that rule, is that it enables this sort of thing that entirely misses the point of this site.
Look at the dissenting opinions I've already gotten. There's no focus on the artists or the quality of the site as a whole. It's just me, me, me.
But I don't know what I really think. I think accounts that have 100 pieces of commissioned art are a bit silly, but then again if the artists are ok with them reposting it, who gives a damn? Thinking about it another way, if it wasn't for the fact its a digital medium, whoever had commissioned the art in the first place could hang it on their wall or in a gallery and people wouldn't moan at them. In one respect, its a nice way to get the artists work seen by more people, and that's always a good thing, right?
I give a damn because I am a pedant and seeing things with specific uses co-opted for no good reason drives me crazy. 8)
Yes, I can go buy a painting and hang it on my wall. It would be extremely dicky, however, to hang it on a wall that is otherwise populated by my own paintings and is labeled THINGS I PAINTED. Some would even construe that as stealing, especially if every painting said "© to me" on it. I would likewise not put such a painting in a private art gallery that is explicitly meant for showcasing my art.
Yeah, it gets the work seen by more people, but it's still a slap in the face to the artist:
- The page explicitly states that the uploader created/owns it. Twice.
- People complain all the time about viewers telling them "nice job" for art they only commissioned, which leads me to believe that simply mentioning a name in the description is not always effective.
- The duplicate still gets plenty of comments and faves, sometimes more than the original.
- I'm pretty sure people would be unhappy if I reposted everything Dragoneer has ever drawn, even though it would get him more exposure.
Oh, right, the whole "secondary fame" thing.
Who the fuck cares? If you have time enough to give a shit about people getting e-famous because they've commissioned art of their characters, then why don't you go whine at
There are better things in this world to be concerned about. Go find one of them.
One journal is an awful amount. Duly noted. I will be sure not to spend an entire minute and a half on something that bothers me next time.
FA rules state that the original artist must be credited
Great, so now we have a lot of duplicate submissions leeching popularity from artists that say "this is by X, no actually it's by Y if you bothered to read down this far".
Who the fuck cares? If you have time enough to give a shit about people getting e-famous
I don't give half a rat's ass that people are getting e-famous. It's just not a good enough excuse to slap others' hard work in a spot well-defined to be yours.
There are better things in this world to be concerned about. Go find one of them.
Somehow, I doubt that writing a journal about people starving in Africa will do anything about it. This is at least engaging part of the userbase I am complaining about in conversation.
There is some lovely hypocrisy in appending this paragraph to a post otherwise consisting entirely of meta-whining.
When duplicate submissions pop up in my watchlist, I tend to favorite the one from the original artist. However, if that one is on a different page than the one from the person what commissioned the art, I go for the first visible one. It's more a matter of convenience/laziness than anything.
It's just not a good enough excuse to slap others' hard work in a spot well-defined to be yours.
OH NOES THINK OF THE POOR ARTISTS WHO AREN'T GETTING MORE HITS TO THEIR PAGE!
Somehow, I doubt that writing a journal about people starving in Africa will do anything about it.
In the same vein, I doubt that whining about people posting commissions on their FA will actually do anything about it.
So.. what, artists don't deserve attention for work they do? This is just silly.
In the same vein, I doubt that whining about people posting commissions on their FA will actually do anything about it.
It has rather a better chance. But, hey, I apologize profusely for putting an opinion on the Internet. I should take a page out of your book instead and wait what is this journal whining about a single picture being taken down. You know, there really are better things to be concerned about.
The commission itself is exposing people to that artist's work. And if the poster links to that person's FA, where's the harm in that?
You know, there really are better things to be concerned about.
Yes, because caring about Free Speech and the protection of satire/parody is nothing to be concerned about, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, not at all.
This is such a silly excuse. Why can't I just post all of another artist's work in my gallery? It'll get them exposure!
Yes, because caring about Free Speech and the protection of satire/parody is nothing to be concerned about, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, not at all.
Hey, that's about as shallowly as you read this. UI, semantics, etc are fundamentally important to me.
Because that's against the rules of the site? (And, if you really want to stretch it, possibly copyright infringement?)
Hey, that's about as shallowly as you read this.
I'm really not seeing how people legally posting art they paid for as per the site's AUP is on the same level as the unwarranted and unwelcome deletion of a legitimate satire image.
That's not an answer. Why is it against the rules?
(And, if you really want to stretch it, possibly copyright infringement?)
You are already claiming copyright merely by uploading it to a gallery of your work, both implicitly and explicitly.
I'm really not seeing how people legally posting art they paid for as per the site's AUP is on the same level as the unwarranted and unwelcome deletion of a legitimate satire image.
Probably because it's not! Welcome to analogies. The focus here was on shallow literal readings of gripes rather than the reasons behind them.
You didn't create the work. You didn't have a hand in creating the work. You didn't compensate the artist for the work. The artist didn't create the work for you, either as a gift or as a commission.
When you pay for a commission, and the artist delivers the final product to you, that art is now yours to do with as you wish. If the artist wants to post it, that's their right, as they created the image and hold the overriding copyright on said image; but if you want to post it, it's well within your rights (and the site rules) to do so.
You are already claiming copyright merely by uploading it to a gallery of your work, both implicitly and explicitly.
Just because you claim something doesn't make it true.
The focus here was on shallow literal readings of gripes rather than the reasons behind them.
I can see the reasoning behind your argument, and it's just as shallow as the literal reading.
Whatever. I'm done; I've got better things to do than argue with someone who wants to whine about something that isn't against the site rules (or copyright laws) and/or doesn't encroach on an artist's ability to express themselves freely.
Why should it be relevant whether it was a gift? That's extremely tenuous.
When you pay for a commission, and the artist delivers the final product to you, that art is now yours to do with as you wish.
No, it is not. You can do anything the artist doesn't mind you doing, which applies just as it does to art you didn't commission.
But, of course, this is still irrelevant. There is plenty of public domain or creative commons work I could legally upload.
Just because you claim something doesn't make it true.
Uh, yeah, that's the point. You're lying.
I've got better things to do than argue with someone who wants to whine about something that isn't against the site rules
What do the rules have to do with anything? The rules only affect what the administration takes down, not what is most correct or efficient or practical or useful or whatever.
Interesting! I value correctness in file categorization.
it makes you no less of a tool
Then why don't you actually use punctuation?
if, however, I did not use punctuation to convey a meaning essential to the sentence, then I would be able to see the basis for an argument on such a thing.
as it stands, there is a difference between grammar and punctuation; you implied I did not understand grammar in your previous comment, which makes no sense at all given that I spot no incorrect grammar
you are mighty ignorant if you are trying to claim that a person does not understand something just because they do not use it in a proper way all the time
(I will spell that out for you: I am referring to punctuation)
you are still no less of a tool
Glad to see we agree on that. :D
Also: suck my balls, bitch.
owned
Why would I care that people buy commissions? There are plenty of people who buy commissions or get gift art and don't upload them as their own.
Oh yeah, I REALLY have trouble browsing through my watchlist with all of those duplicate entries floating about. And the Browse page...yeah, don't get me started, I can't go through a single page without duplicate entries popping up.
I didn't claim this to be some huge showstopper issue.
This is a terrible counter-argument and you are a terrible counter-argumentator.
I'll probably break the wall in the process, but I want to hang this magnificent art in my room 8)
What I'm trying to say is, how about ferrox (if it ever gets a release) having a feature that showcases "what I have commissioned". Info about artist, media, (Price?) and how to contact the artist could be displayed here; views, favs, comments are redirected to the original artists entry (only if it exists, which in this case could be kinda like a type of fav, but only the commissioner can make via, dunno, a ticket or code; "upload" otherwise).
That or collections and folders a la DeviantArt (hahaha BLASFEMY).
And before we have fluff steam everywhere, yeah, I know how technically hard would be to implement this on the developers and the database. Some smart and bigger words in the submit form could make the trick meanwhile.
Sorry, my thoughts are still a mess after playing Ragnarok Battle Offline 2 hours straight. I'm kinda raged and over excited |3
For example, Ive seen a bunch of people who are actully MORE famous then a bunch of artists who cant draw, and they cant even draw themselves... Im a bit baffeld by how this really works, since the only way I see this working is that they must be some kind of village bike, or something |<
Seriously, I dont understand how some people, who, all they do is pay and do not much more in commuinity for a peice of art, get more famous then alot of people who actully try their hardest perfect their skill in drawing... its... just a bit of a bother.
It maybe jealously (I think I maybe acting jealous, anyway :x ), but I think most people would be a bit peeved if they work their butt off for a good peice of art, whilst the other group of people are famous for some rapeable character, and comission whoring (and, I mean to a great extent, too) for some attention \:3
...Oh, and, Im not trying to offend anyone who does comission, by the way, they work hard for their money... its just... another set of comissioners, if you understand my meaning~.
...I hope this commant was logical enough for this logical journal xD;
Pardon? How did you extrapolate that from a complaint about miscategorizing art?
Since when are you the one who decides what's right and wrong with what people do with their pages?
Well, as the guy responsible for designing and writing the site's replacement, things like this are kinda relevant to my interests.
Anything found not to be properly stating who the original artist is will be dealt with acordingly.
This has absolutely nothing to do with giving credit. In fact, this is part of what's getting on my nerves. Furries treat art like just something to toss around, and act like giving credit is a free pass to do whatever you want. The responses I'm getting here lead me to believe that nobody really cares about the artists; they just do token gestures as a defense against any possible complaining.
This is not Photobucket. Your gallery is not a mantle on which to put any cool gizmos you want to share. The gallery functionality was very clearly designed for artists to share their work, and everyone not using it for that is wrecking its original useful purpose solely to garner attention.
And if it's a site other than the big ones, there's a huge chance it could fall apart or fail.
P.S.
I apologize for my prior post, it was offensive and that was not my intention.
We have a variety of users here, and we should embrace their uses if we want to grow. This has been a huge boon to us so far: despite our ugly layout and terrible uptime, we retain a huge user base largely because we have been so accepting of our users' uses. Many of them came from SheezyArt and DeviantArt because of our more lax Terms of Service.
Many of our users use this site to show off their commissions and fan art. I think that's totally fine, and we should embrace that and grow with it in mind. The fact that it marks these things as their own work is a failing of the technology, not the users: the users are simply using the simplest tool available for their purpose, even if it's not a perfect bell-ringer. If you're still not convinced, read Clay Shirky's book, "The Power of Organizing Without Organizations," and you probably will be.
So, what should we do?
Some people say you can't solve a social problem with technology, but I'm pretty sure they've got it wrong, because you can't solve a social problem. People are people, and no amount of yelling at them is going to change their motives, though it may drive them away eventually.
So, technical solutions for making it acceptable to post other people's work:
We could allow users to post anything, and let anyone who wants to tag it with the correct artist, like the popular imageboard program danbooru does. I am not suggesting we give any special control to the poster, of course, as posters can be lazy, and opening up the tagging operation to more people increases the likelyhood it will be done right by someone. This of course opens up tagging to wikipedia-style abuse, but if wiki can handle it, maybe we can too.
On the flip side, we could associate works with the users who are in them or who commissioned them using facebook-photos-style tagging. That would be lovely to be able to hover over a submission and get more info about the characters in it, and I'd love to have a section on my page showing all the stuff my character has been in.
Both of these things revise the way galleries work a little, as things show up on your own page that you did not post. I consider this a win in general, as I'm too lazy to post a lot of my own stuff, and casual users tend to do a much better job tagging stuff (evidence at wildcritters.us (NSFW)). But it's not without its issues:
Some artists may not want people tagging stuff as them: it should be an option to blacklist yourself from tagging if you don't want stuff showing up in your gallery. Also, there should be a filter view of your gallery with only the things you personally submitted in it.
This also means stuff you post is not automatically tagged with you as the artist. This should be a simple yes or no question on the posting page.
That is what is happening here. There are multiple other ways to show off art someone has commissioned for you, but there isn't really any other way to show off art I created, and the two are slowly becoming increasingly muddled. I have more than once fallen for a vibrant gallery that turned out to consist almost entirely of commissions. Even worse, people who use their galleries for both semantics at once force me to pay extra-close attention when flipping through their art, and it becomes a chore merely to tell whether some arbitrary submission in a user's gallery is even that user's work or not.
I am aware that this is a fundamental limitation in the software, and it is one I hope to address in Ferrox. That still leaves it as a frustration for me now, even moreso since I have to import all this duplicated nonsense into the new software. This being the internet, I like to express my frustrations.
As for things being things you created, artist tags should solve that.
I just want to make sure whatever solution we arrive at doesn't simply take a big portion of current user behavior and say "Stop doing that" instead of adapting to their needs.
I don't care if people use the images I draw. They have every fucking right, it's their character, I only put their idea on paper/photoshop/etc.
I also have a seperate account for everything that's been made for me. Why? because some artist's suddenly decide to wipe their galleries and it also serves as a back-up copy if my comp gets fried. I don't have a means to contact every person who's drawn for me in the past to get it back, and what if their comp got fried too? I would essentially lose all the work done.
Backups on externals and flash drives isn't fool proof either
This is not about giving credit and I am not sure where everyone thinks I implied that.
Your reliance on FA as a shining beacon of stability is a little misplaced. I would trust personal backups monumentally more than I would trust this rickety bucket of bolts to preserve my files.
Personal back ups are not fool proof. Having a site where I can back it up can be more efficient and more trust worthy.
Etc etc
I have contributed to the AUP; I certainly have a passing familiarity with what it says.
Prz 2 b giving explanation?
so yeah, just because you don't see artists getting annoyed over it does not mean it doesn't happen, you little twat; it is more common than you think it to be, but maybe if you were a decent artist who this actually affected you might know this
but you know, not everyone is
Oooh, resorting to name calling, HOW ADULT.
All I'm seeing is someone too stuck up for their own good, which is a shame
Cry moar
in short: shut the fuck up when you know nothing about what is going on with actual artists affected by this
Sad thing is I actually watch you and think you are rather talented. Do you honestly think you're some amazing artist above the rest? How does it AFFECT you? It doesn't make you lose money for them to post the work they paid you for.
I've seen MUCH bigger name artists allow their work to be posted, as well as small name artists, and I don't see people foaming at the mouth and raging and losing money
Regardless of what bigger or lesser name artists do, I still do not think it should happen on FA. People tend to think you're a giant dick if you go around saying "oh by the way guys, take down everything ever that I've done for you," especially if they have your stance on the issue.
I'm not sure why this bullshit happens on FA really; I don't know why people think that posting commissions they have bought is some sort of giant popularity contest.
So, again, just because you do not SEE things happening does not mean they do not happen.
As I said in my first post to this journal, I use it as a way of backing up the images. It's also so that if I have an art trade, I can link them to the good refs of my characters.
I really haven't seen this popularity contest type attitude, but I'm sure it does happen. it takes all kinds, ja?
All sites do this, it isn't strictly FA. It happens on DA too (with clubs and the like).
I once more invoke the cases of uploading public domain work I did not create, or even uploading another artist's work that is unrelated to me and giving credit. Why are these different from uploading gift art?
I've made my case, and I'm done lol
gotcha
Do-si-do
I prefer not wasting the time and effort by going in circles when I do have commissions to work on.
life goes on
It slows and confounds browsing; it ruins statistics; it breaks apart comments; I consider it disrespectful regardless of whether artists you personally know care; it is just incorrect. If these are not concerns to you, that is your prerogative, but do not pretend I have no reasons whatsoever for thinking what I do. Organization, efficient use of tools, UI, and semantics are important to me. They are part of what I do.
"Life goes on" is not a very good excuse for brushing things under the carpet.
I brush it under the carpet because it does not hurt the artist or their reputation and they obviously don't mind (perhaps when I said don't care, I used the wrong word, mind sounds better), so let it be. It's not against the site rules, so why complain? If anything though, I was trying to enlighten my view on it, being both an artist and someone with an alternate account.
Convenient for me personally. Someone could ask if there have been drawings of Kupok. I could I suppose dig through the artist's own galleries of 100s of drawings and pick out mine to show. But I could also hold a small gallery of my own.
Convenient for the artist. Let's take
It's really.. really convenient and helpful for both the artist, and for me. I supopose... the only real downside this may cause for a 3rd party, is if they were watching the artist and the commissioner, and had to see it show up twice.
A lesser-known artist would still get attention from a journal, with the added benefit that everyone would see the original artist's commentary and contribute to the original artist's comments and views and faves, not just the people who could be bothered to look. I've already gotten another watcher from this little firestorm somehow, so it's not like it doesn't work.
The artist not uploading is a valid problem and one I am not yet sure how to address even technologically, but the vast majority of cases I see are duplicate uploads.
I see the duplicate uploads too, but like I said, it has helped me in the past with finding some really good artists. I also upload DA only work to my alternate gallery, they aren't on FA and there's no duplication going on in that instance
How is it pissing on the artist if the artist doesn't care?
fuck
If you see it with other eyes, that move is also a free way to promote said artist if you think about it. Yes, I could simply fave the picture and let it stop right there, but whoever is watching me would have such a small chance to actually notice this. As there is no message warnings of any new favorites said person have (which isn't necessary on the slightest), there is for any new uploads I make. And as such, there will be a much greater chance to advertise the artist behind the request / commission.
That's a way to make the gears spin here, Lexy, and it works wonderfully. But yes it goes into that area you mentioned. But you're forgetting something... Many commissioned artists go to the range to make the pic, and never upload them in their account, under the justification that the character in question isn't of their creation, and therefore isn't their place to upload it in there. Making of this whole argument a reverse.
But still I digress. Your point is valid, but yet it doesn't feel like malpractice. Even so, take my reply as some topics to think about.
It helps promote the artist and the whole reason for commissioning something in the first place is so that you can share the piece with other people and for your own personal gratification.
it is like you completely missed the point
you completely missed the point
The focus of the work is not the other pieces, and the pieces themselves are irrelevant. There's your line.
you're completely missing the point
This still has nothing to do with credit, and I think worship of such a thing is a bit silly anyway.
Gotcha.
I enjoy having artwork done of my characters, I enjoy seeing it all collected into one galley, I enjoy sharing it and having others appreciate it as much as I do, and in the cases where an artist isn't as "popular" I really enjoy hearing from them that they got a big spike in watchers after I posted it. ( Last comment isn't an attempt to cover my ass or anything, it really is one of the things I enjoy about it )
I just started collecting art of my character a year or two ago, I had no intention of getting any type of response and I think anyone who would spend their money for the sake of becoming more popular in the furry fandom is an idiot, and needs to understand the futility of trying something like social climbing among furs, climb as much as you want and you really aren't going to get very high, better to apply those networking skills elsewhere.
In essence, the picture is submitted again with my stamp, and, presumably, a link to my page on it; Thus, people who were not online when I posted mine, or do not Watch me, may again have an opportunity to see my work and buy from me.
In the end, commissions is a business, and it's a marketing opportunity for me to have my customers redistribute the work they paid me to create.
Also it is my opinion that the commissioner may redistribute the image they purchased from me at will, so long as it remains unaltered (except in such cases of avatars/icons where they are inevitably cropped, I mean whatever) and contains a link to my page.
The only problem I have ever had was when a certain customer of mine attempted to sell prints of the picture I had made for him with no notice or previous agreement of such, and I informed him that I would like a small percentage in royalties.
I always felt sort of mixed on it, but the artists didn't seem to mind, and the rules were such that if an artist gave permission the user could upload it... it was sort of a legacy rule carried over before I got on staff. I'd actually voted to have it shot down several times in the past, but was overruled. Too many people found it beneficial for the artists.
Of course, this makes all the "hurp the rules allow it" comments seem even more ridiculous. :V
I always felt a separate gallery would work better, one that doesn't show up on the Browse and/or Search, but one that would still allow a user to share work with friends and artists get discovered via that.
Also I seem to remember a certain Eevee altering his own sister's artwork without her permission and posting it on his livejournal ~_~;;; HOW SHAMEFUL
I guess what I'm waiting to see here is a better solution. Not a just a "correct" solution, but one that is actually better than what people currently practice. Everyone knows that burning fossil fuels is "wrong", but it's just so damn convenient that most people will continue burning them until a solution that is more beneficial to them comes along. Everyone knows that downloading copyrighted music for free is "wrong", but there hasn't been a better solution yet, so people continue pirating music. I'm not trying to equate these with the issue at hand, just providing examples that people don't give a shit if something is wrong if it is very convenient for them and doesn't APPEAR to harm anyone.
If you want this practice to change, you're going to have to provide a better solution, not just preach about why it's wrong. Maybe they don't care that you think it's wrong. That doesn't make them bad people, they just don't agree with you.
I can see perfectly well what you're saying here, I just don't think that it's convincing enough to make people stop.
Maybe make an extra section called "________'s Commissions" that simply shows thumbnails of pictures that, when clicked on, will link back to the original artist's page for that picture. Perhaps a brief description can be added by the user under each picture, but the link itself would go back to the original artist. That seems like it would work to me, and seems like it resolves the issue you're talking about here.
And I'm the one working on the better solution, so.. you know. :V
Morality: If I pay for art, it's mine as much as any game is, or any movie, or some food, or whatnot. Do you think coding isn't as artistic as a drawing on paper? If not, why not? Do you know how much work and effort goes into making program coding efficient, pleasant to use, and functional? Everything is "art" if looked at the right way, and if you don't realize that, then you're drawing imaginary lines due to some misplaced sense of elitism.
Morality: This is the internet. One doesn't "take away" attention from the original artist by posting their art elsewhere (unless their art is on a pay-per-view basis). Posting art, anywhere, with properly given credit, will always drum up more views for the original artist, because if the art is being posted uncommon, people who would not have normally seen the picture will end up seeing it, and oftentimes search up more. People don't look at my FA page instead of an artist's page, the only reason they look at it is because they either like my character or they're my friends.
Morality: Most/all artists I've commissioned state that I am purchasing a piece of their work, or don't say anything at all to this matter. Being a visual artist is as much a skill as, say, being a 5-star chef, a movie director, a fast-food cashier. A skill's a skill; some take longer, some don't, and some artists like letting others get some actual benefit from purchasing their art. Your phrasing makes it sound like, "When you commission me, you're not commissioning my art, you're just commissioning a portion of my time to draw your character." If all artists worked in your way, where only the artist is allowed to do anything with the picture, then a lot of commissioners would just take shop and leave and a lot of artists would be left in the dust.
Uses: I use FurAffinity as a way to consolidate all art of my character neatly and easily into a single section, without having to mull through scores of different +favs on my profile, or not having to go through my journals to find my art links. This is especially useful when dealing with a crash or getting a new computer. FA would probably not be around if it weren't for the art commissioners, since they're usually the ones with the money to spend. I wonder why that is..
BAWWW: There's an Art Whore category for people to use that whore art of their character(s). The official stance on this issue is obvious.
BAWWW: It sounds to me like you've got all art romanticized as this untouchable medium that SHAN'T BE BOUGHT! Try dropping down a fucking level, would ya'? Artists want to make money, and by giving their viewers/commissioners more bang for their buck (that is, letting the purchaser decide what to do with the received artwork) they will get more people to buy from them.
Normally I'd stop here, but I just realized how funny some of the journal quotes are when we make the swap I just talked about:
"What did you do that makes you just as deserving to show off this house as the builders? Send them two hundred grand? Make up a super-creative design that greatly resembles a typical house but with an awesome loft? How does that compare to years of practice and hours of work?
It's not yours. All you did was financially encourage someone to spend their limited time on something you would like."
"I have even seen people take a purchased house, repaint a room without consulting the artist, and then let their neighbors inside. Words fail me."
Wait, are you actually condoning reposting a modification of someone else's work?
It is curious that people have these rules which they feel should be applied to art, but not other things. I'm not saying either way on posting heavily modified versions of other people's work. Different artists have different opinions on these things. Straydog was of the opinion that "you paid for it, it's yours, just give me credit for it" when I wanted to make a banner from two commissions I got from him. Per his request, I gave him credit in the banner. But I did edit it, and smoothly crop out two versions of myself to put them into a new image. And nobody had any problem with that. Based on your response, the idea that someone would modify an image that they paid for would seem to be nothing short of shocking to you. I have to wonder where modifications stop becoming taboo. I had one inked drawing from Scappo that I got Lapinbeau to digitally ink and color. They both agreed to it, they both got credit, I believe they both liked the result. Is that okay? Are there any cases where a modification of someone else's work is acceptable? When is it not? Do consider that, as FA only lets you post stuff which the artist permits you to, this assumes that the artist is signing off on the modified version. What about it bothers you, and why is it any different than other custom-tailored goods which you can have made for you? Hence the house example.
I probably should have expanded on that a bit more, but it was mostly an afterthought re artist respect. My bad.
I'll just end this thread here by saying that, so long as there are strongly mixed understandings on what it means to commission art, it's probably a good idea for both parties to ask permission to share and/or edit. If we end up in a world where the artist retains all rights, then the commissioner will always have to ask. If we end up with the commissioner having all the rights, except to claim that they made the image, then the artist will have to ask to share. As things are now, with no clear consensus on what rights belong to who, people should just be polite and ask "Can I use this color which is not on your character sheet for your eye color? I think it would look better" and "Can I add a photo I took as the background for your drawing? They go together perfectly".
If you would like to carry on a conversation, I more than encourage it, but anything that starts out with trite furry accusations of throwing a tantrum because I posted an opinion on the Internet shock and horror is really not worth my time to read.
My 'discussion' style is very in-your-face. If you decide to throw out some solid points because I'm simply counterpointing you in a brash style, I'd wager you're just using it as an excuse to avoid responding to them in kind.
If I pay for art, it's mine as much as any game is, or any movie, or some food, or whatnot.
You don't buy a movie and then go show it at an independent film festival.
Do you think coding isn't as artistic as a drawing on paper? ... Do you know how much work and effort goes into making program coding efficient, pleasant to use, and functional?
What? I'm a programmer. Of course I think code is an artform.
People don't look at my FA page instead of an artist's page, the only reason they look at it is because they either like my character or they're my friends.
Are you sure? I have more than once wandered across someone's page, usually discovered by fave-hopping, and started looking through it thinking "nice art", only to (sometimes much) later discover that in fact it was all commissions. I've heard the same from several others.
Again keep in mind that I am not proclaiming some grand practical consequence of this; it is merely semantically wrong. I stress 'semantically' to ward off any more of this nonsense about credit that I barely care about.
Your phrasing makes it sound like, "When you commission me, you're not commissioning my art, you're just commissioning a portion of my time to draw your character."
That is the default legal position. In lieu of anything stating otherwise, the artist retains all rights.
I use FurAffinity as a way to consolidate all art of my character neatly and easily into a single section, without having to mull through scores of different +favs on my profile, or not having to go through my journals to find my art links.
I use a directory for that and have it mirrored online. There are a myriad of other ways to accomplish this.
Of course, I am not claiming that alternatives are all easier, or simpler, or really even that they exist. I am merely annoyed at misuse of resources that have a specific connotation and no alternatives themselves. This is something of very basic importance to me, and it is sometimes more important than practicality.
It sounds to me like you've got all art romanticized as this untouchable medium that SHAN'T BE BOUGHT!
Sure it can be bought. I just don't think it should be treated like eggs a hen can lay on demand.
A bad comparison on both of your parts, I think. You buy a copy of the movie, you don't buy the movie itself, because profit is intended to be made from everyone who views it. A better example would be if you footed the entire bill for the production of a movie. Could you then show it wherever you pleased? I should think so. Movies and games and music are digital and can be reproduced at no charge, so the whole idea of sharing them as you would a consumable (food, clothes, etc) doesn't translate nicely. But stuff that is consumable, I certainly feel you should be able to do what you want with, provided that you don't claim it was your own creation. Paint your house, pimp your car, tear your jeans... whatever does it for you. Art from which further profit is not intended to be made fits into an odd overlap of the two, where its up-front cost has been paid, and both the artist and customer are feeling generous enough to offer it to the world for no charge.
However I would argue that you're in a position which is... self-defeating, I guess. You say that the connotation is that a user gallery will contain stuff they made, but you're complaining about this because "there so many accounts littered with every scribble the owner can possibly find that contains eir likeness". You then say "This is supposed to be an art site, and this community is supposed to be built on art and ride on artists' backs" Key words here, "so many accounts" and "supposed to be".
See, you're complaining that users are improperly using their accounts, because it is expected that their accounts will contain their own work. But I argue, it's NOT expected, because as you said there are so many accounts which violate that idea, that now it's merely "supposed to be" galleries containing people's own work.
I mean, if it's just a small number of accounts which violate the expectation, then alright, they're misusing the site. But when enough people violate the expectation, that expectation ceases to hold. I believe you were talking about language earlier with other people. That applies pretty nicely here. When people use a word for something other than its original meaning, they're doing it wrong. When enough people do it often enough, it changes effective meanings. It's sorta self-correcting like that. You may take issue with the fact that things aren't being used as they were intended to, but ultimately when they exist to meet needs of users, letting users mold things a bit into what they need is beneficial to everyone. You as a designer should take away something that you've learned, rather than trying to bash people's heads in for doing it wrong, I think =)
You should probably read that post again. The point that the original blog author made was that adopting "literally" to mean something else is a tragedy because there is no other word that means the same thing as "literally". In most cases, the author in question has no problem with words gradually changing meanings, but this one is unique.
There are various other ways to promote art you commissioned without simply uploading it again, but there is no good replacement for the original artist uploading the art in the first place.
I'm sure someone would have something to say if half the userbase suddenly decided to use their galleries to store shock images, too. People doing it doesn't automatically make it a good idea.
You as a designer should take away something that you've learned
Once again: a real solution has been planned for a while.
Good to know that you have a solution planned at least.
Art is a .jpg. P: It's easily shared from person to person. And this website is fairly open to everyone. Ergo.. things will fall as they may, probably no matter what you do. It's hard to get people to get serious over a .jpg, because many don't realize how much skill is actually required to make it.
(I use .jpg loosely, obviously. =p)
My personal opinion is that even modifying art is pretty harmless. Some artists just don't get all the details down in the commissioner's mind; mistakes/miscommunication happens, a tiny bit of touch-up doesn't hurt (especially of the artist in question won't further touch it themselves, not that that's bad. Can't touch up every single detail or else you'll be spending all your time with the commissioner..) Mind you, I haven't done it at all. I have no need; I enjoy seeing Vandell in different art styles.. it's why I commission people.
Ultimately, though, if a new rule was implemented to ban people who post commissions, the site would probably end up losing more money in donations. There's no evidence to support that, obviously, but I wouldn't really risk the backlash of commissioners dropping ship and leaving. People with money are a valuable resource too, just as much as the artists, and that's why I like FA so much - I always thought there was great support for people who just want to buy good art..
Of course, that would leave one to wonder if we should even call this a website strictly for art any longer.. the focus is becoming steadily broader as time goes on, and it seems like you're trying to refocus it. Doing that can have some consequences, so.. just, be wary. P: Keep it via word for now I guess?
See, I -want- to be able to post commissioned art without consequences, and I will up-and-leave if my reputation gets smeared because I posted some art I paid for/was given. :/
LEARN TO DRAW, THIS IS AN ART SITE.
ENJOY IT AS IS, AND LET YOUR EGO ASIDE.
It isn't morally wrong to post artwork you paid for, because there's nothing wrong with getting a spot of prestige for receiving a great piece of work and showing it off to your friends, who in turn may go and watch the said artist and commission them themselves. Word of mouth is one of an artists greatest forms of advertisement.
By cutting off people who want to post artwork they purchased you're cutting off a lot of potential customers.
IT SHOULD BE A DEVIANTART FOR ANTHRO ART AND HENTAI, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT HAS DERAILED INTO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
YOU ALSO, HAVE NO IDEA WHAT A TROLL IS.
GOOD AFTERNOON!
YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID.
GO DRAW.
_WH Auden
" ... and our former selves fight within us and wrangle for our possession. Have we not here what is commonly called an "internal tumult", when dead pleasures and pains tug within us hither and thither? Then may the battle be decided by what people are pleased to call our own experience. Our own indeed!"
_Samuel Butler "Life and Habit"
I like what you’re thinking and I think some features like on y!Gallery might be in order for Ferrox. There, you can designate works as a collaboration between two or more people, and also there’s a way to say Thing Thang by Artist for Person.
Expanding on that, just as there are Scraps, there could be a “gallery” of Things I Got, be they gifts or requests or commissions — viewing them should allow easy means of visiting and faving the original artist if they’re on-site.
With such features or effectively equivalents in place, you could go on kicking people in the nuts who upload commissioned art into the Things I Made gallery.
I’m surprised so many people here don’t understand what you meant and can’t think outside the FA box whatsoever.
It is planned to let people link to stuff that's relevant to them but not done by them, and show it.. somewhere.
Like a pudding cup.
Could you be that?
I do it so I can show off a gallery of artwork that features my character to others. If nothing else, it gives the artists I commission even more exposure!
And I always make sure to list the artists name in the submission name and at the header of the description.
In my case, most of my commissions are ideas that come out of -my- head, characters that I create by -myself- and I just don't have the means of putting them onto paper or into a digital piece. In addition, if we're paying for these pieces, that means they're ours to put out there anyway.
It goes both ways. If we don't put up our commissions into our galleries, then these artists shouldn't be allowed to put pictures of -us-, -our fursonas-, -our ideas- up into their galleries either. Then the artists wont have work to showcase for others to commission them and thus they'll get less commissions. It's a road to nowhere. It's a quick way to kill the fandom.
Good job, you're killing the fandom =/
[20:26] <+Ardy> also, FA allows music, photography, fucking collages
[20:26] <+Ardy> since when does not being able to draw put you out of the loop
in short, you're retarded
I have this thing, it is called a gallery, where I post things I drew for other people to see
It goes both ways.
I am still going to get more people interested in commissioning me from my art alone than from some guy with like 2 pageviews who wants to post my art
There are a lot of artists who have galleries that contain -mostly- commissions. Even if you're not one of them it benefits you, you're just being selfish. The more places your art is posted, the better. In my opinion.
I do not care if it "benefits" me or not, I find the practice unfavorable, despite that it does happen with my art.
"There are a lot of artists who have galleries that contain -mostly- commissions. Even if you're not one of them."
"Do not assume that artists posting commissions is the only way that art gets in their gallery."
Did I say that? No. Learn to read.
I pay you for art. Therefore I'm taking ownership of that artwork. Or would you like people to come to your house and take everything that you've purchased in your entire life away because you showed it to your friends?
Incorrect! You are paying for the artist's time, not the end result. You don't get any real claim over the art itself unless it was specifically agreed to beforehand in writing.
Loopholes ftw.
this is what would hold up in court, my friend
I happen to exist in a professional art world, do not think I am ignorant of the ways that real people deal in art
So they need to pick a side :P
Why, exactly, is there this magical line between gift art and crap I think is cool? Why shouldn't I be able to upload any old public-domain or creative commons thing I want to share? Nobody has answered me on this yet.
I don't think you realize how persistent some people can be. ;P When I find some awesome art that isn't signed or credited or whatever, I google and scour everything for it. I usually end up finding the artist, plus some others in the process.
no I do not dislike you
I specifically dislike the practice of uploading stuff that isn't the uploader's
Kid: "Hey guys! Look at this game I bought!"
*suddenly, someone knocks on the door. In walks the head game developer of Studio X.*
Dev: "Hey, I'm the head game developer. I can't let you play that with your friends. I'm sorry, but those people are potential sales just waiting to happen. If they want to play the game, they can go straight to my personal website at www.yattayatta.com.";
*the kids are disappointed and get all pouty-faced.*
Kid: "But we just wanna play.."
Dev: "Sorry, but I created that game in your hand. I get final say and I get to control what you do. So, either play it by your lonesome - and don't you dare use the multiplayer components! - or just hand it back to me right now. Kapeesh?"
*the kid gives the game back.*
Kid's Friends: "Man, that dev was a jerk. I'm not buying his game now."
but that he expected that of furries in the first place is probably his mistake, huh?
Personally, I hope it doesn't. By giving artists more control over what happens to their art (mostly towards those whom have purchased it), it only punishes those who want to support them.
No, it's not. The point of the journal is that I don't think people should put art they didn't make in a place that has a very strong connotation of being art they made.
Why are you so offended as to be hateful? I thought I was being decently polite in the comments. You disagree with me so strongly that you would rather I drop Ferrox and vanish than dare to exist on the same site as you?
There are plenty of other things in the world to worry about then us trying to showcase our characters to other people, especially with all the people who are having shitty holidays right now. It was unnecessary and rude, of course I'm not going to take it lightly.
That's how we feel about this.
And if you want to vent, write it down in a journal at your house. All you're doing in an FA journal is making a public post to everyone so that they'll read, react and respond.
If nothing else, you've proved that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with. I'd be all for two separate galleries, one with copyright logos and one without, but I don't know how the admins are going to deal with it (if they decide to do something about it).
The exposure argument is silly; as I've said in several other places, I could just reupload everything Dragoneer has ever drawn and claim it's to get him more exposure. Look how many watchers I apparently have!
If you have come up with a brilliantly creative character, cool, write a description of it and post that. That's something you made! Now you have something in your gallery and there's no problem.
Fuck. You have uncovered my plan!
they sell the time required to produce a piece of art, nothing else
there is the exception of softpawmagazine, which specifically needed me to give the permissions they sought and enacted conditions on my personal usage of my own artwork for a period of time, which I am bound to for the fact that I signed a contract
otherwise, I have already proven it in any case where there is no contract
before you make a huge fuss perhaps you should ask the artists if they like the free addvertising cross posting art gets them because its up to THEM not YOU to decide it its wrong try posting a thread on the forum and see where you end up with this
I'll admit that I haven't been to a lot of real-life art galleries, so I might just be ignorant on this, but I was under the impression that many art galleries, like the types in museums, weren't made to just exhibit what the owner of the building created. Far from it, every art gallery I've been to has been a collection of art from dozens or hundreds of different artists. The pieces are purchased by or loaned to the gallery owners. They're displayed with credits next to the pieces. Often they fit some sort of theme, or general vision of the gallery. And... that's exactly how commission galleries are on FA. Pieces are given or purchased, and they are displayed with credit given to the artist, and they tend to follow the interests and characters of the gallery owner.
Now, if you take art gallery to mean PERSONAL art gallery, which I've never myself seen (perhaps because I don't know anyone rich and bored enough to set aside a room in their house which just shows off their favorite self-made pieces of art), then yes, commission-based galleries are an abuse of the intended goal of the system. But I don't recall any places on the site which say your gallery is necessary stuff made BY you. It's simply your gallery, and whether it's going to be personal, purchased, gifted, or mixed art is entirely up to you, so long as you have the right to show off the content in question. Perhaps you're just misinterpreting words, too. Yes, a submission is "by" a user. Does that mean it was DONE BY a user? No, just that it was SUBMITTED BY a user.
Ultimately, yes, it is a design limitation/flaw of the original FA system. But why so upset? People are making the most of what they've got. They're not blatantly abusing the system. We don't have working tags. We don't have search. You certainly can't +Watch a search result, so every time a new picture with Character X is submitted, it appears in your inbox. Artists don't always post stuff that they're commissioned to do, and almost never give the same description of a submission that the commissioner would. So people bent the system to meet their needs. It's an art community, and everyone wants to share art that they were involved in.
The way to properly deal with it, I believe, would be to care about more than just who submits something. Maybe an artist or a commissioner submits a piece. Does it really matter? Let them specify the artist(s), the character owner(s), the commissioner(s). The appropriate parties will receive notifications when comments are made on it or favorites are given. Let it appear in multiple galleries. Allow users to create character pages. Give each character page a virtual gallery which is populated with all the art that they were tagged in. Let people watch a character page and receive updates the way things work now for user pages. It would be a huge, sweeping change to almost every part of FA that people interact with.
But like... chill. Stop getting upset at users for wanting to *gasp* share art in an art community.
Imagine that we have a jar. It is a small clay jar labeled COOKIES. I open the jar, and discover only a muffin with a little tag attached that says "this isn't a cookie".
Imagine that I see several million other jars all labeled COOKIES. Does any arbitrary jar actually contain cookies? Do any of the jars contain cookies?
Imagine that several academic fields for which I have a particular affinity are very deeply intertwined with the very notions of organization and correctness. Imagine that whatever I'm doing, work or play, always has some notion of optimality lurking in the background.
Imagine that I want a cookie.
But I don't recall any places on the site which say your gallery is necessary stuff made BY you.
This submission is copyright © 2008 Twile
That matrix lady made them.
Imagine that the owners of the jars don't mind, because they have nice places to store their baked goods. Imagine that the people who make the baked goods don't mind because now more people can share the tasty treats when people stop by, increasing the consumption of baked goods. Imagine that the owner of the jar company doesn't mind, because he talked to customers and baked good manufacturers, and found that people generally liked being able to store non-cookies in their jars. Due to a combination of him not caring enough to modify the jar production plant to remove the label from the inside of the jar, and the fact that people already know what the label is going to say, and the fact that they see the actual item before they see the likely incorrect label, the owner of the jar plant doesn't remove the label. Imagine that the only person who complains is the guy making the next design of the jar, who doesn't say "Let's remove that incorrect label" but instead blogs about how he's pissed off at people trying to make the most of their jars, and how he's nigh-disgusted that people want to share their baked goods anyway, those sugary badges of false pride.
Imagine how silly that would seem to everyone.
Find the line of code which spits out the © symbol, and replace it with "This submission owned or made by Twile", or better yet, leave it out completely because the bottom of the page says "All artwork is copyrighted their respective owner unless stated otherwise."
But srsly, you said everything I was thinking, with far more references to food. Now my point has been well-made, and I'm hungry.
This doesn't entirely make sense, anyway. User galleries have a strong connotation of "art I made" regardless of the copyright, even to people who disagree and just think of it as "art I made.. probably". It also still takes unnecessary extra effort to figure out when something is a commission.
And, yes, I like to share my aggravation with the intertubes. Is this uncommon?
The only response you had to my original post, when I wanted to know where it was explicitly stated that content should be owned by the poster, was that little bit about the © under each submission. I thought that your core objection to people's use of FA galleries was that people were doing something which was flat-out wrong. Because really, it's nobody's problem and fault but your own that your view of an image gallery is too limited to include commissioned artwork.
The good news is that these things tend to work themselves out. People who are artists don't generally commission other people. Sometimes they do art trades, and they're always labeled explicitly as being art trades. People who do commission a lot basically never draw their own art, and often state in many places that the art isn't theirs. As if the vastly different styles from one thumbnail to the next wasn't a big enough indicator.
I will agree that it's nice to have things all optimized and organized and tidy. But there's another design principle that you should pay attention to, design for error. My university put down sidewalks and signs to please use the sidewalks. Students blazed their own trails through the grass, wearing it down to dirt (ironically, because students wanted optimal paths which were shorter). Rather than getting furious at students and trying to put up fences around the grass, they put down new sidewalks where people were walking. Now people use the sidewalks. Problem solved. Same thing with products and websites, to a decent degree. So people use FA galleries to share art that they commissioned? Make some changes so that it's clear a gallery might not be of that person's own art. Give them two galleries, a personal gallery for their own content, and a general gallery for other content. Make a different colored bored on thumbnails. Do any of the things I suggested earlier for facilitating multi-user postings. Most people don't have a problem with the notion of sharing one's commissioned art, including the site owner. And many people would find it useful to be able to easily tell what is commissioned and what is not. So work with that.
Not wrong, just incorrect.
I am going to resolve this problem around what people actually do; I had the idea years ago, before I had ever heard of Ferrox, and still intend to implement it now. I am just sharing pedantic-geek frustration, which happens to take significantly less time to do.
That gives you the strict definition you wanted as well as the functionality that artists and users desire.
Sometimes they are flakey.
Like this argument >:
i dunno if anyone noticed here but take deviantart, yaoigallery or any other fan-related site in the genre of furaff; it's focused on the artist's self creations and collaboration, not a personal exhibition of an inexistent character "fursonna".
also, creativity > popularity.
...pageviews are statistics like others, it's not what makes the quality but it remains a good indicator; and reflects exactly where gets the audience.
and yeah; attention is where it goes.
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/528795/ perfectly reflects it :)
People, posting art, on an art site? Unthinkable!
>>"Every submission page says "by (username)", with a copyright just above attributing it to you. Even the upload page says "Submit your art and images." The implication everywhere is, as is pretty typical for an art gallery, that you will be uploading art you made."
This is a problem with the site's design, not people's practices.
>>"Why, then, are there so many accounts littered with every scribble the owner can possibly find that contains eir likeness? What did you do that makes you just as deserving to show off this work as the artist? Send someone twenty bucks over PayPal? Make up a super-creative persona that greatly resembles a fox with a funny haircut? How does that compare to years of practice and hours of work?
It's not yours. All you did was financially encourage someone to spend their limited time on something you would like. (No, you don't own the copyright, either; that only applies if the artist agreed in writing that it is a work made for hire."
If the copyright holder (the artist) authorized the reposting, there isn't a legal problem. What the copyright owner permits people to do with their intellectual property isn't your business.
>"Artists give permission, I know, but that's irrelevant; the point is that you did not create anything, and the very point of an art site is to show off things you created!"
So things can't have multiple uses.
Guess you learn something every day.
Uses for tools (i.e. websites) can't be "diluted" like with meanings, as the uses of a tool doesn't derive from convention, but from the tool's properties.
If people start using a tool for something else, it doesn't prevent anybody from using that kind of tool for what it used to be used for.
If people start using the word "literally" for something else, for example, that does present a problem when trying to say something or when using it in communication, since other people may take it to mean something else, or may not have another word for it. Confusion or awkwardness results.
If people started using hammers as paperweights, it would still be just easy to use them for striking nails. What other people do with hammers is completely irrelevant, as it has no bearing on your ability to smash it into nails.
People's use of galleries to exhibit art they commissioned in no way prevents other people from using their galleries to exhibit exclusively art they created.
Yes. It does. As it does here. I see complaints or annoyance all the time, both from people trying to find art and discovering it doesn't belong to the person whose name is all over it and people who upload their commissions and find that tons of visitors assume it belongs to them.
If by some miracle there was absolutely no usability or efficiency effect on ANYONE's part from this phenomenon, I wouldn't care at all.
The issue is how this unwanted consequence can be minimized while still allowing for the benefits of permitting commissioned artwork in user's galleries, and do/would the benefits outweigh the costs. This should have been explained in the OP.
Allowing commissioned work in the customer's gallery makes it easy for people to find artwork of specific character, and it helps people to find new artists when the user credits properly.
Any mistake about the artist of a work is a minor inconvenience. It can be corrected without hassle relatively quickly, and had the mistake not occurred, the user making the mistake might not have found the work or the artist at all.
You could minimize the number of mistakes and any trouble correcting them by allowing users to write in copyright information, the name it will display on the submission page ([title] - by [artist]), and maybe requiring them to mention the artist in the title, and link to the artist's page.
I see you plan on using a "commissions" gallery though, which would also work.
You should have mentioned that in the OP, and explained its benefits over the current system and other proposals. The moralizing, especially with what appeared to the desire to impose an arbitrary standard and no attention paid to costs, benefits, or alternatives probably agitated people.
Artists are properly cited and given credit
I watch
Instead of hunting down hundreds of other artists (Yes hundreds),
I just watch him and he adds his commissions to his gallery.
I've easily spent thousands of dollars on commissions over the years. I especially like to find artists who NO ONE knows about, but is great, to commission because I love to examine their art, find their talents and commission something that I know they would be great at doing.
I've gotten comments from dozens of artists who got 30+ watchers out of no where because I posted my commission and told people to check the artist out. I have a personal rule of always mentioning the artist in the entry and usually always in the title as well. If I dont know their FA name - I ask for people to help me find it.
If FA didn't allow people to post commissions, the FA community would instantly lose me and many other people like me who use this service as a way of finding artists to fork money over to. Which -- we are the reason many of those artists have an extra income. I don't think the service, or furry art as a whole considering how big FA is, would be what it is without the people who pay for the commissions.
And I agree, it's very satisfying when some underknown artist gets a good spike because of you
I find it annoying that the artist posts the picture, then immediately after (or months later) you see the pic again from the commissioner, even with the filename of theirs in the file ( e.g. 1234567890.commissioner_1234567890_artist_picture.jpg ). Or even worse, if it has multiple people in it (say four), there are FOUR copies on it here, all in the span of one day.
All my commissioned pics are not on here on the commissioner's site (that includes the Juicy pic, as it is censored and mine is not), to the best of my knowledge.
I agree with you on the aspect of altering the original commission and reposting it as their own. That really irks me too. I like seeing what the original artist did. Why didn't they tell the artist that something was wrong with the picture instead of changing it, and saying this is your work?
But what about OC collaborations? I know I have seen a few that more than one artist work on one piece. Who should post it? The one who did the most work on it? The one that has the better skill? The one who opened the OC in the first place? Just a thought.
Anyhow... great argument, Eevee.
Short version: I think it's an issue that can be solved with technology while still giving both sides what they want.
Well I have to say I really do agree with you!
It's an art gallery for posting your own art, so that people can see it~
Numerous times I've been going through the 'browse' function, only to find art I like, favorite and comment, and then realize it wasn't the 'original' that the artist made, so I had to unfavorite that one and go to the proper place to make sure the actual artist got what they deserve -- it's also annoying sometimes when you're looking through someone's gallery, and you're like, "Hey, this guy's really good!" -- only to find out it's not that guy at all. x3 It's not the biggest bother in the world to me, but I don't think it should generally be the conduct. It's not like a Chan site where you can just tag any image to a general gallery, because then it's all sorted by artist tags and whatnot. l3
Not to say I have a problem with people showcasing their stuff, either -- I actually do the same. However, I do it on another website, a little Freewebs page I made. I have a link to it in my FA, and I just throw that link to anyone who's interested in my character, or whatever. Still gets the idea across, but is non-intrusive and makes it clear that the stuff on it was drawn for me, either gifts or commissions -- and not drawn by me. l3
I've had half a dozen people approach me and tell me they agree but not want to comment. >:|
they don't want to come out of the wordwork lest they get slammed by anonymous people D:
Up further, Dragoneer mentioned making a second "gallery" that would be on your page and would be meant for artwork you have received either as a gift, a commission, a request, etc.
Shut up
I don't want to have to browse around all over FA to find artwork of a specific character (such as arcy or drayk)
when I could easily go to either of their pages, and find all the artwork done of them in one place, they give fair credit
and praise to the artists always. This topic is stupid, should be ended, and buried.
Nothing bothers me than people who can't think outside their own little box.
TL;DR
Nothing bothers me more than miscategorization. Well, that's not true, but it's not as effective without the parallelism.
It might be the case that people using their galleries as trophy cases is more prevalent, but it would be very tiresome to distinguish between people who just get an artist to draw for them and ones that actually work with the artists to make a more original work, and even more so to enforce that distinction, so I think that the way FA handles it right now is the best we can do, unless there are fundamental changes to the code.
I hope ferrox doesn't eliminate the opportunity to post collaborative pieces, though. A lot of my friends and I work together to make concept pieces that I feel rather proud of, and would like to post sometime in the future.
MMM-MMM, TASTE THAT BICKERING
But seriously, I'd say I'm biased since I don't make commisions, but I just tink that makin' journals with links to the originals works just as well as posting them in a gallery.
lol opinion.
stop destroying the furry community
2. Just because you get hundreds of replies/page views by posting a controversial, edgey, and in some cases offensive topic, does NOT make you popular.
In all honesty, popularity is far over rated, and I know people who can support this statement.
gallery
gal·lery
Pronunciation: \ˈga-lə-rē, ˈgal-rē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gal·ler·ies
4 a: a room or building devoted to the exhibition of works of art b: an institution or business exhibiting or dealing in works of art c: collection , aggregation <the rich gallery of characters in this novel — H. S. Canby>
A collection of works for the purpose of exhibition. Nowhere does it say "A collection of works by the artist who created them."
A gallery is a place to display works of art. They do not need to be works you've created.
I think it would be good if there were a setting specifically for commissioned/requested works, so that they cannot be favorited, or the favorites automatically go to the original upload. This setting should also remove the copyright notice, or change it to display the actual artist's name.
Can I put all of your art in my gallery?
What about all of da Vinci's art? That's public domain; there are no copyright issues.
As for da Vinci's art… Again, if it weren't for the involuntary copyright notice that would appear, crediting it to you, you could.
The artist doesn't have to tell the commissioner a damn thing. In lieu of something stating otherwise, rights go to the creator. This is how copyright law works.
You see, I've covered that already. I guess you just skipped over that little bit because it contained opinions stated as opinions.
Furry is creativity based. People make up characters of their own all the time, and design them the way they want them to look. Much of what makes the furry subculture special to lots of people is when they create/design a character and can have that character come to life, whether it be MUCKS, art, fursuiting, sculpture, even animation in some rare cases.
With me, it's easy to pluck mental images out of my head and bring them to life with my drawings. Many furry artists out there will also say the same. It's convenient, not to mention cheap as I don't have to commission anyone to design my characters for me. But what do you do if you have great ideas, but don't have the artistic prowess to do them any justice?
This is where I think posting commissions comes in as a very handy tool. Not only do you give the artist in question a little extra boost by posting their work, but it helps put a face to the name. It helps bring a character to life, and it helps establish an identity. "This is what my fursona looks like. This is what I designed." If someone doesn't have the artistic talent themselves, in my opinion, those specific detailed descriptions people use when they commission an artist are just as creative. All we do is draw what the commissioner asks us to.
The way I see it, it's one thing to pluck an image out of my head and draw it. But when I'm able to bring to life an idea that someone ELSE has had knocking 'round their head and they see my art and go, "That's perfect!" That's something special. And if they want to post that to their gallery, I shall gladly allow them.
In another light, there's also this. I have two galleries. My main one is for posting pics that I have done myself. But I have another gallery,
Whew. And so, another teal deer was born. :)
WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOU INTO THE WORLD... OF THE LOGICAL USER
this should be listed as an artist type
Consider FurAffinity to be a community of artists and art enthusiast, instead of just being an art gallery.
Now consider the fact that 'x' comissions 'y'. 'Y' draws 'x' a picture and let's him upload it in his own gallery if he wishes. 'Y' has agreed to this, so 'y' has no problem with it.
Now consider 'x' is responsible for the concept, the idea. 'X' wanted to see a mouse pawing off a moose while sliding down a tobogan. Beautiful. 'Y' agrees to draw 'x's concept. The whole idea for the picture came from 'x'. How is that not a collaboration?
There are people out there who get paid tons of money just to say "Skywalker should have a pink skirt in this next movie" when they are not the ones who're going to sew it, if you catch my drift. How is the commissioner not taking part in the process? Further yet, it's his character being drawn. Doesn't he deserve credit for coming up with his own credit?
I'm obviously ignoring the simple issues and reasons why this should or shouldn't be allowed 'cause they've been stated hundreds of times. So let's go deep. You seem to be analyzing this pretty stoicly, so I'll do the same: The commissioner paid for a piece of art. He paid for it with money. Regardless of the source of that money (Parents, robbery, database hacking, bounty hunting...), that money was entrusted him, so someone, if not himself, made some effort to earn it. Effort. If that seems to be the problem, there's no problem at all. The commissioner paid for the piece of art, that's his share in this lil' collaboration between him and the artist. Voila, he worked on it, one way or another.
Now tracing back to your initial logic:
You completely disregarded the effort and thought process put into creating a character. I agree, some people just 'vomit' fursonas. But some people don't. Some people actually do studies of different species and stuff. To dismiss that as being trivial is to completely revoke any of your rights to comment on what's 'incorrect' or not. Someone who's trying to challenge the AUP (Nothing against, I admire that kind of attitude) can't possibly feel righteous enough to directly ignore, and not only ignore but mock, intrnational laws of copyright, which state that your creation HAS some value.
That alone can be linked to the fact a comission is, in one way or another, a collaboration between the commissioner and the artist. As far as you're using someone else's character in a picture you need his collaboration, otherwise you'll have no character for that picture. And thus, you'll be making use of his effort as well. Although that's much better than "Ah just draw me a fursona as you see fit.", huh?
Just to mention one more time.. your biggest reason to oppose this is that you 'find this practice to be incorrect'. Okay, it is your right, and it's a good thing you're speaking up. That's what a community is about. But then again, if most people disagree, and believe commissioners are entitled (Upon consulting the artist) to upload their creations to their own galleries, well, that's the majority speaking. In cases so abstract as this that is the biggest proof one can offer for, or against. So it really depends on what people are saying.
Personally, I think the commissioner should be allowed to post pictures after consulting with the artist first. That's what's so beautiful about this system, it's organic, each can decide what to do as it fits them best, as long as the artists aren't being harmed. And if they're agreeing to it, they're either not being harmed or they're being harmed and don't really care about it. So shouldn't that be ultimately their decision? The artists who are, in major, responsible for their creations?
Sorry if I offended you somehow. I was just trying to objectively expose my point of view. I do believe this sort of discussion is very rich and can only do well for the community, so I'm happy to be able to toss in my two cents. ^^
But the vast majority of commissions I see are of critters that have unique attributes I could count on one hand. Backstory rarely seems to factor in, either, as it's usually just one dude sticking something in another dude. Perhaps I am missing out on some rich hidden underbelly of FA.
Not that this is necessarily bad -- fuck, I'm an Eevee with some dark bits where they usually aren't -- but I am having trouble comparing the art of drawing to "hm I am a fuzzy red dragon with a yellow mane".
We'll all have blocky, boring houses where you can cook while pooping AND watching TV...... Hey, maybe that's not such a bad idea...... but I digress...
Truth is, whether 'you' like it or not, the law states if you create something you're responsible and should be credited for it. I mean, how creative is Kirby? He's pretty much just a pink sphere with a cute face. I'm sure many people drew pink spheres with cute faces before, but the guy who drew him gave him shoes and arms. THAT made him special, and up-to-date he's one of most recognizable video game characters ever.
It's not up to you to decide how copyright works. If you have an idea and you execute it, even if it's a stick figure with a tail going 'lulz', that's your credit, that's your creation and it does have some value. Might be crap, might not be creative at all, but in the real world it's worth a lot. People have got millions from sueing for copyright infringements. I'm quite sure concepts are worth something, don't you think? O.o
But someone else's drawing is not your creation. It uses your specification, sure, and if you wrote that down in some interesting manner then that would be yours. You're just a level of abstraction away here. Images are a visual thing, and the creator of an image is understood to be the person who drew it -- just like the creator of a book is understood to be the author, not the guy who printed and bound it.
Should an architect get credit for the creation of every one of a hundred houses built to match his blueprint, or should he get credit for the general abstract design of those houses? They aren't the same.
Might be crap, might not be creative at all, but in the real world it's worth a lot.
Not really. You have to actually justify the dollar amount if you sue. If you make a doodle and forget about it, and someone prints it out to put on eir fridge, you're not really going to get millions just because it's copyright infringement. Frankly, for most cases furries threaten legal action over, it probably wouldn't be worth the effort or legal fees to take it to court at all.
There can be no "Sebastian Taking a Dump at the Beach" without a "Sebastian".
But we're evading the issue here. You stated this is basically a problem with organization. I agree with that. I think FA could create some way to blatantly show you're uploading art that's not created by you, such as a different background colour for those galleries or some flashy icon over the thumbnail, something like that.
But besides that, I believe we've discussed every point that could hurt people, one way or another, and everyone seems to be quite okay with it.
There's no sense in continuing with this debate. If we want to really change something we could move on and start debating a way to create a 'commissioned' gallery or something like that, don't you agree? That would be far far more reasonable and productive. ^^
Supporting commissions has always been planned for Ferrox.
"In todays society, creativity is just a measure of how fast you can take someone elses idea, and put a serial code on it." ~Mike Hinkleman, President of Article 88
Eevee, you really are stuck in that box aren't you?
Why do we need to turn "I disagree with you" into "I am trapped hopelessly in this mental jail due to my own cognitive shortcomings; please point it out in a vaguely condescending manner"?
As for the mincing of words, you set yourself up for it, the way you worded your "shitstorm" of text makes it seem like a flame directed at art whores.
So do I make a journal saying "Mr X did me an awesome pic, they are so talented, you should totally go to their page and look at all their OTHER work but not this piece I'm talking about."?
If this person decides not to upload commissions to their gallery and I'm not allowed to upload commissions to my gallery then no-one gets to see it, do they?
Why, exactly, does this artist not want to upload this piece?
They don't seem to upload any commissions to their own gallery.
If an artist, or a commisioner wants a peice of artwork to NOT be posted, they must specify at the time of commissioning, before any transactions have taken place, otherwise both parties are free to do what they want with the peice of artwork, considering, again, that it is equally the property of both parties, unless stated prior to purchase.
ANYWAYS, yeah, seems you've already noticed my commentary on this.
I'll just say here that it kind of frustrates me that so many people are saying that they use FA as a place to keep their images as a back-up (in case it gets deleted, lost, computer it was saved on kicks the bucket, etc) when there are so many other viable options (PhotoBucket & similar websites, CDs/external hard drives, personal websites, even printing for the lucky rich kids who can afford printer cartridges). I don't think that people can't have considered those options...
As far as the "it is publicity for the original artist" point, there are plenty of ways to give an artist publicity. Journals have already been mentioned. I've noticed that people tend to look at my page when someone draws art for me, so making some fan art is an option for those of you who are doodlers. Show the art to your friends (link to it in conversation, I know you guys talk to each other). I imagine there are a lot of other creative ways that I can't think of to tell folks who the cool artists are out there other than pressing the SUBMIT button and uploading their art to your gallery. THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX, USE YOUR IMAGINATION, AND OTHER POPULAR PHRASES. What is convenient isn't always best (just look at how much 7-11 charges for a sandwich! HIGHWAY ROBBERY!).
I hadn't thought about it in the context of this journal, but it speaks volumes that I bother to use them at all.
Of course, other languages suffer from this too; take French for example. "Il", masculine singular; "elle", feminine singular; but "on" is neuter and can mean we, us, you, them, they, etc. However I think languages with genders are better off, as there are two subject pronouns: one for masculine nouns, one for feminine. That way, there's no debate over whether or not we should use "he" as a neuter pronoun, because if the noun was feminine, we *can't* use "he." Also, in this example, "on" is used for informal dialog anyway; idiomatic expressions in French generally fall back on "il."
which is annoying IMO.
y'know, i definitively agree there. it's an art (porn) site, and not some contest of who will get the biggest amount of pics in their gallery to inflate their ego's importance.
hell, they just can learn to draw already!
all that to say , i totally agree with you and support you with this idea!
but holy shit eevee...when you want to make waves...you sure as fuck knew how to start one.
as far as what this journal is talking about...all i can say is..
meh
I still don't get why so many people are taking this personally. This all began as a rant about "something" going in the wrong "label". :V
I do believe this journal got side tracked.
i know you just wanted to make a point...but thats like trying to tell all furrys that they are just zoophilias when you boil down to it. whether its true or not i dont care and im sure you dont eather...but furrys are all sensitive about the fandom and anything about it. so when you poke at it they are going to tell you how wrong you are. so this journal is just proof. this really is a topic about how they are using the word gallery wrong...i do as well...but i dont care. but im sure you tugged on alot of ppls strings just putting it out there.
you tugged so hard the other topics witch are not even the point of the point that you where trying to make decided to make there home here. it was something that i didn't even know was going on so it was neet for me to read all about that stuff. but it didnt "need" to be here.
i hope that helps
1) have not been informed by the artist that you are not to post it
2) give proper credit to the artist
if you do those, you are not violating copyright or intellectual property rights
In fact, most artists likely ENCOURAGE commissioners to post their art, as that is the best possible way to get their name spread around. I know that probably 75% of the artists on my watch list I discovered after someone already on my list posted a commissioned piece from them.
most of these comments are a gold mine
DIRECTED AT ME
I WILL TAKE IT
PERSONALLY
You have the power!
Let's say you implement separate galleries for "stuff I did" and "stuff I paid others to do for me" (as you said you were going to somewhere in the melee that is the comments above this one). How do I, as a lurker rather than an internet superstar (you know who I'm referring to), know that this gallery of commissions isn't going to be completely ignored like my journals and my scraps and (as I suspect is the case) my favourites are now?
All has said been done and a stalemate, like most arguments have been reached. Looks like the only way you can totally put the lid on the entire issue is make some sort of compromise (which would eat up resources and time) or choose one side (upsetting the other side and suffering a bit of the client base)
I do love reading stuff like this.
So in the end, it does not matter whether I agree or disagree with the statement in your journal, because your argument is fundamentally flawed. Give people a break and just say "this is my opinion" not "what's wrong with you, all counter-arguments are meaningless because of course this is wrong"
Um. Yes. Deferring to Maddox here.
I do not want ANYONE forcing me to believe what they do
Writing something on the Internet forces you to believe what I do? I wasn't aware my telepathy had already developed so far.
you are contradicting that by telling everyone they are wrong unless they think the same you do.
Of course I'll think people who disagree with me are wrong. That's what holding a position is.
This is very silly. I don't understand this running theme that I am a terrible and hostile person for thinking something and not watering it down with "oh this is just my opinion", as if that made it unimportant. Everything I say is my opinion!
So in the end, it does not matter whether I agree or disagree with the statement in your journal, because your argument is fundamentally flawed.
You have not addressed my argument at all. You have addressed my presentation, and done it badly.
Give people a break and just say "this is my opinion"
No. I'm not going to slap disclaimers on everything I say. That's useless noise. If you cannot figure out that what I say is opinion, that's your problem. I refuse to babysit.
Honestly, people who pull the "just my opinion" card all the time get on my nerves. I know it's your opinion; don't dilute it because you're scared someone might not like it. Either stand up for what you think or don't say it in the first place.
Ok, what started as a mere personal complain about how this community behaves, has turned into a "I took it personally because its my case".
Now, I may ask this…. what was the purpose of FA when it was first created? Just a furry art gallery or a community, if you want to put numbers on the table, FA has a big user base but, of all those users, how many actually draw, and how many register to get access to all the content and have record of their favorite artists work.
Its not unusual for some to be attention whores around here and try to build up popularity by stuffing they gallery with other artists work, and show off their fursonas yada yada, we seen this for years now. As you know by now, we have two kinds of people around here, artists and fans, and guess which one of those is bigger :)
Ok you get frustrated because people don’t use this place as they should, or as you think they should, or you think its correct, your opinion is valid of course, but just as furry nature is, don’t expect people won’t complain or disagree with you, because there are more fans than artists.
Now, as sys admin of this place, what is it that really bothers you, is it that valuable server resources are being wasted because of all the duplicated artwork? Why not just ban all the people that don’t draw and leave the real artists? (Of course I’m joking ) But well, who doesn’t like to argue here :P
In short, you could just deleted this journal a long time ago and instead of trying defending your point (which is useless as far as I seen), you should think of a solution for this problem, like many of the above mentioned here for ferrox, after all, you are in charge of the project all mighty vee.
I've got a few pictures done from other people in my gallery. It's the minority of what I have going at the moment, and haven't done it in a long time. So I'll come out and fully admit being part of this 'problem'.
I'm not claiming to be an artist, because I can't draw for dildos in bubble-wrap. I write and make some compositions mostly, and I'll admit that part of the reason I'm sort of on board with the idea of posting commissions is so that people who use less-popular mediums will have some sort of basis to get views for their stories/music.
Let's face it. People who write stories, pr0n, or poetry are usually overlooked in a quick second. That's not bawwing, that's just a fact most of the time. If there's not a picture there to get someone's attention, the instant reaction is usually to look elsewhere.
Now, while this is a personal reason for me having a few commissions like that in my gallery, it's mostly to give people a picture of what the characters in my stories would look like, as visualizing for furries is a big thing. I'm certain if I didn't post those pictures, I'd have even less views on my pr0n stories.
Also, some artists like
My reasons for being in support of commissioners posting, with permission, their commissioned pictures isn't the most solid. I can admit that. But at least I'm giving my real reasons for supporting such a thing.
With all that said, I do see what your point is. A shared gallery, as some above said, with the original artist's post linking also to the commissioner, would be a great idea. I'd be totally on board with something like that. I hate to sound like one of those neutral furs, seeing as I'm kind of dancing on both sides on this, but that's just how I feel on the subject. I have no strong feelings, but I can see where people may get them.
This really isn't up for debate, in legal terms. You may not like it, you may think it's stupid, you may think that because the art in question is just a computer file you should be able to do anything you want with it because information wants to be free. Suggestion to anyone who really takes that last one seriously: Adobe Photoshop is just a computer file. Try uploading it to your gallery and see what happens. But wait! you cry. That's obviously illegal because it's piracy!
Yes. Exactly. (I'll sit and wait while you chew on that.)
The simple truth is that the reason that this isn't a problem in furry fandom is that artists have chosen not to make it a problem. I've put up gift art before, always after asking permission to do so, and more than once the artist has seemed slightly baffled that I even bothered to ask. This is a great thing in the community, really -- but it's a great thing that, from a purely legal standpoint, can't be relied on. If someone makes most or all of their living selling artwork (and by now, there's a few furry artists who actually do that), they may not appreciate this kind of casual, well-meaning copyright violation. And while I'm not sure LexyEevee explicitly made this point, it's possible that an artist Who Is Not Amused might make the case that FA condones this behavior and should be held jointly liable.
Having said that, it appears to me that Lexy's point was largely fueled by user interface considerations: if you're going to have a gallery of gift/commission art, the system should make explicit provision for that. It could display the art a little differently; from a database standpoint it could make sure the art isn't stored in the DB multiple times (that doesn't mean it couldn't appear in both the artist's gallery and in commission galleries); it could have a checkbox for "I have obtained the artist's explicit permission to add this image to my commission gallery and if I am lying it is not FA's fault."
If it's already on FA, I will simply favorite it and save it to my HD just in case that particular artist goes on a delete-fest.
People that upload pictures ALREADY on FA and on their own artist gallery, and then upload the same picture to their gallery, that's just annoying.
You could argue convenience of having all your character art in one place but, still, it's the same image uploaded to the same site twice, and that's dumb, and I see this a LOT.
There's my 2 cents
I dont think you should perport to know what is right for all artists, you certainly do not speak for me.
So really, what you should push for is more awareness of the ettiquette of posting a commissioned piece (link to the original, credit, etc), a constructive solution.
If your part of that mystical group of "coders" that have SVN acces, you could look into adding commissioned work as a type of submission, with some additional information the software keeps track of and displays, such as the author and the submission ID of the original.
But it kinda calls into question some seemingly absolutes in the way submissions work, like why can there be only one author? My ideal solution would be to completely blow that away, make it possible to upload a piece with a list of people who made it, then it apears in all of their "galleries."
I also think that derivatives of works or newer versions should be linked, and alotta things like that.
ps: Just to head off this counter-argument since I've heard it time and time again: yes, I know the AUP specifically allows this, and no, that doesn't make it okay. I am also specifically disagreeing with the AUP. Being permitted to do something does not automatically make either the action or the rule good.
Its funny, I often times say that when Im talking about why I think this site should be more exclusively furry... but I digress xP
I think youre right. Its not something I really understand why it happens. Maybe it has something to do with a sense of entitlement, but I think that can be said with alot of the parts of this site that are attributed with the "community" side of things. I think the way this site defines what is "community" is ambiguous at best, and thats where alot of the problems come in =\
I think it also might have something to do with the idea that alot of people have nowadays that "anything is art" and so, a commissioner somehow feels as though they are really an artist.
And ignorance has to do with it as well. Same as most people dont know you cant copyright a character or a pose, they dont read or even make an attempt to comprehend the wording used in submissions or the galleries.
Now. . .
I happen to think that, if NOTHING ELSE, a person should be able to post a ref sheet in their gallery, no matter who did it, for easy location and viewing. *shrugs*
that aside, though-
I sort of share an account with my bestest friend, Krizzle. I do pretty much all of his art for him, and we've made an agreement that I'll be posting something on my account, some he gets to post, and a very few are crossovers.
and he's a little bit more social than I am, but If i hadn't le thim post those things, i probably wouldn't have nearly as may watches, pageviews, and favorites as I do now.
so.. it kinda goes both ways for some of us-
as well, i do not undervalue my artwork-
I charge so little because it's so painfully EASY, and i want to be able to make sure that I can take my time when work and school gets in the way. lower prices mean that less people complain about how long it takes, and lower prices also means that more people can buy.
and furry is all about the art, so why not? *shrugs*
It might not seem like a powerful or witty work at first glance, but after deeply considering its role within a community that usually jumps the shark at anything remotely accusable of being an insult, and piecing that together with a trolls primary role of camoflauge, the conclusion is that it accomplishes its goal perfectly and eschews any hope of critism.
10/10
ss+ stylish viewtiful tatsunical
450+ hit combo
Not An Artist Bonus - +72000 points
But cool I will print this out and put it on my wall of Internet awards.