I ran into that issue a few years back. The F-List staff is REALLY good about takedowns if you can clearly show that this is your character; I basically posted an FA journal that said "That person is not me; this is me" and gave them the link.

I have had several people use art of Haukena and Windchaser, but they were fairly clear about 'not me, but inspired by', luckily.

yeah, it's not anyone posing as me, mind - but i'm still a little more protective of Sofia and all!

I really don't get it. I don't RP, but it's just a drawing right? What's the big deal about somebody using something you made for their roleplay?

Because it's theft. If you use an artist's work, without their permission, without credit, that is theft. This is not covered under any kind of fair-use ruling; their persona and image was not a salable commercial product available to the public. Even at that, using someone else's IMAGE, even if it is drawn and not, like, a photograph, for sexual content without permission is deeply, deeply tacky and that's giving it the kindest possible interpretation.

I have to say this argument seems flatly ridiculous to me. What is being stolen? They put the image out there for anyone to right click and hit save as. This seems like the same nonsense people use to justify NFTs, I don't understand that either.

As to the remark that its tacky, this is furry porn. It exists as a tool to heighten arousal as an aid to masturbation. If anything shouldn't it be gratifying that someone liked the drawing enough to want to use it for a sexual fantasy?

You're being, frankly, unbelievably obtuse about this, but I'm going to humor the discussion: that is NOT the argument people use to 'justify' NFTs, and in fact many NFTs are guilty of stealing and reselling artwork with no credit to the original artist. This is not about whether you're able to present a series of receipts or ledgers to prove ownership: this is a character, that the artist created, for their -explicitly- personal use, that they have requested people not use without their permission. They've said they're -fine- with their OCs that aren't this specific character being used in this way; this constitutes verbal permission. Why is it 'ridiculous' for an artist who creates something for themselves to set a very simple request about how that thing is used? If you don't think an artist OWNS the original rights to the images they produce, and that attempting to assert this incredibly basic right is tantamount to being 'the same' as NFTs, you don't really understand either of the issues being discussed.

As for the remark that it exists 'as a tool to heighten arousal as an aid to masturbation,' that's just displaying how you feel about it, not explicitly how the creator feels about it. This is not about the theoretical value or non-value of pornography, it's about someone's personal representation. They use it for personal interactions, for personal identification, and the character represented is obviously intensely meaningful to them. Which, you know... they did MAKE the character, and the art of them. Yes, of course anyone CAN 'right click save as,' but mere possession is not ownership; using the image to represent yourself as though it IS your character oversteps that boundary.

What bothers me about your perspective is you're treating this entire affair as only about whether it's 'justifiable' in a purely consumerist way to use someone else's artwork without credit, ignoring that the entire text of the original post was 'please don't do this.' They stated, in fact, what the 'big deal' was: the character means a lot to them and they're exercising their right as a creator to exert authorial control over their own work. That is all the explanation that should be required.

hmm alright then, I see your point