I think just posting the URL is best. :C

There, it works. XD

ok, well, i see three pics tht I know for a fact arnt his on that page....if it shows. and was kinda jumpy, so I didnt get it the first time

Contact DA!

did, or trying to at least. Wish i had a better link for the report than the FA link. dont know if that would help much

Can you show us which ones you have an issue with? I honestly don't speak Espanol so I don't know what says what on there.

This beautiful Dragon mixture of the puma I colored with Photoshop, a couple of days ago. The original was smaller and had no colors, moreover, was battered and without depth.
It's very nice, indeed, most beautiful beautiful, sensual, but I never marry a look like that, I prefer love with Dragon most beautiful than just a sexy body.
Well, there's nothing more to say with her.
My friend has since Jhonathan name:
LIFKA ....... !!!!!!!!! ohhh, I do not know if it's good but it sounds interesting.

---

I gave myself colour, shade, bright white lighting and other things, as an anti affection abruptness of pixels and a smooth texture.
I have not made mistakes with the image.


Whether you like it.


there ya go, dont know ow accurate google translate is, but I tried

I mean a link to it. A description is nice, but I need to see visual evidence.

click on the link uptop and scoll down to the bottom if it works. and yous see three pics. two from moonstalker and one from cougr. all of recent and colored art by the original artist

I know, i saw those, but like I said, I don't speak spanish, so I don't know what he's saying.

But to say all colorations are art theft is not really true. I've colored stuff by Terrie Smith to show people an idea of what a character should appear to look like, but left the signature on there to show that it's not my original art, and I've stated it.

Coloring an artists work without consent and then uploading to a public art site is generally bad. It's not true theft, but its basically defacing the artists work when there is no permission to do it.

It does border on art theft when there is no true credit given to the original artist.

if anything, its breaking the TOS for modifying original art without permission.

Not really. Claiming it's yours breaks the Terms of Service. Saying this was originally drawn by this person and was colored for practice is something else.

the guy he lised for the jackal lady was Stonegate.......the artist that drew the pic was Moonstalker. I mean, you can look stonegate up on google *artist named Stonegate* and it shows his art...and it looks nothing like Moonstalker's or the jackal lady pic. I cant post direct links to DA, they wont read right for some reason

I've seen that picture, and yes, he does take out the name of the original artists, which is technically art theft because the signature has been removed.

Well put it this way, if it wasn't breaking TOS.. why is it when the original artist goes "HEY, that fur colored X piece by me without my permission" why does it get removed? This isn't fan art. This is taking an original piece and modifying it.

He took off the signature, which is modifying a picture. If you went after everyone that colored a picture without the original artist's permission, there would be a large chunk of art taken off the internet. Primarily it becomes art theft when the signature of the original artist is removed and the person claims that they drew it.

coloring art is modifying it.

No. Removing the name is modifying it because you're taking something out of the original image.

To prove my point;

Is this image here art theft? Because it was colored without Shawntae Howard's permission?

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/908083/

Hardly proving a point thou. If Shawntae Howard wanted that taken down because you had to permission to flat color it, it would be taken down.

Also the TOS of FA does say about written permission to upload other artists work, modified or not.

A lot of art that is on, that has been colored is usually given consent, or has not been policed.

Well, one I should point out that the picture is my intellectual property because the character is copy written to me. two I must say that nothing from the original image is changed, all that is added is the color. Coloring an image is not art theft. Modifying the original image by removing signature then not giving credit to the original artist is what constitutes art theft.

Wait this pic was a commission/trade/gift? I think this is a different case considering you two obviously know one another... If you paid for it, its yours. If its a trade, its yours. You can do with it as you please. If its just a random B&W someone drew that you have colored its the same rule. Need permission. Even if its a request.

Thou if this was a request pic, and you colored and re-uploaded it, and the artist did end up having an issue, it would be taken down.

Admittingly a lot of artists wouldn't have an issue. But in what Bigshow pointed out, the coloring is horrific and the editing of signatures/trademarks.. giving them names.. to me it's clearly defacing the art.

I agree, the colors are horrid and they have names, but the big thing that makes it theft is the removal of the artists signatures, that's the main thing that makes it theft.

I know its not theft; "It's not true theft, but its basically defacing the artists work when there is no permission to do it. " But its the case of.. you can get away coloring other peoples work without permission, but if the artist(s) wants it down, it gets taken down. Again its to do with how hard its policed. But Modifying (adding or removing content) does require permission.

Some of it could by permission (selected pieces) to help friends out.

*qoute*
This beautiful Dragon mixture of the puma I colored with Photoshop, a couple of days ago. The original was smaller and had no colors, moreover, was battered and without depth.
It's very nice, indeed, most beautiful beautiful, sensual, but I never marry a look like that, I prefer love with Dragon most beautiful than just a sexy body.
Well, there's nothing more to say with her.
My friend has since Jhonathan name:
LIFKA ....... !!!!!!!!! ohhh, I do not know if it's good but it sounds interesting.

---

I gave myself colour, shade, bright white lighting and other things, as an anti affection abruptness of pixels and a smooth texture.
I have not made mistakes with the image.


Whether you like it. *quote*




I dont know, I usually thought that when you drew something like that for someone then you either A show them the finished product
B get permission to color there art, and not alter the name or color unless the artist oks the idea
C. give references or links to the pic being colored and or modified

Sorry, I posted before your reply.

til ok, but yeah. I looked p the artist he gave reforence to in the jackal lady pic.....and stonegate's art is clearly different fro moonstalker's......there isnt even any similarities

I'll just keep my "mouth" shut.

why?

I think it's pretty much theft, since they most likely don't have permission from the artist to post the original picture. I always make sure to get permission from the artist before posting something I color on here or on DA.

After running what he said through a translator, I roughly made out that he admits he just colored, but doesn't think there is any problem with posting with it on the site. He needs to know that it's not cool to do that with art.

yeah, I mean, I would have at least tried to give reference or even a link to the original, instead of saying nothing about it.

Luigi48 here. This is definitely art theft. I think that guy from Chile just colored those for fun or to give them color but still, he needs permission from the ORIGINAL artist.

Sorry, forgot to mention that also went to Moonstalkers and Cougr's page in FA and told them about this.

I really cant stand DA. I ALWAYS find art theft there. They dont do much in the way of preventing this either. Personally, if you dont want your art stolen make it really tiny or DONT POST ART ON THE INTERNET!! People are dumb! If you are an artist on the web expect that someone SOMEWHERE has claimed your art as theirs. Its just the way humanity works.
What I have done in the past, and I find this usually helps, is just ask that person nicely if they would be kind enough to give credit to the original "line" artist in their statement. NO FLAME WAR is needed. Just ask the person to kindly state the artist's name. ^_^

well, from what I heard a friend say...he has done this a few times before. and either removed them before they banned him, or had them removed by the Admins. I think DA is poorly moderated and doesnt take the right things into consideration whe things like this happen.

A lot of these \"colorings\" are unpoliced, why they get away with it.

The DA admins aren't going to know something is art theft or something is wrong unless someone tells them about it. There's way too much stuff posted there for anyone to look at it all. It pretty much as to be policed by the people viewing it.

Now, taking someone else's art and changing it in any way at all, without getting permission is wrong. Might not be "theft", but it's against the rules. Taking off the signature is a major no-no. That falls into the theft category and gets your head beaten in.

Each artist will react differently to the transgression. Some artists don't care and let people mess with their art. And that's cool. Some artists care a LOT and don't want their art messed with. That's also cool. The trick is figuring out which artist will react in what way. Best way to do that is to ask permission first. A little effort to begin with can save a lot of pain.

A lot of people take the position of "Better to ask forgiveness than ask for permission". Mostly because they're arrogant and stupid. Some folks are just ignorant of the rules. If you're prepared to deal with the angst, pain and suffering that could come from messing with another person's art, then just post it and hope you don't get nuked. I much prefer to ask first. I got enough pain in my life.

And usually, if I'm asked first, I'll give my blessing. Unless the modifications are ungodly bad or insulting. But, no matter how good the mods are, if I'm not asked first, I want it taken down. Pretty simple.

Well said. What I was hinting on above :P

I would say that yes, it's theft. The images were taken and modified without the owner's permission, the signatures were removed, and no credit was given to the original artist.

Not knowing English is not an excuse to be an asshat.

I can see why he'd be so desperate. His art sucks! XD