I don't know about Greed 100%, some artist are desperate of money and use Paywalls to make a living. there are some artist that use paywalls that make a living by themselves in commissions which can be greed then.
I don't know about Greed 100%, some artist are desperate of money and use Paywalls to make a living.
There are many better ways to make a living off one's art without having to paywall it. Especially if they post censored versions of the art and pretty much say" Wanna see it uncensored? Then pay up". THAT is what aggravates me the most. I don't mind a lower resolution version posted for free(Within limits of course) and the higher res posted exclusively for people who pay. I also don't mind if the artist offers early access to people who pay though that doesn't much count as a paywall to me
There are many better ways to make a living off one's art without having to paywall it. Especially i
I'm not planing such a thing, I'm just collecting opinions. however isn't that what art galleries do? Charge you money to enter and see an artist best artwork?
I'm not planing such a thing, I'm just collecting opinions. however isn't that what art galleries do
I'm not going to restrict my art in anyways except maybe a delay. and plus the patreon gets rewards like discounts on commissions. Which does seems weird but I see it as the patreons get to use the money that they support me with towards a commission too
I'm not going to restrict my art in anyways except maybe a delay. and plus the patreon gets rewards
I like it only if it a temporary paywalls. it give the choice to just be patient and enjoy the art after a moment, or to be supportive and to get to see something earlier.
with a permanent paywalls you are just considering art as a business with the sole purpose of making money. don't ask for 'help' or to 'support' in this case. you're selling art.
I like it only if it a temporary paywalls. it give the choice to just be patient and enjoy the art a
in a way, the artist is the one who decide what he do of his art, it not fair to ask if it fair. some people want to share their art and make money as well, they try to find a balance between what they share for free and what they give for the paying user. depending on if you want to make a living of art, if you just want to end your month with a bonus, or if you consider art as a pure hobby that should never be done for money will determine how much of a paywall you gonna do.
an artist who paywall his art is like a business, he is selling his stuff, it like disney, comic book, or any other similar media, you pay to see something, and people should have no right to say this is wrong or right, it a way to make a living, if you complain about an artist paywalling his stuff, why don't you complain about disney for doing the same ?
then there is the in between, some artist want to make a living from art without paywalling their stuff, but then it up to the fan to give their money or not, rare are the people that will give their money for something they can get for free, so that where the concept of temporary paywall, access to higher resolution or exclusive bonus art start. the artist made it this way because he feel like it the best way for him and his fan to see his art.
when people complain about paywall, they are just being bitch that don't understand that artist need money to live, and the world isn't a perfect world, they just want free stuff, they will try everything to guilt the artist.
in a way, the artist is the one who decide what he do of his art, it not fair to ask if it fair. som
I watch a great many artists. If all I ever see are cropped work & a link to their Patreon, 9 times of 10 I will not even look, simply stop following them. If they have a delayed publish with the option to see works early for a subscription, I'll respect that. I even pay 2 artists to see their early work.
But in the case of "Pay to See" exclusively, the artist should stop considering followers or watchers, they simply have customers - people who can afford to pay for their service. Nothing burns me more than those who follow this path then a few months later are lamenting their huge loss of followers, blaming the cheaters or illegal posters, and usually begging either for a handout or for more followers. Or they even start publishing fewer & fewer works while Patreon continues to charge all those loyal payers for nothing. I used to follow one who peaked at almost $3k monthly & was putting out a pic a week. Damn fine pay IMO. Now, they MAY put out a pic a month, but that's even dropping.
Simply put, there are very - VERY few artists in the furry fandom who can afford to make money regularly with their art. And once you're doing it that way, the art becomes far less enjoyable. It's a job. And once it's a job, the art suffers.
I watch a great many artists. If all I ever see are cropped work & a link to their Patreon, 9 times
Depends. I see nothing wrong with paywalling comics, but only when they have been fully completed, printed and published. When it comes to just individual drawings, I feel an early access system should be there. People who can fund an artist get faster access, everyone else just have to wait.
And then there is patreon, which is abused by hundreds if not thousands. Using a tip jar as a permanent paywall. It funny though when people do that since its patreon that get the majority of the money, not the artist.
Depends. I see nothing wrong with paywalling comics, but only when they have been fully completed, p
Hmmm, paywalls tend to only work when the artist is either well known or still does work outside of it. I remember when catfiddle tried it, but she didn't get too far with it.
Hmmm, paywalls tend to only work when the artist is either well known or still does work outside of
I don't mind early access paywalls, where the art will end up in the open a month or two later. Permanent paywalls totally suck though.
Paywalls are generally a horrible way to make money. The most artists complaining about money issues seems to be from those on Patreon. On the other hand, those who post their art openly, and work by commission, tend to have waiting lists with a steady flow of customers.
Honestly, if an artist is posting their work in the open, and taking commissions, they are going to be seen by more people, and they are going to make money - unless their art simply isn't good enough for anyone to want. If the same artist is behind a paywall, then their work is not being seen by the general public, whether it is good or not.
If an artist uses a paywall, they are limiting themselves to existing fans who are already familiar with their work. When an artist posts openly and takes commissions, they are being seen by new customers, as well as their existing ones.
Let's say I have an extra $50 burning a hole in my pocket, and I want to spend it on some art. I can pledge it to someone's Patreon, in the hope or assumption that they'll draw more art. I likely won't have much of a say in what that art will be. It almost certainly won't be of my character. The money is simply to going to a Patreon artist to encourage them to draw more. Even if they draw more, it isn't going to have significant meaning to me, any more the what I can see for free on any open art site. And even worse, if the artist does decide to draw me, I likely can't post it outside their paywall for my friends to enjoy. Oh, and most Patreon artists beg for money at a very annoying level and push their begging onto all the open art sites.
On the other hand, I can take that same $50 and decide to commission someone, who posts all their work in the open, because I love their style. This time, I actually get something special for my money. I get art of me, or a friend, or whoever I paid for, according to my paid for specifications. Then, as a bonus, almost all commission based artists encourage sharing in the recipient's gallery, as long as credit and a link to the artist is provided. Most commission artists never need to beg for money, as they usually have an ongoing queue of customers. Generally, if an artist's queue is consistently long, it indicates that they can safely raise their prices a bit. If they are having trouble getting commissions, they may need to make themselves seen is more place, improve on their art, or lower their prices a bit. If someone really is consistently struggling to bring in commissions, they are certainly not going to bring in Patreon pledges either. Artists need to make themselves as visible as possible, if they want people to pay them, instead of someone else. But, if they resort to Patreon begging, it turns people off. Just put up a commission price sheet with samples, and fans will start to line up.
I don't mind early access paywalls, where the art will end up in the open a month or two later. Perm
I respect that people are trying to make money off of something, but really all it does is deter me to other artists :/ To elaborate a bit further, when I spend money, it's usually to commission someone, I base that off of their current gallery, IE does the art style fit what I want to do, etc, if artists go hiding all of their work behind a paywall, I'll never see what they have to offer, and thus, I take my money elsewhere
I respect that people are trying to make money off of something, but really all it does is deter me
I have blocked keyword "patreon" and nothing else. Its not because there is anything wrong in artists using Patreon but because cropped / censored ads. Too bad.
I don't mind paywalls, artists are free to do whatever they want with their art. I myself won't subscribe to any paywall but I do (infrequently) purchase physical original art or prints and digital picture collections from artists I find interesting. If I know about them.
I have blocked keyword "patreon" and nothing else. Its not because there is anything wrong in artist
Delayed public posts are ideal, lower res releases, as long as they're not super tiny is okay, but hard paywalls, against them, 100%. Many artists have shown that you can do a Patreon without hard paywalls and still make a good chunk of money. They are unnecessary and I dare say they're a middle-finger to anyone whose finances aren't stable enough to support all the artists they want to. "Gotta make money somehow" is a poor excuse for this. Further, it creates this "paywall mentality" where an artist tends to ignore, block, or be outright hostile to non-patrons.
Delayed public posts are ideal, lower res releases, as long as they're not super tiny is okay, but h
as many have said, the context is where many draw a line - if it's a perma-paywall for the content, then it's a "good bye" sorta thing to me. That said, I also consider how much they're asking for sorta thing, like I do for anything I consider buying. My main issue is some of the artists I follow are in other countries, so paywalls can be a harsh thing when you'd rather have no direct ties to your personal info....
I also understand that the artist may do this [go paywall] to have a decent sum of money to be made, but just like we the viewers, one group cannot force the other to do anything.....so some followers may just stop following/etc.
as many have said, the context is where many draw a line - if it's a perma-paywall for the content,
