And the person didn't even bother to hide my signature, as if it were done by my hand. I dig Nick and Judy content, but DON'T. USE. MY. ART... YOU HAD NO PERMISSION! MAKE YOUR OWN, THIEF/ IMPOSTER(Whoever you are)!
(Update: I got really peeved over my commissioned pic being edited without permission. It was in fact 'edited' apparently. e621 allowing that is new to me. But I found it very disrespectful to replace the commissioned OC with Nick, and cut out Weaselton. It looks more petty than any other description. You want to make a Nick and Judy scene, then either get someone to make it, pay someone to make it, or make your own. That wasn't cool.)
It's genuinely stupid how these art theives think no one is gonna notice they traced other people's arts. Especially when they steall from multiple artists with different styles.
Its pathetic.
It's genuinely stupid how these art theives think no one is gonna notice they traced other people's
I'm sorry if this upsets you, but this seems like a bit of an overreaction. You are clearly tagged as the artist on that post and it is also clearly labeled as an edit, meaning that it is identified as a piece that has been altered after the fact by a third party. If either of those things were not there I would completely understand your anger, but as it is it seems to me that whoever made/posted that picture was neither claiming to have drawn it themselves nor claiming it was you who made the version with Nick in it. so by definition not a thief or an imposter.
As for not wanting people to tamper with you art in general, I'm sorry but you posted it for free to a public image sharing site. with that act you give people implicit permission to save your pictures and alter them as they see fit. Unless they repost them claiming them as their own work (which again, the poster of this edit did not do) or use them to make a profit, then there is not much you can reasonably do about it.
Also the reason the post has been flagged is bullshit. This isn't a trace it''s a recolor; unless you count removing the motion lines on Judy's ass as tracing.
I'm sorry if this upsets you, but this seems like a bit of an overreaction. You are clearly tagged a
Fair, but the person didn't pay for the commissioned pic. I don't care. I wont simply let it happen without my permission. The person had no respect for me nor the commissioner.
Fair, but the person didn't pay for the *commissioned* pic. I don't care. I wont simply let it happe
As someone who buys commissions, I appreciate this. I've actually had my own stuff edited before and it infuriated me, especially since it was in similar fashion to this an editing out of my 'sona for someone else. On a semi-related note, I've also had people steal my commission ideas that I shared in confidence (I don't do that anymore) and then use the idea with their own characters like it was fine to just swagger jack me like that.
It's completely disrespectful to the artist who spent the effort to create the work and to the commissioner who paid for the work and usually whose idea the work was created from.
Edit: Also "I'm sorry this upsets you" is the "I'm sorry that you're wrong" of internet arguments, I can't believe they led with that.
As someone who buys commissions, I appreciate this. I've actually had my own stuff edited before and
While I agree with your first paragraph, the 'editor' of the picture shouldn't be labelled a thief or imposter, everything else is just purely wrong. Posting an image to the internet does not, in any way, shape, or form, remove the original artist's legal claim over that picture or any image made from it that is not deemed transformative enough to be distinctly, legally different. All image hosting sites 'legally' allow is for sharing of the image and downloading of the image. Permission to edit an image without the legal owner's permission is not allowed or even implied just by the sheer act of posting it to a public space.
As for the takedown reason, it's just semantics. Whether the reason was 'tracing' or 'recolor of an existing picture' or 'does not meet quality standards' or 'original artist requested takedown', the result is and should be the same. A picture the editor did not commission or create poorly edited an image and posted it without the artist or commissioner's knowledge or permission. Takedown should happen, regardless of the 'reason'.
While I agree with your first paragraph, the 'editor' of the picture shouldn't be labelled a thief o
Honestly I had no idea e621 allowed edited posts. Construed it as blatant theft out of the gate. I may have flown off the handle a bit. Still tho, that edit was like a big slap to me and the commissioner's face. My thought now is, "can anyone just replace characters in my pics now?" I don't find that flattering. It just seemed like sum upset person didn't like seeing Judy with another character. - - The edit came off as petty and spiteful to me. If it was meant to be funny, it wasn't to me. e621 is weird. I don't even personally post there anymore.
Honestly I had no idea e621 allowed edited posts. Construed it as blatant theft out of the gate. I m
Just wanted to clarify that the opening is meant to be sincere. Though I maybe should have worded it better. There is always the risk of coming off different than you intend when talking through text. I also probably shouldn't have commented on the legality or the reason the post is flagged.
Mostly I think I confused why so many artist's seemed to take such offense at a clearly labeled edit such as this one. I write instead of draw, but imaging someone doing something similar to my work (accounting for proper labeling and giving me credit as the original author like was done here) just don't make me very angry. Not trying to say my mindset is the correct one, just saying I didn't quite understand everyone else's. I mean an edit like this one don't suddenly make the commissioners original no longer exist.
Just wanted to clarify that the opening is meant to be sincere. Though I maybe should have worded it
(I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice. If you want to muck around with the law, get a lawyer.)
Sorry, but that's not how it works, pal. The Internet does not make content public domain.
XKN did not give "implicit permission" to anybody at any point. He gave explicit permission to the web site(s) he posted the artwork to by agreeing to their ToS, which license them to host and present his artwork. This does not grant any user any license to the artwork other than viewing through the web site. You don't even have the right to share the unaltered artwork (unless otherwise given), let alone alter it. The only reason sites like e621 exist is because there are no relevant artists with both the funds and the gall to sue them under the DMCA.
It is baffling that you've attempted to argue that admitting that a work is derived ("stolen") makes it no longer derived. What??
Altering artwork reflects fraudulently on creators by falsely implicating them as producers or endorsers of what you've made - especially because XKN's signature and tag are still on the image. This is unacceptable legally, ethically, and artistically.
Creators are entitled to full control of their own image and that of their artwork. You are entitled to absolutely nothing and have zero ground to stand on except refuge in audacity.
(I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice. If you want to muck around with the l
Well I learned something about copyright law from this whole fiasco if nothing else. I would like to publicly disavow any assumptions I made regarding legality in my previous comments. I didn't know what I was talking about.
Well I learned something about copyright law from this whole fiasco if nothing else. I would like to
Gonna play the devil's advocate here, but it doesn't look like they were trying to steal your work, they just poorly edited one of the characters with the MSPaint fill tool. Which is still wrong, absolutely, but I wouldn't say it goes quite far enough to call them a thief. I'm mostly just confused why they uploaded it anywhere rather than just keep it in their private fap stash.
Gonna play the devil's advocate here, but it doesn't look like they were trying to steal your work,
Yeah, I'm not sure if the tags were changed before I noticed this or not, but doesn't seem anyone else is claiming credit for the artwork, it's just an edit and it's tagged as such. Is is less a case of someone 'stealing' art and more a case of someone making edits that you don't approve of. Unfortunately that's just the nature of the internet. Unless you plan on becoming Nintendo and start throwing out lawsuits to anyone who even looks at your art wrong, it's going to happen regardless of what you want.
Now, if someone had reposted your art and claimed it was done by them, that I would understand, since that is blatant theft of someone else's work. But in this case, it seems to be someone editing it but keeping the original artist's credit ( including not removing the signature, as you pointed out).
Yeah, I'm not sure if the tags were changed before I noticed this or not, but doesn't seem anyone el
Ever take a picture of the mountains? How about a photo of a friend outside of a local store? Did you ask permission from that store before you took the picture? No, because that store and those mountains are out in public. Until you try to claim ownership or profit from those photos, it's not theft.
Is it polite to ask permission first before doing something like this? Yes, but that's a question of manners rather than what is or isn't legal.
Ever take a picture of the mountains? How about a photo of a friend outside of a local store? Did yo
"the mountains" aren't a copyrighted image, and aren't anyone's intellectual property. And actually a large percentage of stores ban photography on their premisis, which they are allowed to do *because* their image is their own. Businesses are still private property even though they're open to the public, which is why you can be banned from them for misbehavior or shady actions, if they were public places only the government could do that, not the business itself.
"the mountains" aren't a copyrighted image, and aren't anyone's intellectual property. And actually
How so? I didn't see anywhere where it was claimed the edit was done by the original artist, just the artist signature from the original work. So are you saying he should have removed the artist's signature then?
How so? I didn't see anywhere where it was claimed the edit was done by the original artist, just th
I understand your anger, I had this happen with source code I posted online, people copy-paste it without bothering to hide or change anything. It appears that anything posted on the internet is considered to be free for the taking, why is that?
I understand your anger, I had this happen with source code I posted online, people copy-paste it wi
Dont feel bad for your reaction and dont apologize for coming at it the way you did. i have had people change my work and try to sell it to other's as "their own model" when it was a texture job and a edit and now it's getting around out of my control.
people editing peoples stuff without written permission is just a dick move in general. regardless if they credited you in the tag's, your work is your own work and if it is based off of a commission of someone elses then its just a double downing of "asshole"
my advice, write something in your bio's on any social platform you have or have a link to a TOS regarding your content. while legally it wont change the fact on how fair use works and such since it now when published goes out into the public domain and so long as the thing is transformative then yada yada
but still you can help atleast give more of a layer to further show that someone did not come to you out of respect before transforming by saying something like.
"none of my pictures are allowed to be edited without my permission first hand" that way you can double layer yourself in your request and if someone breaks that request being asked openly on your social feeds then by all means there can no longer be any sort of white-knighting or false sense of reason to feel you should not feel the way you feel.
sorry this happened to you, i hope it does not happen again. keep up the good work and dont apologize for feeling the way you feel when someone edit's your content you worked hard on and didnt simply send you a note asking for permission.
Dont feel bad for your reaction and dont apologize for coming at it the way you did. i have had peop
(I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice. If you want to muck around with the law, get a lawyer.)
"Public domain" does not refer to the Internet. It refers to the public owning an expired or annulled copyright. The Internet does not render content public domain.
"Fair use" and its non-US equivalents such as "fair dealing" are not a math formula. They're nebulously-defined concepts that must be considered by the court during an infringement suit.
A derivative work must be transformative in purpose for this to serve as a fair use defense. In this case, both the original artwork and the edit are for the exact same purpose (pornography), therefore the edit is not transformative. If the original image were to be used in a documentary on furry culture, however, that would be transformative presuming the documentary was not itself pornographic.
Finding a derived work transformative is a point in favor of "fair use", but there is no one magic bullet that makes something "fair use". For instance, in Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books, a Harry Potter encyclopedia was accepted by the court as purposefully transformative but was still denied a fair use defense due largely to including too much excerpt from the books.
On that topic, there is no 10% rule, because nobody can measure out 10% of a copyright.
(I am not a lawyer and this does not constitute legal advice. If you want to muck around with the l
Huh, thats pretty interesting, i mean it makes sense. i guess the only thing that can really be done is to request on their profiles for people to ask permission or to not change thing's and if someone does well, while nothing can be done people like ourselves can just agree that its a "dick move" to go against the artists request.
thanks for the info, gonna actually keep that on hand
Huh, thats pretty interesting, i mean it makes sense. i guess the only thing that can really be done
I know there is a conditional DNP tag where artists can express to e621 that only the artist can upload the art. Could also allow for the commissioner to upload.
