Editing Art

[† Emotional Outlet]

This is a bit of a hot topic right now on Tumblr (everything is a hot topic on Tumblr) and I wanted to get a different perspective on it. The circles I seem to travel there tend to be filled with artists, so their opinions on the subject tend to run quite different on the topic than I would expect from other sites. Also they all seem to be fourteen year olds and their debating skills seem to consist only of "TL;DR" and "CHECK YOUR PRIVILEGE".

It's a little convoluted and I'm not entirely sure where people are drawing the line, so this is mostly an overview.

People tend to create these photosets on Tumblr to showcase art, which ranges in complexity from animated GIFs to simple photosets with the images cropped to make a nice grid. Sometimes these photosets involve some editing, as in the GIF I linked first--usually people just add a couple filters, fuss with the colours a bit to make everything match. Sometimes they don't change anything except crop it. Either way, people who make these photosets are usually pretty good about sourcing the art. You'll see below the images on both the posts I linked, there's a series of links leading to the sources.

And then there are people who make graphics using other people's art, for signatures, banners, avatars, and the like. This seems to tend to involve a bit more editing than the typical photoset (I don't see a lot of the animated photosets on my dash)--adding text, adding and removing backgrounds, altering colours, and so on. Some people source renders, others don't.

There are several points that people make with regards to this. Not everyone is offended by all the same points, of course.

• Lack of sourcing/crediting
  
• Claiming to have created the original artwork
  
• People attempt to or are making a profit off the original work, usually uncredited, without artist permission
  
• Insufficient permissions--artist was not asked about editing work
  
• Sends the message that the original art was not sufficient as it was
  

Interestingly, on the point of sourcing and crediting, I see a lot of edited and uncredited art and GIFs floating around on my Tumblr. People who do sprite edits of Homestuck characters aren't sourcing MSPA. People who edit anime screencaps aren't naming the anime, much less the artist(s) of the anime. People who edit GIFs from television shows/movies and video games (sometimes just adding filters/text, sometimes adding faces of other characters atop the original faces) aren't crediting their sources. It's as though it's okay to do something like that for something well-known and big, assuming that everyone will recognise the original source based on popularity alone, but if you do it to a lesser-known, not famous/unpopular artist, you're acting in a malicious and criminal fashion.

(As an aside, the GIF thing seems to be a separate issue altogether, but people seem to get upset when others repost their edited GIFs of K-pop artists and the like. A lot of venom is exchanged in those circles.)

With regards to receiving permission for non-commercial edits, I find it a lot greyer. One of the arguments I see a lot is that people generally don't ask permission to create fan art or fan fiction. Another argument I see is that people ought to consider it akin to musical remixes and covers.

Several blogs dedicated to creating these edits and photosets are coming under a lot of fire, which I find rather ridiculous when the artists are talking about respect and courtesy, but fail to extend the same, instead assuming the other person is acting maliciously.

Basically, what I find confusing is the lack of a line being drawn and definition in vitriolic posts like these. Are all people who edit art at fault, regardless of whether the original artist is credited, regardless of whether permission is obtained? At what point does it stop being a personal matter, of someone being overly sensitive, and start being a legal issue?

[mnvbmn]

There are several points that people make with regards to this. Not everyone is offended by all the same points, of course.

• Lack of sourcing/crediting
  
• Claiming to have created the original artwork
  
• People attempt to or are making a profit off the original work, usually uncredited, without artist permission
  
• Insufficient permissions--artist was not asked about editing work
  
• Sends the message that the original art was not sufficient as it was
  

When it comes to editting art (not just on Tumblr), the 2 most complained about points that you listed here are points 2 and 3. That is the main reason why many artists use a Creative Commons License. People, who think editting artwork sends the message that the original art was not sufficient as it, are too sensitive anyway. Maybe the artwork wasn't sufficient as it is. If that's the case, then editting the art work should be taken as a critique of some sort.

[† Emotional Outlet]

Haha, I did not mean to come as though this were an issue specific to Tumblr--that's just the particular circle I travel. I know there's a huge fuss about art theft on Deviant Art and elsewhere on the Internet, and was part of the reason--if I remember correctly--why Pixiv and other more closed off communities were created. To protect artists from theft and create a safe place for them to share their work. A lot of people hate sites like Zerochan and other image dump sites, since art goes up uncredited or miscredited all the time.

But as far as the editing goes, the creating of photosets--which some artists do hold in incredibly low regard--is not something I see much outside of Tumblr, and that is one of the major offenders in these people's eyes. I don't see a lot of the other types of editing--turning works monochrome or whatever--that they talk about.

Here's one artist asking about it.

with the concern over folks editing art (usually applying some kind of filter, maybe cropping?) and reposting it, just how much of that is condemnable? taking a piece, editing it and reposting it without credit is what I assume is the big no, but what about photosets with multiple cropped pieces that try to be artsy and do credit back?

are those viewed as equally poor taste, or?

for you, is the bigger concern the editing, the lack of sourcing, or are they equally reprehensible?

And one of the more... aggressive responses.

i fucking hate photosets of art, iver fucking reblog it, i just go to the source and reblog that, hnnnnggggg

That kind of response is what confuses me, and I see it on a lot of posts. I get that people don't like to write longer posts, much less read them, but seeing these kinds of assertions, usually aggressive and very confrontational, go up without much explanation is incredibly puzzling. I've trawled through the notes to try to follow the debate to understand what exactly the issue is, but I've seen a lot of "If you have to ask, you're wrong and an idiot" and "lol w/e ur a theif i don't need to explain anything to u" types of replies. Not to mention you get doomsday posts like this...

Otherwise, all artists will start heavily watermarking their artwork or even deleting their accounts and never post anything up again.

... which seems to paint all artists as overly sensitive whiners with some sort of superiority complex.

I eventually found something of an explanation in this post. They say that the reason it's okay to mess with official art is because it's paid for by a company and wasn't done based on a "creative impulse", which seems to suggest that official art is not as "art-y" as uncommissioned art? That official art is made with the understanding that it will be spread out and "touched", but the same reasoning doesn't apply to non-official artists who post their work online?

Looking through the rest of the blog their main concern seems to be with uncredited/stolen art, but then I see posts on the very same blog that seem to say that any sort of editing or reposting, even with credit, isn't something you should do because you're ruining the art.

ETA: Something interesting I found while digging through the blog.

Look, the “renders” tag isn’t meant to be for taking anime characters and putting them on transparent background. (IT ISN’T EVEN IN THE RIGHT TAG. JFC.)

Edited September 4, 2012 by Emotional Outlet

[mnvbmn]

When looking into this issue farther, it seems the issue of editing art depends on a few variables, such as What purpose was the original art supposed to have? and What was the purpose of the artist or artists editing the art? There seems to be some kind of misunderstanding of what the original artist intended with their artwork and what the editing artist intended by editting the artwork. But I am also assuming that there is some fixed purpose to the artworks. Many artists know that one's artwork may not have the effect that it was originally intended.

[† Emotional Outlet]

Hmm, likely. A lot of these people appear to be very possessive and protective of their work, and I guess they're taking it as a personal slight to see any sort of editing done to their work, regardless of credit or intended purpose of the edit. Just a bit of a selfish, "that's my stuff; don't touch" kind of mentality, which leads to those artists who eventually are driven to taking down their art, never to return. Or they sometimes return later under a different name, because people like confirmation that they're totally rad.

I think it's just really hard for me to grasp because I'm not an artist and not as embroiled with their controversies. Instead I just see these really aggressive blogs and wonder if anyone is offended by my very existence because I've made a couple signatures without asking anyone's permission, haha.

Another choice quote while I was digging around, in reference to this post.

But as the author gets into her groove she loses me. If everyone thought ”editing is wrong, rude…stop” we wouldn’t have derivative works, and we wouldn’t have a share-alike community. We wouldn’t have mash-ups. We wouldn’t have memes! Personally, I think that would be sad.

And another that seems to put any sort of editing on par with thievery, apparently regardless of whether credit is given.

reblogging again but fuck edits/thieves

Maybe I'm travelling the wrong circles and these uncredited edits are a lot more prevalent than I thought.

[† poetictragedy]

I've seen a lot of artists I follow on Tumblr get mad when somebody uses one of their gifs/photos in a gif/photoset. I'm of the mindset that as long as you credit the original artist and/or ask for permission, then you should be in the clear. Of course, I try not to use other people's art often (just a couple times on DeviantArt for making signatures), and I try to make it clear that the original art is not mine. Also, in that case, I've done more than just applied some filters and called it a day; I feel that is more infringing than, for example, making a signature from someone's fanart.

I don't do it so much on Tumblr, because I really just color screencaps and make gifs from my own media; but I have been guilty of taking someone's art on DA and making it into something different (albeit sourcing the original image).

I dunno, I feel so wishy-washy about this topic. It's hard to draw a clean line as to what is theft and what isn't. I guess the clearest theft would be taking someone's image, and saying it's yours, with no editing whatsoever. And that's just plain rude.

[† Emotional Outlet]

Haha, agreed on what constitutes outright theft. Not to mention making any sort of commercial profit without permission. Most of my confusion lies firmly in the recreational side of things.

I don't have many strong feelings on this particular topic and am pretty wishy-washy on it as well. If anyone has any issue with what I do, I don't mind taking anything down, but I still don't really understand the distinctions people are making as far as what's kosher and what's not. Asking permission for everything seems like the ideal solution for a lot of people, but I don't see it.

And as far as the whole "official art is put out with the knowledge that it's going to be touched", how official does that art have to be? Not every anime that has GIFs and edited screenshots floating around are made by huge studios with infinite budgets, but they seem to be operating under the assumption that people will automatically recognise official works, but no one will recognise a well-known artist, even if they aren't official.

You can look at an anime gif and say, “Oh, I know that show! I loved that scene.” It’s understood that this is you taking a second to appreciate the context in which the scenes represented in the gifs or whatever take place.

Copyright for intellectual property for individual works such as fanart is drastically different in terms of ethics, because these people have a much different kind of pride associated with it.

The FAQ on Unedited-Edits is a little confusing as well.

Someone asked:

How do you feel abut editing for personal use? Like, for an avatar or signature on forums or a tumblr theme?

The response was "FAQ".

What about edits for personal use?

Those are perfectly fine! For one, they’re completely legal under copyright law. (“Personal use” is actually a legitimate term in copyright law.) We just see a problem with widespread distribution of such edits, which are often on tumblr without permission from the original artist.

Is "personal use" okay even without permission? Wiki says: "In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders", but I'm taking no chances, haha. Is it no longer "personal use" if the edits get famous on Tumblr?

It seems like this huge mixture between legalities and not hurting other people's feelings, leaning heavily towards the latter, what with people talking about the pride and creative impulses of the artist and how rude it is to do this or that.

ETA: Okay, another quote on where "personal use" stops being valid.

Admin C: Exactly. Using stuff like that for personal themes, one-of-a-kind T-shirts, merchandise, personal locker decorations, etc. is covered under the “personal use” portion of copyright law.

If you’re gaining notes and credit off of it, or doing widespread distribution… no.

So if you post an edit you did online, giving credit to the original, with no intention of receiving any commercial gain, it stops being personal use because someone might reblog or like it?

Edited September 6, 2012 by Emotional Outlet

[† Emotional Outlet]

Here's another wrinkle in the fabric, this time about creating renders. And another similar post from the same blog (likely different OP, though). There is some contention regarding the usage of the word "render" vice "rip", as well as the usual lack of credit.

What gets me on edge is these “render artists” practically just take images from any site as they please, be it google, dA or pixiv even. And the main targets are usually anime characters, celebrities, and game characters, as well as fanarts of them. While official images are another thing(though still considered), cutting out characters from fanarts whom the original artists have NEVER granted these “render artists” permission to do so is downright theft. Even characters that have no relation to any existing show or fandom. As in their original characters.

Again, there is the assertion that these actions are theft (uncertain whether this is still applicable when credit/source is given), and that same assertion that "official" art is different.

Obviously here in Kametsu, we have quite a few people here who regularly make signatures. I see requests for renders, people who have collections of renders or otherwise frequent sites with collections of renders, which may or may not give mention to the original sources of the images in question. (I'm not much concerned about the outrage over terminology--I'm a believer in language being a living thing and it's the general public who dictates its evolution, not scholars.) I can guarantee that there is fan art and original, non-official floating around in those render galleries, that they're just as likely to be used to create renders as official art is--quality art is quality art, regardless of source.

What do you guys think about this and what is your reaction to these statements and opinions? Do you do the work to credit every single render you use, find the source of each image? Is this something you expect of others?

[Minkseru]

Ok personally I will say this, and some may or may not take offense...

1. I personally am much better at modifying, correcting, and editing already created artwork versus creations of my own.

2. Anything I have made I try to credit, particularly if it was a fanart piece.

3. 75% of the artwork on the internet is "unauthorized", "copied", "uncredited", or otherwise unaccurately claimed artwork.

I have a problem with it when people try to sell it for money. I know my wife does a number of signatures that are renders, often times modifying images to make her own renders out of a non rendered photo, but she also draws her own stuff, and no I think to the point of the completed signature, in this case yes I would say she took the time to claim her own touch on the work. People make signatures out of a small clip of a movie, and oddly people jump less down their throat for that, then the people who take the time to modify a picture into a render from a series they like.

[Pinkie Pie]

My personal stance is that I n e v e r claim that the sigs I make are my own works. My Pinkie Pie sig? Edited art. The place I got it had it unsourced. I'm unable to source it. But I would never claim it as my own art, because all I did was slap some filters on it and take away the white background. Honestly, I think that the artists that are getting up in arms over this have a good point.

Okay yes, you drew something beautiful! You chose to post it. What happens to that image is out of your control now, because it only takes one or two people to save it and post it elsewhere for it to go to all the corners of the internet without your permission or knowledge. Art and fanfic are presents to the fandom and they should be treated as such, imo. Does this mean you repost fanfic without the writer's permission? Hell no. I would be seriously hurt and offended if someone blatantly stole my fanfic, even if it's not my best efforts, because I spent my time and effort on my presents to the fandom. They are gifts because they celebrate a ship I sail, or convey a headcanon I have for certain characters, but I digress.

I will continue to edit art to make my personal graphics for use on boards, but I will never claim that I drew it. And if I know the artist personally, I will always ask them first and credit extensively.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Loki

[Minkseru]

as I said claim touching, yes it is always edited work, but sadly, most of the work out now are edited works, can see your point of view on the writing side, and honestly I am not sure how I would take someone stealing my fanfiction. personally why I like it where people add a decal logo or callback to themself when they make their own works...

[† Emotional Outlet]

Sourcing stuff can be ridiculously difficult--reverse image searches aren't exactly the most precise (I recall one person trying to source an image and it gave them a bunch of images of beds with grey sheets because it matched the colour palette) and if the artist took down the original, then at best you're going to end up back at sites like Zerochan. It's selfish, but if I can't find a source (I give it at least an hour before I give up), I'm going to use it anyway when making signatures because, almost without fail, I'm doing it for myself. Hopefully I never get Tumblr famous because if I start getting more than one or two notes on my signatures, I'm a criminal!

People make signatures out of a small clip of a movie, and oddly people jump less down their throat for that, then the people who take the time to modify a picture into a render from a series they like.

Because it's "official" work and "immediately recognisable". I think it's because it's less personal to them--it's easy to think of a company as some evil conglomeration instead of a business run by people who work hard, who make art for a living. They happily snag GIFs of movies and anime, add some filters--and get upset if someone reposts these edits because then it becomes personal. ETA: A lot of these GIF creators actually request that you credit them when using the GIFs, but they don't always seem to credit the creators of the material they pulled the GIF from. Presumably under the impression that people will recognise whatever movie/anime/music video/KPop video they used.

I don't know how comparable writing is to art in this regard, but, like I said, I'm not an artist. Some people have mentioned things like "How would you like it if someone took your writing and just changed the names of the characters". That'd be uncool, but I don't know if it's as prevalent as they suggest it is. Who knows, maybe I do actually have some of my stuff floating around out there and someone named PrincessBabyBell69 claimed to have written it.

But yeah, I make no secret of my inability to wield a pencil and draw anything better than a stick figure. I source everything I can, from backgrounds to fanart, and link directly to where I found it. I don't ask permission, but I'm okay with taking stuff down if the artist asks me to do so.

What I find confusing is where people draw the line, what people mean when they say "theft" and "personal use", because everyone seems to be using different definitions. Under some people's definitions, I'm an unabashed thief and deserve to be flogged. Under others, I'm more in the grey because I don't ask for permission, but still okay because I source. And under others yet, I'm perfectly fine.

... which is fine under most other circumstances, but as these "official" blogs meant to put art editors under fire and create blacklists start picking up speed, it would be nice if they had a unified understanding of what's okay and what's not okay.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Emotional Outlet

[Pinkie Pie]

Because it's "official" work and "immediately recognisable". I think it's because it's less personal to them--it's easy to think of a company as some evil conglomeration instead of a business run by people who work hard, who make art for a living. They happily snag GIFs of movies and anime, add some filters--and get upset if someone reposts these edits because then it becomes personal. ETA: A lot of these GIF creators actually request that you credit them when using the GIFs, but they don't always seem to credit the creators of the material they pulled the GIF from. Presumably under the impression that people will recognize whatever movie/anime/music video/KPop video they used.

I find this so hypocritical that it literally hurts. They want credit for a few minutes' work, but they won't credit the original artists and the like who spent years honing their skills just to GET there and spent very real time and effort on the thing they're creating? If you're going to go down the credit route, you have to credit /everything/. Besides, GIFs are literally fandom presents because not everyone can make them. Now would they rather have a fandom full of GIFs they created and would see floating around in various places, feeling proud of themselves because they made something popular that's used, or would they try to hog all the credit, get mean when they don't, and then literally blacklist people because they didn't credit? It's a shame that people are seriously going with the second option. It truly is.

I don't know how comparable writing is to art in this regard, but, like I said, I'm not an artist. Some people have mentioned things like "How would you like it if someone took your writing and just changed the names of the characters". That'd be uncool, but I don't know if it's as prevalent as they suggest it is. Who knows, maybe I do actually have some of my stuff floating around out there and someone named PrincessBabyBell69 claimed to have written it.

It does happen. A friend of mine is a gamtav fanfiction writer and she sometimes finds her things on fanfic "collection" blogs, but it's unsourced and the like. To be honest, someone taking my writing is a legit fear I have, but that's not going to stop me from sharing it with the world u wu.

What I find confusing is where people draw the line, what people mean when they say "theft" and "personal use", because everyone seems to be using different definitions. Under some people's definitions, I'm an unabashed thief and deserve to be flogged. Under others, I'm more in the grey because I don't ask for permission, but still okay because I source. And under others yet, I'm perfectly fine..

Just like with social justice nonsense, a set list of terms would be great. But what's totally fine with some people is horrifically offensive to others and you add in the special snowflake artists who claim that their style is unique and special so ~everyone~ knows who they are but still watermark their art so much it becomes hideous because their name is all over it.

I spoke to a tumblr artist friend of mine who's actually really prominent in his section of the homestuck fandom [the gamkar section whooops] about this and he said that if anyone wanted to edit his art, he'd feel accomplished because someone would take the time to edit something he created. A few other artist friends I have said pretty much the same things when I would talk to them about it in the past. I know it's not everyone who throws a hissy fit over this kind of thing. But not everyone knows that. All they see is the drama and shaming so they assume that everyone is like that.

... which is fine under most other circumstances, but as these "official" blogs meant to put art editors under fire and create blacklists start picking up speed, it would be nice if they had a unified understanding of what's okay and what's not okay.

That's just ridiculous any way you cut it. Literal blacklists? What the hell do those do other than shame people and cause even more wank? The argument against art editing is valid, but the way they're going about it is fast and loose to the point that it becomes entirely ineffectual at best and draws out the whinybabism that tumblr is known for. Shit like blacklists only hurt their cause.

[† Emotional Outlet]

Oh, I don't doubt that writing theft does happen, but that I didn't know if it was a super common thing people do. It seems like if you're doing it because you want attention and compliments on your "talent" and "ability", it's just easier to steal art.

Yeah, some of the artists I follow are pretty cool about it. All they ask for is credit--there's even more than a handful who are just as confused about the fuss as I am, haha. (ETA: And most don't like unedited reposts--which I don't even understand why you would do that in the first place if you're going to give credit to the Tumblr you found it on. Just reblog the artist's post. u-u)

It is discouraging that the drama and shaming are most prominent. I've seen a couple of people try to speak out against it only be to shot down in typical Tumblr fashion--"If I have to explain it to you, it's not worth discussing", "You're a thief--you wouldn't understand", "I hate you, go die in a fire"--or go completely ignored since they take more than two sentences to explain themselves, because they're trying to figure out what's going on and giving their reasoning behind their opinions.

Which isn't to say nobody on the side of "art editors are thieves and we should waterboard them" is trying to explain themselves--but the explanations I've found are, as you can tell, hypocritical, contradictory, or completely vague.

I was following a blog called Source Cops (or something like that) for a bit to see what's going on--they seemed to have stopped posting for about a month so I stopped following them, but they had areas for a blacklist and greylist. Caveated with "This isn't to shame people, don't send them hate mail", but really? People will take any opportunity they can to send hateful messages to someone on anon.

Another thing I wonder about is if people credit photographers. I think they might be getting shafted more than artists. "It's just a picture of a tree--why do I need to credit anyone?"

Edited October 15, 2012 by Emotional Outlet

[Pinkie Pie]

Yeah, some of the artists I follow are pretty cool about it. All they ask for is credit--there's even more than a handful who are just as confused about the fuss as I am, haha. (ETA: And most don't like unedited reposts--which I don't even understand why you would do that in the first place if you're going to give credit to the Tumblr you found it on. Just reblog the artist's post. u-u)

Yeah there's really no use for that kind of thing. Don't try to take their notes. Just reblog it .

It is discouraging that the drama and shaming are most prominent. I've seen a couple of people try to speak out against it only be to shot down in typical Tumblr fashion--"If I have to explain it to you, it's not worth discussing", "You're a thief--you wouldn't understand", "I hate you, go die in a fire"--or go completely ignored since they take more than two sentences to explain themselves, because they're trying to figure out what's going on and giving their reasoning behind their opinions.

Which isn't to say nobody on the side of "art editors are thieves and we should waterboard them" is trying to explain themselves--but the explanations I've found are, as you can tell, hypocritical, contradictory, or completely vague.

That's the kind of bullshit that makes their argument invalid tbh. And turns them into the laughingstock of the rest of the internet.

In the grand scheme of things, people who trace over art will forever be worse than those who just slap on some filters or render it. I don't see anyone lambasting tracers.

I was following a blog called Source Cops (or something like that) for a bit to see what's going on--they seemed to have stopped posting for about a month so I stopped following them, but they had areas for a blacklist and greylist. Caveated with "This isn't to shame people, don't send them hate mail", but really? People will take any opportunity they can to send hateful messages to someone on anon.

I think it's so that people won't want to be like those people and set off the wrath of an oversensitive artist that got 1500 notes instead of 1550 notes. And yes, people /will/ take any opportunity to hate on people on anon. It's a real shame.

Another thing I wonder about is if people credit photographers. I think they might be getting shafted more than artists. "It's just a picture of a tree--why do I need to credit anyone?"

They probably don't. tbh, I would expect photographers to make a shitstorm about crediting instead of fanartists after more notes.

[† Emotional Outlet]

Probably because most everyone hates tracers, haha. I guess it's okay if you do it in the privacy of your own home, offline, and strictly for practice, but I doubt that's going to have a lot of practical application as compared just using references.

Maybe I need to follow more photographers so I can have all of the wank on my dash. All of the wank.

A little while back there was a post being circulated--some kind of "Stop Art Editing Week" or something that took place in September. I did a quick Google search for it and came up with this--it seems to be the same one. The crux of their argument in the Stop Art Editors Week seems to be, "It hurts my self-esteem, so don't do it".

The comparison with marking up a tangible piece of art sounds like an argument I hear a lot against digital piracy. "You would never steal a car or a DVD off the shelf in Best Buy, would you? So why would you torrent a movie?" Except editing digital art and digital piracy doesn't deplete how much of the item, whether it's art or a movie, is left. The original is still there and you can make copies of it at little to no cost. I wonder if all of these people are also anti-piracy, and if they paid for their copies of Photoshop and SAI.

[Pinkie Pie]

How would if hurt one's self-esteem if someone liked it so much that they saved it and made a few adjustments? Most of the artist I know would find that very flattering. This whole thing is just built on a foundation of wank and personal grudges, I can just sense it.

Also: I guarantee 95% of them pirated it. That shit's expensive and I highly doubt that they're monied enough to buy a program like that just on a whim. Hypocrisy is just everywhere with this, so I honestly don't take it seriously anymore.

[† Emotional Outlet]

Because apparently you're saying it's not good enough the way it is. I guess like how make up is an attack on women or something. I don't know. It is like 99.9% wank and grudges, though. I'm all for respecting artist wishes, but if people are going to complain about how the world is "going soft" and they hate things like political correctness, then maybe they shouldn't be so happy to change their mind when it starts being about them and their feelings.

I looked up the Source Cops blog--hasn't been updated since May because the owner(s) lacked the motivation to keep running it. Tthey linked to deviantArt's page on their copyright policy, because we all know how good dA is about responding to complaints and maintaining a certain level of quality on their site.

(Why is the "source" tag on Tumblr filled with porn. I don't understand anything.)

ETA: Here's a blog where the owner (a teenager, apparently) recently came under a deluge of anons about their editing art. Basically just a bunch of bullying and attempts to press the owner into submission. And, again, you'll see that most of them equate any sort of editing, with or without source, as theft.

And a response to someone apologising for not sourcing an image and requesting that people not approach them so harshly in the future. There's that "you wouldn't steal a car would you" logic again.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Emotional Outlet