Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Hoo boy

:/ I found this photobucket with a massive amount of furry artist's works and already in just the first few pages, there's pictures:

by huskie666: 1,2

of silverfolfen by keihound: 1

by tania: 1

by Golden Wolf:1,2,3,4,5,6,7,

by Kacey M: 1 2,3

I don't think the artists/owners were asked about this, so please take a moment to check this bucket if you're an artist. I'm tring to go through it right now, and to contact everyone who's stuff was taken...but I doubt I'll catch everything.

:/ best of luck

x-posted most everywhere I can think of that'll help with this.

EDIT: If you know any of these artists, please try to contact them! It's too big of a job for me to do alone, I must say (I have only contacted huskie, Tania Walker, and Mid so far). Thank you.

Contacted artist list under cut: (a big thanks to everyone who helped! Especially thaily<3)

Tania Walker
Erin Middendorf
J Willard (soappuppy.com)
Opal Weasel
Erin Hughes
Matthew J. Johnson (zencavern.com
Adri M
Kacey M
Yvie Schroeder
Kat Payne
Chris Sawyer
Ursula Vernon
Jessica Jass
Jasmine Andrews
Sheryn Brown
Christina Godek
Pseudo Manitou
Katie (shadowolf)
E. Ortega
Backbreaker studio
Jessica M. Sanders
Beth Gladstone
Allie Manydeeds
Aura Moser
Megan Giles
Goldenwolf (and Dark Natasha)
Bridget E. Wilde
Diana Montoya
Shinigami girl

Artist's beware has moved!
Do NOT repost your old bewares. They are being archived.


( 101 comments — Leave a comment )
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
Oct. 31st, 2006 12:42 am (UTC)
Did I miss something? Is she claiming to have drawn the pictures herself? Pretending to be those folks?

So you're not allowed to upload a picture you find to your own webspace to show people anymore? It's not even really a gallery, just a photobucket, which is pretty much just a poor man's ftp. She didn't even remove people's watermarks and signatures, and I'm not seeing an outpouring of stuff stamped DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE OMG' on there -- though I didn't look at it all, so I might've missed it. How's this any different from a *chan? Shrug. Looks like free advertising to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I just don't see why this is artists_beware or a big deal at all. The artists names are on the pictures. Worst case, post it and say hey, someone's posting a lot of furry art, if you don't like your stuff reposted go check.
Oct. 31st, 2006 12:55 am (UTC)
It's illegal. It's a copyright violation. I don't see why it's artists_beware either, but no, no one has the right to copy and distribute someone else's work, as long as that work is protected by copyright. It's most certainly not okay unless the author of the work has given permission.

Just because it's not hurting anyone doesn't mean it's a violation of their rights.
(no subject) - joecifur - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:08 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kowechobe - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:10 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lomaprieta - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:20 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - vickimfox - Oct. 31st, 2006 02:22 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - vulgaris - Oct. 31st, 2006 02:58 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - joecifur - Oct. 31st, 2006 03:33 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - joecifur - Oct. 31st, 2006 04:43 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - joecifur - Oct. 31st, 2006 04:51 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - joecifur - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:04 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lemonfruitpie - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:15 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - blueroo - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:03 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - blueroo - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:32 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - vickimfox - Oct. 31st, 2006 12:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - blueroo - Oct. 31st, 2006 06:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 08:15 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - joecifur - Oct. 31st, 2006 03:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:10 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - joecifur - Oct. 31st, 2006 07:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 08:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 31st, 2006 12:42 am (UTC)
Do you have proof their claiming them as their own? >
Oct. 31st, 2006 02:32 am (UTC)
It's not a matter of them claiming the art as their own, but rather that the art was reposted without permission it seems. I know it may not seem like a big deal to many people, but there are some people who care about keeping track of where their art is :O
(no subject) - dunaerin - Oct. 31st, 2006 02:36 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lilenth - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:48 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:15 am (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 31st, 2006 12:52 am (UTC)
If she isn't claiming them as her own photobucket isn't going to remove them. There is nothing wrong with having someone elses art saved somewhere to look at or posting it on photobucket if the user isn't claiminig it as their own.
Oct. 31st, 2006 02:56 pm (UTC)
Don't fool yourself.
Photobucket will delete any submissions that enfringe on people's intellectual rights, they're not going to run the risk of legal action being taken against them for a free service. Same goes for other free services like Homestead and Geocities.
Oct. 31st, 2006 01:01 am (UTC)
I don't see how that really is something to post to artists_beware about, because I do the same thing. I save artists' works that I like in my photobucket, and when I use those pictures I make sure I credit the artists in question.

I honestly think you're making a big deal out of nothing. How is it a copyright violation if someone shows someone else's art off and gives the credit where it's due?

Prove to me where in copyright laws it says it's illegal to distribute work with the proper accreditation given. This I'd like to see.
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - kowechobe - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:05 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - kowechobe - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:08 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kowechobe - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:08 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - kowechobe - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:16 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - kowechobe - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:15 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - kowechobe - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:25 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
(no subject) - eski - Oct. 31st, 2006 02:42 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lomaprieta - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:35 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eski - Oct. 31st, 2006 02:39 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lomaprieta - Oct. 31st, 2006 03:13 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - eski - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:47 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - fiercereaper - Oct. 31st, 2006 03:12 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - vickimfox - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:41 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lomaprieta - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:55 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - vickimfox - Oct. 31st, 2006 02:31 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lomaprieta - Oct. 31st, 2006 03:16 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - vickimfox - Oct. 31st, 2006 03:55 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lomaprieta - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:09 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - crssafox - Oct. 31st, 2006 02:05 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lilenth - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:58 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lilenth - Oct. 31st, 2006 05:54 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:18 am (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 31st, 2006 01:19 am (UTC)
The pieces all have their original copyrighted signatures on them, and it doesn't look as if the user is claiming the works as his/her own, therefore I honestly cannot see any TRUE harm in this. The artists are still credited for the work, and it's really no different than being displayed on a VCL gallery.

*shrug* I say, just as long as the art isn't altered, and the owner's name isn't removed, this isn't as horrible as it COULD have been. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Oct. 31st, 2006 11:20 am (UTC)
"The pieces all have their original copyrighted signatures on them"

Funny, when I compared some of the pieces I noticed that several images have had the signature removed.
And the difference with VCL is that the copyrightholder him/herself uploads them there so they're not illegally redistributed. Your opinion is a moot point, the law is very clear about unauthorized reproduction.
Oct. 31st, 2006 01:28 am (UTC)
As far as my artwork (Kacey Miyagami) being displayed through this photobucket site, since it is not altered and it has my watermark on it, I have no problems with it. Heck, its free advertising =)

But I know a lot of artists who would rather their work remain on their websites or galleries... and I used to be the same way, so I can understand that.

I think this is more a notice to let the artists know where their art is should they want it removed, or not - though I think it may be inappropriate as a topic for this particular community, based on the posting rules and how I understand them.

Oct. 31st, 2006 01:38 am (UTC)
Lol, if you don't want your artwork thrown into things like this, DON'T PUT YOUR ART UP ON THE INTERNET. :D

This is simple logic, people!
Oct. 31st, 2006 06:06 am (UTC)

That's like saying:

If you don't want your car taken without your permission, don't drive it on the roads, or park it anywhere but your garage.

Artists should be able to put their work up for their fans to admire without worrying about someone deciding to take it and redisplay without permission.

The point is harmless or not, people need to be educated on copyright law and if a fan has any respect for an artist then they'll ask before republishing their work willy nilly on the web.
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:20 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Re: Wait... - filthy_animal - Oct. 31st, 2006 07:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Re: Wait... - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 09:49 pm (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Re: Wait... - thaily - Nov. 1st, 2006 07:04 am (UTC) - Expand
Re: Wait... - lilenth - Nov. 1st, 2006 10:38 am (UTC) - Expand
(Deleted comment)
Re: Wait... - lilenth - Nov. 1st, 2006 06:46 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 31st, 2006 01:51 am (UTC)
So upon doing a little bit of research...
http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31423.pdf (see bottom of page 12 and on)

So far, the only really defined issue of "Fair use" in regards to images on the internet is that thumbnails are considered fair use. Some court cases have found that public internet storage is copyright infringement, but I do not see a defined copyright law in those regards yet. So I'm not sure what exactly the photobucket gallery would fall under. Though I am not the best at reading legal mumbo-jumbo, so I may very well have missed something.

The main problem is that there is a very clear line when referring to actual publication of copyrighted material, but a very thin line regarding internet publication of copyrighted material.

However, by personal standards I see nothing wrong with it. The images have not been altered, contain original signatures and other notices, and I do not see anywhere where they are claiming the images as their own. It looks like they even have the original file names. But it really is up to the original artist and how they feel about it.
Oct. 31st, 2006 11:21 am (UTC)
"The images have not been altered, contain original signatures and other notices"

Several images have had their signatures removed and the "original notices" of several images state that the artist doesn't want them re-distributed.
Oct. 31st, 2006 02:27 am (UTC)
I think the only real problems would be if the owner of the gallery is claiming the images to be their own and/or printing copies of those images.

Apart from that it looks like an art dump. It could be that the owner of the bucket isn't 'out of the closet' about their appreciation of furry art, in which case they're keeping things online rather than a home pc.

As far as I can tell, this isn't a problem, if anything it's advertisement for the artist's work shown there. That said, I do not condone this sort of activity unless permission has been gained from the artist responsible for the images.
Oct. 31st, 2006 06:09 am (UTC)

Then why isn't the photobucket private? Also "out of the closet"? Furry art is not a sexual preference. If it is then we're exposing our children to all kinds of porn everytime we buy them a toy with an anthroised animal/creature on it. =P
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:14 am (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 31st, 2006 03:20 am (UTC)
Not to add to the pile-on of comments here but...
I'll go with the general consensus here; "I don't see much of a problem unless she's claiming the artwork to be her own." It's good that you meant well, but eh. Nothing is wrong over there.
Oct. 31st, 2006 03:25 am (UTC)
Haven't heard the debate on this, don't have time to read it...

But this REALLY looks like deadrabbit's style. Evelyn ... er Ortega I think. http://s59.photobucket.com/albums/g288/HighlyScentedMarkers/anime/furs/?action=view¤t=Naobi.jpg&refPage=24&imgAnch=imgAnch39

'deadrabbit' is her deviantart name you can find her there.
Oct. 31st, 2006 03:52 am (UTC)
well...one of my pieces is on there.
however, i don't mind, as it is unaltered and still has my watermark on it.
Oct. 31st, 2006 04:15 am (UTC)
I upload lots of things on my photobucket because I have an old, unreliable computer, and I don't want to loose all the things I've saved. Most of them are reference pictures and the like. I don't really see the problem, I don't redistribute them, I Just use them for references, that and my PB is private so you can't just randomly stumble upon it and start viewing things.
Oct. 31st, 2006 11:02 am (UTC)
st of all, redistributing without permission is a violation of copyright.
The moment someone creates an original work they own the copyright to it, the copy-right, these people have copied it into a photobucket

account without permission and if Photobucket doesn't remove the images upon the copyright holder's request they are in violation too.

Don't ask the 101 people who will tell you this to prove they're right, get off your lazy ass and Google for copyright laws yourself and

prove us wrong if you can.
And besides, going against the wishes of artists is rude. Several of these images explicity mention that they are not to be

redistributed without permission. Is it to be expected people will do it anyway? Yes. Does that make it okay? No.
I understand not every can/wants to take the time to sift through the archive and contact the artists in question, but if you

can't/won't there's not really a reason to comment at all, thanks.


Erin Middendorf - contacted

Dawnbest.com - contacted

Backbreaker studio - contacted

Oct. 31st, 2006 11:04 am (UTC)
J Willard (soappuppy.com) - contacted
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:05 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:06 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:08 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:08 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:08 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:08 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:09 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:17 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 02:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lilenth - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:32 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 11:36 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - swandog - Oct. 31st, 2006 01:48 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lemonfruitpie - Oct. 31st, 2006 09:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - thaily - Oct. 31st, 2006 09:53 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lemonfruitpie - Nov. 1st, 2006 12:48 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - lemonfruitpie - Oct. 31st, 2006 09:08 pm (UTC) - Expand
Oct. 31st, 2006 11:11 am (UTC)
I see this person has reposted one of my pieces, no less one featuring me with my significant other. I'll definitely be talking to him about it. If it was anything else, I would probably leave it alone. I'm not making money off it, and nobody knows who I am, anyway.

That being said, what this person is doing is technically illegal, so if your art was up there and you demanded it be taken down, then you'd be in the right. Also, the promise of "free publicity" is total bunk. This is a scam that some businesses use to lure naive artists into things like logo design contests or "spec" work, or anything involving creating art for free. If they even give you credit for the art, the "publicity" you get is usually either negligible, because nobody cares who did the art, or negative, because it gives you a reputation as an artist who'll work for free.

That's just my opinion, though.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
( 101 comments — Leave a comment )


A_B icon
Commissioner & Artist, Warning & Kudos Community
Artists Beware

Community Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com