Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Warning to Artist - Art Theft site.

I hope this is alright to post here - if not, I humbly apologize in advance.

WARNING! Site contains adult images - please do not click the link if you're under the legal age of consent to view such content.


I had been directed to this site when someone informed me some of my artwork was being redistributed there (I'm the sort who has no problem with people posting my artwork elsewhere online - so long as consent was sought for first - in which in this case, it hadn't been).

I found some of my own pieces there (some furry, some fanarts), but recognized a number of other (furry) artists as well (such as Max Black Rabbit, Terry Smith, Malachi, to name a few).

Now, I'm not sure if they had given consent to have their artwork posted on the site, but contacted a few of them to be safe. Though I recognize other artists there, I have no idea how to contact them.

If anyone recognizes some of these other artists, please drop them a line and inform them of the site to play it safe. I'm not sure how the other artists feel abut their work being redistributed, but speaking for myself, I'm not a fan of having my works reposted (especially when the pieces have a disclaimer on them stating as such).
Artist's beware has moved!
Do NOT repost your old bewares. They are being archived.


( 20 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 20th, 2007 10:58 pm (UTC)
I saw pics from several online aquaintances in the Pokemorphs section, and the furry "doijin" is from Jay Naylor and you're sopposed to PAY to see that. Definately a shady site.
Apr. 20th, 2007 11:04 pm (UTC)
The main problem I see with this is that they put their website tag on each of the pics. But besides that, I think it's relatively harmless, especially considering how awfully the images are being compressed. They're not censoring the signatures or trying to sell the images or anything.
Apr. 21st, 2007 07:06 pm (UTC)
Yes, but some of those are from paysites so the original creator is still losing money
Apr. 22nd, 2007 02:15 am (UTC)
The pics from the paysites are so old that they're easily available anyplace someone cares to look. And to be honest, most of them aren't that great to warrant a subscription anyway, compared to other oftentimes-superior artists on the net that make their work available for free.
Apr. 22nd, 2007 11:52 am (UTC)
Nothing excuses stealing from other people. I don't steal stuff from people because "It was old and poor quality anyway, they won't miss it"
Apr. 22nd, 2007 03:31 pm (UTC)
But they won't. Odds are if you're still looking at old and shitty pics and got them from an active imageboard like Lulz.net, you weren't really going to subscribe to the site anyway. I don't even bother with Sexyfur's stuff anymore because while it's absolutely wonderful on a technical level, all of the pictures and characters are simply cardboard standees. They're hollow and have no emotion. FurAfterDark is pretty good, but most of their stuff is only worth the price of admission on every other submission. I don't settle for sub-par artwork, although the subscription price is pretty nominal there so I wouldn't mind getting a subscription.
Apr. 22nd, 2007 03:32 pm (UTC)
Still, doesn't excuse stealing.
Apr. 21st, 2007 10:58 pm (UTC)


It's illegal redistribution and un-attributed at that. Even if these picture have not come from pay sites for each unknown artwork that is viewed and loved? The artist of it loses a potential customer/fan or more due to the inability for many people to find out who created the work.

Hardly harmless.
Apr. 22nd, 2007 02:13 am (UTC)
See, I'm no artist. I don't draw. But it just doesn't make sense to me when people get their nickers in a bunch over distribution. If an artist is so concerned about reaching out to potential fans, then they will put their website and e-mail onto the image. If the art is good enough, then the person will visit the artist's gallery for more. It's that simple. Although they superimpose their website onto the image, the artist's signature is not removed or tampered with. Not only is it harmless, it's free advertising.

All of the images from pay-sites are old enough to have travelled around the internet three times, and probably have. To be honest, the only paysite I think is actually worth the money would be Club Stripes. They've got a lot of great artists on board, the art is great and there's a lot of variety, but right now they're just barely over that hurdle. All of the other sites give me little to no reason to subscribe to them.
Apr. 22nd, 2007 10:41 am (UTC)
I kind of noticed, non-artists rarely seem to understand why we artists don't like having our stuff re-used without permission particularly in business terms. Would you like to make something, sell it then find out someone's giving it away for free without your permission?

They often do and usually what happens is someone decides it's "ruining" the image and edits it out or compresses it's so badly that it's unreadable.

Theft is NOT free advertising.

Just because you don't like the other paysites doesn't give you the right to dismiss the theft as "harmless".
Apr. 22nd, 2007 03:11 pm (UTC)
Well then maybe if they made stuff that was worth paying for, especially in the face of BETTER artists that make their work available for free, then it'd be different. On the site, the signature is still visible. Nothing is changed besides a bit of bad compression and them putting their website name on the image. If an artist is going to make their art downloadable, then they should probably put the URL to their gallery on there so as many people as possible know where to get more. People posting art is inevitable, there's no way to stop it. The only way to actually reap the benefits of it is to try and reach out to as many people as possible. That's how people get fans, by promoting themselves. Not to mention artists that don't like having their works redistributed are really just encouraging the pirates more.
Apr. 22nd, 2007 03:59 pm (UTC)
[i]Well then maybe if they made stuff that was worth paying for, especially in the face of BETTER artists that make their work available for free, then it'd be different.[/i]

...you're kidding, right?

The quality of the images doesn't matter - sub par work or grand masterpieces, redistributing the artwork without the original artist's consent(especially when there's a disclaimer on the image itself stating as such - and there are many in this case) is thievery.

There is no excuse to validate the action.

And as one of the artists who's work was redistributed on this site, I can say that if I want to advertise my work, I prefer do so myself by posting the images on boards/galleries that will allow for it or permit my clients to do so at their discretion (since they paid for the original pieces in the first place).

Apr. 23rd, 2007 02:26 am (UTC)
Use the < and > for italics; brackets are for PHPBB. And I think you took it out of context, I was talking about pay-sites. Sexyfur and Hotfurs just don't really have much compelling content that would make me want to pay for a subscription. It's not like I'm against buying artwork. If the art is good enough, then you have to pay your dues. I'd definitely buy stuff from Dark Natasha, Starfinder (if she didn't have such a horrible track record), and others. But Sexyfur...not so much.

The main problem I have is with the entire artist's consent thing. Unless the pics are either 1.) private or 2.) for profit, then I don't really see the problem with posting pics up on imageboards or whatever if the pics were originally on a gallery site or something. It's obvious that your art is good enough for people to want to share, right? Then if you're not making money off of the pics, then why are you so aggravated about it? Just point the people back to your site, and who knows. That might stir up a commissioner or two. 90% of the artists I like I found out about on imageboards. I even commissioned one for $100.
Apr. 21st, 2007 01:18 am (UTC)
I just found a place users can upload art into some of the categories. Was it a user who uploaded them there? The instructions say the art will be deleted if it has a copywrite on it. Lots of them have a copywrite on them so they might be deleted when they're discovered.
Apr. 21st, 2007 01:27 am (UTC)
Only prolem is - who does one contact if they discover copywrighted images?

In total, I've found about 4 of my own (one fanart, three furry images) and when I looked to contact the site owner to have them removed, I could find no contact email.

Unless I missed it somewhere.
Apr. 21st, 2007 02:13 am (UTC)
I think it's the people who run the site that find them and remove them when they see them.
Apr. 21st, 2007 02:19 am (UTC)
Um... yikes, it says, "Images will no appear until reviewed by a staff member." Oh geez. I can't find the email either. I guess you'll just have to register on the forum and see if it or anyone is there. :(
Apr. 21st, 2007 04:15 am (UTC)
I recognize several-Blackdragon, Dr. Comet, Jim Haridman, Jay Naylor and Doug Winger, to name a few. :/
Apr. 21st, 2007 06:36 am (UTC)
I recognize a few and of course there's a scattered DarkNekogami too, but I have to agree with the 2nd comment about the site being semi-harmless. But the artists should be notified, definitely.
Apr. 21st, 2007 09:00 am (UTC)
Jeez, I'm getting pretty fucking tired of these goddamn otaku >:/
( 20 comments — Leave a comment )


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

Community Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com