Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Tracing/art theft rule update conclusion.

We have been in discussion of the results of this post and have come to the conclusion that a compromise would be best. While the first option did gain the most votes, it was just barely, and overall there are more people wanting some kind of change.

So we will be amending the rule to reflect option number 2, which was:

Yes, but only if the person is taking commissions/trades using traced work.

Rather self-explanatory. Posts about your average tracer uploading to Deviantart because they thought Sailor Moon was cool and wanted to trace (but aren't taking money for it) will now be redirected to art_theft.

In practice, this doesn't mean much of a change. We rarely received tracing/copying posts that weren't business-related in some way. We've merely brought the rule more in line with the purpose of artists_beware, leaving the rest to the more specialized art_theft, who are usually better suited to finding originals and the like anyway.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask!

Community Tags:

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


( 51 comments — Leave a comment )
Jan. 7th, 2012 07:33 pm (UTC)
You know, the problem with Art_Theft is that (in the past, I don't know if this is still the case) if you were someone that had been reported there they would flat out BAN you from the community. As in, you couldn't even post to defend yourself or anything, at all.

I know this from first-hand experience. Over five years ago when I had some issues, I was flat-out banned, and that ban has to this day never been lifted. Every time I've tried to appeal it to one of the maintainers, my requests have gone ignored.

tl;dr, screw art_theft, they're jerks.
Jan. 7th, 2012 07:36 pm (UTC)
If someone were to make a replacement community, we would advertise that as well. But overall, it doesn't come up too much, and we feel this was the best compromise we could make.
(no subject) - banrai - Jan. 7th, 2012 07:42 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - teahound - Jan. 8th, 2012 02:15 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kayla_la - Jan. 8th, 2012 02:16 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - teahound - Jan. 9th, 2012 02:58 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grygon - Jan. 7th, 2012 08:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - oceandezignz - Jan. 8th, 2012 12:52 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - grygon - Jan. 8th, 2012 01:05 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - leahtaur - Jan. 8th, 2012 01:19 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - crssafox - Jan. 8th, 2012 02:08 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - shukivengeance - Jan. 8th, 2012 02:40 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - crssafox - Jan. 8th, 2012 02:52 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - shukivengeance - Jan. 8th, 2012 03:00 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - crssafox - Jan. 8th, 2012 03:02 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - shukivengeance - Jan. 8th, 2012 04:20 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kerstin_orion - Jan. 8th, 2012 02:51 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - crssafox - Jan. 8th, 2012 02:58 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kerstin_orion - Jan. 8th, 2012 03:25 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - crssafox - Jan. 8th, 2012 03:33 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kerstin_orion - Jan. 8th, 2012 03:51 am (UTC) - Expand
Jan. 7th, 2012 07:47 pm (UTC)
I have a question about this policy. What's the deal with the use of stock photography? Is that a case where if the person can show that is legal stock photography that there isn't an issue?

I don't know, just the whole thing sits wrong with me still as it seems to say "Tracing is bad" rather than "Copyright violation is bad." There's always so much effort to prove that the art really was traced rather that proving that the copyright was violated, and the latter is the real issue as I see it.
Jan. 7th, 2012 08:14 pm (UTC)
It's sticky because legality aside, most people just don't want to pay for traced art (assuming they weren't aware it was traced), and we've never been a community where something has to be illegal to be reported. That said, I think if someone made a post where the tracer used stock photography, and the person wasn't going 'TOTALLY MADE THIS MYSELF, NO REFERENCES OR ANYTHING!', we probably wouldn't approve it. But honestly, I don't recall this ever happening (it might have, but it must be extremely rare). It's not something I would worry about. Other than November, we don't get many art theft posts at all as it is.

Usually the posts we do get are because someone was tracing another artist's work without permission and being dishonest about it. And that would be illegal anyway, right? I just don't imagine what you're worrying about coming up much if at all.
(no subject) - celarania - Jan. 7th, 2012 08:31 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kayla_la - Jan. 7th, 2012 09:05 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - celarania - Jan. 7th, 2012 09:25 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - technicolorgoop - Jan. 8th, 2012 02:36 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - elmenora - Jan. 9th, 2012 02:41 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - stormslegacy - Jan. 9th, 2012 06:43 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jan. 8th, 2012 03:11 am (UTC)
To answer your original question about stock photography. If the person is using it legally, following all of the requirements posted by the photographer (credit, linking their page, etc.), it's unlikely someone would post about that in the first place. And additionally unlikely we moderators would approve it.

I'm not saying it would never happen, because there is always going to be that one outlier with additional circumstances that make it beware-worthy, but it's rather improbable.
Jan. 8th, 2012 07:58 pm (UTC)
In general I agree, but I think there should be room for posts where, say, someone advertizes as a photorealistic artist and sells $30+ icons, and it's found out that these icons are stock photos of animals run through a quick photoshop filter. That's pretty disingenuous even if it isn't illegal. Know what I'm saying?
(no subject) - celarania - Jan. 8th, 2012 08:24 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - spiffystuff - Jan. 8th, 2012 08:44 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - celarania - Jan. 8th, 2012 08:45 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - spiffystuff - Jan. 8th, 2012 08:52 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - celarania - Jan. 8th, 2012 10:07 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - houndofloki - Jan. 8th, 2012 11:30 pm (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - spiffystuff - Jan. 8th, 2012 11:35 pm (UTC) - Expand
Jan. 8th, 2012 12:37 am (UTC)
So wait...we voted because...?

I mean, what were the chances some run of the mill tracer was going to be reported? 75% of DA would be on here if that was the case.
Jan. 8th, 2012 12:42 am (UTC)
You voted so we had an idea of where people stood on the issue.

People have been posted for simple tracing here before, though rarely, yes. We're simply not going to be taking those anymore.
Jan. 8th, 2012 01:19 am (UTC)
I kinda thought that's what just happened XD; at A_B (as in people who were making money from traced images were reported.) Then again we normal members don't see what the mods have to sift through.

Either way I think it's a fair decision.
Jan. 8th, 2012 01:23 am (UTC)
Yes. We didn't want to just disregard over half of the community by going with what just got the most votes, especially since it was by so few! Not that we weren't expecting at least some people to nitpick about it.
Jan. 8th, 2012 01:04 pm (UTC)
Considering it was, by your own admittance, not much of a problem to begin with, I find it baffling that this rule (which has been in place since the community's conception) has been changed and we're redirected to a community not everyone can even join.
Jan. 8th, 2012 05:00 pm (UTC)
It was not much of a problem, true. But many in the community felt that it was and wanted some sort of correction or validation to match their wants and feelings about A_B. Its unfortunate that the moderators of art_theft are less than active with their community (It looks like immoral has an animator's job with TV station FX) and have a slightly radical policy when it comes to jumping the gun and pre-banning outted individuals, the most we could do at this point is perhaps jump start this community: art_theft_help as an alternative to a hard to reach art_theft.

Edited at 2012-01-08 05:00 pm (UTC)
Jan. 9th, 2012 12:49 am (UTC)
To me if there was a problem with the proof of some traces, a tag could have easily been created for it. Or they could have just used the unresolved tag.

In short, I agree. I love how they justify it by saying 'many in the community' wanted change when the majority didn't think anything was wrong. A 1% lead is still more.
(no subject) - kayla_la - Jan. 9th, 2012 12:57 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - germanchoclates - Jan. 9th, 2012 01:02 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - kayla_la - Jan. 9th, 2012 01:07 am (UTC) - Expand
(no subject) - neolucky - Jan. 9th, 2012 02:31 am (UTC) - Expand
Jan. 8th, 2012 02:19 pm (UTC)
I never knew there was a group for art theft specifically. Besides, I just figured that if it had to do with a transaction gone bad, it would go here. If the theft was proven by let's say another source then it'd go under art theft. Or possibly both?
Jan. 8th, 2012 05:10 pm (UTC)
When it comes to LiveJournal - there is a community for everything. It just depends on that community's activity level and 'advertisement'. Art Theft isn't going to easily be advertised simply because of the difficulty to get into the community so no one is going to spread the word for it while A_B has open membership now so.

As for the theft, if another source has pointed it out, point them to art_theft or art_theft_help. Unless that other source is the original artist who's work is being stolen and sold by the thief for profit. Then the original artist can come to A_B and make a post.
( 51 comments — Leave a comment )


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

Community Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com