As for the disagreement with the artists and reposting, if a work is commissioned, the commissionee should ASK the artist if they may repost, and the commissionee should be allowed. If the artist says no, then that obviously means no. If the image is uploaded anyway, have it removed. Simple.
This risks driving customers away.
Wrong. I always provide such a link and ask that viewers Fave the commissioned art in the artist's own gallery.
No, no. I mean if
the software actually supported recognizing that user Y commissioned some picture in user X's gallery and have it show up for both or whatever.
The idea of using an FA journal to link to art you've received is obscure and would be guaranteed to be missed by a good deal of the people watching you. (There's too many journals out there to read; you can't expect all your watchers to read all your journals.)
They certainly would if they only watched you in the first place to keep up with art you commissioned.
Secondly, your concept of 'your gallery should only contain artwork you yourself drew' is an opinion, not a fact.
See below.
It's not the journal links that gets more views, or the favorites list. In both cases, that's limited down to a single member on a fairly large site. What gets the extra views are the views from the front page and more recent browsing. By uploading a "For You" commission, it gives the commissioned piece a more viable chance to be seen by a random browser.
The original artist reuploading it every day for a week would give it a more viable chance to be seen by a random browser, too, but I suspect people would disapprove of that.
Getting the artist more attention artificially is a crappy reason. Yeah, sure, it's a
benefit to this system, but it's not a
reason to do it in the first place, because it clearly doesn't hold for a bunch of other things people could be doing to attract attention.
Your arrogance is astounding. You have two pieces of your own art in your gallery (which i think are pretty good), and you firmly believe that you should be telling other artists who have created hundreds of pieces how to manage their galleries. Jeeze!
No; I think I should be telling other non-artists who haven't created a damn thing how to manage their galleries. Because I am a pedantic UI/design nerd. Also I'm the one rewriting the software. So I like to think it's slightly relevant to me.
I think that commissioners and others should *not* be able to upload to their gallery artworks they did not draw.
whoa
In other words, there is little reason for most furry patrons or artists to care about intellectual property law
Even moreso given how frequently IP law is misunderstood.
The problem here is that Eevee hasn’t (clearly) argued for why or how FA became “for†his particular understanding of the site’s “purpose.†And even if he did provide such an argument, he hasn’t shown us why we should care if we neglect this “purpose.†I suspect (from his journal) that this “purpose†comes the mental category he formed out of other sites that look a little like FA, and what is included in the upload policies of those sites. Building a new mental category “just for†FA is inconvenient; “why can’t FA do it like all these other sites do?â€
On the contrary. I think I finally captured this well in a few comments somewhere down in that mess, but the original journal was more a frustrated rant than a real argument.
FA implies all over the place that it has been built to accommodate artists and their art. There's a copyright notice below every image. Gallery pages say "by <user>". With the sole exception of the for-you rule, all of the rules are about what users can include
in their art. The submit page says "upload
your art and images". Even
Dragoneer's comment on that journal is revealing.
But you're right; there's no reason to keep original purpose just for the hell of it.
I am strongly in favor of limiting galleries to that user's art because
it is useful.
There are people who are more popular than handfuls of the artists they commission
combined despite having not really done anything; this strikes me as a bad thing, especially in a community that purports to love and support artists so much.
Organization goes to hell; the usernames on art become increasingly meaningless as time goes on. The more commissioners upload, the more any given name becomes less likely to mean "the person who made this" and more likely to mean "some random guy who paid twenty bucks for this". Again, distracts from the artists.
The more people engage in this practice, the less likely it is that any given userpage will actually contain art by that person. Who do you think are more populous: producers or consumers? This is encouraging FA to trend towards people showing off whatever they want just for the sake of putting something on the Web.
There is no longer any way for me to just find art by user X. Maybe some of it is done by that user, but anyone who uploads someone else's art muddies the waters. There are alternative ways to list commissions; there really
is no other way to list art I did. That probably bothers me more than anything: we're diluting the meaning of something that originally meant X, but there's nothing else that can specifically mean X.
"For you" is also worryingly arbitrary. What's special about commissions? The commissioner doesn't own the art, and could feasibly purchase copyright for any other work anyway. The mantra of "giving the artist exposure" keeps being repeated, but then that means FA is leaning towards being one big attention whoring contest, and complaints about any proposals of ratings and listing most popular art would indicate that the community doesn't want that.
Why do we care about what’s convenient for Eevee, or any particular artist, commissioner, or user? This is the sort of thing that seems best settled through democratic election.
Is it? I can pretty much guarantee that there are more non-artists than artists on FA. It could be entirely feasible that the majority would vote to allow
any uploads, short of IP issues. A democracy works fine if you're starting with a group of people and trying to decide what sort of community and purpose to build around them, but FA has always at least tried to
imply that it has a specific purpose already. (I am, incidentally, trying to get this explicitly stated somewhere.)
Eevee’s strongest argument, to me (distorted a little, by me), isn’t about the “purpose†of the site understood in relation to the site being “for artists to show off their work.†It is about the site’s “purpose†understood in terms of speed of navigation, ease of tracking artworks (and artists, and commissioners), and the avoidance of misinterpretation.
Of course. There are severe UI issues here, which I think I've alluded to with mentions of disorganization. I try to avoid outright mentioning UI, though, because (in my experience) most people don't at all realize how much it affects them and gloss over mention of it as frivolous pedantery. But it does make a bloody mess.
You know as well as I do - as well as everyone does - that the For You clause benefits artists a lot. If I wasn't able to repost my own pictures, I would have never came to this website and spent upwards of $750 on artists. I don't buy from artists that don't give me permission to post their art on my page.
Paging LolitaPK to read this quote. This is why artists can't merely ask that their art not be posted elsewhere.
Why? Because I like the small stint of attention I get when I do it, I like showing people that artist X has put effort into drawing my character.
I appreciate your honesty, and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way, but that is partly why I think this is bogus. You shouldn't be getting that attention in an art community; you didn't create it. The artist should be mentioning you as an afterthought; not the other way around.
I can understand your complaint about people turning their FA page into their own personal photobucket.. But, who the hell cares? It's just a repost of some art.
Yes, and every instance of it wastes limited resources and makes life a little more difficult for people trying to find art.
Give the commissioners some slack and let them/the artist decide what's best, not you.
If the artists could decide what's best, there wouldn't be much of an AUP.
The way I see it, you can either embrace the commissioners (the ones who have most of the money) or shun them away. You're going with the latter it seems, and if your own personal opinion gets injected into FA policy I will be leaving this place permanently.
I'm sure it won't be. But I would like people to at least understand why I hold it, rather than defending their own vanity.
Am I the only one who thinks this should be between the artist and their patron, and no one else?
Why? Everyone else's browsing is subjected to whatever they do.
I intend to support attaching more than one user to a single submission on FA.
But, the system needs to be flexible, sometimes people get commissions, as I have said, that the artist may not want to be connected to
Um. Why? And how would that even be possible, when the AUP requires crediting the artist?
And I ask, once more,
why should I not post random art my friends did? What makes commissions special? One of my best friends is PurpleKecleon; why shouldn't I go repost all of her art on my account? She would give me permission, and it would get her more exposure. Those are the two arguments I see being made here.
