New "free art" website

[shirikdraguinea.livejournal.com]

IMPORTANT EDIT
Just had this comment via FA from one of my watchers:
Major alert - shortly after following that link, my google account has been hijacked and has been mass spammng. I have d/c'ed from the internet (using phone atm), and am virus scanning. Be VERY careful, or avoid altogether.
If anyone thinks they got something nasty I'm really sorry - try running HouseCall ( http://housecall.trendmicro.com/ ) - its an online based virus scanner so it can't be affected by anything on your system. I had no negative consequences from visiting this website but some others have - if you have been affected I am incredibly sorry :(


A friend of mine recently alerted me to yet another art theft rich art site - Never To Much Yiff. You can see it advertised at the owners FurAffinity page and he states:

"You can download and archive of 11,745 sorted by artist. I am not selling it is free to download so enjoy and please donate 2$ every 5$ goes to animal shelter of my choice"
(I took some liberty with this quote... the typos on the picture made me cry).

So in a nutshell, this person Techie9098 is putting up work by other artists without permission, and charging "donation" for them. I haven't checked the artists affected by this though as it requires downloading a torrent with all of these files.

Just a heads up for people.

EDIT:

His main page has been replaced by a Caramelldansen video but the download link remains and the torrent is still on pirate bay.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_patches_/]

Wow... You sure like the brag... a lot. If you want people to actually take you seriously you might want to ease up on the whole "MY ARGUMENT IS VALID BECAUSE I DO/STUDY _____." Looking over this in general you've mentioned what you "do" WAY too often. For all we know you could be making it up. Not to say that you are... but this is the Internet, and people say a lot of things.
At any rate... dropping job titles doesn't make a person any more or less credible.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_patches_/]

THIS LIST IS UNENDING. Holy craaaaaaaaap.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

So because I won't get into a e-penis waving contest with you that makes you right be default? No, child. It simply means that without evidence claims don't prove anything and as I said, being well read and actually understanding what you've read are not the same thing.

No child, it simply means that a set of licensing laws whereby government licensed people's own work to them isn't the same as a copyright law which simply asserts that your stuff is your stuff. A licensing law is not a copyright law, ergo copyright law did not exist until the first law was created that was roughly analogous to the term copyright.

Again, just because you make a claim doesn't make it true, fact is you are woefully uninformed, lacking in social graces or perception and worse ignorant to both those issues.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

Throwing out random excuses for THIEVES is really not endearing you to anyone.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

"I was only bringing it up earlier in this thread to counteract repeated claims of ignorance, and yet when I listed how not ignorant I am, I'm disbelieved and held as a braggart. How does one win in that situation?"

How is it you still do not see how ridiculous you're being?

You claim you has big important IP related job, this is unverifiable information. Someone could claim to be the queen of England, doesn't mean they are.

Even if you have a job at a big IP firm and are able to prove it, this does not mean you know what you're talking about anyway because some frightfully stupid people still manage to end up in jobs that they aren't qualified for or that they aren't capable of doing.

You want to prove you've got understanding? Make an intelligent point, rather than using strawman arguments, ad hominem attacks, making excuses and generally producing piss poor arguments and spouting things that are obviously incorrect.

Basically the reason nobody respects what you have to say is that you're basically bragging about how you've got a big important job "prove" your arguments rather than actually make rational, reasonable arguments and backing them up with actual verifiable information that demonstrates knowledge of the subject.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

What's the betting he never paid for it in the first place either.

[lurkerwisp.livejournal.com]

Yeah it's pretty despicable to take something that the creator made freely viewable and charge money for it. That thinking actually is pretty awful of you.

That's taking all the free condiments and setting up a booth outside the restaurant to charge money for them. The restaurant has the right to stop you from selling them, and to call the cops to chase you off when you steal piles of them - even if you're just rearranging their display so the box is outside the restaurant. On top of being theft it's morally very wrong.

When I was a kid I visited Europe with my family. In a Belgian city we came across a statue of an angel with wings stretched out along the walls of the building it stood at the corner of. To this day it has inspired me to desire to create public art for the purpose of beautifying public space - not because someone charged admission to the street, but because the artist wanted to do nothing more than create a work of beauty for the public. Nobody has the right to take what the artist made public and earn individual profit from it.

Similarly, as an artist I have also been inspired to create art which is private and personal - or to create art for someone else with the same effect. Nobody has the right to invade my private expressions of emotion and creativity that are not shared publicly and gain profit from it.

Paid work is even more of a violation - as it really does steal income from the artist.

Public work, private work, and commission work all have their own compounding reasons for the rights of the creator to necessarily outweigh the benefit of works being distributed against the creator's will. That is looking at the situation as a whole, and there aren't other considerations to discuss.

[glowstick-juice.livejournal.com]

I has a stik originated on 4chan by a willingly anonymous user. For the use of others. I'm a staunch supporter of artist's rights and I don't see a problem with Lilenth using it.

[glowstick-juice.livejournal.com]

I don't plan on selling my car, but that doesn't mean it's okay for you to steal it.
"Oh, but Officer, she wasn't trying to make any profit off the car so what did I do wrong?"

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

I actually don't. I know I've come off that way and I dislike it...but hmm...if you were in my position, and people were at most responses calling you ignorant and saying 'maybe you should actually read up on the subject' and you knew that you actually spent a good chunk of your time involved in the subject, what would you do?

I'm not looking to make enemies here, I just have a different opinion. It's a shame it couldn't just be debated more calmly.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

That would be true, if one could compare intellectual to tangible property in that way. If you have a car that can be made into an unlimited number of copies, could you still make the argument that you were missing something if one was taken? That's kind of the crux of what I'm getting at here. I apologize if I've come off soundly badly. I don't think people should do things to harm others, or their ability to produce artwork, but when a behaviour falls outside of causing harm, I think it's good to question what should be done.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

Your example isn't exactly on point (for one thing, restaurants include charges for condiments and such in the amount they charge) because IP is not like tangible property. If IP is condiments, then its a magic bottle that can never be used up.

"Nobody has the right to take what the artist made public and earn individual profit from it." I think thats a nice story (I mean that honestly :) ) but there are a lot of instances where such things do happen, let's just consider the public domain. Even if the artist was totally against it, once they are gone and their work enters into the PD, then it can be turned into a profit. The thing I'm concerned about is that how long it takes something to enter the PD, as it is ever changing and pretty arbitrary. I bring this up because how can we say that something is legally (morally, maybe not so much, some people might still respect the artist's wishes) wrong during the 69th year after the artist's death, and then magically it's okay in the 70th? In commenting on this thread at all, I'm just trying to point out that its a complicated situation that is not black and white.

" Nobody has the right to invade my private expressions of emotion and creativity that are not shared publicly and gain profit from it." I agree, but putting things on the internet is considered publicizing it. SHOULD someone take it? no. but you don't have the legal right to stop any particular person from looking at it, right? Beyond looking, what they can do with your works is the subject of this debate.

"Paid work is even more of a violation - as it really does steal income from the artist." I agree. You say 'more' of a violation, meaning that if not for this factor, maybe the situation wouldn't be as bad...I don't think we actually disagree all that much on the issue as a whole. Perhaps I just went too broad with my arguments from the start.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

Is it? Could you please tell me how? I know it wasn't exact, but I thought it might illustrate at least how I can NOT be in favour of something, but still look at it first without passing judgment.

I'm sorry, its a bit difficult to keep up with the numerous people who've been responding to me. My fault for starting all this. The main goal (as a bit carried over from the previous thread about this kind of thing) was that I am worried that if we don't take a good look at what we're fighting before we condemn it, we might hurt ourselves in the long run. Using icons we don't know have the artist's permission isn't all that far away from enjoying art on a website like the one in question. If we change it from a site that asks for donations for 'free' art, to a site that does the same thing with thousands of icons available for use, its almost exactly the same, isn't it?

[oceandezignz.livejournal.com]

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ I really doubt they got the so-called permission that they claimed they did for even one-sixteenth of that collection.

I'm glad the collection was pulled and in the end he was banned.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_patches_/]

Well, I definitely wouldn't go the braggart route, as I know that would just make me look worse and annoy people. Rather then telling them what I do, I would just continue to rationally argue my side and actually put my professional knowledge to the test. Telling people you have some 'big fancy job' just makes you look like you're grasping at straws for credibility in your opinion.

I'd say people debated this fairly calmly, considering. People could be a lot meaner... trust me.

[armaina.livejournal.com]

Do you seriously have to ask the question 'does smoking effect other people?" Of course it does, it's smoke, it hangs the air, it causes eye irritation, headaches and sinus problems. Just standing within 5 feet of someone smoking can cause me to go into coughing fits. So for for a person like me who is highly irritated by cigarette smoke, that analogy is really bad. Besides, I find that using analogies in debates/arguments whatever causes counter-analogies to be used and then it suddenly becomes a debate about the analogies and not the problem.

Also, if the site is charging for art it does not have the right to re-sell, be it icons or full images, then of course it is the same thing. If the person giving out the download was doing it for free, the problem would then be with the distribution of the paysite stuff, on the same level as those that re-distribute music or movies. But since they are asking for money, then he has a problem with all of the artists, not just the paysite stuff. And as the artists, they have the right to exercise their copyright protection rights on their work, whether or not you agree with them.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

I think you're right. I'm sorry for falling into the trap of feeling like I need to react to claims of ignorance. I should just focus on the issue without succumbing to such tactics. Thank you for replying to me in a civil manner, I appreciate it :)

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

I could easily break it down further; does the person have children? do they do they smoke in public areas? etc. etc. its not all black and white. Thats my point. If someone lives alone and only goes out to smoke in their own backyard, we would tend not to judge them as harshly as someone who smokes near their kids, right?

I don't think what the person in this case did is right, but I'd just be happy if we could really look to each situation and decide why it's wrong, rather than just assuming that every single case is the same. Sooner or later we'll get another thread going here where its not for pay, just someone's website. Then we'll get one about a photobucket account, and I easily foresee one coming up about people adding random art to their social networking sites, and so on. It's such a complicated issue, I just think it deserves more thought put into it, especially from a community like this that has its own brand of power and influence.

"And as the artists, they have the right to exercise their copyright protection rights on their work, whether or not you agree with them."

That's basically the kind of respectable response I was thinking I would receive when I started all this. I only ever wanted people to look a bit deeper at the situation before passing judgment, even if that judgment would differ from my own.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_patches_/]

No prob.

[kathy-lu.livejournal.com]

The difference being::

Lilenth's icon was posted for FREE USE. They aren't making a PROFIT from that icon, they're using it as a personal representation of themselves.

The subject at hand is artists artwork being taken from their sites [which they're posted for enjoyment ONLY], and posted elsewhere where someone wants to make MONEY off of someone else's effort, without their permission. Whether it's a copy of an image that they're using, they're making MONEY off of something someone else did.

How would you feel if you spent hours and hours on something, putting everything you had into it, and putting it on display for others to enjoy. Then, you turn around, and find it somewhere else where someone is trying to sell it, and doesn't even plan on giving you any percentage of a cut?

You're obviously not an artist if you see no problem with this....