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His main page has been replaced by a Caramelldansen video but the download link remains and the torrent is still on pirate bay.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

[neolucky.livejournal.com]

Did you not see the part where he was asking for donations for the collection? Donations for a collection of available art AND paysite related art? (hardblush paysite and more)

Or...did you skip that part entirely? He was trying to black male people into donating to his "cause" and only after a $20 would he remove the torrent.

He was trying to profit off what he calls "free art". That right there is grounds for a stir. Please look a bit more carefully before tl;dring.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

She didn't miss it, she just bizarrely believes that it doesn't harm you if someone else is profiting off your work. Apparently in her world theft is creativity.

[neolucky.livejournal.com]

*smashing keyboard angrily* I can't even fathom this.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

Nor can I, she's seriously starting to make my head hurt between the ignorant/strawman arguments she's employing and the fact that she's not even twigged how offensive she's being with some of the stuff she's coming out with.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

what strawmen? what ignorance? you have a habit of ignoring pointed questions and then accusing me of missing the picture. Just because its an unpopular opinion doesn't mean I have no right to bring it up.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask where your icon comes from. Just curious, since I get the sense you didn't make it, and I wonder if you asked permission. I also wonder how many others on A_B use icons that they have no idea who 'owns.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

If they profit because they are selling it, but you were never selling it, in what way is that a loss of income?

[keaalu.livejournal.com]

So let me get this straight; you labour for hours to produce a piece of artwork to share with the world, and just because you haven't elected to sell it yourself, you'd be fine with someone else taking that piece of art, and profiting (possibly significantly) off your hours of labour? (And that's ignoring all the supplies you've used to create it.)

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

It's not that I'm saying its good or its okay to do that, im just saying that if I was never going to profit, then I'm not loosing profit when someone else does it. Is that not sound logic? Sure there may be other factors that make that behaviour wrong, but it's not enough to just say something is wrong without thinking about WHY. I hope that's understandable.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

I may only know you from words you've written through this community, but you don't strike me as the type to do something like that. I don't think it would help either, since you'd just be becoming the thing you're arguing against, no?

Now, up there I stated that I don't think people SHOULD go around doing this, in fact, I think they probably should not, and should find other ways to make money, but honestly, if I make a list of the pros and cons for the situation of YOU selling MY work, it doesn't come out as bad as all that. I'm not currently selling my work, so I'm literally not loosing money. I may not like that you did it without permission, but your lack of permission may very well result in either no detriment to me, or an increase in traffic, attention, comments, etc. It may even show me that people are willing to buy my stuff (I doubt it lol) and inspire me to start selling it myself. Why am I so wrong for just thinking about the issue in this way, instead of being cliche and getting up in arms and thinking that the law is the best protector of IP?

[lurkerwisp.livejournal.com]

So it would be okay to show up at a public art gallery, take all the work without price tags, and sell the art and prints elsewhere because the artist didn't put it up for sale anyway?

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

I never said it was okay, only that we need to think about WHY its wrong and maybe factor in other considerations. When you were a kid, did you ever see something that to this day still inspires you? Did you need to know that the creator authorized you to look at it to be inspired? Probably not. There is a benefit in works being distributed. Does it necessarily outweigh the creator's rights? certainly not, but I just don't think its wise to immediately get angry and shout 'LAWSUIT! DMCA! MINE MINE MINE', instead of looking at the situation as a whole. Is that really so awful of me?

[neolucky.livejournal.com]

Uh...The images in the pack were images I WERE selling. What then? The images included are Hardblush.com images as well, images I was paid for, paid to do, images that are paid to be seen and he ripped and is spreading them.

The moment a donation aspect comes into play, is the moment where he's committing a crime. I could care less if he was just sharing FA art (with proper names, credits and watermarking) but sharing it in a bundle with paysite art then asking for money is wrong. This has nothing to do with IP or whatever.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

AS I've stated before, I think that someone SHOULD NOT, and is WRONG, for selling something to the DETRIMENT of the creator. So, I agree with you, but that should be something we consider before we immediately get up in arms. If someone looses no money, as in, someone else sells something they really had no intention of selling themselves, is it still wrong? I think you might answer that it is, and I can totally accept that, even if I don't agree, but it seems like I'm not being allowed to ask the question without being accused of thievery or insincerity myself.

[neolucky.livejournal.com]

Also, how DO YOU KNOW they weren't selling that art? Plenty of artists make prints out of their galleries, but don't openly discuss it. I sure don't. SO how would you even know whats being sold amongst those 11,000+ images?

You may wanna backpeddle a bit there, you're making it very hard not to resort to frustrated name-calling.

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

I think Gabe's idea has merit in place of name-calling: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/8/1/tender-human-trachea/

[lilenth.livejournal.com]

So according to you, not exercising a right means it's okay for someone to take that right for themselves. So if I have a pool but am not swimming in it, that means it's okay for others to come swim in it does it? I mean it's only trespassing after all.

You don't understand the concept of harm it seems, let's break out the examples you've overlooked in your myopia, if artist's don't protect their work or have the right to protect it removed from them, these can happen:

Brand damage:

The work gets associated with something that is harmful to the artist's reputation or which reduces the work's value.

Artist reputation dilution:

Loss of income because companies don't want to hire an artist who would turn a blind eye to the reuse of work for hire/personal work being reused in a manner the customer might not appreciate.

I'm sure a great many people wouldn't want to hire an artist who would ignore someone posting the result on a site that say promotes racism.

If the right to prevent it being taken is removed, you get more cases of private work, where work will specifically not be shared at all by artists because they wouldn't want someone stealing their customers work, which again REDUCES the creativity available to inspire.

Failure to protect:

Artist's lose their work after an unscrupulous individual sues them because he's selling their work and their sales of it interfere with his money making which they haven't stopped.

I could go on but if you don't get the picture by now, you never will, losses is more than just simple money losses ergo can you kindly stop talking nonsense now because you're really starting to aggravate those of us who have done our research and who are offended at your attempts to insist that OUR rights should be given away, go slap creative commons crap on YOUR work if you believe that rights shouldn't belong to artists, put YOUR work in public domain if you support this, but don't tell US what WE can do with OUR work!

[armaina.livejournal.com]

"BUT if someone starts posting or selling anothers work who never intended to do so themselves, they've actually lost nothing, even though the 'infringer' has benefited from work they did not create."

Yeaaah she thinks it's okay if the original artist wasn't actively using it to make money off of in the first place. Like they've somehow lost their right to use their own art. Which I guess means it's okay for large companies to do this as well. I'm just flabbergasted, really.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

oh, I didnt say it was 'okay', just that there's literally no financial loss, so we need to find some other grounds to think of it as 'wrong'.

[armaina.livejournal.com]

But you -did- essentially say it was okay. Your mode of thought is exactly what larger companies use to justify their actions when stealing from other artists. Not to mention the fact that it can ruin the integrity of the IP or reputation of the artist, depending on where it is sold, what it is sold on, or what it is sold with.

So, just because you're okay with someone selling your own art that wasn't a commission or isn't being sold as a print, doesn't mean every artist should want to do the same.

[neolucky.livejournal.com]

There is financial loss.

Stop assuming there isn't, I keep reiterating "PAYSITE" for a reason. Money, Monetary, Cashola. Spreading paysite material is taking money out of the pockets from those who actively pay to see the content.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

I don't agree that he SHOULD do such things, but for those artists who are in no position to lose any money, should they necessarily be so up in arms? My response clearly indicates that one should not use anothers IP to that person's detriment, so perhaps you may want to reread it.

[neolucky.livejournal.com]

I never once said I wanted to us IP to stop this guy. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up and throwing your job around, it isn't giving you any clout. I don't give a rats butt where you work or how smart you think you are. But it's clear you're really on the losing side of this argument and should try to be a bit more sensible about artists who do work their butt off to create those images in the first place.

[animehoneybee.livejournal.com]

Uhh...where did I throw my job around just now? If I gave you that impression, I apologize. 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?

If you're not suggesting that we use IP, then why didn't you ever mention the alternatives I suggested when I first commented on this particular thread? Maybe we could have found common ground earlier.

"should try to be a bit more sensible about artists who do work their butt off to create those images in the first place." I am positive that you and many many others who frequent this board work very hard on their art. I may just be a hobbyist, but I work hard on mine as well. This isn't a contest over who is more passionate about the craft, it's a discussion about what precisely makes a behaviour regarding those works right or wrong.

[keaalu.livejournal.com]

I suppose you could argue it that the art isn't even "free", really - free to view, maybe, but only because (effectively) the artist has given FA or whichever host they use permission to display their art when they ticked the "I agree with the T&C" box. It's like going into a museum (*lol at the idea of comparing FA to a museum*) - lots are free entry, that doesn't mean you can just help yourself to the art and start reproducing it for your own profit.