New "free art" website
Jun. 21st, 2010 08:09 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
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His main page has been replaced by a Caramelldansen video but the download link remains and the torrent is still on pirate bay.
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.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-22 07:30 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-22 11:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-22 06:33 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-23 03:34 am (UTC)"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."
That is exactly the kind of factor I'm talking about. I agree! something like that can happen! but in situations (let's say LJ icons since people seem to be paying attention to that example) where MAYBE unauthorized use isn't really hurting anyone, MAYBE we shouldn't get too too upset about it.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-23 04:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-23 11:49 am (UTC)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?
no subject
Date: 2010-06-23 06:55 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-23 10:26 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-22 09:40 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-23 03:38 am (UTC)For a site like this, I agree, there could be a lot of people that are losing money to this site, and THEY have a right to demand it be taken down, but I just want to get to the bottom, to the crux of why the behaviour is bad. If we don't pinpoint it, and just allow ourselves to get in a frenzy of trying to protect our IP, maybe we do ourselves a disservice in the long run.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-23 04:52 am (UTC)Throwing out random excuses for THIEVES is really not endearing you to anyone.