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His main page has been replaced by a Caramelldansen video but the download link remains and the torrent is still on pirate bay.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

[armaina.livejournal.com]

Smoking is the worst analogy you can use in this case, for one. Secondly, this post, the thing that got you started, isn't talking about icons.

[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?

[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 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.