/fur/ - Furry★

"hey don't go dunk on this guy"

>leaves his name for everyone to see

You fucking piece of shit, you knew exactly what you were doing. I hope this nigger and everyone who plays the two face game like him plants themselves in front of the next oncoming bus. Be a man and handle your own problems instead of getting your drooling syncophants to do it for you, faggot. Pathetic.

>>98217 (OP)

I don’t get what this thread is about. Isn’t the twitter flame war good enough? Do we NEED to drag it in and talk about it here too?

>>98221

/fur/ is full of shitbags that think "durr duh art belongs to the whole world" and hate artists owning stuff.

I'm almost tempted to improve my art skills and licensed my works under CC0 to crash the commissions market.

Also, OP- your thread is pretty fucking gay tbh

I'm glad the art I've commissioned isn't popular enough to be stolen and used on F-List. But if it was, I'd probably be amused to see what kind of characterization they came up with. Knowing F-List, they'd be into rape and perma-vore.

>>98234

If the guy who legit owns a character contacts you directly and asks you not to use it anymore it’s just a straight up dick move to push any farther. You got busted. Don’t use the guy’s sparkledog as your twitter avatar. It’s his.

Whether you believe art is free is totally different when the guy is saying look this is mine please stop.

That’s like if I interrupt you breaking into my car and when I say can I have my GPS and phone charger you start off on how property should be shared with the people and that I should get a car with better locks. The shit’s not yours, give it back.

>>98234

I mean, not you literally, the shitbags out there that just want everything to be theirs whenever they want.

the furry fandom steals and uses everyones at as there avatar, if you dont want something used, dont post it publically, because its going to get used by someone/ saved, unless you attach an Ip to it, but even then it gets saved and used people, ive stolen so many avatars from websites or the internet i cant even count, like the internet has no rules. its art, be gracious someone liked it enough to use/ steal it, instead of getting all bent about it.

>>98234

To be faaaaaaaaair, people borrow content all the time on the web. Especailly animu and videogames, so I guess that's why people borrow furry content as well.

>>98217 (OP)

The issue behind borrowing content is that people take it up a notch by roleplaying as those artists to scam people. People will think that you're full of shit if you're Shiguru Miyamoto, but they're more inclined to believe you if you claim to be a popufur.

>>98217 (OP)

NYPA, fuck off OP you faggot.

How is this dude relevant again? His art is just le epic twinkies with six packs and giraffe necks and everything he posts is literally just representing the dumbest standpoint you can have, as long as it's sucking the dick of someone who has more followers than he does in the process

>>98217 (OP)

>tfw I did this once

well, I didn't post about it publicly but I got annoyed that someone was literally erping on twitter with my oc (I mean, I erp too but come on, it's competition)

Originally I was just gonna not say anything but people kept sending me dm after dm and note after note

>uh... is this guy you?

>hey, this guy is using your oc, thought I should let you know

>hey you should report this guy

I finally had enough and asked him to stop, thankfully he agreed and took everything down before blocking me which I'm ok with. It did kind of make me feel like the fun police but I suppose if you're gonna use someone's oc at least don't fucking use it on twitter.

>>98234

>muh intellectual property

>muh ones and zeros

INFORMATION WANTS TO BE FREE

>Make data freely available

>Get mad when people use it without your permission

Welcome to the internet, here's my credit card info, social security number, and my passwords to various websites. Please don't use it without my permission, guis.

>>98259

>>98256

>>98245

>>98240

>>98234

>>98236

Ya'll fucking overreacting, this is the internet, if you put out your content publicly, people are gonna archive it, reupload it, use it in their profiles, and view it. Those who use it to claim as artist and scam people are worst and OP's pic related has nothing to do with people stealing, the artist should've just simply told the guy to credit him and no drama would occur but you turds love drama.

>b-buh muh copyright!!

The artist draws fan arts of other media :)

>>98263

Probably. Put it with a futa, and you've got the ultimate schrodinger's homo situation.

If only more furries would know about Creative Commons, Free Software, and the concept of Copyleft, we'd be so much better and less drama-filled

>>98266

Given what I've seen and heard about how certain artists have been treated for embracing that- it's not so much they don't know as it is they actively reject it.

>>98270

>Given what I've seen and heard about how certain artists have been treated for embracing that

What have you seen and heard?

>>98260

I would pretend to be Bushy just to see new art of this fuck

>>98234

Okay, so when are you removing all derivative Pokemon and Digimon OCs from the fandom?

>>98234

>strawmanning this hard

I almost thought this wasn't bait for a sec.

>>98217 (OP)

Who's the autist here? The guy who's right or that retard comment guy who probably can't draw for shit?

notglacier is a run-of-the-mill karma farming twitter tard, hard to feel sorry for him

especially over something as petty as this

>>98281

What's the point of blocking's denial of viewing feature? I understand to prevent persons from talking to you, but if your account is public you could just log out and view the tweets. What's the point of that aspect?

>>98281

Ohhh noooo

>>98284

Because twitter is a shit platform that has no thought put into its design.

>>98287

True... I don't personally use it. I have only used GNU Social as anything remotely-close to a Twitter-like.

>>98273

>he doesn't know about the shit furfag artists have given Tyson Tan

Man, you're in for a wild ride. /tech/ can tell the story better than I ever could.

>>98289

The only reason I even have an account is to follow a few nip artists, and to shill FLOSS and alternative platforms until I inevitably do something to piss off the admins. GNU Social is pretty great from what I've heard- only thing is that I can't decide which node to make an account on.

>>98301

>Not that anon, but I don't remember reading anything on this on the threads from /tech/.

If I recall correctly, a lot of furry artists were supposedly assholes to him because he did mascots for open source projects and the like and didn't charge or charged too little in their eyes- and supposedly was cutting into their art gibs in some way by doing so. If you dig through the threads you can probably find the posts discussing it, and screencaps of email/twitter where Tyson mentions it.

>>98281

>I just point out peoples bullshit until they run away, which for you is probably pretty soon

This sounds an awful lot like the sorts of people one encounters on Reddit, who go into threads and just tell everyone how full of shit they think they are, over and over, and when pressed, act defensive and claim they just have a low tolerance for bullshit and they can't help but point it out.

>>98301

Oh, the designer of Libbie was Tyson Tan? I followed that, but only at glances

>>98234

Intellectual property is cancer, to be fair.

But, I'm not sure why OP made this thread. It' s just the usual gay twitter drama.

>>98261

You’re that guy that empties the whole bowl of candy into your kid’s basket on Halloween because it’s not a crime when nobody’s looking, aren’t you? Your kid will grow up with no respect for other people’s property too. Don’t worry.

By your argument anything in your home is free for me to take if I wait til you leave a window open or run a quick errand and leave the door unlocked. You COULD be more careful. You COULD get a dog or an alarm system. But you send me a clear enough message that you don’t care about your stuff and I’ll come take it off your hands for you.

There are people on Facebook who steal other people’s kids’ photos and post them on their own accounts, pretending they’re the parents or sometimes the kids themselves. Do you think that’s okay too, because the kids’ photos were posted on the internet?

Do you think it’s okay for me to abduct your children on the way home from school and sell them into slavery if they cut thru the alley behind my apartment? I mean they’re technically just hanging out in a public place. They could take the bus or get a ride from you.

“You can’t un-post something” is a sentiment that comes from the practice of people putting embarrassing pictures of themselves online. It has nothing to do with basic fucking respect for other people. The internet is not bereft of all the social decencies we pay each other in the rest of the world.

You’re a scumbag if you take someone else’s Twitter/fb/Instagram content and pass

it off as your own. People have a right to their own identity, even online, and God knows there’s enough crappy furry art out there that you can find something that ISN’T being used by someone else.

>>98301

That mascot is really cute and creative but they’re absolutely right, those images are way too complex to be used as file identifiers or icons.

>>98318

any analogy to physical theft is inadequate because digital files aren't taken, they're duplicated. (even when you cutpaste, you're duplicating and then deleting. it's two actions.) Try something else. My suggestion: Money. You can - and banks do - make as much of it as they like. Problems arise when you give it to others or show that you have it publicly. Only then does it have any impact on the wider world.

>Do you think that’s okay too, because the kids’ photos were posted on the internet?

maybe the moral of the story is don't post your kids photos on the internet?

>The internet is not bereft of all the social decencies we pay each other in the rest of the world.

Social decency by nature only governs the decent. If you want to protect yourself from the vast number of indecent people out there, don't be an idiot and take actions that they will exploit.

>God knows there’s enough crappy furry art out there that you can find something that ISN’T being used by someone else.

All art is made by someone for a purpose. Generally it still sees use as a piece of work in their gallery. You're a scumbag if you think only the people who pay for commissioned art deserve to have their work protected while copyright infringing random kids on deviantart is acceptable. The right to an identity online shouldn't be qualified with the footnote "provided you can afford to commission it.", no matter what the average furry thinks.

>>98322

I don’t mean he’s a thief. This isn’t an issue of lost sales revenue. What I mean is, he’s completely ignorant to the concept of respecting other people’s rights.

The internet has been around a few decades. Human civilization has had a concept of respecting the rights of others going back to the earliest cultures on the planet.

If someone says “hey that’s my drawing of my character and please stop using it,” the correct answer is to stop using it.

The right answer is definitely NOT to say that here on the internet, the medium that has all but replaced radio, tv, print, and every other form of communication, you no longer have a right to assert your identity when someone else claims it.

None of you would say it’s ok for me to go around pretending to be you irl or online. That’s what this person is trying to prevent by kindly asking that others not take what he made and present it as their own.

>>98318

Imagine if you could steal anything of mine but it wouldn't actually remove my original copy. Like if someone said "I'm stealing your car" and then all of a sudden there's another exact copy of your car and then he drives off in the copy and you still have the original.

>>98324

>I don’t mean he’s a thief.

You were literally comparing it to theft in your previous post.

>None of you would say it’s ok for me to go around pretending to be you irl or online. That’s what this person is trying to prevent by kindly asking that others not take what he made and present it as their own.

That's a separate issue but it doesn't look like that other guy was trying to pass himself off as the artist so that's not really the issue either.

>>98324

>If someone says “hey that’s my drawing of my character and please stop using it,” the correct answer is to stop using it

Exactly. I fully understand that theft will happen, and one can't really fully stop it. But sticking to this one specific situation: if you use someone else's art and/or character without permission, and its creator asks you to stop doing so, the right thing to do is to stop. That's not to say one must expect that to always happen, or get angry if it doesn't. It IS, however, saying that if YOU-- whoever YOU reading this, who does this-- do this, don't be a dickhead if they ask you to cut it the fuck out, and don't pull the "information wants to be free" or "you posted it, it belongs to everyone now" cards. That's called being a dickhead.

>Don't be THIS Autistic

>Whole thread is even more autistic than topic

>The state of this board

>The state of this fandom

Jesus Christ. Information deserves to be free, you can't make random strings of ones and zeros illegal, Creative Commons is a godsend, and you are all just fucking stupid.

"Don't copy that floppy" is a dumbshit motto. Fuck you all, what the fuck.

>>98318

>Do you think that’s okay too, because the kids’ photos were posted on the internet?

nobody ever said impersonation is ok

>You’re a scumbag if you take someone else’s Twitter/fb/Instagram content and pass it off as your own

nobody said plagiarism is ok either. further, plagiarism an entirely different thing from copying.

>“You can’t un-post something”

creative works are non-excludable and non-rivalrous. this is how it's always been. either don't post or fuck off.

>>98324

>Human civilization has had a concept of respecting the rights of others going back to the earliest cultures on the planet.

You mean respecting the rights of THE PUBLIC to study and build upon the works of the past and enjoy access to culture and human knowledge? yes. That was until copyright came along in the 18th century and ruined everything. copyright is not a payroll scheme or welfare for artists. it's (purportedly) a bargain struck between the public and authors in hopes it will lead to more/better works. whether authors right holders happen to profit is but a happy coincidence.

>>98397

>At that point, it belongs to whomever they released it to

i know it's autistic nitpicking at this point but you're technically wrong. creative works can't be owned by anyone; they're non-rivalrous and non-excludable, and intangible. a work exists simultaneously in every copy on which it is contained. once a work is fixed in a medium, the only way to 'own' it as you put it would be to keep tight control over all copies. however, as you said, the artist loses control the moment someone else gets a copy.

hell, if you think about it the above reasoning doesn't hold in the case of say, a dance coreography, music, or poetry, as people can just transcribe the work from memory without having a copy of the poem, coreography, or sheet music. said works can be said to 'exist' as long as someone remembers them even if all their copies are destroyed.

>>98391

Preserving the Mona Lisa for future generations is not the same thing as taking another living person’s art and putting it up on your social media account as if you made it, or that it somehow represents you... directly against that person’s explicit request. There is nothing altruistic about that. It’s incredible you can’t get that.

>>98416

>or that it somehow represents you

but it does, it's an icon, a profile picture for an individual. if people copy it (without intent to copy the entire identity) then so be it. in terms of principle there is literally no difference between using someone else's fursona as your twitter avatar, and using sonichu (or if you want to get really pedantic, chris-chan sonichu, which aficionados will remember is different to sonichu) as your twitter avatar.

politeness may dictate that you stop if requested, but there's no deeper principle than that.

that's before you get into a utilitarian game of measuring how much utility is gained by the copiers versus the disutility to the original user of knowing the copiers exist. (and how the optimal situation is probably for copiers to exist but for the original to not know)

>>98417

I realize that some people are butthurt by the idea that a jpg they are associated with might end up on someone else’s hard drive. That attitude may be extreme given the mechanical nature of viewing and communicating images on the internet.

But this isn’t about someone downloading a picture. The guy is building a personal brand and asked someone not to fuck with what he’s trying to do.

If there’s nothing of value being lost to the artist then there’s nothing of value being gained by the person taking the image, so you’re just as well off to leave the person alone right?

But we know nobody believes that, because the whole (or only) reason you post information to twitter and Facebook is that so you’ll get views and followers and likes and shares. You’ll build social media capital. And that’s what the other guy was trying to do before you took his work and proceeded to earn from it. Maybe it wasn’t money but it was and still is something of value. The Kardashians are proof of this.

Do your own god damn work. Shit. That’s how the rest of the world is using the internet. Some of you have spent so much time on *chans that you think it’s ok to call people niggers and kikes and distribute pthc for the lulz everywhere.

These views are probably most common among people who don’t have artistic skill or imagination. And really all it takes is to watch a few YouTube videos or buy a how to draw cartoons book. It’s the epitome of entitled laziness.

>>98417

Another non-artist idea is that a creative person isn’t represented by his work.

Google the names of famous artists and see how many of the picture results are NOT images of the artists’ faces.

>>98418

>The guy is building a personal brand

Then he's already surrendered his humanity. "Personal Brand" is one of the most dystopian neologisms of the 21st century. Politeness is for people, not brands. If you want to play by market rules, play by market rules - don't get pissy that you don't have exclusive control over something you clearly lack exclusive control over. Don't piss all over the norms for human interaction by turning it into a brand-name commodity, then suddenly flee to basic human kindness and decorum when you disagree with someone else's business practices.

>These views are probably most common among people who don’t have artistic skill or imagination.

It's precisely because of my moderate skill level that I oppose current trends. I have a webcomic, not a personal brand. I would be glad to see others using my characters as their profile picture on the internet. (Sadly hasn't happened yet lol) Because of the nature of the thing I have made, there's no chance of anyone with a brain confusing that person for me. The brand is in the product, the comic, not me. I try to remain largely detached and anonymous by comparison. Content should always first, both as a matter of practicality and as a matter of ideology. Having both the absence of personality and the sheer egotism necessary to try and make yourself a brand is a line of thought that should be discouraged with whatever means are available.

The internet is not living up to it's potential. This fandom is probably the biggest example of wasting away potential in pursuit of cheap attention, quick dopamine hits and the exchange of US dollars.

>>98427

Pick another word if you don’t like me using a marketing term. Marketing is a huge part of life today. That’s just how it is.

You may see the internet the way I used to, but it is a commercial medium. You pay to put data on it and you pay to download it, and there are a million people in the middle with their hands out too. When you apply for a job or at a university, ask someone on a date, rent an apartment, and in lots of other social interactions both personal and business, your presence on social media goes under scrutiny. You have a right to be judged as a person by your own speech, actions, whatever. It’s a hustle for all of us whether we choose to see that or not. That’s why I use the kardashians as an example.

So if you want to stomp your feet and say that social media presence doesn’t matter to you, that’s totally cool. I’d accept that even without the stomping.

But that doesn’t mean that you and everyone else should then be free to shit all over other people and their hopes and dreams under the premise that “you shouldn’t have uploaded it in the first place.” It’s often illegal (and ALWAYS a generally shitty thing to do) to impersonate others in any other medium. That you’d think the internet is special or different from using the mail, telephone, or a poster taped to a dorm wall, when it comes to deceiving and defrauding others is just fucked up. It’s a clear demonstration that as shitty as things like FOSTA, DMCA, etc have turned out to be for all of us, things would be even worse without them because some people just don’t fucking get it.

You have a choice to A: respect someone’s wishes and not use something you didn’t create, pay for, or receive legitimately to further your social standing, or B: tell that guy to fuck off and do it anyway just because the same laws we’ve been respecting since way before you were born don’t explicitly say “and also on the web.”

You’re just trying to make a big Bill Clinton-style technical loophole by defining terms the way you see them and ignoring the gigantic matter of “it’s his, and he asked you directly to stop using it.”

>>98220

Where did he say "dont dunk on this guy" faggot?

>>98439

In the third image in op, the twitter screen cap