/furry/ - Your new home

>>707584

I'm really tired of porn artists and their fried-dopamine-receptors fans (who associate pleasure with their artwork) acting like their smut is some huge contribution to culture that's worth this high-level jewing. People making thousands of dollars a month should not have paywalls, period. They are already making more than most of their fans and peers. I get it if you want to make money off smut, I really do, but if you think that you'll be allowed to use that as an excuse for any shit you pull money-wise, you need to wake the fuck up.

Also, commissioning art has nothing to do with paywalls you fucking retard. It's a very thin connection. A commission is when you pay for a particular piece to be created. A paywall is when an artist just locks everything or most of what they make behind a subscription, even if it's a fucking practice sketch or something. It's absurd. But, you already knew the distinction, you just needed to quickly cobble together an angry non-argument for your sage. Also, the sheer volume of paywalls is an issue as well. There's no way all these assholes with paywalls are going to be paid, and I know that because I personally wouldn't pay to get through one paywall, and I assume people who do that for one exceptional artist won't be too hot to go and do it again, and again, and again, since money is finite and all. In summation, fuck you.

>that one artist who posts shitty crops of paintings that clearly have been painted on poser-characters

>descriptions have links to patreon and a wall of text about what you may or may not be doing with his work

>someone asks if he can do some edit or fanart of the character

>"NO, YOU MAY NEVER TOUCH MY UNIQUE CREATION. THEY ARE MY PROPERTY!!"

Also:

>guy makes art of a big money entertainment character that he sure as hell didn't get permissions for

>someone colours or improves the piece of art

>the original guy goes on rampage, screaming in the comments and demanding to take it down

The "fandom" is pretty shit, yeah.