post #3213838 is a third-party edit that removes the artist's signature. Should this be allowed? I get the feeling it violates some guideline.
Posted under General
post #3213838 is a third-party edit that removes the artist's signature. Should this be allowed? I get the feeling it violates some guideline.
I think it shouldn’t be allowed. The signature is something the artist put there, so it should stay in there. To me, removing that is different from what’s usually considered “de-texting”, i. e., removing larger amount of text from magazine articles and the likes that the artist didn’t put on there.
It definitely shouldn't be allowed. Even if we require proper sourcing here anyway, it's giving justification for people who crop or photoshop out credits for their own dubious reasons, and the online art community could do with less of those in general.
It should be on the level of a nude filter and disallowed for the purposes of maintaining the quality and integrity of the site.
iridescent_slime said:
There is a C94 promotion for the artbook that had smaller versions of the image without the signature. All I did was use that digital data and overlay it on top, then matching values.
Edit: I'm at work so I don't have access to my history or the files, but this but bigger are the files I found.
Watermarking an image is a conscious choice an artist makes to prevent it from being appropriated without credit, especially when they upload something to Pixiv or Twitter where people often feel it's up for grabs (like Danbooru). Undoing that decision is inappropriate, even if you only used samples to frankenstein a signature-less version. Editing an image just to remove a small signature just encourages others to do the same or worse with even less justification.
Rampardos said:
Watermarking an image is a conscious choice an artist makes to prevent it from being appropriated without credit, especially when they upload something to Pixiv or Twitter where people often feel it's up for grabs (like Danbooru). Undoing that decision is inappropriate, even if you only used samples to frankenstein a signature-less version. Editing an image just to remove a small signature just encourages others to do the same or worse with even less justification.
This. It doesn't matter if the image looks objectively cleaner/nicer/whathaveyou without the signature - if the artist placed a signature on the online versions of the piece, they do not want the unsigned version to be available to those who didn't purchase the artbook. This is exactly the kind of behavior that gets takedowns issued to danbooru and brings down the credibility of the site as a whole. If you went to an artist and asked them "hey, can I/you remove this signature?", they would ALMOST CERTAINLY tell you no. Knowing that to be true, doing so anyway shows an utter disregard for the person behind the art.
If this behavior is allowed, it's going to cause an uptick of banned artists. Hell, I will personally go to artists, using google translate if necessary, to let them know if this is done to their work and show them how to issue a takedown request, because it isn't cool and as an artist myself I would be beyond pissed if this happened to any of my work.
Based on apparent consensus, I went ahead and flagged that post. I also updated the Help:Flag Notice wiki.
Kayako said:
This. It doesn't matter if the image looks objectively cleaner/nicer/whathaveyou without the signature - if the artist placed a signature on the online versions of the piece, they do not want the unsigned version to be available to those who didn't purchase the artbook. This is exactly the kind of behavior that gets takedowns issued to danbooru and brings down the credibility of the site as a whole. If you went to an artist and asked them "hey, can I/you remove this signature?", they would ALMOST CERTAINLY tell you no. Knowing that to be true, doing so anyway shows an utter disregard for the person behind the art.
If this behavior is allowed, it's going to cause an uptick of banned artists. Hell, I will personally go to artists, using google translate if necessary, to let them know if this is done to their work and show them how to issue a takedown request, because it isn't cool and as an artist myself I would be beyond pissed if this happened to any of my work.
Going by that logic, re-hosting work they say not to be rehosted on other sites or uploading scans they intended to be only viewed in a physical state are in the same field of wrongdoing.
That said, it seems that people think I edited the picture to only remove the signature, which is not the case. I was cleaning up the sample watermark over images available at higher res than on pixiv (Because I thought users would appreciate the higher res), and happened to find that the artist had also sent out small digital versions to various sites without the signature, so since there was an actual official version without it I just went all the way.
If you want to share the signature-less version, than upload that instead, and you should consider what the artist would appreciate as well.
It's true that Danbooru itself doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when comes to respecting artists -- it's a completely one-sided relationship, but it's still a relationship. The site couldn't exist without them, so it's important to consider the ethics when uploading to or editing images for the site.
Rampardos said:
If you want to share the signature-less version, than upload that instead, and you should consider what the artist would appreciate as well.
It's true that Danbooru itself doesn't have much of a leg to stand on when comes to respecting artists -- it's a completely one-sided relationship, but it's still a relationship. The site couldn't exist without them, so it's important to consider the ethics when uploading to or editing images for the site.
Yes, seeing the consensus I'll just upload versions with the signature present, fixing that hardly took any effort compared to the rest of the text.
Okay guys I fucked up, I accidentally approved the post after clicking the post link, and the approve button is directly below after the next page loads.
I tried to reflag it but it says that "Post cannot be flagged more than once every 3 days (last flagged: August 07, 2018 17:59) close".
CaptainLoony said:
Okay guys I fucked up, I accidentally approved the post after clicking the post link, and the approve button is directly below after the next page loads.
I tried to reflag it but it says that "Post cannot be flagged more than once every 3 days (last flagged: August 07, 2018 17:59) close".
Yes, flags have a 3 days cooldown.