[ SECRET POST #2781 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2781 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.
[Game of Thrones]


__________________________________________________



09. [broken]


__________________________________________________



10.
[Kevin Sorbo/Hercules: The Legendary Journeys]


__________________________________________________



11.
[Transformers: Prime]


__________________________________________________



12.
[Darkchylde]






Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 022 secrets from Secret Submission Post #397.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I think the guy had every right to do what he did up to having the conversation w/o images pulled. It IS hurting his name to be there. Even if he didn't have much of a name.

If it were a web artist wanting their work taken down because it was posted without permission people would be agreeing with them.

I find Eschergirls completely distasteful. It generally picks on the old art of people that have gotten better with no indications to the audience that they did or panels that went wrong out of an entire book that is probably ok. It's easy to sit down and redline something at your leisure when you're not on a deadline.

Most of the critics aren't any better than the art they make fun of.

[(Anonymous)]

*grabs popcorn* This will be good.

[(Anonymous)]

I can agree that often times critics overdo it and I often think there are posts on Escher Girls where you can see the problems are obviously being pointed out by an amateur who doesn't know how to critique style.

BUT I disagree that people would be fine with false DMCA complaints from a web artist. Usually when web artists complain about work being posted, it's because it's UNCREDITED. When something is credited and sourced, regardless of what is said, most people leave it alone (and if they don't, the should.)

I follow tons of professional artists and some of them work at companies that are constantly under fire from fandom, you know what they do? Ignore it. Post their work. Advertise their work. That's it.

[(Anonymous)]

there is a lot of difference between going after a web artist just drawing as a hobby and posting for free (or mostly free) and a "professional" published artist.

[(Anonymous)]

So once you make a living off your art, you should have no control over how it's used?

[(Anonymous)]

DA. Having control over your work does not mean being free from criticism.

[(Anonymous)]

Once you start selling it, you are opening yourself up to being criticized over it. In fact consumer criticism of commercial works is not only an industry in itself, but considered a vital part of the capitalistic process. Technically, yes, the amateur has just as much right to be publicly criticized too but most critics take the view that there is little to gain from turning critical eyes to amateur works. Even if they deserve it, like Asperchu, it still comes across as just plain bullying. Pros are expected to have a thicker skin.

[(Anonymous)]

If you don't have a thick enough skin to accept criticism, perhaps you shouldn't be putting your stuff out in public where people might criticize it? Precious fucking children.

[(Anonymous)]

No no, the question should be "so before you make a living off your art, you should be protected from any and all criticism?"

Because fuckin buttsore babies here be all "wahhh don't like don't look" about shit they're posting on PUBLIC FUCKING FORUMS for people to look at, but then turn around to be all "we have a right to criticise art!" about other people's shit.

[(Anonymous)]

THIS

[skippydelicious]

The DMCA does not provide for that, that is explicitly outside of the text of the act, if he thought it was harming his reputation then he'd have had to sue them the old-fashioned way (and get his suit thrown out the old-fashioned way too, criticism of works is protected in law). You might not like the criticism, you might not agree with them (you, specifically anonny, obviously don't) but you have no right in law to stifle it. To use a DMCA takedown under false pretenses like he did is just plain unlawful.

[(Anonymous)]

So what, we're shouldn't allow the criticism of professional art? And we should censor anyone who does?
Also, if you're a professional artist, but you can't handle your work being criticized, maybe you should pick a different career.

[(Anonymous)]

1. No, he did not have a right to abuse copyright legislation to attack someone whose actions fell well within the "fair use" exception, which is intended to include uses like criticism and parody. Trying to protect your reputation or career is not a legitimate reason to break the law.

2. The point of Eschergirls is not to make fun of bad individual artists, it's to highlight how the comics industry portrays women. Each of the artists being criticized had editors and other people they answered to, none of whom looked at their art and asked them to leave out the spinal trauma next time or stop tracing from porn. If you think "most of the critics can't make better art" is an effective response to their criticism, you've missed the entire point of the blog.

[(Anonymous)]

By your logic, we should ban all critics and critique, because criticism "harms reputations."