[ SECRET POST #3942 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3942 ⌋

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

01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 09 secrets from Secret Submission Post #564.
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)]

You seriously underestimate how lazy people are. People will click through to your blog if you're the source, but they have to be way more invested to go to the trouble of reverse image searching it out. Many, many people who would check out the rest of the artist's work if the image wasn't a repost are never going to bother doing that.

There's also the fact that resposting even with credit and a link takes away from the artist. If all shares of a work are through the artist's initial post, they can say "One of my artworks was shared X times!", but if a repost (or three) takes off, it's difficult for an artist to judge the reach of their work, and they can't point to that as an achievement because it's spread over so many different iterations. And before someone says that people might not have seen it at all if not for the repost, I'll point you back up to the first paragraph and remind you that paying someone in "exposure" is considered pathetic and scammy for a reason.

And of course it's fair on its own for artists to be annoyed that other people are using their work for their own benefit. Even if the reposter doesn't have ads up on their site, they're still gaining followers and views by posting art that isn't their own, without permission, in a way that disadvantages the original artist.

[(Anonymous)]

Which is different from the artist creating artwork of copyrighted characters that aren't their own, without permission, and trying to profit off it?

I'm not against people making money from fanart commissions or things where people pay them for their "hours of work to a client's specifications," but an artist complaining that someone reposted their fanart so wah they're losing out on "payment" is iffy to me. Even if "payment through exposure" is bullshit, which I agree it is, it's the "expecting payment in any form for their copyright infringing works at all" that is wrong in the first place to me.

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I think there's a difference between making something that's derivative of someone else's IP, and just straight up stealing someone else's work

[(Anonymous)]

Except OP literally said "stealing someone's work" i.e. claiming it's your own, is not included in the reposting we're talking about. Read the second sentence of the secret over again if you don't believe me?

[(Anonymous)]

OK.

I would consider "stealing someone's work" to include reposting it without attribution, so that's where I was coming from with my reply, but fair enough.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, I don't agree. Is it stealing if you google image search cute cat pics and you find a photo you put on your fandomsecret? Someone photographed that cat. Someone has the rights to that image. It's not you. But you didn't attribute the photographer.

I see no watermarks on any of these fandom secrets. If you've ever made one, you'd be a thief by your own standards.

[(Anonymous)]

De minimis non curat lex. Obviously using it in the context of a fandomsecret isn't a big deal because practically no one sees it and no one's really benefiting from it and it's a harmless social usage. But, from a formal point of view, doing so is infringing on the rights of the image creator to control how their image is used. And while it's not a big deal for you or me to do it, it bothers me a little when you have really popular accounts dedicated to aggregating content ripping off smaller creators - which is the context that I'm really concerned with here. I'm not really trying to say that using images is always wrong or anything like that, and there are a lot of cases where it's not a big deal at all - it depends a lot on context.

Also, I would say that if you're using work from a specific creator, even on fandom!secrets, it's certainly polite to credit the creator of the image if possible, and I've seen people do so. Also, to be clear, I'm not OP, and the only comments that I've made ITT are in this subthread. And the initial point that I came into the thread to make was just that reposting a person's art without attribution is different from making fanart.

[(Anonymous)]

Nah, you're moving goalposts.

First using the images is thievery. Then it's either not thievery and no big deal or thievery that is somehow not wrong, depending on how minor it is?

I agree that popular accounts dedicated to ripping off smaller creators are thieves. But they are thieves because they are almost always monetized in some shape or form, or are doing it for "payment" of hits to their site and personal popularity and influence, or are - officially or secretly - working for the site itself to generate traffic, so they are thieves profiting off of other people's work without permission, by both my standards are yours.

But, without some sort of huge leap of logic to try and accommodate your extreme scenario, that's not something I would call merely some fans "reposting fanart without credit."

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT--If you use google to search for images, go to advanced search, and there's a dropdown menu called "usage rights" with an option for "free to use, share, or modify." There you go.

[(Anonymous)]

That's interesting to know. But... do you think every secret maker did that? Did anon? Do you? High doubts

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT--I don't know about anyone else, but I've never posted a secret, so no, I haven't used it for FS. For other stuff though? Yeah, I do check depending on what I'm using the image for.

[(Anonymous)]

I disagree that reposting someone's work without attribution is stealing. I do agree that it's kind of rude and annoying though.

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough.

[(Anonymous)]

Reposting is not stealing especially if ownership is not claimed. Is wikipedia stealing when they repost Monet’s artwork? Diverting attention maybe, but the artist still has the original.

[(Anonymous)]

But Monet's artwork is in the public domain. And Wikipedia does, in fact, have a policy of using Creative Commons-licensed or public domain images as much as possible, and only uses copyrighted images with attribution and when there's a specific fair use case to be made for doing so.