/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

>>10034119
Haenulis a piece of work herself so fuck it I guess

>>10034119
This is just stolen stock photos, enjoy your awkwardly constructed chinesium. It wasn't even a good design to start with, this is gonna be hilarious

>>10034119
link?

>>10034140
As with most stuff on Chinese sites, yeah it probably won’t look anything near the photos.
Post when you receive anon, curious how it will be.

>>10034140
>>10034159
OP should make one of those 'expectation' vs. 'reality' collages when it arrives.

>>10034119
Well it is going to look hella trashy when it arrives...no one deserves to look like hot garbage, but I guess you were kinda asking for it when you knowingly bought a $15 replica.

>>10034119
The construction is so plain its prolly the same fucking thing anon. Can't cost her more than that to make surely

I bet those 15 bucks that anon is baiting because haenuli posted this again

Too bad no one on cgl gives enough of a fuck about her for it to be a successful bait

>>10034128
Why does cgl hate Haenuli so much?

>>10034247
I wonder this too. I've seen some of her dresses irl and they've always seemed quite nice, especially on tall girls

>>10034247
Cgl hates any print/brand that fatties can fit.

>>10034119
also curious about the quality.
pls post when it arrives

>>10034247
she's a little self righteous. She threw a huge fit over someone getting a tattoo of one of the skeletons, claiming it was art theft and everyone is required to get her explicit permission to get a tattoo.

plus, honestly? her prints look shit. they're super busy and cheap looking (Just look at the crystal moon whatever shit she barfed out). Her sizes are plus size friendly but also WAY too big. A large fits like a xxl and so on. Lots of people end up selling their items because theyre just too big.

>>10034247
Look back at the archives, she was selling some AliExpress accessories and claiming they were handmade, and then getting mad about "copying her design" when she was the one reselling

>>10034369
IIRC it was a replica of a French brand’s accessory, too. She was planning on reselling a cheap Chinese replica and claiming that she assembled and painted it herself even though all AE listings showed it as pre-assembled and pre-painted, then she feigned ignorance when people pointed this out and IIRC deleted posts/comments. It left a really bad taste in my mouth.

>>10034247
I want to know why cgl hates royal princess alice.

>>10034382
you're skewing it. she found the bits wholesale at a street market vendor's table, saw the pieces next to each other and obviously they looked great as a possible set. Little did she know they were bits from an aliexpress knock off of the French brand.

So she did buy a bunch and assemble a test to share online as a possible future accessory. And then a bunch of people came to her with more info.

I think she's been learning a lot trial and error about going from small indie to larger and very well-known Korean brand. The stuff with the Elpress bonnets was a rookie mistake too.

If she had a larger operation with a team to do legal and research she wouldn't have to find this out as she went along. give her a break dude, I don't think she's malicious.

>>10034307
the tattoo was personal art about how someone close to her commit suicide...I think she's entitled to be upset if people got it without asking her permission. it's her art.

>>10034448
Yeah but its a tattoo. If she didn't find out about it, she wouldn't even be upset.

>>10034448
I’m not skewing anything, I just don’t believe that story of her separately buying and then coincidentally painting and assembling the pieces the exact same way as the ones sold online. I’ll believe that she didn’t know it was a replica and I don’t think she was being malicious, just lazy and somewhat deceitful. Even if she did have to assemble them herself (doubt.jpg) the pieces were always meant as a little red riding hood + grandma in the wolf’s belly set. She was saying she created the accessory which implies creative input, when at best she assembled them as intended. You might as well try to sell paint-by-number paintings as original works. Either way it’s tacky if not outright shady.

>>10034307
She has a point about the tattoo though? You can’t just go getting an artist’s work tattooed on your body without their permission/knowledge/payment, that literally is art theft. There’s a reason people pay people to design tattoos for them.

>>10034451
iirc the person asked her and she said she didn't feel comfortable with it, but they did it anyway and posted it?

So this thread is not a waste, can some actually buy the awful replica and review it here?

>>10034524
It’s legal, because you’re not selling the artwork or making profit from it. It’s like if I printed out a picture of her artwork and got it framed myself; yes I paid for the materials (frame, paper, printer ink, etc) but the company is making money off the materials and their time, not from creating a piece of artwork. Now if I went and sold it, that entirely different.

The only time she could sue is if she registered a copyright AND could prove that the tattoo was maliciously harming her brand, value, or sales.

Pretty sure she was overreacting.

>>10034447
It’s a taobao brand parading as a Japanese brand and at brand prices. It’s a symbol of what lolita should not become.

>>10034448
Hi nunu, nice Engrish

Tbh the person shouldn't have gotten the tattoo without her permission.
I've got a tattoo from a fan artist too and got their express permission beforehand for this. It might be in a gray zone regarding art theft, but it sure as hell is simple courtesy to ask the artist who created it first.

>>10034247
she was caught selling accessories as her own work--when they were clearly bought off aliexpress.
yea...she really has no room to talk about art theft.

>>10034536
But isn't the tattoo artist profiting from it? I see where you're coming from, but it still feels like taking advantage of someone's else work without their permission.

>>10034536
Legal doesn't make it okay, though. Plenty of things are legal but still shitty to do. At best, it's still tacky.

>>10034537
this is the dumbest shit i’ve ever heard

>>10034608
It's not the same thing at all. Meta have also resold accessories available wholesale. That's different to ripping off an entire art print.

>>10034654
Still different though. Meta resold accessories available wholesale but never claimed that they made the accessories or that they're Meta exclusive.
Haenuli, on the other hand, did and then tried to backpedal her way out of it once she was called out.

>>10034609
Nayrt but only if the tattoo artist offered it as flash. Otherwise, when you get a tattoo, you are paying for their skills, time, and materials. Interesting how people brag about their MmM chandelier or Usakumya or AP logo or Disney character tattoos without being accused of committing fraud.

>>10034119
You've posted in 4 different threads and /cgl/ still took the bait.

This board is full of retards.

>>10034247
I think her prints can be nice in concept but the dress construction is always a let down and is lacklustre, the material seems cheap from what I've seen irl (crystal guardians and that skeleton one so far) and there just always seems to be something lacking about the design, I don't know if it's not enough lace or additional details/frills but the designs just seem plain and flat. They're just not very exciting to look at for me personally.

>>10034654
Yea. Haenuli is such a snob. She tried to say it was her design until she got caught. Really pathetic btw. She totally tried to play it off all innocent. Caught red handed.

>>10034536
But like, why would you want a tattoo that an artist explicitly said they didn't want people to get? Where's the joy of having that on your body? I just think it makes it a little meaningless.

>>10034608
So are we letting Yumi Fujiwara off scot free for selling 5€ reproduction brooches for 100€+ or are Japanese brands allowed to do shitty things?

>>10035081
Is it so hard for people to crasp it's different to claim you made the whole thing vs reselling accessories made from whole sale parts? Fujiwara was also open where she got the brooches and it's up to you wheter you want to pay for it knowing the background of the product. Not to mention over pricing is a totally different from basically liying about making the whole accessory.

>>10034537
Typical cgl reply. Kimura U isn't Chinese you fucking mong.

>>10034675
This. People get cartoon character tats all the time and no one is calling those people art thieves.

>>10035179
It’s made in China and it is taobao quality. God, you fucking dumbass. Do you think because Kimura U’s Japanese hands touched something her whole brand was magically made in Japan?

>>10035220
But it's not sold on taobao... that's like saying etsy tights sellers are taobao tights because they're made in China. If it's taobao quality that's one thing but saying it's a taobao brand is retarded

>>10035220
>It’s made in China

So are all other brands.

>>10034537
fuck off theyve been around a while, and they have their own style. I love RPA you can go choke.

>>10035220

literally everything is made in china or bangledash or the phillipines you weaboo retard.

>>10034675

Have to admit I chuckled when this thread was next to the tat thread.

>>10034555
Yeah literally every single artist I’ve ever seen talk about people getting their art tatted has said they want people to ask them first/at least let them know they plan to. Every single one.

>>10035258
>>10035282
No they aren’t. God, is this the state of cgl? They think everything brand is made in China and Bangladesh?

>>10035272
RPA is Angelic Pretty for retards. It's all about the prints for people like you, they have shitty taobao quality, and you're dumb enough to pay brand prices for it all.

>>10035298
No, they know that some of it is also manufactured in Indonesia

>>10035235
I didn't say it was on taobao. Do you have reading comprehension? I said it was taobao quality and it is. You're the fucking retarded one, but I don't expect anything out of RPA defenders.

>>10035527
Don't forget Vietnam!

>>10035499
Yup. Exactly what I thought. You're a fucking elitist and think solids are best. You're bland and predictable.

>>10034247
>>10034253
>>10034307
>>10034369
>>10034608
>>10034761
Everyone also seems to forget her Angel of Music print is also traced from the lesser known POTO sequel "Love Never Dies"

>>10035758

>>10035765
That's not traced. There are several differences. You're reaching

>>10034842
Jesus, you type replies like how Trump tweets. Learn to make a cohesive reply instead of typing like you're having an aneurysm.

>>10035783
Oh god anon, I read over their reply in Trump’s voice and it does sound like something he’d tweet.

>>10035778
anon flipping Erik horizontal and then tracing over it does not mean it’s not traced

>>10035576
naryt but you did say "a taobao brand parading as a Japanese brand". I know what you meant, but that still doesn't change the fact that from the way you typed implied someone could go search up RPA on taobao and find it, and it just being a lie about being a Japanese brand.

>>10035778
"reaching"

>>10034307
I agree with you that her prints look like shit but it’s pretty common for artists to want permission before having their original work (I know original is not always the case with Haenuli) before another potentially shitty artist slaps it onto someone else’s skin. Many artists are fine with it, it’s just polite to ask the original artist first.

>>10035783
>you type like how Trump tweets
You say that like it's a bad thing. I personally welcome our anti-CHYNA lolita Trump.

>>10035992
He's anti japan too you fucking idiot.

>>10035842
O SHIITTTTTT.
thats totally traced.

someone put this on her facebook!

>>10035499
I bought something form RPA recently. NOT WORTH IT.
and was way to expensive

>>10035576
if we’re going by your “quality” standards, meta is taobao tier and so is half of ap’s prints

>>10036043
What piece did you buy?

>>10036205
How is meta even close to "taobao tier"? have you ever had any of their pieces? Sure, some of my older things aren't amazingly up to par, but everything I have bought in the past decade has been such great quality. Most of the time it's even better constructed than equal priced baby.

>>10036235
they clearly don't know what their talking about

>>10036235
I have a friend who has nothing but meta in her closet cause shes over 6 ft and just a very large person all over, not fat but just bigger all over. I've looked through her closet before and all her pieces were really nice.

>>10036364
What the fuck does the size of you friend have to do with this conversation? I read to the end fully expecting your 6ft friend to have some further meaning to this discussion but instead you betray me like this

>>10036371
Cause meta is the real big girl brand.

>>10034654
Did Meta post about the resold accessories saying “look at these things we made by hand”?

>>10034842
anyone have a screen shot of this liar. I'd love to see how this went down? KEK

>>10036205
>meta
>taobao tier
I guess taobao has really lost all meaning as a descriptor of quality

>>10035631
And Myanmar too!

>>10036042
>>10035842
still not traced
It's extremly close to the reference but not traced. The lines don't match up in too many places.

>>10034447
It’s bad quality for the price.

>>10039866
I'm an experienced digital artist. This is traced.
It may have some changes here and there, likely due to pulling and tugging some areas into a different position in an art program, but these changes are small enough that the original image is still clearly defined within the reproduction.
In the art world, this is enough of a close match to call it a trace, not a referenced image.

>>10036021
No, he's not, you idiot. I don't really expect anything from someone who thinks "Orange Man bad".

>>10035842
Honestly, is this really a big deal? Or is this thread just anti-Haenuli? She's made some mistakes for sure, but Metamorphose has been guilty of tracing bad clipart pictures for prints and there's brands like AtPi that exclusively use badly photoshopped clipart for their questionable prints.

At least in comparison to those, she made this into something that looks nice. We have proof she can draw, so it is strange. I think she just wanted to make it look as close to those particular actors as possible, because honestly, a lot of casual fans fell in love with the movie.

>>10039972
It becomes a big deal when she begins to whine because some dude gets a tattoo of one of her drawings.
Did she get permission to trace that picture and make profit of it? If not, then she is a big-ass hypocrite.

>>10039574
>Look what we made guys xD

>>10040087
Seagull calls her out

>>10040089
>Such a coincidence guys xDDD we just assembled it randomly, never saw the other ones before xDDDD

>>10040092
>G... guys, we found the original design, don't buy from those korean art thiefs >.<

>>10040093
>Damage control guyz

>>10035854
Are you stupid? You add some lines here and there, done.

>>10040089
Wtf. So she said these she assembled herself....and came up with the design
No matter what you pathetic gulls say..she was caught and is a liar. Plain as day. Typed out kek

>>10040118
If it's that easy, then draw it yourself and see how that turns out.

>>10040128
Sorry I don't feel like copying some artwork to sell lolita dresses with it.

>>10039969
>Orange Man bad
I never said that but it sure did get more expensive to buy from there. Didn't it.

>>10040128
here you go anon. put this on a dress. you sound like the type who'd wear this.

>>10034281
Wow, I wanted to argue and say, “that’s not the reason!!” but I literally can’t think of a print or brand that fatties can’t fit being hated the way they are. Interesting.

>>10035298
Are you retarded? This is a serious question.

Because pretty much all brands are made NOT in ~glorious Nippon~. Get over it.

>>10039933
Also a digital artist. I’m just not so sure.

>>10040271
I’m talking about tattoo translation.

>>10040123
Yeah, she lied and then back-pedalled when called out. “Ceramic handmade store” my ass. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt but she fucked this up by blatantly lying about it. She should’ve just admitted she bought the whole thing instead of pretending she had any part in making it.

>>10040401
Yeah maxicimam seems to get good reviews from cgl

So is this one traced too?

>>10034307
I don't understand why so many people keep bringing this up, because you make yourself sound like the idiot you really are. If you knew anything about tattoos, you would know that this is a legitimate faux pas. It's super tacky in the tattooing community to take art you've found off the internet or steal other tattoo designs for your own tattoo; a real tattoo artist worth the money will always draw up new artwork for you.

>>10034536
If you base your worldivew and personal ethics/morals about what's legal and what's illegal, you must have a very bleak and frustrating worldview, lol. Regardless of whether or not it's legal, she does have the right to feel frustrated by the tattoos because of the meaning of the art to her, and again, this is seen as a huge taboo in tattoo communities among legitimate artists and fans.

>>10034448
Even without a legal team, honestly, if she stopped cutting corners, she would avoid these situations. All the issues she has had - the POTO tracing, the replica accessory, the Elpress bonnets - all stem from her trying to cut corners. I believe that she didn't know it was a replica, but I think she should've known better - factories don't just come up with such cute/neat ideas on their own. I love her prints (some of them are busy and not the best, but she has plenty of designs that knock it out of the park), I think shes proven herself to be plenty creative on her own - if she stopped cutting corners with little stuff like this she wouldn't find herself in these really awkward positions.

>>10049775
yea--looks like a bunch of clip art used....

>>10049775
Not traced, just looks like she used way too much of the baroque section of a Dover copyright-free clipart Company pack. It’s also badly composited, with very heavy-handed layer styles.

>>10035004
She didn't say this beforehand, the girl getting the tat maybe even thought she'd be flattered. I'd be flattered if I made a design and someone would like it so much that they'd get it permanently tattoed on their body.

>>10035298
you don't own a single brand dress, do you?

>>10050940
NAYRT but my JetJ and Moitie pieces are made in Japan.

>>10050953
My AP, NW, and Baby dresses are not made in Japan as far as I know.
But "made in Japan" legally means "assembled in Japan" , so if the whole dress is made somewhere else and they sew in the tag or sew on a ribbon in Japan, it can be labeled as made in Japan.
That anon just made it sound like burando was only made in glorious nippon and dresses made in china were trash.

>>10050994
>>10035298

Agreed. If it's just quality, it doesn't actually matter where it's produced.

What matters is where and what the QC is. No matter if it's sewn by Asian niggers in Bangladesh or virginal unicorns in glorious Nippon, it's all just fabric put together with machines. At some point someone at the brand company has to actually look at the fabric and decide if it's up to par, look at the trim and decide if it's good enough, and finally look at the final dresses and decide if it lives up to their brand reputation -- or reject it if it's shitty.

That's what you're actually paying extra to burando for: higher standards of quality. Not where they outsource the sewing to, but rather you trust that they chose a factory that can competently sew garments, and you trust that they chose good materials that won't fall apart for a couple of decades. Don't get hung up the location, it's easy for them to sew a single ribbon on in Japan and label it "made in Japan", but they don't need to. The quality of the dresses speak for themselves.

>>10034448
>I think she's entitled to be upset if people got it without asking her permission. it's her art.
Nope?
As long as no one is claiming to have created the art, they should be able to do whatever they want. She just want to be a copyright troll.

>>10051899
That's completely ridiculous. It's this mindset that makes it so hard for artists on the internet. Making art takes a lot of time, work, and skill and the artist should get paid for their art if someone wants to use it in anything. period. Nobody is entitled to free art unless its a gift from the artist.

>>10051903
If your income is determined by denying people freedom, then your business model is unethical.

Being paid to create art is something good. Trying to generate income by abusing laws to limit what other people can do with their copies of your art is bad.
>Nobody is entitled to free art unless its a gift from the artist.
I never stated she/anyone should do commissioned art for free, though I applaud those who do so (like the folks at OpenGameArt).

>>10051904
art theft is unethical. And its not denying anyones freedom to expect payment for someone using art that you personally created.

>>10051912
>art theft is unethical.
I agree - that's why copyright laws were created in the first place: so no one could claim they are the author of an art piece they didn't make. All that goes further than that is abusive.

>And its not denying anyones freedom to expect payment for someone using art that you personally created.
From what I've read in this thread, it seems an artist tried to convince someone they couldn't make a tattoo from an artwork (because she made the original image). This is denying freedom by definition.

Recalling my previous post, abusing laws to limit what other people can do with their copies of your art is bad. It's better to make money by selling labor instead (as in, making the art piece, not selling copies of the art that people magically can't Ctrl + C Ctrl + V because the author said so).

>>10051921
Honestly I don't care about the tattoo or anything else. Although I can understand it, being that tattoos are not exactly cheap and someone paid an artist to recreate her art.

What I take issue with is this
>As long as no one is claiming to have created the art, they should be able to do whatever they want.

It doesn't matter if you're claiming to make the art or not, you can't take someone else's art and do whatever you want with it. That's the argument that scummy morons use to try to steal other peoples hard work and try to re-sell it or use it to decorate their website etc etc...
Using art without permission is art theft. End of story.

>>10051921
So I should be allowed to make my own Star Wars movie and publish it for profit as long as I say I didn't originally create Star Wars?

>>10051921
I'm confused as to what you think the difference between selling your labor (making the art piece) and selling copies of your art that you made with your labor is.

>>10034119
Anon, has it arrived? I'd love to see photos.

>>10051923
I believe so. Unfortunately, the movie industry spent billions on convincing people it's wrong if they make their own take in a story.

>>10051922
>It doesn't matter if you're claiming to make the art or not, you can't take someone else's art and do whatever you want with it. That's the argument that scummy morons use to try to steal other peoples hard work and try to re-sell it or use it to decorate their website etc etc...
Using art without permission is art theft. End of story.
I disagree. It seems to me that you're just repeating what you said in >>10051903. I don't see it as theft.

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as "theft" or “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “theft” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

A US judge, presiding over a trial for copyright infringement, recognized that “piracy” and “theft” are smear words.

>>10051941
Yeah which trial was it?

>>10051924
In principle, nothing. Both are equally ethical in theory.
In real life, when someone tries to make money by selling copies of your art, they often include clauses that forbid the client from performing certain actions (ie. printing it in a shirt, typical for graphic art). This is not a requirement, but it's often the case.

By contrast, when the artist sells his artistic labor, he has guarantee of being paid, while not needing to restrict the freedoms of anyone who receive copies of such art. Everyone wins: the artist gets paid, the users/appreciators get more freedom.

>>10051942
http://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-theft-terms-in-hotfile-trial-131129/

>>10051943
So your objection is with the words theft and piracy and not the action of protecting your copyright?
Trying to figure out if you're a communist or an ancap.

>>10051945
>So your objection is with the words theft and piracy and not the action of protecting your copyright?
Yes. But for clarification, I'm thinking about copyright in the sense of protecting your recognition of authorship (as in, no one taking credits for work you did).

>Trying to figure out if you're a communist or an ancap.
Come on.

>>10051945
>So your objection is with the words theft and piracy and not the action of protecting your copyright?
Yes for both. But to clarify, I'm speaking about copyright in the sense of protecting your recognition of authorship (as in, no one taking credits for work you did).

>Trying to figure out if you're a communist or an ancap.
Come on.

>>10051941
and that's why copyright exists for artists. To protect them from ass holes that think like you.

>>10051950
It's unfortunate that you went with name calling. I'm sorry you think I'm an asshole, anon, but please be assured I don't think any less of you because of that. Have a good day

>>10051952
The fedora tipping is strong with this one. Anyone who thinks its ok to steal an artists work without paying them or asking for their permission is a scum bag in my book. I don't care how you feel about me.

>>10051943
So, in your opinion, if you commissioned an artist to draw something for you, then would you be allowed to use that art however you pleased? What about if you didn't use commission the artist?

>>10051955
*didn't commission

>>10051943
Anon hotfile still had to settle and got shut down because they were in violation of the law. They thought they were cute but their semantics game got them nowhere. That's because, at the end of the day, they were still in violation of the law, no matter what turn of phrase was being used.
So I'm going to continue to call it art-theft because i don't want to, nor do I have to refer to it as copyright infringement because I have the FREEDOM to use turns of phrase however I please.
You don't have the freedom to use other people's intellectual property or artwork however you please.

>>10051955
In my opinion, and legally speaking, art is a commodity and a business. If I pay for the art, yea that changes everything. They offered a service that I paid for. Artists make things for people to use freely (given they pay for it) all the time. You want art, you pay for it. If you ask the artist and they give you permission to use it? sweet no problem. I see free to use decoration offered by artists all the time as well as long as you credit them.

If you want to use art that someone else spent time and effort creating, you pay for it. Time is money and you are not entitled to their art that they spent time and effort creating.

>What about if you didn't use commission the artist?
well guess what? you didn't pay for the art you don't get to use it. what a concept.

>>10051952
Ablooobloobloo

>>10051962
>You can't have things that aren't yours
Literally fascism

>>10051955
>if you commissioned an artist to draw something for you, then would you be allowed to use that art however you pleased?
I would assure that with the artist before making a deal. To be more specific, I'd request the artist to use the Free Art License. You can find the full text online, but to summarize:
- I can modify and redistribute his work if I wish, as long as I assert him as the original author.
- Anyone who receives a copy from me, also receives the same rights as above. So, I can't decide for anyone else what they can do with their copies.

Examples of these kind of arts can be find at sites like Open Game Art.

>What about if you didn't use commission the artist?
Then, for most usages, I would check the license the art is being distributed under.

>>10051961
>Anon hotfile still had to settle and got shut down because they were in violation of the law. They thought they were cute but their semantics game got them nowhere. That's because, at the end of the day, they were still in violation of the law, no matter what turn of phrase was being used.
This is correct, but I was just pointing out that American courts may see these words as a way to make the actual act (unauthorized copying) seeing something worse than it is.

>So I'm going to continue to call it art-theft because i don't want to, nor do I have to refer to it as copyright infringement because I have the FREEDOM to use turns of phrase however I please.
You're 100% free to do so, and hopefully no one will ever have the power to force you otherwise.

>You don't have the freedom to use other people's intellectual property or artwork however you please.
Anon, you do have these freedoms as long as the artwork is distributed under a free license. See the link below for more information:
https://freedomdefined.org/Definition

Here's an artwork that allows you to use it however you please: https://opengameart.org/sites/default/files/tilesetStart5_0.png

>>10051970
This is all fine and dandy, but the artist in question didn't give permission and the art wasnt under the free art license so it's not even a discussion. Call it art theft or copyright infringement, the tattoo artist shouldn't have undertaken the project, and doing so is actionable.

>>10051970
Has this entire shitpost parade been a fucking ad for that website because you've brought it up multiple times. Yes. Free art exists. Congrats man. The skeleton art we're talking about wasn't free art.

>>10051988
You're correct. I made my first reply without thinking it straight. A much better way to put my opinion is that I hope she releases her skeleton art under a free license in the future.

>>10051997
>Has this entire shitpost parade been a fucking ad for that website because you've brought it up multiple times.
I'm not shitposting, anon. For your information, other websites (like itch.io) offer free-as-in-freedom artworks for people. I mentioned OpenGameArt because it makes it a requirement to upload there.

>The skeleton art we're talking about wasn't free art.
See above. I concede that point.

>>10052013
Fantastic. Also you were shitposting as hard as I was, this conversation isn't relevant to the board. RIP in spaghetti, never forghetti.

>mfw the burning shitpile this thread has become