/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>3680271
>>3680275
Both of these are incorrect. The site advertises it as 400 points= 5 USD (lowest you can purchase is $5 worth), however, dA takes 20% off the top on the artist's end, not the buyer so in actuality, 100 points=1 USD. PayPal then takes at least 2% of that for PayPal fees.
>>3679699
In the past the fanart category was as a whole harder to get on the front page with, that's when people taking photos of their art got really big because they'd put it in the photography category (this was pre-instagram too). It's reversed in the past few years. If there was a special Furry category instead of just "Anthro" it could help.
>>3680320
As some have said before, people on there are trying to get certain positions at certain companies. They've been taught to draw that way. Art schools often have connections with certain companies and the students there are on rails to work for them.
>>3680593
They delete NSFW accounts if they get reported, even if it's just nude drawings, "digitally created content".
>>3681154
That happens because some cheap, lazy graphic designer for a company finds stuff that looks like official art and could be covered by their licence with the property holder. I honestly thought you posted about the Totaro one, which was another instance of that happening. Hot Topic and other fashion retailers rip shit off from small people all the time. There's one going around twitter right now with this "Girl Gang" patch that a company is using as their logo.
>>3683829
That's really sad to hear they've put all this emphasis on mobile shit. I really think they've shot themselves in the foot, as I mentioned in the OP, with removing the sole reasons people pay for their core membership.