/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4882830
stay mad roastie nobody gonna pay for your onlyfans

>>4882830
Ask for bigger hosting places like boorus to remove them, if someone shares it around with buddies it's irrelevant anyways.

You don't, welcome to the best thing about the internet.

>>4882835
Wait you can report Boorus site for posting your images?

It's kind of funny watching individuals try to combat the sort of piracy that even billion dollar corporations couldn't stop.

>>4882843
No you report TO the booru site moderators. I know that some patreon content that was uploaded there gets removed sometimes, so the admins probably got a policy to remove it if asked.

>>4882830
Welcome to the internet.

>>4882830
If it’s material that ain’t fanart, just report google about it.

>>4882830
viewing art should always be free

>>4882872
why

>>4882830
i don't.... i only do trad

>>4882872
All the people who have patreons have a public component of their work.

>>4882830
As long as there's a mole leaking that stuff? Never.

>>4882830
>he doesn't know
.

>>4882830
I leak them myself ;) It ends up getting me more patrons in the end. These people are being pussies about it, anyone looking at their paywalled shit for free wasn't going to become a patron anyways

>>4883104
Not sure if retard or gigachad move

>>4883104
IQ move

>>4882830
Put viruses in the downloads.

>>4883104
Show us those leaks or you’re just a larper.

>>4882830
Who's the artist in the OP? I wanna see their leaked art.

>>4882830
you don't and you don't need to; people are not paying you because of a paywall they are paying you because they want you to continue producing work.

>>4883153
You could've easily looked it up by typing the post title into a search engine. It's sadly footfaggotry

https://www.deviantart.com/necdaz91/art/Monthly-Render-Gwen-Stacy-5-Variants-842790662
https://yiff.party/patreon/20493160

>>4882830
>using patreon
You deserve all the trouble you get.

dmca them
happymerchant.jpg

>>4883374
how?

>>4883380

>>4882830
I don't do paywalled content, people are paying for wips

Honestly I would expect my shit to get leaked. It's the internet.

>Hey man, I know you post my stuff elsewhere and that's cool. Like free advertising for me. But this is my income source. So I ask if your gonna post my stuff wait for like a day to a week before reposting. Ideally a month. You know like they gotta pay to see the new stuff. But I can't control you, glad you like it enough to post it for others can see.

>>4883104
>leak them yourself
>other leakers get discouraged
>monopoly on leaking lets you selectively not leak good shit, making people want to sign up

>>4883471
Kek, I love how the original of this is practically a meme living in the subconscious of /ic/'s users now

>>4883345
Whats wrong with it?

>>4883630
I was in the thread where it first appeared. It was the hardest I've laughed in years.

>>4882830
I don't have paywall images, I'm not gay.

uh

>>4883345
"hey man, don't be a sellout!"
~t. loser that mooches off others

>>4884085
Nothing, just a braindead weeb that uses pixiv.

Don't sell products, sell services. No way to pirate request streams, raffles, mentorships, etc.

You could also have a big on going project, a lot of patreons based on games, webcomics and the like I've seen don't paywall content, they get funded for updates.

>>4883630
>>4884086
Please link the original thread to refresh my memory

>>4882830
>send unique file to each patron with a hidden pixel in some random spot on each drawing
>later check what version was uploaded on the internet
>ban him

>>4882830
With your dick.

No, seriously. Whenever you see someone sharing your private and paywalled stuff you whip your dick out, grab the nearest lotion and furiously masturbate to the theft because thats a sign that youve made it.

People care enough to pirate your shit. Considering piracy is inevitable and not worth really fighting. Just bask in the ecstatic glow that your work is strong enough and good enough for people to go through the trouble of stealing it and sharing it with other people.

>>4884257
>k-kono powa!

>>4884257
>do this
>the leaker is a consistent 50$ patreon donator

>>4884287
You gotta do what you gotta do, brother

>>4882830
>primelap
what is this and how does it work?

>>4884257
Holy fuck, based

>>4882830
Consider it as free marketing.
Especially if you are coom artist, e-thot or onlyfan whore.

>>4882843
distribution of copyrighted material without permission means getting sued
getting sued means having to pay the injured party and remove the material anyway
just send them a dmca or something

>>4882830
Why don't you just embed each patrons image with an invisible watermark containing their name and address? These can't be removed. Youd know exactly who leaked and they'd also be doxxing themselves anyways, if anyone else knows how to get the invisible watermark info.

>>4887301
You are expecting people who rely solely on Patreon to sustain their living costs to have a modicum of intelligence.

>>4887301
It's devilish lmao

>>4887301
>invisible watermark
?

>>4887756
Future is now anon

>>4888326
>you know those pikachu x slowpoke premium images you posted everywhere, john smith of 123 clowfield lane? be a real shame if they all had your name, address and a list of gay shota rape commissions that I made up embedded in them, huh? your move, john

>>4884257
Massive iq scheming

>>4882830
The answer that you won't like is to let it go.

But if there's an opportunity to fuck with leakers, I'll fucking take it. I'll fill up the folder with gachi shit.

>>4888342
That actually scares me

>>4882830
why should people pay for your generic, lack luster art?
you are a drop of piss in an ocean of it.

>>4884257
why are artists too retarded to do this?

>>4888342
except most payment processors keep that stuff private even to the artist.
unless you're retarded enough to use mail.

>>4888769
>why are artists retarded
the answer is in the question
if they were intelligent they wouldn't be artists

>>4882830
OP has no brain?
Because you would like nobody to share your art, it's free publicity, it's not a medical secret or anything like that, art is created to be admired and observed not to be hidden and private

>>4888819
get the fuck off /ic/

>>4884257

>I post like 5 times a week on my patreon and have many in different tiers. I also hate making
the people who make my living jump through hoops to get content

>Yiff.party keep stealing my shit and I'm not even a furry

>tfw a 3rd worlder who gets his shit stolen by 1st worlders

feels bad man

You don't.

The ones who are going to steal your art were never going to pay for it. Perhaps you lose the opportunity to get a few paying customers, but for the most part the effort required to subdue it is way more than the benefit you'd get from keeping it behind a paywall.

Just endeavor to make it as convenient as possible for the people who want to pay you to get everything. People will pay for convenience or they'll pay because they like you and want to support you - the others weren't going to pay you anyway.

If you make it MORE inconvenient by trying to 'prevent leakers' you're just going to lose out on a large number of people who were willing to pay you to make it easy for them to access your content. Very few people will go out of their way to pay you unless you're an art god.

You can also try and make your paid content something they can't steal easily, like custom content, votes in polls, etc.

>>4884287
>>4884292

Do you?

A lot of anons fail to realize here that they might not have even lost $50 in revenue from the leak.

It's foolish to think every time it's shared is a lost sale. In fact, if you have any sort of monitoring, it'd be far more interesting to see if the leaked material generates more paying customers.

Now here's an idea - put a watermark with a link on your leaked content that's different to a watermark on your public stuff, and see how many people who follow that link actually pay you for something. Dunno if you can do this with Patreon though.

>>4882872
>Hey I made a product people want to use, figure I could maybe make a living off of it.
>Aw sweet man, always wanted to try that entrepreneurial shit, good on you. Yo, mind if I see what you've designed or is it, y'know, still under wraps?
>Nah it's cool bro. It's simple, really, I've just been producing these drawings, and I've spent enough sweat and blood to get to a decent level, I think people would actually pay to see my-
>Wtf dude why should they have to pay for art?
>... Ah, sorry? What?
>What, you didn't hear me? Why are you charging people for art?
>...Well, I mean... why not? I worked pretty hard, I want t-
>No, dude. Stop. What the fuck's wrong with you, why are you charging people to see art? All art belongs to the public domain, EVERYBODY is entitled to access to all artistic endeavors and depictions, man. You're fucking scum if you try and lock people out, and you're just gonna get pirated anyways. Don't bother dude, just get a real job.
>...

>>4888769

You should do it, see how many hours you waste producing a new image for every person, tracking what image went to who, FINDING that image, and identifying the pixel so you can go ban one of your paying customers. Then realize there's virtually no way of you discovering if this complete waste of time and effort actually made you a cent.

>>4882830

his costumers would have worse experience paying him that not paying him. this is definitively what you don't want to do.

also there is some irony on being this protective of your artwork when you are doing fanart.

>>4888326
Wouldn't lossy compression fuck this up? What's to stop someone from just uploading stolen art on Facebook or something that butchers image quality?

>>4884085
patreon removes content that it just simply doesnt like.

>>4882830
Die.

>>4888910
That dude sounds like a fucking chad and >you sound like a little bitch so listen to your superior already.

>>4889445
T.lolifag

>>4888769
Takes way too much time.

>>4889048
Imagine a hosting service itself checking on server side when a user uploads something

>>4888918
>>4889816
I could script some shit like adding a random pixel for each patron and generating an excel spreadsheet listing which pixel corresponds to which patron, should I do it and sell my services to artists?

>>4889816
Plus people sharing your shit are advertising you

>>4890148
Yea, free advertising when your visible watermark is removed. Also the average person doesn’t know about shit like that, hell even some of the fags here didn’t know that.

>>4890187
If you dont want people to share your shit then dont post it. Do commissions. If you create a job for yourself and people find a way to cut you out of the equation then its not your god given right that they pay you. Art is a luxury and getting paid to do it is a side effect of society being so advanced we don’t need to worry about real problems. You sound like musicians bitching about torrenting. Think yourself lucky someone gives a fuck about your faggotry

>>4890133

They'll just steal it and use it to sell fanart and get outraged at people who steal their art.

>>4890187

Even if your watermark is removed, its not hard to find an artist from a piece of art now with reverse image search.

Unless the dumbass is trying to remove his art from the internet while simultaneously selling e-copies I suppose.

I think people dramatically overestimate lost sales from piracy. But whatever, its their art, their time they're wasting and their fans they're going to be inconveniencing.

>>4882830
Cost of doing business on the internet. Swallow it.
What your customers are really paying for is access. They want to be your friend, your student, a voice on your shoulder, or a fly on your wall. They want to have the fantasy of being part of your decision making, or being an influence in your work, thereby being a part of it. Never forget this in your dealings with them. Indulge them.

>>4888910
You wrote all that but couldn't think of one single argument?

>>4890551
Sorry, I assumed just about anyone could pick up on the argument being shoved in your face in this piece, but it seems I was mistaken.

The argument being made here is that when you broadly claim that every living human is entitled to access to any existing piece of art, you sound like a fucking jackass. What defines art in this case? Could a pre-patent concept design be considered art? Are your competitors entitled to your ideas? Should skills developed in this field be unprofitable? What about pieces that don't yet exist? If you pay someone to create art for you, is that art now yours, or do you have to provide access to this art to anyone who wishes to view it? Who does the burden fall on? Is there even any practicality to this, or is it purely half-baked morality? And if it is the latter, how can you begin to justify it when the weight of all of this and more stands in opposition?

It would be a good idea in future ventures to provide arguments of your own before going the route of hypocrisy and intentional ignorance.

>>4890547
Reverse imagine doesn’t work for shit. The amount of times the fags here post some random chink artwork and it’s unsearchable is way too high. That shit doesn’t work at all at times.

>>4890205
T.retard

>>4891437
>you sound like a fucking jackass
No, that is not an argument either.

Two walls of text, and still no argument. Want to go for a third?

>>4882872
i literally could smell the greasy highschooler's breath as i read this post

>>4891437
true

>>4891526
>posts a controversial one sentence assertion with no backing information, arguments, or support
>responds to criticisms and counterarguments with one liners, selecting only fractions of the contenders information to address (while still failing to address it)
Alright, you got your three (You)s. Go back to whichever nonsense board you hail from.

>>4891619
That's what you should expect from arguing with a high-schooler

>>4882830
Why do you retards give money to some other retard online when you could save it an live like a proper human being?

Do people really pay for shitty 3D renders? LOL wtf, just grab blender by yourself, you don't need talent.

>>4890547
> le reverse search meme
It's not fucking magic, you retard.
t. still looking for image source

>>4884257
Huh, I had that idea as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1f4vSnIOHc

>>4890205
> Think yourself lucky someone gives a fuck about your faggotry
I'm a leaker in a discord with other leakers. I don't want to justify why I do it but I see it as away to do "splitsies" with close friends, though it boggles my mind why we invited the freeloaders who contribute nothing. Trust me, the freeloaders are the ones who see content creators as expendable vending machines.

>>4890205
Weird way of saying, “i’m a leech”.

Somebody who finds your paywalled art through leaks wasn't going to be a paying customer anyway.
You've lost practically nothing.
On the flip side, if you autistically try to combat it, you'll just be losing time and energy on it.
Pick your battles wisely. So long as you make a good amount of money on Patreon, who cares?

>>4891526
I call this the "ad-hominem fallacy" fallacy
>You called me a mean name, that's ad hominem and completely invalidates every other point you made!!!
Pro-tip, ad-hominem is when an argument relies solely on calling people mean names

>>4882830
You don't.

>>4891619
I did not post the initial assertment, but you did not present any argument contradicting it either.

>responds to criticisms
What criticism?

>and counterarguments
What counter argument?

>with one liners
Give me something to go on and I will respond in kind. Say stupid shit without presenting any argument whatsoever, and I'll be dismissive. Cry about it, and I'll call you a retard, retard.

>>4892864
I didn't say anything about ad hominem, you absolute fucking brainlet.
You did not present an argument.
You said something makes someone sound like a jackass, but that isn't an argument.

>contenders information
What information?

I just let people leak them, in fact, I encourage them to do so so my stuff can get a bigger following

There's a reason why Linux is as big as it is despite being 100% free

>>4893894
You're responding to two people as if they were the same

The argument the guy was making, contrary to the "you're a jackass" part, was ""every living human is entitled to free access to any and all art" is unfeasible, because
>There are issues on how you define art, making this impossible to legislate
>It could lead to stifling creativity as patents could be considered art and thus be invalid
>Artists would be less inclined with no financial incentive
>There would be issues of ownership, and responsibility over the creation of a piece of art
>etc."
An argument is posed, and backed with questions with an implied answer (that being that most of these are impossible to implement)

>>4884254
here is the thread, If someone has threadshod of it I would be grateful
>>/ic/thread/3654569

>>4884257
this is a field in CS i forgot what its called
thats how they know if your maya render and model is cracked or licensed

>the people who pirate your shit would never pay for it
>[citation needed]
I often pay for things after failing to pirate them, I pay for things to upload for other pirates, and I pay for things on impulse because I want them now, not when someone bothers to upload them.
You can claim “most” people wouldn’t, but that’s still money “lost” because your product was available for free. Someone always has to pay before piracy can happen.

>>4893894
>>4893914
Thanks for taking the time to try and explain it to him, but the information was always there. He chose to ignore it, and keeps up the pretense of an argument presumably to troll.

>>4890133
I would pay for that. I'm not going to pretend I know how to script shit and paying someone to do it for me would save time and therefore money. I feel like I've heard of companies that do hidden watermark stuff like this though.

>>4893914
>You're responding to two people as if they were the same
No I'm not. The last quote was misplaced by accident, if that's what you're referring to.

> ""every living human is entitled to free access to any and all art" is unfeasible
He did not make that argument. He made the appeal to emotion, and then asked questions. His point of view may have been implied through those questions, but the argument was not made.

>There are issues on how you define art, making this impossible to legislate
This isn't an issue any more than defining art is already an issue. It is irrelevant to the current conversation.

>It could lead to stifling creativity
How?

>as patents could be considered art
How would that be an issue?

>and thus be invalid
That doesn't follow at all.

>Artists would be less inclined with no financial incentive
1. That's an assumption
2. Art is already not a financially viable career path
3. Art being available for free does not mean artists are not financially compensated in some other way

>There would be issues of ownership
How?

>and responsibility over the creation of a piece of art
"Responsibility"? As in someone needing to be held accountable for something they've done? What are you going for here?

>etc
Oh?

>An argument is posed
Again, no. Questions were asked, with an assumed indignant moral stance, but there was no argument. His whole post, and yours, assumes that others share his values, which is foolish.

>>4895559
There is no information, and just because you are frustrated does not mean you are being trolled.

I did not ignore anything. I read your questions, and realized upon reading them that responding to them would be a waste of time. A better use of my time would be to simply point out that you did not make an argument.

>>4896069
And so it was that the shoe found it's way to the other foot. Good wall of text, I especially appreciate the irony you embedded in it.

Your entire post lacked any sort of substance outside of ">not an argument" reitterations, failures/refusals to understand points made, and criticisms on the presentation of our ideas as opposed to their meaning, creating a scenario where you lacked any argument of your own, implied or otherwise. In fact, if you zoom further out, every post you've made follows this trend; you've gone the route of submitting nothing to the conversation as an argumentative tactic. By refusing to interpret implications or perceive nuance, and by speaking only to criticize the structuring of a person's argument rather than its content, you hide behind a shield of nebulous beliefs, never to bring your own ideas into the crossfire. You weren't even arguing for anything, or atleast never communicated it. You haven't even outright aligned yourself with the initial post that brought on this discussion.

Your three posts before this can be summarized as "Not an argument," "Not an argument," and "What information? I didn't see any." Now you double back and try to approach this with an air of responsibility and poise, discovering that information you had missed previously only when it was convenient to do so. You take on the role of a defender (without even defining what you're defending) with "How's" and "Huh's" and other forms of dismissals. "His point of view may have been implied through those questions, but the argument was not made." Really? You'll take that route and still reject the title of "Troll?"

No, suffice to say there's no purpose in taking the back and forth approach if you're unwilling to participate. Only once you were pushed did you attempt it, and still it feels more like it stems from salving your ego rather than to actually create a discussion. If you were here for ideas, you'd have some to share.

>>4896197
>And so it was that the shoe found it's way to the other foot
Would love to know what you think this means.

>Good wall of text, I especially appreciate the irony you embedded in it
You get butthurt when I'm dismissive, you get butthurt when I go in depth. I think you're just a moody bitch.

>Your entire post lacked any sort of substance
Sure, if you ignore the fact that I picked apart every single claim you made.

>you've gone the route of submitting nothing to the conversation as an argumentative tactic
Complete gibberish. I addressed everything you said in my last post. I do however notice that you failed to do the same.

>By refusing to interpret implications or perceive nuance
In other words "you know what I mean!"
No, that's not how an argument works. I will respond to what you say, not what you feel.

>only to criticize the structuring of a person's argument rather than its content
I criticized the content and the structure.

>you hide behind a shield of nebulous beliefs
What on Earth does this mean?

>never to bring your own ideas into the crossfire.
We aren't discussing "my ideas", we are discussing this one single statement:
>viewing art should always be free

>Your three posts before this can be summarized as "Not an argument," "Not an argument," and "What information? I didn't see any."
Yes, and? You did not present an argument initially, therefore I pointed out that you did not present an argument. What about this seems strange to you?

cont.

>>4896249
>>4896197
>Now you double back
"Double back"? On what? What is it you believe I am going back on?

>and try to approach this with an air of responsibility and poise
lolwut
Sounds like some insecure projection there, m8.

>You take on the role of a defender
Huh? I'm not defending anything.

>"How's" and "Huh's" and other forms of dismissals
A question is not a dismissal. I am not trying to trick you, I am asking you to elaborate on all of these wild claims you are making.

>Really? You'll take that route and still reject the title of "Troll?"
What route, you retard? And if you actually believe I am trolling you, then why are you responding?

>if you're unwilling to participate.
???
But I did participate. You are the one shrinking away from it.

>Only once you were pushed did you attempt it
Like I said already, if you want me to go in depth on something, you have to provide something to go off of. The initial post did not.

Also, lol @ whining about a wall of text, and then making a text so long that replying to it required 2 posts.

>>4896249
>You're dumb
>You're angry
>I pwned your last message
>I don't understand, dumb
>Misinterpretation to belittle
>Meaningless "nuh-uh"
>Huh? Wha?
>My ideas don't matter, we're sharing thoughts over something else... where my ideas don't matter
>Jumping the gun
>Remove informational quote to address now confusing contextless term in a poor light
>ur just insecure, hehehe points 4 me
>I'm defensive? No, you're wrong, I'm defending anything!
>Share more ideas at my whim to understand please. I have no intention of sharing my own, but I'd love to pick yours apart with the above forms of nonsense!
>Retard huh? What? I don't understand
>No u
>If you want me to go in depth you need to provide more, but don't expect me to oblige in kind
>lol@u4 triggered

Summarized it for you. You don't understand what a discussion is, I can only assumed you were taught how to solve problems through arguing on video games. I probably cannot, and most certainly will not take the time to help you correct this. Go be autistic towards someone else, this gets tedious when you types fall into loops.

You can break Yiff Party, but I'm not telling how because I don't want them to fix it~ :3

>>4896350
>You don't understand what a discussion is
Says the guy that once again failed to reply to the content of the post, instead opting to rant incoherently.
Clearly you are incapable of arguing rationally, so go ahead and kill yourself.