/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

[Anonymous No.4810136]

Why the fuck is "do not repost" such a common sentiment among online artists? Do you not want your fucking work to be shared and seen by an as large portion of the human population as possible? Don't get me wrong, I absolutely get not wanting some large corporation ripping your shit and profiting off your work, but what is the harm in people with single digit follower counts on Twitter using your drawings as avatars or sharing them in their shitty facebook groups? Just watermark your shit in non-intrusive ways and people will trace their ways back to you if they like your work enough.

You're artists, so could you explain this mindset? Why are these fucknuggets so fucking protective of their art? This is especially common among Japanese artists for some godforsaken reason.

Pic related: This decently popular artist deleted his account and made all of his art vanish without a trace because "muh reposts"

[Anonymous No.4810146]

>>4810136
Imagine you had a dating profile and someone took your images to reuse for their own catfish or gratification. Add to this, they bought premium so their profile is seen a thousand times more than yours which makes them feel like the real you.

Well?

[Anonymous No.4810189]

>>4810146
Imagine if someone took your horrible, horribly retarded attempt at equivalency and shoved it up your fucking ass.

[Anonymous No.4810193]

>>4810136
this sentiment is directed towards "professional" reposters with thousands of followers, not average internet dwellers

[Anonymous No.4810200]

>>4810189
Why did you make this thread if you didn't want an answer?

[Anonymous No.4810211]

>>4810136
It's a credit thing. Most artists really don't like when others share their work without permission.
Art thieves don't help.

[Anonymous No.4810226]

>>4810193
Why does it matter how your content is being shared? Does it really matter that the internet numbers that are counting up belong to *your* post? Your art is being viewed either way. Having more virtual internet points don't make you a better artist.

This is especially ridiculous on Twitter with people whining that if people use quote retweets rather than real retweets they are "stealing" your retweets and likes.

[Anonymous No.4810233]

>>4810211
>Art thieves don't help.
What exactly do you consider to be an "art thief", and where do you draw the lines between art thieves and regular people who are just enthusiastic about your art and want to share it?

[Anonymous No.4810237]

>>4810136
Because those 1,000,000 views on Imgur could've been 1,000,000 views on my actual page. The share button exists on literally every page, provides a link to the page, and is easy to use. Not to mention if an image is spread about too much, then trying to find the original artist becomes harder and harder as reverse searches are polluted by ifunny, 9gag, imgur, pinterest, and so on.

[Anonymous No.4810239]

>>4810146
I can't imagine this because I'm not stupid enough to put a picture of myself on the internet and then be shocked when it pops up elsewhere. lol

[Anonymous No.4810241]

>>4810233
If you claim to have made an image you did not do yourself, you're an art thief.

[Anonymous No.4810248]

>>4810239
That’s fine, but that’s how I met your mother on tinder.

[Anonymous No.4810252]

>>4810226
some random person gets comparable amount of social interactions cookies for couple of clicks as you do for hours/days/weeks of work, they never link your blogs and only 0.1% of people will bother to look it up
you don't get views, you don't get consequential retweets, your blog doesn't get higher priority for algorithms
it's like you getting $5000 from wageslaving vs Tyrone getting $1500 from welfare

[Anonymous No.4810257]

Marketing and validation. People want to be aware of the full scope of positive feedback they're getting, which they can't if it's reposted a million places around the web. And they want all of that positive feedback to be centered in one place, because it boosts their numbers and people are more likely to seek out their other art if it's all in one place.

[Anonymous No.4810297]

>>4810237
Oh, and jpg compression and general rot

[Anonymous No.4810305]

>>4810136
You don't make money from people sharing your stuff unless you're reaalllllly popular. They, on the other hand, got free content from you.

[Anonymous No.4810319]

>>4810136
You don’t even draw, op. Why are you here?

[Anonymous No.4810327]

>>4810252
>they never link your blogs
Watermark or sign your shit.

>only 0.1% of people will bother to look it up
Would you rather have hundreds of thousands of soccer moms/instagram thots/horny weebs who only follow you because you feed their skinner box addiction to swiping down on a never-ending stream of posts or a few thousand genuinely dedicated fans who liked your shit and wanted more enough to commit to the time investment of typing your username into google and looking you up on their own accord?

>you don't get views, you don't get consequential retweets, your blog doesn't get higher priority for algorithms
You do get views. You do make a greater impact on the world. You don't get meaningless internet points, but if you were rational you would know that those are meaningless.

Again, I am not defending people who repost shit under the guise of it being their own, nor people who make a living off of monetizing other people's content. But redditors reposting your art to /r/memeoftheweek or whatever really shouldn't be a big deal to you.

[Anonymous No.4810337]

>>4810319
Hiro in his infinite wisdom would rather make twenty /v/ offshoots than /iw/ - Artwork/Whining About Art-related Bullshit, so this was the closest match. Hide the thread and enjoy the remaining 149 threads in the catalog if it bothers you.

[Anonymous No.4810425]

>>4810136
> but what is the harm in people with single digit follower counts on Twitter using your drawings as avatars

They don't really care about those type of reposters moreso than the reposters that has thousands of followers just from having accounts dedicated to reposting art. And then the stolen art on the reposter accounts get more likes/RTs then the art on the original account. And by small chance the reposter account decides to "credit" the artist it's usually in the comment section instead of the post with the artwork. Which most people won't bother to click on.

Most people are lazy and won't bother to do any extra work to search for the OG artist's social media unless it's a link right in front of them.

>Just watermark your shit in non-intrusive ways and people will trace their ways back to you if they like your work enough

A lot of these reposters either like to crop out the watermark or manage to remove it and add their own watermark.

>Would you rather have hundreds of thousands of soccer moms/instagram thots/horny weebs who only follow you because you feed their skinner box addiction to swiping down on a never-ending stream of posts

>You do get views. You do make a greater impact on the world. You don't get meaningless internet points,

It's not just about "meaningless internet points". Most artists are just trying to make a living in this world like everyone else. Social media is unfortunately the best way to do it. Those "meaningless internet points" can translate into potential commissions, Print sales, merchandise sales, Patreon or Pixiv fanbox subscribers, job opportunities, etc.

[Anonymous No.4810498]

>>4810425
>Those "meaningless internet points" can translate into potential commissions, Print sales, merchandise sales, Patreon or Pixiv fanbox subscribers, job opportunities, etc.
As a counterpoint, those numbers don't always tell the full story. Let's say you draw something relating to current events, you get retweeted by some e-celeb with millions of followers and gain 5k followers as a direct result. How many of those do you think you would ever be able to convert to actual paying customers that you could make money off of? The most likely scenario is nil.

On the other hand, if you have <1000 followers but you have slow but steady influx of followers who actively seek up your profile from stumbling upon reposts elsewhere (4chan, reddit, discord, traditional BBSes, whatever), you have a much greater chance of converting those few dedicated fans into paying customers.

[Anonymous No.4810511]

>>4810425
>and add their own watermark.
I wonder, has anyone been successfully sued in court for doing that?

[Anonymous No.4810518]

>>4810498

But those 5000 randos improve your standing in the algorithm, which increases the rate at which your posts are shown to people, which increases the chances you'll find one of those paying customers.

Really, the art reposters are the spiteful ones. Meme pages on instagram can get sponsorships and make legitimate money for gathering eyeballs, but your average twitter art reposter is tanking someone else's career aspirations for as petty a reason as "number go up, brain feel good".

[Anonymous No.4810542]

>>4810498
>you get retweeted by some e-celeb with millions of followers and gain 5k followers as a direct result. How many of those do you think you would ever be able to convert to actual paying customers that you could make money off of? The most likely scenario is nil.

If even 1% of those 5000 followers end up becoming paying customers that can result in a extra few hundred dollars a month in sales.

[Anonymous No.4810549]

Why does this place always attract people who don’t even draw? This place is a shithole because of that.

[Anonymous No.4810591]

>>4810136
They want to be credited for their work. They don’t want it being used for people’s Youtube videos and Facebook memes or whatever where thousands of people will see it but have no clue who made it.

[Anonymous No.4810652]

>>4810549
I can see two reasons why you should be valuing the opinions of people who don't draw higher than the opinions of artists:
1. Artists aren't your customers.
2. The artists who do post on /ic/ have time and time again proven themselves to have terrible opinions.

[Anonymous No.4810662]

>>4810652
>1. Artists aren't your customers.
Why are you implying it's mutually exclusive?

[Anonymous No.4810668]

>>4810652
You know artists commission other artists, right?

[Anonymous No.4810673]

desu i fucking wish my work would get reposted by some page with several million followers, if they don't source.

[Anonymous No.4810678]

>>4810673
*even if they don't source

[Anonymous No.4810710]

>>4810652
Op just outed himself, kek. Just some dunning kruger larper.

[Anonymous No.4810714]

>>4810662
>>4810668
99% of the time when artists commision each other or do "art trades" it's for personal gain, hoping that they will get their 5 minutes of fame in the feeds of their followers.

[Anonymous No.4810715]

>>4810673
whats your blog so I can repost it on reddit

[Anonymous No.4810726]

>>4810714
No it’s not you schizo. Most of the time is because they like another artist’s artwork or just want to support them.

[Anonymous No.4810736]

>>4810726
Then you're deluded, because when push comes to shove, your artist "friends" will most certainly not be looking out for you.

[Anonymous No.4810745]

>>4810736
Sure thing, schizo. Like everyone is out to get you.

[Anonymous No.4810765]

>>4810745
You deciding that anyone who challenges your world view is a schizo says a lot more about your nature of an artist than it does about me.

[Anonymous No.4810775]

>>4810765
You’re right, I don’t have trust issues like you do.

[Anonymous No.4810782]

>>4810715
I don't use reddit but sure.
https://twitter.com/Velleity_Art

[Anonymous No.4811166]

>>4810715
Lad I just got a bunch of new followers.
I don't know if you had anything to do with it but either way, thanks

[Anonymous No.4811184]

>>4810193
It's actually not. I've seen Korean artists throwing bitchfits at small rp accounts. This definitely depends on the artist, particularly I notice those in professional gigs don't get as fussy about reposts but will if someones printing their shit for profits.

[Anonymous No.4811208]

>>4810226
NGMI with that cuck mentality

[Anonymous No.4811218]

>>4810498
It's not mutually exclusive retard, some potential dedicated new fans can be in the new and "easy" influx. Stop being dishonest

[Anonymous No.4811223]

>>4811208
He doesn't even plan to make it, he's a non-artist

[Anonymous No.4811378]

>>4810136
Misplaced ego.
To many people make art for attention, so if someone else is using their art and not giving the artist specifically the attention they so desperately crave, then they get angry and jealous.

[Anonymous No.4811382]

>>4810136
OP is an autist not an artist. He's probably a re-poster, too. so he doesn't see why art theft is a bad thing.

Fuck you 4chan isn't a circlejerk fuck off back to Twitter.

[Anonymous No.4811385]

>>4811382
To add to this, the fact that you're trying to justify art theft on an art board is fucking hilarious. You faggots don't draw so why even bother to post?

You didn't want an answer, you wanted a circlejerk. Go fucking kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.4811389]

>>4811378
T. Autist

[Anonymous No.4811422]

>>4811382
exactly

[Anonymous No.4811438]

>>4810136
What is the point in reposting if it has not been transformed in some way? Reposting to your tumblr/twitter/insta page is bottom feeder leech shit. It is taking away social capital and literal money out of artists pockets if their art is not clearly identified as theirs. Reposting obfuscates the owner of the art, and then if finding the artist is difficult, clients are less likely to commission them. Or if the owner of the account reposting is behaving embarrassingly or unappealingly, their autism could be misattributed to the real artist and then real industry jobs could be lost.

If your art reposting is not transformative (part of a collage, edited, used as a reaction image or meme) it is simply parasitic. Small accounts, individuals reposting is meh, what are they gonna do? But the large websites/pages/companies doing it, or putting it on merchandise without the artists consent are scum

[Anonymous No.4811451]

>>4810136
Speaking of made in abyss, I asked a dude who drew a cute faputa if I could use it as a custom emote in an art discord and he coldly told me no. I just don’t get it but I walk one eggshells either way

[Anonymous No.4811455]

>>4810136
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.4811463]

>>4811455
I understand that it feels like shit but in the alt universe where someone didn’t steal it and erase the watermark it’s not like you gain anything besides not feeling angry.
If anything, take it as an opportunity to raise a stink about it being your work and get attention you wouldn’t get otherwise

[Anonymous No.4811484]

>>4811382
>>4811385
>>4811389
Cool argument, you overly emotional moron.

[Anonymous No.4811536]

>>4811463
No, you don't understand, the existence of those art-repost-pages hinder artists' exposure on Social Media. Do you know the reason why Twitter, or art focus sites like Pixiv, Artstation... are better than the like of Facebook, Instagram? Because Art Pages run rampant there, they steal all your exposure. I even paid them for shout-outs, so that they put my page url on their description when they post my arts . Let me tell you, the conversion rate is horrible, I get like 10-50 new followers for each post of them, all of them have at least 300k followers. People are lazy, they won't click even if it's in front of them.

Meanwhile, I can easily get 1000+ new followers from one drawing on Twitter or Pixiv. Because there's no fucking Repost Page to hinder my growth, I also think Twitter users appreciate original artists, unlike plastic fans (or bots) on Facebook, Instagram.

[Anonymous No.4811553]

>>4811536
>I even paid them for shout-outs, so that they put my page url on their description when they post my arts
This better be bait. I refuse to believe people are stupid enough to still be falling for that.

[Anonymous No.4811558]

>>4811553
It's more of experimenting than failing, you won't know until you try. Heck, I even tried official ads of Facebook, Insta, Twitter, Youtube... they're expensive af, and the conversion rate is even lower than those shout-outs.

People who refuse to do anything because .... nooo I won't fail for that shit, is likely can't do anything, they don't even try.

[Anonymous No.4811577]

>>4811455
Reposting shit is fine in my book, but erasing the watermark is a shitty move.

[Anonymous No.4811621]

>>4811455
>don't draw fanart
>don't draw shit kids like
>don't draw in either full animu or realism
>can't and won't get your shit stolen to be put on illegal merch by some indian/chinese guy
It's that simple.

Even then, you should be able to report such cases but in their eyes you're just a "thief" getting your shit stolen by a thief.
People who do this sorta things don't care for you or your work they're there to make a buck for themselves.
Just report their sites.

[Anonymous No.4811669]

How does /ic/ feel about saving references/inspiration? i.e. online photos and digital art for self-purposes

[Anonymous No.4811858]

>>4811669
Going by the retards in this thread, making local copies of art is theft and should be punishable by death.

[Anonymous No.4811861]

>>4811455
No-one is defending scrubbing the watermark you dishonest moron.

[Anonymous No.4811955]

>>4810136
It’s for complex reasons. To be honest, the vast majority of westerners only have problems with the large accounts that have thousands of followers that repost art and gain a following that way.
I’m sure you can understand why that’s extremely unfair. You mentioned twitter and these are mostly a problem on social media like Facebook and Instagram so if you’re unfamiliar with what I’m talking about, that’s why. Even if they give credit it’s down the very bottom of the page at the end and no one will ever click on that.
Several times accounts with 10-20k have reposted my art and done this exact thing. I never got any followers but every time they got several hundreds. What followed was the image being shared around then by other accounts who never gave credit, or cropped out my signature, and then that version got reposted which means the one circulating didn’t even have my name on it anymore. Another time they put their own page name on top of my signature so the one going around would only drive traffic to their page.
These accounts really just don’t help artists. People love to claim that they do but they really don’t. The reality is that people simply never click on a tagged account or reverse search a name. People will only follow if you’re the account that posted it. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be upset about these types of accounts no matter what side of the fence you’re on (that’s without even mentioning how so often they will full on have a meltdown if politely asked to credit or take down the repost in question and generally speaking are extremely hostile and rude no matter what).
Someone using art as avatars etc, those are the minority of infringements. I don’t really see people complain about that. It’s mostly the example I described above.

[Anonymous No.4811958]

>>4811955
When it comes to eastern artists they do really care about any form of reposts. I guess it’s a cultural thing within their own spaces, I’ve noticed casual Japanese accounts don’t use fanart for their avatars either. It’s only official art they will use. I think they just have a different etiquette when it comes to that and it’s a clash of east vs west. Other things include avoiding tagging art that include ships because they think it’s rude and don’t want the creators to see it. If you go on to the author of BNHA’s Instagram, his comments are just flooded with westerners begging him to make their ship canon. I just chalk this one up to different nettiquette.

Aside from that, there’s plenty of reasons why it can be problematic to an artist. Someone reposted NSFW I had made as a teenager to a booru and I contacted the admin to remove it. They had a meltdown over it, yelling at me over email with 0 provocation and I practically had to beg them to remove it, even though it was not only my art but legally the art constitutes as child porn since I made it as a minor and they could get in trouble for hosting it. You would be surprised at how some of the people running these reupload sites/accounts behave, they are incredibly entitled and a huge pain to deal with.

[Anonymous No.4811959]

“Do not repost” means “don’t download the image and reupload it so the views and likes go to your retarded nigger ass instead of me”, not “this image isn’t allowed to be displayed without my consent”, nigger.
Faggots will reupload your work without anything leading back to you, and they will do it for their own gain. No shit people don’t want to enable parasitic niggers.

[Anonymous No.4811986]

>>4811861
>>4810327
Why are you retarded? Besides that not the main point, dumbass. The point why reposting is bad and why artist don’t like that shit.

[Anonymous No.4811990]

>>4811577
There was no credit given and that reposter was using that art to sell his merch, you’re ok with that?

[Anonymous No.4812109]

>>4811959
>not “this image isn’t allowed to be displayed without my consent”
Say that to the autistic japs who will hunt you down if you even so much as dare to use their fanart as avatars.

[Anonymous No.4812141]

>>4812109
Quit being dishonest moron

[Anonymous No.4812183]

>>4812109
You are talking about such a small, insignificant amount of artists just to complain about essentially nothing.
Most artists don’t care about that and that’s not why they ask to not repost and you know it.

[Anonymous No.4812271]

>>4810136
You don't have to care about what the internet people think. like they gonna sue ya for stealing theyr degenerateart.gov post

[Anonymous No.4812274]

>>4812271
>he doesn’t know about dmca takedowns
Oh no no no

[Anonymous No.4812277]

>>4812274
just repost again

[Anonymous No.4812289]

>>4812277
Then you’ll lose your account or get banned.

[Anonymous No.4812295]

>>4812289
you got me there. no way to come back from that one

[Anonymous No.4812302]

>>4811958
In what jurisdiction does pornographic art drawn by a minor constitute CP?

[Anonymous No.4812314]

>>4811484
That last post is not me you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.4812345]

>>4812302
The USA

[Anonymous No.4812360]

>>4812302
I know it sounds silly but yeah. If you create porn as a child it can legally be defined as child porn even if it’s drawn. I mean I guess it makes sense in the most literal sense but obviously it’s not the same as child exploitation images and such.

[Anonymous No.4812385]

>>4810136
>Just watermark your shit in non-intrusive ways
then aggregator accounts and maylaysian print shops will just edit out the watermark. oh and your original post will be buried in a sea of pintrests so even if someone likes you work and wants to find more of it they wont.

[Anonymous No.4812397]

>>4812345
>>4812360
He’s not saying pornographic drawing of a child, he’s saying a pornographic drawing drawn by a child.

[Anonymous No.4812475]

>>4812397
Yes, I am aware. It is still pornographic content created by a minor and falls under that. It does seem sort of strange to consider it but again it’s really only in the most literal sense, people are hardly predators for looking at what could be your run of the mill nsfw drawing created by anyone but it’s pornographic content created by a child and can fall in to that bracket of illegal content. I guess it makes sense, I’ve heard of lots of minors groomed and coerced by adults online to create NSFW art for them so I can understand why there would be precedent there for child abuse like there would be with photographs.

[Anonymous No.4812491]

>>4812385
This, you know what happened when I used a non intrusive signature/watermark?
People just cropped it out
Now I put that thing obnoxiously in the middle so if they want to do that they’ll have to at least do a little bit of work to get rid of it

[Anonymous No.4812495]

>>4812314
What difference does that make?

[Anonymous No.4812509]

>>4812475
You are talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.4812524]

>>4812491
Why can't you get creative with signatures or watermarks? Make your signature part of the the print T-shirt or some other piece of clothing the character is wearing. Paste it on a billboard in the background. Have it organically follow the silhouette of a character. Make it a genuine part of the composition, and people won't even want to crop or edit it out because that would diminish the value of the art.

[Anonymous No.4812529]

>>4812491
Consider the following: you post your art on social media sites A, B, and C, and those posts directly link back to you.
Various people see your art, then reupload to sites D - J. Frequenters of sites D - J see your art, and then reupload to sites K - Z.
The audiences of D - Z cannot see the artist's name, but you had never intended to upload to those sites in the first place.
Therefore the only change in this situationis that MORE people have been exposed to your art than would have otherwise, despite many of them not knowing the identity of the artist. You have lost nothing, and your art has become more well known than it would have been if left to your own devices.

[Anonymous No.4812534]

>>4812524
Hear, hear.
It annoys me when people destroy their own composition by slapping a signature over it without consideration.
Next to faces, text is the easiest way to get someone's eyes to laser focus onto one point of an image.

[Anonymous No.4812555]

>>4812509
Anon, you yourself touched on the logic involved by mistakenly thinking I was talking about loli/shota or something. In line with that exact logic, there is a reason why loli and shota aren’t illegal and it’s because a real child is not involved or being exploited. CP isn’t illegal because it’s icky or gross, it’s illegal because it does involve a real child and legally they cannot consent to participating in sexual acts or creating/distributing pornographic material. A child drawing porn is a child creating pornographic material and may be being exploited to do so. This is why it can fall under that umbrella. It’s the same way that even if a 17 year old in porn looks like a 20 year old, the content created and visuals don’t matter, legally it constitutes as CP because the creator is a child.

[Anonymous No.4812556]

>>4812524
Still gonna get removed, because reposters/companies want those people to think they are the ones who created it.

[Anonymous No.4812561]

>>4812555
>you yourself
No, that was my first post on this topic.

A drawing made by a minor does not constitute child porn, and said assertion is why I called you out for talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.4812567]

>>4812529
>You have lost nothing, and your art has become more well known
This is absolute bullshit, it does not result in being “well known” in a way that matters or even means anything
There is a difference between “this picture is being recognised for its artistic ability and people will associate my brand as an artist/my account with this image” and “there are eyeballs on the image who see something while scrolling”, the latter is absolutely worthless and does lose brand recognition, the only reason I joined Instagram is because people kept reposting my art without credit there and it got almost no attention when I myself posted because people had no clue and just presumed it was another repost because they had seen it so many times before and kept scrolling

[Anonymous No.4812569]

>>4812561
I’ve explained in great length a few times now why it can fall in to the area of illegal content and you can’t say anything except “you’re talking out of your ass”, if you’d like to actually contribute to the discussion with anything resembling something other than that feel free.

[Anonymous No.4812591]

>>4812567
>in a way that matters or even means anything
If you are going to throw other qualifiers into the mix, then you need to define them. What 'matters' to you? Fame? Wealth?

>this picture is being recognised for its artistic ability
Still possible without the viewer knowing the artist.

>and people will associate my brand as an artist/my account with this image
I will remind you again that you had no intention on posting on sites D - Z in this example, meaning the people on those sites would not have known your 'brand' either way.

[Anonymous No.4812595]

>>4812569
You've "explained" things that have no basis in reality and no legal precedence.
In other words, you are talking out of your ass, making shit up.

[Anonymous No.4812611]

>>4812595
Again, feel free to explain and actually deconstruct what’s being said rather than just saying “you’re talking out your ass” and thinking that’s what you’re doing. If you are too lazy to have a conversation that‘s fine but the conversation can’t really progress from here.

[Anonymous No.4812626]

>>4812611
There's nothing to explain, there is no legal precedence for your claims. Period.
You made the claim, if you believe it to be true, then go look for evidence to back it up.

>If you are too lazy to have a conversation that‘s fine but the conversation can’t really progress from here.
Why should the conversation progress from here? You are making shit up, and I pointed this out. There is nothing left to discuss.

[Anonymous No.4812666]

>>4812611
I also want to add that it makes sense that the kind of person who would make up """laws""" on the spot is the same kind of narcissistic cunt who thinks they control the internet and can force whomever they want into deleting shit they uploaded on a publicly accessible website.

[Anonymous No.4812880]

>>4811455
Imagine not having an unique artstyle so even the most basic normalfags will instantly recognize you

[Anonymous No.4812907]

>>4810136
to much text.

[Anonymous No.4814782]

>>4810136
A lot of people will repost work without linking back to the original, and before you say "but watermarks!" some fuckheads will edit those out. The less aggressive the watermark the easier it is.

It's really not as big a problem these days because reserve image search is a thing, and finding sauce is easier than ever.

There's also the various fucks who will take art from artists pages and slap it on t-shirt websites to make money off other people's work.

Sites like Gelbooru and the like have a way to add the source link, so anyone wanting them not posted there is forgoing free advertising really. Having your art as part of a database people browse and that links back to you is free advertising.