[META] Fuck ads: I recommend adding a rule to ban watermarked comics here
We(Lemmy users) are adblock users and are tired of capitalism that ruined Reddit.
All of us didn't come here to look at ads again or to entertain capitalist dreams of embedding ads everywhere.
My recommendation is clear, let's ban watermarked comics and work towards ad free community.
At the end, music don't have watermarks and neither do art. So why should comics have watermarks?
Linking to the source should be the primary way of attribution.
-334
Comments80
Counter proposal: ban OP from this community along with anyone else who removes artist trademarks from comics they post.
I'm going to block beep, but they should 100% be banned for being a worthless piece of shit.
Can we genuinely bring this idea to the mods? Because I'm fucking sick of this guy. I don't just want to block him because that's the equivalent of sticking my head in the sand to not see his fuckery.
Counter counter proposal: ban anyone who use this community to post ads.
Sure. But posting the artist's name/watermark isn't an ad, it's their artwork.
Ban posters who modify artist's work maliciously to remove attribution.
hey have you considered changing your handle to ▇▇@▇▇▇▇.org, to stop watermarking your comments? cuz right now, seeing your name, i feel advertised to tbh
You can change the settings of your client to not show usernames and instead show only the name of the community the post is posted in.
😂
Watermarks protect the actual creator's stuff from people claiming it as their own work. This is a dumb idea.
As I said, why it doesn't exist in music and art then?
They do...?
Signatures and watermarks are in almost all works of art.
A watermark on a piece of recorded music is something that is part of the digital composition. It can be in the metadata, it could be in the waveform itself. You'd only see it through analysis of the file.
Same can, and often is, done with video. Even code for software.
A good watermark is one that isn't obvious, so it can't be removed or tampered with.
You made a good point... For my argument!
Music don't contain watermarks that ruin the experience in the work itself.
It's available in text attribution/ metadata base.
Leave the experience alone out of the attribution.
If you're bothered by the creator putting their signature in the margins, where it covers nothing, that's entitely a YOU problem. And since you constantly crop the signature off your posts, I find your engagement here to be in bad faith. Credit the creators and quit being a mook.
Fabolous out here for years spelling out his name in every song, and here you are just lying.
They do, and I find it a lot more obnoxious than a label in the borders on an image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Producer_tag
When I download a song, the file comes with the metadata. When I download an image, the creator information is not there. When images are shared, it's very often the image alone and not a link to the page with the image.
Also artists have been leaving a signature on their art for as long as we've had art. All people are asking is that you share the art as it was created instead of modifying each piece before you share it. By doing that, you're deciding for other people what is best.
This honestly feels like a good opportunity for you to make a separate community and post your edits there so that the people who prefer that format can subscribe to it.
This person never heard a DJ Khaled track
It absolutely does exist in music.
https://youtu.be/I16UsL72Ztk
As another example, the artist Giga has his name spoken out within the first few seconds (usually right before the lyrics start) in many of his works: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvq3kUGY5Dbsdkr3DZx25Sw
<.<
Stop calling out my laziness to open krita...
I actually put credits on my comics as I actually need to edit them
If I enjoy a creator, I want to see more of their work.
With people like you, I would have no idea who Neil Kohney even is.
Fuck you in particular.
OP, do you have some kind of humiliation fetish or why is your take this shit?
Do you think that a painter's signature on a painting is an ad? If I listen to music and the artist states their name, is that an ad? All of these are just a way of saying "I made this". They aren't ads in any meaningful sense of the word.
Bro be like "ew, an ad":
Literally unbearable to look at with that capitalist garbage in the bottom right corner:
While we could enforce the rule of link being the attribution, as a general rule it's not what will happen when someone shares anything on the Internet. It will be ripped out of context and posted on random places with zero attribution.
Exhibit A: yourself. Your post history does only occasionally contain links.
I avoid it because a lot of times the source is Reddit or Instagram.
But if the rule enforced, I would attribute back everything. Because it became agreed upon this compromise basically.
In short, I would link back even if to Reddit. But we need to have a standard here to kick ads out before I do that.
So... you fully admit that you could do the right thing, but just won't?
What a terrible idea.
Maybe you should abide by the two posts per person per day rule before you start trying to create new ones.
But do go on and tell everyone how an artist having their name and/or their webcomic's name included in the image is an advertisement.
Especially when it's damn obvious that you're using AI to remove the attribution when you can't just crop it out. Not just a weasel, but a lazy one at that.
Artist attribution ≠ Ads
For fucks sake, why you acting like every comic comes with a red "30% off" banner?
You recommend linking to the source instead of a signature, but you don't include either in your posts. When someone makes something, they have a right to have people know they are the ones who made it. You should be banned from every community you refuse to credit artists in. You are actively harming this community.
This is hands down the most brain dead take I've seen today. Congratulations, you're wrong more than anyone else! 🎉
What I'm hearing is that you don't want to support the creators who's work you repost here.
I don't agree. These types of ads are the few that I'm actually okay with. because it's an artist trying to support themselves, not a corporate schill using AI or trying to push a big corp.
The War and Peas comics artist has a patreon. I can't afford to support them directly but I do want them to receive support.
Why don't you want artists to get paid for their work?
Sigh
I want ad free art.
It's not an ad. You aren't paid. You aren't being fed the information in an incorrect context.
Do you also rip the covers off your books and black out the author's name?
Do you yank the labels off your soup cans because they have the vendor's name?
Artist names/signatures are not ads.
Then go make it yourself, or use an AI to pretend you have the talent to make art, and then you can choose to not put a name on it.
Oh, can AI generate comics?
If you want ad free art, make your own.
You are against capitalism, and your approach is to remove author attribution, thus fucking small creators. That's called punching down, and for being so against capitalism, you operate like a good dog.
Aren't most of them just a handle or name in the margin? Seems ridiculous to think it ruins your experience somehow. You're just being actively hostile to artists for some reason.
Nope. I just want an ad free world.
Artist names/signatures are not ads.
Do you have some examples of “ads” or watermarks in comics?
IMO artist signatures/names or comic titles are not ads.
I do have one. The artist who writes and draws the War and Peas comics has a patreon and (on Tumblr where I follow them) they advertise by placing a panel beneath the comic with their patreon information in it. But very often they only share that on their own social media, and I don't think I've seen it on Lemmy.
But they aren't hiding their work behind that patreon, instead they ask for donations if viewers should be so inclined.
I am fine with that type of advertisment because this is them asking people who enjoy their work to help support them.
I assumed (I may be wrong) that this is was what OP meant. But even if they mean just a signature, to me that's even more egregious. Would OP go to a museum and remove the placards with the artists names?
Edit: Green and Blue Fox comics also does this with a link to their Instagram, and other social media where you can find their work, which again, I am fine with. I don't understand what Op's beef with artists getting appreciation and potential donations is.
Ah, I meant in the comics themselves. If they want to “advertise” on their page or whatever, more power to them.
This is what I see when I look at warandpeas.com — there’s the name of the comic but nothing that I would call a watermark or an advertisement.
They are actually.
What are they selling you? More of their comics?
More of their free comics. The horror.
Hey, I'd appreciate it if you made a new account for each post and comment you make, seeing the same username on each of them is advertising and deeply offends me
Artist names/signatures are not ads.
I don’t agree. I just want to know who made the art. Attribution is not the same as advertising.
A Patreon link or a watermark I could see as advertising, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen that directly on a comic image.
Do you have some actual examples?
Easily one of the worst takes I’ve ever seen.
So, upon reading further, this is not about watermarks over the content, you are just mad artists sign their work... you haven't realized yet, but you are a douchebag. My vote is to just ban whoever crops out artist names (or post an image without it and don't attribute in the title or comments) because that's a douchebag thing to do. If you hate authors just ask ChatGPT to make you comics, those won't be signed.
Are you puppeting your bot account right now so that you can evade a ban?
Genuinely asking because this is just like. The worst take ever, but the time frame between the number of posts you post per day and the fact that there was a post recently about bots not being allowed all make me suspect everything you've said.
Keep suspecting then.
I won't entertain you for free.
Do bad faith arguments with yourself.
Is it advertising when I sign my tax return? Enquiring minds want to know. Cause I sure as hell would love it if the IRS didn't know who I was or how much money I was making.
Do you think seeing the author's name on the front of a book is also an ad?
yeah I remember when they gave me a contract i put my watermark on with an ad of my brand (sometimes called full name).
idiot.
Better idea, how about a rule to ban people who intentionally remove them?
We'd get better content, and nothing of value would be lost. Least of which is AI slop to remove water marks
The vast standard is music ships with the artist's name baked into the metadata. It's watermarked that way, kept in the fringes of the data, away from the main piece, just like a signature on the fringes of the artpiece. This is not new, nearly every artist does it. That's often why we can ID physical art centuries later, and it's why you rarely ever stumble into a song file you can't identify the artist of.
Most mp3s have the artist name in the metadata or title. And, even the most rudimentary platforms show this information front and center. It is not an ad. It is a feature we desire. We want to know who made it, so that we can understand its context, its subtexts, and yes, find the artist for more of their work.
Image files typically do not make use of these mechanisms, and certainly the platforms we view them on rarely do. The general convention is to 'sign' or watermark it instead.
It is as simple as that. To remove the signature of a webcomic is like stripping an mp3 of all metadata and making the filename a random string. It's fundamentally an inconvenience to everyone involved. No one wants this.
(This is not to mention that the wholesale removal of attribution and complete divorce of creator and creation serves the ultimate goals of corporations. They've done it with food (where does your milk come from), furniture (who made your chair), and now with art (who made this comic?)
You seem to be conflating an ad (buy JokoMolk brand milk!) With attribution (this milk was produced at x farm). Perhaps, if we better understood the orgins of things, we might make informed decisions!)
Is the front cover of a book an ad? Are the credits at the end of a movie an ad?
If a signature is an ad, what is it advertising for exactly? Can you define the word "ad" for us? Imagine hating ads so much and literally not knowing what they are.
How is the post about not cropping the artists signature relevant here?
The discussion there is relevant to the topic actually.
Artists have signed their work almost since the start of art. You say linking to the source should be the primary way of attribution, yet you don’t link to your source.
I am with you and also think we should visit every existing museum and remove the signature from the Artists!!
The sign inside the museum should be enough! Why did we paid for the museum in the first place if we see "Artist ads" like signatures?
Mmmm...
Mmmm...
... Isn't supporting and highlighting smaller creators rather than huge megacorps kinda a core part of the anti-capitalist movement?
You don't listen to hip hop. They have producer tags, and I think some electronic musicians might do it too.
Plus digital music absolutely has metadata built into the file.
Did the copyright holder (i.e. the artist) give you permission to redistribute their work without attribution? If not, it's a copyright validation and illegal in most countries.
I'm not really against pirating (you would copy a car), if you are taking from the rich. But that's not the case here.
And holding back information about the source of the comic is just evil to the readers here.
Example of watermarked comic? I don't think I've seen one before
They mean like artist's signatures or handles.... Like the ones they crop out a lot.
In fact this user in their recent posts has cropped out or even brushed over the artist's name/handle. It's gross.
I think that this is a respectable opinion, but I personally disagree. Please drink a verification can to continue.
Upvoting to promote conversation, but wholeheartedly disagree. Artists have a right to sign their work, and separating an artist's signature from their art is douchy behavior.
no one should change artwork unecessearily without the artists permissions. I rather have more content than not. I actually don't block ads all the time and don't mind well regulated capitalism. Lots of use of all and we like its a 100% thing.
😂
Are you fuckin retarded?