Jean: Well, it's sensible. Flaming is never allowed, but most people just don't report it.
Sometimes, hilarious things happen when they do (hint: read bottom to top).
The thing about flaming art thieves is that when the thief gets reported, all the comments get sorted through. Flaming art thieves, as I am to understand, actually -slows down- the process of banning them, because first whoever's on the job has to go and handle all the comment violations.
The special "no calling anyone an art thief" rule is less obvious, though. It does make sense after being in the drama scene after a while, because art thieves are "safe" to attack...so everyone does it. It makes you
cool, man.
Nick: Gluglu is correct. Attention whoring is one reason--why they think it'll work or why it satisfies them, I have no clue, but it's moderately obvious after a while that it does (to the point that I wonder why there are serial flamers of art thieves--don't they fucking get it?). More benign reasons include ignorance and laziness, and to some extent, trollery (go check out the
yalogank archives of
fureimu beitu, probably the best art theft trolling I've ever seen...even the artist "stolen from" was in on the trolling).
Easily the most obnoxious and creepy form is, err, serious mental issues. Seems kind of silly writing it that way, but you really have to dig in the drama to find that sort of thing. I think I've found two cases of that, which...well, it goes way beyond art theft. In both cases,
hordes of artists were stolen from--both online and offline, various forms of art/literature/possessions. Then there's the whole obsession, internet stalking, identity theft, online/offline harrassment, and the like.
Just...no.
TANGENT
Then, there's the art thief who isn't. Now, to start off in all honesty, I'm biased. I really don't like most of the people who crusade against art thieves--at least, the vocal ones. They come off utterly self-righteous, as if art thieves are the worst thing since Hitler (oshit, do I lose?). Art thieves are accused, a little evidence might be shown, and then the user is given flaming mob justice. Many users on the community I'm on--and I mean many--believe that the admin of sites not run to their standards of what-is-and-isn't-art-theft are the enemy, which is proven true (obviously) with subsequent bannings following the aforementioned flaming mob justice. Much noble wangsting ensues from such antics.
The thing is, though, nobody really has "their" standards of art theft. There's an illusion of a they, given the solidarity in flaming, but when it comes down to a standard, every person--like every art community--has a different definition of art theft, copying, ripping--sometimes very malleable defintions. deviantArt, for instance, allows eyeballing and tracing under the vast majority of circumstances (under the very shabby wording of faq #304...probably to give themselves legal wiggle room, but as defined it leaves users in the dark, or worse, there to fill in the blanks with their own assumptions). So, if I were to post up an eyeballed copy of a Da Vinci painting (or one of Jean's fanarts) I did for an art class on paper in charcoal, it would be fine on dA, but on some other sites it would fall under "art theft" and get removed.
Some people really take this ultra-far. I've seen accusations of pose theft, where someone has referenced another's piece of art for a pose and has been accused of stealing (or worse, the two pieces of art happen to have a similar pose--the horror!) There's also been cases of "design theft," where so-and-so a character has the same hair color and similar ears, so omgzedesign has been ganked.
/TANGENT
Carry on. <p><hr /><div style="text-align:center">
dictionary.com |
encyclopædia dramatica
"he is the godamn batman! thats why! if he can breath in space you damn bet he can wear a panty on his head!" glu-glu</div></p>
</div></p>
at: 7/16/06 23:33
News
Site map
SitemapIndex
RSS Feed
