Posts

• daintyfoot implies proudfoot but it should instead imply prince proudfoot, which proudfoot was aliased to
• generator:lucidpony:sd is magic 2 implies stable diffusion but it should instead imply generator:stable diffusion
• ask-marathon implies artist:its-gloomy but it should instead imply artist:cosmalumi
• basque implies clothing but should instead imply clothes
• circus baby flurry heart implies fnaf but should instead imply five nights at freddy’s

Personal opinion
Although the quality is often poor, it sometimes isn’t. Nonetheless, that isn’t a good argument. The only reason I can see artists fearing cum tributes is that it might promote sexual harassment (such as unsolicited nudes in their DMs) or it’d feel too intimate if they stumbled into someone jacking off to their art. However, I think the awkward feelings are only partially valid. While nudes are more intimate than erotic art, it’s only by a little bit. You don’t know me personally because you’ve seen my penis and we aren’t sexting because I jacked off to your art. Plus, real genitals aren’t THAT much different from art genitals. There are fringe cases where people are sex-repulsed and somehow have a higher tolerance level to fictional porn, but even then, I urge these people to use filters on-site and grant permission to make cum tributes off-site and revoke the privilege if it DOES happen to lead to excessive sexual harassment from multiple people. It’s a fair use, as it’s a derivative photo art commentary. (If you tribute Japanese art, censor your genitals and feces.)

Personal opinion
Like with cum tributes, the quality varies, but I think it’s silly to censor derivative content or disapprove of your art being used in sexual ways you don’t personally enjoy. Everyone else has to use filters if they want to avoid content, so why don’t artists suck up their egos and do the same as the rest of us? Separate tagging and credit should be mandatory, but downright censorship is absurd. Like with cum tributes, let’s hold people who overstep sexual boundaries in an artist’s DMs accountable: not off-site actors. (If you edit Japanese art, censor genitals and feces.)

Personal opinion
This isn’t art theft, as it’s just an automated means of seeing, learning, and replicating what is viewed in art (like standard artists do). If wonky AI art without a human review and touch-up is enough for the market, AI art isn’t to blame, and you should be expected to shift your marketing towards the quality of your product and presentation rather than begging for clients simply because you exist.

Personal opinion
This is the one area where my views are more in-line with regular artists. Sources should ALWAYS be posted when available, as credit alone might not be enough for traction. Where my opinion may differ, however, is whether or not art should be posted if the source isn’t known or was purged. Archival can be commendable and it can be satisfying to find lost stuff, but at the same time, there’s always new stuff (and it almost always tends to be better [with the exception of high-quality art in niche subjects: i.e. chibi bathroom fetish porn]) and archival in call-out contexts feels like being permanently cancelled (Buddha says you can’t take back words once they’re said, but today, ‘not hiding from your past’ means ‘your past haunts you forever and accountability = extreme eternal judgment’).