Forums / Site-Related

16,352 total conversations in 1,291 threads

+ New Thread


Isn't it a bit wrong to say "Artwork by So and So?"

Last posted Jun 08, 2012 at 12:52PM EDT. Added Jun 02, 2012 at 04:13PM EDT
44 conversations with 15 participants

Whenever you log in, I’m seeing a lot of stuff that says “ARTWORK BY SO AND SO.” More than half of these aren’t even done by the person and it’s just a bunch of copy-paste with an occasional word thrown in. For example, Yaranaika is one of the log in images, but right underneath it says “ARTWORK BY DR. PEPPER TRIXIE mr. giant name” or whatever. The particular manga was made by Y. Junichi, and pretty much every other image on the log-in screen wasn’t made by that person.

Can we at least change it to “Picture submitted by” whoever? Attributing artwork to some person who screencapped a meme isn’t really right.

Jun 02, 2012 at 04:13PM EDT
Quote

All those images were made for the login image contest for our userbase.

Our users did make those specific images. We’re not talking about the meme itself but the actual image in singularity.

Last edited Jun 02, 2012 at 04:24PM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 04:23PM EDT

Like I said, it’s awfully miscrediting to the original authors for the people who add a couple words and call it their own, especially saying it’s their artwork.

Jun 02, 2012 at 04:33PM EDT
Quote

The actual image itself was made by drpepperfan, though.

Anyone who thinks the actual meme itself was made by drpepperfan is ill informed, which our site actually prevents as we tell what the meme itself is.

Jun 02, 2012 at 04:38PM EDT

which our site actually prevents as we tell what the meme itself is.

Yeah, if you particularly search it up yourself. The wording is simply contradictory to the actual articles, and it’s not farfetched to believe that a large portion of the KYM userbase actually thinks that the image and / or meme was created by the person, considering the whole website is dedicated to supplying factual information about memes. Combine that with the userbase that’s gradually shifted to the mainstream and ignorant masses over the years, along with the fact that they haven’t looked at every single article on the website, and it’s not hard to believe. It’s akin to attributing a work of art to the paint company at a well-respected museum.

All I’m proposing is a simple change of words. No matter which way you look at it, a good portion of the log-in images aren’t even artwork, unless you’re some sort of snooty art student who says typing out “FINAL COUNTDOWN IS NOW PLAYING IN YOUR HEAD” is art. Changing it to “Image submitted by” would give proper credit and clear up any confusion people might have gotten.

Jun 02, 2012 at 04:51PM EDT
Quote


Uhh…

What if we add below the image a link to the meme that we’re using in the image (even with Super Robo Jesus), and in the case of the Cheeto, we give a link to the Cheeto thread (and that would be the same with KYM-Tan).

Last edited Jun 02, 2012 at 05:08PM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 05:08PM EDT
Quote

Silver Chariot wrote:


Uhh…

What if we add below the image a link to the meme that we’re using in the image (even with Super Robo Jesus), and in the case of the Cheeto, we give a link to the Cheeto thread (and that would be the same with KYM-Tan).

If we’re going through the trouble of editing the log-in screen, why not just change the words like I proposed? Really, it might just be the word “artwork” being a nitpick, but I believe I’ve stated my reasons for my proposed changes.

I like the idea, though. Doing both would be nothing but an improvement. I bet some people some people would forget all about logging in, but that’s what middle clicking is for. Serves them right for not abusing tabs.

Jun 02, 2012 at 05:12PM EDT
Quote

Anormulus wrote:

which our site actually prevents as we tell what the meme itself is.

Yeah, if you particularly search it up yourself. The wording is simply contradictory to the actual articles, and it’s not farfetched to believe that a large portion of the KYM userbase actually thinks that the image and / or meme was created by the person, considering the whole website is dedicated to supplying factual information about memes. Combine that with the userbase that’s gradually shifted to the mainstream and ignorant masses over the years, along with the fact that they haven’t looked at every single article on the website, and it’s not hard to believe. It’s akin to attributing a work of art to the paint company at a well-respected museum.

All I’m proposing is a simple change of words. No matter which way you look at it, a good portion of the log-in images aren’t even artwork, unless you’re some sort of snooty art student who says typing out “FINAL COUNTDOWN IS NOW PLAYING IN YOUR HEAD” is art. Changing it to “Image submitted by” would give proper credit and clear up any confusion people might have gotten.

Those images were created by the users it says they are. I’ll put it this way; if someone made a remix of a song, you’d say that it was their remix. You wouldn’t say Remix taken from the person who made the original song by X.
We can’t insure against people being stupid. Think an entire meme was created by someone based on one image they made isn’t intelligent at all. It’s the same level of intelligence that would cause someone to think that this site is for making memes rather then documenting them. Nothing we can do will dissuade these people; we’ve tried and they just don’t read the warnings.

tl;dr: The users who made the images deserve the small amount of credit we’ve given them, this isn’t even an issue.

Jun 02, 2012 at 06:05PM EDT
Quote

Actually, I side more with Anormulus. Sure, some of them are neat artwork made originally by a KYM-user based upon a meme, but in the instance of just adding a caption or some such, I don’t even think that merits small credit. Anyone can go on Cheezburger and do that in two minutes. It’s not hard.

I think it won’t hurt to change the wording to something else (e.g., submitted by X). That way, the person who submitted it gets their credit, and we’re not implying that the user made something from scratch.
 
Also, I think the remix analogy falls flat here. One, you’re taking the protocol of the music industry and are applying it to your practices. Not a great idea. Two, I think it’s terribly annoying when a remix or a cover of a song is given more credit than the original. When our mission as a site is to properly document and credit memes, I think we have a lot more responsibility to make sure our language is on point in regards to media.

Last edited Jun 02, 2012 at 07:12PM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 07:10PM EDT
Quote

I added the captions and made the screencap of the background myself.

So what do you want to add here? Made by “KnowYourMeme” or “Nickelodeon”?


And what about that one? I added the caption and cut out the image myself.

Made by “Nicolas Cage” or “That-guy-that-took-the-photograph”?


Similar to Silver Chariot’s example. He actually made that one from scratch (unless you want to count that explosion “made by gunpowder”). So that already creates a flaw for the “submitted by” solution.

Last edited Jun 02, 2012 at 08:33PM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 08:11PM EDT
Quote

Those are good examples, but since I rarely log out, I can’t say if those are the exceptions or the rule. I believe that “artwork by” tends to be less accurate on the whole than “submitted by” though.

I’d rather let users have limited credit but still some credit (because their names are still by the image,) than having credit that implies that some users created an log-in image from scratch (especially considering our focus on proper documentation.)

I believe the issue at hand is that of full credit versus full accuracy.

Jun 02, 2012 at 08:53PM EDT
Quote

RandomMan wrote:

I added the captions and made the screencap of the background myself.

So what do you want to add here? Made by “KnowYourMeme” or “Nickelodeon”?


And what about that one? I added the caption and cut out the image myself.

Made by “Nicolas Cage” or “That-guy-that-took-the-photograph”?


Similar to Silver Chariot’s example. He actually made that one from scratch (unless you want to count that explosion “made by gunpowder”). So that already creates a flaw for the “submitted by” solution.

You are submitting your pictures for the login system, are you not? Some people did create theirs, but regardless of whether they painted it with their own blood or they took a shitty five-second screenshot, they submitted it. It’s a blanket term that covers all of the images present on the log-in screen and it clears up the ownership issue. Your name is still underneath the image like you’re a special little snowflake; isn’t that good enough? I’m not suggesting we put the original artists and meme creators under the images, rather just changing the wording.

Also, props on the password image, anyways. I’d like to say it’s the best one I’ve seen.

Jun 02, 2012 at 08:58PM EDT
Quote

But guys, what is artwork?

Are these famous pieces by the Campbell Soup Company?

No, we would say that they are the famous paintings by Andy Worhol.

I could say that the assertion that a re-imagining of the context of traditional works IS artwork and should be treated as such, in which case the caption that says Artwork by XXXXXX would be totally valid.

Jun 02, 2012 at 09:00PM EDT


Check out this artistic re-imaging of your avatar. I even added a white pixel in the top-right corner, which is totally the same as taking the time to repaint a can of soup rather than taking a picture and publishing it as yours. It’s like I’m really a snooty art student!

Yeah, I’m pretty sure we’re not being serious right now. Do the people who have the power to change this shit even look at this forum, let alone care?

Jun 02, 2012 at 09:29PM EDT
Quote

Chris wrote:

I could say that the assertion that a re-imagining of the context of traditional works IS artwork and should be treated as such, in which case the caption that says Artwork by XXXXXX would be totally valid.

I’d argue that putting a caption on something else is not a re-imagining though. Some of the log-in images involved some work, effort, and imagination, as did some of Warhol’s stuff (I’m, by no means, a connoisseur (ha, spelled that right…) of art,) but some did not. I feel as if it’s more accurate to say “submitted by” or “contributed by.”

I feel like “artwork by” gives too much credit in some cases, but other wordings can still give credit where it’s due.
 
@Anormulus

Sorta. Some admins do post here on occasion, and users can always PM administrators and make suggestions. If moderators felt as if there was a huge problem, then they’d probably ask as well. As it stands, it’s not that big of a deal. I don’t think it would take much to change it in terms of coding, but it still may not be worth the trouble to change it, valid concern or not.


EDIT
Why can’t more threads be like this? I liek debatin. Maybe I should make a General discussion thread after the game or tomorrow.

Last edited Jun 02, 2012 at 09:47PM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 09:45PM EDT
Quote

As far as it goes, I could argue that the addition you made, not with the changing of a pixel, but the addition of something as significant as text, especially ‘copyright’ text, changes the context and makes the image be significantly distinct from the original image.

I think as far as changing images, I would say that it could be considered as a distinct image if it changes the context of the original image. Let’s say you changed the color of the image, then it would be a distinct image, adding text makes it a distinct image.

Even with my avatar, the image comes from a different source

But I would certainly not call it the same image. The inverted colors and the text changes its context and in doing that makes it a different image and what could be considered a work of art by the changer.

Last edited Jun 02, 2012 at 09:57PM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 09:57PM EDT

Anormulus wrote:

Man, look at this nerd above me.

Oh baby, ad hominem.

Jun 02, 2012 at 10:19PM EDT

Adding captions onto things changes the original artwork. It gives the viewer different perspectives and gives the work different connotation.
Creativity is derivative. It’s not like we’re taking a copy of the Mona Lisa, painting a mustache on it, and saying we painted the original Mona Lisa. But the copy that we have, in its derivative state with the changes that was made to it, is ours. On these grounds, I’m going to say that there is no cause to stop giving appropriate credit to the creators of the images.

EDIT: Valid point having been raised aside, Anormalus is now just posting out of spite. You do realize you’re ruining your own argument, right? Acting like this just makes people want to take your side less. Although, I am asking somehow who claims to hate this site yet continuously posts here to tell us how much he hates it to display maturity, so you can disregard everything I’ve said, I’m clearly stupid.

Last edited Jun 02, 2012 at 10:24PM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 10:21PM EDT
Quote

As much as I hate you, Anormulus, I have to agree with you. It’s unfair to say an image was created by someone if they only superimposed text on an actual piece of art.

Everyone else in the IRC says otherwise, though, but I think they’re just piggybacking on Abra and DPF because they like them.

Last edited Jun 02, 2012 at 10:31PM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 10:28PM EDT
Quote

Chris wrote:

Oh baby, ad hominem.

Ignoring someone’s argument because they made a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy.

Jun 02, 2012 at 10:30PM EDT
Quote

Philip J. Fry wrote:

Ignoring someone’s argument because they made a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy.

When did I ignore their argument, Philip?

I believe that if you look above yourself, you will see me write out multiple paragraphs stating my opinion on their arguement, as well as my counterargument.

Jun 02, 2012 at 10:31PM EDT

Philip J. Fry wrote:

Ignoring someone’s argument because they made a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy.

Actually, the pro-credit side of this debate’s arguments have been ignored, as you proceeded to demonstrate in your last post.
Well, this debate is gone now. It’s a shame people had to be so irrational because people disagreed with them.

Jun 02, 2012 at 10:34PM EDT
Quote

Anormulus wrote:


Check out this artistic re-imaging of your avatar. I even added a white pixel in the top-right corner, which is totally the same as taking the time to repaint a can of soup rather than taking a picture and publishing it as yours. It’s like I’m really a snooty art student!

Yeah, I’m pretty sure we’re not being serious right now. Do the people who have the power to change this shit even look at this forum, let alone care?


If I paint an exact replica of the Mona Lisa it doesn’t make it a Mona Lisa, nor is it the same value. That is the thing about your copyright argument, the original work is original and you can’t make money off the original without consent. But if I copy it and change it it’s no longer an original and I can say I did it (as in the replica). Besides no one here makes anything off the macros they make. It’s just for fun. Anyone can copyright anything they make it’s really a matter of if you can prove it in court and anyone can take you to court for copyright infringement.

Last edited Jun 02, 2012 at 10:52PM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 10:49PM EDT
Quote

Are people really making this big of a deal about this? Is this seriously a debate? Are we really discussing what is and isn’t art?

The whole art debate is interesting and all, but isn’t this all about improper credit and all that shit? Please tell me without your philosophical and technical bullshit if writing three words on someone else’s artwork is the word-person’s art? At the very least, is it not misleading to the general masses with the terminology, especially for a website dedicated to cataloging memes that is expected to be factually correct? And even if you’re some massive hipster who disagrees with everything, is it not true that the proposed changes would not be more accurate, less misleading, and still give the degree of credit that apparently is so fucking important?

Holy shit you guys take things way too seriously. Take your art debates to someplace else.

Jun 02, 2012 at 11:31PM EDT
Quote

Philip J. Fry wrote:

Ignoring someone’s argument because they made a logical fallacy is itself a logical fallacy.

So much irony in this post, it hurts my eyes.

Jun 02, 2012 at 11:32PM EDT
Quote

Anormulus wrote:

Are people really making this big of a deal about this? Is this seriously a debate? Are we really discussing what is and isn’t art?

The whole art debate is interesting and all, but isn’t this all about improper credit and all that shit? Please tell me without your philosophical and technical bullshit if writing three words on someone else’s artwork is the word-person’s art? At the very least, is it not misleading to the general masses with the terminology, especially for a website dedicated to cataloging memes that is expected to be factually correct? And even if you’re some massive hipster who disagrees with everything, is it not true that the proposed changes would not be more accurate, less misleading, and still give the degree of credit that apparently is so fucking important?

Holy shit you guys take things way too seriously. Take your art debates to someplace else.

Another prime example of irony. You started the discussion about this and now you’re blaming us for going into it? The debate here is the credit of login images and whether they can be called art or not. And here you are asking us to take that discussion elsewhere.

And yes, it is art. If we’d put the original, unedited, image on the login page and place an user’s name below it, your point would be valid. But this here is a parody of the original work. Every change, no matter how minimal, makes the original creation different than what it was before.

Can parodies of something be called art? They surely can. The image or picture they put the text on is no longer the art, it became a source for the new artform.

Let’s take the following image for example:

Well then, what are the sources here?

  • My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic by Hasbro.
  • Comic Sans by Vincent Connare.
  • Possibly even the KHAN!” phrase from Star Trek II.

By your logic of an image macro. The above image macro should have the sub-title “Artwork by Hasbro”, the comic sans just being the font the creator chose.

But now look at it from the other way. Why not have it say “Artwork by Vincent Connare”? Surely his font can be seen as a form of art. The image macro above was just one of many image macros that chose to use his font. Instead of a different thing placed on the image, here they choose to give the original artwork a different background.

So is the artwork from the image macro by Hasbro or Vincent Connare? No, it certainly is not. The person who created that image macro used both MLP:FiM and Comic Sans as sources for his new creation. Which makes the creator of that image macro the artist of it and therefore the result should be given the title “Artwork by whoever”.

Tl;Dr Parodies like image macros are their own form of art. The stuff they were created with are sources the artist chose to use to make the combined result. Therefore “Artwork by X” is completely justified.

Last edited Jun 03, 2012 at 12:13AM EDT
Jun 02, 2012 at 11:54PM EDT
Quote

RandomMan wrote:

Another prime example of irony. You started the discussion about this and now you’re blaming us for going into it? The debate here is the credit of login images and whether they can be called art or not. And here you are asking us to take that discussion elsewhere.

And yes, it is art. If we’d put the original, unedited, image on the login page and place an user’s name below it, your point would be valid. But this here is a parody of the original work. Every change, no matter how minimal, makes the original creation different than what it was before.

Can parodies of something be called art? They surely can. The image or picture they put the text on is no longer the art, it became a source for the new artform.

Let’s take the following image for example:

Well then, what are the sources here?

  • My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic by Hasbro.
  • Comic Sans by Vincent Connare.
  • Possibly even the KHAN!” phrase from Star Trek II.

By your logic of an image macro. The above image macro should have the sub-title “Artwork by Hasbro”, the comic sans just being the font the creator chose.

But now look at it from the other way. Why not have it say “Artwork by Vincent Connare”? Surely his font can be seen as a form of art. The image macro above was just one of many image macros that chose to use his font. Instead of a different thing placed on the image, here they choose to give the original artwork a different background.

So is the artwork from the image macro by Hasbro or Vincent Connare? No, it certainly is not. The person who created that image macro used both MLP:FiM and Comic Sans as sources for his new creation. Which makes the creator of that image macro the artist of it and therefore the result should be given the title “Artwork by whoever”.

Tl;Dr Parodies like image macros are their own form of art. The stuff they were created with are sources the artist chose to use to make the combined result. Therefore “Artwork by X” is completely justified.

Don’t forget Photoshop Ⓒ all this could not be possible without it and lets not forget all the programers who made photoshop and while where at it lets give credit to Bill Gates because after all somehow he had something to do with that .gif

Jun 03, 2012 at 12:25AM EDT
Quote

I don’t see it still. My statements are these:

  • “Submitted by” is more accurate than “artwork by.”
    • I think defining art isn’t irrelevant, but the arguments sound like loopholes. Valid loopholes,true, but I still think other phrases are more accurate.
  • Given that our aim is to properly document and source memetic material, the phrase “artwork by” is misleading to those who don’t know everything about memes.

I don’t think I said that “artwork” is entirely inaccurate. I merely say that “submitted by” is more accurate, it still gives credit to the person who submitted it, and given our mission as Know Your Meme, is more suitable.

Jun 03, 2012 at 12:57AM EDT
Quote

Image made by, perhaps.

I don’t really like ‘submitted by’ in that it sounds really passive, as if we had just found the image to submit, instead of something we spent time making.

Image is in the singular, so it wouldn’t be seen as being representative of the memes contained within itself.

Jun 03, 2012 at 01:22AM EDT

Chris wrote:

Image made by, perhaps.

I don’t really like ‘submitted by’ in that it sounds really passive, as if we had just found the image to submit, instead of something we spent time making.

Image is in the singular, so it wouldn’t be seen as being representative of the memes contained within itself.

Like Verbose was saying “submitted by” here on this site is appropriate. I have made several macros and have submitted several more that where not made by me. Because we are not here to make memes, only to catalog and study them, we are not the ones who make or start said memes hence we submit them to entries. I can make a macro and post it on another site just to have someone else submit said macro to an entry. Yes I feel like “Damn I should have submitted it” but I also like the feeling of seeing my macros being used by others on other sites. It gives me a warm fuzzy feelin inside.
This was one of the first pony macros I made. I made it on cheezburger and cropped the watermark. I used it here in the forums. Since then I have seen it on several sites. Other than knowing for a fact that I made this macro I can’t really prove that I did and I may not have been the only one who made the exact same thing. So “submitted by” is still better than made by.

Last edited Jun 03, 2012 at 03:18AM EDT
Jun 03, 2012 at 03:16AM EDT
Quote

Verbose wrote:

I don’t see it still. My statements are these:

  • “Submitted by” is more accurate than “artwork by.”
    • I think defining art isn’t irrelevant, but the arguments sound like loopholes. Valid loopholes,true, but I still think other phrases are more accurate.
  • Given that our aim is to properly document and source memetic material, the phrase “artwork by” is misleading to those who don’t know everything about memes.

I don’t think I said that “artwork” is entirely inaccurate. I merely say that “submitted by” is more accurate, it still gives credit to the person who submitted it, and given our mission as Know Your Meme, is more suitable.

Submitted by is more accurate for most images, and is what we do on the entries.
However, as this discussion is about the login images, we should take into account that all of those were made by users, not found somewhere else and submitted.
If people are really thick enough to see one image on our login screen and somehow assume that it means that person created the whole meme, then changing one word won’t help them anyway.

Jun 03, 2012 at 10:36AM EDT
Quote

I honestly might be repeating arguments here, but I just made this beautiful painting in MS Paint of a gentleman with white eyes and a rather long nose and no other features.

When the admins make it a login image (as they most definitely will), would they put it as Artwork by Luis? Or would they have to say penis face by MS Paint and the human race, which I am making a rather accurate picture of, and submitted by Luis?
And anyway, in agreement to what MDF said above me, anybody who thinks that DPF created Yaranaika should probably be disregarded as a person, and I doubt that anybody honestly looks at those for more than five seconds, much less who made it.

Jun 03, 2012 at 05:34PM EDT
Quote

Verbose wrote:

I don’t see it still. My statements are these:

  • “Submitted by” is more accurate than “artwork by.”
    • I think defining art isn’t irrelevant, but the arguments sound like loopholes. Valid loopholes,true, but I still think other phrases are more accurate.
  • Given that our aim is to properly document and source memetic material, the phrase “artwork by” is misleading to those who don’t know everything about memes.

I don’t think I said that “artwork” is entirely inaccurate. I merely say that “submitted by” is more accurate, it still gives credit to the person who submitted it, and given our mission as Know Your Meme, is more suitable.

I actually disagree with this.

“Submitted by” is too passive and not more accurate at all in this case. We didn’t go to another site, found that image and posted it on KYM. No, we created those login images ourselves. Those images are our creations.

Similar to the source. The source isn’t a different site, the source isn’t a different person. No, the source of that image is the user that created the image. The same user whose name is linked below the image and who is claimed the artist of it. As explained in my previous post, the stuff we created them with are just sources used to make the combined result.

“Submitted by” would be more accurate if we directly took the images from somewhere else and posted them on KYM (perhaps after some cropping). It works on image galleries and on entries, as most images submitted there are taken from somewhere else. But as that isn’t the case with the login images, “Artwork by” is, once again, completely justified.

Last edited Jun 04, 2012 at 05:35AM EDT
Jun 04, 2012 at 05:32AM EDT
Quote

The solution is simple, create multiple categories.

For images created (nearly) from scratch, like Sui’s Carameldancen or Pandas Kym-tan, it should be labeled “Artwork by (user)”

Edited Images should be labeled “Image by (user)”.

And unedited images should be labeled “Submitted by (user)”.

Jun 05, 2012 at 01:37AM EDT
Quote

But at that point, you’re creating a coding mess where more work has to be put into it than it is worth.

Especially as it is already correct as it stands.

Jun 05, 2012 at 08:56AM EDT

If I remember correctly, a few of the images had “Suggested by (user)” already, like the “Internet, Serious Business” photo. So I know it is possible.

Jun 05, 2012 at 10:22AM EDT
Quote

Natsuru Springfield wrote:

If I remember correctly, a few of the images had “Suggested by (user)” already, like the “Internet, Serious Business” photo. So I know it is possible.

Coding was my concern. I’ve already argued my points, and I think that they still stand, but continuing to argue the same thing isn’t really useful.

However, it seems as if the majority believes that “artwork by” is the most accurate phrase given the situation and after considering other arguments, and to go through any more changes when there’s already a majority to keep things as they are doesn’t make much sense.

Jun 05, 2012 at 01:55PM EDT
Quote

What about “Macro made by x” when it’s a derivative of any meme or piece of art with words on it and Artwork for pictures/gifs that are original creations or, at least, more “thorough” (if we have to make a difference between levels of artistic depictions, even if Anormulous considered it lazyness to simply add some words on a screenshot more than a “creation”) recreations of another work?

Last edited Jun 05, 2012 at 09:06PM EDT
Jun 05, 2012 at 09:06PM EDT
Quote

Really, Anormulus?

Sure you bring up a point, a fine one at that, but you really can’t think why we say those images are by those people, it’s obvious enough, shouldn’t you have the initiative to figure it out, understand that we should assume that everybody (or the majority) who logs into KYM should be able to figure out that the person who edited the image didn’t literally make up every single part of the image?

I’m sorry, but no. You have the right to bring up that fair point but you really couldn’t see the logic of nearly every active moderator and user that posted in here.

Jun 06, 2012 at 02:16PM EDT
Quote

“Artwork by” is misleading in cases where the image is a macro of artwork, such as in DPF’s manga macro. It heavily implies that DPF is the artist, not Y. Junichi. As a site responsible for informing people about memes, this is not what we want.

In cases where someone DID do the artwork, “submitted by” implies the image was found by the user, not created by them. This doesn’t give enough credit.

I agree with Chris in saying “Image made by” is most accurate. It doesn’t imply too much, but still gives due credit. Putting different messages for different images is unnecessary coding work. I don’t recall who suggested it, but I also concur that we should link to the entry page related to the log-in image. Art and semantics aside, this is just plain and simply a good idea.

Jun 06, 2012 at 05:26PM EDT
Quote

MDFification wrote:

Adding captions onto things changes the original artwork. It gives the viewer different perspectives and gives the work different connotation.
Creativity is derivative. It’s not like we’re taking a copy of the Mona Lisa, painting a mustache on it, and saying we painted the original Mona Lisa. But the copy that we have, in its derivative state with the changes that was made to it, is ours. On these grounds, I’m going to say that there is no cause to stop giving appropriate credit to the creators of the images.

EDIT: Valid point having been raised aside, Anormalus is now just posting out of spite. You do realize you’re ruining your own argument, right? Acting like this just makes people want to take your side less. Although, I am asking somehow who claims to hate this site yet continuously posts here to tell us how much he hates it to display maturity, so you can disregard everything I’ve said, I’m clearly stupid.

B-) Nice one

Jun 06, 2012 at 10:14PM EDT
Quote

I knew I should’ve mentioned Dadaism as well.

Jun 08, 2012 at 12:52PM EDT
Quote
Skeletor-sm

This thread is closed to new posts.

Old threads normally auto-close after 30 days of inactivity.

Why don't you start a new thread instead?

O HAI! You must login or signup first!