I fully support your decision. When I printed art CDs for an artist who has
now withdrawn from the fandom (long story short: Extremely hostile
comissioners), I encountered the same problem. The entire first release was
going well, then suddenly the sales stopped. I noticed why. A group was
passing out copies of the entire disc, and it was being downloaded over a
thousand times a day.
I had their ISP shut them down, despite being in Peurto Rico.
But I learned a valuable lesson. I wasn't going to put some Sony-esque CRP,
however. Because it would ruin the disc and make it incompatible with most
systems. I offer the same advice: Do whatever you can to stem the flow,
but don't ever do anything to sacrifice the content itself.
I had a very unique watermarking idea. I put together a quick photoshop
plugin that would put a virtually transparent watermark on every picture,
using a complex color code pattern that, when reversed through the plugin,
would reveal the text. Each picture on the disc had a code on it stating to
me the individual name of the buyer, and their address. And it was
impossible for human eyes to see these watermarks without using the reverse
code.
So the second release was done. Surprise surprise, it was posted. I
casually sent a bill for each download to the original owner of the disc.
It was quickly un-posted.
It didn't undo the damage, but it sure as hell stopped it from getting as
bad as the first. Sales never died down until the artist withdrew from the
fandom.
Hopefully this tale is useful to you. In short: Never do anything to
compromise the artwork itself. Watermarks can be extremely offensive to
buyers (one reason I will never buy from a certain japanese artist again).
So if the watermark is noticeable to the close-viewer, i'd reccomend against
it. But a watermark of some kind is a good idea to keep it from being such
an issue. My favorite is the 'black bar' method. Use a transparent
photoreactive ink that becomes a bright color when hit with a bright light.
I tried this and it works great. If the paper's thick stock, then it won't
mar the colors at all, and will be as invisible as lemon juice. I drew
boxes over the 'goody bits', effectively causing scans to be censored; THE
most obnoxious thing in the fandom for adult art.
That will ensure noone ever wants to download the illegal copies.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Take a wild, friggin guess" <a_change_of_plans_at_yahoo.com>
To: <SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:00 PM
Subject: [SkunkworksAMA] Okay, folks, I need some input on this...
> I recently received an e-mail from Second Ed stating that some of
> the folks who are buying my artwork from him are less than happy with
> the kind of paper it is being printed on now. For those of you who
> do not know, the paper I'm using for my folios costs about 45 bucks a
> ream, a cost which I have not passed on to either Ed or to the
> consumer. The paper is a very pale grey/offwhite stock which
> incorporates a certain safety feature: any attempt to scan or copy
> the image will result in the text "COPY COPY COPY" appearing all over
> the picture.
> Now, why did I decide to use that paper? Because of pathetic
> little shitbags who think it's totally okay to post unauthorized high-
> resolution scans of an artist's work online. People who run their
> little art-pirating sites are quickly becoming a weed that needs to
> be plucked.
> Having been the victim of such activities more times than I can
> count, I can honestly say I understand why some artists just pack up
> their bags and call it quits. And I won't lie, there were more than
> a few times when I was standing at that doorway myself. But I like
> what I draw, and (excluding those few pathetic ass-ticks who pirate
> stuff) I like the fandom and all the folks in it. I would feel it
> would be akin to a betrayal if I were to do something like calling it
> quits. That's not really what I want to do. But I have to do
> something to stem the illegal duplication and redistribution of my
> artwork.
> There seems to be a little clique in the fandom of folks who think
> they are entitled to furry artwork (or anything, really) simply
> because they want it. The only thing these individuals are entitled
> to is a mouthful of broken teeth. Obviously, they fail to realize
> that it takes a lot of time, effort and money to make a single
> drawing, let alone something as large as a portfolio. Those markers
> I use? Those sons-of-bitches are 4 bucks EACH. One marker may last
> as much as 3 pictures. Those pencils? A buck-twenty-five each. So
> if I need to stock up on, let's say, 20 pencils and 20 markers,
> that's about 110 dollars just for supplies (not including paper, ink
> pens, erasers, etcetera). Add that to the regular monthly bills, and
> the $430 worth of medicine I must now buy every month, and you can
> see why I might get a little miffed about someone posting
> unauthorized copies all over the place. I'm not made of money, and I
> haven't won the lottery. In fact, I filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy back
> in December because of massive debt due to medical bills and loans.
> So obviously, greenbacks are not falling out of my ass.
> Now, some of these customers have stated they won't buy any more
> folios if I continue to print on the special paper. It's possible
> they don't know WHY I'm using that paper. That's definitely a
> possibility. I do not want to upset anyone, or lose any customers.
> But I also do not want to have art pirates posting high-resolution
> scans of brand-new material online. It's been several months since
> the Skunkworks Animated folio came out, and I haven't seen any
> unauthorized scans. Ditto with Better Mousetrap.
> I feel that if I back down and change back to standard stock, it
> will appear as if the entire situation is motivated by money. And
> it's not. I draw what I draw because I like to draw it. Plain and
> simple. Do I expect to become rich off drawing furry art? No.
> Would I still draw it even if I were no longer selling it or posting
> it? Yes. Do I want my artwork all over the place? Not really. And
> don't give me the "Well, if it's posted online, it's fair game"
> bullshit. That remark is gonna lead to a need for massive dental
> reconstruction.
> I do not have the money or the lawyers or whatever that folks like
> Jeremy Bernal have to go after art pirates. Personally, I'd prefer
> to beat those guilty of such activities with a lead pipe, but there
> are laws against that sort of thing. So I do the next best thing:
> make it as hard as possible for someone to illegally distribute my
> artwork. Stop them before they start, so to speak.
> Now, the only way someone would notice the special watermarking is
> if they tried to scan the pictures into their computer. Otherwise,
> the text is extremely faint. You have to be pretty much on top of
> the picture in order to even detect it. So maybe some of those folks
> were trying to make digital copies of the artwork. They sounds very
> legit. I know some people who do that, so I don't doubt the
> possibility. It's always a good idea to have a "back up copy".
> Unfortunately, there's no way to produce a kind of paper that will
> allow "legitimate copying" while stemming the flow of "illegal
> redistribution".
> So, in short, I'd like to know what you folks think about this
> situation. I can guarantee if I come out with another folio on
> standard stock, it's gonna be less than a month before it shows up
> online in it's entirety. And at this point in my life, I've had it
> with some of these 90-pound weaklings behaving as if they're 7 years
> old, hiding behind a computer screen and making it their life mission
> to make other people's lives a little more hellish. I'm pretty much
> at the point where I think these particular folks need to be stopped,
> and I don't much care about the method used. They're ripping off a
> lot of good people, and that just doesn't sit well with me.
> Again, your input on this would be very much appreciated. The copy-
> protected paper is the least troublesome method I could think of to
> keep things moving along at a nice smooth pace. If you have any
> other ideas, please post them here or e-mail me directly.
> Thanks for your time and for listening to me vent...
>
> --JMH, not willing to let "the other side" win...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Thu Jan 19 2006 - 09:45:41 CST