Jim,
First, I would urge you to post this to as many forums you can think
of: Fchan/dis/, alt.fan.furry, Onechan/f/, on your Skunked.com site,
on the various furry con discussion pages, someplace where you can
proclaim "Enough already!!!.... I got a life! Why don't you fuckers
get one?!"
Yes, I've grabbed art off the net when it looked good. Who wouldn't?
Its a nice substitute until I can get the real thing. Sometimes I
can't get the real thing, because it's in somebody's sketchbook, for
example, or drawn digitally, or the artist lives in some far off land.
Whatever, all I have is this jpeg file. Do I share it? Maybe. Factors
that will make me incline to do so: the artist's name or signature is
clearly on the piece, no "Do Not Distribute" warning is on it, the
artist isn't listed on the DNP (Do Not Post) list on the site I'm
visiting, artist has made no statement (either on their own site, if
they have one, or in various public forums) against distributing their
art on the net (some actually don't care, or even approve - free
publicity). Even given these "okays", I seldom post stuff from my vast
collection (about 18 Gb - yes, gigabytes!!!). Maybe I'm a horder by
nature, but its more like I rarely have something no one's seen
before, so I don't post.
But I must say I have no patience for these jerkoffs who think that
the artists of the like of Jim can live off manna from heaven for all
they care. They'll post their entire collection of Jim's stuff
anywhere and everywhere they can, so all will know the joy of furry
art! Fucktards each and everyone!! May they get ass-raped by a fat
fanboy in an Onyx costume while giving oral to Bondage Bob!! If they
want to share their love of furry artist, they can do what got me
started. Have a friend give you a few (A FEW!!!) good quality xeroxes
of the best artists you have in your collection, and a lot of contact
info, and let it go from there.
I was thrilled when I received Jim's two new folios in the mail from
Ed Zolna about a week ago. And, yes, I noticed - after a few minutes
of looking closely - the watermarks. I wasn't too surprised given
Jim's talent and the mindset of a few asses in the fandom.
Disappointed somewhat, but I can live with it. If I want a good
original, I know who to contact. And I hope he feels better when I do.
--Gregory Giacobe
--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, "Take a wild, friggin guess"
<a_change_of_plans_at_y...> wrote:
>
> 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...
>
Received on Thu Jan 19 2006 - 10:14:44 CST