Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
We(Lemmy users) are adblock users and are tired of capitalism that ruined Reddit.
All of us didn't come here to look at ads again or to entertain capitalist dreams of embedding ads everywhere.
My recommendation is clear, let's ban watermarked comics and work towards ad free community.
At the end, music don't have watermarks and neither do art. So why should comics have watermarks?
Linking to the source should be the primary way of attribution.
You recommend linking to the source instead of a signature, but you don't include either in your posts. When someone makes something, they have a right to have people know they are the ones who made it. You should be banned from every community you refuse to credit artists in. You are actively harming this community.
Maybe you should abide by the two posts per person per day rule before you start trying to create new ones.
But do go on and tell everyone how an artist having their name and/or their webcomic's name included in the image is an advertisement.
Especially when it's damn obvious that you're using AI to remove the attribution when you can't just crop it out. Not just a weasel, but a lazy one at that.
This is hands down the most brain dead take I've seen today. Congratulations, you're wrong more than anyone else! 🎉
Most mp3s have the artist name in the metadata or title. And, even the most rudimentary platforms show this information front and center. It is not an ad. It is a feature we desire. We want to know who made it, so that we can understand its context, its subtexts, and yes, find the artist for more of their work.
Image files typically do not make use of these mechanisms, and certainly the platforms we view them on rarely do. The general convention is to 'sign' or watermark it instead.
It is as simple as that. To remove the signature of a webcomic is like stripping an mp3 of all metadata and making the filename a random string. It's fundamentally an inconvenience to everyone involved. No one wants this.
(This is not to mention that the wholesale removal of attribution and complete divorce of creator and creation serves the ultimate goals of corporations. They've done it with food (where does your milk come from), furniture (who made your chair), and now with art (who made this comic?))
So, upon reading further, this is not about watermarks over the content, you are just mad artists sign their work... you haven't realized yet, but you are a douchebag. My vote is to just ban whoever crops out artist names (or post an image without it and don't attribute in the title or comments) because that's a douchebag thing to do. If you hate authors just ask ChatGPT to make you comics, those won't be signed.
Better idea, how about a rule to ban people who intentionally remove them?
We'd get better content, and nothing of value would be lost. Least of which is AI slop to remove water marks
Is the front cover of a book an ad? Are the credits at the end of a movie an ad?
If a signature is an ad, what is it advertising for exactly? Can you define the word "ad" for us? Imagine hating ads so much and literally not knowing what they are.
Counter proposal: ban OP from this community along with anyone else who removes artist trademarks from comics they post.
I am with you and also thin we should visit every existing museum and remove the signature from the Artists!!
The sign inside the museum should be enough! Why did we paid for the museum in the first place if we see "Artist ads" like signatures?
Mmmm...
Did the copyright holder (i.e. the artist) give you permission to redistribute their work without attribution? If not, it's a copyright validation and illegal in most countries.
I'm not really against pirating (you would copy a car), if you are taking from the rich. But that's not the case here.
And holding back information about the source of the comic is just evil to the readers here.
At the end, music don't have watermarks
You don't listen to hip hop. They have producer tags, and I think some electronic musicians might do it too.
Plus digital music absolutely has metadata built into the file.
no one should change artwork unecessearily without the artists permissions. I rather have more content than not. I actually don't block ads all the time and don't mind well regulated capitalism. Lots of use of all and we like its a 100% thing.
Are you puppeting your bot account right now so that you can evade a ban?
Genuinely asking because this is just like. The worst take ever, but the time frame between the number of posts you post per day and the fact that there was a post recently about bots not being allowed all make me suspect everything you've said.
... Isn't supporting and highlighting smaller creators rather than huge megacorps kinda a core part of the anti-capitalist movement?
If I enjoy a creator, I want to see more of their work.
With people like you, I would have no idea who Neil Kohney even is.
Fuck you in particular.
Do you think seeing the author's name on the front of a book is also an ad?
What I'm hearing is that you don't want to support the creators who's work you repost here.
I don't agree. These types of ads are the few that I'm actually okay with. because it's an artist trying to support themselves, not a corporate schill using AI or trying to push a big corp.
The War and Peas comics artis has a patreon. I can't afford to support them directly but I do want them to receive support.
Why don't you want artists to get paid for their work?
Aren't most of them just a handle or name in the margin? Seems ridiculous to think it ruins your experience somehow. You're just being actively hostile to artists for some reason.
Do you have some examples of “ads” or watermarks in comics?
IMO artist signatures/names or comic titles are not ads.
I do have one. The artist who writes and draws the War and Peas comics has a patreon and (on Tumblr where I follow them) they advertise by placing a panel beneath the comic with their patreon information in it. But very often they only share that on their own social media, and I don't think I've seen it on Lemmy.
But they aren't hiding their work behind that patreon, instead they ask for donations if viewers should be so inclined.
I am fine with that type of advertisment because this is them asking people who enjoy their work to help support them.
I assumed (I may be wrong) that this is was what OP meant. But even if they mean just a signature, to me that's even more egregious. Would OP go to a museum and remove the placards with the artists names?
Edit: Green and Blue Fox comics also does this with a link to their Instagram, and other social media where you can find their work, which again, I am fine with. I don't understand what Op's beef with artists getting appreciation and potential donations is.
Ah, I meant in the comics themselves. If they want to “advertise” on their page or whatever, more power to them.
This is what I see when I look at warandpeas.com — there’s the name of the comic but nothing that I would call a watermark or an advertisement.
Artists have signed their work almost since the start of art. You say linking to the source should be the primary way of attribution, yet you don’t link to your source.
Watermarks protect the actual creator's stuff from people claiming it as their own work. This is a dumb idea.
What a terrible idea.
While we could enforce the rule of link being the attribution, as a general rule it's not what will happen when someone shares anything on the Internet. It will be ripped out of context and posted on random places with zero attribution.
Exhibit A: yourself. Your post history does only occasionally contain links.
Upvoting to promote conversation, but wholeheartedly disagree. Artists have a right to sign their work, and separating an artist's signature from their art is douchy behavior.
How is the post about not cropping the artists signature relevant here?
I think that this is a respectable opinion, but I personally disagree. Please drink a verification can to continue.