by mint. » Sun Mar 20, 2016 8:19 am
I apologize if I came across as "scarring" - I honestly just wanted to prove a point that I have been trying to prove since a year ago. I've given up on trying to correct anyone or anything because I don't have the authority to do so. But for me, coming from artist hotspots such as dA, Behance, etc. I agree with my art teachers that Pinterest (et al.) equal plagiarism heaven. Because those platforms encourage others to reblog images. And maybe that's just how I was educated - plagiarism is a double edged sword, you take from others, then expect others to take from you.
Editing National Geographic's photo with a selective colour filter (or something equally effortless) and calling it your own is universally accepted as plagiarism. Yet editing a equally nice -not free- stock photo for 'personal purposes' may not be as illegal. What this debate is hosted upon is a mutually accepted grey area, which I was always taught as "posting online = distribution", "saving on your Hard Drive = personal use". Because if posting online can still be considered personal use, where can we draw the line with "personal use" and "monetary gain" (through sites such as dA or even CS, in a situation where someone asks for C$/Pets for a HTML layout-banner-photoshop).
So for the 'sanity' of others, I'll remove that post. But if anyone's curious, I'll attach a few useful links. But hey - agree to disagree! No, you won't be fined $ for using Veer's fonts (as they're not about to go track down every single user). But is this something accepted in the digital art world? Eh.
EDIT: Hey, debates are cool (although this isn't the place to do it).
Last edited by
mint. on Sun Mar 20, 2016 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.