|
Post by Captain Serge Stiles on Feb 16, 2008 13:13:25 GMT -5
DA's a big place and has a lot of control over it (whether anyone, someone, most, or all people agree with the ways they set about using their power and control) and it has been tried before, but they won't bother changing themselves just for a little group of people - it's been tried many times before.
I just figure, you use their site, you go with their rules. That's just how it goes, whether you agree with them or don't. Do your art to do your art, and if it falls within the guidelines of DA, then you can post it. If it doesn't, it'll get removed, so be it. It's just one art site of many. I know maybe because it's so popular and you like to have your pictures on a popular site where you know al ot of people will look ("Oh noes~ I had like 300 comments and 300 favourites! And it's all gone! How dare they, when it had so many!") , but then that just means you're forgetting what doing art is all about.
DA is DA. And it will always be DA as those who control it continue controlling it.
|
|
|
Post by ferryport1987 on Feb 16, 2008 14:32:39 GMT -5
awwwwww man....................he was like the BEST artist of Kim Possible he could even make a season 5 for us by his good drawing skills...also i have many photos saved and made by him...one recent i have is this sensual photo: well miss you LEVELORD:'(
|
|
|
Post by Captain Serge Stiles on Feb 16, 2008 15:20:58 GMT -5
His pictures still exist and are still around - they just won't be at DA (or will, if he makes a new account and posts pictures that don't go against the rules). People make it sound like he was banned from the internet, Lol.
And in addition to my previous post -
You agree to the rules when you join, you agree that you'll follow the rules when you make an account, so even if you find the rules wrong, you already showed that you accepted them by being a member, so if it proves you have something wrong with it later - well, then they just assume you don't know how to read rules and lied when you joined, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by mrpotty on Feb 16, 2008 15:21:38 GMT -5
Mr. Potty: Or they haven't gotten around to it. DA is a huge site. Where has this happened? Sorry, but I don't buy the "DA is a huge site" argument anymore. It's apparently small enough to track down fanart that breaks the rules very quick (doesn't matter if it really breaks the rules or not), but too big for the photographies that I talked about. I left DA 1 1/2 years ago. Before I left I (and some others) reported to the mods more than once for several weeks some photos that were not just against the rules, but also could be considered as criminal. (The most harmless one was a little girl that was made up like it has been kidnapped.) Last December (!) someone told me that the last of these pictures has finally been taken down - but not by the mods, but by the member who put them up, since he got annoyed by all these people who sent him angry commentaries about the photos.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Serge Stiles on Feb 16, 2008 15:25:52 GMT -5
If it's such a common argument, it must have some backbone to it. I don't know how DA is run, but maybe issues are divided into the queues of different people, and different people have different styles in which they investigate. Some lazier, some much more quick. Some thinking, "Ugh, I don't want to deal with this until later" and others, "Oh this'll be a snap to fix up" hell, even "LOL, this is amusing as hayl, let's see more interesting comments people will leave." Wrong, but whatever. Human beings are human beings.
I don't think any of us will really know until we've done it ourselves, so yeah, however you outsider people perceive it, that's how it's going to look. But we can assume and throw things around as much as we want, how they deal with it is how they deal with it. I doubt there's a conspiracy, even though that sounds like something much more cool and interesting to discuss and whisper about, right?
|
|
|
Post by mrpotty on Feb 16, 2008 15:30:10 GMT -5
My guess (And it's really just a guess, so don't quote me with it) is that the DA crew is still unhappy with all these kids who come to their "serious" artpage and put up their sketches about these "silly shows for children". (Hey, it's no secret that they were unhappy about this for a long time although I don'T believe that they put up such a complicated plan instead of just saying "No Fanart").
|
|
|
Post by Captain Serge Stiles on Feb 16, 2008 15:35:05 GMT -5
Maybe some of them (because any gathering of people with the same status can have varying opinions), but I don't think the entire crew.
"Silly shows for children" are made by people who are, I assume, successful in the artistic world. Their experience and tools and studios will vary, but they are capable of making these shows, and they are adults who must be serious about art somehow, even if it's just a quick side job they don't even want to do before they get into bigger things. Undermining "silly children shows" is anywhere, especially for people who aren't into it. Art is art, and it's serious doing any art for anything - because you have to get it done and get it done in a presentable manner or you'll get canned.
Although I can understand how anyone might be wary of having art made of characters that the artists don't own and are in fact owned by large companies all over their website, especially scandalous pictures that perhaps the Disney Channel doesn't want their character being presented as, because they can get phonecalls from parents if the child and parent think it's official art.
|
|
|
Post by drakkenfan on Feb 16, 2008 16:58:35 GMT -5
I think it's ridiculous that he got banned. Only a couple of his drawings may have broken the rules enough to be deleted. How could the staff delete 19?! I just don't understand why they banned him, when I see dozens of fully nude drawings of Kim on DA made by other artists. Levelord's drawings were not like that. This is just really sad. I hope he doesn't give up on fan art because of this. His artwork is awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Tsaalyo Phoenix on Feb 16, 2008 17:01:41 GMT -5
Absolutely ridiculous. What's the point of having a Mature Content option that prevents minors from viewing the art if adult content can still be deleted? That, plus the supreme court has ruled that realistic drawings of flat out hardcore child pr0n is 100% legal, as the key point is that no actual kids are involved. Deviantart's terms of service does not pre-empt united states law. If Levelord took dA to court he'd win.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Serge Stiles on Feb 16, 2008 17:13:25 GMT -5
Here are the rules of DeviantArts in reference to the situation of the deletions. I have highligted some of the rules What is the policy concerning images depicting minors? Underage Individuals and Nudity If you are under eighteen (18) years of age you cannot legally be depicted nude, partially nude, in your undergarments, or in an erotic or other sexually driven manner in any deviation or scrapbook submission. The following is a listing of situations which are prohibited; 1. Minors depicted without clothing, front view, back view, or side view, with genitalia and/or breasts visible or not.2. Minors depicted in under garments or lingerie.3. Minors depicted in an S&M or ‘Bondage’ situation. 4. Minors depicted in a sexual or 'alluring' pose (dressed or undressed).5. Minors in the possession of ‘adult’ sexual toys. 6. No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of “blots” or “Censored” wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed. 7. Gender that is questionable on an image with an exposed chest will be removed from the gallery at the discretion of the reviewing administrator 8. No Child Nudity: Images of children or characters resembling children (including teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies and other imaginary figures) resembling, or stongly resembling, under 18 years of age displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. 9. No depictions of fictional young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context.10. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D modeled images and certain art styles (such as Anime), this will be at the discretion of the reviewing administrator. 11. Babies in diapers will be allowed. Toddlers and younger children may be held to the restrictions stated above as judged on a case-by-case basis. 12. Fictional underage characters taken from popular television series, movies, or other sources portrayed as an "adult" in order to utilize one of these prohibited themes will be subjected to close scrutiny by staff. Such claims will be considered void in any case where the staff deems that significant and telling changes of the original underage character design were not attempted or that such efforts were inadequate.Like or not folks those are the rules. This is direct from the DA site FAQ#249. No, he wouldn't win, because when he joined, he accepted these rules. And anyway, he wasn't banned for his art, he was banned for his ridiculous retaliation.
|
|
|
Post by drakkenfan on Feb 16, 2008 17:16:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fazhou on Feb 16, 2008 17:28:50 GMT -5
Mr. Potty: Or they haven't gotten around to it. DA is a huge site. Where has this happened? Sorry, but I don't buy the "DA is a huge site" argument anymore. It's apparently small enough to track down fanart that breaks the rules very quick (doesn't matter if it really breaks the rules or not), but too big for the photographies that I talked about. I left DA 1 1/2 years ago. Before I left I (and some others) reported to the mods more than once for several weeks some photos that were not just against the rules, but also could be considered as criminal. (The most harmless one was a little girl that was made up like it has been kidnapped.) Last December (!) someone told me that the last of these pictures has finally been taken down - but not by the mods, but by the member who put them up, since he got annoyed by all these people who sent him angry commentaries about the photos. What’s more the argument “Da’s house, DA’s rules” has been bandied about for a long time, and that theme has even recurred in this thread—but it’s a false premise, in fact by itself it’s absurd. Does “DA’s house, DA’s rules” mean it’s okay to extort people for money? To sexually harass patrons? To ask them personal questions, and reject people because they’re the wrong skin color/religion/nationality? A lot of this has come about because deviantArt wasn’t clear about the rules to begin with and was making them up as they went along (a lot of people here will bear witness to that fact)—in which case, they should have given the benefit of the doubt to those who were violating the “new rules” and phased them out via “grandfather clause” (meaning, dA announces that people with such pictures have “x” number of weeks to eliminate them from their galleries on their own). While like I said he didn’t handle it properly at the end, I can certainly see how Levelord and some others might have bore grudges stemming from those earlier episodes. And any consumer using a product has the right to complain about it. Trying to silence the voices of dissent smacks of authoritarianism.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Serge Stiles on Feb 16, 2008 17:33:26 GMT -5
DA's flawed. DA's run by human beings, surprise!
|
|
|
Post by fazhou on Feb 16, 2008 17:35:16 GMT -5
DA's flawed. DA's run by human beings, surprise! And therefore, they're above reproach?
|
|
|
Post by ferryport1987 on Feb 16, 2008 17:38:17 GMT -5
Oh yeah i remember that site yo those gilrs look hot don't you think
|
|
|
Post by Captain Serge Stiles on Feb 16, 2008 17:45:11 GMT -5
DA's flawed. DA's run by human beings, surprise! And therefore, they're above reproach? ...Er, I guess you didn't get what I meant, Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Ashley T. on Feb 16, 2008 17:49:20 GMT -5
Oh daaaang :[ He's been getting it hard lately, but this kind of crosses a line. I mean, I once had a very harmless picture (for Ivy, actually) taken down a couple years ago. It had no nudity showing, it wasn't like even.. hinting to anything, and I clearly stated that Ron was 18+ in the picture.
DA's been weirdly restrictive lately. And, yea, yet.. they still allow nude art that IMHO is NOT art. Like, I KNOW the difference between nude art and pr0n! I can appreciate nude art... but pr0n.. hells no. Especially when it always seems to be that they'll take down male nude art, but not nude women being beaten :[ Wtf, DA.
At the same time, I'm not entirely surprised.... Levelord's gotten a good number of warnings over the years, if I'm correct, and even though he's a great artists and censores his art pretty well... he still draws some pretty risque stuff.. like the KP girls in very obviously promiscuous and pin-uppy positions. I mean, he's certainly not the only one on DA who does that, but still....
|
|
|
Post by Loser7 on Feb 16, 2008 18:11:11 GMT -5
I would have to see the 19 pictures deleted to make a clear assessment of whether the deletions were appropriate, but towards the end of LL's time at dA his pictures became very offensive to women- and if you deny it you clearly don't know what treating a woman respectfully is- I'm not even going to pretend that there is room for debate in that field.
Levelord was very talented and his non-offensive pictures were amazing. I especially liked one of his last pictures in the Off-Topic-Art Thread. His technic was certainly getting more and more refined and I certainly commend him for his drive and passion. He certainly has talent and motivation, but depending on the pictures deleted and the content of his flame journal- I'd have to say I can't make a decision 'til I saw both.
|
|
|
Post by ferryport1987 on Feb 16, 2008 18:42:26 GMT -5
well not only DA is strict but as well as this site in which one time i wrote the P word and this site covered it by putting a dash over it
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Ashley T. on Feb 16, 2008 18:45:22 GMT -5
I would have to see the 19 pictures deleted to make a clear assessment of whether the deletions were appropriate, but towards the end of LL's time at dA his pictures became very offensive to women- and if you deny it you clearly don't know what treating a woman respectfully is- I'm not even going to pretend that there is room for debate in that field. I agree. I wasn't going to mention that in my comment above because I was afarid someone would get mad at me, but thank god someone agrees :\ Even I was starting to get offended by some of his recent pictures.. and that takes a lot. Especially reading the comments from people (specifically men, obviously) who commented on those pics.... ughhh :[ *shudders*
|
|