|
Post by Dippy on Feb 16, 2008 18:49:33 GMT -5
I have to say I agree, and I'm male. I think he's a good artist but I found a lot of the drawings I saw to be degrading towards women, even if they're just cartoon characters.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Ashley T. on Feb 16, 2008 18:54:29 GMT -5
I have to say I agree, and I'm male. I think he's a good artist but I found a lot of the drawings I saw to be degrading towards women, even if they're just cartoon characters. It's good to see a guy agrees, too :]
|
|
|
Post by drewgone on Feb 16, 2008 20:44:58 GMT -5
I have to say I agree, and I'm male. I think he's a good artist but I found a lot of the drawings I saw to be degrading towards women, even if they're just cartoon characters. It's good to see a guy agrees, too :] Make that two guys. And I agree with those who say: "dA's house, dA's rules". If anyone here has a membership-based site, they'll know it's not that easy to keep the site clean from anything that might get you into trouble. I think dA has moderators that are category-based... Usually global moderators require a great deal of trust, and I don't think they'll just have anyone doing that. Anyway, the rules clearly state that some of his pictures were not allowed. He attacked them. He got banned. End of story. He can obviously post elsewhere. And, in regards of "popular sites", he could use LiveJournal. A lot of artists do that. Others buy their own domains and host their pictures themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Tsaalyo Phoenix on Feb 16, 2008 21:15:52 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 guess I'll be the one to step up against this. Are his pictures risque? Absolutely. Blatantly sexual? No question. But to go as far as to say offensive? Seriously, what does that even mean? Did he draw Kim as a Nazi? No. He drew her in a bikini sponging off a car. Why does this offend you, pray tell? I don't get offended by perfume advertisements in magazines that feature a ripped guy in his underwear for some reason. Don't try to start this overused cliche "HE'S OBJECTIFYING MY GENDER!!" bs. Women have breasts, i'm sorry, I didn't make that decision. And those breasts are large and firm at her age to signal to the males of the species that she is of breeding age. Take it up with God or evolution, whichever you believe, but not with Levelord. So what exactly is so offensive about it? I'm just going to come out and say it: does it stem from you perhaps wishing you were that attractive? Of course not, I should hope you're not so shallow and superficial to be jealous of a cartoon character. So what, what exactly is offensive about it? He didn't draw hentai, but does sex offend you? If so the human race is gonna have a heck of a time advancing a generation. The fact is that his art is absolutely incredible and is meant for an audience that obviously does not include you. Therefore, don't look at it if it 'offends' you (I can't even figure out how that works. Ripped young sweaty guys in their underwear don't offend me. Heck, I watch wrestling, what do you think that is?). Go look at art that you like, and let others who want to look at his art look at it. Call his art sexual, risque, meant for an adult audience, PG-13, viewer discretion is advised, whatever you want. But don't go as far as to call it 'offensive'. Because frankly, as an artist of I should hope fair talent, it offends me when people claim that kind of art offends them. But I guess after reading this far that fact has become blatantly obvious.
|
|
erdrik
Yellow Trout
DVD Boxsets!
Posts: 63
|
Post by erdrik on Feb 16, 2008 21:30:21 GMT -5
I deleted my art from DA. I just don't trust them to regulate fairly. I hadn't submited anything as... suggestive as Levellord, but DA's actions create an air of mistrust I cannot tolerate.
|
|
|
Post by Commander Argus on Feb 16, 2008 21:39:43 GMT -5
If Lev was banned for repeated violations, then there's not much to say that hasn't already been, but I think it has far more to do with his reaction to their deletions.
That said, DA is awfully thin-skinned. I consider it an abuse of a moderator's power to ban somebody for criticizing them like he did. Did he make threats? No. He just called them on something that is infuriating to any artist.
|
|
|
Post by atecom on Feb 16, 2008 22:18:57 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 guess I'll be the one to step up against this. I didn't see the last 19 pics so not much I can say here, and its fair enough if you were offended by them nothing wrong with that, however I do believe the statement "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." Does sound a little close minded.
|
|
|
Post by Loser7 on Feb 16, 2008 22:20:03 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 guess I'll be the one to step up against this. Are his pictures risque? Absolutely. Blatantly sexual? No question. But to go as far as to say offensive? Seriously, what does that even mean? Did he draw Kim as a Nazi? No. He drew her in a bikini sponging off a car. Why does this offend you, pray tell? I don't get offended by perfume advertisements in magazines that feature a ripped guy in his underwear for some reason. Don't try to start this overused cliche "HE'S OBJECTIFYING MY GENDER!!" bs. Women have breasts, i'm sorry, I didn't make that decision. And those breasts are large and firm at her age to signal to the males of the species that she is of breeding age. Take it up with God or evolution, whichever you believe, but not with Levelord. So what exactly is so offensive about it? I'm just going to come out and say it: does it stem from you perhaps wishing you were that attractive? Of course not, I should hope you're not so shallow and superficial to be jealous of a cartoon character. So what, what exactly is offensive about it? He didn't draw hentai, but does sex offend you? If so the human race is gonna have a heck of a time advancing a generation. The fact is that his art is absolutely incredible and is meant for an audience that obviously does not include you. Therefore, don't look at it if it 'offends' you (I can't even figure out how that works. Ripped young sweaty guys in their underwear don't offend me. Heck, I watch wrestling, what do you think that is?). Go look at art that you like, and let others who want to look at his art look at it. Call his art sexual, risque, meant for an adult audience, PG-13, viewer discretion is advised, whatever you want. But don't go as far as to call it 'offensive'. Because frankly, as an artist of I should hope fair talent, it offends me when people claim that kind of art offends them. But I guess after reading this far that fact has become blatantly obvious. Heaven forbid men keep their d.icks in their pants. I'm sorry, but as a civilized society is it too much to ask that I am treated as person and not a person with boobs? Is it so hard to understand why a picture of a girl with cream on her body and wrapped like a Christmas present is offensive? Objectifying: To present or regard as an object. Is there anything more degrading then dressing a woman up as a gift, pouring cream on her body implying she was ejaculated on, and putting her on a conveyer belt? The fact that you even consider this to be in good taste is dispicable. I don't understand how you can NOT be offended by that. You sound like one of the people that denies sexism exists because you don't understand what it is. I'll give some examples: It is sexist that Hillary Clinton is judged on her appearance and Obama and McCain are not! It is sexist that I am whistled at while walking home from school when I'm dressed very properly. It is sexist that female parents are considered a liability when hired while men are seen as commited and given praise for being fathers while working. And YES, it is offensive to have ripped men in commercials and imply that that is the norm. It is certainly not what I am attracted to, but it is used to make men feel bad about themselve so they'll buy a product or so that shallow women will think they'll get a man like that and that's the man we're supposed to want. The media is f.ucking with our minds and any educated person would be offended to have their gender or any person propegated in such ways! I am a human being and heaven forbid I want men to respect my gender! As far as not looking at his art- I used to put him on devwatch, and once he started getting too offensive I took him off my devwatch- simple as that. I would look at his work from time to time, but I stopped making criticisms of his work because I knew this type of response i.e. 'If you don't like it don't look' would come into play. However, if someone is going to bring up the topic I am not going to pretend that I wasn't offended. I respect Levelord's talent, and I clearly stated that, and also said that I would have to see the 19 pictures that were deleted in order to asses whether dA's actions were fair- i.e. I wasn't assuming his art was rightfully pulled. I think this represents that I had a level head and was willing to looking beyond the fact that I didn't like his content in order to properly asses the fairness of dA's acts. You however show no class in implying that I'm offended because I'm not attractive. How low to even imply such a thing. What a cowardly strategy. Instead of defending your point you immediately try to cripple my argument by calling me ugly? Wow, that took some serious immaturity. Try attacking the argument and not the person. If you wish to use ad hominem attacks you're wasting anyone's time who wishes to actually debate what we're talking about. Instead you've implied that I don't have a mind and am offended because I am ugly and my vanity has driven me to be offended and not that I am capable of formulating the notion that my gender deserves respect. You assume that sex offends me and this is not the case. In fact I am for less censorship if it is conducted right. I think it is healthy for the media to embrace sexuality- I would be in favor of American television becoming more liberal like England. However, it is the way sexuality is presented that makes it offensive or artistic. For example this link is art, and this link is not. It is all about the context and guess what Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" does not offend me because she is attractive. Who'da thunk, right? Yea, there are so many women who use this all the time- o wait, but there was a study that said women are just as likely to degrade their own sex. So, I guess it isn't that overused, and if it is in fact being used so much maybe it's possible that this argument has a valid point. Why would it be brought up so much if it wasn't? and yes, God did give women breasts, but does that imply that men are free to draw them wrapped up in a bow and ejaculate on them? I guess God just implied that when he made breasts or maybe he made them to produce milk to feed babies? That's like saying God made p.enises so women could give them hand jobs. Or maybe God had a bit more of a practical reason for giving you one- like reproducing. In another thread (in the general discussion area) I had a man state that he felt men's libido's were exaggerated, and I agree. Research suggests that women's libido's might not be lower, but that societal impositions enforce that women control their desires more because of the virgin mary concept- i.e. good girls = virginal. Thus, it is suggested that women have the same sexual desires, but guess what- we don't always act on them. Also, if women DO have lower libido's why is it immediately assumed that we should cater to men? Why is it that women must become okay with being objectified because it's hard for men to keep it to themselves. Why is it not that because women have lower libidos that men should not learn to control themslves? Why do we have to cater to men, but you don't have to consider us? Does this even make sense- does it not seem a little one sided. I see nothing wrong with men being attracted to women, but when they express it innappropriately by robbing me of respect then yes, that is wrong.
|
|
|
Post by tucsoncoyote on Feb 16, 2008 22:23:44 GMT -5
Well what i find intriguing is that of the 19 pictures that were deleted by DA, before he got banned, 12 of them were art tutorials.. (Yet they said that it violated "Copyright Infringement" rules...)
Now as for the other 7 pieces? I can't really judge this myself.. but it got me so worried that I decided that rather than to be sorry, I just took down all my Deviant Art materials.. wiped the Journal too.. when things calm down, I might be back.. and I might put up the old works.. but until then.. I'm sorry, not going to cowtow to DA and their lieberalism. After all if they can ban someone for Copyright infringement then legally we're all guilty if we have KP art there..
But then I think when you look at KP art.. If they say we're violating the rules, then it has to go.. all some 70,000 pieces of it.. But hey I don't make the rules, I play by them. So I did the logical thing.. I wiped the board clean.. and just am going to wait to see what happens. After all This isn't the tip of the iceberg.. there's something else going on here. Something that is probably not being told.
That's just my thoughts on that one..
Tucsoncoyote--
|
|
|
Post by Loser7 on Feb 16, 2008 22:29:53 GMT -5
I don't remember what the tutorials were of, but if they were as innocent as suggested then certainly dA mods were being unfair and trageted him, and I don't think those deviations were fair to pull.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah Ashley T. on Feb 16, 2008 22:42:34 GMT -5
I guess I'll be the one to step up against this. Are his pictures risque? Absolutely. Blatantly sexual? No question. But to go as far as to say offensive? Seriously, what does that even mean? Did he draw Kim as a Nazi? No. He drew her in a bikini sponging off a car. Why does this offend you, pray tell? I don't get offended by perfume advertisements in magazines that feature a ripped guy in his underwear for some reason. Don't try to start this overused cliche "HE'S OBJECTIFYING MY GENDER!!" bs. Women have breasts, i'm sorry, I didn't make that decision. And those breasts are large and firm at her age to signal to the males of the species that she is of breeding age. Take it up with God or evolution, whichever you believe, but not with Levelord. So what exactly is so offensive about it? I'm just going to come out and say it: does it stem from you perhaps wishing you were that attractive? Of course not, I should hope you're not so shallow and superficial to be jealous of a cartoon character. So what, what exactly is offensive about it? He didn't draw hentai, but does sex offend you? If so the human race is gonna have a heck of a time advancing a generation. The fact is that his art is absolutely incredible and is meant for an audience that obviously does not include you. Therefore, don't look at it if it 'offends' you (I can't even figure out how that works. Ripped young sweaty guys in their underwear don't offend me. Heck, I watch wrestling, what do you think that is?). Go look at art that you like, and let others who want to look at his art look at it. Call his art sexual, risque, meant for an adult audience, PG-13, viewer discretion is advised, whatever you want. But don't go as far as to call it 'offensive'. Because frankly, as an artist of I should hope fair talent, it offends me when people claim that kind of art offends them. But I guess after reading this far that fact has become blatantly obvious. Heaven forbid men keep their d.icks in their pants. I'm sorry, but as a civilized society is it too much to ask that I am treated as person and not a person with boobs? Is it so hard to understand why a picture of a girl with cream on her body and wrapped like a Christmas present is offensive? Objectifying: To present or regard as an object. Is there anything more degrading then dressing a woman up as a gift, pouring cream on her body implying she was ejaculated on, and putting her on a conveyer belt? The fact that you even consider this to be in good taste is dispicable. I don't understand how you can NOT be offended by that. You sound like one of the people that denies sexism exists because you don't understand what it is. I'll give some examples: It is sexist that Hillary Clinton is judged on her appearance and Obama and McCain are not! It is sexist that I am whistled at while walking home from school when I'm dressed very properly. It is sexist that female parents are considered a liability when hired while men are seen as commited and given praise for being fathers while working. And YES, it is offensive to have ripped men in commercials and imply that that is the norm. It is certainly not what I am attracted to, but it is used to make men feel bad about themselve so they'll buy a product or so that shallow women will think they'll get a man like that and that's the man we're supposed to want. The media is f.ucking with our minds and any educated person would be offended to have their gender or any person propegated in such ways! I am a human being and heaven forbid I want men to respect my gender! As far as not looking at his art- I used to put him on devwatch, and once he started getting too offensive I took him off my devwatch- simple as that. I would look at his work from time to time, but I stopped making criticisms of his work because I knew this type of response i.e. 'If you don't like it don't look' would come into play. However, if someone is going to bring up the topic I am not going to pretend that I wasn't offended. I respect Levelord's talent, and I clearly stated that, and also said that I would have to see the 19 pictures that were deleted in order to asses whether dA's actions were fair- i.e. I wasn't assuming his art was rightfully pulled. I think this represents that I had a level head and was willing to looking beyond the fact that I didn't like his content in order to properly asses the fairness of dA's acts. You however show no class in implying that I'm offended because I'm not attractive. How low to even imply such a thing. What a cowardly strategy. Instead of defending your point you immediately try to cripple my argument by calling me ugly? Wow, that took some serious immaturity. Try attacking the argument and not the person. If you wish to use ad hominem attacks you're wasting anyone's time who wishes to actually debate what we're talking about. Instead you've implied that I don't have a mind and am offended because I am ugly and my vanity has driven me to be offended and not that I am capable of formulating the notion that my gender deserves respect. You assume that sex offends me and this is not the case. In fact I am for less censorship if it is conducted right. I think it is healthy for the media to embrace sexuality- I would be in favor of American television becoming more liberal like England. However, it is the way sexuality is presented that makes it offensive or artistic. For example this link is art, and this link is not. It is all about the context and guess what Botticelli's "Birth of Venus" does not offend me because she is attractive. Who'da thunk, right? Yea, there are so many women who use this all the time- o wait, but there was a study that said women are just as likely to degrade their own sex. So, I guess it isn't that overused, and if it is in fact being used so much maybe it's possible that this argument has a valid point. Why would it be brought up so much if it wasn't? and yes, God did give women breasts, but does that imply that men are free to draw them wrapped up in a bow and ejaculate on them? I guess God just implied that when he made breasts or maybe he made them to produce milk to feed babies? That's like saying God made p.enises so women could give them hand jobs. Or maybe God had a bit more of a practical reason for giving you one- like reproducing. In another thread (in the general discussion area) I had a man state that he felt men's libido's were exaggerated, and I agree. Research suggests that women's libido's might not be lower, but that societal impositions enforce that women control their desires more because of the virgin mary concept- i.e. good girls = virginal. Thus, it is suggested that women have the same sexual desires, but guess what- we don't always act on them. Also, if women DO have lower libido's why is it immediately assumed that we should cater to men? Why is it that women must become okay with being objectified because it's hard for men to keep it to themselves. Why is it not that because women have lower libidos that men should not learn to control themslves? Why do we have to cater to men, but you don't have to consider us? Does this even make sense- does it not seem a little one sided. I see nothing wrong with men being attracted to women, but when they express it innappropriately by robbing me of respect then yes, that is wrong. THANKYOU. I was about to go off on a very angry rant at Tsaalyo after I read his comment, but thankyou.. you just took the words right out of my mouth. Maybe if it wasn't for the d*mn media and the comments I read from men that I wouldn't feel so .. so insecure about myself. I'll come out right now and say that I DO feel insecure because I have small boobs. I feel like that's all men care about.. and how does that make ME feel? Also.. what is with all the disgusting art of women shown with ejaculation all over them... AND ENJOYING IT? I don't know ONE girl/woman who actually enjoys that! Men are out of their FREAKING minds if they actually believe that crap! And if I'm offended by something then I shouldn't have some other person tell me otherwise! Yes, Levelord is a talented artist, but man.... I was on the edge of taking him OFF my watchlist ANYWAYS because of the offensive content he always posted up :[ So, really... HIS BAN IS NO LOSS TO ME.. THERE I'VE SAID IT. Thankyou, Loser7, for saying all of those things <3
|
|
|
Post by Dippy on Feb 16, 2008 22:47:25 GMT -5
She certainly said it better than I could have. I really actually felt like applauding.
|
|
|
Post by Tsaalyo Phoenix on Feb 16, 2008 22:59:52 GMT -5
Don't you ever use this argument against me. I'm saving sex for marriage. What some people don't understand is that there's a difference between not being a prude and being a wh*re. I've been called a pervert so many times it's not funny. And not the "haha oh Sale you perv " by Zeki, but like "Oh my god wow you're a @#$%ing disgusting pervert." I'm sick of it. Yes, yes it is. Can I understand that it makes some people uncomfortable? That some people don't like looking at that stuff? Absolutely. But offensive? No. Please explain how a drawing invokes the same feelings as if I, for the sake of argument, claimed I slept with your mom and then you were born, because I can't for the life of me figure this out. People always say it's offensive? I ask you, how? So anytime a woman tries to look seductive or attractive, for any reason, she's degrading herself to that of an object? Well that sure takes all the romance out of trying to be attractive for the one you love. It's so unhealthy how kids today are being raised to think that being attractive is demeaning, that sex is bad, that if you like implications of sex it means you're perverted and mentally unhealthy. All of that is WRONG. I can't imagine how horribly screwed up this generation of kids is going to be thanks to your ideology. Sex is a natural, beautiful thing, and this is pretty much how the human race goes about 'presenting', as it were. This isn't about sexism in our society, don't try to swing an argument. This is about Levelord and his drawing things that you don't like. I'm not ripped in the least and I don't feet bad about myself. And what's your solution, force everyone to cover up, to HIDE their gender, to shun being attractive and to claim that people need PSYCHIATRIC HELP if they act as is perfectly natural, to be attracted to the opposite sex and to try to look appealing for them? Once again, i'm not looking forward to be the forefront of a generation of people so screwed up they can't hold down a relationship. How is it disrespectful to acknowledge another person's attractiveness? Once again, keep sexism in our society out of this, that is an entirely separate issue that has nothing to do with appearance, as a less attractive woman is just as much a maternity leave liability as an attractive one. "I'm just being looked at as a sex thing!" Wrong. You're being told that you are attractive, and only a really screwed up society would allow "you're attractive" to be translated into some kind of demeaning insult. You're implying that being attractive, that acting NORMAL, is bad. It's wrong to be human. The people in psychiatry courses right now are gonna make a killing in the next five years. You'll notice immediately following that statement I negated it, as to give you a possible argumentative option and then shoot it down beforehand. I don't know what you look like, but if you WERE jealous of a cartoon character you'd need just as much help as this generation of kids who will grow up thinking that the fact that this body part gets hard or this part gets wet means that they are bad and wrong in the head and must be re-educated. So you support stuff that implies that the human body is only 'good' if it is pure and 'unsullied by natural urges and functions'? If the body is used in the context that implies some kind of sexual activity or sexual attractiveness of any kind, it is bad? How can you claim to not be opposed to sex when you hate anything that incorporates it? Reggaeton is a cultural thing that is a tad more extreme than what we're used to, but that's only because our society is so opposed to any kind of... to cut to the end: screwed up generation of kids. Women degrade their own gender, you say? I guess they do, because it's NOT DEGRADING TO ACT AS IS SIMPLY NATURAL. Dressing attractively is not bad, nor is doing so to be appealing to the opposite gender. Being ashamed of your own body and your own gender, THAT is when people get royally screwed in the head. You seem to be mixing "I like to dress attractively" with "My charge is $200 an hour, no kissing on the lips." That is the very epitome, very embodiment, very FOUNDATION of my argument. Any kind of attractiveness is immediately equated to being a complete wh*re in our society, and it is completely screwing the heads of the next generation. Once again, keep sexism in our society out of this. I refuse to get into an argument over the grand scheme of things when the entirety of this discussion is about whether drawing Kim Possible in an provocative situation is bad.
|
|
|
Post by tucsoncoyote on Feb 16, 2008 23:04:34 GMT -5
I don't remember what the tutorials were of, but if they were as innocent as suggested then certainly dA mods were being unfair and trageted him, and I don't think those deviations were fair to pull. Well for the 12 Tutorials I felt that was indeed unfair.. including tutorials that taught how to draw hair and hands.. But as for the other 7? Like I said, I'll be neutral there.. After all when it comes down to it.. more than 2/3rds of the supposed violations were for some sort of "Copyright Infringement" issue that dA has.. the other 1/3rd were more than likely for Inappropriate content. but what irks me is those 12 tutorials.. why them? they were not of an inappropriate content issue but rather more of a supposed Legal issue. I mean if we're not allowed to even consider drawing art using tutorials then how can we improve on what we draw? (After all I've found numerous other tutorials out there on the internet and they've been rather helpful improving the art.. but to ban a person for 2/3rd's of his work being Copyright infringements? Amazing.. That's what doesn't make sense here.. So I'm starting to think Levelord was solely targeted to make an example.. that if you do any KP art, you're possibly in danger of violating Copyrights ergo, in the end, you could be thus held for such.. I guess when you play by the rules, any KP art would be considered Copyright infringement violations.. even if it is an OC you created to put in the supposed KP universe.. that's what has me questioning the sanity of dA for that 2/3rds, that were removed. Tucsoncoyote--
|
|
|
Post by DarkFairyYume on Feb 16, 2008 23:08:33 GMT -5
Wowie, what a discussion. D: While I agree LL's talented, I didn't exactly care for some of the more recent stuff he was submitting. Though, I have seen worse, admittedly. Plus there's all the underage "loli/shota" or slash stuff that exists on dA. But I choose not to look at it, I just come across it when I browse the site, unfortunately. Anyways, not the point. KP was underage for a lot of the show, and Sam is still an underage character, and I don't remember him stating anything like "Oh I made them older" or something. If he did, I don't remember. And I suppose even if he did, dA probably doesn't care about what's in descriptions... I defend his right to post art, but not art that can offend people. Not that it really offended me, but it's just not something I find appropriate, and there are ways around the filters, and obviously dA has rules in which people are not supposed to post those kinds of things, so he shouldn't have. I did enjoy his rant at the mod though. That takes balls. ;D Kudos to him for that.
|
|
|
Post by Loser7 on Feb 16, 2008 23:15:27 GMT -5
I don't remember what the tutorials were of, but if they were as innocent as suggested then certainly dA mods were being unfair and trageted him, and I don't think those deviations were fair to pull. Well for the 12 Tutorials I felt that was indeed unfair.. including tutorials that taught how to draw hair and hands.. But as for the other 7? Like I said, I'll be neutral there.. After all when it comes down to it.. more than 2/3rds of the supposed violations were for some sort of "Copyright Infringement" issue that dA has.. the other 1/3rd were more than likely for Inappropriate content. but what irks me is those 12 tutorials.. why them? they were not of an inappropriate content issue but rather more of a supposed Legal issue. I mean if we're not allowed to even consider drawing art using tutorials then how can we improve on what we draw? (After all I've found numerous other tutorials out there on the internet and they've been rather helpful improving the art.. but to ban a person for 2/3rd's of his work being Copyright infringements? Amazing.. That's what doesn't make sense here.. So I'm starting to think Levelord was solely targeted to make an example.. that if you do any KP art, you're possibly in danger of violating Copyrights ergo, in the end, you could be thus held for such.. I guess when you play by the rules, any KP art would be considered Copyright infringement violations.. even if it is an OC you created to put in the supposed KP universe.. that's what has me questioning the sanity of dA for that 2/3rds, that were removed. Tucsoncoyote-- Oh, I remember those tutorials! They were made by KP staff- not levelord, but he put them on his site for others to use because he said they had helped him. Perhaps that's where the copyright thing came from. Oh, and I'll respond to the above- I just need some time so be patient please. Responding takes effort.
|
|
|
Post by captainkodak1 on Feb 17, 2008 0:13:57 GMT -5
I would like to add this. Some of the argument has been that there have been pictures "children like she was kidnapped" around. There have been plenty of others I am sure. However, very few of these were of copyrighted material. Disney is well known for it's willingness to sue. DA may just be doing an old fashioned CYA. In these days where sueing people has become a way of life DA may just be protecting themselves. I will agree with FaZhou that the rules did change in midstream. And that caught several people off guard including myself, Lionheartcartoon and a number of other artists. We learned for the most part after several deletions were made.
But, now the rules have been posted. There has been enough discussion about the rules. The interpretations of those rules are pretty clear by several deletions. Yet, people continue to post art that should be considered in violation of the rules. Levelord continued to post pictures that were borderline. These pictures were of a character none of us own and have no control over. Altough the show portrayed Kim as a senior in the last season her age was never mentioned. During almost the entirety of the show she was a minor. I refer everyone to rule #12. Complain all you want but several of his pictures were in violation of that rule. I remember some of his pictures and they protrayed Kim as we knew her which is as a minor. Therefor some of his pictures were in violation of the rules. Heck, some of my pictures could be considered in that fashion. And if I lose them, well, yeah I'll be upset but I won't go out there and dare the mods to ban me or write tirades against the moderators. I did post something the last time I had something deleted. I now regret that action and I deleted the posting.
To wrap this posting up. There are good things and bad things going on at DA. This is not the first time a major KP artist has gotten their postings cleaned and it will not be the last time I am sure. Time will pass and everyone will move on. Lionheartcartoon did, I have and several others have. We learned to let it drop. How about joining us and lets move on?
|
|
|
Post by Dinogaby on Feb 17, 2008 0:22:32 GMT -5
The so called tutorials were pics like this one... That would be model sheets. That was what he uploaded on the Scraps section on his gallery. By uploading those model sheets on the Scraps section of the dA gallery, you don't necessarily claim that work is yours. In fact, Levelord never said that he drew those models sheets. That's why I think it's kind of unfair that they deleted those pics. He wasn't claiming them as he had drawn them, and the pics were indeed helpful to other artists who wanted to use them as reference. Now as for the rest of his pictures, I shall say that there are just too many different views on this to accept a single point of view as valid. I do believe that dA has become way too strict when it comes to regulate the mature content pics. Also, the conception of what it's "offensive and against the rules" may vary from one moderator to another. The big problem with fanart is, I guess, that it is a grey area. When does a pic become a REAL violation of the rule? That's the problem. It's not always easy to say when. And take for instance the discussion that takes place here. Some people were offended by Levelord's pics and some others were not. So, who is right and who is wrong? Being 100% impartial may be hard at times.
|
|
|
Post by Loser7 on Feb 17, 2008 0:28:57 GMT -5
I am arguing about sexism and this picture. Sexism is directly related to why I think this picture is offensive. Without acknowledging this I am ignoring my entire problem with these drawings. It would be like debating against slavery without discussing racism. It's very cohesive and relevant to the argument and necessary if that is our main problem with slavery. (I am not comparing slavery to this- I'm only making an analogy)
|
|
|
Post by Dinogaby on Feb 17, 2008 0:32:26 GMT -5
Also, I'd like to add...
Lev's banning is causing such controversy now! lol
Way to go Levelord! XD
|
|