Already discussed yesterday
https://lemmy.world/post/44948340 with 1,200 votes.
Already discussed yesterday
https://lemmy.world/post/44948340 with 1,200 votes.
and OP didn't credit it π
This has got to be peak irony.
Ha I hadnt even noticed! I saw so many uncredited posts recently I didnt think it was already discussed. Obviously didn't bother searching either. My mistake xD
Tbf I didnt even post this for credit. I just wanted to kickstart a discussion but looks like its already got traction on the other post so im happy
Yikes! I caught myself making the assumption that this was an "official" mod's post in response to the existing discussion...
From what I understand there's only one mod here, and they have been MIA for awhile. It's unlikely we are going to see an official mod response.
Imo anyone caught removing credits should get banned
Yes, absolutely.
Yes, absolutely.
Yes. Unfortunately, proving intentionality in smaller cases than beep may be difficult. But it's useful as something to lean back on when it's obvious/egregious like their case.
First step would be enforcing the existing rules lime two posts per day per user, imo.
Just say that if it doesnβt have a watermark the poster has to provide a link to the original.
That's perfectly logical, and I agree entirely.
The issue lies in the problem user OP is trying to address with this rule. Beep has stated that they won't consistently attribute sources until the community implements the rule they want enforcing that users strip attribution out of the image itself: https://lemmus.org/comment/17161116
Hooray dumb internet drama!
I think that deliberately removing credits should be against the rules but if they try to link back to the artist to give attribution in the event that the comic has already had attribution removed I would be okay with that so long as the rest of the work is intact. The individual who's been shown to be using AI to remove watermarks and artist signatures really ought to receive a suspension or something both for their ridiculous post rate (far exceeding the new rule about 2 posts per day), and also because they admit to removing attibution on purpose.
I have strong opinions on the matter
You should look up the credit first. Has the credit similiar works? Then leave the credit untouched.
If there are no results, then someone else might be trying to "steal" the works and want to sell as their own.
Only in verified cases you should remove the incorrect credits and add the correct ones.
I actually think it's morally correct to strip stone toss or Scott Adam's names from thier works.
Or just don't post them to begin with
I don't think it's morally correct to remove their names. People have the right to know who the artist is.
There's the old question, can you separate the art from the artist? Everyone is going to have a different opinion, and for those that say no; sharing a comic without saying who it's from doesn't allow them to decide "that's a Scott Adams comic, fuck that guy".
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
π Be Nice!
ποΈ Community Standards
𧬠Keep it Real
π½οΈ Credit Where Credit is Due
π Post Formatting
π¬ Post Frequency/SPAM
π΄ββ οΈ Internationalization (i18n)
SΓ, por favor [Spanish/EspaΓ±ol]πΏ Moderation
The following artists are banned from the community.
It should be noted that when you make reports, it is your responsibility to provide rational reasoning why something should be removed. Saying it simply breaks community rules is not always good enough.
Note: This is not a rule, but a helpful suggestion.
When posting images, you should strive to add alt-text for screen readers to use to describe the image you're posting:
Another helpful thing to do is to provide a transcription of the text in your images, as well as brief descriptions of what's going on. (example)