[ dammit ] [ com / pop / ani / fun ] [ gen / bitch / fff ] [ mur ] [ new ]

/bitch/ - Bitch.

Everything SUCKS
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)
Text Formatting:

'''bold''' = bold

''italic'' = italic

**spoiler** = spoiler

~~strikethrough~~ = strikethrough


File: 1425243722038.png (12.09 KB, 652x642, patreon-logo.png)

ID: f233b  No.783

So why do some people act like if an artist makes patreon exclusive porn or clean artwork then it's a grave injustice and a shady business practice where there stuff deserves to be leaked? Especially when most of the complainers would gladly pay the same artist way more for a commission?

ID: e8860  No.796

I know there's an artist who only allows commissions from patreons of a certain tier.

So you have to pay the patreon fee + commission price.

ID: 708b9  No.801

>why do some people act like if an artist makes patreon exclusive porn or clean artwork then it's a grave injustice and a shady business practice where there stuff deserves to be leaked?

Entitlement complex.

ID: f7b47  No.812

The artists have as much right to complain as any other business does when someone doesn't pay for their product and acquires it through other means.

That being said, potential customers are free to complain that when given product for free and now being asked to pay for it might not be too thrilled with the idea.

ID: 4b560  No.814

I'm more supportive of artists who do make Patreon content but still accept regular commissions, and/or post said Patreon content freely after a while, not forgetting that there are fans out there who appreciate their work but aren't financially capable of paying every month/week just to see their stuff.

Those who wipe their galleries and reduce them to nothing more than dumping ground for half-assed sketches and daily "SUPPORT ME ON PATREON!!!11!" journals, turn solely to the crowd with deep wallets while figuratively telling everyone else to fuck off, and going out of their damn way to make sure their precious Patreon content is never seen by anyone outside of their patrons? That's a real fucking shitty thing to do, and I'm disappointed to see that some artists I used to follow and commission went down that path.

ID: 005e8  No.818

File: 1425400188078.png (1.91 MB, 2000x1046, Krista_fancy dinner color.png)

>>814

This. Not everyone wants to/ are financially stable enough to support a paywall, especially when said paywall is done by an artist who art will only trickle their free gallery down to "BE A PATRON TO SEE MY STUFF!!!1!11" Hence why people have successfully collaborated to leak Patreon exclusive stuff, in retaliation to those who would not find a balance between Patreon exclusive stuff and free content/commission work and would rather try to be the next SexyFur/FAD/ect. I support this movement because this shady practice NEEDS to come to an end.

ALso, personal pet peeve, but free Patreon-only requests shouldn't be considered free when you're paying a monthly fee or paying per piece (compare it to "free" phone games before they were labeled freemium to avoid public deception).

Sadly that amongst other subpar stretch goals are what MANY Patreon owners do (hell, every Katbox artist do similar practices and half of them linger on this site as we speak so prepare for them to justify such shady practices like game journ… hmm, might be too early to compare those two factons for now).

ID: 5b8da  No.820

>>818
>I support this movement because this shady practice NEEDS to come to an end.

I agree! Down with artists getting paid for their work! Fuck those bastards, daring to try and actually afford food.

ID: 708b9  No.821

>>818

>in retaliation to those who would not find a balance between Patreon exclusive stuff and free content/commission work and would rather try to be the next SexyFur/FAD/ect. I support this movement because this shady practice NEEDS to come to an end.


Hey. Hey you. Listen.

You don’t have a right to view an artist’s output.

Stop acting like leaking Patreon-exclusive work makes you noble or defiant or whatever. It doesn’t. Neither does leaking art from the paysites or leaking commissioned art supposedly kept private between artists and patrons.

I agree that a paywall system makes for a shitty business model, and I would hope artists realize how limiting themselves to Patreon exclusives might hurt them in the long run. But I don’t fool myself into thinking an artist who releases new work near-exclusively through Patreon has committed some unspeakable crime for which ‘an act of justice’ (i.e. leaking their Patreon-exclusive work) becomes an honest-to-goodness response.

Why? Because I don’t have a right to view an artist’s output. And neither do you.

ID: e0615  No.822

>>818
yes yes, cause we already have artist who have scumbags who pledge at a tier level, grab all they can then leave, which in turn the artist go "fuck this" and proceed to close their patreon and then also proceed to fuck everyone else over by withholding content all together.

ID: 93159  No.823

I'm unclear on what happened to "Piracy is going to happen so you may as well just learn to live with it and not spend a lot of time ranting about it and calling the people who do it assholes".

Apparently using a particular payment processor completely changes this dynamic, somehow. Not sure why.

ID: 35de7  No.824

>>818

I've not seen or heard of any artists wiping ENTIRE preexisting galleries and putting all their work behind a paywall. I do see lots of artists putting out less artwork for free on galleries like FA, taking less commissions, ect. I saw the same outrage whenever artists were doing YCHs or Adoptables, calling it cheap and ripoffs.

Patreon pledges doesn't always equal a set amount you are guaranteed every month either.Payments can be refused by so called pledgers, whom may only actually pay once for content but then remained pledged for another 6 months while their account continuously denies payments. You also have a problem with pledgers backing out last minute. So even though I've heard lots of people bitch about how artists are abusing the system, I've seen just as many so called "supporters" do the same.

Considering the amount of free furry porn (or just porn in general) out there, it still surprises me how thirsty some people act for constant new content. If you don't like the business practices some artists use, don't support them. You shouldn't get salty if others do though, I mean it's not your money.

Hell speaking from experience,Skidd did an adult Patreon.Exclusives from the previous month were posted the following month. He still took commissions, posted lots of art from Doodle-streams and was putting out alot of content. Yet, people were still quite upset about him even having a Patreon.

ID: c480f  No.825

>>821

> Stop acting like leaking Patreon-exclusive work makes you noble or defiant or whatever.


Implying nobility was EVER an acknowledged factor. Doubt that was his or her intention.

Also, yeah, not all Patreon users are paywallers, but a good handful are and whose free activity mostly comprises of advertising for said Patreon and not much else. Most of that group are really popular users so news spreads faster than usual about the initiative. I've seen several users announce their concerns for when the artists will provide content for those who can't afford paying subscriptions to see content.

No one likes constant ads anywhere. Not on TV, not on Youtube, and not on art sites. :/

>>820
Artists need to eat? So do those who would like to donate but can't. Door swings both ways.

>>824
Last I checked, not all. Only a small handful did. The others? Only leaked. Also, he changed his practice and look, you two are making more than a thousand dollars on more than one Patreon now. See? You CAN make a Patreon successful without the need of a massive paywall and it shows that the actions taken by those who are bitter can change for the better.

People like you tell them to either deal with it or do something about it if it pisses you off, right? Well that reaction IS occurring. Dick move? Maybe, but one with results to back it and, and that ain't changing anytime soon. 2015's gonna be intriguing…

ID: 927fb  No.827

>>825
>>So do those who would like to donate but can't

Are you saying that, because some people can't afford to donate, they deserve to get to see the art? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying.

>>People like you tell them to either deal with it or do something about it if it pisses you off, right? Well that reaction IS occurring. Dick move? Maybe, but one with results to back it and, and that ain't changing anytime soon


In other words, if an artist decides to put their art behind a paywall and it pisses you the fuck off, you should steal that shit and spread it?

ID: 7885b  No.831

>>825
>Artists need to eat? So do those who would like to donate but can't. Door swings both ways.

and yeah that's sad but that just means that they don't see it. You could apply this logic with actual groceries. Sure someone might want some milk and eggs but just because they don't have money to get it doesn't make it alright to steal the milk and eggs because they think they deserve and should get it regardless

ID: cfcb5  No.833

>>823

Seconding this. I find it surprising to see everyone get all defensive over Patreon artists and calling leaking of their content "theft", when not so long ago, on the old site, you all used to defend the practice and Freehaven even stated "piracy is not theft, it's duplication of content" over and over.

Another thing I'd like to point out (and for which I might get banned, but what the hell), if someone was leaking Patreon stuff from the artist you guys dislike you'd be laughing at the artist and supporting the act.

ID: 00e0a  No.834

>>833
>Another thing I'd like to point out (and for which I might get banned, but what the hell), if someone was leaking Patreon stuff from the artist you guys dislike you'd be laughing at the artist and supporting the act.

Mm. Maybe?

I dunno, we never really "laughed our asses off" at Naylor's pay content getting posted that I can recall (largely because he never particularly seemed to care so it would be kind of silly to act like it was getting one over on him). Actually I repeatedly told people to not do it… not out of any moral reason, I was just tired of looking at it. I can't recall it ever bringing me particular joy that it was getting reposted period… especially since it was usually snagged from some other board first, so it's not like our posting it or not posting it particularly contributed to its spread.

It is kind of funny seeing Bernal's stuff get pirated, but mostly for his ridiculous and overaggressive reactions to it, not for "Ha ha you got your stuff pirated". It's sort of like Chris-chan in that respect… a lot of what trolls do to him isn't very funny on its own, but his reactions to it can be hilarious.

ID: 708b9  No.838

>>833

I’m in a shitty mood and I’d normally make a reply like this long and drawn-out and full of bullshit to make my point a bit better, but I’m keeping it short and sweet tonight.

Piracy is not theft. Artists need to be prepared for piracy. A paywall-only business model sucks ass.

Now I'm gonna flip it around.

Artists have the legal right of content distribution. They have the right to only show their work to their patrons. People who break the trust of being one of those patrons and leak content—regardless of why they leaked it—are assholes.

I can both believe piracy is an inevitability and believe the people who carry it out in the service of self-entitlement or spite or whatever are assholes.

There. Done.

ID: 5b87d  No.843

>>814

Although it's been slow going on my own Patreon, I've been trying to do it the same way. It even got me doing comics again (or at least talking about doing comics again, anyway). It's more work than usual, doing Patreon-only stuff (that goes elsewhere after a while) along with the usual trades/commissions/other stuff that I do, but it's worth it and, most importantly, fun.

The ones that strip down their galleries on other sites and go "Patron up on my Patreon to see ALL my stuff"? Yeah… that's spitting in the faces of the those that have supported them or have been their fans for so long in those other places. It's sad to see some artists go down that road.

ID: e8860  No.866

There's an artist who holds Patreon streams for his $25 and up patrons, with commissions in those streams starting at $50.

What some people are doing with their Patreons would make a Ferengi proud.

ID: e8860  No.970


ID: 005e8  No.1044

http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/aboutpaidcontent/

Sort of reeks of art Patreon influence. Funny how some Patreon supporters are riled up about it.

ID: e0615  No.1051

>>1044
just valve and the developer takes the bigger cut, though in the end
they gotta put in rules and guidelines on what deserve it and what doesnt

ID: ef8d6  No.1052

They take 75%. Hell, McDonalds only takes about 13% for opening a franchise.

Modders are getting fucked up the ass if they take this deal.

ID: aecfc  No.1053

>>1052


If the modders have a strong, devoted fanbase, then cuts like that won't be a problem if there is an immense bulk.

Patreon takes a cut, too, AND requests personal information for their monetary policies. Has that stopped artists and caused people to boycott? Given the thousands artists make when asking for large pledges on a monthly or per-picture basis, absolutely not.

Hell, with people like Garry Newman approve of this, well, history is bound to repeat itself. It's only a matter of time before the Steam Workshop becomes the Patreon of the PC gaming community… cheers to influence!

ID: 3b002  No.1055

Not really sure how the whole Steam Mod deal is Patreon's fault.

ID: a84f9  No.1056

>>1055

I think it's more about having another venue to support artists/modders with. Different places to send credit info to, or perhaps having to rely on steam itself to dictate what's worth putting up.

After all, some patreon content are to support projects and I wouldn't be surprised if some of those projects were game related.

ID: a84f9  No.1058


ID: 35155  No.1059

I saw a good analogy for this. Imagine if you are selling Lemonaid that you made for a dollar a glass. And even though you already bought the lemons, you have to pay 75 cents to the Farmer on each glass you sell.

ID: 9889f  No.1060

>>1059

Except apparently Valve wasn't taking 75%, it was taking 30%, and the 75% was basically made up by people trying to encourage the freakout.

ID: 35155  No.1061

>>1060
well valve was taking 30, Bethesda was taking 45%.The modder was still doing all the work, responsible for all the liability and advertising, and was still keeping only 25%.

They bought the original product, people already bought the original to use their product. It is totally non-competitive with the original. The only service being provided by valve is the database to share the product and the monetization vehicle for it. They deserve a cut, but nearly a third? That's crazy.

As for bethesda…their product has already been paid for. They take almost half of the sale because…

ID: e0615  No.1062

>>1060
still more than the 25% the modder gets…

ID: 93159  No.1063

>>1062

The modder splits the remaining amount with the people who made the game.

Y'know. The one they wouldn't be able to make mods for without?

>>1061
>The modder was still doing all the work

Nnnooooo I'm still betting the people that made the game did more work.

>They take almost half of the sale because…


Because without their permission the modder makes nothing.

Like now.

ID: 214b3  No.1064

>>1061

Ya know I got no problem with paid content from modders. Some people have made some amazing mods, better than the games themselves sometimes.

I do have a problem however, with the way Steam planned to run it. Even when they had it up, garbage overpriced mods began to flood the store. Just like Steam Greenlight, the customer has no idea if what they get is working or will be completed. Just like Steam Greenlight, there is no quality control.

I've got no problem with a paid mod system, but Steam's businees model of "let the community sort it out" I can do without.

ID: 42424  No.1065

>>1063
So, If I make a video on a sony camcorder, and edit it on sony vegas, both of which I purchaced in full, I still owe sony 45% of any revinue from any copies of the finished product I sell?

ID: 6c0c6  No.1066

>>1065

If your video wouldn't play without the Sony equipment and you were going to charge admission for it then yes I think Sony would probably be entitled to a cut if they decided they wanted it, considering that they could otherwise tell you either not to charge at all or that you weren't even allowed to make the video in the first place.

Stop being a whiny entitled little bitch.

ID: 6c0c6  No.1067

>>1064

By the way, just to point out that by this logic, movie theaters shouldn't get a cut of the proceeds from movies they show, considering that they're not the ones who made the movies.

Considering that I didn't see any outrage from you about >>/pop/368 that seems kinda hypocritical, doesn't it?

ID: 5b84e  No.1068

>>1066
I'm not saying that them asking for a cut is wrong. 10% or 15% for licencing and distribution is perfectly reasonable. I'm not against paid mods either. I take issue that the deal that they "offered" was basically extortion.

ID: 6c0c6  No.1069

>>1068

Extortion happens when someone forces you to give them money or bad things happen to you.

Considering that it was completely up to the modders to decide whether or not and what to charge for their mods, you can't say they were being extorted. You can say they might not have been getting the best deal, but extortion is ridiculous.

For that matter, I find it interesting just how little of the blame fell on the modders, considering that it was still 100% their choice whether or not to charge for their mods and how much to do so. I suppose deflecting the anger towards the companies and trying to make it about the percentages keeps it from sounding too much like "How dare you not give it to us for free?!"

Look I'm not saying the whole system wasn't handled and implemented badly, and I'm not even sure if there's a way to implement it well. What I do know is that the reaction to it… with the tantrums, declarations of the End of Gaming, outright lies, and then the smug teabagging in the aftermath, have not done a whole lot for the image of gamers everywhere. For a good long while now we've been fighting an image war, trying to fight depictions of gamers as a bunch of spoiled manchildren throwing fits online… and then this. Thank fuck 'Ghazi is probably too stupid to pounce on this, because it's probably the biggest example yet that, yes, sometimes gamers are unreasonably hostile to devs and sometimes yes, they are entitled little shits.

ID: e0615  No.1070

>>1063
thats understandable as the person would have to buy the game before they could buy the mod if said person optioned to have the mod to get bought, with the person who made the mod had to also too buy and use the game to mod it.

Then people pointed out "whats actually stopping a person from buying said mod, copying the mod files since those are stored in your steam folder and then getting a refund as that system allows for such a thing.

I just think it was implemented badly overall as my only focus was folks who when they mod the game did total conversions or did significant modding that the game improved or changed being the primary folks who would benefit the most from such a system.

ID: aef46  No.1076

>>1069

Yeah, extortion wasn't the word I was thinking of. It was Gouging. my bad.

In regards to the "entitled shithead" thing, yeah gamers did not put their best foot forward here. nobody did. Everybody had shitty reactions and developers. content creators, and distributors alike would do best to move forward.

Like I said. I would have no problem paying for mods. I have before. I just want to make sure that nobody is getting unnessicarily screwed here.

ID: 93159  No.1137

Another trend I'm starting to see:

>So hey I know I dropped off the face of the Earth without a word like half a year ago

>But donate to my Patreon and regular updates will totes resume

ID: 40f4a  No.1139

For me, I figure a few things

1) if I don't like your art enough to look at the free stuff to start with, why would I donate to you?

2) you are not "owed" money just because you drew a bunch of unsolicited art and posted it online. Instead of trying to sell a product, too many furry artists are acting as if they deserve this cash because they were born. It's an elitist egotistical bullshit mentality that makes me turn away from them- often done by taking art that used to be free and moving it behind a paywall. You are not Leonardo da Vinci, you draw furry porn that resembles thousands of other furry porn drawings I can get for free. Stop acting like you're the most important person on Earth. If I wanted that type of self-masturbatory garbage, I'd go listen to Eminem.

3) Lots of people who use Patreon don't have this mentality, it seems really prevalent amongst furries. Many Youtube people have Patreons and even use them to fund making new videos, yet they still give free access to the videos anyway. Patrons might get early access or some level of exclusive content, but they're not pulling this elitist "I'm owed" crap about it and making you pay for even basic stuff.

ID: 3b002  No.1266

So apparently there's a patreon leak site that's been getting popular, and they dox people, posting their real names, phone numbers and email addresses if they file a DMCA

ID: 69c7e  No.1267

File: 1438884932259.png (197.05 KB, 512x384, another-simpsons-clip-show….png)

>>1266

The fuck…?

That's some oldschool Sibe-style bullshit.

ID: 39e6e  No.1268

>>1266
>they dox people, posting their real names, phone numbers and email addresses if they file a DMCA

AFAIK when you file a DMCA you have to enter your oersonal information. But yeah, this person isn't censoring that info when posting copy-pastes of DMCA notices makes them look like a fucking scumbag, no matter how whiny those who sent takedown requests may be.

ID: 71182  No.1269

>>1268
That's because, no matter how why the artist sending the DMCA may seem, the guy posting them is a fucking scumbag!

If you don't like Patreon, don't donate. If it's an artist you like and you think it's unfair, don't donate. Sure, every now and then, there's going to be an asshole who decides that they, or everyone, "deserves" to get for free the content artists put behind a paywall. Don't be that asshole.

ID: e0615  No.1270

>>1269
not to mention some patreons the art that gets posted there…gets released later on to folks to see or they give non donators the line work and patreon colour.

ID: 96529  No.1271

One of the artists whose stuff got leaked made a good point aimed at those throwing a fit about that site leaking their content:

Anyone relying solely on Patreon as their source of income is pants on head retarded. Patreon is a tip jar service, not a fucking paysite. I remember even one artist saying they quit their job so they can focus on dishing out art on Patreon. Real smart move there, champ.

Not to mention the biggest irony; alot of the artists are breaking Patreon's TOS by posting NSFW art there.

>>1270

Those kinds of folks aren't that prevalent among furry artists. A lot of them seem to think that hiding all of their art behind a paywall will somehow net them more followers, and thus more cash. Also, among those few that do post their patreon content for free, about 50% of them still plaster Patreon logos all over the image, in order to force people to pledge on their Patreon to see the uncensored image.
Greed is quite prevalent among popufur artists.

ID: e0615  No.1273

>>1271
actually they ARENT breaking Patreon's tos due to several artist have asked patreon and patreon was very SPECIFIC on the NSFW being NOT ACTUAL PEOPLE PORN.

Drawn? Ok thats fine, Actual porn? no…noooo

also…

Greed is prevalent in people in GENERAL, it does not have to be money itself, but a greed for something…like folks flipping their shit when folks rather get paid for artwork than doing it for free…
That is a form of greed itself

ID: 69c7e  No.1274

>>1271
>I remember even one artist saying they quit their job so they can focus on dishing out art on Patreon

People are way too eager to do this nowadays, and it was happening even before Patreon. I think it was webcomics that started this craze, with the whole "I quit my job to work on the webcomic full time since I'm getting good donations/merch sales."

I remember when Fenoxo got a bug up his ass to do the same thing, quit his job and work on CoC fulltime. Everyone was like "No, dude, don't do it, the income from donations isn't a sure enough thing" but he was all "NO I'M GONNA".

ID: 71182  No.1275

File: 1439125830461.jpg (142.04 KB, 500x500, lazy-rayco.jpg)

>>1271
I'm glad the artist I like who does stuff on Patreon doesn't do that crap. His Patreon sketches get released later, as such, to the public. For him, what Patreon gets you is the ability to request b/w (or very simple color, see attached) sketches– of your characters, of his, of whatever. And his is quite inexpensive.

ID: e0615  No.1276

seems Donro/monglor is cashing in on this to do cause problems on FA as they made an account specifically to just upload art that suppose to be on patreons :V

Really at this point its just spot the account that has the word "Gote" in it…

ID: 71182  No.1277

>>1276
>Donro/Monglor being an asshole

Surprise, surprise! He always did go in for the "extreme trolling" stuff, AKA Sibe: "Fuck people over as hard and as badly as you can, because it's hilarious when I fuck someone up that badly!"

ID: e0615  No.1304

I seen folks complaining about artist but what about THIS Person?

https://www.patreon.com/Echoen?ty=h

literally they are going "give me money so I can commission stuff I want for YOU to enjoy"

also in other news Kayla-na was once again bombarded by bots used on her patreon. Due to how Patreon work, if you pledge a certain amount of money it wont be immediately taken from you. This led her to being 2-3k a month to 2.7m a month. Patreon have since fixed this and actually now looking into how to prevent such a thing from happening again.

ID: fbfcb  No.1305

File: 1440653894551.jpg (765.51 KB, 648x1000, Hooters Girl Shana PATR ed….jpg)

I don't paywall up any of my stuff on Patreon. If I do, it's for the super-NSFW stuff I have to make patron-only due to rules (and even then it's happened once in a blue moon).

>>1275

What this guy is doing sounds a lot like what I'm doing. I like that.

ID: dd2e0  No.1327

My complete content is released on the same day as my patreon. I don't even hold thing back awhile.

The reason I created my Patreon was for those who wanted to support me in making animations, the only content exclusive to my patreon is basically making of content, the final product is always released to the public.

Now, I know piracy is something that will happen even with content that's basically unfinished, there's not really much I can do about that, as people will always find a way if they haven't the means. And in a way I find it flattering people are interested in my work so much, so it doesn't really bother me it happens.

However, the people who pledge only to not pay is were the real issue starts. The fact that Patreon gives access to all the content at a promise seems rather dumb. Why not have the supporter pay on pledging and then give the earning to the creator at the start or end of every month?
Of the 9 people I thought were showing support, only 3 seem like they will actually pay.

My first month using patreon has not been the best experience (my fault, I should have looked into this more carefully), which is a kick to the teeth in some aspects. Like I said before my finished content is released free for everyone.

https://vimeo.com/137968108
https://vimeo.com/137969010

ID: e0615  No.1328

>>1327
thats mostly cause patreon change the system, before if you pledged a certain amount it would be withrdrawn right away, but if you are above this certain amount the person didnt have to pay till the charging period. This is often why some folks who run patreon dont upload anything till AFTER folks get charged and they upload via a third party like dropbox.

ID: d6e33  No.1341

I found a very easy solution (at least for my stuff) to avoid piracy problems but offer a legit incentive to sign up. I do art on stickers that are small enough to be mailed, send them to patrons and then post all of them publicly once a month in a compilation. People get real, physical art. Fans still get to see everything I make. I've heard of other artists sending out mini comics and other physical goods that can be easily mailed. I dunno, I thought it was a neat way to avoid many of the major pitfalls discussed here.

ID: a84f9  No.1346


One of the patreons I pledge for does something else, a token system.

If you pledge a certain amount, the amount pledged also goes towards a sort of credits system. So in addition to patreon content, the backers can exchange their tokens for stuff like commission discount vouchers, or even a rule free art gift.

Also, tokens are lost if you drop your pledge. So best bet is to put it towards a $1 pledge to keep them, then raise the pledge to at least the minimum amount to earn them again.

ID: a65b6  No.1347

A couple of artists I know casually have said they've received a notice from Patreon that the days of delayed pledging are numbered, and "soon" (no specific date) all pledges will be instantenous. This has the unfortunate side-effect of requiring you pay for a full month even if you pledge after the 1st. (I can't imagine they'll change when pledges are collected to a different day for everyone.)

ID: 57bd4  No.1348

>>1347
hmmm it would be fine enough, just you are right about the billing dates.

Though it probably gonna be more time as patreon have been "working" on this for actually months

ID: 2c428  No.1349

So apparently there are quite a few artists that are sending rewards to the people whose payments have been accepted through PMs now

ID: 57bd4  No.1350

>>1349
well its about the same how some actually manually email each person after being billed

ID: f2a6a  No.1901

>watching someone's Patreon
>all they're doing is reposting their old free art which they have previously deleted from their online galleries
>new pics are coming out at a snail's pace, once every few months
>they still have lots of supporters

Someone tell me why people like this thrive on Patreon?

ID: 30e46  No.1902

>>1901
>using an example of a shitty artist doing patreon

cause not all artist are that shitty…
Most actually do post their stuff for free, just those who are their supporters get the original files, contribute to the next pic via ideas

ID: 84034  No.1903

>>1902

Not deriding all Patreon artists, mind you. There are some I wholeheartedly support, but what makes me baffled is that the ones like the example above seem to thrive and make some big dosh, despite their Patreon being 99% reposts of old free art they did (and subsequently removed from Internet), and 1% actual new content.

ID: 30e46  No.1904

>>1903
Oh…then thats a different thing
we already experience such a thing well before patreon of which fans of an artist will just eat anything from said artist even if its the same picture 10 times but with different characters….

ID: d0649  No.1905

Patreon's latest TOS change is going to affect so many of it's users now….since it forbids content and rewards using intellectual property that you don't own.

https://www.patreon.com/legal

We restrict some types of content and rewards. You cannot:

Create content or rewards using intellectual property you do not own or do not have written permission to use.

You may only post content that you own or have permission to use. You may not post content that infringes on a third party’s intellectual property or proprietary rights.

ID: 30e46  No.1906

>>1905
oddly that rule was ALREADY there
they just now clarified it more

ID: 30e46  No.1907

update on that ToS

Patreon sorta dont care, but it means "we'll automatically side with the copyright owner if they DMCA your damn ass"

ID: 15266  No.1908

>>1907

Which means anyone with a bone to pick with certain Patreon artists can file a fake DMCA pretending to be the company owning the IP that's being used.

It's totally not gonna be abused at all, no siree.

ID: b8424  No.1951

>>1905
They have yet to enforce this. Artists are still filling their galleries of derivative works porn but are not getting shut down for it.

Basically it's like the "no uncensored porn" rule on Pixiv- it's on the books but not really acted on. Japanese artist(some anyway, not all) abide by it because of the country's idiotic censorship laws but no one else does(perhaps as people are still being prosecuted for breaking it, Japan is rather draconian, not that you can be otherwise when Nintendo makes your copyright laws). I see plenty of uncensored porn on pixiv.



Delete Post [ ]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ dammit ] [ com / pop / ani / fun ] [ gen / bitch / fff ] [ mur ] [ new ]