You’re not answering my question. Scrubbing off picassos signature would be different, because it would destroy the physical artwork. I wouldn’t have a problem with someone digitally removing his signature from a digital copy of the artwork and then distributing that online.
How is that not ruining the art but removing Picasso’s signature would be? I agree art should be free but that doesn’t mean we should make it easier to steal from artists that should be getting paid even if their art is distributed for free.
If you posted a Picasso piece and went thru the extra steps to remove his signature even digitally & then post it it’s kinda like a ripoff, you’re just unnecessarily removing the credit from the person who actually did the work.
I didn’t say that removing picassos signature would not ruin the art. I said that physically destroying the artpiece is way different from copying a file and then modifying that copy. Copying digital art is not stealing. This mindset just enables stupid anti-piracy and copyright laws that will always harm the honest consumer
That has nothing to do with copyright, if you remove the signature of a famous Picasso art everyone will still know that is a Picasso art but from a random on the internet you’re just making things difficult for the artist to spread their work for NO FUCKING REASON. You’re having more work to just fuck an artist to gain absolute nothing.
It’s removing attribution of the make of the maker
in what way is this stealing?
Would you scrub picassos sign off one of his artworks? This is the same
You’re not answering my question. Scrubbing off picassos signature would be different, because it would destroy the physical artwork. I wouldn’t have a problem with someone digitally removing his signature from a digital copy of the artwork and then distributing that online.
How is that not ruining the art but removing Picasso’s signature would be? I agree art should be free but that doesn’t mean we should make it easier to steal from artists that should be getting paid even if their art is distributed for free.
If you posted a Picasso piece and went thru the extra steps to remove his signature even digitally & then post it it’s kinda like a ripoff, you’re just unnecessarily removing the credit from the person who actually did the work.
I didn’t say that removing picassos signature would not ruin the art. I said that physically destroying the artpiece is way different from copying a file and then modifying that copy. Copying digital art is not stealing. This mindset just enables stupid anti-piracy and copyright laws that will always harm the honest consumer
Wtf are you saying?
That has nothing to do with copyright, if you remove the signature of a famous Picasso art everyone will still know that is a Picasso art but from a random on the internet you’re just making things difficult for the artist to spread their work for NO FUCKING REASON. You’re having more work to just fuck an artist to gain absolute nothing.
posting a comic without the signature is stupid. its not wrong though and the poster is not morally obligated to spread the artists name
I disagree, if the art is good enough for them to share, surely the artists name is as well. Seems pretty cut and dry, morally.
Maybe people should be morally obligated to not do stupid things for no fucking reason.
Defending it when you could just not is also stupid
Attribution is not DRM
Removed by mod
Why would you allineate an artist from their work? Being recognised for what oneself makes is one of life’s pleasures