As the title.

Should there be a new rule added where intentional removal of credits and watermarks from other peoples works be deleted?

Only thing i can think against it is if the original artist isn’t known. Usually someone in the comments finds it though

      • abominable_panda@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        17·
        2 days ago

        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

    • TheV2@programming.dev
      8·
      3 days ago

      Yikes! I caught myself making the assumption that this was an “official” mod’s post in response to the existing discussion…

      • Pika@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        1 day ago

        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.

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    25·
    3 days ago

    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.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
        10·
        3 days ago

        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!

  • deliriousdreams@fedia.io
    171·
    3 days ago

    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.

  • c0dezer0@programming.dev
    4·
    3 days ago

    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.

  • Windex007@lemmy.world
    64·
    3 days ago

    I actually think it’s morally correct to strip stone toss or Scott Adam’s names from thier works.

    • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
      3·
      2 days ago

      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”.

  • username_1@programming.dev
    936·
    3 days ago

    No? Why? The best thing with rules is to have as few rules as possible. Your proposition adds the rule but does not improve user experience. Bad rule.

      • FelixCress@lemmy.world
        18·
        2 days ago

        Is your name “a community”? I for one don’t care either way. I can always ask an OP if I want to know who created a strip I liked if a signature is missing.

        • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
          41·
          2 days ago

          Yes, I solely represent the entire community and we all agree on this topic.

          Or, and this is even crazier, I saw the many threads where Beep was downvoted to shit and berated because of this, and I’m able to summarize that information.

          But no, that can’t be right because it means you’re not the center of the universe. It must be that first one.

          • FelixCress@lemmy.world
            23·
            2 days ago

            But no, that can’t be right because it means you’re not the center of the universe. It must be that first one.

            According to you, it is yourself who is the centre. Go figure 🙄

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              31·
              2 days ago

              I’m not sure that aggregating other people’s data and then summarizing it counts as me being self-centered. But maybe I just don’t understand how that word works.

    • PapaStevesy@lemmy.world
      132·
      3 days ago

      “Only rules that make it more fun are allowed!” Ok toddler-elected-mayor, good luck with that shit.

      • username_1@programming.dev
        516·
        3 days ago

        “Who cares about fun? We are here for more arbitrary reasons to ban!” Ok, fascist-toddler-mayor, good luck with that shit.