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

  • Ace@feddit.ukEnglish
    482·
    17 hours ago

    This community is effectively unmoderated. There’s a single mod who is no longer active. So good luck asking for changes lol

      • abominable_panda@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
        2·
        5 hours 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
      4·
      13 hours ago

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

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    17·
    17 hours 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
        4·
        11 hours 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!

  • Windex007@lemmy.world
    42·
    12 hours ago

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

  • deliriousdreams@fedia.io
    121·
    18 hours 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
    3·
    16 hours 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.

  • username_1@programming.dev
    628·
    15 hours 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.