anyone else interested in organizing/taggers the philantropists/funders/commissioners?

For example SasaMisa who was behind some of the Madoc and Arabatos creations in Feb 2012.

These folk fly under the radar a lot of the time, but we should keep in mind that they aren't just purse-strings (like some anonymous subscriber to a monthly subscription, for example) but also idea-makers.

IMO this makes them artists as well, because they are part of the brainstorming process that goes into creating artwork too, which is why I would also like to credit them where possible.

Sometimes an artist might say in the pic itself (or in notes) who they did it for (unless it's desired to be anonymous)

Other times it might be subtler like the commissioner will upload a copy to their own account and say the artist who drew it.

I'm thinking to help organize them we could have a "commissioners" group (which is what I put SasaMisa in, and I'd like to add more) for historical purposes.

This seems a bit more specific than funder/philanthropist since those terms could also describe people who just give non-specific donations to artists (or subscribe) but without actually providing creative input on particular works.

The idea, much like when multiple artists work in tandem to create an image, is also to recognize the intellectual input from other people whom an artist acknowledges as contributing to a creation.

Credit people who paid money for porn? Fuck no.

zx29b said:
Credit people who paid money for porn? Fuck no.

More specific than that: the people who pay an artist in advance and help to design the work they pay for. Often so that it can be freely shared with the rest of us.

One artist policy (I forget whose) was a basic sketch was provided free and then after receiving the com they finished it, which seems like an interesting compromise. A good middle step from "free full stop" that beginners use, to "full fee before I begin" that the popular pros graduate to.

zx29b said:

Credit people who paid money for porn? Fuck no.

I agree. And I'm one of those people.

Ideas ain't shit. It's the execution that matters. Ideas are a dime a dozen. I don't need credit for the ideas I've come up with, those artists need credit for turning my ideas into art.

I'm sure there are some artists out there saying "I don't need credit for my art" but we still tag them anyway, because it could be important to others.

Although crediting the executors (artists) is the primary importance, co-crediting the commissioners seems harmless and helps inform.

It tends to be a common link of things when we look at multiple works a person commissions.

Although crediting the executors (artists) is the primary importance, co-crediting the commissioners seems harmless and helps inform.

It does not inform anyone of anything relevant to the image. Commissioners add nothing apparent to the art themselves and are thus of no interest to those who consume said art.

It does not inform anyone of anything relevant to the image.
Commissioners add nothing apparent to the art themselves
and are thus of no interest to those who consume said art.

It's of interest to me: I am a consumer of said art.

It is subtler since we're not talking about art styles, but commissioners often have ongoing ideas/memes in common between their commissions.

I can't see acknowledging commissioners as having a net decrease in commissions (if you don't want to be acknowledged then you just ask artist to credit you anonymously) only a net increase, which would be a good thing, because I want commissioners funding more art creations and keeping artists in the black.

It's of interest to me: I am a consumer of said art.

As a rule, I do not tell people on the other side of a discussion what they think, but since you are bringing up your own interests in the subject as a point of argument I will say that I rather strongly suspect that your interest in this topic lies solely in trying to advance the silly notion that a person who pays somebody else to do a thing is in fact performing a creative act. I frankly doubt that there is a single thing about any given commissioner that you appreciate that goes beyond the basic subject matter of the pieces that they bought. Nothing else of their input is apparent in the work.

It is subtler since we're not talking about art styles, but commissioners often have ongoing ideas/memes in common between their commissions.

This is really grasping at straws here. Commissioners of the images that we enjoy here have characters that they either like to imagine themselves as or like to imagine themselves fucking. They do not really have any ideas that anyone who looks at the image can even recognize.

I can't see acknowledging commissioners as having a net decrease in commissions (if you don't want to be acknowledged then you just ask artist to credit you anonymously) only a net increase, which would be a good thing, because I want commissioners funding more art creations and keeping artists in the black.

Commissioners buy porn for themselves, because they can. Kissing their asses does not give them any more expendable wealth to fulfill their fantasies digitally.

There's tons of people we can add special tags for: commissioner, colorist, decensor artist, screencap editors, translator, captionist, animator, uploader, superfan, the guy who brought snacks.

Where does it all end? Who's going to do the research to see who commissioned what, and then dig through the archive to credit all these VERY DESERVING PEOPLE for all they do? Meanwhile we have tons of images that aren't even properly tagged. Let's focus more on the 14k artist_request, 9k tagme, 5k charecter_request, and god knows how much images that were uploaded with one or two tags because the uploader couldn't even bother to do it.

...just my two cents...

junk719junk said:

There's tons of people we can add special tags for: commissioner, colorist, decensor artist, screencap editors, translator, captionist, animator, uploader, superfan, the guy who brought snacks.

We already have a field on the left for the uploader, and the last 2 are obvious jokes.

I already acknowledge colorists/decensorers/editors as artists, as I also do with animators. We've been doing that for caption-adders too though. Adding a copy of an image with just words added by some rando is a slippery slope IMO but if we are allowing them here may as well credit them.

Where does it all end? Who's going to do the research to see who commissioned what, and then dig through the archive to credit all these VERY DESERVING PEOPLE for all they do?

Whoever wants to. It's not like I'm saying make it mandatory. Just if you come across it and want to add it.

Adding a copy of an image with just words added by some rando is a slippery slope

And a "slippery slope" is a logical falacy unless you are able to establish a coherent chain of causality. Straight talk, brah, users love the Bad Belle stuff if the favorites that they get are any indication. Let it go already.

Just if you come across it and want to add it.

We don't.