Does file-sharing demand a new economic model? (long)

Great Debates
101

Exactly Pervert. Thanks, you said it better than I. Another thing to keep in mind is that payments might be scaled differently for different usage’s of a work. For a quote or a song, a smaller payback would be fine if one isn’t buying the whole e-book or album. A good idea, as in a quote from an e-book, might get $.01 per copy. Now if it gets copied only a few times as if for home use, it amounts to at least a tacit acknowledgement of someone’s authorship. But if I use that person’s quote in a widely published article for either a major magazine, or something a million people copy off of the web, that comes out to $10,000 for one quote of their useful idea. Occasionally, that little bit might make more income than the sale of the complete work.

Hopefully though, it would help promote the complete work, which would usually generate much greater income. A song that someone copies and puts online might be worth .03 or .05 as opposed to a quote as it presumably costs more to produce in the recording proceses.

Better yet, (magically waves hands) if there were an altruistic reason for my saying ‘Hey! I sampled this quote from Yosemitebabe for my article!” from her book, which is not as easily copied as something digitally stored, and she gets her small scale payment from each of my sales, then she benefits more than my simply giving her credit in a footnote. I see this as an appeasement to the information-should-be-shared way of thinking by suggesting that if there is a reasonable valued added to the sharing, that will encourage innovation even more. And shared in different media as well.

In either case, digital based work or not, to take this one step further, if someone re-uses my work with Yosemitebabe’s quote, she might still get a smaller payment of .0055 USD from that persons work. The idea here is to both compensate a works originator using even more resources down the line than what we can now draw some income from, and at the same time, to scale smaller payments for additional reuses, it helps to put well received ideas into the public domain sooner than they are at this point. Paying out tenths or even hundreths of a penny is practically free. Yet a million re-uses of Yosemitebabe's quote at .0055 nets her a cool $5500.

Now, Gyan9, if information is free, then howz’about you share your bank account number with us, and perhaps a credit card or two? C’mon, don’t be holding out on us friend, it’s only information, just numbers on a page… :stuck_out_tongue:

Here’s my problem with what you’re saying: A person invests several thousands of hours training themselves and producing a work that is based on ideas and the development of those ideas. They spend several thousands of dollars on the overhead it takes to produce their work, musical equipment, art supplies, a machine shop, whatever tools are required for making those ideas something concrete that people can touch, see, listen to. To go to all that effort, to simply have someone else copy that song, or, pick up that painting and walk off with it, or, have a friend reverse engineer the invention and produce as many copies as they wish with their much larger machine shop, all for free after buying one unit, doesn’t compensate the author / innovator.

The artist or innovator needs a roof over their head, bread on the table, braces for the kids’ teeth. Where does it come from if the ideas are just given away? Without the idea, there is nothing to work from.

You can give people at random the same art supplies, or musical equipment or a film crew as the artist has and tell them “create something that people are likely to enjoy”. You can give a thousand monkeys a typewriter. But the only people that will create something valid with those resources are those that have the ideas, the intellectual moxie, to do so. You can’t separate the idea from the effort to produce the original work. It’s one and the same. Nor can you make a workable computer chip without both the fabrication plant and the intellectual know-how to create the chip’s architecture. We’re talking about a lot more effort than a few hours modifying a code or researching a Wikopedia entry.

Specifically, please, how does your model get around this problem?

102

Fine. You post yours, I’ll post mine :rolleyes:

Huh. The figure varies wildly depending on the activity, resources, talent and motivation. Like Sam Stone earlier pointed out, audio creation tools have gotten cheap enough as to remove certain level of barriers that existed earlier. With time, they’ll only get cheaper.

Did you even read what I’m suggesting? Picking up a painting is not allowed in my system.

And just an idea is worthless. The idea has to be implementable. Do you seriously think that all ideas or even most ideas are original to the copyright holders? Hardly, circumstances matter more. A peasant kid in a 3rd world country might think of a new plot but because of resources or circumstances, can’t write a story and distribute it. Someone else in the developed world, might think of the same idea independently 3 years later but he CAN and DOES implement it. Now, this new guy has the copyright. The kid and others like him who might have independently come up with the same idea earlier can’t now commercially use it themselves. My point is there are very very few “original” out-of-the-box ideas. Most ideas emerge due to circumstances of society and progress, not due to an independent spark.

103

It means that not all mediums are used the same way. A software “artist” has very little in common with the little old lady who does watercolors on location. Or the poet. Or the person who writes science fiction stories.

Funny, I seem to keep on being given examples of software being shared when these discussions come up. It usually seems to be software.

I never have yet seen an example of a bunch of authors making a living by “sharing” each others’ work, or a bunch of visual artists, or what have you. In fact, a little research on my part has found that visual artists and authors seem to be pretty vehemently against the idea that all information should be “free.” Of course, it is entirely possible that I missed something. Want to give me a reputable cite that indicates that a significant portion of authors or artists want their work to all be “free”? Because that would be very enlightening.

So, do you think that a small one-page web site could contain so much information that the visitors would clamour for a book? Huh?

Of COURSE that ain’t the site.

I have several sites, and all have copyright information. One specifically has big large bold letters telling people to not take the graphics. But people do, on a regular basis.

And when confronted with the fact that it’s not free, what do they do? Get very angry and claim that they’ll take more than ever. Because how dare those uppilty artists try to assert their rights?

Could you show me examples of some visual artists or authors who can afford to work fulltime on “free” information?

Huh? I’ve never heard of an artist who doesn’t have some sketches or Photoshop work or something. Art is in their blood and they’re always involved in some project. Are you an active artist or what? Since you stopped working in your uncle’s studio, what kind of creative projects have you been working on? Surely you’ve been doing something artistic—some paintings, or renderings or something, right? :confused:

104

So your lack of substance in that statement means you can’t figure out a reasonable arguement against it?

If a system can be devised that allows it be free and rewards the good artists why shouldn’t it be free? Granted the system I in part proposed includes a tax but I think it’s pretty good.

105

I see, so your saying you think it will happen, but don’t agree with it?

Counterfiting would be better thought of as identity theft. Since money (Our money atleast) repreasents trust in the US goverment. In countries with gold backed money I would link counterfiting with fraud. Just for the record I would call copieing someones work without giving them credit bad also (plagerism).

106

Just incase there is anyone is dout I consider indentity theft, and fraud bad too.

107

Because, anyone with a computer can make software. A 16 year old in Peru or a 38 year old in US. It just demonstrates that useful practical things can come out of such a system.

What does that even mean? A painting just is. What does sharing even mean in such a context? Inspiration? How do music genres or art movements take root?

One confusion that I’ve noticed here and I need to repeat this again, is that you people assume that in my system, people can appropriate work willy-nilly. No. Credit is preserved and acknowledged. And the information isn’t forced to be released. If you figure out something on your own, you aren’t forced to divulge your private thoughts. If you make a new gadget, you aren’t forced to reveal the workings. Just that you can’t STOP others from using their own minds to guess the workings and then using those guesses to make/see their own gadgets.

Art that is created for art’s sake has little to none commercial benefit for most creators. For every best-selling author or Pulitzer winner, there are literally thousands of writers who can’t get anything published. Fat help their non-free information is for them. In fact, if people were allowed to read their work, some of them might get commissioned to work.

And this stolen work is used commercially? Do you have a system in place to allow these thiefs to legally license your work?

Not if they’re working on their own time and the information has no role to play in a tangible form.

I’m not an artist who happened to work in 3D. I was a 3D animator who got interested in the artistic aspect. Unfortunately, I didn’t own a computer, so I couldn’t do anything at home. I suck at traditional drawing. And it’s hardly my right to use my uncle’s billable time, working out my artsy fantasies. I’ve recently gotten access to one of my university’s media labs. On my site, I’ve already dedicated an area for 3D renders. If you’re still interested, have a look at the end of the third week of Jan, I’ll have something up. I’ve a concept in mind. I need to refresh my skills and learn the new features, but that shouldn’t take much time.

108

That doesn’t really answer my question. Anyone can use a computer to create art in Photoshop. Anyone can use a computer to write a novel in Word. So why aren’t all these people “sharing” their work for free?

Someone could take a part of someone else’s painting and make it into a collage. Someone could re-write someone else’s novel and change the ending.

Can you give me a cite that shows that a substantive amount of writers or visual artists are welcoming to the idea that all their works should be “free”?

So what? They still should get to have control over their stuff. And who knows? Maybe after many years, they’ll be “discovered.” It’s up to them how and when their work is shown.

They can do that now. They can “give away” their work for free, kind of like I’ve “given away” stuff on my website. There’s nothing stopping a person from doing that under current laws. The only thing is, no one else is allowed to give their work away for them. Only they have the right to make that choice.

Not that I’ve seen, at least not so much. I’ve seen a few so-called “pro” sites steal my art (steal my bandwidth too, so I’m able to yank the art off and embarass them).

YES I DO. One site has a “terms of use” page where I provide a feedback form so people can ask permission to use the graphics. This link is on pretty much every page of the site. On another site I essentially give away the graphics—all I ask for the use of my graphics is a link back to my site and that my bandwidth not be stolen. I have big, bold-lettered notice on EACH page stating these terms, and yet people still regularly steal the graphics and the bandwidth. Bunch of thieving ingrates. I give the work away, and all I ask is that they give me credit and not steal my bandwidth. But apparently that is too much to ask!

But I’d like to know, what difference does that make, anyway? If all I had was a simple © at the bottom of the page, would that make it okay for people to steal my work? If I had no copyright statement on my site, would that make it okay? People must know that the stuff isn’t theirs.

I do understand “fair use” and I’ve seen some of that done with my art, and that’s okay. I also understand ignorance, and I’ve seen some of that. But some people, when confronted with their ignorance, get really pissy and outraged. They think that if it’s on the Internet, it’s theirs for the taking and nothing seems to want to shake them of that feeling of entitlement.

What? Huh? That’s not really an answer to my question. I’d like to see an example of an artist or author making a living giving away their art for free. You seem to think this is possible. I’d like to see an example of it.

So, how long have you been interested in art and have you taken any art classes? Do you have any art books?

I’m getting the impression that your first love is the software/computer aspect of it (implimenting other people’s designs and ideas), while the art part is newer for you. Am I correct?

Get Betty Edwards’ Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain. Anyone can learn how to draw. It’s true!

Sure! I’d love to see that. I am keenly interested in 3-D art and love to see how far computer animation has come.

109

But didn’t you also say:

What is the disconnect here. Is reverse-engineering hard when the originator actively creates blocks to it? If no one can copyright or patent ideas then why would anyone release anything without first trying to enact protections? If far more people work to enact protections, do you not think they will get better and harder to break?

Also, I have to address this:

No offence, but this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. If fewer ideas are proposed then more of them will be good ideas? Because when people forget about getting compensated, the mostly only produce good ideas? What sort of reasoning is that? If you can produce a single statistic which shows that people who work for no money produce beter ideas than those who work for money then ok. But absent that sort of statistic, your proposal is quite silly.

The point of compensating people for their ideas is to acknowledge the creator fo those ideas and to value them. Are you serioulsy suggesting that if we stop paying authors for books then they will produce better books?

I’m going to let the rest of your post stand on its own and get back to the OP.

110

No, it means I don’t want to further hijack this thread down that road. Go to the search page and do a search for “Marx”, “Lenin”, “Communism”, and “Marxism”. You might also want to look at the posts by Olentzero and Sandino. They have provided more insight into these philosophies than I ever wanted to have.

We have just such a system now. All you have to do is get the artists permission. If he says it is ok to use his work then knock yourself out.

No, not quite. I think it will happen but I don’t like it. I think it is inevitable given the juvenile insistence of so many people that “data wants to be free”.

Right. And this is bad because of…?

111

Right. As long as we don’t completely trample on the ideas of fair use. I don’t think you are proposing that. In fact, I think that a scheme to encrypt the authors identity into an “e-work” would enhance the educational uses of that work. If you could directly access a list of other works by a particular artist/author/engineer/scientist by clicking on an electronic text book, for example, then I think it would definately enhance your educational experience. Especially if those links were also linked to works about the originator of the idea. The best physics teacher I ever had talked almost as much about the history of the originators of various concepts as he did about the formulas. It made the science live. (If you will excuse the enthusiasm)

We might still need better enforcement methods to allow this to work, however. It would also require an infrastructure of authoring and reading tools that preserve this information. I don’t think that any technological hurdles are too great, though. In terms of music, radio is the model. Every artist wants their songs to go on the radio and be broadcast to the world. The difference being that radio listeners cannot create a near exact duplicate of the artists CD. Internet broadcasters do not have the same safeguards yet. If such safeguards were developed I’d expect lots of artists to jump on the band waggon.

112

But the use of tools is incidental in these cases. Software by definition refers to computer-based entities.

That’s derivative work. In these cases, the “infringer” isn’t passing off the same work as her own.

No. What difference should that work?

I think it’s a dangerous system to treat intellectual property analogous to tangible property. A society’s intellectual landscape gets limited that way.

The reason most of them don’t do that because the IP system does exist. If they do give away, they are at an economic disadvantage compared to those who don’t. But once the paradigm shift applies to the whole system and settles in, people will have to rely on free dissemination for promotion.

If they’re directly linking, they’re either not of malicious-intent or web-ignorant. Since you do provide an avenue for using your work for free, the people who steal probably do so in order to pass off as their own original work. I’ve already said that my system doesn’t support that. Since there’s no direct economic compensation, credit is vital.

Regardless of what you think the way things SHOULD be, we all have to deal with what IS. People are inundated with tons of ‘Terms of Use’ in their computing history. Even when you present liberal policies under such a heading at the bottom of the page, 9 of 10 won’t bother to read it. That’s how it is. You should have a text & link at a prominent spot. Or a short link in the caption of your images. It might be frustrating, but it’s practical.

The notion that an artist can work solely as a self-employed IP creator is a product of the current regime. The culture of commissioned work and consultancy and teaching will substitute in the new paradigm.

I’ve been passively interested in 3D as art for about 5-6 years now, mostly by looking at the free online galleries.

Not really. 3D CG is not programming. It’s heavier on being technically savvy especially with modelling. Half of the clients didn’t even know what they wanted. They have a rough idea of what they want to show (“the logo should be a shiny blue and the camera should zoom in from here”). We would end up suggesting different approaches based on our experience of whether the shiny blue would look good in the composited video or whether it was effective to have the camera zoom in from a certain angle in a walkthrough. The clients had intent. The rest we supplied.

I got that book from the library 3 days ago. Still choosing between that and Nicolaides.

I’ll be rendering stills, not animation. I don’t have enough control over the labs to start rendering animations.

People have reverse-engineered Office formats. But it’s not perfect. Hence the half-working, half-broken implementations of third-party readers.

No. There’s a balance to be achieved between acceptable performance and security. There are far more sophisticated protection schemes in 3D programs that used to cost $10,000+. They were also broken. The office format is not a protection scheme. It’s a core function of the software itself. Harder to perfectly break.

It’s quite ridiculous on your part to think that good ideas is a function of the number of total ideas. In a strictly random way, it increases the probability of finding one, but doesn’t actually increase them. In the current system, there are people with capital, people with talents and people with both (also, people with none). People without talent but who might not realize it also spout a lot of ideas in the hopes that in a monopolistic system, they might click. Just look at the number of frivolous patent lawsuits for stuff like email or SCO/linux or idea of online auctions or video streaming. People withOUT capital, unless they are confident and have business acumen, don’t bother for fear of failing. In my system, the people motivated to contribute at large will be those confident in the quality of their work. I’m suggesting that we might get fewer overall works but of higher quality.

The drive behind an IP culture is to create a new set of economic commodities that the population of an overpopulated and saturated worls can specialize in and hence provide a productive outlet in a material society. Has hardly anything to really do with “valueing” ideas out of a sincere regard for their contributions. Which is why people participate in P2P, now that it’s feasible.

113

It gives everyone access to our culture, whether or not he can personally afford it. I think that’s as noble a goal as giving everyone an education or a road to drive on.

Nope. It’s the way we pay taxes, and aside from a few fringe groups, most people are fine with it. That’s what makes government different from a business.

Because making copies costs no one anything. If artists need a financial incentive to create, that’s one thing, but that doesn’t imply it has to be funded any particular way. Copyright is an artificial restriction imposed by the government, and I think it’s appropriate to fund it the same way we fund the rest of the government.

And, of course, the difference is that everything else has a marginal cost. There aren’t enough resources to give everyone a free house and a free car, but you don’t need any resources to give everyone a free copy of The White Album.

114

What?

I think we are going astray here. Either it’s the headache I’ve got (nothing to do with the boards) or something.

I’m asking you about examples of artists and writers giving their work away for free, and in fact stating that they’d prefer it that way. All you’ve given me so far are examples of software being given away and you want me to believe that it’ll translate to art and writiing too. That’s the only answer anyone’s ever given me. You haven’t really answered my question. I’d like to know of some artists or writers who want this. I’s like to see some evidence that this idea is at least partially embraced by these other creative folk.

Oh, I beg to differ. When someone uses some of my work in a collage, (which they have done) they haven’t given me credit.

There’s also the whole sticky (and exhausting) subject of whether or not an artist wants to have their work used in a derivative manner. This has caused much discussion in the past. I contend that some artists would not even release their work at all if they knew that anyone could re-write it or mess with it, whether or not credit was given or not.

Huh? Could you rephrase that?

The point I’m trying to make is that there is a reason why you can’t seem to provide me with a cite showing that a high percentage of artists and writers embrace the idea of having their work “shared.” And maybe these reasons are ones that you can’t comprehend, because you’re not in their shoes. And maybe if you comprehended their reasons, you’d understand that if they were forced to have all their work “free,” a lot of them would seriously alter the way that they released and the amount of stuff that they released.

Look—are people entitled to keep their work, or aren’t they? Can and should someone be allowed to “hoard” a manuscript they wrote? Or must they make sure that it is “shared”?

Wait a minute, wait a minute. I’ve “given away” some of my work. People are free to do that anytime they wish.

I still don’t understand how someone is going to get compensated for work that no one is paying for. For instance, if someone snags a PDF copy of my book and shares it with the world “for free,” no money has passed hands. Where does my compensation come from? Or did I miss something earlier in this thread that explains that? (This headache is annoying.)

No, I see no evidence of that. They simply don’t care. They don’t claim that the work is theirs, they simply don’t care. It’s on the Internet, so it’s anyone’s to take.

You know, you are right. People are greedy bastards with a sense of entitlement. And you want to make it so that everyone’s hard work is “free,” and you expect these greedy bastards to all of a sudden start compensating artists for their hard work or giving them credit? I doubt it. I see no evidence that people will do that and you’ve so far not given me anything to convince me.

I do that. I put things in bold lettering. I’ve put disclaimers at the top of the page, in bold colored lettering and they still steal. People are greedy, ungrateful ingrates, I’m telling ya.

So I take it that you don’t have much substantive formal art education or background? You haven’t been in art shows, nothing like that?

Ahhh…I see. Interesting. Sounds very exciting!

Forgive me, I was getting another impression of “animator” in my mind. Perhaps it’s because of my background in S. Calif., but whenever I think of “animator,” I think of animator, like the Disney ones. (I toyed with working for Disney for about 5 minutes. Some of my fellow students did end up going with them.) Animators (even the 3-D ones, I’ll warrant) have to design figures and therefore study artistic anatomy heavily, color theory, and so forth. It’s very demanding and requires an extensive art background.

If you’re wondering why I’m asking all of this (other than my deep and abding zeal for 3-D stuff, which I find beyond cool) is that I am detecting a bit of…hmmm…how shall I put this…“disconnect” in your understanding on some artistic points. Perhaps I’m wrong. But I have to say that I’d be very surprised (not disbelieving, but surprised) with a Disney-type animator who shared your views. However, I’m sure there’s someone out there who is like that. I’ve just never encountered such a person. And I have some theories about why that is. I could be wrong, though.

Nicolaides is awesome, but a little dry and tough to take for someone who is not well-versed in drawing. Plus, I really think Nicolaides is best implemented in a Life Drawing class (that’s where I’ve always used it). But maybe that’s just me.

Sounds cool! Let me know when you’ve got something up.

115

The “prefer” makes it harder, but in the current climate, this might do. It’s still restrictive, but it’s an infant step. Although in fairness, the philosophy is different.

And I sympathize about that problem. Like I have repeated, I want the IP free, but not passed off as one’s own.

Surely this is an extreme position. You’re saying that inspiration should be controlled at the whims of the first creator. If I implement a new plot narrative device and say that no one can use such a device, I’ve effectively stifled creators at large from developing the concept further. And this is hypocritical because the first creator is herself influenced by the work existing at the time of creation, which themselves are developed derivative forms of art. Let me explain this by way of a crude and bizarre analogy but that I believe, conveys the essence: Imagine progress measured as the height of a bunch of rows of playing cards stacked on top of each other, like the pyramids that are constructed for Guinness Book record attempts. Each generation plants one or as many rows as it can. The bottom rows were planted during the pre-IP days, what’s happening now is that IP culture is dictating that in order to plant a card, you have to pay the placers of the previous row. But the previous row didn’t have to pay the bottom rows that provided the stability, structure and inspiration that enabled the contemporary creators to create. I think this stifles innovation/progress and is fundamentally unfair to future generations. If copyrights as originally implemented were still intact (14 years), I wouldn’t be bothered. But Congress (lobbied by Disney et al.) has made it absolutely ridiculous.

I’m countering that they have those reasons because they’ve been brought up in an IP-as-commodity culture. A generation that’s not brought up to believe that, won’t miss that status.

No one’s forcing you to loosen your privacy. You can paint as many paintings as you want in your home and keep them there. IF you do decide to commercially exploit it, then the information itself as distinct from presentation, form, credit should not be restricted. As a pseudoexample, take this project which allows you complete access to the information for private and educational purposes, but they get to sell the tangible form. In my system, I take this one step further and allow other people to sell their implementations as well. What will dictate the university’s sales in such competition will be its support, the particular implementation, and its reputation on those parameters and of course price.

In a writer’s case, Autographed books, teaching, consultancy based on your skills.

What’s the malice then? People are ignorant and casual. News at 11.

Which is why IP exists.

Nothing close.

You mean paper-based cell animation? Actually, Disney’s in the process of slowly phasing out traditional animation for computers now that their successful relationship with Pixar is ending.

True. There’s a heavier emphasis on physics of motion and nuances of expression, especially kinesthetics and facial gestures. Also with skin textures and shading.

116

Hm. Interesting. I’ll have to look around there some more. But I am to assume that there is no sentiment expressed there that all artists and all art should be “free”?

But that’s not how it is. “Ideas” can be shared and expressed. There’s a big difference between “influence,” “inspiration” and “ripping off.”

No reasonable artist would expect that any particle of of a smidge of an idea that they come up with will be forever theirs. Or that a vague or general “idea” that they come up with is forever theirs. But if it is so obviously recognizable as theirs, and they see someone else doing something horrible to it (or what they deem as “horrible”), then yeah, they won’t want that and they may limit what kind of work they release in the future.

An example I gave in a previous discussion: I love to draw nudes, but I’m not crazy about pornography. If I thought that anyone could use my nudes in a pornography context, (and the nudes are still quite obviously my nudes, and they credit the nudes as mine) then maybe I wouldn’t display my nudes to the public. I’d still display work, but not nudes. I didn’t draw those nudes so they could be used for pornography.

But how do you start? The first generation will still remember that they used to have rights, and now they don’t.

Also, I think you underestimate people’s personal feelings of ownership over their work. Like with my nudes. I don’t believe that I’d feel any differently about them if I were raised in a environment you envision.

:shaking head: No, I don’t see that working for everyone with every talent. It might work for some, but it won’t work for every personality. Some can’t teach, some can’t consult, some works can’t really be autographed. You can’t guarantee that someone can make a living off of just autographs.

People are ignorant and casual, and when confronted with it, become beligerant, ignorant, selfish and casual and insist that they are entitled to “take take take.” I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

I’ve dealt with people’s attitudes about my art and all artwork for a while now. There’s that charming attitude of, “You enjoy doing it, so it’s not real work.” There’s the ever-favorite, “But it’s just a piece of paper and you didn’t even take that long to do it! It’s not worth that much!” And then there’s the, “Well, I wouldn’t mind if someone stole/“shared” the artwork I’m incapable of doing, so why should you mind?” Oh, and there’s that wonderful gem that I always love to hear: “If you do art for money you’re a whore and not a real artist.” Oh yeah. That’s a personal favorite.

I’ve seen a lot of it and I think I’m pretty well-versed on some people’s attitudes. Many won’t compensate artists unless they have no choice. They think we’re a bunch of slackers who were born with a “talent” that we never had to work to cultivate. It just flows through our fingers with little effort from us. We don’t do “real” work. Oh, obviously not everyone thinks this way. A lot (bless their hearts) don’t. But there are plenty who think this way, at least a little bit.

That’s interesting. I am not surprised to hear that. However, whether it be paper based of digital, I imagine that the same expectations on color and anatomy will still be there. Heaven knows, I still use my drawing and rendering skills just as much on my computer as I do on paper.

117

yosemitebabe I don’t remember who linked this for me in the communist threads. Bu I think you will find it helpful. Read the description of the bear. Communist Bear

118

Thank you, pervert. Thank you. I’m bookmarking that. :slight_smile:

119

Hey, I wrote that.

120

I wondered if that was you! It looked familiar.

That is a true gem, Sam. Thanks.