10 thousand hours in autism.exe and 1 hour in paint.net

no matter what you do, you can't hold back on showing of what a fucking retard you are

She made Rodina lool like a rodent.

There is nothing wrong with current Rodina and there is nothing wrong with mousegirls

Drawfag your drawings are really nice, ignore the haters
make a findom ancap catgirl drawing btw

I found this on google

Still looks like a tranny. Giving her mouse ears doesn't make it less disgusting.

...

No.

Her face is angular.
UPHOLD
MOUSE GIRL
COMMUNISM

Her face looks fucked up and not kawaii.

Didn't say i have a problem with it, just thinking she looks more like a rodent kinda catgirl than a "tranny". Not judging, just an observation.

But there is nothing wrong with it, and she still cute.

There is everything wrong with it and it's a revisionist design that tries to do away with the True Rodina in exchange for this decadent transsexual whore.

My bad comrade

Holy shit, you are fucking reaching.

there's nothing wrong with transgender catgirls

What's wrong with trans-catgirls

and we don't like revisionism around here…

yeah, no. look.
I don't really like that design CGDF came up with but if that's what she wants and thinks she needs in her comic universe, there's nothing you can do about it but put up with it.

ah, i forgot about this one and thought you were using a lewd image source.
that's cute, thanks for sharing.

They're for NEET homogays. True Socialist Warrior only loves Kawaii girls who are pure and kind.

Dude, I'm really just making fun. I personally don't like the design, but as I said: Shitposting is a human right.

from early on she was depicted with a vibe egg under her skirt, there's not much purity to speak of.

yeah, i know, just felt like stating the obvious inb4 someone genuinly goes on a tirade against it.

>>>Holla Forums

You are all revisionists.

>>>/gulag/

i really wished the artist who made this would give us some more, just for the cute

And you are still upset that you can't get moe straight from her

Learn to read.
>>>/gulag/

I am upset at the lack of revolutionary potential in these revisionist designs and lack of moe consciousness in the proletariat.

It doesn't matter what you meant. The end is you like cum-covered capitalist whore pig dogs.
>>>/gulag/

Downloaded OP's video
I hope you don't mind, this'll get you more posted

Thats kind of spooky tbh

Pretty much this. Catgirl drawfag is basically making an OC donut steel of an already established character. Unlike Alunya, her design choices didn't come from multiple different sources. There's no ambiguity about her design. Rodina was designed by one person and only later was she adopted as a mascot. She's taking advantage of the fact that they're not a well-known artist and she is, which somehow gives her the right to take someone else's work. I wonder what Rodina drawfag thinks of this.

...

Spooks are a spook.

...

Don't be mean to the drawfag. Also

You are on a commie board Intellectual Property like all Private Property is theft

Porky pls go.

I agree so why should catgrill drawfags work be stolen simply because the character came from someone else's mind?

If the original artists or any others have interest in preserving the image of Rodina as she was created first, there's nothing holding them back.

butthurt getchanners need to fuck off to their dead board.

Nice moralism you huge faggot

"Stealing" ideas/concepts/characters/etc is totally fine.

*Which is also something i'd very much appreciate btw., but CGDF is not obliged to do this.

porky pls go

...

Who's stealing her work? I don't see some even bigger artist coming in and taking her characters and morphing them into ungodly creatures.

Except there really is. She's using her position as a well-established artist to overshadow the other artist's work.

You're right, we should just let the bourgeoisie take our labour. Anyone who says otherwise is just a fucking moralist.

So say a large corporation decides to take a small artist's idea, change it a bit while using the same foundation, and use it as their own. This is okay?

Never said that. Just saying that Catgirl drawfag is literally using her position to phase out the original artist's work.

What the fuck are you talking about? This isn't some small-time artist drawing their donut steel OC of a big-time character. It's quite the opposite.

Rodina was part of the artistic commons. Catigirl drawfag simply appropriated it and made it her own. Deal with it.

She's literally not. Another artist just recently drew both versions (see OP). They can coexist just fine.

I've been wondering how this would work under proto-communism/communism. Let's assume a major revolution happens, but the level of technology stays relatively the same.
Thanks to socialism/anarchism I can fully commit myself to the arts. I produce several works that become popular in isolated online and offline communities. All is well.

Another artist from a distant community, decent in their own right, finds and (digitally) copies my works, starts traveling around and promoting print copies of my work as theirs. This goes on for a few months/years without me noticing, allowing this person to take all responsibility for the work I did. Eventually I do notice, but when I try to convince people these are my work, people don't believe me because of the copiers popularity and the layperson is unable to distinguish my handwriting (artistic style) from that of the copier.
Assuming legal right has largely if not completely disappeared: what do I do?

REEEEEE PROPIETORS OUT OF MY LEFTYPOL

How would your problem be any different under capitalism though?

Is art really made for ""recognition""?

And you see nothing wrong with this might-makes-right mentality?

The original design is indeed dying out, though. She could have easily called hers something different, but she wanted to take advantage of the situation.

WHY WOULD ANYONE LABEL ANYTHING AS THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH HOW?? WHAT MECHANISM??

REEEEE PROPIETORS OUT

You ask them to make an original piece and then poof you are in the right. However making art should just be for fun so this claimer for recognition is pointless.

Despite the horrible way it has been formulated and implemented, let alone constantly exploited by Big Kapital, copyright exists to resolve cases like this. Under modern day Copyright Law I could simply (not using that term lightly) copyright my work. When the issue comes up, I can resort it by going to court.

I personally would be both flattered (that somebody would go that far) and annoyed (that somebody didn't communicate with me beforehand).
Anyway, I get you. I'm curious to read different opinions.

...

Why are you people so fucking autistic? I don't get it

This is some bronny tier cringe. Whoever is into this weab shit kindly off yourselves

...

...

The funny thing is that if fucking Disney or something took Catgirl drawfag's characters and turned them into capitalist tools, you'd be all up-in-arms about it.

Except that's not what happened at all. He wasn't an user and he didn't even make it intending it to become a mascot. When people liked it, they asked him if they could use the design and he said yes. Catgirl drawfag just flat-out took it.

Yes, your labour isn't actually yours. Good worker.

Except it's more like you pick some berries, then someone takes them and shows them to everyone, claiming that they picked them.

I think it is you who should kill yourselves. The weebs will inherit the earth (and dat anime pussy).

your scenario makes no sense, whatever point you tried to make is invalid

Lack of intelligence isn't an argument.

Yes, my labour is not my property indeed, my labour is possessed by whom I desire to share it with, sometimes no one, sometimes everyone

I desire to share possession of my labour with my fellow egoists, not with porky

But where are the proofs? Artistic freedom isn't malevolent just because you don't like it.

that's what i was saying, correct.

And thus proving that having property on artistic rights is shit, therefor their work should spread freely, re-imagined however other artist want.

reminded me of this old
youtube.com/watch?v=VBV7BwT1wFs

This is peak Holla Forums right here. I fucking love it.

My dude the Disney thing is dumb. Disney is a profit seeking capitalist enterprise aimed at mass production of cultural commodities. If they were to take the design, they would probably remove all of its originality and make it as bland and marketable as possible. They would also probably claim copyright on their "altered version" of the character (see Alice in Wonderland) which seem to be the main reasons to be pissed off if that happened. This obviously doesnt apply to drawfag, since she did her thingys with the intent of pleasing her fellow leftypolers. She took the existing design and transformed it into her own thing, a manifestation of what she thought the character should look like, not what would make her the most profit. And though I hate to shill for tripfags, her webcomic clearly has a lot of work put into it and is of better quality than most of the shit posted here. If you think she "took someone elses labour" you are fucking delusional.

But someone still possesses it in the end and therefore ownership still exists.

She specifically asked early on if she should come up with a new name or just call her Rodina. Despite people calling for the former, she ignored it.

No, you were just complaining about how you don't understand things.

Okay, just let the fat cats take whatever they want. That'll work out well.

No, i was complaining about you just making idiotic bs comparisons.

Archive or fuck off. The original design isn't dying because other artists are still using it. All you have are biased interpretations of her intentions. You're salty her design is marginally more popular due to, you know, her actually doing something with it. Sad.

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.

No, Possession is not property, property is inate to the entity, it is a property of a triangle to have three angles
Labour is not my property, it does not define me, workerism is merely idpol for marxsists, ideally, no one would demand property of anyone or anything, merely possession, voluntarily sharing possession of my labour with others and other sharing possession of theirs with me makes me happy, it satisfies my ego, if someone wants to claim possession of any of my pixel art drawings, then I am glad to share it, but he must know he is not being awarded with property

Property over an object or idea is impossible, possession is not

The propietor class does not have property, but merely possession over our labour, this gives the labouring class enormous power, as all they need to do to end exploitation is to demand it back

Property exists by the grace of law, its not a fact but fiction

WEW HEW

The ideological supermaket, like any other supermarket, is only fit for looting

Why does my anarkiddie flag keeps disappearing?

Nothing I said precludes this from happening.

Holla Forums is broken, same thing here on all boards, no worry

ya done good, OP

If anything, it is like the material is the supermarket and the ideas are the factory.

They can't profit on what is already free and distributed.

Aside from the fact that you belive ideas have an exchange value, no nothing

Education is not a part of cultural exchange?

Are you trying to spook me again??

Mods=Gods

Education is not some fixed idea. It is always moving and growing. Some students try to learn too much or too many subjects, some learn too little or too few subjects, some learn things too easily and make hasty judgments and some are too easily discouraged. These four things show that individuals differ in their mental endowments, and only through knowledge of these differences can the teacher correct their mistakes. In the dialectic between student and teacher there is that sort of exchange of knowledges.

Yes, as a teacher I have to understand every student as an individual, however i do not assign exchange value to whatever idea they create, individuals are not to be assigned exchnage values, a bright student is only bright in the specific subject being discussed, and its not in anyway a better individual than another students

A school is a perfect example of how ideas cannot have unoversal exchange values, I get paid for helping students get good grades, but the ideas and tools i give them as individuals are priceless, not in the bourgeoise sense, but because I cannot demand an exchange value from them

Cultural exchange is the same, there is no cultural exchange, only sharing, assigning an exchange value to culture is inane, what if there is not a zero sum exchange, you owe me culture?

In essence, that is the commodification of ideas, its bourgeiois as fuck

I think it was in good fun famrade "lyin' Trots" was one of the lyrics added to the video.

Wait a sec why are there two Rodinas?

I just know you haven't touched a vagina in your life

This is part of my critique of of intellectual property rights, though. Ideas are increasingly becoming objects of trade, and the technology now exists to transform ideas into commodities much more easily. But, it is this very character of permanent revolutionizing, always adding new ideas, collective knowledge and social cooperation, that effectively undermines "intellectual property" and makes it unable to maintain its privacy from other knowledge-seekers.

read the thread

top lel

BTFO

don't mind at all, it's basically a collage of memes I and other people posted.

Except I'm married, fag.

It was just a joke. Mod understood my feelings and we came to a (sexy) understanding.

Kinda jarring if you understand German lol
Still 10/10 would sperg again

What does the song actually say?

Alright, news alert to all people lurking this thread that aren't in the other one. Sage because all discussion on it should be in the thread that the post I'm linking to is in.
Petitioner banned by /r/socialism mods

archive.is/jT2RT

youtube.com/watch?v=yqr1BnpY628
Here.
The "original".

...

what a surprise, stalinists can't take a fucking joke

...

You don't mind that I saved the web m as Weaponized Autism.webm do you?

IM FUCKING DYING

...

Actually claiming any art of rodina drawn by someone else as her own work would in fact be theft.
Using rodina is not theft.

copyright apologists on my leftypol?
papa Stalin save our motherland!

So?
As long as the original artists are still free to use and draw the original Rodina I just do not see a problem with this.

That's a really shitty argument considering that the modern socialist movement was based around a materialist philosophy. Not that there aren't strong arguments in favor of idealism and/or moralism, but there are really strong arguments behind the class struggle from purely materialist regards.

Yes, yes fuck yes. The reason it sucks today is because of property rights fucking over individuals. In a post-private property society everybody benefits from free usage of information / knowledge, rather than some property owner.

Except your entire argument presumes that IP rights exist. They don't in this case, and they don't in socialist frameworks.

Except it isn't catgirl drawfag, it's the people who prefer her work.
I'm willing to say that at this point in time the majority of people who have seen her Rodina have also seen / know of the original getchan mascot. (I actually don't know how popular her comics have been on alternate social media, so might be wrong on this? But that doesn't really matter for the argument), at the very least all those who caused the popularity of the catgirls cartoon did.
This isn't even a real argument, even if she was using her capital to further the popularity of new Rodina. Because the relation between cgdf and original Rodina artist is not one of uneven access to capital. The only capital that cgdf had when starting her cartoon was her ability to draw. The other things (Popularity on Holla Forums, uhh, ability to create a website?) are either negligible or results from the first.

Why does this matter?
Why would you honestly care?
Could you not just be like "Oh, a lot of people like my work, I hope my works gave people value, that's validating", end of story? Why does it matter what name they associate with it? It doesn't matter to 99.99% of people working in the creative world currently.
Does any of all those animators working at Disney care about having their name in the credits, outside of employment benefits?

At this point it helps taking a step back and looking at why we have copyright in the first place.
It doesn't have anything to do with being recognized for your work, or anything personal to the creator. It has nothing to do with the relation between consumer and creator, or creator and work.
It was created to incentivize creators, because creating was unprofitable.
For the first 1700+ years of human legal history, every single work ever made was public dominion. And for the first 200 following years, they entered public dominion after a couple of decades. If it didn't matter to any of all those creators, why should it matter now?
What you're talking about there is an honest to god example of ideology, in my mind.

Because of the uneven relation to capital, such as intellectual property, you are completely fucking dense and apparently unable to approach a topic intellectually.

What??
There's no labour involved here. It's literally fractions of fractions of pennies to reproduce.
And no, labour isn't actually yours in this context, tbh. Just because you create a piece of capital, that shouldn't give you the rights to oppress people with it.

Why should you care?
She did not take your berries, she copied them in a magical duplicator, took a bite and said "Look, at this berry i made!". Why do you care?
Also, I know you're not the one who started, but fuck arguments from analogies.

???
How do you possess ideas?
Ownership exists purely because of IP laws, which you just tried to trick us all into thinking you didn't presume in your argument.
Sorry but you're dense.

Straight up not true. Most people in that thread said it didn't matter.
It was many OC threads later that people started complaining about it.

The reason that this is a problem is because the state is defending people from taking things back you fucking idiot.
Do you not understand property rights?
Do you not understand what intellectual property is?
Do you not understand what elimination of private property means?

? What they said was explicitly anti-market, since it's an argument against the withholding of ideas, which only makes sense in a system of intellectual property.

I just can't get over how fucking stupid that argument is, since the problem is the uneven relationship to capital (which presumably is his point as well, that she abused her capital of popularity to tread over the original artists right to fucking name recognition what the fuck) then this entire problem is eliminated by evening the relationship to capital which is literally the fucking socialist position towards IP.

So, there can be no reimagining of Aphrodite. Everything must be a direct copy of the original. Artistic inovation is bad. Socialist Realism only, amma right?

Am all against making Thor a woman, just because, but if someone desided to draw Thor with modern clothes, would that be a problem? … Oh wait…

Please stop acting like tumblr, over Rodina.

That's only theft because of IP law.
This is some serious muh toothbrush argumentation.

For fuck sake peoples. IP law exists for two (and a half) reasons: To incentivize drive for superprofit (And the drive for regular profits from the creation of new markets), and to create the media industry, that profits from withholding the works of creators.
Neither things are wanted in their own right. They are needed for a capitalist society, but if there's no production under SNLT then it serves no useful purpose for society.

Feels good, man.

I'm not saying USING the other picture would be theft. I'm saying that saying she made something she did not in fact make would be theft.

Holla Forums: Rescue Rangers when?

So when are we going to do a Holla Forums sings of this (in the fake English lyrics obviously, not the real German lyrics)?

BASED MODS

There's nothing stopping you or anyone from drawing Rodina classic

Or do you get mad because spurdo has completely eclipsed pedobear too?

And I repeat:
That's only theft because of IP law.
This is some serious muh toothbrush argumentation.

Someone on youtube has already volunteered to take this on. I'm actually really excited to hear it.

I'll add it to the list of ideas I have, but if I can't get it to fit with the themes that I'm going for, I may not do it.

I too am interested in this topic. As someone who is pursuing a future in a creative field, and would love to see (in 250+ years) such mediums flourish under socialism and communism.

For an example, I'll use the pic posted here

That's some OC that I made a few months back in June last year. Here's proof, even. If someone else were to claim it was their own, **well, it's communist shitpost drawing so i don't really care*, but…* I'd be slightly miffed, unless that is they altered it into their own. As it stands, my OC isn't even totally original. It's an edit of some other OC based on the Australian rating for one of the Atelier games, with some drawfag's own version of Alunya who was conceived by someone else entirely. This also happened with a stirner face I drew being pasted onto another image. And I have to say, even without recognition, I get a bit of enjoyment turning OC into my own OC, which in turn is converted into someone else's OC.

Evidently, CGDF has significantly altered the original Rodina (btw, who drew Alunya first?) and inso doing, turned a few pieces of other people's OC into her own. Arguably, she is more recognizable than the originator, and her politi-cat-girl universe is distinctive and almost symbolic of Holla Forums, but at the same time it's not for any kind of profit.

Is there perhaps a point at which, if someone uses another's imagery and the resultant work becomes more recognizable, the originator should be given mention? I'd been wondering for a while, if the world were communist and I wrote a trilogy, but fan fiction became even more popular, and was largely seen as the "canon" text, would I be in the wrong to desire credit for at least being the basis for the subsequent works?

Art, imo, is made for expression, not fun. Sometimes that expression is fun, other times it is not. Many artists anguish over their works because they value that expression over "fun". Perhaps, when said expression is attributed to someone other than the originator, the sense of expression is diminished.
opinions < arguments

This is one thing I like about anonymity. If I release works online, with a distinctive art style, nobody knows my name or face, and I make clear that I will forever remain user. All works created in that style will then be attributed to me, regardless of who creates it. The exception being if another artist decides to (for some insane reason) create more works in my style than even I myself do.

Source?

I mostly agree with the people you are responding to: creative expression is, for a large part, its own reward. This is why people continue to make art even when facing severe physical or emotional punishment for doing so - or isolated from the world, the art never to be seen by anyone but the artist.
The agonizing you describe is, in that sense, nothing more than a manifestation of the desire to create (and failing to do so). It is a 'pure' love of creation: love hurts!

That said, I do think some of the commentators have too many expectations of the ego. Although my end goal is for my work to be enjoyed, I want others to enjoy it so I feel validated myself. Demand and desire - and so on.
Someone reproducing my works and popularizing them would on the one hand bring my work to a bigger audience (great!), but on the other hand this would diminish the sense of appreciation I personally feel. Although I wouldn't stop creating, I would nonetheless be more hesitant to share what I make.

The modern day animation pipeline and crew/team hierarchy is not comparable to what it would be in a proto-communist society.

Junior animators tend to go into the animation world with the expectation of becoming creative directors, animation leads, key framers, lead storyboarders, etc. To become senior staff; they expect to be able to rise to a higher position of more esteem.
Very few of them, however, will be able to start working for themselves/become creative leads, as they are financially dependent on their lesser position, there aren't enough senior positions, or their product is dependent on brand recognition that is completely claimed by big studios (compare Headless Productions to Disney).
It is not a case of 'doing it for the art': the vast majority of animation staff (including AnV people) don't have a choice.

And this is just looking at the animation industry. The gallery industry, at least the circuits I am familiar with, is dominated with authorship. The academic world of fine art is comparable: you are expected to create a distinct yet recognizable style. auteurship is the name of the game - even if you are a local artist.
The artists who break from this (re-modernists, stuckists, et al) are almost always shunned by the establishment. Or it is an individual artist that never tried to enter the art world to begin with. These people are few and far between. (And the ones I've spoken and read about want to be left alone!)

Bottomline: I find your statement that "It doesn't matter to 99.99% of people working in the creative world currently." erroneous. Although I do believe there is innate gratification in the creation of art - as I have tried to address above - I do not think what you are describing is applicable to the current situation.

Also: medieval art in Europe was created as a form of reverence or penance. Adding a name to a work was considered sinful. And even back then there were sects that believed otherwise.
Law also worked very differently than it does now and it is not a stretch to say that artworks were property of churches (or in some cases: The Church).

With regards to the historical aspects of my argument: It was made entirely in hyperbole In pre-printing times, it doesn't even really make sense to talk about public dominion (in the art world), since art often would be species (as in, a specific object in the world, rather than the idea referred to in modern IP law), and since copying artworks would be a much larger effort, and depending on how it was sold could just be fraud and I'll gladly refrain from defending it outside of the point I was making, which was that Intellectual property is a fiction of the law, just like private property, that doesn't relate to needs and relations of the creator.

I think you're misunderstanding my example in that case, and that your point lends itself in my favor. In the case of junior animators, they're not working in favor of the art, and therefore the fact that they don't care about having their name in there isn't a strong point about an artists relation to their work. Well, exactly. Most people who work with the creation of intellectual property are not in a position like that of the artist.

From reading your comment I think that we're approaching this topic differently, and that my example might not have been the most conducive to my point.
By "creative world" I was specifically referring exactly to the world of the creative crafts, and exactly not that of the artist. My view regards those who produce mental labor that is solely able to generate profit in the capitalist mode of production, through the states defense of intellectual property rights. That is not only artists, far from it actually. That is also programmers, graphic designers, writers of all kinds, industrial and civil architects, engineers, &c.
While many (all, imo) of those crafts are used in the production of art, the far far majority do not consider the relation between their labor and the product of their labor as one between artist and artwork.
I would personally take it one step further and then say that the relationship of the Auteur to the artwork isn't the default relationship, and would be less common in a world where strict relation isn't demanded of you to be able to make a living. This is the 0.01% that I'm talking about. In your quote of me, I of course should have said "This wouldn't matter […] in a post-capitalist world.
I understand that this is where you believe that even in a different mode of production, this relationship would be preserved to a degree not unlike that of today?
I'll concede that I do not have extensive experience or background in the subject, which lends credibility to your view.

I also now realize that my post did not exactly respond in a very useful manner to the question you posed, I was approaching it from the view of any person who would be 'harmed', so to say, by the lack of protection of intellectual property, while you were exactly more concerned with the relation of the artist.

fug, didn't mean to bump

I'm trying to think of the best way to convey it, but I want to eventually establish they're outright separate people and see if it catches on. CGDF likes the idea too

Read the file name.