#meditations upon un-emergent occasions

[my-hobby-is-finding-the-source]

Do you think it's possible that the general habit of users to openly shame those who repost art generally discourages people from sharing their sources of the art they find, as it gives away that they're "reposting" it, or is it just simple carelessness that is responsible for people not sourcing the art they reshare or repurpose? Also, do you feel it's fine to share art you found elsewhere, so long as you link back to the source?

I have to say that personally I feel that copies and derivatives are an inevitability with any creative work, especially on the internet (something the current state of copyright law simply refuses to accomodate), and it's counterproductive in my opinion to shame those who take this action, regardless of how one feels about it. I appreciate seeing that there's someone dedicated to the more helpful action of pointing out the sources. Reparative rather than punitive, y'know. is good

(also sorry for going anon, I would not like to be flayed alive for this...)

but yeah good work!~

In writing this I may have meandered a bit, so I'll apologize in advance.

I'm not really fond of sharing or posting artworks without a link—or pointer of any kind—to their authors, regardless of the degree of modification performed. But I also don't think scolding those that don't care as much is very productive. There might be a conflict of perspectives.

As is so often the case, I'm limited to my perspective, so my opinion may be a bit off the mark, but I feel that different communities place a different worth on the source—the knowledge about who made the thing.

In the places I often pass through when looking for sources, like on Reddit and Pinterest, I feel like there's an unstated, obvious notion that you're not expected to care about the source. Things are shared for the content they carry, and content is all they are.

There are also communities where the meaning of the source might be different. You may hear the question "what anime is this from?" more often that "who made this?". There's some deference shown to the subject of the thing, not as much for its origins.

When it comes to sharing art, I'm interested in more than the image itself—the pure value of the pixels on the screen. If I'm moved to show a drawing to someone, it is out of some amount of love for both the subject, the work, and the author, all together.

The subject—be it an anime I think is cool, or a character I'm fond of—is usually what draws me to the work. But it is the work that will captivate me, that will draw my attention and my admiration, that will ensnare me and nurture inside of me the need to share. And that interaction, all that emotion, could not have existed in the absence of an author.

And the experience of the work does not end when I stop looking at it—there's an insatiability, the greed to see more stuff, stuff that's just as good, that will make will feel the same things, but different this time. Not all art will do this to you—in fact, most won't—buy to try and explain or convey the experience to other people with not as much as mention the author? That's just silly.

Which brings me to your other question: is it fine to share art, so long as you link back to the source?

That's not a question I can answer alone. Again, from my perspective, sharing art also involves the author of that art, their thoughts over their own work ought to be part of this consideration. Although, I do admit, that usually requires some interpretation.

Many artists will place warnings in their accounts disallowing the reposting—or reproduction—of their works, but the precise meaning of that is left open. Usually, native actions like retweets or reblogs are understood to not be reposting, but most if not all ways to share content across platforms can be considered reposting—even if only mechanically.

If what makes the retweet acceptable is the implicit link back to the source, then wouldn't posting the image with a link under it also be acceptable?

In the and, that's just an assumption I made alone, maybe clouded by an eagerness to share, but also considering the supposed feelings of the people that make the stuff I care about.

That are many other points to consider, like the impact for those that make art for a living, or also where does this all go when someone's creation is made through the transformation of someone else's art, but I think I have stretched this too much. Hopefully you can at least get a bit of a grasp of my standing on these matters.

[lettreetmat]

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manner of thy friends or of thine own were; any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

Aucun homme n’est une île, un tout, complet en soi ; tout homme est un fragment du continent, une partie de l’ensemble ; si la mer emporte une motte de terre, l’Europe en est amoindrie, comme si les flots avaient emporté un promontoire, le manoir de tes amis ou le tien ; la mort de tout homme me diminue, parce que j’appartiens au genre humain ; aussi n’envoie jamais demander pour qui sonne le glas : c’est pour toi qu’il sonne.

John Donne, Aucun homme n’est une île, MEDITATION XVII, in Devotions upon Emergent Occasions (1624)

[my-hobby-is-finding-the-source]

Mr.sourceman, is it possible to find the source of real life images? How different is it from finding digital images? Could you find the source of this image while we're at it?

Sometimes, it varies, and I couldn't, sorry. ...I should probably elaborate. This may take a while, but bear with me for a minute.

This issue involves both the boundary between the "real world" and the internet and the nature of digital authorship. Let's start with the first.

My work is entirely digital. I work exclusively with digital tools and can only explore digital archives. When looking for a source, that means I can only follow the trail up to the point it entered the digital realm.

That's not an issue for digital artwork—that point is usually where they are created. But let's say, for example, that someone posts a picture they took of a poster they liked. That post gets popular and the image spreads, until an instance of it reaches me.

Even if I were to trace it down perfectly, I could only go as far as the photographer's post. If the artist that made the poster is not well known, if there are no digital copies of the same work, if there are no evident signature or link to their online presence... There's nothing more I can do.

Now, with that example, a question might have popped in your head: is the source of that image the artist that made the poster or the photographer that took the picture?

For that hypothetical, there may be a clear answer. But for every search, the "who made?" and "who posted?" are two unknowns that may never be revealed.

An artist creates a Twitter account to share their work. They use it as the root of their online presence, and judiciously post every drawing they make on it. There's no formula to perfectly distinguish them from someone who tweets all the memes they see on WhatsApp.

I only mean to say that a judgement is often necessary. When saying that I didn't find a source of a given work, it might just be that I didn't figure out the "who posted?", or that I couldn't distinguish it from the "who made?".

For some images, there's an stark scarcity of makers. It might have been shared tens of thousands of times, but no one will say who made it, no one will claim to have made it. No one might even expect anyone to care about who made it—memes are often treated as such.

If I can't confidently determine the author of an image, I'd rather not say anything. I often silently decline requests for images with no evidence of express authorship.

This all may be less coherent than I think, don't hesitate to ask for further clarifications.