/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4910749
Yes because it's non-consensual.

Yes.
Especially if you don't keep it to yourself

The only thing wrong about Big is vore

This board has gone to absolute dogshit.

>>4910749
wtf is this anon...

>>4910749

>>4910749
I have no clue how Big is able churn out such realistically render paintings so goddamn fast. I get that he dies paintovers and uses heavy references and usually the same things. But damn the guy is fast and productive while still keeping it looking the same quality.

>>4910749
is this the power of loomis

>>4910768
yes, her torso is literally a blook

>>4910768
this is the power of tracing

>>4910749
>Have drawn porn of my former coworkers.
>They found out.

>>4910777
>can draw recognizable faces
I'd count that as a win. My animu heads don't resemble anyone.

>>4910749
Yes.

/thread

>>4910749
wrong? Who you asking?
Illegal, oh ya.
worth suing you? Depends on if you sold them and how disgusting it is.

>>4911151
How is it illegal? The artist owns the art and it’s not the same as taking a picture

>>4910749
unironically, yeah

>>4910749
its not illegal to be a hateable asshole

>>4910777
trips of truth

>>4911165
Drawing porn of a real person probably constitutes defamation
https://kellywarnerlaw.com/satire-v-defamation

>>4911165
it is a copyright infringement; you own your likeness.

>>4910749
wait thats not pornography theres no nudity

>>4910749
Its a bit werid

I think it’s gross and disrespectful. If you draw porn of real people keep it to yourself, you could get into legal issues.

>>4910749
https://performermag.com/band-management/contracts-law/legal-pad-what-you-should-know-about-likeness-rights/
>The right of publicity is essentially the right to control the commercial use of your identity and image. The most common way to get in trouble here is by using the legally protected name or likeness of another for commercial gain without consent. This differs from violation of copyrighted materials because the claim is for the use of the person/likeness, not of the image itself.

>>4910749
This is fucking rank and it makes me heave every time I scroll past it

>>4910749
That was a real person? WTF BIGBIG

>>4910749
So, is she pregnant with an... adult?

>>4910777
Tell us the story anon

>>4911222
defamation, "the action of damaging the good reputation of someone"
Only if you publish it I guess. I can write a letter accusing someone of being whatever, as long as I don't publish it, it would not be illegal.

>>4910777
Story time

>>4911231
i'll sue my twin brother

>>4911311
you can always go to a public pc and share it to the internet as anon

>>4911519
so, as long it's not for commercial use people will be okay making and sharing those things?

>>4911222
I don't think you have a defamation case unless one party is trying to convince others the depicted party really did the depicted act. It's one thing to say X murdered someone and another to say I had a dream/fantasized that X murdered someone. Some of those reptilian or deep fakes videos could count because they're trying to get people to believe it or at least that the subject may have done things they didn't using a fictitious image.
>>4911231
This applies more to photos. Selling photos of a celeb is illegal because it's materially their actual likeness. A drawing resembling someone isn't as clear cut. It also depends what you're doing with it. Putting a celeb face on shirts would be more actionable than posting a digital illustration to be viewed because it's material goods.
It's murky, the clearest case for legal action would probably be creating drawn porn of a real minor.

>>4910749
Would it be wrong for someone to use your likeness in their horrifying fetish porn.

>>4911236
isn't the legal definition of pornography something like "I know when I see it"?

>>4911597
This is a misunderstanding. The law does not limit itself to commercial uses, it just so happens that most case history involves commercial uses. Celebrities aren't complete idiots. They and their lawyers are not interested in going after poor people who who do this for their own amusement, in their own quiet little corner of the internet. This is civil law, they have that discretion. Not taking immediate action does not mean they relinquish the right to take action later.
To put it plainly, you can do this shit until you're asked to stop. But don't go online saying it's your right to do it.

>>4911793
would it be fine for someone to use trumps likeness for a mock beheading or a horrifying overflowing flesh "caricature" that looks startlingly like fetish porn? I would argue that yes. it's in staggeringly bad taste, but it's covered by freedom of expression.
"anything goes" means "anything goes".

>>4911862
oh, that's a good point, caricature and newspaper comics are full of these

>>4911873
I do wonder whether liberals would be just as liberal if the NYT ran a cartoon of a demented Biden shitting on the floor of the oval office and smearing it around with his hands. But that's probably just my own political bias.