DeletedUser
Guest
Bad tuts imo. But I appreciate the work you put into compiling this.
Dolton.
Go to OT
Post a thread asking who is Dolton
???
Profit
How come most of these tutorials have "DO NOT RIP" on them, and yet you rip, and yet this is STICKY?!?!? Even though most of you don't think hotlinking tutorials is bad, the people that created the tutorials think so.
DO NOT RIP in fontsize 72 in the tutorials should be enough proof.
And what do you mean with you making the "guide"? "Signature making guide by -DA-"? A guide, in form of a lot of ripped sigs. Oh joy.
You should be banned for this.
edit:
With love and care, Solrock/BBoF from .co.uk
TBH, AS long as DA does not claim as his own, is fine. If he said, i made these and airbrushed the no rip out, that would be bad..
K drop the topic... problem solved, bla bla bla. No need to go on with this topic -.-
And lots of tuts say stuff like "made for <site>" or "only to be found @ <site>, if found elsewhere email <email>"
Even though these guys don't put those warnings, I'm sure they mean it.
Many tut authors forget to put ANTI-RIP on their tuts...does that mean we should assume it's okay to rip?
Claiming to know someone's intentions without any knowledge about them or the scenario is absurd...otherwise its called an educated guess. I know he's a sig maker. I know most other sig makers show that disclaimer...so I make the assumption that he probably just neglected the need to do so, as he thought it would be common sense.
Let's put out another educated guess then. I know that people make tuts to share them. They want to educate people on sig making. So, probably, he didn't forget: it was intentional. Just another educated guess from an opposing perspective. However, we can't make assumptions based on guesses. Anti-rip means 'don't claim it's yours', not 'don't post this anywhere else.' So please, for the love of God, please stop calling it ripping. Unless it's exclusively stated that he can't do something, there can be no action made against him for doing it. If it worked the other way, we could be prosecuted for things which aren't exclusively stated in the criminal code. Argue all you want, but if he didn't say you can't post this anywhere else, then this guy's in the clear.
The people who made the tutorials in the first post said themselves that it should not be publiced the way it's being now. If you seriously think this graphics forum is gonna go somewhere, you gotta stop breaking COPYRIGHT LAWS.
The signatures are for educational purposes, yes, but if the makers don't want them here, they should not be here.
On most common GFX sites (Planetrenders, dA ...) the basic rules are; if you don't get explict permission to repost, DON'T freaking REPOST.
If YOU don't see what's wrong with it, that's your thing. The MAKERS decide. Now remove the images (like Tillyboy said) or get explict permission from the owners to repost.
dA uses a creative commons license for all work submitted,
really no one clicked the link?many people are afraid of opening links... there is all kinds of crazy things on the internet..... for example a simple site ive composed in the 7th grade.... http://www.dontclickhere.funurl.com/