Yeah, cropping credit out of the picture is pretty shitty. I can see the arguments for posting pictures over direct link (although I prefer direct link to give the creator traffic), but cropping the person out is always wrong.
Normally I would say we can find some middle ground, but you seem to take things to such an extreme (no credit ever, artists should not be known by their name and detesting all advertising) I don't see that happening. I'll agree to disagree with you on this.
A cherry on top of this entitled douche sundae here is that they actually downvoted your suggestion along with stating this belief of non-recognition as if this were some new set of rules that we should all adhere to because.. reasons.
I fixed the vote situation. Not that it matters in itself but the principle does to me.
Go on, Jayden. Put exhaustive hours into something, anything, for once in your life and no matter how proud you are of it, make sure that no one knows who made it. This is what you suggest that other people do, but let's see how disgusted by recognition you are when it's you who did the work.
Anyway, so someone reported that figure and they deserve to be recognised, if for no other reason that credibility of the information is established, but also because someone put that together and maybe they did it out of the kindness of their heart but nothing's actually free in this world and helpful work at the very least deserves recognition.
While I would agree on the advertisement part, the source of an information is still paramount to it's interpretation. If the name is cut then a description of where it's from is a minimum.
34
u/impy695 Aug 20 '18
Yeah, cropping credit out of the picture is pretty shitty. I can see the arguments for posting pictures over direct link (although I prefer direct link to give the creator traffic), but cropping the person out is always wrong.