New Render Rule

I agree also. How would we know if they didn't just steal a render from someone else without the original link? Great idea.

 

k

 

Do we PM it to a staff member, or just post it aa normal, then it needs to get an ok or somthing??

 

gonna be a little more work for u guys, but hey ure the boss!

 

What if we scanned the images?

 

Good luck with this, but I must echo it does seem more work on you guys. Understood though because a lot don't provide the original or at least say where they got it from.

 

Why not just bann whomever does that? Drag down the rest of us because of a few persons actions... w/e

 

Thank you for implementing that rule!!

 

Don't really agree with that since sometimes, it's an innocent mistake, but they should be warned if done repeatedly...

 

i have tons of pictures on my computer that i dont know where i got them from, how do i host them if i have to post the website link(if i dont have the website).
i also agree with Under619Taker, if we scanned the images from a book or a magazine, or from a picture that we took ourselves, how do we post the website link if it doesnt have a website.

 

Meh what if you havn't got the link to the image still but have the image on ya PC.

What if its an amazing render.

Bit unfair if you ask me

 

All concerns taken on board ...

If you scan a pic , i want a video of you scanning it , ok

Lol i dont know , ive been here a couple of years now , and have never seen a scanned image from a book or whatever , i think your trying to create a problem that`s not there .

Remember that its a TRIAL , if i see it doesnt work i`ll be the first to put it back to how it was .

Oh and just incase you thought i was serious , i dont expect videos of you scanning images .

 

This rule blows. I know it's required. but some people, who cut them may get them from a source that only, that person, would like his partner to know.

I also disagree with it, because once the site is leaked, people will continue to make copy's of the same cut you did and get a vantage point of +rep or credits for it. When you were the first to find the site and took it, into thought to cut & post it.

Just my 2 cents...

 

So it`s a power thing ?

I have a site with awesome pictures on it , but i`m not going to share because i want the power .

Whats the harm is sharing the site so everybody benefits .

Anyway i dont know why the link think is in issue here , as its been a rule for along time , the only thing thats changed is that renders now have to get previewed first before they go live .

 

Well quite honestly. No matter what thread i see a cutout of i hear "oh it's been done before." Imo when a person is unaware of this he loses cred's and rep for time spent cutting something out for lets say a hour and a half to two and when he post he get's nothing.

Now im not trying to be powerhungry, but seriously. Look at the aution room, that section has powerhungry written all over it. And if ya think about it, in the sig they make they might have an image from a site unknown. Yet it's legal to sell the sig w/o posting a link to the original image? How does having a non linked image in a signature differ from having the same image but cut out?