I'm a fan of their work as well, it's good to hear that they're very reasonable. I'll look into this myself.

Personally, I think it's the design of the payment platforms themselves + people not being used to the idea of running a business online differently than the traditional methods. There's probably also greed though

It's similar to how a lot of people start creating "Free content" with the mindset of becoming rich & famous like their fave content creators, and they go about it pushing every single consumer that dares call themselves a fan to support them with money, they push the idea that anyone who doesn't is some kind of fake fan or freeloader

They should really only expect like 10% of their fans to support them monetarily, and keeping that in mind, someone who doesn't support you monetarily can still support you with views, shares, recommendations, which in turn increases that 10%. You don't see any self-respecting content creator or artist shaming people who like their content for not paying them

Point is, strength in numbers means no need to squeeze out profit from every individual copy, and that's why exposure & rep is the aim of the game. Unlike traditional art you can sell infinite equal copies of a digital piece (there is no "original")

I liked Patreon artists who had like a $1 or $5 plan to get everything, and then also released the final pieces publicly later, like aki99 & some animators (only difference being maybe censorship or watermark, which is the most fair way IMO)

Yeah they have the right to do what they want, but better an informed decision that's in their favour than not. It feels like most won't discuss this kinda thing with the public though, they tend to shut you out quick

At least half the shit I fap to is illegal in my jurisdiction (given that "loli" bans, strictly speaking, cover nearly EVERY high school character, from pettan to big-dicked and busty futas), so I'm sure as hell not going to pay for it and have the transactions documented on my bank records. Even for the minority of paywalling artists whose business practices aren't so disgustingly greedy that I'd never pay them anyway, I'll still stick to piracy. It's frustrating to see the ways of accessing that content disappearing, but at least there are still a few places.
It's an even more annoying issue because of the inexplicable tendency of Japanese artists to delete their old work (e.g. D@i). The fewer places there are forming complete archives, including paid content, the worse off we all are. Eventually that art WILL be gone, forever, and when sites like Gelbooru and Danbooru decide against allowing paid content, it only means that content will be lost faster.

that reminds me of a fun fact. a lot of animators and artists who make their fame through pixiv or twitter often delete their work when they go official, especially when they sign with the pokemon company. there was one artist who drew a bunch of dawn and all of it got taken down as soon as he was taken on board. i'd like to imagine it's a double-edged sword of sorts.

Yeah, if they want to charge money, they should, but that's still disingenuous and I'm also free to call them out on their bullshit. Musicians get paid to perform and record albums, so what you're paying them for is not their art; it's all the travel expenses, equipment used, and the privilege to see them perform at your local venue. Similarly, actors are not just selling their talent alone. They have to rehearse for hours, set up stage and filming equipment, meet with the directors and producers on time, and sell their image to the public. That's a real career. Just drawing stuff on a tablet is something many people do for fun, so selling an image just because you made it and nobody else did is greedy. They also have no right to bitch when someone else uploads the content that they sold them. It's not theirs anymore once the transaction has been made. It's not even the same file anymore. Why one person who makes something is subject to different rights and freedoms than another who looks at it is a mystery to me. Oh wait– they're not.

If someone doesn't want other people to see their work, then they should keep it to themselves. The moment you put it on the internet, it's out of your control already. If it's my money, then I'm not going to pay for art that isn't allowed to be mine. You're damn right they don't deserve to profit from it, and they should give up their hobby, because they're doing it for all the wrong reasons.

Here's their Fanbox link to help you out: customudon.fanbox.cc/ I also like how they share preview/work-in-progress images to everyone, so you have a good idea what the next paid video is going to contain before you subscribe.


You'll be lucky to get 10% of fans to support you at the start, and if you go in hoping for that as a short-term goal you're going to be disappointed. 1% is more realistic. It's probably best to set much smaller goals at the start, like "I'm hoping to get enough each month to buy a latte," and build from there.


That phenomenon is maddening, because I really enjoy seeing an artist's art improve over time. Back before Sayori deleted all her old content on Pixiv you could see how quickly she improved from when she started, and it was fascinating. That also helps encourage other artists, being able to see that someone they admire greatly didn't draw all that well at the start either.

You've got quite a few points, and I find myself agreeing on what you wrote.
Having no idea on how to run an online business different from the traditional ones, now THAT'S the key of it all, indeed.

There are exceptions out there, but the majority of content creators (whether they're legit ones or not) are gonna follow what the big ones do, and those big ones are, like, the 1% of their World. And by following what the elite niche does, they're destined to fail, most of the times, at least.

It's humility that's missing. You gotta aim big, but you need to fly low at the start. Get your name out. Gather a discrete number of fans. Then you aim for making a living out of it, having a more precise general picture on whether that's possible or not for you.



I see what you mean, but the problem arises when users upload content that's locked behind a paywall, hence for a restrict number of people who decided to support the artist through economical ways.
Just like how you cannot take a copyrighted piece of music and upload it on YT, or upload a whole movie on the same site. I mean, you could technically do that, there's no superior force stopping you, but you'd meet a few legal problems afterwards.

Almost everything's locked behind a paywall, and I don't find it fair towards the creators (whether it's music, a movie, an illustration, whatever) to share it with the World without their consent first. Provided it wasn't free to begin with, of course.



Sure! When it's a scam in plain sight, I don't see why it'd be wrong to call 'em out.
As I said, I wouldn't pay $482 USD a month even if he/she was the absolute best of the best at illustrating/animating. Ever.

Copyright, like all laws, started out as a good idea meant to protect the individual from plagiarism, but it has been so abused in modern times so that nothing can be done once you buy something from its creator besides passively indulge in it. It is this kind of dumbed down population that discourages further creativity. Why create anything if it's not going to serve its original purpose? Furthermore, most artists don't actually own their work. Instead, the company they work for takes credit for everything they produce in their name. So... yeah, that's a big incentive there... In the end, it all boils down to this:


And as long as that's the case, their stomachs will always take priority over their freedom. They're still no different from you or me at the end of the day.

Let's slightly derail this thread and reframe the question of copyright: when it comes to websites like Sci-Hub forgoing expensive subscriptions to academic journals. Who is at fault? The scholars? The professors who coach the scholars? The publishing companies? The people who allow Sci-Hub access to these articles?