---

[Boggy Man]

It looks like you have to pay the site $10 to be able to view it.

[Weapon X]

It looks like you have to pay the site $10 to be able to view it.

Exactly why I'm not viewing it. The frame capture looks great, but not worth $10.

[PM2K]

Remember when folks would post things for the enjoyment of others and not expect to wring a few bucks out of them in the process? QSA did a great GIF animation and never expected others to pay for it. Qsvgitguy spent a year or so crafting his animated ode to Pete Boggs' Disappearing Act - twice - and never put it up on a pay site. Mudmaiden does Second Life videos on a regular basis... not to mention all of the artists etc. who regularly contribute elaborate, labor-intensive works here and didn't charge,,,

Not that there's anything wrong with charging for one's work. You just have to be upfront about it. Here's the art... like it? I have an animation which will cost you $10 to check out., If interested, here's the link.

Anyway, sorry to pile on, but it did irk me a tad to be ambushed like that.

[cygnus421]

10 dollars could buy me an entire movie. ill pass.

[quicksand3D]

many artists are migrating from DA over to Patreon since anything goes content wise - but you have to pay $ here & pay $ there just to look at anything like a cheasy porn site. I'm sure I'm missing alot of great art on Patreon but I'm not going to pay per view. Same reason I wont pay for Sirius radio.

[PM2K]

I wouldn't mind paying or sponsoring an artist... no different than getting commissions, really... My problem is a lack of funds to do so. One day, I hope to rectify that.

[Fred588]

I think I agree with both quicksand 3D and PM2K on this. While there are always exceptions to any general rule, paying for something without seeing it, in some albeit limited form, is buying a pig in a poke. I would not buy my vegetables that way!

Of course, it is also unreasonable to expect an artist of any sort to give away his or her product, which is what happens if potential customers can obtain it free. Back in the early days of personal computers there were many attempts at marketing software by a sort of honor system - try it and pay if you like it. Some people paid but not many and you don't see that approach much anymore. It didn't work.

I think a reasonable compromise is for the producer to offer some sort of limited version for free but not the full product. With videos that is done using sample stills and teasers. With still photos it can be done with reduced-size images or by offering a sample from a larger set. With artwork of most kinds I guess it could be done in the same way, although probably not for a sculpture. With commercial movies, books, plays, dance, the reviewer serves a similar purpose, provided both customer and producer have confidence the review is legitimate. Amazon and other on-line retailers make significant use of reviewers and most of them go to great lengths to ensure the integrity of those reviews. Sometimes a manufacturer will attempt to influence such reviews through various forms of bribery, and they deserve to get hammered really hard when they get caught doing so.

Another approach to the general issue here is the weight of reputation and/or past performance. This is what is generally done when something is requested on a custom basis, be it a video, a drawing, an animation, or whatever. This is perhaps somewhat unfair to the new producer, or at least harder on the new producer but it may be the only way. If you go to a restaurant, especially an expensive one, you depend on its reputation - you don't get free samples. Of course, free samples are another approach for some things.

[DJlurker]

In other words, please don't be a gimme.