loser question

[salixbabylon]

Ok, I'm sorry to sound like your great-aunt Gertrude who just discovered this cool "internet" thing, but I'm confused. By livejournal and icons etiquette, actually.

When people make icons and post them to their icon journals and they are pictures but with no words, is it allowed or is it not allowed to add text/your name/etc? Assuming of course that you still credit the original artist, I don't understand what the issue is. Help?

Also - what's the difference between an icon, a base, and a blank? I assume this is related to my first question, but the terminology (and inconsistent application thereof) is confusing me.

Comments

[willys-digs.livejournal.com]

Good question, tracking it, I want the answer too!

Jo

[hammil77.livejournal.com]

Taking a person's textless icon and adding your own text is a big no-no. Most icon makers will specifically state so in their 'rules.' The reason for it is because if the icon doesn't have text, then it wasn't intended for text. It's also kind of an insult for someone to deface your work like that. While an icon maker may simply not know what text to apply to an icon, the person who takes it and put theirs own on really doesn't know what they're doing, especially in the eyes of the icon maker. That's not meant to offend but more often than not, it's a true statement.

To be incredibly specific, an icon is a 100x100 image that has been cropped and then altered in some way be it through textures or color and has text on it. A blank or textless icon is an icon that has been manipulated to look a certain way through cropping, color, texture, etc but does not have text. It's done this way on purpose either because it simply looks better textless or the icon maker couldn't think of something to put on it. A base however is just an image cropped down to 100x100 with nothing done to it. Bases are the only kinds of 'icons' which can be altered by anyone and it's okay. The reason it's okay is because no work when in to it. No layers, color manipulation, nada.

I hope I was able to help you. I know quite a bit about icon politics, more than I probably should actually. :P

[salixbabylon.livejournal.com]

Ah, ok. That explains why someone was so offended the one time I emailed asking if I could do that.

So - icons and blanks, no. Bases, yes.

All righty then. I don't like it, because I frequently see lovely but simple pictures and text that I'd like to see on them jumps into my head, but I'm glad to at least be aware of the etiquette. Thank you *very much* for setting me straight. :)

[tearsandrainxxx.livejournal.com]

if you wanted to use a textless icon to add text to, you could always contact the icon maker and ask them about this if you agree to credit them for the part they made.

[salixbabylon.livejournal.com]

I did that once and the creator acted very offended. Now I understand why. Maybe if it is an artist I know, they'd be more willing to mess up their art for me. ;)

[causette.livejournal.com]

too lazy to check if this has been answered by now but I wanted to give my two cents :)

A base is usually considered a cropped picture. With no work done to it. No one should really ask to be credited for bases. That's just stupid, imo. A blank is simply an icon with no text on it. Some times people confuse blanks to bases and think they don't have to give credit to icons that are blanks. But just because an icon is textless doesn't mean the artist didn't put just as much effort into it if he had put text on it.

As for adding text to icons. I think it just depends. I think most icon makers put it in their rules that their icons should NOT be edited. And that means that no text should be added to them. But if they don't state it anywhere, I would think that the polite thing to do would be simply to ask the icon maker if he/she minded if you added text to the icons and say that you'd also give proper credit. Maybe the artist would like to add the text on the icon himself, (I know I'd probably just ask for the text and do it myself). As a graphic maker, I know I'd be pissed if someone edited something I created without asking. But I know I'd be so fine with them adding text to my textless stuff if they'd ask and if they did it tastefully :P

[salixbabylon.livejournal.com]

OK. I do understand that the artist's original intention was not to have text. I suppose *some* people aren't as word-focused as I am. ;)

I think the problem really is that I suck at making icons, I see pictures and think "wow, wouldn't that be cool if it said...", and I don't like to be constantly begging my f-list to make me icons. That seems rude to me.

Do you have any suggestions? (Other than overcoming my terror of Photoshop. *g*)

[causette.livejournal.com]

yeah, some icons just don't work with text or there simply isn't enough space on the icon left to tastefully fit in some text. As for me, I love adding text to my icons but I always suck at thinking up some clever thing to add on the icon. So usually I just end up having the name of the person on the icon if I really want to add text. Then a simple solution is to put all my music on random and just look for cool song titles that would on icons.

Anyways, the only thing I could suggest is that if you do see an icon somewhere and you'd really like to have some text on it... just carefully read the rules from the graphic maker and look for something about requests. If you don't see anything, you could make a comment to the post with the icon and ask the icon maker if he minded that you added some text (and tell the maker what text you want to put on) and let him know that you'd make sure he was still properly credited for the icon. I guess you are just going to have to risk it and hope you'll get a pleasant response. I bet that well over 75% of all graphic makers would be fine with it :)