Very recently, =FadenBlade reported on an escalating issue in the photomanipulation, particularly horse manipulation, community. [link]

Stock providers are becoming more and more adamant about enforcing their rules, preventing theft, and regulating what kind of art gets made with their resources --- particularly "against" the equine community. =FadenBlade expressed valid concerns and sentiments in her article, including ways we can aid the problem, but it is also important to understand both sides of the problem. Just why are stockists ramping up the rules and telling artists that their work may not be used in pieces centered around horses?

First of all, banning all equine manipulations does counts as discrimination, and is just plain bad ethics. I personally have never had problems with stock providers, but even I, a relative newbie to the deviantART scene, have sensed a tension in the community. Still, this is very much understandable if you examine the facts. Although experienced artists may never run into real conflict with stock providers, this may be a different case with newer artists who either truly don't know the importance or the method of crediting, or just think they can get away with it. Since dA is a community of all levels of artists and we are still growing everyday, it is easy to imagine the crowd of inexperienced photomanipulators breaking a few rules here and there. We all make mistakes. We're all human, unless someone's hiding something.

Still, stock providers deal with these mistakes in massive loads. While forgetting proper credits may be one mistake to an artist, we have to remember that stockists see works from up to hundreds of artists each day, and even if everyone only made one tiny mistake, that is still hundreds to deal with and correct for them. It's not hard to understand the frustration they have building up inside. I mean, think of it this way:

A toddler spills a cup of juice. You think, "Oh not a big deal. He's only a child and it's just a bit of juice." But a nursery school teacher sees thirty children a day. If every child spilled their juice, that's thirty spills to clean up.

That sounds like a headache, and I don't even teach nursery school.

Moving on to the rules that specifically "target" equine artists, we need to explore why stockists would feel that way. And again, even though I have not yet begun to provide stock, I can understand how frustrating it is to see your stock used in an endless train of pointless, "emo", suicidal horse manips with all of the badly painted blood and cut & paste appeal... hah. If it were me, I would obviously rather my pictures be used in art that required some real effort and time so I understand why they would do it. I can not, and it is not my job to, justify the actions of other people, and there are obviously some points I disagree with, as well. However, if is our job as a community to understand differences and the causes behind them before we judge and argue.

For example, I have actually come across certain stock providers who discourage equine manips to some extent, but upon taking the time to read through their detailed rules, I learn just why and which types of equine manips they don't approve of.

If you have nothing but cookie cutter horse manips in your gallery, I will not give you the password.

...is a perfectly good reason, and I do believe the provider has the right to do this since it is their property we're talking about using, anyway.

She later goes on to explain in her journal,

I do not want to ban all horse manipulations. Some of the pieces involving horses made with my stock have been some of the most beautiful things I've seen. However, I am getting very...bored to be honest, of all the horse-running-in-front-of-a-mountain manips that have no creativity in them. If you make a piece and all it involves is a background, a horse, and some text, and the only manipulation you did was to cut out the horse, paste it and the text onto the background, and write your name on it, you need to try a bit harder.

It is very understandable to expect some certain degree of effort to be made when you let people use your work, and I'm sure anyone would agree. The fact is, there are a lot of people running around with 5-minute manips and bad credits on deviantART, and the reason they choose to do horse manips, at least in part and in my opinion, is because it is very popular. Also, a couple years ago, horse forum roleplays were "all the rage", which probably also spawned much of the art theft and whatnot that occurred and continues to occur.

In conclusion to the ramble, I don't think we can exactly condemn the few stock providers for what they have done. Is it ethical? Maybe not so much as it can be counted for discrimination against a particular community. But I think there's also fault on the part of the photomanipulators, particularly the newer ones who either don't know how to credit or just think they can get away with it. Fadenblade was definitely right when she said we need to spread awareness and keep in contact with stock providers and manipulators alike. I am certain that most of the actual equine artists have rarely run into trouble with stock before, and if so, it must have been a misunderstanding. Am I being naive there? Still, it is undeniable that there are many cases of malpractice and indeed a deluge of bad art so the stock provider's frustrations are understandable.

There are, obviously, two sides to this story and I think we should all try to understand that before dArama starts a war between what is essentially two very interdependent parts of dA. Speaking for the stock users, I believe it is our responsibility and respect to the people who provide the stock to read through all their rules and understand why they may enforce such "harsh" or "unreasonable" regulations.

The stock provider I quoted above was a very nice, friendly person and had no problem about letting me use her stock for my equine works. I'm sure there are plenty of stock providers out there like her, just hiding behind what may seem to be a very harsh facade created by frustration and fear of having their stock, which is their art work too, stolen or misused.

If we, the artists, take pride in and do so much to defend against the theft and misuse of our work, don't they, the stock providers, have the right to do the same for theirs?