Sometimes there's just that one thing that keeps you from fapping to a picture. Now, let's say you have the ability to fix that. The question is, do you post said edit for the benefit of all? Or do you keep it to yourself to avoid drama?

I think it's ok to post an edit provided that:

1. The edit is of good quality and respects the style of the original (you can't tell it's edited)
2. The tags are updated and the post is linked to the original as a child post.
3. There's a good enough reason for the edit (to reduce spam)

I also personally leave my name out of the tags so the credit remains with the original artist.

For an example see post #63362

Of course one answer is to get the original artist's permission first, but that's not always practical. :3

In my opinion edits are fine when it's like, changing the sex of the subject or adding breasts to a flat-chested female or something, but it seems a bit silly to edit like, how that last spine on someone's tail looks then reupload it.

I personally dislike edits, particularly like the one you linked, as I feel it's very rude and disrespectful.

Mostly because if someone edited my art it'd tick me off. If I wanted the character to be drawn both ways, I would've done it in photoshop myself. Not like it doesn't take me like, 2 minutes to do as the original artist.

I've seen quite a few artists which release two different versions of a lot of their art for just that reason.

While I generally look the other way at editing, if you are editing a person's fursona, I think you need to be kicked hard in the balls. Repeatedly.

edit: Deleted

it's like marbles said, a lot of artists do multiple versions of the same picture, and they often don't like their work edited, even if it's a well done edit.
i'm using my art as an example of multi edit by the artist-
here is the original- http://e621.net/post/show/72936/canine-cave-chance_wulfe-chaoswerewolf-macro-teeth
here is the edit- http://e621.net/post/show/73492/brown-canine-chaoswerewolf-edit-green-leaves-solo-
i did it this way because i know many people dislike macro and vore, and this solved the problem of "i would like this if it wasn't vore".

well i liked and appreciated his edit. i don't find the original attractive just because that one thing. if all edits were as good quality as that, i wouldn't have a problem

Marbles said:
...if you are editing a person's fursona, I think you need to be kicked hard in the balls. Repeatedly.

Are you seriously suggesting actual physical violence in retribution for making fun of someone's internet avatar? Chill the fuck down. Can we be civil here? If every major animation studio did that to every artist who drew porn of their characters, this entire community would be dead.

The fact is that we as artists are allowed to create pornographic depictions of others' characters, whether legally copyrighted or not, because porn counts as parody, which is legally protected.

Marbles said:
I personally dislike edits, particularly like the one you linked, as I feel it's very rude and disrespectful.

Yet every image you've uploaded, except for ONE, is an edit - a photomorph. You're uploading edited versions of someone else's work without the permission of either the artist or the model. What makes these edits any different?

In fact, some artists are totally okay with people editing their work - ID_Fox has stated his approval of nude edits of the art of his Katbox co-owner Chalo.

Q8A3 said:
Yet every image you've uploaded, except for ONE, is an edit - a photomorph. You're uploading edited versions of someone else's work without the permission of either the artist or the model.

The artist was not me. He was a photographer who shot those pictures and photomorphed them.

Lord only knows I never learned how to photoshop like that.

I don't see what you think that has to do with editing other people's art.

If someone made an edit of one of my works, <i>and did it with good intentions</i>, I would just be flattered that they even liked my art. I don't just edit any old picture. When I do an edit I'm saying "I like this work enough to take the effort and make it more appealing to my and other's sexual preferences." It may be art but it's also still porn. I realize not everyone agrees with this logic but I hardly think doing edits makes me a terrible person or worthy of a ball kicking.

I'd venture to guess most of the pictures uploaded to this site are done so without the artist's permission, and at least 3879 of them have the "unknown artist" tag. And as Q8A3 pointed out a lot them contain licensed characters. If posting porn of something that wasn't meant for porn is not a problem, then what's wrong with posting porn of something meant for porn? When you're doing something in the name of porn accessibility, things get a little relative.

All that said, I do see there is a lot of animosity over this kind of thing, so if anything it should be done sparingly. My goal, ultimately, is to spread joy, (which is why I got into entertainment,) so drama and offending people is not something I want. It's easy to do an edit though, and if it makes me enjoy a particularly good image more it's hard to resist, and it <i>is</i> usually appreciated. If I followed my conscience more than my sex drive, I wouldn't even be on this site.

that's why there's a feature that's called PARENT POST. that way, the editor doesn't take credit for the image, just the editing.

there's also this thing called FLAG FOR DELETION so if the original drawer doesn't like the edit, it can be removed. what happens outside of those 2 parties is just a bunch of bawwing and whinning