Wow, Well-Dressed Wolf, sounds like a sarcastic, ill-informed legal mind by someone who defines DIGITAL ART based on that same rude ignorance. Your EGO precedes you. To quote your hypocritical profile speech, if you came to my profile hoping for validation because my viewpoints or opinions make you angry: congratulations, you’re on the internet! Other people have opinions besides yours! RESPECT other people, their preferences, their identities, and their thoughts — if you don’t, you aren’t deserving of RESPECT yourself. Ok then 'PRACTICE WHAT YOU PREACH' and please refrain from voicing a false impression that you definitively know of anything posted here on this forum that pertains to a copyright violation or even what constitutes 'DIGITAL ART' when in fact you do not sound like you know what ither subject matter actually contains or how it was accomplished. Thank you and congratulations, were on the internet, Richard Law

Here is a quick definition of 'DIGITAL ART'. Digital painting is an established art medium that typically combines a computer, a graphics tablet, and software of choice.[1] The artist uses painting and drawing with the stylus that comes with the graphics tablet to create 2D paintings within a digital art software. Digital artists, the first being digital brushes, utilize some multiple techniques and tools.[2] These come standard with all digital art programs, but users can create their own by altering their shape, texture, size, and transfer.[3] Many of these brushes are created to represent traditional styles like oils, acrylics, pastels, charcoal, and airbrushing, but not all.[4] Other effective tools include layers, lasso tools, shapes, and masks. Digital painting has evolved to not just mimic traditional art styles but fully become its technique.

Everything I have posted here on this forum is in public domain and covered by the fare use doctrine including that very same 1943 navy photograph and the additional 600+ carter photographs that became public domain when president carter authorized it and had all of that material placed in the national archive, made available FREE to the general public. The pictures I posted here have been re-digitized with a variety of software's including photo shop. The DIGITAL PAINTINGS I posted, most of which took several hours each to accomplish are very different from the original copyright free photographs made available for re-digitizing by the people who provide them to the public. That agreement also includes the photographers who shot the actual pictures and granted permission to alter that exact work. Sadly, there are those who define art according to their own insecure flat earth way of thinking and who accuse others of doing a wrong when no wrong has been done. These pictures have been reinvented with 21st century tools and are a pleasure to look at. Why don't you all give some thought to what you say, who you say it to and most importantly, the actual facts of what you're talking about before you say it. What you have said is a totally rude and uninformed accusation to someone who tries to make new, things that are old. You, SIR and your fan club are a disrespectful bunch of joy killing pandas with nothing better to do than troll other members of this magazine forum. Get a life and do some research before you decide to launch an attack using misinformation that you and your sarcastic ignorance contrived. Thank you and once again, welcome to the internet, Richard Law