Poor Image: Dire Beast

Dire Beast's image has a signature. Pretty sure it comes from a D&D rulebook, so we probably can't use it.

Too much overlap◊ with Canis Major?

Hard-pressed to find a creature that doesn't already have its own subtrope.

I like that one.

It works. Wish the angle made it clearer how big it is.

3 seems all right.

I dunno, that doesn't look like a huge prehistoric-type version of an animal so much as a humanoid bull monster.

That's a Final Fantasy behemoth, right? They're not a bigger, scarier version of an existing animal or creature - they're just a type of monster. Even without the context, it doesn't really fit.

Mumakil:

I'm good with either of those.

Prefer the second. First has some blurring on the mooks.

9.1 and 9.2 are both good.

I don't think the blurring on the mooks in 9.1 is that big of a deal, since they aren't the focus of the image. I actually prefer 9.1 since it's a better angle of the beasts.

Is 9.2 free to use? Another oliphant:

It's taken from here. No idea if it's actually free to use.

Why is any image with a signature not allowed?

Both in 9 are good; slightly prefer 9.2. The War Elephants look much bigger in comparison to the rider.

Clock is set.

I got to thinking...since the current is from a mass-media work, while it may technically be a copyrighted piece of art, it's essentially been freely distributed. We do have a guideline in place about art from things like CCG cards being good for use, so this should qualify as well.

Agreed. Most of our images are technically copyrighted anyway (which is a whole other can of worms, but you get the idea).

Edited by Lymantria on Nov 18th 2018 at 10:24:31 AM