I can see how some people might think that would work, especially if they're operating only within a fandom where all of the audience might be expected to know all of the canon fairly well. But when you're using an icon from, say, DC comics fandom, where there are hundreds of artists and thousands of books? Or when you're using an icon in a multi-fandom context? I don't see how you can realistically expect everyone to recognize that it's canon and who drew it, just because it was published. Half the time with manga icons I have no clue if it's fanart or not, even if I can recognize the fandom. In fact even in DC comics fandom I'm *more* likely to be able to recognize fanartists by style than I am pro pencillers. And I don't think I'm the only one.
I'm also not sure that most people would assume that the person using a fanart icon is the artist or the owner, even if it's uncredited. In HP fandom, at least, which is where this discussion started, there's a long tradition of people using other people's fanart in icons and moodthemes, to the point where some fanartists are more widely distributed than Mary Grandpre's work is. (The biggest HP fanfic discussion board, in fact, where a lot of people started, has a bunch of default fanart icons that anyone can use, uncredited.) Again I can see how artists might be paranoid about that implication, but I just don't see any evidence that it's *true*, unless the person is making efforts to actively mislead. Even when fanart is put up whole (like as illustrations within a fanfic, or as part of a layout) I doubt most people's first assumption would be that the author also drew the art, if it's unsigned, especially if more than one style is apparent.
It's still necessary to credit if you can! That I don't argue. I still don't agree that there's an automatic distinction between fanart and pro art, though. They should both be credited, because with any reasonably wide audience (and reasonably good quality fanart...) they're equally likely to be misattributed to the poster.
no subject
I'm also not sure that most people would assume that the person using a fanart icon is the artist or the owner, even if it's uncredited. In HP fandom, at least, which is where this discussion started, there's a long tradition of people using other people's fanart in icons and moodthemes, to the point where some fanartists are more widely distributed than Mary Grandpre's work is. (The biggest HP fanfic discussion board, in fact, where a lot of people started, has a bunch of default fanart icons that anyone can use, uncredited.) Again I can see how artists might be paranoid about that implication, but I just don't see any evidence that it's *true*, unless the person is making efforts to actively mislead. Even when fanart is put up whole (like as illustrations within a fanfic, or as part of a layout) I doubt most people's first assumption would be that the author also drew the art, if it's unsigned, especially if more than one style is apparent.
It's still necessary to credit if you can! That I don't argue. I still don't agree that there's an automatic distinction between fanart and pro art, though. They should both be credited, because with any reasonably wide audience (and reasonably good quality fanart...) they're equally likely to be misattributed to the poster.