Honestly, both. There has been instances before where someone has intentionally cropped an image of mine to pass of a character featured in it as their own, as well as the art itself. Sure, more times than not it is to get the face of the main subject of the picture.

If you proceed to do that when using it as an icon, banner, or something along those lines on a website, I’m completely fine with that as long as there’s credit somewhere on your profile stating who’s done it. That, I’m most appreciative about. But if you proceed to upload a full photo of mine somewhere, I would appreciate it being left as is. I don’t think to post different files/cropped images of the same general picture, as people tend to do that automatically themselves when using it as an avatar somewhere. And I’d find it pretty presumptuous of me to think anyone would automatically want to use my art for something simple like that. Plus, more times than not, a person’s more likely to see the full/’original’ image of a picture, rather than the cropped versions of it, if they find it randomly online. Would prooobably be no point to it, heh!

Still, regardless of the person on 4chan proceeding to remove my watermarks/signatures on my picture to apparently benefit others in getting the cleaner file, it is still disrespectful to do to an artist. An artists signature is there for a reason.

Yes, I’m aware that the folks on there (or heck, anywhere else) could care less about that. That’s just some peoples’ way of thinking.

Since no one’s claiming they made the picture, putting their own sort of logo/signature on the picture or anything like that, I have been ignoring it. But it still does not make it right.

Just my opinion on the matter. 

But I do appreciate your thought on submitting alternative crops of some kind. Thank you. :)