redisdead said:
You are the cancer that is killing e621

You are the scurvy that makes Jack sparrow's gums bleed. How can you sleep at night, knowing that you are hurting Johnny Depp?

CamKitty said:
"looks like rainbow dash" is key here, it doesn't. Which is why I can see why that example upsets him, but not his delivery methods. Getting more then just name from source is already happening

That's why I also said if the artist says it is. Without the artist's input, we have no idea who a character might be if they're drawn differently from the norm, and that's a legitimate problem.

NotMeNotYou said:
Nah, the character owner can get their own chars on DNP just as well.
The ticket is also already submitted so I wouldn't worry about it anymore.

Characters will never be put on the DNP list. They're too hard to keep track of and often look completely different over time. They can still be taken down, but they'll never be on a DNP list.

I don't see this as a rule change but a clarification to an already existing facet to the TWYS rule. Character names already were external information being used for tagging. One could look at them as a loophole to TWYS or, perhaps more accurately, as necessary information that identifies people and things in the picture, much as, for example, species is used in tagging to identify animals. The clarification basically means that the owner's intent on a character's name is to be given priority within reason when considering and using it as a tag. Ultimately, this doesn't mean that intent will be used when a character's appearance is heavily off-model, just that it shouldn't be ignored.

Personally, I thought that was what e621 was already doing, but it seems this aspect of TWYS wasn't spelled out clearly enough before to prevent confusion among taggers. Hence, the need for a clarification.
________

It seems to me that much of the conflict around gender and character tagging boils down to a clash of egos and the resulting power struggles. People got into arguments trying to convince others that they were right and the others were wrong when, according to equally valid interpretations of the character-tagging rules, the others were also right. Character owners saw any gender tags that didn't fit with their original intent as an attack on their character and, by extension, an attack on themselves instead of an objective cataloging of what's visible in a picture. Egos clashed, developed tunnel-vision, and got locked into becoming close-minded, interfering with e621's properly working.

Clawstripe said:
I don't see this as a rule change but a clarification to an already existing facet to the TWYS rule. Character names already were external information being used for tagging. One could look at them as a loophole to TWYS or, perhaps more accurately, as necessary information that identifies people and things in the picture, much as, for example, species is used in tagging to identify animals. The clarification basically means that the owner's intent on a character's name is to be given priority within reason when considering and using it as a tag. Ultimately, this doesn't mean that intent will be used when a character's appearance is heavily off-model, just that it shouldn't be ignored.

Personally, I thought that was what e621 was already doing, but it seems this aspect of TWYS wasn't spelled out clearly enough before to prevent confusion among taggers. Hence, the need for a clarification.
________

It seems to me that much of the conflict around gender and character tagging boils down to a clash of egos and the resulting power struggles. People got into arguments trying to convince others that they were right and the others were wrong when, according to equally valid interpretations of the character-tagging rules, the others were also right. Character owners saw any gender tags that didn't fit with their original intent as an attack on their character and, by extension, an attack on themselves instead of an objective cataloging of what's visible in a picture. Egos clashed, developed tunnel-vision, and got locked into becoming close-minded, interfering with e621's properly working.

Awesome and respectful answer. Now all we need is for them to listen, open there minds a little.

redisdead said:
Nothing, keep up the good work. I have another suggestion actually, makes it so it's OK to tag genders according to what the artists/owners say.

Take this for example: https://e621.net/post/show/221314 She's totally not a female, in fact, she's a herm. Isn't this picture EXACTLY what you're looking for when browsing for "herm"? Because you know, I own the character, so if I say it's a herm, then it needs to be tagged as herm. Besides, she looks exactly what a herm would look when wearing clothes.

You were going fine with your argument, clean up to this point, hang on let me fix the problem with your statement here.

esides, she looks exactly what a Female would look when wearing clothes. Yeah, note the distinct lack of bulge in her skirt? You get the female tag.

The TWYS Rule update was, and let me make it very clear so even someone as stubborn as you can understand here, made only in clarification to character NAMES, not genders. Characters that LOOK female will still be tagged female, characters that LOOK Male will still be tagged male. This is merely an expansion on the tag what you see rule to end pointless bickering about IS THIS OR IS THIS NOT THIS CHARACTER; and it is not entirely related to the pony fandom, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that's where the problem sprang up at.

That said, since you have a DNP Ticket up to remove all your characters artwork, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

redisdead said:
You are the cancer that is killing e621

And you are the plague that's dropping the general I.Q levels of the entire human race ;)

Princess_Celestia said:
You were going fine with your argument, clean up to this point, hang on let me fix the problem with your statement here.

esides, she looks exactly what a Female would look when wearing clothes. Yeah, note the distinct lack of bulge in her skirt? You get the female tag.

The TWYS Rule update was, and let me make it very clear so even someone as stubborn as you can understand here, made only in clarification to character NAMES, not genders.

OK then, I'm still the character owner and now I'm saying that this is my vision of Dumbershy, if she was actually a bunny and had dark hair WHAT NOW?

Also, if this problem isn't entirely related to the pony fandom it certainly seems to be 99% of the problem, and there's a whole truckload of bronies defending this rule like their lives depend on it without even remotely understanding how it is vital to keep the tagging on this site clean. Heck, you guys certainly create drama everywhere you go.

Princess_Celestia said:
And you are the plague that's dropping the general I.Q levels of the entire human race ;)

Said the brony ;)

redisdead said:
OK then, I'm still the character owner and now I'm saying that this is my vision of Dumbershy, if she was actually a bunny and had dark hair WHAT NOW?

Also, if this problem isn't entirely related to the pony fandom it certainly seems to be 99% of the problem, and there's a whole truckload of bronies defending this rule like their lives depend on it without even remotely understanding how it is vital to keep the tagging on this site clean. Heck, you guys certainly create drama everywhere you go.

Said the brony ;)

Yes, we're clearly the ones creating the drama here, that's why you're the one with the negative mark for being hostile and having your artwork taken down because of it.

But to answer your points, then yes, the character would still receive the name Fluttershy as that is part of the update, but that's all it would receive, the character name,and show. Everything else would still abide by purely what is in the picture.

And to counter your final statement.

"Said the Furry."

Princess_Celestia said:
Yes, we're clearly the ones creating the drama here, that's why you're the one with the negative mark for being hostile and having your artwork taken down because of it.

But to answer your points, then yes, the character would still receive the name Fluttershy as that is part of the update, but that's all it would receive, the character name,and show. Everything else would still abide by purely what is in the picture.

And to counter your final statement.

"Said the Furry."

Not even that if there's nothing in the image indicating that it's Fluttershy.

redisdead said:

Take this for example: https://e621.net/post/show/221314 She's totally not a female, in fact, she's a herm. Isn't this picture EXACTLY what you're looking for when browsing for "herm"? Because you know, I own the character, so if I say it's a herm, then it needs to be tagged as herm. Besides, she looks exactly what a herm would look when wearing clothes.

Still that picture you linked won't get herm or dickgirl since it isn't give any1 the idea that there is a dick under that skirt.

OK then, I'm still the character owner and now I'm saying that this is my vision of Dumbershy, if she was actually a bunny and had dark hair WHAT NOW?

And it has to come close enough to make that assumption.

Also, if this problem isn't entirely related to the pony fandom it certainly seems to be 99% of the problem, and there's a whole truckload of bronies defending this rule like their lives depend on it without even remotely understanding how it is vital to keep the tagging on this site clean. Heck, you guys certainly create drama everywhere you go.

Seems your the one continuing this drama right now... Because I am pretty sure all the other tags work just as they did before this TWYS update. Gender works on what you see and what is the norm. Like the images I linked, you can see the gender types through the clothing. The one you linked would be default female.

Princess_Celestia said:
But to answer your points, then yes, the character would still receive the name Fluttershy

And you don't see what's wrong with that at all?

I am amazed that you can even type out the beginning of that sentence and not end it with "this is why this rule is a crock of shit", it blows my mind.

I have given you a link of a character that has absolutely nothing to do with MLP, but BECAUSE OWNER SAID SO (which is the complete opposite of the very important TWYS rule), tagging it as fluttershy/mlp is valid.

I mean, who the fuck would type out MLP in the search box and be overjoyed to find this pic. I mean it's a nice pic, Natys is a good artist, I absolutely don't regret spending money for this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with MLP. It's pretty much the same as searching for canine and getting solo pics of horses or some other shit.

Also, while we're talking about crocks of shit, "having your artwork taken down because of it."

No, i'm the one asking for it to be taken down, the negative report for being "hostile" has nothing to do with it and actually came after the takedown request.

As for the report, yes, I fully admit I was being hostile 'cuz i'm sick and tired of bronies ruining everything they touch. Have fun with your useless search box.

And, dude, "Said the Furry."

You're basing your entire online persona on a talking pony from a kiddy cartoon, you don't get to call the shots on who's stupid and who isn't. You're about as cringeful as the plethora of Not-Sonic-Original-Character-Do-Not-Steal that was all the rage like 20 years ago.

Hammie said:
Not even that if there's nothing in the image indicating that it's Fluttershy.

She's an emo-bunny-fluttershy, this is why she has dark hair and is a bunny, but it's totally fluttershy. Also the eyes are actually colored contacts. Fluttershy/MLP tag is valid because I'm the owner of the character and I said so. You can't argue against that because the rule says i'm right.

redisdead said:
She's an emo-bunny-fluttershy, this is why she has dark hair and is a bunny, but it's totally fluttershy. Also the eyes are actually colored contacts. Fluttershy/MLP tag is valid because I'm the owner of the character and I said so. You can't argue against that because the rule says i'm right.

No, the rule says that any given image must corroborate the character name given by the owner/artist.
If there is nothing in the image to indicate that it is in fact the character, it still shouldn't be tagged, even under the new rule change.

This thread has devolved pretty quickly.

redisdead said:
And you don't see what's wrong with that at all?

I am amazed that you can even type out the beginning of that sentence and not end it with "this is why this rule is a crock of shit", it blows my mind.

I have given you a link of a character that has absolutely nothing to do with MLP, but BECAUSE OWNER SAID SO (which is the complete opposite of the very important TWYS rule), tagging it as fluttershy/mlp is valid.

The tag would be fluttershy_(redisdead) instead of fluttershy_(mlp).
Such a hard concept to grasp since we already put the source of the name (the franchise My Little Pony if you couldn't tell) in the tag itself.

redisdead said:
You're basing your entire online persona on a talking pony from a kiddy cartoon, you don't get to call the shots on who's stupid and who isn't. You're about as cringeful as the plethora of Not-Sonic-Original-Character-Do-Not-Steal that was all the rage like 20 years ago.

redisdead said:
[…]entire online persona[…]

Bender said it best.

Should I change my avatar so you don't confuse it with my nonexisting persona?

You're all yo-yo's. Shut up, ya yo-yo's.

NotMeNotYouMobile said:
The tag would be fluttershy_(redisdead) instead of fluttershy_(mlp).
Such a hard concept to grasp since we already put the source of the name (the franchise My Little Pony if you couldn't tell) in the tag itself.

http://e621.net/post/show/326499
http://e621.net/post/show/326995
http://e621.net/post/show/326967

I'm pretty certain this is not actually MLP, or the show somehow changed drastically since I last saw it - And I'm not talking about the sexualisation, that's obvious. This pretty much applies to every humanised version of MLP stuff tagged as Character(mlp) But it's OK, keep claiming i'm the idiot unable to grasp a concept here, when you're clearly unable to understand the purpose of the TWYS rule and why it's so important.

Bender said it best.

Should I change my avatar so you don't confuse it with my nonexisting persona?

I wasn't talking to you, now shoo.

So mad I'm gonna take my ball and go home. SO THERE.

redisdead said:
And you don't see what's wrong with that at all?

I am amazed that you can even type out the beginning of that sentence and not end it with "this is why this rule is a crock of shit", it blows my mind.

I have given you a link of a character that has absolutely nothing to do with MLP, but BECAUSE OWNER SAID SO (which is the complete opposite of the very important TWYS rule), tagging it as fluttershy/mlp is valid.

I mean, who the fuck would type out MLP in the search box and be overjoyed to find this pic. I mean it's a nice pic, Natys is a good artist, I absolutely don't regret spending money for this, but it has absolutely nothing to do with MLP. It's pretty much the same as searching for canine and getting solo pics of horses or some other shit.

Also, while we're talking about crocks of shit, "having your artwork taken down because of it."

No, i'm the one asking for it to be taken down, the negative report for being "hostile" has nothing to do with it and actually came after the takedown request.

As for the report, yes, I fully admit I was being hostile 'cuz i'm sick and tired of bronies ruining everything they touch. Have fun with your useless search box.

And, dude, "Said the Furry."

Here's the thing you seem to keep missing, and hang on, I'll bold it so you get it through your thick skull, because otherwise you seem to be completely ignorant to the point.

Their must be evidence within the picture that correlates it to the character in question, the image must provide reasonable doubt that the character in question is said character, and must be confirmed within the artists own source from their gallery page incase you STILL don't get it, with as thick as you are something tells me you won't, that means that the Image must share similarities with the character in question, and cannot be entirely unrelated to the character in any way, or the tag will not be added. [/b] holy shit, that was so difficult to understand! And yes, said the furry, as again you're the one continuing the needless drama because of a very recurring point in your argument, but hang on, I'll get to that side in just "one" second. Theirs one other thing I have to pull apart first.

redisdead said:
You're basing your entire online persona on a talking pony from a kiddy cartoon, you don't get to call the shots on who's stupid and who isn't. You're about as cringeful as the plethora of Not-Sonic-Original-Character-Do-Not-Steal that was all the rage like 20 years ago.

Oh no, she's using Celestia for a name ,and using a picture of Celestia, when she was the admin who moderated pony pictures and kept the Brony users in line for the most part, god forbid! Here's a factoid for you kiddie, I don't role play on this site. I don't act like the character, I don't adopt the persona of the character. I simply used it because it was convenient. Imagine that, someone using something because its convenient, huh.

But now lets get down to the real brunt of why you're throwing such a bitch fit, shall we? And I'm sure everyone else has noticed it. It's because you're so far up your own ass with your hatred towards the MLP fandom that anything that remotely looks like it's in favor of them seems like the worlds gonna come crashing down on you. God knows, bronies ruin everything they touch, they are a plague on everything and everyone, holy fucking crapolies. Must be just like how the Digimon plague ran rampent some years ago, oh oh, or when pokemon was at the peak of IT's popularity and kept mixing Everything, or how about how Furries STILL ruin everything they touch and infest every single thing they can get their hands on, sure must be different how they do exactly the same thing. And lets not even get into sonic, that rotting corpse has fester for quite some time now.

But yes, clearly bronies are the first ones to do this, and their clearly the spawn of all evil because of it, baww, baww, baww. Jesus christ.

redisdead said:
http://e621.net/post/show/326499
http://e621.net/post/show/326995
http://e621.net/post/show/326967

I'm pretty certain this is not actually MLP, or the show somehow changed drastically since I last saw it - And I'm not talking about the sexualisation, that's obvious. This pretty much applies to every humanised version of MLP stuff tagged as Character(mlp) But it's OK, keep claiming i'm the idiot unable to grasp a concept here, when you're clearly unable to understand the purpose of the TWYS rule and why it's so important.

I wasn't talking to you, now shoo.

Post one has distinct similarities to rainbow dash, pink eyes, rainbow hair, athletic build. Not sure what the horse cock has to do with anything but whatever, reasonably, it COULD be her. This falls under the, HOLY SHIT, collaborating evidence rule, omg but clearly its totally not because REASONS!

Post two; Twilight sparkles hair, her clothing style matches her fur pattern, she has a bloody unicorn horn, and her eyes match. {Oh and the book about lessons from princess Celestia} but clearly, it's just another random human because we couldn't have things possibly tagged right, nope, all those similarities are clearly coincidental!

Post three; THe curly hair and eyes, with the bright pink color of the hair are very pinkie pie ish, but ehh..That one's more of a can go either way.

And you've lost any right to shoo anyone away on this particular thread.

The "Tag what you see rule" as you say it, is not under threat from this change in rules. The fact that you keep saying it is has absolutely nothing to do with the characters in question, but your own hate hardon for the fandom which you've clearly got your own head up your ass about. Fact of the matter is, this won't do SHIT to TWYS because, guess what, those images? ALl line up with the "Oh, I see X Character." Holy fucking shit, tag what you see is in effect there! Oh my gawd. The only reason this rule was put into place was to stop people like "You" and over-zealous taggers from the brony fandom BOTH.

Thumb# 326657 This thing looks nothing like a renamon, but it's still tagged a renamon because um..I guess the source says it is. And no one on this site still knows the fundamental differences between Cheetahs, Jaguars, and Leopards.

Yeah, It all keeps coming back to one thing, you don't want this rule because OHNOBRONIESGONNARUINEVERYTHINGBAWWWWWWWWWW, Jesus, just hurry up and get out, and please god may the dog bite you square on the ass on the way out.

Princess_Celestia said:
Here's the thing you seem to keep missing, and hang on, I'll bold it so you get it through your thick skull, because otherwise you seem to be completely ignorant to the point.

Their must be evidence within the picture that correlates it to the character in question, the image must provide reasonable doubt that the character in question is said character, and must be confirmed within the artists own source from their gallery page incase you STILL don't get it, with as thick as you are something tells me you won't, that means that the Image must share similarities with the character in question, and cannot be entirely unrelated to the character in any way, or the tag will not be added. [/b] holy shit, that was so difficult to understand!

They both have yellow-ish fur. So now instead of having a clear-cut rule we have one that's widely open to interpretation and that is supposed to TOTALLY STOP THE DRAMA hahah holy shit I can't even say that with a straight face.

But now lets get down to the real brunt of why you're throwing such a bitch fit, shall we? And I'm sure everyone else has noticed it. It's because you're so far up your own ass with your hatred towards the MLP fandom that anything that remotely looks like it's in favor of them seems like the worlds gonna come crashing down on you. God knows, bronies ruin everything they touch, they are a plague on everything and everyone, holy fucking crapolies. Must be just like how the Digimon plague ran rampent some years ago, oh oh, or when pokemon was at the peak of IT's popularity and kept mixing Everything, or how about how Furries STILL ruin everything they touch and infest every single thing they can get their hands on, sure must be different how they do exactly the same thing. And lets not even get into sonic, that rotting corpse has fester for quite some time now.

I see you still haven't figured out why I'm against this rule, my somewhat dislike for MLP stuff and utter hatred of bronies has absolutely nothing to do with this, other than the problem clearly came from bronies in the first place.

I simply used it because it was convenient. Imagine that, someone using something because its convenient, huh.

You misspelled "i'm unoriginal", also calling someone "kiddie" when you're a grown adult watching cartoon = lol. We'll resume this discussion when you've matured a bit.

Seriously, though, red. Why the hate on bronies?

Renard_Queenston said:
Seriously, though, red. Why the hate on bronies?

Because of this entire thread.

No offense, but you probably won't be able to stop it. You're just one user, right?

redisdead said:
Because of this entire thread.

Now you're just being silly

Didn't I say respect other users @redisdead for what they may or may not like, like a day/page ago... Well seems you got what was coming to you... Owell see you in a week.

Sadly he had points just was angry when presenting them

http://e621.net/take_down/show/1354 "I know I uploaded most of those but I'm fed up with people not being able to follow simple rules."

Simple rules like not being a dick to other users and stopping when the administration tells you to are, apparently, not rules that he's concerned about.

Char said:
http://e621.net/take_down/show/1354 "I know I uploaded most of those but I'm fed up with people not being able to follow simple rules."

Is it up to character owners or artists?

Char said:

Simple rules like not being a dick to other users and stopping when the administration tells you to are, apparently, not rules that he's concerned about.

While very very true, he was also egged on a bit. No need to go as batshit as he did, but he was egged on a little

CamKitty said:
While very very true, he was also egged on a bit. No need to go as batshit as he did, but he was egged on a little

Agreed. A former admin should know better than to act like that and stoop to his level.

CamKitty said:
Is it up to character owners or artists?

It's up to the character owners, or artists, doesn't matter which generally. Just as long as one wants them down, which has led to conflicts, but it is what it is.

Princess_Celestia said:
It's up to the character owners, or artists, doesn't matter which generally. Just as long as one wants them down, which has led to conflicts, but it is what it is.

Ah, makes sense for keeping the peace. Shame though

CamKitty said:
Ah, makes sense for keeping the peace. Shame though

I'm still one of the standing opponents to allowing character owners / commissioners take down rights. But char's already made it very clear that's not going to change.

Well, owners have copyright on the characters, just as artists have copyright on the art.
Legally either can issue a takedown request and/or attempt a lawsuit if their art isn't removed.

CamKitty said:
Is it up to character owners or artists?

We allow both. There was a time when we accepted takedown requests only from artists, but we stopped that at least 2 years ago. While people can debate whether or not we should be accepting takedown requests from character owners, it just doesn't really make sense to have the artist have to contact us every time one of their commissioners wants their art removed. After the artist gets annoyed enough times, they're likely to just request to be put on the Avoid Posting list so they don't have to be bothered about it anymore. Not to mention I highly doubt there are too many artists who would be willing to tell their customers "no" when asked to submit a takedown request.

Rocket_Corgi said:
Agreed. A former admin should know better than to act like that and stoop to his level.

Completely agreed.

Char said:
We allow both. There was a time when we accepted takedown requests only from artists, but we stopped that at least 2 years ago. While people can debate whether or not we should be accepting takedown requests from character owners, it just doesn't really make sense to have the artist have to contact us every time one of their commissioners wants their art removed. After the artist gets annoyed enough times, they're likely to just request to be put on the Avoid Posting list so they don't have to be bothered about it anymore. Not to mention I highly doubt there are too many artists who would be willing to tell their customers "no" when asked to submit a takedown request.

So is the takedown request going to be approved?

Falord said:

So is the takedown request going to be approved?

All signs point to Yes.

Can we make an ultimatum that we won't takedown art with his characters until he takedown himself from this site?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Can we make an ultimatum that we won't takedown art with his characters until he takedown himself from this site?

I say we strip the names of characters from his posts if there is even the slightest doubt of it being the intended character.
Take his avatar as an example, how can we be sure that those are his characters if we can't see their eye_color?

Alright guys now, no need to push it that far. He's been banned. Let it go.

Yet, he will come back.

Renard_Queenston said:
Yet, he will come back.

And if he continue's when he does come back, he will be banned again, such is the way of things.

Damn, forgot the sarcasm font.

Just to be sure - even under new rules there's no way that this:
post #6242
should be tagged as jolteon (and pokemon, pokemorph, nintendo etc.), right?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Just to be sure - even under new rules there's no way that this:
post #6242
should be tagged as jolteon (and pokemon, pokemorph, nintendo etc.), right?

Jolteon is a species, not character, so it doesn't fall under the new rule.
However, that is a hybrid species character, which according to even older TWYS is allowed some leeway as to the species tags allowed.

If you believe it to be incorrect the best way to deal with it is contact a mod and get a ruling on it.
Only real way to determine what is or isn't an acceptable amount of leeway.

Hammie said:
Well, owners have copyright on the characters, just as artists have copyright on the art.

Technically, characters can't be copyrighted unless you're willing to go through a lot of legal hassle and enough money to pay the fees. At least that's how I understand it. I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

Clawstripe said:
Technically, characters can't be copyrighted unless you're willing to go through a lot of legal hassle and enough money to pay the fees. At least that's how I understand it. I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.

Incorrect, the act of creation is sufficient for copyrights.
Registering the copyright simply makes it easier to prove legally that you hold it.

Hammie said:
Incorrect, the act of creation is sufficient for copyrights.
Registering the copyright simply makes it easier to prove legally that you hold it.

That's the hole point. If you can prove it. That's why you register it for copyright. So as you say the creation is sufficient for copyright which is true. But that holds true also for the one that created it. If you have no way to prove you created that character other than saying it's yours, someone can claim you stole it and they could have proof that it's their character.

Sure is a lot of internet lawyer jargon going on around here today...so I'll clarify something..

Under US Copyright laws; the character within the image may be owned by the character owner upon creation, HOWEVER, all copyrights to the artwork in question, including the character in that artwork are, for the purposes of that picture the sole property of the artist who drew it, within two exceptions, that is the physical manifestation {Should it be on physical paper}, or the physical copy which the purchaser {If it was a service product} Will have rights too, or if the artist signs a legal document signing any and all rights over to the commissioner and or character owner. Until otherwise proven in either situation, by default, the de-facto owner of any given art piece is the artist who drew it.

Falord said:
That's the hole point. If you can prove it. That's why you register it for copyright. So as you say the creation is sufficient for copyright which is true. But that holds true also for the one that created it. If you have no way to prove you created that character other than saying it's yours, someone can claim you stole it and they could have proof that it's their character.

True, but this is much less common in the internet age actually.
So long as you have posted the art, or have emails detailing the character description, like you would have to have when commissioning it's very easy to prove prior ownership.

Hammie said:
True, but this is much less common in the internet age actually.
So long as you have posted the art, or have emails detailing the character description, like you would have to have when commissioning it's very easy to prove prior ownership.

Doesn't matter, not legally anyways. As far as the image in question is concerned, unless its owned by a major corporation and has a Trademark {Not a copyright} on it, then any artist can draw it and retain full ownership of the image in question, but only that image.

Princess_Celestia said:
Doesn't matter, not legally anyways. As far as the image in question is concerned, unless its owned by a major corporation and has a Trademark {Not a copyright} on it, then any artist can draw it and retain full ownership of the image in question, but only that image.

Semi-true, they might retain copyright on the image, but they can't make profit off of it.
They can however prevent others from making profit of their image.

Hammie said:
Semi-true, they might retain copyright on the image, but they can't make profit off of it.
They can however prevent others from making profit of their image.

Actually, the artist is free to do whatever they please with the image so long as they have not signed away rights to it.

Princess_Celestia said:
Actually, the artist is free to do whatever they please with the image so long as they have not signed away rights to it.

Not true at all.
Using someone else's copyrighted character for profit is infringement and you can be sued for it.
If you try to make a profit off of a character that someone else created you must claim fair use, and the ability to do that and make a profit is very rare since making a profit is one of the things that fair use excludes.

Large companies have further protection because they trademark their characters, but even without a registered trademark you can sue for copyright infringement.

Edit: FYI that's only unsolicited works, if it's a commission it's free for the artist to use unless there's a contract stating otherwise.

Hammie said:
Not true at all.
Using someone else's copyrighted character for profit is infringement and you can be sued for it.
If you try to make a profit off of a character that someone else created you must claim fair use, and the ability to do that and make a profit is very rare since making a profit is one of the things that fair use excludes.

Large companies have further protection because they trademark their characters, but even without a registered trademark you can sue for copyright infringement.

Edit: FYI that's only unsolicited works, if it's a commission it's free for the artist to use unless there's a contract stating otherwise.

You really should look up Dr Comet.

Princess_Celestia said:
You really should look up Dr Comet.

Japanese copyright laws are more relaxed when it comes to "parody" works.

You'd think I'd learn to keep my mouth shut, but it appears I don't. :\

Clawstripe said:
You'd think I'd learn to keep my mouth shut, but it appears I don't. :\

Happens to everyone.

Hammie said:
Not true at all.
Using someone else's copyrighted character for profit is infringement and you can be sued for it.
If you try to make a profit off of a character that someone else created you must claim fair use, and the ability to do that and make a profit is very rare since making a profit is one of the things that fair use excludes.

Only partially true Hammie. You can copyright a character. but it's hard. If you draw it once, and never touch it again (Talking years of time, and no monetary use), the courts just gonna throw it out. If you draw a generic black wolf with a red bandana and headphones.. the courts gonna throw it out (lol this happened). If you draw a wolf in a certain style, a certain color, give details, a story and have a portfolio that shows the character is unique. Then no. that is sufficient grounds for a copyright. Key words "sufficient originality"

also.. hey look
http://www.ivanhoffman.com/characters.html
a source.

If you really want to protect something like this, you would go for trademark instead of copyright. That said, not only is that proactive instead of reactive as well as difficult and costly, but also it is a dick move. As is trying to copyright something like that, in my opinion.

Copyright/trademark/etc. should be protection against your stuff being used against you, either to damage your business or your character (meaning they take some of your customers or otherwise cut into your revenue stream, or they misrepresent you and cost you reputation or interest). In any other case, get the fuck over it.

Can't just trademark a character you own.
It has to be integral to a product or brand.
So disney characters are trademarks becuase they sell movies, pokemon are because they sell games, the Colonel is because he sells chicken.
A random anthro wolf you made up does not unless you're using it to sell something.

Hammie said:
A random anthro wolf you made up does not unless you're using it to sell something.

I figured that point would be obvious, considering how many times I talked about money, customers, and business.

Princess_Celestia said:
Here's the thing you seem to keep missing, and hang on, I'll bold it so you get it through your thick skull, because otherwise you seem to be completely ignorant to the point.

*rest of long winded aggression*

Apparently this wasn't worth even a neutral record I wonder what it'd take for this person to actually get a warning. Haha who am I kidding it's a brony who took care of a report against another brony https://e621.net/tickets/show/5005 big surprise

Anyway, now that i'm back, why is my takedown request taking so long? Should I go ahead and make deletion requests to speed things up or something? My request is already more than a week old and there's been younger requests that have been dealt with.

redisdead said:
Apparently this wasn't worth even a neutral record I wonder what it'd take for this person to actually get a warning. Haha who am I kidding it's a brony who took care of a report against another brony https://e621.net/tickets/show/5005 big surprise

Anyway, now that i'm back, why is my takedown request taking so long? Should I go ahead and make deletion requests to speed things up or something? My request is already more than a week old and there's been younger requests that have been dealt with.

Could be backed up because of Char's resignation.

redisdead said:
Apparently this wasn't worth even a neutral record I wonder what it'd take for this person to actually get a warning. Haha who am I kidding it's a brony who took care of a report against another brony https://e621.net/tickets/show/5005 big surprise

Anyway, now that i'm back, why is my takedown request taking so long? Should I go ahead and make deletion requests to speed things up or something? My request is already more than a week old and there's been younger requests that have been dealt with.

Char's the one who does takedowns, and he just recently stepped down as lead admin so no one is currently doing them. Guess you'll just have to be patient. And no, flagging things for deletion won't speed up anything.

redisdead said:
Anyway, now that i'm back, why is my takedown request taking so long? Should I go ahead and make deletion requests to speed things up or something? My request is already more than a week old and there's been younger requests that have been dealt with.

Char has seen it, he quoted it I believe, but FFD'ing the images will only get you more trouble.
Try asking char "per mail"mailto:[email protected] but keep in mind that he officially resigned from lead admin duty.

I don't know if the discussion for this has been canned because I don't feel like wading through 10 pages of arguing, but I have something to say. I'm sorry if it's found out of place.

Personally, I like non-visible genderbending, EG a character that by all accounts looks female but is "actually" male through whatever means. Under the current rule, though, that's not really something that can be definitively tagged, thus making it extremely difficult or even impossible for me to find what I want. The artist may have made it clear that the character was *technically* male, but that doesn't get to translate over onto the site due to a lack of provisions for it.

For rare instances of this sort of thing, I propose separate tagging for sex and gender, in the form of "Sex:" and "Gender:". The sex tag would pertain to what the tagger sees, and the gender tag could pertain to what was intended for the image if applicable. Verifying the gender tag could work much the same as the character tag. This solution maintains the TWYS concept, while simultaneously allowing for more refined searching and intention-accurate tagging.

TL;DR: "Special" tag for *intended* gender searching, without interfering with mainline gender tagging.

Imuthes said:
I don't know if the discussion for this has been canned because I don't feel like wading through 10 pages of arguing, but I have something to say. I'm sorry if it's found out of place.

Personally, I like non-visible genderbending, EG a character that by all accounts looks female but is "actually" male through whatever means. Under the current rule, though, that's not really something that can be definitively tagged, thus making it extremely difficult or even impossible for me to find what I want. The artist may have made it clear that the character was *technically* male, but that doesn't get to translate over onto the site due to a lack of provisions for it.

For rare instances of this sort of thing, I propose separate tagging for sex and gender, in the form of "Sex:" and "Gender:". The sex tag would pertain to what the tagger sees, and the gender tag could pertain to what was intended for the image if applicable. Verifying the gender tag could work much the same as the character tag. This solution maintains the TWYS concept, while simultaneously allowing for more refined searching and intention-accurate tagging.

TL;DR: "Special" tag for *intended* gender searching, without interfering with mainline gender tagging.

hmmm from what your saying wouldn't the tag your looking for be girly?

https://e621.net/user_record?user_id=5069

Ratte:
TWYS was changed a while ago. Please do not vandalize tags with a well-known character's gender being considered "ambiguous" simply because of what you cannot see even though it's been well established what the gender of the character is.

WHAT?!
Only character tags changed, right?

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
https://e621.net/user_record?user_id=5069

WHAT?!
Only character tags changed, right?

Wow. Yeah, I mean, I was on the side of that image being tagged female, but hopefully this is just Ratte being misinformed of how TWYS works, because we don't make exceptions for characters like that very often...

I know it's just a neutral mark, but I still think that's unnecessary.

My reward for trying to improve the accuracy of gender tags on MLP images.
I am hoping this is a simple misunderstanding and will be cleared up upon review.
Until then my tagging work is on hold, since I don't want to get banned if there's further misunderstanding.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
https://e621.net/user_record?user_id=5069

WHAT?!
Only character tags changed, right?

We Do take secondary sex characteristics into account, Hammie looked like he was removing any picture that didn't have a vagina on it. :/

Besides it was only a neutral, and he's got a positive neutral just below it. so his negative zero was canceled out.

Well, Char (or was it Ippi?) once ruled in favor of a female tag solely on the basis of eyelashes. So it falls under the same thing as everything else on this site: Whatever admin gets to it first, whatever they happen to feel like at that hour and day. It's all a crap-shoot.

Aurali said:
We Do take secondary sex characteristics into account, Hammie looked like he was removing any picture that didn't have a vagina on it. :/

Besides it was only a neutral, and he's got a positive neutral just below it. so his negative zero was canceled out.

I have looked through over 1250 images tagged female -breasts -vagina.
I have re-tagged less than 50, tell me again how it looked?

I have been following what I was told by Char, and now have gotten a warning about vandalism because of it.
I am attempting to improve the tagging accuracy of this website, to improve it with my free time out of only pure motives.

That does not cancel out, it's an insult to have received it at all.

Aurali said:
We Do take secondary sex characteristics into account, Hammie looked like he was removing any picture that didn't have a vagina on it. :/

Besides it was only a neutral, and he's got a positive neutral just below it. so his negative zero was canceled out.

If that's the case then body of record shouldn't be like that. Record was suggesting that there is such thing as an established gender of character. And that's just false claim, if I understand recent changes correctly.

And IMO
post #327867
shouldn't be tagged female. I see no other traits that are clearly characteristic for female in FIM universe.

Still I can agree that blue one is female, and I can understand if record would be for tag warring instead of reporting someone who you think is tagging wrongly. However what Ratte said in comments is for sure untrue.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
If that's the case then body of record shouldn't be like that. Record was suggesting that there is such thing as an established gender of character. And that's just false claim, if I understand recent changes correctly.

And IMO
post #327867
shouldn't be tagged female. I see no other traits that are clearly characteristic for female in FIM universe.

Muzzle size is one... The grey character was never designed with eyelashes and is female. Your forgetting that there are male and female designs.