The Pay What You Want (PWYW) model encourages that a consumer donates money to artists when downloading, but it's still technically free material. Does this type of content fall under Paysite rules, wherein it's only okay to upload after it's been released for 2+ years, or are users completely free to upload content from packs with this model?

I ask because I've found a Valentines day art pack one artist has released under PWYW, which includes high-resolution PNG images of markedly superior quality to other versions online. I'd like to post these lossless images if I can get confirmation that it is OK to do so.

Strongbird said:
The Pay What You Want (PWYW) model encourages that a consumer donates money to artists when downloading, but it's still technically free material. Does this type of content fall under Paysite rules, wherein it's only okay to upload after it's been released for 2+ years, or are users completely free to upload content from packs with this model?

I ask because I've found a Valentines day art pack one artist has released under PWYW, which includes high-resolution PNG images of markedly superior quality to other versions online. I'd like to post these lossless images if I can get confirmation that it is OK to do so.

It's not "free" material. You have to purchase it still...it just gives you the option of purchasing for $0.00. I'd assume it falls under the 2-year rule.

Wodahseht said:
It's not "free" material. You have to purchase it still...it just gives you the option of purchasing for $0.00. I'd assume it falls under the 2-year rule.

I'll heed your advice and defer to the side of caution, treating it like the DNP rule for commercial content. However, I'd still like an admin to confirm that stance, elaborate on it, or maybe even include it on the dedicated DNP wiki page so this question doesn't pop up again.

Qmannn said:
...

It's behind a paywall. It doesn't matter that you can choose to effectively get it free by choosing zero as your amount. If artists didn't care about people getting to the art without going through paywall then they would post the image and just add a link under it saying "oh, and go here if you feel like donating something for this piece you already have."

It's up to admins to rule on. I'm just going with the option most courteous to the artists.

Official policy TLDR:

• If the minimum option is $0.00, then it's fine to post
• If the minimum option is $0.01, then it becomes paid content and is not okay to post for two years

parasprite said:

• If the minimum option is $0.00, then it's fine to post

I understand it doesn't fall under paid content but I would still feel a little scummy posting something someone made for profit.

I guess it's the trade off for wanting to make some more money, but not have content behind a paywall.

parasprite said:
Official policy TLDR:

• If the minimum option is $0.00, then it's fine to post
• If the minimum option is $0.01, then it becomes paid content and is not okay to post for two years

Alright, thank you for the confirmation. The pack is question is minimum $0.00, meaning it still falls under the former bracket. I'll link both the PWYW portal and the direct download link so people see means to donate if they so choose.

parasprite said:
Official policy TLDR:

• If the minimum option is $0.00, then it's fine to post
• If the minimum option is $0.01, then it becomes paid content and is not okay to post for two years

Well, I would personally still ask the artist in question, but this makes sense.

parasprite said:
Official policy TLDR:

• If the minimum option is $0.00, then it's fine to post
• If the minimum option is $0.01, then it becomes paid content and is not okay to post for two years

I would still disagree with this.

I have used some software for example, which was only available trough developer and was denied to be mirrored anywhere. They required email and amount you wanted to pay and it could be 0.00€. But because of contact information, content in my eyes isn't "free" anymore as contact info was still given. Even OPs content in question wants your name and email in exchange of that free content.

But if the rules are like that, at least promote the shit out of the page you can give the money on the upload. Haters will hate advertising, but that's still bit more fair for artist.

Bobcat said:
I understand it doesn't fall under paid content but I would still feel a little scummy posting something someone made for profit.

On the contrary, I would see this as free promotion, and as such beneficial for the artist.

But it should be a promotion then, with at least a note in description clearly stating it's a PWYW. And that I would consider kinda inappropriate, even though I've seen people doing it on esix.

That's assuming it's more like donationware and less like a proper paywall. As in, "if you liked the image consider donating", not "join the club to view".

We could have a unique tag for the pay as you want stuff, so people know it's not 'free'

Similar to the conditional-dnp, but less..dnp?

Maybe as a copyright tag, or something entirely separate, since this seems like a big deal, especially with the modern indie/crowdfunding movements

titanmelon said:
We could have a unique tag for the pay as you want stuff, so people know it's not 'free'

Similar to the conditional-dnp, but less..dnp?

Maybe as a copyright tag, or something entirely separate, since this seems like a big deal, especially with the modern indie/crowdfunding movements

I like this idea. It'd make it easy to remove images if material uploaded from PWYW initiatives proves to draw too much ire from artists in the long run, and it'd also let users blacklist it if they feel guilty for viewing said art for free.

Also, having a tag for content from PWYW images/image packs would allow people to ensure the payment portal is always included as at least one of the source links.

I know if I were using a PWYW system and saw this decision I'd be moving to min $0.01. There's a reason the stuff isn't just posted openly with a "donate" link.

Mario69 said:
I have used some software for example, which was only available trough developer and was denied to be mirrored anywhere.

that reminds me of this one fan translation group that makes translation patches for that game series. except in that case it's something stupid like how the patches are only available through their website and if anyone tries to share said patches for ANY reason under ANY circumstance they said they'll just up and stop translating altogether. sounds quite stupid imo. i could be more understanding were they official translations released by the people who made the front mission games but they're not.

plus, i think i remember something about the patches only working on physical copies of the game (or was that something else they threatened to start doing? don't remember) so no translating then emulating for fans.

why even bother going through all the work of translating the games if your just going to put the people wanting to use the patches through such BS?

treos said:
that reminds me of this one fan translation group that makes translation patches for that game series. except in that case it's something stupid like how the patches are only available through their website and if anyone tries to share said patches for ANY reason under ANY circumstance they said they'll just up and stop translating altogether. sounds quite stupid imo. i could be more understanding were they official translations released by the people who made the front mission games but they're not.

plus, i think i remember something about the patches only working on physical copies of the game (or was that something else they threatened to start doing? don't remember) so no translating then emulating for fans.

why even bother going through all the work of translating the games if your just going to put the people wanting to use the patches through such BS?

The only legit reason I can think of is they got permission from the game's creators under such conditions. Or they want to keep themselves closed off to prevent being found by the creators.

treos said:
that reminds me of this one fan translation group that makes translation patches for that game series. except in that case it's something stupid like how the patches are only available through their website and if anyone tries to share said patches for ANY reason under ANY circumstance they said they'll just up and stop translating altogether. sounds quite stupid imo. i could be more understanding were they official translations released by the people who made the front mission games but they're not.

plus, i think i remember something about the patches only working on physical copies of the game (or was that something else they threatened to start doing? don't remember) so no translating then emulating for fans.

why even bother going through all the work of translating the games if your just going to put the people wanting to use the patches through such BS?

I do remember one DS games fan game patch having 100 MB of upscaled game screenshots so creator would get money from upload service he was using - and that service was linked trough adfly link. So basically the same reason: giving stuff for free, but in condition you still give them ad money, contact information, etc. So even if the product you get is free in money, you are still paying.

Goes off topic but as it's interesting to talk about:
Couple PSP game had that kind of patch where it basically worked only with legit game on legit hardware, reason was that it used switching stuff on fly in RAM so it was set to detect exact game version and run as plugin on background. That's pretty good way of doing things when you don't have to modify the game itself (similar to how anime translators keep the video untouched and translate everything trough .ass subtitles) and usually groups translating or fixing games do not want to get in touch with piracy. But I do agree that when time goes on it becomes harder to actually use the legit hardware, have sold my PSP long time ago.

But just think about it, wanting to translate the game you love so much, just to be afraid that the company who made the game might shut you down and sue you at any time. I remember that I suggested some automatic windows .bat method to make it easier to apply patch to one games translation patch and creator basically flipped the fuck out and gave me speech how he was already walking a thin line with sharing the patch file and that I want him to get sued faster by having easier method.

Wodahseht said:
I know if I were using a PWYW system and saw this decision I'd be moving to min $0.01. There's a reason the stuff isn't just posted openly with a "donate" link.

Many debit/credit systems have problems with under $1 purchares. Not only that, if you do have even that $0.01, that means that those without ability or desire to put in their card information into the internet can't access the stuff. With $0.00 they can.

And that's good point as well. If that stuff was free to be openly posted, then artist would've just posted them into their account directly.

I think it's a good thing you don't run into this kind of PWYW packs with ability to pay $0.00 and artist can always request takedown.

Mario69 said:
I do remember one DS games fan game patch having 100 MB of upscaled game screenshots so creator would get money from upload service he was using - and that service was linked trough adfly link. So basically the same reason: giving stuff for free, but in condition you still give them ad money, contact information, etc. So even if the product you get is free in money, you are still paying.

adfly is annoyingly common. you pay the ISP's for internet access and in turn pay anyone relying on ads to make money off you by giving up bandwidth to load crappy ads. that makes me pity those who suffer the pain of bandwidth caps issued by crappy ISP's.

oh and regarding contact info, pfft, fat chance. i don't give ANY personal info for ANY downloads ever. adblock plus + avoiding any and all download sites that use stupid survey walls on their downloads. i load pages FAR faster with ABP than without and only once in a blue moon does anything set off AVG's antivirus/malware/etc. alert just from visiting a website. ad companies can hump a cactus for all i care. unless it's somewhere i've registered at, i don't willingly give ad companies any info about myself.

i think i still get spam mail from that one and only time i temporarily registered to facebook (yeah, thanks for selling my info that is supposed to NOT be shared. jerks >.>). anyway, enough of that. feel free to go back on topic now.

I don't generally necro threads, but I need some more feedback in regards to this decision now.

A user has brought to my attention that a Valentine's Day artpack released by Skygracer, formerly available for $0.00, has been raised to $0.50 base price *after* content from it has been uploaded as post #855173, post #855182, post #855193, post #855218, post #855227, and post #862046.

What happens now? Is the content allowed to stay online for being posted when the material was available for free (at base), or should it be deleted and the versions it took down be reinstated to be legally safe? Should the direct link to the image pack in the source links be removed, or would people be able to access it by viewing the source history?

I'd rather be on the safe side and bring it to attention, and if those uploads need to be deleted now, no skin off my teeth.

Strongbird said:
I don't generally necro threads, but I need some more feedback in regards to this decision now.

A user has brought to my attention that a Valentine's Day artpack released by Skygracer, formerly available for $0.00, has been raised to $0.50 base price *after* content from it has been uploaded as post #855173, post #855182, post #855193, post #855218, post #855227, and post #862046.

What happens now? Is the content allowed to stay online for being posted when the material was available for free (at base), or should it be deleted and the versions it took down be reinstated to be legally safe? Should the direct link to the image pack in the source links be removed, or would people be able to access it by viewing the source history?

I'd rather be on the safe side and bring it to attention, and if those uploads need to be deleted now, no skin off my teeth.

Morally, they should probably be taken down at this point because it's in direction violation of the paid content rule.

While any damage is probably mostly already done by now, I'd still go with taking them down. Would need an admin to chime in though.

While it's far too late to really comment about it now, I kind of still think it shouldn't have been posted in the first place - if it's not directly a donation situation, I think it's a touch disrespectful to bypass making users at least go through the pwyw portal, especially when, iirc, some of these particular images were released in B/W versions for free already. Any increased publicity/traffic to the pwyw portal that would be generated by exposure here on e621 probably would have already been generated by those B/W versions being uploaded.

Well, this situation is annoying so we're currently discussing a small DNP change for PWYW content that offers a free option.

In short: Any PWYW pack that has that the option to be obtained for free is DNP for 2 months after it starts offering that option. Any PWYW content that requires any amount of money is always DNP at 2 years.

Changes would be retroactively, eg shit gets deleted, but we won't give records for it since it would be a new rule.

Any thoughts or concerns on changing it like that?

NotMeNotYou said:
Well, this situation is annoying so we're currently discussing a small DNP change for PWYW content that offers a free option.

In short: Any PWYW pack that has that the option to be obtained for free is DNP for 2 months after it starts offering that option. Any PWYW content that requires any amount of money is always DNP at 2 years.

Changes would be retroactively, eg shit gets deleted, but we won't give records for it since it would be a new rule.

Any thoughts or concerns on changing it like that?

Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Might be a good gesture to the artists if something like "...and a link to the artist's PWYW portal/initial announcement posting for that content must be included in the description field of the post, where people will be aware of it" could be included somewhere in the rules section about PWYW content(and donation stuff too for that matter). That way people are aware of what kind of content they are viewing, and hopefully some small percentage of e621 users might head over and drop the artist some $ for their work if they feel so inclined.

If that's too strict to make an official rule, might at least be nice if the "don't mess with the description unless you're the OP or content owner" rule could be bent a bit in cases of people adding that info to PWYW content that they didn't upload themselves.

NotMeNotYou said:
Well, this situation is annoying so we're currently discussing a small DNP change for PWYW content that offers a free option.

In short: Any PWYW pack that has that the option to be obtained for free is DNP for 2 months after it starts offering that option. Any PWYW content that requires any amount of money is always DNP at 2 years.

Changes would be retroactively, eg shit gets deleted, but we won't give records for it since it would be a new rule.

Any thoughts or concerns on changing it like that?

I'm for this.

Most people seem to agree, so here is the proposed wording:

DNP List said:

Avoid posting these things.

• New commercial content (Doujin, paysites, pay-what-you-want, etc.). If it's less than two years old, don't post it. This includes HD versions only visible on Patreon.
• "Free" PWYW content (meaning you can buy it for $0.00) is DNP for 2 months after having been made available for "free"
• Real porn / real images or videos depicting illegal activities (such as bestiality, child pornography, etc.)
• Images where a person who is not the original copyright owner has placed a watermark on the image.
• Excessive webcomic rips (more than 5 or more consecutive webcomic pages)
• Images where compression artifacts are easily visible.
• Art featuring only humans or primarily humans. Any form of bestiality with humans or humans with animal traits (things like cat ears or dog tails) are still okay.
• Content that is not furry or furry-related. We may still approve it if it's high quality or "special" in some way, but it's still much more likely to be deleted than approved.

If nobody has any objections I'd have this go live around Friday.

Crispix said:
Sounds reasonable enough to me.

Might be a good gesture to the artists if something like "...and a link to the artist's PWYW portal/initial announcement posting for that content must be included in the description field of the post, where people will be aware of it" could be included somewhere in the rules section about PWYW content(and donation stuff too for that matter). That way people are aware of what kind of content they are viewing, and hopefully some small percentage of e621 users might head over and drop the artist some $ for their work if they feel so inclined.

If that's too strict to make an official rule, might at least be nice if the "don't mess with the description unless you're the OP or content owner" rule could be bent a bit in cases of people adding that info to PWYW content that they didn't upload themselves.

• Editing/creating post descriptions (if you are not the artist, uploader, character owner, or commissioner) to create information

Editing the description to add a link or change it so that it reads that the upload is part of a PWYW pack is not creating information. That rule is purely to prevent people from creating unofficial stories or to try and slander the artist/character owner/uploader.
If you have an idea how to word that better do let us know, I don't particularly like that sentence.

Strongbird said:

A user has brought to my attention that a Valentine's Day artpack released by Skygracer, formerly available for $0.00, has been raised to $0.50 base price *after* content from it has been uploaded as post #855173, post #855182, post #855193, post #855218, post #855227, and post #862046.

I deleted the images, since it's now technically pay content, thanks for pointing this out!

Crispix said:
Might be a good gesture to the artists if something like "...and a link to the artist's PWYW portal/initial announcement posting for that content must be included in the description field of the post, where people will be aware of it" could be included somewhere in the rules section about PWYW content(and donation stuff too for that matter).

Why not just use the source links to add in the source to the paysite?

Furrin_Gok said:
Why not just use the source links to add in the source to the paysite?

You have no idea how many people aren't aware of the purpose of the source field.

I would like one little bit of further clarification on this matter. When including sources for PWYW artwork that is older than 2 months, would it be reasonable to include the link to the direct pack download, or should only the link to the payment portal be included?

In the event that the pack becomes not-"free" material in the future, it might be safer to omit a direct pack link so that people can't look at a post's source history to get free commercial content, as would have been the case with the deleted posts (and still is).

Edit: Maybe some means for admins to scrub source history from a post? I'unno.

NotMeNotYou said:

• Editing/creating post descriptions (if you are not the artist, uploader, character owner, or commissioner) to create information

Editing the description to add a link or change it so that it reads that the upload is part of a PWYW pack is not creating information. That rule is purely to prevent people from creating unofficial stories or to try and slander the artist/character owner/uploader.
If you have an idea how to word that better do let us know, I don't particularly like that sentence.

Good to know. As far as reworking the sentence, maybe adding an example to the end would clarify the point? - basically put in some of the things you just said here.

• Editing/creating post descriptions (if you are not the artist, uploader, character owner, or commissioner) to create information, such as unofficial stories, RP, false information, or other negative/disrespectful content.

or

• Editing/creating post descriptions (if you are not the artist, uploader, character owner, or commissioner) to create unofficial, slanderous, or false information.

Though for that second format you would probably need to try to include every category you're concerned with.

Furrin_Gok said:
Why not just use the source links to add in the source to the paysite?

Because people don't tend to examine all the different source links when they look at a post, but they pretty much always see the description. For content that's essentially donation material, I figure it might be nice for people to be made aware that it's donation material since it's being re-hosted away from wherever it was originally posted, where it would have included that information along side it. That's basically what I was trying to imply with the last part of the italicized sentence that you quoted.

Not saying you can't put it in the source links too. It doesn't even have to really be a link in the description, you could just add a sentence that stated it was PWYW/Donation content and that a link to where you could participate is in the sources - that would accomplish the same thing.

Honestly it seems like two months is a tad short. I'd have gone for a bit longer than that personally, but I don't know what's gone into the two month idea.

Clawdragons said:
Honestly it seems like two months is a tad short. I'd have gone for a bit longer than that personally, but I don't know what's gone into the two month idea.

I take it that the 2 months is more a "toes in the water" to make sure it stays free and to give artists a chance to draw attention in the direction wanted.

Since the initial rush of attention for a piece/pack tends to only last a short while before it's just a (relative) trickle - and since the content is still technically free - I think two months is perfectly reasonable.

Wouldn't public Patreon content count as PWYW? as you you can choose to donate or get it for free.

slyroon said:
Wouldn't public Patreon content count as PWYW? as you you can choose to donate or get it for free.

I wouldn't consider it so if you don't have to pick a donation level to see it. The PWYW stuff makes you actually go through the paywall/checkout system to get the content, even if it's free.

Free Patreon content you can just swing by and grab without even following the artist in many cases.

Wodahseht said:
I wouldn't consider it so if you don't have to pick a donation level to see it. The PWYW stuff makes you actually go through the paywall/checkout system to get the content, even if it's free.

Free Patreon content you can just swing by and grab without even following the artist in many cases.

To me it's the same concept. Both are free if don't want to pay, and you can donate to both if you want too.

The only difference i can see is that public Patreon stuff, has already been paid for. By the people donating to that Patreon.

While an image pack, image, animation etc. on another site. Hasn't been paid for. unless you choose to pay for it.

Say, isn't it just good etiquette and common courtesy to ask the artist if they mind their stuff getting posted?
So that's what I personally propose, if the minimum is 0.00, you should ask the artist if they're okay with it getting posted. Avoid some flak that way.

slyroon said:
Wouldn't public Patreon content count as PWYW? as you you can choose to donate or get it for free.

No, because there are artists who simply use the site to share their content at higher quality, because patreon doesn't have filesize or filetype limits. And they themselves can put it as public content instead of certain group of people. It's somewhat rare with furry stuff as all furry artists seem to want to use the service as paywall instead which isn't patreons idealogy.

slyroon said:
To me it's the same concept. Both are free if don't want to pay, and you can donate to both if you want too.

The only difference i can see is that public Patreon stuff, has already been paid for. By the people donating to that Patreon.

While an image pack, image, animation etc. on another site. Hasn't been paid for. unless you choose to pay for it.

But with PWYW you are required to give some information to get the stuff, at least your contact information, with patreon it's as visible as it would be in here or any other site and you can just download it. If content requires logging in to patreon, then it's essentially PWYW, if it requires some level of tier then it's paid content.

And you said it yourself, it's already content that has been paid for. That's exactly how patreon is supposed to work in the first place! People who want to support content to be created are paying for it so everyone can enjoy it! You aren't paying for that particular content anymore. Similar to commissions, that piece has been paid for already, even if artist takes more commissions, it doesn't magically convert earlier pieces to PWYW.

mrnotsosafeforwork said:
Say, isn't it just good etiquette and common courtesy to ask the artist if they mind their stuff getting posted?
So that's what I personally propose, if the minimum is 0.00, you should ask the artist if they're okay with it getting posted. Avoid some flak that way.

Good etiquette is always best approach of course. And for that reason that two months time is actually really good thing. That way nobody actually posts the stuff while you can ask for that and the artist has time to ask their PWYW content as DNP here if they do not wish it to be posted publicly outside of their page.

But second best thing to do is to have that url for the pack as visible as possible. Best approach is to write it in a way that users understands what's going on instead of claiming it to be artist advertising or selling out, which can happen as some users may not understand how site works and that artist may not have even seen the page.