since this assumption is so fucking rediculous im inquiring here.Could someone explain to me how this is paysite content a commission i payed and at this point only is on FA that last i checked was not a paysite?https://www.furaffinity.net/view/19474315/
https://d.facdn.net/art/trixythespiderfox/1458867597/1458867597.trixythespiderfox_image.png

~resolved

PS: I apologize, i realize i was a bit impatient concerning this issue uu

If you haven't already, you should ask whoever deleted the upload for an explanation, not us.

It looks like resolution size. The one that was deleted has some grainy (or whatever that word is for more pixilated) quality, whereas the one on FA was cleaner. So, you may have uploaded a higher resolution than the FA one provides. I know Harry.lu shows image relevance by percentage, and there was a 4% difference, which could mean image size or an edited image.

This is all from Harry.lu, mind you, and I can't actually see the post because it's deleted, nor it's actual resolution to confirm/deny. This is a guess.

Knotty_Curls said:
If you haven't already, you should ask whoever deleted the upload for an explanation, not us.

i have, but dont expect an anwser considering the previous deleter not being able to justify their action for the reasons they used ether...

Well yes, it does look like a misunderstanding. I'm sure once they get your message, they might be able to resolve the problem directly.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
It looks like resolution size. The one that was deleted has some grainy (or whatever that word is for more pixilated) quality, whereas the one on FA was cleaner. So, you may have uploaded a higher resolution than the FA one provides. I know Harry.lu shows image relevance by percentage, and there was a 4% difference, which could mean image size or an edited image.

This is all from Harry.lu, mind you, and I can't actually see the post because it's deleted, nor it's actual resolution to confirm/deny. This is a guess.

The deletion reason was "paysite/commercial content." I didn't see any evidence of this on the source.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
It looks like resolution size. The one that was deleted has some grainy (or whatever that word is for more pixilated) quality, whereas the one on FA was cleaner. So, you may have uploaded a higher resolution than the FA one provides. I know Harry.lu shows image relevance by percentage, and there was a 4% difference, which could mean image size or an edited image.

This is all from Harry.lu, mind you, and I can't actually see the post because it's deleted, nor it's actual resolution to confirm/deny. This is a guess.

thing is the file i uploaded here is the original full_res file i got from the artist directly. not a lesser copy. And that was also not the reason the deleter gave so.
sure hope this is a mistake as this does seem like a abuse of powers.

Mate, the administration here has lives outside of answering mail, and your last one is less than 24h old.

Past that, this one was deleted because there is no free source available and the FA upload doesn't even mention someone with the name of "R'D" being involved in it.
As such I have no reason to believe that random user #229187 is anything but someone who a) found it on an image board b) got it from the patreon.

Now, if you are Rin-U on FA then feel free to drop me a note on FA from Rin-U and I will restore the image and delete the neutral record.

R'D said:
thing is the file i uploaded here is the original full_res file i got from the artist directly. not a lesser copy. And that was also not the reason the deleter gave so.
sure hope this is a mistake as this does seem like a abuse of powers.

That's the problem: if you have a higher resolution than the source, it's paid content. The artist purposely chose to avoid posting that, and only you have that image, so you can't source it back to that account. Ergo, paid content. It's the same thing with edits as well, and why it wasn't flagged for inferior/duplicate, and instead paid content under two years old.

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
That's the problem: if you have a higher resolution than the source, it's paid content. The artist purposely chose to avoid posting that, and only you have the image. Ergo, paid content. It's the same thing with edits as well, and why it wasn't flagged for inferior/duplicate, and instead paid content under two years old.

That is not what pay content means. If he has commissioned the piece he is free to redistribute said copy (for free) unless the artist disallows that. Which is unlikely to happen that don't allow that.

NotMeNotYou said:
That is not what pay content means. If he has commissioned the piece he is free to redistribute said copy (for free) unless the artist disallows that. Which is unlikely to happen that don't allow that.

Then what about Patreon, where higher resolutions are paid for? That stuff has been deleted before...

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Then what about Patreon, where higher resolutions are paid for? That stuff has been deleted before...

... but it's not the patreon version if he receives the hi-res version directly from the artist through a different venue.

NotMeNotYou said:
Mate, the administration here has lives outside of answering mail, and your last one is less than 24h old.

Past that, this one was deleted because there is no free source available and the FA upload doesn't even mention someone with the name of "R'D" being involved in it.
As such I have no reason to believe that random user #229187 is anything but someone who a) found it on an image board b) got it from the patreon.

Now, if you are Rin-U on FA then feel free to drop me a note on FA from Rin-U and I will restore the image and delete the neutral record.

sent

NotMeNotYou said:
... but it's not the patreon version if he receives the hi-res version directly from the artist through a different venue.

Then why treat it differently? Isn't this ultimately under the same boat, where an artist gives a/multiple person/people private versions?

R'D said:
sent

Image restored and record deleted. Be sure to answer the other mail I sent you!

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
Then why treat it differently? Isn't this ultimately under the same boat, where an artist gives a/multiple person/people private versions?

Because they have special permission to distribute it themselves.

To elaborate: Most commissions include a full-res copy of the finished image (but usually not the work file), and the right to post those hi-res versions on the internet. Unless specified otherwise that is how we operate, and if the uploader can proof that he is the commissioner then we allow that.

So then, it's just another if, and, or but that I couldn't of known about...

This paid content stuff is getting (personally) really irritating. I'd rant, but I can shorten it to too many variables and not enough actual knowledge or experience with it...

Siral_Eurgh-xan said:
So then, it's just another if, and, or but that I couldn't of known about...

This paid content stuff is getting (personally) really irritating. I'd rant, but I can shorten it to too many variables and not enough actual knowledge or experience with it...

If the artist has a patreon and the file shows up without an explanation it is very likely paid content. At that point the normal procedure is to delete the thing and hand out a record.
Now, after that the original uploader can contest the deletion and identify themselves as the commissioner in front of the administration, and we will reverse the decision based on the newly presented information.

The same goes for other cases where the original artist has given permission to a person, but they, too, will have to provide proof that they have permission. Otherwise it appears to be paid content posted without permission and will be treated as such.

NotMeNotYou said:
If the artist has a patreon and the file shows up without an explanation it is very likely paid content. At that point the normal procedure is to delete the thing and hand out a record.
Now, after that the original uploader can contest the deletion and identify themselves as the commissioner in front of the administration, and we will reverse the decision based on the newly presented information.

The same goes for other cases where the original artist has given permission to a person, but they, too, will have to provide proof that they have permission. Otherwise it appears to be paid content posted without permission and will be treated as such.

I wish to finish this in DM or Chatroom, because we'd otherwise just be spamming this thread. If you wish to continue, DM me with your preferred messaging system. Otherwise, I have nothing to say that's relevant about RD's topic.