Hello ,

There is some days , i've posted a picture from a FA artist (Sheycra) ; this one : https://e621.net/post/show/1106027/4_fingers-4_toes-angel_-character-anthro-armpits-b . The next day , i receive a message from someone : he says i have to remove this picture because i haven't the authorization . I had messaged Sheycra the same day and she had said to me there was no problems as long as she was credited as artist , what i had made .

But this person says that the picture shows a character from his wife and i haven't the right to post it without authorization . By continuing to message with him , he confesses that his wife doesn't enjoys to see a "stranger" post a picture of one of her characters and she prefers it's him posting it . I respond to him that this reason isn't a good one for myself , to delete the picture.

So , he threatens me about report it to the staff and ask for a takedown (and she isn't even in the DNP list) . I've read the rules and ask for a takedown just because you don't enjoy a stranger post a picture in place of you isn't in ...................... I should to find it funny , knowing he has no chances to success his request , if this issue hadn't shown to me this "takedown" rule can destroy e-621

I am not gonna try to understand this all, since I'm third party and your grammar mistakes, but if the wife submits a takedown then the image can get taken down; it depends on the reason, obviously, but nonetheless it can.

But threatening someone is against the rules... and if he submits the request, I do not believe it will go through because it needs to be proven as her.

If he is not the character owner or the artist, he has no say in the situation. If his wife is the character owner, then she needs to submit a takedown request.

Artists and Character Owners can takedown their art whenever they so choose, for whatever reason. It's best not to think about that too much, and just save an image locally if you like it.

If you have proof from the Artist of being permitted to upload, send a screenshot to NMNY. In that case, the Artist will need to submit the takedown on behalf of said party unless proof of ownership is provided by the third party for that image.

As for folks posting the image here themselves, it makes no difference whatsoever as there is no concept of galleries here like there is on DA, FA, or IB. The uploader has no control over the image, and all it really does is show up in their uploads section on their profile page (which nobody pays attention to); the artist and character tags are all anyone will look at in that regards.

Siral_Exan said: I am not gonna try to understand this all, since I'm third party and your grammar mistakes

What you mean by being "third party" ? Then sorry , i'm lightly better in english vocabulary than in grammar ^_^"

TheHuskyK9 said: If his wife is the character owner, then she needs to submit a takedown request.

It seems she is , even if there is not really proof of (all the pictures in her FA page are from other artists , some commissioned or won in YCH auction) . Meanwhile , request a takedown on a picture to allow a precise person to post it itself isn't in the rules

rysyN said: If you have proof from the Artist of being permitted to upload, send a screenshot to NMNY.

It's done , thanks for the advice

Character owners, while they can submit takedown requests, cannot get DNP status. Only an artist themselves can become DNP, so if they want to stop "strangers" from posting their characters, they have to post them themselves immediately.

I strongly believe that for us, we as third-party uploaders, should respect both the artists' and character owners' say on whether a piece of artwork should be reposted on another site(like here on e6).

If a commissioned artwork contains a copyrighted character, the character owner will always get first say, regardless of permission by the artist unless the piece was uploaded by the artist him/herself. You can read more on the ToS of artists.

If he intends to takedown the artwork himself, he can't, until his wife takes it down herself or transfers/shares character rights to him.

Also note that, if he intends to take it down so that he can later post it here himself, he can't(?), as it's against site rules to knowingly re-upload deleted content.

So it's important next time, to note both the artist and character owner to prevent backlash like this from happening again.

RHEI-RAT said:
What you mean by being "third party" ? Then sorry , i'm lightly better in english vocabulary than in grammar ^_^"

Third party, in this instance(reposting) is used for people who are not involved in the commissioning process of the artwork (i.e. viewers, while those involved are the commissioner, artist and character owner).

In @Siral_Exan 's sentence, is somebody who is not involved in the conflict.

RHEI-RAT said:
What you mean by being "third party" ? Then sorry , i'm lightly better in english vocabulary than in grammar ^_^"

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Third party, in this instance(reposting) is used for people who are not involved in the commissioning process of the artwork (i.e. viewers, while those involved are the commissioner, artist and character owner).

In @Siral_Exan 's sentence, is somebody who is not involved in the conflict.

Pretty much exactly this. But to be more specific: I can't really get involved if I don't know the whole story, and if what you say is true and they DMailed you in defense of their wife, then I am not really tempted to jump into the fray blindly. If they show up, then we can still probably settle this without arguing.

RHEI-RAT said:
Hello ,

There is some days , i've posted a picture from a FA artist (Sheycra) ; this one : https://e621.net/post/show/1106027/4_fingers-4_toes-angel_-character-anthro-armpits-b . The next day , i receive a message from someone : he says i have to remove this picture because i haven't the authorization . I had messaged Sheycra the same day and she had said to me there was no problems as long as she was credited as artist , what i had made .

But this person says that the picture shows a character from his wife and i haven't the right to post it without authorization . By continuing to message with him , he confesses that his wife doesn't enjoys to see a "stranger" post a picture of one of her characters and she prefers it's him posting it . I respond to him that this reason isn't a good one for myself , to delete the picture.

So , he threatens me about report it to the staff and ask for a takedown (and she isn't even in the DNP list) . I've read the rules and ask for a takedown just because you don't enjoy a stranger post a picture in place of you isn't in ...................... I should to find it funny , knowing he has no chances to success his request , if this issue hadn't shown to me this "takedown" rule can destroy e-621

Yeah, I doubt very much that he can do a takedown on behalf of someone else, even his wife. If she wants to do it, that's her business, but he really has no say in the matter. If she's truly uncomfortable with the image, then she needs to submit the request, not have her husband do it for her.

Quite frankly, I think the situation is fishy at best. He contacts you and not site admins? He tells you his wife doesn't like the pic here, but she never contacts you? Sorry, but there's something "off" about this whole scenario.

Just ignore it, if they think they can take it down they have the Takedown Request.

(Also, this "delete it so I can upload it myself" story is so stupid.)

I may to post the messages here if it can help (seen nothing against it in the rules and ToS)

DelurC said: (Also, this "delete it so I can upload it myself" story is so stupid.)

I think it's what he wishes for : if i delete the pic myself , he can load it without problems . Not the case if the pic is "takedowned"

RHEI-RAT said:
I may to post the messages here if it can help (seen nothing against it in the rules and ToS)

I think it's what he wishes for : if i delete the pic myself , he can load it without problems . Not the case if the pic is "takedowned"

He cannot, actually. Once an image gets deleted, it's no longer allowed, at all.

I could understand specifying how only you want to upload content, if you are an artist and want to somehow manage what gets shared around, but "I wanted to be the uploader" only seems bit childish as well as lacking the knowledge how boorus in general operate. And something tells me this won't be the last time this kind of stuff happens.

RHEI-RAT said:
I may to post the messages here if it can help (seen nothing against it in the rules and ToS)

I would strongly suggest of discussing about this with the admins in private.
Even if posting others messages for you publicly isn't againts rules or ToS, it will almost certainly make situation worse, especially if the person sending those messages to you sees them.

Furrin_Gok said:
He cannot, actually. Once an image gets deleted, it's no longer allowed, at all.

This. Even if they change the images properties to be able to get past MD5 hash, the image has been previously deleted, meaning that the same image will get manually deleted for being previously deleted.
So at that point the takedown becomes "if I can't upload it, nobody can" situation.

I've perfectly watched the FA pages of the artist and character owner and it's written nowhere that it's a commission , just Sheycra says it's for the character owner (free gift ?)

So ; according this , it means Sheycra owns entirely the picture being in her webpage and i need only her authorization to post it here . Things would have been different if i had uploaded the picture from the page of the character owner

Yes , no ?

RHEI-RAT said:
I've perfectly watched the FA pages of the artist and character owner and it's written nowhere that it's a commission , just Sheycra says it's for the character owner (free gift ?)

So ; according this , it means Sheycra owns entirely the picture being in her webpage and i need only her authorization to post it here . Things would have been different if i had uploaded the picture from the page of the character owner

Yes , no ?

The character owner can still request a takedown after the fact, just not DNP status. However, the husband of the owner cannot request a takedown.

RHEI-RAT said:
I've perfectly watched the FA pages of the artist and character owner and it's written nowhere that it's a commission , just Sheycra says it's for the character owner (free gift ?)

Most of the time when an artist draws another person's character, it's a commission. It may be a gift if the artist is good friends with said person, or the person has won a free raffle of some sorts(you can check the journals for events like this).

So ; according this , it means Sheycra owns entirely the picture being in her webpage and i need only her authorization to post it here . Things would have been different if i had uploaded the picture from the page of the character owner

Yes , no ?

The character owner has all rights to the character featured in the artwork. The artist may own the artwork, but they don't own the characters in them.

So if she allowed you to post her artwork here, that doesn't mean that the character within them should be freely shared as well, because it's up to the character owner to make that decision.

Well ; i'll try to be nice (being myself a character owner , even if i don't mind to see it shared on sites as long as the artist is credited ; then it makes me more famous ^_^) . I say it , for this owner if she comes to read :

If you request a takedown arguing you're the owner , you win with a liar
If you request a takedown arguing you don't enjoy to see strangers post "your" pic , you lose with the truth

There is only a legal way to win for you , but i let you search and hope nobody will help you : it's very easy to guess

RHEI-RAT said:
If you request a takedown arguing you're the owner , you win with a liar

No? If the owner comes by and requests a takedown, that's their legal right.

Furrin_Gok said:
No? If the owner comes by and requests a takedown, that's their legal right.

It's not the case here : she doesn't request a takedown because she's the character owner but because she doesn't enjoy a stranger posting a picture of

Furrin_Gok said:
He cannot, actually. Once an image gets deleted, it's no longer allowed, at all.

I find that interesting, since one of my pieces got taken down for quality standards, then one of my few fans reuploaded the same piece (only larger than the original I had uploaded) and it got approved.

Faux-Pa said:
I find that interesting, since one of my pieces got taken down for quality standards, then one of my few fans reuploaded the same piece (only larger than the original I had uploaded) and it got approved.

I think even that this takedown rule for character owners can be deleted and keep only the takedown rule for artists ................... Because the character owners one has been broken thousands of time , and nobody has never said something about

RHEI-RAT said:
I think even that this takedown rule for character owners can be deleted and keep only the takedown rule for artists ................... Because the character owners one has been broken thousands of time , and nobody has never said something about

We can't, if in the case of a production company(instead of a lone commissioner) requesting for their copyrighted character to be removed from the site, and we fail to oblige. It can be considered as copyright infringement and we can get slammed by legal takedowns in court.

Although, it's not a rule to ask for the character owner's(or even the artist's) permission before posting artwork here on e6. We have to respect their individual rights.

And note that one of the main reasons for takedowns is not asking for permissions.

TheGreatWolfgang said: We can't, if in the case of a production company(instead of a lone commissioner) requesting for their copyrighted character to be removed from the site, and we fail to oblige. It can be considered as copyright infringement and we can get slammed by legal takedowns in court.

All the uploaders have asked for authorization to Disney before to post a picture with a character from one of their movies (Zootopia , for example) ?
They have asked for authorization to Bandai/TOEI before to post pictures with digimons/pokemons ?
They have asked for authorization to Trancy-Mick before to post pictures with sergals ?
They have asked for authorization to Scott Cawthon before to post picture with a FNAF character ?

Etc , etc

TheGreatWolfgang said: Although, it's not a rule to ask for the character owner's(or even the artist's) permission before posting artwork here on e6. We have to respect their individual rights.

And note that one of the main reasons for takedowns is not asking for permissions.

Sorry , i don't understand really ; these two sentences seems opposite , no ? You say that it's not a rule to ask for the character owner's permission . Then you say it's one of the main reasons for request a takedown

Reading it both mean i don't need authorization from the character owner but he can request a takedown against me , from what i understand .......

RHEI-RAT said:
All the uploaders have asked for authorization to Disney before to post a picture with a character from one of their movies (Zootopia , for example) ?
They have asked for authorization to Bandai/TOEI before to post pictures with digimons/pokemons ?
They have asked for authorization to Trancy-Mick before to post pictures with sergals ?
They have asked for authorization to Scott Cawthon before to post picture with a FNAF character ?

Etc , etc

Sorry , i don't understand really ; these two sentences seems opposite , no ? You say that it's not a rule to ask for the character owner's permission . Then you say it's one of the main reasons for request a takedown

Reading it both mean i don't need authorization from the character owner but he can request a takedown against me , from what i understand .......

Asking permission is not mandatory, but doing so ensures the owner will not request a takedown. It's like life insurance. You CAN go without it, but should you?

kamimatsu said:
Asking permission is not mandatory, but doing so ensures the owner will not request a takedown. It's like life insurance. You CAN go without it, but should you?

I see . So , each uploader is "playing" with a gun and hoping to be not hurt ; even e-621 is doing it .....................

RHEI-RAT said:
All the uploaders have asked for authorization to Disney before to post a picture with a character from one of their movies (Zootopia , for example) ?
They have asked for authorization to Bandai/TOEI before to post pictures with digimons/pokemons ?
They have asked for authorization to Trancy-Mick before to post pictures with sergals ?
They have asked for authorization to Scott Cawthon before to post picture with a FNAF character ?

Etc , etc

No, we don't ask the copyright owners. It'd take too much time to ask them. However, that in no way means they aren't allowed to request a takedown, just that such a takedown would only effect what was already here, not what will be.

Sorry , i don't understand really ; these two sentences seems opposite , no ? You say that it's not a rule to ask for the character owner's permission . Then you say it's one of the main reasons for request a takedown

Reading it both mean i don't need authorization from the character owner but he can request a takedown against me , from what i understand .......

Please quit it with all the periods, that's really bugging me.
But yes, you don't need authorization from the copyright owner to upload, just the image owner, but the copyright owner can still request a takedown. It's perfectly within our rules.

But, again: Only the actual owner of the character counts. The wife herself will have to show up and request it.

RHEI-RAT said:
All the uploaders have asked for authorization to Disney before to post a picture with a character from one of their movies (Zootopia , for example) ?
They have asked for authorization to Bandai/TOEI before to post pictures with digimons/pokemons ?
They have asked for authorization to Trancy-Mick before to post pictures with sergals ?
They have asked for authorization to Scott Cawthon before to post picture with a FNAF character ?

Etc , etc

No *shakes head*, the point I was trying to make is that revoking the character owner's rights to takedown a post with their characters in it could potentially harm the site if they decided to take legal action.

Generally speaking, all fanart of copyrighted characters is considered to be an infringement of copyright unless it was approved or given special permission by their respective companies themselves.

Now realistically speaking, it's unlikely for major corporations like Disney/Bandai to go online and takedown every single piece of fanart of their characters. They simply do not care UNLESS what you're doing is harming the company in any way or is leaching their profits commercially. However, they can (in every right) takedown everything if they have the time, money and effort.

As for the use of Sergals by Trancy Mick, http://vilous.net/termsofuse.html

Sorry , i don't understand really ; these two sentences seems opposite , no ? You say that it's not a rule to ask for the character owner's permission . Then you say it's one of the main reasons for request a takedown

Reading it both mean i don't need authorization from the character owner but he can request a takedown against me , from what i understand .......

It's not required when you upload, but it is on your own risk if it gets taken down. And like what @kamimatsu said, it's better and safer to have it.

RHEI-RAT said:
I see . So , each uploader is "playing" with a gun and hoping to be not hurt ; even e-621 is doing it .....................

If you consider uploading to be as dangerous as playing with a loaded gun, then getting health insurance(permission) wouldn't be a bad thing.

I see that someone has edited the picture and added the full name of the character , thanks to her/him even if to know the family name of this character isn't very important

But i've edited too and added a description : no reason to credit the artist , the character owner and forget the most important person

RHEI-RAT said:
I see that someone has edited the picture and added the full name of the character , thanks to her/him even if to know the family name of this character isn't very important

But i've edited too and added a description : no reason to credit the artist , the character owner and forget the most important person

I had added a copyright about Trancy-Mick , but someone has removed it .......... I'm asking to myself if this person is checking all Zootopia pictures to remove the "Disney" and "Zootopia" copyrights , too ?

RHEI-RAT said:
I had added a copyright about Trancy-Mick , but someone has removed it .......... I'm asking to myself if this person is checking all Zootopia pictures to remove the "Disney" and "Zootopia" copyrights , too ?

"Disney" refers to a company, not Walt Disney the person. "Zootopia" refers to a movie title, not the director for it. Trancy-Mick is a username for a person, and we don't tag such copyrights.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Generally speaking, all fanart of copyrighted characters is considered to be an infringement of copyright unless it was approved or given special permission by their respective companies themselves.

Now realistically speaking, it's unlikely for major corporations like Disney/Bandai to go online and takedown every single piece of fanart of their characters. They simply do not care UNLESS what you're doing is harming the company in any way or is leaching their profits commercially. However, they can (in every right) takedown everything if they have the time, money and effort.

The cool thing is, some copyright owners are very cool about their intellectual property. Some actively encourage fanworks, namely J.K. Rowling and Toby Fox for Harry Potter and Undertale respectively. These guys have gone on public record talking about fanfiction, fanart, and even fan music and responding positively for it. I don't think it extends to pornography, exactly, but not every creator is stingy with their creations. I even seem to recall Toby himself approving fan-games based on his characters. But, yes, most companies don't care enough to hunt down small projects all over the internet, mostly because it would be expensive, time-consuming, and even detrimental to their sales. That being said, Nintendo is definitely one of those more finicky companies. They've shut down numerous fan-games and fan-films for violating copyright laws. They even sued a guy from Seattle for hosting Pokémon-themed parties annually. They guy charged only $5 to help cover the expenses (like the DJ, food and drinks, and party favors), but Nintendo still brought the gavel down on his head. It's a shame really.

Furrin_Gok said: Trancy-Mick is a username for a person, and we don't tag such copyrights.

I see

UnusualParadox said:
I don't think it extends to pornography, exactly, but not every creator is stingy with their creations.

My experience is the polar opposite.

As someone who for a while dedicated several hours a day to reposting artwork in better quality, there is a huge dearth of commissioners and artists who genuinely do not care about the notion of preserving art in lossless and detailed format. There is also an abundance of people who are openly hostile, demeaning, accusatory, and otherwise unpleasant to communicate with, even when requesting in politest terms whether they are okay with their material being reposted or whether they are willing to make higher resolution versions available (the latter only asked to people without Patreon or art packs for higher res, who have no financial imperative to withhold images above the antiquated 1280x1280 limit).

Furries--based on over five years of dealing with the community here, on FA, on MUDs, and elsewhere--are generally protective to the point of obsession over intellectual property, resorting to threats of lawsuits and even physical altercations if anyone posts their freely provided material on any other website, even with complete credits, cataloging and respect for every guideline the creator and commissioner(s) have set.

Even though US law permits them to act that way, there should be at least some cultural incentive to prevent that sort of behavior, whether it be advising them not to post material altogether to be freely viewed online if they don't want it to be distributed to other websites, or encouraging more lax policies in general about reposting from artists and commissioners alike.

I remember one instance on e621 where a commissioner (who I will not name) badmouthed an artist for releasing material they commissioned in higher resolution on their DeviantArt page. The commissioner, against the wishes of the artist, submitted a takedown request to this website to have it taken down--and I paraphrase since I cannot find the exact ticket anymore--because 'I never intended this resolution to be made available. I'm going to tell the artist not to release any future work at that resolution again'. The whole time, I could only think 'Why?', since there did not appear to be a logical drive behind that response beyond a self-serving desire to be the sole owner of the image in its original resolution and only present an inferior version to everyone else. My personal opinion is that no website should be forced to cater to by law or by cultural norms to that kind of abusive behavior on the part of a character owner, but since e621 is much more wary about the law than many other image hosting sites, I have no say in that matter.

I apologize about dragging on for a while, but I felt the need to politely vent about my personal experience and distate for the overly protective mentality certain artists and commissioners harbor over their work.

Strongbird said:
My experience is the polar opposite.

As someone who for a while dedicated several hours a day to reposting artwork in better quality, there is a huge dearth of commissioners and artists who genuinely do not care about the notion of preserving art in lossless and detailed format. There is also an abundance of people who are openly hostile, demeaning, accusatory, and otherwise unpleasant to communicate with, even when requesting in politest terms whether they are okay with their material being reposted or whether they are willing to make higher resolution versions available (the latter only asked to people without Patreon or art packs for higher res, who have no financial imperative to withhold images above the antiquated 1280x1280 limit).

Furries--based on over five years of dealing with the community here, on FA, on MUDs, and elsewhere--are generally protective to the point of obsession over intellectual property, resorting to threats of lawsuits and even physical altercations if anyone posts their freely provided material on any other website, even with complete credits, cataloging and respect for every guideline the creator and commissioner(s) have set.

Even though US law permits them to act that way, there should be at least some cultural incentive to prevent that sort of behavior, whether it be advising them not to post material altogether to be freely viewed online if they don't want it to be distributed to other websites, or encouraging more lax policies in general about reposting from artists and commissioners alike.

I remember one instance on e621 where a commissioner (who I will not name) badmouthed an artist for releasing material they commissioned in higher resolution on their DeviantArt page. The commissioner, against the wishes of the artist, submitted a takedown request to this website to have it taken down--and I paraphrase since I cannot find the exact ticket anymore--because 'I never intended this resolution to be made available. I'm going to tell the artist not to release any future work at that resolution again'. The whole time, I could only think 'Why?', since there did not appear to be a logical drive behind that response beyond a self-serving desire to be the sole owner of the image in its original resolution and only present an inferior version to everyone else. My personal opinion is that no website should be forced to cater to by law or by cultural norms to that kind of abusive behavior on the part of a character owner, but since e621 is much more wary about the law than many other image hosting sites, I have no say in that matter.

I apologize about dragging on for a while, but I felt the need to politely vent about my personal experience and distate for the overly protective mentality certain artists and commissioners harbor over their work.

True. I haven't specifically seen that sort of behavior firsthand, but there have been artists and commissioners who declined my requests on a few occasions. Some people are extremely stingy and possessive, which I don't really understand. The only times I consider it relatable is when a third-party claims a piece of art or character as their own, especially when said third-party receives something beneficial from the act (monetarily or otherwise). I suppose it could be bias on my part, as I'm neither an artist nor commissioner myself (at least, not yet). But even if I was, I'd imagine I'd be very open to the idea of spreading something I own across the internet.

Artists, in my experience, tend to be more tolerant of the practice since it's practically free advertising (especially when they make a living off of commissions and the like). As long as the art was shared freely to begin with, there really shouldn't be any problem as long as proper credits are given. That said, I have posted art from some artists that was taken down by the character owners in the past. I have an artist friend who confided in me that many commissioners are extremely possessive and demanding about the art their characters are portrayed in. It seems commissioners are the biggest group of scrooges about art. I can understand, to a point, given that they paid hard-earned money on the art, but still...

It's all really murky when it comes to sharing and archiving. Personally, I believe artists should have finally say about how their artwork is spread. Regardless, I've been extra careful about what art I post from artist galleries. If I can contact the commissioner easily, then I also send out a message to them to see if they have an issue with reposting. Regardless of their approval or lack thereof, they've mostly been pretty polite about it. Perhaps I'm just lucky in that regard.

UnusualParadox said:
True. I haven't specifically seen that sort of behavior firsthand, but there have been artists and commissioners who declined my requests on a few occasions. Some people are extremely stingy and possessive, which I don't really understand. The only times I consider it relatable is when a third-party claims a piece of art or character as their own, especially when said third-party receives something beneficial from the act (monetarily or otherwise). I suppose it could be bias on my part, as I'm neither an artist nor commissioner myself (at least, not yet). But even if I was, I'd imagine I'd be very open to the idea of spreading something I own across the internet.

Artists, in my experience, tend to be more tolerant of the practice since it's practically free advertising (especially when they make a living off of commissions and the like). As long as the art was shared freely to begin with, there really shouldn't be any problem as long as proper credits are given. That said, I have posted art from some artists that was taken down by the character owners in the past. I have an artist friend who confided in me that many commissioners are extremely possessive and demanding about the art their characters are portrayed in. It seems commissioners are the biggest group of scrooges about art. I can understand, to a point, given that they paid hard-earned money on the art, but still...

It's all really murky when it comes to sharing and archiving. Personally, I believe artists should have finally say about how their artwork is spread. Regardless, I've been extra careful about what art I post from artist galleries. If I can contact the commissioner easily, then I also send out a message to them to see if they have an issue with reposting. Regardless of their approval or lack thereof, they've mostly been pretty polite about it. Perhaps I'm just lucky in that regard.

DraconicMentalist runs a unique operation in this regard. When you commission him, you come with the understanding that your commission can be freely shared. If you don't want that art floating around elsewhere, or otherwise want more control, he charges a premium to compensate for potential lost revenue due to having one less picture to advertise with. It's actually a pretty cool compromise.

BinaryHedgehog said:
DraconicMentalist runs a unique operation in this regard. When you commission him, you come with the understanding that your commission can be freely shared. If you don't want that art floating around elsewhere, or otherwise want more control, he charges a premium to compensate for potential lost revenue due to having one less picture to advertise with. It's actually a pretty cool compromise.

That is pretty neat! I wonder how many artists are aware of his policy? Honestly, if I ever get around to commissioning art, I resolve to make it my policy that art featuring characters I've made are free to share. *sigh* In a perfect world, this is how things would be.

UnusualParadox said: In a perfect world, this is how things would be.

But unfortunately , it seems we're not in a perfect world X_X

For my part ; each time i put a picture on a website , the artist is fully credited of it . Then , i think honestly a picture belongs first to the artist : peoples can commission to him and pay the picture ; but they can to pay the hours of work , the used items (pencil , ink , etc) ? All they do is pay with money when the artist pays it with life . Look at this : https://e621.net/post/show/1100884/adeloo-anthro-breasts-butt-clothed-clothing-female ............ Such picture can't be drawn in five minutes

Last new : "my" upload has been deleted ; the character owner has won with a lie in place to think about the one legal way to win honestly that i had spoken about in the first page

She's now marked as liar bitch FOREVER

RHEI-RAT said:
Last new : "my" upload has been deleted ; the character owner has won with a lie in place to think about the one legal way to win honestly that i had spoken about in the first page

She's now marked as liar bitch FOREVER

Calm your tits. It doesn't matter what you think the rules or laws should be, they are what they are.
If the character owner wants something depicting their character deleted then we will not only grant that request out of courtesy, but also because they have rights to the image.

This is not an excuse for you to insult them for making use of their rights.

RHEI-RAT said:
Last new : "my" upload has been deleted ; the character owner has won with a lie in place to think about the one legal way to win honestly that i had spoken about in the first page

She's now marked as liar bitch FOREVER

No, you are. We've continuously told you that a character owner is 100% allowed to request a takedown.

Request a takedown because she's the character owner , yes ; it's in the rules and i accept it

But request a takedown because she's doesn't enjoy to see a stranger post a picture with her character isn't in . I can't sadly show to you the message where her boyfriend says it

They can ask for it to be deleted for any reason. It doesn't matter why they want it deleted.

I'm a bit confused by the statement that character owners have rights to commissioned images. AFAIK, copyright stays with the artist unless specifically signed over (which, if the artist has any sense, they will charge a premium for)

savageorange said:
I'm a bit confused by the statement that character owners have rights to commissioned images. AFAIK, copyright stays with the artist unless specifically signed over (which, if the artist has any sense, they will charge a premium for)

It's true that the artist was given the permission to distribute it as they please, but e621 rules permit the character owners to submit takedowns, too.

savageorange said:
I'm a bit confused by the statement that character owners have rights to commissioned images. AFAIK, copyright stays with the artist unless specifically signed over (which, if the artist has any sense, they will charge a premium for)

The artist retains all copyrights related to the image and the execution of said image, the intellectual property of the characters portrayed in them still resides with the original character owner.

RHEI-RAT said:
Last new : "my" upload has been deleted ; the character owner has won with a lie in place to think about the one legal way to win honestly that i had spoken about in the first page

She's now marked as liar bitch FOREVER

So how exactly is the character owner a liar for this? If it was her boyfriend who contacted you and he realized that the character owner herself had to come and take the request to admins here, it would be a simple matter of him telling her that that's what needs to be done and that's that. No lying involved.

Also, as NotMeNotYou said...

NotMeNotYou said:
They can ask for it to be deleted for any reason. It doesn't matter why they want it deleted.

The character owner followed the site's rules, and she got her way. End of story. Again, this doesn't make her a liar or a "bitch" as you called her.

NotMeNotYou said:
The artist retains all copyrights related to the image and the execution of said image, the intellectual property of the characters portrayed in them still resides with the original character owner.

That's an interesting use of language that suggests to me that the commissioner has no legal standing in many cases[1], and it's purely a drama-minimizing choice that e621 has made to allow character owners to submit takedowns.

[1] since AFAIK it's not covered by copyright or licensing, and it could in rare cases be covered by trademark law but generally that won't be relevant.

savageorange said:
That's an interesting use of language that suggests to me that the commissioner has no legal standing in many cases[1], and it's purely a drama-minimizing choice that e621 has made to allow character owners to submit takedowns.

[1] since AFAIK it's not covered by copyright or licensing, and it could in rare cases be covered by trademark law but generally that won't be relevant.

It's mainly courtesy. We don't want to be assholes, and we also acknowledge that law may not always be the best guideline in all applicable cases, so we made our own.
Obviously we adhere to the law where we have to, but nothing stops us to extend some further courtesy to others.

Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying; I think it's important to be quite clear about what is legal requirement and what is social convention, particularly WRT "intellectual property" which seems to be rife with misunderstandings.

("Intellectual property" is generally a misleading blanket term , so if you are thinking in terms of "intellectual property", chances are your thinking is wrong. When people use definite terms -- 'copyright', 'trademark', 'patent', then there is some chance that what they are saying is accurate.)

InannaEloah said: So how exactly is the character owner a liar for this?

As i had said : request a takedown because she's the character owner , yes ; it's in the rules and i accept it . But request a takedown because she's doesn't enjoy to see a stranger post a picture with her character isn't in it : there is where the lie is

E-621 can ignore the reason of a takedown ; it's not for it i'll do the same

RHEI-RAT said:
As i had said : request a takedown because she's the character owner , yes ; it's in the rules and i accept it . But request a takedown because she's doesn't enjoy to see a stranger post a picture with her character isn't in it : there is where the lie is

E-621 can ignore the reason of a takedown ; it's not for it i'll do the same

It seems like it is their character. Their name is Angel Shane, your source confirms it, and it is on their (the character owner) gallery as well. Your source says it was made for them... I am really not seeing how it is not their character. Your post has all the linked evidence you need, specifically from source and takedown.

http://www.furaffinity.net/full/22258785/ Is this not what you uploaded?

RHEI-RAT said:
As i had said : request a takedown because she's the character owner , yes ; it's in the rules and i accept it . But request a takedown because she's doesn't enjoy to see a stranger post a picture with her character isn't in it : there is where the lie is

It doesn't matter what the character owner's reason was for submitting the request. It matters that she's the character owner. Her stating she is uncomfortable as her reason for submitting the takedown isn't a lie, because that's her reason, and it has already been established that she is the character's owner and has the right to request a takedown of her character for any reason.

So no, she's not a liar.

Siral_Exan said: http://www.furaffinity.net/full/22258785/ Is this not what you uploaded?

No ; i had uploaded the picture from Sheycra's page , with her authorization

RHEI-RAT said:
No ; i had uploaded the picture from Sheycra's page , with her authorization

And you can prove that? It might not change the fact that it is gone, but since you've been throwing "liar" left and right without context (until now), it looks like you are/were overreacting to a takedown.

If you did have permission, however, the ticket did specify that you didn't ask for THEIR permission, but you may flip it over with artist permission. That whole bit between artist and character owner is screwy, I've seen both sides get priority over one another.

RHEI-RAT said:
No ; i had uploaded the picture from Sheycra's page , with her authorization

It was featuring xXDanKanXx's character, however. This means that they had the right to request a takedown. As the character owner, they can give any reason whatsoever, that doesn't matter, but if they ask for a takedown, they win. No questions asked.

Siral_Exan said:
And you can prove that? It might not change the fact that it is gone, but since you've been throwing "liar" left and right without context (until now), it looks like you are/were overreacting to a takedown.

If you did have permission, however, the ticket did specify that you didn't ask for THEIR permission, but you may flip it over with artist permission. That whole bit between artist and character owner is screwy, I've seen both sides get priority over one another.

Neither has a greater priority, actually. If either of them ask for it to be taken down, it will be. Only the artist can request DNP on it, is all.

Siral_Exan said:
And you can prove that?

I can : i still have the PM sent to Sheycra on FA

RHEI-RAT said:
I can : i still have the PM sent to Sheycra on FA

Does Sheycra know that the commissioner / character owner isn't happy with the image being here?

NotMeNotYou said:
Does Sheycra know that the commissioner / character owner isn't happy with the image being here?

To be honest, no, I didn't know. It's ok if Dankan wanted to take down the picture, it is her character. Yeah, I did the art and I gave an authorization, but I thought she was also ok with that.

Not exactly on topic but still sort of relevant.
Some guy on e621 who ragequitted e621 after being banned from being a creep had most of his commissions been taken down on the basis that they have "his" characters takedown #5374

However, from what I can see, despite being pictures he did have commissioned, a lot of those pictures if not all of them (He also did many other takedowns in the past other than this one) doesn't have any characters that he actually owns.

So the question is, did he still have the right to have this art taken down even though he owns nothing at all, beside the fact that he paid for a ton of art ?

Neitsuke said:
Not exactly on topic but still sort of relevant.
Some guy on e621 who ragequitted e621 after being banned from being a creep had most of his commissions been taken down on the basis that they have "his" characters takedown #5374

However, from what I can see, despite being pictures he did have commissioned, a lot of those pictures if not all of them (He also did many other takedowns in the past other than this one) doesn't have any characters that he actually owns.

So the question is, did he still have the right to have this art taken down even though he owns nothing at all, beside the fact that he paid for a ton of art ?

You mean he had art mixed in there that he did not commission taken down or something? ....otherwise, I've always just kind of automatically assumed that if you paid the money to have the art made, e621 will respect your right to have it removed just like any other art you own; You know, since you paid to have it made and all. You may not own the character, but you own that particular piece of art since you commissioned it.

...I guess I don't actually know that for a fact, but it would seem awfully silly otherwise.

That said, I'm.... actually kinda surprised to learn that that first Gatomon pic was even a commission in the first place! I saw it on the artist's pixiv originally and just assumed it was another of the artist's own drawings since it's of a generic Gatomon and didn't mention anything anywhere about being a commission:
http://www.pixiv.net/member_illust.php?mode=medium&illust_id=59335037

But yeah - Even if the commissioner wrote "my characters" in his takedown request like he did in this case, that doesn't mean the characters actually belong to him no matter how much he wants to believe it if they're just rule34 pictures of the generic character like in the Gatomon example I posted above. It's not his character; but it's still his art if he commissioned it.

but you own that particular piece of art since you commissioned it.

Nope. Unless the copyright was specifically signed over, what you have is a license to (most typically) redistribute and reproduce that particular work.

https://graphicartistsguild.org/tools_resources/to-sell-or-to-rent goes in to detail, but basically, that's it. You don't own the copyright unless the artist explicitly signed it over.

(So in Neitsuke's example, it seems like that takedown was, in part or in whole, quite bogus)

We allows commissioners to be able to take down things they paid money for, that is not a mistake.

'Quite scary to now know that random commissioners have full power over the pictures they happen to buy, and the actual artists have no say on the matter when those commissioners happen to throw a sissy fit and nuke everything they commissioned, even when the pictures contain nothing that they own on them

Neitsuke said:
'Quite scary to now know that random commissioners have full power over the pictures they happen to buy, and the actual artists have no say on the matter when those commissioners happen to throw a sissy fit and nuke everything they commissioned, even when the pictures contain nothing that they own on them

I'd think that in cases like DraconicMentalist, since they have the whole "Premium ownership" versus "Casual purchase" deal, the artist can override it, but most artists don't demand the publicity that way.

Neitsuke said:
'Quite scary to now know that random commissioners have full power over the pictures they happen to buy, and the actual artists have no say on the matter when those commissioners happen to throw a sissy fit and nuke everything they commissioned, even when the pictures contain nothing that they own on them

Neitsuke said:
[..] and the actual artists have no say on the matter[...]

That is quite some jumping to conclusions. The artist can overrule commissioners and character owners (unless what the artist did is malicious, as in made solely to spite or insult the character owner, then fuck them).

There still seems to have some problem when the commissioner can simply ask for the art to be taken down without the actual artist having any idea of what's happening. If the artists have a say on that then I don't understand how the commissioner still has the possibility to take down pictures without the need for the artist to have any knowledge about it, unless someone actually drags him into the situation. Sounds very similar to YouTube's video flagging where people who flag/copyright-owns videos can shoot first and the actual uploader has to ask questions later

The assumption is that neither artist nor commissioner hate each other but would probably like to work together again in the future.
As such it's almost always the case that the artist is okay with the commissioner requesting "their" art to be removed to ensure they continue business with each other.

In fact, over the past 3 years that I've handled takedowns it happened a whooping two times that the artist had a problem with the wishes of a commissioner / character owner.

For that one example here, that dude just wanted everything he uploaded deleted because he got banned from e621 by being extremely creepy in the comments.

I will very likely try to get in touch with some artists about this really dumb situation and ask if they are willing for their art to be taken down due to one very sissy man or not, and hopefully that would be enough for the pictures to be undeleted

NotMeNotYou said:
The assumption is that neither artist nor commissioner hate each other but would probably like to work together again in the future.
As such it's almost always the case that the artist is okay with the commissioner requesting "their" art to be removed to ensure they continue business with each other.

In fact, over the past 3 years that I've handled takedowns it happened a whooping two times that the artist had a problem with the wishes of a commissioner / character owner.

Or maybe it was only 2 times when the artist actually noticed? I seriously doubt artists are constantly tracking their art on e621.
Seriously, MOST artists have "commissioner doesn't get any rights to the picture" in their TOS.
It's not good if you take down pictures without asking for any proofs of actual ownership.

Bozar said:
It's not good if you take down pictures without asking for any proofs of actual ownership.

Proof that you are the artist, commissioner, and/or character owner is required for takedowns.

Wodahseht said:
Proof that you are the artist, commissioner, and/or character owner is required for takedowns.

No, in my post i said that the fact you are the commissioner doesn't mean you have any rights to the picture.
I think artists put that line in their TOS for a reason.

Bozar said:
No, in my post i said that the fact you are the commissioner doesn't mean you have any rights to the picture.
I think artists put that line in their TOS for a reason.

That line generally means that commissioner isn't permitted to make money off of the image, but that the artist can still use it however they want. They are still permitted to share the image or use it for non-profit means.

And it is a moot point in this case since it's e621's policy, not a legal matter, that permits commissioners/character owners to request artwork removal from site.

Bozar said:
No, in my post i said that the fact you are the commissioner doesn't mean you have any rights to the picture.

It does though. To clarify slightly what Wodahseht said: The commissioner is (typically) granted a license-> they have the right to reproduce the picture[1], rather than ownership of it. The artist also retains the right to reproduce the picture (as they did not relinquish copyright ownership). If the artist is asserting clearly that the commissioner has no legal rights over the art, they may be placing themselves in a legally dubious position.

[1] other rights and restrictions may be involved, but 'right to reproduce' is pretty much a universally licensed right, since commissioning art would be pretty useless otherwise. The link I posted on page 2 goes into detail.

Wodahseht said:
And it is a moot point in this case since it's e621's policy, not a legal matter, that permits commissioners/character owners to request artwork removal from site.

I didn't say e621 doesn't have such policy. I said it's not good to have it. And explained why i think so.

errr. Also, just clicked on takedown policies link on the main page:

Commissioner wanting artwork removed that does NOT feature their character. DO NOT submit a takedown request unless you can provide proof of a transfer of copyright ownership from the artist to yourself. You are encouraged to contact the artist and ask them to submit the takedown request.

I kinda don't understand now.