Search result is empty!

bbmbbf requested DNP status. Also, see Avoid Posting list.

This is (probably not) a parody of what happened, where e621 is George Clooney, Inkbunny is the man with the hat, bbmbbf is the woman in the middle, bbmbbf's art are her children, and NMNY is the store owner.

Were those the comics where everyone spoke like illiterate British noblemen while banging each other?
Shame, if that's the case.

Oh, so that's why my bookmark shifted like 3 pages.

Everything got scuttled, even the free stuff they encouraged to redistribute. Probably because commercial/Patreon stuff was getting mirrored, and they decided the publicity wasn't worth the loss of potential business.

Mobius Unleashed art was a major factor for me bothering to register here, so it kinda sucks.

Looks like Palcomix is no longer our pal

Peekaboo said:
Were those the comics where everyone spoke like illiterate British noblemen while banging each other?
Shame, if that's the case.

I usually preferred their singles anyways. They at least had a small handful of not-awful comics.

RJDodger said:
I usually preferred their singles anyways. They at least had a small handful of not-awful comics.

It's also possible that bbmbbf requested DNP because of comments like these.

Well, if anything, I guess it's a good thing. I never liked their artstyle nor the lack of quality the dialogue had.

Ryuzaki_Tritium said:
Well, if anything, I guess it's a good thing. I never liked their artstyle nor the lack of quality the dialogue had.

Then why didn't you just blacklist their work? The blacklist exists for a reason, y'know. Being rude to people for things you don't like means you aren't using it right.

Furrin_Gok said:
Then why didn't you just blacklist their work? The blacklist exists for a reason, y'know. Being rude to people for things you don't like means you aren't using it right.

I did blacklist them. But they're not here now, so they can't get offended about my honest opinion of them.

Good riddance. The only value PC stuff had was meme value and even that was questionable at best.

Furrin_Gok said:
It's also possible that bbmbbf requested DNP because of comments like these.

First, I only frame it like that because saying you like Palcomix is like being a console owner on PC Master Race.

Second, I highly doubt it. bbmbbf is pretty self-aware about his lackluster writing skills, and at least has the excuse of barely speaking English.

And I still think its more likely that he did the takedown request because of commercial content posted here. Palcomix has been having money issues for awhile now.

when were you when pal cometz dies

i was sat at home drinking brain fluid

Fenrick said:
when were you when pal cometz dies

i was sat at home drinking brain fluid

Abby Normal brain fluid?

Fenrick said:
when were you when pal cometz dies

i was sat at home drinking brain fluid

At home playing Freedom Planet

the admins are very quick to nuke a lifetime of artist's work on one complaint, which is very efficient and a necessary thing to keep us in business.

i guess the point of an archive is to only keep what's worth keeping lol

I was actually sometimes bit surprised how palcomix paid stuff just got trough here and nobody, even the artist themselves gave a damn. Even though they are clearly trying to maintain subscription based service and patreon.

fewrahuxo said:
the admins are very quick to nuke a lifetime of artist's work on one complaint, which is very efficient and a necessary thing to keep us in business.

i guess the point of an archive is to only keep what's worth keeping lol

It wasn't removed due to a user complaint. The artist requested DNP status, and that existing art be removed.

Oh shit, why do people have to be such dramatards some times. Get butthurt over everything.

I see that some people here are happy. But no true fan of furry art should think like that.

The worst part is that they were pretty much the only ones doing more than just one-off work on a lot of diff things,.. as well as series that nobody does anything with anymore. Their digi stuff alone was worth it.

So I went ahead and contacted bbmbbf on Inkbunny about it. Said he refused to talk about it. Make of that what you will.

RJDodger said:
So I went ahead and contacted bbmbbf on Inkbunny about it. Said he refused to talk about it. Make of that what you will.

There's something going on.. He/they didn't DNP Rule 34

//rule34.paheal.net/post/list/bbmbbf/1
//rule34.paheal.net/post/list/PalComix/1

Make of that what you will as well. :/

Drkfce0 said:
There's something going on.. He/they didn't DNP Rule 34

//rule34.paheal.net/post/list/bbmbbf/1
//rule34.paheal.net/post/list/PalComix/1

Make of that what you will as well. :/

A lot of folks that request DNP here don't do it elsewhere. Popularity of site, uploaded volume and number of comments on posted on here all being factors. How easy it is to find/reverse search sites that posted the art being a more minor one.

There's not much to think about it.

rysyN said:
A lot of folks that request DNP here don't do it elsewhere. Popularity of site, uploaded volume and number of comments on posted on here all being factors. How easy it is to find/reverse search sites that posted the art being a more minor one.

There's not much to think about it.

True. But R34 is a pretty big site. Plus if you google "bbmbbf" R35 comes up 5th on the list. That would be pretty hard to miss if you were going after your work as hard as he seems to be here.

Drkfce0 said:
True. But R34 is a pretty big site. Plus if you google "bbmbbf" R35 comes up 5th on the list. That would be pretty hard to miss if you were going after your work as hard as he seems to be here.

Google results aren't the same for everybody. If he avoided looking at R34 ever, he wouldn't get it in his results.

And he's not even "going hard after his work," he just submitted a takedown request. That's all it takes, one request, "Hey, I don't want my art here anymore." Do that, and you clear out the entire tag.

Furrin_Gok said:
If he avoided looking at R34 ever, he wouldn't get it in his results.

Not true.

I did a CLEAN Google search for bbmbbf and got e621 at #1, inkbunny at #2, patreon at #3, r34.paheal at #4, deviantart at #5, wikifur at #6, rule34.xxx at #7, derpibooru at #8, xbooru at #9, and jabarchives at #10.

Paheal is a cunt about takedowns, so even if he tried contacting them they might have just ignored it for some inane reason.
As for us any artist, character owner, copyright holder / publisher, or commissioner can have their art deleted from our page for any reason they so choose.
They could request the deletion for the fact that they think our layout is too blue and it would not matter to us, they want their creations deleted and we will comply.

RJDodger said:
So I went ahead and contacted bbmbbf on Inkbunny about it. Said he refused to talk about it. Make of that what you will.

He probably is getting contacted by a lot of other people asking the same thing. That kind of thing can be exhausting. Even if it's only one time, it could be thousands asking only one time, which adds up. I don't think there's anything being hidden from us. He's probably just exhausted from being asked the same thing over and over by so many people.

I really do not understand why artists take this 'all or nothing' approach to redistribution of material they already released freely to the public in the past.

On one hand, setting up a conditional DNP for all commercial content is perfectly reasonable. You intend to earn profit over time with that material, and there's no harm in giving the middle finger to e621's 2-year-rule if you intend for that trickle of income to last into the long-term.

On the other, your free material was already available to the internet at large, so why go through the effort of negatively affecting your publicity? You're not like a YouTube channel that has legitimate reason to be angry when someone reposts their videos, even with credit given, as they're sapping ad revenue. With artwork you post to your gallery for all to view, it's more akin to anger at free marketing that demands nothing of you and serves as a free backup for everything you've made.

I hope artists that take the Patreon approach don't think it's suddenly okay to retroactively attempt to control every method of distribution for everything they've created in the past. It's one thing to have a dedicated section of artwork that's limited to Patreon or other paywalls, but another thing entirely to put what was once free to view and share in the past behind lock and key.

Strongbird said:

I hope artists that take the Patreon approach don't think it's suddenly okay to retroactively attempt to control every method of distribution for everything they've created in the past. It's one thing to have a dedicated section of artwork that's limited to Patreon or other paywalls, but another thing entirely to put what was once free to view and share in the past behind lock and key.

Comments like this that infer that artists should not be able to have full control over their own creations is why I almost deleted everything and sent a DNP request on here a little while back. I still think about it.

It's incredibly upsetting as an artist to have someone else say "I hope artists don't think it's OK to do whatever they want with their art". It's shitty. They made it, they own it, they control it.

wolftacos said:
Comments like this that infer that artists should not be able to have full control over their own creations is why I almost deleted everything and sent a DNP request on here a little while back. I still think about it.

It's incredibly upsetting as an artist to have someone else say "I hope artists don't think it's OK to do whatever they want with their art". It's shitty. They made it, they own it, they control it.

To be fair, there is another side to it. Once you've published something you have given people an experience and memories. You can't take those memories away, and people might get (arguably rightfully so) upset if they have to part with those things.
Whether or not this is important to an artist is not something I am going to judge, but it's something that should at least be kept in mind. No action is ever without reaction, and removing a thrown skipping stone from the pond won't undo the ripples it caused.

NotMeNotYou said:
To be fair, there is another side to it. Once you've published something you have given people an experience and memories. You can't take those memories away, and people might get (arguably rightfully so) upset if they have to part with those things.
Whether or not this is important to an artist is not something I am going to judge, but it's something that should at least be kept in mind. No action is ever without reaction, and removing a thrown skipping stone from the pond won't undo the ripples it caused.

I don't know of anyone trying to take memories away from people, but no one is entitled to content created by someone else unless they've paid for it.

That's why it made me angry, it's the idea of having a right to someone else's work no matter what.

Some people may be upset if an artist chooses to remove their art from the internet and request DNP status, but in the end it is the artist's right to do so and they don't deserve flack for their choices regarding their own work.

I can understand being upset or complaining, but to say "I hope artists don't think this is OK" is going too far for me, like it's somehow wrong for them to do what they want with their content.

wolftacos said:
I can understand being upset or complaining, but to say "I hope artists don't think this is OK" is going too far for me, like it's somehow wrong for them to do what they want with their content.

People on art archives are more likely to be interested in preserving data so it is not lost forever.

Eventually, you will lose control of your art as outlined under the terms of the Berne Convention, WIPO Copyright Treaty, or other applicable local laws. That might happen a whole century or more from now, but if the art has been scrubbed from the web, it could be gone forever at that time. It's maybe not so important in the grand scheme of things with wars and poverty and so many bad things going on, but art (porn) is what people come (cum) here for. They don't want to see it disappear, and they will cringe at takedowns, even if it is palcomix.

Lance_Armstrong said:
People on art archives are more likely to be interested in preserving data so it is not lost forever.

Eventually, you will lose control of your art as outlined under the terms of the Berne Convention, WIPO Copyright Treaty, or other applicable local laws. That might happen a whole century or more from now, but if the art has been scrubbed from the web, it could be gone forever at that time. It's maybe not so important in the grand scheme of things with wars and poverty and so many bad things going on, but art (porn) is what people come (cum) here for.

I understand your point. I collect hard to find books because I want to preserve them for the future. In fact I try really hard to encourage people to read them (in their cheaper ebook forms if available) so that they stay in circulation and are appreciated.

I have to balance that with my beliefs about creating free art, though. I bought the book, so it's mine and no author has the right to take it away from me or prevent me from putting it into a library (archive). I don't see free art as the same because it's free.

wolftacos said:
I have to balance that with my beliefs about creating free art, though. I bought the book, so it's mine and no author has the right to take it away from me or prevent me from putting it into a library (archive). I don't see free art as the same because it's free.

I do not understand this argument. Artists and commissioners *are* in extremely high control of their material. The issue stems more from the moral ramifications of imposing limits retroactively on material that you, at a time, consciously released for free to people to view, download, and redistribute, provided they provide you credit and proper sourcing to the gallery it originated from.

It's like giving several libraries the go-ahead to archive an e-book you wrote as a passion project, then deciding after a few months to a year that you suddenly want to monetize that content, threatening legal action if the sources you permitted to host that content don't delete it.

^ Of course you have the power to do so by the modern, ultra-stringent copyright system, but the reality is that it's harmful to your public image, hurtful to the people who cared about your material enough to upload, tag, and source it correctly, and damaging to the capacity to archive your work across multiple reliable servers to ensure it's not lost to the time.

There's always room to ask for deletion if there is a serious personal reason or trauma regarding that artwork, and its mere existence in the public space is causing you pain or heartache, but just deciding to make a profit off of something previously public and free is something I'd consider morally iffy.

For me, it doesn't matter if a person has a serious reason or trauma that makes them want to remove free access to their art, so I don't understand your side I'm afraid.

Also, redistribution can be a very heated topic for some artists, including myself. I have rules regarding how I want my art to be redistributed, and all artist's wishes on that should be respected.

Regarding BBMBBF's work on Paheal, he's one of the Friends of Paheal

This probably has some bearing on why he didn't request his art being DNP there.

imagoober said:
Regarding BBMBBF's work on Paheal, he's one of the Friends of Paheal

This probably has some bearing on why he didn't request his art being DNP there.

So a tantrum or a DB then... classy.

Drkfce0 said:
So a tantrum or a DB then... classy.

Or maybe it's something else entirely, and it's really none of anyone else's business but his.

imagoober said:
Or maybe it's something else entirely, and it's really none of anyone else's business but his.

Pretty much agreed.. as i said. A tantrum or being a DB about it then. They're not mutually exclusive points.

Honestly, bbmbbf can't just simply tell every single porn website to not feature all of his art there, since right now there are so many porn websites featuring his art right now

i'm okay with having a few artists have their work taken down so long as the rest of the work is allowed to stay up. a sort of "gentleman's agreement" is in place where the artist maintains a minimum of control over their work in exchange for not holding any animosity towards the rest of the site, and all the legal consequences therein.

personally i think the artist's ability to do this, in the form of copyright and the consequences for disobeying copyright, is censorship in itself. it does seem unfair that a artist can publicly post their work and then take it away from the public.

fewrahuxo said:
i'm okay with having a few artists have their work taken down so long as the rest of the work is allowed to stay up. a sort of "gentleman's agreement" is in place where the artist maintains a minimum of control over their work in exchange for not holding any animosity towards the rest of the site, and all the legal consequences therein.

personally i think the artist's ability to do this, in the form of copyright and the consequences for disobeying copyright, is censorship in itself. it does seem unfair that a artist can publicly post their work and then take it away from the public.

"It seems unfair that someone who made a thing pulled the thing they made from the public because they didn't want it in public anymore."

fewrahuxo said:
i'm okay with having a few artists have their work taken down so long as the rest of the work is allowed to stay up. a sort of "gentleman's agreement" is in place where the artist maintains a minimum of control over their work in exchange for not holding any animosity towards the rest of the site, and all the legal consequences therein.

personally i think the artist's ability to do this, in the form of copyright and the consequences for disobeying copyright, is censorship in itself. it does seem unfair that a artist can publicly post their work and then take it away from the public.

Ratte said:
"It seems unfair that someone who made a thing pulled the thing they made from the public because they didn't want it in public anymore."

You're allowed to request that a museum removes your painting even if your only reason for doing so is that you think the owner's son is a prick. As the artist, you have the copyrights to your own work. There's nothing wrong with allowing some public sites to feature it, but not others.

Furrin_Gok said:
You're allowed to request that a museum removes your painting even if your only reason for doing so is that you think the owner's son is a prick. As the artist, you have the copyrights to your own work. There's nothing wrong with allowing some public sites to feature it, but not others.

Pretty much my thoughts.

Furrin_Gok said:
You're allowed to request that a museum removes your painting even if your only reason for doing so is that you think the owner's son is a prick. As the artist, you have the copyrights to your own work.

No. Copyrights may be transferred or licensed away, sometimes irrevocably.
This is not the case with palcomix I believe, but in general this argument is wrong.

CC for instance has a clause to protect the users against moves like that:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
"The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms."

Museums likely negotiate similar protection for themselves when they procure stuff to display. Gallery sites aka online museums do (or rather should) request some sort of license as well, like "by registering (or uploading) you give us the rights to ... display your work". See for instance https://www.furaffinity.net/tos 4.1.

The proper argument is that the artist did not license the works to e6 specifically and came to complain about unlicensed use.

(Which is another can of worms btw, because following this logic Google Images and Google Search may not exist in their current form)

Ratte said:
"It seems unfair that someone who made a thing pulled the thing they made from the public because they didn't want it in public anymore."

it's not as simple as this; artists depend, most of all, on their relationship with their audience, earning a living through selling their work, or otherwise starving. arbitrarily deciding which of the works they posted in a public forum they want to remove from this public forum damages the level of trust.

if somebody makes a beautiful piece of art that enriches the lives of all who see it, how is it fair that they take away this beautiful thing from their audience? if a textbook is a brilliant thing, written in such a lucid way that all its knowledge is transferred effortlessly, how is it fair to take away the textbook?

it's like when Amazon deleted copies of 1984 from their users Kindles because Amazon didn't want it public anymore. how is this fair? art that is released to the public should belong to the public, for the artist exists solely because of the public, and the public must decide whether they live or die in the public arena.

fewrahuxo said:
it's not as simple as this; artists depend, most of all, on their relationship with their audience, earning a living through selling their work, or otherwise starving. arbitrarily deciding which of the works they posted in a public forum they want to remove from this public forum damages the level of trust.

if somebody makes a beautiful piece of art that enriches the lives of all who see it, how is it fair that they take away this beautiful thing from their audience? if a textbook is a brilliant thing, written in such a lucid way that all its knowledge is transferred effortlessly, how is it fair to take away the textbook?

it's like when Amazon deleted copies of 1984 from their users Kindles because Amazon didn't want it public anymore. how is this fair? art that is released to the public should belong to the public, for the artist exists solely because of the public, and the public must decide whether they live or die in the public arena.

Except that large parts of the works featured on e6 were works bbmbbf charges money for, and thus never released to the public in the first place, and the rest of the works on here weren't approved to be here either.
Your metaphor thus isn't correct, this is more like a library realizing a donation they got contained stolen material and personal works which are then handed over back to the actual owner of the works.

NotMeNotYou said:
Except that large parts of the works featured on e6 were works bbmbbf charges money for, and thus never released to the public in the first place, and the rest of the works on here weren't approved to be here either.
Your metaphor thus isn't correct, this is more like a library realizing a donation they got contained stolen material and personal works which are then handed over back to the actual owner of the works.

to continue on one may talk about how the work has no monetary value, because typically we charge for things that are in limited number, and therefore has a value. a digital copy can be infinitely reproduced; it would be more accurate to say the artist is then giving services and not goods.

in the case of bbmbbf, i believe some of the works weren't explicitly commissioned and charged for services rendered, so then it would be released to the public, though only to those who can afford to pay, thus limiting the copies artificially. but then this is getting into pedantic semantics.

i must reiterate i am not against the current policy and wish just to hear points i typically do not

fewrahuxo said:
it's not as simple as this; artists depend, most of all, on their relationship with their audience, earning a living through selling their work, or otherwise starving. arbitrarily deciding which of the works they posted in a public forum they want to remove from this public forum damages the level of trust.

if somebody makes a beautiful piece of art that enriches the lives of all who see it, how is it fair that they take away this beautiful thing from their audience? if a textbook is a brilliant thing, written in such a lucid way that all its knowledge is transferred effortlessly, how is it fair to take away the textbook?

it's like when Amazon deleted copies of 1984 from their users Kindles because Amazon didn't want it public anymore. how is this fair? art that is released to the public should belong to the public, for the artist exists solely because of the public, and the public must decide whether they live or die in the public arena.

I am an artist. I see all of those points as fair because the person who made it has the ultimate say. Just because I post something to the public, with all rights intact, doesn't somehow make it less mine. You're not entitled to it just because you liked it, it's still mine.

That last comparison is apples to oranges and I see no reason to discuss it.

Drkfce0 said:
So a tantrum or a DB then... classy.

imagoober said:
Or maybe it's something else entirely, and it's really none of anyone else's business but his.

Drkfce0 said:
Pretty much agreed.. as i said. A tantrum or being a DB about it then. They're not mutually exclusive points.

Not sure what you're agreeing with, because that's not what I said.

Your presentation of the only choices being different kinds of bad behavior on his part is, in a word, bullshit, and it was the first time you made the claim. I was just being nicer about it in my previous post.

So I can't even see the works I commissioned and received permission to share to sites as I saw fit?

Type61A3 said:
So I can't even see the works I commissioned and received permission to share to sites as I saw fit?

as far as i know, if you have proof that you have permission to upload a dnp artist's art here, you can do it

Ledian said:
as far as i know, if you have proof that you have permission to upload a dnp artist's art here, you can do it

Unsure if that applies to work given permission to upload *prior* to an artist requesting DNP, as they may have changed their mind in the interim.

Interesting.... So unless I have specific proof I can upload a dnp artist's work here specifically (e621) I really have no way of disputing the removal of works I commissioned and in a couple of cases uploaded myself?

Apologies for my lack of knowledge in this area as this the first time I've been affected by something like this.

Type61A3 said:
Interesting.... So unless I have specific proof I can upload a dnp artist's work here specifically (e621) I really have no way of disputing the removal of works I commissioned and in a couple of cases uploaded myself?

Apologies for my lack of knowledge in this area as this the first time I've been affected by something like this.

e621's takedown policy stems from the stringency of the US's DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) laws. If either an artist of a commissioner requests a blanket takedown, then those wishes have to be respected, lest the website's owners are put in legal hot water. In the case of commissioned art, the real owner of copyright is ambiguous, so we treat both artists and commissioners as copyright holders, with only one party's DNP request required to have everything taken down without further communication.

Cases where artists and commissioners disagree on these policies are rare, or at least not frequently put into text. I'd recommend contacting the artist again, and, if they're willing to make exemptions, providing proof of these through a screenshot. Link the screenshot in the description field of a post or a comment below it along with an anecdote stating you were given express permission to share what you bought and paid for.

-

On a personal note, I still firmly disagree with Ratte that we should bend over whenever any individual requests art to be taken down for any reason. The lack of communication is indicative of copyright being exploited for caveman-like strong-arming without civil discourse rather than a more reasonable tool of simply protecting intellectual property. However, law is ultimately law, so there's not much we can do about sharing non-commercial work if the artist doesn't want free promotion.

Strongbird said:
e621's takedown policy stems from the stringency of the US's DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) laws. If either an artist of a commissioner requests a blanket takedown, then those wishes have to be respected, lest the website's owners are put in legal hot water. In the case of commissioned art, the real owner of copyright is ambiguous, so we treat both artists and commissioners as copyright holders, with only one party's DNP request required to have everything taken down without further communication.

Cases where artists and commissioners disagree on these policies are rare, or at least not frequently put into text. I'd recommend contacting the artist again, and, if they're willing to make exemptions, providing proof of these through a screenshot. Link the screenshot in the description field of a post or a comment below it along with an anecdote stating you were given express permission to share what you bought and paid for.

-

On a personal note, I still firmly disagree with Ratte that we should bend over whenever any individual requests art to be taken down for any reason. The lack of communication is indicative of copyright being exploited for caveman-like strong-arming without civil discourse rather than a more reasonable tool of simply protecting intellectual property. However, law is ultimately law, so there's not much we can do about sharing non-commercial work if the artist doesn't want free promotion.

Ok, thanks for clearing that up and the advice on trying to get this sorted.

It's a shame this happened considering the second biggest reason for commissioning that art was to give some exposure to characters that were a little more obscure or I just like a bunch and to share with like-minded fans

Type61A3 said:
Interesting.... So unless I have specific proof I can upload a dnp artist's work here specifically (e621) I really have no way of disputing the removal of works I commissioned and in a couple of cases uploaded myself?

Apologies for my lack of knowledge in this area as this the first time I've been affected by something like this.

We will need a screenshot for proof that bbmbbf allows you to have your commissions displayed on e621, if you have that proof simply send it to me and I'll see about restoring your submissions again.

Strongbird is also a tiny bit wrong on the copyright law. If you commission an artist the artist itself will keep all copyrights to that particular image they have created, but only pertaining to the image itself. If the characters drawn inside the image are your creation (and have been sufficiently fleshed out in writing by yourself to be distinguishable from other characters) then the characters themselves belong to you. If the characters have a different copyright holder you basically own absolutely nothing in that image because ideas (in essence what you paid money for to have drawn) are not under copyright protection.

Ideas aren't copyrighted, only an execution of an idea is copyrighted.

Strongbird said:
On a personal note, I still firmly disagree with Ratte that we should bend over whenever any individual requests art to be taken down for any reason. The lack of communication is indicative of copyright being exploited for caveman-like strong-arming without civil discourse rather than a more reasonable tool of simply protecting intellectual property. However, law is ultimately law, so there's not much we can do about sharing non-commercial work if the artist doesn't want free promotion.

An interesting position but has one rather glaring flaw. Have you started a dialog with the artist before uploading their art to other places on the internet, or did you just grab the stuff like a caveman and spread it everywhere you went without saying anything? It's rather unreasonable to expect to be treated differently than how you treat another person.

If you ask an artist and they decline to have their work spread, and you go to spread it anyway, then you shouldn't be surprised they'll just DMCA everything. That is not unreasonable, that is fair. And if you don't ask, well, welcome to Russian roulette where another person is allowed to pull the trigger against your forehead as often as they'd like.

NotMeNotYou said:
If you ask an artist and they decline to have their work spread, and you go to spread it anyway, then you shouldn't be surprised they'll just DMCA everything. That is not unreasonable, that is fair. And if you don't ask, well, welcome to Russian roulette where another person is allowed to pull the trigger against your forehead as often as they'd like.

That's not remotely the same thing. Just because someone posted a cat pic on the internet for free doesn't mean they're in the moral right to DMCA the bejezus out of anyone who reblogs it. Sure, you own the copyright for it, but it's still a conscious decision to berate or threaten others for sharing non-commercial work, requiring time and effort to do so on the creator's part.

Could we ask permission for every individual piece? Sure, but you also cannot reasonably expect artists to want to answer myriad messages from users requesting the same thing out of their busy schedule of making a living. If you're an artist, make a clear message on your userpage about whether or not people can share your non-commercial work, and whether or not they should contact you in advance. It takes two sentences from one person to save 10+ people writing them messages to ask every time.

Edit: Also, I apologize if my wording earlier was rude. I'm not trying to be inflammatory. I'd love for artists and third-party websites to be on good terms, but it's increasingly difficult to remain positive when seeing some of the reasoning behind many takedown and DNP requests, despite best efforts to show deference to the creators and commissioners. :(

NotMeNotYou said:
We will need a screenshot for proof that bbmbbf allows you to have your commissions displayed on e621, if you have that proof simply send it to me and I'll see about restoring your submissions again.

Bluedingo is also a tiny bit wrong on the copyright law. If you commission an artist the artist itself will keep all copyrights to that particular image they have created, but only pertaining to the image itself. If the characters drawn inside the image are your creation (and have been sufficiently fleshed out in writing by yourself to be distinguishable from other characters) then the characters themselves belong to you. If the characters have a different copyright holder you basically own absolutely nothing in that image because ideas (in essence what you paid money for to have drawn) are not under copyright protection.

Ideas aren't copyrighted, only an execution of an idea is copyrighted.

An interesting position but has one rather glaring flaw. Have you started a dialog with the artist before uploading their art to other places on the internet, or did you just grab the stuff like a caveman and spread it everywhere you went without saying anything? It's rather unreasonable to expect to be treated differently than how you treat another person.

If you ask an artist and they decline to have their work spread, and you go to spread it anyway, then you shouldn't be surprised they'll just DMCA everything. That is not unreasonable, that is fair. And if you don't ask, well, welcome to Russian roulette where another person is allowed to pull the trigger against your forehead as often as they'd like.

Understood, I'll see what I can do but it's not looking likely those Tailsko pictures will grace this site again.

It's kinda ironic looking through the emails that I was asked if those pictures could be uploaded to his sites but I never considered I'd have to ask him to get these reuploaded after some kind of falling out with a 3rd party

NotMeNotYou said:
Bluedingo is also a tiny bit wrong on the copyright law. (Lots more words)

Ideas aren't copyrighted, only an execution of an idea is copyrighted.

You referring to forum #238849, right?

BlueDingo said:
You referring to forum #238849, right?

I meant Strongbird, sorry. This is what I get when I answer something 15 minutes after waking up.

NotMeNotYou said:
I meant Strongbird, sorry. This is what I get when I answer something 15 minutes after waking up.

It's alright. I think we're even now.

not to fear...there are remenants on Sanaku Channel.

I'm kinda amazed. There's a brand shiny new thread about Palcomix right there on the front page.... and this gets necro'd.

SnowWolf said:
I'm kinda amazed. There's a brand shiny new thread about Palcomix right there on the front page.... and this gets necro'd.

That's noobs for ya.