NotMeNotYou said:
We verify all tickets and flags manually. That will accomplish nothing except do exactly what we'd like people to do.

Then we don't have a problem. Keep tying that necktie e621.

Siral_Exan said:
Nah, they have their heads screwed on wrong, it’s just that we have ours screwed on wrong too, making it look right. We’re all mad on e6.

Well, relatively speaking. Making system design/policy decisions based off popularity is a recipe for incoherent mediocrity, so you get sanity points for not doing that. And making your rules simpler and more consistent makes them easier to understand and enforce (and criticize), so you get sanity points for that.

MissChu said:
Ha-ha! Capitalism.

Also, I agree. I basically only check in on this topic to look at the funny drama.

Same though. Literally both sides are just gonna stay locked in this never ending pissing contest, so is it really worth it?

So I have a question kind of related to this. Public Domain was brought up at some point in this discussion, and to my recollection the conclusion was that "once works are in the public domain, they can be posted up here even if they were previously paywalled."

I have some questions about how that interacts with the DNP list.

If an artist is on the DNP list, and then they die, and seventy years or w/e passes (hey, bear with me for a moment here, let's say e621 sticks around long enough for this to be an issue), is the policy that the work remains DNP in accordance with the artist's wishes, or is the policy that it is now in the public domain and may be freely posted?

A more realistic scenario is this: If an artist releases their work into the public domain (or, alternatively, releases their work under a creative commons license which allows free sharing of the work), but also requests DNP status, how exactly is that all decided?

From a legal perspective, by releasing a work with a license which allows free sharing in any medium, the artist has granted blanket permission to upload the work anywhere. So their DNP request is kind of at odds with those actions.

Presumably we still respect their will regardless, but to some extent that seems strange.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? This isn't just abstract, mind you, there are specific examples of artists who have done precisely this, and I'm curious if their licensing was ever taken into consideration at all or if e621 doesn't even concern itself with such things.

"I HAVE A ROCKET LAUNCHER, YOUR OPINION IS INVALID" feeling.

In all seriousness, I am slightly disappointed, if not in huge agreement with this rule. It's fair to the artists who set those personal rules up on their page and posting on here while the original images are monitized is illegal.

However, I do have to point out that people are now flocking away from e621 to find the free artwork on other sites (even if they're risking getting a virus on their phone/pc/Mac/Amazon fire TV schtick/ect. So jokes on them! XD), and making the situation about... Eh, 25(?)% better.

I don't hate this rule change, just observing what I see. But too many entitled perverts dislike this as well! •3• use your p∅rn whip, admins! *Wpish!*

If people want to leave this site to find their precious free porn despite the fact this site has over one million images, most of which are pornographic, well that's their problem. I like this website and I like the community here so I think I'll stay :3

Clawdragons said:
A more realistic scenario is this: If an artist releases their work into the public domain (or, alternatively, releases their work under a creative commons license which allows free sharing of the work), but also requests DNP status, how exactly is that all decided?

I think it's still DNP. But I think that it conflicts with the CC rules and that the artist can also cause problems. Of course, it depends on the type of license. Ultimately, it depends on the desire of the artist and if he does not want to see his work, for whatever reason, on a website, then this is theoretically to be considered.

Clawdragons said:
If an artist is on the DNP list, and then they die, and seventy years or w/e passes (hey, bear with me for a moment here, let's say e621 sticks around long enough for this to be an issue), is the policy that the work remains DNP in accordance with the artist's wishes, or is the policy that it is now in the public domain and may be freely posted?

I think after so many decades, that's free. There is if I am not mistaken, there is a kind of expiration date. What do you think why there are constantly new potato and cereal varieties? Because the manufacturer licenses for the old varieties expire. These can then be freely multiplied and marketed without royalties.

LuceoX30 said:
However, I do have to point out that people are now flocking away from e621 to find the free artwork on other sites

How did you determine that?

Clawdragons said:
So I have a question kind of related to this. Public Domain was brought up at some point in this discussion, and to my recollection the conclusion was that "once works are in the public domain, they can be posted up here even if they were previously paywalled."

I have some questions about how that interacts with the DNP list.

If an artist is on the DNP list, and then they die, and seventy years or w/e passes (hey, bear with me for a moment here, let's say e621 sticks around long enough for this to be an issue), is the policy that the work remains DNP in accordance with the artist's wishes, or is the policy that it is now in the public domain and may be freely posted?

A more realistic scenario is this: If an artist releases their work into the public domain (or, alternatively, releases their work under a creative commons license which allows free sharing of the work), but also requests DNP status, how exactly is that all decided?

From a legal perspective, by releasing a work with a license which allows free sharing in any medium, the artist has granted blanket permission to upload the work anywhere. So their DNP request is kind of at odds with those actions.

Presumably we still respect their will regardless, but to some extent that seems strange.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? This isn't just abstract, mind you, there are specific examples of artists who have done precisely this, and I'm curious if their licensing was ever taken into consideration at all or if e621 doesn't even concern itself with such things.

Our DNP trumps everything else, except for decisions the artist themselves made. I can't say how staff in 80-90 years will handle this. We are fully allowed to ignore blanket copyright permissions, and we're willing to do so if the artist wishes it.

PlüschTiger said:
I think it's still DNP. But I think that it conflicts with the CC rules and that the artist can also cause problems. Of course, it depends on the type of license. Ultimately, it depends on the desire of the artist and if he does not want to see his work, for whatever reason, on a website, then this is theoretically to be considered.

German - Deutsch

Ich denke es ist immer noch DNP. Aber ich denke, dass es mit den CC-Regeln im Widerspruch steht und dass der Künstler auch Probleme bekommen kann. Das hängt natürlich von der Art der Lizenz ab. Letztlich kommt es auf den Wunsch des Künstlers an, und wenn er seine Arbeit, aus welchem Grund auch immer, auf einer Website nicht sehen will, dann ist dies theoretisch zu bedenken.

Nothing in the Creative Commons license states that we have to host anything, or that the artist isn't allowed to ask us as a private entity to please not host their creations here. The fact that we grant people any kind of DNP status is because we can and want to, not because the law or anything else requires it

PlüschTiger said:
I think after so many decades, that's free. There is if I am not mistaken, there is a kind of expiration date. What do you think why there are constantly new potato and cereal varieties? Because the manufacturer licenses for the old varieties expire. These can then be freely multiplied and marketed without royalties.

German - Deutsch

Ich denke nach so vielen Jahrzehnten, ist das dann frei. Es gibt wenn ich mich nicht irre auch dort eine Art verfallsfristen. Was denkst du warum es ständig neue Kartoffel und Getreide Sorten gibt? Weil die Herstellerlizenzen für die Alten Sorten ablaufen. Diese kann man dann ohne Lizenzabgaben frei vermehren und vermarkten.

It's not "free", it's released into the public domain and copyright protections are no longer enforced for that particular piece of art. This is also completely separate from potato varieties and grains. You're mixing up trademarks and product licensing with copyright protections on creations, which are two completely different regulations and issues.

savageorange said:
How did you determine that?

I would also like to know this, as I still have as much or even more work than I did before the rule change and even before the rule change I similarly was deleting paid content as most uploads were under two years old.

NotMeNotYou said:
Our DNP trumps everything else, except for decisions the artist themselves made. I can't say how staff in 80-90 years will handle this. We are fully allowed to ignore blanket copyright permissions, and we're willing to do so if the artist wishes it.

I was pretty sure this was the case, but it's good having it said outright.

I've been in a couple of discussions that seem to suggest some people believe that e621's rules, particularly regarding DNP and other things, are largely a result of copyright law influence, rather than courtesy towards artists.

Which, that position doesn't make a whole lot of sense, what with the existence of DNP artists who have licensed their art through creative commons free sharing licenses.

Thanks for the response on that.

It looks to me as if this was all done for some attention seeking / drama
(unsurprising given the community)
it's an easy fix

1. install adblock
2. http://furry.booru.org/
3. http://ychan.net/
4. https://ibsearch.xxx/images/?q=site%3Afurrybo
5. profit

more than likely the side affects will be
content being uploaded then not tagging it as paid to avoid it being taken down
tagging content as paid when it isn't forcing it to be taken down etc
more drama etc

zebedie said:

It looks to me as if this was all done for some attention seeking / drama
(unsurprising given the community)

Unclear. Do you mean 'in order to accommodate some attention seeking person(s)'?

It's seriously not clear to me why you wouldn't just assume that the system is being made more consistent. That's not at all a trivial improvement; perhaps my experience with programming makes this seem more obvious to me than it is to others.

more than likely the side affects will be
content being uploaded then not tagging it as paid to avoid it being taken down

This seems like a fair point. I do have to ask if you think everyone who views it will avoid tagging or flagging it?
(because that is what would be necessary for this to persist as a noteworthy problem rather than an occasional annoyance)

tagging content as paid when it isn't forcing it to be taken down etc

I doubt this. The level of deception involved in successfully causing a fraudulent takedown is a heck of a lot higher than just not tagging DNP stuff. In the fraudulent takedown case, you are actively attracting admin attention.

savageorange said:
I doubt this. The level of deception involved in successfully causing a fraudulent takedown is a heck of a lot higher than just not tagging DNP stuff. In the fraudulent takedown case, you are actively attracting admin attention.

Am not an admin, or even a member of the staff, but, this, basically.

You could upload DNP material. You could not tag the artist. You might get away with it for a while, but there are a lot of people who watch for that. Once you get caught, you'll probably be spoken to about it. If you persist in uploading like that, you'll get in trouble. SUre, you might get your DNP content up for a day or two, but ultimatly, you're jsut painting a target on your own face. The admin pay attention.

Go have a look at the records -- there's no shortage of people getting scolded for DNP stuff.

As for people flagging 'paid' to force something to be taken down... generally, you are expected to put in a reason.. which the admin WILL check. They're not robots that auto delete anything that looks suspect. If they were, then someone, somewhere, would have already abused this.

NotMeNotYou said:
Nothing in the Creative Commons license states that we have to host anything, or that the artist isn't allowed to ask us as a private entity to please not host their creations here. The fact that we grant people any kind of DNP status is because we can and want to, not because the law or anything else requires it

The following is not google translate

Kein Teil in der Creative Commons Lizenz besagt dass wir etwas hosten müssen, oder dass es dem Künstler nicht erlaubt ist sich nicht als private person an uns wenden darf und uns bittet seine Kreationen nicht hier zu hosten. Die Tatsache dass wir Leuten irgendeinen DNP status geben ist weil wir es können und wollen, nicht weil es uns gesetzlich oder anderweitig vorgeschrieben ist.

Apart from the "It depends on our decision." what I said thank you for the confirmation.

NotMeNotYou said:
It's not "free", it's released into the public domain and copyright protections are no longer enforced for that particular piece of art. This is also completely separate from potato varieties and grains. You're mixing up trademarks and product licensing with copyright protections on creations, which are two completely different regulations and issues.

Yet more actual German yelling

Es ist nicht "frei", es ist in die Public Domain übergetreten und der Copyright Schutz wird nicht mehr für jene Kreation durchgesetzt. Dies ist ebenfalls komplett unabhängig von Kartoffel- und Getreidesorten. Du verwechselst Trademark und Produktlizensen mit dem Copyright auf Kreationen, welche zwei komplett unterschiedliche Regulationen und Probleme sind.

Maybe I can mix it or not, but the core is basically the same => money. Both the change now and the example is about the money of the artist or rights holder. However, it is probably that the two things that you mention probably go hand in hand to a certain degree.

Other than that, if you have a problem with Google translations, your personal problem is not mine, especially since it only became a problem after I talked about it. Interesting to see that one is considered, but even of you get no answer to the open question here, who is the superordinate admins, so also your superior? No admin has taken position so far, not even by PM. I hold it now how one advised me recently, "Stay as you are.".

Just as a small hint, what you have done here with the headlines, would be punished with us in Germany on some pages with a warning, because user presentation, or worse.

PlüschTiger said:
Other than that, if you have a problem with Google translations, your personal problem is not mine, especially since it only became a problem after I talked about it. Interesting to see that one is considered, but even of you get no answer to the open question here, who is the superordinate admins, so also your superior? No admin has taken position so far, not even by PM. I hold it now how one advised me recently, "Stay as you are.".

I am the highest entity on the page. That's what "Leitender Administrator" means, it's not a statement about my electrical conductivity.

PlüschTiger said:
Just as a small hint, what you have done here with the headlines, would be punished with us in Germany on some pages with a warning, because user presentation, or worse.

Have you tried humor? The first was a self deprecating joke at how I used google translate before, the second a stab at the stereotypical belief that German sounds like angry yelling to non-German speakers.

The first one was also done with the singular purpose to ensure you open it and see that there is a proper translation present. Seeing how I used google translate last time I wanted to ensure the effort wouldn't be wasted on my part.

PlüschTiger said:
Other than that, if you have a problem with Google translations, your personal problem is not mine, especially since it only became a problem after I talked about it. Interesting to see that one is considered, but even of you get no answer to the open question here, who is the superordinate admins, so also your superior? No admin has taken position so far, not even by PM. I hold it now how one advised me recently, "Stay as you are.".

Once upon a time I thought you'd use google translate as a tool to improve yourself with. In the last two years my opinion about this changed because I realized you used it as a crutch and excuse to not improve at all.

Also, if you want to air out your dirty laundry do that in a place that isn't a public forum about a completely unrelated topic.

savageorange said:
It's seriously not clear to me why you wouldn't just assume that the system is being made more consistent. That's not at all a trivial improvement; perhaps my experience with programming makes this seem more obvious to me than it is to others.

I think the use of the word consistent would imply that things are changed so that they are the same across the board, and improvement means making things better
Ether the same from post to post, or the same as other sites
For example if some images were taken down for a given reason, but others were not when the same reason applied.

However that doesn't seem to be the case, instead it's more a change of policy
In that a definitive decision has been made to change or remove the 2 year rule
Because a lot of folks don't agree with perhaps the justification or the removal of the rule in general that's why it's gained so much attention, especially since it's affected such a high volume.

savageorange said:
This seems like a fair point. I do have to ask if you think everyone who views it will avoid tagging or flagging it?
(because that is what would be necessary for this to persist as a noteworthy problem rather than an occasional annoyance)

It will largely depend on who's doing the tagging.
If your relying on the majority to do the tagging, and the majority don't necessarily care / agree with the policy then that might cause you a problem.

Given that the site seems to have a high volume, you might find some way to automate the detection of dups already banned, but that is probably also easy to get around (scaling / minor changes etc). It will probably depend on how much automation you have / how many admins there are / the amount of effort folks want to go to to post dnp material

These days free / throw away email accounts are a dime a dozen, but again its dependent on the amount of effort people are willing to go to.

savageorange said:
I doubt this. The level of deception involved in successfully causing a fraudulent takedown is a heck of a lot higher than just not tagging DNP stuff. In the fraudulent takedown case, you are actively attracting admin attention.

That might be a fair point, what I was trying to get across for example
is if someone has tagged something as palcomix, but it's freely available not knowing that there's a distinction between paid and free works and as a result it's just been harvested as part of a larger group

Hey. I'm late as all hell. Sorry about that.

Generally, an artist is able to keep hold of or retrieve their own works.
If they, themselves, CHOOSE to make their art free, than that's one thing.
Under no other conditions, though, would it be ok to post their payed work without permission.

Just because they aren't currently selling (x) doesn't mean they never intend to sell it in future.

Whether or not one thinks/is they are benefiting an artist, it is that artist's sole choice on whether or not to go public with art, and it is very unlikely that much furry art is already in the public domain, as most copyright laws place that literal decades after the artist dies..

The fact that artists can add themselves to the DNP list is NOT an acceptable reason to post their art if it isn't already publicly available. An artist should not have to tell every website that gets their work shoved into its hands not to keep it up.

Blah blah blah, I felt the need to put my two cents in.

zebedie said:
These days free / throw away email accounts are a dime a dozen, but again its dependent on the amount of effort people are willing to go to.

Totally, but IP addresses take more effort to hop between.

zebedie said:

It will largely depend on who's doing the tagging.
If your relying on the majority to do the tagging, and the majority don't necessarily care / agree with the policy then that might cause you a problem.

I think that's why we're getting the report update? (There was one, right? I may be nuts.) So that miss-tagging won't make hiding paid content super easy. Also, if people are intentionally/consistently tagging maliciously/wrongfully, wouldn't staff take action on that?

I guess you'll need to remove all of this now
https://e621.net/post/index/1/james_m_hardiman

zebedie said:
I guess you'll need to remove all of this now
https://e621.net/post/index/1/james_m_hardiman

Why? Did James submit for DNP status while he was alive?

MissChu said:
Why? Did James submit for DNP status while he was alive?

My understanding was this wasn't about an artists requst for dnp status but instead paid content older than 2 years old.

I think most of what's there at the moment would fall under that classification.

NotMeNotYou said:
I am the highest entity on the page. That's what "Leitender Administrator" means, it's not a statement about my electrical conductivity.

Ich bin die höhste Person hier auf der Seite. Das ist was "leitender Administrator" aussagt, es ist keine Aussage zu meiner elektrischen Leitfähigkeit.

...................

So... is this thread done now?