I mean so to avoid asking artists again and again if we could post this or that?

no?

Here's a decent rule of thumb: If the artist already has art hosted here (like ten or more) and if that art's been here a while (as in six months or longer) then they're probably fine with their artwork being posted here. That's a minimalistic approach of course. Obviously the more artwork there is here for longer, the more likely the artist doesn't care where their artwork is being posted (as long as they're properly credited and sourced).

Commander_Eggplant said:
no?

you win the furry medal of honor for the most bitchy e621 post that simultaneoulsy contains the least amount of information in 2017

Marcopolo22 said:
do we have a wiki for artists that given permission to post their art?

No.

Marcopolo22 said:
I mean so to avoid asking artists again and again if we could post this or that?

Just ask straight away whether or not you can repost their artworks onto e621, and vice versa for other artists. That way you don't need to ask for every single post.

UnusualParadox said:
Here's a decent rule of thumb: If the artist already has art hosted here (like ten or more) and if that art's been here a while (as in six months or longer) then they're probably fine with their artwork being posted here. That's a minimalistic approach of course. Obviously the more artwork there is here for longer, the more likely the artist doesn't care where their artwork is being posted (as long as they're properly credited and sourced).

I wouldn't say that that's a good rule of thumb to go by. Some artists really don't know that their works are being reposted elsewhere, most of the takedown reasons are because permissions weren't given.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
Just ask straight away whether or not you can repost their artworks onto e621, and vice versa for other artists. That way you don't need to ask for every single post.

I think what he means is there a way to know which artists have been asked in the past and approved of posting their artwork here, so we don't have a multitude of users bugging artists about posting art here.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
I wouldn't say that that's a good rule of thumb to go by. Some artists really don't know that their works are being reposted elsewhere, most of the takedown reasons are because permissions weren't given.

I didn't say it was perfect. But there is logic to it. If an artist has nearly 1/3 of all their artwork hosted here over the course of a year and a half, chances are good that they're okay with their artwork being posted elsewhere. It's not like e6 is an evil, clandestine organization. A basic Google search will show pretty much everything we host here. Chances of the artist being fine with it also go up when more users upload various posts in the past.

Of course, it's always best to ask anyways.

I've thought about it, and then some. Excerpt from my 10-page-long-and-growing "Notes" Google Doc:

Permission to Post page:

• would overhaul and replace DNP/avoid posting page
• place for users, artists, and admins to make known individual artist policy on posting their works to E621
• users => must upload a screenshot of artist giving permission (or?)
• artists => account must be verified
• admins => at least provide a comment (e.g., “...privately contacted…”)
• impersonating and forging here should be serious CoC violations (2+ strikes)
• policies:
• who can upload => anyone, artist only, “agents”, no one
• what => everything, finished works only, only works from X website(s), require commissioner permission, not [these], not edits
• “not [these]” => artist could upload them proactively to have E621 block them
• pay content => never, after X time, artist only, ?
• other
• eliminates ambiguity over permission, so we should never again read or say “get permission first” when the artist’s work has already been uploaded with permission
• integrate this information automatically into artist wiki, like aliases and implications
• automatically flag posts that break artist policy terms => detection requires artist tag
• not tagging artist to avoid detection should be CoC violation => admin’s judgement
• what if artist laziness/whatever prevents their works from being uploaded?
• artist sets up restricted permission, but their works aren’t uploaded from neglect

It's one of those things that would be good for the site that I never expect to see.

Artist wiki is pretty severely underused, I don't see harm in mentioning all artist specific stuff in there.

One good example was that I got contacted by one artist whose patreon content I had just deleted, asking me if I could put it back up as only reason they are behind pledge is because of patreons policies and they do want the content to be here freely. After this simply quoted their patreons FAQ question on the artists wiki so it's easy to quickly check that their stuff is allright to be here, was it behind patreon paywall or not:
https://e621.net/artist/show/14392

I have also been thinking of mentioning what's best possible source for particular artist and if there's difference in content or unupdated sources in general. Because there are actually couple artists whose content is at best quality on furaffinity - hard to believe. Of course this could also be feature request and then janitor+ could tick a box if artist knows their artwork is being posted here.

TheGreatWolfgang said:
I wouldn't say that that's a good rule of thumb to go by. Some artists really don't know that their works are being reposted elsewhere, most of the takedown reasons are because permissions weren't given.

This. Because artwork here is posted by all users essentially, so one posts one thing, other sees it and starts uploading more. Then third comes, sees there's already tons of uploads and assumes there's permission to post everything.

So it can be possible artist knows their stuff is here, but it's most certainly not rule of thumb.

abadbird said:
Permission to Post page:
*snip*
It's one of those things that would be good for the site that I never expect to see.

I do see what you are trying to achieve, but that would never ever work. That would essentially increase the amount of work to ridiculous degree while turning the website into yet another place where artists themselves are essentially posting everything. Of course those who create the content that is being consumed should have saying of their creations being here but there's no need to lick their feets (unless you are into that I guess) and that's exactly why we do have really well working takedown and DNP.

Takedown and DNP are good compromises and as this isn't secret website, anyone can easily notify artist that their artwork is over here, e.g. commenting on artists source "saw this on e621, that's amazing artwork" or something like that and if they are aware of the website that will brighten up their day just a bit.

Mario69 said:
I do see what you are trying to achieve, but that would never ever work. That would essentially increase the amount of work to ridiculous degree while turning the website into yet another place where artists themselves are essentially posting everything. Of course those who create the content that is being consumed should have saying of their creations being here but there's no need to lick their feets (unless you are into that I guess) and that's exactly why we do have really well working takedown and DNP.

My idea was more about better documentation for more granular permission to not post (DNP/avoid posting) and permission to post. It's not an opt-in system. No one would have to change how they've been uploading.

Basically, each artist on the site would have a form with about 10 fields they could fill out (or a "Never/All Allowed" option to skip the form) detailing any posting restrictions all at once. If no artist permission has been obtained (99%), then that artist's form would just be empty or "undefined", meaning "post at peril of DNP/takedown". Logically, the premise should be expanded to include character owners... because they complain about the same things. The current system is haphazard, or one might say "ghetto".

Some artists are already DNP except for certain uploaders (e.g., "only artist and commissioner are allowed to post"), so the fearful argument that E621 would become like other sites where only artists are allowed to post their work is hypocritical, a double standard. It's already happened. Does E621 only want to be like an ISP or other content provider that waits for complaints before blocking access/deleting content? How owner-friendly does E621 want to be?

abadbird said:
My idea was more about better documentation for more granular permission to not post (DNP/avoid posting) and permission to post. It's not an opt-in system. No one would have to change how they've been uploading.

Basically, each artist on the site would have a form with about 10 fields they could fill out (or a "Never/All Allowed" option to skip the form) detailing any posting restrictions all at once. If no artist permission has been obtained (99%), then that artist's form would just be empty or "undefined", meaning "post at peril of DNP/takedown". Logically, the premise should be expanded to include character owners... because they complain about the same things. The current system is haphazard, or one might say "ghetto".

Some artists are already DNP except for certain uploaders (e.g., "only artist and commissioner are allowed to post"), so the fearful argument that E621 would become like other sites where only artists are allowed to post their work is hypocritical, a double standard. It's already happened. Does E621 only want to be like an ISP or other content provider that waits for complaints before blocking access/deleting content? How owner-friendly does E621 want to be?

It could work as a field in the artist's wiki. There's a spot to say if they're active or not, another could be permission status where you'd put unknown, DNP, conditional DNP, or given. 'Unknown' would be the default. There should be some criteria to changing that status.

UnusualParadox said:
I think what he means is there a way to know which artists have been asked in the past and approved of posting their artwork here, so we don't have a multitude of users bugging artists about posting art here.

Rarely do users actually ask the artist though. But in my experience, they do really appreciate it if they'd asked and would gladly allow it.

I didn't say it was perfect. But there is logic to it. If an artist has nearly 1/3 of all their artwork hosted here over the course of a year and a half, chances are good that they're okay with their artwork being posted elsewhere. It's not like e6 is an evil, clandestine organization. A basic Google search will show pretty much everything we host here. Chances of the artist being fine with it also go up when more users upload various posts in the past.

Of course, it's always best to ask anyways.

I know but just saying (also on personal experience) to not go by that rule of thumb at all. In the past, I tried going by that thinking it wouldn't be a problem. I regretted it later on after I finally asked them whether or not it's okay to repost on the site, they ended up taking down everything and went DNP.

And like you said, it's always best to ask anyways.

All I know is that the decision to perma DNP all paid content regardless of how old it is, is an extremely pointless decision. The purpose is to keep people from seeing art that an artist wanted people to pay for, but all this does is drive people to pirating art on their own. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is going to pay to see old art. The grand total of 5 people on the entire planet who would be willing to do that, do not have enough combined money to support "the starving artists".

The decision was months ago and to be honest I'm still completely blown away by the total lack of common sense there. "We want to stop people from seeing paid content for free by driving them towards piracy".

xXFluffers said:
All I know is that the decision to perma DNP all paid content regardless of how old it is, is an extremely pointless decision. The purpose is to keep people from seeing art that an artist wanted people to pay for, but all this does is drive people to pirating art on their own. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is going to pay to see old art. The grand total of 5 people on the entire planet who would be willing to do that, do not have enough combined money to support "the starving artists".

The decision was months ago and to be honest I'm still completely blown away by the total lack of common sense there. "We want to stop people from seeing paid content for free by driving them towards piracy".

...maybe read the thread before dragging old drama about completely different subject here. this was not about pay content, its about artists who allow or do not allow their art on this site