https://inkbunny.net/j/336534

"To whomever has been uploading my work to e621 (your name is pokelova), you’ve made it more dangerous for me to share my work.

I could ask you to stop, but even if you did, someone else would start doing it.

I like sharing my work, but it’s clear now that I can’t share this specific content anywhere."

I mean, allow me to ask you a question in return: are you willing and always able to ask absolutely and every uploader to provide written permission from an artist or commissioner? Can this be performed every time a person uploads an image, no matter if a source is included or an artist is tagged? Lastly, if the artist is the uploader themselves, how would they provide permission for themselves that isn't abusable by other people (like a check box, for instance).

I sincerely doubt that there is any person in the entirety of this planet with that kind of patience, and the service required to automate this is practically incomprehensible, and will likely have holes that are both exploitable or harm the wrong person. Since artwork may indeed have no known artist and reverse search engines can't cover every nook of the internet, there is no way to get proof 100% of the time[/b], and any less than 100% would make it unfair to users whom have to provide those details every time they upload.The alternative already exists: takedown requests handled by the lead administrator. While it does rely on good intentions, any other attempt would devastate the site.Or, that's my speculation. Similar has occurred for video games, the only that succeed are reactionary because it's impossible to preemptively fix every problem that can ever occur.

I'm with that Fedelobobo character, I don't understand the danger, either. If you don't want certain things associated with a certain account, you do those things on another account and don't associate those things with your "safe" account.

If you don't want those things associated with you then you do them anonymously without a signature so they can't be tracked back to you no matter what someone else may say.

If you don't care that your artwork is associated with a certain account or it is already associated with the account you want it to be associated with then I don't see how having your art uploaded anywhere would make it some how more dangerous to share as long as you weren't silly and put your real-life name and contact information on said account.

And if he made a mistake and didn't segregate accounts or anonymize himself properly, while that sucks, he should do some damage control now and get ahead of this and make another account for his "main" account as his current one is "tainted" with whatever content he feels endangered by that a fan posted on this website.

Regardless, it really does feel as though he's blowing this completely out of proportion.

"Demesejha
28 mins ago
link
Reasons why I hate that garbage hellsite.
Get yourself on DNP and ban the website."

So, OP. Is this you? Do you hate e621?

If you hate the site, why are you still here?

An anecdote is not an argument, it's just a crass appeal to emotion. Tack on a passive aggressive question, and you've removed any doubt about whether you're trying to start shit.

I don't want to sound like complete dickhead, but I do always wonder why someone puts content available, online, for free, publicly available and then it's end of the world when it's online, for free and publicly available. I can see every single thing uploaded here over there, so this level of sensationilism (is that a word?) is way too much, when it's not your nudes being leaked from one-to-one telegram discussion.

Also it's not againts the rules to upload content without asking for permission because it's almost literally impossible to enforce such rules and we would pretty much end up with only artists posting which is completely againts the whole point of the website and the content we host (after we made all paid material DNP) is online content, available for free and public.

Also we have DNP list which we respect and enforce, so just inform artists of this possibility and now we have something to enforce.

TLDR
artists need to learn about takedowns and the DNP list

Chaser said:
If you hate the site, why are you still here?

Still mad their big dramatic gender tags thread didn't pan out, so they complain about site policies on the regular.

AnotherDay said:
stuff

A long time ago I've had artists pull takendowns of something I've uploaded saying they weren't asked. When confronting them with a reply from the FA note that originally game me permission(more-so to see if they just forgot), they said it was because they didn't like the site and told me to essentially fuck off and blocked me. I've never talked to the person before asking permission, or after I originally asked.

The artwork was a commission and looking into it a tiny bit I think the commissioner hated the site from the random comments on their journals, and I'm guessing made a big stink when they found out their artwork was on here, so I'm guessing the artist was just trying to save face by saying they weren't asked. Still felt shitty getting thrown under the bus and after that I just kinda stopped uploading because I do want to ask permission but I can't stand the drama and rather not deal with it at all.

Point being that even if we did force asking permission it wouldn't matter because the artist can change their minds.

pc-king said:

A long time ago I've had artists pull takendowns of something I've uploaded saying they weren't asked. When confronting them with a reply from the FA note that originally game me permission(more-so to see if they just forgot), they said it was because they didn't like the site and told me to essentially fuck off and blocked me. I've never talked to the person before asking permission, or after I originally asked.

The artwork was a commission and looking into it a tiny bit I think the commissioner hated the site from the random comments on their journals, and I'm guessing made a big stink when they found out their artwork was on here, so I'm guessing the artist was just trying to save face by saying they weren't asked. Still felt shitty getting thrown under the bus and after that I just kinda stopped uploading because I do want to ask permission but I can't stand the drama and rather not deal with it at all.

Point being that even if we did force asking permission it wouldn't matter because the artist can change their minds.

Happened to me as well, asked an artist for permission, got the permission, artist files a takedown later saying they were never asked for permission.
It's fine to change your mind, but don't lie.

Demesejha said:
I could ask you to stop, but even if you did, someone else would start doing it.

Then request Do Not Post status.
https://e621.net/static/takedown

AoBird said:
Then request Do Not Post status.
https://e621.net/static/takedown

they are quoting an artist's journal, not talking about own art

@Chaser, the answer is simple. Because of the point of this thread.

I consistantly have to check this site every time I upload something to ensure someone hasn't posted art Ive commissioned, or posted, because that has happened repeatedly in the past despite explicitly asking for folks not to repost.

Frankly the thread's responses should be pretty damn indicative of why I don't want to be here but until a permanent ban on art I've commissioned is added in addition to my DNP (Like what was done with Vladimir) I literally can't leave and I'm stuck coming back to this place. Over. And over. And over.

I was an idiot to try integrating into the community here bc the simple fact of the matter is 90% of the userbase who are common users of the boards seem to thrive on making other people angry.

Generally speaking there IS a clause that asks folks to ask for permission from artists/commissioners and otherwise. Its general respect and its almost never practiced. In fact its almost exclusively ignored by some users, such as the one in the op who has on multiple occasions uploaded my art and Ive had to waste my time taking it down. Because the rush to get that "upload score" and all the brownie points associated with it is like skinner box candy.

The idea is this place is an "art archive" but its really, literally no different from an ∞2 board. The only difference is the preoccupation with a broken tagging system, and a self aggrandized elitism that comes with it.

hanzai said:
Still mad their big dramatic gender tags thread didn't pan out, so they complain about site policies on the regular.

And yeah, I am still angry about gender tags. I have every right to be I wasted a literal year of my life trying to convince people that maybe using slightly more respectful terms, especially when folks can STILL USE THE OLD TERMS THEY ARE USED TO, might be a good idea but users who's only idea of conversation is personal attack seem to keep bringing it up like its some sort of "gotcha". But go off I guess.

My personal history isn't relevant to the discussion.

This isnt the only journal Ive seen like this, and Im kinda getting to the point where I'm tired of seeing it. I'm tired of coming here. I'm tired of having to worry if I have to put in another takedown request because someone didn't listen and now I have to waste not just my own time but NMNY's time working on something that could be better spent literally doing anything else.

Literally request DNP and stop crying.

Demesejha said:
Words

The tags on this website are not meant to cater to how specific people want their characters to be referenced, they're meant to be a streamlined 'if you see it in the image, that's how it should be tagged, no outside information necessary' system. I can understand people being upset seeing certain gender and/or other tags being used on their personal characters/creations, trust me, I do understand.

But the point of the tagging on this website is purely supposed to be objective. Seen as from an outsiders perspective. If you were to show them a character who is canonically male but very girly, with no actual signs of male anatomy, would they see a girly male or would they see a flat-chested woman? That's just one of many scenarios that the system tries to address.

Of course, there's going to be a handful of exceptions to the rules, but those are extreme circumstances.

Personally, I would much rather deal with a heartless, objective tagging system than one that allows any random person to choose what tags are valid. You'd have hundreds of versions of a tag for one specific bodily feature and searching for a specific gender could give back a wide variety of results that are nowhere near what you wanted in the first place. I've gone through places like deviantart and furaffinity, I know how they (don't) work.

As to your comment on 'being forced to come back here', nobody is handcuffing you to e621's radiator. It's all completely voluntary and you seem to actually enjoy using this website. Otherwise you would've left already.

MissChu said:
*snip*

the comment about tagging is not whining about twys. its about the fact that we use dickgirl and cuntboy tags which are pretty offensive terms. demesejha pointed this out like two years ago and asked if the terms could be changed to something less offensive and the conclusion of that thread was that the tags will be changed, but absolutely nothing has happened since the thread was locked.

siikaprinssi said:
the comment about tagging is not whining about twys. its about the fact that we use dickgirl and cuntboy tags which are pretty offensive terms. demesejha pointed this out like two years ago and asked if the terms could be changed to something less offensive and the conclusion of that thread was that the tags will be changed, but absolutely nothing has happened since the thread was locked.

Oh, that's why? Well, I'm personally not fond of the two terms myself (and would be okay to aliasing them each to something else a little less vulgar), but the system itself seems to be the issue with most people like OP. It's cold, it doesn't care one bit for the backstory of each character in each picture, but it's much more effective than any other I've found.

MissChu said:
Oh, that's why? Well, I'm personally not fond of the two terms myself (and would be okay to aliasing them each to something else a little less vulgar), but the system itself seems to be the issue with most people like OP. It's cold, it doesn't care one bit for the backstory of each character in each picture, but it's much more effective than any other I've found.

Oh no the system itself is theoretically perfectly fine. Its how the system is treated socially and how immobile and intractable it is. I'd gladly take myself off DNP and try to be a little nicer if the same was returned but theres absolutely no moving forward. And every step forward ends with two steps backward.

Again though this isn't about those tags, though I'd like to see it addressed.

My issues with this thread in question, lie with the fact that either through lack of reading comprehension or sheer inability to actually give a shit for anything; many artists have their art uploaded publicly to spaces like this, without their consent. Something that has been considered theft in literally every other community for years.

As a result many of those artists have had their art put on permanent DNP. Unlike me who can have my oppinion changed (since my issues are mainly from a moralethical standpoint,) those artists are never going to be shared here again which, goes against the intention of the site in the first place which is; as they have said it, supposed to be an archive for art.

Nevermind the issues involved in art stolen from sites like pixiv where I KNOW people aren't asking the artist and in many cases those artists go underground and never share ANYTHING again. Like flucra for example.

The issue with this site, my vitriol towards it, is that the general consensus is that people don't care who they hurt, offend or step on, as long as they maintain their own personal status quo. And this leads directly to the problem here. Nobody cares and when people do care the stoicists get all in an uproar about how the people asking for change are the problem and we do a ring around the rosie for no reason.

Im gonna be honest, I DID actually like coming here. In a lot of cases I wish I still did, e6 is an extremely valuable resource for so many reasons.

But as long as the way people continue to act the way they are and things like this continue without any word on it, (and in a lot of cases a lot of these behaviours get almost encouraged) then the situation is gonna stay the same forever and more harm as a net is gonna be done than good. Simple fact.

There's just so many things wrong in that Demesejhas message I would like to correct, but I know that it makes me sound like asshole and only put more fuel to flames.

This is site between rock and hard place. This is community driven website, but we wouldn't have any content if it wasn't for artists. We have rules and guidelines in place to prevent uploads that are clearly againts artists wishes like bad edits and paid material as well as fast working takedown form, but even then we have both artists shouting why we allow something and users shouting why we don't allow something. We share content more respectfully compared to "gay furry lucatio pics" collections on tumblr and reddit, but at the same time because we document who artists are they have easier time to point demanding fingers to us while collections just keep on rolling.

At that point it becomes question that do we really want to only allow registering on people who are already known and on every single upload they do, they have to provide written down and verified permission from artist that the piece they are uploading is from, before finally allowing it to show publicly, even when the content is already publicly and freely available on inkbunny, meanwhile users just go to *chan and lookup artists patreon leak threads.

I really don't think so and if artist genuinely don't want their artwork to be public, then they shouldn't be posting it on public places themselves, but keep it private and if they do, it's not your job to get angry about that you don't get to see their content now.

Mairo said:
I really don't think so and if artist genuinely don't want their artwork to be public, then they shouldn't be posting it on public places themselves, but keep it private and if they do, it's not your job to get angry about that you don't get to see their content now.

This is precisely why I like e621. Aside for the tagging system as I mentioned above, e621 admins and (most) users bend over backwards to accommodate artists, refusing to allow paid content, trying to ensure that stuff is properly sourced back to the 'official' galleries, and removing art from artists that just don't want their stuff hosted here.

This one website has helped me to find more artists than I could have possibly hoped to from any other platform. I wish more of the nay-sayers would realize that.

*sigh* I just wanna ask one question:

If we did make it against the rules to upload without receiving permission, how would we go about enforcing this?

I mean, setting aside that we already kind of do, in several places, tell people to ask permission, how do we enforce this?

Should an artist have to say 'yes" for ever image uploaded?
Should we assume that if an artist already has art uploaded, that permission was received?
Should we ask for a screenshot of written permission to be attached to every upload?
What if it was verbal permission? How do we tell fakes permission from true permission?
Maybe we, as staff, should add to our already incredibly busy workload sending messages to every single artist ever and asking for their permission?
What if the artist isn't around anymore?
What if the artist is dead?

There are so many... complications with this. If you have an idea for a good system that doesn't involve the staff contacting over 100,000 artists to ask about permission... let us know.

We want people to ask permission. we highly encourage it. If an artist asks for their art to be deleted, those uploaders are punished with a reduced upload rate. If you upload someone who is DNP, you are punished.

The staff position is, 100% ASK FOR PERMISSION, and hasn't been otherwise in the last half decade at least. There are a few USERS who say, vocally, that you shouldn't ask for permission, and generally have the attitude of "everything on the internet is free, fuck you and your rights as an artist" and we generally make it a point to very vocally correct them when we see this. ("Oh but snow," I hear you say, "you should just ban people like that!" and while that is very tempting, that's a dangerous slippery slope of banning people for their opinions.)

So within a day of your quoting/linking to their inkbunny journal, they have felt the need to friendslock their journal in order to break your link. It is almost like they didn't feel you had permission to link to and quote their journal on here. Almost as if the very entry expressing their dislike about their personal stuff showing up on this site without asking them first...was then taken and placed on this site without asking them first. But surely not. After all, they had made themselves quite clear in that very entry. How could anyone mistake their feelings on the matter?

You've spoken quite large here about having a higher personal standard where you always ask first and having respect for other people's wishes. And there's nothing wrong with that.

You've also taken it even further and claimed that anything less than your personal standards could only show a "lack of reading comprehension or sheer inability to actually give a shit for anything" as you just recently put it.

Right now, all I can see is the astounding levels of irony.

As for the rest of it, you seem to be comparing apples to oranges. e621 is not a personal gallery website, where the uploader has sole control over their uploads and is the default assumed owner/creator of them. E621 is an aggregate contributor archive-based website, where uploaders have next to zero control over their uploads, the default assumption is that the uploader is separate from the content owner unless otherwise verifiable, the uploader name is de-emphesized and the actual artist is given prominent credit in the form of a topmost brightly colored tag (plus sources, artist wiki, etc).

To further compare the differences: If an account/uploader/owner on a personal gallery website uploads an image, it goes into their personal gallery where they are presented as the artist of everything in it. This means that there is no way, on a personal gallery website, to upload content and not make it look like you are claiming to be the owner of it in some way. Which is why anyone caught uploading content that they did not create to a personal gallery website like IB, FA, DA, etc is widely regarded to be stealing it or stealing credit for making it.

Because e621 is structured as an aggregate contributor based archive, none of the uploaders receive creation credit just by being the uploader. In fact, the uploader name is de-emphesized to being no more defining the ownership of the image than the listed info right next to it, like the name of the staff member who approved it, or the names of the people who favorited it, or the date when it was uploaded here, or the technical dimensions of the image itself. The uploader does not get a gallery with their name emblazoned on anything either, they merely get a search page of thumbs for their upload history (mostly so we can keep track of them if we need to check up on their behavior). On e621, the only artist credit is given via a prominently placed and brightly colored tag above all other tags/image info on the page right next to the image. A high amount of importance is given to making sure those tags are added promptly and accurately, verified as often as possible, and sourced back to the artist as often as possible. The fact it's not 100% is a gap that is constantly attempting to be closed by hundreds of taggers, sourcers, uploaders and other contributing members every day. Ideally someday it will be 100% but technology is still quite limited.

But because of the structure of this website, merely uploading an image gives an uploader no claim to that image. In fact, there are many instances where an uploader has gotten themselves banned trying to delete an image they uploaded but didn't own, and abused too many site tools to manipulate things. The only exception is within 48 hours of upload, to allow for correcting a mistaken file or other immediately caught errors with the actual uploading. Otherwise, all the ownership (and therefore ANY authority over the fate of the image) is reserved for the character owner and/or the artist, through the takedown tool, after it is verified by NMNY (the lead admin) to actually be them (to prevent fraud). The only way for a user to try to steal someone else's content, is to fake sources (which is promptly caught, corrected and punished), remove valid artist tags and replace them with their own name as a fake artist tag (also promptly caught, corrected and punished). All of which has happened, although rarely. And when it happened, the user was punished harshly, the crediting corrected, and any repeat patterns of that has resulted in the ban of a lot of accounts. Unlike some other websites, even personal gallery websites, which are known for turning a blind eye to such plagiarism attempts.

So no, these are not the same types of websites, and therefore the way they operate and the rules for determining plagiarism are not the same. This would be like assuming a reblog or retweet means you must be pretending to be the original writer of a post. Make no mistake though, users who outright steal/claim credit for something they did not make themselves, do not last very long around here. We take it very seriously and enforce it harshly.

For the rest of your arguments though, you are attempting to be the voice for every artist. However, for every point you've made, there are artists who want the opposite. If you truly care about respecting other people's wishes, then you have to take into account ALL of the artists and not just the ones who agree with you. And no single policy will equally meet the wishes of every artist, so what we have is a compromise where there's enough options that most artists can have their choice on the matter. An artist can arrange with us what their wishes are through the takedown tool at any time. And the conditional_dnp status option also available allows them to specify a degree of preferences according to what they arrange with us, to any conditional level they prefer. But we do not automate what an artist prefers, on their behalf, without them arranging it with us, because it is not our place to assume what any artist wants.

Demesejha said:
My personal history isn't relevant to the discussion.

It's relevant because like half the posts you make on the forums are just whining about site policies, and it's obviously because of that "personal history". Nobody without alternative reasons would make a post as patently silly as this, suggesting every one of the literally millions of posts on the site should have explicit permission from the artist. It's obviously completely intractable and would outright kill the site.

Besides cases like this, most of the complainy posts you make are about tagging policies, and it doesn't take a genius to see how your "personal history" is fueling that, especially when you do stuff like shouting down unrelated suggestions for useful tags explicitly on the basis that your own complaints about tags haven't been addressed.

As a wise man once said "If you continually whine about how everyone is a jerk, chances are you are the jerk."

But yeah ,keep acting like you're better than everyone else. See how far that gets you in the real world. Not getting you very far on a damn furry art forum.

If you guys want to make ad-hominem attacks to feel better about yourselves do so in private, not here.

Attack the argument, not the person.

@Demesejha: You speak of asking before uploading, but here it looks like you didn't do that.

-----

Mairo said:
I do always wonder why someone puts content available, online, for free, publicly available and then it's end of the world when it's online, for free and publicly available.

I encountered one who not only had "do not repost" but also "don't save it to your computer" on their profile (tumblr / twitter). In my mind I'm like: Might as well add "don't retweet or reblog." Why even post it online? It makes no sense.

Cane751 said:
@Demesejha: You speak of asking before uploading, but here it looks like you didn't do that.

-----

I encountered one who not only had "do not repost" but also "don't save it to your computer" on their profile (tumblr / twitter). In my mind I'm like: Might as well add "don't retweet or reblog." Why even post it online? It makes no sense.

Actually that was taken down. By me, because I was the one who coloured it. As to why I didnt ask to colour, iirc someone else already had and permission was given.

Regardless of that fact, that's low hanging fruit, again why are we attacking me personally just because I brought up a clear and present problem?

This isnt the only artist who's taken down their stuff. Just as an fyi. Thats the point of this thread.

You literally had to go out of your way through past deleted uploads by me just to find that.

Wait...so you want to DNP everything you draw yourself AND everything you commission? See...that's where it gets dicey because generally the commissioner is not taken into account, mostly because the artists that draw the commissions generally don't name the commissioner. I can't tell you how many times I've seen an artist post some work and all it will say is something like "recent commission I did"...and...that's it. So yeah...if you want to go to that extreme level of DNP you are going to have to essentially act like your own little policeman and get the pieces taken down if/when they come up.

In fact I don't even know how that would work...I guess it depends on the arrangement you have with the artist? Who has the rights to the commissioned work after it's finished? What if you want it taken down, but the artist doesn't? Honestly I don't know how that would work out.

Dyrone said:
Who has the rights to the commissioned work after it's finished?

Copyright belongs to the artist unless they explicitly sign it over. Reproduction rights... Functionally, the artist creates the artwork and then licenses the artwork to the commissioner, granting them the right to reproduce it.

Actual copyright transfer mainly comes up if you are creating artwork for a company.

Demesejha said:
Actually that was taken down. By me, because I was the one who coloured it.

At risk of beating the hornets nest, you *do* realize we can see flag history, right? You never tagged yourself as artist, so the picture remained posted until someone else came alone and tagged you on it.

Just to say: You may want to be more careful in the future should the situation arise.

As to why I didnt ask to colour, iirc someone else already had and permission was given.

That's not really okay.

You don't know who someone is. If I asked my friend if I could color their picture, that's different than me asking a stranger.

Just because someone gives someone else permission, doesn't mean you have permission too. Even if you already know the answer, you should ask. The answer may be different for you, or for this particular piece of artwork, or maybe they've recently changed their mind, or any number of reasons. You should still ask, especially if you're planning on uploading it somewhere.

Also, the description on that particular piece implies that you didn't want to ask permission, or didn't want to wait -- That's fine, I understand not wanting to explain in detail that you assumed that permission would be given -- "I loved this and had to color it" is way more friendly and cute sounding :) But it does leave you open for misinterpretation, and in this case, seems like a rather flippant disregard for the artist's desires.

This isnt the only artist who's taken down their stuff. Just as an fyi. Thats the point of this thread.

I will ask you again, how exactly do you propose that we go about enforcing this? You've had several responses about this, asking to discuss the topic, but you have not responded. NMNY as basically given permission for this to be discussed, but you're not discussing it... just trying to defend yourself.

Talk to us. tell us how you would enforce this. Give us something more to go on other than "artists are unhappy!"

Boorus used to be a refuge from the fractured constellation of art sites each with different restrictions and artists. People who like to look at and collect art trying to aggregate everything in one place. Years of making "compromises" for artists opposed to that ideal turned boorus into just more twists in that convoluted mess. None of those concessions have EVER been returned with anything but more scorn and more demands.

Decentralized platforms are coming; the era of compromise is going to be over. There won't be anybody for you to threaten or manipulate, and even if there was, there won't be any way for them to give you what you want, no delete button. What are you going to do then?

SnowWolf said:
At risk of beating the hornets nest, you *do* realize we can see flag history, right? You never tagged yourself as artist, so the picture remained posted until someone else came alone and tagged you on it.

Just to say: You may want to be more careful in the future should the situation arise.

I'm not infallible, believe it or not I actually am a human being and make mistakes or miss things. I occasionally forget things and missed it in my sweep because I had not originally at the time of upload considered using my name as an artist tag because I didn't know if it was alright to do so.

I missed this one when tagging things.

SnowWolf said:
That's not really okay.

You don't know who someone is. If I asked my friend if I could color their picture, that's different than me asking a stranger.

Just because someone gives someone else permission, doesn't mean you have permission too. Even if you already know the answer, you should ask. The answer may be different for you, or for this particular piece of artwork, or maybe they've recently changed their mind, or any number of reasons. You should still ask, especially if you're planning on uploading it somewhere.

Also, the description on that particular piece implies that you didn't want to ask permission, or didn't want to wait -- That's fine, I understand not wanting to explain in detail that you assumed that permission would be given -- "I loved this and had to color it" is way more friendly and cute sounding :) But it does leave you open for misinterpretation, and in this case, seems like a rather flippant disregard for the artist's desires.

I really dunno where to start on this.

But lets begin at the simplest point of entry.

A lot can happen in a year, in case you hadn't noticed I've changed a lot of my personal opinions IN the last year. If I remember right the artist had given a blanket go ahead for "anyone can do so as long as they credit/link back to the original."

Generally speaking its proper form for me STILL to ask as in with the expectations but I generally understand the takeaway from something like that is literally to just go ahead and do as you please.

I don't remember honestly well enough either way.

2: Again. I am human. My choices to do that then do not reflect my current feelings about the situation involved and frankly, you scolding me on something that happened a year ago, on a specific image that a user went out of their way to specifically look up to cause drama, really doesn't reflect well on your argument.

Again, and I don't really know how to re-iterate this enough; bringing up a tu quoque of something someone did over 12 months ago may not (and in this case does not) reflect their current viewpoints. Doubly so when it's a single example wherein your only argument against it comes out to "Well you may have misinterpreted it and you're bad for doing so."

I get it. You're angry at me. It doesn't make what you're doing right either.

SnowWolf said:
I will ask you again, how exactly do you propose that we go about enforcing this? You've had several responses about this, asking to discuss the topic, but you have not responded. NMNY as basically given permission for this to be discussed, but you're not discussing it... just trying to defend yourself.

Talk to us. tell us how you would enforce this. Give us something more to go on other than "artists are unhappy!"

Honestly it's something that I've been thinking for a while on, because it's a valid question.

Unless you hadn't noticed otherwise however 80% of the responses in this thread have been people attacking me rather than discussing that actual topic. I dunno if that's really conducive to fixing the problem.

You spent your entire post until now doing just that, I've been wondering the last couple days if I should even bother responding because from this post it seems that this isn't going to be a healthy discussion. Your intentions are very clear.

Let's pretend for a moment however that people in this thread actually do want an answer to solve the problem and god, it is really an easy one.

We can't expect people to actually vet every situation. However we already have a system in place that penalizes uploaders who upload content they should not have.

By including a tick box, or even a string of text that states, "By uploading this, you verify you have permission from the artist or character owner to do so and accept full responsibility of doing so."

Then, if it is taken down because of the artist blanket taking down their art its business as usual.

If the artist or Commissioner/Character owner themselves states that they did not wish for others to upload it. (Very common when they want to upload it themselves.)

You deduct double the normal penalty because they, through their own admission, lied about having permission.

System in place works. Everybody is satisfied.

Demesejha said:
Unless you hadn't noticed otherwise however 80% of the responses in this thread have been people attacking me rather than discussing that actual topic.

The way that furries treat users and artists on this site and in real life brought me to some uncomfortable conclusions about the community.

Earlier this year, I finally hid comments on the artwork, and more and more lately I avoid these forums, as well. I had noticed the attacks in some initial read-throughs of your thread: people who think their zingers should just end the conversation, never intending to make any good-faith contribution to a discussion.

Kudos to you for thinking of artists and their intellectual property and making an actual recommendation for the improvement of the site.

Demesejha said:
Let's pretend for a moment however that people in this thread actually do want an answer to solve the problem and god, it is really an easy one.

We can't expect people to actually vet every situation. However we already have a system in place that penalizes uploaders who upload content they should not have.

By including a tick box, or even a string of text that states, "By uploading this, you verify you have permission from the artist or character owner to do so and accept full responsibility of doing so."

Then, if it is taken down because of the artist blanket taking down their art its business as usual.

If the artist or Commissioner/Character owner themselves states that they did not wish for others to upload it. (Very common when they want to upload it themselves.)

You deduct double the normal penalty because they, through their own admission, lied about having permission.

System in place works. Everybody is satisfied.

I don't see how putting double negative counters on people's uploads potential would solve this problem. (Although it would potentially discourage new posters, it would take awhile for people with a sizeable amount of uploads to get to a point where this would do something.)

It would mostly remain the same because contacting artists + character owners for every single piece is awful. (I'm assuming those people also don't want their DMs flooded with permission requests.)

As for my experience posting here I've always contacted the artist if there were no posts here and they weren't on the DNP list, but there were cases where I didn't know who the character owners were (sometimes even character names weren't specified on the artist's image.) and that makes somewhat hard to see if there were images depicting those characters deleted before because of permission reasons.

The other point is how do you go about when X amount of characters are depicted, do you contact everyone that owns a character in such a picture? What if one those owners post a picture here but there's one owner that doesn't want that picture here?

Unless you hadn't noticed otherwise however 80% of the responses in this thread have been people attacking me rather than discussing that actual topic. I dunno if that's really conducive to fixing the problem.

At the time of my response there's been 32 comments (not including your own), 3 were aimed at you and not the topic, 1 was a bit more vague. Counting those four together that's 12% of comments, not 80%. I don't like that you're using your own mentality to blatantly lie to fuel more support for yourself.

We're all discussing the topic at hand, please don't act like genuine criticisms are personal attacks.

MissChu said:
At the time of my response there's been 32 comments (not including your own), 3 were aimed at you and not the topic, 1 was a bit more vague. Counting those four together that's 12% of comments, not 80%. I don't like that you're using your own mentality to blatantly lie to fuel more support for yourself.

We're all discussing the topic at hand, please don't act like genuine criticisms are personal attacks.

Are you really going to use math and statistics to dismiss and ignore their point?

CCoyote said:
Are you really going to use math and statistics to dismiss and ignore their point?

I've already talked plenty in this thread, my recent post was to disagree with their deceptive attempt to garner sympathy.

MissChu said:
I've already talked plenty in this thread, my recent post was to disagree with their deceptive attempt to garner sympathy.

He's making an observation about the disingenuous way some people have participated in the conversation. It's a real problem with the site when people dismiss concerns about disrespect for artists and copyright law.

CCoyote said:
He's making an observation about the disingenuous way some people have participated in the conversation. It's a real problem with the site when people dismiss concerns about disrespect for artists and copyright law.

Copyright law has nothing to do with this. Nobody here is making money off of reposting art from furaffinity or wherever. And I re-read through all the comments, the vast majority of all responses are genuine discussion.

I am, however, a little annoyed with the fact that people anymore take criticism/disagreement as personal attacks/dismissiveness.

MissChu said:
Copyright law has nothing to do with this. Nobody here is making money off of reposting art from furaffinity or wherever.

Actually, that's not entirely true. The site owners profit from ad revenue shown to users who come here for the artists' content.

And I re-read through all the comments, the vast majority of all responses are genuine discussion.

Yet some of the very first comments are derogatory, including more than one from site administrators.

I am, however, a little annoyed with the fact that people anymore take criticism/disagreement as personal attacks/dismissiveness.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Some of the comments were clearly intended as dismissive.

CCoyote said:
Yet some of the very first comments are derogatory, including more than one from site administrators.

He made a thread with an accusatory title, did nothing but quote someone else voicing their issues, and left a comment on said site talking badly about the page.

A thread started like that is not exactly poised for a productive start, no matter the intentions of the OP.

Demesejha said:

We can't expect people to actually vet every situation. However we already have a system in place that penalizes uploaders who upload content they should not have.

By including a tick box, or even a string of text that states, "By uploading this, you verify you have permission from the artist or character owner to do so and accept full responsibility of doing so."

Then, if it is taken down because of the artist blanket taking down their art its business as usual.

If the artist or Commissioner/Character owner themselves states that they did not wish for others to upload it. (Very common when they want to upload it themselves.)

You deduct double the normal penalty because they, through their own admission, lied about having permission.

System in place works. Everybody is satisfied.

How is this system supposed to work when the artist lies about not having given permission? How would we verify who is telling the truth and who isn't?

Munkelzahn said:
TLDR
artists need to learn about takedowns and the DNP list

this
but better yet, artists need to learn how to use a creative commons license
if they're gonna steal trademarks with fan art, why do they act like their art isn't already "conditional reposting material"
if fan art is a derivative work, isn't reposting it also a derivative work, since it's a different way of seeing/interpreting something?
I don't get DNP, like why do people even care if their art is reposted to a different site if they get proper credit?
In YouTube videos, I'd understand why it would annoy people, as YouTube viewers probably wouldn't check out the artist, but on art-based sites and communities like e621 that usually credit the artist, it's just free exposure.

hsauq said:
Catering to artists has practical benefits. Artists can simply stop producing/uploading content. Deleting everything in their galleries won't stop what's already out there from being redistributed, but less known/less popular artists don't get their works shared as much and a surprising number of people don't like actually saving content because they can easily access it online. Plus, even when people do save art, they're under no obligation to share it.

Then there's commissioners: Most of the art many of us enjoy is commissioned and a disgruntled commissioner may stop commissioning altogether. A lot of times, artists don't upload their commissions and, in the case of FurAffinity, commissioners often upload the largest version of an image when the artist fails to, so them refusing to upload and deleting everything is a loss as well.

This isn't as big of a deal for most users, but loss of art could potentially end up really sucking for fans of unique artstyles/niche topics.

That's an interesting perspective. Though I don't get why people care so much if their pikachu OC commission from some random pokemon artist gets reposted to e621.

Mairo said:
I don't want to sound like complete dickhead, but I do always wonder why someone puts content available, online, for free, publicly available and then it's end of the world when it's online, for free and publicly available. I can see every single thing uploaded here over there, so this level of sensationilism (is that a word?) is way too much, when it's not your nudes being leaked from one-to-one telegram discussion.

Also it's not againts the rules to upload content without asking for permission because it's almost literally impossible to enforce such rules and we would pretty much end up with only artists posting which is completely againts the whole point of the website and the content we host (after we made all paid material DNP) is online content, available for free and public.

Also we have DNP list which we respect and enforce, so just inform artists of this possibility and now we have something to enforce.

Some artists really crave attention. "Give me pageviews!!! If someone else gets pageviews, I'm going to be mad!!!"
Alternatively, perhaps artists just want only one type of demographic seeing their art.

My favorite artist suddenly got the idea to put up a paywall on his personal site. He pulled all his artwork that he could and placed it on said site. And then he died in a car accident. The site went down and virtually all the art was lost. Ever since then I have been hardcore against artists pulling their works, whatever the reason. I know its not respectful to the artists wishes, but I wish there was a site that housed artwork based in some country that would not enforce takedown requests. I hate the thought of all a person's work just going down the drain like that. I know its selfish, but that's just my opinion.

Thirtyeight said:
I know its not respectful to the artists wishes, but I wish there was a site that housed artwork based in some country that would not enforce takedown requests.

You're right that that's very disrespectful. In that specific instance where the artist passed away and left no one in charge of their copyright, then I believe it should rightfully fall into public domain, but other than that, nah.

Although I don't agree with paywalls for basic content and stuff that used to be free I still begrudgingly accept that hey, you gotta make your living somehow.

Man, this whole thread would be really awkward if E6 was one of the best sites for respecting artist wishes for Do Not Post or even specific DNP stuff, or something

CamKitty said:
Man, this whole thread would be really awkward if E6 was one of the best sites for respecting artist wishes for Do Not Post or even specific DNP stuff, or something

Ikr? Wouldn't that be crazy if that was the case? If only we would do sitewide DNPs on the request of the artist at anytime..., I guess that will always be a pipe dream.

NotMeNotYou said:
He made a thread with an accusatory title, did nothing but quote someone else voicing their issues, and left a comment on said site talking badly about the page.

A thread started like that is not exactly poised for a productive start, no matter the intentions of the OP.

How is this system supposed to work when the artist lies about not having given permission? How would we verify who is telling the truth and who isn't?

Those are some of the tricky parts of running a site like this, and I hear you. I work in an environment where my customers are often coarse, rude, and boorish. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the perception of how this conversation began, but we're still expected to demonstrate professionalism, right?

Believe me, I understand. I don't always like my customers, either.

malleablecrowbar said:
this
but better yet, artists need to learn how to use a creative commons license
if they're gonna steal trademarks with fan art, why do they act like their art isn't already "conditional reposting material"

No. You don't get to sit here and rewrite copyright law from a porn site, especially when you're not even old enough to be here.

Thirtyeight said:
My favorite artist suddenly got the idea to put up a paywall on his personal site. He pulled all his artwork that he could and placed it on said site. And then he died in a car accident. The site went down and virtually all the art was lost. Ever since then I have been hardcore against artists pulling their works, whatever the reason. I know its not respectful to the artists wishes, but I wish there was a site that housed artwork based in some country that would not enforce takedown requests. I hate the thought of all a person's work just going down the drain like that. I know its selfish, but that's just my opinion.

I'm sorry that happened to you, but your response to it is absolutely unacceptable. Artists don't do what they do just to entertain you; they do it to earn a living. It's great if you like their stuff, but they have a right to ask that you pay for it. It's also shocking to me that you seem more concerned about losing access to a bunch of artwork (porn?) than you are bothered by the artist's literal, actual death.

Responses like yours are why paywalls and copyright laws exist in the first place.

Meanwhile, CamKitty and Queen Tyr'ahnee both continue to demonstrate the point about unhelpful responses.

I have to be straightforward here: conversations like this one have taught me a lot of negative things as an artist. Mainly, a huge chunk of the furry audience doesn't respect furry artists. In response, I actually keep my artwork offline except for resolutions too small for this site's quality standards. I'm not sure I even like the furry community any more after being here.

It's still a great site for keeping up with several comics in one place, which is why I stay, but as an artist, I don't feel welcome or respected at all.

Word of warning comment may come off as Kind of an attack. That is because of the nature of text chat. This is not an attack, its mostly just me rambling off while attempting (and probably poorly) to provide some points.

And that wall of text which even after reading several time I am still unsure if I should actually send it, but probably will.

To address the OP now. Again how do you enforce this? Check boxes are out.
Providing screen shot of the permission might work but artist, fan, admins, everyone will quickly get tired of it.
As some a couple of examples have been provided some artist will lie and say they never game permission. This can and has been a pretty sizable issue for the commissioners on this site.
And don't even get me started on the double punishment thing. How anyone thought that was good idea...
So again how would you implement this? How would you enforce it?

United_Gamers said:

Its kinda acceptable. Not wholey most certainly but kind of.

Yes and if they wish to continue to earn that living there are certain standards and practices one must maintain. It is perfectly fine to ask for money to view your work, no one but the {less desirable} to the community disputes this. But and lets use Thirtyeight's example Taking all your free stuff down and putting it behind a paywall does not earn you a living it actually hurts it. No one wants to pay for what they already had access to.

I disagree but to get into that would probably start an argument that everyone would receive a red mark for.

I mostly agree. If the topic was about "Do artist have the ability to DNP" It wold be valid if somewhat still unhelpful.

I had so many comment about this but I can't provide them without sounding like an ass so until I can drop the assholeishness from my potential future comments I will refrain from posting them. Out of respect for hopefully a fair discussion.

Alright. That's your right. I don't like it but that's fine.

I want to say there is probably another reason other then the divide between Artist and fan for that thought.

It is a great site to keep up on things you like especially when they fall in a certain set of favorite tags. As for feeling unwelcome or respected, I don't know how to help you there, wish there was but you feel the way you feel and no one person can change that.

Thank you. I didn't feel like any of your answer was disrespectful or came across as an attack.

As far as solutions, when a company gets into legal territory, it might not be best for them to leave ideas for enforcement to their users. At a certain point, companies should probably consider getting advice from a lawyer, just to ensure they're upholding due diligence.

Copyright law is a very real thing, and while a lot of users here want to dismiss it for a thousand reasons convenient to themselves, those reasons wouldn't stand up in court of law if even one artist decided to get serious about their intellectual property.

That said, most of the people I know who run furry businesses are pretty keen and well-advised on these things, and I have to think the owners of this site fall into that group.

I guess in the end, my opinion of the matter is just that some things should be handled by owners and a lawyer rather than by admin who aren't paid and users who have personal stock in ignoring the law.

Clarification: I feel pretty uncomfortable with some of this, because I'm not a lawyer, and I don't want admin to interpret my words as a threat. It isn't. E621 has never displayed any of my art, and I don't have any skin in this game.

As far as legality goes, so long as the company complies with takedown requests, they're pretty fine. Paid content is already no go, and artists are free to request to be DNP or even conditional DNP at any point. I don't think anyone would immediately jump to suing a company without even trying to get their work taken down first. After that point, they should tell the admins respectfully to not have their work posted on the site again.

If someone is repeatedly getting their work posted here but can't take the 5 minutes to write an email requesting DNP, then thats their fault for being lazy.

With that being said however, I have a couple of friends who have DNR requests and I think it would be wise for users to check the profiles of artists first to see if they have a DNR. I know they get very upset when their work gets reposted and I understand why, because most of the time it's not respected, theyre not given credit and all sorts of other things.

YaoiMeowmaster said:
As far as legality goes, so long as the company complies with takedown requests, they're pretty fine. Paid content is already no go, and artists are free to request to be DNP or even conditional DNP at any point. I don't think anyone would immediately jump to suing a company without even trying to get their work taken down first. After that point, they should tell the admins respectfully to not have their work posted on the site again.

If someone is repeatedly getting their work posted here but can't take the 5 minutes to write an email requesting DNP, then thats their fault for being lazy.

With that being said however, I have a couple of friends who have DNR requests and I think it would be wise for users to check the profiles of artists first to see if they have a DNR. I know they get very upset when their work gets reposted and I understand why, because most of the time it's not respected, theyre not given credit and all sorts of other things.

Checking the artist wiki for DNP status is a good idea, but the full DNP list is generally more up to date. If somebody wanted to tackle the project of updating individual artist wikis to reflect DNP status (including conditional/conditions) that'd be great! I'll tack on a "DNP artist" note when I run across wikis that lack it and have the artist tag linked with the avoid_posting tag, but working from the DNP list would be a far more efficient way to correct all those. I'm not up for a never-ending project like that unfortunately, at least not presently. Won't stop the bunch of uploaders that don't check any damn thing before posting, but those typically don't last long, they either shape up or get shipped out. I was going to say more, but it's late and I ramble when it's late, while said rambles rarely have much of value so I'll spare you all that tonight.

Uploading to the internet comes with a certain reasonable expectation of risk. If you aren't willing to accept that risk, you shouldn't upload. You can't play in the street and not expect to get run over.

That's life, man.

LoneWolf343 said:
Uploading to the internet comes with a certain reasonable expectation of risk. If you aren't willing to accept that risk, you shouldn't upload. You can't play in the street and not expect to get run over.

That's life, man.

No. We have laws. They exist for a reason.

CCoyote said:
No. We have laws. They exist for a reason.

Earlier today, someone blew by me on the interstate going at least 90 in a 75. Meanwhile, I get pulled over for "76" in a 75 on the same stretch of road. Your laws are a joke which only fools think have and intrinsic power.

Also isn't really relevant to anything I said, but go off, I guess.

LoneWolf343 said:
Earlier today, someone blew by me on the interstate going at least 90 in a 75. Meanwhile, I get pulled over for "76" in a 75 on the same stretch of road. Your laws are a joke which only fools think have and intrinsic power.

Also isn't really relevant to anything I said, but go off, I guess.

To everyone else re: my earlier comments about why I don't put my artwork online and how the site's users have no respect for artists... this.

CCoyote said:
To everyone else re: my earlier comments about why I don't put my artwork online and how the site's users have no respect for artists... this.

I believe his point is just that people ignorant to the law, or with actual malicious intent, will likely happen. As far as I can tell he's not advocating that people go and break laws, he's just saying it will likely happen because assholes exist.