I've been asking a few artists if they allow me to post and it's getting unwieldy to keep track. Should I use a line of the artist wiki notes to say permission granted?

If we're going to do this leave a suggestion for standardization of the 1 line for the note.

Post Permission: True
Upload Permission: Conditional. FA account only.

pixelPile said:
If we're going to do this leave a suggestion for standardization of the 1 line for the note.

Post Permission: True
Upload Permission: Conditional. FA account only.

The main problem with adding the DNP info to the wiki page is that some artists revoke their DNP status and it doesn't get removed from the wiki, so it's best to never put it there and just check the Avoid Posting list manually.

Pup said:
The main problem with adding the DNP info to the wiki page is that some artists revoke their DNP status and it doesn't get removed from the wiki, so it's best to never put it there and just check the Avoid Posting list manually.

Some artists get surprised when they find their stuff here, years later after the first post even. I would say it's nice to see which artists at least have acknowledged at some point that their art is alright to post on e621.

Pup said:
The main problem with adding the DNP info to the wiki page is that some artists revoke their DNP status and it doesn't get removed from the wiki, so it's best to never put it there and just check the Avoid Posting list manually.

Ideally it would be a part of the system but that would need more code.

It's a bit of a stumbling block not knowing if a artist has given permission. A lot of times I've thought about uploading something as I browse FA or twitter but don't. By the time I message and get a response hours or days later I'm in a completely different mindset doing something else. It would have been simple in the moment.

Seems like the wrong system posting everything and giving an artist the wrong first impression or everyone at different times in different ways asking the same question and keeping the same spreadsheet locally. The cost to the system is low and quality uploading should increase.

We could limit it to approval and the APL for disapproval.

The main problem I see with this will be that it will be faked and abused for the purpose of backing arguments about content posting, but holds no official weight. It's false assurance to people uploading when said artist actually comes around and finds out and takes it all down.

KiraNoot said:
The main problem I see with this will be that it will be faked and abused for the purpose of backing arguments about content posting, but holds no official weight. It's false assurance to people uploading when said artist actually comes around and finds out and takes it all down.

Agree that is a negative. Like any other offense you look at the history and punish the user. The way I see it the good far outweighs the bad.

I guess the staff votes 2 to 1 against.

Guess I'll throw up a google sheet and see if anyone wants to use it. Anything free I should be using instead of Google sheets?

pixelPile said:
I guess the staff votes 2 to 1 against.

Just wanted to clarify that only janitors and admins are thought of as staff, priv/contrib are just roles for normal users.

Shadowstones said:
Some artists get surprised when they find their stuff here, years later after the first post even. I would say it's nice to see which artists at least have acknowledged at some point that their art is alright to post on e621.

Yeah, it'd definitely be nice to have something, though it'd be awkward to implement.

pixelPile said:
We could limit it to approval and the APL for disapproval.

This is what I meant to say with my first post, to have post permission without the DNP info, though thinking again it might just cause more problems.

If you ask an artist if you can post and they say no, by site rules, you'd still be allowed to post as they aren't on the DNP list. So then you'd need to put that you asked permission and it was denied.

But then people could easily add "I've asked and they don't want their art here" when they haven't actually asked at all, which you could only really be sure of by asking the artist again.

It'd also look bad if you ask and they say no, then someone else doesn't check the wiki/artist pages and uploads anyway.

And just for clarity, although technically allowed you still shouldn't upload art from an artist you know doesn't want it here, even if they're not on the DNP list.

As a sort-of solution, if you ask an artist and they say no, they could probably issue a takedown with no posts attached and just ask to be on the DNP list. It'd be more work for them, but would make it so people couldn't upload their art.

I'm not sure if takedowns need a post attached or if it's possible to just request DNP/Conditional DNP through them, it'd be best to wait for an admin to clarify that before suggesting it to artists.

Pup said:
If you ask an artist if you can post and they say no, by site rules, you'd still be allowed to post as they aren't on the DNP list. So then you'd need to put that you asked permission and it was denied.

You wouldn't have to you just have the system we have now. I think it's better if we did.

Pup said:
But then people could easily add "I've asked and they don't want their art here" when they haven't actually asked at all, which you could only really be sure of by asking the artist again.

True but how many nerds would use their account in a vendetta against some artist. Again I see this is as a small trade off. If someone is posting and has received permission they're going to keep posting with the permission they received and maybe correct the record.

Pup said:
It'd also look bad if you ask and they say no, then someone else doesn't check the wiki/artist pages and uploads anyway.

I don't think this puts you in a worse position at all. Imagine the site has a tos and documented permission. Takedowns are handled in maybe days? Thinking about the 2 possible outcomes someone lied to get past the permissions and the tos, otherwise it's just the tos on a site that just rejects submissions by the DNP and content. The blame falls on a liar not the general law abiding e621 community. Socially that looks like a better position. Am I missing something to your point?

Here is a less than ideal solution, a public google sheet.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cm91uo-upjUoVPPOOY1fVSLv1XpPotWiKpePIvzxeIY/edit?usp=sharing