I'm talking about 1800000burn or https://twitter.com/1800000BURN/ who clearly says "Do not repost my work" in their pinned tweet. In fact they say it twice, but there are already six approved posts with their art on e6. Unless 1800000burn themself uploaded them, shouldn't these posts be deleted before anyone gets all take-down requesty?

AFAIK, we do not preemptively take down posts unless the artist requests it.

There could be a chance that the uploader(s) may be the artist themselves or they have gotten permissions to post here, but there's no way to be sure unless you DM each of them.
Even if they don't have the permissions to upload the artworks here, it is not against the rules to do so (though it will be frowned upon).

It's actually a situation like this where you can take it upon yourself to inform them about art removal procedure on e6 should their content being here be against their wishes.

This is a double bind. Some asshole uploaded when they shouldnt. If informed of the fact that an upload occurred this artist will take down their art everywhere so messaging them to say that this happened is a lose lose.

E6 should if it is proven that an artist has wishes such as this. This artist for example has it literally PINNED to the top of their feed. Its impossible to miss. E6 should automatically comply with that request and place them on DNP and skip the rigamarole of the removal tickets.

It's happened before that artists have given special permission to certain users. Nuking without asking first is a recipe for disaster.

strikerman said:
It's happened before that artists have given special permission to certain users. Nuking without asking first is a recipe for disaster.

Its a boolean flag, true or false. It takes much less to reinstate a few images on the part of the moderators, than it does in terms of damage when the artist decides bc someone couldnt play nice that theyre taking everything down everywhere.

demesejha said:
Its a boolean flag, true or false. It takes much less to reinstate a few images on the part of the moderators, than it does in terms of damage when the artist decides bc someone couldnt play nice that theyre taking everything down everywhere.

Someone who throws a childish tantrum and deletes all of their art on a moment's notice because they could not be bothered to file a takedown request... well, that's probably someone who would do that anyways because of a mean comment since their feelings got hurt.

If you are feeling especially socially conscious, feel free to let them know that their art has been posted here and show them the takedown request form.

There are tens of thousands of artists on e621, you expect them to go threw every one of those annually to touch base if their content being on e621 is okay? Not to mention it's only the head admin whom has authority to implement changes to the DNP list and process takedowns. There are plenty of artists who post their own content to e621, but aren't really vocal about it being them. There was actually someone who was uploading files which I couldn't figure out where they were coming from and thought it was piracy, so I touched base with the artist over their FA and it turned out, it was them archiving their own content, they just had a different name. Along with the fact that there is a lot of artists with the "Please don't share my content" As a disclaimer, but still give permissions to people who actually asked them if they could in the first place.
There is a reason why people look down on preventive policing.

Well, time for an update and OH LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. https://twitter.com/1800000BURN/status/1288093359526092800

Artist straight up nuked everything because of e621, apparently

Option 1: File a takedown request like a normal person
Option 2: Remove all artwork from public view

Of course, they picked option 2. Makes total sense, right.
Yeah, the artist does not seem particularly... stable. Something was going to trigger this sooner or later. I have no sympathy for them.

The funniest part of this, of course, is that because they still have not gone through the takedown process, their artwork will remain on e621. Amazing.

bitwolfy said:
Option 1: File a takedown request like a normal person
Option 2: Remove all artwork from public view

Of course, they picked option 2. Makes total sense, right.
Yeah, the artist does not seem particularly... stable. Something was going to trigger this sooner or later. I have no sympathy for them.

The funniest part of this, of course, is that because they still have not gone through the takedown process, their artwork will remain on e621. Amazing.

This really felt like a trap set up from getgo.

There's 677954 users here and this is only one of many booru and/or image board websites out there. Realistically, how do you prevent literally everyone seeing your work from saving the file in any manner and then further preventing them from sharing it onwards?

Thing is that of course creator has copyrights to their work and everyone else would need any kind of permission or agreement with the copyright holder to be able to do anything with their work unless it's fair use (which straight copying isn't). However even on bigger platforms like twitter and youtube, it's not up to google and twitter to enforce the copyrights for you, you as copyright holder need to file DMCA or takedown if your content is posted on their platforms without permission and they will not accept pinned tweet or third party takedowns either, so why e621 should be differend on this front? We already have more lenient takedown system and we are already forcing copyrights to some extend with things like no paid content rules.

beeseverywhere said:
Well, time for an update and OH LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. https://twitter.com/1800000BURN/status/1288093359526092800

Not e621's fault or concern. Taking one's ball home and refusing to play punishes no one but the ball's owner. That's especially true if, as bitWolfy points out, they forgot the ball.

If you couldn't be bothered to explain to the artist e621's posting and takedown policies when/if you told the artist about their posted pictures, then it's on you, not e621.

beeseverywhere said:
Well, time for an update and OH LOOK WHAT HAPPENED. https://twitter.com/1800000BURN/status/1288093359526092800

That's leaving in a fit of ignorance then. Very clear options were left so the only art site that accommodates artists requests could have done so. I am sure they'll enjoy all their art on the other sites that won't remove it if you ask

Someone clearly doesn't understand how the internet works. Once you post something on the internet, it is no longer under your control (especially if you do this publicly). If you can't accept this, well, then it is not a place for you.

Although in this case, the repost on e621 should be the least concern, because e6 is one of the few sites that respect artist's wishes when it comes to the distribution of their art.

mairo said: This really felt like a trap set up from getgo.

Now that I think about it, yeah. Everyone knows that there are a lot of people on the internet that are contrarian jerks who would readily do anything just because they were told not to. Setting up this huge banner in a pinned tweet about being ready to throw a fit and delete everything on a moment's notice if their "boundaries are disrespected"... That's just inviting some troll to do exactly that.

Considering the fact that the user who uploaded that stuff is called FartKnocker10000... I think that's exactly what happened.

clawstripe said: Taking one's ball home and refusing to play punishes no one but the ball's owner. That's especially true if, as bitWolfy points out, they forgot the ball.

That is a beautiful metaphor for the situation. Thank you.

bitwolfy said:

Yeah, the artist does not seem particularly... stable. Something was going to trigger this sooner or later. I have no sympathy for them.

The funniest part of this, of course, is that because they still have not gone through the takedown process, their artwork will remain on e621. Amazing.

mairo said:
This really felt like a trap set up from getgo.

I'm not convinced any of this to be taken seriously, between claims that this is an existing artist who already has DNP status here, and keeping up the phone keypad cipher all the way to tweeting at e621 to delete their art.
They mention not thinking a "third go" will be worth it, so I'm not sure if their original accounts were also nuked or if this is just some kind of experiment. Claiming that "a mod" specifically allowed their reposts is an interesting touch though, so idk if they're someone who just has their own ideas about how everything should function. Not sure how that part of this incident would be avoided without posts being hidden until they're approved, and having artist-contact be a part of every approval.

magnuseffect said:
and keeping up the phone keypad cipher all the way to tweeting at e621 to delete their art.

...Maybe they thought that this tweet was enough to get their art removed.

(How do you even translate that stuff, anyway?)

strikerman said:
(How do you even translate that stuff, anyway?)

https://www.dcode.fr/t9-cipher
There's a few words that won't auto-translate due to being typoed, or having letters left out. (delete is dlete in that tweet)

strikerman said:
...Maybe they thought that this tweet was enough to get their art removed.

(How do you even translate that stuff, anyway?)

looks like old phone number pad, you can probably just run it through google and it will do the work for you.

versperus said:
looks like old phone number pad, you can probably just run it through google and it will do the work for you.

you lied to me

bitwolfy said:
Option 1: File a takedown request like a normal person
Option 2: Remove all artwork from public view

Of course, they picked option 2. Makes total sense, right.
Yeah, the artist does not seem particularly... stable. Something was going to trigger this sooner or later. I have no sympathy for them.

The funniest part of this, of course, is that because they still have not gone through the takedown process, their artwork will remain on e621. Amazing.

Its a reasonable fucking request honestly and I dont know why such things are not considered.

demesejha said:
Its a reasonable fucking request honestly and I dont know why such things are not considered.

Not wanting your art on the site is reasonable. Asking the site to remove your art would have been reasonable. Nuking all of your art from your social media because a few images got posted on the site is not reasonable.

demesejha said: Its a reasonable fucking request honestly and I dont know why such things are not considered.

The request itself is reasonable. The response, on the other hand, is absolutely batshit crazy.

demesejha said:
Its a reasonable fucking request honestly and I dont know why such things are not considered.

For the reasons I mentioned 17 days ago.

demesejha said:
Its a reasonable fucking request honestly and I dont know why such things are not considered.

And there are steps on the site to make it quite possible. More then you will find on any booru site. As said earlier, artist quit in a fit of ignorance, since all the options were handed to them. The form takes literally seconds.

And now they rage quit over something that was handlable and the site had told them how to deal with. Make no mistake, this was a childish fit while adults were telling them how it could have easily been fixed. Just a reminder e6 is like the only booru site that has and enforces a DNP list

camkitty said:
And there are steps on the site to make it quite possible. More then you will find on any booru site. As said earlier, artist quit in a fit of ignorance, since all the options were handed to them. The form takes literally seconds.

And now they rage quit over something that was handlable and the site had told them how to deal with. Make no mistake, this was a childish fit while adults were telling them how it could have easily been fixed. Just a reminder e6 is like the only booru site that has and enforces a DNP list

I mean it's entirely possible they would have deleted all their posts regardless of what e621 did, simply because someone was reuploading in the first place. Though that does make it a bit weird that they specifically call out e621's moderation.
I'm still more interested in the claim that this artist already has DNP status here, as that would indicate they're already aware of the takedown/DNP process (and if they privately messaged administration, DNP status could be anonymously extended to their new alias?) I'm not familiar with the artist myself, but a number of people from vore/fatfur/inflation circles seem to be, judging from the remaining Twitter replies.

There's really nothing you can do when an artist refuses to participate in these processes though. They're entirely within their rights to just stop everything for whatever reasons they want; those reasons don't have to be conventionally-reasonable. I am curious about what happened to this artist's "first go", given that a number of the coded replies also express relief that the use of obscured identity and code isn't for any safety reasons.

You know, since 1800000burn never issued a takedown, someone should probably upload the rest of their gallery. For archival purposes, of course.

bitwolfy said:
You know, since 1800000burn never issued a takedown, someone should probably upload the rest of their gallery. For archival purposes, of course.

That's a bit too spiteful.

bitwolfy said:
You know, since 1800000burn never issued a takedown, someone should probably upload the rest of their gallery. For archival purposes, of course.

This is literally the reason artists put themselves on DNP and take down in the first place.

bitwolfy said:
You know, since 1800000burn never issued a takedown, someone should probably upload the rest of their gallery. For archival purposes, of course.

e621's primary purpose is to archive visual furry artwork. This site has come to be used almost exclusively for the pron, that is still it's main purpose and is why the "creepy comments" rule is a thing. I understand why e621 has to listen to artists when they issue takedowns (don't want to risk getting sued), but it's interesting how artists are allowed to just completely erase themselves, even from supposed "archives".

TL;DR I'm still a little upset that tacklebox erased himself from my go-to site.

demesejha said:
This is literally the reason artists put themselves on DNP and take down in the first place.

But they never did either of those things? Am I misunderstanding?

notuncommon said: But they never did either of those things? Am I misunderstanding?

They sent a ciphered message to e621's twitter that (when decoded) said "dlete my art" (yes, with that exact spelling), and then tried to get their followers to brigade the uploader.
But they didn't use the actual, working takedown system. It's baffling.

bitwolfy said:
They sent a ciphered message to e621's twitter that (when decoded) said "dlete my art" (yes, with that exact spelling), and then tried to get their followers to brigade the uploader.
But they didn't use the actual, working takedown system. It's baffling.

Huh. Bizarre.
I don't understand why some artists do things like post artwork on a platform as public as twitter and then ask people not to reupload it elsewhere. If the artist didn't want their art to be public they should've just DMd their clients the art, or better yet, not shared it at all, right? What makes someone think they can control with perfect precision where their stuff will go on the internet once it's been posted?

Would it be nice if people listened to the wills of artists? Yes.
But is that a realistic expectation that you should base the existence of your account off of? Hell no.

this whole shit is probably a publicity stunt.

versperus said:
this whole shit is a publicity stunt.

A publicity stunt that involves removing all his art and forbidding other sites from hosting his art? He doesn't have much room to capitalize on this.

362100470084300473280072826
772284230046630067732
23007873008600374650096870068258463

lance_armstrong said:
362100470084300473280072826
772284230046630067732
23007873008600374650096870068258463

hmmm

So this artist is active again, and seemingly STILL not on the DNP
Which raises the question. Is a watermark saying "do not redistribute" enough to effectively place oneself on the DNP list without actually doing so?
In other words, does e6 consider such watermarks on their own without any other direction from the artist?

nevannedall said:
So this artist is active again, and seemingly STILL not on the DNP
Which raises the question. Is a watermark saying "do not redistribute" enough to effectively place oneself on the DNP list without actually doing so?
In other words, does e6 consider such watermarks on their own without any other direction from the artist?

Unless 1800000burn files a takedown at https://e621.net/static/takedown asking for DNP, I suspect it won't be given. No e621 account is needed to request it, so the artist just need to be informed that takedowns exist.

nevannedall said:
Which raises the question. Is a watermark saying "do not redistribute" enough to effectively place oneself on the DNP list without actually doing so?

No, although it is enough for the tag do_not_distribute to be applied to the posts.

nevannedall said:
Which raises the question. Is a watermark saying "do not redistribute" enough to effectively place oneself on the DNP list without actually doing so?

No, because an artist may have a general policy of not allowing their art be distributed, but may allow it when they're explicitly asked. They may also say only some art shouldn't be redistributed but others are allowed (e.g. no redistributing personal art, but commissions are fine). Or not just anyone can redistribute, but certain people explicitly can (e.g. commissioners are given permission to repost their commissions wherever they want). They may also change their mind and can't edit the piece to remove the watermark. A simple watermark on some images doesn't tell us enough to say an artist doesn't allow any of their art to be reposted here.

That was a blast from the past.

strikerman said:
hmmm

nevannedall said:
So this artist is active again, and seemingly STILL not on the DNP
Which raises the question. Is a watermark saying "do not redistribute" enough to effectively place oneself on the DNP list without actually doing so?
In other words, does e6 consider such watermarks on their own without any other direction from the artist?

It should be enough. Honestly end of story if they say they dont want their art reposted its absolutely insane to act against that interest

watsit said:
No, because an artist may have a general policy of not allowing their art be distributed, but may allow it when they're explicitly asked. They may also say only some art shouldn't be redistributed but others are allowed (e.g. no redistributing personal art, but commissions are fine). Or not just anyone can redistribute, but certain people explicitly can (e.g. commissioners are given permission to repost their commissions wherever they want). They may also change their mind and can't edit the piece to remove the watermark. A simple watermark on some images doesn't tell us enough to say an artist doesn't allow any of their art to be reposted here.

I feel the watermark saying "do not redistribute" or "do not repost" should count as a DNP as it's obvious an artist doesn't want their work shared outside of the sites they upload to, and what you're describing is essentially a conditional DNP.

When an artist is on the DNP list you can still upload their art if you provide proof that the artist allowed you to post it here. If they upload it here themselves then it'd stay up even with the avoid_posting tag, as that's how it works currently, and if they say commissioners can post then you could dmail NotMeNotYou with proof and have it downgraded to a conditional DNP, since he handles all the DNP related things.

If an artist removes the watermark then it could obviously be uploaded, or if an older watermarked post is up it can be replaced with the newer version and stay up.

There's also bots that reupload from here to Rule34, Furry Booru and likely other places, which feels like it would definitely be going against the artist's wishes if they're watermarking their art like that.

pup said:
I feel the watermark saying "do not redistribute" or "do not repost" should count as a DNP as it's obvious an artist doesn't want their work shared outside of the sites they upload to, and what you're describing is essentially a conditional DNP.

Currently the site has no policy for specific images being DNP, and some images having a Do Not Repost watermark doesn't mean an artist wants all their work DNP, or that they don't mean it in reference to certain sites or allow reposting under certain circumstances.

pup said:
If an artist removes the watermark then it could obviously be uploaded, or if an older watermarked post is up it can be replaced with the newer version and stay up.

An artist isn't always capable of editing their old art if they change their mind. I bet most delete their working copies, or lose it, after some time for one reason or another.

watsit said:
Currently the site has no policy for specific images being DNP, and some images having a Do Not Repost watermark doesn't mean an artist wants all their work DNP, or that they don't mean it in reference to certain sites or allow reposting under certain circumstances.

There is, paywalled content is DNP regardless of artist unless the artist says otherwise, and whether they mean it for certain sites or not the watermark says "do not redistribute", so it shouldn't be redistributed unless they give permission or say otherwise.

watsit said:
An artist isn't always capable of editing their old art if they change their mind. I bet most delete their working copies, or lose it, after some time for one reason or another.

With the rare case an artist changes their mind their art would still be able to be uploaded with their permission, just like DNP artists can have their work posted if permission is shown or they themselves upload it.

So what would an artist have to watermark an image with? "Do Not Distribute - E621, you are not an exception"?

votp said:
So what would an artist have to watermark an image with? "Do Not Distribute - E621, you are not an exception"?

Watermarks in general do not matter.
Artists who do not want their (publicly accessible) work to be distributed on e621 should request a takedown and DNP status.

pup said:
There is, paywalled content is DNP regardless of artist unless the artist says otherwise, and whether they mean it for certain sites or not the watermark says "do not redistribute", so it shouldn't be redistributed unless they give permission or say otherwise.

That's exactly it. All pay content is DNP regardless of source or reason, but we're talking about specific pieces of publicly posted art from non-DNP artists that would otherwise be perfectly acceptable to post. As it is, uploaders are supposed to ensure an artist has given permission for their art to be posted here before uploading it, which would include art with a Do Not Repost watermark. And legally speaking, the unwatermarked image needs just as much permission to post as the watermarked one. So if the site's going to accept unwatermarked images by default, I don't see a reason why watermarked images shouldn't also be.

Also, given this site's mission is helping archive and preserve furry-related artwork, it seems silly that a generic little "Do Not Repost" text could block attempts at preserving art made 10, 20, 30, or more years ago, especially if the artist is long dead.

pup said:
With the rare case an artist changes their mind their art would still be able to be uploaded with their permission, just like DNP artists can have their work posted if permission is shown or they themselves upload it.

This also brings up the question of conflicting information. If an artist says their work can be reposted, but some pieces have a Do Not Repost watermark, which takes precedence? If the admins haven't been in direct contact with the artist, how would they know what the artist's actual intent is for the image? The (C)DNP list deals with this, as it's derived from direct correspondence between the site admins and the artist, where ambiguities can be clarified and it can be changed as desired, unlike a watermark on an image.

votp said:
So what would an artist have to watermark an image with? "Do Not Distribute - E621, you are not an exception"?

If they're going to do that, then they definitely know about this site, in which case they'd also know (or can easily find) where to go to ensure their wishes are adhered to. In either case, my point is that a static unchangeable watermark is unsuitable for this purpose. Copyright already grants the creator the exclusive right to control copying and distribution of their work, so such a statement adds nothing when there's already a question of whether permission has been given.

watsit said:
That's exactly it. All pay content is DNP regardless of source or reason, but we're talking about specific pieces of publicly posted art from non-DNP artists that would otherwise be perfectly acceptable to post. As it is, uploaders are supposed to ensure an artist has given permission for their art to be posted here before uploading it, which would include art with a Do Not Repost watermark. And legally speaking, the unwatermarked image needs just as much permission to post as the watermarked one. So if the site's going to accept unwatermarked images by default, I don't see a reason why watermarked images shouldn't also be.

That makes sense, as you say, legally posts without a watermark would still need permission to be posted, the only thing I'd say is that I presume only a very small percentage of uploaders actually ask the artist's permission in the first place, but that's a different topic.

watsit said:
Also, given this site's mission is helping archive and preserve furry-related artwork, it seems silly that a generic little "Do Not Repost" text could block attempts at preserving art made 10, 20, 30, or more years ago, especially if the artist is long dead.

I'd argue even though the site's purpose is to archive art it's not an excuse to post art here when an artist doesn't want it here. If they were dead and unable to issue a takedown, but all art was watermarked "don't host on E6", then it really shouldn't be here.

watsit said:
This also brings up the question of conflicting information. If an artist says their work can be reposted, but some pieces have a Do Not Repost watermark, which takes precedence? If the admins haven't been in direct contact with the artist, how would they know what the artist's actual intent is for the image? The (C)DNP list deals with this, as it's derived from direct correspondence between the site admins and the artist, where ambiguities can be clarified and it can be changed as desired, unlike a watermark on an image.

If they've said all their work can be reposted then that'd take precedence, if they hadn't said anything then you'd put the permission for that image in the description, like people do with permission to post from DNP artists currently.

With people being meant to ask for permission first then this obviously wouldn't be needed, though I can see why artists might get frustrated if they add a watermark and it gets uploaded anyway, especially with bots automatically reposting to other sites from E6.

There's also Mairo's arguments from earlier, that anybody could download and share the art on any platform. I'd agree that it's a bit unreasonable to share something on the internet for everyone to see, especially somewhere as public as Twitter rather than a personal website, then expect a watermark to stop it being reposted by anyone. Though it doesn't really make redistributing it ok just because others will.

We have soooo many posts with "DO NOT REPOST" or variations watermarks, descriptions, etc. etc. where artists are perfectly fine with their works being here specifically and maybe even upload stuff themselves.
Also many artists have started to do the "PATREON ONLY" watermarks (remember approving several just yesterday) and because they are lazy, they release the exact same copies publicly as well later on, so even when it says that it's patreon only, it isn't. This is, super common now and I hate how artists are undermining such a simple system that's there for their own protection.

Additionally I was kinda againts the paid material ban completely, because I do also know some artists who were relying on their paid material being leaked and shared over time so they are too lazy to release their own material themselves, which was only one reason why I'm still not fully on board with it. Of course on ideal sense, not being a piracy website and artists having control over their own material should be the priority, but I would seriously hope that the artists would care bit more of their own stuff and not be so lazy or not have any future plans.

Also handling permissions of DNP list is already extremely time consuming and tiring and that's already the system where artist has said to us directly to not have permission to have their stuff here, the amount of extra work it would create to keep tabs of basically all upcoming uploads permissions is ridiculous, as the amount of posters, artists and post uploads gets higher and higher. If I post a tweet on twitter or video on youtube, I'm not required any of this and the author is requried to file DMCA takedown every, single, time I upload something from them. We are already giving more leeway than majority of websites do or what is legally required and are still drowning on work constantly.

For context: I can literally take the artists image and post it on my own twitter and there's literally nothing anyone else can do outside the original author. It's shitty, yes, it's also technically illegal as I'm posting copyrighted content I have no permission or license for, but the only way my tweet goes down is if the original author gets up from their ass and files DMCA to Twitter and waits for it to be handled and after they handle that, nobody is stopping me from doing it again with other of their images, until I get so many records that Twitter decides to ban my account.

So the only thing I see here is nice people trying to be nice and whiteknighting for this specific author here, but on practise the image is completely differend.

mairo said:
We have soooo many posts with "DO NOT REPOST" or variations watermarks, descriptions, etc. etc. where artists are perfectly fine with their works being here specifically and maybe even upload stuff themselves.
[..]
This is, super common now and I hate how artists are undermining such a simple system that's there for their own protection.

Well that makes it more awkward, especially having "patreon only" on content that isn't patreon only. That really does feel like shooting yourself in the foot.

mairo said:
Additionally I was kinda againts the paid material ban completely, because I do also know some artists who were relying on their paid material being leaked and shared over time so they are too lazy to release their own material themselves [..]

Expecting things to be leaked is a really bad business model, again sounds like shooting yourself in the foot. It'd be better to release a few good drawings publicly at least.

mairo said:
Also handling permissions of DNP list is already extremely time consuming and tiring and that's already the system where artist has said to us directly to not have permission to have their stuff here, the amount of extra work it would create to keep tabs of basically all upcoming uploads permissions is ridiculous[..]

I was more thinking if there was a "do not redistribute" watermark then it'd be deleted otherwise it'd be allowed, though given the whole "patreon only but it's actually not" thing, yeah, that'd never work. I'd say it could make artists actually care about how they watermark their work, and put more thought into it, but it's more likely that they wouldn't care and we'd just have less art.

mairo said:
For context: I can literally take the artists image and post it on my own twitter and there's literally nothing anyone else can do outside the original author. [..]

It does feel a bit bad that you could essentially troll an artist by uploading a different post every other day so they had to keep making and sending DCMA forms. Though as you say, Twitter would hopefully ban the account after a couple of them.

Also as you said before, you shouldn't really expect to be able to control your art after you host it publicly online.

mairo said:
So the only thing I see here is nice people trying to be nice and whiteknighting for this specific author here, but on practise the image is completely differend.

My apologies if it came across like that, I was more speaking in general about watermarks and artist's wishes with their art than the specific one this thread was created for. I still can't quite get my head around why you'd label something as "don't redistribute, patreon content only" then say it's fine to upload it anywhere. At worst make two versions and have one without the watermark for when it's fine to post. As you say, it just wouldn't work, especially when things like that happen regularly.

With that artist, I agree with your earlier posts that it felt like a trap, they were always going to get deleted sooner or later. That and sending the coded and misspelt Twitter message really does make for mixed messages, as if saying "I want this deleted but only if you can decipher what I'm saying".

mairo said:
We have soooo many posts with "DO NOT REPOST" or variations watermarks, descriptions, etc. etc. where artists are perfectly fine with their works being here specifically and maybe even upload stuff themselves.
Also many artists have started to do the "PATREON ONLY" watermarks (remember approving several just yesterday) and because they are lazy, they release the exact same copies publicly as well later on, so even when it says that it's patreon only, it isn't. This is, super common now and I hate how artists are undermining such a simple system that's there for their own protection.

Additionally I was kinda againts the paid material ban completely, because I do also know some artists who were relying on their paid material being leaked and shared over time so they are too lazy to release their own material themselves, which was only one reason why I'm still not fully on board with it. Of course on ideal sense, not being a piracy website and artists having control over their own material should be the priority, but I would seriously hope that the artists would care bit more of their own stuff and not be so lazy or not have any future plans.

Also handling permissions of DNP list is already extremely time consuming and tiring and that's already the system where artist has said to us directly to not have permission to have their stuff here, the amount of extra work it would create to keep tabs of basically all upcoming uploads permissions is ridiculous, as the amount of posters, artists and post uploads gets higher and higher. If I post a tweet on twitter or video on youtube, I'm not required any of this and the author is requried to file DMCA takedown every, single, time I upload something from them. We are already giving more leeway than majority of websites do or what is legally required and are still drowning on work constantly.

For context: I can literally take the artists image and post it on my own twitter and there's literally nothing anyone else can do outside the original author. It's shitty, yes, it's also technically illegal as I'm posting copyrighted content I have no permission or license for, but the only way my tweet goes down is if the original author gets up from their ass and files DMCA to Twitter and waits for it to be handled and after they handle that, nobody is stopping me from doing it again with other of their images, until I get so many records that Twitter decides to ban my account.

So the only thing I see here is nice people trying to be nice and whiteknighting for this specific author here, but on practise the image is completely differend.

Can't an artist go CDNP to say that paid content is postable after whenever their "leak" deadline is?

pup said:
My apologies if it came across like that, I was more speaking in general about watermarks and artist's wishes with their art than the specific one this thread was created for. I still can't quite get my head around why you'd label something as "don't redistribute, patreon content only" then say it's fine to upload it anywhere. At worst make two versions and have one without the watermark for when it's fine to post. As you say, it just wouldn't work, especially when things like that happen regularly.

With that artist, I agree with your earlier posts that it felt like a trap, they were always going to get deleted sooner or later. That and sending the coded and misspelt Twitter message really does make for mixed messages, as if saying "I want this deleted but only if you can decipher what I'm saying".

I don't think I was directly trying to aim you and partially was talking about this artist and similar artists mentioned here in general rather than all watermarked stuff.
But yeah, at some point you have to weight the differences between two things and even if the other sounds worse on paper, on general level it might work better.

furrin_gok said:
Can't an artist go CDNP to say that paid content is postable after whenever their "leak" deadline is?

Yes. The main reason why this content is againts the rules is because this kind of content has almost 100% likelyhood of being posted without permission, possibly be of lower quality that the source, highest potential to trash sites reputation as being yet another piracy website, etc. etc. but artist themselves is the one who has the copyrights so they can literally give permission to post content they haven't posted themselves and it's more than fine. It's their content after all and the reasoning for the rule change is that if artist does want to publish their previously paid material freely, they would be doing so themselves, not by having third party doing uploads to us exclusively (but then again my experiences are going againts this idea).

Now the problems with these kind of stuffs is that how do we, without access to their e.g. patreon, know how old the content is if they don't watermark dates? If they give permission to third party user uploading their stuff, where do we know their permission is legit?