Posted under General
This topic has been locked.
So I stumbled across a new deletion reason today:
Regardless of your opinions about the content in question, since when was this grounds for deletion from a website which has always been, to a certain degree, about lack of character owner or artist consent?
Surely the regular way would be for the character owner to file a takedown if they object? Why does this guy get special treatment?
Updated by Millcore
Probably because he's specifically asked for that sort of content not to be made of him at all? Remember that the E6 staff are still humans beings, not robots, and are capable of acknowledging when something is morally wrong. This also is a safe pre-emptive measure to avoid another Paddington Bear issue.
Might be worth the staff going through that character tag and removing the rest, though, if this is how this character is being treated, just to ensure all of the erotic/fetish content is removed.
We have rules for harrasment and taking someones character and drawing them in fetish art (especially if they have asked people not to do that) is kinda pinnacle of harrasment. Just because it's upload instead of comment doesn't change the rules.
I know I still don't personally like it from the standpoint of artwork and its preservation, but even in real life there's actually laws againts this kind of behavior for good reason.
wat8548 said:
Regardless of your opinions about the content in question, since when was this grounds for deletion from a website which has always been, to a certain degree, about lack of character owner or artist consent?Surely the regular way would be for the character owner to file a takedown if they object? Why does this guy get special treatment?
I think it's because of this:
This is absolutely disgusting, fundy is a real person.
I don't know what the image actually looked like, but at least going by the comment reactions, it's a portrayal of a real person who has asked to not be drawn that way. Characters don't get DNP (or CDNP) status, except in rare circumstances that have legal backing (i.e. Paddington), but I imagine portrayals of real people (even furrified) is subject to stricter scrutiny.
watsit said:
I don't know what the image actually looked like, but at least going by the comment reactions, it's a portrayal of a real person who has asked to not be drawn that way. Characters don't get DNP (or CDNP) status, except in rare circumstances that have legal backing (i.e. Paddington), but I imagine portrayals of real people (even furrified) is subject to stricter scrutiny.
Judging by the reupload (which was how I found out about it), it was an image of a cartoon anthro fox. It may shock you to learn that such people do not exist in real life.
votp said:
Remember that the E6 staff are still humans beings, not robots, and are capable of acknowledging when something is morally wrong.
Oh cool, I look forward to all the pro-Nazi art finally getting deleted then.
Also, what's this about Paddington?
wat8548 said:
Judging by the reupload (which was how I found out about it), it was an image of a cartoon anthro fox. It may shock you to learn that such people do not exist in real life.Oh cool, I look forward to all the pro-Nazi art finally getting deleted then.
Also, what's this about Paddington?
Paddington is a copyright that got a DNP because of legal reasons. It's rare for character owners to take legal action, but when it's the person themselves, it's a lot more likely.
wat8548 said:
Regardless of your opinions about the content in question, since when was this grounds for deletion from a website which has always been, to a certain degree, about lack of character owner or artist consent?
Also imagine being this misinformed on the only Booru site that cares about artists requesting takedowns
camkitty said:
Also imagine being this misinformed on the only Booru site that cares about artists requesting takedowns
You're deluding yourself if you think that makes a difference.
wat8548 said:
You're deluding yourself if you think that makes a difference.
E6 has always worked with artists if they don't want some or any of their art on here. That is why the DNP list exists and is enforced. It also removes all pay content.
Every other furry booru has no takedowns and frequently takes even pay content.
wat8548 said:
Oh cool, I look forward to all the pro-Nazi art finally getting deleted then.
There are distinct differences between archiving pornographic content of a specific, single perso who does not want porn drawn of them, and content featuring Nazi and other hate group iconography. Why you jumped to this specific comparison I am struggling to understand.
Perhaps Furaffinity would be a more comfortable site for you, given they completely banned any instance of the swastika in any context; historical, anti-nazi, informative, or otherwise? Especially because of this, I don't see that content being removed from this site any time soon, regardless of discomfort it may cause to some users, due to the archival aspect of it.
since when was this grounds for deletion from a website which has always been, to a certain degree, about lack of character owner or artist consent?
Maybe because lack of consent is very different than being explicitly asked not to do something. So while e621 allows art to be posted in the absence of permission from the artist, if someone specifically asks for art not to be posted, or puts restrictions on what is or isn't able to be posted then e621 will respect that (avoid posting, DNP). So while the mods don't have check permission for every character in a post or every subject who has a picture based on them, if the rights holder asks a piece to be removed then it is entirely consistent to remove it.
kaworu said:
Maybe because lack of consent is very different than being explicitly asked not to do something. So while e621 allows art to be posted in the absence of permission from the artist, if someone specifically asks for art not to be posted, or puts restrictions on what is or isn't able to be posted then e621 will respect that (avoid posting, DNP).
That only applies to the art itself. If I draw something all on my own, someone else's (C)DNP status isn't factored in. An artist having a character DNP only applies to their art of the character, someone else drawing the character is fair game. Aside from rare circumstances where they're legally obligated to (i.e. Paddington), e6 has been consistently clear that they don't give characters DNP status, so if it's not a (C)DNP artist, the character owner has to file a takedown afterward to get it removed.
kaworu said:
So while the mods don't have check permission for every character in a post or every subject who has a picture based on them, if the rights holder asks a piece to be removed then it is entirely consistent to remove it.
As far as I understand the legality of it (in my layman view), many if not most furry characters wouldn't be eligible for copyright protection to the degree of removing other peoples' art, and are thus not really a rights holder. e6's recognition of character owners for takedowns is a courtesy, not a legal requirement in most cases.
But as I said previously, the difference here is that's the drawing was a representation of a real person (however furrified or cartoonified), not a wholly fictional character, which I could see the site taking a slightly more proactive stance on especially when it comes to porn of them.
watsit said:
...
Good clarifications.I didn't dig too deep into the details, just wanted to point out that the supposed contradiction in wat8548's original post really isn't
votp said:
There are distinct differences between archiving pornographic content of a specific, single perso who does not want porn drawn of them, and content featuring Nazi and other hate group iconography. Why you jumped to this specific comparison I am struggling to understand.
Perhaps Furaffinity would be a more comfortable site for you, given they completely banned any instance of the swastika in any context; historical, anti-nazi, informative, or otherwise? Especially because of this, I don't see that content being removed from this site any time soon, regardless of discomfort it may cause to some users, due to the archival aspect of it.
There are distinct differences between not liking something and demanding that it be banned, something you also seem to be struggling to understand. I simply want the rules against "morally objectionable" content to be enforced equally, regardless of which side the line ends up falling.
You may also be struggling to understand my point because you read "pro-Nazi" as "contains a swastika, in any context". Perhaps Twitter would be a more comfortable site for you, if you're this allergic to nuance.
wat8548 said:
There are distinct differences between not liking something and demanding that it be banned, something you also seem to be struggling to understand. I simply want the rules against "morally objectionable" content to be enforced equally, regardless of which side the line ends up falling.You may also be struggling to understand my point because you read "pro-Nazi" as "contains a swastika, in any context". Perhaps Twitter would be a more comfortable site for you, if you're this allergic to nuance.
"Pro-nazi" content isn't going to result in legal issues outside of Germany or Israel. Pornography of people who don't want porn made of them likely will. "Contains a swastika in any context" is typically what is meant when furries say "pro-nazi art", especially when comparing it to completely irrelevants things, so you'll have to forgive the assumption as that is quite a wide-spread belief.
wat8548 said:
So I stumbled across a new deletion reason today:Regardless of your opinions about the content in question, since when was this grounds for deletion from a website which has always been, to a certain degree, about lack of character owner or artist consent?
Surely the regular way would be for the character owner to file a takedown if they object? Why does this guy get special treatment?
The rule broken was the harassment rule. We do not allow artwork where the owner of the character has explicitly requested that it does not exist. Most often a takedown has been filed because it's the only way for us to know that they have requested it does not exist, but if we actively come across something like this we'll gladly step in right away. It's rare but it does happen as shown there.
notmenotyou said:
We do not allow artwork where the owner of the character has explicitly requested that it does not exist.
That's the only informative response thus far. I trust you will be amending this statement on the DNP page then?
We do not give DNP status to anybody except artists or publishers.
While you're at it, you really should add a mention of the unofficial ban on underaged artists, which has been enforced for quite some while but has never actually been stated as policy.
wat8548 said:
That's the only informative response thus far. I trust you will be amending this statement on the DNP page then?
Really? Did you completely ignore other comments because they weren't from an admin?
votp said:
Probably because he's specifically asked for that sort of content not to be made of him at all
mairo said:
We have rules for harrasment and taking someones character and drawing them in fetish art (especially if they have asked people not to do that) is kinda pinnacle of harrasment.
watsit said:
I don't know what the image actually looked like, but at least going by the comment reactions, it's a portrayal of a real person who has asked to not be drawn that way.
All three of these users said so as well, and Mairo is an actual staff member at that. Mairo's comment even points out that it's harassment.
furrin_gok said:
All three of these users said so as well, and Mairo is an actual staff member at that. Mairo's comment even points out that it's harassment.
The first and third of those comments do not quote any rules, hence not answering the question at all. I already know the stated reason for the post being deleted, I literally quoted it in the OP. I just wanted to know which of the site's rules backed up that decision, as not only is "ask character owner's permission" not mentioned in any of them but the only rule which could be applied in this way (the DNP rule) explicitly states that it only applies to artists. For example, the next sentence of Watsit's comment, which you revealingly chose not to quote, began with "Characters don't get DNP (or CDNP) status", which has now been directly contradicted by the admin's statement above.
The second one rests upon the laughable proposition that the same rules apply to uploads as comments. Try starting an argument about racism (or even just post your average porn dialogue) in the comments and see what happens to your account.
Really, I just wanted a public admission from an admin that the rules as enforced are not the same as the rules as written. I'm pleased (and pleasantly surprised) to have received one.
I don't even object to the new rule as such, I just feel fundamentally unsafe on any website with secret rules you can only find out about after you accidentally break them.
My dude, if you didn't think that "harassment" included making porn of folks when they've asked not to have porn made of them...
votp said:
My dude, if you didn't think that "harassment" included making porn of folks when they've asked not to have porn made of them...
I guess this is a point of view you have to be a capital-F Furry to sympathise with. As I've already pointed out, it was a cartoon anthro fox. Not a real person.
votp said:
My dude, if you didn't think that "harassment" included making porn of folks when they've asked not to have porn made of them...
I think the point they're making is the Code of Conduct where the harassment rule is applies to user comments, not content of images that people upload (there are plenty of images that break other rules listed there, which are perfectly fine to have here). It even states:
This is intended to stop the insults and offensive comments that some people use. If someone makes a public comment, and someone finds it offensive, it will most likely fall under this.
In contrast, the Bad Things To Upload says nothing about art of characters whose owners have asked to not have made. Granted, it's a reasonable guideline. I can also see where the confusion may come from. These two statements:
We do not give DNP status to anybody except artists or publishers.
and
We do not allow artwork where the owner of the character has explicitly requested that it does not exist.
are not talking about the same thing. The former is "I don't want art of my character uploaded to e621, no matter who draws it. It can be uploaded to the artists' own galleries though," and the latter is "I don't want art of my character drawn that way period, no matter who draws it or where it's uploaded." The former is taking away rights from the artist's own work, to have it uploaded where the artist allows it to be, by someone who likely doesn't have the legal claim on it (though in cases where they do, e6 will honor that, see again Paddington). The latter is more inline with attempting to harass or troll someone, with art simply being the means to that end (the legality of it isn't held to question, e6 just doesn't want to be the avenue of one person harassing another; same as it doesn't allow art of overly racist content meant to be defamatory to a group of people).
wat8548 said:
As I've already pointed out, it was a cartoon anthro fox. Not a real person.
A cartoon anthro fox can represent a real person. That's what fursonas are. Similarly, turning a real person into anthro doesn't stop it from representing that real person. Art has been removed before for representing a particular real person that largely served to spread negative messages and ideas.
wat8548 said:
I guess this is a point of view you have to be a capital-F Furry to sympathise with. As I've already pointed out, it was a cartoon anthro fox. Not a real person.
This may surprise you, but people sometimes represent themselves through indirect means. In all likelihood, Fundy is a human being, but the visuals associated with him are that of the fox.
furrin_gok said:
In all likelihood, Fundy is a human being
keeping an open mind in case he's a robot, nice
my god OP you really have an axe to grind. You an alt of the artist?
I'd agree that the rules being enforced should be reflected in policy, even if they're good rules. There are a lot of those unspoken rules that you can't really find anywhere except being cited on a mod action. That's pretty much the only good point I'd say you had though.
Aside from that you seem to have been remarkably badly informed of the site and its purposes. Where did you get these funny ideas of yours? Did someone tell you these things like e621 being entirely dedicated to not giving a shit about artists?
I remember the not-giving-a-shit attitude you describe being present back in the age of mellis and riversyde, but the site did a complete 180 at some point, and even back then DNP was still a thing, so the website you described didn't even exist 10 years ago.
fenrick said:
I'd agree that the rules being enforced should be reflected in policy, even if they're good rules. There are a lot of those unspoken rules that you can't really find anywhere except being cited on a mod action. That's pretty much the only good point I'd say you had though.
Good job it was the only point I had then.
It has been pretty funny seeing the e621 user base's reaction to an uncontroversial description of how the outside world sees us, though.
Updated
What a weird tangent to get all hung up on.
The question was about what rule was broken. Multiple people answered it was the harassment rule.
It should be as simple as that, but I guess you wanted to get caught up in meaningless semantics.
wat8548 said:
Good job it was the only point I had then.It has been pretty funny seeing the e621 user base's reaction to an uncontroversial description of how the outside world sees us, though.
You are misinformed, that will get mockery. It has already been explained to you how you are misinformed
camkitty said:
You are misinformed, that will get mockery. It has already been explained to you how you are misinformed
I bet you think putting "no copyright intended" on a YouTube reupload of a TV show makes it immune from copyright strikes as well.
wat8548 said:
I bet you think putting "no copyright intended" on a YouTube reupload of a TV show makes it immune from copyright strikes as well.
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
votp said:
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
CamKitty believes that e621 isn't enormously unpopular among the artist community at large, even if a minority of them post their work here (and a slightly larger minority go through the hassle of applying for DNP status).
This is an even stupider tangent than the first one this thread went off on. Need I remind you all that we literally have a do_not_distribute tag?
wat8548 said:
CamKitty believes that e621 isn't enormously unpopular among the artist community at large, even if a minority of them post their work here (and a slightly larger minority go through the hassle of applying for DNP status).This is an even stupider tangent than the first one this thread went off on. Need I remind you all that we literally have a do_not_distribute tag?
what about avoid_posting
