I'm aware of takedown requests and the dnp list, but should watermarks asking that the image not get resposted be ignored? It seems like bad etiquette that would sour artist's opinion of the site.

It typically is ignored. More often than not, a "Do not repost" picture is uploaded by the artist, the commissioner, or someone who has permission to upload it, so it's frequently meaningless. Staff really doesn't have the time, energy, or inclination to check each and every such post to find out if it's allowed or not. That's really the uploader's responsibility, and our default assumption is that the uploader is okay in uploading these posts. Yes, it can be considered bad etiquette when an uploader fails to fulfill their responsibility, but that's the uploader's poor manners, not ours.

The official policy is that posts with a DNP watermark are fine to upload (it could be outdated, the artist might've made an exception, the artist themselves might be posting here and saying not to repost to other sites). However I think most uploaders avoid those posts just out of general etiquette (and also the artist is very likely to submit a formal DNP request after upload)

Artists are worried about behaviors that harm their brand and their identity. That's what watermarks like that are for. Imageboards don't do anything like that. Quite the opposite in many ways. Boorus make artists discoverable even on platforms that interfere with reverse image search, preserve art against platform collapse/censorship, we focus on getting the highest possible quality. e621 et al treat art and artists better than any mainstream art platform. Uploading here is no less ethical than capturing it through archive.org(which wouldn't even preserve the quality) or embedding the link on a public Discord channel.

regsmutt said:
It seems like bad etiquette that would sour artist's opinion of the site.

Bad etiquette is to completely neglect asking the artist (and commissioners/character owners) of their permissions before reposting their stuff.

As for DNP watermarks, it doesn't impact our uploading policy one bit but chances are you'd piss the artist off greatly enough that they would ask for a takedown.

The takedown form is always there if the artist becomes aware of their stuff being reposted here and wants to add themselves to the DNP list. Sure, it's good practice to ask permission and decreases the risk of a takedown, but it's definitely not required to do so.

regsmutt said:
I'm aware of takedown requests and the dnp list, but should watermarks asking that the image not get resposted be ignored? It seems like bad etiquette that would sour artist's opinion of the site.

If you're asking because you want to upload something with a do not repost watermark, please just ask the artist. They don't bite :)

cloudpie said:
If you're asking because you want to upload something with a do not repost watermark, please just ask the artist. They don't bite :)

I don't. A gloating comment section is what brought this up.

Makes you wonder about stuff likely to have that watermark. i.e. 25yo images.

strikerman said:
The official policy is that posts with a DNP watermark are fine to upload (it could be outdated, the artist might've made an exception, the artist themselves might be posting here and saying not to repost to other sites). However I think most uploaders avoid those posts just out of general etiquette (and also the artist is very likely to submit a formal DNP request after upload)

If it ends up being the case that an artist opts in for DNP status so be it. No harm no foul as long as more content of theirs isn't archived right?

nunyabidness2 said:
If it ends up being the case that an artist opts in for DNP status so be it. No harm no foul as long as more content of theirs isn't archived right?

Purposely angering artists just because 'in the end, it doesn't even matter the result is the same' isn't a good way to look at it. Perhaps they were more concerned with art being used without credit, and would've come around to having their art here (where they're expressly credited and are linked back to the original). Maybe they would've come to see this site as another place they could post their art. But if they find people posting their art here despite clearly indicating they didn't want it to be reposted, they can get angry at the site and want nothing to do with it anymore. Or they get angry at the site, go DNP and get their artist friends to go DNP as well.

watsit said:
Purposely angering artists just because 'in the end, it doesn't even matter the result is the same' isn't a good way to look at it. Perhaps they were more concerned with art being used without credit, and would've come around to having their art here (where they're expressly credited and are linked back to the original). Maybe they would've come to see this site as another place they could post their art. But if they find people posting their art here despite clearly indicating they didn't want it to be reposted, they can get angry at the site and want nothing to do with it anymore. Or they get angry at the site, go DNP and get their artist friends to go DNP as well.

That's my view on it. It doesn't help when comments on such images gloat about it. Considering that the uploader can appeal when an image gets removed, it shouldn't cause more trouble than, like, someone getting permission to upload an image from a dnp artist.

"That sign won't stop me, I can't read!"
-Average e621 uploader

I'd say if an image specifically is labelled in description or as a bar with "Do not upload to e621" it'd probably be smart to nuke it on principle. For other do not distributes, it's... still playing with fire, and seems like being an ass just to be an ass at that point.

If an artist has a "do not repost" stamp on their art, I won't post it, even if it more likely has to do with people reposting their work on Deviantart or without retweeting on Twitter, or worse, using it for roleplaying, I could ask, but I don't see a lot of art with that kind of message that's worth the trouble.

The only time I'd disregard that kind of message is if the artist is defunct, unknown, or maybe if the art is a decade or older.

maplebytes said:
If an artist has a "do not repost" stamp on their art, I won't post it, even if it more likely has to do with people reposting their work on Deviantart or without retweeting on Twitter, or worse, using it for roleplaying, I could ask, but I don't see a lot of art with that kind of message that's worth the trouble.

The only time I'd disregard that kind of message is if the artist is defunct, unknown, or maybe if the art is a decade or older.

What about stuff that's out of copyright? ;) steamboat_willie

alphamule said:
What about stuff that's out of copyright? ;) steamboat_willie

Once something has left copyright and entered public domain, then it often counts as the artist being "defunct, unknown, or maybe if the art is a decade or older". (Although there are exceptions, such as pictures used by a governmental agency or the artist has specifically released something into the public domain.)

alphamule said:
What about stuff that's out of copyright? ;) steamboat_willie

If you manage to live long enough for literally anything that was posted on the internet with a "Do Not Repost" message to become public domain, congrats and I hope they don't treat you too badly in the nursing home.