In the case of artists who fell of the face of the internet, are controversial/infamous, deleted their accounts or deceased, and their status is DNP, should they remain DNP when it comes to their artworks or should that remain forgotten?

alexyorim said:
Shoul

Shoul

strikerman said:
Shoul

You know what? I agree.

alexyorim said:
In the case of artists who fell of the face of the internet, are controversial/infamous, deleted their accounts or deceased, and their status is DNP, should they remain DNP when it comes to their artworks or should that remain forgotten?

Official policy is that if they're DNP, they're DNP forever unless they reverse the takedown, regardless of what happens to them afterwards.

werideatdawn said:
Official policy is that if they're DNP, they're DNP forever unless they reverse the takedown, regardless of what happens to them afterwards.

So, if I were to compare e621 to a real life museum, a living artist requests not to display their paintings per whatever reason, and when that artist either becomes a recluse, or they become infamous, or they die, their request stays?

alexyorim said:
So, if I were to compare e621 to a real life museum, a living artist requests not to display their paintings per whatever reason, and when that artist either becomes a recluse, or they become infamous, or they die, their request stays?

Unfortunately yes, even if they're no longer able to rescind their DNP, the DNP stays and their art is lost. Well, until it becomes public domain at least, but good luck that any of us will still be alive when that happens and still have a copy to share.

I suppose if someone with DNP dies, then their copyrights shoul transfer to whoever they specified in their will, perhaps the inheritor of "my artwork" or "the estate of [deceased artist]." The law shoul explain the correct outcomes for intellectual property inheritance and existing agreements thereof, like DNP. The inheritor shoul be able to rescind DNP if they can be reached.

DNP is DNP while they have control over the copyrights to their art, which lasts until at least 60 years after their death (depending on jurisdiction), whereupon it becomes public domain. Conceivably, their estates could release it before then, but we can't bank on that. Assuming they drop dead this year, that means e621 can't host their art until the 2080s at the earliest. As far as we're concerned in the here and now, that's effectively DNP forever since we and e621 as we know it today won't be around by then. It might not be what we'd like to hear, but that's the way it goes. It'll be someone else's ulcer to deal with by then.

(Disclaimer: I'm no copyright lawyer, so take what I say with a grain of salt.)

clawstripe said:
[...]which lasts until at least 60 after their death (depending on jurisdiction), whereupon it becomes public domain.

The minimum is generally life+50, with life+70 being just as popular.

There are a few oddities, such as Eritrea (creator's death or 50 years since publishing, whichever is later), Jamaica (Life+95 for works made by authors that died after 1962), or the Marshall Islands (which rejects traditional copyright and uses other methods).

In other words, it remains DNP unless the artist rescinds it, or if someone else who had the artist's full permission to rescind it?

alexyorim said:
In other words, it remains DNP unless the artist rescinds it, or if someone else who had the artist's full permission to rescind it?

Yes. It might be frustrating at times, but doing it this way is one of the things that sets e621 head and shoulders above the rest.

alexyorim said:
... or if someone else who had the artist's full permission to rescind it?

Specifically, a duly appointed legal representative of their estate, be it next of kin, an estate lawyer, or other such representative.