So I uploaded a cover and inside cover scan of this comic. It was a print comic that was very limited in its numbers. It was posted at a very high resolution previously, but it looks like the material was removed as commercial content (the actual comic part, not covers).

So my question is this: Is it not allowed on this site? It is being hosted on at least a dozen other sites and my understanding is it's okay because the printed version was never filed under US Copyright laws, hence why the material itself does not have any copyright declarations in it.

So just some clarification would be nice, I don't want to try and upload something that might cause troubles.

If pay material is under 2 years old, it's DNP, but the cover is fine to upload.

Raiden_Gekkou said:
If pay material is under 2 years old, it's DNP. But the cover is fine to upload.

I thought that was "paysite" material. That is understandable because it is STILL distributed after it is posted here for money. This is a printed comic that was made in a small volume, I heard around 200 copies, and is no longer for sale by creators though copies go for 200-1000 dollars on auction sites.
The creators of the comic never applied for a copyright to their material and thusly have no ownership of it after they distributed it.

If you have to pay money to get it, you cannot post it. This is easy shit, folks.

Blaziken said:
If you have to pay money to get it, you cannot post it. This is easy shit, folks.

Lol that's not true. There has been lots of material posted here from paysites, because it is older it isn't being deleted.

The reasoning being the paysites get new material and are no longer interested in prosecuting distributed copies of their older material (as most of it is bound to be circulated within months, if not sooner, and be completely available within 2 years). Also most of these paysites have filed copyrights, the creators of this comic did not. There is no copyright declarations in the publication anywhere. The second to last page is a disclaimer that also states that the creators did not intend it as a "canon publication".

PM the admins then.

Blaziken said:
PM the admins then.

We need a statement from the comics artist themselves.

Princess_Celestia said:
We need a statement from the comics artist themselves.

Ah, well, alright. That's kind of what I was thinking; anyone can say anything on the internet, post a screenshot of them giving written permission or send it to the admins, then.

Princess_Celestia said:
We need a statement from the comics artist themselves.

I won't disagree if that is the decision, no point.

The material is available at numerous other sites, just thought it'd be nice to share here. I mean I am not going to research and find the 12 or so different artists involved and ask them permission in written form. Anyone who wants to know where to go to get it can PM me, I will gladly share. No one should have to pay hundreds of dollars to own this work since the creators didn't copyright it.

Vixxxine69 said:
There is no copyright declarations in the publication anywhere. The second to last page is a disclaimer that also states that the creators did not intend it as a "canon publication".

Copyright is automatic upon creation of a creative work. It doesn't need a © or other copyright notice in order to qualify nor does it have to be registered or filed anywhere. (Such things just make it easier to prove whose work it is.)

See Copyright Myth #1.

Clawstripe said:
Copyright is automatic upon creation of a creative work. It doesn't need a © or other copyright notice in order to qualify nor does it have to be registered or filed anywhere. (Such things just make it easier to prove whose work it is.)

See Copyright Myth #1.

Berne convention does not apply, this was not created by an individual nor was it a privately derived work, its a collaboration. It has to be copyrighted as an overall work or each individual section needs to be published privately by its creator only.

Vixxxine69 said:
Berne convention does not apply, this was not created by an individual nor was it a privately derived work, its a collaboration. It has to be copyrighted as an overall work or each individual section needs to be published privately by its creator only.

Citation, please?

Snowy said:
Citation, please?

Google the Berne convention, the UCC, and TRIPS and read for yourself. Collaborative works are the domain of no single creator, but are the property of each individual who collaborated in its creation. Therefore a copyright must be filed for the work as a whole, otherwise each work must be distributed separately by its creator.

Vixxxine69 said:
Google the Berne convention, the UCC, and TRIPS and read for yourself.

This is not how citations work.

Anyway, the reading I did before asking for a citation suggests that collaborative works are the property of each individual, and that therefore each individual may offer licenses unless a contract between the collaborating individuals says otherwise. It does not say that collaborative works are subject to different registration requirements than individual works.

Vixxxine69 said:
Collaborative works are the domain of no single creator, but are the property of each individual who collaborated in its creation. Therefore a copyright must be filed for the work as a whole, otherwise each work must be distributed separately by its creator.

Granted, I'm no copyright lawyer, but I see that as saying there still are copyrights to deal with. In the absence of an overall copyright over the whole thing, the copyright of each individual contribution would therefore remain with the artist who made it, as Snowy says. This means this particular work would have several different copyrights between its covers.

Anyway, my intent wasn't to start a fight over copyrights, but to suggest why the moderators here on e621 would remove the posts in question. Regardless of exactly where the copyrights do or don't lie, the moderators need to assume copyrights do apply somewhere, somehow and go from there with their judgement. (Please note that I'm not saying this means automatic deletion, just that the moderators need a starting point for making their call.) By starting from this assumption there is copyright somewhere, somehow and getting the artists' input first, e621's rear is covered in case there's a Bernal clone or two in the bunch. At least that's my interpretation.

Equestria After Dark is not sponsored by the copyright holders of the source content, so it's still commercial media.

Snowy said:
This is not how citations work.

Anyway, the reading I did before asking for a citation suggests that collaborative works are the property of each individual, and that therefore each individual may offer licenses unless a contract between the collaborating individuals says otherwise. It does not say that collaborative works are subject to different registration requirements than individual works.

TL;DR
So you're lazy and don't want to read. Okay here is a bit that applies before you even get to the collaborative works clause:

Article 3
Criteria of Eligibility for Protection:
1. Nationality of author; place of publication of work; 2. Residence of author;
3: “Published” works; 4. “Simultaneously published” works

(1) The protection of this Convention shall apply to:

(a) authors who are nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works, whether published or not;

(b) authors who are not nationals of one of the countries of the Union, for their works first published in one of those countries, or simultaneously in a country outside the Union and in a country of the Union.

(2) Authors who are not nationals of one of the countries of the Union but who have their habitual residence in one of them shall, for the purposes of this Convention, be assimilated to nationals of that country.

(3) The expression “published works” means works published with the consent of their authors, whatever may be the means of manufacture of the copies, provided that the availability of such copies has been such as to satisfy the reasonable requirements of the public, having regard to the nature of the work. The performance of a dramatic, dramatico-musical, cinematographic or musical work, the public recitation of a literary work, the communication by wire or the broadcasting of literary or artistic works, the exhibition of a work of art and the construction of a work of architecture shall not constitute publication.

(4) A work shall be considered as having been published simultaneously in several countries if it has been published in two or more countries within thirty days of its first publication.

That is article 3 of the Berne Convention Treaty. The part in bold is what applies here. Only 200 copies of this comic were ever made, it does not receive Berne Convention protection because it cannot satisfy the "requirements of the public". if they want copyright protection they need to file with the US Copyright office, simple as that.
Want proof it does not satisfy the public's requirements. Just google search the comic, you will find articles about it selling for hundreds of dollars and if you e-mail Club Stripes about it they will send you a very nice form letter stating that you are one of many people who has requested more, but that they have no plans of continuing distribution as it was a limited run item only. The public wants more and there isn't anymore.

Vixxxine69 said:untri

That is article 3 of the Berne Convention Treaty. The part in bold is what applies here. Only 200 copies of this comic were ever made, it does not receive Berne Convention protection because it cannot satisfy the "requirements of the public". if they want copyright protection they need to file with the US Copyright office, simple as that.
Want proof it does not satisfy the public's requirements. Just google search the comic, you will find articles about it selling for hundreds of dollars and if you e-mail Club Stripes about it they will send you a very nice form letter stating that you are one of many people who has requested more, but that they have no plans of continuing distribution as it was a limited run item only. The public wants more and there isn't anymore.

you are grasping straws here. It's copyrighted, and if I know club stripes, rights have been transfered in change for monetary compensation. Nothing to do with supply or demand here. US copyright law isn't so cut and dry. Especially with artistic mediums.

So perhaps it isn't entitled to protection under the Berne Convention.

However, it is still protected under US Copyright law:

Works Created on or after January 1, 1978
The law automatically protects a work that is created and fixed in a tangible medium of expression on or after January 1, 1978, from the moment of its creation and gives it a term lasting for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years. For a “joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter (unless the author’s identity is later revealed in Copyright Office records, in which case the term becomes the author’s life plus 70 years)

Source: United States Copyright Office Circular 15A

Note that it refers to joint works prepared by multiple authors without noting a special registration requirement for such works. So, if the comic in question was created in the United States, it is under copyright protection. If it wasn't, the situation is more complicated.

Jesus Christ. Give it up, you can't post it here. Sheesh.

Just had post #227612 deleted for being commercial content, when I was told by another admin that uploading only the title page is fine. Is it not?

Raiden_Gekkou said:
Just had post #227612 deleted for being commercial content, when I was told by another admin that uploading only the title page is fine. Is it not?

I don't see any distinction between the first page and any other. Commercial content is commercial content. If another mod disagrees, that's fine, but that's just how I feel about it.

ippiki_ookami said:
I don't see any distinction between the first page and any other. Commercial content is commercial content. If another mod disagrees, that's fine, but that's just how I feel about it.

I think the cover page is okay. In ways, it can be seen as 'free advertising" and the cover page itself is often available for free, often in advertisement for the product as well... but this is also my opinion, and how I feel about it.

I didnt see any problem with just the cover page myself.

Vixxxine69 said:
I thought that was "paysite" material. That is understandable because it is STILL distributed after it is posted here for money. This is a printed comic that was made in a small volume, I heard around 200 copies, and is no longer for sale by creators though copies go for 200-1000 dollars on auction sites.
The creators of the comic never applied for a copyright to their material and thusly have no ownership of it after they distributed it.

my friend bought one for $25, he's seriously considering selling it but it's a toss up between $2000 or an incredibly rare item.

Thiefenz said:
my friend bought one for $25, he's seriously considering selling it but it's a toss up between $2000 or an incredibly rare item.

I'll give you my Stout Shako for 2 of it :P

Thiefenz said:
my friend bought one for $25, he's seriously considering selling it but it's a toss up between $2000 or an incredibly rare item.

O_O t-two THOUSAND dollars?! FUUUUUUUUUUCK!? >_< im mostly blind so i dont have a fuckin job or any form of income atm....;_; 25$ for 2K....sounds nice...