According to forum #2677 , the answer I received from asking for clarification about images marked "Do not distribute" seemed vague (do_not_distribute happens to be a real tag here on e621 with almost 100 images tagged as such).

From what I could implicitly gather from the replies, any DND image is granted the same consideration of pay material, and that any pay image that is older than two years can be posted to e621. So it is therefore okay to post Do Not Distribute imagery older than 2 years.

Of course this was not explicitly stated, but implied. Please confirm? Since that time I posted in the old thread, e621 underwent some management changes, and I don't want to get into any trouble with the rules here before I start posting ancient pre-2005 era non-commercial furry porn with "Do Not Distribute" on it.

Certain things are off limits no matter what. See the DNP section for details

Aurali said:
Certain things are off limits no matter what. See the DNP section for details

Ironically, it was from YOU, specifically, who in forum #2677 five months ago that I inferred that it was okay to post DND material if it was old. The conversation went as follows:

ferretsage said:
What about images marked "do not distribute"? It seems that the artist has made it already clear on the image that they do not want to see it redistributed. There is a tag on e621 -- do_not_distribute -- with about 80+ images so tagged.

Then another user, Marbles, replied

Marbles said:
Actually 102 right now.

I can't say for certain the reason behind them... Normally I'm swift to flag for deletion anything I see that is DNP. But with an image that is really old like that... I feel like I'd be spamming the admins pointlessly, as I can only assume there was some reason that they were allowed previously.

On the other hand, it could just be nobody flagged them in the first place. Either way, it's easy for an admin to find it without me spamming them 102 different deletion flags

Then you replied to Marbles saying,

Aurali said:
"The rules actually allow two year old pay art on the site. :)".

Then Arcturus (who I think was a mod or even admin at the time -- I could be wrong) responded right after you did and posted,

Arcturus said:
"Yeah. We've found that at that time period most of the people (say CS, for instance) don't appear to have a problem with it.

Because it's pretty much everywhere at that point and it makes for good advertising."

Now, I'm REALLY confused.

I'm already aware of the "Avoid Posting" list. The artist I want to post is not explicitly listed on the Avoid Posting list -- and it says not to post anything under two years of age. If this fact influences your decision, the artist I want to post seems to have long since left the fandom about 6 years ago. Should I post ancient 8-year-old plus non-commercial images and see if they resurrect from the dead and bitch about it?

I do not see anything in the Avoid Posting section that prohibits me from posting such material. Although the "Do not Distribute" on the image explicitly expresses the artist's will, does that mean that all commercial material marked with "Do Not Distribute" becomes unpost-able -- no matter how old it is? Also, why are there 92 images on e621 with the do_not_distribute tag on them? Are they allowed, or are they just asking for a mod to delete them?

There is a difference between what you're calling "DND" material, and the DNP list. You're trying to mash the two together and making things much more complicated than they have to be.

DNP list = Do not ever post these, this site will ban you.

"DND" = Artist put a "do not distribute" on the image, but this site will allow (or at least historically has allowed) the post until the artist complains to the site's admins (same as every other image on the site).

So if _you_ believe the artist will no longer care, or if you simply have no respect for the artist's stated intent, then feel free to post "DND" images.

Yeah, Arcturus was the old site owner.. >..>

The do not distribute of certain things like hardblush, have two years. while jeremy bernal is instaban. Basically, if it's not on the DNP list, and is over two years. it's allowed.

ikdind said:
There is a difference between what you're calling "DND" material, and the DNP list. You're trying to mash the two together and making things much more complicated than they have to be.

DNP list = Do not ever post these, this site will ban you.

"DND" = Artist put a "do not distribute" on the image, but this site will allow (or at least historically has allowed) the post until the artist complains to the site's admins (same as every other image on the site).

So if _you_ believe the artist will no longer care, or if you simply have no respect for the artist's stated intent, then feel free to post "DND" images.

Just to satisfy your curiosity, the artist in question placed the "Do Not Distribute" onto his images because he wanted people to visit his VCL account (yes, back when VCL was the number 1 furry site -- that's how freaking OLD these are) rather than look at them from a 3rd party website in hopes of receiving more fans and feedback. He also didn't want people to sell these images or steal them and falsely call them their own creations. These images were marked with "Do Not Distribute" BEFORE the rise of imageboard chans on the Internet, so the motivation of the artist for placing "Do not Distribute" on his images were not with chans in mind.

That said artist LEFT 6 years ago -- he wanted to pursue a career in marine biology and didn't want to risk his old gay werewolf on werewolf porn to come back and haunt him. He's ended up a doctor of dermatology, instead.

I don't think he'll be back. His fear of his werewolf porn being traced back to him is rather unfounded since he used a pseudonym to begin with when he posted to VCL, and all the websites where his real name was linked to his pseudonym are no longer in operation -- from old age. The only reason I remember his real name (and am thus able to figure out what he has done with his life) is from memory.

Obviously, as he has long departed, he doesn't care anymore about either "fans" or "feedback" or whether or not people are looking at his images from VCL or some other website on the Internet as long as they cannot be attributed to his real name. He's gone.

Aurali said:
Yeah, Arcturus was the old site owner.. >..>

The do not distribute of certain things like hardblush, have two years. while jeremy bernal is instaban. Basically, if it's not on the DNP list, and is over two years. it's allowed.

Alright! Thanks for the info!