This flaw came to my attention when reading the comments to this post http://e621.net/post/show/103282/anal-comic-daddy-s_scent-dragon-gay-glued_on_penis

This is not meant to cause drama, but point towards a legal problem. See the Takedown Policy:

"We will honor art removal requests ONLY from the legal copyright holder of the art. Simply commissioning artwork from an artist does NOT automatically transfer copyright of that image to the commissioner."

You are neglecting character copyright here. Sorry, but there are even law cases that confirm it. See http://www.suite101.com/content/comic-book-copyrights-in-gaiman-v-mcfarlane-a102584 and in general http://www.publaw.com/fiction.html

To sum it up for you: The artist _and_ the commissioner both have rights on commissions and _both_ would need to agree for the art to be uploaded _anywhere_. Or do you really believe that somebody who pays for art to be drawn in the way he/she imagines it really has no rights on the creation?! The art would not have been created in the first place, when the commissioner did not have the idea and commissioned it.

It is common practice on the fandom, that artist and commissioner both can upload the art without asking each other for allowance in the first place, but that does _not_ apply to anybody else. It is not a legally defendable common practice that just somebody takes art and reuploads it at random.

Sorry guys, but when Varka really plans to charge for premium accounts here then, believe it or not, that is a felony and I really wished I was exaggerating with this statement. e621.net has nearly no own content. Only "unapproved uploads".

Anyway, I made my point clear. Just found out about this site recently and now I am curious if such a topic will simply get deleted or lashed by clueless folks.

CubCake said:
This is not meant to cause drama

MISSION FAILED

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
MISSION FAILED

Blaz, comments like yours are why drama starts. Shut up and let the grownups talk.

CubCake said:
Varka really plans to charge for premium accounts here

Where in the 29 hells of the Dai-Zan did you get that idea?

null0100 said:
Where in the 29 hells of the Dai-Zan did you get that idea?

Nevermind that part, I phrased that sentence wrongly. It should read "really would plan". I cannot find the forum post here currently, it was something with paying for ad-free accounts. So the impression on pay-accounts I got was formed in the heat of the moment and misled by a headline.

Sadly that does not change the reason for the overall topic.

Does anybody know if the advertising (that benefits from the content attracting people) can cause similar trouble as well?

i am fairly certain that ads on a website hosting content made by other people pose no problem, or else google adsense, fchan, furaffinity, deviantart, e621, and really ANY art site would be completely fucked, which is not the case

furthermore there is nothing in the comments for that image that has anything to do with "character copyright" (i believe the term you are looking for is "trademark") or the rights of artists vs. commissioners, or "ownership" over a "character," leading me to believe that you are, actually, here to start drama

null0100 said:
furthermore there is nothing in the comments for that image that has anything to do with "character copyright" (i believe the term you are looking for is "trademark") or the rights of artists vs. commissioners, or "ownership" over a "character," leading me to believe that you are, actually, here to start drama

Because of the comments to the image I read the Takedown Policy and that is where I see flaws.

See it as drama if you want, but in regard to commissions "character copyright" has its weight. After all the Takedown Policy neglects that a commissioner has rights on commissioned artwork. Commissions also fall under "joint work", granting both (artist and commissioner) rights on the work.

My point is clear and I provided two links explaining more on the topic. Get your own impression if you want to, but I pointed towards a problem I saw and thats it for me.

what i am seeing here is that you want to make it HARDER to take down work by requiring both the artist and the character owner to submit a joint takedown request. that is the impression i get from those linked articles, of which only the gaiman/mcfarlane article was relevant, as it establishes that two people can co-own a character.

however i think ownership of the character pales in comparison to ownership of the work in which the character is depicted; unless specifically stated in some form of legal document this ownership belongs to the artist in the case of an individual work as opposed to the character as a whole.

ownership concerns are moot in this case, because a commission implies consent for the use of a character. unless you're trying to say that commissions should all be illegal and only character creators can produce art of their characters? i'm not grasping your point and i don't think you fully understand it either, sir.

Wow...I'm amazed that there is so much debate and legal mumbojumbo the furry community. It's like it's turning into the comic industry here. Are we going to start filing lawsuits and jail sentences over all of this? x_X

null0100 said:
Ownership concerns are moot in this case, because a commission implies consent for the use of a character.

Yes. Consent for the ARTIST to use the character. ONCE. For the commissioned drawing.

unless you're trying to say that commissions should all be illegal and only character creators can produce art of their characters?

If an artist is given consent by a character owner to draw the said character, there's no problem. Otherwise, the character owner has the right to request the art to be taken down.

i'm not grasping your point and i don't think you fully understand it either, sir.

I'm pretty sure you're the one not understanding, good sir/madam.

e621 is a third-party site, and has NO rights to the artwork, while artists and character owners DO have rights to the artwork. Thus, anybody that is legally affiliated with the artwork also has the legal right to request it to be taken down.

If artwork depicts a person's character, and the person who owns the character requests for the artwork to be taken down, legal action can be taken if the person is refused. Plus, it would only be respectful and proper, seeing as the character is the intellectual property of the character owner.

I'm not sure which one would take legal priority (character ownership or artistic ownership), but either one has legal priority in e621's decision to take down a work that has had a removal request.

null0100 said:
what i am seeing here is that you want to make it HARDER to take down work by requiring both the artist and the character owner to submit a joint takedown request. that is the impression i get from those linked articles, of which only the gaiman/mcfarlane article was relevant, as it establishes that two people can co-own a character.

On the contrary I want it to be EASIER to take down a work by getting rid of the nonsense in the Takedown Policy that claims commissioners have no rights. A commissioner has rights on a commissioned work therefore it is necessary to take a commissioner's take down request serious the same way.

null0100 said:
however i think ownership of the character pales in comparison to ownership of the work in which the character is depicted; unless specifically stated in some form of legal document this ownership belongs to the artist in the case of an individual work as opposed to the character as a whole.

You can also argue for the contrary: The work pictures the idea of the commissioner, was paid for by the commissioner and would never have been drawn without the commissioner. An artist can also seen as only the technical executing part.

The article about character copyright is relevant, since it argues for copyright on fictional characters and guess what nearly all commissions on the fandom are about? Yep, getting somebody else character drawn. Nevertheless both have rights on the work.

null0100 said:
ownership concerns are moot in this case, because a commission implies consent for the use of a character.

Ownership concerns are what this is all about, since it constitutes a joint work. Joint Work (e.g. because of character copyright) -> shared rights

null0100 said:
unless you're trying to say that commissions should all be illegal and only character creators can produce art of their characters?

Not at all. I am talking about distribution rights which both the artist and commissioner share due to the stated legal concepts.

null0100 said:
i'm not grasping your point.

That is the flaw with legal discussions on the web: They usually fail cause every side has different opinions, while it is difficult even for lawyers to make a definite decision at times. Here it is not that undecided though and I stay with my point that the Takedown Policy neglects rights that are proven by court decisions.

We will not come to an agreement here, so I suggest to drop the topic and let the owners of this site decide if they want to take the arguments serious or not. Everything else is just "arguing on the internet" or in other words "wasted time".

We will not come to an agreement here, so... let the owners of this site decide if they want to take the arguments serious or not.

I second this emotion.

Everything else is just "arguing on the internet" or in other words "wasted time".

Yeah, pretty much.

either:

1) you have no idea what you're talking about

or

2) you're deliberately starting an arguement

Burninghart said:
Yes. Consent for the ARTIST to use the character. ONCE. For the commissioned drawing.

If an artist is given consent by a character owner to draw the said character, there's no problem. Otherwise, the character owner has the right to request the art to be taken down.

Client pays Artist to draw Character.
Artist sends Character Drawing to Client.
If Artist says "do not post" and Client does, Artist sues Client.
If Client says "do not post" and Client does, Client sues Artist.

e621 can be bothered to delete content after the lawsuit is settled. And if there is no lawsuit, then fuck it nobody cares.

I was under the impression that the main reason e621 ignored the request of character owners/commissioners to remove content depicting whatever it was they owned was because it was simply unlikely that they could or would actually try and file a suit. A character owner could show up here and start shit if they wanted, but it really wouldn't be worth their time just to get something taken down from some image board.

Additionally, the more porn there is here, the more traffic the site gets, and ultimately the more revenue the site owner can get from that, the better.

But this is mostly conjecture on my part.

Hey, just remember that we (the staff/admins) are here to *help* - if somebody wants artwork featuring their character taken down, we'll do what we can to help - just more often than not, it's easier to get the original artist who created the work to request the artwork be taken down than it is to try prove legal title over an image (which inevitably involves documentation, such as a 'work for hire' statement, written confirmation from an artist, or other such legalese).

I scrapped the original 'fully correct DMCAs only' policy that was present on the site when I took it over not because it was legally incorrect - but because it was a pain in the ass for all involved, not least of all artists. If artists (or, indeed, content creators of all types) want their work taken down, that's absolutely fine - that's their decision, and honestly they were good enough to share their work in the first place and without them we wouldn't *have* any content. However, we need to make sure that we establish clear, unilateral ownership of an image before we give anyone control over it: hence why we center on the artist, or the person who can show documentation proving title to the piece in question. It's much, much easier for all involved than requiring us play the shouting game. A lot less stress too =)

Our goal isn't to make things more difficult, it's to make them simpler - and remember, quite often just getting the artist to email us or confirm their identity and your wishes as a character owner is more than enough for us to go and get a piece containing your character taken down.

So, if you've got art of your character you want taken down, TALK TO US. We'll help you do what's needed to go about it - but remember, the easiest way is to get the artist to let us know it's ok to take down.

In future, it'd probably be a good idea to email us directly about things like this than causing disruption on the forums. Drama and forums go hand in hand - next time, before you type "This is not meant to cause drama", you should consider if your issue would be better brought up (and discussed - yes, I do answer and discuss people's questions privately!) via email.

For future reference, my email address is [email protected].

Thanks for bringing up the topic, though; this is something we're trying to research and improve things for everyone on, and some of the things you brought up (in particular, the case law references) are very useful. Just next time, take a few deep breaths BEFORE posting!

Thanks for the reassurance and info, Varka. I'll jot your email down.

By the way, I'd like to take a moment to say that I like how you've been handling the site lately. *thumbs-up*

Characters do not get copyrighted, they get trademarked. However, as Varka said, we are here to help, and no, artists have copyright over the art, commissioners have to have express permission to gain that right; at least in the United States. Though as stated before, we are gonna help you here. Not hinder you.

Gawd. ffs. Thats why we cant have nice things. Really, this copyright and trademark shit is the work of the devil.
Satan is fucking our souls this way. Every way.

Ghosti said:
Gawd. ffs. Thats why we cant have nice things. Really, this copyright and trademark shit is the work of the devil.
Satan is fucking our souls this way. Every way.

I'd say that money is more the work of the devil than the desire to have control of one's own property.