Would currently commercial products of under 2 years of release (which isn't strictly under paysite since it is, well, a product) be considered under this category?

If you have to pay in order to get it, and it was made in the past two years, it should not be posted. What "products" are you talking about, exactly?

tony311 said:
If you have to pay in order to get it, and it was made in the past two years, it should not be posted. What "products" are you talking about, exactly?

In this case, referring to some of the works by sindoll, more precisely, http://www.melonbooks.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=IT0000138527 and http://e621.net/pool/show/730 http://e621.net/pool/show/604

Well it's a good thing to remember that's 34. While I respect Sindoll's talent and hard work enough to not want to post everything he does immediately. He doesn't have any more rights to Renamon than we do.

Ratty said:
Well it's a good thing to remember that's 34. While I respect Sindoll's talent and hard work enough to not want to post everything he does immediately. He doesn't have any more rights to Renamon than we do.

Nothing to do with rights to character, everything to do with rights of artist. Even if we accept that argument, the right of artist would be transferred to the copyright holder, but it would still be commercial property.

Technically the artist cannot gain commercial profit for porn of a character that is clearly copyrighted, because that's (hurr durr moment) against the law.

If it's a private investment, or private request, or just free drawing of renamon with a thousand cocks in her ass (another hurr durr moment) it's not illegal. That's why commissions with Rule 34, and even Rule 34 itself, exists.

Doesn't go to say that the company finds out....and begins a rampage of DMCAs.

CinoxFellpyre said:
Technically the artist cannot gain commercial profit for porn of a character that is clearly copyrighted, because that's (hurr durr moment) against the law.

If it's a private investment, or private request, or just free drawing of renamon with a thousand cocks in her ass (another hurr durr moment) it's not illegal. That's why commissions with Rule 34, and even Rule 34 itself, exists.

Doesn't go to say that the company finds out....and begins a rampage of DMCAs.

But even if it is against the law, the default judgement is that ownership goes to the copyright holder. It does not mean that the property gets released into public.

CinoxFellpyre said:
If it's a private investment, or private request, or just free drawing of renamon with a thousand cocks in her ass (another hurr durr moment) it's not illegal. That's why commissions with Rule 34, and even Rule 34 itself, exists.

Using copyrighted content in any way at all without the consent of the copyright holder is copyright infringement, and therefore illegal. Consider a scenario where the copyright holder(s) of Renamon were trying to sell a book of Renamon artwork, but there's also some guy on the internet that has made a FREE book of Renamon artwork too, and is distributing it. If it becomes sufficiently popular, distribution of this guy's free Renamon art book could affect the sales of Renamon's copyright holder's art book, thereby causing loss of revenue. That is illegal. (The above isn't a very practical example, but I think it illustrates my point.)

Char said:
Using copyrighted content in any way at all without the consent of the copyright holder is copyright infringement, and therefore illegal. Consider a scenario where the copyright holder(s) of Renamon were trying to sell a book of Renamon artwork, but there's also some guy on the internet that has made a FREE book of Renamon artwork too, and is distributing it. If it becomes sufficiently popular, distribution of this guy's free Renamon art book could affect the sales of Renamon's copyright holder's art book, thereby causing loss of revenue. That is illegal. (The above isn't a very practical example, but I think it illustrates my point.)

Oh yes that is true....

Doesn't stop furries from making porn of it.

If you just draw porn of it or fanart, I think that falls under fair use/parody/whatever, as long as you don't make money off of it.

If you make artwork of copyrighted characters and sell it, or use it as promotional material for something you sell, then it's illegal.

Of course, that still doesn't stop anyone, but it's a distinction worth making. I think the main thing that saves most artists is that it's simply not practical nor financially attractive to hunt down and sue every single online artist who makes money off of someone else's copyrighted characters. Just imagine how much time and money a company like Disney or Nintendo would have to spend on something like that.

Wahai said:
If you just draw porn of it or fanart, I think that falls under fair use/parody/whatever, as long as you don't make money off of it.

If you make artwork of copyrighted characters and sell it, or use it as promotional material for something you sell, then it's illegal.

Of course, that still doesn't stop anyone, but it's a distinction worth making. I think the main thing that saves most artists is that it's simply not practical nor financially attractive to hunt down and sue every single online artist who makes money off of someone else's copyrighted characters. Just imagine how much time and money a company like Disney or Nintendo would have to spend on something like that.

Parody works are protected under fair use. But yeah another thing to consider is it's free advertisement. Toei or whoever doesn't really give two shits if someone draws/faps to Renamon. As long as it's not making the franchise look bad to the general public and the furries keep on buying Digimon merchandise they couldn't care less.

Ratty said:
Parody works are protected under fair use. But yeah another thing to consider is it's free advertisement. Toei or whoever doesn't really give two shits if someone draws/faps to Renamon. As long as it's not making the franchise look bad to the general public and the furries keep on buying Digimon merchandise they couldn't care less.

Which is an assumption. Unless the clearly stated otherwise, it is not up to us to decide on their opinions on the matter.

Regardless, it is an issue seperate from the topic at hand.

Lyokira said:
Which is an assumption. Unless the clearly stated otherwise, it is not up to us to decide on their opinions on the matter.

Regardless, it is an issue seperate from the topic at hand.

Oh I'm sure individuals at the company may care, but ultimately corporations-as-entities only care about the bottom line, that's just how they're designed. But how is this separate from the issue at hand? If someone were to get into trouble it would sadly be Sindoll, because he doesn't have rights to the character and he's making money off of them selling his 34 work.

So while I agree we should let him make some money off of his work for a while. If you're arguing there's anything other than a moral reason for this based on respect for his work and the desire for him to keep producing it, there's not really a leg to stand on.

This thread wasn't created to discuss morality.

Lyokira just asked if commercial work not directly from a paysite is included in the rules outlined here: http://e621.net/wiki/show?title=avoid_posting

The example he gave just happened to be based on a copyrighted character.

KloH0und said:
This thread wasn't created to discuss morality.

Lyokira just asked if commercial work not directly from a paysite is included in the rules outlined here: http://e621.net/wiki/show?title=avoid_posting

The example he gave just happened to be based on a copyrighted character.

Bad example then.

Well, the example is perfectly valid for this argument. It's just by coincidence that it's tied up in another issue at the same time.