Okay, so after hundreds of artist requests... here's what happens

88% of artists said yes
12% said no..

We even got some art for asking first <3

It's better for the artist. They get link backs
it's better for the site. Artists take down because permission wasn't asked.. the same artists on our sister sites gave us permission off the bat.

It's better for you: It looks good to ask, and you get to go out there more.

so with the "they'll just say no anyway" out of the way..

what's stopping you from asking?

Because I can't find the artist half the time, no matter how much I search.

But if I do know you can know I ask.

A few artists have less than politely told me to fuck off, and I even got a nice three or four paragraph rage-PM on FA about a year ago for asking.

A lot of people like the immediate satisfaction from uploading, and some are also playing "the game" (trying to get lots of approved uploads to raise their upload limit, self satisfaction, and perceived worth on the site). I'm pretty sure kitsu~ was probably doing this. Also, people are just lazy and don't want to have to wait for an artist to get around to replying.

Aurali said:
It's better for the artist. They get link backs

>not asking means links back to the artist are never given
What the fuck? I link back pretty much all the goddamn time.

I typically ask artists who haven't had art posted yet, but for artists with existing artwork on the site, I don't make a habit of doing so. Seems like it would get annoying for the artist to constantly get get asked each time something is to be uploaded, when the site already features their stuff. Also, the no's I get are closer to 20-25% rather than 12...

Maybe we could get an "allowed artist" list going like 20pc. I mean, it does sound good, and you won't have to ask every single time.

Riversyde said:
Maybe we could get an "allowed artist" list going like 20pc. I mean, it does sound good, and you won't have to ask every single time.

That would be awesome.

But what about unknown artists? Most of mine are completely unknown to me, mostly because I draw from horribly maintained boorus.

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
But what about unknown artists? Most of mine are completely unknown to me, mostly because I draw from horribly maintained boorus.

This might be a good time to bring up something that struck me as odd about the news header.
I sent a couple dmails to Aurali about it a few days ago.

It plainly says users have to ask the artist before uploading. Implicating that even if they have no fucking clue who they are, they still have to find them and ask permission. And if they don't get it because the artist decided to remove themselves from the internet entirely, they're breaking the rules.

I didn't get a satisfactory response from Aurali, so I'm bringing up the issue here. "Should not asking the artist before uploading when you have no way of finding them be an offense?" 'Cause that's what it implies.

Also, apparently all this is just a "cover our ass" moment, according to Aurali.

As for your question, Blaz, I'm sure we will work something out.

As for your question, Blaz, I'm sure we will work something out.

Well, it's cool. I specifically don't upload to e6 because of the wonky wording, so it was more of a general question not quite fitting to my current uploads. Before anyone says yes I do use Tineye and other reverse image searches and no I never get any results.

My question is why we have to take such huge steps for artists when there's thousands of other boorus that host the content anyway with no problems. It just seems like artists are specifically picking e6 out.

Also, lol dmails.

I don't get art from the artist's site, I get art from the various chans. usually the artist is unknown to me.

Riversyde said:
Maybe we could get an "allowed artist" list going like 20pc. I mean, it does sound good, and you won't have to ask every single time.

We could just make annotations in their artist pages.

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
My question is why we have to take such huge steps for artists when there's thousands of other boorus that host the content anyway with no problems. It just seems like artists are specifically picking e6 out.

E621 actually tries to remain on amicable terms with as many artists as possible. So artists make a fuss over here because they know they have a certain amount of leverage, as opposed to other sites where the administration doesn't give a damn and no amount of noise made by an artist will get anything changed.

Also, a lot of people visit e621. It's definitely one of the better-kept booru-type sites out there. The last few years have seen the rise and fall of a lot of image archive sites, but e621 has been around for all this time and its a pretty reliable source of artwork.

ippiki_ookami said:
We could just make annotations in their artist pages.

Having a list of them would be a lot easier, but we can put annotations in their pages too.

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
My question is why we have to take such huge steps for artists when there's thousands of other boorus that host the content anyway with no problems. It just seems like artists are specifically picking e6 out.

Probably because of the site's general bad juju.
Also Aurali has, like, connections to some furry artists so that makes her, like, more butthurtunderstanding of the situation. Or something.
I don't understand your hyooman "feelings".

What if you politely ask an artist but get no response after, say, a week?
Is it OK to post their pics then?

Riversyde said:
This might be a good time to bring up something that struck me as odd about the news header.
I sent a couple dmails to Aurali about it a few days ago.
I didn't get a satisfactory response from Aurali, so I'm bringing up the issue here. "Should not asking the artist before uploading when you have no way of finding them be an offense?" 'Cause that's what it implies.

Also, apparently all this is just a "cover our ass" moment, according to Aurali.

As for your question, Blaz, I'm sure we will work something out.

I'm also very confused by the announcement, and would quite like more clarification.

What I hate is when the artist puts their work under a creative commons license, but then doesn't want people redistributing their work. I then have to explain what creative commons is for. There are some really talented, but really stupid artists out there.

I like the allowed artist thing, we should totally do that..

Anyhow on the unknown artist thing, I'm torn... if the artist is truly unknown or has disappeared, then I would say go for it.. but putting unknown just to be lazy not to ask is definitely a nono.

Archy said:
What I hate is when the artist puts their work under a creative commons license, but then doesn't want people redistributing their work. I then have to explain what creative commons is for. There are some really talented, but really stupid artists out there.

I've had that happen before. Someone from DA requesting a takedown for art that she had released under CC...

It seems that the majority of unknown_artist on this site is because of artists not signing their work, or because the signature is indistinct. Sometimes there is a great picture but you can't find the artist because you can't understand the signature, or the signature isn't there at all.

Bledar said:
It seems that the majority of unknown_artist on this site is because of artists not signing their work, or because the signature is indistinct. Sometimes there is a great picture but you can't find the artist because you can't understand the signature, or the signature isn't there at all.

Often, the signature isn't there because someone edited it out.
Apparently, many furries can't fap to something that has a signature.

Yeah, I always hate it when they edit out the sigs or watermarks and then don't link back to the artist. I definitely can understand why artists get mad over that.

(By the way, if an artist requests a takedown on an unauthorized (non-parody) edit, would it be honored?)

Munkelzahn said:
Often, the signature isn't there because someone edited it out.
Apparently, many furries can't fap to something that has a signature.

Yeah, it's interesting you should mention that. That is exactly what I thought about this picture - post #8308
When you look at the bottom of the picture, beneath his feet, you can clearly see a white area, as if somebody has deleted the bottom of the picture. Possibly the signature?

But I do often see pictures that seem to have been made without a signature, especially pictures from pixiv.

Shatari said:
(By the way, if an artist requests a takedown on an unauthorized (non-parody) edit, would it be honored?)

It has been in the past and will continue to be.

Bledar said:
Yeah, it's interesting you should mention that. That is exactly what I thought about this picture - post #8308
When you look at the bottom of the picture, beneath his feet, you can clearly see a white area, as if somebody has deleted the bottom of the picture. Possibly the signature?

I sent a message to Mayra on FA about the picture, hopefully she gives us some answers about it.
Edit: Nope, not her. She has no idea who it could be either. :|

Munkelzahn said:
What if you politely ask an artist but get no response after, say, a week?
Is it OK to post their pics then?

Then you will be posting it without their permission.
That's on you.

Riversyde said:
I sent a message to Mayra on FA about the picture, hopefully she gives us some answers about it.
Edit: Nope, not her. She has no idea who it could be either. :|

That pic looks suspiciously like something out of Softpaw Magazine:
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Softpaw_Magazine

edit:
And from the art style, I'd say it was drawn by Battle Angel.
He draws a lot of "cub" art.

Munkelzahn said:
That pic looks suspiciously like something out of Softpaw Magazine:
http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Softpaw_Magazine

edit:
And from the art style, I'd say it was drawn by Battle Angel.
He draws a lot of "cub" art.

No way that's cub. And it couldn't Battle Angel, style's way too different. It's more Michele Light, minus the huge eyes.

Kinda looks like romus_z

tony311 said:
Kinda looks like romus_z

It's not. The signature's way off.

Riversyde said:
"Should not asking the artist before uploading when you have no way of finding them be an offense?" 'Cause that's what it implies.

Punishing people who just want to contribute is not the way to go. It's enough we ding people for inadequate tagging, let's not start handing out negative marks for overeager uploaders.

ippiki_ookami said:
Punishing people who just want to contribute is not the way to go. It's enough we ding people for inadequate tagging, let's not start handing out negative marks for overeager uploaders.

This. This is basically the reason I don't upload much anymore; 99.7% (not a real figure) of the time I can't find for the life of me who did the art I upload; no signature, no results on RIS engines, nothing. As far as I've understood it I could get dinged or even banned for unknowingly uploading a DNP or an artist who spazzes and DMCAs the site.

So yeah.

Also semi-related, if you discover an artist you like through e621, let them know by making a shout on their FA. Artists love hearing that, plus it makes us look good. It reminds them that we bring them traffic, and will make them less likely to have their art removed in the future.

So what's the word on the unknown artists? Just don't post it unless you know 100% who the artist is?

Aurali said:
Anyhow on the unknown artist thing, I'm torn... if the artist is truly unknown or has disappeared, then I would say go for it.. but putting unknown just to be lazy not to ask is definitely a nono.

Riversyde said:
quote

...and then, I derped.

ExplosiveBlaziken said:
...and then, I derped.

and then Blaz was a derp

Aurali said:

...

what's stopping you from asking?

Nothing, but it kind of defeats the purpose of a danbooru.

Kind of upsetting that a higher-up fails to realise this.

Trololo said:
Nothing, but it kind of defeats the purpose of a danbooru.

Kind of upsetting that a higher-up fails to realise this.

Except that you still get all the art from the MANY artists who are totally willing to share their work. I mean shit, look at how many images we've got.

I can't ask the artists 99,9% of the time because 99,9% of my uploads are from Pixiv, and 99,9% of the Pixiv community is Japanese and I only know the words Sushi, Okonomiyaki and Kawaii Desuuuu.
I just say to myself it's okay if I don't ask because my uploads are always copyrighted characters from cartoons and games, and if they upload their pictures on Pixiv, I assume they want their pictures to be seen. I always mention the artist and the source anyway ; I never feel guilty when I upload stuff >:

RedOctober said:
Except that you still get all the art from the MANY artists who are totally willing to share their work. I mean shit, look at how many images we've got.

We could just use another site and get all those pics and all the pics that artists don't want to be on this site.

What am I supposed to do if I want to upload something I find on pixiv? Send the artist an automatically translated e-mail and hope I'm not asking them if they would like to go to Disneyland with me?

RedOctober said:
Except that you still get all the art from the MANY artists who are totally willing to share their work. I mean shit, look at how many images we've got.

Look at all the images we've got, a lot of which permission wasn't asked for!

JimmyJ said:
Look at all the images we've got, a lot of which permission wasn't asked for!

Look at all the DNP artists we've got, a lot of which was because permission wasn't asked for!

Beeseverywhere said:
What am I supposed to do if I want to upload something I find on pixiv? Send the artist an automatically translated e-mail and hope I'm not asking them if they would like to go to Disneyland with me?

Guys, we can't REQUIRE that you ask for permission before uploading. There's literally no way at all for us to manage or enforce that. We just HIGHLY SUGGEST that you do ask artists before uploading, because asking them first DOES usually lead to them saying they're just fine with it. From what I've seen, the vast majority of artists (almost 89%) have no problem with their artwork being shared as long as they're credited and linked back to.

We have many, MANY takedown requests where the artist states that their sole reason for wanting the artwork removed is because no one asked them first (this will start to become more apparent on our takedown page now that I have the ability to unhide needlessly hidden 'reasons').

It's just a courtesy that some artists expect to be offered in return for all the artwork they draw, and I think a lot of them feel that if people can't be bothered to simply ask them for permission before redistributing their artwork, then they'll do what they can to prevent the redistribution from happening. And there are still those artists that just won't be ok with it no matter what, even if you do ask.

But back to my original point... we can't stop you from uploading artwork that you didn't ask permission to upload. It's simply a risk that you take upon yourself if you do decide to upload the artwork at that point. Chances are usually good that the artist will be ok with it anyways as long as they're properly credited and linked back to, but asking them (if you can) gives you that definite "yes" or "no", and may actually be the deciding factor in whether or not they'll ask to have all of their artwork removed later on.

Yes, we realize that a LOT of the artwork on the site is here without artists being asked permission, and that all that artwork has contributed to the success of e621 over the years. My point is that we COULD have EVEN MORE artwork if people were asking first. And yes, I know we also COULD have even more artwork if we just outright refused to remove it no matter what. I assure you that this not only creates tremendous headaches and destroys reputations (see e621's previous admins), but also will lead to the inevitable death of the site after pissing off enough of the wrong people.

We also do need to keep in mind that e621's ONLY means of paying for itself is with advertisers, and many (furry) advertisers are not going to be ok with supporting a website that does not respect the copyrights of artists.

Char said:
We also do need to keep in mind that e621's ONLY means of paying for itself is with advertisers, and many (furry) advertisers are not going to be ok with supporting a website that does not respect the copyrights of artists.

The three advertisers I aw before I put in Adblock was Kingdom Cum, Bad Dragon, and Furoticon (plus a bunch of gay free online hookups and shit like that)

I doubt anyone of them will honestly give a shit about what you do or not do with your site.

CinoxFellpyre said:
The three advertisers I aw before I put in Adblock was Kingdom Cum, Bad Dragon, and Furoticon (plus a bunch of gay free online hookups and shit like that)

I doubt anyone of them will honestly give a shit about what you do or not do with your site.

Until the effects of being associated with e621 start hitting their bottom line each month, or affecting their own reputation. No company wants to advertise on a site that is going to make their target demographic distrust them or make them seem like they support things that their potential customers (or their employees/artists/etc) are very much against.

CinoxFellpyre said:
The three advertisers I aw before I put in Adblock was Kingdom Cum, Bad Dragon, and Furoticon (plus a bunch of gay free online hookups and shit like that)

I doubt anyone of them will honestly give a shit about what you do or not do with your site.

I occasionally get ads from Hardblush or Bittersweet Candy Bowl. I think that they would probably both pull their ads if E621 stopped honoring takedowns, as they both are sites that would lose revenue if their art was freely available. In fact, I'm sure Hardblush would, they're on the "avoid posting" list. If E621 weren't wileling to keep their pay content off, they would definitely not be willing to pay to advertise here.

... I recall suggesting this before and it basically being not even considered, but all the same... Could we PLEASE get the DNP list amended to include people who've removed most or all of their art with no explanation (or "I don't want it here" with no caveats or exceptions), even if they didn't actually ask to be put on the DNP list? I can't recall any at the moment, but I distinctly remember there being at least several people who did / are doing that, and it's rather annoying having no 'do post' list and an incomplete 'do not post' list... They could be grayed out or something if you want, or tacked afterwards in a separate list with an opening sentence explaining why they (in general) are listed...

And yes, I know that the first response I'm going to get is "LOLOLOL READ THE TOPIC, JUST ASK FIRST", but that has a long, whiny, and self-centered response that I'd rather not bloat the post with. The short and more generally-applicable response would be that I don't see why the site should intentionally not list as DNP people who clearly desire for their art not to be on the site, but (for whatever reason) do not actually ask to be put on the list.

ippiki_ookami said:
Look at all the DNP artists we've got, a lot of which was because permission wasn't asked for!

Wait what? How does that even make sense? One person on the website didn't ask, so proactively forbid everyone on that website? Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but... If being asked first was what they wanted, they just made it impossible / illogical for someone to ask them first. :/

acct0283476 said:
Wait what? How does that even make sense? One person on the website didn't ask, so proactively forbid everyone on that website? Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but... If being asked first was what they wanted, they just made it impossible / illogical for someone to ask them first. :/

You'd be surprised by how many artists have their shit pulled simply because no one asked them first, some of whom go on to become DNP, likely as a direct result of it.

acct0283476 said:
... I recall suggesting this before and it basically being not even considered, but all the same... Could we PLEASE get the DNP list amended to include people who've removed most or all of their art with no explanation (or "I don't want it here" with no caveats or exceptions), even if they didn't actually ask to be put on the DNP list? I can't recall any at the moment, but I distinctly remember there being at least several people who did / are doing that, and it's rather annoying having no 'do post' list and an incomplete 'do not post' list... They could be grayed out or something if you want, or tacked afterwards in a separate list with an opening sentence explaining why they (in general) are listed...

And yes, I know that the first response I'm going to get is "LOLOLOL READ THE TOPIC, JUST ASK FIRST", but that has a long, whiny, and self-centered response that I'd rather not bloat the post with. The short and more generally-applicable response would be that I don't see why the site should intentionally not list as DNP people who clearly desire for their art not to be on the site, but (for whatever reason) do not actually ask to be put on the list.

Wait what? How does that even make sense? One person on the website didn't ask, so proactively forbid everyone on that website? Mind you, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but... If being asked first was what they wanted, they just made it impossible / illogical for someone to ask them first. :/

Okay a few things here..

First thing, the complete DNP: list http://e621.net/post/show/129191/

Second there isn't gonna be any "add to dnp cause takedown" that's also not logical. And yes. People forbid us from posting their art because ONE person didn't ask... that's why not asking is against the rules. it hurts all of us.

We are contemplating with an "permission given" list like 20pc has. but at this point people not asking has already done enough damage.

So yes. If you don't know. ASK. Otherwise your putting the entire site up for failure.

And then there are some artists who totally LOVE it when you ask.. please don't be a dick, just ask.

acct0283476 said:
... I recall suggesting this before and it basically being not even considered, but all the same... Could we PLEASE get the DNP list amended to include people who've removed most or all of their art with no explanation (or "I don't want it here" with no caveats or exceptions), even if they didn't actually ask to be put on the DNP list?

http://e621.net/take_down This is the best you're going to be able to get for that. And I now have the ability to prevent abuse of the "hide reason" feature on the takedown form, so artist's reasons for wanting their artwork removed will start showing up a lot more often (I'm not going back and unhiding previous reasons though because there was no warning before that admins would unhide reasons if they were hidden unnecessarily).

We are purposely trying to keep the DNP list as SMALL AS POSSIBLE. I don't even automatically add just any artist that requests to be on the list. I add people to the list if they request to be on the list AND I see that people uploading their artwork has been a problem and will continue to be a problem. If an artist asks to be put on the DNP list and had only 3 of their pictures uploaded 6 months ago, there's no reason for them to be on the list because no one is uploading their artwork anyways.

The DNP list is there to provide a solution to a problem, not a helpful guide of whose art you should upload vs whose you shouldn't.

ALL takedowns that we do go through the takedown system though. So if you're wanting a list, just keep an eye on that takedown page and make your own list. You have access to the same information that we'd use if we did make a list.

Trololo said:
Nothing, but it kind of defeats the purpose of a danbooru.

Kind of upsetting that a higher-up fails to realise this.

We aren't danbooru :p Ask Arcturus. We have NEVER been danbooru.

Not really upsetting that users don't realize this. but whatever.

I'm sure the 90% of artists that would let us use their work would hate it if we went around them just to avoid the ten percent that wouldn't.