I'm actually curious as to if this will actually stay up
Edit: it did not 😬

thegreeb said:
I'm actually curious as to if this will actually stay up

it should, its cool

thegreeb said:
I'm actually curious as to if this will actually stay up

Non-sexual depictions of ferals are allowed on this site, and a redraw of the coat of arms got approved before.

post #1692394

Silly stuff

For some reasons, I'm reminded of this nostalgic gem.
https://youtu.be/07JMv5M3wl0?t=3127

anicebee said:
Non-sexual depictions of ferals are allowed on this site, and a redraw of the coat of arms got approved before.

post #1692394

Generally, posts that are approved before revisions or changes to policy changes on the site are grandfathered in. Just because there's a post from 5 years ago still available on the site does not guarantee this one will stay.

arken-wolf said:
Generally, posts that are approved before revisions or changes to policy changes on the site are grandfathered in. Just because there's a post from 5 years ago still available on the site does not guarantee this one will stay.

2015 wasn't 5 years ago, I'm pretty sure it's allowed.

MURICUH

WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETER????

anicebee said:
2015 wasn't 5 years ago, I'm pretty sure it's allowed.

Yeah it was almost 10 years ago you right

thegreeb said:
I'm actually curious as to if this will actually stay up

There's no reason why it can't. It meets our uploading guidelines – good art, focus on a non-human, and it's not paysite. As an official governmental coat of arms, it's automatically and legally public domain from the get-go (at least as I, a non-lawyer, understand the law). If copyright does apply, it's because it's depicted as part of a work that is copyrightable, which this isn't.

This means Users could, hypothetically, upload most, if not all, animal-focused governmental coats of arms to e621 and, as long as the art itself was up to our standards, get away with it. (Mind you, that's how I interpret it. I could be wrong. Again, I'm not a lawyer.)

Now this is truly spread eagle

clawstripe said:
There's no reason why it can't. It meets our uploading guidelines – good art, focus on a non-human, and it's not paysite. As an official governmental coat of arms, it's automatically and legally public domain from the get-go (at least as I, a non-lawyer, understand the law). If copyright does apply, it's because it's depicted as part of a work that is copyrightable, which this isn't.

This means Users could, hypothetically, upload most, if not all, animal-focused governmental coats of arms to e621 and, as long as the art itself was up to our standards, get away with it. (Mind you, that's how I interpret it. I could be wrong. Again, I'm not a lawyer.)

Apparently there is actually a reason why it can't, it's not relevant

thegreeb said:
Apparently there is actually a reason why it can't, it's not relevant

I guess the relevancy issue has more to do with it being a governmental logo than non-furriness or something similar, just as a corporate logo wouldn't be relevant. :/ Well, it was worth a try, at least.