fewrahuxo said:
and i think this is pretty much the crux of the argument right here. it is well established that any notion of copyright on the Internet is irrelevant in the face of billions of instances of infringing materials, with hundreds of thousands of instances being shared every single day, and that the death of copyright, and therefore of the artist's imaginary right to control of their work, is just a few generations away.

when we live in an age where we can simply type in "watch [movie]" and be able to see that movie instantly no matter who's providing it, it's a golden age. the same for the works of artists who have decided to hide their work under a paywall and cut off their main source of exposure: their own work. you can find it anywhere.

i'm sure if the administration simply said "we don't want to get sued" and left it at that, it would be an understandable rule. but when we bring bum morality into the discussion, it just becomes a messy discussion.

Something being really easy to do shouldn't be a justification for doing it or allowing it.

Pendraggon
Privileged
1 month ago

fewrahuxo said:
actually i've read your previous post and thought about it, but i felt it would just be a reiteration of things i've already said and would descend into me being a twat. my basic opinion is that in the age of the Internet where anything can be distributed for free and forever, a scenario which would be paradise in the material world, it strikes me as incredibly selfish for anybody to artificially restrict this paradise.

it seems the only arguments in favor of artist's rights - and therefore against user's rights - comes from either legality (we'll get sued) or morality (let's all be polite). i understand the first argument, but then it contradicts the site's entire existence of uploading copyrighted works. the second one is irrelevant because i don't know the artist personally and have no obligation to respect their wishes.

you can call this point of view delusional or entitled if you want, but the practicality is that there's no real reason to restrict the redistribution of artist's work beyond being polite. the artist's loss of profit cited seems to have been pulled out of nowhere by somebody, and even on the generous assumption that there is an actual loss, that seemed to have been solved by the two-year time delay.

Yes, your point of view is delusional and entitled. You have basically told me that you believe that artists should be giving you things for free (which they already do, to an extent) because its the Internet and the internet should be free. Other people deserve to make money as well, and its perfectly legal for them to do so on the internet.

If it were up to legality and morality with your mindset, you seem to think that you should be expecting a ferarri because it looks nice and you want it and you think it's not fair other people get it because they have more money. That's just not how the capitalist society we live in works. You have to pay for art just like you have to pay for cars. And in this case, you seem to think fucking over content creators by not paying for the work they're SELLING is an okay idea.

your "basic opinion is that in the age of the Internet where anything can be distributed for free and forever, a scenario which would be paradise in the material world" does actually exist in the material world you know. It's called stealing, and you go to jail for that shit.

I can see now that you don't have a real argument. You literally just think that fucking over artists and content creators is okay, and thus think that you're entitled to their work. I should tell you that now the problem isnt between you and e6, but between you and the artists who will not give you their shit for free.

I sincerely hope you don't have this outlook in real life, because it's not healthy.

BlueDingo
Privileged
1 month ago
2016 5_fingers anthro black_fur black_hair black_nose black_topwear bust_portrait clothed clothing cute detailed digital_media_(artwork) dress_shirt elegant fangs flower front_view fur grey_eyes grey_topwear hair holding_flower holding_object inner_ear_fluff jacket jamesfoxbr male mammal necktie pattern_clothing plant portrait rose shirt short_hair simple_background smile solo star_eyes striped_clothing striped_shirt suit waistcoat white_fur

Rating: Safe
Score: 2
User: jamesfoxbr
Date: October 29, 2016

fewrahuxo said:
when we live in an age where we can simply type in "watch [movie]" and be able to see that movie instantly no matter who's providing it, it's a golden age.

Unless you're the guy who paid millions of dollars to make it and didn't get that millions of dollars back in sales due to piracy.

fewrahuxo said:
the same for the works of artists who have decided to hide their work under a paywall and cut off their main source of exposure: their own work. you can find it anywhere.

That's what free samples are for. You don't need free access to literally everything an artist makes to see if they're worth paying.


fewrahuxo said:
i was aware of the sentence, but once again this is basic science and using this statement to assume a negative effect is to fall into the negative proof fallacy.

No that's not a negative proof fallacy. The sentence I quoted says there's no statistically significant findings to support either. The conclusions in 7.7 on the other hand do go into detail on the specific media types, and draws the conclusions that most effects are negative, if there are any. Exception being games, as mentioned before.

fewrahuxo said:
i'm sure if the administration simply said "we don't want to get sued" and left it at that, it would be an understandable rule. but when we bring bum morality into the discussion, it just becomes a messy discussion.

And back to the argument that things should be free because it's more convenient for you, at any cost.


Alright, here goes an argument going off of the statement "any pay content will be permanently DNP without exception"

The way that this is worded is actually pretty bad. "Pay Content" can refer to any piece of artwork that was paid for. If artwork gets put onto here and the person that paid for the artwork requests that it be taken down, does it get taken down? Is the reasoning behind it that they paid for the content and that since they paid for it, they have control over where it gets posted to besides the original website/medium? And if it doesn't get taken down because it was allowed to be shown on a specific site which means it's now free for anyone to distribute, why is this allowed?

If it falls under that the person that paid for the artwork has the authority to take a picture off of e621 because they don't want it on here, wouldn't that be "Paid Content"? And using the quote from above, since it's paid content, shouldn't it be considered PERMANENTLY DNP? And since the majority of artwork is paid for, wouldn't that make most of the content on here DNP? Unless the artist put it on here with asking the buyer (which is what normally happens) or the buyer puts it on here themselves (which is the second option), then the artwork is now against the site's policy. And because it's very hard to know what piece of art is or is not breaking the policy (unless it is clearly posted by the artist or EXPLICITLY ALLOWED wherever they're posting the art), then shouldn't most of the art on e621 be deleted under the precedent that you just set?

Or if content that is paid for but not blocked behind a paywall is not considered the same depth as commercial/paysite content, why is this not differentiated? You need to be more clear with a wide sweeping rule change like this to not affect more than what was originally intended.

I'm not arguing if I'm with or against this change- I'm only arguing that in its current wording, the rule change is inherently flawed and needs to be reworded or changed. And until that happens, the rule change should not be enforced, or it should be enforced EXACTLY as it is stated.


Pendraggon said:
Yes, your point of view is delusional and entitled. You have basically told me that you believe that artists should be giving you things for free (which they already do, to an extent) because its the Internet and the internet should be free. Other people deserve to make money as well, and its perfectly legal for them to do so on the internet.

from experience i have found that artists are already likely to make things for free regardless of whether or not i desire it. i don't particularly expect artists to give me anything for free, because, once again, i don't know them and they don't have any obligation to me either. if i was expecting custom work from them for free, that would be entitled, because the harm done is in monopolizing their time and skill for nothing. but the silent copying of their materials does no harm to them whatsoever.

if you don't believe that the Internet should be used for the mass distribution of materials, well, i invite you to tell me what it should be used for. although i get the feeling putting the entire fate of the Internet in the hands of one person, as opposed to the billions of people who have decided that the Internet is a pretty happening place to share things, is a bad move.

If it were up to legality and morality with your mindset, you seem to think that you should be expecting a ferarri because it looks nice and you want it and you think it's not fair other people get it because they have more money.

if that Ferrari was a complete 1:1 clone of somebody else's Ferrari, the original owner had no obligation to my use of that Ferrari, and I managed to obtain my own copy of this Ferrari without inconveniencing anybody else, then i would absolutely expect a Ferrari, because getting a Ferrari seems like an easy and convenient thing to get.

and so long as we're talking about things i'd like to copy, i would enjoy copying the essentials of life, such as food, clean water, clothing, and a good home. but i guess i'm not allowed to clone those because it would put all the bakers, tailors, and real estate agents out of business, and i'm absolutely allowed to die if it means preserving their business.

That's just not how the capitalist society we live in works. You have to pay for art just like you have to pay for cars. And in this case, you seem to think fucking over content creators by not paying for the work they're SELLING is an okay idea.

funny enough i haven't ever had to pay for art since i found e621, given how this is an entirely free service. it seems like this free work that e621 is hosting has no price tag on it, nor any sort of artificial barriers that make me pay for work with money i don't have.

i invite you to name one content creator i have directly wronged as a result of my actions. actual wrongs, with actual evidence, not theoretical wrongs with anecdotal evidence.

your "basic opinion is that in the age of the Internet where anything can be distributed for free and forever, a scenario which would be paradise in the material world" does actually exist in the material world you know. It's called stealing, and you go to jail for that shit.

i'm not sure you quite understand what stealing is. if you have an apple and i take it, you lose the apple and i now possess it. wrong, isn't it? but if you have an apple and i somehow come into an exact genetic copy of that apple, we both have one apple and nobody goes hungry. the first example is stealing, but the second example is copying.

you can cry semantics all you want, but this is the literal dictionary definition between copying and
stealing.

I can see now that you don't have a real argument.

darn, i guess all those words i typed were for nothing.

I sincerely hope you don't have this outlook in real life, because it's not healthy.

i have been content with my life for the past several years, and have had no reason to change my lifestyle thus far. i advise you to avoid making assumptions about people you don't know.


fewrahuxo said:
and i think this is pretty much the crux of the argument right here. it is well established that any notion of copyright on the Internet is irrelevant in the face of billions of instances of infringing materials, with hundreds of thousands of instances being shared every single day, and that the death of copyright, and therefore of the artist's imaginary right to control of their work, is just a few generations away.

when we live in an age where we can simply type in "watch [movie]" and be able to see that movie instantly no matter who's providing it, it's a golden age. the same for the works of artists who have decided to hide their work under a paywall and cut off their main source of exposure: their own work. you can find it anywhere.

i'm sure if the administration simply said "we don't want to get sued" and left it at that, it would be an understandable rule. but when we bring bum morality into the discussion, it just becomes a messy discussion.

Keep in mind most of the websites people are going to use to get around copyright like that have some kind of loophole where nothing is permanently stored on their servers (torrent sites just provide listings for distributed file systems, for instance), so the question becomes whether they are the one in the wrong. In the case of e6, if you as a user upload something you don't legally have the right to upload, it should be rejected or taken down. If the website hosting the image then refuses to enforce that, they are in the wrong and, yes, could get sued for it. They don't have the excuse of not hosting anything, like if it was just some kind of list of files on a distributed ipfs share, and they're too big to just weasel their way out of things by vanishing for a while and plopping back up with another name. It's a legitimate concern for anyone involved with the site.


Fifteen said:
Keep in mind most of the websites people are going to use to get around copyright like that have some kind of loophole where nothing is permanently stored on their servers (torrent sites just provide listings for distributed file systems, for instance), so the question becomes whether they are the one in the wrong. In the case of e6, if you as a user upload something you don't legally have the right to upload, it should be rejected or taken down. If the website hosting the image then refuses to enforce that, they are in the wrong and, yes, could get sued for it. They don't have the excuse of not hosting anything, like if it was just some kind of list of files on a distributed ipfs share, and they're too big to just weasel their way out of things by vanishing for a while and plopping back up with another name. It's a legitimate concern for anyone involved with the site.

what's sad is that The Pirate Bay never actually hosted any copyrighted materials on their servers, yet the indexing of those materials were enough to have the site taken down. i suppose certain sequences of letters and numbers, as in magnet links, are enough to go to jail over. so maybe e621 does have some magic bullet that absolves them from responsibility, but it really would have to be magic.


Lv100Garchomp said:
Alright, here goes an argument going off of the statement "any pay content will be permanently DNP without exception"

The way that this is worded is actually pretty bad. "Pay Content" can refer to any piece of artwork that was paid for. If artwork gets put onto here and the person that paid for the artwork requests that it be taken down, does it get taken down? Is the reasoning behind it that they paid for the content and that since they paid for it, they have control over where it gets posted to besides the original website/medium? And if it doesn't get taken down because it was allowed to be shown on a specific site which means it's now free for anyone to distribute, why is this allowed?

If it falls under that the person that paid for the artwork have the authority to take a picture off of e621 because they don't want it on here, wouldn't that be "Paid Content"? And using the quote from above, since it's paid content, shouldn't it be considered PERMANENTLY DNP? And since the majority of artwork is paid for, wouldn't that make most of the content on here DNP? Unless the artist put it on here with asking the buyer (which is what normally happens) or the buyer puts it on here themselves (which is the second option), then the artwork is now against the site's policy. And because it's very hard to know what piece of art is or is not breaking the policy (unless it is clearly posted by the artist or EXPLICITLY ALLOWED wherever they're posting the art), then shouldn't most of the art on e621 be deleted under the precedent that you just set?

Or if content that is paid for but not blocked behind a paywall is not considered the same depth as commercial/paysite content, why is this not differentiated? You need to be more clear with a wide sweeping rule change like this to not affect more than what was originally intended.

I'm not arguing if I'm with or against this change- I'm only arguing that in its current wording, the rule change is inherently flawed and needs to be reworded or changed. And until that happens, the rule change should not be enforced, or it should be enforced EXACTLY as it is stated.

Well, the OP does say :

If we have accidentally deleted things that are freely available then please report those as well so we can restore them.

The keyword here is "freely available". It basically boils down to "If you can't source it so that anyone else can go see the source, don't upload it."


Fifteen said:
Well, the OP does say :
The keyword here is "freely available". It basically boils down to "If you can't source it so that anyone else can go see the source, don't upload it."

Except freely available doesn't automatically grant you the right to redistribute the work. Or at least it shouldn't. But the main argument I posted is against the words "Pay Content". If they mean COMMERCIAL/PAYSITE content from this statement, why is it not worded as such? Why not use the same wording that is already in the rules?


Lv100Garchomp said:
Alright, here goes an argument going off of the statement "any pay content will be permanently DNP without exception"

The way that this is worded is actually pretty bad. "Pay Content" can refer to any piece of artwork that was paid for. If artwork gets put onto here and the person that paid for the artwork requests that it be taken down, does it get taken down? Is the reasoning behind it that they paid for the content and that since they paid for it, they have control over where it gets posted to besides the original website/medium? And if it doesn't get taken down because it was allowed to be shown on a specific site which means it's now free for anyone to distribute, why is this allowed?

If it falls under that the person that paid for the artwork has the authority to take a picture off of e621 because they don't want it on here, wouldn't that be "Paid Content"? And using the quote from above, since it's paid content, shouldn't it be considered PERMANENTLY DNP? And since the majority of artwork is paid for, wouldn't that make most of the content on here DNP? Unless the artist put it on here with asking the buyer (which is what normally happens) or the buyer puts it on here themselves (which is the second option), then the artwork is now against the site's policy. And because it's very hard to know what piece of art is or is not breaking the policy (unless it is clearly posted by the artist or EXPLICITLY ALLOWED wherever they're posting the art), then shouldn't most of the art on e621 be deleted under the precedent that you just set?

Or if content that is paid for but not blocked behind a paywall is not considered the same depth as commercial/paysite content, why is this not differentiated? You need to be more clear with a wide sweeping rule change like this to not affect more than what was originally intended.

I'm not arguing if I'm with or against this change- I'm only arguing that in its current wording, the rule change is inherently flawed and needs to be reworded or changed. And until that happens, the rule change should not be enforced, or it should be enforced EXACTLY as it is stated.

We've used the wording "paid content" for years to denote any form of pay-to-view content.
But I'll see if I can come up with a wording that would help squash ambiguity.


fewrahuxo said:
what's sad is that The Pirate Bay never actually hosted any copyrighted materials on their servers, yet the indexing of those materials were enough to have the site taken down. i suppose certain sequences of letters and numbers, as in magnet links, are enough to go to jail over. so maybe e621 does have some magic bullet that absolves them from responsibility, but it really would have to be magic.

But e621 doesn't just keep an index or host magnet links, it hosts the actual content on their servers for anyone to see. There's no magic bullet here, and if they want to avoid legal trouble, they need to play far with everyone.

Also, you can't compare information with physical goods when talking about piracy, since information can be copied indefinitely, while physical goods can only be at one place at any given time. Copying information you're not supposed to is a completely different kind of "crime", since nobody loses access to it from you copying it. You don't "directly wrong anyone as a result of your actions", but that your actions can still have an impact on the creator if restricting access to that information was the entire point to begin with.


fewrahuxo said:

i invite you to name one content creator i have directly wronged as a result of my actions. actual wrongs, with actual evidence, not theoretical wrongs with anecdotal evidence.

e621 is free to access, not free to run. That the admins do not pass that cost on to you is a boon, because according to you arguments here, you would never pay for it. No matter how much pleasure it brings you.

And no, you haven't personally wronged any content creator. But the argument can be made that the website itself indeed HAS. And in order to prevent or lessen the chance that any CC will make that argument in the future, the site has implemented a new policy.

It's really easy for you to make the argument you're making. I'm assuming you don't create any kind of product or content on which your well-being depends. If you DID, you'd be on the other side of this argument in a heartbeat.


Lv100Garchomp said:
Except freely available doesn't automatically grant you the right to redistribute the work. Or at least it shouldn't.

You're right, but I was only referring to the rule change itself. Once you've got that bit sorted out, then you can start worrying about DNP, site guidelines and all that. It's just my own take on the new rule.

But the main argument I posted is against the words "Pay Content". If they mean COMMERCIAL/PAYSITE content from this statement, why is it not worded as such? Why not use the same wording that is already in the rules?

NotMeNotYou answered that one while I was typing, apparently.


Fifteen said:
You don't "directly wrong anyone as a result of your actions", but that your actions can still have an impact on the creator if restricting access to that information was the entire point to begin with.

if i harm a butterfly now, does it change the future a thousand years from now? have i harmed future men with my unthoughtful actions?

it seems very silly to say that any harm whatsoever is being done to artists when all the "harm" is so nascent as to be nonexistent.

i think the creator is harming me by restricting access to information to certain brands of people. a bit of a silly argument, yes, but i find it sillier how so many posters - who aren't not artists - are in favor of the artist's rights while giving up their own. like i touched upon, all the artist's rights are imaginary and are codified into law. without the law, they wouldn't have any whatsoever.


nobody gains anything from 2 year old patreon paywall art, if the artist has improved at all and is still active, nobody would be looking for that 2 year old content, so it would just get lost and forgotten unless the artist manually makes it free.

removing all paid content that was previously on the site is just a slap in the face and it didn't need to happen

Of course this doesn't really mean anything as there's still plenty of free content, but it just comes off as insulting since, as mentioned earlier, 2 year old art is just the icing on top of the cake for a patreon, and not the main attraction, nor the thing that pays the bills

*Edit: I'm mostly insult by the already available content being removed because people would of already saved and seen it - all this does is a)being able to easily find a source for already saved stuff and b) new people from seeing it. I guarantee there are now 100+ images I enjoyed that have effectively disappeared off the face of the earth since it is impossible to go through every patreon and donate to see it again


Fifteen said:
You're right, but I was only referring to the rule change itself. Once you've got that bit sorted out, then you can start worrying about DNP, site guidelines and all that. It's just my own take on the new rule.

NotMeNotYou answered that one while I was typing, apparently.

Yeah, I saw the response. All I was really arguing for is more clarity on the rule. I understand the meaning behind the rule change and the past use of 'paid content', but clearing ambiguity on something as wide sweeping as this is something you should strive for. And since that's what they're hopefully going for now, then my argument is concluded.


FurryMcFuzzball said:
nobody gains anything from 2 year old patreon paywall art, if the artist has improved at all and is still active, nobody would be looking for that 2 year old content, so it would just get lost and forgotten unless the artist manually makes it free.

removing all paid content that was previously on the site is just a slap in the face and it didn't need to happen

Of course this doesn't really mean anything as there's still plenty of free content, but it just comes off as insulting since, as mentioned earlier, 2 year old art is just the icing on top of the cake for a patreon, and not the main attraction, nor the thing that pays the bills

Yes, unless of course the artist wants to make it an issue and does not want his/her paid content available, no matter how old.
Even if you're in the right, a lawsuit costs money. Is it really hard to understand the wisdom behind heading off that possibility?
If e621 gets sued, are YOU going to help with the legal bill?


Acolyte said:
It's really easy for you to make the argument you're making. I'm assuming you don't create any kind of product or content on which your well-being depends. If you DID, you'd be on the other side of this argument in a heartbeat.

as a matter of fact, my well-being does rely on the things i create. mum's the word, obviously, but i'm the author of a popular financial blog that makes its money through referral links, a small e-book, and just a few banner advertisements. having done no advertising at all, i'm happy that so many people have shared my work on Facebook and Twitter, because i'd be dead in the water without them. i mean, i hate social networks with a passion, but it's a necessary evil.

of course i still do a few side hustles from time to time, like designing websites and freelancing for magazines, but my low-income lifestyle has been supplemented thanks to the generosity of many free services like what e621 does provide.

if one's asking me why i don't enforce my copyright with an iron fist... well, what would i have to gain? suing my fans for having the gall to enjoy the work i create? permanently damaging my relationship with dozens of people because i was too selfish to allow them the right to enjoy the work i put out in public? hell, the readme for my book even says to share it as much as they can. i'm sort of disappointed i don't find my stuff on torrent sites, but i'm not enough of a shill to upload it myself.


fewrahuxo said:
if i harm a butterfly now, does it change the future a thousand years from now? have i harmed future men with my unthoughtful actions?

it seems very silly to say that any harm whatsoever is being done to artists when all the "harm" is so nascent as to be nonexistent.

i think the creator is harming me by restricting access to information to certain brands of people. a bit of a silly argument, yes, but i find it sillier how so many posters - who aren't not artists - are in favor of the artist's rights while giving up their own. like i touched upon, all the artist's rights are imaginary and are codified into law. without the law, they wouldn't have any whatsoever.

Ok, let me put it another way. I'm going to tell you a secret.

I think bats are really neat.

If I'm telling you that secret, I'm doing so because I expect you not to go out and reveal it to everyone. That's what I mean by information restriction. If I send you something I made via email and tell you not to distribute it, that's the same thing. If I start a Patreon and I ask my patrons to not put my art on other websites, because Patreon is how I put food on the table instead of being a cashier at McBurgers, that's still the same concept.

By giving everyone who paid for their content access to said content, artists trust that those people won't share it in turn. Sure, they can't sue you if you if you share it with your buddies on discord, but putting it up on a platform that undermines their buisness model is extremely significant and effectively removes all forms of restriction to that information. That's what harms the artists.


fewrahuxo said:
as a matter of fact, my well-being does rely on the things i create. mum's the word, obviously, but i'm the author of a popular financial blog that makes its money through referral links, a small e-book, and just a few banner advertisements. having done no advertising at all, i'm happy that so many people have shared my work on Facebook and Twitter, because i'd be dead in the water without them. i mean, i hate social networks with a passion, but it's a necessary evil.

of course i still do a few side hustles from time to time, like designing websites and freelancing for magazines, but my low-income lifestyle has been supplemented thanks to the generosity of many free services like what e621 does provide.

if one's asking me why i don't enforce my copyright with an iron fist... well, what would i have to gain? suing my fans for having the gall to enjoy the work i create? permanently damaging my relationship with dozens of people because i was too selfish to allow them the right to enjoy the work i put out in public? hell, the readme for my book even says to share it as much as they can. i'm sort of disappointed i don't find my stuff on torrent sites, but i'm not enough of a shill to upload it myself.

I'm in online marketing. The creation of content for a blog is dissimilar to what we're discussing here.
In your case, its' VITAL for you for your content to spread, unpaid, as far and wide as possible.
But lets say that someone takes your blog post, reposts it as their own with no credit or backlink to you. Let's say they repeatedly do that with most of your site content.
They also take your ebook and do the same. No credit, no links.
With everything you post, they hijack.
This would be fine by you? Online community and internet and sharing and all?


  • Artists have the right to set a price to their work.
  • Customers have a right to decide that price is too high for them and to not buy.
  • The artist has the right to accept the fact of low/no income if their price is high enough to keep customers from buying.
  • But, customers do NOT have the right to take the work for free because they think the asking price is too high.

At the arguments that "it'll all get shared around anyway", that doesn't make it any more right to do so.

How does it hurt the artist to have it available for free in such a well-known repository?
- Because e621 has such a massive user base, that is a lot of people that can get that art without artist getting a penny. Even people that would be willing to pay for it could download it potentially without ever knowing there was a pay option at the artist's page. Even many people that would pay will see a "well I can get it for free or I can pay for it" option and decide "I'll get this one free and save my money for one I can't get for free."

"But having it posted here is how I found them to buy from them in the first place!"
- I can't think of a single artist that does paid work that doesn't also have freely posted examples of their work also posted. Post, share, download, and enjoy *that* art. Use *that* art as example to decide if you wish to commission them or buy their commercial bundles/pieces.

"What about artists that quit the fandom/delete all their art from other sites/die?"
- What about it? They still have the right not to share their art if they don't want. They have the right to wipe their collections and not provide them anymore. The fact they died doesn't let someone else have right to decide what their decision should have been after the fact (unless the rights to the works are specifically passed on to another individual/organization).

---

I'm not going to bother with further replies on this thread as most of the people arguing against the change are using logic even my 11-year-old nephew has learned is faulty. I'm not going to get into a Kindergarten shouting match of "Uh-huh!/Unn-uh!"

A false sense of entitlement doesn't actually entitle you to anything. Mostly it just makes you an asshole.

It boils down in the end to: This is the rule now. Don't like it, feel free to move on. But bitching about it isn't going to change it.


Furrin_Gok said:
If you want to still show off artists, ask them if they're willing to make exceptions--For example, a Conditional DNP for "Two years after publishing." If an artist is okay with it, they'll let the site staff know.

An extension of this, would it be acceptable to upload paid content after a certain period of time if we obtain written permission from the artist?


Ok I Hope I'm not repeating a question someone else has already asked but honestly TLDR all the posts.
So what happened to the artwork that was reposted at a higher resolution once it was over 2 years old? Was it deleted? If so was the original lower quality post that was made publicly available from the start restored? or is it just gone altogether?


Dythul said:
Ok I Hope I'm not repeating a question someone else has already asked but honestly TLDR all the posts.
So what happened to the artwork that was reposted at a higher resolution once it was over 2 years old? Was it deleted? If so was the original lower quality post that was made publicly available from the start restored? or is it just gone altogether?

Only if it was paywall content. If so, then no matter how old, it was deleted.


JAKXXX3 said:
An extension of this, would it be acceptable to upload paid content after a certain period of time if we obtain written permission from the artist?

Well, if I were the site owner, I wouldn't. If the artist sues me, how do I present said proof of permission to post?


Dythul said:
Ok I Hope I'm not repeating a question someone else has already asked but honestly TLDR all the posts.
So what happened to the artwork that was reposted at a higher resolution once it was over 2 years old? Was it deleted? If so was the original lower quality post that was made publicly available from the start restored? or is it just gone altogether?

AFAIK whenever a deletion occurs that involves an inferior/superior version, regardless of deletion reason, a “hidden” (visible if you are on the deleted post) parent ID is put on said post. This transfers all of the favorites to the parented post.

Which means that in theory, the mass deletion would have caused all the inferior posts being undeleted fav’d, by simply flipping the IDs around and deleting the once-superior post. But I wasn’t on for the deletions, so I wouldn’t know. Notme most likely did fix up the posts, though.


Acolyte said:
Only if it was paywall content. If so, then no matter how old, it was deleted.

well ya, but what about the lower resolution image that IS publicly available from the artest that would have been deleted once the higher res "paywalled" image was posted. was the lower res image restored or not? because if I never see the low res image how am I going to know the image exists at all? If I don't know the image exists I can't throw my money at the artest.
(edit: well can't/won't)
(edit2: to what exan said)
well I hope the posts where restored :) )


Dythul said:
well ya, but what about the lower resolution image that IS publicly available from the artest that would have been deleted once the higher res "paywalled" image was posted. was the lower res image restored or not? because if I never see the low res image how am I going to know the image exists at all? If I don't know the image exists I can't throw my money at the artest.
(edit: well can't/won't)

I would think that any artwork that the artist made publicly available is fair game. As to whether or not that would be restored here, not sure.
However, since the admins would have to rely on the community to sort out whether or not a low-res image that's linked to paid content was made public or it wasn't, I would err on the side of caution and not allow it. But that's just me.


Dythul said:
well I hope the posts where restored :) )

They were.

The search indicates that Notme did reverse any deletions involving previously inferior posts.