Not that my opinion matters.

But I can't say I agree with this change.

Ban me, give me a negative record for speaking my opinion but Artists as of late have become greedy to the point that their art isn't worth looking at anymore.

An example:

The last time I used FA, I followed Aaron. For a long time I liked his art, despite it usually being hyper.
But the last time I bothered going to his FA, it was nothing but YCH Auctions, and Patreon Teasers. (Some of which I had seen only recently because of the old rules)

Call me ungrateful but when you hide behind pay walls for art that you crank out every day and then also have Auctions for simple art going as high as $260 for a single character slot (Not including Amy other characters) I don't think that you are a struggling artisg who's pay wall content being released 2 years layer is hurting you.

Hell, I forgot a lot of things artist made until I see them uploaded here, because in 2 years I moved on.That art has already been played for by someone and probably still is being payyed for by patrons already.

I know that artists want to make money, and I do appreciate art I get, but I'm not paying over $60-$70 for a detailed piece of art, I mean, artist who don't even draw super realistically charge this much.
Part of this is the people buying this stuff for these prices.
But of course artists out there will take advantage of lonely horny people to get their money, so its both side's fault.

Some people made good points about this not being A real archive site.
If an artist just has to say "I don't want my art here" and its taken down, its not an archive site, its just a more organized FurAffinity website.

I mean Jasonafex himself has come onto this site, attacking people, and thinking he's a porn god when all he really does is add cheap effect to am already existing image drawn by someone else (Usually Kabier)

Does he get banned? No. And anyone who talks against him does (i probably will)
In fact Jasonafex constantly attacks this site on FA, telling his fan base that this site is terrible because most people want to be on the good side of a "Popufur".

Most artist don't even use this site enough to know the purpose of it.

I once had an artist attack me for uploading their art here, saying that I was stealing and telling people on FA that I was an art thief, despite me giving the source and tagging their name.

luckily people realized that this wasn't true and convinced them that I wasn't stealing art.

Now I just hope that I didn't type this in vain because I sat here for like 15 minutes on my phone.

And for those of you who remember me, I'm not dead.

treos
Blocked
29 days ago
2016 animated_skeleton bandanna bone cel_shading dry_bones glowing glowing_eyes gradient_background hi_res itoruna mario_bros nintendo scalie simple_background skeleton solo toony undead video_games

Rating: Safe
Score: 28
User: Itoruna
Date: August 16, 2016

him57 said:
5. Finally, there is evidence to support the plight of modders. There is no evidence, so far, to support the accusation that the 2 year rule was hurting artist in ANY way. So far the justification (other than the legal one) has merely assumed that the artist were suffering because of it. if all the other data, anecdotes aside, is anything to go on, piracy indeed helps more than it hinders when there is an eventual time limit on its exclusiveness. So far, all film producers, game publishers, musicians, and writers have depended on the fallacy that piracy always has and always will lead to lost sales, when there is no such evidence even by detractors to support such a claim. It's assumed, not unjustly though, when reading the definition of piracy. There is a hint of logic to that at first, but beyond that assumption, there's nothing to back it up.

iirc there's actually some good things we have now thanks to piracy but no one cares about that when discussing the topic.

still wish people would stop with that stupid "entitlement" argument though. i've never once made any claim to being entitled to anything yet the name calling and accusations of such never end. all because when anyone hears the word piracy, the first words to pop into their mind seem to be criminal and bad. followed by attacking and shaming anyone who does the act of piracy while completely ignoring any and all potential good that could come from piracy.

Mario69 said:
You can go and pirate nintendo games, even if nintendo fansite doesn't host the games for you.

doing that is more a matter of spiting them (with just a touch of protest) than anything at this point. them and every other publisher and/or dev that continues to push increasingly anti-consumer practices but that's more a topic for the video games thread so we can continue that over there if you want.


I should also mention that artists taking stuff down for seemingly no reason is the bane of my existence.

I used to have some really nice animation gifs that used to be here, but most of the art made by said person is gone because they requested a take down.
And I have never been able to get said GIFS ever again


NotMeNotYou said:
If you think this drizzle is anywhere close to blasting I have very bad news for you. This rule will stay.

yeah, who cares about the users who make your job possible?

Mdf
Member
29 days ago
adelaherz anthro beverage book bookshelf brick caldraken claws clothed clothing cup dragon electricity fire fireplace food furgonomics hi_res horn hornband inside lightning looking_at_viewer male mantelplace membranous_wings robe scalie solo steam table window wings wooden wooden_floor

Rating: Safe
Score: 92
User: Cat-in-Flight
Date: February 02, 2016

Lance_Armstrong said:
#MAGA

Under that assumption are we also going to implement 'one rule up, two rules down'?

No, please no.


fewrahuxo said:
yeah, who cares about the users who make your job possible?

Who cares about the artists that make it possible for you to be a user?

Scakk said:
I mean Jasonafex himself has come onto this site, attacking people, and thinking he's a porn god when all he really does is add cheap effect to am already existing image drawn by someone else (Usually Kabier)

Does he get banned? No. And anyone who talks against him does (i probably will)
In fact Jasonafex constantly attacks this site on FA, telling his fan base that this site is terrible because most people want to be on the good side of a "Popufur".

Jasonafex is one record away from being permanently banned, just throwing that out there.


fewrahuxo said:
yeah, who cares about the users who make your job possible?

Not NMNY. He doesn't care about anything except throwing around his e-peen and essentially yelling "My word is final" whenever confronted with -anything.-

Of course, that seems to be the administration as a whole, as of late. They disagree with you and you're stupid and they'll just treat you like you're stupid and/or be super sarcastic.

Truly, what does it matter that the administration discusses changes? I mean, it should say a lot that they ALL knew we'd be vehemently against this and thus made the decision in secret and THEN did it all at once without an announcement before hand.

I mean, if you're so sure that everyone's going to be against your choice maybe, JUST MAYBE, your choice isn't the right one?

Of course the administartion of this site would NEVER even consider that, would they? No. Their "discussion" is just one huge echo chamber. Likely going like this, NMNY and/or the owner says something, everyone bounces up and down and agrees, then the rule changes and no one cares what the actual users think.

Yeah, this is a real poor excuse for an archive site these days and I thought the FurAffinity administration was biased and closed off in its decisions. You make their team look like admin team of the freakin' decade in terms of giving communication on implementing big wide-arcing changes that affect the entire user base.


NotMeNotYou said:
Who cares about the artists that make it possible for you to be a user?

Jasonafex is one record away from being permanently banned, just throwing that out there.

When that happens, it won't surprise me of he gets everything taken down. Since he hates this place so much.


Damn the least that could have been done is at least give a few days' warning before deleting a lot of art from the site, this is an art hoarder's site, isn't it? People should have time to save stuff.

In the meantime I'll download everything else on here just in case it gets deleted tomorrow for some reason or another, ouch.


This might be already buried somewhere in the middle of the thread but, a question of clarification of how this works in practice: It's *copyright holders* may take down *their own* work regardless of time? Meaning, users won't be speculatively taking down work just because, say, hi-def versions were on a patreon years ago, yes? Simply being paid content at some point isn't enough to delete things (as the content may have been released later), but the copyright holder needs some claim or "Do Not Redistribute" or the like?


Great thread. One thing I have not seen mentioned is the idea of "undue burden". People have said repeatedly that if an artist wants to avoid their work being posted here that they should get on the DNP list. This is not required by the artist at all and by default, under law, their rights eclipse this. The idea that they should be expected to would only be a remotely valid argument if this site was official. This just is not something that artists should be expected to do and the rules here must be created with that thought in mind.

It seems that the real loss here is that the staff made the decision to be completely legal and purge generally unavailable works. The use of hosting that type of stuff has dwindled in the face of more widely available works brought on by both an increase in producers and the onset of time. In other words, it matters less to archive it now than it did then.

One of the reasons why Japanese products are often highly pirated is because they are often very hard to reliably, legally find outside of the country. Generally companies do not seek to take down these sites because there is no monetary incentive and no clear path to doing so. This is true of rare works too. They are hard to find outside of their limited release area/base and can be (and have been) impossible to obtain legally outside of that small window of availability (the window being defined by both time and location restrictions). There is also often little means or motivation for these selling parties or the copyright holders to do anything about the piracy. The REAL danger with these is sudden exceptions or changes to this, the worst being the possibility of someone going in reverse: finding these works online and tracking down the copyright holders and encouraging/incentivizing them to take action.

That said, I don't care very much. If the reasoning behind it is intelligent then I expect the staff to be equally sane in future decisions. It is a shame these rare works were lost but that matters most in an archivist sense.

treos said:
iirc there's actually some good things we have now thanks to piracy but no one cares about that when discussing the topic.

still wish people would stop with that stupid "entitlement" argument though. i've never once made any claim to being entitled to anything yet the name calling and accusations of such never end. all because when anyone hears the word piracy, the first words to pop into their mind seem to be criminal and bad. followed by attacking and shaming anyone who does the act of piracy while completely ignoring any and all potential good that could come from piracy.

The law is the law. Piracy is illegal. Piracy is getting a paid product for free. It's true that in many cases piracy is not a big enough factor to prevent the creator(s) from breaking even or earning a sizable profit,

Actually I'll just stop there. You know what piracy is. I shouldn't be coming up with ways to change your mind, just what I need to win the argument. And that's the law. You really can't win here because piracy is almost always about wants and not needs.

AnotherDay said:
I mean, [NMNY], if you're so sure that everyone's going to be against your choice maybe, JUST MAYBE, your choice isn't the right one?

Of course the administartion of this site would NEVER even consider that, would they? No. Their "discussion" is just one huge echo chamber. Likely going like this, NMNY and/or the owner says something, everyone bounces up and down and agrees, then the rule changes and no one cares what the actual users think.

Yeah, this is a real poor excuse for an archive site these days and I thought the FurAffinity administration was biased and closed off in its decisions. You make their team look like admin team of the freakin' decade in terms of giving communication on implementing big wide-arcing changes that affect the entire user base.

Next time say that when it's actually the case. Is this solution unfortunate for an archival site? Yes, but your statement is grossly untrue. If you disagree strongly then I suggest you give your reasons why. This is a course of action they would have to make someday. In what other way could this be done? Give exception to rare works despite how hosting them here is still illegal?


Well, this is some mighty fine non-drama that everyone is throwing themselves into.

Peachdrips said:
Damn the least that could have been done is at least give a few days' warning before deleting a lot of art from the site, this is an art hoarder's site, isn't it? People should have time to save stuff.

In the meantime I'll download everything else on here just in case it gets deleted tomorrow for some reason or another, ouch.

That was the entire bloody point. It was meant to be removed without mass-downloading.


AnotherDay said:
Not NMNY. He doesn't care about anything except throwing around his e-peen and essentially yelling "My word is final" whenever confronted with -anything.-

Of course, that seems to be the administration as a whole, as of late. They disagree with you and you're stupid and they'll just treat you like you're stupid and/or be super sarcastic.

Truly, what does it matter that the administration discusses changes? I mean, it should say a lot that they ALL knew we'd be vehemently against this and thus made the decision in secret and THEN did it all at once without an announcement before hand.

I mean, if you're so sure that everyone's going to be against your choice maybe, JUST MAYBE, your choice isn't the right one?

Of course the administartion of this site would NEVER even consider that, would they? No. Their "discussion" is just one huge echo chamber. Likely going like this, NMNY and/or the owner says something, everyone bounces up and down and agrees, then the rule changes and no one cares what the actual users think.

Yeah, this is a real poor excuse for an archive site these days and I thought the FurAffinity administration was biased and closed off in its decisions. You make their team look like admin team of the freakin' decade in terms of giving communication on implementing big wide-arcing changes that affect the entire user base.

You're gonna childishly insult Nmmy while whining about artists daring to have any interests of their own? Yeah, Nmmy is such a dick-swinger for outrageously giving a shit about the artists that make this site worth anything.

Oh, nice bandwagon fallacy. If nine out of ten customers try to steal candy from a store, does that mean that security would be wrong for kicking out one of those shoplifters? Get real.

This site was almost universally hated by artists before and the only reason artists have a problem with it now is because of you selfish, entitled whiners.


Does this mean if an artist that has paid content dies we can never post their work here?


Just my two cents, but any attempt at stopping piracy is stupid. Anti-Piracy measures don't stop pirates, they just get craftier.


TheoryAnon said:
This should apply to monetized YT videos too. It may be public but your site is taking away views that earn the creators money through non private means.

Never got an answer and I wasn't being sarcastic. Seeing as the posted YT videos here were most likely downloaded with a 3rd party program. Making it piracy.


ROTHY said:
Just my two cents, but any attempt at stopping piracy is stupid. Anti-Piracy measures don't stop pirates, they just get craftier.

TonyLemur said:
To build on what I said earlier, if you have your reasons and justifications to pirate art, that's on you. But don't expect this site to do it for you. That's a lot of entitlement.

Mario69 said:
You can go and pirate nintendo games, even if nintendo fansite doesn't host the games for you.


ROTHY said:
Just my two cents, but any attempt at stopping piracy is stupid. Anti-Piracy measures don't stop pirates, they just get craftier.

The fact that something will not work with 100% success is not an excuse to abandon any principles and make content creators hate your site.


TheoryAnon said:
Never got an answer and I wasn't being sarcastic. Seeing as the posted YT videos here were most likely downloaded with a 3rd party program. Making it piracy.

That's a completely different issue that'd require its own set of rule changes if it ever gets addressed . The issue comes from the intended ads not running on the video when it gets seen elsewhere, and from people not properly crediting the original creator. It's not behind a paywall, though, so it's not part of the issue at hand.


lurkingfox said:
This might be already buried somewhere in the middle of the thread but, a question of clarification of how this works in practice: It's *copyright holders* may take down *their own* work regardless of time? Meaning, users won't be speculatively taking down work just because, say, hi-def versions were on a patreon years ago, yes? Simply being paid content at some point isn't enough to delete things (as the content may have been released later), but the copyright holder needs some claim or "Do Not Redistribute" or the like?

The way you formatted your question makes it bit hard to understand. This is one reason why I hate debating on hard topics as non-native english speaker there's bound to be words that I have hard time understanding and constantly needing to re-translate sentences...

The definition of paid content has not changed at all, so that means we still consider paid content to be something that during time of the upload you have to pay money to see. If the content or HD/alternative version of the content is being released freely by artist later on OR if artist gives explicit permission for us to have the content, at that point we can host the content.

Artists, commissioners, character owners, copyright holders, etc. can at any time for any reason request takedown of their work, regardless if it was free or not.

ROTHY said:
Just my two cents, but any attempt at stopping piracy is stupid. Anti-Piracy measures don't stop pirates, they just get craftier.

There's so many misconceptions going on right now and this seems to be one of the biggest. We aren't exactly stopping piracy here, but simply refuse to host pirated content. It's up to artists and creators to handle piracy themselves.

TheoryAnon said:
Never got an answer and I wasn't being sarcastic. Seeing as the posted YT videos here were most likely downloaded with a 3rd party program. Making it piracy.

This one is actually whole seperate topic to discuss and I have asked this much earlier already myself. We have been accepting youtube videos no matter how old they are, so those weren't considered to be paid content even before this rule change. Another topic being webcomics.

Because if the content can be viewed without payment, it's not considered as paid content, so youtube content has been free game. However we do not allow webcomics to be posted and the main reason there has been exactly that - we don't want to steal traffic and ad revenue from them. It does become bit more cumbersome because of seperate scenarios, as some artists only use youtube to host their video content without monetization while others monetize it, but have seperate NSFW version unmonetized elsewhere, etc.

Feel free to open seperate discussion for this one if you want to.

E: damn, so slow at writing so got ninja'd on both, but at least my thinking was same way.


Mario69 said:
The way you formatted your question makes it bit hard to understand. This is one reason why I hate debating on hard topics as non-native english speaker there's bound to be words that I have hard time understanding and constantly needing to re-translate sentences...

The definition of paid content has not changed at all, so that means we still consider paid content to be something that during time of the upload you have to pay money to see. If the content or HD/alternative version of the content is being released freely by artist later on OR if artist gives explicit permission for us to have the content, at that point we can host the content.

Artists, commissioners, character owners, copyright holders, etc. can at any time for any reason request takedown of their work, regardless if it was free or not.

Sorry, I was probably unclear. Suppose something was paid at some point but is now unavailable from any source - is that still assumed to be paid content? Does someone need to "prove" there was a free release before it became unavailable? I guess I'm wondering if there is a difference between paid → free → unavailable and paid → abandoned → unavailable, and how to tell the difference in practice after a couple years.


Mario69 said:
E: damn, so slow at writing so got ninja'd on both, but at least my thinking was same way.

That's me, the @Fifteen minutes ninja! ;)

Besides, you'd already answered #2, figured we might as well just start quoting previous posts for people who (understandably) skipped the last 6 pages.


I like threads like these which make our "most concerned" users crawl out of the woodwork.

For those who are neither content creators nor commissioners, I do wish all your concern for e621's well-being would be channeled into things like:

  • sourcing
  • tagging characters
  • doing literally anything other than bitch when a post you MIGHT have fapped to gets deleted.

Seriously, where is all this outrage coming from? Some of you are posting from accounts that had zero activity before this thread; are those alt accounts? Like, holy shit, I know FurAffinity is the metaphorical SO who's abused you to the point you think you can never love again, but we are not that admin team. No one's going to ban you just for having an opinion; we only care whether or not you express yourselves civilly.

e621 is not going to crumble over this decision. I was under the impression every other furry booru was riding on our coattails, seeing as we're the site who puts in the work while everyone else uses bots to mirror us.

If anyone wants to keep pirating, no one's forcing you to stay here. Wade through all the other sites with zero enforced tagging policies and lax standards. Put some effort into getting your free fix. Garbage dump sites for garbage scavenging users.

And when they get DMCA'd to hell, lmao, at least you downloaded it like a good boy. Your collections of terabytes of porn will surely score you cool points. All this concern for artists and garnering appreciation for their work yet no one seems to want to give that concern and appreciation to them directly.


treos said:
i just thought of something. does anyone know if any of the Mike Sherman content i've uploaded was for sale back when he was alive? i wonder if this rule would apply to work like his too. if it does then goodbye upload limit.

They will purge it. They will purge it all because "it's piracy". You know ,despite cub central being free to view if you were a member, but it required membership and mike never "gave you permission" if you could post it here.

As I said, commissions will go, filled out YCH will go, all japanese will go (all made for profit and 99% is part of a larger doujin/book), and so on.

This place will have the guts torn out of it and the admins are drunk on this power trip they are getting.

Notice how they didn't inform anyone? How they didn't ask anyone? Notice how they are fighting tooth and nail now that the internet and very userbase they claimed to be in support of is biting back?

They made a bad move that undermined one of the foundations of this site. They either backpedal to recover SOME face and artists who don't want their art here can get on the DNP, or the admins will double down and then people will be outright afraid to post anything here.


treos said:
iirc there's actually some good things we have now thanks to piracy but no one cares about that when discussing the topic.

still wish people would stop with that stupid "entitlement" argument though. i've never once made any claim to being entitled to anything yet the name calling and accusations of such never end. all because when anyone hears the word piracy, the first words to pop into their mind seem to be criminal and bad. followed by attacking and shaming anyone who does the act of piracy while completely ignoring any and all potential good that could come from piracy.

doing that is more a matter of spiting them (with just a touch of protest) than anything at this point. them and every other publisher and/or dev that continues to push increasingly anti-consumer practices but that's more a topic for the video games thread so we can continue that over there if you want.

Anyone who uses the "entitlement" card in an argument has no argument. It's a buzzword to throw you off of the actual topic and is a non argument, especially when it comes to entertainment.

Entertainment IS entitlement; you either get what you want or you take your business elsewhere.

e621 is not food, water, air, heating ,etc. it's entertainment, and when it stops entertaining, I pick up my stuff and leave.

If I no longer have an incentive to be here, well then I'll stop being here.

I'm just hoping the mods/admins can see how this is not the correct pathway to take.

If not, oh well.


Daneasaur said:
Anyone who uses the "entitlement" card in an argument has no argument. It's a buzzword to throw you off of the actual topic and is a non argument, especially when it comes to entertainment.

Entertainment IS entitlement; you either get what you want or you take your business elsewhere.

e621 is not food, water, air, heating ,etc. it's entertainment, and when it stops entertaining, I pick up my stuff and leave.

If I no longer have an incentive to be here, well then I'll stop being here.

I'm just hoping the mods/admins can see how this is not the correct pathway to take.

If not, oh well.

How necessary is paid content to your entertainment?


Well this is sad news.

I always thought the 2-year rule was a relatively mature way to deal with the practical nature of a niche online art community and a more rational stance that sat between the "anything goes" of various chans and the "to the gulag with you" fanaticism of fchan (is that site even still relevant? Hopefully e621 doesn't burn out for the same reasons.)

Maybe a better solution would have been to increase it to 3 or 4 years (an eternity in Internet time)? It's impossible to keep up with all the paywall hidden content (you don't know what you don't know...), so I had just accepted that I might miss out for a couple of years until it made it's way here. I've even joined a couple of Patreons for people after seeing their older paid content here, but I guess that won't happen anymore since I literally won't know what I'm missing.

e621 had more or less become a one-stop art shop for me, but I guess not anymore.


Wow people are overreacting to this, and using godawful arguments.

If artists feel they aren't getting enough exposure with this rule change, they can just release their paid art publicly after however many years. This same logic applies to a ton of other arguments - the power is in the artist.

Now, personally, do you know what I think ought to be done? I think we - and by that I don't mean e621, or even furries, but we as a culture - should have a system wherein an artist can choose to sign up such that upon their death all of their works become public domain immediately.

There's probably some way to do that now, but it would be a substantial amount of effort.

Anyway, if you guys want to actually do something proactive, we ought to create and promote such a list among furry artists. Put your name on a list to have all your works released upon your death.

Still, on topic, I think this is a good rule change, and honestly I can't see the people complaining as anything but entitled.


Scakk said:
I should also mention that artists taking stuff down for seemingly no reason is the bane of my existence.

Artists have been able to take down their art from the site for any or no reason for as long as I can remember:

https://e926.net/static/takedown

Mdf said:
Under that assumption are we also going to implement 'one rule up, two rules down'?

Now that is a policy I can get behind. Please implement, Dear Leader Nimmy.

TesticleMallet said:
Does this mean if an artist that has paid content dies we can never post their work here?

Not never.

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf

Creative works such as drawings are copyrighted automatically even if you don't publish them. Registration is optional but makes it easier to prove claims in court. It seems to cost $35. Registration can be done under a pseudonym. Your work is copyrighted even if your real name is unknown and you don't register the work. You will see why that is important a few lines down.

Copyright protection might not last as long as the author's life plus 70 years:

https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. For an anonymous work, a pseudonymous work, or a work made for hire, the copyright endures for a term of 95 years from the year of its first publication or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first.

If it was commissioned, I say it lasts 95 years, or a little sooner if the artist dies within the next 25 years. If the artist never reveals their identity, 95 years. The worst case scenario would be an artist who publishes non-commissioned art, and lives until longer than 2042. Their art would be copyrighted until at least the year 2112.

If that sounds bad and stupid, join with others who are trying to reduce copyright length instead of increase it again in the digital age.


Was anyone actually profiting off of 2+ year old paywalled content? Is anyone actually benefiting from this rule change?

Congratulations: you've stopped 'pirates' from 'stealing' ancient images that no one was paying for anymore (not because it was on e621, mind, just because it was old) and doesn't negatively impact the artist (some of whom are dead or awol) in any meaningful way.

But you've done nothing to stop the "bad" piracy. People are still going to get through paywalls and patreons and steal that content. It just won't get posted to e621 because... it was already against the rules and wasn't posted here anyway.

And in exchange, you pissed off the users and killed some very valuable archiving. GG