artist hahul has erased all of his galleries and taken his site down, and who knows if he'll ever come back?

I mean, how hard is it to ask permission to post another's work? Just do it and we won't have any more of this shit happening.

Baw! People are sharing my zeros and ones after I put them in a place specifically made for sharing things! How was I supposed to know that was going to happen?!

MaShCr said:
Baw! People are sharing my zeros and ones after I put them in a place specifically made for sharing things! How was I supposed to know that was going to happen?!

Pretty much this. It's always a good idea to ask for permission first, but people get their panties in such a twist about their art sometimes. You'd think having a broader audience would be a good thing, but no I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME FUCK YOU GUYS.

Also, who?

Digital_Kindness said:
Pretty much this. It's always a good idea to ask for permission first, but people get their panties in such a twist about their art sometimes. You'd think having a broader audience would be a good thing, but no I'M TAKING MY BALL AND GOING HOME FUCK YOU GUYS.

Also, who?

most sites, quite frankly, have a completely different view. You can spout the same shit about music, to be quite honest. "Once it gets out there, don't try to claim any rights to the picture/audio, because we're gonna violate those rights immediately"

I don't make a big deal out of it, but if you can't ask permission you may as well go around stealing whatever the hell you want as you don't have respect for others' creations.

Anyway, the very fact that you've managed to drive an artist off the web is disheartening.

Also, I should have posted it like this
hahul

PheagleAdler said:
most sites, quite frankly, have a completely different view. You can spout the same shit about music, to be quite honest. "Once it gets out there, don't try to claim any rights to the picture/audio, because we're gonna violate those rights immediately"

Pfft, you can't compare when people make music specifically to sell, and when people put art up on the internet for free. It's not like we're forcing artists to make commissions, and then refusing to pay them. The artist put it online without expectation of being paid for it, whereas music is generally for profit. Artists ragequitting because their art is showing up where more people can see it is childish, but people should ask first, and respect if the artist says no.

PheagleAdler said:
Also, I should have posted it like this
hahul

So basically, one of about a bajillion artists? Oh no. The humanity. Whatever shall we do without his irreplaceable artist skills. Surely no one else on the internet does art.

Also, don't make it out like we personally drove him off of the internet. He drove himself off by being a sensitive ninny. The earliest his art was on here was a year ago, and he's just getting around to throwing a tantrum now?

PheagleAdler said:
if you can't ask permission you may as well go around stealing whatever the hell you want as you don't have respect for others' creations.

If I could instantly make a copy of anything anyone else had created to go show to other people who might like it too, all while pointing back to the original maker as the one who made it and where others can commission more like it, you're damn right I would.

Anyway, the very fact that you've managed to drive an artist off the web is disheartening.

It doesn't really take a whole lot to drive certain artists of the internet.

Okay, users not asking an artist for permission to post their work here isn't acceptable behavior. But I think if hahul took the minute to look on the site he'd figure out it's entirely with his ability to remove his artwork and prevent it from appearing on the site.

Resorting to the knee-jerk reaction of "people aren't obeying my requests so I'll just completely withdraw myself from any interaction at all" is rather childish.

Dogenzaka said:
Pfft, you can't compare when people make music specifically to sell, and when people put art up on the internet for free. It's not like we're forcing artists to make commissions, and then refusing to pay them. The artist put it online without expectation of being paid for it, whereas music is generally for profit. Artists ragequitting because their art is showing up where more people can see it is childish, but people should ask first, and respect if the artist says no.

okay, but it's still their work.

sorry, I'm just angry that it's managed to get this far.

PheagleAdler said:
okay, but it's still their work.

sorry, I'm just angry that it's managed to get this far.

It only manages to get this far because the artist lets it.

ITT : Someone goes off and blames a site for an artist throwing a hissyfit.

It's like blaming Walmart for selling a guy a cord which he goes and hangs himself with.

Laevateinn said:
ITT : Someone goes off and blames a site for an artist throwing a hissyfit.

It's like blaming Walmart for selling a guy a cord which he goes and hangs himself with.

...not really.

PheagleAdler said:
...not really.

Yeah really. That's a really succinct way of summing up the thread.

The best thing you could do for these guys is reupload all pics you have left of them on any site that would allow for their content.

It's best to wait a while, though, so that suspicion of somebody doing that and the artist havign to onslaught and take BACK! whats is (not.) rightfully theirs.

Laevateinn said:
ITT : Someone goes off and blames a site for an artist throwing a hissyfit.

ITT: nerdrage and attempted guilt-tripping

halal? never heard of him

Vagabond said:
The best thing you could do for these guys is reupload all pics you have left of them on any site that would allow for their content.

Being a dick to someone being a dick is a great way to get everyone fucked over.

Can we not do that?

The best thing we can do at this point is not give two fucks to help other artists realize that ragequitting is a terribly ineffective method of enacting reform.

Read: You are unique but you are also disposable. The internet marches on with or without you.

Work with it or be forgotten.

MaShCr said:
Read: You are unique but you are also disposable. The internet marches on with or without you.

Work with it or be forgotten.

Hear hear.

It's something I never really understood. Why would you put anything on a publicly available website if you didn't want everyone to see it?
There ARE private galleries out there, that allow you to share your work with just selected few. It doesn't take much figuring out to see why this isn't popular and almost no one does it!

Sourcing and permission getting is well and good and a courteous thing to do, but anyone who calls it the status quo is deluding themselves :V

If they're going to get pissy, we're better off without them. Who wants to bend over backward to stroke somebody's ego in order to get them to draw pretty pictures? Not me, certainly.

Deleting the artist tags from your images, doing a "delete fucking everything" on da and ff?

he so mad

bawwwwwwwwww

I've never heard of this artist.

Sourcing and permissions getting are rules to be followed, with consequences for being caught built into the code.

Aurali said:
Sourcing and permissions getting are rules to be followed, with consequences for being caught built into the code.

The way it's worded in the rules section, it makes it sound like you guys are asking us to get permission first, not telling us we have to.

Do us a favor, ASK the artist before you upload their art. Since there is no way to verify if this is actually allowed here or not, it saves us a lot of hassle.

If it's the case that not asking permission from artists will lead to account infractions/bans, perhaps we should reword the rules on this particular topic to make it 100% clear to people that they need to get permission from an artist before uploading their art here.

He/She must've been caught up in the moment,so it seems like a good idea right now.

They'll be back,sooner or later.

Digital_Kindness said:
The way it's worded in the rules section, it makes it sound like you guys are asking us to get permission first, not telling us we have to.

I think that "consequences built into the code" is just an upload limit when user is not posting anyone from DNP list, but I may be wrong.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I think that "consequences built into the code" is just an upload limit when user is not posting anyone from DNP list, but I may be wrong.

More like the automatic upload restriction due to deleted images, I'd think.

Ya, I'm pretty sure there are explicit rules for private pics. Public ones should ask first, but they were PUBLIC. Make them private or DNP if it twists your panties that much.

This is just a hissy fit or a scream for attention. Artist will either move on or come back because money is neat.

And then his choices will be the same, make it private or ask for being on DNP if it bugs him/her/it that much

Digital_Kindness said:
If it's the case that not asking permission from artists will lead to account infractions/bans, perhaps we should reword the rules on this particular topic to make it 100% clear to people that they need to get permission from an artist before uploading their art here.

This is what happens when riversyde cleans up the rule list. I'm gonna smack him later

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
I think that "consequences built into the code" is just an upload limit when user is not posting anyone from DNP list, but I may be wrong.

We've had people lose the ability to upload because they uploaded without asking :)

CamKitty said:
Ya, I'm pretty sure there are explicit rules for private pics. Public ones should ask first, but they were PUBLIC. Make them private or DNP if it twists your panties that much.

No, No.. asking involves ALL images you don't have explicit permission over. And best part is? We've documented out of plenty of artists, if you ask first, they say yes. (Had artists change their mind or forget, THEN flip out, but we asked a ton for you.)

And now for the big thing

------------

PheagleAdler said:
artist hahul has erased all of his galleries and taken his site down, and who knows if he'll ever come back?

I mean, how hard is it to ask permission to post another's work? Just do it and we won't have any more of this shit happening.

Prove it. I can't find a single thing saying we are responsible, To be completely honest someone who blanks out of fa/ their own site, and wikifur normally has their own drama that caused them to do this. Not us.

Maybe we should keep a running P2P (Permission 2 Post) whitelist then in addition to the DNP blacklist so artists don't have to keep being asked every time they make a new image.

MaShCr said:
Maybe we should keep a running P2P (Permission 2 Post) whitelist then in addition to the DNP blacklist so artists don't have to keep being asked every time they make a new image.

Enjoy having the daily submission count cut to 1/3 of what it is now, at absolute best. Not even YouTube has an asinine system like that, and they're in the glaring spotlight at every moment.

MaShCr said:
Maybe we should keep a running P2P (Permission 2 Post) whitelist then in addition to the DNP blacklist so artists don't have to keep being asked every time they make a new image.

I've suggested once doing something like in 20pc in forum #48097, and no one was very enthusiastic about it.
Also:

In forum #48097 ippiki ookami said:
Just look at the DNP list. Is the artist there? If not, then it's fine. If the art gets removed, then it gets removed.

Now Aurali said:
We've had people lose the ability to upload because they uploaded without asking :)

*whistles innocently and quickly walks away from this thread*

Foobaria said:
Enjoy having the daily submission count cut to 1/3 of what it is now, at absolute best. Not even YouTube has an asinine system like that, and they're in the glaring spotlight at every moment.

I don't think it's intended to be "don't upload anything except what's on this list", but rather "this list is artists who are aware of e621 and have given blanket permission to post their work here, so you don't need to ask them each time".

Aurali said:
We've had people lose the ability to upload because they uploaded without asking :)

That sounds more like manual work than automatic coding.

Aurali said:
asking involves ALL images you don't have explicit permission over.

I'm pretty sure Leonardo da Vinci never gave permission to be hosted on a porn website.

elad said:
I'm pretty sure Leonardo da Vinci never gave permission to be hosted on a porn website.

It's primary furry site, not porn site.
Besides I'm pretty sure that he is dead too long to have any copyrights anymore.

I wish there were some no-law island in the middle of the Atlantic where sites like this could be hosted so they could just say "fuck off" to anybody wanting their stuff taken off. An archival site is supposed to be an archive, but all this DNP just ends up making it into another gallery.

I believe in the simple school of "don't make it public if you don't want it used by the public". If that were to drive away artists who can't deal with that lack of control, I'm okay with that.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
It's primary furry site, not porn site.
Besides I'm pretty sure that he is dead too long to have any copyrights anymore.

All right smart ass. :V I may also refer to Speedy Graphito, Tomohiro Inaba or Louis Wain.
My point is that there's probably a bunch of artists on the site who actually wouldn't care one way or the other, and are unlikely to actually respond to such requests.

Aurali said:
This is what happens when riversyde cleans up the rule list. I'm gonna smack him later
We've had people lose the ability to upload because they uploaded without asking :)
No, No.. asking involves ALL images you don't have explicit permission over. And best part is? We've documented out of plenty of artists, if you ask first, they say yes. (Had artists change their mind or forget, THEN flip out, but we asked a ton for you.)

And now for the big thing

------------

Prove it. I can't find a single thing saying we are responsible, To be completely honest someone who blanks out of fa/ their own site, and wikifur normally has their own drama that caused them to do this. Not us.

Perhaps the fact that he said e621 was partially responsible? I emailed him directly about it. It's pretty obvious by his previous journals that the only drama involved was people posting his art elsewhere without his permission. Maybe he did overreact a bit, I'm sure he's wanted back. And please note, I am not blaming the site itself, but its users.

To put it simply, we need to ask permission and I'm sure there are many on the site that do not.

Did he file any takedown requests? Did he ask to be put on the DNP list? Did he notify an admin? Or did he just complain in his FA journal and hope someone from the site would happen to read it?

Aurali said:
No, No.. asking involves ALL images you don't have explicit permission over.

You corrected me by saying what I said, wonderful, lol. I did say that people should ask first.

And as said before, there were steps to take if he really wanted his art to not be here. There is this magical list he could be on. Heck, he could have made a thread here and just talked about it.

But no, he grabbed his ball and went home lol

Foobaria said:
An archival site is supposed to be an archive, but all this DNP just ends up making it into another gallery.

Exactly

titaniachkt said:
Exactly

I can't find this.. We aren't an archive though, we are a CMS.

Furry_Fanatic said:
That sounds more like manual work than automatic coding.

the system actually blocked them from posting as their post limit went below zero.

elad said:
All right smart ass. :V I may also refer to Speedy Graphito, Tomohiro Inaba or Louis Wain.
My point is that there's probably a bunch of artists on the site who actually wouldn't care one way or the other, and are unlikely to actually respond to such requests.

how do YOU know they weren't asked? hmm?

Foobaria said:

I believe in the simple school of "don't make it public if you don't want it used by the public". If that were to drive away artists who can't deal with that lack of control, I'm okay with that.

I think you're confusing that with "hey I have access to this item so I can do whatever I want with it, even though I don't own it. Say, this car is on a public street and the key is in the ignition...

A basic rule of thumb to follow is, if you don't own something, you need permission.

Don't fall headfirst into the logical fallacy that equates physical property to virtual. The only loss due to properly-attributed/sourced digital art being shared, is to the ego of the stuck-up.

PheagleAdler said:
Say, this car is on a public street and the key is in the ignition...

And it's in a magic machine that duplicates the car exactly so that everyone who drives off with it leaves in an exact copy, so the original owner is not deprived of their property.

Snowy said:
And it's in a magic machine that duplicates the car exactly so that everyone who drives off with it leaves in an exact copy, so the original owner is not deprived of their property.

It is? Damn. Why can't my town have cool stuff like that? :-(

Just wanted to add that money forgery is all about making (more or less) exact copies, and it also not deprive anyone of their property. However still it is considered rather bad thing. Just saying.

I don't agree that here should be system "always ask before permission" than current system with DNP and takedowns, and -0.25 to upload limit for every mistake, but those pro-piracy argument is pathetic. I also find it rather funny how one user, who few days ago calls people, who downvoting artist comments, "dickbiters" is now all in "fuck artists" mode.

Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Just wanted to add that money forgery is all about making (more or less) exact copies, and it also not deprive anyone of their property. However still it is considered rather bad thing. Just saying.

You cannot seriously equate that with people spreading around digital copies of art that's been posted publicly online. Art isn't currency, and having more copies of that art on the internet doesn't change the value and appreciability of that piece.

This does not count towards art from paysites, however. The more it's out there the less money someone is going to make from it in the long run (even though I still don't understand why anyone would pay for porn when there's so much of it out there for free).

Also, this was just posted on Hahul's FA page:

Hahul said:

I see that some people wonder why I deleted my entrie profile here. I should explain this.
I don't feel like uploading my pictures on this gallery here anymore. I'm tired of my monotonous way to draw just animals day for day and want to develop myself and my skills in different ways finally.

This does not mean that I don't want to draw anthro art in the future anymore. But I won't use this gallery. Maybe I'll use my website to show my animal images, but at the moment there's no time for this.

I'm very sorry, but I'm happy with my decision.

So it wasn't us after all. Case closed.

Digital_Kindness said:
You cannot seriously equate that with people spreading around digital copies of art that's been posted publicly online. Art isn't currency, and having more copies of that art on the internet doesn't change the value and appreciability of that piece.

This does not count towards art from paysites, however. The more it's out there the less money someone is going to make from it in the long run (even though I still don't understand why anyone would pay for porn when there's so much of it out there for free).

I'm not equating reposting free art, that still can have some copyrights though, to posting art from paysites. I just say that I really don't like argument ("I'm just copying the data.") that doesn't distinguish those two at all, and it's often used as an excuse for doing the latter.

BTW

Art isn't currency, and having more copies of that art on the internet doesn't change the value and appreciability of that piece.

There was at least one artist that want to remove art from this site, because he claimed that it would cause problems to him in real life. So it's not that easy.
Besides that it's artist right to decide where he or she would post his art. I'm not equating assuming implicit permission to repost when there's no explicit statement to not repost art anywhere else. Neither I'm equating reposting publically available art without permission to posting private/not-free art. But while I think that first is good compromise that make this site alive, second is being douchebag at least, and I think it's good that there are site features here (like DNP) to prevent second and third options.
I don't want this site to be "image archive" without any respect to artist's rights.

Guys the always ask rule is not up for discussion, you had that chance 2 years ago when we were getting permissions for ourselves

Digital_Kindness said:
Also, this was just posted on Hahul's FA page:

So it wasn't us after all. Case closed.

I thought so. So OP you are now responsible for slander. Congrats.

Aurali said:
I thought so. So OP you are now responsible for slander. Congrats.

Well. this thread de-escalated quickly.

Aurali said:
I thought so. So OP you are now responsible for slander. Congrats.

I like how the op asked on Hahul's FA Page 'was this because of e621?'

Blah blah?

blah blah blah blah.

Blah.

Aurali said:
I thought so. So OP you are now responsible for slander. Congrats.

No he isn't. He's responsible for libel. Well, if he wrote the OP in Dragon or similar and had an audience in the room he could be responsible for slander and libel at the same time, which is a neat trick.

Snowy said:
No he isn't. He's responsible for libel. Well, if he wrote the OP in Dragon or similar and had an audience in the room he could be responsible for slander and libel at the same time, which is a neat trick.

This isn't english class. Besides, unlike written print, virtual data IS transitory, which can be considered slander.

Either way, it's defamation.

Honestly, the main reason I wrote that post was that I was amused by the idea that writing something defamatory with voice recognition software might constitute both slander and libel.

Snowy said:
Honestly, the main reason I wrote that post was that I was amused by the idea that writing something defamatory with voice recognition software might constitute both slander and libel.

You're getting too nitpicky. The distinction is between fixed and transitory, as in the difference between something that's out there and keeps defaming, or something that's there and gone again. The definition for Internet stuff is clouded because it lacks true permanence and yet it's frequently and widely archived, so it is as impermanent as speech but as permanent as print, at the same time.

The actual medium of delivery is no longer the true indicator, since the law was established long before such technology.

Well this thread gave me something to laugh at for 3 days, so it's all good :P

I'm waiting for OP's rebuttal.

Oh god, this is still going on...?
Haven't we already answered and rebutted to the OP's complaint?

PheagleAdler said:
artist hahul has erased all of his galleries and taken his site down, and who knows if he'll ever come back?

I mean, how hard is it to ask permission to post another's work? Just do it and we won't have any more of this shit happening.

Sorry

I offer one final rebutt.

post #206460

It's unfortunate that horses become insulted if you say things like "wow, look at that ass".

(Jayfeather) said:
rebutted

huehuehuehuehuehue he said butt

Wow. Just wow. Accusing me of libel. How mature of you all. For the record, I'd like to state that I personally sent an email to Hahul and he responded with this:

Hahul said:
Yes, it has something to do with e621. I fill out the online form and send the confirmation code via FA note & mail, but they didn't delete the picture from their side.
-> https://e621.net/take_down/show/1108 (It's still pending, I'm not sure, if there'll be happen something in next future ..)

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like e621 shares at least part of the blame here. I'm not saying the site's just awful, I'm saying we need to ask permission more frequently.

So does that mean all unknown_artist images need to be deleted because we by definition can't obtain the artist's permission?

Digital_Kindness said:
I like how the op asked on Hahul's FA Page 'was this because of e621?'

I'd ask you to review Hahul's last journal but quite obviously since he wiped everything it's been removed. It clearly mentions the fact that his art was posted elsewhere without his permission.

MaShCr said:
So does that mean all unknown_artist images need to be deleted because we by definition can't obtain the artist's permission?

Not saying that, but mass uploads of an artist's work should probably get the permission from the artist.

As for these unknown artists, who's the idiot who posted it and where did they get it? At the very least, they should have posted a source. Unless this picture just came out of thin air or something.

PheagleAdler said:
As for these unknown artists, who's the idiot who posted it and where did they get it? At the very least, they should have posted a source. Unless this picture just came out of thin air or something.

Usually, if it's found on a random site, and not the artist's, there's really no source to be had since that picture can be all over the web without anyone knowing who made it and what site they first posted it to. If I find something on Paheal, I won't use it as a source unless the artist themselves posted it there.

Wow, OP's still trying to blame E6 for an artist making a bad decision.

Dedicated to his craft, I guess.

PheagleAdler said:
I'd like to state that I personally sent an email to Hahul and he responded with this:

You'll forgive us if we don't take your word for it, I hope.

PheagleAdler said:
Wow. Just wow. Accusing me of libel. How mature of you all. For the record, I'd like to state that I personally sent an email to Hahul and he responded with this:

You're lying! I've personally asked my friend in FBI to retrieve those emails, and he said that the reason of deletion was you! You should be banned, you bastard!

PheagleAdler, unrustle your panties...

Drawing all those happily smiling furries and then he says it's monotonous and he hates it and he will take them all with him into nothingness? Way to show what's behind the smiling facade.

Be sure that his abandoned creations are stored in a safe, dry place, waiting for when the rustling is over to reemerge on major furry image boards.

Laevateinn said:
Wow, OP's still trying to blame E6 for an artist making a bad decision.

Dedicated to his craft, I guess.

This, so much this