Hypothetical query:

Suppose an artist has posted their previously paywalled artwork to the public, yet the public version is different to the paywall version (say, the public version is of a compressed resolution).

Should the public version be posted or the paywall version be posted?

Whichever one we're able to see publicly. If an artist has 3000x3000 image behind a paywall, and the same image at 1500x1500 is in their public gallery, the 1500x1500 one comes here. If they release the 3000x3000 version publicly, that one can come here then.

The DNP list has the following to say on the matter:

Avoid posting these things.

• Any commercial content (Doujin, paysites, etc.). This includes HD versions only visible on Patreon and similar.
• "Free" Pay-What-You-Want content (meaning you can buy it for $0.00) is DNP for 2 months after having been made available for "free"
• Real porn / real images or videos depicting illegal activities (such as bestiality, child pornography, etc.)
• Images where a person who is not the original copyright owner has placed a watermark on the image.
• Excessive webcomic rips (more than 5 or more consecutive webcomic pages)
• Images where compression artifacts are easily visible.
• Art featuring only humans or primarily humans. Any form of bestiality with humans or humans with animal traits (things like cat ears or dog tails) are still okay.
• Content that is not furry or furry-related.

Is it still the same if the commissioner of the work has posted the piece on their own personal account? I've seen artists post reduced resolution versions saying the full is on available Patreon, while the commissioner makes the full resolution public.

faucet said:
Is it still the same if the commissioner of the work has posted the piece on their own personal account? I've seen artists post reduced resolution versions saying the full is on available Patreon, while the commissioner makes the full resolution public.

I'd assume if the artist isn't issuing takedowns to the commissioner for it it's fine.
I'm under the impression not many commissioners would buy into not having distribution licence for the high-res version.

magnuseffect said:
I'd assume if the artist isn't issuing takedowns to the commissioner for it it's fine.
I'm under the impression not many commissioners would buy into not having distribution licence for the high-res version.

The issue really comes when things aren't sourced and the commissioner doesn't use the description as it can cause confusion when the artist has subscription sites and what not

versperus said:
The issue really comes when things aren't sourced and the commissioner doesn't use the description as it can cause confusion when the artist has subscription sites and what not

Thankfully, all posts nowadays require a source.

strikerman said:
Thankfully, all posts nowadays require a source.

Oh, how much I wish that this was true.
hassource:false status:active

versperus said:
The issue really comes when things aren't sourced and the commissioner doesn't use the description as it can cause confusion when the artist has subscription sites and what not

strikerman said:
Thankfully, all posts nowadays require a source.

Moment of awareness for that time a character owner issued takedowns for posts which were posted by the artist