Topic: Avoiding "Deletion Reason: Webcomic"

Posted under General

Hi, I recently attempted to upload an installment of the-minuscule-task's Another Day Up North comic series, and the upload was not approved/deleted with reason "webcomic." I reviewed the uploading guidelines, and understand why that's deleteable & why it appeared that was germain to my post: while the comic is publically released on Twitter and therefore isn't a revenue stream for the artist and should be okay to upload, I chose to source my upload from his site hosted by ComicFury, and so the approver saw otherwise. I did so because a very high-res png is obtained there, as opposed to all of Twitter's BS.

How do I indicate to a reviewer that a comic is available from sources that make it OK to upload if the highest-quality source indicates otherwise? It seems like a catch 22. Howto:source would suggest against adding Twitter as a source in addition to the actual one (I'd class it as an unofficial hosting site, plus nothing image-file-related was obtained there & it could break workflows to replace low-quality Twitter images), but I don't see a way to do so otherwise.

Simply adding a source to the twitter post should be good. Obtaining higher resolution from other places is fine, as long as the only place to see it isn't a webcomic site (to my understanding).

You are supposed to add every place the artist has published their work, I don't know why you thought only the one source should be used. As long as they are primary sources they should be added.

If the artist posted it themselves onto twitter add the source and message the deletioner that the content is available elsewere.

bork7 said:
How do I indicate to a reviewer that a comic is available from sources that make it OK to upload if the highest-quality source indicates otherwise? It seems like a catch 22. Howto:source would suggest against adding Twitter as a source in addition to the actual one (I'd class it as an unofficial hosting site, plus nothing image-file-related was obtained there & it could break workflows to replace low-quality Twitter images), but I don't see a way to do so otherwise.

Adding multiple different sources to a post is completely valid, as long as it's the same image. For instance, post #2936774 uses the original PNG available on DeviantArt, which is listed as a source. But it also lists the Twitter source (which is a recompressed version) and the FA source (which is a smaller recompressed version). This helps in case one of the sources go down, the others are available to still find it.

Regarding uploading the highest quality image from a hosting site while also having a slightly worse Twitter version available, it does create a bit of confusion. While not exactly pay content, there are restrictions to posting images from comic hosting sites since they can be making money from ads on it. So if the one on the hosting site is better quality than one found elsewhere, that may run into the same case of an artist having higher res versions on a paysite vs a lower res public one. But in this case, both are wholly public, so, I dunno.

(Posting here since seems latest forum thread about webcomics.)

Just noticed that Fur-Piled's domain name seems weird (possibly cybersquatted).
( https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Fur-Piled says site is at www.liondogworks.com )

It looks like whoever owns the domain now
1) has some posts with spammy links
and
2) copied some webpages from archive.org's achive of original liondogworks.com ,but altered them

https://www.liondogworks.com/ian/ shows a human (or humanoid) instead of an furry/anthro
text seems copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20080312040909/http://www.liondogworks.com/ian.html (anthro Ian image apparently not waybacked ...
except thumbnail at https://web.archive.org/web/20080312042503/http://www.liondogworks.com/random.html )

(There's a chance site is still owned by Leo Magna, but maybe got hacked into weirdness)

Latest FurPiled at website posted is page127
https://www.liondogworks.com/fur-piled-127/
but posted in 2019,
while original last page was comic 427
https://web.archive.org/web/20160525015920/http://www.liondogworks.com/fur-piled.html

Maybe we can start posting more pages of FurPiled to e621??
Currently just one pool of FurPiled at e621
pool #301

listerthesquirrel said:
(Posting here since seems latest forum thread about webcomics.)

Just noticed that Fur-Piled's domain name seems weird (possibly cybersquatted).
( https://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Fur-Piled says site is at www.liondogworks.com )

It looks like whoever owns the domain now
1) has some posts with spammy links
and
2) copied some webpages from archive.org's achive of original liondogworks.com ,but altered them

https://www.liondogworks.com/ian/ shows a human (or humanoid) instead of an furry/anthro
text seems copied from https://web.archive.org/web/20080312040909/http://www.liondogworks.com/ian.html (anthro Ian image apparently not waybacked ...
except thumbnail at https://web.archive.org/web/20080312042503/http://www.liondogworks.com/random.html )

(There's a chance site is still owned by Leo Magna, but maybe got hacked into weirdness)

Latest FurPiled at website posted is page127
https://www.liondogworks.com/fur-piled-127/
but posted in 2019,
while original last page was comic 427
https://web.archive.org/web/20160525015920/http://www.liondogworks.com/fur-piled.html

Maybe we can start posting more pages of FurPiled to e621??
Currently just one pool of FurPiled at e621
pool #301

If the comic is no longer available in the original source, I believe the webcomic rule does not apply anymore.

Alternatively, you would ask the author directly to ask whether or not they are aware of the site edits.
In addition, you can also get their permission to archive/mirror their webcomic onto e621 if they don't mind it.

listerthesquirrel said:
(Posting here since seems latest forum thread about webcomics.)

Why would you not just start a new thread instead of necro-ing an entirely irrelevant one?

wat8548 said:
Why would you not just start a new thread instead of necro-ing an entirely irrelevant one?

Well, I suppose it's a better policy than always starting new duplicate threads...

  • 1