I came across post #385349 and I noticed that a lot of people were (understandably) complaining about the massive watermark that the commissioner added to the post. I was wondering whether or not it was allowed to post the original version uploaded by the artist that doesn't include the commissioner-added watermark, and if so, why or why not. Thanks in advance. :)
Topic: Posting versions of images without commissioner added watermarks
Posted under General
munchmallow-frosty said:
I came across post #385349 and I noticed that a lot of people were (understandably) complaining about the massive watermark that the commissioner added to the post. I was wondering whether or not it was allowed to post the original version uploaded by the artist that doesn't include the commissioner-added watermark, and if so, why or why not. Thanks in advance. :)
if it is or was at one point made publicly available by the artist and there's no DNP/CDNP it should be allowed here...
assuming it wasn't uploaded and deleted before, which, looking at the visually similar posts it might've already been.
Sure enough, the character owner requested it to be taken down. Honestly, that's kinda scummy of them, but it's ultimately their call, I guess.
munchmallow-frosty said:
Sure enough, the character owner requested it to be taken down. Honestly, that's kinda scummy of them, but it's ultimately their call, I guess.
yeah but can't do anything about it sadly
munchmallow-frosty said:
Sure enough, the character owner requested it to be taken down. Honestly, that's kinda scummy of them, but it's ultimately their call, I guess.
Boy, people really are coming out of the woodwork to reinforce the idea of why theres's distaste for e621 with this "scummy" shit, and the "you deserve to be stolen from" comment. Get a grip.
votp said:
Boy, people really are coming out of the woodwork to reinforce the idea of why theres's distaste for e621 with this "scummy" shit, and the "you deserve to be stolen from" comment. Get a grip.
I never said they deserved to be stolen from. The scummy part to me is putting a massive watermark on a work you didn't create, as if you did.
Edit: Double post, please ignore.
munchmallow-frosty said:
I never said they deserved to be stolen from. The scummy part to me is putting a massive watermark on a work you didn't create, as if you did.
Read the comments on that post you linked.
And it's their character, on work they paid for. Trying to go to war with commissioners over this sort of thing isn't going to end well.
votp said:
Read the comments on that post you linked.
And it's their character, on work they paid for. Trying to go to war with commissioners over this sort of thing isn't going to end well.
You're right, I dunno why people are mad at this. A commissioner plastering their own hideous watermark 20x larger than the artist's actual signature in the center of the image is extremely funny. Dunno why anyone would get ticked off seeing art defaced like this.
votp said:
Boy, people really are coming out of the woodwork to reinforce the idea of why theres's distaste for e621 with this "scummy" shit, and the "you deserve to be stolen from" comment. Get a grip.
Kinda curious about this comment. We're talking about a version of some piece of art that has a distracting watermark added by someone who isn't the artist (which, FWIW, makes it look like they're claiming to have made the image, as watermarks like that usually indicate the artist rather than the character name or commissioner), and the original piece that was released publicly by the artist not being allowed here because of someone who isn't the artist wanted a worse version the artist didn't make instead. This isn't the artist's wishes, who still has the original non-watermarked version up on their FA page. I do think it's fair to say it's kinda scummy for someone else to take down the original piece that was made by and is still available from the artist, and replace it with a worse one the artist didn't make, because of some technicality of how takedowns are handled.
If the character owner doesn't want art of their character here, then fine, they can request a takedown and have art of their character removed. But someone who isn't the artist taking down a piece as it was made available by the artist, to instead replace it with a worse version the artist didn't make, doesn't seem like the intent of the takedown system.
But honestly, I don't even think it's actually the character owner that posted these. Unless awdip is hyosube, these were sourced from hyosube's FA (though the FA post is now deleted), which makes it a third-party_edit repost of a deleted post.
votp said:
Read the comments on that post you linked.
One comment made over 11 years ago said anything about 'if I was to steal a character...', a comment which has no upvotes. Others were just expressing disappointment about not being able to enjoy it because of the watermark, or questioning the validity of the reason ("Unauthorizied removal of watermark" is definitely not true, since the artist's post doesn't have that watermark, it wasn't removed without authorization).
Updated
watsit said:
Kinda curious about this comment. We're talking about a version of some piece of art that has a distracting watermark added by someone who isn't the artist (which, FWIW, makes it look like they're claiming to have made the image, as watermarks like that usually indicate the artist rather than the character name or commissioner), and the original piece that was released publicly by the artist not being allowed here because of someone who isn't the artist wanted a worse version the artist didn't make instead. This isn't the artist's wishes, who still has the original non-watermarked version up on their FA page. I do think it's fair to say it's kinda scummy for someone else to take down the original piece that was made by and is still available from the artist, and replace it with a worse one the artist didn't make, because of some technicality of how takedowns are handled.If the character owner doesn't want art of their character here, then fine, they can request a takedown and have art of their character removed. But someone who isn't the artist taking down a piece as it was made available by the artist, to instead replace it with a worse version the artist didn't make, doesn't seem like the intent of the takedown system.
But honestly, I don't even think it's actually the character owner that posted these. Unless awdip is hyobusa, these were sourced from hyobusa's FA (though the FA post is now deleted), which makes it a third-party_edit repost of a deleted post.
One comment made over 11 years ago said anything about 'if I was to steal a character...', a comment which has no upvotes. Others were just expressing disappointment about not being able to enjoy it because of the watermark, or questioning the validity of the reason ("Unauthorizied removal of watermark" is definitely not true, since the artist's post doesn't have that watermark, it wasn't removed without authorization).
Took the words right out of my mouth. That was exactly why I took issue with it. I'm glad someone understood that because it seems I'm very frequently misunderstood.
Just for future reference, if you come across similar posts, we would often prefer the non-watermarked version if you could find it.
However, it would also be insightful if you had checked for similar posts like above to see if someone had tried the same thing as you (and got rejected by the owners).
considering how many people just use other peoples art for rp accounts i would say this is justified for the more pious furries
watsit said:
-snip-
The context of the era, and the behaviour of users at the time, is the reason that was done. E6's guidelines, and generalised culture has changed dramatically since that particular piece was posted. Remember that it used to be kosher to upload unreleased paysite content without authorisation or reimbursement "if it's old enough". That's before factoring in the simple issue of uploads to this site getting directly reused and reuploaded without any credit to anyone involved, specifically because of it's ease of access. That isn't E6's fault, of course, but it's a vector for it, and even with FA having tried half-assedly to implement a blacklist and "work on" their search, this is still the best way to find artists and their galleries elsewhere via searching, so you wind up with an issue of trying to balance using the site, with "I really don't want to because <any number of reasons>".
I don't think it should have been reuploaded at all, if it was removed it should have stayed that way, however, I'm always going to err on the side of artists and clients over this site's uploaders, given the "better to beg forgiveness" mentality a lot seem to still operate on, and operated on, unfortunately. For exceptionally old posts like that, it's also possible it just slipped under the radar entirely.
votp said:
"better to beg forgiveness" mentality
i would hazard to assume this is still very true for the bulk uploaders that only add the required amount of tags and no more
Seen some sites? A rather infamous site just recently removed sources, as an apparent insult to artists on top of allowing pay content blatantly. I've been on the other side of that fence, and it's not just one site doing bad stuff like this, but the one taking out sources after having them for years? That's kind of rude. (understatement)
alphamule said:
Seen some sites? A rather infamous site just recently removed sources, as an apparent insult to artists on top of allowing pay content blatantly. I've been on the other side of that fence, and it's not just one site doing bad stuff like this, but the one taking out sources after having them for years? That's kind of rude. (understatement)
what site?
It might help the issue if staff/community members encourage commissioners with wishes like this to ask the artist to put their watermark on it themselves, at least for publicly available versions, with the versions without the commissioner's watermark being paywalled or only given to the commissioner themselves? That'd clear up the vagueness in enforcement & make their wishes more consistent & more likely to be followed on sites less scrupulous than e6. I imagine some artists wouldn't go for it, but it'd at least minimize this sort of thing.
i feel like we shouldnt allow any watermarks that wasnt placed by the artist
funkwolfie said:
i feel like we shouldnt allow any watermarks that wasnt placed by the artist
I disagree with this. I'd rather have the best version accessible, while still respecting artists and character owners. If an unwatermarked version is publicly available, then that's my preferred version. If not, I'd rather that the watermarked version wasn't removed just for having a character owner's mark on it. Cases like this specific one are unfortunate, but unless we decided to flout the character owner's wishes, I'd prefer the watermarked version to nothing.
If the artist doesn't want a version posted with a watermark that isn't their own, they still have the recourse of requesting a deletion, and I'd much rather that decision lie in their hands than with a blanket rule.
quenir said:
I disagree with this. I'd rather have the best version accessible, while still respecting artists and character owners. If an unwatermarked version is publicly available, then that's my preferred version. If not, I'd rather that the watermarked version wasn't removed just for having a character owner's mark on it. Cases like this specific one are unfortunate, but unless we decided to flout the character owner's wishes, I'd prefer the watermarked version to nothing.If the artist doesn't want a version posted with a watermark that isn't their own, they still have the recourse of requesting a deletion, and I'd much rather that decision lie in their hands than with a blanket rule.
Not to mention that this doesn't just happen with character owners, art pieces on sites selling dakimakuras (or like the fantasy art on bad dragon) often have watermarks on the art and assuming they commissioned it, they are the only source of the art
quenir said:
I disagree with this. I'd rather have the best version accessible, while still respecting artists and character owners. If an unwatermarked version is publicly available, then that's my preferred version. If not, I'd rather that the watermarked version wasn't removed just for having a character owner's mark on it. Cases like this specific one are unfortunate, but unless we decided to flout the character owner's wishes, I'd prefer the watermarked version to nothing.If the artist doesn't want a version posted with a watermark that isn't their own, they still have the recourse of requesting a deletion, and I'd much rather that decision lie in their hands than with a blanket rule.
if the artist has the unwatermarked version public there a good chance the character owner added the watermark without authorization
funkwolfie said:
if the artist has the unwatermarked version public there a good chance the character owner added the watermark without authorization
That's on the artist to take action, the site doesn't take any action without direct requests from the artist
donovan_dmc said:
That's on the artist to take action, the site doesn't take any action without direct requests from the artist
alrightly I messaged the artists
funkwolfie said:
alrightly I messaged the artists
Hopefully they get back to us soon.
funkwolfie said:
if the artist has the unwatermarked version public there a good chance the character owner added the watermark without authorization
the commissioner is the owner of the art at the point of transaction completion and does not need someone elses authorization to do what they want with their property
jhudson said:
the commissioner is the owner of the art at the point of transaction completion and does not need someone elses authorization to do what they want with their property
This is almost never the case, unless they paid for a full license (which is extremely expensive)
The artist owns the art, the character owner owns the character
The only usage either has is what they agree to, neither owns the entire piece in full unless they agreed to that (which often the artist will have some kind of terms that they have full use of the piece, and the character owner has some kind of limited use)
jhudson said:
the commissioner is the owner of the art at the point of transaction completion and does not need someone elses authorization to do what they want with their property
not really, copyright law in america mean the artist owns the artwork it not your property, you can only do things they allow in their tos or messaged saying its okay, otherwise they can legit sue you if they wanted
donovan_dmc said:
This is almost never the case, unless they paid for a full license (which is extremely expensive)
The artist owns the art, the character owner owns the character
The only usage either has is what they agree to, neither owns the entire piece in full unless they agreed to that (which often the artist will have some kind of terms that they have full use of the piece, and the character owner has some kind of limited use)
funkwolfie said:
not really, copyright law in america mean the artist owns the artwork it not your property, you can only do things they allow in their tos or messaged saying its okay, otherwise they can legit sue you if they wanted
well i just had an interesting read and several google searches
i see that i was mistaken, my apologies
donovan_dmc said:
This is almost never the case, unless they paid for a full license (which is extremely expensive)
The artist owns the art, the character owner owns the character
The only usage either has is what they agree to, neither owns the entire piece in full unless they agreed to that (which often the artist will have some kind of terms that they have full use of the piece, and the character owner has some kind of limited use)
This very thing is something I've heard stories of indie devs getting in trouble for in the past and is something I always think about when someone is commissioning an artist for assets they intend to use for their game/stream/youtube/etc.
I just had a thought. The source for the original post (post #385349) is dead. Hypothetically, would I be allowed to link to the original, unwatermarked version that the original artist uploaded and tag it with better_version_at_source? I think that'd be a decent compromise for this whole shebang. What do y'all think?
munchmallow-frosty said:
I just had a thought. The source for the original post (post #385349) is dead. Hypothetically, would I be allowed to link to the original, unwatermarked version that the original artist uploaded and tag it with better_version_at_source? I think that'd be a decent compromise for this whole shebang. What do y'all think?
There aren't any rules against that
Also tag it with irreplaceable bvas while you're at it
donovan_dmc said:
There aren't any rules against that
Also tag it with irreplaceable bvas while you're at it
I didn't know that was a tag. Thank you! I'll go ahead and add these to the other Hyosube posts with dead links as well.
I went ahead and added the few I could find mirrors for, but a couple of them I couldn't find anywhere. SauceNAO gave me thumbnails for post #385345 and post #385341, but following the links doesn't take me to the actual images. Oh, well.
An fyi if you're looking for things that have been deleted from fa, https://furarchiver.net/ can probably help
I think anything sourced to that would constitute archived source
(Not sure how well you could actually source that site though, you might be able to link to a download link for the image but I dont think it has submissions you can link to)
jhudson said:
the commissioner is the owner of the art at the point of transaction completion and does not need someone elses authorization to do what they want with their property
Yeah, works for hire is an interesting concept. TL;DR If this was applicable, you'd likely already know because of the contract. There was an odd custom with negatives back in the film days that this reminded me of, too. The current equivalent is who kept the layers/vectors of the images that they produced for someone. You can effectively 'remaster' images much like mentioned in articles arguing about rather the few that still use film should keep the negatives. This also applies to family photos, not just when you are a professional.
BTW, the sort of questions in the comments of this article is why there should definitely be some "someone likely remembers, still" reasonable limit on the copyright of stuff like these old photos. Lifetime of photographer plus lifetime of grandkids born after they died of old age is a bit much. :facepalm: There's a lot of stuff like this with video games from the 80's, where the documentation is just gone.
Updated
alphamule said:
Yeah, works for hire is an interesting concept. TL;DR If this was applicable, you'd likely already know because of the contract. There was an odd custom with negatives back in the film days that this reminded me of, too. The current equivalent is who kept the layers/vectors of the images that they produced for someone. You can effectively 'remaster' images much like mentioned in articles arguing about rather the few that still use film should keep the negatives. This also applies to family photos, not just when you are a professional.BTW, the sort of questions in the comments of this article is why there should definitely be some "someone likely remembers, still" reasonable limit on the copyright of stuff like these old photos. Lifetime of photographer plus lifetime of grandkids born after they died of old age is a bit much. :facepalm: There's a lot of stuff like this with video games from the 80's, where the documentation is just gone.
i think the time gate is a variable for countries different laws
i think when i did some researching after people corrected me here that it said artists life plus 60 or some other dynamic years added on