Topic: If a Creative Commons license contradicts the DNP list, which takes priority?

There's an artist whose work used to be on this site until they made a takedown request. Since then they've been on the Avoid Posting list.

At some point since then, they've added a note to some (but not all) of their social media accounts, stating that their art is CC-BY-NC-ND: freely redistributable, as long as it's credited and not altered.

So, in this situation, which of these takes priority: the fact they've released their art under a Creative Commons license that says it can be shared anywhere, or their earlier request that they don't want it posted on this site?

I see two different ways this could be handled:

A) "If they've released their art under a CC license, that takes priority over any other wishes they've expressed about places where it can or cannot be posted. So this artist should be removed from the e621 DNP list, and their art can be freely posted here by anyone. (But only images that are sourced from the accounts that display the CC license notice.)"

B) "They may have released their art under a CC license, but this site can still make its own more restrictive rules about whether their work can be posted here, and those rules take priority. Since their last direct request to e621 was that they didn't want their art here, we're going to respect their wishes and keep them on the DNP list."

Personally, I think that (B) is probably the best thing to do: following their last direct request to us is the more cautious and respectful thing to do.

But maybe this situation is something that should be explicitly clarified in a rule somewhere, in the unlikely event that this conflict becomes an issue in future?

Hmmm, interesting question. Honestly I would lean towards option B, mostly for the sake of not adding additional complexity to the approval process.

There's also an augmented option A: Images with the CC license can be uploaded, but the artist can also ask for it to be taken down, but can't ask for a dnp which targets/affects images under CC (basically treating them as a character owner wrt takedowns/dnp)

chemistrynoisy said:
But maybe this situation is something that should be explicitly clarified in a rule somewhere, in the unlikely event that this conflict becomes an issue in future?

If the artist had explicitly requested to be placed on the DNP list, then their art will remain as avoid_posting indefinitely.
Their DNP status would never be lifted even if they had posted a journal/tweet somewhere saying that their works are free-to-post or under a CC license.

The only instance their work would be allowed back in here again is if they had personally requested to be removed from the DNP list or had given explicit permission for a third-party to post here.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If the artist had explicitly requested to be placed on the DNP list, then their art will remain as avoid_posting indefinitely.
Their DNP status would never be lifted even if they had posted a journal/tweet somewhere saying that their works are free-to-post or under a CC license.

The only instance their work would be allowed back in here again is if they had personally requested to be removed from the DNP list or had given explicit permission for a third-party to post here.

This. And since e621 has been scrapped for their data to train AI/LLMs some people don't want their art here.

I may be wrong, but I think an artist can be granted DNP status by making a public statement that they don't want their art reposted anywhere, rather than contacting e621 directly. If the DNP status was granted in that way, then the artist stating that their art is under a CC license should probably revoke it.
The best way to handle this is to ask the artist if they wish to be removed from the DNP list.

iseekstowin said:
... CC license should probably revoke it.

I don't think so. Assuming the intent of someone is not a good idea at best: people contradict themselves all the time. Removing an artists from DNP should stay something deliberate; documented.

bleakdragoon said:
I don't think so. Assuming the intent of someone is not a good idea at best: people contradict themselves all the time. Removing an artists from DNP should stay something deliberate; documented.

I don't understand. If the mods know that the artist never specifically asked for their art to not be posted here, and they were only added to and kept on the DNP list because of a public statement to not repost their art, then I think mods could make the judgement to remove them without contacting the artist if the artist goes back on that statement. In this case, I would expect them to add an exception to the DNP, only allowing the the art that falls under this license.
This is all assuming an artist can be added to the DNP list this way, that the specific scenario occured in the case of this artist and that mods can keep track of this stuff.
Again, it's best to contact the artist, or wait for the staff's opinion on this.

iseekstowin said:
I may be wrong, but I think an artist can be granted DNP status by making a public statement that they don't want their art reposted anywhere, rather than contacting e621 directly.

You are wrong, asking directly is the only way.

iseekstowin said:
/snip

You can't expect the handful of volunteers in the staff to track all social medias of all the artist on the DNP that indirectly asked for a takedown in case they'd change their minds indirectly.

There's a easy way to no longer be on the DNP list: make a request. If they changed their mind, it's a very small step to take.

Anyway, the point is moot since, as pleaseletmein said, you need to make a direct request.

The correct answer is B). If they told us they don't want their art here, then their art won't be here, regardless of what their copyright status is. Hypothetically, if it's been 60 or so years after their death and their work has entered the public domain, then we can host their material regardless of their wishes. Of course, it hasn't been that long since any DNP artists have died (after all, most are still alive), so that's really a moot point NotMeNotYou's successors will be dealing with.

The various Creative Commons licenses aren't the same as public domain. They're still copyright licenses with the copyright holder still keeping some rights to protect their intellectual property. How much depends upon which CC license a work is published under. Obviously, that means if they have asked to be on the DNP list, they specifically aren't waiving any of their distribution rights in relation to e621. Until their work becomes public domain, e621 can't host it.

(Obvious disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, so I can't give legal advice and my interpretation of the law may be suspect.)

iseekstowin said:
I may be wrong, but I think an artist can be granted DNP status by making a public statement that they don't want their art reposted anywhere, rather than contacting e621 directly. If the DNP status was granted in that way, then the artist stating that their art is under a CC license should probably revoke it.

Nope, an artist has to specifically ask for DNP status here. Statements elsewhere don't count, regardless of what license their art is under. In fact, there are artists who have "Do Not Distribute" warnings on their art and galleries who not only have no problems having their stuff posted here but actually post it themselves. Paysite stuff is automatically DNP, but artists and commissioners post that stuff here all the time. E621's DNP list makes sure that everyone can be on the same page.

The best way to handle this is to ask the artist if they wish to be removed from the DNP list.

This is true.

clawstripe said:
The correct answer is B). If they told us they don't want their art here, then their art won't be here, regardless of what their copyright status is. Hypothetically, if it's been 60 or so years after their death and their work has entered the public domain, then we can host their material regardless of their wishes. Of course, it hasn't been that long since any DNP artists have died (after all, most are still alive), so that's really a moot point NotMeNotYou's successors will be dealing with.

even then, from what I understand, DNP status is a courtesy of the site, rather than a necessary copyright thing. if we didn't have a policy to remove/ignore a DNP request when the copyright runs out, when the DNP request was made, I'm not sure if we should, still.

It's worth noting that the aforementioned CC BY-NC-ND license includes NC (NonCommercial), and e621 is a commercial website, nothing would actually change here since the license still wouldn't permit them to host it. The ND (NoDerivatives) also poses a problem since e621 needs to generate thumbnails and samples, Wikipedia doesn't allow the uploads of ND content for this reason.

But if we instead go with the assumption it will instead be a less restrictive license like CC BY, CC BY-SA, or CC 0 especially: e621 would most likely* be within their rights to host it even if the artist objects. Wikipedia has frequently done this to photographers, on the grounds that the licenses are irrevocable.** I think the more important question, instead of can they, is should they?

I think not. e621 is under no legal obligation to have a DNP list or takedown policies in the first place; both existing primarily as a courtesy to artists to spare them from having to file a full DMCA notice, which would require disclosing a lot more personal information than the average furry porn artist wants to. This has kept e621, for the most part, in very good graces with the artist community compared to the reputation it had many years ago when artists' wishes weren't respected and paysite content was allowed to be uploaded. I think it would be foolish to betray the trust e621 has gained by exploiting people on a legal technicality like this.

^{* Other rights, such as privacy rights or moral rights, may also come into play - though this is separate from copyright.
** Uploading to Wikipedia and similar websites usually requires agreement to the Creative Commons license along with every upload, which is sufficient proof they agreed to these terms, while comments on social media like "All my uploads are CC BY" may not be as legally binding since there is no proof they actually understood the license they were claiming the work to be under and even may be unclear what works it was in reference to.}

^{(Disclaimer: I know a fair bit about this area of copyright law, but this information should absolutely not be considered legal advice.)}

dba_afish said:
even then, from what I understand, DNP status is a courtesy of the site, rather than a necessary copyright thing. if we didn't have a policy to remove/ignore a DNP request when the copyright runs out, when the DNP request was made, I'm not sure if we should, still.

As I said above, that's a hypothetical for future staff and Users to deal with, assuming e621 lasts that long. If you really want to know the answer to that question, grab a time machine and go ask future Head Admin Chimblechuff about it. For the here and now, once someone gets on the DNP list, we don't host their stuff without explicit permission otherwise, end of matter.

iseekstowin said:
I may be wrong, but I think an artist can be granted DNP status by making a public statement that they don't want their art reposted anywhere, rather than contacting e621 directly. If the DNP status was granted in that way, then the artist stating that their art is under a CC license should probably revoke it.
The best way to handle this is to ask the artist if they wish to be removed from the DNP list.

Nope, and yes for the second part.
The artist must personally and explicitly request to be placed on the DNP list.

Any statements made on their personal accounts would not be considered, nor do third-party requests to have the artist be placed under DNP.
Even if the artist had submitted for a takedown and saying that they don't want their art to be here, they won't be placed on the DNP list unless they specifically ask for it.

If there is a desire to have their artworks be reinstated, then someone will have to contact the artist to tell them to personally request for their DNP status to be lifted.