Posted under Art Talk
Im posting a sketch comic/story
(TW it won't end well for the evil queen) https://e621.net/posts/6097452?q=evil_queen_%28mrazakx%29
Anyway I see that Wekesa did a takedown of all their art... But it's technically not owned by them but instead by mrazakx (He commissioned it all)
Do you think this will be a problem if I continue to post it (even if I get permission from mrazakx?)
IIRC the artist has precedence over the character owner in choosing what is to stay up. Character owners can request a takedown, but if the artist requests for them to be reinstated then it will usually be reinstated. Character owners and characters can't be DNP except in very, very rare circumstances.
If mrazakx is the commissioner and not the artist, the art can still be taken down by the artist in question.
moonlit-comet said:
IIRC the artist has precedence over the character owner in choosing what is to stay up. Character owners can request a takedown, but if the artist requests for them to be reinstated then it will usually be reinstated. Character owners and characters can't be DNP except in very, very rare circumstances.
If mrazakx is the commissioner and not the artist, the art can still be taken down by the artist in question.
Interesting... So I shouldn't post the rest? I would ask the person who drew the comic for permission... But they don't exist anymore (I.E they wiped their Internet footprint)
Should I even bother posting the rest and just see if the artist requests a takedown? Or stop altogether?
wateryblue said:
Im posting a sketch comic/story(TW it won't end well for the evil queen) https://e621.net/posts/6097452?q=evil_queen_%28mrazakx%29
Anyway I see that Wekesa did a takedown of all their art... But it's technically not owned by them but instead by mrazakx (He commissioned it all)
Do you think this will be a problem if I continue to post it (even if I get permission from mrazakx?)
Your title doesn't seem to line up with what you're describing on the main text.
Whatever the case, here are several things to consider:
wateryblue said:
Interesting... So I shouldn't post the rest? I would ask the person who drew the comic for permission... But they don't exist anymore (I.E they wiped their Internet footprint)Should I even bother posting the rest and just see if the artist requests a takedown? Or stop altogether?
Like with any artwork, you can freely post them without requiring any permission.
You are not explicitly prohibited from posting them, unless they have already been posted here before.
However, you run the risk of damaging your own and the site's reputation (for not having the basic courtesy to ask for permissions) and/or receiving a takedown from the original artist (whether they still exist online or not).
Got a side question, Who owns a piece if it was a collab
and how to takedowns work with those, Dood?
Do both parties have to agree for it to stay up or
is there a hierarchy on who owns it 'More', Dood?
Does the person who did the linework on the body
have more sway than the person who colored it? And
for more technical cases, What if someone did the top
and someone else did the bottom. Who's the artist
in that case, Dood?
╹ ╹)
wateryblue said:
Anyway I see that Wekesa did a takedown of all their art... But it's technically not owned by them but instead by mrazakx (He commissioned it all)
Being the commissioner doesn't automatically make them the copyright holder of the work. By default, the person who made the work owns it and holds the exclusive copyright. A commissioner only gets the right to hold the specific copy privately that they're given. Technically they can't even repost it themselves, without the artist giving permission (generally I think they do, but I know some don't). To get real ownership of the work, ownership of the copyright and thus the right to control who can copy/repost it, that would have to be an extra part of the terms of the commission that the artist needs to agree to (and will typically result in a much higher cost, since the artist is giving away more than just a private copy).
When you commission something you're basically creating a contact. Unless that contract stipulates who owns the output the default is the artist owns the output (you don't own what you paid for by default). The case of multiple artists gets complicated as each own part of the work, but not all of it. Depending on the medium and nature of the work it's possible that an additional artists work may not even be allowed, which creates it's own set of headaches.
Copyright is generally a mess, and I'd even argue broken.
One of the reasons I like AI and AI assisted work is generally no one owns the output and you can do what ever you want with it. Even more so if you draw it yourself. Can't host it here though, if you go that route.
Updated
notkastar said:
Got a side question, Who owns a piece if it was a collab
and how to takedowns work with those, Dood?Do both parties have to agree for it to stay up or
is there a hierarchy on who owns it 'More', Dood?Does the person who did the linework on the body
have more sway than the person who colored it? And
for more technical cases, What if someone did the top
and someone else did the bottom. Who's the artist
in that case, Dood?
╹ ╹)
I believe this was brought up before, but I can't find it. If one party/artist doesn't want their works here, then the entire collab work is taken down as a whole.
Now, if the question is in regard to contributors, then it's unclear how it is dealt with but I would assume that they are treated on the same level as commissioners/character owners (see topic #55345).
reallyjustwantpr0n said:
One of the reasons I like AI and AI assisted work is generally no one owns the output and you can do what ever you want with it. Even more so if you draw it yourself. Can host it here though, if you go that route.
We do not allow and would actively delete any AI-generated works here, by the way. Only a handful of exceptions are allowed for AI-assisted works.
I recommend using https://e6ai.net/ for AI-generated and AI-assisted works.
reallyjustwantpr0n said:
One of the reasons I like AI and AI assisted work is generally no one owns the output and you can do what ever you want with it. Even more so if you draw it yourself.
that's not even true. for one, any recognizable characters are still owned by the respective copyright holders. also, AI generated imagery is not more free than actual art, since like, open licences exist and are explicitly designed to allow free and open use of a work.
thegreatwolfgang said:
We do not allow and would actively delete any AI-generated works here, by the way. Only a handful of exceptions are allowed for AI-assisted works.I recommend using https://e6ai.net/ for AI-generated and AI-assisted works.
Sorry that should have said CAN'T. My phone keyboard sucks and I can't read. I didn't mean to write can.
Yeah, e6ai for AI stuff.
dba_afish said:
that's not even true. for one, any recognizable characters are still owned by the respective copyright holders. also, AI generated imagery is not more free than actual art, since like, open licences exist and are explicitly designed to allow free and open use of a work.
Fair use. So long as you aren't making money off it, courts have more or less said fan drawings of copyrighted characters is ok. throwing money into the mix does make it harder to defend, but most people would just claim parody.
The US copyright office has said generated works are not copyrightable. There are exceptions to that, of course. Always are. Like of you were to do a paint over, you'd likely own that. But in general, a purely generated output can not be copyrighted. The weights of the algorithm used, can be. But still, the output isn't.
Now, if you can show you put enough creative effort into the AI system yourself, you might, maybe, be able to claim some ownership. But that would be a complex court case.
Edit, I'm done after this. I'm probably just going to stir up trouble, not what I wanted to do. Really just wanted to clarify that 'cant' above.
reallyjustwantpr0n said:
Fair use.
Said the trillion dollar company actively ripping off millions of artists with no credit or compension
reallyjustwantpr0n said:
Fair use. So long as you aren't making money off it, courts have more or less said fan drawings of copyrighted characters is ok. throwing money into the mix does make it harder to defend, but most people would just claim parody.
do you have a source on that claim that fanart have been considered fair use by courts? because, everything I've ever heard contradicts that. as far as I'm aware, fan works are allowed to exist more often because it taking it down would be a net negative for the copyright holders.
reallyjustwantpr0n said:
The US copyright office has said generated works are not copyrightable. There are exceptions to that, of course. Always are. Like of you were to do a paint over, you'd likely own that. But in general, a purely generated output can not be copyrighted. The weights of the algorithm used, can be. But still, the output isn't.
just because something is non-copyrightable dosn't mean that it can't contain copyrighted material. if you gave a camera to a monkey and it took a straight-on photograph of, like, an Andy Warhol painting, the painting would still be a copyrighted work. you wouldn't be able to do anything commercial with the photo without paying for a license, even if the photo itself cannot be copyrighted.
wateryblue said:
Im posting a sketch comic/story(TW it won't end well for the evil queen) https://e621.net/posts/6097452?q=evil_queen_%28mrazakx%29
Anyway I see that Wekesa did a takedown of all their art... But it's technically not owned by them but instead by mrazakx (He commissioned it all)
Do you think this will be a problem if I continue to post it (even if I get permission from mrazakx?)
Seems like something the artist and commissioner should discuss before the transaction, I personally see a commission as a private exchange and if any party wants to distribute it they need the others consent
This is something to be discussed with a lawyer, but you don't inherently own something because you paid for it's creation (at least legally). Otherwise, Patreon would functionally be an investment platform. To quote something I said on our Discord server:
Commissioned work does not inherently include transfer of legal rights to the work; it just legally binds the artist to create it. Many forms of professional artistic work specifically transfer all rights (or at least most rights) to the commissioner, but it must be explicitly defined in a mutually agreed-upon contract, whatever form that contract, or the agreement to it, takes. Remember "Taylor's version"s of her old songs? That's because (to simplify, but not oversimplify) she signed away the rights (or at least most of them) to the master recording (e.g. the final recording you can listen to on Spotify & the CD), but not her rights to the composition (e.g. the lyrics & the sheet music), so she could make her own re-recordings (i.e. new masters using her compositions), & the rights owner of the original masters couldn't do anything about it. Most furry commissions stipulate even fewer rights owned by the commissioner. If the contract doesn't say so, you don't own anything.
This is another of the problems w/ NFTs btw; like buying a trading card, buying them doesn't mean you own the underlying copyright, you just own that thing. Whether you also get ownership of any legal rights is dependent on the existence & terms of a contract.
As for the point about fair use, it's a nuanced consideration that takes multiple factors into account. Commercial nature is one of them, but it's not dispositive. Ripping a CD & sharing the music for free isn't commercial, but it's still not fair use.
reallyjustwantpr0n said:
Edit, I'm done after this. I'm probably just going to stir up trouble, not what I wanted to do. Really just wanted to clarify that 'cant' above.
You're good, respectful & well-intentioned discourse is all clear here.
