Topic: Art that explicitly lists "do not repost" on it should not be approved by janitors

Recently i stumbled upon post post #6097704

I asked the artist about it, alerting them to it, they didn't give permission to upload it here.

I flagged it for obvious reasons, but an hour agomit was wordlessly deflagged by another janitor.

The artist is currently in the process of taking sown the art and adding themselves to dnp as of my last conversation with them. But they shouldnt have to.

One of the rules expects us to ask an artist permission (something which is sorely lacking) but surely, when the art is literally covered in a million watermarks explicitly asking to not have the art reuploaded elsewhere isnt it common fucking sense, to not reupload it, let alone approve it.

It should be an explicit rule that art with such a tag is not approved.

So if a commissioner uploads a piece of art that has "do not distribute" on it, it should be deleted? What if it's on the commissioner's FA and they don't mind it being uploaded? We don't consider "do not repost" texts because they are not transparent in what they actually mean
Does it mean nowhere? Does it mean not on your personal profile? Does it mean not as an avatar? Who knows, the artist needs to specifically tell us what they want

If this is supposed to be a feature request, then it should have been properly formatted as such (see topic #14916).

Logistically speaking though, this would not work for the same reasons mentioned on topic #42848. This also applies to "do not repost" disclaimers on the source page itself.
Artists could grant reposting permissions or distribution rights to any third-party (e.g., commissioners, character owners) while not explicitly stating it anywhere.
When those people (or even the artist themselves) repost here, their uploads would then be in conflict with this new proposed policy.
The janitors, who are already swamped with the mod queue, would have to then go the extra mile and double-check if the uploaders have the proper permissions to repost said piece of artwork here.

You might as well propose a policy for people to have acquired the proper permissions first before they are allowed to repost anything here.

donovan_dmc said:
So if a commissioner uploads a piece of art that has "do not distribute" on it, it should be deleted? What if it's on the commissioner's FA and they don't mind it being uploaded? We don't consider "do not repost" texts because they are not transparent in what they actually mean
Does it mean nowhere? Does it mean not on your personal profile? Does it mean not as an avatar? Who knows, the artist needs to specifically tell us what they want

Yes actually and as usual youre being intentionally obtuse.

thegreatwolfgang said:
If this is supposed to be a feature request, then it should have been properly formatted as such (see topic #14916).

Logistically speaking though, this would not work for the same reasons mentioned on topic #42848. This also applies to "do not repost" disclaimers on the source page itself.
Artists could grant reposting permissions or distribution rights to any third-party (e.g., commissioners, character owners) while not explicitly stating it anywhere.
When those people (or even the artist themselves) repost here, their uploads would then be in conflict with this new proposed policy.
The janitors, who are already swamped with the mod queue, would have to then go the extra mile and double-check if the uploaders have the proper permissions to repost said piece of artwork here.

You might as well propose a policy for people to have acquired the proper permissions first before they are allowed to repost anything here.

Noted, ill try to reformat the original post the moment I have an opportunity.

But yes. There should be aquisition of permission first. As to my knowledge there Is a rule for that. And if an artist is uploading their own art (which already allows them to bypass dnp) it does not take any time out of a janitor's schedual anymore than a dnp artist would. Your argument is an entirely made up problem.

demesejha said:
Yes actually and as usual youre being intentionally obtuse.

Yeah, tell me how you really feel, that seems super relevant here
You addressed absolutely zero things I said and instead just said a blanket "yes"

So if an artist adds "do no post" text on an image someone paid for, and that someone chose to share it, it should be deleted?

Obviously we both know neither of us thinks that (at least, I hope you don't think that), but that's my point
A simple "do not post" text has no nuance so we have no idea what the artist wants

demesejha said:
But yes. There should be aquisition of permission first. As to my knowledge there Is a rule for that. And if an artist is uploading their own art (which already allows them to bypass dnp) it does not take any time out of a janitor's schedual anymore than a dnp artist would. Your argument is an entirely made up problem.

While I agree that it is common courtesy to ask first, there is no such rule stipulating that that should be the case.

Excluding the artists who can be verified, you still have not considered the other people that are involved (e.g., commissioners, character owners, collaborators/contributors, copyright holders, third-party editors, etc.).
This is the very same reason why we can't keep a DNP list for commissioners/character owners, as that would put an extra workload on janitors on top of existing obligations.

The more practical solution is for the artist themselves to personally request to be placed on DNP/CDNP if they have a problem with unauthorised reposts.

demesejha said:
Recently i stumbled upon post post #6097704

I asked the artist about it, alerting them to it, they didn't give permission to upload it here.

I flagged it for obvious reasons, but an hour agomit was wordlessly deflagged by another janitor.

The artist is currently in the process of taking sown the art and adding themselves to dnp as of my last conversation with them. But they shouldnt have to.

One of the rules expects us to ask an artist permission (something which is sorely lacking) but surely, when the art is literally covered in a million watermarks explicitly asking to not have the art reuploaded elsewhere isnt it common fucking sense, to not reupload it, let alone approve it.

It should be an explicit rule that art with such a tag is not approved.

We have artists who upload to e6 *and* also include a "do not repost" snippet in their post

For many many reasons, this isn't practical

thegreatwolfgang said:
While I agree that it is common courtesy to ask first, there is no such rule stipulating that that should be the case.

Excluding the artists who can be verified, you still have not considered the other people that are involved (e.g., commissioners, character owners, collaborators/contributors, copyright holders, third-party editors, etc.).
This is the very same reason why we can't keep a DNP list for commissioners/character owners, as that would put an extra workload on janitors on top of existing obligations.

The more practical solution is for the artist themselves to personally request to be placed on DNP/CDNP if they have a problem with unauthorised reposts.

Yes. It should be deleted. Full stop.

Realistically it should, be a rule.

If an artist is including a tag like that we should take it for what it is. If they included that on the art when they uploaded it, tough tits, they can upload a version without that on it and that version wont be deleted.

This is not complicated.

This is not complicated at all.

demesejha said:
Yes. It should be deleted. Full stop.

Realistically it should, be a rule.

If an artist is including a tag like that we should take it for what it is. If they included that on the art when they uploaded it, tough tits, they can upload a version without that on it and that version wont be deleted.

This is not complicated.

This is not complicated at all.

What if the artist has privately given permission to upload it?
What if they're fine with it being posted to archives but not on social media sites and that's what the "do not repost" refers to?
What if they don't want a version without the "do not post" floating around?
What if it was commissioned and as part of the terms the commissioner was given permission to post it?
What if the commissioner doesn't want a version without "do not repost" floating around?
What if a "do not repost" mark was added by a 3rd party?
What if the artist no longer has an online presence, can't be contacted, or is dead?
What if the artist has changed their mind but doesn't want to go edit all their old works to remove "do not repost"?

I agree that it seems like it's not complicated, but it really is

Idk I feel like "what if it was commissioned and/or the uploader has permission?" can be answered the same way that it is for dnp artists- the uploader can appeal the removal with evidence.

I don't think it's completely black and white, but it doesn't seem that difficult to deal with.

demesejha said:
Yes. It should be deleted. Full stop.

Realistically it should, be a rule.

If an artist is including a tag like that we should take it for what it is. If they included that on the art when they uploaded it, tough tits, they can upload a version without that on it and that version wont be deleted.

This is not complicated.

This is not complicated at all.

If it's not that complicated, we'd already have this policy a very long time ago and everything would be at peace.
However, that has never been the case and you still have not addressed the legitimate criticisms against your new proposed policy.

I believe in almost every case when someone commissions an artist, the artist would allow them to repost their commissions.
You can't tell a commissioner/character owner "tough tits" when they can't post an artwork that they commissioned because the artist coincidentally applied a restrictive watermark.
Likewise, you can't expect them to keep requesting from the artist to remove said watermark because they have to post it here.

Theres nothing to address because being obtuse is not "legitimate criticism". We literally already have checks in place regarding the dnp *list* for this exact scenario. My proposal is to extend that to all artists who have not yet been uploaded to the website (largely non english speakers) the vast majority of which who dont even know this site exists who are now having their art stolen, and then because e621 is a primary hub used for scraping, having their art scraped by ai model makers.

Your counterproposal is that theynshould just ask for dnp but the realistic thing is: they HAVE, THATS WHAT THE WATERMARK IS FOR.

Im going to reiterate, this is not complicated. Weaponizing ignorance and acting like "you just dont knoe" does not make it ok nor is it reasonable. You are rational adults this is a reasonable set of assumptions to make, stop going for the most absurd ones.

regsmutt said:
Idk I feel like "what if it was commissioned and/or the uploader has permission?" can be answered the same way that it is for dnp artists- the uploader can appeal the removal with evidence.

I don't think it's completely black and white, but it doesn't seem that difficult to deal with.

Really its this yeah. We already handle pieces like this with uploader evidence.

As it currently stands, e621 is a theft site. I only upload my art here because i know if i dont, someone else will. Its already happened a few times recently against my explicit request not to and having ownership of it transferred under my account is a pain.

Its partly made it so i just dont post ANY art at all anymore. Because you cant even get a commissioner dnp.

I can and I will in fact, tell them tough tits, because I have in fsct myself had to get permission and show evidence for my own commissions to be posted here before. As well as had my commissions taken down because an artist changed their mind and went DNP.

You guys have literally never cared before, youre only doing this whataboutism now because the rule im proposing would require a very small subset of people to actually obtain permission.

Calling us a theft site is a real great way to lose your argument, get a slap in the tits, and have your topic locked.

We aren't going to change our rules to cover an very ambiguous scenario that seems to not even be a problem right now, for the sake of "technical correctness".

You were given plenty of examples why that's not feasible, and ignoring it after this point is on you.

Ok, let me put it this way; what could feasibly be done to ensure proactively that uploaders have permission from the artist beforehand?

demesejha said:
You guys have literally never cared before, youre only doing this whataboutism now because the rule im proposing would require a very small subset of people to actually obtain permission.

You have already acknowledged that gaining permission before posting is already a rule, which you clearly don't feel is sufficient.

demesejha said:
There should be aquisition of permission first. As to my knowledge there Is a rule for that.

So no, this would require every single uploader to gain permission, which is not "a very small subset of people". And you know that this is already a rule that we have. So what you're actually asking is for a change in detection for people breaking the rule that we already have.

demesejha said:
[...]And if an artist is uploading their own art (which already allows them to bypass dnp) it does not take any time out of a janitor's schedual anymore than a dnp artist would.

Outside of that very narrow set of cases, preemptively validating each & every post has permission from the artist would indisputably take more time for janitors to approve, & I'd say it'd place a burden that's simply untenable at scale.

demesejha said:
You guys have literally never cared before[...]

We have no legal obligation to do so, but we proactively allow artists to define the conditions their art can be submitted under, & considering the surprisingly intense work it takes to handle this, I'd say we care at least a little.

This isn't a matter of us not caring, it's a matter of enforcement, and consequently a matter of resource allocation.