Provence said:
danbooru.donmai.us/post_flags
Can someone please check if the flagger of the second latest flags is the same as the one who flagged some of my posts earlier this day?
Not the same person.
Posted under General
post #2648746
Not really vandalism, but is "Patreon exclusive" a valid flag reason?
Provence said:
post #2648746
Not really vandalism, but is "Patreon exclusive" a valid flag reason?
No
Flandre5carlet said:
It's also not even a Patreon exclusive in the first place because it's my personal reward as a patron of a specific tier, so I'm free to do as I wish with it.
In the same sense you are "free to do as you wish" with a CD you bought in a store, such as ripping it and putting it online? Patreon rewards seem like a very grey area in terms of ethics and IP law so I think it could be a potentially valid flag reason.
Flandre, I'm not sure what you mean, specific tier. Did you pay this artist for a custom illustration to be personally made for you or just to get a version of an image not publicly available, such as a higher quality image? Either way it doesn't seem you are free to do with that as you wish; not without his permission.
sweetpeɐ said:
In the same sense you are "free to do as you wish" with a CD you bought in a store, such as ripping it and putting it online?
No, not at all. In the sense that it is something that I myself paid for by being in a specific tier which grants me a personal illustration. It is not an alternate version of an image that isn't publicly available (ie. Patreon exclusives such as NSFW versions), it is an image that simply would not exist if I had not asked it from the artist by being in that specific Patreon tier, and that is literally not available anywhere except on my computer. It's essentially a commission, thus I am free to do as I wish with it so long as it is not anything commercial and the artist is properly credited.
Updated
Flandre5carlet said:
No, not at all. In the sense that it is something that I myself paid for by being in a specific tier which grants me a personal illustration. It is not an alternate version of an image that isn't publicly available (ie. Patreon exclusives such as NSFW versions), it is an image that simply would not exist if I had not asked it from the artist by being in that specific Patreon tier, and that is literally not available anywhere except on my computer. It's essentially a commission, thus I am free to do as I wish with it so long as it is not anything commercial and the artist is properly credited.
TL:DR;
He buys the $100+ a month tier, which comes with one monthly commission.
Way to write an essay when you needed a sentence.
feline_lump said:
We already host scans of doujins, artbooks and magazines; I don't see how paid digital images are any different. Generally the approach seems to be hosting things for as long as we can get away with it (i.e. until we're actually issued a takedown request).
This. As an addition, we also upload works from Pixiv/Tumblr/Deviantart without permission of the artist in the first place, so much for the ethics and IP laws. I don't understand why making Patreon pics a big deal. Flandre paid for it, plain and simple. He is free to do anything he wishes to do.
Flandre5carlet said:
sweetpeɐ seemed to say that even if it was something I paid the artist for (ie. a commission) I wasn't free to do as I wished, so I explained my rationale.
I said it's a gray area - which it is -, not that you can't do what you wish. Most content here is available for free, on accounts open to the public. Even though someone holds a copyright for such content they can't make a legal argument against us since they incur no damage so long as we swiftly take down content on request. With paid content however they incur damage in the form of lost profit opportunity from people getting paid content for free.
I see the ethical dilemma as partly the above as well as the implicit promise that exists not to share content that is distributed private. None of these are flag reasons, those are reasons uploading Patreon rewards are a gray area and carry more serious potential consequences for an uploader than Danbooru rules.
I think Patreon rewards should not be uploaded without artist's permission because if they find out their private paid content can be found here for free they may request all of their content be taken down and that we make them a banned artist. And hence to avoid such situations I think Patreon reward could be a valid flag reason.
And actually Flandre, as a matter of fact just because you commissioned something doesn't make it yours; surely you know that. Copyright isn't delegated to the person who pays for something but rather the content producer, barring prior arrangements (say, a band agrees to let a record company hold the copyright, an artist gives you exclusive rights to the picture you commission) you still need permission; and yes, I read the thread and saw your clarification that you received permission. Ultimately though this is an individual concern, not a Danbooru one. Something can check out in terms of site policy and still pose a problem for the user, albeit likely not.
Updated
sweetpeɐ said:
I think Patreon rewards should not be uploaded without artist's permission because if they find out their private paid content can be found here for free they may request all of their content be taken down and that we make them a banned artist. And hence to avoid such situations I think Patreon reward could be a valid flag reason.
Now this is stretching too far. Danbooru strictly promotes the usage of flagging in terms of picture quality, not the monetary value of the picture itself. Let's make this clear: the Patreon artists gives reward and packs to their patrons, who paid them money once per month (depends on the artist). This means that the said reward and packs will become a COMMUNAL things, an inevitable cost of Patreon system. To be shared or not depends on the patrons.
Your suggestion is nonsensical, for it's just like when you bought a box of Krispy Kreme but you can't share it or anything because you don't ask the permission from Krispy Kreme to do so. You bought it, then it's yours. Plain and simple.
If the artist asks their content to be taken down from Danbooru, so what? It's their right to do so, and don't forget that our existence is similar to Robin Hood, for we are sharing good things, but in the end, it's still thievery.
I don't disagree with you on the grounds of actual Patreon exclusive content (NSFW exclusives, alternate versions, etc) which I wouldn't post myself - although I wouldn't flag them either; but as far as commission tiers are concerned, it's no different from simply contacting the artist and commissioning them.
I am well aware that I do not actually hold the rights to a picture I commission, and I can't do whatever I want with it. That said, I have yet to ever see a single artist out there have qualms with their commission work being posted in other places (unless credit wasn't given or work was claimed to be someone else's).
Of course, it'd be a different matter if someone was trying to sell that artwork or use it in commercial projects, also.
Sacriven said:
Now this is stretching too far. Danbooru strictly promotes the usage of flagging in terms of picture quality, not the monetary value of the picture itself. Let's make this clear: the Patreon artists gives reward and packs to their patrons, who paid them money once per month (depends on the artist). This means that the said reward and packs will become a COMMUNAL things, an inevitable cost of Patreon system. To be shared or not depends on the patrons.
Communal? This is plainly absurd. There's a big difference between private distribution systems like Patreon and Gumroad from public sources like Twitter, Pixiv, namely that they are private. There's nothing communal about that. Artists that earn there living on these sources would hardly consider their work "communal." To be shared or not being decided by patrons makes as much sense as saying, again, that buying a CD gives the buyer the "choice" to help people pirate that content. Sure there's a "choice" to do anything but freedom is curtailed by morality and the law...
Your suggestion is nonsensical, for it's just like when you bought a box of Krispy Kreme but you can't share it or anything because you don't ask the permission from Krispy Kreme to do so. You bought it, then it's yours. Plain and simple.
Your analogy is what's nonsensical. Patreon rewards (with immaterial exception) are digital and intangible goods. Doughnuts are foodstuffs. Food isn't regulated by intellectual property law, Patreon rewards are.
If the artist asks their content to be taken down from Danbooru, so what? It's their right to do so, and don't forget that our existence is similar to Robin Hood, for we are sharing good things, but in the end, it's still thievery.
So it is a "so what" matter — an artist could at anytime ask their content be expunged and well, so what. But when an artist provides a mix of both exclusive and free public content it's not out of the question to suggest that we refrain from mixing the inexclusive content in with the exclusive content so as we don't lose access to all of it.
This appears to be what happened with sakimichan.
Flandre5carlet said:
I don't disagree with you on the grounds of actual Patreon exclusive content (NSFW exclusives, alternate versions, etc) which I wouldn't post myself - although I wouldn't flag them either; but as far as commission tiers are concerned, it's no different from simply contacting the artist and commissioning them.
I am well aware that I do not actually hold the rights to a picture I commission, and I can't do whatever I want with it. That said, I have yet to ever see a single artist out there have qualms with their commission work being posted in other places (unless credit wasn't given or work was claimed to be someone else's).
Of course, it'd be a different matter if someone was trying to sell that artwork or use it in commercial projects, also.
My dispute was never with commissioned works. I even explicitly asked in my first comment if the nature of your patronage was to commission an artwork so I've been distinguishing general Patreon exclusive content from commission work. But the principle remains the same with both; that it's better not to post unless you have permission and an artist could still of course exercise their copyright to say you can't post your commissioned work (some artist!).
What I'm arguing against is the notion that just because you paid for something on Patreon you can do whatever you'd like with it. It's not out the question to me that there could be a flag justification for that.
which I wouldn't post myself - although I wouldn't flag them either
This seems contradictory to me.
CodeKyuubi said:
Where's the contradiction? Just because someone wouldn't post it doesn't mean they should flag it. Like banned images, or images whose content they don't agree with, etc.
I assume he means in the sense that it could be a valid flag reason. If not than that's the sense that I mean. I don't mean things as they are now but as they could be if there are policy changes.
No, I mean that I wouldn't post them myself because exclusives are incentives to support artists and I feel having them available publicly reduces that incentive. (Much in the same way I wouldn't go and share a doujin touhou music CD around if it was readily available to be purchased online, for example.)
That said, I recognise it's not against the ToS so I wouldn't flag Patreon exclusives that happen to be posted here either.