A couple of months ago there was some discussion in the comments of post #706281 about whether littleshrimp's twitter art should be allowed here. Apparently he told some guy in some dA comment thread that he didn't want people uploading his twitter stuff here. Now that post has been flagged for deletion.
My position is that we shouldn't delete posts unless the artist actually asks us to directly. Many artists explicitly state on their webpages that they forbid people to repost their art, yet that doesn't stop us from hosting it here against their wishes. Littleshrimp's posts shouldn't be treated any differently in this regard.
I say if he wants specific images taken down he must contact an admin directly but bitching indirectly through twitter/da/whatever is not enough. It's not like signing up for an account here or emailing rq requires a long series of loops and days commitment they both take 5 minutes at most.
Previously I would have stated he can't pick and choose which posts are hosted here, that it's all or nothing, but we have precedent with some artist whose name I forget.
Log said: I say if he wants specific images taken down he must contact an admin directly but bitching indirectly through twitter/da/whatever is not enough.
Yes, a million times over. But here's another shitfit about it.
I'd say don't. After Mr_GT auto unapproved his last one it'd be a bit backwards, and it's likely to bring followers drama again in the comments. Or reapprove post #735261 first otherwise.
Cyberia-Mix said: Or reapprove post #735261 first otherwise.
At some point you're gonna have to ask yourself whether that is worth approving in the first place. Doesn't exactly scream quality to me. In fact, none of this guy's art does.
I plan on reapproving them unless someone comes forth with a compelling argument otherwise. And no, "I heard that LS told some guy in some twitter post that I don't have a link for that he kinda-sorta doesn't really like his posts being uploaded here very much" isn't a compelling argument.
Soljashy said: At some point you're gonna have to ask yourself whether that is worth approving in the first place. Doesn't exactly scream quality to me. In fact, none of this guy's art does.
I like his style. A lot of people don't, but we really don't need to get into that here. The larger issue is whether we should start deleting things because the artist says on their site they shouldn't be posted here (or anywhere else). If we started doing that then there are thousands of posts that would need to be deleted.
evazion said: The larger issue is whether we should start deleting things because the artist says on their site they shouldn't be posted here (or anywhere else).
I'd say that unless a copyright is violated, then we have no obligation to delete their work, even by direct request. If you make a piece of work public, it's just that: public. And you have no control over what anyone wants to do with it.
But yes, I agree. We need to decide, concretely, whether this should be policy or not (personally, I'd have to say "no", even if it might upset a few people).
evazion said: I plan on reapproving them unless someone comes forth with a compelling argument otherwise. And no, "I heard that LS told some guy in some twitter post that I don't have a link for that he kinda-sorta doesn't really like his posts being uploaded here very much" isn't a compelling argument.
I read said posts but he didn't make them to albert so they mean absolutely nothing.
Bapabooiee said: I'd say that unless a copyright is violated, then we have no obligation to delete their work, even by direct request. If you make a piece of work public, it's just that: public. And you have no control over what anyone wants to do with it.
I cant agree with your opinion. first of all, we ve already violate their copyright. I have regarded that the right to control over what anyone wants to do with their own works is copyright, though? we are just turning defiant.
by the way, if artists lose the way to prove their copyright(losing their accounts/sites, changing names, or simply, cant speak English), though they want to delete works, how should danbooru react?
personally, I dont think there is no ploblem to delete arts on danbooru. who the hell lose money?
what I really afraid of is not deletion but the end of the updating.
I prefer to choose deletion rather than to spoil artist's motivation for works. (of course, there is a ploblem of a false deletion request, though.)
Bapabooiee said: I'd say that unless a copyright is violated, then we have no obligation to delete their work, even by direct request. If you make a piece of work public, it's just that: public. And you have no control over what anyone wants to do with it.
I don't think you understand how copyright works. Just because you put something online doesn't mean you sacrifice your copyright. Making something public has no bearing on this.
Fencedude said: I don't really think fanartists have a leg to stand on when it comes to copyright.
The standard for "parody" is much broader in Japan, so under Japanese copyright it's sort of a grey area. Not saying that makes it morally superior, but it is more legal than what we're doing.
sakuma said: we ve already violate their copyright. I have regarded that the right to control over what anyone wants to do with their own works is copyright, though?
Actually, I do believe you're correct. I think I misunderstood how copyright works.
I'm also going to have to change my mind and agree with you, as it's probably best to just honor the artist's wishes (and avoid having to deal with legal issues, should an artist ever assert his/her copyright claims).
Though, the artist in question here still needs to contact us directly if he wants his content removed.
To my knowledge, if its western art of Japanese media, or if its good quality western art, it will be accepted. There is things like Meago as well, who is neither American or Japanese, but Polish.
