greasyi
12/05/14 04:27AM
Regarding furry paysite content
Watermarked Images
Watermarked images from commercial sites or that were added by a third-party are forbidden. Watermarks placed by the artist are permitted.


I'm considering a manip but this rule is in my way.

There's this curious tacit agreement in the furry community that paysite content that is at least 2 years old is okay to post anywhere unless the site specifically requests to be DNP. Furry paysites are completely aware of this convention and go along with it; it's quite well-known, and any paysites that are silent on the matter are probably just covering their asses in case they need to enforce their intellectual property at some future date.

These images often have "Do not repost" or "Do not distribute" off in the corner, and I would normally leave it there because I'm not going to bother taking out any kind of existing watermarks mostly out of principle. So naturally if I manipped such an image and then uploaded it here one day, it would raise a red flag, because, hey this says do not distribute. If I edited it out and someone followed the source link to e.g. the furry booru and saw the original with the "do not distribute" watermark then things would seem really shady.

Another issue is that the *blush sites recently went free because apparently Patreon pays better than subscriptions; these sites still have an archive of "Do not repost" images even though they're now freely available.

I'm asking for official consent to treat furry images on this booru the same way that they're treated on other sites: That even paysite content with "do not repost" in the image be allowed if over 2 years old and not from a site known for requesting to be DNP on furry sites - being DNP on e621 is probably a sufficient metric.

More generally if there's a "do not repost" watermark that is known to no longer be applicable by the consent of the copyright holder (as with the *blush sites, which now allow unlimited redistribution if the Patreon link is provided), there should be a clause in the rules that allow such an image.
Anno1404
12/05/14 04:44AM
There should be a rule for it!
PomPom
12/05/14 05:03AM
I think this will be Vann's territory, but I get the feeling that it's very vague. I'd air on the side of caution if it's not so explicit, but if the original site willingly has let it go free I don't see a problem.

Sorry I can't clarify on this at the moment ><
Vanndril
12/05/14 07:28AM
On the point of making a sort of weird conditional exception for commercially watermarked images, I have to deny your request. I hate exceptions and, while I sometimes allow them out of necessity, this kind of exception in particular seems like it could get real confusing real fast, especially if other people start making similar claims for other fetishes.

I can see it easily causing problems, not only between us and other commercial sites which, despite your experience, may nonetheless care about the redistribution of their commercial material regardless of age, but also with other users who will inevitably be left feeling gypped because we allowed exceptions for some other fetish but not their own. As well, keep in mind that many images here are manips, and while these sites may allow their old commercial material on other sites that pertain to their particular fetish-focus, there's no way in knowing if they'd react the same to a site that isn't specifically for furry that goes so far as to even edit those images.

I understand, based on what you said, that it's something that furry sites have a sort of silent agreement on, but, alas, we're not a furry site, and this is just one of those things that wouldn't really be safe for us to follow along with just because the other sites do.

However, on your second, but related, point on sites that used to be commercial but are not any longer: have at it, those are fine. Even if the images still have old "do not redistribute" watermarks, so long as the marks are no longer applicable because the site has since changed its policies, then it's fine to post. It'll be on the poster's shoulders to have some sort of evidence that this is the case, though, and to mention it via comments on the image after it's uploaded. If no evidence is given, it'll be assumed that there is no evidence and the image will be deleted due to the watermark.
1


Reply | Forum Index