thoughts about DNP

Forums » Site and Policy » thoughts about DNP Search Posts
Started by Background Pony #41B6
Posted
51 replies
Subscribe
Background Pony #41B6
I thought about DNP and cases when it's useful, and when it's harmful.

I see the following reasons for DNP:

1) Art is paywalled to allow the artist to get food and rent home. This is nice and fair to allow artists to pay bills and to create new art. Still it isn't profitable to hide art forever for years. it's useful to nudge and remind people to patreon and other support. People are all lazy to pay without such reminders, even when they want and can. But top quality many years old arts already been distributed across all Discord chats and torrent forums. Some sites have a grace period, such as months or years.

2) Art become dangerous for its creator. It actually can be solved without art removal in most cases. Only change artist's tag to anonymous or many randomly generated to avoid connection one art with another for some doxxer and possibly remove some other ways to connect images from one source.

3) The artist wants to forbid "Steal" to other sites from deviantart and twitter. Mostly very young artists or with some very emotional DONUT STEAL mindset without any practical profit. They cannot explain how this "theft" affects them. Even if they hunt popularity of blog or youtube channel, arts removal from other sites works the opposite.

4) An attempt to manipulate moderation or the site.
It's helpful to respect artists DNPs when they can explain how it affects their money income or when their career and life are in danger.
Still paywall for many years looks not useful. Or hiding something very often doesn't require actual art removal. If the art has a signature the artist can't solve hiding problem without changing signature anyway. The art is still spreaded across archives and other sites.

There is controversy about some other people instead the artist himself decide what is harmful and what isn't. But we have hundreds of cases now which are evident attempts to manipulate site not to save someone's artist income and career.


There is tradeoff better than two extremities. Total piracy with artists disrespect and Barbara Streisand ineffective censorship which affects only honest sites that respect an artist requests.
1) yaarrrr, go pirate, in the terms of controversial DMCA laws. Let's leave final decision to site administration. Still be honest pirates, and respect artists life.
2) have policy to allow DNP for fresh paywalled which really makes profit. And cases when someone's life/income in danger and can't be solved with the artist name or signature or tags or metatadata change. If artists doesn't confirm DNP to be continued after some period (years?), lift the DNP, to avoid DNP kept for decades and centuries of already dead/retired artists.

3) If something is available at public for free at artists blog and they control it, don't respect such DNPs at all without any further analysis. It's not about life and income saving. it's manipulation or "donut steal" immaturity. If they control they blog, publicly avaible art removal is not about hiding.

It is unlikely Derpi changes its policy, but possibly new Derpi's clones can experiment with new DNP approaches other than two extreme points.
Coco
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

you can't say that you care about artists rights to control their own work and then ignore them whenever you see fit
Posted Report
Background Pony #97CB
@Coco
Right. So you support the artists who decided to dnp in response to tsp’s new policy. Good to know. Glad we’re on the same page on this at least.
Posted Report
Background Pony #41B6
@Coco

There are other approaches.
Other than total disregard of artists life income and safety. Of being vulnerable to manipulations and immaturity. "Donut steel" immaturity valueless for all, both watchers and the artist.
If we want to avoid such manipulation and stop to be slaves of all artists requests there is still possibility to avoid total disregard harmfull for new art creation.
Coco
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@Background Pony #41B6
actually it's pretty based that artists can decide whether they want their work displayed on a site or not, it shows a level of compassion for their hard work unseen anywhere else on the net.

if you want to levy for changes in your favor, why don't you become an artist yourself and start using that power?
Posted Report
Wellwater
Magnificent Metadata Maniac - #1 Assistant
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Wallet After Summer Sale -

Just a flurry of H₂O
@Background Pony #41B6
3) If something is available at public for free at artists blog and they control it, don't respect such DNPs at all without any further analysis. It's not about life and income saving. it's manipulation or "donut steal" immaturity. If they control they blog, publicly avaible art removal is not about hiding.

I understand your logic, but I fundamentally disagree that "available at a price point of $0 in a specific location to anyone who asks for it" is the same as "available to anyone for any purpose anywhere". Not only that, I disagree that these should ever be treated the same way. This attitude would, of course, deny artists of various stripes the ability to control who profits from their work (directly or indirectly — and DBru does profit indirectly, for all that it's a volunteer site, given that the larger the archive size the more likely they are to receive donations).

But it wouldn't stop there, since the same attitude could be used to neuter every open-source license in the world, making it impossible to enforce desirable requirements about, say, Share-Alike licensing, attribution, or even non-commercial use, whether for software, for books, for pictures, for music, or even video.

Derpibooru does not have the moral or legal right to second-guess an artist's motives for restricting free-as-in-beer distribution of their own works. (In the unlikely event this novel theory was tested, it would end in DMCA takedowns and/or actual lawsuits, which the site would lose.)
Posted Report
Background Pony #41B6
@Coco
It doesn't give any benefits for me when I use the power.
This "power" only makes pain to other without any profit for me.
By the way, I am an artist who makes profit from artworks. And I totally don't understand how to use this power to get more profit. Actually I get more income when my works distributes everywhere and people come to me from other sources for commissions or support.
Posted Report
Background Pony #0F3F
@Background Pony #41B6
stop to be slaves of all artists requests

…You know that ignoring the wishes of copyright holders (which artists are) regarding how their work is used is literally illegal unless they've issued a license signing over some portion of the rights to control over their work, right?
Sorry, but whether you like it or not, you're a "slave to all artists requests" already. DNPs are a completely valid thing, and if they're not respected, the only alternative artists have to helplessly watching their work get essentially stolen is to either file DMCAs and then lawsuit if the DMCA is ignored, or just stop posting any artwork at all anywhere. You're being really shitty to them and to the community at large either way.
How 'bout just having some respect for artists, instead? The art community doesn't exist without them, after all.
Posted Report
Background Pony #41B6
@Background Pony #0F3F

I think, I have answers to your comment in the main post.

What does is mean "essentially stolen", when "thief" shows all links to original arist work at his site?

Why to stop drawing new art, if imageboard has respect to artist to remove paywalled art?
Coco
The End wasn't The End - Found a new home after the great exodus of 2012

@Background Pony #41B6
power =/= profits, power = control.

an artist should be able to control their own work while they are physically able to control it, lest they feel unappreciated by the very community they exist within
Posted Report
Background Pony #41B6
@Coco

Does this "control" give me some extra money or time or anything useful? Also I am conceited eager for attention and praises. But such "control" to remove arts gives me more hate than respect scores from others.
Posted Report
Background Pony #0F3F
@Background Pony #41B6
I think, I have answers to your comment in the main post.

I think you'd find if you pressed the matter that lawyers have the answers to your main post.
Artists (copyright holders) don't have to justify their reasons for wanting to control their work, and they don't have to jump through stupid "prove it" hoops that are really only a cynical obstacle trying to make it enough of a hassle to enforce DNPs that some people just give up.

Why do you have such a problem with showing the basic respect content creators are entitled to? Plenty of people are letting their work be hosted for your enjoyment for free. This greed for ALL THE ART, SCREW THE ARTISTS isn't the way to establish a healthy give-and-take that keeps content coming.
Posted Report
Background Pony #41B6
@Background Pony #0F3F
>This greed for ALL THE ART, SCREW THE ARTISTS
I was talking about other solution, healthy and profitable for new art creation. Not the " greed for ALL THE ART, SCREW THE ARTISTS" you mentioned.
If you read my post, you see I don't advocate "SCREW THE ARTISTS" approach, but the opposite. Have respect for artists income and life, but not have respect for manipulations and random damage for everyone without profit to anyone.

>lawyers
lawyers' laws are not healthy now, they are biased to those who can allow lawyers department in their big company. But they not are not friendly to artist person protection. Actually they often used for the opposite, to forbid artists draw something with very vague description, without profit to original creator who possibly is already dead or don't have any new profit from the art.
lawyers' laws are lobbied by large company lawyers and more goverment censorship over media, not by artists. Article 13, DMCA, etc.

> and they don't have to jump through stupid "prove it" hoops
Pirates doesn't have to make someone to jump hoops. Pirate can easily can see that art paywalled and is not accessible for public, and don't ask someone to prove this. It is easy to see without any proofs. It can be performed even without bothering the artist at all. This is patreon-only art? Hide it, and even give links to the patreon. This is art publicly available at twitter? No reason to hide it, but give links to the twitter post. Art is deleted from blog and dangerous for its creator? Remove tag. The person requires total deletion? There are not formal rules here, this requires some investigations and proofs. At least proof the person is not random hater, who is not related to creation.
Wellwater
Magnificent Metadata Maniac - #1 Assistant
My Little Pony - 1992 Edition
Wallet After Summer Sale -

Just a flurry of H₂O
@Background Pony #41B6
lawyers' laws are not healthy now, they biased to those who can allow lawyers department in their big company. But not are not friendly to artist person protection. Actually they often used for the opposite, to forbid artists draw something with very vague description, without profit to original creator who possibly is already dead or don't have any new profit from the art.
lawyers' laws are lobbied by large company lawyers, not by artists. Article 13, DCMA, etc.

You're not entirely wrong in general, but, as I mentioned in my earlier post, lots of small, non-corporate, even non-profit people and groups rely heavily on the same copyright protections this proposes to ignore — not so they can squeeze a few extra million out of a lucrative business, but to ensure that their non-monetary goals are achieved, including making their creativity reliably available to others, even for further creativity, without any chance of being hijacked against their wishes. Free/libre/open-source is a real thing.

Also, I don't think this thread adequately accounts for the fact that Derpibooru in particular to some extent, and in principle other sites to a much larger extent, could actually profit, as in chisel money out through increased ads or donations, specifically by following this proposal.
Posted Report
Background Pony #41B6
@PUBLIQclopAccountant

If treated this too wide, it makes creators stop making any new work. It it common problem "hard to create, easy to copy" with very different solutions, very specific for every type of content (video, music, games, 2d arts).

For example, you can see lack of single-player games which can be played without internet connection. Because they are easy to pirate.
Even honest "try before buy" games are pirated to get full content without payment.
PUBLIQclopAccountant
Magical Inkwell - Wrote MLP fanfiction consisting of at least around 1.5k words, and has a verified link to the platform of their choice

Pubilq Phirm
@Background Pony #41B6
A lack of new content does not concern me. We already have multiple lifetimes of music, books, video games, or movies. More importantly, people will always still create for non-commercial reasons, so long as you drop the expectation of million-dollar production polish.
Background Pony #41B6
@PUBLIQclopAccountant

Possibly you are exception. But actually many people are eager for the new works with new stories, visuals, characters.
At the same time they avoid support to creation of such works. Especially when there are no any reminder about creators need for this support.

Also it is actually possible to consume all quality works in some area much less than lifetime. For example, it is possible to watch all Oscar plus Oscar-level movies in a few years. It is possible to make full collection of flying Scootaloos. It possible to watch all MLP pony show episodes in a month while having a life at the same time. After this people start to expect something better than everything before.

Too egoistical consumer approach makes breakthrough or at least new original animation/drawing much less possible.
Background Pony #41B6
@Background Pony #A9A6
I don't know how it really goes at Ponybooru, but I see their Rule#2 ( https://ponybooru.org/pages/rules ) is all about default policy to respect artist's art and life income. Also I see they have DNP list which allows artists to remove art "just because I want". I can't see significant difference between derpibooru and ponybooru DNP rules at this moment.
Background Pony #A9A6
@Background Pony #41B6

Ponybooru won't allow creators to restrict they art indefinitely and artists don't have the option to have their art completely deleted from the site if some time has passed since they published it:



rainbowdash42

WHOA there. No. This is an awful idea.

Let's be clear — copyright law in most of the world is awful. Blame Disney. They kept lobbying repeatedly for copyright term extensions, which means, today, anything created during your lifetime probably won't be added to the public domain until after you're dead. This is an awful arrangement that renders even well meaning derivative work, like the very fan art we enjoy on this site, illegal. I'd be very strongly supportive of a reduction in copyright length and strength for derivative works, and even for originals, too. @PUBLIQclopAccountant , I agree with your sentiment that when something is released, it becomes a part of the world's culture, and no longer belongs 100% to the creator.

BUT. But but but.

For at least some time after an artist releases something, they absolutely, 100% deserve control over its distribution. A creator is inherently linked to their art; the art literally could not exist without the creator(s)'s hands, and we absolutely must respect that. Not only for the financial reasons laid out by others in this thread, but for moral reasons, too.

Attribution is a big one of these reasons, and there are a lot of reasons this is important. Most simply, if a creator wants to attach their name to the work, they allow people who enjoy that work to trace it back to them, granting them a larger audience or further acclaim. Similarly, if the art is making some kind of statement without anonymity, attribution allows that statement to be tied back to a real-life entity, who can be held responsible (positively or negatively) for that statement.

Another important reason that artists need to be able to control their work is association. An artist, like any individual, has the right to choose who they associate with, and who they do not — due to the deep link between creator and artwork, if an artist can't control who uses their work, anyone may utilize their work to 'associate' with the artist without their consent.

Let me provide an example. Imagine you released a really cool picture of, Idunno, Celestia raising the sun. Imagine the KKK came along and decided to use your art in some white supremacist flyer. Two things happen here — first, the KKK is benefiting from your time, effort, training, skill, etc to promote a cause you (probably) don't agree with, and would not intentionally support. Secondly, anyone who sees your art will probably assume that you were OK with it being used in that way, and will associate you with the KKK. Don't you think it should be within your power to force the KKK to not use your work without permission?

Finally, I want to touch on derivative work. As I said above, derivative work is something I think we need to think carefully about, from a moral perspective. I wish the law was more accommodating to fans who want to extend someone else's creation out of a love for the work. But we can't say that all derivative works are OK by default, for a variety of very obvious reasons.

Imagine you wrote a lengthy, novel-long fanfic and posted it for free to fimfiction. You put a lot of time and effort into it, and it's really well written; you get lots of praise from the fandom. Now imagine someone comes along, spends a couple of weeks de-ponifying it, and publishes it on Amazon. They sell a few dozen copies, making a few hundred bucks from your hard work. Is that fair, in any way? I think we'd all agree this is unfair. (I think we'd all agree that it would be unfair if they de-ponified it and posted it on a general fiction forum, too.)

Intellectual property is a really tricky issue, because you're balancing the interests of a creator (and of creators in general) against the rest of society, and trying to figure out how to encourage and respect creation while also allowing society at large to benefit in diverse ways from creative work.

Derpibooru intends to provide a large platform for hosting of all sorts of pony art. It has probably gained so much traction, in part, because artists know that they will respect the wishes of the artist as far as edits and non-public content goes. An excellent way to drive away artists and get the site into legal trouble would be to say "we're not going to respect your copyright just because you don't like how we run this site".

So noooooo. Big no. Let Ponibooru crash and burn with this policy; we don't need to bring it here.
Background Pony #41B6
@Background Pony #A9A6
Yes, you are right, there are significant differences. I read rules too fast and skipped all this important section because I didn't see this section is part of the rule.

Seems quite justified for me, something I have described in the post. Balanced both for creation support and archival support without evident harm for first or second. Also hidding art from non-logged users is pretty powerfull. It makes to ponybooru more like my PC harddrive where no one can force me to delete something. At the same time it hard to insist it creates some unfair profit for this harddrive when it is invisible for almost all internet users. It makes useless even to link something in general pony-related chat, where more than half of chat doesn't have account at ponybooru.
Background Pony #41B6
@rainbowdash42

> Derpibooru intends to provide a large platform for hosting of all sorts of pony art. It has probably gained so much traction, in part, because artists know that they will respect the wishes of the artist as far as edits and non-public content goes. An excellent way to drive away artists and get the site into legal trouble would be to say "we're not going to respect your copyright just because you don't like how we run this site".

Actually what happens to derpibooru now. Artists driven away from derpibooru because someone manipulated them to leave at twitter, without any actual analysis. Or because some wants to force their opinion, not related to art or life income: "Delete other artist work, or I delete mine work".
Interested in advertising on Derpibooru? Click here for information!
Commissions, YCH, and Adopts!

Derpibooru costs over $25 a day to operate - help support us financially!

Syntax quick reference: *bold* _italic_ [spoiler]hide text[/spoiler] @code@ +underline+ -strike- ^sup^ ~sub~