fchan

discussion

DNP - Why?

Pages:1
1Report
at 15 Sep 2007: 08:25

Could someone explain briefly what DNP is, and why some artists do not want their stuff online / posted here / reposted. Is it because they sell it elsewhere?

Why is the idea honoured on places like fchan and dnp requests by artists aren't broken? What are your thoughts on it?

Thanks.

2Report
at 15 Sep 2007: 08:30

The basic understanding behind it is for the artist to have some semblance of control of their artwork's distribution.

Although we're one of the few that HAS a DNP, it's still one step better than other image boards that don't really care.

And I don't understand the last bit...unless you were asking why artists were able to post their own DNP artwork...?

3Report
at 15 Sep 2007: 10:04

Technically speaking, any artwork is the intellectual property of its creator, distribution of it without an associated creative commons release form, lisence agreement or other written waive is completely illegal. This is even more true for artwork that is sold as opposed to posted on a personal gallery.

Just because someone posts art on a site like Fur Affinity it doesn't mean you can take it and post it elsewhere, there is a signed contract between the author and the site that grants the site permission to post the images on their gallery.

However since people have this strange idea that everything belongs to them for free people are used to the idea of posting stuff on imageboards permission or no. The DNP allows artists to let it be known if they want to keep their work restricted to their personal gallery.

As for why does fchan enforce it? - Three major reasons:

[i1) Respect: If people keep stealling an artists work and never visit their gallery (In turn giving them coverage for commisions, or money from on site adverts) they might well stop posting art publiclly at all (See example Karibineer) which is a loss far greater to the community.[/i]

2) Legality: As already explained posting the work is actually illegal, if someone has filed a request for their stuff not to be posted and FChan's admin ignores it then thats actual grounds for litigation.

3) More Respect: Some artists might go up in the world and get serious jobs as animators or artists possibly in chidlrens productions. Publishing their old porn works might lose them their job in turn removing a decent artist or animator from the pool

4Report
Azzybat at 16 Sep 2007: 09:05

Sometimes it is due to being sold.  Other times the artists either don't like their art being shown off gallery, or they have personal problems with the staff here at fchan.  Other times they don't want their art posted as blatant jerk material or they don't want their art associated with a site that shows mostly jerk material.

5Report(capped)
Nadia#Admin Emeritae at 16 Sep 2007: 10:25

>>3

Well Done.

8Report
at 19 Sep 2007: 06:19

Because furry artists are elitest self important bastards.  I go to an art university and the level of this in furry is astronomical compared to the artists i attend classes with that are ten times more accomplished than all the people that get butthurt over this stuff.  To them it's a compliment to have their stuff distributed.

Obviously not all furry artists are like this but WAY too many are.

9Report
at 19 Sep 2007: 06:24

I've personally always found it complimenting when someone likes something I've drawn so much they feel that they should share it with others.  I mean, that's the reason I put it on the internets, so it can be seen by people.  It's just stupid to not take advantage of the potential free publicity of these kinds of boards.

10Report
at 19 Sep 2007: 08:57

>>8

I'm glad I ain't the only one who thinks like that. It's somehow at the same time endlessly amusing and sad to see a badly drawn picture of two anthros having sex which has a huge label "DO NOT REDISTRIBUTE" on it, when at the same time there are real works of art allover the net by real art-students and professionals which have a small signature in them, if even that.

Only reason I can think for this is that the artists who slap those labels are more interested in trying to gain fame and boost their ego than they are in the actual art.

11Report
at 19 Sep 2007: 10:32

Of course you guys realize that there are many many many reasons to do ANYTHING, but hey, keep focusing on those sparse few if you like.

12Report (sage)
at 19 Sep 2007: 14:49

>>11

If you don't like unpopular opinions/opinions different than your own, get out of /dis/.

13Report (sage)
at 19 Sep 2007: 18:12

>>12
Translation: "I don't want to be forced to consider possible factors beyond the few narrow, simple ones I've managed to half-understand, nor do I want to have to think about what you've said. It makes my brain hurt. Therefore, I'll deliberately miss your point and misinterpret what you're saying and just tell you to go away, redirecting any fault on my part of being unable to handle anything resembling disagreement by accusing you of being unable to handle the same."

The exit is over that way, if you feel you need it.

14Report
at 19 Sep 2007: 21:42

>>13

lol, whatev.

15Report
at 20 Sep 2007: 12:34

let's just say this... I've never received any complaints from a non-furry artist about their artwork being posted on my boards, ever. :)

16Report
at 20 Sep 2007: 12:58

>>15
That's right! Those real artists are so much better than furry artists and never care no matter what's done with their work. It's a common misconception that Leonardo Da Vinci wrote his notebooks in code so that other people couldn't steal from them, he actually ran around yelling "Please, take my stuff and spread it around wherever you want!"

I apologize if that seems too sarcastic, but it's just meant to show that your conclusion drawn from inadequate evidence is ridiculous. I know there are many different opinions regarding concepts of morality (and many of them are stupid and can be disproved with simple logic) however I believe it's fchan's stance that if you create something you should have some say in how it's used/distributed/etc.

If it really troubles you so much, why don't you make your own artwork and let people distribute it wherever they want? That way everyone's happy.

17Report
at 20 Sep 2007: 13:04

>>16
Thing is though? Sad as it is to admit, a gigantic portion of furry artwork is sexual in nature. Not with intent to show "beauty" or "artistic creation" but for pornographic purposes.

And porn sells. Thus, some of these smut-legends might prefer to control distribution of their work in order to make money off of it later.

18Report (sage)
at 20 Sep 2007: 13:39

>>17
Oh noes!  Making money from their efforts, what a terrible thing!  What a tragic world it would be if people could do stuff and make money for it! 

19Report
at 21 Sep 2007: 07:54

>>16
Sorry, the difference is that "real artists" don't plaster big ugly "do not distribute" watermarks across their images as if they somehow think they are the hottest shit that has picked up a pencil since the equivalent of individually wrapped cheese slices in the art industry. Real artists realize that even if they ask nicely chances are their art will end up in places they don't like. Also most of my favorite artists have shared how they feel FLATTERED that people think their art is worth stealing(tracers, people pretending to have drawed it, etc etc) and reposting all over the net.

Furry artists on the other hand...considering the small minority of them in the art world...a large majority are hellbent on bitching whenever someone resposts their stuff(even if it's not a paysite). When comparing the amount of complainers and ugly watermarks it's clear that "real artists" are a lot less obnoxious than furry artists. They are also a lot more humble and appreciative of people's love for their art not so quick to jump and attack anyone who traces their work. Know why? Tracing is a part of improving though you should state the source of who you traced. Everyone at some point traces artists they admire.

To end my rant i'll simply say there are artists in every field who have some serious emotional and attitude problems but the problem is definitely magnified in this particular fandom which is sad because most furry artists aren't even that impressive. The ones who are tend to be a lot less controlling too. Amateur artists who have big egos really need to grow up. The copyrights belong to them and if someone resells the art commercially or traces to make commercial work then sue their ass, otherwise accept that people will want to share your stuff all over the place.

20Report (sage)
at 21 Sep 2007: 11:24

>>19
Actually,  the reason "real" artists don't slap a big DO NOT RIP OFF on their is because they've usually already made their money off the image, either through a paid commission or work for hire situation. They're also not trying to make whatever portion of their income is derived from those works through selling CDs or prints, but rather off of the original work. In fact, much of what you do see of their work online is someone scanning their already paid-for work. I really doubt people like Boris Vallejo are going to start producing and uploading their original work for free just so you can enjoy it. I know for a fact taht most animation studio artists couldn't care less what other people do with the characters they draw after quitting time rolls around (corporate lawyers excepted). I also doubt they're going to go all bent out of shape because someone made a lousy low resolution scan of something they've already been paid for and then posted it somewhere.

One of the real reasons you see those large, gaudy watermarks and "Do not steal!!!1!" on fan work is usually because all most want in return for their effort is that they have some say in where it goes and how it's used, or that they +are+ going to try and make a few bucks by selling prints or CDs. In many cases, that image as-is IS the original work- unlike those "real" artist's painting or sketch- so you are essentially messing with the original work rather than a bad copy. They're mostly producing it for essentially free and for people's enjoyment rather than to make a good living from their effort, so you could at least not slap them in the face for that. It's FAN art, after all.

Don't try and shift blame from the assholes who think anything they can get their hands is theirs to do with as they will and from the people who get upset when it's +their+ stuff being messed with- not that a few don't act like they're having a hysterical psychotic break when it happens and should learn to relax a little when it does.

21Report
FurryFox at 21 Sep 2007: 21:02

>>16 "If it really troubles you so much, why don't you make your own artwork and let people distribute it wherever they want?"

probably because not all of us are artist, or very good at drawing peroid. i know it takes practice, but it also takes time which not everyone has.

22Report
at 22 Sep 2007: 22:03

>>16
If it really troubles you so much, why don't you make your own artwork and let people distribute it wherever they want? That way everyone's happy.

I do just that, and i'm plenty happy.  It doesn't mean i can't call out egotistical, no tallent, overly self important and stuck up hacks as much as i like to in a thread about em.

I would LOVE it it one of these furry "artists" acctually took their precious hard worked on picture of a fox with cum all over it to a REAL art gallery to try and get some space and got the tongue lashing and laughs they deserve.  That might put things into perspective a bit for them.

23Report
at 22 Sep 2007: 22:28

The furry art community is like the video game FAQ writer community. Other online artistic communities should follow their examples.

They have many reasons they may not want certain sites to distribute their work, various principles (like when some FAQ writers pulled guides off GameFAQs due to them merging with the commercial Gamespot entity). However there remains FAQ writers that release their work as GPL (meaning freely distributable to anywhere).

It should always be up to the individual since it's their own work.

24Report
at 23 Sep 2007: 12:23

I know artists who are in the DNP and put their art on Creative-commons, like Sonitweek and DarkDoomer from DeviantArt by example, is it illegal to post their work here ?

25Report
at 24 Sep 2007: 04:09

>>24 Yeah because Creative Commons still says the author reserves their right to change or adapt the policy and DNP on fchan is an adaptation of the creative commons lisence (You are free to do this this and this with it, you are not free to post on FChan).

Just some food for thought to everyone; you're slagging off the artists who choose to keep their work off FChan, but ultimately isn't it up to THEM where their work is or isn't displayed?

Or is this some kind of uber-communist-esque state where everything belongs to everyone and individuals have no personal rights?

26Report
at 24 Sep 2007: 04:39

>>25

Individuals don't have rights unless they're me.

.....wait

27Report
DmcDante235 at 11 Dec 2007: 23:06

>>25
"Just some food for thought to everyone; you're slagging off the artists who choose to keep their work off FChan, but ultimately isn't it up to THEM where their work is or isn't displayed?

Or is this some kind of uber-communist-esque state where everything belongs to everyone and individuals have no personal rights?"
*slow clap*
Brilliant, I completely agree.  I lol'd at the communist regime remark, but now to get serious.

Who are we to judge whether or not something is "good" art?  That is not a basis for a well developed argument against DNP. Whether or not you think piece of furry art is well drawn, someone else has put their TIME and EFFORT into that drawing or painting.  Just this fact alone makes that work soley the artists, no matter how "good" it is.  Since THEY own the rights to it, it is their right to decide whether or not they want it redistributed.  If a furry artist wanted to charge $2000 for a drawing (however foolish that may be) it is still his/her decision to do so.  If you put your heart and soul into a song that you wrote, and you planned to publish it and get a record deal, how would YOU react to people posting your song illegally all over the internet for free(thus, crushing your hopes and dreams to make money from the song)? 

To conclude this semi-rant, i will say this:  An ARTIST'S work is the ARTIST's work, not yours, not mine, just his/hers.

28Report
at 12 Dec 2007: 00:26

>>27
old argument is OLD

29Report
kerbe3 at 12 Dec 2007: 00:44

>>20
sure just look at cutepet studios.  everything on that site they alrady got there money for.  some pics you can see by donating 2 bucks, but otherwise everything on that site is free.

30Report
at 12 Dec 2007: 01:58

>>27

way to bump a dead thread stupid.

31Add Reply
Name Sage? - captcha =
First Page - Last 40 - Entire Thread

Powered by: Shiichan Version 3956
The contents of this page are asserted to be in the public domain by the posters.
The administrators claim no responsibility for thread content.
Manage