fchan

discussion

DNP??

Pages:1
1Report
at 1 May 2008: 15:58

HEy folks,

I keep wondering what the huck DNP is. Can anyone please explain it?

thanks and salutaions!

2Report
at 1 May 2008: 17:53

DNP from what I understand is DO NOT POST, meaning all artwork from x artist will not be allowed.

3Report
at 2 May 2008: 08:26

ok, thanks.

and what could be a reason for dnp?

4Report
at 2 May 2008: 08:47

...the reason would be to NOT post any work from x artist... usually at x artist's request.

There are several threads elsewhere on the board that go into the whole issue with a whole lot of detail as to the whys, consequences, and controversies.

5Report
at 2 May 2008: 09:12

>>3
Artists request to be on the DNP if they don't want their work distributed freely. Commercial works (i.e. club stripes, rabbit valley) are automatically put on the DNP list.

6Report
at 3 May 2008: 20:12

oh ok. thanks :)

7Report
at 3 May 2008: 22:41

>>5

It's true that some artists add their works to the DNP for financial reasons (and as you say, all commercial stuff is DNP). I can respect this choice.

To some artists, however, the DNP is a cliquish club to join when your art is "good enough".  It's a way for them to pat themselves on the back, see how special they all are, and give Fchan the finger.

>>4

Unfortunately most threads I've seen that talk about the reasons and validity of the DNP get killed, even when there's no drama.  Is too bad because it's an interesting topic.

CAPTCHA: cry (how ironic ;)

8Report
at 4 May 2008: 11:04

And most artists get on the DNP because they don't like other people being so free with their copyrighted material.  Doesn't have to be about money or being 'cliquish', but about protecting one's property and interests.

9Report
at 4 May 2008: 14:45

I think they're free to put themselves on DNP, cliquish or not. I was just wondering what it means.

As long as it ain't copyrighted or signed as a copyrighted work (and I never saw a pic with the © on it) you can distribute it for free or am I wrong? They have to sign it as their property. If they do so, I can totally understand, why they put theirselves on DNP

10Report
Wookiee at 4 May 2008: 14:55

Every artist that is on the DNP has his or her own reason.  It's so easy to point a finger and call them all selfish and self centered just because you are not getting what you want for free (which sounds more selfish and self centered to me than the artists).

I have been critisized over the years for hiding my adult art and being on the DNP but my reasons were not selfish ones.  I had a great relationship with my parents and if they ever found my adult art (especially the gay related art) it would have crushed them.  They were old and didn't need to know what I was into.  My mother died a long time ago and my father died a couple years back.  It was at that time I removed myself from the DNP.

I still feel it is important to not have adult material available to children (the internet is full of it already) that's why I have most of my adult art on sites like FurAffinity where people have to log in and set age and preference to view the adult material.  (that basically also covers my butt legally especially after having an irate mother contacting me acusing me of feeding her under-age son adult furry porn)

Before FA, many people knew I had a 'hidden' site for my adult art and that I freely shared the URL with people who contacted me asking about my adult art so long as they did not post it on open forums and chat rooms where minors could see and visit the links.  I even encoursged people to share the URL with friends privately so long as they were of age and promised not to share the URL.  Well people still posted the URL and images from the hidden site so I removed it making me out to be the bad guy.

Many people still think I am an ass hole and that's fine.  Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But please remember that of all the 12 years I have posted my art to the internet, I never put huge watermaks all over my art or sensor bars across naughty bits and all my art is not tiny or over compressed.  They are good quality posts so people can enjoy them.

I also sell an art CD but can appreciate that not everyone can afford CDs.  That is another reason I post all my new images on FA and FurNation Galleries.  I also don't mind people torrenting the CD so long as they keep it to themselves and don't post the images back to the NET.  I don't think that's too much to ask.

As for fchan and the DNP, I am impressed that of all the chans out there, fchan still supports both artist and art collector by having and standing by the DNP list.  There have been many people on FA trying to bring this site down and blasting any FA artists who posts here instead of attacking the other chans that don't have a DNP and are causing many good furry artists to stop posting their art to the NET altogether.  Even Dragoneer was forced to pull his banner from fchan due to such preasures.

11Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:18

>>9
You're wrong.  Images, at least for now, are still automatically copyright whether marked with a symbol, signed, registered, etc.  Copyright is automatic the moment the work is finished/published/shown. 

Of course, legally enforcing that copyright is an entirely different dog all together, and in those cases clearly marking work and registering ones copyright is a big advantage. 

12Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:19

>>10
Your parents watched Fchan when they were alive?

13Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:23

>>9

All artwork is copyrighted to the artist, regardless of whether or not the mark is placed on the artwork; copyrights are automatically granted upon the creation of an artwork.  According to current copyright laws, you may NOT redistribute or republish it without the artist's permission, regardless of whether or not it can be found on the internet.  It is NOT, therefore, free to distribute.

A lot of artists tend to put themselves on the DNP list because other folks either don't understand the above, or choose to ignore it, and the artists sign up as a means of further protecting themselves.  (Not that the DNP is strictly needed; a DNP should be automatically assumed where anyone's artwork is concerned anyway.)

14Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:29

>>11
Copyright on the internet is a tough call, since technically even your internet proxy has to hold a copy of the file to provide it for you to see.

Copyright is the right to copy the copy, and if you wanted to be really anal about it, you couldn't even put a picture on a website without giving the right to copy to the hosting company.

Internet, after all, works by copying stuff over and over again. Even your browser makes a duplicate copy onto your hard drive every time you view a picture. The act of publishing stuff on the internet is a kind of agreement that other people can copy the image, because otherwise nobody could view it. It just hasn't been tested in courts yet.

15Report
Wookiee at 4 May 2008: 15:31

>>12 It was more of a matter of keeping my adult art hidden on the NET.  The more of my work posted to Fchan the easire and more likely it could be found.  There are amny places connecting my RL information to my Furry art persona.  All water under the bridge at this point anyway.

16Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:33

>>10

I find your post to be very well put on pretty much all points.  The only thing I will disagree with is the point that artists protesting FChan and its ilk is causing other artists to be reluctant in posting any new work to the net.  It is, in fact, the other way around.  Speaking for myself, it is sites like Fchan and its ilk with their practice of freely reposting any old artwork they find without even an attempt at obtaining permission that makes me reluctant to post anything to the net at all anymore.

17Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:34

>>13
See: >>14

The internet works by distributing and re-distributing copies of copies of copies of the files you put online. They move from one cache to another.

By posting your stuff online, you agree to that reality.

18Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:38

>>15
You do realize that your stuff was ALL over the net and it had been from the day 1? Just not on Fchan.

I think the whole DNP is just a feelgood(tm) thing. It has no real effect on anything that happens on other sites. Tapping your name into Google's image search pops up a male badger showing off his ass, for pete's sake.

19Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:42

>>14

"Copyright on the internet is a tough call, since technically even your internet proxy has to hold a copy of the file to provide it for you to see."

That's a technical gray area, and not of principal concern.  The matter of one person downloading an image that was legally posted is not the same as an image illegally reposted for thousands or millions of people to download.

"Copyright is the right to copy the copy..."

Incorrect right off the bat.  Copyright is a legal protection against artworks being illegally copied and republished without due recompense for, or permission from, the artist.

"...and if you wanted to be really anal about it, you couldn't even put a picture on a website without giving the right to copy to the hosting company."

     Placing an image on the net is considered an act of publication.  If its your image, you have the right to do so.  The hosting company is merely the vehicle through which you publish, like a publishing company prints books.  They have your permission to publish when you post.

"Internet, after all, works by copying stuff over and over again. Even your browser makes a duplicate copy onto your hard drive every time you view a picture. The act of publishing stuff on the internet is a kind of agreement that other people can copy the image, because otherwise nobody could view it. It just hasn't been tested in courts yet."

By posting an image, you give people tacit permission to download that image for their private archives, yes.  You are not granting them permission to repost or republish that image, and there is no legal reason for them to assume that you are.

20Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:44

>>18

You think GOOGLE isn't having its shares of copyright-issue battles right now?

21Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:48

>>17

"The internet works by distributing and re-distributing copies of copies of copies of the files you put online. They move from one cache to another.

By posting your stuff online, you agree to that reality."

The only thing I agree to is the posting of images to a specific website, nothing more.

The moving of files from one computer cache to another is an automatic function of the internet and quite another reality from that of deliberately downloading and reposting from one website to another.

22Report
at 4 May 2008: 15:57

>>21

What if I wanted to set up my own proxy server? That would be deliberately downloading and re-distributing or "reposting to another site" just the same.

The reality of the matter is that copyright on the internet is a double standard.

23Report
at 4 May 2008: 16:05

>>22

No, it would simply be a download.  It's not a repost unless you're making it available to the public.  If you do -that-, then you're crossing the line.

Like I said, if an artist posts an image, its a tacit approval for you to download.  You just don't have the approval to repost it to another website.

24Report
at 4 May 2008: 16:10

>>23
I could make the proxy public. In fact, most proxies are.

Proxies work as a way to multicast information from a single source. They download the file into themselves and then act as a re-distributor man-in-the-middle when anyone else asks for the same file.

I could easily make a proxy server that downloads stuff I ask from it and then re-publishes on itself. In fact, there are many such services on the internet and they're used to download larger files into a more reliable and faster location for later download.

25Report
at 4 May 2008: 16:19

>>24

Then I guess it would depend largely upon the intent of the proxy.  If, for instance, FA was using a proxy to facilitate its operation, then all is copacetic, because the images on the servers are there with the artists' permission.

If, on the other hand, you were using a proxy for your own home server explicitly for the purpose of redistribution of images that you had downloaded for your own enjoyment, then that would be crossing the line and you'd be guilty of copyright infringing.

26Report
at 4 May 2008: 16:28

>>25
Good luck suing tens of millions of people and hundreds of ISP's, then, because proxies, private or otherwise are all very legal and in wide use.

Proxies are one of the cornerstones of the whole internet. The point is to bring the data closer to the user, so FA would not be using a proxy at all - the local Internet Service Provider would be using one to re-distribute any pictures downloaded from FA, and they don't have to ask anyone's permission to do that.

And neither would I if I set up my own proxy.

27Report
at 4 May 2008: 16:32

>>25
Bear in mind that I don't have to download anything. The users of my proxy download whatever they want, and at the same provide the same files for everyone else by using my proxy server.

Even if using a proxy was illegal, I haven't done anything. I just run the proxy server.

28Report
at 4 May 2008: 16:38

>>26

Then it seems logical that proxies don't figure into the argument one way or the other.

If the image is hosted on a specific site (such as FA), then that is where it's considered to be.  The fact that the image, as data, is being transported back and forth across the net as data packets doesn't mean that the image is being reproduced millions of times across various websites.  The user is only going to see it as being displayed on FA.  For all intents and purposes, that image is on FA.  The rest is technically superfluous, and irrelevant to the copyright argument.

29Report
at 4 May 2008: 16:45

>> 27

     "Even if using a proxy was illegal, I haven't done anything. I just run the proxy server."

     Sidestepping the central issue for the moment, I can't resist poking at the logic of that sentence.

     You realize the flaw in that statement, don't you?  If the proxy was illegal, and you're running it, then yes you have done something wrong; you're guilty of using an illegal proxy.  Quid pro quo.

30Report
at 4 May 2008: 16:59

>>18

"I think the whole DNP is just a feelgood(tm) thing. It has no real effect on anything that happens on other sites."

Well, it's mainly a device for FChan to cover its own ass, legally speaking, than much of anything else.  Which makes sense, and at least assures artists that it's trying to accomodate them.

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