This site does not support copyright violation!

Keep our community informed! This forum is for discussing and sharing vore-related information. Post any relevant material and/or links here, and engage in conversations!
Forum rules
This is for general discussion, if you found something you want to post, please use one of the upload forum, if you made something and want to share them, please use the work to be shared forum!

Re:

Postby sorgens » Mon Jun 18, 2007 2:40 am

After reading these posts, I must ask who is making money off of people posting the work of others on this site? And then would it be okay as long as they stipulated that the pic wasn't theirs? Also, lets not forget that most of us first discovered online vore through sites that had collections of non permission material. We found our favorite artists by asking around after seeing pics posted to various sites.
sorgens
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Cruich » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:27 am

I say the backbone of this site is NOT the clips of copyrighted movies and cartoons (which would be fair use if they were accompanied by critique or review), but the original art and stories posted by the original artists and writers. I fail to see how this site would be damaged at all if all copyrighted material were removed, considering the active participants posting their own work here.
User avatar
Cruich
Participator
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:00 am

Re:

Postby delet359hs56h2 » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:33 am

Agreed..DINGDINGDING...SOMEONE GET THIS Vorer A HAWT POCKET!
User avatar
delet359hs56h2
Belly Bouncin' Bovine
 
Posts: 576
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Jurodan » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:29 am

*whistles and slowly edges away from Cruich*

(Almost all my stories use pre-existing characters)
Busy giving humanity a bad rep.
User avatar
Jurodan
Advanced Vorarephile
 
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re:

Postby Rodent » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:46 am

sorgens wrote:After reading these posts, I must ask who is making money off of people posting the work of others on this site? And then would it be okay as long as they stipulated that the pic wasn't theirs? Also, lets not forget that most of us first discovered online vore through sites that had collections of non permission material. We found our favorite artists by asking around after seeing pics posted to various sites.



It's not actually about who is making any money at the given moment, but rather how distribution of someone else's work might affect "their ability to make money" from their own work. This not only includes how much of the work had been distributed without their permission, but also where and how that distribution took place. It also is not limited to just the actual artwork in question, but how usage of a single piece of their work might slander their names or careers in some manner.

As harmless as we might see it, many artists might find that having their work posted to a fetish site such as this, can have negative effects on their professional careers. Just think about how many people here fear having their voraraphilia made public, and then consider artists whose works might be shown here without their permission, who have actual careers that can be adversely affected by this. This might cause them to give permission for some sites to host their work, while others may not. In the end, it is the artist's choice.

The problems with copyright laws is that they are both clear and vague at the same time and this is in part, done on purpose in order to add in the 'Fair Use' clauses. There are simply too many possible situations to define a law for all possibilities, so they decided to design the laws so that any disputes would be handled on a case-by-case process.

Some of these disputes are clear-cut, where the existing laws make it easy to decide who is in the right, but in other cases, it can go into long, expensive, legal battles.

What most people fail to realize, or try to find loopholes with, is that the fair use laws were first designed to allow educational institutions and news organizations to have the right to use parts of various documents (don't forget, these laws were written before TV, radio, or the internet). The intent was not to make the works of others public domain for free distribution by anyone, but rather allow for their limited use without having to go through the hassle of getting permission for say, a teacher wishing to reprint a paragraph that's critical to the understanding of a lesson; or a reporter to compare conflicting facts of what a politician may have said or done in the past.

With the advent of the internet, amendments have slowly been added to try and modify these protections for artists for these new technologies, but today's law-makers generally lack the ability to see to the future and devise laws that can forsee the scope of things to come. In other words, they don't have a clear idea themselves on how much protection the artists should have. So, the new laws are even more vague on what is or isn't allowed. Unfortunately, this makes legal battles more costly and drawn out, with the outcome always uncertain. This is why ISPs will often take down sites when confronted with possible legal action, because they don't want to deal with the cost of fighting for someone else's right to post up copies of other people's work.

So, the best rule of thumb to use is: if the artwork is not yours, post it elsewhere at your own risk. No matter how 'in-the-right' you may believe you are, if legal action is taken, the specifics of this current situation will be considered on their own, and a judge or jury will have the final say in the matter. Even if you know of 2 dozen similar cases where the person posting the artwork may have won, that does not guarantee the same outcome for you. And fines for copyright infringement can be steep, which is why it is always best to try and avoid any legal actions against you.

Remember. Copyright laws were created to protect the rights and freedoms of those doing the actual work in creating the art; not to protect others to freely redistribute that material however they wish. The artist always has the advantage when going into a legal battle over copyrighted material.
User avatar
Rodent
The Rat
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: Not inside a predator at all

Re:

Postby sorgens » Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:01 pm

I understand what you are saying about copy rights, I am simply saying that this fetish, and a great many of the sites for vore are based on the redistribution of materials that do not have express permission from the original authors. I compare it to Metallica, becoming popular in their early days due to underground tape trading and bootlegging, then when they get their major label checks, completely condemning the same practices that got them famous in the first place. I am an artist with copyrighted music. I do it for the sake of art, and don't care if it is redistributed with out my permission. If anything, I'm just glad that it is put out there.
sorgens
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:00 am

Re:

Postby Strawkitty » Sat Jun 23, 2007 10:35 am

sorgens wrote:I understand what you are saying about copy rights, I am simply saying that this fetish, and a great many of the sites for vore are based on the redistribution of materials that do not have express permission from the original authors. I compare it to Metallica, becoming popular in their early days due to underground tape trading and bootlegging, then when they get their major label checks, completely condemning the same practices that got them famous in the first place. I am an artist with copyrighted music. I do it for the sake of art, and don't care if it is redistributed with out my permission. If anything, I'm just glad that it is put out there.

Except vore isn't likely to ever become mainstream even if it becomes famous. My concern is loosing good artists who actually bother catering this small(yes it's small in comparison) fetish. Most of the artists who make money with their drawings in this genre don't have any sorta publishing company or some such for buffering, having their artwork spread hits straight home. As for videos and clips I can't say because they don't interest me.
Strawkitty
Participator
 
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:00 am

Sigh

Postby Deathworks » Fri Jul 06, 2007 6:42 am

Hi!

There are a few things I wanted to point out:

All Rights Reserved includes the copyright, which is the exlusive right to make copies and distribute them. Anyone creating anything automatically has copyright over that creation, even if the person does not put any indication of it on it. The one exception of this seem to be commissions and other forms of hired art, where the employer is automatically the copyright holder.

There are also the following aspects:

At least in the 1980s and 1990s, when you bought a medium like a disc, CD, or whatever, you also had the right to create a single backup copy of that medium. If you ever were to cease possession of the original item, you were under obligation of either destroying the backup or handing it over to the new owner of the original item. With all the changes in copyright law, I am not sure whether this still holds. Actually, the interaction between copy protections and this regulation is quite fascinating because there are a lot of minute details of what can be done and what can not be done.

In addition, computer software that needs to be installed grants you a specific copyright to copy the necessary parts onto the hard disk of a single computer (=install). If you read the fine print (which later became the license agreement after adding a lot of sometimes questionable legalese), you would have noticed.

Material posted by the copyright holder on the internet automatically grants the rights necessary to view the material on the computer you are using to visit it. That is, when you are viewing an image, your computer actually stores a copy of it on its hard disk. However, that copyright is basically limited to that viewing purpose.

Fan-art, that is using copyrighted characters in original work, is a gray area. Basically, you could try to use the parody clause of the fair use terms. However, there seem to be some, especially American firms that are non-permissive about this.

As far as Japanese art is concerned, fan-art seems to be widely allowed by the artists. Most of the doujinshi sold in Japan are fan-art work. Just look over at the things at DLSite.com, and you will find Sailormoon, Evangelion, Haruhi, and whatever you like. DLSite.com is an accepted major business, which is why I think I can use it as a reference. In addition there is the Comiket held twice a year where doujinshi are sold big time in Toukyou. If there was an issue with such fan-art and making money with it, I don't believe this major public event (people wait hours just to get into the convention center where it happens) would go unharmed.

As for links, as long as no special keys are required, normal links to pages on the internet can actually not be disallowed by the person who has created the site. However, linking to content at pay site would circumvent such a key and thus is a no-go. As for the legal side of hot-linking, I am not sure, but I strongly recommend not to do it, not only because of being unfriendly, but also because some services consider this a violation of their terms of service and consequently shut down the site.


Well, that is it as for the legal side of things as far as I know it.

I agree with Cruich that the backbone of this site here are the artists who are sharing their art and the members discussing their feelings and thoughts on the forums. We really don't need the copyrighted stuff to have a great time here. And as I said, so-called "copyrighted characters" (if I remember correctly, technically you can't have a copyright on a character, but it is called something else, but I don't remember the details about that) used in original art are actually a different topic.

I also want to point out that we are not talking about the old temples in Greek but about people that are alive today. We are talking about homepages that have message boards and contact e-mail addresses. So, why do people not simply ask for the permission. It is just a single e-mail or a single post on a message board. How long do you need to write: "Hi!/I really like that picture of yours, because she is so cute./I know this great place called Eka's Portal (link) where people would really enjoy seeing this, so I wanted to upload it there. Would that be okay with you?". I rarely see people write such messages on message boards. Actually, with some of the redistributors, I have not even see them post a single "GJ" (Good Job) on any of the message boards where they got the material from for which they hope to get praised.

These redistributions have already had a major negative impact on the communities. Homepages have shut down because of this and official translation projects have been cancelled. So, even beyond the legal point, we are talking about something that causes more harm than it helps.

Deathworks
User avatar
Deathworks
Innocence and Cuteness!
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Germany

Re:

Postby Lithalya » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:38 am

Eka wrote:
DragoxDugles wrote:What about the movie clips and stuff in the media gallery? Aren't movies and stuff copyrighted? Just confused about this and wanting to know.


Fairuse


Movies and any parts of them are protected by Federal U.S. Law. Redistribution of any parts of movies is against said Federal Law.

Just an FYI. :roll:

Fair use and fair dealing

Copyright does not prohibit all copying or replication. In the United States, the fair use doctrine, codified by the Copyright Act of 1976 as 17 U.S.C. Section 107, permits some copying and distribution without permission of the copyright holder or payment to same. The statute does not clearly define fair use, but instead gives four non-exclusive factors to consider in a fair use analysis. Those factors are:

1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.



With those things in mind...

1. Using material as sexual release. (Not intended by creators)
2. Again...most of them are Children's shows. Not masturbation material.
3. This varies, but includes several longer video clips we have.
4. Associating Vore with anything other than what is DESIGNATED BY THE CREATOR AS VORE is defaming someone elses work. This is not a very accepted "fetish" and people need to realize that associating this fetish with anything more than mental imagery, and other things created by "Vores" for said purpose, is considered morally wrong by "normal" people. This, in turn, means that by associating the video clips in our Library with Vore, you are potentially hurting the market that said videos was intended for.


With 4 out of 4 of those factors being clearly against the nature of the "Fair Use" factors listed, it's safe to assume that legal action could be taken if the clips on the site were discovered by those that ACTUALLY own them.


Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act

The act added section 512 to the Copyright law in Title 17 of the United States Code (Public Law No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, 2877).

This provision of United States copyright law is best known for allowing copyright holders to ask that an online service provider (OSP, including ISPs) remove access to copyright infringing material if the copyrighted material is made available through the OSP. It is a powerful device for the protection of copyright on the internet for providers that are located in the United States, though many foreign providers may also respond to such requests for fear of litigation in the United States should they have any significant business interests in the U.S.

In exchange for this, the OSP gains:

* new protection from liability to its own customers as a result of a decision to remove material.
* clear procedures for removing and restoring material.
* a safe harbor against copyright infringement claims, similar to the protection against non-intellectual property infringement liability provided by Section 230 the Communications Decency Act (CDA).

Customers gain through a reduced chance that works will be removed unnecessarily by an OSP which hasn't received an infringement complaint.



This, obviously, means that if Disney requested you remove Lion King clips, or whatever else is on the site, you have no ground for Fair Use, and they could slap you with a lawsuit. :D


So, just IMO...lets not talk about copyright infringement and how not tolerated it is until everything that could be considered grounds for such is removed from the site.
User avatar
Lithalya
Participator
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Re:

Postby r0nniel0ng » Fri Jul 06, 2007 1:53 pm

Lithalya -
Lithalya - "1. the purpose and character of your use
2. the nature of the copyrighted work
3. what amount and proportion of the whole work was taken, and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.


With those things in mind...

1. Using material as sexual release. (Not intended by creators)
2. Again...most of them are Children's shows. Not masturbation material.
3. This varies, but includes several longer video clips we have.
4. Associating Vore with anything other than what is DESIGNATED BY THE CREATOR AS VORE is defaming someone elses work. This is not a very accepted "fetish" and people need to realize that associating this fetish with anything more than mental imagery, and other things created by "Vores" for said purpose, is considered morally wrong by "normal" people. This, in turn, means that by associating the video clips in our Library with Vore, you are potentially hurting the market that said videos was intended for.


With 4 out of 4 of those factors being clearly against the nature of the "Fair Use" factors listed, it's safe to assume that legal action could be taken if the clips on the site were discovered by those that ACTUALLY own them."

I recently got out of a copyright class and my understanding would be a bit different:

1. our purpose is taking clips and putting them on the site for our vile fetishy purposes of doom
2. the original work is intended for commercial use and profit
3. the amount that we take is minute
4. The effect on the potential market is none

Associating it with vore, I would think, is not defaming something, unless we change or alter the work in some way (Example, extending the scene with our own animation or changing the sound, etc). The clips on the site are the most accurate examples of fair use.

The ones that ARE infringement are photomanipulations, unless the copyright is in public domain or permission was aquired for derivative works. This is because the copyright holder has 6 EXCLUSIVE rights:
1. reproduction
2. to make derivative works
3. distribution
4. performance
5. display
6. digital audio transmission

remedies:
It is unlikely that most companies will care or even find out about the infringments (photomanips = definite infringment in most cases). But, if we restrict the community to only allow people who sign up to the site and introduce themselves (a requirement), then this would be definied as a private use. With private usage, you can get away with more. This would make the clips of films go from "maybe" fair use to almost "definately".

In general, a work is considered a public display anytime you show it and there is someone you don't know able to view it. With this standard, you can see why making the above required would make this a private community.

Also, keep in mind, that copyright infringement is often like smoking weed. No one is going to know if you don't tell them and you only do it in the privacy of your own home. Eka's Portal isn't exactly a hot spot for non-vore fans, and it is unlikely that the creators of the original photos of photomanipulations or disney officials would find out. If they did, it is even less likely that they would mind. Furthermore, it is unlikely that they would attempt to sue you before requesting you to remove the images, as law suites are expensive and you have to ask yourself, what would be their gain? Likelyhood of winning, likely hood of getting enough money to recoup costs, etc.

Eka's position:
The person who posts the picture is the one who is directly liable. Eka's portal is theoretically guilty of Vicarious Infringment. This is what napster was sued for, in that they COULD have stopped the sharring of copyrighted content, but didn't. Since Eka has obviously made attempts of correcting any infringemnts, the site would be even less likely to be sued.

I know I am forgetting a few things, but I hope this is helpful. In the end, the only person who can tell you whether or not something IS infringing or fair use is the judge or jury who gives the verdict. Prior to that however, you can use the above guidlines for fair use, the knowledge of the exclusive rights, and the possibly new private policy to help out in figuring things out. Another thing, it is still infringment even if you don't know the work is copyrighted. Ignorance is not an excuse. I think the copyright system is old and needs some serious reworking in the wake of new technology and communication. Also note, that none of the exclusive rights are "to make money." It doesn't matter that Eka is not a pay site, it just means that they would have less to claim on 'damages' done in a lawsuit, which they probably wouldn't do, because there is little to no money to be made from it.

Again, I hope this helps. Also, I am not a lawyer, just a person who took a horribly evil (but helpful) copyright class, which was taught by a lawyer.
r0nniel0ng
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: NYC

Re:

Postby Lithalya » Fri Jul 06, 2007 7:47 pm

@Ronnielong- What you stated is "assuming" that nobody else is even going to find them, that it's alright. This is still, unfortunately, wrong. It's still infringing copyright laws, and if it were reported, legal action could be taken. To clarify, yes, it IS more likely that someone would be gone after for making Vore art out of things such as Disney characters, rather than posting the video clips, but given the nature of the site itself (btw, I love the site, so don't take this wrong), if it were being reviewed by lawyers, there is a large amount of material here that could be considered grounds for a lawsuit.

However, you can sue someone for anything, and even win...so it doesn't take much to get lawsuit grounds, eh?

I think, more or less, it really just has to be a judgement call by Eka, on whether or not to allow or disallow material from the site, as ultimately a few people rambling about laws and whatnot isn't really going to do anything, anyway.

I'm merely going off of some of the knowledge I've gained from Law classes I've taken as part of my Major (Criminal Justice and Law), but some of what I've said COULD be incorrect. If the topic were really that important, I'd do more reasearch. :evil:
User avatar
Lithalya
Participator
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 11:00 pm
Location: Oregon, USA

Re:

Postby Shadow_Walker » Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:50 pm

Still, we gotta think about jumping the gun on this issue. I did and I know quite a few people stopped me before I went to far with it, now I'm still kicking myself over it. The point is, before you burn somebody, make sure you know they are infringing on copyrite. All I know is that I'm regretting it, and any of you who pulls that sort of stunt will be too.

-This is what, my third apology for this? I'm sorry to everyone who was involved in the "Art Thief" thread, I didn't realize that Rapper never made a solid claim and I went too far, too fast trying to bring somebody down.
Shadow_Walker
Mud
 
Posts: 5391
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 11:00 pm

Re:

Postby r0nniel0ng » Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:01 pm

Lithalya - "@Ronnielong- What you stated is "assuming" that nobody else is even going to find them, that it's alright. This is still, unfortunately, wrong. It's still infringing copyright laws, and if it were reported, legal action could be taken."
8O :?:
I thought that was pretty much what I said. "Could be taken" is relevent in almost anything you do. If you show a movie at a party, action could be taken an you would probably try and argue the non-public-performance point of view.

"I think, more or less, it really just has to be a judgement call by Eka, on whether or not to allow or disallow material from the site"

Yep, pretty much. Though I think she knows that. I was just trying to help show the scale on which infringement is judged against and the point of view of both possible infringer and copyright holder. No sane company would attempt to sue Eka's Portal for the current minor infringements. There are, unfortunately, many insane companies. I was also making note that Eka is possibly reponsible for vicarious infringement, not direct infringement, since users 'post' the clips (I believe).

But yeah....I'm not really sure what your dissagreing with me on. "This is still, unfortunately, wrong. It's still infringing copyright laws, and if it were reported, legal action could be taken." I never said it couldn't. As I said....I'm not really sure what we are dissagreeing on, except possibly the sanity of most companies. I said many 'probably' and 'maybes' and few 'definatelies' to cover my bases and make sure that no one could think that there is "no possible way" someone could sue Eka. I mean, come on, people try to sue for losing their clothes at the dry cleaner! (seriously). With that in mind, what can you do? Nothing but hope none of those 'insane companies' show up.

remember, there are no definates (except that there is copyright law and that people are generally crazy and stupid), except death and taxes I suppose (unless you are immortal or an evil accountant, respectively)
r0nniel0ng
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: NYC

Re:

Postby Junogray » Sat Jul 07, 2007 12:08 am

Ok....
I got all of the above, but i noticed that another related topic was barely touched at all...
If an artist puts art up online and allows redistribution of his/her work freely at one point, and it is put up on this site... later that artist decides to take down his/her work and states that he doesn't want to see any of it any where and its still lost in one of the forums on this site and possibly forgotten about... would this site get in trouble if no-one spots this problem as it happens? Should we be on the lookout for people suddenly "spazing" and declaring their own work be removed from all sites?
Two fish in a tank, one says to the other "so, you know how to drive this thing?"
User avatar
Junogray
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Philadelphia

One more point

Postby Deathworks » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:32 am

Hi!

Please allow me to shortly digress from the legal discussion and reply to some of the social/hypothetical arguments.

To be honest, for me the copyright issue is actually more a tool rather than a purpose in itself. I am worried mostly about the damage it has already done to the communities and it is continuously doing. Thus, my main focus in this entire affair are drawings/artwork and games that are made by members of our or neighboring communities.

In this context, I wanted to mention something interesting in response to Sorgens' argument about popularizing through underground activity:

Actually, Kitaraf/I-Raf-You's goal/main purpose is the proliferation of macrophile content into the main stream. For that purpose, he keeps creating macro material and selling it via DLSite.com in order to show people that there is a customer base for such products. He hopes that his example would inspire others, both inside and outside the communities, to create more fetish content.

His plan has validity indeed, because download shops like DLSite.com have usually a ranking system based on current sales. In addition, DLSite.com also has several quality rating and review systems. So, if macrophile or voraphile stuff is really successful (at least for a short time), there is actually a chance that some other person not usually involved in it may take notice and say "Hey, it's so weird, why not give it a try?"

Now, having Mimoza distributed via peer to peer clearly undermined his efforts, as those who got it that way clearly would not even dream of paying for it at a download shop, so sales numbers would not increase.

In addition, Giantess Garden (IIRC) successfully scared HIK out of selling his colaborative macrophile manga via download shops, again decreasing the positive public attention the communities could have gotten.

Not to mention that the English translation of HIK's manga was cancelled, as well as I-Raf-You deciding against making the English translation of Mimoza a patch.

My examples are all from the macrophile community, but this is mainly because I used to have closer ties there and it is also better organized than the Japanese vore community. But then again, we do have Camel, who is also trying to create a niche for vore at DLSite.com.

And I am not buying the myth of the selfless redistributor. My experience is that the most active redistributors nearly never write even a "Good Job" in any of the forums of the original artists, yet complain when their "contributions" here don't get enough praise.

Personally, I would have preferred to keep it on the level of "respect for the artist and the effort and love they put into this would demand that you do not act against the artist's wishes", but the reality is that people simply don't accept that argument and even denounce the artists when they have strong feelings about the art they have created in long hours of work. You would have expected that people at a place like Eka's Portal, which was explicitly created for the artists' sake would have respect and would care about their fellow artists, but unfortunately, there are too many who don't care. Thus, for me, copyright is the last resort, a necessity rather than a desire.

Deathworks
User avatar
Deathworks
Innocence and Cuteness!
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Germany

Re: One more point

Postby r0nniel0ng » Sat Jul 07, 2007 9:41 am

Deathworks - I agree with you, it is sad when an artist can't keep control of their art and its uses. I also like to support artists I like. But I also think that it is, to some extent, a balancing act. Example: many of my favorite artists, I got into from downloading (before the Napster lawsuit) off napster. Now I buy almost every CD released. If it weren't for the initial infringement, they would have less sales. Unfortunately, many people don't feel the need to support what they like or want more of. I have never understood this way of acting, I suppose it is a combination of greed and apathy. Balancing act. I wish artists would learn to give more for free and clients (or users, or whatever you want to call them) would take them less for granted.

Junogray - I believe if an artists allows his work to be modified, he can MIGHT be able to change his mind for future modifications (depending on how he phrased it the first time), but he can't take back the modifications that have already been made. Also, when a work enters public domain, it cannot be taken back. Again, this is all to my knowledge....
r0nniel0ng
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: NYC

Re: One more point

Postby Cruich » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:36 pm

r0nniel0ng wrote:Also, when a work enters public domain, it cannot be taken back.

This is true, but if the artist is alive, the only way a work can enter the public domain is if the artist states explicitly, "I release this work into the public domain." No implications or fuzzy actions count. Stated so, or it remains under copyright until at least 50 years after the artist's death. Posting one's own work on a web site or forum, for instance, is not releasing it to the public domain as some individuals mistakenly claim.

Deathworks wrote:Anyone creating anything automatically has copyright over that creation... The one exception of this seem to be commissions and other forms of hired art, where the employer is automatically the copyright holder.

This is not true. Work must be explicitly specified as "for hire" for an artist's work to become the copyright property of the buyer. Otherwise, the buyer is only buying a single copy of the work, and the artist can reproduce it as he or she pleases. Anyone who does commissions (let's say at a convention) should find out from their buyers in advance what kind of rights they're looking to buy, and charge accordingly more if the buyers want exclusive rights to the art they create. If it's not specified at the time of negotiation or transaction, then there can be some grumbling and ill will between them, even if it's not likely to get to the lawsuit stage for such a thing. And if it's for a professional company, well, there's going to be a contract involved that spells it all out, and you can expect there will be a "for hire" clause in there.
User avatar
Cruich
Participator
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 12:00 am

Okay

Postby Deathworks » Sun Jul 08, 2007 4:26 am

Hi!

Cruich: Actually, I think I had that in mind, but I guess my formulation was not precise enough. So thanks for clarifying this.

R0nniel0ng: There are several reasons why I am talking so much about the semi-commercial cases (download shops). One is that they are the ones that definitely say "No" when you want to redistribute their stuff for obvious reason. In addition, they also have the infrastructure to actually enforce that opinion.

Actually, many of the places where I wish people would ask are quite likely to grant the permission once people actually do ask. Just look at some of the artists at the giantess uploader. Basically, the uploader says: "Do not reproduce without permission". While this sounds quite negative, when I actually contacted artists like Tay, they willingly allowed people to put up their drawings here at Eka's Portal. I didn't need to negotiate, bribe or whatever. It was just the matter of a single post over at the message boards. Nothing more. But strangely enough, I never see any of the major redistributors do that (one-shot and occasional redistributors seem to be a bit different or at least more understanding once you tell them that it's not okay that way).

However, this tendency is not to be taken for granted. There are cases where specific pictures are personal presents made for someone and simply show-cased at that person's site. Thus, there is an enormous emotional background that may forbid redistribution.

In other cases, like Kemo, the artist actually works in an artistic profession and therefore wants to keep a low profile for fear of his surroundings recognizing his art and thus learning about his fetish and then stygmatizing him because of it (wasn't there something about FatJaguar along the same lines?). Believe me, drawing styles can be identified and thus his worries are well-founded. Do we have the right to make the artists' lives miserable just for our sexual enjoyment? After all, the social stygmatization associated with sexual deviation may even lead to suicide in extreme cases, so is that something you want to be responsible for?

This is why I want people to ask the artists and find out whether there is an issue or not. Very often, people can get the permission if they simply bothered to stop by and ask, but that simply does not happen.

Deathworks
User avatar
Deathworks
Innocence and Cuteness!
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Germany

Re: Okay

Postby r0nniel0ng » Sun Jul 08, 2007 11:09 am

Most of my post was (as mentioned) reffering to photomorphs and movie clips. Both of which I still think would benefit from making this a semi-private community. As for the other reasons not to post other artists work without asking permission, I agree. I don't think with photomorphs or edits (whatever the terminology be) that we should all of a sudden ban them just because we fear the wrath of the copyright holder. The same goes for movie clips. And stories containing copyrighted characters. As for work that is original and in whole, it is probably a bit more wrong (whatever "more wrong" is) to post them here, without permission. I also think it would be good to draw up standards around here as to EXACTLY what is and isn't acceptable. I do have a story in the works that involves copyrighted characters, ment only for this site. If it is going to be not allowed, I might as well not finish it. I can imagine lots of other people around here are feeling the same way, but I don't know that for sure. It would be nice to let people know ahead of time an absolute ruling on what is and isn't allowed.
r0nniel0ng
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 11:00 pm
Location: NYC

Actually, we are very close then

Postby Deathworks » Mon Jul 09, 2007 5:15 am

Hi!

R0nniel0ng: Then we are actually even closer together in opinion than it initially seemed. My main interest is also to have reliable rules for people, so they know in advance that what they do will not suffer in any way. I can really understand how frustrating it can be to create something in hours of hard work and then have it removed because of some seldom enforced rule.

Basically, photomanips are something I tend to stay away from; for one thing, due to my preferences, I am not interested in them, so I don't know much about them and their culture. Secondly, besides copyright issues, they may or may not involve privacy rights and then there is the problem with underaged models and so on, so that is something complicated in my opinion. Therefore, photomanips are something I personally would rather leave to others to sort out.

As I keep saying, personally, I would already be happy with a "code of honor", so to speak, protecting the artists, which encourages people to stand up and ask redistributors: "Where did you get that?", "Who is that artist?", and of course "Sorry, but that artist does not allow redistribution. Have you asked?". Have a look into the major redistribution threads. You will find that people rarely give the source where they found the artwork and also rarely say who the original artist was. It happens, but it is more of an exception. I think this shows quite clearly a lot about attitudes towards the artists, and what bothers me just as much is that it is seemingly accepted by the majority.

My point is, I am not a lawyer. But I am a thankful member of the communities and I see there behavior, that even without the legal issues is obviously harmful to them.

And it is important to stress that this is about doing things without permission. Asking for permission is not a big deal. It is just a single post/mail written in less than 10 minutes. Of course there are cases where it is not granted, but there are also many where it would be granted - if asked for. Redistribution with permission of the artists is actually a good thing and actually helps the communities exchange information and joy. It is its evil twin brother whom we should not accept in my opinion.

Sorry about the rant, but I often have the feeling that people misunderstand the intention and background of this whole issue. And I also think that besides the legal side, it is necessary to convince people that these rulings actually have a reason to be there and are something positive. Only that way can we see all members support the moderators and administrators in upholding the rules.

Deathworks
User avatar
Deathworks
Innocence and Cuteness!
 
Posts: 2744
Joined: Fri Mar 24, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Germany

PreviousNext

Return to General Vore Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ajw5707