People always ignore artist that explicitly write that you are not allowed to upload their work on other sites. Artists that this happens too have a tendency to delete all their work and stop drawing.
You're welcome to either open a forum topic about that or to use another website that will follow that instruction. Just for your information, every known image hosting website does not follow that, so, good luck.
You're welcome to either open a forum topic about that or to use another website that will follow that instruction. Just for your information, every known image hosting website does not follow that, so, good luck.
No, I am just pointing it out. Taking art from other sites without asking permission first is theft after all... especially if you are aware of it. Saying "it is okay because the site I upload it on allows it" does not mean that it is okay. That is like saying that stealing a car and selling it to people that will pick it apart for scraps is okay because that repair shop has no problem doing such deals. The legality aside, hiding behind that another site allows it is pretty bad. Nobody wants their stuff stolen.
Besides, even if Danbooru "deleted" the picture, it still exists on their server. I don't really see how Danbooru can say that it deletes something when all you have to do is type "status:deleted:" in the search function.
Besides, it is danbooru. Nobody would support this. Everyone wants to pilfer images so it isn't as if it would be doing any good.
You have a weird understanding of theft, that doesn't work on the matter of image repostery websites. Don't lump theft and reposting into the same definition or you will just earn some laughs.
How can you steal something that is publicly available and without taking the original from its source?
The "steal a car and resell it" argument doesn't work because this is, in essence, a copy of a piece of artwork posted on a public forum. If the artist themselves feel strongly enough about it, they can inform the admin, third-parties don't need to interject themselves.
Guaro said: You have a weird understanding of theft, that doesn't work on the matter of image repostery websites. Don't lump theft and reposting into the same definition or you will just earn some laughs.
No, it is just todays generation. People actually seem to believe that stuff is free and that they can do anything they want. Pixiv is not an image repository site though. It is advertised as an artist site where artist can post their art.
Saladofstones said: How can you steal something that is publicly available and without taking the original from its source?
A car is publicly available if you park out on the street you know.
Saladofstones said: The "steal a car and resell it" argument doesn't work because this is, in essence, a copy of a piece of artwork posted on a public forum.
Pixiv is not a public forum. You have to register in order to view most of the images. Pixiv is created as place where artists can host their work. It is not an image repository created so that non-artists can easily find their work. While there is no patent, it is the same as stealing data from another company. When you steal such data, the original data is still there... you have just "copied it". The reason I used the car analogy was to show how the business you are unloading your stolen goods to, does not make your theft legal.
Saladofstones said: If the artist themselves feel strongly enough about it, they can inform the admin, third-parties don't need to interject themselves.
The artists should not have to. The onus should lie with the people uploading. If you see that an artist says "I don't want my art uploaded anywhere else"... why should they have to browse places like danbooru and then contact the place admin in order to get their work deleted? they already made it perfectly clear on THEIR site that they didn't want their art spread.
That said... like I said... the art still exists if you search their archives which IMHO is bad. That art should be purged.
I didn't. You seem to have ignored the rest of my comment though. But I guess if you can't be bothered to read and understand "reproduction prohibited" or/and "Don't repost my art"... then I guess I shouldn't expect you to read mine.
Oh I read it, I just don't care what someone has to say if they have to ignore an important aspect of the opposing argument to make their own case. The sentence wasn't "How can you steal something that's publicly available?" It was "How can you steal something that's publicly available and without taking the original from its source?"
If you have to ignore part of the question to make your argument, then your argument is weak.
I'm not sure about that. This resembles a previous case where a user created sockpuppets to make false testimonies (comment #2105243, content warning: bestiality), in which the user had a very similar name to Setsunator, Setsuna014. So, most likely this guy is pulling sockpuppets to make their point again.
Such talk isn't helpful and only is there to discredit an user. Please refrain from that.
Setsunator said: A car is publicly available if you park out on the street you know
A car is not publicly available to take since it not only has a locked door, but also a locked ignition that requires a specific object from its specific owner, who is the sole arbitrator of who gets to use that object to utilize their object.
I think a more appropriate argument from your perspective would be related to art gallery: Do I have a right to take a picture of a picture in a gallery and upload it to my blog or to a forum dedicated to art galleries.
The ultimate question is: Who has the authority to decide who gets to upload what and where. I'd argue the author loses complete control of what users do with their art when it is posted on a public venue, like pixiv.
How can you compare taking a fucking image on the internet from twitter or pixiv to running a chop shop, being a front for stolen goods, or data theft is beyond me. The ultimate issue with those cases is either the taking of a physical object that is not yours for a profit, knowingly commissioning/acquiring illegally acquired goods, or accessing private data in a secured location likely using illicit means.
There is a fine line when it comes to patreon/paid-media, but you're asking danbooru to fall victim to the same issue of youtube where people can claim anything on the behalf of anyone and cause chaos.
Setsunator: If you don't agree with how Danbooru works, you can find another site to use. I have assisted you in this matter by permanently banning you from the site. You're welcome.
I have no patience for people who use Danbooru for years, who enjoy all the benefits of having a massive archive of meticulously tagged, translated, and sourced images, but then attack us over what we do. I have no patience for people who attack us while gladly using other sites like Gelbooru or E-Hentai that do the same thing as us.
Danbooru is part archive, like the Internet Archive, and part search engine, like Google Images. Getting mad at us is like getting mad at Google Images. Danbooru was founded in response to other sites like 4chan that repost works without credit. Fanart will get reposted across the Internet whether the artist likes it or not; the purpose of Danbooru is to let you find the original source when that happens.
For context: OP has a history of privately harassing Danbooru uploaders for uploading things to Danbooru first before he could upload them to Gelbooru. For example, he's claimed without evidence that things like post #4608414 or post #4424493 are his commissions, then demanded that the uploader stop uploading from the artist because Gelbooru's repost bot will repost them to Gelbooru before he does. OP is banned because he complains about reposts but then attacks Danbooru users for upload sniping his reposts on Gelbooru.