# Someone enlighten me on the sudden "threats of Allen against FA"?



## WolfoxOkamichan (Oct 6, 2010)

I just got a note telling me that the staff removed the two gifts I drew for Allen (back when he wasn't notorious ). Now I have no problems with that, but they said it was due to Allen's threat. What is it?


----------



## FancySkunk (Oct 6, 2010)

Might that be the guy who's filing DMCAs against FA for anything remotely resembling his character?

Edit: Pretty sure it is.

And look how derpy it is: http://pastebin.com/JUMMwy61


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Oct 6, 2010)

Wait, Allen is filing a complaint against his character looking like him?

@_@


----------



## rodox_video (Oct 6, 2010)

ALLAN'S REVENGE

Apparently he just figured out that the DMCA, when properly utilized against a sufficiently shitty webhost and jumpy website administrator, can be a fantastic tool in the hands of an idiot.


----------



## Fenrari (Oct 6, 2010)

Oh my... Aren't there any lawyer types swarming around FA that would find a counterclaim?


----------



## Gavrill (Oct 6, 2010)

Are you shitting me

His character is a _black wolf_, does he realize how many people have characters just like his? Jeez.


----------



## Valery91Thunder (Oct 6, 2010)

I don't get one thing: first, he asks for pictures and pays for them, now he wants them to be removed?


----------



## Mulefa Zalif (Oct 6, 2010)

Valery91Thunder said:


> I don't get one thing: first, he asks for pictures and pays for them, now he wants them to be removed?


 I suspect he just wants the hate art removed.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 6, 2010)

Valery91Thunder said:


> I don't get one thing: first, he asks for pictures and pays for them, now he wants them to be removed?


He cannot file DMCA claims if he specifically authorized the creation of the works in question.

He cannot file DMCA claims over any piece with a passing or coincidental resemblance to his character.  Copyright does not work that way.


----------



## TakeWalker (Oct 6, 2010)

Allan filed a DMCA to get hate art removed, but because he's an idiot, _all_ art containing his character or any meant to parody it is being removed, regardless of copyright ownership. It's really pretty hilarious if you think about it. :3


----------



## Pinkuh (Oct 6, 2010)

The DCMA was forwarded to the hosting Center FA is currently housed in. They Called Neer, Neer attempted to block it, but the server center has no balls at all and told us to do what he says. Mind you anyone with half a brain knows that he absolutly no legal leg to stand on... you know because you have to have trademarks filed on the characters. 

But low and behold, now the users who drew him have to suffer because he is a selfish prick.

Sorry if I sound bitter but I think it's a low ass blow to force FA to remove all the works, especially when some of the people showcasing said works are actually very proud of them. It annoys me to all hell that someone would do that.

ugh


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 6, 2010)

Pinkuh said:


> The DCMA was forwarded to the hosting Center FA is currently housed in. They Called Neer, Neer attempted to block it, but the server center has no balls at all and told us to do what he says. Mind you anyone with half a brain knows that he absolutly no legal leg to stand on... you know because you have to have trademarks filed on the characters.
> 
> But low and behold, now the users who drew him have to suffer because he is a selfish prick.
> 
> ...


 That's fucking bullshit!
No wonder why people hate Allen.


----------



## Fenrari (Oct 6, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> That's fucking bullshit!
> No wonder why people hate Allen.


 
Meh it happens. The Cycle of Hate won't be stopping anytime soon.


----------



## Aden (Oct 6, 2010)

You cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character you cannot copyright a character


----------



## jeff (Oct 6, 2010)

CannonFodder said:


> That's fucking bullshit!
> No wonder why people hate Allen.


 thats not why


----------



## Asswings (Oct 6, 2010)

Won't any sort of legal investigation on him and his character bring into light the whole 'using welfare money for porn' thing? Since it's EVERYWHERE on the internet right now.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Oct 7, 2010)

Furry politics and furry legal issues suck.


----------



## SkyeThing (Oct 7, 2010)

Aden said:


> You cannot copyright a character


Yes, yes you can. >_>



WolfoxOkamichan said:


> Furry politics and furry legal issues suck.


^agreed.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Oct 7, 2010)

Hilariously enough though the "FA vs. other furry websites" gets joined in this fight.


----------



## Koronikov (Oct 7, 2010)

wait didn't Lupine assassin get murdered or something, or was that someone else


----------



## SkyeThing (Oct 7, 2010)

Koronikov said:


> wait didn't Lupine assassin get murdered or something, or was that someone else


StarBlade, rest his soul :/


----------



## Koronikov (Oct 7, 2010)

SkyeThing said:


> StarBlade, rest his soul :/


 
ahh, well my condolences for the family and friends


----------



## Aden (Oct 7, 2010)

SkyeThing said:


> Yes, yes you can. >_>


 
sorry nope

copyright does not apply to character designs. If you _drew_ the character, then the _piece of art_ is your intellectual property under copyright law, but only that. Not the ideas in the picture, the picture itself.

You can, however, _trademark_ a character design. But then in order to defend it or issue takedown notices and the like you'd probably have to pay for a registered trademark - otherwise your case would collapse. I have a hunch that Allan hasn't done that. I have a bigger hunch that nobody in their right mind would grant that trademark.

but with all the people who give him money, whose knows these days


----------



## Xaerun (Oct 7, 2010)

TakeWalker said:


> Allan filed a DMCA to get hate art removed, but because he's an idiot, _all_ art containing his character or any meant to parody it is being removed, regardless of copyright ownership. It's really pretty hilarious if you think about it. :3


 
I uh
I laughed pretty hard, particularly at his "WTF all pics of me have been removed"  reaction, and the swathe of "be careful what you wish for" comments on his SF.  It's pretty cleansing for the site, having him gone.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 7, 2010)

Xaerun said:


> It's pretty cleansing for the site, having him gone.


 
Like a big colonic irrigation procedure, except with a firehose.


----------



## SkyeThing (Oct 7, 2010)

Aden said:


> You can, however, _trademark_ a character design


Trademark and copyright, I mix'd them up. >.< Sorry.


----------



## rodox_video (Oct 7, 2010)

Pinkuh said:


> But low and behold, now the users who drew him have to suffer because he is a selfish prick.
> 
> Sorry if I sound bitter but I think it's a low ass blow to force FA to remove all the works, especially when some of the people showcasing said works are actually very proud of them. It annoys me to all hell that someone would do that.
> 
> ugh


 
Come on, admit it. You're glad on some level that almost all evidence of his little shopping spree is now gone from FA.


----------



## ElizabethAlexandraMary (Oct 7, 2010)

Aden said:


> sorry nope
> 
> copyright does not apply to character designs. If you _drew_ the character, then the _piece of art_ is your intellectual property under copyright law, but only that. Not the ideas in the picture, the picture itself.
> 
> ...


 for all we know he might as well have his own company running from all the welfare right now and is planning a takeover of america's economy


----------



## rodox_video (Oct 7, 2010)

Is he really living off of "welfare"? Unemployment benefits and such do not even fully cover basic subsistence in this country, let alone the comical amount of personalized furry porn he bought.


----------



## Clyff (Oct 8, 2010)

Seriously?
Ugh... Not this guy again, please... -    -


----------



## Willow (Oct 8, 2010)

rodox_video said:


> Is he really living off of "welfare"? Unemployment benefits and such do not even fully cover basic subsistence in this country, let alone the comical amount of personalized furry porn he bought.


 I heard somewhere that he gets money from his parents too, but that might be wrong.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Oct 9, 2010)

I still laugh though that the other sites are using him. Now that I don't love FA, but I still find it hilarious that he's being used as fuel for FA hate/furry sites war.


----------



## rodox_video (Oct 9, 2010)

Allan is easily the most politically useful furry loose cannon since Sibe.


----------



## Cloudchaser (Oct 9, 2010)

Pinkuh said:


> The DCMA was forwarded to the hosting Center FA is currently housed in. They Called Neer, Neer attempted to block it, but the server center has no balls at all and told us to do what he says. Mind you anyone with half a brain knows that he absolutly no legal leg to stand on... you know because you have to have trademarks filed on the characters.
> 
> But low and behold, now the users who drew him have to suffer because he is a selfish prick.
> 
> ...


 

Dragoneer didn't just give him what he wanted.  He went beyond that.  Allan only wanted the hate art removed, but Dragoneer made everyone take down all art of Allan's character.  Why?


----------



## TakeWalker (Oct 9, 2010)

Cloudchaser said:


> Dragoneer didn't just give him what he wanted.  He went beyond that.  Allan only wanted the hate art removed, but Dragoneer made everyone take down all art of Allan's character.  Why?


 
The DMCA required removal of all images depicting Allan's character, ignoring the fact that a character cannot be copyrighted. Allan did not realize this, so he got taught a lesson.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 9, 2010)

Cloudchaser said:


> Dragoneer didn't just give him what he wanted.  He went beyond that.  Allan only wanted the hate art removed, but Dragoneer made everyone take down all art of Allan's character.  Why?


 Well on paper that is what he wanted. Always be careful "how" you ask things.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 9, 2010)

TakeWalker said:


> The DMCA required removal of all images depicting Allan's character, ignoring the fact that a character cannot be copyrighted.


Doesn't that mean Dragoneer could have counter-claimed?  "By seeking out and commissioning artists to produce depictions of his character, Allan *specifically authorized* the creation of these works.  Therefore, in our opinion, his claims of copyright infringement are frivolous and invalid."


----------



## Fay V (Oct 9, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> Doesn't that mean Dragoneer could have counter-claimed?  "By seeking out and commissioning artists to produce depictions of his character, Allan *specifically authorized* the creation of these works.  Therefore, in our opinion, his claims of copyright infringement are frivolous and invalid."


 
He could have yeah. As far as I understand when something is drawn the copyright goes to the artist unless stated contractually.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 9, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> Doesn't that mean Dragoneer could have counter-claimed?  "By seeking out and commissioning artists to produce depictions of his character, Allan *specifically authorized* the creation of these works.  Therefore, in our opinion, his claims of copyright infringement are frivolous and invalid."


 
Yes, but this way pisses him off even more.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 9, 2010)

Smelge said:


> Yes, but this way pisses him off even more.


Not sure I entirely understand.


----------



## Summercat (Oct 10, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> Doesn't that mean Dragoneer could have counter-claimed?  "By seeking out and commissioning artists to produce depictions of his character, Allan *specifically authorized* the creation of these works.  Therefore, in our opinion, his claims of copyright infringement are frivolous and invalid."


 
From what I understand, with the way DMCA takedowns are handled by ISPs and hosting sites, it is MUCH easier to file a DMCA takedown notice than try to fight it. MUCH easier. As in, not worth the time and effort to fight it.

I haven't been hit with one myself, but *shrug*


----------



## Dragoneer (Oct 10, 2010)

Cloudchaser said:


> Dragoneer didn't just give him what he wanted.  He went beyond that.  Allan only wanted the hate art removed, but Dragoneer made everyone take down all art of Allan's character.  Why?


 Our host wanted the images temporarily removed while we formed a rebuttal. It wasn't that they had no spine, just went_ "this is not our problem, please get him to leave us alone"_. Allan's DMCAs were rejected, then counter-DMCA'd. He then started e-mailing the technicians handling the issue about this now being a "defamation" and "libel" issue, and that he was going to take it up with them. Our host said _"leave out of this, remove the images for now, then you can post them back later when you've cleared up the issues with him"_. They weren't mad at us, just Allan.

So Net-cat setup a redirect on the links to send them to a simple white page. Fair enough. Or it would have been, but then Allan complained to our host that the very /links/ still existed. Our host basically said _"We have no idea WHY he's coming to us about it, but he will not leave us alone"_. Because Allan filed false DMCA reports, by law the host had to investigate his "issues". One of the techs from the host called me, explained the issue, even stating he agreed with us completely, but the company wants to take no sides in the matter. He relayed that Allan requested _"EVERY image of his taken off the site"_ and we said fine, you get EXACTLY what you want. And your little legal threat of "defamation" instantly goes POOF!

I could have fought it, and could have won. But it's not worth our time and effort.


----------



## Cloudchaser (Oct 10, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> Our host wanted the images temporarily removed while we formed a rebuttal. It wasn't that they had no spine, just went_ "this is not our problem, please get him to leave us alone"_. Allan's DMCAs were rejected, then counter-DMCA'd. He then started e-mailing the technicians handling the issue about this now being a "defamation" and "libel" issue, and that he was going to take it up with them. Our host said _"leave out of this, remove the images for now, then you can post them back later when you've cleared up the issues with him"_. They weren't mad at us, just Allan.
> 
> So Net-cat setup a redirect on the links to send them to a simple white page. Fair enough. Or it would have been, but then Allan complained to our host that the very /links/ still existed. Our host basically said _"We have no idea WHY he's coming to us about it, but he will not leave us alone"_. Because Allan filed false DMCA reports, by law the host had to investigate his "issues". One of the techs from the host called me, explained the issue, even stating he agreed with us completely, but the company wants to take no sides in the matter. He relayed that Allan requested _"EVERY image of his taken off the site"_ and we said fine, you get EXACTLY what you want. And your little legal threat of "defamation" instantly goes POOF!
> 
> I could have fought it, and could have won. But it's not worth our time and effort.


 
Thanx for clearing that up   I hope that Allan has learned his lesson from all this, though given his past, I'm not overly optimistic about that.


----------



## Dragoneer (Oct 10, 2010)

Cloudchaser said:


> Thanx for clearing that up   I hope that Allan has learned his lesson from all this, though given his past, I'm not overly optimistic about that.


 I wanted to fight this, and started to, but honestly? It wasn't worth the time and effort. The fact Allan's playing around with the DMCA, filing false reports... oi. He claimed other people's artwork as his own copyright. The DMCAs were filed under penalty of perjury, which is the eqv. of "lying under oath" in a court of law. It's like somebody gave him a grenade, Allan pulled the pin, then threw the pin at us. 

If FA or the host were litigious (and damages could be proven) we'd have an open and shut court case against Allan for time, effort and bodily injury to the epic facepalming that went on behind the scenes. But I'm not litigious, and Allan's not worth investing the time or effort into. That said, the host? Who knows.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 10, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> If FA or the host were litigious (and damages could be proven) we'd have an open and shut court case against Allan for time, effort and bodily injury to the epic facepalming that went on behind the scenes. But I'm not litigious, and Allan's not worth investing the time or effort into. That said, the host? Who knows.


 
Have you asked the artists that have been screwed over by the deletion of stuff? I can imagine quite a few of them being pretty angry over this whole thing, and regardless of the issue being between Allen and yourself, they are still the ones being hit in the crossfire and deserve the option to say if they think something should be fired back at him.

Yes, it's easier for you to delete all the material, but it's still affecting the artists.


----------



## PanzerschreckLeopard (Oct 10, 2010)

Is this why 1/3 of my favourites say the submission was deleted?


----------



## Xaerun (Oct 10, 2010)

PanzerschreckLeopard said:


> Is this why 1/3 of my favourites say the submission was deleted?


 If you had a rather bizarre fixation with Allan's character, maybe?


----------



## TakeWalker (Oct 10, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> I could have fought it, and could have won. But it's not worth our time and effort.


 
And this way, you didn't have to fight it, and you won anyway.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 10, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> So Net-cat setup a redirect on the links to send them to a simple white page.


... not a 404?

This is why FA really needs a way to actually make submissions "hidden" (soft delete).  I'm guessing the blank page only got served up when you actually view _that page_, and he was complaining about the submissions still showing up in thumbnails everywhere else.

But if you haven't done so already, it might be worthwhile making a journal or blog about the whole shebang.


----------



## Aden (Oct 10, 2010)

PanzerschreckLeopard said:


> Is this why 1/3 of my favourites say the submission was deleted?


 
Exactly how much artwork of a generic black wolf with a headband in generic situations can you possibly favorite before it starts numbing your brain?


----------



## PanzerschreckLeopard (Oct 10, 2010)

Xaerun said:


> If you had a rather bizarre fixation with Allan's character, maybe?



I dunno what the char looks like, nor do I remember what those faves were.


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 11, 2010)

PanzerschreckLeopard said:


> ...nor do I remember what those faves were.


Then they could have been anything.  I browsed my Faves CP the other day and spotted two that had become invalid, so I cleaned them off.  No idea what they were, no sense keeping the empty space.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 11, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> I browsed my Faves CP the other day


 
You have favourite child porn?


----------



## rodox_video (Oct 11, 2010)

badum tish


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 12, 2010)

Smelge said:


> You have favourite child porn?


What you say?  Oh, the acronym.  Control Panel.  CP.

Well, no sense in returning a comment about what _you_ might be interested in....


----------



## Firehazard (Oct 13, 2010)

Dragoneer said:


> I wanted to fight this, and started to, but honestly? It wasn't worth the time and effort. The fact Allan's playing around with the DMCA, filing false reports... oi. He claimed other people's artwork as his own copyright. The DMCAs were filed under penalty of perjury, which is the eqv. of "lying under oath" in a court of law. It's like somebody gave him a grenade, Allan pulled the pin, then threw the pin at us.
> 
> If FA or the host were litigious (and damages could be proven) we'd have an open and shut court case against Allan for time, effort and bodily injury to the epic facepalming that went on behind the scenes. But I'm not litigious, and Allan's not worth investing the time or effort into. That said, the host? Who knows.



I think I speak for almost everyone here when I say I wish that time and effort could be bought with money. I would personally donate to the "Help Us Put This Asshole In Jail Fund" without a moment's hesitation, and I suspect a lot of others would too at this point.

And this isn't because I'm pissed off at getting my picture taken down. Hell, I'm glad I have an excuse to not have it up anymore. It's just that we're all sick of seeing him get away with stupid shit like this. Especially abusing the DMCA, which he's far from the first person to do and get away with.


----------



## trunks2585 (Oct 27, 2010)

So what's this I heard about 'Neer's twitter saying Allan filed ANOTHER DMCA?  I thought all his stuff was taken down, did someone not get the memo?


----------



## Aden (Oct 27, 2010)

trunks2585 said:


> So what's this I heard about 'Neer's twitter saying Allan filed ANOTHER DMCA?  I thought all his stuff was taken down, did someone not get the memo?


 
Who drew a black wolf and put it on the site? _Who did it?_
you've doomed us all


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 28, 2010)

*"In order to pre-emptively avoid frivolous invocations of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act against FurAffinity for non-infringing material with coincidental resemblance to copyrighted intellectual property, and to protect the claimant from reciprocal litigation for filing false and misleading DMCA claims, and to protect the claimant from liability for alleged purchases and possession of pornographic material, we have chosen to voluntarily remove the cited, non-infringing material from our site for the time being."*

That would make the Best Apology Ever.

But if he keeps up, the "bring a lawyer, see you in court" argument needs to be given more consideration.

On a side note I'm actually a slight bit curious what this character of his looks like in the first place.  Anyone got a URL?


----------



## Summercat (Oct 28, 2010)

Stratadrake said:


> *"In order to pre-emptively avoid frivolous invocations of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act against FurAffinity for non-infringing material with coincidental resemblance to copyrighted intellectual property, and to protect the claimant from reciprocal litigation for filing false and misleading DMCA claims, and to protect the claimant from liability for alleged purchases and possession of pornographic material, we have chosen to voluntarily remove the cited, non-infringing material from our site for the time being."*
> 
> That would make the Best Apology Ever.
> 
> ...


 
DJ Muscular Black Wolf with a red bandana.

So very unique. I could see if I wanted FA to remove the Summerchimera pictures...


----------



## Stratelier (Oct 28, 2010)

Still, if it keeps up then it is becoming *harassment*.


----------



## ShadowEon (Oct 31, 2010)

For fuck's sake. -.- Allen, just go to hell,please.

Also: does this mean anyone with art of a black wolf or a black wolf character is now screwed over?

Also: I know Dragoneer is trying to punish Allen/be spiteful to him but he is punishing the artists that spent all that time on those submissions and wanted to keep them up because it was a piece of their work, regardless of the character. I don't like this move for that reason, it screws over too many artists.


----------



## Firehazard (Oct 31, 2010)

ShadowEon said:


> Also: I know Dragoneer is trying to punish Allen/be spiteful to him but he is punishing the artists that spent all that time on those submissions and wanted to keep them up because it was a piece of their work, regardless of the character. I don't like this move for that reason, it screws over too many artists.



I frankly do not mind saying that anyone who would knowingly post stuff he commissioned from them, after all the drama he's caused, and are proud enough of them to leave them up even after seeing more drama ensue, do not get any sympathy from me over their removal. And I say this knowing that some of those people are artists I otherwise have respect for. For their art if not for their judgment.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Nov 6, 2010)

http://lulz.net/furi/res/1320393.html



> I will sue FA and all the admins.



*sigh.....*

The guy just doesn't know when to STFU and GTFO.....


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 6, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> http://lulz.net/furi/res/1320393.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I normally don't read Lulz (I've only ever even posted there /once/) but god damn. I can side with some of Lulz (yes, I need to act more mature and professional, and I agree with that 100%) but you expect when Lulz is involved that you crawl into your NBC suit and prepare to be flamed. That Allan went to Lulz of all places for support... down right hilarious. Yes, because if anybody will like Allan and say "yes" to Allan... it's Lulz.

And who is he going to sue? I didn't have a hand in this at all. Not one. You can't sue FA because the users decided drawing bandannas on dogs is fun. People even put bandannas on their dogs to dress 'em up! You can't own bandannas on canines as any sort of trademark.



> @OP you probably wont make it with a DMCA but if  Dragoneer/Preyfar or his fucktoy is on you, you might want to fill a  complaint versus Sean Piche instead. Brotip : Don't play their game  because they expect you to reply with a DMCA to these kiddy attacks.
> 
> Todo:  Contact the sheriff or your legal representative, for online  harrassment. You need names : ED has it all. I threatened Sean Piche  last year with this, he stopped straight to fuck with me, samefagging on  Sofurry and IM as soon he received a letter from my lawyer. He somehow  managed to get my docs lurking at my PM's, and haviong a Dragoneer  calling you on the phone to bring a retarded joke was the trigger for me  to fight back.
> 
> ...


Also: this guy makes me laugh. _"I had to send Dragoneer docs from my lawyer because he was calling me and harassing me in order to get him to stop!"_ is... what the hell? I'd love to know in what reality THAT supposedly happened. Ahh, I love anonyboards. Anybody can pose as anybody else, say pretty much anything and generally proof is optional.

Granted, some of their concerns /are/ valid, which is why I'm done with WYS, Furry Drama 2, anything drama. I really do have better things to do with my time, and needs to invest my timer properly. But... oi. I wonder what the lawyer supposedly told me? Or what number I supposed called him from? Or...


----------



## Accountability (Nov 6, 2010)

Hey everyone, Dragoneer is back!

Too bad it took more Alan drama to bring you back to the forums. A little late though, the 7 page thread directed at you is already closed. Oh well. Nothing like involving yourself in drama just to claim you're done with drama, amirite?

 You're an instigator. You want this drama to be over with? Clean your hands of it. Don't encourage people. Don't encourage people through others. Don't tweet about it, don't journal it. Part of this problem comes from you running around going "LOOK WHAT ALLAN DID!!!" every time he does something, which encourages people to harass him.

Hell, this whole problem could have been avoided if you enforced your site's rules which state "Submissions intended to harass, slander or otherwise disrupt usage of  the site will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to,  content which is racist, bigoted or otherwise offensive towards any  particular sexuality, philosophy or religion. Submissions in which a  user's character(s) are used without their permission may, in some  instances, be viewed as harassment, and will be handled on an individual  basis.". The original submissions that started this should have been deleted. You instead let a personal grudge get in the way and let them stay because it's that damn dirty Allan and he deserves it!

The two sides to this drama are both in the wrong for how they're handling this. Very, very wrong.


----------



## Kesteh (Nov 6, 2010)

OR.
Allan could have not started all this with false DMCA claims. I'm waiting for the moment his ass gets grilled for doing it.

la-de-da.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 6, 2010)

Accountability said:


> Hell, this whole problem could have been avoided if you enforced your site's rules which state "Submissions intended to harass, slander or otherwise disrupt usage of  the site will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to,  content which is racist, bigoted or otherwise offensive towards any  particular sexuality, philosophy or religion. Submissions in which a  user's character(s) are used without their permission may, in some  instances, be viewed as harassment, and will be handled on an individual  basis.". The original submissions that started this should have been deleted. You instead let a personal grudge get in the way and let them stay because it's that damn dirty Allan and he deserves it!


Now, excuse me for a second if I call zombie bullshit.

I can't actively monitor every single FA submission. Second, Allan *was* e-mailing me regularly with harassment images, and I was removing them. I can repost the e-mails to show you. I was working with the guy. Then, for no reason overnight, he started DMCAing FA over the exact same issues that we had been resolving peacefully and without issue no less than a week or two prior. And he quit e-mailing me altogether, and just took up the DMCA route.

That said, I am done talking about it. I discussed it, and any further issues will be handled privately and without posting, twitter, foruming, FD2ing, anything. I realized I was personally frustrated with the actions I was taking, it's really not resolving anything...

So yeah.

I'm going to go back to how things used to be.



Kesteh said:


> OR.
> Allan could have not started all this with false DMCA claims. I'm waiting for the moment his ass gets grilled for doing it.
> 
> la-de-da.


 
All Allan ever had to do was contact me for their removal. Like the many others I did remove in the past, I would have still worked with him. He chose a strange path, however.


----------



## Accountability (Nov 6, 2010)

I stand corrected!


----------



## Kesteh (Nov 6, 2010)

There has to be something in our legal system that looks in to people constantly filing these things. You know, just to check and see if they are valid.


----------



## Dragoneer (Nov 6, 2010)

Accountability said:


> I stand corrected!


 I know actions speak louder than words, and you and those with you art critical of me. That's fine, in fact, good. After speaking to Sciggles and others, I had a wake up call for the most part. It's not easy to see yourself going down a road that's not good, but because of that, I am working on changing. Community first, drama last.

It'll just take time to show that I mean that, and that I am sincere. I'd rather my actions speak for themselves.



Kesteh said:


> There has to be something in our legal system that  looks in to people constantly filing these things. You know, just to  check and see if they are valid.


 
There is, and we're signing up to a service that will actively act as a moderator for DMCAs, and /will/ take legal action against people filing false DMCAs. I've always had an "open door" policy for issues like this, and I don't want people feeling like harassment is something the site accepts. However, that said, there still must be room for parody. Nobody is above that, not even myself... and there's more than a few images actively poking against me on the site. It's part of life.


----------



## Carenath (Nov 7, 2010)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> http://lulz.net/furi/res/1320393.html


 It can be amusing to watch, but ultimately unreliable.



Accountability said:


> I stand corrected!


 I had to do a double-take, +1 for maturity.



Kesteh said:


> There has to be something in our legal system that looks in to people constantly filing these things. You know, just to check and see if they are valid.


 The Cynic in me, screams no, because the Copyright MAFIAA want it that way, no red tape, just a quick letter and most people won't bother to file a response, they'll just quietly censor remove the material.


----------



## ShadowEon (Nov 7, 2010)

Firehazard said:


> I frankly do not mind saying that anyone who would knowingly post stuff he commissioned from them, after all the drama he's caused, and are proud enough of them to leave them up even after seeing more drama ensue, do not get any sympathy from me over their removal. And I say this knowing that some of those people are artists I otherwise have respect for. For their art if not for their judgment.


 
If someone really worked really hard to do a piece of art, why should they have to remove it because the character it depicts belongs to someone undesirable? I very much disagree with what you say.  And who says every piece caused any drama at all?


----------



## GingerM (Nov 7, 2010)

Agree. The copyright, if any, exists with the artist who created the art, not the character depicted in the piece. Characters, though they cannot be copyrighted, can be trademarked; Disney's done so with most if not all of the characters in their movies. It's also worth noting that copyright exists simply in the act of creating a work, though proving it in a court will usually be difficult without some kind of registration. Trademarks, however, do NOT automatically exist; they must be registered and to the best of my knowledge, it's not inexpensive to do so.


----------



## WolfoxOkamichan (Nov 9, 2010)

...and this is why a furry community sucks, period.

Why can't we all just take knitting classes?


----------



## aiden749 (Nov 9, 2010)

woooow...

I knew there were flame wars on here since this is a forum and all but...daaaamn

internet furries are fucking vicious


----------



## Summercat (Nov 10, 2010)

I think this thread is over and done with, now.


----------

