# "Image Site" pandemic



## TyraWadman (Nov 10, 2013)

Seems like a lot of people are mistaking FA for e621 and are posting images that don't belong to them. 
I understand reports and whatnot, but it seems like a lot of people have been taking into the habit. 
Like how one week everyone had a fu man chu and then neon glowing jizz... 


Maybe do something to address this?


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 10, 2013)

TyraWadman said:


> Seems like a lot of people are mistaking FA for e621 and are posting images that don't belong to them.
> I understand reports and whatnot, but it seems like a lot of people have been taking into the habit.
> Like how one week everyone had a fu man chu and then neon glowing jizz...
> 
> ...


Inform and/or Report, thats all you can do, tell them that its not allowed and if they refuse you report the image.

Many times people post stuff cause someone else did


----------



## Smuttymutt (Nov 10, 2013)

tell them about e621


----------



## Erethzium (Nov 10, 2013)

More annoying are the people that use FA like it's their Facebook/Photobucket, just dumping random photos of themselves or their dog/cat or other stupid crap, into their main gallery.


----------



## MRGamer01 (Nov 10, 2013)

This "pandemic" has been around for a very very long time.  Like Verin said, all we can do is just report the submission/user in question.  Make sure to have good information and links to original works and whatnot when making a report otherwise it'll be tougher to bust them.  And once you submit a ticket you'll get a reply back about the situation in one of three ways.  




The situation was resolved, user warned, and art removed.
You need to provide better/more information to resolve the problem.
You'll be waiting week after week for a reply to see if the situation was resolved or not.  This can either be due in part to admins being, well, the admins FA is known for or see number 2 again.


----------



## Etiainen (Nov 10, 2013)

MRGamer01 said:


> -snip-


4. The person paid for it so they can post it.
5. This submission was made using a character owned by the person posting it.
6. A change in policy is pending.


----------



## Stratelier (Nov 11, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> 4. The person paid for it so they can post it.


#6 notwithstanding, FA rules trump general law when they are more specific.


----------



## Erethzium (Nov 11, 2013)

What exactly isn't clear about the "For You / By You" rule? Unless it was made for you or by you, don't post it.

I'd suggest reporting it, but that would be implying that the moderators actually answer tickets.


----------



## Lucient (Nov 11, 2013)

I always thought e621 was like the rule 34 of the furry world... So you're saying e621 is like a legitimate, honor-bound website? Holy god!


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 11, 2013)

Disclaimer: I'm just a forum admin.  I have no admin powers on the main site.



Lucient said:


> I always thought e621 was like the rule 34 of the furry world... So you're saying e621 is like a legitimate, honor-bound website? Holy god!



Appeal to extremism or false dichotomy, methinks.  There's some decent stuff scattered about there.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 11, 2013)

Lucient said:


> I always thought e621 was like the rule 34 of the furry world... So you're saying e621 is like a legitimate, honor-bound website? Holy god!


yes since they change ownership of the site


----------



## Etiainen (Nov 11, 2013)

Lucient said:


> I always thought e621 was like the rule 34 of the furry world... So you're saying e621 is like a legitimate, honor-bound website? Holy god!


Depends on what you consider "Honor-Bound".
However, it has been edging closer and closer to being the biggest social, art gallery in the furry fandom than any of FA's other competitors.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Nov 12, 2013)

y'know technically you're supposed to ask permission before putting someone's art on e621 (although many don't, and sometimes it ends up getting taken down)


----------



## Erethzium (Nov 12, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> y'know technically you're supposed to ask permission before putting someone's art on e621 (although many don't, and sometimes it ends up getting taken down)



I don't think many artists care about their art being posted on other websites. Free advertising for them. All of these types of sites have a DNP list if the artist really wants to (vainly) strive to keep their art on one site.


----------



## Taralack (Nov 12, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> I don't think many artists care about their art being posted on other websites. Free advertising for them. All of these types of sites have a DNP list if the artist really wants to (vainly) strive to keep their art on one site.



I don't think you know many artists.


----------



## Etiainen (Nov 12, 2013)

Taralack said:


> I don't think you know many artists.



I don't think you know many non-profit artists.


----------



## ArielMT (Nov 12, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> I don't think you know many non-profit artists.



We could dance around the point all day.  Some artists love it, some artists don't mind, and some artists don't ever want it to happen.


----------



## Verin Asper (Nov 12, 2013)

Taralack said:


> I don't think you know many artists.


I know many artist, some of them dont care, some of them only care if the image doesnt link back to them in any way, and some prefer their art to be only where they are at (some are actually very extreme where you can only post it where they are, meaning you cant post it to any other site you are on if they arent there even if you link back to their page)

in the end
theres different types of artist, who have different feelings on this thus its still fine to ask


I have yet to meet an artist who actually refuse the person to post the work to their account, but apparently those too exist also


----------



## Willow (Nov 13, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> I don't think many artists care about their art being posted on other websites. Free advertising for them. All of these types of sites have a DNP list if the artist really wants to (vainly) strive to keep their art on one site.


Some artists don't care so long as the uploader credits them, however, most uploaders don't do that therefore they don't get the advertising unless their style is just that recognizable and even then if you've never seen that artist's work before you'll have no way of knowing who it is. 



Etiainen said:


> I don't think you know many non-profit artists.


I feel like being non-profit would be even more reason for people not wanting their stuff spread around without permission and/or credit. 

It's especially a problem with sites like Zerochan though because none of the art is sourced.


----------



## Etiainen (Nov 13, 2013)

Willow said:


> I feel like being non-profit would be even more reason for people not wanting their stuff spread around without permission and/or credit.


Most, not all mind you, of the artists I've spoken with like the exposure as long as they're at least given credit for their work. They take it as recognition, free promotion, etc.
Even some guys I know who take commissions don't mind it because the item has already been paid for and it being shared helps bring in more commissions. That being said, they still like to be given credit for their work.

As Ariel stated: some like it, some hate it, some are just assholes about it.


----------



## MattsyKuntheKitsune (Nov 25, 2013)

If someone commissions art from someone else and that artist says its okay to post in their gallery, the commissioner does. That's always kinda how it's been around here  There are also a few "groups" (basically accounts that post others art to their accounts and link back to the original artists). Otherwise, it's art theft and I'd be butthurt about it. XD


----------

