Fchan is a furry smut imgboard, on the order of 4chan. There is a DNP (Do Not Post) list, made up of artists who ask that their work not be posted on the board. If there is, it is usually deleted by the mods. There have been several DNP threads, but this one is a whopping 40 posts. These rationalizations are the same ones I see used by music downloaders, oddly enough.

4chan/b/tard#gbywB01ZbY at 3 Sep 2005: 10:18This is to be literally against the DNP list, and discuss on ways that Mods may be able to avoid such hassles of furry artists who dont want their artwork seen.

Artwork is Artwork, however you slice it, draw it, MSPAINT it, scan it, love it, masterbate to it... ITS ARTWORK. Like many others, Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, and classic masters of art respected their work, shared it with people, placed their artwork up, made murels of elaborate and grand designs, sold their art, or just plain made it. Today, artists who wish to share artwork have an attitude about it, AND ITS REALLY PISSING ME OFF... "OMG YUO R STEELING MY ARTWORK I'MA REPORT YOU TO AOL!" is a commonly used phrase when I share furry artwork I have collected for 14 years, and critique this art on my own personal site. I dont ask for permission, one: I DID NOT STEAL IT, Two: I AM SHARING IT, and three: I DONT GIVE A FUCK what the artist says. If he doesn't want me to post it, I'll post more plus any outrageous statements he may "accidenatlly say" and threaten me with lawsuits. IT SHUTS THEM UP fast.

If the Mods were faced with lawsuits, or charges filed by artists, ignore it!! It is smoke, saying they want money just because of an art piece that was posted on this site, and its unlawful? Umm... First off, all pictures that artists create SHOULD FUCKING SIGN their art. Copyright infringements are not broken that way, and its not stealing. Did DaVinci NOT SIGN his art, or ask ppl to not share? he was smarter than that. so You artists do the same.

OK, if you are an artist, and like your work, SHARE IT WITH PEOPLE. Dont be a retard. If I ever saw any artist on this list of DNP, I would tell him exactly what I think of him: SELFISH, GREEDY BONEHEADS

Needless to say, several people call him on the "classic masters of art" analogy.

Anonymouse at 3 Sep 2005: 10:39
That works in a pure communist world, but unfortunately, we're far from that standard of living. Some people depend on their images to have a limited supply for their livelihood, but they'd probably relinquish said requirements if they could enjoy more physical manifestations shared to them in the same way you ask for their images to be shared.

Additionally, it may be due to copyright concerns: a personal image involving copyright characters is harmless, if it's behind closed doors. Once unleashed to the wild, it's no longer as harmless as it was, and does provide the possibility (however minute) of legal ramifications.

Finally, Even if you disagree with the above, you're using FChan, thus you're bound by it's rules. As long as FChan says so, there will be a DNP list, and it will be enforced as the enforcers see fit.

Look Over There at 3 Sep 2005: 10:47

In my short watching of the furry community I have seen, bar none, some of the most territorial artists. This includes even the most primadonna of artists. I've worked with many artists in many capacities, but never have I seen artists who complain when their artwork, posted openly on personal sites, is posted elsewhere.

I would just like to note that this has absolutely no bearing on the arguement. Carry on.

It is my personal belief that many in the furry community simply overdo their outrage. They see someone sharing their artwork and they scream theft, despite the fact no claims are made to ownership of that work, no reselling is taking place, and no profit is made from the "sharing".

You see, many people use the [DMCA] as the crux of their statement. They say the [DMCA] was designed to protect artists from theft of work and from harm of livelihood. What they forget is that posting artwork online then demanding no one post it online is not threatening livelihood. While art CDs and comic books may be of another thread, the point is that there is no livelihood being threatened. Most furry artists either have second incomes or sell massive amounts of products within their own fandom. Face it, being a furry is a relatively small niche. You will not sell artwork of anthromorphic dogs having homosexual sex beyond those looking for that. It is not mainstream to the point of livelihood.

I would like to point out that I know one artist making a living off of fursmut art, and other fetish sites.

Which brings me to the idea of Do Not Post lists. While it is understandable that webmasters respect artist wishes, it is almost deplorable that it is become common place that if you show off a furry artist's work, you could be threatened with a lawsuit.

That sentence is confusing, and ignores the issue of artist's rights. I think.

A Do Not Post list seems to be almost necessary in a community of hyper-sensative artists. It is a shame it has come to that point. That so many furry artists are so overly protective of their work that they forbid it to be reposted elsewhere.

So, in my opinion, Do Not Post lists are a nuisance. They are, sadly, a required nuisance in a situation where an artist could write a profanity-laden e-mail to a host and demand compensation or removal of site. The misunderstanding with the DMCA has fostered this environment to such a degree so many artists now believe they can force everyone to their will. It is a sad commentary on the status of the furry fandom when furry artists turn on furry fans because they enjoy their artwork for the original intent. Be that the intent of self-gratification or for appreciation.

Do Not Post lists are annoying, cumbersome, and border on damaging to a website. Sadly, because of the hyper-sensativity of many furry artists...they are required in such a service they cannot opt into.

In case you missed it, the poster ignored the question of whether the artists had the right to ask that their art not be posted in a certain place.

Sage Nadia(E.N: The admin) at 3 Sep 2005: 13:06

>>[first post]
I only have a couple of points to make.

If an artist threatens a lawsuit, then we have already failed in our duty to adhere to the restrictions given us by Title 17 of the USC as well as the Berne Convention. We will not ignore it under any circumstances. I know quite a few artists out there with not only the knowledge of how, but the resources and intellegence to carry it through to the end. I could easily cite a number who have.

>>others
They have the legal right. Just as you have the same right if you were to try and create art yourself.

I don't give out my skills for free. I am certain you don't give out yours for free. I don't ask for others to do the same.

[anonymouse] at 3 Sep 2005: 15:18
They always blame the author.

"Oh, yeah. I've got a couple of his things he's emailed me over time."

"Post it. Better yet, give it to me. Now."

"Sorry, he doesn't want it distributed."

"You're haven't sent it to me yet. I want it. Give it to me now."

"Uh... He said this stuff wasn't to be distributed. He's also already on the DNP list-"

"Fuck him. I want it. Give it to me faster."

"Let me get this straight: you, a stranger to me, want me to break the trust of someone, risk losing his confidence in me and possibly have him stop posting his stuff at all, possibly lose him some money, almost certainly get me banned here, risk having my provider drop me for violating its AUP, take the time and effort to email stuff to someone I don't know, violate the law, and almost certainly cause a drama explostion in the multikiloton range because you want something for free?

"I don't have it yet. Give it to me, now."

Who's the real "SELFISH, GREEDY BONEHEAD" here, hmm?

[anonymouse] at 3 Sep 2005: 15:51
>>[original post]

Spoken by someone who walks over the legal rights of others so long as it benefits them and has nothing to offer to the fandom but bitching, whineing and driving all the good artists away.

If the rest of furry fandom thought like you there would be no furry fandom.

4chan/b/tard#2y5yC.tkpQ at 3 Sep 2005: 20:56
>>15
There's simple patters of knockoff art I have seen, but given how an artist signs art is how you tell from knockoff art. Signatures of artists should be unique, thus the Copyright Law would be set in place. Michael, DaVinci, all those clasic artists SIGNED their art. Some of the DNP artists dont sign their works, (I checked a lot of them, and they dont, which makes for easy knockoffs.)
>>14
I believe in free access to information, songs, pictures, porn, movies (released on DVD/VHS ONLY), Games, software, ect. and the FEDERAL US GOVERNMENT denies me this access because It is all about the money lost... It is always about the M.O.N.E.Y, isn't it.

Presumably, he thinks there's a pet or small child who shouldn't hear the word "money" nearby.

>>12
FREE Access to information is all I ask, but some assholes love the idea of " I want ppl to PAY to see my art."

Holes like Picasso, Beethoven, Walt Disney, Tex Avery, Shinichiro Watanabe...

Oh, come on... Artistry wont pay bills, its a HOBBY. Hobbies are meant to be used on free time. I have a hobby: Making Dungeon/bondage equipment, but I have a real job as well. You can still have a real job AND draw, just as long as you dont absorb yourself in your own greed.

Apparently creating something which can then be exchanged for capital=greed. Someone had better alert the Free World.

>>11
I give you much respect, and hope you get those bills paid, Unfortunately, I can see why you get a little angry, but as for keeping your unfinished pieces of art completed, hide them, I'd suggest not revealing any unfinished arts to be secured somewhere so no one can see them until theyre done. My 2 pesos.
>>9
My art is free, and I believe in free access to almost all forms of entertainment. (see abv.) I grew up when the Internet had everything free, free porn, free webpage usage (megabytes were BIG in the late/early 80's/90's.) free pix, free music... Times change, but I still believe in free access to information without paying a cent for it.
>>4
The artists are territorial, because most of them are low income or poor class citizens, 15 yr olds, or highly successful people with a greed for money, and DO NOT SIGN MATERIALS THEY MAKE. (Cruise Control 4 kool... i know ...I know...)

Yes, he just mocked himself.

so they are quite upset when someone draws a little similar to them or better than they do. Personally, they are a disgrase, and offer little to the community.
>>2
yes, there is a simple solution to my ranting, I was going to just make it short, but I wanted people to know what I was feeling, and I know few people would agree, like you. I SIGN MY ARTWORK... and if artists want their art known that it is theirs, SIGN IT in a way people will not be able to copy it.

Apparently, he's never used the Internet. Do you know how easy it is to trace art in Photoshop?

If possible, keep your original formatted pictures OFF the Internet. If you want to sell unedited original formatting youre asking for artwork to be knocked off.

Someone, of course, pointed out that by that arguement it would be okay to steal from houses if people left their doors unlocked.

In conclusion, as an artist myself, (and avoiding any persecution for not posting my artwork) I refuse to post ANY and ALL of my orginal formatted drawings on any forum/site, and hope artists try this strategy, for it saves the headaches of knockoff artwork. Sign your work, save the originals, and post copies, sell your works, but always, and ALWAYS keep the rough drafts.

Und so weiter. Oddly enough, almost no one seems willing to take the side of the original poster. And what wank would be complete without someone taking the original poster's words and substituting them for something ridiculous?

Getta at 4 Sep 2005: 09:26
Two things. First of all, someone mentioned it, but allow me to elaborate.

Da Vinci, Michaelangelo, and damn near every reputed master painter was either paid on commission for their work, or worked under the patronage of someone with money to keep them living the good life.

Those that were not so fortunate still tried their best to make a living off their work, some died poor, pennyless, and virtually unknown in their lifetimes, and probably created much less art than they would have otherwise. Even so, they tried to make money off of art, because as much as they enjoyed creating it, they also liked to eat now and then. Funny how that works, eh?

Another thing that has been mentioned but not elaborated on; some artists who draw lots of porn eventually decide they want to go pro. Having a wide variety of porn, or even their names linked with sites hosting porn, can find themselves having doors slammed in their faces because of it. What to do? Remove your art from the net, and try to keep your name as far away from porn as possible so that potential employers don't match your name with furry porn, keeping you from realizing your dreams.

Now, I will agree with one sentiment voiced here. Once your work is on the net, practically it's out of your control. Artists have laws at their disposal to help run damage control, but when you put your work out there the first time, and people like it, it's on hundred of thousands of hard drives, and always manages to find its way back to the net eventually. C'est la vie. The best an artist can do is stay vigilant and know how the law can help them keep their intellectual property under what control they can manage. It's their right to pursue these methods, any denial of this fact is pure delusion.

Finally, think of it this way:

This is to be literally against the DNP list, and discuss on ways that Mods may be able to avoid such hassles of DENTISTS who dont want their DENTALWORK DONE FOR FREE.

DENTAL WORK is DENTAL WORK, however you BRUSH IT, FLOSS IT, GARGLE TO IT... ITS DENTAL WORK. Like many DENTISTS AND ORAL SURGEONS of DENTAL WORK respected their work, shared it with people, DID DENTAL WORK FOR PEOPLE, GAVE BRACES AND DID BRIDGE WORK, sold their DENTAL SKILLS or just plain made it. Today, DENTISTS who wish to GET INTO DENTISTISTRY have an attitude about it, AND ITS REALLY PISSING ME OFF... "OMG YUO R NOT PAYING ME FOR THE DENTAL WORK i DID I'MA REPORT YOU TO AOL!" is a commonly used phrase when I REFUSE TO PAY FOR THE DENTAL WORK I'VE RECIEVED FOR 14 years, and critique this DENTAL WORK on my own personal site. I dont ask for permission, one: I DID NOT STEAL IT, Two: I AM SHARING IT, and three: I DONT GIVE A FUCK what the DENTIST says. If he doesn't want me to TAKE IT FOR FREE, I'll RIP OFF MORE DENTISTS plus any outrageous statements he may "accidenatlly say" and threaten me with lawsuits. IT SHUTS THEM UP fast.

If the Mods were faced with lawsuits, or charges filed by DENTISTS, ignore it!! It is smoke, saying they want money just because of DENTAL WORK THEY DID FOR YOU, and its unlawful NOT TO PAY FOR IT? Umm... First off, all DENTAL WORK that DENTISTS DO SHOULD FUCKING FLOSS their DENTAL WORK. Copyright infringements are not broken that way, and its not stealing. Did JOHN HENRY HOLIDAY NOT FLOSS his DENTAL WORK, or ask ppl to not RUN OFF WITHOUT PAYING? he was smarter than that. so You DENTISTS do the same.

OK, if you are a DENTIST and like your work, SHARE IT WITH PEOPLE. Dont be a retard. If I ever saw any DENTIST on this list of DNP, I would tell him exactly what I think of him: SELFISH, GREEDY BONEHEADS

any discussions?

Please DON'T furbash or troll. I mean it.
ETA:Dentist analogy.