Fair Use Concerns

@Background Pony #9BBC  

 
https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html
 
I don’t think this situation is a legal matter. It’s more of derpibooru’s policy to remove images used for comment or criticism in their archive (and even in the rest of their site as they deleted my image!) if a DNP has been filed. I find it a bit draconian that they remove images that have even a small sample obviously used as commentary, parody, and criticism and even more draconian that they block external links that host the image.

@chucklefarts  
It is a legal matter. Whether warrented or not, if they refuse to take down an artist’s work when they request it, they invite a lawsuit. The DNP itself isn’t but it’s the fact that refusing to remove work when asked opens up a legal case against them.
 
And again, it is not Derpibooru’s call if something is fair use. That’s for a court to decide. They can get pulled into a legal matter if they decide something is fair use and pay the price if it’s decided it isn’t later. And even if they do get validation for their call, there are still legal fees involved: hiring a lawyer, court costs, and such.
 
It’s in their best interest to just remove any instances of a work when a artist gives them the forewarning of a DNP.

@Background Pony #9BBC  
That doesn’t make sense at all. If it’s clearly covered under fair use then obviously a lawsuit would be futile and I doubt anyone would bother if they knew that. I could see if they were really tying to cover their asses to avoid a lawsuit in any case by just always removing the content but it seems stupid to care about legal things like that. Absolutely no one is going to sue Derpi over cartoon horse memery and they’d be foolish to do so imo, but I guess they can never be 100% sure.
 
Also as an aside I don’t know how YouTube does it but they don’t need to handle things legally to tell someone filing a DMCA (which is essentially the same as a DNP in this case) to go fuk themselves because it’s fair use, so I don’t see why Derpi can’t make that distinction as well. I assume if people disagree with YouTube’s judgement they could actually file some real legal case (and I have seen that done before) to ascertain if a video is legal to host, but again, who is really going to do that for Derpibooru.
 
If anything though this just shows that copyright law is fucked if people use it like a weapon like this for harmless content, and is why I don’t support it in many contexts online. Perhaps we just do indeed need a more free hosting platform away from legal concern to host art properly on to remove the power from those who wish to control artistic expression of others.

@LemonDrop  
Fair use is a legal defense, not a state of being. People file lawsuits all the time over issues to prove a point. Saying people wouldn’t do that is just demonstrably wrong. What some people think is a slam dunk for fair use isn’t and some things people think definitely aren’t are covered.
 
Quick question, what do you think makes something fair use?
 
As for YouTube, the counter notification process to fight against take down requests (DMCAs) is a legal process. YouTube forwards a legal document with your information pasted in and the responding company has 10 business days to show documentation they’re filing a lawsuit against you. It’s not so simple as a “you’re wrong because fair use.”

@Background Pony #9BBC  
Basically this. Since there was no legal request made, no legal defense (what fair use is) is applicable.
 
Also note: if this was due to Dilarus’s claim, that’s a UK citizen making a request of an EU website to take something down. No US legal institution is involved at all.

@Background Pony #9BBC  
I mean it’s clearly in the name, just “fair” usage of content. I explained the justifications in my first post for reasonable reasons why things are considered fair use. For example the meme is not profiting anyone, it is not hurting the profits of the artist, it is acting as a critique and being transformative of their work rather than just blatantly reuploading it or making only a minor modification, etc. If this is the kind of thing they have any sort of right over then the system is wrong and art is truly dead.
 
I don’t know how fair use works in the EU but I assume they have a similar concept because obviously parody, reviews and etc are legal there despite using copyrighted material, I am just not familiar with the laws there that actually allow that.
 
Also I think really Derpi trying to avoid lawsuits is futile anyways, people can still sue them if they want to so if anything this is just an attempt to mitigate the volume of them. I say they man up and try to actually support some sort of fair use policy with regards to edits of existing art and deal with the potential legal stuff if people really want to go through the effort of that, because realistically no one actually will especially if they know it’ll just be shot down due to being an obviously incorrect claim in a case like this.

@LemonDrop  

 
That’s super easy for someone not taking the brunt of a lawsuit to say. Whether you like it or not, it’s how it works. You’re an artist yourself. The systems you’re decrying are the same systems that protect your work from blatant theft. The sad thing is, while you’re complaining art is dead and the system is wrong, US courts are exceedingly amiable to fair use claims. The majority that make it to court are found in favor of the defendant. The fact that it’s a legal defense and as such requires the person creating the derivative work to defend it isn’t a problem. It’s absurd to have people offered the legal protection of their intellectual property to also prove something isn’t fair use as that sets up a system where abuse comes from the other end. Which would be far more damaging to creative types. And the fact hosts for content want to mitigate their liability shows is common sense. I don’t really see why that would even be a problem. Why should they stick their neck out?
 
Just because you don’t like how a system works doesn’t mean it’s wrong or broken. It’s functioning as intended and rather well at the moment.

@Background Pony #9BBC  
I mean I don’t agree with copyright law as I’ve said many times before. I’d be totally fine with my work being shared without restriction, that is the implication when I upload something publicly to the internet and I’d never try to pull this sort of thing to take it down. Of course my values aren’t what are legally required but yeah I just don’t think this is a good way to do things as it is hurting artists and favoring those who’d seek to destroy everything on this site for their own personal gain.
 
I didn’t consider initially that Derpibooru was trying to avoid lawsuits with regards to why they might be so conservative with this policy so it does make a bit more sense now given that, but I still think they should take a stand to actually protect fair use like I said. It seems like the obligation of a company to do that, if YouTube simply gave copyright holders 100% control over their IP no one would use YouTube because it’d be a barren hellscape of censorship and artistic limitation, so I don’t see why Derpi should be defended for being like that.