thoughts about DNP

@PUBLIQclopAccountant  
hard disagree, art should be controlled by the artist until their death.

@Coco  
I also wrote not only “disagree”, but also “why”. Why even egoistic consumer like PUBLIQclopAccountant should care about creators for the sake of consumers  

This is a conundrum, I want to respect artists, but I also don’t want to see things possibly entirely disappear from existence and see the history and legacy of the fandom erased.
 
It’s one of my biggest concerns with the video game industry too, preservation of games is a big issue.

People like you who show such disregard for artist’s wishes are why I and likely many other artists are so reluctant to share their art. Removing DNP and thus taking control away from artists will do nothing but drive them away from the community entirely, and you will be left with no new art anywhere. Why should they give you the fruits of their effort if you act this entitled? Ponybooru is already under tons of legal issues for their anti-artist DNP policies, and having that piled onto the staff here is the last thing they need at the moment.
 
It isn’t 2004 anymore. The internet is not a wild west, nor should it be. If an artist wants their art taken down from this site, that is not only their choice but their legal right, no matter how “immature” you think their reasoning is, or how draconian you think copyright law is. It is not your decision to make. End of story.

@Background Pony #41B6  
Artists have the right to control how their art gets distributed… but that doesn’t mean they automatically have the right for it to be accepted and displayed in any given venue. If I made a work of modern art, that doesn’t automatically entitle me to a display at the Museum of Modern Art, for example.
 
Further, given that right of association I was talking about earlier, websites like Derpibooru have the right to control what is on their platform. They can choose whether or not to associate with artists and artworks that bear a message they disagree with. In response to this, if artists disagree with how the site is run, they can withhold their art in protest, to try to convince the site to change its policies. That’s what it looks like when people and institutions exercise their right to free association. This sort of thing is at the core of basically every boycott and protest.
 
In this situation, because we have folks on both sides who feel strongly about the issue, some number of artists have left or will be leaving the site no matter what the outcome is. Sometimes, that’s the reality of activism. But if activism doesn’t have any action behind its words, the words will change nothing.
 
And just to address one other point: you say that somebody is trying to “force their opinion”, as if that’s inherently a bad thing. Again, that’s how protests work. When a group of people protest an organization, they are trying to cause one of two things to happen:
 

@Coco  
Soft disagree. I think it would be beneficial for copywrite to last only a decade or two. Of course, that still goes against what the thread is arguing, so in a way I sort of can agree in this case.

@NamelessNP  
I’m a big fan of use it or lose it for copyright. Especially in the days of the internet where so many things are ephemeral, it will prevent many things from ever falling into public domain because they aren’t used. Orphaned works are a disaster because of this.
 
If something is not distributed, or made available for distribution for a period of time, I feel like it should fall into the public domain.

As much as I like an in-depth conversation about copyright (my preference would be a nuanced approach, allowing for a wider collection of derivative works early on while still allowing the creator the exclusive right to exploit the original work for a decade or two, abolishment of the DMCA clauses that make circumventing copy protection illegal, and maybe some kind of “use it or lose it” in there to spice things up), this thread was originally about DNPs, so we should probably keep our discussion of copyright to how it relates to that.
 
And, to be clear, DNPs are just a way that Derpibooru helps artists enforce their copyright privileges, leaning in the permissive-by-default direction, but allowing for fine grained control to the artist’s preferences. It also makes things way easier for artists and Derpi alike than the legal DMCA copyright takedown process, which is legally required to be an option on almost any website that serves user content.
 
So basically, even if Derpi didn’t allow DNPs, they would legally be required to takedown stuff that artists don’t want on here, defeating OP’s wishes in the first place.

@GyroTech  
Medium/Hard disagree. If something is not distributed, or made available for distribution for a period of time, then it is probably because the copyright owner wishes for it to remain private. I think a better version would be if a copyright owner no longer makes any effort to enforce their copyright for an extended period of time, i.e abandonware, then they should lose it. Protect-it-or-lose-it rather than use-it-or-lose-it, essentially.

Getting a bit off-topic here, but I do also think copyright law should be different when the copyright owner of a particular work is not the original human (sorry, corporations) creator of said work. In that case, my views become very different. The layman may think having nuances and exceptions like that would complicate things too much, but nuances and exceptions like that are essentially what all law is.

@Background Pony #A245  
copyright already extends well beyond the natural life of any person due to constant lobbying from disney and the like. i think that the death of the author serves as a fair middle ground between artists rights and public good.

@Coco  
Not trying to speak for them, but I believe that is kinda what they are arguing against as well; not immediately after death, but not a Disney-level amount of time either.

@Demb  
Except that the works will eventually fall into public domain anyways. But in many cases that will be prevented by the destruction of said work. Copyright is to promote works to be created for the public good, for them to eventually fall into the public domain.

As it stands it is too hard to get a DNP. We need to make it easier for men and women everywhere to get their DNP. Especially in this time of crisis with the world awash with COVID-19. Even besides COVID-19, the humanity wasting aspect of hospital administration and organization had only ensured a lack of resources over the long term and susceptibility to failure. That is why if you elect me, I will cut through the red tape of professional associations to provide outreach and assistance to anyone wishing to get their Doctorate of Nursing Practice to safeguard and protect community health.

@GyroTech  
I don’t exactly see how the eventuality of the public domain is relevant to what I said at all, unless you thought that I was saying my protect-it-or-lose-it idea should extend past the deadline for public domain, which I wasn’t.

As an artist, it is ultimately my legal and moral right to decide where my creations are and aren’t hosted. Without dispute and for whatever reason I deem.  
Nobody can truly control where art finds its way to, and that is just the nature of the internet. But it is Derpibooru’s privilege, not right, to host my material. On the other side of the table, it is fundamentally derpibooru’s right to decline to host any material it deems, regardless of moral divisiveness. This in and of itself serves to protect Derpibooru from the claims you make of “site manipulation”.

@Demb  
No, its merely that if its USE it or LOSE it, not protect it or lose it, then works that stop being distributed will probably still be recent enough that they will still fall into the public domain.
 
If you extend it to life+70 as it is currently, the majority of works will never actually fall into the public domain because they will be lost, orphaned, or destroyed before they have the opportunity to do so.

DNP on created free art is somewhat unethical like claming to return gift made to someone. “You are not my friend anymore, GIMME BACK GIFT I MADE YOU YEAR AGO!”
 
In case of commission it is something like destroying commissioned property. For most commissioners the claim to hide the commision of OC from public is equal to destroying the property, like the requirement to wear expensive suit only at home.

@Background Pony #41B6  
The main reason for DNP is because it’s easier and less costly for the site than dealing with DMCA.

@Demb  
@Coco  
My proposal is artist lifetime with a minimum of 20 years (so there is no incentive to murder the creator of a popular work to make it go public domain sooner). Heirs deserve nothing, as they have created nothing (with a Christopher Tolkein exception for editors and curators of posthumous works).
 
 
@Demb  
Isn’t it a wonderful thing that there are jurisdictions who don’t bother enforcing EU and US copyright nonsense?
 
 
@Background Pony #0B00  
I know which artist you’re looking at with that example.
 
 
@rainbowdash42  
One other magical thing about protests is giving symbolic change and then immediately backstabbing the cause once everyone went home. Another ingrained part of the human condition.

If you really want to consider copyright, technically everything My Little Pony related that is, was, or will be on this site technically belongs to Hasbro. Heck, even fan art can be claimed because it uses their intellectual property. Of course, there are occasional exceptions made, such as fair use.

Through the lens of flat comparisons, the only differences between an “archive” site like this and the artist’s site(s) of choice are being able to control comments, the lack of downvoting, and the feedback loop (faves/comments) they get on their site of choice. I cannot conceive of any other reasons to not want their art here, but still have their art publicly available elsewhere [like weasyl, furrynetwork, pillowfort, IB, dA, FA, twitter, etc.].  
With paywalls, I can flat out see the reason why artists wouldn’t want their stuff posted. Other than that, I simply don’t get it.
 
@PUBLIQclopAccountant @Background Pony #41B6  
There’s actually a major difference between the art we’re currently discussing, versus other [actively monetized] media. In respect to the pieces posted to the “public” sites, the artist’s works are being displayed for free. There’s no active profit being made on them, but they’re working as “advertisements” for the artist to get commissions or donations [through sites like subscribestar/ko-fi/patreon]. There’s little difference between it being hosted or not on derpi, except for more eyeballs on them and convenience for the fans.
 
TL;DR: Customers/fans want to have as few accounts as possible, and [ideally,] the ability to view all their desired content in one place. Artists can use the tools in place on derpi to bring themselves more fans and customers, and the filters assist in letting the viewers customize their own viewing experience.
 
(I end up jumping around a li’l bit, but bear with me)  
It’s weird how there’s almost a 1:1 comparison with this situation, and games/visual media vs pirates. The convenience for the end user is way higher for pirates, and in some cases much better than a legitimate customer. Pirates don’t have to deal with DRM issues like outdated DRM software, even though it’s a 100% legitimate copy you got from the 90s/00s; or denuvo, which hampers your framerate. Pirates don’t have to deal with that. Customers do. Even when removing price from the equation, the benefit is undeniably better for the end user. Not to mention the increasing number of accounts one ends up needing to deal with, because of everyone wanting to make their own game clients.  
The only thing that really mitigates piracy, is a good service. Once netflix came around and was the only game in town, piracy actually went down. Why? Because it finally became convenient for the customer again. But once more companies decided they wanted to do their own thing, piracy climbed back up.  
 
Netflix and Steam are two prime examples of good services done right. (Though Netflix has fallen due to ‘exclusivity’ competition). Everything in one place, highly convenient for the customer, and more money to the content makers. A win on all sides.
 
The things for an artist to consider is  

That’s plagiarism. Not only is it morally wrong, but it’s also against the law. Edits =/= plagiarism, as long as it’s properly tagged and sourced.

@Background Pony #BB77  
the brony fandom is violating copyright law hasbro can hammer down the entire fandom if they want thanks is not disney company they law sue anyone who use their characters

@Background Pony #DC1F  
Then there’s the fact that Australia only has 5 streaming services (Netflix, YouTube, Disney+, 9Go, and Stan) and FiM Season 9 isn’t on any of those. In fact, I’m pretty sure that’s the whole reason it’s Hulu exclusive.