Donmai

Pool/Doujinshi Removal: mitsumoto

Posted under General

Zekana

not sure about everything. I like the idea of linking to where you can buy a doujin, feel that would help out a lot.

Im thinking though, maybe we should do something on a smaller scale.
Maybe we should just start adding to pools where you can legally purchase an artist work. like for mitsumoto's mystia and mokou comic, since a preview of this doujin was released on pixiv (and is on the site), maybe we could let the pixiv samples stay up in the pool but also link to where you can purchase a copy of the work for yourself, obviously a link to where the artist themselves are gaining money from the purchase, as well as note weither or not the artist wants the work to be uploaded or not.

Or on the artist's information page, add the link to their store, if they have an online store where we can buy not just doujins but other works from them. a way for them to get more possible purchases i guess.

i don't know the technicles of this so ridicule as you will.

Reply
sgcdonmai

I'm totally okay with complying with the artist's wishes and taking down the posts, but did the pools have to go, too? If there was information in the pool's description (such as a short summary, and where they may be purchased online), I don't think that should be removed along with it; it'd be fine having an empty pool just to keep that stuff available.

Shall I assume that the samples of upcoming doujinshi that artists post to their Pixiv accounts are safe to keep around?

Reply
葉月

Shinjidude said:
Anything that changes our normal operations (blocking off pages except by fee, restricting annotation, etc.) Is a very bad idea.

I want to clarify that nothing I said suggests pages would be only available by fee. The idea is they'd be temporarily inaccessible up to a point when the artist has OK'd the release. That's an alternative to today's situation, where they simply become deleted and inaccessible permanently.

Reply
葉月

スラッシュ said:
I've always supported taking art down upon artist request, and here's why. As an artist, I personally know it's very hard to not be deeply hurt when your work gets placed in a situation you don't want it to be in, with nothing you can do about it. I like to think that we're appreciators, and as appreciators, we go out of our way not to hurt an artist's feelings. Though your point about copyright is certainly valid, there's a big moral difference between one and the other, in my opinion.

There're a couple of points here:

  • Copyright: I'm a programmer myself, so I also make my living from copyrighted works. But I think the current copyright law (and the practice it shapes) is deeply fucked. That's not how artists operated historically, and not how in theory it's supposed to work. But it's very much how it was supposed to work in practice, because copyright was created for distributors and not artists. Read that article, because it's probably the most important piece of information you can get about the origin and real purpose of the whole "intellectual property" legislation.
  • There's also that thing called "public domain", and it's being systematically destroyed by the current law and practice. We've had very few new work enter the public domain since at least 1928 (that's when Disney created Mickey). A society with no body of common work everyone can draw freely upon cannot possibly be creative, but that's exactly where we're heading.
  • I also respect the feelings, but feelings don't need to be right. A large part of my "I oppose unconditionally deleting art upon takedown request" is "because I think we should talk with the artists and take due care to convince them it's actually beneficial for everybody".
  • The internet has shown that distribution and purchasing models change dramatically when the cost of doing so approaches zero. It's also shown that the people who actually benefit from tightly controlled distribution channels are the distributors, not the artists. But the brainwashing is so deep and powerful that people automatically give in to the suggestion that it's theft, that they have a moral right to control everything, etc. Fun fact: you know what book publishers hate the most? Libraries, and they're actively trying to make libraries impossible with e-books. Would you say making libraries is "morally wrong"?
  • All I proposed is first and foremost an exercise in PR and advocacy. I think reaching out to artists and trying to work out a model agreeable to everyone shows plenty of respect for their feelings.
Reply
Nials

While I don't believe in copyrights, I also understand that an artist might want his work not to be distributed around.

In my opinion, it is not our place to make an artist try to change of business model.

Reply
葉月

It is our place to archive art, and takedown notices go directly against that goal. So IMHO anything that gives us a chance of avoiding that is good (short of selling stuff ourselves). In particular educating artists in ways that make them realise danbooru is their ally, not enemy.

Reply
Fred1515

For anyone who might still dislike Hazuki's idea: It might be true that it's very unlikely it will work in practice, but there's no reason not to go through with it if there's some available effort that can be spent to make it happen.

It's not like we have anything to lose here. If it works, we get to keep a few posts. If it doesn't, we don't lose anything we wouldn't have lost in the first place.

That said, I believe the disclaimer for Japanese artists (discussion linked a few posts above) should be a priority over this. This is only about published and commercially available doujinshi, which are only a fraction of most artists' work and are not really encouraged on Danbooru anyway (forum #48291).

Reply
Contourian

Considering that the information stored in the pools has been mentioned as still valid, could I request that information? As a big fan of mitsumoto's work I'd like to know exactly what was deleted so I can look for it elsewhere.

Reply
1 2