Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Pawsie

The heart desires drama.

by
concerning the artist justvisitinggg

I'm currently the owner of the website Wild Critters.  I'm not the original owner, just the overseer of that community.  We basically collect cute stuff and share it between our members.  I see it as a library of cuteness, where if you deposit something cute, we'll do our best to keep it around for the rest of the world to see.  We try to discourage piracy and have a liberal rule for freely distributed material.  

I have a single moral justification for my action with my website, "If you give something away for free, you don't get to take it back".   This is how I view distributing media over the internet.  If you give away free posters, you don't get to decide how other people use it.  If you freely give out your art work, your art work lives beyond you and goes into the public domain.  Not everyone have to agree with this view, but this is where I'm coming from and how I operate.

The current problem with this artist is that they respectfully asked me to take down their work. I respectfully rejected their request.  Because of that, the artist decided to punish his initial fan base.  It's possible to see this as his only way to cope with my decision, but it comes down to punishing everyone who cares.  

I accept the artist hates me for my decision, there's no complaint there.  However, I don't accept justvisitinggg's overall childishness.  To be frank, he doesn't give a shit about the people who like his art.  If he did, he wouldn't be emptying his archive every so often.  He's not being harassed or bullied (as far as I know), he just wants to take back his decision of spreading his art work.  People are allow to be selfish with their art, but he's blatantly being mean to the people who followed him.  It's this very reason why I protect the media on my site.  If someone posts something on WC, they should know it's safe.

Now he's giving his fan his final farewell, playing the victim while hoping the true victims (his fans) will care enough to do something about me.  I feel it's pathetic that he took the time to block this account so he can talk about me, and I'm not suppose to reply.
Viewed: 580 times
Added: 6 years ago
 
Tobiasfox
6 years ago
He's flipping out over the 5 things posted there?
Pawsie
6 years ago
" Tobiasfox wrote:
He's flipping out over the 5 things posted there?


actually.. yes
elix
6 years ago
"Freely-distributed material" != "public domain". JV owns the copyright on his work. He has the right to ask you to not host it. Period.

I'm not justifying how JV may act, but in a strictly legal sense, you are redistributing copyrighted work without permission.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" elix wrote:
"Freely-distributed material" != "public domain". JV owns the copyright on his work. He has the right to ask you to not host it. Period.

I'm not justifying how JV may act, but in a strictly legal sense, you are redistributing copyrighted work without permission.


disregarding how he acted, having the copyright doesn't mean you have complete control over a work.  For example, if you drew a picture and you sold it to me with the understanding that I'll be used for a website, you can't turn around and tell me not to use it.  In the United States, there is an exception to copyright known as the Fair Use clause.  Basically, if you use the work fairy.

The point of copyright isn't to simply give an artist complete control, but to insure that the work isn't credited to other people and that no one else can make a profit from it without the original creator. If the work was freely distributed, does it mean it's public domain.  U.S.A. law is vague on this, but I do know that I have a clear case towards fair use where we would have to settle this in a federal court.
elix
6 years ago
Explain how you have fair use to take a picture someone posted to their own gallery and post it on your own site.

" Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107 wrote:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.


Is reposting JV's art on Wildcritters:
a) criticism?
b) comment?
c) news reporting?
d) teaching?
e) scholarly use?
f) research?

I'm gonna say you're reposting it for convenient access for people to find and view JV's art. THIS IS EXPLICITLY WHAT COPYRIGHT WAS CREATED TO PREVENT. JV does not have dictatorship control over his art, but he IS protected from unauthorized reproduction. And if he has asked you not to rehost his art, and he has not released it in the public domain or a license for use (such as Creative Commons), you are not authorized to make copies and publish them.

" You wrote:
If the work was freely distributed, does it mean it's public domain.

It absolutely does not. Free as in $ is not free as in uncopyrighted. The fact that you are running a site and have such a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright law is worrying.
Pawsie
6 years ago
for starters, for my reply "If the work was freely distributed, does it mean it's public domain."  There was suppose to be a question mark at the end to have that as a question, not a declaration.  

With that said, I believe there is a clear case 'towards' fair use, but regarding the law it's foggy.  The only way to settle it is through the court.  Any argument about it would be pointless because it could go either way.  My interest in opening this box is to test the limit of my site and the law regarding digital media.
elix
6 years ago
" Pawsie wrote:
for starters, for my reply "If the work was freely distributed, does it mean it's public domain."  There was suppose to be a question mark at the end to have that as a question, not a declaration.

I understand that you were asking a question; I was answering it, and the answer is, NO, it does not become public domain. US law IS BLINDINGLY CLEAR on this fact. There is NO confusion. YOU are confused.

" Pawsie wrote:
With that said, I believe there is a clear case 'towards' fair use, but regarding the law it's foggy.  The only way to settle it is through the court.  Any argument about it would be pointless because it could go either way.  My interest in opening this box is to test the limit of my site and the law regarding digital media.

So, what you're doing is opening Wildcritters up to multiple copyright takedown notices and risk the entire site being shut down permanently? I'm not a lawyer, but you have NO CASE. Wildcritters and every other imageboard out there exists to rehost existing content for the purposes of displaying that content. You are NOT publishing it for the reasons fair use exists, which is to allow social commentary or educational citations without needing direct consent of the copyright owner.

Ask yourself these simple questions:
1) Did Justvisitinggg give you explicit permission to republish the pictures on Wildcritters?
2) Did Justvisitinggg explicitly state that the pictures are released into the public domain?
3) Am I doing anything other than rehosting them so people can find them? (And by this, I mean is Wildcritters a scholarly research site?)

If the answer is no to all three of those, you are violating copyright law. Wildcritters' host might be interested to know about your little copyright problem, and I don't think they'd be nice if they suddenly got served with DMCA takedown notices for content on your site.
eremidar
6 years ago
Okay lets put a hypothetical situation up. An artist goes to a convention and displays art. This art can be viewed by people and he/she may hand out samples to people. These samples get the artists name out. yay, huzzah. But the thing is. These people who get these samples must go through the artist in order to get these. So the Artist knows about who is getting their work. There is a finite amount of said product now outside of his eye. and should it fall into anothers hands. The work is watermarked in some way with a signature. and it only is possible to have one person in possession rather than two of one item.

Now what I'm getting at is this. The artist uses a public domain such as Inkbunny, Fur affinity, DeviantArt, e621 whatever. They are personally choosing to display at these places. thus while public. they themselves are making the choice where to host. This is the parallel. The website is the convention. and the account is the artist. While online they can not stop people from taking a copy and keeping it to themselves. They can however choose where it is posted because unless they post it somewhere themselves. It is seen as theft in a legal case. Whether freely given or not.

If someone doesn't want their art posted somewhere. You can not post it there. If it's posted and they say "take it down" you take it down because you do not own it.

If you make an argument saying "we host cute things and the art was cute. It was public domain so its free reign" your an idiot. E621. the website that takes from everywhere and everyone. Takes art down if the artist requests it. so why should some imageboard with not nearly the popularity have an excuse to do otherwise? That just shows you care more about being right in your own little world and making others seem like the bad guy, rather than taking responsibily and doing the mature thing and complying with the one who was kind enough to show their work freely in the first place. If you like art? But don't have permission? ASK. it's that simple! this situation could have been avoided if you simply sent a message and were like "oh hey. Would it be alright if I had this product hosted here?" If they say no but you still want to show people? Post a link to the artists host site. don't fucking ignore common sense and do your own thing. If you host a website? or own whatever the hell you want to call it. Show some god damn intelligence and moderate yourself. just because you 'own' something. Doesn't make you faultless. In fact you should be twice as harsh on yourself than others. Because you should know better.

Regardless My rant is done. You're an idiot. You did something stupid. End of story. take the shit down.
Pawsie
6 years ago
It might help if you read the comment above to what I wrote about fair use.  The reason the artist is angry with me is.. for the simple fact he accepted he can't do anything about my decision.  Though if he wants to fight it, I already told him what he can do.

E621 decide to play it safe, I don't.  Technically that other website, being bigger than mines need advertisement to stay afloat, they might have issue considering themselves as a non profit website.    I, on the other hand, don't use ads, so my site is completely non profit.  

You consider my decision to be legal, I can understand you don't.  But the only way to settle it is through court.
Catwheezle
6 years ago
Is this a correct interpretation of your standpoint, then:

1) If it's on the internet, it "should be public domain".
2) Anonymous artists must drop their anonymity and spend money in order to take you to court, before you will consider honoring their copyright.
Pawsie
6 years ago
that is more clear.
Catwheezle
6 years ago
That is... I lack the words to express how incredibly sleazy that is.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" Catwheezle wrote:
That is... I lack the words to express how incredibly sleazy that is.


again, my only case is fair use (to infringed on a user copyright for a specific reason).  In order to get that status, someone needs to challenge me.  To be fair to myself, it's not 'everything' on the internet.  I'm against piracy.  

It's unlikely I'll be facing a law suit (especially with something as dodgy as pedo porn), but I have an interest in being challenged.  If my argument holds up in court, it would move the field for file sharing and other image boards and similar communities would have some protection under fair use in the USA.  If i lose, I will be an example to why what I done is not recognized under the law.  

If you make a picture, write a story, or do create a song and distribute it freely throughout the net, shouldn't people have the right to share those things without the direct permission of the creator?  If people are allow to share files, then why shouldn't a website.  As far as I can tell, me having those pictures does not harm the original artist.  The reason why they want it down is literally over an emotional whim.  Knowing full well that the artist might have created his art from pirated art programs, we all believe in some form of justified file sharing system. I feel there should be protection for general things to allow people to find freely distributed media.

Justvisitinggg, right or wrong, is taking this to a level.. i consider unjust.  He's not simply request that I no longer host his art.. but he's trying to wipe his art off the face of the net.  I'm not going to help him with that, i feel this is similar to book burning.  If I knew he was that type of person, i would have personally took his entire archive and pushed it onto my site.  But it's too late.  
Catwheezle
6 years ago
> my only case is fair use (to infringed on a user copyright for a specific reason).

Understand that I despise copyright. I see this as a moral issue, not a legal one.

However, let's examine your case:

>> the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

http://www.websitelooker.com/www/wildcritters.ws reckons you may make over $4k/year in ads, but I see none; either way, you use the pics for site content/google hits/site popularity, which is "commercial use" anyway: and they're untransformed cub porn (doesn't "stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public"). 1st strike.

>> the nature of the copyrighted work;

Art: explicitly protected. Characters: qv Mickey Mouse precedent. 2nd strike.

>> the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Five entire works. 3rd strike.

>> the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

He's already called you on this: withdrew free copies and is now charged $2k/image. People *will never* pay that, while you distribute them for free. You're making it impossible for him to charge for these works, at any price.

In a wider sense, you're making it hard for him to get future non-pedo work without his distinctive style being connected to these images, making him hard to hire. You're lessening the market for his non-pedo works, by association. Even if he intends to produce only cub porn for the rest of his life, there is greater cachet to having an JV piece if they're known to be rare due to his preferred "brief publication" policy. And if at a later date he chooses to publish a collection of these works "unavailable for N years", they'd be worth a lot more than "available from Pawsie for the last N years". Pretty obvious supply and demand.

Your intent is "to supersede the use of the original work". And case law says: "Such a use will be deemed in law a piracy." 4th strike.

This is far from "foggy" and your claim "the only way to settle it is through court" is just a transparent ruse to deny responsibility.


> In order to get that status, someone needs to challenge me. It's unlikely I'll be facing a law suit (especially with something as dodgy as pedo porn), but I have an interest in being challenged.

You have a commercial interest in having as much parasitically-copied pedo porn on your site as you can get away with, but you don't think you'll be legally challenged, so you just sneer at everyone's copyright, and the wishes of the artists.

Your "it has to be decided in court" when that's impossible for non-wealthy, anon artists, is purely to standing up and saying "I am pirating, and violating copyright: so sue me": you prefer to weasel out by claiming you don't know you're doing it.

> shouldn't people have the right to share those things without the direct permission of the creator?

Legal right? No. That's the whole point of copyright. You know this.

But this isn't even a legal issue: it's a moral one. He drew it, was upset at your use, and asked you to respect his wishes. You replied "No. Arr."

Moral right? No. It's a douche move, regardless of legality.

> If the original artists are allowed to share their own files, then why shouldn't a random parasitic website be allowed to pirate them and then profit from their hard work without reimbursing the artists?

FTFY.

> the artist might have created his art from pirated art programs

If you want to "poison the well", try: "might've performed acts of genocide and investment banking".

> He's not simply request that I no longer host his art.

That is the entirety of his request to you.

>  To be fair to myself, it's not 'everything' on the internet.  I'm against piracy.  
...delightfully contrasts...
> i would have personally took his entire archive and pushed it onto my site.

Then what's your twisted definition of piracy?
Pawsie
6 years ago
I pretty much already know where i stand.. and it's literally 50/50..  

You made one mistake on the first factor.  commercial use is basically making a profit or at least the act of buying and selling.  The website you used to show me making a profit... only shows the possible amount I could make 'if' i use any ads.  It's a tool advertisers would use to see if my website was worth their time.  My site is literally non profit, popularity isn't considered a commerce.  I get what you meant, that i reap some benefit by keeping his art, but that's different from a profit.

You're making the assumption that the artist wants to continue drawing.. or that he style he use for his inkbunny pictures would be the same as his professional work.   Even if someone bothers to search for his art, the only way they can find his pictures on my site is if they know the alias name and sign on as a member.  There's room to say the conclusion this would damage his future career is nonsense.  In fact, for the value of the art itself.. initially it was free, meaning he devalued his own art.  I just have one copy, who knows how many people saved it.  If the artist makes the decision to start selling his work, my site would basically be advertisement for him.  

The reason why I asked if people _should_ have the right to share without the artist permission, was in hope that you thought deeper into it.  Every time you visit a page and decide to save a picture, a text, whatever, do you understand that you are copying it from that site onto your computer without the creator's permission?  Do you know for a while there have been attempts to prevent people from saving media and now they basically gave up because it's pointless?   The origin of the copyright is to literally prevent people from profiting off other people works or to affect sales.  If you buy a picture, you can't photocopy it and give it to friends or sell it, those sort of things.  But when we enter the net, we head into a new ball field.   The very action of going to a website is creating a copy onto your machine from the main server.  The original notion of copyright don't fully apply to the internet.  

You said yourself that you despise copyright law.. basically admitting you don't follow it fully yourself and making anything you have to say borderline hypocritical... or at least that's my assumption.  I know people don't really follow copyright law, online it's pretty much outdated.  But I believe being able to share files when it doesn't financially harm the creator 'should' be a right.  If it wasn't a right, the alternative would be unpractical.

If the roles were reversed and if I felt someone shouldn't be posting my art.. I would fight it in every means possible, including going to court.. though I wouldn't have to fight hard because other webmasters would be too afraid of facing a lawsuit.


----

now to get some things out of the way.  In truth, my journal post is bagging on the artist for deleting his archive, me refusing to take down his art was just an introduction to the situation.  He requested I take down his art.. I said no, he's  pissed at me -- that is fair enough.  But him destroying his account, trying to put his fans against me, blocking my account so I can't reply to him -- I see that as pathetic on his end.

My definition of piracy, taking commercial media without paying for it or spreading said media so other people won't have to pay.  All piracy is a form of copyright infringement, but not all infringement counts as piracy.  You can look this up on wikipedia if you really don't see how.  

I believe people should be able to freely distribute things between each other when they're free... regardless of the original artist intention.  That's my conviction and that's how I'm going to operate until I'm forced to stop.  
sedkitty
6 years ago
You're hopelessly deluded about copyright law and what 'public domain' is.  Read http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html , for a start.
eremidar
6 years ago
Oh I should have linked that rather than go on my rant that the kid obviously skimmed. Good show on your part. Heck, If someone wanted to be vengeful/spiteful. Because Pawsie admitted to owning the website earlier. He's basically trafficing underage pornography. The characters may be fictional and not even human. But the intent is there, and amusingly enough that is enough to get people put away for upwards of 20 years (heck one guy got put away for 10 years for having a japanese manga with a lolicon in it with a single frontal shot) And If he wants to try and reverse that and say "Oh but he's the artist". y his own admission, The art is "public domain" and All Justvisitinggg wanted was his art to be taken down. not what the art is.
sedkitty
6 years ago
Don't get too carried away, now.  IB hosts cub art, y'know.
elix
6 years ago
You DO NOT want to open up that box. Stick to copyright.

And I don't recall JV ever stating that the art is being released into the public domain. Stop saying that unless you have proof. Pawsie's misguided understanding of copyright is the only reason those words are on this page.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" sedkitty wrote:
You're hopelessly deluded about copyright law and what 'public domain' is.  Read http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html , for a start.


Actually, I stated it that it was my belief it was public domain, though the law my usage of the art could be consider as fair use.. it depends on the 4 factors towards fair use.  

You believe I'm mistaken.. so be it.  If I'm wrong, I'll face the obvious consequences and that would be the end of this.
sedkitty
6 years ago
I can't tell if you're being intentionally obtuse, or really are that idiotic.  I know you're mistaken. Let me spell it out for you:

JV, by simply having created his artwork, retains all copyrights upon it.  He does not need to include a copyright notice or symbol.  He does not need to sell it.  Posting it on IB (a choice the artist explicitly made) does not dilute these rights, aside from the bare minimum permitted to share it with others.  Click on 'Terms of Service' down at the bottom there, and check out the section entitled 'Posting Content'.  These rights (at least in the US) are in force for the life of the creator plus 95 years.

The above means that no other site -- no other site -- is permitted to host JV's artwork without his say-so.  You claim fair use.  Fair use, as it exists in US law, permits you to use portions of copyrighted materials for the purpose of criticism or commentary.  This does not mean adding a comments box absolves you; you're still hosting the entire copyrighted work.

Let's get to the heart of things.  Claiming that JV is the bad guy for asserting his rights, and pretending you're completely uninvolved,  is just plain wrong.  They're his toys; he gets to decide who plays with them, period.  Whine about how it's not fair all you want, but it's still true.  You're hiding behind flimsy claims of 'fair use', when the truth of the matter is that you want to give away other people's hard work, while providing nothing of your own.  You know that it's very unlikely you'll be sued.

Be honest with yourself and others: you're a thief, and you know you can get away with it.  Own that.
Pawsie
6 years ago
Now you're just mischaracterizing my stance.   I'm going to try to remain polite.

I'm not demonizing him for wanting his art down.  He has the right to want that and he has the right to be upset with my response.  I'm specifically demonizing him for wanting to delete all of his art.  If you're going to criticize me, please get your story straight.  I'm not using general terms such as 'bad' guy.  I'm saying he's pathetic for saying his farewell and making the decision to block my account so I can't respond to him (If he's going to talk about me, i should at least be able to speak).

You believe I should follow the artist wish while having a narrow interpretation of fair use.  I believe I have the right to reject the request and have a broad interpretation of fair use.  It becomes a legal matter, and if no one is willing to challenge my stance legally, then there's nothing to talk about.
sedkitty
6 years ago
Be honest with yourself and others: you're a thief, and you know you can get away with it.  Own that.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" sedkitty wrote:
Be honest with yourself and others: you're a thief, and you know you can get away with it.  Own that.


Copyright infringement and thievery are two different things.  It would be nice if you separate the two.  

It is possible I'm infringing on someone's copyright, but outside the court of law it's only an opinion.  But hey, I'm the one who doesn't know what he's talking about (sarcasm)
sedkitty
6 years ago
Aaaaand now we get into semantics.  I'll concede the point.  Per the dictionary definition, you're not stealing.  You're still copying something that isn't yours.  You're still denying the creator his rights.  You're still rationalizing that this is acceptable.

And you still don't deny you're doing it because you know you won't be sued over it.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" sedkitty wrote:
Aaaaand now we get into semantics.  I'll concede the point.  Per the dictionary definition, you're not stealing.  You're still copying something that isn't yours.  You're still denying the creator his rights.  You're still rationalizing that this is acceptable.

And you still don't deny you're doing it because you know you won't be sued over it.


In short.. It's possible I might be possible infringing on the artist's copyright.

I've  been admitting doing this from the very beginning (He requested his art taken down, I said no).  It's not as if you're revealing a lot of new insight with your comments.  At most you've been trying to frame this as if I'm accusing the artist as 'bad' for wanting their art down, which isn't the case.

You have brushed over something new though, the fact that it's unlikely I'll be challenge.  Why, because it's petty to bring this to court.  If someone is really concerned that their art, they can sue me.  But people prefer to talk how they're losing their rights instead of fighting for them.  

Even though the artist doesn't get his way, I open a window for people to enjoy their art without 'robbing' from the artist.  I think this little bit is worth it.
ColeDragonKnight
6 years ago
Pawsie
6 years ago
Can you be a dear, and also link my name to those posts, so they know how to find the original pictures.  Over all it's disrespectful, but I believe in freedom of speech.
elix
6 years ago
Just because you think it's unlikely that a civil suit will be filed doesn't mean that you're not wrong. And you're gambling with Wildcritters' continued existence.

That is the most irresponsible attitude to take.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" elix wrote:
Just because you think it's unlikely that a civil suit will be filed doesn't mean that you're not wrong. And you're gambling with Wildcritters' continued existence.

That is the most irresponsible attitude to take.


It is my website to do as I wish.. There is a chance I'm wrong, but i'm going to stand firm to my conviction.
sedkitty
6 years ago
" Pawsie wrote:
You have brushed over something new though, the fact that it's unlikely I'll be challenge.  Why, because it's petty to bring this to court.  If someone is really concerned that their art, they can sue me.  But people prefer to talk how they're losing their rights instead of fighting for them.

Do I really have to explain why you're unlikely to be sued?  For one, furry artists tend to be poor.  For two, it's cub porn.

" Pawsie wrote:
Even though the artist doesn't get his way, I open a window for people to enjoy their art without 'robbing' from the artist.  I think this little bit is worth it.

"Just because you like my stuff doesn't mean I owe you anything." -- Bob Dylan
And if you disregard the wishes of artists, they'll stop wanting to draw.
Pawsie
6 years ago
Because I like an artist's picture doesn't mean I owe them anything.  

If the artist truly believe he's being wrong, I'm sure he can shake off the embarrassment that he draws furry pedo porn..  If he's poor, he can slowly save money for a lawyer.. or even take this up one one of those tv courts.  But if he's not going to fight for his perceived rights, then he already lost them.

That's the only way I'm going to remove his picture.
sedkitty
6 years ago
His rights are his rights, whether he fights for them or not.  This isn't trademark law.
I held out good faith for the last while that you were simply naive about the workings of copyright law.  It's become clear that you're being intentionally ignorant.  And that you don't care one whit about the wishes of artists; you just want to benefit from their creations while providing nothing of your own.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" sedkitty wrote:
His rights are his rights, whether he fights for them or not.  This isn't trademark law.
I held out good faith for the last while that you were simply naive about the workings of copyright law.  It's become clear that you're being intentionally ignorant.  And that you don't care one whit about the wishes of artists; you just want to benefit from their creations while providing nothing of your own.


" pawsie wrote:
You believe I should follow the artist wish while having a narrow interpretation of fair use.  I believe I have the right to reject the request and have a broad interpretation of fair use.  It becomes a legal matter, and if no one is willing to challenge my stance legally, then there's nothing to talk about.


We have a difference in opinion regarding to copyright, nothing more and nothing less.
sedkitty
6 years ago
Your opinion runs counter to law as it stands.  In short, you're wrong.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" sedkitty wrote:
Your opinion runs counter to law as it stands.  In short, you're wrong.


not necessarily, there's the argument of fair use.  If you bother to read the law, educational use is included, but that's not the limitation of it.  Besides educational and satirical use, there's no guidelines for fair use.  It depends on 4 factors and it's literally up to a court case to determine it.  There's 2 factors against fair use and there's arguably 2 for, in short it's roughly 50/50.  

The only way to settle this is through the court, not screaming that one of us is right.
sedkitty
6 years ago
Your use of the copyrighted images is nontransformative.  The nature of the work is artistic, not factual, so you can't claim your use benefits the public.  You're providing the entire contents of copyrighted material.  It's infringing.

It's absurd to suggest otherwise.  It's like being observed breaking into someone else's house and claiming, "I didn't trespass.  Until a court decides otherwise, it's merely your opinion that I did."  The evidence is plain to see.

And court isn't necessary.  A properly-filed DMCA claim will suffice.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" sedkitty wrote:
Your use of the copyrighted images is nontransformative.  The nature of the work is artistic, not factual, so you can't claim your use benefits the public.  You're providing the entire contents of copyrighted material.  It's infringing.

It's absurd to suggest otherwise.  It's like being observed breaking into someone else's house and claiming, "I didn't trespass.  Until a court decides otherwise, it's merely your opinion that I did."  The evidence is plain to see.

And court isn't necessary.  A properly-filed DMCA claim will suffice.


you're almost creating a straw man argument..You made the assumption that fair use must serve some public benefit.  That's not necessarily true.  Fair use is a limited infringing on a copyright.  The safest routes are educational and commentary uses, but not limited to.  

If you want to go through the DMCA route, you still need a subpoena.  I'm not some third party using Youtube where you by pass the poster.. I'm the guy who owns the server.  I'm willing ot have that fight and to claim it's fair use.and it would depend on the court's interpretation of the law - not yours.
elix
6 years ago
And who's your host?

God, you're a fucking idiot. I already told you what fair use is. You conveniently ignored it.
Pawsie
6 years ago
You can easily find out by yourself..

Anyway, your comment include some of the things you can consider fair use, but it's not explicitly those things.
sedkitty
6 years ago
" Pawsie wrote:
If you want to go through the DMCA route, you still need a subpoena.  I'm not some third party using Youtube where you by pass the poster.. I'm the guy who owns the server.  I'm willing ot have that fight and to claim it's fair use.and it would depend on the court's interpretation of the law - not yours.

You don't understand how the law or the Internet works.  Classic.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" sedkitty wrote:
You don't understand how the law or the Internet works.  Classic.


That may be so, but I already established nothing is going to change my decision besides a court order or through some other force.  Everything else is just a wast of time.
sedkitty
6 years ago
Or a properly-filed DMCA notice, which does not require courts to be involved.  Anyway, I'm done.  You're devoid of sympathy, proud to be a parasite, and most of all opaque to reason.  I held out hope, but this conversation has been a waste of time.  'bye.
elix
6 years ago
Let me ask a question. If I mirror wildcritters.ws EXACTLY and host it on a site, and call it Wildcritters.pt (for example) and take credit for it, and it is exactly the same as wildcritters.ws except that it's not under your control, what would you think of that?
Pawsie
6 years ago
eh.. go over to http://wildcritters.net and then ask that again.. But stated above, i'm not the original creator of it, so I take no claim  over the design nor do I care if someone copies it.
arkaid
6 years ago
You have no idea what public domain means, do you?
Pawsie
6 years ago
the domain when copyright runs out and no one has any control over it, usually after a long period of time or when an person literally give for anyone to use.  It usually depends on a country's law when something is considered as public domain.  

It would have been better if I clarified that I believe it 'should' be public domain, if someone distribute their art work freely and have no intent on profiting on it.  
DeethIrteen
6 years ago
Too late for that, asshole.
Skunket
6 years ago
Arkaid aka ediscraf... Another drama boy who tells never draw cub again... Till money calls
Bledar
6 years ago
You know more about the law than I do, I know nothing about copyright etc. But is it really worth risking the site over? I love WC and hope nothing bad happens to it. I'm not trying to criticize your decision but I noticed you mentioned how JV was ultimately punishing his fans (which seems true) but do you realize that you might end up unintentionally doing the same to WC users?

Don't worry, I'm not taking sides here. I never knew that artist but from what I saw they seemed to be easily angered. It may have been better for them if they never posted their artwork to begin with.

In the end, all I'm concerned about is the site. It just seems a shame to risk the whole thing over a few pictures.
Pawsie
6 years ago
The only real threat is to me.. If by some chance the host server decide to get rid of me, I can just go to another place.  

The only consequence is paying a ridiculously large fee for copyright infringement.
Bledar
6 years ago
How big is the threat?
Pawsie
6 years ago
not a big of a threat.. If someone really sues me over copyright infringement and win, i would have to take down some pictures, lose any claim to fair use and pay some arbitrary amount of money to the winner.

It literally has to come down to a law suit.
MasterTomcat
6 years ago
Don't worry so much about him. You're free to do as you wish. You're not doing anything wrong.
theuncalledfor
6 years ago
So I guess this must the typical furry drama that I have heard so much about but never actually witnessed...
Actually, I see this kind of drama everywhere on the net, inside the furry fandom and out.
Calm the fuck down, guys, seriously. Why is everybeing getting so worked up about such a triviality?
Pawsie
6 years ago
because the heart desires drama
theuncalledfor
6 years ago
Yeah, but seriously, copyright law or not, that guy made his art publicly available for download, then got pissed when somebeing else hosted that same art on their site (you, your site) and now a bunch of other people are pissed, too.
Whaaat.
You're not making money with it, are you? I get how that would piss everybeing off, since you would be making money with other people's work and whoever did the work gets nothing. But, if I understand correctly, you're just making his stuff available, what's the bucking problem with that? I mean why would he even ask you to remove his pics from your site if the only thing you're doing is providing access to the them?
Pawsie
6 years ago
to be fair to him, I'll describe the situation.  

First off, he deleted his gallery before he approached me.  This artist has a habit of doing 16 or so pictures.. then decides to reset and restart all over again.  Overall, he doesn't want people to see his old art anymore.

Second, I run a completely non profit website.  I pay for it out of my own money and my only benefit is making the people who bother to use my website happy.  It's a legal question.. Technically I'm infringing on this guy's copyright, using fair use as my only defense.  So it's basically what you thought it was.

It's really a legal question where vilifying isn't necessary.  If you freely post your art, can another website host it under the same condition as free use.  We don't steal the art or use it for personal gain, even when possible we try to link to the original source.  The only problem is if an artist is that petty to object to it.  The people saying I'm wrong have a fair point and my claim is unusual.. but it's not for them to decide.  

In all truth, this is not the first time it happened.  It's just the first time someone decided to link to my account and bitch about it.  My case is towards file sharing. .if I'm allow to keep my own private copy of the picture and share it with whoever I want, then what's the difference when using a website as my tool?  
theuncalledfor
6 years ago
Yeah, I really don't get what all the fuss is about.
Some douchebag is like "Oh noes, people can't see my art anymore (for some reason...), but this one guy has it hosted on his website and won't take it down, so people will be able to see it! THE HORROR!" and everybeing else is like "OMG HE'S RIGHT HOW DARE THAT GUY MAKE PEOPLE ABLE TO SEE THAT DOUCHEBAG'S ART THAT HE DOESN'T WANT THEM TO SEE ANYMORE!".
The fuck is wrong with everybeing.
Skunket
6 years ago
Wow... Good page, u gonna have more visitors with this "drama/publicity" XD
FlyingFox
6 years ago
Wow you only posted twice and I hate your guts already. Grats on that.
Skunket
6 years ago
Should i cry?? XD
fofufu
6 years ago
At least try and make a comment that contributes to the matter...please? Make the world a better place.
Skunket
6 years ago
Ok... then he deserves to leave fandom, good artist knows about this kind of things and better of that... they know how to deal with, if they don't... then should gonna vanish for ever and no one gonna care in a week. I know lots of artist who lives from drama and know how to get advantage from that. JV is a crying child and no one wild care of him in a week XD.
fofufu
6 years ago
I will, and I can say many others will.
fofufu
6 years ago
It's his art. His decision. Does it need to be any more simple? - All I see a stubborn person who doesn't wan't to admit he had an error in judgement, and now that everyones making a fuss, is going to be even more stubborn. He posted in good will, yet you went and broke his trust, and I'm pretty sure the trust of any reasonable person here.

And for not doing any more art, I wouldn't.

Lets give an example, for I feel one usually puts things into perspective:

You go and try out some clothes. Your afraid of going out in public with it, but you do it anyway, in hope of people appreciating your style, for it is you. Someone feels it appropriate to take a picture. Take note, that they aren't benefitting from this picture at all. Now, you decide that you feel a little embarrassed of that style. You go and ask the person to kindly remove it, they kindly say no. No matter how little effort they would have to put into it, they don't. Then they go and complain about how you asked them to take it down. Then they reticule you for not going out in the same style, calling you a child. Now honestly, who is the real child? They one who regretted a decision, or the one who wasn't going to take down the picture?

Now, as I'm sure you've guessed, you are JustVisitinggg. "They," is you. I see you as being the true child. Try being the better person, or has you teachers/mentors/whatever taught you nothing? And yet, you complain about people starting the fuss, when you, you truly, have started the fuss.

I remeber having to fight like this with my little sisters. Never have I thought of having to argue with a grown man.

Good day sir. I hope you feel happy with yourself, making a great, inspirational artist feel too ashamed to even do what he loves. Why don't you try and get him to express himself, in any way he see's fit? I don't understand.
Pawsie
6 years ago
I don't think you fully understand my position, and you're generalizing specific things while misunderstand the circumstance.

First, if my use of the art falls under Fair Use, it's no longer the creator's decision, it becomes my decision, meaning I have a right to keep the art regardless of the creator's feelings.

Second, I didn't call him a child for disagreeing with my decision.  If you bothered to read above, any complaint the artist has would be justify.  I called them childish for their overreacting.  To complete your analogy, the person who tried the clothes decided to burn their wardrobe between asking for the photo.  

I believe you're jumping into the drama.. while not fully understanding what you're talking about.  
fofufu
6 years ago
Yet your still are not being the better person. You yourself, are even more of a child.
Pawsie
6 years ago
Being the better person....  From what you said, being the better person just means caving in to another position and ignoring what someone feel is right.  In short, a moralistic form of peer pressure  while ignoring the principles involved.  
Alzyx
6 years ago
Congrats on spoiling a good thing for everyone else.
fofufu
6 years ago
Caving in? Caving in is used in a case of which you are pressured to do something.
What I'm saying is that you should have done it in the first place, other than following some freaky moral none of us understand.
Also, the journal name: The Heart Desires Drama.
You started the drama. Unless this is used to refer to you, it makes you a bit ignorant.
(A sidenote: I don'thate you, I just hate what you did. I have nothing personal against you.)
Pawsie
6 years ago
" fofufu wrote:
Caving in? Caving in is used in a case of which you are pressured to do something.
What I'm saying is that you should have done it in the first place, other than following some freaky moral none of us understand.
Also, the journal name: The Heart Desires Drama.
You started the drama. Unless this is used to refer to you, it makes you a bit ignorant.
(A sidenote: I don'thate you, I just hate what you did. I have nothing personal against you.)


...and you're not apart of the people trying to pressure me?  Your comment isn't a form of pressure?  The only reason you're replying is to state how bad I am and that I should revert my decision.

For the drama, it was foreshadowing most of the response I expected to get.  I may be the cause of the cause of the drama, but I'm not the one who started it nor the person who's encouraging it.  If you take the definition of melodrama, it's an over reaction.  What else would you call an artist decision to wipe away their gallery and declare they will never come back because I refuse to remove 5 of their pictures from my website?  

As for the reasoning of my decision, how about looking at it in my eyes.  What happens if one of your favorite artist decides to have all of their work deleted, and asked you to delete all of their art from your computer.  Would you honestly do that?  You can say it's different, but it's the same concept, something they made is on something you own.  Should they have the right to force you to delete it or should you have the right to keep it?  

And for the reason why the artist wants their art off the site.  In truth it's over pettiness.  I'm not the better man because I'm not cowering to someone's pettiness
fofufu
6 years ago
I'm not saying JV didn't over react. He did. And I'm not saying how bad you are. I have nothing against you. I'm saying that in some cases, it's okay to cave in. Think of all the people that would have died if police didn't "cave in" with a terrorist. Now, calling JV a terrorist is a bit extreme, but it's a similar situation. Sometimes, it's better to just do what someone else wants. And, this may seem a little sly, but why not delete it from your site, yet keep it in your own personal galary? It's not going to hurt JV if he doesn't know about it. The problem is, he does.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" fofufu wrote:
I'm not saying JV didn't over react. He did. And I'm not saying how bad you are. I have nothing against you. I'm saying that in some cases, it's okay to cave in. Think of all the people that would have died if police didn't "cave in" with a terrorist. Now, calling JV a terrorist is a bit extreme, but it's a similar situation. Sometimes, it's better to just do what someone else wants. And, this may seem a little sly, but why not delete it from your site, yet keep it in your own personal galary? It's not going to hurt JV if he doesn't know about it. The problem is, he does.


... no, it's not a similar situation.  I hope I'm not getting this wrong, but are you trying to say police caving in to terrorist is an example of being the better man?  I think that relates to cowardliness more than being 'better'.

That artist believes his rights as the creator extends enough to have me remove his art from my site, I believe his rights does not reach that far.  I see it as unfair for me to remove that art when it was freely distribute because the artist decides to get anal about it.  

To try to deceive the artist by saying I will.. but not really doing it would be sleazy, dishonest, and cowardly... But you have the nerve to come in and argue that I'm not the better man..
fofufu
6 years ago
Police submitting to a terrorists demands does not make them better, or worse, in this case. Their just helping the majority, and themselves. Your, in no way, doing things for anyones benefit. Not even your own. If the "police" didn't submit to the "terrorist" due him not wanting to give something up that the terroist had given them in the first place, then the people "die." But, if he gives the "terrorist" what he wants and people are happy, including the police, not necisarily at that moment, but he will be. The thing is ,if you don't submit to JV, then we suffer. If you do, everyone benefits, including yourself. You said the JV was one of your favorite artists, right? Well, now he's not making art anymore. You recieve nothing. I don't see the logic in that situation...

And what you said about rights; his rights should extend that far. You keeping someone elses art for yourself is a complete violation of their rights, for you did not contibute to it's creation at all, yet you feel you have more claim to it then they do.
Pawsie
6 years ago
I think your analogy doesn't work here, you're taking a vague concept (police submitting to terrorist) without any specifics to put it into context.  If you're just taking the concept that sometimes the right people have to take a hit.. would I be the terrorist and shouldn't you suggest to the artist to accept the situation?  I am the one infringing on the artist's copyright an all of the artists threats he can do legally.

I think there's a deeper concept that you missed.  If the people charged with enforcing the law (police) refuse to do their job, then that law is meaningless.  Submitting to terrorism is ignoring law and caving into terror, fear, and power.  It's lacking principle and standing for 'nothing' except for some small benefit.  I believe my position is right and I'm not going to change that position because an artist I like want to punish everyone over my decision.  You talking along this path leads me to be believe you don't honestly believe what you say you do.. or even understand the principle involved with the issue -- you just want your artist to be happy.

Though i believe your analogy is false.. this isn't the artist trying to terrorize his fans, it's an artist threatening to hold their breath unless they get their way.  More than likely your artist will start drawing again under a different name.. Or if they do plan to stop -- it might be better for them over all, if they feel they have to over react over a site hosting their art.  
fofufu
6 years ago
Forget the anology.

JV is sort of terrorizing his fans, in peaceful protest, for protest is a sort of terrorism. We want him to stop that protest. You aren't letting us stop it. I don't like that, and by the looks of it, a bunch of other people don't like it either. And this isn't doing any good for your websites reputation.

And I do understand the main principle. You think that the artists rights don't extend to removing their distributed work off your site.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" fofufu wrote:
Forget the anology.

JV is sort of terrorizing his fans, in peaceful protest, for protest is a sort of terrorism. We want him to stop that protest. You aren't letting us stop it. I don't like that, and by the looks of it, a bunch of other people don't like it either. And this isn't doing any good for your websites reputation.

And I do understand the main principle. You think that the artists rights don't extend to removing their distributed work off your site.



So you want me to stop doing what I've decided.. so an artist who doesn't give a shit about 'your' feelings will draw again..  My answer is no..

For the reputation of my site, either good or bad, people will know if they post something on my site, the artist won't have any control over it.  

Accept you can't change the artist's decision.. or my decision and move on.
fofufu
6 years ago
I honestly don't care if JV doesn't care about me, but god damnit, I care about him.
And if you aren't open to change, well be be it, but don't go publicing it if you don't want retaliation.

Alsagoz
6 years ago
"What happens if one of your favorite artist decides to have all of their work deleted, and asked you to delete all of their art from your computer.  Would you honestly do that?"

Even if it's the same concept, it's wrong analogy since nobody would be "crazy" enough to ask like that. It's about the arts posted on the public site, not the arts posted in the personal computer which is the "whole" different case. They can't know if you really keep it in your computer or not. It's a kind of "forced question" which is not pretty nice.

P.S. I read the whole journal and see some interesting points (read flaws) which I could state them to you but I think it's better to leave them like this since my existence could annoy you to some extent. (=_O)
Pawsie
6 years ago
" Alsagoz wrote:
Even if it's the same concept...[it] is [a] "whole" different case (contradiction).


I think you should fix your own flaws before trying to point out others.  You can make someone's PC into a server, so it is the same case, literally parallax to my decision.  

You're just trying to derail the issue which comes down to a simple yes or no question while ignoring the significance of both answers.  Regardless if there are flaws in my comments, more than likely you have nothing of value to contribute to this... which is why you're nick picking an example instead of attacking the argument.
Kelenius
6 years ago
I don't see a contradiction. Pocket knife and a saw have the same concept, but it indeed is a whole different case.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" Kelenius wrote:
I don't see a contradiction. Pocket knife and a saw have the same concept, but it indeed is a whole different case.


I believe they only have the same concept if you use them in the same case.  Knifing, Sawing, and Cutting are all 3 different concepts.  You don't say knifing someone with a saw is the same concept as sawing food with a knife unless you mean the case is that they're cutting.  But this is derailing the subject.
Alsagoz
6 years ago
It's more like you're the one who derailing the subject. I specifically mean for its usage.

Knifing and Sawing are the words associated with "Knife" and "Saw". "Cutting" could be used with knife but not saw. Sawing can't mean to be cutting in any case since it's different in motion... not to mention slice and dice...
Kelenius
6 years ago
But they all are "piece of metal with sharp part made for dividing things".
Pawsie
6 years ago
how would the difference between a knife and a saw be in different cases
Kelenius
6 years ago
Because they are, you know, different.
Alsagoz
6 years ago
You are trying to mix "Saving the arts personally" and "Putting the saved arts to the public" together. Nobody is going to do anything to you if you just save them for your own personal uses and it doesn't matter if you honestly delete them or not. You can't ask the "honesty" of the person who save arts "personally". The case is just about the art that was posted "publicly" somewhere else.
Pawsie
6 years ago
copyright law doesn't engage with the difference between personal and non personal use.  That's why that issue is moot and why I asked my question, so they can see it through my view.  Even if it's unlikely and the effect of them having that picture is trivial, the question remains -- would they?

The issue is copyright law, not the difference between public and private.  
Alsagoz
6 years ago
How do you know that they can see it through your view?

Copyright laws? When did I say about it? I said "exactly" about the usage of question "What happens if one of your favorite artist decides to have all of their work deleted, and asked you to delete all of their art from your computer. Would you honestly do that?" that is mix of two different cases and you're bringing the third one...

In your case, it could be...

"What happens if your favorite artist asked you to delete all of their art from your website? Would you honestly do that?"
"I will not delete it because it's on the public domain, the copyright laws says this, fair use says that blah blah blah..." (While there is a Japanese page on your website saying that you will...)
Pawsie
6 years ago
I think you should look at your own flaws before attending to others.  You made another mistake.  

Besides that mistake, you didn't mention anything about copyright law.  That is why what you have to say has nothing to do with the over all discussion.  Personal use and open distribution doesn't change the situation, it's still breaking copyright law.  The reason I brought up that example is to talk about the concept of copyright.  The only thing you're doing is complaining that my example isn't exact.. while ignoring the reason behind it.

In short, you're deliberately derailing the issue.  You are nick picking particulars while ignoring the general argument.  The issue is copyright infringement, not the difference between private and public, and not if the person I'm talking to fully understand my view.  This is the classic definition of trolling and I request that you stop.
Alsagoz
6 years ago
It would be good if the notion of trolling/derailing didn't come from you alone. I will not repeat what I said again.

In fact, nobody can do anything to you as long as you can exploit the principles given. There is nothing to worry, right?

Since you request me to stop, I will. However, I could honestly say that it's not trolling. You can abuse whatever reasons to derail my statement into trolling but it doesn't mean that everyone will see it as trolling.
Pawsie
6 years ago
" Alsagoz wrote:
It would be good if the notion of trolling/derailing didn't come from you alone. I will not repeat what I said again.

In fact, nobody can do anything to you as long as you can exploit the principles given. There is nothing to worry, right?

Since you request me to stop, I will. However, I could honestly say that it's not trolling. You can abuse whatever reasons to derail my statement into trolling but it doesn't mean that everyone will see it as trolling.


Sickening....

Instead of addressing the 'reasons' why I say you're trolling, you're leading to "only if someone else agrees with you".  The number of people who agree doesn't affect the truth of my statement.  You're just diverting the accusation.  It's an tactic used on the insecure who refuse to see the simple truth in front of them and have doubts that affect their over all view.  It's a way to stop thinking and depend on someone else to give you the answer.  

You've done it again.. derailing the issue into something else.  The reply was an accusation of you trolling and staying on topic.  You respond with "well, that doesn't mean everyone will believe you", which is further from the issue, from the original post and your previous post.   I wasn't talking about everyone, I was talking about you.  
Alsagoz
6 years ago
Accusation is not the truth (more likely, the personal attack). The person can accuse someone and state it as the truth (it could be misleading for the readers). I would prefer not to be judged by you alone since it could be biased. My point is to state the problem in your question, not trolling. The way you dragged and related the issue from different cases to shield yourself is questionable to the point of derailing the topic itself.
Pawsie
6 years ago
An accusation is not the truth only if it's untrue.  I accused you of trolling by derailing the issue, and you're focusing on possibilities while evading the the issue.. which is derailing the issue.
Alsagoz
6 years ago
And it's true only on your perspective. I don't see how it derailed your issue. His reaction might be too harsh for you but it's the proof that what I said is possible. I didn't say that your action is wrong but this is what you could get.

Let me remind you again...

"What happens if one of your favorite artist decides to have all of their work deleted, and asked you to delete all of their art from your computer. Would you honestly do that?"

This is not a good question.

* It's misleading. Instead of asking directly "If the artist asked you to delete all of their art from your website. Would you honestly do that?", you zigzagged the other way around to "force" the people to answer outside their moral conscience.

* It's not a moral question of "honesty" since you dragged an issue of copyright in. The moral question should be ask for the "respect".

* In this case, you focused on the rights and legal issue while ignored the moral involved.

You can always related (read exploited) the principles involved to gain advantages over the oppositions but it somehow show that you didn't care the feeling of the artists even a bit (under the disguise of Fair use). Even if you say you care, you tend to treat those below you like a child, not the people who make mistakes. The real child would love to "arguing" with parents and bragging for their "right" as a child.

I could dare to say that you "don't care" about it since there are still a plenty of fish in the sea. No matter how many people pissed off with your action and left, there are still many people around who just "don't care" and/or could only left you alone.
Pawsie
6 years ago
And you're derailing again.  Now using a relativist fallacy.  What you're doing isn't a matter of taste or preference, it's a fact.  You say you're not trolling or derailing the issue.. and yet you take a reply about the concept of copyright -- which you agree was 'correct' and try to criticize me for not talking about the moral value of my decision and and accusing me of treating other people as children.. which has nothing to do with the main issue.  

As you say, it would be better if someone else agree with you;  It seems what you say is only true to you; and, I would prefer to be judged by someone else than you alone.  I should remind you, it's quite possible you're a dishonest troll and everything you say is meaningless.  You never hold yourself to the standard you try to impose on me.  

Maybe you're so entrapped in your own mind that you don't understand that possibility is the absent of proof.. and you turn it around to say "the proof of my possibility"

There is something else.. You take this as me trying to win an argument.. And I suppose you believe you  need to indirectly make new arguments instead of addressing the central one.
Alsagoz
6 years ago
Who knows? I'm pretty sure they did has something to do with the main issue but you take an evasive move. From your perspective alone, I'm a dishonest troll and my words are meaningless just like when you try to frame anyone who oppose you as childish or something like that. It would be pointless for me to continue it further since it narrowed down to just you and me. I wonder how many people will understand your reasoning completely or even care to read your statements...
sedkitty
6 years ago
Pawsie's reasoning is simple:
1) he wants it, therefore
2) he deserves it.
He does this by rationalizing a definition of 'fair use' that is at odds with every case that has come to the courts in the US (feel free to find an exception) and by the sure knowledge that he won't be brought to court over cub porn.  (This, he pretends, means that the artist doesn't care enough.)  His words above more than bear this out.
FurCollector
5 years, 11 months ago
I'm the #100 commenter, heeeehe! 8D
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.