Talk:Art piracy

Art piracy has occurred al over history, and across all fandoms to often to make it a Furry exclusive term. Right now you are just reposting a very POV view that was contradicted and striked down on the FChan debate as a new article.

This can be turned into an actual article, properly Wikified, but I'm adding it to the SpD queue just because of its POV point you keep trying to make. Neutrality is a key point of being a Wikifur editor Spirou 21:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Art piracy is something that occurs within the fandom and has driven artists out. It was not struck down, it was editwarred. Klaus Dobermann is a proven "do not redistribute" artist that fchan has violated.

You pirate art, you are an art pirate, period. I refute speedy deletion for this important term that many in the fandom seem confused or uncertain about. --Chibiabos 21:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

If many in the fandom seems confused or uncertain about it, then guess what? It's probably not "period". It's a point of view. It may be illegal to redistribute art, and we should note that, but that doesn't mean that it is wrong. Or that it is right. It means that some act as if it is wrong, and others act as if it is not wrong, or as if they do not care whether or not it is wrong. Some may even leave the fandom as a result of the actions that the first group terms "art piracy". This is something that should indeed be documented. --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fchan mention - REQUEST FOR OPINIONS

I'm restating the battleground rule right here, however since this is something you clearly believe to be true we need to try and find a consensus on this. I'm therefor asking if people can voice their personal opinions on this. Both should this article exist and if it does, should Fchan be mentioned. Please do not edit either article or any other key articles relating to this between now and when we have an outcome.

Formatting note, please post only your own views in the 'vote' style, without any actual vote. Use the above section for posting a rebuttle to any views below and for discussion.

• And my personal view? This article could probably exist, but it needs links in to it and Fchan is a site which does uphold a DNP. --Nidonocu - talk 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Properly Wikified, the article is valid. As it stands presently, its just a Personal Opinion about FChan solidified into an article. There are several resources about copyright infringements, Wikipedia links, and enough valid Furry based cases to turn the article around Spirou 21:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• They don't honor DNP. Demanding artists request their art being pirated on a site to no longer be pirated is not a "good faith" effort and still allows art piracy. Wikifur has a strict policy against allowing any art uploads without the express consent of the artist. Are we now going to get the furry art pirates to vote against this so anyone can upload anything they want? That's unethical. --Chibiabos 21:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • WikiFur's own policy on this topic does not matter. Wikipedia greatly encourages people to submit content under free licenses, but that does not mean it takes a prejorative stand against the use of non-free licenses in its articles, just as it doesn't oppose for-profit companies even though it is a not-for-profit organization. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Art Piracy: Unauthorized redistribution of commercial material. --Xenofur 21:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Random opinion, please don't kill me. As an artist, a higher than usual number of the folks who have commissioned me have requested that their personal commissions only be posted on my own gallery, being the artist. (And of course, posted elsewhere by themselves at their discretion.) Thus I requested DNP as a courtesy to my customers since Fchan is well known, to make it all official-like. Having said that, you can't control the Internet and I have no great financial stake in whether or not other people repost my art without asking. If I didn't do commissions and didn't get so many requests for limits on hosting, I probably wouldn't have thought about Fchan in the first place.

I use my case as an example. My basic view is that too much pettiness just drags things down into absurdity - no matter what principle one feels about whether or not art should be used in various ways. And the truth is, giving how the Internet and many communities on it behave, I feel Fchan is probably erring on the correct side by asking people to personally request an exclusion. Petty, bizarre, and downright crazy people are always trying to cause trouble for others and do it not-infrequently by e-impersonation. And many artists simply will not care if their art is reposted, and some will consider it great publicity and approve. That's a true situation I believe, regardless of whether someone ethically approves of the concept of an image board. In regards to this article, I think some art piracy does happen, but I also think it's traditionally blown out of proportion by some fandoms, including Furry. So I am not sure what to suggest as to keeping a form of this article or deleting it. -- ToyDragon

• I'm fine with this article existing but, as others have stated, we should try to keep the opinions out. I also think that we should have references for every statement on here, especially the one about Sibe being the "most notorious" art pirate since, true or not, it is still a serious accusation. --Douglas Muth 04:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, I would note that when people are arguing with you on WikiFur, it is rarely a good idea to direct more people towards the argument. In particular, encouraging people to spread such a post to other forums looks to me like an attempt to bias discussion towards your side of the argument. I do not feel that is an appropriate tactic. Impress others with your arguments, not how many friends you can drum up to support you.

Saying "this is wrong" is a sign that you are proposing an ethical point of view. Such a view is in direct opposition to trying to keep a neutral point of view in articles. The fact that you created the article suggests that you created it with a view to expressing that point of view. The very phrase, "art piracy", is loaded.

I would much prefer a general page on copyright that discusses such things, among other copyright issues.

I would like to remind everyone that WikiFur's job is not to tell people that distributing other people's art is bad, just as it is not its job to advocate it either. It has to remain neutral, and report on the state of things. If people think that distributing artwork without the express permission of the artist is wrong, then they will see it as a bad thing when they read the facts. If they don't, then they won't. --GreenReaper^(talk) 04:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If the wikifur consensus is that redistributing artwork without (and even against) artist's wishes is "okay," then isn't a disaparate policy against this "bad faith?"

Further, I'm not trying to get a ruling here on whether art piracy is good or bad, merely a definition. If sites like fchan don't care how many artist's DND expressions they violate, so be it ... the art piracy label shouldn't bother them, since its what they are doing. If they decide they don't like the label, they could change their policies and behaviors. --Chibiabos 05:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on Copyright violation could be a good starting point for us to take, adding the fandom point to it to form a suitable article to build upon. Copyright or Copyright violation?,... Or start with "Copyright," with a "Copyright" and Furry" section, which would discuss "Copyright violation" (also known as "Art piracy",) with "See also"s linking to such articles as "Warez," "Pirate Bay," "Sibe," "FXC," etc? Spirou 05:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you apply a label to a site, and that label is viewed prejoratively (which I think is the case with "art piracy"), then you are imposing a moral judgement on a site. We shouldn't be doing that. You can however say that a particular group uses that label to refer to a site's users or their actions, if that is the case (a reference is good to have here). That means we are reporting that they are making a moral judgement, which is fine - as long as we report the many other people who post to and use the websites, and presumably have a different opinion. --GreenReaper^(talk) 14:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't applying the label "criminal" to Sibe the same thing, even though he is ... well ... a convicted criminal? For that matter, are you equally uncomfortable with Sibe being mentioned as, arguable, the most notorious furry art pirate though you'd likely find little argument if you found a way to conduct a poll? Its a term that simply describes an individual or group that knowingly makes unauthorized redistributions of furry artists' work. "Art piracy" is no more pejorative than "anti-furry" (which Wikifur regularly uses to describe Burned Furs, CYD and other groups) or "convicted criminal." --Chibiabos 15:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If he'd been convicted of piracy, sure. As far as I know he's been convicted of other things, though. I don't like the term "anti-furry" much either - it's far too vague. At least convicted criminal has a clear meaning. --GreenReaper^(talk) 01:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There's the 9 November 2001, November 2003, and 18 July 2005 entries in Sibe's timeline, and of course the lawsuit mentioned on 30 August 2004. --Chibiabos 02:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Klaus Dobermann

In my opinion, the mention of Klaus Dobermann, if to be included at all, ought to be reworded. It seems awfully biased to cite "well-expressed requests" that aren't sourced here or in the article about him. The closest to a source that article has is the quoted message from the defunct Yahoo group saying "... people would not stick my art in all sorts of places I wouldn't want it to be ...", which doesn't really specify those places (even as far as "anywhere at all"). I have no objection to KD being used as an example, but calling his requests "well-expressed" when they're not sourced seems a bit rich. --quoting_mungo 20:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)