From what I heard, e621 don't give 2 shits about if you don't want something uploaded or not...

I spy with my little eyes; e621.net is going to have a baaaaaaaaaad day in the near future... =P

Ha, good luck with it.

You'd be trying to sue Bad Dragon. Just so you know, they have the money and resources to defend themselves thoroughly. And they wouldn't even need it, because they'd be in the right. Here's why...

It should be noted that copyright law would place ownership of a commission (including distribution rights) jointly to both you, AND the owner of the character(s) and other content in said commission. So while you can try to tell them what they can and can't do with the image, they are legally entitled to do the same. A ToS is not legally binding if it waives this right, in any country which participates in a WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organizations). This is the case because it was deemed unacceptable that you would have to waive your right to your own intellectual property to have it produced through another party. So the only way to limit or waive distribution rights to someone else's IP is with a signed contract expressly giving you said permission and forfeiting their own. (Legally in some countries such as the US and UK, this would also mean that for all intents and purposes, you are passing on the IP.)

To put it in simpler terms;

A commissioner can redistribute an image made for them, by you, legally and there's nothing you can do, because it is THEIR commission. You drew it but if it contains their character, then it is equally their property to do with as they wish. You could not sue for monetary damages or for an injunction to make them stop, because you do not own the character.

If you want to control how your art is distributed, you must refrain from drawing intellectual property (such as characters) that you do not own.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is. You can't draw someone else's character, then tell them what they can and can't do with it.

While I agree with you on this there is a very large problem with how online artists tend to interpret copyright law, most notably when it comes to commissions. There's this common misconception that just because it's in writing means it's 100% legally binding which is not true. Plus it's also why copyright claims cases are reviewed all on a case by case basis. It's also extremely expensive to go to court over it. This is a large part of why corporations generally won't go after artists who violate their copyrights and trademarks via profiting off of their IP by drawing fan art for monetary compensation. That and it's also bad PR too to sue fans anyway. But still by all intents and purposes producing fan art for profit even if you try the "services" workaround many artists generally claim to justify that you aren't purchasing the drawing but merely paying for services rendered, it's just not going to work in such a case. Rule 34 for example is technically illegal. It's just not enforced. Was like that whole RIAA/MPAA fiasco back when Napster went to court and those companies went after end users and network owners. Was just a major clusterfuck for them even if legally they were in the right. Not to mention the sheer expense of going to court. Something even notable online artists really aren't likely to be prepared for even for an inexpensive piece of art.

However, while Wolfbeast would love to continue his delusion that the commissioner has zero rights to an image they paid for he is of course woefully wrong as I've done this dance at the corporate level in my previous job dealing with copyright claims in Kindle books and graphic novels. ^_- I would argue our legal team at Amazon trumps his interpretation of copyright law. Very likely he's going off a few reports of small claims judges who went in favor of the artist. It's also worth noting that small claims court is a very informal court and the judge/commissioner has an unusual amount of leeway in how the law is applied. You can be completely in the right and still manage to lose but that is also why they allow appeals to superior court which is a formal court and the interpretation of the law is more strict and lawyers are generally involved. But yes, if a commissioner chooses to share out the full resolution image the artist's most realistic remedy is simply to blacklist the commissioner from future commissions. That of course might be a bad move as well if the work was simply leaked by someone the commissioner trusted to share it. It's quite foolish to implement sharing restrictions on art that was paid for because quite frankly I share high res versions of my commissions with whoever I please. The shared copyright of course doesn't extend to commercial use by default. Wolfbeast did actually get that right because a signed agreement is needed to make that agreement to share/transfer commercial rights to the commissioner. Thus making the work done under the "Work for Hire" clause of copyright law.

As far as getting the work removed online the artist can try a DMCA claim if the servers are within the United States where the DMCA applies. However, enforcing one if the administration is non-compliant again costly as it requires going through the formal court process in a federal court which is not cheap. It's quite expensive "policing" copyrights and when it comes to non-commercial works it's generally not even worth the expense. Furthermore, the court values its time and something as frivolous as a high resolution version of artwork being uploaded and not merely a lower resolution version of it is generally going to be frowned up on by the judge.

Art theft of course, the folly of someone claiming work as their own when clearly the won't be able to reproduce the results, isn't as big of a threat as fellow artists are making it out to be. It's an annoyance, absolutely. Is it criminally punishable? Depends on the damages caused if any. Oh and here is a big kicker too. The copyright MUST be registered in order to sue for damages. Registration is not required for it's basic protections such as enforcing a cease and desist order but you won't be able to dig into their pocketbook. I'm fairly certain that artists in general on this site do not bother with paying the registration fees to have something like furry porn be a registered copyright. But art thieves will modify things as they see fit. It's been going on for a very long time and as technology advances it will simply become easier. For example up-scaling images is much more advanced than it was just a few years ago. The latest version of Photoshop CC does an exceptionally amazing job at it.

But yes, the hat trick comes into play when you are dealing with someone else's property in the image. Of course there are also artists out there who make the silly claim a character can only be trademarked, not copyrighted. This again is false. Consult a proper copyright lawyer with a successful track record and they'll let you know it's in fact very much possible so long as the character itself is unique and not something generic or a blatant rip off of someone else's IP (like the Pokemon derived characters that are common here.) The law itself isn't as complicated as people think but the situations can become quite sticky.

All and all it's really quite sad when an artist will go out of their way to complicate things for a commissioner all on the fear of art theft. This is why a large audience and a distinct style is more helpful and less costly than policing the works.

They should, if they want to prevent lawyers from shutting their servers down.

They have an official takedown policy and submission form (instead of commenting, THAT is what you should do)
https://e621.net/static/takedown

A friend said to me one of their bits of art was uploaded by someone and they would not take it down... Don't know the full story so only saying "I heard" :P

it's incorrect. You can blatantly say that your art is not to be uploaded at all on e621 and they will make a tag specifically that goes by the name of ""avoid_posting" anytime your name is associated with the art.

This is provided you contact and have your name added to the list.

e621 has ONE lawyer, his name is Leo. who handles ALL of v***a's copyright legalities.
it's a copypaste job.

Copyright law is actually not remotely as complicated as it seems.

You'd be trying to sue Bad Dragon. Just so you know, they have the money and resources to defend themselves thoroughly. And they wouldn't even need it, because they'd be in the right. Here's why...

It should be noted that copyright law would place ownership of a commission (including distribution rights) jointly to both you, AND the owner of the character(s) and other content in said commission. So while you can try to tell them what they can and can't do with the image, they are legally entitled to do the same. A ToS is not legally binding if it waives this right, in any country which participates in a WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organizations). This is the case because it was deemed unacceptable that you would have to waive your right to your own intellectual property to have it produced through another party. So the only way to limit or waive distribution rights to someone else's IP is with a signed contract expressly giving you said permission and forfeiting their own. (Legally in some countries such as the US and UK, this would also mean that for all intents and purposes, you are passing on the IP.)

To put it in simpler terms;

A commissioner can redistribute an image made for them, by you, legally and there's nothing you can do, because it is THEIR commission. You drew it but if it contains their character, then it is equally their property to do with as they wish. You could not sue for monetary damages or for an injunction to make them stop, because you do not own the character.

If you want to control how your art is distributed, you must refrain from drawing intellectual property (such as characters) that you do not own.

Sorry, but that's just the way it is. You can't draw someone else's character, then tell them what they can and can't do with it.

This. You really don't have a case. You were paid for the picture, and the owner can do pretty much whatever they want with it.

You have no clue about Copyright.
Unless copyright was transferred to the commissioner, it rests with the artist.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedict.....com/possession
http://www.mpba.com/blog/washington.....apy-practices/
http://ownersrightsinitiative.org/media/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art.....es/PMC3674765/

Also:
There is no license as per the own artist's ToS. Therefore transfer of ownership was initiated via the First Sale Doctrine.

One thing you misunderstand about commission sales.
The rights weren't sold. The property wasn't sold! Only the service was. The service to create a commissioned piece.

So you can throw as many links at me as you want about implied transfer of ownership when there's an unspecified license in a sale of a physical item, but it simply doesn't apply here.

Actually trying to sell it as a 'service' is even more restrictive of one's right. A service cannot be held as IP in the first place, because nothing is created or substantial (a 'property') in the first place to which a contract, verbal or otherwise, is applicable. In other words, by saying you are selling a 'service', then the only protected property construable is your art technique, which is a personal skill/knowledge and not reproduceable through copying and distributing a picture. This has already been established numerous times in the courts of several major countries.

I understand you don't agree with this and feel that it is wrong- and, often times, it is very morally disgusting. However, the law is the law, and you can't simply argue it away with semantics or emotions. It's a firmly established, written, publicly accessible, well understood fact.

I have a bunch of pipes in my kitchen. I hire a plumber to assemble these pipes into piping that will get hot water from the boiler to my tap. This is *service*. Do you imply once the job is finished the plumber can dictate what I can or can't do with these pipes?

There are roughly three modes you can get a commission: 1. request the artist to create and license the use of the result, 2. request the product, 3. hire the artist to perform a service.

Only in case 1 the artist retains full rights to the picture, and the terms of the license may restrict what the buyer can or can't do.

Here we have the case 2, purchase of goods, with shared copyright. The artist can still distribute the copies, but can't prevent the buyer from doing so.

In case 3, which you implied is the case here, the situation is even worse as the work contract involves full transfer of copyrights. Creating art as service is the how artists hired at commercial agencies or creating art for games or movies work. They don't retain any copyright, it's fully transferred onto the employer.

But, well, duh, supposedly it's me who has no clue about copyright.

it's not a legal "team", their legal counsel consists of only one guy. Leo, who used to be Environmental legal counsel for Phelps Dodge mining. One of the largest polluters of the Southwest. it takes a special person to be able to defend something like that.

JP Morgan would be proud. "i'd rather think of lawyers as advizing me HOW to do what i want to do". sick but true.

True. But that also means he's really fucking good. That combined with the almost paper-thin case material, and Jackrow would just get badly hurt and likely countersued for legal fees and libel..

libel has to prove damages. but yeah. it ends there.

Considering that he'd have to accuse them of theft, that is the precursory condition. Then the legal fees themselves could be counted towards damaged.

Libel has been pushed and won on less. Just look at every US election.. half a dozen or more cases pop up every fucking election over the absolute dumbest, most inane bullshit.

They will take it down. Just go through the proper steps.

Says the guy who doesn't have any artwork to see if it will happen.

What? One thing I don't mind if my commissioned art is on there. Also I know you can get it removed if you do the take down request. The art from this journal is now gone from the site.

Now go away creep. Stop causing more drama.

You have to be obsessed with drama itself to say that, a vacation wouldn't be so bad for you.

Besides, I was referring to the whole history to incompetence and douchyness that e621 had brought to the table so far. Don't expect things to be simple.

http://i.imgur.com/JIu3wsx.gif

What you hear does not matter. They have an enforced DNP list, the rest is just stories and whining.

I'm not sure where you've heard that from, but I've always had speedy takedowns from e621. You just have to tell them that you're the artist, and you don't want that specific image on the internet.

Didn't know that. If i ever see your highres pic i'll note you.. after downloading it ^_^

Now I start to understand why Petreonists did close their public-access by a reason, and I might just want to join the bandwagon... ;P

Well. When someone sees pretty picture in hd it is only natural to save it. You can ask you watchers not to do it, but it won't be fair, because then only your faithful watchers won't have a copy of your pic in the end.

P.S. No idea what petreonists are, i'm not much into the fa community lately, just visit here now and then

Sorry for english.

That's a fair point, but I also have the right to be afraid, since the big problem is once a high-resolution is out in public for free to anyone, it usually gives potential art-thieves a chance to claim it to their own. I guess you wouldn't like to have your bank account stolen with your credentials as well. If you have seen the movie "Network" starring with Sandra bullock, that is just perfect in symbolic meaning how easily your whole heavy-lifting have been just taken with a single flick of button click out of your hands what you worked hard for.

Could just put a very faint, large size watermark that's barely visible unless you're looking. Hard to get rid of, but also unobtrusive to enjoying the art. I don't think posting hi-res files makes it any easier than smaller ones to someone who would claim it as their own. If someone is the type to do that, I doubt they give a shit what resolution it is. Besides, seems a little hypocritical to take commissions drawing a species/creature (Ex. GW2, but you're not the only one doing it, of course) you didn't make and then getting upset if a high-res of that gets out there. You're technically using the popularity, and intellectual property of somebody else, and profiting from it if you do it.

Just remember that fighting art thieves has always, ALWAYS caused people more damage than it ever, ever stopped. The harder you try, the worse you get hurt. Ask Jeremy Bernal, he's spent THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS just trying to stop it, and it only makes it more popular to steal.

Also be sure to read my other posts, because you're wrong about your definition of 'stealing' when it comes to commissions.

It reminds me in a way, though not a perfect comparison, to preventing piracy for video games. They tack on one of several different inconvenient DRM's for their paying customers while the piracy continues to run rampant, in many cases moreso in order to avoid said annoying DRM. People are always going to steal and get everything they can for free. I understand wanting to prevent it, but don't run the risk of losing more paying customers in your efforts to decrease the theft. The ratio of potential sales lost to stolen goods is not always 1:1.

The comparison that was made about access to a bank account is very much like the fear people have to justify simply not ordering online because of the potential of someone stealing the credit card number. People would be surprised at how much damage one can do with only a credit card number. Hell the name doesn't even have to match the card most of the time. It all depends on how the system is coded to verify the info with the bank. What's funny is Amazon specifically says to ensure the name matches with what's on the card. However, we've had no problems running charges through with the wrong name on it. I've even seen transactions go through with a wrong expiration date.

It's really quite sad to see people that worried about art theft that a mere 5,000 x 3,535 image is a cause of concern for art theft when art thieves have been doing that with much smaller files for a very long time. Tell you what though it does look quite nice on my 60" screen as opposed to the lower res version. It's a shame this artist seems to now be going in the direction of not giving clients a high res copy. Hopefully that will be reconsidered or people are made aware they will be spending quite a bit of money for a low resolution piece of art simply based on the artist's fear of potential art theft.

It's also worth noting that the artist appears to be in Hungary whose copyright law appears to have some differences to US copyright law. I've spent more time than I care to on this topic because simply put...an artist that worries this much about high res images can work out to the benefit of other artists as far is snagging up more business goes. So if e61 chooses not to remove the image I doubt there's much of a legal threat to them given the vast expense of suing internationally. It's costly enough just doing it domestically.

I've reviewed the TOS as well and it's not spelled out crystal clear that the high resolution version is not to be uploaded at all because generally speaking "private use" does have a broad definition in copyright law in general. Private use can be for example using an account on social media to share it out. However, this little nugget of info is a cause for concern:

"I am quite tolerant a person myself, but an insulting manner will not be tolerated. The first sign of

insulting my person will result in the closure of communication and the removal of the order from

the list without any warning. This action will not constitute a refund."

The EU is VERY oriented toward customer protections as Amazon, Microsoft, Apple and Google are quite aware of. That last little bit of " no refunds" if the artist feels personally insulted I suspect is quite illegal even in the EU. It certainly would not fly here in the US and all it takes is one little complaint to PayPal to resolve that nonsense.

It's quite frustrating really. I had planned on commissioning this artist in the future but I do share out my high res versions with friends and I cannot stop them from sharing it out if they really wanted to. I see no problem with it because art theft is a reality just as software piracy is for software makers and music piracy.... well you get the idea. ^_- But that coupled with their own TOS as someone that feels entitled to keep someone's money because they choose to cancel a commission because they feel insulted well.. that's just bad business over all and not all that wise to enter into a business transaction with such a person. But that is only my personal opinion anyway.

I'm actually somewhat familiar with the laws of several countries regarding copyright, because (thankfully?) most western countries participate in general agreement on them, namely the 1996 WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization). So while there are distinct differences, it's not difficult to write a ToS or contract in such a way as to be fully viable in a wide number of countries.

But some countries don't participate at all, such as China, and only respect *registered* copyright (unlike the US where it's automatically copyright, but registration is wise to establish precedent and protections), registered IN China, approved BY the Chinese property rights comission, and only applicable IN China, TO Chinese citizens BY Chinese organizations. It's... a real fucking mess, and the exact reason China produces well over 90% of the world's counterfeit goods.

China is a royal pain in the ass to deal with period. I hated dealing with Kindle issues with customers and authors in China because we didn't sell the device there nor the content but they'd simply use the "Hong Kong" workaround. All it did was generate a hell of a mess to sort out anytime there was an issue. Warranty issues were pretty big because someone would bulk order 500+ devices, have them shipped to Hong Kong and then sell in China. But the warranty start date on bulk orders at the time I was at Amazon went on the date the order shipped out. That may have changed now because one of the changes my team had been pushing Kindle Projects for was to provide a provision for the warranty start date to begin on the date the device was first registered to an account. But still, China is a very large country and not everyone was able to get to Hong Kong to ship the device back because our systems refused to ship Kindles to China period.

China really should learn to be more of a part of the international community in general. Would make things a lot better all around.

But why would they when it makes them so damn much money? =/

It's true. Part of the problem is China is a source of cheap and exploitable labor and companies will turn the other cheek because it saves them a buck elsewhere. Personally I think China needs some potent economic sanctions given their blatant theft of IPs all over the place. It's too convenient that they can have a say in the international community in various matters but they can simply protect their own interests by creating a law that only respects their rights generally speaking and sanctions counterfeiting.

That last little bit of " no refunds" if the artist feels personally insulted I suspect is quite illegal even in the EU. It certainly would not fly here in the US and all it takes is one little complaint to PayPal to resolve that nonsense.

Judging by this link, you are correct, and the artist's refund policy is illegal.

I can sympathize here, as I used to have a flat 'no refunds' policy in place after people were issuing Paypal chargebacks after they'd screencapped my stream showing the final image, demanding refunds due to me having a busy workweek and taking longer than 7 days to get things done, and simply changing their mind and needing the money back when I'd already completed half of the work. It's hard to know that people can demand their money back for reasons that may be inconvenient to me. However, as a professional, it's important that the artist figure out what is and is not legal, because small claims court IS a thing that exists and can be used to absolutely destroy the life and livelihood of people who don't research basic legal rights and requirements of both seller and buyer before getting into business.

That is one thing I admire about the EU. It's very, very pro-consumer where here in the US we do have some basic no-nonsense consumer protections (someone can't just keep your money because they feel insulted. They can cancel but a refund is due at that point.) but the EU keeps businesses (including those that draw art for a living by treating them like businesses) in check.

Small claims courts are good and they're rather informal too. However, you can win a small claims judgement but collecting on one is an entirely different matter since the courts will not do it nor can you be jailed for not paying it. At least in the US. It's the responsibility of the winner of the case to find the assets of the person and seize them accordingly. Plus there are exemptions that are taken into account before you can even garnish someone's assets.

As for the chargebacks. Yeah that's a very dangerous problem for businesses because of the relative ease of issuing a chargeback and bias is almost always given to the customer. Amazon's stance on it for example was if you do a chargeback, you'll be banned. Believe me I had to hear it all the time about the threats of chargebacks because a shipment was late and the customer was not willing to wait the window required for me to issue replacements or refunds. I believe PayPal for example needs to be more fair in chargeback cases especially when the artist has a defense against them. Some win but that $20 fee they hit you with burns. Especially if you end up with multiple chargebacks. I generally recommend commissioners use that against artists that simply take too long to finish work and refuse a refund but they do have a limited time window. A few people I've spoken with simply have their accounts set up to charge directly to a credit card and that extends the chargeback period to as long as 2 years depending on the issuing bank. Since it's not uncommon for furry artists to take 1+ years to finish a simple commission it's a good opportunity for someone to get their money back against a deadbeat artist. However, it needs balance against the deadbeat commissioner that like in your case abused it. A week in terms of art is a relatively small time to wait and isn't a chargeback worthy timeframe in my opinion. I agree that there are always risks in doing business and that a business must take on the risks. But the risks should be fair and reasonable and not outright have a loophole that allows for someone to win a chargeback claim so easily.

The way I see it, anyone can demand a refund from me up until I start on their work, at which point they can cancel the commission up til the second it's done and demand a refund for whatever work I haven't done yet. Since my fees are calculated with that in mind it usually works pretty well. Granted, you have to have 100% open and constant communication with your commissioners if you want that to work, but that's why I've spent the past 2 years or so building up a commissioner base solely through streaming - nobody really has had a chance to claim I haven't communicated with them. :P

Seems more than reasonable to me. In my own experience I've never really seen a need to cancel a commission in the first place. Mainly because I try and pick and choose who I commission carefully. However sometimes I do end up with something I'm just flat out not happy with but I could either fight with them on it or just simply not commission them in the future. Repeat business is what matters in business. The artist that did my refsheet that I paid about $300 for underestimated how long she would spend on it. As such it was no where near the quality of her first drawing she did for me which was spot on.The ref had too many flaws and the shading quality was even skimped on. Definitely was not pleased because that wasn't my issue she underestimated. I was even flexible and suggested she make mine a lower priority so she could stay productive on other stuff and keep an income going. I get it. Gotta pay bills. ^_- But it wasn't until she completed over 160 other pieces of art and over a year later did she finally "complete" it.

I'm having a similar problem with another artist who has outstanding quality and highly regarded but I'm going on over a year and a half while he's taken on new work and finished them before mine on a regular basis. He also was not a cheap one to commission either so.. again, I could argue and try and get a refund and wasted all that time waiting for something awesome or just let him do it and hopefully get what I paid for. One thing is certain, there is a very strong possibility I may not commission him again either. Very friendly but horrible project management skills.

At the end of the day I feel like commissioning a high-demand artist - like the ones who work on paysites; you know what I'm talking about - is more like donating. >_> You may or may not get your art; they're busy, and your stuff can get lost in transit or forgotten about due to other deadlines, and that SUCKS, but if they're continuing to turn out work that continues to impress and entertain you, at least you supported that.

That said, I am NOT a popufur, and my art is relatively sucky. So if I forget about something I tend to grovel and do twice as much work as they originally paid for if they don't ask for a refund when I eventually remember. x'D

If you are not after furry porn you can always go with a high end artist that actually has a professional resume. By that I'm talking actually commercially published by a major corporation. They're really not all that much more expensive than a high rate furry artist. Heh one artist I'm good friends with had been commissioned by Mel Brooks for 3 movie poster concepts for a pitch he had wanted to make. Total cost? $500. :P Many artists here assume "professional" artists make a ton of cash for each drawing they make. That's a load of crap. One dude here is an actual keyframe artist on the MLP cartoon. How much does he make? Around $24 Canadian an hour.

Some artists can make thousands per pic but that's more akin to fine arts. In fine arts you can get thousands for a canvas splattered with paint if you can find the right buyer. It just depends. But realistically speaking you can get some posh non-adult art at the $200-$500 price mark and usually have it done inside of a couple of weeks. That's also why those types tend to be published too. But yeah for me I don't care how popular someone is. If I'm paying them for work and they dilly daddle on it I'll be nice and generally understanding but I didn't pay them for entertainment. I paid them to complete work. No artist should ever be held so high that they can basically shit on a commissioner and people praise it as rain during a drought. They should be held accountable and feel the same sense of groveling you feel you must. However, your feelings are in fact understandable because in the furry fandom especially it's all a popularity game it seems.

Look at the comments on the piece. It was the commissioner who uploaded it, apparently by accident.

Under normal cases, I'd say worry about how the HD file got leaked, but that mystery is not much of one.

Accident? It was not him. The REAL commissioner notified me via FA. The one on e621 is a fake one trying to pretend it was the original, while he is not.

I will consider about it in the future, thanks for the advice.

You know, people can use you IP adress. I got a friend, who lives in Hungary, and is on an Indian IP adress.

Oh? Okay. Well, I'll just sit on him then. *Unrelated Charr-sitting for the win?*

On my laptp I had a file containing the information about which version should I upload and where. I guess the guy who hacked the laptop and imported my stuff, uploaded the image and only found the file containing the information later. I wasn't able to log into my FA from 7 AM, until later, and then I found a sent note to  dragonfruit from my account asking e621 to take down, so he can re-upload the small version. Since then I changed my FA pw again, also asked my internet provider to give me a new IP adress in hope that it'll prevent such things in the future

Changing your IP will do absolutely nothing, trust me. You MUST secure your system before anything else. Utilize a quality virus scanner and anti-malware suite. (Hint: If you're using Norton or McAfee, YOU ARE NOT DOING THIS RIGHT). Be sure to keep your operating system (windows?) up to date and patched, turn off remote desktop, remote registry, and any other remote access programs. Install and use a firewall (Windows has one but you may want something more comprehensive) to stealth ports- simply closing them is not the best solution, and leaving one open is a terrible idea. Change your passwords and use Proper Complexity Phrases, not just the Captcha garbage they tought you in school. Those passwords are easy for a computer to hack, but hard for you to remember. Big long passwords that intermix between words are good. Example: Ugly4gottenfruit2eat! It's easy to remember, long, and would be very difficult to brute-force or dict-fine.

Thank you very much, will act on it.

well... i don't know how that guy 'kayroo' got it, but iirc the people there upload anything, even though it is not theirs. i don't believe they claim credit for it though, they just upload it.

It is already flagged for deletion because it is a double post. However to take it down it would should be what wolfbeast said. You should be able to request a take down without an account (or 3 days old acount for that matter)
i find is a sad reality that poeple don't have the decency to just be happy with just what is provided >_> and upload without arits' premission

Unfortunately, the cat's out of the proverbial bag now. You can get it off of e621, but it'll make it onto Lulz, and onto u18chan, etc... Once something's been internet'd, it can't be un-internet'd.

Sorry you had this happen. :(

So be it, I'll be more strict with my ToS once I get home and have the time to make it more precise. That's the only thing I can do.

Sadly, there's really not much you can do. That's not to say you shouldn't--keep sending out the remove notices! Just don't expect much.

It will likely cause negative attention to do so. So one must be careful or they will get a reputation for being a bad person.

Whle I agree that e621 should be a bit more respecting in the policy-side of the things, how did the higher-res version of it become public?

This is what I would like to know how it got leaked out.

Then e621 is not to blame, I suposse.

Even so, if Caticus commissioned it, and it's his character, he actually DOES have the legal right to distribute any version however he wants. I made a couple posts on this above.

Jackrow doesn't have soul ownership of the image and it's contents when it's a commission. The only way to stop this from happening is to either require a signed, in-paper Intellectual Property Rights transfer and forfeiture agreement, or stop doing commissions entirely.

I got other, personal and important stuffs missing from my computer, but thank you very much for calling me a liar.

And besides, no, I didn't send any art around skype or facebook, I keep them for myself. Also, this isn't the first case I got hacked, so I'm not all that surprised...

You're a liar. It's so incredibly obvious, it's hilarious seeing you try to deny it. Literally all of the evidence points towards you doing it.

People don't get their computers hacked to steal furry porn and post it under your username. It just doesn't happen. Hacking doesn't work like it does in TV shows and movies.

Not that the original artist isn't a dummy too. The quality of the art doesn't really affect the chance that it'll be stolen or not. Those dodgy porn sites generally contain compressed-to-hell jpegs and people who upload it to galleries passing it off as their own are often caught. Tracers are generally caught too and smacked down. Stop being so paranoid, let the people who paid for your services present it how they wish, as long as it's unmodified and attributed you really shouldn't have any right to complain.

http://i.imgur.com/iVHfwLc.gif

Probably not my business but must state that "incredibly obvious" is not a proof.
And on a sidenote, hacking surely doesn't work like in tv shows, because in most times it is not really hard and is used mainly for lulz.

Dat "disabled" profile tho...

I think you're being a little naive here, no offense meant at all.

Peoples' laptops don't just get randomly 'hacked' by someone who just so happens to know exactly what's on it and where to post it. If someone's going to go through it, it's gonna be for bank records, CC info, etc., not furry porn. e621 doesn't have any kind of popufur syndrome, so there's no benefit whatsoever to posting there UNLESS you are the commissioner or the artist; you were tagged accurately in the submission, and the poster didn't claim your art to be theirs. There's absolutely no reason to think that this is art theft in any way.

The commissioner was the one who uploaded this to e6. No doubt about it. The typing styles between FA and e6 match up exactly. If you do compare IP addresses, I'm 99% sure they'll match, and please keep in mind that while you can designate certain things about your IP address, you cannot just 'steal someone's IP address'. That is not how the Internet works. Posting from their IP would require a significant amount of networking between computers and wouldn't be possible without the commissioner being aware of it.

That said, this bit is just personal opinion - from artist to artist, responding to 'leaked' HD images by lowering the image quality for everyone is only going to hurt your commission base. It's tempting to get mad and punish everyone who's ever looked at, saved, or shared an HD image that you didn't want out there. But at the end of the day you're just throwing your fists against a tank that's going to roll over you anyways. Throwing a fit about it is only inciting drama, giving the guy who posted it presumably exactly what he wants - a reaction from you - so I would highly recommend that you simply shrug it off, and begin watermarking your images.

TL;DR - this wasn't 'hacked' or 'leaked', the commissioner did it on purpose for his own reasons and is lying in order to manipulate your lack of experience with the internet to perpetuate drama and deflect responsibility. Throwing a fit and punishing your TOS-reading-and-abiding customers is only going to be detrimental to you, not to the likelihood of art theft. I'm sorry you're having a rough time with this and wish you luck in the future.

Yes I did tell him that he MAY only upload the LOW-res version anywhere, but the original 5000x3535 px 300dpi version stays PRIVATE. If this has to be written in my ToS in a restriction this harsh, then it is just the proof of how people are about to get behind and stab the knife of "I have the right since you haven't sactionized it yet" dagger in my back.

Logging in on multiple computers at once is possible I am sorry to sadden you, but this is not true, since I could log in on 3 different platform at the same time. FA has that feature. Is that what you mean?

Caticus aka Kayroo who I have met sever times IRL before as well, and he is the one who I have also been playing in GW2 before seeing him on this name, and he have been using it since the release of GW2, mind you, and he have notified me just today about this issue.

I removed the picture from my gallery since we had a dispute motnhs ago when I truly felt the amount of anger behind to just result in such action, but it's still nice people still remember when I uploaded it originally.

hmmm, you might be useful

Well whoops I read it as Impossible, hee-hee-hee, well boo-hoo, I am only wondering what does it prove... I am a simple minded peasant, mind you, I'm still not buying that, forgive me.

All I can do from now on is to find a way to protect my artworks being uploaded by anyone else ever again in the near future. Just bear with me. =/

Well you can't stop it from happening, because people will do things anyway, even if it means breakign the law.

But you CAN protect yourself in a lot of ways, and more important, give yourself the ability to *force* them to take it down. That's what i'm trying to help you with, if you want it.

Theres no way to truly avoid this from happening, even stuff from patreons and hard/wet blush get reuploaded to sites like e621 u18chan and fchan

As others have pointed out, e621 does have a take-down form. I had to do this last week for a commissioner who didn't like there stuff displayed there. There were three copies of it on there including one that was edited by whoever posted it. I must say, I was flattered to have my stuff shared and viewed but surprised that even edited things could be posted (and they even said it was edited). But, regardless, e621 was a peach about taking it down without a hassle.

Oh, hey, Jackrow! Got some better news than this for you. Sending you an email now! (Just poking you here so you know to check the account. :P)

I'm curious on how many people had copies of the HD version, because it would be hard to narrow it down on who it was that did the upload.

From what I have read, it sounds like somehow the images slipped off of Caticus computer. Weather if it was he himself that did it by accident by clicking on the wrong file, or by one of his furry buds sneaking it off of his computer while he might have ventured away from his computer for a few moments. Then when he discovered on what happened, it became a game of PYOB. "Protect Your Own Butt."

I have had personal experience of my own stuff that was supposed to have been kept private somehow slip onto the Net, by a roommate who wasn't so trust worthy, and by some who I let visit here which happened in the late 90s. From working 10 hour days one of them popped originals out of frames along with stuff that I kept more private in what I thought was in a secure location was scanned, and later on posted various places. It wasn't an easy task on getting the stuff removed, but it did happen. There are now only a few that I trust enough that I would let stay at my place when I'm not around. "I remember coming home one day to find a very gay picture that I kept hidden in the closet leaning on the foot of my bed."

I hope that you get your problem solved.

Among all the accusers here by now you sir, proven to be a lot more open minded and finally came closer to what might just happened, and you just nailed it.
All I can say from now on that I won't be giving originals away to anyone any~ god~ damn~ ever~ again. DESU. ;)

I used to be a lot stricter when it came to my images, but I realize it was to much of a big pain keeping up with things. Then again I don't make a living off of my art, work gets to much in the way along with raising a herd or Fallow Deer. So my rules on originals are simple weather if it's Tradition, and/or Digital. A None working HD image of the file is for them to share on whom ever they want, as long as it doesn't doesn't get altered in any sort. There is also a way to hide an Easter Egg code with out using a watermark that lets you know where the HD leak start off from.

Now when I get a commission of of someone, I respect their rules even if I don't agree with them all. Now I'm curious on why you are bothered by this? Is it taking money out of your pocket, or is it that you just don't like the site that it's posted on? Is it a copyright issue on who owns the character? Maybe I'm looking at this all wrong, but to me it would be exposing your art more for possible more commissions.

What ever the case is, I would let what happen stop you doing on what you like to do. I really enjoy looking at your works, and some how many of your images have ended up on my hard drive, and actually were backgrounds on my graphics system at times. So keep up the great work.

Just for the record, I respectfully treasure the hi-res commissions I buy from excellent artists, and take 100% steps to ensure they get my full care and protection.
When art was only bought *physically*, it was much easier to be certain the original was protected.
Now in the world where are is often only digital, the only way to separate sample postings from the commissioned original is that the original is the hi-res HD version, so this must be protected and preserved by the sacred agreement between the artist and commissioner... which means it won't be redistributed unless they both agree.

Just contact the admins. They removed someone else's high-res picture before, since the artist didn't want the full version there. I personally don't get the point of only posting small versions of something, though. I love giant images with lots of detail. I don't like having to squint.

Right-o,

I shall let everyone think what they want, gonna let the furry-drama makers continue, I don't care, I won't get a headache because of this. Blame me all you want, I know myself the best, I wouldn't lie about such things to my friends or formal friends, even if we departed because of a dispute. As it seems, people like to throw oil onto the fire, to make it burn even more. No wonder why I mostly left the "community". Peace people.

It seems to me people are just going to cause drama because they can. It's sad, really - especially if it results in more people being misinformed because the people who "think they know what's going on" shout the hardest.

In the end, I say that whatever the original people involved decide to say should have sway over anything else anyone else says, so indeed, let the furry mill go round and round based on assumptions and just stand back.

INTERNET ARGUMENTS
No matter what you reason with, you still look like a dumb f--k

I'm not pointing any blame one way or the other. I just posted a reply up above (to you directly) about what you should do to protect your system from unauthorized intrusion.

Only you know if it was a hack or not (well, you and the alleged hacker). I just mentioned what you can do in the future.

Just posting this because it still seems to be a point of discussion where there should be none:

Copyright is an "author right". In this case the Author is the artist.
Unless that right was explicitly transferred to a commissioner, it remains with the artist.

So, hate to burst the bubble of some people who have commented here, but the truth of the matter is:

1) If you commission an artist, you commission their service only. You commission their time and creativity spent on creating a custom piece for you
2) The legal rights to the picture remain with the artist, even if the commissioner gets permission to publicly post it themselves.
3) Receiving a high-resolution file can and will be subject to whatever terms of service the artist decides to attach to such a picture or service hired, since it remains their property.
4) If, and ONLY if, the artist decides to transfer these rights to a commissioner, will the commissioner get the legal right to "do whatever they want with it". Usually this involves a separate, signed, agreement where the rights are transferred from the artist to someone else. Only in this case can the commissioner post, publish, or commercially use said artwork.

Please don't try to tell me otherwise, I've done this dance a few times, I know how it works. This is not an opinion.
This is also, for example, why, if you have a creative job, the employment contract pretty much always has a clause in it for immediate transferral of rights to the company you work for, for any works created as part of the job. otherwise you could deny the company the right to use what you have been hired for.

Let me guess, you're an american. Fun fact that only americans think that their laws work worldwide.

Topic is closed from now on, thank you for coming and enjoy bathing in the filth we just brought here. You are welcome!
*archived, and made 3 backup drive copies... not*

What a retarded rule.

Yo this "actually the art is OURS information deserves to be FREE" shit is why artists quit, FYI.

Good luck drawing your own shit, dirtbags.

Sorry this happened, man.

Artists are common and a dime a dozen. Why do you think people refer to the starving artist term? The field is saturated you can find an artist pretty much anywhere.

Do you actually believe this or is this some kind of joke, lol

Artists are truly dime a dozen in the fandom. There's always people coming and going, many with rather good talent.

Yea, if you lived in the previous century. I can't even tell if you did before by your bones though...

I literally cannot stop laughing at this comment

Your joke is amazing

Thank you weird ultra-entitled dude you made my day

You seem to be under the impression I'm new to FA or the fandom, I'm not.

I've seen artists rage quit, delete fucking everything and leave. Does anyone care? Sure for about 3 days and everything turns to normal. The artists 1) comes back or 2) people go to the next cool artist on their lise.

No, I seem to be under the impression that even after all these years, you still think art comes out of nowhere like a magical faerie godmother's wish.

And that's just really funny to me.

Well, you see in the world of free trade, people have their price and the fandom is saturated with both artists and aspiring artists.

To think one is a special snowflake isn't the case, hence my statement. If you think it's funny, then you're a sad individual who still hasn't realized this in life. You're replaceable, JackCrow is replaceable, I'm replaceable. There's always going to be more talent/resources in the line.

That must be a sad way to go through life, friend, just another little cog in a great big machine. You could give your life meaning whenever you like, and you instead choose to be unremarkable. I respect your choice, though I don't understand it.

You have my pity, and I hope for your betterment.

To Nemo,

It's not a sad way to go through life at all. In fact it's been a very prosperous method of business for me. Most furries have your views, no wonder almost all of them are poor.