I’m afraid that I am leaving this reply to inform you that your thread will be closed today. While we greatly appreciate your use of our forums, I’m afraid that this particular thread doesn’t meet our posting guidelines so we’re going to bring the discussion to a halt.
We’ve made a few posts such as our helpful guidelines for this forum which you might find useful for your future forum postings. Thank you for your understanding!
Topless female boxers and diaper fetish? Your gallery says it all. DA can do whatever they want. The freedom of expression of the first amendment only says the government cannot arrest or punish you for what you consider to be art.
I took a look at your work. An excellent demonstration of Robert Townsend's advice (Up the Organization) never to hire a master to render you a great painting, then turn the result over to a bunch of schoolgirl artists and solicit their criticism.
I'm an atheist, but were I a believer, I'd probably be a Jew.
Incidentally, "kike" is not a pejorative applicable to all Jews. "Kike" is short for "kikel" -- the Yiddish form of the German word for "circle." When people came to Ellis Island, they first had to pass the health exam (flunk that, and they sent you back no matter who you were). After that, you had to swear that you were not an anarchist and not a polygamist (being either also got you rejected). Of course, the immigration officers were not complete idiots, and a quick way to weed out polygamists was to ask a person's religion. If you answered, "Christian," the officer took a piece of dressmakers soap and marked a cross ("Kreuzer") on your lapel (you passed). If you answered, "Jew," you got a circle ("Kikel"), which means you also passed. The "Kikels" eventually became "kikes" -- a Jew fresh off the boat. And, that was two strikes against you -- one for being Jewish, the other for not having been here long enough to have been thought to have paid your dues.
You are precisely what needs to be protested against: Someone who looks at something and says, "Ooh, I don't like that!" then assumes there MUST be a rule that got broken somewhere, since what you personally like or dislike rules all determinations.
2) Also you've made previous assumptions about other users.
3) Don't use clever wording as a cop out to winning an argument or a debate. It looks childish. Just dish out the facts, and watch them burn.
4) DeviantArt can do whatever the hell it likes. Forming an online rebellion isn't going to do anything. Protesting maybe, but I doubt it. If you dislike how the site is run in any way, then leave. Win/win for everyone.....Unless you don't really care about everyone being happy in this situation, just you. However itsanyone's guess.
5) Has you rebellion even changed anything? Do you have a timetable of various goals you want the rebellion achieve? How many members does your rebellion have? Do you even know who to speak t or how to contact them to and even what to say to them about coming to a solution that makes both you/your rebellion and the site reach a compromise?
A very good question that has generated some past discussion primarily on whether I can charge for the photos.
Unless otherwise mentioned, ALL of the photos were modified by me or others working with or alongside me, using a photo editor (PhotoScape -- you can download it for free, and it's very good).
Re the base photos, -- the photos from which the modifications were made -- some of these most certainly lie in the public domain. These would include all of the LGIS photos, which were taken by unknown fans in the audience at public tournaments in Germany during the 1970s.
Other photos taken at public matches, e.g., Mohegan Sun, also would be in this class (whether modified or not).
The ads for Princess Belle were created by me for use in the computer game being developed; the images which serve as components were collected from public sites maintained by the original owner and released there by him or her. They also are believed by me to be in the public domain, as evidenced by the release (furthermore, the original photographer knows I have them and have used them, and if he wants to object, he knows whom to call).
There is one group that has been kicked around, and I'm not sure anyone knows what the answer is. There was a gentleman, Andy Wallace, who commissioned some simulations privately from a firm called Double Trouble in North Hollywood, California. Wallace, who hailed from England, shared with me a very large number of the photos made during the simulations, and I have had copies in my possession for a couple decades. In the interim, Andy committed suicide and left no heirs. I THINK he was the owner of the photos, but if Double Trouble were to bring forward a claim, that might be problematic; hence, my reluctance to simply offer the photos for sale.
Under American copyright law, there are two elements to be considered here: Fair use, and actual damage. "Fair use" is described in DA's policies, and you can look it up. But, someone claiming a copyright infringement would have to prove more than ownership of the photos or want of fair use. They also have to show that publication of same by others "injured" them in some legal way. In the case of Double Trouble, they make money not by selling still prints but by selling videos, and therein lies the reason I don't charge for the pictures. Were I to charge for the pictures (and were DT to establish a claim of ownership), the "injury" would lie in not receiving a "piece of the action." But, since I don't charge for the photos, what DT receives is free advertising for sale of more videos made concurrently with Andy's stills. Legally, that's a benefit, not an injury.
Is that pushing the envelope? Maybe. But, so far, no one has made any complaints (and it would not be worth anyone's time to contest such a complaint were it ever made). The issue is one of those gray areas that simply isn't worth a court fight to redress. I'm flexible, and I'm not a pirate; if anyone thinks that I have taken advantage of them, the proper thing to do is come to me and say so and see if we can work something out. That "something" may be taking down the picture, but for now there's no reason to.
I'm with you. Censorship of any kind is anathema to our First Amendment, and there is a growing, shocking, acceptance of censorship, especially younger people ignorant of history. and those who can't make an argument for their point of view. We have the power to allow something to disgust us or not- we have the power to decide whether our feelings can be hurt. People are being jailed in friggin' England for Facebook posts! Let the free market decide what's acceptable. How a company with the name "Deviant" can censor anything is beyond me. When Deviant Art starts providing "safe spaces" I'm out.
Been there, done that, no response. A responder, infra, thinks I have not waited long enough (which may be true). But, this argument is misplaced. DA clearly can have whatever policies it wants to have on its own site. But, when it posts what it won't allow, and when one of its employees claims there is a violation, it is on that employee to make good his or her claim. In other words, the specific policy violation should be stated up front, when the work is taken down. The poster should not have to jump through hoops to ascertain whether there be grounds for appeal. You have the right of an appeal, per DA's own posted policy. If a censor removes your work without stating up front specifically why this was done, that alone violates the policy by needlessly burdening the appeal. It also wastes DA's time by inviting nebulous appeals that, perhaps, should not be filed in the first place.
More importantly, allowing a censor to hide behind vague language all but insures that the censorship will wander beyond the restrictions of policy. What can be said with certainty here is that the action taken MUST have wandered beyond policy because NONE of the categories declared off limits even remotely applies. The censor is relying upon a claim of "policy" which he or she is keeping secret.
Doesn't DA hold the right to remove any post for any reason at all? It's in the terms and services I believe. If so they don't really need a reason to remove something, they just can.
I'm pro freedom, I don't believe in censorship. I think all art should be on this site, If DA wanted my opinion I would tell them to allow all the things. However I would also have to stand up for their right as a private entity to manage their property how they please.
When I moved into my current house, their was a large christian mural painted on the wall. I had the walls repainted, because that wasn't my style. Did I censor the artist who made the mural? surely not, because it was on my property.
The only policy I am aware of is the one they publish and link to. That link appears below, in the response to Pakaku.
If you believe there are additional restrictions published somewhere, please provide a link.
The remainder of your objections are irrelevant. Whatever DA elects to allow or disallow on its site, its published policy is to allow appeal of adverse determinations. One cannot rationally appeal a secret determination. Such a determination, itself, violates the very policy the censor says he or she is trying to enforce.