![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
tensik.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
artists_bewareThis is being posted as a heads up to anyone who may have used Usenet in the past 10 years or so, or who may have had their work unrightfully distributed through those means in that time period.
Recently, I was a tester for Furnation's ( www.furnation.com ) new gallery system ( http://furnation.com/index.php?act=module&module=gallery viewer beware: adult content is hosted there, not all hidden behind maturity filters as there is currently no true moderation system). While the site was in testing, Nexxus uploaded 27,000 + images, stories, etc. from Usenet servers to the gallery systems, saying it was a test to see if the gallery could handle massive bulk uploads. I left the site for a while as no work on it was progressing, and recently returned to find it open to the public, and the Archives (as the bulk upload was termed) still hosted in the new Gallery system as the last folder entry, with the following text as a disclaimer:
"This is a read-only directory of archived works that are available freely on the Internet. Some of these works are updated in real time, others are static as the original archives are no longer in service. We provide this archive so that the original works will not be lost to time."
As such, artists may wish to check the Archive to the best of their ability (again, beware, mature content) to see if their work appears, and take appropriate action as they see fit to protect themselves.
Recently, I was a tester for Furnation's ( www.furnation.com ) new gallery system ( http://furnation.com/index.php?act=module&module=gallery viewer beware: adult content is hosted there, not all hidden behind maturity filters as there is currently no true moderation system). While the site was in testing, Nexxus uploaded 27,000 + images, stories, etc. from Usenet servers to the gallery systems, saying it was a test to see if the gallery could handle massive bulk uploads. I left the site for a while as no work on it was progressing, and recently returned to find it open to the public, and the Archives (as the bulk upload was termed) still hosted in the new Gallery system as the last folder entry, with the following text as a disclaimer:
"This is a read-only directory of archived works that are available freely on the Internet. Some of these works are updated in real time, others are static as the original archives are no longer in service. We provide this archive so that the original works will not be lost to time."
I contacted Nexxus and over several posts on his public forums and his private PM system, told him that there were several legal and ethical problems with what he was doing there. Firstly, there is no copyright information for ANY of the 27,000+ works posted. Also, his gallery system also acts as a storefront; artists who are also selling their work on Furplanet get a "buy it now" button on images that are prints, etc. I informed him that the original intent of the posters uploading to Usenet most definitely was never to have their works posted without credit on a for-profit site. Myself and other posters offered him several suggestions for making the Archive gallery both legal and fair to the artists whose works appear. My own suggestion was, as he was saying that he was hosting them as a virtual history of the fandom, was to allow the fur community to take it on as a project, to research and post the copyright information, and to encourage folks to contact the original artists for permissions and to alert them that some very old art files had been saved if they were missing any, and remove any that were requested as quickly as possible. Another poster suggested offering a locked archive drive where all of the original Usenet information was hosted, including the poster information, and any subsequent comments, so that it was a true Usenet archive. That poster even offered to write a program for it that would allow it to be searchable, including by poster or mentioned names, so that it could act as credit. He was ignored.
Nexxus has given several conflicting accounts as to his intent with the Archive. First he stated that he would happily remove any artist's work who requested it, but later said he had no idea who any of the artists were and it was beyond his ability to provide such information. He has also said he has on his servers all of the original Usenet information and knows for a fact that every single piece there was posted by the copyright holder, but has also said he has no way of correlating the Usenet information to the art files to give credit. When asked what he would do if I myself told him that I wanted any of my work removed from the archive and that he would have to find it and remove it, he had no answer.
Much of this exchange took place on his public forums, and after the suggestions for making the Archive legal and fair were posted, he locked the thread and stated he had removed the Archive and the next day would be deleting all subsequent files. (BTW, yours truely was going to be personally responsible for wiping out ten years of fandom history, thank you very much.) I took him to task privately and reminded him that all that was being asked for and offered was a way to help him and do exactly as he was claiming to do - preserve the works, in a way that also preserved the artist's wishes and credit - and his response was to delete the public exchange entirely. The next day, he rehosted the Archive; due to the posting date reflected, it appears he had never deleted it, he had hidden it temporarily.
It was difficult for me to post this . . . I asked for a lot of outside opinion and advice on legal issues and the history of Usenet (uncluding whether it was considered public domain) and everything else that came before my time in the fandom before going this route, and I tried to give Nexxus every benefit of the doubt and chance to correct his actions. It was also especially difficult as his new gallery system had a lot of potential to be very helpful to the fandom at large, and I am a firm believer in the basic conecpt behind the new community. But he has made it very clear that he intends on hosting those works as is and has no intention of giving any artist credit. He considers it too much trouble, and the works bring too much traffic to his website for him to take them down.
Nexxus has given several conflicting accounts as to his intent with the Archive. First he stated that he would happily remove any artist's work who requested it, but later said he had no idea who any of the artists were and it was beyond his ability to provide such information. He has also said he has on his servers all of the original Usenet information and knows for a fact that every single piece there was posted by the copyright holder, but has also said he has no way of correlating the Usenet information to the art files to give credit. When asked what he would do if I myself told him that I wanted any of my work removed from the archive and that he would have to find it and remove it, he had no answer.
Much of this exchange took place on his public forums, and after the suggestions for making the Archive legal and fair were posted, he locked the thread and stated he had removed the Archive and the next day would be deleting all subsequent files. (BTW, yours truely was going to be personally responsible for wiping out ten years of fandom history, thank you very much.) I took him to task privately and reminded him that all that was being asked for and offered was a way to help him and do exactly as he was claiming to do - preserve the works, in a way that also preserved the artist's wishes and credit - and his response was to delete the public exchange entirely. The next day, he rehosted the Archive; due to the posting date reflected, it appears he had never deleted it, he had hidden it temporarily.
It was difficult for me to post this . . . I asked for a lot of outside opinion and advice on legal issues and the history of Usenet (uncluding whether it was considered public domain) and everything else that came before my time in the fandom before going this route, and I tried to give Nexxus every benefit of the doubt and chance to correct his actions. It was also especially difficult as his new gallery system had a lot of potential to be very helpful to the fandom at large, and I am a firm believer in the basic conecpt behind the new community. But he has made it very clear that he intends on hosting those works as is and has no intention of giving any artist credit. He considers it too much trouble, and the works bring too much traffic to his website for him to take them down.
As such, artists may wish to check the Archive to the best of their ability (again, beware, mature content) to see if their work appears, and take appropriate action as they see fit to protect themselves.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 10:03 pm (UTC)1. this post is kind of long, do you mind putting an LJ cut in it somewhere?
2. can you please link to the site in question? thanks. :)
no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 10:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-08 10:44 pm (UTC)Furnation.... it is sort of a 'dying breed' or 'on it's way out the door' sort of thing.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 01:31 am (UTC)FurNation, every time I think it's dying out, does something new and "exciting" to capture the attention of the furry fandom - at least those who give traffic and may not actually "contribute" to the fandom by sharing artwork or stories. I'm talking about the people that like to look at and download the artwork. Or on Second Life, the people that love a furry community to hang out.
To be quite honest, Nexxus does not impress me one bit. I have quite a few issues with his behavior - I cannot say with him personally since I do not KNOW him personally but from what I've seen of him (at conventions and around online) he really needs to cut the crap. I won't go into detail, but he seems to expect the fandom to be at his mercy at some times, he treats people in a way he shouldn't. He's also been mentioned in this community before for not paying an artist, who he was acting as an agent for, and yet he still had the money to open up new sims on Second Life.
I frankly don't know WHY FurNation is still around, but my guess is because it's a large, well-known place, and with the "boost" from SecondLife (unfortunately it IS one of the better furry hangouts in Second Life) I think it'll be around a bit longer.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 02:58 am (UTC)http://triggur.livejournal.com/171104.html
A bit of additional poking around shows that this is not an isolated incident:
Link #1 (http://groups.google.com/group/fur.artwork.erotica/msg/7c0eed165f438348?hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ffur.artwork.erotica%2Fmsg%2F7c0eed165f438348%3Fhl%3Den%26)
Link #2 (http://groups.google.com/group/fur.artwork.erotica/msg/64da73f739f80673?hl=en&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ffur.artwork.erotica%2Fmsg%2F64da73f739f80673%3Fhl%3Den%26)
Hmm...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 03:44 am (UTC)Then again, in the time I had been there, the mall management changed THREE times and each time, since they hadn't kept accounting, I lost a couple hundred Linden dollars. You would expect better accounting from such a large "business," especially one that employs other people with the sole purpose of management. Three managers and they still can't get it right.
To be honest, what the fandom needs is a "New FurNation" of sorts, one that has the same concepts and the same backing, but better management. It's a great concept - it really is! - but poorly executed. Sadly, the furry fandom doesn't really HAVE much else to turn to, and FN has just been around for so long that all the fanboys don't really know where else to go. And so FN lives on...
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 04:08 am (UTC)While I'm dreaming, I'd like a puppy.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 12:16 pm (UTC)I have thought about the same thing - there are plenty of people out there with the knowhow and the ambition to get something else going, but as is almost always the case with responsible people, Real Life Outside The Fandom comes first, and that usually means not much time and/or money to dedicate to Saving The Fandom, if you know what I mean.
FurAffinity looked like it was going to be a good place for a lot of us to call home, until The Cub Drama. I'm not going to get into that right now because this is not the thread (though I've ranted to my heart's content in my personal journal about it) but basically now my next hope for a "good furry community" is in ArtSpots/JaxPad. It seems to be going in the right direction so far. The best we can do - those of us without the money or the equipment - is to support those who ARE doing a good job... and definitely NOT support those who are doing stupid things. =P
I poked around in the archive a little bit and didn't find anything of mine, but then again I never really posted anything on usenet... so unless someone posted something without my consent, I should be okay. (and anything that would've been on usenet back in the day would've been real crappy so I'm not too worried!) :>
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 01:37 pm (UTC)They decided that it was not their decision to make, and that the decision should be made by the users of FA. As a convention organizer, I sometimes face similar conundrums, and I often turn to the attendees for their input on what they would like. Unfortunately, the FA issue could have been handled in a slightly more tactful fashion.
Just a small plea for understanding of the difficult decisions FA's admins were faced with, and for recognition that they made what they felt was a good faith effort to come to a democratic solution.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 01:43 pm (UTC)However, even though it was a community decision, that still means it's a community I don't really want to associate with. Sure, FA could've blocked it (and the people that loved the cub porn would've cried censor) but I can indeed understand why they still allow it to be there. (Then again, how many people would MISS the cub porn if it was gone?)
And while I do understand their decisions.... I just kind of wish some people would understand that sometimes censorship (or at least exercising restraint in the blatant display of your personal fetish) is a GOOD thing. I just didn't want my bosses (who do know my furry alias since I tell them I go to the cons to sell art, and what name I sell under) to do a Google search for me, and find my art among all sorts of child pornography - whether it's "real" or not.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 06:25 pm (UTC)Thanks.
Cub Art
Date: 2007-04-09 08:52 pm (UTC)It shouldn't have been a hard decision.
Democracy had nothing to do with it.
It boils down, in the end, to the simple fact that it's the Administrators' decision.
The fact that they themselves have felt compelled to contact the FBI in regards to the actions of a user who felt emboldened by their tacit approval speaks volumes to me about the wisdom of their choice.
I think they did the right thing
Date: 2007-04-12 06:25 am (UTC)If the administrators were creating a different site, they might decide to run things differently, but I think changing the base principles of a site "mid-game" is something you should only do if you have a significant majority on one side or the other, which they did not.
Re: I think they did the right thing
Date: 2007-04-12 07:54 am (UTC)'I think changing the base principles of a site "mid-game" is something you should only do if you have a significant majority on one side or the other, which they did not.'
In that case, they should change it *BACK* to the original 'no child pornography' rule because they most obviously didn't have a 'significant majority' to allow it, yes?
Re: I think they did the right thing
Date: 2007-04-12 07:59 am (UTC)If this is not the case - if the site was founded with the intent that certain things were not to be covered even if they were legal - then that's a different matter.
Re: I think they did the right thing
Date: 2007-04-12 12:38 pm (UTC)The original Terms of Service, which has been undergoing re-write, did prohibit posting of such artwork.
http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=4257
Re: I think they did the right thing
Date: 2007-04-12 03:46 pm (UTC)I guess the key statement is "The rules have changed over time," which rephrases the actual change to the TOS as clarification of the current state of things rather than a change in the rules. However, they don't specify where the previous change to the rules came from, or whether the principles on which the rules were based changed as well. I suspect that's because "the rules" were not well-defined to start with, but were embodied in the opinions of the administrators (who were similarly divided over the issue).
Either way, they made a decision, and I guess the people who decided to leave as a result have done so. So for it doesn't appear to have hurt their popularity all that much. But anyway, that's all about FA, not FN. :-) (http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=furaffinity.net&url=www.furaffinity.net)
Re: I think they did the right thing
Date: 2007-04-12 08:27 pm (UTC)You'll excuse me if I think you're doing a not so great job of backpedaling there.
... and by your last bit of logic they should follow Y!Gallery's idea and ban furry art as well. Their decision sure hasn't seemed to hurt their popularity either:
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?&range=1y&size=large&compare_sites=&y=p&url=yaoi.y-gallery.net
Re: I think they did the right thing
Date: 2007-04-12 09:08 pm (UTC)The main principle that I think FurAffinity had (and still has, unchanged) is "we host furry art without regard to its rating" - unlike, say, deviantART. That is the "why" of its creation. The rule "no underage art" came from the need to comply with the law and prevent prosecution of the hosts, not from this principle. Now that it has been found that the law does not apply to furry characters, the rule is no longer valid - it came into conflict with the principle above, and because principles are stronger than rules, it was removed.
I can't say much about Y!Gallery as I was never a regular there. However, from their statement (http://furry.wikia.com/wiki/Y%21Gallery#Banning_of_Anthropomorphic_Art), "its intent was to be a gallery showcasing yaoi-themed
artwork", and they felt that allowing the anthropomorphic art to remain was compromising that community - even though the original community "has now become a minority", which would suggest that the furries should get their way. Oddly enough, this implies that even the opinion of a majority of the current community is not sufficient to change a site's principles. I'm not sure exactly how much it would take, but the fact that the US constitution requires first 2/3 proposal and then a 3/4 majority of ratification to be changed might be one guide.
Re: Cub Art
Date: 2007-04-29 04:27 am (UTC)did we ever find out, was that dude for real?
Re: Cub Art
Date: 2007-04-29 06:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-29 02:39 pm (UTC)no, it doesn't have an SL presence that i'm aware of (i don't play the game) but all the people involved seem to be serious about making it work smoothly.
there are the occaisional drama-bombs, but that's a user issue, not the administration.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-29 08:26 pm (UTC)I'm glad to see, at least, that the furry community CAN expand, and will do so, given a better option. To be honest I'd love to see FA thrive, just for something new. :>
no subject
Date: 2007-05-03 03:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-05-03 09:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 03:17 am (UTC)"You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this bulletin board"
Priceless. What a loser.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 04:15 am (UTC)I'm still sticking with Furaffinity. As flawed as a lot of people claim that it is I'll take Dragoneer's honesty over lies anyday.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 04:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 05:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 02:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 02:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-28 07:29 pm (UTC)There have been some other issues which I won't go into, but Fur Affinity is rather secure and safe now.
And for the record, I have never hacked anything... nor can't hack. I'm about as good a hacker as a tomato is at being a tank.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-29 05:15 am (UTC)Also. I read your entry about FurNation. It's a shame. I was going to host my site there, too. :/
no subject
Date: 2007-04-29 02:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 02:27 pm (UTC)Wrong place and time "here" of course, but I've got plenty to say on the topic of public fur and art sites now. I'll have it up somewhere on my own space before much longer.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 05:38 pm (UTC)Places like FA and Jaxpad and Deviantart are good places to put up a few things and get publicity and feedback, but I host 99% of my art on my site, and always have. Having control over your own work is worth it.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-29 03:20 am (UTC)infact if it wasnt for dragoneer,FA would be still in stupid drama of arcturus vs Jheryn with lots of hackings, server downtimes..etc..
no subject
Date: 2007-04-29 05:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 10:43 am (UTC)he seems more calm now.... :|
anyway, furries = serius business on the interntets!
no subject
Date: 2007-04-30 10:25 pm (UTC)As for Nexxus; I don't know him personally, but I've heard a lot of not so good things about him. I can't judge one way or the other, but I CAN say that I've wondered a bit about all that I've heard, and this latest thing involving the Usenet iages and stories sounds pretty damn underhanded. Artists and writers should get props for the work they do.
About Dragoneer: I don't know what to say... All that is listed here is pretty much not his fault. The ONLY things I've seen that have happened was his allowing that ass who kept hacking the site to return (in which it was a choice of doing so, and making use of him, or having to take the chance of a complete system crash and loss of data in the future from abusing the system) and the cub porn thing (wrong. Pardon the french, but FUCK the past rules and FUCK the people who say, 'Oh, it's not real!' My opinion is if you like to daydream about it, you'd do it if given a chance. Someone please lie and say I'm not right about any of a million already in practice fetishes that are drawn regularly. If it wasn't the case... if people only drew the stuff they call their kinks, and never wanted to proactice them... then it wouldn't matter to me. Some cub art can be cute, and in certain situations... very RARELY drawn ones... even the yiffy stuff passes for me personally, like two youngster innocently experimenting. But there's limits, and it'a a rare cubfur who wants to recognise them, IMO. And it's ONLY my opinion, of course.)
Other than that, Dragoneer usually is a good, evenminded person, and he does make an effort to see the larger, 'everyone in together' sort of picture. Other than those two things, nothing you mention here even faintly rings a bell. Did any of this actually happen to you, or to one of your friends, and do you have some kind of supporting proof?
Also I'd like to add: please don't get upset over anything I've said here. This is just... somewhat of what I see as a nasty jab at someone you don't like perhaps. I don't know Dragoneer well myself. I've spoken to him in notes on FA maybe twice. But he's done a good job of keeping FA working and well maintained, unlike a dozen or so other groups, sites, 'communities', both the insular 'only my friends' groups, the personal web pages and the large groups. So no, I'm not speaking from a need to protect or defend someone who's a friend. I'm just wondering when all this underhanded stuff went down, and hoping you can back these claims a bit. Sorry for the long post; after scrolling down through this and seeing FA and Dragoneer being compared to FurNation and Nexxus, and everyone talking 'community' while slinging mud and saying how they're keeping away from the few people who try to make places where everyone can group together, it just kinda pissed me off.
heh...
Date: 2007-05-01 02:11 pm (UTC)May I suggest it's better to stick to making value judgments (negative /or/ positive) about people/things you *do* know about? ;>
Re: heh...
Date: 2007-05-01 08:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-28 07:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-04-09 08:00 am (UTC)If anyone finds files beginning with th-[name.jpg] that'll be mine, though I only started using the prefix two years or so ago. Anyway, screenshots would be appreciated if anyone finds my work in there.
no subject
Date: 2007-04-29 11:07 pm (UTC)