So what i wrote stands? As rules or some of them?
Itâs clear you havenât taken the time to read so I will spell it out as clearly as I can.
There is now a rule that you must when possible respect an artists wishes on how their media can be published.
They will be recorded in this post.
This is the only one so far.
So now you know for BlogCGs content, they ask that their media always be published with a watermark.
Was this really that hard to understand?
Thats good then! Thx for clarifying. And yes im burnt out from Scripting.
And i didnt know BlobCG is an Artist.
- Media Requires watermark, non-watermarked versions cannot be published.
So i tought this is meant sitewide.
Will take a break after my next Post 
considering the majority of their work are gifs or videos under 1 minute, Iâd wager that very few people here care about them by themselves; itâs always something to be used in a HMV. Which makes this situation all the more wild.
Renetan has asked that any animations behind their Patreon not be shared.
And its unmanagable in most cases unless you invest a lot of money into monitoring. Its the reason why content is placed on other platforms, its to allow reliable takedowns.
However, upon detecting such case, we can still remove the links to the content.
PMVâs on that are an even more special case, since lets say some overwatch animations were made, and a pmv includes it, the animator has basicly no ground. Asking for a takedown on something blizzard would also ask a takedown is something you shouldnt even act on.
Now i dont know what sort of content he makes, so on that i cant judge. But it must be very specific before this sort of thing will be effective (enough to not be part of legal problems yourself). Even just using SFM will void any argument you make as then thats created through an EULA break already.
Got a question here.
So I made a script for BlobCGâs video recently (before this restriction release). As I noticed within the forum, BlobCG required only videos from X platform (formerly twitter) can be provided within post.
I know thereâs new rules for his video now. But letâs say for another artist who also has the same requirement. Should I add a no-free-link tag to the post after attaching the video link from X platform?
Iâm going to argue that that specific restriction isnât reasonable to follow.
That would require someone to have a Twitter account to get the media in that case.
If the restriction isnât documented in this post itâs safe to ignore.
If you are confused about BlobCGâs requirements - aside from the watermarked videos on their Twitter, they also releases unwatermarked, HQ videos on their Patreon. They simply donât want these being put up for free.
https://www.patreon.com/BlobCG
It doesnât necessarily have to do with edits and HMVs. You can share HMVs that uses their works, but not the original video from their Patreon.
Thatâs actually not the case and is the whole reason I have to take down things everywhere. Just look at my Jane Doe topic a few months ago which also had to be closed cause people canât read to not fucking post a free link.
I just donât want to take down Pixeldrain, GoFile, MEGA links (which I can in BlobCGs case, cause I work with him) and to always have to kindly ask people in DMs to not share the non watermark version. He releases his stuff on X/Twitter for the public all the time. Just use that. Just be mindful if an artist is listed here and thatâs it. For some artist (in his case) itâs pretty demotivating seeing their work posted like that and not even get a single credit. Kinda the reason I stopped reuploading Nodus stuff. NoduSFM doesnât care as much though.
You can do funscripts (even though they are available through his Patreon, made by me) for them, you can post the Twitter link for the animation and people can also script HMVs and other things where his content is already used in.
People like @dingle are great in that regard. Before he started his Gacha Topic for ZZZ he at first contacted me and then Blob and asked him kindly for permission and he told him to use the watermark version and then itâs fine. Thatâs pretty much the way to go.
I wonder if someone who makes PMVs by using content taken from others counts as an âartistâ in this scenario.
I think this rule has nothing to do with limiting posted content and is actually âContent with a high risk of DMCAâ because thatâs what it is about
So itâs not a âruleâ per se but a recommendation to avoid posting content in form of Pixeldrain/Mega upload
rule34 links IMO is fine and should not be limited, mostly for simplicity (you may change them to other r34 link tho)
under rule3 it says âthis forum does not comply with dmca noticesâ
because we donât host any video or game content here, we just link to it. the burden of dmca compliance should be on the host. Pretty sure there was a big discussion about this not too long ago actually⌠maintaining my stance on âthis whole situation is wildâ
a quick look at their patreon shows that this is the case. dunno why youd make such an easily disproven argument
rule 6. nuff said.
didnt bother reading the rest of that wall ngl.
I think too many users are drinking conspiracy tea.
This rule is merely a form of respect to artists.
If an artists request is reasonable we should generally follow it the best we can.
This will never stop you from creating scripts, it only controls what media can be published in a post. Like people have been saying: