To Last Laugh studios

[cletus]

I'm going to be much nicer here than I was in a private message to him, and I don't even know if the dude is even on here anymore at least actively.

Tonight I came home to do my usual Deviantart thing where I go through all the watched Deviants I have and then do a quick search for tickling etc. to find any new producers. Only I couldn't. I first thought they had messed with their website again as they've been doing over these past few years. But that wasn't correct when I then realized my account had been deactivated. So then I'm thinking what I got hacked and some jackass screwed my account up? Nope I then realized I had emails on DA to read. Upon reading the 2 emails I discovered that Last Laugh studios had taken issue with my gif of his Last Laugh Xi clip and that thuse because I had violated the terms and conditions of the website my account had been deactivated.

Now couple things. 1) I did not receive any communication directly from Last Laugh studios here or on DA where my username is the same. Had I received a message about dude please take down that gif I would have gladly done that. Despite wanting to share things and thinking that some producers might actually be sort of asking for too much money I get piracy and I have never pirated a single video clip ever. Pics and gifs taken from clips in my mind are not equivalent to the said clip. Maybe the law sees it differently. Anyway no I never heard from Last Laugh Studios.

2) DA deactivating my account like that and royally screwing me then on my method of searching for producers is a breach of their contract with me. I pay $50/year for the ability to have an account with no ads, being able to watch Deviants, etc. etc. Hence I will be taking action against them unless they fix it for me.

3) Last Laugh Studios who hasn't produced that much content over the years and so in all probability hasn't had as much of a reach to earn as much money as say a Tickle Abuse or UK Tickling should be thanking me for the gif as it may have been driving business his way.

4) and lastly fuck him for being that way about it. Again I would have taken the gif down if asked. What a complete fucking asshole. Nuff said.

 

[kingmaker]

To me the fault is really on Deviantart, deactivating an account for 1 issue without any appeal is brutal.

 

[cletus]

Right. I'm going to stop giving them or anyone on there (sorry artists) any money through their website period. I guess you know giving them the $50/year for I'm betting 10 years means nothing. Maybe they piss off enough people they'll just straight up have to fold.

And also again I never heard from Last Laugh period. I can prove that. And I posted a derivative of his thing. Not the actual thing. Christ if posting a derivative of something is considered copyright violation then they might as well shut the whole damn site down. God forbid Disney finds out people are posting anything with Mickey Mouse or Marvel on there.

 

[kingmaker]

I talk to him regularly and he is on the TMF, DM me I can maybe send you his email and you can try to reach a peaceful solution

 

[hefophre]

Banned without warning? I do feel it is highly unfair to be immediately penalized in the situation, as someone may simply not be aware that this may be a problem. A fair system would have honored the removal and given a warnings first, and even accommodate mistakes after that by perhaps providing allowance within certain time frame.

This situation reflects a point I made to your inquiry pertaining to making mass gifs and images from stills from the videos you purchased and posting them in a large archive.
While most may not care, some of these producers that removed their content, or even just some of their content, likely did so because they do not want it available anymore, and so by posting it is not only going against what the content creator wanted in removing it, for whatever their reason, but it is also bringing attention to it, and likely requests for people to share it if they have it, since its not available for them. Maybe they don't want their images on a particular site. Images etc are treated the same as video regarding copyright.

Consider if the creator had there own page with basic tickling content, and then someone took the photos and put them on some porn site, and they did not want them there. Does that make a difference because they are just pictures?

Is it not just as fair for him to have not contacted you first before requesting the removal, as it was for you to have posted them without asking?

Its nice to think that the creator is in a position to even make such a request without placing additional burden upon themselves. Very likely that they are having to request multiple removals at different locations, frequently, if they are trying to be active at removal, and don't have the time to personally contact the posters - and if they did, how long should they wait for a response? Why even assume someone posting the content cares if the creator doesn't want it posted in the first place? Do they have to create an account to message the users, etc.? Maybe they are paying a significant amount of money to a removal service to simply keep up on removal for them, in which case they certainly wouldn't be personally contacting posters? Do you believe that the producers intent was knowingly to see your account banned by requesting the removal? If you didn't know, why should they have known?

 

[cletus]

I talk to him regularly and he is on the TMF, DM me I can maybe send you his email and you can try to reach a peaceful solution

I don't think it matters. Through his actions I've lost my DA account so sort of not going to be peaceful in talking to him. As I said my user is the same as on there. He had a choice to reach out to me here in hopes it was the same person or over there and instead he didn't so I'm extremely angry with him.

Consider if the creator had there own page with basic tickling content, and then someone took the photos and put them on some porn site, and they did not want them there. Does that make a difference because they are just pictures?

Its nice to think that the creator is in a position to even make such a request without placing additional burden upon themselves. Very likely that they are having to request multiple removals at different locations, frequently, if they are trying to be active at removal, and don't have the time to personally contact the posters - and if they did, how long should they wait for a response? Why even assume someone posting the content cares if the creator doesn't want it posted in the first place? Do they have to create an account to message the users, etc.? Maybe they are paying a significant amount of money to a removal service to simply keep up on removal for them, in which case they certainly wouldn't be personally contacting posters? Do you believe that the producers intent was knowingly to see your account banned by requesting the removal? If you didn't know, why should they have known?

The pictures thing I completely understand IF it was a Tickling Paradise or other producer who did put out images with the clips. In fact when you had responded to my idea of making a massive archive it had dawned on me that the idea of adding cartoons to it would not work for any cartoons I have from Patreon as especially if those cartoons are still out there to be had behind a pay wall then those images could not be shared without harming the artist. Like dude I get it. I do because I went to school for creative writing and I've also wished that I could become a producer myself. However I stand by my derivative comment. If you are writing a piece about Star Wars, but you do not seek payment for the piece, or you make a gif of a porn clip and then throw it into a massive archive where you charge nothing for access how is this screwing a creator? I remember back when Napster got into trouble. There were people who pointed out that yes Metallica was being royally screwed by Napster because they were a very well established group, but that at the time there wasn't really a good way for unknown artists to get their music out so how were they being harmed by it until they became big. Course now we have Youtube where you could record yourself playing your music and people can then share your music video on social media.

To me and I know this is an opinion, but isn't it a little bit selfish for a producer to take their content down? Like what about a 16 year old today? They will never see 33% of the content that's been put out now and will continue to be an even bigger percentage as time goes on.

In another view, if I died my hard drive could be sold on Ebay as I have a copy of a lot of older content and that would I surmise be worth potentially a lot to someone.

And lastly sounds like you're making an excuse for his behavior while condemning mine. If you don't want your shit shared don't put it on the internet. Easy. Otherwise it's a likely outcome if you put it out at all unless you put it on a site where it can't be downloaded. Had he done that I would never have paid him a dime as I'm about the ability to be able to access stuff without having to pay a subscription monthly to 2000+ producers something only the super rich could afford to do.

 

[Shade]

So couple things I'm unclear on...how long was the gif, because the vibe I'm getting is you giffed the entire clip or had multiple ones/pictures. Second, isn't Deviantart a website for people to post their own content, not other people's? Never really used the site so I'm not sure.

 

[hefophre]

I wasn't condemning your behavior, but there is nothing wrong with them requesting the images removed if they want them removed.
You did not know your account would be deactivated for posting, but expect the producer to have known it would be deactivated by requesting removal.

if those cartoons are still out there to be had behind a pay wall then those images could not be shared without harming the artist.

It doesn't matter if they are still for sale and no longer earning money from them. Maybe they simply do not want them available anymore. There may be reasons beyond profit. Maybe the models in that particular image had requested the producer to no longer use them? I just recently seen a highly inconsiderate person highlighting / linking a models nude video personality in relation to some of her entirely unrelated work, as if they wanted it mixed together. It was just pictures though, so no problem right?

However I stand by my derivative comment

Taking still images or gifs from a work you did not originally create is not original work and therefore not yours. Most may not care, some will.

If you don't want your shit shared don't put it on the internet

I am condemning this sentiment. Because something is easy to share doesn't mean that it is yours to share.
Though I understand you probably said this partly in anger and that you say you actually purchase content which is beyond what 99.9999999% of the community does.

Unless it was originally released by the creator with open rights for people to post freely, no one else has the right to do so. So if the creator decided to remove it or restrict access behind a paywall, then its either no longer available, legally, or theoretically only available for those who paid the creator for access.

If you don't want your shit shared don't put it on the internet. Easy. Otherwise it's a likely outcome if you put it out at all unless you put it on a site where it can't be downloaded.

Ironically, this keeps people from creating or sharing new content, especially that of higher quality.

They will never see 33% of the content that's been put out now and will continue to be an even bigger percentage as time goes on.

If the creator doesnt want it available to see, that is their right. Why is it someone else entitled to access material that the creator doesnt want accessed?

In another view, if I died my hard drive could be sold on Ebay as I have a copy of a lot of older content and that would I surmise be worth potentially a lot to someone.

Selling your harddrive of videos to a single person, where you no longer have access to them, would be similar to selling physical copies. However, you can't duplicate the copies digitally and sell them, and tranfering your access to the video to another does not give permission to duplicate and share the copies openly so others can stream or download them.

 

[WickedTouch]

Hello,

I don't know anything about you, and I have no connection to or interest in LLS, but I wanted to give you a different perspective based on what I understand about the situation and related topics. This should not be considered legal or any other kind of professional advice.

1) I did not receive any communication directly from Last Laugh studios here or on DA where my username is the same. Had I received a message about dude please take down that gif I would have gladly done that. Despite wanting to share things and thinking that some producers might actually be sort of asking for too much money I get piracy and I have never pirated a single video clip ever. Pics and gifs taken from clips in my mind are not equivalent to the said clip. Maybe the law sees it differently. Anyway no I never heard from Last Laugh Studios.

In most cases, "the law," or as it is interpreted by those practicing it and rendering judgements based on it, absolutely does see it differently. Producers and other creators often deal with more misuse of their copyrighted material than most people would imagine. It is fully within their right to request a removal of their content as posted by a violator through the means provided by the platform on which the violation occurred. Over time, dealing with individual violators gets tiresome and time consuming, leaving the creators feeling disrespected and wronged. Plainly put, it becomes a game of wack-a-mole and efficiency of removal becomes the priority. It becomes difficult for them to empathize with the violators due to the number of events and that, even if in ignorance, it is a violation of copyright law.

2) DA deactivating my account like that and royally screwing me then on my method of searching for producers is a breach of their contract with me. I pay $50/year for the ability to have an account with no ads, being able to watch Deviants, etc. etc. Hence I will be taking action against them unless they fix it for me.

DA has a fairly clear policy related to copyrighted work. You should never post content (yours or otherwise) to any platform without having a reasonable understanding of copyright law and of the policies of the platform. If you do not like or agree with the policies of the platform (and there are many I personally do not!) do not post on them. To use the platform is to agree with the policies and terms of use. One thing I will point out is that DA seems to have a policy of 3 strikes before action is taken on your account (aside from removal of the specific violating post). Unless you had three or more posts that violated their policy, you may have justification for getting corrective action on your account status.

3) Last Laugh Studios who hasn't produced that much content over the years and so in all probability hasn't had as much of a reach to earn as much money as say a Tickle Abuse or UK Tickling should be thanking me for the gif as it may have been driving business his way.

Aside from any moral judgements, the law is the law, and it is such in part because different creators have different motivations, goals, and perspectives, so their exclusive right to the reproduction and distribution of the content is preserved.

4) and lastly fuck him for being that way about it. Again I would have taken the gif down if asked. What a complete fucking asshole. Nuff said.

My response in #1 addresses this somewhat. Otherwise, I can't really comment upon his character as I don't know him. I just have strong suspicions that I already stated based upon the typical incident of this nature.

Right. I'm going to stop giving them or anyone on there (sorry artists) any money through their website period. I guess you know giving them the $50/year for I'm betting 10 years means nothing. Maybe they piss off enough people they'll just straight up have to fold.

I believe from DA's primary perspective, you are breaking the law and if they do not take action on you as a liability, they will be breaking the law as a negligent facilitator.

And also again I never heard from Last Laugh period. I can prove that. And I posted a derivative of his thing. Not the actual thing. Christ if posting a derivative of something is considered copyright violation then they might as well shut the whole damn site down. God forbid Disney finds out people are posting anything with Mickey Mouse or Marvel on there.

Derivatives are absolutely considered violations of copyright law! As a side note, I believe that the copyright for Mickey Mouse has now expired, but I can't speak to any of the Marvel universe. While technically not legal to post it if it is a copyrighted work or derivative thereof, the copyright holder may choose to ignore or take no action on a violator. Sometimes they endorse it, especially if the content is for a broad fan base, but it is totally within their right to take action upon violations if they wish.

A few more notes to consider: You may possibly fall within the scope of Fair Use under copyright law, but I doubt it. Either way, that can very quickly become a slippery slope with a lot of complex angles. There are a few cases that are very clear, but everything else is very subject to interpretation. Lastly, ignorance of the law does not grant innocence. Know the law related to the actions you wish to take, before taking those actions.

I wish this had not happened to either of you, and I hope you smoothly get your DA access back.

Take care and good luck!

 

[cletus]

So couple things I'm unclear on...how long was the gif, because the vibe I'm getting is you giffed the entire clip or had multiple ones/pictures. Second, isn't Deviantart a website for people to post their own content, not other people's? Never really used the site so I'm not sure.

Well the gif couldn't be bigger than 80 mb so no, it was a small bit of the video.

 

[cletus]

and that you say you actually purchase content which is beyond what 99.9999999% of the community does.


Yeah dude unlike a lot of people I try to support this community as much as my middle class income allows. I am certain it has been 20k since 2001 when I was then just a college student with way less means.

 

[hefophre]

Well I doubt it was anything personal towards you, that they thought it would result in your account being closed, or that they considered you would be cordial or fast to respond in removing the image had they contacted you directly. It may not even have been them. It could have been a third party paid service that trawls the internet for their content to remove.
in the end they obviously did not want it posted and requested it be removed in what is probably the most efficient manner for them. It's probably best to contact creators and ask if you can post there images, etc. even if it is just an image. If they don't answer and give it, don't post it. I cant stress this enough. They may not want them posted for various, reasons that they feel are important.
I'm surprised the website didn't give a warning first?

What is the motivation in posting the images anyways?

 

[cletus]

What is the motivation in posting the images anyways?

To share our passion for this community. Figure if I'm going through all the work to make these for me why not share?

 

[Shade]

Well the gif couldn't be bigger than 80 mb so no, it was a small bit of the video.

80mb seems a pretty big file size for a gif but i was looking for like, how long in seconds? Also you sort of skipped over the second question.

 

[cletus]

80mb seems a pretty big file size for a gif but i was looking for like, how long in seconds? Also you sort of skipped over the second question.

It's not really if the image is big enough. The most it would have been was like the previews you see on Clips4Sale. I think I have created 1 gif of 1 video that is essentially the complete video, but it's 4 min long so the gif is tiny and the file is still way more than 100mb.

To your 2nd question in theory I think DA would like to think their website is exclusively being used by only the original creators, but in practice there must be dozens if not hundreds of people like me, mostly from what I had seen non-tickling images.