An archive or something like that.

[John1212]

I think everyone knows that quite a few great artists have left the QS community. Someone died (PMK2 and Qsvgitguy come to mind first.). Someone left (Lobiart). And the fate of others, at least to me, is unknown (Darkspeed xz, AmSidar....). And with the departure, a lot of content was lost! and Okay, there are works on our forum, the same PMK2. But many others don't! But I think it's not just me who's downloading my favorite pictures?(What a pity that I used to rely so much on the Internet! Stupidly, for years, I thought that on the Internet you would always find what you like, and that it would be there for centuries. And it wasn't until 2018 that I started quietly downloading what I love (initially due to the fact that I've been traveling by train almost every year since 2018)). And that's what I suggest. Create a mutual assistance register, so to speak. Well, or an archive. I think Google Drive is a more or less optimal choice. If you do not violate copyrights. And hence the simplest conclusion: The works of only departed authors. (I admit that I am zero in copyright law. I know it's bad to pirate, but no more. Even if it violates copyright, tell me. Although it is unlikely that Google deletes files by itself, but on request...I don't know). That is, first you need to make a list of similar artists- who have left and will no longer mind. (I just realized that I've focused on artists, but there are also authors! they should not be forgotten either.). So that's what I'm guessing. Who can do what, let them put it in this, or a separate topic. Or he'll send it to me if he doesn't want to bother, or to someone else. But first, a question for the administration - will this initiative violate the legality of the forum? Written and not written ? And what kind of rules should there be if the initiative does not contradict the laws?

[Fred588]

Just so you will know a bit more aboyt copyright, the fact that a creator is deceased does not affect the copyright to what that perrson created. The copyright now belongs to that person's estate or heirs. Although the original creator probably wanted others to see their work, the heirs may not feel the same. Also note that if a copyright notice is missing because it has been removed by someone who is not the copyright owner, the work is still under copyright. For an example involving physical property, if a motor vehicle is stolen and the thief obliterates the VIN number, the vehicle is still stolen and someone now using it is in possession of stolen property.

[dlodoski]

Yea, the internet is a funny thing. I adopted a 'Here today, gone tomorrow' approach many moons ago. And it's not just the nuggets that evaporate. Even the tools to find them lose utility or also disappear. Ever try Google Image lately? It's pathetic compared to the earlier iterations.

But to your basic question, this type of archive has been proposed before - usually related to stories. Aside from copyright issues, the idea of practicality comes to mind. The early 'archives' were hand built web sites that rounded up the works of the handful of artists/writers that were posting their goodies to a limited number of venues. It was manageable/doable because of the relatively small scale of the output.

But that manageability ship has sailed. The best one can do now is frequent (and collect from) the many venues: message boards (like this), Discords, DA accounts, Twitter feeds, Patreons and so on. Even then, most folks will have to limit their harvesting to the stuff that best suits their taste. And that leads to another problem with a 'global QS artwork archive'. There would undoubtedly be some bias in there somewhere.

So there will be occasional dumps here and there by guys who have been collecting since the beginning. But for the most part, I suggest collecting and enjoying what you like, and leave it at that.

[Fred588]

This does not help those arriving later on the scene, but it will help the individual collector that massive storage is now extremely inexpensive compared to way back when. Back in the early 80s, when I did my graduate work, it was just about everyone's dream to acquire a 5 megabyte hard drive. The price then was $5000.00. Now, for just ove two percent of that, one can get a 5T drive, which is 1000 times larger. And you can do even better, proportionally, with a 20 or even 22T drive.

[dlodoski]

My first PC came with a 40MB MFM drive. I replaced it with the first bare drive I ever bought, a Conner 250MB which set me back $250.

A dollar a meg seemed pretty square at the time.

It allowed me to start leveraging the blazing speed of whatever dialup modem I was driving at the time. The harvesting had begun.

[John1212]

Just so you will know a bit more aboyt copyright, the fact that a creator is deceased does not affect the copyright to what that perrson created. The copyright now belongs to that person's estate or heirs. Although the original creator probably wanted others to see their work, the heirs may not feel the same. Also note that if a copyright notice is missing because it has been removed by someone who is not the copyright owner, the work is still under copyright. For an example involving physical property, if a motor vehicle is stolen and the thief obliterates the VIN number, the vehicle is still stolen and someone now using it is in possession of stolen property.

And how do I find out that there is a copyright? Well, for example, I uploaded Lobiart's work to Google Drive, which I collected and shared. The artist, as far as I know, is alive, but left due to circumstances with DA. But his work is amazing, and I want to keep it (well, what I can keep is another matter.) and share. As if out of good intentions (to share good work that is pleasant to look at) so it's self-interest (like, I shared it, you share it too...). It's just a real pity, a lot of content is lost. And, perhaps, as content producers, this will seem unacceptable to you, but I think so - if you put it in the public domain, then you can no longer delete it. Not under any circumstances. You can ask for money, not put it somewhere where you don't want to.....But do not delete it (if it does not violate the framework of morality and security.) Of course, all possible sites must follow this rule. The same YouTube. I met him quite late, due to my youth, the fact that the computer appeared very late, and not the best Internet in the country (especially then. it's not exactly disgusting, but there were friezes with high quality). I remember watching QS content of an erotic nature back then. Well, or footage of an accident without a blurr, etc. And now - a woman gives a slap in the face- bluster....(it's about how not only the content is changing and learning). But let's not delve into this argument. Here's the question. So I can't upload the found works to Google Drive and share them openly? I'm just really sorry for the work, even if it's not mine. However, sooner or later it will completely disappear if nothing is done. well, there are backups on some sites, or what should I call them? But sooner or later they will be erased as unnecessary. And I don't see much point in saving only for myself. Did you wash it off in such a collection, just for yourself?(of course, there are several works that I will not share, because they are paid (one) and the famous comic book Breath taking. I was able to find it about a year ago, but I know that the author doesn't want it to pop up again, so let it lie on a flash drive. But still, there is a part that I would like to share. (Sorry for being dumb. I was very tired at work. There was an incident at the end of the shift, and I had to stay late...That's why I'm being stupid.)

[dlodoski]

Ok, so this is not the idea that you first put forward. The word 'archive' has little to do with sharing the work of a single artist (or even a few) on Google Drive.

It's true that producers are sensitive to copyright issues (some obviously more broadly than others). But speaking for QSF, I don't see a problem with what you are proposing, unless the original artist (possibly) complains.

Hope this helps.

[John1212]

Ok, so this is not the idea that you first put forward. The word 'archive' has little to do with sharing the work of a single artist (or even a few) on Google Drive.

It's true that producers are sensitive to copyright issues (some obviously more broadly than others). But speaking for QSF, I don't see a problem with what you are proposing, unless the original artist (possibly) complains.

Hope this helps.

Yes, initially I didn't quite clearly describe what I wanted to do. Thanks for the reply. So I can sort the work slowly for now. I hope that others will take up the initiative and we will be able to restore, if not all, then at least some of what was lost.

[Fred588]

Just so you will know a bit more aboyt copyright, the fact that a creator is deceased does not affect the copyright to what that perrson created. The copyright now belongs to that person's estate or heirs. Although the original creator probably wanted others to see their work, the heirs may not feel the same. Also note that if a copyright notice is missing because it has been removed by someone who is not the copyright owner, the work is still under copyright. For an example involving physical property, if a motor vehicle is stolen and the thief obliterates the VIN number, the vehicle is still stolen and someone now using it is in possession of stolen property.

And how do I find out that there is a copyright? Well, for example, I uploaded Lobiart's work to Google Drive, which I collected and shared. The artist, as far as I know, is alive, but left due to circumstances with DA. But his work is amazing, and I want to keep it (well, what I can keep is another matter.) and share. As if out of good intentions (to share good work that is pleasant to look at) so it's self-interest (like, I shared it, you share it too...). It's just a real pity, a lot of content is lost. And, perhaps, as content producers, this will seem unacceptable to you, but I think so - if you put it in the public domain, then you can no longer delete it. Not under any circumstances. You can ask for money, not put it somewhere where you don't want to.....But do not delete it (if it does not violate the framework of morality and security.) Of course, all possible sites must follow this rule. The same YouTube. I met him quite late, due to my youth, the fact that the computer appeared very late, and not the best Internet in the country (especially then. it's not exactly disgusting, but there were friezes with high quality). I remember watching QS content of an erotic nature back then. Well, or footage of an accident without a blurr, etc. And now - a woman gives a slap in the face- bluster....(it's about how not only the content is changing and learning). But let's not delve into this argument. Here's the question. So I can't upload the found works to Google Drive and share them openly? I'm just really sorry for the work, even if it's not mine. However, sooner or later it will completely disappear if nothing is done. well, there are backups on some sites, or what should I call them? But sooner or later they will be erased as unnecessary. And I don't see much point in saving only for myself. Did you wash it off in such a collection, just for yourself?(of course, there are several works that I will not share, because they are paid (one) and the famous comic book Breath taking. I was able to find it about a year ago, but I know that the author doesn't want it to pop up again, so let it lie on a flash drive. But still, there is a part that I would like to share. (Sorry for being dumb. I was very tired at work. There was an incident at the end of the shift, and I had to stay late...That's why I'm being stupid.)

"Putting something into the public domain" does not mean just posting it somewhere. If a work is posted (published) without a copyright notice AND by the actual copyright owner, then that puts it in the public domain, which means it is not protected by copyright. However, the absence of a copyright notice does NOT mean the same thing. Someone who is not the copyright owner might have removed the notice and re-posted. Legally, the responsibility for determining if something is nder copyright lies with the person wishing to re-post. That means that just because one cannot determine if something is under copyright, that is not an excuse for violating the copyright. Be careful. Note also, that if the original artist took his or her stuff down from wherever it was posted, that could be taken as evidence he/she no longer wants the work shared. That is to say, the owner would probably say no if asked for permissing to re-post.

[John1212]

Just so you will know a bit more aboyt copyright, the fact that a creator is deceased does not affect the copyright to what that perrson created. The copyright now belongs to that person's estate or heirs. Although the original creator probably wanted others to see their work, the heirs may not feel the same. Also note that if a copyright notice is missing because it has been removed by someone who is not the copyright owner, the work is still under copyright. For an example involving physical property, if a motor vehicle is stolen and the thief obliterates the VIN number, the vehicle is still stolen and someone now using it is in possession of stolen property.

And how do I find out that there is a copyright? Well, for example, I uploaded Lobiart's work to Google Drive, which I collected and shared. The artist, as far as I know, is alive, but left due to circumstances with DA. But his work is amazing, and I want to keep it (well, what I can keep is another matter.) and share. As if out of good intentions (to share good work that is pleasant to look at) so it's self-interest (like, I shared it, you share it too...). It's just a real pity, a lot of content is lost. And, perhaps, as content producers, this will seem unacceptable to you, but I think so - if you put it in the public domain, then you can no longer delete it. Not under any circumstances. You can ask for money, not put it somewhere where you don't want to.....But do not delete it (if it does not violate the framework of morality and security.) Of course, all possible sites must follow this rule. The same YouTube. I met him quite late, due to my youth, the fact that the computer appeared very late, and not the best Internet in the country (especially then. it's not exactly disgusting, but there were friezes with high quality). I remember watching QS content of an erotic nature back then. Well, or footage of an accident without a blurr, etc. And now - a woman gives a slap in the face- bluster....(it's about how not only the content is changing and learning). But let's not delve into this argument. Here's the question. So I can't upload the found works to Google Drive and share them openly? I'm just really sorry for the work, even if it's not mine. However, sooner or later it will completely disappear if nothing is done. well, there are backups on some sites, or what should I call them? But sooner or later they will be erased as unnecessary. And I don't see much point in saving only for myself. Did you wash it off in such a collection, just for yourself?(of course, there are several works that I will not share, because they are paid (one) and the famous comic book Breath taking. I was able to find it about a year ago, but I know that the author doesn't want it to pop up again, so let it lie on a flash drive. But still, there is a part that I would like to share. (Sorry for being dumb. I was very tired at work. There was an incident at the end of the shift, and I had to stay late...That's why I'm being stupid.)

"Putting something into the public domain" does not mean just posting it somewhere. If a work is posted (published) without a copyright notice AND by the actual copyright owner, then that puts it in the public domain, which means it is not protected by copyright. However, the absence of a copyright notice does NOT mean the same thing. Someone who is not the copyright owner might have removed the notice and re-posted. Legally, the responsibility for determining if something is nder copyright lies with the person wishing to re-post. That means that just because one cannot determine if something is under copyright, that is not an excuse for violating the copyright. Be careful. Note also, that if the original artist took his or her stuff down from wherever it was posted, that could be taken as evidence he/she no longer wants the work shared. That is to say, the owner would probably say no if asked for permissing to re-post.

Well, the possibility of punishment by US law scares me a little. I'm a little far from it. Even geographically. And although there seems to be a thaw in relations between our countries now, I am unlikely to be extradited for such a violation. But the labor that will be spent on creation will be a pity, of course. And of course, if the author is against it, I will restrict access. Although, first of all, I want to collect in one place the content of those artists who will definitely not be able to object or support. (By the way. How well is the translator doing? I just had an idea to write a short story. But I think that writing it in Russian makes little sense. I'm not sure who else besides Bill Bones would know Russian for sure. But there really is a nuance - he is Ukrainian....But anyway, 95% of them are English speakers.)