Cool Sword of Atlantis Pic

[Preacher]

Cool Pic I found on Deviant Art!

EDIT: Original link removed due to "risque" material available on artist site. Image that poster wanted to share has been re-hosted elsewhere and new link provided. - NMI

Thanks Nimmy. I didn't mean to raise a stink.

[Misfit KotLD]

Nice find.

[Daniel Stoker]

Cool pic, but I is that link acceptable considering the artists other pictures?


Daniel Stoker

[Rallan]

You can only view 18+ material on there if you have an account and stated that your older than 18. I don't see what's wrong with the link.

DeviantArt is an extremely popular website, and it's a safe assumption that plenty of people on this board already have accounts and will be automatically logged in when they follow that link. That means that for god only knows how many board users, that was a "link that contains explicit material". Deletions, warns, and bans have been handed out for less.

If that ain't a rules-breakingly awesome link then they're not even trying to be objective about enforcing the rules on adult content around here any more.

EDIT: Actually forget that, there's plenty of content in the dude's gallery that can be seen if you don't have an account at all and which would be inappropriate on this site. Pregnant topless chicks in bondage anyone? Pregnant chicks in shiny latex catsuits ? Scantily clad pregnant chicks in pretty much any pinup pose you can think of? Chicks on all fours with breasts that hang all the way to the ground? How about some pregnant schoolgirls?

Dunno if you'd bothered to actually check that guy's gallery but it's one long creepy (and not very well drawn) tribute to his favourite kinks.

[Starmage21]

You can only view 18+ material on there if you have an account and stated that your older than 18. I don't see what's wrong with the link.

DeviantArt is an extremely popular website, and it's a safe assumption that plenty of people on this board already have accounts and will be automatically logged in when they follow that link. That means that for god only knows how many board users, that was a "link that contains explicit material". Deletions, warns, and bans have been handed out for less.

If that ain't a rules-breakingly awesome link then they're not even trying to be objective about enforcing the rules on adult content around here any more.

EDIT: Actually forget that, there's plenty of content in the dude's gallery that can be seen if you don't have an account at all and which would be inappropriate on this site. Pregnant topless chicks in bondage anyone? Pregnant chicks in shiny latex catsuits ? Scantily clad pregnant chicks in pretty much any pinup pose you can think of? Chicks on all fours with breasts that hang all the way to the ground? How about some pregnant schoolgirls?

Dunno if you'd bothered to actually check that guy's gallery but it's one long creepy (and not very well drawn) tribute to his favourite kinks.

Playing Rifts is definitely a kink.

[Daniel Stoker]

EDIT: Actually forget that, there's plenty of content in the dude's gallery that can be seen if you don't have an account at all and which would be inappropriate on this site. Pregnant topless chicks in bondage anyone? Pregnant chicks in shiny latex catsuits ? Scantily clad pregnant chicks in pretty much any pinup pose you can think of? Chicks on all fours with breasts that hang all the way to the ground? How about some pregnant schoolgirls?

Dunno if you'd bothered to actually check that guy's gallery but it's one long creepy (and not very well drawn) tribute to his favourite kinks.

I don't think I'll ever look at the Flintstones the same way.


Daniel Stoker

[jaymz]

Yeah I think that link should be removed....there is a LOT of questionable content on there....

[Novastar]

You know, if we could just direct link images, I doubt this would be a problem.
Preacher could have just "[img]" the pic, rather than having to link to a site that is, quite frankly, filled with very artistic "questionable material" (and I'm not just talking about that particular artist).

[Misfit KotLD]

You know, if we could just direct link images, I doubt this would be a problem.
Preacher could have just "[img]" the pic, rather than having to link to a site that is, quite frankly, filled with very artistic "questionable material" (and I'm not just talking about that particular artist).

So, what are you trying to say?

And I believe this will work better.

[jaymz]

You know, if we could just direct link images, I doubt this would be a problem.
Preacher could have just "[img]" the pic, rather than having to link to a site that is, quite frankly, filled with very artistic "questionable material" (and I'm not just talking about that particular artist).

So, what are you trying to say?

And I believe this will work better.

Yep that works better

[Misfit KotLD]

You know, if we could just direct link images, I doubt this would be a problem.
Preacher could have just "[img]" the pic, rather than having to link to a site that is, quite frankly, filled with very artistic "questionable material" (and I'm not just talking about that particular artist).

So, what are you trying to say?

And I believe this will work better.

Yep that works better

Right click the image, go to properties, copy the link given under location, and paste the link here.

[Misfit KotLD]

You know, if we could just direct link images, I doubt this would be a problem.
Preacher could have just "[img]" the pic, rather than having to link to a site that is, quite frankly, filled with very artistic "questionable material" (and I'm not just talking about that particular artist).

So, what are you trying to say?

And I believe this will work better.

Yep that works better

Right click the image, go to properties, copy the link given under location, and paste the link here.

That could be claimed as copyright infringement as it gives no credit to the original artist. Besides you can still just cut off part of the address if you want to and see all that objectionable material.

Some people are never satisfied.

[Novastar]

One thing to consider is that the link itself does NOT lead to anything objectionable or pornographic. It leads to a completely legitimate (and cool) pic. Other links on that site do lead to objectionable material. 1 click gets to the artists personal page, from there you can then go to his gallery and then into the individual pics. So only by following multiple clicks away from the linked site can you see anything objectionable. If that counts as a link to objectionable materials then any Deviant Art artwork is out since all you need to do is type porn in their search engine and click on a link. At that point you can't even link to google.

That is true, but people have caught Administrative Action before, due to links (which themselves are harmless) going to site's with "questionable content".

Penny Arcade, VGCats, and The Onion, come to mind.

[Misfit KotLD]

One thing to consider is that the link itself does NOT lead to anything objectionable or pornographic. It leads to a completely legitimate (and cool) pic. Other links on that site do lead to objectionable material. 1 click gets to the artists personal page, from there you can then go to his gallery and then into the individual pics. So only by following multiple clicks away from the linked site can you see anything objectionable. If that counts as a link to objectionable materials then any Deviant Art artwork is out since all you need to do is type porn in their search engine and click on a link. At that point you can't even link to google.

That is true, but people have caught Administrative Action before, due to links (which themselves are harmless) going to site's with "questionable content".

Penny Arcade, VGCats, and The Onion, come to mind.

That is unfortunate, and I hope that Deviant Art doesn't get included in that list.

Considering the rest of the list, how can it not?

[Danger]

One thing to consider is that the link itself does NOT lead to anything objectionable or pornographic. It leads to a completely legitimate (and cool) pic. Other links on that site do lead to objectionable material. 1 click gets to the artists personal page, from there you can then go to his gallery and then into the individual pics. So only by following multiple clicks away from the linked site can you see anything objectionable. If that counts as a link to objectionable materials then any Deviant Art artwork is out since all you need to do is type porn in their search engine and click on a link. At that point you can't even link to google.

That is true, but people have caught Administrative Action before, due to links (which themselves are harmless) going to site's with "questionable content".

Penny Arcade, VGCats, and The Onion, come to mind.

That is unfortunate, and I hope that Deviant Art doesn't get included in that list.

Considering the rest of the list, how can it not?

Word.

[Rallan]

One thing to consider is that the link itself does NOT lead to anything objectionable or pornographic. It leads to a completely legitimate (and cool) pic. Other links on that site do lead to objectionable material. 1 click gets to the artists personal page, from there you can then go to his gallery and then into the individual pics. So only by following multiple clicks away from the linked site can you see anything objectionable. If that counts as a link to objectionable materials then any Deviant Art artwork is out since all you need to do is type porn in their search engine and click on a link. At that point you can't even link to google.

And many people have had warnings, thread deletions, and even bans for doing exactly the same thing: linking to a worksafe page on a site that has some adult content tucked away elsewhere. If you think this was unfair and stupid (and let's be honest, I think it was unfair and stupid too), then get thine ass over to the "reform" thread in the bugs and suggestions forum and start asking questions about why the rules on links and images are so arbitrary and make so little sense.

[Rallan]

You know, if we could just direct link images, I doubt this would be a problem.
Preacher could have just "[img]" the pic, rather than having to link to a site that is, quite frankly, filled with very artistic "questionable material" (and I'm not just talking about that particular artist).

So, what are you trying to say?

And I believe this will work better.

Yep that works better

Right click the image, go to properties, copy the link given under location, and paste the link here.

That could be claimed as copyright infringement as it gives no credit to the original artist. Besides you can still just cut off part of the address if you want to and see all that objectionable material.

It's already publically posted on the internet, which pretty much means that as long as it's up the artist has consented to let it be looked at and linked to by anyone who wants to see it. If direct links and inline image links were copyright infrinements, the entire internet would've been sued out of existence about five minutes after html had been invented

[Gamer]

That artist cannot claim infringement on that piece of work at all in any case, the best he can claim is fair use and the artist isn't claiming anything that I saw.
If you all recall that sword is initially from a Palladium Books product, the sword of atlantis is already protected by copyright and the holder isn't that linked artist.


My little brother learned the hard way from the Lucas Arts lawdogs, just because you draw something it doesn't mean you hold the copyright to it.

[Gamer]

Let the artist try, I think we could all enjoy a good comedy show.