I understand that much, what confuses me is that I see screencaps like that all the time on this site. For further clarification, just about how much "work" needs to be applied before it becomes tolerable? So that this mistake is not repeated.

The reason you may see screencaps like those on the site quite often is because they are uploaded quite often. On the other hand, we have a very small group of unpaid volunteer moderators with other things going on in their life, which means that many posts don't get seen by a moderator for some time after they're uploaded.

There isn't a set amount of work that must be put into the screencap. Rather, it just must be clear that significant work did go into the screencap. Taking the list of reasons that Jedi gave earlier:


Animated screencaps require special programs, timing, and knowledge of the format you're using to produce an animation that plays well and doesn't look horrible. Screencaps that have been edited, such as recolors, nude filters, or decensors require skill in a graphics editing program or else they will come out poorly. Screencaps that are stitched together have to be timed, aligned, and the intersection lines smoothed to account for changes in lighting and contrast that exist between the frames.

On the other hand, for just a straight screencap, you can press print screen, paste it into Paint or whatever your operating system's equivalent, and boom, you're done. Even if you did put more work into it - adjusting contrast or levels to make it look better, for example - there's no way for someone who isn't directly comparing it with a frame from the original source to tell. Because of this, such screencaps are just flat out not allowed. I suppose if you could conclusively prove that you put a significant amount of work into creating the screencap, it might be allowed, but this has yet to happen.

I see..
Thank you for the well informed information Jerl. I really appreciate your time and reply. Take Care of yourself! =)

why my post was deleted?

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=3463372

i don't think this break any rule

Mortal Kombat is an American game series. The WebM you uploaded is presumably made by an American or otherwise non-Japanese artist. Since there's absolutely nothing Japanese about this WebM, it's off-topic for Gelbooru, which is a Japanese-themed site. All artwork on Gelbooru is required to be Japanese-themed, which means that if it isn't drawn by a Japanese artist, it must have been based on a Japanese copyright.

well onagi has alot of things in gelbooru

gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=list&tags=onagi
and mortal kombat too
gelbooru.com/index.php?pa...st&tags=mortal_kombat

why expecificly that was deleted?

Because that's the one that a moderator actually ran into. Most of those works by onagi are based on Japanese copyrights, and most of those works based on Mortal Kombat were presumably drawn by Japanese artists. It's rare for us to go through an entire copyright tag at a time trying to find artwork that wasn't drawn by a Japanese artist. The moderator who deleted your post likely found it on the first few pages of new uploads.

i see
well , thanks for the reply and sorry for the inconvenience

Not sure why this - gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=3437057 - got deleted while this - gelbooru.com/index.php?page=post&s=view&id=3373555 - is ok. Also noticed a lot of pictures from that artist had been nuked despite having such a high approval rating; I recall one of the images had up votes over 300, more than most images on this site Japanese or not. Which leads me to believe there is another reason.

Aside from being very different, Otto's work did not look all that "Japanese style" to me though there is definitely an influence. BTD still has some proportion issues in his art but tries harder to make it look Japanese.

That said, I was only a little beyond the fence with some of Otto's work including that Hillery post so maybe another mod will restore it if they feel that way. Or maybe they will delete the other.

Please note that a post's score may be a subjective (but alterable) measure of a post's quality but otherwise is not taken into account when deciding if a post violates our Terms of Service.