# FYI - Acceptable Upload Policy (AUP) Update



## Dragoneer (Jan 18, 2009)

*FUR AFFINITY
ACCEPTABLE UPLOAD POLICY (AUP)*
*Revised: *Jan  19, 2009
​ 
 
*The By You/For You Policy*  
*1) By You:*
You may post any Submission provided that the submission is an original work created by you. Joint works and collaborations must give proper credit to all contributing sources. 
*2) For You:*
Fur Affinity allows users to post Submissions created for them provided they have the original artist's permission to repost said work. Credit must be attributed to the original artist with citation that the work was not created by the submitter. 
 
*Harassment*
  Images or comments intended to harass, slander or otherwise directly disrupt the use/enjoyment on the site will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to the conveyance of: racism, bigotry, derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association, or images or comments directed at any other individual(s) to incite or inflame matters of personal conflict on the site.

 *Photography*
Fur Affinity allows Users to post photography provided the following criteria are met:


*Basic Quality/Content* - Photographs of poor quality (grainy, blurred, out of focus or washed out) or images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. commercial items, toys, games, movies, stuff animals, etc.) must be uploaded to Scraps. Photographs of art, or items which are in full compliance with the By You/For You, are acceptable provided they meet are of a minimum quality.

*Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities. 
*Generated Art, Renderers and Sprites*
Submissions which are pre-generated or contain computer generated content (e.g. screenshots from games, web sites, etc.) are not permitted. This includes customizable characters (e.g. Warcraft, Spore) or creations assembled using pre-created criteria and/or programs where the user input is primarily adjusting values (e.g sliders, values, seeds) and the computer then generates content.


 *Renderers:* Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain a significant user created content (e.g. all new texture maps, 3D meshes, animation, interfaces, etc.). Pre-packaged/downloadable models are not permitted as the primary focal point of a submission unless they contain significant modifications which would distinguish itself from the original model.
*Generators: *Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they do not violate the Flooding Policy.
*Sprites: *Sprites, such as those ripped from games and/or modified sprites may not be uploaded as a submission.     Sprites must be all new, original content.
 
*Second Life*
Screenshots from Second Life may be posted so long as they meet the following criteria:

*Avatars and Objects** - *Screenshots are allowed for the sole purpose of showcasing Avatars and objects designed by or for the submitting user. Screenshots may not be posted for posting scenes of interaction scenes.
*Purchased Avatars** - *Avatars, such as those sold by Luskwood Creatures, may only be uploaded provided the avatar contains significant modifications which would distinguish itself from the original model.
*Quantity** - *Second Life screenshots will be limited to three (3) submissions per item/avatar per user. Users wishing to display multiple angles of the same Avatar are encouraged to create a collage.
*Music and Audio*
Users may post music provided the following criteria are met:
 

As a Music Submission - Users may not upload original copyright renditions of audio. Covers and karaoke-style submissions are permitted tracks provided full credit is given to the original performing artists.
Samples and Remixes- Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to distinguish it from the original copyright material. 

Mashups - Mash-ups are only permitted when one half of the mash-up contains user-created material.

As Part of a Flash Submission - Music may accompany Flash files as a part of Fair Use. The music must compliment the content of the Flash, not merely used as a means to upload full tracks. 
*Avatars and Thumbnails*
Avatars and thumbnails which use the artwork of another artist without their permission will be removed at the request of the original artist. In addition, avatars must be rated PG-13 (no gore or sexual situations) and must not contain rapidly flashing colors or images (e.g. â€œseizure inducingâ€).
  
 *Memes*
Memes may be posted provided the meme contains original work. Memes which are minor edits of pre-existing images, contain no original content created by the user or are of the "add your own caption" variety are not permitted. 

 *Flooding*
Uploading may be considered flooding when more than three images focusing on the same focal point (e.g. character, fursuit) are uploaded in a continuous session or within a short time of each other, with only minor variations between the images. Flooding is not permitted. Whenever possible, we highly suggest users compile multiple images/photos into a collage.
  *
Note: *Posting separate iterations of the same image (e.g. sketch, ink, and color) are acceptable, as are different variations and alternatives of the same image, within reason.
  
_Ferrox Art, LLC retains full rights to modify or change the terms set forth in the Fur Affinity Acceptable Upload Policy without prior notice. Any and all changes made to this document become retroactive.

_*NOTE: *Changes/clarifications made to this document have been highlighted in red.


----------



## TORA (Jan 18, 2009)

Again, what has changed here?


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 18, 2009)

Thank you for the updates, 'Neer. They are greatly appreciated! Especially for all us fractal artists.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 18, 2009)

TORA said:


> Again, what has changed here?


A fair amount, actually.

The most significant changes are more more concise, easier to digest text regarding the policy. 

However, photos were affected the most. This is somewhat of a crackdown on the "photobucket" aspect of FA. Fuzzy, blurry and/or utterly BAD pictures are now prohibited, as well as "collection" images (e.g. "here's my collection of Sonic comics). There are other small changes as well.


----------



## Torin_Darkflight (Jan 18, 2009)

Is my habit of using game screenshots as backgrounds in some of my art still allowed? Such art that I create always has had, and will continue to have, user-created content in it.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 18, 2009)

Torin_Darkflight said:


> Is my habit of using game screenshots as backgrounds in some of my art still allowed? Such art that I create always has had, and will continue to have, user-created content in it.


In this instance it would be a "Fair Use" provided the rest of the submission still contains a significant majority of the work that is yours. If it's just a background... that's fine.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 18, 2009)

So... Looks like you've completely removed the Adult Fursuits instead of allowing them.

It really sucks that you didn't agree with our logic... I thought it was sound.


----------



## Roland (Jan 18, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> This is somewhat of a crackdown on the "photobucket" aspect of FA. Fuzzy, blurry and/or utterly BAD pictures are now prohibited, as well as "collection" images (e.g. "here's my collection of Sonic comics).



<3<3<3


----------



## Roland (Jan 18, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> So... Looks like you've completely removed the Adult Fursuits instead of allowing them.
> 
> It really sucks that you didn't agree with our logic... I thought it was sound.



"Give 'em an inch; they take a mile!"

Damn it.. I didn't mean to double post. >_>


----------



## Magica (Jan 19, 2009)

Thank you so much, Neer. 



> Basic Quality/Content - Photographs of poor quality (grainy, blurred, out of focus or washed out) or images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. toys, games, movies) must be uploaded to Scraps.



How about the photos that are MySpace-esque?



> ..images focusing on the genitals of animals...



Does this apply to only certain genitals (e.g. penis) or everything genital related? (e.g. a male dog lying on its back showing its sheath).


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> So... Looks like you've completely removed the Adult Fursuits instead of allowing them.
> 
> It really sucks that you didn't agree with our logic... I thought it was sound.


The problem with adult suits is there is _no way to tell _who is in the suit, and more often than not, people use adult fursuiters as an excuse to post images containing their penis. Most of the suits _are_ sexually usable suits, and that crosses the boundaries of legality I am not prepared to cross. Nor am I going to put the site or community at legal risk for mature fursuits.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

I also wonder how a site can justify having advertisement for adult toys, but will not allow a picture of them to be uploaded...

But otherwise I guess I can agree with the changes


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

DragonMagica said:


> How about the photos that are MySpace-esque?


At the moment they are permitted so long as they do not violate/cross the Flooding policy. If people want to show a few pictures of themselves I'm fine with that.



DragonMagica said:


> Does this apply to only certain genitals (e.g. penis) or everything genital related? (e.g. someone's male dog lying on its back showing its sheath).


Really, there is no definitive answer on this one. It's a case-by-case basis based on intent of the image. If you're posting a lot of pictures of dogs and their sheaths happen to be in just about every image... you're probably going to flag the attention of an admin. If you post a picture of a dog catching a frisbee... and y'know, hey, there it is... we'll probably not think twice. However, if frisbee dog is going red rocket you're going to be AUP'd.


----------



## Nanakisan (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm glad to see there is allowance for fractal works now and happy about it too.

however now comes the problem of people who upload the pre-generated stuff compared to the stuff that was actually worked on

We have a Music admin perhaps its time to bring in a Fractals Admin to insure that quality not quantity is enforced within reason.

I personally nominate kewlhotrod for that task
hehehe


----------



## Roland (Jan 19, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> I also wonder how a site can justify having advertisement for adult toys, but will not allow a picture of them to be uploaded...


A sex toy is not a sexual depiction of a _person_, but just merely a toy.  Such is not true when it comes to someone posing in an adult fursuit.  It's a dangerously thin-line between "art" (god forbid), and porn.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> I also wonder how a site can justify having advertisement for adult toys, but will not allow a picture of them to be uploaded...


For the same reason we'll allow people who sculpt a dildo to post their images of their creation but not let people post images of them testing out their toy.


----------



## Jardenon (Jan 19, 2009)

Yay! no more stupid secondlife screenshots! only ones showcasing people's building abilities...awesome!


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Nanakisan said:


> We have a Music admin perhaps its time to bring in a Fractals Admin to insure that quality not quantity is enforced within reason.


Yes, I plan on upping the staff. However, if somebody is brought on as a "Fractal Admin" we're going to put them to work on trouble tickets, forums, etc. They don't get to work on fracs alone.


----------



## Nanakisan (Jan 19, 2009)

Jardenon said:


> Yay! no more stupid secondlife screenshots! only ones showcasing people's building abilities...awesome!



theres still the picture limit
lol
 but yay no more crappy bought avatars


----------



## Nanakisan (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, I plan on upping the staff. However, if somebody is brought on as a "Fractal Admin" we're going to put them to work on trouble tickets, forums, etc. They don't get to work on fracs alone.



hmmm
perhaps a new creative arts team should be assembled for the task of administering the items strictly on the FA site and the TT's and such but leave forum stuff to the forum administratives


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> For the same reason we'll allow people who sculpt a dildo to post their images of their creation but not let people post images of them testing out their toy.


Umm... not according to this... from what I am reading that would have to be removed.



Dragoneer said:


> *Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.


From what I am reading there... It doesn't matter if they are in use or not. You CANNOT post them, at all.




Dragoneer said:


> The problem with adult suits is there is _no way to tell _who is in the suit, and more often than not, people use adult fursuiters as an excuse to post images containing their penis. Most of the suits _are_ sexually usable suits, and that crosses the boundaries of legality I am not prepared to cross. Nor am I going to put the site or community at legal risk for mature fursuits.


 Just the fact that the suit is modified does not make it sexual; and the suggestions we made were not allowing the penis sticking through...

Yes the suits are sexually usable, but that doesn't mean that the suit has to have a penis sticking out of the thing.  Does this also mean that if it is a regular suit and they are holding a whip and some bondage gear that it must be removed as well? That would be insinuating adult and/or sexual nature... Will a picture of one furry riding another be removed if the genitals cannot be seen? They could be having sex in there even if you cannot see the holes.

As for the legality I thought you said before that simply wearing a suit that was modified had no repercussions, as there was no sexual bits showing...

But what'ev... I do hope this doesn't cause much drama


----------



## Magica (Jan 19, 2009)

Sorry, I have another question but I'm having trouble trying to phrase it right.  On the Second Life photos, if say like the background or the wall of the scenery contains clean or adult artwork from someone other than the user who took the screenshot, are they still required to get permission from the original artist or is it allowed at all?


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 19, 2009)

*quickly removes an photo that had a hidden sex toy in a container which he forgot was up there, and uploads one with it removed*


----------



## TORA (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> A fair amount, actually.
> 
> The most significant changes are more more concise, easier to digest text regarding the policy.
> 
> However, photos were affected the most. This is somewhat of a crackdown on the "photobucket" aspect of FA. Fuzzy, blurry and/or utterly BAD pictures are now prohibited, as well as "collection" images (e.g. "here's my collection of Sonic comics). There are other small changes as well.



I have seen some people take pictures of their art, as their scanner is broken or they don't have a scanner. But the picture comes out blurry. Does that constitute a "BAD" picture?

Are these new rules retroactive to pics posted before the change? I ask this, as I have one pic that applies to the "collection" image (my "Ushio and TORA" mangas I got from a friend), but that was posted a long time ago.

If it does need to be removed, please note me on FA. Thanks.


----------



## Foxstar (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> A fair amount, actually.
> 
> The most significant changes are more more concise, easier to digest text regarding the policy.
> 
> However, photos were affected the most. This is somewhat of a crackdown on the "photobucket" aspect of FA. Fuzzy, blurry and/or utterly BAD pictures are now prohibited, as well as "collection" images (e.g. "here's my collection of Sonic comics). There are other small changes as well.



Nice to see your cracking down..or trying to save the servers from bursting into flame under the load of most of the fandom using FA as a freakish Photobucket/MySpace/DA hybrid. More rules I say, more.


----------



## thorndraco (Jan 19, 2009)

I still find the not allowing Spore creations under the current wording fairly non-sensical, but at least it's an attempt compared to before.


This is all much easier to read and understand on the whole and there's some great policy choices here. Yay for good updates!


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 19, 2009)

Hehe, thank you Nanaki for the nomination.

If 'Neer is actually going to throw down a new admin for this stuff, I can only hoe that whoever it is can show responsibility, dismiss favoritism, show intelligence and refuse to go power-hungry. Those are the most demeaning and destroying things that can happen to a new admin. I know, I've seen it happen a LOT, as have many others, I'm sure.

However, I trust Dragoneer's judgment and final pick to be that of a good one.


----------



## Nanakisan (Jan 19, 2009)

kewlhotrod said:


> Hehe, thank you Nanaki for the nomination.
> 
> If 'Neer is actually going to throw down a new admin for this stuff, I can only hoe that whoever it is can show responsibility, dismiss favoritism, show intelligence and refuse to go power-hungry. Those are the most demeaning and destroying things that can happen to a new admin. I know, I've seen it happen a LOT, as have many others, I'm sure.
> 
> However, I trust Dragoneer's judgment and final pick to be that of a good one.



thats the major problem with such power...sigh

I'd take the task but i'm to easily impressed but as most already know i'm not one to apply favorites i know when things are not right and such.

But i could never meet up to the requirements of being an admin
I'd like the chance but i'm to evil as it is

*thinks evil thoughts

warning bad joke alert
as a admin my first order of business is to ban all that i hate and fear
*stares at teh troll accounts

i'm coming for youus

alert bad joke now done you may resume your porn watching


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> *Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.


 Oh, I just realized this also removes Sculptures / Statues of Sexual Nature... 

That's going to suck.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 19, 2009)

Much porn watching is to be had.

Lol, there may be a lot of responsibilities to be had... But BOY do I, personally, have a lot of free time. xD


----------



## camthra (Jan 19, 2009)

Seeing as how I write (HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHA....haaaa.....hoo....I've only uploaded about four things, and I've deleted all but one) this is less relevant to me, but it's still important for me to know.  Don't wanna get banned on accident.


----------



## pikachu_electricmouse (Jan 19, 2009)

What is a fill in the blank meme?  That's not those questionaires people post in their journals I assume.  Nor would I assume it's the blank squares where people have to draw something in each square, since that's artistic.  

So are we talking like, a comic where you have to fill in what the character is saying?


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 19, 2009)

Also, tiny typo.

_"Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they *does* not violate the Flooding Policy."_

Should be "do". Just a forewarning.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> Nice to see your cracking down..or trying to save the servers from bursting into flame under the load of most of the fandom using FA as a freakish Photobucket/MySpace/DA hybrid. More rules I say, more.


It has nothing to do with server space, but an increase of images which are grainy, impossible to see and out of focus. Just because you can post a picture to FA *doesn't* mean you should.



thorndraco said:


> I still find the not allowing Spore creations under the current wording fairly non-sensical, but at least it's an attempt compared to before.


I am always open to suggestions, so if you feel you can word it better, give it a go.



Quiet269 said:


> Oh, I just realized this also removes Sculptures / Statues of Sexual Nature...


No, it does't affect sculptures/statues that users have created. Not at all.



kewlhotrod said:


> Also, tiny typo...


Fixed.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> No, it does't affect sculptures/statues that users have created. Not at all.


Then I think you need to revise the note some. As the way it is now it states specifically that a photograph of any item that is sexual in nature is not allowed.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 19, 2009)

Sorry Dragoneer. You're being overloaded with complaints right now. ;.;

Oh well, being FA admin for so long I'd hope you're used to it. Throw me a shout or something if there's anything I can do to help, such as a revision with clearer wording or something.


----------



## Nanakisan (Jan 19, 2009)

kewlhotrod said:


> Sorry Dragoneer. You're being overloaded with complaints right now. ;.;
> 
> Oh well, being FA admin for so long I'd hope you're used to it. Throw me a shout or something if there's anything I can do to help, such as a revision with clearer wording or something.



give me one of your special flame files and i'll shout ya

XD


----------



## isthisagoodname (Jan 19, 2009)

The "breasts" part of the prohibited pictures needs to be clarified a bit.

Would a picture of a chubby guy wearing only swimming trunks be unacceptable under the updated policy now?

Girl boobs = Unacceptable
Man boobs = ?

(This is not meant to mock anyone or anything, it's a genuine question. =/)


----------



## manderina (Jan 19, 2009)

I am confused by the 'meme' rules too. It sort of sounds like we aren't allowed to post the template of a meme we created. Is this what you meant?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

kewlhotrod said:


> Oh well, being FA admin for so long I'd hope you're used to it. Throw me a shout or something if there's anything I can do to help, such as a revision with clearer wording or something.


Complaints? No, I wouldn't call them that.



Quiet269 said:


> Then I think you need to revise the note some. As the way it is now it states specifically that a photograph of any item that is sexual in nature is not allowed.


"Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted."

Clarified.
 


pikachu_electricmouse said:


> What is a fill in the blank meme?  That's not those questionaires people post in their journals I assume.  Nor would I assume it's the blank squares where people have to draw something in each square, since that's artistic.
> 
> So are we talking like, a comic where you have to fill in what the character is saying?


Fill in what the character is saying, etc. Anything that involves just adding text, etc. If the artist draws or creates something unique for it then it *is* acceptable. However, most people have a tendency to copy/paste a photograph and/or add text and call it done.


----------



## thorndraco (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> I am always open to suggestions, so if you feel you can word it better, give it a go.



*shrugs* Can't think of a way where the policy of not allowing something just because it's made in Spore makes sense to me to begin with other than flat out saying it's to keep down image spam.

Whether I agree or not with the thought process behind the policy doesn't matter in the end really. I can always draw the critters and then link to a vid on YouTube in the description if I'm that happy with it. It encourages me to draw more anyway.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> "Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted."
> 
> Clarified.


Umm what? That doesn't clarify anything.

RIGHT AFTER THAT it says, and I quote:

*Prohibited *- ... This includes, but not limited to; ... images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). 

Under this ruling Sex Toys, Adult Fursuits, Modified Plushes, Sculptures that are sexual in nature, etc are all not allowed.

Am I missing something here?

EDIT: Inf act that would contradict itself.... IF we just went off what you said then Adult Fursuits, Modified Plushes, etc would all be allowed if they did not  contain visible "sexual" parts of humans.

If that's all that you want to say I'm all for it. But as it is now you're restricting a whole bunch more than what it seems you want to.


----------



## Arcturus (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Avatars and thumbnails which use the artwork of another artist without their permission will be removed at the request of the original artist. In addition, avatars must be rated PG-13 (no gore or sexual situations) and must not contain rapidly flashing colors or images (e.g. â€œseizure inducingâ€).



So what constitutes rapid flashing? 1hz? 2hz? 5hz? what? Please define specifics.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

manderina said:


> I am confused by the 'meme' rules too. It sort of sounds like we aren't allowed to post the template of a meme we created. Is this what you meant?


You can post the template, yes. However, if people repost it filled out... then they have to have actual work done to it. So if they draw something in (and MORE than just a stickfigure) then it's fine. If they just copy/paste a picture into it and repost it, that's not fine. If they just slap text on it, that's not fine.

We have nothing against memes. We just want memes to actually be worth looking at.



isthisagoodname said:


> The "breasts" part of the prohibited pictures needs to be clarified a bit.
> 
> Would a picture of a chubby guy wearing only swimming trunks be unacceptable under the updated policy now?
> 
> ...


That's sort of the age old question. Moobs are moobs, boobs are boobs. Men have moobs, women have boobs. That's sort of the sexist angle of it, but unfortunately, a guy without his shirt will not get us into trouble, a girl without her shirt can. That's the long and the short. A chubby guy would be acceptable, yes.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 19, 2009)

Nanakisan said:


> give me one of your special flame files and i'll shout ya
> 
> XD



Lol, what? xD


----------



## Aden (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain "User created content". If there is no "User created content" in the submission, then it may not be uploaded.



Oh god yes. I look forward to the coming Krystal model purge.



Dragoneer said:


> Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they do not violate the Flooding Policy.



Cool.


----------



## Zytx (Jan 19, 2009)

*Question pertaining to artwork*

Seeing as how I do artwork upon a very different sort of medium here, aka a couple vehicles, Does this change of policy mean that I am no longer allowed to post updates on the Zebra Car, & my Jurassic Park Tracker?

Uploading into scraps usually is kinda pointless because then no one knows you even posted them there as they don't show up on my own watched list. They sort of disappear into a black hole when dumped there. 

& is there a way to reverse / have an opition of how the favorites / submissions listing on a person's main page is / are displayed? The little thumbnail image idea doesn't work on my browser. aka tons of broken links 

Thank you for your time:
Zytx


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Arcturus said:


> So what constitutes rapid flashing? 1hz? 2hz? 5hz? what? Please define specifics.


I'd say the safe bet is anything that flashes at more than a 1s interval could be considered "rapid flashing". Anything that will trigger a seizure, or even close to it, is right out.


----------



## Arcturus (Jan 19, 2009)

So if there is more than 1 frame change per second, that's right out? Gotcha.


----------



## Nanakisan (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> I'd say the safe bet is anything that flashes at more than a 1s interval could be considered "rapid flashing". Anything that will trigger a seizure, or even close to it, is right out.



pretty much anything that flashes so fast it causes color blending
which i have seen done with .gif animations
cool effect but yes dangerous.

*looks at alancoronas old avatar
that thing is good example


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Nanakisan said:


> let me see your params and i'll gladly shout ya


Don't derail the thread.


----------



## Juliamon (Jan 19, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Umm what? That doesn't clarify anything.
> 
> RIGHT AFTER THAT it says, and I quote:
> 
> ...



It seems to me that there's a slight problem with interpretation here.
What I'm getting from the AUP is "don't post it if you're going to have sex with it." A sculpture would be different, unless you intend to "hot glue" it or use it as though it were a dildo. Is this close?


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Arcturus said:


> So if there is more than 1 frame change per second, that's right out? Gotcha.


You don't understand the word Flash, do you?

This is a no:
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq205/xo_lindy/COLORFUL.gif

This is ok:
http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq148/Cookiecoo369/Fun%20Images/Dance.gif



Juliamon said:


> It seems to me that there's a slight problem with interpretation here.
> What I'm getting from the AUP is "don't post it if you're going to have sex with it." A sculpture would be different, unless you intend to "hot glue" it or use it as though it were a dildo. Is this close?


Then a Dildo would be out... but Dragoneer clearly stated earlier that a Dildo would be OK if you made it... But Dildoes are not allowed per the AUP... 

*Head explode*

EDIT: And I dislike the room allowed for interpretation. The rules should be obvious, otherwise you open yourself up for a whole lot of shit.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 19, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> You don't understand the word Flash, do you?
> 
> This is a no:
> http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq205/xo_lindy/COLORFUL.gif
> ...



And the last one, in itself, was uber cute, haha.

Seriously, though, I think Dragoneer wanted peoples best interest and health in mind. If it even causes the slightest bit of controversy... Lets not use it? The point of having flashing avatars is annoying at best, anyhow. Sure, they may be cool at first, but eventually they'll mess with your eyes and people will naturally scroll past them to ignore them.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Zytx said:


> Seeing as how I do artwork upon a very different sort of medium here, aka a couple vehicles, Does this change of policy mean that I am no longer allowed to post updates on the Zebra Car, & my Jurassic Park Tracker?


Within reason, yes. Zeebcar is fine so long as you're not uploading more than about three pics of it, at which point it would trigger the "Flooding" policy.



thorndraco said:


> I can always draw the critters and then link to a vid on YouTube in the description if I'm that happy with it. It encourages me to draw more anyway.


This is actually perfectly acceptable, and EXACTLY what we encourage users to do.


----------



## Narffet (Jan 19, 2009)

Rules:

1.) Don't be a dick
2.) Always ask permission
3.) Don't lie or steal
4.) Don't be a dick


----------



## Vulpes-Vulpes (Jan 19, 2009)

I guess there're a few other questions.
If a picture already on the site which is allowed in the past but prohibited in the new AUP, will it be deleted or fixed by other methods?



Dragoneer said:


> ...Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted,...


Well, if I uploaded a photo of me, but I happened to hurt myself somewhere accidentally (in parts that are showed in the photo like face or hand), leaving some scar there, will this photo be prohibited?


----------



## Nanakisan (Jan 19, 2009)

Narffet said:


> Rules:
> 
> 1.) Don't be a dick
> 2.) Always ask permission
> ...



lool

heres my idea for a simplified AUP

1.) don't be stupid
2.) ask permission or meet my hammah
3.) lies are ok sometimes but stealing nuuu thats evil
4.) being an ass is your problem but we don't need your smelly rear here in FA so uhh care to have a chat with Mr.Hammer over here

5.) SL photos are stupid and we know it so we give you 3 image limit. if you break it i will come to your sim and crash it for weeks on end


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Vulpes-Vulpes said:


> I guess there're a few other questions.
> If a picture already on the site which is allowed in the past but prohibited in the new AUP, will it be deleted or fixed by other methods?
> 
> 
> Well, if I uploaded a photo of me, but I happened to hurt myself somewhere accidentally (in parts that are showed in the photo like face or hand), leaving some scar there, will this photo be prohibited?


Burn Victums... No Mugshots for j0 

Sorry, not really ranting about this... I dislike gore... but I couldn't help myself


----------



## thorndraco (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> This is actually perfectly acceptable, and EXACTLY what we encourage users to do.



I'm really glad for that.


----------



## Zytx (Jan 19, 2009)

So in order to be perfectly clear here, (because it is really late & I am tired)

_You say: ""_Within reason, yes. Zeebcar is fine so long as you're not uploading more than about three pics of it, at which point it would trigger the "Flooding" policy.""

Is that 3 photos at once, or 3 photos total ever in the entire gallery?

I just want to be clear on this subject. At best I've only ever uploaded maybe 2 photos of the car at one time in the past.

Z


----------



## Rabbitboy3 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> For the same reason we'll allow people who sculpt a dildo to post their images of their creation but not let people post images of them testing out their toy.



So a modified or custom plush toy that is obviously sexual in nature or is to be used as a sex toy, but is not being used for that purpose in an uploaded photograph, is allowed?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Zytx said:


> So in order to be perfectly clear here, (because it is really late & I am tired)
> 
> _You say: ""_Within reason, yes. Zeebcar is fine so long as you're not uploading more than about three pics of it, at which point it would trigger the "Flooding" policy.""
> 
> ...


To be honest, we *are* somewhat lenient on that. However, so, we may be slack and allow a few more than the general rule of flooding. However, if we go to your gallery and there are 10+ pictures of the same thing (e.g. car, sculpture, etc.) you will probably get a note from the admins. Generally, my rule of thumb is this: sometimes a collage can say just as much as four submissions of the same exact thing.

If I, or any other admin, feels a gallery is over saturated with images of the same thing you will probably get a note asking to clean it up.



Quiet269 said:


> Sorry, not really ranting about this... I dislike gore... but I couldn't help myself


*nod* Fur Affinity is NOT the website to be posting _real life gore_. However, I will state that make-up can be allowed. A great example of that would be Louie Furrywolfy, who has posted some awesome zombie pictures.

The key word is "real" gore. Fake gore may be nasty, but if it's done artistically... it can be acceptable.



Vulpes-Vulpes said:


> If a picture already on the site which is allowed in the past but prohibited in the new AUP, will it be deleted or fixed by other methods?


We're not going to go on an inquisition tomorrow. And frankly, we have better things to do than witch hunt old submissions. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, if a gallery has an exceptional amount of violations per the new rules we will come visit. 

As far as I am concerned, the only submissions grandfathered into this new policy are Second Life screenshots (for now). Photos are on the hitlist.



Vulpes-Vulpes said:


> Well, if I uploaded a photo of me, but I happened to hurt myself somewhere accidentally (in parts that are showed in the photo like face or hand), leaving some scar there, will this photo be prohibited?


We're not dicks, and a scar is alright (within degree). However, is the scar is shooting pus at the camera, it's still fresh, it's gory... uh, yeah, not acceptable. If the scar has healed then it's not a big concern.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Thanks for your help so far Dragoneer... I know you guys are just trying to do best by the site, but people will have questions....

I need to sleep now, but I'm interested in your response to the photographs policy... as it's gotten kind of convoluted, and actually contradictory in this thread...


----------



## dmfalk (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> [*]*Basic Quality/Content* - Photographs of poor quality (grainy, blurred, out of focus or washed out) or images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. toys, games, movies) must be uploaded to Scraps.


Being that this is an ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE matter, rather than limiting to acceptable content, it's something that is entirely challengable (and should be), and thus should be stricken, insofar as image quality. As for collections, I have no qualms with these being placed in Scraps. Quality and collections are two separate issues, as should be addressed separately.



Dragoneer said:


> [*]Mashups - Mash-ups are only permitted when one half of the mash-up contains user-created material.


The definition of a "mash-up" is the combination of two (or more) songs/song elements (samples) that are mixed together- Usually rhythm/melody of one (or more) song(s) with the vocals of another. User control usually is limited to editing and mixing. FA's best mashup artist is Allan. Under the current "permission", very little of his music is allowable, and reflects a misunderstanding of what mashups are. This needs to be addressed.

d.m.f.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jan 19, 2009)

> Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain "User created content". If there is no "User created content" in the submission, then it may not be uploaded. Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they do not violate the Flooding Policy.



Is animation of poser figures considered user created content? or are you going back on what you said about poser 'neer?


----------



## Talosar (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> It has nothing to do with server space, but an increase of images which are grainy, impossible to see and out of focus. Just because you can post a picture to FA *doesn't* mean you should.



I can see what you're trying to do with this, and it's good that such photos are being pushed into scraps folders rather than disallowed entirely, but don't you think it's a dangerous direction to go in?  Even if it's just for photos, I'm uncomfortable about any change to the rules that go to quality, as opposed to just content. I'm not saying that you or the admins would take that additional step and apply it to other types of submissions as well, but surely whatever reasoning is behind the change to photo rules could technically be applied to other areas too, and it just... concerns me.


----------



## falderal (Jan 19, 2009)

Is there a common link for the webpage that the AUP rests on or is it always on here. Sorry, but I thought that it was actually a regular webpage and there was a link somewhere off the main site.


----------



## lzeringue (Jan 19, 2009)

Photography Changes:
THANK YOU FROM ALL OF US WITH LIVES AND COMMON SENSE.  <3


----------



## lzeringue (Jan 19, 2009)

Talosar said:


> I can see what you're trying to do with this, and it's good that such photos are being pushed into scraps folders rather than disallowed entirely, but don't you think it's a dangerous direction to go in?  Even if it's just for photos, I'm uncomfortable about any change to the rules that go to quality, as opposed to just content. I'm not saying that you or the admins would take that additional step and apply it to other types of submissions as well, but surely whatever reasoning is behind the change to photo rules could technically be applied to other areas too, and it just... concerns me.



Quality standards: Working just fine for VCL since antiquity.


----------



## mycroftb (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> As a Music Submission - Users may not upload original copyright renditions of audio.



Minor nitpick, this could be clarified a bit.  Unless explicitly placed into the public domain, all creative works are copyrighted, so "copyright" is redundant.  Even Creative Commons licensed work is still copyrighted.  Interpreted literally, the quoted rule means people can't upload their own works they created themselves.

Maybe something like "Users may not upload unmodified renditions of audio without the copyright holder's permission."?

Then again, that really should apply to all submissions, not just audio...


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

dmfalk said:


> Being that this is an ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE matter, rather than limiting to acceptable content, it's something that is entirely challengable (and should be), and thus should be stricken, insofar as image quality. As for collections, I have no qualms with these being placed in Scraps. Quality and collections are two separate issues, as should be addressed separately.


They will be handled on a case-by-case basis, but yes... it is subjective. And no, the image quality clause will not be stricken. We've discussed this in and out over the past three years on FA (three years). Essentially, it will be up to the admin's discretion. Our goal is to be fair, yet stern. Most of the people on the admin staff are artists, and we're talking BASIC quality guidelines.

Frankly put, I'll be honest and say there is no perfect way to handle this, but we're easing into standards to improve the quality of the site. If you want to post a photo to FA take the time to shoot the photo. Do not just "snap off" a shot with your cellphone in a half lit room while bouncing around in the air to have a blurry, darkly lit, grainy/fuzzy image that is hard to see. Quality standards are never popular, but I'm prepared to take the unpopular stance and stand my ground.

Upload them to scraps. They're not gallery material.



dmfalk said:


> The definition of a "mash-up" is the combination of two (or more) songs/song elements (samples) that are mixed together- Usually rhythm/melody of one (or more) song(s) with the vocals of another. User control usually is limited to editing and mixing. FA's best mashup artist is Allan. Under the current "permission", very little of his music is allowable, and reflects a misunderstanding of what mashups are. This needs to be addressed.


Mashups can be creative, yes, but other than taking two copyright songs and "mashing them up" what user created content is there? Picking out the selection? 



Talosar said:


> I can see what you're trying to do with this, and it's good that such photos are being pushed into scraps folders rather than disallowed entirely, but don't you think it's a dangerous direction to go in?  Even if it's just for photos, I'm uncomfortable about any change to the rules that go to quality, as opposed to just content.


Is it a dangerous direction? Yes, yes it is. But it's a step in the right direction. First and foremost, FA is an art site, and this is one of the first steps in improving that stance.

As an admin, I respect photography... but I do not respect people treating Fur Affinity like Photobucket. However, I want to make sure the steps we take are the RIGHT steps, so I'm easing into it. There is a reason my original "Photobucket Policy" from almost two years ago was shot down. It wasn't ready, and it was too drastic.



redfoxnudetoons said:


> Is animation of poser figures considered user created content? or are you going back on what you said about poser 'neer?


If you created the animation, yes. But I would make sure you specifically state that in the description.



mycroftb said:


> Maybe something like "Users may not upload unmodified renditions of audio without the copyright holder's permission."?


No, because even with permission it would still violate By You/For You. The basic reason that particular line is in the AUP is because people still think it's cool to upload their favorite Linkin Park song to FA, and oh my god, they have to upload the entire fucking album and when that happens Dragoneer screams like a bitch and wants to slap the person and... *cough*

It's easier to re-state that particular line to prevent people from uploading copyright work.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jan 19, 2009)

> If you created the animation, yes. But I would make sure you specifically state that in the description.



Dose this mean static poses that are user created (i.e. not a preset pose) are no longer allowed?


----------



## dmfalk (Jan 19, 2009)

mycroftb said:


> Minor nitpick, this could be clarified a bit.  Unless explicitly placed into the public domain, all creative works are copyrighted, so "copyright" is redundant.  Even Creative Commons licensed work is still copyrighted.  Interpreted literally, the quoted rule means people can't upload their own works they created themselves.
> 
> Maybe something like "Users may not upload unmodified renditions of audio without the copyright holder's permission."?
> 
> Then again, that really should apply to all submissions, not just audio...



Both these points I agree with. I personally do clean-up (audio restoration) of public-domain recordings as a hobby, but have been reluctant to even ask whether this was allowable or not (I generally assume not, so...), so it's a moot point, but yes, I think the prohibitions of ANY submissions that would violate the "By You/For You" definition applies, and should have explicit permission whenever possible, if someone other than the creator of said work submits the work.

d.m.f.
writer/editor


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> Dose this mean static poses that are user created (i.e. not a preset pose) are no longer allowed?


A static pose... I'm going to have to say no, because the primary focus of the submission would default to the model. To be bluntly honest... anybody can pose a pre-made avatar. Anybody. Just look at Garry's Mod. Not everybody can animate something worth seeing.



dmfalk said:


> I personally do clean-up (audio restoration) of public-domain recordings as a hobby, but have been reluctant to even ask whether this was allowable or not (I generally assume not, so...), so it's a moot point, but yes, I think the prohibitions of ANY submissions that would violate the "By You/For You" definition applies, and should have explicit permission whenever possible, if someone other than the creator of said work submits the work.


No, because the root of the original creation would have been created by another artist and not created for you. While the audio cleanup is one thing (and awesome, I may add) it still violates the core policy of FA, the By You/For You.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jan 19, 2009)

> A static pose... I'm going to have to say no, because the primary focus of the submission would default to the model. To be bluntly honest... anybody can pose a pre-made avatar. Anybody. Just look at Garry's Mod. Not everybody can animate something worth seeing.



Understood. At least my animations are still going to be allowed.

Just one more question on the subject.

Are user created texture maps enough to count as user created content?


----------



## farellemoon (Jan 19, 2009)

// images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. toys, games, movies) must be uploaded to Scraps.

What of instances where it's showing a collection that is of artwork? Like how some people will upload collections of badges they have done OR collected or convention prints?

They uploaded it to their scraps but this is the best example I could find: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1281267/

Had that been my shot (ha!) I would have tried to add it to my gallery.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

redfoxnudetoons said:


> Are user created texture maps enough to count as user created content?


Yeah, but if you texture map a mustache on a pre-made avatar I'm going to laugh at you.

*cough*

Yes, within reason. If the texture map is a significant focus of the image, then I'm fine with it. But if people are mapping something really insignificant within the image then probably not.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 19, 2009)

The section on photomorphings gone. Is it still the same as before?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

farellemoon said:


> They uploaded it to their scraps but this is the best example I could find: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1281267/


In this instance they created it, so it's fine.



Quartz said:


> The section on photomorphings gone. Is it still the same as before?


Photomorphing is acceptable so long as it doesn't violate the section regarding photos and sexual organs.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jan 19, 2009)

> Yeah, but if you texture map a mustache on a pre-made avatar I'm going to laugh at you.
> 
> *cough*
> 
> Yes, within reason. If the texture map is a significant focus of the image, then I'm fine with it. But if people are mapping something really insignificant within the image then probably not.



The reason why I ask this is because I use a self created texture map on the furraldo poser figure (which, in case it's relevant, has been released by Little Dragon himself to be used in even commercial applications) to represent myself in 3D. I just want to make sure that it is still permissible to do this.


----------



## wolfbird (Jan 19, 2009)

"Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain "User created content". If there is no "User created content" in the submission, then it may not be uploaded. Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they do not violate the Flooding Policy."



Thank GOD on this one. 

I am so tired of seeing terrible Poser "art" spamming the Browse function. I am also sick of people who put so little skill/effort into Poser crap getting props for it. Come on, you didn't make it-- you just posed it in a (usually unnatural) position. You're not fooling any real artists.

Funny thing, really-- I live with a 3D artist and when first introduced to Poser I honestly though it was some kind of joke name that real 3D artists called it for laughs. You know, in the same way street punks laugh at kids from the suburbs with safety pins in their clothes and call them posers. It occurred to me only later that Poser is also used as an anatomy reference (ever wanted a specific pose reference before and Google images wasn't finding any?)... and I honestly can't think of why anyone would want to use it for anything more than that.


----------



## Talosar (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Is it a dangerous direction? Yes, yes it is. But it's a step in the right direction. First and foremost, FA is an art site, and this is one of the first steps in improving that stance.
> 
> As an admin, I respect photography... but I do not respect people treating Fur Affinity like Photobucket. However, I want to make sure the steps we take are the RIGHT steps, so I'm easing into it. There is a reason my original "Photobucket Policy" from almost two years ago was shot down. It wasn't ready, and it was too drastic.



I don't necessarily agree, but I'm glad that it's been thoroughly discussed and thought over. As I said earlier I can see what you're trying to do with this. I think it's good that you're focused on growth and improvement, and I know you get a lot of people complaining about everything, so I was reluctant to add to that. I just wanted to express a concern, which is still there, somewhat, but I'm content to take an optimistic approach and see how it all works out.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> A static pose... I'm going to have to say no, because the primary focus of the submission would default to the model. To be bluntly honest... anybody can pose a pre-made avatar. Anybody. Just look at Garry's Mod. Not everybody can animate something worth seeing.



While I will agree with you that 'anyone can pose a pre-made avatar', not everyone can pose them _meaningfully_ or _well_, so I'm going to have to disagree with you here--not least because this rule will nearly terminate my ability to contribute here and as written eliminate just over half my gallery as it currently stands.  The only props in there that I actually 'constructed' are the theremin (used twice) and the telescope (used once).

I would argue that there is a huge difference between just throwing a render of a prop or model up, and actually assembling a scene, even if "just" using pre-existing props and models.  The focus isn't the model, it's the idea the model represents, and occasionally the point the Poser artist is trying to get across.

Yes, I use pre-existing models pretty much exclusively.  I lack the tools, the knowledge, and the deep understanding of physical form it takes to create a good original model that will pose realistically, or even plausibly.

But working in Poser is a lot more than just playing with digital Barbie and Ken dolls.

The animation-yes/static-no split misses a very important point: _not all 3D artists think like directors_.  I'm a photographer by avocation.  I think in individual frames, not sequences, and I treat Poser (and Bryce) as a way to 'photograph' what's in my mind that I lack the technical skill to draw.

I can see wanting to bar images of just bland, blank poses, unless it _is_ an original prop or model the artist is testing.  But I think the wording needs to be looked at to allow those of us who actually _do_ put an effort into their renders--original models or not--to continue to contribute.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Kefan said:


> But I think the wording needs to be looked at to allow those of us who actually _do_ put an effort into their renders--original models or not--to continue to contribute.


You can still post Poser images if you create your own models and/or do significant work to make them stand out. E.g. "User Created Content".

The problem is, however, too many people are just plunking down the default models, buying a plug-in and/or using pre-made and/or game-ripped models (e.g. Krystal). If you created your own model, or even modified significantly from the original, that would be permissible. However, it would have to be unique. Simple taking Part A and Part B and sticking them together like Mr. Potatohead wouldn't be sufficient.


----------



## Charlie_Kitsune (Jan 19, 2009)

I've seen photography of hyper manga human girls sculpts. Is it acceptable with upload policy?


----------



## Zipclaw (Jan 19, 2009)

> Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain "User created content". If there is no "User created content" in the submission, then it may not be uploaded.



I guess that also counts for DAZ. Hm... I know someone who won't like this.



> Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they do not violate the Flooding Policy.



So, Terragen renderings will be allowed? Or is there anything else to take notice about?


----------



## marmelmm (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Simple taking Part A and Part B and sticking them together like Mr. Potatohead wouldn't be sufficient.



H'm.  How about if you add snappy dialogue?  In that case, it's not so much that Mr. Potatohead is there, it's that he's making a trenchant statement about life, love and the human condition...  

Anyhoo, quicky question re: fill-in-the-blank memes.  Here's one that I created and that I'm curious about:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1886218/

Now, the gag is that the image is repeated multiple times, along with a couple of punchlines at the end.  In this case, the image is covered under "for you", so that's not a problem.  My question is:  If the repeated image is, say, the aforementioned Mr. Potatohead, does the composition as a whole qualify?    In terms of art, the artist wouldn't have actually drawn anything; the art would come in terms of the writing involved.  

Don't need a quick answer on this one, as I'm more idly curious than anything else.

Keep up the good work!  

-MMM-

(BTW, the new userpage gallery update rawks.)


----------



## Imago (Jan 19, 2009)

Well, the wording is hard to follow. And by it a lot of people are going to derive that "Poser" art isn't allowed anymore. 

But I from what I read all the time. A lot of people say over and over again "3D isn't art". You hear it mostly from traditional artists. But 3D is the future, but telling people that you can't post that here because it's not your model. But I've seen a lot of good nah, great artwork done by 3D artists using Poser and only using the models they had available to them none of their own stuff. But that's over at Renderosity and that's a predominately human based 3D art site. 

But a lot of traditional artists say 3D not being art is wrong. Almost all cartoons now are done on computers and more and more are going to 3D and using cell-like shading on them to make them look drawn. Saying Poser is nothing more then a toy is also wrong. It is an art tool like any other art tool be it Photoshop, Flash, Paintshop, or whatever. And not everyone is a modeler. And really saying no more Poser stuff if you don't put your own content in to it is a little wrong. Because I mean if you sit down to make a picture and use stuff that you didn't make you do put something else in to it. You put your heart in to it. You put your emotions in to it. You put a lot in to it that wasn't there, because without the person behind the computer creating it then it would never have been made. 

Maybe it's just me or to me but traditional pen/ink/pencil/etc artists tend to look down their muzzles at 3D artists. Saying, "Oh, that isn't art. Why is this allowed here?" But without 3D artists and animators there wouldn't have been any movies like Kung Fu Panda, Wall-e (or whatever), Ice Age 1 and 2, Shrek, etc. So, if they had all listened to other artists who said, "3D isn't really art it's just posing a model." Then the animators wouldn't have animated those movies. If they had listened to the traditional artists who said, "Models aren't an art form!" Then the 3D modelers wouldn't have ever made the models to be animated by the animators. 

So, I guess by telling everyone that they can't use Poser unless they created content for it. (texture, model, etc.) Then you'll probably lose a lot of good artists that may be up and coming. Sure you do see people doing bland tasteless renders, but I see a lot more scribble art by traditional artists then I see renders. 

But in the end it's all up to the site and we all bow to the will of the management. I for one use Lightwave now and have to import, rig, and fur up Poser models so yeah, I guess my 3D can be considered user created, because Poser doesn't have fur. (Unless you count that sorry excuse for a hair room that doesn't work or look good at all.) Sadly when you start dictating what is art and what is not you miss out on a lot of great stuff.

*bows to the will of the management and walks back to my gallery.*


----------



## ohtar (Jan 19, 2009)

Art memes are fill in the blanks. so are they banned now?


----------



## Electrocat (Jan 19, 2009)

Hey, there ^^
Nice updating on the rules.

I love FA way too much to get banned, so I just want to check on something about uploading mutliple verisons.

You said an inked and coloured version is fine to upload.
What I do with my comissions is upload a concept / rough, lineart, coloured and fluffy / fx version.

When the final version is up, I move the other versions of the submission to my scraps. Should I remove the previous versions from scraps completely or make a progress collage out of the roughworks?

Sorry to bother ya ^^


----------



## Kefan (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> You can still post Poser images if you create your own models and/or do significant work to make them stand out. E.g. "User Created Content".
> 
> The problem is, however, too many people are just plunking down the default models, buying a plug-in and/or using pre-made and/or game-ripped models (e.g. Krystal). If you created your own model, or even modified significantly from the original, that would be permissible. However, it would have to be unique. Simple taking Part A and Part B and sticking them together like Mr. Potatohead wouldn't be sufficient.



What I feel like here--and I feel sure this isn't your intent--is that those of us who are actually using applications like Poser to try to generate something artistic are being swept up along with the users who are abusing the applications to just post mindless junk.

The simple fact is, I don't have the eye for modifying or creating models--I've tried, repeatedly, and I've failed.  They look like transporter accidents on Star Trek.  My textures invariably look like muddy plastic wrap.  There's something to doing it right that I don't 'get', and that I desperately wish I _could_ 'get'.

And what counts as 'original modification'?  I think about hair type, hair, skin, eye and fur color, expression, build, height and weight, whether to add decorations or not--all of these things come out of a library of pre-existing props and objects.  Are these modifications?  To some extent, I think so.  It's the process of building a _character_ out of a _prop_.

The DAZ/Zygote centaur is a prop.  When I add hair, color, skin tone, eye color, set different reflectivity parameters for the skin, the fur, and the hooves, put a transparency map on the tail, and then add jewelry and/or props, then slightly alter the head shape to get a 'look' that I'm after, soften or sharpen individual facial features and set an expression, and then create a milieu for him to exist in, even a simple one, that's a character.

I will argue that it's the difference between taking a box of Legos and making a tower of blocks, or taking a box of Legos and making a roughly accurate model of your house complete with windows, doors and rooms.  It's not the tools, it's what you do with them.

So while I'm limited largely by what pre-exists (my telescope and theremin props notwithstanding), that _does not limit my imagination_.  What I try to do to make my work stand out is try to say something with the _image_, not with the _model_.

I'm no genius, but neither am I just throwing things up and going 'hur hur hur look nekkid', and I feel as though I'm being lumped together with those who are.

I realize this is a problem, but no more than the photography problem.  If you can separate 'bad' photos from 'good', you can separate 'bad' Poser from 'good'.  Standing up a model without even changing the background or ground color, enlarging the breasts, and posting it under the title 'BEWBZ!!1!' is clearly bad Poser.

We don't _all_ do that, though.  I think there's a way for a little middle ground.


----------



## artonis (Jan 19, 2009)

Well, I'm sorry, I am 3D artist, and I am GLAD about the new Poser rules. 3D art is art, yes... When you actually made it yourself.

I'm generally approving of every rule that is meant to improve quality. 

I mean, it really isn't that hard to turn on the light and maybe an extra lamp when you photograph something. Or reshoot it when it turned out blurry. Or don't use lined, crinkled paper. Or put a damned shirt on when you post a photo of yourself.

Thumbs up!


----------



## Ranard Lightningfall (Jan 19, 2009)

artonis said:


> Well, I'm sorry, I am 3D artist, and I am GLAD about the new Poser rules. 3D art is art, yes... When you actually made it yourself.
> 
> I'm generally approving of every rule that is meant to improve quality.
> 
> ...



I want you to DEINE made yourself.


----------



## AkiraShima (Jan 19, 2009)

Sigh... so about this death thing. does this mean that photographing skulls of animals and other such things (like skeletons and fossils) is now banned. since no one else seems to care about such things i figured i would have to make an forum account and ask. 

and so now one cannot upload more than three images a day? i have not really seen a good answer on that either. I have read things that have skirted the question in ways but not just a simple That many a day and no more. of course this would affect me in more than one way. since i paint on lanterns which can have upwards of 6 images taken of one to see all the details on a lantern as a three dimensional work on a sphere. ignoring if i do any details on the top and bottom.


----------



## ohtar (Jan 19, 2009)

Ranard Lightningfall said:


> I want you to DEINE made yourself.



by 'made yourself' I would assume the meaning is literal. 
There's taking a pre-made model and posing it for a picture, then there's creating a model from the bottom up and using THAT for your picture. 

Anyone with poser software and a basic knowledge of the program can take a model, dress it, paint it up a bit, and make it hump a chair. It takes skill to create the model from scratch.


----------



## dogisdead (Jan 19, 2009)

Some great rules here, thank god  >3


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 19, 2009)

Ok I myself don't have to be concerned about what i submit because i always get the artists permission first.

But there is a matter of deep importance to me. I know and watch three Fa users and my concern is for them. Now you mentioned "poser" And i admit I am not familiar with it, but tehre are 5 users I watch and enjoy what they post immensely but my concern is that they will be forced to remove their posts and leave FA I want to list them  because I want to stand behind them if they now violate that part of the updated terms.

Jason Canty: I do not know what he sued but he does 3d style stuff and I for one do not want to see him pushed out because of this new rule.
Daymond42: He works in a similar fashion as Jason Canty does and they even to colabs together. I do not want to see him forced of FA either.
Imago: Another fur who does similar work. He has to me his unique style like the other two listed and I do not want to see him forced out.
GabrielSabien: He is another one who does 3d stuff and again not sure what they use but again I rather not them get attacked and leave Fa.
AngelFyre: She is a great and close friend to me she uses Daz and there again she does 3d stuff. 

There would have been a 6th name but he already removed all his stuff because he was angry that he would have to eventually remove his stuff so for now he is gone.

i hate to say this Dragonner but that part of the new ToS either should be heavily debated, removed, or modified So if it is an original idea whether it is in a way fan art it can be allowed to now be touched. If one on my contact list already removed his stuff and might leave Fa I imagine as others who do 3d art will also leave if they are in violation. Fa is supposed to be a fur friendly site and you know as well as i do that most human-like 3d art always has some base for any program at least all the ones i've seen.

So please re-think this and give all those i mentioned as other who also do 3d art know they are welcome here.


----------



## Ranard Lightningfall (Jan 19, 2009)

I heard about this, and I could not stay placid over it. Trying to do this to the poser/DAZ users AGAIN?

For the love of little green apples.... >.<

Look, I'm ALL for keep things quality. But this was exactly the sort of bull crap that made me pull my gallery and go into hiding.

What MAKES the art is as important then what goes INTO it.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/950026/ 

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1082357/

Both use premades, I'm not sure how much 'user created content' went in to them, but your going to stop them from uploading good stuff like that just cause it was a premade model?

From a standpoint, the moment someone draws a line, moves the image, takes a picture, whatever, it becomes user created content. They 'made' the image what it was. HOW and what they used to do it is illrelevent.


----------



## Imago (Jan 19, 2009)

Bah, everyone can say it takes no skill to take a model and dress it up and make it hump something. But really I've seen bad clunky animations done. Not everyone can animate something smoothly. 

And yes, it takes skill to make a model, but some people do lack those skills. But it takes more then just a quick throw a model in to make a good render in Poser. You have to adjust lights. You have to adjust the model. Yeah, a lot of people will just slop crap up there. But really good Poser artists don't just throw everything on the screen and title it "FTW BEWBS!!!" 

Think of it this way for a moment. Everyone had to start out somewhere even if they are a traditional artist. So, if you were just starting out with your pen and paper and posted something and were told, "You can't post that here because it doesn't have *fill in whatever here*" Would you stop drawing? Would you look for a better place to show off your art? Or would you just conform and draw what you were told.

I've seen more then my share of scribble work here things that look like they took maybe 10 seconds to draw and maybe 5 to scan and then 20 to post. But I don't see anyone saying, "No more scribbles because it's not "real" art."

I guess the whole thing is biased towards wanting traditional artists more then 3D artists. And even though Poser is an easy to use program it does take skill to make a beautiful picture come out of it. Singling out Poser artists is like a witch hunt. 

And now, ask yourself... What other art form is next on the chopping block? 


What we all need is an example of what is and isn't allowed, because wordy tirades tend to end up misconstrued.

_*Edit*_ -- And sadly my friend Ranard has informed me that he can no longer post in the forums. So, I'm going to leave what I said about what art form is next lest I be next to be silenced but in life there is always something you don't want to hear but if you silence everyone with a different opinion then you are staying very closed minded and not being very open to other people's views or opinions. Well, if I guess if it stands that 3D isn't going to be allowed here, then everyone can still see my art on Deviant Art under the name Imago3d. *shaking head* Sad state of affairs and sadly I believe a lot of great artists will be gone because of this. If you don't use pencil and paper then you're not a real artist I suppose... At least in some people's minds. --


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

ohtar said:


> Art memes are fill in the blanks. so are they banned now?


"Fill in the blank" refers to the "caption this" style memes that people like. Anything that requires actual artistic contribution is fine.



Electrocat said:


> I love FA way too much to get banned, so I just want to check on something about uploading mutliple verisons.
> 
> You said an inked and coloured version is fine to upload. What I do with my comissions is upload a concept / rough, lineart, coloured and fluffy / fx version.


You can leave them in your gallery or move them to scraps. Up to you.



AkiraShima said:


> Sigh... so about this death thing. does this mean that photographing skulls of animals and other such things (like skeletons and fossils) is now banned.


It's in reference to people posting images of dead animals exploded on the side of the road. A skull, if done tasteful, is fine.



AkiraShima said:


> and so now one cannot upload more than three images a day? i have not really seen a good answer on that either.


It really depends. When we look at flooding we look at multiple aspects of it. Is it iterations of the same or similar submission? Is it part of a series, etc? If you're uploading unique submissions then we're generally not going to say much. However, if you're uploading a dozen or more submissions in a day constantly we may give you a quick note.



Ranard Lightningfall said:


> I heard about this, and I could not stay placid over it. Trying to do this to the poser/DAZ users AGAIN?


http://www.sharecg.com/v/26811/poser/Krystal-HUDset-(For-Poser)?division_id=11

The rules are written to target people who just download a Poser model (e.g. Krystal) and go at it. _*IF YOU CREATE YOUR OWN MODELS IN POSER... *_then you are fine. If you are using the build in standard models, a model generator, a downloaded model (e.g. Krystal), a purchased model from DAZ and/or any sort of creature creator then is in violation.

If you create your own models you are FINE.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 19, 2009)

Imago said:


> But I from what I read all the time. A lot of people say over and over again "3D isn't art". You hear it mostly from traditional artists. But 3D is the future, but telling people that you can't post that here because it's not your model.


For the love of everyone's sanity, please distinguish between mannequin 3D and 3D modelling.

3D modelling is not even remotely related to DAZ/poser/etc stuff and if you ever sat down and modelled something in 3Dsmax you would know the difference. (I recommend it. It's awesome, addictive and will give you improvement in other arts.)

These are 2 separate art forms, do not compare them, do not blanket them under "3D".

artonis: thank you!



> Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain "User created content". If there is no "User created content" in the submission, then it may not be uploaded.


Maybe it would all in all be a good idea to specify how much user created contents we're talking about. However, this discussion has been had to death. Another site I'm at tries to ban in completely, but we can't always know where people got their models if they are not recognizable.

?

Edit: oh, that's pretty much answered then  yay.


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> http://www.sharecg.com/v/26811/poser/Krystal-HUDset-(For-Poser)?division_id=11
> 
> The rules are written to target people who just download a Poser model (e.g. Krystal) and go at it. _*IF YOU CREATE YOUR OWN MODELS IN POSER... *_then you are fine. If you are using the build in standard models, a model generator, a downloaded model (e.g. Krystal), a purchased model from DAZ and/or any sort of creature creator then is in violation.
> 
> If you create your own models you are FINE.



So does that mean users like Daymond, Jason canty and cujoe_da_man are going to be tossed out and have the rest stay?? what next banning all sonic based fan art. come on Dragoneer the screen shots i understood, the RL photo stuff that is good, but 3d art including fan art. And who knows how some like the names i've listed put a fan character into the submission. i mean what is its a highly edited model ? Where can you honestly drawn a line.

so many users on my watch list have put up journals debating whether to leave and go elsewhere now and I'm telling them to wait and fight this.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> So does that mean users like Daymond, Jason canty and cujoe_da_man are going to be tossed out and have the rest stay?


If it violates the rules, then yes.

Looking at Jason's gallery, for example, he does have a few which would be in violation. However, in regards to that, I would let people relocate them to scraps and keep the older images. However, any new images moving forward from today would come under the new rules.



Kitoth said:


> come on Dragoneer the screen shots i understood, the RL photo stuff that is good, but 3d art including fan art.


Fan art is not on the chopping block. At all.


----------



## artonis (Jan 19, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> For the love of everyone's sanity, please distinguish between mannequin 3D and 3D modelling.
> 
> 3D modelling is not even remotely related to DAZ/poser/etc stuff and if you ever sat down and modelled something in 3Dsmax you would know the difference. (I recommend it. It's awesome, addictive and will give you improvement in other arts.)
> 
> ...



What she said. 
It's like saying, "Look, I didn't get any quick, awesome results the hard way, so I am using this software that has essentially all the hard work done already." I mean, what would you think of a 2D artist who thinks it's too hard to learn to draw and then just copy-pastes parts of other people's art, and then arranges them to a new piece, even if the original artists would allow that? Would you say they are drawing? 

Seriously, work on real modelling. Yes, it is hard. Yes, it takes a while. But that is how it is with every artistic profession. It took me 15 years of work to get where I am, but you will feel oh so much better about what you do, 'cause you can seriously say, "I did all of that!". 
And Poser will not help you improve with 3D art in general, after 15 years of poser work you will still be unable to model anything.


But, why bother. This discussion has been going on in 3D art for a million years and any further discussion is moot. Not that arguing with laziness ever accomplished anything. The rules are there, deal with it.


----------



## straydog (Jan 19, 2009)

I like how lots of people, who are now offended by the new rules because it affronts on their ability to 'contribute', are so insanely butthurt over the fact that the people who run, pay for, and manage something they're using FOR FREE, want to have more control over how their resources are being used. I guess everyone forgot that using FA isn't a right, it's a courtesy/privilege/whatever. So much for looking a gift horse in the mouth, or whatever the saying is.

That said...I'm curious regarding the whole 3D thing. It seems contradictory to disallow Poser-derived art on the basis that it's not content that was created by the user (thus not 'for' or 'by' the user)...and also disallow 'mash up' audio on the same basis, while allowing photo manipulations. There's no significant difference between them---all involve taking content created by someone else and 'mashing' it together---some do so with far more effort and skill than others, but the underlying truth remains that the content being used was not made for or by the editor of them. Does lots of smudging/blurring/sharpening and use of photoshop filter overlays to simulate fur texture suddenly make it sufficiently 'user created' and thus permissible?

So why are photo manips allowed, yet Poser art and audio mash-ups aren't? Seems contradictory, especially given that photo manips involve far more potential copyright infringement problems than the others (as most are using, without permission, other peoples' photos).


----------



## cujoe_da_man (Jan 19, 2009)

OK, I'm going to be blunt, you people are being unfair and unjust.  Why?

First:
You let people post 3D images of Second Life which has all been made and needs to have people download items to place on thier character... how is that ok?

Second:
You CAN'T create your own figures IN Poser, that isn't how it works... maybe if you took the time to research something that YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, you'd understand it better.

Third:
I do A LOT of my own texture work and some basic modeling of primitives to use with my figures

Fourth:
YOU artists don't create the paper and pencils you draw with... you buy them, same as me with my models.  Give that a try and tell me how it works

Fifth:
3D IS ART (in any shape or form)... you have NO RIGHT to tell an artist what IS or IS NOT art... only the ARTIST can say what is ART

Sixth:
if someone asks, or if the image warrants it, I rightfully let the members of FA know that most of what I do is purchased, I never said any of the items are 100% mine and sometimes will credit with a link to said item if I remember or said item exists still.

I have already proven that I can draw and model in other programs and have posted these examples, so what you are doing IS NOT FAIR just becuase I choose a medium and a way of doing things the way I want to do them

From what I understand, just in my journal alone, three people have left/are leaving/are deleting works because they are AFRAID!

You have managed to place fear and regret... and now loathing into the hearts of the people that have bailed your asses out when the entire system went down, nice way to show thanks to those that wanted to help and cared enough to help

If you want this to turn into another Deviant Art, just keep it up, you'll get there quick

good day


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> If it violates the rules, then yes.
> 
> Looking at Jason's gallery, for example, he does have a few which would be in violation. However, in regards to that, I would let people relocate them to scraps and keep the older images. However, any new images moving forward from today would come under the new rules.



What about Cujoe and the others I mean come on Dragoneer i've got like 12 users i watch most good friends who once they read it or have already read it are wondering what the hell to do. leave and find a site that will allow them to post as they have been prior to this update,  or just have them defy it and fight. I know you want this site to be better but in this case I have to say its hurting more than helping.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

artonis said:


> But, why bother. This discussion has been going on in 3D art for a million years and any further discussion is moot. Not that arguing with laziness ever accomplished anything. The rules are there, deal with it.


And we're still allowing Poser to, albeit with limitations. People can not use the default models and/or downloaded models. Yes, it will anger some people. 

I'm not asking anybody to learn how to create Inverse Kinetics chains (and if anybody has to look up that that means you have *NO* idea what 3D is), but you should at least create your Poser model from scratch and/or create something unique, and not by using the Dragoncreator, downloading a new model from DAZ or using freebies e.g. the Krystal model. Make something unique.


----------



## cujoe_da_man (Jan 19, 2009)

but you let people using Second Life to post pics that are ALL default models?  That makes a whole lot of sense.  What about manips?  I see them all the time, isn't that copyright infringement when someone takes a porn picture and changes it?  If they have permission, that's one thing, but they have to prove it, right?  At least I tell people where my work comes from


----------



## softpaw (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> "Fill in the blank" refers to the "caption this" style memes that people like. Anything that requires actual artistic contribution is fine.



You may want to clarify that in the policy, then, because it seems that quite a few people thought that the new policy refers to the type of art memes requiring one to draw a number of different doodles (which are "filling in the blanks").


----------



## cujoe_da_man (Jan 19, 2009)

and now you're gonna start silencing us?

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/594788/

when did this become a dictatorship all of the sudden?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

softpaw said:


> You may want to clarify that in the policy, then, because it seems that quite a few people thought that the new policy refers to the type of art memes requiring one to draw a number of different doodles (which are "filling in the blanks").


Excellent point. I renamed that to "add your own caption" to make it more clear as to the intent.


----------



## ohtar (Jan 19, 2009)

Imago said:


> Bah, everyone can say it takes no skill to take a model and dress it up and make it hump something. But really I've seen bad clunky animations done. Not everyone can animate something smoothly.



lol never said it had to be done WELL. 
XD


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

cujoe_da_man said:


> and now you're gonna start silencing us?
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/594788/
> 
> when did this become a dictatorship all of the sudden?


Actually, looking at his account... I don't know how he was even able to post to the forums at all because his account was set to "Users Awaiting E-mail Confirmation" which does not give posting access. He never confirmed his account. I set his user setting to "Registered User" in the system.

I do not censor/ban people simply for having an alternative viewpoint. You can go back and ask any of the posters in the Fractals thread, the forum Poser thread, etc. I have not now, nor ever, censored somebody for disagreeing with me. For violating FA rules? Yes. For disagreeing with me or expression a different viewpoint? No.


----------



## ohtar (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> "Fill in the blank" refers to the "caption this" style memes that people like. Anything that requires actual artistic contribution is fine.



aaah ok. just wanted to make sure.


----------



## Tachyon (Jan 19, 2009)

Imago said:


> Maybe it's just me or to me but traditional pen/ink/pencil/etc artists tend to look down their muzzles at 3D artists. Saying, "Oh, that isn't art. Why is this allowed here?" But without 3D artists and animators there wouldn't have been any movies like Kung Fu Panda, Wall-e (or whatever), Ice Age 1 and 2, Shrek, etc. So, if they had all listened to other artists who said, "3D isn't really art it's just posing a model." Then the animators wouldn't have animated those movies. If they had listened to the traditional artists who said, "Models aren't an art form!" Then the 3D modelers wouldn't have ever made the models to be animated by the animators.



Of course 3D is art, any "traditional artist" who said that is an idiot. A lot of the animosity from 2D artists, I think, is because of the way 2D was hurriedly shoved aside because of the, frankly, unjustified hype surrounding 3D. 2D arguably hasn't recovered yet, and it's a shame because *both* forms are art in their own right and *both* are attractive in their own ways.

Calling 3D "the future" doesn't help.



> So, I guess by telling everyone that they can't use Poser unless they created content for it. (texture, model, etc.) Then you'll probably lose a lot of good artists that may be up and coming. Sure you do see people doing bland tasteless renders, but I see a lot more scribble art by traditional artists then I see renders.



It's basically the same as saying 2D artists shouldn't upload traces. I agree that "scribble art" is of dubious merit.


----------



## Tachyon (Jan 19, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> So does that mean users like Daymond, Jason canty and cujoe_da_man are going to be tossed out and have the rest stay?? what next banning all sonic based fan art.



*crosses fingers* Oh please oh please oh please.


----------



## artonis (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> And we're still allowing Poser to, albeit with limitations. People can not use the default models and/or downloaded models. Yes, it will anger some people.
> 
> I'm not asking anybody to learn how to create Inverse Kinetics chains (and if anybody has to look up that that means you have *NO* idea what 3D is), but you should at least create your Poser model from scratch and/or create something unique, and not by using the Dragoncreator, downloading a new model from DAZ or using freebies e.g. the Krystal model. Make something unique.



Oh, I have no problem with Poser as long as they use models they have created, but how many do?

Also, Mr. Cujoe, I'm not sure who didn't do their research, since the tools to model your own meshes and the information on how to import them into Poser as posable figures are freely available on the wild ranges of the internet.


----------



## Imago (Jan 19, 2009)

KrisCrash - I do distinguish between the two. I've seen both horrible stock 3D renders from poser here and great work that was rendered from Poser here also. And if you're talking to me about sitting down and modeling something. I do. I make all kinds of things in Lightwave all the time, but I don't post every little thing I do here, because I donate a lot of what I do to the 3D poser community by rigging the characters, clothes, etc. That I make so others can download them and I personally love seeing renders made with something I made. So, really, don't tell me that modeling is addictive. I already know that.



--- And SL photos are now art, but Poser renders are not. So, you'll see a rush of huskies and foxes flying the flag now.

But now I'd have to say Atonis... BS. You can use Poser and then become a 3D modeler. I started out with Poser and it got me very interested in 3D programs. To the point I only use Lightwave now. So, people using Poser can use that as a jumping off point to spark interest in 3D and later modeling. You can use Poser to get a feel for how models pose and how the link chains work. (Which was helpful to look at how the bones were laid out when I started rigging models over in Lightwave.) So, Poser is a tool just like any other tool. Saying that you can spend time with Poser and never get any better at modeling or anything else is sad closed minded thinking. 

Cujoe_da_man I guess it became a dictatorship when people started disagreeing with what is and isn't art. But you're right people have to buy a lot of these models and then they have to spend time with them either making morphs or working with them. But if you're not a traditional artist then according to the new TOS you're better off taking snap shots in SL or putting up Terregen models. Because apparently that's "real" art. 

This is just really sad. *starts moving all the art I can to DA and my own art gallery on my website.* Sadly, enough it all starts with this slowly other "art" forms will be pushed out. Until the only thing left is pen and ink. Should've seen this coming, though. I still remember an argument a long time ago about 3D not being art. But if 3D isn't art, then why do I get paid for it? Huh... *laughs* Must be a fluke, huh?


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 19, 2009)

straydog said:


> So why are photo manips allowed, yet Poser art and audio mash-ups aren't? Seems contradictory, especially given that photo manips involve far more potential copyright infringement problems than the others (as most are using, without permission, other peoples' photos).


Hmm, wouldn't it require use of _one's own_ photos?



cujoe_da_man said:


> OK, I'm going to be blunt, you people are being unfair and unjust.  Why?
> 
> First:
> You let people post 3D images of Second Life which has all been made and needs to have people download items to place on thier character... how is that ok?


I understood the new rules as saying only people's "home-made" SL characters were allowed.



> Second:
> You CAN'T create your own figures IN Poser, that isn't how it works... maybe if you took the time to research something that YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, you'd understand it better.


Most know that, and further there are tons of modelling programs out there, many of which are free.



> Fourth:
> YOU artists don't create the paper and pencils you draw with... you buy them, same as me with my models. Give that a try and tell me how it works


Boy have I heard this one a lot. I don't think it's a valid argument.



> Fifth:
> 3D IS ART (in any shape or form)... you have NO RIGHT to tell an artist what IS or IS NOT art... only the ARTIST can say what is ART


3D posering is art, sure. I don't disagree with you, and it can be really pretty art too. But I can wholly agree with any art site that does not want it. It just isn't the same.


----------



## cujoe_da_man (Jan 19, 2009)

but that's what you're doing to any of us that use Poser.  Yes, I do know what IK chains are, I do know what planes are, I know what polys are, I know what rigging is, I know what vertices are, I know what UV texture maps are, I know in 3D that shapes are refered to as cube, sphere, pyramid, cylinder, etc.... shall I go on?  

I have tried other programs without much success, but that doesn't mean I gave up, it takes a lot longer to make your own figure AND set up a scene than people think... I use Poser becuase I want to have fun and post pictures of some kind of fantasy creature or tell a story of some kind.  When I get to a certain point,  will switch to another program, maybe Cinema or even 3DMax, but until then, this is what I know NOW.

Just becuase YOU don't like it means nothing, I love art in all forms.  I wish I could draw half as good as most people here, but what I can draw isn't as good as what I can do on the computer.  I do know what it takes to make a good picture stand out, using the right tools and proper techniques.  

If you tried to use Poser, you'd see it's more than just downloading a figure and having your way with it.  That isn't to say that it's completely custom, but c'mon, you let manips all over the site, how is that even tolerated?  You take an existing picture that someone else made and you change it... it is in no way different to what I do... only that I have more control becuase I'm allowed to change the figure and props the way I see fit by the vendor that made them... the only thing I can't do is charge money for it becuase they don't make that profit off the image I make, which is fine, that's part of my agreement.

When you can accept that there are more of us out there than you realize, then you might see that we're not all bad people, we're just working with what is given to us.

Tell you what, go to Renderosity, Renderotica, Animotions, and DAZ and look through the galleries, tell me what you see... there are literally thousands of artists all working together becuase they accept that art is art... no matter how it is made


----------



## Cara Black (Jan 19, 2009)

" Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain "User created content". If there is no "User created content" in the submission, then it may not be uploaded. Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they do not violate the Flooding Policy. "

So basicly what do we do if we have 3d stuff done just for us, aka me? do i change anything apart from havign the artist who made it for me? or am i just freaking out for no reason?


----------



## straydog (Jan 19, 2009)

cujoe_da_man said:
			
		

> First:
> You let people post 3D images of Second Life which has all been made and needs to have people download items to place on thier character... how is that ok?



I agree with you here. But the new rules also cover SL as well---if the user created the SL model, their work is permissible. If they're using 'out of the box' content, it is not. So the SL stuff isn't being treated any differently than the Poser stuff.



			
				cujoe_da_man said:
			
		

> Second:
> You CAN'T create your own figures IN Poser, that isn't how it works... maybe if you took the time to research something that YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT, you'd understand it better.



This is correct, you can't create objects in Poser, because Poser isn't a 3D construction program, it's 3D manipulation program.



			
				cujoe_da_man said:
			
		

> Third:
> I do A LOT of my own texture work and some basic modeling of primitives to use with my figures



If you have sufficient content in your pic that you created, then you don't have anything to worry about, do you? If the pic is mostly 'out of the box' content, then it won't be, because it doesn't fall under the by you/for you clause.



			
				cujoe_da_man said:
			
		

> Fourth:
> YOU artists don't create the paper and pencils you draw with... you buy them, same as me with my models.  Give that a try and tell me how it works



Your grasping at straws here...comparing apples and oranges, really. You cannot compare the two. A pencil and paper, on their own, have no discernible content---without human imagination/creativity, that pencil won't move and nothing will end up on that paper. Poser creates its own content. A more accurate comparison would be to compare Poser to a coloring book---the content is already there--not created by the user, but the user contribute and make the picture 'their' own, depending upon their skill.



			
				cujoe_da_man said:
			
		

> Fifth:
> 3D IS ART (in any shape or form)... you have NO RIGHT to tell an artist what IS or IS NOT art... only the ARTIST can say what is ART



No one is arguing that 3D isn't art. I believe the argument is that Poser art that does not contain user-created content and is thus simply manipulation of someone elses' creation, and therefore does not adhere to the by you/for you clause of the AUP.



			
				cujoe_da_man said:
			
		

> Sixth:
> if someone asks, or if the image warrants it, I rightfully let the members of FA know that most of what I do is purchased, I never said any of the items are 100% mine and sometimes will credit with a link to said item if I remember or said item exists still.



I don't think failure to give credit is an issue.



			
				cujoe_da_man said:
			
		

> I have already proven that I can draw and model in other programs and have posted these examples, so what you are doing IS NOT FAIR just becuase I choose a medium and a way of doing things the way I want to do them
> 
> From what I understand, just in my journal alone, three people have left/are leaving/are deleting works because they are AFRAID!
> 
> You have managed to place fear and regret... and now loathing into the hearts of the people that have bailed your asses out when the entire system went down, nice way to show thanks to those that wanted to help and cared enough to help



I hardly think a handful of Poser artists "bailed" anyones' asses out. I'm sure they've contributed, but not to that extent---there are over 10,000 users on FA, after all. The biggest contributors, from what I've seen, aren't even artists at all---but people who commission a lot of artists.

Honestly, if you're that upset over it, I'm sure you can find a more appropriate venue to showcase your art---Renderosity, Renderotica, ect. But to expect a non profit website to eat the cost/effort/ect. of having to accept art that doesn't adhere to their policies just because a few people are good at it, is just ridiculous. 

Honestly, VCL doesn't allow fan art---even if credit is given and it's original (ie: I drew it), they don't allow it. Should I go demand they allow it? Or should I accept that it's their site, their money, their time/effort, and find another venue for my fan art?


----------



## Tachyon (Jan 19, 2009)

Imago said:


> Cujoe_da_man I guess it became a dictatorship when people started disagreeing with what is and isn't art. But you're right people have to buy a lot of these models and
> This is just really sad. *starts moving all the art I can to DA and my own art gallery on my website.* Sadly, enough it all starts with this slowly other "art" forms will be pushed out. Until the only thing left is pen and ink. Should've seen this coming, though. I still remember an argument a long time ago about 3D not being art. But if 3D isn't art, then why do I get paid for it? Huh... *laughs* Must be a fluke, huh?



Jesus, enough of the persecution complex. Where in the AUP does it say that 3D isn't art and shouldn't be here at all?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

cujoe_da_man said:


> Tell you what, go to Renderosity, Renderotica, Animotions, and DAZ and look through the galleries, tell me what you see... there are literally thousands of artists all working together becuase they accept that art is art... no matter how it is made


Well, that's fine and good for them. However, you can not repost their work to FA. You have to post your own and post something you created, not something somebody else created (unless it was created specifically for you).

"Art is art" is not an argument, it's just a statement.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Tachyon said:


> Jesus, enough of the persecution complex. Where in the AUP does it say that 3D isn't art and shouldn't be here at all?


The irony is that I'm a former 3D animator. =P I've never once said 3D isn't art. Not once.

I just said that people should use their own work, not something merely out of the box and/or downloaded directly from the web (e.g. the now notorious Krystal model). If people take the time to create something unique (even within the limitations of Poser) then it will be allowed, provided that it complies with the other rules set within the site (which are, admittedly, not very many).


----------



## Tachyon (Jan 19, 2009)

straydog said:


> Honestly, if you're that upset over it, I'm sure you can find a more appropriate venue to showcase your art---Renderosity, Renderotica, ect. But to expect a non profit website to eat the cost/effort/ect. of having to accept art that doesn't adhere to their policies just because a few people are good at it, is just ridiculous.
> 
> Honestly, VCL doesn't allow fan art---even if credit is given and it's original (ie: I drew it), they don't allow it. Should I go demand they allow it? Or should I accept that it's their site, their money, their time/effort, and find another venue for my fan art?



Honestly, I really hate it when people make this argument about being a private and free site, because it's an attempt to stifle wholesome debate about what a community should strive for. It's a "while you're living under my roof you'll obey my rules" argument which, while true, doesn't help anything. Plus, it completely fails recognise significant user contributions to the site. I really wish people would stop using that argument.


----------



## Zekumas (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> The irony is that I'm a former 3D animator. =P I've never once said 3D isn't art. Not once.
> 
> I just said that people should use their own work, not something merely out of the box and/or downloaded directly from the web (e.g. the now notorious Krystal model). If people take the time to create something unique (even within the limitations of Poser) then it will be allowed, provided that it complies with the other rules set within the site (which are, admittedly, not very many).




Maybe the artist is using their own created models, that in some way resemble the ones that are created by the people WHO make the 3D render program....I mean come on there is only so much you can do with the humanoid form in a 3D setting until it begins to resemble another artists model.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> And we're still allowing Poser to, albeit with limitations. People can not use the default models and/or downloaded models. ... Make something unique.



Okay, that crossed the line into insulting.

What's more unique?  Creating a brand new figure for one more buffalo or beaver shot, or trying to tell a story or make a point, even using stock characters?

I'm going to just put my work where my mouth is.  I say that you can create a mood or make a point or set a scene or make a bad pun or even explore the boundaries between two and three dimensions and do it all in stock.  If you really want to tell me that I'm just playing with "Mr Potatohead" when I'm at least trying to do something other than OMG BEWBZ! and OMG CAWK!, fine.

There's nothing stopping anyone from creating something unique even _with_ pre-existing props and models, and there is a fundamental misunderstanding of the capabilities of the system if 'create an original model' is where you're drawing the line.


----------



## janks (Jan 19, 2009)

ugh i registered just for this, hell.

Alright, i skimmed. Memes is the point of this post- It says you're no longer allowed to do it if it means altering an original piece yes? sure. Well, collaborations are allowed, and memes are posted with the owner of the piece's consent, much like with a collab, in which you do edit the original work.

It's like, one collaboration with several different people. If you ban a meme that the owner gives consent to do whatever you want with then why are collabs still allowed? I'm not saying ban collabs but just think the meme thing through. I know i'm prolly not the first to complain but it's kind of ridiculous. If the artist doesn't like the outcome of a meme then they shouldn't post it, and they should get the heat not the person, sheesh. 

I'll most certainly stand behind unbanning the memes. On top of all of this they're _fun._ 

It's like telling a kid to never run ever, kind of. What fun is walking? seriously.


----------



## artonis (Jan 19, 2009)

Imago said:


> But now I'd have to say Atonis... BS. You can use Poser and then become a 3D modeler. I started out with Poser and it got me very interested in 3D programs. To the point I only use Lightwave now. So, people using Poser can use that as a jumping off point to spark interest in 3D and later modeling. You can use Poser to get a feel for how models pose and how the link chains work. (Which was helpful to look at how the bones were laid out when I started rigging models over in Lightwave.) So, Poser is a tool just like any other tool. Saying that you can spend time with Poser and never get any better at modeling or anything else is sad closed minded thinking.



Well, I am GLAD you went on to work with lightwave, and started creating your own stuff, my beef was with people who just remain with Poser since it's easy, and they don't have to bother with learning it all.

It may be very well that it can be an entry point, but when I started 15 years ago with a renderer called Povray that only accepted text files resembling a programming language as input, I wanted as soon as possible to move to something less rigid and creatively limited, not to remain and churn out one image of a chrome sphere on a checkerboard after the other.

It's excuses and wild comparisons like "Poser is just like pencil and paper!" that drive me bonkers.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Zekumas said:


> Maybe the artist is using their own created models, that in some way resemble the ones that are created by the people WHO make the 3D render program....I mean come on there is only so much you can do with the humanoid form in a 3D setting until it begins to resemble another artists model.


We're well aware of the models that are not user created (e.g. Krystal) and the other models ripped out of Smash Brothers, etc.



janks said:


> Memes is the point of this post- It says you're no longer allowed to do it if it means altering an original piece yes?


Memes are still allowed provided you create something original for it (e.g. art, tangible content). If you're just adding text or copy/pasting a photo into the meme, then no, that wouldn't be allowed.

That's all we're saying. 

If the meme is "draw yourself into this picture" then you're fine. If the meme is identifying what kind of squash you are and posting the JPG result then, uh, yeah, not fine. If the meme is "caption this!" then it's not fine.


----------



## janks (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Memes are still allowed provided you create something original for it (e.g. art, tangible content). If you're just adding text or copy/pasting a photo into the meme, then no, that wouldn't be allowed.
> 
> That's all we're saying.
> 
> If the meme is "draw yourself into this picture" then you're fine. If the meme is identifying what kind of squash you are and posting the JPG result then, uh, yeah, not fine. If the meme is "caption this!" then it's not fine.



oh, kay then, i'm happy, thanks.


----------



## Kitsune_86 (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm fairly sure my one picture of a decorative fox plate is okay to have out in the gallery, its fairly good quality and has foxes on it.

Right?


----------



## Kefan (Jan 19, 2009)

artonis said:


> Well, I am GLAD you went on to work with lightwave, and started creating your own stuff, my beef was with people who just remain with Poser since it's easy, and they don't have to bother with learning it all.



Nonsense.

Following your logic, it's perfectly legitimate for me as a film photographer to tell someone who only uses digital that they're not _really_ a photographer, they just take pictures because they're too lazy to learn anything more complicated than digital.

The question should not be "What tool do you use?"  Artistically, the only really legitimate question is "What can you do with your chosen tool?"  If you want to start down the path of defining who is and is not an artist based on their chosen medium rather than their output, what do you do when it becomes computer _vs_ traditional?  Inks _vs_ pencils?  Brush ink _vs_ Sharpie?  Camel-hair brush _vs_ polyester brush?


----------



## psistorm (Jan 19, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> Following your logic, it's perfectly legitimate for me as a film photographer to tell someone who only uses digital that they're not _really_ a photographer, they just take pictures because they're too lazy to learn anything more complicated than digital.
> 
> The question should not be "What tool do you use?"  Artistically, the only really legitimate question is "What can you do with your chosen tool?"  If you want to start down the path of defining who is and is not an artist based on their chosen medium rather than their output, what do you do when it becomes computer _vs_ traditional?  Inks _vs_ pencils?  Brush ink _vs_ Sharpie?  Camel-hair brush _vs_ polyester brush?


thats a very good point you made there.
its not the tool that matters, its the result. if someone takes a stock character and puts it into a random show-off pose, yes, that may be a questionable result and should maybe be put into scraps instead or not submitted. if someone goes through great lengths posing characters into long stories with dialogue and all that, that, in my eyes, isnt questionable at all.

on the other hand, I find it way more upsetting to see some of the stuff on front page. when you look on FA and on the front page, you see the picture of a toilet with contents best not disclosed and the comment "I did that!" on the picture, you really want to bust out the flamethrower and visit this guys house, no offense.

in the end, im clearly in favor of a re-evaluation. defining art is a touchy subject, but I belive that if creative work has been put to use, it should be
eligible to be posted in the gallery. people shouldnt discriminate others because of their choice of medium, because otherwise I could very well laugh at all those blender/bryce/whatever users because i use 3d fucking max and am thusly an artist, and they are not, for they dont use a complex/advanced enough tool or dont have the skills that I might have.

I hope people actually try and see the points being made here, because I can wholeheartedly agree. two artits Im watching would leave because of that, one of them a good friend, and I think the damage done to FA outweighs any possible benefit. 

The only way I could understand this ruling is because of legal issues such as copyright. but that should be handled differently rather than place a complete ban on anything stock or not creative enough


----------



## KristynLioness (Jan 19, 2009)

and must not contain rapidly flashing colors or images (e.g. â€œseizure inducingâ€).

Thank you so much for adding this to the policy.  Flashing avatars are so obnoxious and my eyes always take awhile to recover from seeing one like that.


----------



## artonis (Jan 19, 2009)

Are you people reading this thread at all? It is not about the tool you use. It's the fact that you use pre-generated content, not created by YOU.

And you keep using nonsensical comparisons.

Poser, is not a camera.
Poser, is not a brush.
Poser, is not a guitar.
Poser, is not a piece of paper.
Poser, is not a hunk of clay.

If I tell you, make a picture of a rose, can you do it, without going to some content library and downloading a rose someone else made?

Every artist using those other tools will be able to on his own. Even the musician might be able to create a song about a rose, or with similar qualities as a rose, without going to some website.

THAT, is the point. And with this I leave this discussion, cause I could actually draw instead.


----------



## Thrivis (Jan 19, 2009)

artonis said:


> Are you people reading this thread at all? It is not about the tool you use. It's the fact that you use pre-generated content, not created by YOU.
> 
> ...



THIS.

That comparison that Poser is like a pencil - that was terrible.

For example, I draw something with a pencil. I make a neat little image on a piece of paper. The pencil is a means of manipulation for the content and is capable of creating the content. Poser can ONLY manipulate content that is ALREADY created. If I treated my pencil like Poser, I'd be taking a drawing someone else did and tooling around on it.

There simply isn't enough user created material with Poser if you're downloading models and posing them without any real editing of the model. Even if you're posing them really nicely, and it might be fantastic, it's still not enough user generated work that's actually being portrayed in the result image when you don't make the models or textures.


----------



## Omny87 (Jan 19, 2009)

About the photography rule pertaining to gore and violence- what about makeup? Can you post a picture of yourself covered in fake blood with a plastic knife in your head?


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 19, 2009)

Omny87 said:


> About the photography rule pertaining to gore and violence- what about makeup? Can you post a picture of yourself covered in fake blood with a plastic knife in your head?


Yes. This was answered already.


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Actually, looking at his account... I don't know how he was even able to post to the forums at all because his account was set to "Users Awaiting E-mail Confirmation" which does not give posting access. He never confirmed his account. I set his user setting to "Registered User" in the system.
> 
> I do not censor/ban people simply for having an alternative viewpoint. You can go back and ask any of the posters in the Fractals thread, the forum Poser thread, etc. I have not now, nor ever, censored somebody for disagreeing with me. For violating FA rules? Yes. For disagreeing with me or expression a different viewpoint? No.



I'll personally vouch for this statement. Dragoneer and all of the other admins are very good on allowing others to express their differing opinions without throwing a huge hullabaloo and getting fired up over it.


----------



## fuzzyroo (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> The problem with adult suits is there is _no way to tell _who is in the suit, and more often than not, people use adult fursuiters as an excuse to post images containing their penis. Most of the suits _are_ sexually usable suits, and that crosses the boundaries of legality I am not prepared to cross. Nor am I going to put the site or community at legal risk for mature fursuits.



i hate to say, but nearly most suits can be modded for sexual nature without displaying it, using reversed zippers, snaps, or wich ever...

so why don't just ban all suits, and you don't have to worry about weather or not it's mature ornot?

however, on a more serious note

what about suits that are not explicit in explicit poses?

also a question on flooding, are you talking about art styles? like if some one draws 10 pics and posts them after another, is that flooding?

or if it's some sort of photo shoot where there were several shots of a character or object in various poses or still lifes, not the same photo over and over but it's the same sceen but from different angles and composures?

are all photos that include people banned?

question on the mature nature of things, mostly about the adult fursuits: doesn't the "adult" label content filter sorta waive the "legal" mumble jumble, you have to be 18 or older to post adult art, you have to be 18 or older to view adult art.  a fursuit should still be technically "Art" and not considered an "act" because it would lay in the textiles medium...

also, shouldn't you be able to tell who's in the suit, relative to proportion?

anyways, i'm not really trying to ruffle feathers, i'm just trying to get a better understanding on why things have felt they needed to change.... was their a lawsuit?

---EDIT---

I'm sorry, i have to add something here, that just struck me as odd...

holes put into plushies.... sextoys...and other things are prohibited because they might have something to do with sex, but are not currently in the act....

There was a law like that in Kansas 3 or so years ago that got slipped in with a childpornography act.. simply put, it deamed all sex toys, lingerie, certain shoes, leather garments, and a huge, huge list of things that were "sexually obscene".  It was written in a way, that it wasn't noticed when the bill was passed.  all of a sudden several sex shops were almost run out of business before some one noticed what was going on.  

Long story short, it didn't hold up what so ever in court, and the horrifying subsidiary bill was amended and abolished, thankgod.


----------



## fuzzyroo (Jan 19, 2009)

Thrivis said:


> THIS.
> 
> That comparison that Poser is like a pencil - that was terrible.
> 
> ...



well, this argument is sorta up and down really...

you can use programs like blender, as well as other 3d rendering programs to create your vary own, object meshes.  those are, in a sense, NOT pregenerated, but user generated as much how you put your pencil on paper, they put mouse pointer to screen.  you create some conscious image out of nothing, then from there put it in poser.  you generate your own pregeneration........ sooooo i don't really know what you would clasify what out of?


----------



## Kefan (Jan 19, 2009)

Thrivis said:


> There simply isn't enough user created material with Poser if you're downloading models and posing them without any real editing of the model. Even if you're posing them really nicely, and it might be fantastic, it's still not enough user generated work that's actually being portrayed in the result image when you don't make the models or textures.



In other words, the creativity of coming up with the scene doesn't count, and that a rendered scene, no matter how cleverly conceived and well executed, cannot be art simply because the creator posed existing objects rather than created them himself?

By that argument, a studio photographer isn't an artist.  Actually, by that argument, *no* photographer is an artist, except those who draw directly on the paper with a laser pointer.

In the name of Ansel Adams, I object.


----------



## yoshi000 (Jan 19, 2009)

This is different from everyone is talking about but, why in the bloodly hell I can't post my own sprites?


----------



## v-deus (Jan 19, 2009)

I will be Ã¼ber excited to see an FA that looks something like those rules.


----------



## fuzzyroo (Jan 19, 2009)

artonis said:


> Poser, is not a camera.


a camera is not a slab of stone awaiting the right tools to carve it.



artonis said:


> Poser, is not a brush.


a brush can not give you a 760dpi resolution shot in a panoramic photo



artonis said:


> Poser, is not a guitar.


a guitar isn't the dust of charcoal waiting to be smeared upon the scratch of parchment



artonis said:


> Poser, is not a piece of paper.


paper is not Liquin, nor any other definition of medium



artonis said:


> Poser, is not a hunk of clay.


a hunk of clay isn't... look these analogies of what one thing isn't another can go on for ever, cause really, they miss the point.

everything is a tool for the human consciousness to create something out of.  The very definition of "what is art" and "what isn't art" has been going on for thousands and thousands of years, dating back to when history first started being recorded (cause it was first recorded, in art...hurray...).  That is the question that this boils down too, who's subjectiveness calls what "art" and who's subjectiveness calls what "not art" (that boils down to in-group and out-group...but that's another psychological discussion for another time)

look, what some one says "isn't art" could be art for some one else, you just never know (like that one piece but an artist who i can't remember his name.  It's an artist in the "real" world of art, not furries, who went into a hardware store, bought a urinal and called it "art".  to me that has nothing to do with art as how i see it.  for me art is taking something and adding, changing, or basically being human on it to leave your personal mark or style in some way.  This guy sold a urinal he freshly purchased, for over $3mill.  who am i to question what art is?)

poser, like anything.. and i mean anything else in this world, is a creative outlit for art... there are things, like anything else, that you need to mix more of to get it to be art.  But think of it this way, pencils, paints, papers, burlap, canvasses, computer software, erasers, what ever it is you use had to originally come from some sort of discovery.  Think back down to that discovery, think back to the founders of human expression and how they would have accidentally come across these things... just think about each and every utensil like that and get an appreciation for having them.  Don't nock what ever someone uses, that you don't, just simply understand that it's a different tool, for a different job, for different expression, and appreciate that some one found it, rather then letting it float away for ever undiscovered.


----------



## fuzzyroo (Jan 19, 2009)

Kefan said:


> In other words, the creativity of coming up with the scene doesn't count, and that a rendered scene, no matter how cleverly conceived and well executed, cannot be art simply because the creator posed existing objects rather than created them himself?
> 
> By that argument, a studio photographer isn't an artist.  Actually, by that argument, *no* photographer is an artist, except those who draw directly on the paper with a laser pointer.
> 
> In the name of Ansel Adams, I object.



i vote for an amendment to this, all gesture drawings should be taken from this too.

any drawing of motion or an emotion of motion should be banned as well, so we can cover all forms of "motion" as it relates to art, please only post stills, thankyou


----------



## gmerriment (Jan 19, 2009)

Okay, so.  There seem to be two groups of people here: those who recognize that admins have certain legal obligations and are concerned for the welfare of the FA community as a whole, and those who believe that the admins are wantonly defining art through posting rules and restrictions.

Hear me: Just because you can't post it here doesn't mean it isn't art.  It just means that having it here throws the site into a complicated legal spiral of doom that it may never break out of.  We know that nudity can be artistic, we know that death can be artistic, we know that violence can be artistic, et al.

If you really want to put pictures online that FA won't host, hit up Lunarpages and get yourself some hosting (it's cheap there), host your own website, and deal with your own legal drama.


----------



## fuzzyroo (Jan 19, 2009)

Tachyon said:


> Honestly, I really hate it when people make this argument about being a private and free site, because it's an attempt to stifle wholesome debate about what a community should strive for. It's a "while you're living under my roof you'll obey my rules" argument which, while true, doesn't help anything. Plus, it completely fails recognise significant user contributions to the site. I really wish people would stop using that argument.



it's sad to say but, we are at the whims of the share holder.

he who ones the house, is he shall make the rules, weither the rest of us consider them fair nor not, doesn't really matter.

only thing is, if something is way off base, will they listen with an open mind?


----------



## wolfbird (Jan 19, 2009)

I think I've read this entire thread by now, and not once have I read anyone simply saying "3D isn't art". Just that Poser isn't, and I agree with that.

THIS IS ART: 
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1359780/

This took (and is taking, as its not done) incredible amounts of effort and skill. Look at it, for $%^#'s sake. No one is getting angry at 3D artists who can produce that.

I'm going to be nasty here, but seriously-- get your Poser crap out of here. It doesn't look good. It really is playing with a technical version of Barbie or Mr Potato Head. One can argue that it takes skill to pose things and not everyone sucks at it (which is true), but I come here to look at art, not spreadagled underaged children taking it up the ass from large African wildlife. I have yet to see a Poser image that I find up to snuff; whereupon I believe it's banned now because it violated for you/by you, it at the same time will help up the overall art quality of the site.

This isn't being discriminatory at all. It's just ensuring that FA doesn't degenerate into pages and pages of SL screencaps and Poser. 

And by the way, I am also not a fan of scribble art. Scribble means "lol, I couldn't be bothered to put effort into this".. which is not the same as a sketch. A sketch, albeit simple, can tell a story. That is art.


----------



## Rhetorica (Jan 19, 2009)

Every time I've seen Dragoneer post, there has been a fundamental ambiguity in his language that has really bothered me. It's an expectable ambiguity from someone with experience in modelling environments other than Poser, but I think it's safe to say that its exact wording is causing no end of pain for the gamut of Poser artists, because it essentially conflicts with what Poser was intended to be used for.

A "model" in Poser is usually interpreted to mean a base *mesh*, before it has been put through various deformers, re-textured, and re-adjusted to create a given *character*. Krystal is a mesh, Furrette 2 is a mesh, Victoria 3 is a mesh.

The primary difference between Poser and traditional 3D modelling applications is that it includes a morph systemâ€”distorted versions of the model which can be assigned multipliers to alter the appearance of a given character on a very granular level: in a most basic example, you can decide if you want your character to have a big nose, and then specify how big: a dial setting of 1 would fully apply that morph to the figure, a dial setting of 0.5 would take the average of the figure's current state and the morph, and a dial setting of 2 would double the character's nose beyond spec. This is very similar to the character editor in Second Life, only much, much more powerful.

Models such as Victoria 3 and Furrette 2 have a very large number of dials associated with them, and the majority of 3D art outside of FA currently uses Victoria 3 or Victoria 4 with various characters built on top of them. With that in mind, _all of the Poser work currently on FA uses pre-built meshes_, either of the Victoria lineage (as in cujoe's work), or in the Furrette lineage, or the Krystal model. Most of them don't look anything like the default states those meshes ship in, but underneath the floorboards, that's what is still there.

In traditional 3D work, this doesn't exist: you have to play with the model directly in order to derive a new character from it. The whole purpose of Poser, however, is to streamline this process by allowing character design using a comprehensive set of obvious traitsâ€”if your goal is to design a copy of your face, for example, then it's possible to produce a very striking resemblance of that face using just the dials on Victoria or Michael, and there is no point to modelling it yourself.

It's true that this does take a considerable amount of effort (modelling directly) and replaces it with a smaller one (creating a character in Poser), but the possibilities are still so broad that it has flourished and been acceptable elsewhereâ€”look at, for example, the vast number of characters in the DAZ Shops which require V3 or V4â€”as an art-form in its own right.

Since Dragoneer has indicated that at least some cases of character customisation using default meshes are allowable (Post #104, where only "some" of Jason's work is unacceptable), I would implore him to *change the wording* of this new rule, so that it says one must use a unique character, and not a unique model, which is ambiguous language due to the nature of Poser.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 19, 2009)

gmerriment said:


> Okay, so.  There seem to be two groups of people here: those who recognize that admins have certain legal obligations and are concerned for the welfare of the FA community as a whole, and those who believe that the admins are wantonly defining art through posting rules and restrictions.



Well, that pretty efficiently mischaracterizes _my_ objection.  I have not seen anyone make an objection to stock-only Poser art on legal grounds, although someone may well have and I missed it.

Even if they have, that's generally (although not entirely) incorrect grounds because every downloadable I have seen permits non-commercial use.  Speaking for myself, I don't do this for money anyway, so that wouldn't cover my work.

I have also already agreed that there is some Poser work (and SL screengrabs are included in this) that fall into the same category as bad photography.

I _disagree_ with where the line has been drawn.  It's not a question of them defining art, and I don't think that's what they're trying to do.  I just happen to think a hatchet has been applied where a scalpel would have been more appropriate.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> *Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.


Hey Dragoneer, I'm looking at this again with fresh eyes... and I have a question.

Do you mean to say simply that ANY photograph containing exposed human genitalia, beasts, or buttocks are a no go... and a fursuit/plush animal/Sex Toy/etc is not allowed *IF* it *ALSO* includes exposed human genitalia, breasts, or buttocks?


----------



## FurryGuy07 (Jan 19, 2009)

what about those individuals on here who draw crappily with mspaint?
Like this guy? http://www.furaffinity.net/user/butterkencowolf/


----------



## Kefan (Jan 19, 2009)

Rhetorica said:


> ... I would implore him to *change the wording* of this new rule, so that it says one must use a unique character, and not a unique model, which is ambiguous language due to the nature of Poser.


Hear hear.  I think you've struck at the heart of the matter.

I could get behind this definition you propose.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 19, 2009)

I pretty much agree with Rhetorica and find it unacceptable that you want to ruel out everything that is Poser related. I know that there is a lot of bad Poser works out there, but what about all those good artists on FA? 

I also dont see the point why you also dont regonize heavily modefided poser works orginal stuff. As fro the stock models and plugins: you have to buy them, yes there are free dls, but pretty much of those DAZ or Poser models have to be buyed with real money and are then modded by the artist. With that, you also acuire the right to re-use it and post it here or eleswhere. So there are no coypright isseus here. 

Its like you buy a car and then do a lot of custom body work for it using all kinds of parts you buy. Or you go like the Chop Shop and welt 2 cars together. You can also compare that to an artist who uses metal parts to make sculptures, the metal parts are already there, all he does is wleding it together and bending it to its needs. 

Thats how Poser works. I would rephrase the wording in the AUP regading poser, that only unmodded stock models cant be used. 

I would like to know what artists like Mapper: 

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/mapper/

cujoedaman
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/cujoedaman/

and The Trickster 
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/thetrickster/

should do now. Dragoneer, get that part of a AUP back into revesion and reconsider it, before anothe mass leaving happends like the last time. I do hope you actually listen and think about it, so we can prevent another debacle like what happend the last time. 

I can understand that you want to raise the quality, but those artists above have high-quality renders and if its about that, then you would have to delete and bann all shitty art that is posted here in FA.

Also, what about those who got 3D Render at as gifts or commissions? Are they not allowed to post it here anymore? I find this really dumb if that is the case. 

So, please go back an review this ruling please, for the best of all of us.


----------



## Torin_Darkflight (Jan 19, 2009)

Sorry for being a pest, but I have some more "is this still allowed" concerns regarding some of my submissions. I have already deleted a couple submissions that I know for a fact were likely or definite violations, but I have some others that I am not entirely sure about yet.

Concern #1: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1101180/
Reason: Even though I built this Lego model myself, there are a couple possible rule violations here:
A) It is based and derived entirely from an unmodified and copyrighted video game sprite that I did not create, which could violate the "non-user-created-sprites" rule. Therefore, even though I built this model, it could be considered as not original user-created content.
B) The photo itself could potentially be seen as violating the "FA is not Photobucket" rule.
Therefore: Save or delete?

Concern #2: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/867954/ AND http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1497391/
Reason: These also potentially violate the "FA is not Photobucket" rule, especially in regards to the "no collection photos" clause. Technically, in these two photos I am showing my "collection" of Spyro plushes, small as it may be.
Therefore: Save or delete?

Concern #3: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1800093/ AND http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1800155/
Reason: There's actually a couple concerns here:
A) Although I myself took these photos, the artwork shown in them was not created by myself, which potentially violates the "non-user-created-content" rule.
B) Similar to my two Spyro plush pictures above, these potentially violate the "FA is not Photobucket" rule in regards to showing photos of collections.
Therefore: Save or delete?

Also, a quick question: how do "LOLcat" style photos/pictures rest in regards to the AUP? As mentioned earlier, I have already deleted a couple of my submissions that I was fairly certain were violations. One of them was an LOLcat style image of a cupcake (Photo taken by myself) with an added humorous caption. Was I correct in deleting this? Or are such images allowed assuming the caption AND originating photo were both created by the uploader (Which it was in this case)?


----------



## Mazz (Jan 19, 2009)

Lol at the butthurt people who are trying to complain because they can no longer post photos of their yiff suits and sex toys. 
--

Good rule update, very good rule update. Hopefully this will cut down on the amount of myspace FA seems to be getting as well as the amount of photos of people with their dildos that none of the rest of us wanna have to look at on front page. 
Rapid flashing kind of dumb since anyone who would seizure shouldn't be using the internet but it won't end my little happy world.
--



Quiet269 said:


> Hey Dragoneer, I'm looking at this again with fresh eyes... and I have a question.
> 
> Do you mean to say simply that ANY photograph containing exposed human genitalia, beasts, or buttocks are a no go... and a fursuit/plush animal/Sex Toy/etc is not allowed *IF* it *ALSO* includes exposed human genitalia, breasts, or buttocks?



I think they mean they don't want people to show off their genitals AND they prefer to not have people show off their sex toys and yiff suits. Not if it also includes anything. If you want to show off your dildos and genitals go to furry2furry. Not hard.


----------



## Surf (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm actually rather concerned about this, all of my, If you want to call it artwork are edited to the balls screenshots in SL

ex: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1839023/

ex: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1605002/

Now the policy was confusing me a bit so would this sort of stuff be alowed?
I hope it is, this is the only place i can show off my work and get comments and such.


----------



## FurryGuy07 (Jan 19, 2009)

Surf said:


> I'm actually rather concerned about this, all of my, If you want to call it artwork are edited to the balls screenshots in SL
> 
> ex: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1839023/
> 
> ...




I don't think your stuff shouldn't be taken off. You change the SL screenshot with photoshop with some very nicely work! Now I will definitely watch you =3


----------



## Deca (Jan 19, 2009)

Alright quick question on the photos.  Are plastic models included in personal collections?  I've posted a couple photos of models I have built.

I'm not here to argue or anything, just say the word and I'll move them all to scraps.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> *FUR AFFINITY
> ACCEPTABLE UPLOAD POLICY (AUP)*
> *Revised: *Jan  19, 2009
> "Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain "User created content". If there is no "User created content" in the submission, then it may not be uploaded. Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they do not violate the Flooding Policy."
> ...


----------



## DarkGila (Jan 19, 2009)

OK I don't usually post on the forums but this is something that needs to be said. I see a lot of problems with these new rules because not only do they affect digital artists, but traditional artists, photographers, sculpters and designers because they state it has to be origional artwork but if you get right down to it it's going to be next to impossible because the stylings concepts and templates started a long time ago which each artist adapted into their own renderings and this is what art is... To create something that is ecentually yours... You think that poser art is not art but in a way it is art and it helps the artist without giving them the pains to put down a template everytime tey want to create something.... I see problems in the future because of these rules as the mass exidus I am already seeing is showing....


----------



## Aden (Jan 19, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> I also dont see the point why you also dont regonize heavily modefided poser works orginal stuff. As fro the stock models and plugins: you have to buy them, yes there are free dls, but pretty much of those DAZ or Poser models have to be buyed with real money and are then modded by the artist. With that, you also acuire the right to re-use it and post it here or eleswhere. So there are no coypright isseus here.



So basically, your argument is that you didn't create anything, only modified preexisting things. But that's okay, because you bought the preexisting things, amirite? Come on. It's like me buying a commission, scribbling armor over the character in the picture, and submitting it as my own work.



> I would like to know what artists like Mapper:
> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/mapper/



Shit.



> cujoedaman
> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/cujoedaman/



Shit.



> and The Trickster
> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/thetrickster/



Shit.



> should do now.



Learn to model and light scenes?



> Dragoneer, get that part of a AUP back into revesion and reconsider it, before anothe mass leaving happends like the last time.



Really? That's kickass. Please, leave and stay away this time.



> I can understand that you want to raise the quality, but those artists above have high-quality renders



Ahahahahaahaaa



> and if its about that, then you would have to delete and bann all shitty art that is posted here in FA.



Let's get on that, then. I'm itching for a purge already.



> Also, what about those who got 3D Render at as gifts or commissions? Are they not allowed to post it here anymore? I find this really dumb if that is the case.



See the for you / by you guidelines.


----------



## Excentromatt (Jan 19, 2009)

These updates look trim and good.

<i>images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)</i>

OK I'm not sure this is new considering I skimmed the previous AUP, but thaaaank you anyway.  I cannot stand pictures of various Zeta products, sex plushies and their "pets" which the camera only seems to autofocus in the lower regions. D8


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 19, 2009)

Nanakisan said:


> I'm glad to see there is allowance for fractal works now and happy about it too.
> 
> however now comes the problem of people who upload the pre-generated stuff compared to the stuff that was actually worked on
> 
> ...



If a fractal admin is really needed, :iconkewlhotrod: has both the requisite special knowledge and has volunteered to do the job.  The reason that I say "If" is because the percentage of FA images that are fractals is minute.  

Of course,  the AUP contains a provision against flooding, hence an admin might be called upon to decide whether the images were "substantially different", and :kewlhotrodicon: is very well equipped to make that judgment if necessary. 

There is also the fundamental "by you - for you" provision, and again, ;iconkewlhotrod) would recognize images rendered from the example parameters provided with the Apophysis fractal rendering software.

So if a fractal art admin is needed, I certainly second your motion!


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 19, 2009)

Aden said:


> So basically, your argument is that you didn't create anything, only modified preexisting things. But that's okay, because you bought the preexisting things, amirite? Come on. It's like me buying a commission, scribbling armor over the character in the picture, and submitting it as my own work.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Okay, seriously, I dont know what your problem is, but I dont fid it "shit" its all to personal tastes, if you do not like poser art, do not look at it, dont know where the problem is. 

Also, my point is: wehn you buy something, you can do what ever you want with it and change everything you want to fit your personal needs. You can buy the model and makes something new out of it. 

No, I wont leave, dunno what kind of problem you have wehn I ask Dragonner to take a look at his ruels again. I have the same right as anyone else to raise my opinon against the new ruels. 

Dont know why you have to act like a total ass regarding this.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 19, 2009)

Mr. Dragoneer, with all due respect, you rather seem to miss the main point. Public domain or no, made yourself or by someone else. By and far the most part, the items utilized in the renders are  LICENSED for your use, so you have a legal right to use them. In the case of bought items, for both commercial and personal renders. Privately distributed items can go by certain terms of use, but by and far they are usually ok for non-commercial usage. In the end the issue rather all falls into the category of HOW they are used, if say you are just using a Krystal model for cheap cheesecake or porn art that has absolutely no redeeming content that is one thing, but if say one has her as part of a commando team ready to surprise attack an airfield of drophips offloading an armored assault force, that is quite another. That is the use of imagination using the tools that you have to make something unique and creative. The focus should not be on the material used to create the work, but on the end product.

 I do appreciate the fact that you put the stops on the wording by making it clear that base character customizations are permissible. At least you can turn Vickie or Mike into furs, and change Thomas and Tobi around, utilizing the morph dials that the Cat of Nine Lives Poser cat has. HOWEVER. Unless you want them to be naked and posed around sitting on either primitives or on cobbled together props rendered from primitives, or you put the time and effort to make a simple prop, your render is going to be pretty sparse and boring without any outfits, non-photographic environments, sophisticated props that you yourself have made. So in matter of fact, even with this small exemption, the flow of art is still readily cut off at the knees. Those who are not modelers but who have altered a character to be unique may have dodged one sweep of the sword, but are fatally cut on the return stroke and you get a bunch of boring 'T' poses.

By and far the most part, the use of Krystal in a rendering lands it squarely in the realm of fan art, digital fan art. One cannot make a ruling against one aspect without being hypocritical about the other. You cannot say that one is acceptable, and the other not when both are technically illegal and unlicensed representations of a copyrighted and trademarked character. Neither is more or less wrong than the another, Its a no win situation, it is impossible to make a move about one without affecting the other and offending everybody. The only way to solve the problem is to either get rid of it all, or accept it all in its myriad of forms. But.. Nobody but say, Disney and certain authors really give a hoot about fan created works. If they did, every major game and animation studio would have hit this place and the net in general with armies of lawyers armed with lawsuits long ago. But they learned that it doesn't look good to go making martyrs of members of the fanbase, making they themselves look like the evil oppressive bad-guy.

As for those that rail against the program and the community of artists that utilize it,  screaming to toss it all out, claiming that the number of those users affected are such a small and insignificant number that will not be missed, those people quite frankly have to look in the mirror. The number of original modelers who build and render their own purely 100% original works are the minority and the Poser users are the majority of the small population of total 3D artists. Get rid of them and while the small fry get the big pond, the seeming cure turns out to be worst than the disease if the site gets a black eye in the process and another nail is put into the coffin of the sites longevity. Remember all art is subjective, not everyone is going to like all aspects of it, not everyone is a fan of modernism, or cubism, or of pop art, 3D art, etc. Just as not everyone as similar tastes in whatever, be it music, movies, candy or cars.
--Dancougar

"Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way it kills them."
--Jean-Paul Sartre


----------



## The Pepsi Monster (Jan 19, 2009)

Since photographs of adult toys are prohibited does this mean that paintings of adult toys as still life are also prohibited?


----------



## IceDragonVisy (Jan 19, 2009)

ITT: People who sign up on the forums just to cry about not being able to spread their Poser AIDS around.

Thanks for the awesome rules update Dragoneer. Hopefully this'll crack down on a bunch of the non-user-created crap that has been plaguing the site for a long time now.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 19, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Mr. Dragoneer, with all due respect, you rather seem to miss the main point. Public domain or no, made yourself or by someone else. By and far the most part, the items utilized in the renders are  LICENSED for your use, so you have a legal right to use them. In the case of bought items, for both commercial and personal renders.



I'll step in for a moment because I have had some cases of defense of Poser renders...and I actually understand what the AUP is trying to say.

You're failing to see the argument, the AUP *trumps* copyright law as to what is acceptable to the site. Copyright is 2nd, AUP is first in the natural order. Meaning it first has to pass what is considered acceptable copyright issues, *then* it must pass the For you by you policy ie the AUP.

No one said you no longer can legally use them, you can still use them. What you can upload to FA is an entirely different matter.

As far as Poser, the problem is what is being used for what. Krystal was a rip that most people were using versus a blank mannikin that was completely manipulated beyond recognition unless stated.

I can bring this up as an example: http://www.dccdesigner.com/Htm/Tutorials/TheQueen01.htm  What makes this more unique than someone essentially doing the same as "stealing a Barbie and posing her in sexual positions" is that the artist modeled pretty much everything else, and on top of the render made adjustments in Painter. 

This is a rather dated piece as technology has advanced since then, but it's still one of the best examples of using your own content with Poser to create a piece.


----------



## Imago (Jan 19, 2009)

Well, this whole thing has just become a mud slinging fest. In one corner we have 3D artists (which a lot of them make up Poser artists) and in the other corner we have other media artists. We have people saying it's all crap, good riddance, and following the high school mentality. The popular kids say one thing and the other not so popular kids follow suit because they want to be cool and in style. 

But really, I have to say it's not up for debate really. Plead with the powers that be but if someone's mind is made up then it's made up. You can't reason or tell them to go back on something. But you can all try. Yeah, no one might have come out and said 3D isn't art directly but what is Poser? A 3D art rendering software. What does it do? Makes 3D art (with some effort). So, saying Poser art isn't art is saying 3D art isn't art. 

Yet a SL screenshot is art? (Yes, I seen some good ones that were manipulated to look damn nice.) But screenshots from any game are now an art form? Well, holy hell I should've been frapping all those hours playing HL2, UT2004, and Creatures.

And no, I'm not predominately a "Poser" artist. But I can relate with everyone who is being shot down by the mob mentality saying that they don't create art they create "shit". I could go through hundreds of galleries looking at art, but very little catches my attention because most of what I see in my eyes is also "shit". But I don't go shooting my mouth off sounding high and mighty saying this is shit, and that's shit, and get your shit out of here. Not my place to say that. If I don't like it I don't look at it. 

Any art takes time to do... I take that back... Any good art that's worth a damn takes time to do. Be it drawing, writing (yes, it's art too.), inking, or even yes 3D or Poser posing rendering pictures. Good art takes time. It takes ideas, and it takes patience. It also takes emotion and heart. For someone to go and say, "It's shit." Is just plain lame. 

But it doesn't matter. In fact... None of this matters. Why? Because people are seeing mass postings of artists leaving and most of you say... Good, go, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. But then when it's just down to the rest of the artists here... I guess it'll be traditional media and the left over 3D artists. Then I say... Who's next to go. Maybe it'll be the folks who draw Disney stuff. (In fact Disney does file a lot of takedown orders and lawsuits constantly. I've seen many great sites with great traditional artists go away because of that.) Then it'll be the video game art. (I don't think Sega, Nintendo, Sony, etc would want to see their characters in some of the situations that they're in.) So, then it'll come down to only people with characters of their own allowed to post. So, fan art would be gone (no more renamon porn). So, I guess if it's all about legalities with Poser stock models... There's more to think about then just Poser stock models which if I've read the terms on those right they are covered under a fair use kind of policy. But are characters like Simba, Sonic, Krystal, Renamon? I don't think so. 

I guess it all comes down to someone doesn't like Poser so Poser has to get out. 
But for any poser users out there who might have bit their tongues and are reading this there are two sites I know of that welcomes art renderosity.com (clean) and renderotica.com (tame to adult). So, I thought I'd throw those out there so that others could start creating galleries there and get positive feedback from two communities that are great about supporting budding artists. 

Obviously, now this is all about drama and fighting. So, *tips my hat* have at it. Not coming back to this thread after seeing a lot of the comments made it makes me not want to be part of this community. Which is sad, because I made lots of friends here. Well, as long as my account is open I'll continue to be able to check in with them privately but as far as a lot of comments I've read on here... It's sickening and degrading to see everyone going at it like children with their fingers in their ears going "lalalalala I can't hear you." 

*sighs* Well, I'll await the final verdict, but I'm not holding my breath in hopes that a lot of my friends won't be axed.


----------



## Aden (Jan 19, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> Dont know why you have to act like a total ass regarding this.



Because Poser is a cancerous tumor on the buttocks of 3D art.



Dancougar said:


> Mr. Dragoneer, with all due respect, you rather seem to miss the main point. Public domain or no, made yourself or by someone else. By and far the most part, the items utilized in the renders are  LICENSED for your use, so you have a legal right to use them. In the case of bought items, for both commercial and personal renders. Privately distributed items can go by certain terms of use, but by and far they are usually ok for non-commercial usage.



Just because you are legally allowed to use something in your works does not automatically mean something should be accepted under the AUP. I'm legally allowed to take eighty blurry pictures of my feet, does that mean I should submit them here?



> In the end the issue rather all falls into the category of HOW they are used, if say you are just using a Krystal model for cheap cheesecake or porn art that has absolutely no redeeming content that is one thing, but if say one has her as part of a commando team ready to surprise attack an airfield of drophips offloading an armored assault force, that is quite another. That is the use of imagination using the tools that you have to make something unique and creative. The focus should not be on the material used to create the work, but on the end product.



The issue is not how they are used. The issue is whether a significant portion of the final piece is your work. Posing some premade characters, making a lighting rig, and hitting 'Render' is simply not enough, no matter the subject matter. If you made your own models/textures/scenes and used Poser, great! Submit away.



> I do appreciate the fact that you put the stops on the wording by making it clear that base character customizations are permissible. At least you can turn Vickie or Mike into furs, and change Thomas and Tobi around, utilizing the morph dials that the Cat of Nine Lives Poser cat has.



That is not art, and nobody wants to see it.



> HOWEVER. Unless you want them to be naked and posed around sitting on either primitives or on cobbled together props rendered from primitives, or you put the time and effort to make a simple prop, your render is going to be pretty sparse and boring without any outfits, non-photographic environments, sophisticated props that you yourself have made.



So put in the damn work. You're not SUPPOSED to be able to create and render a piece every ten minutes. Try taking some pride in your work.



> By and far the most part, the use of Krystal in a rendering lands it squarely in the realm of fan art, digital fan art. One cannot make a ruling against one aspect without being hypocritical about the other. You cannot say that one is acceptable, and the other not when both are technically illegal and unlicensed representations of a copyrighted and trademarked character. Neither is more or less wrong than the another, Its a no win situation, it is impossible to make a move about one without affecting the other and offending everybody.



I have no idea what point you're trying to make here.



> But.. Nobody but say, Disney and certain authors really give a hoot about fan created works. If they did, every major game and animation studio would have hit this place and the net in general with armies of lawyers armed with lawsuits long ago. But they learned that it doesn't look good to go making martyrs of members of the fanbase, making they themselves look like the evil oppressive bad-guy.



You can't copyright a character. You also cannot get DMCA takedowns for derivative works.



> As for those that rail against the program and the community of artists that utilize it,  screaming to toss it all out, claiming that the number of those users affected are such a small and insignificant number that will not be missed, those people quite frankly have to look in the mirror.



Wrong. I want people who use it without putting any work in to get out. If you take the time to model something, compose a nice render and lighting setup, and generally put some time in, I'll support you all the way.



> The number of original modelers who build and render their own purely 100% original works are the minority and the Poser users are the majority of the small population of total 3D artists.



And they're giving us all a bad name. Thanks, guys. Just because something is the majority doesn't make it more valid. Might I point you to Proposition 8, or is it too soon?



> Get rid of them and while the small fry get the big pond, the seeming cure turns out to be worst than the disease if the site gets a black eye in the process and another nail is put into the coffin of the sites longevity.



I'm pretty sure the site will survive without 3D artists. Dragoneer, you have any statistics as to the percentage of 3D art submissions relative to all submissions?



> Remember all art is subjective, not everyone is going to like all aspects of it, not everyone is a fan of modernism, or cubism, or of pop art, 3D art, etc. Just as not everyone as similar tastes in whatever, be it music, movies, candy or cars.



It's not about subjectivity, it's about making your own shit.



> --Dancougar



Your name is at the top of your posts, you don't need to sign. -..-



> "Fascism is not defined by the number of its victims, but by the way it kills them."
> --Jean-Paul Sartre



Wow. You're bringing up Fascism. Really?

...Really?


----------



## Aden (Jan 19, 2009)

Imago said:


> Well, this whole thing has just become a mud slinging fest. In one corner we have 3D artists (which a lot of them make up Poser artists) and in the other corner we have other media artists.



I'm a 3D artist and I'm still against Poser "artists".

\Double post wheeee.


----------



## Rhetorica (Jan 19, 2009)

Unfortunately, Aden, you're also rather militant about your opinions. Do keep in mind that Poser art in general _has been sanctioned_ by the administration, and opinions to the contrary aren't really likely to be put into action.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 19, 2009)

Yup, he is really Militant about his opinon. 3D Artist or not, he has no reason to be so rude and almost insulting to people who support the Poser art. 

Anyway, I stated my opinon and will stay true to it. I say it again, review your current workidng and ruing Dragoneer and make it less confusing, becuse its not clear cut what "User created content" means regarding poster. ARe textures and self made perfab models enough or does the mesh/model be self made too? Would self made morphs and so on be "user made content" or not? 

Make this clear please, thank you.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 19, 2009)

Might help to read my post instead of going back and forth with personal opinions. Also, what are the thoughts of Google Sketchup?


----------



## Rhetorica (Jan 19, 2009)

I don't think anyone needs to. The current topic of discussion is clarifying a decision which Dragoneer has already made, not arguments for the value or non-value of Poser work in general.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

FurryGuy07 said:


> what about those individuals on here who draw crappily with mspaint? Like this guy? http://www.furaffinity.net/user/butterkencowolf/


MS Paint is another story altogether. However, the artist in question drew his own original images in MS Paint and, quality aside, they are original and unique.



Torin_Darkflight said:


> Concern #1: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1101180/
> Reason: Even though I built this Lego model myself, there are a couple possible rule violations here:
> A) It is based and derived entirely from an unmodified and copyrighted video game sprite that I did not create, which could violate the "non-user-created-sprites" rule. Therefore, even though I built this model, it could be considered as not original user-created content.
> B) The photo itself could potentially be seen as violating the "FA is not Photobucket" rule.
> Therefore: Save or delete?


Going with C). Sprites are digital only. Technically, this would technically fall under "sculpture" I guess. It's fine under the new rules.



Torin_Darkflight said:


> Concern #2: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/867954/ AND http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1497391/
> Reason: These also potentially violate the "FA is not Photobucket" rule, especially in regards to the "no collection photos" clause. Technically, in these two photos I am showing my "collection" of Spyro plushes, small as it may be.
> Therefore: Save or delete?


Unfortunately, in this instance, I am going to have to go with "Move to Scraps". Keep in mind we didn't say you had to delete the submissions, _just move then to scraps._



Torin_Darkflight said:


> Concern #3: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1800093/ AND http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1800155/
> Reason: There's actually a couple concerns here:
> A) Although I myself took these photos, the artwork shown in them was not created by myself, which potentially violates the "non-user-created-content" rule.
> B) Similar to my two Spyro plush pictures above, these potentially violate the "FA is not Photobucket" rule in regards to showing photos of collections.
> Therefore: Save or delete?


I'm going with A).

In this instance, that the primary aspect of the photo is to show off the other artist's work (e.g. repost it). If it was just a photo that happened to have the image in it that would be fine, but the focus of these images is on re-sharing the paintings that you purchased.



Torin_Darkflight said:


> Also, a quick question: how do "LOLcat" style photos/pictures rest in regards to the AUP?


If you took the picture then it's fine so long as it meets a basic minimum quality standard. Caption aside, the primary image has to be yours. If your label it with lolcattenese that's up to you.



Surf said:


> I'm actually rather concerned about this, all of my, If you want to call it artwork are edited to the balls screenshots in SL
> 
> ex: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1839023/
> 
> ex: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1605002/


Those are fine. While originally Second Life screenshots, sufficient modification has been made to them to distinguish them from a mere screenshot to be something new.

Those aren't raw screenshots. They've been transformed into something new.


----------



## Rhetorica (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm glad to see you're back, Dragoneer. I request that you review my (first) post; I think it will lay to rest the confusion about Poser art.


----------



## SKC (Jan 19, 2009)

Would the policy for SL be applied to similar programs such as Active Worlds? I'm often building in AW and I like to show of my creations.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Dragoneer said:
> 
> 
> > *Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.
> ...


Sorry for the Repost but I don't want to get lost in the Poser / 3D art debate


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 19, 2009)

Man, sure is a lot of suggestions/clarifications/help people are giving/needing. How you holding up, 'Neer? Hehe.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> Yup, he is really Militant about his opinon. 3D Artist or not, he has no reason to be so rude and almost insulting to people who support the Poser art.


In what way am I being insulting?



Lt_Havoc said:


> Anyway, I stated my opinon and will stay true to it. I say it again, review your current workidng and ruing Dragoneer and make it less confusing, becuse its not clear cut what "User created content" means regarding poster. ARe textures and self made perfab models enough or does the mesh/model be self made too? Would self made morphs and so on be "user made content" or not?


I did a minor update to the rule to further clarify things.


----------



## orv (Jan 19, 2009)

Aden said:


> You can't copyright a character.



This is a very common misconception.  The rules surrounding graphic characters are murkier than those around most other works, but they _can_ be copyrighted and people _have_ been successfully prosecuted for violating copyrights on graphic characters.  IANAL, so I suggest reading this article by someone who is:
http://www.publaw.com/graphical.html


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> In what way am I being insulting?


I think he was talking about Aden


----------



## Rhetorica (Jan 19, 2009)

Thanks. I think that settles things the question for most people.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> In what way am I being insulting?
> 
> I did a minor update to the rule to further clarify things.



Lol, I didnt meant you, I meant Aden, who was very insulting and rude vocing his opinon here, that was along the lines "If you like poser, you need to fuck off FA!", but anyway. 

Okay, thanks for the update. So, that hopefully means the Poser artist like Mapper and The Trickster can still post thier art, right?


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 19, 2009)

I would appreciate if at least Poser users would pay more attention to anatomy. Poser models can have really bad anatomy. This is part of why Aden calls these artworks "shit"

Also, I don't care if it's art. War is an art form, but it doesn't mean everyone condones it.

Dragoneer:

It seems it is also unclear to people when a photo is just a photo, and when it is used as means to digitalize and show off art one has done. Maybe clarify this?

eg: "photos of s_culptures, paintings, plushies and original sex toys_ you have done are not considered under normal photography rules" (until they contain obvious bits of something else).
Could that work?


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 19, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> I would like to know what artists like...
> The Trickster
> http://www.furaffinity.net/user/thetrickster/
> should do now.



I'd actually use that guy as a great example on what these new rules are for. 

1) Take poser model
2) Tits
3) ????
4) Profit!

I used to create stuff purely in Poser all the time, but I'd never upload any of it. Default models, no background, default textures, horrible lighting. These wouldn't be acceptable under the new policy. And you know what? I'm glad. 

Once you start making your own stuff and your own textures, it's so much more satisfying, and looks so much better. I still need to get round to making my own models, but I can already change the ones I have way beyond what Poser would let me do, and have the satisfaction of knowing that no one can just download shit and have a replica of my work with 30 minutes of moving arms and whatnot. Fuck your downloadable backgrounds, you can at least make some cubes and shove some textures on them.

I learnt this stuff off my own back, just because it wasn't good enough for me, but with any luck, this will be the push some need to start making their own models, their own textures, and we'll get much better work as a result. 

TL;DR: New rules = better porn w00t


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 19, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I would appreciate if at least Poser users would pay more attention to anatomy. Poser models can have really bad anatomy. This is part of why Aden calls these artworks "shit"



I wish a lot of artists in *general* would pay more attention to anatomy. Your point?

It's been addressed that regardless of bad anatomy, it's user created content and how much of it is the concern, not if someone can draw anatomy. We can wish it was, but that's not the case with most of the art posted on FA.


----------



## ROFLgasm (Jan 19, 2009)

What if someone just "downtunes" a song not made by them? Is that different enough to count as a remix?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> It seems it is also unclear to people when a photo is just a photo, and when it is used as means to digitalize and show off art one has done. Maybe clarify this?
> 
> eg: "photos of s_culptures, paintings, plushies and original sex toys_ you have done are not considered under normal photography rules" (until they contain obvious bits of something else).
> Could that work?


*Basic Quality/Content* - Photographs of poor quality (grainy, blurred, out of focus or washed out) or images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. commercial items, toys, games, movies, stuff animals, etc.) must be uploaded to Scraps. Photographs of art, or items which are in full compliance with the By You/For You, are acceptable provided they meet are of a minimum quality.

How does that work for you?



ROFLgasm said:


> What if someone just "downtunes" a song not made by them? Is that different enough to count as a remix?


What exactly is "downtunes"?


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 19, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> I wish a lot of artists in *general* would pay more attention to anatomy. Your point?


That would be desireable, yes.
My point; people assume poser models are correct. They use them as actual anatomy reference. "How can it be bad, I downloaded it off a professional modeller!"
Well, even cinema 3D animation has bad rigs sometimes. (there is no excuse for this, tbh)



> It's been addressed that regardless of bad anatomy, it's user created content and how much of it is the concern, not if someone can draw anatomy. We can wish it was, but that's not the case with most of the art posted on FA.


I go to another site where quality is enforced allover (and anything stock fully banned along with photography), but I don't think it's something a busy site like FA could live with.



Dragoneer said:


> *Basic Quality/Content* - Photographs of poor quality (grainy, blurred, out of focus or washed out) or images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. commercial items, toys, games, movies, stuff animals, etc.) must be uploaded to Scraps. Photographs of art, or items which are in full compliance with the By You/For You, are acceptable provided they meet are of a minimum quality.
> 
> How does that work for you?



That works well, sir


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> That works well, sir


Updated the changes on the AUP.

We really do appreciate feedback on this.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

yoshi000 said:


> This is different from everyone is talking about but, why in the bloodly hell I can't post my own sprites?


You can post sprites that you have created, just not sprites (modified or stock) from games.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 19, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> That would be desireable, yes.
> My point; people assume poser models are correct. They use them as actual anatomy reference. "How can it be bad, I downloaded it off a professional modeller!"
> Well, even cinema 3D animation has bad rigs sometimes. (there is no excuse for this, tbh)



Yes, but many assume today's artist who illustrate traditionally or digitally are correct too.

Even saying the above, I do not believe that would qualify as a valid argument in this case, seeing as we have people who draw oversized genitalia entering orafices that cannot possible handle them. Artists who draw breasts that wouldn't be able to be supported by a manga/anime styled back and hips. "Yes, but it's stylized" but that's presuming a traditional artist even knows how to draw correct anatomy in the first place, versus "it's my styyyyyyyyyyyle" argument.

See where I'm getting at?

The quality of the Poser model is less of the question as to what a person is doing to create enough of his/her own content to qualify it as FA's standard of AUP "Acceptable Art"

Acceptable Art are the key words, since that is FA's primary focus, is being an art site, while keeping in mind many artists of various backgrounds and skill levels are welcomed here.


----------



## Kegan (Jan 19, 2009)

I've been wondering for the longest time but...

are MY silly little flash submissions legit? I usually use my own recorded game footage and then just edit it in hopes of making others laugh

I got three good examples right here:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1731273/

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1192448/

and

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1853278/

Hopefully they are, I love making these things


----------



## therealist (Jan 19, 2009)

Aden said:


> Because Poser is a cancerous tumor on the buttocks of 3D art.



Perhaps so.









Aden said:


> The issue is not how they are used. The issue is whether a significant portion of the final piece is your work. Posing some premade characters, making a lighting rig, and hitting 'Render' is simply not enough, no matter the subject matter. If you made your own models/textures/scenes and used Poser, great! Submit away.



Some of the uploads I have are made using Poser, but I did take an extensive amount of time to create my own textures, modify the morphs and tweak the meshes a bit.  How does that stand in YOUR viewpoint?  I don't mind my renders being pulled if they have to be, I just want to know what you think.




Aden said:


> You can't copyright a character.



Then why does every major animation company put that little "Circle C" and "Circle R" next to their characters?  That looks a LOT like copyright to me...


----------



## fuzzyroo (Jan 19, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Hey Dragoneer, I'm looking at this again with fresh eyes... and I have a question.
> 
> Do you mean to say simply that ANY photograph containing exposed human genitalia, beasts, or buttocks are a no go... and a fursuit/plush animal/Sex Toy/etc is not allowed *IF* it *ALSO* includes exposed human genitalia, breasts, or buttocks?




sadly i think it's an over incompesing "all" photos.  it's turned into no real life actual sexual content, to no possible assumed sexual content.


----------



## cassandrarising (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> *Basic Quality/Content* - Photographs of poor quality (grainy, blurred, out of focus or washed out) or images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. commercial items, toys, games, movies, stuff animals, etc.) must be uploaded to Scraps. Photographs of art, or items which are in full compliance with the By You/For You, are acceptable provided they meet are of a minimum quality.



Thank you thank you.

This is a huge pet-peeve of mine: I see a sculpture or jewelery or a piece of metal or glass art on the browse page and think "woo - another person who works in different mediums,  must go look!" and when I get there I find a description along the lines of "hai guys I bought this wolf sculpture at walmart - isn't it neat?"

Bought at Wal*Mart = not art.


----------



## fuzzyroo (Jan 19, 2009)

Could i get some further clarification, the rules regarding to sexual themes that are "intended/possible" but not actually happening?  Primarily about fursuits, sex-toys, plushies and the like?  what is included in that, what is not?

also, clarification on a "scene of people" cause really, that's sort of the essence of photography is capturing a certain scene.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 19, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Even saying the above, I do not believe that would qualify as a valid argument in this case, seeing as we have people who draw oversized genitalia entering orafices that cannot possible handle them. Artists who draw breasts that wouldn't be able to be supported by a manga/anime styled back and hips. "Yes, but it's stylized" but that's presuming a traditional artist even knows how to draw correct anatomy in the first place, versus "it's my styyyyyyyyyyyle" argument.



I'm not so concerned with proportions, more the joints and bends anatomy. You can often see when a poser model lifts its arm, the scapula does not follow, creating a massively fake feeling. Not to mention joint clipping. Flesh that doesn't squash when folded.

It's not an argument, it's  just wishful thinking on my behalf.

It's usually obvious when a person stylizing actually knows the anatomy beneath things - to me at least. And my anatomy skills are mediocre.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 19, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> I'll step in for a moment because I have had some cases of defense of Poser renders...and I actually understand what the AUP is trying to say.
> 
> You're failing to see the argument, the AUP *trumps* copyright law as to what is acceptable to the site. Copyright is 2nd, AUP is first in the natural order. Meaning it first has to pass what is considered acceptable copyright issues, *then* it must pass the For you by you policy ie the AUP.
> 
> ...



Wow, that was a quick reply!
With all due respect, to clarify, I wasn't referring to the works usage anywhere else but here. One needs to re-look at it with the downgraded eyes of a newbie user that doesn't know a thing about modeling and you will see just how unfair and draconian it really is. 

The main reason why I brought up the legality and license into the question is because of the uninformed tone of the responses, which seemingly automatically assume that if you use legitimate Poser content you are somehow in some kind of a talentless legal pirate or somesuch, when you have these items that you have paid good money for, and expect to be able to use everywhere as you see fit, as long as it does not violate the law. 

One has to look at what else was said, and when you look at it, you see the sheer madness of it. Sure you can alter the base character and add custom texture maps, but then what? A base program user with no modeling skills whatsoever is left out on a limb. Sure you can post the resulting new character but then what do you have? A hairless naked character put in a variety of poses. Not very good for an artwork unless you are making up a character design sheet. You see because all of the add ons you would normally have for the character to make up your picture would make the picture inadmissible because you did not create anything else yourself. That is sheer shortsidedness, if not pure uninformed prejudice and unfairness. Sure you can use the posed character as a baseline and draw over it. That is covered in a great many texts, however if one isn't good at drawing cloth or their paint program expertise isn't up to snuff, its going to look plum-awful. It's going to look like someone just drew atop a rendered character. That's the little thing those art books don't tell you. They don't really drive home the point and say that the artist/author that put those tutorials together has been doing it for the past 5 years. But you are right, sure you can do that, but if you are a brand newbie, chances are you are just going to have a gallery full of half baked works you wouldn't wish for strangers to see, much less anyone you know.

Actually copyright law trumps the AUP since the server resides in the US, and therefore all rules here have to obey the laws of the US. They are not independent nations unto themselves. AUPS for different sites are as varied as the stars in the sky, and by and far the most part are made just by the individuals who run the site, not lawyers who know of such things. As for here, If it did then they wouldn't have content up which would no doubt violate blue laws in practically state in the country if not most of the world. Not a good thing when works are categorized as either Fetishes / Furry (Tame), and Fetishes / Furry (Adult) Then have long listings of different types going on down to artwork of Pokemon, Digimon, and Sonic. I am sure that Nintendo, Bandai, and Sega would just be thrilled to death to know that thier characters are listed as fetish types here. It's stuff like that which gives the site and the fandom more of a black-eye than 3D Krystal doing naughty things with foxy-fox. Although admittedly that art just adds to it, but hey, who are we kidding, the standard deluge of 2D art generally outguns the 3D by quite a margin. So which is the bigger threat?

As far as Poser Krystal ( Or any other transformed or untransformed available human or furry character mesh ) is concerned, Its impossible to know unless one actually talks to the artists in question. She was released with the best of intentions but in the end once the genie is out of the bottle, like it or not it can't be put back in. Some artists may have been genuine fans of the character, some may have been newbies to the program tossing out cheap stuff. I will admit. I have used the character, but unlike those that would put her in situations that you wouldn't want your grandma to see, I treated the character in my renders with the respect that a strong warrioress like her deserves, not like a newbies first model sex toy. The key to dealing with the people that use her in a base manner is not to push them aside as no-talent hacks, but to offer constructive criticism, find something remotely good about it, then try to turn them in the right direction, saying something like "The expression and her pose were good but you know, you can do alot better if you put this neat outfit on her, ditch the sex partner and do something original like having her fend off a pack of wolves with her staff or somesuch." Essentially tossing them a little bone so they don't feel humilated, not alienating them, but giving them a positive creative direction to turn to. There are a number of different texturemaps for the character and morphs avialable, but again, if you are a beginner, gee you're just out of luck, you can't use any of it to make anything new. So what say you? I look forward to your reply.
--Dancougar


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 19, 2009)

therealist said:


> Perhaps so.
> Then why does every major animation company put that little "Circle C" and "Circle R" next to their characters?  That looks a LOT like copyright to me...



Because a Coypright Symbol is for the Artwork, not the Character. The R means Registered Trademark. A trademark is mostly for logos, slogans, names and phrases that identifies with the company. Batman is associated with DC Comics. Both names are Trademarked.

http://www.t-tlaw.com/tm-18.htm

Please read.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I'm not so concerned with proportions, more the joints and bends anatomy. You can often see when a poser model lifts its arm, the scapula does not follow, creating a massively fake feeling.


Trust me, 3D Studio MAX and I have spent more time together rigging a model, screaming at my monitor, because when I bent the arm one direction one random poly refused to go how I wanted it to. =P It's annoying in 3D, but one of the main problems comes down to how the model is boned and how much bend/stretch the polyrig has towards bending. Sometimes you just have to bite your tongue at certain deformations in 3D, otherwise you'll be assigning weights to the vertexes until you die trying to tweak them to be "juuuuust right".


----------



## dragon695 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> *2) For You:*
> Fur Affinity allows users to post Submissions created for them provided they have the original artist's permission to repost said work. Credit must be attributed to the original artist with citation that the work was not created by the submitter.


Why do we have to allow vanity galleries at all? I'm sick and fucking tired of seeing the same piece get posted three times because the commissioner wants to show off what he/she bought. Quite frankly, the original artist should host it and the commissioner should favorite it.



Dragoneer said:


> *Generated Art, Renderers and Sprites*
> Submissions which are pre-generated or contain computer generated content (e.g. screenshots from games, web sites, etc.) are not permitted. This includes customizable characters (e.g. Warcraft, Spore) or creations assembled using pre-created criteria and/or programs where the user input is primarily adjusting values (e.g sliders, values, seeds) and the computer then generates content.
> 
> 
> *Renderers:* Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain a significant user created content (e.g. all new texture maps, 3D meshes, animation, interfaces, etc.). Pre-packaged/downloadable models are not permitted as the primary focal point of a submission unless they contain significant modifications which would distinguish itself from the original model).


I am worried about this rule. Does this apply to artists like:
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/anthony2008/
because quite frankly I love his poser porn. True, some of the models are pre-packaged, but he does usually make some modifications to them (including addition of anatomically-correct genitals). I don't see how it is any different than sculpture, where you take pre-existing objects and arrange them into a composition. The artistic part is how they are composed. Do you have a problem with his work? After all, he came here because Y!Gallery kicked him out for doing a render with anthros in it. I hate to see us be just as bad as they are.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

dragon695 said:


> True, some of the models are pre-packaged, but he does usually make some modifications to them (including addition of anatomically-correct genitals).


Simply adding a penis to something is not content. =P



dragon695 said:


> I don't see how it is any different than sculpture, where you take pre-existing objects and arrange them into a composition. The artistic part is how they are composed. Do you have a problem with his work?


Most sculptures are not people just taking things they found and connecting them together. And yes, I do have some issues with some of his models.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 19, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Wow, that was a quick reply!
> With all due respect, to clarify, I wasn't referring to the works usage anywhere else but here. One needs to re-look at it with the downgraded eyes of a newbie user that doesn't know a thing about modeling and you will see just how unfair and draconian it really is.
> 
> --Dancougar



A child who is inexperienced will often find a parent with the experience rule's unfair and draconian. We cannot look at it with a newbie's eyes in that case, we need experience. That is how it works. 

FA has however, recognized that experience is something that is gained and learned which is why there isn't a quality factor (at least in the case of drawing), but effort and personal work factor that is being weighed.


----------



## blackroo1967 (Jan 19, 2009)

therealist said:


> Perhaps so.
> Some of the uploads I have are made using Poser, but I did take an extensive amount of time to create my own textures, modify the morphs and tweak the meshes a bit.  How does that stand in YOUR viewpoint?  I don't mind my renders being pulled if they have to be, I just want to know what you think.





therealist said:


> Aden said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Point made, therealist.

Aden... you are dead wrong, no matter HOW militant your opinion is.

Someone can just send their art, be it 2D or 3D to the Library of Congress
and $40 (or more) to register a copyright for their art forms.

Even Little Dragon, when he helped Charlie Fox make the Krystal 3D Poser
figure, posted this in the AUP in the Read-Me file:



			
				Little Dragon said:
			
		

> The character Krystal was originally designed by Rare Ltd. for the GameCube video game Starfox Adventures.  Her likeness is the property of Nintendo.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Fox_Adventures
> 
> ...



Yes, even though I draw 2D art, I mess around with Poser, too, 
but I'm trying to create a character from Anim8or.

But that's not the point.

If you can make art, be it 2D, 3D, music, or fractals, it can be copyrighted.

Sorry, Aden. Those are the facts.  :neutral:


----------



## Stormslegacy (Jan 19, 2009)

*claps* I for one am quite happy with the rules.  They were needed.  There was a flood of poor quality photos, SL shots and bad poser renderings.  One need only check the WTF FA group on live journal to chronicle the slide downhill.  It's not like FA is making a membership club or anything.  

I personally don't understand the bickering that's taking place.  I have no idea why some 3D artists are claiming they are being told their stuff isn't art.  Srsly, get off the damn cross, someone else needs the wood.  It's an art form, but unless the content is created by you it's just not welcome here.   The Admin has made it clear it wasn't meant to insult, offend or persecute anyone.  There are places for it, take it elsewhere.  This only applied to poser, seriously how does that prosecute 3D as a whole?  There is plenty of good 3D art, even Poser art that is still allowed by the rules.  

I also disagree that Poser is the equivalent of a pencil and paper or a camera.  I see poser the same way as photographing a painting.  It takes a lot of work to get a good photograph of a painting, but in the end what draws people into the work and what they are viewing is not the photograph but the painting itself.  Likewise, if you are posing a pre-dressed and created figure, the end result isn't so much the pose, but also the figure.  If you did an amazing pose but used a poorly made figure it wouldn't matter how good you were, the result would still suck.  These types of limitations are what make the media questionable in cases where the user is not using his or her own content.  In the case of traditional media, one can use no-name dollar store crayons and a greasy napkin and still come out with something that not only looks good but depends only on the artist.  Same goes for much of the photoshop work that doesn't involve photo manips.  I don't believe that the ability to buy a good model, texture etc. makes someone an artist. 

On the same token I would love to see the pictures scribbled on notebook paper taken to scraps.  This is supposed to be a gallery site, not a place to post every little thing you've ever doodled on.  I restrain myself, I can never understand why others don't.  Being relegated to scraps ain't a bad thing, your watchers will still be notified when you update. 

To the person who brought up facism...seriously...it makes you look like an overemotional fool. Reconsider adding a line like that next time.  If your argument is not compelling enough on it's own without mentioning fascists/Hitler/Nazis then you may want to reconsider which side you are on.

And while I'm at it...



> Rapid flashing kind of dumb since anyone who would seizure shouldn't be using the internet but it won't end my little happy world.



Bull.  Maybe you don't know anyone with epilepsy but I do, and to say they shouldn't use the entire internet is just ignorant.  There's different levels for one, and honestly I don't have it and still find those avatars obnoxious.  Someone I watched recently changed her avi to something that moves too much and I don't go to her pieces because it's so distracting/annoying.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 19, 2009)

blackroo1967 said:


> Point made, therealist.
> 
> Aden... you are dead wrong, no matter HOW militant your opinion is.
> 
> ...



1. If you're going to spout about Copy*right* issues, spell it right. Please. 
2. You are incorrect, you need to read my post above yours.

*Those are the facts*


----------



## dragon695 (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Most sculptures are not people just taking things they found and connecting them together. And yes, I do have some issues with some of his models.



Uh, please do take a look at any book about modern art sculptures, you'll see plenty of examples. Also, what about Andy Warhol? His art sells for millions of $$$ despite being blowups of comics or repetitive soup cans. My point is art and originality are about composition and not about the actual content itself. So what if poser is easy to use? It doesn't make the idea/concept for the series any less original. It is, after all, a reflection of the artist's imagination.

Also, I am still waiting for a reply on why vanity galleries are still permitted. If we're going to get all butthurt about poser, then lets really nip unoriginality in the bud by making it against the rules to post artwork you didn't even do yourself but rather commissioned.


----------



## blackroo1967 (Jan 19, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Because a Coypright Symbol is for the Artwork, not the Character. The R means Registered Trademark. A trademark is mostly for logos, slogans, names and phrases that identifies with the company. Batman is associated with DC Comics. Both names are Trademarked.
> 
> http://www.t-tlaw.com/tm-18.htm
> 
> Please read.




Well, yeah, you got me there.


----------



## ROFLgasm (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> What exactly is "downtunes"?


When someone re-records or re-performs the original song with lower notes and/or vocals.


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 19, 2009)

yoshi000 said:


> This is different from everyone is talking about but, why in the bloodly hell I can't post my own sprites?



*IF* you made them from scratch, sure.


----------



## The Pepsi Monster (Jan 19, 2009)

The Pepsi Monster said:


> Since photographs of adult toys are prohibited does this mean that paintings of adult toys as still life are also prohibited?


 
I am quoting my own post because my question was ignored. I am sorry if that was wrong to do. I did a painting of some adult toys on their own because they were fun colors and shapes. I want to know if that is also against the rules.

Also is it against the rules to draw characters using adult toys too?
Is is also wrong to draw pictures which focus on the character's genitals - which seems to be a popular theme in the adult category in FA.

I really don't want to break any rules so I would like to know.
Thank you for taking the time to read this!


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

ROFLgasm said:


> When someone re-records or re-performs the original song with lower notes and/or vocals.


If you re-create it that would be considered a cover. If you just modified it with to be slower, faster and/or with a different pitch then it would still be the considered the original song, albeit modified (and hence not legit).

We're cool with covers. If you want to recreate it we're fine.



The Pepsi Monster said:


> I did a painting of some adult toys on their own because they were fun colors and shapes. I want to know if that is also against the rules.


Sorry I missed your question. There's a lot to cover here. If you draw it, sculpt it, make it in 3D... we're cool. So if you paint some dildos feel free to post them.



The Pepsi Monster said:


> Also is it against the rules to draw characters using adult toys too? Is is also wrong to draw pictures which focus on the character's genitals - which seems to be a popular theme in the adult category in FA.


If it's art we're fine with it. E.G. if you create it, or it was created specifically for you, then we're cool. I think the only caveat would be is if you ordered it from Zeta or Bad Dragon, then it's not quite considered a "custom".



dragon695 said:


> Uh, please do take a look at any book about modern art sculptures, you'll see plenty of examples. Also, what about Andy Warhol? His art sells for millions of $$$ despite being blowups of comics or repetitive soup cans.


Because real life requires tangible objects, real skill. In 3D you can instantly replicate an object in seconds, levitate them, rotate them, etc. It's not the same. You can't sculpt in real life by instantly materializing a thousand tomato cans to use. There is a skill in a manipulating the ordinary.

Now, with that said...

 





​
 This is an awesome 3D Sculpture.

Check it:
http://www.framebox.de/creations/3d/salad/

The artist re-created the Aliens xenomorph by hand-creating dozens of

Would the above be permissable on FA? Yes, yes it would. Because he created something extraordinary from the ordinary. Sculpting in 3D can be fine, but take the time to make it something unique. If your entire gallery comes from DAZ you're not doing 3D. 

Is Poser easy? Yes. Poser takes minimal effort to use, and moderate effort to use well. But you need to create something original, something unique. But "easy" isn't the problem. Look at the "salad" alien. The artist took 3D vegetables (which he created in Maya) and posed them together to make a unique monstrosity. He created veggies, textured them, applied shading and depth and assembled them together. Nothing overly complex, but it took planning. However, he did it all from scratch using incredible simply shapes.

I can go to any code repository online, rip a bunch of coding and do some bare minimal changes to customize it for my needs and toss it up on a website... but does that make me a coder? If I justified my usage of the code, even without understanding how it works, would that even make me a coder? No. The argument isn't "because it's easy". The argument is that you're not doing original work. When I can look at twelve different poser artists on Fur Affinity and half of them have the exact same Krystal model... then we have a problem.

The Poser community on Fur Affinity brought this upon themselves, and it may have been the actions of a few, but the actions were widespread. I'm not going to argue it anymore.​ 


dragon695 said:


> Also, I am still waiting for a reply on why vanity galleries are still permitted.


Because artists and users benefit from them both. FA is unique in that we permit that. In the future, there will be AUP changes to dictact how "For You" art is handled, and this document will be updated to reflect those changes.


----------



## Ranard Lightningfall (Jan 19, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> If you re-create it that would be considered a cover. If you just modified it with to be slower, faster and/or with a different pitch then it would still be the considered the original song, albeit modified (and hence not legit).
> 
> We're cool with covers. If you want to recreate it we're fine.
> 
> ...



So I'm finally able to say my piece again hmm? Good.
So you will allow people that have not done anything but throw money around to pepople to create  for the to post stuff, but don't judge that in the same view as what your saying people with poser do, when it's not always the case? 

Your a Hypocrite.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Ranard Lightningfall said:


> So I'm finally able to say my piece again hmm? Good.
> 
> ...
> 
> Your a Hypocrite.


As I stated earlier, you were never blocked from the forums. Ever.


----------



## Aden (Jan 19, 2009)

Ranard Lightningfall said:


> So you will allow people that have not done anything but throw money around to pepople to create  for the to post stuff, but don't judge that in the same view as what your saying people with poser do, when it's not always the case?



What the hell did you just say. I seriously cannot find a point anywhere in that mangled thing you think of as a sentence.

Are you saying that someone paid some amount of money to have the picture that Dragoneer posted done? I got the impression he did it all himself.

Are you saying that...no, I really can't extract any other points from this. Please clarify.



> Your a Hypocrite.



And you don't know how to use your/you're.


----------



## Ranard Lightningfall (Jan 19, 2009)

All I'm going to leave this off with is this. 

http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=9509

Remember this? Yeah. That's all. I'm done here.


----------



## Malcolm the Bear (Jan 19, 2009)

So, what if someone fancies themselves a photographer and takes shots that are deliberately grainy/blurry/whatever else that may make it look like a "bad" photo, but done for artistic purposes?  I took these two pictures, for example, and thought they looked better because of the appearance of having some sort of filter on the lens:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/268997/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/206558/

Are those now unacceptable?


----------



## DuncanFox (Jan 19, 2009)

Malcolm the Bear said:


> I took these two pictures, for example, and thought they looked better because of the appearance of having some sort of filter on the lens:
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/268997/
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/206558/
> ...



You know what my favorite part of this thread is?

The part where nobody assumes the admins will be gentlemen about this policy, applying the TOS to its spirit rather than its letter, reviewing submissions on a case-by-case basis and using reason and judgment on each submission's individual merits.

Rather, we have tons of people who assume the admins would like nothing more than alienate the entire userbase, using this TOS as a means/excuse, destroying the site and its reputation in the process.

Clearly the logical conclusion.

And to answer you directly, Malcolm - your pictures show clear evidence of intentional composition and framing, so they're fine.


----------



## hera (Jan 19, 2009)

The new Poser policy is wrong.  If that's the case, no fursuit pictures should be allowed at all.  They violate the for you/by you policy.  I doubt half of the pictures of fursuits are made by their owners.  Let's ban all photographs that are not furry either.  I thought this is a furry site.  Oh, and remove all journals.  Most of the journals don't even talk about furry.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

hera said:


> The new Poser policy is wrong.  If that's the case, no fursuit pictures should be allowed at all.  They violate the for you/by you policy.  I doubt half of the pictures of fursuits are made by their owners.  Let's ban all photographs that are not furry either.  I thought this is a furry site.  Oh, and remove all journals.  Most of the journals don't even talk about furry.


And while we're at it, let's ban drawings, because the artists didn't make their own pencils and mill their paper. And let's ban digital art, because the artists didn't generate their own electricity and personally supervise a room full of Chinese who were building their computer that they would use to create the art on (let's not even get into the coding on the software developer side).

Or we can be rational, mature individuals about the issue and move on.


----------



## Cloudchaser (Jan 19, 2009)

"Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain a significant user created content (e.g. all new texture maps, 3D meshes, animation, interfaces, etc.). Pre-packaged/downloadable models are not permitted as the primary focal point of a submission unless they contain significant modifications which would distinguish itself from the original model."

FA Admins, I must ask why as that's gonna force a lot of really good artists such as Mapper (and many others) to have to delete their gallery and not upload here anymore :-(


----------



## hera (Jan 19, 2009)

if this poser policy sticks, consider me gone too.  You are going to see many Poser artists remove their content.  Hope you are happy.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 19, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> "Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain a significant user created content (e.g. all new texture maps, 3D meshes, animation, interfaces, etc.). Pre-packaged/downloadable models are not permitted as the primary focal point of a submission unless they contain significant modifications which would distinguish itself from the original model."
> 
> FA Admins, I must ask why as that's gonna force a lot of really good artists such as Mapper (and many others) to have to delete their gallery and not upload here anymore :-(



So are you telling me, Mapper has not done any of the following?

Created his own textures for his works?
He hasn't used it in conjunction with his own works while using Poser content?

Absolutely nothing of anything he posted other than moving a model was of his own work and design?

I just want to know that's exactly what you're saying. I thought I remember him stating otherwise a while ago.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 19, 2009)

Cloudchaser said:


> FA Admins, I must ask why as that's gonna force a lot of really good artists such as Mapper (and many others) to have to delete their gallery and not upload here anymore :-(


I don't entirely see Mapper's gallery as being a problem. From what I saw most of the submissions he had are acceptable and alright under the correct ruleset. I haven't done a full look, but of the submissions he had on his userpage they seemed alright.

I'd need to know more about his creation process, but most of his models seem significantly modified.


----------



## hera (Jan 20, 2009)

Actually they are not.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 20, 2009)

hera said:


> Actually they are not.


So you're saying Mapper doesn't create anything new or unique for his art at all? Just uses off the shelf creations?


----------



## hera (Jan 20, 2009)

Well, I am not going to say 100% for sure.  But according to his journal.  

"They are customized, but the base that they are built on isn't, and I use sliders and dials etc.... to pose and render so, yeah its a bummer. This wouldn't be the first time this has happened here. But who knows, they may change their minds and all will be back to normal."

And thats going to be a problem, who is to say what is customized and what isn't.  Why make a rule you can't enforce?


----------



## Cloudchaser (Jan 20, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> I don't entirely see Mapper's gallery as being a problem. From what I saw most of the submissions he had are acceptable and alright under the correct ruleset. I haven't done a full look, but of the submissions he had on his userpage they seemed alright.
> 
> I'd need to know more about his creation process, but most of his models seem significantly modified.



What triggered me to make my comment was a journal that Mapper posted, so you may want to talk to him about it.

http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/594948/

While Mapper's journal was the trigger for my comment, I made it out of concern for all who use Poser and other rendering programs and their fans


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jan 20, 2009)

Aden said:


> The issue is not how they are used.



And yet, it patently _should_ be.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

hera said:


> if this poser policy sticks, consider me gone too.  You are going to see many Poser artists remove their content.  Hope you are happy.



This is going to sound really harsh, but here goes:

Poser artists who have not created their own models or textures and are using the work of others (specifically, that Krystal model that seems to be floating around that people like to do colour swaps to and call their own characters)... Well, they're not really what I'd call artists to begin with.

Now, the people that WOULD be hit pretty hard is anyone who uses Terragen or similar to generate scenery. It's mostly dials and controls (everything is generated via the computer), but some people can create some very nice work with it.


----------



## hera (Jan 20, 2009)

Per your defintion, then photographers are not artists either.  After all, nothing is created.  Just a machine clicking an image.


----------



## Mazz (Jan 20, 2009)

hera said:


> if this poser policy sticks, consider me gone too.  You are going to see many Poser artists remove their content.  Hope you are happy.




I would be, if people can't make poser stuff look like they did something more than pose models and give them crappy color jobs then I'm super happy to see less of it.
(note this doesn't say anything against those who do 3d modeling with some REAL effort and time into it). 
--

Photographers are real artists beecause a real photographer has to take into account a lot to get that perfect picture and they have to have a good eye for that type of thing. 
(again, don't tell me that poser takes a lot of effort, real 3d art takes effort, the crap most people spew out of poser is.. crap). 
--

Again, thank you to the admin for their new rules which is doing way more for the site as an ART site.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

hera said:


> Per your defintion, then photographers are not artists either.  After all, nothing is created.  Just a machine clicking an image.


Well, if you want to go slippery slope on it, then actually drawing anything doesn't qualify you as an artist, either, since it's just the transfer of matter from one object to another in a specified pattern and/or applying digital effects by use of the computer.

However, that doesn't make it so. A photographer has to seek out and take the picture, meaning actual work was involved. Someone who adjusts slides in a program like Poser to allow the computer to generate everything for them using pre-made objects hasn't really done any work except for adjusting those sliders, which really has nothing to do with talent or artistry.


----------



## hera (Jan 20, 2009)

Actually Poser does take a bit of effort. There is lighting to be taken in consideration, camera angles, etc etc.

This was created in Poser.

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1886079/

If bad poser pics are not allowed then why are bad scribbles even allowed?  I bet I can post a furry stick figure and it won't get removed.  This doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

hera said:


> Actually Poser does take a bit of effort.  There is lighting to be taken in consideration, camera angles, etc etc.
> 
> This was created in Poser.
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1886079/


Yes, but these sorts of things are only really valid if you're using something that you created. I mean, what if I posted pictures of my X-Box 360's dashboard or my PS3's XMB menu and called it art? It's the same concept, really. If you're going to use Poser, then at least use your own models and textures. If you're not going to do that, and you want to use pre-fab stuff, then you know what? You didn't even try to try.

I mean, I could fiddle randomly with stuff and take screencaps when it looks nice, too. But it's honestly like taking someone else's art and tracing it to call your own. If you did that, you wouldn't really have any artistic talent, either, would you?

BUT, it doesn't look like you're using prefab objects. Are you?


----------



## royal-dog (Jan 20, 2009)

Question for Dragoneer and/or anyone else who decided on the policy changes:

Was a consent form system like what deviantArt has implemented considered for sexual fursuit photos before considering banning them altogether? Wouldn't that be more legally viable without having to sacrifice allowing showing things on an art website that are completely natural? There's already 2 maturity filters here, and if a consent form were completed along with said photos, wouldn't that put all legal matters into the hands of the uploaders rather than the site maintainers?

To me as both a fursuiter and an artist, I feel rather discriminated against by this site at this point :/ I'm building my first fursuit, and by these new rules I won't be able to post picture of it here, why make it even more difficult for furs to find places to post their art?


----------



## hera (Jan 20, 2009)

Actually everything you saw in that picture was prefab except her texture and her feet.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

hera said:


> Actually everything you saw in that picture was prefab except her texture and her feet.


Well, can't speak for the FA staff, but for me, that's enough to put you above "random tinkering".

I guess I'm a bit jaded at all the SL avatars and screenshots (and the Krystal palette swaps without any credit going to the original author) that I see being posted that look exactly the same and have no real place on FA. As long as effort went in to actually creating something that didn't exist before, I'd personally give it the thumbs up.


----------



## therealist (Jan 20, 2009)

Dragoneer, this is specifically for you, but others may reply to this inquiry if so desired:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1563327/ (NSFW)

Considering this image, I'd like to ask if this would be acceptable.  Numerous modifications have been made to the figures, and some Photoshop work was done to it.

For example, I have completely started over from SCRATCH with the texture map.  As you probably well know, the default Victoria4 skin is textureless and NOT that pale, nor does it have red fingernails and toenails.  It also does not have red lipstick or red eyeshadow, nor green eyes.  The hair figure I used also is not black with red stripes in its default state.  Nor is Victoria4's face shaped that way, nor her body, in the default form.  The shirt she is wearing was green and orange in its default form, and was completely re-textured by hand.

I will admit that I haven't edited the MESHES very much.  I did some MINOR modifications in the Setup room to adjust some of the grouping and the target morphs on V4.  Not only that, I hand-coded the adjustments for the Morphs++ injectors by compiling a TXT document and re-labeling the extension as a .PZ2 because there was simply no other way to obtain the level of customization I desired.  That alone took me near 12 hours to complete and about 3 days to learn Poser's native programming language.

And even still, if I could export the OBJ's to Blender3d, edit them, import them back and have the figure still poseable, I'd definitely do that.  After all, there just may not be any other way to morph the face to look like the supermodel I loosely based my character after.

Bottom line:  Is something like this acceptable yes or no?  If not, I'll gladly pull it until I can figure out how to do even more code-level customizations.

-TR


----------



## Rehka (Jan 20, 2009)

Didn't it used to be something like 50+% user created content per image or something?*may be miss-remembering :S*

seems to me the rules sound like if it looks like original content, even if it originated with some kind of model, as long as it is modified enough to look original, its okay.... but i might be misinterpreting Dragoneers explanation/apparent application of the rules (ie: above user 'Mappers' case)

But maybe its just like high school, nobody likes a Poser


----------



## hera (Jan 20, 2009)

Didn't it used to be something like 50+% user created content per image or something?*may be miss-remembering :S*

if thats the case, then all my art is in violation.  Course no one knows what to enforce at this point,  why bother with the rule?


----------



## Kefan (Jan 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Yes, but these sorts of things are only really valid if you're using something that you created.



So, my photographic studies of ice are not art because I didn't plant the tree and cause the ice storm, and ensure that such-and-such amount of water was deposited on the branches to make them freeze like that?

*Moods can be created, too.*  And creating one is not just a matter of dial twiddling.  I don't recall seeing settings for 'sad', 'ecstatic', 'pensive' or 'psychotic' on my light properties anywhere.  Nor are there full or partial body poses labeled such, at least not on any prop I've used.

Poser is very dumb about such things.  Poser is very dumb about simple things like gravity and object collisions.

There seems to be a misconception that all there is to do in Poser is tell it "I want this character sitting there, and that one standing there, and make them look mad at each other, and light it like a living room."  Poser doesn't know how to do any of that.

The artist has to tell it whether s/he means monumentally pissed off or just slightly cheesed.  Leaned back in the chair confidently, or on the edge ready to stand up?  Standing there defiantly, or defensively?  How many lights in the living room?  Warm incandescent or cool fluorescent, or a mix?  What kind of outside lighting is coming in through the window?  Is the room sparsely or sumptously furnished?

We haven't even gotten into the physical characteristics of the models and we already have a lot of work to do, _even with stock objects_.

Done right, you can tell at a glance whether you have, say, a poor couple arguing over money.  You have told a story with your picture.  And it doesn't make a damned bit of difference whether you used original or stock props to do it.


----------



## Nightweaver (Jan 20, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Really, there is no definitive answer on this one. It's a case-by-case basis based on intent of the image. If you're posting a lot of pictures of dogs and their sheaths happen to be in just about every image... you're probably going to flag the attention of an admin. If you post a picture of a dog catching a frisbee... and y'know, hey, there it is... we'll probably not think twice. However, if frisbee dog is going red rocket you're going to be AUP'd.



I don't know why, but I just burst out laughing when I read this. Ahh the things administrators have to answer with a straight face. It's a good thing you're a discerning, streetwise pervert, 'Neer. Some art admins couldn't bring themselves to imagine such things.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

Kefan said:


> So, my photographic studies of ice are not art because I didn't plant the tree and cause the ice storm, and ensure that such-and-such amount of water was deposited on the branches to make them freeze like that?
> 
> *Moods can be created, too.*  And creating one is not just a matter of dial twiddling.  I don't recall seeing settings for 'sad', 'ecstatic', 'pensive' or 'psychotic' on my light properties anywhere.  Nor are there full or partial body poses labeled such, at least not on any prop I've used.
> 
> ...



I completely disagree in most cases, especially since most of the Poser "artwork" posted on the site happens to have very little in the way of emotion or any other dramatic effect (ESPECIALLY the Krystal stuff). However, I will say that it can be argued, but it would definitely have to be on a per-case basis. You couldn't apply this argument as a blanket for all Poser-related submissions, especially those using pre-fab stuff.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I completely disagree in most cases, especially since most of the Poser "artwork" posted on the site happens to have very little in the way of emotion or any other dramatic effect (ESPECIALLY the Krystal stuff).



I haven't got any use for images that are basically nothing more than a digital buffalo or beaver shot.  As far as _these_ images go, we are in agreement.



Runefox said:


> However, I will say that it can be argued, but it would definitely have to be on a per-case basis. You couldn't apply this argument as a blanket for all Poser-related submissions, especially those using pre-fab stuff.



The problem is that the converse of this argument _is_ being applied as a blanket for all Poser-related submissions.  I posed (no pun intended) the query a few pages back, but no one has bothered to try to answer me yet: what is more creative--building an original model and doing nothing but centerfold shots, or creating a mood, a scene, a story with stock and downloadable models and props?

This was all "in camera", so to speak.  The only post-processing it got was to add the title in PS.  I submit that it is an original creative work, regardless of the fact that it's the DAZ/Zygote centaur, the stock horse, the P4 'dork' (I didn't even have M2 or Millennium Mike when I created this).  The wall and mirror were stock props, with stock textures.

Art has to be about the _ideas_, not the _tools_.

I can live with 'case by case'.  At risk of committing _hubris_, I think my stuff will pass muster, by and large.  Maybe a quarter of my Poser pieces should be moved to scraps, and some should just go because they are kinda crappy.  But then, we all have a learning curve.

What I can't live with is the blanket denial.  Yes, a line needs to be drawn somewhere.  No, stock/downloadable models is not the place to draw the line.


----------



## Bloo_roo (Jan 20, 2009)

Kefan said:


> I haven't got any use for images that are basically nothing more than a digital buffalo or beaver shot.  As far as _these_ images go, we are in agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Scenario time!

I have a highly advanced map-building and posing program (think Valve's Hammer) that uses textures, models and prims from the game World of Warcraft. SO I find one of the many rivers in that game and start construction- I set up a house, a boat, maybe a few barrels, camp fire, and two characters in an epic combat pose and take a picture and post it. It's creative and lots of work, yes, BUT on the other hand I didn't actually make anything- I used pre-designed bits and simply moved them into place.

Sorry, but it seems to me Poser doesn't fly in the same way that Spore doesn't fly- you didn't actually make anything, you only manipulated parts. I'm not saying this is bad or anything, but I can't call it art work either... this is just my stand though.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 20, 2009)

Bloo_roo said:


> Scenario time!
> 
> I have a highly advanced map-building and posing program (think Valve's Hammer) that uses textures, models and prims from the game World of Warcraft. SO I find one of the many rivers in that game and start construction- I set up a house, a boat, maybe a few barrels, camp fire, and two characters in an epic combat pose and take a picture and post it. It's creative and lots of work, yes, BUT on the other hand I didn't actually make anything- I used pre-designed bits and simply moved them into place.



Pre-existing landscape, or can you dictate placement of plants, rivers, etc.?  And are the characters pre-posed in combat, or you had to actually pose them as well as place them?  That's where my line starts showing up.  If you have two characters already textured, expressioned, clothed, armed, and posed, and a landscape that's largely pre-made, then I will agree that yes, you are for the most part just moving things into place, and the possibility for genuine artistic expression is greatly more limited, but I will not go so far as to say it is precluded entirely.

If you have to set facial expressions, build, poses and positions freely, decide on hair, skin, textures, outfits, weapons, etc., and turn the model from a _mannequin_ into a _character_, I think that's something different.


----------



## Bloo_roo (Jan 20, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Pre-existing landscape, or can you dictate placement of plants, rivers, etc.?  And are the characters pre-posed in combat, or you had to actually pose them as well as place them?  That's where my line starts showing up.  If you have two characters already textured, expressioned, clothed, armed, and posed, and a landscape that's largely pre-made, then I will agree that yes, you are for the most part just moving things into place, and the possibility for genuine artistic expression is greatly more limited, but I will not go so far as to say it is precluded entirely.
> 
> If you have to set facial expressions, build, poses and positions freely, decide on hair, skin, textures, outfits, weapons, etc., and turn the model from a _mannequin_ into a _character_, I think that's something different.



In this 'roo's humble opinion none of that really matters. There are thousands of kinds of armor and weapons on that game. You could make the area yourself- pose the characters completely, from their weight to their very structure of standing and how they're breathing. It's all irrelevant, however, because you didn't make any of it. You simply adjusted the already pre-made parts.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 20, 2009)

Bloo_roo said:


> In this 'roo's humble opinion none of that really matters. There are thousands of kinds of armor and weapons on that game. You could make the area yourself- pose the characters completely, from their weight to their very structure of standing and how they're breathing. It's all irrelevant, however, because you didn't make any of it. You simply adjusted the already pre-made parts.



I think there's something to be said for the step of actually deciding how everything fits together and what it says, or at least what it's trying to say, when it's done.  And it fails to address my question, repeated here: what is more creative--building an original model and doing nothing but centerfold shots, or creating a mood, a scene, a story with stock and downloadable models and props?  I argue that the second case is more creative than the first.


----------



## Bloo_roo (Jan 20, 2009)

Kefan said:


> I think there's something to be said for the step of actually deciding how everything fits together and what it says, or at least what it's trying to say, when it's done.  And it fails to address my question, repeated here: what is more creative--building an original model and doing nothing but centerfold shots, or creating a mood, a scene, a story with stock and downloadable models and props?  I argue that the second case is more creative than the first.



(I should probably slip this in really quick- being a HL2 and TF2 map builder and such I know where you're coming from)

I'd have to say the first- because instead of using pre-made models and such you make your own  

Now, I'll alter that first scenario to make it truly passable- instead of using stocked characters, make your own!  Make the house, the barrels, the characters, weapons... etc all on your own, and make them in the same positions you would on the World of Warcraft editor. NOW you have something you can call your own, because you hand-crafted the whole thing, not just the idea behind it.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 20, 2009)

Bloo_roo said:


> I'd have to say the first- because instead of using pre-made models and such you make your own



In that case, we have a fundamental disagreement on what the nature of art is.

'Course, that's something that's been argued since the first time Og drew an antelope on the cave wall, and Ug complained that the antlers were all wrong.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 20, 2009)

Kefan said:


> In that case, we have a fundamental disagreement on what the nature of art is.


Art has no definition. The infamous Bed of Ham or the Shit Exhibit are testament to that. I'm not trying to dispute your claim, it's just that everybody keeps saying "it is/isn't art" and the entire thing is art really has no definition. Art *USED* to mean skill, but... now it's something intricately personal and unique to everybody. It means something different to each individual.


----------



## Bloo_roo (Jan 20, 2009)

Kefan said:


> In that case, we have a fundamental disagreement on what the nature of art is.
> 
> 'Course, that's something that's been argued since the first time Og drew an antelope on the cave wall, and Ug complained that the antlers were all wrong.



That's like asking what is love? *...headbobs JUST a little* And poor Ug never could take criticism, not even his own    No wonder he moved onto the wheel.

I like your points though, and I see where you're coming from.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 20, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Art *USED* to mean skill, but... now it's something intricately personal and unique to everybody. It means something different to each individual.



I think art still does mean skill.  There's just a lot of different things at which one may be skilled.

Some skills, I don't 'get'.  A lot of people like rap.  I think the fact that you can't spell 'crap' without 'rap' pretty well sums up my attitude.  But I still recognize that there are in fact rap artists.  What they do does not interest or appeal to me, but that has no bearing on whether or not they're good at what they do.

Anyway, even with the recent revision, I am still not clear if my Poser work passes muster or not--I'm pretty sure a couple of them don't, but those are older "just got this program and I'm screwin' around with it" pieces and it won't cause me any bother to relegate them to scraps _or_ the scrapheap.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 20, 2009)

Aden said:


> Because Poser is a cancerous tumor on the buttocks of 3D art.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mr.Arden,
In three words, Yes, it does. The point  missing the fact that by mentioning the absolute legality of being able to to it,The false air of illegality that have permeated the postings here is taken away. It is a tiger that has no fangs, yet there are those that blithely follow along treat it as though it does. Instead of really looking deeply at the question and not following herd mentality. Because one is legally owns the items and are readily able to create works, it doesn't mean that you can treat the artist like trash because you dislike the program that they work in. 

The issue is on how they are used. Putting limits on a works creation is a HUGE  issue of how they are used., What is at the core is legitimizing those hardcore beliefs held by the modeling of other programs that have been about the net for years and years. Other program modeling purists have always looked down their noses at the program, scoffing and saying that its just a no-talent wannabe artists program for cranking out lackluster cookie-cutter works. This is not new by any reach of the imagination. They have never liked the program, This is fully documented fact. You can find it in both print media and on the net. But like it or not, posing some characters, adjusting the outfits, weapons, environments, effects, expressions and hitting render is a lot of work. It takes a heck of a lot of work, but unlike the standard argument of Oh you get so much more enjoyment out of it when you do it yourself. That is a falacy.

It doesn't seem that way coming from the outlook of an outsider to the program who has just seen the aftereffects and in their own opinion found them lacking, but it is. The only thing taken out of it is the hours and hours and hours of work building everything and putting it all together from scratch. It is what it is, it is not a renderer, its a character generation program. Take away that primary function and you you don't have anything. Its like telling a professional of whatever field that they can't do their vocation with the tools necessary,  and do it with the most bare minimum. Like say telling a carpenter that they cannot use power tools, a metalworker that they can't use a welding torch. It can be done, but it won't be easy and you won't get anything like the same results that you can get when you have all the tools at your disposal.

Ok, time to boil it all down, no more pussyfooting around, this is it, coming from someone who has done it.. Modeling SUCKS. *GASP! HERESY!* Thats right. I've done it before, I myself have made stuff from the ground up in on two different programs, Lightwave and Maya. And no matter the program, It is time consuming and tedious. And it gives you those moments frequently when you just want to tear your head off when the comp you are on decides 'No! I am not going to do that most simple function because.. I don't want to.' AARGH!  If you have worked any ammount of time on a project you know it happens, Frequently when you least want it to. 

Then you have to go back and try and either redo it over and over trying to get it to work right, or you have to try and hide it somehow. Beyond that first render, that first wow! That you get from seeing something that you made materialize, it frankly all goes downhill from there, bogging down into mind numbing tedium. By the time it takes me to create one halfway decent looking character, I could have done a whole rendered battle scene. The problem is with most packages is that they aren't user friendly or really all that intuitive. Lightwave was the only one that I had any measure of fun with, and even then I found the animation controls less than desirable. 

What is art and not art is not for you to decide, it is for the greater viewing public to decide on their own. If it strikes someone on some level, if somebody will want to see it. Art strikes a chord within you on some level, it makes you think, or feel, it draws you in or question. On online galleries the feedback is alot more immediate. If they leave you a note saying WOW!  and put a watch on your stuff, like it or not you have an audience. There is a lot of stuff here that is in ones eyes is not art. It is a part of the subjectivity of art. Everybody knows what is art to them, and will always discount that which does not fall in with their personal aesthetics.

Do the damned work, the eternal old anti-poser argument warred about on many a 3D forum by self proclaimed elitists who stare down their noses at apps that they do not use, nor care to learn about. Its impossible to create a piece every ten minutes, no matter the program or platform, the pride comes from the end product, and in the feedback, not in the journey to the end product.. As has been stated before, the feeling one  gets when one builds something physical from scratch may be the greatest joy in the world for those that truly enjoy it, but for those that do not,  find no enjoyment in the act and it becomes nothing more than an exercise in tedium. It is neat the first time around, don't get me wrong. It is neat to see the first render of something you do or animate, but it loses its luster soon afterwards when you have to break your back to make something else under a deadline. It especially takes the luster off when one broken ones back making a scene and its just scoffed at by some unfeeling would-be critic that has absolutely no idea of the amount of work went into that one render.  Thats what makes working with pre-made content such a joy. If you have the big enough library you can do anything right there and then. Unfettered by the tedium of by-scratch creation. I do take pride in my work. If I didn't I wouldn't be here fighting for my gallery's survival.

The point of the talk about the Krystal renders being naught but fanart is rather straightforward. Fanart is fanart is fanart, It doesn't matter what form it comes in, 2D or 3D, You cannot strike at one part without striking at the whole. In issues such as this, one has to remember that if one is wrong all are wrong, because they are all the same.

As for copyright and characters, I must say that you are wrong. You copyright a character from the moment you set it down, and it is formally copyrighted when you submit it for such formal protections. If it can be affixed into tangible form.  What you cannot copyright are abstract concepts. Who needs DCMA when it is already a covered subject. I will not do your homework for you but if you really must look it up, see Page 69 of the Graphuc Artists Guild ( GAG ) Handbook on Pricing and Ethical Guidelines.

Sirrah, I would submit to you that if you wish to lay blame it goes no further than your door, for If one does not see the effort involved in a works creation then one will never appreciate it until one fully grasps the toil involved. A work may be modeled, lit and rendered, but as all things are subjective, people being as they are, you may not like it anyway. Your perceptions are what grant it worth in your eyes. 

Nobody is giving anyone a bad name, its all a matter of perception. Because it is in the majority doesn't make it any less valid, one has to be careful of the tyranny of the minority and strive for a equitable peaceful balance. Apps are not giving anyone a bad name, its uniformed intolerance that is. Prop 8? Come come now, hatred and intolerance come in many forms and in many names worldwide. As for the site may well surviving without 3D artists, It may, but sites with unsavory reputations for intolerance and in uneven work submissions seldom last long.

You say that it is not about subjectivity,  but unfortunately you are much mistaken. You would cut one leg off of the horse because it limps. In a nutshell, as has been written elsewhere, 3D apps can be categorized into three levels. Low level, Mid level and High level as far as complexity is concerned. Generators such as Poser, Iclone, Bryce, Daz Studo, ect are low level apps, they are generators, they are not modelers or renderers. Mid level apps are those modeling programs that can do quite a bit, but are not that high powered. Such as Shade, Blender, Wings3D, Cinema 4D, ect.. High level programs are the ones that the pros use in TV and film production, Thats your 3DSM, Lightwave, and Maya softwares. All make pretty pictures of whatever the artist chooses. Tools are tools its the end product that one gazes upon that counts. As for the signing of my posts. I know that it is,  I say what I will and  sign my name as I please.  Do not dictate to me. As for the quote, no, Its just a quote that sounded appropriate. Here's other one.. 
--Dancougar


The best work is not what is most difficult for you; it is what you do best.
-Jean-Paul Sartre


----------



## ZodRau (Jan 20, 2009)

dragon695 said:


> Uh, please do take a look at any book about modern art sculptures, you'll see plenty of examples.



...of cobbled together objects.  Yes.  Having gone the art major route in college, I too have seen this.  It's politely called 'found objects sculpture'.  I had to make a few such pieces for my classes because my instructor was really impressed with the form.  I'm not.  At least not when people do it.  When birds do it...







Hell, bower birds do a decent job of it.

So yeah yeah - it's art.  Some people like it, though I suspect there's a large 'emperor wearing no clothes' aspect to that fan base.  I have the same problem with it that the anti-poser set here has, and that's the unbalanced creation to composition ratio.  And lest I be erroneously labeled a tech hater, I'll mention that I've used software for some of my art, but when I did, the content was of my own making.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 20, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> I'd actually use that guy as a great example on what these new rules are for.
> 
> 1) Take poser model
> 2) Tits
> ...



Sex sells, what can you say? While you may have been a poser user, it just shows your professionalism in that you chose not to submit sub-par works. New policy or old, you would have been hurting yourself by showcasing your unworthy works. I have a ton of stuff that I would not show here either. Everyone does. Little test renders, animations, etc. Its not meant for public consumption. 

Making your own textures and doing minor alterations is one thing, but with all due respect, putting your own modeling work is not any better, in fact its worse. When one puts their own works up here one must be very careful, works posted are not going to go away,Then you have no arguments to fall behind when someone calls you down because they say that your work sucks, and you know that you put a damned lot of work into it. People can be cruel like that. Although the drastically altering of the meshes is beyond the capability of poser, you have to remember that this function is not what it is for. Its a character generator and animator. Thats why you export the mesh to a modeler and work on it there.. Users know firsthand how much more intuitive and easier to use it is than a high end program is. Which is really interesting, because you would think that they would make the high end programs easier to use. Remember that all those models that people use in it are ones that people in the program's artistic community built and sold, not machines. You can easily make up your own content for whatever program and sell it, but then you would be one of the 'Evil content providers' that a few here in this forum seem to so despise.
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 20, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I completely disagree in most cases, especially since most of the Poser "artwork" posted on the site happens to have very little in the way of emotion or any other dramatic effect (ESPECIALLY the Krystal stuff). However, I will say that it can be argued, but it would definitely have to be on a per-case basis. You couldn't apply this argument as a blanket for all Poser-related submissions, especially those using pre-fab stuff.



Asthetics aside, it really does have to be looked at that way, afterall this is a matter in which a scalpel is needed instead of a baseball bat. As rather a case of not tossing out the whole barrel because of a few bad apples.
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 20, 2009)

Kefan said:


> I think art still does mean skill.  There's just a lot of different things at which one may be skilled.
> 
> Some skills, I don't 'get'.  A lot of people like rap.  I think the fact that you can't spell 'crap' without 'rap' pretty well sums up my attitude.  But I still recognize that there are in fact rap artists.  What they do does not interest or appeal to me, but that has no bearing on whether or not they're good at what they do.
> 
> Anyway, even with the recent revision, I am still not clear if my Poser work passes muster or not--I'm pretty sure a couple of them don't, but those are older "just got this program and I'm screwin' around with it" pieces and it won't cause me any bother to relegate them to scraps _or_ the scrapheap.



You think this is something, I saw a documentary on Independent Lens about Helvetica, of all things. Yes, the font! Surprisingly enough there were people very strongly entrenched either for or against its usage for whatever reasons. I guess people will always find something to be at odds over. *Shrug*
--Dancougar


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 20, 2009)

Let's put it this way. 

Poser = Barbie Doll.
Pre Made prims = Barbie's playset

Just taking a picture of your Barbie doll isn't exactly permitted unless it shows actual photographic merit per AUP. Even if you took Barbie doll posed it, and took Barbie's Bunny Ranch and another set of Sweatshop Skipper and Ken is at his Metrosexual palace. It would fall under "collections" and kind of myspace stuff rather than an actual photograph for the most part. So photographers have rules to as to what is permitted...but thinking of it as Poser's perspective.

However, you may design clothes and furniture for Barbie and her friends and took a picture displaying your skills at sewing, construction and Fashion design. You can still pose it, but it's just requested that you at least made some effort on your part to make it original such as creating clothes or making your own furniture.

Same thing with Poser. You need to put in your content for it to count. Not simply arranging what's already there. Make enough of an effort by adding textures and materials to not just scream "I moved this around in Poser, am I an artist now?"

Also:

*If you keep responding and using analogies or arguments that have already been answered in this thread expect the post to be deleted from here on out.*

So if you don't want waste your time writing a post, only to find it deleted, I suggest you go back and read the thread even if you don't feel like it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 20, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Mr.Arden,
> In three words, Yes, it does. The point  missing the fact that by mentioning the absolute legality of being able to to it,The false air of illegality that have permeated the postings here is taken away.
> 
> The issue is on how they are used. Putting limits on a works creation is a HUGE  issue of how they are used.
> ...



Welcome to the world of art. Drawing can suck, you're spending a lot of time getting stuff down to look right. I can't draw a pose right, I have to start over and study. Coloring looks bad, time to work at why and fix it.

Next. Most of your points have already been brought up pages ago. Do not bring them up again, they have been read and counter-pointed. Save yourself the time of responding to everything and read back in the thread.


----------



## kuzuSkot (Jan 20, 2009)

wonderful threat LoL 

this discussion is interesting, i'm glad to see FA is finally drawing a line in the sand on this Poser non-sense LoL


----------



## Mazz (Jan 20, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Let's put it this way.
> 
> Poser = Barbie Doll.
> Pre Made prims = Barbie's playset
> ...



Well put. Thanks for finally trying to curb this. It got repetitive since it's just 2 arguments going back and forth. No one is getting anywhere.


----------



## fuzzyroo (Jan 20, 2009)

royal-dog said:


> Question for Dragoneer and/or anyone else who decided on the policy changes:
> 
> Was a consent form system like what deviantArt has implemented considered for sexual fursuit photos before considering banning them altogether? Wouldn't that be more legally viable without having to sacrifice allowing showing things on an art website that are completely natural? There's already 2 maturity filters here, and if a consent form were completed along with said photos, wouldn't that put all legal matters into the hands of the uploaders rather than the site maintainers?
> 
> To me as both a fursuiter and an artist, I feel rather discriminated against by this site at this point :/ I'm building my first fursuit, and by these new rules I won't be able to post picture of it here, why make it even more difficult for furs to find places to post their art?



THANK GOD somebody said it! *huggles*


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 20, 2009)

Ok. 

Some things that need to be established. 

We are not here to argue what qualifies as art. Been there done that. Not relevant (at least why the policy was put into place). FA is open to many kinds of artwork but not all. AUP is the Acceptable Upload Policy. This policy is what FA considers acceptable to upload. As open as FA is about the content allowed here, you're going to have to realize there are some limits. - This was already addressed: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=819775&postcount=201

Logical Fallicy: If you ban it, that destroys creation. The creative process and posting it to a gallery are *two different things* Not allowing it on FA's gallery doesn't stop the creative process. This not a valid argument.

What constitutes as "original content" if you can do it by a slider on a model that doesn't constitute. See the Barbie analogy. If you had bought "expandable breast Barbie" it means Barbie it means you didn't create the idea of making huge breasts, it was already the variable in the program. Now if you brought in a texture map you created yourself to display on Barbie and you're displaying one image of said texture map on a Poser model - Congrats, that's user created content. http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=820641&postcount=270

However, that doesn't entitle you to break the Flooding rule. If you need to show all angles of said texture map, you may use a collage.

Also, something not brought up but this is how I interpret this. If you are making screencaps of various movements. You cannot simply use a "this is really a comic" A comic is a *series of panels* So submitting multiple submissions with just various movements doesn't seem to fly. You need to be aware a comic book has panels. So you'll need to arrange various screencaps of your models AS a comic book layout. That doesn't mean that you can only use one submission with 50 panels, but you need to be reasonable. You cannot submit 50 submissions of the same subject matter in this poser case as "one comic book," where 1 giant screencap is per page. Try to arrange it as a working comic book accordingly.

Other software I'd like to ask staff members and FA members to look at and give input.

First is Google Sketchup. http://sketchup.google.com/

Truespace: http://www.caligari.com/

Can some users provide experience in using them? *Edit* These programs above are freeware.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 20, 2009)

*I am reposting this as some of the questions have been answered, but others have not. Below are my notes in that respect. *



			
				Quiet269 said:
			
		

> The problem is what constitutes user created content...
> 
> Would a dancing animation using a default model be user created content? What the submission focuses on (the dance) is user created, even if the model used is not.


 I do not believe this was addressed yet. If you were to take the Barbie Doll analogy and apply it to this scenario it would be akin to a stop motion animation. Something similar to *this* which in my opinion shows artistic merit.



			
				Quiet269 said:
			
		

> Would a scene of a bedroom with two characters going at it be user created content? The pose they are in, the arrangement of the furniture, and how they are interacting is user created, even if the models used are not.


 This does appear to be answered with the Barbie Doll analogy, but one thing concerns me:


Arshes Nei said:


> Just taking a picture of your Barbie doll isn't exactly permitted unless it shows actual photographic merit per AUP.


 I do not understand this statement, I am not a photographer, and as such do not know how one would show photographic merit. I am going to assume though that if someone were able to supply photographic merit using a digital medium, then the image would be acceptable. Correct?



			
				Quiet269 said:
			
		

> Would a scene of a completely remodeled character, following a default walking animation or in a default pose (something that came with poser) be user created content? The character was modeled by the submitter, and as such is user created content even though the actions the poser utilized is not.


 This was answered by the Barbie Doll Analogy: 





Arshes Nei said:


> However, you may design clothes and furniture for Barbie and her friends and took a picture displaying your skills at sewing, construction and Fashion design. You can still pose it, but it's just requested that you at least made some effort on your part to make it original such as creating clothes or making your own furniture.


 Except I do not know the extent needed to qualify it as user created content. If you were to repaint the furniture to make it 80s style, tie-dye the white blouse that Barbie came with, and stylize the pants / shoes she is wearing would that be considered User Created Content? If so, under the same assumption you could take the preexisting content in Poser, re-texture it and it would count as User Created Content. This also makes me wonder exactly how much content must change to be considered User Created Content per the FurAffinity Staff... This line of thought is what brought up my question seen below:



			
				Quiet269 said:
			
		

> Would a scene involving a character that had their breasts enlarged, and a penis & Tail attached be user created content? The base model is not, but the items / modifications are... Further would the decision change depending upon if the model is the focus of the image, or if the items / changes are the focus of the submission?
> 
> For instance if someone said "Look at this character with the cute tail I made! Isn't she awesome?"
> In such an instance I would think that it would be rejected as adding a tail (or adding a penis, per Dragoneer) is not enough to qualify an image as User Created Content...
> ...



And that thinking brought me to the conclusion and compromise you see below:



			
				Quiet269 said:
			
		

> Now another thing to consider is Second Life Images... Second Life is basically Poser... The only real difference is one is a game, and the other is a program... The differences between the two (in regards to artistic merit) are very very minor.
> 
> The problem with the specifically ruling on Poser is that there are too many gaps, overlaps, loopholes, etc to get really specific on what is and is not worthy of being uploaded here on FA.
> 
> ...



Thank-you for your time.

EDIT: 





fuzzyroo said:


> THANK GOD somebody said it! *huggles*


 If I remember correctly from the thread I created in regards to the Adult Fursuits awhile back, the addition of a form like that, or any real life porn of any kind would put the FurAffinity staff into a whole new legal ball game. The addition of a real penis exponentially increases the liability for the FurAffinity Admins, and is not something they wish to deal with.

I agree with their stance on this as it is a legal nightmare. Verification of every single person that decides to post their penis, and the additional paperwork required is simply not feasable just so someone can flash their penis in a pic they uploaded to FA.

Now this does not stop you from uploading your penis to a site that does allow such things (like RedTube or other adult oriented video/picture sharing sites) then linking to said site in a submission you post here.

Also per the updated AUP (Thank-you Dragoneer for your additional explanation) it would seem that you can post a picture of an adult fursuit as long as the Beasts, Genitals, or Butt of the wearer are not exposed. This also affords you the ability to post something holding a dilldo or whip, as long as it follows the guidelines for photographs.

This is all IMO a very reasonable compromise.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 20, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> *I am reposting this as some of the questions have been answered, but others have not. Below are my notes in that respect. *
> 
> I do not believe this was addressed yet. If you were to take the Barbie Doll analogy and apply it to this scenario it would be akin to a stop motion animation. Something similar to *this* which in my opinion shows artistic merit.
> 
> ...



If I remember correctly there aren't many people actually making flash/video animation, or at least to the size that meets FA's requirements. (There may also be a problem with the submission system itself).
Remember there are flooding rules in place too.

Also not being a photographer, one could have actually googled Photography Rules and actually found a bit of a standard answer: http://macteens.com/magazine/features/fullstory/the_rules_of_photography/ The biggest one is the Rule of Thirds. It can be broken, but many people do not even know about the Rules of Thirds to begin with.

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/photography-rules.html

http://www.aea1.k12.ia.us/lois/photoguide.html


There are people who create texture maps, and may want to display the creation, one of the more simple ways to do it is to use a pre-existing model. A texture map is not exactly a palette swap. What is requested that people don't flood with the same kind of picture. You do not for example need 50 submissions reflecting every angle of a texture map on an existing character. You may create a collage.


----------



## LizardKing (Jan 20, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Making your own textures and doing minor alterations is one thing, but with all due respect, putting your own modeling work is not any better, in fact its worse. When one puts their own works up here one must be very careful, works posted are not going to go away,Then you have no arguments to fall behind when someone calls you down because they say that your work sucks, and you know that you put a damned lot of work into it. People can be cruel like that.



I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make here. If people say your work sucks, then either take it as criticism and try and improve, or be a whiny bitch and ignore it. Which happens anyway. With everything. 
If people aren't willing to take the time to improve, fuck 'em.



Dancougar said:


> Although the drastically altering of the meshes is beyond the capability of poser, you have to remember that etc etc etc



Which is pretty much the point of why Poser has such restrictions on it; textures aside, all you can really do is move stuff around and fiddle with dials.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 20, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> If I remember correctly there aren't many people actually making flash/video animation, or at least to the size that meets FA's requirements. (There may also be a problem with the submission system itself).
> Remember there are flooding rules in place too.


 There are several, Wookiee for instance. Though he deleted his work with the recent changes to the AUP. It was animated though.



Arshes Nei said:


> Also not being a photographer, one could have actually googled Photography Rules and actually found a bit of a standard answer: http://macteens.com/magazine/features/fullstory/the_rules_of_photography/ The biggest one is the Rule of Thirds. It can be broken, but many people do not even know about the Rules of Thirds to begin with.
> 
> http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/photography-rules.html
> 
> http://www.aea1.k12.ia.us/lois/photoguide.html


 One could, but I must admit it did not seem like something I needed to know to ask my question and/or gain the answer. My main concern was if someone could duplicate the photographic merit in a digital medium would it still be acceptable? 



Arshes Nei said:


> There are people who create texture maps, and may want to display the creation, one of the more simple ways to do it is to use a pre-existing model. A texture map is not exactly a palette swap. What is requested that people don't flood with the same kind of picture. You do not for example need 50 submissions reflecting every angle of a texture map on an existing character. You may create a collage.


Well yes, of course you want to stay within the flood controls, however that does not address the question at hand, as to where is the line? As Dragoneer stated previously in this thread if all you are doing is adding a penis to a model it is not enough... so what is? and if you are modeling the penis, not the whole does that change the ruling?


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 20, 2009)

If you made the penis yourself, and you post the picture to show it off, then yes, I think it counts as user made content.
The problem is, many people seem to think simply adding a pre made penis/tail/whatever to a pre made model that didn't have one is enough.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 20, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> If you made the penis yourself, and you post the picture to show it off, then yes, I think it counts as user made content.
> The problem is, many people seem to think simply adding a pre made penis/tail/whatever to a pre made model that didn't have one is enough.


 I Agree with the assumption here, but really it's up to the admins to decide where they wish to draw the line.

I do look forward to Dragoneer or another staff member reviewing my post(s) in full


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 20, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> There are several, Wookiee for instance. Though he deleted his work with the recent changes to the AUP. It was animated though.
> 
> One could, but I must admit it did not seem like something I needed to know to ask my question and/or gain the answer. My main concern was if someone could duplicate the photographic merit in a digital medium would it still be acceptable?
> 
> Well yes, of course you want to stay within the flood controls, however that does not address the question at hand, as to where is the line? As Dragoneer stated previously in this thread if all you are doing is adding a penis to a model it is not enough... so what is? and if you are modeling the penis, not the whole does that change the ruling?



As for the digital medium, it *could* but honestly, how many images  (of the Poser problem) out there actually know how to create a depth of field with understanding to actual composition, not just screenshot of what is already in Poser? 

I believe one of the main reasons Neer said showing off the model of a penis on a character is *not* enough has a lot to do with the fact that if one were to show the model of the penis, it could be modeled and shown on its own actually, where as a texture map needs to have the body to show how it fits on the render. Though one could do one shot as described below which probably has more merit. Your focus should be you modeled the penis, not the fact a character now has one XD.


 Now, let's say a user created a number of items, a texture map that fits on certain body types, and a penis. It would probably be better to show the number of items as a collage rather than "Storybooking Poser models"

For example, someone could create a split image:

One side could be this - http://www.antonkisieldesigns.com/~...D_Graphics/free3dApolloMaximusclothing06b.jpg

The other half is the model wearing said texture/clothing so that a person has an idea of how it looks.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 20, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> As for the digital medium, it *could* but honestly, how many images  (of the Poser problem) out there actually know how to create a depth of field with understanding to actual composition, not just screenshot of what is already in Poser?


 Well yes, the number of people that can do such is probably limited, but as you said the number of people that understand the rules who are photographers are limited too... If they can then the work should be allowed... It seems you agree with this sentiment.



Arshes Nei said:


> I believe one of the main reasons Neer said showing off the model of a penis on a character is *not* enough has a lot to do with the fact that if one were to show the model of the penis, it could be modeled and shown on its own actually, where as a texture map needs to have the body to show how it fits on the render. Though one could do one shot as described below which probably has more merit. Your focus should be you modeled the penis, not the fact a character now has one XD.
> 
> 
> Now, let's say a user created a number of items, a texture map that fits on certain body types, and a penis. It would probably be better to show the number of items as a collage rather than "Storybooking Poser models"
> ...


 Yes, there are many ways one can show off something, but the method they choose is up to the submitter. My question is if the method they choose is acceptable. There is a significant difference between showing a model with an added penis, and showing a penis attached to a model.


----------



## straydog (Jan 20, 2009)

I think the problem is that, with Poser, you can download 'pose' sets that, when used, will pose the figures automatically for you. You can also download and use 'emote' sets that automatically adjust the characters' expression. You can download entire rooms, where everything is put in its place or then easily moved. You can download 'mods' that add wings, penis, vagina, ect. to the static figures. You can download textures, skin shades, tattoos, ect. and put them on the static model via a drop down menu. Yes, you can even download 'mood' lighting packages.

Yes, all of this exists, is a huge part of Poser, is free (usually), and can be utilized/adjusted from a simple drop down menu or slider in the program. I know because I had Poser and played with it for a while until I realized everything I wanted/could do...I just had to download.

Poser is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified Spore creature creator or digital 'dress up' doll. I know because I used it, and while I did make some awesome gay-fabulous scenes with minor post-editing in PS, it required very little effort/knowledge of 3D.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 20, 2009)

The admins have already stated that they do not mind if you use "pose" sets... Their issue is using the basic models... (which you did cover)


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 20, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Well yes, the number of people that can do such is probably limited, but as you said the number of people that understand the rules who are photographers are limited too... If they can then the work should be allowed... It seems you agree with this sentiment.
> 
> Yes, there are many ways one can show off something, but the method they choose is up to the submitter. My question is if the method they choose is acceptable. There is a significant difference between showing a model with an added penis, and showing a penis attached to a model.



Remember the Primary focus aspect. If you're showing off a model of a penis, the character you put it on is no longer the primary focus. Think about it, how else would you show what is *your created content*?


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 20, 2009)

Right, that's what I said...


----------



## whitedingo (Jan 20, 2009)

So can a mod go and have a look at my gallery and tell me how much is no longer accepted


----------



## hera (Jan 20, 2009)

In other words, the admins can remote your art at thier discretion unless you prove that you created something other than the stock model.


----------



## Runefox (Jan 20, 2009)

hera said:


> In other words, the admins can remote your art at thier discretion unless you prove that you created something other than the stock model.



Yes, and it makes sense. See here. See also: Marcel Duchamp's Fountaine.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 20, 2009)

Arshes, I put to you that perhaps it is you should have tried reading my post abit better before simply deleting it and suggesting I reread your previous post.

You say you answered the question allready. But I put to you that perhaps it was not done so in a very clear manner. Which is what I was getting at. It is perhaps quite possible that I was not quite able to get that across. But you still dont give a terribly clear example. Much less several. And they are still not in any real 'official' update to the actual policy posting without one having to go digging around for it and every single post associated specifically with it.

Which is somewhat akin to how CCP started banning people for what was once a perfectly legitimate, and even encouraged method of transfering play time cards. All because they changed the rules in some totally random forum post while failing to update the actual posting of the rule set.

Simply put the average person, wanting clarity on an issue that is not very clearly spelled out, preferably with a few solid examples, is going to want to know more. Without having to wade through pages and pages of posts to find it. Certainly, dispite having read, and even reread a few of these posts, yours included. It hardly covers mutiple angles of anything with any real degree of clarity. And most certainly, not all in one easy to read place. Which is just as important. 

Though given how you just delete all my posts, and dont evne adress my other questions. I'm sure this one is likely to be deleted as well with simply yet another itteration of 'read X again' or some similar vein. Even though doing so is not proving your point in the least, nor serving to clarify it. Unless of course your point is that you simply dont wish to have people posting their oppinions and questions at all. Because you know.. how dare people like me ask questions or seek clarity on something that, to them, is not really clear at all?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 20, 2009)

Kesslan said:


> Arshes, I put to you that perhaps it is you should have tried reading my post abit better before simply deleting it and suggesting I reread your previous post.



It is very clear that it was stated it's not about "what is art" it is what is acceptable to upload per the AUP. It even stated not every piece of art is acceptable to upload and the line is drawn somewhere. *This is very clear* I'm sorry you don't get it.

For example, legal liabilities of record keeping prevent photographs of nude photography. 

A computer can generate works of art with little or no involvement due to programing, ie terragen.

The only line that is being drawn as I can see is what a person is contributing to create said art. 

So yes, your arguments are redundant till all end because you're not reading what has already been presented pages ago in various arguments.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 20, 2009)

Except that, as I mentioned in one post you nuked. In many ways it does come down to 'what is art' since some of the stuff banned, isnt something that FA is at a legal risk for. I've also never even contested the issue of thigns like Terragen or all that stuff with fractals. Most of my stuff was aimed specifically at programs such as Poser and their ilk.

I have at least noticed that since I got into this, at some point or other, the AUP was modified and clarified a little. At this point however, personally at least. I'm still not clear on just how much constitutes 'significant modifications which would distinguish itself from the original model' It lists a few examples of specific things such as you've mentioned, Meshes, textures etc. But doesnt really define more than that. Would you say.. neeed both custom meshes and textures to count?

Or does one some how contitute a 'significant' change all on it's own? Because to me at least, a mere change in adding custom textures is hardly a significant change in and of itself. 

Also I'm certianly not clear on how one defines the 'focal point' of a piece beyond saying "Ok so I did this and htis is how it looks in this setting', and then having it say, be the larger item centered uppon the picture. Yet you could have (arguably) far more present than that as well all of a sudden as abit of a loophole.

At least it's come a long way from the intial 'case by case basis' that I had intially seen.

If anything Arshes, I'm trying to look at it from the viewpoint of some one who does not do any 3d modling. I've not touched Maya (least i"m pretty sure it was Maya) for examle since years ago in Highschool. (along with some animation programs who's names I totally forget). 

That said, it's entirely possible some day I may become interested in trying to do up my fursona as a 3d model of some sort. And so I'd like to know this sort of thing and have a clear picture in my head. Regardless of how dense I may be on the subject.

Also it's not allways quite so clear to others as it may be to you, since you seem to be one of the driving forces behind the whole policy in general and clearly have a fairly crisp idea in your head of what is, and what is not acceptable. 

And it's not the 'not every piece of art is acceptable' part that I'm even asking about. It's specifically the whole angle around things like Poser and other programs. In large part because I've noticed several people I happne to watch on FA have posted journals, with many of them apparently being -very- unclear as to what exactly was or wasnt allowed, and the actual degree of 'modification' required to make such a thing acceptable. 

And I mean hell if people who are making this stuff allready are not clear on it, dispite being, in some cases established arists. Then how can some one who doenst do it, but may wish to start fiddling with it be? Wookiee was allready mentioned as one example of one such artist. Though he's mentioned he'll see what the stance is once all the dust has settled so to speak.

I may have gone about it in a bad way, and I'll be the first to again admit, that sometimes I'm terrible at trying to get across the point I want to. But then I allready consider myself a rather.. flawed individual in that regard along with a fairly severe and proven learning dissability.

Though thank you for at least responding this time rather than simply deleting the post I made.


----------



## Aden (Jan 20, 2009)

*Kesslan*: Stop being all tl;dr and realize that it's on a case-by-case basis. Why don't you present an example submission wherein you're not sure whether or not it's allowed?


----------



## Takun (Jan 20, 2009)

Poser seems to fit both user and the "art" generated by it.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

Aden said:


> *Kesslan*: Stop being all tl;dr and realize that it's on a case-by-case basis. Why don't you present an example submission wherein you're not sure whether or not it's allowed?


 
Largely because 'case by case basis' is infact, not really the case anymore. Also because it honestly is scaring off some folk from posting stuf fhta tmight otherwise be acceptable.

Why do you find it so hard for people to want actually clear cut guidlines? It's also a little hard for me to point out a potential submission when I dont know enough about it's creation. I dont know enough about it to know what is widly available 'stock' textures and the like anymore. And peoples' descriptions of their work doesnt generally identify it (Such as Dragonfood's work). 

He's mentioned that he modifies them to a certain extent, but I dont know how much, and what specific points to even ask about in that regard. Thus why I inquire about specific properties when one is creating it in general.

And, if you cant be bothered to read the whole thing *shrug* nothing I can do about that.


----------



## hera (Jan 21, 2009)

I'm sorry but I have to play devil's advocate here, if the admins got that much time on their hands and to go through millions of Poser pics just to find that one that violates and can actually prove its a violation then go at it.  Otherwise, the rule is meaningless cannon fodder.


----------



## Takun (Jan 21, 2009)

hera said:


> I'm sorry but I have to play devil's advocate here, if the admins got that much time on their hands and to go through millions of Poser pics just to find that one that violates and can actually prove its a violation then go at it.  Otherwise, the rule is meaningless cannon fodder.



That's what reports are for.  But clearly, people never report.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 21, 2009)

The question is, do have all those who already posted 3D renders made in Poser or similar programs, to remove all those images from thier gallery now or can say stay and all pics that are now posted and have no user content in it are removed? 

Also, I see a flood of reports coming in now that will clog up the admins and mods and result in even more threads filled with arguments like this one here.


----------



## brightfire (Jan 21, 2009)

No more shitty Krystal model?

A+++++++ :'D


----------



## whitedingo (Jan 21, 2009)

Aden said:


> *Kesslan*: Stop being all tl;dr and realize that it's on a case-by-case basis. Why don't you present an example submission wherein you're not sure whether or not it's allowed?


Ok here you go these are stock models, rendered in vue,as the way the policy reads thay are no longer allowed 
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1445892

NOT WORK SAFE http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1475524


----------



## royal-dog (Jan 21, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> If I remember correctly from the thread I created in regards to the Adult Fursuits awhile back, the addition of a form like that, or any real life porn of any kind would put the FurAffinity staff into a whole new legal ball game. The addition of a real penis exponentially increases the liability for the FurAffinity Admins, and is not something they wish to deal with.
> 
> I agree with their stance on this as it is a legal nightmare. Verification of every single person that decides to post their penis, and the additional paperwork required is simply not feasable just so someone can flash their penis in a pic they uploaded to FA.
> 
> ...



Thank you for taking the time to address this.

I realize the legal concerns, and greatly empathize with furaffinity's afflictions regarding them.

What concerns me most of all is that once I have finished my fursuit, and after I have taken artistically arranged photographs of a fursuit with sheath and balls, that I would find more sympathy from the deviantart admins about being able to post it with a model consent form rather than on an actual furry art website.

 Or am I wrong in assuming this is still an art website? I realize that art has a very broad definition. But nude photography is not so very different from realistic nude portrait, to argue otherwise would be to split hairs. Neither are _real_ they're both just a collection of photons and information that both simulate a similar subject. Will nude portrait paintings be banned from here next since you can't verify the age of the models on those either?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 21, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> The question is, do have all those who already posted 3D renders made in Poser or similar programs, to remove all those images from thier gallery now or can say stay and all pics that are now posted and have no user content in it are removed?
> 
> Also, I see a flood of reports coming in now that will clog up the admins and mods and result in even more threads filled with arguments like this one here.


Currently no. I'm looking into possibly bringing on some admins specifically for Poser and Second Life to focus on those areas. We're not really taking action as of this point on any gallery. Yet.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> A child who is inexperienced will often find a parent with the experience rule's unfair and draconian. We cannot look at it with a newbie's eyes in that case, we need experience. That is how it works.
> 
> FA has however, recognized that experience is something that is gained and learned which is why there isn't a quality factor (at least in the case of drawing), but effort and personal work factor that is being weighed.





Sorry for the lateness of this reply Arshes, Your reply rather slipped through the cracks. Onto the reply! 

 If only we all could see through the innocent clarity of a child, remember it was a child who as the tale says told the emperor that had no clothes, when all the adults went along with the lie letting him believe he was dressed in resplendent robes, and hadn't been swindled. A child will frequently point out things in ourselves and others and question, sometimes to our chagrin, but which makes us think and carefully answer, or question ourselves. If one must put the onus on experience, then experience dictates in of something creation for a mass audience, whatever it be, Be it rules, laws, or the creation of websites, one has to create it to benefit all as best they can, to create with the clarity of reason, serving no personal agenda, with malice to none, and to the inclusion of all. One has to take into account the capabilities of all, and make sure that all from the lowest of the low, to the highest of the high are able to benefit. 

Are we really talking about the same FA? On the whole there are no indications of this whatsoever. Quality is all over the place, ranging from the frankly god awful, to high grade pro level works, however all works here have effort and personal work factor in them no matter what they are. Nothing is worthless when all strengthen the whole and show all a vibrancy and variety of vision that make this place sing with creativity. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 21, 2009)

My fear is simply the witch hunt that may start after this AUP comes into effect. I can forsee that people report all kind of 3D render images if they are poser or not, self created or not, that will result in a lot of drama. 

Also, its still not clear how much the user have to my hilsef regarding the poser issue. Are textures enough or do you need to mod the mesh too or even more: make even the mesh/model yourself? 

THe thing is this: no everyone can create 3D models and even if they could, not everyone have the programs to do that. A full version of 3DS Max costs as much as a high-end PC (around 2500 to 3000 Dollars) that you will need to even run that program properly (we all know 3DS Max uses a a lot of hardware resoruces). 

Also, everyone who ever tried or even made a humaniod 3D model in a modeling program from scratch will know that this isnt very easy. You have a skekelotn, wireframes and need to complie it etc. 

From the modding scene IÂ´m into, I know that a lot of people use the stock models that came with the game as a base for thier own models becuse creating them from sratch is a lot of effort and a time consuming task. Even professional programmers do that. 

Of course, there are people, really good people, who can make 3D models even from sratch, but they mostly use something as a base for thier model. In that scene, its also common to reskin existing models and thats often regarded as your own work. 

So, would it not be logical, to say, that you can use stock models, as long as you reskin them or at least alter the mesh in an outside program, so eliminating the need to crate a whole new model (excluded are stactic prob models, because I think a Table or rock is easier created then a humaniod or alien)?

Another question that I have: What if you cant model, but know somone who can and he does a model/mesh for you that you can now use as much as you like and give it a new skin and morphs? From my view, its not a stock model and you have also premission to change things on it and therefor can be regarded as "orginal" work. 

Also, Dragoneer, you said that Mappers works are okay, but from all I know, he uses stock models that were re-skinned, but is that enough to meet your createria of "orginal" work? 

Thats the whole point in this, not if its art or not.*The question is: how much do you have to change the stock model so its regarded as orginal work?*


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Let's put it this way.
> 
> Poser = Barbie Doll.
> Pre Made prims = Barbie's playset
> ...



The rationale behind it is all nothing but the same old argument waged out there elsewhere on the net, the old 'Oh my modeler's output is soooo much better, you poser users are hacks pretending to be artists.' Its elitist BS waged by those that feel threatened by something that they do not understand, nor even want to try to understand. Its nothing new, if one group of artists aren't complaining about one ap, they are arguing about another. If you look at every Poser artist out here, you can see something rather remarkable.. Not one strikes out at another app. The arrows are all coming in from one direction, because none have any animosity towards other apps. Its the others that are striking out at the different, this is nothing new in history. Art is created using a variety of things, even excrement. Talking about Barbie reminds me of this.. A friend of mine's wife once won a ribbon in a student art show showing a photo of a Barbie doll with its head replaced with an eye-ball. Quieting dissenting voices? that is not the way to resolve matters, it only strengthens bad feelings all around and cannot lead to anything good. How blatantly un-American.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 21, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> Also, Dragoneer, you said that Mappers works are okay, but from all I know, he uses stock models that were re-skinned, but is that enough to meet your createria of "orginal" work?


I didn't say they were okay, I said I think they were okay, but I'd have to investigate further. I wasn't 100%.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

straydog said:


> I think the problem is that, with Poser, you can download 'pose' sets that, when used, will pose the figures automatically for you. You can also download and use 'emote' sets that automatically adjust the characters' expression. You can download entire rooms, where everything is put in its place or then easily moved. You can download 'mods' that add wings, penis, vagina, ect. to the static figures. You can download textures, skin shades, tattoos, ect. and put them on the static model via a drop down menu. Yes, you can even download 'mood' lighting packages.
> 
> Yes, all of this exists, is a huge part of Poser, is free (usually), and can be utilized/adjusted from a simple drop down menu or slider in the program. I know because I had Poser and played with it for a while until I realized everything I wanted/could do...I just had to download.
> 
> Poser is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified Spore creature creator or digital 'dress up' doll. I know because I used it, and while I did make some awesome gay-fabulous scenes with minor post-editing in PS, it required very little effort/knowledge of 3D.



It is what it is, it is a 3D character generator. You want to do 3D modeling, you do it elsewhere. However you can use those things that you learn with using the program with higher programs. Out of curiousity, what version did you use?
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

LizardKing said:


> I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make here. If people say your work sucks, then either take it as criticism and try and improve, or be a whiny bitch and ignore it. Which happens anyway. With everything.
> If people aren't willing to take the time to improve, fuck 'em.
> 
> 
> ...



The point being made comes from putting you into anothers skin and empathizing with them. It is a matter of a level of detachment that others may feel. If one uses a pre-made mesh that one bought and alters it on one level one can rather like people do, and it ultimately is shot down then there is that protective detachment, they blame the tools for the failure, etc, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, start all over again.  But if one has ones own work brought down by some faceless nobody that has no idea of the blood sweat and tears that went into it, pouring every ounce of skill into it, It hurts a lot deeper because you are being attacked. Its personal. You can't detach like you could with the former situation. Now while you could use it as a learning experience and as with the other, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start all over again. It could also be a very crushing blow that can send a brand newbie away entirely. Thats why I say, putting your modeling work up for perusal isn't any better, its worse. Besides, anyone that is a pro is not going to put their work up here where it can be stolen. Nobody that is a pro puts stuff up on the net that they seriously think they can get a buck off of. That stuff stays offline where its safe and can be controlled.The real money isn't in the exposure, its in the liscencing. 

Fiddling with dials it may be, or you can put in direct incremental numeric changes with the dials, but it effects some part of the mesh. You do have to admit that its a much more elegant way of altering it than just the most basic of alteration, grabbing polys and pulling and pushing them. That can be either hit, miss, or disastrous. You have to do that verrrry carefully.
-Dancougar


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 21, 2009)

Wow... Just, wow.

There are currently two things bothering me. One is a typo. "Stuff animals" should be "stuffed animals". Come on, no one picked up on that, in 13 pages? 

The big one is adult toys. You don't want to allow real life pr0n, and that's fine. But you _do_ apparently want to allow the submission of user-created dildos, and sculptures of a sexual nature. Unfortunately, the rules _very_ explicitly state - in no uncertain terms, with no room for interpretation - that sex toys or anything of a sexual nature, even if it is not in use, is prohibited. The intent is just fine with me, but the rule needs to be re-worded to match your intentions.

Beyond that... Can I just tell all the people who think they're creating masterpieces with Poser, to give up? Really. That's what I want to say. Give up now. You fail, and you're not going to get any better at modelling because you're not actually even using a 3D modelling program. It's like a kid playing with Play-Doh and wondering why he can't color within the lines of his coloring book; wrong tool for the job. And the "pencil and paper" analogy? Not so much. A 3D artist doesn't use models as a pen. Outside of ZBrush (where my tablet pen is my pen), my pen is the vertex. The polygon. The 3D model is the finished (or near-finished) piece, a beautiful creation (from an effort standpoint, if not visually) created by hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of building blocks, like a painting is the culmination of so many brush strokes. If 3D models are your _pen_, then you're effectively drawing with the Mona Lisa. And no matter how you may tilt, fold, or tear the Mona Lisa, it's still not yours.

If you're using Poser, 3D is not your art form. If you've tried and tried but failed to start from scratch, it likely never will be. But you're welcome to try anyways - we just don't want to see it. I'm a 2D artist, too, I'll have you know, and every once in a while I'll try to draw on real paper, with a real pencil, without the aid of layers or an undo button. But no one ever sees it. You know why? _Because it *sucks*._ And that kind of crap doesn't belong anywhere on the internet, least of all here. Now suck it up, get better, or GTFO!


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 21, 2009)

DigitalMan, with all the respect, but you argument isnt valid, becuse you leave out several important facts I already pointed out in my above post. 

If you can point out a free professional 3D Modeling program, that can import and export meshes and models from other programs and is user freindly, then I agree with you, otherwise you can not tell somone to get better wehn they do not have the tools to get better and learn. 

For drawing, all you need is a pen and a paper and you can draw, you do not need a high-end PC and a 4K worth professional modeling program and knowledge of XYZ axis and polycounts etc. 

So, if I take your pen away, then you also cant becoe better in drawing, becuse you do not have the tool to draw anymore. 

Futhermore, not all Poser images posted here or elsewhere suck, see Renderostiy, DA and Renderotica. I would refrain form generalizations, becuse that would also mean we should from now on sort out all the really god awful art that people do post here, despite the fact it sucks. 

You may not post you failed art here, but some do, you just need to browse through FA to see this.


----------



## Avon-andromeda (Jan 21, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> The point being made comes from putting you into anothers skin and empathizing with them. It is a matter of a level of detachment that others may feel. If one uses a pre-made mesh that one bought and alters it on one level one can rather like people do, and it ultimately is shot down then there is that protective detachment, they blame the tools for the failure, etc, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, start all over again.  But if one has ones own work brought down by some faceless nobody that has no idea of the blood sweat and tears that went into it, pouring every ounce of skill into it, It hurts a lot deeper because you are being attacked. Its personal. You can't detach like you could with the former situation. Now while you could use it as a learning experience and as with the other, pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and start all over again. It could also be a very crushing blow that can send a brand newbie away entirely. Thats why I say, putting your modeling work up for perusal isn't any better, its worse. Besides, anyone that is a pro is not going to put their work up here where it can be stolen. Nobody that is a pro puts stuff up on the net that they seriously think they can get a buck off of. That stuff stays offline where its safe and can be controlled.The real money isn't in the exposure, its in the liscencing.
> 
> Fiddling with dials it may be, or you can put in direct incremental numeric changes with the dials, but it effects some part of the mesh. You do have to admit that its a much more elegant way of altering it than just the most basic of alteration, grabbing polys and pulling and pushing them. That can be either hit, miss, or disastrous. You have to do that verrrry carefully.
> -Dancougar



a) Blaming the tools for a failure is blaming the car for letting you drive it into a mailbox: YOU'RE MAKING EXCUSES. They cannot control themselves.  Someone has to be behind the wheel.

b) With the exception of flamers and trolls, NEGATIVE FEEDBACK IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE ARTIST!  IT IS TELLING YOU THAT AN ANONYMOUS STRANGER CARES ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT YOU DO THAT THEY WANT TO SEE YOU GET BETTER!  If the first dismissive or negative response crushes all hope you have, you would have committed suicide in the middle of class during DAY ONE of my Life Drawing 101 class.

I pour blood, sweat, and tears into anything and everything I do.  That doesn't mean I'm going to fall apart at the seams if someone tells me how I could do better.  You need to detach yourself from the things you have created, or you will never grow and survive.

I do agree with you that a little empathy and tact can go a long way, though.  It helps you word your constructive criticism in such a way that it doesn't sound like you're gloating or trying to be a jackass.


c) Editing a poly mesh by hand is difficult to do.  I would know, I'm working on a degree in 3D modeling and animation.  But it's no more difficult than trying to draw from life.  Yes, you will sometimes end up with something that looks awful.  But that's when you change things around until it stops looking awful.  You can add or subtract things on a whim, and decide exactly what everything looks like.  You are sculpting your character from raw materials (only the raw material in this case happens to be digital data.)

When moving sliders around or inputting numbers into an equation, you are limited to a coded collection of presets determined by a computer algorithm.  You are choosing which presets you want, but it's really no different that pulling clothes out of your closet to select an outfit.  Your choices are limited to what is built in.  You cannot add content beyond what the program is coded to handle without going in and adding an entire sequence of code.

c) No one can steal your 3D work without having the raw polygon mesh file to work with, which can't be contained in any file type supported by FA's submission code.  As long as you don't post the original work file anywhere, your creation is completely safe.

Well, I suppose they could make the Herculean amount of effort into recreating your models from scratch, but good luck with that.  It would be easier to make their own.  Stealing the finished image file would be utterly stupid.  Without being able to duplicate the results on the fly, they wouldn't get anywhere.

d) Without seriously massive amounts of exposure you can't make any money, licenses or not.  No one can know how good you are unless you put up your stuff where everyone can see it.  Why do you think companies spend millions every year on advertisments?


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 21, 2009)

Ugh. I really don't get this Poser/DAZ discussion. It's like these people have a really sore spot and/or persecution complex  In my head I guess I relate it to tracing; it takes effort, it *is* art, it can look great but it still makes me feel bad.

*Lt_Havoc:*
Blender can read and export a variety of 2D and 3D formats.
http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/features/
rig, animate, shade, etc, on allegedly professional levels.
And it's free.

Personally I've just cracked 3Dsmax, but for the sake of argument there's Blender. By the way, 3Dsmax is NOT userfriendly at all so that would not fullfill your requirement anyway.


----------



## hera (Jan 21, 2009)

Considering I see 10 poser artists already removing their art, ya, I think we are being persecuted and it makes me sick.  Just leave us alone,  don't see any crappy drawings getting pulled or any crappy fanart.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 21, 2009)

The "persecution" feeling was there from page one, before anyone had said anything opinionated about it.

Edit: I am really looking forward to see how this pans out, we have long wanted to implement similar rules on Hentai-foundry but have never found a good wording. We are generally more strict on reuse than most galleries, so it is only fair. But that is outside this discussion.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 21, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Ugh. I really don't get this Poser/DAZ discussion. It's like these people have a really sore spot and/or persecution complex  In my head I guess I relate it to tracing; it takes effort, it *is* art, it can look great but it still makes me feel bad.
> 
> *Lt_Havoc:*
> Blender can read and export a variety of 2D and 3D formats.
> ...



Ah, yes, I forgot Blender and its good that its free. But IÂ´m not sure if it can import or export Meshes from poser. And yes 3DS Max is a pain in the ass and cracking it isnt a solution becuse you dont have support then and its known that 3DS Max crashes on a regular base. 

As for persecution thing: yes, its like that. cujoe_da_man and others got harrasment from other user becuse they didnt liked the poser work and wehn you skim through this thread you will read similar rude comments ala "poser is shit, GTFO FA" etc. 

I come to belive that a lot of people complained about poser and its becomming a "Tyranny by Majority" here, otherwise I cant see why Dragoneer has a problem if people use stock models here. 

Really, if you do not like Poser art, then simply dont look at it, its like with everything else posted here. I cant understand why some people have the urge to hunt those users down and harras them etc. 

Also, wehn its really just about a few Poser artists that re-used the modle over and over, then simply take it to them, instead of blaming all the other 3D artists as well. 

I find it rather sad that one group of artists/people are attacking the other group of artist/people becuse of thier choice of how they want to express themselfs.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 21, 2009)

I mentioned two 3d programs that were freeware and still haven't received input.

Truespace: http://www.caligari.com/Products/trueSpace/tS75/brochure/intro.asp
and Google Sketchup: http://sketchup.google.com/

Please again input on those. People are so caught up in Poser, I'm asking about other programs and their validity.


----------



## Aden (Jan 21, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> *Lt_Havoc:*
> Blender can read and export a variety of 2D and 3D formats.
> http://www.blender.org/features-gallery/features/
> rig, animate, shade, etc, on allegedly professional levels.
> ...



+1 for Blender. It will probably remain my app of choice even after I graduate here, where they teach Maya (I am also going to school for 3D art and animation). [Insert pimp for my gallery here]

I'm sure Poser can export .obj files. If not, then wtf.

Another thing I'm seeing come up is that the Poser "artists" are being persecuted and cut off from their work. Hint: There are other places for this kind of art. Just not here anymore. To preemptively answer the predictable response to this post, yes, I'd be fine if FA banned any kind of 3D art altogether. There's always dA and other places.

*Arshes*: I don't know anything about TrueSpace, but SketchUp looks fine. While you don't have to worry about the intricacies of mesh topology, edge loop placement, and the like, you're still creating your own content from the ground up.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 21, 2009)

Takumi_L said:


> That's what reports are for. But clearly, people never report.


 
I wouldnt bet on that, I've certainly noticed a few individuals seem to report things on a fairly regular basis. Many others, such as my self might not even be able to tell if something even violates the AUP as per the guidelines. I suspect, infact that most people dont know a stock from a custom mesh or texture in many cases for example.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 21, 2009)

Aden said:


> *Arshes*: I don't know anything about TrueSpace, but SketchUp looks fine. While you don't have to worry about the intricacies of mesh topology, edge loop placement, and the like, you're still creating your own content from the ground up.



Thanks, I've seen Massive Black of Concept Art use Google Sketchup, I even have a copy of both Truespace and Sketchup but haven't had the time to use them.

Both programs are freeware - but I recall Sketchup has save restrictions with the free version.

There was also a comparison table between TrueSpace and Maya but I cannot find it at the moment. It couldn't do one or two things the professional version of Maya couldn't do.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 21, 2009)

Aden said:


> Another thing I'm seeing come up is that the Poser "artists" are being persecuted and cut off from their work. Hint: There are other places for this kind of art. Just not here anymore. To preemptively answer the predictable response to this post, yes, I'd be fine if FA banned any kind of 3D art altogether. There's always dA and other places.



Very intresting point you have here. You know that this opens the door that may result in banning other mediums like music, flashes, photographs etc. too? Or Human art, fan-art, abstract drawings? If you ban one thing you do not like, why not just do the rest? 

FA was a site where all the mediums could be posted, it had not limitations and I think it would be very unwise to go and ban a certain meduim, becuse thats counterproductive to the website as a whole. 

Maybe you would be fine with it, but I have a problem with it and I bet IÂ´m not the only one.


----------



## Bastette13 (Jan 21, 2009)

_*Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)

_I read this more as to mean 'toys' shown in contact with any of the above mentioned naked body parts that are human genitalia or animal genitalia cannot be uploaded. Basically they don't want to see your toy time on the website and I can't blame them. The legal nightmare of who's going to claim their body parts are/are not in the shot give me shudders and I'm not even a moderator here. There are other places that are legally covered for such things, somewhere, I'm sure.

For defining the prohibited things,  if the toys are not in contact with anything, are they then permitted? Or would it be only non-human toys?

(( Edited to add: I'm rather new to the site, and just want to make sure I don't ever post anything I shouldn't. Though my art leads more to pencil, so far, than the computer medias))


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 21, 2009)

hera said:


> Considering I see 10 poser artists already removing their art, ya, I think we are being persecuted and it makes me sick.  Just leave us alone,  don't see any crappy drawings getting pulled or any crappy fanart.



If you're not going to put enough effort into it, why bother slapping it on FA in the first place? Yes, I  do think Poser and related programs need some quality control in terms of stock model usage...I think I've seen that goddamn Krystal model enough.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 21, 2009)

Wrong argumentation, becuse people also post thier bad scribbels and stick figures on FA too.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 21, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> Very intresting point you have here. You know that this opens the door that may result in banning other meduims like music, flashes, photographs etc. too? Or Human art, fan-art, abstract drawings? If you ban one thing you do not like, why not just do the rest?
> 
> FA was a site where all the meduims could be posted, it had not limitations and I think it would be very unwise to go and ban a certain meduim, becuse thats counterproductive to the website as a whole.
> 
> Maybe you would be fine with it, but I have a problem with it and I bet IÂ´m not the only one.



Umm we're not going down that slippery slope or red herring argument. It's been there done that and just a method of distraction. Technically FA can ban whatever the hell it wants. However, FA is trying to be fair by being as open to as many mediums as possible. It *wasn't* open to all mediums because I just posted cases where there are exceptions. So you're leading off a false premise.

Not all forms of 3d models are banned either. Why is it that people can model their own models from scratch and still submit, aren't affected by this ruling? It seems the only ones that are affected don't even want to *try* bringing in his/her own content.

This is also one of those repetitive arguments I warned about so continue it w/o going back and reading the pages already covering the issue...you can find your posts deleted.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 21, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> Wrong argumentation, becuse people also post thier bad scribbels and stick figures on FA too.



Yes, but as long as it's not flooding and *their* bad scribbles and stick figures (or at least follow AUP for you, by you) what is your point? It's ok because someone else did the work for you and therefore prettier? I don't think so.

At least with a user who posts a bad stick figure or scribble, that is theirs, it does give people opportunity to provide feedback so they can post a *better* stick figure or scribble and improve. 

You using someone else's stock because it looks good, how are you supposed to know how to make your own object look good, if you can't start off bad with your own stuff in the first place. 

Results are what the audience and clients care about...you should be giving a crap about your own efforts and progress and stop worrying about not even putting in your own effort because you'll fail.

There are very few artistic prodigies out there, most of them failed just as much as the next person before they figured out stuff and got it right.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 21, 2009)

Well, anyway, I want to repost my question from before, becuse I still didnt get an answer to that.

The question is: how much do you have to change the stock model so its regarded as orginal work?


----------



## Kefan (Jan 21, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> ...you should be giving a crap about your own efforts and progress and stop worrying about not even putting in your own effort because you'll fail.



So actually putting some thought into an image and trying to create a mood or a story is less creative than buffalo shot after buffalo shot after buffalo shot?

First.  It is emphatically not for you to decide whether or not I give a crap about what I do.  You're perfectly free to choose whether you like my work or not.  You can choose whether or not you _believe_ I care about my work.  But do not *dare* tell me that I don't give a crap.  You're not inside my head.  You have no business speaking to my intentions.

I am perfectly aware of my technical limitations.  I am not a professional artist and I don't pretend to be.  Once in a while, I get an image in my head that I like to share.  Poser is how I do that, because a quick perusal of my gallery will demonstrate that I'm no great shakes at drawing.

I wouldn't hand you my bass and expect you to play it at the same level I do, if you've demonstrated no ability with string instruments.

I wouldn't ask you to perform differential calculus if you'd repeatedly flunked Algebra I.

I wouldn't stick a driver in your hands and expect even solid contact much less a 250 yard fade if you'd never swung a golf club before.

Telling me to "just create your own models" is the exact same thing.  If you've figured out how to do it, more power to you.  It is not a skill that I possess.  I use stock props because I _have_ tried to create my own, and I don't get it--and no, I *didn't* give up in frustration after five minutes.  I gave up after about a _year and a half of continual failure_, trying multiple tutorials, websites, methods.  It is a process I _don't understand_, and I have given it my level best try.

So do not tell me I "don't give a crap" just because I use stock.  I use stock because it's the only way I have to use the program to begin with.  I use stock props because what I'm trying to *say* is more important than what I'm saying it *with*.

And I'm going to repeat the same question that only one person has answered so far: what shows more creativity?  Creating a model for the purpose of mindless centerfold shot after mindless centerfold shot, or trying to actually tell a story with the image, regardless of the source of the models?

Furthermore, I put it that if stick figure art is permissible, then there cannot be an objection to stock figure renders, which is the functional equivalent in 3D work.  After all, "anyone" can draw a stick figure.  If "anyone" can make a Poser render with stock, how is one "anyone" different from the other?


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 21, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> The big one is adult toys. You don't want to allow real life pr0n, and that's fine. But you _do_ apparently want to allow the submission of user-created dildos, and sculptures of a sexual nature. Unfortunately, the rules _very_ explicitly state - in no uncertain terms, with no room for interpretation - that sex toys or anything of a sexual nature, even if it is not in use, is prohibited. The intent is just fine with me, but the rule needs to be re-worded to match your intentions.


The rule is a little hard to read, but it means it is not OK in use with a human...

Really I think that whole part needs to be removed as it is just confusing people.



royal-dog said:


> Thank you for taking the time to address this.
> 
> I realize the legal concerns, and greatly empathize with furaffinity's afflictions regarding them.
> 
> ...


 In the eyes of the law the difference in clear... There is a distinct difference.

Besides with a fursuit you're covered from head to toe in fur anyways, so tucking it back for the photo shoot really shouldn't cause any problems...


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 21, 2009)

Kefan said:


> I am perfectly aware of my technical limitations.  I am not a professional artist and I don't pretend to be.  Once in a while, I get an image in my head that I like to share.  Poser is how I do that, because a quick perusal of my gallery will demonstrate that I'm no great shakes at drawing.
> 
> Telling me to "just create your own models" is the exact same thing.  If you've figured out how to do it, more power to you.  It is not a skill that I possess.  I use stock props because I _have_ tried to create my own, and I don't get it--and no, I *didn't* give up in frustration after five minutes.  I gave up after about a _year and a half of continual failure_, trying multiple tutorials, websites, methods.  It is a process I _don't understand_, and I have given it my level best try.



See what you said there just killed your argument - *it's a skill*. A skill is something you acquire. Your sob story doesn't work art takes *years* to learn. If it's not something you want to dedicate to, maybe this is the wrong site to get angry of shortcomings from your own hobby. There are other sites to still post to if you must that kind of material.

Last I recall there is also nothing in FA's TOS or AUP that says *a user must submit every work he/she creates to this site*. Posting is not creating, as stated before. Do not mix up the two. There is no process on FA that has stopped you from creating, there are however guidelines to what you can post. 

That's right, I don't know what's going on in your head or really quite honestly it's not anyone's problem. I don't have to care if you can't model on your own. No one in his/her right mind *should*. This is your own progress, and your own battle.  Guess what, for the most part that's like that with *every* other artistic medium. Do you think honestly most of the audience cares if you spent 1 year or four trying to perfect your work? Do you think most even have a clue or give a crap how much a good sable hair brush costs and how much I had to personally spend on art supplies traditionally? Do people give a crap if you cut yourself trying to string a guitar or how many other nicks and scratches you got. Seriously, for the most part get over it, most people don't care  or understand even if they're another artist. It's part of the nature of the beast.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 21, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> Well, anyway, I want to repost my question from before, becuse I still didnt get an answer to that.
> 
> The question is: how much do you have to change the stock model so its regarded as orginal work?



There isn't a set percentage. It's going to likely be a case by case basis when it is brought up. As shown before, a person used a stock Poser model for the Egyptian Queen posted earlier in the thread by me but you'll notice the user brought in and painted his own textures, hair and so forth so that you can tell something other than bending or using a dial on a Poser model is different. 

This actually was addressed before. If you're a person who creates original textures, it's understandable to use the Poser model to show the render of the texture but it's not an excuse for it to be a minor detail of the piece. Like it makes no sense for example in 2d illustration to render full mountains and that be the only alteration in a small window where the rest of a scene is a screenshot of some commercial video. It should be displayed as the primary focus of your creation.

Sexual RP with Krystal and you just painted a cup on the table green with a neat texture and it's way in the background, wouldn't be enough.


----------



## royal-dog (Jan 21, 2009)

Question: Will all the photographs in the mature fursuit category now be removed? If yes; what is the point of even having mature filter ratings at this site for photographs then?


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 21, 2009)

Bastette13 said:


> For defining the prohibited things, if the toys are not in contact with anything, are they then permitted? Or would it be only non-human toys?



*No if;* the toy is someone else's creation/artwork and was not made "for you".

*Yes if: *If you sculpted the toy it just counts as a sculpture, and you taking a photo of that alone is just a means of you making its viewing available in digital media, as when I scan a drawing.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 21, 2009)

royal-dog said:


> Question: Will all the photographs in the mature fursuit category now be removed? If yes; what is the point of even having mature filter ratings at this site for photographs then?



From my interpretation of the rules, only images that show human breasts genitals or buttocks will be removed. Further only ones that show that information and are reported will even be reviewed (unless an admin stumbles upon it) otherwise the section is pretty much unaltered... everything rule wise is as it was, it has just been clarified.

You can still post pictures of your adult suit, with sheath holding a dildo... You cannot post the same picture using the dildo... and you cannot post the same pic with your penis showing 

You can however link to another site site showing you stripping down and doing the nasty if you so choose.


EDIT: 





krisCrash said:


> *No if;* the toy is someone else's creation/artwork and was not made "for you".
> 
> *Yes if: *If you sculpted the toy it just counts as a sculpture, and you taking a photo of that alone is just a means of you making its viewing available in digital media, as when I scan a drawing.


 Also note that the for you by you policy applies to the focus of the image.

If you are wearing an Old Navy shirt while modeling the hat you just made they aren't going to take the pic down because you didn't make the shirt that is included. The same could be said for if you are modeling a pose and one of the props is a dildo, if the focus of the image is the model, not the dildo then it will not be evaluated in regards to the for you / by you policy.

This is my interpretation at least... If I am wrong please let me know.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 21, 2009)

If that's the way you want it, Arshes, I'll edit this one again XD

Original text:
Fursuits with dildos in the sheaths were never allowed previously as far as I know? People sucking on dildos were not allowed. I've seen quite some reports on that anyway.

"focus of the image." - this is why I said "a photo of that alone"  and yes someone is going to misunderstand: Can it stand on a table? Can my hand hold it if I crop out 70% of the arm?

Why do people ask this actually?

Focus is a good word.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 21, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> If that's the way you want it, Arshes, I'll edit this one again XD
> 
> Original text:
> Fursuits with dildos in the sheaths were never allowed previously as far as I know? People sucking on dildos were not allowed. I've seen quite some reports on that anyway.
> ...


I'm going to assume you are talking to me... but I never said that dildos in the sheath were allowed, or that sucking on dildos was allowed. I said that holding a dildo was allowed...

It would be nice they were allowed though.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 21, 2009)

Ooooh 'cause that's not what I read "with sheath holding a dildo" as, that's all


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 21, 2009)

I realize that now lol

whoops


----------



## royal-dog (Jan 21, 2009)

Yeah I remember the rules for no dildos in sheath and no penis showing being defined a long time ago, had no problem with them at that time. What I have had problems with is just the general banning of images of any fursuit with a butt showing or the sheath, I pretty much assumed that was why the mature fursuit filter existed in the first place, and I thought it was working out very well. A fursuit is clothing for chrissakes, there's not even any nudity involved! @__@

And then the age/legal reason were stated, and yes I understand the admins here are too afraid to attempt to stand up for the rights of furries here, whatever, that's their perogative, more power to them in whatever theyre trying to turn this place into.

I'll be posting my pictures here anyway when I finish. I'll let the admins decide whether they want to allow them or not.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 21, 2009)

Images with (Fursuit covered) Butts and sheath shouldn't be deleted anymore.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 21, 2009)

*yawns* Tal all...

this thread is somewhat funny so i registered just to reply here ^^

well, i call myself a newbie if it comes to 3D-art (i think i got it right, the admins do not ever sayed, 3D-pics are no art) and till now i mostly mess around with the dials in Poser (i started with DAZ-Studio...) just to learn how to manipulate, edit certain things and so on... with nearly every pic i make i learn a bit new stuff, even when using premade things other people offer for free or sale.

on the other hand, if it comes to my characters or the giftart i made for arctic (who makes awesome 2D-art in my opinion) i feel a bit short on proper premade stuff for the things i have in mind.
right now, its still more then enough for me, but for my own good i see, that i need to learn how to make own stuff (wich means i need to learn how to model AND how to draw useable good looking high-res-textures) that fits my image of my own characters.

so, simply to avoid any problems (hey, i simply not want to get banned, i love FA) i avoid to submit pictures that i fear will not meet the AUP

just as a sidenote, i not want to be involved more then absolutely needed in this ... "discussion":
i not understand why this policy about stock-models and such. i would understand to ban really bad poser-like pics, since it can be quite easy (but _very_ timeconsuming, especially for people with slow pc's like me) to make good pics. but i would not ever ban "crap" 2D-art, since there is a lot of work in them wich you can not simply change with the work on a dial (it might force you to redo the whole pic if you are unlucky)


----------



## Scotty Kirax (Jan 21, 2009)

what
what kind of FurAffinity doesn't do black jokes


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

Avon-andromeda said:


> a) Blaming the tools for a failure is blaming the car for letting you drive it into a mailbox: YOU'RE MAKING EXCUSES. They cannot control themselves.  Someone has to be behind the wheel.
> 
> b) With the exception of flamers and trolls, NEGATIVE FEEDBACK IS NOT AN ATTACK ON THE ARTIST!  IT IS TELLING YOU THAT AN ANONYMOUS STRANGER CARES ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT YOU DO THAT THEY WANT TO SEE YOU GET BETTER!  If the first dismissive or negative response crushes all hope you have, you would have committed suicide in the middle of class during DAY ONE of my Life Drawing 101 class.
> 
> ...




In the case of A, Its not a case of making excuses, but of putting forth hypothetical situations in explaination of how others may possibly think. Blaming a failure on the tools is a classic case of the craftsman blaming his tools for the fact that he can't do it. However, many do just that to deflect criticism.

 In B, It all depends on how the person recieving it takes it. We can give it but once they read it its up to them to take it in what we hope is the proper fashion. I once gave what I thought was very constructive critisism to an artist here and they took it as a personal attack, going so far as to put up on future posts that they would not accept any kind of critiquing. Perhaps it is because they were not fluent in the English language, perhaps they had a very fragile ego, but it does happen.

On the matter of C, yes, it is can be difficult to control. Drawing well from life can be difficult as also, I guess thats why not many people do it well. I remember how in the first modeling class I attended, we had to build a small Lego vehicle using Lightwave... Modeling brick by brick, part for part an as close to accurate reproduction of the whole kit. MY GOD that was a task. Definitely not something for a beginner, in my opinion, but we managed to do it. I went through so much hell putting that darned thing together and making it all fit. Textures never did work out right on it though, not even the teacher could figure out why.. There were still little bits in it though that were not perfect, you just couldn't see them from the outside. *Shrug*  

True, you are limited in how much it can move, however in matters of say clothing or items, one can manipulate them just enough to make things.  Scaling of the items can go a long ways to make items fit as well a frequent way of making clothing items fit characters they were not made for. When moving about body parts however using the sliders, frequently there is no limit. You go too far and you turn your mighty warrior you were trying to make adequately buffed into taffy. Woe unto anyone who inadvertantly goes waaay too far and then accidentally touches something. Thats an undo gone. Some sliders affect the entire form, some only a specific part. With  a model such as vickie.. Thats a lot of parts to say the least. To say the most its truly mind boggling at how much you can change that gal. And on the negative side, just how much you can mess her up accidentally. Here is just the tip of the iceberg, http://www.daz3d.com/store/item_file/4783/1.html Those are just the base morphs for the base character, with the additional morphs you have.. http://www.daz3d.com/store/item_file/4781/1.html

Onto part C part B! Very true, the can't without the file, but if they are malicious enough the really don't need it in order to be harassing or otherwise a pain. Ya know, I once saw a guys dragon that he had rendered, he claimed that he built it all and made the rendering engine and everything. It was all his 100% but anyone just looking at the thing could tell that it was just a Millennium Dragon.  he had people ooohing and awwing at his supposed prowess in raw creation. *Rolls eyes* Barnum was soo right.

And finally for  D, I can't tell you how to price your work, where to put it, how much to put up or where to find your clients, that is your job as a freelancer, just like you can't tell me likewise, its something that we have to figure out when we put together our businesses but you have to be very careful with your work. But looking at the GAG P&E Handbook is a real eye opener. After taking an Art Marketing class it frankly amazed me just on just how anyone in the fandoms doing art makes a buck. A good many things learned in that class seems to fly in the face of how so much freelance business is done in the fandom. My teacher who was in the trenches as a graphics artist in the trenches was frankly mystified at how anyone could make a buck in the fandom, to her it was like the flight characteristics of a honey bee. Technically it should not be able to fly, yet it does. One thing that I learned was that much like comic book art, one has to be very careful about who you show it to. And make sure you are well protected, because just because a would be employer may turn you away. Be thoroughly protected when showing your work to would-be employers,. Just because they refused you a job, it doesn't mean that they won't steal your stuff if they think they can get away with it. Remember your work is your bread and butter, give enough for a teaser, but don't give the store away. Nobody wants to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free. Licencing is the icing on the cake,worked out when you are working out your payment for your work. with the fees for the time and effort put in, you are essentially saying 'Hey, you are only renting the usage of this thing for a while, once its all over, it all goes back to me, enjoy it while it lasts! 

On the other side of the coin, alot of beginning content providers made their fanbase and customer base by casting their nets far and wide by putting out their modeling efforts for free and  bam! They  have a customer base when they go public. If their stuff is good, then they have a loyal one that will potentially buy for years.

--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> *yawns* Tal all...
> 
> this thread is somewhat funny so i registered just to reply here ^^
> 
> ...



Don't worry about it Sheena, we poser-furs have to stick together in a united front.
In short the whole anti-poser thing is a baseless age old argument that hardcore modelers have had with Poser users elsewhere for years. You come across it alot on the net. It just finally came here. While you must do as you see fit, do not let predjudice dictate your course of action. Stick by your artistic beliefs and remember that everything that you buy you have a legal right to use in any way that you see fit. When you paid for it, you also paid for the licensing to do with it as you will. The freelance modelers that made them want you to use their works in the creation of whatever your imagination desires in the pursuit of art. If they didn't, they wouldn't be out there.
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> See what you said there just killed your argument - *it's a skill*. A skill is something you acquire. Your sob story doesn't work art takes *years* to learn. If it's not something you want to dedicate to, maybe this is the wrong site to get angry of shortcomings from your own hobby. There are other sites to still post to if you must that kind of material.
> 
> Last I recall there is also nothing in FA's TOS or AUP that says [/b]a user must submit every work he/she creates to this site*. Posting is not creating, as stated before. Do not mix up the two. There is no process on FA that has stopped you from creating, there are however guidelines to what you can post.
> 
> That's right, I don't know what's going on in your head or really quite honestly it's not anyone's problem. I don't have to care if you can't model on your own. No one in his/her right mind should. This is your own progress, and your own battle.  Guess what, for the most part that's like that with every other artistic medium. Do you think honestly most of the audience cares if you spent 1 year or four trying to perfect your work? Do you think most even have a clue or give a crap how much a good sable hair brush costs and how much I had to personally spend on art supplies traditionally? Do people give a crap if you cut yourself trying to string a guitar or how many other nicks and scratches you got. Seriously, for the most part get over it, most people don't care  or understand even if they're another artist. It's part of the nature of the beast.*


*

The scary thing is. In the advertisements for a certain art school, they claim that even if you have no talent, or skill, it doesn't matter any more, they'll train you.. *Shudder* Curse that Al Collins... 

In the end I really don't get why any of this is an issue in the first place. As freelancers we all have plenty of headaches trying to make a buck and get recognized in a society that quite frankly seems to think more highly of garbagemen than we. The fact of the matter is, in the eyes of the powers that be unless you are pulling down serious money in your artistic vocation, you are nothing more than a hobbiest. We all have enough headaches without falling upon ourselves and ripping ourselves to shreds like a pack of ravening animals.
--Dancougar*


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 21, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> The scary thing is. In the advertisements for a certain art school, they claim that even if you have no talent, or skill, it doesn't matter any more, they'll train you.. *Shudder* Curse that Al Collins...
> 
> In the end I really don't get why any of this is an issue in the first place. As freelancers we all have plenty of headaches trying to make a buck and get recognized in a society that quite frankly seems to think more highly of garbagemen than we. The fact of the matter is, in the eyes of the powers that be unless you are pulling down serious money in your artistic vocation, you are nothing more than a hobbiest. We all have enough headaches without falling upon ourselves and ripping ourselves to shreds like a pack of ravening animals.
> --Dancougar



Your post is kinda irrelevant and moreover, nonsensical.


----------



## Aden (Jan 21, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Don't worry about it Sheena, we poser-furs have to stick together in a united front.
> In short the whole anti-poser thing is a baseless age old argument that hardcore modelers have had with Poser users elsewhere for years. You come across it alot on the net. It just finally came here. While you must do as you see fit, do not let predjudice dictate your course of action. Stick by your artistic beliefs and remember that everything that you buy you have a legal right to use in any way that you see fit. When you paid for it, you also paid for the licensing to do with it as you will. The freelance modelers that made them want you to use their works in the creation of whatever your imagination desires in the pursuit of art. If they didn't, they wouldn't be out there.
> --Dancougar



Oh god, you're really not getting it. The argument isn't "baseless", it's about creating your own content. These "hardcore modelers" are people that put in the time to make their own stuff. And _of course_ you have the LEGAL RIGHT to use it any way you see fit. You also have the LEGAL RIGHT to take thirty pictures of your shoulder. Great. Do something else with them, because under the AUP, they can't go here.

Also, the freelance modelers did it to make money. Sorry to break it to ya.

\And you may quote multiple people in a single post, so quit with the three consecutive post nonsense.


----------



## wollypegger (Jan 21, 2009)

Being someone who works with 3D modeling, I can tell you it's a lot more than taking a few figures out and slapping them down on the canvas, twisting a few dials, and calling it a take. It takes a LOT of work to get a scene to look right, the way you picture it in your mind. And unlike a 2D modeler, you can turn your work around, and spot yet another mistake.

And then getting into custom work, heck, anyone care to guess just how many points and vertex's are required to construct a decent model? Try several thousand. And they all got to flow properly for when you get around to posing them so the skin don't wrinkle or bunch up unnaturally or strange deformations occur like odd parts of the body protruding from unlikely locations.

"Say, are you happy to see me or is that just your elbow showing wrong?"

And then there's backgrounds, sometimes you just need to cheat and use a flat board to create the back drop just like they do with real movies. It does take an artist to create even a good static render.


----------



## Skant (Jan 21, 2009)

Wookiee:  6,834 watchers.  Deleted his own submissions.
DragonFood:  2,520 watchers.  Afraid his gallery will be deleted.  Moving to another site.

Several artists on my watch list are leaving or have left already.  These are poser artists that me and thousands or even tens of thousands of other community members are watching.

Are these the results you had hoped for?

I understand and even agree with where you're trying to go with the AUP changes.  But I think it's hard to argue that you haven't thrown the baby out with the bath water.

All arguments about rules, effort, what is art, etc etc aside... please look at the number of people in the community that are being impacted by this.

You are, in effect, forcibly ejecting some of your most popular contributors from the FA community.  And that's upsetting to a very large number of people.

May I politely suggest you consider postponing this decision?

You can always axe these artists later.  But you can't undo it once it's been done.  And the effects on the FA community may cut deeply when so many community members will be affected.

Would it be such a bad idea to think on it a little longer and see if there isn't a better solution that would sit more favorably with your community as a whole?  The solution you have right now is going to make some portion of the community happier and another portion flaming angry.  To me, it doesn't really look like a net gain.


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 21, 2009)

Why would Wookiee delete his own stuff, notibly his older works? They didn't look like 3d work at all and deleting it all is a sign of weakness/egotism/etc imo.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 21, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Don't worry about it Sheena, we poser-furs have to stick together in a united front.
> In short the whole anti-poser thing is a baseless age old argument that hardcore modelers have had with Poser users elsewhere for years. You come across it alot on the net. It just finally came here. While you must do as you see fit, do not let predjudice dictate your course of action. Stick by your artistic beliefs and remember that everything that you buy you have a legal right to use in any way that you see fit. When you paid for it, you also paid for the licensing to do with it as you will. The freelance modelers that made them want you to use their works in the creation of whatever your imagination desires in the pursuit of art. If they didn't, they wouldn't be out there.
> --Dancougar



*smiles* i do not fear anything
the admins make the rules, point
if that means my postet stuff gets deletet thats fine

we can try to convince them but it seems thats somewhat helpless with the arguments people have, so i put my stuff over at DA alone for now (still thinking about making galleries at the other 3D-shops aside of artzone form daz)
i am very proud of my renderpics, especially compared to my skills with pen&paper  maybe its cause i am quite a logical person (my friends wich whome i play rp regulary mocked about it lately, telling me i seek allways a logical reason for my actions in rp) i lack artistic skills or patience for them

so i stick with what i sayed... it takes time and some kind of skill to even use poser and such, and it will take even more and/or other skill to use stuff to create scenes and objects from nothing

but you will not see me jumping up and down, wanting my pics, only made with stuff i payed for, postet here. but you will see me sad, that i am not allowed to put them up here until i got myself into the required things 
i am even proud like hell that i was able to manipulate one skin enough that it is nearly pure white aside of the nose-region so the mentioned gift for arctic hat a pinkish nose! i make one step after the other until i feel i can make stuff that meets the AUP, since i want to share my work with the people from FA who not only like 2D-pics

when i look back, i see myself sitting in SL talking with 2 other german guys while putting 4 simple white prims together attaching them to the head of my avatar, making them look like sabertooth... i think in the end, putting prims together in SL brought me over to putting premade props together in DAZ-Studio wich brought me over to Poser. and even dragoneer (i hope i remember the posts correct) once used poser and moved on to maybe (... hard to judge if you not have used them till now) more powerful tools


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 21, 2009)

mrchris said:


> Why would Wookiee delete his own stuff, notibly his older works? They didn't look like 3d work at all and deleting it all is a sign of weakness/egotism/etc imo.


Wookiee deleted his 3d work as far as I noticed.

He deleted it because he uses unmodified models which is against the AUP.


----------



## Skant (Jan 21, 2009)

mrchris said:


> Why would Wookiee delete his own stuff, notibly his older works? They didn't look like 3d work at all and deleting it all is a sign of weakness/egotism/etc imo.


 
Because Wookiee has also created several poser renderings in addition to his paintings. They also had a lot of favorites and were very well done. He deleted them because the new AUP says they're not acceptable, and he said in his journal he didn't want to argue about it.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

Aden said:


> Oh god, you're really not getting it. The argument isn't "baseless", it's about creating your own content. These "hardcore modelers" are people that put in the time to make their own stuff. And _of course_ you have the LEGAL RIGHT to use it any way you see fit. You also have the LEGAL RIGHT to take thirty pictures of your shoulder. Great. Do something else with them, because under the AUP, they can't go here.
> 
> Also, the freelance modelers did it to make money. Sorry to break it to ya.
> 
> \And you may quote multiple people in a single post, so quit with the three consecutive post nonsense.



Yes, its hard to get ones mind around unreasoning hatred. Its unfathomable to those who are open minded and accepting to the works of others no matter how they came about it. Its not the tools used in the creation, its the end result that matters. Yes they are people that put the time and toil into making their own stuff, but feel that all have to go through the same thing and that all should be on the same footing as they. Art ain't like that. It comes from people who have a variety of different methods and use them to put out works that reflect their artistic vision. In the end argument is about the pushing of personal tastes and intolerance. Recently there was a court ruling that demanded that a country club change thier rules to let women into their previously men-only resteraunt. Discrimination is discrimination. Entity A makes rules that curtail or forbid the involvement of population B, it is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong.

Thats right, they did it to make money, They found a way to make their skills pay well, and more than likely its the naysayers that didn't. Thats what it boils down to. Loss of customers takes the food out of their mouths. The more customers that are driven off, the more money they lose. Talk about hatred of ones own kind. Before you retort and say that you are nothing like them, you are, because you are a modeler, and so are they. LIke I said before, they just found a way to make it pay. It would be no different if say they sold their wares in the native file source to the users of that particular program. One can say that they are prostituting themselves out, for a buck, but isn't that what one does when one either freelances, or works for a company? In the end your work goes to someone else for a fee. 

Yes, I can post to multiple people using one post but I prefer to personalize my responses to those that answer me. It gets muddled faster when you are answering 3 people on one post.
--Dancougar


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 21, 2009)

It really isn't that hard of a concept, people. Poser is not a 3D modeling application. *At all.* No, I don't give an aeronautical fornication that it produces 3D graphics. It is not a 3D modelling application, because it does not have the ability to allow 3D modelling within it. The tools are simply not present.

Because of this, I have reason to believe that Poser creations, if allowed at all, should be placed with the SecondLife shots, and real 3D modelling works should be placed somewhere else.

If you really, truly want to be a 3D modeller, there's no excuse not to. Need a program? Try Blender, or some other free program if you don't like piracy. Myself? I use the latest version of 3D Studio. *On an old 1.6Ghz laptop with no graphics card to speak of.* Oh, yeah, it's a real powerhouse!

I am well aware that people post their crappy drawings and stick figures online. _They shouldn't_. My feelings toward crappy artwork are not limited to the third dimension.

Have you seen my gallery? It's empty. It always has been. Why? Because I have yet to create anything - model or drawing - that I feel is worth viewing here. My DA gallery has some things, but I primarily model objects, nothing furry related. I have modelled my own character _multiple_ times, but none of them good enough to show off, and I refuse to stoop so low as to use a model by someone else. The pride I feel when I create even a simple a model from scratch is something beyond the reach of Poser users, and it's not something I would trade for the world.

Also, I'll have you know, the Poser program, models and commercially available download packs were not created so you could go off, drag the items into a scene, and call it your own. It may be legal (if you really did purchase them), but the _real_ purpose of Poser is not to create artwork at all - it was designed from the start to be used in various industries to show off a product or concept, without needing a professional modeller on the team. In other words, it's so easy anyone can do it, _by its very design and purpose_.

I really wish I could say I'm sorry about the people who are leaving, but... What the hell am I saying? That's awesome! These people are taking down their crap of their own free will!


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 21, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> *FUR AFFINITY
> ACCEPTABLE UPLOAD POLICY (AUP)*
> *Revised: *Jan  19, 2009
> ​
> ...


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Your post is kinda irrelevant and moreover, nonsensical.



I apologize. To clarify, You put the onus on the merit of skill on the honing of years of experience, I made reference to an art school which draws in those that have no skills or talent, promises them the moon and stars and trains them into cookie-cutter would-be freelancers. That school was formally known as Al Collins Graphic Design school, now known as Collins College when they added on new lines of curriculum. An attempt to clean up their name and rep. 

The second part refers to the fact that I was made aware of in a Art Marketing class that I took, simply put, unless one is bringing down serious cash, the federal government does not recognize us as freelance artists as anything more than hobbists. Thus freelance artists have to fight to get recognition and survive in this country.
--Dancougar


----------



## cosmofur (Jan 21, 2009)

I have a question that I have not seen yet (or I missed)

I'm a blender and daz studio person myself I only use poser when I need a quick cloth simulation which I export to blender to finish. Yes blender has its own soft body code, but for quick work I find it clumsy. I make many of my own props and skins and a my own handful of characters (based on standard models but heavily modified), so I "think" most of my work is AUP safe...yet some pieces are clearly borderline. 

THAT IS when they are taken alone, but my question is, when you create a sequence of art that tells a story...a comic strip in particular, whether it has speech bubbles or not. Can not the 'story' cover the 'original content' requirement?

Stories are certainty original work, and nothing about the AUP is referencing the written works. So when simple stock characters are visual actors in an original story, does that make them, in group, original work, even if a particular piece does not in itself have any original props or figures?


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 21, 2009)

Skant said:


> Because Wookiee has also created several poser renderings in addition to his paintings. They also had a lot of favorites and were very well done. He deleted them because the new AUP says they're not acceptable, and he said in his journal he didn't want to argue about it.



I only assumed that since I don't watch Wookiee.


----------



## wolfbird (Jan 21, 2009)

Lt_Havoc said:


> THe thing is this: no everyone can create 3D models and even if they could, not everyone have the programs to do that. A full version of 3DS Max costs as much as a high-end PC (around 2500 to 3000 Dollars) that you will need to even run that program properly (we all know 3DS Max uses a a lot of hardware resoruces).




Oh. My. God.

What kind of crack are you on, paying that much for a computer? I own a $500 rig and it can run older versions of Max just fine. I don't know how to use said program, but two of my best friends do. The computer I currently use is a Frankenstein of older parts my partner was no longer using and mine can run an older version of Max just fine (version 7 or so, possibly 8 ). My partner built his beast of a rig by himself for under CA$1000 and I've seen him use Max with no issues. My other friend has a more costly rig, but still under the price range you gave and is one of the meanest computers I've ever seen. 

Also, Max WANTS you to pirate their program. When I say "you" I mean no-name artist who doesn't make a living off it. Max and a lot of other art programs are made to be easy to pirate for the simple fact that if it's easy to steal, you will learn on it. When you get a job after learning on it, you will buy it. So will your company. Max does not expect nonprofessionals to shell out money for something they use for recreational purposes. If you don't buy it and make a name for yourself commercially, Max will come and rape you with lawsuits. But before that? No.

Also, there are such things as render farms to take strain away from your main rig. I will not attempt to claim I know everything about them, but as I understand the idea is to get at least one other rig and have it crunch numbers for you while you work on other things on your main computer. Render farms don't seem to be either essential nor expensive-- I have heard that people will often use older computers they are no longer using.

From Autodesk's site (http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/index?siteID=123112&id=5659453) :

*At a minimum, 3ds Max 2009 32-bit software requires a system with:* 
Â· Intel Pentium IV or AMD Athlon XP or higher processor 
Â· 512 MB RAM (1 GB recommended) 
Â· 500 MB swap space (2 GB recommended) 
Â· Hardware-accelerated OpenGL and Direct3D supported 
Â· Microsoft Windows-compliant pointing device (optimized for Microsoft IntelliMouse) 
Â· DVD-ROM drive 


From SmithMicro's site (who publishes Poser this week):

Windows


Windows 2000, XP or Vista
700 MHz Pentium class or compatible (1 GHz or faster recommended)
512 MB system RAM (768 MB or more recommended)
OpenGL enabled graphics card or     chipset recommended (recent NVIDIA     GeForce and ATI Radeon preferred)
24-bit color display, 1024 x 768     resolution
1 GB free hard disk space (4 GB     recommended)
Internet connection required for     Content Paradise
DVD-ROM drive


Would you look at that. They're just about the fucking same. Therefor, if you can run crappy Poser, you can run Max. The real issue is whether you want to bother to learn to use Max and create your own work.


----------



## Aden (Jan 21, 2009)

Skant said:


> Wookiee:  6,834 watchers.  Deleted his own submissions.
> DragonFood:  2,520 watchers.  Afraid his gallery will be deleted.  Moving to another site.
> 
> Several artists on my watch list are leaving or have left already.  These are poser artists that me and thousands or even tens of thousands of other community members are watching.



Won't someone think of the popular people? D:

But look on the bright side. That's 2,520 less messages the server has to spit out every time some hack poses some premade models so it looks like they're fucking each other and posts it on the internet.



Dancougar said:


> Yes, its hard to get ones mind around unreasoning hatred. Its unfathomable to those who are open minded and accepting to the works of others no matter how they came about it. Its not the tools used in the creation, its the end result that matters. Yes they are people that put the time and toil into making their own stuff, but feel that all have to go through the same thing and that all should be on the same footing as they. Art ain't like that. It comes from people who have a variety of different methods and use them to put out works that reflect their artistic vision. In the end argument is about the pushing of personal tastes and intolerance. Recently there was a court ruling that demanded that a country club change thier rules to let women into their previously men-only resteraunt. Discrimination is discrimination. Entity A makes rules that curtail or forbid the involvement of population B, it is discrimination, and discrimination is wrong.



All I've been hearing is "if I find meaning in this dirty sock I found in an alley, by god it's just as good as this digital painting that someone put 55 hours into".

Okay, so you've made a picture in Poser. It has a meaning, and therefore it is art. Cool. Art is subjective; one can still appreciate the meaning regardless of how much effort was put into the work. We have all known this all along.

There are a lot of other art sites out there that agree with that stance. However, this particular art site _does_ seem to care about what effort went into a piece. Either put some work into it or take it somewhere else. All the carefully thought-out arguments in the world don't change the fact that most of the disallowed pictures' content was not made by you.

And did I just see you compare the AUP of a furry art site to the struggle for women's rights? I'm sure they heard my facepalm in China.



> Thats right, they did it to make money, They found a way to make their skills pay well, and more than likely its the naysayers that didn't. Thats what it boils down to. Loss of customers takes the food out of their mouths. The more customers that are driven off, the more money they lose. Talk about hatred of ones own kind. Before you retort and say that you are nothing like them, you are, because you are a modeler, and so are they. LIke I said before, they just found a way to make it pay. It would be no different if say they sold their wares in the native file source to the users of that particular program. One can say that they are prostituting themselves out, for a buck, but isn't that what one does when one either freelances, or works for a company? In the end your work goes to someone else for a fee.



So, because your kind of art was banned from a furry art site, nobody will buy these peoples' models and they'll all starve and die. Gotcha.

And yes, I am like them. I will one day be using my skillset for money. I sure hope I pick a better career path than making Poser models.


----------



## Aden (Jan 21, 2009)

wolfbird said:


> Also, Max WANTS you to pirate their program. When I say "you" I mean no-name artist who doesn't make a living off it. Max and a lot of other art programs are made to be easy to pirate for the simple fact that if it's easy to steal, you will learn on it. When you get a job after learning on it, you will buy it. So will your company. Max does not expect nonprofessionals to shell out money for something they use for recreational purposes. If you don't buy it and make a name for yourself commercially, Max will come and rape you with lawsuits. But before that? No.



Holy crap, someone gets it. Autodesk can easily issue takedown notices for every torrent and RapidShare link to Maya they find with a simple Google search, but they willfully ignore that path. They know that the big bucks come from the professional studios and the independent freelancers that can afford to shell out $5k per license.



> Also, there are such things as render farms to take strain away from your main rig. I will not attempt to claim I know everything about them, but as I understand the idea is to get at least one other rig and have it crunch numbers for you while you work on other things on your main computer. Render farms don't seem to be either essential nor expensive-- I have heard that people will often use older computers they are no longer using.



There are online services, too. Upload/FTP your scene file, they render it with their super metric fuckton render box array for a small fee, and the completed image or sequence gets sent back to you.

\Sorry for the double-post.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 21, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> It really isn't that hard of a concept, people. Poser is not a 3D modeling application. *At all.* No, I don't give an aeronautical fornication that it produces 3D graphics. It is not a 3D modelling application, because it does not have the ability to allow 3D modelling within it. The tools are simply not present.
> 
> Because of this, I have reason to believe that Poser creations, if allowed at all, should be placed with the SecondLife shots, and real 3D modelling works should be placed somewhere else.
> 
> ...



 You are correct, Poser is not a modeler, it is a character generator. As for is function, this as from the Smith Micro website on the program's page. 'Easily design, pose and animate your dream 3D figure with Poser 7. Click to create photorealistic human imagery, fantasy art, illustrations, Flash movies, cartoons, and much more.

Poser provides the easiest way to design with the human form in 3D. Using the rich collection of content included and powerful rendering to produce any style art, creative professionals, graphic artists and hobbyists can create stunning art, fine illustration and breathtaking animation for applications that integrate the diversity and spirit of human imagery.

Tutorials and SamplesWith Poser, you can design using the human form for art, illustration, comics, pre-viz/storyboarding, medical visualization, animation, architecture and education - essentially everywhere your creative mind may take you as you design for print, video, film, or web! 

Smith Micro owns Content Paradise. One of the major sites for obtaining stuff for the program. They got it along with everything else that E-Frontier USA owned when they bought it all. Now if they didn't want there to be any external content available then they would have shut it down and possibly pursued some manner of legal action against everyone. That didn't happen because they know there is an artistic community behind the program which has been in place for years and years. If they didn't want anyone to make add ons for their program, you would be seeing tons of releases from them and none from third parties. The most that you can compare it to is rather like working on your own car. You can take whatever parts needed and tune it to meet your needs.
--Dancougar


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 21, 2009)

cosmofur said:


> I'm a blender and daz studio person myself I only use poser when I need a quick cloth simulation which I export to blender to finish.



generally bad luck if not for the part i cut.
the custom stuff seems in your case quite much, so i think it would be fine.

about illustrating an original comic/story... dunno... from my feeling i would say "thats ok" but thats a guess from a normal user ^^




Aden said:


> Won't someone think of the popular people? D:
> 
> But look on the bright side. That's 2,520 less messages the server has to spit out every time some hack poses some premade models so it looks like they're fucking each other and posts it on the internet.



umm... really Aden... i tried to ignore your flaming but this...
as far as i remember, most renderpics i saw on FA are definitly not for XXX-content. i myself feel some urge to make some interesting renders in that direction too, but thats far from what i use it for. take a look at my gallery in FA plus the new ones over at my DA-account, there is no XXX-render


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 21, 2009)

@cosmofur: I can't claim that simply adding a story to posed pre-made characters would be allowed. But you get bonus points for at least coming closer to its real purpose.

@wolfbird: You can go to MAX 9, easy (I skipped 2008, so I don't know). 2009 added features that take a little more power, but not much.

@Aden: You'd be utterly amazed at how few people get it. Hell, take a trip to maxforums.org and you'll be _slammed_ for pirating the program - no matter how many of the people there do it themselves. Hobbyists are not expected to shell out $2,500 for this program, not $5,000 for Maya. One of the makers of 3D Studio plugins, Cebas, is also aware of this, and offers a smaller (less helpful) section of their forum just for people who pirate their plugins.

@Dancougar: Look very closely at what it says Poser is to be used for. Storyboarding. Medical visualization. Architecture. Even the mentions of using it for art don't mention anything about using it alone - you are supposed to "design with the human form". As in, use it as a base - not the focus.

If you are going to attempt to use Poser for anything artistic, I'm afraid you're going to need something more - it will not function as a stand-alone program in such a situation.


----------



## Aurali (Jan 21, 2009)

hrmm... 

Let's say it like this.. Poser is the Alice of the modeling world.. 

They both can teach, but they are both still hunks of junk that gain no real value..


----------



## Aden (Jan 21, 2009)

cosmofur said:


> I'm a blender and daz studio person myself I only use poser when I need a quick cloth simulation which I export to blender to finish. Yes blender has its own soft body code, but for quick work I find it clumsy.



Blender has a dedicated cloth solver, too. Combine that with the new Shrinkwrap modifier and you have some kickass clothing in under 20 minutes.



Sheena-Tiger said:


> umm... really Aden... i tried to ignore your flaming but this...
> as far as i remember, most renderpics i saw on FA are definitly not for XXX-content. i myself feel some urge to make some interesting renders in that direction too, but thats far from what i use it for. take a look at my gallery in FA plus the new ones over at my DA-account, there is no XXX-render



I just added the "so it looks like they're fucking each other" bit because of the example that Skant gave.

And I'm not "flaming", I'm "disagreeing aggressively".


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 21, 2009)

Aden said:


> I just added the "so it looks like they're fucking each other" bit because of the example that Skant gave.
> 
> And I'm not "flaming", I'm "disagreeing aggressively".



*blinks* just added? whatever ^^; sorry its quite early for me, 5am... and it seems i will not be able to sleep before midday thanks to checking of some stuff like used water at my parents flat -.-

but in my opinion you are insulting/flaming most of the time


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 21, 2009)

cosmofur said:


> I have a question that I have not seen yet (or I missed)
> 
> I'm a blender and daz studio person myself I only use poser when I need a quick cloth simulation which I export to blender to finish. Yes blender has its own soft body code, but for quick work I find it clumsy. I make many of my own props and skins and a my own handful of characters (based on standard models but heavily modified), so I "think" most of my work is AUP safe...yet some pieces are clearly borderline.
> 
> ...


I believe if I read right they do, but they must be in comic book style... as in you cannot post 50 sequence pictures that are just full sized images... They must follow the flow of a comic


----------



## wolfbird (Jan 21, 2009)

@DigitalMan:  I dunno, I really don't have a whole lot of technical knowledge. I'm just a geek's girlfriend and it rubs off on me. Even if I could do Max 9, I think I'd settle for 7. Up until three or so years ago I was using a 2001 version of Adobe Photoshop and found it pretty OK for my light usage. I'm sure Max works in the same way with older versions, and since I never do any sort of maintenance on my computer I think it'd be better if I didn't start installing things I don't really need on it, lulz.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 21, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> See what you said there just killed your argument - *it's a skill*. A skill is something you acquire. Your sob story doesn't work art takes *years* to learn. If it's not something you want to dedicate to, maybe this is the wrong site to get angry of shortcomings from your own hobby. There are other sites to still post to if you must that kind of material.



Oh, I'm not angry about my shortcomings as an artist.  I accept them.  This is not my primary form of expression, it's something I do every now and then because it amuses me to, and judging by the comments on some of my pieces, it amuses those who watch me as well.

That said, if you're going to take stick figure art and say that's okay and say this is not, you're being hypocritical.  Anyone can draw a stick figure.  Anyone (by your arguments) can make a 3D render with stock figures.

You can't have two different anyones.



Arshes Nei said:


> Last I recall there is also nothing in FA's TOS or AUP that says *a user must submit every work he/she creates to this site*. Posting is not creating, as stated before. Do not mix up the two. There is no process on FA that has stopped you from creating, there are however guidelines to what you can post.



The problem is not what the policy is trying to do--the goal of which, I agree with.  The problem is where the line is drawn.  In order to deal with the people who _really_ appear to not give a damn, you're throwing out those of us who _do_ give a damn.



Arshes Nei said:


> That's right, I don't know what's going on in your head or really quite honestly it's not anyone's problem. I don't have to care if you can't model on your own. No one in his/her right mind *should*. This is your own progress, and your own battle.  Guess what, for the most part that's like that with *every* other artistic medium. Do you think honestly most of the audience cares if you spent 1 year or four trying to perfect your work? Do you think most even have a clue or give a crap how much a good sable hair brush costs and how much I had to personally spend on art supplies traditionally? Do people give a crap if you cut yourself trying to string a guitar or how many other nicks and scratches you got. Seriously, for the most part get over it, most people don't care  or understand even if they're another artist. It's part of the nature of the beast.



Right.  You _shouldn't_ have to care whether I use stock or not.  *Because the message in the image is more important than the tools.*

The reason I explained myself was, judging by the way you handle other comments, your first reply would've been some snarky BS about how I should've given it more than five minutes before whining about not being able to do it.

Damn right it's the nature of the beast.  And you're _still_ dodging my central question, and I *am* going to repeat it again: which is more creative?  Creating a model and just churning out mindless centerfold after mindless centerfold, or actually trying to tell a story even with stock props?


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jan 22, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> .... but the _real_ purpose of Poser is not to create artwork at all - it was designed from the start to be used in various industries to show off a product or concept, without needing a professional modeller on the team.



It was developed as a digital replacement for artists' posable wooden mannequins.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jan 22, 2009)

I think the argument can be summed up by a quote from a favorite movie of mine:

_We're not saying you can't own a gun.

We're just saying you can't carry a gun while you're in town!_

Also, the stick figure argument holds no water. The point isn't across-the-board artistic quality, it's artistic quality from Poser. Stop looking for single rules and learn to live with case-by-case bases. I mean, really; just because someone can upload stick figure porn, why can't I shove mashed potatoes in my ears and do the hula on the Washington Monument?


----------



## dmfalk (Jan 22, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Actually copyright law trumps the AUP since the server resides in the US, and therefore all rules here have to obey the laws of the US. They are not independent nations unto themselves. AUPS for different sites are as varied as the stars in the sky, and by and far the most part are made just by the individuals who run the site, not lawyers who know of such things. As for here, If it did then they wouldn't have content up which would no doubt violate blue laws in practically state in the country if not most of the world. Not a good thing when works are categorized as either Fetishes / Furry (Tame), and Fetishes / Furry (Adult) Then have long listings of different types going on down to artwork of Pokemon, Digimon, and Sonic. I am sure that Nintendo, Bandai, and Sega would just be thrilled to death to know that thier characters are listed as fetish types here. It's stuff like that which gives the site and the fandom more of a black-eye than 3D Krystal doing naughty things with foxy-fox. Although admittedly that art just adds to it, but hey, who are we kidding, the standard deluge of 2D art generally outguns the 3D by quite a margin. So which is the bigger threat?



As per numerous US Supreme Court decisions (Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders v. "Debbie Does Dallas", Acuff-Rose v. Campbell, for example), prurient content is allowable and protected as per the First Amendment, providing that it's not in violation of obscenity laws. The status of "cub art" (allowable on FA) is not clear, considering that I'm not sure if the law that was used to limit non-photographic creative art under child pornography has been struck down on constitutionality issues. (If I'm not mistaken, it has by a lower Federal court, and the US Supreme court has refused to hear the case, leaving that strikedown stand.)

But yes, fan art of an adult (sexual) nature is perfectly legal and allowable under "Fair Use". The degree of originality (ie: modifying a "clean" work) may not be, unless the drawing or writing itself is reasonably original.

d.m.f.


----------



## kamperkiller (Jan 22, 2009)

Foxstar said:


> Nice to see your cracking down..or trying to save the servers from bursting into flame under the load of most of the fandom using FA as a freakish Photobucket/MySpace/DA hybrid. More rules I say, more.



It's less load and more compleat code fail.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 22, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Damn right it's the nature of the beast.  And you're _still_ dodging my central question, and I *am* going to repeat it again: which is more creative?  Creating a model and just churning out mindless centerfold after mindless centerfold, or actually trying to tell a story even with stock props?



*Draws a big circle for you* (that my friend is your argument)  I didn't dodge at all, you're suffering from myopic reasoning. We said already it wasn't defining art or "who is more creative" as you've now turned it, FA draws the line at just using Poser w/o any of your own user content at all. 

It's not a matter of you can't doing it, you simply *won't* and you're getting angry at the wrong people for your own shortcomings. 

It doesn't stop you from posting elsewhere. 

That is all there is to your argument unfortunately, you can try rephrasing things, but again, it's a circular argument that really needs to stop.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 22, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> *I am reposting this as some of the questions have been answered, but others have not. Below are my notes in that respect. *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Still hoping for a response ^_^


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 22, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> I apologize. To clarify, You put the onus on the merit of skill on the honing of years of experience, I made reference to an art school which draws in those that have no skills or talent, promises them the moon and stars and trains them into cookie-cutter would-be freelancers. That school was formally known as Al Collins Graphic Design school, now known as Collins College when they added on new lines of curriculum. An attempt to clean up their name and rep.
> 
> The second part refers to the fact that I was made aware of in a Art Marketing class that I took, simply put, unless one is bringing down serious cash, the federal government does not recognize us as freelance artists as anything more than hobbists. Thus freelance artists have to fight to get recognition and survive in this country.
> --Dancougar




If a person is hungry enough to be an artist, the school doesn't matter. The problem is the students more than the teaching. Most run to art school as an "easy thing".

Second point isn't true, especially in the IRS' eyes....but that is completely off topic of the AUP.


----------



## Kesslan (Jan 22, 2009)

I think most of us are still waiting for a proper response on what is 'considered enough' modification of work in Poser to 'count'. Textures have been mentioned but honestly to me that can be very little, to a whole lot of work depending on the quality and time put into the texture. So that hardly counts (in my oppinion) as a definition.

I also love how people keep claiming it's not about what 'art is' yet even Dragoneer just stated in a journal not long ago.. that it's pretty much exactly that. Indeed, many of the people here are still arguing over it based uppon artistic merit and the time taken to make something.

I'm just currious though, since some people have mentioned the issue of it taking 55hrs to make a single model in 3ds. Ok so thats art. I'm sure as hell not going to argue that. But what if it takes you 55hrs to setup a very highly detailed, well thought out, lighted set of scenes in Poser and create a comic panel with them, but using all 100% stock.

Same ammount of time investment put into it. But suddenly it's not art? Bit of an odd standard to me.

I'm sure this is why this 'case by case basis' keeps getting tossed around. But I'm simply saying 'Case by Case basis' presently has no real solid guidlines. So far their extremely loose as far as I can see. I'd only like to see far more solidified guidlines for people to follow. I dont even care if they cant match those requirements yet. They can work towards it. Give htem something to strive for.

I mean it's why I dont draw, I cant even begin to get close to what Dragoneer calls his really reallyc rappy art of the yester year. I've actually tried it, worked at it, tried painting. I dont feel if have what it takes in the end. So I've turned to other strengths of mine such as writing. THough I've yet to turn out anythign I feel is worth posting.


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 22, 2009)

Kesslan said:


> I'm just currious though, since some people have mentioned the issue of it taking 55hrs to make a single model in 3ds. Ok so thats art. I'm sure as hell not going to argue that. But what if it takes you 55hrs to setup a very highly detailed, well thought out, lighted set of scenes in Poser and create a comic panel with them, but using all 100% stock.



If that's the case, you should give up. I mean, just, seriously. If think, drag, drop, render takes you that freaking long, you're not cut out for it, and possibly not cut out for using a computer at all. For cripe's sake, it only takes a couple hours to set up an entire render engine (finalRender is my choice) with lighting, camera, depth of field, global illumination, caustics, and various other features that have pages and pages of documentation. And I've just started with those things, I have to look up the best settings every time and keep screwing around with it!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 22, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Still hoping for a response ^_^



http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=822690&postcount=330


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 22, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=822690&postcount=330



Would you be able to review my case by case examples and provide us with your determination?

This will give people an idea if they should or should not even bother posting such work.

Further would you mind reviewing the rest of my post in regards to possible changes or compromises... As well as to confirm my question in regards to Fur Suits?

Further in regards to fursuits, can a dildo be worn in the sheath? And / or can it be interacting with the muzzle of the fursuit?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 22, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Would you be able to review my case by case examples and provide us with your determination?
> 
> This will give people an idea if they should or should not even bother posting such work.
> 
> ...



The reason I replied the way I did is that pretty much the Poser question was answered, so it was more of a request to take it off (since it's been answered). Examples were provided previously too. 

Remember there were two qualifications: The Original User Content, and Focus of the piece.

In Queen: http://www.dccdesigner.com/Htm/Tutorials/TheQueen01.htm
Stock Poser Model, however notice the changes the artist made.

He had painted and textured the entire scene and made significant modifications on his own. So you did enough modding on Barbie's furniture where it's not very much recognized as stock Barbie furniture with repaints and textures, it would qualify it would be like The Queen, but you have to realize a simple paintover won't cut it. 

Now think about the penis example, the focus is the fact you modeled and sculpted a penis. If you have it not as the focus, such as two characters fucking, the sex is the focus, not your sculpt.

Sometimes you can't help to have the stock to be the focus, ie a new texture map for a model. In this case however, you still need to remember showing your new texture is the focus, not the stock. If you have it covering a model, the model would likely to be shown all angles, but in focus that it's about the texture...not "muurrrr check me out in an orgy"


----------



## Torakhan (Jan 22, 2009)

I don't see any particular mention of "convention photos" or "my/others fursuit" photos.
"Here's me in my fursuit in the parade... in my hotel room... hanging out with X-Dawg... the parade... some cool suits I saw... etc. etc." photos.  I can understand a photo if its construction, or it's finished look, or posed/showing off in some way to "announce" your suit.  
However, for some reason I dislike when someone treats their FA like a Photobucket account--I don't think it's nessecarily appropriate to take pictures of my drawing from different angles, or in different locations and think that it somehow changes what it is, or that other folks should be looking at it differently because its environment changed.

Maybe if there was some way of linking to Photobucket or other services more easily people would use FA's gallery as more of an artwork posting service than as a "Social Networking" site?   *Hates on MySpace and Facebook for corrupting the world.*


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 22, 2009)

Each picture of a fursuit can be it's own piece of art.

It is true they are not always used that way, but to limit upload of multiple pics of your fursuit would cause a lot of drama...


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 22, 2009)

I actually have an issue to bring to light dealing with "Adult Fursuits".

It's all fine and dandy if you want to let people put them up there(personally I am 100% against it because do we really need more stuff for people to fap too? Do we need to set up the suit makers to be in the same boat other artists are in, in that if you don't have material for people to fap to, you get 50 to 75 percent less views?), but there needs to be a safeguard. Some of us suit makers specifically do not cater to those who have interests in Adult Fursuits. As such we do not want to be associated with the adult side when we don't make them.

I guess what I am getting at, is that there needs to be some clarification, in that a suit being put up on FA that is mature/adult in nature, needs to either have come that way from the maker of the suit, or made by the person wearing it/having it posed.

They should not be taking a suit they commissioned, then altered, and then take pictures to put it up on FA. Does this make sense or do I need to clarify further?

Basically, if you didn't make the suit, or order it to come with parts that make it adult/mature in nature, you don't need to post pictures of it on FA.You are then associating an image with the maker that the maker does not want, and does not cater to for their own various reasons.


----------



## Roland (Jan 22, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Each picture of a fursuit can be it's own piece of art.
> 
> It is true they are not always used that way, but to limit upload of multiple pics of your fursuit would cause a lot of drama...



It's all ready done so.  If you can't sum up an entire fursuit in three pics, you should reconsider owning a camera.

If you've built it, it would be entirely reasonable to post a picture at each stage of the creation and then a few to show it off, but again, if you can't sum up the entire completion of the suit in three pics, refer to my previous paragraph.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 22, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Each picture of a fursuit can be it's own piece of art.
> 
> It is true they are not always used that way, but to limit upload of multiple pics of your fursuit would cause a lot of drama...




FA is not Myspace, and not Photobucket. I for one would be rather happy to see a limit per costume. It would mean I would have to back through my own account perhaps, if the limit per costume was whittled to three. That does not bother me.

I can see a limit of three per costume, and when you want to have another one loaded you move a pre-existing one to the scraps.

All you really need to do with a suit is show front, side, back and that is it. If you want to show more than that take the time to make an artful collage. Does it matter that it will create drama? This is a furrie filled place. Have an opinion and there will be drama. Everything seems to stir drama. Drama, drama, everywhere, and all you can do is ignore it when it comes to important things.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 23, 2009)

Roland said:


> It's all ready done so.  If you can't sum up an entire fursuit in three pics, you should reconsider owning a camera.
> 
> If you've built it, it would be entirely reasonable to post a picture at each stage of the creation and then a few to show it off, but again, if you can't sum up the entire completion of the suit in three pics, refer to my previous paragraph.



I urge you to consider one exception to the rule of three: tutorials.  I have seen a fine tutorial on how to build a head with an articulated jaw and tracking eyes, and it could not have provided useful information with just three photos.  Building a good head isn't simple, but a beginner with some artistic skill can do it for little $$$ (and a lot of time) by following sufficiently detailed instructions.

I have also seen two fine tutorials on constructing a chain tail. Again, they could not have provided useful do-it-yourself instructions in three photos. Tails that swish realistically are remarkably complex and ingenious devices.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

I'm sure a wise admin will see that your fursuit tutorial is allowed to fill more than 3 submissions 

Also, please note - 3 submissions, not 3 photos. This referring to Dragoneer's previous statement about making a collage of them. You can put as many photos you want in one submission, entirely up to your feeling of when they become too small. Perhaps even submit a number of thumbnails and link to a folder of the full size images hosted somewhere else, hm?


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

those suggestions are all fine and dandy if you do not consider the fursuit wearer able to create art while wearing it.

This conversation has been gone over in excruciating length, and really doesn't need to be brought up again; as Dragoneer has made his decision.

Of Note though, why can't a person that purchased a suit modify it? It is the same thing (or more) as if someone had taken their poser model and modified / added to it.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> If a person is hungry enough to be an artist, the school doesn't matter. The problem is the students more than the teaching. Most run to art school as an "easy thing".
> 
> Second point isn't true, especially in the IRS' eyes....but that is completely off topic of the AUP.



But it rather seems to fly in the face of the merit of years of skill argument. (Sidenote: That school mentioned is so reviled by mainstream academia out and the professional workplace out here that would-be employers actually put down 'NO AL COLLINS' when looking for new workers.) It is true though, even in a formal college setting, new up-and coming artists get so swept up in the learning of their craft and being in the ivory tower, that the real world part frequently gets left out, and so while they may be able to do a masterful job doing whatever, they have zero clue as to how to apply it and make it work for them and pay in the outside world. Or be told that out there in the trenches, one may be extremely lucky to get into that field, with the likelyhood of getting into their particular field professionally with an established company being next to nil. A perfect example of this unfortunate cluelessness that gets passed on could be found in the Art Marketing class I took. At the beginning there were so many there with bright eyes, and a head full of dreams of future artistic glory, waiting to pounce on the world. But as the class went on and the real world knowledge started to sink in, and they began to learn just what a job it is that they are looking at as a freelancer. About half dropped, but those that remained to the end were a lot wiser, and more prepared.

The second part although off topic of the thread came from the experience of my former teacher for that class who spent years in the trenches as a graphic artist. I must admit that I have always meant to do more research into that to find out exactly just how true it is. It seemed so out there.
--Dancougar


----------



## Roland (Jan 23, 2009)

foxystallion said:


> I urge you to consider one exception to the rule of three: tutorials.  I have seen a fine tutorial on how to build a head with an articulated jaw and tracking eyes, and it could not have provided useful information with just three photos.  Building a good head isn't simple, but a beginner with some artistic skill can do it for little $$$ (and a lot of time) by following sufficiently detailed instructions.
> 
> I have also seen two fine tutorials on constructing a chain tail. Again, they could not have provided useful do-it-yourself instructions in three photos. Tails that swish realistically are remarkably complex and ingenious devices.



Well, the rule isn't limiting you to three pictures, it's limiting you to three submissions.  In the case of a tutorial, it's not exactly the same focus in every picture.  As far as I understand, the main issue here is people taking a picture of a pre-constructed fursuit, which they did not construct, taking a picture, then changing the pose a bit and taking another picture.  Repeat fifteen times, and you've got yourself a gallery (I'm looking at you, Quiet269).  

The pictures are actually -of- someone -creating- the fursuit.  That's a challenge.  It takes talent.  It requires that the submitter take careful hours constructing the fursuit and that is something that the maker deserves to be able to share on sites such as FA.  

The frame of the tail you're creating is not the same as the fabric of the (same) tail that you're creating.  The fabric of the tail you're creating is not exactly the same as when you're putting it around the metal frame.  The focus is different in each picture.  Not in terms of materials, but in terms of purpose.  These pictures can also be put into a series of events, so that you may have more than one picture in one submission.  

If all this is apparently against the rules, you can always throw the tutorial up on YouTube and just post the final result to your FA gallery.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 23, 2009)

Roland said:


> If all this is apparently against the rules, you can always throw the tutorial up on YouTube and just post the final result to your FA gallery.



It's not, the tutorials are fine. It was to prevent the flooding as you mentioned in your post.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 23, 2009)

dmfalk said:


> As per numerous US Supreme Court decisions (Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders v. "Debbie Does Dallas", Acuff-Rose v. Campbell, for example), prurient content is allowable and protected as per the First Amendment, providing that it's not in violation of obscenity laws. The status of "cub art" (allowable on FA) is not clear, considering that I'm not sure if the law that was used to limit non-photographic creative art under child pornography has been struck down on constitutionality issues. (If I'm not mistaken, it has by a lower Federal court, and the US Supreme court has refused to hear the case, leaving that strikedown stand.)
> 
> But yes, fan art of an adult (sexual) nature is perfectly legal and allowable under "Fair Use". The degree of originality (ie: modifying a "clean" work) may not be, unless the drawing or writing itself is reasonably original.
> 
> d.m.f.



Unfortunately Netizens tend to think they are teflon and litigation-proof. This is a dangerous outlook. Even the porn industry has strict legal guidelines by which they have adhere to abide by, treading that tightrope, and staying carefully clear of both federal and state laws. Individual state obscenity laws is where the real danger is. For a very relevant example, furry artists thought they were immune and seemingly blissfully unaware that they may have been in violation of state law, beyond its reach up to the point where they found they were very much mistaken. None were pleased when the authorities were alerted on the presence of adult content openly on display for sale  back at CF a number of years back. Apparently there was some manner of inspection but  it was brought to the attention the attending artists that they had to either cover their works up with stickies or keep them under the table. Those that complied did it,  although they didn't like it and and the con dodged that bullet when all was found to be on the up and up and appropriate censorship put in place. However on the fandom side it hurt the con's rep a lot, and it could be surmised as being a contributing factor to its ultimate downfall. So thats what happened when RL was brought knocking on their door. 

It would seem that the deeply murky question of cub-art is a matter of tastes, rather than of legality since the legal status of virtual human kiddie porn art has been rather put up in the air as I understand it. It currently is technically is federally legal as long as there is no real person is in some way depicted, or connected to the work's creation. Cub-art would seem to rank even lower federally being as no human child is even depicted. So while equally aesthetically repugnant, legally it would see to be the lowest man on the totem pole, if even on the totem pole currently. But then given the mercurial changes that state laws go through as they are updated to apply to the net and are enforced, and the changing status of federal law, who knows how long will be until that changes. Best to stay entirely away from that legal land mine waiting to go off.

Fair use is a very difficult and subjective thing. Ultimately its really something to best stay away from unless its for a genuine specific purpose that you don't have any vested interest in. Such basically using an item in academia for say a class assignment, for review, or in casual promotion of the thing. We had to use fair usage a lot when I was on the crew of a cable public access comic book review and preview show a long time ago. But then asking first went a long way in keeping legally clear as well in that circumstance. The various companies were all to willing to send us all kinds of nifty goodies to put on the show. So it was great when you had their blessings.
--Dancougar


----------



## Roland (Jan 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> It's not, the tutorials are fine. It was to prevent the flooding as you mentioned in your post.



That's what I thought, thanks.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> those suggestions are all fine and dandy if you do not consider the fursuit wearer able to create art while wearing it.
> 
> This conversation has been gone over in excruciating length, and really doesn't need to be brought up again; as Dragoneer has made his decision.
> 
> Of Note though, why can't a person that purchased a suit modify it? It is the same thing (or more) as if someone had taken their poser model and modified / added to it.



First of all, I don't care what his decision is. If anyone should have input on how this goes, it should not be a person who does not make suits, or has never worn one, but the suit makers themselves because they are the ones being implicated by your constant whining over wanting to have adult/m rated suits pictures on FA. So did those discussion involve multiple suit makers and their input? I just want to know that this angle of things is covered.

If suiters have issues to be brought up I think their views take priority over anyone else who is not part of the whole suiting thing.

The suit itself is art, like a painting, except it is worn. However just like a painting it's the creator who made it come to life , and they get credit for it. Taking a suit, which is a piece of art, and modifying it, is like taking a art commission of your fursona and modifying parts of the picture to suit your own needs.

You are free to do that if want. To alter/change the picture/suit to suit your own needs. However the moment a modification takes place, such as giving it boobs, or a sheath, ect....you have no business posting it online. If you want an adult suit that you can post online, you commission from an adult suit maker or make it yourself You do not force a stigma on non-adult suit makers costumes by altering it and then parading the altered piece on a well viewed furry website. It is no different then if you want porn of you character that you can show off online, you commission a porn artist, not a non-porn artist, and then alter it to look like porn.

That is my issue. It should not happen. It's bad enough I caught a furrie on another site parading a picture of a Scribblefox suit as a yiff suit. The original suit itself is not a yiff suit, and it is not advertised on his website that he makes those kinds of suits, and furthermore the lying twit basically makes sub-par costumes for friends who want yiff suits, but didn't have any pictures of her own suits, so she yoinked one of Scribbles suit pictures and put it up as a substitute.

Commissioning a suit is no different than commissioning a piece art. There are rules.

The only adult/M rated suit pictures that should ever come up should be original that came that way, either from the person that made it for the commissioner, or the person who wears it who made it themselves. If you bought a costume and altered it, you need to keep that to yourself. Now if the person who modified it has the written permission/consent of the creator that they are okay with the modified costume being put up as M/A pictures on a site like FA, that is a bit of a different story.

I want Dragoneers input on this, and whether or not rules will be set up to prevent the above things from becoming an issue.. They cannot stop the altercation, but they can police what gets in.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

The suit is art, yes. But what the wearer does while they are in it is art too. This has been discussed already though, so lets skip it and get to the meat of the issue.

How exactly is the FA staff going to regulate whether or not a suit came with or without the bits? How would they know? I mean unless you are going to monitor the gallery of every person you've ever made a suit for you are the only person who would truthfully know besides the person that altered it. Further if someone wanted to troll a suiter all they would have to do is start claiming that the suit was altered and therefore they could attempt to get it taken down.

I guess I can understand where you might not like to be associated with an adult suit as that is not something you normally do. But I do wonder if you would be ok with someone either not attaching your name to the suit if it was modified after the fact, or noting that they made the altercations themselves?


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> The suit is art, yes. But what the wearer does while they are in it is art too. This has been discussed already though, so lets skip it and get to the meat of the issue.
> 
> How exactly is the FA staff going to regulate whether or not a suit came with or without the bits? How would they know? I mean unless you are going to monitor the gallery of every person you've ever made a suit for you are the only person who would truthfully know besides the person that altered it. Further if someone wanted to troll a suiter all they would have to do is start claiming that the suit was altered and therefore they could attempt to get it taken down.
> 
> I guess I can understand where you might not like to be associated with an adult suit as that is not something you normally do. But I do wonder if you would be ok with someone either not attaching your name to the suit if it was modified after the fact, or noting that they made the altercations themselves?



You know, if the staff cannot moderate it then they have no business allowing it. You decide to do something, you have to prepared to deal with the implications and consequences. If the abilities of the staff cannot keep up with it due to practical issues then staff are better off saying no. That said I do not believe this is a case that cannot be moderated effectively.

As for trolling? That can be dealt with. If a person says "Baww it's been altered" then he or she would need to bring up significant evidence to prove it.

For example, I can prove that Blaze, a suit that Beastcub made was altered by getting her to show the picture of what it looked like before it was sent off(exam raw data file for date it was taken ect), and then matching up the photo with the youtube videos of the person wearing it. You can obviously tell the breasts were altered significantly.

In any case if you are going to say "It's been altered" I would presume that you have seen the suit elsewhere and will have links and stuff to back up your claim. This is if I were a moderator...which is not a new job to me, having moderated a place with over a 1000 members for about 3 years.

I dealt with something similar once in Gaia. Some random person was running around in a guild, showing off a picture of a Scribble Suit as a yiff suit. You only have to go to his gallery to see that it is not a yiff suit. I do believe Scribble does make them but when he does he does not advertise it on his site...and neither does his customers advertise it elsewhere.

With very little digging I sniffed out the person to be a liar beyond a shadow of doubt, and got a full confession...the person was trying to show up her suits as being as good as Scribbles by using pictures of his costumes as a substitute for pictures of her own, which apparently she doesn't have.

The guild took down the pictures rather quickly and nothing more was said or done. If a minor guild can effectively deal with a matter like that, I don't think it would be an issue on FA. The burden of proof is on the one pointing out "It's altered". To be able to even know it is altered you would have to have something to back yourself up.

As for the other thing, personal feelings aside I will say this:

A suit maker puts a lot of time and effort into the costumes they create for others. That is why they are entitled to posting pictures of the site in their personal gallery, as well as on their FA account. Chances are it will also go onto the Fursuit Database. So if the name is left out people can still easily browse and stumble across the pictures of the suit and then attach a maker to the suit. SO just leaving out the name is not acceptable, plus it's not ride to rob the suit creator of credit because the person who the suit was for decided to alter it.

As for the other thing: If they put down it was altered, I might be okay with it so long as they turn around and the suit maker's permission first:

I'll bring up another real life example to demonstrate: Beastcub made a rather interesting costume, called Blaze.. The person who commissioned it got it in,  ripped open the breasts that were made to go with the costume and not overpower it...and stuffed them to become giant melons. So now every time she sees that suit, the beauty of, and the work behind making it look that way is overshadowed by "OMG BIG BOOBS!". Further more there are Youtube vidoes now of the altered piece, ranging from running into a restaurant, to being around kids, to groping the faux breasts. Beastcub has voiced discontent in a few threads about this but there is not much she can do. However the more raunchy videos on Youtube have been flagged as mature. See what kind of boat an extreme alteration puts a suiter maker in? Especially when the person doesn't bother to put down that it did not come that way...or was altered. 

To some extent there is not much you can do when suits are altered but at least certain alterations should and can be policed when and where applicable.

People should have some responsibility. If you really want to show off a suit with specific things on it, you should really just commission someone who can make it that way. If you cannot afford that and choose to get a tame one, and then alter it you need to be responsible and take the suit maker into consideration. There should be safeguards for that if the choice is made to allow the kinds of suits in question to be posted on FA.


----------



## Roland (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> The suit is art, yes. But what the wearer does while they are in it is art too. This has been discussed already though, so lets skip it and get to the meat of the issue.


 I'm pretty sure you lost that discussion when it came to (very lifeless) pictures. 



> How exactly is the FA staff going to regulate whether or not a suit came with or without the bits? How would they know? I mean unless you are going to monitor the gallery of every person you've ever made a suit for you are the only person who would truthfully know besides the person that altered it. Further if someone wanted to troll a suiter all they would have to do is start claiming that the suit was altered and therefore they could attempt to get it taken down.


 That's what discretion is for.  The moderator still has to look at it and deem it unworthy for show.  Just because it's reported does not mean it's getting taken down.  And a lot of the moderation is done by FA's own users.  Sure, staff can see what's inappropriate and take down what they will, but ultimately the users will report violations.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

I truthfully do not see how that is something that FurAffinity must moderate.

They are allowing suits with bits. if you post a suit with bits then it's cool. If you personally have issues with the suit then you must take it up with the person who is posting it. 

And Roland, the discussion was cut short.

*shrug*


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> I truthfully do not see how that is something that FurAffinity must moderate.
> 
> They are allowing suits with bits. if you post a suit with bits then it's cool. If you personally have issues with the suit then you must take it up with the person who is posting it.
> 
> ...



Perhaps that is part of the reason you should not be the one pushing for this when you yourself cannot fully understand the implications and have not bothered to think it all the way through.

If you were a paid fursuit maker, and had reservations about what you will and will not do, I do believe your attitude would change. It's no different than when you commission drawn art. You do not commission a clean piece, alter it to be porn and then post it on FA. The same goes for fursuits. The only difference is one is actually 3-d and the wall it is on is actually a moving, breathing body.

If they are going to allow suits with bits they need to follow the same rules as with other art forms and mediums.

If FA wants to allow the suits with bits FA needs to moderate it, as well as the users who already do a decent job of reporting actual violations and stuff.


----------



## hera (Jan 23, 2009)

Back to the Poser argument,  I still don't see what the big deal is.  I looked through the submissions. Page after page, out of every 300 pics, maybe ONE was a poser pic.  So for those who are saying krystal models or whatever is flooding the site,  that is a misconception.  Why do we need a rule for 1% of the art being submitted?  If the majority of the pics were 3D instead of 2D, I can understand the rule. However, at this point,  I cannot.  I also believe that 3D should get its own category.  I don't like the fact that I have to submit my work with the same category as 2D art.  This will also alleviate people's complaints as if they don't like Poser or 3D art, then they don't have to browse through it.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Perhaps that is part of the reason you should not be the one pushing for this when you yourself cannot fully understand the implications and have not bothered to think it all the way through.
> 
> If you were a paid fursuit maker, and had reservations about what you will and will not do, I do believe your attitude would change. It's no different than when you commission drawn art. You do not commission a clean piece, alter it to be porn and then post it on FA. The same goes for fursuits. The only difference is one is actually 3-d and the wall it is on is actually a moving, breathing body.
> 
> ...


 Technically speaking, if they were to do such a thing (purchase clean, modify to adult) they could if the focus was the content they created. This would be allowed within FA's rules.

In the case of fursuits the focus is on the person in the suit, and what they are doing with the suit. Unless of course they are just simply getting a front, back and side view of the suit for display purposes.

Do you specifically say to commissioners that they cannot alter the suit after you give it to them? They are dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars on the suit, I'm pretty sure they are expecting that they can do whatever the **** they want with it.

Unless you are specifically telling them you will not do the suit if they plan to alter it to an adult suit after the fact then you really have no grounds on which to get the suit removed... Unless they do not specify that they are the one that made it into an adult suit.

You could go to the mods about something like this, but unless you can prove that they were not to alter the suit after they received it then I really wouldn't see any reason to take action other than to specify that the person submitting the new pics makes note of what changes they made to it after the fact.

I do agree that they should have asked for your permission before doing such a thing, but I do not really think it is something you should burden the FA admins about to get the suit removed.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 23, 2009)

Aden said:


> Won't someone think of the popular people? D:
> 
> But look on the bright side. That's 2,520 less messages the server has to spit out every time some hack poses some premade models so it looks like they're fucking each other and posts it on the internet.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the wonderful world of art, where paint flung upon canvases, resin filled corpses posed on chairs, portraits of the Madonna made out of Elephant dung, and photographs of Crucifixes suspended in containers of urine are treated regarded on the same footing as The Last Supper or The Birth of Venus. 

Well thats why you hedge your bets just in case of a site failure and have your works up on multiple sites. I myself have had my works up on three other sites for years. So really really it doesn't matter to me what happens to my work here. This is just a gallery space. But what I can't stand anymore of is seeing others steamrollered over because of this same mindless argument that has has been going on for years. No longer will I just sit by doing nothing and hoping for the best while  others do the fighting, It is time to plant the flag and fight back.

You know, I knew you couldn't resist going after that. No you heard me call the AUP and the sanctioning admin behind it no better than the sexist country club honchos who thought they could make a men-only grill, and who got slapped back into their place by the courts for it. The oppressed are the oppressed, no matter who they are, and the oppressors are the oppressors no matter who they are. One has to fight the enemy of freedom and equality whenever they see it, or it diminishes us all. To further enlighten you upon the analogy. You, I, and everyone else are a member of FurAffinity. No one else but members are allowed to put their works up. Correct? Correct. It is in that the site requires membership, that it can be likened very loosely to a private organization. The members must of course obey the rules (AUP) of the organization which the leadership has set down and everything is hunky-dory. Correct? Correct.  Now what happens when the rules are changed radically and it then discriminates against a segment of the membership? Well, either of two things. You can either sit idly b and do nothing, passively smiling and bending over, taking it while put over a barrel, or you can stand up, say this is not right., and fight. Fight for not only yourself, but for all the others that are being wronged along with you, and stand with your wronged comrades  for what you believe in. To further simplify it Group A makes makes rules that are unfair, prejudicial and discriminatory to group B, Group A are the oppressors, Group B are the oppressed. You can insert any names you choose to represent groups A and B. 

You have to look at the big picture beyond what happens with us here on the site. Content providers make their money on individual sales. If those dry up, its trouble. Now mind you while a smattering of individuals may not make much of a dent, it does make a dent. Lost money is lost money. And if you are relying on that as say an extra little bit of income to help pay the bills, Ouch. You've got to put yourself into their shoes in order to fully understand the ramifications. 

Now while the overall argument has been going on for years and years, Rule changes on one site can be very much like legislation in one state. If taken as being bulletproof and stick, they can be used as examples and taken by those of like mind and utilized elsewhere,  This is a double-edged sword. While it may be done with  the passing of good and positive change with benefit to all, it can also be very well done with un-positive change  with the spreading of intolerance and  prejudice, oppression, discrimination and hatred as well.

Good luck in your commercial ventures, but it looks like you have a very big change to make when you are looking at becoming a content provider in your own right for your own software platform. If you do, you are seemingly conceivably becoming that which you most despise in these posts here, but with your own program. But that's ok. If it helps pay the bills, hey, what are a few compromised scruples if you can help somebody with their art in making  that massively cool scene or animation. You are in great company as a content provider.  

What I don't really get is, why even bother when given the sheer mountain of stuff out there make the policy ultimately unenforceable? Given the amount of content providers both commercial and non, it would require something like a team of people almost constantly on the clock, trying to pour over everything to even attempt to try to make sure anyone was on the up and up.  Nobody would be able to get anything else done. Below is a listing of the total amount of free items on Renderosity. This as of a day or so ago. There are massive more amounts out there. Yes thats over fourteen THOUSAND items to pour through, just for Poser itself, thats not to mention the items from other programs that can be imported and used, thats not counting the stuff that can be used in the over three THOUSAND items that can be found under 2D. And thats only on one site.
--Dancougar

All               23246 Total Results            646 Pages
----------------------------------------------------------------
2D                        3329 Results               93 Pages
3DSM                      493 Results               14 Pages
Animation                678 Results               19 Pages
Artmatic Voyager         4 Results                 1 Page
Blender                     42 Results                 2 Pages
Bryce                    1830 Results                51 Pages
Carrera / RDS            92 Results                 3 Pages
Cinema 4D               265 Results                 8 Pages 
Daz Studio               550 Results                16 Pages
Fractal                      63 Results                  2 Pages
Gaming                     24 Results                  1 Page
IClone                        6 Results                  1 Page
Imagine 3D                 2 Results                  1 Page
Lightwave                124 Results                 4 Pages
Maya                        19 Results                  1 Page 
Misc                        542 Results               16 Pages
Mojoworld                107 Results                 3 Pages
Poser                   14094 Results              392 Pages
Rhino 3D                   37 Results                  2 Pages
Shade                        3 Results                   1 Page
Terragen                 199 Results                   6 Pages
TrueSpace                 37 Results                  2 Pages
VistaPro                     6 Results                  1 Page
Vue                        615 Results                18 Pages             
Wings3D                   33 Results                  1 Page
World Builder              6 Results                  1 Page 
Writers                     23 Results                  1 Page
ZBrush                       4 Results                 1 Page


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Technically speaking, if they were to do such a thing (purchase clean, modify to adult) they could if the focus was the content they created. This would be allowed within FA's rules.
> 
> In the case of fursuits the focus is on the person in the suit, and what they are doing with the suit. Unless of course they are just simply getting a front, back and side view of the suit for display purposes.
> 
> ...



"The focus was the content they created?" Care to further clarify that bit?

As for "The focus is on the costume and what is being done" where is the relevancy in that statement? So far your first and your second bits make no sense so I ask of you to further clarify it's relevancy to the topic at hand.

As for asking them to not alter suits, I never do because I expect the people who are commissioning me to be intelligent adults with enough sense to realize that if they want to use the costume for a purpose in which it will not be made, they would not be commissioning me for the costume or they would be making their own.

It's no different then when you commission drawn art. The artist should not have to say to the commissioner, "you commissioned me for a tame piece of art. Do not alter it to make it pornographic, okay?" That is common sense in the art world that you don't butcher what you asked the artist to make for you. If you do butcher it you keep it to yourself.

In any case if you are throwing down money to get a full-suit, chances are you are paying over a thousand for it. So there is no excuse for not going ahead and commissioning a suit maker to make the suit cater to that particular sexual need. Don't whine "It's too expensive"....there is something called saving up for what you want. Google or something.

Every suit commissioned has a name attached to it. Not just the name of the character but the creator who brough it to life and their website that will probably host pictures of the original costume. They should have some say over what you do with it, if what is done can implicate the creator as being part of something that they specifically seek to not be part of or cater to. You shouldn't have to point out "Don't alter my suits for sex and then plaster pictures of it online with video too"...

You don't need to seek out a person to make you a full suit that does not make yiff suits, and turn around and alter it and decide "Yay! Now that I took Beastcub's work and turned into a yiff suit, I'm going to go to FA and show it off to everyone!"

You don't do that just as much as you don't commission a tame peice of art from Goldenwolf(if you are that lucky), make it pornographic with an art program, and the slap it onto FA to show it off.

I can pretty get the vibe right now you are not fully reading what it is I have to say. In any case it's the Mod's attention I want, not your. If the Mods choose to let it in, then they should shoulder the same responsibility to the suit creators that they have to the drawing artists. You don't shirk the burden just because one group's art is made in a different medium.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 23, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> @cosmofur: I can't claim that simply adding a story to posed pre-made characters would be allowed. But you get bonus points for at least coming closer to its real purpose.
> 
> @wolfbird: You can go to MAX 9, easy (I skipped 2008, so I don't know). 2009 added features that take a little more power, but not much.
> 
> ...



Sorry D-man, but you can't twist your way out of it. How can one not look very closely at something that one selects for a post, and has to look at it for a long time when crafting a reply? Apparently it must not have been me. Of course I know what it says. The emphasis is on using it for making art.

Out of curiosity, just what poser version did you work with before you stopped using it and went onto a higher program? Poser 3? The early days of Poser 4? Obviously you must not know much about the program or its usage or what is available for it. What good is a powerful renderer like firefly to an app that is merely for the compiling and export of a bare minimum figure to an external app? What good are wind effects, of cloth simulation, hair effects, or the mapping of photos onto characters faces if its just to go out to higher programs in which you can generate the stuff natively? What good are trees, walls, buildings, streets, hair, other characters, terrain and background generators, outfits, and other environmental and special effects, to a supposedly simple program that one uses to trace over and not made for the generation of art? The very weight and variety of overwhelmingly available content crushes your argument to nothing. You must have been out of the community for far, far too long.

Does a program outgrow its original purpose? YES. It does. As it was written, it was originally designed as being just a means by which one imported in simple 3D characters which could then be exported and be traced over using another app, but with its popularity, more functions were added on and added on. More stuff made for it, and In short, it has evolved from its simple purpose beginnings. If it were still used as its original purpose, it wouldn't be where it is today. Is photoshop just a one purpose program? No, you can use it for a variety of things from photo manipulation to the production of digital art. One cannot do a storyboard or pre-vis without having something to help the visualization. Even when using just what comes with the program, you would have to in the very least have someone make items so they could be brought in to make the scene or animation. One cannot have a character generator with a bare minimum of items to generate from. From what you said before I guess it means that we can only say use Aery Soul products to make Aery Soul advertisements and concepts, or Uzlite products to make Uzlite advertisements and concepts. Moooost sneaky of them! NOT! Just because you were a user once, it does not mean that you are the all knowing oracle of all things Poser. 
--Dancougar


----------



## captaindrakon (Jan 23, 2009)

I hope I do this right...

It occurs to me, wouldn't having some sort of disclaimer about reviewing questionable arts for compliance with the AUP cause less stress?

It seems there are artworks that balance precariously on the edge of being acceptable and not.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> "The focus was the content they created?" Care to further clarify that bit?


 If the focus on the image is the groin which they made, then they have every right to post it. If the Focus of the image is to show the person in the suit doing ____ then they have the right to post it. If the focus is just to show the suit as a ref sheet then it might be questionable, though i do still think they have a right to post it (same as you can post pics of you SL avatar)



Trpdwarf said:


> As for "The focus is on the costume and what is being done" where is the relevancy in that statement? So far your first and your second bits make no sense so I ask of you to further clarify it's relevancy to the topic at hand.


 You're trying to stop them from being able to post the suit. I am giving you reason why they can post them. Start giving us some good reasons they cannot.



Trpdwarf said:


> As for asking them to not alter suits, I never do because I expect the people who are commissioning me to be intelligent adults with enough sense to realize that if they want to use the costume for a purpose in which it will not be made, they would not be commissioning me for the costume or they would be making their own.


 When you buy a truck do you expect Ford to come back at you later and say HEY! You cannot make it Pink! Hey! You cannot put 22" Tires on it! Hey! You cannot put a cover on the bed of the Truck!

No, Of course not. You bought the truck, you can do whatever you want with it. Unless it is agreed upon beforehand that they cannot do something with it, then you have no right to claim that they cannot do it.



Trpdwarf said:


> It's no different then when you commission drawn art. The artist should not have to say to the commissioner, "you commissioned me for a tame piece of art. Do not alter it to make it pornographic, okay?" That is common sense in the art world that you don't butcher what you asked the artist to make for you. If you do butcher it you keep it to yourself.


 if it is common sense then why does every artist that cares say "Do not Alter, Distribute, trace, etc"? ???



Trpdwarf said:


> In any case if you are throwing down money to get a full-suit, chances are you are paying over a thousand for it. So there is no excuse for not going ahead and commissioning a suit maker to make the suit cater to that particular sexual need. Don't whine "It's too expensive"....there is something called saving up for what you want. Google or something.


 If you want a pot for a plant that is green and the store you are at sells a blue pot for a plant for $10 would you buy that pot, spend $5 to paint it green and use it... or would you pay $20 at the store next door to get a green pot? Especially considering the Blue pot has no sign saying "You cannot paint this pot".



Trpdwarf said:


> Every suit commissioned has a name attached to it. Not just the name of the character but the creator who brough it to life and their website that will probably host pictures of the original costume. They should have some say over what you do with it, if what is done can implicate the creator as being part of something that they specifically seek to not be part of or cater to. You shouldn't have to point out "Don't alter my suits for sex and then plaster pictures of it online with video too"...


 If you want say over what is done with it you b etter set that up before you take their money are get their suit done. Further you better get a contract set up or you really have no ground to stand on. If you don't want to be associated with a person that does that with the suit, then ask them nicely, if they do not comply (because they do not have to) then you can take the suit off of your website.



Trpdwarf said:


> You don't need to seek out a person to make you a full suit that does not make yiff suits, and turn around and alter it and decide "Yay! Now that I took Beastcub's work and turned into a yiff suit, I'm going to go to FA and show it off to everyone!"


 What if he sought after a person who he liked their style and wanted to pay them for a suit? Your getting butt hurt because you don't like what he did with a suit he paid to have made without any set rules on what he can and cannot do to the suit. If you don't want him doing somethign with it tell him before hand if he is not OK with that he will go elsewhere. If he does it anyways and you have the contract that says he won't do that then you have the ground to stand on to get him to stop doing whatever it is you said he cannot do. UNTIL THEN you are just bitching because he did something that he was perfectly within his rights to do. It is not his fault you failed to express your views before he spent a thousand plus on the damn thing.



Trpdwarf said:


> You don't do that just as much as you don't commission a tame peice of art from Goldenwolf(if you are that lucky), make it pornographic with an art program, and the slap it onto FA to show it off.


 if Goldenwolf asks you not to alter his work then he has ground to stand on, if he doesn't then it's cool IMO.



Trpdwarf said:


> I can pretty get the vibe right now you are not fully reading what it is I have to say. In any case it's the Mod's attention I want, not your. If the Mods choose to let it in, then they should shoulder the same responsibility to the suit creators that they have to the drawing artists. You don't shirk the burden just because one group's art is made in a different medium.


The point is that you are asking them to inforce something no one agreed upon. You are basically giving someone a penny, but then 2 weeks later you go to the cops because you forgot to tell the guy you wanted it back a week after you gave it to him.  Now you want the cops to go repo your penny.

This is completely flawed. If you do not want it to happen from now on learn from your mistakes and take the necessary precautions next time.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 23, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> Perhaps that is part of the reason you should not be the one pushing for this when you yourself cannot fully understand the implications and have not bothered to think it all the way through.
> 
> If you were a paid fursuit maker, and had reservations about what you will and will not do, I do believe your attitude would change. It's no different than when you commission drawn art. You do not commission a clean piece, alter it to be porn and then post it on FA. The same goes for fursuits. The only difference is one is actually 3-d and the wall it is on is actually a moving, breathing body.
> 
> ...



Please excuse me. Totally off topic question, but out of intense curiousity, just what is that picture of the character at the bottom of your posts from? It looks interesting whatever it is.


----------



## Roland (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> And Roland, the discussion was cut short.



HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I cannot remember for how long you've been arguing this issue, Dude.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

Roland said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
> 
> I cannot remember for how long you've been arguing this issue, Dude.


At least I try to keep it in the correct thread. We got a few pages and it was locked, I still had more to say, and I had several Fursuiters Note me saying they wanted to say more. I can only assume the other side had more to say because they are continuing the discussion here 

So as I said the discussion was cut short


----------



## wolfbird (Jan 24, 2009)

In responses to posts #405 (Trpdwarf) and #408 (Quiet269)...

Quiet has a point. If I buy something from someone I expect to be allowed to do whatever I want with said item UNLESS I sign a contract with the seller about prohibited uses. If I sell something, I will REQUIRE buyers to consent to a contract if I decide to get my panties in a twist about some activity of theirs (be it adding genitals, reprinting it in poster format, recoloring something to suit a friend's character, making it into a tshirt, etc).

I can understand where Trpdwarf is coming from, it would also not make me very happy to see something I worked hard on and sold be modified by the buyer because they deemed it "not good enough" in some way or another, but you know... that's life sometimes. If you never, ever want people to modify things you've made maybe being a freelance furry artist is the wrong profession for you. If I was buying art of someone it would be because I enjoy their style, not because of the price tag. If said artist has beefs with what I want to do with it afterwards, well... I guess it's not that important to them if they didn't put it in writing.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 24, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> If the focus on the image is the groin which they made, then they have every right to post it. If the Focus of the image is to show the person in the suit doing ____ then they have the right to post it. If the focus is just to show the suit as a ref sheet then it might be questionable, though i do still think they have a right to post it (same as you can post pics of you SL avatar)
> 
> You're trying to stop them from being able to post the suit. I am giving you reason why they can post them. Start giving us some good reasons they cannot.
> 
> ...





Actually no they don't have every right to post it. What you are doing when you take a suit, alter it to have genitalia, and the zoom in on it to take a picture, is no different than if you commission an artist to draw you a picture of your character, then you edit in a explicit genitalia, crop out the rest of the work just to show off "Hey look guys? I can make genitalia...isn't it awsome?".

That's a slap in the face to any artist, to put time and effort into making something to turn around and have altered. Now granted they cannot do much about it. They cannot demand to have the suit back or the picture back. They can however demand decency from the person who chose to alter what was made for them to fit needs that the original was not created for...by keeping that private and keeping it offline, unless there is a mutual agreement between artist, and buyer. Keep in mind of course I am specifically dealing with sexually related alterations. I have a feeling you think I am asking for a blanket ban on alterations all-to-gether.

I understand some alterations are reasonable. Taking the suit and changing up parts...that is bound to happen anyway as the suit gets old. You cannot always find the same faux fur, and sometimes suit makers stop making suits ect. Sometimes a part of your fursona changes so you want to add to it. I think most artists would find that reasonable when you go about it the correct way.

I comissioned someone for concept art of a dragon character and the material that came in was the wrong color. To work with that I asked the same artist to go back through and edit the original design to reflect a change in color. That was reasonable and respectful and the artist was more than happy to comply. The same thing can happen with a suit. Those kinds of alterations done properly with respect to the artist, that's fine. I have no problem with that Quiet.

Perhaps I should earlier have better clarified that I am focusing on the sexual alterations specificaly because of the consequences and implications.

Whether or not you care, Quiet, some suiters don't want to be associated with the yiff suits that have dangly bits, huge breasts, ect. That is why they don't offer on their site the option for it. Which by default if you don't see the option for yiff suits, you should inquire if the artist is against having the suit he/she makes altered for yiffing, and posting pictures of the altered version online. The same goes for altering it to have giant breasts.

A mass produced vehicle or piece of pottery is not the same as a one of a kind, hand produced piece of sculpture made to be worn by a person, but commissioned to be brought to life by someone else. So don't try bringing analogies in unless they make sense and are relevant. Custom art, no matter what form it comes in, is not the same as mass produced stuff made as quickly as possible to get out to the consumer.

I'm not going to continue this part of the discussion because clearly you are letting your emotions get the best of you and it is affecting your ability to be coherent and make sense. I do think you are mis-reading what my intentions are with what I am saying but that could partially be my fault for not being clear enough.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 24, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Please excuse me. Totally off topic question, but out of intense curiousity, just what is that picture of the character at the bottom of your posts from? It looks interesting whatever it is.



That is Revan, the fursuit, a character Zeke Shadowfyre created, and then gave me the permission to emulate as a character for my story "The First Order".


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 24, 2009)

Trpdwarf said:


> That is Revan, the fursuit, a character Zeke Shadowfyre created, and then gave me the permission to emulate as a character for my story "The First Order".



Cool, looks like quite a suit!  Ok. I'll be quiet now. *laugh* 
--Dancougar


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 24, 2009)

wolfbird said:


> In responses to posts #405 (Trpdwarf) and #408 (Quiet269)...
> 
> Quiet has a point. If I buy something from someone I expect to be allowed to do whatever I want with said item UNLESS I sign a contract with the seller about prohibited uses. If I sell something, I will REQUIRE buyers to consent to a contract if I decide to get my panties in a twist about some activity of theirs (be it adding genitals, reprinting it in poster format, recoloring something to suit a friend's character, making it into a tshirt, etc).
> 
> I can understand where Trpdwarf is coming from, it would also not make me very happy to see something I worked hard on and sold be modified by the buyer because they deemed it "not good enough" in some way or another, but you know... that's life sometimes. If you never, ever want people to modify things you've made maybe being a freelance furry artist is the wrong profession for you. If I was buying art of someone it would be because I enjoy their style, not because of the price tag. If said artist has beefs with what I want to do with it afterwards, well... I guess it's not that important to them if they didn't put it in writing.



I seem to think that some wires are crossed with what I intend to be brought up and what he is thinking I am trying to say. If what he is getting at is that you should be able to alter the costume as in general alterations. There is a color there that I do not want, it changed on my fursona, so I want to take that out and have another color put in. I can do it myself, or try. Talk the maker if you can, at least let them know because they might be willing to do it for you, or at least can update the site with a new picture of the costume. If the suit maker cannot be found at least put it in there, this X was made by A, but I modified This, and This. I have no problem with that.

I am specifically targeting modifications/alterations of the sexual kind because of the implications behind it. As a suit maker I make the choice to not cater to that part of the fandom. Therefore if I make a suit for someone, I could care less if they alter it so long as they let know so I can update the website, and give them some hints so that the alteration does not destroy the costume by being done by novice hands.

I am not the only suit maker to refuse to make yiff suits/suits with genitalia added in. We, as in those like me, specifically don't have an option for those kinds of suits on our site because we don't make them. Someone might say, "You don't offer full-suits so why do you care?"...but I will in the future be offering full suits. So it does affect me, and all those other suit makers who choose to not cater to people who yiff in suit. Drawing artists are not forced to bite the bullet if someone uploads a picture that they commissioned, that they altered to be pornographic when the original picture was tame by a tame artist (doesn't draw porn). I've been through this with Arshes Nai by the way. If the artist asks for it to be taken down it must be taken down.

So what I am bringing up is simply to ensure rules are in place so that suiters are not forced to bite the bullet either when it comes to that.

Now if the artist is like "You fixed that and didn't have me to do it" bawww.... or "You changed he color of that stripe" baww...I can give a lot more sympathy and be willing to perhaps side with the customer. I worked on someone else's work before. It was a tail at Neko. We had to fix the strap becuase it broke off. Thread was too weak. We used stronger thread...that tail went out Marscon and is still hanging on. Now if the maker were to baww about "Well you didn't come to me and have me fix it" I'd raise a few eyebrows because that's rather...I don't know what to call. It's stupid. You have to expect some of your work will break down. For the sake of convenience someone else might work on it. Get over it.

You might find that later on down the road something awful was spilled on a suit, and the stain won't come out. Right now you're booked, and the person needs the costume for a coming con. Maybe they met a person who can sew and they found some great faux fur down the street at a new shop. So they took out the stained bit, sewed in new faux fur. It's a different color so they had to alter other parts of the costume to make it work. So what? That's life. I understand that.

But, altering it to have naughty bits, and then posting it on FA? I cannot understand that. You need to talk to the artist(costume maker). You need to know that they are okay with that. If they are not you need to respect that. From previous experience with people dealing with something like this, I just want to see that FA Mods have thought about this and will have rules to reflect that. It is inevitable it will become an issue later on down the road. It's easier to quickly get a ruling done with and prevent too much butt-hurt bawwing, by simply having the rules in place to begin with.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 24, 2009)

Trpdwarf, I disagree with your stance in every way I stated previously whether it be for adult alterations or general alterations. I am sorry you cannot see where you have no claim to request something be done because of your lack of foresight or planning.

At this time all that is happening is we are going back and forth. Because of this unless you can bring a new argument to the board I must discontinue this discussion with you. I suggest you do the same, and we will let the mods decide where they want to stand.

Thank-you very much.


----------



## taliesin_dragoon (Jan 24, 2009)

I find the AUP fair, complete and clear. Good job.


----------



## Roland (Jan 24, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> Trpdwarf, I disagree with your stance in every way I stated previously whether it be for adult alterations or general alterations. I am sorry you cannot see where you have no claim to request something be done because of your lack of foresight or planning.
> 
> At this time all that is happening is we are going back and forth. Because of this unless you can bring a new argument to the board I must discontinue this discussion with you. I suggest you do the same, and we will let the mods decide where they want to stand.
> 
> Thank-you very much. I am pretentious prick.



Taking someone's suit, modifying it, and then posting it, is little different than posting things you've created via a generator.  You're merely trying to claim "talent" simply by altering a suit and saying "Hey! Hey! Look at what I did!" 

You have been nothing but a whiny, know-it-all little kid.  Nobody within this forums agrees with your argument. 

PS.  (Almost) no one is trying to keep fursuit pictures from being posted; you are merely limited to three.  That should be more than enough to showcase your "talent."


----------



## wolfbird (Jan 24, 2009)

@Trpdwarf:

I still don't think you get it. I don't demonize sex in any way, so personally I consider modifying a suit to be a new color to be in the same category as adding a SPH to it. I don't think anyone else here is letting their emotions cloud their judgements except _you. _We keep seeing walls of text yet you keep recycling the same arguments.

*Again, unless an artist makes a buyer sign something that prohibits them from altering it in specific ways, you don't have a right to BAWWWW when someone has gotten the impression that buying something means they own it and can do what they want with it.*


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 24, 2009)

wolfbird said:


> @Trpdwarf:
> 
> I still don't think you get it. I don't demonize sex in any way, so personally I consider modifying a suit to be a new color to be in the same category as adding a SPH to it. I don't think anyone else here is letting their emotions cloud their judgments except _you. _We keep seeing walls of text yet you keep recycling the same arguments.
> 
> *Again, unless an artist makes a buyer sign something that prohibits them from altering it in specific ways, you don't have a right to BAWWWW when someone has gotten the impression that buying something means they own it and can do what they want with it.*



Adding giant tits, or dangly bits, or a vagina to a costume has implications on the maker that simply changing part of the color does not. Refer to an earlier statement. Don't try to make comparisons that are not relevant.

Are you trying insinuate that I only have an issue because I demonize sex some how? Wow, that is almost as rich as being told that since I don't like inflation art I somehow hate fat people. You furries never cease to amuse me. This is not an issue of demonizing sex. This is an issue of respect, and an issue of the implications of a new thing that is going to be allowed. I don't want artists being forced to sit and bite the bullet when their suits they make for people are turned into giant walking sex toys and advertised on FA.  We should have say, if anything, at least with that.

I get it perfectly. I have been calm, and civil, and logical the entire time I have posted here. In response I have been effectually told by a person who is now acting like a child throwing a tantrum because something might stop him from getting getting is rocks off, that Fursuit Makers are not on the same par as drawing artists even though fursuit making is a form of sculpture. Therefore suit makers have no say over what is done with the art the created.

If an drawing artist makes a picture, and FA rules allow him/her to make the buyer take it down because they altered it, than suit makers should have the same option when the same issue comes up.

Tell me, how is a fursuit any different then a drawn character commission? The only real difference is the medium used to create them. That is it. I see no reason why one should be treated less than the other, especially when it comes to things like the topic at hand.

You would not tell a drawing artist to shut up when they request that a picture they were paid to make for someone was altered would you?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 24, 2009)

wolfbird said:


> @Trpdwarf:
> 
> I still don't think you get it. I don't demonize sex in any way, so personally I consider modifying a suit to be a new color to be in the same category as adding a SPH to it. I don't think anyone else here is letting their emotions cloud their judgements except _you. _We keep seeing walls of text yet you keep recycling the same arguments.
> 
> *Again, unless an artist makes a buyer sign something that prohibits them from altering it in specific ways, you don't have a right to BAWWWW when someone has gotten the impression that buying something means they own it and can do what they want with it.*



I think Trpdwarf has a point though. Any artist would probably feel offended if someone doodled a penis on a clean illustration without permission. Even artists get huffy over redlines (or showing corrections on his/her work in red). 

I don't think Trpdwarf has a problem per say of the person of altering it for sex if for *private* use. The problem is posting it on FA because then it's public and different than the agreement. 

It would be in the best interest of both parties however, to outline that in the agreement beforehand, so people aren't dealing with the *ahem* sloppy seconds later.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 24, 2009)

wolfbird said:


> @Trpdwarf:
> 
> I still don't think you get it. I don't demonize sex in any way, so personally I consider modifying a suit to be a new color to be in the same category as adding a SPH to it. I don't think anyone else here is letting their emotions cloud their judgements except _you. _We keep seeing walls of text yet you keep recycling the same arguments.
> 
> *Again, unless an artist makes a buyer sign something that prohibits them from altering it in specific ways, you don't have a right to BAWWWW when someone has gotten the impression that buying something means they own it and can do what they want with it.*



Are you trying insinuate that I only have an issue because I demonize sex some how? Wow, that is almost as rich as being told that since I don't like inflation art I somehow hate fat people. You furries never cease to amuse me. This is not an issue of demonizing sex. This is an issue of respect, and an issue of the implications of a new thing that is going to be allowed.

I get it perfectly. I have been calm, and civil, and logical the entire time I have posted here. In response I have been effectually told by a person who is now acting like a child throwing a tantrum because something might stop him from getting what he wants, that Fursuit Makers are not on the same par as drawing artists even though fursuit making is a form of sculpture. Therefore suit makers have no say over what is done with the art the created.

If an drawing artist makes a picture, and FA rules allow him/her to make the buyer take it down because they altered it, than suit makers should have the same option when the same issue comes up.

Tell me, how is a fursuit any different then a drawn character commission? The only real difference is the medium used to create them. That is it. I see no reason why one should be treated less than the other, especially when it comes to things like the topic at hand.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 24, 2009)

wolfbird said:


> In responses to posts #405 (Trpdwarf) and #408 (Quiet269)...
> 
> Quiet has a point. If I buy something from someone I expect to be allowed to do whatever I want with said item UNLESS I sign a contract with the seller about prohibited uses. If I sell something, I will REQUIRE buyers to consent to a contract if I decide to get my panties in a twist about some activity of theirs (be it adding genitals, reprinting it in poster format, recoloring something to suit a friend's character, making it into a tshirt, etc).
> 
> I can understand where Trpdwarf is coming from, it would also not make me very happy to see something I worked hard on and sold be modified by the buyer because they deemed it "not good enough" in some way or another, but you know... that's life sometimes. If you never, ever want people to modify things you've made maybe being a freelance furry artist is the wrong profession for you. If I was buying art of someone it would be because I enjoy their style, not because of the price tag. *If said artist has beefs with what I want to do with it afterwards, well... I guess it's not that important to them if they didn't put it in writing.*



With dealing with Fursuits, you can modify it because you spent your money on it, but understand this. Modifying it also null and voids your warranty if something happens to it and it needs to be repaired, some companies have this listed in their FAQ. If you didn't read it before altering the suit and you fucked something up, your fault. You are better off finding someone who makes Yiff suits, like Noble Wolf.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 24, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> I think Trpdwarf has a point though. Any artist would probably feel offended if someone doodled a penis on a clean illustration without permission. Even artists get huffy over redlines (or showing corrections on his/her work in red).
> 
> I don't think Trpdwarf has a problem per say of the person of altering it for sex if for *private* use. The problem is posting it on FA because then it's public and different than the agreement.
> 
> It would be in the best interest of both parties however, to outline that in the agreement beforehand, so people aren't dealing with the *ahem* sloppy seconds later.



You are right in that I don't really have a problem if the alteration is made for private use. I simply ask that people should keep that private. If they choose to post it on FA, they need to contact the artist first and get their permission to post since it was altered in that way..

I just want to know that that in the case of sloppy seconds, as you call it, FA will side with the suit maker as they probably would with a drawing artist in the same boat.

It is true that perhaps it would make it easier for both parties to come to a agreement/contract before hand. However, if you do not have the option of "Yiff suits" on your site, it is assumed you don't make them. Therefore it is up to the person commissioning to bring up that he or she might consider altering the finished product, or asking if it is possible to get the suit maker to do it. Sometimes they don't actively advertise it but are willing if asked...such as Scribble Fox.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 24, 2009)

I just closely looked at the revised rules, and this discussion may be null and void now.

According to the By You For You policy, technically a modified suit is not original art. Therefore you cannot technically post it. Zooming in on altered bits of a costume still is not original work unless you take the altered bits off the costume and show case it alone. When on the costume it is not original work.


----------



## wolfbird (Jan 24, 2009)

@Trpdwarf:

It really seems as if you do. "Ew, gross, someone put bits on my suit!" is the general impression I am getting. IMO, you are allowed to be turned on or grossed out by whatever you want, but that's not the point here.

Suits, drawn art, 3D, clay sculptures, etc etc.. whatever. It's all art. Again, if you sell something it belongs to the other person. It doesn't change the fact you did it, but unless it is _explicitly agreed _that you cannot do certain things to it*, the argument of "you can't do that" doesn't hold water. (*modifying it for whatever purpose you want, uploading an image publicly showing off the item that was creating for you and modified by you). 

Suit modification takes effort and skill on the whole. Even if someone is simply cuts a hole in it or pads it a certain way, they're still modifying something that was created specially for them (which abides by the AUP policy). Now, if Random Furry #1 was to take a Scribble suit image they found online and photoshop in some testicles.. no, that's not cool. Random Furry did not pay Scribble for the item in question. Scribble would have a right to get pissed off. 

IMO, when you sell something you are saying "this is yours now, I made it just for you. Now give me the money". It's not a matter of respect, it's business. As an artist, I accept that when someone pays me for something my control over said item goes out the window so I choose not to worry about what people do with their own stuff. Put harshly, I understand that by accepting a payment in exchange for a commission means "dear Wolfbird, shut up. This is mine now". And that's just fine with me. _Anything_ that I create for someone (be it a gift or a commission) can be modified by the recipient and the recipient only in whatever way they choose. Sure, I might not be happy if someone adds penis tentacles to it, but hey.. it's theirs now. If I wanted to safeguard my creations for ever and ever against modification in any form I'd leave them off the internet and not sell myself out commissioners. Just a thought. 

So yeah, I've said my piece. I'd suggest that artists as a whole start drawing up end user agreements to avoid this mess in the first place if one cannot trust their own friends or clients not to do things one doesn't approve of.


----------



## wolfbird (Jan 24, 2009)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> With dealing with Fursuits, you can modify it because you spent your money on it, but understand this. Modifying it also null and voids your warranty if something happens to it and it needs to be repaired, some companies have this listed in their FAQ. If you didn't read it before altering the suit and you fucked something up, your fault. You are better off finding someone who makes Yiff suits, like Noble Wolf.




I'm not arguing that at all and yes, it is agreed. It is not OK to hack something up in a way the original artist is uncomfortable with yet expect them to clean up after you.


----------



## Ozriel (Jan 24, 2009)

wolfbird said:


> I'm not arguing that at all and yes, it is agreed. It is not OK to hack something up in a way the original artist is uncomfortable with yet expect them to clean up after you.



And that is what Trpdwarf is trying to say. 
It's also part of business ethics. The person has their company label on that suit, so if they saw someone who posted a suit that was altered on their customer's gallery, then yes, they do have some rights to ask for it to be taken down. If you baw about it, then the person who made the suit can go to the mods to have it taken down after the person had asked the customer to do so.

Most people who make PG suits would not want to be associated with the stigma of making "Sex Cosplay" suits. It can harm their reputation and their Business.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 24, 2009)

wolfbird said:


> @Trpdwarf:
> 
> It really seems as if you do. "Ew, gross, someone put bits on my suit!" is the general impression I am getting. IMO, you are allowed to be turned on or grossed out by whatever you want, but that's not the point here.
> 
> ...



First of all, I have stated over and over again that I have no issue with altering it so long as it is kept private. It never ceases to amaze me though how furries are special in that they insist on making what they do in their bedroom known to everyone more so than any other group out there.

That said, you have rights to what you create, whether you are aware of it or not.  That is because anyone can take what you create and effectively turn it against you. All it takes is one association from an altered piece to slander and ruin your name forever in a society that at the same time glorifies and demonized sex and fetish's

It does not help that as a furrie for 9 years, I know what people are capable of doing once they get one thing to run with it.

You have a right to do what you want with what you buy...the person who makes it has a right to protect their company name and face in the public eye and decide exactly what will and will not be associated with them. Hence why super man costumes come with labels "Warning, this costume does not enable you to fly." The company does not want to be associated with idiots, or come under the fire of a retard parent stupid enough to sue them for "Not warning it doesn't make you fly".

That the company even has to put that warning down is ridiculous. Just like being told that unless I specifically state "You cannot alter it for yiff" I cannot say anything when it gets altered and slapped online for the world to see.

What next? Going to tell me that I cannot tell someone to not sue me,  when I did not state the lion costume I made does not make one look like a real lion and fit in with a real pride. Some things are implied. Deal with it. Don't come crying to me if you got your face mauled off by thinking your costume makes you a real lion. Don't tell me I cannot say that because it wasn't stated in contract with a mutual agreement.

If you take a suit I made, or with some other person in the same boat and they want the photo's taken down because they don't want that association(the alteration) with their work, deal with it.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 24, 2009)

The difference between the art commission and the fursuit commission is that the artist made sure that the person who commissioned the art knew that they cannot alter it. You have admitted flat out that you do not.

Or am I wrong here somewhere?


EDIT:


Trpdwarf said:


> First of all, I have stated over and over again that I have no issue with altering it so long as it is kept private. It never ceases to amaze me though how furries are special in that they insist on making what they do in their bedroom known to everyone more so than any other group out there.
> 
> That said, you have rights to what you create, whether you are aware of it or not. That is because anyone can take what you create and effectively turn it against you. All it takes is one association from an altered piece to slander and ruin your name forever in a society that at the same time glorifies and demonized sex and fetish's


*What is a work made for hire?*
Although the general rule is that the person who creates the work is its author, there is an exception to that principle; the exception is a work made for hire, which is a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or a work specially ordered or commissioned in certain specified circumstances. When a work qualifies as a work made for hire, the employer, or commissioning party, is considered to be the author.




Trpdwarf said:


> It does not help that as a furrie for 9 years, I know what people are capable of doing once they get one thing to run with it.
> 
> You have a right to do what you want with what you buy...the person who makes it has a right to protect their company name and face in the public eye and decide exactly what will and will not be associated with them. Hence why super man costumes come with labels "Warning, this costume does not enable you to fly." The company does not want to be associated with idiots, or come under the fire of a retard parent stupid enough to sue them for "Not warning it doesn't make you fly".
> 
> ...


 You could simply ask them to put "Author requested that they not be named" I've seen people do it with cub art before.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 24, 2009)

EDIT: double post, srry


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 25, 2009)

EDITED

You said you no longed wanted to discuss with me, therefore be as good as your word, Quiet. Be quiet.

I shall do the same since if the current revision of the rules seem to state a no, to sexually modified suits. I can understands perhaps the biggest implication being that you cannot moderate what age the person under the costume is. With that said this discussion is, for now, pointless. Have a good day.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 25, 2009)

I said unless you could bring in a new argument , which you actually did do.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 25, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> I said unless you could bring in a new argument , which you actually did do.



True...

But there is no point discussing further this. Unless you want to try to argue FA should do something that could implicate huge legality issues, not in the favor of FA.

I'm not saying "No sex modified suits"...I'd be fine with it so long as there are rules and the staff thing it out. But you cannot ensure that there isn't an underage minor inside that costume, so it's safer to just say no than possibly lose the entire site to make just a few people happy for a short period of time.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 25, 2009)

I believe one of us is misunderstanding the rules. In regards to Suits with bits. With how I read the AUP, and from what I think dragoneer confirmed to me, Sexually modified suits are OK as long as no exposed human Breasts Genitalia or Buttocks are in the picture.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 25, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> I believe one of us is misunderstanding the rules. In regards to Suits with bits. With how I read the AUP, and from what I think dragoneer confirmed to me, Sexually modified suits are OK as long as no exposed human Breasts Genitalia or Buttocks are in the picture.



Are you not reading? Even if it allows things that don't show what you listed, what concerns me, suits commissioned from tame suit makers, and then sexually altered and posted on FA do not (an argument can be made) meet the by you for you policy.

It's not original work it can be argued.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 25, 2009)

Note: just because it passes one rule doesn't mean it passes all of them 

It could be allowed by A but denied by B


----------



## Stormslegacy (Jan 29, 2009)

On the fursuit issue, I would agree with what I think Quiet was originally trying to say:

The fursuit itself is an original creation, but so too is the character portrayed by both the design and the person within it's actions.  

IF the focus of the photo is the fursuit, then yes, it would be wrong for the person to claim anything other than character design and/or ownership.  However, I disagree with the notion that they cannot modify their suit as they see fit UNLESS there was a contract explicitly stating so.  Once you have a contract, then yes, you have a bone to pick (or remove in this case ^_~) but before that, laws of "politeness and decency" don't really apply.  

If I buy handmade clothes of Etsy, it is totally within my right to modify them, wear them as I see fit and even take pictures as long as I never claim that the clothes are 100% made by me.  Tacky?  Maybe, but not against any law.  I can even take a sweater with "Old Navy" written across the front, use fabric paint and add penises everywhere and wear it down the street.  Even though I'm sure they don't want their name associated with that weirdo girl with the penises, they sold the physical entity of shirt with their name on it.

I'm not saying that it doesn't suck (or even that I would do that myself), but as the laws themselves are written that's the general way of the world.  Creating a fursuit is an art, but so is acting and the portrayal of the character, so I would argue that photographs where someone is using a fursuit that was made for them in a way unintended by the maker do not fall under copyright law, especially as the character design itself would often be attributable to the commissioner, not to mention the acting.

But then, I'm just speculating and adding to the discussion, I have no idea what FA's stance on the matter is.  As far as I understand of the rules myself, it's not forbidden.


----------



## barisax (Feb 1, 2009)

I have a question. say I take a screenshot and alter it like this 
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1829945/ 
Are pics like these limited to 3 since you could consider them a collage since it uses 2 or more pics combined and edited/blended together. And what about images posted BEFORE the new AUP went into effect?


----------



## Quiet269 (Feb 2, 2009)

barisax said:


> I have a question. say I take a screenshot and alter it like this
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1829945/
> Are pics like these limited to 3 since you could consider them a collage since it uses 2 or more pics combined and edited/blended together. And what about images posted BEFORE the new AUP went into effect?



If you have altered the image enough to consider it User Created Content, then you can post more than 3. This was answered awhile back in the thread... though no real answer as to what is User Created Content has been fully explained... IMO...


----------



## barisax (Feb 2, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> If you have altered the image enough to consider it User Created Content, then you can post more than 3. This was answered awhile back in the thread... though no real answer as to what is User Created Content has been fully explained... IMO...




Okies thanks :3 and they are heavily altered.


----------



## Vincent Oroscoe (Feb 14, 2009)

straydog said:


> I like how lots of people, who are now offended by the new rules because it affronts on their ability to 'contribute', are so insanely butthurt over the fact that the people who run, pay for, and manage something they're using FOR FREE, want to have more control over how their resources are being used. I guess everyone forgot that using FA isn't a right, it's a courtesy/privilege/whatever. So much for looking a gift horse in the mouth, or whatever the saying is.


Uh huh, that's also why there's that little widget telling us how much money we (a.k.a average users) raised to cover the cost of this site too. Yeah, it's 'free' for the average users alright. Yep. :| 
While using FA is a privilege to use, that goes both ways for us normal users AND those who do the technical/administrative work as far as I'm concerned. If we were using this site for free that stupid widget telling us the percentage raised for the monthly bill wouldn't exist, now would it?

*Edit* I know this is using a fairly old quote in terms of this thread, but to me this opinion is somewhat of a Catch-22; the site is supposed to be free to us, but if NOBODY on FA donated for, say, a year, I doubt Dragoneer and the other mods would foot the bill, and if they did FA would have to downgrade at least SOME of the equipment used. 
I'm not trying to start drama or anything, just wanted to say my piece.


----------



## Roland (Feb 15, 2009)

Vincent Oroscoe said:


> Uh huh, that's also why there's that little widget telling us how much money we (a.k.a average users) raised to cover the cost of this site too. Yeah, it's 'free' for the average users alright. Yep. :|
> While using FA is a privilege to use, that goes both ways for us normal users AND those who do the technical/administrative work as far as I'm concerned. If we were using this site for free that stupid widget telling us the percentage raised for the monthly bill wouldn't exist, now would it?



By users, for users.  You are not being forced to donate.  People are donating because it helps the site and it is not exactly fair to the people running it if they are not making much profit from the actual site itself.  The widget is a representation of the people that donated willingly.  It's not forcing you to do anything, so just deal with the fact that there's a little 100 x 50 pixel image underneath all the advertising and enjoy your free FA (because it's obvious you're not contributing anything, so why do you bother?).


----------



## footpervert (Mar 15, 2009)

Can you upload pictures and videos created using Poser or Daz Studio that feature the Krystal model if it is changed so that it longer resembles her?


----------



## footpervert (Mar 15, 2009)

Nevermind, I see now. You people don't consider it art either. Well then, fuck you. I try to share, and be nice, and every f'ing time, I get shit thrown in my face. Well not anymore. I'll be greedy and selfish and never share then.


----------



## Toaster (Mar 15, 2009)

footpervert said:


> Nevermind, I see now. You people don't consider it art either. Well then, fuck you. I try to share, and be nice, and every f'ing time, I get shit thrown in my face. Well not anymore. I'll be greedy and selfish and never share then.



Dear Mr.Fufag,

Your welcome Mr.furfag; I see you found the text format  drop down menu. Please do not use it because the staff here are VERY greedy when it comes to people using features  on their free porn hosting site that was made for people like you.

Have a nice day,

Signed Ornias


----------



## Aden (Mar 15, 2009)

footpervert said:


> I'll be greedy and selfish and never share then.



If only some other furries had this mindset...


----------



## TigressMin (Jul 26, 2009)

Alright, I am hoping here is where I can get some answers. I asked my watch list, and I am still a bit confused.

So what defines a collaboration? I have a few bits of artwork, in which I digitally colored somone's free line-art. I have permission to use the line art, as long as proper credit is given. So is this considered a collaboration? I guess I'm just not clear on the actual idea of what defines a collaboration and the difference it would be with simply having permission to use someone elses line-art. 

Sorry if this is so obvious, but I'm just a bit confused and not wanting to break any of the policies.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 26, 2009)

TigressMin said:


> Alright, I am hoping here is where I can get some answers. I asked my watch list, and I am still a bit confused.
> 
> So what defines a collaboration? I have a few bits of artwork, in which I digitally colored somone's free line-art. I have permission to use the line art, as long as proper credit is given. So is this considered a collaboration? I guess I'm just not clear on the actual idea of what defines a collaboration and the difference it would be with simply having permission to use someone elses line-art.
> 
> Sorry if this is so obvious, but I'm just a bit confused and not wanting to break any of the policies.


Yes, that's still considered a collaboration.


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 26, 2009)

TigressMin said:


> I guess I'm just not clear on the actual idea of what defines a collaboration and the difference it would be with simply having permission to use someone elses line-art.



The difference, makes no difference with regards to the "For You" clause in stated policy.

Generally speaking, collaborations are generally agreed upon _before_ any work on the project actually commences.  If artist A sketches a lineart and _later_ artist B asks if they can color it in, this is not a collaboration in that sense of the term, nonetheless if artist A gives permission for B then the end result is acceptable just the same.


----------



## TigressMin (Jul 26, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Yes, that's still considered a collaboration.



Thank you so much for the quick response ^_^


----------

