# Multiple people posting to one gallery?



## Buck_Sawyer (May 15, 2006)

Hi there,

I have made a gallery called Erotic_Equine, and I plan on having my artist friends upload equine themed art to it. 

Is there a problem for the system to get log ins from different IP's to the same account?

Also, can you please verify if photo morphs are allowed on FA?


----------



## Ashkihyena (May 15, 2006)

I'm kinda hoping about this as well, sort of making a club until the club features get (if ever) activated to make up for what Y!G did.


----------



## Vgm22 (May 15, 2006)

chrissawyer said:
			
		

> Also, can you please verify if photo morphs are allowed on FA?



Yes that they are. I've seen a lot of photo morphs on FA. You'll be good posting them.


----------



## Buck_Sawyer (May 15, 2006)

Thanks guys. And yes, a community ala Y! Gallery would be wonderful.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 15, 2006)

chrissawyer said:
			
		

> Thanks guys. And yes, a community ala Y! Gallery would be wonderful.


We are discussing clubs and how to implement them currently. Personally, I would suggest holding off a few weeks until we can perform out code audit, fix bugs and revise features (and then implement clubs). At this time I can't gaurantee security of sharing an account and would advise against it.

Aka, if somebody goes in and deletes all your posts with your password there's nothing that we can do about it. Clubs will have security associated with them.


----------



## Buck_Sawyer (May 15, 2006)

Thanks!

I have given the PW to that one account to some close friends, so I don't think there will be any security issue. I am not going to give it out to random people who ask.

Also, when you do get a club feature going, can I get a heads up?

I own a copyright on "Erotic Equine" and I want to grab that community when it comes up.

But since I already have that user, maybe some help in turning it into a community would be possible?

Thanks much.


----------



## Dragoneer (May 15, 2006)

chrissawyer said:
			
		

> Thanks!
> 
> I have given the PW to that one account to some close friends, so I don't think there will be any security issue. I am not going to give it out to random people who ask.
> 
> ...


Just note if people are posting art by various artists they NEED to give credit where credit is due.


----------



## Buck_Sawyer (May 15, 2006)

Only art created by the individual artist will be uploaded.

That's why every artist involved has the the PW. So they can make thier own upload, and they put their name in the title.


----------



## dave hyena (May 15, 2006)

chrissawyer said:
			
		

> I own a copyright on "Erotic Equine"



A real honest to god lawyerised copyright thingy wotsit?

Does it mean that no one can use the term vis. furry fap materiel without your permission or something?


----------



## Buck_Sawyer (May 15, 2006)

Yes, sweetie. 

I paid a lawyer to make it so that nobody can "fap off" to erotic equine unless they send me a buck.

However, I suggest you spend a buck on a few online etiquette lessons, m'kay?


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 15, 2006)

Vgm22 said:
			
		

> chrissawyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well if they're erotic ones They'll need a model release, no if ands or "butts"  because of current law. Those hosting images of the likeness of people without such releases can get them in violation of the law since it can also amount to defamation of character.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter12/12-c.html


----------



## Grave (May 15, 2006)

chrissawyer said:
			
		

> I own a copyright on "Erotic Equine"



Are you serious or just yanking our chains?


----------



## Vgm22 (May 15, 2006)

*RE:   Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Grave said:
			
		

> chrissawyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's what I'd like to know. I can't tell if he's joking or serious. Plus can you even do that?


----------



## Grave (May 15, 2006)

Vgm22 said:
			
		

> Grave said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would imagine that if you said the words "Erotic Equine" to a real laywer their response would be one of shock and horror cos theyd think you was talking about horse porn id imagine...


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 15, 2006)

*RE:   Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Vgm22 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not sure if erotic photomanips should be allowed since proving that the manipulated subject is of legal age would be difficult to do.


----------



## Vgm22 (May 15, 2006)

*RE:    Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Arshes Nei said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well photomorphin is an art, but erotic photmorps goes against the TOS, I think. I know that there is discussion about it in the one there with a user name TORO. I'll leave it up to the admins to decide what's good or not for the subject of erotic photomorphs.


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 15, 2006)

Grave said:
			
		

> chrissawyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well it must be a joke because you can't copyright Phrases, you have to *trademark* them lol.


----------



## Grave (May 15, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Well it must be a joke because you can't copyright Phrases, you have to *trademark* them lol.



AH, that is true! Forgot all about that!


----------



## Vgm22 (May 15, 2006)

Same here. I ish dumb.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 15, 2006)

*RE:     Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Vgm22 said:
			
		

> silverwolfe said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Even if the manip. is a full manip., where the model isn't even recognizable, the genitalia is still illegal to be there if the model (during the time of the photograph) is under age.  Because it's hard to accurately and truthfully get the age of a person, let alone an unrecognizable model, I don't think they should be allowed.


----------



## Vgm22 (May 15, 2006)

_[ed:uncia] for trimmed quotes!_


			
				silverwolf said:
			
		

> Even if the manip. is a full manip., where the model isn't even recognizable, the genitalia is still illegal to be there if the model (during the time of the photograph) is under age.  Because it's hard to accurately and truthfully get the age of a person, let alone an unrecognizable model, I don't think they should be allowed.



Plus that is against the TOS anyway. Like you said in that one thread. It'll get dealt with and if anymore pop up in the future it'll get dealt with to.


----------



## Swampwulf (May 16, 2006)

I would not presume to speak for Mr. Sawyer, but when I read the post, his use of the word copyright struck me more as a 'I call first dibs!' rather than a legal claim of ownership of trademark.

Being as he conceived the 'Erotic Equine' fan-base many months ago on LJ, and recently planted a seed of the same name in the Y!Gallery Clubs (before it all went south) I think that his simple request to be the moderator of a group of the same name here would be a matter of courtesy and respect rather than the object of nitpicking and distain by Senior Verbose Bitches.

but wtf do I know?
I'm just some guy.


----------



## uncia2000 (May 16, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> I would not presume to speak for Mr. Sawyer, but when I read the post, his use of the word copyright struck me more as a 'I call first dibs!' rather than a legal claim of ownership of trademark.
> 
> Being as he conceived the 'Erotic Equine' fan-base many months ago on LJ, and recently planted a seed of the same name in the Y!Gallery Clubs (before it all went south) I think that his simple request to be the moderator of a group of the same name here would be a matter of courtesy and respect rather than the object of nitpicking and distain by Senior Verbose Bitches.
> 
> ...


_*is listening*_ (sorry; just busy... or rather, should be waking up from sleep at 7.30am, not thinking about it...).
Always have time to listen to common sense and I know you have that in abundance, Swampwulf.

Agreed. Common sense and decency would be nice to add in to the equation so that we don't have stupid cybersquatting squabbles. Presuming the names have to be unique, of course!

Hmm... still not 100% sure on best "Group" design, comparing with what I've seen on Y! and elsewhere, but the principle for building up communities/subcommunities is very strong indeed.
Hence the "value" placed on a given label is understandable. 

jm-02c

-

*prrr*
_Greymuzzle indeed... like I have any choice! *g* thx ^^_


----------



## dave hyena (May 16, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> I would not presume to speak for Mr. Sawyer, but when I read the post, his use of the word copyright struck me more as a 'I call first dibs!' rather than a legal claim of ownership of trademark.



It's important that we all fully understand the issues involved with copyrights and trademarks. Esp. when people may try to wield them as a stick to beat others with. 

In this case it seems it's a dead letter anyway because you can't copyright phrases.


----------



## ArrowTibbs (May 16, 2006)

I vote for a new title based on posts: Fender's Verbose Senior Bitch ;P

In any case, group accounts would be wonderful to have. Having never been to a Y! gallery account all I can offer as ideas are these:

1. Ability for members to post and edit their own submissions.
- Should include: Name of submitter automatically added (which would link back to the submitter's gallery).
2. Message board for members.
- Should include: Ability for administrator and moderators to tag topics as sticky.
3. Ability for administrator/owner to appoint moderators (who could boot members from the group if need be).

Should probably be done on an application basis, just an accept/deny sort of thing.


----------



## Swampwulf (May 16, 2006)

Thank you.
After the recent Y!G debacle I would hope that furfolks would have learned to show a bit of courtesy to one another as it seems in short supply most everywhere else.

It seems sometimes that the downfall of many a good idea isn't lack of communication, but rather the quality of that communication.


----------



## Swampwulf (May 16, 2006)

*RE:  Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> I vote for a new title based on posts: Fender's Verbose Senior Bitch ;P


Wait!
I copyright the phrase 'Verbose Senior Bitch'! 

Darn.
There I go coming up with something clever and I don't even get a cookie for it.


----------



## Swampwulf (May 16, 2006)

*RE:   Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> It's important that we all fully understand the issues involved with copyrights and trademarks. Esp. when people may try to wield them as a stick to beat others with.
> 
> In this case it seems it's a dead letter anyway because you can't copyright phrases.



Spreading knowledge is almost always a good thing.
We agree on that utterly.

However, in my furry little corner of the universe, Mr. Sawyer might as well 'own' the franchise for 'Erotic Equine' because I would consider anyone else's use to be a knock-off (if you will).

I have, through his use of the phrase, and his Championing of the idea, come to associate it with him.

It would bother me if some twelve year old ( who happened to have been born 20+ years ago) decided to 'take' that name for a group here, thus discouraging a fantastic artists like him to step away from the fandom even just a little bit.

It pains me to see creative minds stifled by bureaucracy and legalese designed to protect the lowest common denominator of any given group.


Those of us *with* the knowledge and skills to ease the way for them, as you perhaps seem to be, might better serve your goal of education by presenting solutions rather then snide criticisms.

not a 'Hon'

Red


----------



## ArrowTibbs (May 16, 2006)

*RE:   Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Swampwulf said:
			
		

> ArrowTibbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*cue kiddy voice* Nuh-uh! You said Senior Verbose Bitch!


----------



## Swampwulf (May 16, 2006)

*laughs*
*gives Tibbs a cookie*


----------



## uncia2000 (May 16, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> Darn.
> There I go coming up with something clever and I don't even get a cookie for it.


_*hands da fine 'wulf a cookie*_ 

Yeah, plenty to talk about, no doubt, and _hopefully_ some good quality communication before, during and after decisions are made. Not that that is always possible to the n'th degree.
The community is the sum of the users not the owner/tech/admin/whatevers, IMHO...

_*heads off to work*/g'night y'all ^^_


----------



## Swampwulf (May 16, 2006)

*RE:    Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				uncia2000 said:
			
		

> Yeah, plenty to talk about, no doubt, and _hopefully_ some good quality communication before, during and after decisions are made. Not that that is always possible to the n'th degree.
> The community is the sum of the users not the owner/tech/admin/whatevers, IMHO...



You are wise in many things Greymuzzle.

_chomps his cookie_

Mmmm... Verbose, Senior, * and * bitchy...


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 16, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> Spreading knowledge is almost always a good thing.
> We agree on that utterly.
> 
> However, in my furry little corner of the universe, Mr. Sawyer might as well 'own' the franchise for 'Erotic Equine' because I would consider anyone else's use to be a knock-off (if you will).
> ...



Trademarks at minimum cost $200, and you have to correctly demonstrate a commercial use for such a phrase. Although there has been a lot of crossover due to mass merchandising with various forms of entertainment, merely owning the name would not equate to being a knockoff. 

Also, just because the internet is international, doesn't mean trademarks are.

If I owned a studio that was called Erotic Equine that was just about a series of various games, he'd have no standing. The mere phrase can be used in a variety of ways outside the scope of what certain people would like to pidgenhole this to.

If a company that made britches for horses in heat was also titled Erotic Equine there is also no legal standing.



> It would bother me if some twelve year old ( who happened to have been born 20+ years ago) decided to 'take' that name for a group here, thus discouraging a fantastic artists like him to step away from the fandom even just a little bit.
> 
> It pains me to see creative minds stifled by bureaucracy and legalese designed to protect the lowest common denominator of any given group.



The above makes no sense, considering, the reason creativity is being stifled is because everyone is trying to broaden the scope of what is ownership. Soon people will copyright hairstyles and how they draw finger swirls and we can get down to more bickering. .... Wait already see it happening.

Copyrights and Trademarks were to help creative folk not to get screwed over, not to screw over other creative folk in the process. A mere phrase cannot possibly squelch the realms of creativity, and if it does, we truly live in a sad, sad world.



> Those of us *with* the knowledge and skills to ease the way for them, as you perhaps seem to be, might better serve your goal of education by presenting solutions rather then snide criticisms.
> 
> not a 'Hon'
> 
> Red



Perhaps, but then people are so sensitive when it comes to areas where it is not their expertise also known as ignorance (though people dislike the latter because they consider it an insulting word, though the definition just merely means you don't have knowledge in a certain area - we are all ignorant to some degree), responses to this issue can be seen as a "snide criticism".


----------



## Swampwulf (May 16, 2006)

*RE:     Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Trademarks at minimum cost $200, and you have to correctly demonstrate a commercial use for such a phrase.
> <snip>



So, for someone that produces, free of charge, works that are aimed at a limited, specialized marker ( i.e. 'Furries') then they're basically S.O.L.?
They *could* drop $200 for a modicum of protection so that they can give away something crafted out of love and simply be walked over?
I ask this out of genuine curiosity and a desire to understand, not to simply be argumentative.



> The above makes no sense, considering, the reason creativity is being stifled is because everyone is trying to broaden the scope of what is ownership. Soon people will copyright hairstyles and how they draw finger swirls and we can get down to more bickering. .... Wait already see it happening.
> 
> Copyrights and Trademarks were to help creative folk not to get screwed over, not to screw over other creative folk in the process. A mere phrase cannot possibly squelch the realms of creativity, and if it does, we truly live in a sad, sad world.



A mere phrase, presented (or even taken) in certain contexts *can* easily squelch creativity.
Trust me on this one.
It's happened to me.

... and I've grown, over the years, more and more convinced that we *do* in fact live in a sad, sad world.
I struggle every waking moment to make it a better one for those that I come in contact with.

Thank you for helping ease my lack of knowledge, Miss Arshes.
Going back to my previous thoughts on the subject, do you see a simple solution to *this* quandry?
Should we simply shrug our shoulders and say too bad when someone 'takes' a group name or manages to snag a popular artists 'nom de fur' before they can?

I can't think of a time that I've seen this happen yet, but knowing the level of immaturity and spitefulness that seems to ( unfortunately) be an undercurrent to the anthro-community I can imagine it'll happen sooner or later.

Perhaps some forethought by Admins/Mods/Leaders (such as yourself) on this matter might be a helpful guide to the rest of us.

Thank you for your time and for addressing this in a serious, well thought out manner.
I'm sure we're all in your debt.

peace!

Red


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 16, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> So, for someone that produces, free of charge, works that are aimed at a limited, specialized marker ( i.e. 'Furries') then they're basically S.O.L.?
> They *could* drop $200 for a modicum of protection so that they can give away something crafted out of love and simply be walked over?
> I ask this out of genuine curiosity and a desire to understand, not to simply be argumentative.



Well yes, Furry is too broad a scope. If he was catering to a certain erotic club with specific commercial functions, and you don't want someone else using it I can understand, but yeah someone else merely having the name within the genre shouldn't be a problem.




> Thank you for helping ease my lack of knowledge, Miss Arshes.
> Going back to my previous thoughts on the subject, do you see a simple solution to *this* quandry?
> Should we simply shrug our shoulders and say too bad when someone 'takes' a group name or manages to snag a popular artists 'nom de fur' before they can?
> 
> ...



Well you have to understand now, it seems that our "economy" is too entertainment driven? When you do that, you start to oversaturate the market. This will cause more conflicts with ideas because well quite frankly many people do come up with similar ideas.

I don't think there's a simple solution other than changing your outlook on things, do you beat up the guy at prom because you wore the same tux? It's kinda the same with art, your artwork isn't always determined by creativity but persistence and quality, and treating your audience right.
I think people are too worried about the idea and not the content.

I don't think I can offer anything else besides that? x.x


----------



## dave hyena (May 17, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> we *do* in fact live in a sad, sad world.



A sad sad world where people will lie about having copyrighted phrases and where others will gloss over or positively support them in their lies, because oh lordy! they draw furry porn.

We should all remember that lies and groupthink are as damaging to a community as anything else can be.


----------



## Swampwulf (May 17, 2006)

*RE:       Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> Swampwulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, Could you repeat that?
 I missed it because I was too busy going back and re-reading that bit you said about *other* people wielding baseball bats on this subject.

Yes, you're right. Those two things are almost as damaging as people who confuse their opinion with facts.


----------



## dave hyena (May 17, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, Could you repeat that?
> I missed it because I was too busy going back and re-reading that bit you said about *other* people wielding baseball bats on this subject.



You cannot copyright phrases, thus someone was lying when they said:



			
				chrissawyer said:
			
		

> Thanks!
> 
> I have given the PW to that one account to some close friends, so I don't think there will be any security issue. I am not going to give it out to random people who ask.
> 
> ...


----------



## Swampwulf (May 17, 2006)

*RE:  Multiple people posting to one gallery?*

At the risk of repeating myself:




			
				Swampwulf said:
			
		

> I would not presume to speak for Mr. Sawyer, but when I read the post, his use of the word copyright struck me more as a 'I call first dibs!' rather than a legal claim of ownership of trademark.
> 
> Being as he conceived the 'Erotic Equine' fan-base many months ago on LJ, and recently planted a seed of the same name in the Y!Gallery Clubs (before it all went south) I think that his simple request to be the moderator of a group of the same name here would be a matter of courtesy and respect rather than the object of nitpicking and distain by Senior Verbose Bitches.
> 
> ...


----------



## dave hyena (May 17, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> At the risk of repeating myself:





			
				Swampwulf said:
			
		

> ...
> his use of the word copyright struck me more as a 'I call first dibs!'
> ...



He cleary stated ("I own a copyright on erotic equine") to have copyrighted a phrase, when you cannot in fact copyright a phrase. Thus he lied.

So why are you trying to gloss over this and make excuses for a lie?


----------



## Swampwulf (May 17, 2006)

*RE:    Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> He cleary stated ("I own a copyright on erotic equine") to have copyrighted a phrase, when you cannot in fact copyright a phrase. Thus he lied.
> 
> So why are you trying to gloss over this and make excuses for a lie?



I'm not trying to 'gloss over' anything.
It's called giving him the benefit of a doubt.

To paraphrase what you yourself noted earlier:
His skills lie in the graphical arts.

He draws.
He's not a writer.

Just because he's skilled with a pencil/pen/brush, that doesn't mean that he is equally as skilled with his choice of words.

What excuses are you making for completely missing his (perhaps poorly worded) point, and focusing on your need to berate him and now me? 
( other than that pole is shoved in a bit too deep? )


----------



## uncia2000 (May 17, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> What excuses are you making for completely missing his (perhaps poorly worded) point, and focusing on your need to berate him and now me?
> ( other than that pole is shoved in a bit too deep? )


*nods*. Was just perhaps poorly worded; both times.
Yeah, as noted above the key issue is that "value" placed on a given label is understandable.

I still don't see that it would be a problem to permit multiple groups with the same name, since that solves many potential issues whilst creating very few.
So long as the group list search panel/whatever(!) makes it nice and easy to view/choose those.
e.g.

(seq/name/creator-leadmod(?)/#members/date created)
000124 - Erotic Equine - chrissawyer - 245 - 12th June 2005
000143 - Erotic Equine - uncia2000 - 3 - 13th June 2005
001342 - Erotik Equinez - atroll - 1 - 1st April 2006

The group link could be it's sequence# - e.g. http://www.furaffinity.net/group/000124/ (just as easy to use as a name)

Group name could thus also be changed easily, if the community scope changed somewhat, or a better name was found.
The only proviso on that might be the idea /not/ to permit a group to be renamed to the exact same as that an existing group - i.e. avoids "stomping" - (and possibly admin call if there are vocal complaints that a group name has been changed to be a very similar name, within the first 14 days after a change, say; especially if the group that has changed its name is much larger than the pre-existing one).

All this might help to ensure the "rush for virtual property" is kept to a minimum and maximise flexibility thereafter.

How does that sound, anyhow, as a tentative framework?
(Not that I'm in the "we" who are discussing groups, apparently! )


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 17, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> I'm not trying to 'gloss over' anything.
> It's called giving him the benefit of a doubt.
> 
> To paraphrase what you yourself noted earlier:
> ...



To be fair, this is why a lot of drama starts, yes he may be an artist of visual talents versus the literal skills, but that really isn't any excuse to try to claim something incorrectly. You can't copyright a species, and just a character or a phrase. These take a combination of trademarks and/or copyrights. Images themselves are copyright, whereas the looks and likeness becomes a graphical icon which is trademarkable.

Having to get my own stuff set up through this process I've often had to read articles, and the more and more I understand, the more and more artists irritate me when they hear "copyright" but don't research it or ask people who are more knowledgable before claiming stuff.

It IS stifling creativity and production of artwork, even as saturated as it is currently.


----------



## Swampwulf (May 17, 2006)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I think people are too worried about the idea and not the content.



Uh, which is it then?
As a graphical artist who is simply interested in creating and sharing non-commercial art for a limited subset of the online community does he simply need to be creative or does he need to put down his art so that he can pick up a book so that he can learn about Copyright, Trademarks, Public Domain, and Creative Commons just so that he won't accidentally misuse a *single* word in a forum?

I have to agree with the quote of yours above, Miss Arshes.
I think that perhaps some folks have become too focused on 'the idea' and not the 'content' of what he was saying.


----------



## Swampwulf (May 17, 2006)

uncia2000 said:
			
		

> I still don't see that it would be a problem to permit multiple groups with the same name, since that solves many potential issues whilst creating very few.
> So long as the group list search panel/whatever(!) makes it nice and easy to view/choose those.
> e.g.
> 
> ...




To be honest Uncia it sounds entirely too reasonable!
I'll have to take the time ( after I get off work!) to go through and see if I can't wrap my feeble brain around what all you just said and see if I can't see any flaws in your logic.
I like the idea of the possibility of there being 'multiple groups of the same name, if not the same goal'.
It removes the stress of a group of folks who already have (literally!) 'Prior art' ( waits for Ashes screams for his use of that phrase:twisted: ) to keep the communities that they've already crafted whole and healthy, while allowing others with ideas different enough so that they don't feel included to express themselves.
That way folks get to have their cake and eat it too.

Allowing mods/Admin to retain the ability to 'veto' a group's name chance is simply sensible.


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 17, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> Uh, which is it then?
> As a graphical artist who is simply interested in creating and sharing non-commercial art for a limited subset of the online community does he simply need to be creative or does he need to put down his art so that he can pick up a book so that he can learn about Copyright, Trademarks, Public Domain, and Creative Commons just so that he won't accidentally misuse a *single* word in a forum?
> 
> I have to agree with the quote of yours above, Miss Arshes.
> I think that perhaps some folks have become too focused on 'the idea' and not the 'content' of what he was saying.



This is where I disagree, there is nothing wrong with researching things. However, this is where the problem occured:

To say you own a copyright on something means you went through the  research and did this legitimately. This is an actual process and in that there isn't a "misuse" of a word.

That would be like saying you own a certain make of car, yet somehow you don't own the legal title how can you legally prove you own something?

There isn't giving him a benefit of the doubt, specially on a lie like that :/

I mean look at his quote



			
				ChrisSawyer said:
			
		

> Yes, sweetie.
> 
> I paid a lawyer to make it so that nobody can "fap off" to erotic equine unless they send me a buck.
> 
> However, I suggest you spend a buck on a few online etiquette lessons, m'kay? Smile



Who did he pay that he got this wrong, I'd demand a refund


----------



## Grave (May 17, 2006)

Or maybe the dude was being sarcastic, joking, or just plain gave the wrong idea and maybe everyone should stfu about it? Sheesh...

Welcome to the FA forums Chris'!


----------



## Swampwulf (May 17, 2006)

Thank you Grave.
I'm glad to see that someone else 'got it' too.


Yes!
Welcome to the forums Chris! XD


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 17, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> Thank you Grave.
> I'm glad to see that someone else 'got it' too.
> 
> 
> ...



I think saying "of course it's a joke" many posts back kinda hinted to it, you were asking questions that I was addressing.


----------



## Swampwulf (May 17, 2006)

*RE:   Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Swampwulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and don't think that I don't appreciate that Miss Arshes!
I **DO**!

You've given me a lot to think about.
I can much more easily see that I'll never see a profit from any of my work.
(not that I'd ever planned on it anyhow!)

I know that my writings are protected under the the Berne and Stockholm Conventions, but for me to be able to actually *do* anything with them other than give them away would be prohibitively complicated and expensive.

hence the fact that you'll only find one of my pieces in Print anywhere.

I think that it'll be some brigh mind ( like yourself!) that will be forced to address things like this as 'The Web 2.0' ( used 'created' site like Y!G, FA, and dA ) proliferate.

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Thank you for easing my ignorance. It _is_ appreciated.


----------



## Silver R. Wolfe (May 17, 2006)

*RE:    Multiple people posting to one gallery?*



			
				Swampwulf said:
			
		

> Thank you for easing my ignorance. It _is_ appreciated.



Arshes can be surprising good at this sometimes. :3


----------



## uncia2000 (May 17, 2006)

hrmm... did I not greet Chris? _How rude..._ :?

*tailwaves hiya* (& many thanks for all your work within the various communities over the years)

Would certainly be interested in your thoughts re. the below, too. 

==



			
				Swampwulf said:
			
		

> uncia2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Mmm... to say nothing of keeping things open on FA for those people who just haven't set up here yet, since "clubs" are a major aspect of community/subcommunity building. Bad enough that they find all 100 combinations of their username already "taken" far less the 100 best group names, too! 

With any luck that would help to defuse what are sometimes "burning issues"; and if people can cope with identically named groups, they are also less likely (one would hope) to take "offence" at similarly named ones.
Heh, we can cope with two people with the same name, IRL, or d'you insist that the "imposter" changes their's? *g*


----------



## uncia2000 (May 17, 2006)

silverwolfe said:
			
		

> Swampwulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


_*chuckles*_. Great to have y'all around!


----------



## Arshes Nei (May 17, 2006)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> I think that it'll be some brigh mind ( like yourself!) that will be forced to address things like this as 'The Web 2.0' ( used 'created' site like Y!G, FA, and dA ) proliferate.
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again:
> 
> Thank you for easing my ignorance. It _is_ appreciated.



Hey don't worry about it, to be honest I'm still learning, but I always try to look up stuff and I do a lot of reading. XD I know it's geek stuff most people don't care about because we all want to draw and be happy but situations happen that I suppose it's best to learn from it.

To be quite honest I kinda hate copyright law, just in its current form. It was to help people but it seems like the better the lawyer the more protection, I guess its fine for a profit standpoint but sometimes it is too much.

Its part of the stuff I need to write for other sites later x.x


----------

