# Generated Art, Renderers and Sprites



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

In an effort to solicit feedback on the AUP changes, as well as better answer questions, we have created this forum for each individual clause of the AUP. We will modify and/or improve AUP clarity based on suggestions and feedback.
 
- - - - - - - -

*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.


----------



## Sergeant (Jan 22, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> *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.



Exactly what constitutes "significant user-created content"? For example, does creating a new tiger pattern in Photoshop and applying it to the model count? I am curious because I've seen models people have uploaded which are a pre-made model for Poser or Daz 3D, with nothing more than sliders tweaked around to give them a tail and an animal face and then a custom-made texture was slapped on it.


----------



## therealist (Jan 22, 2009)

I have the same question.  Do totally new texture maps and user-created morph injectors (shape-changers) count as "significant" change?  I'll admit to using Poser to render things with Victoria4, but I've just about completely disfigured the model to the point of being indistinguishable as the default V4 figure.  People have often mistaken my renders for photographs.

Please note specifically the detail about custom injector morphs.  This required me to do hand-coding in a text document, and to learn Poser's native programming language to acheive.  Does this count as "significant" user-created material in combination with the totally new texture maps?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

Sergeant said:


> Exactly what constitutes "significant user-created content"? For example, does creating a new tiger pattern in Photoshop and applying it to the model count?


Yes, that counts. However, the user should be trying to focus on what they created and it should be the predominate factor in the submission.

Example 1) Somebody creates a Neko with custom textures, ear floofs, etc. That's fine. The user took time to modify the model in such a way that it's significantly different that the original.
Example 2) Somebody takes the above Neko and puts him into a situation with 10 other models they downloaded from a website and uses the Neko as an excuse for user created content... that would NOT be allowed.
Example 3) Somebody creates a submission using the infamous Krystal model, and only the model, posed in a background, nothing more, that would NOT be allowed.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

therealist said:


> I have the same question.  Do totally new texture maps and user-created morph injectors (shape-changers) count as "significant" change?  I'll admit to using Poser to render things with Victoria4, but I've just about completely disfigured the model to the point of being indistinguishable as the default V4 figure.  People have often mistaken my renders for photographs.


From your description that sounds like it would be permissibly, yes. For reference, do you think you'd be willing to make an image with a side-by-side comparison between the two?



therealist said:


> Please note specifically the detail about custom injector morphs.  This required me to do hand-coding in a text document, and to learn Poser's native programming language to acheive.  Does this count as "significant" user-created material in combination with the totally new texture maps?


Can you show me some examples of an injector?


----------



## kewlhotrod (Jan 22, 2009)

In reference to the fractals and landscape generators...

With the whole part where it states, _"within reason"_, is that just an addon to pretty much elaborate the fact that it isn't supposed to breach the flooding act?

In other words, is that just an enhancement to the fact that you don't want us violating the flooding policy?

Also, as stated in the thread about fractals a long time back, are there going to be set admins to take a look and verify the contents of a fractal through parameter scanning and keep the posting down to a certain limit? Like a certain amount a day, is what I mean.


----------



## timoran (Jan 22, 2009)

Is poser art, and screening it and micro-analyzing the submissions to judge whether they are too "generated" for Dragoneer's tastes, the largest problem facing Furaffinity today? Or second, or third, or fifteenth largest?

I find it important to note that this policy change came out before search.


----------



## Bakensobek (Jan 22, 2009)

How about using a rendering program to create a background to be used for a drawing?

If that is not allowed, I may as well stop posting here.


----------



## Yojimaru (Jan 22, 2009)

I'm curious as to how this applies to 'art' created with Photoshop filters.  Just about everything in my gallery is created exclusively with filters, with some brush work, real pictures, and layering effects here and there.  Are such pieces no longer acceptable under the new AUP?


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 22, 2009)

Hi Dragoneer,

First things first - I never have, nor will I ever, attempt to proclaim that what I am doing is on the same artistic, technical, or skill level as someone like you who is creating their own models from scratch, or even the people who work in 2D. I admire those people. I applaud them.

I think it's necessary to look at Poser more like photography than 3D modeling. It certainly has a lot in common. A photographer finds a subject, finds or creates an appropriate setting, finds or creates appropriate lighting, and finds or creates the appropriate angle from which to capture the subject.

In Poser, you can go further than simple photography. Most characters made for Poser have morph libraries which let you alter the character. A single morph dial might extend a character's nose, or raise his eyes, or, as you've no doubt seen the most, increase the size of her breasts. Each can be applied on a scale with nearly infinite degrees of freedom, both positive and negative (obviously there are limits as to what actually looks good or appropriate, just as there are limits to where you can place a vertex to achieve the effect you want, even though you literally have an infinite choice of where to place it). There are generally several dozen morph sets that each affects different facial regions - eyes, nose, mouth, chin, ears, cheeks, etc. Modify just one morph dial and you'll have a character that differs only slightly from the base. Modify many and you can create a look for your character that nobody would be able to tell what base model you used. The amount of combinations is effectively limitless and allows for a great deal of freedom and creativity. Is it as much freedom as modeling in 3DS Max or Maya? No, not at all. But it is a much greater range of freedom than many naysayers are willing to concede. Additionally there are magnets that allow freeform manipulation of models, though they work best on a medium-large scale and they have their own technical limitations. You can even do rigging and animations.

In between software like 3DS Max and Poser, there lies Zbrush - touted as a digital "sculpting" tool. Like Poser, it doesn't allow full blown vertex by vertex creation, but it lets you import a model and "sculpt" on it as if it were putty or clay. This tool is used heavily in professional industry from movies to toys to games. Many of the pre-made characters you see for Poser are made with this software, using a base model. 

In trying to understand your and other's disdain for Poser work, I try to think about what myself bothers me. It bothers me when people take pre-made characters, and simply post portrait renders of them. But why? Is it that I don't think the portraits look good? No, sometimes I find them quite striking. Is it that I don't think they worked very hard to create that portrait? No, I've tried to recreate some that I've seen before and found it difficult to recreate specific looks. Is it that they post this simple portrait of a pre-purchased character that receives many, many comments and adulations and attention? I think I'm getting closer, let's keep a note of that and keep going. What's wrong with doing just that? It's like taking a photo! Next I look at that person's gallery. I see basically, over, and over again with similar lighting, different pre-made characters essentially just swapped out for one another, with similar vacant expressions, similar poses over and over again, with each one drawing throngs of followers proclaiming how gorgeous and magnificent they are. And then I look in the category gallery and see this same thing from not one person, but dozens. The same set of faces, over, and over. I just strive to see something original instead of people slapping the same character that they bought up there repeatedly! AHA! I think we're getting closer to the core issue.

I don't use unmodified characters. I take the base model, and use the libraries to create the faces I have in my imagination. I may even take a pre-made character package, incorporate a portion of its morphs at varying degrees into my own character in order to help shape things the way that I want them to be. It's simply a tool to help people like me create the images that we imagine. 

Looking at my renders of one of my characters, she basically has my dream girl's face (blue or not) and I pulled it out of my head, using Poser, a base figure, and its morph libraries as my tool to accomplish it. Looking at a different character of mine - another beautiful face that I'd love to run into on the street that you can find nowhere else but in my gallery. I think that's important - the majority of what I make you cannot find in any gallery but my own. If I told you that my characters were created with custom morphs, most people would probably believe me. They are unique. Is it truly 100% custom? No, but it's custom enough that they're unique. Yes, you can boil them down to their base figure and the sum of their morph dials, but you can take any 3D model and boil it down to the sum of its polygons. I challenge anyone to fire up Poser, use the same base models and the same morph libraries and come up with exactly what I did.

Is it possible to do so? Absolutely. Is it likely? Not very, again we're talking about hundreds of dials each with hundreds of thousands of degrees of freedom. It's also possible that I'd create the same model from scratch as you or someone else did. That's even less likely due to the greater infinite range of possibilities, but not impossible.

Take a square and consider the area inside to be the range of all humanoid characters that it's possible to create using tools like 3DS Max. Now, inscribe a circle into that square. You could consider that as the range of humanoid characters it's possible to create, in Zbrush. Finally, inscribe a triangle into that circle. That would represent the range of characters that can be created using Poser. Each one has a significant amount of area to move around in and of itself, but you can never escape the fact that each larger program affords a greater degree of freedom and possibility than the previous.

We've all seen what truly amateur Poser stuff looks like - bad lighting, awkward poses, no regard for composition. But if you look around, there's some quite good Poser stuff too (and I'm not saying mine definitely falls into that category). You can say the same thing for 3D modeling - it just takes more effort to get there. A lot more effort, and that should be commended. People like you do deserve the adulation, praise and encouragement that goes to so many of those cookie cutter Poser portrait renderers or even stuff like mine. And I think the fact that those people get accolades without needing as much skill, talent, or time spent as you do, is really what is at the core of the hatred - jealousy. Do I hate those people? No, but am I a little jealous of the attention they get? If I'm being absolutely 100% honest, yeah, I think I am a bit.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not trying to say "Hey you're just jealous." That's not it at all. I'm trying to both help you understand why it is that I use the tool that I do instead of the tool that you do. Obviously the skills and talents of 3D modelers and 2D artists is superior. There's even industry and jobs around those skills! Poser? Not so much. But I think the hatred that many people feel stems from either jealousy of the attention received or the feeling that tools like Poser are cheating, and that it's not possible for anything original to come out of it if a 3rd parties resources are used as a starting point and Poser as the only tool. I would say then keep in mind, that you and most other modelers don't program your lighting engine. You use the lighting tools available in your modeling/rendering program of choice to show off your model. You didn't write the texturing engine that interpret the UV coordinates for your model. You've let someone else do all that work, and more for you. You use assists. The question is at what point are there so many assists that what you've created becomes meaningless? I think the answer lies obviously somewhere beyond the realm of 3DS Max, but I also believe that the line does not necessarily lie strictly on this side of Poser.

Let me close by stating that I do not in any way, shape or form encourage or condone the use of Poser, or any other tool, to fool people into believing that you've done more than you actually have. For that reason, my name on dA reads "Poser Artist". Anyone who asks "wow how did you make that?", I answer truthfully "with Poser," and if asked for it I name the specific resources that I use. On other sites where I primarily post my work, I generally preemptively list the resources used as a courtesy for others. I often see something in other renders and think that it's something I could use in an idea I had and have to go looking for it.

Do I think that what I have done is in any way as difficult or as impressive as what you or 2D artists do? Not by a long shot. But I don't think that invalidates what I do from being "art" either. You may want to create 3D models and be great at it. I don't (side note: ok, that was a little lie, I actually do). I just want to create pretty pictures.

I only hope that all this text could help you and maybe others understand me and where I'm coming from. Why can't your work, and my work all have their own place here, if the subject is on topic?


Sincerely,

FB


----------



## Verin Asper (Jan 22, 2009)

hmmm in other words I haveta make something significantly custom for it to be allowed...guess that means I gotta start making stuff again


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 22, 2009)

Hey Neer,
I have a question about the usage of screenshots to show 3d models built from scratch, since the AUP sounds like in-game screenshots aren't permitted at all, no matter if their primarly focus lies on user-generated content or not.
To make things short: I'd like to post a collage made up by several (parts of) screenshots and, if they exist, the initial sketches I made for them (most items I made are weapon meshes for UT2004).
Would that also violate the AUP if I mainly focus on the in-game models I created (which means I'd have to add more sketches to the pic)? Or would it be possible to post a screenshot that mainly contains the user-generated model and little to nothing else (like the pic I attached to this post. I'll remove it if you say that those pics would not be ok)?


----------



## kamperkiller (Jan 22, 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.)


 you do know that all of these are completely independent divisions in the digital animation world right? lets see you do the same.


----------



## Daymond42 (Jan 22, 2009)

Now.. the only thing I'm wondering is.. how will this part be enforced?

Let's take my situation for example. With the Krystal 3d model (yes, I know.. I'll wait for the booing and hissing to cease before I continue), I had created a completely new texture map to simulate her outfit in the Starfox Assault game. Thing is, I also posted it online for people to download. So, if one uses this texture, they could say that they had created it.

I'm not -too- concerned about this sort of thing affecting me, because I know that it is my creation, and I can back it up sometime by even showing where I have it online available for download. It just seems that it could in fact be used by others as a cheating way to say "hey, i did this! See? lolz" because let's face it... some people are not reputable.


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 22, 2009)

kamperkiller said:


> you do know that all of these are completely independent divisions in the digital animation world right? lets see you do the same.



He's not saying they all have to be changed at once, that's a whole new model. He's saying _one_ of those conditions has to be met.

Of course, if you're issuing a challenge for 3D artists to make a mesh, texture, and animation all on their own, I know a few _hundred_ of them (an entire forum) who would love to take you up on that. Generally speaking, any hobbyist is going to be in a situation where they do it all themselves - whereas companies have a standardized workflow, hobbyists don't often find each other to be using identical software (A requirement in the case of 3D Studio). I actually lost a commission due to that once...

@Bakensobek: Threatening to not post anymore isn't going to change his decisions, you know, so best to not say it at all.

@WarMocK: I would expect he would allow such a thing. You are, quite literally and technically, just using a different rendering engine. There may be some underlying legal issue, though.

@FangBlade: ZBrush doesn't lie between 3D Studio and Poser - ZBrush lies between 3D Studio and the heaavenly throne of God!  It is also a truly legitimate (albeit non-traditional) 3D modelling application, while Poser is not.

Most of the disdain comes from the ego that Poser users have. It was very explicitly designed to be used by _anyone_, easily; its original, and still primary, purpose is for displaying concepts. Placing completely meaningless people around a building created in a complex architectural program. Demonstrating how a new product or invention would be used by someone. Digital storyboarding, where in the end the characters will be replaced by better, original models. All without needing to hire someone special to work with the software. Thus, when people not only abuse this software because it's easier than doing it the right way, but actually _insist that the program is difficult and complex to use_, I simply want to slap them. I want to reach into my monitor, through the internet, and slap them. Right after asking what clothes their mother dressed them in.

I started with Poser, then ditched it for 3D Studio MAX 4, and haven't looked back since. <BillyMayes>Isn't it time _you_ made the switch?</BillyMayes>


----------



## Bakensobek (Jan 22, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> @Bakensobek: Threatening to not post anymore isn't going to change his decisions, you know, so best to not say it at all.



It's not a threat; it's the actual position I am in. I really suck at drawing backgrounds, so I use Poser to create some for my drawings. If I can't use them, then I would have nothing to post other than sketches.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 22, 2009)

Bakensobek said:


> It's not a threat; it's the actual position I am in. I really suck at drawing backgrounds, so I use Poser to create some for my drawings. If I can't use them, then I would have nothing to post other than sketches.



If you use poser just for the background and not for the elements that (should) have the focus of the entire pic it probably is ok to use it (but that's just my opinion). ^^


----------



## Aden (Jan 22, 2009)

*FangBlade*: waaaay tl;dr. Stop taking it so seriously. If you put in the work to make something yourself, you'll be fine.



Bakensobek said:


> How about using a rendering program to create a background to be used for a drawing?
> 
> If that is not allowed, I may as well stop posting here.



What, are you kidding? I thought he made it obvious. Your drawing will be the focus of the submission. Background away.



kamperkiller said:


> you do know that all of these are completely independent divisions in the digital animation world right? lets see you do the same.



Hint: Imagine those linked by the word "or".


----------



## Bakensobek (Jan 22, 2009)

Aden said:


> What, are you kidding? I thought he made it obvious. Your drawing will be the focus of the submission. Background away.



The critical word is "CONTAIN". As in, submissions containing pre-made elements. By that definition, my submissions would violate the AUP, even if said elements are not the focus of the picture.

Maybe FA should rename itself "FA! Gallery". Their rules are starting to sound as draconian as that infamous bishi place.


----------



## Aden (Jan 22, 2009)

Bakensobek said:


> The critical word is "CONTAIN". As in, submissions containing pre-made elements. By that definition, my submissions would violate the AUP, even if said elements are not the focus of the picture.
> 
> Maybe FA should rename itself "FA! Gallery". Their rules are starting to sound as draconian as that infamous bishi place.



wat.

Don't blame FA for your misinterpretation of the rules or inability to read. Have you seen the original thread? It's been pretty obvious that it's fine if a picture contains premade elements; a good portion of the work just has to be yours.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 22, 2009)

I really think I understand what you're trying to do, but I would argue the line has been drawn in the wrong place.

  I have to think there is more creativity in trying to tell a story or set a mood with stock and downloadables than there is in building an original model and then just doing centerfold shot after mindless centerfold shot.

  I am for the most part in agreement with FangBlade's comments above -- especially on the point of thinking of Poser in terms of photography.

The idea behind the image is, I believe, more important than the tools that went into making it.


----------



## Bakensobek (Jan 22, 2009)

Aden said:


> wat.
> 
> Don't blame FA for your misinterpretation of the rules or inability to read. Have you seen the original thread?



I just want clarifications, which were not provided on *THIS* thread, which is what I am interested in and concerned about. I know of the owner's distaste for Poser, so I want to be sure.

And I can read, write and speak in two languages at a native-speaker level, thank you very much, which is far more than many people here can do.


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 22, 2009)

Kefan said:


> I have to think there is more creativity in trying to tell a story or set a mood with stock and downloadables than there is in building an original model and then just doing centerfold shot after mindless centerfold shot.



Creating a story with stock models and objects is a good chunk of what Poser is designed for.

Except, you're not supposed to just stop there and leave it at that. you're not supposed to take that incomplete work and show it off. If you're going to stop at creating the story, then it can just as easily be submitted as text. Because really, that is all you're making - that is the start and end of your creativity, the story. If you're going to put effort into storyboarding it, then take it all the way.

Also, enough of the "centerfold shot after centerfold shot." I have yet to see an instance of that, though it would be preferable to look at and certainly took more effort if such a case exists.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 22, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> Creating a story with stock models and objects is a good chunk of what Poser is designed for.
> 
> Except, you're not supposed to just stop there and leave it at that. you're not supposed to take that incomplete work and show it off. If you're going to stop at creating the story, then it can just as easily be submitted as text. Because really, that is all you're making - that is the start and end of your creativity, the story. If you're going to put effort into storyboarding it, then take it all the way.



You are over-literalizing what I said.  Otherwise, you imply that a single standalone image is pointless because it lacks the context of what came before and what came after.



DigitalMan said:


> Also, enough of the "centerfold shot after centerfold shot." I have yet to see an instance of that, though it would be preferable to look at and certainly took more effort if such a case exists.



That's funny, I rather gathered that's largely what started all this: repetetive images of Krystal _et al_.

And you know what?  I agree with _that_ goal.  It is a waste of the tool.  Anyone _can_ just stick Krystal, or Mike or Vickie with the animal dials turned on, render it, and make a "Look!  Bewbs/Cawk!!" post.  It _is_ more of a creative effort to actually draw the same thing.

But in trying to take care of _that_ issue, it excludes those of us who are really trying to do something more with it.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 22, 2009)

FangBlade said:


> I think it's necessary to look at Poser more like photography than 3D modeling. It certainly has a lot in common.


A photographer finds and captures a moment and feeling somewhere in the world.

Poser is playing with Barbie dolls.

I am sure it is possible to create grand works of art with Poser, as it is possible to create grand works of art with a pinhead and canvas or a hard drive, needle, and powerful magnet.  I am also sure this will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction because it comes down to the subjective line of how much skill the submitter is trying to put into the work.  Nobody wants to rule on that, and users don't want to try to improve the site at the cost of their own attention.


----------



## Bakensobek (Jan 22, 2009)

Kefan said:


> But in trying to take care of _that_ issue, it excludes those of us who are really trying to do something more with it.



Amen.


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 22, 2009)

Kefan said:


> That's funny, I rather gathered that's largely what started all this: repetetive images of Krystal _et al_.



But... that was you Poser guys! Here, lemme highlight it for you:



Kefan said:


> I have to think there is more creativity in trying to tell a story or set a mood with stock and downloadables *than there is in building an original model and then just doing centerfold shot after mindless centerfold shot*.



You're accusing the people who create _original models_ of posting "centerfold shot after mindless centerfold shot." But Krystal has nothing to do with us; she was hacked from a video game. While I was there to see it before it was made into a Poser model, it's the Poser people using it.

And I'm sorry to tell you, but you're really not doing a whole lot more with the program yourself. Yeah, you can create a story. That _is_ legitimate art, and it _does_ take skill. But instead of going _halfway_ to the visual art route by essentially just storyboarding, why don't you just put the stories into words? You're wasting time and effort with Poser.

Or, you can give real 3D work a try. <DarthVader>Come with me, to the dark side... We have caustics!</DarthVader>


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 22, 2009)

First off I do not draw or do any kind of 3d \CG stuff I am merely a watcher and fan, but I do have some input on this matter because I am more or less against the idea of restricting this stuff on FA.

My reasons are and arguments are simple for me and hopefully they will be for all those for and against the new AUP part discussed.

1: Regarding the Kyrstal part. Yes i know some will say its a good idea and other will say its now. My view on this is that if someone like Daymond who uses the model but creates his own oufits, poses, backgrounds, even minor changes to her features should be allowed. even some regarding nude version of this render as long as there is significant change in the look.

2: If you use a base model and pose but create an outfit, a look, a pose, etc It should be fine, because though your using a base the person could have put hours making it come out just the way they want.

3: As far as lets say stuff in the limes that Mapper does, he has use by her creator to put Zigzag and even Sabrina in his submissions, Now we all know ZigZag is almost like an icon in the fandom almost as much as fan art of the top posted characters like Krystal, Renamon, Sonic characters and so on. so if those ZigZag submissions are not allowed I have to ask why, I mean she is an original creation even if someone is using a pre-rendered model of her(there could be one for Poser and Daz but since i don't now much about either no idea). But similar stuff if downloadable are Oc's by artists they should be allowed if they are not.

4 Finally regarding the general aspect of the Pre-made stuff I need to cross into the Music section to make my point as valid as I can. Now disallowing ALL Krystal pre-renders is in my opinion saying one both yes and no. I mean i've read the Music stuff:

"Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to distinguish it from the original copyright material."

This is key in my argument on the whole pre-rendered issue. I mean there are most likely quite a few who Remix a ton of game, anime and regualr music done originally by someone that is indeed not them, Though some to most remixes do indeed change the original enough there are plenty out there that are allowed that keep too much of the original, and  there are a ton of programs out tehre that anyone whether you can play and create music or not allow anyone to remix audio. So like Poser pre-renders, remixes to me are the same so if you plan on disallowing all or at least 75%+ of those submissions thy you should crack down just as hard on the remixes. To me hearing an remixed version of a well known them like lets say the Zelda theme that is allowed, and seeing a render of the likes Daymond does involving Krystal not being allowed that makes it feel to me tehre is a Bias against 3d\CG submissions.


----------



## therealist (Jan 22, 2009)

Here's the side-by-side comparison you had asked to see.  The texture changes are quite drastic.  However, most of the morphing features involve the facial area, and were accomplished by adjusting and altering the target morphs (thus the need for programming) of the Morphs++ system for this figure.  All the morph adjustments made were compiled manually into a single document which could be loaded as a Pose file.  So instead of having to re-do all the adjustments every time, with one click I can simply load all of the facial feature distortions and body shaping.

http://therealist.furtopia.org/testrender.png

Possibly NSFW image


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 22, 2009)

Erm, please make it a link with a NSFW warning. Pics like those might get you into trouble here. ;-)


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 22, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> 3: As far as lets say stuff in the limes that Mapper does, he has use by her creator to put Zigzag and even Sabrina in his submissions, Now we all know ZigZag is almost like an icon in the fandom almost as much as fan art of the top posted characters like Krystal, Renamon, Sonic characters and so on. so if those ZigZag submissions are not allowed I have to ask why, I mean she is an original creation even if someone is using a pre-rendered model of her(there could be one for Poser and Daz but since i don't now much about either no idea). But similar stuff if downloadable are Oc's by artists they should be allowed if they are not.



well, the models mapper use are definitly of the Aiko or Victoria-line, cuppled with some morphs for the face. i do not know what exactly he does there, only have some guesses i make when seeing is pics.
on the other hand, i recognise a lot of clothes he uses in renders, but i never saw the textures he uses for clothes or the figures (skin, hair and tail) he put into the scenes.
so, while i know a lot of stuff mapper uses, its changed into stuff i have either still to discover somewhere to download or buy it, or it is original stuff by himself (or someone who made it for him).

now for thinking about, might it be allowed... i think yes, mappers stuff would be in the AUP, because the stock-stuff used in his pic's is not only morphed a lot, they too are packed into textures you only see in his pics.

and here is a problem why it is decided on case-by-case i think. it is hard to tell what is created by the poster or what is potentially useable by all without the poster having created it and is it the focal point of the pic


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 22, 2009)

Eevee said:


> A photographer finds and captures a moment and feeling somewhere in the world.
> 
> Poser is playing with Barbie dolls.


 
I could say the same thing about pinup studio photography. All you have to do is get a model, tell her to "stand in a sexy pose!", and take a picture whlie in front of a sheet right?

Well, no. Lighting has to be set up. Camera location and angle has to be chosen. Focus and exposure have to be set.  The model is the barbie doll.

It's exactly the same thing for Poser, except not only do you have control over the lighting and cameras, you have control over the subject as well. 

I can only imagine painters at the time of the invention of the camera, "All you have to do is set your techno box down there and it generates your picture for you!" Since that time we've come to realise what you said - photography can be used to capture a moment or feeling somewhere in the world.

Now what if you want to capture a feeling or something that _doesn't_ exist in the world? Like say an Elf? Or a Twi'lek? Or, a cow-girl? Why should using a Poser figure and modification libraries to create that moment or feeling be any more invalid than hiring a model, taping latex ears, rubber hoses or udders onto her that you bought form a costume store and taking a photo? Saying that one's only recourse is to learn to create 3D models from scratch is the same as saying that photographers should only be able to sculpt and cast their own elf ears or udders.

Why is the process with which an image is created being given far greater weight than the actual image itself? Poser creations should be judged on the merits image itself, just as photographs are, not in the method that the image was created. That should be left for categorization - 3D Art from scratch, 3D Art using assist tools and/or derivative content, the same way that Drawings and Photographs are distinguished from one another.


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 22, 2009)

if nearly every real life photo people have taken was of the *same* woman/man/horse/whatever, it would be very repetitive, and be getting the same treatment Poser is getting/SL has gotten. the only reason this rule has been put into place on poser, is because many people are tired of seeing the *same* models being used over and over and over, with *nothing to really distinguish the images from eachother*.

yes the rule will cause problems for people, but you know what? the rule is being made for a reason, and if you don't like it, try to come up with a better way that still  limits the repetitiveness of most poser images. I'm sure if you come up with something good, and talk about it in a civil manor, then the mods will implement it instead.


----------



## Tobias Amaranth (Jan 22, 2009)

When people posting Poser stuff start to get the same quality of fur effects and such that say, Starfox Adventures had, THEN maybe I'll want to actually see it. Otherwise, these people, excepting maybe the original creator of the actual model, can go post on f-chan. 

Essentially, this all boils down to flooding, and quality control. All of these Poser images have an extreme quality deficiency. As someone else said, it's an inbetween meant to be used as an assisting tool to create a more refined final product. Unfortunately, due to its availability and 'ease', we've been flooded with a large amount of these midway creations, and I think people have forgotten about that quality aspect.

I have never really liked the Krystal model. It's kinda neat, and some of the modifications I've seen recently were atleast well done (the armor mod that actually takes the pattern from the game) but we've lost sight of what should be the focus. Is it the actual created content that one can point a finger at, or is it the entire composition that matters. That's the discrepancy here. Some people say the pose itself should constitute a work of art. Others, like myself, feel the actual visual detail should be what counts as the user created side of this.

To answer this, why not take a look at what the people commenting focus on. You upload a commissioned work and even credit the original artist. Yet you still get people coming in going "wow, you did a great job drawing this!" without understanding what you uploaded it for, which is displaying your character. Your pose idea. Essentially, your concepts. It is nearly identical for Poser art. People come in and don't really care much about the pose or the new shoe you designed or the lighting. They see a semi-well rendered furry, and go 'omg that's awesome nice job' without understanding what it was you applied the effort to. People focus on the immediately visible, not the conceptual modifications.

That's why I feel that Poser really needs to be cracked down on. As others have said, it's still just the same things over and over, and while some enjoy it, for a large amount of us, it's become tiresome. How about some original content, instead of just playing with the poses, yes?


----------



## Armaetus (Jan 22, 2009)

Aden said:


> wat.
> 
> Don't blame FA for your misinterpretation of the rules or inability to read. Have you seen the original thread? It's been pretty obvious that it's fine if a picture contains premade elements; a good portion of the work just has to be yours.



He should be fine since most of his actual art (the characters) are original.


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 22, 2009)

I will agree that seeing the same model, unaltered thrown into the galleries repeatedly does get old. I personally find them easy enough to ignore. If all someone's doing is uploading a generic pic of that same Krystal model you guys hate so much, by all means, call them on it. Asking for them to make it their own using any tool available to them.

*Part of my original point is that the degree of alteration that can be had on figures w/ morph libraries is large enough that unless you were specifically told that the results from any particular combination of morphs weren't custom made in ZBrush or other, you wouldn't know*, and it's _extremely _unlikely that you would run into two people with the same results*.* The morph libraries are just another tool to help users come up with the characters that they imagine. That's what they're for - to assist customization. Saying that's an invalid method to create your character is rather absurd.

Once I return home from work, I'll create some side-by-side comparisons between base figures and characters created using those figures' morph libraries.

This isn't a contest here to determine who has the most skill. It's an art gallery. Just as there is room for both drawings and photographs, there should be room for both 3D art from scratch and 3D art using assist tools and derivative content (models altered from a base - no matter the method used).

As for Fur, Poser's been capable of doing that since version 5 (it's up to 7 now, released over a year ago). 

*Edit: Example removed.*


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 22, 2009)

I agree on the morph part, but the problem is, had there been more people that actually used those sliders to make their renders stand out, this rule probably wouldn't even have been put into place.
It doesn't really matter what the pre made poser models have to potential to do, only what the users are willing to do with them.
Most chose to leave them as unmodified, generic, out of the box looking models. so as a result (just like with SL pictures) rules needed to be put into place.
as much as I'd like to see the admins hold back the rule for now, I know most people are going to continue to do things the same way, and the rule would just be applied later on down the road anyway.

so again I'll say it, this is unlikely to be stopped, so the best thing to do is try to come up with ways to reduce the rules impact on poser artists that really try to put effort into their work.
The admins are more understanding they they are given credit for, and will likely listen if people offer alternatives to the rule, rather then just demanding it gets removed entirely.


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jan 22, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> Creating a story with stock models and objects is a good chunk of what Poser is designed for.



Your mistake, here, was in acknowledging that storytelling is a form of creation.  That may come back to haunt you later.



Eevee said:


> Poser is playing with Barbie dolls.



In all likelihood, Eevee, no one wants to hear you reminisce about your childhood Barbie collection.  Yes, we all know how your parents caught you trying to make Ken anatomically correct, and how it led to the court order prohibiting you from touching power tools until you were twenty-one.  It was an amusing anecdote the first three times.



> I am also sure this will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction because it comes down to the subjective line of how much skill the submitter is trying to put into the work.  Nobody wants to rule on that ....



Of course not.  If applied equally, regardless of medium, it would end up alienating too much of the active userbase.



DigitalMan said:


> But Krystal has nothing to do with us; she was hacked from a video game.



She was modeled in Lightwave, from scratch.  No part of her was hacked from existing game resources.


----------



## Eevee (Jan 22, 2009)

FangBlade said:


> I could say the same thing about pinup studio photography.


By some incredible coincidence, I don't really think that belongs here either.



FangBlade said:


> Poser creations should be judged on the merits image itself, just as photographs are, not in the method that the image was created.


So propose a good way to do that.  Medium shouldn't ideally be used to judge a work's worth, no, but banning it keeps out way more cruft than allowing it would attract in art.  The handful of artists affected by these sorts of issues always justifiably gripe, but so far everyone just wants it universally allowed and nobody has proposed a happy medium.  I think I've pulled things out of my ass like "displaying skill proportional to the power of the tools" a few times.



Little_Dragon said:


> In all likelihood, Eevee, no one wants to hear you reminisce about your childhood Barbie collection.


Oh.  I get it!  It's like I'm a girl.  How clever and relevant.


----------



## Aden (Jan 22, 2009)

Little_Dragon said:


> In all likelihood, Eevee, no one wants to hear you reminisce about your childhood Barbie collection.  Yes, we all know how your parents caught you trying to make Ken anatomically correct, and how it led to the court order prohibiting you from touching power tools until you were twenty-one.  It was an amusing anecdote the first three times.



You sound like my brother.

From when he was in 2nd grade.


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 22, 2009)

As far as those who said stuff along the lines of "tired of seeing in galleries similar pics and so on" related to this who poser thing, you do realize that the only one who is at fault for being tired of those is yourself for choosing to watch the person.

Now that leads me to another aspect of my argument to all including the admins. Aside from the reason that some like the Krystal pre-rendered model are not original content as well as some others in what I'll call the danger area of being forced to have removed. I have to add if tehre is more than jsut that one thing such as getting complaints about too many, why not remember and try a few things first.

1: For those who have poser and Daz stuff up let it be, worry about the NEW stuff and don't outright ban it moderate it in a way where all sides can say a certain number of submissions is fair, and not 3 like with SL because 3d and CG is not like clicking save snapshot to disk and them uploading. it more, they do work on the pre-rendered models to make it look different even the Krystal ones.

2: For those who do not watch the user who do this stuff and complain about it because they at browsing and seeing it. jsut remember you can specify how you browse.

3:As i said in my first post on this thread if you must remove things that are pre-made under one section like the Krystal render, then why are music remixes which can be in more than not remixed by anyone with quite a few free programs out tehre. hell i have one that if you want mix part of another song or some effects it does the rest for you.. 

4: what about these voice meme's i mean lately I've seen a ton of them and i have not listened to them because most of the time there is not much of a description on what they are about, and anyone can make those.. But under the meme and even music and audio AUP sections tehre is zero mention about those being controlled when I feel there should be some sort of control or else you will have some users creating in some cases weekly ones about different things, and though they may be original as far as who is talking and what they talk about its really not much different than the whole Krystal render issue.


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 22, 2009)

The way I see it this part of the new AUP is protecting the way users think of legitimate 3D art on the site. 
As it is right now with stock models and Krystal and all that it all looks pretty cheap and tacky, and really doesn't do much for my opinion on actual original, user-made work done with various modeling programs and posed with Poser. In fact, I now ignore pretty much every 3D rendered piece I come across, unless it's fantastic enough to cure cancer and I can see that in the preview.

As for the "OH MAN I'M CREATING SCENE IM SUCH AN ARTEST" argument in defense of Poser stock model use, would you be opposed to a bunch of people taking a program that renders stick figures and posing them in "Scenes", and then flooding the gallery with that? Because that's the same thing as most of what's being done with Poser, only they look prettier.


----------



## Norithics (Jan 22, 2009)

This entire rule is biased unfairly. Why? Because it has nothing to do with reality, only various perceptions thereof. And I say this as someone who is fairly popular on this website for drawing, and has *never made 3D art in his life. *

Why? I'll tell you why. Because there's no similar rule that applies to drawing. Gallery after gallery, I see people submitting sketches that are quite nearly identical to one another, and are pretty much traceovers of the same thing. They're not enjoyable, they're not original, and they're not very good quality. But people have to learn, and so we encourage them to keep going, and deviate from what they're doing bit by bit. Does anyone learn from scratch anymore? Fuck no, not in the age of cartoons and comics- and if you say you did, then you're a douchebag. FA has no problem nurturing this highly imitative style of learning. 

But when it comes to 3D art? You have to be good enough to create your own crap before we'll host it. It's a double standard, and if that's what you want, then great, but any other arguments outside of this are missing the big, crucial point of all this- that nobody starts out with skill, and you're pushing aside a lot of very talented people out of pure arbitration. This is the kind of thing you enforce on an individual basis, not through sweeping rules. After all, this is FA, not a democracy. Thank you.


----------



## Aden (Jan 22, 2009)

Norithics said:


> This entire rule is biased unfairly. Why? Because it has nothing to do with reality, only various perceptions thereof. And I say this as someone who is fairly popular on this website for drawing, and has *never made 3D art in his life. *
> 
> Why? I'll tell you why. Because there's no similar rule that applies to drawing. Gallery after gallery, I see people submitting sketches that are quite nearly identical to one another, and are pretty much traceovers of the same thing. They're not enjoyable, they're not original, and they're not very good quality. But people have to learn, and so we encourage them to keep going, and deviate from what they're doing bit by bit. Does anyone learn from scratch anymore? Fuck no, not in the age of cartoons and comics- and if you say you did, then you're a douchebag. FA has no problem nurturing this highly imitative style of learning.
> 
> But when it comes to 3D art? You have to be good enough to create your own crap before we'll host it. It's a double standard, and if that's what you want, then great, but any other arguments outside of this are missing the big, crucial point of all this- that nobody starts out with skill, and you're pushing aside a lot of very talented people out of pure arbitration. This is the kind of thing you enforce on an individual basis, not through sweeping rules. After all, this is FA, not a democracy. Thank you.



I thought traces _were_ prohibited...


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 22, 2009)

I give up.  I'm too emotionally drained after investing the past two days on this and the previous thread.  I won't be posting character examples and I've removed the previously posted one.

I feel like I've tried to make my case rationally and thoughtfully, and conceded some points that I thought were valid.

If there's one point that I want people to take away from what I've had to say it's that _using morph libraries for Poser-characters should fall under "user created content" because they allow for the creation of sufficiently unique results._

I just hope the administators realize that they're alienating more than just those who want to toss up dozens of uninspired "Krystal" images.  Being a Furry community, I'd think that the people here would be more considerate about negatively painting groups of people with such a broad brush -- and all because of the tools they choose to use?


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 22, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> As for the "OH MAN I'M CREATING SCENE IM SUCH AN ARTEST" argument in defense of Poser stock model use, would you be opposed to a bunch of people taking a program that renders stick figures and posing them in "Scenes", and then flooding the gallery with that? Because that's the same thing as most of what's being done with Poser, only they look prettier.



That's a new way of putting it. As a matter of fact, I was looking into creating a program that did exactly that! The difference? My intention was to use said stick figures as a drawing base, like a 3D wooden mannequin of sorts, to examine poses and angles I can't quite wrap my head around (with added benefits of adjustable character height and such). _Not_ to upload the images as a finished piece!

@Little_Dragon: That is false, and you may have been outright lied to. I was there the moment that model hit the internet. The vertex data was very specifically ripped from the game. That's essentially the model; it's simply that, due to how that game did things, the polygons needed to be placed back over the vertices. In the world of 3D, that doesn't constitute "from scratch"; it doesn't even constitute "tracing". The physical model is indistinguishable from the one in the game, because the vertex data and polygon connections are identical.

The texture, however, _was_ produced from scratch, as they failed to rip it.

@Kitoth: When you say, "not 3 like with SL", I really hope you're implying 3 is overkill. Excluding progress shots (which Poser users aren't going to have anyways), most 3D artists are going to have a collage of views in one image. If they created a whole scene and not just one model, they'll just have that scene and nothing more.

@Norithics: _You_ might encourage such things, but I sure as hell don't.

You also seem to be forgetting that Poser is not a real 3D modelling application. Using Poser will not _ever_ help people become a better 3D modeller.


----------



## straydog (Jan 22, 2009)

The problem, as I stated in the main thread (before this AUP forum was made), is that Poser allows you to simply download EVERYTHING.

Lighting (ie: mood), facial expressions (ie: emotion), textures, poses, backgrounds, objects, ect. 

These are all things which can be downloaded, and with a simple click, implemented into an image.

Someone can say they painstakingly posed the characters themselves, and came up with the scene or lighting...but chances are I could replicate their exact scene by downloading a pose, lighting, and expression set.

That's the nature of the program---it was designed for novice users to practice/storyboard.

Let's say people rip a page out of a coloring book and color it in. Should they be able to post that picture to FA? They changed the color, after all, and their coloring style/choices influence the 'mood' of the picture, even if the base picture was not theirs.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 22, 2009)

Aden said:


> I thought traces _were_ prohibited...



Yeah traces are prohibited. Copies like freehand (Eyeballed) are allowed to a degree. Sometimes traces are hard because of not being able to do a proper match-up. However, people copying someone else's work has to link back to the original artist they're using, and if the original artist complains and it can be taken down. But it has to be looked at "case by case" since sometimes people complain of "Traces" when it's just similarities.

At least the person who is doing a freehand copy picked up the pencil and paper and eyeballed the drawing, not took a picture someone else created and photoshopped it. 

I like using Poser, but unless I'm putting my own stuff into it, I can't see how moving a model or using lighting (like default sliders) it suddenly becomes my original creation that's post worthy to FA.


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 22, 2009)

@DigitalMan What i mean on that part is with SL Snapshots anyone can simply click on snapshot and save it to their HD and then upload it. There is zero effort pit into that so the max limit of 3 SL pics (Maybe me more if there are lets say 4-6 characters that were completely built from scratch but Dragoneer would know more on that) make perfect sense..

But as far as "IF" they were to limit 3d\CG submission 3 would be too low a number because there is more effort in those i've seen. Hell i've seen some 3d Krystal animated submissions whether flash or gif images and I've tried to create my own animated pic. its harder than you think unless your well versed in the programs and most stuff posted on here whether they used a base model such a Krystal i highly doubt takes under 2 hours. Yes there are some who can do it under that time frame, hell had an artist draw me a finished colored pic in under 2 hours so some can do that but the majority cannot.


----------



## Setsune_W (Jan 22, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> You also seem to be forgetting that Poser is not a real 3D modelling application. Using Poser will not _ever_ help people become a better 3D modeller.



No, but it will help you become a better 3D animator.




straydog said:


> Let's say people rip a page out of a coloring book and color it in. Should they be able to post that picture to FA? They changed the color, after all, and their coloring style/choices influence the 'mood' of the picture, even if the base picture was not theirs.



Do you mean, should people be able to post colorations of line-art pictures with permission by the original inker?


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 22, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Yeah traces are prohibited. Copies like freehand (Eyeballed) are allowed to a degree. Sometimes traces are hard because of not being able to do a proper match-up. However, people copying someone else's work has to link back to the original artist they're using, and if the original artist complains and it can be taken down. But it has to be looked at "case by case" since sometimes people complain of "Traces" when it's just similarities.
> 
> At least the person who is doing a freehand copy picked up the pencil and paper and eyeballed the drawing, not took a picture someone else created and photoshopped it.
> 
> I like using Poser, but unless I'm putting my own stuff into it, I can't see how moving a model or using lighting (like default sliders) it suddenly becomes my original creation that's post worthy to FA.



Well Arshes let me ask you something then since your an admin. Should the 3d\CG submissions be based on a case by case basic such as the image wanting to be posted, or should it be as someone said "A broad brush"..Also should those who still are staying on FA be required to remove "ALL" past works if an image is in violation?

I would hope you as well as Dragonner say No on that last part because that would indicate not just to me but to probably many that down the line if a new AUP is put into place about  another kind of submission like the voice meme's I mentioned or other kinds of images, would be forced to be removed because the admins and site owner decided to add a new rule. 

I know this site is free and meant to be a place for artists but if more and more is taken away, users will leave and new ones may not join, I've seen quite a few sites have that happen that were good places but the owners started inserting new rules over the course of the sites time and soon only a handful of people remained most closed.


----------



## nekollx (Jan 22, 2009)

well as a big Daz artisits here and on DA its time for LLX pictures questions, thingy...stuff...junk....

Ok so as a experiment with the Mina morph for the newly released Micheal 4 i started a comic. 

WARNING SOME OF THESE LINKS MAY NOT BE SAFE FOR WORK (thankfully if your not logged into Deviant art you wont see them)

It start off with this
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Beach-Suprise-1-107424823

Its the default beach scene Daze Studio 2.1 opens, the Default Vicky 4 and a fresh loaded Micheal 4. Whould this be accepted?

now by the end of the first comic Micheal has be turned into a gurl, and decked out with the V4/Av catgurl bundle, refer back to the first picture as that the un modified vickie and micheal and we will be referencing them alot

http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Beach-Suprise-7-107426591
Would this be accepted?

Vicki and Mika have fun with some man meat
To explore the different Mika morphs i created 4 micheal4 and gave them all some tweakly, mosly in the hair.

http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/New-Girls-on-the-Beach-107561000
would this be ok?

What about the new gang of m4 morphed girls?
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/New-Girls-on-the-Beach-5-107562473

What about screen shots from characters in a game like Lucy here built with City of Heroes Character Creator
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Lucy-School-107142173
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Lucy-Hero-107142469
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Lucy-Roman-107142458
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Lucy-Black-107142386

And then we have my Comic Changes and its miriad of problems
But all the female cast menbers are built from vicky 4
Ashley, Kelly, Rachel, Evyln, Sherry, Kim, and there were forms would they pass?
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Sheryl-Kent-Phase-3-Version-1-78958017
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Sheryl-Kent-Phase-2-Version-2-63914308
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Sheryl-Kent-Phase-1-Version-2-59821495
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Kimberly-Wren-Phase-1-Ver-2-59863895
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Kim-Wren-Phase-2-Version-1-61455368
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Evelyn-Redding-Version-2-59972872
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Ashley-Kent-Phase-1-Version-2-59812146
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Ashley-Kent-Phase-2-Version-1-60025919
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Kelly-Grant-Phase-2-63913866
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Kelly-Grant-Phase-1-61638049
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Rachel-Wight-Phase-1-68364010

for example some sample way they would be used would be as follows
are this going to pass?
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Changes-Redux-Filler-2-61444119
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Mouse-63947473
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/The-real-me-63870959
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Human-on-the-inside-63469164
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Filler-3-61846868
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Prey-63955252
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/To-Be-Human-78928864

cause frankly since your text submission system sucks if none of these pass you might as well close my account, that all the kind of content I have to upload to FA


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 22, 2009)

Setsune_W said:


> No, but it will help you become a better 3D animator.




Which is why everyone is using it to post stills, of course.
The rule could be changed to say you can do animations with Poser using stock models to get feedback on the quality of the animation, sure, but there are better ways to get feedback on that than posting them in the gallery, and they hardly constitute as finished original work. Anyone learning 3D Animation should also probably be learning 3D Modeling alongside that, too. You get more out of it(Control, quality, originality) that way.


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 22, 2009)

@Kitoth
I'm sorry, but I have to ask. you say SL takes no effort, but at the same time poser takes so much? they both take as much effort as the user is willing to give. I mean, whats stopping someone in poser from just loading up a model, loading up a pre made pose, and clicking render?

and at the same time, whats stopping an SL user from building a nice background, setting up some light sources popping open avimator and making a nice custom pose/animation to upload to SL, to use with his custom self made avatar?

How is whats happening to poser images any different then whats happened to SL ones? other then poser not having a low locked in submission cap?
even you pretty much say the same thing about SL, that others are saying about poser.


----------



## Daymond42 (Jan 23, 2009)

I did have a legitimate question asked back in page one, which seemed to go unnoticed after all the mud slinging and such started going on.

One has to remember, though, that even though one -can- use preset poses, expressions, and lighting, doesn't mean that everyone -does-.

But, meh. Whatever.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 23, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> You're accusing the people who create _original models_ of posting "centerfold shot after mindless centerfold shot." But Krystal has nothing to do with us; she was hacked from a video game. While I was there to see it before it was made into a Poser model, it's the Poser people using it.


Wrong.

What I _asked_ was which activity is more creative--and which question most people seem to be avoiding.

And the reason I asked that was the rule as written would permit that _rather_ than someone trying to do novel work, based on the arbitrary distinction of whether the model was downloaded or not.

Given that the idea of the rule, as far as I can tell, was to do something about the _abuse_ of the tool.  Not the _use_ of it.

Let's say for the sake of argument I create a model that unintentionally turns out to be a precise duplicate of the P4 'dork'.

_Any render I do with that is in all ways not differentiable from a render I do with the stock model._

What have you gained?  Nothing.  Don't tell me that because I hand-made the model, it makes a difference.  Pixel for pixel, the images are identical.

Or are you going to tell me that people look at the image and go "Ooo, he made that model himself!"  I put it to you that they do not.  They either like or dislike the image _on its own merits_.

Therefore, either the image says something on its own, or it does not, and it matters not a whit whether the parts used to construct it were made by me personally or downloaded from Renderosity or wherever.

Furthermore, you are deliberately missing the point that I am in agreement with the goal of this rule.  What I want to do is help find a better place to draw the line.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 23, 2009)

Little_Dragon said:


> Your mistake, here, was in acknowledging that storytelling is a form of creation.  That may come back to haunt you later.


Therefore writers don't create.  Nice call, there.


----------



## nekollx (Jan 23, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Therefore writers don't create.  Nice call, there.



*starts polishing pitch fork*

I have a few extra if you want one Kefan


----------



## XerxesQados (Jan 23, 2009)

Wouldn't it be best for the users to decide whether a particular artist's use of any medium has artistic merit? With, like, favorites and positive comments and watches and stuff?

If the goal of this policy is quality control, it would probably be better to implement a rating system (anonymous to avoid drama and stuff).


----------



## Kefan (Jan 23, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> As far as those who said stuff along the lines of "tired of seeing in galleries similar pics and so on" related to this who poser thing, you do realize that the only one who is at fault for being tired of those is yourself for choosing to watch the person.



*This.*

If that's what you're seeing, maybe _that_ artist has reached Poser burnout, not _all_ Poser users have.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 23, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> Well Arshes let me ask you something then since your an admin. Should the 3d\CG submissions be based on a case by case basic such as the image wanting to be posted, or should it be as someone said "A broad brush"..Also should those who still are staying on FA be required to remove "ALL" past works if an image is in violation?
> 
> I would hope you as well as Dragoneer say No on that last part because that would indicate not just to me but to probably many that down the line if a new AUP is put into place about  another kind of submission like the voice meme's I mentioned or other kinds of images, would be forced to be removed because the admins and site owner decided to add a new rule.
> 
> I know this site is free and meant to be a place for artists but if more and more is taken away, users will leave and new ones may not join, I've seen quite a few sites have that happen that were good places but the owners started inserting new rules over the course of the sites time and soon only a handful of people remained most closed.



As stated in the original AUP thread, I believe Dragoneer said submissions in violation weren't going to outright remove materials unless reported. Some may be too old to really care quite frankly. But he's stated it more than once on the the first AUP thread. 

I also don't see why people keep bringing up "slippery slope" ...Yes there is a line drawn, and it's not opening Pandora's box here, it's not going to be "soon he'll ban what kind of porn you'll draw...think of the CHILDREN"  I mean it's become absurd. 

Not all 3d is banned either, I mean what's to stop you from posting up a failed 3d model you tried to create on your own? Nothing. What's to stop you from still making playsets or whatnot from stock? Nothing. 

You just can't post the latter because it's not yours for the most part and isn't really specifically made for you. 

However, it seems many people are afraid of posting the former because of rejection and failure. However, you can also learn from those mistakes and speak with other people who do know what he/she is doing. 

If I post up a bad drawing, and people can tell me why it's bad so I can learn how to fix it, it's a step towards progress.

I don't see why modeling isn't the same? You gotta make mistakes to learn from them.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 23, 2009)

Kefan said:


> *This.*
> 
> If that's what you're seeing, maybe _that_ artist has reached Poser burnout, not _all_ Poser users have.



Wait what. Umm the person assumed that they were *watching* that artist. It's also entirely possible the person is trying to stumble or browse/look for 3d artists and is just getting all the same POSER art.

I can imagine that being frustrating.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 23, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> As for the "OH MAN I'M CREATING SCENE IM SUCH AN ARTEST" argument in defense of Poser stock model use, would you be opposed to a bunch of people taking a program that renders stick figures and posing them in "Scenes", and then flooding the gallery with that? Because that's the same thing as most of what's being done with Poser, only they look prettier.



You know what?  If those stick figures are entertaining in some way--making a point, a funny gag, something more than just standing there and being stick figures for the sake of being stick figures?  I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## nekollx (Jan 23, 2009)

Kefan said:


> You know what?  If those stick figures are entertaining in some way--making a point, a funny gag, something more than just standing there and being stick figures for the sake of being stick figures?  I don't have a problem with it.



you mean like oh.....this

http://jollyjack.deviantart.com/art/How-to-play-Fallout-3-108500989

yeah....

That's art to me.


----------



## Daymond42 (Jan 23, 2009)

Kefan said:


> You know what?  If those stick figures are entertaining in some way--making a point, a funny gag, something more than just standing there and being stick figures for the sake of being stick figures?  I don't have a problem with it.




I was a fan of stickdeath.com back in the day, y'know... :>  There is some merit for simple stuff out there!


----------



## Kefan (Jan 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Wait what. Umm the person assumed that they were *watching* that artist.



Yup, that's exactly what he said, and exactly what I agreed with.  I didn't generalize that in any way, shape or form.  Your point?



Arshes Nei said:


> It's also entirely possible the person is trying to stumble or browse/look for 3d artists and is just getting all the same POSER art.
> 
> I can imagine that being frustrating.



Very.  I'd like to be able to browse without seeing images I'm not interested in, too.  However, I just skim over them and keep looking.


----------



## Mazz (Jan 23, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> Which is why everyone is using it to post stills, of course.
> The rule could be changed to say you can do animations with Poser using stock models to get feedback on the quality of the animation, sure, but there are better ways to get feedback on that than posting them in the gallery, and they hardly constitute as finished original work. Anyone learning 3D Animation should also probably be learning 3D Modeling alongside that, too. You get more out of it(Control, quality, originality) that way.



Well put. 




XerxesQados said:


> Wouldn't it be best for the users to decide whether a particular artist's use of any medium has artistic merit? With, like, favorites and positive comments and watches and stuff?
> 
> If the goal of this policy is quality control, it would probably be better to implement a rating system (anonymous to avoid drama and stuff).



So many sites had tried rating systems and even if anonymous it would start more drama and annoying whining than pageviews already do. 
--


If you don't create anything to actually make a 3d model original(so it basically still looks stock) then you can't post it. If people have a problem with that maybe they should spend the time they are complaining and use said time learning how to make original things in a 3d modeling program. That way this rule won't apply to you anymore.


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 23, 2009)

Kefan said:


> You know what?  If those stick figures are entertaining in some way--making a point, a funny gag, something more than just standing there and being stick figures for the sake of being stick figures?  I don't have a problem with it.




Unfortunately, this is something we almost never see with Poser because people are too busy making fetish images or posing Krystal so that it looks like she's masturbating or showing off her ass, and then _filling galleries_ with that kind of thing. It's irritating, mostly looks god awful, and effects the way people see 3D art as a whole.
And if the art is all about the scene, why not draw it? Sure, it won't look as good if you're not a great artist, but it's something you created yourself and moves away from breaking the "By You/For You" policy.


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jan 23, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> @Little_Dragon: That is false, and you may have been outright lied to. I was there the moment that model hit the internet. The vertex data was very specifically ripped from the game. That's essentially the model; it's simply that, due to how that game did things, the polygons needed to be placed back over the vertices.



I suspect you are confusing CharleyFox's work with Nanogrrr's.


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jan 23, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> Unfortunately, this is something we almost never see with Poser because people are too busy making fetish images or posing Krystal so that it looks like she's masturbating or showing off her ass, and then _filling galleries_ with that kind of thing. It's irritating, mostly looks god awful, and effects the way people see 3D art as a whole.



I've said exactly the same thing concerning the 2D galleries, and how it affects the way people perceive the furry community.

...
..
.

Actually, I've never said that out loud, but the thought does cross my mind infrequently.


----------



## Lt_Havoc (Jan 23, 2009)

Say, I wonder why Dragoneer didnt said anything to this yet. I still keep my opinion that you can created "original" things even using stock models. But yeah, what the hell do I know? 

A lot has been said and still, we did not reach a compromise that suits everyone. That should be the goal here. 

And Ro4dk1ll, its like with all things: if you don't like it, don't look at it, its that easy. 

I also still say you can take something that is already existing (stock models) and do something new and original with it. Also, as shown here before, you need to mod the stock poser model anyway, to suit your needs. If its really just about the Krystal model, then just band that specific model to be posted and we are through with it.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 23, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> Unfortunately, this is something we almost never see with Poser because people are too busy making fetish images or posing Krystal so that it looks like she's masturbating or showing off her ass, and then _filling galleries_ with that kind of thing. It's irritating, mostly looks god awful, and effects the way people see 3D art as a whole.



Whence, I am sure, some of the out-and-out aggression displayed here and on the earlier thread.

My understanding is that 'filling galleries with that kind of thing' is what the new rule was meant to combat.  I agree whole-heartedly with that goal.

The problem is that it draws the line in the wrong place.



Ro4dk1ll said:


> And if the art is all about the scene, why not draw it? Sure, it won't look as good if you're not a great artist, but it's something you created yourself and moves away from breaking the "By You/For You" policy.



Uh, because by my own admission I suck at drawing and I'd like the scene to be recognizable rather than have people look at it and go "Okay, and WTF is *that* supposed to be?"  It involves something called _talent_ at least as much as it does skill, and probably moreso.

I created the _idea_ behind my renders. Do I re-use models?  Yes.  Are they doing essentially the same thing over and over?  No.  I don't appreciate being lumped in with those who _are_ essentially doing the same thing over and over.  I mean, I'm no genius, but at least I _try_.

Or does thinking no longer count as creative activity either?


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 23, 2009)

Little_Dragon said:


> I've said exactly the same thing concerning the 2D galleries, and how it affects the way people perceive the furry community.
> 
> ...
> ..
> ...



This is different though. Pretty much restating what I've said earlier: the way it is now, someone could make a completely new model for Poser and work their asses off on it, and people would just skim over it in the gallery because they'd recognize it as _"Just another Poser picture..."; _While if they knew it was actually created by the artist themselves, there's a chance they'd be impressed. The overuse of stock models lowers site users' expectations of what can actually be done by skilled artists with 3D programs.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 23, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> This is different though. Pretty much restating what I've said earlier: the way it is now, someone could make a completely new model for Poser and work their asses off on it, and people would just skim over it in the gallery because they'd recognize it as _"Just another Poser picture..."; _While if they knew it was actually created by the artist themselves, there's a chance they'd be impressed. The overuse of stock models lowers site users' expectations of what can actually be done by skilled artists with 3D programs.



Correct. It's actually less of a problem with Poser, but people using stock models. It just happens that Poser is the main culprit of the issue. If someone was importing models into another 3d program that were just stock it's the same problem, if they're not making their own changes.

It also destroys the spirit of the For You/By You policy by continuing to use stock and not actually make contributions to it. The For You/ By You was to allow exposure for artists through commissions and collaborations.


----------



## Stratelier (Jan 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> The For You/ By You was to allow exposure for artists through commissions and collaborations.


That, of course, being the subject of a different thread.


----------



## nekollx (Jan 23, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> This is different though. Pretty much restating what I've said earlier: the way it is now, someone could make a completely new model for Poser and work their asses off on it, and people would just skim over it in the gallery because they'd recognize it as _"Just another Poser picture..."; _While if they knew it was actually created by the artist themselves, there's a chance they'd be impressed. The overuse of stock models lowers site users' expectations of what can actually be done by skilled artists with 3D programs.



funny when i browse the gallery for 2d art i see a lot of crap that looks the same and my reaction is "just another crappy fap piece"

Crap is not restricted to CGI, and i am Higly offended i am automaicly lumped into that group after spending hundrens of hours creating 3 characters in Daz from a stock object


----------



## darkdoomer (Jan 23, 2009)

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


does that mean i can submit my terragen tryouts without being censored?
glad you took a more professional stance about this and recognize the artistic value of 3d artworks.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 23, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> This is different though. Pretty much restating what I've said earlier: the way it is now, someone could make a completely new model for Poser and work their asses off on it, and people would just skim over it in the gallery because they'd recognize it as _"Just another Poser picture..."; _While if they knew it was actually created by the artist themselves, there's a chance they'd be impressed. The overuse of stock models lowers site users' expectations of what can actually be done by skilled artists with 3D programs.



Cruddy composition is cruddy composition regardless of the medium or tools involved.

If someone's abusing their render button in Poser, the thing to do is have a word with that user about flooding, not throw the whole lot of us out as though we were all guilty of it.


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 23, 2009)

nekollx said:


> funny when i browse the gallery for 2d art i see a lot of crap that looks the same and my reaction is "just another crappy fap piece"
> 
> Crap is not restricted to CGI, and i am Higly offended i am automaicly lumped into that group after spending hundrens of hours creating 3 characters in Daz from a stock object



The 2D "Crappy fap piece" doesn't effect your view on 2D art as a whole; if someone's got a lot of skill and has put a lot of effort into a 2D piece it generally is of a much higher quality than something that some amateur fetish artist has hastily sketched out in half an hour or so. BUT if a bunch of users are making a whole load of crappy images with well made stock models, and you see one original model made by an actual 3D artist, weeks of work all up, very well made, but posed using Poser, there's no way to differentiate that from the others. This is about protecting the way the community sees 3D artists more than it is about weeding out crap. The hundrens of hours you spend modifying a model? Nothing compared to what a 3D modeller went through to make one from scratch. They should be offended that you're making thier work look bad by association.


----------



## Aden (Jan 23, 2009)

I keep seeing something popping up. It's the argument that banning stock Poser works means that we're forgetting the true meaning of art.

Please, look up the term "strawman". _You're missing the point_.


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 23, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Cruddy composition is cruddy composition regardless of the medium or tools involved.
> 
> If someone's abusing their render button in Poser, the thing to do is have a word with that user about flooding, not throw the whole lot of us out as though we were all guilty of it.




Nevermind the fact that you using a stock model at all (Seriously) can effect the way people see original, modeled-from-scratch 3D art. The fact that stock models are being used so much is completely obscuring the other aspects of 3D art, namely the ones centered around model creation. That's right; The parts that allow you to create your fancy scenes in the first place. I'm going to go ahead and say that these aspects are more important than stock model scenes and yes, a 3D artist that creates their own work from scratch is in fact _more creative than someone who poses stock models.

_It's a form of quality control, it protects the way people see 3D work, and it fits in with the By You/For You policy. You've really not got much going for you.


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 23, 2009)

@Kefan I think you may have mis-interpreted what i meant.

What I was referring is the following. I chose to watch Daymond, Jason Canty, Mapper, and so on, some of them draw but all do 3d\CG work, But if I were to get bored of that and started to complain It would be MY fault because I chose to watch them and as for the browsing.(so if you choose to watch someone who does both but dislikes the 3d\Cg stuff then its your own fault )

There are a lot of things i skip over and even stuff that when i don't bugs me because you go to sort by specific sections and genders but a lot put them under all categories, and if adult or mature don't even select that  and some don't even put a gender selection so if you look at a submission whether a pic or story and see that its clearly a male or female or herm then that can get irritating because in my opinion if anything should be worked on its making sure that submissions are labeled properly  by at least category, gender and in some cases the style of the submission. More so when involving images like traditional, digital, etc.

Now as far s the reference I made to SL, that also was misinterpreted. what I was saying was that with a low limit of 3 for SL snapshots is a good idea, because save for a few who create their own avatar, and background or even their own sim as well as inventions, most are just avatars you buy and do a bit of modding yourself to look how you like them to be.. But with 3d\CG based on the people i talked to who use Poser, Daz or both, for when they make a NEW character it can take quite some time, but after they made a character they said it can take 20-30 min to get the finished product how they want. that is far longer than taking a snapshot in SL which can be done in less tan 5-10 min.

I would have posted this last night but my Pc froze and thought it may have deleted what i had typed out jsut shortly after i began the SL part.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> Nevermind the fact that you using a stock model at all (Seriously) can effect the way people see original, modeled-from-scratch 3D art. The fact that stock models are being used so much is completely obscuring the other aspects of 3D art, namely the ones centered around model creation. That's right; The parts that allow you to create your fancy scenes in the first place. I'm going to go ahead and say that these aspects are more important than stock model scenes and yes, a 3D artist that creates their own work from scratch is in fact _more creative than someone who poses stock models.
> 
> _It's a form of quality control, it protects the way people see 3D work, and it fits in with the By You/For You policy. You've really not got much going for you.


I propose that this Poser stuff should go in a seperate category than actual 3D anyway. They're not 3D artists - this is not about whether poser is art, but about that they don't make 3D.

They're render artists - or whatever. Renderers. Render art.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Correct. It's actually less of a problem with Poser, but people using stock models. It just happens that Poser is the main culprit of the issue. If someone was importing models into another 3d program that were just stock it's the same problem, if they're not making their own changes.
> 
> It also destroys the spirit of the For You/By You policy by continuing to use stock and not actually make contributions to it. The For You/ By You was to allow exposure for artists through commissions and collaborations.



Thank you for that clarification Arshes. Based upon that, may I suggest that you could change "Submissions which are pre-generated or contain computer generated content..." into something like "Submissions *with the focus on elements* which are pre-generated or *mainly* contain computer generated content ...."? I tkink that would make it easier to determine if a pic may be uploaded or not.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 23, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Thank you for that clarification Arshes. Based upon that, may I suggest that you could change "Submissions which are pre-generated or contain computer generated content..." into something like "Submissions *with the focus on elements* which are pre-generated or *mainly* contain computer generated content ...."? I tkink that would make it easier to determine if a pic may be uploaded or not.



Actually your suggestion would make it *more* confusing

_ 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.)._


e.g Poser means Poser is an example.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 23, 2009)

Why would it be confusing if you say that the important parts you want to show must be created by you (or at least most parts of them) and not from stock?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 23, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Why would it be confusing if you say that the important parts you want to show must be created by you (or at least most parts of them) and not from stock?



If you look at how you put it grammatically, it's confusing.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> If you look at how you put it grammatically, it's confusing.



Ok, I could have done better, it just came to my mind and I simply put it in without giving it any thoughts. Sorry for that. ^^

But as I said: _something_ like ... ;-)

Maybe something like this?

"Submissions which are pre-generated or contain computer generated content (e.g. screenshots from games, web sites, etc.) _and do NOT focus on something which contains a significant user created content (e.g. all new texture maps, 3D meshes, animation, interfaces, etc.)_ are not permitted."


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 23, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I propose that this Poser stuff should go in a seperate category than actual 3D anyway. They're not 3D artists - this is not about whether poser is art, but about that they don't make 3D.
> 
> They're render artists - or whatever. Renderers. Render art.



I can go along with that. It makes sense. And I don't think anyone can argue with it, unless they want their mind blown by the tools present in a real 3D modelling application 

Someone mentioned photography, and it is a bit like that. You get your models to pose for you, and you take a snapshot. It just happens to be that these are polygon models being rendered, and are therefore grouped in with other 3D. If we have a separate category, such as "Render Art" (might need a better term but I have yet to think of one), then we don't have to worry about these clashes so much.

Normally I'd also suggest that it be based on content, not program. I can move a model I made into Poser, or I can (and have) move a Poser person into a program like 3D Studio. But the thing is, Poser models lose their rigging when exported, and anyone who can really model is unlikely to go back to Poser anyways, so I guess it's a moot point.

Furthermore, a separate category would reduce the degree to which Poser art effects the view of 3D artists, largely by forcing them to admit they didn't make the model.

On at least one occasion, someone has sent me a piece of "artwork". A fantastic human model. And I was impressed, I was downright _wow-ed_, because I know first hand what a pain in the ass it is to create and rig a human model. So I asked them what program they used to make it. Their response? "Poser." ... *SLAP!*

Just because something mimics three dimensions does not make it 3D art. It may be art nonetheless, but there are further requirements for it to be considered "3D Art".

@WarMocK: Keep tweaking it, I think you're on the right track with that re-wording.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 23, 2009)

Thanks buddy, but right now my head is spinning because I've got to do four things at the same time. And right now I simply have no idea how to make it sound better (I can't translate my suggestion 1:1 from german to english, that would sound way too complicated. -.-)

I'd like to pass it onto you guys for now, if this s*** goes on all evening I think I seriously get a heart attack. >_<


----------



## Dragonrider1227 (Jan 23, 2009)

Eevee said:


> A photographer finds and captures a moment and feeling somewhere in the world.
> 
> Poser is playing with Barbie dolls.
> 
> I am sure it is possible to create grand works of art with Poser, as it is possible to create grand works of art with a pinhead and canvas or a hard drive, needle, and powerful magnet.  I am also sure this will never be resolved to anyone's satisfaction because it comes down to the subjective line of how much skill the submitter is trying to put into the work.  Nobody wants to rule on that, and users don't want to try to improve the site at the cost of their own attention.



Ah, but he did not create that moment from scratch and therefore *according to some people* means that it CAN'T possibly be art
and as a man who creates comics and such with action figures, that "playing with Barbie dolls" comment hit me in the feel bads


----------



## Tobias Amaranth (Jan 23, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I propose that this Poser stuff should go in a seperate category than actual 3D anyway. They're not 3D artists - this is not about whether poser is art, but about that they don't make 3D.
> 
> They're render artists - or whatever. Renderers. Render art.



This. I like this. I still think Poser needs cracked down on, but it needs to be defined whether something is being developed from the ground up as modeling, or if it's being rendered.

Split the 3D section into two. One for 3D Modeling where it's the folks that created actual *items* and *characters* and other things you can point at specifically and go 'I created that'. The other for 3D Rendering where the focus is moreso on the scene than what the person modeled. In addition, still crack down on flooding and quality control of many of the Poser and Second Life uploads.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 23, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> I can go along with that. It makes sense. And I don't think anyone can argue with it, unless they want their mind blown by the tools present in a real 3D modelling application
> 
> Someone mentioned photography, and it is a bit like that. You get your models to pose for you, and you take a snapshot. It just happens to be that these are polygon models being rendered, and are therefore grouped in with other 3D. If we have a separate category, such as "Render Art" (might need a better term but I have yet to think of one), then we don't have to worry about these clashes so much.



Just to point this out...why does the separation even matter? The system doesn't make that distinction at all, as far as I've seen? Unless there's a category in Browse I'm completely missing?

http://www.furaffinity.net/browse/

At first I thought I could see a way to browse strictly 3d art...but it's not there (-sans search) So why would this even be a middle ground to begin with?


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

Arshes Nei; indeed there is no way to browse this! (maybe there will be?) I just want them to stop calling themselves 3D artists, if they are not actually making the 3D objects.

Again, this is not a discussion about what art is and whether it takes effort or experience to make. 



DigitalMan said:


> I can go along with that. It makes sense. And I don't think anyone can argue with it, unless they want their mind blown by the tools present in a real 3D modelling application








The vertices! They are frightening me!


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jan 23, 2009)

At risk of having my stuff pulled down..

Tell me...would these constitute having no user generated content or would they constitute enough to warrant posting:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1678618/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/918895/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/474514/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/396658/

Now obviously this is Little Dragon's Furrette figure, in pretty much every instance save the first which is Daz's V4. 

These figures do not come looking "furry" in Furrette's case. They have seams that can be seen straight out of rendering. They do not, obviously, have hair or in "Pure Prayer"'s case, jewelry. They do not react to the lighting of a background added afterwards.

I render these in Poser and do a fairly significant amount of postwork in Photoshop afterwards-these are not straight renders, and I certainly did not just slap them up on FA. A good amount of artistic work went into these (and I am not saying I am the best, just that this is what I've done). 

So tell me...do these have enough "User generated content" to be allowed, or are they banned because I added onto an already existing base?


----------



## Setsune_W (Jan 23, 2009)

There are some really cruel things being said in this discussion. Even if the base is from something else, work is work, and some people have invested hours into singular pictures that are now being lumped in with the 20-shot dumps of people just getting started. And I'm not angry at the people learning the tool, but it's not fair to say that any familiarity with the tool is worthless.

The problem is the quantity to most people, so why doesn't the anti-flooding rule apply? Why is there a special exception specifically devoted to Poser? If somebody new uploads 20 shots of the same basic thing, you slap them on the wrist and tell them to slow down and make each submit count. They may just be posing, tweaking, and dressing dolls, but interesting and entertaining things can be done with them without drastic adjustments or rebuilds.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

Setsune W:
Precisely what are these cruel sayings?
I _try_ to be fair, but hard.

In my analysis, what we have here is a site administration that says:
"We want to see people create something from nothing. Form from the formless or *very basic* materials."

As you can see, editing anything that is _already_ art or of a higher degree of refinement immediatly falls outside of this. That's why we now have a clause of "significant contribution of user made material".

But that is just my analysis.


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 23, 2009)

I feel a bit better today. I had to come back for this:



krisCrash said:


> Just to point this out...why does the separation even matter? The system doesn't make that distinction at all, as far as I've seen? Unless there's a category in Browse I'm completely missing?
> 
> http://www.furaffinity.net/browse/
> 
> At first I thought I could see a way to browse strictly 3d art...but it's not there (-sans search) So why would this even be a middle ground to begin with?


 
Because you're treating "Render Artists" as if they're trying _cheat _their way through 3D modeling, when it's no more cheating than Photography is to Drawing_._

It's not about the _model._ It's about the _character _or the _scene_. What makes you think that everyone who wants to make a computer image should have to do it from scratch any more than someone who takes photographs should be required to learn to draw from scratch?

I think you're making the flawed assumption that everyone making render art is trying to usurp the place of 3d modelers and texturers. Anyone who uses pre-made characters in Poser or similar that calls themselves a 3D modeler is deluding themselves and while they may be able to keep up a charade for some time, but it's going to come out in the wash and they should be derided for it. 

But don't tell the rest of us that our work isn't "artistic" enough because we chose to use an easier, but more limited tool. Is it as skillful? Absolutely not. As long as no one is being dishonest, and clear effort is being put into what's displayed, why is there still a problem? Using morph libraries to create characters should be allowed as "user created content".






The image in the center is Victoria 4.2, a commonly available Poser figure. One of the side images is created using V4.2's extensive morph libraries. The other figure was created by someone in Zbrush using V4.2 as a base. All three have the same texture and shaders applied. Can you honestly tell me which is from Zbrush and which is from morph libraries? I seriously doubt it.


----------



## Aden (Jan 23, 2009)

FangBlade said:


> Using morph libraries to create characters should be allowed as "user created content".



...Even though the "morph libraries" are not created by you. Right.

Why is this discussion still going?


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 23, 2009)

Aden said:


> ...Even though the "morph libraries" are not created by you. Right.
> 
> Why is this discussion still going?


 
Are the tools in Zbrush created by the person using them? Is the camera of the photographer? How about the tools in Photoshop?

The morph libraries are simply another tool that you can use to customize your character. The result of combining different ones in varying degrees produces unique results. If the people using the Krystal figure were using them, you wouldn't be seeing the same old Krystal over and over again...


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

FangBlade said:


> ...


That was aimed at me, wasn't it? Since you respond to what I said in Arshe's quote... I REALLY AM debating whether I really should answer that, because I find my last post concise, simple and true to my honest beliefs 


Aden said:


> Why is this discussion still going?


Well my dear, you were the one with the cancer metaphor back in the first thread, you figure it out


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jan 23, 2009)

FangBlade said:


> I feel a bit better today. I had to come back for this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well I can, but then I know V4's limitations. ~.^



Aden said:


> ...Even though the "morph libraries" are not created by you. Right.
> 
> Why is this discussion still going?




Are the pencil and paper made by the artist?

How about the canvas and paints?

The clay? The Marble? The brush?


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 23, 2009)

straydog said:


> These are all things which can be downloaded, and with a simple click, implemented into an image.
> 
> Someone can say they painstakingly posed the characters themselves, and came up with the scene or lighting...but chances are I could replicate their exact scene by downloading a pose, lighting, and expression set.



ok, at least for my case... go over here http://sheena-tiger.deviantart.com/art/Fiana-Sturmfalke-as-Blacksmith-110182037 and redo that pic. not only placing the props, but the correct lighting and posing too, along with the proper morphs! -.-

i never said i am a "3D-Modeller" cause modelling is something i have not tried till now, i am still having enouhg to do with making the characters with premade stuff and posing them myself.

right now i work on a prequell to the first pic, alone putting another character together how i wanted the char took me hours, now that i have posed additional props and am short before testing if all clothes on the new char are as i like them too it seems poser crashed on me (taking a couple of hours of work away, simply like this... partially my fault for not saving a bit more often)
aside of loading and posing, i am reworking a texture i buyed (yes, all the stuff in the pic is bought by me) to fit whati want to have on the new character. it might be very simple editing of the texture, but its much work for me as non-artist.



Ro4dk1ll said:


> Unfortunately, this is something we almost never see with Poser because people are too busy making fetish images or posing Krystal so that it looks like she's masturbating or showing off her ass, and then _filling galleries_ with that kind of thing. It's irritating, mostly looks god awful, and effects the way people see 3D art as a whole.
> And if the art is all about the scene, why not draw it? Sure, it won't look as good if you're not a great artist, but it's something you created yourself and moves away from breaking the "By You/For You" policy.



*points up to the link* look there, no krystal, no fapping-material if itn ot somehow hits a fetish you have (like seeing a winged catgirl-like female working in a blacksmith...)
aside of that, somehow i have absolutely no patience to work with pen and paper or a graphical program like photoshop... but posing stuff in poser can take hours of time for me and i have fun doing it


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

Oh no you didn't just pull the "who made the tools" card. Sweet Gefjun's chariot, I am going to bed.


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 23, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Oh no you didn't just pull the "who made the tools" card. Sweet Gefjun's chariot, I am going to bed.


 
Morph libraries are a tool.  Why are they any less valid?


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

FangBlade said:


> Morph libraries are a tool.  Why are they any less valid?



See


krisCrash said:


> In my analysis, what we have here is a site administration that says:
> "We want to see people create something from nothing. Form from the formless or *very basic* materials."
> 
> As you can see, editing anything that is _already_ art or of a higher degree of refinement immediatly falls outside of this. That's why we now have a clause of "significant contribution of user made material".
> ...


they're not very basic.


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jan 23, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Oh no you didn't just pull the "who made the tools" card. Sweet Gefjun's chariot, I am going to bed.




But that's been the argument against Poser for much of this thread. 

"You didn't make the tools, you're just using them, so it's not original."

Well, if I don't make the brush and paints from scratch, is a painting any less original?

If I didn't make the marble, or the clay, does that make my sculpture any less art?

If I didn't make the morph libraries, does that mean I put less effort into my render?

How about if I use the morph library for the basic pose but then do things like tweak the fingers, the arm, the neck, the eyes, the legs, the toes....and these are things I do tweak when doing a render. 

Just because I started out with a basic pose, or used the morph library....it's suddenly worthless?


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 23, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> See
> 
> they're not very basic.


 
Neither is a camera (see Rendering = Photography argument).  As I said previously, it's not about the model, it's about the character and the scene.  Those are uniquely made the same as photo shoot.

If having someone dress up in a costume, say that they purchased, having them pose, and taking a photograph counts, why doesnt' doing the same thing in a 3D rendering application become invalid?


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

Witchiebunny said:


> But that's been the argument against Poser for much of this thread.
> 
> "You didn't make the tools, you're just using them, so it's not original."
> 
> ...


That's not my argument. It's not as a simple "tool", it's as a full figure. It's already highly refined. It's already art.

Okay well, random prions made the proteins that eventually was used to build my drawing hand, you know what, we can't make art at all.

I still didn't say it was worthless. It's art. I'm just trying to explain what FA and many people have against it.

I didn't say tools.



FangBlade said:


> Neither is a camera (see Rendering = Photography argument).  As I said previously, it's not about the model, it's about the character and the scene.  Those are uniquely made the same as photo shoot.
> 
> If having someone dress up in a costume, say that they purchased, having them pose, and taking a photograph counts, why doesnt' doing the same thing in a 3D rendering application become invalid?



it is not invalid, FA just doesn't want it.


----------



## DigitalMan (Jan 23, 2009)

As krisCrash said, those tools are not very basic. At all. They move groups of vertices around in a set manner, to modify something someone else created.

No one is saying that Poser can not be used to create art. We're just saying _it's not *3D art*_, so it should go elsewhere. This is an important distinction even without the Browse function separating them.

Though the Browse feature does need an overhaul to begin with.


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 23, 2009)

krisCrash said:
			
		

> _That's not my argument. It's not as a simple "tool", it's as a full figure. It's already highly refined. It's already art._
> 
> _Okay well, random prions made the proteins that eventually was used to build my drawing hand, you know what, we can't make art at all._
> 
> ...


But you do want the photograph of the person in costume right?  Why does FA want one and not the other?




DigitalMan said:


> As krisCrash said, those tools are not very basic. At all. They move groups of vertices around in a set manner, to modify something someone else created.
> 
> No one is saying that Poser can not be used to create art. We're just saying _it's not *3D art*_, so it should go elsewhere. This is an important distinction even without the Browse function separating them.
> 
> Though the Browse feature does need an overhaul to begin with.


 
DigitalMan, except if you use say 5 of those in combination positively and negatively with hundreds of thousands of degrees of freedom, they move things in different ways than originally designed by the specific morph's creator. Whether I moved a point on a figure in space directly by hand in 3DS Max, or I used 10 different morph libraries to make it end up in that same spot, why does it really matter?

Additionally, "move groups of vertices around in a set manner", guess what...the tools in ZBrush do too, and that's already been deemed acceptable.


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 23, 2009)

Delete me.  Posts merged.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

FangBlade said:


> But you do want the photograph of the person in costume right?  Why does FA want one and not the other?



You edit a lot. Before it just said photography. So first I will reply to that:

No, I don't want photographs actually - I said that earlier. You should be glad I don't make the rules because 
- anything traced or built upon (not referenced) remotely humanoid bases by someone else would be banned,
- everything photography (save for the sole purpose of ditigalizing paintings and sculpture) would be out
- everything doodles deleted
- every little funny screenshot of whatever you thought was cool but didn't make, gone
- only things people shaped from the formless using their stubby little fingers and simple tools would get to stay.
(list is not exhaustive)

You think that sounds strict? Well there are sites that run like this. I don't think FA should run like that.

And reply to after your edit: If a person photographs a fursuit as a means of digitalizing it as an artwork that's notoriously hard to squeeze in a scanner, yes it's fine.

And for the record on the whole tool thing, I _do_ make my own brushes, so that any little splosh they may make was drawn by me too!


----------



## FangBlade (Jan 23, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> You edit a lot. Before it just said photography. So first I will reply to that:
> 
> No, I don't want photographs actually - I said that earlier. You should be glad I don't make the rules because
> - anything based (not referenced) on remotely humanoid bases by someone else would be banned,
> ...


 
I do edit a lot. It's better than making multiple posts. 

If rules like your'd like were institued uniformly across the board, I'd be more understanding. However, that kind of policy is being applied towards one category of art (renderings) and not another (photography) here on this site.

Edit: ha ha edit again! I'm terrible...  I did want to say that I think it's awesome that you make your own brushes!


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 23, 2009)

I feel this really needs to be said. simply having an object or model placed in poser, does not suddenly give it morphs. unless someone down the line already made the morphs for that model, set them up, and got them to work correctly. therefore anything you can make with said morphs, is the result of *their* work, because *they* took they time add those morphs to the model.

If someone in SL scripted an avatar they were selling, to stretch/change color of parts by the user clicking buttons on a HUD. those alone wouldn't be a big enough change for the user to be able to upload it (and I doubt very many fellow SL users would disagree). so why should poser be treated differently in that respect?


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jan 23, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> I feel this really needs to be said. simply having an object or model placed in poser, does not suddenly give it morphs. unless someone down the line already made the morphs for that model, set them up, and got them to work correctly. therefore anything you can make with said morphs, is the result of *their* work, because *they* took they time add those morphs to the model.
> 
> If someone in SL scripted an avatar they were selling, to stretch/change color of parts by the user clicking buttons on a HUD. those alone wouldn't be a big enough change for the user to be able to upload it (and I doubt very many fellow SL users would disagree). so why should poser be treated differently in that respect?



So who's to say I didn't create and attach magnets to a model and use that to morph my figure? Is it any different?

So essentially, we didn't create the model from scratch, we didn't create the morphs from scratch, so when we take these things and create something with it....we deserve none of the credit because everything was "handed" to us??

Wow...

So let me ask you a question then. Which do you think is easier to do....set up a scene and situation by drawing it out on paper, or setting up the identical scene and situation using a program like Poser?


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 23, 2009)

Witchiebunny said:


> So who's to say I didn't create and attach magnets to a model and use that to morph my figure? Is it any different?
> 
> So essentially, we didn't create the model from scratch, we didn't create the morphs from scratch, so when we take these things and create something with it....we deserve none of the credit because everything was "handed" to us??
> 
> ...



If you actually create and use something that you made, then good for you. just make sure to say it in the description so others know you did. but as pretty much everyone knows, many many *many* poser artists in fact *do not* make even a slight bit of anything, other then just using the out of the box stuff, slapping it into a pose, and hitting render.


I love how you act like I said you need to make 100% of everything used in the image. 
If you reread my post, you should notice it's saying you need to do more then just mess with out of the box sliders if you want to really say you made something.
nowhere does you say you need to make everything from scratch.


That depends, are you just downloading and placing those models and objects into poser? as for the drawing, thats just it, you have to *draw* them, meaning you have to *create* them yourself.

you can't really compare drawing and using poser, because the equivalent of using poser in a drawing sense, would be to take drawings others have made, and cut and paste parts you like onto your own image, and rotate/stretch them till you got them how you want.

not exactly an idea I'd like to see people start doing here on FA.


----------



## nekollx (Jan 23, 2009)

Witchiebunny said:


> Well I can, but then I know V4's limitations. ~.^



Really now?

V4's Limits are only in the model's mind.

To wit

ALLL OF THESE, that's right, EVERY LAST PICTURE, IS USING v4 AND HER mORPHS++ OR CREATURE PACK

Ashley, Kelly, Rachel, Evyln, Sherry, Kim, and there were forms
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Sheryl-Kent-Phase-3-Version-1-78958017
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Sheryl-Kent-Phase-2-Version-2-63914308
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Sheryl-Kent-Phase-1-Version-2-59821495
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Kimberly-Wren-Phase-1-Ver-2-59863895
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Kim-Wren-Phase-2-Version-1-61455368
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Evelyn-Redding-Version-2-59972872
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Ashley-Kent-Phase-1-Version-2-59812146
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Ashley-Kent-Phase-2-Version-1-60025919
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Kelly-Grant-Phase-2-63913866
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Kelly-Grant-Phase-1-61638049
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Rachel-Wight-Phase-1-68364010

Some examples of usage outside of a ref sheet
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Changes-Redux-Filler-2-61444119
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Mouse-63947473
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/The-real-me-63870959
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Human-on-the-inside-63469164
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Filler-3-61846868
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/Prey-63955252
http://nekollx.deviantart.com/art/To-Be-Human-78928864


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jan 23, 2009)

nekollx said:


> Really now?
> 
> V4's Limits are only in the model's mind.
> 
> ...



Oh I didn't mean to imply V4 isn't versatile. Quite the opposite, and she's certainly an improvement over V3 and V2 to be sure!

Just saying, there are...quirks about her that typically need to be tweaked, and it's those I'm familiar with. :3


----------



## Tobias Amaranth (Jan 23, 2009)

Those 3 heads... To me they look pretty much the same. No real changes to them from a quick glance. It's the same base, which you didn't make. Maybe it's art, but at the same time, it's not. I wouldn't want to see upload after upload with that same base model being repeatedly tweaked and turned into 'different' characters.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 23, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> That's a new way of putting it. As a matter of fact, I was looking into creating a program that did exactly that! The difference? My intention was to use said stick figures as a drawing base, like a 3D wooden mannequin of sorts, to examine poses and angles I can't quite wrap my head around (with added benefits of adjustable character height and such). _Not_ to upload the images as a finished piece!
> 
> @Little_Dragon: That is false, and you may have been outright lied to. I was there the moment that model hit the internet. The vertex data was very specifically ripped from the game. That's essentially the model; it's simply that, due to how that game did things, the polygons needed to be placed back over the vertices. In the world of 3D, that doesn't constitute "from scratch"; it doesn't even constitute "tracing". The physical model is indistinguishable from the one in the game, because the vertex data and polygon connections are identical.
> 
> ...




Ummm.. D-Man... LDragon and Charleyfox are the ones that released it. They would know more about her creation than anyone.
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 23, 2009)

darkdoomer said:


> >*Generators: *Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they do not violate the Flooding Policy.
> 
> 
> does that mean i can submit my terragen tryouts without being censored?
> glad you took a more professional stance about this and recognize the artistic value of 3d artworks.



Ooo... Terragen! I for one would love to see what you made!  
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 23, 2009)

Apologies for getting off-topic there. Sorry! Sorry!


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 23, 2009)

Tobias Amaranth said:


> Those 3 heads... To me they look pretty much the same. No real changes to them from a quick glance. It's the same base, which you didn't make. Maybe it's art, but at the same time, it's not. I wouldn't want to see upload after upload with that same base model being repeatedly tweaked and turned into 'different' characters.



What if they are part of an army, like clone troopers or something? The mission always comes first sir! TK791! Get back into positon! Sorry Sir!  JK! Heh! I couldn't resist. *Slaps hand.. Bad artist, bad!"
--Dancougar


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 23, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> If you actually create and use something that you made, then good for you. just make sure to say it in the description so others know you did. but as pretty much everyone knows, many many *many* poser artists in fact *do not* make even a slight bit of anything, other then just using the out of the box stuff, slapping it into a pose, and hitting render.
> 
> 
> I love how you act like I said you need to make 100% of everything used in the image.
> ...



Not only that, but the new AUP protects and encourages the 3D artists that _do_ make all of their work in modeling programs from scratch by removing the tacky-looking stock model morphs from the library and stopping their work from getting caught up in that group. Yes, I am aware that stock model morphs _and_ 3D models made from scratch can both look tacky at times, and people here have informed me they're quite opposed to anything not visually appealing, but the difference is that the 3D model made from scratch is completely original work, took a lot more effort than the Poser stock scene, and there can be feedback given to more elements of the modeled work because it's a more involved form of creation. There's a large learning curve, and a lot of room for improvement. Not saying that there's none of that involved in stock model use, but there is much, _much_ less. This isn't something you can deny, it is fact.

And if any of you are thinking I have some sort of grudge against 3D work, I do not dislike 3D Art(In fact, the 3D sections are probably my favorite part of the monthly digital art magazine I'm subscribed to), but I'm not seeing any of the work made by 3D modelers because it is nearly impossible to distinguish among the rendered stock scene work. To create something as complex as a 3D model from scratch is fantastic, and the model itself is an artwork by the artist, while the scenes made by renderers where they've basically posed stick figures and had another person's art imposed over the top, is not. The only thing you created in that scene was the poses, and modifications to sliders/textures. Hell, you couldn't even use your programs if it wasn't for the work 3D modelers put into making the models for you to use in the first place. It's a more important aspect of the 3D artform, and bringing more attention to it would improve the site. Removal of work using stock models also fits in with the "By You/For You" policy, which is a detail everyone seems to be ignoring or denying.


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 23, 2009)

Well I want to further push my argument that taking SL pics are much more easier and quicker to do so that low limit of 3 max makes sense, but for the renders thats where I rather either see no limit or a fair limit decide by those who render and Dragoneer and maybe some of the staff.

A friend who i do not want to name because i rather not drag his renders into this gave me a time table with three renders and here is what was said:

Pic 1: "That one took about 8-10 hours of posing and re-posing, and rendering, getting dissatisfied with the look, posing again, re-rendering, bitching at the lighting, fucking with lights, re-rendering, saying "fuck it" and keeping the render, and then adding a background."

Pic 2: "This, on the flip side, took only about an hour and a half to get the pose down (since I was basing it off of a Greek sculpture, and trying to match the pose), and 22 hours to render, due to the fog effect."

Pic 3: "his one took about 2 days, since each Krystal was rendered separately, as well as the background, and then was all put together like a scene for an animation cel.

Of course, with each of these, the pictures are then exported to Photoshop as PNG files so that I can compile them together, do color corrections, and even fix issues that may occur, such as polygon warping due to extreme poses."

so even using the Krystal render a final product took a lot more time that it would take to take a snapshot of a SL avatar and upload it here.


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 23, 2009)

once again, you are asuming that with SL all the person was doing, is taking a screen shot. just like in poser, you can set up lights, just like in poser, you can put in a background (or flat out build a new one instead), if you want to do a custom pose, you can do that, you simply make it in avimator or (gasp) poser, and upload it.
you want a new expresion on the face? you can mess with the the prims making up the face, or make and upload a new texture if your avatar uses a face texture instead.

if pretty much everything you could do in preporation for a poser image, you could do for an SL screenshot. how is it any different, and how are any of them faster?


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 23, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> once again, you are asuming that with SL all the person was doing, is taking a screen shot. just like in poser, you can set up lights, just like in poser, you can put in a background (or flat out build a new one instead), if you want to do a custom pose, you can do that, you simply make it in avimator or (gasp) poser, and upload it.
> you want a new expresion on the face? you can mess with the the prims making up the face, or make and upload a new texture if your avatar uses a face texture instead.
> 
> if pretty much everything you could do in preporation for a poser image, you could do for an SL screenshot. how is it any different, and how are any of them faster?



Well if you look at the majority of SL submission aside from a few who make their own avs the background is mostly what someone else put into SL like a club scene, a poseball, a device and so on. I mean unless you do create your own avatars which can take quite some time i highly doubt it can take 6+ hours for just one snapshot. find me 3 solid examples of someone who doesn't make their own avatar but has done minor things and find out how long it took them.


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 23, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> Well I want to further push my argument that taking SL pics are much more easier and quicker to do so that low limit of 3 max makes sense, but for the renders thats where I rather either see no limit or a fair limit decide by those who render and Dragoneer and maybe some of the staff.
> 
> A friend who i do not want to name because i rather not drag his renders into this gave me a time table with three renders and here is what was said:
> 
> ...




SL Avatars made for you fit in with the "For You" part of the By You/For You policy(Obviously), and ones you made obviously also fit in with the "By You" part of the policy and deserve to be shown off.(They do; Really)
Stock models weren't made by you, or expressly for you(Which I'm fairly sure is a rule in the policy). They're also characters and are generally the focal point of the image. It doesn't matter how long it took.


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 23, 2009)

you have got to be kidding = p

your telling me to ignore the fact that effort can be put into SL, because most people just take the lazy way out?  isn't that the reason poser is getting this new rule?


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

DigitalMan said:


> Furthermore, a separate category would reduce the degree to which Poser art effects the view of 3D artists, largely by forcing them to admit they didn't make the model.



"Forcing them to admit"?  Please.  You're deliberately trying to make Poser users sound inherently dishonest.

I explain where my models come from, what tweaks I've done (if any), and what post-processing was done and in which program--which is the way it should be.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> Nevermind the fact that you using a stock model at all (Seriously) can effect the way people see original, modeled-from-scratch 3D art. The fact that stock models are being used so much is completely obscuring the other aspects of 3D art, namely the ones centered around model creation. That's right; The parts that allow you to create your fancy scenes in the first place. I'm going to go ahead and say that these aspects are more important than stock model scenes and yes, a 3D artist that creates their own work from scratch is in fact _more creative than someone who poses stock models._



If you're really more fascinated by the creation of the model than by the finished image, I have to think you're missing the point of creating the image in the first place.

I'd love to be able to create my own models.  It is a talent I lack.  Please do not tell me it is a skill that I just haven't put enough time into, because I've put more than enough time into it, and learned that I don't have the necessary visualization ability.


Ro4dk1ll said:


> It's a form of quality control, it protects the way people see 3D work, and it fits in with the By You/For You policy. You've really not got much going for you.



The way I see 3D work is image by image -- did the creator put any thought into it, or did they just slap a model up and not bother with background, pose, expression, etc.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I propose that this Poser stuff should go in a seperate category than actual 3D anyway. They're not 3D artists - this is not about whether poser is art, but about that they don't make 3D.
> 
> They're render artists - or whatever. Renderers. Render art.



I got no problem with this.


----------



## Aden (Jan 24, 2009)

Wow, seriously? Comparing morph libraries to an artist's brush or to sculpting tools in ZBrush? Kiiiind of a stretch.


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> If you're really more fascinated by the creation of the model than by the finished image, I have to think you're missing the point of creating the image in the first place.
> 
> I'd love to be able to create my own models.  It is a talent I lack.  Please do not tell me it is a skill that I just haven't put enough time into, because I've put more than enough time into it, and learned that I don't have the necessary visualization ability.
> 
> ...



The way you see 3D art doesn't effect the way others see 3D art at all; nor does it make any difference as to how the overuse of stock models is effecting the way people see 3D modelers' works. The _necessary visualization ability_ you mentioned is something these artists need to have honed succeed, no doubt this ability also applies to visualizing scenes and applying it, so in most cases their quality of work can be better, and there is also the aspect of creation involved in creating the model in the first place; It's twice as much of an art this way. It's also something you can, and will need to improve with loads of practice and by listening to other users' feedback. Obscuring works by these artists by introducing various shots of posed stock models so that their work can easily be mistaken for something in the same group _visually_ isn't helping them get feedback and improve as a 3D artist. The options are either create a confusing system to give them the separate recognition they deserve, or remove all undesired aspects altogether. The By You/For You policy this site has makes the latter an even more likely choice.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> The way you see 3D art doesn't effect the way others see 3D art at all; nor does it make any difference as to how the overuse of stock models is effecting the way people see 3D modelers' works. The _necessary visualization ability_ you mentioned is something these artists need to have honed succeed, no doubt this ability also applies to visualizing scenes and applying it, so in most cases their quality of work can be better, and there is also the aspect of creation involved in creating the model in the first place; It's twice as much of an art this way. It's also something you can, and will need to, improve with loads of practice and by listening to other users' feedback. Obscuring works by these artists by introducing various shots of posed stock models so that their work can easily be mistaken for something in the same group _visually_ isn't helping them get feedback and improve as a 3D artist. The options are either create a confusing system to give them the separate recognition they deserve, or remove all undesired aspects altogether. The By You/For You policy this site has makes the latter an even more likely choice.



I just love the "Oh, just build your own model!" argument.  Has it really not occurred to anyone yet that this is also a talent, and that not everyone has it?

Sure, I could probably make a crappy model that looks like a Star Trek transporter accident--and be unable to do anything with it because it looks like garbage.  I have--or rather, _had_--several of those.  They were deleted because they were bloody useless.

Or I can express an idea with stock models and actually make the point I'm trying to make.

What you're actually saying here is that the creative thought, the idea, is meaningless, that it's not relevant to 'By You/For You'.  That's the part that's By Me.  Poser is the way I'm able to express those thoughts.


----------



## Setsune_W (Jan 24, 2009)

Aden said:


> Wow, seriously? Comparing morph libraries to an artist's brush or to sculpting tools in ZBrush? Kiiiind of a stretch.



I agree, but I want to put this one out here. Are many of the musicians here recording all of their own instrument samples, or are they using libraries of samples? I have nothing against there being a dedicated music section to the site, despite no clear reason why much of the music is considered furry besides the creator. But this rule is being applied selectively when it would completely kill sections like that. Music isn't usually about the individual sounds, it's how they're put together. For many of the musicians here, if someone hadn't recorded those samples for them, they wouldn't have the materials to work with.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 24, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> Well if you look at the majority of SL submission aside from a few who make their own avs the background is mostly what someone else put into SL like a club scene, a poseball, a device and so on. I mean unless you do create your own avatars which can take quite some time i highly doubt it can take 6+ hours for just one snapshot. find me 3 solid examples of someone who doesn't make their own avatar but has done minor things and find out how long it took them.



You are being an 'art snob' of sorts to say that SL is easy so it should be limited. How come we don't judge -all- art on this website based on subjective standards and delete things like "Copy paste fox comic" for example?

Why do we specifically site repeated centerfold renders as bad, but it is fine if you draw them? Sculpt them? Wood burn?

I see it as artistic exclusion and snobbery myself. 

SL has windlight sliders which take a fair bit of knowledge to use correctly, on top of that each scene can have up to six local lights with full intensity, falloff and rolloff factors, in every color imaginable.

You can completely replace the default avatars in a shell or by using special invisible building blocks which only remove avatar's base skin. 

It takes a LOT more time to go in and draw shadows in photoshop and drape them across the uneven ground in secondlife then it ever takes for you to let poser cast shadows for you via a program or plug in script.

Each has it's harder and finer points of use, and seperate difficulties.  I'd beg you to consider this before you make such statements.


It took me a freaking week to make a forest, put down tree shadows, sun beams, firefly and get the local lights and windlight where I wanted. 

It was removed because it was "Zomg SL screenshot."

Unless we're going to yank all "unworthy" art I don't think it is fair to yank renders like mine on the basis of it being from SL, while "copy paste no change fox with new words for six panels" continues to stay up. 

We're making the distinction between what is art and what isn't and in our haste to blanket policy it we've hurt and screwed a lot of people who put more work into it than taking a handful of snapshots of some bunny they bought and spread the legs of. 

If the admins say "We can't regonize stock avatars" then I'm sure many of us would be happy to put together mugshots of kani and all the rest of the stock avatars people use so they can identify and remove as they please.

Edit to say; It is allowed ~now~ but when I first posted it the atmosphere was if its from SL, burn it to the ground baby. I am glad things have relented a bit but the witch hunt needs to stop. We put a lot more moderation on 3D art than we should. There is plenty of content which offends people by just how bad it is, or through questionable content like cubs, vore or violence.

Picking on 3D because it seems socially accepted in a site that use to hate it completely and utterly isn't a good reason to keep acting like a jerk to 3D artists. 

Anyway, I am sorry to let it out like that in my first two posts here but it needs to be shown and said what that kinda treatment can do to someone's emotions. No artist likes to have their crap taken down because someone mistook it for "LolStockAvatar".


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> I just love the "Oh, just build your own model!" argument.  Has it really not occurred to anyone yet that this is also a talent, and that not everyone has it?
> 
> Sure, I could probably make a crappy model that looks like a Star Trek transporter accident--and be unable to do anything with it because it looks like garbage.  I have--or rather, _had_--several of those.  They were deleted because they were bloody useless.
> 
> ...



If the only way I was able to express my thoughts was through cutting up parts of other artists' work and photoshopping them together to make a scene, I wouldn't be aloud to post that here according to the policy. Why should you be able to do the 3-Dimensional equivalent?
At this point all you're doing is making me repeat things that I and other people have said earlier on in the thread.
Whatever; I'm just going to wait to see what Dragoneer does with the revisions tomorrow.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 24, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> If the only way I was able to express my thoughts was through cutting up parts of other artists' work and photoshopping them together to make a scene, I wouldn't be aloud to post that here according to the policy. Why should you be able to do the 3-Dimensional equivalent?
> At this point all you're doing is making me repeat things that I and other people have said earlier on in the thread.
> Whatever; I'm just going to wait to see what Dragoneer does with the revisions tomorrow.



I'd argue this actually. Many artist will take backdrops they snagged from a google photo and slather on some fancy filters which they set their lineart against, more detailed artists might draw their own furniture but will sometimes still source things like leather textures from RL pictures.

I think there is the blatant 

"I've taken Coca-Cola and changed the second c to make it into Coda-Cola, it is original, no stealing!" 
type of stuff most admins or users could see right through and then there is 

"I spent a day photoshopping the body fur to have a fur texture instead of being flat color, and then went back and modified the 67 individual pieces of the head with different texture maps with the new fur texture to make this piece of shit look good."

Do you know what my workflow generally is?

If I'm modifying an avatar, throw in GL-interceptor(takes textures from video card memory) at the start, but here lately I work from scratch. 


Several hours in Zbrush

Several hours checking work in SL beta grid (free uploads here =D )

Several hours back in Zbrush fixing issues I couldn't see in the program.

Check avatar again in beta grid, write down all the details of texture posistions.

Spend hours on SL main grid (No free uploads, no beta grid inventory transfer) and re-make the avatar a third time.

This is for the avatar alone...

If I want to make trees for a setting, I spend time taking pictures IRL to reference in poly painting while in Zbrush. Then I have to bake in lighting and fake shadows. If I change my mind on where I want objects in my scene, I have to remake the shadows completely.

Then I have to set lights. If i want fog? I gotta fake that too. If I want shadowed corners? Gotta fake that with layers and layers of alpha.

Most of all, having the space to do all this work and set up a scene costs money, money for each and every uploaded texture and money to have land to put this on... and money is basically time in a hard form. 

I can and do put plenty of work into my creations, as do some other SL users, please don't tell me that posing Krystal and rendering her is harder than setting up a good shot in SL. 

This can go on and on with how hardcore i want to get, and the same can be said for poser. Many people who squeek by on poser don't put this much work in but they're considered fine if the models are obscure enough YET the same level of work from SL is not okay. 

As my last post said, we shouldn't sit back and thumb our noses at what we consider art if ANY real work went into the creation. 

Hell even then, we have plenty of people who post their RL pictures from fur cons that're just shots of their friend's costumes... so taking a snapshot in SL of myself and my friends wouldn't be okay, but that is?

Seriously, we're just looking for reasons to get butthurt here.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> If the only way I was able to express my thoughts was through cutting up parts of other artists' work and photoshopping them together to make a scene, I wouldn't be aloud to post that here according to the policy. Why should you be able to do the 3-Dimensional equivalent?
> At this point all you're doing is making me repeat things that I and other people have said earlier on in the thread.
> Whatever; I'm just going to wait to see what Dragoneer does with the revisions tomorrow.



That's just it.  It's _not_ the equivalent.

The Poser models don't come pre-posed and I honestly can't think of any time when an extant pose has expressed what I actually needed out of the box and didn't need adjustment.  Same for facial expressions.  Can you rotate a Photoshop image in 3D and re-light it?  I think not.

Using Poser is not just drop model A into place, then model B, and maybe background C, and huzzah.  Decisionsâ€”_artistic_ and _creative_ decisionsâ€”need to be made to use it well, and the presence or absence of self-created models are simply not relevant to that.

If I were to make a model that purely by chance duplicated vertex for vertex the default Poser 'dork', there is _no possible qualitative difference_ between an image made with the original stock model and its clone.  _None_.  I do not and will not accept that one is "better" than the other based on the source material if the images are pixel for pixel identical.

If people are doing just drag-drop-click, _take it out on them_.  I don't claim to be a great artist, and I barely lay claim to being an artist.  But I _am_ doing original work, and it makes not a whit of difference that I use stock and downloadable files to do it.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 24, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> Not only that, but the new AUP protects and encourages the 3D artists that _do_ make all of their work in modeling programs from scratch by removing the tacky-looking stock model morphs from the library and stopping their work from getting caught up in that group. Yes, I am aware that stock model morphs _and_ 3D models made from scratch can both look tacky at times, and people here have informed me they're quite opposed to anything not visually appealing, but the difference is that the 3D model made from scratch is completely original work, took a lot more effort than the Poser stock scene, and there can be feedback given to more elements of the modeled work because it's a more involved form of creation. There's a large learning curve, and a lot of room for improvement. Not saying that there's none of that involved in stock model use, but there is much, _much_ less. This isn't something you can deny, it is fact.
> 
> And if any of you are thinking I have some sort of grudge against 3D work, I do not dislike 3D Art(In fact, the 3D sections are probably my favorite part of the monthly digital art magazine I'm subscribed to), but I'm not seeing any of the work made by 3D modelers because it is nearly impossible to distinguish among the rendered stock scene work. To create something as complex as a 3D model from scratch is fantastic, and the model itself is an artwork by the artist, while the scenes made by renderers where they've basically posed stick figures and had another person's art imposed over the top, is not. The only thing you created in that scene was the poses, and modifications to sliders/textures. Hell, you couldn't even use your programs if it wasn't for the work 3D modelers put into making the models for you to use in the first place. It's a more important aspect of the 3D artform, and bringing more attention to it would improve the site. Removal of work using stock models also fits in with the "By You/For You" policy, which is a detail everyone seems to be ignoring or denying.



Ummm, begging your pardon, but  Poser is not a renderer. Its a character generator and animator. As for not seeing the work done by 3D modelers, where do you thin the stock items come from? Elves that crawl into the computer at night? All this talk of banning the stock stuff, oh the evil stock stuff, is pretty much a moot point. Allow me to demonstrate. As viewed here, You are not talking about maybe 4 or 30 objects but

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


Now mind you, that is just the freebie items for Renderosity, not counting the stuff up for sale in the marketplace. Given the amount of items both free and pay for out there on the net, plus the items that can be converted and brought over. It generally makes the policy ultimately futile. As for those that go on about the supposed virtues of a modeler, There are plenty of those files out there on the net as well. The sword cuts both ways. One is not better than the other, both deserve respect. Not this juvenile high-tech schoolyard rumble. That derision, discrimination and prejudice solve nothing when it is tolerance and mutual understanding are what are needed.
--Dancougar

My apologies with how the listings got all mashed together, in the editor it looks fine but in pasting it just jams them all together like that. Sorry! Sorry!


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 24, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Ummm, begging your pardon, but  Poser is not a renderer. Its a character generator and animator. As for not seeing the work done by 3D modelers, where do you thin the stock items come from? Elves that crawl into the computer at night? All this talk of banning the stock stuff, oh the evil stock stuff, is pretty much a moot point. Allow me to demonstrate. As viewed here, You are not talking about maybe 4 or 30 objects but



The users displaying these stock models aren't the creators of the models themselves. There are 3D Modelers on this site who have their work camouflaged among the huuge amount of stock work; If this rule is going to be changed back there should at least be two categories so Stock work and From-Scratch 3D Models made by the user can be separated.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> I just love the "Oh, just build your own model!" argument.  Has it really not occurred to anyone yet that this is also a talent, and that not everyone has it?
> 
> Sure, I could probably make a crappy model that looks like a Star Trek transporter accident--and be unable to do anything with it because it looks like garbage.  I have--or rather, _had_--several of those.  They were deleted because they were bloody useless.



There is no such thing as talent. Just hard work. Hard work and guts.

I'd love to see star trek transporter accidents artworks.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 24, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> The users displaying these stock models aren't the creators of the models themselves. There are 3D Modelers on this site who have their work camouflaged among the huuge amount of stock work; If this rule is going to be changed back there should at least be two categories so Stock work and From-Scratch 3D Models made by the user can be separated.



You know whats GREAT for pointing this out?

The artist comment box. 

I really don't think the admins and webpage designers really should spend their time on making a special section for completely home brewed rendering. The section would hardly get used because most borrow textures or sorce them with some work in photoshop. Basically meaning, very few rendered or 3D pieces will be completely 100% homebrew. 

No, I really don't think "Oh I make models, I'm a special snowflake, gimmie my own lime green spotlight" is a very good use of admin time WHILE things like search still need to be done. 

Wouldn't you agree some other long awaited features take priority?


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 24, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> There is no such thing as talent. Just hard work. Hard work and guts.
> 
> I'd love to see star trek transporter accidents artworks.



I could post a screenshot of my self-made UT model that suffered from a "slight" glitch from the game engine (as soon as I get back to my appartment and my Desktop PC). 

But seriously, Why do some people call a model created from scratch crappy if it doesn't look like the shading blueprints they used for the skins for UT3 (which consisted of approx. 200000 polygons)? Everybody has to start SOMEWHERE, and as time goes by you learn how to create models and meshes that look more like those created by professionals. But the first models you created are not BAD - they are DIFFERENT. ;-)


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 24, 2009)

Cilis said:


> You know whats GREAT for pointing this out?
> 
> The artist comment box.
> 
> ...



Adding in two category tags honestly doesn't seem like something hard to do; Not so hard that it'd hold up a mostly complete search engine from being implemented, at least. As far as I can tell there isn't even a category tag for 3D art right now at all.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> There is no such thing as talent. Just hard work. Hard work and guts.



Quick, someone call the Museum of Modern Art!  Yep, all you need to do is keep plugging away and you too can be Andy freakin' Warhol!

You're really going to say that there is no such thing as natural talent.  Unbelievable.

I have to say this is the most patently ludicrous thing *anyone* has said on this subject to date.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Quick, someone call the Museum of Modern Art!  Yep, all you need to do is keep plugging away and you too can be Andy freakin' Warhol!
> 
> You're really going to say that there is no such thing as natural talent.  Unbelievable.
> 
> I have to say this is the most patently ludicrous thing *anyone* has said on this subject to date.



Andy Warhol? Meh. He was only "cool" because he did it first. He traced and made collages, this is not who I want to be. I do not doubt his skill or intelligence but it still makes me frown.

I'm _not_ the only one who says the talent thing, some of the greatest artists I have talked to say the same. And since you have poser experience you probably have that sense of depth it takes to handle 3D modelling.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 24, 2009)

Ro4dk1ll said:


> The users displaying these stock models aren't the creators of the models themselves. There are 3D Modelers on this site who have their work camouflaged among the huuge amount of stock work; If this rule is going to be changed back there should at least be two categories so Stock work and From-Scratch 3D Models made by the user can be separated.



When you say the users themselves and mention the 3D Modelers on this site, just what do you mean? Clarification please. Because if you are meaning the ones on the listing that I posted, then they most certainly ARE the creators of the models and textures and poses, animations, ect themselves. The are the ones that put them up there for others to use. Just as the ones in the site's marketplace are the ones that created those items and put them out there for sale for others to use. The overall point of the post there being is that the rule is utterly unenforceable. Do you realize what kind of a force of people it would take to police well over fourteen THOUSAND items for just poser items on that site alone at the bare minimum? Now go on and toss Content Paradise, Daz 3D, Runtime DNA, and the plethora of other sites offering stuff both for sale and for free all over the net, and one is talking about whittling away a massive iceberg with just an icepick. And there is more being cranked out all the time, in the matter of freebies even moreso. 

If you refer to the modelers on here on Fur Affinity that want to post thier stuff up and be recognized. Well.. there really is no need to go about segregating and creating artistic ghettos that really is neither needed nor necessary all in all. How about just using what is already there, and posting comments about the uploaded work when it is put up? It doesn't take alot of work to give a blurb about it and say "This is my grand temple of hoo-ha that I created in 3DSM, it took me 4 days to complete it, note the texture of the rough hewn stones on the walkways going around it and..." With all my works I always include a bit about it, what story there is behind it, tell what program I generated it in, etc, and I am perfectly well open to answer any and all questions in posted comments when sombody says something like "Gee, thats neat, what model did you use for that, and how did you get those effects for doing such and such?" A few typed words saves a lot of aggravation. if the person posting the works up just puts in the time. The reason why you get alot of people using Krystal is not really because of a fondness for the character so much, but because she, Furrette and Furraldo are the only readilly available furry type characters available. You would probably see alot more variety if There are others including the beforementioned Vickie and Mike creature morphs. but the knowledge about the others have by and far been seemingly lost over time and are difficult to find, such as the works by Dave 'Lemurtek' Matthews.
--Dancougar


----------



## Ro4dk1ll (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Quick, someone call the Museum of Modern Art!  Yep, all you need to do is keep plugging away and you too can be Andy freakin' Warhol!
> 
> You're really going to say that there is no such thing as natural talent.  Unbelievable.
> 
> I have to say this is the most patently ludicrous thing *anyone* has said on this subject to date.



Natural artistic talent can exist but skill development is very much an independent thing. Talent can still help with skill development, though.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Andy Warhol? Meh. He was only "cool" because he did it first. He traced and made collages, this is not who I want to be. I do not doubt his skill or intelligence but it still makes me frown.



Warhol, Picasso, Renoir, Michelangelo, whatever.  Take your pick.  The particular artist wasn't really the point.



krisCrash said:


> I'm _not_ the only one who says the talent thing, some of the greatest artists I have talked to say the same. And since you have poser experience you probably have that sense of depth it takes to handle 3D modelling.



I think that's a very easy thing to say from people to whom it _does_ come easily.

I know that I am still amazed by people who don't see mathematics and mathematical logic the way I do--this 1 in the upper left corner of this Sudoku problem means that this cell in the bottom right has to be 9.  What do you mean, you don't see how?  Really?  You've never derived an arithmetic method for extracting arbitrary roots?  But it's _obvious_--anyone can do it!  What do you mean you haven't calculated the ratio of successive integer solutions to the Pythagorean theorem where c=b+1?

My mind processes things in terms of words and sounds, not images.  I don't have a sense of depth or distances, and it is exceedingly difficult for me to process data in terms of images.  I am aware that x+2y^2=z^3 describes a three dimensional object and that it has trivial integer solutions at (0,0,0), (1,0,1), (-1,0,-1), (-1,1,1), (0,2,2)--among many others.  I couldn't *begin* tell you what it looks like without plotting it.

On the other hand, I have lost count of the number of songs I know and can play--not that it matters since I can pick up as we go along even with songs I don't know well, or at all.  On an instrument on which I have no formal training, and really don't even practice all that often, and honestly never really did.  I can let my bass sit untouched for three, four months, and pick it up and I am not rusty in the least.  I'm no Jaco Pastorius, but I can _play_.

There are people whom no amount of work or training will make them a passable singer.

There are people who couldn't write a story if you provided them with the seed of an idea.

And I can guarantee you as a tech support specialist, there are people who really just do _not_ get computers in any way, shape or form, and no amount of just plugging away has helped them get _any_ better at it.

So no.  "Just work harder" is not the answer.  There _are_ differences in the way we perceive things, in how our brains are wired.  There _is_ such a thing as innate talent.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> So no.  "Just work harder" is not the answer.  There _are_ differences in the way we perceive things, in how our brains are wired.  There _is_ such a thing as innate talent.



i do not think he will get this, seems he is a jack of all trades that simply can do everything...

myself i see no reason to make 3D-models when i am still no texturer @_@
what good is it i can make uber models when they are grey in my scenes since i can not make any useful texture, sicne i lack other artistic skills i need to make good looking unblurry-textures? i really have big problems to draw a line in a given program... but at least i am teaching myself how to modify some textures (mostly modifying trans-maps or simple edits on the textures themselves) so i can get a bit more out of the stuff i have ^^


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 24, 2009)

I never said any where that "ALL" SL snapshots were just easy. I even said there are those who make their own but the "MAJORITY" of what I have seen posted the backgrounds are well known buildings you can but, places that someone else put up like the Ark, GYC, and so on. there are those who do thier own background, avatars, edits and so on to make them look very different, Hell look at the person who made the Peach Fuzz SL video most if not all of that was created from scratch by him and some friends.

I hate when people tkae what i say and twist it around. The comparison was meant to counter a statement about how easy it is to dish out renders when i talked to two people, one who uses Daz and another who uses Poser. i asked them the following:

1: On average how long does it take for you to finish a render?
2: What is the shortest and lo0ngest amount of time you spent on a render?
3: If you uses the Krystal rener how long did the shortest and longest render you did and submitted take.

I got good answers about time frames and in a lot of the cases they take just as long as someone who draws. But with SL  aside from those who create their own stuff and background, most do NOT and those take far less time to do than renders.

Here for an example: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1691854/

That is how I look on SL, The avatar is Luskwood, the outfit from Barerose, the background a sim someone else made, the lighting I choose as Mid-day, the angle I clicked snapshot and moved it around with my mouse till i got the angle i wanted. So that took me at most to take 3 mins.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Warhol, Picasso, Renoir, Michelangelo, whatever.  Take your pick.  The particular artist wasn't really the point.


I do not feel these artists compare to Warhol, being that Warhol often directly reused contents though in new and exciting ways, they were still built upon highly refined matter.



> I think that's a very easy thing to say from people to whom it _does_ come easily.


I don't think it's easy. So many things I can't draw right.. practise practise practise. Is talent a head start, 5%, and anyone who does not start with these 5% never have the guts to go on?



Sheena-Tiger said:


> i do not think he will get this, seems he is a jack of all trades that simply can do everything...



Was this aimed at Kefan or who - a quote in a quote?



Kitoth said:


> 1: On average how long does it take for you to finish a render?
> 2: What is the shortest and lo0ngest amount of time you spent on a render?
> 3: If you uses the Krystal rener how long did the shortest and longest render you did and submitted take.


Including or not the time it takes for your computer to render it after setting up the scene?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> I just love the "Oh, just build your own model!" argument.  Has it really not occurred to anyone yet that this is also a talent, and that not everyone has it?



Uh no it's hard work. I worked and still work on getting better at art for years now. Talent really has nothing to do with it and is an excuse for cowards:

http://painting.about.com/od/productreviews/fr/Art_and_Fear.htm

_â€Artmaking involves skills that can be learned. The conventional wisdom here is that while â€˜craftâ€™ can be taught, â€˜artâ€™ remains a magical gift bestowed only by the gods. Not so.â€ Art and Fear, page 3.

â€Even talent is rarely indistinguishable, over the long run, from perseverance and lots of hard work.â€ Art and Fear, page 3.

â€The function of the overwhelming majority of your artwork is simply to teach you how to make the small fraction of your artwork that soars.â€ Art and Fear, page 5.

â€To all viewers but yourself, what matters is the product: the finished artwork. To you, and you along, what matters is the process.â€ Art and Fear, page 5.

â€You learn how to make your work by making your work â€¦ art you care about -- and lots of it!â€ Art and Fear, page 6.

â€What separates artists from ex-artists is that those who challenge their fears continue; those who donâ€™t, quit.â€ Art and Fear, page 14.

â€Most artists donâ€™t daydream about making great art --- they daydream about having made great art.â€ Art and Fear, page 17.

â€The artistâ€™s life is frustrating not because the passage is slow, but because he imagines it to be fast.â€ Art and Fear, page 17._

Go read it, and then come back with those arguments again, because quite honestly it's not true. Art & Fear is very much truth.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I don't think it's easy. So many things I can't draw right.. practise practise practise. Is talent a head start, 5%, and anyone who does not start with these 5% never have the guts to go on?



Talent's a slider.

Maybe you just have that 5%, 10%, enough to get and interest and get started--but that doesn't guarantee that you can train up enough skill to become as proficient as anyone else, no matter how hard you try.  You might well hit a plateau.  _You just might not have it_.  I'd love to be able to sing in the tenor range.  But my voice is a natural bass to basso profundo, with the occasional foray into baritone, and *no amount of training is going to change that*, no matter how much I _want_ to sing two octaves out of my range.

Maybe you do it all effortlessly, on 90-95% talent and don't even have to try to get professional grade results.

And if you're judging on effort rather than results, then you're dismissing the work itself.

Lemme throw another thing in here.

There are a thundering _lot_ of Bob Dylan fans.  I'm one of them myself.

But holy Flying Spaghetti Monster, the man can't sing.

I've seen him in concert when he couldn't hit a note with an Uzi.  And what we accept as 'being in good voice' for him is still something you wouldn't want belting out the National Anthem at full volume behind you at a baseball game.

And yet, he's one of the most monumental influences on modern music.

Because _what_ he was doing was more important and more meaningful than _how_ he was doing it.

I'm not dismissing effort -- putting in that little extra is what gives a creative person that chance at being, for just a moment, greater than himself (to borrow from Harlan Ellison).  That piece in the gallery that makes you stop and go "Whoa" when most everything else has slipped under your radar.

But just because someone busted a hump on it doesn't make it a better image.  I've busted a hump on a lot of things that I didn't post because it was just plain _crap_.

And just because a good image came easily doesn't cheapen it.


----------



## nekollx (Jan 24, 2009)

Kitoth said:


> 1: On average how long does it take for you to finish a render?
> 2: What is the shortest and lo0ngest amount of time you spent on a render?



Lets asume this is a firast time render and my base model had not been modified.
Lets see 3 hours adjusting sliders
7 hours custom building new tectures for every element from skin, eyes, hair, and clothes
about 4 hours setting up the scene
20 minutes to render.

And thats on the short end.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> _â€*To all viewers but yourself, what matters is the product: the finished artwork.* To you, and you alone, what matters is the process.â€ Art and Fear, page 5._


(Emphasis added)

Well, now.  *This* is more or less a point that I've been making repeatedly: that the image is more important than the effort.  The proposed rule values the effort over the image.

And I don't buy the rest of the argument.  Certainly one _can_ learn the technical aspects, but that doesn't automagically guarantee that they ever will be really good at it.

Please see my last reply to krisCrash, which I believe addresses this quite thoroughly.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 24, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Was this aimed at Kefan or who - a quote in a quote?



i am talking to kefan like it is there, sicne it seems to me (maybe i get it wrong from what i read) some people here just think "if they manage to make own models they will be able to make good textures too and so will make awesome pics, if they only learn to model"

sorry, in my opinion only someone who thinks or actually is a jack of all trades will be able to do this.
i myself can build stuff (not the most complicated like avatars or such, but i can build) in SL, but textures?... no way i can make own unique textures till now. but i know some people who can do wonders with graphical programs, but not get it how to put even 2 prims together in SL in a way they should be put together and other again write awesome scripts but building or textures? no way.
and there are of course people who can do all of it, but most do not can do all of it.

same goes for 3D-stuff.
i sometimes have an image of what i want to see, but modelling objects myself is (till now) no way for me, making own textures that are useable? hell till now i am happy to crop pics, put them together or (till 2 days) can use layers and some simple brushing to edit a given texture
so i myself stick to what i can do till now, and go on from this point. so for now i use models and textures made by other people and begin to edit the textures to meet my imagination. what i not do, unless i want to test some stuff or just present a character i put together, is only using preset posings and lights (like i did here http://sheena-tiger.deviantart.com/art/Character-Liv-Zle-110549586 and even here i needed to rework so the breasts are not poking through and stuff where i not want something showed)
i would love to get input by many people, but 3 art-pages i love and watch are essentially saying "no, we not want your pics because *enter reasons here*"

right now i work on a pic, following to the one i postet in my post before the last one. Liv'Zle and Fiana are moved right now and slightly reposed, now i am about to make first testings if parts of the pic will be like i want it, together with some new props i added to make the scene a bit more lively. when that is done, i go onward, repose the figures more and test again and so on, until all is set how i want it. including the pic of Liv'Zle i think i am working since midday on the new pic right now... rounding up it must be 6 hours considering my timezone here.

@Arshes-Nei
in my opinion, there is something like talent. i not really have much artistic talent, so it is VERY hard for me to adept and learn artistic things like drawing, writing or music and thanks to my teachers i not felt like honing on my skills in this matter. but it seems i have some talent for logical things, its more easy for me to learn programming stuff, if someone is there to help me if i have a problem with totally new stuff. hell, i not know many languages or am a pro in those i know, but i know i am talented in them and can adapt new stuff based on it.


i think, very important is, how much fun you have doing stuff.
i not have fun taking a pencil or brush and draw soemthing... but i have fun taking my mouse and working with poser... and oh wonder... i found some fun in manipulating textures i got (while not beeing talented/skilled in this stuff)... if you would have told me that last year, maybe i would have felt like hitting you on the head for saying such nonsense. and hearing some nice words from other people is a nice support, as it would be hearing helpful critique for the work i upload. i myself put a lot into it and only upload the works i think are done or good, still i have many testrenders on my hdd no one ever saw, but i make to compare or see if it is like it should be or like in the case of my only comission till now, if the person who comissioned me liked what it look like. hell he said "i not like the face" or "i not like the hair" and "the skin is to bright" and i took this words, rethought about the character, reworked what was possible for me and redid renders that took hours.

i myself, and i think others too, feel like important FA-people just repell us here, maybe hate us since we aren ot on the same level or at least a level they want.
i wonder why there is no possible way, to support those that just began or encourage them, without the way of simply forbidding their works like they are right now. right now as a beginner you need to make stuff you maybe never did before, just to post something here and that is not very encouraging.
i would love a rule, more tinkered to encourage people to report constant reworks or very similar pics so the admins have an idea where to look. for people who can post here it is a good way to get more opinions (since not all of us are members of the same gallery-pages), and i think some very good ones too. i simply believe, people who like 3D-art of any kind, regardless wich program was used to make it, would love to see unique scenes. and if there is need to filter it somehow... hell put a new category into the database, its work of a couple of minutes if the page-sourcecode is made in a good way. a good source should not have drop-down-stuff and such written into the code, but in the database and then simply put together when loading the page (sorry, but i am a web-developer... i know how to do that bit, doing it myself every now and then)


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 24, 2009)

*sighs* Kitoth.. how exactly does the time it takes to make a no effort SL pic and a no effort poser pic, have any relivance at all in the first place? but sense that seems to be the only thing you can come up with against other then pulling the _OMG you're twisting my words I'm a victim_ card when dealing with my responses that you don't seem to be reading to clearly, I'll humor you.

if you already have a background made/saved/downloaded (doesn't matter if you made it yourself in the past according to your posts about SL) then all it comes down to, is going into your drop down menus to load them up. unless you are really bad at finding names in a list, or you have a slow computer, this shouldn't take much more then a minute or two open the background and the model and an already set up pose right? then you just move the camera where you want it, and click render. oooo, so difficult right?
then with SL, you log on, go to the area you wanted to take the picure at assuming you already know where you wanted to, put on the avatar by going into your inventory and selected to wear it, (again, shouldn't take long unless you are slow at finding names), move the camera into position, and click snapshot. SO much easier then the no effort Poser render!

in the end, it's not that different, as nether had any effort put into it, and the time differance isn't even that much. as it mostly comes down to how well you know the menus or area, and the speed of your computer.

now that thats out of the way, why do you think Poser shouldn't get this rule, when you beleave SL should still have it, when they both had this happen for the *same* reason?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> (Emphasis added)
> 
> Well, now.  *This* is more or less a point that I've been making repeatedly: that the image is more important than the effort.  The proposed rule values the effort over the image.
> 
> ...



So you mean you shouldn't care about your progress? At all? It should be no effort?

No, you're only taking one statement and not reading the whole book. The point was that no one cares how long it takes for you to make the craft, which is a trap artists fall into. Just because the audience doesn't care doesn't mean you shouldn't. The audience is a different animal, and in fact 9 times out of 10 won't get the message you're putting in art.

So uhh go read the book. It's good for you. You haven't been able to discount the rest of what was stated at all. It's really digging a deeper hole in your argument to be honest. Now I see why other artists are frustrated with you because you not only simply don't get it, you *refuse* to understand.

When you do that, you're creating a brick wall. The point is the rest of us despite our crafts actually know it's hard, that's what we're telling you. It's not easy. We however  know talent has nothing to do with it. It's hard work and the willingness to to train oneself. 

Even the most famous artists, before commercial artwork (where some exceptions are out there) such as the great masters only had a few years of greatness, the rest of the time they were busting their asses off trying to have great works. If you actually look back the big peaks of time they were well known were only a few years. The rest of the time was studying. So yeah, a majority of the time you're doing artwork to get better at artwork. Posting is not the same process which is the quote you highlighted. Which is why you should get over it.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 24, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> i am talking to kefan like it is there, sicne it seems to me (maybe i get it wrong from what i read) some people here just think "if they manage to make own models they will be able to make good textures too and so will make awesome pics, if they only learn to model"
> 
> sorry, in my opinion only someone who thinks or actually is a jack of all trades will be able to do this.


In think in a lot of cases where someone starts out painting and drawing, then try 3D, they will already have most of the skills required for texture, yes? I barely know anything about it though. Thanks for clarifying.



Arshes Nei said:


> Uh no it's hard work. I worked and still work on getting better at art for years now. Talent really has nothing to do with it and is an excuse for cowards:
> 
> http://painting.about.com/od/productreviews/fr/Art_and_Fear.htm


I ordered that now! Thank you 
But - I don't think we have the same ideas about anything as most of these people. Who knows if the argument will get anywhere?

Give them numbers; "You must contribute 75% yourself!"



Kefan said:


> Talent's a slider.
> 
> Maybe you just have that 5%, 10%, enough to get and interest and get started--but that doesn't guarantee that you can train up enough skill to become as proficient as anyone else, no matter how hard you try.  You might well hit a plateau.  _You just might not have it_.  I'd love to be able to sing in the tenor range.  But my voice is a natural bass to basso profundo, with the occasional foray into baritone, and *no amount of training is going to change that*, no matter how much I _want_ to sing two octaves out of my range.



I neither understood this nor found it relevant.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 24, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> if you already have a background made/saved/downloaded (doesn't matter if you made it yourself in the past according to your posts about SL) then all it comes down to, is going into your drop down menus to load them up. unless you are really bad at finding names in a list, or you have a slow computer, this shouldn't take much more then a minute or two open the background and the model and an already set up pose right? then you just move the camera where you want it, and click render. oooo, so difficult right?



i not fight the fact, most people use premade stuff, what i fight is following:

it is a work of mere minutes to insert all stuff and render it
(i not say, there are no such pics!)

a good pic that tell some kind of story (may it be a couple words or a whole scene of a long story) is not simply putting premade stuff together. yet alone loading only premade posings into the scene has one problem... most stuff is not made to work together if there are no premade scenes you load. i am sorry for people who only work with such kind of scenes, if not meant for a bigger setting or story or as a starting point to get used to the stuff or testing them (many of my own renders wich never make it away from my hdd are such pieces.. testing how stuff works together etc.)

a good example could be:
-picking a medival tavern with preset interrior
-picking and clothing several actors, taking more or less time depending on how important they are
-posing them and making a render
-reposing them for an other situation later in the scene, maybe needing to rearange some stuff (like one person is leaving, the barkeeper is cleaning mugs, people are playing cards, the main actors now have their food served...)

such stuff is not simply done with premade poses, you need a lot of time making it look good

a bad example could be:
-picking the same preset as above
-picking one or two random characters and dress them
-picking a premade standing pose
-making several renders in different angles

this is a bad thing to do! that one really is nearly no work

how could the bad example be made into something better?
-pick some background
-pick one story-character and dress him/her
-make several shots in different positions or clothes
-use this pic as showcase for the character, so people can see the details close up (put together in one upload, not for every shot one upload)



			
				krisCrash said:
			
		

> In think in a lot of cases where someone starts out painting and drawing, then try 3D, they will already have most of the skills required for texture, yes? I barely know anything about it though. Thanks for clarifying.



how about having a look at my gallery, the old pieces ^^
not all people are artists in terms of traditional art
and really, not all people are interested in drawing, and forcing them wil lbe no good either. why the hell should i draw when not having fun doing it? if you do stuff, out of own free will, that is no fun for you, then i personally think you do something wrong.

but of course you are right, someone who really loves to draw/paint and is used to work with proper programs (most often photoshop is mentioned i believe) this people will do good pieces and adept to the needed things. i would not wonder, if such people have an easy time adapting to modelling, dunno about this part.
still, i believe, people should see it the other way around too. there are not only traditional artists (with a different level and style of making art) who want to express what they have in mind


----------



## Cilis (Jan 24, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> *sighs* Kitoth.. how exactly does the time it takes to make a no effort SL pic and a no effort poser pic, have any relivance at all in the first place? but sense that seems to be the only thing you can come up with against other then pulling the _OMG you're twisting my words I'm a victim_ card when dealing with my responses that you don't seem to be reading to clearly, I'll humor you.
> 
> if you already have a background made/saved/downloaded (doesn't matter if you made it yourself in the past according to your posts about SL) then all it comes down to, is going into your drop down menus to load them up. unless you are really bad at finding names in a list, or you have a slow computer, this shouldn't take much more then a minute or two open the background and the model and an already set up pose right? then you just move the camera where you want it, and click render. oooo, so difficult right?
> then with SL, you log on, go to the area you wanted to take the picure at assuming you already know where you wanted to, put on the avatar by going into your inventory and selected to wear it, (again, shouldn't take long unless you are slow at finding names), move the camera into position, and click snapshot. SO much easier then the no effort Poser render!
> ...




Why does he think that?

Art snobbery, *my medium is more valid than yours.

*If we're going to start judging the merit of art I want to see all the spread eagle porn under each artist limited to three. I want that copy-paste fox comic taken down, etc etc.

How about we be mature and just stop watching people who upload things we don't like? Having poser, daz and secondlife on the website doesn't harm your artwork or detract from it in any shape or form. 

When someone uploads something I don't like(cub porn) I take them off my watch. Thats the simple solution. If you're crying about thumbnails in browsing the general, well there are filters... sorry I wasted like, a quarter calorie from your energy reserves as your eyes moved past it.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> So you mean you shouldn't care about your progress? At all? It should be no effort?
> 
> No, you're only taking one statement and not reading the whole book. The point was that no one cares how long it takes for you to make the craft, which is a trap artists fall into. Just because the audience doesn't care doesn't mean you shouldn't. The audience is a different animal, and in fact 9 times out of 10 won't get the message you're putting in art.



The reason I'm not reading the whole book is because I dispute the premise.  And you're deliberately misreading what I said, which is that the effort that went into a particular piece is not as important as the final product itself -- which is exactly what that quote said.

Maybe I got lucky and got a great image in just five minutes, everything just happened to come together just right.  Maybe I had to sweat over every little tiny piece of it.

And what difference does that make?



Arshes Nei said:


> So uhh go read the book. It's good for you. You haven't been able to discount the rest of what was stated at all. It's really digging a deeper hole in your argument to be honest. Now I see why other artists are frustrated with you because you not only simply don't get it, you *refuse* to understand.



If anyone's frustrated with my work, it's news to _me_.  Maybe you should read the comments on my images in my gallery before you make assumptions.  I don't have a lot of watchers, but those that do seem satisfied.

Or are you going to, sight unseen, accuse my watchers of having no taste?

The only frustration I sense here is in you, that I don't bow and scrape when you make a declaration.



Arshes Nei said:


> When you do that, you're creating a brick wall. The point is the rest of us despite our crafts actually know it's hard, that's what we're telling you. It's not easy. We however  know talent has nothing to do with it. It's hard work and the willingness to to train oneself.



Nope.  Not ever going get me to agree to that.  What you're saying is that the the only thing stopping everyone from being a great artist is the willingness to put the effort into it.

Putting the effort into it will give you a mastery of the tools, but it *will not magically make you creative*.  It will not magically make you an artistic genius.

I would still like you to address some of the points I made in the reply to krisCrash, to which I referred you.

If you really honestly believe there's no such thing as natural talent, the only thing I have to say to you is that you are simply factually wrong.



Arshes Nei said:


> Even the most famous artists, before commercial artwork (where some exceptions are out there) such as the great masters only had a few years of greatness, the rest of the time they were busting their asses off trying to have great works. If you actually look back the big peaks of time they were well known were only a few years. The rest of the time was studying. So yeah, a majority of the time you're doing artwork to get better at artwork. Posting is not the same process which is the quote you highlighted. Which is why you should get over it.



Get over what?  What *are* you talking about here?

Here's your failed assumption number one: I'm not a professional artist, I never claimed to be a professional artist, and I don't plan to be a professional artist.  I'm an amateur, and every now and then I get an image in mind that I'd like to share.  So I'm not going to dedicate the time to my graphic art that I do to my writing.

_That doesn't mean I don't give a damn about my graphic work_, or that I'm "afraid" of improving.  You have no business whatsoever attributing intent to me.  It means I have different artistic priorities.  I'm not here to sell commissions.  I'm here to put up the occasional idea that might be found interesting or entertaining.

I would like you to actually address the concerns raised here, not just accuse everyone who disagrees with the new AUP of being a coward or lazy.  Isn't that why this thread was started?

I have stated repeatedly, I agree with what I gather the _goal_ of the new AUP is--which I understand was to stop repetitive "drop and click" renders from flooding the system.

*I disagree with the way that goal is being reached.*  And you have yet to address that.  If it's not going to be changed, _have the decency to just say so_.  And then explain to me why this thread was even started.

If this _is_ a discussion on the AUP as advertised, how about actually discussing our concerns rather than dissing and dismissing us out of hand?


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 24, 2009)

Cilis said:


> Why does he think that?
> 
> Art snobbery, *my medium is more valid than yours.
> 
> ...



Ok first off are you saying that i am the one who is in your words "being an art snob"? Because if you are they you have seriously mis-read everything i've been saying. I've been defending those who use Poser and Daz. I was replying to someone who said they dislike the renders and don't like seeing them. I said basically you don't need to watch those wh0o render, and just skip by the renders while your browsing like I do with submissions i do not like.

Now as far as my SL reference. Again you are not even listening. I asked two different users, one who uses Daz and the other Poser. I asked them how long it took them for the final product. I was given by one 3 pics as examples, and then a comment of how long each one took him to do. Then I said MOST SL submissions I have seen on FA do NOT have an original avatar, background or enough to say its been modified enough to say its original. So with what i know personally about SL and those i talk to who create their own avatars there and to those i talked to who user Poser or Daz. The outcome was that it took far less time to take a snapshot for SL, UNLESS you created your own avatar like some do, compared to those who render and even use the Krystal render in their final product.

Btw the reason i brought up SL was due to the fact some in journals and in the previous thread compared Poser submissions to SL.

bottom line I am against the render AUP. I think its a bad idea.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 24, 2009)

Kefan said:


> *I disagree with the way that goal is being reached.*  And you have yet to address that.  If it's not going to be changed, _have the decency to just say so_.  And then explain to me why this thread was even started.
> 
> If this _is_ a discussion on the AUP as advertised, how about actually discussing our concerns rather than dissing and dismissing us out of hand?



What I'm getting from you is this *plug ears...nah nah nah nah not listening* the answer was out there, but not accepted. That's different than "not being addressed"

Yeah exactly that's the problem, the goal as to what constitutes as effort is the problem. There have been points defined, and it's like "I caaaaaaaaan't" "Not listening"....

You've complained you can't do it. The actual problem is *you won't*.

Other people who can create the content within guidelines aren't complaining. Those that also couldn't also realized they weren't being stopped from posting what was prohibited on this site, elsewhere. 

The rest of this is just a big circle.

There are two categories as to why people won't reach the qualifications.

1. The *can't* due to inexperience, but someday they can.

2. The *won't* but are using 1 as an excuse, when 1. is still possible.


----------



## straydog (Jan 24, 2009)

Setsune_W said:


> No, but it will help you become a better 3D animator.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No, I said a coloring book (ie: lineart that is available to anyone who wants it or has the money to purchase it).  That's an entirely different matter than, say, an artist drawing a lineart and giving ONE or maybe two people the rights to color and repost.


----------



## straydog (Jan 24, 2009)

You know... it just occurred to me that Poser nor SL images, for the most part, should NOT be restricted, but SHOULD, just like EVERY OTHER PIECE OF ARTWORK, adhere to the By YOU/for YOU policy.

That means, if YOU did not make a significant part of the Poser models/items/whatever you're using, and it was not NOT made SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU, it's not allowed and you need to find somewhere else to 'showcase' your budding '3D' skills.

It comes off as people wanting exceptions to the main rule of this site.

"But I spent hours posing, picking lighting, setting the 'mood', ect."

None of the base content was created by you nor specifically for you. 

I can go color a page out of a coloring book I buy from Walmart. Choose the colors, put textures in my colors...spend HOURS coloring it---even make a collage out of colored pages I've done. But I didn't create the base content, nor was it created specifically for me.

Neither have their place on FA, per the main rule of this site.

Seems like that's hard for people to grasp for some reason.


----------



## Setsune_W (Jan 24, 2009)

straydog said:


> No, I said a coloring book (ie: lineart that is available to anyone who wants it or has the money to purchase it).  That's an entirely different matter than, say, an artist drawing a lineart and giving ONE or maybe two people the rights to color and repost.



That would be done without permission, thus it would be against the AUP anyway. Most people use Poser props that are free for general use, they purchased, or they created themselves. Your point doesn't apply if you insist on approaching it like that.




krisCrash said:


> Kefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then you aren't trying to understand it. You're just being contrary for the sake of it.

I've wanted to draw for years. Off and on I've practiced, usually for spurts of a few weeks before I get extremely discouraged, particularly if I'm foolish enough to share my scratchings with another person. But I fail at drawing a smooth line, and there are 12 year olds that draw with a talent I envy. That's crazy, but that's life. Sometimes you're acclimated to working with certain tools or software, sometimes they just don't work for you, so to speak. And you can smash your head against a wall for years and never be able to even keep pace with the people it clicks with. You may just not have the capacity, and calling it fear is insulting and hurtful. Maybe that person has a clear view of reality?


----------



## straydog (Jan 24, 2009)

Setsune_W said:


> That would be done without permission, thus it would be against the AUP anyway. Most people use Poser props that are free for general use, they purchased, or they created themselves. Your point doesn't apply if you insist on approaching it like that.



Well, if you want to nitpick the coloring book scenario... The situation would be no different than an artist uploading lineart (ie: a coloring page) and saying, "THIS IS FREE TO ALTER/USE/REPOST FOR NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES". Everyone has access---wasn't made specifically for anyone. Everyone can put their 'spin' on it based on their preferences and individual talents, so that it looks the same, yet different. Are you implying people uploading such work is acceptable, because the coloring and effort put into it trumps the by you/for you policy?

Because that's what's going on here. While permission is given to upload/use morphs/works/ect. it still does not adhere to the By You/For You policies unless the content was made specifically for you, or by you, therefore the comparison to a 'free for all' lineart is spot on.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 24, 2009)

Hi Setsune W:
I did not understand it because he is using clearly physical differences which we cannot ever alter as an example; the properties of his vocal cords. (I wanted to say something really snarky but chose not to.) If you have a physical defect making your arm shaky (it hardly qualifies as lack of talent but yes) it will be really difficult for you to draw, that really sucks. You would be surprised at how many artists are the same though, so they draw the same line again, and again, and again until it's right.

There are 12 year olds that I envy. Akiane is one example. There will always be someone better than you.

I think it should be fairly possible to distinguish physical deficiencies and feelings of inadequacy, but the majority who give up suffer from the latter. I'm sure the book Arshes Nei offers is a guide to _self help_ and not written with the purpose of belittling someone.


----------



## Setsune_W (Jan 24, 2009)

straydog said:


> Well, if you want to nitpick the coloring book scenario... The situation would be no different than an artist uploading lineart (ie: a coloring page) and saying, "THIS IS FREE TO ALTER/USE/REPOST FOR NON COMMERCIAL PURPOSES". Everyone has access---wasn't made specifically for anyone. Everyone can put their 'spin' on it based on their preferences and individual talents, so that it looks the same, yet different. Are you implying people uploading such work is acceptable, because the coloring and effort put into it trumps the by you/for you policy?
> 
> Because that's what's going on here. While permission is given to upload/use morphs/works/ect. it still does not adhere to the By You/For You policies unless the content was made specifically for you, or by you, therefore the comparison to a 'free for all' lineart is spot on.



It doesn't trump the By You/For You policy, it's a part of it:



> 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.




As long as they aren't claiming ownership of the original line art, and the original source gave permission and is properly cited, colorations are acceptable for posting to FA. I don't understand why you keep repeating this comparison, other than the coloring book comparison being used to imply the content is stolen.


----------



## Daymond42 (Jan 24, 2009)

Whoa whoa whoa... did I hear someone say that Warhol reused existing elements and turned them into his own pieces?

... that sounds like a non-digital version of... something.. Can't quite put my finger on it.. Someone help me out here.. :>


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 24, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Hi Setsune W:
> I did not understand it because he is using clearly physical differences which we cannot ever alter as an example; the properties of his vocal cords. (I wanted to say something really snarky but chose not to.) If you have a physical defect making your arm shaky (it hardly qualifies as lack of talent but yes) it will be really difficult for you to draw, that really sucks. You would be surprised at how many artists are the same though, so they draw the same line again, and again, and again until it's right.
> 
> There are 12 year olds that I envy. Akiane is one example. There will always be someone better than you.
> ...



Correct, I haven't even said you couldn't post your "failed" art. We all fail. some of us chose not to post our failures. What I mean is that, there are people upset that we won't let them use stock Poser art with new poses, but we haven't prevented them from posting 3d art with obvious errors they created him/herself. 

I think the other problem is that we're trying to make analogies in which different sets of prerequisites don't match. While we can do some comparisons to Poser/Photography/Drawing, they don't quite work out. Poser was really so that people have a way of using reference.

*Poser was created by artist and programmer Larry Weinberg, as a software replacement for artist's mannequins.*

That doesn't mean it's not fun to putz around in it and as long as the artist makes modifications beyond the posing and stock models, not just posing the mannikin, there is an exception to allowing it on FA. Make some textures, and show off how the texture works. Poser is your mannikin. The lighting and rendering engine is help for reference. That's what I primarily use Poser for, when I need reference. I could use it to build a humanoid version of my character, but I'd modify it beyond the normal sliders and render my own objects and clothes....that would also be accepted by the AUP.


----------



## Kefan (Jan 24, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> What I'm getting from you is this *plug ears...nah nah nah nah not listening* the answer was out there, but not accepted. That's different than "not being addressed"
> 
> Yeah exactly that's the problem, the goal as to what constitutes as effort is the problem. There have been points defined, and it's like "I caaaaaaaaan't" "Not listening"....



Pot.  Kettle.  Black.

The link on my main page says this is "a new forum to further discuss AUP changes".  And then in the top of the first page, Dragonneer states: "In an effort to solicit feedback on the AUP changes, as well as better answer questions, we have created this forum for each individual clause of the AUP."

And the only feedback we get from _you_ are insults and baseless assumptions.  You're not explaining anything.  You're just sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling THIS IS THE WAY IT IS JUST SHUT UP AND LIVE WITH IT.

That's not the way feedback works, yaknow.



Arshes Nei said:


> You've complained you can't do it. The actual problem is *you won't*.



No, you just have this bizarre idea that everybody is equally skilled at everything with enough time/effort, and that innate ability does not exist.

You are, simply put, wrong.

I have put an honest and deliberate effort into it, and it is not a skill I found that I can develop.

Whether or not you care to believe that, I could not possibly care less.

But do NOT tell me what I do and do not think.



Arshes Nei said:


> There are two categories as to why people won't reach the qualifications.
> 1. The *can't* due to inexperience, but someday they can.
> 2. The *won't* but are using 1 as an excuse, when 1. is still possible.



Fine.  Take an instrument you've never played before and I expect you to successfully play a set at a local music club in six weeks with people you've never met before.

What's that?  You can't?  Gee, I did.  It should be easy for _anybody_.  I guess you just don't want to.

You need to quit telling me what my motivations are.

I have yet to get a simple, clear explanation when I question where the line has been drawn.

I have instead gotten is accusations that I "don't care" about my work, that I'm lazy, that I'm afraid to try new things.  When I'm not just getting snarky remarks that Poser's not a real medium to begin with.

This is not what I would call a "forum to further discuss AUP changes".  This is a forum to abuse anyone who dares question the change.

You need to answer questions based on the actual question, not on your baseless assumptions about the querent's artistic motivations.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 24, 2009)

Daymond42 said:


> Whoa whoa whoa... did I hear someone say that Warhol reused existing elements and turned them into his own pieces?
> 
> ... that sounds like a non-digital version of... something.. Can't quite put my finger on it.. Someone help me out here.. :>



Yes, and I said that's why he isn't the same type of artist as the others mentioned  Would FA allow Warhol? Nope. This is not because it isn't _art_ - this is highly subjective - it's about _for you/by you_.


----------



## Daymond42 (Jan 24, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Yes, and I said that's why he isn't the same type of artist as the others mentioned  Would FA allow Warhol? Nope. This is not because it isn't _art_ - this is highly subjective - it's about _for you/by you_.



Oh I know. I'm Mr. Apathy here, but I just couldn't resist the cheap shot. :>


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 24, 2009)

hmm.. .are my comments are to much for most people, or why do i feel ignored why other peoples posts are ripped apart?


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 24, 2009)

straydog said:


> You know... it just occurred to me that Poser nor SL images, for the most part, should NOT be restricted, but SHOULD, just like EVERY OTHER PIECE OF ARTWORK, adhere to the By YOU/for YOU policy.
> 
> That means, if YOU did not make a significant part of the Poser models/items/whatever you're using, and it was not NOT made SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU, it's not allowed and you need to find somewhere else to 'showcase' your budding '3D' skills.
> 
> ...



Well, you heard the man folks. I guess that means if you have a car and get all manner of spinning rims, high quality stereo systems, custom paint job, and whatever internal non-factory made items installed, its not yours... There are lots of analogies for the use of having a standard factory made product and the addition of items onto them to make them better. All of which adhere to one thing.. YOU BOUGHT IT, ITS YOURS. If asked nobody passes off ownership, they say where they got it. Because they want to bring business to the place or manufacturer, and they think it will help out the next guy. Collages legitimate forms of art, and although the items for the imagery may come from a variety of sources,or the same source, in the end they illustrate the particular artists vision of his work. You did not make this board or the type, icons, banner at the top, etc, yet you use it because it allows you to answer these posts, you do not claim ownership of it, yet you do of the replys that reflect what you feel when you post. A tool is a tool, what matters is the end product, not what went into making it. That is putting the cart before the horse.
--Dancougar


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 24, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:
			
		

> hmm.. .are my comments are to much for most people, or why do i feel ignored why other peoples posts are ripped apart? :sad:





Sheena-Tiger said:


> i not fight the fact, most people use premade stuff, what i fight is following:
> 
> it is a work of mere minutes to insert all stuff and render it
> (i not say, there are no such pics!)
> ...



the reason I didn't respond, is because I didn't feel any need to. my post was directed at someone else, and you took what I said out of context. I figured anyone that read my whole post, would catch that, whether I pointed it out or not.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 24, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> hmm.. .are my comments are to much for most people, or why do i feel ignored why other peoples posts are ripped apart?



Don't worry about it Sheena, keep posting. You make your point clear whether or not they answer.
--Dancougar


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 24, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> the reason I didn't respond, is because I didn't feel any need to. my post was directed at someone else, and you took what I said out of context. I figured anyone that read my whole post, would catch that, whether I pointed it out or not.



you made an argument i felt needed to be respondet too, for that a forum is.
if you only want one person recting to it, use a PM, thats what they are for



Dancougar said:


> Don't worry about it Sheena, keep posting. You make your point clear whether or not they answer.
> --Dancougar



*smiles* a lot of people do tell me such things, across different forums... one more reason i wonder why nearly no one picks them up


----------



## nekollx (Jan 24, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Well, you heard the man folks. I guess that means if you have a car and get all manner of spinning rims, high quality stereo systems, custom paint job, and whatever internal non-factory made items installed, its not yours... There are lots of analogies for the use of having a standard factory made product and the addition of items onto them to make them better. All of which adhere to one thing.. YOU BOUGHT IT, ITS YOURS. If asked nobody passes off ownership, they say where they got it. Because they want to bring business to the place or manufacturer, and they think it will help out the next guy. Collages legitimate forms of art, and although the items for the imagery may come from a variety of sources,or the same source, in the end they illustrate the particular artists vision of his work. You did not make this board or the type, icons, banner at the top, etc, yet you use it because it allows you to answer these posts, you do not claim ownership of it, yet you do of the replys that reflect what you feel when you post. A tool is a tool, what matters is the end product, not what went into making it. That is putting the cart before the horse.
> --Dancougar



dude i love you. 

This is not a forume this is Nazi Land Obay ze dictator.

Well i say REVOLUCION!

ATTACA
ATTACA


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 24, 2009)

point missed. what it means, is the only reason I'm even responding to Kitoth, despite his inability to understand my posts, is because I was already talking to him. judging from your post when you quoted part of mine, you seemed to think I was saying Poser is easy. that is not what I was saying. it was giving an example of how putting no effort into poser, is the same as putting no effort into SL. 

you can reread my post here if you need to


----------



## Setsune_W (Jan 24, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> That doesn't mean it's not fun to putz around in it and as long as the artist makes modifications beyond the posing and stock models, not just posing the mannikin, there is an exception to allowing it on FA. Make some textures, and show off how the texture works. Poser is your mannikin. The lighting and rendering engine is help for reference.



Sometimes it's not about the textures or the props. You don't always draw a picture of the chair to show what a great picture of a chair you draw, the chair is a background piece of a greater picture. I don't have so much of a problem with, after a learning stage, expecting some original content included to comply with anti-flooding, but the overwhelming chant from this thread is that nothing prefabricated should be allowed period, including the so-called "infamous" Krystal model. That it's cheating if we're not building every single stool and curtain ourselves. And even though the AUP excuses that currently, I don't think that push is going to end with the way things are going, the refs are going to be worked until the next major AUP update, when restrictions will get even tighter.

Plus I still don't think that people should be expected to hit the ground running and geniuses. Artists start with bad sketches, 3D animators start with simple poses using stock models. They shouldn't be expected to make all of their tools at the start when it's not the focus of what they want to do, they'll only get frustrated and quit.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 24, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> point missed. what it means, is the only reason I'm even responding to Kitoth, despite his inability to understand my posts, is because I was already talking to him. judging from your post when you quoted part of mine, you seemed to think I was saying Poser is easy. that is not what I was saying. it was giving an example of how putting no effort into poser, is the same as putting no effort into SL.



*smiles* then i just misinterpreted it... itsn ot easy to follow all posts and have them in mind when responding with so many bad words flying around



Setsune_W said:


> Plus I still don't think that people should be expected to hit the ground running and geniuses. Artists start with bad sketches, 3D animators start with simple poses using stock models. They shouldn't be expected to make all of their tools at the start when it's not the focus of what they want to do, they'll only get frustrated and quit.



hmm.. how was it said? "Amen"? or such?
its exactly what i think... people who just start seldom are able to make and use all things possible but need support (but it is in my opinion no excuse for only putting premade stuff up)


----------



## Witchiebunny (Jan 24, 2009)

So Arshes...


I take poser. I boot up Furette2 and put the tiger skin on her. I put some dynamic clothing on her, put her in a scene, set up the lighting and the props and the morphs and render it. 

Then I take into photoshop, and spend hours adding things-painting in hair, fixing lighting and render issues, painting in detail to eyes, clothing, fur, etc..

And I can't claim it as "mine" because I didn't create the program, the model or the initial texture?


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 24, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Correct, I haven't even said you couldn't post your "failed" art. We all fail. some of us chose not to post our failures. What I mean is that, there are people upset that we won't let them use stock Poser art with new poses, but we haven't prevented them from posting 3d art with obvious errors they created him/herself.
> 
> I think the other problem is that we're trying to make analogies in which different sets of prerequisites don't match. While we can do some comparisons to Poser/Photography/Drawing, they don't quite work out. Poser was really so that people have a way of using reference.
> 
> ...



Does a program outgrow it original intent and purposes? YES, it does. If it didn't then it wouldn't have survived to grow and take on new capabilities beyond its simple beginnings. Afterall, what does a simple software used for putting down simple 3D people to be traced over for use in other programs need a powerful render engine like Firefly for? The list goes on and on, but it went through its low beginnings and took on many functions during its lifespan as the userbase grew and more was being asked of it, and more was being made of it. So quite frankly, its not really the same program that it was at the very beginning. Just like you aren't the little kid you were so long ago.
--Dancougar


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 24, 2009)

@ Sheena-Tiger
it's ok, and sorry if I sounded a bit harsh there. this whole Poser issue in general has been kind of draining, and arguing with Kitoth (because I find it a bit hypocritical that he seems to look down on SL screenshots so much, because of some of the same reasons he's having to defend Poser from) has had me in a somewhat annoyed mood.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 24, 2009)

Witchiebunny said:


> So Arshes...
> 
> 
> I take poser. I boot up Furette2 and put the tiger skin on her. I put some dynamic clothing on her, put her in a scene, set up the lighting and the props and the morphs and render it.
> ...



You made it yours the moment you started customizing, because nobody else can put the same things on their character in the same manner or utilize it in the same way as you. Every texture you put, every dial you spin, every which way you put that character, that makes the end work yours. Of course to take the other side, no it wouldn't because you didn't make any of the things that went into creating your work of art. I guess that means painters don't own thier own works either because they didn't make the canvas, paint, brushes, stretcher bars, staples, stapler, gesso, easel, pallate, or frame to make their works with either.
--Dancougar


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 24, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> @ Sheena-Tiger
> it's ok, and sorry if I sounded a bit harsh there. this whole Poser issue in general has been kind of draining, and arguing with Kitoth (because I find it a bit hypocritical that he seems to look down on SL screenshots so much, because of some of the same reasons he's having to defend Poser from) has had me in a somewhat annoyed mood.



*nods* aside of that, maybe my examples help other people get a slightly other look at the problem... since i myself will not defend simple clicking together ...
i started there too (and i would not wonder if dragoneer and arshes did the same for there very first experiments... but i can be wrong of course) and hell was i mocking around about poser beeing so... stuck up... compared to some D|S-functions ^^
but i learned and am now elsewhere... and next year i hope, maybe i make own simple textures for most stock-stuff and maybe even simple own models (its just what i hope for, while workign with poser as hobby and learning while doing)


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 24, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> @ Sheena-Tiger
> it's ok, and sorry if I sounded a bit harsh there. this whole Poser issue in general has been kind of draining, and arguing with Kitoth (because I find it a bit hypocritical that he seems to look down on SL screenshots so much, because of some of the same reasons he's having to defend Poser from) has had me in a somewhat annoyed mood.



Yeah, the grind tends to make us all snippy and even downright mean after a while of answering, answering, answering, non-stop. Its good to just copy a post down in a text editor, and get away from the screen for a while, then come back to it and answer and post it up when things have had a chance to cool down. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jan 24, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Ummm, begging your pardon, but  Poser is not a renderer. Its a character generator and animator.



Poser is many things.  Yes, it is used for character design and animation.  It is also considered a studio-type application, permitting one to compose complex scenes in 3D space.

But unless you're embracing a radical new definition of "renderer", I'll have to disagree with your first statement.  I render images within Poser every day, using one of five separate render engines built into the software.  Although Poser also offers the option of exporting to external renderers, I find that it disrupts my workflow.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 24, 2009)

Witchiebunny said:


> So Arshes...
> 
> 
> I take poser. I boot up Furette2 and put the tiger skin on her. I put some dynamic clothing on her, put her in a scene, set up the lighting and the props and the morphs and render it.
> ...



Did you actually look at the Egyptian Queen example? The guy also took hours *painting over* what he worked on in poser. On the other hand he also rendered his own props (which differs from what you've done). However, he also fixed rendering issues too. He put in his own work, not just a simple paint over. You have done the same. This is why this is frustratingly repetitive. It's been answered. It's not just about simple paint over like taking a burn and dodge tool in photoshop, it's putting in enough of your work where it makes sense that the final product becomes the focus. Not because you simply thought a dog cock would look good on a Krystal model.

Nor is it about a simple palette swap. However, again you need to do a lot of your own work to make it stand out as effort. Posing a model, doesn't cut it. Just because you added lighting already in the program doesn't cut it. Just because you created a texture doesn't necessarily cut it either if it's not the focus of the piece and you just tried to use it to get away with trying to say "this is new art".

It's not unique, just importing those pre-packaged elements throwing up some lighting and calling it a day when you just entirely used stock elements, you got to modify it enough to make it yours, painting/rendering your own hair, fixing issues that you know are wrong due to kinetics, etc.

Dancougar, yeah and Photoshop was for image editing photos, people have learned to paint with it from scratch. Using Filter - Render clouds and Lens flare however didn't equate to suddenly making you an artist. You can make some funky effects using photoshop filters, but the filters themselves don't make you an artist. 

However, I recognize some people who are afraid of hurting people's feelings will immediately recognize it as art because *whisper* We don't want to hurt Timmy's feelings ...he's just trying to express himself!

But in terms of acceptable art, which is what we are talking about in FA, there's a consensus about at least putting in individual effort beyond pre-generated (stock) content. Just like there are standards to using photography stock on FA. One can create stock photography but there's even then For You/By You and AUP asks you put enough effort to make it unique - when using *another person's stock photography*. I can't just "hey look I found this stock photography of a tree, and put a smiley face on it, now it's new". Sorry, but we gotta pretty much go by the same rules too of original content effort too. So no, Poser isn't getting hated upon anymore than an artist who used Stock Photography in his/her works.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 24, 2009)

Kitoth,

More or less I was offended by you making the statements about the ease of secondlife that you did. Yes it is easy and some people abuse that to upload really shitty submissions... but by repeating this kind of stuff you support a more restrictive policy for SL while giving poser and daz more rights in FA. 

It is sad I can only submit 3 pictures of something I worked on no matter how much work went into it.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 25, 2009)

Little_Dragon said:


> Poser is many things.  Yes, it is used for character design and animation.  It is also considered a studio-type application, permitting one to compose complex scenes in 3D space.
> 
> But unless you're embracing a radical new definition of "renderer", I'll have to disagree with your first statement.  I render images within Poser every day, using one of five separate render engines built into the software.  Although Poser also offers the option of exporting to external renderers, I find that it disrupts my workflow.



With all due respect, the statement is correct. Poser is not a renderer, It is a program that HAS a renderer in it. My statement comes from the first page of the manual which reads 'Poser is the premiere 3D-character design and animation tool'. This is its stated purpose, it is not a dedicated stand alone render engine. There are five seperate renderers? Unless there is a new one in P7 that I don't know about, there are only 4 in P6, firefly, P4, sketch, and preview. As has been recognized in various texts, while firefly is great in comparison to the other four included render types, it really isn't as good as those renderers found in higher programs or with the output of the aforementioned stand alone render engines.

On the following web page is a listing of renderers / render engines. Some come with the various modeling software, like Poser does, some render engines are stand alone. The renderers / render engines just do what they do, they serve the end process, they are not the focus of it unless it is their singular function as a stand alone app.
One doesn't call Maya a renderer just because it has Mental Ray in it.

http://www.3d-animation.com.ar/3d_software_rendering_engines_01.php

--Dancougar


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 25, 2009)

JESUS! This thread really gives me a headache. -.-

To sum up what we got to this point:
The AUP says (or tries to say) that if you want to submit a picture that was created with a 3D program, the primary elements of the pic (iow: the parts that show what the enitre pic is all about, for example the head shown in a portrait, and NOT the background) must either be built from scratch or at least be something that you got from stock BUT modified in such a way that you barely (or better cannot) recognize the original stock model at all (new skin, added tail, added fur, claws, fluffy ears, three legs etc).

If you manage to do that, the pic's ok and you can submit it (if I got Dragoneer's statement right that he made in one of the first posts of this thread).


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 25, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> On the following web page is a listing of renderers / render engines. Some come with the various modeling software, like Poser does, some render engines are stand alone.



in this case it reads, like you call poser a modelling-program, but it is not as far as i know ^^ or i missed a part in my poser wherei can model new things and not "only" morph given models



WarMocK said:


> (new skin, added tail, added fur, claws, fluffy ears, three legs etc).



even thisd only if you make major own work or it is especially done for you... so for a pleasureable pic you need to be at least a skilled texturer or know one and/or have a modeller at hand if you are not one yourself


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 25, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> even thisd only if you make major own work or it is especially done for you... so for a pleasureable pic you need to be at least a skilled texturer or know one and/or have a modeller at hand if you are not one yourself



Jopps ^^


----------



## Cilis (Jan 25, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> JESUS! This thread really gives me a headache. -.-
> 
> To sum up what we got to this point:
> The AUP says (or tries to say) that if you want to submit a picture that was created with a 3D program, the primary elements of the pic (iow: the parts that show what the enitre pic is all about, for example the head shown in a portrait, and NOT the background) must either be built from scratch or at least be something that you got from stock BUT modified in such a way that you barely (or better cannot) recognize the original stock model at all (new skin, added tail, added fur, claws, fluffy ears, three legs etc).
> ...




Well there is one caveat, if you work in secondlife the amount of work is disregarded automatically and you're constrained to three uploads of a single avatar.

This is regardless of new cloths, setting or action/interaction with other characters.

That kind of sucks for me, if I want to showcase six dance animations I made for a pair (M/m, F/M or any combination there of) my art would technically be violating the SL AUP if I used the same couple in six animated GIFs or flash files.

To be within the AUP, I'd have to make a total of 4 new avatars to show off the six animations. 

Thats a little bit constraining and such a policy basically kills higher creative work (such as flash animation showcasing.) because it makes the work mount up to prohibiative levels.

I don't think that Daz and Poser will be limited in the new AUP, but I think the 'Three max" rule is going to stick for secondlife and that really stinks


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 25, 2009)

Cilis said:


> That kind of sucks for me, if I want to showcase six dance animations I made for a pair (M/m, F/M or any combination there of) my art would technically be violating the SL AUP if I used the same couple in six animated GIFs or flash files.
> 
> To be within the AUP, I'd have to make a total of 4 new avatars to show off the six animations.



hmmm... in my humble own opinion, i think in such a case the animation would be the focus, and if that is made by you i see no problem there @_@
as logn as you not put up a series of many pics people need to put together themselves to get an animation ^^


----------



## Cilis (Jan 25, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> hmmm... in my humble own opinion, i think in such a case the animation would be the focus, and if that is made by you i see no problem there @_@
> as logn as you not put up a series of many pics people need to put together themselves to get an animation ^^




More than likely I'd make it a flash video or gif, uploading snapshots frame by frame would be excessive hehe.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 25, 2009)

Cilis said:


> More than likely I'd make it a flash video or gif, uploading snapshots frame by frame would be excessive hehe.



And if you made a flash of the animations, nobody could say that you didn't put your own effort into it.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 25, 2009)

Thats true enough, I just hate to have to spell it out in terms of how much work was done in a piece. 

If I did it right they shouldn't be able to tell what was from the original snapshot and what I did to it in photoshop or after effects as post process. If I burn and dodge the shit out of a screenshot it doesn't exactly mean it'll be better ya know?


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jan 25, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> There are five seperate renderers? Unless there is a new one in P7 that I don't know about, there are only 4 in P6, firefly, P4, sketch, and preview.



You're only counting preview once.  Poser has two real-time preview engines ... the older SreeD engine (which admittedly has improved over the years) and the newer hardware-accelerated OpenGL renderer introduced in P6.



Sheena-Tiger said:


> in this case it reads, like you call poser a modelling-program, but it is not as far as i know ^^ or i missed a part in my poser wherei can model new things and not "only" morph given models



Technically, you _can_, at least as far as Geep is concerned.  I wouldn't recommend it, personally.

There's also a metablob plugin if you're interested in creating organic shapes.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 25, 2009)

I'm sorry if I brought on the whether Poser/DAZ is a renderer or not discussion?
What I meant was we have people designing the scene and the render, that's why I described it as "making renders", rather than "making 3D"  I hope that clarifies.

(all forms of 3D applications can render, even if just to the viewport like SL.)


----------



## Kitoth (Jan 26, 2009)

Ok I'm going to end my discussion in this thread its not something i feel like continuing to argue on but just so everyone knows where "I" stand on this whole issue as well as what i have said here it goes as simple and as direct as I can make it.

1: I am against the render AUP, because I have a lot of users on my watch list I love seeing what they produce out of programs like Poser and Daz. I feel its forcing them away from FA as well as other who may not use these because they feel FA is becoming too strict.

2: The SL reference was started in the initial thread not this one. I even said there are those out tehre who DO make their own avatars and even said Dragoneer may give them a bit of a break since it is all created by them. but most do not create their own.

3: I gave thanks to some friends who i want to keep out of this who use Poser or Daz how much time it takes for them and I gave only the comments on how long it took them, one included the Krystal render. I tried to find someone on SL who was not busy and made custom avatars completely to get how long it takes them from shortest time to longest, but  all i knew and talked to were busy or did not even remember.

4: I think this thread has gone off track and not all but many including me are to blame for that. I personally think that there should be a new thread where the only ones allowed to comment are Dragoneer, Any Admins he thinks should be involved as well as those who use the programs in question should discuss it so there is maybe a middle ground created or at least so many who still are having questions about past, current and future submissions can be addressed without having those like myself who do not use Poser or Daz are not in the equation.

Well I will check back on comments on this and reply to those but please keep them simple and remember this is my opinion on this matter.

Back to sorting bookmarks and cleaning up space on my pc.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 26, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Did you actually look at the Egyptian Queen example? The guy also took hours *painting over* what he worked on in poser. On the other hand he also rendered his own props (which differs from what you've done). However, he also fixed rendering issues too. He put in his own work, not just a simple paint over. You have done the same. This is why this is frustratingly repetitive. It's been answered. It's not just about simple paint over like taking a burn and dodge tool in photoshop, it's putting in enough of your work where it makes sense that the final product becomes the focus. Not because you simply thought a dog cock would look good on a Krystal model.
> 
> Nor is it about a simple palette swap. However, again you need to do a lot of your own work to make it stand out as effort. Posing a model, doesn't cut it. Just because you added lighting already in the program doesn't cut it. Just because you created a texture doesn't necessarily cut it either if it's not the focus of the piece and you just tried to use it to get away with trying to say "this is new art".
> 
> ...



With all due respect,  you miss the point. The point was in illustrating that lots of  programs evolve past their original purpose.

On the topic of Timmy and others artistic efforts, a little empathy can go a long way in dealing with the improvement of  people. when nurturing another's artistic side a few kind words can go a long ways while guiding them along carefully, This is not a case of deluding the individual as you would infer.  If Timmy or the individual is a child, then of course you are going to go along with whatever artistic effort has been put through, because it was an expression. One cannot expect adult caliber works from a child. Its extraordinary when you do get them. If Timmy or the individual is a teen or adult then they can be carefully instructed with a constructive critique of their work. In all cases, its just plain crass to give into base instinct and scream "THIS THING SUCKS!. You'll never be good at it! Give it up and try something else! " etc. You don't take a person's works and trample them in the dust because they are not up to your personal standards yet. Keeping an open mind, it could be seen that perhaps the person is still growing and improving in the quality of their works. It is then at that time that the artistic flame must be carefully nurtured, not stamped out because one feels that it falls far below their own level of work. When seeing an up and coming artist one must be a nurturer, rather than a destroyer.

Where is this consensus? The flames have been shooting to the high heavens for the past few days with no consensus in sight. The consensus seemingly being raised here is amongst a handful speaking here, not the greater majority. Wait a minute... Put enough effort into your photos to make them unique? Unless you deliberately take multiple photos rapidly of the same thing outdoors or if you take them in a controlled situation indoors, they will never be the same, its next to impossible. Outdoors it depends on the subject matter and what its like on the site at the time of the shoot. There are lots of variables to take into account, the lighting, weather, the type of subject matter, the environment, the movement of  the Sun and the Earth,  it all matters and can be mercurial unless you are snapping pics one right after the other in rapid succession. It takes deliberate effort to try to make exact duplicates, Putting the smiley face on the tree would make it new if no one had ever used that picture before, or if even if they had, they had never put a smiley face on it. And even if people had. No one would have put that smiley in the same way before. The artist's alteration is what makes it unique. But then, if you made your own stock photography then everything would be unique. 

The digital painting over thing is a hot button topic in photoshop circles as well, with one side arguing that if you extensively work on a base image that you did not take yourself that you are ripping it off, even if you have really substamcially changed it. Sound familiar? All of these arguments here are not new ones, just old ones that finally made it here. 

Technically speaking altering  the work would make it a derivative of the original. However if the proper permissions, etc have been obtained and its all done over the counter, then aside from perhaps giving recognition for the base work if needed, everything is by and far covered. Once you are covered you can do whatever you like with the thing. It's only when the aforementioned legalities are not observed that you get into trouble. Sure you might be able to get away with it through fair use, but that is a very subjective thing, and one in which you have to be very careful of. 

In the end though, while its all nice and well to say do this, don't do that, who is going to police all those entries and look for every single iota of seeming originalness? NOBODY has ever put any kind of an answer up to the question of  WHO is going to selflessly sacrifice themselves to police through endless art entries and devote themselves, their lives, to enforcement on an art site that is not going to pay them?

As I keep on saying, there are THOUSANDS of items, textures, etc out that can be used, both free and pay-for but it seems not to register. Unless someone is blatantly using a particular model and gear repeatedly, given the massive amount of stuff out there, it is easy for any to just keep doing as they please, unless there is a dedicated force willing to scour over all the sites out there and pour through lists day in and out. If there isn't, then Its a tiger without claws that only generates bad feelings, prejudice, and discrimination. So why not just  state that you have to put in a note about the item's creation in the text field right there when one first posts? The uniqueness should be placed on the overall end product of the work, not on what goes into its creation. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 26, 2009)

Little_Dragon said:


> You're only counting preview once.  Poser has two real-time preview engines ... the older SreeD engine (which admittedly has improved over the years) and the newer hardware-accelerated OpenGL renderer introduced in P6.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh I see. I was counting preview once because it only appears once in the render options listed in the render settings and in the documentation in P6. Wait a minute... Two previews... Are you by chance counting the preview window in as a renderer? Or is this something that really isn't covered in the documentation or the settings? Now I am very curious. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jan 26, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Are you by chance counting the preview window in as a renderer?



Counting the preview window in what?  The other rooms?  No.



> Or is this something that really isn't covered in the documentation or the settings?



The two preview engines are covered on pages 73, 102-103, 105, and 336 of the Poser 6 reference manual.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 26, 2009)

Little_Dragon said:


> Counting the preview window in what?  The other rooms?  No.
> 
> The two preview engines are covered on pages 73, 102-103, 105, and 336 of the Poser 6 reference manual.



Ok. Oh thats nifty, right click in the preview window and there you go. Thanks L-Dragon! One learns something new every day. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Kefan (Jan 26, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> The uniqueness should be placed on the overall end product of the work, not on what goes into its creation.
> --Dancougar



Hear hear.

One _assumes_ that the point of a change in the AUP is to improve the quality of the galleries, but there's nothing in here that will actually do that.

Mandating creation of the models will not suddenly make the images better.  Creating models will not inherently improve composition ability or trigger innovation, neither will it solve repetition and flooding issues.

The problem is with the users posting problem images, not the tool used to make them.  And the solution is to address the matter with those users.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 26, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Hear hear.
> 
> One _assumes_ that the point of a change in the AUP is to improve the quality of the galleries, but there's nothing in here that will actually do that.
> 
> ...



Well in all fairness it appears as though a lot of the problem with the users posting problem images is not that they are delibrately doing so, but that they are new users that aren't aware that they are causing any problems, and so they use the only thing they have. In this case it would be Furrette and Krystal, those are the most immediately available character types to use. There are others out there but they are kind of hard to find nowadays unless you really go looking for them or have someone that knows of them point out just where they are. 

Its a shame. One really has to go on and see what has happened in the past with other groups who went through wild rule change phases that they thought at the time were beneficial, which put the clamps on artistic freedom and caused great unrest. Its not pretty. They usually get a rep for being restrictive and opressive and don't last long afterwards. Its a pity that we as Poser and Daz users along with others similarly effected can't unite together as a community under a formal banner to voice our joint opposition. Or to in the very least voice our opposition in the form of a letter of protest or a petition to ask for its removal or in the very least radical revision. There are alot of others out there that use the software too, who may not know about what is going on here, that may lend their voices as well, word has to be spread. Some think that its too late, that its all cast in stone, but its never too late. There just has to be a great enough outcry for freedom.
--Dancougar


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 26, 2009)

Other than wording (clarification), no one has presented an argument to repeal the rule at this point in time regarding Poser and similar render programs using stock only. Only that one won't (which is "Can't") provide his/her own actual content to import and modify the stock to make it unique. The staff have reviewed the comments so at this time, it appears the rule is going to stay - with the exception that better wording may be needed.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 26, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Other than wording (clarification), no one has presented an argument to repeal the rule at this point in time regarding Poser and similar render programs using stock only. Only that one won't (which is "Can't") provide his/her own actual content to import and modify the stock to make it unique. The staff have reviewed the comments so at this time, it appears the rule is going to stay - with the exception that better wording may be needed.



the problem is, not everyone is able to (for most diverse reasons) to get own stuff together, and the rule is ganging against and discuraging people like me, who simply are unable to hold up the wanted "high standards" ... and putting them into "scraps" is no solution in my opinion, it would be the same pic i would put up in my normal gallery, only to avoid aup-problems i would put it into scraps... idiotic if it is a finished pic (and pics i not see finished would never find their way into public galleries)

just telling us "make your own stuff and it must be major part/focus of the pic" is REALLY helping absolutly nobody.
how often shall we tell you (sorry, but right now it seems to me like this) thick headed guys/gals that simply not everyon one out here is a jack of all trades, and even dragoneer started with poser, and now a long time after that, he simply seems to have forgotten that he began with easy and simple stuff (sorry, i can not believe he used only one or two days poser and then switched instantly to professional modelling AND texturing stuff)


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 26, 2009)

Sheena, that's exactly what she said;


> Only that one won't (which is "Can't") provide his/her own actual content to import and modify the stock to make it unique. The staff have reviewed the comments so at this time, it appears the rule is going to stay


That someone's _won't_ or _can't_ is not going to impact the rules.

(And you don't need to be a jack of all trades)

And for those who talk about whether the process matters? It does to artists who look at art. I don't know about other people but I _often_ find myself far more intrigued by technical aspects than actual image contents even if the latter is what I see first. That is, however, irrelevant to this discussion.

I think visual examples of what level of original contents the administration wants submissions to have is in order?


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 26, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Other than wording (clarification), no one has presented an argument to repeal the rule at this point in time regarding Poser and similar render programs using stock only. Only that one won't (which is "Can't") provide his/her own actual content to import and modify the stock to make it unique. The staff have reviewed the comments so at this time, it appears the rule is going to stay - with the exception that better wording may be needed.



Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 26, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Sheena, that's exactly what she said;
> 
> That someone's _won't_ or _can't_ is not going to impact the rules.
> 
> ...



right, itn ot impacts the rules, but what people can post. sorry i am neither a modeller nor a texturer or traditional artist. if i would be a modeller i still would need to be an artist, if i not want to throw my models around so other could use them. as texturer work would be a bit more easy, as long as the textures made for "stock models" would be sufficient if enough or the important parts in a picture have them on them

i myself feel, that the outcome of a picture... the composition, the idea (if it is of the artists mind, regardless of used technique) is the important original content.

if this is not enough, i am sorry, there should be all stuff not beeing allowed that not uses especially allowed non-artist content ... disallowing EACH fanart-pic for wich the artist not has asked the creator of the character (cause a general allowance is not sufficient it seems, or the administration is making a line behind all traditional art...)

edit:
lets think of such a situation... someone has an image, an idea in mind... what could happen, depending on starting point

point 1: the person draws a lot with whatever traditional tool (pencil, brush, marker,... ) and would pick up his or her tool and make the image come true while doing a traditional pic ... workload between minutes and days, depending on artist, style and details, the artwork is totally unique

point 2: the person is skilled with the mouse and programs like photoshop... the person would switch on the pc and start working on the picture creating a cg-pic ... workload between minutes and days, depending on artist, style and details, the artwork is reproduceable with different colors in minutes to hours, depending on style and tools

point 3: the person is more or less skilled in traditional tools and graphical programs... the person will pick up the traditional tools, making for example the lineart and then edit the rest in the choosen program, creating in the end a cg-pic (based on traditional work) ... workload between minutes and days, depending on artist, style and details, the artwork is reproduceable with different colors in minutes to hours, depending on style and tools while the basic work is unique

point 4: the person is neither skilled in traditional tools nor graphical programs but has a tool on hand that can create pics, based on models and textures created by the person or other ... workload between minutes and days, depending on used things, rendersettings (is it some kind of preview, size of the created pic, light/shadow etc.), work on details and experience of the person coupled with the pc-power, the artwork is reproduceable with different angles in minutes to hours, depending mostly on pc-power and rendersettings


----------



## Kefan (Jan 26, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Only that one won't (which is "Can't") provide his/her own actual content to import and modify the stock to make it unique.



Well, that's enough to convince me this whole thread was a monumental waste of time, since clearly you'd made up your mind (can't speak to the other admins/mods) on this already.  This was the position you started at, and this is the position you ended at, and as far as I saw, you had no interest in listening to anyone who had any other point of view.

Whatever.  Do what you want.  You've succeeded at least in making sure one creator simply doesn't care anymore.  I've got better things to do than waste my time here.

Hope you're proud of yourself.


----------



## Daymond42 (Jan 26, 2009)

Meh, for those that keep on trying to refute the changes being made, there's a very simple thing. The minds of the mods will not be changed, and if you want to keep posting your art, you can do so, and probably expect to have it repeatedly rejected here on FA.

Ooooor you can just go to another place (*coughcough* Deviantart *cough cough*) that doesn't have a problem with it.

It's like the situation of a sports game and the referee calls a foul or a penalty, and they player gets in the face of the ref. It's not like the referee is going to say "You know? I totally fucked up that call. Let me reverse that decision for you."

That's why.... me? Big bag o' apathy here.  I raise no complaints. I just roll with the punches.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 26, 2009)

Kefan said:


> Well, that's enough to convince me this whole thread was a monumental waste of time, since clearly you'd made up your mind (can't speak to the other admins/mods) on this already.  This was the position you started at, and this is the position you ended at, and as far as I saw, you had no interest in listening to anyone who had any other point of view.
> 
> Whatever.  Do what you want.  You've succeeded at least in making sure one creator simply doesn't care anymore.  I've got better things to do than waste my time here.
> 
> Hope you're proud of yourself.



I am not the entire staff, but again you didn't present an argument to dissuade the majority of staff.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 26, 2009)

Daymond42 said:


> Ooooor you can just go to another place (*coughcough* Deviantart *cough cough*) that doesn't have a problem with it.


thats a good one...

i am there allready, think i postet one or 2 links to my pics there, just added another one after rendering my pc for hours useless, aside of looking at pages and writing something (not the usual thing i do with my pc -.-)

my problem is, i want more ideas about my pics, whats wrong with them or whats good, and not all people that could look at my pics and are interested in that kind of pics, are over at DA or even other pages where mostly to only render-people are, taking away the wise things some tradional people might have to say, especially when i try more furry-like pics



			
				Arshes-Nei said:
			
		

> I am not the entire staff, but again you didn't present an argument to dissuade the majority of staff.


we not even see the other staffpeople looking and reacting here, only you!
and really, i not trust any decision, that is allways only ever comunicated via one person... i want other staffmembers too here in this... one-sided "discussion" where all tried arguments are... never good and allways false (thats my feelings about it)


----------



## gkm0576 (Jan 27, 2009)

Hello, this is actually my first time posting here.

To be honest, I'm not sure what I ought to say about this. I used poser quite a bit, especially the Krystal model. At first, I used her without any modifications. I agree that this is bad, and nobody should fill their gallery with nothing but that.

Soon I learned how to make my own changes to the model. Make her taller, curvier, longer hair, etc. and I figured out how to make my own poses. Still not quite there, but much better than just using the model "out of the box".

THen I made even more drastic changes. Different textures, more uses of morphs, even turning her into one of my own original characters... all through this I struggled to make sure I was posing her just right, never again using pre-made morphs, moving the lights myself. Is that enough, though?


Don't bother looking in my gallery for the poser stuff, I removed it. And I no longer have the originals, except for the last one I posted, so nearly all of those pictures I made over the course of almost two years is gone. Forever.

A quick look at my gallery shows I can't draw worth anything. My writing, while some say it's good, I can't really be happy with. Poser is what I was best at. But the AUP has taken this tool away from me.

I thought about writing the most scathing thing I can think of. But I won't. It's not worth it. Instead, I'm going to try to learn how to make models in Blender. It will take years of work maybe to realize the images I have in my mind now. So what? I've been through worse.


I'm not sure what my point is, or whether I had a point in the first place. I just thought I should get it off my chest in a place where it will be heard.

As for the rule... with any rule, you should think about intended and unintended consequences. I say wait it out and see how this plays out. If it turns out the rule is beneficial, keep it. If it turns out that this rule is just making things worse, repeal it.

Either way, my poser art is gone.

tl;dr I'm butthurt but you can do whatever, I don't care.


----------



## Marohen (Jan 27, 2009)

Oooooookay, I'm going to skip past the large hurdles of drama that's likely been produced from this thread and _hope_ that somebody of reason is still reading this thread.

I'm not so much curious as to the aforementioned policy itself but for the _premise_ regarding it, particularly regarding the whole "Poser Problem", as it were.

First of all, in-game screenshots and sprite rips make sense, since they are taken from a copyrighted product. But this doesn't quite seem to apply for Poser, wherein taking pictures of the end product is part of its function.

I am not here to support or devalue the use of Poser, I'm here to find the legal basis from which the use of images produced from Poser are differentiated from the likes of Fractal or Landscape generators, which only deviate from the likes of, say, "Spore" by having a random element attached to it...

...Well, one could say that the _content_ is in conflict with copyright, but I want to clear this from the table immediately. Any poser model that is either free or payed for really does not seem to conflict with copyright. It's fair use under the grounds that it's not used for profit (At least to the extent of free models) or that the models haven't been stolen or ripped from a copyright product (The equivalent of ripping a sprite from a game).

Of course, if the model is a copyrighted character, it can still count as "fanart" as long as it, again, is not a rip from a copyrighted product and is therefor made by a "Fan" and distributed freely to other "Fans" to use.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 27, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> we not even see the other staffpeople looking and reacting here, only you!
> and really, i not trust any decision, that is allways only ever comunicated via one person... i want other staffmembers too here in this... one-sided "discussion" where all tried arguments are... never good and allways false (thats my feelings about it)



Well there were staff have replied earlier (in another thread), and agreed the arguments had become circular, there was nothing new to what was already said. That's why I was deleting posts in the AUP thread when they became circular.

If I've pretty much captured the overall feeling with my counter points, I can't exactly blame staff for not wanting to become repetitive in discussion. All that needs to be said is internally with the staff whether or not the rule should be repealed. That is what happened pretty much. They've seen and read what was there and voted on that.

It's like those oversight panels. You don't need 80 people telling you the same arguments. 

From the pages overall, it does repeat itself. The condition was new contributed content needed to be brought in, enough where it counts (so it's not just hey I took this model and moved it, ooh pretty lights!). Arguing about feelings of what is art, kept recycling, etc...

What new evidence do you have that hasn't been repeated that would change the staff's minds?


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 27, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> From the pages overall, it does repeat itself. The condition was new contributed content needed to be brought in, enough where it counts (so it's not just hey I took this model and moved it, ooh pretty lights!). Arguing about feelings of what is art, kept recycling, etc...
> 
> What new evidence do you have that hasn't been repeated that would change the staff's minds?



i tried to make points ASIDE of those you mention, but all times i make them, those posts are ... completely ignored by people and never responded to by anyone... quite odd.
especially since i not only simply move some bought or free props around, hit any random light and be happy with my work for wich i would love input... oddly over at other galleries people get less useful comments for renderpics then over here it seems. chances seem much more high over here at FA getting a "this and that does not look right, even on a renderpic" and not only "oooh... aaah!" (i like them too, but i like comments telling me how to improve the composition much more)
and i not need such comments in 2 or more years, when the pic's i had in mind are vanished from there only cause i am finally able to make sufficient own stuff

and i simply not see, why, having an unique idea of an image and making it, is not worth beeing postet, even with stock models (i still wait that my pic i challenged one of the posters to to be repostet with only stock-models and stock-textures (thats possible), stock-light and stockposes...)
if people take a pose from a poster and put a random well known character into it and draw that composition it seems sufficient too to be postet, while not using a pose they came up with or even a character and clothes from their own mind, only putting time into it. but having an image, an idea totally unique in composition in mind, putting stock-stuff into use to create the basic outline before going into details including proper ligthing up to posing the pinky finger.. .that is bad stuff since you have used only stock-stuff... and i not talk about senceless portrait-pics or all the same xxx-scenes

i see a big problem in priorities... 
using all kind of characters (from disney, to anime over to famous furry-characters) in traditional art and no one questions if the artists has asked if they are allowed to use them like that (from simple posing in clothes over nice compositions up to having sex and worse)
but if people who can not draw and use stuff that they are allowed to use (if gathered in legal way) to make images they have in mind come true its bad...

i do not say i not like pics of famous characters, hell i mostly watch traditional/cg artists, including some admins like you Arshes-Nei and Dragoneer


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 27, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> i tried to make points ASIDE of those you mention, but all times i make them, those posts are ... completely ignored by people and never responded to by anyone... quite odd.
> 
> i see a big problem in priorities...
> using all kind of characters (from disney, to anime over to famous furry-characters) in traditional art and no one questions if the artists has asked if they are allowed to use them like that (from simple posing in clothes over nice compositions up to having sex and worse)
> ...



Well some of the reason some of what you've said seems to be ignored is that I'll be honest, some of your posts are hard to read and understand.

The other thing is that fanart is a bit of a different animal since the artist is drawing a derivative piece. Since Krystal is the most used example, there's a difference between drawing Krystal in your own style and using a commercial picture of Krystal that wasn't created by you and adding a simple color-over. For better or worse, depending on the skill of the artist, a person brings their own experience of how Krystal looks like.

What is essentially being seen actually has nothing to do with fanart too. There is little difference between someone taking a screenshot/render of a fanart character he/she didn't create than a stock model without enough modifications to call it the user's own. 

After all there are limits to even Custom SL avatar screencaps, but only because of user created content. If this weren't the case then what is the difference between someone taking a generic screencap of a character on SL from a vendor, versus a custom avatar specifically made for/by you? Both SL and Poser have rendering engines as well as other games.

While I appreciate the watch, you also need to remember Dragoneer himself has dealt with 3d works too. I have my own usage of Poser, but I've been learning 3d (Zbrush 3dmax)  and sculpting...but for me the AUP is not so difficult to follow by if I am to post 3d works, and renderings...even if I don't have as much experience in these programs.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 27, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Well some of the reason some of what you've said seems to be ignored is that I'll be honest, some of your posts are hard to read and understand.



well, i am not native english, so how about asking for clarification.
and very odd: usually people are amased by my posts in other forums and not confused, so it seems people normally understand what i write (i not want to say people should be amased by what i try to express here in FA, i would be wondered if they are)



Arshes Nei said:


> The other thing is that fanart is a bit of a different animal since the artist is drawing a derivative piece. Since Krystal is the most used example, there's a difference between drawing Krystal in your own style and using a commercial picture of Krystal that wasn't created by you and adding a simple color-over. For better or worse, depending on the skill of the artist, a person brings their own experience of how Krystal looks like.



i am more referring to, the characters are not made for or by the artist, they simply use them for fun and i bet most of them not ask for permission. and i bet not all people are fine with things that are happening with their characters. referring then to a general allowance is odd too, since others aren ot allowed to use general allowed stuff thats not especially made for them



Arshes Nei said:


> What is essentially being seen actually has nothing to do with fanart too. There is little difference between someone taking a screenshot/render of a fanart character he/she didn't create than a stock model without enough modifications to call it the user's own.



why making a fanart when you have a totally unique picture and/or character in mind? we are not even allowed to post up to 3 pics, we are allowed none at all. and what exactly is enough modification? of course, just using the dial a bit to make the nose a lil bit more large or small, making the ears a bit elfish is not enough... but look at the pic i made for arcitc-sekai as giftart... yes aside of the head-textue i used stuff i bought but what should i do? tell me... i had this idea and the image what to do, sincei am not very good till now with such laying/sitting poses i even used a stock one (unlike my fantasy-scenes i have posed over at DA, totally selfmade poses).
should i try to make a whole character or textures (great... a white furred person and textures...) when not knowing such programs or how to use them? but even without the knowledge and skills rigth now, i want to make someone i like the art of very much a gift and show the work to others. i am still proud, even while the pic itself is quite easy, since making something furry looking in poser alone is not easy and helped me to learn. if a professional has some ideas how to improve the pic (aside of "use modelling tools!" or "use own textures!")... put them into the comments or my message box, i would be happy.



Arshes Nei said:


> After all there are limits to even Custom SL avatar screencaps, but only because of user created content. If this weren't the case then what is the difference between someone taking a generic screencap of a character on SL from a vendor, versus a custom avatar specifically made for/by you? Both SL and Poser have rendering engines as well as other games.



as stated about, there is a huge difference... people are allowed to post sl-pics until a certain number, but not even one render-software-pic where the major eyecatcher are selfmade or solely for your own use



Arshes Nei said:


> While I appreciate the watch, you also need to remember Dragoneer himself has dealt with 3d works too. I have my own usage of Poser, but I've been learning 3d (Zbrush 3dmax)  and sculpting...but for me the AUP is not so difficult to follow by if I am to post 3d works, and renderings...even if I don't have as much experience in these programs.



umm... ido remember and i refered at least 2 times to him starting like others with poser too. and it is fine you have not much trouble following the aup, and i will not upload anything that i not see fitting it, but i would like that more pics can fit into it. i see the idea and composition of a picture (if not really a pure stock-pic or a simple all-world-portrait)

sadly i can only draw my pictures as reference, since i do not know what people have done in their renderings (sorry, i not know all clothes and textures out there)

the pic here is a character i made recently http://sheena-tiger.deviantart.com/art/Character-Liv-Zle-110549586
the model is V3 (i modified her body as i saw fit with the available morphpack for V3), the used character-texture is made by cujoe_da_man and handed exclusivle to me. i can not say if the texture originiates somewhere else, never saw it somewhere. what she wears is the ultra catsuit for V3, coupled with a texturepack available, but i felt it is not fitting for her and modified the texture.
only seeing this pic and not knowing i made it, i would not be able to tell this is a V3-model or what clothes she is wearing

the next pic ( http://sheena-tiger.deviantart.com/art/Fiana-as-Blacksmith-Liv-Zle-110841856 ) is made in roughly 3 days work and i got a bit of input regarding the composition, making me think what i can improve in terms of lights and posing. aside of the things i made with and on liv'zle, and the morphs gone into my other character, its all stock-props, the lights too are based on a stock-set but toned and moved more to my liking and even added another light that took several atempts to make it like i want it

hell yes, both pics are populated with bought stuff, but there is no major or important amount of the fantasy-pics made just for me or even by me. still i wait for someone remaking those pics that where in my mind, only using stock-stuff. with only moving and turning the figures around.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 27, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> as stated about, there is a huge difference... people are allowed to post sl-pics until a certain number, but not even one render-software-pic where the major eyecatcher are selfmade or solely for your own use



That is incorrect. If you had a friend create your Poser model for you as a commission/gift (for example) you're allowed to post within limits (much like the SL rule). We aren't talking about vendor made ones where they release for general use. It is the same with SL.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 27, 2009)

ok, i give up too.. its no use -.-

the most important parts of my posts, are ignored all time it seems...


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 27, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> ok, i give up too.. its no use -.-
> 
> the most important parts of my posts, are ignored all time it seems...



It wasn't ignored, I don't think you're understanding the concept here. That's where the problem lies. It's been explained to you but I don't think you're either understanding it or just simply there's no meeting of the minds.


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 27, 2009)

May I intervene here Arshes? I'll try to explain the problem to Sheena via PM if he agrees.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 27, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> It wasn't ignored, I don't think you're understanding the concept here. That's where the problem lies. It's been explained to you but I don't think you're either understanding it or just simply there's no meeting of the minds.



i understand:
if you are unable to get enough custom stuff that no one else can use (aside of the creator) for the important part of the pics, you are out and not allowed to post


----------



## Spino2006 (Jan 27, 2009)

Hello everyone, just freshly registered, because I have something to say here.

Constantly the policies are getting changed in a way that it causes rowings and discussions. I'm really thinking about taking off my gallery and keep away from here. Today someone gave me a note I would violate the policies regarding render arts. I'm uploading my pictures since almost 2 1/2 years and no one felt disturbed with that, but now? It's sad, FA lives through the users and donations, a lot of the Poser and DAZ modellers surely spent their money; and this is how they get thanked? Although for the most of the models of www.daz.com have to get paid, they must being modified for being allowed to upload. I always upload my pictures with modified models, no matter if in a general way or the skins. I know how hard it is to draw a picture, I did it by myself and uploaded them at FA. It's not that easy to get used to Poser or DAZ, too, and it's also a lot of work if it shall be perfect. Oh well, I'm no creature that likes to discuss, and I will take notice of it. If it's the wish of the admins to stop, then I'm going to take off my gallery and leave for good. 

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/spino2006/ 

You can overlook my gallery. If I violate anything, just delete my account, this is not the right place for me and my material, as I understand it. Sad actually, to see something like that after 2 1/2 years makes me sad. Additionaly I'm not familiar with the english language and don't understand everything here, therefore I offer to look over my stuff if everything is okay. 

Sincerely, Spino2006


----------



## nekollx (Jan 27, 2009)

frankly i'm thinking of quitting right now since i work in Daz with morphs and custom textures, if that isnt good enough you ass hole can burn in hell, i'm done trying to reason with you.


----------



## Aden (Jan 27, 2009)

nekollx said:


> frankly i'm thinking of quitting right now since i work in Daz with morphs and custom textures, if that isnt good enough you ass hole can burn in hell, i'm done trying to reason with you.



You're quitting FUREVURZ because you can't post your stuff on FA? There are other places for it, you know. dA has an entire category for 3D characters. Here's the female subcategory

However, I do encourage you to quit. Learn some actual modeling and _contribute_ something to the world. We don't need any more reskinned Poser models clogging up the tubes. If you look at that dA link, you'll notice that most of the well-made pieces in that section are original models. Please consider it.

\Sorry Arshes, had to say it. Deletion in 3...2...


----------



## nekollx (Jan 27, 2009)

ahem

http://nekollx.deviantart.com/


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 27, 2009)

Ok ladies and gentlemen, another try from my side to tweak the rules abit to make them more plausible and not as irritating as they are now. I do NOT claim that this version is perfect, it's just summing up what had been said until now.

<testrules>
_Submissions which are pre-generated or contain computer generated content (e.g. screenshots from games, web sites, etc.) are not permitted *unless* one of the following criteria are met:
The elements that have the focus of the entire submission contain a significant user created content (e.g. all new texture maps, 3D meshes, animation, interfaces, etc.).
 The elements that have the focus of the entire sumbission are based upon  a pregenerated model that contains significant modifications which would distinguish itself from the original model. 

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._
</testrules>

Feel free to make suggestions as you see fit, but please use common sense. This thread was created in order to help the FA staff to make better rules, and not for continuing what has already happened on other threads (which are now closed because of thread derailment -.-).


----------



## Cilis (Jan 27, 2009)

Aden said:


> You're quitting FUREVURZ because you can't post your stuff on FA? There are other places for it, you know. dA has an entire category for 3D characters. Here's the female subcategory
> 
> However, I do encourage you to quit. Learn some actual modeling and _contribute_ something to the world. We don't need any more reskinned Poser models clogging up the tubes. If you look at that dA link, you'll notice that most of the well-made pieces in that section are original models. Please consider it.
> 
> \Sorry Arshes, had to say it. Deletion in 3...2...



Just because you fail to agree with someone and do not see merit in their work means that you should be a flat-out jerk to them or try to troll them. DA has rules against adult material so it isn't exactly an ideal place to go. 

Many outside sites that do allow renders, and adult ones at that... well, they don't allow furry. 

Who're you exactly to determine that YOUR work or some of your friend's work is worthy to clog up the 'tubes'? You're a critic making gobs of cash for your opinion?

Sorry, I find that hard to believe... and I'd think memes about sandwiches or comics made from just changing the word bubbles for over 40 submissions would go before honest work done in daz, poser or secondlife. 

My opinion, without trolling, without being intentionally mean... is that you and anyone posting like you is an art snob. 

This site should have critics for all art of all types or none, You can't just pick on 3D artists for doing shitty work. 

We're not judging based on artistic merit, we've never culled people's art because it was 'bad' or 'lazy' as far as I know, if it was furry and you did SOME work on it, it was fine to upload. Why should this be any different for 3D?

Just because YOU don't wish to validate 3D art unless it meets your SPECIFIC standards you feel that those standards should be everyone else and anyone that disagrees is stupid and should quit. When you treat people like that, you're not fit to discuss rules, you came in with a negative attitude and opinion. 

People get better with feedback and discussion, if they never get any input or helpful suggestions from other users they miss out on many chances to improve and venture out into harder work such as producing their own models or better texture maps. 

WarMocK, I commend you for trying to get this back on track. 



_Submissions which are pre-generated or contain computer generated content (e.g. screenshots from games, web sites, etc.) are not permitted *unless* one of the following criteria are met:
The elements that have the focus of the entire submission contain a significant user created content (e.g. all new texture maps, 3D meshes, animation, interfaces, etc.).
The elements that have the focus of the entire sumbission are based upon a pregenerated model that contains significant modifications which would distinguish itself from the original model. 


_I think that most would demand a limit on one kind of submission issue, I don't think it is reasonable to ask someone to make a new avatar for every 3 clothing pieces they wish to show off if they are a fashion designer for SL, poser or daz. 

My additional rule would be

_You may only submit up to three submissions of a subject where the only thing that has changed is the angle of the camera IE; Taking a frontal shot, a side and a backside and not re-posing the subject or modifying it in some way._


----------



## Aden (Jan 27, 2009)

1. I don't think that copypasta sandwich memes are art. However, art memes that require original content to be put into them are fine.

2. Yes, I am an art snob. I also think we need more people like me on an _art site_.

3. My only standard is that you put some work into something before slapping up onto the internet. I don't care if what comes out is utter _shit_ to look at... as long as most of it is your original creation. 

Likewise, something with little work put into it by the submitter can be the most aesthetically pleasing thing in the world. I don't care. It does not belong here.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 27, 2009)

Cilis said:


> Just because you fail to agree with someone and do not see merit in their work means that you should be a flat-out jerk to them or try to troll them. DA has rules against adult material so it isn't exactly an ideal place to go.
> 
> Many outside sites that do allow renders, and adult ones at that... well, they don't allow furry.



thats a problem most not want to see i think... can be wrong with this of course



Cilis said:


> People get better with feedback and discussion, if they never get any input or helpful suggestions from other users they miss out on many chances to improve and venture out into harder work such as producing their own models or better texture maps.



i tried that point more then one time, but i never got reaction according to it... poser/d|s/... seem not to be a starting point, but an ending point to some



Cilis said:


> I think that most would demand a limit on one kind of submission issue, I don't think it is reasonable to ask someone to make a new avatar for every 3 clothing pieces they wish to show off if they are a fashion designer for SL, poser or daz.



well, i think thats allready taken care of. in such a situation the clothes would be the focus, to show off how it works you would need a model thats ... just to show it but not the main objective


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 27, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> i tried to make points ASIDE of those you mention, but all times i make them, those posts are ... completely ignored by people and never responded to by anyone... quite odd.
> especially since i not only simply move some bought or free props around, hit any random light and be happy with my work for wich i would love input... oddly over at other galleries people get less useful comments for renderpics then over here it seems. chances seem much more high over here at FA getting a "this and that does not look right, even on a renderpic" and not only "oooh... aaah!" (i like them too, but i like comments telling me how to improve the composition much more)
> and i not need such comments in 2 or more years, when the pic's i had in mind are vanished from there only cause i am finally able to make sufficient own stuff


I gotta say it's actually very difficult to give constructive critique to images like that for me. I mean for example what would you like feedback on? I don't mind giving it a try.

And yes, your posts are hard to read. I think it would help if you use Capitalization at new sentences, you have long sentences and you are missing some prepositions


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 27, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I gotta say it's actually very difficult to give constructive critique to images like that for me. I mean for example what would you like feedback on? I don't mind giving it a try.
> 
> And yes, your posts are hard to read. I think it would help if you use Capitalization at new sentences, you have long sentences and you are missing some prepositions



well, critique about lighting, posings etc. ... do not really ask me, i mostly just enjoy a pic or not, seldom can pinpoint what needs critique. maybe this was a major problem for me in art-lessons too... i simply look at something and like it or not instead of taking it apart (i still remember the words of my teacher after a failed test "the stoney way could be meant as the hard way of life" or something like that when translated into english)

will be hard to critique the texture, if not done by the person posting the final pic, but it can help to get a start where to fix it yourself. the first versions of my Liv'Zle-clothes had quite some problems (i found them myself), maybe still even for a modification of existing work still not good enough... but then this are points where a real artist might help with comments.

you have problems reading them in english? see me writing german, i not use capitalization there either, and we have much more rules to use them ^^;
btw. whats a preposition? teachers for languages had given up on me, allways writing how i feel its correct *G*


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 27, 2009)

Ok Sheena, but you must not forget that this thread is about constructive criticism for the admins to help them improve the rules for the main site. And if they don't get your point because of too many grammar issues they eventually stop reading your posts, which won't be helping anybody.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 27, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> Ok Sheena, but you must not forget that this thread is about constructive criticism for the admins to help them improve the rules for the main site. And if they don't get your point because of too many grammar issues they eventually stop reading your posts, which won't be helping anybody.



then i simply stop since i never got a hang about grammar, neither in school nor outside.
still odd is, persons generally like to talk with me in online-mediums, only here they not like it -.-
you have to agree, this is very odd


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 27, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> well, critique about lighting, posings etc. ...


I tried writing some for you at dA.
If you wrote in German I would have to read really slow and pay attention to everything, maybe that would help!
Prepositions are words that position things relative to other things; Victoria4 is _in_ my DAZ scene. I made this _for_ my mother.

Okay, thread derailing. Sorry. WarMocK, it was my fault XD


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 27, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> then i simply stop since i never got a hang about grammar, neither in school nor outside.
> still odd is, persons generally like to talk with me in online-mediums, only here they not like it -.-
> you have to agree, this is very odd



No need to fret, amigo. I think that most people around here roughly got your point despite the language problems. ^^

@krisCrash: Given the fact that the thread already got derailed several times, pointing out that some issues here occured because of the language barrier is the last sort of derailment I would worry about. :3

@Cilis: Thank you for your suggestion, I think we can add that point to the list. ;-)


----------



## Cilis (Jan 27, 2009)

Aden said:


> 1. I don't think that copypasta sandwich memes are art. However, art memes that require original content to be put into them are fine.
> 
> 2. Yes, I am an art snob. I also think we need more people like me on an _art site_.
> 
> ...



1.) So basically, as long as there is some original content it is okay. Doesn't this go against some of your other claims though? Making your own texture but not the model is still putting together colors and working with shadows. That is work, how exactly can you say that this has less merit to be here than say a meme, which are never given much shit so long as you put a minimal effort into it?

Texturing an entire body takes a lot longer than tossing sandwich into google, tracing it in photo shop and sticking a terrible chibi behind it and drawing a few finger bumps on the bread. 

2.) Art site. Art has and always will be subjective. Unless you're going to put up "You must be this good to post" signs in EVERY catagory and treat EVERY beginner of EVERY media type like shit, you've got no right to pick on 3D artists. 

Sites have tried to moderate like that, the ones that work are for-pay porn sites with professional artists, not community sites like FA. The reason it doesn't work here is we ARE a community, to start judging art and piss off the wrong person, that person and all their friends leave, make something better and then the original site goes down. 

People are happier with less moderation, because everyone is someone else's friend. I tend to dislike babyfur stuff for example, but I don't go around saying that THAT group of artists deserve especially bad treatment. 

3.) Thats just it, what might be considered easy to you might be hard for someone else. I spend hours working on my textures on my original models and stock models alike. If someone is a savant with no social skills they might bang it out in an afternoon. Good for them, it doesn't mean it is as easy to the rest of the world. 

Talent might be bullshit by and large, but people are wired different. Many people see numbers as sensations and settings, one gentlemen can calculate any math problem you give him to more decimal places than a calculator can provide without any pen or paper... should we tell everyone else that they're just needing to put more work in, or accept that it is truely easier for this person because of how his brain is wired, because he is afflicted with a high function autism?

I already posted my version of how the AUP should read as an edition to WarMock's post, and I think that it'd be fair. 

If you want to be an art snob and shit on work, scare off newbies and stamp out budding artists instead of helping them to improve, thats nice, I hope the harassment policy bites you in the butt some day.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 28, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Other than wording (clarification), no one has presented an argument to repeal the rule at this point in time regarding Poser and similar render programs using stock only. Only that one won't (which is "Can't") provide his/her own actual content to import and modify the stock to make it unique. The staff have reviewed the comments so at this time, it appears the rule is going to stay - with the exception that better wording may be needed.



Here's a big nuke of an argument. Discounting licences fundamentally conflicts with by you / for you. Thats right. It does.

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.

Being as all bought items have a licensing agreement stating that the person who bought it can use it for the usages stated therein, it would could be construed as being For You since in the case of the content provider, they are the artist. And has made the item was made for the user's usage. Although the user is not specifically  named, the licensing agreement establishes the right to use it. between legal right holder and the user. Discounting that legal agreement puts into conflict  the For You part of the ruling, since as is the fact of the matter not everyone is licensed to use the item, you cannot give or sell said item on another without breaking the agreement. The license for use of the object is to the buyer and the buyer alone. So in point and matter of fact the company and or third parties are making the item for  the customer's, use only, no one elses unless they too have bought it, and are also under license.

Now you cannot wiggle your way out of it because just about everything software related has a license that goes with it, from operating system to art program. Without license you cannot use them. 

Now while you may be scratching your heads wondering how this suddenly snowballed to something so huge, listen to this, it gets better. 

Being as the admin have discounted the legitimacy of licsences, and is  putting the onus of the work upon whether or not the person has actually created the item... 

The company or persons made it for you, the customer / user whether it be content or program. You accepted the terms the moment you opened the program disk or bought the item, installed it and started using it. Without the license, you would not be able to create the work with the program, much less post it,  Without the license there is no work, no work to post, no site. So if you go on and discount the legitimacy of the license, well.. Then in that case, nobody ever had permission to use the program to make the works, You did not make the program to create the work in which you have license to work with, therefore  if you don't accept it you cannot create anything with it. Now unless someone compiles their own art program from the dust up, then they own the whole thing, lock, stock and barrel,as being By You,  but let's be serious, few here have that ability, which leaves the rest of us high and dry. By You / For You is all fine and well with physical works but with digital media, its a question of which came first, the chicken or the egg. Licenses are everything with software.
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 28, 2009)

Marohen said:


> Oooooookay, I'm going to skip past the large hurdles of drama that's likely been produced from this thread and _hope_ that somebody of reason is still reading this thread.
> 
> I'm not so much curious as to the aforementioned policy itself but for the _premise_ regarding it, particularly regarding the whole "Poser Problem", as it were.
> 
> ...



When you utilize a bought item for poser, and with a good many free items, you are given a license to use it in your works. Licenses are of course, for all practical intents and purposes official written permissions to use it within certain guidelines set down by the ones that released it. So you are using it with official permission, if you bought the particular item, then of course you paid for the license to use it. Its the same way with this as it is for any software that you buy. You buy it, open it,  you install it, by that very action you agree to the licensing agreement that comes with it. You don't agree with it, you don't use it, you take it off of your machine, you send it back. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Pretty good point.

If you paid for it and the model's license pretty much states it is there for you to work, it is "for you" even if you're not specifically named. 

One could argue comissions are for one person. 

I'm mixed, I understand we don't want a flood of stock_krystal, at the same time I don't think it's fair to say people should have to give her model a total texture and UV makeover as well as bumping her poly count up. 

Texturing can be difficult, especially on shitty models with bad UV seems and bleeding problems. To expect a beginner to be able to texture, overhaul it and fix the mesh problems is a little too much to put on a newbie. We let people put up shit that is a step away from crown drawings so they can have a chance to be encuraged, taught and improve, this is a parallel in 3D work, you start somewhere. 

So if the current rule is you have to do SOME work, I see no problem with it... I just don't want the call of whats valid amounts of work and whats not coming down from some guy who believes that if you didn't make the entire thing from scratch that there wasn't enough work put in. 

Enforcing it that way is basically the exact same thing as banning stock and at that point there is no reason to have an "it is okay if you modify it" claus. 

I wish they would've made the 3 pictures per subject a bit more clear. It is rather silly that I'm going to have to NAME the subject focus in every picture I upload so an admin doesn't zip on past, see 6 shots of my avatar and start deleting things and warning me, when 3 of the six were clothed shots, and each of those 3 in question were unique outfits I was showcasing. 

Hell, I think as long as it isn't the same shot from multiply angles into infinity, it should be allowed. No other medium has a rule that basically tells you that you're only allowed to use your fursona three times.


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 28, 2009)

There is a difference between _For you_, and _For everyone/__For everyone that buys it from (insert random source here)_.
Being made for you, means that for what ever reason (as a gift, trade, commision, etc), someone made it directly for you.
If you buy it, it just means you have the legal right to use it in whatever you see fit. But it wasn't made for you in particular, as you simply bought an already made product. Therefore it doesn't get around the _By You/For You_ policy.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> There is a difference between _For you_, and _For everyone/__For everyone that buys it from (insert random source here)_.
> Being made for you, means that for what ever reason (as a gift, trade, commision, etc), someone made it directly for you.
> If you buy it, it just means you have the legal right to use it in however you see fit. But it wasn't made for you in particular, as you simply bought an already made product. Therefore it doesn't get around the _By You/For You_ policy.




Made it directly for you?

I guess we better yank all those pictures people put up of their cars, their naruto gear, their sword collection, their paintball crap, their airsoft crap.

Oh wait, it is okay because they made a furry outfit cobbled together from several seperately purchased naruto merchandise and put on some cat ears? They didn't make any of it... and they didn't have any of it made for them... 

Mind you, I am against pure stock characters being used... I think you should have to texture it or work on the mesh, or freaking design the clothing... something... but at the same time, I can stretch that by you / for you thing around to suit my words if I was spiteful and had a beef with another FA user in an attempt to get their stuff taken down. 

Better wording, a touch less of vague... you know? Lets clear up all the language, including the section on renders.

Lets set aside the by you/ for you debate. 

The part that I think really needs clarification and change is the part about a 3 upload limit on a subject. We don't ask anyone else to change their representative furry persona every 3 pictures in any other media, yet as a 3D artist you're asked not to submit more than 3 shots in the current language. 

I want that changed, or better worded so that its understood that means "Three shots of that subject from one 'render'" where as 'render' is defined as using the same pose, textures and meshes where the camera position is the only thing really changing.

Believe me, I hate stock Krystal and I'm a straight fur... I probably hate seeing her vagina from six different angles in one pose as much as you do. I don't think a bad user like that should cripple me and my attempts at art though.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Just as an example.

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/ebonywolf99/

This user uploads shot after shot of cars, There is no use of reflectors... poor lighting, pictures taken on near rain cloud evenings. These are just pictures of things he owns and that other people own...

They were not made for him, they're not by him. The subject is not the overall photograph and he isn't a professional photographer, these are just shots of cars. 

If we're going to take the by you/ for you to the literal extremes, shouldn't this gallery be gone sometime tomorrow. (Ebonywolf99, I hope the hell not... no harm meant I just came across your car shots first as I looked for an example.)

Looking over the by you / for you rule and the photography rules I basically get the impression that photographs of things outside and the world around you are okay because you much choose a camera, an angle to use it from, and then proceed to take a picture... this is grossly over simplifying it but in the same right, people saying that stock characters, props and settings are just as easy. 

Seems like by you/ for you doesn't apply to photograph because simply getting the picture the way YOU want it is a making an artistic connection and statement, it is the exact same thing as taking a render. You're making the poses, the facial expressions and then taking a picture. In both cases, by you / for your should be ignored, or enforced on both. 

Which means we should only see pictures of sculptures and drawn media instead of cars, homes and things of that nature.


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 28, 2009)

I have nothing against 3D artists or 3D art in general, I just hate seeing bad loophole arguments such as, _well if it's for everyone, and I'm someone, that means it must be for me, and I can use that!_ this is FA, save things like that for court, where it can't be stricken down with common sense! = p

I myself am against the 3 submission cap. As a builder in SL, I too am against the idea that I'd have to build a new avatar every 3 uploads. Same goes for if someone makes something in Poser that follows the by you/for you rule.

I have to say this though. the reason people can still post photos of their stuff, is because the photos aren't almost all of the same sword/car/cos-play costume/man/woman/cow/etc, regardless of who takes the photo. otherwise, it'd get this rule applied to it just as fast. Until people start all photographing the same objects, it will likely be ignored.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

If thats the case then I'd change the AUP's render limit to say this.

"Users will be subject to a three submission per subject per render. Render in this case is defined as a scene where the only thing changed is the camera angle. Slight variances in position do not count as a new render" 

Then we will have it controlled and you and I will not have to suffer a bad rule because some kid likes to share his krystal porn. 

Can anyone see a problem with the rule being like that? Anyone at all?


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 28, 2009)

I see no problems with that = )


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> If thats the case then I'd change the AUP's render limit to say this.
> 
> "Users will be subject to a three submission per subject per render. Render in this case is defined as a scene where the only thing changed is the camera angle. Slight variances in position do not count as a new render"
> 
> ...



not me, since its a much more logic rule then what is the official version till now


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 28, 2009)

*Yawn!* Good morning everyone!
I see that we finally got some more ideas ... 
*Adds the new improvements to the list*

Thank you Cilis. ^^


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 28, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> There is a difference between _For you_, and _For everyone/__For everyone that buys it from (insert random source here)_.
> Being made for you, means that for what ever reason (as a gift, trade, commision, etc), someone made it directly for you.
> If you buy it, it just means you have the legal right to use it in whatever you see fit. But it wasn't made for you in particular, as you simply bought an already made product. Therefore it doesn't get around the _By You/For You_ policy.



The argument doesn't get around by you for you, it destroys it. Because if you just shove it aside, and pooh-pooh it, pretending that it does not apply, it means that you discount the validity of licenses. If you discount the validity of licenses, then you do not agree with them, therefore nullifying the agreements that you have with anything with a license. And that is fraught with insane legal peril.  

But I know what you mean, by individuals for individuals. But individuals are subject to licenses in individual works of art outside of our little corner of the fandom as well. If I get a commission for a work,  then give it as a gift , trade etc, I can slap on a license which tells the recipient what it can be used for and cannot, A company is a legal entity, so agreements between you and it are just like between two people. So in the end licenses apply to all, both big and small. Nobody does it for their works out here and thats why you get the flames leaping high in the By you / For you section with both sides warring over who has the right for what. If a license is there, then everyone knows. If you put a value on anothers work and the permissions to have a work and or use it, then you must acknowledge the validity of a  license. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 28, 2009)

I don't see how it destroys it. the by you /for you rule has nothing to do with what is legal or not, or has anything to do with licenses. it's simply a rule, set by the owners of a website, who want to have some control of what kinds of things are uploaded to it. they can restrict any form of uploaded images they want, in any way they want. there is no loophole that can force them to do otherwise


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 28, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> I don't see how it destroys it. the by you /for you rule has nothing to do with what is legal or not, or has anything to do with licenses. it's simply a rule, set by the owners of a website, who want to have some control of what kinds of things are uploaded to it. they can restrict any form of uploaded images they want, in any way they want. there is no loophole that can force them to do otherwise



Thats right. The rules don't have anything to do with what is legal and not, they are rules that bind all users and remain blind to legal precedent. That is why they fail. You are talking about a rule that on this site wrongly tries to negate the extent of power of a legally binding licensing agreement. You cannot have rules that put it in opposition to the law. It is indefensible. That is how it is destroyed. The admin aren't gods, they are mortal and are as fallible as anyone. Even they can make a mistake, as they are finding out now with all these unforeseen ramifications coming out of the woodwork. But then the argument has been made and put forth, and it cannot be recalled. The decision is theirs to make. The only way to get out of this growing mess and to make it go away is to either fix it radically and fairly to all, or get rid of it and go back to the way it was. Like they say, don't fix what ain't broke. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Valerion (Jan 28, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Thats right. The rules don't have anything to do with what is legal and not, they are rules that bind all users and remain blind to legal precedent. That is why they fail. You are talking about a rule that on this site wrongly tries to negate the extent of power of a legally binding licensing agreement. You cannot have rules that put it in opposition to the law. It is indefensible. That is how it is destroyed. The admin aren't gods, they are mortal and are as fallible as anyone. Even they can make a mistake, as they are finding out now with all these unforeseen ramifications coming out of the woodwork. But then the argument has been made and put forth, and it cannot be recalled. The decision is theirs to make. The only way to get out of this growing mess and to make it go away is to either fix it radically and fairly to all, or get rid of it and go back to the way it was. Like they say, don't fix what ain't broke.
> --Dancougar



Copyright law is not the beginning and end of all laws.  It only trumps the AUP in restrictiveness, not permissiveness.  And not allowing your works here in no way negates your right to create, or the licenses you have.

Let's take a fictional concert, that's done for free.  The sponsor happens to like classical music, specifically classical music with a piano as part of the score.  They put out a request for artists/orchestras to perform for free at the concert.  My application gets turned down.  Am I within my rights to insist that the death metal I write and perform MUST be performed at this concert?  After all, I am completely within my rights to perform it, according to copyright law.  Some of the audience may even like it.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> Sites have tried to moderate like that, the ones that work are for-pay porn sites with professional artists, not community sites like FA. The reason it doesn't work here is we ARE a community, to start judging art and piss off the wrong person, that person and all their friends leave, make something better and then the original site goes down.


Actually it works for the free site hentai-foundry, and there we are very proud of having a minimum of quality, and no photos or screenshots. But no it won't work for FA because it a) wasn't there from day 1, and 2) requires a moderator to overlook every submission, thus requiring a lot of moderators. I'm sure Elfwood and VCL can relate to this as they have systems not unlike it, but milder, but they do not have the community sense of HF.


Cilis said:


> Talent might be bullshit by and large, but people are wired different. Many people see numbers as sensations and settings, one gentlemen can calculate any math problem you give him to more decimal places than a calculator can provide without any pen or paper... should we tell everyone else that they're just needing to put more work in, or accept that it is truely easier for this person because of how his brain is wired, because he is afflicted with a high function autism?


I am still not seeing the metaphor here (also it's a repeated argument).
And not only because anyone can become able to calculate any problem with enough effort, time and training (inhuman for some, but possible), but mainly because I don't see how it applies to this topic. Enlighten me, or quit this cyclic one.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 28, 2009)

valerion said:


> Copyright law is not the beginning and end of all laws.  It only trumps the AUP in restrictiveness, not permissiveness.  And not allowing your works here in no way negates your right to create, or the licenses you have.
> 
> Let's take a fictional concert, that's done for free.  The sponsor happens to like classical music, specifically classical music with a piano as part of the score.  They put out a request for artists/orchestras to perform for free at the concert.  My application gets turned down.  Am I within my rights to insist that the death metal I write and perform MUST be performed at this concert?  After all, I am completely within my rights to perform it, according to copyright law.  Some of the audience may even like it.



Arguably copyright law is the alpha and omega of all laws to the artist. It is through them that the creator gets and keeps the control over his works, his bread and butter. Licensing is the legal business standard by which the artist keeps, controls, and defends his work, when it is obtained legitimately by another. That is how it is used universally regardless of where it is shown, and is always in effect regardless of what rules are in place. But however, it does curtail the legal legitimacy and effectiveness of this practice on the site and it does in fact negate the right to create works for this site and establishes that said legalities are not respected upon said site. One cannot exercise it where it is denied.

On the fictional concert example. It would really depend on what the posted rules for the concert were before the application was submitted. If it says strictly classical only all others need not apply, then you don't have a prayer. But if it says classical and interpretive performances, or in any other way construes that other types of music are allowed then you have a fighting chance and they cannot discriminate against you. They must allow you and judge your app on equal grounds with the others regardless of what their personal tastes are. Not a very good example reflecting of here, here is a better one. 

User Foxy Foxworthy is a fan of Phantom Phox, the dark hero of comics lore. A freind of his has made a version of this character using application X, the software of pro character artists. Foxy foxworthy asks his friend if he can use it in another application and post the results up elsewhere. The friend says sure! They are in complete mutual agreement as to its usage, but just to be safe, they draw up a licensing agreement and everything is great. Foxy Foxworthy posts the new pictures of Phantom Phox up here, utilizing the character and other things that he made in a picture and what happens? BAM! The legal license is tossed out on its ear and the works tossed out as well. Leaving Foxy Foxworthy scratching his head, wondering what the heck happened. Why? Because he did not make the Phantom Phox used in the pictures from the dust up, his friend did. The agreement that stated that he could use it has just been killed by the by you, for you ruling because it does not acknowledge the legitimacy of said agreements. Not exactly terrribly fair is it? 

Same story, different characters, Bubbly Blue-Marmet has a real work of art utilizing software Z-Delta, finds a picture of an H bomb and affixes fox ears, a tail, and a pelt onto it to signify, I dunno, the explosive nature of the fandom or somesuch. The stories can go on and on and on. The fact is, for every example there is a counter example. Now you have to decide. Which do you want to go with?
--Dancougar


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Jan 28, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> User Foxy Foxworthy is a fan of Phantom Phox, the dark hero of comics lore. A freind of his has made a version of this character using application X, the software of pro character artists. Foxy foxworthy asks his friend if he can use it in another application and post the results up elsewhere. The friend says sure! They are in complete mutual agreement as to its usage, but just to be safe, they draw up a licensing agreement and everything is great. Foxy Foxworthy posts the new pictures of Phantom Phox up here, utilizing the character and other things that he made in a picture and what happens? BAM! The legal license is tossed out on its ear and the works tossed out as well. Leaving Foxy Foxworthy scratching his head, wondering what the heck happened. Why? Because he did not make the Phantom Phox used in the pictures from the dust up, his friend did. The agreement that stated that he could use it has just been killed by the by you, for you ruling because it does not acknowledge the legitimacy of said agreements. Not exactly terrribly fair is it?



just want to clarify this one, in hopes people get it right (myself included)

PP has made the version of himself generally for his own use and only allows other people (in this case FF) to use the character.
the character was not built initially for FF's use (as gift, comission etc.) but has same kind of usual agreement people get when getting a free model/texture/... or buy them
but, even if PP is not giving it away for free or money, it was never made for FF's use initially so neither made by or for FF (even if this 2 are the only ones using the model)


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Actually it works for the free site hentai-foundry, and there we are very proud of having a minimum of quality, and no photos or screenshots. But no it won't work for FA because it a) wasn't there from day 1, and 2) requires a moderator to overlook every submission, thus requiring a lot of moderators. I'm sure Elfwood and VCL can relate to this as they have systems not unlike it, but milder, but they do not have the community sense of HF.
> 
> I am still not seeing the metaphor here (also it's a repeated argument).
> And not only because anyone can become able to calculate any problem with enough effort, time and training (inhuman for some, but possible), but mainly because I don't see how it applies to this topic. Enlighten me, or quit this cyclic one.



To the first part, that might be true but hentai foundry is hardly the same community that FA is, if you'd like to destroy that by becoming anal and pushing out everyone that isn't already a perfectionist, by all means, lets do that. 

Piling on moderators isn't even a very good solution, DA has done it, as have the sites you listed... the more moderators are, the more baby sitting the site's true admins have to do because users scream this or that moderator is unfair or has a personal vendetta, just look at image boards like Fchan and the kind of shit that circulates about their mods from the user's point of view. 

As for the next part... I hardly doubt that you can have most human beings actually calculate pie past 10 places, I'm not talking memorize either, but truely work it out in their head. 

The argument is for those users saying "Texturing is easy" or "Modeling is easy" It very well could be for them, they've no idea how hard it is for me or anyone else, they've no idea what disabilities that anyone else might have. We can say hard work overcomes genius but if you've got dyslexia all the hard work in the world wont completely mitigate how it effects you, every trick in the book you can use to get through it still makes you take more time and effort than the common person.

I should know, I'm dyslexic. I'm also an asperger syndrome sufferer with my weakness in math and my talent in sculpting... this basically means making my own model vert by vert isn't very easy or plausable for me, if I did do it, it probably means I put in more time or effort than most normal people.

Thankfully Zbrush works like clay and you don't have to do tons and tons of math or geometric reasoning to make a model, if it wasn't for Zbrush I'd be unable to make my own meshes or anything of the sort.


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 28, 2009)

@ Dancougar

Enough of this.. if I buy a poser model, and print out an image I made with it. Does that mean I'm in my legal rights to walk into your house and plaster your walls with copys of it? No it doesn't. I would HAVE to get permission from *you (the owner of the house)* before I could ever attempt something like that, and if you said no, that would be the end of it.

Just because you have permission from the maker to use their product how you see fit, *does not* mean you can *legaly* do anything on the planet with it.
Your argument isn't even something that could stand up in court. Think about it, if it could, how many criminals would be able to get off free just because they paid for and bought the tools they used, and used them as they saw fit? 

And before anyone starts *NO*, I am not calling anyone a criminal! It's just an example of why that logic does not work.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> Made it directly for you?
> 
> I guess we better yank all those pictures people put up of their cars, their naruto gear, their sword collection, their paintball crap, their airsoft crap.



In addition to the fact that some off topic photos are allowed on the condition they go to scraps.

See:

_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._


----------



## Spino2006 (Jan 28, 2009)

Slowly but steady FA gets infested by critics and competition fighters who are bitching constantly. I don't critizie anyone, everyone starts small and wants to be seen. Apart from that DAZ is a beginner program with less possibilities and Poser is very complex. The fun is important and what the picture expresses and that some of you likes it. Only that many people can not draw or can use a 3D program, they critize everything and everyone and change the rules constantly. It's not wonder that FA gets discredited more and more. The people of DeviantArt do it right, there is no crab if something doesn't fit the norm or too much other users use the same model. I modify them as good as I can, but it isn't always possible on every model. Shall they forbid us everything here, I just hope they gonna fall on their mouths with this kind of doings. A lot of 3D users certainly participated in the donations for the new server. It wouldn't surprise me if they want their money back. The people of FA bullying as where they can and have always something new that causes fightings and discussions, that are just chilidish in my opinion.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 28, 2009)

Sheena-Tiger said:


> just want to clarify this one, in hopes people get it right (myself included)
> 
> PP has made the version of himself generally for his own use and only allows other people (in this case FF) to use the character.
> the character was not built initially for FF's use (as gift, comission etc.) but has same kind of usual agreement people get when getting a free model/texture/... or buy them
> but, even if PP is not giving it away for free or money, it was never made for FF's use initially so neither made by or for FF (even if this 2 are the only ones using the model)



All in all you got it, but with one little clarification. PP=Comic book chaacter FF and his friend like, PP is not the name of the friend. BY/FY strips away the meanig of rights legally given with the full blessings of the originator.
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 28, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> @ Dancougar
> 
> Enough of this.. if I buy a poser model, and print out an image I made with it. Does that mean I'm in my legal rights to walk into your house and plaster your walls with copys of it? No it doesn't. I would HAVE to get permission from *you (the owner of the house)* before I could ever attempt something like that, and if you said no, that would be the end of it.
> 
> ...



With all due respect, you are not admin, so its not your call to make, nor is it your judgement to give. You may give your opinion, but you are not judge, jury and executioner. Its just as much my house as it is yours. So I have equal say as to how I want my house decorated. The reason why it fails is because it is blind to the wishes of the original creators. Thats why there is a war raging over this very topic on the BY/FY thread. 
--Dancougar


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> To the first part, that might be true but hentai foundry is hardly the same community that FA is, if you'd like to destroy that by becoming anal and pushing out everyone that isn't already a perfectionist, by all means, lets do that.


I already said several pages ago that I did not want FA to be like that.



> The argument is for those users saying "Texturing is easy" or "Modeling is easy" It very well could be for them, they've no idea how hard it is for me or anyone else, they've no idea what disabilities that anyone else might have.


It's not easy. It never was. Neither is Poser. Or Zbrush. I just suppose maybe some of them produce more pleasing beginner results than 3dsmax where your first many hours will be spent making blocky legs, not very motivating.



> I should know, I'm dyslexic.


Stop right there.
You are born with an error in your brain that removes your ability to learn letters, and you have had to practise and struggle and practise for years to become able to write though you _have no talent_ for something which comes _easy_ to everyone else. Are _you_ seeing the analogy here?

My dylexic teacher friend talkes a lot about learned helplessness, I believe now that is what Arshes referred to earlier with _Art and Fear_.


----------



## Aden (Jan 28, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> With all due respect, you are not admin, so its not your call to make, nor is it your judgement to give. You may give your opinion, but you are not judge, jury and executioner. Its just as much my house as it is yours. So I have equal say as to how I want my house decorated. The reason why it fails is because it is blind to the wishes of the original creators. Thats why there is a war raging over this very topic on the BY/FY thread.
> --Dancougar



You fail at getting the points of hypothetical scenarios.

YOU SAY: I buy something, I should be able to upload it to FA because I have the legal right to use it.

HE SAY: You buy something, you do have the legal right to do with it what you want. But the rules of FA overlay on top of the law and provide additional restrictions to what you can upload to the site.

:B


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> My dylexic teacher friend talkes a lot about learned helplessness, I believe now that is what Arshes referred to earlier with _Art and Fear_.



O/T But I really hope you enjoy that book, it's very good it really changed my perspective on creating art. It's also a very affordable book.

I'd also Recommend Harley Brown's Eternal Truths for Every Artist, but it's out of print and going for ridiculous amounts like 125 dollars...(less you know where to get it, I do...but...well if you have a library you might be lucky).

Dancougar, you're also repeatedly ignoring what I've said before...so I'm sorry, unless you can come up with something different, I'm skipping over your remarks. They've been already answered, we're at a disagreement and it's "Broken record" mess here.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> In addition to the fact that some off topic photos are allowed on the condition they go to scraps.
> 
> See:
> 
> ...



Yet I'm seeing plenty of cars and anime gear floating around submitted and kept under main gallery work. It goes back to what I was saying before... lets be anal about the rules to everyone, not just to those who work in an art form you take pleasure in picking apart or looking down on. 

Flooding isn't permitted so then why not just dump this extra section to the render and SL AUPs?

I'll come back to this in a moment, I want to answer a few posts. 




krisCrash said:


> Stop right there.
> You are born with an error in your brain that removes your ability to learn letters, and you have had to practise and struggle and practise for years to become able to write though you _have no talent_ for something which comes _easy_ to everyone else. Are _you_ seeing the analogy here?
> 
> My dylexic teacher friend talkes a lot about learned helplessness, I believe now that is what Arshes referred to earlier with _Art and Fear_.



First off, it isn't just a single error so please don't tell me to stop because you _knew_ a dyslexic. 

Dyslexic people come in more than one flavor, some have trouble learning letters, some see them reverse, and some have it to where they can read just fine and it is numbers that they reverse and see awkwardly. This is more specifically called Dyscalculia these days but is part of the same general problem as Dyslexia. 

I've learned past both Dyscalculia and Dyslexia but it still *slows me down*.

It still requires me to use tricks to fool myself into doing it right, and *this slows me down*.

As far as Aspergers does, thrown into this mix, it means that I cannot understand(or rather, I can understand but can't apply) the most basic social skills and mannerisms, it also means I've got a barrier interacting with people in a manner that is polite and pleasing to them... the way I post should pretty much give you a good indication of what that does in my ability to reach out for help. 

I've not got a fear of trying, I learned from books (which is really freaking hard as a dyslexic) and online tutorials. I can currently make my own models, textures and poses... I even learned secondlife's scripting language. I can animate in daz and poser.

What my point is it is not right for anyone, moderator, critic or random asshat, to sit in this thread and tell the people who can't model "just work at it!" because frankly, you have NO clue what they might or might not be capable of on a biological level, or how it might take them many more hours, days, weeks or years to master something that came easily to you. More than a handful of times people have said in this thread "Oh it is so easy to make your own model!"

*Ease and difficulty are SUBJECTIVE. 

*I feel sorry for those people they pick on because hardly anyone is going to say "Wait a damn minute, everyone started somewhere... or did you pop out of your mother with a poser manual and a few "for dummies" books?"

I'm getting back on topic now, sorry I just had to get that out.

The AUP already has a rule on flooding, it is not fair to have the render and SL AUPs say that you can't display a subject more than three times. If it isn't flooding, it shouldn't be subject to the exact same spirit as the flooding rule. 

The nitty gritty is we don't want Stock_Krystal being posted 60 times in a single day, where the only change is they moved the camera to get different shots at the vagina, and probably a few reposes of the fingers and wrist to make it look like she was diddling herself. 

*Too long didn't read version.*

The flooding AUP would already cover this issue, minor finger and wrist poses are subject to being called flooding, as are six different angle's of stock_krystal's vagina... so why do they ask 3D artists to keep changing their fursona if they want to post is what I want to know? We're able to keep out the riff raff with the flooding AUP alone, why put the screws to render and SL artsts twice?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> Yet I'm seeing plenty of cars and anime gear floating around submitted and kept under main gallery work. It goes back to what I was saying before... lets be anal about the rules to everyone, not just to those who work in an art form you take pleasure in picking apart or looking down on.
> 
> Flooding isn't permitted so then why not just dump this extra section to the render and SL AUPs?



Sorry and I know this is a bit snarky, but report it. Expecting staff to babysit on "BROWSE" is ridiculous.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Sorry and I know this is a bit snarky, but report it. Expecting staff to babysit on "BROWSE" is ridiculous.



Frankly I do not want to, I was making an example and the guy does claim to be a photographer. Honestly, nature wasn't by anyone or for anyone... So I hardly see how nature photos follow this policy either. The only things that really would might be sculptures you've taken pictures of. 

I think that a lot of the AUP are written so admin may remove the blatantly bad uploads which are completely off topic and unacceptable for whatever reason, but at the same time users can sit there and report eachother over personal drama and demand an admin do something to that person's work submissions. They have to follow through or appear biased. This is a problem. 

The current AUP on flooding is clear enough, putting a 3 subject upload into SL and Render's AUPs just subjects users to the mercy of "calling mommy after billy broke up with you". 

As I've said, whats wrong with dropping this part of the AUP and just using the flooding AUP where it is needed? The language and intent is the exact same.


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 28, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> O/T But I really hope you enjoy that book, it's very good it really changed my perspective on creating art. It's also a very affordable book.


I am looking forward to Amazon getting it here by the end of next month :lol: we'll see.


Cilis said:


> First off, it isn't just a single error so please don't tell me to stop because you _knew_ a dyslexic.



Oh I think you misunderstood, I don't want you to stop, just stop and see. I just find it very likely to be easier to learn drawing with "no talent" than to read while being dyslexic, because to me talent is overrated while dyslexia is very real. And in spite of that you write exellently. And that says to me that everything is possible.

And on the reporting things? DO IT. Moderators hate when stuff don't get reported, later they get complaints
"_why was this not removed_"
"_well I did not see it was there so..._"
"_you're a bad mod!_"
""


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> I am looking forward to Amazon getting it here by the end of next month :lol: we'll see.
> 
> 
> Oh I think you misunderstood, I don't want you to stop, just stop and see. I just find it very likely to be easier to learn drawing with "no talent" than to read while being dyslexic, because to me talent is overrated while dyslexia is very real. And in spite of that you write exellently. And that says to me that everything is possible.




Well gee, thank you for the compliment... usually when I write I think I'm overly aggressive, too assertive and that I beat a dead horse... I detest my own writing... but it is nice to hear otherwise hehe.

I agree, a lot is possible through effort. I'm just saying... it isn't a baker's place to take shots a a barista, and it is not the barista's place to tell the chef he is terrible. 

The machinist can't tell the woodturner he is lazy and his technique are wrong but both of them use a lathe, just like the barista, chef and baker all use the kitchen. 

Someone uses Maya, Max, Zbrush or SL to texture... Unless that person is of the same mind, interested in the same thing, it isn't the place of a jack of all trades to tell someone they MUST learn something they're not interested in so that they can do what they are.

This means, it isn't a model makers place to tell a texture artist to suck it up and learn to model. In game design there are many jacks of all trades but for the most part, you're hired for a primary skill. The guy who makes the model usually collaborates with the guy who makes the texture in the end, and neither of them made their part for the other. 

Some people just want to texture, if they just want to texture... thats work... and I don't like seeing someone look down their nose at someone for that.  The texture artist has every right to post.

I make a lot of claims as a virtual unknown so...

http://www.wegame.com/watch/Working_Riddle_chest_Homage_to_betray_at_Krondor/

Scripted by me, art by me, prize by me, etc.

http://www.wegame.com/watch/Portal_for_client/

(sound quality sucks here, turn down speakers.)

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1058757

Example of a forest I worked on. Was removed once before on another account back when SL was basically just flat out hated here.

There is more in my gallery I just uploaded to make it better known I'm not just trying to cause a ruckus, this issue really does effect me and is important to me, and I've always feared uploading my work and having something else taken down as I had before.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> Frankly I do not want to, I was making an example and the guy does claim to be a photographer.



Then you have no basis to complain.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Then you have no basis to complain.



I'm just saying... I want your honest opinion as staff.

Straight forward... why have the flooding rule modified and made extra strict for uploads which came from renders or SL, regardless of the amount of work that went into them... Given that the AUP for flooding can be used to remove all of these works which are annoying and causing problems without the need for special measures that penalize or give the wrong impression to people like me?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Oh I think you misunderstood, I don't want you to stop, just stop and see. I just find it very likely to be easier to learn drawing with "no talent" than to read while being dyslexic, because to me talent is overrated while dyslexia is very real. And in spite of that you write exellently. And that says to me that everything is possible.
> 
> And on the reporting things? DO IT. Moderators hate when stuff don't get reported, later they get complaints
> "_why was this not removed_"
> ...



Very true, I have vision issues...(no depth perception...which causes some nice clumsy attacks), however, despite the impairment I still try to learn to see with my artist's eye so to speak.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> I'm just saying... I want your honest opinion as staff.
> 
> Straight forward... why have the flooding rule modified and made extra strict for uploads which came from renders or SL, regardless of the amount of work that went into them... Given that the AUP for flooding can be used to remove all of these works which are annoying and causing problems without the need for special measures that penalize or give the wrong impression to people like me?



Photography (well more accurately) Snapshots, Poser and SL have the same restrictions to prevent flooding. 

It can take me 2 hours to set up a cell phone camera...it's really of no difference...It can take me 2 hours to move a slider...the point is original content by the user. IE custom avatar. There's no reason to flood the gallery with 50 shots of an avatar from SL when you can see it in SL. Same with stock Poser models.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Photography (well more accurately) Snapshots, Poser and SL have the same restrictions to prevent flooding.
> 
> It can take me 2 hours to set up a cell phone camera...it's really of no difference...It can take me 2 hours to move a slider...the point is original content by the user. IE custom avatar. There's no reason to flood the gallery with 50 shots of an avatar from SL when you can see it in SL. Same with stock Poser models.




I agree, and the flooding rule covers this and applies to all artwork. 

Again I ask why have it written three times, two times extra for the SL and renders AUP respectively? 

If I want to make a comic out of my characters which uses SL avatars, poses and scenes I set up, and the submissions are NEVER just "changed angles' then shouldn't this be fine to upload without hitting the 3 cap?

The way it is worded, I'm not allowed to show my furry avatar more than 3 times if the subject is in fact my avatar, regardless of the subject doing different activities, or modeling various outfits (because I design clothing.)


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> I agree, and the flooding rule covers this and applies to all artwork.
> 
> Again I ask why have it written three times, two times extra for the SL and renders AUP respectively?
> 
> ...



Well if you want to show 50 different angles of your avatar as a collage you can do so. So long as it doesn't hit the cap of 3. However, when mentioned for significant content, such as designing clothes, it's more acceptable since it's new content, and it's what you created. As stated before, what is wanted is your new content. But it's probably better to submit them in collages just to be smart. 

If you want 50 images of your plushies as a collage (one submission) you can also do so (but it must be uploaded to scraps).

If you decided to make a still frame comic as one submission with several different panels instead of several different submissions you can also do so.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Well if you want to show 50 different angles of your avatar as a collage you can do so. So long as it doesn't hit the cap of 3. However, when mentioned for significant content, such as designing clothes, it's more acceptable since it's new content, and it's what you created. As stated before, what is wanted is your new content. But it's probably better to submit them in collages just to be smart.
> 
> If you want 50 images of your plushies as a collage (one submission) you can also do so (but it must be uploaded to scraps).
> 
> If you decided to make a still frame comic as one submission with several different panels instead of several different submissions you can also do so.



So basically then, it is redundant as I've said.

I can use my avatar in a picture as many times as I want as long as the overall content is new, new poses, new lights, new backround. It'd not really ever do this because I don't have that many animations I'd be proud to show off, but I still could. 

What I cannot do is hop on a static pose and take 50 pictures of it from every angle imaginable and make more than 3 submissions of Cilis_01 in T pose. 

The flooding policy already makes this clear... so the "3 upload limit" is kind've just repeating the flood policy, isn't it?

That has been my point all along, lets just remove those extra lines because the flood policy gives the admins the muscle they'd need to deal with "stock_krystal"


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> That has been my point all along, lets just remove those extra lines because the flood policy gives the admins the muscle they'd need to deal with "stock_krystal"



Stock Krystal however, is pretty much banned. Unless there's enough significant content (not just a lighting/"boob"/body slider). So there still are restrictions that apply. Krystal "private time" only showing off different poses even with a new lighting or one new texture...again pretty much banned for multiple submissions (per flooding). The only way that's not banned is if you actually created a lot of significant content on your own, not just showing a set of clothes or textures.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Stock Krystal however, is pretty much banned. Unless there's enough significant content (not just a lighting/"boob"/body slider). So there still are restrictions that apply. Krystal "private time" only showing off different poses even with a new lighting or one new texture...again pretty much banned for multiple submissions (per flooding). The only way that's not banned is if you actually created a lot of significant content on your own, not just showing a set of clothes or textures.



Exactly, common sense tells me spread eagle 'private time' with one, two, three, four fingers and then a thumb doesn't make for 5 'different' submissions because it is still Krystal with her legs, back, chest and vacant no-change expression where all that changed was the camera angle and a few fingers, maybe a wrist twist too.

Most users have this common sense, and the flood policy provides 100% of the muscle you'd need without confusing render/SL artists with extra wording or redundant language. 

By you / for you and the flood AUP apply to all submissions, so really, there is no need to repeat them.


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 28, 2009)

I agree Cilis here. If for his comic example someone wanted to do a comic using SL avatars and other things they have made, and lets say this comic was around say.. 5 pages with 6 panels each, this hard 3 submission cap would interfere with it, even if they're doing more then just slight changes of angles.

Meanwhile the no flooding rule would have already stopped the random people who upload 50 of the same thing at alternate angles.

The locked in 3 submission cap for SL doesn't really sound like it's needed anymore at this point, as the no flooding already seems to cover it's intended purpose.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> I agree Cilis here. If for his comic example someone wanted to do a comic using SL avatars and other things they have made, and lets say this comic was around say.. 5 pages with 6 panels each, this hard 3 submission cap would interfere with it, even if they're doing more then just slight changes of angles.
> 
> Meanwhile the no flooding rule would have already stopped the random people who upload 50 of the same thing at alternate angles.
> 
> The locked in 3 submission cap for SL doesn't really sound like it's needed anymore at this point, as the no flooding already seems to cover it's intended purpose.



Exactly. 

The bad submitters will post more than three, the number doesn't matter, a flood is a flood... the good users of FA who try to be considerate and follow rules will be the only ones really hurt or confused by such a rule, as they try to obey the vague language of it.

The flooding rule stops the riff-raff submissions all on it's own. This limit cap for SL/Renders just inhibits serious works with serious work behind them. 

The flooding AUP will be all you need to remove the bad submissions.

Edit to say this; Boo, the server keeps resetting it's connection, I had submission comments I wanted to go look at =D


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

Cilis said:


> Exactly, common sense tells me spread eagle 'private time' with one, two, three, four fingers and then a thumb doesn't make for 5 'different' submissions because it is still Krystal with her legs, back, chest and vacant no-change expression where all that changed was the camera angle and a few fingers, maybe a wrist twist too.
> 
> Most users have this common sense, and the flood policy provides 100% of the muscle you'd need without confusing render/SL artists with extra wording or redundant language.
> 
> By you / for you and the flood AUP apply to all submissions, so really, there is no need to repeat them.



Ok, I understand, I see about the flooding issue being redundant, but look how many pages we're at here that people still don't get it (with the issue overall)  I think at most a reference link should be anchored to the Flooding policy or mentioned, so that we can cut down the redundancy.


----------



## Cilis (Jan 28, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Ok, I understand, I see about the flooding issue being redundant, but look how many pages we're at here that people still don't get it (with the issue overall)  I think at most a reference link should be anchored to the Flooding policy or mentioned, so that we can cut down the redundancy.



Agreed 

Stupid/bad submissions pop up just as often as bad users, I'm glad I don't have to actually deal with it and the tears that result like you do on a daily basis.


----------



## Dancougar (Jan 29, 2009)

Aden said:


> You fail at getting the points of hypothetical scenarios.
> 
> YOU SAY: I buy something, I should be able to upload it to FA because I have the legal right to use it.
> 
> ...



To make more of a minor edit to your wording to better reflect the full intent of the counterpoint.

HE SAY: You buy something, you do have the legal right to do with it what you want. EXCEPT HERE, where the rules of FA overlay on top of the law and provide additional restrictions to what you can upload to the site.

It has been proven time and again that the rules of organization cannot subvert jurisprudence. Those that think that they can, and try, find out that they cannot to their woe. Remember the long running discussion we had in the other thread about when rules run up against the law. Rules run up against the law, the rules break, not the law. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Valerion (Jan 29, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> To make more of a minor edit to your wording to better reflect the full intent of the counterpoint.
> 
> HE SAY: You buy something, you do have the legal right to do with it what you want. EXCEPT HERE, where the rules of FA overlay on top of the law and provide additional restrictions to what you can upload to the site.
> 
> ...



Copyright law states how you are allowed to use creative works, and under what conditions you can copy them.  That is all.  It does not state how the works MUST be exhibited.

There's no law stating that if you create a work someone is REQUIRED to exhibit it on a private art site.  You are of course free to correct me and cite the law I am unaware of.  But if you can't - how is the AUP of a private site in violation with law like you state?


----------



## Zelitor (Jan 29, 2009)

@ Dancougar
 it's getting really hard to tell if you're really this dense, or if you're just trolling at this point.

 But if you really believe this crap, then I dare you to post porn (or any of the other things they say are inappropriate and not allowed) on YouTube, and tell them they don't have the right to ban you for it. I mean, you've got the magical loophole right?
you could do anything you want! even walk into a school and glue photos of scat porn to the covers of all the books in a 3rd grade classroom.
and as a bonus, you could even sue them if they try to remove them! because god help them if they ever denied your ability to use your property in any way *you* see fit!

 I don't care if I sound rude here, you lost any respect I had for you, when you made your pitiful failure of an attempt, to scare the owners and admins, as well as any other website owner into giving up their own rights, just because you want to act like a spoiled brat who thinks he _deserves_ to have his renders put up anywhere he pleases, no matter what anyone thinks.

 you've made it clear that nothing can be said to get any of this through that thick skull of yours, so this will be my final post to you.


 @just about everyone else here
it's really nice to see how much progress has been made on the changes and clarification to the rules, and that there are real talks going on about how they could be improved in the first place. Keep up the good work guys, your doing grate ^_^


----------



## WarMocK (Jan 29, 2009)

Arshes Nei said:


> Ok, I understand, I see about the flooding issue being redundant, but look how many pages we're at here that people still don't get it (with the issue overall)  I think at most a reference link should be anchored to the Flooding policy or mentioned, so that we can cut down the redundancy.



Good idea, but why stopping here? You could probably set two links in EVERY policy (one showing what would be ok and what not), that would be a real improvement to cut down unnecessary questions. 

As for the comic issue: you should not forget that the main focus of a comic should lay on the story, which evolves from panel to panel. I've seen lots of comics with recycled panels, but that didn't make them bad - the story was good nevertheless. ;-)


----------



## Dancougar (Feb 1, 2009)

valerion said:


> Copyright law states how you are allowed to use creative works, and under what conditions you can copy them.  That is all.  It does not state how the works MUST be exhibited.
> 
> There's no law stating that if you create a work someone is REQUIRED to exhibit it on a private art site.  You are of course free to correct me and cite the law I am unaware of.  But if you can't - how is the AUP of a private site in violation with law like you state?



You're right, you are absolutely right. Copyright law does indeed state how you use the creative works, and under what conditions you can copy them, that is so. But the reach and extent to which this goes gives the greatest amount of control to the copyright owner. But you're not exactly entirely right either. Arguably it under a license it does state how the works must be exhibited in the licensing agreement betwixt the copyright owner and the licensee. For instance, when I nail down the terms of usage for a work of mine, I can say how and where I want the work licensed to be shown or not shown, published or not published, etc. If I say that you can show it in an art show as a part of a personal collection then you can. If I say that you cannot, then you cannot. These agreements differ from artist to artist. Think carefully now... As an artist, these are your rights too, so if you put no value in them, then you are leaving yourself wide open for all manner of mischief.

But I stick by my guns.. If this site does not put ANY worth on the value of licenses, and we all are forced to agree to this by default of rule change, Then that means that we are forced to agree with this outlook, and so therefore by default invalidate any and all licenses to any and all items that come with a license. You don't think that there is anything to it, that they are worthless? Well then. Just so that you know, company lawyers  go to war every day over them. Its a matter of business, not just copyright. And they don't look kindly on people shirking their licenses. But I am no prosecutor, I am not going to go after anyone. I just merely warn.

I will relinquish a point to you, so you do get some manner of victory, I cannot say if there is precedent in what I claim or not,  I am not a lawyer, much less one who specializes in copyright,  IP, or business issues, nor are, I am willing to guess, are you, so ultimately such determination is beyond our ken, and thus up to the lawyers and courts to decide if it goes from bad to worse and goes into that direction.  I am not going to do your homework for you on the matter, but in the mercurial and convoluted world of IP law, if it isn't then its a just a matter of time before it is, so while you may find fault in my argument right now, the same may not be true in the future as new cases pro and con add on. Oftentimes the wheels turn very slowly, so while things may stand as they are right at the moment, in years to come that may not be the case. 

When I mentioned rules going up against laws I never said what the laws in question were, if they were a matter of copyright, IP law, or even of art. You only assumed, that they were, given the topic of this post , when in fact I was speaking  in general. My sandbox, my rules only work on the playground. not in real life, if one discriminates in rule changes, they face the consequences of those actions. Prime example would be  a case recently where a country club made certain rules that got them hauled into court and sued over discrimination. 

Perhaps the T-Rex was a Stegosaurus afterall. Before you ask what the heck I am talking about, going on about dinosaurs, its a metaphor in which Andrew Stanton used in the commentary track on the film WALL-E. It refers to a point in the making of the movie where the elements were not just clicking in the way that he wanted them initially to go, so he likened the story elements more to a jumble of dinosaur bones, You go on ahead and put them together, wanting it to be a T-Rex, but then you find out when you put the bones in all the right places, you find that its not really a T-Rex at all, but a Stegosaurus. I thank you, you forced met to take another look at it, and in doing so, just knocked the jumble right into place. Its not so much a question of IP legalities, which could be easilly shrugged aside,  but of good old fashioned prejudice and discrimination. So the poison has been taken by the site, but of which type? The slow acting one which will fatally act at some time, or the fast working one which dispatches with relative quickness and certainty?
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Feb 1, 2009)

Zelitor said:


> @ Dancougar
> it's getting really hard to tell if you're really this dense, or if you're just trolling at this point.
> 
> But if you really believe this crap, then I dare you to post porn (or any of the other things they say are inappropriate and not allowed) on YouTube, and tell them they don't have the right to ban you for it. I mean, you've got the magical loophole right?
> ...



Sir, there is no need to get crass. I never troll. I merely posted my argument, you attacked it, I defended it. It's that simple. As I said before, you are not admin, it is not up to you to judge or challenge the points of an argument pointed to them that they must weigh and solve themselves, but your opinion of me and of the issue are your own. I do not dispute what you think or feel, it is your view regardless of me. If you do not wish to further discussed the issue, then by all means, let us agree to disagree and halt all words betwixt us on this issue with a measure of civility.
--Dancougar


----------



## Valerion (Feb 1, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> But I stick by my guns.. If this site does not put ANY worth on the value of licenses, and we all are forced to agree to this by default of rule change, Then that means that we are forced to agree with this outlook, and so therefore by default invalidate any and all licenses to any and all items that come with a license. You don't think that there is anything to it, that they are worthless? Well then. Just so that you know, company lawyers  go to war every day over them. Its a matter of business, not just copyright. And they don't look kindly on people shirking their licenses. But I am no prosecutor, I am not going to go after anyone. I just merely warn.



No, here I disagree.  By changing the AUP, the licenses are NOT invalidated.  Nothing in the AUP states that you are not allowed to create art. or use the licensed models.  FA cannot regulate how you create.  The licenses are yours to use within the parameters described in them.  However, FA regulates what you may upload here.  This does not prevent you from uploading to dA, VCL, YiffStar or even Photobucket.  Or your own personal website.  The FA AUP says nothing about any sites other than itself.  You are not prevented from creating, just from displaying certain works of art here on FA.

And if the license has a condition in there stating that any gallery are required to display works created by using it, they are seriously reaching over what they can control.


----------



## Flardan (Feb 1, 2009)

I have read the whole topic and... honestly I dont know what to think of all this drama here.

But this is not the reason why im posting here. Im posting here because I want answers.

I am an avid poser artist and I always work with stock models or models I buy off Daz3D because I have zero talent in making models. Even if I did try, I couldn't make anything good, plus I dont know how to rig up a Poser skeleton, which dont help things at all.

Poser is the only thing I can use to make 'art', I cannot draw anything worth even a cent and I have always felt comfortable with Poser, because I can still use my fantasy with what models I can buy. I still do great stuff. Dont believe me? Check my art gallery in scraps and you will see all the favorites and commentary on them. Now thanks to AUP, the only thing that allows me to make something and see if my art is good enough is good as banned on my part. I cannot model, I cannot draw and I have nowhere else to go. This AUP is killing my only hobby that I can show up here and im not about to spam my art up on imageshack, because there I cannot see who likes my art or not, which I could when I could post them up on FA.

In my opinion, this AUP that prohibits any use of stock models unless they are altered by atlesat 90% from what I can understand, or I must use models *I* make from scratch! But how can I make models if I simply cannot? Where can I exactly go if I have nowhere else to go? I have a large fanbase thanks to my 3D art and now you are updating the AUP in such a way, that I cannot post my art?! What are the reasons for this? Is it because of all these Krystal pictures that I heard rumors about? If it's because of them, then punish the ones who spam them, not them and everyone else who did nothing to deserve it!

I have bought most of the models I use and I have never abused or ever claimed that they are mine, despite I bought them. I even put up credits if I really need to and I did that in the last Poser picture I posted up before seeing the changes in the AUP. You must understand that there are users like me who cannot simply model for one reason or another. Because of a handful doing bullshit to FurAffinity, must you then punish everyone for that? It doesn't make any sense at all. Yet you do that because of poser art being spammed.

I for one want this change to the AUP revoked, because this is prohibiting me from posting any of my own art up at all, because I use stock models that I change slightly to make characters like my FML Marines or use viable predator models for my vore scenes. If this AUP remains, all I can really do is just put up commission art people have done for me and why should I even bother to have a gallery if that's all I can put up thanks to this new, stupid rule?

In my honest, bloodied opinion, this is the worst kind of action you can do to stop poser art spamming. Because we are talking about a few people amongst hundreds of users who are commiting these acts, yet you do a comb-over-all action in order to eradicate a problem. And like I said, where can I go if my poser art is banned due to this new change?


----------



## krisCrash (Feb 1, 2009)

Flardan said:


> ICheck my art gallery in scraps


Link? If you add your username somewhere in profile, the link to your FA should show up as an icon under your avatar.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Feb 2, 2009)

Flardan said:


> Poser is the only thing I can use to make 'art', I cannot draw anything worth even a cent and I have always felt comfortable with Poser, because I can still use my fantasy with what models I can buy. I still do great stuff. Dont believe me?



i tried a couple times to pull that one, but its tossed away.
kriscrash even states, you need to study art before you should get any helping critique for your ideas and spend time in composing the stuff you have an image of in your mind


----------



## krisCrash (Feb 2, 2009)

Nah, that's not what I said, but I think it will be very hard for you to move on without studying it some. Composition, mood, light, colours, saturation, elements, depth, focus, that must apply to you too. These are universal factors in visual art, they serve to communicate the contents.
If an image is too cluttered, too dark, too boring, too flat, too busy etc. it will not come across very well. Don't pour on elements, find a theme. Some 3D games are really good at this and manage to look movielike in composition at most times. Digital art of any kind is prone to look lifeless if we don't manually add that spark because the colours can be perfectly even.

and if you want to improve ... look into these things.
Maybe sketch up your Poser scenes before setting them up, to find lines and focal points.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Feb 2, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Nah, that's not what I said, but I think it will be very hard for you to move on without studying it some. Composition, mood, light, colours, saturation, elements, depth, focus, that must apply to you too. These are universal factors in visual art, they serve to communicate the contents.
> 
> ...............................
> 
> ...



ok, i try to make it 100% clear for you
--------------------------------------------
-3D-stuff is a hobby for me
-i have 0 fun in drawing stuff (sketching stuff counts there too) or force myself to study something that is no fun for me
-i look at pictures, even imperfect ones cause i have fun looking at them and not pick them apart cause this or that is not 100% perfect (if it is not an obvious logical problem)
--------------------------------------------

if YOU have fun in beeing forced to do things, then fine, but not everyone is like you.

and, saying things like "If you want to do this right, you are going to have to study art. If you are not willing to do that, you can't recieve critique." is not helpfull either.
i am sorry, but everyone, even those that not study or have studied, can receive critique and improve. why do i say this? i not think everyone who makes good looking pictures had studied all kind of stuff, especially in modern times. places like we have here, are a very good spot to receive help.

btw. i still learn the basic tools, and more helpful comments then yours got me a huge step forward, steps i would have needed weeks if not months to take. and those where made around the pic you commented the above quote. outcome: i know a bit more about poser-made pics, i now will begin using gimp a bit more to work with layers ands think it will help the overall quality of my pics.
i glanced over your gallery there, and i respect you make much better pics then i could do, and you model with things like clay and you model 3d-stuff like heads and bodys. i think, some of your pics are nice to look at, but many (seamingly finished) works are not art in my own opinion and nothing i would consider beeing worth to study for.
both of us have a different taste when it comes to art. what might be to cluttered, dark and sad mooded might be of neutral mood with the rigth ammount of details for the surroundings and maybe only needs a lil tweak of brightness.
turning that one arund a picture that is perfect in your opinion might not catch my attention since i miss details in the back and foreground, the overall color might be to odd for my taste.
if it is about a pic i made, i appreciate comments, tellign me what i have made good and what bad. that way i have things i can take into consideration, but i will never ever built my opinion about things around what other people say. reason is, the next person might have the totally opposite opinion.

edit:
btw. we are very sidetracking, since having own ideas and doing a lot of post- and pre-work is not sufficient if you not have the focus on objects/textures/animations that are made by yourself as poser/d|s-artist


----------



## krisCrash (Feb 2, 2009)

Sorry about that, you brought it up so I explained myself. Guess I confused you with Dancougar since he talked about composition and mood as a creative process that brings user created contents to the work. So I got snappy when you just refuted what I said at dA. Yes I am snappy again.

I don't feel forced by anyone but myself, and I have no interest in glorifying my own work or pretending that everyone likes it.


----------



## Sheena-Tiger (Feb 2, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Sorry about that, you brought it up so I explained myself. Guess I confused you with Dancougar since he talked about composition and mood as a creative process that brings user created contents to the work. So I got snappy when you just refuted what I said at dA. Yes I am snappy again.
> 
> I don't feel forced by anyone but myself, and I have no interest in glorifying my own work or pretending that everyone likes it.



i hope we can settle this one then, since i am kinda bored of stressing my point about my feelings when drawing stuff.

i like some of dancougars points, others i see simply as not suited. same goes for the actual version of the AUP and the point the admins take in this whole problem.
i see they are worried about senseless spamming (something i do not like either), but i not see why they cut the posibillities for creative people (and there are many ways to be creative) that simply lack what they need to express themselves.
i not want to listen to everyones musical talent, so i never browse that category or even poetry... and i would be kinda pissed if someone submits one of those things to visual art (and if they made it a good scripting, there is no problem adding a new category so people can avoid 3D/render-pics)

on the other hand, i can only speak for myself:
i lack the moeny to comission stuff every time i have an idea of an image (not to mention my problems to describe exactly what i want... or if the idea changes). i lack the skill/talent/fun in drawing them or creating them from scratch... so i need other means, even if the outcome is not perfect
but i still want a place where i can put my work up, without having to worry about htings like:
-nudity
-more then only nudity (all kinds of XXX and kinky)
-furry
-ratio of pixels and kb --> quality

if it comes to galleries...
DA has usual problems with people mocking randomly about nudity, XXX, kinky and furry (arctic got suspended for a tame pic while she put up other stuff... speaking of case-by-case) and furries, if people not like them
renderosity seems to be quite fair in this points, but a pic that has maximum of 4000x4000 pixels and maximum of 512kb... and only one upload/day if you not pay. and i not know about possible furry-problems there
FA was allways a place where i not had to worry much about this points, but with the change of the AUP, even if it is case-by-case... sorry, i not like to play roulette just to show a piece of art someone feels like complaining about


----------



## Zelitor (Feb 2, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Sir, there is no need to get crass. I never troll. I merely posted my argument, you attacked it, I defended it. It's that simple. As I said before, you are not admin, it is not up to you to judge or challenge the points of an argument pointed to them that they must weigh and solve themselves, but your opinion of me and of the issue are your own. I do not dispute what you think or feel, it is your view regardless of me. If you do not wish to further discussed the issue, then by all means, let us agree to disagree and halt all words betwixt us on this issue with a measure of civility.
> --Dancougar



I hardly see how relying entirely on the "you are not an admin" statement you insist on throwing at me, can be considered a real argument against my last two posts, seeing as nothing I said in them would require me to be an admin in the first place.
So yes, I agree to disagree.


----------



## Flardan (Feb 3, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Link? If you add your username somewhere in profile, the link to your FA should show up as an icon under your avatar.



Here's the link to my scraps, which now acts as my 3D gallery. http://www.furaffinity.net/scraps/flare/

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/flare/ <--- My username. Also I wrote in my FA username now so I should have a paw icon under my picture now.


----------



## Dancougar (Feb 7, 2009)

valerion said:


> No, here I disagree.  By changing the AUP, the licenses are NOT invalidated.  Nothing in the AUP states that you are not allowed to create art. or use the licensed models.  FA cannot regulate how you create.  The licenses are yours to use within the parameters described in them.  However, FA regulates what you may upload here.  This does not prevent you from uploading to dA, VCL, YiffStar or even Photobucket.  Or your own personal website.  The FA AUP says nothing about any sites other than itself.  You are not prevented from creating, just from displaying certain works of art here on FA.
> 
> And if the license has a condition in there stating that any gallery are required to display works created by using it, they are seriously reaching over what they can control.



Not invalidated through direct wording. But indirectly yes, since the dismissive tone in which staff here have used towards them clearly makes it plain that they do not consider them to be legitimate. That coupled upon the fact that outside of the poser issue they are not even mentioned outside of a vague nod, if that, in the formal lettering of the policy. FA regulates how you create and what models you use, simply through By You / For You. Taken strictly at its face, You didn't make it, you can't use it without in the very very least  undergoing severe modifications outside of the program, and not making it the focus of the overall work. I am not talking about other sites and what they allow or not allow, that is irrelevant, I speak of this site purely. 

Overreaching? Perhaps, perhaps not, Neither of us are lawyers so we cannot say what will stick and what will not. Thats the thing about licenses, They control whatever you want them to control. You set the limits as to what the end use is. Whether or not they are recognized is another question. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Feb 7, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> Sorry about that, you brought it up so I explained myself. Guess I confused you with Dancougar since he talked about composition and mood as a creative process that brings user created contents to the work. So I got snappy when you just refuted what I said at dA. Yes I am snappy again.
> 
> I don't feel forced by anyone but myself, and I have no interest in glorifying my own work or pretending that everyone likes it.



I did? You are right though, the elements of mood, etc, are very valid in whatever mode of expression you use. You get all the elements going, and it clicks, and feels right.
--Dancougar


----------



## vendetta_leopard (Mar 17, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> In an effort to solicit feedback on the AUP changes, as well as better answer questions, we have created this forum for each individual clause of the AUP. We will modify and/or improve AUP clarity based on suggestions and feedback.
> 
> - - - - - - - -
> 
> ...



Okay, so as a writer, I have recently run up against this part of the AUP, specifically the blanket ban on screenshots from applications, resulting in two of my submissions being deleted by admin.  Now, I've made my case in private, but the discussion was a non-starter, so I wanted to just put it out here for a public appraisal.

First of all I would like to state that as a writer, on a furry art site, I generally feel like a second class citizen, and some of that is natural.  However there are various ways in which FA doesn't make that any easier (and could), and even a few recent changes to the site which have made things even harder for this writer.  I can accept the status quo, but I am bothered each time I seem to be further disenfranchised.


So, on to the issue, and I apologise for being so late to the table.  I notice from time to time that artists on FA like to show off their drawing environment, maybe photos of their room, their art desk, their art stuff, or if we're being especially treated, we get to see a work in progress of a traditional art piece that has been posted on the site.  Blotch is quite a culprit for this, and it's always awesome seeing this kind of material.  I love to see the tools of the trade of an artist.

As a writer, I wanted to do something along similar lines, and because I don't just use a plain text editor, I figured it would be of extra interest.  I use a piece of software specifically designed for writing stories, books, novels, it's like an IDE (Integrated Development Environment) for text, letting you organise and store and track every element of your story.  I wanted to screenshot this application, showing a little teaser of my next unpublished chapter, and also showing how I've got all these other story elements squirreled away, including deleted scenes, future ideas and plot elements, all visible on screen.    I wanted to show people how I write, how I organise stuff, I wanted to show people the tools of my trade.

This was made and uploaded about a year ago, and the reception was great, I generated a lot of interest, a lot of curiosity about how I work and what secrets lurked within my plans.  But a couple of weeks ago, enforcing the new AUP rule I was unaware of, my submission was deleted, and it appears there's no debate about any other course of action.  I accept the rule is fairly clearly worded, there's no room for interpretation, what I submitted is against the new AUP.  

But what I'd like to ask publicly is, is it fair?  Is it fair that artists are able to show the tools of their trade, but as a writer, I cannot?  How am I supposed to show my working environment to my curious fans?  Can I just photograph my PC running the app?  Or would only photographing a typewriter count?  I don't think I'm asking for anything unreasonable here, just to be allowed the same type of creative outlet as artists are.  What do people think?


----------



## Adrimor (Mar 17, 2009)

Ye sykes, why was this thread bumped...?



vendetta_leopard said:


> Okay, so as a writer, I have recently run up against this part of the AUP, specifically the blanket ban on screenshots from applications, resulting in two of my submissions being deleted by admin.  Now, I've made my case in private, but the discussion was a non-starter, so I wanted to just put it out here for a public appraisal.
> 
> First of all I would like to state that as a writer, on a furry art site, I generally feel like a second class citizen, and some of that is natural.  However there are various ways in which FA doesn't make that any easier (and could), and even a few recent changes to the site which have made things even harder for this writer.  I can accept the status quo, but I am bothered each time I seem to be further disenfranchised.


Baww less and write smut. We're perverts.
If you already write it, though, write more/better/pervier. BDSM, rubber/latex, and transformation are huge favorites here.



> [ . . . ]
> I accept the rule is fairly clearly worded, there's no room for interpretation, what I submitted is against the new AUP.
> 
> But what I'd like to ask publicly is, is it fair?  Is it fair that artists are able to show the tools of their trade, but as a writer, I cannot?  How am I supposed to show my working environment to my curious fans?  Can I just photograph my PC running the app?


That's no different from an artist photographing his PC running Photoshop or whatever, so I wouldn't see why not. Then again, I am not a lawyer (or an admin, for that matter).



> Or would only photographing a typewriter count?  I don't think I'm asking for anything unreasonable here, just to be allowed the same type of creative outlet as artists are.  What do people think?


People don't think. It's a fact.


----------



## vendetta_leopard (Mar 17, 2009)

AdriNoMa said:


> Ye sykes, why was this thread bumped...?


I'll put my post somewhere better if you have any suggestions, but this seemed the most on-topic thread, created specially for the purpose 



> Baww less and write smut. We're perverts.
> If you already write it, though, write more/better/pervier. BDSM, rubber/latex, and transformation are huge favorites here.



Oh I write plenty of smut, I have no shortage of keen readers, but doesn't really help my cause.  I just want rights artists already have


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 17, 2009)

vendetta_leopard said:


> I accept the rule is fairly clearly worded, there's no room for interpretation, what I submitted is against the *new* AUP.


Bold for emphasis.  Unfortunate as it may be for certain kinds of submissions, changes to submission policies tend to be retroactive....


----------



## Adrimor (Mar 18, 2009)

vendetta_leopard said:


> I'll put my post somewhere better if you have any suggestions, but this seemed the most on-topic thread, created specially for the purpose


It wasn't created for you to appeal the removal of your screencaps.
Aside from the fact that this is entirely the wrong board for that, notice that nowhere in the title does it say anything about _screen captures._
Ergo, this isn't an on-topic thread.



> Oh I write plenty of smut, I have no shortage of keen readers, but doesn't really help my cause.  I just want rights artists already have


Except that (1) it takes longer to see that "hey, this screenshot's a WIP!" for stories than for pictures, (2) you're allowed to take and submit a photo of your workspace, (3) your FurAffinity gallery is]not intended for you to promote some program you didn't make yourself (to the best of my knowledge, anyway--your complaint seems to be largely that you're not allowed to do that), and (4) there's nothing really stopping you from posting drafts of your writing as long as you keep it within a reasonable number of drafts per submission, AFAIK.

Again, I'm not an admin, but you appear to be jousting a windmill here.


----------



## Stratelier (Mar 18, 2009)

AdriNoMa said:


> (4) there's nothing really stopping you from posting drafts of your writing as long as you keep it within a reasonable number of drafts per submission.


Very true.  People have been known to post WIP stages of their _visual_ work with no removals by site staff or policy concerns, the same method can apply to written submissions just the same.

The only point of confusion I see is for people who like to upload the same thumbnail(s) for every one of their written submissions.  Makes it difficult to tell them apart....


----------



## Adrimor (Mar 18, 2009)

^ I do that--but then, I don't post drafts.

Still, I mean, the visual artists put "WIP" in the title, right? So just require that the writers do the same and move the old things to scraps/delete 'em just like with the visual artists.
Equal rights, equal responsibilities, 'm I right? =P


----------



## vendetta_leopard (Mar 18, 2009)

I have started a new thread concerning my complaints, in the more general site discussion forum, please direct any new replies there - http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?p=920353


----------



## Armaetus (Apr 4, 2009)

Would this happen to be original enough? I don't know if it's a stock model or not.


----------



## Dancougar (Apr 18, 2009)

Glaice said:


> Would this happen to be original enough? I don't know if it's a stock model or not.



No. Since it uses LDragon's Poser Krystal and its only animated.  It doesn't matter how well its done, or the fact that its animated, its still likely to be pulled. Just another tragic example of how the policy focuses too much on the nuts and bolts and not enough on the artistic effort. Once again the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater with this flawed policy.
--Dancougar


----------



## Adrimor (Apr 18, 2009)

What artistic effort?

It's about as artistic as making an animation in the style of Robot Chicken--with no jokes.

Hey, mods. It seems pretty safe to say all the meaningful discussion's been had by now. Mind locking the thread?


----------



## Dancougar (Apr 27, 2009)

AdriNoMa said:


> What artistic effort?
> 
> It's about as artistic as making an animation in the style of Robot Chicken--with no jokes.
> 
> Hey, mods. It seems pretty safe to say all the meaningful discussion's been had by now. Mind locking the thread?



Well, in all fairness, of course it seems that way to anyone who has never done animation, be it stop motion, computer generated, or cel. To those that have, and are able to look at the work of others in unbiased and objective fashion, they recognize the considerable work and effort it takes to make an inanimate object move, and are thus able to appreciate the work done. This guy did not only the animation, but presented it from two different angles at the same time. There is a lot of work that went into it, which to the best of my knowledge, no-one else has done anything like, so the guy really deserves kudos IMHO.

As for locking up the thread and calling it done, well. I would think that would be a very bad idea, sowing further dissent on an ongoing debate. Allowing a place to air opposing points of view gives people a feeling that they have a place to air grievances and that they are not being locked out, with their opinions not mattering. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Dragoneer (Apr 27, 2009)

AdriNoMa said:


> It's about as artistic as making an animation in the style of Robot Chicken--with no jokes.


Stop motion requires a lot of effort, especially if you don't have a Lunchbox kit to do the freezeframes with. Most Poser art still devolves down into somebody download a model, posing it, and going "This is my art!". There are some who put effort into their Poser work, and it shows.


----------



## Armaetus (Apr 29, 2009)

I wonder why that submission I listed above hasn't been removed yet, heh.


----------

