# New Terms of Service and Submission Agreement Policy



## Dragoneer (Mar 9, 2007)

Greetings, FA!

Fur Affinity's Terms of Service and Submission Agreement Policy have been completely re-vamped and rewritten from the ground up! This should make both documents easier to follow and much more easier to ready.

http://www.furaffinity.net/lm/tos/
http://www.furaffinity.net/lm/submissionpolicy/

In the coming weeky, additional changes will be coming to our Wiki to help guide users with more efficient rules for uploading, allowable content and more.

If you have any questions, please feel free to post them here!

Special thanks to the TOS Editors and Proofers: Dave Hyena, Wolfblade, ArrowTibbs, Akhanha, XianJaguar, Arshes Nei, Thaily, Ultraviolet and all the other admin and coding team for their input.


----------



## Shira (Mar 9, 2007)

On the TOS: Content Submission
Fur Affinity allows the submission of visual art, stories, poetry and music to the site so long as the information complies with the rules and terms set forth by the Submission Agreement *(insert link to document here).*

I think you forgot to insert the link.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes. Yes I did...

Further proof that you should never let a hyena behind the keyboard!


----------



## Xax (Mar 9, 2007)

Submission Policy said:
			
		

> If you are seventeen (17) years of age or younger you must have explicit permission from a parent or legal guardian before uploading to the server, and you agree that they have read and consented to both the Terms of Service and the Submission Agreement.



Really?


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 9, 2007)

Xax said:
			
		

> Submission Policy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Really.


----------



## Robat (Mar 9, 2007)

Ok, maybe I'm too tired, but the only rule I find in the ToS and SubAgr regarding the allowed content right now is, that the content should be 
a) your own 
or 
b) content which the original owner has permitted you to post

Does that mean, that _Just as long as it's yours, nearly anything goes_ has changed to _Just as long as it's yours, anything goes_ ?


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 9, 2007)

Robat said:
			
		

> Does that mean, that _Just as long as it's yours, nearly anything goes_ has changed to _Just as long as it's yours, anything goes_ ?


No. All previous content restrictions still apply. They will be further outlined on the wiki and a seperate document on its own dictating what is acceptable, and that will be amended in. The original TOS had a few entries in it with regards to limitations, but they were scattered, not entirely through out and never covered everything as well at they could have.

Submission Posting Guidelines on the Wiki
http://wikiffinity.net/index.php?title=Submission_Posting_Guidelines


----------



## Robat (Mar 9, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> No. All previous content restrictions still apply. They will be further outlined on the wiki and a seperate document on its own dictating what is acceptable, and that will be amended in. The original TOS had a few entries in it with regards to limitations, but they were scattered, not entirely through out and never covered everything as well at they could have.



I'm glad to hear that


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 9, 2007)

subjective leeway is back in style


----------



## timoran (Mar 9, 2007)

> Fur Affinity Administration and Staff will uphold the policies set forth by the Terms of Service and Submission Policy, and will protect the general interests of the Service. This includes, but is not limited to: art theft, identity theft, harassment, defacement, piracy, illegal activity.



In other words, the general interests of the service include, but are not limited to, art theft, identity theft, harassment, defacement, piracy, and illegal activity.

Before you can "cover your ass" you might want to check your grammar...


----------



## cesarin (Mar 9, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Greetings, FA!
> 
> Fur Affinity's Terms of Service and Submission Agreement Policy have been completely re-vamped and rewritten from the ground up! This should make both documents easier to follow and much more easier to ready.
> 
> ...


Upon submitting to Fur Affinity you grant the website non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media within the boundaries of the site's Domains (http://www.furaffinity.net/, http://www.furaffinityforums.net/ and http://www.wikiffinity.net/).

can you explain what does this means??
we lose the rights of your art or what? 
sounds like that lamme DA rule that made all artists get pissed at them...

*Edit* was reading the TOS and it explains that better. curse my legal english skills


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 9, 2007)

cesarin said:
			
		

> Upon submitting to Fur Affinity you grant the website non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media within the boundaries of the site's Domains (http://www.furaffinity.net/, http://www.furaffinityforums.net/ and http://www.wikiffinity.net/).
> 
> can you explain what does this means??
> we lose the rights of your art or what?


Just to clarify for others, it means that when you give us the graphic you give us the right to transmit (send it out to others), resize (make preview images), store (keep it on our servers), publish (display it on the site) or alter (some people upload images at 2 to 4MB, when they don't NEED to be at all. Sometimes in rare cases we compress them to realistic file sizes - bandwidth is not free).


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 10, 2007)

> Site Coding
> Fur Affinity's site code is not covered under GPL and is not open source. Fur Affinity code is intellectual property of Fur Affinity, Alkora and the Coding Team. Components, parts or any code, past code or present, may not be re-used for either personal use or used inclusion in other applications or republished in digital or physical format.



Was this just tacked on at the last minute?  Check out how it addresses the GPL specifically.  It sounds threatening but it totally doesn't negate out the original contract and whatnot.... and misdirecting people about the legal status of the old code (ie: despite clear indications in the other thread that certain past versions WERE GPL derivitives) is not going to help.  (IANAL) The only thing I suppose this binds to is users in the US where EULA's are pretty binding -- that is to say that by using the current site, you agree that you won't use portions of the current or previous code REGARDLESS of their legal status.  Still, that's probably going to be confusing to people I'm sure.  Non-FA members are not bound by the TOS and therefore can use any source code that is a derivative of GPL'd code....  Just pointing that out.

urgh..... way too tired to voice my discontent with the other points..... why bother, the site goes through bipolar shifts between lax policies and total fascism anyway ~______ ~


----------



## Swampwulf (Mar 10, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> cesarin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's very well phrased Preyfar.
'Plain English' clarifications of the legalese requirements of the TOS and Submission Agreement would go a long way, in my eyes at least, towards making sure that there is a minimum of confusion for the average user.

I hope that the Admins and Staff would consider adding more such wording in the TOS and Submission Agreement, or at least include them in the wiki in some way.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 10, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> Preyfar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, actually, maybe just adding those parentheticals into the actual posting just as you put them here would be a good idea :3


----------



## Damaratus (Mar 10, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> I hope that the Admins and Staff would consider adding more such wording in the TOS and Submission Agreement, or at least include them in the wiki in some way.



It think adding something like that to the Wiki is not a bad idea at all.  Like many other sites out on the web you will often find a Terms of Service or Usage Agreement that is muddled in legalese.

As an idea, for the moment, perhaps we could post a link after each section that essentially says: "If you have more questions or do not understand something please look at a more basic definition on the Wiki (add a link to the specific section in question)."

This way the ToS will remain with its wording, and any user who wishes can go and take get a layman's version that may help them better decipher the legal text.  It could also lead them to some additional FAQ for other questions regarding the use of Fur Affinity.


----------



## moonlightsinner (Mar 10, 2007)

While I very, very much agree with the referencing addition... What bothers me is this. Generic poses and what not. What if someone goes on your page and reports your item as not being cited, when a refrence wasn't used to begin with? And yet by doing so you only have your word as you didn't reference. There are people out there who will abuse this, and those who are overly zealous over "THEIR copyrighted poses", when they are very much generic. How will this be handled in the near future? =/ As dA, SA and Y!Gallery has had people complain about such things as well... I'm just curious. Thanks. ^^

-Moonlight Sinner


----------



## Swampwulf (Mar 10, 2007)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> It think adding something like that to the Wiki is not a bad idea at all.  Like many other sites out on the web you will often find a Terms of Service or Usage Agreement that is muddled in legalese.
> 
> As an idea, for the moment, perhaps we could post a link after each section that essentially says: "If you have more questions or do not understand something please look at a more basic definition on the Wiki (add a link to the specific section in question)."
> 
> This way the ToS will remain with its wording, and any user who wishes can go and take get a layman's version that may help them better decipher the legal text.  It could also lead them to some additional FAQ for other questions regarding the use of Fur Affinity.



To quote the guy in the Guinness commercial: 
*BRILLIANT!*

That's the perfect use of a wiki.
Self-referencing and simplifying in regards to the site's standard.
If you don't understand something you should be able to drill down into it till you do.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Mar 10, 2007)

I like it!

My only though is for the photographed submissions. you had the 'imageshack" (I believe) thing going, then not.

Are we alowed to mass photos still, or have you all devised some guidelines yet?


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 10, 2007)

moonlightsinner said:
			
		

> While I very, very much agree with the referencing addition... What bothers me is this. Generic poses and what not. What if someone goes on your page and reports your item as not being cited, when a refrence wasn't used to begin with? And yet by doing so you only have your word as you didn't reference. There are people out there who will abuse this, and those who are overly zealous over "THEIR copyrighted poses", when they are very much generic. How will this be handled in the near future? =/ As dA, SA and Y!Gallery has had people complain about such things as well... I'm just curious. Thanks. ^^
> 
> -Moonlight Sinner



Admin discretion. 

If someone comes forward with something that can be overlaid and looks to be a trace, they're more likely to be listened to.

Complaints of "Pose theft," when not an obvious (again, admin discretion) trace or direct eyeball referencing (and even that one was still kinda under discussion last time I checked), won't be listened to, and haven't been nearly as common as people seem to believe they will be.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 10, 2007)

crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> I like it!
> 
> My only though is for the photographed submissions. you had the 'imageshack" (I believe) thing going, then not.
> 
> Are we alowed to mass photos still, or have you all devised some guidelines yet?



Actually, maybe someone could start a poll or something. It seems that people are divided on whether or not an imageshack policy was needed or wanted. Plenty of people complain about too many photos of someone's butt in a fridge, or ice cream on toast, but then people also complain when any sort of limitation is put in place whatsoever.

At present, the imageshack policy isn't in effect. Whether or not people feel it should come back in some form or another might be a good topic for discussion in the meantime (in another thread of course).


----------



## Revamp (Mar 10, 2007)

Reading the whole TOS and submission agreement...it looked like a very well paid lawyer wrote it. Seems full proof to me, and managable. Only thing that left me a bit uneasy was FA's ability to suspend accounts for any reason.


----------



## blade (Mar 10, 2007)

Seems fair to me.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 10, 2007)

Revamp said:
			
		

> Reading the whole TOS and submission agreement...it looked like a very well paid lawyer wrote it. Seems full proof to me, and managable. Only thing that left me a bit uneasy was FA's ability to suspend accounts for any reason.


I wouldn't call myself a lawyer. =P And nah, we had lots of good help honestly.

The "suspend accounts for any reason" is just there to say that, if we need to, we can suspend them. For instance, if a year down the line we decide to clean up old accounts that haven't been used in 365 days, have no submissions, favorites, etc. we have the right to go in and say, "Well, these accounts were created but NEVER used..." Having that in there gives us the power to do so.

We're not abusive. =)

NOTE: Before anybody speculates, we have no plan to do account cleanups at this time. It's just an example of something that COULD happen.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 10, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> That's very well phrased Preyfar.
> 'Plain English' clarifications of the legalese requirements of the TOS and Submission Agreement would go a long way, in my eyes at least, towards making sure that there is a minimum of confusion for the average user.
> 
> I hope that the Admins and Staff would consider adding more such wording in the TOS and Submission Agreement, or at least include them in the wiki in some way.


I've already got a plan for that on the Wiki.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 10, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Admin discretion.
> 
> If someone comes forward with something that can be overlaid and looks to be a trace, they're more likely to be listened to.
> 
> Complaints of "Pose theft," when not an obvious (again, admin discretion) trace or direct eyeball referencing (and even that one was still kinda under discussion last time I checked), won't be listened to, and haven't been nearly as common as people seem to believe they will be.


Poses we're not worried about. In plain English: we don't care if the poses are similar. Why? Well, the body can only move in so many ways and eventually you're going to have MASSIVE amounts of similarties in images.

Now, when it comes to complaints of art theft...

We always overlay and compare the original image with the one being claimed counterfeit. If they're similar, eh well, that's just how it goes. If they're identical down to lines, patterns and it's plainly obvious most if not all of the image was traced, well, we've got a problem.

And that's where we step in and start to review. No one admin has any say in all of this. In situations like this, we usually all attempt to work together and try to come to a unanimous decision.

But, well, let's just say we've got more than a few graphics experts on staff, some with degrees and industry experience. =) We don't make these decisions lightly.


----------



## cyberwuffy (Mar 10, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> cesarin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you'd just used what was in the ()s you would've been good o.o Cesarin's english ain't got anything to do it. s'more like legalese


----------



## moonlightsinner (Mar 10, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Wolfblade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, alright... Thank you both very much. This clears up a lot for me and puts me on ease with the generic pose situation. ^^ Thank you again so much. 

-Moonlight Sinner


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 10, 2007)

On a tangential note, whose bright idea was it to make the TOS white text on a light blue background? 

Sure, you can highlight the text (as I did) to get a readable version, but a) why should it be made more difficult to read the TOS when users are required to obey it, and b) it seems kind of like the tiny print at the bottom of an ad, where you need a microscope to read all the restrictions or the reallyfastmutteredvoiceoversaidallinonesinglebreath on radio ads, which makes their respective "special offer" not so special.


----------



## SokiTwopaw (Mar 10, 2007)

I see this as a good and bad thing as most things are in the world these days. 

Good:
"You can only upload to mature if you are 18+"-TOSA
I like that because I know that every one must start some where BUT, you dont start drawing porn before you know anatomy as a general assumption.
"User must be 13+ with permission" -TOS
I like that as well, way to cover your ass.

Bad:
"...will not violate any US law be it..." -TOSA
You all know my thoughts on certain art, thats all Im going to say about that.

I have an idea though, Ive noticed this lately in the galleries.
Is there a way we can make a rule that states that 

"Any sequence art over 4 frames that has minimal detail/single character, of a non-background nature or small in size, must be compiled in a single submission. This goes the same for images that are of the same thing but just in different views ex. CGI images."

I think that would save a TON of space on the server HD's just seeing some of the trends in the galleries. I'm mainly talking about the people who put up 15 shots of their character for SL or they fill a page an' a half of search with things that could have been compiled into 1 or 2 things. Just a thought.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 10, 2007)

SokiTwopaw said:
			
		

> I have an idea though, Ive noticed this lately in the galleries.
> Is there a way we can make a rule that states that
> 
> "Any sequence art over 4 frames that has minimal detail/single character, of a non-background nature or small in size, must be compiled in a single submission. This goes the same for images that are of the same thing but just in different views ex. CGI images."
> ...



Sequence art (actually drawn stuff) wasn't part of the discussion, but there were talks at one point about excessive SL screenshots, 10 angles of the same cg model, 15 photos of someone's cat yawning, etc.. I'm not sure right now whether those talks will be coming back, but right now I think the emphasis is on letting everyone have a chance to bring any possible concerns forward with the ToS and Submission Agreement.

What is and isn't acceptable to upload beyond that, content-wise, is a separate discussion for the moment.


----------



## lerster (Mar 10, 2007)

If they site is so worried about misuse of space, when is it going to have the deletion feature back so one could remove old mp3 recordings. 

As, i'm sure they take up a ton of space. Not just 4-5mbs....

Also, why is it that you have to re-register for the forums. i'm guessing i'll just be slapped with "security" rather then a real, answer being nobody can figure out how to merge the FA users data with FA forums user data or perhaps it is simply: "Security."

Anyways was just curious and i know that's a bit off topic sort've. 

As it's been down for ages.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 10, 2007)

Last I checked, the site isn't worried about space _at the moment_. But they do want to make sure they don't _need_ to worry about space for as long as possible. So, a little bit of conscientious submission management right now can make a big difference over a long span of time.

Submission deletion being down is irritating for a lot of people, but unfortunately, its just one of those things. Everyone who works for FA does so on a volunteer basis, and there's never a shortage of things needing to be done. Some tasks and fixes are more priority than others, and everyone has to work around their own time constraints. So, as much as nobody likes this as an answer; it'll be back when its back (and that's not an official answer, that's just me as another User being realistic.)

As for the forum thing, there's always been a bit of a disconnect between the mainsite and the forum. At one point it was said that it wasn't so much a matter of they _couldn't_ tie the two together _or_ security, but it sounded like it was just the fact that there wasn't much point in having site users automatically registered to the forums. Reason being that only an incredibly small fraction of the site's users ever come to the forums, and even fewer tend to stick around.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 10, 2007)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> On a tangential note, whose bright idea was it to make the TOS white text on a light blue background?


The text is dark black on light blue in both Firefox 2.0 and IE 7, as it should be.


----------



## dave hyena (Mar 10, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> As for the forum thing, there's always been a bit of a disconnect between the mainsite and the forum. At one point it was said that it wasn't so much a matter of they _couldn't_ tie the two together _or_ security, but it sounded like it was just the fact that there wasn't much point in having site users automatically registered to the forums. Reason being that only an incredibly small fraction of the site's users ever come to the forums, and even fewer tend to stick around.



Not to mention that the forums are hosted on a seperate machine in case the main site goes down and people go (& can be directed) to the forums for infomation.


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 11, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> imnohbody said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's not how it's showing up here, browsing with the default color settings (that is, "let site select colors" checkbox is marked) for Firefox 2.0.

How I'm seeing it (or a sample thereof, anyway; linked to not break forum formatting, it's a touch on the wide side)

[edit]
I checked in IE6 (Win XP), and it is showing up as black text, only my Firefox 2.0 installation is showing the text as white.


----------



## Hanazawa (Mar 11, 2007)

imnohbody - you're seeing an old version of the TOS. Try reloading and/or clearing your cache.


----------



## iller (Mar 11, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> What is and isn't acceptable to upload beyond that, content-wise, is a separate discussion for the moment.



Why have that discussion AT ALL?  ...Now hell yeah I'm sick of drama starting over <<Insert extreme fetish Here>> ...but why not use Technology to just seperate these "warring factions"?... 

Namely the Tag system.  And it's real simple, flag certain Tags/Terms in the extreme yiff category and require users to input those tags in a special field in their Profile (or the Filtering section if that ever gets fixed) if they really wish to see that extreme stuff. To everyone else it will be hidden...then just let users or "ViP's" enforce the tagging of images when those who uploaded failed to add the proper Tags. 

..bonus points if you let Artists place those same tags in a "Restrict Access" Field either on their images or userpages so that they can avoid-contact all-together with those other users, the same way that the Block-User List is supposed to work.  ...anyway, give it some thought.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 11, 2007)

iller said:
			
		

> Wolfblade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh hey, trust me, I'm all for having a working tag system to just let people choose what they feel like seeing and filter the rest. However, that not being an option right at present, it can't hurt to discuss the alternatives.

Mostly, I think the comment my response was directed at though, was talking about the general opinion that excessive SL screenshots hold marginal artistic value, and so, the merit of having a gallery comprised mostly of SL shots could be considered questionable.


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 11, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> imnohbody - you're seeing an old version of the TOS. Try reloading and/or clearing your cache.



Huh, that's odd. Prior to today (well, yesterday) I had never accessed the TOS previously. It's still showing the old page even after forcing a full refresh.

Guess it's time to save my bookmarks file and totally wipe Firefox from my system, and reinstall from scratch.


----------



## thorndraco (Mar 11, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Xax said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why? That seems a bit asinine considering everywhere else on the whole of the internet doesn't require that unless you're under the age of thirteen.


----------



## thorndraco (Mar 11, 2007)

SokiTwopaw said:
			
		

> Bad:
> "...will not violate any US law be it..." -TOSA
> You all know my thoughts on certain art, thats all Im going to say about that.



Unless you're talking about photography no art is illegal in the US. If you're talking about photography ewww creepy.


----------



## Tensik (Mar 11, 2007)

You guys know I would have rather gouged my eyes out that post here again but . . . 



> Fur Affinity allows users to post photographic images without limits so long as the images constitute as "art". "Art" is defined as images in which the photographer clearly and without doubt considered frame, light, exposure and subject of the image.
> All other images are considered to be "every day life" and are deemed "not of artistic merit", and may be subject to deletion. "Every day life" includes, but is not limited to: pictures of pets, toys, fursuits, people, household items, websites (including Fur Affinity) and Second Life. â€œNot of artistic meritâ€ includes, but is not limited to: image macros, random junk you saw, photos and/or screenshots taken because you were bored.



This was an issue before and will be an issue again.  No one is qualified to judge what has artistic merit and what does not.  Period.  I don't care who you are.  What does not have artistic merit to you may have been an amateur's honest attempt at real photography.  Alternatively, anyone who wants to be a jerk can pretend to be practicing their photography in their submission info just to cover their tail and then flood the place.

Secondly, "real life" is really all that a lot of the community has to contribute here.  Those who are not artistic like participating too, and the ability to show their pets, or them at their home, is just as much of a way of saying 'here's me" as artists do.

SL is still a load of crap because being able to post avs from one online game that you don't make (but just pretend you do) is no different than posting avs you put together using pre-constructed parts in any other online game.  *growls*  Any MMO or no MMOs.  Pick one.

I completely understand the basis behind the rule but it is much too open and subjective and invariably there's going to be major issues arising, maybe not with the folks you folks might want to favor (the artists) but the others (those who keep us drawing . . . you know, the community that makes up the bulk of the place).  It's not fair to say to them "we're going to pick and choose from you only" when they're not violating copyrights or doing anything against the site policy other than not fdoing what you might want to see at the moment, nor are they "wasting server space" as the staff has already said that is not an issue.

As the problem isn't the content by by the staff's own words but really just that "man that's annoying" feeling when someone floods the place", I would again suggest a max upload per day cap.  It would make EVERYONE equally be more selective in posting while not limiting people; they'd just have to do it over a number of days if it's that important to them.  But no matter what that's an incredibly unfair rule.  I would hope it gets removed again until a fair one can be devised that doesn't target anyone just because it rubs a person or two the wrong way or a few bad apples spoil the bunch.


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 11, 2007)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> Guess it's time to save my bookmarks file and totally wipe Firefox from my system, and reinstall from scratch.



Following up on my issue, after work and reinstalling everything (idiot me forgot to check what plugins/extensions I had set up before uninstalling), I'm getting the new TOS, with the right color text.

I'm still seeing the V-day banner on the main page, though.


----------



## Damaratus (Mar 11, 2007)

Tensik said:
			
		

> ...





> Fur Affinity allows users to post photographic images without limits so long as the images constitute as "art". "Art" is defined as images in which the photographer clearly and without doubt considered frame, light, exposure and subject of the image.
> All other images are considered to be "every day life" and are deemed "not of artistic merit", and may be subject to deletion. "Every day life" includes, but is not limited to: pictures of pets, toys, fursuits, people, household items, websites (including Fur Affinity) and Second Life. â€œNot of artistic meritâ€ includes, but is not limited to: image macros, random junk you saw, photos and/or screenshots taken because you were bored.



This particular section was taken from the Wiki, which is still in the process of being adjusted, and this particular rule is not one that is part of the official rules of the site currently (nor will it probably ever be).  

The links to the ToS and Submision Agreement in this thread have the current and official rules regarding the site.  The Wiki will be updated in the near future to reflect these changes.


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 12, 2007)

Tensik said: 

"SL is still a load of crap because being able to post avs from one online game that you don't make (but just pretend you do) is no different than posting avs you put together using pre-constructed parts in any other online game.  *growls*  Any MMO or no MMOs.  Pick one."

I'm sorry, but... have you ever tried creating an AV in SL? It's not just "hmmm... I want that hairset, that fur pattern, that muzzlelength..." with sliders.

You actually have to create a plywood textured sphere, create another one, stretch it, put it into position against the other and connect, etc etc etc untill, after a few hours of work, have the shape of an animal head... THEN, you have to spend hours in photoshop to make, try, and re-edit textures to make it all match and fit.

EVEN when you buy a premade AV and want to personalize it, like I have done, you can spend hours upon hours to alter and change it to make it a unique AV and not looking like the rest of the people that bought that exact same AV.

Don't wanna insult, but before opening your muzzle, try to at least know what you are talking about before dissing other people's work... I have at least 30 hours of work done on my bought and personalized Luskwood AV.

I agree tho on the point that SL snapshots of a standard, unedited AV or anything else from SL isn't really something fit for FA.


----------



## Darkfoxx (Mar 12, 2007)

~I said "Or anything else from SL" but of course I meant "or anything else that you didn't put any effort into creating or editing from SL"

~DF


----------



## Tensik (Mar 12, 2007)

darkfoxx said:
			
		

> Tensik said:
> 
> "SL is still a load of crap because being able to post avs from one online game that you don't make (but just pretend you do) is no different than posting avs you put together using pre-constructed parts in any other online game.Â Â *growls*Â Â Any MMO or no MMOs.Â Â Pick one."
> 
> ...



I have, actually.  but it still stands that you are creating a special look in a game environment for a game environment and for no other use at all.  It is not an art program and is not applicable to anything else other than to say "here's what I made in SL".  It's not unlike the editor for Morrowind, and people who have created content in that game have had their creations taken down under the "it's a game screenshot" argument.  

Im not saying making stuff in SL isn't difficult and doesn't take time.  but it is still just a game editor and nothing more; you can't do a thing with it other than make game screen shots.  People post their creations not as much to show off, but to say "this is what I look like" which is the EXACT reason people post the same of WoW, SWG, EQ2, etc.  The number of people who are actually creating thing from the ground up and posting them is infintesimal compared to the people who are just networking, and people who do the same things in other games are not afforded the same posting courtesy.

I've spent my time in the sandboxes and do know exactly what I'm talking about, so no offense, I'll open my muzzle all I want about it.  Call it dissing but it's just a game editor and does not warrant any special courtesy.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 12, 2007)

Tensik said:
			
		

> I have, actually.  but it still stands that you are creating a special look in a game environment for a game environment and for no other use at all.  *It is not an art program* and is not applicable to anything else other than to say "here's what I made in SL".  It's not unlike the editor for Morrowind, and people who have created content in that game have had their creations taken down under the "it's a game screenshot" argument.



Its a program that allows people to create 3-dimensional renders of whatever they choose to visualize. I thought you said nobody can define what is and isn't art.

Morrowind, WoW, and other online games allow you to pick and choose from a variety of pre-made bits and pieces until you have a specific combination of little parts that you like. In Second Life the users create their own bits and pieces. From individual body parts, to textures, to animations and expressions. Yes, some do it better than others, but again, you said we shouldn't be here to judge what is and isn't art.

Art is about creative expression. Selecting your wardrobe from a closet (creating a character in other games) is significantly different from making your own wardrobe from scratch (Second Life). Finding a neat rock or seeing your cat yawning and taking a snapshot is significantly different from carefully considering your subject, angle of view, lighting, image composition, framing of the subject, etc.

Second Life gets the special consideration it does because of the vast difference in the amount of creative ability being displayed between showing a particular combination of pre-sets and actually building your model and creating textures from scratch.

Either way, as Damaratus said, those bits of the wiki are going to be removed/rewritten. So for now, there's no need to be dismissing the creative abilities of people who create in Second Life. Especially when your original post was chastising the site for dismissing the creative abilities of people who take snapshots of yawning cats and ice cream on toast, among other "everyday life" subjects.


----------



## Tensik (Mar 12, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Tensik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



To quote the "what is Second Life" description from it's main page:



> Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents. Since opening to the public in 2003, it has grown explosively and today is inhabited by a total of 4,576,509 people from around the globe.
> 
> From the moment you enter the World you'll discover a vast digital continent, teeming with people, entertainment, experiences and opportunity. Once you've explored a bit, perhaps you'll find a perfect parcel of land to build your house or business.
> 
> ...



I see nothing about art program, rendering program, or anything to that effect.Â Â It's a game with a HIGHLY customizable building system.Â Â but it doesn't make it DAZ, Poser, Blender, Bryce, or any of the actual rendering programs like you make it sound like.Â Â It's a game first and foremost, and pictures from it are game screenshots of the customised game interface.Â Â That's not putting people down for using it or saying they're not creative, it's just WHAT IT IS.Â Â And you know as well as anyone else here that the ability to post game screenshots from that game is being used first and foremost as a "this is what I look like in game" ability, not as a "this is my art" ability.

My stance isn't that SL doesn't belong, it's the same as any other interaction here; if you're going to allow something for one person, you have to allow it for all of them.Â Â You can't say "this photographer can post their stuff but this one can't", and you can't say "this game player can post their character but this one can't", especially since you most definitely can't use the "user created content" disclaimer for the vast majority of SL images on this site.Â Â But you CAN say "you can post MMO screenshots" or "you can't" because that's going to cover everyone.Â Â Know what I mean?

Regardless, I only brought it up because my original quote is currently on the Wiki and presented as an actual FA rule, and as the header says you changed the submission rules and guidelines and nothing about the Wiki being innaccurate, that is why I questioned it; it is still presented as factual unless someone asks or looks much deeper than anyone normally would.

Edit: I also just want to note that while I commented on SL, I only did so in the context of thinking that the original quote was a reinstated rule.  Damaratus has clarified that the rule was not reinstated (I still think that definitely needs to be pulled from the wiki in the meantime until changes are finished) and did not come to this thread to discuss SL, just to discuss the advertised changes to the TOS and Submission guidelines as I thought the rule was.  Since the original issue is resolved, I'd think the SL bit is pretty moot until you post the new rules on it.  At which point I'll probably continue to yell loudly and very likely into a microphone.  XD


----------



## nobuyuki (Mar 12, 2007)

it is a building program....  Working with primitives is one way -real- 3d composition programs work.  Other ways include working with vertices or NURBS.  IMHO, working with Poser doesn't count as "real" 3d composition work unless you did some sort of the mesh yourself.  You essentially do this in SL, but it doesn't use vertices (it uses some crap called parametric solids).

I'm not defending SL screenshots or anything, but I want to put down the idea that SL can't be used as a 3d art program.  It's a closed environment for content protection, that's the main reason why stuff isn't exported from the game into a usable mesh format.

Seriously, though, hahaha.  Comparing SL to poser?  "Poser is for posers" as the saying goes in the 3d art realm.  It has its uses, but since the last time I checked, mesh modeling isn't one of them :B


----------



## Tensik (Mar 12, 2007)

nobuyuki said:
			
		

> it is a building program....Â Â Working with primitives is one way -real- 3d composition programs work.Â Â Other ways include working with vertices or NURBS.Â Â IMHO, working with Poser doesn't count as "real" 3d composition work unless you did some sort of the mesh yourself.Â Â You essentially do this in SL, but it doesn't use vertices (it uses some crap called parametric solids).
> 
> I'm not defending SL screenshots or anything, but I want to put down the idea that SL can't be used as a 3d art program.Â Â It's a closed environment for content protection, that's the main reason why stuff isn't exported from the game into a usable mesh format.
> 
> Seriously, though, hahaha.Â Â Comparing SL to poser?Â Â "Poser is for posers" as the saying goes in the 3d art realm.Â Â It has its uses, but since the last time I checked, mesh modeling isn't one of them :B



At least Poser is specifically designed for people to create pictures, and isn't a game that people can take pictures of.  *chuckles*  but yeah, I know what you mean, it's still paper dolls.  But like I said, it's the intent behind it, are most people showing poser pics as art *coughs over what is still an understandibly hot topic, especially in bulk* or to say 'this is what I look like somewhere, come find me?"

Either way, this thread is getting eaten on a tangent.  if anyone wants to keep up the debate, I'd be happy to move elsewhere for it, but this isn't the thread for it.


----------



## SokiTwopaw (Mar 13, 2007)

Sorry about that, the reason why I blurted that out there was I read the TOS and STOS and thought that may be a nice thing to toss in there after reading it. 
Not filters or anything, we have enough of those. 
And I figured it wasn't worth making a new thread in the suggestions forum for a little blurt like that. For an example of what I mean by compiling SL shots, take a look at my gallery at "The Snow Project" before we have a flame war here. >.<
This thread is NOT about SecondLife, SL was an example.


----------



## Kathmandu (Mar 13, 2007)

Heh, sorry to bust your bubble but SL "IS" Poser, Poser2 to be exact. The morph targets (sliders) are almost exactly the same. SL is basically Poser with a chat function. If Poser art is allowed, how can you honestly say SL pictures are not?

As far as SL being a game, tell me exactly how to win. Really, what is the goal? What bosses do you have to defeat or how many gold pieces do you have to collect to win? I make and sell avatars in SL and I can tell you right off that because of the limitations of the medium, just making a skin can take days. There is a lot of work involved in just getting an eyeblink animation to work let alone making hair that looks right or the 1000 other little details. 

It is utter poppycock to believe SL can't be used creatively to produce artistic images. http://fchan.hentaiplanet.net/src/c_1172416162750_UW_Furry_Group2.jpg

That is an example of what can be done in SL and I made every piece of the white mouse avatar except the necklace I'm wearing. Why something like this wouldn't be considered artistic whereas doodles on lined notebook paper are, completely blows my mind. The "godrays" or light beams in the water are an effect I created and just that took several hours just to have that subtle effect.  If you disqualify furry art in general regardless of medium that is simply an image of someone's character just standing there for others to see what they look like, you would remove 90% of all furry themed art. Period.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 13, 2007)

Last I recall, not all games were about WINNING either. Otherwise people wouldn't play the Sims.


----------



## WhiteKnightWolf (Mar 14, 2007)

Rofl, I'd like to see you actually inforce that age law.  I mean, it shouldn't be too hard, I mean, people don't lie about their age on the interwebz!!  Never!!  After all furries COULDN"T be kids under the age of 12! No way!  They are all, respectable, intelligent adults!

Oh well, we all know it's just to prevent a lawsuit.  I would like to know where the content restrictions are however, leaving that part out...  Scares me.


----------



## imnohbody (Mar 14, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Last I recall, not all games were about WINNING either. Otherwise people wouldn't play the Sims.



I'd bet a not-small portion of those who play The Sims do so because they can be sadistic f*ckers there and put the characters into all sorts of ultimately fatal circumstances.


----------



## Hanazawa (Mar 14, 2007)

I just checked the submission agreement, and


> If you are seventeen (17) years of age or younger you must have explicit permission from a parent or legal guardian before uploading to the server, and you agree that they have read and consented to both the Terms of Service and the Submission Agreement.


is still there... but Pinkuh doesn't cite parent permission in this thread.

Preyfar said this is to be enforced, so I guess the question is: was this line only added in case a parent complains about their child using the site (saying "well, the kid said his parents knew!" as a CYA) or will there actually be inquests made to verify under-17 users? I question the legally binding...ness... of that particular CYA since it's made with full awareness of the users not being old enough to sign contracts.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 14, 2007)

imnohbody said:
			
		

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



Yeah, watching them die can be entertaining. Not all games have specific goals as they're just ways to waste time.

I understand the customization thing on SL, but I can't exactly qualify tons of screenshots of it as art. However, there is an ART to making a good avatar. If Ferrox gets a nice filter thing going, it would be good to block out the massive amounts of SL content. I notice SL content tends to be appreciated by other SL users, and not seen as anything special as art, whereas a non artist has been able to appreciate an illustration, piece of literature, sculpture, music, and good photography etc...


----------



## DarkMeW (Mar 14, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> I just checked the submission agreement, and
> 
> 
> > If you are seventeen (17) years of age or younger you must have explicit permission from a parent or legal guardian before uploading to the server, and you agree that they have read and consented to both the Terms of Service and the Submission Agreement.
> ...



I'm rather curious on how they are going to start enforcing that particular requirement. If that means that anyone under 17 is now going to have their galleries deleted, if they don't get a note from their mommy? What sort of deadlines are going to be in place for submitting the permission? What type of documented permission they will need? The list goes on and on. 

I'm sure these questions are going to keep coming up until they decide on some course of action. I dought they would be so blatant as declaring (like another in this thread posted) that it's never going to come up because every one under age on the internet lies. (Which is just stupid.) 

I haven't posted any concern about the new TOS and SAP since they (for the most part) don't directly effect me, because I don't have my art on the main site. I would however, still like to see it addressed before to long.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 14, 2007)

Actually I don't know if anyone noticed this thread: http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7201

But I want to bring it up for one thing, I don't think it's a good idea to have minors posting photos of themselves (possibly, because I can't say for sure in this case) illegal activity. If you're worried about Parental permission as a CYA I also think the minors myspace "hey lookie me I be durunkies!" is probably not appropriate for this site.

I think closing that thread was jumping the gun a bit since I think that's a valid question that wasn't brought up before.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 14, 2007)

Hanazawa said:
			
		

> but Pinkuh doesn't cite parent permission in this thread.
> 
> Preyfar said this is to be enforced, so I guess the question is: was this line only added in case a parent complains about their child using the site (saying "well, the kid said his parents knew!" as a CYA) or will there actually be inquests made to verify under-17 users? I question the legally binding...ness... of that particular CYA since it's made with full awareness of the users not being old enough to sign contracts.



There's no reasonable way to actually verify parental consent and enforce it. And as for the fact that minors can't enter contracts, they address that: 

*"Fur Affinity will not be held liable for underaged Users' intentional misrepresentation or falsification of age, birth date and personal data.*

We encourage parents and guardians to be familiar with the web sites that their children visit and to monitor their childrenâ€™s usage regularly."

It isn't the internet's job to protect children from smut. That's the parents' job. The internet just has to boot them out when they know they are there.



			
				DarkMeW said:
			
		

> I'm rather curious on how they are going to start enforcing that particular requirement. If that means that anyone under 17 is now going to have their galleries deleted, if they don't get a note from their mommy? What sort of deadlines are going to be in place for submitting the permission? What type of documented permission they will need? The list goes on and on.



No mention was made of deleting accounts that dont have a parent's note, or requiring documented proof of permission. Basically, unless everyone wants FA to become a Pay Site, there is very little they can do about People Who Lie. Obviously, they can't go and ask for and verify a parent's note from every single user. What they CAN do is make it clear that they do not condone use of this site by minors without parental permission, and they can remove people who violate that rule when they are brought to their attention.


----------



## DarkMeW (Mar 15, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> DarkMeW said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That just puts in an extra step in my question without addressing the question itself.Â Â If someone reports or makes a list of 17 or younger users on FA (I remind you a lot of people have their age in their profiles) what will those users need to do? The TOS states *"must have explicit permission from a parent or legal guardian"* so is the explicit permission entirely on the user's word that it's ok, or do they need some sort of documentation of permission? I'm trying to determine if this is just a 'if you submit this image you a stating you are over 18 or have explicit parental (ect) permission.' (if it is then I personally think that should be put clearly on the submit form, so FA can refer to it being the first thing you see when submitting if anything ever comes up.) 

Also I never said anything about deleting their accounts, just their gallery.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 15, 2007)

Tensik said:
			
		

> At least Poser is specifically designed for people to create pictures...


I have to be honest when I say I have no respect for people who use Poser, and I say that not as an admin, but somebody with a degree in digital animation and as somebody who has worked in the industry as a 3D animator.

Poser is to 3D as to what legos are to architectual design.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 15, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Tensik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think it's in how it is used, more than anything, I've seen some rather unique things come from it.  I use poser as a reference, not to model however, it helps when you have a virtual dummy/mannikin when you need reference.

http://www.dccdesigner.com/Htm/Tutorials/TheQueen01.htm

I think how he put that picture together was actually rather impressive at the time (I remember seeing this back in the late 90's iirc).


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 15, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I think it's in how it is used, more than anything, I've seen some rather unique things come from it.Â Â I use poser as a reference, not to model however, it helps when you have a virtual dummy/mannikin when you need reference.
> 
> http://www.dccdesigner.com/Htm/Tutorials/TheQueen01.htm
> 
> I think how he put that picture together was actually rather impressive at the time (I remember seeing this back in the late 90's iirc).


Oh, I used to use Poser when animating at AdMed Inc doing illustrations and diagrams for doctors. I used it for a real purpose, and hated every minute of it!


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 15, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

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



Oh that's fine, there are programs people will hate with a passion, I just got the vibe that it sucked because people use it wrong. It felt like the people who blame Photoshop when people put a lens flare on a penis! It's not Photoshop's fault that someone took the mediocre approach to art XD


----------



## Ahkahna (Mar 15, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> Actually I don't know if anyone noticed this thread: http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7201
> 
> But I want to bring it up for one thing, I don't think it's a good idea to have minors posting photos of themselves (possibly, because I can't say for sure in this case) illegal activity. If you're worried about Parental permission as a CYA I also think the minors myspace "hey lookie me I be durunkies!" is probably not appropriate for this site.
> 
> I think closing that thread was jumping the gun a bit since I think that's a valid question that wasn't brought up before.



I'll have to agree 100% on this.


----------



## tacticalsnake (Mar 15, 2007)

WhiteKnightWolf said:
			
		

> I would like to know where the content restrictions are however, leaving that part out...  Scares me.


 I agree: It'd be nice to know what the bounds are again. It's a bit worrisome otherwise....


----------



## Damaratus (Mar 15, 2007)

There is currently an acceptable content policy being written up.  It will hopefully cover your concerns, including setting the boundaries for photography (though some should still be obvious).


----------



## Gronthar (Mar 15, 2007)

I like the changes to the TOS, but I think some of the major changes should be mentioned on the front page. Many online services have you re-agree to the TOS every single time it is re-written. I don't think it needs to go that far, but I think at least some of the major bullet points should be mentioned in the news box.

As far as what is considered Art and what isn't... I think it would be wise to look at how other sites handle AUP. I know Flickr doesn't like second life screen shots either, but they respect that a lot of people are interested in it. Their solution was to allow people to post questionable content to their accounts, but flag it as "private." This action prevented the screen shots from showing up in searches and the front page but still made it accessible from their account pages. It's a bit of a compromise that requires extra coding and disk space, but it allows people to express themselves without moving away from the site's focus on photography.

My understanding is that the consensus is that having the "most faved" or "hot" submissions appear on the front page would equate to a popularity contest. However, it might go a long way to show through example what sort of work you want submitted.

I really love the social aspect of this site, but I understand the revulsion to just uploading "shots" of Real Life or Virtual Life. The simplest way with the site's current functionality would be to say in a future version of the AUP that _anything of a scrap-book nature including casual shots of yourself, friends, family and possessions from real life, video games or online worlds should be submitted as a scrap_. 

In the future it would be wise to add the ability to watch a person's submissions, journals, and/or scraps. People have a tendency to post scraps as regular submissions because people can't watch scraps. I think some people don't want to watch journals, either.

Poser, Second-life, and machinima compared to real professional 3-D rendering tools to may be the equivalent of Crayola crayons compared to fine canvas oil-panting, but I don't believe it's wise to judge merit based on medium. But  I think the nature of most of the SL screen shots I've seen here (and frankly, some of mine) are of the "shot" variety and just saying "shots belong in scraps" would go a long way to ease some frustrations of people repeatedly seeing them in the site's main content.

Ideally, the site should get its filters running again so it can automatically filter out content.

Another interesting feature I've seen on other sites (Blogger, Flickr, even Deviant Art) is the ability to flag Policy Violations.  Leaving judgment solely  up to the discretion of admins is just asking for drama. However, if an admin can say "Well, 30 people flagged this as a AUP violation and left comments that this screen shot should be in your scraps," then you have a stronger case. Of course, you may get a lot of busy bodies flagging everything, but I think it goes a long way to show that as a site _we are monitoring ourselves and Enforcing the TOS and AUP_. There would be a need for a max daily amount of flags a single person could do, but It would ultimately be up to the admins weather or not to take action.  This set-up would discourage users from ganging up on others since a set number of votes doesn't automatically equate to a  removal. 

Although, it would be helpful to users if they received notification if a submission is being repeatedly flagged, especially with old submissions that may or may not fit the current policies of the site. That way things may get resolved even without admin intervention.


----------



## ferretsage (Mar 16, 2007)

Questions:

1. Does the 7-day grace period start when the TOS changes or when the user returns to FA to find the TOS has changed?

2. What if a user who has reached the age of 18 lies about their correct birth date anyway in order to make sure their drawings online are not traced back to them in real life? Assume, at the time of the contract breach, nothing more than the user simply believed it would better protect his private information by entering a false date close to the correct date -- and that the user was of legal adult age at all times while accessing FurAffinity. Should they change their age to the correct date? If they "turn themselves in" and agree to change their submitted birth date to the correct information, will they be granted a pardon for breaking the rules retroactively -- or insta-banned anyway?

3. Can fanart still be made of Fender, the site's mascot, even though, "The Fur Affinity name, site mascot (Fender), website coding and graphics are sole property of Fur Affinity, unless otherwise stated. You may not reproduce, distribute and/or display Fur Affinity graphics or works without express permission."?

4. Say that an artist has drawn a picture for more than one individual and presents it to them as a gift. May a user upload the piece to Furaffinity if he has express permission from all parties involved -- including the artist? The wording of the current TOS and Submissions Agreement suggests that artwork created by an artist for multiple individuals may only be uploaded by the original artist and may NOT be uploaded by the recipients of the work even if they obtain permission from each other and the artist. Confirm?



Contradictions/Loopholes:

1. In the TOS, it states, "Fur Affinity Administration and Staff reserve the rights of the following:... To remove any and/or all submissions found not in accordance with the Terms of Service and Submission Policy. Fur Affinity will attempt to notify Users of any and all action taken upon submissions removed in this manner." In a later paragraph, it says that "When posting submission(s) created for you, you must cite your sources at all times and attribute credit where it is due. Failure to do so may result in the submission(s) being removed with or without notice." What doesn't make sense is that the TOS first makes a promise to attempt to notify users about action taken against a submission if it violates the TOS, but then says such may be removed "without notice".

2. The TOS states, "Fur Affinity will not modify or censor original uploads." However, the Submissions Agreement states that, "Upon submitting to Fur Affinity you grant the website non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media within the boundaries of the site's Domains (http://www.furaffinity.net/, http://www.furaffinityforums.net/ and http://www.wikiffinity.net/)". The word "alter" in the last sentence is troubling because it implies modification to an original upload. I understand that by "alter" FurAffinity means this to cut down on a excessively large submission to reduce its file size -- but it could be exploited by a "professional plaintiff" to claim that Furaffinity had no right to resize or reduce the file-size of his/her work as FA promised not to do so under its Terms of Service Agreement.


----------



## Summercat (Mar 16, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Tensik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*sniff sniff* Lego hater!

Meanwhile... I must say this:

I don't care what the HELL the program is 'supposed' to be used for, or how the designers 'meant' for it to be used, you can still create art with anything.

Having that screenshot, with all the mobs in the Scarlet Cathedral on my friends level 70 warrior and STILL downing Morgraine, in World of Warcraft, that's a bit of art.


----------



## dave hyena (Mar 16, 2007)

ferretsage said:
			
		

> 3. Can fanart still be made of Fender, the site's mascot, even though, "The Fur Affinity name, site mascot (Fender), website coding and graphics are sole property of Fur Affinity, unless otherwise stated. You may not reproduce, distribute and/or display Fur Affinity graphics or works without express permission."?



I'm as sure as sure can be that one can still do so.

I expect that bit is in there for legal reasons and stuff.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 16, 2007)

Okies, big post gets big response.



			
				Gronthar said:
			
		

> ...some of the major bullet points should be mentioned in the news box.



After a point, it becomes hand-holding. They post that there have been changes, and that they apply to everyone and all submissions. If people don't care to go read the changes, they really don't have room for complaint if they find out the hard way that those changes affect them. 



			
				Gronthar said:
			
		

> As far as what is considered Art and what isn't...



I think the issue with screenshots specifically is more of using copyrighted content rather than simply space or preference. As for what is art and what isn't, its tough to want to have SOME measure of standards for a site without people confusing it with censorship. The problem isn't so much about photo pieces that may be very amateur photographic art. The problem is when someone takes a picture of their ass/yawning cat/ice cream on toast or something. Any of these things will be considered art by SOMEBODY, but then someone somewhere considered a sculpture of the Virgin Mary made entirely of human waste a work of Art (true story).

So the question is how to keep the site from being bothered with inane photos that are just for "hey look at this" factor and not a genuine attempt at art, without punishing the people who are TRYING for art, but might not be terribly good at it yet.

Basically, they don't want this place used as a free imagehost/photo dump. There are places meant for that, but this place is meant for creative expression. So I think people who just want to share the more social aspects could easily get one of the freehosts out there, and link things to their journals.



			
				Gronthar said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the consensus is that having the "most faved" or "hot" submissions appear on the front page would equate to a popularity contest. However, it might go a long way to show through example what sort of work you want submitted.



The popularity contest factor usually gets ideas like this a LOT of heat and distaste. In all honesty, it really isn't a fair method either. There are people with amazing talent who havent become "names" yet, so they get overlooked. Usually anything based on faves/pageviews is seen as discriminatory against beginning artists, and too likely to just give more attention to the people who already have plenty.



			
				Gronthar said:
			
		

> In the future it would be wise to add the ability to watch a person's submissions, journals, and/or scraps. People have a tendency to post scraps as regular submissions because people can't watch scraps. I think some people don't want to watch journals, either.



A feature many have asked for, but not sure whether or not its on the list of Ferrox additions...



			
				Gronthar said:
			
		

> Ideally, the site should get its filters running again so it can automatically filter out content.



Definitely with you on that one :3



			
				Gronthar said:
			
		

> Another interesting feature I've seen on other sites (Blogger, Flickr, even Deviant Art) is the ability to flag Policy Violations.  Leaving judgment solely  up to the discretion of admins is just asking for drama. However, if an admin can say "Well, 30 people flagged this as a AUP violation and left comments that this screen shot should be in your scraps," then you have a stronger case. Of course, you may get a lot of busy bodies flagging everything, but I think it goes a long way to show that as a site _we are monitoring ourselves and Enforcing the TOS and AUP_. There would be a need for a max daily amount of flags a single person could do, but It would ultimately be up to the admins weather or not to take action.  This set-up would discourage users from ganging up on others since a set number of votes doesn't automatically equate to a  removal.



I completely agree with this, so long as the button given to the users does nothing but flag a submission (Y!G gave users the ability to report a submission, which would immediately hide it from view - which was dumb and got abused a lot). Administrative decisions should always be ultimately at the Administration's discretion, but having such a feature would likely help a great deal with keeping them in touch with what the users want (something that IS first and foremost on this administration's minds, regardless of who say otherwise). And yeah, there would have to be something in place to discourage people from abusing the feature. Whether limits for how many reports in a day, or some sort of consequence for people who report frivolously.


----------



## Wolfblade (Mar 16, 2007)

ferretsage said:
			
		

> Questions:
> 
> 1. Does the 7-day grace period start when the TOS changes or when the user returns to FA to find the TOS has changed?



7 days from the point the user decides to terminate the contract, so, 7 days from whenever they see the change and disagree with it. For enforcement purposes in situations of a user causing conflict over it, It would likely be 7 days from the user stating publically that they do not agree to to the changes made (and thus voluntarily stepping out of the contract).



			
				ferretsage said:
			
		

> 2. What if a user who has reached the age of 18 lies about their correct birth date anyway in order to make sure their drawings online are not traced back to them in real life? Assume, at the time of the contract breach, nothing more than the user simply believed it would better protect his private information by entering a false date close to the correct date -- and that the user was of legal adult age at all times while accessing FurAffinity. Should they change their age to the correct date? If they "turn themselves in" and agree to change their submitted birth date to the correct information, will they be granted a pardon for breaking the rules retroactively -- or insta-banned anyway?



I doubt this administration (which has been reluctant to hand out bans for even the most deliberate cases of abuse and rule-breaking) will ban or otherwise take action against retroactive rule-breaking.

As for the specific case you mention, I would say that the user wouldn't have to worry about action taken against him. The purpose of the birthdate rule is to keep minors out of the adult content. If he was of age anyway, then that purpose wasn't hindered by a false birthdate. So long as he gives his accurate birthdate now, he is in accordance with the current rules. The problem there arises if someone else comes forward and claims this user >wasn't< of age, because then he has hindered the administration's ability to take his word on his age. "Well, yeah, I was lying before, but I'm not now!" is a tough one to sell.

So, they're not going to punish someone for having submissions that are suddenly against the rules now. They'll just delete the submissions that are no longer allowed. I don't think age misrepresentation previously will warrant action so long as the user has a factual birthdate now, and there is no evidence that he was in fact underaged and viewing adult material.




			
				ferretsage said:
			
		

> 3. Can fanart still be made of Fender, the site's mascot, even though, "The Fur Affinity name, site mascot (Fender), website coding and graphics are sole property of Fur Affinity, unless otherwise stated. You may not reproduce, distribute and/or display Fur Affinity graphics or works without express permission."?



Dave's right, I don't think they mean to hinder fanart of Fender. The specific wording just says that a: Fender is property of FA, and b: you can't reproduce, distribute, and/or display Fur Affinity graphics and works. It doesn't say you can't make your own works of Fender.



			
				ferretsage said:
			
		

> 4. Say that an artist has drawn a picture for more than one individual and presents it to them as a gift. May a user upload the piece to Furaffinity if he has express permission from all parties involved -- including the artist? The wording of the current TOS and Submissions Agreement suggests that artwork created by an artist for multiple individuals may only be uploaded by the original artist and may NOT be uploaded by the recipients of the work even if they obtain permission from each other and the artist. Confirm?



"You agree that the Content posted by you was created by yourself (as the original artist) OR was created explicitly for you (and was posted with permission of the original artist). When posting submission(s) created for you, you must cite your sources at all times and attribute credit where it is due. Failure to do so may result in the submission(s) being removed with or without notice."

If it was made for you (regardless of if it was made for other people as well), you only need permission of the original artist. If someone else the picture was made for in addition to yourself has issue with the submission being posted, that is more of a personal matter between the involved parties, and not something the ToS currently addresses. So technically, each person could upload the submission and would only need the artist's permission. Though in such an instance, the staff would likely prefer that just one person upload and the rest link to it.



			
				ferretsage said:
			
		

> Contradictions/Loopholes:
> 
> 1. In the TOS, it states, "Fur Affinity Administration and Staff reserve the rights of the following:... To remove any and/or all submissions found not in accordance with the Terms of Service and Submission Policy. Fur Affinity will attempt to notify Users of any and all action taken upon submissions removed in this manner." In a later paragraph, it says that "When posting submission(s) created for you, you must cite your sources at all times and attribute credit where it is due. Failure to do so may result in the submission(s) being removed with or without notice." What doesn't make sense is that the TOS first makes a promise to attempt to notify users about action taken against a submission if it violates the TOS, but then says such may be removed "without notice".



The key phrases are "will _attempt_ to notify" and "_may_ result in removal without notice"

They don't promise users will always be notified. They say they will attempt to notify. For example, they send a note and don't get a timely response. They may take action even though the user might not be notified of it if they haven't seen the note yet. Not everyone checks the site daily or even weekly, so waiting for acknowledgement from a user before doing their administrative duties would usually be an unreasonable expectation.

And some submissions may need immediate removal (photographic nudity, illegal material, etc) or may be obviously against the rules to the point where they may feel a note is not needed (clearly intentional harassment of another user).

So, perhaps a bit of CYA. They will notify users whenever possible or reasonable, but if for some reason the user is not notified, the Administration is not in violation of their own terms.



			
				ferretsage said:
			
		

> 2. The TOS states, "Fur Affinity will not modify or censor original uploads." However, the Submissions Agreement states that, "Upon submitting to Fur Affinity you grant the website non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media within the boundaries of the site's Domains (http://www.furaffinity.net/, http://www.furaffinityforums.net/ and http://www.wikiffinity.net/)". The word "alter" in the last sentence is troubling because it implies modification to an original upload. I understand that by "alter" FurAffinity means this to cut down on a excessively large submission to reduce its file size -- but it could be exploited by a "professional plaintiff" to claim that Furaffinity had no right to resize or reduce the file-size of his/her work as FA promised not to do so under its Terms of Service Agreement.



Woops. Yes, that sentence was meant to refer just to censoring or altering the actual visual image in ways other than size, but yes, it'd probably be better to just delete that sentence. Good eye, dude. :3


----------



## Nurbz (Mar 16, 2007)

did the TOS change remove all the artists' adult submissions?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 16, 2007)

Nurbz said:
			
		

> did the TOS change remove all the artists' adult submissions?



Retype that please.


----------



## dave hyena (Mar 17, 2007)

Nurbz said:
			
		

> did the TOS change remove all the artists' adult submissions?



If you are referring to the part about people under 18 not being allowed to upload mature/adult art, I don't think anything has been removed yet and Preyfar/Dragoneer is currently looking into the issue and has it on his schedule per:

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=7107&pid=119579#pid119579


----------



## foxystallion (Mar 18, 2007)

thorndraco said:
			
		

> Preyfar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why not use the statutory age of consent of either New Jersey,  or better yet, the state or country in which the user resides.  Many states (including my Nevada) and western foreign countries have a statutory age of consent of 16, some even younger.  If it is legal for someone to engage in real intercourse with a real partner, why can't they see a drawing of a couple of anthro foxes spooging it up?


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 19, 2007)

Just to let you guys know I am watching the feedback and tweaks will be made where necessary. =)


----------



## foxystallion (Mar 20, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Just to let you guys know I am watching the feedback and tweaks will be made where necessary. =)



Thank you for FA and all the work that you are doing.

There is one additional feature that is badly needed to enable commissioned artists to receive credit for their work:   
When a piece of art is submitted, there should be a box that can be filled out  if the art is commissioned,  the artist has an account on FA, and displays the piece in their gallery.   The commissioner would simply enter or paste the view number of the piece in the artists gallery into the box.  A T in the Fave pipe would then add the Faves  to the piece in both the commissioner's gallery and in the artist's gallery.

I have attempted to ask Favers to do this with a link, but regretably only 20% do so:


			
				foxystallion said:
			
		

> This is a commission that Wovstah did for me. If you like it, please go to his gallery page via the link immediately below and fave it there; as the artist, he deserves the credit:
> http://www.furaffinity.net/view/406350/
> 
> Image copyright 2007 by Wovstah and displayed with his permission
> Character copyright 2007 by Foxystallion



You can see this in context at:  http://www.furaffinity.net/view/442132/

Thank you for your attention and consideration.


----------



## tacticalsnake (Mar 26, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> thorndraco said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From what I understand, the site must follow the laws of where the server resides, so.... Altering the rules per residence of the user isn't going to work. :/


----------



## foxystallion (Mar 28, 2007)

tacticalsnake said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If FA  has to comply with the state law where the FA server is domiciled (New York).  then the age for adult material without parental permission should be 17  because that is the age of consent in New York.
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
Under New York state law, a 17 year old may legally engage in sexual intercourse without parental permission, hence the age for posting or viewing adult rated art without parental permission should be changed from 18 to 17.  Those who are 16 and younger should require parental permission.  Please note that this change from 18 to 17 would completely eliminate  age falsification by 17 year olds.


----------



## foxystallion (Mar 28, 2007)

tacticalsnake said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whoops!  The fourm server is in New York, but the FA server is in Arizona which does have 18 as age of consent.  Is there any reason for the FA server to be in Arizona?  If not, most states have an age of consent of 16, and that would eliminate two years of age falsification.  Of course, if the server is being physically maintained by a volunteer in Tempe Arizona, that is a very good reason for it being there.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Mar 28, 2007)

Hey, please don't confuse age of consent laws which are about HAVING sex versus laws about viewing explicit materials. Thank you.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 28, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> The fourm server is in New York, but the FA server is in Arizona which does have 18 as age of consent.Â


I'm not sure WHERE you heard that, but you're dead wrong. All of FA's resources are located in Weehawklem, New Jersey. New York? Arizona? I'm not sure where you're hearing this, but it is entirely incorrect.

Trust me. I have a keycard and bio-ID scanner tag to the Level 3 facility in which all of FA is hosted.


----------



## Crassus (Mar 29, 2007)

Hey guys, just started reading this thread and I've noticed where this discussion is headed, so figured I'd put my two cents into it.

First of all, people should realize that State and Federal jurisdictions do not have "age of consent" laws.. afaik, no where in the books do they actually list them as such, nor do the various laws directly reflect photographic, visual depictions, or written works. The "age of consent" laws are in actuality usually in the form of a complex network of statutes which as a lump sum, usually indicate a general or specific age (or range of ages) when a minor (if at all) can engage in sexual conduct with something other than their paw. But, these laws are usually if not completely exclusive and separate from laws pertaining to "exposure to pornographic materials".

The question that needs to be asked is this: Are the laws which are currently in place sufficient enough to handle the new technologies which we're presented with? Personally, I say no, they aren't.

The fact that the gallery server resides in one state, the forum server resides in another state, and the user could very well reside in neither state would show that this would be determined by federal, interstate law if nothing else. Federal laws state that anyone under 18 years old is forbidden to be exposed to anything pornographic. Period. This means that anyone who admits they are under the age of 18 on the site and is viewing pornographic artwork is breaking the law and their parents can be held liable for a felony--most likely under a "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" law of some sort.

Now, I'm sure most of us could agree that someone who's younger than 18 who views porn on the net isn't being damaged.  We also have to face the fact that there are TONS of minors on this site. There's simply no way for FA to enforce policy and ensure that minors aren't lying about their ages. Personally, I don't give a damn. As far as I know, neither I nor anyone else on here are mandated to report minors who lurk around on this site. Honestly, nor would I want the responsibility to. Yet, popular opinion on the net is quickly moving toward a much more conservative stance regarding these issues because of heightened hysteria and fear over "what children see on the net damaging their development"... heh, yeah.. damaging for the establishment, perhaps.. but do we really like what the establishment presents us with a reality to begin with?  I know I sure as hell don't. The Net is changing culture and is opening up the world to younger people, and social networking sites like FA are really turning the world's perceptions of what's right and wrong upside down.... if you're in the know and aren't one of the hystericals.

We also have to admit that there are a LOT of minors who actually draw furry porn. This is the conundrum that the technology and freedom of the net faces us. Supposedly, these tortured and damaged souls are being persuaded by the evil furry perverts to draw horrible, perverted and sometimes violent depictions of cartoon animals being tentacle raped with a smile on their face. Is this also against the law? It's interesting to think that if I were underaged, and I drew furry porn, and since exposing a child to porn is illegal, then that means that all those nasty pics I used to draw as a child were also against the law and I should've been put in jail. Of course, back when *I* was a kid, there was no such thing as "the net" and I couldn't publish my scribblings for the world to see. This generation can. Is it wrong? Immoral? Illegal? Criminal? Who's to hold for liability?

Honestly, the more that I see city, state, or even federal laws created to limit and restrict content and movement on the net, the more I laugh, because these people just don't get it; this is NOT a city-wide, state-wide, or even federal-wide web of computers. This is a world-wide-web. The name says it all. Nothing short of making world-wide rules will ensure total control over thought on the net. The only thing they can do is make us FEEL that we must make these stupid laws, which will in turn allow them to have more control over what we do and say. Just like with ancient copyright law pervading over Anime Music Videos and on the fly mixes of oldies with R&B at the click of a mouse button, the laws which supposedly "protect minors" on the web are in fact harming them. They attempt to make us believe things against what our rational minds experience (and have experienced on the net for the last two decades.) The reality is that the government is slowly losing control over people's thought, and that scares them. Bigtime.

Just a few things I personally think people should consider as being an alternatively-thinking subculture that we are. Look before you leap.


----------



## Swampwulf (Mar 29, 2007)

Crassus said:
			
		

> 'down with the "MAN" rant'



aaaand that has what to do with the TOS or submission agreement?

( and it helps if you've bothered to read what folks have said in the thread before you start yapping just to hear your own voice. Preyfar stated quite clearly that everything is in NJ. Everything you said after that point is automatically tainted with *LOOSE*! )


----------



## yak (Mar 29, 2007)

> The fact that the gallery server resides in one state, the forum server resides in another state, and the user could very well reside in neither state would show that this would be determined by federal, interstate law if nothing else.


Try country. 
FA does not cater specifically for US residents.


----------



## Crassus (Mar 30, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> aaaand that has what to do with the TOS or submission agreement?


What does it have to do with the TOS? Has to do with everything that lead up to the decisions to put these issues in their TOS to begin with, and it addresses the tons of questions people have been posting regarding their policies. People don't seem to have a good grasp on the law, so I figured it would be wise to stop and backtrack to look at the issues at hand which lead to the laws currently in place. People seem to think that AOC has something to do with porn laws while the two are seperate issues. So I addressed that.

Additionally, in the previous posts before mine, people think that just because a minor comes on the site and posts his picture, suddenly the vultures are going to come swooping down on him/her. This type of hysteria has a lot to do with changes in attitudes which I'm witnessing from a BUNCH of furs. 10 years ago, we would've been like "so what?", but now, it seems the hysteria has caught up with us. So I addressed that.



			
				Swampwulf said:
			
		

> ( and it helps if you've bothered to read what folks have said in the thread before you start yapping just to hear your own voice. Preyfar stated quite clearly that everything is in NJ. Everything you said after that point is automatically tainted with *LOOSE*! )



Actually, I read every single post before mine. Otherwise, I would not have posted in the first place. And regarding NJ, the laws do not merely apply to NJ alone simply because the servers reside there. He has to deal with federal law as well because it's interstate transmissions. He has to deal with his ISP. He has to deal with the phone companies' TOS. And even though he is not responsible for the liability of those in other states, he DOES have to keep their best interests in mind, otherwise if something WERE to go down, a prosecutor could easily establish ill intent and negligence. It's a tricky game, hosting something on the net these days. People don't seem to appreciate or understand all the implications. So, I talked about it.

The very reason for a TOS is because of "the MAN" as you put it. Better believe I'm going to rant. This IS a discussion board, yes?


----------



## foxystallion (Mar 30, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for your  information.  I believe you, but I'm quite puzzled: Shazou says that the FAForum server is in NY, NY, and that the FA server is in Tempe Az.  If you are running Firefox, please give it a try and let me know what you get.  Obviously Shazou is wrong,  Do you have any idea as to why this is the case?  I had beed trusting it to provide correct server locations, and this confidence was misplaced.  

PS:  I am very grateful for the tremendous amount of work that you and the other FA team members are doing.  Is there any way that I could help on a part time basis?  (Other than via donations, which you can count on continuing to receive.)

What additional resources would be needed to get Search running?  Is this a coding problem or hardware limitations, or both?  If an additional server is needed, how much would it cost?  An awful lot of wonderful art dissappears into the black hole of oblivion within a week or so, and without Search, there is no practical way of finding it.  For example, I'm an aerospace physicist ( http://www.furaffinity.net/view/463497/ ), and I really enjoy furrys in space SF art.  There may be hundreds of pieces, but I haven't found them by browsing,  Thank you.


----------



## foxystallion (Mar 30, 2007)

Crassus said:
			
		

> Hey guys, just started reading this thread and I've noticed where this discussion is headed, so figured I'd put my two cents into it.
> 
> First of all, people should realize that State and Federal jurisdictions do not have "age of consent" laws.. afaik, no where in the books do they actually list them as such, nor do the various laws directly reflect photographic, visual depictions, or written works. The "age of consent" laws are in actuality usually in the form of a complex network of statutes which as a lump sum, usually indicate a general or specific age (or range of ages) when a minor (if at all) can engage in sexual conduct with something other than their paw. But, these laws are usually if not completely exclusive and separate from laws pertaining to "exposure to pornographic materials".
> 
> ...



The US Supreme Court has invalidated almost all of the Federalies' Internet Indecency Act.  About the only part that is left standing is the prohibition on actual photographs of real children engaging in sexual activities.  The Court expressly stated that depictions of computer generated children  were protectected under the First Amendment (whether entirely computer rendered or modified images of adults) even though this would make enforcement of the prohibition on real kiddyporn very difficult.  The Court said that the purpose of the First Amendment was not to make enforcement conveniant for the Justice Department. 

I understand what you are saying about the web being worldwide.  I wish the FA and FAForum servers were in the Netherlands, which would make most of these issues moot, but I suspect that they are in New Jersey (regardless of what Shazou says) because that is where the key volunteer lives.


----------



## Crassus (Mar 30, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> The US Supreme Court has invalidated almost all of the Federalies' Internet Indecency Act.  About the only part that is left standing is the prohibition on actual photographs of real children engaging in sexual activities.  The Court expressly stated that depictions of computer generated children  were protected under the First Amendment (whether entirely computer rendered or modified images of adults) even though this would make enforcement of the prohibition on real kiddyporn very difficult.  The Court said that the purpose of the First Amendment was not to make enforcement convenient for the Justice Department.



I should point out that I never once did bring up the subject of child porn, so I'm not sure why you did... but since we're on the subject, perhaps I should bring up a couple points that are /also/ matters of confusion with a lot of people.

There is no such thing as a Federal "Internet Indecency Act".

What I believe you're talking about is the 2002 Supreme Court Decision regarding "Ashcroft vs. The Free Speech Coalition".(1) regarding the CPPA (Child Pornography Prevention Act) of 1996. The reason why the coalition won was due to the broad wording of the law including "or appears to be". You are indeed correct that this single attempt was overthrown.

However, in 2003, George Bush signed into law the "PROTECT Act". This act was a multi-tentacled piece of law which tacked on the following verbiage to previous child porn law:



> (b)  Additional Offenses.â€” Any person who, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), knowingly possesses a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting, thatâ€”
> (1)
> (A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and
> (B) is obscene; or
> ...



Note the bold red text.... They virtually washed away the previous strike-down by the Supreme Court; and the way the Supreme Court is these days, if this were ever to make it back into speculation, you could  most likely be bet your bottom dollar that the previous overturning would be turned right back over.

Now, as it stands, there has been no widespread condemnation of the act like the first one because of the circumstances in subsection (d) which limits the circumstances on face value to certain transmission methods which no longer includes things like mainstream movies, etc. Plus, this act is also not well-known by the average layman. Everyone still thinks that it's 2002 and everything's hunky dory.

Does this include furry art? That has yet to be defined. If some federal cop was really bored, I'm sure he/she could try exploring the space, so to speak. So far, afaik, this law is only enacted when it's some poor schmoe who's already on parole, and even in those cases, it's primarily been used to substantiate heavier crimes which ARE definitely illegal. So, in other words, just like with the guy in Virginia, the fact that he downloaded lolicon at a state employment office granted them the right to search his home whereby they found load of actual sexual photographs of children. However, had this act not been put into place, they wouldn't have.

The other item to consider is that I'm /pretty/ sure they weren't even thinking about cute lil furry characters butt-fucking each other when they wrote this law. (They probably didn't even consider shotacon and lolicon.) Still, something to consider is that it's still undefined in case law. However, that's not a signal to suddenly start ripping away any furry porn that looks like underaged "minors", because any DA who wants to keep his job wouldn't bother wasting time with it since there's actual child porn out there to go after.

But, it's important to know what the current up-to-date laws are.

It's still unenforcable, imo. Goes back to my original premise: The net is not a federal network. It's a global network. Please don't lose track of what I was talking about. 



			
				foxystallion said:
			
		

> I understand what you are saying about the web being worldwide.  I wish the FA and FAForum servers were in the Netherlands, which would make most of these issues moot, but I suspect that they are in New Jersey (regardless of what Shazou says) because that is where the key volunteer lives.



Actually, the Netherlands is quickly shifting into a world more conservative than our own, even, which is sad, because they seemed much more sane on matters until the communist block fell.


----------



## foxystallion (Mar 31, 2007)

Crassus said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you very much for your information.  I believe that the Protect law is currently being litigated by the ACLU, though it has years to go before reaching the Supremes, if ever.  Even with the appointment of Roberts, I'm not so sure that the Supremes would overturn their previous decision; judges tend to resent laws that are clearly a slap to their faces.

Yes,  I am very sorry to have to agree with you about what is happening in the Netherlands and most of Europe.  Sharia fascism can come to power democratically - just as Hitler did.   Even without further immigration, the differential birth rates between traditional Moslems and non-Moslems suggests that secular freedom may face a grim future there.   (I do recognize that I, not you, mentioned Sharia law and traditional Moslems.)

Where would you suggest as an ideal furry server location, with the understanding that there are no eternal guarantees of freedom?


----------



## Raven (Apr 1, 2007)

im half asleap and read up on the new TOS and Submission Agreement.

i dont know how late i am with responding to this, but i just had two little things to submit for query.

both of witch for the Submission agreement.

first, the line "Submissions may not be uploaded with intent to maliciously target, harass or cause harm to another individual."

technicly, and leagaly, your specifying that the submission cannot target one person. but what if it targeted two, or three? it dosent nessisarily have to fall under racial or anythign if the three targets arent related in anyway like that ither. perhapse worrding like "harass or cause harm to another person or persons" could be used? dunno. whatever, lol

second. the Submission agreement mentions nothing about submiting things like live photos. no where in any of it does it say im not alowed to take pictures of someone else having sex and posting it on FA.

even though A: i know its not alowed as per the old TOS/SA, and B: i would never do that anyway, lol.

pretty much the only restrictions that we have as of now, is that were not alowed to be rasist ect. 

just somthin to think about. to lazy to read if anyone else pointed this out. to many pages v_v


----------



## dave hyena (Apr 1, 2007)

Raven said:
			
		

> technicly, and leagaly, your specifying that the submission cannot target one person. but what if it targeted two, or three? it dosent nessisarily have to fall under racial or anythign if the three targets arent related in anyway like that ither. perhapse worrding like "harass or cause harm to another person or persons" could be used? dunno. whatever, lol
> 
> second. the Submission agreement mentions nothing about submiting things like live photos. no where in any of it does it say im not alowed to take pictures of someone else having sex and posting it on FA.



Both of these things will be covered by the "Acceptable Content Guidelines", which will cover what can and cannot be posted as a submission on furaffinity.

Currently its in the revision and editing process and will hopefully go live some point in the near future.


----------



## majortom (Apr 3, 2007)

imnohbody said:
			
		

> I'd bet a not-small portion of those who play The Sims do so because they can be sadistic f*ckers there and put the characters into all sorts of ultimately fatal circumstances.



I guess it depends on what one considers "not-small" in this context. By far, girls 13-22 are the largest players of these games. Next are older women then upper 20's guys.

/carmi


----------



## Frisky-Lime (Apr 3, 2007)

Hey, I've been having problems since this update, and appearently I can't seem to contact anyone by email for assistance. Is it alright if I post my problem here?


----------



## dave hyena (Apr 3, 2007)

Frisky-Lime said:
			
		

> Hey, I've been having problems since this update, and appearently I can't seem to contact anyone by email for assistance. Is it alright if I post my problem here?



Try the Help & support forums:

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=25



Wikifinity also has some common problems and their solutions:

http://www.wikiffinity.net/index.php?title=Main_Page


----------



## Frisky-Lime (Apr 3, 2007)

Hmmm ok... I think I tried earlyer, but for awhile there I was locked out from just about everything. o.o; Ima' try it. ^^; Thanks.


----------



## simbamco (Apr 4, 2007)

From the Submission policy: _"Submissions may not be uploaded with intent to maliciously target, harass or cause harm to another individual."_

OH NO WATCH OUT FOR THAT PICTURE ON THE INTERNETS!  IT'S SHARP AND WILL CUT YOU!  Wait...  zeros and ones can't cut you.  *phew*

Damn, and I wanted to do some drawings of political cartoons and satire, but most likely, it'd be "maliciously targeting" Bush or Osama or someone.  OH WELL, BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD  >:E >:E

The simple, less subjective solution would be to just tell people to grow some skin if they think they've been "harmed" by some image on the interwebbernets:  "You think that that set of zeros and ones is harming you?  GROW A PAIR"


----------



## Hanazawa (Apr 4, 2007)

actually, simbamco, that's a good point -

is that line supposed to refer to ANY individual, or just other users?


----------



## Wolfblade (Apr 4, 2007)

It isn't about "ow ones and zeros," its about not letting people use this place for personal squabbles. This place is here for sharing creative talent, not petty bickering. One person uploads a "satire" of someone they have a beef with, that person reacts, more people fan the flames on either side, etc, bitching and fighting goes on that the staff shouldn't have to put up with. So, skip the whole mess and cut off the source.

Since the purpose of the rule is to avoid user issues, I doubt there would be a problem with political satire of people like Bush or Bin Laden (though honestly, what's the point anymore).

I'll ask for an official opinion, but I think the spirit of that rule is definitely meant to apply to users who may actually see a submission targeting them and react negatively to it. I doubt Bush or Osama are going to stumble on something here and start a flamewar in response (though that could be interesting).


----------

