# Computer Generated Art and Screenshots



## TheDeinonychus (Apr 1, 2009)

Am I the only one out there that find that the latest changes to the AUP reflect the admins' opinion of what they consider art and/or a response to people complaining about seeing stuff they dont like, rather than any sort of attempt to keep up the apperance of the website? Honestly, it seems rediculous to me to see them deleting poser art that took alot of time and effort to create just because it's considered 'pre-generated' while I see people flooding the website with poorly drawn vore pics on notebook paper. 

Does anyone else think that the changes to the AUP should be removed, or in the very least re-worked so that it's not such a scything denouncement?


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 1, 2009)

generated art containing a significant part of self-made content = good
generated art showing only stock models/models with minor modifications = bad

Self-made content (for example): Textures created from scratch (Photoshop, GIMP, Corel, Oc, MS Paint, etc), models created from scratch (Maya, C4D, 3DS Max, Milkshape, Blender, etc).

Staff is already working on the AUP to make that clear, as stated in the other thread.


----------



## TheDeinonychus (Apr 1, 2009)

And just how are the admins going to judge what can be considered a 'significant amount of modifications'? If someone downloaded a generic furry model and made their own textures for it, would that be a significant amount of modification, even if someone else could of downloaded a similar texture for the same model and get basicly the same result? The changes to the AUP are frankly just a broad-range exclusion to anything computer generated or not drawn with a pen or tablet. I have not heard one solid reason for excludeing computer generated images in this fashion other than it's just someone's opinion about what is art and what isnt.


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 1, 2009)

No, it wouldn't. The important part is the element of the pic that has the focus. It needs to be as unigue as possible, ie new texture, altered shape (if possible), unique pose (if possible). 
As an example: We already had that discussion when it came down to showing new clothing someone made for SL characters. However, in this case the main element is the clothing itself, not the model wearing it.


----------



## Carenath (Apr 1, 2009)

@Warmock: Agreed, from a personal point the only issue I have, would be opening the floodgates for hundreds of SecondLife screenshots.. Someone creating their own original piece using Maya (if you can afford it/torrent it), Blender etc, and add your own textures with Photoshop Extended or GIMP etc.. then thats all well and good, some 3D pieces are pretty well done, I know a close friend of mine who loves toying around with Blender while I still struggle to figure the damn thing out


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 1, 2009)

Carenath said:


> @Warmock: Agreed, from a personal point the only issue I have, would be opening the floodgates for hundreds of SecondLife screenshots.. Someone creating their own original piece using Maya (if you can afford it/torrent it), Blender etc, and add your own textures with Photoshop Extended or GIMP etc.. then thats all well and good, some 3D pieces are pretty well done, I know a close friend of mine who loves toying around with Blender while I still struggle to figure the damn thing out


There already was a proposal about limiting the number of screenshots per model (which is already in effect for EVERY type of submission btw).
And being someone who has been creating 3d models from scratch for ten years now (with all the modelers I mentioned above), I assure you that you need lots of time to get something done that doesn't look like it was made of a few bricks. ;-)


----------



## Stratelier (Apr 1, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> No, it wouldn't. The important part is the element of the pic that has the focus. It needs to be as unigue as possible, ie new texture, altered shape (if possible), unique pose (if possible).


Except that you can't copyright a specific pose.

(^ Not an uncommon thing to hear from people who do traceovers/edits)


----------



## TakeWalker (Apr 1, 2009)

This is a terrible April Fool's joke. >:[


----------



## WarMocK (Apr 1, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> Except that you can't copyright a specific pose.
> 
> (^ Not an uncommon thing to hear from people who do traceovers/edits)



I should be more precise I guess: I mean that the model's pose should match the surrounding environment (and not stand around in the modeling/animation  pose). ;-) 
Of course, you can't copyright a pose, we already got enough morons that claim the simplest things as their "intellectual property" (remember that case in Australia where a guy got a patent for "inventing" the wheel? xD).


----------



## Adrimor (Apr 1, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> I should be more precise I guess: I mean that the model's pose should match the surrounding environment (and not stand around in the modeling/animation  pose). ;-)
> Of course, you can't copyright a pose, we already got enough morons that claim the simplest things as their "intellectual property" (remember that case in Australia where a guy got a patent for "inventing" the wheel? xD).



Or when Gene Simmons from KISS copyrighted the term "OJ", which is why nobody refers to orange juice with it anymore =P

...though that story may be completely apocryphal... Agh, now I have to investigate further >_<


----------



## Armaetus (Apr 1, 2009)

Leave it as is. I'm sick of SECOND LIFE _anything_ now, no matter how unique stuff it is, as I see crap from time to time of 'tender' closeups or badly rendered modelsex.


----------



## TheDeinonychus (Apr 1, 2009)

Glaice said:


> Leave it as is. I'm sick of SECOND LIFE _anything_ now, no matter how unique stuff it is, as I see crap from time to time of 'tender' closeups or badly rendered modelsex.



That is a perfect example of a personal opinion. You dont like something, so you dont consider it art. That's fine, but many others DO. Saying it should be removed just cause you do not like it is not the way to run an art site. I dont like vore or scat pictures, but if those were suddenly banned then the people that do like those sorts of pictures would complain. It is an unfair exclusion based on a personal opinion rather than any sense of artistic merit. 

If you cant understand that not everyone has the same opinion about what is and isnt art, then perhaps you should avoid public displays of art in general.


----------



## LizardKing (Apr 1, 2009)

This some awesome necrobestial brutality.


----------



## Leasara (Apr 1, 2009)

Oh good lord.  The site belongs to them.  It's their sandbox, they can decide how it is used.  That should be all there is to most discussions regarding AUPs.

If you disagree with the way they allow you to use the service they are providing, then you're perfectly free to go do your own thing.  Build a site and then you can make up the rules.


----------



## Repiotou (Apr 1, 2009)

Leasara said:


> Oh good lord.  The site belongs to them.  It's their sandbox, they can decide how it is used.  That should be all there is to most discussions regarding AUPs.
> 
> If you disagree with the way they allow you to use the service they are providing, then you're perfectly free to go do your own thing.  Build a site and then you can make up the rules.


 The fact that person may not have the necessary skills to make such a good web site (web design, coding, etc) notwithstanding?

One of things admins and members alike must always expect. Not everybody is going to agree with the admin's decisions. People say they know to expect that, but their responses seem to consistently say otherwise.

MY main point: Not everyone is going to unanimously agree with with an admin's decisions every time. Deal with it, will ya? 

The OP's point : The admin's decision appears to be based highly on bias against Poser and some similar programs and images types.

My work is done here. *Walks off*


----------



## Leasara (Apr 1, 2009)

Repiotou said:


> The fact that person may not have the necessary skills to make such a good web site (web design, coding, etc) notwithstanding?


 Yes.  Web design, coding, ect, is not a set of inborn skills.  The people that made FA had to garner the knowledge somehow.  Heavens forbid someone has to educate themselves to realize their goal(s).  (sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just tired of the argument.  It's one I've had often.)


Repiotou said:


> MY main point: Not everyone is going to unanimously agree with with an admin's decisions every time. Deal with it, will ya?


 My post was merely outlining one, possibly more productive, avenue to 'Deal with it.'



Repiotou said:


> The OP's point : The admin's decision appears to be based highly on bias against Poser and some similar programs and images types.


It's their right to be, they're the ones that have gone to all the trouble of assembling the site and offering the service.  If you simply must upload your Poser pics, I hear Renderocity.com is pretty nice.  I mean, it's rather silly to walk into a Toys'R'us and decide to yell at the manager because they don't stock autoparts.


----------



## Repiotou (Apr 1, 2009)

Leasara said:


> If you simply must upload your Poser pics...



I don't use Poser, I was just giving my two cents. That is unless you are speaking generally, in which case, please continue on.


----------



## krisCrash (Apr 2, 2009)

I _do_ think it's fair for a site to insist that users _limit their use of stock contents_ (as I've said before, we had the whole AUP discussion of this in another thread).
But forms of material reuse do not appear "equal" to a craftsman or viewer; if you use the anatomy of a photo or model it always seems like less original than if you use a texture as a more finishing touch, because to many the body, the shape, is what carries the image, not the details.

The artist's ability to form those things from completely different things is what impresses us.

If the Mona Lisa was an SL screenshot, you would rather give its modeller comments than the guy who took the shot, yes?



TheDeinonychus said:


> It is an unfair exclusion based on a personal opinion rather than any sense of artistic merit.



you know, they did say "badly rendered" which is an un-opinionated statement about artistic merit.


----------



## Nanakisan (Apr 3, 2009)

sigh....honestly no offense to the OP but this subject has been brought up one to many times and has ended the same way. the admins have done a revision to the AUP and will most likly not do so again for another year or months.


----------



## Dragonrider1227 (Jun 30, 2009)

I think this rule is bull. computer rendered and generated models are just as artistic as hand drawings. I have friends who use these Poser programs and they take just as much work and artistic creativity as any pencil


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 1, 2009)

Dragonrider1227 said:


> I think this rule is bull. computer rendered and generated models are just as artistic as hand drawings. I have friends who use these Poser programs and they take just as much work and artistic creativity as any pencil


The arguments opposing that viewpoint are equally valid, some possibly more so.

"Chracter generator" kits are a classic example.  All the individual pieces were created by one person and your only contribution to the final result was to "mix & match" them.  It's fun and okay to use on your own time, but it does *not* deserve the same level of respect as something you drew on paper yourself with your own sweat & tears.

It's like the difference between, say, painting a car versus building said car yourself.  Regardless of the arguments there is simply *no comparison*.


----------



## Steel Hyaena (Jul 3, 2009)

I am a Poser artist, and also happen to be new to this site.  I do use the stock models and so forth, but I texture them myself and also do a lot of postworking in Photoshop.  

Something that should be considered.  An interior designer does not build the furniture or actually manufacture the articles he uses in the creation of a room or environment.  The use of Poserâ€”even if one _does _use only the stock elementsâ€”requires a lot of talent in the areas of scene composition and style.  One also needs a certain degree of understanding of color, lighting and ambiance.  Also; does a florist necessarily need to weave their own ribbon and grow their own roses?

I kind of resent being considered to be lacking in talent simply because I do not create meshes.


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 3, 2009)

Well stated, Hyaena.  It is a complicated issue with no easy answer, compounded by the difficulty in separating the use of 'stock' materials from an artist's own contributions to the matter.


----------



## Steel Hyaena (Jul 5, 2009)

I have decided that I am simply going to put my work up and hope for the best.  _I_ know the merit of my work.


----------



## LizardKing (Jul 5, 2009)

Steel Hyaena said:


> ...but I texture them myself and also do a lot of postworking in Photoshop...



So then you'll probably be fine.


----------



## Dancougar (Jul 9, 2009)

Stratadrake said:


> The arguments opposing that viewpoint are equally valid, some possibly more so.
> 
> "Chracter generator" kits are a classic example.  All the individual pieces were created by one person and your only contribution to the final result was to "mix & match" them.  It's fun and okay to use on your own time, but it does *not* deserve the same level of respect as something you drew on paper yourself with your own sweat & tears.
> 
> It's like the difference between, say, painting a car versus building said car yourself.  Regardless of the arguments there is simply *no comparison*.



Actually thats a pretty close estimation there. Its like telling a a modder that he can't enter his car into a show because you say that if its not totally 100% stock with original paint and upholstery, etc, that it doesn't belong. And then go on to say that all the non-stock custom chrome, rims, lavish paint job, etc that he lavishly put into his car ain't worth jack. The problem with the policy as is, is that it looks too much at the nuts and bolts and not enough at the end product. The focus should be on the art, and not what goes into making it. This is just the same old anti-poser argument being argued elsewhere betwixt modelers and users. 
--Dancougar


----------



## krisCrash (Jul 9, 2009)

But no one is saying it is _worthless_, they are saying they don't want it on the site. If the point of said show was personally hand-built cars, would you argue that it is wrong to disallow a simply customized one?

And second, the line of the grey area is much different here.


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 9, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> If the point of said show was personally hand-built cars, would you argue that it is wrong to disallow a simply customized one?


Nice analogy.


----------



## TheDeinonychus (Jul 9, 2009)

The policy in question is dictateing what is and isnt art, without takeing into consideration the views of the artist or the viewer, and assumeing that everyone shares the opinion of those that made said policy. For an art site, this is a very dangerous thing to do. 

Unless a site is dedicated to a very small focus of artwork (say, only photography, or still-life drawing), dictateing what can and can not be put on an art site must be handled delicately. The anti-computer art policy has become a broad catch-all for alot of people. The 'justification' of saying certian artworks dont have enough self-made material is a watery excuse at best. This leave FAR too much up to the opinion of the admin that's looking at said art at the time.


----------



## yak (Jul 10, 2009)

TheDeinonychus said:


> The policy in question is dictateing what is and isnt art, without takeing into consideration the views of the artist or the viewer, and assumeing that everyone shares the opinion of those that made said policy. For an art site, this is a very dangerous thing to do.


I would like to stress it, time and again, that FA's policy doesn't try to define what is art and what is not.
It merely defines what is allowed to be uploaded here.


----------



## WarMocK (Jul 10, 2009)

TheDeinonychus said:


> The policy in question is dictateing what is and isnt art, without takeing into consideration the views of the artist or the viewer, and assumeing that everyone shares the opinion of those that made said policy. For an art site, this is a very dangerous thing to do.
> 
> Unless a site is dedicated to a very small focus of artwork (say, only photography, or still-life drawing), dictateing what can and can not be put on an art site must be handled delicately. The anti-computer art policy has become a broad catch-all for alot of people. The 'justification' of saying certian artworks dont have enough self-made material is a watery excuse at best. This leave FAR too much up to the opinion of the admin that's looking at said art at the time.


*sigh*
Bis repetita non placent. Seriously. -.-
Tell me how the hell a WoW screenshot that contains NOTHING but pre-created meshes, skins, and lighting/particle effects is supposed to be considered "art" if you don't even have a slight chance to alter them (clicking on an item in your inventory to make it visible on your char does NOT count toward character creation. ).
Same applies to SPORE creations. You move a few sliders, select a few pre-defined bodyparts and stick them together, and take a screenshot - WOW, you needed less than a minute for a pic. And that is supposed to be "art"? One word: NO!
Terragen, Vue d'Esprit, ... same problem. They can look awesome, that's not the question. BUT it doesn't change anything about the fact that anybody who has a list with the slider settings and field values can recreate the same pic within a minute, while other pics require days, weeks, and months to be copied by hand (if somebody manages to copy it 1:1 at all).
If you used a terragen pic or something as a background for a pic, that would be ok as long as the focus lies on an item you created yourself (a 3d mesh built from scratch, for example). Add a few neat light effects with the drawing program of your choice, and you're ready to go.
Not only that it looks much better, it also contains a significant amount of personal efforts that cannot be recreated by adjusting a few sliders. ;-)


----------



## Freehaven (Jul 10, 2009)

yak said:


> I would like to stress it, time and again, that FA's policy doesn't try to define what is art and what is not.
> It merely defines what is allowed to be uploaded here.



And FA has the full right to do this, regardless of people whining about it.  They offer this site as a service to people, and they set the terms by which people can use the service.  Users can either play by their rules or go somewhere else.

Or they can buy web hosting and get their own site and bitch about FA from there. :mrgreen:


----------



## Dancougar (Jul 10, 2009)

krisCrash said:


> But no one is saying it is _worthless_, they are saying they don't want it on the site. If the point of said show was personally hand-built cars, would you argue that it is wrong to disallow a simply customized one?
> 
> And second, the line of the grey area is much different here.



Look at the tone of the negative responses and you will see that it is so. It has been in my experience that hardcore 3D modlers do not like the program and look down upon it. Not just here, but everywhere in petty much all other 3D forums. The people that crafted the rule WERE former Poser users who have since decided that for whatever reason, they don't like it anymore. So they used thier knowledge of the program to craft rules against it that effectively cut off submissions using it off at the knees. They know exactly where to hit it and where it will do the most damage. Sure it throws a bone in there to seem not so bad, but To the newbie user, of whom most posters are. This means nothing if they are just getting their feet wet and are just learning. But if you are going with the comparison then this is an open cars how in which any and all are invited to join, not a private members only club in which only members are allowed to display thier automotive masterpieces. One cannot just change the rules after the show starts. You can't start off the show as being an open one and change it midstream to a personally hand built one. 
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jul 10, 2009)

WarMocK said:


> *sigh*
> Bis repetita non placent. Seriously. -.-
> Tell me how the hell a WoW screenshot that contains NOTHING but pre-created meshes, skins, and lighting/particle effects is supposed to be considered "art" if you don't even have a slight chance to alter them (clicking on an item in your inventory to make it visible on your char does NOT count toward character creation. ).
> Same applies to SPORE creations. You move a few sliders, select a few pre-defined bodyparts and stick them together, and take a screenshot - WOW, you needed less than a minute for a pic. And that is supposed to be "art"? One word: NO!
> ...



HTML.... The universal programming code that is the very core of creating websites. It's all the same. Yet each website is copyrightable becuse its use of that code is unique despite the fact that it uses that universal code. Likewise is also the utilization of morph dials, sliders, whatever. Anything beyond default of 0.000 is your creation.
--Dancougar


----------



## Dancougar (Jul 10, 2009)

Freehaven said:


> And FA has the full right to do this, regardless of people whining about it.  They offer this site as a service to people, and they set the terms by which people can use the service.  Users can either play by their rules or go somewhere else.
> 
> Or they can buy web hosting and get their own site and bitch about FA from there. :mrgreen:



FA can do it but does not have the full right to it because this site is offered to ALL people, not just the select few. One can't go from being a free and open society to a closed members only club when it suits one. For good or for ill, a free society has to be kept free. Like the old soldiers saying which goes "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
--Dancougar


----------



## krisCrash (Jul 10, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> Look at the tone of the negative responses and you will see that it is so. It has been in my experience that hardcore 3D modlers do not like the program and look down upon it. Not just here, but everywhere in petty much all other 3D forums. The people that crafted the rule WERE former Poser users who have since decided that for whatever reason, they don't like it anymore. So they used thier knowledge of the program to craft rules against it that effectively cut off submissions using it off at the knees. They know exactly where to hit it and where it will do the most damage. Sure it throws a bone in there to seem not so bad, but To the newbie user, of whom most posters are. This means nothing if they are just getting their feet wet and are just learning. But if you are going with the comparison then this is an open cars how in which any and all are invited to join, not a private members only club in which only members are allowed to display thier automotive masterpieces. One cannot just change the rules after the show starts. You can't start off the show as being an open one and change it midstream to a personally hand built one.
> --Dancougar



Maybe they wish to teach people not to make the mistakes they did. Like I use my experience with tracing to advise against it. To tell people that it is a dead end, in their view.


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 10, 2009)

yak said:


> I would like to stress it, time and again, that FA's policy doesn't try to define what is art and what is not.
> It merely defines what is allowed to be uploaded here.


Agreed.  Over on Fanart Central we have an outright ban on photography art.  No offense to some truly awesome photographers and their work, we've just chosen not to do that.



			
				WarMock said:
			
		

> Tell me how the hell a WoW screenshot that contains NOTHING but pre-created meshes, skins, and lighting/particle effects is supposed to be considered "art" if you don't even have a slight chance to alter them (clicking on an item in your inventory to make it visible on your char does NOT count toward character creation. ).


It can be considered a form of video-game photography.  There's an art in picking a good viewpoint and the right conditions to take the shot, yes, but that is aside the point.


----------



## Carenath (Jul 10, 2009)

Dancougar said:


> FA can do it but does not have the full right to it because this site is offered to ALL people, not just the select few. One can't go from being a free and open society to a closed members only club when it suits one.
> 
> For good or for ill, a free society has to be kept free. Like the old soldiers saying which goes "I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
> --Dancougar


Actually, they can, FA is not a 'free and open society' it is a private owned website that is made available to be used on their terms.

Free Society, has nothing to do with private owned websites. Users are 'free' to go start their own if they dont like FA and how it's run, as we do live in a free society after all.

This argument, has been done, do death, and it is unlikely to change the AUP with respect to computer-generated images.
Closed..


----------

