# Poser/DAZ works and the TOS



## Tensik (Jun 26, 2007)

As stated by Dragoneer, I'll start the thread on this . . . 



> I believe Poser would fall under the realm of "character generator" given the ultimate nature of the application, and thus falls in line with a violation according to the AUP. However, this is the first time of the subject has come up.



I beg to differ, you've frankly shown a chip on your shoulder about this one for a while . . . I think you compared it to playing with Lego's, previously, for example.Â Â 

Anyway, o quote the "About Us" page of the DAZ website:



> DAZ strives to bring 3D art directly to the masses by delivering the highest quality digital 3D content and software at the most affordable prices. With a continuing effort at creating realism and diversity in every figure DAZ makes, and a commitment to providing excellent service and support, DAZ works to inspire 3D fans to "Unleash the Artist Within".



To quote the Poser product description:



> Poser provides the easiest way to design with the human form in 3D. Creative professionals, graphic artists and hobbyists can use the rich collection of included 3D content and powerful rendering capabilities to produce stunning art, fine illustration and breathtaking animation for any application that integrates the diversity and spirit of the human figure.



In both instances, the ultimate nature of the programs are intended to be artistic tools.Â Â In comparison, the ultimate nature of SL is to play a game, and the ultimate nature of say, a South Park character generator is to say "haha, here's me in South Park".Â Â Poser and DAZ are tools meant for people who want to be creative, but do not have either the schooling or talent (if you go for that) to do so, and very few people who have lives have the time or resources to learn it from scratch.Â Â 



> I'm one of these few people on this website with a degree in digital 3D animation, and I must admit on a personal level I have never seen an image created via Poser that I have considered truly "artistic". That's not meant to be a slam on anybody, but it's the nature of the application. I'm not sure that we have an official stance on the issue yet, however, so do not read my rules as "Dragoneer said it violates the AUP! Burn the heretic!"



Are you next going to say that only people who have gone to art school are allowed to submit art here?Â Â I went to school for sound engineering, can I demand that anyone who didn't have to take down all their amateur work because I don't find it artistic?Â Â I also ask if frankly, does your personal opinion factor into this, or should you perhaps step back and ask yourself how applying one artistic prejudice to one medium would affect the rest of the site?



> These rule changes will, inevitably, not sit well with a few individuals, and while we'd like to make everybody happy, it's just not possible long term, nor with a site like this. I'd like to impact as few people as possible with these while raising the quality standards of the site -- as I am sure any other admin team on this would agree.



Exactly, and it appears in every other facet you have upheld that.Â Â As you've already stated, there's a spam rule, and there will be filters soon enough for people who do not want to see something they do not consider to be art.Â Â Make "DAZ/Poser Renders" its own filter and viola, no problem, they're even separated from people who build from scratch, just as SL people I am assuming would be.

As for the quality standard, you already know that's a REALLY bad line to go down.Â Â There's a lot more bad "art" and space-hogging sound recordings and borderline remixes that are taxing server space and bandwidth than there are people using DAZ and Poser so produce their art.Â Â 



> So, I believe the question here is: Is Poser art?



Does it make a difference what you or others think is art?Â Â The creators think it is.Â Â The program designers think it is.Â Â It is advertised as such.Â Â The usage licenses are highly visible and of no legal questions as to whether the artists would be allowed to post their creations in a place such as this (as opposed to remixes, copyrighted characters, fan art, commissions, human photography, etc, which you already allow).Â Â The applications are nigh-infinite as users make new models all the time, at the rate of hundreds a week (possibly a day).Â Â The variety of pieces/renders that can be created are every bit as large as any other artist's capabilities.Â Â A large amount of the work is done by the person creating the render; at the very least, enough to guarantee that no two users would get the EXACT same results without literally sending coordinates to each other.Â Â Most users make their own textures and maps, many build and import their own models, and most pictures take a LONG time to do, just as long if not longer than most of the drawings posted here in an average day.Â Â 




> I think this topic warrants its own thread, and I invite you to go ahead and make it if you'd like. What are the pros, what are the cons?



I frankly can't think of a con to allowing it.Â Â You already have the rule of not spamming, and like was said filters will be in so people who don't want to see it don't have to.Â Â The percentage of 3D artists here (most of which do use Poser or DAZ) is TINY and I've only ever seen one that was prone to spamming (and he I think is gone).Â Â It was never an issue up until now, while character generators were NEVER allowed, so it obviously wasn't thought of as a character generator up until right now; why change it?Â Â 

I can think of several cons for DISALLOWING it, in that you'd take the first step down the picking and choosing what is art path, which you already promised you would not do, either in regard to content or quality as long as it was legal.Â Â You'd also be establishing that a legal artistic outlet is disallowed while borderline outlets are encouraged, such as Digimon art or other fan arts without the trademark holders express permission, after saying that nothing legal would be banned from the site.Â Â You'd be ousting mostly fur artists, which while this is not a FUR site, would be a bad example, especially after you promised that no artist would be told to leave based on subject matter or medium.Â Â 

As for the pros, it's the same pros for allowing anyone else to show themselves creatively here.Â Â It builds the community and keeps faith in the admin's previous promises in a way that is not detrimental to anyone.


----------



## whitedingo (Jun 26, 2007)

I'm one of the furs that do some poser art I do it to take a brake from painting, it helps with page views to get people to maybe look at my traditional art.If its banned then fair enough its not my site the only differance it will make to me is it will be harder for me to justify donating as much as I have  after all I did pay for one of those harddrives last year but hey thats the way things go.
The whole what is art and what has merit will always be differant for people after all I tried to submit a digital oil painting of a landscape to a gallery and was told that it was not art because it was made on a computer but like I said I just use the site I dont own it


----------



## Typhon (Jun 26, 2007)

Truth be told there is a way you can create basic objects in DAZ, not sure about Poser.  So technically if you re-parent them enough and are clever enough, you can build more complicated items in DAZ from scratch.

Also I hate to say it, but DAZ and Poser such is art.  The basic definition of art is the ability to create a unique image using what is hand that others can appreciate and enjoy.  With both DAZ and Poser, you are putting what you have available to create a image, or artistic piece together that is unique all to yourself.

Given that, lets do the logical thing next.

No one can post up commissions they paid for, or gift art they have received.
Why? They where not the ones that created them. So as they are not the artist, they do not need to take credit for and post the work, even if they are the ones to have paid for or inspired it's creation.

No one can post a photo.
Why?  He did not create the image in the photo.

Now as far as it really be considered art.  I suggest that first you ask the few hundred if not thousand users of both Renderosity, and Renderotica, even the artzone website.  A good amount of them do work in the feild of 3d character art and design, have degrees in those fields, and they all still like to use Poser and DAZ on a normal basis.  They would say DAZ & Poser are both artistic mediums like clay, stone, pen, and pencil, even paints.

So in conclusion, given all that I have said, should DAZ and Poser content be banned and removed from FA?  Answer is clearly no, for all the reasons posted above.


----------



## Mapper (Jun 26, 2007)

Its a pity that this now an issue, I'm not going to get upset about it. I have several other places to go to that I've been neglecting. Maybe time to bring life back into them.Â Â


----------



## Mapper (Jun 26, 2007)

Please keep me posted on the final decision. I tend to steer clear of forums.


----------



## AethWolf (Jun 26, 2007)

I know this is a horribly simplified way of saying it, but...

Why should the medium matter if the content is on topic for the site (anthropomorphic things) and the uploader either created it or has permission to upload it?


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 26, 2007)

Mapper said:
			
		

> Its a pity that this now an issue, I'm not going to get upset about it. I have several other places to go to that I've been neglecting. Maybe time to bring life back into them. I didn't like the VCL and this place is becoming another VCL its a pity. They allow Cub art but now they are going to bitch about Poser and daz.



The discussion is here for the sake of getting opinions, how people feel about this does have some effect on the overall decision.  Since Preyfar has started much of this discussion I am still leaving it to him to finish some of his thoughts on the matter, especially with the added input.

I will say this now, to help some people understand.  The current AUP is, in part, to control things on the site the way it is in its current iteration.  This is based on the space and bandwidth available.  These rules are flexible and are still subject to change based what kind of functionality is added to the site over time (e.g. filters, more space, etc.)

Obviously my opinion on poser is different than Preyfar's, and as he stated, part of this is merely his own concept on the matter, not the end all and be all of what will be on the site.  That's the benefit of having an administration rather than a single person in control.

As a final point Mapper.  The cub issue is old, and thoroughly discussed, it also has nothing to do with this matter and adds nothing to the discussion.


----------



## Tensik (Jun 26, 2007)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> As a final point Mapper.Â Â The cub issue is old, and thoroughly discussed, it also has nothing to do with this matter and adds nothing to the discussion.



It should be remembered though that the cub matter was one in which many of these "content and legalities" issues were reitterated by the admins.Â Â "Cub art" itself has nothing to do with it, correct, but the staff's rulings on what belongs on the site and what does not is very pertinant to this discussion.Â Â That legal postings (of which DAZ/Poser and their content are) and optional viewing for content that might not be of a viewers primary choice of "art" were stated as justification for site content in the past, the arguments remain the same in this instance as a small factor of consideration.

Edit: also, though I asked people to post here, there's a lot of folks leaving opinions on my journal: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/152260/


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 26, 2007)

Tensik said:
			
		

> It should be remembered though that the cub matter was one in which many of these "content and legalities" issues were reitterated by the admins.  "Cub art" itself has nothing to do with it, correct, but the staff's rulings on what belongs on the site and what does not is very pertinant to this discussion.  That legal postings (of which DAZ/Poser and their content are) and optional viewing for content that might not be of a viewers primary choice of "art" were stated as justification for site content in the past, the arguments remain the same in this instance as a small factor of consideration.
> 
> Edit: also, though I asked people to post here, there's a lot of folks leaving opinions on my journal: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/152260/



Thanks for the additional link.  My reasoning behind leaving cub artwork out of this discussion is that there was a much greater pressure based on a moral standpoint in terms of the content (in which Poser/DAZ really do not boil down to in this instance).  Rather than continue to beat a dead horse, it can be left out of this discussion while still keeping the pertinent points (legality and what is considered artwork) in, especially since this same argument has appeared in the Photobucket thread discussion as well.  No reason to try and bring weighted moral debates of that sort into a thread of this nature.

This is, once again, like the Photobucket thread, a question of what is considered artwork.  There's a whole lot of opinions on that, and really the best solution is still the one in the makings, which is the ability to filter what you see.


----------



## Tensik (Jun 26, 2007)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> This is, once again, like the Photobucket thread, a question of what is considered artwork.Â Â There's a whole lot of opinions on that, and really the best solution is still the one in the makings, which is the ability to filter what you see.



I agree completely.  And as no other content is being removed from the site because it cannot currently be filtered, it seems a little odd that this one could possibly be based on an "is it art" argument.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jun 27, 2007)

*tries to figure out why this is even an issue*

It seems to me that the entire point of the re-writing of the AUP/TOS was to limit the amount of *crap* uploaded to the site.
What does it matter what media is used to craft something, just so that there is a certain amount of *creativity* involved?

I can certainly understand not wanting 'generator art' on the site as it chews up resources, but DAZ/Poser art takes effort, thought, and forethought as to the end product.
It's not simply 'choosing a hat, coat, and hair color'. 
To me it seems like a hybrid mix of photography and hand drawn art.
What's the problem?
Limit it to regular 'spamming levels' like any other art and let it go.


----------



## Ranard Lightningfall (Jun 27, 2007)

Is it art? Is a photo or painting of a landscape that already existed art? Is abstract art, art? Is are randomly tosses lines across a page, that randomly form something, art? This is discrimination to even consider it.

I can not draw anymore because of an accident. I am formaly trained in 3D model creation, but hardly have the time to make one with my work. Daz and Poser allow me, and others that might not have said talent to refind skill to be creative, to be a true contributor to the community as a whole, with a good amount of effort. Why are we going to black list individuals and block them from being part of that activity?

I am quite cross that this is even being considered in the slightest. FA is becoming less and less about creativity and community, and turning more and more into what 'we' want to see. Last time I checked, a simple way to solve this is to simply not look at things you do not wish to look at. Why is this concept so hard? More so with flags?

Like Mapper, I avoid Forums in general, so please keep me posted on the flow of the wave.


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jun 27, 2007)

> I'm one of these few people on this website with a degree in digital 3D animation, and I must admit on a personal level I have never seen an image created via Poser that I have considered truly "artistic". That's not meant to be a slam on anybody, but it's the nature of the application. I'm not sure that we have an official stance on the issue yet, however, so do not read my rules as "Dragoneer said it violates the AUP! Burn the heretic!"



Hell. This is crap. I'm a professional Graphic Designer. And I for one have to say that POSER is one of the better 3D programs out there. Having a degree in something does not make anyone an absolute master of that subject. 

After all, you have a degree, Dragoneer. Only a ---DEGREE---. Not even a ---DOCTRINE---. until you do, you cannot judge a 3D modeling program. I know of some ---PROFESSORS--- that agree that Poser and DAZ both are great tools for the artist that doesn't have the time or money to 1)buy $5000+ software bundles, and 2)have the 500+ man hours to create a ---GOOD--- 3D model from scratch.

It should also be noted right here that the Furrette and Furraldo models that are commonly used here are available for personal and commercial use.

I personally use it for poses of characters that I think would have a better effect if done in 3D, rather than 2D.



> So, I believe the question here is: Is Poser art?



Please, Dragoneer, let's not get into that debate. As some of the famous artists of ancient times have said --- "Art is in the eye of the beholder." What is art to one person is not necessarily art to another person. The people of this site shouldn't have to justify their artistic creations.



> I'd like to impact as few people as possible with these while raising the quality standards of the site -- as I am sure any other admin team on this would agree.



So, the 4-year-old drawing, that took less than 4 minutes to draw, stays, while 3D work that has taken hours, days, weeks, even MONTHS gets the ax.

Yup. That's quality standards for you.






If you have any sense at all, you will continue as before and allow Poser/DAZ work to stay. After all, there are many ---TALENTED--- artists on your site that use Poser/DAZ. Why get rid of such great works?


----------



## ShujinTribble (Jun 27, 2007)

As I understand it, the FA Administration is gathering opinions on deciding what medium is valid, or not, for FA. As someone who's normal artistic medium is leather, I'm going to chime in as well.

There is already a number of different mediums being used by FA 'Artists' - Clay, markers, pencils, crayons, watercolors, oil paints, sound recording programs, digital painting programs... cameras bring pictures of fur suiters and cons to us all. Any one of these creative systems could be judged to be invalid on one basis or another by someone using a different medium or none at all.

During college when I was studying to be a music teacher, I was given something to think about by my conducting teacher. He said, "The whole purpose of music is to evoke an emotion; Joy or sorrow or wonderment or terror. That's what Good Music does. It TALKS to you and you remember it like an old friend years and years later." So, too, does art, no matter how its created.

If the discussion is, "Should medium XYZ be allowed based on $criteria?", then you have to take a step back and ask "What is the final product?" 

Who would have thought that a bunch of left over PVC pipe or a broken-down piano or a simple broom would be worthwhile musical instruments? The Blue Man Group and Art Of Noise and Stomp, respectively, did. They used those obviously NOT musical instruments, and were able to make combinations of arbitrary sounds with them into popular, catchy, desired music. Canons are not musical instruments, but we've all heard them as part of the 1812 Overture and never complained that they're not musical. Ditto electronic synthesizers instead of pianos.... Or a Theremin being used for the smooth sound behind The Beach Boy's hit, 'Good Vibrations'.

The medium is not and Should Not be the issue - the End Product should be. 3D artists may be a small percentage of the posters here, but their creations are just as valid as an oil painter's.

...thank you for your time and consideration.


----------



## Quaidis (Jun 27, 2007)

I'm confused on why this is even a discussion.  Poser (I haven't experienced Daz first hand yet) is nothing like some random character card generator you yank off a pokemon website.  You have to put creativity to work to make anything resemble a good 3d picture.  And I've seen absolutely brilliant designs done with Poser, combined with other programs and not, along with one specific animation that I can't find at the moment of a dragon.

Saying Poser is like a generic character generator is like saying MAYA is a generic character generator as that's also a 3d art program, and I'll be damned to see something even remotely like Maya put against the rules of FA.  

Yes, I will agree that many artists make their characters or ideas blocky at first, with arms outstretched in the classic poser pose.  But that, to me, is like the artist just starting out with drawing 2d art that's missing half the appendages and always looking left or right.  And saying you can't use poser or a program like it as an intended art medium because people start off that way is like saying you can't do an n'th of sketched or doodled art because all artists start out that way.  It's also like banning all of photography because people post pictures of nudity and photobucket-type crap.

That's my take on it.  I think testing the boundries on an entire art medium (or program) that isn't as popular as others and thinking it should be completely put as a 'nope' in the FA rules is going too far.


----------



## LoranSkunky (Jun 27, 2007)

It's a tool just like any other and just because he's not impressed by what he sees does not mean that it's an invalid means of creating artwork. What about Painter? And Photoshop? Doesn't Photoshop have Filters? Are you always impressed by those? 

Back when I was teaching 3d, we would start off with Bryce 3d before going into Max simply because it was good feedback for the high school I was at. Students could see the results and really got a nice hold on the basic of 3d before hitting up the more advanced programs. I also see some art posted here that used DAZ for backgrounds. Would those get banned as well?

People also like it because it's easy to use for them and while there are a number of models you can download and tweak, it still takes sometime to get the look that you want. Remember that using Maya, Max or XSI are expensive (and lots of time to learn) and just because they are out there doesn't mean that they are the only way to make 3d. (See Blender)


----------



## Swampwulf (Jun 27, 2007)

Several good points just above me.
Will the 'next step' be to ban graphical art created using Photoshop/ArtRage/Ect because you're using brushes that come with the software, or 'creating them' by adjusting a few sliders provided in the program?


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jun 27, 2007)

If that's the case, you might as well ban all things digital, because there's always some sort of pre-made starting point.


----------



## SynjoDeonecros (Jun 27, 2007)

I tinkered with Poser a while back, tried to make a rudimentary character out of it...hell, I even tried using the existing characters to make a single generic scene. Guess what? I failed miserably. Y'know why? I didn't have the knowledge I needed to make things on Poser work the way I wanted them to. Calling Poser or DAZ a character generator is like calling Photoshop or MS Paint a color by number program; it's a grossly inaccurate exaggeration.

I'm sorry, but I must agree with everyone else here that you are completely out of your gourd, Dragoneer; it's not up to you solely to determine whether or not a certain medium made with a certain program is art. If you remove any and all art created with Poser or DAZ (which, really, how can you tell if a 3D image or animation is, if the artist doesn't mention it?), then you might as well remove my custom Yugioh cards off of here, since they were made from a template, and under the rules you're setting with those other programs, anything made from a template is automatically out.

While we're on the subject, if Poser and DAZ are on the chopping block, then why isn't Second Life screen caps on there, as well? It's essentially a huge interactive MMO Poser sandbox, and most of the characters in the pics aren't even created from scratch; their pieces are BOUGHT from OTHER PEOPLE and slapped together, or sometimes bought wholesale with little to no tweaking. If anything, SL is an even BIGGER "character generator" than Mr. Dragoneer is purporting Poser and DAZ to be.

Seriously, you've got the anti-spamming rules in place, LEARN TO ENFORCE THEM BETTER instead of trying to curtail it through censorship, because I guarantee you it will never work, and will result in a LOT Of people leaving here because of it. You don't want to be accused of becoming another y!gallery, do you?


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jun 27, 2007)

And then, while your add it, BAN ALL ARTWORK, BECAUSE POSES CAME FROM ANOTHER SOURCE.

Then there will be nothing left, and everything will be compliant to the no pre-made rules, and you will have no website at all...


----------



## stripedfox (Jun 27, 2007)

I am sincerely hoping that FA does not gradually become a snooty art site, where only the best of the best may reside.

On top of that I also hope they decide not to ban these 3D artistic mediums based on software, I myself have enjoyed viewing work created by Poser and DAZ.

They, at least to me, count as a valid form of artwork. 

-
SFC


----------



## redfoxnudetoons (Jun 27, 2007)

stripedfox said:
			
		

> I am sincerely hoping that FA does not gradually become a snooty art site, where only the best of the best may reside.



I agree. VCL already had done that.

OH YEAH!

VCL, the MOST SNOOTY art gallery around, has renderings from POSER/DAZ!

You have to submit 3-5 peices of aftwork to be ---CONCIDERED--- for the website.

I was accepted using my Poser works.

Just look for yourself!

http://us.vclart.net/vcl/Artists/RedFox-Nightfox/

I was accepted into the SNOOTIEST gallery, with POSER images!

If they take it, why is it even a question here?


----------



## Zeis (Jun 27, 2007)

I take SL screencaps. I'll freely admit that they don't require the same level of effort as a Poser rendering or a digitally-colored picture but at least I try to express something and try to create something that's beautiful. I don't really see how it's all that different from photography. You can pick up a disposable camera and snap shots of yourself and and your friends fooling around, and you can also take an expensive digital SLR and take well-composed and beautiful photographs. That's what I try to do.

I don't really know what else to say here...


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 27, 2007)

Can we please, please, pleasepleaseplease, PLEASE, avoid slippery-slope arguments?

Unless I am missing it, which I could be, it's late; poser is not currently banned in the AUP. There was talk of whether or not it should be. We're hearing some people who feel it doesn't belong, and obviously there are others who feel it does. This discussion will be MUCH more productive if people could please

A: remember we are hearing pros and cons for a POTENTIAL decision, not something we have actually enacted yet, and even regarding the rules we HAVE enacted, there is still always potential for change. Kindly refrain from villifying the site for something that hasn't even happened.

and 

B: Please, if you do disagree with something we have actually done, and feel the need to criticize for that, try to keep it civil. And if at all possible, keep the criticism limited to what we HAVE done as opposed to remarks along the lines of "well, if you did that then you might as well ban this, and then you should just ban that, and then you've banned all artwork and don't let anybody post anything at all, way to go you jerks."

One of the BIGGEST difficulties with trying to improve this site is that ANY change is met with resistance from someone. It is VERY difficult to try and obtain user opinion and input BEFORE a change when even mentioning a MAYBE change in the future gets people angry and upset at us as if we had already enacted the change and every single slippery-slope potential change people believe will stem from it.

We want to make this place better. We need the help of you, the users. If people are going to insist that we are the bad guys no matter what, and anything we do short of making this site a completely open free imagehost (not gonna happen) gets us animosity and villification, it makes it INCREDIBLY difficult to be up front and honest with everyone with ideas we have for the future. We want to get peoples' opinions on changes we might want to make. But you all have to understand that when EVERY "hey we're thinking about...." gets angry holy hell rained down on us, it makes it less appealing to announce potential changes.


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 27, 2007)

Ok Let me try and present as much as a well rounded view on this particular issue or at least thought out. 

The basic concept here is does Poser and DAZ type created content qualify as an 'originally' created piece of art. In this thread there has been several misdirections and misconceptions related to the main issue. One is, what qualifies as art or artistic merit is completely subjective, which is not true. Using the 'actual' definition of art the common things defining it is it's created according to 'aesthetic principles' and that it is using the skills and/or techniques of art, and adding to this the fact it has to qualify as original content, the piece must show that the principles of 'art' has been applied. This is why generators are not allowed and photography is. A generator does not apply any original artistic principles only already created ones, while scenery for a photo or painting (which was brought up earlier) may already be in existence, it is still up to the artist to interpret and apply artistic principles such as add lighting, composition, color, etc. So it is the artist's interpretations of the subject that makes the artwork. This is why snap shot type images are often not allowed in many artistic web sites, because there was little to no application of the artistic principles applied in creating it. 

Now to define what of Poser and DAZ does and does not qualify as originally created content you have to keep in mind several factors. (please read in itâ€™s entirety before getting your panties in a wad, since every part of what I presenting is connected) 

First is the thing that defines their applications, the generator concept. Even though they are considerably more complicated, they still rely on being generators, even though you can control a greater number of variables they are still already created concepts (the only difference is the complication in the programing.) Programs like Photoshop are different because they still rely on artistic interpretations and the principles of art to create the work, despite the fact there are filters in Photoshop the filters are meaningless unless applied correctly to created content (there is no 'create good artwork' filter in Photoshop.) Both programs rely on already created content, which is the main selling point brought up for BOTH, from their respected companies. They are sold as not only 3D tools but as libraries of pre-existing content that you can manipulate. This is the heart of it being a generator, no matter how much variables are added to tweak the existing content it does not rely on it being ordinally created or any thought towards artistic principles. 

Now on to the second part, what of Poser and DAZ does qualify as originally created content. One is what is built into the program, a creation tool. It allows you to create the original content, from original textures to figures and landscapes. This isn't like loading already created content and then alter, so in part it gets rid of the 'not original content' part of the restriction. Now on to the second part, artistic merit. Just creating something and then posting a bunch of images would still not qualify it as a piece of art. What that would be akin to is snap shot images from a camera. You still have to apply 'aesthetic principles' to the model, so there has to be obvious thought given to artistic concepts in the final rendition of creation. 

So it's a matter of how the programs are used, not if they are used. Both can be used as generators, no matter how much you tweak, it's still using it as a generator. However, you can still use them (especially in conjunction with other programs) to create original content and then apply artistic principles to it to create what could not be considered a generator image and not snap shoot images of your created content. Being the fact that both programs selling points and major use is already created content that you can then tweak, it is perfectly reasonable that they would not be allowed, even though I don't think that rule should be absolute. Instead I would recommend something like...



> Use of 3D software that relies on pre-existing or altered content (no matter to what extent) violates the 'By You' created content of the AUP. The artist must show not only original concept in creation of 3D models, they must express the application of artistic principles and fore thought to each generated image uploaded. Snap shot type images of even original 3D model concepts are not allowed.


----------



## whitedingo (Jun 27, 2007)

So according to what your saying  and within your quote darkmew ,this would not be allowed and has no artistic merit its just a snap shot http://www.furaffinity.net/view/600846


----------



## Ranard Lightningfall (Jun 27, 2007)

True, but we belive the issue, and why everyone is so angry, is why is this even being considered? And it does not help that the front man has obvious chip on his shoulder for aid program. He blatently anounce it.

I think that is what has the dander flying.


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 27, 2007)

whitedingo said:
			
		

> So according to what your sayingÂ Â and within your quote darkmew ,this would not be allowed and has no artistic merit its just a snap shot http://www.furaffinity.net/view/244472



Well W.D. if you had actually read my post, with out actively trying to twist it into something to get in a bunch about, you wouldn't even be asking that. Since I quite clearly laid out snap shots do not take in mind to any major extent any artistic principles, as apposed to photography with does take in mind, lighting, composition, color, etc. So since even in your description of your image you are commenting on the added thought you gave to lighting and the artistic aspects of the image, I have to assume from the tone that your response seems to be in, you think that you must defend the fact it's an adult image. Which doesn't relate to anything in my post, since saying 'application of artistic principles' does in no way say 'not porn.' 

Perhaps, (like putting Not Work Safe in front of a link to an adult image in the forum that is PG-13) not automatically relating something that doesn't have any application of artistic principles and something that is for adult viewing, is something you can work on in the near future. 

So the only thing you have left from what I actually said in my post is the question of original content. Which is something you'd prove, since it is always up to the artist (no matter what the content of the artwork) to justify his work in any matter that might require authentication. (frankly the image is far to dark to see if I can recognize the models used, so I'll give that part a pass.)


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jun 27, 2007)

* wanders into thread *



			
				AethWolf said:
			
		

> I know this is a horribly simplified way of saying it, but...
> 
> Why should the medium matter if the content is on topic for the site (anthropomorphic things) and the uploader either created it or has permission to upload it?



Because some members of the 3D community continue to believe it's the tools that are important, rather than the talent behind those tools ....


----------



## whitedingo (Jun 27, 2007)

Firstly it is work safe you have to be a reg member with the adult thing turned on to view an adult image on fa .It was not the sexual content that I was bringing up but the fact that the models are stock and have not been made by me so by your rule it would not be allowed my point is why do you want to ban this,is it not worthy to be seen on this site

And on a side note if you got straight to the point in your post and stopped trying to look like a layer,your whole post could have been just the quote and I would have got it,and I'm not re reading it ,its just to long and I'm to old to care

Ps I changed the image but it still holds I did not make these models


----------



## ferinoch (Jun 27, 2007)

I've got to say I stand with the pro poser DAZ people on here. For the most part people who use it seem to put a great deal of time and thought into setting up the scenes, and I don't see it as being that different from arranging a photo shoot, just with subjects that couldn't exist in real life. The vast knowledge required to make effective use of such programs to create an expressive and evocative scene surely is on a similar level with that required to draw or photograph something. 

Classifying it as somehow not being art or lacking a level of artistic merit on par with putting pen to paper is entirely inappropriate. I think we all appreciate how difficult it is to maintain this site. Certainly at some point I think nearly everyone on my watchlist has posted a journal about there being too much junk posted. But this really goes way too far and is trying to solve something that isn't really a problem.


----------



## cobalt (Jun 27, 2007)

If the new AUP bans the uploading of images, because they were created in Poser, then the new AUP needs to be junked. That's a really bad call. 

These images (some not safe for work):
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/236452/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/478665/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/236438/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/236386/

...would likely be banned. 

I'd like to hear an explanation of how they aren't art.


----------



## Tensik (Jun 27, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Can we please, please, pleasepleaseplease, PLEASE, avoid slippery-slope arguments?
> 
> Unless I am missing it, which I could be, it's late; poser is not currently banned in the AUP. There was talk of whether or not it should be. We're hearing some people who feel it doesn't belong, and obviously there are others who feel it does. This discussion will be MUCH more productive if people could please
> 
> ...





> I believe Poser would fall under the realm of "character generator" given the ultimate nature of the application, and thus falls in line with a violation according to the AUP.



He then says it's the first time it has been brought up, but that's a load as we had this discussion before in regard to Poser vs. SL and he made it clear that he thought DAZ and Poser users were a joke.  Regardless, it's unfair for you to point fingers at people over a slippery slope when it was the administration who stated it to begin with for what many have pointed out is rather obviously a case of prejudice over one set of tool users, that by its implications could ultimately affect many people here by limiting how art is generated in MANY programs and by future quality controls in general based on schooling or staff opinion on the medium used, and his words have insulted many people who put hundreds of hours into their art here.

This is one of those times where you back off and let people say their piece, Wolfblade.


----------



## lothaekor (Jun 27, 2007)

Is poser a generator program? Not entirely. It's true that a lot of people will purchase/download content for the program because they don't have the skills to make it themselves.  However, the means to create new meshes for clothing, or entire models are there for those advanced enough in the use of 3D applications.  (Little_Dragon has created entirely new models, and has rigged other 3d models for use in Poser)

Even if these people use entirely purchased content, they are still able to use texture maps to customize the models/content.  Mapping complex patterns on a 2d texture map is not exactly trivial.  

I have seen some pieces that show a good handle on composition and some good customization of characters and textures.  Of course I have also seen the people who use generic poser characters, default textures and poses and don't even bother to put in a background.  

The south park and pokemon card generators are just that, generators, because they have a set library of shapes and such to work with.  Poser is hardly a generator in the same sense; you have the potential to customize the models and textures in the completion of a piece.  Its primary purpose is to create artwork, thus it should be considered as a valid art tool. 

Though I would hardly argue against preventing people from posting 50 different camera angles of the same model on the standard grey background.


----------



## Little_Dragon (Jun 27, 2007)

lothaekor said:
			
		

> Though I would hardly argue against preventing people from posting 50 different camera angles of the same model on the standard grey background.



Guilty ... though at least I posted them as a single animated GIF, rather than flooding the gallery.


----------



## Kasarn (Jun 27, 2007)

As a guy with a camera, I don't really see the difference between still life or studio photography and Poser/DAZ3D. As far as I can see (never having used the programs), both are the arranging of preexisting _things_, adding lighting, composing the final shot and creating an image (or multiple images). Both can create crapfloods and both can create art.

The annoying part is that there's more crap and stuff that is just plain ordinary than there is good stuff and it's easy to get frustrated by it all.


----------



## Cheska (Jun 27, 2007)

Ok, how is any of this a remotely valid point?

 If you must "Learn" to draw with Pencil and Paper, You can be called an artist when your skills pay off to some extent.
 So, a person using Poser/Daz has instant insight into how to use these programs? Does it upload this knowledge into your brain? No.
 Dragooneer even said he went to school... but he doesn't think its art.

  If we decide to debate "What is Art?", then we have already begun a journey down a sloap. Make this simple, post a poll... The Moderators cannot decide on their own what is art and what is not... heck, a Poll is a bad idea, because it is the "Person" not that Masses that decides for himself.

 At the risk of annoying someone, I do not think Scat picture are art.
 This is my opinion and is a Truth for "Me" and me alone, BillWoodchuck might live for each and every Scat pic he can find.
 What do I say to this? Go Bill, Go! Because he has a right to his choice, and I have a moral obligation to allow him his choice, even when I do not agree with it.
 This can be turnd around and used against me as well, Do I support everyones choice? No.. and again, I will not hinder them, nor will I encourage them either. But I will not declare what is art, and what is not.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 27, 2007)

Tensik said:
			
		

> He then says it's the first time it has been brought up, but that's a load as we had this discussion before in regard to Poser vs. SL and he made it clear that he thought DAZ and Poser users were a joke.  Regardless, it's unfair for you to point fingers at people over a slippery slope when it was the administration who stated it to begin with for what many have pointed out is rather obviously a case of prejudice over one set of tool users, that by its implications could ultimately affect many people here by limiting how art is generated in MANY programs and by future quality controls in general based on schooling or staff opinion on the medium used, and his words have insulted many people who put hundreds of hours into their art here.
> 
> This is one of those times where you back off and let people say their piece, Wolfblade.



No, with respect, it is one of those times I once again face-palm at Dragoneer having said something unfortunately hasty without pausing to fully think about it, and someone else taking it firmly to heart and not accepting that sometimes you shouldn't hold someone to a statement for all eternity.

Yes, I am as clueless as you as to why he said it hasn't come up before because it has. Repeatedly. Sometimes he says things and then "oops"es later. 

My points still ABSOLUTELY remain:

He stated HIS opinion, in a discussion MEANT for people to offer their opinions >before< a decision has been made either way. His personal opinion does not immediately translate to policy, as has been firmly evidenced by him adjusting things against his own personal preference in order to meet the apparent demands and wants of the community in general MANY times.

The site has made mistakes in the past. We get it. People have been told things will happen that end up not happening because they weren't workable in the end, and probably should never have been promised. Oops. The Administration is attempting to pick up the many-times dropped proverbial ball, but it makes it harder to do so if people refuse to let go of mistakes of the past, and insist on predicting no chance of avoiding mistakes in the future.

So no, it is not time for me to back off. And I am not in any way keeping people from saying their piece. I am merely asking that non-constructive doom prophecies, reminders of the mistakes and poorly-worded public statements of the past (of which there are no shortage), and slippery-slope arguments of how we will inevitably do A, which leads to B, which leads to C, which leads to FA admins eating babies, have no constructive purpose, and can be left outside of this discussion to make room for genuine exchange of thoughts and opinions on _this_ specific decision. Not other unrelated bad decisions, or ethereal potential future bad decisions.

Feel free to continue the discussion at hand rather than argue semantics with me. 

Back to the topic: I personally feel that Poser does indeed take more effort than simple character generators, but the ultimate decision should depend on what is being done with the tool, not simply what the tool happens to be. If someone is just posing a pre-rendered in-package model, with no personally created elements, then it IS just being used as a more elaborate character generator. If they are using the tool to actually create, then there should be no bias against the creation just because of the tool used to create it.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 27, 2007)

Kasarn said:
			
		

> As a guy with a camera, I don't really see the difference between still life or studio photography and Poser/DAZ3D. As far as I can see (never having used the programs), both are the arranging of preexisting _things_, adding lighting, composing the final shot and creating an image (or multiple images). Both can create crapfloods and both can create art.
> 
> The annoying part is that there's more crap and stuff that is just plain ordinary than there is good stuff and it's easy to get frustrated by it all.



This is the key problem for us here.

Nobody wants to get rid of the stuff that is genuine effort and creativity.

Everybody (practically) is tired of seeing the pointless, no-effort, made-sheerly-out-of-boredom crap that the site gets flooded with.

There is no way to put in writing that is succinct and easy to understand, a definition separating the one from the other.

People do not want anyone, not even a group of people; several are art-minded or actually schooled on the subject; to use their own judgment to decide, even if they have to come to a consensus on each and every questionable image.

So the choice is to either allow everything, even the overwhelming flood of crap that is not "beginner" or "amateur" art, but is just people bored or submitting because they have nothing else to submit; or; lose certain small portions of genuine attempts at creative output so as to be rid of the bored, pointless, not-even-trying-to-be-art crap that just takes up more and more space, and continues to confuse people as to what the purpose of a Furry Art community is.



			
				Cheska said:
			
		

> Ok, how is any of this a remotely valid point?
> 
> If you must "Learn" to draw with Pencil and Paper, You can be called an artist when your skills pay off to some extent.
> So, a person using Poser/Daz has instant insight into how to use these programs? Does it upload this knowledge into your brain? No.
> ...



Thank you for understanding something FAR too many people need to get through their heads.

As for the rest of your post, another very good and valid point. Any time discussion of limiting this, or that, or whatever comes up, people bring up the "who are you to define Art?" argument and it is just a derailment tactic more often than not.

We are not trying to tell people what is art and what is not. If the entire world believes a photo of a human turd with a cartoon face drawn on it is Not Art, but one single person feels that it is, then it is Art.

EVERYTHING has Artistic value to SOMEBODY.

So we aren't trying to define art. If anything, we are merely trying to decide what forms of art we want this site's resources and expenses to be devoted to hosting. Letting people post anything and everything they please isn't a very appealing option to any of the community EXCEPT the people who just want to be free to use this place as a generic imagedump. That is not what this place is here to be.


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 27, 2007)

Alright folks, I did some talking with Dragoneer last night; it is already clear as to how he feels about Poser/DAZ stuff, but he has also realized that this is his bias and does not want that bias to affect things in this particular discussion.  So I am going to take it over, and hopefully by the end of what I post things will be a little more sensible, especially since the thread has kept relatively drama free and a plethora of good points have been made.

As of this current point, there are not that many folks on the site who are actively pushing out Poser/DAZ images.  It isn't something that is causing an amazing strain on the site, nor is it something that is legally dangerous in terms of posting (though 3-D images of underage children are legality issues and will be removed if on the site).  After reading through this thread again, and giving the issue some thought, I think I have come to a reasonable conclusion I'll summarize the various points to this, so give me a little bit of time.  

It appears that those people who take Poser/DAZ seriously put quite a bit of time and effort into the images that they eventually create.  Adjustments in figures, lighting, and the fact that you can code some material in the program.  There is most certainly artistic consideration put into the creation of these images.

Naturally the counter-point to this is the fact that quite often the figures that are utilized are pre-generated, which is already a problem with other generator programs.  There are a great number of other software programs out there that provide pre-generated characters, mostly games, but still (Second Life, Oblivion, The Sims, just to name a few).  

What sets Poser/DAZ apart from these other programs?  Is it complexity?  Is it more than that?  Despite trying to argue the slippery slope, this is not the case.  This is trying to place a dividing line between artistic and non-artistic usage of pre-rendered 3-dimensional characters (based in part upon the software that is used).  

Poser/DAZ appears to be much like giving someone a set of naked action figures and asking them to create a scene with them.  Give them facial expressions, clothing, a location and some kind of action as well.  I have seen that Poser/DAZ images can be animated, and even lip-synced to music.  This too sets it apart from simpler programs.

*Based on the images presented, and the information within this thread, for now Poser/DAZ images will stay on the site.
*
That said; keep in mind, and this is for all mediums, every artist should strive to post their best work, but this is especially important for things like Poser/DAZ images and photography since there are already strongly differing opinions on the site in terms of their legitimacy.  I have seen both incredible use of Poser/DAZ as well as very poor use.  One way comes across as artistic, and the other usually as spam and leaves a rather unpleasant taste in the mouths of those people who end up seeing it.

Poser/DAZ gives you the ability to be artistic, basically the dough to mold into something with a lot of tools to help you do so.  It's up to you, those who are striving to make sure that this is recognized as an art form, to keep up your standards, and also help those who are not there yet to reach higher standards (once again, this concept is not strictly reserved for Poser/DAZ).  If you see someone wantonly posting Poser/DAZ images that have little or no real work done on them (and as people who have put the time and effort into such things, I'm sure you can tell), send in a report or even pop a note over to them.  Is there someone flooding the site with many angles of the same Poser/DAZ image (which is already against the AUP)?  Help them figure out how to put things into an animation so that all the angles are covered in one convenient post.  

Right now Poser/DAZ it is seen as art (on this site), so make sure that you don't lose that support by being lax on what you see being posted.

Same goes for most every medium.  As long as the filters do not exist, and even after they are in place, try and maintain a level of quality in the pieces you post to this site, it makes people want to see more, and it also helps to give convincing arguments if ever it comes into question.

As a side note to Zeis:  You are one of the few people on the site who really takes the time to consider the images that you take on Second Life.  There may be some ground to work with you on that, though currently the rules in place are what will be, but your situation is most certainly one to take into consideration; moreso when greater functionality on the site is achieved.


----------



## yak (Jun 27, 2007)

This is very frustrating, honestly, to read pages and pages of forum threads where people overreact to a few un-cautiously placed words that weren't given the proper thinking-over at the time of them being posted.

I see this thread is going in circles over the same flawed argument people either don't know about, or simply don't want to understand, with it being:

_Dragoneer/Preyfar does not single-handedly, exclusively and undeniably makes the rules on FA, neither runs this place all by himself nor is in charge of everything that happens and what's to come._

Stop looking at him in that role, please, because it is not so..

Rules are made *by the staff* and not by a single person. Preyfar's, Wolfblade's, Damaratus', my own, etc. opinion on them _are equal_ and neither of them override each other.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 27, 2007)

Ranard Lightningfall said:
			
		

> True, but we belive the issue, and why everyone is so angry, is why is this even being considered? And it does not help that the front man has obvious chip on his shoulder for aid program. He blatently anounce it.


Yes, this is true... I did announce it, and I've always felt that way. Why a "chip? I'm a 3D artist/animator. I build my 3D models from the ground up, bone the mesh, map the UV, create and design my textures. I'm degreed in the digital animation field and have done so professionally for a career in various applications and shows. Thus, to me, comparing what somebody does in Poser -vs- what I can do...

However, _that is on a personal level_. I do not want that to interfere with how I view things on this site, nor how the rules should be crafted. If we were judging based on my personal preferences, there'd be a lot of things disallowed on this site. But this site is not founded on my personal tastes, nor will it ever be.

There are many things that can be debated as to whether Poser is art, and that's what this thread is for. I'll vote for whatever is best for the site, not my interested. There's a few hundred thousand submissions on FA, and there's a lot of them I don't like or disagree with. It's not my place to side against them out of personal like/dislike.

My personal interests are not the site's. I do my best not to mix personal and professional opinion when and wherever possible (and trust me, given my job I have to do that often).


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 27, 2007)

redfoxnudetoons said:
			
		

> Hell. This is crap. I'm a professional Graphic Designer. And I for one have to say that POSER is one of the better 3D programs out there. Having a degree in something does not make anyone an absolute master of that subject.
> 
> After all, you have a degree, Dragoneer. Only a ---DEGREE---. Not even a ---DOCTRINE---. until you do, you cannot judge a 3D modeling program. I know of some ---PROFESSORS--- that agree that Poser and DAZ both are great tools for the artist that doesn't have the time or money to 1)buy $5000+ software bundles, and 2)have the 500+ man hours to create a ---GOOD--- 3D model from scratch.


The debate is not whether or not Poser is a good or bad application -- I've had to "create" and design in it with previous jobs. But having used Poser in previous jobs, I know from personal experience that you can not, in fact, create with it, only modify and tweak.

When I was designing blood vessels and cells, everything I had to do via creation was handled in MAX and exported out to Poser (it's highly backwards, I know... don't ask, my company was weird). I'm not saying Poser can't be used for good, but you can't create with it from the ground up.

Now, before you go slamming my qualifications, I'm not here to trounce the application, but pose a simple question. As others in this thread have pointed out, and done so rather elaborately, there are many pros and cons towards Poser. I think the best one is that, while Poser uses pre-generaed material, there is somewhat more that goes into it than merely having it apply as a "generator".

While it is a generator of sorts, it's different than the kind our intent was of limiting by the AUP -- character generators (ala Warcraft) and meme makers (ala the "Pokemon Trainer Cards").

That's why I suggested to make this thread in the first place, because Poser is a different beast and can not be lumped in together with the standard "generators". I may have a bias against Poser, but I do not have one as an admin.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 27, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> _Dragoneer/Preyfar does not single-handedly, exclusively and undeniably makes the rules on FA, neither runs this place all by himself nor is in charge of everything that happens and what's to come._
> 
> Stop looking at him in that role, please, because it is not so..
> 
> Rules are made *by the staff* and not by a single person. Preyfar's, Wolfblade's, Damaratus', my own, etc. opinion on them _are equal_ and neither of them override each other.


Indeed and well stated.


----------



## ShujinTribble (Jun 27, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Back to the topic: I personally feel that Poser does indeed take more effort than simple character generators, but the ultimate decision should depend on what is being done with the tool, not simply what the tool happens to be. If someone is just posing a pre-rendered in-package model, with no personally created elements, then it IS just being used as a more elaborate character generator. If they are using the tool to actually create, then there should be no bias against the creation just because of the tool used to create it.



To quote Marty Feldman, "On the NOSEY!!"


----------



## ebonyleopard (Jun 27, 2007)

I don't think it should be banned , this 3D poser work. I'll say this, I'm a skilled illustrator, but I could never come close to doing what those that use these 3D programs do. It truly is an artform onto itself, just different medium to produce the at. The fact, from what I understand, is that you just can't get the program and pop out anthro characters, you actually have to constuct and build them and those who do it have trained themselves to do it very well.

I say leave it be, though I'm not sure how much weight the comments of anyone here could sway the decision making process of the head guys of FA, considering how the last rule change issue went.


----------



## ebonyleopard (Jun 27, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Ranard Lightningfall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm sure your feeling towards Poser artist is probably the same traditional real medium painters feel about digital 'painters'.

I look at it like this, from what I've seen of people using poser, poser is mearly the too to which they use to create original looking characters that can not just be made from already existing files on poser. I mean, I can't imagine you can get an anthro looking fox head on the poser program. And I'm an artsit of traditional medium but I know I can't do what poser artist do with their work. There's a lot of skill, practice, and know how in what some of these artist do do with that program.

I can see if they were just taking an already existing model from that program and plopping it into their galleries, that I'd say could be prohibited, but if they are talking the time to use those models to build something totally new, then I say it should be allowed.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 27, 2007)

ebonyleopard said:
			
		

> I say leave it be, though I'm not sure how much weight the comments of anyone here could sway the decision making process of the head guys of FA, considering how the last rule change issue went.


After reading the comments in this thread, I'm in agreement with Damaratus and see no reason they should go. They may still fall under the spam rule (aka, if somebody posts 10 images of the same pose, just from different angles, they excess may be considered spam).


----------



## bryceowen (Jun 27, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> > Use of 3D software that relies on pre-existing or altered content (no matter to what extent) violates the 'By You' created content of the AUP. The artist must show not only original concept in creation of 3D models, they must express the application of artistic principles and fore thought to each generated image uploaded. Snap shot type images of even original 3D model concepts are not allowed.



I'm confused by this...Â Â What I read here states, and correct me if I'm wrong:
"Use of 3D software that relies on pre-existing or altered content (no matter to what extent) violates the 'By You' created content of the AUP."
Even if you made your own model in X program and imported it into Y program because Y program allows easier scene setups is not allowed because it wasn't created by you(?).Â Â That's what I'm reading here.Â Â "No matter to what extent."Â Â I created it in program X and it had to be exported to program Y because program Y doesn't allow me to create things (ergo 'pre-existing').

"Snap shot type images of even original 3D model concepts are not allowed."
And THIS...Â Â Well this just kinda kills ALL 3D artwork.Â Â Poser, MAX, Maya...Â Â Even original 3D models aren't allowed.Â Â Unless I don't understand 'snap shot' the same way as someone in the 3D scene.


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 27, 2007)

bryceowen said:
			
		

> I'm confused by this...  What I read here states, and correct me if I'm wrong:
> "Use of 3D software that relies on pre-existing or altered content (no matter to what extent) violates the 'By You' created content of the AUP."
> Even if you made your own model in X program and imported it into Y program because Y program allows easier scene setups is not allowed because it wasn't created by you(?).  That's what I'm reading here.  "No matter to what extent."  I created it in program X and it had to be exported to program Y because program Y doesn't allow me to create things (ergo 'pre-existing').
> 
> ...




I think that you're misinterpreting this.  What this is involving is using a pre-generated character, one not actually made by your own hands ("pre-existing").  That's where the argument has been sitting.  Since it's something that someone else made (i.e. exists within the program already).

If you made your own 3-D model and exported it to another program, then you'd still be well within the realm of the Terms of Service "By You" section.


----------



## cobalt (Jun 27, 2007)

bryceowen said:
			
		

> "Snap shot type images of even original 3D model concepts are not allowed."
> And THIS...  Well this just kinda kills ALL 3D artwork.  Poser, MAX, Maya...  Even original 3D models aren't allowed.  Unless I don't understand 'snap shot' the same way as someone in the 3D scene.



The way I read it, if you've built a model, and upload a simple image of it without putting it into a scene, just to show off the model itself, then that's a "snap shot" and therefore "not allowed." 

Which is a bit daft. That's saying that no skill went into the creation of the model, at all. 

Are we going to be banning photographs of statues, or fursuits now, as well? Those fall under the definintion of "original 3d model concepts" and most of the images I've seen posted have been simple snapshots. No elaborate lighting, no elaborate setups. 

No, It's a bad call. Time for a serious re-think, there.


----------



## Mapper (Jun 27, 2007)

My apologies Damaratus, I could have sworn I edit that stuff out of the post last night, but I see it didn't delete, ya might want to fix that edit button:wink:. I'm usually a very neutral individual and the comment I made was very unwarranted.
Anyhow I've been a member back when FA first started then went offline then cameback, and stuck around when the exodus due to certain art issues. Its been a fun place and I intend to stick around till told to leave or violated the TOS with what I do.
It just pains me that in a fandom that isn't widley accepted by the world has to question any anthro picture generated by any media. There are to few of us that do it for the fun and not the money.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 27, 2007)

Mapper said:
			
		

> It just pains me that in a fandom that isn't widley accepted by the world has to question any anthro picture generated by any media. There are to few of us that do it for the fun and not the money.


Some of the recent changes comes down to a world where bandwidth isn't free (FA's current bandwidth is up to $750 a month, and it's starting to hurt). We're trying to protect the interests of those who truly create while ensuring that the site can be run smoothly. 

And we have to admit, FA has gotten... well, uh... watered down in some aspects over time by those images which really bear no creativity at all and are posted just for the sake of posting. We're not trying to punish anybody (except for Suule*), but at the same time, there may be some individuals who feel punished by these new limitations.

Our goal is not define good art and bad art, but promote creativity without censorship. Some people may take that as "without restrictions of any sirt". A site like FA can't support an Imageshack mentality, and we're tring to stem what we can bit by bit.

* Suule is obligatory whipping boy. He likes it.


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 27, 2007)

Mapper said:
			
		

> My apologies Damaratus, I could have sworn I edit that stuff out of the post last night, but I see it didn't delete, ya might want to fix that edit button:wink:. I'm usually a very neutral individual and the comment I made was very unwarranted.
> Anyhow I've been a member back when FA first started then went offline then cameback, and stuck around when the exodus due to certain art issues. Its been a fun place and I intend to stick around till told to leave or violated the TOS with what I do.
> It just pains me that in a fandom that isn't widley accepted by the world has to question any anthro picture generated by any media. There are to few of us that do it for the fun and not the money.



 I figure most people do not want to stir unneeded drama.

I too have been a member since FA's first iteration.  Though at the time I was merely a watcher and wasn't nearly as involved on the site as I am now.

As you can tell this site is growing, and with it new problems arise, both from the artistic angle as well as a site angle.  This argument, as well as many others are good examples of the diversity of people and opinions that are now on this site.  Which is why it's good to end up in this kind of discussion because it can bring to light different view points that one might not have considered otherwise.

At present we are simply trying to keep a level of control on the site, it's growing very quickly and with it come new and sometimes unusual problems.  Not to mention that the expenses increase just as quickly (there will be more on that in the near future).  We really are trying to push for getting increased functionality to the site, so that these kinds of issues become far less of an occurrence and are much more easily handled, but since we are still in kind of a constructive transition, the AUP is one of the few things that we have to keep things reigned in.

Back to the topic for a moment, I was kindly reminded that part of what I said could be misconstrued as more of a setup for witch hunting new and inexperienced users to Poser/DAZ.  To clarify, those of you who are experienced in Poser/DAZ should keep an eye out for violations and report them if you see them, and also try and help those who are far less experienced reach a higher quality level with their work.  Please do not attack new folks in fear that we will suddenly remove all Poser/DAZ work from the site, but do think about the quality of the Poser/DAZ work that you and your fellow users are posting.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jun 27, 2007)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> Back to the topic for a moment, I was kindly reminded that part of what I said could be misconstrued as more of a setup for witch hunting new and inexperienced users to Poser/DAZ.  To clarify, those of you who are experienced in Poser/DAZ should keep an eye out for violations and report them if you see them, and also try and help those who are far less experienced reach a higher quality level with their work.  Please do not attack new folks in fear that we will suddenly remove all Poser/DAZ work from the site, but do think about the quality of the Poser/DAZ work that you and your fellow users are posting.



Thank you for that clarification.
There is more than enough Elitism and 'zOMG I'm not gonna tell you how I did that because it makes my artz unique!' in the fandom as it is.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jun 27, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> yak said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So there's no difference between an Administrator and a Moderator?
This is news to me.
I was under the misunderstanding that an Administrator *made* the rules and a Moderator enforced them.


----------



## Mapper (Jun 27, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Mapper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Understood  by all means stop the flooding of single pose multi images, and trust me thats one reason I cram as much background character interaction and fun in one pic. For resource reason I'll be more than happy to bring my gallery down to half the images or more to save FA resources.
I thoroughly enjoy being here at FA. And this is one reason I tend to avoid forums I sometime have the tendancy of putting my foot in my mouth:wink:


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 27, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> So there's no difference between an Administrator and a Moderator? This is news to me.
> 
> I was under the misunderstanding that an Administrator *made* the rules and a Moderator enforced them.


All staff have equal say into the rules. For the most part, FA is run under democratic principles and all admins, mods and coders have full right to protest and/or contribute to the rules process.

I turn nobody away simply because of their status; all staffers have equal voice in my books.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 27, 2007)

Mapper said:
			
		

> ...this is one reason I tend to avoid forums I sometime have the tendancy of putting my foot in my mouth:wink:


When it comes to putting one's foot in their mouth, I'm not only a professional at it, but I'm also the president. And you can take that to the bank.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jun 27, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Swampwulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But, in the end, they are 'your books', no?


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 27, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> But, in the end, they are 'your books', no?


Short of the site's bookkeeping, no... not really. If the admin team overrides my idea, that's fine. I don't move on it. Veto'd. It's very rare that I ever go "no, this is how its going to be" and if I do, it's for a very, very, very good reason. I won't claim to be perfect, but I eat crow quite a bit around here. yak is always around to keep me in line.

A site like this can not operate via the direction of one individual person, as there are thousands of people who visit FA every week, and each one has a different idea or outlook towards the site and life. It takes a varied team and ideas to keep that machine running.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jun 27, 2007)

You'll pardon, I hope, the bluntness of my next questions then, but isn't the root of the problem that the site is now facing that simple fact that there *isn't* a firmer guiding hand at the helm?
Is site growth more important to you than providing a more limited but *stable* community?

Perhaps this isn't the proper forum to ask, as it is *not* my intention to cause drama, but to honestly try and understand the long term goals of this place.
It seems that I've been laboring under a *lot* of false assumptions lately and I'm trying to understand the underlying philosophy that guides 'the powers that be'.


----------



## jmac32here (Jun 27, 2007)

"These rule changes will, inevitably, not sit well with a few individuals, and while we'd like to make everybody happy, it's just not possible long term, nor with a site like this. I'd like to impact as few people as possible with these while raising the quality standards of the site -- as I am sure any other admin team on this would agree."

I for one, as the core administrator of DPH-including the Library and Gallery-do not agree.  Our art contests, would allow 3d rendering...since we see 3D rendoring programs as tools for 3D artists.

Hence my use of the keywords "3D ARTISTS" claiming the 3D work, which is IMPOSSIBLE to do by any traditional means, is in fact art.

Along with me and my moderators, the teams at DA, FAP, SA, and Storm-Artists have NEVER even considered that the use of a 3D Redoring program to create art to be a bad thing.  So therefore, in my eyes, thats 5 administration teams that would not agree with your views, since they continue to ALLOW 3D rendored art and have NEVER had any discussions...lest alone public ones...in regards to banning it.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 27, 2007)

jmac32here said:
			
		

> preyfar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That line was _in regards to the AUP in general_ and why are doing it, NOT any sort of justification for removing Poser art. As was mentioned earlier in this thread by Damaratus, we're not going to be removing it at this time.

And no, the changes of the AUP will not sit well for everybody. We don't consider 3D art to be a bad thing, but the issue as with people using Poser and, primarily, ONLY using the pre-made models that come with the application. We're not disputing the legitimacy of 3D as art -- and haven't once in this entire thread. It's focused on Poser and its pre-generated models.

I understand and respect 3D art, trust me... I have half a dozen professional publications under my name as lead 3D artist/animator. I love it with a passion.


----------



## ShujinTribble (Jun 27, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> We don't consider 3D art to be a bad thing, but the issue as with people using Poser and, primarily, ***ONLY using the pre-made models that come with the application*** (emphasis added by Shujin).



Going by THIS quotation, I think I owe someone an apology... or minimally an, "Ahhhhhhhh!" I was under the impression from reading the thread and all it was about Poser/DAZ - The medium and method for making the content. I did not understand you were talking about a very specific PART of those mediums.

Clarifying then, and please correct me if I've screwed it up:
1) $Generic_3D_Program = OK
2) Furry-Centric-Output from $Generic_3D_Program = OK
3) Non-Furry-Centric-Output from $Generic_3D_Program due to use of $Non-Furry_3D_Model = BAD

(I mean, if that's the case, that seems pretty strait forward to me... the art collections here should likely follow the same idea; If it aint furry, move it...)

(Aw, hell.. that means I best go clean up my stuff since I wasn't thinking about it.... I'll be right back...)


----------



## jmac32here (Jun 27, 2007)

ShujinTribble said:
			
		

> Preyfar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As with the general impression.  This thread alone has caused a mass amount of drama in the sites 3D artist communities..many of which REFUSING to post due to the thought, riased up by this discussion, that all 3D art will be banned.  It's not the idea..but how it's worded that causes the most problems.  Any site admin should understand that, and understand that with communities, you need to be clear and specific as to what you are talking about.

Making general statements is where the drama begins.  Stating that using a pre-made model to make stuff (especially non-furry stuff) is more of the way it should be worded, not saying "The use of this program is bad."  --Which is the general idea that everyone I've spoken to got.--


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 27, 2007)

jmac32here said:
			
		

> As with the general impression.  This thread alone has caused a mass amount of drama in the sites 3D artist communities..many of which REFUSING to post due to the thought, riased up by this discussion, that all 3D art will be banned.  It's not the idea..but how it's worded that causes the most problems.  Any site admin should understand that, and understand that with communities, you need to be clear and specific as to what you are talking about.



I do believe "mass amounts of drama" is a bit expansive, since this thread has already gone through discussion and conclusion, and it was done in a relatively civil manner.  Nor have there been huge uprisings on the site because of this.  You are right in the fact that the wording must be done carefully, but regardless of care put into it, there will still be some who do not interpret it the way it was meant to be.  This is another reason why this thread exists, so people can ask and help get things to make more sense.



			
				jmac32here said:
			
		

> Making general statements is where the drama begins.  Stating that using a pre-made model to make stuff (especially non-furry stuff) is more of the way it should be worded, not saying "The use of this program is bad."  --Which is the general idea that everyone I've spoken to got.--



This will be taken into account.  Though from what I've seen, general statements may start drama, but so do specifically worded ones, it's all about who is reading it and how they construe the information that is given to them.  Since the use of the program isn't in question, and hasn't been since I posted my rather lengthy post, that aspect should not be an issue anymore.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 27, 2007)

I think it's funny that Poser was mentioned, while it is definitely panned/trashed by industry standard. However, there is this.

If someone did an SL screenshot it SCREAMS SL

Not all Poser art screams Poser however. I've seen people do a mesh of 3D and Photoshop to create something different and unique.

Like any art, I've seen quite a few that screamed their program because of how someone used it. Lens Flare, Difference Cloud, premade/generated texture!

I'm well aware the thread reached its conclusion, but I am amused by the fact Poser was immediately trashed.


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 27, 2007)

whitedingo said:
			
		

> Firstly it is work safe you have to be a reg member with the adult thing turned on to view an adult image on fa .It was not the sexual content that I was bringing up but the fact that the models are stock and have not been made by me so by your rule it would not be allowed my point is why do you want to ban this,is it not worthy to be seen on this site
> 
> And on a side note if you got straight to the point in your post and stopped trying to look like a layer,your whole post could have been just the quote and I would have got it,and I'm not re reading it ,its just to long and I'm to old to care
> 
> Ps I changed the image but it still holds I did not make these models



No it's not Work Safe, any time you are linking to an adult image from the forum you need to put the disclaimer NWS. Since this is kept a pg-13 forum and not everyone here wishes to click on a link that says this is my pic and be confronted with a tubgirl image (old reference.) So it's not just a matter of the fact they could be at work (which by your solution nobody at work or using public access means should be allowed to go on FA or log into their page, since it might inconvenience you.) Tagging a link to an adult image has already been established time and time again on this forum that it must be marked with a disclaimer, even if it's as simple as NWS. 

Ok, so now you are saying you were bringing that image up because the models are stock, which you didn't even bother to mention in your first response. You were specifically bringing up artistic merit and if it would be considered a snap shot image, which in no way relates to what you posed in your response and was clearly separated from the original content part in my post. Your response was phrased in such a way that it was completely misdirecting, so I'm sorry if I did not address what you wanted. I only addressed what was asked.

Now in my post there is two main points that you have to meet to fit an image into the AUP. First is the 'application of artistic principles' and the second is the 'By you/for you' clause in the AUP. Now let me make clear first that 'application of artistic principles' does not disqualify any adult image, or even images from people less skilled. It refers to the idea to keep FA from being an image bucket for people to dump crap in. Which effects everyone on the site. 

The part you are now alluding to in the original content or the By you/ For you part of the AUP. In my original post I clearly laid out the fact that both programs uses can be that of a generator. Similar to say a South Park character generator, the creations are not By you and do not qualify as original content, you are only changing the variables. You have a greater control of the variables in Poser/Daz type programs but that does not make it original content, it just makes it a more complicated generator. So by the AUP it does not qualify as an originally created content so it should not be allowed. 

Now you can whine about and twist what I'm saying into "it's not worthy to be seen on this site" and have a marvelous little self pity party. But the fact remains that it was not created by you, you are only using it as a new type of generator. So it's not a matter of worthiness, it the fact it's not By You or in other words not original content, with that particular use of the program. So you are violating the AUP, however my suggestion was to help eliminate the people that are using the programs as generators and still allow the use of them for people that create original content. What level of original content would of course be up to the admins. 

And please don't blame me because you lack the attention span to actually read a post. So please excuse the rest of us that are trying to bring up several points of an argument to make a reasonable conclusion, rather then just grunting and proclaiming "me no like." Might I suggest you stay on the shout boards if you are looking for that level of a thought out response.


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 27, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I'm well aware the thread reached its conclusion, but I am amused by the fact Poser was immediately trashed.



Well the use of programs like Poser to be nothing more then glorified character generators that rely on pre-existing models is a rather noticeable problem. Part of the point of my post was the fact that the programs can be used to create fantastic artwork, but they is a lot of tendency to load stock models and use it as the new type of character generator. So I completely agree with you that it's the way people use the program that should qualify or disqualify it in the AUP.


----------



## ShujinTribble (Jun 27, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

> Now in my post there is two main points that you have to meet to fit an image into the AUP. First is the 'application of artistic principles' and the second is the 'By you/for you' clause in the AUP.....
> 
> The part you are now alluding to in the original content or the By you/ For you part of the AUP. In my original post I clearly laid out the fact that both programs uses can be that of a generator. Similar to say a South Park character generator, the creations are not By you and do not qualify as original content, you are only changing the variables. You have a greater control of the variables in Poser/Daz type programs but that does not make it original content, it just makes it a more complicated generator. So by the AUP it does not qualify as an originally created content so it should not be allowed.



And by that very, dare I say, narrow interpretation, photographers are guilty of the same thing. The film, the camera, the subject, the sun, the trees, the buildings, the air itself are all already there, you just have a set number of finite places and angles to choose from and you manipulate the various settings on the camera (film ISO, f-stop, duration, ambient light, subject position / dress / placement, locality). You don't have knobs to tweak on anything except the camera's controls, but you have full control over the composition. 

3D programs give you the same opportunity, but in a world you can control and customize to your heart and imagination's content... moreso than a photog can alone.

If we're going to banter with semantics, let's level the playing field about it.



			
				DarkMeW said:
			
		

> Now you can whine about and twist what I'm saying into "it's not worthy to be seen on this site" and have a marvelous little self pity party. But the fact remains that it was not created by you, you are only using it as a new type of generator. So it's not a matter of worthiness, it the fact it's not By You or in other words not original content, with that particular use of the program.



In that case, again, photography is not an art because the Universe was not created by you? You can scoff and say I'm being overly dramatic, but it is exactly the same thing: 3D Programs allow you to create the Universe your image comes from. You may not have written the program, nor designed the --Base Character-- (My Emphasis) used, but if you are creating a furry-centric picture with your own imagination / settings / composition, does that not qualify as 'By You'?



			
				DarkMeW said:
			
		

> So you are violating the AUP, however my suggestion was to help eliminate the people that are using the programs as generators and still allow the use of them for people that create original content. What level of original content would of course be up to the admins.



There is still a place for creating 'stock generated' images - as added as 'Scrap' image(s). If you use the image(s) as Character Sheets, this should be a narrowly-included interpretation, I would think.



			
				DarkMeW said:
			
		

> And please don't blame me because you lack the attention span to actually read a post. So please excuse the rest of us that are trying to bring up several points of an argument to make a reasonable conclusion, rather then just grunting and proclaiming "me no like." Might I suggest you stay on the shout boards if you are looking for that level of a thought out response.



I'm still new to this board and thread... but if you don't want hostility, I'd recommend toning down your own rhetoric as well. A discussion like this can move well with more civilized point-counterpoint talk and fewer accusations and berating. After all, to paraphrase Monty Python, this isn't "Abuse".

One thing that might help is staying to a singular topic - Yes there may be tangentially important points, but if multiple topics invade a discussion like this, it'll only muddy the waters further and further.

Thanks for your attention and time.


----------



## Seasons-end (Jun 27, 2007)

You  know considering it can take  hours to create  new  textures for Poser models and Daz Studio  I  have a problem seeing how it  can not be considered art  especially since you are working upon a flattened image to create something  3d..  when placed upon a 3d  model.  And it is  especially takes skill if you are working towards something photorealistic.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 27, 2007)

http://www.gfxartist.com/features/tutorials/976

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


----------



## IanKeith (Jun 27, 2007)

Wow.

I read the first page of this thread, went TL;DR, and congrats community. My opinion about this whole thing is now "HAY WHOO HAZ TEH BIGAR PENIZ??/"


----------



## whitedingo (Jun 27, 2007)

Why not have user paid accounts for art not meeting the tos standards or others wanting a bit more from the site ,I would be quite happy to pay for an account if you charge say 60 a year 5 bucks a month all you need is 200 users to sighn up and there is your server running costs paid for the year with a bit of small change left over 

Ps darkmew have a look at the new link the title say's it all


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 28, 2007)

whitedingo said:
			
		

> Why not have user paid accounts for art not meeting the tos standards or others wanting a bit more from the site ,I would be quite happy to pay for an account if you charge say 60 a year 5 bucks a month all you need is 200 users to sighn up and there is your server running costs paid for the year with a bit of small change left over



There's been similar suggestions, although I don't believe there is any plans to make FA a pay site for the good features. Currently they have enough trying to code the features they have planned and maintaining the site. Even if such a deal could be down the road it would be a long way down the road. I find it far more likely of there being money drives or auctions to generate needed revenue. (Where FA 'artists' would donate works for auction that would help pay for the costs of running FA.)



> Ps darkmew have a look at the new link the title say's it all



I really have no interest in seeing your work, if you could even call it that. However please feel free to have chuckle over what ever it is, since I'm sure must be your most intelligent retort you've had to date. :roll:


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 28, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> http://www.gfxartist.com/features/tutorials/976
> 
> http://www.dccdesigner.com/Htm/Tutorials/TheQueen01.htm



I ran into that tutorial  before from a link on a 2D 3D digital creators forum (not sure which one.) Unfortunatly, most people I've found posting 3D rarely get past the stage of sticking pre made models on a stock background. Which isn't much different from the people that post thier Halo character screen shot and claim it as an original. 

In my post I had no problem with the people that actually create in the programs. My problems are the ones that use it as nothing more then a character generator. The extent of actual original content can vary depending on how the program or programs are used.


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 28, 2007)

ShujinTribble said:
			
		

> ....
> 3D programs give you the same opportunity, but in a world you can control and customize to your heart and imagination's content... moreso than a photog can alone.
> ....
> In that case, again, photography is not an art because the Universe was not created by you? You can scoff and say I'm being overly dramatic,



In fact I previously brought up this part of the argument in my original response only I applied it towards the difference in using the 3D programs like character generators and photography. 

_"A generator does not apply any original artistic principles only already created ones, while scenery for a photo or painting (which was brought up earlier) may already be in existence, it is still up to the artist to interpret and apply artistic principles such as add lighting, composition, color, etc. So it is the artist's interpretations of the subject that makes the artwork. This is why snap shot type images are often not allowed in many artistic web sites, because there was little to no application of the artistic principles applied in creating it. "_

There is a point in my original post that may be more conducive towards your argument. That is the difference I brought up between snap shot images and actual photography that you can apply to what you're saying about creating an artificial scene. Rather then using your wording of customize to your hearts content, which makes it sound more like my original assertion of using the programs as the next generation of character generators, it would be better to say using it as a construction method for creating less limited imagery then photography could. 

There is a problem though with what I brought up before and you mention, the stock models. Alluding to what I previously said,Â Â _"you can still use themÂ Â to create original content and then apply artistic principles to it to create what could not be considered a generator image and not snap shoot images of your created content."_ It is possible to create an original image that you can apply artistic creativity, in other words the "'application of artistic principles" however as a link that was given from a previous post shows, that is not what is being done by some people. Although I do agree my original post was to totalitarian in it's inclusion of stock models, the fact remains that people use it as a generator with stock models. To bring in what was previously said it is similar to the difference between Photography as an art and snap shot images. The tendency I've seen (especially on FA) is to use the software to create snap shot images that often look worst then a screen cap from an x-box game. 

Now that's not saying that I don't believe using stock models isn't a violation of the AUP. However as I did state the level of creative content would be up to the admins. That may sound like I'm passing the buck, but in fact I'm not. Just like determining Photography form snap shots, the level creative content and involvement has to be determined. I'm sure I would be far more strict then the admins would be, but then I don't control the content on FA. 

Which actually brings up another part of the AUP. That is the fact people are using the stock models, however they don't even credit the creators of the model. Which is in the For You part of the AUP. 



> There is still a place for creating 'stock generated' images - as added as 'Scrap' image(s). If you use the image(s) as Character Sheets, this should be a narrowly-included interpretation, I would think.



I'm sorry but I'm missing what your point is in this part. :wink: 



> I'm still new to this board and thread... but if you don't want hostility, I'd recommend toning down your own rhetoric as well. A discussion like this can move well with more civilized point-counterpoint talk and fewer accusations and berating. After all, to paraphrase Monty Python, this isn't "Abuse".



To be perfectly honest rarely get emotionally involved in any thing. Most matters like this I only give what I would consider to be an appropriate show of emotions even though I don't feel them. The closest thing I can muster in emotional involvement is a little amusement when people get in a tissy over a post (which I know isn't necessarily a good thing.) As far as 'rhetoric' is concerned I would say that would only apply to me if it was the definition of "the ability to use language effectively." :lol:

btw I would have preferred the MP quote of, "now we see the violence inherent in the system." but I understand that would have been harder to fit in.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jun 28, 2007)

DarkMeW said:
			
		

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



I think we should ban Photoshop lens flares, dodge and burn, and any other textures and brushes not created by the user. I mean we are talking about for you by you. A Lens Flare is made by Photoshop and so are a lot of their filters.

Poser's pre-generated stuff is just more "apparent" in the way that people would like people do do stuff from model up least from industry/more pro perspective. I also do understand that frustration yet FA allows people with the above to post their work too XD Lens flare doesn't make your work better.

I'd actually "ban" a lot of artwork but as said earlier, the Poser/Daz debate is kinda dead so I don't see what's the point of arguing its existence of said work FA.


----------



## yak (Jun 28, 2007)

I would just like to remind you folks that this thread is not the "remove or else" ultimatum announcement, but community  discussion on whether FA should allow the said art or not.
To be honest, there point of the discussion was made like 30 posts ago, and this thread is left open for any other question/opinions you might have and want to share, so keep it civil and don't step out of the line


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 28, 2007)

Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> I think we should ban Photoshop lens flares, dodge and burn, and any other textures and brushes not created by the user. I mean we are talking about for you by you. A Lens Flare is made by Photoshop and so are a lot of their filters.
> 
> Poser's pre-generated stuff is just more "apparent" in the way that people would like people do do stuff from model up least from industry/more pro perspective. I also do understand that frustration yet FA allows people with the above to post their work too XD Lens flare doesn't make your work better.
> 
> I'd actually "ban" a lot of artwork but as said earlier, the Poser/Daz debate is kinda dead so I don't see what's the point of arguing its existence of said work FA.



I'm partly sure that the filters ban was in jest, however there is a difference between something that is used on content and something that is used to create content. But dear god I'm sick of horrible use of Photoshop filters. I've only seen maybe one instance in years where lens flare was actually used correctly. 

It took two days for this thread's debate to be considered dead, it had the life span of a house fly.


----------



## DarkMeW (Jun 28, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> I would just like to remind you folks that this thread is not the "remove or else" ultimatum announcement, but communityÂ Â discussion on whether FA should allow the said art or not.
> To be honest, there point of the discussion was made like 30 posts ago, and this thread is left open for any other question/opinions you might have and want to share, so keep it civil and don't step out of the line



Even if I think it should be removed, or at least tighter restrictions placed upon it, and that it is actually against the AUP, that has nothing to do with the content now being on FA or if it is considered against policy. However, people get twisted in a bunch over other opinions just being brought up. Which is why I find a lot of the people's reactions, just very amusing.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 29, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> You'll pardon, I hope, the bluntness of my next questions then, but isn't the root of the problem that the site is now facing that simple fact that there *isn't* a firmer guiding hand at the helm?
> Is site growth more important to you than providing a more limited but *stable* community?
> 
> Perhaps this isn't the proper forum to ask, as it is *not* my intention to cause drama, but to honestly try and understand the long term goals of this place.
> It seems that I've been laboring under a *lot* of false assumptions lately and I'm trying to understand the underlying philosophy that guides 'the powers that be'.



A firmer hand and a stable community is an unpleasant prospect to those who happen to enjoy the freedoms they have with a decidedly infirm hand and unstable ill-defined community.

Those people tend to have the loudest voices, and when an administration chooses to hear all voices equally, the ones who manage to drown out the opposition are the ones who have the ears of the Administration.


----------



## uncia (Jun 29, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Swampwulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sounds like a pretty poor administration if they simply listen to the loudest voices regardless of the guiding principles of the community they're meant to be administering.

Suffice to say it might be a good idea if you didn't beat about the bush so hypothetically and actually gave a concrete reply to the question asked. Or requested further clarification if it's not clear what the question asked actually is, since I think the reply's sounding slightly off-beam to the actual thread which is about acceptable content, not the manner in which freedoms are somehow automatically greater if the "hand" is infirm and community unstable (huh?). Must admit I'm not entirely sure how those questions fit in *specifically* to the thread, either...

d.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 29, 2007)

The primary question of the post was directed at someone else, who seems to have missed it replying to someone else.

I absolutely agree with you. The loudest voice should not be the primary consideration. A community needs to have some set guiding principles to administrate from, and not just sway to whatever people happen to be clamoring for at the moment. Sometimes people will disagree with actions taken, and sometimes people will be upset. Sometimes people may even feel alienated. But to try and be inclusive and open to absolutely everyone all of the time cheapens and waters down any possible perception of a specific purpose and goal.

Freedoms are greater with a soft hand and unstable community. People can do more than if there are set guidelines and rules. That is not necessarily a good thing. We're trying to establish a firmer guiding principle and some community focus and stability with the new AUP. Yes, there will need to be tweaking done to it. But not every concern, correction, or dispute needs to be heeded. Particularly disputes over actions taken to address a problem when the disputes come from people contributing to the problem an action was meant to address.


----------



## Rasiel Draconis (Jun 30, 2007)

I've tinkered with Poser 5.0 and I do have the current version of DazStudio. They are tools that are readily and (might I add) cheeply accessible to the public for use to create pictures and art. The only reason soo many use Daz Studio and Poser is because of their price and accesibility. If any other program were to become as widely used, would you put a ban on pictures from them as well? I'll admit that I haven't put a render from either up in my gallery, but I do find Daz Studio helpful for figuring poses and motions when drawing.

If you truly consider them "character generators", then you've missed a few other programs that would also fall under this generalization like Flash, Photoshop, 3D Studio Max, Maya, Gimp, and every other 2D or 3D program out there. 

However, there is one thing I would like to point out about most, if not all of the Poser/DazStudio users. They all use the same two models, Furrette and Furaldo. I understand that making a new model is a long, tedious process to some and that the shortest, easiest route is more often then not the better route with some 3D stuff, but some variety would be nice. I swear I've seen those two characters in over 100,000 different skins and/or clothes and just as many different poses. Changing the skin or adding some clothes is relatively easy, but if you limit your works to only that kind of stuff, then Dragoneer is partially right in calling them "Character Generators". 

Please do not take this the wrong way. I have seen some rather creative things done with the two, but there is only soo much two characters can do with a little change here or a new skin there. Would it truly be so hard to either make a new model or to ask someone to make it for you? Heck, even a new object model wouldn't be so bad. Just give those two a break or perhaps some competition?


----------



## Kiokuffiib11 (Nov 1, 2007)

I do (Having used both DAZ and poser) think that they are both art,  and the amount of work you have to put into your figures,  and the background,  is very time consuming,  and is alot of work.    It's not as easy as putting on clothing on your character,  and throwing up a background.

This won't affect me,  because I don't use either anymore,  but,  I feel that it should be allowed,  for the sole reason,  it is a form of art if naught else.


----------



## Damaratus (Nov 1, 2007)

Wow, this was one hell of a thread necromancy.  The overall issue has been solved on this.  No reason to dredge it up from the nether threads like someone out of Altered Beast.


----------

