# The "Google meme"



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

Just search the main site for "google" and sort the entries by date. You get TONS of results with this nonsense!
They should call this the "against the AUP meme". Can someone please put a stop to that? It's getting annoying.

Edit: Holy crap there are literally hundreds of them... I just searched for them a little but looks like I only just scratched the surface!


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 21, 2014)

CALL THE SUBMISSION POLICE

...that sounds kinda hot


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

You mean the admins? Considering that we had two threads about open tickets in such short order... Yeah not gonna happen.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Dec 21, 2014)

Considering none of the people I watch are posting this crap, it doesn't bother me. I think the best way to show these people how much we dislike these meme invading the site is to unwatch them in droves. That'll get em to change their tune PDQ.


----------



## StormyChang (Dec 21, 2014)

i thought if you manipulated the photo in some way it was ok to post?
also.. slightly relevant.  a couple people i watch have been told to take them down or have had them forceably removed.  while for the majority of other people it's been let slide... :/   not like i'm a big fan of the meme.. but if you're going to do it to some you should do it to all, not just cherry-pick users..


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

No, they are not ok to post. The rules clearly state that all content you upload has to be made by you or specifically for you, and that includes the individual parts that make up the image.
You are right though, all of them should be removed. Especially since they are so easy to find.


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Dec 21, 2014)

These so-called "memes" are popping up everywhere, but I don't find it an annoyance.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

I do, because it's against the rules and a ton of people are doing it.
And apparently the admins are doing a half-arsed job at going against it.


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Dec 21, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> I do, because it's against the rules and a ton of people are doing it.
> And apparently the admins are doing a half-arsed job at going against it.


I can't blame them, the way some people in the community get about their "work" when criticized.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

LegitWaterfall said:


> I can't blame them, the way some people in the community get about their "work" when criticized.



Just remove it! And when they bitch and moan about it suspend them for a few days.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

Oh and now they claim that if they give credit to the original sources the images won't be taken down... I call bullshit!


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Dec 21, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Just remove it! And when they bitch and moan about it suspend them for a few days.


They could, but moderation is more difficult than it appears. They probably have a good number of people complaining about the same thing, on top of regular issues, so let's just give them time. From what I know, this Google thing hasn't been around very long, but I could be wrong.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

Most of them were uploaded about 3 days ago. That is more than enough time to do something about it.


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Dec 21, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Most of them were uploaded about 3 days ago. That is more than enough time to do something about it.


At least enough time to be noticed, in their case.


----------



## StormyChang (Dec 21, 2014)

*(Prohibited Content)*

*2.6* - Content that was neither made by nor for the uploader is prohibited.
*
2.7* - Content that violates any of Fur Affinityâ€™s policies (TOS, COC, PP, etc.) is prohibited.
*
2.8* - Content of poor quality (e.g. fuzzy audio, blurry images, incorrectly rotated) is prohibited.
*
2.9* - Content lacking artistic merit (e.g. text only images, empty documents) is prohibited.
*
2.10* - Content that is an exact duplicate of media already in the userâ€™s Gallery Folder is prohibited.
*
2.11*  - Content that is traced, plagiarized, or stolen is prohibited,  including any character that is heavily derived from another userâ€™s  unique character.
*
2.12* - Content featuring minors, if  there is nudity or sexual activity present, is prohibited. Minors are  real or fictional humanoids with a childlike body or younger than 18  years old, and talking or feral animals which are similarly immature.
*
2.13* - Content that may be seizure inducing (e.g. rapidly flashing images) is prohibited.
*3. Photography
(Limited Content)*

*3.1* - Self-portraits are limited to 3 uploads per account, unless the subject is wearing a costume.
 *
3.2*  - Images of mass manufactured items or collections of said items,  including both modified or stock items (such as cars, guns with or  without attachments, toys, plates), are restricted to the Scraps Folder  and limited to no more than 3 per item or collection.
*(Prohibited Content)*
*3.3* - Photography featuring sexual activity (human or animal) is prohibited.
*
3.4*  - Photography displaying adult toys (sex toys or sexually modified  objects) is prohibited, unless they are not in use, being worn, donâ€™t  show signs of having been in use, you created them from scratch, and you  mark them with the adult content rating.
*
3.5* -  Photography depicting nudity (exposed buttocks, breasts, bulges,  outlines of genitalia, etc.) or indecently-clothed models  (undergarments, diapers, lingerie) is prohibited. Exceptions may be made  for swimsuits worn in public locations, such as a pool or beach.
*
3.6 *-  Photography containing bodily fluids, gore/injuries, or death is  prohibited, unless the content is fake, special effects, or the final  product of taxidermy when the pelt is preserved in good condition and  the presentation is in good taste. This includes freeze dry and wet  taxidermy as well as bones and finished pelts, but excludes anything raw  or gory.
*
3.7* - Photography of artwork or photographs that you do not own or have express permission to photograph and display is prohibited.
*
3.8* - Photography of random body parts that does not specifically showcase tattoos, custom jewelry, or body art is prohibited.
*
3.9*  - Photography of animals eating other animals, living or pre-frozen, is  prohibited. This does not include Kibbles 'n BitsÂ® or foodstuff like  chicken breasts and steak

*4. Screenshots and 3D Models
(Prohibited Content)*

*4.1 *-  Screenshots of applications, games (e.g. GMod, Second Life, Minecraft),  movies or websites that do not showcase new, original, user-created  content are prohibited. The use of in-game resources, such as blocks or  purchased parts, to create the aforementioned content is permitted.
*
4.2 *- Content created via character/image generators is prohibited (e.g. Doll Divine).


copypasta from the AUP.. i can't find anything that says they can't post it.. unless i missed something, maybe you can point it out for me?


----------



## RedSavage (Dec 21, 2014)

CC you really get off on being a rule stickler huh.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

StormyChang said:


> *(Prohibited Content)*
> 
> *2.6* - Content that was neither made by nor for the uploader is prohibited.
> *
> ...



2.6, 2.8, 2.9 and 2.11 all apply in my opinion.

@Red: No. Well, yes...
It annoys me because it is everywhere, because it's so very obviously against the rules and because the admins are once again not doing anything against it.


----------



## RedSavage (Dec 21, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> @Red: No. Well, yes...
> It annoys me because it is everywhere, because it's so very obviously against the rules and because the admins are once again not doing anything against it.



No, it annoys you because you allow it to annoy you, and you get satisfaction from making a point in why you are technically and inherently "right".

The phrase "why do you care?" comes to mind. You don't care because you necessarily believe in the sanctity of the intellectual property of the original photographers from which the photos originate (you may--but 99 percent of the other time the rule is being followed, you don't). You only care because the rules say it isn't allowed and someone is breaking that rule, and you want said rules to be enforced because it would make you feel good in a smug way that some other person has been corralled into following the same rules you are. 

Basically you've got a perfectionist complex that you extend unto other people, which in itself is a symptom of perfectionism. It's something along the lines of minor OCD. -You- follow the rules, so others should, by golly. Even if you don't recognize or admit it, to a degree it's true. It's not good enough that you follow the rules and function well on the by and by. OTHER PEOPLE must follow the rules or it aggravates you immensely. And when they do , you get a mental payoff in slight satisfaction. 

Honestly it's very unhealthy and I kind of have to wonder how much of an impact it plays on your social life. A certain train incident comes to mind every time I see a thread like this.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

No, that is simply not the case. What annoys me the most is the whole "others do it so I do it too! :V" attitude.
And this site has rules for a reason, it's an art site and not an image dump... This crap originated on Tumblr and it can stay there. Or do you want this to turn into DA?
So if anything I'm an elitist.
On the other hand, if we all can upload what ever we want then please excuse me while I upload some shots of a lemur licking his dick that I took at the zoo last month.


----------



## RedSavage (Dec 21, 2014)

You're just making excuses. You had the train incident, and then the big CP trouble tickets, and now this. I'm not saying that you're wrong in any case since I mostly agree with you, but the prevalence of "follow the rules" in your topics is concerning. You have different reasons for each specific cause, and again they're pretty decent reasons to have an outcry, but at the end of the day you feel like you have to rally behind each point like it even really matters because you have a bonafied complex. And you don't even see it. 

Besides. FA is a craphole and you know it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

I'm not making excuses! I have the photo right here! :V (NSFW, obviously)

Anyway, I just don't see the issue. The site has rules, we agreed to follow these rules when we registered. I just think that rules are important because they hold the community together.
Oh also, what pisses me off a LOT more right now is that the thumbnail system still doesn't work.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Dec 21, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> Oh also, what pisses me off a LOT more right now is that the thumbnail system still doesn't work.



Hope does spring eternal.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Hope does spring eternal.



How long has that been broken now? A year?


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Dec 21, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> How long has that been broken now? A year?



Seems longer.


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 21, 2014)

Butters Shikkon said:


> Seems longer.



I don't even know anymore. And most people don't seem to care anymore so their evil plan worked I guess :c


----------



## StormyChang (Dec 21, 2014)

CaptainCool said:


> 2.6, 2.8, 2.9 and 2.11 all apply in my opinion.



*2.6* - Content that was neither made by nor for the uploader is prohibited.   -  but, even if they're copypasta'ing from multiple pics they're technically still making it, or putting it together like a collage.  like, in grade school when you cut things out of magazines, right?
*2.8* - Content of poor quality (e.g. fuzzy audio, blurry images, incorrectly rotated) is prohibited.   -  they aren't really blury, or ill rotated.  (at least the ones i've seen.)  they've all been upright, and clear, even in thumbnail form.
*2.9* - Content lacking artistic merit (e.g. text only images, empty documents) is prohibited.   -  these images are clearly not text-only or empty documents.  maybe they're lacking artistic merit to you.  but even collages can have artistic merit.  otherwise teachers working at art schools wouldn't make them an exercise in class.
*2.11*  - Content that is  traced, plagiarized, or stolen is prohibited,  including any character  that is heavily derived from another userâ€™s  unique character.   -  this is sort of a sticky area where i will probably agree with your point to an extent.  because alot of artists always fight the 'i found it on google it's free game' argument with their own art.

honestly, i think you're nit-picking, and manipulating the rules to your own definition (mostly the artistic merit rule, but that can be a notorious grey area).  i dont really like this meme.. but i dont think it's so bad there needs to be a rally cry to knock them all down.


----------



## kayfox (Dec 21, 2014)

except the people posting the meme actually did put this stuff together in an image editor.

I have seen some really cool photo manipulation and I dont really want that tossed out with this stuff.

Just delete the notification and move on.


----------



## Erethzium (Dec 21, 2014)

"putting stuff together" does not count as creating something if it's completely comprised of material that you did not create.

Does this mean I can take two pieces of art, cut the characters out of them and then re-edit them into another image, and claim that I created it? No, it's other peoples' work that I'm pasting together.

This "meme" breaches the For You/By You rule, plain and simple.

Me, I just filtered them out with Fur Affinity Filter by making it filter anything with "google" in the name or description.


----------



## Taralack (Dec 21, 2014)

Erethzium said:


> "putting stuff together" does not count as creating something if it's completely comprised of material that you did not create.



One might argue that this is the definition of photobashing, which is actually quite a common technique employed by concept artists. But that's a whole 'nother can of worms..


----------



## quoting_mungo (Dec 21, 2014)

The primary rule being breached by (most postings of) the meme is *2.5 - Content used as part of an upload that is royalty-free or under Fair Use (copyrighted material used for a limited and â€œtransformativeâ€ purpose) must cite the source of the original content.* Some uploads have also been pushing or breaking the appropriately clothed models clause of the photography section. If you can cite the original source and it's been released under an appropriate license, they're fine in most cases.

We _are_ removing them, but removals take a certain minimum amount of time and we only have so much of it. This goes for _all_ recurring types of violations on the site - if you're seeing it, we've not removed it yet, either because we're not aware of it or because we've not had the time yet. We're not deliberately ignoring them or letting them slide.


----------



## RTDragon (Dec 21, 2014)

I wonder who would make a meme about this? since the majority of pictures are not royalty free and copyrighted.


----------



## Laini (Dec 21, 2014)

The thing I found weird was on FA's Twitter they posted a status about it https://twitter.com/furaffinity/status/546314531832889344
_Also, a polite reminder regarding the "Google Meme" - reposting/editing copyright works is not permitted on the site. They will be removed._

They can't do it now obviously because the admin message is about how the site is broken again but that was posted almost 2 days ago, why didn't they make it a notice then, on the site, not the Twitter feed that the vast majority of users don't read (heck, I only got there by accident).
It probably wouldn't have stopped everyone who was going to upload one but it would have stopped some of them and saved themselves some work.


----------



## RedSavage (Dec 22, 2014)

quoting_mungo said:


> The primary rule being breached by (most postings of) the meme is *2.5 - Content used as part of an upload that is royalty-free or under Fair Use (copyrighted material used for a limited and â€œtransformativeâ€ purpose) must cite the source of the original content.* Some uploads have also been pushing or breaking the appropriately clothed models clause of the photography section. If you can cite the original source and it's been released under an appropriate license, they're fine in most cases.
> 
> We _are_ removing them, but removals take a certain minimum amount of time and we only have so much of it. This goes for _all_ recurring types of violations on the site - if you're seeing it, we've not removed it yet, either because we're not aware of it or because we've not had the time yet. We're not deliberately ignoring them or letting them slide.



CC's justice boner is going to shoot through the roof and jizz all over Europe.


----------



## ventus (Dec 22, 2014)

Just add a server rule so it will deny all submission containg both the words "google" and "meme"


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 22, 2014)

RedSavage said:


> CC's justice boner is going to shoot through the roof and jizz all over Europe.



Meh.
I just like that they actually do enforce the rules.


----------



## LegitWaterfall (Dec 22, 2014)

I'm not so bothered by the rule-breaking, though it is an issue, as much as the fact that a majority of the memes I've seen are ripped wolf dudes or half-naked dog-girls...


----------



## CaptainCool (Dec 22, 2014)

LegitWaterfall said:


> ripped wolf dudes or half-naked dog-girls...



Yeaaahhh, about that >__>


----------



## Xela-Dasi (Dec 22, 2014)

and if anyone wants to make this meme :

1. Open Google Images
2. Type in your characters species, use the first or second image as the FACE
3. type in your characters body weight OR type, use the first or second image as the BODY
4. Type in your characters hair colour, use the first or second image as the HAIR
5. Type in ONE defining features (scar, wings etc) and use the first or second as desired/needed
6. FINALLY google a place your character would live, use the first or second image as the BACKGROUND 

aint nobody has time fo editing


----------



## Croconaw (Dec 22, 2014)

It's a stupid meme, I'll give CC's annoyance that.


----------



## Zeitzbach (Dec 23, 2014)

There's a special place in hell for people participating in this meme. Far more special than the one for furries.



StormyChang said:


> *2.8* - Content of  poor quality (e.g. fuzzy audio, blurry images, incorrectly rotated) is  prohibited.   -  they aren't really blury, or ill rotated.  (at least  the ones i've seen.)  they've all been upright, and clear, even in  thumbnail form.



Damn that quality standard.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2014)

I like some of them, and provided the material used is copyright free and properly referenced, it's not problematic. 

I did perform a search and some images did feature photographic pornography, or images of paintings that were barely edited. 


At least we don't have droves of people doing this though:















It's because of ass-holes like those guys that year-long adult-level art training courses in England do feature two solid weeks of making collages from old crisp packets stuck to card, but _don't_ teach any painting technique, composition and so on.


----------



## Blekarotva (Dec 26, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> It's because of ass-holes like those guys that year-long adult-level art training courses in England do feature two solid weeks of making collages from old crisp packets stuck to card, but _don't_ teach any painting technique, composition and so on.



Duchamp's artwork had way too much to do with his context, trying to imitate him without fully understanding his relation with his historical moment on the art insitution is really bad, and it's even worse if someone is teaching how to do this works but won't teach the history.
Can't say I admire the guy but during the four years I went through college he's inevitably the most talked topic (besides dadaism). He knew how to draw and paint, so with those "modern" artworks, he was pretty much trolling art snobs.

Most of the avant-garde artists were decent/good enough on a traditional/classic technique of art, they had a deep speech behinds their modern works which "validated" them. Doing these works without developing them *from *the speech is problematic and shows ignorance. The minimal work is complemented by the speech, otherwise it looks empty and lazy.


Regarding this meme - I wish people went to deviantart or any other site that offers quality free stock photography, the difference in quality between the pictures put together is what bothers me the most :V


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 26, 2014)

Blekarotva said:


> Duchamp's artwork had way too much to do with his context, trying to imitate him without fully understanding his relation with his historical moment on the art insitution is really bad, and it's even worse if someone is teaching how to do this works but won't teach the history.
> Can't say I admire the guy but during the four years I went through college he's inevitably the most talked topic (besides dadaism). He knew how to draw and paint, so with those "modern" artworks, he was pretty much trolling art snobs.
> 
> Most of the avant-garde artists were decent/good enough on a traditional/classic technique of art, they had a deep speech behinds their modern works which "validated" them. Doing these works without developing them *from *the speech is problematic and shows ignorance. The minimal work is complemented by the speech, otherwise it looks empty and lazy.
> ...



I can't even pretend to find Duchamp interesting.


----------



## Blekarotva (Dec 26, 2014)

Fallowfox said:


> I can't even pretend to find Duchamp interesting.



Neither I do, nor I like the avant-garde artists, conceptualism, minimalism, ready-mades, pop-art (I want to punch in the face anyone that adores Warhol), etc.
But I was given historical context to understand them, and I don't think they're the assholes. I think it was the snobs and the people who considered their stuffs to be terribly important that created the problem. As I said, Duchamp and dadaists were trolling with their "artworks".


----------

