# AUP Discussion



## Dragoneer (Mar 17, 2013)

Greetings!

It's time once again for our biannual AUP discussion. The last time we met, we had completely rewritten the AUP from the ground up. A new format and style to try to condense the information in the hope of making it more readable and less wordy. It's been a few months, so we're soliciting feedback. How's it working for you?

Do you feel something isn't covered properly?
Do you feel something could be worded better?
Is there anything in the AUP that just isn't clear to you?

We're looking for input from the community on how to better our rules and make them clearer, so let's hear what you have to say!

_*Please keep feedback civil.*_ We want to make the site rules work for you, and we're willing to hear you out.

Thanks,
Neer

*NOTE:* We may not be able to respond to all inquiries/suggestions, but we will be reading and considering all feedback.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2013)

Last time there was an AUP discussion on the mainsite I put forward two ideas, which recieved positive comments from staff but to my knowledge did not become included inthe AUP. 

-That posting two different versions of an image in your gallery is acceptable in circumstances such as one being clean and one being adult. 
-That modelling sexually adapted fursuits should be okay as long as they are not evidently explicit, such as featuring nudity that other parts of the AUP banned or sexual intercourse. 
If the only difference between a photo of one fursuit and the other is a zip that may not even be visible then I don't think this is a meritable reason to remove it. 

What do you think?


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 17, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Last time there was an AUP discussion on the mainsite I put forward two ideas, which recieved positive comments from staff but to my knowledge did not become included inthe AUP.
> 
> -That posting two different versions of an image in your gallery is acceptable in circumstances such as one being clean and one being adult.
> -That modelling sexually adapted fursuits should be okay as long as they are not evidently explicit, such as featuring nudity that other parts of the AUP banned or sexual intercourse.
> ...


I agree on the first point, but not so much on the second though the AUP isn't very clear on this point. "Adult user created (unmodified) fursuits or sculptures are permitted so long as they are in pristine condition and they are not being worn/in use." The AUP states "adult" fursuits but then right after says "unmodified". Is this a typo? The remainder of the rule seems to suggest that any fursuit that has some sexual connotations are allowed as long as they aren't being worn or being used. As much as I hate sexually modified fursuits with a passion, I think the current rule is ok but needs to be cleared up.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I agree on the first point, but not so much on the second though the AUP isn't very clear on this point. "Adult user created (unmodified) fursuits or sculptures are permitted so long as they are in pristine condition and they are not being worn/in use." The AUP states "adult" fursuits but then right after says "unmodified". Is this a typo? The remainder of the rule seems to suggest that any fursuit that has some sexual connotations are allowed as long as they aren't being worn or being used. As much as I hate sexually modified fursuits with a passion, I think the current rule is ok but needs to be cleared up.



As long as they're physically clean, rated as mature photographs if sexual adaptations are visually evident, and do not break the other rules on indecent exposure then I see absolutely no problem with them. 

'In use' should be made clear to refer to any use that constitutes actual sexual activity. If a fursuit with a zipper is just being worn then that's no problem in my view. 
If wearing something necessitates indecent exposure or actual sexual activity then this can be covered without the umbrella term 'worn'.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 17, 2013)

Clarifying maybe rules for Groups
I had to deal with the Starcraft Group when I reported them for posting art that wasnt donated to the group or for them. A person I had a debate with stated that since the art posted WAS about starcraft it would fall within the aup as long as they show who owned the art. I countered back just cause the group was about StarCraft the owner of said group didnt have the right to just upload the art to their account, they still had to go out of their way to ask if they could post said art to their account. I then used the Renamon Group on FA as they request that folks donate art to the group to be posted on that group account, they cant just go around posting anyones art around Renamon as they did know.

I suggest maybe a small section for Group accounts stating the Do's and Don'ts specifically for groups




Fallowfox said:


> As long as they're physically clean, rated as mature photographs if sexual adaptations are visually evident, and do not break the other rules on indecent exposure then I see absolutely no problem with them.





Fallowfox said:


> 'In use' should be made clear to refer to any use that constitutes actual sexual activity. If a fursuit with a zipper is just being worn then that's no problem in my view.
> If wearing something necessitates indecent exposure or actual sexual activity then this can be covered without the umbrella term 'worn'.




Hmm well to me its just mean "If its mature dont wear it, just display it" as I know photos can never reach past mature


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Mar 17, 2013)

I think the Adult fursuit policy is confusing, according to admins  nipples on a fursuit are considered adult even though they serve no  sexual function at all but that isn't mentioned at all in the AUP


----------



## DarkShadowFoxx (Mar 17, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> As long as they're physically clean, rated as mature photographs if sexual adaptations are visually evident, and do not break the other rules on indecent exposure then I see absolutely no problem with them.
> 
> 'In use' should be made clear to refer to any use that constitutes actual sexual activity. If a fursuit with a zipper is just being worn then that's no problem in my view.
> If wearing something necessitates indecent exposure or actual sexual activity then this can be covered without the umbrella term 'worn'.





I would say not worrying about SL uploads as ive got lots of pictures of my 'sona I built in SL. Thats my input, as for the fursuit thing, I dunno I fear someone might abuse it somewhere. But hey people abuse things all the time here..


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Mar 17, 2013)

I agree with this, Adult fursuits being worn should be allowed so long as there isn't and real human genitalia exposed or sexual activity.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 17, 2013)

DarkShadowFoxx said:


> I would say not worrying about SL uploads as ive got lots of pictures of my 'sona I built in SL. Thats my input, as for the fursuit thing, I dunno I fear someone might abuse it somewhere. But hey people abuse things all the time here..


I think the SL uploads actually should get more work put towards it
We still have folks confusing "Displaying the work you did to an avatar" and "heres a story me and a few folks did using Second Life as our medium" to "heres me at the club"


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 17, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> I think the Adult fursuit policy is confusing, according to admins  nipples on a fursuit are considered adult even though they serve no  sexual function at all but that isn't mentioned at all in the AUP


That's a fair enough criticism, but the problem comes it involves women's breasts. There's a double-standard in American society regarding nipples/breasts, so it's kept as a "no nipples" for more of an equality standpoint.

Also, totally random, but how many fursuits actually have nipples?


----------



## Deleted member 3615 (Mar 17, 2013)

I think there should be emphasis that this isn't FACEBOOK. (I smashed my car, look at this cheeseburger, etc).
FA also isn't EBAY. I get if you are actually selling something you've crafted, but if you are just trying to peddle random crap you own, then this isn't the place.


----------



## Thaily (Mar 17, 2013)

Last time they removed the limit on "personal photography", referring them to scraps instead. As a result people are just uploading more with the "oh I'll scrap it later" comments, but the idea (presumably) was that we wouldn't see an endless slough of Facebook photos and unmodified mass manufactured in the new uploads, but we do. More so than before. And while many people use FA to network socially, I don't see why we wouldn't just ban that stuff (or portrait photos in excess of 1) and refer these people to Facebook for sharing the rest of their snapshots.

Last time they tried to redefine the rules on spamming YCH, saying people could only upload 1 and any additional images used to sell artwork to the scraps folder, but I'm still seeing the same YCH auctions being posted over and over and over in a single day. If you file a ticket because someone has uploaded the same images 6 times in an hour, mods take days to respond and don't accept screenshots as evidence, so it's completely unenforceable and it shows in the new uploads. You can browse the new uploads at any time and roughly 18% of uploads are auction/YCH/etc. spam.
I'm not yet sure how to effectively curtail this obnoxious behavior, other than offering advertising space for people to use instead, but we already have the forums and any additional effort would possibly undermine the advantage of paid banners and affect sales (although honestly they're not that expensive, if people are so desperate for sales they'd repost the same YCH image 5 times an hour maybe they should just shell out 20 bucks for a banner). You could banish it to scraps completely and take administrative action against every non-scrapped spam upload, I know a lot of people will complain (OMG popufurs have an advantage!) because they don't understand that more good uploads = more watchers = more sales and spamming is not a great foundation for a decent customer base. Quite on the contrary, I know I've unwatched several otherwise keen artists because I got sick and tired of seeing the same sketch come by again and again.

But right now, I know I browse new uploads a lot less because ugh, Facebook selfshots and the same YCH sketches. It gets really fucking tedious, and it's just plain out of place for what professes to be an art site.

Edit: 


DJ-Moogle said:


> I think there should be emphasis that this isn't FACEBOOK. (I smashed my car, look at this cheeseburger, etc).



Seriously, I just finished this post and went to have a peek at the new uploads and this is staring me in the face: http://www.myriadofmagpies.com/uploads/images/stuff/crabs.jpg
Shitty photo without redeeming qualities, the uploader couldn't even be bothered to write a comment beyond "^"


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 17, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Clarifying maybe rules for Groups
> I had to deal with the Starcraft Group when I reported them for posting art that wasnt donated to the group or for them. A person I had a debate with stated that since the art posted WAS about starcraft it would fall within the aup as long as they show who owned the art. I countered back just cause the group was about StarCraft the owner of said group didnt have the right to just upload the art to their account, they still had to go out of their way to ask if they could post said art to their account. I then used the Renamon Group on FA as they request that folks donate art to the group to be posted on that group account, they cant just go around posting anyones art around Renamon as they did know.
> 
> I suggest maybe a small section for Group accounts stating the Do's and Don'ts specifically for groups
> ...



Photos of someone modelling a fursuit with a zip on it are not automatically adult content. Sexual adaptations may not even be visible. 

In this context there's negligeably difference between modelling a fursuit that has a zip or a fursuit that does not. If zips are considered automatically erotic material [which would be rather silly] then it could otherwise be stipulated that they must not be visible in the photograph. 

Automatically prohibiting any modelling of fursuits with sexual adaptations makes it difficult for people who produce those costumes to show off the craft, because how a suit fits a model is an important part of the quality and demonstration of skill, in comparrison to something on a hanger that could be any old length of fake fur. 

If people are trying to post sexually explicit photos of themselves in costume...well that can be treated exactly as if they were taking those photos out of costume.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 17, 2013)

Thaily said:


> Last time they tried to redefine the rules on spamming YCH, saying people could only upload 1 and any additional images used to sell artwork to the scraps folder, but I'm still seeing the same YCH auctions being posted over and over and over in a single day. If you file a ticket because someone has uploaded the same images 6 times in an hour, mods take days to respond and don't accept screenshots as evidence, so it's completely unenforceable and it shows in the new uploads. You can browse the new uploads at any time and roughly 18% of uploads are auction/YCH/etc. spam.


We are offering a quasi-marketplace for people in a new UI. People who are selling art/commissions can click the marketplace, and the front page/browse will allow you to sort through what people are selling. It should help reduce that.

We're also drafting up some ideas to help curb serial re-uploaders.


----------



## Wakboth (Mar 17, 2013)

I think there could be a little bit more clarification about the "by you / for you" policy, related to situations where person A commissions person B to create art for person C, as a gift for example. As I understand it, the intention is that _at least_ B and C can post it, possibly also A, but it could be read as only B (the artist) and A (the commissioner) being allowed to post it, which seems backwards.

Now, this isn't a major issue, but it's one where I think a bit more clarity, or an example along these lines, would be helpful. Otherwise, I think the AUP is pretty comprehensive and clear enough as it is.


----------



## DUVMik (Mar 17, 2013)

A problem with the current AUP is that there is no clear definition of what is mature or adult, in visual art.

If I uploaded a drawing of someone naked I could, with the current AUP, put it in general audience without breaking any rules. (At least not any rules in the AUP)

Generally, it's a mess to figure out what is allowed and what is not. It would be nice with some clear definitions, or possibly examples.

For instance, first thing on the AUP:

*What we permit in your gallery:*


Original Art (Music, Photography, Traditional Art, Digital Art, Writing) 

What is original art? A simple stick figure drawing? My face photoshop on top of a pencil? When is it original, and when it is not? Without proper definitions rules are worthless.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Mar 17, 2013)

Dragoneer said:


> That's a fair enough criticism, but the problem  comes it involves women's breasts. There's a double-standard in  American society regarding nipples/breasts, so it's kept as a "no  nipples" for more of an equality standpoint.
> 
> Also, totally random, but how many fursuits actually have nipples?



quite a few fursuits do. http://www.furaffinity.net/user/superbabsy123/ http://www.furaffinity.net/user/winfox/ http://www.furaffinity.net/user/chainerprime/ those three users have fursuits with nipples, winfox and superbabsy make fursuits and they usually have nipples though since they have had admins complain superbabsy doesn't post pictures of her suits topless anymore or censors the pictures when she does and winfox stopped putting nipples on her suits because that isn't allowed on FA or if she didn't its hard to tell because her suits are usually clothed though I can tell at least some of her suits still have nipples, and chainerprime's personal fursuit has nipples on it.


----------



## Lilith (Mar 17, 2013)

Maybe clarify some points that some users are questioning.
Maybe even make a separate post in laymen's terms so those cannot understand the legal terms, can clearly see what is, and what is not accepted.


----------



## Juska (Mar 17, 2013)

Keyword Blocking. The biggest reason I don't visit or use this site as often as others is because I'm subjected to crap I don't want to see. I'm an adult, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with seeing all the different variations of hardcore smut mixed in with everything else.


----------



## Teal (Mar 17, 2013)

Juska said:


> Keyword Blocking. The biggest reason I don't visit or use this site as often as others is because I'm subjected to crap I don't want to see. I'm an adult, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with seeing all the different variations of hardcore smut mixed in with everything else.


 That has nothing to do with the AUP.


----------



## Rhetorica (Mar 17, 2013)

There is no definition of "3D model" under the last section. Depending on how rigorously the term is interpreted, Poser art in particular can be either completely banned or completely safe. It would be nice to know what the administration's intentions regarding 3D renders actually are; the last several editions of the AUP were highly technical but seemed to be written by someone who didn't have a firm grasp of the technical concepts at hand. When is a model modified enough to be distinct? What is acceptable in the background vs. the focus of the image?


----------



## ANTIcarrot (Mar 17, 2013)

Can we still use commercial audio as part of a 3D movie?
The rules used to say yes, but the new rules don't say yes or no.

Can I recommend a data density rule for uploaded pictures?
When saved as a JPG, even a large picture doesn't have to be more than a few hundred kilobytes in size. But if the artist does something silly (like using the wrong file format) even a 500x500MB picture can be over 2MB in size. If the picture is then looked at and downloaded 500 times, that's a significant chunk of bandwidth that gets wasted, and it's probably not exactly speeding the server up.


----------



## PawzHusky (Mar 17, 2013)

To take issue with a user who submits drawings or other art of copyrighted characters, when the site itself has a search filter for Pokemon, Digimon, and Sonic fan art, seems awfully inconsistent to me. I'd like to see either an explanation for why this is still allowed, *OR* a more comprehensive and staff-advocated enforcement of ban on fan art of copyrighted characters. Thank you.


----------



## Lvx (Mar 17, 2013)

Photos of "Things I own" should be completely disallowed unless they made the thing themselves from scratch
I'm really tired of seeing "Look at this thing I bought!~ Here's 20 pictures so you can see it from every angle"



Juska said:


> Keyword Blocking. The biggest reason I don't visit or use this site as often as others is because I'm subjected to crap I don't want to see. I'm an adult, but that doesn't mean I'm okay with seeing all the different variations of hardcore smut mixed in with everything else.


You can quasi-blacklist artists with adblock plus

c/p
1. Use Firefox
2. Download+install adblock plus
3. Right click offending artist's submission thumbnail
4. Adblock Plus: Block Image...
5. Custom
6. Delete all but #artistname
7. Accept pattern only at the end of the address
8. Add filter
9. ????
10. All submissions by that artist will no longer show thumbnails while browsing and the picture will not load if you view the submission


----------



## Houkuko (Mar 17, 2013)

I feel like a dolt for asking, but I still have some confusion over what exactly is allowed in terms of YCH and other auction pics.  The AUP states that only one image of this sort is allowed in the gallery at once, and otherwise must be moved to scraps.  Does this include posting several auctions at once, even if they are different images?  And since that could still be seen as spamming, would it alleviate this problem to use one post to show several different active auctions (such as in panels on a single image)?

Not sure if I've explained myself well, so if you need any clarification, please let me know!


----------



## Lvx (Mar 17, 2013)

Houkuko said:


> would it alleviate this problem to use one post to show several different active auctions (such as in panels on a single image)?


I think this is the ideal solution next to a dedicated shop function built into the site


----------



## Dracari (Mar 18, 2013)

PawzHusky said:


> To take issue with a user who submits drawings  or other art of copyrighted characters, when the site itself has a  search filter for Pokemon, Digimon, and Sonic fan art, seems awfully  inconsistent to me. I'd like to see either an explanation for why this  is still allowed, *OR* a more comprehensive and staff-advocated enforcement of ban on fan art of copyrighted characters. Thank you.



i belelive that should apply to characters who have no clear distinction  Away from  where they are based on poke-furs/digi-furs /etc  where they  are thier own but the orginal has Inspired thier design to some extent.  

Blaintant ripoffs? yes. if they have permission and in proof from the  Game designers or directors etc. then should be allowed. (aka say you  hav erighst given by sega to create such fan work. or SquareEnix for  said characters.) fan art though in its generic sense is still allowed  under the Fair Use act. but far as i know Nintendo is going grey on on  that but now that bandai has the righst over the entire digimon  franchise? Fat chance in hell.


----------



## gameking1300 (Mar 18, 2013)

adult cub should be allowed again


----------



## Kayla-La (Mar 18, 2013)

gameking1300 said:


> adult cub should be allowed again



Nope.


----------



## xolroc (Mar 18, 2013)

This is fairly minor, but I ran into a small problem a while back.
I have in the past been fairly prolific with making fractal art, and had to ask a mod to clarify what was meant by "generated art" in the AUP.  It was ruled that, since I made them from the ground up, writing custom functions to generate each one (as opposed to randomly generating and then tweaking), they would not count as generated art and so I could move them out of my scraps (though so far I've been to lazy to do so >.>).  

Long story short, I think that the wording on the generated art clause should be clarified.


----------



## Thaily (Mar 18, 2013)

DUVMik said:


> What is original art? A simple stick figure drawing? My face photoshop on top of a pencil? When is it original, and when it is not? Without proper definitions rules are worthless.



Original art refers to art made by you rather than by someone else.

As for the by you/for you clarification; If A pays B to make art for C, then B makes it for A and C and all 3 are allowed to post it, provided the artist doesn't mind reposting.
What needs clarifying?



xolroc said:


> Long story short, I think that the wording on the generated art clause should be clarified.



How can the mods tell when it's not made from the ground up though?


----------



## Jack McSlay (Mar 18, 2013)

Thaily said:


> How can the mods tell when it's not made from the ground up though?


If the art is generated from an existing code without significant parameter management or algorithm alterations, the end result is very similar and counts as any art theft


----------



## Thaily (Mar 18, 2013)

Jack McSlay said:


> If the art is generated from an existing code without significant parameter management or algorithm alterations, the end result is very similar and counts as any art theft



But can you teach someone who doesn't work with these programs to easily identify work generated from existing code?


----------



## Jack McSlay (Mar 18, 2013)

Thaily said:


> But can you teach someone who doesn't work with these programs to easily identify work generated from existing code?


Doesn't that apply to almost every art theft? There's no solid line that separates "referenced" from "traced", or "repost" from "collage". If a person grabs a fractal program and creates an image that looks different from what the original code generates, without changing any parameters or code, there's no problem in calling it original.


----------



## not-fun (Mar 18, 2013)

although it may be a sticky area, i'd like to see some clarification in what qualifies as harassment. maybe something about if a user's characters are being placed without their permission into a violent image whose intent is clearly to upset/disturb them?

i realize this is a sticky area, but because a stalker had someone draw violent art of some of my characters to "get back" at me for blocking him, i feel like there should be some kind of recourse on the books for that specifically. we do already have a rule about works not being allowed to harass or demean others, but it's sometimes difficult to argue your case if it's your _characters _â€‹which have been used and you or your avatar is not directly involved.


----------



## ANTIcarrot (Mar 18, 2013)

Does the site have/want a policy on artists who regular delete their artwork and upload identical copies? (Presumably for more page views.)


----------



## DUVMik (Mar 18, 2013)

Thaily said:


> Original art refers to art made by you rather than by someone else.



Sure, but the AUP doesn't say that, and that's the problem.


----------



## Kayla (Mar 18, 2013)

gameking1300 said:


> adult cub should be allowed again



Absolutely* NOT*.


----------



## tattooedrat (Mar 18, 2013)

I saw nothing new or changed.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 18, 2013)

tattooedrat said:


> I saw nothing new or changed.



This is more of a suggestion box discussion thread than actual changes to the AUP.


----------



## Calemeyr (Mar 18, 2013)

Maybe minors in sexual situations should be applied to all underage characters, wild, feral, humanoid, everything.
Also, does commissioned fanart fall under the "uploader does not have the legal rights to post" category? It's a very gray-area legal issue, so I don't know.

Anyway, I don't know what people are saying about the AUP being hard to understand. I think it's pretty clearly written.

There needs to be a staff code of conduct too. Staff shouldn't be able to do things that the CoC says is against the rules. I'm not saying that happens, but a staff code of conduct needs to be put in place, or at least the staff need to be included in the CoC. The police have a code of conduct, so why not FA staff? It's only fair.


----------



## Saellyn (Mar 18, 2013)

I asked this a hundred times, and I never got an answer and the AUP doesn't make any mention of it. I'll even make it big, bold, and red for you guys.

*Is adult "Feral x Human" art allowed?*

I'm asking because the content of adult "Feral x Human" art could be considered, at the very least, borderline beastiality/zoophilia. I honestly don't see much of it on FA, but those that I do see are pretty fucked up and would like some clarity on this issue.


-----


I was going to make some suggestions regarding photography, but I know they will be ignored again.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 18, 2013)

Saellyn said:


> I asked this a hundred times, and I never got an answer and the AUP doesn't make any mention of it. I'll even make it big, bold, and red for you guys.
> 
> Is adult "Feral x Human" art allowed?
> 
> ...



Heres the problem
Is it a feral as in an actual animal with no human intelligence, having human like traits or is it an quadruped thats able to have human grade thinking/traits and human speech...

cause as a friend pointed out to me "Ferals is a blanket group, it mostly contains two groups, one that are like how animals are now, and the other group being just 4 legged anthros often being able to talk to the two legged ones"


----------



## Taasla (Mar 18, 2013)

Saellyn said:


> I asked this a hundred times, and I never got an answer and the AUP doesn't make any mention of it. I'll even make it big, bold, and red for you guys.
> 
> *Is adult "Feral x Human" art allowed?*
> 
> ...




I am fairly certain that is ok. Illegal things save for cub porn are not against the AUP.


I asked this to a mod in the actual discussion thread when the new rules were announced, but no one ever answered me.  Can we think about modifying the "one advertisement at a time" for characters that are completely unique?  I am going to use my own account as an example: http://www.furaffinity.net/user/weyoun

None of the adoptables are recolors of the same linework.  Every submission is an individual piece of art that can stand on its own.  From what I understand the rule was created to curb spamming inboxes with advertisements and recolored adoptables, but what about completely original designs?  All I would have to do is remove the text with the price and it would be like any ol submission in someone's inbox.


----------



## Jack McSlay (Mar 18, 2013)

Saellyn said:


> I'm asking because the content of adult "Feral x Human" art could be considered, at the very least, borderline beastiality/zoophilia. I honestly don't see much of it on FA, but those that I do see are pretty fucked up and would like some clarity on this issue.


Last I checked, zoophilic content isn't any more illegal than action movies that display murder. Till we have a significant country that bans images of it, there's no reason to concern.


----------



## CanYouHearMeow (Mar 18, 2013)

> I think there should be emphasis that this isn't FACEBOOK. (I smashed my car, look at this cheeseburger, etc). FA also isn't EBAY. I get if you are actually selling something you've crafted, but if you are just trying to peddle random crap you own, then this isn't the place.


  I agree 100%


----------



## TheN1K0L4Z (Mar 18, 2013)

We need a clause on non-furry art. Specifically, stuff like game model renderings, whether it's for Skyrim, Fallout, etc. I know that official game art is looked down upon, But if it is 3D and exclusive to a game, we shouldn't be scrapping it if we're trying to get users to download the mods via Skyrim Nexus link. Hey, it's our work, let us distribute it to however we see fit.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 18, 2013)

I say no underaged ferals in adult situations.



It is.... Disturbing





Edit:

I would say no ferals in adult situations, but doubt that'll happen.


----------



## Armaetus (Mar 18, 2013)

What about on selling animals via FA? I've seen a thread on here with that linking to two separate people putting pictures up and making it like an auction or some shit like that.


----------



## Tartii (Mar 18, 2013)

Limit on real personal photos being taken. I'm tired of seeing real photos of people flooding the front page, people trying to be sexually alluring, or using FA as a 'call me baby, lets have a good time ;3" facebook sort of deal.
 And, I'd like to see a strong enforcement of 'real photos of people being fully clothed.' Everbody should be completely clothed in their pics, male AND female. I understand that for guys its normal sometimes to be shirtless, but most of the time when a guy takes a shot of them topless its not always just 'yeah hi' its 'heeeeey, how are ya~ ;3'

Also....I'd like to see something that kept people from posting pictures of themselves wearing/engaged in fetish wear. I mean, really, I have seen accounts of people advertising the porn sites and webcams they are a part of, and that has no place on an art website.

Another idea is perhaps extremely strict rules on using real photos/filtered photos in backgrounds? I'm not sure if this is a thing or not, but something along the lines of:
Do not use real photos as backgrounds in your artwork UNLESS you took it yourself or have permission from said photographer. If you have permission or its free to use, link to the page where you are given permission. This is a big problem in many pieces of artwork I have seen.

"Admin Discretion" I think also needs to be....heavily re-evaluated. There needs to be set rules for admins out in the open when it comes to REMOVING submissions that may violate the AUP, so artist's that do feel like they did nothing wrong can check and make sure the admin is in their right still. Or...something along those lines.



 This is just what springs to mind. Mainly its just the personal photos popping up everywhere of people advertising themselves that are becoming increasingly annoying.


----------



## Mewtwolover (Mar 19, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Maybe minors in sexual situations should be applied to all underage characters, wild, feral, humanoid, everything.


Nope, that would be epicly stupid.




Marcus Stormchaser said:


> There needs to be a staff code of conduct too. Staff shouldn't be able to do things that the CoC says is against the rules. I'm not saying that happens, but a staff code of conduct needs to be put in place, or at least the staff need to be included in the CoC. The police have a code of conduct, so why not FA staff? It's only fair.


I agree with this.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 19, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> I say no underaged ferals in adult situations.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We already have a ruling of underage Ferals in adult situations is a no if they are in a sense Disney'd (speech, taking on human traits)
So no you can not post adult art of cub simba or Filly Cutie Mark Crusaders


----------



## Angelwolf (Mar 19, 2013)

Dragoneer said:


> We are offering a quasi-marketplace for people in a new UI. People who are selling art/commissions can click the marketplace, and the front page/browse will allow you to sort through what people are selling. It should help reduce that.
> 
> We're also drafting up some ideas to help curb serial re-uploaders.



 I just wanted to say that this sounds like a great idea. And to second that the YCH spam has been something that grinds my gears as well. It's good to hear you guys are working on it- I can see how it'd be a pain to try and stop like...


----------



## Thaily (Mar 19, 2013)

Jack McSlay said:


> Doesn't that apply to almost every art theft? There's no solid line that separates "referenced" from "traced", or "repost" from "collage". If a person grabs a fractal program and creates an image that looks different from what the original code generates, without changing any parameters or code, there's no problem in calling it original.



No, if art is stolen I can provide an overlay with the original to prove it's not that person's original creation.
I can provide clear evidence. You have to be able to do the same.



DUVMik said:


> Sure, but the AUP doesn't say that, and that's the problem.



Actually, that's exactly what the AUP says. English isn't even my first language and I understand it.



Verin Asper said:


> We already have a ruling of underage Ferals in adult situations is a no if they are in a sense Disney'd (speech, taking on human traits)
> So no you can not post adult art of cub simba or Filly Cutie Mark Crusaders



I've reported Cutie Mark Crusader porn and the admins told me it was allowed.
I'll second/third/etc. the request for "ban feral cub porn".
BUT I also realize the anthro cub porn was only banned by virtue of businesses like Alertpay and Paypal taking umbrage, so I have no illusions that FA will ban feral cub porn unless they hit on similar issues.
Contrary to what the cub fiddlers like to scream about, FA administration is not anti-cub porn.


----------



## Jack McSlay (Mar 19, 2013)

Thaily said:


> No, if art is stolen I can provide an overlay with the original to prove it's not that person's original creation.
> I can provide clear evidence. You have to be able to do the same.


If that's your excuse for not allowing fractals, then we should ban 3d, because you can take a model, pose it differently and become unable to overlay it to prove a theft. And cities and interiors are particularly difficult to spot when they are stolen unless you can get the model itself.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 19, 2013)

Mewtwolover said:


> Nope, that would be epicly stupid.





Really? I think it would a great step forward.



Underaged characters, disney or no have no place on FA, in a sexual context. If you like that kind of thing, there are less illustrious websites to go to.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 19, 2013)

Thaily said:


> I've reported Cutie Mark Crusader porn and the admins told me it was allowed.
> I'll second/third/etc. the request for "ban feral cub porn".
> BUT I also realize the anthro cub porn was only banned by virtue of businesses like Alertpay and Paypal taking umbrage, so I have no illusions that FA will ban feral cub porn unless they hit on similar issues.
> Contrary to what the cub fiddlers like to scream about, FA administration is not anti-cub porn.


We had such a discussion on the forums, if I'm right it was considered to also blanket underage ferals. We still have the age em up rule, and stray from their original design rule also which I often deem to be useable loop holes these days with FA


----------



## Erethzium (Mar 19, 2013)

Thaily said:


> I've reported Cutie Mark Crusader porn and the admins told me it was allowed.



Really? The admin who replied to your ticket said it was allowed? The CMC are very, very clearly meant to be children...

Must have been the same moderator who replied to my report just now. I reported an avatar of a very sexually suggestive shaking butt, and he said it wasn't suggestive, instead being a "happy wag"...I don't think a feral wolf butt shaking back and forth in a sexual manner is a "happy wag".


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Mar 19, 2013)

gameking1300 said:


> adult cub should be allowed again


Harrassment rules should be weakened.
"Anti-(...)" groups should be permitted.


----------



## Teal (Mar 19, 2013)

We need clarification on what is acceptable as avatars. To often I see icons I'm not sure if I should report or not.


----------



## Kosdu (Mar 19, 2013)

Teal said:


> We need clarification on what is acceptable as avatars. To often I see icons I'm not sure if I should report or not.



Good point.



I do enjoy the booty shots, though. Hopefully keep those.


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 19, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Good point.
> 
> 
> 
> I do enjoy the booty shots, though. Hopefully keep those.


I really hate them. What's the point in choosing your ('sona's) ass as the picture that represents you on a website? I guess it's just furries being furries...


----------



## Teal (Mar 19, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I really hate them. What's the point in choosing your ('sona's) ass as the picture that represents you on a website? I guess it's just furries being furries...


 I don't like them either. Or the boob shots, or the crotch close-up.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 19, 2013)

Kosdu said:


> Good point.
> 
> 
> 
> I do enjoy the booty shots, though. Hopefully keep those.


Not gonna happen, when the whole boob icon shitstorm happened we agreed to our faith if the ass icons share it with us

...90% the time the person would upload said icon to their FA gallery under mature anyway


----------



## CaptainCool (Mar 19, 2013)

gameking1300 said:


> adult cub should be allowed again



So do you want me to report you to the police now or...?

I agree on the ban of feral cubs. Underage is underage. And in most cases we are talking about fully self-aware characters that can even talk. Talking is a feature of anthropomorphic characters as well. That alone makes it cross a line in my opinion.

One thing that I would like to be a little more relaxes is the photography rules. Keeping people from uploading mindless photodumps is one thing but it is also possible to upload very creative photos of unmodified stock items. But I suppose that would simply require too much moderation since a simliar rule had already been in place in a previous version of the AUP.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 19, 2013)

CaptainCool said:


> So do you want me to report you to the police now or...?
> 
> I agree on the ban of feral cubs. Underage is underage. And in most cases we are talking about fully self-aware characters that can even talk. Talking is a feature of anthropomorphic characters as well. That alone makes it cross a line in my opinion.
> 
> One thing that I would like to be a little more relaxes is the photography rules. Keeping people from uploading mindless photodumps is one thing but it is also possible to upload very creative photos of unmodified stock items. But I suppose that would simply require too much moderation since a simliar rule had already been in place in a previous version of the AUP.


to which didnt the rule state those kind of stuff have to go to scraps? The unmodified stuff that is


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 19, 2013)

*ding*
My pony senses are tingling.


Thaily said:


> I've reported Cutie Mark Crusader porn and the admins told me it was allowed.
> I'll second/third/etc. the request for "ban feral cub porn".
> BUT I also realize the anthro cub porn was only banned by virtue of businesses like Alertpay and Paypal taking umbrage, so I have no illusions that FA will ban feral cub porn unless they hit on similar issues.
> Contrary to what the cub fiddlers like to scream about, FA administration is not anti-cub porn.


I do have to agree with banning porn of foals and fillies of mlp characters.  Unfortunately this is FA, the chances of them ever banning underage porn of non-anthro characters is next to nil.  There's a higher chance of them banning porn of Guilmon(since in the digimon show guilmon is actually a baby) and that's saying something.

A ban on mlp filly or colt porn could actually be easily implemented with even a diagram of what would violate the rules being extremely easy to put together since the characters use the same character basis.  It would piss people off, but there wouldn't be any wiggle room or any way to squeeze out of the rule.  It would just be a question of putting together a visual guide of all the grown up characters vs the filly and colt characters.  Hell implementing it would be extremely easy actually.  Just put together the visual guide of which characters are grown and which characters aren't bam problem solved.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 19, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> *ding*
> My pony senses are tingling.
> 
> I do have to agree with banning porn of foals and fillies of mlp characters.  Unfortunately this is FA, the chances of them ever banning underage porn of non-anthro characters is next to nil.  There's a higher chance of them banning porn of Guilmon(since in the digimon show guilmon is actually a baby) and that's saying something.


Problem

"There is more than one digimon"
Just cause you draw Guilmon in a porn picture it could always have that loop hole of "its not the guilmon from the show"


also I find it funny that folks are talking about the AUP in fender's journal instead on the forums


wait furries cant read, disregard everything and lets us watch them wonder why their points wasnt taking into any consideration when the new AUP rolls out.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 19, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Problem
> 
> "There is more than one digimon"
> Just cause you draw Guilmon in a porn picture it could always have that loop hole of "its not the guilmon from the show"


------>The joke


you

The joke was that guilmon porn will never be banned cause of that exact reasoning.  I was saying that a ban on porn of foals and fillies has less than a 0% chance of coming about, shame too.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 19, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Problem
> 
> "There is more than one digimon"
> Just cause you draw Guilmon in a porn picture it could always have that loop hole of "its not the guilmon from the show"
> ...



Discussion for many of them required registering a new account, which a bit of a faf, well quite literally.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 19, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> ------>The joke
> 
> 
> you
> ...


problem is its due to a different set of rules they allow to be loop holes
"age them up"
"Deviate from the original design"


Fallowfox said:


> Discussion for many of them required registering a new account, which a bit of a faf, well quite literally.


Oh right I forgot that FA is that one site where you need to register twice unlike other art sites


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 19, 2013)

damn it FAF I said edit not make a new post


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 19, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> problem is its due to a different set of rules they allow to be loop holes
> "age them up"
> "Deviate from the original design"


Having a "age them up" rule for mlp would actually be easy to do since the characters' do grow when they age.  The reason why sonic porn was such a shit storm for so long was cause they kept going, "well they look the same as adults".

With mlp it's as simple as-

Children:








Adult:






The only two sticking points would be someone trying to sneak past censors by giving the cmc cutie marks.  The other sticking point would be equestria girls.  The first one would could be countered by having a list of the foals and fillies and saying that porn of them is not okay.  You'd have people trying to skirt the rule by giving them cutie marks, but that could be bitch slapped into next week by saying, "just cause you give them a cutie mark does not mean you can draw porn".  The later can be solved easily by going, "equestria girls is a non-canon generation 4.5".

There would be a shit storm for about two weeks, however unlike the sonic porn ban you would have the majority of bronies on the side of attacking those who are supporting the underage porn.

What would probably happen would be this-
Rule is instated -> People effected try to find loop holes -> Bronies from EQD, deviantart, derpibooru and other popular sites tell them to, "stfu" -> People effected go, "What ever happened to 'love and tolerate'?" -> Rest of bronies go, "Shut your fucking face!  We dont' have to tolerate you!  Just shut your fucking face!" -> People effected go, "I'm leaving forever.  This fandom is no longer loving and caring."  -> Rest go, "Good! Fine! Leave! Whatever, just shut your fucking face!" -> People effected go, ". . . Q_Q I'll be quiet now" -> "Just leave!" -> ". . .*stays quiet*" -> "Jesus about time they shut their face!".

Remember how when the sonic canon porn was instated there was hundreds of people signing up to FaF just to defend the underage porn?  Imagine that in reverse where there's hundreds of people signing up to FaF just to attack those defending the underage porn.

Implementing a ban on colt or filly porn would be a 2/10 difficulty.  1 point for kneejerk reaction by people effected; another point for people trying to pretend they didn't know about the rule.


Tl:dr for the lazy; Making a ban on mlp colt or filly porn would be the single easiest fucking ban. . . ever. . of all time.  Just tone out the kneejerk reaction and enforce the ban and it's more done than a burger in the exhaust of a scramjet engine.


----------



## Calemeyr (Mar 19, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> *ding*
> My pony senses are tingling.
> 
> I do have to agree with banning porn of foals and fillies of mlp characters.  Unfortunately this is FA, the chances of them ever banning underage porn of non-anthro characters is next to nil.  There's a higher chance of them banning porn of Guilmon(since in the digimon show guilmon is actually a baby) and that's saying something.
> ...


There's Filly porn on FA? Why, why would anyone get aroused by tiny, child-sized ponies? Aren't there adult-sized ones for them to make their rule 34?
Yeah, that needs to go, stat.

Again, Feral underage porn needs to go. Wait..."depicting of minors (humanoid or feral adolescents who act/behave like humans) in sexual situations"
...I'm pretty sure the characters from MLP act like humans (live in villages, read books, have princesses and queens) so yeah, shouldn't porn of underage characters from MLP _already_ be banned?


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 19, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> There's Filly porn on FA? Why, why would anyone get aroused by tiny, child-sized ponies? Aren't there adult-sized ones for them to make their rule 34?
> Yeah, that needs to go, stat.
> 
> Again, Feral underage porn needs to go. Wait..."depicting of minors (humanoid or feral adolescents who act/behave like humans) in sexual situations"
> ...I'm pretty sure the characters from MLP act like humans (live in villages, read books, have princesses and queens) so yeah, shouldn't porn of underage characters from MLP _already_ be banned?


actually it was voiced to add that ruling to the AUP the last time we had this discussion about MLP, Sonic and somehow Lion king, I'm still trying to find the thread on it but I do know several admins did voice that cubs may it be feral or anthro would fall into that rule


----------



## Erethzium (Mar 20, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Why, why would anyone get aroused by tiny, child-sized ponies?



Same reason anyone gets aroused by anything else?

/devilsadvocate


----------



## Teal (Mar 20, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> Same reason anyone gets aroused by anything else?
> 
> /devilsadvocate


 Yeah, you want to be on that side of the arguement.


----------



## Thaily (Mar 20, 2013)

Jack McSlay said:


> If that's your excuse for not allowing fractals, then we should ban 3d, because you can take a model, pose it differently and become unable to overlay it to prove a theft. And cities and interiors are particularly difficult to spot when they are stolen unless you can get the model itself.



Pretty sure standard pre-made model stuff is also banned, which you can prove by digging up the download for it for the admins to see.
Next easily defeated argument please?



Raptros said:


> I really hate them. What's the point in choosing your ('sona's) ass as the picture that represents you on a website? I guess it's just furries being furries...



It's because so many people's characters are ass to begin with :3


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 20, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> There's Filly porn on FA? Why, why would anyone get aroused by tiny, child-sized ponies?
> Yeah, that needs to go, stat.


Most of it comes from FA or inkbunny too :[
They know they can post it and not get banned here cause there's no ban on underage mlp character porn.  Can't upload it to DA, they'll get banned.  Can't upload it to tumblr, they'll get banned.  Derpibooru is a image dump site and thus you have no viewcount counter or such, are actually scored on and works about as effective as a gallery as trying to have photobucket as a art gallery.

It would be one of the few instances where the fandom effected would be jumping for joy that you're banning underage character porn.  The problem is everytime we have this discussion, on what constitutes as a underage character for mlp, it gets shat on by the two extremes eventually popping in of "ban all mlp, ban all bronies" and "freedom of speech!  Help I'm being persecuted cause someone doesn't like underage porn".

All it would really take to come up with a standard of what constitutes as a underage character and thus potentially boot the underage mlp porn is for non-bronies to go, ". . oh we can actually have a decent discussion with bronies that we both can agree on the points being made" for bronies to go, ". . oh we can actually have a decent discussion with the people that dislike mlp that we both can agree on the points being made.

Even though it is a cartoon colts and fillies do have distinct anatomy, much like how when you are a kid you're shorter and such.  If the admins did want to enforce a potential ban on underage mlp characters a pretty effective standard could be put into place.  The short version is fully grown mlp characters' height is standing on all four is a total of three head height's.  Fillies and colts their head is about one half their height standing on all four.  If you are unsure pull out a measuring ruler and measure from the tip of their head(not their ears) to end of their front hooves.  Kind of hard to squeeze out of it if all a admin needs to do is pull out a measuring ruler.  The only way they could try to squeeze out of it is to claim they didn't know about the rule.

Basically if a ban on colt or filly porn was posted it would be extremely easy cause a fully grown mlp pony from the top of their head(not including the ears or horn) to end of their forehoof has their head as one third the length, a colt or filly is about one half.  Thus you can tell how close they are to adulthood from that measurement.

Tl:dr; adult mlp ponies from head to forehoof is three head heights.  Colts and fillies a little over two head heights.  Would be extremely easy since all you need is a measuring ruler.


----------



## Wakboth (Mar 20, 2013)

I'd be all for banning foalcon on FA. That shit really has to go.


----------



## Jack McSlay (Mar 20, 2013)

Thaily said:


> Pretty sure standard pre-made model stuff is also banned, which you can prove by digging up the download for it for the admins to see.
> Next easily defeated argument please?


And you can't do the same with fractal scripts?


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 20, 2013)

Wakboth said:


> I'd be all for banning foalcon on FA. That shit really has to go.


you mean Fillycon :V


----------



## maddogairpirate (Mar 20, 2013)

Dragoneer said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Do you feel something isn't covered properly?
> Do you feel something could be worded better?
> ...



I'm going to attempt to tackle the slippery elephant in the room.

"Submissions depicting canonically-underage characters in sexual situations, but only if the characters have been visually altered to appear of at least legal age
Submissions depicting small/cute (chibi) characters in sexual situations, but only if it is not implied that the character is underage"

These are the allowable guidelines, I'll call them exceptions, to underage characters.

Underage submissions still remain a real wild card on this site. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Say you have a work that depicts a couple of characters, and most would agree, at least one character is definitely underage, and the other one likely is too. Now, if I gave that information alone, I believe the response would be fairly polarized. Remove the work, begin the disciplinary action sequence on the user.

... And if it was Sonic the Hedgehog? My Little Pony?

... Tiny Toon Adventures?

I'd almost guarantee the line shifts as soon as you start talking specific shows and criteria. Is all of Sonic off the table, or just Tails? Are the six main characters in MLP adults or teenagers? By their very name, are the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles disallowed? ... What about Brian Griffin?

I think some of the way the AUP handles this is by 'look'. If it looks adult enough to pass muster, all right then. ... But look is, of course, HIGHLY subjective. Is there no review/appeal process? Is that just too time consuming, too much of a mess? And if so, which way should admins be erring? On the side of removal, or on the side of keeping? My experience has been that when examples of discrepancy are brought up, it becomes much too convenient to play the we-did-not-know card. ... So this method, as it stands, is not working.

So what's my suggestion? Make the rules more concrete. Whatever they are, make em concrete. If the idea is any character who can be reasonably viewed as under 18, then there's a lot of ground to cover. If the issue is more with the way-too-young set, then come up with a yardstick that's easier to understand. But what we do, right now, is we set the yardstick in one place, and we enforce it in another. And it becomes very subjective, based upon, do we like the artist? Do we have a grudge against the person? It causes a mess.

Now, I may not like whatever it is you decide, where the yardstick falls, but at least we'll know. No more of this guesswork. If the idea is that any character that falls under 18 is the problem, say so!

Consistency, consistency, consistency.

And that goes double for disciplinary actions taken for AUP violations. Define it, so that when the user says it was or was not fair, you can refer to it in text. You don't need it to be a book: in fact, the fewer the words the better. But it must be defined so it can be referenced. Just, this is the standard, if you violate it, this happens. BOOM. And if you make it as concrete as possible, it takes some of the guesswork out.

If a character has no known age and has ambiguous appearance, HOW do you determine if it's a violation, for example? Do some criteria.

Also... legal age? Legal age WHERE? Your state? Your nation? Needs definition. And if it's legal in Albania but not the US, which takes precedence? (hint, it's the US, but. Make it clear!)


----------



## BRN (Mar 20, 2013)

I think something that may have worried admins, when they were given the choice between banning cub art or losing the site, was that it would set a precendent for banning more items, as judged through the court of public opinion.

It's a mistake to think that the primary concern behind banning cub art was its perceived link to peadophilia. 


Yes, acts of child molestation are illegal in most countries, most acts of bestiality are illegal in some countries, acts of necrophilia are illegal nearly everywhere - but these are illegal because of the risk of harm; *idealogy and disgust doesn't warrant censorship of creativity - nothing does, until you identify a victim*.

The choice to ban cub art was made on the balance against the choice to lose the site. No other fantasy art need be, or even should be up for consideration to be, banned.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> I think something that may have worried admins, when they were given the choice between banning cub art or losing the site, was that it would set a precendent for banning more items, as judged through the court of public opinion.
> 
> It's a mistake to think that the primary concern behind banning cub art was its perceived link to peadophilia.
> 
> ...


. . Uh dude we all know why cub was banned.  We were talking about what constitutes a underage mlp character.  Should we not be "censored" from having a discussion about what constitutes as a underage mlp character?

See throwing around the word "censor" can be used against you.


----------



## maddogairpirate (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> I think something that may have worried admins, when they were given the choice between banning cub art or losing the site, was that it would set a precendent for banning more items, as judged through the court of public opinion.
> 
> It's a mistake to think that the primary concern behind banning cub art was its perceived link to peadophilia.
> 
> ...



If it helps any, I have barked up this tree with Dragoneer before. Years ago, in fact, when the ban went into effect. Whether or not we think of it as fine, as, like you, I do not believe in thought crimes. Otherwise we should all be arrested for banging hookers in GTA IV and then stealing the money back.

Dragoneer's concern is that someone can be arrested, and then the site can be held responsible for allowing the content. He pointed to... lemme see if I can remember the case. Some guy who ordered underage anime magazines, he was found out, arrested, and, believe it or not, convicted. Not sure what kind of crap lawyer he ever had. Dragoneer feared something like that ever happening, and coming down on the site.

NOW. As much as I feel thought crimes are garbage, I do understand his concern. I think, should it ever be brought to trial, it could be fought against and thrown out, quickly. But it's not something to expect a website we use to take that kind of stance if it doesn't want to.

Again. I agree with you on the thought crime stuff! But that, as I understands it, is why cub porn was banned here. (I can point out IB for example has not been hauled in, but hey. It is what it is.)


----------



## Calemeyr (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> I think something that may have worried admins, when they were given the choice between banning cub art or losing the site, was that it would set a precendent for banning more items, as judged through the court of public opinion.
> 
> It's a mistake to think that the primary concern behind banning cub art was its perceived link to peadophilia.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure the people who make cub porn do it for artistic merit, or making a statement. It's a fetish, and a creepy one at that. Seeing images of children being violently raped, drawn or not, and knowing people are getting off on it on the site you're on, and it's not a shock site or some shadowy black market, is kinda nasty. FA shouldn't be a shock site.


----------



## BRN (Mar 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> . . Uh dude we all know why cub was banned. We were talking about what constitutes a underage mlp character. Should we not be "censored" from having a discussion about what constitutes as a underage mlp character?
> 
> See throwing around the word "censor" can be used against you.



My decidedly insincere apologies for some perceived intrusion into your argument, but this being a public thread regarding the interests of FA, I believe I'm allowed to state an opinion on the thread topic.



Marcus Stormchaser said:


> I'm not sure the people who make cub porn do it for artistic merit, or making a statement. It's a fetish, and a creepy one at that. Seeing images of children being violently raped, drawn or not, and knowing people are getting off on it on the site you're on, and it's not a shock site or some shadowy black market, is kinda nasty. FA shouldn't be a shock site.



All of this is true. But none of it sums to an effective mandate. Disgust and idealogy don't work like that.

There's a tonne of stuff that horrifies me on FA, but there remains no reasonable argument for censoring any of it except by the false declaration that I have the authority to decide who gets off to what.

Cub porn is banned because it could have shut down FA if it remained. My suggestion is that despite any sort of feelings of digust or moral compassing, nobody has a mandate as strong as that against any other content. Only things that pose a risk to the site's legal or financial standing should be considered.


----------



## maddogairpirate (Mar 20, 2013)

Marcus Stormchaser said:


> I'm not sure the people who make cub porn do it for artistic merit, or making a statement. It's a fetish, and a creepy one at that. Seeing images of children being violently raped, drawn or not, and knowing people are getting off on it on the site you're on, and it's not a shock site or some shadowy black market, is kinda nasty. FA shouldn't be a shock site.



If we're going to start banning pictures because we feel they have no artistic merit and cater to a fetish, 90% of porn has to go, right off the bat. Everyone tends to think their fetishes are fine and others are creepy. If no one is harmed, and fapping to a drawing usually falls in that category, then great you have an opinion, but... that's really where it ends.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> All of this is true. But none of it sums to an effective mandate. Disgust and idealogy don't work like that.


Hi and welcome to rehashed thread arguments #âˆž

Overused argument points on the topic of underage porn-
1)"freedom of speech"
2)"it's art"
3)"fight censorship"
4)"there's no victim"
5)"it's not illegal"
6)"they're not underage cause <insert logical fallacy>"

Do you have any new and unique argument points to contribute to the discussion or do you wish to continue to rehash old posts?


----------



## maddogairpirate (Mar 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Hi and welcome to rehashed thread arguments #âˆž
> 
> Overused argument points on the topic of underage porn-
> 1)"freedom of speech"
> ...



Isn't there a glaring irony to someone with nearly 24,000 posts talking about things being overhashed?


----------



## BRN (Mar 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Hi and welcome to rehashed thread arguments #âˆž
> 
> Overused argument points on the topic of underage porn-
> 1)"freedom of speech"
> ...



Contribute to the thread, CF.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 20, 2013)

maddogairpirate said:


> Isn't there a glaring irony to someone with nearly 24,000 posts talking about things being overhashed?


Shh, don't tell them.  They still haven't realized.


SIX said:


> Contribute to the thread, CF.


I was actually.  I was earlier talking about what characters from mlp are underage age and what constitutes as underage characters in mlp.  Didn't you see the long posts about the differences between fillies/colts and adult mlp ponies and the ratio difference?  The short version is the underage mlp characters from head to forehoof have a ratio of half the length being their head wheras the adult ponies only have a third the length being their head.


----------



## Saellyn (Mar 20, 2013)

Taasla said:


> I am fairly certain that is ok. Illegal things save for cub porn are not against the AUP.





Jack McSlay said:


> Last I checked, zoophilic content isn't any more illegal than action movies that display murder. Till we have a significant country that bans images of it, there's no reason to concern.


No, but I'm pretty sure that recent *federal* US obscenity laws made selling and/or distributing pornography involving beastiality/zoophilia illegal (which is why sites like Motherless are no longer able to host beastality or zoophilia content). I assume this applies to drawn or rendered art as well. It's possible that FA could get into some legal trouble over it.



Verin Asper said:


> Heres the problem
> Is it a feral as in an actual animal with no human intelligence, having human like traits or is it an quadruped thats able to have human grade thinking/traits and human speech...
> 
> cause as a friend pointed out to me "Ferals is a blanket group, it mostly contains two groups, one that are like how animals are now, and the other group being just 4 legged anthros often being able to talk to the two legged ones"


It's a double standard. A similar thing could be applied to cubs as well, but it isn't allowed and is probably illegal.
"Oh, look at my cute little immortal/vampire who looks like she/he is 8 years old but is actually 400+ because he/she doesn't age!"


----------



## BRN (Mar 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> I was actually. I was earlier talking about what characters from mlp are underage age and what constitutes as underage characters in mlp. Didn't you see the long posts about the differences between fillies/colts and adult mlp ponies and the ratio difference? The short version is the underage mlp characters from head to forehoof have a ratio of half the length being their head wheras the adult ponies only have a third the length being their head.



I think that's fantastic, but while you talk about what types of underage porn should be allowed, can you allow room for other users to discuss other topics without this kind of response? :?


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> I think that's fantastic, but while you talk about what types of underage porn should be allowed, can you allow room for other users to discuss other topics without this kind of response? :?


No cause the others tend to usually use the same, thing over and over and over again so we tend to quickly quiet them cause they cant handle when we go into details


but its furries, they always have low attention span


Saellyn said:


> It's a double standard. A similar thing could be applied to cubs as well, but it isn't allowed and is probably illegal.
> "Oh, look at my cute little immortal/vampire who looks like she/he is 8 years old but is actually 400+ because he/she doesn't age!"



This is why we also had a debate about digimon and pokemon once, where we pointed out Digimon are always thrown for a loop as their rankings dont denote age. A WarGreymon can lose a battle and be forced back down to their rookie stage due to a loss of data, while the show itself also did an episode where a child digimon digivolved up to its rookie form temporary. The big example of that would be Guilmon from the show as it has a mentality of a child no matter what evolution it took it was still well a child.

Same for pokemon as a pokemon can remain in its first stage for years upon years or it could end up being evolved rather quickly.


though on the immortal thing my friend says this

"If after 400 years and the person still have a mentality of a child...I'm sorry they still be a child. Two after 400 years I'm sure by now they learned of a way to age their body to be appropriate to their mental age as I doubt they wish to look like a child forever"


----------



## maddogairpirate (Mar 20, 2013)

Actually you guys are hitting upon a good point. The young vampire that's 400 (I call that the Baby Herman), or the adult that's really 7 (the Brian Griffin). Perhaps what would work best is a multi-tier test. Say, the drawing meets 2 or more of a set of guidelines, it's out. I say that only from the most basic ideas, it would really need to be fleshed out. Dunno. Hopefully staff'll pay attention. *elbows Dragoneer*


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> I think that's fantastic, but while you talk about what types of underage porn should be allowed, can you allow room for other users to discuss other topics without this kind of response? :?


. . Wait . . Let me wrap my head around this.
Originally:
People contributing to the thread and posting about current rules and potentially expanding the rules -> Everyone is talking about what is technically a double standard in the rule and talking about potentially closing the loophole of "it's non-anthro, so it's okay" by talking about what constitutes as underage in a popular franchise -> Talking about what would happen in loophole in the rules is closed -> you, "censorship is wrong" -> me, "you're rehashing old argument points, contribute something new" -> you, "contribute something to the thread" -> me talking about how we were contributing to the thread -> you, "change the topic"
I think you just gave my brain whiplash.


----------



## BRN (Mar 20, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> No cause the others tend to usually use the same, thing over and over and over again so we tend to quickly quiet them cause they cant handle when we go into details
> 
> 
> but its furries, they always have low attention span



I suppose. Really I'm just worried that CF's spam diminishes the point I was trying to make without even conjuring an argument against it.

But 'low attention spans' is one reason I put forward the general principle that "Only things that constitute a legal or financial threat to the site should be under consideration for banning" - primarily it's *simple*, but it's also easily defensible, self-evident, doesn't argue on shaky grounds of morality and idealogy, and is fair to all users. 

I suppose as a result of that principle, there wouldn't be any reason to ban underage MLP until Hasbro shat a brick. But I think that's fair, too. There's no reason the financial reasons behind banning cub porn should set a precedent that threatens anything else on moral grounds.


----------



## Saellyn (Mar 20, 2013)

maddogairpirate said:


> Actually you guys are hitting upon a good point. The young vampire that's 400 (I call that the Baby Herman), or the adult that's really 7 (the Brian Griffin). Perhaps what would work best is a multi-tier test. Say, the drawing meets 2 or more of a set of guidelines, it's out. I say that only from the most basic ideas, it would really need to be fleshed out. Dunno. Hopefully staff'll pay attention. *elbows Dragoneer*



I would much rather stick with the "If it looks underage, it's not allowed" rule.
Size play is great, pedophilia is not.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> I suppose. Really I'm just worried that CF's spam diminishes the point I was trying to make without even conjuring an argument against it.


Okay how about this then.  Furaffinity is a privately owned website therefore free speech does not apply here and thus it's not "censorship" rather it's disallowing things from the site that the admins don't want.  Meaning for example you don't have the right to upload stuff or even use FA, rather they let you post things and use the site and if something falls into what they deem as "against the rules" then they have the right to take it down.  Hell Dragoneer has the right to do whatever he wants actually.  He could ban everyone that uses the site, close it down, sell the servers or anything really.  Rather he allows you to post what he thinks is okay.


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 20, 2013)

Saellyn said:


> It's a double standard. A similar thing could be applied to cubs as well, but it isn't allowed and is probably illegal.
> "Oh, look at my cute little immortal/vampire who looks like she/he is 8 years old but is actually 400+ because he/she doesn't age!"



This manga comes to mind with that issue of being an immortal vampire trapped in a child's body.


----------



## BRN (Mar 20, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Okay how about this then. Furaffinity is a privately owned website therefore free speech does not apply here and thus it's not "censorship" rather it's disallowing things from the site that the admins don't want. Meaning for example you don't have the right to upload stuff or even use FA, rather they let you post things and use the site and if something falls into what they deem as "against the rules" then they have the right to take it down. Hell Dragoneer has the right to do whatever he wants actually. He could ban everyone that uses the site, close it down, sell the servers or anything really. Rather he allows you to post what he thinks is okay.



Please stop cutting out what I type. It makes me look weird when you argue against something I emphatically did not say.



SIX said:


> I put forward the general principle that "Only things that constitute a legal or financial threat to the site should be under consideration for banning" - primarily it's *simple*, but it's also easily defensible, self-evident, doesn't argue on shaky grounds of morality and idealogy, and is fair to all users.



I made a point that emphatically avoids involving free speech, and all this stuff about Dragoneer's rights to do what he likes is well accounted for [weren't you talking about rehashed posts, earlier?]

What I've advocated a sensible general principle - a Rubicon, simply put - that ignores the mess and mesh of conflicting idealogies and interests. I've suggested a line in the sand that's fair to the interests of everyone, avoids legal and financial complications, and doesn't need morality to be justified.

But, simply put, I have no idea if you even understand what I'm arguing about. I haven't defended cub art once. I haven't even mentioned MLP in any argument, except to assuage you. My idea and suggestion to the thread was a 'line in the sand' that was utterly unrelated to your discussion, and despite me asking "while you discuss that, leave room for others to discuss other topics", you have continually shat this kind of stuff.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> Please stop cutting out what I type. It makes me look weird when you argue against something I emphatically did not say.
> I made a point that emphatically avoids involving free speech, and all this stuff about Dragoneer's rights to do what he likes is well accounted for [weren't you talking about rehashed posts, earlier?]


Comedic irony meet SIX; SIX meet comedic irony.


SIX said:


> but there remains no reasonable argument for  censoring any of it except by the false declaration that I have the  authority to decide who gets off to what.









SIX said:


> you have continually shat this kind of stuff.


Cause metaphorically speaking you can't draw a line in sand if there is no sand.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> I suppose. Really I'm just worried that CF's spam diminishes the point I was trying to make without even conjuring an argument against it.
> 
> But 'low attention spans' is one reason I put forward the general principle that "Only things that constitute a legal or financial threat to the site should be under consideration for banning" - primarily it's *simple*, but it's also easily defensible, self-evident, doesn't argue on shaky grounds of morality and idealogy, and is fair to all users.
> 
> I suppose as a result of that principle, there wouldn't be any reason to ban underage MLP until Hasbro shat a brick. But I think that's fair, too. There's no reason the financial reasons behind banning cub porn should set a precedent that threatens anything else on moral grounds.


Because the site can

This is one thing that tend to piss me off the most when folks think a rule is bunk cause it all ends up at the end all "The site can make what ever rule it wants"
Just like how SoFurry, and Inkbunny formally had rules against human art appearing on their site, just like how Weasyl have a rule where folks posting furry/anthro art have to tag said art as Furry/anthro for black listing.

So pretty much a site doesnt need to give a reason if one day they go "You know what...no MLP"

No matter what, all rules made have this reason behind it also "Cause the site can"

Just like how my job have a rule says "Men cant enter the premises wearing wife beaters" And we do enforce this rule, we actually told people to get out cause they were wearing a wife beater. Basketball Jersey? thats fine, Wife beater, get the hell out"


----------



## Calemeyr (Mar 20, 2013)

SIX said:


> Please stop cutting out what I type. It makes me look weird when you argue against something I emphatically did not say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So free speech...should FA allow stories where some guy rapes and murders children, all for the sexual pleasure of a few deranged members here? The fact is, this isn't like hookers in GTA or people at an SM club. These are nonconsenting children. To paint child rape in a positive, sexual light is disgusting. Feeling good about rape is disgusting. It's like feeling good about serial murder.

Why do you care so much about this thing anyway? It has nothing to do with you. It's the creepy furries we don't want coming to our conventions that we want to steer away from cub, get them to realize there are perfectly willing, consenting adults out there. You're not meant to have sex with kids...they aren't sexually mature yet. I can't see any justification for keeping cub other than "it's art and don't censor art" or "free speech". Those aren't good enough reasons.


----------



## veeflames187 (Mar 20, 2013)

One thing I would like to see clarified is the AUP policy on Vehicle photos and Screencaps. Im not to good drawing traditionally via pen and paper, but I am quite good with doing art designs on Forza 4 and with actual paint jobs on Vehicles. I do Furry designs on said vehicles most the time and furry designs in games like Forza 4 and in Forza creating these are rather intricate and do take a long time to create because you have to make designs with basic primitive shapes, The AUP does currently say that these types of screenshots are allowed but I regularly am having them pulled down and removed, about every 3-6 months, I would like this to be written a bit more clearly so that I and a few other artists don't have to appeal to have a picture reuploaded after an admin makes a mistake, Especially when the admins can take up to if not over 2-3 months to reply back. This also applies to Real world photography of custom paint jobs on cars, Since I cant really draw with pens/paper and or a tablet, I have gotten good at the larger scale vehicle painting on my spare time, every time I upload any paint work ive done it gets pulled and I have to appeal to it, and so far ive had every one approved, but i will still randomly have it pulled down between 3-6 months later even after it has been approved.

Also just a personal suggestion maybe Have the admins be a little more polite when removing these, Im getting tired of the Bold font Reprint of the AUP "Submission A has been removed. REASON  Not Permitted. Screenshots of applications, games, movie or websites." This has always kinda made me feel as if im dealing with a robot instead of an actual person especially when right After that they go and say read the aup before posting next time that is rather frustrating and comes off as rude, Especially when you respond back to Plead your case and NEVER get a response back about it. Also Four lines above that section of the AUP it does state "Permitted in your Gallery, Screenshots of applications, games, movies of content the uploader has created unique content (does not include character creators)"

I feel if there was a bit more clarifying on this my artwork would stay up longer, where people can enjoy it. Because it does get frustrating having all the "Where did this Picture go?" comments from the people who have faved it.

This is probably my biggest complaint right now.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 20, 2013)

veeflames187 said:


> One thing I would like to see clarified is the AUP policy on Vehicle photos and Screencaps. Im not to good drawing traditionally via pen and paper, but I am quite good with doing art designs on Forza 4 and with actual paint jobs on Vehicles. I do Furry designs on said vehicles most the time and furry designs in games like Forza 4 and in Forza creating these are rather intricate and do take a long time to create because you have to make designs with basic primitive shapes, The AUP does currently say that these types of screenshots are allowed but I regularly am having them pulled down and removed, about every 3-6 months, I would like this to be written a bit more clearly so that I and a few other artists don't have to appeal to have a picture reuploaded after an admin makes a mistake, Especially when the admins can take up to if not over 2-3 months to reply back. This also applies to Real world photography of custom paint jobs on cars, Since I cant really draw with pens/paper and or a tablet, I have gotten good at the larger scale vehicle painting on my spare time, every time I upload any paint work ive done it gets pulled and I have to appeal to it, and so far ive had every one approved, but i will still randomly have it pulled down between 3-6 months later even after it has been approved.
> 
> Also just a personal suggestion maybe Have the admins be a little more polite when removing these, Im getting tired of the Bold font Reprint of the AUP "Submission A has been removed. REASON  Not Permitted. Screenshots of applications, games, movie or websites." This has always kinda made me feel as if im dealing with a robot instead of an actual person especially when right After that they go and say read the aup before posting next time that is rather frustrating and comes off as rude, Especially when you respond back to Plead your case and NEVER get a response back about it. Also Four lines above that section of the AUP it does state "Permitted in your Gallery, Screenshots of applications, games, movies of content the uploader has created unique content (does not include character creators)"
> 
> ...




Why do I get the feeling that we have admins that dont know the AUP...again
I mean I have seen admins do a ruling on something that is within the updated aup to only find out they knew it got updated but didnt know things got changed. (as usually the aup get updated to be worded to be more clear than updated with new rules and such)


----------



## Thaily (Mar 20, 2013)

Jack McSlay said:


> And you can't do the same with fractal scripts?



That's what I'm asking you, you're treating me like the enemy, but all I'm saying is that for the mods to allow X-type uploads, said uploads need to be manageable, for example they need to be able to weed out people who just churn out images from a program without any creative input from themselves, thus likely flooding the new uploads with crap.

Also, can we stop pretending people are drawing cub porn out of some high artistic ideal? 
I hear a lot of bullshit in the fine art world, but that's most dishonest load of bull people can spew.


----------



## Jack McSlay (Mar 20, 2013)

Thaily said:


> That's what I'm asking you, you're treating me like the enemy, but all I'm saying is that for the mods to allow X-type uploads, said uploads need to be manageable, for example they need to be able to weed out people who just churn out images from a program without any creative input from themselves, thus likely flooding the new uploads with crap.
> 
> Also, can we stop pretending people are drawing cub porn out of some high artistic ideal?
> I hear a lot of bullshit in the fine art world, but that's most dishonest load of bull people can spew.


Define "creative input". If a fractal is done out of trial and error from a ready program, what differs that from nature/city photography? The imagery in those photographs were not made by the photographer, but it still took the effort of the photographer's critical view in order to get a good one. Should we ban scenery photography too because I can walk around the outskirts of my city taking dozens of photos and post all of them as nature photography?


----------



## Thaily (Mar 20, 2013)

Jack McSlay said:


> Define "creative input".





Jack McSlay said:


> If the art is generated from an existing code without significant parameter management or algorithm alterations, the end result is very similar and counts as any art theft



Question is, how can we tell the stuff generated from existing code apart from those with original code aka creative input.


----------



## Char (Mar 20, 2013)

I'm curious, does the AUP allow for artwork to be uploaded that features characters used without permission? It doesn't seem to expressly permit nor forbid such artwork, which has left me a little confused as to what FA's policy actually is regarding this. I'm assuming yes, it does, given the fact that there's obviously so many characters already being used without permission on FA (even artists openly profiting from doing so), but a little clarification on this would be a good addition to the AUP I think. :3 Especially since it could also be interpreted that the AUP doesn't currently allow for such artwork (again, interpreted, but not expressly stating).


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 20, 2013)

Char said:


> I'm curious, does the AUP allow for artwork to be uploaded that features characters used without permission? It doesn't seem to expressly permit nor forbid such artwork, which has left me a little confused as to what FA's policy actually is regarding this. I'm assuming yes, it does, given the fact that there's obviously so many characters already being used without permission on FA (even artists openly profiting from doing so), but a little clarification on this would be a good addition to the AUP I think. :3 Especially since it could also be interpreted that the AUP doesn't currently allow for such artwork (again, interpreted, but not expressly stating).


It does with the By You and For you rule, and often Fan works are over looked unless the person is making major profit from it and/or claiming to own the character.


----------



## Char (Mar 20, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> It does with the By You and For you rule, and often Fan works are over looked unless the person is making major profit from it and/or claiming to own the character.



Understandable, but what stops someone from drawing someone else's character and claiming that it's fan art? Would the artist be punished by FA, or would their submission(s) just be removed?


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 20, 2013)

Char said:


> Understandable, but what stops someone from drawing someone else's character and claiming that it's fan art? Would the artist be punished by FA, or would their submission(s) just be removed?


That kind of stuff falls into the ToS or CoC more so than the AUP
Nothing is stopping someone from drawing someone elses character as often time its a gift to said person who own said character. Only thing the ToS or CoC stops is preventing people from being able to post art that is meant to harrass the person. Note several artist have now begun changing their policy to which if someone ask them to draw someone elses character that they dont own, the artist will need permission by the person who DOES own the character to draw em. This was sparked due to a person was going around claiming they had permission to have the ok to have someone else appear in their art (it was cock vore art).

Only thing short of stopping them is to have the person demand people to have permission to from them to draw their character which I do myself.

again this is more towards ToS or the CoC than the AUP


----------



## Thaily (Mar 20, 2013)

Char said:


> Understandable, but what stops someone from drawing someone else's character and claiming that it's fan art? Would the artist be punished by FA, or would their submission(s) just be removed?



If the owner of the character complains it's usually removed, because it could easily be seen as stalkery, creepy harassment.
Just get permission if you wanna draw someone's character, most people are thrilled to get gift art.


----------



## Char (Mar 20, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> That kind of stuff falls into the ToS or CoC more so than the AUP
> Nothing is stopping someone from drawing someone elses character as often time its a gift to said person who own said character. Only thing the ToS or CoC stops is preventing people from being able to post art that is meant to harrass the person. Note several artist have now begun changing their policy to which if someone ask them to draw someone elses character that they dont own, the artist will need permission by the person who DOES own the character to draw em. This was sparked due to a person was going around claiming they had permission to have the ok to have someone else appear in their art (it was cock vore art).
> 
> Only thing short of stopping them is to have the person demand people to have permission to from them to draw their character which I do myself.
> ...



I've now checked both of the policies you mentioned, thanks for reminding me of them.  Although, while I saw nothing relevant in the CoC, it seems that even the ToS is suggesting that uploading artwork of characters that you don't own isn't permitted? This part is mentioned in the section of what you should NOT do: "_Upload or submit content to which you do not have copyright, or that was not created explicitly for you._" Now I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this, I'm just saying that it seems like this either isn't being enforced whatsoever, or is being enforced unfairly (as I can't know what FA's administration has deleted or for what reasons). Additionally, this same statement is reflected in the AuP's "what we don't permit" section: "_which the uploader does not have the legal rights to post; which was neither made directly by nor directly for the uploader_", which seems to suggest that it's an important enough issue to be mentioned in both the ToS AND the AuP.

And again, just so it's clear, I'm not really trying to claim that FA should make their policy one thing or another. It's just something that seems to be either completely absent from any policies, or not clear enough. If I can not upload someone else's artwork (whether or not I try to claim it as my own), am I supposed to assume that I also can not upload artwork of someone else's character if I did not receive permission from the character owner to do so, even if I'm the one that drew the image? Or is this type of situation supposed to be covered by another policy? (and if so, which? does it exist yet?)


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 20, 2013)

Char said:


> I've now checked both of the policies you mentioned, thanks for reminding me of them.  Although, while I saw nothing relevant in the CoC, it seems that even the ToS is suggesting that uploading artwork of characters that you don't own isn't permitted? This part is mentioned in the section of what you should NOT do: "_Upload or submit content to which you do not have copyright, or that was not created explicitly for you._" Now I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this, I'm just saying that it seems like this either isn't being enforced whatsoever, or is being enforced unfairly (as I can't know what FA's administration has deleted or for what reasons). Additionally, this same statement is reflected in the AuP's "what we don't permit" section: "_which the uploader does not have the legal rights to post; which was neither made directly by nor directly for the uploader_", which seems to suggest that it's an important enough issue to be mentioned in both the ToS AND the AuP.
> 
> And again, just so it's clear, I'm not really trying to claim that FA should make their policy one thing or another. It's just something that seems to be either completely absent from any policies, or not clear enough. If I can not upload someone else's artwork (whether or not I try to claim it as my own), am I supposed to assume that I also can not upload artwork of someone else's character if I did not receive permission from the character owner to do so, even if I'm the one that drew the image? Or is this type of situation supposed to be covered by another policy? (and if so, which? does it exist yet?)


I mentioned it already
"By You and For You"
If you drew it yourself it falls under "By You"
though again it falls into either knowing that the person is ok with getting random art, or needs to be asked to do so.

If its something like a pokemon, digimon or any cartoon character (Trademarked or copyrighted) it would be considered Fan works
if its a Original character created by a person within the furry fandom or the such then it would often be considered falling into gift art unless said art is say..."A drawing of Character A killing character B" where you didnt ask if the person who owns character B if you can draw their character in such a situation it would fall under harrassment to which the other person can request the art to be removed due to its an attack towards them in a sense.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Mar 20, 2013)

Raptros said:


> I really hate them. What's the point in choosing your ('sona's) ass as the picture that represents you on a website? I guess it's just furries being furries...



this is why I've suggested multiple times to the admins here to implement a mature/adult avatar system similar to they system sofurry uses where you have a pool of avatars that the site cycles through and the mature/adult avatars are only seen by the people who have mature/adult avatars turned on but every time I mention this its shot down immediately without any consideration. with this kind of system the people who want they're avatar to be they're fursona's ass/boobs/penis/vagina can do that and the people that don't wanna see those avatars don't have to see them.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 20, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> this is why I've suggested multiple time to the admins here to implement a mature/adult avatar system similar to they system sofurry uses where you have a pool of avatars that the site cycles through and the mature/adult avatars are only seen by the people who have mature/adult avatars turned on but every time I mention this its shot down immediately without any consideration. with this kind of system the people who want they're avatar to be they're fursona's ass/boobs/penis/vagina can do that and the people that don't wanna see those avatars don't have to see them.


No, it was shot down due to each time it would require quite a bit of coding, along with no one actually suggesting a guide line to prevent folks from abusing it, both sides.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Mar 20, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> No, it was shot down due to each time it would require quite a bit of coding, along with no one actually suggesting a guide line to prevent folks from abusing it, both sides.



someone uploading an avatar and not properly marking it mature or adult is no different than someone uploading art and not properly marking it mature or adult, and your excuse is coding when most features promised years ago for FA have never been implemented, doesn't seem like anybody is really coding anything. also last I heard the FA staff got some people from furocity and they also have a mature/adult avatar system there, if FA's staff can't do it then ask them for help.

also you just shot down this suggestion without any consideration just like I said you would.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 20, 2013)

Jango The Blue Fox said:


> someone uploading an avatar and not properly marking it mature or adult is no different than someone uploading art and not properly marking it mature or adult, and your excuse is coding when most features promised years ago for FA have never been implemented, doesn't seem like anybody is really coding anything. also last I heard the FA staff got some people from furocity and they also have a mature/adult avatar system there, if FA's staff can't do it then ask them for help.
> 
> also you just shot down this suggestion without any consideration just like I said you would.


...
Did you know the Furocity folks left...
that was like last year

and no I didnt shot it down, I told you why it was shot down those previous times, and my suggestion of there should be at least guidelines for icons to prevent folks from both parties (general and mature folks) from getting at each other...Again.

I still remember the whole breast and ass icons issues we had on this forum, I remembered that both kinds of icons were almost out right banned.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Mar 20, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> ...
> Did you know the Furocity folks left...
> that was like last year
> 
> ...



of course there need to be guidelines, there is already an AUP for avatars but it would just be amended to include definitions for mature/adult avatars as well. but a mature/adult avatar system would be very useful and it would appease the people that don't like how FA bans certain types of avatars because they are too suggestive.


----------



## Jack McSlay (Mar 21, 2013)

Thaily said:


> Question is, how can we tell the stuff generated from existing code apart from those with original code aka creative input.


Sigh... How many times do I have to tell - the same way you do it with anything else, get the original material and compare it.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 21, 2013)

Jack McSlay said:


> Sigh... How many times do I have to tell - the same way you do it with anything else, get the original material and compare it.


it then comes down to finding that original material...


----------



## Char (Mar 21, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> If its something like a pokemon, digimon or any cartoon character (Trademarked or copyrighted) it would be considered Fan works
> if its a Original character created by a person within the furry fandom or the such then it would often be considered falling into gift art unless said art is say..."A drawing of Character A killing character B" where you didnt ask if the person who owns character B if you can draw their character in such a situation it would fall under harrassment to which the other person can request the art to be removed due to its an attack towards them in a sense.



Hmm, I guess the part that confuses me then is it just seems like that's a double-standard. We suddenly don't have to ask for permission just because it's a character from a popular cartoon or game? Where is the line drawn between when we have to ask for permission and when we don't? And why is there a line between the two at all? Does FA punish for one but not the other (or either) if the owner of the character requests that the image(s) featuring their character be removed?


----------



## Thaily (Mar 21, 2013)

Jack McSlay said:


> Sigh... How many times do I have to tell - the same way you do it with anything else, get the original material and compare it.



And it's 100%, overlay-able the same?



Char said:


> Hmm, I guess the part that confuses me then is it just seems like that's a double-standard. We suddenly don't have to ask for permission just because it's a character from a popular cartoon or game? Where is the line drawn between when we have to ask for permission and when we don't? And why is there a line between the two at all? Does FA punish for one but not the other (or either) if the owner of the character requests that the image(s) featuring their character be removed?



It's not confusing at all, if a company contacts FA and tells them to stop hosting pictures of X-character they'd have to comply too.
The line is between drawing "fanart" of company owned characters and privately owned characters that the former is less vulnerable to harassment than an individual.
You can still draw fanart of people's characters for them, but if they consider it offensive they can have it removed.

It's not rocket science.


----------



## Char (Mar 21, 2013)

Thaily said:


> It's not confusing at all, if a company contacts FA and tells them to stop hosting pictures of X-character they'd have to comply too.
> The line is between drawing "fanart" of company owned characters and privately owned characters that the former is less vulnerable to harassment than an individual.
> You can still draw fanart of people's characters for them, but if they consider it offensive they can have it removed.
> 
> It's not rocket science.



Oh I understand that they can ask to have it removed.  I'm just wondering if FA has any rule that explicitly forbids you from drawing and uploading artwork of a character that you do not own, as in your account will be banned for some amount of time if you're caught to be repeatedly doing so (with a different character each time). I've seen some argue that the "By You For You" rule covers this, but then that seems to not be the case when it comes to more popular characters owned by a company.

So I guess FA's official position on the matter is "we allow it unless the owner of the character complains about it" then? Should such an exception not be mentioned somewhere since it seems to fly in the face of "By You For You"? That's the only point I'm trying to make, since FA's asking for feedback about their AUP, and I found this to be a confusing issue with the way the AUP is currently worded.


----------



## Teal (Mar 21, 2013)

Think about this. If you uploaded a porn piece of say, Pokemon it's not gonna cause game freak/nintendo harrassment. If you did the same with someone's personal character it could.


----------



## Thaily (Mar 21, 2013)

Char said:


> So I guess FA's official position on the matter is "we allow it unless the owner of the character complains about it" then? Should such an exception not be mentioned somewhere since it seems to fly in the face of "By You For You"?



No, the art you upload has to be made by or for you, this particular rule does not cover the contents of the actual image.


----------



## Char (Mar 21, 2013)

Teal said:


> Think about this. If you uploaded a porn piece of say, Pokemon it's not gonna cause game freak/nintendo harrassment. If you did the same with someone's personal character it could.



What about characters that aren't personal though? There are a LOT of people that have characters they've created that they wouldn't claim are representative of themselves in any way. I'm trying to be inclusive of all characters and types of characters in what I was talking about above.   And I'm 100% sure Nintendo does not approve of their characters being used in porn, but I digress. It'd be nice to have an FA admin respond eventually so I can know how the staff feels about this and if they think it needs any clarification in the AUP. :3


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 21, 2013)

Char said:


> Hmm, I guess the part that confuses me then is it just seems like that's a double-standard. We suddenly don't have to ask for permission just because it's a character from a popular cartoon or game? Where is the line drawn between when we have to ask for permission and when we don't? And why is there a line between the two at all? Does FA punish for one but not the other (or either) if the owner of the character requests that the image(s) featuring their character be removed?


Then it have to be removed

please stop making this like its some super important/serious when its not

Next time please do not beat around the bush, my nature greatly dislike folks who do "what ifs" constantly and not get straight to the damn point

If Nintendo wants people to stop drawing pokemon porn, then they can request the site to take it down cause they own pokemon, its the same damn reason of if a user wants a picture taken down cause they didnt ask em to be drawn.

Its not bomb defusing here


----------



## Char (Mar 21, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Then it have to be removed
> 
> please stop making this like its some super important/serious when its not
> 
> ...



I'm not sure why you feel I've been beating around the bush. My original post was as follows:



Char said:


> I'm curious, does the AUP allow for artwork to be uploaded that features characters used without permission? It doesn't seem to expressly permit nor forbid such artwork, which has left me a little confused as to what FA's policy actually is regarding this. I'm assuming yes, it does, given the fact that there's obviously so many characters already being used without permission on FA (even artists openly profiting from doing so), but a little clarification on this would be a good addition to the AUP I think. :3 Especially since it could also be interpreted that the AUP doesn't currently allow for such artwork (again, interpreted, but not expressly stating).



My original post was concerning FA and its rules, not what someone or some company has the legal right to do. And again, I mentioned it only because I felt it wasn't clearly explained in FA's AUP what they would allow. Their news notice at the top of the site right now is asking for feedback regarding the wording of the AUP and if it causes any confusion. To me, it does, and so I felt like I should bring this to their attention since that's exactly what they're asking people to do right now.

Again, the issue is not whatever FA's policy is; it's that the policy as it currently reads seems to be in conflict with how it's being interpreted (or enforced). If the "By You For You" policy doesn't apply to characters, should they not specify so? I mean if I'm missing something please let me know, but I'm just trying to take the AUP as it reads. =/


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 21, 2013)

Char said:


> What about characters that aren't personal though? There are a LOT of people that have characters they've created that they wouldn't claim are representative of themselves in any way. I'm trying to be inclusive of all characters and types of characters in what I was talking about above.   And I'm 100% sure Nintendo does not approve of their characters being used in porn, but I digress. It'd be nice to have an FA admin respond eventually so I can know how the staff feels about this and if they think it needs any clarification in the AUP. :3


Heres the thing
Its up to nintendo to actually care
Yes they actually bought the rights to a porno movie parody of Super Mario bros, but thats up to them to care and go thru the processes of requesting sites and places to remove all art. 90% of the time when these companies DO something about it is if the person gonna mass distribute it for money and doesnt acknowledge that nintendo owns those chars

Again just like REGULAR users "If they dont like it, they can request for the art to be taken down"

Its not Bomb Defusing grade thinking we need if common sense and the AUP, along with ToS covers it




Char said:


> I'm not sure why you feel I've been beating around the bush. My original post was as follows:





Char said:


> My original post was concerning FA and its rules, not what someone or some company has the legal right to do. And again, I mentioned it only because I felt it wasn't clearly explained in FA's AUP what they would allow. Their news notice at the top of the site right now is asking for feedback regarding the wording of the AUP and if it causes any confusion. To me, it does, and so I felt like I should bring this to their attention since that's exactly what they're asking people to do right now.
> 
> Again, the issue is not whatever FA's policy is; it's that the policy as it currently reads seems to be in conflict with how it's being interpreted (or enforced). If the "By You For You" policy doesn't apply to characters, should they not specify so? I mean if I'm missing something please let me know, but I'm just trying to take the AUP as it reads. =/


You been repeating yourself, thus its beating around the bush, specially when there have been people who have clarified the reasons and the rules the AUP, and ToS have.

The By You and for you rule is not about characters, its about art "Art made BY YOU, and FOR YOU"
Note this is all about the ACCEPTABLE UPLOAD POLICY and you upload works of ART or creative arts

what you are talking about would fall under ToS more so than the AUP.

I'm sure if an admin showed up it will be the same thing we have said here already to you.


----------



## Char (Mar 21, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Heres the thing
> Its up to nintendo to actually care
> Yes they actually bought the rights to a porno movie parody of Super Mario bros. but thats up to them to care and go thru the processes of requesting sites and places to remove all art. 90% of the time when these companies DO something about it is if the person gonna mass distribute it for money
> 
> ...



Yes, I perfectly understand all of the above, I just don't agree with the statement that the AuP and ToS adequately cover it, since both seem to indicate currently that such use of characters would be forbidden, but if that's not the case, then I think clarification is needed. And even if people say "Well the AUP says MEDIA", that still doesn't line up with what the ToS forbids, which says "_*content* to which you do not have copyright_". I would consider characters to be part of the content of an image, and thus forbidden to be uploaded if you don't have the right to upload them.

Again, if it's only "media" that you shouldn't upload, and not "content" that's the problem, then I just feel a clarification should be made to either the AUP or the ToS to reflect what the site's actual practices are.


----------



## Thaily (Mar 21, 2013)

I iterate: *the art you upload has to be made by or for you, this particular rule does not cover the contents of the actual image.*
Characters are contents, not origin. This rule is about the origin of the artwork, NOT THE CONTENTS.

Characters are TRADEMARKED, not COPYRIGHTED.


----------



## Char (Mar 21, 2013)

Thaily said:


> I iterate: *the art you upload has to be made by or for you, this particular rule does not cover the contents of the actual image.*
> Characters are contents, not origin. This rule is about the origin of the artwork, NOT THE CONTENTS.
> 
> Characters are TRADEMARKED, not COPYRIGHTED.



The ToS explicitly states that "content" to which you do not have copyright to shouldn't be posted. From what I can gather, either the ToS needs to be reworded to mean just "media" instead of "content", or the AUP needs to be updated to match what the ToS is saying. Again, whatever policy FA ends up wanting to go for. I'm just saying right now it seems that the more broad wording in the ToS is being ignored in favor of the less strict wording in the AUP. I'm hoping we can at least reach an agreement that one of these policies needs to be updated, since one seems to currently be less strict than the other for some reason.

And I'm not going to go down the road of debating whether or not characters can be copyrighted or trademarked, but I'll link this one page since it deals with this issue specifically: http://wiki.sofurry.com/wiki/Q:_Can_characters_even_be_copyrighted?_Some_say_they_can't!  I'm going to try to keep the rest of my forum posts on-topic though.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 21, 2013)

Char said:


> The ToS explicitly states that "content" to which you do not have copyright to shouldn't be posted. From what I can gather, either the ToS needs to be reworded to mean just "media" instead of "content", or the AUP needs to be updated to match what the ToS is saying. Again, whatever policy FA ends up wanting to go for. I'm just saying right now it seems that the more broad wording in the ToS is being ignored in favor of the less strict wording in the AUP. I'm hoping we can at least reach an agreement that one of these policies needs to be updated, since one seems to currently be less strict than the other for some reason.
> 
> And I'm not going to go down the road of debating whether or not characters can be copyrighted or trademarked, but I'll link this one page since it deals with this issue specifically: http://wiki.sofurry.com/wiki/Q:_Can_characters_even_be_copyrighted?_Some_say_they_can't!  I'm going to try to keep the rest of my forum posts on-topic though.


Ok I'll have to use my trump card on this
http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-00204/8/Submission-Agreement-SA.html


			
				submission agreement said:
			
		

> Upon submitting to FA you grant the website non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media within the boundaries of the site's domains. Submissions may not be uploaded with intent to maliciously target, harass or cause harm to another individual. In addition, submissions uploaded must be of your own creation or must have been created expressly for you (and then, only posted with permission from the original artist(s)).* All sources (inspirations, sampling, references, copyright) must be cited, credited and documented within the submission's description.* Failure to do so may result in removal of the submission without notice. By finalizing the submission, you agree that any and all information contained within the description of said submission is truthful and accurate.




NOTE, the ToS is talking about ARTWORK, meaning artwork you have the right to post, NOTHING about characters.
Thaily is also wrong that characters cannot be copyrighted as they can be, but its easier to have a character trademarked than Copyrighted due to copyrights have higher requirements to get that level. Note also the word Content is not actually talking about the characters, its talking about what is being posted may it be writing, art, or music.

The reason why the AUP tend to be more strict than the ToS is the ToS is generalized across the board as its not just covering art but about the site in a whole. The AUP further clarifies the ToS's section about posting art on what is allowed and what isnt allowed, and then finally the Submission Agreement further clarifies the AUP.

ToS>AUP>SA


----------



## Char (Mar 21, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> NOTE, the ToS is talking about ARTWORK, meaning artwork you have the right to post, NOTHING about characters.
> Thaily is also wrong that characters cannot be copyrighted as they can be, but its easier to have a character trademarked than Copyrighted due to copyrights have higher requirements to get that level. Note also the word Content is not actually talking about the characters, its talking about what is being posted may it be writing, art, or music.
> 
> The reason why the AUP tend to be more strict than the ToS is the ToS is generalized across the board as its not just covering art but about the site in a whole. The AUP further clarifies the ToS's section about posting art on what is allowed and what isnt allowed, and then finally the Submission Agreement further clarifies the AUP.
> ...



Thanks for trying to clear it up, but honestly, I'm feeling that your above post is only proving even more that these policies need to be simplified, or to at least not seem like they're each saying something different. There is no indication whatsoever in the ToS, from what I can tell, that says "content" means only "artwork" and does not mean "characters".

Additionally, it doesn't make any sense to me that you'd have STRICTER rules at the top and then LOOSER rules down the chain. How would I know by reading the ToS that I actually AM allowed to upload content that I don't own copyright to, unless I said "oh since the AuP only says MEDIA and not CONTENT like the ToS then I guess it's ok"? The AUP seems to me to actually be LESS strict than the ToS on this particular point, if we take "content" to mean more than just the "artwork" itself (which I do and see no indication in the ToS that I shouldn't).

Again, I just think this needs to be clarified in their policies, because what you're telling me it says just isn't how it actually reads to me. And maybe that's just me and no one else sees a conflict between the policies, but I don't understand how that can be. It's just kind of jumping right out at me. =/


----------



## Thaily (Mar 21, 2013)

Sofurry =/= FA, why are you even looking there for this discussion.
And I think you are literally the only person confused by the character policies.


----------



## Char (Mar 21, 2013)

Thaily said:


> Sofurry =/= FA, why are you even looking there for this discussion.
> And I think you are literally the only person confused by the character policies.



I linked to the SoFurry page because it had a lot of relevant information all on one page already, and thus thought it was senseless to bother pasting every source individually in a post here. Why bother when they've already done all the work for me?   And I'm not sure why we're saying that SoFurry's research about copyright/trademark law when it comes to characters is instantly not valid simply because they're not FA. FA can do the same research and I imagine will reach the same conclusion. But again, this is not even something I'm trying to debate or talk about right now; my concern is FA's own policies.

If you're telling me that FA has no policy regarding characters, then I'm saying the ToS needs to be updated to not seem like it does. If you're telling me that FA does have a policy about posting characters, then the AUP should be updated to reflect such. Currently the ToS's wording is disagreeing with the AUP's wording, or at least that's how I'm reading it. One says "content", and the other says "media". These two are simply not the same thing; one is a subset of the other.

Again, I'd really like to hear from an admin at this point, and I won't respond anymore until that happens, since I kind of feel like we're going in circles here. I realize perfectly well what the common practice is on the site (people can upload characters until the character owner(s) complain), I'm just saying that if that's how it's going to be, then the policies should state as much, or at least not seem to indicate the exact opposite (e.g. posting "content" that you don't own is forbidden).


----------



## Ozriel (Mar 21, 2013)

This is a cluster of clusters....


Regarding fan works of Characters, it is okay as long as you do not claim you own the characters and site the source (i.e. Blizzard entertainment, Hasbro, etc).

With music, I don't know...that's a different vegetable altogether.


----------



## Dragoneer (Mar 21, 2013)

A species or design is not something that we would remove over.

Using somebody else's unique, individually specific character without permission can be something that consider an actionable item. Fanart is permitted from TV and shows, but if it's of people's personal characters -- a reflection of them individually -- we may draw the line, especially if the submission put them in a situation they find personally harassing.


----------



## Char (Mar 21, 2013)

Dragoneer said:


> A species or design is not something that we would remove over.
> 
> Using somebody else's unique, individually specific character without permission can be something that consider an actionable item. Fanart is permitted from TV and shows, but if it's of people's personal characters -- a reflection of them individually -- we may draw the line, especially if the submission put them in a situation they find personally harassing.



Ok, thanks for the response.   In that case, do you or any other admins feel that the AUP and/or ToS should be updated to reflect such? While what you've stated is definitely the impression I've been given as far as how the site has been administrated so far, the way site policy is currently worded seems to not leave any room for exceptions such as fanart (at least in the ToS).


----------



## Jack McSlay (Mar 21, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> it then comes down to finding that original material...


just like you do with any other kind of art theft



Thaily said:


> And it's 100%, overlay-able the same?


Non-randomized fractals always generate the same picture. If it's a fractal with a lot of parameter tinkering and random seeding, you cannot dismiss it because there's the effort of going through several versions of an image till getting one that looks good. That's the same kind of effort you get from a photographer - they didn't create the lake, or the building, or the forest, they walk around till finding the best angle to capture it.


----------



## xolroc (Mar 21, 2013)

Jack McSlay said:


> Non-randomized fractals always generate the same picture. If it's a fractal with a lot of parameter tinkering and random seeding, you cannot dismiss it because there's the effort of going through several versions of an image till getting one that looks good. That's the same kind of effort you get from a photographer - they didn't create the lake, or the building, or the forest, they walk around till finding the best angle to capture it.



I'll add to this that fractals with minor differences are also often easily recognisable.
Additionally, it's not hard to tell the difference between a fully randomized fractal chosen from a group because it looked better and a custom-made fractal that someone actually took the time to make from scratch.  Take a look at this fractal that I found at random: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7795528/ and this one that I spent hours tweaking: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7353167/ .  The difference is obvious.  The "effort of going through several versions" is honestly not that much effort and it can't be called anything but generated art, which the current AUP disallows.


----------



## Drachenauge (Mar 22, 2013)

Ohai there!


Well, as for me I wasn't sure if I'm allowed to post writings or audio -work in other languages than english. So my first post on the forums was about that topic, since I wasn't able to find anything about that in the AUP *g*
Well, maybe this is something you want to consider to include in the AUP, since there might be some potential for abuse and problem content.




Juska said:


> Keyword Blocking. The biggest reason I don't visit or use this site as often as others is because I'm subjected to crap I don't want to see.


Which leads to my second suggestion to include in the AUP.
Please do something against pictures of FOOD on the site! FA should not be abused as facebook or as a cooking site. When searching for "prawn" for example (what I did because I hoped for some district 9 FanArt!), I came across more pictures of DEAD ANIMALS than anything drawn...

Why. Why is this.
As I said before, this isn't facebook nor a cooking site. Cooking is an art form, of course, no question here but seriously. Why I have to see pictures of DEAD, COOKED ANIMALS*** when I actually come here for the joyful things of life, like wonderful drawn pictures, epic fictional writings and people who are so incredible talented with handcrafting and fursuit-making...
Don't get me wrong- I'm not against pictures of food in general. I just don't think they belong on FA! I'm one of those people who post pictures of food on facebook and share recipes with their friends and I read a lot of blogs about cooking.
But food pictures on FA? Is it really neccessary to have such things here?

*** which is actually paradox since the AUP already says...


> *Not Permitted*
> Animals feeding on other animals


and also...



> *Photography*
> containing real gore or death







I wanted to suggest to implement a feature to actually block such images, but I thought nobody would actually care since this is not an actual "problem" and even if so, it would be already implemented since FA is one of the oldest art community sites out there.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 22, 2013)

Char said:


> Ok, thanks for the response.   In that case, do you or any other admins feel that the AUP and/or ToS should be updated to reflect such? While what you've stated is definitely the impression I've been given as far as how the site has been administrated so far, the way site policy is currently worded seems to not leave any room for exceptions such as fanart (at least in the ToS).


I will say this here and now
it does, it allows fan art, as long as you arent claiming to own something that belongs to someone else...my post about the SA states that which works with the AUP so in turn the AUP does say it.

Two the ToS is the LEAST strict as it works downward meaning the AUP/SA would be the most strict of the rulings


----------



## Ayanio (Mar 22, 2013)

So basically I have no problem with the AUP regarding screenshots other than it needs to be more black and white,  especially for those on second life. I make mods for avatars on second  life so my/others works are often used by many people on furaffinity so  having the AUP in place helps us protect our work. What absolutely  pisses me off is the fact that people rapidly upload screenshots of  other peoples work(without citation) and nothing gets done about it. I'm  not talking about just not seeing it, that's only human, but I recently  had a TT returned to me which prompted me to come to this forum,

"By the looks of things as they are, we can't genuinely tell if they're  the models shown, if they're different models, or if they're the same  models but have been customized."

I gave legitimate screenshots,  one of which the ad for the mod is on the furaffinity website by a  furaffinity user. It is a sold mod, I even own it, it was not made  for/by the person, your proof is right there in front of your eyes. What  else do I need to do to make that more clear? This isn't the first time  this has happened either.

Basically, if you're going to make an  AUP and expect people to take it seriously, either disallow things right  on the line or do your job, research and fix the problem. I'm tired of  getting the ignorant response of, "I made this character.", file a  trouble ticket with the correct proof and get completely snubbed.


----------



## Teal (Mar 22, 2013)

Drachenauge said:


> Stuff


 Food can be art.


----------



## Drachenauge (Mar 22, 2013)

Teal said:


> Food can be art.


You're kidding me, right?
Either that or you're trolling.


Drachenauge said:


> Why. Why is this.
> As I said before, this isn't facebook nor a cooking site. Cooking is an art form, of course, no question here



beside this, graffity, body paint, hair doing, parcours, base climing, aerobatics and dancing are art forms too. But nobody uploads pictures of that neither.


----------



## Teal (Mar 22, 2013)

Drachenauge said:


> You're kidding me, right?
> Either that or you're trolling.


 And I ask you the exact same question.




> beside this, *graffity, body paint, hair doing*, parcours, base climing, aerobatics and *dancing* are art forms too. But nobody uploads pictures of that neither.


 Yeah I've seen pictures of dancing, I've seen body painting and makeup, I've seen Graffiti and hair styling. Some are uncommon here but they exist. The others you mentioned are usally captured on video which the site doesn't host.


----------



## Drachenauge (Mar 22, 2013)

Teal said:


> And I ask you the exact same question.
> 
> 
> Yeah I've seen pictures of dancing, I've seen body painting and makeup, I've seen Graffiti and hair styling. Some are uncommon here but they exist. The others you mentioned are usally captured on video which the site doesn't host.


you didn't read my post yet accusing me for things I didn't say.
Cool.

This is the 4. time this happened to me. Is everyone in this forum not able to read or discuss in a proper way?


----------



## Teal (Mar 22, 2013)

Drachenauge said:


> Which leads to my second suggestion to include in the AUP.
> Please do something against pictures of FOOD on the site! FA should not be abused as facebook or as a cooking site. When searching for "prawn" for example (what I did because I hoped for some district 9 FanArt!), I came across more pictures of DEAD ANIMALS than anything drawn...


 FA is not being abused by people posting pictures of food. (If they didn't make it then that's different). But you baawwwing about seeing prawns is dumb. You search any country on da and you'll get drowned in Hetalia fan-art. Am I gonna go have a fit that my search doesn't get wonderfull images of whatever country but instead crudely drawn fanart? No. Oh but that's different because fanart is much better than a photo of prawns!




> Why. Why is this.
> As I said before, this isn't facebook nor a cooking site. Cooking is an art form, of course, no question here but seriously. Why I have to see pictures of DEAD, COOKED ANIMALS*** when I actually come here for the joyful things of life, like wonderful drawn pictures, epic fictional writings and people who are so incredible talented with handcrafting and fursuit-making...
> Don't get me wrong- I'm not against pictures of food in general. I just don't think they belong on FA! I'm one of those people who post pictures of food on facebook and share recipes with their friends and I read a lot of blogs about cooking.
> But food pictures on FA? Is it really neccessary to have such things here?


 All I'm seeing here is you getting mad because you have a problem with prawns and couldn't figure out how to narrow your search.



> *** which is actually paradox since the AUP already says...


 Anything with meat in it is a dead animal. Taxidermy is dead animals but is allowed. Depending on how the prawn is prepared it no longer resembles the original animal to the point it looks like a dead animal, just meat.




> I wanted to suggest to implement a feature to actually block such images, but I thought nobody would actually care since this is not an actual "problem" and even if so, it would be already implemented since FA is one of the oldest art community sites out there.


 This thread is for improving the AUP not the site's features. Besides people never seem to tag anything.


----------



## Teal (Mar 22, 2013)

Searched prawns, you know what came up? A few diffferent food pictures yes. But other than that mostly porn.

Also what's the problem with this?


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 22, 2013)

@Drachenauge

This topic is about the AUP, what you are talking about is more on a feature you are requesting to be added thus not part of this

I agree that cooking is an art but you have to understand that if you have a problem with animals being used as food, please understand its not the sites problem but under your problem. Please understand Prawn will share its name with the aliens from District 9 and an edible food item.
I'm sorry you have a problem with the group called Fish Lovers who are people who enjoy eating seafood but thats not FA's problem till they add a rule to requesting folks to tag their work on when or if ever they roll out a black list feature that they may not or may be working on for the updated FA.

If you still have this problem please look to using one of the 2 plug-ins for FA, one of them being this http://fafilter.me/ which filters out submissions, journals for you by using keywords.


----------



## Drachenauge (Mar 22, 2013)

edit: ____


> I agree that cooking is an art but you have to understand that if you have a problem with animals being used as food, please understand its not the sites problem but under your problem.


I REALLY didn't mean it that way. 
But thanks for the link with the PlugIn, gonna try that :3
___


Teal said:


> All I'm seeing here is you getting mad because you have a problem with prawns and couldn't figure out how to narrow your search.


I don't have a problem with prawns nor pork nor chicken nor whatever-kind-of-meat 
this was just the case I came across this issue. Nothing more, nothing less.
Let's add "Everything cooked included vegetables, gold, , mud, stones and herbs" so almost everything what people try to eat around the world is covered then.


> Anything with meat in it is a dead animal. Taxidermy is dead animals but is allowed. Depending on how the prawn is prepared it no longer resembles the original animal to the point it looks like a dead animal, just meat.


Well that's another story I think, but good point, yah.



> This thread is for improving the AUP not the site's features. Besides


again, read it. I suggested to implement the "NO FOOD PLX"-thing into the  





> people never seem to tag anything.



horribly true. -_-*
What makes it indeed very difficult to block an entire "category", so why implement a technical feature when there's the possibility to just prevent people from submitting such things?



> Searched prawns, you know what came up? A few diffferent food pictures yes. But other than that mostly porn.


Well, yeah, that's... you know. if it's tagged with mature filtres 'n stuff I'm sure we can't do nothing about people submitting such pictures, but those filtres allow us at least to blend out everything porn.



> Also what's the problem with this?


nothing specific (Â°_Â° except the fact the picture you picked looks really tasty and now I'm hungry  ), but still I think pictures of food don't belong here.

Also, I'm a big fan of dragon fruits, but although I like them I don't think pictures of them belong here. Just as an example. Well, At least when they don't have a drawn face on their peel what makes them looking like a little dragon or something like this


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 22, 2013)

Drachenauge said:


> edit: ____
> 
> I REALLY didn't mean it that way.
> But thanks for the link with the PlugIn, gonna try that :3
> ___


Sorry on that then
still understand FA will less likely do a full no food rule, and if they did the food people would find some way to bring back food to being able to be posted like the folks with SecondLife did.


----------



## Teal (Mar 22, 2013)

Drachenauge said:


> again, read it. I suggested to implement the "NO FOOD PLX"-thing into the


 If it's not a picture of a big mac then it should be allowed here.




> Well, yeah, that's... you know. if it's tagged with mature filtres 'n stuff I'm sure we can't do nothing about people submitting such pictures, but those filtres allow us at least to blend out everything porn.


 You made it seem like it was nothing but a flood of food pics.



> Also, I'm a big fan of dragon fruits, but although I like them I don't think pictures of them belong here. Just as an example. Well, At least when they don't have a drawn face on their peel what makes them looking like a little dragon or something like this


 Unless the dragon fruit has been made into something it doesn't belong here. I guess you could take an artistic photograph of it....


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 22, 2013)

Teal said:


> If it's not a picture of a big mac then it should be allowed here.
> 
> 
> You made it seem like it was nothing but a flood of food pics.
> ...







And this is how you do something artistically with dragonfruit...
the No food rule though would disallow this from even being posted


----------



## Thaily (Mar 22, 2013)

Jack McSlay said:


> Non-randomized fractals always generate the same picture. If it's a fractal with a lot of parameter tinkering and random seeding, you cannot dismiss it because there's the effort of going through several versions of an image till getting one that looks good. That's the same kind of effort you get from a photographer - they didn't create the lake, or the building, or the forest, they walk around till finding the best angle to capture it.



But the randomized ones could use pre-existing code and therefor no actual input from the person using the program?

Lemme tell you, I do photography, and there's a hell of a lot more involved than just picking a subject and pressing a button.



Verin Asper said:


> And this is how you do something artistically with dragonfruit...
> the No food rule though would disallow this from even being posted



Not really, they could just submit it as sculpture.
Food CAN be art, if someone creates a recipe and makes a decent photo of the end result and shares the recipe, otherwise it's pretty pointless for people to look at.
A photo of food I can't eat, whoo.

But most of the food photos uploaded to FA are of this quality: http://www.myriadofmagpies.com/uploads/images/stuff/crabs.jpg


----------



## Drachenauge (Mar 22, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Sorry on that then
> still understand FA will less likely do a full no food rule, and if they did the food people would find some way to bring back food to being able to be posted like the folks with SecondLife did.


I don't know about the secondLife -issue with pictures of food (sorry), but I would like to hear about that in a PM if you want :3 (or anybody else here, this really made me curious!)



> If it's not a picture of a big mac then it should be allowed here.


Um, where's the difference between a BigMac and a steak or prawn?
I... have a problem with sarcasm, so sorry if this was just sarcasm here...



> You made it seem like it was nothing but a flood of food pics.


Well, I don't know how long you searched the Prawn -keyword.
But, if I'm (still) correct, after several pages it was.. mostly. MOSTLY only food pictures.




> And this is how you do something artistically with dragonfruit...
> (picture)


:O oh my, this is EPIC! :O
Isn't this actually more handcrafting?
Which makes me wonder:
is the picture of cooked rice you made any different to a picture of something you carved into a fruit?
In my opinion, yes there is is.

You two are probably right. There is actually nothing wrong with food pictures, so a feature would be nice to block them ... aaand that would be another story that belongs into the suggestion forums.

But, well, still I think posting food pictures on this site  _often_ is something like ... you know, posting pictures of hair bands, tables and pencils on a community site for car and motocycle pictures.


Personal experience I think. Case closed. Thanks.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 22, 2013)

Thaily said:


> But the randomized ones could use pre-existing code and therefor no actual input from the person using the program?
> 
> Lemme tell you, I do photography, and there's a hell of a lot more involved than just picking a subject and pressing a button.
> 
> ...


No they wouldnt be able to as its a food item...
wait a second
Didnt FA use to have an AUP section dedicated to sculptures? was it knocked under photography or something?


----------



## Drachenauge (Mar 22, 2013)

> But most of the food photos uploaded to FA are of this quality:​


well, yes, I wanted to point this out aswell on the previous post when the secondLife -case was mentioned. I think people who REALLY take pictures of a higher quality and arranging each and every single detail in it (and paying attention to the background. The first food picture posted here looks really delicious, but look at the stuff in the background. This basically ruins the picture :/ ) ... could sneak past those rules. Either with category changes (like ->sculptures) or maybe due to creating a whole scene with adding flowers, little animal figurines, plushies and whatever people could imagine there.

But the amount of random snapshots might be decrease then.

(except the lighting and background-mess I think the crab picture would actually look quite interesting if it wasn't that blurry. MacroShot would have been nice there for all the details!)


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 22, 2013)

Then instead ask for clarified rules on food, mentioning that it should be on display in a neat organized and artistic way. Similar to what people on Second Life rules did we gave ourselves a guideline on what is needed to be done to be able to post said screenshot to show off the work we did to our avatar may it be a fully custom made one or one made from various avatar parts.


----------



## Drachenauge (Mar 22, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Then instead ask for clarified rules on food, mentioning that it should be on display in a neat organized and artistic way.


Oh that would be a nice idea!

So, uh, I ask for... um, clarification 'n stuff *points at  Varin Asper* just what she said, ok, yeah!


----------



## Thaily (Mar 22, 2013)

Honestly I see a lot of people creating issues where there are none in enforcement "But what if it's fanart?", "But what if it's made of food?", "There should be rules on presentation with photographed items!" which there already is.
Though honestly, I wasn't sure what I was expecting.


----------



## Saellyn (Mar 22, 2013)

I still say that photography should be cut down to "If it isn't furry related, post it somewhere else and link to it in a journal if you really want to share it. This isn't your personal Photobucket/Facebook."


----------



## Teal (Mar 22, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


>





Drachenauge said:


> Um, where's the difference between a BigMac and a steak or prawn?
> I... have a problem with sarcasm, so sorry if this was just sarcasm here...


 You didn't make the big mac.



> Well, I don't know how long you searched the Prawn -keyword.
> But, if I'm (still) correct, after several pages it was.. mostly. MOSTLY only food pictures.


 De-select the "photography" box. It should take care of some of them.



> You two are probably right. There is actually nothing wrong with food pictures, so a feature would be nice to block them ... aaand that would be another story that belongs into the suggestion forums.


 Can't block what people don't tag.


----------



## RTDragon (Mar 22, 2013)

I really think the tutorial section should be separated considering food can fit real well considering the FACCC group is very popular for recipes.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Mar 22, 2013)

let me just clarify something here for you guys, anything that can be created by someone can be art if the person that created it considers it art, nobody else can tell that person that the thing they created isn't art. FA's AUP isn't defining what is and isn't art its telling the user base what they can and can't post on FA, its entirely up to the administration to determine what we can and can't post. so the "XXXXX is art so we should be able to post it" excuse doesn't work in this situation because this discussion isn't about what is and isn't art, its about what we want to be able to post on FA and to help clarify portions of the AUP to make them more understandable.


----------



## muddypaws (Mar 23, 2013)

I'd like to chime in on this for a moment.  A few months back I was approached to remove images that the staff claimed were not in the spirit of the AUP's rules on personal images.  In short a photograph of an antique K&E Slide Ruler (that's a hand held calculator for those who don't know what it is I'm referring to ... and it by the way, worth $900 on the open market) was requested to be removed.

At the time, I thought it was some issue regarding a commercial manufacturing name on the item, but they haven't been made since about 1975.  However, now looking at the current AUP, it seems my image was not in violation, if having a brand name on the posted image was the reason.

This is one area that I observe needs clarification.  If photo's of a personal object that bare a label, logo, or brand name can't be displayed, it would be prudent to spell that out.

In short it seems there is no codicil for anything with a brand name (and yes, I am looking at the current AUP as I post this).   If it was, instead, thought to have been a possible violation of the "Public Domain/Fair Use" item under AUP, that's listed for screen shots.


This would be one area for clarification that I can suggest.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 23, 2013)

muddypaws said:


> I'd like to chime in on this for a moment.  A few months back I was approached to remove images that the staff claimed were not in the spirit of the AUP's rules on personal images.  In short a photograph of an antique K&E Slide Ruler (that's a hand held calculator for those who don't know what it is I'm referring to ... and it by the way, worth $900 on the open market) was requested to be removed.
> 
> At the time, I thought it was some issue regarding a commercial manufacturing name on the item, but they haven't been made since about 1975.  However, now looking at the current AUP, it seems my image was not in violation, if having a brand name on the posted image was the reason.
> 
> ...


Its against the AUP still
If its not MADE by you, its under manufactured goods
its not on brand names, its on items that were manufactured


----------



## artonis (Mar 23, 2013)

It's amazing how people try to get the most far out things posted on this site. Browsing FA has gotten as painful as browsing DeviantArt in some cases. So many random things so wildly unrelated to each other that it gets hard to wonder if you haven't ended up on Photobucket somehow.
To think, that the site's catering to the furry fandom would make you think you'd mostly find art related to that.

I'm against allowing any sort of art that consists mostly of procedurally generated content. Fractals. Why? Why does FA need fractals? Might as well just fill my gallery up with images of perlin noise with varying scales and permutations. I feel there isn't enough contribution by the artist if you're essentially just turning some knobs to mix up the constellation of a pre-existing construct.

I'm against, or at best, on the fence on 3D art created with Poser and similar software. While I'm sure there has been great art done with nothing but bought Poser models, it's almost ridiculously rare. Quite frankly most art made in that manner looks, at best, cobbled together and has almost no original content, besides maybe poses (and even those are often just barely qualifying as "original.")

The discussion about underage characters is just too irrational to comment, except "No."

I'd go with an "artistic effort" clause for most of the things discussed that seem too muddily defined, but of course that won't ever work with most people.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2013)

The reason 'artistic effort' would not be an improvement is because it's very subjective and very difficult to quantify- especially for websites which claim they do not discriminate by artistic talent. 

Only things with 'Artistic effort' is simply code for 'stuff that I personally approve of', because of this subjectivity.


----------



## Erethzium (Mar 23, 2013)

My big gripe is not about what the AUP doesn't cover, but about something in the AUP that's not being enforced at all.

All the time, I see people just dumping random photos of themselves, or their cat, or their dog, or just random, non-artistic images in general. This is FA, not Facebook or Photobucket. The AUP does say that they're allowed in scraps, but I'm constantly seeing people putting their crappy cell-phone-camera self-photos in their main gallery. (because if they were putting them in scraps, they wouldn't show up on the front page)


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 23, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> My big gripe is not about what the AUP doesn't cover, but about something in the AUP that's not being enforced at all.
> 
> All the time, I see people just dumping random photos of themselves, or their cat, or their dog, or just random, non-artistic images in general. This is FA, not Facebook or Photobucket. The AUP does say that they're allowed in scraps, but I'm constantly seeing people putting their crappy cell-phone-camera self-photos in their main gallery. (because if they were putting them in scraps, they wouldn't show up on the front page)


...
Then I'm hoping you are telling those folks please put those stuff in scraps
I'm hoping you are reporting those violations

I'm really tired of people on this site opening their mouth instead of doing something


----------



## muddypaws (Mar 23, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> Its against the AUP still
> If its not MADE by you, its under manufactured goods
> its not on brand names, its on items that were manufactured



Thank you!

This information does make for clarity.   However, I think *adding* a two or three examples, would be a good idea.  Some (like me) wouldn't have considered it as manufactured;  this would also help even if the company was out-of-business.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Mar 23, 2013)

artonis said:


> It's amazing how people try to get the most far out things posted on this site. Browsing FA has gotten as painful as browsing DeviantArt in some cases. So many random things so wildly unrelated to each other that it gets hard to wonder if you haven't ended up on Photobucket somehow.
> To think, that the site's catering to the furry fandom would make you think you'd mostly find art related to that.
> 
> I'm against allowing any sort of art that consists mostly of procedurally generated content. Fractals. Why? Why does FA need fractals? Might as well just fill my gallery up with images of perlin noise with varying scales and permutations. I feel there isn't enough contribution by the artist if you're essentially just turning some knobs to mix up the constellation of a pre-existing construct.
> ...



this is why if I post something that isn't art I post it in my scraps



Fallowfox said:


> The reason 'artistic effort' would not be an  improvement is because it's very subjective and very difficult to  quantify- especially for websites which claim they do not discriminate  by artistic talent.
> 
> Only things with 'Artistic effort' is simply code for 'stuff that I  personally approve of', because of this subjectivity.



exactly, just because somebody doesn't draw as good as another artist doesn't mean they didn't put as much effort into that piece of art, for all we know they are actually alot better at drawing than that and purposely drew the picture poorly.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 23, 2013)

muddypaws said:


> Thank you!
> 
> This information does make for clarity.   However, I think *adding* a two or three examples, would be a good idea.  Some (like me) wouldn't have considered it as manufactured;  this would also help even if the company was out-of-business.


Then I think that the AUP may need Visual reinforcement of the various rules
I'm sure various members of the community could do that


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2013)

' An object is considered manufactured if it is/was mass produced commercially and/or not produced with the intention of being a piece of art. '

Would such a sentence be clear in your view, muddypaws?


----------



## Erethzium (Mar 23, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> I'm really tired of people on this site opening their mouth instead of doing something



I'm really tired of people ignorantly assuming that other people are "opening their mouth instead of doing something".

Commenting doesn't do anything, even if you quote the AUP in your comment. I've told many people that non-artistic photography must go in scraps, but nobody ever listens. They usually just whine at me, then delete my comment and/or block me.

And the mods never answer any of my tickets, it always takes months before any of my tickets are answered.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 23, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> I'm really tired of people ignorantly assuming that other people are "opening their mouth instead of doing something".
> 
> Commenting doesn't do anything, even if you quote the AUP in your comment. I've told many people that non-artistic photography must go in scraps, but nobody ever listens. They usually just whine at me, then delete my comment and/or block me.
> 
> And the mods never answer any of my tickets, it always takes months before any of my tickets are answered.


Its cause the majority of the time when people talk about that, they are just opening their mouths and didnt do anything
Same damn reason it pisses me off when people use the excuses "well this user posted that picture and it didnt get removed" "Its not hurting anyone so why should it get removed"

I'm a naturally an angry person, so sorry but my comment stand, "i'm tired of folks opening their mouths and not really doing anything"


----------



## Kalmor (Mar 23, 2013)

Erethzium said:


> I'm really tired of people ignorantly assuming that other people are "opening their mouth instead of doing something".
> 
> Commenting doesn't do anything, even if you quote the AUP in your comment. I've told many people that non-artistic photography must go in scraps, but nobody ever listens. They usually just whine at me, then delete my comment and/or block me.
> 
> *And the mods never answer any of my tickets, it always takes months before any of my tickets are answered*.


Actually they've been a lot quicker recently with all the new mods.


----------



## Kayla-La (Mar 23, 2013)

Raptros said:


> Actually they've been a lot quicker recently with all the new mods.



I have a really simple ticket filed on 02.21.13 still open, so I'm not quite sure I'd agree. It seems like they were going faster for a little bit, and then slowed down again.

Considering how often now I've filed tickets and had them be ignored for months on end, I can understand why people feel like reporting things is a waste of their time. Though of course, at the end of the day, not reporting things just kind of guarantees nothing will be done, but I do feel it important to point out that people have good reason to be frustrated by the common lack of response.


----------



## DI-FL (Mar 23, 2013)

I know people pretty much do it anyways, but Abstract Art technically is technically against the AUP because it violates the terms of having to represent objective things. Noise music's been allowed, so it only makes sense that Abstraction should be too.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 23, 2013)

Abstraction is forbidden? Surely not.


----------



## CannonFodder (Mar 24, 2013)

DI-FL said:


> I know people pretty much do it anyways, but Abstract Art technically is technically against the AUP because it violates the terms of having to represent objective things. Noise music's been allowed, so it only makes sense that Abstraction should be too.


Actually abstract art is basically simplifying shapes and such.  You're thinking of modern art.  The two get confused a lot.


----------



## Fallowfox (Mar 25, 2013)

CannonFodder said:


> Actually abstract art is basically simplifying shapes and such.  You're thinking of modern art.  The two get confused a lot.



Actually modern art is the art created between roughly the mid nineteenth and late twentieth century. 

You're thinking of contemporary art. The two get confused a lot. 

[oh gosh I just had to, sorry]


----------



## Kai. (Mar 26, 2013)

I request more clear-cut explanations of what is and is not allowed, complete with illustrated examples if possible.

For example, I cannot determine whether re-coloured images of animals found on a web search are permitted under the current AUP. I remember it being a big deal a few years back, but find no explicit mention of it now. When does an image become original art? How much modification is necessary?

I also believe the position on adult fursuit photography should be modified. As long as no real genitalia are being shown, and the wearers are not engaging in a sexual act, I see no reason someone cannot "model" an adult fursuit. Wearing and using are different, IMO.

And I am so glad that some action will be taken on re-uploading spammers and endless waves of advertisements for YCHs, character auctions, adoptables, etc. SO GLAD.


----------



## Teal (Mar 26, 2013)

Kai. said:


> *For example, I cannot determine whether re-coloured images of animals found on a web search are permitted under the current AUP*. I remember it being a big deal a few years back, but find no explicit mention of it now. When does an image become original art? How much modification is necessary?


 Why do this? Why?


----------



## RestrainedRaptor (Mar 26, 2013)

I actually sent a note to Dragoneer a few weeks ago regarding a part of the AUP but I doubt it will ever be answered. In the meantime, this thread came up, so it seems like a good place to repost it.

On the whole, I appreciate the efforts made to reduce the size of the AUP and to make it easier to navigate. However, the policies for screenshots and renders seems to be lacking enough guidance to let me decide whether I can upload a few things I planned to submit recently, specifically Second Life photography. Here are my issues:



> Acceptable: "Second Life: screenshots of 3D models made specifically by or for the uploader"



What about avatars that have been significantly modded by the user to make it unique?

The following clause also doesn't make things any clearer to me:



> Not allowed: "3D models requiring purchase/sale to use (unless specifically custom made for the uploader)"



This is a huge blanket-ban on anything paid-for, and I don't know if that's the intention, but if it is, then why? I would have thought that if someone has paid for a model, they would expect to have the privilege to use it. For instance, buying the model along with the rights/license for commercial or non-commercial use. And, once again, applying this to SecondLife avatars, if someone buys a model and modifies it, or even if they _wear_ or _add_ something to their appearance that is paid-for, this would be implicitly banned. This doesn't seem to follow common sense. A number of legitimate 3D art on FA could be deleted under this clause. It makes no sense to me. I hope I'm not alone in thinking this.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 26, 2013)

RestrainedRaptor said:


> I actually sent a note to Dragoneer a few weeks ago regarding a part of the AUP but I doubt it will ever be answered. In the meantime, this thread came up, so it seems like a good place to repost it.
> 
> On the whole, I appreciate the efforts made to reduce the size of the AUP and to make it easier to navigate. However, the policies for screenshots and renders seems to be lacking enough guidance to let me decide whether I can upload a few things I planned to submit recently, specifically Second Life photography. Here are my issues:
> 
> ...


As the person who helped with the first version of the SL rule I could help
Mostly Right now when Secondlife was its own section in the aup which had guidelines of what is and what isnt acceptable things were fine...that until somehow someone thought it was a good idea to remove 90% of the SL content guideline thus we now have current issues, if not on whole 3D arts.

_"Second Life: screenshots of 3D models made specifically by or for the uploader"_
This version implies that only stuff made 100% by the uploader or made by someone else for the uploader is only allowed, previous version of the rule does state avatars that were heavily modified with folks citing the original creators of parts used were allowed.
BUT!
_"Public domain/fair use models provided the uploader cites the model's creators/sources"_
To me the citing of parts used was bunched under that rule, meaning that the person no matter what have to cite "I used this avatar, made by this person"
if they dont the item would fall outside the rule.

You are right though on this one
_"3D models requiring purchase/sale to use (unless specifically custom made for the uploader)"_
This one rule in turn completely nullify anything on Secondlife unless its people who build avatars leaving them to being the only ones to post stuff to their main gallery base on its wording.

this in turn bring up a rule not many actually read on
_"*What we permit in scraps:*__Personal photography/screenshots"_
Basing on its wording scraps is only allowed for random Screenshots that are personal, this may include modification work on avatars, and SL photography.

While I understand furries cant read and have short attention span...but when you try to simplify things by jamming the two groups under one area...well...it doesnt work cause group A and group B are two different groups in a sense. Group A is fine with the rules while group B ends up so burden with paperwork.

Two I really think people who are actually 3D artist would like to be lumped with Second Life folks and SL folks dont wish to be a bother on 3D folks...


----------



## Kai. (Mar 26, 2013)

Teal said:


> Why do this? Why?



It's not me. I wanted to know whether I should report someone for  doing (really bad) recolors of images ripped straight off Page 1 of a  google image search.


----------



## Kesteh (Mar 27, 2013)

Kai. said:


> It's not me. I wanted to know whether I should report someone for  doing (really bad) recolors of images ripped straight off Page 1 of a  google image search.



Images are supposed to have substantial edits from the original in order to be allowed.
Simply doing a very basic or half-assed recolor or edit to something stock isn't allowed.


----------



## Lionus (Mar 29, 2013)

â€œ_What we donâ€™t permit / All media / depicting of minors (humanoid or feral adolescents who act/behave like humans) in sexual situations_â€

â€œ*Sexual situations*â€ is still such a vague non-specific term as to be subjectively interpreted differently by every viewer in every geographical part of the Internet.

Is a â€œsexual situationâ€ where the minor is a witness to non-aroused adult nudity?
Is a "sexual situation" where the minor is a witness to physical sexual activity between adults?
Is a â€œsexual situationâ€ where the viewer of a depiction might interpret adult nudity as being the precursor to possible sexual contact with another adult that the minor in the depiction might witness?
Is a â€œsexual situationâ€ where a minor might be shown to be curious about what he or she might see in regards to the physical differences between him/herself and the nude adult bodies in say a community shower? 


Later in the AUP it is stated:
â€œ_Submissions depicting canonically-underage characters in sexual situations, but only if the characters have been visually altered to appear of at least legal age._â€
â€œ_*Legal age*_â€ needs to be specified since globally it varies between the onsets of puberty (14) and 18 (here in the United States). 

â€œ_Submissions depicting small/cute (chibi) characters in sexual situations, but only if it is not implied that the character is underage._â€
The terms â€œ*underage*â€, â€œ*legal age*â€ and â€œ*minor*â€ (from above) need to be specified rather than left to the interpretation of the submitter or the viewer.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 29, 2013)

Lionus said:


> â€œ_What we donâ€™t permit / All media / depicting of minors (humanoid or feral adolescents who act/behave like humans) in sexual situations_â€
> 
> â€œ*Sexual situations*â€ is still such a vague non-specific term as to be subjectively interpreted differently by every viewer in every geographical part of the Internet.
> 
> ...


It doesnt matter where you live it depends on US laws where FA is located which the legal age is 18, we had folks in the past who said the same thing where the legal age is lower. I believe the problem is that FA forgets that more than US uses its server and thus should mention its in the US following US laws.


----------



## RestrainedRaptor (Mar 29, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> It doesnt matter where you live it depends on US laws where FA is located which the legal age is 18, we had folks in the past who said the same thing where the legal age is lower. I believe the problem is that FA forgets that more than US uses its server and thus should mention its in the US following US laws.



Agreed. And that's why most T&Cs use Definitions at the top of the document, and it would be simple for the FA AUP to do the same. For instance, "In the following document, 'Legal Age' refers to 18 years or over."

And thanks for the info about what the AUP used to say about SL and 3D screenshots. I couldn't remember what it used to look like but it certainly wasn't as vague/plain wrong as it is now. Any way to access the old version?


----------



## Setsune_W (Mar 29, 2013)

RestrainedRaptor said:


> This is a huge blanket-ban on anything paid-for, and I don't know if that's the intention, but if it is, then why? I would have thought that if someone has paid for a model, they would expect to have the privilege to use it. For instance, buying the model along with the rights/license for commercial or non-commercial use. And, once again, applying this to SecondLife avatars, if someone buys a model and modifies it, or even if they _wear_ or _add_ something to their appearance that is paid-for, this would be implicitly banned. This doesn't seem to follow common sense. A number of legitimate 3D art on FA could be deleted under this clause. It makes no sense to me. I hope I'm not alone in thinking this.



Nope, you're not. I hope the AUP update does include the rule tweak Dragoneer suggested here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4104753/#cid:30429370

I appreciate that the rules on 3D models were slacked, but it does seem like a strange division to allow free-to-use models, but not pay-for models that grant usage rights, such as those bought from Daz3D for example. (I can't speak about the SecondLife aspect of your example, I'm not sure how many of those creators are intentionally granting reproduction rights with sales.) I hope the rule is altered to allow purchased models as well.


----------



## Verin Asper (Mar 30, 2013)

RestrainedRaptor said:


> Agreed. And that's why most T&Cs use Definitions at the top of the document, and it would be simple for the FA AUP to do the same. For instance, "In the following document, 'Legal Age' refers to 18 years or over."
> 
> And thanks for the info about what the AUP used to say about SL and 3D screenshots. I couldn't remember what it used to look like but it certainly wasn't as vague/plain wrong as it is now. Any way to access the old version?


http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-01602/8/ARCHIVE-Acceptable-Upload-Policy-AUP.html
Then there was the talk of me and warmock working on the first version of the rules when I went about to prove that folks who do modifation work on SL should be allowed to post seen on this submission
NSFW


----------



## Lionus (Mar 30, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> It doesnt matter where you live it depends on US laws where FA is located which the legal age is 18, we had folks in the past who said the same thing where the legal age is lower. I believe the problem is that FA forgets that more than US uses its server and thus should mention its in the US following US laws.



Agreed. I understand that in this regard FA is legally "covering its tail". However it does need to offer its best attempt at what it means by 'minors in a *sexual situation*' for submitting artists at least.

The AUP is a quasi-legal document in that FurAffinity sets out the rules under which it accepts submissions. In a legal document, any complex or nebulous phrase is generally defined as to what the phrase is intended to mean to the person or organization binding themselves by that document.


----------



## foxystallion (Mar 31, 2013)

*AUP Discussion Re: paid 3D models and stock photographs*



Setsune_W said:


> Nope, you're not. I hope the AUP update does include the rule tweak Dragoneer suggested here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4104753/#cid:30429370
> 
> I appreciate that the rules on 3D models were slacked, but it does seem like a strange division to allow free-to-use models, but not pay-for models that grant usage rights, such as those bought from Daz3D for example. (I can't speak about the SecondLife aspect of your example, I'm not sure how many of those creators are intentionally granting reproduction rights with sales.) I hope the rule is altered to allow purchased models as well.



I, too, hope that purchased models will be permitted.  Note that I am not prohibited from displaying a wildlife or scenic photograph that I took in a forest, park, or zoo where an entrance fee is charged.  There is a far more to creating an artistic scene which includes a model than the model itself, which (I presume) is why the use of public domain models is permitted.

I also hope that the use of a portion of purchased stock photography will be permitted as a small part of digital art photomorphs.  For example, I'd rather purchase a $3.00 top quality fox photo whose accompanying license allows me to take the fox head image, modify it as I desire, and add it to one of my photomorphs rather than waste hours finding a public domain fox head photograph that isn't as high in quality.  Why the insistence that the fox head photograph be from a public domain photo?  What is the point of this restriction?  How does this apparent bias against professional photographers benefit either FA's owner or its members? Of course, credit should continue to be given where credit is due.

Note, too, that photographers and other digital artists are not required to use a public domain digital art tool such as the GIMP; we are allowed to use any software that we please, whether it be Corel Painter XII or Photoshop CS6. 

So why must models and stock photographs be public domain?  Please either change these rules or articulate a rational reason for them.  Of course, the owner of FA has the right to promulgate arbitrary and capricious rules simply because they please him, but I'd be very surprised if he has any desire to act in this manner.  I realize that the number of FA members who are 3D modelers is small, and the number of digital photomorph artists even smaller, but I hope that our pleas don't fall unheard through the cracks.  May the sound and fury created by the cub art issue not bury these concerns.

Thank you for your consideration.


----------



## RestrainedRaptor (Mar 31, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-01602/8/ARCHIVE-Acceptable-Upload-Policy-AUP.html
> Then there was the talk of me and warmock working on the first version of the rules when I went about to prove that folks who do modifation work on SL should be allowed to post seen on this submission
> NSFW



YES. That version is much better. I can't really fault it as it's quite concise and reasonable in what it permits, without allowing everything under the sun. I'd like to see us go back in that direction.


----------



## rizel (Apr 1, 2013)

The main part of the AUP I have a gripe with as a 3D artist is this:

Public domain/fair use models provided the uploader cites the model's creators/sources

I've advocated the addition of a clause aiming ofr the opposite of this for quite a while, and I was very disheartened when this was finally added. This gives users the ability to post content that is not theirs. I think it's shocking how this kind of content goes onto the site uninterrupted. It is staggering how simply someone can download a pirated copy of DAZ or Bryce or Poser, download a number of free assets, and create their own scene in such a short amount of time. All too often I see content like this posted with no credit at all. What upsets me most is the number of comments from users who are unaware of this scandal, praising the submitter on their level of skill and artistic ability.

Consider the steps required for someone to create and pose their own character:
1: Concept. This step is optional of course, as many may have the image in their mind already.
2: Base model. Forming the basic shape of the creature. This involves starting with basic primitive shapes and building them out a few verticies at a time.
3: Retopology. This is the process of moving the precise components of an object to make the flow of faces and edges smooth and even. This process is ongoing throughout most of the modelling steps.
4: Detailing. Adding fine detail and accessories. This can also include changes to the initial model when setting it up for rigging.
5: Texturing. I could make the process of UV Unwrapping a step of it's own. The user must define where the object is going to be cut and flattened to draw a 2D texture onto it. Anyone who has done it manually can attest how time-consuming and frustrating this process can be.
6: Rigging. This refers to creating a skeleton for the creature. This process can be very technical, as you have to have experience with where precisely the joints bend and how they move in relation to each other. Typically multiple sets of bones have to be made (to accomodate for IK/FK rigs). After that, the model must be 'skinned' to the skeleton, meaning the user must specify which verticies will move in relation to which bone(s). This is another time-consuming and frustration-laden process. Essentially, the time you put in is the result you will earn.
7: Composition. Creating an environment and background. This includes modeling other assets in the scene, configuring the creature in a given pose, creating a lighting setup and environment settings, etc.
8: Rendering. After all is positioned and adjusted in the correct manner, the user will render the result. The complexity of the models and scene can make this process take up a while, and afterwords will typically be adjusted in a program such as Photoshop to fix any brightness, noise, or other issues present within the image. The changes made here are minor, though necessary. This is the final step.

If we consider what the typical user of programs I mentioned before, you may as well eliminate steps 1-5.

I know one argument I typically receive when stating my point is something along these lines: "Rizel, have you ever considered that these artists specialize in the art of simply animating characters?" This is a fair assumption, but my gripe against that is this: Most artists showing off their animation skills typically do NOT download pre-gen assets (previously generated content). They will instead make a bare-bones character or one lacking tremenous (or even moderate) detail. "Max for Maya" is a tremendous example of a very simple character used often in animation. If the objective is trying to show off your animation or composition skills, then artists understand when someone uses a simple model. There is no shame in that.

I may be preaching my own cause. I do take commissions, yes, but this is both a hobby and an occupation for myself. I don't earn enough money in this way to buy myself lunch for a week. Ever. I typically post content that I make in my free time, or simply to entertain. This isn't about money, but some users who do what I advocate against earn money this way, too. I've seen plenty of paid commissions made by a user who used free assets for another user wh probably had no idea it happened this way at all. I can imagine someone feeling cheated when they pay for a custom character, only to learn that 80% of the model was pieced together using pre-gen assets or just morphed from an existing model they obtained the same way.

I believe there needs to be a drastic change in the 3D portion of the AUP. I believe it should specify that the work shown was created by the user as a demonstration of their skill and ability with a given program or programs, not how well they can hit 'Download' and pose free objects in a scene. It seems hypocritical that a site so against art theft allows such an act. I hope progress can be made to adjust this clause.


----------



## Setsune_W (Apr 1, 2013)

Well, that certainly wasn't insulting at all.


----------



## Jango The Blue Fox (Apr 1, 2013)

Kai. said:


> I also believe the position on adult fursuit photography should be modified. As long as no real genitalia are being shown, and the wearers are not engaging in a sexual act, I see no reason someone cannot "model" an adult fursuit. Wearing and using are different, IMO.



this is exactly what I've been saying, as long as there is no real life nudity or sexual activity then there is no reason people shouldn't be able to model adult fursuits.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 1, 2013)

RestrainedRaptor said:


> YES. That version is much better. I can't really fault it as it's quite concise and reasonable in what it permits, without allowing everything under the sun. I'd like to see us go back in that direction.


the problem is I can understand that always happens: "too many words"
Something my friend suggest is clarifications, where we can have a short hand, generalized version but allow people to get specific version if they wish to know more. This way people can know that in general the rules ar elike this but then we can go specific with 3D works and SL (to which again these days they are two seperate fields now and cant be govern by the same rules) Thats why we on the first version of the SL rules put specifics for SL than on 3D works overall, heck somethings actually were picked up from the original rules on 3D and converted over to work with SL.


----------



## BishyT (Apr 2, 2013)

Rizel, i'm afraid i'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

First of all, Poser and Daz artwork are derivative works, and as such are protected under the following section of the AUP.

"Derivative  works (music remixes, photo morphs) are permitted only if the finished  work is uniquely distinguishable from its borrowed parts.  Additionally,  ownership aside, the original parts must abide by the AUP."

Comparing Poser artwork to "art theft" is a logical fallacy. Art theft is when you take someone else's work and alter it/upload it without their permission. Poser resources however (both purchased and free ones) are licensed for use in at least non-commercial images, if not also commercial ones. They're stock resources. It's just like photomanipulations (or photo morphs as the AUP refers to them as); the use of stock photos that are licensed for use in at least non-commercial work.

If FA were to ban stock 3D models (such as Poser figures), they would have to ban the use of all stock resources to be fair, which includes (but isn't limited to); stock photos, stock patterns, stock pose references (e.g. Senshi Stock), stock audio effects (for flash animations), the stock audio loops that come with most music software such as GarageBand, stock textures (e.g. CG Textures), and (most importantly) _photoshop brushes_. Anything that has been downloaded or bought off a website with a royalty free license would have to be banned.

If you really are so concerned about losing commissions to those who use Poser models, perhaps you should concentrate more on improving the quality of your own work rather than trying to ban the competition. I've seen quite a few other 3D artists on this website who produce their own works who aren't having any trouble getting commissions. Besides, I dare you to look both Hellboy and Kupopo, two of the greatest gay artists on the internet, in the eye, and tell them their 3D work should be banned for using Poser content.

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/hellboy/
http://e621.net/post?tags=3d+kupopo


----------



## DragonFood (Apr 2, 2013)

Rizel, here's an argument you may not have considered: you are simply being cynical and presumptuous. You say you "can imagine someone feeling cheated"; well, there's something to take away from that you gloss over without giving a second thought: it is by your own say-so a situation that exists only in your imagination.  Not once do you even mention legitimately purchased assets or software, or them being legitimately used.  You are feigning umbrage over a non-issue; simply assuming things undesirable so you can add fuel to your righteous indignation.  Your diatribe is built on a stack of unnecessary, unfair, and frankly untrue assumptions.  Assuming it's art theft; assuming there's a scandal; assuming people are pirating software; assuming that this is even typical for these users.   Oscar Wilde has a good one on simply assuming such things; maybe you've heard it.



Just wanna point out, too, this insanely beautiful animation made solely with Daz 3D products: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10273576/ which in that regard makes it banned by the AUP in its current wording, which is a damned shame that needs to be addressed.


----------



## BishyT (Apr 3, 2013)

DragonFood, thank you so much for introducing me to that wonderful video. That is possibly the best hobbyist 3D animations i've ever seen, let alone one that uses Daz models.


----------



## foxystallion (Apr 4, 2013)

BishyT, thank you for both your logic and your links!


----------



## Katalyst (Apr 4, 2013)

Honestly? I side with Rizel on this, and I'm not even a 3D artist.
I've purchased, "CUSTOM 3D ART!!" of my characters, and when I got it? It looked nothing like my character. Why? Because it was Poser. The person went out and downloaded pieces of models, and Frankensteined them together, rather than doing what I had actually paid for. Too many people will see these and think, "OH! They MAKE all of this!" because, frankly, the creator of the pieces isn't revealed.

IF the AUP is going to allow for that, I believe that the artist(s) who use Poser should be REQUIRED, no if ands or buts to it, to tell us WHERE they downloaded every asset.

In pixel art (specifically dolling), this is already required. And this act is no different than dolling except that rather than a small 2D image, we have a much larger 3D one.

Edit:
TL;DR:
Outright ban? No. Give Credit where Credit is due? Yes, a hundred times, YES.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

Is it not already part of the AUP to admit and list references, or have permission to use other people's intellectual property?


----------



## Katalyst (Apr 4, 2013)

Fallowfox said:


> Is it not already part of the AUP to admit and list references, or have permission to use other people's intellectual property?


Do you know how many people do NOT do this? I want mods to crack down on this if its in the AUP, since NONE of the poser users that I've encounetered even make mention of downloading a model unless asked.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

Katalyst said:


> Do you know how many people do NOT do this? I want mods to crack down on this if its in the AUP, since NONE of the poser users that I've encounetered even make mention of downloading a model unless asked.



If any of my drawings would be recogniseable compared with a reference, and the reference material doesn't belong to me, I say 'and my reference was from magazine a'. 

Everyone can and should do this, so perhaps it needs higher priority in the aup.


----------



## Katalyst (Apr 4, 2013)

If someone downloads something and makes changes to it, with or without permission, the ORIGINAL ARTIST should receive credit.

Let me put it into 2D art for you.
Say someone draws something. Fan sees it and wants to trace and make changes. (One route: Ask artist, artist agrees if so many changes are made to the end product). Fan traces and makes their alterations. The original product is there, though not as recognizable now. Should the Original Artist receive no credit? If you say yes, then you need to remove yourself from art entirely. We have no use for people with that mindset.

This is as CLOSE to the current 3D issue as I can get. Someone else created the model and has made it open-source. Does that make them any less important? They were the starting point for the artwork... and thus should receive the credit for the part they played. I feel this is true for all forms.

To state that, "Oh, I referenced this magazine, I have to credit!" If you traced it, then yes, credit where credit is due. Otherwise, the magazine was a TOOL, like your pen/pencil, mouse/tablet, computer, camera, so on and so forth. NO ONE will be so unreasonable as to say, "STATE ALL TOOLS USED!"
State where you got your assets, though.


----------



## Fallowfox (Apr 4, 2013)

I _already _agree the original artist deserves credit, if this is made clear in aup [i believe it is mentioned already perhaps not as overtly as it could be] then would that ammeliorate  the problem you think is symptomatic of that medium? 

As to magazines, I suppose I use them as a tool then, but 'influence' or 'reference' are perhaps better descriptions, because reference does not mean 'trace'.


----------



## Verin Asper (Apr 4, 2013)

Katalyst said:


> If someone downloads something and makes changes to it, with or without permission, the ORIGINAL ARTIST should receive credit.
> 
> Let me put it into 2D art for you.
> Say someone draws something. Fan sees it and wants to trace and make changes. (One route: Ask artist, artist agrees if so many changes are made to the end product). Fan traces and makes their alterations. The original product is there, though not as recognizable now. Should the Original Artist receive no credit? If you say yes, then you need to remove yourself from art entirely. We have no use for people with that mindset.
> ...


The rules already SAY to Cite sources, something folks been ignoring sadly (and sadly When telling people to cite they get angry about it and admins wont do anything if you report it apparently cause now its your job to find the info for them)
its very annoying to have find every single piece of avatar stuff on SL to prove that the person did none of it to show its a personal screenshot that should be in scraps.


----------



## BishyT (Apr 4, 2013)

Katalyst said:


> Honestly? I side with Rizel on this, and I'm not even a 3D artist.
> I've purchased, "CUSTOM 3D ART!!" of my characters, and when I got it? It looked nothing like my character. Why? Because it was Poser. The person went out and downloaded pieces of models, and Frankensteined them together, rather than doing what I had actually paid for. Too many people will see these and think, "OH! They MAKE all of this!" because, frankly, the creator of the pieces isn't revealed.
> 
> IF the AUP is going to allow for that, I believe that the artist(s) who use Poser should be REQUIRED, no if ands or buts to it, to tell us WHERE they downloaded every asset.
> ...



First of all, the AUP already requires that.
Second of all, you shouldn't have given your money to such a bad artist. Did you not at least research the artist in question, or perhaps ask for a watermarked preview render before agreeing to pay for it? It's good practise to ask for a preview image before sending them your money (or the rest of your money if you paid a deposit), as otherwise you run the risk of paying for a substandard product. You can't project your feelings about one bad commission experience to every artist in the same genre. That would be like me complaining about a bad drawing I got and saying "yeah, all 2D art is shit and lazy, they're all the same!".

In future, be smarter with who you give your money to. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but there are a LOT of people out there (regardless of art genre) who will try to rip you off for minimal work, so you _have_ to be more careful about who you commission. If you had commissioned me (not that I am taking commissions, but hypothetically if I was), I would've at least done my best to sculpt a custom face morph in Zbrush to closely resemble your character and make it truly unique, just like I did with this Spookeedoo gift art ( http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9398240/ ) or this Grisser gift art ( http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9804705/ ) or even this CaptainGerBear gift art ( http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9804770/ ), all of them starting off as Daz models. Even then, I would only have charged you for the work *I* did, and not the resources I used.




Katalyst said:


> This is as CLOSE to the current 3D issue as I  can get. Someone else created the model and has made it open-source.  Does that make them any less important? They were the starting point for  the artwork... and thus should receive the credit for the part they  played. I feel this is true for all forms.



Actually, when you *purchase* 3D stock (such as characters, scenery, sky domes, textures, etc) from websites such as Daz 3D or Renderosity, you are purchasing the license to use the stock royalty free in both commercial and non-commercial renders without the need to credit them. This is the standard license used in all major 3D stock marketplaces (Daz 3D, Renderosity, Renderotica, RDNA, Poser Addicts, Maleposerotica, etc).

In the case of *freebies* or *open-source*, where you aren't paying for them, this license may differ to either deny commercial use, or to require credit. *This is the exact same as 2D stock, such as photos from Getty Images or free photoshop brushes from DevArt. *Depending on how or where you acquire the stock, *the licences will differ*. Some will require credit, some won't.

I can't comment on Second Life content as i'm not really an active SL user, but i'm pretty sure that most if not all Second Life content has to have credit given. All items in-game will have the name of the creator attached to them (so anyone viewing the object's information can see who made it and who owns it), so I think it would be safe to assume that any out-game usage would also require credit.

That said, I do believe that artists using Daz Studio or Poser should at the least mention the fact that they are using Daz Studio and Daz resources, not only to avoid confusion but to also introduce new people to Daz Studio who might be interested in using it. I myself always try my best to be transparent about my stuff, and try to make it clear exactly what work i've done. I've even posted a video once showing the process I used to create a render: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhTQyjpYczw You won't ever catch me attempting to pass of a Daz figure as my own.

Oh, and for clarification, I myself am a Daz 3D vendor (I sell my own original content at Daz 3D for other Daz users to use), so i'm very familiar with the ins and outs of the Daz/Poser community and the way Daz licenses their stock products for royalty free use.


----------



## Katalyst (Apr 4, 2013)

1. This is not something that was an immense amount of money, but it IS something that isn't quite so easy to spot unless you're looking for it, especially when people get all, "OMG THIS IS AMAZING" regardless of actual quality. Yes, there are people there to rip others off, there are also people who honestly believe that they are god's gift to the universe. Secondly, as pointed out, the current AUP isn't enforced AT ALL. As was mentioned, when informing people that they are required to credit for assets, you will get pissy comments back and mods here do NOTHING to enforce it unless the person reporting goes out to find the actual stock, even when people say, "No, I did not create this. I downloaded it."

As to "some require credit, others do not"-- FA's AUP requires credit for all assets not made by the person posting art. This is the ONLY thing of note in this case, not "So and so does not require credit". FurAffinity, itself, does.


----------



## rizel (Apr 5, 2013)

BishyT said:


> Actually, when you *purchase* 3D stock (such as characters, scenery, sky domes, textures, etc) from websites such as Daz 3D or Renderosity, you are purchasing the license to use the stock royalty free in both commercial and non-commercial renders without the need to credit them. This is the standard license used in all major 3D stock marketplaces (Daz 3D, Renderosity, Renderotica, RDNA, Poser Addicts, Maleposerotica, etc).



This isn't a discussion about DAZ's policies and rights on content, or how to use an open source license. This is about what users are able to upload on Fur Affinity. A person may purchase an item from any of the above listed sources, but they CANNOT post that content onto Fur Affinity:

*Screenshots and 3D Renders*


*Permitted in your Gallery*
Second Life: screenshots  of 3D models made specifically by or for  the uploader
Public domain/fair use models provided the uploader cites the model's creators/sources

Screenshots  of applications, games, movies of content the uploader has created  unique content (does not include character creators)
Screenshots or sprites of copyright games may be used if part of a comic or recurring series of narrative images 

*Permitted inScraps*
Generated images (character generators, terrain generators)

*Not Permitted  * 


Screenshots of applications, games, movie or websites 
3D models requiring purchase/sale to use (unless specifically custom made for the uploader)

Also, the whole point you made about vendors not requiring credit when they issue content for free/open source is moot as well. Again, this is about what is okay to upload on Fur Affinity, and currently that's not allowed either:



*Permitted in your Gallery*
Second Life: screenshots  of 3D models made specifically by or for  the uploader
Public domain/fair use models provided the uploader cites the model's creators/sources


----------



## Setsune_W (Apr 5, 2013)

Rizel, the point of this discussion is that we're asking for the "3D models requiring purchase/sale" line to be removed or altered, specifically because the last AUP has taken the step to allow public domain models, but creates a seemingly unnecessary divide between content available for free, and content available for purchase (that grants usage rights, which is the point of sites like Daz3D).

I personally have no issue with requiring citation of sources when feasible, even when the license does not explicitly require it.


----------



## BishyT (Apr 5, 2013)

Rizel, you clearly didn't read my post properly. I never said that free/open source content didn't require credit, I actually said the complete opposite. Most freebies will have their own license that requires credit.

Now admittedly, I wasn't aware of the line stating that purchased 3D models weren't allowed. Now that I am though, I can argue against it properly.

First of all, I would like to know the reason behind *why* free models, regardless of who created them, are allowed, while purchased models aren't. What is the thought process behind this? I would also like to know why the AUP only specifically disallows purchased 3D stock content, and not purchased stock photos, or music.

Let's look at how other stock resources are used according to the AUP.

The only mentions of stock photos in the AUP are this line under "Permitted in your Gallery":
Manufactured/collected  items which have been significantly modified from the stock version.   Examples include (but are not limited to): custom paint jobs, car  restorations, permanent/creative gun modifications.
And this line under "Permitted in Scraps":
Unmodified or stock manufactured/collected items (such as cars, guns with or without attachments, toys, plates)
As you can see, there is absolutely* no separation between whether the stock is free or not*. Both free stock photos from Deviantart and paid stock photos from Getty Images are allowed, as long as you follow the individual licenses set by them.

Audio stock, such as stock sound effects or stock music,* aren't even mentioned in the AUP*, so there are literally no rules against it. All stock audio, whether free or purchased, are allowed to be used here.
Digital resources, such as photoshop brushes, patterns, filters, or fonts are also *not mentioned anywhere in the AUP*, so again there are literally no rules against them. All stock resources, whether free or purchased, are allowed to be used here.

So to recap, not only does the AUP neglect to even have rules for half of the stock content available out there, it also applies separate rules to both 3D and Photographic stock despite them both being governed by the same laws (all stock are covered by licenses that dictate the acceptable use of the content). These rules are incredibly inconsistent, and should be made consistent; either ban ALL stock, or allow ALL stock.

Seriously, it's things like this that make me glad I migrated to Weasyl a while ago. Weasyl's AUP is much more consistent, not to mention the fact that it actually covers additional stock such as audio. For comparison, here's is Weasyl's AUP on using 3D stock:

_If a pre-existing model was used to make the screenshot, the user must  obtain permission from the original model's creator (unless the  copyright is waived), and either:           _

_Have altered the model in some way as to be  significantly different from the original, such as reskinning or  modelling the mesh further, or_ 
_Are showcasing an animation they have created._


----------



## Mipsus (Apr 11, 2013)

Katalyst said:


> Honestly? I side with Rizel on this, and I'm not even a 3D artist.
> I've purchased, "CUSTOM 3D ART!!" of my characters, and when I got it? It looked nothing like my character. Why? Because it was Poser. The person went out and downloaded pieces of models, and Frankensteined them together, rather than doing what I had actually paid for. Too many people will see these and think, "OH! They MAKE all of this!" because, frankly, the creator of the pieces isn't revealed.



And yet you can apply that ~same~ logic to photo-painting techniques as well as layer tracing techniques.  I doubt that most people on FA have any ~real~ cl00 as just HOW MUCH it would actually cost for a professional grade, original, made from scratch 3D model.  PROTIP: It would likely cost more money than most people make in six months workin yer average minimum wage job!

You get what you pay for and if you didn't pay upwards of $1,000 to $5,000+...yeah, you ~really~ shouldn't be expecting much.  It all comes down to the whole "buyer beware" concept.  FA isn't here to babysit you and make sure you don't make stupid/uninformed decisions when it comes to purchasing art, that's not their job and it has nothing to do with the AUP either.

On a related note, the 3D artwork tag/label in and of itself is kind of misleading...I mean, you guys ~are~ aware of the fact that you can FLAT RENDER in Poser...right?  In fact a lot of 2D artists utilize flat-rendered Poser models for creating base poses to layer trace off of.  Even further, it can flat render the SHADING as well (sans the direct models), which you can then utilize with layer blending techniques in order to create near instantaneous shading/lighting effects for your 2D model.

The end result is basically being able to churn out massive volumes of 2D artwork with completely original poses that have absolutely perfect anatomy and shading/lighting.

...and the thing is...there really isn't any way to tell ~for certain~ if that's the technique they're using or not.  And at that point the line between 3D rendering and 2D drawing is effectively lost altogether.


----------



## LionkingCMSL (Aug 15, 2013)

Rizel said:
			
		

> Consider the steps required for someone to create and pose their own character:
> 1: Concept. This step is optional of course, as many may have the image in their mind already.
> 2: Base model. Forming the basic shape of the creature. This involves  starting with basic primitive shapes and building them out a few  verticies at a time.
> 3: Retopology. This is the process of moving the precise components of  an object to make the flow of faces and edges smooth and even. This  process is ongoing throughout most of the modelling steps.
> ...



Rizel,

Some of us, like myself, have neither the talent nor resources do items 2 through 4. The only models that I create from scratch are architectual models using AutoCadd 2000.
We use purchased models to overcome such limitations. We have a _vision_ in our mind that we want to recreate.
I do re-skinning of purchased models at various times.

I understand your problem with pirated copies of the software, but to imply all of us that use stock unmodified models are guilty of such practices is very insulting. I have purchased Poser from 4 up to and including Poser Pro 2014. I have purchased Bryce from 4 to 7.1  and Vue from 9 to 11. If anything I support the 3D community with such purchases. I do include which programs I use when creating a scene.

As for citing _every_ source for the models I use would be nigh impossible, as I have over 2000 models for Poser, acquired from 2001 to present. I cannot be expected to remember where I got every last item in my libraries. Heck, I cannot remember where some of them are even _located_ in the libraries without doing a search. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.

Your mission is noble in cause, but I feel the AUP is slanted against the 3D _artist_ who creates what they see in their mind. I salute you and your talent, but to paint everyone that cannot do what you do as a cheat and a fraud is very wrong.



			
				Rizel said:
			
		

> It is staggering how simply someone can download a pirated copy of DAZ  or Bryce or Poser, download a number of free assets, and create their  own scene in such a short amount of time. All too often I see content  like this posted with no credit at all. What upsets me most is the  number of comments from users who are unaware of this scandal, praising  the submitter on their level of skill and artistic ability.



Do you realize the commenters may be praising the skill and artistry of the scene itself and not the models.
Would you say this scene has no skill or artistic merit?
If you do then you are being very self serving.
I have had people who are very competent in modelling 3D admire that scene and they know I did not make those models. It is more than the models. It is the lighting, the placement of different elements, the posing. That scene took me about three hours to get right and with purchased items using a _purchased not pirated_ copy of Poser. The "scandal" is one that you and only a few see. I agree pirated software has no place here, but those with honest copies should not be lumped in with them.

With what you want to propose with the AUP would allow only the 3D _modelers_ to post and not the 3D _artists_.

Art can be defined as "Creating what you see in your mind."


----------



## MasterC30 (Aug 16, 2013)

Having an Issue with my own personal pixel art i made as gifts for a friend being removed by an Admin claiming it was against the AUP TOS... i went an looked over the newly made TOS for AUP an it dosnt violate anything sept maybe the HUD being displayed in the screenshot

AUP TOS says
*Screenshots, Screencaptures & Character/Image Generators*
*Screenshots - Screenshots (e.g. websites, desktops, applications, games, or film) are not permitted unless part of a tutorial/guide or the poster has designed the content themselves. Screenshots must be complete, original designs, and may not include portions of the computer, program or browser interface unless used as part of a tutorial or guide.
*
the pixel art was made in minecraft witch is open source.. meaning anything made within the game IS NOT property of Notch or Mojang. The work was complete an original design by myself in my own style, nothing from my comp was showing the program has nothing showing minus the HUD witch i can retake the pics but the Admin still rejected my upload.

there was nothing posted withing my pic that would have warranted for removal. Pixel art is a real art type to some people an really fun... it need to be listed under the AUP so the Admins wont take it under there own choice on this.


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 23, 2013)

I've searched these forums for a while (although I'm beginning to feel that the search engine isn't quite up to snuff), but I can't seem to find any discussion pertaining to Source Filmmaker, much less its relation to the AUP. I recently had many of my submissions, which were made in SFM, get deleted on the grounds that they violate the "No screenshots of games/applications/movies/websites" section of the AUP. When I inquired to the admin who deleted them as to why this is--Source Filmmaker specifically made to create content after all, in the same vein as Photoshop or DAZ Studio--they said that it is not allowed because it uses assets owned by Valve. However, according to Valve's Video Policy, anything created using SFM--and by extension, all of Valve's assets used in said creation--is fair use and can be distributed non-commercially, which is listed as acceptable in the AUP. To that, I was told that because Source Filmmaker itself wasn't specifically created _by_ me or _for_ me, I cannot use it to create content. I am severely confused here.


----------



## Soline (Dec 27, 2013)

Recursive Sweatpants said:


> I've searched these forums for a while (although I'm beginning to feel that the search engine isn't quite up to snuff), but I can't seem to find any discussion pertaining to Source Filmmaker, much less its relation to the AUP. I recently had many of my submissions, which were made in SFM, get deleted on the grounds that they violate the "No screenshots of games/applications/movies/websites" section of the AUP. When I inquired to the admin who deleted them as to why this is--Source Filmmaker specifically made to create content after all, in the same vein as Photoshop or DAZ Studio--they said that it is not allowed because it uses assets owned by Valve. However, according to Valve's Video Policy, anything created using SFM--and by extension, all of Valve's assets used in said creation--is fair use and can be distributed non-commercially, which is listed as acceptable in the AUP. To that, I was told that because Source Filmmaker itself wasn't specifically created _by_ me or _for_ me, I cannot use it to create content. I am severely confused here.



Sounds rather like an admin who just doesn't want to admit they were wrong, that last point is like banning a picture and saying "because you didn't create photoshop, you can't use it to create content"


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 27, 2013)

Soline said:


> Sounds rather like an admin who just doesn't want to admit they were wrong, that last point is like banning a picture and saying "because you didn't create photoshop, you can't use it to create content"


Or it's that people kept flooding the site with the same thing over and over again from Garry's mod and it started to become a problem so we took action against it.

FA can not be all things to all people. No one site can cater to /everything/.


----------



## Etiainen (Dec 27, 2013)

Dragoneer said:


> No one site can cater to /everything/.



DeviantArt seems to be a pretty good at doing that.


----------



## Dragoneer (Dec 27, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> DeviantArt seems to be a pretty good at doing that.



Unless you draw mature/adult art.


----------



## Etiainen (Dec 27, 2013)

Dragoneer said:


> Unless you draw mature/adult art.



'Touche


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 27, 2013)

Dragoneer said:


> Or it's that people kept flooding the site with the same thing over and over again from Garry's mod and it started to become a problem so we took action against it.
> 
> FA can not be all things to all people. No one site can cater to /everything/.



What is the "same thing" that people have historically used Gmod to make in the past? Why not just ban or regulate that, rather than ban the whole entire program (and Source Filmmaker by association, apparently)? That's like saying people aren't allowed to submit drawings in Photoshop because too many people kept using it to make child pornography. 

Even then, going purely by the AUP, Source Filmmaker content at the very least should not be disallowed. It is just as much of an "application" as Daz Studio or Photoshop, so "screenshots" of it should be just as valid, and all of its assets are considered fair use, so there's nothing complicating its use legally. Hell, I was even using it to make a short comic before it got taken down, which is another thing the AUP specifically allows for.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 27, 2013)

Recursive Sweatpants said:


> What is the "same thing" that people have historically used Gmod to make in the past? Why not just ban or regulate that, rather than ban the whole entire program (and Source Filmmaker by association, apparently)? That's like saying people aren't allowed to submit drawings in Photoshop because too many people kept using it to make child pornography.
> 
> Even then, going purely by the AUP, Source Filmmaker content at the very least should not be disallowed. It is just as much of an "application" as Daz Studio or Photoshop, so "screenshots" of it should be just as valid, and all of its assets are considered fair use, so there's nothing complicating its use legally. Hell, I was even using it to make a short comic before it got taken down, which is another thing the AUP specifically allows for.


did you follow the rules of listing who the models used belong to even the map used?


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 27, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> did you follow the rules of listing who the models used belong to even the map used?


Not entirely, I will admit. I did not give credit to the map or the Half-Life models used, but I did link to models downloaded from the Garry's Mod site. My submissions were taken down on the grounds that they were made in Source Filmmaker, though. I didn't even get so much as a warning that I wasn't giving as much credit as I needed to.


----------



## Verin Asper (Dec 27, 2013)

Recursive Sweatpants said:


> Not entirely, I will admit. I did not give credit to the map or the Half-Life models used, but I did link to models downloaded from the Garry's Mod site. My submissions were taken down on the grounds that they were made in Source Filmmaker, though. I didn't even get so much as a warning that I wasn't giving as much credit as I needed to.



ok, that doesnt make sense then as you did prove you didnt make the models but also where people can get them since many if not all the models from garry's mod site is free. The usual thing about Garry's mod and Source Filmmaker is that often they are used to tell a story thus I can understand they wouldnt like stand alone stuff but removing story type things which the rules did ok for such a thing to be used for baffles me.

Problem is FA takes the route of "ban it all, thus not our problem anymore"
As it did take several people with the help of an admin to prove that people CAN post SL stuff if we have a guideline...which is gone somehow...


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 27, 2013)

Verin Asper said:


> ok, that doesnt make sense then as you did prove you didnt make the models but also where people can get them since many if not all the models from garry's mod site is free. The usual thing about Garry's mod and Source Filmmaker is that often they are used to tell a story thus I can understand they wouldnt like stand alone stuff but removing story type things which the rules did ok for such a thing to be used for baffles me.
> 
> Problem is FA takes the route of "ban it all, thus not our problem anymore"



That sounds like an incredibly lazy and ignorant route to take, not to mention historically shown to be a bad idea time and again (Prohibition, anti-gun laws, etc.). While obviously banning SFM pictures isn't going to create as big of a crapstorm that banning alcohol did, of course, it's still blaming (and banning) the whole for the mistakes of the few. Again I ask, what did so many people do in GMod that warranted banning all submissions for simply being made with the program, regardless of the submission itself (and why does this extend to Source Filmmaker)? I've seen some incredible Garry's Mod scenes and Source Filmmaker animations on this site, and it would be nothing less than a damned shame to see them all get taken down when the artists are completely within their rights to post them. It would also be nice if my stuff didn't get taken down either.



> As it did take several people with the help of an admin to prove that people CAN post SL stuff if we have a guideline...which is gone somehow...


Well, the AUP does have a line saying "Second Life: screenshots of 3D models made specifically by or for the uploader" are allowed, unless you're talking about something more in-depth having disappeared.


----------



## Armaetus (Dec 28, 2013)

I'd rather no screenshots of any games on this site, except for content made 100% by themselves.

Also, why has this topic been resurrected?


----------



## PheagleAdler (Dec 28, 2013)

some people want to be lazy and fill up their galleries with things that take 5 minutes to create. this is an ART site; be creative, people.


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 28, 2013)

Glaice said:


> I'd rather no screenshots of any games on this site, except for content made 100% by themselves.


Could you explain what you mean by that? You're implying that a screenshot of a game could be allowed if it was made 100% by the person submitting it, but by nature a game is comprised of assets made by different people.

Additionally, Source Filmmaker is hardly a "game" anyway. Granted, it does use a game engine, but its entire purpose is for creating content. Garry's Mod is a bit less concrete; it does have game modes and is meant for toying around, but it can still be used to create content with its assets.



> Also, why has this topic been resurrected?


Because the AUP is vague where it concerns content created using Source Filmmaker, due to contradictions between the "no screenshots" policy and the "fair use" and "screenshots are allowed if they create a narrative" policies. I feel that my submissions should not have been taken down, so I am using the AUP to argue why.



PheagleAdler said:


> some people want to be lazy and fill up their galleries with things that take 5 minutes to create. this is an ART site; be creative, people.


Yes, this is an _art_ site, and art can come from anywhere. There _are_ people who use Garry's Mod lazily; there are people who cobble together random things in Photoshop, and take tons of pictures of the same model in Poser at slightly different angles. I'm not trying to defend _them_; I'm trying to show that there are people who can use these tools creatively and effectively to make art, and that art shouldn't be banned across the board just because of those who abuse it.


----------



## Teal (Dec 28, 2013)

Recursive Sweatpants said:


> What is the "same thing" that people have historically used Gmod to make in the past? Why not just ban or regulate that, rather than ban the whole entire program (and Source Filmmaker by association, apparently)? That's like saying people aren't allowed to submit drawings in Photoshop because too many people kept using it to make child pornography.


That's a fucking stupid comparison.


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 28, 2013)

Teal said:


> That's a fucking stupid comparison.


It's extreme, granted, but it gets my point across. Why blame an otherwise useful tool for the few people who misuse it?


----------



## Etiainen (Dec 28, 2013)

Recursive Sweatpants said:


> Because the AUP is vague where it concerns content created using Source Filmmaker, due to contradictions between the "no screenshots" policy and the "fair use" and "screenshots are allowed if they create a narrative" policies. I feel that my submissions should not have been taken down, so I am using the AUP to argue why.


This part is about the only thing that can be agreed upon. The AUP's coverage over screenshots is a form of autism only paralleled by FA's own administration.

However, there exists a golden rule: If it features content you didn't make, don't post it.
If you didn't make the models, don't post it.
If you didn't make the music, don't post it.
If you didn't make the game, don't post it.
Etc, etc, don't post it.


----------



## PheagleAdler (Dec 28, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> This part is about the only thing that can be agreed upon. The AUP's coverage over screenshots is a form of autism only paralleled by FA's own administration.



How the hell can you compare this to autism?


----------



## Socks the Fox (Dec 28, 2013)

So lets say I make my own models and maps and whatnot, can I use Source Filmmaker then?


----------



## Armaetus (Dec 29, 2013)

The less junk on the site, the better.

If you wanna post stupid shit from Source Filmmaker or Garry's Mod, upload the screens elsewhere and make a journal linking to them.


----------



## Teal (Dec 29, 2013)

Recursive Sweatpants said:


> It's extreme, granted, but it gets my point across. Why blame an otherwise useful tool for the few people who misuse it?


No it doesn't. It makes you seem stupid.


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 29, 2013)

Glaice said:


> The less junk on the site, the better.
> 
> If you wanna post stupid shit from Source Filmmaker or Garry's Mod, upload the screens elsewhere and make a journal linking to them.


Hate it as much as you like, but as it is, the AUP has two policies allowing SFM and GMod content versus one (incredibly vague) one that doesn't. My submissions should not have been taken down, nor should they get taken down again if I was to reupload them giving more thorough credit for each asset.



Teal said:


> No it doesn't. It makes you seem stupid.


Okay, what kind of analogy would you make to illustrate what I'm trying to get at, then?


----------



## Teal (Dec 29, 2013)

Here's the thing honey, unless you built the models it's no better than taking a picture of an action figure.


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 29, 2013)

Teal said:


> Here's the thing honey, unless you built the models it's no better than taking a picture of an action figure.


Then what is the point of this?


*Permitted in your Gallery*
Public domain/fair use models provided the uploader cites the model's creators/sources

This implies--if not states in no uncertain terms--that models one hasn't made are most certainly allowed, so long as the owners give permission. I've already linked to Valve's policy on their assets for GMod and SFM, which boils down to "as long as you're not making money off of it, do whatever you like".

Also, you didn't answer my question. You've called me stupid twice so far and haven't bothered to explain why.


----------



## Teal (Dec 29, 2013)

Recursive Sweatpants said:


> Then what is the point of this?
> 
> 
> *Permitted in your Gallery*
> ...


Blaming photoshop because someone used it to draw child porn is like blaming a pencil and piece of paper for the same thing.

It's not comparable to taking a screenshot in any way.


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 29, 2013)

Teal said:


> Blaming photoshop because someone used it to draw child porn is like blaming a pencil and piece of paper for the same thing.
> 
> It's not comparable to taking a screenshot in any way.


That's exactly what I'm getting at, though! Source Filmmaker is like the paper and pencil; it was made to create content. That is its very purpose; it's not anything like, say, taking a screenshot in a Team Fortress match. It renders the image, with lighting and effects just like in any 3D modelling program. It is no different than Photoshop in that aspect, and so it should be held just as accountable if someone misuses it, which is not at all.


----------



## BRN (Dec 29, 2013)

Recursive Sweatpants said:


> That's exactly what I'm getting at, though! Source Filmmaker is like the paper and pencil; it was made to create content. That is its very purpose; it's not anything like, say, taking a screenshot in a Team Fortress match. It renders the image, with lighting and effects just like in any 3D modelling program. It is no different than Photoshop in that aspect, and so it should be held just as accountable if someone misuses it, which is not at all.




 Aye, wholly this. In looking at what an artistic tool does you should look at where the artistic merit lies - which, for SFM, is the in quality of the animation. 

  The models used in the animation are abitrary, and could be anything; the artistic merit would still lie in the lighting decisions, camera angles, skeleton manipulation. Don't be confused between it and screenshots simply because the rendering engine is also a gaming engine.

And given that there's explicit citation that the models are okay to use so long as money isn't made off them, I can't see that being a problem.

However, the artistic merit should still be judged. Just because there's potential in the medium doesn't mean all of its produce should be allowed. Simply posing some stuff and saving the result to produce a rather mediocre, generic and uninteresting image made entirely out of other people's models doesn't show any sort of artistic license...

... but that would lead to case-by-case judgement, and that's why we want to set rules that stop us needing to have to judge every submission individually, right?

There really should be some user-generated content in these sorts of pictures. It shows at least some artistic creativity.


----------



## Etiainen (Dec 29, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> How the hell can you compare this to autism?



How the hell can you NOT compare this to autism?


----------



## PheagleAdler (Dec 30, 2013)

Etiainen said:


> How the hell can you NOT compare this to autism?



Because I'm not short sighted, and I have autism so I find this offensive that you would just throw around the word just because you think it "fits" the situation.


----------



## Etiainen (Dec 30, 2013)

PheagleAdler said:


> I have autism


A lot of people have it apparently, more and more trying to use it as an excuse for being incompetent. It's funny how you throw the word 'offensive' out simply because you think it "fits" the situation, when in fact you're now embodying the very thing I was talking about. Oh wait, you're autistic - So of course you do.


----------



## Recursive Sweatpants (Dec 30, 2013)

BRN said:


> Aye, wholly this. In looking at what an artistic tool does you should look at where the artistic merit lies - which, for SFM, is the in quality of the animation.
> 
> The models used in the animation are abitrary, and could be anything; the artistic merit would still lie in the lighting decisions, camera angles, skeleton manipulation. Don't be confused between it and screenshots simply because the rendering engine is also a gaming engine.
> 
> And given that there's explicit citation that the models are okay to use so long as money isn't made off them, I can't see that being a problem.


Thank you! This is exactly what I was trying to say here; Source Filmmaker content should not fall under the category of "screenshots" because it does so much more than just hit Print Screen and save it to a JPEG. As the AUP currently stands, there is no reason SFM content should be removed. 



> However, the artistic merit should still be judged. Just because there's potential in the medium doesn't mean all of its produce should be allowed. Simply posing some stuff and saving the result to produce a rather mediocre, generic and uninteresting image made entirely out of other people's models doesn't show any sort of artistic license...
> 
> ... but that would lead to case-by-case judgement, and that's why we want to set rules that stop us needing to have to judge every submission individually, right?
> 
> There really should be some user-generated content in these sorts of pictures. It shows at least some artistic creativity.


You know what? I would be okay with this. If there has to be some condition for posting SFM content containing fair use assets, then I would be up for discussing it. Just so long as we lose the mentalities of "if it's not 100% your own, it's garbage" and "I don't care what our own legal policy clearly defining what you can and cannot post says, you can't post SFM content", I'll be satisfied.


----------



## RestrainedRaptor (Dec 30, 2022)

Dragoneer said:


> It's time once again for our biannual AUP discussion.


I forgot this used to be a thing. I really hope we can have them again when the Discord is opened. I certainly feel like FA staff were more motivated and transparent back then.

For the record, this isn't the first time I've replied to this thread; back in 2013, I was giving my opinions on problems with the AUP regarding screenshots and how they related to Second Life. This issue was actually fixed, so great! Let's hope it can happen again.



Kalmor said:


> though the AUP isn't very clear on this point. "Adult user created (unmodified) fursuits or sculptures are permitted so long as they are in pristine condition and they are not being worn/in use." The AUP states "adult" fursuits but then right after says "unmodified". Is this a typo? The remainder of the rule seems to suggest that any fursuit that has some sexual connotations are allowed as long as they aren't being worn or being used.





Fallowfox said:


> As long as they're physically clean, rated as mature photographs if sexual adaptations are visually evident, and do not break the other rules on indecent exposure then I see absolutely no problem with them.
> 
> 'In use' should be made clear to refer to any use that constitutes actual sexual activity. If a fursuit with a zipper is just being worn then that's no problem in my view.
> If wearing something necessitates indecent exposure or actual sexual activity then this can be covered without the umbrella term 'worn'.


In my recent threads and PMs with the staff, I stated that section 3.2 of the AUP has been confusing people and users have been misinterpreting it for over a decade. I just wanted to highlight some of these posts as evidence to support this statement. I won't be necroing any more threads.


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 30, 2022)

@RestrainedRaptor this is a thread from 2013 when I was a beautiful but very stupid teenager. Please don't quote me, oh my god.


----------



## RestrainedRaptor (Dec 30, 2022)

Sorry for the embarrassment!  Just rest assured that you weren't alone. Heck, I still don't fully understand it myself. That's part of the problem.


----------



## redhusky (Dec 30, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> @RestrainedRaptor this is a thread from 2013 when *I was a beautiful but very stupid teenager*. Please don't quote me, oh my god.


All the more reason to quote you! X3


----------



## Rimna (Dec 30, 2022)

What the fucc is AUP?


----------



## Fallowfox (Dec 30, 2022)

Rimna said:


> What the fucc is AUP?


Acceptable Upload Policy

What can and cannot be posted on FA.


----------



## Rimna (Dec 30, 2022)

Fallowfox said:


> Acceptable Upload Policy
> 
> What can and cannot be posted on FA.



Only yiffs are acceptable


----------



## redhusky (Dec 30, 2022)

Rimna said:


> Only yiffs are acceptable


Just sayin'....~


----------

