# Photography



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

In an effort to solicit feedback on the AUP changes, as well as better answer questions, we have created this forum for each individual clause of the AUP. We will modify and/or improve AUP clarity based on suggestions and feedback.
 
- - - - - - - -

*Photography*
Fur Affinity allows Users to post photography provided the following criteria are met:


*Basic Quality/Content* - Photographs of poor quality (grainy, blurred, out of focus or washed out) or images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. commercial items, toys, games, movies, stuff animals, etc.) must be uploaded to Scraps. Photographs of art, or items which are in full compliance with the By You/For You, are acceptable provided they meet are of a minimum quality.

*Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities. 
NOTE: Working on proper clarification of these rules. Will post a revised, updated ruleset on this tomorrow.


----------



## royal-dog (Jan 22, 2009)

Carrying over my position from the other discussion so I can get some real clarification as to why this is in the rules...

Why are "images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)" banned altogether now, I really would like to know.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 22, 2009)

Photography
Fur Affinity allows Users to post photography provided the following criteria are met:

    * Prohibited - Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)....


I would appreciate :iconDragoneer:'s comments on whether I understand the above section the way that he intends it to be understood:

1. Exposed human genitalia, exposed pubic hair, exposed human buttocks, and exposed female human breasts (but not male breasts) are prohibited. Right?

2. Painted genitalia, painted pubic hair, and and painted female nipples are allowed. Right? CLARIFICATION: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT REAL PENISES OR NIPPLES WITH PAINT ON THEM; I AM REFERRING EXCLUSIVELY TO  PAINTED IMAGES WITH NO UNDERLYING FLESH OR PHOTOGRAPH THEREOF.

3. I understand that I may have to submit the aforementioned painted Photoshop layers to an FA admin on demand and have no problem with doing so provided that the request is made before the irreversible deletion of all the Viewers' Comments below the image in question. If the FA admin deletes the submission IMAGE ONLY before checking, that isn't a problem because it can be replaced by the artist when the image is proven AUP compliant. Deleted Viewer's Comments can NOT be replaced if the body parts in question are subsequently proven painted rather than being a photograph. Is this OK with you? Do you consider this to be a reasonable restriction on admin deletions to prevent the hasty irreversible deletion of Viewer's Comments below an image that is subsequently proven to not violate the AUP?

4. Is completely covering human buttocks and female breasts with Photoshop created fur considered not "exposed"? Even 1" long photomorphed fur conceals far more than than than AUP compliant 1/8" thick T-shirts and 1/32" tights, and my fur is always at least 1" long.

5. Are Adult rated photomorphs allowed if no photo of skin remains in the image and provided that the above conditions are met?

A good leader accepts the moral responsibility of making his rules unambiguous to both his subordinates (his FA admins), and to those who are subject to his rules (all FA members). Please accept that responsibility and help the FA photomorph community by answering these simple but vital questions. You are the owner and you make the rules.

What we emphatically do not want is the arbitrary and capricious interpretation of your rules by certain of FA's admins, nor do we want these certain FA admins to be able to refuse to look at artist submitted evidence of compliance. I regret to say that this has happened more than once.

Thank you very much!


----------



## Sslaxx (Jan 22, 2009)

royal-dog said:


> Carrying over my position from the other discussion so I can get some real clarification as to why this is in the rules...
> 
> Why are "images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)" banned altogether now, I really would like to know.


I'd imagine the various mash of pornography and obscenity laws make it safer to disallow this type of content (e.g. fursuits - if it's worn by someone, how do you know they aren't under 18?). Better safe than sued into oblivion (and put on a sex offenders list).



			
				foxystallion said:
			
		

> 1. Exposed human genitalia, exposed pubic hair, exposed human buttocks, and exposed female human breasts (but not male breasts) are prohibited. Right?
> 
> 2. Painted genitalia, painted pubic hair, and and painted female nipples are allowed. Right?


Why would painted nipples, genitals etc be any more acceptable, foxystallion? It's still "Exposed human genitalia, exposed pubic hair, exposed human buttocks, and exposed female human breasts", surely.

I'm curious to know if any of my photography violates the AUP (I don't believe it would violate it in terms of either adult content (there is none) or quality, but it _might_ under http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=35313 flooding...).


----------



## fallimar (Jan 22, 2009)

Foxystallion - I'd be willing to bet that as long as nothing was 'showing' and that all photographic nudity was covered up (by clothing, texture, digipaint, whatever) it'd be fine, the big worry would be whether the original photos were actually yours - whether you'd just ganked them off google and painted over or not 

That seems to be the trouble with most photomanipulators anyway. Blarg.


Speaking of which, Dragoneer man - could we get clarification on stuff like that - perhaps if a photo's used, asking for where it came from? Google image ganking just ain't cool, kids *80's white rap gesture w/ sideways baseball cap, rainbow suspenders and legwarmers WOO*


----------



## Sslaxx (Jan 22, 2009)

Even if the photo were theirs, FA would have to keep legal records regarding any models in the photo, proof of age etc.


----------



## timoran (Jan 22, 2009)

royal-dog said:


> Carrying over my position from the other discussion so I can get some real clarification as to why this is in the rules...
> 
> Why are "images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)" banned altogether now, I really would like to know.



And what does this policy mean for sculptors like glassjawboxer?


----------



## fallimar (Jan 22, 2009)

Sslaxx said:


> Even if the photo were theirs, FA would have to keep legal records regarding any models in the photo, proof of age etc.



good point. Also made me think that if you're going to all the trouble of painting over the photo, it'd be much easier just to throw it away and just do some artwork instead.

To timoran - 
Sculptures are artwork, and photographs of them have already been given the go-ahead. Even original sculpts for adult toyus have been given a pass as far as I know, as long as it's by the original artist and being posted as their own artwork.


----------



## dmfalk (Jan 22, 2009)

I would strike reference to quality and say photography in general UNLESS IT'S OF A SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED NATURE/SUBJECT should be in Scraps, with those that may be so specifically allowed on the main gallery. I would also make clear the difference between nudity/pornography and sexually-explicit sculptures, toys and devices as not to draw confusion. Otherwise everuthing else (including fursuits) follows with the first part, above. Thirdly, define what nature/subjects may be allowed on the main gallery- We can go from there in terms of hammering that aspect out, separately. As a whole, this would satisfy my complaint on the subjective nature of "what is bad", previously, while addressing the needs of FA.

d.m.f.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 22, 2009)

> Why would painted nipples, genitals etc be any more acceptable, foxystallion? It's still "Exposed human genitalia, exposed pubic hair, exposed human buttocks, and exposed female human breasts", surely.



Because FA has lots of painted and drawn adult material, much of which has human-styled painted or drawn genitals. I do not believe that the new AUP was meant to prohibit painted nipples or genitals of any type.

Clarification: Sorry for the confusion. I am NOT talking about real genitals with paint on them; I understand that that is prohibited and am not arguing for allowing such body painted appendages. I was referring to images of body parts that are created entirely by painting, and am willing to submit those layers for examination by an FA admin on request.  Anyone looking at the half a dozen layers, one by one,  that I use to paint such things can immediately see that it is an entirely fictional construct with no underlying skin.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jan 22, 2009)

foxystallion said:


> Because FA has lots of painted and drawn adult material, much of which has human-styled painted or drawn genitals. I do not believe that the new AUP was meant to prohibit painted nipples or genitals of any type.


Beastpaint style porn is prohibited. I have nothing against body paint, but this is not a human porn site. If people need to paint their penises in real life life... there are other places to show that off.


----------



## Varka (Jan 22, 2009)

Hey all.

As I'm sure you all know, I run Bad Dragon, and as a result, I sculpt adult toys that are made into products and sold to people.

Now, I'd just like to pull a statement from Dragoneer from the following thread and see if we can help work out what exactly these AUP updates are intended to change:



			
				Dragoneer said:
			
		

> For the same reason we'll allow people who sculpt a dildo to post their images of their creation but not let people post images of them testing out their toy.



Now, upon checking my FA account and PMs, I've recieved five messages from an FA admin Ahkahna, stating that:



			
				Ahkahna said:
			
		

> As per the AUP:
> Prohibited - ..."images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)."
> 
> The following images have fallen under prohibited content and will be removed.


.

I'm just wondering - does this policy reflect Dragoneer's statement that people sculpting toys will be allowed to exhibit their work, or are adult toys in fact unacceptable?

Just to develop things a little bit more towards a useful conclusion, I fully understand and agree with the cleanup purpose of this policy change. However, I'd like to work out if the policy is _indeed_ intended to prohibit self-made sex toys from being exhibited.

As far as I understand, the main purpose of this policy update is to protect FA from potential liability as a result of 'RL' adult content posted with no proof of age (and to avoid the record-keeping issues thereof). If this is the case, then making a better distinction between 'adult items' and 'adult items involving a person' would probably be a much better idea.

All feedback would be appreciated.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 22, 2009)

fallimar said:


> Foxystallion - I'd be willing to bet that as long as nothing was 'showing' and that all photographic nudity was covered up (by clothing, texture, digipaint, whatever) it'd be fine, the big worry would be whether the original photos were actually yours - whether you'd just ganked them off google and painted over or not
> 
> That seems to be the trouble with most photomanipulators anyway. Blarg.



You have a good point. That issue is already covered by the "By you or for you" principle.  I take all my own human photos (they are of my self and/or my partner for M or A rated pictures, and we are both obviously adults), and my own landscape photos for backgrounds as well.  I sometimes use photographs that I have taken of my rancher friends in my G rated pictures, and always obtain their permission to do so. I should also point out that even their own mothers wouldn't recognize them by the time I'm done: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1016447/
however, I still obtain their permission.  They have all seen my art. 

I even ask permission to take photographs on my friend's ranches and tell them what I'm going to do with it:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1514789/


----------



## dmfalk (Jan 22, 2009)

Varka said:


> *snip*



I agree with Varka, above, and emphasise that CLARITY OF DISTINCTION does need to be made, as per my previous post in this thread. As it stands, the distinction isn't really THAT clear.

d.m.f.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 22, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> Beastpaint style porn is prohibited. I have nothing against body paint, but this is not a human porn site. If people need to paint their penises in real life life... there are other places to show that off.



That is NOT what I am talking about.  None of my art has ever contained any human genitalia, body painted or not. When I referred to painted genitals, I meant those created from scratch, by paint and paint alone - not something made out of skin with paint on it.  That is what I meant by supplying the layers of such purely fictional image portions for admin inspection.  I paint them obviously larger than life in an attempt to prevent such misconceptions.  No one human has a penis and balls like this: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/959035/

My apologies for stating my point in a confusing manner; I can see how it sounded very different from what I meant. The genitals in my photomorphs are paint and only paint with no human skin or mucous membranes   real or photographed under them, just as those that you paint are paint and only paint with no reptile mucous membranes real or photographed under them.

Now that this misunderstanding has been straightened out, I very much hope that you will answer my questions.


----------



## dmfalk (Jan 22, 2009)

foxystallion said:


> That is NOT what I am talking about.  None of my art has ever contained any human genitalia, body painted or not. When I referred to painted genitals, I meant those created from scratch, by paint and paint alone - not something made out of skin with paint on it.  That is what I meant by supplying the layers of such purely fictional image portions for admin inspection.



Hopefully, I'll beat the admins ('Neer, particularly) in saying this, but any particular artistic rendering- drawing, painting, sculpture, 3D rendering (outside the "Poser" debate- that's elsewhere!)- is kosher... Just not actual photography of such, even in beastpaint or photomanipulation.

d.m.f.


----------



## The Foil (Jan 22, 2009)

Adding on to Varika's post, my Gallery was also cleared of all sculptures that I created by a moderator. The downside for me is that I foolishly used FA to archive those photos, and now,  since my sculptures where destroyed, I have no way of getting them back. One step forward, two steps back. Looks like I need to buy more clay on my next paycheck, and find a new place to save my photos. =/


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 22, 2009)

Sslaxx said:


> Even if the photo were theirs, FA would have to keep legal records regarding any models in the photo, proof of age etc.



The Federal courts have ruled against the constitutionality of that record keeping requirement.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 22, 2009)

dmfalk said:


> Hopefully, I'll beat the admins ('Neer, particularly) in saying this, but any particular artistic rendering- drawing, painting, sculpture, 3D rendering (outside the "Poser" debate- that's elsewhere!)- is kosher... Just not actual photography of such, even in beastpaint or photomanipulation.
> 
> d.m.f.



Thanks. That is my understanding, too, but I'll feel a lot less apprehensive if that is confirmed by Dragoneer. What I fear is that without his confirmation,  there will be arbitrary and capricious interpretations by certain FA admins. This has alreasdy happened to me; it is not a hypothetical problem.


----------



## tsawolf (Jan 22, 2009)

foxystallion said:


> The Federal courts have ruled against the constitutionality of that record keeping requirement.



The appeals court. It's likely to go to the en blanc court and then to the Supreme Court, where it will likely be upheld due to the political construction of the current Supreme Court.


----------



## Freaky Steve (Jan 22, 2009)

Varka said:


> As far as I understand, the main purpose of this policy update is to protect FA from potential liability as a result of 'RL' adult content posted with no proof of age (and to avoid the record-keeping issues thereof). If this is the case, then making a better distinction between 'adult items' and 'adult items involving a person' would probably be a much better idea.
> 
> All feedback would be appreciated.



You would like to think that this is the case but if you examine what's being said in these threads, that is not the case at all.

These discussion threads are filled with examples of how these new policies are contradictory and how they discriminate against different types of artists. It is also stated in many spots that things will be handled on a "case-by-case" basis. So in otherwords, "this is our policy, but we will police it how we see fit,". This is a not a policy based on legaligities, this is a policy based on sensibilities. "Handled on a case-by-case basis" translates to, "If I don't like it, I'm going to remove it".

It won't surprise me at all if I get banned for speaking out the way I am going to, rather than licking the boots of the "powers that be", but if I do, then think about how that reflects on these "policies".

I submitted 2 pieces of artwork that got removed for AUP "violations". The first was a wallpaper that did show photographic human genitalia. In this case the removal was understandable, since it was a violation, but also contradictory since there are categories for photography, wallpapers and mature ratings. This was also original photography, taken by me for which I have proper documentation.

Then I submitted a new version of the wallpaper, with no nudity, and it was removed for "violation" saying no mature photography. So, even though I was following the AUP and the warning I got, my content was still removed. As a test, I applied some photoshop filters to the wallpaper, and it was not removed. Is this an AUP issue or is this just because my content didn't appeal to the sensibilities of the admins?

The photo used in the second wallpaper contained no nudity and was not even suggestive, so no US recordkeeping laws come into play there.

This is an artist community that is as open as the personal preferences of the admins. You are welcome here as long as your art is their type of art. Restricting Poser art is another fine example of this.

I understand completely that the rules of a site are goverened by it's owner and if I (or anyone else) don't like it, there are other sites to go to. I just find it interesting how the owners of an artist based community can have such a closed minded attitude towards content.


----------



## foxystallion (Jan 22, 2009)

Freaky Steve said:


> You would like to think that this is the case but if you examine what's being said in these threads, that is not the case at all.
> 
> These discussion threads are filled with examples of how these new policies are contradictory and how they discriminate against different types of artists. It is also stated in many spots that things will be handled on a "case-by-case" basis. So in otherwords, "this is our policy, but we will police it how we see fit,". This is a not a policy based on legaligities, this is a policy based on sensibilities. "Handled on a case-by-case basis" translates to, "If I don't like it, I'm going to remove it".



That is precisely why I have asked Dragoneer to answer my five questions above. Without his explicit answers, there are certain FA admins who will continue to run amok with their own arbitrary and capricious interpretations of the new AUP just as they did with the old one.


----------



## Jaffa (Jan 22, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> *Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.



The wording of this is confusing.  The second sentence beginning "This includes.." seems like it is intended as a clarification of the first sentence, but then goes on to ban pictures of animal genitalia, which are clearly not covered by anything in the first sentence (which is all about humans).  I don't know, from reading this, if the ban on images depicting sexual acts is for humans only, or would prohibit pictures of mating animals.  So I have to ask, would a photo of mating lions that would be completely acceptable for mainstream not-at-all-sex-related wildlife photography sites, be considered too hardcore for FA?


----------



## Ahkahna (Jan 22, 2009)

Jaffa said:


> The wording of this is confusing.  The second sentence beginning "This includes.." seems like it is intended as a clarification of the first sentence, but then goes on to ban pictures of animal genitalia, which are clearly not covered by anything in the first sentence (which is all about humans).  *I don't know, from reading this, if the ban on images depicting sexual acts is for humans only, or would prohibit pictures of mating animals.  So I have to ask, would a photo of mating lions that would be completely acceptable for mainstream not-at-all-sex-related wildlife photography sites, be considered too hardcore for FA?*



I will highlight this question as it is valid, however, I would make an average guess photo's of animals in the process of mating would be prohibited as well.


----------



## xansteel (Jan 22, 2009)

Well with the general rules of this change I can see that once again the photographers are getting the short end of the stick as always. There's so few of us to be again with. 

Most of the photos I have seen are of a PG rating on this site to begin with. I can understand the no nudity in a photo, but even nude photography is a form of art (not sexual in nature). I've taken over 7 years of art classes to know what is art in the real world, not just furry world. 

Also as one other said, limiting what is and is not proper nature photography or proper subject matter that can be put into your gallery. Once again we are getting pushed out by this comment. Because it gives the rights to other that can remove art from someone, because they don't like it, or doesn't feel it fits the rules, or theme etc etc.

Do you want to tell this user...

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/bios/

that all of his work needs to go into scrapes? I think not, or you might have one upset user, that may make more upset users.

In all honesty if you change to much to the rules, and what is and isn't allowed, your going to have a lot of upset users that may leave, of fight back for their freedom of expression in their artwork.

Yes photography is a work of art, as you need to know lighting, shutter speed, Aperture setting, flash or no flash, type of lens to use for the shot, ISO setting, color offset (if needed), Black or White, Color, Sepia, HDR shot, Whether the shot is Overexposed, or Underexposed, does it have Purple fringing, Chromatic Approbations, Was it in focus, Depth of Field (DOF) so forth and so on. And this is for one shot.

I say lets us have the freedom we would like to have, and if nudity comes up, then also have them upload consent forms, that show a address, age, and Real Name of the subject in their scrape section and have the submission info pointing to it, to keep it legal. Porn I really don't understand as I would say over 50% of FA is mostly porn to begin with. I can understand that is not how the staff wants FA to be, but if your going to limit one group more because of it, then limit all of them the same way. It's only fair.

Xan Steel


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 22, 2009)

My only real concern is about the wording:

*Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.

Can it just be changed to say:

*Prohibited *- Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.

This part:
This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.).

Seems to cause nothing but trouble, as it is interpreted to mean that adult toys, fursuits and plush animals are not allowed, when in fact they are allowed if they do not contain exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks...


----------



## royal-dog (Jan 22, 2009)

Sslaxx said:


> royal-dog said:
> 
> 
> > Carrying over my position from the other discussion so I can get some real clarification as to why this is in the rules...
> ...




Yup, that's the first thing that I realized from reading the original thread. I also recall it being brought up when mature fursuit photos showing the sheath or sheath with dildo - but no genitals - were originally banned.

But then I brought up the conundrum of why FA doesn't just implement a model release form for mature fursuit photographs so that the legal stuff is placed onto the uploader rather than the website. Like what deviantart does.

I was told this would be too much trouble for FA to implement.

So, let me reiterate my question in a clearer form;

*Why can't sexually modified fursuit photos - without genitals or nudity of any kind displayed, without dildos, without sexual acts, just pure photos showcasing an artist displaying their work tastefully - be posted to FurAffinity, a website that has a gargantuan amount of porn images that are far "worse" in terms of content? Why is a consent form too difficult to implement for only a handful of images? Why would a painting based off a photograph of a sexually modified fursuit performing sexual acts be allowed and the actual photograph not be allowed?*


----------



## The Foil (Jan 22, 2009)

royal-dog said:


> *Why can't sexually modified fursuit photos - without genitals or nudity of any kind displayed, without dildos, without sexual acts, just pure photos showcasing an artist displaying their work tastefully - be posted to FurAffinity, a website that has a gargantuan amount of porn images that are far "worse" in terms of content? Why is a consent form too difficult to implement for only a handful of images? Why would a painting based off a photograph of a sexually modified fursuit performing sexual acts be allowed and the actual photograph not be allowed?*



If  a woman has her arm across her breasts completely covering her areola, and a hand at her crotch completely covering any genitals/pubic hair considered adult photography? Does that model need to have a release form? What I am getting at is that if a fursuit shows a sheath or genitals, it is still of a sexual nature, be it "softcore porn" but none the less since it is censored media, it needs to abide by laws (having a concent/proof of age.)

Now... A sculpted dildo with no human, or animal of any species living or deceased in a picture put anyone at risk of underage photography or unconsented exposure? I just want an explanation why a sculpted dildo that is 100% the creation of the person posting is not allowed on FA? Does it put FA in a bad legal position? Is there a conflict of interest? I just want to know the justification of it, then I will be able to sleep better at night. =P


----------



## royal-dog (Jan 22, 2009)

The Foil said:


> If  a woman has her arm across her breasts completely covering her areola, and a hand at her crotch completely covering any genitals/pubic hair considered adult photography? Does that model need to have a release form? What I am getting at is that if a fursuit shows a sheath or genitals, it is still of a sexual nature, be it "softcore porn" but none the less since it is censored media, it needs to abide by laws (having a concent/proof of age.)



I wasn't speaking about porn, i was speaking about art.

Porn is created with the intent for arousal. Art is created for the intent of creating. I'm beginning to wonder if anyone running this website cares about that though.

Edit: In addendum, nudity is not softcore porn either. Nudity is natural, not of a sexual nature.


----------



## Vandell (Jan 23, 2009)

Are man breasts mysteriously excluded from this clause? If so, I personally find this fairly sexist against women.

Yes, this is a serious concern, tyvm.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

See what I mean Dragoneer? That one little line is causing confusion all accross teh board.

Images of Sex Toys, Adult Fursuits, Modified Plushes, etcs are not allowed only if they also contain exposed human genitalia, buttocks, or breasts.

edit: 





Vandell said:


> Are man breasts mysteriously excluded from this clause? If so, I personally find this fairly sexist against women.
> 
> Yes, this is a serious concern, tyvm.


Dragoneer has already addressed this. Man Breasts are allowed because we as a society see a difference between man breasts and woman breasts. It's how the law works, it may be sexist, but if you want to change it you'll have to get the whole world to agree with you first


----------



## krisCrash (Jan 23, 2009)

Dragoneer said:


> (...) are acceptable provided they *meet are of* a minimum quality.



Did you mean
_provided they are of a minimum quality_
or
_provided they meet a minimum quality._

Nitpickery:
You could even say 
_provided they meet *our* minimum quality guidelines._
or
_provided they are of adequate quality._
as you set your own defined quality level (no grain, et cetera) thus it is not just "a minimum quality" but the defined one.


----------



## ohtar (Jan 23, 2009)

y'ok. 
Moving away from dicks and boobs (ill leave that for the rather large handful of people who already are in a rather heated debate over it), I have a quick question about a different aspect of the new photography rulebook.

I have taken a few snapshots of a plushie or two of myne. I'm not using it to showcase a collection of my fabric friends per say (as that would include several thousand panoramic shots to accomplish. my collection is huh-YUGE.) but more to place staged scenes of interactions, or to punctuate some thought that floats through my mind at 4pm on some idle Tuesday. Call it a.... still life comic if you will. 

Should I still be uploading these to scraps? I do my best with lighting and the such to avoid the dark blurry effect (though admittedly the most recent is a little dim so I am retouching it in photoshop), but as the pictures are of what is essentially a toy I figured I should ask before I post.
I also have a few plushie photos already in my gallery that I need to know if I should move.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

I want to say no you cannot, as it would be the same as the anti-poser argument...

But then I also remember Ashes saying if you laid it out as a comic book, then it could be accepted.


----------



## ohtar (Jan 23, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> I want to say no you cannot, as it would be the same as the anti-poser argument...
> 
> But then I also remember Ashes saying if you laid it out as a comic book, then it could be accepted.



no i cannot what? no i cannot post in the main gallery or no i cannot post at all?
theres nothing outlawing decent pictures on non sexual nature, im just checking with the rule makers where it should go.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

What I mean is that there is no specific rule for what you want to do.

I think that because everything you are using (Plushes) were not created by you then your work would be regarded the same as the Poser Images (you can look up Ashes' Barbie Doll Analogy) in which case you are not making enough original content to constitute uploading the picture.

Now if they do allow that, but not Poser stuff then the little flame of protests we are seeing now about poser stuff will mushroom cloud into a shit fest 

That said. Ashes has also stated that if you were to create a comic book series utilizing Poser Models it could be deemed having enough user created content (the story being told) to allow you to post it. BUT you must keep it in comic book style layout (you couldn't post 50 single shot images in a row to tell a story).

So basically, if you do it right it's OK but if you do it wrong it's not OK.


----------



## ohtar (Jan 23, 2009)

bah screwit. Im posting anyways. If theres an issue ill rip em all down like everyone else. Most of my gallery is hand drawn works anyways so I dont think a few pics here and there will bring the flame brigade to my door. we shall see.


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 23, 2009)

lol


----------



## Trpdwarf (Jan 23, 2009)

I guess I should post this here as well.

I came up with a concern in another thread dealing with the AUP changes...I don't know what is going on about the fur-suit thing, and posting mature / adult pictures blahsie blahsie. However if changes are made dealing with what is allowed in, I do thinks suiters should be allowed to voice opinions and concerns before anything is set in stone.

I just want to know, if there is any point bringing those concerns up. If Dragoneer has decided against having fursuits of that nature being put up, than I have no reason to discuss further.

If provisions are being made to allow some of them up with specific guidelines, I would like to voice my concern dealing with altered costumes. When I say altered I am implying that the costum was commissioned to be a regular suit, but then the person who gets it in after the suit maker finishes, alters it to have extra bits that make it now not so tame,  and putting it up on FA. It's not fair to the suit maker to be associated like that so if my concerns are indeed valid, and there are changes being allowed to let in non-tame pictures of suits, I want to know that appropriate well thought out safegaurds are put up within the guidelines.


----------



## timoran (Jan 23, 2009)

Varka said:


> Hey all.
> 
> As I'm sure you all know, I run Bad Dragon, and as a result, I sculpt adult toys that are made into products and sold to people.
> 
> ...





It also leads me to wonder if this type of content is permitted in the banner ads, but not permitted as submissions.


----------



## ohtar (Jan 24, 2009)

timoran said:


> It also leads me to wonder if this type of content is permitted in the banner ads, but not permitted as submissions.



thats a really good one. i hadnt thought of that o.0


----------



## michael_retriever (Jan 24, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> I can only assume that the mod misunderstood the AUP... A lot of people have, so I think it is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Dragoneer, please rewrite that portion of the AUP rules if what said by Quiet269 in another topic is true, as it leads to important misunderstanding. Are photographs of dildos permitted or not?


----------



## The Foil (Jan 25, 2009)

Just to fill everyone in, there was a misshap with interpritation of the "Adult Toys" portion of the AUP. At first moderator(s) where removing anything that was considered an "adult toy." Before this, Dragoneer had mentioned that sculpted items that where not in use where ok. The action of the mods was contradictory.

I just got a post on another thread from a mod that censored my gallery. This was done in error. Therefor, sculpted "Adult Toys" are ok to be posted as photographs.


----------



## StainMcGorver (Jan 25, 2009)

BAAAAWWWWW I CAN'T TAKE A PHOTO OF THOR NOW BAWWWWW


----------



## royal-dog (Jan 28, 2009)

Quiet269 said:


> See what I mean Dragoneer? That one little line is causing confusion all accross teh board.
> 
> Images of Sex Toys, Adult Fursuits, Modified Plushes, etcs are not allowed only if they also contain exposed human genitalia, buttocks, or breasts



Is this really true? The way the rules are worded definitely make it sound different. I am quite ignorant of the state of things on this forum, so this is an honest question when I ask this; are you a moderator?


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 28, 2009)

I am not. All I really have to go on is some very vague notes Dragoneer left in the original thread: http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=35076
specifically this reply, and the string leading up to it
http://forums.furaffinity.net/showpost.php?p=818697&postcount=40


----------



## Skittle (Jan 28, 2009)

Can we please ban or make people move stupid ass pictures to Scraps too? Such as pictures of their stomachs, poorly photoshopped glittery rainbow clip art pictures, other pictures of body parts, tattoos that they themselves did not design, etc?


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jan 28, 2009)

Well there needs to be some rewording, definitely.

The dildos and sex toy are only allowed on 2 conditions. 

1. It's your own sculpt, you're the artist who created them ie Bad Dragon
2.  It's not photographed with a human body (like hey it's my personal time with Dolly the Dildo). We aren't talking about however, like the artist's arm might be there to hold the sculpt.

Condition 1 really needs to be met before 2 and abide by the for you by you policy. We aren't talking about a purchase off the store. 

Collections really need to have a limit like the Poser/SL screencaps, not just scraps. It was in the previous version that had a similar limit in addition to be sent to scraps. But that actually might already be there in the flooding policy.

_Flooding
Uploading may be considered flooding when more than three images focusing on the same focal point (e.g. character, fursuit) are uploaded in a continuous session or within a short time of each other, with only minor variations between the images. Flooding is not permitted. Whenever possible, we highly suggest users compile multiple images/photos into a collage._


----------



## Quiet269 (Jan 28, 2009)

First part makes sense... What about in the instance that they are part of the props to make up the scene? No exposed human genitalia or anything, but someone in a fursuit (adult or not) in their bedroom or something? Being surprised because the were caught wearing bondage gear? etc


----------



## royal-dog (Jan 28, 2009)

I'm still confused because even though that does clarify things some, Dragoneer still has said things like;



Dragoneer said:


> The problem with adult suits is there is _no way to tell _who is in the suit, and more often than not, people use adult fursuiters as an excuse to post images containing their penis. Most of the suits _are_ sexually usable suits, and that crosses the boundaries of legality I am not prepared to cross. Nor am I going to put the site or community at legal risk for mature fursuits.



So while the rules have been clarified to refer to photographs containing nudity, I'm still reading:



Dragoneer said:


> Prohibited - Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. *This includes, but not limited to;* images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or *images containing items of sexual nature *(adult toys, *sexually modified fursuits*/plush animals, etc.).



:as referring to the fact that the fursuit is intended for sexual use and therefore since "there is no way to tell" how old the wearer is, that it is still potentially a legal liability for the website.

Here's what I hear when I read this kind of thing : "You're a potential liar, you might let a 12 year old wear your suit and fuck their brains out."

And I realize that there are people out there that would do that. But I'm not one of them. So *if these photos are still not allowed*, why should I not be allowed to post photos of myself, an adult, wearing a suit of my own creation, without exposed genitals or nudity, simply because of what someone who is fucked in the head might do if they are allowed. Cause stopping the photos here isn't going to stop those people from doing shit like that. The users are responsible for the content they create, not the website, the website is a management system that allows users to share their art and also fap to it :/ There isn't anything high and mighty about a website that displays veritable mountains of porn regularly.

*Please, if I am still wrong, please correct me Dragoneer.*


----------



## Armaetus (Feb 8, 2009)

skittle said:


> Can we please ban or make people move stupid ass pictures to Scraps too? Such as pictures of their stomachs, poorly photoshopped glittery rainbow clip art pictures, other pictures of body parts, tattoos that they themselves did not design, etc?



Let's not forget furries uploading stupid shit like fake emoslashing pictures on the body and photos of them showing their injuries (IE stitches).


----------



## foxystallion (Feb 8, 2009)

mrchris said:


> Let's not forget furries uploading stupid shit like fake emoslashing pictures on the body and photos of them showing their injuries (IE stitches).



From what Dragoneer said, I think that photos of stitches would be AUP non-compliant, as as are photos focusing on scars. Photos of makeup (i.e., zombies) are probably OK. I'd really rather not see photos of made up wounds; if they are allowed, they should have a warning thumb like water sports, vore, or cub porn. I've been on FA for 2 1/2 years and haven't seen anything like your example before, so, at most, it is a minor problem.


----------



## TheWerewolf (Feb 10, 2009)

Might I offer another perspective?

The problem with all of this is everyone's looking at the *rule* and trying to reverse engineer the *intent* to see if their desired use should or should not be prohibited.

That's a classic problem with rules-based management.

So, rather than starting with a list of rules, it would vastly more useful if Dragoneer et al provided a statement of *intent* - a guide to what they're trying to accomplish, rather than HOW they're trying to accomplish it.

If, for example, the statement of intent said "We are trying very hard to avoid legal issues that might be cause by posting images that could be considered pornographic or illegal as based on the aggregation of related laws across the US." now we can look at our upload and say 'would this be illegal somewhere in the US?' and if the answer is 'yeah, probably' we know not to post it.

Another statement that seems to be hidden in there (and is actually now more expressly stated) is "We only want the best quality works on display in the main area." That one is going to be contentious no matter what because it's going to become a question of whose definition of 'quality' you're going to use - and that's going to be the admins - and I'm willing to bet you couldn't get a consensus even in that group. Which, BTW, is another great test of fitness - if you can't define your selection criteria - you probably don't actually HAVE selection criteria, which is *bad* if you're attempting to enforce them. 

As for the admins, at some level, they might want to sit back and think out what makes FA popular. By making it 'better', they may well be making it 'worse'. If quality is REALLY the issue, I would open up a showcase area or a side FA and only admit artists by invitation or by application.

This will, of course, alienate everyone else, and discourage people who might one day become the kind of artist you would want to have in your showcase - but if that's not a concern, this solution works.

But the thing that attracted me to FA is the sense of community - a bunch of people sharing stuff and helping each other get better. I've already raised my concerns in my own FA journal that this seems to be falling to the side in favour of looking more respectable and only showcasing 'good' art. I've been assured that that wasn't the intent...

It's time to state it clearly in the form of a 'mission statement' or 'statement of goals'. It would clear up so much for everyone. Then the rules become clarifications, not starting points for trying to tweeze out the intents of the admins.

Cheers.

PS: I do these things all the time for projects and companies... If you'd like, I could do one for FA too.


----------



## foxystallion (Feb 10, 2009)

TheWerewolf said:


> Might I offer another perspective?
> 
> The problem with all of this is everyone's looking at the *rule* and trying to reverse engineer the *intent* to see if their desired use should or should not be prohibited.
> 
> ...



Splendid analysis and idea! Right on point! I think that you are correct; a clear view of the forest is rapidly being lost among a plethora of rule trees.

*Please write an example mission statement for FA!*

First, it will help to improve the text of the rules.

Second, and far more important, it will help to prevent idiosyncratic, arbitrary, and capricious "interpretations" of the rules by some of those FA admins who are sorely lacking in judicial temperament.

Don't expect an invitation to write a FA mission statement from the FA admins. It wasn't their idea.  Please take the initiative to do it anyway; we badly need an improved guidance mechanism, because this whole process seems to be running farther and farther off course.

_Thank you very much!_


----------



## Eevee (Feb 10, 2009)

TheWerewolf said:


> It's time to state it clearly in the form of a 'mission statement' or 'statement of goals'. It would clear up so much for everyone. Then the rules become clarifications, not starting points for trying to tweeze out the intents of the admins.


Oh, haha.  I've said this like a dozen times before.



foxystallion said:


> Splendid analysis and idea! Right on point! I think that you are correct; a clear view of the forest is rapidly being lost among a plethora of rule trees.
> 
> *Please write an example mission statement for FA!*


Impossible.  Nobody knows what the mission for FA *is*, because it is not stated anywhere.  It is really defined only by the *actions* of the staff; sometimes they moderate things that are not really supported by the AUP/TOS but seem to "make sense" anyway.  Only the staff can define FA's mission, because the staff are the ones arbitrarily defining it as they go right now.


----------



## foxystallion (Feb 10, 2009)

Eevee said:


> mpossible.  Nobody knows what the mission for FA *is*, because it is not stated anywhere.  It is really defined only by the *actions* of the staff; sometimes they moderate things that are not really supported by the AUP/TOS but seem to "make sense" anyway.  Only the staff can define FA's mission, because the staff are the ones arbitrarily defining it as they go right now.



That is exactly what I am afraid of...


----------



## krisCrash (Feb 12, 2009)

I'm sure the creators of the site had some kind of vision in mind when they made it, maybe they can think back to that and write a mission. I think it's a good thing to have for a site, btw, so people understand what makes it special, and understand better why the rules are how they are.


----------



## artie the arcticwhite fo (Nov 21, 2012)

What is bad aboiut genitalia? They are on all mammals on the planet. To call one part of the body indecent is calling the whole body indecent because the one part is attached to the whole body..


----------



## Erethzium (Nov 21, 2012)

I vote for self-photos and non-artistic photography being banned altogether. FA is not photobucket, FA is not Facebook or Twitter, stop uploading random photos of yourself or your dog/cat to FA.


----------



## Saellyn (Nov 22, 2012)

This thread is more than 3 years old, and out of date in regards to the Photography AUP.
For the most current AUP changes please see this thread: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/122595-AUP-July-27-2012-Acceptable-Upload-Policy-Revision


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 22, 2012)

artie the arcticwhite fo said:


> What is bad aboiut genitalia? They are on all mammals on the planet. To call one part of the body indecent is calling the whole body indecent because the one part is attached to the whole body..



Nothing is intrinsically bad about genitals, but american law forbids certain websites from hosting photographs of real genitals and FA's servers are in american territories.



Erethzium said:


> I vote for self-photos and non-artistic  photography being banned altogether. FA is not photobucket, FA is not  Facebook or Twitter, stop uploading random photos of yourself or your  dog/cat to FA.



Good luck trying to define what 'artistic' means. x3


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 22, 2012)

Saellyn said:


> This thread is more than 3 years old, and out of date in regards to the Photography AUP.
> For the most current AUP changes please see this thread: http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/122595-AUP-July-27-2012-Acceptable-Upload-Policy-Revision



This is true.  I'll close this thread.


----------

