# Site Policy Updates - June 23, 2007



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

_"PREPARE YOUR BLADDERS FOR IMMINENT RELEASE!"_

In a few hours, we will be uploading new versions of the *Terms of Service *and *Submission Agreement *to the site. The changes to both the TOS and SA are minor. In addition to this, we will also be uploading a new rulesset, the *Acceptable Upload Policy *(AUP).

This document further clarifies limitations and specifically targets what is acceptable and what is not within submissions to Fur Affinity.

I'm opening this thread as a placeholder. Feel free to ask questions, whatnot in the meantime. I'll be around to answer them.

*CHANGES ARE NOW LIVE*
Clarifications and updates may be made to further detail rules and elaborate where needed.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*

[align=center][size=medium]*Acceptable Upload Policy*[/size][/align]Fur Affinity exists for artists and creators to post their works freely. While we pride ourselves in allowing some of the widest ranges of artistic expression it does not come without some limitations.

This document is in addition to the terms set forth by the Terms of Service and Submission Agreement.

*The By You/For You Policy *
The By You/For You policy is the heart and soul of Fur Affinityâ€™s rule system. Itâ€™s simple and to the point: if you didnâ€™t create it or if it wasnâ€™t created specifically for you (gift/commission) then the Submission can not be posted.

Further clarification of the By You/For You policy is broken down into two sections (For You and By You) for easier clarification.

1) *By You:*
You may freely post any submission so long as you created the content and said content abides by all other rules of the site.
2) *For You:*
Fur Affinity allows users to post works of art created for them (e.g. commissions, gift art, stories, etc.) provided the content of the submission meets the following requirements:

You must have permission of the original artist to repost their work, with permission stated in each image description. Failure to obtain permission will result in the Submission being removed. Multiple requests for removal by artists citing lack of permission to post will result in action being taken against your account.
Full disclosure must be given in each image description that the image was not created by you.
Credit must be given to the original artist on the first line of the Submissionâ€™s description, and must be written in the following format:
â€œORIGINAL ARTWORK BY [INSERT ARTIST NAME]â€ 

If the user is a member of FA, the :iconusername: function is highly suggested to link to their account. For example, if you are linking to Fender, you would enter :iconfender:
You agree to willingly remove the image if the artist, at any point and time, requests its removal.
The Submission abides by all rules set forth by the site.
For joint/collaborative works, or works where a portion of the final product was created by someone other than the submitting user, proper credit and permission must be given and stated clearly in the submission's description field.


*Harassment*
Images clearly intended to harass or slander other members of the community will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, images that directly convey racist slurs, anti-Semitic insults and/or other derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association directed at another individual or group. 


*Spamming*
Spamming is not, and will not, be tolerated on the site. It is considered â€œspammingâ€ when:

More than three images with the exact same primary subject (e.g.a fursuit, Second Life character, etc.) are posted.
Multiple versions of the same exact submission with minor variation are posted. PLEASE NOTE: posting a sketch, ink and finalized image are acceptable.
The user is flooding the website and is considered to be abusing the siteâ€™s resources and bandwidth. 
Users found to be spamming will be requested to reduce their images in accordance with the rules of the site. Those found abusing the system may have their images removed at the discretion of site administration.


*Avatars*
Avatars are the only exception to the By You/For You policy. Avatars which use the artwork of another artist, without their permission, may be subject to removal upon request of the artist. Avatars must also be PG-13 in nature (read: no adult content, nudity or gore!) and may be no larger than 25KB.


*Photography*
Fur Affinity allows users to post photography to the site with exceptions to the following: 

*Nudity *â€“ Images containing human nudity are expressly prohibited on Fur Affinity and will be removed without warning or notification. Nudity is defined as any visible portion of the body which would otherwise normally be required to be clothed in public exposure. Images in which a person is naked, regardless of whether sexual characteristics are visible, may not be uploaded and are prohibited.
*Sexuality *â€“ Photographs of a sexual nature are expressly prohibited on Fur Affinity, and will be removed without warning or notification. This applies both to human and animals equally. This includes images where the actual sexual characteristics may be covered, but the apparent intent of the image is to be of a provocative or sexual nature.
*Death/Gore *- Photos of real life gore, wounds, dead animals, etc, are expressly prohibited
*Photomorphs *- Photomorphs are acceptable provided they are complete. â€œCompleteâ€, in this instance, is defined as a full figure transformation and no original remaining characteristic of the figure are visible. Partial transformations or edits will not be accepted to the site.
*Illegal Activities *- Photos containing or alluding to illegal activities are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to; bestiality, drug use, under-aged drinking, theft.
 *Commercial Images* â€“ Commercial images may not be uploaded to Fur Affinity as either a Submission or part of a Submission. This includes, but is not limited to, photomorphs and/or image backgrounds or overlays.
Violations of these rules will be deleted immediately and the User will receive a warning. Subsequent violations will result in suspension and/or termination of the account.


*Video, Screenshots and Other Multimedia*
Screenshots and/or video capture from movies, games, TV, anime, websites (including Fur Affinity) or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content. â€œUser created contentâ€ is defined as items of artistic interest created by the user (e.g. texture maps, 3D meshes, background images, animated characters, interfaces, etc.). Pre-generated characters (e.g. World of Warcraft avatars) and art or characters created by â€œcharacter generatorsâ€ are not permitted.

Minor alterations, such as adding text, word balloons or applying filters to screenshots do not count as user created content. This also applies to segments of screenshots modified and removed (e.g. â€œpixel artâ€) using art directly from games.


*Second Life Screenshots*
Second Life screenshots are only permitted when showcasing an avatar created by or for the user, and will be limited to no more than three (3) submissions per User, per avatar. Purchased Avatars not created by or for the User or modifications of purchased avatars are not permitted. Excess submissions will be removed by Administration. 

Users wishing to display multiple angles of the same Avatar are encouraged to create a collage (a single image consisting of multiple screenshots). 


*Music*
Users may post music to Fur Affinity provided the Submission meets the following criteria:

The Submission is not the original rendition of a copyright song. 
The Submission does not contain sound samples of a copyrighted song. Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to the original sample to distinguish it from the original, otherwise it will be considered to be in violation.
"Covers" and/or "recreations" are permitted provided that the submitter attributes the original material to the original creator.


*Flash*
Flash files may use copyrighted music as a part of the Fair Use Act, but only to compliment the Flash animation in question. Flash submissions used as workaround simply to post music will be removed.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*

The AUP is meant to be moddable, meaning that we will add to and/or revise the document as needed. Given that, there are several additional parts of the AUP which are not yet completed and will be added as soon as they are finalized.


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*

Reverse the titles "1) For You:" and "2) By You:"?


----------



## dave hyena (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

Transcribed to wikifinity:

http://www.wikiffinity.net/index.php?title=Acceptable_Upload_Policy

I will make any nesc. spelling/grammar corrections if/when they are pointed out, but I will not change anything that would alter the rules etc unless it is 100% confirmed that it will be changed on the main site AUP or it's a case like this one just now of "no more than three SL screenshots" etc.

A suggestion me have, change in red.

Orig:

==Spamming==
Spamming is not, and will not, be tolerated on the site. â€œSpammingâ€ is considered when:

Change:

==Spamming==
Spamming is not, and will not, be tolerated on the site. It is considered â€œSpammingâ€ when:


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> Change:
> 
> ==Spamming==
> Spamming is not, and will not, be tolerated on the site. It is considered â€œSpammingâ€ when:


Change has been changed.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Reverse the titles "1) For You:" and "2) By You:"?


I don't know how that booboo was made, I checked all my previos versions... they were all right. I must have messed something up when copying back and forth.

Straaaange.

Either way, fixed, and thanks.


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*

Heh, heh... thx 

Under Photography:


> Photomorphs - Photomorphs are acceptable provided they are complete. â€œCompleteâ€, in this instance, is defined as a full figure transformation and no original remaining characteristic of the figure are visible. Partial transformations or edits will not be accepted to the site.



Seems to sit a little uneasily in context: care to explain further?

The original issues primarily surrounded mature/adult rated photomorphs of commercial images.
Stating that a G-rated partial photomorph of the actual account owner or someone else with permission isn't permitted is perhaps a little bit harsh, if the intention is either relating to that adult content or the use of other (c) human photos. Would only affect a tiny number of submissions but worth querying nonetheless.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> The original issues primarily surrounded mature/adult rated photomorphs of commercial images.
> 
> Stating that a G-rated partial photomorph of the actual account owner or someone else with permission isn't permitted is perhaps a little bit harsh, if the intention is either relating to that adult content or the use of other (c) human photos. Would only affect a tiny number of submissions but worth querying nonetheless.


Perhaps its worth noting that commercial images are prohibited in such instances. Photomorphs have had a varying history on FA, and I will admit there there is probably some varying confusion.

Frankly, if the concern is that users are morphing commercial images it brings up a number of points. Does it fall under "Fair Use"? In the same instance, how many users user photographs as the background images in their pics? It's not possible to say the use of one is unfair while the other is alright.

It's sort of a conundrum.

But, however, rule #6 to Photography is added:

*Commercial Images *â€“ Commercial images may not be uploaded to Fur Affinity as either a Submission or part of a Submission. This includes, but is not limited to, photomorphs and/or image backgrounds or overlays.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

The 'Photo Edit' part added on seems to be an unnecessary section other than being a potential loophole for abuse and a workaround to get out of the photomorph rule requiring a full-figure transformation.

In other words, slight alterations that the 'photomorph' rule would prohibit could be defended by the user with "but it isn't a photomorph, it's a photo EDIT, and I did take this picture and so the rules say it is okay."

The only instance of editing someone else's work I could see having merit would be for example, coloration, which could be considered a collaberation, and doesn't need to be called a photo edit.

Basically, if you say "photo edit" people are going to first think of editing photos, and so you'll just have stuff like the kid editing pics of his friends with simple blur and smudge effects to make them look fat and stuff. It doesn't seem to allow anything that would be a valid submission, and has high potential as a workaround for the intents of other rules.

I don't know what's up with desktops either btw, since there's been multiple, multiple, points where everyone has said that it was agreed desktops did not need a specifically allowed category since they are also high potential for rule workaround. Images meant as a wallpaper fall under all other submission rules and so, need no specific mention. Saying "Desktop" makes people think "Desktop screenshot," which conflicts with the "no screenshots" rule, and again, is just potential workaround.

Neither of those sections really need to be there at all as they just provide loopholes and somewhat directly conflict with other rules. Other than that, it looks good.


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*

mhmm... seemed worthwhile flagging, anyhow, 'yena.

-

The "Video, Screenshots and Other Multimedia" section does not refer to the "By You/For You" policy for what could be deemed "obvious reasons".
If that policy does not apply, explicitly stating "websites (including Fur Affinity)" is a loophole; if it does apply, that still probably requires to be stated there just as prominently as is the case under the "Desktop Screenshots" section.
Could be a source of no small confusion either way.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> The 'Photo Edit' part added on seems to be an unnecessary section other than being a potential loophole for abuse and a workaround to get out of the photomorph rule requiring a full-figure transformation.
> Neither of those sections really need to be there at all as they just provide loopholes and somewhat directly conflict with other rules. Other than that, it looks good.


Point. Removed.


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> *Second Life Screenshots*
> Second Life screenshots are only permitted when showcasing an avatar created by or for the user, and *will be limited to more than three* (3) submissions per User, per avatar. Purchased Avatars not created by or for the User or modifications of purchased avatars are not permitted. Excess submissions will be removed by Administration.



some how that just doesn't seem right.... i thought people were trying to push for a reduction in SL images?


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> some how that just doesn't seem right.... i thought people were trying to push for a reduction in SL images?



Clearly a "no" needs to go in there, to coincide with the number limit.

Edit: Has been adjust to represent the proper rule.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> If that policy does not apply, explicitly stating "websites (including Fur Affinity)" is a loophole; if it does apply, that still probably requires to be stated there just as prominently as is the case under the "Desktop Screenshots" section.


It's a bit of legacy text, really. "...or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content." reffered that it couldn't be posted unless you created it or was created for you, but yeah... I can see how it'd be confusing..

It now should be more clear, reading:
_Screenshots and/or video capture from movies, games, TV, anime, websites or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content in compliace with the By You/For You policy._


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Damaratus said:
			
		

> Orlith Nemeth said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So that $1,000,000 bribe I took from the Lindens to create SL Affinity is a bust? 

(Fixed, btw)


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Orlith Nemeth said:
			
		

> some how that just doesn't seem right.... i thought people were trying to push for a reduction in SL images?


That could easily be a reduction given the added "by you/for you" clause for primary focus of the submission. By definition the AUP is primarily aimed at content rather than volume/flooding issues, though.

From here that AUP clause as stated seems to be a "reasonable compromise" on an awkward topic.

02c, anyhow, fwiw 

==
[ed.] Heh. I missed that "no"! Good spot.


----------



## dave hyena (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> _Screenshots and/or video capture from movies, games, TV, anime, websites or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content in compliace with the By You/For You policy._



Change:

Compliance.


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> It now should be more clear, reading:
> _Screenshots and/or video capture from movies, games, TV, anime, websites or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content in compliace with the By You/For You policy._



Hmm... the user-created content would be in compliance if it was created by that user. If it wasn't created by the user, it's outwith the policy and indistinguishable from the non user-created content, surely?

So it's still open season on use of other sources (no longer explicitly including FA) so long as there's "additional user-created content"?

Apols.; but this is a rather awkward one, just like those flash loops.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*

So how about Desktop screenshots? The consensus every time it came up, which you agreed to at least once, was that there was no real point to allowing them because they're just a big loophole. If the image on the desktop complies with the by you/for you policy, then there's no reason the person couldn't simply upload it as a normal submission. The only difference between that and a desktop screenshot would be whatever icons they have on their desktop, and perhaps programs running in the background, both of which are potential loopholes.

For example: A G rated image on a desktop gets marked General, but there are very explicite and decidedly not kid-friendly filenames on the desktop. 

Or the ever-present confusion factor. People WILL see "desktop" category and think they can just upload a cap of their desktop, whether the image is theirs or not. It's happened plenty of times, and usually just because they didn't know any better/were confused by the fact that it was a stated allowed category.

Basically: what possible purpose is served by having one "desktop" image that can't be just as easily served by submitting the image itself and avoiding the high potential for loophole abuse and user confusion?


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

On which, separately;
"Flash files may use copyrighted music as a part of the Fair Use Act"

I'm fairly sure you won't find a clause in there covering use of copyrighted music and "fair use" can be a rather complicated matter.

Rather than referring to being "part of the Act", y'could perhaps make more nebulous? For example, "...if it is believed that doing so is "fair use"..." , in order to push responsibility back to the community member and attempt to keep any dispute between the copyright owner and them rather than between the copyright owner and FA, which would be more the case if you're appearing to *explicitly* give users permission under the Fair Use Act.

Trust that makes some sense, anyhow... 

=
[ed.] (Overall looking reasonably good, to be honest: mostly a few queries like these perhaps for ironing out if deemed beneficial).


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Hmm... the user-created content would be in compliance if it was created by that user. If it wasn't created by the user, it's outwith the policy and indistinguishable from the non user-created content, surely?
> 
> So it's still open season on use of other sources (no longer explicitly including FA) so long as there's "additional user-created content"?
> 
> Apols.; but this is a rather awkward one, just like those flash loops.


I think some of it can fall under Fair Use, but it really depends. There is a lot of creativity that goes into them, but at the same time, too much so and it becomes a recycling of existing material. But if the user is using items created for him, then it's fine.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> So how about Desktop screenshots?


Removed.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Apols.; but this is a rather awkward one, just like those flash loops.



Definitely. It was less confusing as it was originally.


> Screenshots and/or video capture from movies, games, TV, anime, websites (including Fur Affinity) or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content. â€œUser created contentâ€ is defined as items of artistic interest created by the user (e.g. texture maps, 3D meshes, background images, animated characters, interfaces, etc.). Pre-generated characters (e.g. World of Warcraft avatars) and art or characters created by â€œcharacter generatorsâ€ are not permitted.



It states caps of websites are not allowed. That would naturally include FA, but because a specific instance of improper upload is the habit people have of uploading FA screenshots every time the counter goes weird, specifying "including FA" is an extra bit of assurance that people are aware that FA screencaps are not any sort of exception.

The "by you/for you" policy need not be re-stated because the sentence says "contains user created content," and then states the specific definition of "user created content" as it applies to this particular rule. Since this rule has a more narrow definition of "user created content" than may be implied from just the overall "by you/for you" policy, mentioning the byfy again is redundant and leaves room for confusion, as Uncia has demonstrated.


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

Grey areas inevitable, I'm sure.
The other point above about appearing to give explicit, carte-blanche permission under the Fair Use Act is still an issue on the music side, although there'll inevitably be scope for other media implications under the "Video, Screenshots and Other Multimedia" section; e.g. use of a "generic" photograph as a backdrop.

Keeping the wording as non-contentious as possible so it can't be used "against" required admin discretion would appear to be sensible, IMO.

-


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> Wolfblade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Heh. Rather sudden, after so long. 
(That would be no complaint, mind you, in terms of outcome: desktops have always been a potential source of friction/grief).

Was this clause discussed/agreed prior to publication? I /presumed/ it had been, hence its retention.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*

I agree with Uncia that the flash rule as it is kinda too open for abuse and confusion. It also doesn't mention incorporation of other copyrighted content at all. A good many flash submissions have tweening scrolling cutouts of screencaps and such. Very little creative merit to spinning Homer Simpson's head around a cutout of a popular Canadian actor's face, but hey, that sort of thing is a staple of Flash animation; so it would only be natural that people assume the exception if we don't state clearly otherwise.

How about:



> Flash files may use copyrighted music as a compliment to the overall work. However, submissions that are felt to be merely a workaround to post music may be removed at the Administration's Discretion. Flash files using other kinds of copyright material, such as whole or partial screencaps from copyright video media, or images used without permission, are not allowed. Questionable Music/Flash submissions will be handled on a case-by-case basis.



The last line could be nice to have for the inevitable grey areas.


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



> Harassment
> Images clearly intended to harass or slander other members of the community will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, images that directly convey racist slurs, anti-Semitic insults and/or other derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association directed at another individual or group.



I never personally liked the vagueness/generality of the harassment clause but another awkward area, of course.

Does the second sentence refer also to individuals outwith the community, since it's written as a follow-on to the first sentence which only refers to members /of/ the community?


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Does the second sentence refer also to individuals outwith the community, since it's written as a follow-on to the first sentence which only refers to members /of/ the community?



One of those fuzzy areas unfortunately.

Hard to discourage direct antagonization and harassment of other users if we freely condone the same behavior directed at people who might not be members of the site. But then, political statements and other such valid forms of expression when directed at public figures could also be said to fall under that rule, and surely that argument would be (and has been) used.

I would think it would depend on whether or not the target of the image is a public figure or not.

A cartoon that George Bush might not find terribly flattering might have a valid artistic and political statement. But someone arguing the validity of their political statement against Joe Furry Guy who pissed him off on a forum one time is probably being a little silly and over-reaching with a personal grudge.

Don't know what the actual policy would be, but technically, Zippo's off-site harassment and threatening of other users he contacted through FA would fall under the same category of someone posting an image here meant to defame/antagonize some other individual who isn't a member of FA. In other words, definitely not cool, and not something we should be too keen in having our service used for.

Political statements tend to be directed at political and public people. Something insulting to another random individual on the net is much more likely to be a personal beef, and not really something we should be promoting.


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



> Music:
> Users may post music to Fur Affinity provided the Submission meets the following criteria:
> 
> 1. The Submission is not the original rendition of a copyright song.
> 2. The Submission does not contain sound samples of a copyrighted song. Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to the original sample to distinguish it from the original, otherwise it will be considered to be in violation.



#1 ("copyright" -> "copyrighted"; although non-public-domain might be better, since (c) is automatically granted?) is redundant given the current phrasing of #2.

Does the first sentence in #2 actually mean *zero* remaining unedited content, since remixes often/usually/??? have at least some content that has not been reworked in some manner. "Sample" is rather vague, since that could be either the whole song or a tiny fraction thereof.
Not a music guru here, of course, but that still doesn't sound /quite/ right as currently phrased.


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*

Not many to go, anyhow, but will stack with the others above since it's getting late here. Apols. for the slight flooding. 

=

Feel kinda obliged to mention the (new) bÃªte noire...

Photography: sexuality: the human /and/ animal clause vs. the extensive previous discussion/debate re. National Geographic, etc. (in addition to 90-95%+ positive commenting on any such content that was uploaded, passim).

The only real issue in this case should be one of filtering, since there is no legal case whatsoever to answer to and the clause was only "accidentally" added in the first place when the original intent was re. human sexuality. In general, the issue of legality has been a key one above anything else - as with the "cubporn" decision which resolution simultaneously resulted in loli/shota being ditched.

"Reference material" ain't always available on G-rated sites and would rather not appear to "force" people to search elsewhere more "risky" when there is no reason for that not to be included here other than the moral indignation of a (fairly small) minority and vague "concerns about the impression that gives people of furries".

There was never any particular issue with such uploads - which were carried out without complaint under FA1, IIRC - that are deemed suitable for general audiences elsewhere save for those few (mostly admin-side?) jitters; and certainly an operating filter would cure most of the few remaining complaints to a good degree.


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



> Spamming
> ...   2. Multiple versions of the same exact submission with minor variation are posted. PLEASE NOTE: posting a sketch, ink and finalized image are acceptable.



.... nor is there any obligation to post pre-final work in the "Scraps" "folder".

Use of "Scraps" is still vague (almost unmentioned?) but will presumably remain a design relic until an improved folders system might be available.



> 3. The user is flooding the website and is considered to be abusing the siteâ€™s resources and bandwidth.



Probably superfluous in the context of the AUP, as opposed to the ToS. Would be difficult not to rack up multiple AUP violations in such an endeavor.

aside: Any mention of the /specific/ issue of community members uploading large quantities of their work onto FA in either the AUP or ToS at present? Might be a sensible add re. "sensible measures" owing, primarily, to the mechanism of the *current* FA upload system (i.e. not possible to avoid flooding other watchers, for example!).


----------



## uncia (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*

(slightly pedantic, perhaps?)



> The By You/For You Policy
> The By You/For You policy is the heart and soul of Fur Affinityâ€™s rule system. Itâ€™s simple and to the point: if you didnâ€™t create it or if it wasnâ€™t created specifically for you (gift/commission) then the Submission can not be posted.



Add "with a few exceptions, as noted below"?


=
That's me out for now: can see a few other points (stated/unstated) to mull over, but still seems to be fairly decent all-told. Thanks to y'all for your efforts on that.

David.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 23, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Music:
> 
> Does the first sentence in #2 actually mean *zero* remaining unedited content, since remixes often/usually/??? have at least some content that has not been reworked in some manner. "Sample" is rather vague, since that could be either the whole song or a tiny fraction thereof.
> Not a music guru here, of course, but that still doesn't sound /quite/ right as currently phrased.



Apparently, one of the situations where defining precise and exact written standards would be borderline impossible, and even if possible, would require a rule that is likely too tl;dr for the average user to be expected to read. Of course, anyone is free to offer a proposed wording to cover this point. 

Some things will just have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, although hopefully with much more effort put forth to keep record of each case than has been the norm so far. Current precedents are so scrambled and across the board in most cases, that I think starting fresh from the point these rules go into effect, and trying to establish consistent precedents from a clean slate _from here on out_ will be the intent.



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Photography: sexuality: the human /and/ animal clause vs. the extensive previous discussion/debate re. National Geographic, etc.



The general consensus among the staff, as well as what we feel to be the overall feeling of the community as expressed in user journals, suggestions, and complaints, is that this place is not here to provide people a place to show off their bodies. There is no shortage of services on the net for people who wish to do so.

What the law does and doesn't allow is actually a side argument. Either way, there is TOO much grey area between "this is an artistic nude depicting the beauty of the human form" and "hey guys, check _this_ out ;D"

The amount of photography of the nude human form that has been presented with even an attempt at feigning artistic intent has been nearly non-existant next to the amount of naked people just flashing the community.

Sadly, an infinitely small portion of potential artistic submissions (when looking at actual user activity to date) is lost in order to have a firm and clear-cut position from which to address a repeated and persistant area of inappropriate behavior and abuse.



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> .... nor is there any obligation to post pre-final work in the "Scraps" "folder".
> 
> Use of "Scraps" is still vague (almost unmentioned?) but will presumably remain a design relic until an improved folders system might be available.



Absolutely valid point. Most people get the general idea and purpose of scraps, but it DOES need significantly more clarification for those who clearly don't. Even if it is to be removed at a later date, I am sure everyone is tired of things being ignored in the here-and-now and put off to potential solutions in the indefinite and ethereal future. I know I am.



			
				Uncia said:
			
		

> > 3. The user is flooding the website and is considered to be abusing the siteâ€™s resources and bandwidth.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably superfluous in the context of the AUP, as opposed to the ToS. Would be difficult not to rack up multiple AUP violations in such an endeavor.



Of course, each individual submission in a single instance of flooding won't be counted as separate offenses. One flood = one violation, regardless of the number of images (unless of course there is sufficient evidence of intention to be disruptive). 

Obviously some would like users to have a specifically stated number of how many images would constitute a "flood" to offer clarity and avoid confusion, but still others feel that being too specific and strict with set limitations would come across as too overbearing on people; preferring to offer soft general guidelines, and trusting users to show maturity and self-moderation in place of strict rules. Balancing acts. Whee.



			
				Uncia said:
			
		

> aside: Any mention of the /specific/ issue of community members uploading large quantities of their work onto FA in either the AUP or ToS at present? Might be a sensible add re. "sensible measures" owing, primarily, to the mechanism of the *current* FA upload system (i.e. not possible to avoid flooding other watchers, for example!).



That would fall under spamming, and would likely result in the user getting a verbal admin correction, with a general request to keep their uploads limited to reasonable bursts, and no action greater than a (hopefully) polite an civil clarification so long as the behavior does not become a repeated issue. As to what would constitute a reasonable burst, see the above re: balancing acts.



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Add "with a few exceptions, as noted below"?



Sorry, I'm a bit tired at the moment; which exceptions? If a submission is not content created by or for the user, it is not allowed. There are stated varying degrees of how MUCH of the submission needs to be created by the user for specific types of submission, but overall, the policy has no exception. Either you made (some portion of) it, it was made for you, or it isn't allowed.

Apologies for the wall of text, but genuine concerns deserve a genuine response, and these are genuine concerns. I hope this response is sufficient.


----------



## Orlith Nemeth (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> Damaratus said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mwahahaa my ploy to stop your evil plan worked ^.=.^


----------



## TakeWalker (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

You might wish to consider moving the Avatars section directly under the "By You/For You" section, since it's referenced immediately thereupon. Would just maintain some logical flow.

I can't wait to see the rules lawyers pick apart the Harrassment section. >.> Imma go change my avatar now.


----------



## Whitewolf89 (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

"*BY* you/*FOR* you", huh?Â Â Okay, THAT explains why two of my Leonardo pics (colored AND lineart versions) suddenly disappeared from my Main and Scraps Galleries.Â Â I did it for my niece, so it was removed.Â Â Okay, I'm cool with that.Â Â I didn't know about this rule til just now (haven't been around the forum much lately; RL problems, don'tcha know.:wink.

One question, though: when I did that pic, it wasn't ORIGINALLY _MEANT_ for my niece.Â Â Okay, what if I did a SECOND version of it, titled differently, as well as being colored more like the one still IN my Galleries, sort of like a "Before" and "After" type of pic?Â Â Would THAT be okay?Â Â OR would it be considered "spamming", since they're so much alike?Â Â I await your input, dear friends.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

By you OR for you. Not by you AND for you. It can be FOR someone else so long as it was BY you. Or, it could be BY someone else as long as it was FOR you.


----------



## crabby_the_frog (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

Just flipped through it, and I must say that it looks great.

Although, in regards to the submissions without user-created stuffs in them, you may want to broaden the criteria to give examples of things such as the Southpark character creator and the pokemon trainer card, specifically.

I've seen FAR too many of these types of submissions around, but i think you should make the listing idiot proof for the people who don't realize that what they're doing isn't allowed.

*Isn't sure if that last sentence was a real sentence, or if it makes sense...*


Yeah, I think you should list some specifics, is all. Otherwise, look's great.


----------



## Almafeta (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

"Spamming is not, and will not, be tolerated on the site."

Isn't a rule against spamming basically the same thing as the rules against 'harassing,' but with more technicalities that would allow obvious violations through?

Additionally, will old images be 'grandfathered in' so those of us who have been here since near the start won't have to go back and edit dozens (or hundreds) of submissions?


----------



## Magica (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> Just flipped through it, and I must say that it looks great.
> 
> Although, in regards to the submissions without user-created stuffs in them, you may want to broaden the criteria to give examples of things such as the Southpark character creator and the pokemon trainer card, specifically.
> 
> ...



I generators in general. There's South Park, Pokemon, Sonic, Furry, Elouai, IMVU (Unless you're a skin developer, the skins for your characters basically aren't yours to begin with), etc. Hell, I've even seen a Yahoo avatar submission today.

As for the sprites again, most of those are ripped from official games.  I've seen quite a few sprite comics even with ripped game backgrounds on here and even of recolored Sonic, Pokemon and Starfox sprites.  Would this fall under the Copyright or the By You issue?


----------



## keeshah (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> _"PREPARE YOUR BLADDERS FOR IMMINENT RELEASE!"_
> 
> In a few hours, we will be uploading new versions of the *Terms of Service *and *Submission Agreement *to the site. The changes to both the TOS and SA are minor. In addition to this, we will also be uploading a new rulesset, the *Acceptable Upload Policy *(AUP).


 
How does this new policy effect works done for you, but the artist is now dead? an can't give or take away permission??Â Â  
<you ruled before that works could be posted, when given proper credit. when i asked about thsi before.>

An to follow down this path....
 What if you have a peice done for you, but the artist is now uncontactable, or have left the fandom?


----------



## uncia (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> uncia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cheers, WB; no probs with the (lengthy) replies but, for this one at least, would have been appreciated to have addressed the actual point I was trying to query.

I specifically mentioned *legal* issues and depictions of "naked people" are a well known *legal* no-go zone without model release forms and all the fun-and-games surrounding that. You've read my posts on that matter both on the public and admin fora regarding such content not going to fly on FA for such reasons.
Fairly safe to presume, then, that I wasn't querying /that/ side. _*points back to my post*_

I certainly don't remember anyone giving the "thumbs up" to naked humans on FA1, anyhow. ^^

d.


----------



## Mikau (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

Understandable. Thankfully I always ask for permission before upload, usually by email or note.

I'd better take down my webcam shots, though. >.>


----------



## uncia (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				keeshah said:
			
		

> How does this new policy effect works done for you, but the artist is now dead? an can't give or take away permission??
> <you ruled before that works could be posted, when given proper credit. when i asked about thsi before.>
> 
> An to follow down this path....
> What if you have a peice done for you, but the artist is now uncontactable, or have left the fandom?



_Personally_ I preferred the minimum book-keeping solution of "permission presumed but final decision to rescind that always lies with the artist" that I thought had been agreed following extensive discussion/analogy with other issues but both approaches have pluses/minuses with regards to minimising potential for conflict and neither approach is going to be "ideal" when it comes to deceased or "vanished" artists.

(Might be useful to explicitly state whether or not this particular AUP clause is retroactive since many community members will have to carry out a considerable amount of catch-up on permissions if so).


----------



## uncia (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> uncia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think you just answered your own question re. those "exceptions". 
i.e. "some portion of" the submission rather than the entire submission when it comes to those listed "exceptions" in the "Video, Screenshots and Other Multimedia" and "Music" clauses.

Reading top-down, the text currently states "Itâ€™s simple and to the point: if you didnâ€™t create it or if it wasnâ€™t created specifically for you (gift/commission) then the Submission can not be posted".
Which, of course, is not true as a blanket statement.

Hence the suggestion addition of "with a few exceptions, as noted below" (or equiv. alluding to not being the *whole* submission content) to prime the reader and not have an apparent conflict when those "exception" clauses are encountered.

d.


----------



## dave hyena (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

On avatars, I assume that uploading the avatar that you are using to your gallery and/or scraps is still a violation if it's not by/for you right? since using it as an avatar is one thing, but actually submitting it to your gallery means it has to abide by the SA/AUP etc because it then becomes a submission.

say:

Avatars
Avatars are the only exception to the By You/For You policy. Avatars which use the artwork of another artist, without their permission, may be subject to removal upon request of the artist. Avatars must also be PG-13 in nature (read: no adult content, nudity or gore!) and may be no larger than 25KB. Avatars which are submitted to your gallery or scraps must abide by the Submission agreement, Acceptable use policy and any other rules which govern submissions.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				crabby_the_frog said:
			
		

> Although, in regards to the submissions without user-created stuffs in them, you may want to broaden the criteria to give examples of things such as the Southpark character creator and the pokemon trainer card, specifically.
> 
> I've seen FAR too many of these types of submissions around, but i think you should make the listing idiot proof for the people who don't realize that what they're doing isn't allowed.


Those fall under the line of "generators" and, as such, are not allowed. I'm making minor revisions as I go along to provide additional clarity (no matter how many times we write these things behind closed doors, somebody always manages to find a way to make it better!).

I'll change the description to better read "character/art generators".


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> On avatars, I assume that uploading the avatar that you are using to your gallery and/or scraps is still a violation if it's not by/for you right? since using it as an avatar is one thing, but actually submitting it to your gallery means it has to abide by the SA/AUP etc because it then becomes a submission.


Avatars should comply, but at the same time, avaters fall into a slightly more unique category. As it stands, in my view, avatars should comply with By You/For You in artwork, but we're not going to witchhunt people who use an icon from a movie, TV show, game, etc.

It's probably the "exception rule" for submissions to the site. Character avatars are somewhat unique. However, if you're using another artists' work, or somebody else's character, and we get a complaint... we will take it down.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				keeshah said:
			
		

> How does this new policy effect works done for you, but the artist is now dead? an can't give or take away permission??Â Â
> <you ruled before that works could be posted, when given proper credit. when i asked about thsi before.>


If the artist gave you permission before they passed on, then yes, it would be fine.

As the artist in question is dead, and my ouija board does not not have the ability to communite with deceased furries, in a case like this it there is no way to verify if the did or did not give you permission, so... it has to work off the honor system in an instance like this. The only time we'd make an issue out of it is if we know the artist made some sort of "NEVER RESPOST MY WORK!" speech before he passed on. Regardless, attributing proper credit is still a necessity.

Now, this is only if the artwork in question falls under For You.

As the question was posed to me within this past week, if you're uploading the artwork from an artist who died, but are doing so to "preserve" their art as sort of memorial archive, then it falls under domain of By You/For You.

The rules is simple. If you can answer yes to either "Was this submission created BY ME? Or was it created expressly FOR ME?" then you're pretty much got the go ahead. The only clause is in the For Me section, where it's detailed that credit must be given and I highly suggest that you have permission from the original artist. We don't like getting complaints of art theft (even if it was a comimssion you got, not all artists like them reposted to art boards like this).


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> (Might be useful to explicitly state whether or not this particular AUP clause is retroactive since many community members will have to carry out a considerable amount of catch-up on permissions if so).


By You/For You is stated in the Terms of Service, but was further elaborated upon in the AUP. This clause is not new and has been in effect since March 10, so there shouldn't be any "catch up" for people.

_*Copyrights â€“ The â€œBy You, For Youâ€ Policy*
You agree that the Content posted by you was created by yourself (as the original artist) OR was created explicitly for you (and was posted with permission of the original artist). When posting submission created for you, you must cite your sources at all times and attribute credit where it is due.

There are no exceptions to this policy._


----------



## uncia (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*

*nods*. Yes, but there was no indication of retroaction previously, either, other than a _presumed_ implication.
Given the extended format of the mechanism by which crediting should be carried out is stated in the AUP, now might be a good time to ensure it's made clear to everyone whether that goes right back to submission #1 or not?

You know you don't have the staff to cover that save on a "as/when raised" basis, but hopefully there won't be too many spats with people deliberately reporting some commission/gift work whilst turning a blind eye to others. Those are *everywhere*, of course, so you know that you are _effectively_ also turning a deliberate blind eye to the vast majority of that if the ruling is truly retroactive.

Trust that makes sense in the context of putting into place rules that *will* be seen to be enforced evenly, anyhow. (One of the reasons I preferred the "permission presumed" approach as noted above).

Cheers,
David.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> *nods*. Yes, but there was no indication of retroaction previously, either, other than a _presumed_ implication.
> Given the extended format of the mechanism by which crediting should be carried out is stated in the AUP, now might be a good time to ensure it's made clear to everyone whether that goes right back to submission #1 or not?


We not yet tackled that aspect of it. As I see it, it applies to all submissions, now and prior. In this instance, images are not grandfathered in as the TOS states). However, we're not going to witchhunt old submissions... we'll tackle them as they come up, and enforce them as they come in new. 

Over time, it will help work things together. We've got some additional coding-based assistance that will help us over time, and once that goes live, we'll probably be a bit more active in getting users to go through their older submissions.

Aka, users will be able to have a "Second Life" folder and we will require all SL pictures to go there, and once we do, we'll be able to better track what users are in compliance.

We'll still need to discuss enforcement of this with the admins.


----------



## Revamp (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*

About the avatars...why cant they be raised to 30K? I've heard many a complaint about people not being able to upload their own avatars, no matter how many times they resize it. Me included


----------



## codewolf (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Revamp said:
			
		

> About the avatars...why cant they be raised to 30K? I've heard many a complaint about people not being able to upload their own avatars, no matter how many times they resize it. Me included



i believe it may be to server space and bandwidth..... say it was raised by 10k multiply that by 7000, thats 70,000k or 70mb more space needed, along with the extra bandwidth needed to view those avatars...... in theory it could cost upto another $50 a month or more, just for an increase in avatar size of 10kb.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Revamp said:
			
		

> About the avatars...why cant they be raised to 30K? I've heard many a complaint about people not being able to upload their own avatars, no matter how many times they resize it. Me included


There is absolutely NO REASON anybody will not be able to upload their avatar at 25K... unless they're doing animated avatars.

A 100x100 full color GIF averages: about 8 to 12K
A 100x100 full color JPG averages: 10 to 14K
A 100x100 full color PNG averages: 16 to 20K

If you're saving your iamge correctly, there's no a reason a static image can't be uploaded. Animated avatars were the primary cause this limitation was implemented in the first place, as people were uploading avatars 500KB+ in size.

I know it may be limiting, but if we add 5K here, 5K there... it adds back up again, and then we're back at additional bandwidth issues.

(I got my numbers by taking 5 pieces of random art, making them into 100x100 pixels... the results varied, but they all worked well within the limit).


----------



## Leahtaur (Jun 24, 2007)

At last! I'm so glad to see these updates.  Good work guys. I'll be particularly happy to see fewer identical SL submissions, and everything in general has been made clearer.


----------



## uncia (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> Revamp said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Concur. 

@ Revamp: That potential extra 5k on every view of every user comment/shout is a non-trivial addition, especially as a good number of people tend to work to limits.
Even with animation, the 25k new upload limit ain't a total killer by any means I'd trust. When limits were being discussed on submissions vs. avatars a general scan of avvies yielded good results under that level (middle of the 3rd row on http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=3662&pid=48190#pid48190 ). Checking briefly again now there appears to be an even better range of animated avvies under that new limit.

aside: No need to mention the previous grandfathered-in limit of 50k in the AUP since, of course, it is no longer possible to upload such avvies.


----------



## Whitewolf89 (Jun 24, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> By you OR for you. Not by you AND for you. It can be FOR someone else so long as it was BY you. Or, it could be BY someone else as long as it was FOR you.



Okay, I understand now.Â Â ([size=x-small]I think.Â Â Meh, I'm a total NINNY at times.[/size])

Anyway, the pics were done BY me, FOR my niece, as a gift.Â Â Would it be okay to RE-submit them in a day or two, or thereabouts?Â Â Or, being SIMILAR to my Leonardo FF AU pic (Okay, the POSE is the same, but I digress), is it/would it be considered "spam"?

Help?Â Â Again?


----------



## Tensik (Jun 25, 2007)

You may want to further clarify "spamming", does that mean three pictures in total, or three pictures within a period of time?  

For example: person A posts 10 pics of their fursuit in one day and gets hit with the spamming rule.  Person B posts 10 pics of their fursuit over 10 months at a once a month rate.  Are they spamming as well?

Also, does it only count for photography and SL and easily generated items or will it apply to art as well?  I know a few . . . "productive" artists who create 15 new drawings a day with very little variety between any of them and they're just as prone to flooding out the front page as anyone else.  Will they also be told to be more selective?


----------



## Arokha7 (Jun 25, 2007)

So, I have a few hundred commissions posted under the name of 'arokh3' on FA, and the artist is always credited on the last line of the description. Does this new rule mean that I need to go into each description and edit the thing to have the credit on the first line instead of last? c.c

Edit: Also, I just have in my bio on my FA page that they're all commissions, in a separate paragraph... does doing that mean that I don't need to note on each picture that its not my art? (As should be assumed by the comment about "Art by [blah]" anyway)


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 25, 2007)

Arokha7 said:
			
		

> So, I have a few hundred commissions posted under the name of 'arokh3' on FA, and the artist is always credited on the last line of the description. Does this new rule mean that I need to go into each description and edit the thing to have the credit on the first line instead of last? c.c
> 
> Edit: Also, I just have in my bio on my FA page that they're all commissions, in a separate paragraph... does doing that mean that I don't need to note on each picture that its not my art? (As should be assumed by the comment about "Art by [blah]" anyway)



So long as the description for each individual image does clearly state that the artwork is someone else's, AND gives the name of that artist, I don't think it will be a terribly big deal if the info for a significant amount of older submissions is on the last line as opposed to the first.

Just from here on out, go ahead and make sure the info is stated as required, and on the first line. We will be gradually making efforts to bring existing galleries up to date with the new guidelines, but most of our efforts are going to be focused on keeping new submissions compliant, while whittling away at older issues as we manage to get to them.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 25, 2007)

Tensik said:
			
		

> You may want to further clarify "spamming", does that mean three pictures in total, or three pictures within a period of time?
> 
> For example: person A posts 10 pics of their fursuit in one day and gets hit with the spamming rule.  Person B posts 10 pics of their fursuit over 10 months at a once a month rate.  Are they spamming as well?
> 
> Also, does it only count for photography and SL and easily generated items or will it apply to art as well?  I know a few . . . "productive" artists who create 15 new drawings a day with very little variety between any of them and they're just as prone to flooding out the front page as anyone else.  Will they also be told to be more selective?



A general guideline as opposed to a strict specific limitation on daily uploads was felt to be potentially easier on the userbase. For example, a person may want to post 15 images in a single burst, but the behavior might be significantly outside of the norm for them. It might seem overly harsh of us to come down on them for just one instance of overzealous uploading. However, if someone is consistently uploading image bursts of 15 or more, there may need to be something said to them.

Obviously, this makes consistency a bit difficult, but as in all things with this place, we have a constant balancing act between what is easy and convenient for us to do but might not be welcomely accepted by users, versus what we think the users might appreciate despite the headache it may bring us later.

As has been stated, the AUP will be an evolving document as the inevitable shortcomings come to light, and the community has a chance to express their opinions of it. If it becomes clear people would prefer a simple, clear, stated number of what is and is not a flood, then that can easily be added. ^_^


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 25, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Whitewolf89 said:
			
		

> Wolfblade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the images were removed, there was likely some reason for it. The reason would not have been because they were for your niece.

Did you get any sort of note or statement when they were removed that explained WHY they were taken down?


----------



## whitedingo (Jun 25, 2007)

Not that I do these but some might like to know.
Illegal activities, does this mean photos of tags and graffiti are now forbidden


----------



## Magica (Jun 25, 2007)

I think there might be a possible loophole in the By You, For You policy.  For example someone uses a Generator like the Trainer Card thing, and they make the background and the trainer themselves, but the copyrighted Pokemon sprites are still their.  Said user thinks that with the user made background and trainer sprite, they can still submit it, even though the rest of it is against the TOS.  Think something should be clarified about that?


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 25, 2007)

whitedingo said:
			
		

> Not that I do these but some might like to know.
> Illegal activities, does this mean photos of tags and graffiti are now forbidden



Hmm.. probably needs to be discussed. I would say that a photo should not be removed if it happens to be of a building that has been tagged. But if the intent seems to be to display an act of vandalism committed by the submitting user, the image will be removed.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 25, 2007)

DragonMagica said:
			
		

> I think there might be a possible loophole in the By You, For You policy.  For example someone uses a Generator like the Trainer Card thing, and they make the background and the trainer themselves, but the copyrighted Pokemon sprites are still their.  Said user thinks that with the user made background and trainer sprite, they can still submit it, even though the rest of it is against the TOS.  Think something should be clarified about that?



The AUP states that generators aren't allowed, and neither is artwork using sprites taken directly from games. 

Even if they made the background, they still can't paste expressly prohibited content over it and expect it to be acceptable.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 25, 2007)

Tensik said:
			
		

> For example: person A posts 10 pics of their fursuit in one day and gets hit with the spamming rule.  Person B posts 10 pics of their fursuit over 10 months at a once a month rate.  Are they spamming as well?


Yes. While we'll offer better support for it now, as it stands a lot of fursuiters post mini-floods of their suite. Others entire galleries, and it's the same suit, same primary subject matter for the images.

We'd like people to be able to share, but we've got to start somewhere. Resources are not free, and this site's bandwidth goes up $50 per month in bandwidth.



			
				Tensik said:
			
		

> Also, does it only count for photography and SL and easily generated items or will it apply to art as well?  I know a few . . . "productive" artists who create 15 new drawings a day with very little variety between any of them and they're just as prone to flooding out the front page as anyone else.  Will they also be told to be more selective?


It counts for photography and SL and... everything.

If an artist creates 15 *new* images, that are all different, then yes. Perhaps I need to clarify that. There is currently no limit as to how much you can upload, but we're trying to stem users who upload 5 or 6 pics of the same exact item, just with minor variations (sometimes, all it needs is a collage).

We understand a lot of artists posts sketch, inks, colors, etc. We're fine with that. But even still, when we start getting eight variations of the same image... we've got to put our foot down somewhere.


----------



## Tensik (Jun 25, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Tensik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*nods*  I would agree then that area needs to be cleaned up.  By your first answer, if people can have three images total of the same primary subject with a fursuit used as an example, as worded, by the same token everyone should have to take down all but three drawings of their character, or any character, that is in more than one image on their gallery; it may be drawn but it is still the same primary subject.  The example I gave someone last night is other than the fact that one is drawn and one is not, there's little difference in effort or expended time or creativity needed between myself drawing 20 pictures of my character in different poses on a white background and a fursuit maker making a suit from scratch and then posting 20 photographs of it in different poses.  I do know exactly what you are meaning by it, but the wording is bad; you'll have people demanding that X person takes down drawings of a specific character because "do we really need to see 50 of him???" as stated.

Hope that makes sense, no coffee yet.  XD


----------



## ArrowTibbs (Jun 25, 2007)

"More than three images with the exact same primary subject (e.g.a fursuit, Second Life character, etc.) are posted."

Might note that this is for screenhot and photos? Seeing a I draw a lot of Roki as a primary subject this might be confusing.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 25, 2007)

ArrowTibbs said:
			
		

> "More than three images with the exact same primary subject (e.g.a fursuit, Second Life character, etc.) are posted."
> 
> Might note that this is for screenhot and photos? Seeing a I draw a lot of Roki as a primary subject this might be confusing.


Very good point. I'll work on a revision of it. It's a hard thing to outline, but I'll clarify it so that it makes more accurate sense so that it doesn't come out as, "I drew 12 pictures of X, does that mean it's spamming?!"

_"Posting three or more photos and/or screenshots utilizing the same primary subject (e.g.a fursuit, Second Life character, etc.) are posted may be considered. In regards to artwork, posting more than three images of the same picture (e.g. sketch, inks and color) may be considered spamming, but unique images do not apply to this limit."_

It may need to be re-written to clarify it better. I'm open to suggestions.


----------



## cesarin (Jun 25, 2007)

no anti-myspace bullshit? ;_;

that means we will be still seeing random fatmen in underwears? D:


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 25, 2007)

cesarin said:
			
		

> no anti-myspace bullshit? ;_;
> 
> that means we will be still seeing random fatmen in underwears? D:



That particular issue is a far more touchy one.  In truth, once we bring in greater functionality to the site, you'll be able to protect your eyes from having to see such images.  While the people who still want to see them will have that freedom.

Consider this a start to many other changes to the site, we're really making a push here, but the rules we've posted are here to make sure that we can keep things running for you guys.  The restraints are needed to keep things stable and running nicely for all of you as we continue to make additional adjustments/improvements.

While we understand that some people will not like the new rules, we're hopeful that the changes that are being made to the site will be beneficial in the long run.


----------



## cesarin (Jun 25, 2007)

Damaratus said:
			
		

> cesarin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that sounds great, thank you Mr.LabRat


----------



## straydog (Jun 25, 2007)

I commend the staff on the updated AUP and hope to see further restrictions on things that usually lack artistic merit, such as photos (yes, more than 1---I find 1 is acceptable and reasonable) of a user (or their friends), their pets, their trip to the zoo, their car, ect. 

And I say usually because I do recognize that some users are uploading photographs which have clear artistic merit behind them and not simply a 'lolz lookit what I saw at the zoo' or 'lookit my  puppeh!'. 

I do agree that the spamming rule will need some revision because of the fact that one could apply it to characters and any drawing thereof. Perhaps a distinction between photography (which would encompass fursuits), screenshots (which would address SL models), and drawn images should be made.

Also, I've some concern regarding Poser-generated images. Poser, as you may or may not know, is a program that is, essentially, a beefed up version of a Second Life character creation/editor program (I have Poser and have used it). The models are preloaded and most of the images created using Poser feature 'freebie' Poser content created by other users. Would Poser-generated images then be considered against the AUP per the no-character-generator rule?

Finally, regarding photomorphs (not edits--I'm speaking in regards to the pictures featuring a human body and animal head spliced together with a filter thrown over it to give the body 'fur texture')...nude or not, they are not images that would be permitted under the Fair Use clause. A photomorph should have 2 permissions---1 from the human portion photographer and 1 for the animal portion photographer.

In regards to 'but artists use photos as backgrounds', the substantiality of the background in relation to the rest of the picture would permit its use per the Fair Use clause.  With a photomorph, the substantiality of the 2 photos used is more than 50% of the entire picture, which would not be acceptable.


----------



## Tensik (Jun 25, 2007)

straydog said:
			
		

> Also, I've some concern regarding Poser-generated images. Poser, as you may or may not know, is a program that is, essentially, a beefed up version of a Second Life character creation/editor program (I have Poser and have used it). The models are preloaded and most of the images created using Poser feature 'freebie' Poser content created by other users. Would Poser-generated images then be considered against the AUP per the no-character-generator rule?



I should hope they are, as Poser and DAZ are programs specifically designed to give people an infinite artistic outlet, as opposed to generators, that have a finite number of combinations to make something very specific . . . .


----------



## Whitewolf89 (Jun 26, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Whitewolf89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, no.Â Â At least, I don't think so.Â Â They both just kinda disappeared, and I'm confused as to why.

As far as a note or statement is concerned, I _HAVEN'T_ checked my PM Inbox since they did.Â Â I wonder................

'Scuse me whilst I go check my Inbox messages, Wolfblade.Â Â BRB.

*EDIT:* Nope.Â Â Just checked.Â Â No note, or anything else telling me WHY they were removed.Â Â And at THIS point, I'm a bit leery of trying to rep-upload them again, for fear that the same thing will happen.

Do you have a suggestion as to how I can find out WHY they were removed?Â Â This is REALLY bothering me.Â Â I've NEVER had someone jiust remove one of my pics before.Â Â I mean, I have those SAME two pics up at DeviantART, and they're STILL in my Galleries there!Â Â 

I'm just SOOOOOO confused right now....................


----------



## yak (Jun 26, 2007)

No logs contain any information about your images being removed by someone from the staff.
At this moment you have exactly 8 submissions, is that correct?


----------



## dave hyena (Jun 26, 2007)

Hippotaur just made the point to me that:



> _Music
> Users may post music to Fur Affinity provided the Submission meets the following criteria:
> 
> The Submission is not the original rendition of a copyright song._
> ...


----------



## uncia (Jun 26, 2007)

> The way this part currently reads it prohibits me from posting any music that I have created...
> <clip>
> _I would suggest for your consideration to change this part to something similar to the following:
> 
> ...



*g*... I totally missed that one! A rather amusing unintended impact of the current AUP, no doubt... ^^ Easy fix, anyhow.
_(*purrs thanks over to Hippotaur*)_


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 26, 2007)

Tensik said:
			
		

> straydog said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Torin_Darkflight (Jun 26, 2007)

Regarding the "No more than three images of a single subject"...does this mean that my gallery is in violation of the TOS? I've drawn way more than three images of the same character doing the same thing, but they're all unique drawings with different angles and different settings/locations, and several months pass between drawings. Do I need to delete my gallery or terminate my account because of this?

Also...I draw a lot of Spyro art. I sometimes use screenshots from the actual games for the backgrounds in my Spyro art. I always post a disclaimer, if not on the picture itself then at least in the submission description, where the background came from. Previously I was told that this is ok, because the central subjects of the images are still created by myself. Has this changed? Or, do I now need to go back and remove all my art that shows game screenshots in noncentral background roles?


----------



## Visimar (Jun 26, 2007)

> Regarding the "No more than three images of a single subject"...does this mean that my gallery is in violation of the TOS? I've drawn way more than three images of the same character doing the same thing...



I think they meant the rule for photos/screenshots and not drawings. It needs to be clarified more so people know exactly what submissions it's talking about.


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 26, 2007)

Torin_Darkflight said:
			
		

> Regarding the "No more than three images of a single subject"...does this mean that my gallery is in violation of the TOS? I've drawn way more than three images of the same character doing the same thing, but they're all unique drawings with different angles and different settings/locations, and several months pass between drawings. Do I need to delete my gallery or terminate my account because of this?
> 
> Also...I draw a lot of Spyro art. I sometimes use screenshots from the actual games for the backgrounds in my Spyro art. I always post a disclaimer, if not on the picture itself then at least in the submission description, where the background came from. Previously I was told that this is ok, because the central subjects of the images are still created by myself. Has this changed? Or, do I now need to go back and remove all my art that shows game screenshots in noncentral background roles?



This issue is somewhat covered earlier in the thread: http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=9967&pid=166602#pid166602

As you can see, things are currently being reworded to try and better convey what we are trying to control with this particular rule.


----------



## Whitewolf89 (Jun 27, 2007)

yak said:
			
		

> No logs contain any information about your images being removed by someone from the staff.
> At this moment you have exactly 8 submissions, is that correct?



Hmm, THAT's weird.  The staff didn't delete them, and _I_ sure as shell didn't!  Sop what the heck happened to the two of 'em?!

Yep, eight in my MAIN Gallery (there SHOULD be NINE), and SEVEN in my Scraps Gallery (there SHOULD be EIGHT in it).  Which makes a total of 15 submissions.  I _DID_ have 16.  

I'll admit it, this has me toatlly confused.  To the point that I'm afraid to try to RE-submit them (one (in my MAIN Gallery) was a colored pic; the other (in my Scraps Gallery) was just the lineart for it).  Should I be?  Or should I try again, and see what happens?  I really DON'T want to lose another pic, whatever happened.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 27, 2007)

Whitewolf89 said:
			
		

> Hmm, THAT's weird.  The staff didn't delete them, and _I_ sure as shell didn't!  Sop what the heck happened to the two of 'em?!
> 
> Yep, eight in my MAIN Gallery (there SHOULD be NINE), and SEVEN in my Scraps Gallery (there SHOULD be EIGHT in it).  Which makes a total of 15 submissions.  I _DID_ have 16.
> 
> I'll admit it, this has me toatlly confused.  To the point that I'm afraid to try to RE-submit them (one (in my MAIN Gallery) was a colored pic; the other (in my Scraps Gallery) was just the lineart for it).  Should I be?  Or should I try again, and see what happens?  I really DON'T want to lose another pic, whatever happened.



If the images don't violate any of the current rules (read them thoroughly to be sure) then feel free to re-submit them. If you want, you can send me a PM with links when you do, and I will go check them personally for you to make sure there's no issue.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 27, 2007)

Tensik said:
			
		

> *nods*  I would agree then that area needs to be cleaned up.  By your first answer, if people can have three images total of the same primary subject with a fursuit used as an example, as worded, by the same token everyone should have to take down all but three drawings of their character, or any character, that is in more than one image on their gallery; it may be drawn but it is still the same primary subject.  The example I gave someone last night is other than the fact that one is drawn and one is not, there's little difference in effort or expended time or creativity needed between myself drawing 20 pictures of my character in different poses on a white background and a fursuit maker making a suit from scratch and then posting 20 photographs of it in different poses.  I do know exactly what you are meaning by it, but the wording is bad; you'll have people demanding that X person takes down drawings of a specific character because "do we really need to see 50 of him???" as stated.
> 
> Hope that makes sense, no coffee yet.  XD



We'll work on the wording then. At no point will we be limiting drawings of the same character unless they are all slight variations of a single drawing, or just a few drawings slightly modified and duplicated endlessly.

The amount of effort put into a suit versus making a drawing is a side argument. The purpose here is to let people share their creations. Each drawing is a creation, and need be uploaded only once to share that creation. A suit is a single creation no matter how many pics are taken, but we allow more than one pic per suit because it takes more than a single photo to truly share a creation that is not a single 2-dimensional image. However, eventually too many photos of a single suit becomes just as excessive as several uploads of the same drawing.

Basically, your argument for limiting drawings of a single character if we were to limit photos of a single suit is based on considering the _character_ as the "creation" being shared, and not each individual _rendition_ of that character as a separate "creation." We consider a single suit as a single creation, but individual drawings are each a separate creation, even if the subject matter is the same.

Hope this makes sense too, I'm prepping for a trip. X3


----------



## Whitewolf89 (Jun 27, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Whitewolf89 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Okay, I will.  (Carefully read the rules, that is.)  And I'll likely do that.  Just not tonight.  Probably in a day or two, though.

And I'll do that.  Sounds like a good idea, actually.  Thankies for the idea.:wink:


----------



## meatwad44 (Jun 27, 2007)

hey, no offense, or not as much offense, but the new TOS sucks. Now reading the terms, I agree some of my stuff was in violation, so i removed it. But some things huld have been fine. For instance, a picture of someone covered head to toe in fur, with an animal muzzle even, was considered a "partial" not a complete morph. I think thats a heap of BS. I find it quite funny that the moment i started making a stand againt the new "rules" my account got deleted by the power abusing admins. Can I ask, isnt a furry part human part animal, or an animal with human traits? And aren't catgirls just human girls with paws and kitty ears? yet they are furry. so a fully altered photo is partial in what way?
  if you ask me, you guys are being completely ridiculous.


----------



## Oni (Jun 27, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> [align=center][size=medium]*Acceptable Upload Policy*[/size][/align]Fur Affinity exists for artists and creators to post their works freely. While we pride ourselves in allowing some of the widest ranges of artistic expression it does not come without some limitations.
> 
> This document is in addition to the terms set forth by the Terms of Service and Submission Agreement.
> 
> ...


Curious, the policy does not disclose any information regarding forum signatures. 

- Signature Image Size (dimensions/file size)
- Relational Content (pretty much sums up everything lol "relational content" hehe)

Signature specifications may seem insignificant, although that is a subject which interests me and I have found no relevant information in your policy.


----------



## dave hyena (Jun 27, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> Signature specifications may seem insignificant, although that is a subject which interests me and I have found no relevant information in your policy.



In the top of the introductions forum:

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=47

There are two stickied threads with additional rules for the forums, that being that signatures should be a max. of 600x150 pixels & that the forums ashould be kept PG-13.

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=2405
http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=1081


----------



## Oni (Jun 27, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*



			
				Dave Hyena said:
			
		

> Oni said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah thank you  Dave Hyena ^.^

Roger Roger (Star Wars Drone Robot)


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 27, 2007)

meatwad44 said:
			
		

> hey, no offense, or not as much offense, but the new TOS sucks. Now reading the terms, I agree some of my stuff was in violation, so i removed it. But some things huld have been fine. For instance, a picture of someone covered head to toe in fur, with an animal muzzle even, was considered a "partial" not a complete morph. I think thats a heap of BS. I find it quite funny that *the moment i started making a stand againt the new "rules" *my account got deleted by the power abusing admins. Can I ask, isnt a furry part human part animal, or an animal with human traits? And aren't catgirls just human girls with paws and kitty ears? yet they are furry. so a fully altered photo is partial in what way?
> if you ask me, you guys are being completely ridiculous.



In other words, the moment you decided to intentionally break the rules.

Your account isn't deleted, you got a 3 day time-out. The people who work on submission moderation put too much of their own personal free time and effort into this site for them to be expected to put up with juvenile behavior like your attitude and remarks on the submission you uploaded.

Anyone wanting to dispute or discuss the rules like a grown-up is welcome to do so in the forums here, provided they keep it civil and mature. But "taking a stand" against the site, INTENTIONALLY breaking a rule because you disagree with it, is not something that will be tolerated. Resolving user issues and listening to concerns and complaints is part of the job here. Wasting time with childish rebellions is not.


----------



## yak (Jun 27, 2007)

*[edit]*:
Wolfblade has beaten me to the explanation



			
				meatwad44 said:
			
		

> hey, no offense, or not as much offense, but the new TOS sucks. Now reading the terms, I agree some of my stuff was in violation, so i removed it. But some things huld have been fine. For instance, a picture of someone covered head to toe in fur, with an animal muzzle even, was considered a "partial" not a complete morph. I think thats a heap of BS. I find it quite funny that the moment i started making a stand againt the new "rules" my account got deleted by the power abusing admins. Can I ask, isnt a furry part human part animal, or an animal with human traits? And aren't catgirls just human girls with paws and kitty ears? yet they are furry. so a fully altered photo is partial in what way?
> if you ask me, you guys are being completely ridiculous.



Is this your account? http://www.furaffinity.net/user/meatwad44  

I have to say that i was not the one handling your case, but i have taken my time to inspect the logs and here what i've found. 
Looks like you've decided to intentionally violate the ToS, possibly after the note foxystarlion has sent you (not shown below, of course).
A copy of the ban notification PM should have been sent to your email, which is registered with FA.

Your ban must have followed right after you posted the now-removed submission entitled "FA Considers THIS to be a furry pic?? VIVA LA REVOLUTION!". I believe the title speaks for itself.

So there's nothing "funny" that you didn't expect to happen,


> I find it quite funny that the moment i started making a stand againt the new "rules" my account got deleted by the power abusing admins.


I'm sorry that you feel this way, you can question or discuss the rules, as people do right here in this thread, but if you decide to take a stand against them, then you are considered to be an unwanted rule breaker and handled appropriately.


*today* *Wolfblade* has sent a note to *Meatwad44*  (*still unread*) with the following message





			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Not your photo. Rules exist for a reason, and you agree to abide by them when you use this site. If this site no longer suits your needs after the rules revision, feel free to find a service that better suits you.


*today* *Wolfblade* has sent a note to *Meatwad44*  (*still unread*) with the following message





			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Your account will be suspended for 3 days for intentional violation of the ToS.
> 
> Please see that upon your return, you read and abide to all rules on the site as use of this service constitutes agreement to all posted and stated terms of use.



*yesterday* *dave_hyena* has sent a note to *Meatwad44* (*which was read*) with the following message





			
				dave_hyena said:
			
		

> Hi there,
> 
> I'm sorry for bothering you about this, but the Furaffinity Acceptable upload policy  states that:
> 
> ...


----------



## meatwad44 (Jun 27, 2007)

i took down all of the previous stuff. However I was quite ticked at some of what was considered "partial". A completely disagree that an image that is fully furred is still a partial. and i still fail to see why partial is not allowed. I understand that people may try to claim an image has been edited by just adding whiskers to a copyrighted pic and saying "hey, i own this now". But some of the stuff ruled this way were my own pictures. I dont know about you but my camera doesnt insert a copyright to me when i take a picture, so proving anybody owns it is impossible.
    yeah, i yelled a lot yestereday. You would too if almost every single thing you had done was suddenly deemed ban-worthy. The adult stuff, fine, lots of sites are getting rid of anything with adult content. But a pic that is just a face, made into a fur? It rattles my brain. Does every single pixel in the picture have to be altered to be considered a full morph? And what if i wanted to post another image of myself as a fur? I own that image, its also of me, so do i need to state that i give myself permission, to alter a picture, of myself, also owned by myself, and if myself changes my mind, i must make myself take it down?
    Look, dont get me wrong, i agree fully with 5 or 6 of those images i was told to take down. but a good chunk i think many would agree were fully furred.


----------



## ebonyleopard (Jun 27, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Tensik said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Boy, you sure put your foot in it with this comment, that's for sure.  Is Poser Art? Is a picture done in Photoshop or Painter programs true painting? Is anything done on a computer rather than paper truly drawing or art?

I'm an artist who would fall under traditional, but because my computer skills are very basic and self taught. I use photoshop in a way that I would color with markers, I know, as a 30 year old artist with 3 college degrees, I have zero clue how to do any 3D work even withsomething like Poser and I own 2 copies of 3D Studio Max and other 3D programs and can't make a jack with them. 

I understand poser gives you models to use, but every person I've seen using it here seems to be putting a heck of a lot of work into remodeling and creating original looking characters, because I highly doubt Poser has an Anthro button in it.  Sure, there are different level of skill among the artist in how they use it, but then, there's a vast diverent level of skills here on how people draw.  

I teach art and probably is considere one of the more skilled artists on FA but I don't let my skill level or knowledge base bias me to those with less skills or current ability.  Being a student of 3D art is cool, I envey you all (cause I really wish I had went to school for that rather than what I did go for), but a tool is a tool. 

I mean, in some cases, most "3D Artist" couldn't draw jack on paper if their lives depended on it but can work magic on the computer. So, should 3D artist really be considered artists at all unless they post traditional stuff, or should they just be considered talented computer programers?


----------



## Typhon (Jun 27, 2007)

Okay here is my view point on the whole DAZ/Poser arguement.

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

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

Given that, lets do the logical thing next.

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

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

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

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

Also if I may Quote something here from Little_Dragon


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



With that in mind, ANYONE can try to use DAZ/Poser, but it take real talent to be able to use them well.  If FA chooses to have DAZ/Poser art removed, we are going to ignore that it takes talent, the same talent that *regular* artists use, and say *what* is being is being used is more important then the talent to create said art.


----------



## foxystallion (Jun 27, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> uncia said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I request that you modify your absolute prohibition against the use of commercial animal images in photomorphs to permit such use when properly (and provably, if challenged) licensed, under the condition that the commercially licensed animal (not human!) image comprises only a small part of the final image.  

I use photos of fox, coyote, and dog heads (sometimes strongly modified) in my photomorphs. The licensed commercial image or public domain image occupies only a few percent of the total image area of my art; everything else is either photographed or painted by me.  I obtain some of these photos of animal heads from US government agencies, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service - these are in the public domain by US copyright law.  

I also license some of these animal images from the photographers.  The license which I purchase permits both modification of the image and web use, both commercial and non-commercial.  I always give credit to the photographer from whom I have licensed the photo.

I certainly understand and agree with the prohibition against use of commercial human images.  I certainly understand and agree with the prohibition against the use of unlicensed commercial images of anything.  

If necessary, I can continue to waste a great deal of my time looking through literally thousands of non-commercial public domain animal photos taken by US government employees in the pursuit of their official duties  - most of poor to mediocre quality.  I would much rather license high quality animal photos taken by professional photographers - and the photographic artists receiving my license money would agree.  For a couple of bucks for a license, it would be a waste of my  time looking through endless government archives.

Thank you for your consideration.


----------



## MandoAndy (Jun 27, 2007)

> 2. The Submission does not contain sound samples of a copyrighted song. Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to the original sample to distinguish it from the original, otherwise it will be considered to be in violation.



I'd like to ask a question regarding this change to the rules...

I have a cover of Green Day's song "Give Me Novacain", and it contains a drum loop I sampled from the song. Every other bit of music was created by myself from scratch, but the drums are fairly prominent in the song. Is this now prohibited, or not? Here's the link to my song, so you can listen for yourself and decide...

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/438367/

I love FA and I don't want to get a strike against my account for something like this... :shock:


----------



## Starburst (Jun 27, 2007)

AUP said:
			
		

> More than three images with the exact same primary subject (e.g.a fursuit, Second Life character, etc.) are posted.



Would this include something such as different drawings of one's own fursona, or a friend?  Or simply a character they enjoy drawing?


----------



## blackdragoon (Jun 28, 2007)

okay i have a simple little question here in regards to SL screenshots as it doens't appear to be addressed thus far and that being pics of things that you built yourself from scratch that did not contain much if any of your avatar? i can understand the whole spamming thing in regards to multiple shots of the same avatar from different angles and all that but my question isn't aimed at avatars directly.

i like to build scenery and vehicles and i sometimes like to share screenshots of those with my friends here on FA. i also like to rework those same screenshots in artrage2 into paintings (takes forever to do and is really hard to go from 3d to 2d but i like it) and so im wondering what the stance, if any, is on such things?

i shall give you examples of such:
this pic shows off both one of my latest vehicular creations and my newest avatar:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/585783/
i realise that i haven't submitted any screenshots of scenery i made yet but then i dont want to unless it would be allowed.

also in regards to reworking into a painting i have this one:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/328031/

if necessary i shall remove any images that you consider spam so just drop me a note on the mainsite if that is the case. i dont wish any of my current submissions to break any of these new rules so just let me know okay?


----------



## foxystallion (Jun 28, 2007)

I believe that the next chapter of this AUP will officially limit uploaded images to a maximum of 1280x1280 pixels.

I ask you to modify this rule before it is posted so that it limits the total number of pixels to 1280x1280 = 1,638.400 pixels instead.

The total number of pixels is partially related to data transmission costs, but there is no relation of data transmission costs to image aspect ratio (image width to height ratio). I therefor request that you have a 1,638,400 pixel limit in the next chapter of the AUPs rather than a needlessly artistically rigid 1280x1280 pixel limit.

For example, I have a nearly completed 1040 pixels wide by 1500 pixels high image that I would like to upload next week. This image was designed to be viewed from top to bottom as it is received line by line.

A 1040x1500 pixel image has 1,560,000 pixels; this is 5% fewer pixels than a 1280x1280 image.

It is my personal belief that this aspect ratio frequently allows better artistic composition than a 1:1 aspect ratio for a single standing bipedal anthro character that is much taller than its width.

Limiting image size to 1280x1280 pixels rather than limiting image area to 1280x1280 = 1,638,400 pixels is an esthetic decision enforcing the FA rule makers' personal preferences for the height to width ratio of art, not a means of saving data transmission costs. Decisions of this nature should be made by the artists and their viewers not FA administrative rule makers; the thumb images clearly show the images' aspect ratios before the viewer decides to initiate a full view.

I understand that data transmission costs must be limited, but please give artists the most flexible means to do so - a total pixel limit of 1,638,400 rather than a pointlessly restrictive 1280x1280.

I believe that this would require changing only one line of code.  

Currently FA has a line in the upload code module that is functionally:
IF uploadfile imagepixelwidth > 1280 OR imagepixelheight > 1280
	THEN resize uploadfile.

The change would be very simple:
IF uploadfile imagepixelwidth X imagepixelheight > 1,638,400
	THEN resize uploadfile.

Thank you for your consideration.


----------



## blackdragoon (Jun 28, 2007)

im gonna go ahead and agree with foxy on that (points to above post)


----------



## Wolfblade (Jun 29, 2007)

blackdragoon said:
			
		

> okay i have a simple little question here in regards to SL screenshots as it doens't appear to be addressed thus far and that being pics of things that you built yourself from scratch that did not contain much if any of your avatar? i can understand the whole spamming thing in regards to multiple shots of the same avatar from different angles and all that but my question isn't aimed at avatars directly.
> 
> i like to build scenery and vehicles and i sometimes like to share screenshots of those with my friends here on FA. i also like to rework those same screenshots in artrage2 into paintings (takes forever to do and is really hard to go from 3d to 2d but i like it) and so im wondering what the stance, if any, is on such things?
> 
> ...



The SL section was primarily aimed at avatars. For the moment, don't delete your submissions. If another Admin instructs you otherwise, let them know you were told it was under discussion still, because clearly there are still changes to be made to the specific wording of parts the AUP.


----------



## Jurann (Jun 29, 2007)

I think you guys need to consider banning Kiri-Ban (pageview) style contests that people have on their userpages if your AUP is going to prevent FA users from uploading FA screencaps to prove they won the contests... It doesn't make ANY sense that to play in the contest we have to upload to a completely separate site, when the sole PURPOSE of having gotten an FA account was so that we'd have it all in one place, with one login, all the features we need. Logically if the contest is on FA, about FA, using FA systems and pages - then the result should be postable on FA - otherwise contests of a nature that encourage users to violate the AUP should be abolished. IMHO, YMMV.


----------



## Damaratus (Jun 29, 2007)

Jurann said:
			
		

> I think you guys need to consider banning Kiri-Ban (pageview) style contests that people have on their userpages if your AUP is going to prevent FA users from uploading FA screencaps to prove they won the contests... It doesn't make ANY sense that to play in the contest we have to upload to a completely separate site, when the sole PURPOSE of having gotten an FA account was so that we'd have it all in one place, with one login, all the features we need. Logically if the contest is on FA, about FA, using FA systems and pages - then the result should be postable on FA - otherwise contests of a nature that encourage users to violate the AUP should be abolished. IMHO, YMMV.



Ahh, but what is the purpose of the Kiriban?  It's a milestone reached by a user based on the the statistics of their page.  The contest has very little to do where the proof is uploaded.  It's the importance of reaching the point and being able to involve the people who made it possible to reach that point.

It still makes perfect sense to have the contest, simply because the proof can still be given.  Think of it this way.  If you take the screen shot and "need" to give proof, you are only ever uploading the picture to one site, whether it be Fur Affinity or something like Photobucket.  You still have to note the person that you got it, and in the process provide a link that lets them see that you succeeded.  Either way takes an equivalent amount of time, and the end result is that someone was able to capture page view milestone.

Perhaps in the future a user can create some kind of button on their page that appears at a set kiriban number, this way the first person to see it and hit the button will be recorded as the winner.  Then you won't have to worry about uploading a picture at all.


----------



## uncia (Jun 29, 2007)

(OTish)


			
				Damaratus said:
			
		

> Ahh, but what is the purpose of the Kiriban?  It's a milestone reached by a user based on the the statistics of their page.  The contest has very little to do where the proof is uploaded.  It's the importance of reaching the point and being able to involve the people who made it possible to reach that point.



*nods in agreement*. Helps to increase community involvement in general (especially amongst those who are not "known to all and sundry" already) = a good thing, IMO.



			
				Damaratus said:
			
		

> Perhaps in the future a user can create some kind of button on their page that appears at a set kiriban number, this way the first person to see it and hit the button will be recorded as the winner.  Then you won't have to worry about uploading a picture at all.



An automated public/secret kiriban system would be easy enough to bolt on, as has been noted in passing before, in order to remove the current counting and screenshot issues. I'm surprised not to have seen such on any other site yet (not that I've looked around much recently, truth be told).

d.


----------



## Pinkuh (Jun 29, 2007)

Kiriban counting is a community builder, and I think that taking something like that away would put a hindrance on the community we are trying to build.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 29, 2007)

Also, we're watching this thread and I'm making suggestions and edits to the AUP for clarity and better readability. If you folks have suggestions don't be shy, we listen to feedback.


----------



## meatwad44 (Jun 30, 2007)

I 100% agree with foxy on the pixel thing. But there is potential problems. Unless people ae good at math, they may get confused trying to figure out if they are a few pixels over. What about a file size (MB) restricion? Since bandwith is based on how much information. Also, if bandwith is becoming an issue, why not do what lots of other art sites do. x-amount of space for free. then maybe like 2 bucks a month or every other month for more space. Low dollar amount, but if lots of people want lots of extra space, it will help. Some people have hundreds of submissions. Some only have a few. I usually try to keep mine between 15 and 25 images tops. Have a grandfather clause for older members if the idea causes too much of a stir.
  another thing could be just having a "please support FA" button near the log-in screen, or something. Never a pop-up demanding donations. But maybe you click on it and it says "hey, if you like us, help us out with the funds". Not those exact words mind you. Playmouse had to resort to pageview limitations and pop-ups because nobody ever helped the guy run the site, everybody wanted free. Sucks too cause it was a great site.
     Oh, and can we get some clarification on the photomorphs thing? If i alter the general shape of someone, and fur it, is it not partial then? I.E. full body, clothed pic, of a person. Make the boobs a little bigger, or the butt, or both. change the belly or waist lineto smaller or bigger. maybe stretch features of the face to a closer shape to the animal, and THEN ad texture layers and fur,and a muzzle or a tail or whatever.
   Also, under "fair use". I obviously dont take pictures of a wild leapord myself. So to texture them I find animal pic on sites like national geo, or just a yahoo search. But all i do is take a small section of it, and use the clone stamp and low opacity, and use it as a texture base. then i adjust the lighting and contrast, and maybe even texture over it again. the only "whole" part that is un-altered is i might use a whole paw. or part of the muzzle, or the tail. and even then i adust lighting. is that fair use or copyright infringement?


----------



## Victoria Viper (Jun 30, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*

(A word of caution: I'm a smut artist, through and through, so the gallery links provided in this post will be adult in nature, and some of my comments may be somewhat suggestive. Do take care.)

Well, rule clarifications, so I'm obviously a little nervous. A couple of things bothering me. For instance, an excerpt of what is considered Spamming:



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> [*]Multiple versions of the same exact submission with minor variation are posted. PLEASE NOTE: posting a sketch, ink and finalized image are acceptable.



Now, this worries me. You see, I'm a hirsute fetishist. I enjoy body hair on folks, but having some degree of sense in my brain, I know that some (read: most) viewers just _don't_ go for that sort of thing. In response to that, I sometimes create "hairy" and "hairless" alternates of certain images. For example:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/186938/ (The original)

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/186941/ (Clean-shaven)

Would this no longer be tolerated?

And, of course, further clarification on the below would be appreciated:



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> *Video, Screenshots and Other Multimedia*
> Screenshots and/or video capture from movies, games, TV, anime, websites (including Fur Affinity) or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content. â€œUser created contentâ€ is defined as items of artistic interest created by the user (e.g. texture maps, 3D meshes, background images, animated characters, interfaces, etc.). Pre-generated characters (e.g. World of Warcraft avatars) and art or characters created by â€œcharacter generatorsâ€ are not permitted.



I also have a picture that uses a game screenshot for a background. The character in front was drawn by myself, though, and I credited what game the screenshot is from and what game company it was owned by in the picture's description:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/44457/

Is this still acceptable? It was before.

Thank you very much. ^_^;


----------



## Dragoneer (Jun 30, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*



			
				VictoriaViper said:
			
		

> Preyfar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, that's fine. The "spam" ruling does need some categorization. You are allowed to post multiple versions of an image, that's more than fine. But if you start posting multiples of the multiples... then it gets a little hairy (pun intended).

Multiple versions are alright.

The main reason the rule exists is to stop excessive abuse of the meaning multiple. For example: a user creates a 3D model/sculpture/painting, and uploads 8 images of it from every view possible. Are all eight submissions really necessary, or would the resources have been better utilized in a smaller chunk of collages?



> And, of course, further clarification on the below would be appreciated:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, that's the last thing I expected to see today! IDKFA! IDDQD!

Yes, that is still acceptable.


----------



## kura_ookami (Jul 2, 2007)

> Minor alterations, such as adding text, word balloons or applying filters to screenshots do not count as user created content. This also applies to segments of screenshots modified and removed (e.g. â€œpixel artâ€) using art directly from games.



I kinda disagree with this. A lot of avatars for instant messages or for sites such as these, or just icons in general, are made by using images taken from movies, or games, or something like that, and adding something such as colors and text. The colors and text are what makes it art. I mean, there is a point where you draw the line. If it's just random letters, i.e. "bjaiounarhou" or something like that, or something completely random, then it shouldn't be allowed. But if the words on the picture have something to do with the picture itself, or actually mean something to the artist and/or those who might watch him, then it's art. It's like poetry, except it isn't a bunch of words. It's a few words combined with a few visual elements such as pictures or color.

On a different note, if this rule is going to be enforced, then it needs to be made sure that the picture is actually a screenshot, not a real picture. I've lost a few things that were portions of an actual picture taken by a professional photographer. A suggestion to help with this is if there is a question as to what the picture is of, ask for a link to the original picture. I can give links to all the places where I got mine. Also, it needs to be _thoroughly_ enforced. I received a PM to delete some of my images, and the admin wasn't thorough... I had an obvious screenshot of FA 'cause I'd seen something amusing, and it wasn't listed as an image that needed to be deleted.


----------



## Damaratus (Jul 2, 2007)

kura_ookami said:
			
		

> I kinda disagree with this. A lot of avatars for instant messages or for sites such as these, or just icons in general, are made by using images taken from movies, or games, or something like that, and adding something such as colors and text. The colors and text are what makes it art. I mean, there is a point where you draw the line. If it's just random letters, i.e. "bjaiounarhou" or something like that, or something completely random, then it shouldn't be allowed. But if the words on the picture have something to do with the picture itself, or actually mean something to the artist and/or those who might watch him, then it's art. It's like poetry, except it isn't a bunch of words. It's a few words combined with a few visual elements such as pictures or color.
> 
> On a different note, if this rule is going to be enforced, then it needs to be made sure that the picture is actually a screenshot, not a real picture. I've lost a few things that were portions of an actual picture taken by a professional photographer. A suggestion to help with this is if there is a question as to what the picture is of, ask for a link to the original picture. I can give links to all the places where I got mine. Also, it needs to be _thoroughly_ enforced. I received a PM to delete some of my images, and the admin wasn't thorough... I had an obvious screenshot of FA 'cause I'd seen something amusing, and it wasn't listed as an image that needed to be deleted.



Avatars are not subject to the same rules, when you make them you aren't claiming ownership the same way that you do when you post something to Fur Affinity.  So that isn't really part of this.  The fact is that if you do an original piece of artwork and then put word balloons on it, then that's fine, but taking a screen shot or video cap and adding a word balloon to it is just not something that should be uploaded.  Using the picture/screen cap/vid cap without proper permission is violation of copyright, and the addition of word bubbles is not enough to take it to the point where it could be considered a "new" creation (i.e one that could be copyrighted).  That is the reason why we don't allow it.  If someone wants to show something like that off, then they can upload it to photobucket and provide a link.  By posting it directly to the site, they are claiming ownership of not only the words, but the image (one of which they clearly do not own).

As for thoroughness, we expect the users on the site to read the rules of the site and comply with them.  You should be making sure that your gallery is in line with the rules.  If you are unsure about a piece and why it is still around, ask an admin, they can tell you if it should stay.  Sometimes an administrator doesn't catch every infraction on a gallery, but that doesn't mean that you can't moderate yourself.


----------



## meatwad44 (Jul 2, 2007)

ok, its been a week. so i am confused. is it a 3 day ban or not? and why still no clarification on what a "partial" photomorph is? FRom what i understand there arent that many people who DO photomorphs on the site, so maybe thats why the entire thing has been overlooked again and again.


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 2, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> I believe that the next chapter of this AUP will officially limit uploaded images to a maximum of 1280x1280 pixels. I ask you to modify this rule before it is posted so that it limits the total number of pixels to 1280x1280 = 1,638.400 pixels instead.


There will be more on this soon.


----------



## Swampwulf (Jul 2, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*waits for some 'tard to upload an image that's 1X1,638,400 pixels and then whinge about it being taken down if a raw number of pixels is used in the terms instead of some reasonable canvas size*


----------



## yak (Jul 3, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> Preyfar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We're discussing this idea and will probably accept it with some restrictions, like the limit on maximum aspect ratio or maximum box size..
Nobody wants 1x10000 "longcat" and 10000x1 "tacgnol" pics on FA


----------



## Nopeace182 (Jul 3, 2007)

Hello All, just one question.

The new policy says that photography that has gore cannot be uploaded.  

I am a hunter, and this coming hunting season I'm hoping to kill a 12 point stag I've been after for the last 3 years.  If I get him, I'd like to post a picture of him here on FA.  The problem is that I use a 50. cal muzzle-loader to hunt.  So it creates a sizeable hole. Sizeable enough to possibly be considered gore.  I wouldn't be uploading a picture that disrespects the animal or anything,  it would just be a normal picture of the deer, that might include the entrance wound.  

Would this be a problem?


----------



## Wolfblade (Jul 3, 2007)

Nopeace182 said:
			
		

> Hello All, just one question.
> 
> The new policy says that photography that has gore cannot be uploaded.
> 
> ...



Yes.

Such an image would not be allowed.

From the statement you made, it doesn't sound like the intent of the image would be one of creating an Artistic image, and would be more to just share your accomplishment with the community. I would strongly suggest uploading the image to a generic freehost/photobucket service, and then link to the image from a journal. PLEASE specify the nature of the image for people who may not want to see such a thing.


----------



## uncia (Jul 3, 2007)

meatwad44 said:
			
		

> i took down all of the previous stuff. However I was quite ticked at some of what was considered "partial". A completely disagree that an image that is fully furred is still a partial. and i still fail to see why partial is not allowed. I understand that people may try to claim an image has been edited by just adding whiskers to a copyrighted pic and saying "hey, i own this now". But some of the stuff ruled this way were my own pictures. I dont know about you but my camera doesnt insert a copyright to me when i take a picture, so proving anybody owns it is impossible.
> yeah, i yelled a lot yestereday. You would too if almost every single thing you had done was suddenly deemed ban-worthy. The adult stuff, fine, lots of sites are getting rid of anything with adult content. But a pic that is just a face, made into a fur? It rattles my brain. Does every single pixel in the picture have to be altered to be considered a full morph? And what if i wanted to post another image of myself as a fur? I own that image, its also of me, so do i need to state that i give myself permission, to alter a picture, of myself, also owned by myself, and if myself changes my mind, i must make myself take it down?
> Look, dont get me wrong, i agree fully with 5 or 6 of those images i was told to take down. but a good chunk i think many would agree were fully furred.





			
				meatwad44 said:
			
		

> Oh, and can we get some clarification on the photomorphs thing? If i alter the general shape of someone, and fur it, is it not partial then? I.E. full body, clothed pic, of a person. Make the boobs a little bigger, or the butt, or both. change the belly or waist lineto smaller or bigger. maybe stretch features of the face to a closer shape to the animal, and THEN ad texture layers and fur,and a muzzle or a tail or whatever.
> Also, under "fair use". I obviously dont take pictures of a wild leapord myself. So to texture them I find animal pic on sites like national geo, or just a yahoo search. But all i do is take a small section of it, and use the clone stamp and low opacity, and use it as a texture base. then i adjust the lighting and contrast, and maybe even texture over it again. the only "whole" part that is un-altered is i might use a whole paw. or part of the muzzle, or the tail. and even then i adust lighting. is that fair use or copyright infringement?





			
				meatwad44 said:
			
		

> ok, its been a week. so i am confused. is it a 3 day ban or not? and why still no clarification on what a "partial" photomorph is? FRom what i understand there arent that many people who DO photomorphs on the site, so maybe thats why the entire thing has been overlooked again and again.



===

Willl someone admin-side please do the courtesy of replying to this user.

Not only did they end up with a ban lasting around 5 days instead of 3 days, but there is still precisely zero public clarification of the questions they have been repeatedly asking, thus they have now posted http://www.furaffinity.net/view/638813/


> Original image copyright by ME. (meatwad44). Source file for leopard texture is national geographic.com all copyrights held by them on any claim to the fur itself, the muzzle, or the ears. Fur has been modified from original file.
> 
> Red flagged to prevent non-members for viewing. This is a PORTION of a photomorph. As I am REALLY REALLY (all caps is for emphasis, not yelling, there isnt an italics option in here.. there could be, admins take note) CONFUSED on the new policy of photomorphs.
> Sooo this is a temporary post, until the next time i log on and recieve a note or comment from an admin. (in other words, if you are an admin, and send me a message, and i'm not on for three days, thats the only reason its still up).
> ...



Personally, the reply to my original question on this subject still doesn't gel.
*
Borrowing a fur texture certainly ain't the same as a direct cut-paste of a leopard's head from National Geographic and, anyhow, if the community member also took the initial photograph from which that texture was lifted, the entire photomorph image would not only be "by you/for you" but also a helluva lot of genuine artistic effort.
(A "remix" of commercial material is deemed AOK on music submissions, but a "remix" of material fully belonging to the user is deemed /not/ AOK on graphical ones... Sorry, but that doesn't _really_ make sense on legal grounds or otherwise. )

Cheers/rsvp,
David.


----------



## Wolfblade (Jul 3, 2007)

Apologies for not mentioning it here David, but meatwad and I are in communication site-side. He acknowledged that he needed the time-out to cool his head, and is being quite constructive and mature about the discussion now. I am working with him, as a user affected by the rule, to try and come to a suitable potential edit to the rule to offer to the rest of the staff for consideration.

You know as well as anyone that lack of user-visible effort/progress does not necessarily equate lack of unseen effort/progress. We acknowledge that there are points in the rules that need tweaking. However, rules that can be tweaked are still preferable to complete lack of rules altogether.

Patience, please. We're not all just twiddling our thumbs back here. :3


----------



## uncia (Jul 3, 2007)

Wolfblade said:
			
		

> You know as well as anyone that lack of user-visible effort/progress does not necessarily equate lack of unseen effort/progress. We acknowledge that there are points in the rules that need tweaking. However, rules that can be tweaked are still preferable to complete lack of rules altogether.



Thanks for the acknowledgement, WB.

A holding note would still have been useful to indicate to others impacted by the ruling that this was apparently up for discussion; either for their input as happened with Poser/DAZ content or (potentially, if not flagged backlines) to ensure that other old submissions were not deleted by other member of administration in the interim unaware of those discussions (since there is still no "soft delete" option available, afaik).

Anyhow; there was nothing in their note to indicate that he was already in discussion with any specific member of administration. Apologies if that is not apparent from "Sooo this is a temporary post, until the next time i log on and recieve a note or comment from an admin. (in other words, if you are an admin, and send me a message, and i'm not on for three days, thats the only reason its still up)."

Hoping that that'll be constructive.

Thanks,
d.

=
p.s.


			
				Wolfblade said:
			
		

> Patience, please. We're not all just twiddling our thumbs back here. :3



I'd've thought to presume that _none_ of you are...


----------



## foxystallion (Jul 4, 2007)

Swampwulf said:
			
		

> Preyfar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What is the problem if some joker does this?  Why should the FA admins order its removal?  What non-trivial harm has been done?  The thumb will show either nothing at all or a single line of pixels, depending on the details of the thumb generation program.  In either case, no one is likely to click for a full view, and the few who do need only click their browser's back button to relieve their boredom and terminate the incomplete transmission.  This is a small cost for eliminating a serious slippery slope - admins rather than artists and viewers deciding on the "right" limits on image aspect ratio.  Note, too, that the cost of the hard disk real estate to store this entirely hypothetical useless image would probably be less than 1/10 of a cent.  Data transmission cost are FA's big challenge, and an unviewed image costs nothing to transmit.


----------



## foxystallion (Jul 4, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for your consideration of this issue.  I will be watching both for further discussions and the new rule .

I hope that you will also consider permitting the licensed use of parts of commercial ANIMAL photos (heads, and a few tails) in photomorphs when the area of the image NOT solely created by the FA artist is no more than 5% of the image.  The new rules are inconsistent in that they still allow much more substantial unlicensed use of commercial material in music and SL images.  My $1 and $2 license fee fox,  coyote, and dog heads have a license which permits unlimited modification (I often extensively modify the heads), and both commercial and non-commercial web use. The professional photographic artist from whom I licensed the Afghan Hound heads for my mate of over four decades, BeastInShow, has seen and likes this art, and has taken more Afghan Hound photos specifically for my use.   I would like to be able to license and use them on FA, and I'm sure that he would agree.  Thank you for taking the time to think about this. Here is an example:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/422859/


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 4, 2007)

foxystallion said:
			
		

> What is the problem if some joker does this?Â Â Why should the FA admins order its removal?Â Â What non-trivial harm has been done?Â Â The thumb will show either nothing at all or a single line of pixels, depending on the details of the thumb generation program.


Because a 1x1,638,400 image would stretch and break the page, and frankly, it's a griefing image -- there is no artistic benefit. The image would exist soley as an image to annoy other people.

In an instance where people have "full view" on by default, it'd give users and admins headaches both. There's no benefit it to it. At all. It does not help the site.


			
				foxystallion said:
			
		

> 1/10 of a cent.Â Â Data transmission cost are FA's big challenge, and an unviewed image costs nothing to transmit.


But that's still 1/10th of a cent, and when people post multiple images like that, it does add up. That, and it still takes  up space in the database and system. An insignificant amount, but that's not to say it's not "free". With next months bandwidth coming in at $800... pennies can hurt.

But as I said earlier, there will be more on this soon.


----------



## foxystallion (Jul 5, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thank you for the information.  As a viewer and artist (rather than a site coder), I  wasn't aware that the page would break, or that it would cause any problems for anyone that couldn't be cured with a browser back button.

Please remember that the thumbs accurately depict  aspects ratios between 120:1 and 1:120, so perhaps that should be the limits.  I've never had a reason to go beyond 1:2.5 (tall skinny character designed to be viewed from top down as the data comes over line by line - I haven't forgotten the purgatory of dial-up furry watching.)  Nevertheless, I can imagine legitimate furry art that goes to 10 or even 20 to one aspect ratio - an uncoiled snake.  Thank you again for your consideration.


----------



## foxystallion (Jul 8, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Heh, heh... thx
> 
> Under Photography:
> 
> ...



Does the ban on partial photomorphs apply to one non-human critter being photomorphed into another?  I own a hot spring, and I am a mosquito magnet.  The skeeters used to be a major problem until the bats showed up.  They provide complete air supremacy - I haven't been bitten since.  The bats have become quite accustomed to me and fly inches from me, scooping up skeeters before they land.  I think of them as my little dragon airforce, and would like to photomorph a bat into a dragon.  Must I transform every square millimeter of it?  I'd really prefer that it look like a bat-dragon hybrid - Whats the harm in that?  Here is a commission that I had done by :iconShadechristiwolven: :
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/640410/
What I had in mind for the photomorph would be more bat-like -- if permitted.


----------



## nalkhan (Jul 8, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*



			
				Preyfar said:
			
		

> 2) *For You:*
> Fur Affinity allows users to post works of art created for them (e.g. commissions, gift art, stories, etc.) provided the content of the submission meets the following requirements:
> 
> You must have permission of the original artist to repost their work, with permission stated in each image description. Failure to obtain permission will result in the Submission being removed. Multiple requests for removal by artists citing lack of permission to post will result in action being taken against your account.
> ...



Hi, just have a question about this portion.  A commission belongs to the comissioner, yes?  Even the copyright, according to Chapter 2, Section 201 (B) of US copyright law:



> (b) Works Made for Hire. â€” In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.



Now, I know for my commissions, I certainly didn't sign any paperwork like that.  So, how is it that the artists own the copyright still?   

Normally, I don't have any problem removing art if requested...that's simple manners that requires that.  The same with giving credit where credit is due.  But shouldn't it be the right of the new copyright owner to decide?


----------



## Swampwulf (Jul 9, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*



			
				nalkhan said:
			
		

> (b) Works Made for Hire. â€” In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
> 
> Now, I know for my commissions, I certainly didn't sign any paperwork like that.  So, how is it that the artists own the copyright still?
> 
> Normally, I don't have any problem removing art if requested...that's simple manners that requires that.  The same with giving credit where credit is due.  But shouldn't it be the right of the new copyright owner to decide?



Good start researching that, but you didn't go *quite* far enough.

A work created by an employee within the scope of employment or a work commissioned an author under contract. With a work for hire, the author and copyright owner of a work is the person who pays for it, not the person who creates it. The premise of this principle is that a business that authorizes and pays for a work owns the rights to the work. There are two distinct ways that a work will be classified as â€œmade for hire.â€

    * the work is created by an employee within the scope of employment; or
    * the work is commissioned, is the subject of a written agreement, *and* falls within a special group of categories (a contribution to a collective work, a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, a translation, a supplementary work, a compilation, an atlas, an instructional text, a test, or as answer material for a test).

So, unless you've hired the artist as an employee, or as a 1099 contractor or have managed to get them to sign a written agreement to turn over the copyright to you they retain the rights to it.
You are not allowed to take the work  and redistribute it ( say as a t-shirt design) or generally profit from it.
Most artists, at least in the fandom, are fairly laid back about such things, but should they be abused, the law stands firmly on their side.  They created it, and unless there is a legally binding document that says otherwise, they retain the right to it and *can* use it in any manner they might wish including reproducing it ,altering it, or reserving the right for it *not* to be publicly displayed.

'Made for hire' work is generally *much* more expensive, starting in the hundreds, if not thousands of dollars even for relatively simple pieces.

edit: legaleeze from - http://www.nolo.com/definition.cfm/Term/AE4ACD77-12AC-4705-B870E4551730F72C/alpha/W/


----------



## Dragoneer (Jul 9, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)*



			
				Swampwulf said:
			
		

> A work created by an employee within the scope of employment or a work commissioned an author under contract. With a work for hire, the author and copyright owner of a work is the person who pays for it, not the person who creates it. The premise of this principle is that a business that authorizes and pays for a work owns the rights to the work...


Very correct.


----------



## nalkhan (Jul 9, 2007)

In that case, wouldn't there be joint ownership of the copyright of the image/story/whatever, since the creation of the item is contingent on the addition of characters to which the artist/author has no copyright ownership of, and since the commissioner was the one to actually determine the content of the image?


----------



## Swampwulf (Jul 9, 2007)

nalkhan said:
			
		

> In that case, wouldn't there be joint ownership of the copyright of the image/story/whatever, since the creation of the item is contingent on the addition of characters to which the artist/author has no copyright ownership of, and since the commissioner was the one to actually determine the content of the image?



It might, if the commissioner held some sort of legal control over the character design.
Have you had the character itself copyrighted or trademarked, or rather simply described it to the artist?
It'd be like saying, that because you told an artist to draw you a beach scene, then you 'control' all beach scenes. It doesn't work that way.

You might want to search a bit here in the forums on the subject of copyright.
I believe Arshes has written up a few very concise explanations on some common misunderstandings and fallacies on that subject.

edit: Found a very nice thread that covers the whole (c) and (r) thing quite well.
Lots of good solid info and some links to scholarly articles there
http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=498


----------



## uncia (Jul 9, 2007)

Preyfar said:
			
		

> Swampwulf said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For the casual thread viewer; reiterating that under U.S. legislation the "work for hire" proviso must be written explicitly into the commission agreement - this is usually overlooked by any "casual" commissioner.
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf is a better reference, perhaps (first column, page 2). 
*
Under U.K. legislation the "work for hire" concept written into the previous Act (1949) is effectively dead and the only commonplace exception to first ownership of copyright is for actual employees carrying out work "in the course of their employment"; see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_2.htm#mdiv9 (sec. 9-11).
Release/transfer of copyright interest is still permitted by contract, of course (i.e. a separate issue from the "work for hire" concept).



			
				Swampwulf said:
			
		

> You might want to search a bit here in the forums on the subject of copyright.
> I believe Arshes has written up a few very concise explanations on some common misunderstandings and fallacies on that subject.



And at various times on the backscenes ToS forum, too. 



			
				Swampwulf said:
			
		

> edit: Found a very nice thread that covers the whole (c) and (r) thing quite well.
> Lots of good solid info and some links to scholarly articles there
> http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=498



Heh... I remember that one well  (n.b. was bumped in the context of 3rd post on http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=6584 to explain the time-jump there).

Regards,
David.


----------



## foxystallion (Jul 10, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				uncia said:
			
		

> Heh, heh... thx
> 
> Under Photography:
> 
> ...



*REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION OF TWO NEW AUP RULES*

	Why does the AUP prohibit all partial photomorphs?  I've seen several uploaded (not by me) since you published the AUP. None of them are of a sexual nature, embarrassing to FA in any way, of of a character that might create legal liability for FA.  All are G rated partial photomorphs of the artist.  Why do you prohibit them?

	Subsection 4 of the *Photography* Section prohibiting all partial photomorphs is unnecessary, as well as being arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of administrative discretion in that it is grossly overinclusive.  

	Why not have Subsection 4 *Photomorphs* simply say: "Partial photomorphs must comply with all rules pertaining to *Photography*. A partial photomorph is any photomorph which displays any recognizable human skin."

	I want to partially photomorph a photo of one of my hot springs bats into a bat/dragon hybrid.  What is the harm in that?  

	I want to partially photomorph a photo of myself into a fox/human hybrid camo clad Ramboesque fox hunter hunter.  What is the harm in that? (Unless one approves of fox hunting, which I think is quite unlikely for members of the FA community.)  

	Subsection 6 of the *Photography* Section is also arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of administrative discretion in that it, too, is grossly overinclusive.  

	Why not have Subsection 6 *Commercial Images* simply say: "Photomorphs may not contain any commercial human images, and any other commercial images must be licensed for web use and permit image modification. Most of the uploaded image must be created by the uploading artist, and credit must be given for all commercial material used."

	The rules quite properly allow the use of public domain images but unnecessarily prohibit the use of non-human images licensed from photographic artists.  Why?

	I have used both public domain and licensed commercial animal head photos in my photomorphs.  Neither the public domain nor the commercially licensed material has has ever been as much as 5% of my image area, and I always provide credit to the fullest extent possible. (Note that public domain photos from government websites such as that of the US Fish and Wildlife Service rarely identify the photographer, but commercially licensed material always does.)  Example:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/495408/  

	Why discriminate against professional photographic artists as a source of animal head (and occasionally tail) photos?  My license costs for multiple web use are only $1 to $2 per image, but even though the amount of license fee is small, the current AUP rule arbitrarily and capriciously discriminates against professional photographic artists.  Why is this not an overinclusive abuse of administrative discretion?  Fairly extensive *un*licensed use of commercial material is permitted by the AUP in some other types of uploads, such as music, flash, and SL images.

	I hope that the FA administrators do not consider me to be unreasonable for expecting a reasoned response to my  objections and reasoned counterproposals.  Although the FA administrators have the *power* to make any rules that they believe to be needed, that does *not* mean that all rules that they believe to be needed are either _wise, just, or in the best interests of the FA community_, even though I accept that that is their intent.

	Thank you for your consideration.


----------



## Kiru (Jul 10, 2007)

No idea if it's been addressed or not, if it has ignore this.

What about colorizations of other people's work? If the original artists consents to you posting your colorization, is it still not allowed?


----------



## iller (Jul 10, 2007)

Seems fair, tho I'd really argue there ought to be a hard number limiting how many Photographs your account can hold (enforced by the Image Category menu... Any Mis-Flagged photos would be in violation of Category selection).  If people want a big archive of personal photos, they already have lots of other bigger and more-sustainable websites made specifically for such content.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Jul 10, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				foxystallion said:
			
		

> *REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION OF TWO NEW AUP RULES*
> 
> Why does the AUP prohibit all partial photomorphs?  I've seen several uploaded (not by me) since you published the AUP. None of them are of a sexual nature, embarrassing to FA in any way, of of a character that might create legal liability for FA.  All are G rated partial photomorphs of the artist.  Why do you prohibit them?



http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

It's not whether or not you find them embarrassing, it's if the subject/person gave you permission to do that. Many pictures are hard to validate who is that the photo of -meaning without a model release FA doesn't know if that is someone you have permission on doing a morph. The category it falls under is more libel but since you're taking their picture and altering it you can run into some situations since that person may not wanted to be participant in your photomorph experiments.

So from what I see FA doing is trying to cut out irate emails of some guy who thought it was cool to google himself an image and do a photo morph on it. It's more of a hassle and embarrassment to the party involved if you're messing with their photo versus standard art theft since that is *them* being portrayed.

My 2 cents anyways.


----------



## foxystallion (Jul 10, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				Arshes Nei said:
			
		

> foxystallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thank you for your response regarding FA's new partial photomorph prohibition.

_First, the prohibition is overly broad in that it currently applies to everything (including a brick), not just to potentially identifiable humans.

Do you agree that a partial photomorph of a bat (photo either taken by the artist, in the public domain, or properly licensed) into a batdragon hybrid should not be prohibited?  If not, why not?_

I agree wholeheartedly with you regarding verifiable identifiable subject permission.  Using someone else's recognizable image for _any_ purpose without their permission is a violation of their legal and moral rights, and partial photomorphs may be especially emotionally distressing.

The problem then for partial human photomorphs where the subject may be identifiable is confirmable permission.  

My wife (BeastInShow, Coyote Beautiful, Coyote Seductive) and I are offering to provide FA with model releases with our photos (both before and after transformation) printed directly on the documents.  

Indeed, we are willing to go *much* further - we are willing to provide *notarized model releases with our before and after photos printed directly on the documents!*.  

Please note that this goes far beyond what dA or any other art website that I know of requires.  

There is a rebuttable legal presumption that a notarized document was signed by the parties purported to have signed it.  This provides a legal safe harbor that is used in essentially all real estate purchase contracts, mortgages, large loans, and many other high value business agreements.  BIS and I have purchased over 50 real estate parcels, and all involved notarized purchase and sale documents; the real estate business as it is practiced in economically advanced countries would be impossible without the safe harbor of legally presumed validity provided by notarized documents.  This is a tried and true system which works very well.

I might point out that under federal law and many state laws, one can purchase ammunition and gunpowder via UPS shipment from a distant vendor provided that the order includes a photocopy of one's driver's license and that one is at least 21 years old.  Surely purchasing ammunition and gunpowder is a more serious matter than partial photomorphs!  No vendor that I know of requires that the order be notarized as well, and I have purchased several hundred pounds of these products from dozens of vendors.

_If partial photomorphs are such an intractable problem due to identity verification questions that they must be prohibited, won't FA also have to prohibit photos of artists wearing masks, animal print clothing, etc.?  These images can be indistinguishable from partial photomorphs.  If not, why not?_

Be prepared for me to make my point - if necessary - by posting perfectly legal masked artist images of myself that will look just like prohibited partial photomorphs.  If challenged, I will provide multi-angled photographs of the masks to prove the images' legitimacy.

Thank you for your consideration.


----------



## ziggy47 (Jul 14, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*

And yet so many of the previous entries that were _mature_ rated showing "furries" look like anthropomorphic humanoid animals. Why should people care if people put mature pictures of cartoon humans on here? I'm not saying real photos of real people, cause it's correct that's why the porn industry exists. But when furries look so _*MUCH*_ like humans why should anybody care if the rule were to get changed? Aren't anthropomorphic animals basically just modified humans with animal ears, possibly a tail, paws, or hooves, and fur or scales or feathers? I notice that the mature images of humanoid animals haven't disappeared. So let's be fair, because although it's a "furry" site I _never _ saw anything that said "You are forbidden to draw pictures of humans." There's no sense to that logic because those animals look so humanoid it's pointless to argue against that.

ziggy47 a. k. a. Leah


----------



## Leahtaur (Jul 15, 2007)

*RE: Site PolicyÂ Â Updates - June 23, 2007*



			
				ziggy47 said:
			
		

> ziggy47 a. k. a. Leah



Cool, I'm not the only Leah.


----------



## TakeWalker (Jul 15, 2007)

Okay, here's an odd question. What about thumbnails? I'm asking specifically about those made for stories, poetry and music. Are we required to mention in every submission who made the thumbnail, if we ourselves did not? I'm assuming that, if you ripped off someone else's art for your thumbnail, that'd be a big no-no, but otherwise, what's the policy? They don't seem to be mentioned in the AUP or anything.


----------



## ziggy47 (Jul 15, 2007)

*RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007*

Yaay! All this time on the site I had never noticed another Leah! Leahs unite! LOL.

ziggy47 a. k. a. Leah


----------



## kurreltheraven (Jul 31, 2007)

So it seems like the last we heard from photomorphsville it was that partials aren't allowed but the policies are kind of weird. They seem to allow one thing in spirit but ban it in the specifics. Apologies for length.

So a picture of me transforming into something, constructed off a posed photograph that i took with a webcam (which according to the AUP i can post "dry") and drew over the top of in openCanvas for a couple of hours is no good. Another picture someone else took - again, i posed for it then worked on it for a couple of hours in OC - is also no good. And a photo i took of someone else which was posed and worked over is yet again in violation of the AUP.

It definitely seems to me like there has been creative intent on my part to produce original works, all the legalities and copyright issues are accounted for.. the point at which the works stumble into ill favour is that the resulting images are still mainly photographs. I know there's issues of bandwidth and site scope to take into consideration but to plan the photographs out specifically for manipulating afterwards then spend time and effort engaging in that manipulation.. it's not exactly editing random pictures of your mates to make them look like blueberries.

Yes, i could get around the photography stipulation by re-rendering (e.g. tracing) or deleting the unmodified bits of the source image, for sure, but i'd argue there's an artistic challenge to be met in augmenting a photograph with your own details and not making it look any less like a photograph. I think manipulating real world images is a legitimate field of expression for furries.

The explicit proclusion of partial photomorphing also seems to me a bit rough when taking into account transformation art is included as a category, which means that someone who wants to use their own posed photographs to depict photorealistic transformations is unable to depict anything except the beginning or endpoints. One of the central themes of TF art (and some of the most interesting stuff to draw from an artist's perspective) is the transitional process between one form and another, and by definition those transitional pictures are always going to be partial. Appreciated, not that many people are using  photomorphing to do transformation art and so not that many people face that problem with the AUP, but i've just started experimenting with photomorphing for TF lately and already i've had one public-minded site user cite an AUP violation at me.

If the AUP made allowances for the sorts of situations i've covered (providing your own posed photos with copyrights accounted for, partial photomorphing permitted in a TF context) that would be a bit fairer than what's there now. As much as i'm aware of the existence of sites such as TransFUR, the company on FA is far more varied and stimulating.


----------



## Grandpriest (Aug 19, 2015)

*Re: bump*



habnabit said:


>


The body is eating the head.
...
That's actually a decent picture that shows what's happening to FA now.
Though sadly, the heads are bigger than the bodies at this point.


----------

