# Large Images Banned on FA?



## Ben (Dec 5, 2011)

So I just came home a few minutes ago, and check Furaffinity, to discover I have five different notes. I check them, only to discover that fifteen of my submissions are gone, all animated images, removed by Dragoneer himself. All the notes essentially said this:

"Due to the size, space and bandwidth requirements, FA does not permit live-action video. We encourage users to seek alternative sites (such as YouTube) to fulfill those needs."

These were all gifs that were no more than 10-30 frames, each lasting one or two seconds before just looping over and over. They were only a few megabytes in all. There has never been a rule in the AUP or TOS against uploading animated images using live-action content. Additionally, only one gif was taken from a video (my MFF video, and I made it by carefully screencapping every frame, it was 33 frames in all), the other 14 were made by stringing together rapid fire shots I took with my camera. There was absolutely nothing rule breaking about them, yet apparently Furaffinity is now in an unannounced bandwidth crunch.

Here's some of the gifs since you guys probably want examples: 

http://beta.sofurry.com/view/313851 (33 frames, 4MB.)
http://imgur.com/r5CGi (Eighteen frames, 1.15MB.)
http://beta.sofurry.com/view/298727 (Ten frames, 646kb.)
http://imgur.com/RpdqN (This is only eight frames. 310kb.)

If you're really trying to tell me that a 300kb image is too much for Furaffinity's bandwidth to handle, then hell, that would mean most submissions on here are against the rules. Given this, I ask that my submission data please be restored, so I can reupload the images into them, since I know you guys are capable of doing that, given what happened during the hack from one year ago. Unless this -was- a hack, since my stuff was deleted in accordance with a non-existent rule. Thanks.


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 5, 2011)

Ben said:


> "Due to the size, space and bandwidth requirements, FA does not permit live-action video.



But fake-action video (i.e. flash animation) is cool.

I'm betting 50p on "dun goofed". Shame they can't be undeleted and give you back all the comments and faves, not to mention waiting ages for them to upload. If they upload :V


----------



## Ben (Dec 5, 2011)

No, they can restore the submission information. Remember when all that stuff got wiped out in the December 2010 hacks? They restored everyone's stuff, the only catch was that the users has to fill in the missing submissions. But yes, I'd like that all restored, since my submissions were deleted over a rule that doesn't exist. I know Dragoneer is the owner of the site, but you can't just make up rules on the fly and not expect people to get upset.


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 5, 2011)

Ben said:


> No, they can restore the submission information. Remember when all that stuff got wiped out in the December 2010 hacks? They restored everyone's stuff, the only catch was that the users has to fill in the missing submissions.



Well, I mean without getting someone to manually rummage around in the DB. Unless that was actually fixed at some point.


----------



## Objection (Dec 5, 2011)

this is awfully confusing since i have still images in my gallery bigger than these gifs, except for the 4 mb. i shrug.


----------



## dinosaurdammit (Dec 5, 2011)

Thats retarded. If its not in the AUP as a no no then why throw a power trip and knock them off. Do you know of anyone else that has the same issue or just you? I find it odd neer himself did it.


----------



## Ben (Dec 5, 2011)

dinosaurdammit said:


> Thats retarded. If its not in the AUP as a no no then why throw a power trip and knock them off. Do you know of anyone else that has the same issue or just you? I find it odd neer himself did it.



Very few people upload live-action gifs, so no, not really. The only one I can think of off the top of my head is this http://www.furaffinity.net/view/6945875, which obviously shouldn't be deleted since it's precious (although definitely way bigger than any of my gifs).


----------



## BRN (Dec 5, 2011)

At 10-30 frames, at one-or-two seconds per .gif, you're talking size-and-space requirements that are at least comparable to low-quality but live-action video, surely?

My fuck, this post has all the hifens.


----------



## Ben (Dec 5, 2011)

SIX said:


> At 10-30 frames, at one-or-two seconds per .gif, you're talking size-and-space requirements that are at least comparable to low-quality but live-action video, surely?
> 
> My fuck, this post has all the hifens.



Hardly. Besides, why are we told that we can upload files up to 10MB when even files a 30th of that size are considered too big? If I was able to even upload it to the site in the first place, it's not too big.


----------



## BRN (Dec 5, 2011)

Ben said:


> Hardly. Besides, why are we told that we can upload files up to 10MB when even files a 30th of that size are considered too big? If I was able to even upload it to the site in the first place, it's not too big.


Then honestly, it sounds like the semantics of the rule were taken into account before even the justification for it. Bad times.


----------



## Ben (Dec 5, 2011)

SIX said:


> Then honestly, it sounds like the semantics of the rule were taken into account before even the justification for it. Bad times.



Except such a rule against live-action material doesn't exist. I mean yeah, it came from Dragoneer himself, but usually you tell people you're amending the rules to include that (or actually amend them to begin with). Of course, I believe the amendment is absolute garbage since what type of file it is doesn't matter, but how big it is. Just shrink the maximum file size if FA is having bandwidth issues.


----------



## BRN (Dec 5, 2011)

Ben said:


> Except such a rule against live-action material doesn't exist. I mean yeah, it came from Dragoneer himself, but usually you tell people you're amending the rules to include that (or actually amend them to begin with). Of course, I believe the amendment is absolute garbage since what type of file it is doesn't matter, but how big it is. Just shrink the maximum file size if FA is having bandwidth issues.


No - I'm certain I've seen the rule in the AUP ever since I joined the site and checked it out. But even so, the rule has been badly applied here.

ED:





			
				AUP said:
			
		

> Video
> 
> Due to the size, space and bandwidth requirements, FA does not permit live-action video. We encourage users to seek alternative sites (such as YouTube) to fulfill those needs.



However, a .gif file is in no way streaming video. This was a really, really bad application of judgement.


----------



## LizardKing (Dec 5, 2011)

"live-action video" = "pictures of real things that has more than 1 frame", apparently. What about stop-motion animations? :V


----------



## Ben (Dec 5, 2011)

SIX said:


> No - I'm certain I've seen the rule in the AUP ever since I joined the site and checked it out. But even so, the rule has been badly applied here.
> 
> ED:
> 
> However, a .gif file is in no way streaming video. This was a really, really bad application of judgement.



Oh, he literally just copy and pasted something from the AUP. Eiiiither way, that's not a rule-- It's a statement simply informing people that it's not -possible- to upload live-action video since the file limit is only 10MB, unless it's really small, like as a flash file. So maybe Dragoneer was hacked, although that doesn't really make it any better since _holy shit why do you guys keep getting hacked.
_


> What about stop-motion animations? :V



This is exactly what I was thinking a little while ago.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 5, 2011)

Ben, you were uploading live action video (even though looped in GIF form) which isn't permitted. If the rule was not clear we will look at making the policy more clear.


			
				AUP said:
			
		

> Due to the size, space and bandwidth requirements, FA does not permit  live-action video. We encourage users to seek alternative sites (such as  YouTube) to fulfill those needs.


Notice how the AUP quote doesn't specify what format the live-action video is?


----------



## Ben (Dec 5, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> Ben, you were uploading live action video (even though looped in GIF form) which isn't permitted. If the rule was not clear we will look at making the policy more clear.
> 
> Notice how the AUP quote doesn't specify what format the live-action video is?



You're wrong, actually. The rule-- actually, it's not a rule, it's informing people that it's not -possible- to upload live-action video files to FA, since 10MB is the filesize limit, and is simply suggesting to put it on Youtube if not here. Animated gifs have never been against the rules-- if there were concerns about bandwidth, then the filesize limit would be smaller. I mean, why would I put an animated gif that lasts one second on Youtube? That part of the AUP is tabbed under *video* because it's referring to *videos*, not animated images.

I mean, how can you possibly argue that a 310kb looping gif is more of a drain on resources, then, say, the millions of files on this site larger than that? That part of the AUP is not forbidding anything, merely informing people *you cannot feasibly upload video to FA* unless it's like, a 30 second video converted to flash. Animated gifs depicting real persons or things have always been allowed, and there is nothing in the rules forbidding them.

I realize you're not even saying you agree with the rule, but you are interpreting it in a way that doesn't make sense.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 5, 2011)

If you want to look at it that way, then that avatar in your sig is a Live Action Video and should be removed.

Just because it's animated does not make it a video. A video is filmed by a specific device. Simply running a camera on rapid-fire and compiling the photos into a GIF doesn't make it a video.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 5, 2011)

Ben:


			
				AUP said:
			
		

> FA does not permit


It's not informing anyone about a (im)possibility. It's a rule in the AUP.

Smelge:
My avatar ain't live action, it's an animation.

I'm just telling you guys the reason the images were removed:
They're videos, formatted as .gif animations, as such, they're in violation of the video section of the AUP.
I can't make this any more simple than it already is.


----------



## Smelge (Dec 5, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> They're videos, formatted as .gif animations, as such, they're in violation of the video section of the AUP.
> I can't make this any more simple than it already is.



You've just said right there that they're gif animations and not videos. If they're animations, they can't be a video, and shouldn't be under the heading of the video rules.

So let's just assume that gifs now count as video. They are only eligible as not being video if they are not of real things? What if someone takes two photographs, and edits them together into a 2-frame animation. It's their content, they're not restricted by the flooding rule, but because it's a real thing, you're deleting it for being real.

Same if I took a photograph of a desert, and a picture of a snake and animated it crawling across the desert. They're both real, so is that a video too?



CerbrusNL said:


> Smelge:
> My avatar ain't live action, it's an animation.



An animation that's been ripped or plagiarised direct from WoW.

This is a great example you're setting here.


----------



## Ben (Dec 5, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> Ben:
> 
> It's not informing anyone about a (im)possibility. It's a rule in the AUP.
> 
> ...



Except I'm using the very same language in that line of the AUP to prove it's not referring to images, since it's suggesting *Youtube* as an alternative hosting service. You do not put animated gifs by themselves on *Youtube*, they are soundless moving pictures. This is not referring to animated gifs. There is not enough substantial evidence to claim that this does indeed refer to gifs. A mistake has been made.


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 5, 2011)

Smelge said:


> You've just said right there that they're gif animations and not videos. If they're animations, they can't be a video, and shouldn't be under the heading of the video rules.
> 
> So let's just assume that gifs now count as video. They are only eligible as not being video if they are not of real things? What if someone takes two photographs, and edits them together into a 2-frame animation. It's their content, they're not restricted by the flooding rule, but because it's a real thing, you're deleting it for being real.
> 
> Same if I took a photograph of a desert, and a picture of a snake and animated it crawling across the desert. They're both real, so is that a video too?



In such cases, it'll be up to admin discretion to determine if it's video, or not.
But I'm sure you know the difference between a animation and a video. When in doubt, ask a admin.

Let me just give you a few examples:

.gif file, 24 frames, "ripped / converted" from 1 second of 24fps video:
= video.

.swf file, 1 frame, time-based movement of a object on the background:
= animation.


Ben said:


> This is not referring to animated gifs. There is not  enough substantial evidence to claim that this does indeed refer to  gifs. A mistake has been made.


Obviously, since the rule was applied by the site owner, on .gif formatted video's, it is. Besides, like I said, it doesn't cite any format.

Ben, just a suggestion: When appealing a image removal, or any admin action on any site, don't tell the people you're appealing it to that a "mistake has been made".
Doesn't exactly work in your favour.


----------



## MandertehPander (Dec 5, 2011)

The AUP is so poorly worded that they can remove/ban anything/anyone they desire and cite one sentence as proof.

9_6


----------



## Ben (Dec 5, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> .gif file, 24 frames, "ripped / converted" from 1 second of 24fps video:
> = video.



None of my 15 gifs met that criteria, as they were all rapid-fire camera shots, 10 over the span of 2 seconds, and then compiled into looping gifs. Only one gif was from a real video, and I actually took the effort to screencap certain frames, piece by piece, and string it together that way. Either way, if it's below the 10MB file limit, then I can't think of a single reason it shouldn't be allowed.


----------



## Xipoid (Dec 5, 2011)

CerbrusNL said:


> .gif file, 24 frames, "ripped / converted" from 1 second of 24fps video:
> = video.
> 
> .swf file, 1 frame, time-based movement of a object on the background:
> = animation.



If I follow what you are saying then a video would include a compilation of photographs... while an animation would require that the frames be handmade (as opposed to taken via camera or some other similar device). Or did I misinterpret that?


----------



## CerbrusNL (Dec 5, 2011)

I've stated the admin standpoint on this matter, there's nothing more to discuss, here.

Next time, please appeal a image removal at the admin that removed the images, before you make a forum thread about it, Ben (Or anyone else, for that matter).



Xipoid said:


> If I follow what you are saying then a video would  include a compilation of photographs... while an animation would  require that the frames be handmade (as opposed to taken via camera or  some other similar device). Or did I misinterpret that?



That would be a pretty accurate statement, yes.

P.S:
The thread closure was discussed with / suggested by Dragoneer, before it was applied. As was the explanation of the rule I've given, here.


----------

