AUP Update - January 19, 2012

[morpheuskibbe]

no i didn't. the only reason i posted this is that when i noticed that the guy was clearly tracing or at least heavily basing his art of that pic i mentioned that he should admit it to give credit and he got all pissy and deleted my comments.

Admittedly i don't actually know if Raesheris cares or not

[Ramziel]

ummm....well...there is one thing maybe, it's the same person with 2 different accounts...<.<, or maybe that pic was made by that person as a gift for the one you said traced that and I dunno if it is or not, but you shoulda asked both of them to check it up o.o, plus there are people that like to draw and don't care if their pics get copied or anything......go ask that guy about it first, before you actually get someone in trouble for nothing.......

[Kindragon]

this: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7292906
is a trace of this: http://pawsru.org/pawsX/sergals/src/130627764652.jpg

i'm not sure exactly how to report things like this, but when i asked the guy about it he was kind of a dick so i thought i'd post this here

Not to be a drag, but I don't believe this is the place to report violations of the AUP, but rather to discuss and clarify the AUP. I think you may wish to open a Trouble Ticket and report this as a potential tracing violation. Then let the admins go through their process of determining if it's a trace and contacting the artist you believe had his work traced.

Please add contact info for the artist who's been traced if at all possible too. I would recommend a link to that artist's page on FA if available.

[Clayton]

this: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7292906
is a trace of this: http://pawsru.org/pawsX/sergals/src/130627764652.jpg

i'm not sure exactly how to report things like this, but when i asked the guy about it he was kind of a dick so i thought i'd post this here

not traced, eyeballed

[BassMan]

For some time, I've known of at least one fursuiter whose photos would constantly get deleted as the fursuit, and not the human under the costume, would have visible nipples, yet in the TOS/AUP update, I don't really see if that's still illegal or not. Personally I think it should be illegal as it is on the costume only, kind of like seeing nipples on a statue or sculpture.

[Kindragon]

For some time, I've known of at least one fursuiter whose photos would constantly get deleted as the fursuit, and not the human under the costume, would have visible nipples, yet in the TOS/AUP update, I don't really see if that's still illegal or not. Personally I think it should be illegal as it is on the costume only, kind of like seeing nipples on a statue or sculpture.

Here're the rules under Photography that would cover this siutation:

Photography

Photography is a valued form of artistic expression and is welcomed on FA provided it adheres to the following criteria:


Content


Photographic work must be suitable for all ages, and submissions MAY NOT be rated higher than General. Photography involving mature or adult situations or illicit activity are not allowed. This includes images containing nudity, sex toys, sexually modified plushies or fursuits (where modifications are visible or obvious), gore (blood, wounds, death) or alluding to illegal activity. Uploading adult or pornographic photography may result in an automatic suspension.


Conventions & Fursuits - Images of conventions and/or fursuits are allowed provided they meet quality, photo dump/similar content, and artistic merit standards.

Now, here're the definitions of General, Mature, and Adult ratings:

General - Content suitable for all viewers.
Mature - Offensive content or mature themes. Mature work may involve or depict nudity in an artistic, non-sexual manner, blood and/or violence or non-explicit sexual themes.
Adult - Explicit sexual themes or adult content.

I believe nipples (even if only on the fursuit) would fall under the mature category. And using your example of nipples on a statue or sculpture, those would also fall under the mature category, which the photography rule would not permit.

[Calico-Feathers]

I believe nipples (even if only on the fursuit) would fall under the mature category. And using your example of nipples on a statue or sculpture, those would also fall under the mature category, which the photography rule would not permit.

Do nipples really count as mature on a male suit? I've seen at least one male suit that has nipples and while I might have been a bit taken aback I certainly wasn't offended. Nor do I think it's something that's "mature." Nipples on a statue (especially male) wouldn't be considered mature, either.

On a sidenote, I find it hilarious that the subject of nipples/chest showing on a male human/suit is such a contention point when it's perfectly okay to draw whatever deviant, crazy, horrific things you want. Nipples included.

[foxfoxplz]

On a sidenote, I find it hilarious that the subject of nipples/chest showing on a male human/suit is such a contention point when it's perfectly okay to draw whatever deviant, crazy, horrific things you want. Nipples included.

I agree... That is why there is a mature filter. Why can't users just rate those like everything else and let the filter do its job?

[Trpdwarf]

For some time, I've known of at least one fursuiter whose photos would constantly get deleted as the fursuit, and not the human under the costume, would have visible nipples, yet in the TOS/AUP update, I don't really see if that's still illegal or not. Personally I think it should be illegal as it is on the costume only, kind of like seeing nipples on a statue or sculpture.

When it comes to a picture of a fur-suit, if is intended to look female, and has actual nipples, that needs to be covered up to be rated General. EDIT: Now that I think about it uncovered would not be okay. It's too easy for this to go bad if we allowed it to be labeled mature and the nipples showing (people deciding to post suggestion picture, etc)

Now that(and on a separate note) said I know many people who are fans of car photos are still wondering about an official stance on this. Unfortunately certain past admins who are not admins anymore chose to go behind the administration's back and spread false information. We apologize for this and will be offering very soon a good explanation for how the rules apply to car photographs so there is no further confusion.

[chineseshell]

So it's ok to have mature drawn stuff but not mature pictures? That's...retarded... Ok I'm sure there was logical reason behind this but surely you guys could've worded that rule better so that at least certain nudity could be allowed. By these standards a picture of the Venus de Milo isn't even allowed.

[quoting_mungo]

When it comes to human nudity, or nipples etc on worn art, I can totally understand there's legal liability involved.

Can I ask what led to the decision to disallow photographs of sculptures and similar? By these rules, it seems like e.g. a painting too large for a scanner which happens to have a bare breast wouldn't be allowed to be photographed and posted that way. If the issue is people in mature photography, surely it would have been easier to just say no part of a human may appear in the image if photos are used as the presentation medium for 3D art?

[Ozriel]

So it's ok to have mature drawn stuff but not mature pictures? That's...retarded... Ok I'm sure there was logical reason behind this but surely you guys could've worded that rule better so that at least certain nudity could be allowed. By these standards a picture of the Venus de Milo isn't even allowed.

A lot of us are working on that to make sure that they are clear and somewhat straightfoward for people to understand without getting themselves into trouble when reported.

[Flacko]

Animation & Video
FA does not permit live-action video to be uploaded to the site.

We encourage users to seek alternative sites (such as YouTube) to fulfill those needs. Users may, however, upload still shots of their video as a submission and link to their off-site footage in the description provided the still imagery adheres to all guidelines set forth by the AUP.

Animated .gif or .png photo sequences, 2D/3D rendered or Flash animation may be uploaded provided that the submissions are comprised of user created material, and any photographic, drawn or rendered must adhere content adheres to all other policies in the AUP. Any live action shot within animation must follow the guidelines set forth in the photography section.

Does it mean I'm not allowed to do "Roger Rabbit style" animations like this:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7283192

[Fay V]

Does it mean I'm not allowed to do "Roger Rabbit style" animations like this:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/7283192

That should be fine. There was an issue with animations from photography, like my avatar, being considered video.
As of now videos are from video files. Gifs are animations.
we just wanted to make it more clear that any part of an animation dealing with photography is subject to the photography section, drawn work goes to art subsections.

Your example is fine. The background fits the photography aup, and the drawn work fits our art stuff.

[Trpdwarf]

So it's ok to have mature drawn stuff but not mature pictures? That's...retarded... Ok I'm sure there was logical reason behind this but surely you guys could've worded that rule better so that at least certain nudity could be allowed. By these standards a picture of the Venus de Milo isn't even allowed.

The thing about mature pictures (photography) is that it can quite possibly carry legal implications. We are not a photo porn site. If an underage user is stuck in a sex related fetish costume that doesn't bode well for the ENTIRE site. When you have live models in mature photography there is loads of paperwork to ensure that they are all of age and stuff. We are not set up for that, and we never will be.

[chineseshell]

The thing about mature pictures (photography) is that it can quite possibly carry legal implications. We are not a photo porn site. If an underage user is stuck in a sex related fetish costume that doesn't bode well for the ENTIRE site. When you have live models in mature photography there is loads of paperwork to ensure that they are all of age and stuff. We are not set up for that, and we never will be.

That's a shame, but understandable.

[Flacko]

That should be fine. There was an issue with animations from photography, like my avatar, being considered video.
As of now videos are from video files. Gifs are animations.
we just wanted to make it more clear that any part of an animation dealing with photography is subject to the photography section, drawn work goes to art subsections.

Your example is fine. The background fits the photography aup, and the drawn work fits our art stuff.

Thank you for explaining

[Zilepo]

The thing about mature pictures (photography) is that it can quite possibly carry legal implications. We are not a photo porn site. If an underage user is stuck in a sex related fetish costume that doesn't bode well for the ENTIRE site. When you have live models in mature photography there is loads of paperwork to ensure that they are all of age and stuff. We are not set up for that, and we never will be.

Totally understandable. I think a few people are just wondering about the whole "Clothing - All models featured in photography must be appropriately dressed, wearing both top and bottom garments" clause. It seems... excessive. I mean, any totally G rated picture of a dude in swim trunks on a beach would fall outside of the AUP, something that seems a tad ridiculous to me. Just my 2 cents.

[Teal]

Would uploading stuff from Feral Heart (like my avatar) be against the rules?

[Pinkuh]

Would uploading stuff from Feral Heart (like my avatar) be against the rules?

Yes. Screen-shots from games and character generators are not allowed.

[Trpdwarf]

Totally understandable. I think a few people are just wondering about the whole "Clothing - All models featured in photography must be appropriately dressed, wearing both top and bottom garments" clause. It seems... excessive. I mean, any totally G rated picture of a dude in swim trunks on a beach would fall outside of the AUP, something that seems a tad ridiculous to me. Just my 2 cents.

This is one of the those things due to the potential for the abuse to make sure that we cover things appropriately with the least amount of loop-holing it will mean a few other things get knocked out of the picture. Although if you can't post pictures of yourself in a swim suit that isn't that big of a deal. Silly? Perhaps...but not really a huge issue that creates major issues for everyone around.

[Rukh_Whitefang]

So, how is it I keep seeing car photos being uploaded on FA. And not just individuals mind you but car groups? Seriously, if your gonna single out one person, threaten a gallery wipe and then not enforce the rule for anyone else, all it shows is the admins total lack of following their own AUP.
Follow your own flippen rules dangit... And if not, then get rid of them.

[Fay V]

So, how is it I keep seeing car photos being uploaded on FA. And not just individuals mind you but car groups? Seriously, if your gonna single out one person, threaten a gallery wipe and then not enforce the rule for anyone else, all it shows is the admins total lack of following their own AUP.
Follow your own flippen rules dangit... And if not, then get rid of them.

Have you reported them at all so that the admins actually see it?

[lostcat461]

Was mildly curious. A simple search for "car" does show around 15 submissions in a 4 day period that could be considered as just a photo of the car (discounting already ones that contain fursuits, as they probably consider that the focus instead of the car.)

So the question becomes, are they "enforcing it?" More then likely. To 100%? Probably not without some kind of bot or hiring 3rd world country children as cheap tech support. No one wants that. Well, except the latter. Lots of businesses want that.

[Rukh_Whitefang]

Have you reported them at all so that the admins actually see it?

They know its going on. Hell, there are car groups on FA. Its not that hard to find or see. The problem I have is, is when a single user is twice (not once but twice) singled out (Even when other former mods allowed car photos) And told on threat of gallery wipe to clear out their gallery. All the while there are dozens of car enthusiasts who upload photos everyday. Speak to the car enthusiasts. Where all pretty irritated by the admins and their back and forth on this issue. Can't even get a clear statement from the admins. And then when we are told that they are looking into it, 2 weeks go by with no response. All the while I am forbidden to put up car photos, while everyone else is still uploading new photos everyday.

This is getting ridicules. I am not the only car enthusiast who is irritated and/or pissed of about all this and the lack of any communication.

Now, I am not going to start listing fellow car enthusiasts here. There is probably a dozen car groups on FA and most if not all upload car photos on a regular basis. So the question is, why are the groups not getting hit, why is a single user and no one else (Note I have spoken to a bunch of others, nobody else I have talked to has had been threatened with a gallery wipe because of their car photos) been told to clear out their gallery?

Its pathetic really.

Was mildly curious. A simple search for "car" does show around 15 submissions in a 4 day period that could be considered as just a photo of the car (discounting already ones that contain fursuits, as they probably consider that the focus instead of the car.)

So the question becomes, are they "enforcing it?" More then likely. To 100%? Probably not without some kind of bot or hiring 3rd world country children as cheap tech support. No one wants that. Well, except the latter. Lots of want that.

Dude, all you did was type in car and you expect every car photo to come up. What happens when the picture has no tags, then what? I can put up over a dozen car show pictures that have been uploaded by users on FA that wouldn't come up on a simple tag search.