AUP Update - January 19, 2012

[MARVOL]

did you upload more than one photo of it? because that isnt allowed here and falls under the photo dump/similar content part of the AUP. shirtless is alright in my opinion as long as you are still covering your shame properly^^
you already have a photo of the tattoo in your gallery. isnt that enough? :P if you want more than one photo of in your gallery you should make a collage or post links to more photos in the description of the submission.

I only had 2 photos of my tattoos. 1 was removed by the mod. and what is photo dump never heard of it.

so car are bad unless it's modded, skin is bad even if it's modded? you guys see the unfair treatment. what makes a modded car more artistic then a tattoos?

it's gonna be funny when start removing fursuits because it not wearing both top and bottom garments.

I opened a ticket and they said there may be changes to the AUP coming that will prohibit all pic of tattoos however,the stance is that you are allowed to post pic of tattoos if you designed the tattoo.

so why are they getting removed because of Clothing when they should be get removed lack of permission?

[isthisagoodname]

Let's take a look at the related AUP section:

Clothing - All models featured in photography must be appropriately dressed, wearing both top and bottom garments. Underwear, bras or diapers are not considered acceptable articles of clothing. Clothing designed for explicit or implicit sexual themes are prohibited. Costumes, props, masks, jewellery and other worn items are permitted provided they meet the site's General rating (are work safe, rated for all users/ages).

Since that's not the case in the submission, it's removed.

I'm still trying to figure that out when that rule was last updated. See, I was actually once told by Dragoneer that MEN CAN go topless. A topless man does not have any offending body parts visible (They MAY have manboobs, but facts have to be faced, they're still socially acceptable to be out in the open).

Dragoneer mentioned this shortly after the rule was set to that.

I had a couple of pictures of myself on the beach when Dragoneer mentioned this (I was actually the one to ask this question, a few years back). Just a couple of weeks ago, though, an administrator deleted them, citing the rule that because I wasn't wearing a shirt, the photo wasn't allowed.

Infuriated, I opened a trouble ticket about it. Dragoneer replied saying they're going to be updating the AUP to make it more clear. Unfortunately, he didn't specify whether or not the photos were okay anymore. He didn't respond to any further posts in the ticket.

[quoting_mungo]

I'm still trying to figure that out when that rule was last updated. See, I was actually once told by Dragoneer that MEN CAN go topless. A topless man does not have any offending body parts visible (They MAY have manboobs, but facts have to be faced, they're still socially acceptable to be out in the open)

Considering the phrase in question is red in the first post of this thread, chances are pretty good that rule was last updated, you know, Jan 19 of this year. Not "a few years back" when your beach photos were okayed.

I could argue that an artsy back shot of a topless woman doesn't have any "offending" body parts visible, either. How about a topless five-year-old girl? No boobs. Equal for everyone isn't a poor concept just because you think it shouldn't be that way. Just put a shirt on, it shouldn't be a big deal to wear some clothes just because you're a man.

[Xenke]

I could argue that an artsy back shot of a topless woman doesn't have any "offending" body parts visible, either. How about a topless five-year-old girl? No boobs. Equal for everyone isn't a poor concept just because you think it shouldn't be that way. Just put a shirt on, it shouldn't be a big deal to wear some clothes just because you're a man.

Wow, that's some really poor logic.

[isthisagoodname]

Considering the phrase in question is red in the first post of this thread, chances are pretty good that rule was last updated, you know, Jan 19 of this year. Not "a few years back" when your beach photos were okayed.

I could argue that an artsy back shot of a topless woman doesn't have any "offending" body parts visible, either. How about a topless five-year-old girl? No boobs. Equal for everyone isn't a poor concept just because you think it shouldn't be that way. Just put a shirt on, it shouldn't be a big deal to wear some clothes just because you're a man.

No no, it looks like that rule was simply expanded upon, as I clearly remember that specific part of the rule in the previous AUP.

Also, that's some pretty bad logic. I was on a beach. What do men commonly wear on a beach? Yes, some men will wear shirts if they feel uncomfortable about themselves, or tanktops, but the majority of men I see on beaches are unclothed from the waist up. Beaches aren't quite places where one would do suggestive things (at least this specific beach wasn't), so nothing I was doing in the photo was considered offensive. I was simply on my beach towel in my swim trunks, taking in the summer sun. That's it.

And if someone decided to report the photo because "AHHHH HIS MANBOOBS ARE SHOWING" then I really pity how sensitive people have gotten about the human body. DISNEY even fucking shows manboobs. They don't have a problem with it, and they're the most white bread company ever now.

[redadillio]

For elaboration on the content you can put into an image.

Can you create an image and include content that you had no hand in? Specifically, draw an image of a character hanging out in their bedroom with a poster on the wall copied from another source of not your creation. Or including a logo from a cartoon or company you had nothing to do with. Basically, can you have a little work that's not your own in an image that is majorly of your own.

I ask as I've seen images lately where people are doing that.

[isthisagoodname]

A-HA!

http://forums.furaffinity.net/thread...l=1#post818712

The discussion kinda died, but I stumbled across the post I was referring to earlier, about Dragoneer saying shirtless dudes are acceptable to post.

[Xenke]

A-HA!

http://forums.furaffinity.net/thread...l=1#post818712

The discussion kinda died, but I stumbled across the post I was referring to earlier, about Dragoneer saying shirtless dudes are acceptable to post.

>2009
>Previous version of policy

I don't really think it needs to be said, but regardless, their stance has changed.

[isthisagoodname]

>2009
>Previous version of policy

I don't really think it needs to be said, but regardless, their stance has changed.

As I said before, the rule was expanded upon, not changed. The rule in question WAS in the previous version of the policy.

Even so, there's been grandfathering previously, why not now?

[Xenke]

Even so, there's been grandfathering previously, why not now?

I don't recall there being much if any grandfathering.

At least, as far as I know, nothing has ever actually been protected by grandfathering.

[redadillio]

Anyone?

[Ozriel]

For elaboration on the content you can put into an image.

Can you create an image and include content that you had no hand in? Specifically, draw an image of a character hanging out in their bedroom with a poster on the wall copied from another source of not your creation. Or including a logo from a cartoon or company you had nothing to do with. Basically, can you have a little work that's not your own in an image that is majorly of your own.

I ask as I've seen images lately where people are doing that.

I am going to assume that it has to follow the photography rules with such a thing.

[Kebechet]

If I wanted to upload an image of a full body tasteful body painting of a sea monster coming out of the ocean that I did on someone, what would I have to do to make it acceptable for FA? The woman in question is nude, but all "bits" are completely hidden under layers and layers of paint. Is this just not a form of painting I would be able to share on FA? Or would I need to blur, put little censor boxes?

[JamAndJelly]

is there any anti or hate art aup i keep seeing anti or hate gruops they dont even use it for art it more slander of a community of artist they even make cruel jokes about it
they even spam people
here link of the group http://www.furaffinity.net/user/antipony
dont we got rules for no slander art or slander a type or form of art
that group kinda making a bad name for the web site

got this messages from a frind who was a anti pony who left because of this
They are just bad. They left death treats to a good friend of mine [Who is a brony but one of the good ones] I was apart of them cause im sick of seeing pony pics but after that i just unwatched removed them from my groups. The reason why they made the group is cause they are sick of seeing ponies infest the net. They are also sick of the bad fans who shove their ponies down out throats. Be carefull with them. They are just as insane as the bad fans of MLP.

[Ozriel]

is there any anti or hate art aup i keep seeing anti or hate gruops they dont even use it for art it more slander of a community of artist they even make cruel jokes about it
they even spam people
here link of the group http://www.furaffinity.net/user/antipony
dont we got rules for no slander art or slander a type or form of art
that group kinda making a bad name for the web site

got this messages from a frind who was a anti pony who left because of this
They are just bad. They left death treats to a good friend of mine [Who is a brony but one of the good ones] I was apart of them cause im sick of seeing pony pics but after that i just unwatched removed them from my groups. The reason why they made the group is cause they are sick of seeing ponies infest the net. They are also sick of the bad fans who shove their ponies down out throats. Be carefull with them. They are just as insane as the bad fans of MLP.

From what I gather, the AUP covers Religious, race, and sex, as well as individuals under scrutiny in art (I.e Your character being myrdered...etc..). I doubt it covers other nerddom fandoms.

[foxystallion]

ok i got a question. maybe it was answered before, i dunno.
"Photographic work must be suitable for all ages, and submissions MAY NOT be rated higher than General."
then why can i set a photo to mature or adult when i upload it? couldnt the site be set so that if a submission features photo information (camera name, aperture and all that like in my photo here: https://www.furaffinity.net/view/7279434) or is set to be uploaded into the photo category that the submission page rejects the image and notifies the user about that specific rule?
ive seen lots of mature and adult rated photos during the last couple of days and this would stop them from being uploaded at all. someone wouldnt upload a photo of himself in a "sexy and suggestive pose" if he couldnt set the image higher than general :P

Some very fine photographers put an M rating on a beautiful G landscape photo to prevent it from being harvested by Google Images or some other image grabbing robot because only FA members can see M rated material. I think that a rule change should be made to allow this harmless attempt to protect their intellectual property.

[foxystallion]

[QUOTE=Fay V;2823036]you can point it out to the artist, they may have made a mistake, but you can report it and the admins will correct the mistake.

Some artists mark their G rated art with an M in order to prevent non-members from seeing it. Why would they do that? Perhaps their employer or rich uncle deems anything furry to be demented or disreputable. The artist may want to protect their work from from being harvested by robots, such as those that create Google Images. I would hope that Admins would engage in prosecutorial discretion in such matters. One of FA's best landscape photographers rates all of his photographs M for precisely that reason, and I sympathize with his desire to protect his intellectual property.

There is a method for doing this using http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/site-settings/ , where "Guest access" can be switched to "guests blocked", but I don't think that this useful site feature is very widely known.

[Schecter]

live-action video permitted*


*as long as the source file is hosted somewhere other then FA (Ex: YouTube) and adheres to the aforementioned policies in the AUP, then you are allowed to stream it to a flash submission.

"Since you're not using FA's resources with the videos, you're allowed to use them for now. Make sure that you read the upcoming AUP update though, it may or may not change." - Mod qoph


(made this post so i can link the people who wont stop screaming AUP to me)

[rizel]

Here's a situation I'd like to present to you:

Someone utilizing a program such as Poser or DAZ or Bryce picks up a free model online and drops it into a scene. They apply simple changes to make the character, for all intents and purposes, look 100% different from the original (i.e. fattening, muscling, changing skin tone to blue, adding horns, etc.). Into this scene they also pour dozens of other assets, not made by themselves, to use as props and a background. They post the hot mess into their gallery and get away scot-free on the grounds that the focus of the submission is original and all other props and assets are secondary, thus are allowed.

I've heard talk that the rule in the 3D portion of the AUP that protects FA against submissions such as this will soon be dropped. I've seen excessive abuse of the 3D medium on FA on adaily basis. It's to the point now that I can identify what program a user used by looking at the submission (Poser offers tacky, plastic-y looking renders and fall-off shading is a nightmare). I want to express what I'm sure many others who make 3D works feel when it comes to this topic. It isn't fair to call it anything but thievery. To take a model that someone else made, whether they sold it or offered it for free, to pose and post as your own submission is wrong. The effort pales in comparison to what modelers and sculptors actually go through to make the work they make.

I may just be talking out of my flanks, but I hope at least someone else sees it the same way I do. I'm not on a crusade to remove everyone's art, I'm trying to redeem the 3D medium and show what actually goes into making these things: time, hard work, and possibly the most fastidious effort towards making something look good from every angle under scrutiny. We do not buy our models, we do not take others work to post as our own, and any speck of work that isn't ours is credited in detail. I'd rather all of that not go to waste and see FA fill to the waist with those kind of submissions.

[Verin Asper]

Will the aup be eventually updated to state even linking to cub porn via submission be against the rules? I remembered it was once mentioned doing such a thing is also against the rules

[CaptainCool]

Will the aup be eventually updated to state even linking to cub porn via submission be against the rules? I remembered it was once mentioned doing such a thing is also against the rules

yeah, that should definitly be mentioned.
but right now i also think the AUP should be enforced in a stricter and more frequent fashion. i mean, i have 23 active trouble tickets right now and only one of them has a response by an admin but isnt resolved yet.