• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Appeal for AUP ammendments concerning photography

Ceceil Felias

Never have I seen fail so huge
I think the issue's somewhere more along the lines of "nobody wants to see pale, fat, and greasy basement-dwellers who only think they're sexy flooding the submissions".

There are plenty of other places to go if you want to see people posing nude. There are plenty of instant-message or chat protocols supporting file transfers if you want to see your friends posing nude. Etc. etc. etc.

I think this thread is in a whole a bit silly. :eek: But that's just me.


New Member
It's a stupid reason for censorship, that's all. And no, there are no other places to post furry photo-based adult material as far as I know, even less one that would actually be FRIENDLY to that sort of thing, and if you know one, I'd be glad to hear about it.


Panthera tigris libris
Swatcher said:
And no, there are no other places to post furry photo-based adult material as far as I know

So... what would be "furry" about nude human photos? Just the fact that the person calls himself a furry?

Nudity in general doesn't bother me, but photos of sexual nudity would. And as has already been said, there are already plenty of other places to go for both. Let's keep FA at least mostly anthropomorphic...

(And incidentally, someone earlier on this thread said something about not wanting to see "Joe nudist boning someone on FA". Um, just to make things clear -- nudists are NOT exhibitionists. Nudism is not about sex, public or otherwise. *steps down from soapbox*)


This thread itself is by no means silly. A user had an understandable concern they wanted to bring up about a valid issue and did so in a very adult and civil fashion.

I wish more people were capable of voicing their suggestions and questions this way. I also wish I could answer such a respectably-posed request with something more agreeable to the person making it. >_<

The short answer is that even if 2257 gets shot down tomorrow, it isn't likely (not saying it's impossible) that the site will suddenly allow adult-oriented photography. The amount of submissions with genuine artistic intent would be completely overshadowed by the random camwhoring people would submit (random photobucket behavior was already too close to overshadowing the artwork posted to the site, one of the main reasons the AUP was introduced). Which diverts resources away from the things the site was meant to be here for, towards stuff that is just completely outside of the intent or purpose here.

If that answers your concerns, then feel free to skip the rest of this. But if you'd like more in-depth explanations of the reasonings here;

It isn't simply a matter of "nobody wants to see naked human bodies." Obviously, some people wouldn't mind seeing them, or this issue wouldn't have come up. And I know for a fact that many people would enjoy being able to see naked photos here.

Many people would also enjoy being able to post screenshots from tv and movies. Many people would enjoy being able to post other peoples' artwork without permission. Many people would enjoy being able to post anything and everything they may feel inclined to post, like the bowl of mac and cheese they had for lunch, or Ice Cream on toast, or a picture of a human turd with a cartoon smiley face drawn on it (all actual submissions that we've had before).

The problem with allowing adult artistic photography is that doing so would allow non-artistic camwhoring. Who defines what is or isn't "art?" One user could spend hours doing an incredibly detailed bodypaint project, and post a well-framed, carefully lit, very artistic and tasteful nude. Another person could drop their pants, spread their legs, and sprawl out on the couch while a friend takes a blurry cell phone picture.

Few people are likely to mind artistic nudes, but a flood of MySpace camwhoring 'lookit mah nekkidness' photos would be annoying to the people who are on this site for the purpose it was meant for.

Any attempt at setting definitions to restrict camwhoring, while allowing artistic nudes (even if we managed to get the wording just right) would just result in user uproar.

We could try requiring the photos to have some Furry content. But that would aggravate non-furry users, and the site has managed so far to be a primarily furry-themed website without having specific requirements for furry content. Most users, even those who consider themselves furry, like that the site isn't exclusively furry.

If we tried to separate camwhoring from artistic shots based on apparent effort involved, that would be quality control. Another thing most users are happy we do not do. Who's to say whether a crappy, blurry cell phone shot of someone showing their junk to the camera is camwhoring as opposed to a genuine attempt at an artistic nude, but by someone simply lacking much talent at photography, and not able to afford a real camera?

The site was made with a specific intent and purpose. It has grown beyond its original parameters by a great deal over the few years since it was started. But eventually, there comes a point where some things are just completely outside of any reasonable inclusion into the scope of the site. Some people want FA to be everything for everyone. The one-stop shop for anything people might want to post or share. But we can't give EVERYONE every thing that they want us to be. Not without ignoring the fact that the community who came here for what the site was originally intended to be, the people who made this site the success it has become, and kept it alive despite the significant turmoil over its short history, would be overshadowed.

Without in any way dismissing the Artistic validity of the works of those who do adult or mature photographic artwork, those people are VERY few when compared to the infinite number of people who can just take a quick snapshot, and call it art. Photographic adult content was never what the site was meant to be a host for. FA has broadened its scope to include many things that weren't in the original intent. But there are just some things that can't be included without also opening the door to a great deal more that are simply not wanted.

FA was created to fill a need. There wasn't any place for people to post furry adult content in an environment open and welcoming to it. If FA can not meet the specific needs of one sub-community, and there isn't currently any other place for people to share that particular type of imagery, then someone should make such a site. Necessity is the mother of invention.

Though, again, all of this is moot with 2257 in place, so even if someone did create such a site, they would be burdened with the record-keeping the law requires, and that is probably more than any volunteer, non-profit group or individual would be willing to do.


New Member
Those are all great reasons, thanks for taking the time to reply, Wolfblade.

I still have a few issues. I think that a total ban on adult photography isn't the ideal solution to the problem. It's a temporary fix at best, and if we want a site that's as free as the law will allow, I would like to see it resolved completely at some point in the favor of free expression.

FA's track history has actually proven a lot of other furry sites' slippery slope arguments completely wrong, for instance. The main argument for restricting material on some sites to furry-only has been that opening the doors to non-furries will overload the site with non-furry material, which obviously hasn't happened on FA, despite its extremely lax rules. In fact, non-furries that join FA actually seem to want to join the fandom after not very long, has anyone noticed this? Anyway, I digress! A ban on adult photography as you describe (if 2257 is repealed) is effectively a form of pre-emptive QC, even if it's in the interests of conserving bandwidth. I personally don't believe it will be that much of a problem when it comes to the numbers of submissions, although I don't know the volume at which currently banned photographic works get uploaded and have to be removed.

When it comes down to the crunch, non-photographic art would have the same ratio of good to bad on FA as photographic art would, and like I said, I don't believe that photograph-based adult art (this includes photomorphs) would be posted in significant enough numbers to pose much of an increased bandwidth issue. That's my belief, and I'm still going to encourage reform on this end because I'm a freedom of speech kinda person, but I understand the technical limitations. I only want to make sure this isn't a quality control issue, and if it isn't, or if 2257 doesn't get repealed, I'm happy to let this drop.

Photomorphs are the real reason I resurrected this thread though! Non-adult photomorphs. The AUP section on photomorphs is identical to when I first started this thread. I'm glad to hear that the AUP will be changing on that issue, and I hope it happens soon! :)


New Member
I've been reading up on this a bit more. In the specific instance that happened to my friend, the image wasn't sexually explicit. Currently the AUP forbids nudity in photography even if the genitals are obscured, blurred out, pixelated or otherwise censored. This is ridiculous, as 2257 and 2256 are for situations where the sexuality is explicit in the following ways:

(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) [1] of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

See here: Title 18, 2256

Keeping records is only necessary under 2257 if the images fall under those categories. The image my friend was asked to remove did not fall under those categories, it was adequately censored. A good AUP would prohibit images which would invoke 2257 but allow all manner of other things.

There is no legal reason for keeping the AUP as worded, and considering the fact that it's driving away some excellent artists, it's high time the photography section of the AUP was reworked. There are more and more reasons to do it.


Three points, three responses.

1. Would the stance change on photographic nudity if 2257 were not a factor.

If the legal barriers to adult photography were gone, then allowing nudity in photomorphs may be considered, but fursuits and bodypaint would still be restricted from adult content, except perhaps tasteful, non-sexual nudity. Images where there is not clear artistic >intent< behind the nudity or near-nude lascivious display of oneself would still not be allowed. Significant user disputes would arise either way if this stance is taken, any time where a user and the staff disagree on which side of the line an image falls under. It would be seen by many as the administration "defining art" and/or deciding what is or isn't "good enough." Most users have enough faith in the judgment of the staff to accept this. Not all do however, and the ones who lack faith in our judgment tend to be the most vocally opposed to us taking any stance of an arbitrary nature.

2. The image your friend was asked to remove was not a violation.

Without being able to see the images in question, or the notes your friend received, I wouldn't be able to make an informed response here. Please have him note me to go into investigating that issue further. If the images were a violation, I can attempt to explain how and why if they did not get a clear enough explanation when they were asked to remove them. If the manner in which they were asked to remove the images was indeed bullying, then I can see that matter is addressed as well. If the images were not a violation, then he can be allowed to re-submit them with full administrative approval.

3. The AUP forbids nudity/sexuality in photos even when genitals are not explicitly visible, and in situations where it may be arguable whether 2257 applies or not.

The portions of the AUP disallowing images even when the genitals are not explicitly visible were primarily in response to people uploading photos of their crotches in practically skintight undergarments.

People pitched a fit when blurry photos of just the crotch of someone's bulging briefs were removed "because it isn't art."

The site isn't going to be used as just a porn dump (there is a distinction drawn between "just porn" and "erotic artwork") or myspace camwhoring sex-networking page, though. So we either come up with a written guideline that clearly disallows such images, or we take the much more unpopular and arbitrary stance of making the rule "only artistic submission can have nudity" and using the personal judgment of staffmembers to determine what is and isn't an artistic nude. Which grants anyone who wants to just cause a fuss the easy and simple route of uploading crappy camwhore pics, then screaming about civil rights being opressed and how dare we dismiss their 'art' just because they're not 'a big name' or are just a beginner, etc, when they are removed.

If any of the scenarios I mention sound far-fetched or reaching, I'd like to point out that nearly all of them have actually come up in one form or another. Which is why I mention them, and why they're taken into account when trying to make rules on these subjects. >_<

Art is subjective by nature. But written rules have to be as black and white as possible. So making rules classifying something as subjective as Art is difficult to say the least. Especially when we want to avoid specific legalese, which confuses most people (when they even bother to try and read it). We know what we want the site to be used for and what we don't want it used for, but the trick is putting those limits into text that will be readily understood by at least a majority of people, while avoiding areas where one person's subjective opinion would render an image unacceptable, while another person's opinion would find it to be fine, with both people working off the same written guideline.

We don't want FA used for camwhoring. And yes, there have been significant amounts of submissions that were just people taking naked pictures of themselves, or pics where they're just barely covered up, but the intent is just to show off. There were situations where a person was claiming that they just wanted to show a tattoo/piercing/outfit, but were uncooperative when asked to crop their pic since it wasn't remotely necessary for their exposed/barely concealed genitals to be in the shot to still show the stated purpose of the image fully. I've seen some impressive bodypaint artwork, but then there were people who just painted their whole body green with some yellow stripes, and took shots stroking off.

It isn't practically feasible to put into writing a clear definition drawing a line between camwhoring or thinly veiled abuse of loopholes, versus genuine attempts at art. The unfortunate reality of our choice here is to either draw as clear a line as possible, and accept when something we'd like to have unfortunately falls on the outside of the line, or take the stance of judging each case individually as to whether it is artistically done or not, and just tell people "tough" if they complain.

You can see how it isn't really a very pleasant spot to be in. >_<


Nazis, Communists and Antifa don't belong on FA
What about closeup "couple photos" of near-kissing or kissing? I don't want to see that.