AUP Discussion

[MasterC30]

Having an Issue with my own personal pixel art i made as gifts for a friend being removed by an Admin claiming it was against the AUP TOS... i went an looked over the newly made TOS for AUP an it dosnt violate anything sept maybe the HUD being displayed in the screenshot

AUP TOS says
Screenshots, Screencaptures & Character/Image Generators
Screenshots - Screenshots (e.g. websites, desktops, applications, games, or film) are not permitted unless part of a tutorial/guide or the poster has designed the content themselves. Screenshots must be complete, original designs, and may not include portions of the computer, program or browser interface unless used as part of a tutorial or guide.

the pixel art was made in minecraft witch is open source.. meaning anything made within the game IS NOT property of Notch or Mojang. The work was complete an original design by myself in my own style, nothing from my comp was showing the program has nothing showing minus the HUD witch i can retake the pics but the Admin still rejected my upload.

there was nothing posted withing my pic that would have warranted for removal. Pixel art is a real art type to some people an really fun... it need to be listed under the AUP so the Admins wont take it under there own choice on this.

 

[Recursive Sweatpants]

I've searched these forums for a while (although I'm beginning to feel that the search engine isn't quite up to snuff), but I can't seem to find any discussion pertaining to Source Filmmaker, much less its relation to the AUP. I recently had many of my submissions, which were made in SFM, get deleted on the grounds that they violate the "No screenshots of games/applications/movies/websites" section of the AUP. When I inquired to the admin who deleted them as to why this is--Source Filmmaker specifically made to create content after all, in the same vein as Photoshop or DAZ Studio--they said that it is not allowed because it uses assets owned by Valve. However, according to Valve's Video Policy, anything created using SFM--and by extension, all of Valve's assets used in said creation--is fair use and can be distributed non-commercially, which is listed as acceptable in the AUP. To that, I was told that because Source Filmmaker itself wasn't specifically created by me or for me, I cannot use it to create content. I am severely confused here.

 

[Soline]

I've searched these forums for a while (although I'm beginning to feel that the search engine isn't quite up to snuff), but I can't seem to find any discussion pertaining to Source Filmmaker, much less its relation to the AUP. I recently had many of my submissions, which were made in SFM, get deleted on the grounds that they violate the "No screenshots of games/applications/movies/websites" section of the AUP. When I inquired to the admin who deleted them as to why this is--Source Filmmaker specifically made to create content after all, in the same vein as Photoshop or DAZ Studio--they said that it is not allowed because it uses assets owned by Valve. However, according to Valve's Video Policy, anything created using SFM--and by extension, all of Valve's assets used in said creation--is fair use and can be distributed non-commercially, which is listed as acceptable in the AUP. To that, I was told that because Source Filmmaker itself wasn't specifically created by me or for me, I cannot use it to create content. I am severely confused here.

Sounds rather like an admin who just doesn't want to admit they were wrong, that last point is like banning a picture and saying "because you didn't create photoshop, you can't use it to create content"

 

[Dragoneer]

Sounds rather like an admin who just doesn't want to admit they were wrong, that last point is like banning a picture and saying "because you didn't create photoshop, you can't use it to create content"

Or it's that people kept flooding the site with the same thing over and over again from Garry's mod and it started to become a problem so we took action against it.

FA can not be all things to all people. No one site can cater to /everything/.

 

[Etiainen]

No one site can cater to /everything/.

DeviantArt seems to be a pretty good at doing that.

 

[Dragoneer]

DeviantArt seems to be a pretty good at doing that.

Unless you draw mature/adult art.

 

[Etiainen]

Unless you draw mature/adult art.

'Touche

 

[Recursive Sweatpants]

Or it's that people kept flooding the site with the same thing over and over again from Garry's mod and it started to become a problem so we took action against it.

FA can not be all things to all people. No one site can cater to /everything/.

What is the "same thing" that people have historically used Gmod to make in the past? Why not just ban or regulate that, rather than ban the whole entire program (and Source Filmmaker by association, apparently)? That's like saying people aren't allowed to submit drawings in Photoshop because too many people kept using it to make child pornography.

Even then, going purely by the AUP, Source Filmmaker content at the very least should not be disallowed. It is just as much of an "application" as Daz Studio or Photoshop, so "screenshots" of it should be just as valid, and all of its assets are considered fair use, so there's nothing complicating its use legally. Hell, I was even using it to make a short comic before it got taken down, which is another thing the AUP specifically allows for.

 

[Verin Asper]

What is the "same thing" that people have historically used Gmod to make in the past? Why not just ban or regulate that, rather than ban the whole entire program (and Source Filmmaker by association, apparently)? That's like saying people aren't allowed to submit drawings in Photoshop because too many people kept using it to make child pornography.

Even then, going purely by the AUP, Source Filmmaker content at the very least should not be disallowed. It is just as much of an "application" as Daz Studio or Photoshop, so "screenshots" of it should be just as valid, and all of its assets are considered fair use, so there's nothing complicating its use legally. Hell, I was even using it to make a short comic before it got taken down, which is another thing the AUP specifically allows for.

did you follow the rules of listing who the models used belong to even the map used?

 

[Recursive Sweatpants]

did you follow the rules of listing who the models used belong to even the map used?

Not entirely, I will admit. I did not give credit to the map or the Half-Life models used, but I did link to models downloaded from the Garry's Mod site. My submissions were taken down on the grounds that they were made in Source Filmmaker, though. I didn't even get so much as a warning that I wasn't giving as much credit as I needed to.

 

[Verin Asper]

Not entirely, I will admit. I did not give credit to the map or the Half-Life models used, but I did link to models downloaded from the Garry's Mod site. My submissions were taken down on the grounds that they were made in Source Filmmaker, though. I didn't even get so much as a warning that I wasn't giving as much credit as I needed to.

ok, that doesnt make sense then as you did prove you didnt make the models but also where people can get them since many if not all the models from garry's mod site is free. The usual thing about Garry's mod and Source Filmmaker is that often they are used to tell a story thus I can understand they wouldnt like stand alone stuff but removing story type things which the rules did ok for such a thing to be used for baffles me.

Problem is FA takes the route of "ban it all, thus not our problem anymore"
As it did take several people with the help of an admin to prove that people CAN post SL stuff if we have a guideline...which is gone somehow...

 

[Recursive Sweatpants]

ok, that doesnt make sense then as you did prove you didnt make the models but also where people can get them since many if not all the models from garry's mod site is free. The usual thing about Garry's mod and Source Filmmaker is that often they are used to tell a story thus I can understand they wouldnt like stand alone stuff but removing story type things which the rules did ok for such a thing to be used for baffles me.

Problem is FA takes the route of "ban it all, thus not our problem anymore"

That sounds like an incredibly lazy and ignorant route to take, not to mention historically shown to be a bad idea time and again (Prohibition, anti-gun laws, etc.). While obviously banning SFM pictures isn't going to create as big of a crapstorm that banning alcohol did, of course, it's still blaming (and banning) the whole for the mistakes of the few. Again I ask, what did so many people do in GMod that warranted banning all submissions for simply being made with the program, regardless of the submission itself (and why does this extend to Source Filmmaker)? I've seen some incredible Garry's Mod scenes and Source Filmmaker animations on this site, and it would be nothing less than a damned shame to see them all get taken down when the artists are completely within their rights to post them. It would also be nice if my stuff didn't get taken down either.

As it did take several people with the help of an admin to prove that people CAN post SL stuff if we have a guideline...which is gone somehow...

Well, the AUP does have a line saying "Second Life: screenshots of 3D models made specifically by or for the uploader" are allowed, unless you're talking about something more in-depth having disappeared.

 

[Armaetus]

I'd rather no screenshots of any games on this site, except for content made 100% by themselves.

Also, why has this topic been resurrected?

 

[PheagleAdler]

some people want to be lazy and fill up their galleries with things that take 5 minutes to create. this is an ART site; be creative, people.

 

[Recursive Sweatpants]

I'd rather no screenshots of any games on this site, except for content made 100% by themselves.

Could you explain what you mean by that? You're implying that a screenshot of a game could be allowed if it was made 100% by the person submitting it, but by nature a game is comprised of assets made by different people.

Additionally, Source Filmmaker is hardly a "game" anyway. Granted, it does use a game engine, but its entire purpose is for creating content. Garry's Mod is a bit less concrete; it does have game modes and is meant for toying around, but it can still be used to create content with its assets.

Also, why has this topic been resurrected?

Because the AUP is vague where it concerns content created using Source Filmmaker, due to contradictions between the "no screenshots" policy and the "fair use" and "screenshots are allowed if they create a narrative" policies. I feel that my submissions should not have been taken down, so I am using the AUP to argue why.

some people want to be lazy and fill up their galleries with things that take 5 minutes to create. this is an ART site; be creative, people.

Yes, this is an art site, and art can come from anywhere. There are people who use Garry's Mod lazily; there are people who cobble together random things in Photoshop, and take tons of pictures of the same model in Poser at slightly different angles. I'm not trying to defend them; I'm trying to show that there are people who can use these tools creatively and effectively to make art, and that art shouldn't be banned across the board just because of those who abuse it.

 

[Teal]

What is the "same thing" that people have historically used Gmod to make in the past? Why not just ban or regulate that, rather than ban the whole entire program (and Source Filmmaker by association, apparently)? That's like saying people aren't allowed to submit drawings in Photoshop because too many people kept using it to make child pornography.

That's a fucking stupid comparison.

 

[Recursive Sweatpants]

That's a fucking stupid comparison.

It's extreme, granted, but it gets my point across. Why blame an otherwise useful tool for the few people who misuse it?

 

[Etiainen]

Because the AUP is vague where it concerns content created using Source Filmmaker, due to contradictions between the "no screenshots" policy and the "fair use" and "screenshots are allowed if they create a narrative" policies. I feel that my submissions should not have been taken down, so I am using the AUP to argue why.

This part is about the only thing that can be agreed upon. The AUP's coverage over screenshots is a form of autism only paralleled by FA's own administration.

However, there exists a golden rule: If it features content you didn't make, don't post it.
If you didn't make the models, don't post it.
If you didn't make the music, don't post it.
If you didn't make the game, don't post it.
Etc, etc, don't post it.

 

[PheagleAdler]

This part is about the only thing that can be agreed upon. The AUP's coverage over screenshots is a form of autism only paralleled by FA's own administration.

How the hell can you compare this to autism?

 

[Socks the Fox]

So lets say I make my own models and maps and whatnot, can I use Source Filmmaker then?

 

[Armaetus]

The less junk on the site, the better.

If you wanna post stupid shit from Source Filmmaker or Garry's Mod, upload the screens elsewhere and make a journal linking to them.

 

[Teal]

It's extreme, granted, but it gets my point across. Why blame an otherwise useful tool for the few people who misuse it?

No it doesn't. It makes you seem stupid.

 

[Recursive Sweatpants]

The less junk on the site, the better.

If you wanna post stupid shit from Source Filmmaker or Garry's Mod, upload the screens elsewhere and make a journal linking to them.

Hate it as much as you like, but as it is, the AUP has two policies allowing SFM and GMod content versus one (incredibly vague) one that doesn't. My submissions should not have been taken down, nor should they get taken down again if I was to reupload them giving more thorough credit for each asset.

No it doesn't. It makes you seem stupid.

Okay, what kind of analogy would you make to illustrate what I'm trying to get at, then?

 

[Teal]

Here's the thing honey, unless you built the models it's no better than taking a picture of an action figure.

 

[Recursive Sweatpants]

Here's the thing honey, unless you built the models it's no better than taking a picture of an action figure.

Then what is the point of this?

• Permitted in your Gallery
  • Public domain/fair use models provided the uploader cites the model's creators/sources

This implies--if not states in no uncertain terms--that models one hasn't made are most certainly allowed, so long as the owners give permission. I've already linked to Valve's policy on their assets for GMod and SFM, which boils down to "as long as you're not making money off of it, do whatever you like".

Also, you didn't answer my question. You've called me stupid twice so far and haven't bothered to explain why.