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

AUP Discussion

T

Teal

Squirrel
Recursive Sweatpants said:
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.
Click to expand...
Blaming photoshop because someone used it to draw child porn is like blaming a pencil and piece of paper for the same thing.

It's not comparable to taking a screenshot in any way.
 
Last edited:
Recursive Sweatpants

Recursive Sweatpants

Member
Teal said:
Blaming photoshop because someone used it to draw child porn is like blaming a pencil and piece of paper for the same thing.

It's not comparable to taking a screenshot in any way.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I'm getting at, though! Source Filmmaker is like the paper and pencil; it was made to create content. That is its very purpose; it's not anything like, say, taking a screenshot in a Team Fortress match. It renders the image, with lighting and effects just like in any 3D modelling program. It is no different than Photoshop in that aspect, and so it should be held just as accountable if someone misuses it, which is not at all.
 
BRN

BRN

WTB Forum Mod Powers
Recursive Sweatpants said:
That's exactly what I'm getting at, though! Source Filmmaker is like the paper and pencil; it was made to create content. That is its very purpose; it's not anything like, say, taking a screenshot in a Team Fortress match. It renders the image, with lighting and effects just like in any 3D modelling program. It is no different than Photoshop in that aspect, and so it should be held just as accountable if someone misuses it, which is not at all.
Click to expand...


Aye, wholly this. In looking at what an artistic tool does you should look at where the artistic merit lies - which, for SFM, is the in quality of the animation.

The models used in the animation are abitrary, and could be anything; the artistic merit would still lie in the lighting decisions, camera angles, skeleton manipulation. Don't be confused between it and screenshots simply because the rendering engine is also a gaming engine.

And given that there's explicit citation that the models are okay to use so long as money isn't made off them, I can't see that being a problem.

However, the artistic merit should still be judged. Just because there's potential in the medium doesn't mean all of its produce should be allowed. Simply posing some stuff and saving the result to produce a rather mediocre, generic and uninteresting image made entirely out of other people's models doesn't show any sort of artistic license...

... but that would lead to case-by-case judgement, and that's why we want to set rules that stop us needing to have to judge every submission individually, right?

There really should be some user-generated content in these sorts of pictures. It shows at least some artistic creativity.
 
Last edited:
PheagleAdler

PheagleAdler

Well-Known Member
Etiainen said:
How the hell can you NOT compare this to autism?
Click to expand...

Because I'm not short sighted, and I have autism so I find this offensive that you would just throw around the word just because you think it "fits" the situation.
 
Etiainen

Etiainen

Banned
Banned
PheagleAdler said:
I have autism
Click to expand...
A lot of people have it apparently, more and more trying to use it as an excuse for being incompetent. It's funny how you throw the word 'offensive' out simply because you think it "fits" the situation, when in fact you're now embodying the very thing I was talking about. Oh wait, you're autistic - So of course you do.
 
Recursive Sweatpants

Recursive Sweatpants

Member
BRN said:
Aye, wholly this. In looking at what an artistic tool does you should look at where the artistic merit lies - which, for SFM, is the in quality of the animation.

The models used in the animation are abitrary, and could be anything; the artistic merit would still lie in the lighting decisions, camera angles, skeleton manipulation. Don't be confused between it and screenshots simply because the rendering engine is also a gaming engine.

And given that there's explicit citation that the models are okay to use so long as money isn't made off them, I can't see that being a problem.
Click to expand...
Thank you! This is exactly what I was trying to say here; Source Filmmaker content should not fall under the category of "screenshots" because it does so much more than just hit Print Screen and save it to a JPEG. As the AUP currently stands, there is no reason SFM content should be removed.

However, the artistic merit should still be judged. Just because there's potential in the medium doesn't mean all of its produce should be allowed. Simply posing some stuff and saving the result to produce a rather mediocre, generic and uninteresting image made entirely out of other people's models doesn't show any sort of artistic license...

... but that would lead to case-by-case judgement, and that's why we want to set rules that stop us needing to have to judge every submission individually, right?

There really should be some user-generated content in these sorts of pictures. It shows at least some artistic creativity.
Click to expand...
You know what? I would be okay with this. If there has to be some condition for posting SFM content containing fair use assets, then I would be up for discussing it. Just so long as we lose the mentalities of "if it's not 100% your own, it's garbage" and "I don't care what our own legal policy clearly defining what you can and cannot post says, you can't post SFM content", I'll be satisfied.
 
RestrainedRaptor

RestrainedRaptor

Well-Known Nuisance
Dragoneer said:
It's time once again for our biannual AUP discussion.
Click to expand...
I forgot this used to be a thing. I really hope we can have them again when the Discord is opened. I certainly feel like FA staff were more motivated and transparent back then.

For the record, this isn't the first time I've replied to this thread; back in 2013, I was giving my opinions on problems with the AUP regarding screenshots and how they related to Second Life. This issue was actually fixed, so great! Let's hope it can happen again.

Kalmor said:
though the AUP isn't very clear on this point. "Adult user created (unmodified) fursuits or sculptures are permitted so long as they are in pristine condition and they are not being worn/in use." The AUP states "adult" fursuits but then right after says "unmodified". Is this a typo? The remainder of the rule seems to suggest that any fursuit that has some sexual connotations are allowed as long as they aren't being worn or being used.
Click to expand...
Fallowfox said:
As long as they're physically clean, rated as mature photographs if sexual adaptations are visually evident, and do not break the other rules on indecent exposure then I see absolutely no problem with them.

'In use' should be made clear to refer to any use that constitutes actual sexual activity. If a fursuit with a zipper is just being worn then that's no problem in my view.
If wearing something necessitates indecent exposure or actual sexual activity then this can be covered without the umbrella term 'worn'.
Click to expand...
In my recent threads and PMs with the staff, I stated that section 3.2 of the AUP has been confusing people and users have been misinterpreting it for over a decade. I just wanted to highlight some of these posts as evidence to support this statement. I won't be necroing any more threads.
 
RestrainedRaptor

RestrainedRaptor

Well-Known Nuisance
Sorry for the embarrassment! :) Just rest assured that you weren't alone. Heck, I still don't fully understand it myself. That's part of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top