AUP Discussion

[Lionus]

It doesnt matter where you live it depends on US laws where FA is located which the legal age is 18, we had folks in the past who said the same thing where the legal age is lower. I believe the problem is that FA forgets that more than US uses its server and thus should mention its in the US following US laws.

Agreed. I understand that in this regard FA is legally "covering its tail". However it does need to offer its best attempt at what it means by 'minors in a sexual situation' for submitting artists at least.

The AUP is a quasi-legal document in that FurAffinity sets out the rules under which it accepts submissions. In a legal document, any complex or nebulous phrase is generally defined as to what the phrase is intended to mean to the person or organization binding themselves by that document.

 

[foxystallion]

AUP Discussion Re: paid 3D models and stock photographs

Nope, you're not. I hope the AUP update does include the rule tweak Dragoneer suggested here: http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/4104753/#cid:30429370

I appreciate that the rules on 3D models were slacked, but it does seem like a strange division to allow free-to-use models, but not pay-for models that grant usage rights, such as those bought from Daz3D for example. (I can't speak about the SecondLife aspect of your example, I'm not sure how many of those creators are intentionally granting reproduction rights with sales.) I hope the rule is altered to allow purchased models as well.

I, too, hope that purchased models will be permitted. Note that I am not prohibited from displaying a wildlife or scenic photograph that I took in a forest, park, or zoo where an entrance fee is charged. There is a far more to creating an artistic scene which includes a model than the model itself, which (I presume) is why the use of public domain models is permitted.

I also hope that the use of a portion of purchased stock photography will be permitted as a small part of digital art photomorphs. For example, I'd rather purchase a $3.00 top quality fox photo whose accompanying license allows me to take the fox head image, modify it as I desire, and add it to one of my photomorphs rather than waste hours finding a public domain fox head photograph that isn't as high in quality. Why the insistence that the fox head photograph be from a public domain photo? What is the point of this restriction? How does this apparent bias against professional photographers benefit either FA's owner or its members? Of course, credit should continue to be given where credit is due.

Note, too, that photographers and other digital artists are not required to use a public domain digital art tool such as the GIMP; we are allowed to use any software that we please, whether it be Corel Painter XII or Photoshop CS6.

So why must models and stock photographs be public domain? Please either change these rules or articulate a rational reason for them. Of course, the owner of FA has the right to promulgate arbitrary and capricious rules simply because they please him, but I'd be very surprised if he has any desire to act in this manner. I realize that the number of FA members who are 3D modelers is small, and the number of digital photomorph artists even smaller, but I hope that our pleas don't fall unheard through the cracks. May the sound and fury created by the cub art issue not bury these concerns.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[RestrainedRaptor]

http://help.furaffinity.net/article/AA-01602/8/ARCHIVE-Acceptable-Upload-Policy-AUP.html
Then there was the talk of me and warmock working on the first version of the rules when I went about to prove that folks who do modifation work on SL should be allowed to post seen on this submission
NSFW

YES. That version is much better. I can't really fault it as it's quite concise and reasonable in what it permits, without allowing everything under the sun. I'd like to see us go back in that direction.

 

[rizel]

The main part of the AUP I have a gripe with as a 3D artist is this:

Public domain/fair use models provided the uploader cites the model's creators/sources

I've advocated the addition of a clause aiming ofr the opposite of this for quite a while, and I was very disheartened when this was finally added. This gives users the ability to post content that is not theirs. I think it's shocking how this kind of content goes onto the site uninterrupted. It is staggering how simply someone can download a pirated copy of DAZ or Bryce or Poser, download a number of free assets, and create their own scene in such a short amount of time. All too often I see content like this posted with no credit at all. What upsets me most is the number of comments from users who are unaware of this scandal, praising the submitter on their level of skill and artistic ability.

Consider the steps required for someone to create and pose their own character:
1: Concept. This step is optional of course, as many may have the image in their mind already.
2: Base model. Forming the basic shape of the creature. This involves starting with basic primitive shapes and building them out a few verticies at a time.
3: Retopology. This is the process of moving the precise components of an object to make the flow of faces and edges smooth and even. This process is ongoing throughout most of the modelling steps.
4: Detailing. Adding fine detail and accessories. This can also include changes to the initial model when setting it up for rigging.
5: Texturing. I could make the process of UV Unwrapping a step of it's own. The user must define where the object is going to be cut and flattened to draw a 2D texture onto it. Anyone who has done it manually can attest how time-consuming and frustrating this process can be.
6: Rigging. This refers to creating a skeleton for the creature. This process can be very technical, as you have to have experience with where precisely the joints bend and how they move in relation to each other. Typically multiple sets of bones have to be made (to accomodate for IK/FK rigs). After that, the model must be 'skinned' to the skeleton, meaning the user must specify which verticies will move in relation to which bone(s). This is another time-consuming and frustration-laden process. Essentially, the time you put in is the result you will earn.
7: Composition. Creating an environment and background. This includes modeling other assets in the scene, configuring the creature in a given pose, creating a lighting setup and environment settings, etc.
8: Rendering. After all is positioned and adjusted in the correct manner, the user will render the result. The complexity of the models and scene can make this process take up a while, and afterwords will typically be adjusted in a program such as Photoshop to fix any brightness, noise, or other issues present within the image. The changes made here are minor, though necessary. This is the final step.

If we consider what the typical user of programs I mentioned before, you may as well eliminate steps 1-5.

I know one argument I typically receive when stating my point is something along these lines: "Rizel, have you ever considered that these artists specialize in the art of simply animating characters?" This is a fair assumption, but my gripe against that is this: Most artists showing off their animation skills typically do NOT download pre-gen assets (previously generated content). They will instead make a bare-bones character or one lacking tremenous (or even moderate) detail. "Max for Maya" is a tremendous example of a very simple character used often in animation. If the objective is trying to show off your animation or composition skills, then artists understand when someone uses a simple model. There is no shame in that.

I may be preaching my own cause. I do take commissions, yes, but this is both a hobby and an occupation for myself. I don't earn enough money in this way to buy myself lunch for a week. Ever. I typically post content that I make in my free time, or simply to entertain. This isn't about money, but some users who do what I advocate against earn money this way, too. I've seen plenty of paid commissions made by a user who used free assets for another user wh probably had no idea it happened this way at all. I can imagine someone feeling cheated when they pay for a custom character, only to learn that 80% of the model was pieced together using pre-gen assets or just morphed from an existing model they obtained the same way.

I believe there needs to be a drastic change in the 3D portion of the AUP. I believe it should specify that the work shown was created by the user as a demonstration of their skill and ability with a given program or programs, not how well they can hit 'Download' and pose free objects in a scene. It seems hypocritical that a site so against art theft allows such an act. I hope progress can be made to adjust this clause.

 

[Setsune_W]

Well, that certainly wasn't insulting at all.

 

[Jango The Blue Fox]

I also believe the position on adult fursuit photography should be modified. As long as no real genitalia are being shown, and the wearers are not engaging in a sexual act, I see no reason someone cannot "model" an adult fursuit. Wearing and using are different, IMO.

this is exactly what I've been saying, as long as there is no real life nudity or sexual activity then there is no reason people shouldn't be able to model adult fursuits.

 

[Verin Asper]

YES. That version is much better. I can't really fault it as it's quite concise and reasonable in what it permits, without allowing everything under the sun. I'd like to see us go back in that direction.

the problem is I can understand that always happens: "too many words"
Something my friend suggest is clarifications, where we can have a short hand, generalized version but allow people to get specific version if they wish to know more. This way people can know that in general the rules ar elike this but then we can go specific with 3D works and SL (to which again these days they are two seperate fields now and cant be govern by the same rules) Thats why we on the first version of the SL rules put specifics for SL than on 3D works overall, heck somethings actually were picked up from the original rules on 3D and converted over to work with SL.

 

[BishyT]

Rizel, i'm afraid i'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you.

First of all, Poser and Daz artwork are derivative works, and as such are protected under the following section of the AUP.

"Derivative works (music remixes, photo morphs) are permitted only if the finished work is uniquely distinguishable from its borrowed parts. Additionally, ownership aside, the original parts must abide by the AUP."

Comparing Poser artwork to "art theft" is a logical fallacy. Art theft is when you take someone else's work and alter it/upload it without their permission. Poser resources however (both purchased and free ones) are licensed for use in at least non-commercial images, if not also commercial ones. They're stock resources. It's just like photomanipulations (or photo morphs as the AUP refers to them as); the use of stock photos that are licensed for use in at least non-commercial work.

If FA were to ban stock 3D models (such as Poser figures), they would have to ban the use of all stock resources to be fair, which includes (but isn't limited to); stock photos, stock patterns, stock pose references (e.g. Senshi Stock), stock audio effects (for flash animations), the stock audio loops that come with most music software such as GarageBand, stock textures (e.g. CG Textures), and (most importantly) photoshop brushes. Anything that has been downloaded or bought off a website with a royalty free license would have to be banned.

If you really are so concerned about losing commissions to those who use Poser models, perhaps you should concentrate more on improving the quality of your own work rather than trying to ban the competition. I've seen quite a few other 3D artists on this website who produce their own works who aren't having any trouble getting commissions. Besides, I dare you to look both Hellboy and Kupopo, two of the greatest gay artists on the internet, in the eye, and tell them their 3D work should be banned for using Poser content.

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/hellboy/
http://e621.net/post?tags=3d+kupopo

 

[DragonFood]

Rizel, here's an argument you may not have considered: you are simply being cynical and presumptuous. You say you "can imagine someone feeling cheated"; well, there's something to take away from that you gloss over without giving a second thought: it is by your own say-so a situation that exists only in your imagination. Not once do you even mention legitimately purchased assets or software, or them being legitimately used. You are feigning umbrage over a non-issue; simply assuming things undesirable so you can add fuel to your righteous indignation. Your diatribe is built on a stack of unnecessary, unfair, and frankly untrue assumptions. Assuming it's art theft; assuming there's a scandal; assuming people are pirating software; assuming that this is even typical for these users. Oscar Wilde has a good one on simply assuming such things; maybe you've heard it.



Just wanna point out, too, this insanely beautiful animation made solely with Daz 3D products: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/10273576/ which in that regard makes it banned by the AUP in its current wording, which is a damned shame that needs to be addressed.

 

[BishyT]

DragonFood, thank you so much for introducing me to that wonderful video. That is possibly the best hobbyist 3D animations i've ever seen, let alone one that uses Daz models.

 

[foxystallion]

BishyT, thank you for both your logic and your links!

 

[Katalyst]

Honestly? I side with Rizel on this, and I'm not even a 3D artist.
I've purchased, "CUSTOM 3D ART!!" of my characters, and when I got it? It looked nothing like my character. Why? Because it was Poser. The person went out and downloaded pieces of models, and Frankensteined them together, rather than doing what I had actually paid for. Too many people will see these and think, "OH! They MAKE all of this!" because, frankly, the creator of the pieces isn't revealed.

IF the AUP is going to allow for that, I believe that the artist(s) who use Poser should be REQUIRED, no if ands or buts to it, to tell us WHERE they downloaded every asset.

In pixel art (specifically dolling), this is already required. And this act is no different than dolling except that rather than a small 2D image, we have a much larger 3D one.

Edit:
TL;DR:
Outright ban? No. Give Credit where Credit is due? Yes, a hundred times, YES.

 

[Fallowfox]

Is it not already part of the AUP to admit and list references, or have permission to use other people's intellectual property?

 

[Katalyst]

Is it not already part of the AUP to admit and list references, or have permission to use other people's intellectual property?

Do you know how many people do NOT do this? I want mods to crack down on this if its in the AUP, since NONE of the poser users that I've encounetered even make mention of downloading a model unless asked.

 

[Fallowfox]

Do you know how many people do NOT do this? I want mods to crack down on this if its in the AUP, since NONE of the poser users that I've encounetered even make mention of downloading a model unless asked.

If any of my drawings would be recogniseable compared with a reference, and the reference material doesn't belong to me, I say 'and my reference was from magazine a'.

Everyone can and should do this, so perhaps it needs higher priority in the aup.

 

[Katalyst]

If someone downloads something and makes changes to it, with or without permission, the ORIGINAL ARTIST should receive credit.

Let me put it into 2D art for you.
Say someone draws something. Fan sees it and wants to trace and make changes. (One route: Ask artist, artist agrees if so many changes are made to the end product). Fan traces and makes their alterations. The original product is there, though not as recognizable now. Should the Original Artist receive no credit? If you say yes, then you need to remove yourself from art entirely. We have no use for people with that mindset.

This is as CLOSE to the current 3D issue as I can get. Someone else created the model and has made it open-source. Does that make them any less important? They were the starting point for the artwork... and thus should receive the credit for the part they played. I feel this is true for all forms.

To state that, "Oh, I referenced this magazine, I have to credit!" If you traced it, then yes, credit where credit is due. Otherwise, the magazine was a TOOL, like your pen/pencil, mouse/tablet, computer, camera, so on and so forth. NO ONE will be so unreasonable as to say, "STATE ALL TOOLS USED!"
State where you got your assets, though.

 

[Fallowfox]

I already agree the original artist deserves credit, if this is made clear in aup [i believe it is mentioned already perhaps not as overtly as it could be] then would that ammeliorate the problem you think is symptomatic of that medium?

As to magazines, I suppose I use them as a tool then, but 'influence' or 'reference' are perhaps better descriptions, because reference does not mean 'trace'.

 

[Verin Asper]

If someone downloads something and makes changes to it, with or without permission, the ORIGINAL ARTIST should receive credit.

Let me put it into 2D art for you.
Say someone draws something. Fan sees it and wants to trace and make changes. (One route: Ask artist, artist agrees if so many changes are made to the end product). Fan traces and makes their alterations. The original product is there, though not as recognizable now. Should the Original Artist receive no credit? If you say yes, then you need to remove yourself from art entirely. We have no use for people with that mindset.

This is as CLOSE to the current 3D issue as I can get. Someone else created the model and has made it open-source. Does that make them any less important? They were the starting point for the artwork... and thus should receive the credit for the part they played. I feel this is true for all forms.

To state that, "Oh, I referenced this magazine, I have to credit!" If you traced it, then yes, credit where credit is due. Otherwise, the magazine was a TOOL, like your pen/pencil, mouse/tablet, computer, camera, so on and so forth. NO ONE will be so unreasonable as to say, "STATE ALL TOOLS USED!"
State where you got your assets, though.

The rules already SAY to Cite sources, something folks been ignoring sadly (and sadly When telling people to cite they get angry about it and admins wont do anything if you report it apparently cause now its your job to find the info for them)
its very annoying to have find every single piece of avatar stuff on SL to prove that the person did none of it to show its a personal screenshot that should be in scraps.

 

[BishyT]

Honestly? I side with Rizel on this, and I'm not even a 3D artist.
I've purchased, "CUSTOM 3D ART!!" of my characters, and when I got it? It looked nothing like my character. Why? Because it was Poser. The person went out and downloaded pieces of models, and Frankensteined them together, rather than doing what I had actually paid for. Too many people will see these and think, "OH! They MAKE all of this!" because, frankly, the creator of the pieces isn't revealed.

IF the AUP is going to allow for that, I believe that the artist(s) who use Poser should be REQUIRED, no if ands or buts to it, to tell us WHERE they downloaded every asset.

In pixel art (specifically dolling), this is already required. And this act is no different than dolling except that rather than a small 2D image, we have a much larger 3D one.

Edit:
TL;DR:
Outright ban? No. Give Credit where Credit is due? Yes, a hundred times, YES.

First of all, the AUP already requires that.
Second of all, you shouldn't have given your money to such a bad artist. Did you not at least research the artist in question, or perhaps ask for a watermarked preview render before agreeing to pay for it? It's good practise to ask for a preview image before sending them your money (or the rest of your money if you paid a deposit), as otherwise you run the risk of paying for a substandard product. You can't project your feelings about one bad commission experience to every artist in the same genre. That would be like me complaining about a bad drawing I got and saying "yeah, all 2D art is shit and lazy, they're all the same!".

In future, be smarter with who you give your money to. I'm sorry to sound harsh, but there are a LOT of people out there (regardless of art genre) who will try to rip you off for minimal work, so you have to be more careful about who you commission. If you had commissioned me (not that I am taking commissions, but hypothetically if I was), I would've at least done my best to sculpt a custom face morph in Zbrush to closely resemble your character and make it truly unique, just like I did with this Spookeedoo gift art ( http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9398240/ ) or this Grisser gift art ( http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9804705/ ) or even this CaptainGerBear gift art ( http://www.furaffinity.net/view/9804770/ ), all of them starting off as Daz models. Even then, I would only have charged you for the work I did, and not the resources I used.

This is as CLOSE to the current 3D issue as I can get. Someone else created the model and has made it open-source. Does that make them any less important? They were the starting point for the artwork... and thus should receive the credit for the part they played. I feel this is true for all forms.

Actually, when you purchase 3D stock (such as characters, scenery, sky domes, textures, etc) from websites such as Daz 3D or Renderosity, you are purchasing the license to use the stock royalty free in both commercial and non-commercial renders without the need to credit them. This is the standard license used in all major 3D stock marketplaces (Daz 3D, Renderosity, Renderotica, RDNA, Poser Addicts, Maleposerotica, etc).

In the case of freebies or open-source, where you aren't paying for them, this license may differ to either deny commercial use, or to require credit. This is the exact same as 2D stock, such as photos from Getty Images or free photoshop brushes from DevArt. Depending on how or where you acquire the stock, the licences will differ. Some will require credit, some won't.

I can't comment on Second Life content as i'm not really an active SL user, but i'm pretty sure that most if not all Second Life content has to have credit given. All items in-game will have the name of the creator attached to them (so anyone viewing the object's information can see who made it and who owns it), so I think it would be safe to assume that any out-game usage would also require credit.

That said, I do believe that artists using Daz Studio or Poser should at the least mention the fact that they are using Daz Studio and Daz resources, not only to avoid confusion but to also introduce new people to Daz Studio who might be interested in using it. I myself always try my best to be transparent about my stuff, and try to make it clear exactly what work i've done. I've even posted a video once showing the process I used to create a render: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhTQyjpYczw You won't ever catch me attempting to pass of a Daz figure as my own.

Oh, and for clarification, I myself am a Daz 3D vendor (I sell my own original content at Daz 3D for other Daz users to use), so i'm very familiar with the ins and outs of the Daz/Poser community and the way Daz licenses their stock products for royalty free use.

 

[Katalyst]

1. This is not something that was an immense amount of money, but it IS something that isn't quite so easy to spot unless you're looking for it, especially when people get all, "OMG THIS IS AMAZING" regardless of actual quality. Yes, there are people there to rip others off, there are also people who honestly believe that they are god's gift to the universe. Secondly, as pointed out, the current AUP isn't enforced AT ALL. As was mentioned, when informing people that they are required to credit for assets, you will get pissy comments back and mods here do NOTHING to enforce it unless the person reporting goes out to find the actual stock, even when people say, "No, I did not create this. I downloaded it."

As to "some require credit, others do not"-- FA's AUP requires credit for all assets not made by the person posting art. This is the ONLY thing of note in this case, not "So and so does not require credit". FurAffinity, itself, does.

 

[rizel]

Actually, when you purchase 3D stock (such as characters, scenery, sky domes, textures, etc) from websites such as Daz 3D or Renderosity, you are purchasing the license to use the stock royalty free in both commercial and non-commercial renders without the need to credit them. This is the standard license used in all major 3D stock marketplaces (Daz 3D, Renderosity, Renderotica, RDNA, Poser Addicts, Maleposerotica, etc).

This isn't a discussion about DAZ's policies and rights on content, or how to use an open source license. This is about what users are able to upload on Fur Affinity. A person may purchase an item from any of the above listed sources, but they CANNOT post that content onto Fur Affinity:

Screenshots and 3D Renders

• Permitted in your Gallery
  • Second Life: screenshots of 3D models made specifically by or for the uploader
  • Public domain/fair use models provided the uploader cites the model's creators/sources
    
  • Screenshots of applications, games, movies of content the uploader has created unique content (does not include character creators)
  • Screenshots or sprites of copyright games may be used if part of a comic or recurring series of narrative images
• Permitted inScraps
  • Generated images (character generators, terrain generators)

Not Permitted

• Screenshots of applications, games, movie or websites
• 3D models requiring purchase/sale to use (unless specifically custom made for the uploader)

Also, the whole point you made about vendors not requiring credit when they issue content for free/open source is moot as well. Again, this is about what is okay to upload on Fur Affinity, and currently that's not allowed either:

• Permitted in your Gallery
  • Second Life: screenshots of 3D models made specifically by or for the uploader
  • Public domain/fair use models provided the uploader cites the model's creators/sources

 

[Setsune_W]

Rizel, the point of this discussion is that we're asking for the "3D models requiring purchase/sale" line to be removed or altered, specifically because the last AUP has taken the step to allow public domain models, but creates a seemingly unnecessary divide between content available for free, and content available for purchase (that grants usage rights, which is the point of sites like Daz3D).

I personally have no issue with requiring citation of sources when feasible, even when the license does not explicitly require it.

 

[BishyT]

Rizel, you clearly didn't read my post properly. I never said that free/open source content didn't require credit, I actually said the complete opposite. Most freebies will have their own license that requires credit.

Now admittedly, I wasn't aware of the line stating that purchased 3D models weren't allowed. Now that I am though, I can argue against it properly.

First of all, I would like to know the reason behind why free models, regardless of who created them, are allowed, while purchased models aren't. What is the thought process behind this? I would also like to know why the AUP only specifically disallows purchased 3D stock content, and not purchased stock photos, or music.

Let's look at how other stock resources are used according to the AUP.

The only mentions of stock photos in the AUP are this line under "Permitted in your Gallery":
Manufactured/collected items which have been significantly modified from the stock version. Examples include (but are not limited to): custom paint jobs, car restorations, permanent/creative gun modifications.
And this line under "Permitted in Scraps":
Unmodified or stock manufactured/collected items (such as cars, guns with or without attachments, toys, plates)
As you can see, there is absolutely no separation between whether the stock is free or not. Both free stock photos from Deviantart and paid stock photos from Getty Images are allowed, as long as you follow the individual licenses set by them.

Audio stock, such as stock sound effects or stock music, aren't even mentioned in the AUP, so there are literally no rules against it. All stock audio, whether free or purchased, are allowed to be used here.
Digital resources, such as photoshop brushes, patterns, filters, or fonts are also not mentioned anywhere in the AUP, so again there are literally no rules against them. All stock resources, whether free or purchased, are allowed to be used here.

So to recap, not only does the AUP neglect to even have rules for half of the stock content available out there, it also applies separate rules to both 3D and Photographic stock despite them both being governed by the same laws (all stock are covered by licenses that dictate the acceptable use of the content). These rules are incredibly inconsistent, and should be made consistent; either ban ALL stock, or allow ALL stock.

Seriously, it's things like this that make me glad I migrated to Weasyl a while ago. Weasyl's AUP is much more consistent, not to mention the fact that it actually covers additional stock such as audio. For comparison, here's is Weasyl's AUP on using 3D stock:

If a pre-existing model was used to make the screenshot, the user must obtain permission from the original model's creator (unless the copyright is waived), and either:

• Have altered the model in some way as to be significantly different from the original, such as reskinning or modelling the mesh further, or
• Are showcasing an animation they have created.

 

[Mipsus]

Honestly? I side with Rizel on this, and I'm not even a 3D artist.
I've purchased, "CUSTOM 3D ART!!" of my characters, and when I got it? It looked nothing like my character. Why? Because it was Poser. The person went out and downloaded pieces of models, and Frankensteined them together, rather than doing what I had actually paid for. Too many people will see these and think, "OH! They MAKE all of this!" because, frankly, the creator of the pieces isn't revealed.

And yet you can apply that ~same~ logic to photo-painting techniques as well as layer tracing techniques. I doubt that most people on FA have any ~real~ cl00 as just HOW MUCH it would actually cost for a professional grade, original, made from scratch 3D model. PROTIP: It would likely cost more money than most people make in six months workin yer average minimum wage job!

You get what you pay for and if you didn't pay upwards of $1,000 to $5,000+...yeah, you ~really~ shouldn't be expecting much. It all comes down to the whole "buyer beware" concept. FA isn't here to babysit you and make sure you don't make stupid/uninformed decisions when it comes to purchasing art, that's not their job and it has nothing to do with the AUP either.

On a related note, the 3D artwork tag/label in and of itself is kind of misleading...I mean, you guys ~are~ aware of the fact that you can FLAT RENDER in Poser...right? In fact a lot of 2D artists utilize flat-rendered Poser models for creating base poses to layer trace off of. Even further, it can flat render the SHADING as well (sans the direct models), which you can then utilize with layer blending techniques in order to create near instantaneous shading/lighting effects for your 2D model.

The end result is basically being able to churn out massive volumes of 2D artwork with completely original poses that have absolutely perfect anatomy and shading/lighting.

...and the thing is...there really isn't any way to tell ~for certain~ if that's the technique they're using or not. And at that point the line between 3D rendering and 2D drawing is effectively lost altogether.

 

[LionkingCMSL]

Consider the steps required for someone to create and pose their own character:
1: Concept. This step is optional of course, as many may have the image in their mind already.
2: Base model. Forming the basic shape of the creature. This involves starting with basic primitive shapes and building them out a few verticies at a time.
3: Retopology. This is the process of moving the precise components of an object to make the flow of faces and edges smooth and even. This process is ongoing throughout most of the modelling steps.
4: Detailing. Adding fine detail and accessories. This can also include changes to the initial model when setting it up for rigging.
5: Texturing. I could make the process of UV Unwrapping a step of it's own. The user must define where the object is going to be cut and flattened to draw a 2D texture onto it. Anyone who has done it manually can attest how time-consuming and frustrating this process can be.

Rizel,

Some of us, like myself, have neither the talent nor resources do items 2 through 4. The only models that I create from scratch are architectual models using AutoCadd 2000.
We use purchased models to overcome such limitations. We have a vision in our mind that we want to recreate.
I do re-skinning of purchased models at various times.

I understand your problem with pirated copies of the software, but to imply all of us that use stock unmodified models are guilty of such practices is very insulting. I have purchased Poser from 4 up to and including Poser Pro 2014. I have purchased Bryce from 4 to 7.1 and Vue from 9 to 11. If anything I support the 3D community with such purchases. I do include which programs I use when creating a scene.

As for citing every source for the models I use would be nigh impossible, as I have over 2000 models for Poser, acquired from 2001 to present. I cannot be expected to remember where I got every last item in my libraries. Heck, I cannot remember where some of them are even located in the libraries without doing a search. I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.

Your mission is noble in cause, but I feel the AUP is slanted against the 3D artist who creates what they see in their mind. I salute you and your talent, but to paint everyone that cannot do what you do as a cheat and a fraud is very wrong.

It is staggering how simply someone can download a pirated copy of DAZ or Bryce or Poser, download a number of free assets, and create their own scene in such a short amount of time. All too often I see content like this posted with no credit at all. What upsets me most is the number of comments from users who are unaware of this scandal, praising the submitter on their level of skill and artistic ability.

Do you realize the commenters may be praising the skill and artistry of the scene itself and not the models.
Would you say this scene has no skill or artistic merit?
If you do then you are being very self serving.
I have had people who are very competent in modelling 3D admire that scene and they know I did not make those models. It is more than the models. It is the lighting, the placement of different elements, the posing. That scene took me about three hours to get right and with purchased items using a purchased not pirated copy of Poser. The "scandal" is one that you and only a few see. I agree pirated software has no place here, but those with honest copies should not be lumped in with them.

With what you want to propose with the AUP would allow only the 3D modelers to post and not the 3D artists.

Art can be defined as "Creating what you see in your mind."