FYI - Acceptable Upload Policy (AUP) Update

[Dragoneer]

let me see your params and i'll gladly shout ya

Don't derail the thread.

 

[Juliamon]

Umm what? That doesn't clarify anything.

RIGHT AFTER THAT it says, and I quote:

Prohibited - ... This includes, but not limited to; ... images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.).

Under this ruling Sex Toys, Adult Fursuits, Modified Plushes, Sculptures that are sexual in nature, etc are all not allowed.

Am I missing something here?

EDIT: Inf act that would contradict itself.... IF we just went off what you said then Adult Fursuits, Modified Plushes, etc would all be allowed if they did not contain visible "sexual" parts of humans.

If that's all that you want to say I'm all for it. But as it is now you're restricting a whole bunch more than what it seems you want to.

It seems to me that there's a slight problem with interpretation here.
What I'm getting from the AUP is "don't post it if you're going to have sex with it." A sculpture would be different, unless you intend to "hot glue" it or use it as though it were a dildo. Is this close?

 

[Quiet269]

So if there is more than 1 frame change per second, that's right out? Gotcha.

You don't understand the word Flash, do you?

This is a no:
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq205/xo_lindy/COLORFUL.gif

This is ok:
http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq148/Cookiecoo369/Fun%20Images/Dance.gif

It seems to me that there's a slight problem with interpretation here.
What I'm getting from the AUP is "don't post it if you're going to have sex with it." A sculpture would be different, unless you intend to "hot glue" it or use it as though it were a dildo. Is this close?

Then a Dildo would be out... but Dragoneer clearly stated earlier that a Dildo would be OK if you made it... But Dildoes are not allowed per the AUP...

*Head explode*

EDIT: And I dislike the room allowed for interpretation. The rules should be obvious, otherwise you open yourself up for a whole lot of shit.

 

[kewlhotrod]

You don't understand the word Flash, do you?

This is a no:
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq205/xo_lindy/COLORFUL.gif

This is ok:
http://i442.photobucket.com/albums/qq148/Cookiecoo369/Fun Images/Dance.gif

And the last one, in itself, was uber cute, haha.

Seriously, though, I think Dragoneer wanted peoples best interest and health in mind. If it even causes the slightest bit of controversy... Lets not use it? The point of having flashing avatars is annoying at best, anyhow. Sure, they may be cool at first, but eventually they'll mess with your eyes and people will naturally scroll past them to ignore them.

 

[Dragoneer]

Seeing as how I do artwork upon a very different sort of medium here, aka a couple vehicles, Does this change of policy mean that I am no longer allowed to post updates on the Zebra Car, & my Jurassic Park Tracker?

Within reason, yes. Zeebcar is fine so long as you're not uploading more than about three pics of it, at which point it would trigger the "Flooding" policy.

I can always draw the critters and then link to a vid on YouTube in the description if I'm that happy with it. It encourages me to draw more anyway.

This is actually perfectly acceptable, and EXACTLY what we encourage users to do.

 

[Narffet]

Rules:

1.) Don't be a dick
2.) Always ask permission
3.) Don't lie or steal
4.) Don't be a dick

 

[Vulpes-Vulpes]

I guess there're a few other questions.
If a picture already on the site which is allowed in the past but prohibited in the new AUP, will it be deleted or fixed by other methods?

...Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted,...

Well, if I uploaded a photo of me, but I happened to hurt myself somewhere accidentally (in parts that are showed in the photo like face or hand), leaving some scar there, will this photo be prohibited?

 

[Nanakisan]

Rules:

1.) Don't be a dick
2.) Always ask permission
3.) Don't lie or steal
4.) Don't be a dick

lool

heres my idea for a simplified AUP

1.) don't be stupid
2.) ask permission or meet my hammah
3.) lies are ok sometimes but stealing nuuu thats evil
4.) being an ass is your problem but we don't need your smelly rear here in FA so uhh care to have a chat with Mr.Hammer over here

5.) SL photos are stupid and we know it so we give you 3 image limit. if you break it i will come to your sim and crash it for weeks on end

 

[Quiet269]

I guess there're a few other questions.
If a picture already on the site which is allowed in the past but prohibited in the new AUP, will it be deleted or fixed by other methods?


Well, if I uploaded a photo of me, but I happened to hurt myself somewhere accidentally (in parts that are showed in the photo like face or hand), leaving some scar there, will this photo be prohibited?

Burn Victums... No Mugshots for j0

Sorry, not really ranting about this... I dislike gore... but I couldn't help myself

 

[thorndraco]

This is actually perfectly acceptable, and EXACTLY what we encourage users to do.

I'm really glad for that.

 

[Zytx]

So in order to be perfectly clear here, (because it is really late & I am tired)

You say: ""Within reason, yes. Zeebcar is fine so long as you're not uploading more than about three pics of it, at which point it would trigger the "Flooding" policy.""

Is that 3 photos at once, or 3 photos total ever in the entire gallery?

I just want to be clear on this subject. At best I've only ever uploaded maybe 2 photos of the car at one time in the past.

Z

 

[Rabbitboy3]

For the same reason we'll allow people who sculpt a dildo to post their images of their creation but not let people post images of them testing out their toy.

So a modified or custom plush toy that is obviously sexual in nature or is to be used as a sex toy, but is not being used for that purpose in an uploaded photograph, is allowed?

 

[Dragoneer]

So in order to be perfectly clear here, (because it is really late & I am tired)

You say: ""Within reason, yes. Zeebcar is fine so long as you're not uploading more than about three pics of it, at which point it would trigger the "Flooding" policy.""

Is that 3 photos at once, or 3 photos total ever in the entire gallery?

I just want to be clear on this subject. At best I've only ever uploaded maybe 2 photos of the car at one time in the past.

Z

To be honest, we *are* somewhat lenient on that. However, so, we may be slack and allow a few more than the general rule of flooding. However, if we go to your gallery and there are 10+ pictures of the same thing (e.g. car, sculpture, etc.) you will probably get a note from the admins. Generally, my rule of thumb is this: sometimes a collage can say just as much as four submissions of the same exact thing.

If I, or any other admin, feels a gallery is over saturated with images of the same thing you will probably get a note asking to clean it up.

Sorry, not really ranting about this... I dislike gore... but I couldn't help myself

*nod* Fur Affinity is NOT the website to be posting real life gore. However, I will state that make-up can be allowed. A great example of that would be Louie Furrywolfy, who has posted some awesome zombie pictures.

The key word is "real" gore. Fake gore may be nasty, but if it's done artistically... it can be acceptable.

If a picture already on the site which is allowed in the past but prohibited in the new AUP, will it be deleted or fixed by other methods?

We're not going to go on an inquisition tomorrow. And frankly, we have better things to do than witch hunt old submissions. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, if a gallery has an exceptional amount of violations per the new rules we will come visit.

As far as I am concerned, the only submissions grandfathered into this new policy are Second Life screenshots (for now). Photos are on the hitlist.

Well, if I uploaded a photo of me, but I happened to hurt myself somewhere accidentally (in parts that are showed in the photo like face or hand), leaving some scar there, will this photo be prohibited?

We're not dicks, and a scar is alright (within degree). However, is the scar is shooting pus at the camera, it's still fresh, it's gory... uh, yeah, not acceptable. If the scar has healed then it's not a big concern.

 

[Quiet269]

Thanks for your help so far Dragoneer... I know you guys are just trying to do best by the site, but people will have questions....

I need to sleep now, but I'm interested in your response to the photographs policy... as it's gotten kind of convoluted, and actually contradictory in this thread...

 

[dmfalk]

[*]Basic Quality/Content - Photographs of poor quality (grainy, blurred, out of focus or washed out) or images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. toys, games, movies) must be uploaded to Scraps.

Being that this is an ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE matter, rather than limiting to acceptable content, it's something that is entirely challengable (and should be), and thus should be stricken, insofar as image quality. As for collections, I have no qualms with these being placed in Scraps. Quality and collections are two separate issues, as should be addressed separately.

[*]Mashups - Mash-ups are only permitted when one half of the mash-up contains user-created material.

The definition of a "mash-up" is the combination of two (or more) songs/song elements (samples) that are mixed together- Usually rhythm/melody of one (or more) song(s) with the vocals of another. User control usually is limited to editing and mixing. FA's best mashup artist is Allan. Under the current "permission", very little of his music is allowable, and reflects a misunderstanding of what mashups are. This needs to be addressed.

d.m.f.

 

[redfoxnudetoons]

Submissions made with renderers (e.g Poser) must contain "User created content". If there is no "User created content" in the submission, then it may not be uploaded. Fractal and landscape generated artwork may be uploaded, within reason, provided they do not violate the Flooding Policy.

Is animation of poser figures considered user created content? or are you going back on what you said about poser 'neer?

 

[Talosar]

It has nothing to do with server space, but an increase of images which are grainy, impossible to see and out of focus. Just because you can post a picture to FA *doesn't* mean you should.

I can see what you're trying to do with this, and it's good that such photos are being pushed into scraps folders rather than disallowed entirely, but don't you think it's a dangerous direction to go in? Even if it's just for photos, I'm uncomfortable about any change to the rules that go to quality, as opposed to just content. I'm not saying that you or the admins would take that additional step and apply it to other types of submissions as well, but surely whatever reasoning is behind the change to photo rules could technically be applied to other areas too, and it just... concerns me.

 

[falderal]

Is there a common link for the webpage that the AUP rests on or is it always on here. Sorry, but I thought that it was actually a regular webpage and there was a link somewhere off the main site.

 

[lzeringue]

Photography Changes:
THANK YOU FROM ALL OF US WITH LIVES AND COMMON SENSE. <3

 

[lzeringue]

I can see what you're trying to do with this, and it's good that such photos are being pushed into scraps folders rather than disallowed entirely, but don't you think it's a dangerous direction to go in? Even if it's just for photos, I'm uncomfortable about any change to the rules that go to quality, as opposed to just content. I'm not saying that you or the admins would take that additional step and apply it to other types of submissions as well, but surely whatever reasoning is behind the change to photo rules could technically be applied to other areas too, and it just... concerns me.

Quality standards: Working just fine for VCL since antiquity.

 

[mycroftb]

As a Music Submission - Users may not upload original copyright renditions of audio.

Minor nitpick, this could be clarified a bit. Unless explicitly placed into the public domain, all creative works are copyrighted, so "copyright" is redundant. Even Creative Commons licensed work is still copyrighted. Interpreted literally, the quoted rule means people can't upload their own works they created themselves.

Maybe something like "Users may not upload unmodified renditions of audio without the copyright holder's permission."?

Then again, that really should apply to all submissions, not just audio...

 

[Dragoneer]

Being that this is an ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE matter, rather than limiting to acceptable content, it's something that is entirely challengable (and should be), and thus should be stricken, insofar as image quality. As for collections, I have no qualms with these being placed in Scraps. Quality and collections are two separate issues, as should be addressed separately.

They will be handled on a case-by-case basis, but yes... it is subjective. And no, the image quality clause will not be stricken. We've discussed this in and out over the past three years on FA (three years). Essentially, it will be up to the admin's discretion. Our goal is to be fair, yet stern. Most of the people on the admin staff are artists, and we're talking BASIC quality guidelines.

Frankly put, I'll be honest and say there is no perfect way to handle this, but we're easing into standards to improve the quality of the site. If you want to post a photo to FA take the time to shoot the photo. Do not just "snap off" a shot with your cellphone in a half lit room while bouncing around in the air to have a blurry, darkly lit, grainy/fuzzy image that is hard to see. Quality standards are never popular, but I'm prepared to take the unpopular stance and stand my ground.

Upload them to scraps. They're not gallery material.

The definition of a "mash-up" is the combination of two (or more) songs/song elements (samples) that are mixed together- Usually rhythm/melody of one (or more) song(s) with the vocals of another. User control usually is limited to editing and mixing. FA's best mashup artist is Allan. Under the current "permission", very little of his music is allowable, and reflects a misunderstanding of what mashups are. This needs to be addressed.

Mashups can be creative, yes, but other than taking two copyright songs and "mashing them up" what user created content is there? Picking out the selection?

I can see what you're trying to do with this, and it's good that such photos are being pushed into scraps folders rather than disallowed entirely, but don't you think it's a dangerous direction to go in? Even if it's just for photos, I'm uncomfortable about any change to the rules that go to quality, as opposed to just content.

Is it a dangerous direction? Yes, yes it is. But it's a step in the right direction. First and foremost, FA is an art site, and this is one of the first steps in improving that stance.

As an admin, I respect photography... but I do not respect people treating Fur Affinity like Photobucket. However, I want to make sure the steps we take are the RIGHT steps, so I'm easing into it. There is a reason my original "Photobucket Policy" from almost two years ago was shot down. It wasn't ready, and it was too drastic.

Is animation of poser figures considered user created content? or are you going back on what you said about poser 'neer?

If you created the animation, yes. But I would make sure you specifically state that in the description.

Maybe something like "Users may not upload unmodified renditions of audio without the copyright holder's permission."?

No, because even with permission it would still violate By You/For You. The basic reason that particular line is in the AUP is because people still think it's cool to upload their favorite Linkin Park song to FA, and oh my god, they have to upload the entire fucking album and when that happens Dragoneer screams like a bitch and wants to slap the person and... *cough*

It's easier to re-state that particular line to prevent people from uploading copyright work.

 

[redfoxnudetoons]

If you created the animation, yes. But I would make sure you specifically state that in the description.

Dose this mean static poses that are user created (i.e. not a preset pose) are no longer allowed?

 

[dmfalk]

Minor nitpick, this could be clarified a bit. Unless explicitly placed into the public domain, all creative works are copyrighted, so "copyright" is redundant. Even Creative Commons licensed work is still copyrighted. Interpreted literally, the quoted rule means people can't upload their own works they created themselves.

Maybe something like "Users may not upload unmodified renditions of audio without the copyright holder's permission."?

Then again, that really should apply to all submissions, not just audio...

Both these points I agree with. I personally do clean-up (audio restoration) of public-domain recordings as a hobby, but have been reluctant to even ask whether this was allowable or not (I generally assume not, so...), so it's a moot point, but yes, I think the prohibitions of ANY submissions that would violate the "By You/For You" definition applies, and should have explicit permission whenever possible, if someone other than the creator of said work submits the work.

d.m.f.
writer/editor

 

[Dragoneer]

Dose this mean static poses that are user created (i.e. not a preset pose) are no longer allowed?

A static pose... I'm going to have to say no, because the primary focus of the submission would default to the model. To be bluntly honest... anybody can pose a pre-made avatar. Anybody. Just look at Garry's Mod. Not everybody can animate something worth seeing.

I personally do clean-up (audio restoration) of public-domain recordings as a hobby, but have been reluctant to even ask whether this was allowable or not (I generally assume not, so...), so it's a moot point, but yes, I think the prohibitions of ANY submissions that would violate the "By You/For You" definition applies, and should have explicit permission whenever possible, if someone other than the creator of said work submits the work.

No, because the root of the original creation would have been created by another artist and not created for you. While the audio cleanup is one thing (and awesome, I may add) it still violates the core policy of FA, the By You/For You.