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

New Terms of Service and Submission Agreement Policy

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
Wolfblade said:
Admin discretion.

If someone comes forward with something that can be overlaid and looks to be a trace, they're more likely to be listened to.

Complaints of "Pose theft," when not an obvious (again, admin discretion) trace or direct eyeball referencing (and even that one was still kinda under discussion last time I checked), won't be listened to, and haven't been nearly as common as people seem to believe they will be.
Poses we're not worried about. In plain English: we don't care if the poses are similar. Why? Well, the body can only move in so many ways and eventually you're going to have MASSIVE amounts of similarties in images.

Now, when it comes to complaints of art theft...

We always overlay and compare the original image with the one being claimed counterfeit. If they're similar, eh well, that's just how it goes. If they're identical down to lines, patterns and it's plainly obvious most if not all of the image was traced, well, we've got a problem.

And that's where we step in and start to review. No one admin has any say in all of this. In situations like this, we usually all attempt to work together and try to come to a unanimous decision.

But, well, let's just say we've got more than a few graphics experts on staff, some with degrees and industry experience. =) We don't make these decisions lightly.
 

cyberwuffy

Member
Preyfar said:
cesarin said:
Upon submitting to Fur Affinity you grant the website non-exclusive rights to transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission media within the boundaries of the site's Domains (http://www.furaffinity.net/, http://www.furaffinityforums.net/ and http://www.wikiffinity.net/).

can you explain what does this means??
we lose the rights of your art or what? o_O
Just to clarify for others, it means that when you give us the graphic you give us the right to transmit (send it out to others), resize (make preview images), store (keep it on our servers), publish (display it on the site) or alter (some people upload images at 2 to 4MB, when they don't NEED to be at all. Sometimes in rare cases we compress them to realistic file sizes - bandwidth is not free).

If you'd just used what was in the ()s you would've been good o.o Cesarin's english ain't got anything to do it. s'more like legalese :p
 

moonlightsinner

New Member
Preyfar said:
Wolfblade said:
Admin discretion.

If someone comes forward with something that can be overlaid and looks to be a trace, they're more likely to be listened to.

Complaints of "Pose theft," when not an obvious (again, admin discretion) trace or direct eyeball referencing (and even that one was still kinda under discussion last time I checked), won't be listened to, and haven't been nearly as common as people seem to believe they will be.
Poses we're not worried about. In plain English: we don't care if the poses are similar. Why? Well, the body can only move in so many ways and eventually you're going to have MASSIVE amounts of similarties in images.

Now, when it comes to complaints of art theft...

We always overlay and compare the original image with the one being claimed counterfeit. If they're similar, eh well, that's just how it goes. If they're identical down to lines, patterns and it's plainly obvious most if not all of the image was traced, well, we've got a problem.

And that's where we step in and start to review. No one admin has any say in all of this. In situations like this, we usually all attempt to work together and try to come to a unanimous decision.

But, well, let's just say we've got more than a few graphics experts on staff, some with degrees and industry experience. =) We don't make these decisions lightly.

Oh, alright... Thank you both very much. This clears up a lot for me and puts me on ease with the generic pose situation. ^^ Thank you again so much.

-Moonlight Sinner
 

imnohbody

Member
On a tangential note, whose bright idea was it to make the TOS white text on a light blue background? :p

Sure, you can highlight the text (as I did) to get a readable version, but a) why should it be made more difficult to read the TOS when users are required to obey it, and b) it seems kind of like the tiny print at the bottom of an ad, where you need a microscope to read all the restrictions or the reallyfastmutteredvoiceoversaidallinonesinglebreath on radio ads, which makes their respective "special offer" not so special.
 

SokiTwopaw

New Member
I see this as a good and bad thing as most things are in the world these days.

Good:
"You can only upload to mature if you are 18+"-TOSA
I like that because I know that every one must start some where BUT, you dont start drawing porn before you know anatomy as a general assumption.
"User must be 13+ with permission" -TOS
I like that as well, way to cover your ass.

Bad:
"...will not violate any US law be it..." -TOSA
You all know my thoughts on certain art, thats all Im going to say about that.

I have an idea though, Ive noticed this lately in the galleries.
Is there a way we can make a rule that states that

"Any sequence art over 4 frames that has minimal detail/single character, of a non-background nature or small in size, must be compiled in a single submission. This goes the same for images that are of the same thing but just in different views ex. CGI images."

I think that would save a TON of space on the server HD's just seeing some of the trends in the galleries. I'm mainly talking about the people who put up 15 shots of their character for SL or they fill a page an' a half of search with things that could have been compiled into 1 or 2 things. Just a thought.
 

Wolfblade

Member
SokiTwopaw said:
I have an idea though, Ive noticed this lately in the galleries.
Is there a way we can make a rule that states that

"Any sequence art over 4 frames that has minimal detail/single character, of a non-background nature or small in size, must be compiled in a single submission. This goes the same for images that are of the same thing but just in different views ex. CGI images."

I think that would save a TON of space on the server HD's just seeing some of the trends in the galleries. I'm mainly talking about the people who put up 15 shots of their character for SL or they fill a page an' a half of search with things that could have been compiled into 1 or 2 things. Just a thought.

Sequence art (actually drawn stuff) wasn't part of the discussion, but there were talks at one point about excessive SL screenshots, 10 angles of the same cg model, 15 photos of someone's cat yawning, etc.. I'm not sure right now whether those talks will be coming back, but right now I think the emphasis is on letting everyone have a chance to bring any possible concerns forward with the ToS and Submission Agreement.

What is and isn't acceptable to upload beyond that, content-wise, is a separate discussion for the moment.
 

lerster

New Member
If they site is so worried about misuse of space, when is it going to have the deletion feature back so one could remove old mp3 recordings.

As, i'm sure they take up a ton of space. Not just 4-5mbs....

Also, why is it that you have to re-register for the forums. i'm guessing i'll just be slapped with "security" rather then a real, answer being nobody can figure out how to merge the FA users data with FA forums user data or perhaps it is simply: "Security."

Anyways was just curious and i know that's a bit off topic sort've.

As it's been down for ages.
 

Wolfblade

Member
Last I checked, the site isn't worried about space at the moment. But they do want to make sure they don't need to worry about space for as long as possible. So, a little bit of conscientious submission management right now can make a big difference over a long span of time.

Submission deletion being down is irritating for a lot of people, but unfortunately, its just one of those things. Everyone who works for FA does so on a volunteer basis, and there's never a shortage of things needing to be done. Some tasks and fixes are more priority than others, and everyone has to work around their own time constraints. So, as much as nobody likes this as an answer; it'll be back when its back (and that's not an official answer, that's just me as another User being realistic.)

As for the forum thing, there's always been a bit of a disconnect between the mainsite and the forum. At one point it was said that it wasn't so much a matter of they couldn't tie the two together or security, but it sounded like it was just the fact that there wasn't much point in having site users automatically registered to the forums. Reason being that only an incredibly small fraction of the site's users ever come to the forums, and even fewer tend to stick around.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
imnohbody said:
On a tangential note, whose bright idea was it to make the TOS white text on a light blue background? :p
The text is dark black on light blue in both Firefox 2.0 and IE 7, as it should be.
 

dave hyena

A wonderous moorhen
Wolfblade said:
As for the forum thing, there's always been a bit of a disconnect between the mainsite and the forum. At one point it was said that it wasn't so much a matter of they couldn't tie the two together or security, but it sounded like it was just the fact that there wasn't much point in having site users automatically registered to the forums. Reason being that only an incredibly small fraction of the site's users ever come to the forums, and even fewer tend to stick around.

Not to mention that the forums are hosted on a seperate machine in case the main site goes down and people go (& can be directed) to the forums for infomation.
 

imnohbody

Member
Preyfar said:
imnohbody said:
On a tangential note, whose bright idea was it to make the TOS white text on a light blue background? :p
The text is dark black on light blue in both Firefox 2.0 and IE 7, as it should be.

That's not how it's showing up here, browsing with the default color settings (that is, "let site select colors" checkbox is marked) for Firefox 2.0.

How I'm seeing it (or a sample thereof, anyway; linked to not break forum formatting, it's a touch on the wide side)

[edit]
I checked in IE6 (Win XP), and it is showing up as black text, only my Firefox 2.0 installation is showing the text as white.
 

iller

Member
Wolfblade said:
What is and isn't acceptable to upload beyond that, content-wise, is a separate discussion for the moment.

Why have that discussion AT ALL? ...Now hell yeah I'm sick of drama starting over <<Insert extreme fetish Here>> ...but why not use Technology to just seperate these "warring factions"?...

Namely the Tag system. And it's real simple, flag certain Tags/Terms in the extreme yiff category and require users to input those tags in a special field in their Profile (or the Filtering section if that ever gets fixed) if they really wish to see that extreme stuff. To everyone else it will be hidden...then just let users or "ViP's" enforce the tagging of images when those who uploaded failed to add the proper Tags.

..bonus points if you let Artists place those same tags in a "Restrict Access" Field either on their images or userpages so that they can avoid-contact all-together with those other users, the same way that the Block-User List is supposed to work. ...anyway, give it some thought.
 

Wolfblade

Member
iller said:
Wolfblade said:
What is and isn't acceptable to upload beyond that, content-wise, is a separate discussion for the moment.

Why have that discussion AT ALL? ...Now hell yeah I'm sick of drama starting over <<Insert extreme fetish Here>> ...but why not use Technology to just seperate these "warring factions"?...

Namely the Tag system. And it's real simple, flag certain Tags/Terms in the extreme yiff category and require users to input those tags in a special field in their Profile (or the Filtering section if that ever gets fixed) if they really wish to see that extreme stuff. To everyone else it will be hidden...then just let users or "ViP's" enforce the tagging of images when those who uploaded failed to add the proper Tags.

..bonus points if you let Artists place those same tags in a "Restrict Access" Field either on their images or userpages so that they can avoid-contact all-together with those other users, the same way that the Block-User List is supposed to work. ...anyway, give it some thought.

Oh hey, trust me, I'm all for having a working tag system to just let people choose what they feel like seeing and filter the rest. However, that not being an option right at present, it can't hurt to discuss the alternatives.

Mostly, I think the comment my response was directed at though, was talking about the general opinion that excessive SL screenshots hold marginal artistic value, and so, the merit of having a gallery comprised mostly of SL shots could be considered questionable.
 

imnohbody

Member
Hanazawa said:
imnohbody - you're seeing an old version of the TOS. Try reloading and/or clearing your cache.

Huh, that's odd. Prior to today (well, yesterday) I had never accessed the TOS previously. It's still showing the old page even after forcing a full refresh.

Guess it's time to save my bookmarks file and totally wipe Firefox from my system, and reinstall from scratch. :(
 
Preyfar said:
Xax said:
Submission Policy said:
If you are seventeen (17) years of age or younger you must have explicit permission from a parent or legal guardian before uploading to the server, and you agree that they have read and consented to both the Terms of Service and the Submission Agreement.

Really?
Really.

Why? That seems a bit asinine considering everywhere else on the whole of the internet doesn't require that unless you're under the age of thirteen.
 
SokiTwopaw said:
Bad:
"...will not violate any US law be it..." -TOSA
You all know my thoughts on certain art, thats all Im going to say about that.

Unless you're talking about photography no art is illegal in the US. If you're talking about photography ewww creepy.
 

Tensik

Member
You guys know I would have rather gouged my eyes out that post here again but . . .

Fur Affinity allows users to post photographic images without limits so long as the images constitute as "art". "Art" is defined as images in which the photographer clearly and without doubt considered frame, light, exposure and subject of the image.
All other images are considered to be "every day life" and are deemed "not of artistic merit", and may be subject to deletion. "Every day life" includes, but is not limited to: pictures of pets, toys, fursuits, people, household items, websites (including Fur Affinity) and Second Life. “Not of artistic merit” includes, but is not limited to: image macros, random junk you saw, photos and/or screenshots taken because you were bored.

This was an issue before and will be an issue again. No one is qualified to judge what has artistic merit and what does not. Period. I don't care who you are. What does not have artistic merit to you may have been an amateur's honest attempt at real photography. Alternatively, anyone who wants to be a jerk can pretend to be practicing their photography in their submission info just to cover their tail and then flood the place.

Secondly, "real life" is really all that a lot of the community has to contribute here. Those who are not artistic like participating too, and the ability to show their pets, or them at their home, is just as much of a way of saying 'here's me" as artists do.

SL is still a load of crap because being able to post avs from one online game that you don't make (but just pretend you do) is no different than posting avs you put together using pre-constructed parts in any other online game. *growls* Any MMO or no MMOs. Pick one.

I completely understand the basis behind the rule but it is much too open and subjective and invariably there's going to be major issues arising, maybe not with the folks you folks might want to favor (the artists) but the others (those who keep us drawing . . . you know, the community that makes up the bulk of the place). It's not fair to say to them "we're going to pick and choose from you only" when they're not violating copyrights or doing anything against the site policy other than not fdoing what you might want to see at the moment, nor are they "wasting server space" as the staff has already said that is not an issue.

As the problem isn't the content by by the staff's own words but really just that "man that's annoying" feeling when someone floods the place", I would again suggest a max upload per day cap. It would make EVERYONE equally be more selective in posting while not limiting people; they'd just have to do it over a number of days if it's that important to them. But no matter what that's an incredibly unfair rule. I would hope it gets removed again until a fair one can be devised that doesn't target anyone just because it rubs a person or two the wrong way or a few bad apples spoil the bunch.
 

imnohbody

Member
imnohbody said:
Guess it's time to save my bookmarks file and totally wipe Firefox from my system, and reinstall from scratch. :(

Following up on my issue, after work and reinstalling everything (idiot me forgot to check what plugins/extensions I had set up before uninstalling), I'm getting the new TOS, with the right color text.

I'm still seeing the V-day banner on the main page, though. :p
 

Damaratus

Care to join me in my lab?
Tensik said:

Fur Affinity allows users to post photographic images without limits so long as the images constitute as "art". "Art" is defined as images in which the photographer clearly and without doubt considered frame, light, exposure and subject of the image.
All other images are considered to be "every day life" and are deemed "not of artistic merit", and may be subject to deletion. "Every day life" includes, but is not limited to: pictures of pets, toys, fursuits, people, household items, websites (including Fur Affinity) and Second Life. “Not of artistic merit” includes, but is not limited to: image macros, random junk you saw, photos and/or screenshots taken because you were bored.

This particular section was taken from the Wiki, which is still in the process of being adjusted, and this particular rule is not one that is part of the official rules of the site currently (nor will it probably ever be).

The links to the ToS and Submision Agreement in this thread have the current and official rules regarding the site. The Wiki will be updated in the near future to reflect these changes.
 

Darkfoxx

Like, arf 'n stuff.
Tensik said:

"SL is still a load of crap because being able to post avs from one online game that you don't make (but just pretend you do) is no different than posting avs you put together using pre-constructed parts in any other online game. *growls* Any MMO or no MMOs. Pick one."

I'm sorry, but... have you ever tried creating an AV in SL? It's not just "hmmm... I want that hairset, that fur pattern, that muzzlelength..." with sliders.

You actually have to create a plywood textured sphere, create another one, stretch it, put it into position against the other and connect, etc etc etc untill, after a few hours of work, have the shape of an animal head... THEN, you have to spend hours in photoshop to make, try, and re-edit textures to make it all match and fit.

EVEN when you buy a premade AV and want to personalize it, like I have done, you can spend hours upon hours to alter and change it to make it a unique AV and not looking like the rest of the people that bought that exact same AV.

Don't wanna insult, but before opening your muzzle, try to at least know what you are talking about before dissing other people's work... I have at least 30 hours of work done on my bought and personalized Luskwood AV.

I agree tho on the point that SL snapshots of a standard, unedited AV or anything else from SL isn't really something fit for FA.
 

Darkfoxx

Like, arf 'n stuff.
~I said "Or anything else from SL" but of course I meant "or anything else that you didn't put any effort into creating or editing from SL"

~DF
 

Tensik

Member
darkfoxx said:
Tensik said:

"SL is still a load of crap because being able to post avs from one online game that you don't make (but just pretend you do) is no different than posting avs you put together using pre-constructed parts in any other online game.  *growls*  Any MMO or no MMOs.  Pick one."

I'm sorry, but... have you ever tried creating an AV in SL? It's not just "hmmm... I want that hairset, that fur pattern, that muzzlelength..." with sliders.

You actually have to create a plywood textured sphere, create another one, stretch it, put it into position against the other and connect, etc etc etc untill, after a few hours of work, have the shape of an animal head... THEN, you have to spend hours in photoshop to make, try, and re-edit textures to make it all match and fit.

EVEN when you buy a premade AV and want to personalize it, like I have done, you can spend hours upon hours to alter and change it to make it a unique AV and not looking like the rest of the people that bought that exact same AV.

Don't wanna insult, but before opening your muzzle, try to at least know what you are talking about before dissing other people's work... I have at least 30 hours of work done on my bought and personalized Luskwood AV.

I agree tho on the point that SL snapshots of a standard, unedited AV or anything else from SL isn't really something fit for FA.

I have, actually. but it still stands that you are creating a special look in a game environment for a game environment and for no other use at all. It is not an art program and is not applicable to anything else other than to say "here's what I made in SL". It's not unlike the editor for Morrowind, and people who have created content in that game have had their creations taken down under the "it's a game screenshot" argument.

Im not saying making stuff in SL isn't difficult and doesn't take time. but it is still just a game editor and nothing more; you can't do a thing with it other than make game screen shots. People post their creations not as much to show off, but to say "this is what I look like" which is the EXACT reason people post the same of WoW, SWG, EQ2, etc. The number of people who are actually creating thing from the ground up and posting them is infintesimal compared to the people who are just networking, and people who do the same things in other games are not afforded the same posting courtesy.

I've spent my time in the sandboxes and do know exactly what I'm talking about, so no offense, I'll open my muzzle all I want about it. Call it dissing but it's just a game editor and does not warrant any special courtesy.
 

Wolfblade

Member
Tensik said:
I have, actually. but it still stands that you are creating a special look in a game environment for a game environment and for no other use at all. It is not an art program and is not applicable to anything else other than to say "here's what I made in SL". It's not unlike the editor for Morrowind, and people who have created content in that game have had their creations taken down under the "it's a game screenshot" argument.

Its a program that allows people to create 3-dimensional renders of whatever they choose to visualize. I thought you said nobody can define what is and isn't art.

Morrowind, WoW, and other online games allow you to pick and choose from a variety of pre-made bits and pieces until you have a specific combination of little parts that you like. In Second Life the users create their own bits and pieces. From individual body parts, to textures, to animations and expressions. Yes, some do it better than others, but again, you said we shouldn't be here to judge what is and isn't art.

Art is about creative expression. Selecting your wardrobe from a closet (creating a character in other games) is significantly different from making your own wardrobe from scratch (Second Life). Finding a neat rock or seeing your cat yawning and taking a snapshot is significantly different from carefully considering your subject, angle of view, lighting, image composition, framing of the subject, etc.

Second Life gets the special consideration it does because of the vast difference in the amount of creative ability being displayed between showing a particular combination of pre-sets and actually building your model and creating textures from scratch.

Either way, as Damaratus said, those bits of the wiki are going to be removed/rewritten. So for now, there's no need to be dismissing the creative abilities of people who create in Second Life. Especially when your original post was chastising the site for dismissing the creative abilities of people who take snapshots of yawning cats and ice cream on toast, among other "everyday life" subjects.
 

Tensik

Member
Wolfblade said:
Tensik said:
I have, actually.  but it still stands that you are creating a special look in a game environment for a game environment and for no other use at all.  It is not an art program and is not applicable to anything else other than to say "here's what I made in SL".  It's not unlike the editor for Morrowind, and people who have created content in that game have had their creations taken down under the "it's a game screenshot" argument.

Its a program that allows people to create 3-dimensional renders of whatever they choose to visualize. I thought you said nobody can define what is and isn't art.

Morrowind, WoW, and other online games allow you to pick and choose from a variety of pre-made bits and pieces until you have a specific combination of little parts that you like. In Second Life the users create their own bits and pieces. From individual body parts, to textures, to animations and expressions. Yes, some do it better than others, but again, you said we shouldn't be here to judge what is and isn't art.

Art is about creative expression. Selecting your wardrobe from a closet (creating a character in other games) is significantly different from making your own wardrobe from scratch (Second Life). Finding a neat rock or seeing your cat yawning and taking a snapshot is significantly different from carefully considering your subject, angle of view, lighting, image composition, framing of the subject, etc.

Second Life gets the special consideration it does because of the vast difference in the amount of creative ability being displayed between showing a particular combination of pre-sets and actually building your model and creating textures from scratch.

Either way, as Damaratus said, those bits of the wiki are going to be removed/rewritten. So for now, there's no need to be dismissing the creative abilities of people who create in Second Life. Especially when your original post was chastising the site for dismissing the creative abilities of people who take snapshots of yawning cats and ice cream on toast, among other "everyday life" subjects.

To quote the "what is Second Life" description from it's main page:

Second Life is a 3-D virtual world entirely built and owned by its residents. Since opening to the public in 2003, it has grown explosively and today is inhabited by a total of 4,576,509 people from around the globe.

From the moment you enter the World you'll discover a vast digital continent, teeming with people, entertainment, experiences and opportunity. Once you've explored a bit, perhaps you'll find a perfect parcel of land to build your house or business.


You'll also be surrounded by the Creations of your fellow residents. Because residents retain the rights to their digital creations, they can buy, sell and trade with other residents.


The Marketplace currently supports millions of US dollars in monthly transactions. This commerce is handled with the in-world unit-of-trade, the Linden dollar, which can be converted to US dollars at several thriving online Linden Dollar exchanges.


Welcome to Second Life. We look forward to seeing you in-world.

I see nothing about art program, rendering program, or anything to that effect.  It's a game with a HIGHLY customizable building system.  but it doesn't make it DAZ, Poser, Blender, Bryce, or any of the actual rendering programs like you make it sound like.  It's a game first and foremost, and pictures from it are game screenshots of the customised game interface.  That's not putting people down for using it or saying they're not creative, it's just WHAT IT IS.  And you know as well as anyone else here that the ability to post game screenshots from that game is being used first and foremost as a "this is what I look like in game" ability, not as a "this is my art" ability.

My stance isn't that SL doesn't belong, it's the same as any other interaction here; if you're going to allow something for one person, you have to allow it for all of them.  You can't say "this photographer can post their stuff but this one can't", and you can't say "this game player can post their character but this one can't", especially since you most definitely can't use the "user created content" disclaimer for the vast majority of SL images on this site.  But you CAN say "you can post MMO screenshots" or "you can't" because that's going to cover everyone.  Know what I mean?

Regardless, I only brought it up because my original quote is currently on the Wiki and presented as an actual FA rule, and as the header says you changed the submission rules and guidelines and nothing about the Wiki being innaccurate, that is why I questioned it; it is still presented as factual unless someone asks or looks much deeper than anyone normally would.

Edit: I also just want to note that while I commented on SL, I only did so in the context of thinking that the original quote was a reinstated rule. Damaratus has clarified that the rule was not reinstated (I still think that definitely needs to be pulled from the wiki in the meantime until changes are finished) and did not come to this thread to discuss SL, just to discuss the advertised changes to the TOS and Submission guidelines as I thought the rule was. Since the original issue is resolved, I'd think the SL bit is pretty moot until you post the new rules on it. At which point I'll probably continue to yell loudly and very likely into a microphone. XD
 
Top