Photography

[Dragoneer]

In an effort to solicit feedback on the AUP changes, as well as better answer questions, we have created this forum for each individual clause of the AUP. We will modify and/or improve AUP clarity based on suggestions and feedback.

- - - - - - - -

Photography
Fur Affinity allows Users to post photography provided the following criteria are met:

• Basic Quality/Content - Photographs of poor quality (grainy, blurred, out of focus or washed out) or images meant to showcase personal collections (e.g. commercial items, toys, games, movies, stuff animals, etc.) must be uploaded to Scraps. Photographs of art, or items which are in full compliance with the By You/For You, are acceptable provided they meet are of a minimum quality.
  
• Prohibited - Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.

NOTE: Working on proper clarification of these rules. Will post a revised, updated ruleset on this tomorrow.

 

[royal-dog]

Carrying over my position from the other discussion so I can get some real clarification as to why this is in the rules...

Why are "images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)" banned altogether now, I really would like to know.

 

[foxystallion]

Photography
Fur Affinity allows Users to post photography provided the following criteria are met:

* Prohibited - Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)....


I would appreciate :iconDragoneer:'s comments on whether I understand the above section the way that he intends it to be understood:

1. Exposed human genitalia, exposed pubic hair, exposed human buttocks, and exposed female human breasts (but not male breasts) are prohibited. Right?

2. Painted genitalia, painted pubic hair, and and painted female nipples are allowed. Right? CLARIFICATION: I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT REAL PENISES OR NIPPLES WITH PAINT ON THEM; I AM REFERRING EXCLUSIVELY TO PAINTED IMAGES WITH NO UNDERLYING FLESH OR PHOTOGRAPH THEREOF.

3. I understand that I may have to submit the aforementioned painted Photoshop layers to an FA admin on demand and have no problem with doing so provided that the request is made before the irreversible deletion of all the Viewers' Comments below the image in question. If the FA admin deletes the submission IMAGE ONLY before checking, that isn't a problem because it can be replaced by the artist when the image is proven AUP compliant. Deleted Viewer's Comments can NOT be replaced if the body parts in question are subsequently proven painted rather than being a photograph. Is this OK with you? Do you consider this to be a reasonable restriction on admin deletions to prevent the hasty irreversible deletion of Viewer's Comments below an image that is subsequently proven to not violate the AUP?

4. Is completely covering human buttocks and female breasts with Photoshop created fur considered not "exposed"? Even 1" long photomorphed fur conceals far more than than than AUP compliant 1/8" thick T-shirts and 1/32" tights, and my fur is always at least 1" long.

5. Are Adult rated photomorphs allowed if no photo of skin remains in the image and provided that the above conditions are met?

A good leader accepts the moral responsibility of making his rules unambiguous to both his subordinates (his FA admins), and to those who are subject to his rules (all FA members). Please accept that responsibility and help the FA photomorph community by answering these simple but vital questions. You are the owner and you make the rules.

What we emphatically do not want is the arbitrary and capricious interpretation of your rules by certain of FA's admins, nor do we want these certain FA admins to be able to refuse to look at artist submitted evidence of compliance. I regret to say that this has happened more than once.

Thank you very much!

 

[Sslaxx]

Carrying over my position from the other discussion so I can get some real clarification as to why this is in the rules...

Why are "images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)" banned altogether now, I really would like to know.

I'd imagine the various mash of pornography and obscenity laws make it safer to disallow this type of content (e.g. fursuits - if it's worn by someone, how do you know they aren't under 18?). Better safe than sued into oblivion (and put on a sex offenders list).

1. Exposed human genitalia, exposed pubic hair, exposed human buttocks, and exposed female human breasts (but not male breasts) are prohibited. Right?

2. Painted genitalia, painted pubic hair, and and painted female nipples are allowed. Right?

Why would painted nipples, genitals etc be any more acceptable, foxystallion? It's still "Exposed human genitalia, exposed pubic hair, exposed human buttocks, and exposed female human breasts", surely.

I'm curious to know if any of my photography violates the AUP (I don't believe it would violate it in terms of either adult content (there is none) or quality, but it might under http://forums.furaffinity.net/showthread.php?t=35313 flooding...).

 

[fallimar]

Foxystallion - I'd be willing to bet that as long as nothing was 'showing' and that all photographic nudity was covered up (by clothing, texture, digipaint, whatever) it'd be fine, the big worry would be whether the original photos were actually yours - whether you'd just ganked them off google and painted over or not

That seems to be the trouble with most photomanipulators anyway. Blarg.


Speaking of which, Dragoneer man - could we get clarification on stuff like that - perhaps if a photo's used, asking for where it came from? Google image ganking just ain't cool, kids *80's white rap gesture w/ sideways baseball cap, rainbow suspenders and legwarmers WOO*

 

[Sslaxx]

Even if the photo were theirs, FA would have to keep legal records regarding any models in the photo, proof of age etc.

 

[timoran]

Carrying over my position from the other discussion so I can get some real clarification as to why this is in the rules...

Why are "images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)" banned altogether now, I really would like to know.

And what does this policy mean for sculptors like glassjawboxer?

 

[fallimar]

Even if the photo were theirs, FA would have to keep legal records regarding any models in the photo, proof of age etc.

good point. Also made me think that if you're going to all the trouble of painting over the photo, it'd be much easier just to throw it away and just do some artwork instead.

To timoran -
Sculptures are artwork, and photographs of them have already been given the go-ahead. Even original sculpts for adult toyus have been given a pass as far as I know, as long as it's by the original artist and being posted as their own artwork.

 

[dmfalk]

I would strike reference to quality and say photography in general UNLESS IT'S OF A SPECIFICALLY ALLOWED NATURE/SUBJECT should be in Scraps, with those that may be so specifically allowed on the main gallery. I would also make clear the difference between nudity/pornography and sexually-explicit sculptures, toys and devices as not to draw confusion. Otherwise everuthing else (including fursuits) follows with the first part, above. Thirdly, define what nature/subjects may be allowed on the main gallery- We can go from there in terms of hammering that aspect out, separately. As a whole, this would satisfy my complaint on the subjective nature of "what is bad", previously, while addressing the needs of FA.

d.m.f.

 

[foxystallion]

Why would painted nipples, genitals etc be any more acceptable, foxystallion? It's still "Exposed human genitalia, exposed pubic hair, exposed human buttocks, and exposed female human breasts", surely.

Because FA has lots of painted and drawn adult material, much of which has human-styled painted or drawn genitals. I do not believe that the new AUP was meant to prohibit painted nipples or genitals of any type.

Clarification: Sorry for the confusion. I am NOT talking about real genitals with paint on them; I understand that that is prohibited and am not arguing for allowing such body painted appendages. I was referring to images of body parts that are created entirely by painting, and am willing to submit those layers for examination by an FA admin on request. Anyone looking at the half a dozen layers, one by one, that I use to paint such things can immediately see that it is an entirely fictional construct with no underlying skin.

 

[Dragoneer]

Because FA has lots of painted and drawn adult material, much of which has human-styled painted or drawn genitals. I do not believe that the new AUP was meant to prohibit painted nipples or genitals of any type.

Beastpaint style porn is prohibited. I have nothing against body paint, but this is not a human porn site. If people need to paint their penises in real life life... there are other places to show that off.

 

[Varka]

Hey all.

As I'm sure you all know, I run Bad Dragon, and as a result, I sculpt adult toys that are made into products and sold to people.

Now, I'd just like to pull a statement from Dragoneer from the following thread and see if we can help work out what exactly these AUP updates are intended to change:

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.

Now, upon checking my FA account and PMs, I've recieved five messages from an FA admin Ahkahna, stating that:

As per the AUP:
Prohibited - ..."images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.)."

The following images have fallen under prohibited content and will be removed.

.

I'm just wondering - does this policy reflect Dragoneer's statement that people sculpting toys will be allowed to exhibit their work, or are adult toys in fact unacceptable?

Just to develop things a little bit more towards a useful conclusion, I fully understand and agree with the cleanup purpose of this policy change. However, I'd like to work out if the policy is indeed intended to prohibit self-made sex toys from being exhibited.

As far as I understand, the main purpose of this policy update is to protect FA from potential liability as a result of 'RL' adult content posted with no proof of age (and to avoid the record-keeping issues thereof). If this is the case, then making a better distinction between 'adult items' and 'adult items involving a person' would probably be a much better idea.

All feedback would be appreciated.

 

[foxystallion]

Foxystallion - I'd be willing to bet that as long as nothing was 'showing' and that all photographic nudity was covered up (by clothing, texture, digipaint, whatever) it'd be fine, the big worry would be whether the original photos were actually yours - whether you'd just ganked them off google and painted over or not

That seems to be the trouble with most photomanipulators anyway. Blarg.

You have a good point. That issue is already covered by the "By you or for you" principle. I take all my own human photos (they are of my self and/or my partner for M or A rated pictures, and we are both obviously adults), and my own landscape photos for backgrounds as well. I sometimes use photographs that I have taken of my rancher friends in my G rated pictures, and always obtain their permission to do so. I should also point out that even their own mothers wouldn't recognize them by the time I'm done: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1016447/
however, I still obtain their permission. They have all seen my art.

I even ask permission to take photographs on my friend's ranches and tell them what I'm going to do with it:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1514789/

 

[dmfalk]

*snip*

I agree with Varka, above, and emphasise that CLARITY OF DISTINCTION does need to be made, as per my previous post in this thread. As it stands, the distinction isn't really THAT clear.

d.m.f.

 

[foxystallion]

Beastpaint style porn is prohibited. I have nothing against body paint, but this is not a human porn site. If people need to paint their penises in real life life... there are other places to show that off.

That is NOT what I am talking about. None of my art has ever contained any human genitalia, body painted or not. When I referred to painted genitals, I meant those created from scratch, by paint and paint alone - not something made out of skin with paint on it. That is what I meant by supplying the layers of such purely fictional image portions for admin inspection. I paint them obviously larger than life in an attempt to prevent such misconceptions. No one human has a penis and balls like this: http://www.furaffinity.net/view/959035/

My apologies for stating my point in a confusing manner; I can see how it sounded very different from what I meant. The genitals in my photomorphs are paint and only paint with no human skin or mucous membranes real or photographed under them, just as those that you paint are paint and only paint with no reptile mucous membranes real or photographed under them.

Now that this misunderstanding has been straightened out, I very much hope that you will answer my questions.

 

[dmfalk]

That is NOT what I am talking about. None of my art has ever contained any human genitalia, body painted or not. When I referred to painted genitals, I meant those created from scratch, by paint and paint alone - not something made out of skin with paint on it. That is what I meant by supplying the layers of such purely fictional image portions for admin inspection.

Hopefully, I'll beat the admins ('Neer, particularly) in saying this, but any particular artistic rendering- drawing, painting, sculpture, 3D rendering (outside the "Poser" debate- that's elsewhere!)- is kosher... Just not actual photography of such, even in beastpaint or photomanipulation.

d.m.f.

 

[The Foil]

Adding on to Varika's post, my Gallery was also cleared of all sculptures that I created by a moderator. The downside for me is that I foolishly used FA to archive those photos, and now, since my sculptures where destroyed, I have no way of getting them back. One step forward, two steps back. Looks like I need to buy more clay on my next paycheck, and find a new place to save my photos. =/

 

[foxystallion]

Even if the photo were theirs, FA would have to keep legal records regarding any models in the photo, proof of age etc.

The Federal courts have ruled against the constitutionality of that record keeping requirement.

 

[foxystallion]

Hopefully, I'll beat the admins ('Neer, particularly) in saying this, but any particular artistic rendering- drawing, painting, sculpture, 3D rendering (outside the "Poser" debate- that's elsewhere!)- is kosher... Just not actual photography of such, even in beastpaint or photomanipulation.

d.m.f.

Thanks. That is my understanding, too, but I'll feel a lot less apprehensive if that is confirmed by Dragoneer. What I fear is that without his confirmation, there will be arbitrary and capricious interpretations by certain FA admins. This has alreasdy happened to me; it is not a hypothetical problem.

 

[tsawolf]

The Federal courts have ruled against the constitutionality of that record keeping requirement.

The appeals court. It's likely to go to the en blanc court and then to the Supreme Court, where it will likely be upheld due to the political construction of the current Supreme Court.

 

[Freaky Steve]

As far as I understand, the main purpose of this policy update is to protect FA from potential liability as a result of 'RL' adult content posted with no proof of age (and to avoid the record-keeping issues thereof). If this is the case, then making a better distinction between 'adult items' and 'adult items involving a person' would probably be a much better idea.

All feedback would be appreciated.

You would like to think that this is the case but if you examine what's being said in these threads, that is not the case at all.

These discussion threads are filled with examples of how these new policies are contradictory and how they discriminate against different types of artists. It is also stated in many spots that things will be handled on a "case-by-case" basis. So in otherwords, "this is our policy, but we will police it how we see fit,". This is a not a policy based on legaligities, this is a policy based on sensibilities. "Handled on a case-by-case basis" translates to, "If I don't like it, I'm going to remove it".

It won't surprise me at all if I get banned for speaking out the way I am going to, rather than licking the boots of the "powers that be", but if I do, then think about how that reflects on these "policies".

I submitted 2 pieces of artwork that got removed for AUP "violations". The first was a wallpaper that did show photographic human genitalia. In this case the removal was understandable, since it was a violation, but also contradictory since there are categories for photography, wallpapers and mature ratings. This was also original photography, taken by me for which I have proper documentation.

Then I submitted a new version of the wallpaper, with no nudity, and it was removed for "violation" saying no mature photography. So, even though I was following the AUP and the warning I got, my content was still removed. As a test, I applied some photoshop filters to the wallpaper, and it was not removed. Is this an AUP issue or is this just because my content didn't appeal to the sensibilities of the admins?

The photo used in the second wallpaper contained no nudity and was not even suggestive, so no US recordkeeping laws come into play there.

This is an artist community that is as open as the personal preferences of the admins. You are welcome here as long as your art is their type of art. Restricting Poser art is another fine example of this.

I understand completely that the rules of a site are goverened by it's owner and if I (or anyone else) don't like it, there are other sites to go to. I just find it interesting how the owners of an artist based community can have such a closed minded attitude towards content.

 

[foxystallion]

You would like to think that this is the case but if you examine what's being said in these threads, that is not the case at all.

These discussion threads are filled with examples of how these new policies are contradictory and how they discriminate against different types of artists. It is also stated in many spots that things will be handled on a "case-by-case" basis. So in otherwords, "this is our policy, but we will police it how we see fit,". This is a not a policy based on legaligities, this is a policy based on sensibilities. "Handled on a case-by-case basis" translates to, "If I don't like it, I'm going to remove it".

That is precisely why I have asked Dragoneer to answer my five questions above. Without his explicit answers, there are certain FA admins who will continue to run amok with their own arbitrary and capricious interpretations of the new AUP just as they did with the old one.

 

[Jaffa]

• Prohibited - Photographs containing exposed human genitalia, breasts or buttocks are not permitted. This includes, but not limited to; images depicting explicit and/or implicit sexual acts, images focusing on the genitals of animals or images containing items of sexual nature (adult toys, sexually modified fursuits/plush animals, etc.). Photos containing gore, wounds, scars, death or acts of violence are not permitted, as well as images containing or alluding to illegal activities.

The wording of this is confusing. The second sentence beginning "This includes.." seems like it is intended as a clarification of the first sentence, but then goes on to ban pictures of animal genitalia, which are clearly not covered by anything in the first sentence (which is all about humans). I don't know, from reading this, if the ban on images depicting sexual acts is for humans only, or would prohibit pictures of mating animals. So I have to ask, would a photo of mating lions that would be completely acceptable for mainstream not-at-all-sex-related wildlife photography sites, be considered too hardcore for FA?

 

[Ahkahna]

The wording of this is confusing. The second sentence beginning "This includes.." seems like it is intended as a clarification of the first sentence, but then goes on to ban pictures of animal genitalia, which are clearly not covered by anything in the first sentence (which is all about humans). I don't know, from reading this, if the ban on images depicting sexual acts is for humans only, or would prohibit pictures of mating animals. So I have to ask, would a photo of mating lions that would be completely acceptable for mainstream not-at-all-sex-related wildlife photography sites, be considered too hardcore for FA?

I will highlight this question as it is valid, however, I would make an average guess photo's of animals in the process of mating would be prohibited as well.

 

[xansteel]

Well with the general rules of this change I can see that once again the photographers are getting the short end of the stick as always. There's so few of us to be again with.

Most of the photos I have seen are of a PG rating on this site to begin with. I can understand the no nudity in a photo, but even nude photography is a form of art (not sexual in nature). I've taken over 7 years of art classes to know what is art in the real world, not just furry world.

Also as one other said, limiting what is and is not proper nature photography or proper subject matter that can be put into your gallery. Once again we are getting pushed out by this comment. Because it gives the rights to other that can remove art from someone, because they don't like it, or doesn't feel it fits the rules, or theme etc etc.

Do you want to tell this user...

http://www.furaffinity.net/user/bios/

that all of his work needs to go into scrapes? I think not, or you might have one upset user, that may make more upset users.

In all honesty if you change to much to the rules, and what is and isn't allowed, your going to have a lot of upset users that may leave, of fight back for their freedom of expression in their artwork.

Yes photography is a work of art, as you need to know lighting, shutter speed, Aperture setting, flash or no flash, type of lens to use for the shot, ISO setting, color offset (if needed), Black or White, Color, Sepia, HDR shot, Whether the shot is Overexposed, or Underexposed, does it have Purple fringing, Chromatic Approbations, Was it in focus, Depth of Field (DOF) so forth and so on. And this is for one shot.

I say lets us have the freedom we would like to have, and if nudity comes up, then also have them upload consent forms, that show a address, age, and Real Name of the subject in their scrape section and have the submission info pointing to it, to keep it legal. Porn I really don't understand as I would say over 50% of FA is mostly porn to begin with. I can understand that is not how the staff wants FA to be, but if your going to limit one group more because of it, then limit all of them the same way. It's only fair.

Xan Steel