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

Site Policy Updates - June 23, 2007

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007

uncia said:
(Might be useful to explicitly state whether or not this particular AUP clause is retroactive since many community members will have to carry out a considerable amount of catch-up on permissions if so).
By You/For You is stated in the Terms of Service, but was further elaborated upon in the AUP. This clause is not new and has been in effect since March 10, so there shouldn't be any "catch up" for people.

Copyrights – The “By You, For You” Policy
You agree that the Content posted by you was created by yourself (as the original artist) OR was created explicitly for you (and was posted with permission of the original artist). When posting submission created for you, you must cite your sources at all times and attribute credit where it is due.

There are no exceptions to this policy.
 

uncia

Member
RE: Site Policy Updates - June 23, 2007

*nods*. Yes, but there was no indication of retroaction previously, either, other than a presumed implication.
Given the extended format of the mechanism by which crediting should be carried out is stated in the AUP, now might be a good time to ensure it's made clear to everyone whether that goes right back to submission #1 or not?

You know you don't have the staff to cover that save on a "as/when raised" basis, but hopefully there won't be too many spats with people deliberately reporting some commission/gift work whilst turning a blind eye to others. Those are *everywhere*, of course, so you know that you are effectively also turning a deliberate blind eye to the vast majority of that if the ruling is truly retroactive.

Trust that makes sense in the context of putting into place rules that *will* be seen to be enforced evenly, anyhow. (One of the reasons I preferred the "permission presumed" approach as noted above).

Cheers,
David.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007

uncia said:
*nods*. Yes, but there was no indication of retroaction previously, either, other than a presumed implication.
Given the extended format of the mechanism by which crediting should be carried out is stated in the AUP, now might be a good time to ensure it's made clear to everyone whether that goes right back to submission #1 or not?
We not yet tackled that aspect of it. As I see it, it applies to all submissions, now and prior. In this instance, images are not grandfathered in as the TOS states). However, we're not going to witchhunt old submissions... we'll tackle them as they come up, and enforce them as they come in new.

Over time, it will help work things together. We've got some additional coding-based assistance that will help us over time, and once that goes live, we'll probably be a bit more active in getting users to go through their older submissions.

Aka, users will be able to have a "Second Life" folder and we will require all SL pictures to go there, and once we do, we'll be able to better track what users are in compliance.

We'll still need to discuss enforcement of this with the admins.
 

Revamp

Chopped And Screwed
RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007

About the avatars...why cant they be raised to 30K? I've heard many a complaint about people not being able to upload their own avatars, no matter how many times they resize it. Me included
 

codewolf

RBW Con Staff
RE: Site Policy Updates - June 23, 2007

Revamp said:
About the avatars...why cant they be raised to 30K? I've heard many a complaint about people not being able to upload their own avatars, no matter how many times they resize it. Me included

i believe it may be to server space and bandwidth..... say it was raised by 10k multiply that by 7000, thats 70,000k or 70mb more space needed, along with the extra bandwidth needed to view those avatars...... in theory it could cost upto another $50 a month or more, just for an increase in avatar size of 10kb.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007

Revamp said:
About the avatars...why cant they be raised to 30K? I've heard many a complaint about people not being able to upload their own avatars, no matter how many times they resize it. Me included
There is absolutely NO REASON anybody will not be able to upload their avatar at 25K... unless they're doing animated avatars.

A 100x100 full color GIF averages: about 8 to 12K
A 100x100 full color JPG averages: 10 to 14K
A 100x100 full color PNG averages: 16 to 20K

If you're saving your iamge correctly, there's no a reason a static image can't be uploaded. Animated avatars were the primary cause this limitation was implemented in the first place, as people were uploading avatars 500KB+ in size.

I know it may be limiting, but if we add 5K here, 5K there... it adds back up again, and then we're back at additional bandwidth issues.

(I got my numbers by taking 5 pieces of random art, making them into 100x100 pixels... the results varied, but they all worked well within the limit).
 

Leahtaur

Member
At last! I'm so glad to see these updates. :) Good work guys. I'll be particularly happy to see fewer identical SL submissions, and everything in general has been made clearer.
 

uncia

Member
RE: Site Policy Updates - June 23, 2007

Preyfar said:
Revamp said:
About the avatars...why cant they be raised to 30K? I've heard many a complaint about people not being able to upload their own avatars, no matter how many times they resize it. Me included
There is absolutely NO REASON anybody will not be able to upload their avatar at 25K... unless they're doing animated avatars.

A 100x100 full color GIF averages: about 8 to 12K
A 100x100 full color JPG averages: 10 to 14K
A 100x100 full color PNG averages: 16 to 20K

Concur.

@ Revamp: That potential extra 5k on every view of every user comment/shout is a non-trivial addition, especially as a good number of people tend to work to limits.
Even with animation, the 25k new upload limit ain't a total killer by any means I'd trust. When limits were being discussed on submissions vs. avatars a general scan of avvies yielded good results under that level (middle of the 3rd row on http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=3662&pid=48190#pid48190 ). Checking briefly again now there appears to be an even better range of animated avvies under that new limit.

aside: No need to mention the previous grandfathered-in limit of 50k in the AUP since, of course, it is no longer possible to upload such avvies.
 

Whitewolf89

Martian Freedom Fighter/Ninja
RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007

Wolfblade said:
By you OR for you. Not by you AND for you. It can be FOR someone else so long as it was BY you. Or, it could be BY someone else as long as it was FOR you.

Okay, I understand now.  ([size=x-small]I think.  Meh, I'm a total NINNY at times.:p[/size])

Anyway, the pics were done BY me, FOR my niece, as a gift.  Would it be okay to RE-submit them in a day or two, or thereabouts?  Or, being SIMILAR to my Leonardo FF AU pic (Okay, the POSE is the same, but I digress), is it/would it be considered "spam"?

Help?  Again?
 

Tensik

Member
You may want to further clarify "spamming", does that mean three pictures in total, or three pictures within a period of time?

For example: person A posts 10 pics of their fursuit in one day and gets hit with the spamming rule. Person B posts 10 pics of their fursuit over 10 months at a once a month rate. Are they spamming as well?

Also, does it only count for photography and SL and easily generated items or will it apply to art as well? I know a few . . . "productive" artists who create 15 new drawings a day with very little variety between any of them and they're just as prone to flooding out the front page as anyone else. Will they also be told to be more selective?
 

Arokha7

New Member
So, I have a few hundred commissions posted under the name of 'arokh3' on FA, and the artist is always credited on the last line of the description. Does this new rule mean that I need to go into each description and edit the thing to have the credit on the first line instead of last? c.c

Edit: Also, I just have in my bio on my FA page that they're all commissions, in a separate paragraph... does doing that mean that I don't need to note on each picture that its not my art? (As should be assumed by the comment about "Art by [blah]" anyway)
 

Wolfblade

Member
Arokha7 said:
So, I have a few hundred commissions posted under the name of 'arokh3' on FA, and the artist is always credited on the last line of the description. Does this new rule mean that I need to go into each description and edit the thing to have the credit on the first line instead of last? c.c

Edit: Also, I just have in my bio on my FA page that they're all commissions, in a separate paragraph... does doing that mean that I don't need to note on each picture that its not my art? (As should be assumed by the comment about "Art by [blah]" anyway)

So long as the description for each individual image does clearly state that the artwork is someone else's, AND gives the name of that artist, I don't think it will be a terribly big deal if the info for a significant amount of older submissions is on the last line as opposed to the first.

Just from here on out, go ahead and make sure the info is stated as required, and on the first line. We will be gradually making efforts to bring existing galleries up to date with the new guidelines, but most of our efforts are going to be focused on keeping new submissions compliant, while whittling away at older issues as we manage to get to them.
 

Wolfblade

Member
Tensik said:
You may want to further clarify "spamming", does that mean three pictures in total, or three pictures within a period of time?

For example: person A posts 10 pics of their fursuit in one day and gets hit with the spamming rule. Person B posts 10 pics of their fursuit over 10 months at a once a month rate. Are they spamming as well?

Also, does it only count for photography and SL and easily generated items or will it apply to art as well? I know a few . . . "productive" artists who create 15 new drawings a day with very little variety between any of them and they're just as prone to flooding out the front page as anyone else. Will they also be told to be more selective?

A general guideline as opposed to a strict specific limitation on daily uploads was felt to be potentially easier on the userbase. For example, a person may want to post 15 images in a single burst, but the behavior might be significantly outside of the norm for them. It might seem overly harsh of us to come down on them for just one instance of overzealous uploading. However, if someone is consistently uploading image bursts of 15 or more, there may need to be something said to them.

Obviously, this makes consistency a bit difficult, but as in all things with this place, we have a constant balancing act between what is easy and convenient for us to do but might not be welcomely accepted by users, versus what we think the users might appreciate despite the headache it may bring us later.

As has been stated, the AUP will be an evolving document as the inevitable shortcomings come to light, and the community has a chance to express their opinions of it. If it becomes clear people would prefer a simple, clear, stated number of what is and is not a flood, then that can easily be added. ^_^
 

Wolfblade

Member
RE: Site Policy Updates - June 23, 2007

Whitewolf89 said:
Wolfblade said:
By you OR for you. Not by you AND for you. It can be FOR someone else so long as it was BY you. Or, it could be BY someone else as long as it was FOR you.

Okay, I understand now. ([size=x-small]I think. Meh, I'm a total NINNY at times.:p[/size])

Anyway, the pics were done BY me, FOR my niece, as a gift. Would it be okay to RE-submit them in a day or two, or thereabouts? Or, being SIMILAR to my Leonardo FF AU pic (Okay, the POSE is the same, but I digress), is it/would it be considered "spam"?

Help? Again?

If the images were removed, there was likely some reason for it. The reason would not have been because they were for your niece.

Did you get any sort of note or statement when they were removed that explained WHY they were taken down?
 
Not that I do these but some might like to know.
Illegal activities, does this mean photos of tags and graffiti are now forbidden
 

Magica

Fatty Furfag Weeaboo
I think there might be a possible loophole in the By You, For You policy. For example someone uses a Generator like the Trainer Card thing, and they make the background and the trainer themselves, but the copyrighted Pokemon sprites are still their. Said user thinks that with the user made background and trainer sprite, they can still submit it, even though the rest of it is against the TOS. Think something should be clarified about that?
 

Wolfblade

Member
whitedingo said:
Not that I do these but some might like to know.
Illegal activities, does this mean photos of tags and graffiti are now forbidden

Hmm.. probably needs to be discussed. I would say that a photo should not be removed if it happens to be of a building that has been tagged. But if the intent seems to be to display an act of vandalism committed by the submitting user, the image will be removed.
 

Wolfblade

Member
DragonMagica said:
I think there might be a possible loophole in the By You, For You policy. For example someone uses a Generator like the Trainer Card thing, and they make the background and the trainer themselves, but the copyrighted Pokemon sprites are still their. Said user thinks that with the user made background and trainer sprite, they can still submit it, even though the rest of it is against the TOS. Think something should be clarified about that?

The AUP states that generators aren't allowed, and neither is artwork using sprites taken directly from games.

Even if they made the background, they still can't paste expressly prohibited content over it and expect it to be acceptable.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
Tensik said:
For example: person A posts 10 pics of their fursuit in one day and gets hit with the spamming rule. Person B posts 10 pics of their fursuit over 10 months at a once a month rate. Are they spamming as well?
Yes. While we'll offer better support for it now, as it stands a lot of fursuiters post mini-floods of their suite. Others entire galleries, and it's the same suit, same primary subject matter for the images.

We'd like people to be able to share, but we've got to start somewhere. Resources are not free, and this site's bandwidth goes up $50 per month in bandwidth.

Tensik said:
Also, does it only count for photography and SL and easily generated items or will it apply to art as well? I know a few . . . "productive" artists who create 15 new drawings a day with very little variety between any of them and they're just as prone to flooding out the front page as anyone else. Will they also be told to be more selective?
It counts for photography and SL and... everything.

If an artist creates 15 *new* images, that are all different, then yes. Perhaps I need to clarify that. There is currently no limit as to how much you can upload, but we're trying to stem users who upload 5 or 6 pics of the same exact item, just with minor variations (sometimes, all it needs is a collage).

We understand a lot of artists posts sketch, inks, colors, etc. We're fine with that. But even still, when we start getting eight variations of the same image... we've got to put our foot down somewhere.
 

Tensik

Member
Preyfar said:
Tensik said:
For example: person A posts 10 pics of their fursuit in one day and gets hit with the spamming rule.  Person B posts 10 pics of their fursuit over 10 months at a once a month rate.  Are they spamming as well?
Yes. While we'll offer better support for it now, as it stands a lot of fursuiters post mini-floods of their suite. Others entire galleries, and it's the same suit, same primary subject matter for the images.

We'd like people to be able to share, but we've got to start somewhere. Resources are not free, and this site's bandwidth goes up $50 per month in bandwidth.

Tensik said:
Also, does it only count for photography and SL and easily generated items or will it apply to art as well?  I know a few . . . "productive" artists who create 15 new drawings a day with very little variety between any of them and they're just as prone to flooding out the front page as anyone else.  Will they also be told to be more selective?
It counts for photography and SL and... everything.
If an artist creates 15 *new* images, that are all different, then yes. Perhaps I need to clarify that. There is currently no limit as to how much you can upload, but we're trying to stem users who upload 5 or 6 pics of the same exact item, just with minor variations (sometimes, all it needs is a collage).

We understand a lot of artists posts sketch, inks, colors, etc. We're fine with that. But even still, when we start getting eight variations of the same image... we've got to put our foot down somewhere.

*nods* I would agree then that area needs to be cleaned up. By your first answer, if people can have three images total of the same primary subject with a fursuit used as an example, as worded, by the same token everyone should have to take down all but three drawings of their character, or any character, that is in more than one image on their gallery; it may be drawn but it is still the same primary subject. The example I gave someone last night is other than the fact that one is drawn and one is not, there's little difference in effort or expended time or creativity needed between myself drawing 20 pictures of my character in different poses on a white background and a fursuit maker making a suit from scratch and then posting 20 photographs of it in different poses. I do know exactly what you are meaning by it, but the wording is bad; you'll have people demanding that X person takes down drawings of a specific character because "do we really need to see 50 of him???" as stated.

Hope that makes sense, no coffee yet. XD
 

ArrowTibbs

Probably still lives in a giant bucket
"More than three images with the exact same primary subject (e.g.a fursuit, Second Life character, etc.) are posted."

Might note that this is for screenhot and photos? Seeing a I draw a lot of Roki as a primary subject this might be confusing.
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
ArrowTibbs said:
"More than three images with the exact same primary subject (e.g.a fursuit, Second Life character, etc.) are posted."

Might note that this is for screenhot and photos? Seeing a I draw a lot of Roki as a primary subject this might be confusing.
Very good point. I'll work on a revision of it. It's a hard thing to outline, but I'll clarify it so that it makes more accurate sense so that it doesn't come out as, "I drew 12 pictures of X, does that mean it's spamming?!"

"Posting three or more photos and/or screenshots utilizing the same primary subject (e.g.a fursuit, Second Life character, etc.) are posted may be considered. In regards to artwork, posting more than three images of the same picture (e.g. sketch, inks and color) may be considered spamming, but unique images do not apply to this limit."

It may need to be re-written to clarify it better. I'm open to suggestions.
 

Damaratus

Care to join me in my lab?
cesarin said:
no anti-myspace bullshit? ;_;

that means we will be still seeing random fatmen in underwears? D:

That particular issue is a far more touchy one. In truth, once we bring in greater functionality to the site, you'll be able to protect your eyes from having to see such images. While the people who still want to see them will have that freedom.

Consider this a start to many other changes to the site, we're really making a push here, but the rules we've posted are here to make sure that we can keep things running for you guys. The restraints are needed to keep things stable and running nicely for all of you as we continue to make additional adjustments/improvements.

While we understand that some people will not like the new rules, we're hopeful that the changes that are being made to the site will be beneficial in the long run.
 

cesarin

Famous Huggable Dragon
Damaratus said:
cesarin said:
no anti-myspace bullshit? ;_;

that means we will be still seeing random fatmen in underwears? D:

That particular issue is a far more touchy one. In truth, once we bring in greater functionality to the site, you'll be able to protect your eyes from having to see such images. While the people who still want to see them will have that freedom.

Consider this a start to many other changes to the site, we're really making a push here, but the rules we've posted are here to make sure that we can keep things running for you guys. The restraints are needed to keep things stable and running nicely for all of you as we continue to make additional adjustments/improvements.

While we understand that some people will not like the new rules, we're hopeful that the changes that are being made to the site will be beneficial in the long run.

that sounds great, thank you Mr.LabRat :D
 
Top