• 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

straydog

New Member
I commend the staff on the updated AUP and hope to see further restrictions on things that usually lack artistic merit, such as photos (yes, more than 1---I find 1 is acceptable and reasonable) of a user (or their friends), their pets, their trip to the zoo, their car, ect.

And I say usually because I do recognize that some users are uploading photographs which have clear artistic merit behind them and not simply a 'lolz lookit what I saw at the zoo' or 'lookit my puppeh!'.

I do agree that the spamming rule will need some revision because of the fact that one could apply it to characters and any drawing thereof. Perhaps a distinction between photography (which would encompass fursuits), screenshots (which would address SL models), and drawn images should be made.

Also, I've some concern regarding Poser-generated images. Poser, as you may or may not know, is a program that is, essentially, a beefed up version of a Second Life character creation/editor program (I have Poser and have used it). The models are preloaded and most of the images created using Poser feature 'freebie' Poser content created by other users. Would Poser-generated images then be considered against the AUP per the no-character-generator rule?

Finally, regarding photomorphs (not edits--I'm speaking in regards to the pictures featuring a human body and animal head spliced together with a filter thrown over it to give the body 'fur texture')...nude or not, they are not images that would be permitted under the Fair Use clause. A photomorph should have 2 permissions---1 from the human portion photographer and 1 for the animal portion photographer.

In regards to 'but artists use photos as backgrounds', the substantiality of the background in relation to the rest of the picture would permit its use per the Fair Use clause. With a photomorph, the substantiality of the 2 photos used is more than 50% of the entire picture, which would not be acceptable.
 

Tensik

Member
straydog said:
Also, I've some concern regarding Poser-generated images. Poser, as you may or may not know, is a program that is, essentially, a beefed up version of a Second Life character creation/editor program (I have Poser and have used it). The models are preloaded and most of the images created using Poser feature 'freebie' Poser content created by other users. Would Poser-generated images then be considered against the AUP per the no-character-generator rule?

I should hope they are, as Poser and DAZ are programs specifically designed to give people an infinite artistic outlet, as opposed to generators, that have a finite number of combinations to make something very specific . . . .
 

Whitewolf89

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

Wolfblade said:
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?

Actually, no.  At least, I don't think so.  They both just kinda disappeared, and I'm confused as to why.

As far as a note or statement is concerned, I HAVEN'T checked my PM Inbox since they did.  I wonder................

'Scuse me whilst I go check my Inbox messages, Wolfblade.  BRB.

EDIT: Nope.  Just checked.  No note, or anything else telling me WHY they were removed.  And at THIS point, I'm a bit leery of trying to rep-upload them again, for fear that the same thing will happen.

Do you have a suggestion as to how I can find out WHY they were removed?  This is REALLY bothering me.  I've NEVER had someone jiust remove one of my pics before.  I mean, I have those SAME two pics up at DeviantART, and they're STILL in my Galleries there!  

I'm just SOOOOOO confused right now....................
 

yak

Site Developer
Administrator
No logs contain any information about your images being removed by someone from the staff.
At this moment you have exactly 8 submissions, is that correct?
 

dave hyena

A wonderous moorhen
Hippotaur just made the point to me that:

Music
Users may post music to Fur Affinity provided the Submission meets the following criteria:

The Submission is not the original rendition of a copyright song.


The way this part currently reads it prohibits me from posting any music that I have created, if I am the owner of the copyrighted song, since copyright exists from the moment of an artist's piece's creation, or whether one went through the formal process of registering with an agency such as the US Copyright Office (or whatever they're called - rubs sleepy eyes) - which I have done on occasion with my music.

I would suggest for your consideration to change this part to something similar to the following:

Music
Users may post music to Fur Affinity provided the Submission meets the following criteria:

The Submission is not the original rendition of a copyright song, unless the User is the owner of the song's copyright.
 

uncia

Member
The way this part currently reads it prohibits me from posting any music that I have created...
<clip>
I would suggest for your consideration to change this part to something similar to the following:

Music
Users may post music to Fur Affinity provided the Submission meets the following criteria:

The Submission is not the original rendition of a copyright song, unless the User is the owner of the song's copyright.

*g*... I totally missed that one! A rather amusing unintended impact of the current AUP, no doubt... ^^ Easy fix, anyhow.
(*purrs thanks over to Hippotaur*)
 

Dragoneer

Site Developer
Site Director
Administrator
Tensik said:
straydog said:
Also, I've some concern regarding Poser-generated images. Poser, as you may or may not know, is a program that is, essentially, a beefed up version of a Second Life character creation/editor program (I have Poser and have used it). The models are preloaded and most of the images created using Poser feature 'freebie' Poser content created by other users. Would Poser-generated images then be considered against the AUP per the no-character-generator rule?

I should hope they are, as Poser and DAZ are programs specifically designed to give people an infinite artistic outlet, as opposed to generators, that have a finite number of combinations to make something very specific . . . .
I believe Poser would fall under the realm of "character generator" given the ultimate nature of the application, and thus falls in line with a violation according to the AUP. However, this is the first time of the subject has come up.

I'm one of these few people on this website with a degree in digital 3D animation, and I must admit on a personal level I have never seen an image created via Poser that I have considered truly "artistic". That's not meant to be a slam on anybody, but it's the nature of the application. I'm not sure that we have an official stance on the issue yet, however, so do not read my rules as "Dragoneer said it violates the AUP! Burn the heretic!"

These rule changes will, inevitably, not sit well with a few individuals, and while we'd like to make everybody happy, it's just not possible long term, nor with a site like this. I'd like to impact as few people as possible with these while raising the quality standards of the site -- as I am sure any other admin team on this would agree.

So, I believe the question here is: Is Poser art?

I think this topic warrants its own thread, and I invite you to go ahead and make it if you'd like. What are the pros, what are the cons?
 

Torin_Darkflight

Active Member
Regarding the "No more than three images of a single subject"...does this mean that my gallery is in violation of the TOS? I've drawn way more than three images of the same character doing the same thing, but they're all unique drawings with different angles and different settings/locations, and several months pass between drawings. Do I need to delete my gallery or terminate my account because of this?

Also...I draw a lot of Spyro art. I sometimes use screenshots from the actual games for the backgrounds in my Spyro art. I always post a disclaimer, if not on the picture itself then at least in the submission description, where the background came from. Previously I was told that this is ok, because the central subjects of the images are still created by myself. Has this changed? Or, do I now need to go back and remove all my art that shows game screenshots in noncentral background roles?
 

Visimar

Member
Regarding the "No more than three images of a single subject"...does this mean that my gallery is in violation of the TOS? I've drawn way more than three images of the same character doing the same thing...

I think they meant the rule for photos/screenshots and not drawings. It needs to be clarified more so people know exactly what submissions it's talking about.
 

Damaratus

Care to join me in my lab?
Torin_Darkflight said:
Regarding the "No more than three images of a single subject"...does this mean that my gallery is in violation of the TOS? I've drawn way more than three images of the same character doing the same thing, but they're all unique drawings with different angles and different settings/locations, and several months pass between drawings. Do I need to delete my gallery or terminate my account because of this?

Also...I draw a lot of Spyro art. I sometimes use screenshots from the actual games for the backgrounds in my Spyro art. I always post a disclaimer, if not on the picture itself then at least in the submission description, where the background came from. Previously I was told that this is ok, because the central subjects of the images are still created by myself. Has this changed? Or, do I now need to go back and remove all my art that shows game screenshots in noncentral background roles?

This issue is somewhat covered earlier in the thread: http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=9967&pid=166602#pid166602

As you can see, things are currently being reworded to try and better convey what we are trying to control with this particular rule.
 

Whitewolf89

Martian Freedom Fighter/Ninja
yak said:
No logs contain any information about your images being removed by someone from the staff.
At this moment you have exactly 8 submissions, is that correct?

Hmm, THAT's weird. The staff didn't delete them, and I sure as shell didn't! Sop what the heck happened to the two of 'em?!

Yep, eight in my MAIN Gallery (there SHOULD be NINE), and SEVEN in my Scraps Gallery (there SHOULD be EIGHT in it). Which makes a total of 15 submissions. I DID have 16.

I'll admit it, this has me toatlly confused. To the point that I'm afraid to try to RE-submit them (one (in my MAIN Gallery) was a colored pic; the other (in my Scraps Gallery) was just the lineart for it). Should I be? Or should I try again, and see what happens? I really DON'T want to lose another pic, whatever happened.
 

Wolfblade

Member
Whitewolf89 said:
Hmm, THAT's weird. The staff didn't delete them, and I sure as shell didn't! Sop what the heck happened to the two of 'em?!

Yep, eight in my MAIN Gallery (there SHOULD be NINE), and SEVEN in my Scraps Gallery (there SHOULD be EIGHT in it). Which makes a total of 15 submissions. I DID have 16.

I'll admit it, this has me toatlly confused. To the point that I'm afraid to try to RE-submit them (one (in my MAIN Gallery) was a colored pic; the other (in my Scraps Gallery) was just the lineart for it). Should I be? Or should I try again, and see what happens? I really DON'T want to lose another pic, whatever happened.

If the images don't violate any of the current rules (read them thoroughly to be sure) then feel free to re-submit them. If you want, you can send me a PM with links when you do, and I will go check them personally for you to make sure there's no issue.
 

Wolfblade

Member
Tensik said:
*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

We'll work on the wording then. At no point will we be limiting drawings of the same character unless they are all slight variations of a single drawing, or just a few drawings slightly modified and duplicated endlessly.

The amount of effort put into a suit versus making a drawing is a side argument. The purpose here is to let people share their creations. Each drawing is a creation, and need be uploaded only once to share that creation. A suit is a single creation no matter how many pics are taken, but we allow more than one pic per suit because it takes more than a single photo to truly share a creation that is not a single 2-dimensional image. However, eventually too many photos of a single suit becomes just as excessive as several uploads of the same drawing.

Basically, your argument for limiting drawings of a single character if we were to limit photos of a single suit is based on considering the character as the "creation" being shared, and not each individual rendition of that character as a separate "creation." We consider a single suit as a single creation, but individual drawings are each a separate creation, even if the subject matter is the same.

Hope this makes sense too, I'm prepping for a trip. X3
 

Whitewolf89

Martian Freedom Fighter/Ninja
Wolfblade said:
Whitewolf89 said:
Hmm, THAT's weird.  The staff didn't delete them, and I sure as shell didn't!  Sop what the heck happened to the two of 'em?!

Yep, eight in my MAIN Gallery (there SHOULD be NINE), and SEVEN in my Scraps Gallery (there SHOULD be EIGHT in it).  Which makes a total of 15 submissions.  I DID have 16.  

I'll admit it, this has me toatlly confused.  To the point that I'm afraid to try to RE-submit them (one (in my MAIN Gallery) was a colored pic; the other (in my Scraps Gallery) was just the lineart for it).  Should I be?  Or should I try again, and see what happens?  I really DON'T want to lose another pic, whatever happened.

If the images don't violate any of the current rules (read them thoroughly to be sure) then feel free to re-submit them. If you want, you can send me a PM with links when you do, and I will go check them personally for you to make sure there's no issue.

Okay, I will. (Carefully read the rules, that is.) And I'll likely do that. Just not tonight. Probably in a day or two, though.

And I'll do that. Sounds like a good idea, actually. Thankies for the idea.:wink::D
 

meatwad44

New Member
hey, no offense, or not as much offense, but the new TOS sucks. Now reading the terms, I agree some of my stuff was in violation, so i removed it. But some things huld have been fine. For instance, a picture of someone covered head to toe in fur, with an animal muzzle even, was considered a "partial" not a complete morph. I think thats a heap of BS. I find it quite funny that the moment i started making a stand againt the new "rules" my account got deleted by the power abusing admins. Can I ask, isnt a furry part human part animal, or an animal with human traits? And aren't catgirls just human girls with paws and kitty ears? yet they are furry. so a fully altered photo is partial in what way?
if you ask me, you guys are being completely ridiculous.
 

Oni

Member
RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)

Preyfar said:
[align=center][size=medium]Acceptable Upload Policy[/size][/align]Fur Affinity exists for artists and creators to post their works freely. While we pride ourselves in allowing some of the widest ranges of artistic expression it does not come without some limitations.

This document is in addition to the terms set forth by the Terms of Service and Submission Agreement.

The By You/For You Policy
The By You/For You policy is the heart and soul of Fur Affinity’s rule system. It’s simple and to the point: if you didn’t create it or if it wasn’t created specifically for you (gift/commission) then the Submission can not be posted.

Further clarification of the By You/For You policy is broken down into two sections (For You and By You) for easier clarification.

1) By You:
You may freely post any submission so long as you created the content and said content abides by all other rules of the site.
2) For You:
Fur Affinity allows users to post works of art created for them (e.g. commissions, gift art, stories, etc.) provided the content of the submission meets the following requirements:
  • You must have permission of the original artist to repost their work, with permission stated in each image description. Failure to obtain permission will result in the Submission being removed. Multiple requests for removal by artists citing lack of permission to post will result in action being taken against your account.
  • Full disclosure must be given in each image description that the image was not created by you.
  • Credit must be given to the original artist on the first line of the Submission’s description, and must be written in the following format:
    “ORIGINAL ARTWORK BY [INSERT ARTIST NAME]”

    If the user is a member of FA, the :iconusername: function is highly suggested to link to their account. For example, if you are linking to Fender, you would enter :iconfender:
  • You agree to willingly remove the image if the artist, at any point and time, requests its removal.
  • The Submission abides by all rules set forth by the site.
For joint/collaborative works, or works where a portion of the final product was created by someone other than the submitting user, proper credit and permission must be given and stated clearly in the submission's description field.


Harassment
Images clearly intended to harass or slander other members of the community will not be tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, images that directly convey racist slurs, anti-Semitic insults and/or other derogatory remarks regarding philosophies, religion, sexuality, race, gender or association directed at another individual or group.


Spamming
Spamming is not, and will not, be tolerated on the site. It is considered “spamming” when:
  1. More than three images with the exact same primary subject (e.g.a fursuit, Second Life character, etc.) are posted.
  2. Multiple versions of the same exact submission with minor variation are posted. PLEASE NOTE: posting a sketch, ink and finalized image are acceptable.
  3. The user is flooding the website and is considered to be abusing the site’s resources and bandwidth.
Users found to be spamming will be requested to reduce their images in accordance with the rules of the site. Those found abusing the system may have their images removed at the discretion of site administration.


Avatars
Avatars are the only exception to the By You/For You policy. Avatars which use the artwork of another artist, without their permission, may be subject to removal upon request of the artist. Avatars must also be PG-13 in nature (read: no adult content, nudity or gore!) and may be no larger than 25KB.


Photography
Fur Affinity allows users to post photography to the site with exceptions to the following:
  1. Nudity – Images containing human nudity are expressly prohibited on Fur Affinity and will be removed without warning or notification. Nudity is defined as any visible portion of the body which would otherwise normally be required to be clothed in public exposure. Images in which a person is naked, regardless of whether sexual characteristics are visible, may not be uploaded and are prohibited.
  2. Sexuality – Photographs of a sexual nature are expressly prohibited on Fur Affinity, and will be removed without warning or notification. This applies both to human and animals equally. This includes images where the actual sexual characteristics may be covered, but the apparent intent of the image is to be of a provocative or sexual nature.
  3. Death/Gore - Photos of real life gore, wounds, dead animals, etc, are expressly prohibited
  4. Photomorphs - Photomorphs are acceptable provided they are complete. “Complete”, in this instance, is defined as a full figure transformation and no original remaining characteristic of the figure are visible. Partial transformations or edits will not be accepted to the site.
  5. Illegal Activities - Photos containing or alluding to illegal activities are prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to; bestiality, drug use, under-aged drinking, theft.
  6. Commercial Images – Commercial images may not be uploaded to Fur Affinity as either a Submission or part of a Submission. This includes, but is not limited to, photomorphs and/or image backgrounds or overlays.
Violations of these rules will be deleted immediately and the User will receive a warning. Subsequent violations will result in suspension and/or termination of the account.


Video, Screenshots and Other Multimedia
Screenshots and/or video capture from movies, games, TV, anime, websites (including Fur Affinity) or any other visual media may only be posted if the Submission contains user created content. “User created content” is defined as items of artistic interest created by the user (e.g. texture maps, 3D meshes, background images, animated characters, interfaces, etc.). Pre-generated characters (e.g. World of Warcraft avatars) and art or characters created by “character generators” are not permitted.

Minor alterations, such as adding text, word balloons or applying filters to screenshots do not count as user created content. This also applies to segments of screenshots modified and removed (e.g. “pixel art”) using art directly from games.


Second Life Screenshots
Second Life screenshots are only permitted when showcasing an avatar created by or for the user, and will be limited to no more than three (3) submissions per User, per avatar. Purchased Avatars not created by or for the User or modifications of purchased avatars are not permitted. Excess submissions will be removed by Administration.

Users wishing to display multiple angles of the same Avatar are encouraged to create a collage (a single image consisting of multiple screenshots).


Music
Users may post music to Fur Affinity provided the Submission meets the following criteria:
  1. The Submission is not the original rendition of a copyright song.
  2. The Submission does not contain sound samples of a copyrighted song. Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to the original sample to distinguish it from the original, otherwise it will be considered to be in violation.
"Covers" and/or "recreations" are permitted provided that the submitter attributes the original material to the original creator.


Flash
Flash files may use copyrighted music as a part of the Fair Use Act, but only to compliment the Flash animation in question. Flash submissions used as workaround simply to post music will be removed.
Curious, the policy does not disclose any information regarding forum signatures.

- Signature Image Size (dimensions/file size)
- Relational Content (pretty much sums up everything lol "relational content" hehe)

Signature specifications may seem insignificant, although that is a subject which interests me and I have found no relevant information in your policy.
 

dave hyena

A wonderous moorhen
RE: Site Policy Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)

Oni said:
Signature specifications may seem insignificant, although that is a subject which interests me and I have found no relevant information in your policy.

In the top of the introductions forum:

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=47

There are two stickied threads with additional rules for the forums, that being that signatures should be a max. of 600x150 pixels & that the forums ashould be kept PG-13.

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=2405
http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=1081

:)
 

Oni

Member
RE: Site Policy  Updates - June 23, 2007 (Pending)

Dave Hyena said:
Oni said:
Signature specifications may seem insignificant, although that is a subject which interests me and I have found no relevant information in your policy.

In the top of the introductions forum:

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=47

There are two stickied threads with additional rules for the forums, that being that signatures should be a max. of 600x150 pixels & that the forums ashould be kept PG-13.

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=2405
http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=1081

:)
Ah thank you Dave Hyena ^.^

Roger Roger (Star Wars Drone Robot)
 

Wolfblade

Member
meatwad44 said:
hey, no offense, or not as much offense, but the new TOS sucks. Now reading the terms, I agree some of my stuff was in violation, so i removed it. But some things huld have been fine. For instance, a picture of someone covered head to toe in fur, with an animal muzzle even, was considered a "partial" not a complete morph. I think thats a heap of BS. I find it quite funny that the moment i started making a stand againt the new "rules" my account got deleted by the power abusing admins. Can I ask, isnt a furry part human part animal, or an animal with human traits? And aren't catgirls just human girls with paws and kitty ears? yet they are furry. so a fully altered photo is partial in what way?
if you ask me, you guys are being completely ridiculous.

In other words, the moment you decided to intentionally break the rules.

Your account isn't deleted, you got a 3 day time-out. The people who work on submission moderation put too much of their own personal free time and effort into this site for them to be expected to put up with juvenile behavior like your attitude and remarks on the submission you uploaded.

Anyone wanting to dispute or discuss the rules like a grown-up is welcome to do so in the forums here, provided they keep it civil and mature. But "taking a stand" against the site, INTENTIONALLY breaking a rule because you disagree with it, is not something that will be tolerated. Resolving user issues and listening to concerns and complaints is part of the job here. Wasting time with childish rebellions is not.
 

yak

Site Developer
Administrator
[edit]:
Wolfblade has beaten me to the explanation

meatwad44 said:
hey, no offense, or not as much offense, but the new TOS sucks. Now reading the terms, I agree some of my stuff was in violation, so i removed it. But some things huld have been fine. For instance, a picture of someone covered head to toe in fur, with an animal muzzle even, was considered a "partial" not a complete morph. I think thats a heap of BS. I find it quite funny that the moment i started making a stand againt the new "rules" my account got deleted by the power abusing admins. Can I ask, isnt a furry part human part animal, or an animal with human traits? And aren't catgirls just human girls with paws and kitty ears? yet they are furry. so a fully altered photo is partial in what way?
if you ask me, you guys are being completely ridiculous.

Is this your account? http://www.furaffinity.net/user/meatwad44

I have to say that i was not the one handling your case, but i have taken my time to inspect the logs and here what i've found.
Looks like you've decided to intentionally violate the ToS, possibly after the note foxystarlion has sent you (not shown below, of course).
A copy of the ban notification PM should have been sent to your email, which is registered with FA.

Your ban must have followed right after you posted the now-removed submission entitled "FA Considers THIS to be a furry pic?? VIVA LA REVOLUTION!". I believe the title speaks for itself.

So there's nothing "funny" that you didn't expect to happen,
I find it quite funny that the moment i started making a stand againt the new "rules" my account got deleted by the power abusing admins.
I'm sorry that you feel this way, you can question or discuss the rules, as people do right here in this thread, but if you decide to take a stand against them, then you are considered to be an unwanted rule breaker and handled appropriately.


today Wolfblade has sent a note to Meatwad44 (still unread) with the following message
Wolfblade said:
Not your photo. Rules exist for a reason, and you agree to abide by them when you use this site. If this site no longer suits your needs after the rules revision, feel free to find a service that better suits you.
today Wolfblade has sent a note to Meatwad44 (still unread) with the following message
Wolfblade said:
Your account will be suspended for 3 days for intentional violation of the ToS.

Please see that upon your return, you read and abide to all rules on the site as use of this service constitutes agreement to all posted and stated terms of use.

yesterday dave_hyena has sent a note to Meatwad44 (which was read) with the following message
dave_hyena said:
Hi there,

I'm sorry for bothering you about this, but the Furaffinity Acceptable upload policy states that:

"Photomorphs - Photomorphs are acceptable provided they are complete. “Complete”, in this instance, is defined as a full figure transformation and no original remaining characteristic of the figure are visible. Partial transformations or edits will not be accepted to the site.!

http://www.furaffinity.net/lm/submissionpolicy/

I'm sorry to have to ask you this, but do you think you could remove your submissions which violate these rules:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/626352/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/626344/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/626331/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/626314/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/626232/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/612477/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/612428/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/611179/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/611157/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/611148/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/610275/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/607387/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/607362/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/607353/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/593155/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/593065/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/593045/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/589247/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/581500/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/579921/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/578361/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/577020/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/572146/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/572119/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/570142/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/558350/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/558327/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/557942/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/556810/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/556797/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/556702/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/556677/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/556562/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/552113/

Thank you very much. :)

Dave Hyena
[Fa Trial Admin]
 

meatwad44

New Member
i took down all of the previous stuff. However I was quite ticked at some of what was considered "partial". A completely disagree that an image that is fully furred is still a partial. and i still fail to see why partial is not allowed. I understand that people may try to claim an image has been edited by just adding whiskers to a copyrighted pic and saying "hey, i own this now". But some of the stuff ruled this way were my own pictures. I dont know about you but my camera doesnt insert a copyright to me when i take a picture, so proving anybody owns it is impossible.
yeah, i yelled a lot yestereday. You would too if almost every single thing you had done was suddenly deemed ban-worthy. The adult stuff, fine, lots of sites are getting rid of anything with adult content. But a pic that is just a face, made into a fur? It rattles my brain. Does every single pixel in the picture have to be altered to be considered a full morph? And what if i wanted to post another image of myself as a fur? I own that image, its also of me, so do i need to state that i give myself permission, to alter a picture, of myself, also owned by myself, and if myself changes my mind, i must make myself take it down?
Look, dont get me wrong, i agree fully with 5 or 6 of those images i was told to take down. but a good chunk i think many would agree were fully furred.
 

ebonyleopard

New Member
Preyfar said:
Tensik said:
straydog said:
Also, I've some concern regarding Poser-generated images. Poser, as you may or may not know, is a program that is, essentially, a beefed up version of a Second Life character creation/editor program (I have Poser and have used it). The models are preloaded and most of the images created using Poser feature 'freebie' Poser content created by other users. Would Poser-generated images then be considered against the AUP per the no-character-generator rule?

I should hope they are, as Poser and DAZ are programs specifically designed to give people an infinite artistic outlet, as opposed to generators, that have a finite number of combinations to make something very specific . . . .
I believe Poser would fall under the realm of "character generator" given the ultimate nature of the application, and thus falls in line with a violation according to the AUP. However, this is the first time of the subject has come up.

I'm one of these few people on this website with a degree in digital 3D animation, and I must admit on a personal level I have never seen an image created via Poser that I have considered truly "artistic". That's not meant to be a slam on anybody, but it's the nature of the application. I'm not sure that we have an official stance on the issue yet, however, so do not read my rules as "Dragoneer said it violates the AUP! Burn the heretic!"

These rule changes will, inevitably, not sit well with a few individuals, and while we'd like to make everybody happy, it's just not possible long term, nor with a site like this. I'd like to impact as few people as possible with these while raising the quality standards of the site -- as I am sure any other admin team on this would agree.

So, I believe the question here is: Is Poser art?

I think this topic warrants its own thread, and I invite you to go ahead and make it if you'd like. What are the pros, what are the cons?


Boy, you sure put your foot in it with this comment, that's for sure. Is Poser Art? Is a picture done in Photoshop or Painter programs true painting? Is anything done on a computer rather than paper truly drawing or art?

I'm an artist who would fall under traditional, but because my computer skills are very basic and self taught. I use photoshop in a way that I would color with markers, I know, as a 30 year old artist with 3 college degrees, I have zero clue how to do any 3D work even withsomething like Poser and I own 2 copies of 3D Studio Max and other 3D programs and can't make a jack with them.

I understand poser gives you models to use, but every person I've seen using it here seems to be putting a heck of a lot of work into remodeling and creating original looking characters, because I highly doubt Poser has an Anthro button in it. Sure, there are different level of skill among the artist in how they use it, but then, there's a vast diverent level of skills here on how people draw.

I teach art and probably is considere one of the more skilled artists on FA but I don't let my skill level or knowledge base bias me to those with less skills or current ability. Being a student of 3D art is cool, I envey you all (cause I really wish I had went to school for that rather than what I did go for), but a tool is a tool.

I mean, in some cases, most "3D Artist" couldn't draw jack on paper if their lives depended on it but can work magic on the computer. So, should 3D artist really be considered artists at all unless they post traditional stuff, or should they just be considered talented computer programers?
 

Typhon

New Member
Okay here is my view point on the whole DAZ/Poser arguement.

Truth be told there is a way you can create basic objects in DAZ, not sure about Poser. So technically if you re-parent them enough and are clever enough, you can build more complicated items in DAZ from scratch.

Also I hate to say it, but DAZ and Poser such is art. The basic definition of art is the ability to create a unique image using what is hand that others can appreciate and enjoy. With both DAZ and Poser, you are putting what you have available to create a image, or artistic piece together that is unique all to yourself.

Given that, lets do the logical thing next.

No one can post up commissions they paid for, or gift art they have received.
Why? They where not the ones that created them. So as they are not the artist, they do not need to take credit for and post the work, even if they are the ones to have paid for or inspired it's creation.

No one can post a photo.
Why? He did not create the image in the photo.

Now as far as it really be considered art. I suggest that first you ask the few hundred if not thousand users of both Renderosity, and Renderotica, even the artzone website. A good amount of them do work in the feild of 3d character art and design, have degrees in those fields, and they all still like to use Poser and DAZ on a normal basis. They would say DAZ & Poser are both artistic mediums like clay, stone, pen, and pencil, even paints.

So in conclusion, given all that I have said, should DAZ and Poser content be banned and removed from FA? Answer is clearly no, for all the reasons posted above.

Also if I may Quote something here from Little_Dragon
Because some members of the 3D community continue to believe it's the tools that are important, rather than the talent behind those tools

With that in mind, ANYONE can try to use DAZ/Poser, but it take real talent to be able to use them well. If FA chooses to have DAZ/Poser art removed, we are going to ignore that it takes talent, the same talent that regular artists use, and say what is being is being used is more important then the talent to create said art.
 

foxystallion

Born Furry
RE: Site Policy Updates - June 23, 2007

Preyfar said:
uncia said:
The original issues primarily surrounded mature/adult rated photomorphs of commercial images.

Stating that a G-rated partial photomorph of the actual account owner or someone else with permission isn't permitted is perhaps a little bit harsh, if the intention is either relating to that adult content or the use of other (c) human photos. Would only affect a tiny number of submissions but worth querying nonetheless.
Perhaps its worth noting that commercial images are prohibited in such instances. Photomorphs have had a varying history on FA, and I will admit there there is probably some varying confusion.

Frankly, if the concern is that users are morphing commercial images it brings up a number of points. Does it fall under "Fair Use"? In the same instance, how many users user photographs as the background images in their pics? It's not possible to say the use of one is unfair while the other is alright.

It's sort of a conundrum.

But, however, rule #6 to Photography is added:
  • Commercial Images – Commercial images may not be uploaded to Fur Affinity as either a Submission or part of a Submission. This includes, but is not limited to, photomorphs and/or image backgrounds or overlays.

I request that you modify your absolute prohibition against the use of commercial animal images in photomorphs to permit such use when properly (and provably, if challenged) licensed, under the condition that the commercially licensed animal (not human!) image comprises only a small part of the final image.

I use photos of fox, coyote, and dog heads (sometimes strongly modified) in my photomorphs. The licensed commercial image or public domain image occupies only a few percent of the total image area of my art; everything else is either photographed or painted by me. I obtain some of these photos of animal heads from US government agencies, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service - these are in the public domain by US copyright law.

I also license some of these animal images from the photographers. The license which I purchase permits both modification of the image and web use, both commercial and non-commercial. I always give credit to the photographer from whom I have licensed the photo.

I certainly understand and agree with the prohibition against use of commercial human images. I certainly understand and agree with the prohibition against the use of unlicensed commercial images of anything.

If necessary, I can continue to waste a great deal of my time looking through literally thousands of non-commercial public domain animal photos taken by US government employees in the pursuit of their official duties - most of poor to mediocre quality. I would much rather license high quality animal photos taken by professional photographers - and the photographic artists receiving my license money would agree. For a couple of bucks for a license, it would be a waste of my time looking through endless government archives.

Thank you for your consideration.
 

MandoAndy

"User Title"? ..what the hell?
2. The Submission does not contain sound samples of a copyrighted song. Remixes are permitted, but significant work must be done to the original sample to distinguish it from the original, otherwise it will be considered to be in violation.

I'd like to ask a question regarding this change to the rules...

I have a cover of Green Day's song "Give Me Novacain", and it contains a drum loop I sampled from the song. Every other bit of music was created by myself from scratch, but the drums are fairly prominent in the song. Is this now prohibited, or not? Here's the link to my song, so you can listen for yourself and decide...

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/438367/

I love FA and I don't want to get a strike against my account for something like this... :shock:
 
Top