The By You/For You Policy

[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.

- - - - - - - -

The By You/For You Policy
1) By You:
You may post any Submission provided that the submission is an original work created by you. Joint works and collaborations must give proper credit to all contributing sources.
2) For You:
Fur Affinity allows users to post Submissions created for them provided they have the original artist's permission to repost said work. Credit must be attributed to the original artist with citation that the work was not created by the submitter.

 

[Danza]

Oh thank god, the amount of times I see people post artwork and they never give the artist credit makes me fume. Or those people who post a long description and still don't mention the artist and then reply positivity to comments where people say how good it is and think they drew it >..>

I do wonder what policy if any you might have on resubmitting a picture for example when I do a commission some of my recipients submit it also. Isn't that just an unnecessary waste of bandwith ?

 

[cassandrarising]

I do wonder what policy if any you might have on resubmitting a picture for example when I do a commission some of my recipients submit it also. Isn't that just an unnecessary waste of bandwith ?

Your commissioners should have your permission before they repost your art. If you feel its an unnecessary waste of bandwidth, its your prerogative not to give that permission.

 

[Stratelier]

Oh thank god, the amount of times I see people post artwork and they never give the artist credit makes me fume. Or those people who post a long description and still don't mention the artist and . . . people think they drew it >..>

This has always been one of my minor complaints about FA's AUP, the "For You" clause has never sat well with me even from day one. I thought that's what users could use Favorites for?

I wouldn't mind some way of distinguishing/filtering "For You" works from the artist's normal gallery. I watch users based on what THEY create, but if their gallery is stuffed full of commissioned works by another artist, forget about it.

 

[foxystallion]

This has always been one of my minor complaints about FA's AUP, the "For You" clause has never sat well with me even from day one. I thought that's what users could use Favorites for?

I wouldn't mind some way of distinguishing/filtering "For You" works from the artist's normal gallery. I watch users based on what THEY create, but if their gallery is stuffed full of commissioned works by another artist, forget about it.

The "for you" part of the policy is important for providing commissioners with an incentive for spending their money.

Do you really believe that Michaelangelo, da Vinci, Donatello, Praxiteles, et. al., would have been commissioned to produce their works if those works could only be displayed in the artists' own galleries? The world would be bereft of most art if your preference were generally enforced.

I have nothing but contempt for those who post commissioned or gift art without both express permission from the artist and prominent top line attribution. That is theft, and should be dealt with accordingly.

 

[Eevee]

This has always been one of my minor complaints about FA's AUP, the "For You" clause has never sat well with me even from day one.

I echo this sentiment. Apparently the userbase disagrees.

Frequent counters were:
It gives the original artist exposure. Of course, half a dozen other people simply reposting all of Dragoneer's art also gives him more exposure, but it does not improve the quality of the site, which is what I was really concerned with.
What if someone wants to find all the art of my character? I cannot fathom why anyone would be so interested in this, but make a journal and keep it updated.
The commission description is a work of art, too. Okay. Post that instead.
Non-artists' galleries would be empty otherwise. Boo hoo.
People would complain otherwise. Well, got me there.

I wouldn't mind some way of distinguishing/filtering "For You" works from the artist's normal gallery.

Yeah, I'd like to implement this, whether by building it in specifically or having favorite folders or whatever.

The "for you" part of the policy is important for providing commissioners with an incentive for spending their money.

Do you really believe that Michaelangelo, da Vinci, Donatello, Praxiteles, et. al., would have been commissioned to produce their works if those works could only be displayed in the artists' own galleries?

I believe those people would have been pretty pissed off if their art showed up in a personal gallery with "copyright yiffyfoxie" under it and a small disclaimer nobody reads that yiffyfoxie didn't actually make it.

Your FA is gallery is, you know, your gallery. It's not your own Photobucket to show off cool stuff you found; it's for stuff you created. The For You rule is tacked on.

Curious: why does your argument apply to art I commission but not art I merely like?


Incidentally, I know at least one artist who's expressed frustration at this practice to me, because people are uploading crap that's not theirs, and she makes her living off commissions. What's she supposed to do? Ask them not to and lose the business of people who only spend money so they can show off what they bought?

 

[Arshes Nei]

This is also due to legacy code, there isn't a sharing notification. No one is watching or getting notifications on what other people favorite (other than the person's own works). However, you are getting a notification if someone is submitting a new submission. This is why simply adding a favorite isn't the same as a submission exposure.

Honestly, I think having a "watch a person's favorites" becomes more cumbersome. More notifications on top of what's there already.

It does give an artist more exposure if people read the description and note it's from another person than the submitter, and I also know it was suggested long ago to color code or add a thumbnail flag that it was a commission to distinguish among other submissions.

The For you, By You policy is also a coverage for joint works. Since again there are no sharing ownerships it's likely Artist A the inker for example will post and Artist B the colorist will post the same submission.

If those conditions due to code issues can be changed, I think the policy would be less bothersome to some.

 

[Kesslan]

Your commissioners should have your permission before they repost your art. If you feel its an unnecessary waste of bandwidth, its your prerogative not to give that permission.

Technically, yes and no.

From a legal perspective as I understand it, when you comission some one's work, you are paying to effectively own that work. Not neccessarily in it's entirety, but certainly for personal use. So that if say, some one asks you what your character looks like you can turn around and show them that image and say "This is what my character looks like." and so you can display it so that people may look at it for free.

For me this is generaly used as an enhancement to a character description in the first place. The same sort of description I give to an artist I comission (or at least an, as detailed description of what I'm wanting drawn as I can manage at the time).

Now, I cant turn around and sell prints of it, because I've not purchased the commercial rights to that artwork. I've only effectively purchased the right to display it. But it is possible to make arrangements to completely own the artwork of another artist. To the point that if the artists starts to sell prints of the very work they created, you can infact sue them for infringmenet or something similar. Most people however, do not purchase such a right as that is (if the artist is aware of the value of such a thing at least) a very expensive thing to do. It has however happened.

Personally I make it a habbit of allways asking if I can, and allways giving due credit. Afterall if I comission a piece from some one, it's because I like their art style, or I feel they can at least put down into a drawing a concept I have that I"m trying to express to some one else that I just cant seem to get across clearly enough. Such as the various suit layout sheets I've had done in my quest to finalize an overall look for the suit I'm having made. The first few were more complex than the builder had envisioned when I first tried to simply describe it to him, and while he could do it would cost more than I can afford. So it went through several revisions untill we both found something that was manageable, should turn out to look akin to what I want, and is also within my budget for the suit.

But in the end, the artist's permission on where I display the artwork has, in part, been sold off. They have very clear rights over the artwork still that are defined. Including in how the artwork may be presented (Such as how I cant turn around and claim that I drew/painted that particular piece).

And I'm pretty sure any time you do that ther'es some requirement to have some indicator that it's not your own work to avoid the mistaken impression that it is.

As to your wondering why anyone would ever want or care to see drawings of some one elses character, well there are people like me out there who actually roleplay with said characters. Infact the one and only fursona I ever have had, I have RPed with in one form or another going on about 14 years now. Which infact, predates me even knowing what the hell 'furry' was.

Just hoping that sheds at least a little light on the matter from the side of some one who's drawing ability is quite frankly.. terrible. At least by my own opinion. As to those who are total comission whores, I can only assume they eithe rdo it because they like seeing their character done up from differnet perspectives, or they are some how trying to make their character better known to others in some form of pesudo popularity contest.

 

[Arshes Nei]

Technically, yes and no.

From a legal perspective as I understand it, when you comission some one's work, you are paying to effectively own that work. Not neccessarily in it's entirety, but certainly for personal use. So that if say, some one asks you what your character looks like you can turn around and show them that image and say "This is what my character looks like." and so you can display it so that people may look at it for free.
.

See "Work For Hire" on US copyright law.

http://www.copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.html

Since FA is a public site, it reposting it without direction from the artist that it's ok to display "as a personal use" condition, isn't correct. However, a digital print blown up and displayed on your personal property is personal use.

Think about it this way, you're not supposed to post up an mp3 of a song and just claim personal use since you bought it from a retailer.

Even if you contributed by the description, the work the artist did in question received permission from you as a derivative work. However, unless stated excplicitly what "personal use" defines, posting it in your FA gallery isn't personal use.

 

[Kesslan]

Well, fair enough Arshes. I'll be the first to say I odnt know much about US Copywright law, becuase I'm not a citizen of the US. And there are some diffences between the US laws and the Canadian laws that I'm aware of, but at the same time I've never really dug into it. Obviously one must follow the laws of where the content is hosted generally speaking in either case.

At the same time however, looking over the documnent on the link you provided, one could argue that comissioning an artist to draw something they specifically have in mind would count. And it would certainly hold up enough that one would likely have to actually go to court over it if you wanted to dispute it.

Afterall if I just say to an artist "I want a panther wearing armor" then their pretty much doing what they want, as they see it with pretty much zero input from myself as the comissioner. However if I tell them I want a panther with these details and with this and this and this sort of style of armor but with this sort of detail here, here and here, and these specific attributes over here and posed in this sort of manner...

Your now at the very least, boardering uppon a 'collective effort'. As I've come up with the vision of what the artwork should be along with various details and the artist has thrown in their own variation and put it to paper. The suit layout by LizardBeth for example pulled from the other work Zinou did along with abit of live feedback over her ustream account to net a look more in line with what I wanted, and what the suit builder could actually do, and what she herself thought would be appropriate touches and such. All to the point where it's now the finalized version of what Solion is going to aim for (at least in shape) when constructing the suit and making necessary changes where he must to keep it within the scope of his abilities, and my ability to pay him for his work.

Where it all slips back to the artist though, as I understand it now, going by all of that is where there is no written agreement to what the specific rights are for the purchaser. And one could very definately argue that posting art to an account like FA counts as publishing it.

In the end though it largely becomes a mute point I suppose, since I've certainly never heard of an artist demanding something be taken down when posted up by the comissioner with full credit given where it is due. I'm sure it has happened, but I'm not aware of such ever occuring. Well, outside of something considered highly controversial at least.

In the end it makes for another clear cut case I suppose of people assuming something is a 'right' because it's what they've seen happen everywhere, as opposed to the actual letter of the law. And in the end everyone hits walls like that.

 

[Arshes Nei]

Your description of the character, is actually a separate copyright than say the artist that drew it.

It doesn't matter how wordy or flowery your description is. The illustrated piece that comes from it, is a separate piece.

It's not a collaboration unless specifically registered as such, it is the author of each individual work.

A collaborative work under a single copyright both authors have to sign it in as intent.

Like a music piece, one person did the lyrics and vocals, the other the instrumentals. They intended to register it as a unified piece.

If that doesn't happen, each part is a separate copyright.

You post up the image on FA with your description doesn't grant it as a collaborative effort unless both parties agreed that's how the final piece was to be displayed.

There are cases where the artist has privately asked us to take down pieces per request, which I believe there was a reason for the clarification of the AUP.

 

[Eevee]

This is also due to legacy code, there isn't a sharing notification. No one is watching or getting notifications on what other people favorite (other than the person's own works). However, you are getting a notification if someone is submitting a new submission.

So write a journal.

But I still don't see why it's such a concern that people won't see what you commissioned. Watching people is so I can be alerted of their art, not of whatever cool stuff they felt like shoving in my face. The exposure argument is ridiculous.

It does give an artist more exposure if people read the description and note it's from another person than the submitter

So what? Uploading everything you draw and linking to you gets you exposure, too. If exposure for the original artist is really the concern here (and not just attention whoring by the buyer), then why are commissions special?

The For you, By You policy is also a coverage for joint works. Since again there are no sharing ownerships it's likely Artist A the inker for example will post and Artist B the colorist will post the same submission.

That's a By You. Nobody has a problem with that.

As to your wondering why anyone would ever want or care to see drawings of some one elses character, well there are people like me out there who actually roleplay with said characters.

This is an art site, not Murry Roleplay Reference Affinity. There's furspots (I guess?) or photobucket or whatever for hosting references.

Just hoping that sheds at least a little light on the matter from the side of some one who's drawing ability is quite frankly.. terrible.

I am not an artist either.

 

[Arshes Nei]

So write a journal.

But I still don't see why it's such a concern that people won't see what you commissioned. Watching people is so I can be alerted of their art, not of whatever cool stuff they felt like shoving in my face. The exposure argument is ridiculous.


So what? Uploading everything you draw and linking to you gets you exposure, too. If exposure for the original artist is really the concern here (and not just attention whoring by the buyer), then why are commissions special?

Simply put it's the way the system is set up. The suggestion was favorites, now it's a journal, which is effective? Unfortunately neither at this time. Neither is this current system of even uploading, however it's more effective at this time than the first two.

Right now the system is so out of date, you can't selectively unwatch journals, differ between mature and adult artwork in your settings, etc...

This is just another symptom of a system that needs to be more flexible.

Even if you uploaded a lot it doesn't necessarily get an artist a view depending on the time of the day, it doesn't hurt if the commissioner did it and you happened to browse it.

Those commissioners are also what help the site run, even if you have personal reservations as to why this is uploaded, that's one of the reasons people are more willing to donate to FA to help out.

 

[foxystallion]

Curious: why does your argument apply to art I commission but not art I merely like?

Because it is not "for you."

Your preferred policy of eliminating "for you" would seriously reduce the amount of income available to commission artists - which would not be good for the artists, for FA, or for the furry community. Do you honestly think that the Medicis' (or various popes, kings, etc.) would have commissioned any art that they could not put into their own palaces? The world would be a poorer place without that art, and FA would be a poorer place without commissioned art, too.

That incorrect attribution "copyright by soandso" is an artifact of poorly thought out FA coding, not an inherent problem with "for you". I deal with this problem by putting the real artist's name in the filename, the title, and on the first line below the title which states "Original art by ..." using the :iconusername: convention to provide a link to the artist's user page. I also provide a link to the image in the artist's gallery and request that viewers fave it there "so that the artist gets the credit that she deserves."

Finally, many artists do NOT keep all of the commissioned art that they have created displayed in their galleries.

 

[Tobias Amaranth]

Okay, so I tend to stalk the recent uploads. I like that people are able to upload their commissions because I can click in by a picture that catches my eye, note that it's drawn by someone else, and visit them instead. I've found quite a few artists this way. BEYOND that, you can also browse the commissioner's gallery and find other similar artists! I personally would like to see the for you portion remain. At most, allow people to state whether something is a collaboration (I color other people's line-art) or a commission, similar to other filing systems. As someone else mentioned, colored borders would be nice for commissions (not drawn by the uploading artist). I don't find them appropriate for collab's though as both people put in just as much work and it shouldn't be overlooked just because of a collab tag.

 

[Vantid]

As an artist, I like it when people post the work I do for them. I also enjoy looking at the galleries of patrons to see what else has been created for them. Some patrons have cool characters or fun ideas and I enjoy seeing everyone's interpretation of the ideas!

As long as the posters are adhering to the artist's wishes and give the credit as they should, I think it is a neat thing. :3

 

[wildrider]

As an artist, I like it when people post the work I do for them. I also enjoy looking at the galleries of patrons to see what else has been created for them. Some patrons have cool characters or fun ideas and I enjoy seeing everyone's interpretation of the ideas!

As long as the posters are adhering to the artist's wishes and give the credit as they should, I think it is a neat thing. :3

Definitely this. I've found numerous artists through commissions done by friends and others. I like the style, then find their page, and then commission them myself which has then helped the artist. This has happened a few times and to change it, as long as people are giving the full credit to the artist, would not benefit anyone then.

 

[Eevee]

Simply put it's the way the system is set up. The suggestion was favorites, now it's a journal, which is effective?

I am assuming implicitly that you would fave everything you commission by default and use a journal to list commissions.

Right now the system is so out of date, you can't selectively unwatch journals

Which is why journals work.

Because it is not "for you."

Okay. So what?

Do you honestly think that the Medicis' (or various popes, kings, etc.) would have commissioned any art that they could not put into their own palaces?

If this were myspace, you could plaster whatever you want anywhere. But it's not. FA is for artists to show off their work. Showing off commissions is shoehorned in.

Finally, many artists do NOT keep all of the commissioned art that they have created displayed in their galleries.

Perhaps they should! For exposure.

Okay, so I tend to stalk the recent uploads. I like that people are able to upload their commissions because I can click in by a picture that catches my eye, note that it's drawn by someone else, and visit them instead.

Or you could just click it when the original artist uploads it and not have other artists' work bumped off the page by double uploads.

BEYOND that, you can also browse the commissioner's gallery and find other similar artists!

You can also browse faves to find a much more extensive list of similar artists.





I don't see either:
- Why posting a commission purely to give the artist exposure is significantly different from posting something else I like to give the artist exposure
- How this significantly detracts attention from artists when (a) a greater proportion of art and attention (faves, comments, etc) is now being given to people who are not artists and (b) there are other ways to show off your commissioned or gift art

I've seen tons of commission uploads by popular commissioners that have many times the faves and comments and views than the originals. How is it helping the original artist to let tons of people leave their appreciation elsewhere?

I don't much expect For You to be removed no matter what I say. My more immediate concern is that, rather than being treated as a stopgap measure to deal with a crappy codebase, everyone acts like this is some grand and healthy thing. It detracts attention from artists, misleads visitors, duplicates images, and sorts things incorrectly on a site that already has enough issues with organization and finding things -- now I can't even trust the name of the submitter. It is exactly the first thing furries would use Photobucket for.

Also, consider people who both create their own art and upload commissions/gifts.
First of all, how do I find just this person's art? That is, after all, probably why I'm looking in eir gallery. I can't; it's mixed in with art from random other artists.
How do I watch just this person's art? Again, whoops, I can't.
What if I look at this person's userpage and the most recent piece is a commission I don't like? I just absolutely hate the style. Am I going to stick around? Probably not. Now I won't see anything this person has actually made.


Aaand further:

Twile:
Pageviews: 56000
Comments Received: 5642

Most recent commissionee, ta-ek:
Pageviews: 2022
Comments Received: 508
Original submission has 28 faves, 13 comments, 430 views.
Twile's copy has 75 faves, 36 comments, 1606 views.

Second-most recent, wmustang:
Pageviews: 13845
Comments Received: 406
Artist never uploaded. (?!)

Third most recent, doe:
Pageviews: 15353
Apparently left or something ?_?

Fourth most recent, guardianmoose:
Pageviews: 7309
Comments Received: 2034
Original submission has 100 faves, 26 comments, 1401 views.
Twile's copy has 153 faves, 44 comments, 3044 views.

Actually, the only person I can find who is more famous than Twile or who has garnered more views on the original upload is Glenn. And he's Glenn.



Crome:
Pageviews: 41539
Comments Received: 148 (cleared recently)

Most recent commissionee, zhivagod:
Pageviews: 34810



I am not super up to date on furry popular culture, so I can't name a lot of prolific commission whores, but it strikes me as a little preposterous when the only two who come to mind are vastly more popular than the artists they commission and copies of work gets two, three, four times as many comments and faves as the artist's original. This is a slap in the face to artists. Again, what are they supposed to do if they don't like it? Piss off their potential clients by taking the spotlight away from them?

 

[Tluthal]

I'm just going to be blunt...

I think the For You part is a great thing. I'm proud when someone I draw for likes my work enough to post it in their own gallery. The more people see my art and know my name, the better. I post the occasional request, but only with the artist's permission. The artists who don't want their art posted in other people's galleries are free to refuse the requester the right to post it.

As for the people complaining about the commissions? They (the commissioner) paid for the art. The art belongs to the commissioner. You have no right to complain when someone wants to post art they paid for. You can take credit for the art, but it no longer solely belongs to you.

The people who are suggesting a separate gallery or folder for art that was done for you - I'm all for that. I've made an icon especially for any art that I requested.

Again, if you don't want your art posted outside your own gallery, then tell the person who wants to 'no,' and report them if they do post it. There's no sense in getting worked up when it specifically states that it has to be done with the permission of the artist.

 

[Arshes Nei]

I am not super up to date on furry popular culture, so I can't name a lot of prolific commission whores, but it strikes me as a little preposterous when the only two who come to mind are vastly more popular than the artists they commission and copies of work gets two, three, four times as many comments and faves as the artist's original. This is a slap in the face to artists. Again, what are they supposed to do if they don't like it? Piss off their potential clients by taking the spotlight away from them?

To a degree your point is understandable, but at the same time as an artist that gets paid to draw other people's characters - I got bucks and that's worth more than any comments and popularity in the world. It pays the bills. Getting extra watches because the commissioner posted my work and credited me, bonus: more customers. A lot of the comments aren't really that great anyways lol. So Money > Comments.

 

[Eevee]

As for the people complaining about the commissions? They (the commissioner) paid for the art. The art belongs to the commissioner.

No, it does not. You need a written explicit contract to transfer rights like this. The commissioner paid the artist to create it, but the artist still created it.


Does this imply that everyone should upload art they like that's public domain?

To a degree your point is understandable, but at the same time as an artist that gets paid to draw other people's characters - I got bucks and that's worth more than any comments and popularity in the world. It pays the bills.

Popularity is what gets you more commissions and better word-of-mouth. Doesn't work quite so well if that's all being funneled through someone else.

And this still doesn't explain why I shouldn't just upload all of your art so everyone who's watching me can see how cool it is and go commission you.

 

[Charem]

Okay...my two cents here about the "For You"....

- I have indeed found new artists to watch, thanks to people posting up artwork they commissioned from said artists and linking to them.

- Some artists I request and commission myself have actually told me 'Hey, please submit this on your userpage too!' Because it does indeed expand their popularity, as it lets a completely new crowd (whoever is watching the commissioner) see their works. And since I have over 900 watches, it's definitely a high possibility an artist will get more attention after I repost something they drew for me.

- Look, really...I respect the artist who have drawn me. I wouldn't be half as popular as I am, if it wasn't for all their kindness in drawing me. I want to spread their names, because they're awesome and I want to let people know that.

- For those complaining about this whole thing because of how it 'floods your new submissions with the same thing repeatedly'...yeah, I can understand that, though that's really nitpicky, isn't it? What I try to do is wait a day or two or three after the artist posts what I commissioned them, and at that point I post my own copy. It alleviates the flooding, and also allows the artist to have the first grab at people's attention by posting first, which I think they deserve anyways.

- Lastly...this is, at its heart, an issue between commissioner and artist. If the artist doesn't want their art reposted, then so be it. Otherwise, I will post artwork I received on my account. If you don't like it, then don't watch me, just watch the artists I get art from. But for those of you complaining heavily here...just leave it alone. It's not your decision, it's me and the artist's.

 

[Arshes Nei]

Eevee is actually correct. You need to state that (what posting rights the commissioner has), because copyright belongs to the original artist, and again there have been cases the artist has come to the helpdesk asking a commissioner takes a piece down.

The person who created the piece would trump the person who bought it unless stated in a work for hire/or agreement otherwise.

That might suck or you might think the artist may be a douche or whatever, but it's still his/her right. They also might have a valid reason too.

 

[Charem]

Eevee is actually correct. You need to state that (what posting rights the commissioner has), because copyright belongs to the original artist, and again there have been cases the artist has come to the helpdesk asking a commissioner takes a piece down.

The person who created the piece would trump the person who bought it unless stated in a work for hire/or agreement otherwise.

That might suck or you might think the artist may be a douche or whatever, but it's still his/her right. They also might have a valid reason too.

*shrugs* No complaint there. It's the artist's work, and they have the final say over its circulation.

Commissioners get some rights, obviously because they paid for the picture, but posting/circulation rights are up to the original artist. The commissioner is free to keep the picture privately to himself at the least.

My issue is not with the artists, the commissioners...it's with individuals here who are outside of either group, and yet still finding some reason to complain about an issue that doesn't involve them. =/

 

[Aden]

So, how about another gallery update?

Have an option to disallow faves and comments on a "for you" piece.