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

The By You/For You Policy

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
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. =/

At this point I agree, now I do understand the frustration of mistaking the commissioner for the artist. but there are people like Era-Dragon who label their commissions properly in the title and gives credit back to the original artist.

Yes some people are popular due to their character or "whoring" because of the commissions he/she buys. Oh well. I'm not forced to watch that person, and I don't need to sit on the front page all day either, that's kinda boring....and as an artist I got other things to work on.

There are people who simply don't read, which is why journals don't work. Even descriptions don't always work but that [faicon]fender[/faicon] (iconusername) works very well.

I would like a color coded/thumbnail definition of an FYBY piece and the person can check it off when submitting a picture. It could be a forced one, like how you have to select a rating before you submit. At least then maybe that will help.
 

Charem

The Vorish Firelizard
So, how about another gallery update?

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

Well, that would also require a tagging system that allows the commissioner to tag it as a 'For You' piece. Which would have to be entirely their prerogative anyways. (I'd do it, if the system existed, though some people most likely wouldn't.)

But really, it would be a lot of coding to solve what's only a minor issue. If people see a 'repeat' of a piece of art in their New Submissions, and they don't want to bother with it because they already bothered with the first submission, well, they can just delete it. Issue solved.
 

Charem

The Vorish Firelizard
At this point I agree, now I do understand the frustration of mistaking the commissioner for the artist. but there are people like Era-Dragon who label their commissions properly in the title and gives credit back to the original artist.

Yes some people are popular due to their character or "whoring" because of the commissions he/she buys. Oh well. I'm not forced to watch that person, and I don't need to sit on the front page all day either, that's kinda boring....and as an artist I got other things to work on.

There are people who simply don't read, which is why journals don't work. Even descriptions don't always work but that [faicon]fender[/faicon] (iconusername) works very well.

I would like a color coded/thumbnail definition of an FYBY piece and the person can check it off when submitting a picture. It could be a forced one, like how you have to select a rating before you submit. At least then maybe that will help.

Oh, I forgot to consider the point of mistaking who the real artist is. I can agree with you there. It's easy enough to fix though, if commissioners would just bother to do it... Let's take a piece of art I have, for example. "Special Delivery" is its title, and that's what the submission is called in FairyTails's (the original artist) gallery. I reposted it, and renamed it "Special Delivery - by FairyTails". (I also linked to Fairytails's FA page in the description, using the most obvious method of : iconFairyTails :, like you said, Arshes.) So imo, the best method on clearing up who's the artist, is having the commissioner put "by <artist>" right there in the submission's title.

Ahh, art whoring...well, that's another can of worms entirely. I'll just say that if a person has the ability to commission/request a lot of artwork of their character, well...they got the artists willing to do it obviously, so there's really no real argument, except for those who are jealous of this. (I've been guilty of this jealousy myself with a few people who seem to have practically bottomless wallets for commissions. But heck, it's up to them and the artists who draw them.) Sick of seeing a particular character? Like I said before...the New Submissions has a delete button for a reason. Ignore, delete, problem solved.

I agree very much against the use of journals for reflecting what art of your character exists. Heck, I like to read journals, but since I get like 60+ new ones every 10 minutes, I really do skip most of them. Plus...I'm pretty sure people watch me because they like to see artwork of me. And by me posting the artwork I've received from numerous artists, it allows them to see all the art of me, all collected in one place, rather than all over the place and in numerous artist's galleries.

Yes, favorites could work for this purpose of collecting too, but considering how much stuff I favorite, a person would have to dig well over 100 pages back in my favorites list to find some stuff. Plus...if somebody watches me, they aren't gonna be told about my 'new favorites', only my 'new submissions'. Basically...if I don't post the artwork myself, a lot of people are going to find it horribly difficult to discover the artwork themselves. And that would be a great disservice to those who watch me.

The color-coded idea is actually very appealing to me. Occasionally, I do actually draw myself, and it would be nice to 'signify' that something is completely my own work, by using a different color. Of course, this would likely take quite a bit of coding...but still, it's a good idea to consider sometime in the future.
 
Last edited:

Aden

Play from your ****ing HEART
Well, that would also require a tagging system that allows the commissioner to tag it as a 'For You' piece. Which would have to be entirely their prerogative anyways. (I'd do it, if the system existed, though some people most likely wouldn't.)

I'm not talking about a tag. I'm talking about an option on the submission options to disable comments and an option to disable favorites on this piece. Anyone would be able to use these options; just make it mandatory if the work is not by you.
 

selth

Linuxian Dragon
Interresting discution.

what about the intent? if it is clear, from the start, that the commission is to be displayed, that fails the need of a written contract.

Now, there are other policies that can be used to protect work such as the open world's.

Can't remember it all as is, but basically it makes it ok to make alterations of a work as long as you do not sell it and remind who the author is.

Other licences may exist and maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to make one for FA commissions since US copyright is not exactly used in all cases.

When a transaction occurs, the country of the person who sales the services applies its laws first. Therefore, if I'm in UK and I sell a picture , if the law is different, that UK law applies before the US. For the transaction to succeed, it must be legal to purchase it in the US, the us copyright law is not used at all in this case but the UK's. Variations applies when signed agreements are done between the countries, but international law is messy. In most cases, the artist NEEDS to say his art is copyrighted otherwise it stays unprotected. If the original picture is not signed you are giving your rights away!!!

I did study law a few years, most of it applied to computer science ^.+.^

I'm no expert, but I would highly recommend FA to allow people to choose for themselves or totally get out of the legal way, like ebay does. Basically that means you act upon notice and don't take initiative.

I believe that and/or setting a contract of sorts between artist and customer saying exactly what the customer may or may not be allowed to and what he could face would solve the issue for good.

I recommend FA to stay away from law courts as much as possible, it drains money.

Instead, why not just say "you can upload stuff you are allowed to, you have up to X infractions and if you keep doing so your account will be banned from posting". that's sortof what ebay does.

LAST MINUTE ADDITION:
It may not even be legal to access FA in certain countries. or post certain kinds of pictures. be sure you say in a disclamer that the use of this website is to the user's discretion. saves lives!
 
Last edited:

Charem

The Vorish Firelizard
I'm not talking about a tag. I'm talking about an option on the submission options to disable comments and an option to disable favorites on this piece. Anyone would be able to use these options; just make it mandatory if the work is not by you.

Yeah, that could be enforced I suppose. People who don't mark their submission as a 'For You' could be reported for it. But then it's just a big mess that the admin have to deal with, and...well...feels like a bit of a waste of resources. I mean, it's not a bad idea, but is really that big of a deal?

Though, I like the slightly-more-passive suggestion of Arshes Nei... "I would like a color coded/thumbnail definition of an FYBY piece and the person can check it off when submitting a picture. It could be a forced one, like how you have to select a rating before you submit. At least then maybe that will help."
 

Eevee

Banned
Banned
I am getting the feeling here that, even if FA supported linking commissioners to the artist's copy of the work, nobody would bother using it. Lovely.


Also, I would appreciate if people would actually answer questions I raise, rather than repeating personal anecdotes to support points already made?
 

T3HPK

Member
Honestly, as an artist who draws for other people on FA, I LOVE the FY/BY policy. I draw something for yiffynekopurrs, and s/he reposts it linking back to my gallery. Sure, yiffynekopurrs may get some, if not more, faves on the image that's in their gallery, but I'm getting exposure. I'm getting attention that I might not have gotten if that commissioner didn't repost my image. I honestly don't care if theirs gets more faves/comments than mine, because most comments are "Awesome!" or "Hot!! *murrypurry*" anyway. If a person is going to leave a truly constructive or complimenting comment, they're going to probably read the description and end up on my submission anyway.

I also love it because I watch people who aren't artists and merely repost all commissions they buy! A great example of this would be SecreT.
http://www.furaffinity.net/user/secret/
I love his character, and he commissions great artists. It's so cool to see his character drawn by so many different and unique artists. I've found excellent artists through commissionees like SecreT, and I appreciate it.

Also, I love the idea of a color coded box for the For You submissions. It'll easily let you distinguish between the commissioner and commissionee if you're watching both.

And I definitely love the disable comments/faves option. Even more so than the colored box. This way users would be forced to view the original submission if they really wanted to comment or whatever.

As for the disagreement with the artists and reposting, if a work is commissioned, the commissionee should ASK the artist if they may repost, and the commissionee should be allowed. If the artist says no, then that obviously means no. If the image is uploaded anyway, have it removed. Simple.

I really hope that a few of these things could possibly be implemented in the future. And perhaps a way to flag submissions, as we can do with forum posts, for anything that is against the AUP.
 

foxystallion

Born Furry
I am getting the feeling here that, even if FA supported linking commissioners to the artist's copy of the work, nobody would bother using it. Lovely.

Wrong. I always provide such a link and ask that viewers Fave the commissioned art in the artist's own gallery.
 

T3HPK

Member
I've yet to see a commissionee fail to link back to the original artist unless the rest of their gallery is filled with stolen works.
 

Charem

The Vorish Firelizard
Eevee said:
I am getting the feeling here that, even if FA supported linking commissioners to the artist's copy of the work, nobody would bother using it. Lovely.

Whaaa? Okay, I do agree that a lot of people don't do that specifically (I'm guilty), but it's only a minor difference from linking to the artist themselves. Either way, you recognize the original artist. *shrugs* Plus, if the artist asks me to link to the original submission, I do it. And I always make sure they're alright with me reposting the image in the first place.

Eevee said:
Also, I would appreciate if people would actually answer questions I raise, rather than repeating personal anecdotes to support points already made?

I didn't see that many questions from you, but if you're inviting people to give their two cents about your opinions, then sure. I respect, but disagree, with your points. The idea of using an FA journal to link to art you've received is obscure and would be guaranteed to be missed by a good deal of the people watching you. (There's too many journals out there to read; you can't expect all your watchers to read all your journals.) Secondly, your concept of 'your gallery should only contain artwork you yourself drew' is an opinion, not a fact. And disagree with it entirely; after all, the fact that our policy is called "By You/For You" proves that it's okay to post art drawn for you.

I'll reiterate what I already said before. "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." You seem to have an issue with this matter, of people posting art that they didn't draw themselves. And well, everybody has the right to an opinion as long as no one is trying to push it onto others who feel differently, assuming they are not breaking any rules.

LolitaPK said:
As for the disagreement with the artists and reposting, if a work is commissioned, the commissionee should ASK the artist if they may repost, and the commissionee should be allowed. If the artist says no, then that obviously means no. If the image is uploaded anyway, have it removed. Simple.

Very simple. :3 That's all that needs to really be said about this topic...you're spot-on.

LolitaPK said:
I've yet to see a commissionee fail to link back to the original artist unless the rest of their gallery is filled with stolen works.

Likewise for what I've seen.
 
Last edited:

nekollx

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


Which is why journals work.

the main problem with this is that, frankly, the fav system of FA SUCKS, suck like a vacume in a wind tunnel, sucks like a bad Yiff picture.

If i have a character I want to keep them easily grouped to gether for reference, but FA gives no control of that which is why i think a lot of people repost it in their own gallery, to keep it all centrlized.

if FA had a decent fave system like over at DA i think youd see more stuff like this

http://nekollx.deviantart.com/favourites/#commisions
 

XerxesQados

Now 33% purpler, free!
The policy requires the commissioner to attribute the artist and link back to them if they are an FA user.

If they fail to do this, then the artist may ask that they do so or report the image. And if you happen to notice, find the artist and tell them.

And no, finding an artist whose username is not the same as their pen name is not difficult.
 

VGJustice

Member
Also, I would appreciate if people would actually answer questions I raise, rather than repeating personal anecdotes to support points already made?

But that would require of them to read the topic before they post. We can't be having THAT now! That would make far too much sense!

On topic, I'd also like to see "For You" submissions marked as such. I hate finding art that I like, then finding out that it's someone else's work and not the submitter's, but the submitter doesn't leave a link to the artist or even a name in most cases. This doesn't help the originating artist in the slightest since the extra pageviews are meaningless, this doesn't help the browser since they won't be able to find the art they DO like and would like to see more of, and this doesn't even help the submitter since the only attention it attracts are lifeless sycophants to the character and not the art.

Granted, all the rules in the world do nothing if the majority ignores them.

(on a side note, having a working search feature would alleviate that problem for me at least, but I'm aware of the reasons for not having one currently.)

On a related point (and because playing Devil's Advocate is fun):

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.

It's not the journal links that gets more views, or the favorites list. In both cases, that's limited down to a single member on a fairly large site. What gets the extra views are the views from the front page and more recent browsing. By uploading a "For You" commission, it gives the commissioned piece a more viable chance to be seen by a random browser.
 

foxystallion

Born Furry
Perhaps they should! For exposure.

Your arrogance is astounding. You have two pieces of your own art in your gallery (which i think are pretty good), and you firmly believe that you should be telling other artists who have created hundreds of pieces how to manage their galleries. Jeeze!
 
Last edited:

BobFranklin

New Member
I think that commissioners and others should *not* be able to upload to their gallery artworks they did not draw. But I suspect that this discussion, both sides of it, really reduces to (intuitions about) what is convenient for who, and many of the arguments posed are just fronts for this matter.

In particular, the talk of laws, copyrights, courts, contracts, explicit agreements, rights, ownership, and so on I find to be distracting. There is no copyright enforcer prowling FA (or any other furry site) ready to serve papers or take things to court on behalf of artists. The only way the law could get involved is if an artist (or commissioner I suppose) goes through the considerable expense and hassle of hiring a lawyer. It’s safe to say this is a rare occurrence, and does not represent the majority of even serious disagreements between artist and commissioner in our fandom.

In other words, there is little reason for most furry patrons or artists to care about intellectual property law, as the law relates to either the “for you / by you” issue or particular commissions. The point that an artist *could* take someone to court under such-and-such a law doesn’t matter, since the artist *probably won’t* find the expenses of legal council justified or necessary. A few emails, journal posts, complaints to the admin, and the problem gets solved; no lawyer hears of it. Site policy somehow “better matching” the law wouldn’t change this much.

Next. Though I agree with LexyEevee’s main conclusion, I find another distraction in what I suspect is his key argument:

Eevee said:
FA is for artists to show off their work. Showing off commissions is shoehorned in.

The problem here is that Eevee hasn’t (clearly) argued for why or how FA became “for” his particular understanding of the site’s “purpose.” And even if he did provide such an argument, he hasn’t shown us why we should care if we neglect this “purpose.” I suspect (from his journal) that this “purpose” comes the mental category he formed out of other sites that look a little like FA, and what is included in the upload policies of those sites. Building a new mental category “just for” FA is inconvenient; “why can’t FA do it like all these other sites do?”

If this does kinda capture Eevee’s complaint about what FA is for, then a problem arises. Why do we care about what’s convenient for Eevee, or any particular artist, commissioner, or user? This is the sort of thing that seems best settled through democratic election. I don’t know what the majority think, but it could very well be that most artists, commissioners, and users don’t find it inconvenient (anymore?) to have the “FY/BY” rule, or might even find any other rule inconvenient in just the same way Eevee finds the FY/BY rule inconvenient . It could be, that to most users, “showing off commissions” is just as essential to FA’s “purpose” as artists showing off their work is.

Eevee’s strongest argument, to me (distorted a little, by me), isn’t about the “purpose” of the site understood in relation to the site being “for artists to show off their work.” It is about the site’s “purpose” understood in terms of speed of navigation, ease of tracking artworks (and artists, and commissioners), and the avoidance of misinterpretation. Note the two purposes are closely related. But I think almost everyone agrees with the second, whereas it is still an open question how many agree with the first.

It’s happened to me: “This is good art. I should bookmark this artist. Oh, wait....” Simple, matter of undressed inconvenience. Navigation would be a little bit faster for me without the FY/BY. That’s why my voice is against it.
 
View it a different way though. Look at it from "I want to find X" and consider the typical user's browsing habits. People will favorite just about anything. So browsing a user's favorites has rarely led me to finding new artists. They'll find a new artist and fav about 30 things in a row from that one person.

Here's a semi-hypothetical situation based on several I've already experienced:

I browse the front page at random times of the day when I'm bored. I'll hit refresh once every few minutes and look at what's new. This time, I see a neat picture that looks cool. I click it, and I find it wasn't drawn by this person. But hey, they linked to the actual artist. Awesome, I'll go check them out. I go there, and possibly watch them if they have a lot more really neat stuff.

But it doesn't stop there. I go back to that first person's gallery and I look around. If THEY liked this artist, I wonder what else they have here! I click around and find another two pictures that I really like. I go to those artists and watch atleast one of them. That's one more artist that they gave exposure to just by uploading their commissioned works.

You know what else is nice about that gallery? You know how I said browsing favs I sift through like, 30 pics in a row of an artist's stuff I don't like before getting to a new artist? Well this person's got only 1-2 pictures from each artist! That makes it really easy. Very little redundancy. Plus, it shows me how these different artists draw a particular species. Which was part of the reason I clicked the original image in the first place. Bonus!


I think that given the type of community we are trying to make, one that's strongly interconnected and supportive of eachother, the For You policy is very complimenting of this goal. Artists get a lot more exposure from this than you give credit for.

Addressing redundancy, often people don't upload both at the same time, especially if they think about it. This means that two different groups of browsers will get the opportunity to notice this image.

Addressing permission, it's already been stated that 'with permission' is included in this policy. If you really don't want your commissioner uploading your art to their gallery, then tell them not to, and if they do, report it.

Addressing sorting, often artists will have a separate gallery dedicated to "For You" works. This keeps the clutter out of their main gallery and avoids confusion.

Addressing comments, yes, the non-artist version of the picture may get more comments, but those comments are also usually more directed at the character in question than the art per-se. I mean, if they're watching the person who uploaded it, it's likely because they enjoy that character or are friends with the person uploading it. It might be nice for them to also post on the original upload, but if they don't, it's not a bad thing. After all, a person can't go comment on the original picture saying "Your character is so hawt! I like this one!" So no, a disabling comments/favorites is not a good idea when looked at from that direction.

Addressing a unique colored border, a very good idea. It would still need its own hues to represent mature/adult or whatever too, but a special border color would be something I would like. Especially since then I could actually -cause- more of the situations I described above. Add some shades of purple and blue or something. :3
 

Vandell

NOT A RACCOON
Eevee, your comments always make me wanna rage. You know as well as I do - as well as everyone does - that the For You clause benefits artists a lot. If I wasn't able to repost my own pictures, I would have never came to this website and spent upwards of $750 on artists. I don't buy from artists that don't give me permission to post their art on my page. Why? Because I like the small stint of attention I get when I do it, I like showing people that artist X has put effort into drawing my character.

I can understand your complaint about people turning their FA page into their own personal photobucket.. But, who the hell cares? It's just a repost of some art. Give the commissioners some slack and let them/the artist decide what's best, not you. If you have such a problem with that copyright text, remove it. It's not like it stands up in court or anything.

The way I see it, you can either embrace the commissioners (the ones who have most of the money) or shun them away. You're going with the latter it seems, and if your own personal opinion gets injected into FA policy I will be leaving this place permanently.
 

Stratelier

Well-Known Member
Eevee's gripes make a lot of sense though.

Arguments against the "For You" clause are basically:

1 - Muddles a user's gallery; creates confusion over what stuff is theirs and what isn't. No way to separate between the two.
2 - Faves & feedback being dropped on the reposted work instead of the original.

The above two complaints do happen despite the best efforts of the reposters to cite and link-back to the original artist and work.
 

Honeymane

Member
Am I the only one who thinks this should be between the artist and their patron, and no one else?

What I mean is this, no one should be posting commissioned images into their own gallery, if they don't have permission from the original artist, however, the citations provided should ultimately be up to patron and the artist who created the work.

I mean, not all artists may want to be associated with some of the art they produce, some artists have seperate galleries for just this reason.

However;
What I'd suggest is this; If I submit an image that was drawn by someone else, there should be a box that asks me for the proper citations for the image, and a link to image, if it's on FA, as well as the artist. When someone tries to favorite the image in my gallery, the 'favorite' link really favorites the original image, not the reposted image in my gallery.

But, the system needs to be flexible, sometimes people get commissions, as I have said, that the artist may not want to be connected to, so the display of the citation should have the opinion of being disabled, provided that the patron provides written information from the artist (ideally in the form of a FA note, but other forms like emails should also be usable, as not all artists may use FA's note system, etc). Should the citation be disabled, it will only appear to moderators and administrators, as well as the original artist.
 

krisCrash

Member
Eevee's gripes make a lot of sense though.

Arguments against the "For You" clause are basically:

1 - Muddles a user's gallery; creates confusion over what stuff is theirs and what isn't. No way to separate between the two.
2 - Faves & feedback being dropped on the reposted work instead of the original.

The above two complaints do happen despite the best efforts of the reposters to cite and link-back to the original artist and work.

You know what would be super awesome?
Gift gallery function or something like that.

You draw someone a gift or commission or the like, and as you submit it you attribute it to that person somehow, so that becomes searchable from the recipients profile.

an image will only be submitted once, but is linked to both people.

Maybe those users who primarily have gifts up rather than their own drawings can then choose to display their gift gallery as default, rather than their own gallery.
 

Vandell

NOT A RACCOON
You know what would be super awesome?
Gift gallery function or something like that.

You draw someone a gift or commission or the like, and as you submit it you attribute it to that person somehow, so that becomes searchable from the recipients profile.

an image will only be submitted once, but is linked to both people.

Maybe those users who primarily have gifts up rather than their own drawings can then choose to display their gift gallery as default, rather than their own gallery.
At the very most I'm willing to accept a "For You" or "By You" label on a picture that goes into the same gallery.

The label should not change anything about the picture, or who can / can not see it (such as how searchable it is, what tags can be applied to it, being visible on the main page, etc.; none of that should change), the only thing it should change, really, is the copyright and a small box of text that says it's a commission or something.

Alternatively, you could just make the copyright field able to be altered on submission/edit and make it link to the artist's FA page.

And as a note, there is a problem with your suggestion; what if the artist in question is too lazy to attribute the picture to the commissioner, just as some commissioners are too lazy to attribute credit to an artist? I would be mighty ticked off, personally speaking.

I am getting the feeling here that, even if FA supported linking commissioners to the artist's copy of the work, nobody would bother using it. Lovely.


Also, I would appreciate if people would actually answer questions I raise, rather than repeating personal anecdotes to support points already made?
I'm speaking as my, er, "right" as a purchaser of art, and I say it should be entirely up to the individual artist/commissioner. I do not care about your ideas, Eevee, because it harms my goal of supporting artists while getting a little bit of personal benefit from it. I paid for art from the artist, many people here do, for the express reason of posting it on my FA page to gain a small spot of prestige. You may call this "greedy", or "useless", or what have you, but I paid money for my art, and I -want- to have a larger benefit than just staring at it. I like to cart it around, show it off, print them out and hang them on my wall if I feel like it, watch my pageview counter go up, have people comment on how nice the picture is on -my- page, have people IMing me telling me my character is so adorable, and etc. I like the attention it brings, so piss off trying to shut me down.

Unless "linking" to a commission has all the benefits of posting it up in my own gallery (including getting views to my FA page, showing up on the main FA page, showing up on my main gallery, and etc.), I won't use this feature and will actively argue this issue with you as much as possible, or leave the website permanently. Other "big-name" commissioners have mentioned their dislike of being shunned and not embraced as supporters of the art community, noteably Twile. This is not something I will budge on; I won't stand for being targeted as a detriment to the website.

This "shoehorned" feature is one of my favourite things about this website, and its why I chose to come here over all others; it's like they're embracing people with money. Clever idea; cater to both artists and artist commissioners, and the website gets lots of donations! But if what you're saying/proposing is reflected by 'Neer and any of the other admins and will be implimented in the future, then I've obviously made a mistake in coming here.

No, I'm not that popular; I only have 4,500 views or so, but I like to think that I represent the "average" to "above average" commissioner. I've spent $750+ CAD here so far under the pretense that I'd always be able to keep my own little gallery of Vandell, and the moment it changes I will fight over it; and if I lose I will leave. Yes, I'm repeating myself, because this is the key issue that I do not want to change, and those are my reasons for not wanting it to change.

And as an additional note towards some commissioners being more popular than some artists.. seriously, piss off. It's the way the fandom has worked for ages; people fap to certain characters because they've been written and designed well, people enjoy looking at them because they are hell-a hot or really cute or what have you. Its the way its always been.
 
Last edited:

krisCrash

Member
Vandell: you can under no circumstances ever shield yourself from users doing it all wrong.
A gift system could be used for harrasment, making derogatory images show up in someone's profile against their will - and so forth.
That's just one example.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Eevee: for your ferrox coding, proposing a better commission management system is fine. Right now is that we don't have Ferrox, and are dealing with what's currently running. Unless it's fixed, I'm fine with the current AUP's For You/By You policy.
 

Eevee

Banned
Banned
As for the disagreement with the artists and reposting, if a work is commissioned, the commissionee should ASK the artist if they may repost, and the commissionee should be allowed. If the artist says no, then that obviously means no. If the image is uploaded anyway, have it removed. Simple.
This risks driving customers away.


Wrong. I always provide such a link and ask that viewers Fave the commissioned art in the artist's own gallery.
No, no. I mean if the software actually supported recognizing that user Y commissioned some picture in user X's gallery and have it show up for both or whatever.


The idea of using an FA journal to link to art you've received is obscure and would be guaranteed to be missed by a good deal of the people watching you. (There's too many journals out there to read; you can't expect all your watchers to read all your journals.)
They certainly would if they only watched you in the first place to keep up with art you commissioned.

Secondly, your concept of 'your gallery should only contain artwork you yourself drew' is an opinion, not a fact.
See below.


It's not the journal links that gets more views, or the favorites list. In both cases, that's limited down to a single member on a fairly large site. What gets the extra views are the views from the front page and more recent browsing. By uploading a "For You" commission, it gives the commissioned piece a more viable chance to be seen by a random browser.
The original artist reuploading it every day for a week would give it a more viable chance to be seen by a random browser, too, but I suspect people would disapprove of that.

Getting the artist more attention artificially is a crappy reason. Yeah, sure, it's a benefit to this system, but it's not a reason to do it in the first place, because it clearly doesn't hold for a bunch of other things people could be doing to attract attention.


Your arrogance is astounding. You have two pieces of your own art in your gallery (which i think are pretty good), and you firmly believe that you should be telling other artists who have created hundreds of pieces how to manage their galleries. Jeeze!
No; I think I should be telling other non-artists who haven't created a damn thing how to manage their galleries. Because I am a pedantic UI/design nerd. Also I'm the one rewriting the software. So I like to think it's slightly relevant to me.


I think that commissioners and others should *not* be able to upload to their gallery artworks they did not draw.
whoa

In other words, there is little reason for most furry patrons or artists to care about intellectual property law
Even moreso given how frequently IP law is misunderstood.

The problem here is that Eevee hasn’t (clearly) argued for why or how FA became “for” his particular understanding of the site’s “purpose.” And even if he did provide such an argument, he hasn’t shown us why we should care if we neglect this “purpose.” I suspect (from his journal) that this “purpose” comes the mental category he formed out of other sites that look a little like FA, and what is included in the upload policies of those sites. Building a new mental category “just for” FA is inconvenient; “why can’t FA do it like all these other sites do?”
On the contrary. I think I finally captured this well in a few comments somewhere down in that mess, but the original journal was more a frustrated rant than a real argument.

FA implies all over the place that it has been built to accommodate artists and their art. There's a copyright notice below every image. Gallery pages say "by <user>". With the sole exception of the for-you rule, all of the rules are about what users can include in their art. The submit page says "upload your art and images". Even Dragoneer's comment on that journal is revealing.

But you're right; there's no reason to keep original purpose just for the hell of it.

I am strongly in favor of limiting galleries to that user's art because it is useful.
There are people who are more popular than handfuls of the artists they commission combined despite having not really done anything; this strikes me as a bad thing, especially in a community that purports to love and support artists so much.
Organization goes to hell; the usernames on art become increasingly meaningless as time goes on. The more commissioners upload, the more any given name becomes less likely to mean "the person who made this" and more likely to mean "some random guy who paid twenty bucks for this". Again, distracts from the artists.
The more people engage in this practice, the less likely it is that any given userpage will actually contain art by that person. Who do you think are more populous: producers or consumers? This is encouraging FA to trend towards people showing off whatever they want just for the sake of putting something on the Web.
There is no longer any way for me to just find art by user X. Maybe some of it is done by that user, but anyone who uploads someone else's art muddies the waters. There are alternative ways to list commissions; there really is no other way to list art I did. That probably bothers me more than anything: we're diluting the meaning of something that originally meant X, but there's nothing else that can specifically mean X.
"For you" is also worryingly arbitrary. What's special about commissions? The commissioner doesn't own the art, and could feasibly purchase copyright for any other work anyway. The mantra of "giving the artist exposure" keeps being repeated, but then that means FA is leaning towards being one big attention whoring contest, and complaints about any proposals of ratings and listing most popular art would indicate that the community doesn't want that.

Why do we care about what’s convenient for Eevee, or any particular artist, commissioner, or user? This is the sort of thing that seems best settled through democratic election.
Is it? I can pretty much guarantee that there are more non-artists than artists on FA. It could be entirely feasible that the majority would vote to allow any uploads, short of IP issues. A democracy works fine if you're starting with a group of people and trying to decide what sort of community and purpose to build around them, but FA has always at least tried to imply that it has a specific purpose already. (I am, incidentally, trying to get this explicitly stated somewhere.)

Eevee’s strongest argument, to me (distorted a little, by me), isn’t about the “purpose” of the site understood in relation to the site being “for artists to show off their work.” It is about the site’s “purpose” understood in terms of speed of navigation, ease of tracking artworks (and artists, and commissioners), and the avoidance of misinterpretation.
Of course. There are severe UI issues here, which I think I've alluded to with mentions of disorganization. I try to avoid outright mentioning UI, though, because (in my experience) most people don't at all realize how much it affects them and gloss over mention of it as frivolous pedantery. But it does make a bloody mess.


You know as well as I do - as well as everyone does - that the For You clause benefits artists a lot. If I wasn't able to repost my own pictures, I would have never came to this website and spent upwards of $750 on artists. I don't buy from artists that don't give me permission to post their art on my page.
Paging LolitaPK to read this quote. This is why artists can't merely ask that their art not be posted elsewhere.

Why? Because I like the small stint of attention I get when I do it, I like showing people that artist X has put effort into drawing my character.
I appreciate your honesty, and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way, but that is partly why I think this is bogus. You shouldn't be getting that attention in an art community; you didn't create it. The artist should be mentioning you as an afterthought; not the other way around.

I can understand your complaint about people turning their FA page into their own personal photobucket.. But, who the hell cares? It's just a repost of some art.
Yes, and every instance of it wastes limited resources and makes life a little more difficult for people trying to find art.

Give the commissioners some slack and let them/the artist decide what's best, not you.
If the artists could decide what's best, there wouldn't be much of an AUP.

The way I see it, you can either embrace the commissioners (the ones who have most of the money) or shun them away. You're going with the latter it seems, and if your own personal opinion gets injected into FA policy I will be leaving this place permanently.
I'm sure it won't be. But I would like people to at least understand why I hold it, rather than defending their own vanity.


Am I the only one who thinks this should be between the artist and their patron, and no one else?
Why? Everyone else's browsing is subjected to whatever they do.

What I'd suggest is this
I intend to support attaching more than one user to a single submission on FA.

But, the system needs to be flexible, sometimes people get commissions, as I have said, that the artist may not want to be connected to
Um. Why? And how would that even be possible, when the AUP requires crediting the artist?







And I ask, once more, why should I not post random art my friends did? What makes commissions special? One of my best friends is PurpleKecleon; why shouldn't I go repost all of her art on my account? She would give me permission, and it would get her more exposure. Those are the two arguments I see being made here.
 
Last edited:
Top