• 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

Vandell

NOT A RACCOON
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.
M-O-N-E-Y.

I paid for it. Ergo, I deserve - AT LEAST - partial ownership. I would ask for full ownership of something I paid for, but that's obviously asking too much. However, some artists have expressly told me that what I'm purchasing belongs entirely to me - who are you to take that away from me?

I spent money. MONEY. Cash I earned in some way shape or form on receiving art from Artist X. Most artists follow the usual rule of "equal ownership" on most art.. I haven't met one, really, that has outlawed me from posting their art - THAT I PAID FOR - on my own page, because it's just innately bad business to do control everything a commissioner does with any given piece of artwork.

Sorry for the anecdote, but professional woodcutters don't force me to label every piece of wood they cut, because I paid them for their time and work for a finished product that I can use for my own ends, whatever they may be. It's the same process; I pay an artist for them to give me a finished product for me to use to my own ends.. ergo, I should have at least some measure of ownership.

For some reason, you seem to think artists are "above" being paid for their work, that we are "lucky" to get them to do artwork for us "lesser" people who can't draw; maybe you don't mean to come off so elitist, but you really, really do.
 
Last edited:
WTF Eevee, you didn't quote MY post, one of the more logistical ones here. Am I dirt or something? Or maybe, just maybe, I was right?

FA is a community site. Not an art site, but a community site. One that focuses on art, yes, but it's main purpose has become that of meeting new people via art forms. If it was just an art site, why have comments and journals at all?

And again, you're not an artist. And you're ignoring the artists out there that are explaining why they HAVE been enjoying the For You clause. How much money they've made from it. How much money commissioners have spent because of its existence. Some people use FA as a second job. So why would you close the tollway when it's still being heavily used? You don't have to use the tollway. They always build roads to get around it. But that's not going to make the tollway not exist just because you don't like that it's there and because you don't want to use it.

And if you reply only to this post, and not my first one, I will ignore your reply. It's only fair to reply to these posts as a whole instead of picking and choosing the ones you can directly argue against. Thanks. :3
 

Trpdwarf

Lurking in Castle Moats
I've got a question. Let us say person A commissions artist B to make art for them. It's a fursona picture going by the wookie rule.

When artist B is done and sends it to A after A pays, where would the rulings be for the following situation?

Artist B goes to Artist A's account to post a random hello in the comment box, only to find that the art that they made was altered so that it is now explicitly pornographic.

1: Does A have the right as per the rules, to alter the image and then host it on their page, giving proper credit to who made the art? Source for ruling?
2: Does the answer to A change if within the text it is given that the picture was originally tame but altered to be pornographic? Source for ruling?
3: If the original creator of the art asks the person to take the altered picture down, does the person have to take take it down? Source for ruling?
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Artist B goes to Artist A's account to post a random hello in the comment box, only to find that the art that they made was altered so that it is now explicitly pornographic.

The artist who created the picture owns the copyright, and if has a case if the commission listed personal use. Using FA publicly to display artwork you altered, regardless if you purchased it, doesn't trump the copyright ownership.

So if there is no agreement stated otherwise, despite it being a commission, does have the right to request a takedown.

Even if nothing was altered and the artist wants it down, unless there was an agreement otherwise, it's still the artist's right.
 

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
FA is a community site. Not an art site, but a community site. One that focuses on art, yes, but it's main purpose has become that of meeting new people via art forms. If it was just an art site, why have comments and journals at all?

No, in its focus it's an art site.

http://wiki.furaffinity.net/index.php/Main_Page

http://wiki.furaffinity.net/index.php/What_is_Fur_Affinity?

Fur Affinity is an online Anthropomorphic-themed art community. It’s an open forum intended to give Anthro-minded folk an outlet to share their creative talents without over burdening rules and emphasis on artistic freedom of expression.

Fur Affinity is neither a generic image hosting service, nor a *chan-style board. There are numerous image hosting services that allow people to upload random snapshots or humorous screencaps to share with friends, just as there are countless *chan boards dedicated to sharing artwork created by others. Fur Affinity, however, is meant to specifically cater to the sharing of users' own individual creative talents, and to allow others to show their appreciation for such creative works and keep track of favored artists through a system of watches, comments, and faves.

As such, this service is only intended to allow users to upload artistic content made by them, or by someone else expressly for them, such as commissions (with permission and due credit, of course).


FA is designed to have a community around this theme, just like DA....


Also....rules as such:

Why can't I...?

Because we said so.

If there is something we say you can't do here, we have a reason for it. Whether that reason is legal, social, necessity, preference, or simply because that is how We wish to run Our site; Our word is final. We will do our best to make these reasons available to you, but in the end, if we say "Just Because," then that answer is just going to have to be good enough. Fur Affinity is a privately owned and operated Entertainment website.

Among other things outlined in our tos, use of this service constitutes agreement to abide by the rules, guidelines, and directives put forth by this site's Staff. While we always have, and always will, strive to do what is best for this community, the definition of "what's best for this community" will always be up to the appointed Staff of this site. We've made it this far, we know what we're doing. Over 190,000 registered user accounts strong, and still growing faster than we can keep up, tends to suggest we're doing all right.
 

Vandell

NOT A RACCOON
Fur Affinity is an online Anthropomorphic-themed art community. It’s an open forum intended to give Anthro-minded folk an outlet to share their creative talents without over burdening rules and emphasis on artistic freedom of expression.

Fur Affinity is neither a generic image hosting service, nor a *chan-style board. There are numerous image hosting services that allow people to upload random snapshots or humorous screencaps to share with friends, just as there are countless *chan boards dedicated to sharing artwork created by others. Fur Affinity, however, is meant to specifically cater to the sharing of users' own individual creative talents, and to allow others to show their appreciation for such creative works and keep track of favored artists through a system of watches, comments, and faves.

As such, this service is only intended to allow users to upload artistic content made by them, or by someone else expressly for them, such as commissions (with permission and due credit, of course).
Fur Affinity is an online Anthropomorphic-themed art community
Anthropomorphic-themed art community.
If they're going to run an art community, there's more to that than just "the art". People need to -buy- said art so that the community thrives and artists will want to post art in the first place. You can't just shun those who want to support them financially.

FA is, essentially, at a dividing point - they can either be an art-focused anthro community, or an anthro-art website. The difference is that a community tries to make everyone happy without letting one group feel left out or shunned, while the anthro-art website is focused almost entirely on the artists. One is inclusive, one is exclusive. FurAffinity has moved beyond being simply "an art site" as originally planned; things do and can change, and I personally think a little more focus should be placed onto the community part.

The only reason I say this is because the number of non-artists outnumbers artists 3:1 (totally made up on the spot, but there are a crapload of non-artists on FA) that only seek to have fun, commission artists (or just watch them), critique, chat, and etc. The website has simply evolved into a large community based around the plethora of artists that have situated here. If you purposefully try to exclude or "remove" commissioners from the picture, or make things more difficult for them, then you may as well just give them the middle finger and tell us we're not welcome.

The problem I'm seeing is that you're trying to make things easier for one group of people at the expense of the other; as-is, things are pretty "equal".. though, now that I know none of my art "belongs" to me is rather off-putting and I think I may leave anyways.
 

Trpdwarf

Lurking in Castle Moats
The artist who created the picture owns the copyright, and if has a case if the commission listed personal use. Using FA publicly to display artwork you altered, regardless if you purchased it, doesn't trump the copyright ownership.

So if there is no agreement stated otherwise, despite it being a commission, does have the right to request a takedown.

Even if nothing was altered and the artist wants it down, unless there was an agreement otherwise, it's still the artist's right.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.
 

Eevee

Banned
Banned
M-O-N-E-Y.

I paid for it. Ergo, I deserve - AT LEAST - partial ownership.
You paid for the artist to create it. You did not pay for the result, and you do not own the result. This is how US law works. You are supporting an artist, and in return the artist diverts time to drawing whatever you want.

But do note that the For You clause says nothing about paying for the art. Just that it was made for you. If the real reason is exposure (by the questionable effect of dupe uploading), why does it matter who the art was created for if I have permission?

For some reason, you seem to think artists are "above" being paid for their work, that we are "lucky" to get them to do artwork for us "lesser" people who can't draw; maybe you don't mean to come off so elitist, but you really, really do.
Artists have a hard-earned skill. You have cash. Yeah, I value one over the other. Especially on, you know, an art site.

Imagine: if it came down to only having artists or only having commissioners on the site, who do you think everyone would rather have around?


WTF Eevee, you didn't quote MY post, one of the more logistical ones here. Am I dirt or something? Or maybe, just maybe, I was right?
Logistical?

I didn't respond to it because there was nothing new in it. But okay.


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.
I don't know where you're seeing this; I've never seen it happen.

That's one more artist that they gave exposure to just by uploading their commissioned works.
I'm not arguing that there aren't little perks to this arrangement. I'm arguing that the little perks are not a particularly good reason to have it in the first place, especially when those little perks could easily be used to justify other uploading behavior most people would not like. I'm arguing that this is at best merely a stopgap measure due to crappy software, not some miracle community feature. We should be looking to clean it up, not celebrate it.

Artists get a lot more exposure from this than you give credit for.
Artists also get ignored in favor of or confused with the uploader. Artists also risk being overlooked if they post commissions of their own. Artists (some I know!) also end up blackmailed into letting others upload their stuff whether they want it or not for fear of losing customers.

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.
So we're bumping other art off the front page by letting certain works get uploaded twice or thrice or more? Great, that sounds fair.


FA is a community site. Not an art site, but a community site. One that focuses on art, yes, but it's main purpose has become that of meeting new people via art forms.
So.. why can't I post just anything I find cool, again?

And again, you're not an artist.
I fail to see how this is at all relevant, or what gives artists any UI expertise.

And you're ignoring the artists out there that are explaining why they HAVE been enjoying the For You clause.
You're right. I am. (Although everyone is ignoring the artists I speak for, so I'm not sure why this matters.) Because my ultimate gripe is that this makes things wrong. Images are no longer unique; view counters and comment counters are wrong; usernames on art are no longer trustworthy; user galleries no longer have any real connotation. Statistics become harder to compile; it is more difficult to derive useful or interesting information from the database. A lot of things are useless, misleading, or outright incorrect because of this rule, and that bothers the piss out of me. Yes, I understand that you can find benefits to this system, but there are benefits to other crappy systems.

Organization is just more important to me than immediate convenience. It's disheartening to see nobody even grasp my frustration with this chaos; what's the use in building tools to fix it if everyone is content with how things are? I don't need the AUP to be changed, but it would be nice to see people at least acknowledge the problem.

And if you reply only to this post, and not my first one, I will ignore your reply. It's only fair to reply to these posts as a whole instead of picking and choosing the ones you can directly argue against. Thanks. :3
Like how you responded to my repeated question of why For You is different from This Is Cool? :V


If you purposefully try to exclude or "remove" commissioners from the picture, or make things more difficult for them, then you may as well just give them the middle finger and tell us we're not welcome.
You can commission all you want. I would just rather you not slap things you didn't create in a space obviously and uniquely suited for people to show off things they created.

though, now that I know none of my art "belongs" to me is rather off-putting and I think I may leave anyways.
Why are you waving this around constantly? What do you want, for me to profusely apologize for my opinion? Should I threaten to leave and take Ferrox with me because the community doesn't agree with me? Good grief, man, suck it up.
 
Last edited:

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
The problem I'm seeing is that you're trying to make things easier for one group of people at the expense of the other; as-is, things are pretty "equal".. though, now that I know none of my art "belongs" to me is rather off-putting and I think I may leave anyways.

I think you need to read what I posted a bit better, because you just went off the deep end here.

It's an art site however, if you actually read what I also quoted, you'll notice this:

As such, this service is only intended to allow users to upload artistic content made by them, or by someone else expressly for them, such as commissions (with permission and due credit, of course).

There is already an exception to commissioners with permission from the original artist.

However, you need to remember at its core it's not a "community" (in the generic sense) it's an art site still. Art Community would be more accurate.

You were busy fighting with Eevee to not recognize the error making that statement. I'm just merely clarifying what FA is, but that doesn't mean I agree with Eevee at this point in time due to FA's old system.
 

Trpdwarf

Lurking in Castle Moats
The artist who created the picture owns the copyright, and if has a case if the commission listed personal use. Using FA publicly to display artwork you altered, regardless if you purchased it, doesn't trump the copyright ownership.

So if there is no agreement stated otherwise, despite it being a commission, does have the right to request a takedown.

Even if nothing was altered and the artist wants it down, unless there was an agreement otherwise, it's still the artist's right.

Actually now I want to bring this up here now that there are two mods here who can perhaps answer my question best. I wish to get the POV of mods.

So if drawn art is treated that way, would it be the same for fur-suits? Meaning if you substituted the original questions to deal with a fur-suit commission and not drawn art, and the same thing hypothetically happens it the ruling still the same?

In that situation A commissions a tame fursuit from B. B finishes it and sends it off. When B goes to A's gallery to randomly say hello and ask if they are enjoying the suit, they find that the suit has been radically altered or turned into a yiff suit...and there are pictures of it in the account showing off the altered version.

Same three questions, are the answers the same, if not, what goes behind the different responses?
 
Last edited:

Arshes Nei

Masticates in Public
Actually now I want to bring this up here now that there are two mods here who can perhaps answer my question best. I wish to get the POV of mods.

So if drawn art is treated that way, would it be the same for fur-suits? Meaning if you substituted the original questions to deal with a fur-suit commission and not drawn art, and the same thing hypothetically happens it the ruling still the same?

In that situation A commissions a tame fursuit from B. B finishes it and sends it off. When B goes to A's gallery to randomly say hello and ask if they are enjoying the suit, they find that the suit has been radically altered or turned into a yiff suit...and there are pictures of it in the account showing off the altered version.

Same three questions, are the answers the same, if not, what goes behind the different responses?


Theoretically I do believe this to be the same issue, if posted to FA (can't do anything if the guy is posting it elsewhere). I know it's rather costly to make a fursuit and time consuming.

I would at least hope though it's not some public spectacle if the issue does arrive. Talk in private first. If the commissioner doesn't want to take it down, report it in private, we'll review and see what we can do.

I think because people see the fursuit similar to an article of clothing, I can see how alterations to the suit aren't viewed the same way as other forms of artwork, if you understand what I'm getting at. That may be why it wouldn't be seen as the same problem as a piece of artwork.
 

Trpdwarf

Lurking in Castle Moats
Theoretically I do believe this to be the same issue, if posted to FA (can't do anything if the guy is posting it elsewhere). I know it's rather costly to make a fursuit and time consuming.

I would at least hope though it's not some public spectacle if the issue does arrive. Talk in private first. If the commissioner doesn't want to take it down, report it in private, we'll review and see what we can do.

I think because people see the fursuit similar to an article of clothing, I can see how alterations to the suit aren't viewed the same way as other forms of artwork, if you understand what I'm getting at. That may be why it wouldn't be seen as the same problem as a piece of artwork.

I understand that few things can be done if it is a problem somewhere other than FA. I just want to know that the mods are thinking about this when re-writing the final version of the different rules that are being modified/created.

I understand people might not see fursuits in the same light as other art forms, because it is something they wear. However medium differences aside it is still a piece of art someone spend a lot of time and energy bringing to life and when you alter it there are issues. So even if the general public amongst the furrie community is unable to see a fur-suit as a piece of art just like drawn art and sculpture is, and cannot see an issue of altering it...that doesn't mean the mods of this site cannot be more aware and thus factor in certain safeguards so that if in the future it does become a problem, there are things set up in the rules to fall back on.

Then you won't have people getting butt-hurt because when and if the problem occurs, it was already thought about and there are rules already exitant that backing up the decisions made.
 
Last edited:
Eevee, I understand completely how for a coder, who is entirely focused on reaching the best organization possible and least amount of duplicated data, etc, how frustrating it seems. I love organization. So it makes sense.

But sometimes there are things that just need to be imperfect in order for everything to work. I hate grassy medians. I would prefer everything to just be a middle lane. But not everyone else feels that way. They like their scenery on the roads, and at times, the medians can prevent a worse accident vs just a blank middle lane that stops nothing... (First example I could really come up with, sorry if it's lame)

As for the "For You" vs "I Like This" bit, well, there's gotta be -some- reason why the latter just isn't right. Even if they have permission. It's hard to explain though, I'm having trouble myself. It's mostly an issue of control. It's far easier to moderate commissioned items (especially when the original artist links to the commissioner, and the commissioner links to the original artist) than it would EVER be for an "I Like This" system, even given permission. You'd get a link back to the original artist perhaps, but I doubt the original artist would get much respect by icon-linking to 30 different artists saying they gave permission for that person to upload it. In addition, you run into far more duplicates that way. Is it really -that- painful to see the same image twice, especially when it's not listed back to back? NO ONE sees ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the uploaded art on FA. There is no direct and decidedly negative consequence to having the For You policy, assuming that people follow the cross-linking rules.

Also, comments? Page views? Favorites? What are you guys, little kids? Why the f*ck does that stuff even matter in terms of getting the numbers as high as possible. If someone likes your art enough for them to want to actually influence you, they're going to seek you out from that original piece. And when they do, and you offer commissions, they'll pay. That's the real world at work. In addition, the smart people are the same ones who are going to locate the original artist. Those are the people who are going to leave the intelligent comments. Which are the only comments that matter. And if you REALLY want to see all of the comments, go look at the commissioner's upload and see what they're saying there.

*Sigh* I lost what I was saying, but anyway, thanks for the reply. Your points aren't bad, but they're misplaced. The people who matter on the site are the artists themselves, and the For You policy strongly benefits them. It could use its own border, as said, but it does not truly negatively impact the site, so there's no reason to do away with it.
 

CHW

New Member
*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. =/

No, it depends on the purchase agreement. Copyright is transferrable. If the creator of the work sells the rights to it, they no longer own those rights. If the agreement says the purchaser only receives limited rights, then those rights are limited as described.
 

Nidonocu

Happily Noxious
Yay, total nobody in terms of FA at least here, but someone who has an idea and well, see what you think.

The fundamental argument and problem here is that FA (the software) was designed with a specific primary purpose: Artists use it upload their artwork, others follow them and list their favourites.

The trouble in this specification is the word others. On FA, all accounts are considered equal, everyone has a Gallery page. The fact that a large portion of users (insert official stats of how many people have less than ten pieces of artwork uploaded here) might be only occasional casual artists if that, was never really taken in to account.

The result of this is that these non-artists, commissioners and just plain fans were left with empty galleries. Not happy with this, someone somewhere would of gone 'oh, I suppose I -bought- this artwork, I can upload it to my gallery so people can see my character better than just my icon.' That was just one person, someone else might of seen it, done the same thing and now its become just part of how FA is used. Its the reason this clause exists because if it didn't, there would be riots in the streets. 'I've always done this and I'm not changing it now! Its my god given right as someone who paid money! I asked and have permission for this!'

All understandable arguments, but with one problem. FA as an entity can't confirm it, they could potentially have to deal with disputes, drama, and just plain art theft. Not only that, it breaks the stats, 'art whores' ;) not artists get the watches, the favs. FA becomes a less friendly place for the creators of the stuff we love. This is not a good thing.

The cause then of all this, is not policy. The policy only exists because users were doing this already and it had to be made 'legal' in some way. Its also not the users, you can't argue with the fact that a user owns a character design or that they paid money for a piece of work. This gives them some right to display it as it would with artwork in the real life.

The problem exists in the original design of FA. As Eevee stated, the system tags pictures as 'Piece by Artist'. This design no longer matches how the system is actually being used. As such there are no ways around this, if you want to make everyone happy, you will have to change the system its self to match the way its users actually use it. After all, software is flexible, people less so and furs? Don't get me started.. ;)

As such, here is an idea:

We need a new tab. Call it Commissions, Co-works, Shared Works. Whatever. The point is, artwork on this tab is special. It is not the soul property of the uploader. Its ownership is shared. As such it has special properties.

Firstly, it would be used for both art purchased, art gifted (there is a lot of that after all in this friendly community) and art shared. The first uploader of the piece would be asked to provide details of who did what. And it wouldn't just be two people, after all, you could potentionally have a number of people involved in one piece of art.

Possible roles that a person could take in a piece I would list as: Concept, Character Design, Sketch, Ink, Color, Artist (all artwork), Background, World Design, Commissioner, Other.

You could have as many of these as you wanted on a piece. Entering a display name, you would then be asked for either an FA user account or e-mail address.

Once the first poster hits Submit, the piece would appear right away, however then the FA hamster wheel would start spinning and messages will be sent. All others involved with the piece would be asked to Confirm that they are cool with the piece being uploaded. FA users would get a big alert when they logged in, e-mails would be sent to non FA users with magic encoded URL's to be clicked.

Accepting would do the following:

  • Make the piece show up in the co-authors Shared Works tab. It would be duplicated exactly including all comments, and stats. Visiting the piece would let you get back to any of its author's profile pages through a set of links to each of them.

  • Co-authors could ammend the description and add extra meta-data. So that they can provide their own feelings on the piece.

  • All stats on the piece would be shared. It would count as a submission on their submission total, a pageview and a favourite of them.

  • Non-FA users obviously wouldn't get these bits, but their display name would still be displayed as a co-author. (But not the entered e-mail address.)
Declining on the other hand would be equally powerful:

  • This would instantly veto the piece and delete it from the system. The original poster would be notified of this and they would then be able to contact that artist seperately to sort out the problem.

  • It would lock out the original poster from uploading another Shared Work for 24 hours (or maybe longer) to help ensure the disputed piece is resolved.
Two other states also exist, Ignoring, which would be the same as declining. After say, a week of being up. A piece would be deleted and the uploader informed of why. This ensures the uploading parties don't just stick in dead usernames or phoney e-mail addresses in to the system.

The other state would be Accept but remain unlisted. This would allow people to contribute in secret or remain uncredited if they so wish. Co-authors could also change to this state later if they no longer want the piece in their Shared Works Gallery but don't mind the other co-authors continuing to display it.

Oh, and the key bit for the 'Art Whore' users, these pieces would count as submissions and show up on their Watcher's Control Panels. And for the watcher's themselves, there would only ever be one copy uploaded, no matter how many people took part. One click of +fav would be enough to give love to all those involved.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, the solutions for these things are rarely short or simple, but they do exist. Let me know what you think!
 

fivecrazyfurries

New Member
I'm frankly disgusted an artist with the talent to attract commissions would be destroying their integrity by turning commissions into porn...

I think Mr. Nidonocu has a strong proposition there.
 
T

Tachyon

Guest
Organization is just more important to me than immediate convenience. It's disheartening to see nobody even grasp my frustration with this chaos; what's the use in building tools to fix it if everyone is content with how things are? I don't need the AUP to be changed, but it would be nice to see people at least acknowledge the problem.

I'm completely behind you on this one, Eevee. A user gallery is for things the user created. Commissioners need some other mechanism to point people to the original works. Apparently the current suggested means are too cumbersome, thus I'm looking forward to what you may have up your sleeve for Ferrox.

(Wonders if there could be a system similar to Facebook, where user "uploads" art into the artist's gallery, with the artist confirmation before it shows up, or something... Add it to the half-bakery. Nidonocu has some good ideas, there.)
 
T

TakeWalker

Guest
We need a new tab. Call it Commissions, Co-works, Shared Works. Whatever. The point is, artwork on this tab is special. It is not the soul property of the uploader. Its ownership is shared. As such it has special properties.

Curse you for having a better idea than the one I didn't even get a chance to post. :(
 

foxystallion

Born Furry
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.

Thank you for your clarification. If the single image file appeared in both the artist's and the commissioner's galleries and either party could remove it from their own gallery without affecting the presence of the image in the other gallery that would be fine. I would hope, however, that a different title could be used in each gallery. Why? When I commission a piece as a gift for my partner BeastInShow the artist frequently titles it Best In Show, and there is no way (so far as I know) of changing a title once it it submitted. Your single image file concept should be possible with a relational database, though the cost of the duplicate image file is so small (a fraction of a cent), it may not be worth implementing a RDB approach to eliminate the duplicate image files.

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.

Please check your facts. My gallery currently has over 100 of my own submissions, a couple dozen collaborations, and over 100 gifts, commissions, and trades. When you rewrite the software, please verify your assumptions or you are likely write software that fits your erroneous preconceptions rather than serving the artists on this site. I know darn well that I'm not the only artist who creates their own art, engages in collaborations, receives gift art, and purchases commissions. FA members are a remarkably heterogeneous collection of critters.
 
Last edited:

Bladespark

Member
All understandable arguments, but with one problem. FA as an entity can't confirm it, they could potentially have to deal with disputes, drama, and just plain art theft. Not only that, it breaks the stats, 'art whores' ;) not artists get the watches, the favs. FA becomes a less friendly place for the creators of the stuff we love. This is not a good thing.

In your opinion this is not a good thing. And is entirely your opinion that FA is less friendly for the creators of the stuff you love because of it. Because as an artist I am 100% behind commissioners being able to upload work they commissioned.

Frankly I was REALLY amazed to see this argument even happening. I am utterly floored by the fact that there are artists who are actually against getting additional publicity.

Now artists against art theft I am very familiar with. But there's nothing I like more than having somebody upload something I made for them. They're reaching people who would never see my art otherwise. As an artist, I am 100% behind that.

If we were talking about commissioners uploading the art they commissioned and claiming THEY had made said art, it would be a different story entirely, because that is art theft. But... seriously, WTF? Uploading something you commissioned and giving the artist additional chances for publicity is automatically a bad thing? There are actually artists who dislike seeing their own work uploaded by their customers? My mind, it is blown. I've never before met an artist who hated publicity. This is new and strange to me.

Or wait. Are the people against this actually artists at all? Because honestly, if you're not an artist, what business do you have saying whether a particular rule is good for artists or not?
 
Last edited:

Stratelier

Well-Known Member
Bladespark said:
Or wait. Are the people against this actually artists at all?
*raises hand*

Bladespark, what about Eevee's concerns? E.g., if a user's gallery is primarily full of "For You"s, but I'm looking for "By You"s, I can't.

Thank you for your clarification. If the single image file appeared in both the artist's and the commissioner's galleries and either party could remove it from their own gallery without affecting the presence of the image in the other gallery that would be fine.
Although that's pretty simple from a coding perspective, it brings up some potential issues with enforcement/management/oversight of a system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tak

New Member
I'm going to jump in here with what may seem like a few unpopular opinions.

It all boils down to contracts. Both sides need know exactly what's going to happen after they part ways. Copyright law is a tricky thing. It's easy to say "an artist automatically has the copyright" but when the artist is told what to draw, recieves money for it, and hands it over, it becomes a lot trickier. It is very easy to get into the argument of 'work for hire'.(Someone earlier argued that you couldn't do what you want with an MP3, just because you bought the CD. The difference is you didn't commission the song from the artist.)

Contracts should be used, whenever possible. Is that unpopular? Yes. Is it a lot of work? Yes. Is it the best thing to do? Yes. Contracts make intent, and end result clear.

Is it common courtesy to credit an artist? Yes. Should it be done? Yes. I think it costs a commisioner nothing to say who worked hard on their work for them. Should they be told they can't show it off? That depends on the contract. (if the artist says no, that is their right. That becomes part of the contract. It's up to the commissioner then to decide whether or not they want to pay for the limited rights they're being offered/granted)

Is the by/for thing a good idea? My opinion is yes. There have been plenty of times I have been browsing, found a neat picture and been led back to the artist thanks to a courteous link from the commissioner.

Now, when it comes to POLICY that is an entirely different matter. Moral viewpoints is one thing. Policy is another. My -opinion- is that it should be a matter between the artist, and the commissioner. The -FACT- is, that FA determines what -THEY- want to do because -THEY- are the ones spending the time, effort, and resources on providing a FREE service to everyone. I think that's something a lot of people here are prone to forgetting. This is not a right. It is a priviledge. It is not a democracy. It is a favor. You are not going to agree with every decision they make, but it's theirs to make. It doesn't even have to be a fair one. If you don't like it, go start your own art/community/fun site.

But to recap: I think people need to think about contracts, much much more even if it is inconvenient. I think the by/for thing is a courtesy that should be extended, and does in fact help artists. If you don't like it, let them know before you hand over that piece of paper, or unwatermarked digital file. FA has to make the decision that causes them the least expense, headache, and trouble. It might not always make you happy.
 
Last edited:

Bladespark

Member
*raises hand*

Bladespark, what about Eevee's concerns? E.g., if a user's gallery is primarily full of "For You"s, but I'm looking for "By You"s, I can't.

You can't what?

And what concern? Having people who aren't artists and who commission a lot of art is inherently a problem? Why? Because they're somehow inferior beings because they can't draw themselves? And they're "stealing" watches from artists? If there were some limited number of favs and watches, maybe, but there are not. So what if somebody is watching a person who just re-posts things he's commissioned? How is that hurting the number of watches that I get? Said person can watch both the original artist and the commissioner, after all.

I find Evee's concerns to be exclusionary and paranoid. If I wanted to be in a super-exclusive, artists only gallery, I'd go join Artspots.
 

foxystallion

Born Furry
You can't what?

And what concern? Having people who aren't artists and who commission a lot of art is inherently a problem? Why? Because they're somehow inferior beings because they can't draw themselves? And they're "stealing" watches from artists? If there were some limited number of favs and watches, maybe, but there are not. So what if somebody is watching a person who just re-posts things he's commissioned? How is that hurting the number of watches that I get? Said person can watch both the original artist and the commissioner, after all.

I find Evee's concerns to be exclusionary and paranoid. If I wanted to be in a super-exclusive, artists only gallery, I'd go join Artspots.

You have hit the nail right on the head. I have commissioned many pieces of art, and every artist has given me permission to post it in my FA gallery, which I do with full credit, a link to the same piece in the artist's own gallery, and a request that viewers fave it there. For example:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1657661/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/1833437/

One artist requests a two week delay before I post, which I gladly do for him and generally do without being asked, unless the artist requests ASAP posting. (Sometimes an artist needs more commission money quickly, and my 500 watchers include other commissioners).

"for you" posting has been responsible for the creation of a lot of delightful art - and has given many artists the opportunity of being paid for creating art instead of stocking Walmart shelves. As an artist, a commissioner, and a viewer, "for you" posting is win win win. The only significant downside that I see is that some people turn green with envy - and that is not a pretty sight.
 

Firehazard

I can fix it!
You can't what?

Can't just get a list of the art the user actually created, rather than those plus the commissions all in one big pile. This is actually a perfectly valid practical reason why this broken system makes no sense.
 
Top