Right, I forgot IB is the only furry site that doesn't allow humans by fluffKevlar < Journal

53 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

Crackers

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Legality issues with underage human art. So they choose to not have it at all

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ Crackers

This. Plus depictions of bestiality, rape… the UK, Germany and Australia love those. It's more reasonable to argue that the relevant laws don't apply if the characters are not legally "people".

We're not just a site for furries to post art; we're a site dedicated to furry art - so we feel it more appropriate to say "humans/nekos only if they won't get us in trouble" rather than "underage/animals/non-con only if it won't get us in trouble".

As a secondary consideration, it ensures our efforts and donations are spent for the benefit of furry, rather than human fans. Human nudes and porn can be very popular; we'd be a different, bigger site, need more servers and staff, etc. Not somewhere we want to go.

obe12

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

I think that's a good rule because not long ago in my country appeared a law that said that any realistic nsfw drawing about underaged PEOPLE would be considered child pornography, and firstly it was thought that it would affect manga, anime or cartoon too with the loli theme. Luckily it wasn't like that, but maybe someday that could change, I hope not... And furry is not considered "people"

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ obe12

It would probably come up against freedom of speech laws in Europe, but you might have to go through to several courts to get to that point, and there are some nasty "preservation of morals" clauses that could throw a spanner in there.

Fortunately public prosecutors have not yet felt it worth bringing a case for furry material, that I'm aware of. They tend not to bring cases where people might ask why they're spending a lot of money on it, unless the government is trying to make a point.

Norithics

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Frankly the attempt to prosecute such crimes is what needs to happen, so that they can be properly shown for the unenforcable slippery-slope fear-mongering nonsense that they are. Either you have thought crime or you don't.

Danni81

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

I'm sure you've encountered this question already prior, but does that include Felicia from Darkstalkers?

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Danni81

This is one of those "it depends" situations. We consider work on a case-by-case basis. It is possible to draw a version which looks like a human wearing gloves and an ear headband. This would not fly. If it is clear that they have non-human hands/arms and feet/legs with lots of integrated fur, as in the canonical version, they would probably be permitted.

Danni81

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

That makes me very happy to hear ^_^ Thank you for the answer,

Dragongaga

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ obe12

Where are you from, if I may ask? (DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT, BECAUSE I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE) From what I know, in the US and most of Central Europe original drawings are protected Art, or rather, drawings that are NOT based on real persons or events are excluded from "illegal imagery". This basically means, that the term "pornography" (regardless if legal or illegal) is actually not applicable for pictures that don't contain any real people/events. That means, you can't draw yourself as real person engaged in a forbidden act (like bestiality), regardless if the event happened or not, but you CAN draw any original furry or human character in any act you like, as long as it isn't based off of a real person. However drawings based off of real illegal events (like traced photographs or direct drawings of forbidden acts in real-life situations) are always illegal aswell, even if you change the participants to furry characters.
This would basically mean, that the law protects potential victims of forbidden acts rather than criminalizing certain "odd" fetishes

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ Dragongaga

In the UK, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 forbids certain depictions of children, even where the child is imaginary. The definition of a child is a "person" under 18; it includes situations where "some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child". This was specifically added to cover "human plus [ears/antennae/etc.]". We believe it would not cover true furries, but this hasn't been tested yet, to our knowledge; nor has the law's compatibility with the Convention on Human Rights.

Dragongaga

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Hm, okay, thx for the info...
Well, we SHOULD be okay, since Inkbunny requires major inhuman features for characters. Also, since the content server of Inkbunny is located in the Netherlands, UK law doesn't apply directly to it, but rather to the users and if I'm not mistaken, having the isp probe private download streams to spy on users is not legal anyway.
That's a perfect example for a moral law which only has the purpose to criminalize what some people refuse to understand

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Dragongaga

UK law applies because the owner currently resides in the UK.

The threat of local spying is one big reason why we only use HTTPS.

obe12

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Dragongaga

I'm from Spain. Sorry for answering so late

StrikerTheHedgefox

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

If it's mostly about underage human art, who not just not allow underage human art, while still allowing those that are clearly depicted as over age of maturity?

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ StrikerTheHedgefox

Because it's not just underage. It's recognizable people; it's bestiality (check out German law sometime); it's us having to spend time on checking all that and (most likely) still getting blasted by people who think we've made the wrong call.

And ultimately, it's because there's lots of other sites out there for fans of the human body. We encourage our members to use them for such works. Inkbunny is not a one-stop shop for art, but a furry art gallery. We want to spend our time, and our donors' money, on that.

StrikerTheHedgefox

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ GreenReaper

Bestiality would only apply to Human on feral animal. Also, I've seen plenty of art out there that involves both humans and anthros together. (Both sexually and non-sexually.) I personally think at least that should be allowed, as it remains topical to the site.

It really seems to me that there just needs to be some proper ground rules set in place against certain types of material. Also, FurAffinity, and many other sites have been able to get away with having adult humans and anthros in pictures since the beginning.

Lastly, I just want to say that German law is a fucking mess. (And often hypocritical.) I really wish that less of the world had to suffer from the bullshit decisions of their politicians. Far too often the German moral police has crippled expression, ruining things for everyone else in other places around the globe. (PS. I have nothing against Germans or the country, I just hate the politics.)

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ StrikerTheHedgefox

"	StrikerTheHedgefox wrote:
	Bestiality would only apply to Human on feral animal.

To be logically consistent, either anthro furries are human, or they are not. If they are, they're subject to the same laws as humans. If they're a non-human animal, then by definition if a human has sex with them, it is bestiality.

Now, a furry might choose the former based on intelligence, but this would mean we'd have to apply all the laws applying to humans to fantasy animal characters, which we think is ridiculous. It is not consistent with how primates and cetaceans have been treated by courts. It'd also mean treating furry x feral work as bestiality.

We have ground rules in place. They are designed to stop humans' concerns about "certain types of material" being our concern, by eliminating humans from the equation. Our concession was to allow humans at all. Maybe we shouldn't. :-)

As you say, other sites have made different choices. That is their call. If you want to run your own site, it'll be your call. We have chosen a line which is clear to understand and evaluate, and we're happy with it, even if some members are not.

JinxMcKenzie

9 years, 4 months ago

link

@ StrikerTheHedgefox

To what German decisions are you referring to if I may ask you kindly?

StrikerTheHedgefox

9 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 4 months ago by Owner

@ JinxMcKenzie

Mainly censorship laws. More often than not, I've seen movies halt production, or games get butchered in content (instead of creating an alternate version) just because they want to sell in Germany. Their laws regarding sexual content are also very inconsistent, if not contradictory.

Eviscerator

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Because they allow underage art. Underage+nude humans is against the laws in some countries, whether or not it's just drawn.

dilbertdog

9 years, 6 months ago

link

its due to a anti beastiality law wher the main server is located considers human x anything not human illegal so they just made human agenst rules

Razrien

9 years, 6 months ago

link

This is the last 'pure furry' site left :0
I'd rather not see any human content creep in at all.

KevinSnowpaw

9 years, 6 months ago

link

trust me the devs would be perfectly fine allowing all art human or otherwise it's a legality issue. Untill the world gets a little less fucking INSANE will have to bide our time.

Norithics

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Society has made a decision: It would rather keep everything in the dark and be surprised when bad things happen, than to let adults satisfy other adults without involving children at all.

Fear wins.

Sheylyra

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Norithics

Bullseye, that is exactly what happened.

wolfstar124

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Sheylyra

If someone owned a burger joint, in a mythical place where pizza is illegal because of pepperoni, hawaiian, sausage, and stuffed crust. They look at that law and say "Fuck this, I won't accept these laws because some of my patrons don't like it, I'm going to allow pepperoni pizza to be sold and brought here!" What would happen?

They'd be shut down.

Norithics

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ wolfstar124

... Thus why I said 'Society.'
Society makes the laws you see.

fibs

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ wolfstar124

If one restaurant does it, they'll get shut down and there'll be no change.

If a dozen restaurants do it, they'll get shut down and there will be a controversy for a short time.

If hundreds of restaurants do it, the first ten or so will get shut down and the rest won't once it becomes a fad everyone wants to be part of so they can fight Big Brother.

FrancisJCat

9 years, 6 months ago

link

>Right, I forgot IB is the only furry site that doesn't allow humans
>furry site that doesn't allow humans
>furry site
>humans

Do I need to explain it more? :3

Talbotlynx

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ FrancisJCat

Bah, that common core math stuff. It's over my head. ;3

Streled

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ FrancisJCat

e621 is an imageboard focusing on furries, but they allow humans.
Same as furAffinity, fA allow both.

fibs

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ FrancisJCat

That's atrocious logic. Focusing on furry does not justify banning humans. Inkbunny is the only major furry art site that doesn't even allow human erotica.

And yes, it's for a good reason more or less beyond their control, but it's still a major limiting factor in Inkbunny's success among furry artists, because many of them draw humans too.

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ fibs

Some areas criminalize certain depictions of humans, and those close to them. As a site devoted to furry art - not all art created by furries, or of interest to them - what do we do? Eliminate the topics mentioned on the basis of fairness? Have a "no anthro x feral" rule? Spend time figuring out whether a particular character "looks" 17 or 19, or meets a canon definition?

That is what some sites have decided to do. We decided to go a different route - eliminate work primarily of interest to an audience we weren't established to serve, and which has other venues dedicated to it (e.g. Hentai-Foundry, Pixiv.)

There are edge cases which would still be considered "furry art" but which unavoidably include humans. Our members are welcome to post previews of such work here which don't include the problematic material.

WolfwithGlasses

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Might be, because some people don´t want to be caught for having their child-shagging fantasies visualized into a picture.

Silvador

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 6 months ago by Owner

I think SoFurry are non human-only, also.

I could be wrong though, or it might've changed. Not sure.

Hornybunny

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Silvador

Only underage humans in pictures are not allowed. adult humans are fine humans without furry can not be a majority of your gallery and they require a human-only tag.

Bloodhawk

9 years, 6 months ago

link

as well as legality, i think common principles are important, i think the fine line of fantasy and reality are a bit too close for comfort. This site allows for some vast social boundaries that hopefully people can keep to a good discipline.

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Bloodhawk

Yeah, it's definitely an issue for some members who're otherwise fans of certain content.

Brandonpotter0

9 years, 6 months ago

link

yup, IB has some strange rules. Hate them all the same to.

Tis why I cant even post 98% of the art I have of my characters... stupid....FA is better :|

fibs

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Brandonpotter0

Literally the only rule that affects you as an artist is that you can't post humans fucking on the site. This hasn't stopped anyone from sticking a black box on top and linking to the image off-site.

If you think FurAffinity is better than Inkbunny despite having more rules, more restrictions, more flaws, well then, you deserve that hideous site and the constant abuse and distrust from its administrators. Have fun.

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 5 months ago by Owner

@ fibs

Just to clarify: if they're obviously having sex without any reasonable alternative, we'll take it down - even if there's a box covering the genitals - based on an Australian case which covered precisely this situation. But we will look for reasonable alternatives. This is easier with only one character.

fibs

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Also, so far as I'm aware, a site that hosts a link to prohibited content is liable as though the content were posted directly on the site.

Ergo, if a user posts a censored image that is itself acceptable, but the link leads to an uncensored image that isn't, you're obligated to remove the link as though its content were posted directly on your site.

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Edited 9 years, 6 months ago by Owner

@ fibs

We don't go that far, as we don't believe it to be necessary - it doesn't apply in our jurisdiction, nor does it impact members in those where it does, as they're not the hosts. It's also a reasonable compromise which allows members to promote work which may be of interest to those who can legally view it it (i.e. most other members).

Our concern is keeping work off our servers and out of the eyes and caches of members who've not specifically chosen to click on a link to it. It should be reasonably clear what is at the end of the link, so viewers can make an informed decision.

There are special safe-harbour laws in our jurisdiction which cover third-party hosting providers (us) and if we were informed that there was a problematic work or link by a competent body, we'd certainly look at it, but it hasn't happened yet. The only state who's contacted us so far is Russia, and they wanted some clearly furry art removed - we told them no, they blocked us. (It's a regular occurrence; most Russians use Tor.)

SovereignKyle

9 years, 6 months ago

link

This applies to stories too(I asked and was adamantly informed it does), so I don't post here.

KaylaNa

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Yeah I don't like this rule either, and now that I'm getting into human art more and more, makes posting stuff here a lot harder.

Infinityplus1

9 years, 6 months ago

link

If I recall, it has to do with the money service they use to process donations and payments.  Inkbunny used a loophole in which animal sex could be hosted, but it required them to use a service or categorization that didn't allow human pornography.

In many countries, from what I know, drawn depictions of sex are generally legal (more or less), regardless of the subject matter.  But many money services will refuse to do business with sites that host certain kinds of content, because it would make them unpopular with *other* more *mainstream* customers, which constitute the bulk of their business.  If money service laws weren't so draconian in the US, then someone could easily form a small payment service specifically to deal with Inkbunny, which would permit all kinds of legal content.

In fact, this is still feasible, but you'd likely have to rely on a cryptocurrency, such as Bitcoin.  Though, in the near future, the government might pass legislation on Bitcoin, making that illegal without government permission.

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ Infinityplus1

This used to be a factor. However, the service in question later dropped all furry art sites, including Inkbunny. The general issue remains for all furry sites which include content referring to any non-standard sexual kinks, even in text form (e.g. F-list).

Infinityplus1

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Fur Affinity had already banned Cub by the time I heard about this. But maybe you're right, I haven't researched it very deeply. I'm just repeating what I heard about it.

DrakeRex

9 years, 6 months ago

link

I know, I forgot about that too ^~^U

buttbadger

9 years, 6 months ago

link

Wait what? I have humans in my arts and i never had any issues. Wtf??

GreenReaper

9 years, 6 months ago

link

@ buttbadger

Thanks for the heads-up!

RComplex

9 years, 6 months ago

link

fluffKevlar

, Yep. Ran into this issue as well, even though the human in question was ambiguously hidden beneath a dragoness. So I opted to just remove it completely and post elsewhere. *shrugs*

JinxMcKenzie

9 years, 4 months ago

link

Personally, I think that this rule is a blessing, I don't want to visit a Furry site to look at human art. XDDD
Inkbunny being one of the sole sites, banning human porn, lets you discover new furry art instead, which is what I actually would want. :P

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Viewed:	665 times
Added:	9 years, 6 months ago 06 Oct 2015 11:18 CEST

Inkbunny

Right, I forgot IB is the only furry site that doesn't allow humans

Help

Information

Policy & Legal