Welcome to Inkbunny...

To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )

Wow... IB's Human Identification Process is a Trip....

-__- Spoiler Alert, I'm annoyed.

Yeah... so the lamb picture from the other day got flagged as essenially human and I just have to question the criteria here. because just wow. I quote *Ahem*

-This picture has the keywords "lamb" and "sheep", but the only features appearing to be non-human are a hint of a v-shaped nose and a poofy wool-like hairdo - it otherwise has human-looking skin, nipples, digits, and genitals. We feel that from the features depicted, a reasonable person would see this as an essentially human character.

Seriously? Soo... digits (ie fingers!) are apparently too human for inkbunny, Wtach those five or even four fingered hands kids! Nipples...oooohhhh..... you mean the standard circles you'd expect unless drawing teats or udders? Ditto genitals cuz I just don't have the energy. But skin SKIN low and behold if you shaved the wool from a sheep what gets you?

Now I ain't mad, I'm annoyed, I get that IB got a policy and I get playing it safe for X,Y,Z legal purposes, I don't fault that. But that doesn't mean I'm not going to express my annoyance and disappointment. SO then.... what would it take for this image to be animal enough. or not human enough? I got a sneaking suspicion that if I indicated a tail and more expressly indicated a muzzle we'd be chill. so in my fix I'mma add that and if it works I'mma laugh real hard at you IB, cuz I'll have fixed your grievance with two lines and a fill bucket

And if it does get restored I'll leave a link and pleas let me know. as a reasonable person, is this sheep "essentially human" If so then I'll eat my words and suck it up, like a good little puppy.

Viewed:	156 times
Added:	2 years, 7 months ago 25 Aug 2021 00:39 CEST

9 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

CrystalMendrilia

2 years, 7 months ago

link

Makes me think of Leg of Lamb, made popular a few years ago by that song, 'Beep beep I'm a Sheep' though she originated from an old cartoon. She showed a lot of skin too! Lots of furries do. It's a great Aesthetic for a furry, AND what do people think is under the fur?

Ink Bunny's silly sometimes. :(

KevinSnowpaw

2 years, 7 months ago

link

it's kinda a COLLECTION of Critaria.. you can absolutely have fully human hands and feet. you jsut cant have human hands feet junk and skin tone with a very slightly animal face.

I have not seen the lamb.. which sucks because it sounds like it was cute!

But i am assuming it was just a few to meny things slightly off... Perhaps consider giving them hooves and more Whool?

ReoDemonDays

2 years, 7 months ago

link

@ KevinSnowpaw

commissioned piece so she had to stay relatively on model and she was fully shorn in those refs. Issues with the usual indicators like hoove/ footpaws and ears etc. is that they are out of frame. so not much doing.

It's just irritating. Like I'm being accused of trying to sneak in a human, or that sorry not furry enough, base on a collection of criteria that feels arbitrary when written out. Especially since over half that list (human fingers, genitals and nipples) So its also entirely possible that I'm reacting how I am out of defensiveness as well

KevinSnowpaw

2 years, 7 months ago

link

@ ReoDemonDays

well you can allways link to it off site ^^ one way I get around this issue is to upload pictures like that to my baraag account and just post a croped or edited version then link to the full version

I still get all the favs and attention people still get the art =p win win XD

GreenReaper

2 years, 7 months ago

link

Edited 2 years, 7 months ago by Owner

As KevinSnowpaw said, a combination of factors gives the overall impression of essentially human or not. That's also what makes it hard to prescribe a solution: "how many lines" would be an arbitrary decision; what matters is the result. If a couple of lines and a flood fill is enough to achieve that, well and good.

And yes, if you shave a sheep, you get skin, but that's part of the problem - removing a non-human characteristic makes it harder to distinguish the resulting image from that of a human. Let's say she had hooves on her feet: well, we can't see them! We decide on what's present. In some cases, the canonical depiction of a character might be essentially human - e.g. the "fox demon" Shippo from Inuyasha.

We also don't want to be telling artists their job, though in some cases we give specific advice on what might be accepted, especially where it rests on prior moderation decisions around a factor (e.g. we've tended to view 'harpies' with feathers stuck onto otherwise human arms as essentially human, vs. those with fully-feathered wing-arms).

You touched on the legal area - here's what have to deal with there (or at least, the clearest law that applies to this particular policy). If you see the image in question, it's fairly plain that it focuses on the genitals; and if the stature wasn't enough for age, the keyword 'girl' would be. The real question is whether it's a person, as the law defines it.

One of the key provisions is lower down in section 65:

"	the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.

"	References to an image of a child include references to an image of an imaginary child.

This is, essentially, to stop people drawing humans and putting a few lines on them to claim the result is not a child - as you see with neko characters.

This kind of point leads us to focus on structural differences - like, digitigrade feet, non-human paws, and - yes - muzzles. Things that are more than clothes or a headband on a human. At the end of the day, if we can't honestly say that the predominant impression is not that of a (human) child, we can hardly expect a judge or jury to do so. So that's where the fuzzy line lies.

Inkbunny itself has some protection from being judged for what people upload, similar to that provided to other hosting sites. But once we're aware of an issue, we have to act. And that protection doesn't cover members in the UK, or countries with similar provisions.

ReoDemonDays

2 years, 7 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Like I said, I appreciate that y'all have legal concerns to consider. I'm not mad per-se Y'all have a job to do and I expect you to do that job, But I disagree with this decision and my only recourses are to fix it and vent. The reasons I disagree are previously mentioned, and don't really bare repeating

That said I am curious about the process by which that decision is made. How many eyes are on a piece to review it how long do you deliberate usually Do you respond to edits or just take the actions deemed necessary? (ie if changes were inadequate, quietly uphold the decision to lock the submission)

lastly, is it possible to inform a creator that their submission is going to be reviewed rather than after the fact.(understandably if the turnaround time is extremely short, then this would be a bust) But I do feel (at the very least myself) would react less combatively if it were'nt just an unpleasant suprise+decision made but rather a chance to to make changes. Understood if not viable , it's mostly just a thought

GreenReaper

2 years, 7 months ago

link

Edited 2 years, 7 months ago by Owner

@ ReoDemonDays

Moderators are empowered to act independently in most cases; but work is on the borderline is regularly discussed. There's a lot of work to do - more than we can do, that's why we're training more - and most have been around for a decade or so and know the standard, so we don't discuss all of it. In this case, the issue was raised by a relatively new moderator in our internal discussion channel. I happened to be around and reviewed the work. I agreed with their concern, so we hid it and contacted you.

Once we decide work doesn't meet our policies, we can't knowingly leave it up - especially if it's on Popular - because it contributes to an inaccurate concept of the moderation standard. In this particular case, there's a legal factor, relating to that protection - "[A hosting provider can't be guilty if] on obtaining actual knowledge that the information contained offending material, the service provider expeditiously removed the information or disabled access to it".

As such, the locked mode is the chance to make changes - the submitter can make changes, and comments and +favs are retained, but the work remains hidden until it's been reviewed. Often the staff member who contacts the submitter decides whether to approve any revised version, but they might also want others to chime in. If a work has been reviewed but we feel that issues remain, we'll let you know. If we're fine with it, we'll republish it and let you know.

Either way, due to time zones and everyone involved being a volunteer, a response might take a while - the initial moderator who raised this as an issue is currently asleep. That's unfortunate, but hopefully only happens once, because the submitter will have a better idea of what staff consider essentially human. (And it compares to deleting the submission and suspending the user for a month - assuming it's their first offence - which I understand is FA's policy on uploading underage work.)

JackDesert

2 years, 7 months ago

link

what gets me is the fully human characters in the acts of sex (not even reference images) flies under the radar XD

GreenReaper

2 years, 7 months ago

link

@ JackDesert

Yep, it can happen. We all have other things we're doing, and not every work gets reported - and if it does, it might not be acted on before others see it. But there's no limit on when we might act on a work, either.

Typically when a potential violation is reported, we go through the submitter's backlog to check whether any other works need to be addressed (after all, we don't want to be bothering them again and again; and old work may still be visited, especially with the new recommendation-on-+fav feature).

New Comment:

Move reply box to top ↑

Log in or create an account to comment.

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

All artwork and other content is copyright its respective owners.

Powered by Harmony 'Gravitation' Release 80.

Content Server: Virginia Cache - provided by Inkbunny Donors. Background: Blank Gray.

The Inkbunny web application, artwork, name and logo are copyright and trademark of their respective owners.