Welcome to Inkbunny...

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

No more Posting here.

Welp a mod just decided to delete all my human x furry content that I had here. I know the rules on this site don't want humans here, but I figured since they were always in sexual situations with furrys and that I had been doing it for years with no warnings given to me that it was acceptable enough, that maybe I was on good terms with the mods.

I guess that is not the case. Sadly because of this I do not see myself posting any more content here besides personal archiving for my own sake. This website was my favorite place to archive content, and I guess that's all its gonna be good for now.

It was fun guys, hope you all take care, you can find my future content on twitter and e621. Peace.

Viewed:	428 times
Added:	1 year, 6 months ago 14 Nov 2023 18:56 CET

21 Comments on this Journal

Leave a Comment...

Ralanr

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Well that sucks, I enjoyed a lot of your stuff.

Cat61Homie

1 year, 6 months ago

link

where will they be? in furafinity or something?

TobiahInternational

1 year, 6 months ago

link

@ Cat61Homie

X or E621.

Chimi

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Damn :(

PurpleDragon2000

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Well that's disappointing :(

TiredDraws

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Jeez that's a real shame. Obviously I'll still be keeping up with your stuff in other places but I do hope you pop in from time to time! Sorry this all happened.

lock444

1 year, 6 months ago

link

ohhhh shit im sorry to hear that. thats really lame that they messed with you like that. i mean whats the point?

GreenReaper

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 6 months ago by Owner

@ lock444

Humans tend to make laws about sexual depictions of humans (and those close enough to be considered such): no underage characters, no bestiality, and there are even issues with depictions of sexual-related injury (both in art and writing) - the UK, for example, takes the position that nobody can consent to bodily harm, and thus it become a depiction of sexual violence.

This imposes a burden on Inkbunny staff to inspect every work involving a human for these aspects, under pain of criminal sanctions (significant fines and/or years in jail) if we got it wrong. Frankly, with just a handful of volunteers, we are not capable of meeting this burden, nor - as a site dedicated to furry content - is it what we want to focus our time or technical resources on.

Initially we did not allow humans at all and perhaps it would have been simpler if we kept it that way, but we ended up adopting the current policy to allow some representation and also to allow previews linking to the full work (something that other sites tend not to allow).

If such laws didn't exist, our policy would probably be more along the lines that Mykendyke expected, i.e. "has to have a furry in it" (which is how SoFurry was for a decade) so that our resources were not absorbed by predominately-human work.

NOVFOX13

1 year, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Yeah law just gets stupider and stupider.
It is like these people are not busy with things that really matter or something.

Still thanks for plain admitting it it really gets my goat when the site owners won't admit it is the law man threatening them and go down the route of sudden morality like the coming of jesus and get snappy with everyone.

It would be nice if they would just be straight.

NekoTime069

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Dame I enjoyed your stuff best of luck in the future

FreekyCreep

1 year, 6 months ago

link

If Inkbunny did away with that stupid rule and fixed/standardized its tagging system, it would reign as the best furry art platform, and it wouldn't even be close. I'm sure those aren't as easy as they sound, but either way, tragic.

GreenReaper

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 6 months ago by Owner

@ FreekyCreep

If we allowed humans in sexual situations, we'd likely have to ban some sexual themes - like other furry sites - in order to stay on the right side of the law in the jurisdictions in which we operate. We suspect our current audience would dislike this. Our focus is on them, not a potential future crowd.

As for keywords: improvements could doubtless be made in the process; but we are not a single communal gallery like e621, but a collection of individual artists' galleries, and so the perspective on what is reasonable to impose is more limited. It is hard enough getting agreement on and enforcing keywords such as 'scat' and 'cub' that many people block, let alone more debatable terms.

Mykendyke

1 year, 6 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Its your guys site at the end of the day, so that means people got to follow your rules and I respect that. I guess im just a bit confused on the law side of it. E621 seems to operate fine and they allow pretty much anything besides humans by themselves. Not trying to come off rude here, and if you guys just dont want humans here whether for law reasons or personal reasons I understand. I really loved this site, thought it was amazing for archiving and was super user friendly, just a bit saddened that it has to be this way.

GreenReaper

1 year, 6 months ago

link

@ Mykendyke

That's totally understandable and I'm sorry it's this way as well.

e621 is owned and operated in the USA - Phoenix, Arizona if I'm right. As I understand it, they share an owner with their hosting company. They also seem to have more staff, although in both cases it is likely that some are active and others are not at any particular time. As I understand it, their policy is based primarily on focus - they are already exceedingly popular and don't want to become a general porn site.

Inkbunny is run primarily from the UK and other Commonwealth and EU countries, and has its central hosting in France with a public hosting provider. We have never operated under the First Amendment - rather laws covering cartoon depictions of imaginary people, which include phrases like "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" (itself defined as "a person under 18" - so we're not talking just "obvious child") that are specifically designed to include e.g. nekomimi, per discussion in the Commons. Germany has a similar law about publishing depictions of bestiality (humans + animals). There are issues with depictions of specific people, etc.

Ironically as we are ourselves a hosting provider to you, we're protected to an extent, but that immunity has limits - we can't simply say "this doesn't apply" if we reasonably believe it does - and doesn't apply to members. IB runs off a budget of ~$10/day, which is part of why we're hosted where we are; we don't want to be raising money for lawyers or risk losing the site and going to jail for up to three years in return for providing free hosting.

GreenReaper

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 6 months ago by Owner

I'm sorry that we didn't correct your impression earlier. This is not a matter of favouritism but rather limited staff capacity - we tend to operate based on reports, and the more stylized the work, the less it tends to pop out as human. Hopefully your work in this area finds an audience elsewhere.

One thing my colleague may not have mentioned is that previews linking to a full work are permitted, as long as the previews themselves meet the policy and a visitor would understand what they get if they visit the link in the description. If you wish to do this with existing locked-hidden submissions, replace the relevant files via Edit Files/Thumbs and reply to the notice with the relevant links requesting a review.

Mykendyke

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 6 months ago by Owner

@ GreenReaper

So just to make sure im not misunderstanding here, if i changed all my thumbnails/ previews to not feature humans and slapped a big "warning humans" over the thumbnail, but still hosted the full pictures on this site that would still not be allowed correct?

I can only link to different sites that allow such content? Just trying to make sure I understand the rules here before I change all the thumbnails for no reason.

GreenReaper

1 year, 6 months ago

link

Edited 1 year, 6 months ago by Owner

@ Mykendyke

Yes, it's the full pictures that are the problem, not the thumbnails (though I guess they could separately be an issue if custom and showing more than a changed full image).

It's fine to say that a linked image contains a human and to use appropriate keywords and ratings for the full version, our concern is that the files hosted by us do not contain the prohibited content; and where humans are depicted it is plausible that there is a full version that is not sexual (so two bodies bumping hips with a suspicious censor blob is liable to be an issue). Technically descriptions are part of the submission as well; this usually only applies where people put whole stories in there as well that remove the above plausibility.

When referring to previews I meant "you can replace the full file with a preview that doesn't show a) a human, in b) i) a sexual situation, or ii) displaying genitals, anal details or arousal (including through clothes)". Usually the best way to do this is to crop to heads or a non-human. Depiction of sexual fluids, intimate kissing with tongue/saliva or laviscious manipulation of the breasts are a few examples of points at which it might turn into a sexual situation. A few have created "furry versions" of specific characters to avoid this issue (may be of future use).