Inkbunny

IB Gear Latest Popular Members Search
 
Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
LITTLEFisky

[CLOSED] Inkbunny alternatives

by
It turned out that 3D renders are currently covered by the rules on screenshots. Inkbunny staff started removing 3D renders of people, who can't make their own models.

I need to find alternatives to inkbunny in case mods wipe my gallery. I need a place where I can post 3d renders, cubs, and run my YCHs on. "folders" functionality would be very handy.

If I won't find any alternatives - I'll make a telegram channel

This is VERY insulting when somebody calling a "screenshot" something that's taking more than an hour to render


UPD: Don't panic! Community mod informed me that they are working on updating ACP  and "trying to improve the policy for renders to allow people to display things that are made for or by them"
Viewed: 545 times
Added: 3 days, 6 hrs ago
 
170 Comments on this Journal
Leave a Comment...
LouisDanes
LouisDanes
3 days, 6 hrs ago
link
I hate to say it but e621 might be your best bet, or self hosting, as i don't think there are really any other alternatives as of thus far.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
3 days, 5 hrs ago
link
Self-hosting might be a good idea for at least running YCHs, but I suck at creating sites
LouisDanes
LouisDanes
3 days, 5 hrs ago
link
is it possible to see if someone is willing to help? I dunno anything about website building, but maybe here can help.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
Edited 3 days, 4 hrs ago by Owner
Too bad sites are written not on C# xD. I'll ask around
LouisDanes
LouisDanes
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
it can't hurt! husky wishes you the best,  you do amazing work and i hope you can keep doing it!
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days, 1 hr ago
link
Perhaps Blazor might help? I admit my own experience in C# is restricted to client applications - all the sites I run use PHP.
testpilot24
testpilot24
3 days ago
link
Edited 2 days, 23 hrs ago by Owner
ASP.NET this stuff uses C#, but you need windows server for it. But maybe M$ killed it. i created some stuff using it while ago. in zeros.

Also, try look at sofurry.
MadManMarkAu
MadManMarkAu
2 days, 8 hrs ago
link
You can run an ASP.NET Core website, and don't even need Windows to run it. Razor/Blazor/etc... I run a couple of sites on an Ubuntu box. It runs it's own Kestrel webserver (the .NET Core web server) and can be run as a system service. You just reverse proxy from something like nginx to the local Kestrel port.

It's all written using .cshtml files and the view/model/controller pattern.
Neos8
Neos8
3 days, 5 hrs ago
link
Baraag should be a good alternative.
desart01
desart01
3 days, 5 hrs ago
link
no e621 has also been purging content ATFbooru might be what you are looken for you can check
johnstart
johnstart
3 days, 5 hrs ago
link
to my knowledge the only thing they purged recently is human content, as most of fisky's content (if not all) is non-human then i think fisky will be fine to post there
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
3 days, 5 hrs ago
link
I could post to e621, but again, it will be troublesome running YCHs there
wollypegger
wollypegger
3 days ago
link
Try https://e6ai.net/
While it's geared towards ai maybe their terms of use will cover what you're doing?
Shadow3397
Shadow3397
1 day, 21 hrs ago
link
They don't allow underaged characters to be shown in explicit scenes. (IIRC)
Jawbreaker89
Jawbreaker89
3 days, 3 hrs ago
link
Edited 3 days, 3 hrs ago by Owner
The also purged all the chipette stuff too and they were still suppose to be chipmmunks
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days, 1 hr ago
link
Edited 3 days, 1 hr ago by Owner
Honestly the way some people (including the original artists) draw the Chipettes makes me want to purge them too, sometimes. One of the rare cases where the 3D canon is better!
desart01
desart01
2 days, 23 hrs ago
link
Ahh ok just thought i read that they purged so content was not sure how much of it. thank you  
MystBunny
MystBunny
3 days, 5 hrs ago
link
What? I know you make your own models, what the hell??
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
3 days, 5 hrs ago
link
Edited 3 days, 5 hrs ago by Owner
No. My base model is a heavily modified and improved version of Melody A3 by Littlefox. I do sometimes make something by myself, but only a small props. I only edit the base model each time I make a character
Blackraven2
Blackraven2
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
Edited 3 days, 4 hrs ago by Owner
as far as I understand, as soon as you change the model or re-texture the model, it is a new creation. It's "derivative work" as far as copyright is concerned, because it's not a creation from scratch but a modification to an existing model, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a genuine creative process involved.

by the way, that does not only apply to the model itself but also scene arrangement. If you place your own object and light sources in the scene for the render, then, even if the "furniture" is stock models, the work as a whole is an artwork.

What doesn't matter is how long the scene took to render. What does matter is how long it took to set up that scene.  Moving an avatar in 2nd life into a existing street corner and making a screenshot the way a photographer would photograph a street scene makes this equivalent - a screenshot.

But if you "create" the scene by basically "building a set" - spending hours building and arranging assets into the right arrangement then this is no longer a "screenshot"

The same way a creation made from lego bricks is still a genuine creation, even though you don't own copyright on the lego bricks themselves. They are just building blocks.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
Edited 3 days, 3 hrs ago by Owner
The issue, of course, is that derivative works should be credited to their original creator. How much crediting do you see in most 3D work? How many 3D models have permission given personally to the submitter? The assumption is that creations depicted are original. However, if it is identified that they are not, they are likely to be in violation of policy.

The other issue is that Inkbunny considers rendered work to be similar to photography of fursuits or other 3D art pieces, i.e. the scene/lighting/viewpoint/combination of models is immaterial to the originality of the work except inasmuch as they show off artistic features of the model. We have considered a more specific rendering policy but to be consistent with the Photography and AI policies it would limit the number of renderings with the same model/texture combination, just as you can't have pages of fursuit photos in different situations even if it's your fursuit - just enough to show off the model/texture.
Novilon
Novilon
3 days, 3 hrs ago
link
IB's stance would be a little more defensible if you weren't permitting Generative AI art to be posted, either.  GenAI really is nothing more than "derivative work" that modifies existing assets which the poster had no hand in creating themselves, and which does not -- and indeed, cannot -- credit the creator of the original assets because the GenAI algorithm provides no insight or feedback into whose artwork formed the basis of its training database or which parts of the database were used.

You can't have it both ways.  If derivative works that don't credit the creator of the original assets are allowed for GenAI, then they must also be allowed for rendered CG.  If such is not allowed for rendered CG, then you cannot logically justify allowing it for GenAI either.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days, 3 hrs ago
link
Edited 3 days, 3 hrs ago by Owner
I tried to address this in my comment below at about the same time you posted this. With 3D rendering there is typically a far greater amount of copying from specific, identifiable sources, whereas for AI it might have looked at ten thousand pictures of a lombax and drawn inferences from that about "what a lombax looks like" - rather like people do. The process of generation is more akin to looking at a bunch of clouds and trying hard to see a picture of Mufasa in them.

(And for what it's worth, our AI policy does specifically forbid prompting or LoRAs designed to reproduce a living artist's work or non-commercial characters, and where we reasonably believe this has been done based on not being able to reproduce the work without, say, "by Zaush", we do act.)
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
No, you don't get to have it both ways. If you're expecting 3D artists to credit every single person who's ever modified a vertex on every model they use in the shot, then you can't allow AI either unless it credits every single thing it's drawn from.

"Oh, but AI draws from too broad a pool to credit everything it's looking at"
Okay, then 3D art also has too broad of a pool of sources to credit, just like AI. You can't honestly expect people to have a thousand credits for every little thing that someone did in a 3D piece, especially since the originality is in using the components to create a finished product.

And you know what, that's far more creatively valid than the AI junk you do allow. You allow people to post images that they had no involvement in actually creating, with no credit for anyone whose work the machine was trained on, but you don't allow people to post 3D works that they actually spent time modelling for, producing, and editing. An edited model is, whether you like it or not, a new creation. It is not the work of whoever made the base model anymore.

Significant alteration creates a new original product. This is the entire basis of "derivative work" in copyright law and in common, basic logic. If you put in the work to modify something, you have made a new thing. It is your new thing that you have made. You are under no obligation to credit anyone who may have made things along the way, because they didn't make what you're now using. It doesn't make rational sense to credit someone who was not involved in the creation of the model you now have. They may have made a model that you heavily modified. They have made parts of the model. But they did not make the model you are now using. You can't credit someone for something they didn't do.

If you don't want people posting 3D art unless they made every single model in it from scratch in Blender, then make the rule say so. Until it says so, reinstate everything that does abide by the rule as written.

And if it's about credit, then remove all AI images from your platform, because none of them hold up to the standard of credit you now suddenly require for 3D art.
Blackraven2
Blackraven2
2 days, 23 hrs ago
link
3D art can be used to tell stories. If done so, you will have hundreds of pages of the same models in different poses, because its panels of a comic. (Check out Crimson Dark as an example of a rendered comic)

I write stories, too. I do not credit whoever invented the words I use, even though I do sometimes invent my own names or terms, the majority is used without credit. Even if they are brand names or other terms that fall under copyright.

If you apply the same rule to stories as you want to apply to rendering, you'd need to upload a complete glossary of all words in every story and figure out if they are public domain or not.

No author ever did that. Nor would it serve any useful purpose.

I don't really see why 3D art is supposed to be put to such a high standard.

And yes, if you make a 3D rendering of a character only, and then don't own the model, that's a problem, but that's because you did not add enough creation of your own into it.

It must be possible to tell a story using 3D art on Inkbunny. Without drowning in paperwork (aka pointless complete lists of all assets used in all the panels of all pages)  If the rules do not allow that, then you need to fix the rules.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 22 hrs ago by Owner
" 3D art can be used to tell stories. If done so, you will have hundreds of pages of the same models in different poses, because its panels of a comic. (Check out Crimson Dark as an example of a rendered comic)
You could do it with photos of fursuits, too. But such a work would be in violation of our photography policy, which is as it is because lots of different people want to make lots of "stories" with the same fursuits, and we don't see sufficient artistic value in this to merit the duplication. The same issue applies with models.
" I don't really see why 3D art is supposed to be put to such a high standard.
Because a 3D model is a lot more significant and meaningful than a word, or a phrase. It's like lifting whole pages (or indeed, characters) from someone else's story into yours. It is, as has been admitted, a significant time saving.
" It must be possible to tell a story using 3D art on Inkbunny. Without drowning in paperwork (aka pointless complete lists of all assets used in all the panels of all pages)  If the rules do not allow that, then you need to fix the rules.
There is no "must" here. It is something we can allow, or not allow, just like the example of a story with fursuit photos, or dioramas, or whatever. There may be a possibility to meet somewhere in the middle and allow it. But it is not OK to have significant components attributable to a single source uncredited in a final work.
" And yes, if you make a 3D rendering of a character only, and then don't own the model, that's a problem, but that's because you did not add enough creation of your own into it.
it is a problem in both cases if there is a derivative work involved and no credit.
Blackraven2
Blackraven2
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
Well, lets get down to why I'm angry right now.

I have the feeling this is a reinterpretation of the rules with regards to existing art.  I checked the ACP and found nothing new w.r.t. 3d art, so this interpretation of "3d renderings are screenshots" must be a re-interpretation of rules.

Now a technical issue with that is traditionally rendered art isn't a screenshot at all. Rendering typically involves a ray-tracer compiling a scene directly into an image - where screenshots would only give you a preview - typically with significantly reduced lighting and shading quality. If you have a sufficiently powerful machine, and a powerful enough game engine, with the most modern GPU, you might be able to have artwork similar to renderings 5 years ago in realtime and can do screenshots, but that should not be applied to historic rendered scenes.

Which gets to the real issue at hand. Technicalities aside, if you re-evaluate rules w.r.t. existing art, and this leads to large portions of some artists galleries, to suddenly be in violation of rules, then this has a major effect on the community as a whole.

restricting what people upload new is a relatively major issue. if i make something i cannot upload on IB, well then I share it somewhere else, or make something else to begin with.

but if suddenly half my gallery were to be taken down, i would lose my history and my identity.  my watchers are here on inkbunny. my art history is here on IB, formed and shaped with every submission, with every comment on these submission, and with every fav that sits in other peoples accounts and forms an interconnected network of people with similar esthetics.

Inkbunny is a community. If you do a change that requires emptying entire galleries, it removes all the comments, all the favs, all the interconnections.  It causes artists to abandon - now empty - accounts , which makes their watchers lose touch and contact.

in short, it destroys the community.

This is also form of censorship. But compared to just limiting what people can say and post, its retroactive. It's a revision of history. similar to what the chinese government is doing when they suppress the culture of entire people - it just gets wiped from the internet, from the history books, from everyones mind.

Now obviously you, unlike the chinese government, don't put people into slave-labour reeducation camps to have people stop doing 3d-renderings, your actions are limited to digital works on this platforms - but the result is still similar for those affected, because the people affected often have no other platform, no other gallery, no other point of contact with their audience.

you are not just ending stories, you are erasing them and making them have never happened.

and that is wrong  -- completely irregardless of whether its right or wrong to credit asset sources or whether or not 3d art is a screenshot or not.

LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
here is afraid of being UNDONE. And similarly, I am afraid of losing his work, as well as this shared point of contact with all his other fans, his works, his creativity forever.  The discussion of Baraaq or whatever other platform are an option to escape to is irrelevant, because I won't be able to join him there. My account is here on IB. And so is that of  over 5000 other people who form this subcommunity which you can completely DESTROY.

not by deciding that 3d art are screenshots, but by doing that retroactively and making entire galleries against your rules.


please do not do that.  if you have to, then apply this change to future to-be uploaded work only,  do not erase history.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 20 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 20 hrs ago by Owner
I made this comment at about the same time you posted yours but tl;dr, "original model for 3D work" has always been our interpretation of the policy, as a rough way of reducing what might be retroactively termed "SL/SFM slop" to a manageable level.

Of course, with limited staff, and few members reporting such work (in part because you have to know that it isn't original) there has been limited enforcement of this - which is a problem, but a different one:
" Which gets to the real issue at hand. Technicalities aside, if you re-evaluate rules w.r.t. existing art, and this leads to large portions of some artists galleries, to suddenly be in violation of rules, then this has a major effect on the community as a whole.

restricting what people upload new is a relatively major issue. if i make something i cannot upload on IB, well then I share it somewhere else, or make something else to begin with.

but if suddenly half my gallery were to be taken down, i would lose my history and my identity.
This is the issue that such lax moderation creates. It'd be nice to be able to find a way to move forwards through e.g. adequate credit and perhaps some agreement about what makes a work "original" that is less restrictive than "the whole model" but we have to find a way to deal with past works as well.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
It'd be nice to be able to find a way to move forwards through e.g. adequate credit and perhaps some agreement about what makes a work "original" that is less restrictive than "the whole model" but we have to find a way to deal with past works as well.

Copyright law already figured out what makes derivative work "original". Substantial modifications make an original product. Full stop. Wholly original now.

People literally already did your work for you.
Smolfoks
Smolfoks
2 days, 10 hrs ago
link
It's ridiculous to chastise this creator for using things that aren't theirs while endorsing AI art. You guys should really reconsider this ruling, it's needlessly harsh on creators like this.
Novilon
Novilon
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
My initial thought was that the rule was only supposed to apply to the "Second Life" case you cite, where the person is just taking a screenshot of their avatar in the environment but didn't really create or modify any of the scene elements themselves.

The AUP seems to suggest, though, that modifications of existing assets that the software came with, or that you purchased from other creators, aren't "original" enough and still considered to be "just" screenshots.  It doesn't really say where the dividing line is as far as how much modification is required before it becomes "original", which kind of implies that even if you assembled the entire model from scratch using only spheres, cubes, and cylinders, even that wouldn't be "original" because you used the software's built-in primitives to build it.

Given that the site embraces AI "art" -- which really is nothing more than modifications of existing assets which the "artist" had no actual hand in creating themselves -- such a stance seems quite unjustifiable and, dare I say, hypocritical.  Sounds like the site owner needs to rethink that rule and get their mods under control.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days, 3 hrs ago
link
Edited 3 days, 3 hrs ago by Owner
Creation from primitives would likely be sufficient. To take an example I made earlier: the carrot depicted here is original (its use of a primitive tree as a stalk is arguably transformative, and trees are a primitive object in SL) but the character behind would not be because it is merely a tweaked version of the original human model.

AI art is - in general - not derivative of any one specific work but a very large number of such works. However in some cases, for some specific prompts and models, it is possible to produce something close to the original, either because it is overtrained on duplicates or the wording is specific to the image and not blended with combination with other prompts (as would normally be the case). This is part of the reason we have restrictions on the prompts and LoRAs used to generate such work.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 21 hrs ago by Owner
" GreenReaper wrote:
Creation from primitives would likely be sufficient. To take an example I made earlier: the carrot depicted here is original (its use of a primitive tree as a stalk is arguably transformative, and trees are a primitive object in SL) but the character behind would not be because it is merely a tweaked version of the original human model.

"Recoloring a cone to be orange and slapping a bush on top of it is original work but modifying a character model to look different is not"

Are you even listening to yourself?
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 21 hrs ago by Owner
It's not a "modification" in the sense that I did more than play around with some sliders. The result is far more complex than the carrot but at its basis it is just a derivative work being used in the way the developers intended.

Conversely, I never saw anyone make a carrot out of a cone and an SL tree (let alone use that as an earring, which is what my character did later). Of course, perhaps others had the same idea.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 21 hrs ago by Owner
Okay so you literally just have no idea what goes into making a character model in Blender or DAZ.

Talk to literally anyone who actually does that sort of thing for a living. How dare you belittle them by calling their work "playing around with some sliders".

If that's how low of an opinion you have of artists, that their career amounts to "playing around with some sliders", then you know what? You deserve everything that's going to happen to this site. You deserve to lose every single person who has ever put effort into anything here. You deserve to wallow in your pit of AI slop.

Good luck.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 19 hrs ago by Owner
I think you and others are slightly misinterpreting what I said; my comment was referring to what I did to create the specific character depicted in that Second Life screenshot. I am aware that there is far more to creating a character in modern rendering tools.

But that is the problem - where do you draw the line between "primarily derivative" and "sufficiently original"? How much has to change from "the model" - and what does that consist of to start with? How are all the contributors to this appropriately credited?

If there's a problem with the "starting from prims" definition - and I'm sure there is - I invite you to define it in a way that doesn't involve a reference to specific programs and which is open to the possibility that, say, a game engine might be used to create an original work, while excluding obvious low-effort and copyright-problematic works that it was intended to address.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 19 hrs ago by Owner
" GreenReaper wrote:
I am aware that there is far more to creating a character in modern rendering tools.

No, you're not. You have consistently demonstrated that you think it's on the same level as taking a screenshot in SFM or SecondLife or whatever else. You don't know what you're talking about.

" GreenReaper wrote:
And how are all the contributors to this appropriately credited?

This question is irrelevant on the topic of 3D art until you're ready to answer why you allow AI art without crediting everyone whose art was used to train the machine that made the image.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
In a lot of cases they are essentially credited by reference to the model and its version, for example Stable Diffusion 1.5 was based on LAION-5B. Unless you are very specific about the prompts it might be hard to determine the influence of any one work on a generated piece, which is hardly the case for major components to a scene.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 19 hrs ago by Owner
And yet, someone can pour dozens of hours into modifying a character model for their own use, and that is not enough to make it their own work, by your standards. They still need to give credit. Someone typing a prompt into a machine doesn't.

What universe do you have to be living in where typing a prompt into a machine, which then spits out a product based only on actual works by real people, is more original than making a character model?
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 18 hrs ago by Owner
They did all that work and they should get credit for that, sure, but does that mean the initial creator deserves no credit? Take Flayrah: each page links to the credits, where you find a list of the major contributors to components of the site - such as the theme, which was created by one for Wordpress, adapted for Drupal by another, before being made more mobile-friendly by myself.

AI submissions effectively disclaim all contribution beyond those specified, so there's no extra "credit" to give beyond identifying the model and any LoRAs, etc. It's understood that the skill is that of the artists and photographers whose work the model was trained on. not the submitter, whose contribution is limited to their input and the discretion to select a good output. Whereas if you just post a 3D work a visitor might reasonably assume you're fully responsible for creating all of everything in the scene. A few may know differently, but the credits aren't really intended for them.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
OKay if you insist on credits - make the same feature that FA has: Submission Footer. Which will be automatically added to description. I personally can put there a link to a journal with names of creators (if only names is enough) of original models. God dammit I had four strokes in my life, and most of my commissioners and watchers know that my memory is a mush and I will forget to post  a list of creators on every submission!
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 18 hrs ago by Owner
" GreenReaper wrote:
They did all that work and they should get credit for that, sure, but does that mean the initial creator deserves no credit?

By the standards of derivative work in United States copyright law, they are not entitled to credit for a derivative work. It is, generally speaking, polite to confer this credit anyways, but derivative work in any civilized society is universally held to be a new, original piece, distinct from whatever it may be based on.

" GreenReaper wrote:
so there's no extra "credit" to give beyond identifying the model and any LoRAs, etc.

Yes, there is. By the standards you have set, there absolutely is.

" GreenReaper wrote:
It's understood that the skill is that of the artists and photographers whose work the model was trained on. not the submitter, whose contribution is limited to their input and the discretion to select a good output.

Not relevant. You expect people to credit everyone who's ever touched a vertex on every model they use if they're producing 3D art. You must hold everything to that same standard, or hold nothing to that standard at all.

" GreenReaper wrote:
Whereas if you just post a 3D work a visitor might reasonably assume you're fully responsible for creating all of everything in the scene. A few may know differently, but the credits aren't really intended for them.

A 3D artist like Fisky or Bachri is fully responsible for creating all of everything in the scene. Far more so, at any rate, than any AI promptfeeder is responsible for creating anything that appears in their scenes.
The only case in which this does not apply is if they actually are using unmodified models made by someone else. In those cases, you will certainly find that they either are already listed as credits, or the credit is easily available on demand, as Fisky has said elsewhere.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
1 day, 3 hrs ago
link
To your first point, Inkbunny is based in the UK, which has significantly greater restrictions and requires both permission and acknowledgement except in circumstances that are unlikely to be met by most 3D works ("caricature, parody or pastiche" might be done without permission, but still require acknowledgement).
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
1 day, 2 hrs ago
link
Odd that the additional restrictions in the UK don't seem to apply when it comes to the cub art that you allow and the UK does not.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
1 day ago
link
Edited 1 day ago by Owner
They do apply... to depictions of persons under 18. That's why we prohibit humans and essentially human characters in sexual situations/showing genitals. Animals, including furries, have no such restrictions.

As the IWF says:
" The images we can act on must be of human children, pornographic, grossly offensive, and focus on a human child's genitals or depict sexual activity involving or in the presence of a human child. We can also only act on these types of images when they are hosted in the UK. Some typical NPI reports we receive that we do not remove are images of non-human baby animals, ...
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
It's not a "modification" in the sense that I did more than play around with some sliders


To me this is more insulting than calling 3D a screenshot. I sculpt EVERY custom character in blender BY HAND and load it back as a morph target. Yes, there was a time when I was "playing around with some sliders", but it was more than a five years ago
Bachri
Bachri
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
It's not a "modification" in the sense that I did more than play around with some sliders.


Fuck you.

Fuck. You.

I tried to be reasonable. I really did. You just went way over the line with that one. You have no idea what goes into this and I'm done trying to explain. Goodbye.
MystBunny
MystBunny
3 days, 3 hrs ago
link
I feel like the modifications you make and the work you put into these should be enough to consider it original. If you must upload elsewhere what can't be posted here, can I request you post blurred versions here and link the posts in the description?
Telain
Telain
3 days, 3 hrs ago
link
Blurring doesn't make something acceptable.
MystBunny
MystBunny
3 days, 2 hrs ago
link
It does with human content, doesn't it?
Telain
Telain
3 days, 2 hrs ago
link
Only if it alters the content sufficiently to remove either the sexual or human element.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days, 1 hr ago
link
Edited 3 days, 1 hr ago by Owner
To add a little more . . . there are a lot of "censored" blurs of genitals that eventually get taken down when brought up to us due to it being implausible that it is not a sexual situation - I usually recommend a straight crop excluding either the human or the sexual situation entirely, or a preview of just the heads of the characters (this does not work when sexual fluids are involved...).

The human policy is also something of a special case. In general if a work can't be posted here as a submission for policy reasons, replacing that with promotional submissions linking offsite isn't going to fly. A journal would be a better mechanism, assuming the work isn't outright illegal e.g. a copy of a comic made without permission. That way only existing watchers are notified.
MystBunny
MystBunny
3 days ago
link
I must ask for a reconsideration of these rules. I mean, I'm ambivalent, leaning yay, on AI works, but people here bring up a good point. If a model is original, or a lot of work is put into a purchased model to make it ones own creation, it really doesn't benefit anyone to limit that content like IB does photos, particularly when one can post AI works here without any limits apart from tags, prompts, and banning of certain loras. I mean I understand the SFM situation where people were posting content with the same unaltered models over hundreds of different accounts, but this is all Fisky's work, it's good work, and it's simply not fair to just swat that aside as if it were tracing.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 22 hrs ago by Owner
The key question is how do you codify that in a way that you avoid the "10000 samey scenes by 100 members" issue in this thread. We've tried to do that on and off over the years but it always gets stuck, usually at the part where the submitter says "it's unreasonable to expect me to account for the work of others that goes into my work".

AI actually shows that it is possible to document what the components are that go into the mix, at least at a high level. Some AI directors didn't want to do this and they left pretty quickly after the policy started being properly enforced (i.e. when we had enough staff).
MystBunny
MystBunny
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
If you are considering making the rule more fair, particularly for those like Fisky who have put in so much work for over a decade without issue, then might I suggest suspending all but the most base aspects of it, such as no alterations at all to an existing model, until a decision can be made, rather than nitpicking someone who has been here almost as long as I have, right off the site in the meantime.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
The key question is how do you codify that in a way that you avoid the "10000 samey scenes by 100 members" issue in this thread.

Since you seem to think that SFM and SecondLife are an accurate portrayal of how 3D rendering works in general, the solution is obvious: Ban SFM and SecondLife screenshots. Allow 3D renders done in an actual 3D rendering program.

If you don't want people just churning out SecondLife screenshots, ban that. See how things look. Go from there.

Is that really such a difficult conclusion to reach?
RileyPuppers
RileyPuppers
3 days, 5 hrs ago
link
AI art is cool, but 3d renders are "screenshots"

Make it make sense!
OhgunBeastar
OhgunBeastar
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
I call bullshit on that.
VocalStrike20
VocalStrike20
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
Furaffinity is an option if you don't have it already.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
I stopped posting there as soon as I lost attention from my watchers
Novilon
Novilon
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
FA is not an option for Fisky's cub art or animations, though.
MystBunny
MystBunny
3 days ago
link
Seeing as they can't tell the difference between cubs and adults and don't bother to find out objectively, I'd say it's not an option period.
VinchenzoTheJackal
VinchenzoTheJackal
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
FurAffinity and Itaku are the only ones I can think of being actively used, but FA is currently undergoing maintenance and you can't upload anything, will be a long time till that is fixed.
As such Itaku would be your best bet if you want something usable right away.
Ansemik
Ansemik
3 days, 3 hrs ago
link
Cub porn is against rules on FA and gets you banned from there. He already left it long ago..
Fursat
Fursat
3 days, 4 hrs ago
link
Rendered 3D-Stuff counts as Screenshot? What? Wouldnt be any drawn Art be a "Screenshot" too if they use brushes they bought from others? I mean i have the knowledge but i like to use Basemodels made by others cuz its awfully timeconsuming and sooo repetitive boring todo basic rigging and basic morphing. I still spend hours and even days to modify, texture and finetune the Model till it looks like what i want. And then setting up the Scene and pose the Charakters takes some time too.

Reminds me abit like on the minecraft-server i play on when i build a sculpture with schematics, they simply dont see the work behind it and say its downloaded but cant proof it.

I think they should be more precise about that but maybe
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
has an explanation what this is actually aiming for?
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days, 3 hrs ago
link
We assume in good faith that everyone creates their own brushes, however if you have evidence that this is not the case in a specific instance, please file a ticket and... 🙃

With regards to my comment above a big issue is that a) the base model is a significant contribution (as you yourself explain, it saves so much time) but then b) where's the credit for that? If you, say, didn't make the lombax here, that's a lot of credit missing. And this is the case for nearly every such image. And it was the case for AI too until we cracked down on that.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
3 days, 2 hrs ago
link
Can you imagine how much credits he must put in description to comply to this obviously stupid rule?

Another case: mine, for example. I use Melody A3 figure I got from DAZ3D store as a base figure. It is an obsolete figure - you can't find clothes or hairs for this figure. I heavilly modified this figure: made a lot of NEW morphs, textures, etc. so even if I put a link to description - no one will be able to get the same figure I use.

More to it: The creators of the models that is available for purchase there does not ask to give credits

More: On my scene I use a lot of props, clothes, figures, hairs, etc. from different creators and sources. It is REALLY hard to keep tracking the sources and keep posting the list over and over again! But if somebody is asking me what model/prop/figure I use - I ALWAYS provide name, author, and a link (if exists)
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days, 2 hrs ago
link
Edited 3 days, 2 hrs ago by Owner
I imagine for the linked scene it might be relatively simple. For some others it would be significantly more complex. But the difficulty of identifying the origin of, say, a wrench hanging on the wall in the background, which might be considered a de minimis detail, does not really excuse not crediting major components of the final work on which the viewer's attention is focused and which would take significant time to replicate - e.g. the lombax (or its base), but maybe also the clothes and manacles/chains if non-original.

With regards to the purchased model: they may not have asked for it, but we are asking so that we can verify the origin of the model (and e.g. if someone claims you copied them, we can look at the origin to confirm it).
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
3 days, 2 hrs ago
link
Okay, fuck it. I can't provide sources every time. Do what you want. This is bullshit that eleven years of my experience being here was ended by some stupid unnecessary needless trouble-making rule that NOBODY following
SomeAIArtist
SomeAIArtist
3 days ago
link
Will InkBunny want to know what type of pencils traditional artists use? What brand of lightbulb, how many lumens, wattage? What type of paper, canvas, and the chair the artist used while creating their work? Do they need to ask permission from a ruler's manufacturer if they use one?

I understand this is your place and you make the rules, but if I am allowed to voice my opinion, some of them seem like unnecessary nitpicking that inconvenience the artist and I'll even go as far as say they stifle the creative process.

LITTLEFisky's work is creative and complex and derivative enough to be considered original, and I can totally see how it wouldn't be easy or practical to keep track of all the receipts for what they use. This was never a problem before; why is it a problem now?
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days ago
link
Edited 3 days ago by Owner
Regarding credit: it has been a problem across essentially all 3D art, in that it should have been credited all this time. It's hard to argue that a 3D render focusing on a model of a character is not a derivative work of that model. The fact that "this is how 3D art works" just means all 3D submissions should feature credit, unless you actually made everything of significance in it. Whenever this was raised in the past it resulted in chunks of 3D art being removed. (Note that LITTLEFisky has hidden their own work.)

The creativity issue is trickier. How do you measure creativity? We don't really want a bunch of generic models doing the same things to each other, which is what we were getting with Second Life, SFM, etc. So we took the position that the model - and perhaps significant modifications to the model - was the criteria of originality, and the focus of submissions should be on displaying said models and modifications, rather than the scenes it could be in.

This obviously excludes a large volume of 3D art - just as excluding general photograpy excludes a large amount of artistic photography. But it is consistent with how we treat other mass-market items - and fursuits, for that matter. Those who ended up wanting to share and consume photos of fursuits arranged in various different combinations and positions ended up going elsewhere.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 23 hrs ago
link
Stop mentioning SecondLife and VRChat. My render are far better quality and move various than simple screenshots. I don't even do pin-ups with the same character (not model) at different poses.

I made enough improvements and changes to this model for it to be a contribution to the fandom! And people LOVE it.

Yes, I (he, don't call me "them") hid my gallery, not wiped it, for now because I still have hope that we will come to a peaceful agreement and my gallery and my hobby will still be allowed here. As for the sources - I already told you - I always provide them on request
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 23 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 23 hrs ago by Owner
" Stop mentioning SecondLife and VRChat. My render are far better quality and move various than simple screenshots. I don't even do pin-ups with the same character (not model) at different poses.

I made enough improvements and changes to this model for it to be a contribution to the fandom! And people LOVE it.
"This is good art" is not a good basis for policy because it is subjective. "This art is based on an original model" is clear, even if it is a hard barrier to meet. We have toyed with "this features a model that has been modified/retextured in an original way" but that would then require a) credit for the initial work, and b) an explanation of the new features.

"People like it" has never been a basis for what we allow. There is a lot of stuff that some people like - like photos of fursuits in different scenes - that we do not allow. It is more about whether we can define it in such a way that we don't get 100 people doing 10000 renders of similar scenes with the same models, because that crowds out unique work. We see less value in that than in 100 unique models taking 100x time.
" As for the sources - I already told you - I always provide them on request
We are requesting them, in the description, for each derivative work - which is what a work with a modified or entirely third-party model is. Just as you would do if you featured someone else's character.

The fact that people are not willing to do this is part of why we throw up our hands and say "OK, it has to just be showing off the features of an original model, like a fursuit, not scenes with [some] third-party models in different configurations" even though it is the latter that people often like the most - because at least then we can moderate it and don't worry about people using scraped models, etc.
Bachri
Bachri
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
" "This is good art" is not a good basis for policy because it is subjective.


" We see less value in that than in 100 unique models taking 100x time.


Pick one, you don't get to claim subjectivity (the entire basis of the concept of art) is bad and also tell us what YOU see in art mediums.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
This is why we ended up with making the rule "it has to be showing off an original model" because that achieves both goals, even if it excludes a lot of arguably original "3D storytelling" too.
Bachri
Bachri
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
> Makes mutually-exclusive statements.

> I point out mutually-exclusive statements.

> "Because both."

... I... you're... you're not even paying attention any more, are you?
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
A new model created using an existing one as a basis is an original model.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 21 hrs ago by Owner
I... disagree? When I use that word I'm thinking more "you started making stuff fresh from primitives". Yes, there are probably some reusable components on a systems level - and those could be credited - but the majority would be built "from plain cloth". Or the OED: "not dependent on other people's ideas; inventive or novel."

What you describe sounds like a derivative work that has had some modifications made to it to look or act in a certain manner. Like my character in the carrot picture, which is actually a tweaked base human, with extreme proportions and hairstyle.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 21 hrs ago by Owner
And every 3D artist on this site disagrees with you. I'd think at some point, it'd be time to take a step back, take stock, and figure out whose opinion actually matters on artistic topics.

Hint: not yours.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 19 hrs ago by Owner
Perhaps. I'd be interested in tchaikovsky2's perspective here; it's work like theirs that I see as featuring "original characters" and I have seen them say it takes quite a while to create one. Do they do it "from scratch", and if so, what does that mean to them?
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
WTF I can count talented modellers using fingers only from my left hand! What other have to do? Those who can make very good renders, but can not make a good model? Leave? Hide in a pit and never show their creations to anyone?
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 21 hrs ago by Owner
Even if he does, it doesn't change the fact that you're still belittling and disrespecting people who put work into their models.

Would it somehow change your opinion if he did? Or would that just reinforce your belief that 3D art is not art unless the models are made from scratch?

And if he doesn't? Would you then magically accept that derivative works are original, and do require effort and work, just because an artist you happen to like fits into the category that you're trying to remove?

The fact that you have the balls to call the work people do "playing around with sliders" suggest to me, no, it doesn't matter. You don't care. You never did. You never will.

Sincerely. Fuck you. Go fuck yourself. You are the worst kind of piece of shit imaginable. You don't get to treat people this way.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 19 hrs ago by Owner
" Would you then magically accept that derivative works are original
By definition, they are not going to be completely original. The question is "what rule can we use as a filter instead of requiring a completely original model?" Effort is not something we have found we can meaningfully moderate on in this area because it is not necessarily obvious from the output, which can be of a high quality rendering-wise.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
"what rule can we use as a filter instead of requiring a completely original model?"

You don't want to see SFM? Ban SFM.
You don't want to see SecondLife? Ban SecondLife.
How the fuck do I need to tell you this? Are you that stupid?
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
But "no SFM" is not what we want. SFM has tended to be associated with lower-quality, repetitive 3D content, or content made without permission, both of which were targets; but is not the only source of that, just one of the most accessible.

That's why we ended up looking to the originality of "the 3D model" (which we understood to be the entirety of a 3D character, at least its visual aspects). Yes, that is unclear when it came to modifications of an existing model (however you define that) and goes too far in that potentially excludes a lot of "good" work. But it gave us an objective way to say "this is too generic" no matter what software the relevant model was rendered with or what scene was used, and that was the goal at the time.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 19 hrs ago by Owner
" GreenReaper wrote:
Yes, that is unclear when it came to modifications of an existing model (however you define that) and goes too far in that potentially excludes a lot of "good" work.

So you knew the entire time that it was a bad standard, and persisted with it anyway.
We're supposed to have sympathy for you?

" GreenReaper wrote:
But it gave us an objective way to say "this is too generic" no matter what software the relevant model was rendered with or what scene was used, and that was the goal at the time.

And yet AI generations are not too generic.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
*sigh* I have a perfect example when model creator makes crappy SFM "screenshots". I don't want to point fingers, so no names
tchaikovsky2
tchaikovsky2
2 days, 20 hrs ago
link
My perspective is that you should start listening to what people are telling you, because holy shit man. Holy shit.

And also, *they/them.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 20 hrs ago
link
OK, thanks! It's late here so I'll probably check back in the morning.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 19 hrs ago by Owner
See, literally everyone is against you here. If you're gonna go to bed, sleep on this, wake up, realize that if literally everyone is against you, they're probably not wrong, and reverse this decision. Reinstate all the works that were deleted over this. Guarantee that nobody will ever be affected like this again.

You have literally not a single artist on your side here. You are running a website that only exists by the grace of its artists. Basic logic dictates that you do as they command or you don't have a website anymore.
SomeAIArtist
SomeAIArtist
2 days, 20 hrs ago
link
Thank you for answering.

This isn't about me or AI art and I don't mean to hijack the topic, but I can point out the 'creativity issue' with a personal example: Because of the strict rules being enforced on AI art, I have not had the drive to make my more complex pictures, because they involved a lot of resources tricky to keep track of, and sharing elements of the process that I personally would rather not share (I hate having my sketches on permanent display!). The result is I'm just using the regular models everyone uses, and while I still try to put my own personal touch, I feel my AI stuff is starting to get 'generic'. And that is a direct consequence of the strict enforcement of rules that try to fit 'art' into a 'one-size-fits-all' box.

But I don't want to have to deal with doing bureaucratic paperwork and proving over and over that I'm really doing what I say I'm doing every time I want to upload a picture; making the pictures is enough work as it is, when you do more than just type in a prompt and pick the best out of however many renders the computer gives you.

I agree that prompts and models/rendering information should be shared. I agree that models should be given proper credit in 3D art (and that the artist should have permission to use them). But beyond that, you're not making things better, you're making them worse, and this here happening to LITTLEFisky is an exact example of it.

The fact that the rules have gone unenforced for quite some time feels like when someone brings up an obsolete archaic law to court so they can rule-lawyer a case in their favor.

Perhaps there's a happy compromise that could be reached, so people don't feel like they are being hit with a sledgehammer of rules? Artists are a sensitive bunch. Keep that in mind while running a website where artists post their stuff, please.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 19 hrs ago by Owner
" GreenReaper wrote:
The creativity issue is trickier. How do you measure creativity? We don't really want a bunch of generic models doing the same things to each other, which is what we were getting with Second Life, SFM, etc.

But it's totally fine when your site is flooded with a million posts of the same AI model generating the same character in the same situations in exactly the same style every single fucking time.

What the fuck is wrong with you?
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 23 hrs ago
link
There is only one thing that still bothers me: WHY are you enforcing this rule only now? What is the REAL reason? Rules was made in 2011, and now is 2025. All of your team was in hibernation or coma for 14 years? None of you stumbled upon somebody's 3D renders?
Telain
Telain
+watched me on  11 Nov 2021! What happens now look like you trying to free up some space for AI posts, based on what you said to me in PMs
Telain
Telain
2 days, 23 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 23 hrs ago by Owner
Don't reference my watching as some sort of allowance. I became a moderator this February. I also wasn't aware you were using modified bases. Since you're selling YCHs, I assumed it was purely your own work.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 23 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 23 hrs ago by Owner
We have a lot of new moderators and they have got through the ticket backlog and are now saying "hey, this is also an issue..." as has happened in the past.

The policy on screenshots and how it is understood to apply to 3D rendering from third-party models in general has been as it is for a decade. Our capacity has never been sufficient to fully enforce it, moreover the fact that 3D artists tend to leave it unclear as to what actually is their own work makes it even harder.

If we were to modify the policy with regards to 3D rendering we should probably have a specific requirement to assert that everything in the scene is your own work if so, which as has been made clear is almost never actually the case.
Bachri
Bachri
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
> The policy on screenshots and how it is understood to apply to 3D rendering from third-party models in general has been as it is for a decade.

This is the policy:
" Screenshots
No screenshots from games or other software unless they show your own artwork or creations. Your creations in the screenshot must be original and not just modifications of standard avatars, models, templates, etc that come with the software or that you purchased from other creators.

No frames or segments (or portions of those) from movies, animations, TV shows, etc that you don't own copyright to.


At absolutely no point is 3D artwork mentioned or referenced. "Other software" is far too ambiguous to be a reference to something that is clearly not, as explicitly stated, a screenshot. Renders are not screenshots, period. To claim otherwise is a direct insult to the art form. You have insulted me. You have insulted Fisk. You have insulted all 3D artists.

As such, I'm calling out the lie that this has always been understood to cover 3D art pieces. It has NEVER been understood to cover this, because it does not cover this as worded. My pieces have been up on this site for EIGHT. YEARS. And now, out of absolutely nowhere, my entire gallery is gone. Not a word of warning. Not a single suggestion of something I can do on my end to correct any issues.

This enforcement is NEW. It is SUDDEN. I'm not going to let you lie and gaslight about it. If you want this to be a thing now, fine, I can just leave, but since I'm already going out the door, I may as well do all I can to make sure you're upfront about what's really going on.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 22 hrs ago by Owner
The same thing, seven years ago

The same thing, almost a decade ago

The actual SL thing, eleven years ago

Combining original and purchased SL models

The last has a lot of stuff that sadly got deleted later along with a member's account, but here's an excerpt:
" Having permission is important when it comes to derivative works. But that's not the key issue here, which is "Inkbunny has limited resources and our members have limited attention; we want to spend it on original work, not something 100 different people can churn out in the exact same way just by loading up a free model and free background in their rendering program". Which is covered by another part of the derivative works policy:
" The works you create using portions of other artists' work must be sufficiently unique to be considered a new creation.

Basically, the more of other people's work you use, the more work you have to do to justify the originality of your own contributions. Throwing characters together and shooting a shot of their backsides doesn't really cut it, in my opinion. The pose is not the issue per-se, it's that you (as an artist) didn't do most of the work leading to the finished piece - therefore we're not really showing off "your work" but someone else's work which has been seen before.

Conversely, if you create a model, you rig it with your own skeleton, for movies you control its animation, that is far more work… it typically creates a different look (even for "the same" character) and justifies our hosting of it. It means we host fewer but more original works.
And later:
" The effect of the "screenshots" policy is that by default, renderings of someone else's model are not considered "original", and are hence not a derivative work which may be displayed on Inkbunny. We are open to justification that a sufficient level of effort has been made, but the onus is on you to make a good case for that.
[...]
The intent is that artists who have differing skill-sets can work together to create a work; not that you can take what is effectively a finished work, pose it in different lighting conditions and with several other models, and make a new work. Again, I'd go back to fursuits - a fursuit is effectively a finished piece, it may look slightly different in different conditions, but we're just not that interested in hosting lots of photos of it with other fursuits doing different things. So it is with 3D renders.

Commissions are limited in that only the artist and commissioner can post it. They don't results in lots of not-very-original-but-still-technically-different works from an unbounded number of people.
And then there was the exact same argument about "so why didn't you do something before, why start with me?"
Bachri
Bachri
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 22 hrs ago by Owner
Two of those are the same example. The other two are about Second Life screenshots, which are NOT 3D art.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 22 hrs ago by Owner
Sorry, one of the links didn't copy right, I have fixed it. The point remains, this is not a novel interpretation of the policy. And respectfully, I disagree; SL and any other 3D game are at their basis 3D renderers and can be used to pose and capture a scene. It's possible to create a work in Second Life that would be a valid submission here but it'd have to show work created by/for you.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 22 hrs ago
link
Then I strongly suggest getting someone on your staff team who actually knows what 3D rendering is.

Clearly, you are not familiar with what goes into producing 3D artwork. If you were, you would understand that there is a significant difference between rendering an image in a 3D rendering program, and taking a screenshot in SecondLife.

You are not qualified to make an administrative decision on this topic. Bring on someone who is.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 21 hrs ago by Owner
" Clearly, you are not familiar with what goes into producing 3D artwork. If you were, you would understand that there is a significant difference between rendering an image in a 3D rendering program, and taking a screenshot in SecondLife.
As I have mentioned the issue comes in making actual policy in a way that captures the "good" stuff while excluding the "bad" stuff. "Blender good, SL bad" doesn't cut it ("what about SFM?"), which is why we drew the line at "original creations" even though that excludes a vast amount of potentially "good" work.

If we found some way to relax that, the people doing "good" 3D rendering would still need to [be willing to] credit third-party contributions to bring it into line with other derivative works.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
But you don't have a standard for derivative works.

You allow AI without question of where the works it was trained on came from.

Set a standard for derivative work. Enforce it consistently. Then look at 3D work. As it is, you're clearly specifically targetting people who make 3D work, because you or someone on your team doesn't like it.
Novilon
Novilon
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
As I have mentioned the issue comes in making actual policy in a way that captures the "good" stuff while excluding the "bad" stuff.


As opposed to the current policy, which is sweeping up good and bad alike and causing artists to have their galleries nuked without warning, while forcing others -- including long-time contributors like, well, Fisky here -- to hide their galleries and consider leaving the site entirely before the hammer falls on them next?

Just face it, Green -- you and the mod team stepped in it, big time, and utterly screwed the pooch on this issue.  Just restore the deleted galleries, reassure CG artists like Fisky that they will not be targeted again under the flawed rule, and work with them to come up with a rule that's acceptable to the community -- with (and this is absolutely necessary) a clause in the rule that it will not be applied ex post facto to things which were uploaded before the rule was properly drafted, since in many cases the original posters might not even remember after 5+ years or more which assets were even used or have any record of it, and people who reposted YCHes to their own galleries certainly wouldn't have any way of knowing what the original creator might have used.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
" If we found some way to relax that, the people doing "good" 3D rendering would still need to [be willing to] credit third-party contributions to bring it into line with other derivative works.


Let's see.... https://inkbunny.net/s/3439561 (hidden, but as an admin you should be able to see it) Here I should credit more than 14 sources and creators. Right? The information that nobody!!! is interested in. Except you for some reason. It is easier if someone would ask "Littlefisky, where did you find that city ruins?" and I'd answer "City ruins by Stonemason"
Bachri
Bachri
2 days, 21 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
The point remains, this is not a novel interpretation of the policy.


Yes it is, and I'm still not going to let you lie about it. The fixed link leads to a comment that you made in a journal about a flash animation, wherein the issue was human nudity. This makes your point even more absurd because now you're claiming that flash animations qualify as screenshots too. Was the animation 3D? I can only presume so because the guy said it was SFM.

" GreenReaper wrote:
And respectfully, I disagree; SL and any other 3D game are at their basis 3D renderers and can be used to pose and capture a scene.


You are committing a "false equivalence" fallacy.
https://gyazo.com/4d28ffda5b1ea067458e97fa812cd501
Similarity does not mean the same. With Second Life or any other 3D game, you can simply pose things how you like and hit print screen. You cannot do that with DAZ Studio or similar dedicated 3D art programs.

With 3D art like what we're talking about, you do posing, you do lighting, expressions, careful crafting of morphs, environments, render settings, camera settings, and you end up with something that takes hours upon hours to render. I once waited two days for a short 6-second turntable animation to finish, unable to use my PC because of the processing power needed. You are applying a completely different set of circumstances to something that actually does deserve a level of regulation on what you are looking for. I'm not trying to attack you- you have attacked me and the years of work that I have done. Yes, my work is derivative, yes I've used other content to make my content. So's everyone at some stage. Maybe that doesn't make it right. This isn't the way to make me or anyone else care.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 20 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 20 hrs ago by Owner
No. I am not lying to you. 3D rendering has always fallen under the "screenshots" rule, because it is effectively the same as any other piece of software, including Flash. Indeed it would apply to 2D software as well, except that the depictions tend to be original ("not based on a built-in clip art library or a royalty-free purchase" would be a rough equivalent to the wording there).

The problem that we saw was a lot of samey 3D work from a variety of sources - yes, games, but not just them as access to 3D rendering tools became more accessible. The solution was "if it has an original [entirely novel] model then it must have taken some time and by definition there won't be lots of them already". It's far from a perfect solution and leaves out a lot of things that may a) take a lot of time or skill or b) are considered worth viewing, but which don't involve an entirely novel model.

This has just been laxly enforced because honestly, we've tended to just work on reports due to lack of staff. You're surely aware that this has been an issue in other arenas. Also, every time we do it, we get people complaining that they can't comply or feel it is too great a burden, or that we should have addressed everyone else's submissions first.

There isn't on the face of it anything wrong with derivative works, but they have to be credited and made with permission like any other submission; unfortunately credit is rarely present on 3D works, either because it is too hard or the creators just don't consider their work to be a derivative of its component parts.
Bachri
Bachri
2 days, 20 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
There isn't on the face of it anything wrong with derivative works, but they have to be credited and made with permission like any other submission; unfortunately credit is rarely present on 3D works, either because it is too hard or the creators just don't consider their work to be a derivative of its component parts.


You've made clear that you don't consider our work to be work. I'm done speaking with you.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 20 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
but they have to be credited and made with permission like any other submission

Where is this standard when it comes to AI?

Why do AI promptfeeders get to post generated content without credit to and permission from everyone whose work the AI was trained on?

Why are you specifically targetting 3D artists?
Blackraven2
Blackraven2
2 days, 5 hrs ago
link
[/quote]No. I am not lying to you. 3D rendering has always fallen under the "screenshots" rule, because it is effectively the same as any other piece of software, including Flash. Indeed it would apply to 2D software as well, except that the depictions tend to be original ("not based on a built-in clip art library or a royalty-free purchase" would be a rough equivalent to the wording there).
[/quote]

Just to point out how ridiculously flawed that statement is - by this argument, every single artwork drawn in "photoshop" (or any 2d photo manipulation or drawing software) and then exported/saved to a JPG is also a screenshot.

Since Inkbunny is a digital platform and even analog art needs to be photographed or scanned and then converted into a digital form for upload - usually by employing a image manipulation program of some sorts EVERY submission to inkbunny that is graphical in nature (png or jpg)  is effectively a screenshot.

Now if suddenly the rule was to be "not based on a built-in clip art library or a royalty-free purchase"  <--  what about builtin brushes in photoshop?  Or royalty free stock backgrounds used for YCHs? what about ASCII ART or sprite art? if you make a comic using a sonic the hedgehoc sprite, would you delete it if the artist didn't provide where exactly they got that from? or just because they did not explicitly state they made the sprite themselves?

Where do you draw the (screesnhot of the) line?

and would  you going to go through all of inkbunny and randomly wipe art that might have used any 3rd party asset without declaring it?

(I remember a museum piece, the artist cut out lots of random little objects from photos in newspapers, and then glued them on a canvas to make an entire new painting from it -- he never credited the individual newspaper/article/photos though, didn't prevent the curators from exhibiting it)

the only thing special about 3D is that making derivate work using existing assets is currently more common than in 2D, because 3d artists tend to be more specialized in their skill set. some people focus on model creation. they design models but are not necessarily experts in scene arrangement and doing things with these models.

other artists specialize in scene and animation arrangement. they use existing models and turn them into 3d art and animation art

saying "making models is art, making things from models is just screenshots"  is discrediting these artists - and big time, which I think is a big part of the elephant in the room and why this discussion has been becoming so heated.  the way this rule is supposed to be enforced is deeply discriminating to an entire genre of artists, and they are taking offense very much so (as apparent from some of the comments here)

I do not thing these artists are at fault for taking offense at this policy.  the policy and its reasoning is at fault. (although I would like to encourage more civil discussion, I acknowledge its hard to remain civil, if your art is being dissed as "screenshots" and your entire existence as an artist and artist-identity is threatened by censorship-by-banhammer  -- if i were personally affected I would use more drastic words and methods.

That being said, I still regret that I did not protest more back in the day when FA banned cub art of most kinds, while friends of me were banned and lost their galleries entirely.  I must not stay silent now, when artists are targeted here on IB - doesn't matter that the reason is method vs motive.


now I have read between the lines that a civil solution seems to be in discussion and in the process of being found for this whole issue, so I do not want to fan or pour oil into the flames. On the contrary, I want to say am proud that here on IB these issues can come to a civil and fair solution. (Yes, I know, mods and admins can never make EVERYONE happy, but you guys do listen, and you try - which to me makes all the difference)
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
1 day, 2 hrs ago
link
Edited 1 day, 2 hrs ago by Owner
" what about builtin brushes in photoshop?  Or royalty free stock backgrounds used for YCHs? what about ASCII ART or sprite art? if you make a comic using a sonic the hedgehog sprite, would you delete it if the artist didn't provide where exactly they got that from? or just because they did not explicitly state they made the sprite themselves?
In short (the rest of this is moot...) brushes: fine, backgrounds: with credit if not yours? ASCII: fine (typefaces are exempt from attribution in UK law), sprites: borderline, most uses are transformative and wouldn't be reported (we have had takedowns from Hanna-Barbera/Warner Bros for sculpture being sold). Note that "fan-art" requires "you indicate who owns the characters."
Fursat
Fursat
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
I dont have a Problem to provide Credits and Links (if it still exist somewhere) to everything i use in the Pics on every Pic, i did it on FA already because i had to. But i havent seen the Rule here in the ACP and still made a link on my profile to all programms and models i use.
Jawbreaker89
Jawbreaker89
3 days, 3 hrs ago
link
It might not be for everyone, but the majority of my pictures and videos are on a Wix page I created. The cub art too
Makroth
Makroth
3 days, 2 hrs ago
link
Baraag, mainly. And Stellarfur. And Bluesky.
xcar
xcar
3 days, 2 hrs ago
link
You could post your work in e6ai.net

Or maybe create your gallery in a site like JabArchives.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
3 days, 2 hrs ago
link
Edited 3 days, 2 hrs ago by Owner
I don't think you can post on e6ai.net if it's not AI. This is about "traditional" 3D rendering, and in particular using specific identifiable models created by others with it.
xcar
xcar
2 days, 14 hrs ago
link
Yeah, I forgot that detail.
Hornybunny
Hornybunny
3 days, 1 hr ago
link
Telegram might work until they decide to nuke it for some "reason."
mewtwogamer
mewtwogamer
3 days, 1 hr ago
link
what happened?
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
3 days, 1 hr ago
link
Long story short: 3D = screenshots and IB mods wiping galleries of 3D artists
mewtwogamer
mewtwogamer
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
So they might just  delete all your content like that? wow, that's pretty scummy.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
UPD: Don't panic! Community mod informed me that they are working on updating AUP  and "trying to improve the policy for renders to allow people to display things that are made for or by them"
Saglinger
Saglinger
3 days ago
link
Best alternative I've found is Baraag, but even then, they don't really have a gallery feature like you have here on IB.  Format's more like Twitter than an art sharing site.
furryboy96
furryboy96
2 days, 20 hrs ago
link
Will this account be deleted or just abandoned?
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 20 hrs ago
link
Who knows. Maybe
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
will finally understand that 3D with someone's models is still art and allow it. If not - I'll upload all my renders to MEGA, post a journal with a download link, and stop working in 3D
Bachri
Bachri
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
I'm going to be finding another place to put my works and keep working when I feel up to it. I'd rather not see another artist give it up, especially not for something petty like this, but hey, you do what you gotta. I just hope you do what makes you happiest. Thank you for the help.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 18 hrs ago by Owner
It's never been whether or not it's art. It's "how do we get the effect of a quality/novelty filter without being able to objectively judge quality, especially at scale". [And separately, crediting those who contributed to a work through inclusion of their work.]

Requiring an "original" model (however that is defined) has been the [not great] way to do that, because it is something that can be objectively determined and - from our perspective - it requires certain skills that mean the rest of the work is more likely to be of above-average quality. Only we haven't actually been requiring it because we lacked the staff.

Now staff are trying to apply it and it's not working - at least, that's what I'm hearing from this. But we still don't want to be hosting a bunch of repetitive work featuring the same common character models. So we need a more sophisticated rule.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
But we still don't want to be hosting a bunch of repetitive work featuring the same common character models


Tell this to... Bachri's fans for example, who loves to see her green wolf peeing, and want more of it


" GreenReaper wrote:
So we need a more sophisticated rule.


Yes you do
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 17 hrs ago by Owner
There are probably far more people who like the things we intended to target with this policy, and which have historically been removed under it. Again, that was kind of the point - to promote original, unique works instead of more scenes with overused models. It's not an ideal way to do it, but if it had been enforced consistently it would have achieved its goal (albeit at the cost of countless 3D stories).
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
to promote original, unique works instead of more scenes with of the overused models everyone was using.

Where is this standard when it comes to AI generations? What is unique and original about an AI generated image?
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 17 hrs ago by Owner
Umm... most of it? It's actually quite notorious for being difficult to get the same character twice, which is a big part of the original issue we were trying to solve - too much of the exact same model. It's unlikely to generate something that looks exactly like any specific character unless you try to.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
You know about character LoRAs, right?
" GreenReaper wrote:
difficult to get the same character twice
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 17 hrs ago by Owner
Yes, which is "trying to"; not sure if that was in the version you saw.

To put it another way, it's easy to say "I want a green wolf" and get something unique for a particular image. (It is however quite hard to get a green norn - "frog" was required.)
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
Oh come on, I have a gallery of AI prompter right in front of me! And on every his generation Octavia (Helluva Boss) looks the same
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 17 hrs ago by Owner
Right! Because you are trying to generate a specific character. But if you said "draw an adolescent anthropomorphic avian demon with grey feathers" you might get something like this. Maybe it drew ideas from pictures of her, but also this one and a zillion others. But the next one you do would not look exactly the same. Like different people draw Pokémon slightly differently.

By contrast, a specific model of Tails, or Pikachu, or Alvin is just that, always. That is what we were trying to get away from. From time to time we debated how different it had to be; if a texture or accessorising was enough to justify more pictures, etc. Just as we did for fursuits when people kept wanting to upload more photos of them. There at least the base character usually was unique, whereas different members often reused the same 3D models.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 17 hrs ago by Owner
" GreenReaper wrote:
you might get something like this. Maybe it drew ideas from pictures of her, but also this one and a zillion others.

And this is more worthy of hosting on your site than 3D works that took hours of effort to model for and render, more original and unique than that, because...?
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 17 hrs ago by Owner
What the f do you want? You think 3D artists will be making brand new model for each submission? How far from reality are you? It took me almost a week to make a model of Evangelion-05

" GreenReaper wrote:
different members reused the same 3D models.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 16 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 16 hrs ago by Owner
" GreenReaper wrote:
There at least the base character usually was unique, whereas different members often reused the same 3D models.

Okay, so, here's what I'm now starting to understand you think this rule is:
"You can't take a premade, standard model, and pose that without any alterations to the model and call that your original work"
Fine. That's what you think the rule is. Cool. That's still original work, but sure, if you don't think it is, I can at least acknowledge that you think that's what the rule is.
Do you know what your enforcement actually makes it, though?
"You have to make a brand new model, from scratch, every time you want to post an image of 3D artwork. You are not allowed to reuse models at all, even if it's your own model that you made."

Bachri's entire gallery got wiped out because, according to you, none of it was original, because she uses the same model of Riri every time. Do you have any idea how much time and effort went into making that model? Do you expect her to make it brand new for every single image?

3D modellers will make a model, and then reuse it. That's how 3D art works. The problem that you appear to have, which is multiple people using a singular standard model between them with no modifications to it, is not what you've been enforcing this rule against.

You need to reinstate everything that got deleted. You need to guarantee that they will never be deleted again. And you need to clarify what your rule actually covers in a way that will never affect people like Fisky and Bachri in the future. Not that they need worry. Bachri has already permanently abandoned your site, because you have eradicated any goodwill you had. Codelizard is permanently abandoning your site. I intend to permanently abandon your site. You're losing artists. The only way you might be able to get them back is to step down and reverse your decisions, but even that isn't going to be enough. If the remaining administration can act as arbitrarily as you have, you might as well just shut the site down, because nobody's ever going to want to use it again.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 16 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 16 hrs ago by Owner
" Bachri's entire gallery got wiped out because, according to you, none of it was original, because she uses the same model of Riri every time. Do you have any idea how much time and effort went into making that model? Do you expect her to make it brand new for every single image?
That's not quite the case. The wording used by the staff member concerned was:
" modified standard models are not permitted in [renders].
So the assertion is that model of Riri (for example) was not "original" to start with, but "[a modification] of standard avatars, models, templates, etc that come with the software or that you purchased from other creators", and therefore all submissions with it in (say, as a major character) were invalid.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 16 hrs ago
link
You expect every 3D artist to be a modeller? You even further from reality than I thought. By this logic every inkbunny user is a digital artist. Show me your drawings.

Everyone understands that 3D modelling is a GIFT. That's why there is a lot of online stores where those who can model selling models to those who can animate
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 16 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 15 hrs ago by Owner
That is a strict interpretation of "your own artwork or creations". A more relaxed interpretation that is in line with the Ownership policy might be to expect that every 3D submission posted to Inkbunny is rendered from models that were created originally by you (as a 3D modeller) or for you (as a commissioner of a 3D modeller) - at least for the main characters, but ideally all of it; that is what we assume has been done if nobody else is mentioned.

This still focuses on the model as "the original artwork" (like fursuits) - i.e. you can't just take random 3D models and put them in a scene [as the main feature] but it is more flexible about how many different scenes you present it in.
 
Now, you say this is "not how 3D art works", and I accept that this is the case, and we may have to be more flexible if we want 3D artists to stick around, but that was the concept - everyone uses "their own" models of their characters, maybe with other people's models interacting with them but only with their direct permission.

This is all separate from the matter of credit for the portion of work done by others (but without it that compounds the issue, it would be a derivative work without any notice of that).
" Everyone understands that 3D modelling is a GIFT. That's why there is a lot of online stores where those who can model selling models to those who can animate
Under the relaxed interpretation of the policy above that would be allowed but only as commissions/adopts rather than "anyone who buys it". Many using the same/tweaked models is "the problem" we were trying to address in the first place.
" By this logic every inkbunny user is a digital artist. Show me your drawings.
Well... I drew a cock once? And coloured in a red panda, which I was directly given permission to do by the artist. My other work is highly derivative (though still better than I could do now) or fursuit photography, so I didn't upload it; Inkbunny is meant to be for your best work, and we don't host photos of RL 3D costume models not made by/for you. I also commissioned many artists over the years, and some are in my gallery - all with full credit to the artists.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 14 hrs ago
link
I'm so glad that there is a language barrier between us and I can't just throw my thoughts at you. Especially not at 7AM. You are about to WIPE ALL 3D FROM THE SITE! Do you understand that?! Do you understand the consequences? Fuck it. I'm off to bed! I have had enough with your stubbornness. What a fucking great birthday gift from you
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 16 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 16 hrs ago by Owner
" GreenReaper wrote:
So the assertion is that model of Riri was not "original" to start with, but "[a modification] of standard avatars, models, templates, etc that come with the software or that you purchased from other creators".

Which is a flawed understanding of how derivation works. A modified model is an original model. Derivative works, under United States copyright law, are original works distinct from whatever they may have been based on. That's just fact.

Besides, you would be hard pressed to find any 3D renderer who makes their models from scratch. It's just not feasible to do. Nobody does it, because why would you when you can just build on what someone else left behind specifically for you to build on?

Your "failure" to enforce this policy is actually the way it was supposed to be carried out all along, because your policy is apparently openly hostile to the concept of 3D art, to the point where if this is the result you wanted, you should have just said all along it's not allowed.

Now, if I were to, say, ask ChatGPT or whatever to generate me a picture of Riri, it'll generate me a green husky based on its understanding of what that ought to look like from its repository of images collected from other people. That's even more directly based on the work of other people than the effort Bachri put into making the model herself. But, according to your policy, not only am I perfectly within my rights to do that and post it here, I don't have to give any credit for it. I will have done less work, created something of minimal artistic value with no originality or uniqueness, and it would be considered to be more original than the work of someone who did put in all that time and effort to make something real.

Would I, as a digital artist, have my works condemned as not original because I didn't make Clip Studio Paint? Would I, as an author, have my works condemned as not original because I didn't make LibreOffice? Because I didn't make the Calibri font? Because I'm not the first person to use the 11pt text size? Why are 3D artists uniquely expected to have built everything they use from the ground up? Why are AI promptfeeders allowed to be derivative? Why is it only 3D artists who are affected by this?
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
It's only "unique" because it's an AI that has no understanding of what art and composition actually are. It's only "unique" insofar as it has no comprehension of what it just did and can't change something without generating entirely brand-new.

This is an insipid, disingenuous definition of unique, and you know it. You're just trying to justify why your preferred "medium" is valid and the one you don't like isn't.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 17 hrs ago by Owner
Oh, yes, poor AI promptfeeders, needing to spam the generate button until the image looks like the character it did before.

Forgive me if I have no sympathy for people who don't need to put in any work. Do forgive me if I reserve my sympathy for people who spend hours making models and scenes and spend hours rendering them.

How terrible of me that I don't seem to care about the plight of those who type some words into a box and click a button until it spits out something that looks like what they want, and looks like every other thing that same machine has ever spat out.

If you think that's original and unique, you've got problems.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 17 hrs ago
link
Your policy caused a friendly fire and affected people who put effort to their renders. Who dedicated their lives and money into making eye-pleasing content
Starshell
Starshell
2 days, 16 hrs ago
link
" GreenReaper wrote:
There are probably far more people who like the things we intended to target with this policy, and which have historically been removed under it.


In other words, the removed works in question were not intended to be removed under this policy?

This fiasco is such a completely unnecessary own goal. I've read your comments elsewhere in the thread about this being a result of 'increased staffing', but that's a poor defense against purging high-profile creators that have been untouched for years without a single warning. Policy isn't just text, it's interpretation. Enforcement changes are policy changes, and they should be disclosed publicly and up front, not come streaking out of the night like a stray bullet. FA has been pulling this kind of stealth-purge "this has always been the policy!" gaslighting for years -- I thought you guys were better than that.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 18 hrs ago by Owner
" GreenReaper wrote:
It's never been whether or not it's art. It's "how do we get the effect of a quality/novelty filter without being able to objectively judge quality, especially at scale". [And separately, crediting those who contributed to a work through inclusion of their work.]

You don't get to talk about a "novelty filter" and allow AI-generated content.
You don't get to talk about "crediting those who contributed to a work" and allow people posting AI generations to not credit everyone whose work the model was trained on.

" GreenReaper wrote:
Requiring an "original" model (however that is defined) has been the [not great] way to do that, because it is something that can be objectively determined and - from our perspective - it requires certain skills that mean the rest of the work is more likely to be of above-average quality. Only we haven't actually been requiring it because we lacked the staff.

Objectively, an original model is one that has been created or substantially modified. Copyright law and common sense have already solved this problem for you.
And besides, you don't get to talk about "requiring certain skills" while still allowing AI generated content on your platform.
Every single thing that's been removed or caught up in this, all of Fisky's work, all of Bachri's work, requires far more skill, time, and effort to create than anything AI-generated that you allow. More skill, time, and effort, than you will ever invest in total throughout your entire life.
Stop pretending this is about quality or originality. This is about your own hatred of people who dedicate themselves to their work and produce a novel product as the result of hours and hours of labor. You are uniquely targetting 3D artists because you hate them and you hate that they represent something you will never be capable of. You who have the gall to equate their work to a screenshot of a SecondLife model and "moving sliders around".

How dare you.

" GreenReaper wrote:
But we still don't want to be hosting a bunch of repetitive work featuring the same common character models.

Why do you still allow AI-generated content, then? It's nothing but repetitive "work".
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
Note: My gallery is not removed yet - I just set everything hidden
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
Indeed, which was the intention behind "or caught up in". But, yes, the additional clarification is appreciated.
KnightSFM
KnightSFM
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
welp time to jump ship, can't put most of my stuff on FA cause birth and preg and now can't put my stuff here cause 3D rendered, good thing I still got twitter, e6 and bluesky
MozzlynArts
MozzlynArts
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
WTF?
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 19 hrs ago
link
Baraag has moderation that actually knows what they're doing. They open applications on the 1st and 15th of every month, and all you need is a link to some art of yours so that they can confirm you are in fact an artist. No folders, but it's the best out there now.
MrKater
MrKater
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
WOW... this is literally banning all traditional 3D artists from IB... and comparing 3D art rendered with blender or other specialized software with SL/VRChat (screenshots) is insane... they aren't even comparable!
the 3D scenes are carefully put together with much detail to small things, lighting and character poses (and more) while a plain and simple screenshot of SL/etc is just a simple screenshot of a game where you can't be that creative...

So why enforce such a sloppy and vague rule, upsetting an entire part of the community of artists and fans? Please try to find a solution so traditional 3D artists like LITTLEFisky can stay — and still want to stay — on this site!

LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
: please let us know where we can find you and potentially other 3D (non AI) artists. i hate to see you forced to leave this site :(
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
2 days, 18 hrs ago
link
UPD: Don't panic! Community mod informed me that they are working on updating AUP  and "trying to improve the policy for renders to allow people to display things that are made for or by them"
MrKater
MrKater
2 days, 10 hrs ago
link
Well not to panic in this case is hard, similar stuff happens on regular basis on FA and now here too?
This is nothing i can or want to ignore.
This whole incident has already done a lot of damage and it still will have aftereffects (like some artists will not come back or art will no longer be uploaded here out of fear). There is no way by "improving the policy" and maybe "saying sorry to affected artists and/or restoring their deleted artworks" will be enough to come back together with everyone involved in good terms.

Anyway: i have seen you had (yesterday) or have (today) (also depending on timezone etc) your birthday so happy birthday to you :) i wish there 'was/will be' at least something positive or enjoyable for you on this day
Alfador
Alfador
6 hrs, 6 mins ago
link
To be fair, when this sort of thing happens on FA, nothing can be done about removed submissions: they're deleted entirely immediately. When something gets "removed" on Inkbunny for a violation of policy, it actually just gets hidden from everyone but the poster and moderators, so comments and submission details are preserved against the day when the artist either replaces the upload with a placeholder not in violation, or the moderation decision gets appealed and overturned, or the rule itself gets changed. Much less is lost here in moderation decisions, than on FA. Regardless of whether one agrees with any given individual decision, the process here is inherently less damaging than on FA, no matter what the rules are.
Fokkusushado
Fokkusushado
2 days, 8 hrs ago
link
I'd say make a Telegram channel [like a lot of other Artists are doing these days] or make a Discord server [as some artists are doing]. With discord though, there are some bots you can use for age verification and account verification too.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
2 days, 4 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 3 hrs ago by Owner
As promised, I've slept on it... albeit not well, so I'll need another nap after this.
In short, this was a mistake, we're sorry, and we'll try to fix it.

The initial moderation decision was in line with a decade-old interpretation of the "Screenshots" policy - which we had previously held to cover all 3D rendering "software" not specifically described elsewhere - that prohibited work depicting "content" which was not "original" (i.e. made entirely anew by you - our expectation if no credit was given to a third-party creator - or for you). By "content", we meant the 3D model, not the scene it was in - in line with how we treat photographic depictions of real-life 3D objects.

This was not a particularly well-founded policy, nor one we'd clearly communicated or consistently enforced in the past. Moreover, even if it'd been better, it wasn't entirely fair to apply it "in passing" to Bachri's rendered work without a meaningful effort to do so to other similarly-situated members. (As the proportion of such work is relatively low, and the applicability was not known, it was rarely reported.)

Staff are now working to create a specific policy for rendered content that is more in line with member expectations, while including a best-effort attempt to credit others who've contributed to a scene or its models in a meaningful way. We expect this will need doing once for regularly-used personal characters, with one-line references, plus incidental mentions for one-off inclusions ("Features my RedDragon, as well as a Fiesta by OtherArtist"), and lower expectations for existing work.

Depending on the specific nature of the models concerned, this policy is likely to permit some or all of the work that staff removed yesterday, if given the minimal credit described above. As such, it has been restored to the extent possible, pending the release of the new policy.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
2 days, 2 hrs ago
link
Edited 2 days, 2 hrs ago by Owner
Step down. You can't restore what you've lost. You will not get back the people you drove away. But at least you can salvage some little scraps of your site's reputation.
Blackraven2
Blackraven2
1 day, 23 hrs ago
link
Clearly, at this very moment, some people are too upset by this to be easily appeased by these words. But that is shortsighted. Time will prove them wrong.

This statement
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
is exactly why IB is the better platform. The will to make compromises and work with the community to find a solution. Yes, that needed a heated discussion here, but the fact we can have this heated discussion without being silenced with the banhammer - and be heard and make a difference - this is why IB rules.

This is a win for the community as a whole - INCLUDING mods and admins. Kudos!  You all did the right thing.
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
1 day, 22 hrs ago
link
Edited 1 day, 22 hrs ago by Owner
" Blackraven2 wrote:
The will to make compromises and work with the community to find a solution.

They have no such will. They're only backtracking now because they saw the hellfire unleashed on them for their decision. If they had any will to work with the community, they would have done so before enacting policy change.

GreenReaper has permanently damaged the integrity of the platform, spent goodwill that will never be regained, and driven artists away for good. No amount of backtracking and apologizing is going to change that such arbitrary targetted enforcement can and will happen again.
LITTLEFisky
LITTLEFisky
1 day, 22 hrs ago
link
Maybe nobody complained before. Just accepted their fate to be expelled from IB
BottleOfSake
BottleOfSake
1 day, 22 hrs ago
link
I certainly haven't seen such a broadly and overwhelmingly negative response to anything else here before.

It's scared them this time, but those who remain will forget, and it'll happen again. It always does.
Blackraven2
Blackraven2
1 day, 21 hrs ago
link
Sometimes hellfire has to be unleashed. People make mistakes. The big question is, can you unleash hellfire, and does that fix things?

Would it have been better if this all hadn't happened?  Sure. But Greenreaper has a point that things had been inconsistent. If everything "can" be just a screenshot, then there is definitely rework of the ACP needed, because obviously that's bullshit. This whole issue was an issue that had long been unaddressed. And let's face it there were indeed people who spammed their galleries with second life and other video-game screenshots.

If things go wrong, and they went, a public outcry is needed. Sometimes all hell needs to break lose. But I take very careful note how those in charge respond to that. And IMHO this was handled the right way. I have seen it handled wrong in too many communities and the damage made worse by admins doubling down on a wrong decision and swinging the banhammer against those who rightfully dissented. More than once.

You can also see that in national politics in some countries that shall not be named here.  It makes me sick.

No, a firestorm is sometimes required to burn down an issue. Fire can have a cleansing effect.

This went well so far. Not perfect, you try to avoid stuff like this happening in the first place, but considering how much worse this could have ended, I am happy.
Bachri
Bachri
1 day, 21 hrs ago
link
Be sorry all you want.

https://gyazo.com/ab784dc1684edfd21492e9c3e90f2a0e

I will never forget this. And I will never forgive this.

Keep my name out of your mouth.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
1 day, 3 hrs ago
link
The word "I" is important there because that is exactly what I did in Second Life, in the example I was referring to.
Inspector000
Inspector000
1 day, 17 hrs ago
link
If you have no idea of what 3D rendering works, take sculpturing as a reference.
Using a base model, is like sclpturing on a mannequin rather than a raw stone to save the time and effort. Or do you expect a sculptor must dig up and haul a raw rock directly from a quarry?
And there are times when a sculptor uses purchased mass-produced accessories and clothes to decorate their works further, or to set up the backgroud.
GreenReaper
GreenReaper
1 day, 2 hrs ago
link
Edited 1 day, 2 hrs ago by Owner
To be honest, I probably would expect a sculptor to get a big rock shipped to them, and then chisel away at it. Or use twisted wire, foil and ApoxySculpt (in-progress examples by the artist).

Of course, such sculptures are not normally animated - animatronics is considerably harder.
mewtwogamer
mewtwogamer
19 hrs, 16 mins ago
link
why are people suddenly attacking an admin?
Arikado
Arikado
15 hrs, 48 mins ago
link
Edited 15 hrs, 41 mins ago by Owner
It's a regular thing.
1: It usually starts with one of these:
-Mod does something too drastic. (We are here, Bachri's gallery got nuked and restored, but needed the Admin's intervention)
-User gets too political
-New rule in the TOS/APC
-User complains about a rule that has been active for a long time but is only now getting punished, because no one noticed until someone repoted. (could be here also, I don't know since when we had this rule)
2: User opens a ticket, in hopes it was a mistake, but gets rejected.
3: User posts a journal in hopes that it gets enough attention and most the times is very emotional within it.
4: Mods and Admin get tagged many times in the comments.
5: Admin explains, but the discussion is already very emotional and scrambled with different former topics.
6: Somehow Admin responds to a high number of different comments, but because there are so many from many different users, it's hard to explain everything in one post.
7: Admin explains that policies are not as easy to define as people think.
8: Users become more emotional, because they disagree and get even more emotional, because Admin stays calm.
9: Users are so heated that they see everything as a passive aggressive insult. (Okay, this one actually sounds like one from me, but please believe me, I don't mean it in a mean way)
Bonus: Users disagree with Admin's opinions on political stuff.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top ↑
Log in or create an account to comment.
 

Help

Information

Policy & Legal

Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

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.