 |
New rules for new and existing 3D rendered contentby
 |
|
|
soggymaster |
| Viewed: | 5,181 times |
| Added: | 4 months, 4 weeks ago |
| Site News Item: | yes |
|
|
soggymaster |
| " |
This is mainly so we stop zapping perfectly good furry art that just happened to have a human dude standing in the BG or something. We also wanted people to be able to post artwork that isn't a drawing (fursuits, sculptures etc), so that's the only reason for the photos. As the rules say, it's not allowed to be just random photography. |
| " | When displaying models that are not primarily your own creation, please limit submissions containing the same rendered scene to no more than six files, which should be published within a single submission (using "Add another file/page", "Edit Files/Thumbs", or a single submission, multi-file bulk upload). A submission featuring static images should depict no more than three angles of the same or substantially similar scene. |
| " | DanielBunny wrote: |
| Good to see that 3D artists will get a bit more breathing room on modified purchased or permitted models. |
| " | The main takeaway from this announcement is that you'll be enforcing the policy. You (collectively) were by your own admission doing a poor job enforcing it. From our perspective you aren't "allowing more" because the policy may as well not have existed. |
| " | A funny quirk of this revised policy (and the original for that matter) is that a modeler would be permitted to upload renders and animations that use their models, without attributing the animators. |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| The announcement allows that we may choose to expand 3D content at some point in the future as well. Specifically I'm interested in seeing expanded rules around actual animated works, as opposed to still captures. But I believe that what we had should be updated, and we could work with concerned users on additional cases as they arose. It was becoming increasingly difficult to discuss where we would set limits, because most 3D users are providing almost no information about what they're doing. The new policy requirements will help inform future changes. |
| " | What is left that could affect animated submissions? |
| " | When you say "still captures" do you mean renders are still being considered "screenshots"? |
| " |
Earlier you suggested that animations be judged on their individual quality. I ask that you consider how that approach could be applied to stills, even if the minimum bar of quality is significantly higher. |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| The desire is to avoid low effort things like someone posing and animating a basic loop of two third party models thrusting at each other, while still allowing people to submit actual quality animations. I want to see people actual animate things. I don't want to see two KabalMystic models grinding on each other from ten different angles. |
| " |
... you must have permission from the copyright owners to post their art or characters. "Fan art" of commercial copyright characters is allowed... |
| " | Will only artwork accompanied by the original owner's permission or models created entirely by the poster be permissible? |
| " | will there be equal treatment for all—meaning the same rules will apply uniformly, not selectively to certain individuals? |
| " | Does this policy extend to models of copyrighted characters that an individual has merely edited rather than created entirely? |
| " |
By the sheer number of posts removed, it looks like you automated the process. I don't know if you notified users to adjust their content before removing/hiding large portions of their galleries. Are posts recoverable in case some are not effected by those rules? Or do they have to get reuploaded? |
| " |
Since there are creators that specialize animation (I mean those that take days for just one video, not five frame loops) rather than creating models, those will be hit by those rules the most. I watch some animators that use SFM and prebuild models from other creators. Of course they change the model in size, color, hair and tail (which in turn are also changed in size and color) , but it seems that it was not enough. Maybe they also didn't credited the original creators? I don't know, as the posts are no longer visible. |
| " | Please correct me if I misunderstood anything. |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| All SFM/Blender content was considered Screenshots |
| " | Surely this is a goof. A screenshot is is a capture of the contents of the display. A render is the output of a 3D application, which can be separate from the display output. Is this what caused some of the previous backlash? |
| " | Making the models unique by changing the texture of every model |
| " | Maybe they also didn't credited the original creators? |
| " | In general, derivative works posted to Inkbunny require both permission – which for reusable components may be implied by purchase – and credit, regardless of purchase. Providing credit also furthers the creative ecosystem. |
| " | 3D renders are therefore only permitted where they depict at least one unique or materially customised 3D model that is either your own creation, or created specifically for you, constituting a focal point of the work - regardless of any payments made or permission to use the models concerned. |
| " | Could this imply that in special cases there CAN be made an exception? |
| " | 3D renders are therefore only permitted where they depict at least one unique or materially customised 3D model that is either your own creation, or created specifically for you, constituting a focal point of the work - regardless of any payments made or permission to use the models concerned. |
| " | In general, derivative works posted to Inkbunny require both permission – which for reusable components may be implied by purchase |
| " | meshes not made by you must have been commissioned exclusively for you; |
| " | If you plan on actually enforcing this and reducing confusion you might want to spell it out: the only meshes not made by you must have been commissioned; purchased models cannot be used under any circumstances. |
| " |
Posting submissions that contain portions of other artists' work (such as using them for backgrounds or other components) is allowed only if you have received their permission to do so. The works you create using portions of other artists' work must be sufficiently unique to be considered a new creation. Posting re-colours or shading of other artists' work is allowed if they have given permission directly to you, and when it is clear you put in significant effort to change or enhance that work. Simply adjusting hue and colour balance values, or other superficial changes are not sufficient. |
| " | Arkham wrote: |
| Commissions are not purchases. They are fees for the performed work. |
| " | A large amount of our current workload centers around the moderation of AI generated works. A technical background and at least cursory knowledge of AI work will be helpful in moving forward. |
| " | With regards to 3D works, this is talking about directly using something someone else made, and then acting like it's a problem when we want you to ensure you credit that person? |
| " | That doesn't really seem fair to anyone though. It comes off as if you were saying "We aren't giving the same scrutiny to AI Generators because it would be impossible for them to do, so we're just going to allow them". By that scaling, if an AI generator can't cite all the images used in training, it shouldn't be allowed here at all. |
| " |
3D renders are therefore only permitted where they depict at least one unique or materially customised 3D model that is either your own creation, or created specifically for you, constituting a focal point of the work - regardless of any payments made or permission to use the models concerned. "Unique or materially customised" creations cannot merely be accessorized or pre-configured shapes of standard avatars, models, templates, etc that come with the rendering software or that you acquired from other creators. |
| " | Also, site devs really should have folks pinged by big changes like this in notifications |
| " | I'm curious how the Uniqueness rule is less restrictive than previous rules as it is a sort of rule I have never heard of. The issue here overall is two-fold |
| " | First off, the uniqueness rule both saying you need that uniqueness to post at all means no solely fanwork content of 3d rendering. This does seem overly burdonsome |
| " | Secondly the attribution, which on it's own isn't bad but again, comparing it to AI restrictions on this site, it seems unfair to not ask such attribution from AI Generators simply because they can't and "The model is enough". It just doesn't seem fair overall |
| " | Maybe you'll have to give me an example, but I don't really see it that way? |
| " | I don't see a value in a user here providing a full list of all of the works that went into training a model here on Inkbunny. You can probably find that information elsewhere, where the model can be acquired. By contrast, we cannot just know what models are used in a 3D render without the user telling us. We need at least this level of information. |
| " |
The first thing to come to mind is Sonic fandom creators. You want to make just some renders with Sonic characters? If you don't have an OC who's model you created or had created for you, they are not able to post here at all. Doesn't matter the work they put into making the render or the render set. Doesn't matter if you cite the model creators, you are gone. Same for any fandom work. This is even worse for the fandom as the foggyness of what is "Unique" kinda messes with things in how Sonic characters and OC's are designed |
| " | It's the same value as requiring a 3d renderer to show who's models they are using. Creators are cited and can be made aware if their work is used, with or without their permission. This has long been the issue for allowing AI Generation anywhere |
| " |
This is intentional. In fact, like specifically we do not want to see KabalMystic's Sonic over and over again posed slightly differently or with the size sliders changed for the dick size. I'm open to more allowances when it comes to actual animated works, but we didn't want screenshots of people's purchased SecondLife models in 2010, and we don't want renders of free KM models in 2025. Now, it's not really true that you're entirely disallowed using those models in works on Inkbunny, as long as the work you create contains at least one model that is unique or created by/for you. So your OC model fucking KM Sonic is fine, and drastically more interesting/unique than the millionth render of KM Sonic standing by himself with his dick out. |
|
TwinTails3D |
|
inmersion |
|
Sarahdellen |
| " | Also, fun fact, at least in my experience, folks don't check the front page all that much. And site emails tend to end up in the junk mail. A big change like this should really end up in the site notifications along with stuff like replies |
| " |
You're coming off as rather condescending on this. I'm not saying everyone should be happy, the problem is the rules as they have been made seem unfair and untenable. |
| " | And as far as "The line was much further", that doesn't really fit either. Treating image rendering as screenshots just seems foolish from the start, which further makes this change worse and more sudden. Hell, by those old rules, AI generated images shouldn't have been allowed either because, in the end, they would as much be "modifications of standard avatars, models, templates, etc that come with the software or that you purchased from other creators" |
| " | You can say the previous rules were more strict and people just weren't abiding by them, and thus you weren't enforcing them, but those rules don't make sense in this application to begin with. Again, as I mentioned before, there seems to be some level of bias coming through all of this |
| " | Inevitably the people that operate a site need to decide what content is allowed on it. Sometimes those decisions are based on legality (such as our stance on humans) and sometimes it's driven by what we want to see or not see (such as with Photography). We're not a democracy. The only site I'm aware of that ever tried that pretty much voted itself out of existence pretty quickly. |
| " | I suppose, if nothing else, that does confirm there is personal bias in the decision, but I do feel that's something that probably should be stated if only for clarity. If you don't want content on here, say it as such and if it comes down to a difference of opinion between mods (As you state it being on AI content), maybe be clear on that as well, but the fact is while you can't be completely democratic on this you also can't simply expect people not to call the bullplop on a choice like this when they see it. |
| " | Overall this is, to me, a terrible choice and the "Uniqueness" rule is overburdensome to the point you might as well have just cut 3d rendered content from the site as a whole. |
| " | And again, no, saying "The previous rules were stricter" doe not hold water in this argument if the rules were not being enforced properly and did not seem to be, in their wording, against 3d Rendered content. |
| " | I don't really know that our individual opinions are all that important, but I think it should be stressed that I see this more as a starting point than anything else. It's easier to loosen things up than it is to tighten things down when it comes to content, and from our point of view, that's what this is. Improving the language and adding allowances. People you follow may not fall into the content that was allowed, but some stuff is allowed that was not before. |
| " | I think in general most of the people you see being vocal about this are the ones you would expect. People impacted by the policy. They would have been impacted before, but they still are. But there are creators who have content that would not have been allowed, which now explicitly is. |
| " | I think the people we did craft the changes and allowances around would probably be upset about that. We think we've got workable rules here. |
| " | The wording definitely sucked before, but that's how we've effectively been policing the content since 2010. We've had people rise up and complain about the end of 3D rendered content on Inkbunny at least four times to my recollection. The difference now is that we've updated the policy to be clear to the end users as well, and that we're open to discussion of what should be allowed in the future as well. |
| " | No, you can't just say "Things are better now" when even you say the wording sucked before. That previous wording being applicable to 3D Rendering is bubkus. And loosening a noose doesn't help when you've already killed a part of the userbase, even if you consider it small. |
| " | These don't seem to be allowances around anyone save for maybe whatever chosen few you say you consulted with. Overall this just doesn't sit right |
| " | Except discussion usually precludes changes. This just seems like it's primed to drive out anyone who would want to discuss it before you actually discuss it. Again, this is terrible implementation and timing. And saying NOW that you will be open to discussion just makes it seem like you're setting the people actively effected by this to seem like the problem. |
| " | Okay, I understand, you don't believe that the Screenshots section as written, should have applied to 3D renders. But the reality is that it did for fifteen years, and that's how it's moderated. We have not kept up on it, in terms of being timely, but that has been the policy, and that's how it's been applied. |
| " | If we simply re-wrote the section to be exactly as policy was being applied historically, it would have effectively cut 3D works down to just models created directly by people. That was the intent when the site was made. You can dislike it, but that's what the policy was, and how it was applied. |
| " | People that take purchased or free to use models and customize them and then create works are now allowed to do so under the policy. That's a smaller subset of users than those that just grab KM models and throw them into things, but that's the stuff that we wanted to protect when we wrote the changes. Also people can use unmodified free to use or purchased models so long as they're used in conjunction with at least one model that they have made modification to. That's a significant allowance compared to how policy was applied before. |
| " | Some of the points that people have raised here have already been brought up for discussion, though honestly most of the discourse here isn't really about how to make things work but rather just people complaining. I don't think of any of the creators as a problem, but we do draw lines about what is allowed and not allowed on Inkbunny. We had a line. It was not clear. We took the line, defined it better, and then moved it back a ways to allow for more content. People can talk with us about what more they want. But just because they existed here, does not mean they were allowed. It means we had not gotten around to moderating them. There are no 'squatters rights' on websites. Just because something persists for a long time doesn't mean it's acceptable. |
| " |
Except it didn't, and that's now how it was. Even you said it wasn't properly enforced, thus that isn't how it was moderated. And- |
| " | That is what you have done. And it's a terrible decision |
| " |
Except they aren't, seemingly. You say you can't discuss such things in public but a number of creators who have done so have had their content taken down. AND AGAIN, even you say it wasn't applied before because it couldn't be properly |
| " | It was not being applied timely before because we did not have enough staff to apply it, not because of any deficiency in the policy. We just didn't have enough people to keep up with enforcement. When we caught up (in April), and 3D users started seeing enforcement, we paused it again to rework the rules so that they were more clear, and with the allowances described above. It was pretty easy to apply the old policy. If you didn't make the model, it wasn't acceptable. |
| " | Unless I am missing something, and I am and have been looking at the previous versions of the rules, this is not true. The previous rules did not have anything for 3D rendering. As discussed, it was simply (And, again, IMO, wrongly) applying the rules for screenshots. |
| " |
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. |
| " | By those rules, it wouldn't matter if they made the model or not, it was not allowed. Hell, by those rules, it wouldn't allow anything that wasn't hand drawn and scanned and even then it's iffy. Applying that beyond anything that people would just conventionally describe as screenshots is utter bullplop. |
| " | It was not clear policy to the users, but it's been clear to the staff, and we've enforced it as such since. |
| " | A big change like this should really end up in the site notifications along with stuff like replies |
| " | The other obvious thing is a header but we've been trying to keep that for technical matters and the very-occasional donation drives rather than as a replacement for site news. |
| " | We aren't giving the same scrutiny to AI Generators because it would be impossible for them to do, so we're just going to allow them |
| " | The thing is, for most topics, it's not that helpful because the output is in most cases not derived in any meaningful way from one work or artist, but 'hints' from the way tens or hundreds of thousands of 2D works are rendered, combined to determine "this is how you see X in a cloud [of Gaussian noise]". |
| " | Its not stealing when you are making statistics out of hundreds of pictures of where an apple stem is. |
| " | You reversed your restriction on AI content because it "drove away members". |
| " | This wasn't properly thought through. It was a hasty decision that is doing far more harm than good. |
| " | "Some portion of 3D works would not be acceptable" So you just made sure none but a VERY SPECIFIC part would be allowed. People aren't allowed to post 3D artwork unless they either specifically made or commissioned every model used (and have to somehow prove it because I doubt you'll just believe them if they said they made the models), but AI-content uploaders just have to share what prompts they used without having to worry about what was taken to make said AI image. While one takes effort and gets extreme restrictions, the other is straight-up laziness and merely gets a slap on the wrist. |
| " | You've been discussing it for almost half a year, but was it with the wider community, or only with the people maintaining the site itself? This is sounding deliberately vague. If you only talked among moderators, then the community itself is not included and the decision was not made fairly. |
| " | Did any of the 3D content uploaders receive any warning beforehand regarding their content? Were they given enough time to back-up their content? Don't give me an overly long response that doesn't actually answer, just a simple "yes, they were warned and given time to prepare" or "no, we did not give prior warning before removing their content" |
| " | Member retention was not the focus when we published our AI policy, otherwise we might have banned it outright rather than restrict it (note: not allow, it was allowed by default, as if nothing else generated work has its own copyright here in the UK; perhaps "continue to permit some" would have been better wording). As here, we were trying to do what we thought was the right thing, based in part on our rather laissez-faire approach to content, but also the desire to tame the most obnoxious aspects, such as making money off of it. Something you can still do with 3D, as long as it otherwise complies with the policy |
| " | Member retention was not the focus when we published our AI policy |
| " | AI being against the wishes of many people is one of the reasons we have the restrictions in the first place. "People leaving en-mass because they feel their work is used unfairly and the site owners don't care" is a risk, too. We've tried to find a middle ground we can tolerate, but like most compromises it won't satisfy everyone. |
|
Kadm |
| " | We made it site news. It sends everyone an email, and it's listed on the front page. I think that's relatively visible? |
| " | officially allow more 3D rendered content |
| " | Providing credit also furthers the creative ecosystem. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| We literally put the old rule in this journal, and how it was interpreted (i.e. technically not actually allowing anything rendered unless you modelled it all yourself). |
| " |
There was nothing at all before. There were no restrictions on 3D renders in the ACP prior to Nov. 24. Here's the archived ACP and a correct interpretation for reference- be sure to "ctrl+f" the terms '3D' and 'render' in the ACP and note that both terms have zero hits: https://wiki.inkbunny.net/w/index.php?title=ACP&old... https://inkbunny.net/j/580056#commentid_2884820 |
| " |
Segments from old ACP, re: "Screenshots:"
"Screenshot" is the subject. "Screenshot" is the point of reference. Not "games or other software." Not "standard avatars, models, templates." At no point is any medium outside of specifically screenshots mentioned, even in allusion. It doesn't matter what program it's from. It only matters whether or not it is a screenshot. And 3D renders are not. That is an objective fact. |
|
Tahlian |
| " | We are considering allowing model creators to contact us directly to validate a model, but due to the potential for abuse, we will not permit completely anonymous models. As for bias against model creators, our requirements are fairly straightforward. One could likely see the restriction against ripped assets being biased against those users that choose to use them, but they never would've been permitted regardless. |
| " | Tahlian wrote: | |
So if I were to have models made by someone who later on left the internet or isn't alive anymore prevents me from ever using this model again? That's a bit flawed. |
| " |
|
| " | attributed to its author or source, ideally with a link, along with a brief description of any work done to customise it. |
| " | That is, you could not officially post a 3D rendered model unless the model itself was created by you; disregarding posing, lighting, textures, animation, etc |
|
Codelizard |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
|
I think a big problem with any sort of subjective quality standard for 3d artwork is in the fact that there are no staff members who really participate in it very heavily. A few of us have done texture work for models, and various Unity and Blender work, but nothing in the vein of animating a scene. And it was something I actively looked for when we recruited last year, but not a single person that volunteered brought significant experience in the area to the table. |
| " | Did you ask any 3d animators for opinions on the rule prior to Implementing it? |
| " | especially when referring to long-form multi-scene animations |
| " | Animations can take months of time to make from planning to making the animation can be genuinely a difficult process. But under The current rules "That work is not worth anything at all, It doesn't make the post unique." |
| " | Also having a texture artist on the mod team seemingly explains the exemptions for texturing. |
|
|
TwinTails3D |
| " |
As I mentioned elsewhere, I am extremely interested in eventually allowing this, provided rules can be crafted in a reasonable way. The problem we ran into was that we were trying to do too much at once, and with too little information to go on. Because the majority of 3d users on Inkbunny provided absolutely no documentation for what they were doing or what they were using, it was difficult to build rules that prevented things we didn't want while allowing more significant animated works. |
| " |
It is a modification that is easily visible to someone without any expertise, and it falls into our existing Derivative Works standard. Was the work done enough to warrant something being a submission on it's own is the question. We can easily look and see if someone just color filled something, or if they actually spent time making a new texture. We cannot easily see a lot of the things that
|
| " | I was not aware of the mod drive when it happened.That sucks |
| " | What documentation did you want to see? |
| " | Also i hope The rules can change since it was brought up that the Issue wasn't Up for debate that much. |
| " | i hope that actually changing the rules is possible, I would be more than happy to talk about the field of 3d animation and what goes into it. :D |
| " | Kadm wrote: | |
No, but |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| We did ask a small subset of users about this before we implemented them. And I've continued to add people to discuss since we implemented them to expand what is allowed. |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| You have clearly seen that the old policy did not allow for 3D at all, essentially, unless you directly created the models |
| " | Codelizard wrote: |
| "3D renders are therefore only permitted where they depict at least one unique or materially customised 3D model that is either your own creation, or created specifically for you". |
| " | Necromuncher wrote: |
| please consider this: modeling / sculpting isn't the only skill that can be learned when working in 3D that requires time to learn. big game and animation studios have people who specialize in tasks like modeling and rigging, texturing and UV mapping, animation and composition. these are all different jobs >_> |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| The thing to understand is that the goal is not to say "you must have put some work in" but to get a result which is visually unique too. |
| " | I can draw a base outline for a character, color it in a bunch of different ways, and post all of those separately. |
| " | GreenReaper wrote: |
| one goal was avoiding everyone posting photos of the same, popular model |
| " | Or, if people don't want to see it (cub, political views, other things we allow that other places don't), they'll just stop coming to this site. |
| " | And some of those people are long-time contributing artists and monetary supporters of Inkbunny. Y'know, the people who actually put "asses in the seats" so to speak. |
| " | Kadm wrote: |
| We did not have enough information or feedback to build that into this revision of the rules |
|
|
soggymaster |
| " | SinShadowFox wrote: |
| Need i remind you that your first comment out of the gate was an attack on my character? |
| " | Btw, there is no Jonestown in this comment section, who are you referring to? |
| " | Arkham wrote: |
| It was a mild criticism in the form of a humorous ribbing. Why do you think I called you buddy? |
| " | Arkham wrote: |
| Lay off the kool-aid, buddy. |
| " | Using models from purely anonymous contributors whether they were paid to make it (the model or the edit to the model) or what have you. What are you going to do if someone approaches you after you made this rule and says they made all the edits or models? |
| " | using models for things the original creators may not approve of if asked directly even if the creator freely posted |
| " | What if the model maker is dead and there names obviously not on the model itself nor is any documentation of the model even existing out there if its a custom one. |
| " | What would you do if someone's "kitbashed" a character together with parts |
| " | Lets say you have a model that you got from a friend years ago. |
| " | The work you upload must be created by you, or for you. If you did not create the artwork and it was created for you then you must indicate in the Description who created it, unless they request otherwise. |
