well. Technically speaking, the photography is your work.


Jus' sayin'.


-shrugs-

Lovely cake though!

So does this mean that you can no longer upload ANY recipes anymore since they technically don't belong to you? I am now convinced that FA doesn't want people to be on this site anymore.

^this

 otaconxix asked a very valid question here, one that needs to be addressed by the admins

They'll never answer it.

true

As far as I'm aware, photography is completely legal as long as you don't claim what was taken as your own. I can take a picture of someone in a fursuit, does that mean that I can't upload it because I'm not the one in the fursuit or the fursuit is not mine? The admins are just being dicks now.

Not really. You still took the photos!
Photos of cars or bikes are allowed as well for example, and the photographer most certainly didn't build those.
Or my photos of animals. I didn't create those critters (since creation is bullshit ;D) and yet my photos are still allowed.

I am a gigantic AUP nazi. I report every violation that I see. And I didn't see anything wrong with your shots.

ANIMALS © GOD

GOD © HUMANITY (patent pending)

If you went by that logic, I could go to a convention and take pictures of someone else's artwork and post it...and that would be okay, because the photography is mine.

I understand why they would take it down, but this is a cooking group - and they are bake show pictures. There's a such thing as compassion and moderation in authority, something of which FA's admins do not have.

Oh that is a tough example. If you just take photos at the artist alley and the focus of the photo isn't on the art, then that is fine. But if you take a photo of an art piece there, like going to the Louvre and taking a photo of the Mona Lisa, and upload that, that should not be allowed.

Yeah but the way you (and the others here) describe it, it should be perfectly fine to take a picture of someone else's art and put it up.
I think they're trying to keep the focus of the place on people's art -and their own art- but they going about it clinically, and without compassion. They don't want it turning into that sewer called DA, full of art theft and clogged full of these blurry cell phone photos and images of garbage and stuff - but they're going about it wrong. Stuff like should be OK. 50 photos of someone's shoes should not be.

Where is that line drawn, regarding what is "theft by photograph", and what is a legitimate and legal photo of another's effort? For example, taking a close-up photo painting in an art gallery/auction, and displaying that on your FA page would be considered by most a clear violation of the "not by/for you" rule. In that instance, the photo isn't a composition in it's own right, it's simply using the camera as a more portable version of a scanner to "steal" someone else's image. But when you snap a shot of the auction, composing it to show the tension and energy of the bidders and also capturing the art being bid upon, you've entered another area. At least to wuff's opinion. Now the photo itself is artwork. It just happens to have other art within it. These are pretty easy examples to judge.

The definition gets a lot grayer when you're using the photo to document some other type of creation than a painting or sketch. What if you snap a statue? What about a lovely, restored classic car? How about a fully tricked out and modified street rod with it's neon glowing and chrome shining, or a custom chopper/cycle? This wuff loves to photo hot air balloons, and most of Vrghr's shots are of "custom color/shape" envelopes instead of the standard factory models. The street rod shows wuff attends, likewise are a source of great images and machines.

When those are on display in a public venue, there is no expected "right of privacy" there. And if (as is occasionally the case) there are no signs requesting "no photos" on a particular machine, there are no implied or expressed restrictions on snapping shots of it. But though these are 3D objects, they're as individual a creation as a painting or sketch, or a cake, or that sushi "flower" platter in Vrghr's FA gallery.

Is all of that prohibited by FA's TOS? Vrghr's seen beautiful images of all that, and more, here on FA pages. Aren't those custom cakes the same as a custom bike, car, or balloon? They were on exhibit; aren't they examples of art relevant to a cooking & baking group? Can't someone photo that as an artistic creation?

It seems a pretty "gray area" to have them reported and pulled down, the more so that they were in scraps. Wuff understands the desire to keep FA from becoming just a photo 'drop box', but those cakes were individually-produced art! Not someone's photo collection of a dozen shots of their Transformer's collection.

To quote Vinny Barbarino from the old Welcome Back Cotter; "I'm so confuzed!"

You make a really, really good point. Like I said, even if there is a rule somewhere that prohibits it (and FA can run their site with whatever rules they want, really) there's a such thing as compassion in authority - a sort of "bend the rules" rule in order to still be human. But hey, this is FA.

Soooo I shouldnt have been able to photograph the Anthrocon flag in Pittsburgh and put it up because I didnt make the flag. Or my smoking gas mask because I didnt make. it. I think thats kinda bullshit.

o - o I'm with everyone else. The photos were yours, and by that logic anyone who takes pictures of cons and just every day things shouldn't be bale to upload their pictures either.

No apologies necessary, they did the same thing to me before with me with my "Silly Things" series of photos of stupid merchandise and advertisements.

I'm sorry that happened to you; I don't think lesser of you for it. :)

You can put the photos up in your own gallery and fave them in the FACCC or do a link via journal to them. It's because the FACCC are a group that technically we wouldn't put the photos up as a submission. As Chrismukkah's owns and took the photos he can put them on his page without problems.

I've hit this one before. *hugs*

Way way way way way way way WAAAYYY back when this club first started it was nearly shut down because of something similar to this.

And just so you all know, I am the one who told him to take them down because I didn't want to see it resurface as an issue with the club again. The higher up admins are not responsible for it, I am. Please do not start complaining about the admins as I would hate to see anyone's account get banned etc because this journal turned into a bitch/hatefest of the admins.

Here are the specifications as to why they would potentially cause issues:

under the AUP, http://help.furaffinity.net/article.....olicy-AUP.html

On 3.7 "3.7 - Photography of artwork or photographs that you do not own or have express permission to photograph and display is prohibited."

Under the archived AUP- ( http://help.furaffinity.net/article.....olicy-AUP.html ) Food - Photos of food may only be uploaded if all elements of the culinary piece are created and prepared by the user. Photos of purchased or pre-prepared food (candy, sandwiches, drinks, etc.) are not permitted.

Because the cakes were not created specifically for the club, no credit is given to the specific cooks, and no permission to photograph and display the cakes was gained it can not be posted.

Recipes that are created by members specifically for the club are posted with the creator's permission.


Sorry if this is an issue for you guys, but I think you'd rather have the club stay active than have someone report all those photos and have it potentially get shut down.

That's if the ticket gets seen. TBH I have outstanding tickets from three years ago. Unless they skip the line and specifically go to an admin nothing will happen.
Just putting that out there.

Better to do things correctly than to just hope nothing happens as a result. I had a ticket just recently (someone posting my art without my permission or credit) and it got handled almost instantly. Furthermore, if I were one of the bakers who made these cakes and my work was posted without my knowledge (especially on a furry site when you consider the stigmas that go along with it) I wouldn't be happy.

What it boils down to, really, is having the respect for the cooks who actually produced them to not post their work without their consent.

First off, I am not intending at all to rouse any sort of drama or throw anyone under a bus. I only want to provide my two cents on a legal standpoint (source: I do have a lot of friends who are into business law, I am myself fairly well-educated and as part of my career, I am forced to deal with business lawyers on a daily basis, as well that I am planning on going to law school in the near future. I need to make sure that I am not a lawyer - yet - thus this is not intended on being legal counseling.)

In regards of photography, the person who takes the photograph is the person who would own the rights for the picture, as long as it is not in a direct violation of another law. It is legal for paparazzi to go around and take pictures of famous stars because there is no expectation of privacy if they are out of their homes or at their place of work such as their changing rooms (or anywhere else where people can imagine would be a place where privacy is expected). This in the fandom terms means that you can go and photograph all the fur-suiters that they want because they have no expectation of privacy being out of their house/hotel room, but cannot claim that the suit or characters is the person who owns the camera because the character is already protected by the Copyright laws under § 202.

The U.S. Copyright laws of 1976, revised on December 2011, Chapter 2 (Copyright and Ownership), Section 201 (Ownership of Rights), subsection C (Contribution of Collective works) reads:

"§ 201 © Contributions to Collective Works.—Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole, and vests initially in the author of the contribution. In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it, the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work, any revision of that collective work, and any later collective work in the same series." -- SOURCE: copyright.gov/title17/cir92.pdf

This in layman terms means that assuming that everybody who submitted their recipes took their own picture and not stole it from the internet, each photograph is in fact owned by each person who took it, and as FACC acting as the medium of these Collective Works, has implied power of posting these images on behalf of the original authors. Legally speaking, the policy's set by FA are wrong on this particular instance.

If IMVU is so concerned about the legal repercussions of having copyright infringements on this website (which is completely asinine due that by nature of this website, plagiarism and tracing rules with an iron fist), what could be done in all future recipe submissions - as part of FACC policy - there should be an explicit statement that the person submitting the recipe took the pictures of their own food and that they are legally passing the rights of posting and reproduction to FACC. This way, the legal responsibilities will be designated to the FACC member whom submitted the recipe (and honestly, you shouldn't be cheating on how your end product results by stealing a better looking picture from a website!) for the picture being legally taken, and IMVU cannot say that FACC doesn't have the rights to post it because you have a written statement (under § 201 (d) of Copyright Law)!

I hope that this helped even a little bit and good luck with this matter!

From Chris: I've noted you, and hope you get :3

Uhh...wow. Heavy. I'm not gonna lie, you went a little overboard, but damn. Mic drop. Game over.
You really can't argue with that!

Hahaha - thank you ^^;

Only think I have going on with me is impeccable level of detail to what I do and actually liking boring laws! Researching them is always fun - trying to think all the bickering that happened in order to have congress agree with a law is interesting enough to see what they agreed upon (the actual law)!

No apologies needed, Chris. Wuff thinks that these were works of art too, just like those wonderfully creative sushi platters in Vrghr's own FA gallery. And this wuff also believes they were appropriate for a group focused on the artful techniques, preparation, and presentation of food as a culinary art form. Putting them in the "scraps" section should have been sufficient to keep them away from the risk of being moderated.

Vrghr personally believes someone was over-reaching themselves in having them removed this time, especially considering the "photos of my ??? collection" of commercially mass-produced objects that remain up.

From Chris:

I certainly want to do a follow-up, but more than that, I want to get clarification regarding OTACONXIX's question :3

Because there are quite a few recipes on here (my own included) that were from other chefs, be it internet, cookbook, etc.!

Wuff has heard a LOT of discussion regarding recipes on other forums, particularly prevalent on the Yahoo Pressure Cooker group and Rice Cooker group. Folks are always posting their version of PC and Rice Cooker recipes that they find elsewhere, and invariably, about twice a year, someone new to the group raises an objection about copying other sources.

The Bottom Line: Recipes are NOT subject to copyright in the same way that novels and other written works are. Why? Because you can not copyright a list of materials as a concept. You can copyright the photo as an individual artwork (photography is art), but you can not copyright the number and portions of the materials used to make the dish, nor can you copyright the technique in which they are put together.

You COULD copyright the words, if you right the recipe as a blog article, talking about the background, source history, and humorous anecdotes of trying to make it. That's a story. But the CONCEPTS of technique and material are not in themselves subject to the copyright.

So, with MANY copyright lawyers and other legal and semi-legal pro's in those groups weighing in, the TL;DR version is this:

You can use the list of ingredients and describe the techniques in your own words, and there is no copyright infraction, but it is polite to reference the source if you know it, as a matter of courtesy. You have to use you own photos; can't cut and paste those. And if there is a story associated with the recipe, the story is the property of the one who wrote it.

Hope this is helpful in clarifying the limits of taking inspiration from other recipes you find.