About the adverts on the FBW Gallery...

[Saya]

I hate to sound like I am being needlessly whiny here, but this has bothered me for a bit.

I'm opposed to us putting the images of the internet adverts that say something like "the future is here" or some bollocks like that. In addition to primarily being the same sort of idiotic scam ad as that "One Weird Trick" stuff, what really burns me about them is that they rather shamelessly rip art. I can't imagine they do it by asking the artists. I recognized a bunch from a series of illustrations on Deviant Art called the "Amalgamate" series, for one.

So, for the sake of not advertising scams and rewarding plagiarism, could we remove these images?

[FaceoffFembot]

I gather you're talking about this image?

Yeah, I agree.No stoning or anything, but that kind of find would be more in its place on the forum, especially since it's a shameless steal from a body artist and is more cyborg than fembot-related.

Also, yeah, it's been bugging me for a while: if art is uploaded from DA or similar sites, could the artist and the original page be linked?

[darkbutflashy]

I see two different problems.

First is to locate the legitimate source. Most times it is totally unclear whether a find is from a legitimate source or a repost. Pics from DA, pixiv etc. are the exception on the wiki, the most pics are from tumblrs, pinits and so on.

Second is the sheer amount of pictures already on the wiki: 34,000. I don't think it's possible to apply any new policy to that heap.

This shouldn't hold anyone back to get a wiki account and add the source information whereever she/he knows it and feels it is important. And to categorize by artist in the same moment.

[Saya]

I hate to sound like I am being needlessly whiny here, but this has bothered me for a bit.

I'm opposed to us putting the images of the internet adverts that say something like "the future is here" or some bollocks like that. In addition to primarily being the same sort of idiotic scam ad as that "One Weird Trick" stuff, what really burns me about them is that they rather shamelessly rip art. I can't imagine they do it by asking the artists. I recognized a bunch from a series of illustrations on Deviant Art called the "Amalgamate" series, for one.

So, for the sake of not advertising scams and rewarding plagiarism, could we remove these images?

I have to say, I don't quite know what you're talking about. There is no advertising on FembotWiki. If you see ads on FembotWiki, you might be the victim of ad injection by your ISP, which isn't something that I can control. If this isn't what you're talking about, then can you give some links to provide specific examples?

And as for artist attribution, with DeviantArt images, the artist name and image title are in the file name. The other images I upload I find with Google Image Search, and attribution is usually impossible because the images are removed from their original context.

Yeah, sorry for the confusion there. What I meant is that some people have been posting screenshots of internet advertisements that featured fembot content. The one that was linked by FaceoffFembot is what I am referring to, but in the interests of time, this is what I am referring to.

Putting aside the fact that these advertisements are often utilized for scams that often border on fantasies born of an acute case of paranoid schizophrenia, they plagiarize art from other sites. As I said in my first post, I recognized several from DeviantArt. While I can appreciate any attempt at cataloging fembot content, I find putting these adverts onto our gallery, in a manner of speaking, promotes said plagiarism. While it would be nice to see them removed, and while I would like to even moreso find the original piece to put on the gallery, I mostly wanted to call attention to the plagiarism and see if we can somehow keep them from being put on the wiki. I suppose I am asking a lot, but I really find the flagrant plagiarism to be distasteful. And, to state it for the record, as it were, I in no way find the poster of the image to be at fault. My issue lies strictly with the advertisement.

[RoxxyRobofox]

I agree with Saya. I feel that These ads are really especially exploitative and that they're most likely stealing art without consent of the creators is wrong. For similar reasons that we don't allow links to free downloads of the content put out by the people making videos at clups4sale, I don't feel that we should be condoning these ads by having them on the wiki.

[Saya]

For the record, I have no issue with displaying content tied to advertisements. So long as that content is original and does not steal the work of others, content notwithstanding. I would have been fine with the posting of even one of those ridiculous scam adverts, so long as the artwork it used was of the advertiser's own creation. My issue is with plagiarism, not advertisement.

The rest of your post, however, was quite enlightening. I realized that removing or blocking a certain type of image from the gallery would have been impossible with darkbutflashy's informative post, but while I figured others could crop the images, I had no idea that there were web-based programs that allowed you to ID the source, though I can't say I am surprised. Regardless, with the image removed, I consider the matter resolved.

Oh, and yeah, the Kia 'bots actually made me watch television again, however briefly.

[darkbutflashy]

There are a few issues here to address, so first of all, this image is originally from a cyborg-themed art show if I remember correctly, so it doesn't belong on FembotWiki anyway. I've deleted it.

I hope this isn't turning into a general policy. Usually one cannot say whether an image depicts a fembot or a female cyborg but even if this is possible for a particular image, should we really throw out pics of Motoko Kusanagi just because she technically isn't a fembot? This applies to many many pics of mecha musume which I find very on-topic here and on FW, too.

Disallowing advertisements as a source of ASFR art for FembotWiki would cut us off from some really unique and memorable art, so it's just not going to happen.

Totally agree.

[darkbutflashy]

So long as that content is original and does not steal the work of others, content notwithstanding. [...] My issue is with plagiarism, not advertisement.

Following this idea, we'd have to throw out all the manips not attributed to the original photographer. In short, all. I don't think this can be intended. The only policy we could apply without destroying the idea of having a central place for fembot content is fair use, so attributing photographers and artists whereever possible and delete on request for all the other cases.

[darkbutflashy]

Saya, but also to all others who concern:

We have models, film makers, phonesex operators, artists etc. as members of the community (or their minions, doesn't matter) and I think they won't be here if this wasn't a good place to advertize their products and services. And it is a good place because of all the stuff the non-professional members produce, regardless how filthy and questionable it is. This is only possible because Kishin and the R-Man are willing to clean up the mess when something went wrong.

If you are objecting a particular image because it's yourself depicted there (or a dear friend of yours, a model you are taking photos with etc.) or because you are the photographer of the original pic, or the artist of an image, whatever, just PM or email the R-Man, as he said, and that thing is deleted. That's the general policy I think because it's the only policy he could apply instead of shutting things down completely.

So if you're objecting someone takes a free ride to actually sell his stuff with your own work, your own image, just say so and he's out.

[darkbutflashy]

FembotWiki has always been operated like this, and the reason why Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell is allowed is because (from what I understand) there is some doubt as to whether or not she even has any "human" left in her. Other than that, I've been deleting cyborg images since 2008.

I can live with a reasonable interpretation of rules. I see pics of people (and stories about people) with artificial limbs as off-topic, too. But for near full-body prothesises I see the border touched, and that's the most interesting area I think. It would be a pity if we can't have pictures and stories on the wiki which play at that border just because "it's not a fembot".

[Saya]

So long as that content is original and does not steal the work of others, content notwithstanding. [...] My issue is with plagiarism, not advertisement.

Following this idea, we'd have to throw out all the manips not attributed to the original photographer. In short, all. I don't think this can be intended. The only policy we could apply without destroying the idea of having a central place for fembot content is fair use, so attributing photographers and artists whereever possible and delete on request for all the other cases.

Yes, but there's a difference between modifying a picture solely for the benefit of entertainment purposes without intention of making a profit or utilizing said pictures to make a profit and using someone else's artwork or image without permission for the purposes of advertising a product to make money. The use of the image as a means to make money without including the creator in the share of the profits is what I find reprehensible, not the modification or use of that image for something that isn't making anyone any money. Insofar as I understand, Fembot Central and the Fembot Wiki aren't making these to sell you a product or to make money.

Insofar as the issue of cyborgs goes, it seems to me to be a bit short-sighted. Namely, the going by the definition of cyborg, transformation works would have to be considered banned as well, and that makes up a significant chunk of our fanbase.

[darkbutflashy]

Yes, but there's a difference between modifying a picture solely for the benefit of entertainment purposes without intention of making a profit or utilizing said pictures to make a profit and using someone else's artwork or image without permission for the purposes of advertising a product to make money.

I see what you're intending but the term plagiarism addresses missing attribution only, not saying anything about making profit. If you are concerned about people making profit with the work of others, just write that and we all know what you mean. If you write plagiarism, we think you talk about missing attribution, which is something we can hardly fix. All the people creating manips and not giving credit to the original photographer are plagiators. I do not judge them because it's for fun only but it would be nice if we had more properly attributed pics on the wiki.

Insofar as the issue of cyborgs goes, it seems to me to be a bit short-sighted. Namely, the going by the definition of cyborg, transformation works would have to be considered banned as well, and that makes up a significant chunk of our fanbase.

If I had understood Robotman right, he would rather keep a work than delete it when there's a dispute whether it is on-topic or not.