Image policy clarifications

[rbarenblat]

There have been some questions lately about our image templates and about what constitutes an "explicit" image (see our previous post on Image Policy FAQ revisions.)

Just to be clear: use of the image template is not optional! If someone posts an image without the template, we will edit the image page to use the template (if it's brought to our attention.) Please feel free to let us know if you see such an image posted, and/or feel free to edit the page to include the template yourself.

We've answered the question "What kind of images can I expect to have warnings on Fanlore?" with the response "Images that are sexually explicit, depict rape or sexual assault, or depict people or characters who are underage engaging in sexual activity should have warnings on Fanlore." After some discussion, we've come to the conclusion that we define “explicit” as “sexual activity with visible genitalia.” (We borrowed that definition from the Archive of Our Own TOS.) We have edited the image policy to make that clear.

If you have concerns or questions, please don't hesitate to let us know!

Comments

[frogspace.livejournal.com]

I've said everything about it I wanted to say. For illustrations purposes, here is your image policy in action: http://fanlore.org/wiki/Camelotsolstice

- naked skin, naked breasts, no sexual activity (check) -> normal thumbnails
- tiny visible cock, hands on cock, sexual activity (check) -> needs to be minimized to 100px, even if it makes the image too small to see the furs, the clothes, the nightstand, the fireplace, the curtains, the characters' faces, etc.
- 100px icons of the wrong and right version of Merlin's cock, not sexually explicit because it's just body parts although it's the same cock that makes it necessary to minimize the full version of the image so that you can't see the fireplace and all the other details -> normal thumbnails

I call that hypocritical, inflexible and a nightmare for practical application.