I'm uploading some Monster Girl Quest CG since e621 doesn't have most of them, and several of the images were deleted because they were considered "screencaps". They were exactly like the rest of the CG, the game and artwork is in 800x600 and anything higher is an upscale. They don't have artifacts, either.

There are still several MGQ images with the same properties. Is it not okay to post game CG?

Examples:
https://e621.net/post/show/164903
https://e621.net/post/show/205598
https://e621.net/post/show/205177

I think there's a bit of background knowledge that is needed (basically, about how primitive the system MGQ runs on is) to understand that these are not screenshots (ie. it's just a single image, not two things [game locale bg, CG] that are being composited together by the game engine.)

Providing that no interface elements were present, I think you have a very solid case for getting those undeleted.

Those images were uploaded before the new rule against screencaps, and therefore were "Grandfathered in." Our rules aren't retroactive unless it pertains to a state law affecting the server itself. Nowadays, new uploads that are screencaps are only allowed if they're updates of old images.

^ The point is that they are not screencaps at all; the deletion reason is simply incorrect.

savageorange said:
^ The point is that they are not screencaps at all.

Look like screenshots to me.

Uh yeah. I know they look like they could be screenshots.

But, you're wrong; they're not screenshots. They are single images that are displayed ingame.

Like I said, some background knowledge is required
(I'd never considered that screencap tag -- or its absence -- was at all TWYK until I saw this thread)

Irrelevant. They're ripped directly from the game, therefore not allowed.

.. Then that should really be in the wiki ('uploading guidelines' and/or 'screencap' tag doc), because who the fuck would connect 'screencap' with that?

(it also implies things can retroactively become rips. but I suppose that won't come up often enough to be a problem)

As far as I'm concerned that's a definite difference between screencaps and art made for the purpose of being in a game. Just because it's a still that's displayed in a game doesn't mean that it's a screencap.

It's literally art from a game, it's no different than the tons of "The Breeding Game" art assets being uploaded here as stills, at least if I'm understanding savage and OP correctly that's what it seems like.

Just because one is a more traditional still while the other is an alpha-keyed flash image doesn't mean it's any different.

Furthermore, if the images used as examples are like the images deleted then I don't see how anyone could mistake them for a screen cap without going into tag what you know territory, which we don't here. The examples just look like standard smut images.

Frankly if I hadn't been told so I'd never guessed they were even from a game. Either way you look at this, knowing it's from a game or not, these really aren't screen caps unless you want to start tagging all stills/gifs from all games as such.

There's no room for double standards here, and by saying similar things can be posted but this can't that's exactly what you're doing, upholding double standards.

Now I'm not sure if the breeding game stuff is still up or not, but I do know that even if it isn't it wasn't removed for the same reason this stuff was, and that is what actually matters.

The problem with these is the background. It looks like artwork was slapped over a background for the sake of a game, which makes it look like a screenshot.

^ The problem with that argument is that it should also cause game mockups to be deleted, eg post #963018 , post #990165, (There are quite a few more. I looked initially in hud, but there are a lot in gui)

ie. there is knowledge being involved in the judgement of this. 'what is a screenshot' is not simply obvious.

savageorange said:
^ The problem with that argument is that it should also cause game mockups to be deleted, eg post #963018 , post #990165, (There are quite a few more. I looked initially in hud, but there are a lot in gui)

ie. there is knowledge being involved in the judgement of this. 'what is a screenshot' is not simply obvious.

The problem with that argument is that those ones are obviously mockups. These ones from MGQ have such a really low quality highly detailed background, with a high quality image plastered over it. If you found a way to remove the background it'd probably be all good.

What it looks like is irrelevant. Game screenshots are not allowed.
Doesn't matter if there's no interface visible. Especially not in this case, since it can be hidden ingame (standard feature in hentai games) and the rips are therefore identical to screenshots.

We delete Skyrim sex mod art on the same basis, plus a whole lot of other content. Though sometimes some of it slips through. Can't expect everyone to be familiar with every single game and movie that's out there.

Basically. If it appears in the game, with or without the HUD, it's a screencap. If it's traced from a screencap, then it's both a screencap and potentially infringing on copyrights.

post #447116 is an example of a screencap who is also grandfathered in, because it too was posted before the rule changes. If it was only just being posted now, though, it would be removed, simple as.

post #614063 on the other hand is an original piece of work, as it doesn't appear in the games at all. Therefore it isn't a screencap unless that artwork is then used in a game with the artist's permission. Even then, though, as it was posted before becoming a screencap, it'd stay.

How can we members know what is screencap and how can we see it? And again why we do not get personal mail about why an image is deleted? It would have been nice to have been told. Those who are not inside the guidelines, how can they know about it then?

(Sorry, I'm bad at english.)

It'd be nice if there was some sort of exception for this kind of thing. "Screencaps" like these can actually exist of their own artistic merit, rather than just being a poor-quality "hey guys look at my khajiit character's titties" which is what I'm sure the rule was originally made for.

Even if it's shown as part of a game, it's still art.

Agreeing with Tuvalu here. The point of the no screenshot rule is for things like Skyrim, SL, Gmod etc which are majority modded/bought models that are posed to the screenshotter's liking. There should be an exception for games that feature erotic art in and of itself, such as MGQ and other H-games, as long as the game's artist is properly credited and it has the official_art tag.

Tuvalu said:
It'd be nice if there was some sort of exception for this kind of thing. "Screencaps" like these can actually exist of their own artistic merit, rather than just being a poor-quality "hey guys look at my khajiit character's titties" which is what I'm sure the rule was originally made for.

Even if it's shown as part of a game, it's still art.

Honestly this is how I feel on the matter. I think these hold up on their own merit, even though I'm not such a fan of the subject matter.

That said, I can imagine the swarm of complaints if the rule was subject to an artistic merit exception. "But, I spent a lot of time positioning those Khajiit titties! It totally has artistic merit, you're just biased against 3d artwork!"

Personally, if it were up to me, I'd say a better rule would be one that stopped 3d artwork that does not contain original models. But even just saying that I know a few people who are probably already typing a furious rebuttal to my unforgivable heresy right now.

How long has this so-called "complaint swarm" existed?

Quite frankly, I beginning to give up to post pictures here, thay become anyway deleted.

Keep in mind that this is not a piracy site. Allowing illegal comic scans on the site is iffy enough already, and extending that to games and movies would be a legal minefield. Especially as the site grows larger and larger. Even if it's just still frames.

Uploaders are expected to get a permission for any content that is posted here, but game art rips are almost always posted without permission.

If you want to see content from Monster Girl Quest, go buy it.

^ MUUUCH better argument for this case.
(Although I think it's worth pointing out that "rips" aren't always illegal/dubious, it depends on licensing. For example many of the MGQ music tracks are actually taken verbatim from public domain stuff)

Clawdragons said:
Personally, if it were up to me, I'd say a better rule would be one that stopped 3d artwork that does not contain original models. But even just saying that I know a few people who are probably already typing a furious rebuttal to my unforgivable heresy right now.

Dunno about heresy, but it seems to have the exact same problem as TWYK
(how do you know a model is original? By memorizing a bunch of 'non-original / frequently reused' models? By relying on the artist to report accurately? The former is elitist, the latter is a crapshoot)

Otherwise I'd totally agree.

There were a couple screen cap edits uploaded recently that were taken down for... no reason as far as I'm aware. I can't remember their ids so I can't even go look them up but they were decently made edits

So im confused on what the screen cap rule is even supposed to mean anyway. Is it anything that's even started as a screen cap cause I was pretty sure something like that would have merit to stay here.

Drawn over screen caps are still screen caps. Edits need to have a bit more substance than just being a random dick over a still image.

I wonder if the rule against screencaps still applies to screencaps featuring all original assets such as a screenshot of an original furry themed action platformer game made by a lone artist/programmer.

NotMeNotYou said:
Drawn over screen caps are still screen caps. Edits need to have a bit more substance than just being a random dick over a still image.

All of the art in question was completely redrawn in sections to accommodate for that, since you're talking about the same ones I am likely, they were completely edited in most cases to be fully nude and etc with full, in style redraws so theres definitely a lot more to it than "just a random dick over a still image"

GDelscribe said:
All of the art in question was completely redrawn in sections to accommodate for that, since you're talking about the same ones I am likely, they were completely edited in most cases to be fully nude and etc with full, in style redraws so theres definitely a lot more to it than "just a random dick over a still image"

A trace bit by bit is still a trace.

MT_r34 said:
I wonder if the rule against screencaps still applies to screencaps featuring all original assets such as a screenshot of an original furry themed action platformer game made by a lone artist/programmer.

Well, yes, it would be fairly useless as protection against copyright claims if they didn't. However I strongly suspect that that is just an excuse to get rid of things they don't like.

Otherwise it would be worded as game assets, instead of the nebulous "screencaps." Which essentially gives them license to remove whatever they want for whatever reason they want.

Beanjam said:
Well, yes, it would be fairly useless as protection against copyright claims if they didn't. However I strongly suspect that that is just an excuse to get rid of things they don't like.

Otherwise it would be worded as game assets, instead of the nebulous "screencaps." Which essentially gives them license to remove whatever they want for whatever reason they want.

Well, what if the person who posted said material also created it (ie. me posting a screencap of my furry themed game I made entirely)?

Im on the fence for Screenshots of "original" content. On one hand it's just a normal screen shot, on the other hand a whole lot of effort went into the creation of the engine and assets.
I would probably allow those if you're creator of the game (like Fek's videos of Rack 2) and if you don't spam us with pointless wips (untextured meshes, debug modes enabled, "this is just a mock up and not the final result"- kind of thing).
Alsl,they still need to fit our quality standards otherwise, so they can't look like you ran it on a C64.

RE Edits: They edited the shorts out and left the rest of the Screenshot intact. If they wanted they should have redrawn the entire scene, not just the genital area. If they redraw everything they'd avoid that 80% of the image looks like a washed out VHS Screenshot. We don't allow most Screenshots because they are low effort images, editing out skintight shorts and slapping a penis on it is low effort. The animation styles in those series are kept simple to help animating them, which also makes those localised edits very simple.