Oh.

Shit! The admins apparently do NOT understand the meaning of "stock photo". When someone posts a photo as a "stock photo", they are expressly giving permission for other people to use it as they please! WTF do they think the meaning of "stock photo" is? Cranberry fruitcake?

You might have been remiss in not giving name credit to those who took the photos - but that would depend only on what the photographer wanted, and they don't always ask for name credit.

Here is an alternative to misinformed FA admin bullshit.  xersesqados has found a site for posting furry art:
http://www.furaffinity.net/journal/1134411/
http://omgpurplefox.info/

He says that naughty photomorphs are OK so long as the artist checks the NSFW box.

Please repost your magical art and link to it from FA. Links from FA are NOT required to be to AUP compliant material.

!@@#$$%%^))(*&^%$$__)*&!!!!! Assholes. No, please excuse me, assholes are usefull, necessary, and can be a lot of fun - unlike certain FA admins. Who were the dunces who didn't understand the meaning of "stock photo"?

I somehow doubt that Flame's photos were "stock photos" in the manner you're thinking of. The admins always give the user a chance to verify if they have permission to repost said photos, which is something I'm sure that Flame did not do.

yes, they gave me 72 hours at december 27th, and the deleting was at january 4th. but i was not online till yesterday, so i didn't notice.

Well, if you have proof that you have legal right to repost your submissions, why not take it up with the admin that remove your subs?

well, i have sent it a message, but still have no answer. after 2 weeks

"The admins always give the user a chance to verify if they have permission to repost said photos..." No, they don't always do that. I've been the victim of shoot first and refuse to listen to answers to unasked questions. I don't know whether this was the case with Flame, but the quality of FA admins varies from excellent to petty bullies who shouldn't be given the authority of a school crossing guard. I do know that some of Flame's pictures that were removed were morphs of a female friend of his who had given her permission for such use and posting.

Anyone can claim anything. It's only when they can prove the validity of their statement that makes it worth a grain of salt.

Do you know for a fact that Flame was unable to provide a model release from his girlfriend?

Do you know for a fact that he wasn't?

Is your policy guilty until proven innocent? I have no reason to doubt what he told me about his girlfriend. Do you?

Trust is not given, but earned, especially on the internet. If Flame owns legal rights to the pictures that were removed, then he wouldn't have any issue getting them back up with admin approval.

How do you know this? Are you admin? Do you have personal first hand knowledge of this incident or are you trusting without evidence that the FA admin(s) behaved reasonably?

Why do you keep talking? Isn't it obvious that I don't care about your over dramatic position in this matter?