This new rule really doesn't feel right.

The problem that rule addresses is more with people who outright steal characters. It‘s based on the design and the profile - if it’s a “Deku dog“ or literal upload of a canon character that’s not okay. Based on what you’re telling us though, you are in a bit of a pickle.

I’d take it like this: If I used Judar (my pfp‘s character) in a Magi fancharacter‘s backstory that’s fine, but if I made a TH character file for Judar, even if I only uploaded my fanart/extensions on the content, that would be borderline breaking the rule. So, I suggest using those stories for a fan character of the same fandom if possible.

StrawberryLunala

See that's the EXACT issue. The rules are so vague that they aren't correctly addressing what they're actually attempting to remove from the site.

I'm confused on this too - I have a kinsona who is dramatically different from their canon self. I draw all their own art, they have their own back story, and personality. Basically the only things kept from canon are name, DOB, and general appearance stuff like hair and eye colour.

I feel like the rule is for people who upload fanart or official art, and just copy and paste from the Wiki. But I'm not sure.

nagitok It didn't feel like they thought it through very much... or it didn't occur to them that there are people who actually develop canon characters thoroughly and draw their own art of it as well ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Hi, my profiles aren't very filled out because I don't use this site much. I'd like to change that, but, well ... this seems like a problem.

So, I suggest using those stories for a fan character of the same fandom if possible.

That's ... not what they are, though. Users of Toyhouse shouldn't have to modify characters to suit policy. Omit information, certainly, but not -modify-. I've seen a couple people in other threads argue against this opinion, but I haven't seen the intended use ever explicitly referred to or defined, just handwaved as an 'impression', so I can't agree.

My main question is - is this change intended to limit legal liability, limit  spam, or something else?

If it's legal liability, then I don't entirely understand, because it seems like the targeted pages should be treated under the same banner as fanfiction or other transformative works. At a first-shake/DMCA-handling basis, though, I can understand how it could be a problem for a site with little legal resources to be dealing with its users going, by all outside appearances, 'here's my character Microsoft Windows 95' or similar, especially given the local law's (Toyhouse is hosted in the US as I understand?) current leaning toward holding a site responsible for its users' speech. I don't think that's a great situation any way you look at it.

If it's spam, or a deviation from 'intended use' that's at issue, I don't think this is the best way to handle this. If nothing else, make the 'intended use' of the site clearer instead of implementing such a vague policy.

If it's something else - again - be clearer, please! Vague policies like this can have unexpected and wide-ranging consequences. eta: Some of the stuff I've dug up seems to imply to me this is simply a site culture/administrative preference thing - which I can respect, as it's not my website, of course. But I can't say I would be thrilled about that outcome, as I was introduced to Toyhouse as a general character hosting site, not 'characters as long as they fit this very specific definition and aren't tooooo close to this or that'.

If that introduction was -- not by user culture, but by policy -- incorrect, or has become incorrect, I'll be on my way! I have many original characters but I'm not fond of curation, especially not by matters of opinion/"well, I /feel/ that this is..."/"well, you're an exception because ..." etc. and don't willingly play into it. I'll be disappointed, to be sure. But I'd like the policy meaning to be crystal clear first as I rather like this site.

Lotor I really don't know where you draw the line between "OC" and "generalized RP". I used the term Worldbuilding, which is not the same thing as RP, it's story weaving, building of characters, worlds, etc. Content creation. Yknow. Original content.

When you've been developing a character for over 15 years they tend to cease being the "canon" and do become your own OC, which is the case of my husband's Xan up there, and he does not at all use any official art or media for the images of him online and the profiles. There is no "non-original" content for Xan since it's been like 15 years of him producing content for his version of that Xan and to call it Not original content at this point would be a straight up insult. And ~why~ would someone want to develop a pre-existing character in a pre-existing universe? It's fun. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

To have a character with such an immense amount of work put into him fall under this rule so haphazardly just feels off. I really feel like this rule is too vague, that's all. There should be more clarifications. I do agree that NAURTO with no extra work and just official images uploaded to the gallery shouldn't be allowed, but characters with actual development should be allowed.

As for "why should we have to modify our characters to fit the site" :  because it's not your site. I keep stumbling on this bit of logic,  because it's so, well, childish. Not your site, not your rules.

I'm aware of this. If the site implemented a rule of "no red characters", would you feel that was appropriate or constructive? How about "no human characters"? There are sites that use the latter rule - so I don't post human characters to them. Toyhouse never gave me cause to expect such an arbitrary policy, and I think it's awful for creativity, personally.

You can respect rules while holding the opinion they're misguided.

If I got the wrong impression, then I'd like to know - explicitly, not in terms of user opinions. As it is, this rule is so vague I'm not even sure whether it applies to me or not.

To be crystal clear, I will happily remove my profiles if I understand them as running afoul of this policy. I would like clarification from an administrator about this. I don't know if Void will do the same, but since I've been presented as an example (willingly) that's my position

I just protest, if that's the case, because I think the policy is unclear at best and stifling at worst -- I'm still not even sure. My feeling is not "wah, wah, it's my right to post this and that" -- I'm a web programmer, it's much more trivial for me to go elsewhere than most. In anecdote, I've never seen an attempt to curate characters or artwork other than to limit legal liability go well, doubly so when it wasn't part of the original design document so to speak. I want more clarity on what's going on, exactly, so I can make an informed decision on what I want to do.

I feel like what your wanting is more Tumblr and DA for AU and further canon character development?  Because if you are using a canon design you would technically need permission to use the design in order to post it on here,  per how the rules have always been. This rule is more making it 100% clear (far as I'm concerned) that canon characters have no place on a site meant for OCs. The key is even if you write them different and draw your own art,  you are using the design that someone else created without permission.  Fanart of all kinds is a bit of a grey area, but there are lots of sites for that.  Toyhouse just isn't one of them. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was already a rule not to take canon characters and upload them. It was just clarified since people were claiming them at their own. Really, nothing is different except for added clarification.