Then I don’t understand that so many faces with logos and designs of famous bands and brands are online (actually illegitimate).
Copyright is part of my daily work environment.
Something is wrongly programmed here.
3 Likes
I will go you one better. I made a face, and I used the #ZMANU# tag to put whatever watch manufacturer’s name the face was used on printed onto the face. I happened to have just bought a new Fossil Carlyle and had that as the viewing face in creator when I published it. It got immediately removed because their system is programmed to automatically remove any face with Fossil on it even if it is their system that put it there. I complained but they never restored the face and I had to redo it. Somewhere here in the community @russellcresser has a list of words and names that will automatically get you flagged, and your face removed.
That is also why I never include any watch brands by name in any description. If I’m saying something about Apple it becomes the “Red Fruit Company”
3 Likes
Then that should probably be corrected urgently.
Glad I’m not the only one having this problem.
2 Likes
Just don’t use any real brand names in a watch face or description and the bot won’t get you.
5 Likes
to avoid this, the description now says…
“This face is specially designed for my black smart watch
(I am not allowed to write the manufacturer here)
with black stainless steel strap and real wood inlays.”
5 Likes
One more suggestion many here, including me, learned the hard way:
Make a duplicate of tediously made face before publishing it. Sometimes they admit the algorithm overreacted and reinstate the face later, but it is never sure and it could take few days…
Here are the so far collected words, that turn on automatic alarm:
I will repeat what I wrote back then, when Rusty started collecting trigger words of the flag bot:
I would actually expect, the list was published and actualized in official docs, rather than “reverse engineered” by collecting from bad experiences. I did not find such document yet, but it would be nice, and I expected Facer would publish it, to avoid some of future misunderstandings and false flags and infringement strikes (when one of the conditions to be accepted as partner, is to “have zero copyright/trademark infringement strikes. See www.facer.io/copyright”).
Some companies have flag ships, some have flag bot.
EDIT:
some people learned how to “fly under the radar” by not directly mentioning any trigger words, while still placing brand names on the face. some even now displayed for long on the “Get inspired by the community!” page.
3 Likes
It’s not okay that because of something like this, without comment or clear message, the entire work is deleted.
And when such reports appear on Facebook, it discriminates against the artists and unsettles the users.
So the problem should be solved better.
1 Like
I have Re jigged the list to MAG s suggestion. I will amend it in the morning. I am on my Tablet at the moment the list is on my Laptop. I have a Little problem as Topics on the community can only be edited for a fixed amount of time. Probably a year.
DUPLICATION then PUBLICATION !!!
NO LADYBIRDS
1 Like
Exactly what I will duplicate in the future.
thanks for your answer here.
3 Likes
When you receive the email from Facer informing you of the issue, tell them what happened. They will restore the design once they have investigated. In my case, Fossil had a problem reading some fonts a couple of years ago. I felt that I had to let customers know that if they had a Fossil, they should let me know if the design did not work well for them. Of course the automated system removed the design (temporarily) because of my description. It may not be all Facer’s fault. Perhaps certain brands have had some input as to what they want to happen if their name is mentioned in connection with a design.
4 Likes
I see the problem differently.
I work daily according to German law with graphics and customer requests. Basically, as an end customer, I can use everything up to a certain limit.
As a commercial manufacturer or trader, I can only do this with written permission.
So here my article description is completely legal.
As an end customer, I wrote which product I use.
In the face is no mention.
But if there are faces with band or company names, logos, designs, and trademarks on the faces, that’s effectively copyright infringement.
Disney, Coke and and and
You really have to check that.
Fan art is actually illegal.
That is only tolerated.
2 Likes
When you have your email exchange with Facer ask them why there is a problem with using a brand name in a description.
1 Like
It seems context still requires human decision making. 
4 Likes
It’s just a screening tool.
2 Likes
To me it seems like Facer had really small crew, maybe one or two people, who cant afford to spend whole time on checking the flood of new published faces for content. So they use help of automated filter. But telling people upfront, what the automated filter was doing, would save them some of the later mailing and restoring work too.
4 Likes
Yes, and this is true about a number of things with Facer. Now of course no one reads anything longer than a tweet these days but at least the blame comes fairly and squarely back to the user. A wiki that held it all wouldn’t be a bad thing if the community could (and would) contribute.
4 Likes
@SR-Design.vision @Linlay @mrantisocialguy @petruuccios @richiebee
I have been trying t keep this up . It seems like a list that has been posted a while can not be Edited . So I am going to repost the list whenever an addition comes in .
I see Fossil is near the top already .
If any on has a better Idea for curating this Bring it On .
Just remember No Oysters.
and
Duplication Before Publication .
2 Likes
I’m curious… do we know of anyone who has had a face removed because it GRAPHICALLY represents a trademark - I’m thinking the familiar hour hand of Rolex as probably the most recognizable piece, but also whole faces that follow a unique, and likely copyrighted design like Ulysse Nardin faces. I made deliberate changes to my recent release to make it less like the watch it was based on, but there are still elements on that face, that could be considered copied in shape, and more loosely, in material appearance. Just wondering whether the bots go that far, or indeed, if Facer themselves manually go that far. I’ve seen some nonsense on here, like using pictures of existing watches, but that’s a whole different ball game. I’m talking about faces that are created from scratch, but based on an existing design.
1 Like
Most likely, if a company like Rolex or Ulysse Nardin went searching manually through all the watch faces and happened upon one that triggered them, then yes, graphically it could get flagged. But I doubt if an automated bot filter would ever flag it.
1 Like
well…
you can’t reinvent the wheel.
in this case one could speak of template as inspiration.
As long as the brand name and special design elements are not used.
It’s different with logos and images…
These violations should be noted.
1 Like