Thanks for the clarification. I guess it was a “TOS” flagging. I am mystified for sure
2 Likes
yeah, obviously a false positive. But this seems to be happening with a lot of AI generated art. I don’t know if they recently tweaked the filter (which is probably itself AI) or what, but I’ve been hearing more and more about false positives lately.
2 Likes
I think the top 100 is stuck because so many people are posting Halloween faces and Facer froze the list to keep them off of it.
2 Likes
Yes, I think so too, not much changed lately…
2 Likes
interesting
2 Likes
Just had another de-activation today. I believe this has happened as someone synced it today, and that was enough to wake Marvin and re-assess the face.
Flagged as possibly infringing Warner Bros. When I did that face, i did not intentionally plan to have the border resemble a bat… but once you see it, you cannot unsee it! Anyway… another watchface which will remain in draft. Long live Marvin!
2 Likes
Really?, it was already published and triggered by a sync?
That’s new to me…
2 Likes
Marvin gone Trigger Happy . That is the trouble with Paranoia . Bless . Been standing around outside the Restaurant a bit too long .
1 Like
@jason.clarke.uk @tom.vannes @russellcresser
I do believe they have given Marvin the full AI upgrade and he is now having AI hallucinations.
2 Likes
2 Likes
LOL! You may be right there! So many Halloween faces getting published. I decided not to do one this year.
2 Likes
Had you not mentioned BAT, I wouldn’t have seen it! Now I can’t unsee it! That is obviously a complete coincidence.
2 Likes
I like the formulation: Our system flagged that it may be infringing on copyrights or trademarks of brands XY
And the action it suggests would be on author to prove the ownership or permission to use such content.
I think no. The first action should be on Facer to confirm the face is infringing and not leaving it on uncertain AI, before asking author for ovnerships or permissions etc. Why and how should the author provide something they in case of such false flag do not even need?
3 Likes
Marvin saw a bat. Marvin can now not unsee the bat. The bat was just a coincidental border. Oh well.
1 Like
Marvin can see a bat outline but let’s all the Bugs Bunny faces run free - haha!
1 Like
Well I appealed one and it was re-instated with a very vague reply but not published. It’s very confusing and I am not sure where to go to from here?
"Hi,
After review, our team has re-instated this face in your drafts. Please make sure you remove any possible infringement to trademarks or copyrights before republishing. This may include brand names in the watch face design itself, but also in the title, description, or tags.
Thanks!"
I guess I can only dumb down my description as I cannot see any possible infringements in the watch face itself…unless there’s a bat shape that I am not seeing?? 
2 Likes
Make sure you check all of your element names. That bit me in the butt on the last one that got removed. If it even sounds like something that someone could have copyrighted, you’re better off using the initials for each word in the element name.
1 Like
Who would have thought this would be the biggest challenge to making a watch face?? ,
3 Likes
And now you do not only have to get out of the way of those that trademark common words, but also out of the way of the bot falsely triggering on them. It is sad.
3 Likes
it’s been discussed already that the milestone emails also trigger a scan by the auto-filter. That’s why it happened at a seemingly random time. But also, most likely nothing to do with the graphics but rather a word in your title or description. Possibly the word Samsung in the title is the problem.
2 Likes