Well i got again a negative experience with FACER. This face was taken down according to FACER for infringement.
This is the face, LINK BELOW, inspection is on.
To test if the reason would be title or description, i republished the same face again, this time with a total gibberish title and description, title something like dkjfkjdkfjkfj and description well…
Also taken down.
So, one could think the graphic design. Well, now i am curious. Cannot be my animated bat logo, which is used over 2.000 faces without obstructions, animated as it is here. The rest is purely created from my imagination in BLENDER. Is it the colour?
This was my second WFF attempt to publish, perhaps my last.
Just for grins and giggles, make a copy of it and remove the bat sequence and see if you can publish it. If you can, you will know the answer.
Did it say it was infringement or did it just fail conversion and was saved as a draft? If it was a failure of conversion, you will find that you used a string expression in an element. I had one that I tried eleven times to publish over 3 days and finally contacted Facer Support. They inspected it and told me the secret about string expressions no longer valid in Facer. You now HAVE to put each single expression in its own element or it will fail to publish. This is the kind of expression I am describing as a string expression. UV (floor(#WUVI#)) $#WUVI#<3?Low:$$#WUVI#>=3&&#WUVI#<6?Moderate:$$#WUVI#>=6&&#WUVI#<8?High:$$#WUVI#>=8&&#WUVI#<11?Very High:$$#WUVI#>=11?Extreme:$ That expression used to display the correct UV level name and is what caused all my trouble. I now have to use five elements to make that function work and show them using opacity.
Sorry for the long-winded response to your question.
@mrantisocialguy Hi Rusty, thanks for your understanding and reaction. Kudos to you…
I had the same idea. So this face with the link below, has the same logo animation; passed. My guess is, that it is somehow related to WFF, for which i designed the earlier face. Still i can not comprehend, why. But i hope to learn later i assume…
Also a expression imcompatability should NEVER lead to INFRINGEMENT blocking a face, DRAFT blocking i can understand. I know they are still learning… Or is that a new policy… I will await the answer from @Facer_Official
I will perhaps make a post of the FIRST WFF that triggered a DRAFT blocking. Later on i learnt that there was a [SEC]_[MSEC kind of reason. Which was really really amazing. I know it is WFS language. Perhaps later…
Here is the link to proof, animation is not the reason… so it seems.
Im not clever enough to do this but can someone create a very simple watch and then add things one by one until it fails? We are being used as beta testers whether we like it or not. This should be Facer’s job - but those here are impatient for things to work and for things to work properly!
Don’t get me wrong - I’m amazed and respect what Facer has managed to do considering how far google moved the goalposts!
I think there are these two reasons:
Possible TOS violation
Your content was flagged as inappropriate by the automated system, likely due to a false positive in the image filter.
Possible trademark infringement
A word or phrase or logo in your title or description or on your face triggered a trademark flag. You must identify and remove the term/logo yourself (often not so easy).
@BIELITZ Very true. I know everybody pressures to enroll new functionalities capsuled in new upgrades and the presssure on Facer in this case. I am always more intrested whith any software in what it cannot, what is not tested. Surely their beta version, test environment, serves for detecting early on and it is a proved concept to encourage many to participate, together with the ticket service.
But most important is process management and deleting a face from user (if not made a copy) and customers, disencouragement, unsatisfied remaining in your chair after lots of work and engagement, is bad, especially if unargumented specifically and you dont get informed immediately about the why. That is the title of this post, if not already clear…
This needed process must do its work, but at a certain moment “it” decides" infringement BASED ON ITS ARGUMENTS for which WE ARE LEFT IN THE DARK. So “it” knows WHY. So here is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, why not inform the creator WHY immediate. In English. I hate error messages or alike, because of its lack of explaining WHY in ENGLISH and please and telling me the workflow to repair it. Furthermore FACER will tell me there is a SUSPECTED infringement, so already admitting the possible failing of its process. I am still convinced, this process should be placed in the chambers before publishing. I do not accept arguments that the bad guys will misuse the system. There are always bad guys and girls by the way. But what is needed is interaction about processes and to perfectionize it where you surely can hit with AI better and better if used well… Nevertheless, everybody who creates remains legally responsible, probably included in TOS.
I can and will not guess no longer. That is not my task. Got better things to do…
About title and description, you can read in my post, i published twice the same face with a gibberish title KAJKJAKLFGJKLJGLKJ and such alike description. So if title and description hit the infringement judgement, well i should fill in my LOTTO. What are the chances…
Yes well said @BIELITZ . We have seen some changes over the years . Imagine if the Engine of you rcar Became redundant after 3 years because the Manufacture Dumped it . You would have to go find someone who supported that Engineering . Plus they would have to be capable of supporting what came next to hang on to their customers . A serious Coder said to me that it is not really Possible .
I said elsewhere in other topics on the subject that I had a Face pulled for using the word Navigation in the context of Orienteering during Voyages of Discovery . I was actually sent the Draft back . I deleted any reference to Navigation . It would still not publish . I tried many things but the only way it Got into Fresh Faces was to rebuild it from Scratch . Meta Data thing I think .
Thank you for reaching out. We have updated our infringement detection software to catch some other cases that were brought to us. We are seeing some issues now where faces without infringement are being incorrectly caught. Can you please send info on the face you are experiencing this with? (face id and a screen shot here would be helpful too).
Thanks!
so i send everything, because i had a copy…
Now latest reaction from another person,
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!
So, i responded, i want to know, what causes the problem, first before retrying publishing. I will limit the tags for sure, but that is far sought to me. How should i proceed…
Did they change their infringement process, probably not. It is unclear now to me. Without knowing the reason, which is a normal question i feel, we will cycle again through all this, which is not efficient for anybody.
The reason cannot be disclosed, unfortunately. The “bad guys” are always one step ahead. This is a public community. Think about that… Sadly, the good guys are the ones who suffer. Such is life.
In my company we run a system that does profanity filtering, blocks the upload of documents, and triggers alerts when documents contain certain keywords to avoid data exfiltration. Now and again departments are blocked to even open an Excel spreadsheet due to a false positive.
It is a constant race of managing these false positives and handling exceptions. The filters in place are often libraries from suppliers, which are not always accurate, or as @Linlay said, probably a step behind the “bad guys”. And yes, it is frustrating. I believe this is not sustainable over time. These things need to become more clever and AI may become part of the equation, but we are not there yet.
So for now all we can do is support Facer with the cases we run into. They do correct things in the background.
Facer gave me back the draft, saying take care to make no suspicion of copyright infringement
because i do not now what, why and Facer did not give me any info about that
and Facer asked for the content of the infringement mail, which they apparently do not have…
(and i did not have it anymore)
i did again publish it as is, to know more about the why.
Here is the why and this is a challenge i can not solve, but perhaps you can. The face is the same. Anyone fan of Call of Duty…
Dear Facer User:
We removed the watch face “A N I M A T O R” that you posted on Friday, December 5th 2025 at 3:35:48 PM +00:00 because our system flagged that it may be infringing on the copyrights or trademarks of these brands: Call of Duty.
“I suspect in my wild guessing which is probably okay, it is the color. A patent of Call of Duty on the colors… ”
If you are the copyright/trademark owner, the agent of the copyright/trademark owner or otherwise have documented permission to publish this watch face, you can appeal the removal. Upon proper proof of your ownership/authority and completion of the applicable documentation your watchface may be re-activated. Please make sure to attach any relevant documentation to your appeal so our team can review it and process your request.
Yes, color does make a difference with the automated filter. I remember when a shade of pink was flagged after Barbie became one of Facer’s brand partners.
All these flags contribute to spotting copies. There is nothing the designers can do except to appeal, provide your documentation, and wait until it can be sorted out.
personally, I seriously doubt it is color related. Also when the feedback from Facer says something about possible infringement on a specific brand, that almost always means it’s a word in your Title, description, or tags. Care to share your description and tags here? maybe we can spot it.
”
