I will pester our development team once they come back from vacation!
I don't quite follow your reasoning; your work's copyright doesn't inherently lead to control over the comments attached to it on a website. The copyright notice is provided as a courtesy for your work, not its comments (sites typically don't own copyright over either, just display rights).
Still, most furry websites do seem to have decided that creators should control the display of attached comments – though in FA's case this feature was only added a year or so ago. I'm not sure if they didn't want to do it but were being overloaded by support tickets asking for intervention, or they just didn't get around to implementing it until then.
What is polite may depend on the context. On some sites, it is indeed the case that critique of posted work is expected. Imageboards are an obvious example, but it can apply to more traditional gallery-based sites as well. What matters is the nature of the community and the purpose of the site, both implicitly accepted by uploaders. Sites such as Yerf and ArtSpots whose owners and community were keen on raising the quality of furry art required works to be submitted for critique before entry, though it was less common after acceptance.
(In fact, I once toyed with the idea of building a site called "HateMyArt" dedicated to brutal, no-holds-barred criticism, before realizing people could already use imageboards for that. Might still be a good idea.)
I will pester our development team once they come back from vacation!
I don't quite follow your reasoning; your work's copyright doesn't inherently lead to control over the comments attached to it on a website. The copyright notice is provided as a courtesy for your work, not its comments (sites typically don't own copyright over either, just display rights).
Still, most furry websites do seem to have decided that creators should control the display of attached comments – though in FA's case this feature was only added a year or so ago. I'm not sure if they didn't want to do it but were being overloaded by support tickets asking for intervention, or they just didn't get around to implementing it until then.
What is polite may depend on the context. On some sites, it is indeed the case that critique of posted work is expected. Imageboards are an obvious example, but it can apply to more traditional gallery-based sites as well. What matters is the nature of the community and the purpose of the site, both implicitly accepted by uploaders. Sites such as Yerf and ArtSpots whose owners and community were keen on raising the quality of furry art required works to be submitted for critique before entry, though it was less common after acceptance.
(In fact, I once toyed with the idea of building a site called "HateMyArt" dedicated to brutal, no-holds-barred criticism, before realizing people could already use imageboards for that. Might still be a good idea.)