Renderosity Forums / Photography
Welcome to the Photography Forum
Forum Moderators: wheatpenny Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon
Photography F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2025 Jan 30 8:47 am)
Subject: Censorship.
A link to the thread wasn't enough......you had to paste the whole damn thread here? sigh and a roll of the eyes
I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com
gilo25, it has been explained to you that Renderosity has a Terms Of Service you may think it is not clearly defined, but it works most of the time. Some images are borderline and do come up for discussion with the moderators and administration from time to time and we discuss and vote on whether they are suitable for the site or not. In your words: "This is what we call democracy, partiulcarly in a border line situation like this, for which rules were not adequaltely written up" That is part of our job here, the admins and mods discuss the image in question ~ and because your image was problematic we did not leave it up for everyone to discuss and vote on. Your image was discussed and a decision was made. Please can you simply accept that. Do not confuse the priveledge of being able to post your photographs on this site with a right to post any photograph you wish to on this site. We are interested in the well being of this whole community and all who may visit which is precisely why we sometimes have to remove certain images. I saw your image and it was not, I repeat NOT suitable for a PG13 site. It was more suited for Rendererotica. I'm not sure how many times you need this repeated to you before you understand that nothing is going to change in the decision that has been made. :-|>
"It seems that the general Forum where I originally posted this, is not really viewed much. I am reposting here the exchanges so far." I find this a very uncivilized thing to do. Obviously you do not care much for this forum and it's people and feel you are free to abuse it just for the sake of having your opinion heard. If even posting it in here doesn't help you get more attention, perhaps you could consider tatooing it on your forehead.
gilo - Your image did indeed fall into the "deemed unsuitable for this community" clause. There is a line between artful-nudity and titillating-nudity: Your image crossed that line! Renderosity had no problem with members hosting nude images within the galleries. However we do ask that the images fall within certain good taste guidelines. We have received Many Complaints about your image Many members have viewed your photograph , of a young woman touching her nipple in a seductive pose, as better suited for Renderotica.com, instead of Renderosity. Renderosity is, after all, a privately owned yet publicly viewed site! The owners of Renderosity have been very generous to offer members Free Unlimited Space to post images All they ask in return is that when you post nude images, that they be considered tasteful nudes. Points to remember: Your image was taken to the Moderator Review Board After receiving numerous member complaints and it was indeed unanimously "deemed unsuitable for this community". This is not saying you cannot post your image to Your Own Personal Web Site or perhaps one of the above members who think your image is suitable for general viewing will allow you to post Your Image on Their Site! However, no matter how many threads you post to the Renderosity Forum The image in question Will Not be approved for Renderositys site! ladynimue Moderator
"I am not going to get into detail with your particular case, I don't feel that it is necessary, but I will say that in regards to the comment on inconsistency, it is often a case by case deliberation when it is felt an image is borderline in regards to TOS violations. So again I am sorry for your anger but I am simply doing my job as best as I can." Michelle seems to have addressed the concerns in an extremely fair and level-headed manner. She, and the other mods in this thread, are doing their jobs.
First, let me say that this message really has nothing to do with the actual photo that was deleted. I never saw it and so can not comment on that aspect of it one way or the other. I actually appreciate Gilo's posting this here (although I would have appreciated a link to the actual thread more). 99% of the time I only read and participate in the Photography forum (I find I stay out of trouble that way). I've been on this site before there was a Renderosity ... before the site was hosted here ... before there was even a hint of a non-Poser message forum on the original. And I still can't tell you, besides the obvious reasons, what will get an image deleted here with any certainty. I understand the moderator's position. This is someone elses house. The artists make it worth coming here, but you are a guest and the hosts make the rules. The mods are only doing their jobs and enforcing those rules and in so doing, making this a better place for everyone. But I think I can understand Gilo's frustration. The TOS starts off great with what I call "The Seven Commandments", but then drops in the ambiguous line of something being deemed unsuitable for the community. For the most part, most of us almost never know when an image has been removed and why (it's just gone before we see it) and because of that, in my opinion, we have never come to understand what the acceptable standards are here. No offense is meant here, but saying an image has crossed the line really doesn't help me to understand when I don't know what defines that line. What quality is it that these deleted images must have (beyond the big 7) that makes them cross the line? To have all of the admins deem it unsuitable says to me that there are definete standards that each image is held up to. Is it not possible for those standards to be articulated to the rest of us? I don't believe we need a all encompassing document that explains everything that will get an image removed, but something like a "read only" forum where you could just say things like "In Photo X, the depection of a nude female licking seductively on a lollipop was deemed by the staff to be inappropriate for this site .... etc." That way, I can better understand what is going on. I don't say these things just to jump into the fray. I will soon be getting into form and figure photography and hope to post some of those photos here. I really would like to have an idea where the lines are drawn. Hell, I got IM complaints from several people over my "pole dancer" images I posted. Finally, as for those who have no problem with Poser renders of women with 55DD breasts and 10-inch waists having problems with an actual naked human body .... shrug To each his/her own. I know which I prefer. -=>Donald
Oh, goody, here we go again!!! >:D I know that posting a thread in here isn't the way to go, but to be honest I wouldn't have known about it otherwise coz I don't troll around Rosity much apart from here and 2D.... and to be honest this is an issue which I think the Leadership really DO need to sort out their stance on. It would seem to me (yes, from personal experience also) that it just takes a couple of complaints and a picture can be pulled, even when it seemingly complies with TOS. I never saw the picture, so I can't be specific about that image, but touching a breast offensive? When it was nudity marked?!? C'mon!! Would it have been pulled if it was a male torso? We men have breasts and nipples too, y'know. Ours (shock horror!) get erect when cold too.... omg, is this text conforming with TOS now?!? I just find it pretty sad that Rosity insist on allowing a whining minority to rule the roost. sigh Maybe they should run the number of complaints against the number of views an image has - then if it's above a certain percentage (and isn't overtly against TOS, ie in this 'grey' area), the pic is eligible for pulling? Still, they make the rules, and that's what we stick to. Just because you sit there in your house in a democaratic country doesn't mean you should forget that what you are logging onto and posting pictures on is essentially a Dictatorship. (Not getting at Rosity in isolation, obviously that's the case with ALL sites) Oh, and when you've got as many members as Rosity has, threats like "I'll go elsewhere" don't really mean much. Unfortunately like any regime, doing things like this won't do anything to get you on their Christmas card list, and adding comment after comment makes no difference, they're still not gonna let you post it. At the end of the day, OK, you've had a picture pulled. You're a little peeved. You'll get over it (maybe) and it just means that you don't quite get the full artistic expression you think you deserve. Why not post it to PhtS!g and let them tell you how cr*p they all think it is anyways?!? (",)
"allowing a whining minority to rule the roost"; seems to be a tad harsh and uncalled for. The moderators are doing their jobs in a difficult situation. It is possible they may sometime err on the side of caution; so what? Cut them some slack. My personal belief is that the mods made the correct decision in this case. But even if it was the wrong decision, one would be hard pressed to cite where anyone was really wronged. Gilo is capable of wonderfully beautiful work, and I certainly hope to see more of it. The image in question was far from his best effort.
Excuse me, gilo25 regarding your statement: "On Renderotica: it used to be a good site and I used to post there (that's where I started actually), but I stopped because it has become a truly disgusting site, full of poor quality crap which mostly displays blurred genitalia or sexual acts.I don't think this image belongs there."
- I visited the site Rendererotica and noticed you still have 24 images there, despite your protestations of your reservations regarding that site.
To Jordy you say: " never saw the picture, so I can't be specific about that image, but touching a breast offensive?" to answer that as simply as I can Jordy ~ when it is not suitable for the site! Keeping in mind you did not see the image, please consider this: The gestalt of any given photograph is not simply the end product of one individual compositional element such as a specific body part, but is the sum of all the elements within the photograph. You of all people should know that after being a regular here for as long as you have. In figure studies, this includes (but is not limited to) the stance of the body, the facial expression, the way the limbs are held, the implied emotions and intent. A good photographer can impart these feelings from the way they compose and take their subject matter, so take it that I am complimenting gilo25's photography in this instance. These elements cannot always be broken down into specific rules or delineations, but need to be taken into consideration when viewed as a whole, in context...which is why we have to occasionally have to discuss & vote on some images.
Donald "No offense is meant here, but saying an image has crossed the line really doesn't help me to understand when I don't know what defines that line. What quality is it that these deleted images must have (beyond the big 7) that makes them cross the line?" - No offense taken Donald...I think the question is quite a valid one, but sometimes these questions simply do not have clear-cut answers, because life like photographs is not pure black and white but many shades of grey. Reality is not always as clear cut as we would like it to be, but we still have to work within it to the best of our abilities. I hope my explanation for Jordy goes part of the way in describimg the kind of circumstances where problems with the TOS are not always easily described in concrete words. After all, it has been said that a picture is worth a thousand words (personally I believe some are worth more, some less)...so perhaps we need a thousand words to describe each and every different image (viewed in it's own individual context) that is not suitable for this particular site? ...but do you think anyone would read these words? ~ and I cynically wonder if it would make a difference anyway sometimes...
:-)>
I posted a message to reply to the accusations of comparing the moderators the military junta etc etc. But it hasn't been posted, I don't know what happened. I am not going to re-write, all I want to say is that of course I am not comparing the mods to killers, it goes without saying..
But I would like to understand one thing: are artists being made a favour to post their work here (looks like it from one of the messags above), or is it the other way around? I mean, would the site be able to make any profit if there were no images posted? I think this would help give a better cut to the discussion.
I would think that a lot of artists appreciate the fact that they can have their artwork viewable here, with no worries about bandwidth issues or storage and/or hosting fees. Many artists use their artists gallery on this site as a type of portfolio that they can direct others to.
Regarding "I mean, would the site be able to make any profit if there were no images posted?..." I honestly don't think Renderosity will ever get to the stage of no images being posted. There are many, many people in this community who are happy to post their artwork here and stay within the TOS, or even in circumstances where they have had their images removed, accept the decision of the site without continual debate over the issue. I'm not saying debate can't be a positive thing, but I find it hard to see how it can ever be constructive when the party instigating and perpetuating the ongoing debate doesn't even seem to hear what is being said to them. "...I think this would help give a better cut to the discussion." In what way would this give "a better cut" to the discussion? How will it better define and delineate the fact that your image was removed for all of the reasons that have been repeated to you again and again. Do you wish to show your work on a site that charges for it, or somewhere that charges a fee to even get email notification that a comment has been posted on your work (as some do)? Who is stopping you? What has the profit making capabilities of this site have to do with your continuing (and in my own honest point of view increasingly boring) complaining that one of your images has been removed?
:-|>
And to more clearly answer your question in case you thought I was obfuscating the issue with more words...Yes ~ When I first joined as a member here, long before becoming a moderator, I considered it a priveledge to be able to post my works here, and I still do....in no way do I think I have a right to post images here. I don't believe this site has bestowed a given or implied right to post any of my images here, but certainly a right has not been implied to post images that do not conform with the TOS, even when the TOS is not as clearly defined as we would all like....(please read post #10 above)
Yes you are repeating it again and again , but you don't address what I am saying. You just repeat that you decided it is unfit. But you are not capable of saying why and based on what rule. And the profit capability has to do with it, a lot. I agree that it will be unlikely that everybody stops posts here. However you will agree that this site makes profit because there are artists posting here. The site would not sell anything if people were not posting here. There are dozen of sites where one can post. And not all charge for it: believe me, you have a lot of competition, while artists have a wide variety of options in terms of where to post for free. Theoretically, there should be an interest from the management in keeping the community of artists happy, in order to encourage more and more people to post. The larger the better. I think artists are making a favour to the site in posting here, rather than viceversa. If artists stop posting the site dies. Oh yes, it's unlikely, but it does happen every day. My images are among the most viewed in the photography section (maybe because after all people like to be titillated? maybe). Still, nothing will happen if I stop posting, I know it very well. But since this is a very disputable, border line situation, since there is nothing offensive in my image, since there are a lot of inconsitencies in your way of applying rules (why the Chair of Juda yes - I would really like someone to try and justify it as opposed to my pic - all my other photos yes, hundreds of other sexually oriented photos/images yes, and this photo no?) why not take care of this idiot who after all has chosen Renderosity among at least a dozen possibilities to post his well viewed images by writing a more decent message instead of that dry and autocratic 'it has been decided', 'we deem it not suitable', 'pls bear it in mind when you post again..' What do I bear in mind? That you are inconsistent? What rule am I supposed to bear in mind? If you look at photosig where I post most of my work (yes I was posting also in R'otica, and some images are still there but I got fed up by the recent vulgarity of the site ) you will see that I have images there which I did not post here because I am following the TOS of R'osity. And I did it also this time. You didn't like the the pic, fine, but don't tell me 'bear it in mind', 'we deem it not fit' etc etc because it is irritating. You are just exercising your power, fine. But don't tell me you are applying rules here. You are just taking arbitrary and far from objective decisions. It is your prerogative, ok. But expect people to get irritated by this. There is no guidance one can base his judgememnt upon whern chosing what to post, because the TOS is too vague and you don't follow it. In this context, a bit of PR from your side could have spared us all this useless debate.
"since there is nothing offensive in my image..." - according to YOU...and that's really what this is all about isn't it? The world according to gilo25...Did you even read post 10? ~ do you really believe life is that black and white? By all means post your images elsewhere...and btw "the bear in mind" part of the email is automatically included in the email notification of deleted images, so please stop bleating about it like it's some big deal....it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that you are not going to bear anything in mind when it comes to this issue so I will cease trying to converse with you.
PC - Thank you very much for responding. Don't worry, I never expect life to be black and white. Nor do I expect every decision to be cut and dry. What I would hope is that we can keep the dialog open. In the past, it has simply been sort of "we voted and it was deleted, lets move on." And that was the end of it. The last person to post here about their image being deleted (I can't even remember the guys name ... never saw him before) was great. The mods came out and said, 'We deleted it because the subject looked to be too young to be portrayed that way' (paraphrasing). Even without seeing the actual photo or taking sides, I can understand and appreciate that. As artists (no matter what your level), I think it's our duty to be the conscience and soul of whatever society we're a part of. To hold the community up to a mirror and let it see itself. To entertain, to incite, to push boundaries, to open dialogs, to question the powers that be and to force a society to define itself and what it wants to be. That's all I ask, that we keep communicating. And to try not to make it personal. We are all here for pretty much the same reason. We just need to remember that there are real people behind these handles. "Yelling" and accusing will not get us any closer to understanding any of this. Of the artists, I ask for patience and understanding for the mods. These people are like you and I ... they post and put their work up just like we do and I know they understand how having a piece of work deleted would feel to them. Of the mods, I ask for the same patience. If we ask why something was deleted, don't think we're challenging your authority or saying you were wrong. I don't think any of us (at least those that honestly participate) want to break any rules, but it can be hard trying to hit a moving target that's not well defined. Anything you can tell us to help us understand where the lines are is really appreciated. -=>Donald
Well it seems that Punkclown is losing his temper. Okay, since I feel exactly like you do, i.e. that I am repeating and repeating and you don't want to listen I am going to give it one last try. If you want to enforce any form of censorship here or anywhere else you must come to terms with one of the following scenarios: 1. You set up rules as detailed as possible and you are willing to work on their fine tuning when it is obvious that they don't address adequately all the situations. 2. If you don't want to work on rules for any reasons (because you don't feel like it or you think it's too difficult or whatever) you need to work on your PR skills. So, when you are faced with a grey situation like this you can tackle it by achieving what you want (i.e. enforcement of censorship) and minimize the risk of upsetting people. To help you, here is a draft message that you could use in the future. 'Dear ... we have noticed you have posted this and this image in such and such gallery. Although we realize that our rules do not cover this specific situation, we have discussed your posting and have come to the conclusion that it may be unsuitable for this community. Rest assured that we will work as soon as possible on the refinement of our rules in order to be able to avoid situations like this OR (if you don't want to work on the rules) We do feel it is very difficult to come up with rules wich are specific and consistent enough, but nonetheless our TOS compels us to enforce some sort of censhorship and we do feel that this posting of yours may be seen as unsuitable in this context. Much to our regret, we have therefore decide to remove it. We are aware however that since it is very difficult to enforce censorship in this context you will find a considerable amount of inconsistencies, in terms of the images posted. We would like to apologize for this from now, and hope you will understand that our task of having to apply generic rules consistently is extremely hard. Rest assured that we do appreciate your contributions, which are valuable for our site, and we would welcome to discuss with you any clarification you may require. Looking forward to your next contribution...' With a text like this you are likely to get rid of 95% of the problems. 3. If you don't want to work on specific rules and you don't want to work on your communication skills, then you need to let the community judge if a posting is suitable or not, as I said before. In this way, it is the community who decides, and you are totally discharged from any responsibility. 4. If you don't want to have specific rules, you don't want to refine your PR skills, you don't want to let the community judge, then you have to be prepared to have more often than not somebody getting upset at this rather arrogant attitude and addressing you wih less than flattering comments.
Thanks Donald, I really do appreciate that. And I know most people realise that the world is not B&W.
When gilo25 replied: "You didn't like the the pic, fine, but don't tell me 'bear it in mind', 'we deem it not fit' etc etc because it is irritating. You are just exercising your power, fine. But don't tell me you are applying rules here. You are just taking arbitrary and far from objective decisions." I realised that he has not seemed to have opened his mind to anything that myself or my fellow moderators have said. I didn't mind the pic actually, but could see why it would not be suitable for this site, which (once again I say) involved a lot of the subtle context laden details I tried to explain in post #10. I hope that particular post was as understandable in the light of this discussion as I tried to make it...We are not "just exercising our power", what possible return would there be in that? Not one of the mods (with the possible exception of myself JOKE), have shown any tendency to the kind of megolomania or overt egotism that would lead them to exercise the power to remove images for it's own sake. Believe me, I do not engage in these dialogues "for fun" ~ We do NOT like to remove images and these decisions are far from being purely subjective, they are very seriously discussed...but all this has been explained, I am merely reiterating it for the last time I'm not sure why... I for one will not be posting again on this particular topic.
Peace to all, and I hope everyone will still enjoy posting their images to this site, taking part in the forums and continue to take part in the stimulating discussions we have regarding our art here...I know it's why I come here. The place may not be completely perfect, but hey, what is?
:-)>
Sorry, I did cross post with gilo25 there...so apologies for actually saying more when I said I wasn't going to: gilo25 Some aspects of your email suggestions do have merit. I truly hope that both Renderosity and yourself can learn from these exchanges. At no point in this thread have I felt that I was losing my temper, my patience occasionaly yes, but not my temper. Life is such a transient beautiful and fragile thing that issues such as these should not cloud my (or your) mind ~ as in the grand scheme of things this is a mountain being made out of a mole-hill (truly, no offense meant here) I have tried my best to explain things from one moderator's point of view and have tried to show that I have listened to you through repeating and addressing specific concerns you and others have raised. You do not seem to have given me the same courtesy, or the other moderators who have spent their time with you on this for that matter. Ah well! Such is life! Take care and stay happy and healthy all. :-)>
Grins madly at Punkster and blows kiss Misha, did you just snap at my ankles there? sigh when will you learn not to argue with mad people? fnarr fnarr When I said 'minority' I was referring to the percentage of complainers compared to the number of viewers - you both know not to take my word literally. Sheesh. Now not another word about it, okies?!? You know I'm just having a dig from a while ago ;) LOL ;) Gilo, mate, you ain't gonna win, no matter how many posts you write, in fact the more you protest the more people will turn against you.... ok, you're not happy. Point made, I'm sure it'll be remembered......... counter it the way I did - just go and do something else that conforms to TOS and is even better...... (",)
There was a comment made above in regards to breasts not being genetalia.....and the TOS. Don't bother trying to find it.....I'm the only one who can see it since it was deleted by the poster.... and might I say it was a smart thing to do since the rest of the comment was inflammatory and would have been taken as insultive to most. I just wanted to respond to that... No that's right breasts are not genetalia, they are milk glands.....however unless you're a gay male, a baby, or a cow, they are viewed by most as sexual objects. I don't think to many people would argue with that. So images that depict the breasts being touched in a seductive manner may sometimes be seen as, well how do I say this without pissing someone off, kind of pornish. shrug Just something to keep in mind. That's my 2..........
I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com
Damn, Michelle, just when I was hoping this would calm down ;) Biologically, the breasts are sexually stimulating - not just in the genus homo sapien, either. But so are asses, and (depending on the mind involved) feet, armpits, belly buttons, nice taught washboard stomachs, stiletto heels, full face leather masks......... but if the picture had a hand on ANY of those items it probably wouldn't have been banned, no matter what the look on the subjects' face..... so I guess that opens the question as what makes a picture overtly sexual?!? he he he. Oh, the evil grin is fixed on my face 2nite ;) Why not lock the thread now and be done with?!? rofl..... (".)
Hehe...bastardio! How 'bout a pic of my foot in your rear-end.... whilst I'm kicking it? Suppose that would be sexual too? Mmmhmmm probably......... and lets admit it, you would enjoy it......
I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com
Just realized I better add a BIG DISCLAIMER to my last post about the foot in your butt......since someone might start a thread called Moderator Abuse Of Power or something stupid like that...... Jordy....while you have a tendency to get on my last nerve, you know I love you....smootch.... and that I would never really kick that hard..... rofl.... It's a joke......... ok........
I am, therefore I create.......
--- michelleamarante.com
Michelle - Damn .. you know it's really hot the way you say Milk Glands. :) Ahhh...where was I? Oh yea, after reading your message I did a find back through this whole thread and saw something I missed the first time. You mentioned the breast touching in the first message, but I'd seen what I'd call breast touching in other shots. But I missed Crescent (in message #12 of the first message) explaining exactly what it was. Now that gives me a point of reference wand helps me to better understand where at least one of those lines actually is. Thank you. Now, of course, the mischevious side of me wants to find all those lines. :) Makes me wonder if a photo like a Tony Ward shot of a closeup of a woman with another woman's toes in her mouth would cross a line. Different bondage motifs? Oooooo ... any shots utilizing the sacred and infamous Twinkie Eating Poses(tm). :0 hehe Hey, I did have a suggestion that I forgot to add while I was being all calm and philosophical up there. I would wager that when the complaints start, most of them are from non-photographers (ie. Posers/Renderers). Is that right or can you guys even tell? Anyway, the idea was that since we are already in the middle of some site modifications, maybe the coders can add one more column to the database table and another option in the profile that turns on or off nudity specifically in the Photography gallery. Should be a trivial matter to then link whether or not an image is shown based on if the gallery name is Photography and that switch is off or on. -=>Donald
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
It seems that the general Forum where I originally posted this, is not really viewed much. I am reposting here the exchanges so far. 1. Censorship Nudity by gilo25 on 6/20/03 06:01 [Delete] I had recently posted this image in the photography section and I duly ticked the 'contains nudity' box. Today I received the following message from the management of Renderosity: 'Dear Member, One of your gallery items has been removed by the staff at Renderosity.com for the following reason: We received complaints on this image and after a lot of deliberation it was decided that this image is unsuitable for the gallery. It has an overt sexual feeling running thru it. In general images of breast touching haven't been allowed either, so that is another reason for it's removal. As this is supposed to be a PG-13 site something like this is probably better suited towards sites like Renderotica. I'm sorry for any problems this may cause you. Thank you, Michelle A. Renderosity Moderator Please keep this in mind when submitting future images. Thank you, Renderosity.com' Now my question is: if one is disturbed by nudity, why doesn't he/she tick the filter which prevents him/her from viewing nude images? Why does he/she have to look nonetheless and then complain about something which is already dealt with by the 'contains nudity' box ticking? I can understand if the subject of the image was something really disturbing and pornographic, with extreme violence, display of genitalia, explicit sexual acts etc. In the past I had another image removed, but at that time I did not say anything as its content could indeed be rather strong for some. But in this case, nobody can say there is an explicit sexual act in this image. And if the kids are around, one more reason to tick the box to prevent the viewing of nudity. Ok, I can agree that the tolerance for sexual content may vary according to cultural upbringing etc. and that it is difficult to draw a consistent line. But then why the negative judgement of a few should prevail? Why doesn't the management of Renderosity ask the viewers to vote whether a certain image should be removed or not? But I have an even bigger problem here, i.e. consistency: the site is loaded with sexual images of all kinds. As a matter of fact, those are the most viewed. What kind of rules do you apply in picking on one particular image? I won't involve any other artist here, but just look at the rest of my work. There is some form of 'breast touching' in all the following images of mine posted here: Tribute to G Rigon, Tribute to M Payton, After the bath, Denise 3, Denise 1 (where not only the breasts are being touched, but even - God forbid - some lower parts, although through a conveniently positioned cloth); and last, but not least, Den & Nida,and Den & Nida 2, where one of the models' mouth is dangerously close to the nipple of the other. How do we deal with all this? Do we remove only 'Sultry'just because somebody got a bit too excited looking at it? Finally, in this context, I don't understand the meaning of the invitation to keep this in mind when submitting new images: what is the criterion you use for exercising your censorship? If you continue with this arbitrary acts of censorship I will have no choice but to leave this site. I have no problems with that, as there are plenty of other sites where one can post without suffering the rigors of such bigot censorship, but I would like to know first what the Renderosity community thinks. Thank you 2. Re: Censorship Nudity by gilo25 on 6/20/03 06:14 [Delete] I am trying to upload the pic here 3. Re: Censorship Nudity by gilo25 on 6/20/03 06:15 [Delete] It didnt work a while ago. 4. Re: Censorship by Egregore on 6/20/03 06:15 well for few members many of us have the fabulous violence red write under theyr thumbs... i think that in a normal society the right think is to let all (ALL) the community to vote... but this is an art site so... there will be no action of censorship but great discussion an morality or something like that... so i'm confused... i'm wondering to delete my gallery and my account for more open minded and free galleries...but i will see how this story goes... may be i'm wrong 5. Re: Censorship by Egregore on 6/20/03 06:22 i think my next 3 artworks cannot be uploaded here at rendo couse of censorship problems... i'm feeling a bit suffocated :( 6. Re: Censorship by gilo25 on 6/20/03 06:22 [Delete] One more element here for you all to judge upon: I was trying to upload the incriminated image to give everybody a chance to judge, but it was being removed as fast as light by agentsmith, whose name reminds very much of a KGB spy. Looks like this is the climate we live in, here at Renderosity. Good to know though that Agensmith laughs about it and he seems to be is very proud of himself. 7. Re: Censorship by AgentSmith on 6/20/03 06:26 Gilo, I apologize if you took my "lol" incorrectly. I never like to delete anyone's pics, and I try to keep my messages of doing such light, which may be strange, I know. Sometimes it reads wrong. Sorry about that. AgentSmith 8. Re: Censorship by Egregore on 6/20/03 06:28 gilo i totally agree with you 9. Re: Censorship by AgentSmith on 6/20/03 06:31 But, basically if your pic was not allowed in the gallery's, it can't be allowed in the forums either. No, not proud, just abiding by the TOS and my job, is all. Again, sorry if it seemed like I was taking joy in what I was doing. AgentSmith 10. Re: Censorship by Michelle A. on 6/20/03 08:14 It is not an easy thing for us moderators to delete an image. It is not something that we like to do or enjoy doing. I am very sorry for the anger you are feeling gilo25. But I cannot apologize for doing my job as moderator. You must understand that there are rules, and we try to follow them as best as we can. This often involves a lot of deliberation and discussion amongst the moderators and administration before any piece of work get removed. I am not going to get into detail with your particular case, I don't feel that it is necessary, but I will say that in regards to the comment on inconsistency, it is often a case by case deliberation when it is felt an image is borderline in regards to TOS violations. So again I am sorry for your anger but I am simply doing my job as best as I can. Michelle A. 11. Re: Censorship by layingback on 6/20/03 10:11 Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1295107 This might help explain it (but not justify it). Go to Poser Forums to see the discussion preceding the complaints. At least it sure sounds like the same photos. Reader had nudity enabled for Poser images I think, and thus saw nude photography thumbnails. And reader feels that nudity in photography is in a diferent class to nudity in computer generated images. I'll never paraphase in a way that didn't include my own interpretations/bias so I'll leave you to read for yourself. The view got some limited support, but not much - except from the Moderators/Admins it would seem. Title "Is it me, or is photographic erotica offensive" or something like that. Looks as if artists need to be extra careful with the actual thumbnails they use, perhaps even more than with the pictures themselves. 12. Re: Censorship by Crescent on 6/20/03 10:56 I'm the only Mod who posted in the "Poser vs. Photography Nudes" thread and here's what I said: Poser vs. Photography - It's probably the difference between seeing a fight in a movie and seeing one in real life. I can watch car wrecks all day in movies, but the few I've seen in real life bothered me for days, even if I only saw the aftermath of the wreck. If there's a picture that seems over the line, though, please let us know. MichelleA and starshuffler are really good about patrolling the galleries but even they're not perfect. As well, we do allow a certain amount of sensuality in photographs as long as they don't break TOS. Cheers! That's hardly a condemnation of nude photos in general. IIRC, the picture in question was of a woman lying on the couch caressing her breast and playing with her nipple with a very ... suggestive ... look. It was very much in the style of pornography advertisements I've seen across the web. We have left in the galleries most of the photos that contain nudity, but we have removed a few that we felt were on the wrong side of the erotic/sensual vs. porn debate. This is NOT to condemn pictures like that, to say they're evil, etc., but to say that they're not appropriate for this site. There are other sites where pictures like that will get a warm welcome, such as Renderotica. Thanks, Crescent 13. Re: Censorship by Spike on 6/20/03 11:58 Please don't blame the mods of this site for there actions, They are upholding the rules of the site. The admin team stands behind the actions of the mods. They are doing a outstanding job! 14. Re: Censorship by Egregore on 6/20/03 18:59 "a woman lying on the couch caressing her breast and playing with her nipple with a very ... suggestive ... look" mmm i've only seen a woman with a hand posed on her breast... maybe the difference between a pornographic image and a simple nude image is in the mind of the observer.... i think i am a bit deranged or perverse but in my mind i haven't seen any caressing or playing in the gilos still! 15. Re: Censorship by jumpstartme2 on 6/20/03 19:25 Ya know, why argue about it? If the Admins and Mods say it is questionable, why continue to try and post it anyways? Why not just post it where it will be accepted...like Renderotica? Renderosity has to abide by the laws of the U.S. if they are to have a 'family friendly site'...If they think an image borders on pornography then they have the right and/or duty to remove it. They have an alternate site to post these types of images.... Just my 2 c's worth... 16. Re: Censorship by gilo25 on 6/20/03 22:17 [Delete] I agree with Egregore: the difference is in the mind of the viewer. It seems that nobody is able to address the point that I have at least another 8 images posted in which there is some 'breast touching' (I listed them above.) Can anybody tell me the difference between those and this one? On Renderotica: it used to be a good site and I used to post there (that's where I started actually), but I stopped because it has become a truly disgusting site, full of poor quality crap which mostly displays blurred genitalia or sexual acts.I don't think this image belongs there. To jumstartme2: I was not trying to re-post it in the galleries, I was trying to give an opportunity to people to view it here in the Forum to form a judgement. In any case that pic was by no means disgusting, violent, repugnant. -- The family friendliness of this site is guaranteed by ticking the box which filters all the nudes images: that's why artists who upload such images are required to tick it. If somebody doesn't tick it, views the image and then complains, this person to me is a hypocrit. 17. Re: Censorship by gilo25 on 6/20/03 22:43 [Delete] Regarding the observation of layingback, if I understand it correctly, I think the problem goes back to what egregore was saying: it's all in the mind of the viewer. If somebody doesn't like nudity, he/she shouldn't like it all the time: computer generated yes,but photos no? And then again, why just some photos? can somebody tell me the difference between 'Sultry' (the incriminated one) and Denise 1 or Tribute to G Rigon? I think it is hardly defendible that Sultry is offensive and the other one no. It can be, in the mind of one viewer, why not? but do we want to enforce censorship on such thin subjective basis? 18. Re: Censorship by AgentSmith on 6/20/03 22:46 I'll take another look, but I checked out all your pics in your gallery, and I didn't see any breast touching at all... AS 19. Re: Censorship by AgentSmith on 6/20/03 22:59 Nope, NONE of your pics have hands on any breasts. "Den & Nida", a model is positioned (way) in front of a breast. But it looks far and away more of an intentional statement than anything sexual. "Den & Nida 2" - Still, nothing touches the models breast/nipple, the other models head is resting on the middle of the chest. Nothing sexual in context either. (imo) My opinions on your Den & Nida pics are just that, opinions, other members and other Mods may see different. You're a good photographer, better than I could ever do. Many artists will post here at Renderosity, but will also post pics they can't post here at a homepage. Many do, little know, and very well known artists. AS 20. Re: Censorship by DarkElegance on 6/20/03 23:38 ~blinks~ I dont think poser nudity is much different then photo nudity due to the fact that with the photo realistic textures in some renders you cant tell which is which. some of the renders are that good. The thing that is confusing me is if we all have a nudity flag...and the nudity is to warn people that there is naked flesh..and someone STILL looks why is the artist penalized for the CHOICE of the other person? I keep hearing ..well maybe they should go to renderotica..nudity is NOT porn. some of us that do nudes dont want our things in renderotica. I am just frustrated with so many people that CHOOSE to look at a nude picture then complain about it WHEN THEY KNEW IT WAS NUDE BEFOR THEY HIT THE THUMBNAIL. if you dont like nudes dont look. even after I hit the nudity flag I still put on the title nudity so that no one can miss it. if they still look then I dont think they have a right to complain. it was a CHOICE they made. no one is forcing them to look at it. I have a site that is art and erotic writtings, and I have as a pop up that comes up upon entering that states "if you are under 18 or offended by nudity or erotica leave now. if you stay and look then do not bother the webmistress as you choose to look knowing it was erotic subject mater that could be objectionable." when people CHOOSE to look..they cant bash the artist them for their vision. it is a choice. DarkElegance 21. Re: Censorship by ganda on 6/21/03 01:16 Agentsmith, it seems that your zeal as a censor has suddenly taken a plunge. Are you saying that you looked at all my pics and you didn't see any breast touching? Are you really sure? What about Tribute to G Rigon? What about Denise 1? What about Tribute to M Payton? 22. Re: Censorship by AgentSmith on 6/21/03 01:30 Zeal? Plunge? I fully don't understand that at all. JEEZ...my stupid mistake, I'm so use to seeing a different color for gallery page numbers, instead of them all being the same color, I didn't realize at first that gilo25 had more than one page to his gallery. Which brings me to my next question...who are you? "ganda"? AgentSmith 23. Re: Censorship by ganda on 6/21/03 01:46 Legitimate question. I am the model. 24. Re: Censorship by AgentSmith on 6/21/03 01:49 This is NOT a question of people who choose to see nudity and then complain about it. It is about any picture that goes against TOS, that's all, you may want to think it is so much more and so many different things, but it really is boringly simple. AS 25. Re: Censorship by AgentSmith on 6/21/03 01:51 Denise 1 - holding up/touching a scarf. Denise 3 - holding up/touching her top. After The Bath - holding up/touching a towel. Tribute to M Payton - her hand is resting on her chest (breastbone), not breast. Tribute to G Rigon - cupping not really touching. Now, I know that is a grey area, but, I can only tell you how I would call it at this moment. I cannot speak for whomever saw you earlier pics when you had first uploaded them, and what ran through their mind. so, take it however you wish. Bottom line. Renderosity has had its TOS for quite some time, we didn't just spring it on everyone last week. you were to read it and agree to it...when you signed up 3 months ago. 27. Re: Censorship by jumpstartme2 on 6/21/03 03:49 Egads....here we go again... AS: I dont think they get it. People: its not about the nudity...you can flag, tag, check, tick it all you want, but if it isnt what the admins and mods say goes with the TOS, they can remove it. From the TOS: Posting Unacceptable Images: No Rape. No Torture. No Sexual acts. No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Images that are character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelious. Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community. I haven't seen the image in question, nor do I have a urge to see it..but if it is a big enough concern to the PTB to remove it, then it is more than likely it should have been removed. Ya know, there are people out there that view nude art, but do not wish to see 'certain' types of 'art'...Im thinking that this is what got the complaints going.. {who knows}..so it might not be about 'someone who looked after knowing it was tagged with a nudity flag.' Regardless, its not my call...but if it were, Im sure I would've done the same... the admins and mods are doing their jobs. 28. Re: Censorship by gilo25 on 6/21/03 06:21 [Delete] I totally agree with you. As a matter of fact there was No Rape No Torture No Sexual acts no Physical arousal No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing in that image. 29. Re: Censorship by kbennett on 6/21/03 09:37 Correct Gilo25, but "Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community." And your image was so deemed by the moderator team. We each looked at it and came to a decision. The image is unsuitable for this site. Kevin. 30. Re: Censorship by illusions on 6/21/03 12:01 Taking a look a gilo25's gallery and specifically the images he points out are similar (i.e. breast touching) to the "removed" image...one can't help but wonder what activity was depicted that suggested such "an overt sexual feeling" requiring that image to be deemed "unsuitable". Much of his work, IMHO, suggests "an overt sexual feeling" which should not be considered "unsuitable" in general nor should it be mistaken for "prurient". Looking at his other images, it could appear an inconsistent standard may have been applied, although it is hard to say without seeing the actual image. It would seem to me, especially if this were a case of only one member complaint and coupled with the quality and similarity of images already in gilo25's gallery, a much more specific and detailed explanation could have and should have been given as a courtesy to gilo25. That said...perhaps it is time to establish a less vague standard than "unsuitable" and a tad less subjective then "discretion", at least to the extent that it serves as a basic guideline that the members can understand will be followed. It may also be time for the site to create an actual appeal process for such instances. A legitimate process a member can follow, that can be assured of fairness and legitimacy. 31. Re: Censorship by sirkrite on 6/21/03 16:25 First let me say, gilo25 I am a fan of your work. You have a great eye. :) I seen the picture in question. I think it was well done and tasteful. However! They do have you on a technicality, two of her fingers were touching her one breast showing by the edge of the areola. I personally don't find that picture in bad taste. It's not like she was squeezing her nipple or pulling on it. But then again rules are rules and were do you draw the line. Make exceptions for this and not for that can lead to more problems. Hope to see more of your work gilo25. 32. Re: Censorship by gilo25 on 6/22/03 04:39 [Delete] Kevin, I am afraid you are talking like a spokesman of a military junta here: 'And your image was so deemed by the moderator team. We each looked at it and came to a decision. The image is unsuitable for this site.' Sounds like when they arrested Aung Sang Sukyi for her own good... mmhhh.. And, as it is often the case for the statements of military juntas, your words are not supported by facts. The facts are the following : my photo and the TOS. Based on the TOS, my photo should not have been removed, as simple as that. In fact the TOS says No Rape. No Torture. No Sexual acts. No Physical arousal. No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. And none of these appear in my photo. The TOS don't talk about areolas, nipples, fingers and things like that. It talks about sexual arousal, and nobody in good faith can say that there is sexual arousal in my photo. There may be sexual arousal in your minds, but not in my photo. It is also true that 'Additionally, any post or image can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community.**' But since there is NOTHING in the pic that would justify its removal when judged against the TOS, I am afraid that, as Illusions is saying (thank you Illusions), you should have had the decency of explaining better why in your opinion the image was not suitable AND you should have let me post it here in the Forum to allow people to dicuss it. Finally, as Illusions is again mentioning, it is advisable that you come up with TOS that can be more specific and address situations with greater objectivity. Removing images at your own discretion, with no support from the written rules, let alone from the viewers is rather irritating and abusive. Of course, it is again at your discretion, but if you are really interested in the well being of the community you should come up asap with detailed rules and as far as this image is concerned you should post it in an appropriate section and let people vote whether they feel it is suitable or not for the community. If the community votes in favour of his deletion I will shut up forever. But if it says it should be posted you should let it stay. This is what we call democracy, partiulcarly in a border line situation like this, for which rules were not adequaltely written up.