Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=193

Hello, This is to let you know that our Terms of Service has been updated. Please follow the link to view the TOS. Specifically, the updates are as follows: "Members/Users will not use this community for: Posting Unacceptable Images or Writing Themes: No Rape [actual or implied] No Torture [defined as: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, wounding, crucifixion) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure] No Sexual acts [no depictions of sexual intercourse - between humanoids/non-humanoids/animals - no masturbation] No Physical arousal [This includes but is not exclusive to: no images of an erect penis/ no images showing the inner portion of the vulva or vaginal area] No Explicit sexual content [no pulling, sucking, pinching breasts/ no sexual situations/ no implied sexual situations/ no extreme or explicit S&M bondage situations/ no lewd or obscene sexual references] No Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. No depictions of young humanoid characters in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. No character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelous. A signed model release with Photo-ID must be provided upon request if posting images with photographic nudes. Additionally, any post, image or writings can be removed at the discretion of staff if it is deemed unsuitable for this community." Please let us know if you have any questions. thanks, --Asher

just an observation... the TOS has changed soooooo much since I signed up.. can someone please clarify all the changes? (thats 2 years of changes).. I don't think it's the same thing I agreed to!

I think you implicitly re-agree to the TOS every time you use the site, no matter how often it changes. It's not a contract in that sense.

Kaibach, I can't lay out all of the specific updates to the TOS over the last two years for you, but you can follow the link in my post above to the current TOS and see what refinements have been made. thanks, --Asher

If you scroll to the bottom of Renderosity's Terms Of Service you will read the following: **Renderosity reserves the right to change, alter or modify the Terms of Service as needed. All postings, past and present are subject to the most current terms of service. Hope this helps to clarify any current changes made to the TOS :) ladynimue

~blinks~ but but........ok like the bondage things ....some can say that even the act of bondage is pain inducing etc etc or goes under any of those headings....what then? and does this now mean that nipple piercings are not allowed? O.o sexual content explicate or implied...well I am now wondering if my whole cherry series is in question now as that is very implied. ARRGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH ~sighed~ I had hoped the TOS to be abit more.....what..accepting? but this seems to be cinching down harder. ~wonders off wondering how much it would cost to open a site for elegant erotica.....~

Defamation of character?!?!?!? No political cartoons? 'Young humanoid characters'. Wow. The epitome of clarity.

I certainly applaud your attempt to make the TOS clearer. As expected, I'm sure, I have a few questions/concerns/comments...

Will this TOS also cover the marketplace and restrict the sale of "fetish" items and bondage implements due to their association with and suggestion of sexual situations (implied or otherwise), and torture devices under the "No Torture" clause of the TOS?

"No character attacks, which could be interpreted as defamation of character, slander, and libelous. The blanket restriction against character/personal attacks should stand, regardless of interpretation as defamation, slander, or libel. Such attacks are unnecessary under any circumstances.

What exactly is: "explicit S&M bondage situations"?

IMHO, "implied sexual situations" is very vague. What is "implied" is often in the mind of the beholder. Since people "behold" things according to upbringing, taste, culture, religion, etc...and since the admins/mods are also a diverse group, what guidelines have they been given to help them determine an "implied sexual situation" in an image?

"no sexual situations" or "implied sexual situations" goes a bit far in an attempt to avoid conflict. More than half the images in the gallery will need to be removed if this restrictions stands. My own image Shock in the Fairy's Garden could be interpreted as a sexual situation or an implied sexual situation and require removal. In fact, any image in which one or more of the subjects is nude could be targeted as depicting a sexual or implied sexual situation.

There are far less reasons to forbid "sexual situations" or "implied sexual situations" than explicit sexual situations. Indeed, an implied sexual situation may depict a celebration of innocence which should be glorified instead of restricted. I would suggest this be reconsidered.

"showing the inner portion of the vulva or vaginal area" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with physical arousal, some women are "constructed" in such a way that a bit more than a "suggestion" is revealed when their legs are parted...some "clarification" may be in order here.

There is concern with the distinction that approves visibility of a penis but not a "vagina". The exposure of one or the other, does not automatically denote a sexual connotation...in fact, in many artistic nude studies, the "sexual connotation" is unintentional and recognizable only in the minds of a segment of the viewers. To differentiate an exposed penis as acceptable and an exposed vagina as unacceptable sends a contradictory and negative message. If there is no "explicit" or overt sexual activity...there should be no restriction or differentiation between the two.

IMHO, a caveat may be in order when forbidding "crucifixion" images. Images of crucifixions to depict historically accurate images or religious images should be permitted.

This iteration of the TOS appears to be pushing the site closer towards a "G" rating. While limiting the depiction and propagation of "porno" or images unintentionally or expressly created for prurient interest, the site is also severly limiting the depiction of the human form and human sexuality...accepted and encouraged themes of artists for centuries. By the same token, it's emphasis on the heavy restrictions toward sex and not toward violence (aside from torture) is an obvious "Americanization" of atypical attitudes and views.

As a parent, I understand the sites desire to provide a "healthy atmosphere" for "younger" members; but, at the same time, I resent the heavy-handed limitations this new TOS places on my ability to determine what is appropriate for my children to view. As an adult, I resent the removal of my choice to view what I feel comfortable viewing. As an artist, I resent the restrictions and limits placed on my creativity.

For years, the site has been encouraged by members to permit "adult content" (not smut/porno) and to develop "filters" to allow those that wish to view "adult content" can do so, while permitting those that do not desire access to that type of material for themselves or their children can restrict it. That is a much better solution than an emphasis on filtering nudity, continually trying to define "how much nudity is too much", or painstakingly censoring every possibility that may cause a member to raise an alarm.

The Mission Statement of Renderosity says:

The mission of Renderosity is to create a thriving, productive environment that encourages an atmosphere of community, respect, collaboration, and growth for graphic artists of all backgrounds.

...graphic artists of all backgrounds... not children, not visitors, not non-artists, not art appreciators...graphic artists of all backgrounds. To severly limit what an artist can depict does not fulfill or encourage that "mission...indeed, it is the antithesis of that mission.

While I do applaud the attempt to define "appropriateness" and to appease all members, to do so at the expense of creativity, parental responsibility, and adult consideration does little for the community. I urge you to reconsider this in favor of creating an "adult content" flag to cover nudity, sexual situations (implied or not), and violence. Members 13 and below would automatically have the filter to restrict adult content turned on, with no access to the filter in their profile until a signed note from a parent or guardian is received. The restrictions against rape, torture, sexual activity, explicit sex, genital contact, character attacks, and the requirement of the signed model release for photos could remain in force.

okokokokokokokayyyyyyyyyyyyy I am a parent and I am sorry but it is not NOT the responsability of a SITE or the NET to babysit..or protect our children IT IS THE PARENTS RESPONSABILITY! this does not NOT mean that it is to restrict the rest of the world..it is to say a parent should restrict or police what each of THEIR children is seeing! I am an adult! I have the right and ability to make a consensual choice! Why are my rights to show my work and such OVER RIDDEN by those that do not wish to see "adult oriented themes"? if they do not wish to see it..or be near it..THAT IS A CHOICE THEY CAN MAKE A CHOICE NOT TO SEE IT. why are THEY dictating to the rest of us? implied sexual situations" .......well heck there went 90% of your art in renderosity. It is not the responsability of renderosity or ANY SITE to baby sit those that can not do it for themselves. I mean seriously this is geting rediculouse! when I was 14 and had a gallery at a shop I had more freedom of expression then here! I HAD NUDES AND NO ONE EVEN BLINKED AN EYE! my GOD folks GET THE HECK TO THE ADULT WORLD AND RESPONSABILITY FOR YOUR OWN EYES! if you do not like nudity...DONT LOOK you do not like implied sexual situations" then DO NOT LOOK but stop taking OUR rights and expression away from us! Adults have a right to express themselves {with in reason folks come on now} I agree that the ""hard core""or ""explicite" {such as actual intercourse or masterbation, other out right flipping clear as day sexual contact}should not be open for all eyes. But...implied sexual situations" my god....what is wrong with abit of erotica...sensuality....sexuality. I am supposeing those people that are having kittens at these topics also do not read a news paper..or a magazine such as cosmopolitan..or anything else? I am an adult heck I see worse things ON PRIME TIME TV. Yes I am sorry I am hot under the collar..but when I wrote that one complaint it was not to tighten the TOS..but to hopefully show that abit of acceptance and leway was needed. WE ARE ADULTS. in that we have just as many rights as those wishing to be the morality police! ~goes off befor she writes a site long rant~

OHH and healthy enviroment for youths?????/ HOW IS IT HEALTHY BEATING INTO THEIR HEADS THAT THE NUDE HUMAN FORM IS DIRTY OR UNACCEPTABLE? I would LOVE to see the morality police up in heaven facing god and going "ya know that whole form you did...the..human...was just dirty and sick..really what were you thinking puting breasts and penises on people?"

Would it not be simpler if you just banned all nudity.

DarkElegance wrote: "if you do not like nudity...DONT LOOK you do not like implied sexual situations" then DO NOT LOOK but stop taking OUR rights and expression away from us!" Well, that's a little difficult now, isn't it? I was here only yesterday and had big ol' poorly rendered, Poser rendered pink schlong staring me right in the face while viewing the All & All "Whats New" Images. Why not forbid nudity in the thumbnails and require nudity tags on the images that have nudity?

The goal of the TOS update is not to suddenly make the site "family-friendly" or G-rated, but to clarify what is and what is not acceptable imagery, based on the goal of growing Renderosity into a more and more "professional" site for artists. Obviously nudity is not the problem, but our mods needed more specific guidelines so they would not have to rely on interpretations of "their own discretion" when looking into the more extreme images. Of course, one person's "extreme" is another's "tame", so you begin to see the complexity in crafting a balance that will satisfy the majority of our members and give the mods the tools they need to do their job. --Asher

DarkElegance wrote: "OHH and healthy enviroment for youths?????/ HOW IS IT HEALTHY BEATING INTO THEIR HEADS THAT THE NUDE HUMAN FORM IS DIRTY OR UNACCEPTABLE? I would LOVE to see the morality police up in heaven facing god and going "ya know that whole form you did...the..human...was just dirty and sick..really what were you thinking puting breasts and penises on people?"" You seem upset. So upset that you're actually screaming. I can see spit flying from your fingers. Why not find another site to host your images? Find one that fits into your way of thinking. Better yet, buy a domain and host them yourself. If you don't like the TOS, then split. What's the big deal? And just who is beating what into kids' heads?

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=512103&Start=1&Artist=Ona&ByArtist=Yes

Nice lesbian tongue action, and a little breast fondeling thrown in for good measure. Uploaded just today.

ok! no spit flying caps do not denote yelling also sorry but I have as much right to be here as the morality police! I flag and tag my work. So that anyone that doesnt like nudity can skip it. But you know what..you have the lil option on your profile to go and make it so you do not get the nudity in your thumbs. Try exercising THAT option instead of trying to make everyone else bow down to yours. what I am upset about? is the fact that some are making FORCING all of us to bow down to what THEY think is right. instead of giving and open choice! I have a RIGHT to be here and a RIGHT to display my work! it is not like it is some xxx rated porn. get a flipping GRIP! ""You seem upset. So upset that you're actually screaming. I can see spit flying from your fingers. Why not find another site to host your images? Find one that fits into your way of thinking. Better yet, buy a domain and host them yourself. If you don't like the TOS, then split. What's the big deal?"" that THAT is what I am talking about. shoving people out of here! why? because my ideals do not match yours? THIS IS A MIXED COMMUNITY WITH MIXED PEOPLE AND VIEWS. every one of us have a right to look and express our art here. EVERYONE OF US. Not just the morality police! and for your information....I DO stay with in the TOS and the one ONE pic that I felt was questionable I went and asked one of the admins about and removed it! so dont go telling me if I dont like it to leave. try knowing some facts befor you go saying something like that.

Please stay on topic, No need to anyone to start attacking others here.

"Obviously nudity is not the problem" Any nude can be an "implied sexual situation" depending on your few point. There will always be someone who thinks this. Therefore, you will have to delete every nude in the gallery. Fully dressed people can imply sexual situations therefore delete all people pics. Animals can imply sexual situations to some people therefore all animal pics should be deleted.

LOL! Don't forget, this is a privately owned web site. You don't have a RIGHT to be here, you have a PRIVILEGE to be here. You should also know that I, as much as you, find the TOS as confusing and as short-sighted as the rest. But I also know that I'm not being forced to do anything, other than agree to accept the TOS, or move elsewhere, if I so choose. Last time I checked, membership was free. I'm not trying to shove anyone anywhere. What I'm saying is, if you're truly as pissed as your writing suggests, find another place to host. Now...breathe....breathe...breathe :)

OH MY GOD let me get this straight you think that pic by Ona is....BAD? OMG! let me guess lesbians are bad too? perverts? sick? dirty? if you think a picture like that is bad or damaging YOU HAVE GOT TO OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE WORLD AROUND YOU AND FIND SOMETHING SERIOUSE TO WORRY ABOUT there are FAR FAR worse things on this planet to be fearing/hateing/chest thumping about then a picture like that. tongue action? OMG the tip of her tongue is peeking out! that is NOT tongue action. let me guess...anything now remotely homosexual is dirty flat out wrong and should not be shown now? there isnt even NUDITY in it! this is unbelievable the 21st century and people are still acting this way......omg.

Terra...I am sorry you are just......~shakes her head and laughs~ trust me I am hot under the collar but not because of the TOS but because of people like you that try and force people out. DO not assume you know me or my moods. trust me you would be mistaken.

AsherD a few questions for you. "A signed model release with Photo-ID must be provided upon request if posting images with photographic nudes." Will this be backdated or does it refer only to any new uploads? What about composite images of photograhy and Poser? What about Poser pictures that use Photo textures will a model release form have to be provided?

Did I say the pic was bad? No. Did I say I found it pornographic? No. What I did ask was, did it violate the TOS, based ON the TOS. Actually, I rather enjoyed it, and I have nothing against nudity, as I'm a regular subcriber to both Penthouse and Playboy, both the pulp and on-line versions, and I do love to watch woman "get close". The only thing I didn't like about the pic was the fact that the models had too many clothes on and felt the female doing the feeling was lacking nice jewelry. Now, if you'd stop your ranting, raving and screaming for perhaps ten seconds, you'd realize I've yet to attack nudity on this web site. All I've suggested was, if you don't like the TOS, if you're that pissed off, go find another place to host.

trust me I am not yelling ok? can you get that concept yet?

DarkElegance wrote: "...trust me I am hot under the collar but not because of the TOS but because of people like you that try and force people out." Gee, do I have that power? I didn't realize it. I'll hug myself in admiration. Now, where did I try to "force people out"? Are you breathing yet?

mmm cute personal barbs..or attempts at them. cute really. no seriously cute... ohh and please do not get to conceited. it said "people LIKE you" your not the only one.ohh sorry not so special now?

Ok, I asked you two to play nice and it seems you can't.. LOCKED!!! Keep it up and warnings will be handed out. If you want to debate this issue, please keep it about the subject and not about eachother.