DarkElegance:
If people actually set that flag when they upload, then yes, but a lot of them don't. So having the nudity filter on is no guarantee. I don't think anyone is saying to get rid of nudity in the galleries or hide it away from the rest of the world. I think the group is just looking for ways to bridge the gap here with Rosity's goals. I agree with Ona that it would help to have a NUDITY icon (like the violence icon). Many surf from other locations where nudity may not be allowed, as well as surfing from home where they can look at whatever they want. I don't have the nudity filter set because it doesn't bother me at all to see nudity in art, but it would be good to know if a picture does feature nudity if I am surfing with others that may be offended. I can't see why putting an icon is a bad thing. If anything, the ones marked nudity will get more views anyway, so I would think that would be a plus for the artist. I do think that the default for new members should be nudity off until they say they want to see it. That would go a long way towards people's first impression, since as I've said, many don't make that distinction (between art and porn) until they learn what art is and isn't as they go along.

Pierre:
US Law is quite clear about it's feelings about images that are displayed that may be of underage women or men. The context differs from area to area however on what constitutes a sexual image in relation to kids. Some people will say that nudism images are fine (which I don't agree with), some would say that the baby in the bathtub is fine, some would say that even fully clothed kids that are placed in sexual poses are fine (I don't agree with this one at all). The law is very inconsistent in these matters, but all are agreed that naked children in sexual situations, implicit or otherwise, is something that is punishable by the law. Rosity is not saying it's going to witch hunt all images for proof of age, just those that would seem in dispute or on the borderline of this law. It protects them and thus protects us because we will still have a place to go. I don't see this as being unreasonable.

Poser textures fall under a different category, and to me (though I'm not a lawyer) would fall more under the same grouping as medical books. A Poser texture is a skin, which in itself does not resemble a human at all. If you've ever seen one. It's doubtful that anyone would look at those and say they are sexually appealing. Now when put on a Poser model, it is the context of the end image that would come into play, not the texture itself. Besides, just because a texture is for the millenium kids does not mean someone took naked pictures of children to create it. The bottom line is that if there is no connection to be seen, then Rosity probably will never have to ask for such proof. It is in their right to do so, but I doubt if they will make it a practice unless a dispute does arise.

The US legal system is inconsistent in many places, and Rosity as a company has to deal with the laws as their legal team sees fit. It's not about consistency or what's fair for one artist versus another. It's about what is necessary to prove their case, should such proof be needed. Can't slight them for that.