i'm sory but for http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=610038&Form.sess_id=5640770&Form.sess_key=1077468208 i'm censurd for the turkey she nude!!!!banned for this challenge!!!!if hbo need me i'm french!!lol it was a joke or a greenlight nightmare again?we french but not stu^pid we su^^port ben affleckd or damon lol greenligth?thks!!!we have more stupid and less interested thks

A little slower for me please- not sure what's going on- were you kicked from the contest for this image? I thought it was pretty funny myself....

Looked at the pic. Funny. Don't get it ??

Most folks don't consider canibalism funny.

Looked again....yup think TigerCub hit it on the head.

maybe not but still does not warrent being removed i said it once il say it again,this place just keeps getting shittier and shitier seeklight

I thought it was funny too.

It is a bit strange banning a picture showing cannibalism as it doesn`t happen anymore, except in that plane crash they made into a film (allegedly).

Attached Link: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/30/germany.cannibal/index.html

Actually, canibalism is quite the current news in Germany. A man advertised that he wished to eat someone. Someone agreed to it. Now, the "canibal" is in jail on manslaughter charges. See the link attached.

Tygercub I forgot about that guy, so I suppose the picture was not allowed in the contest because it was offensive to psychopaths?

Quel ait le proble exactement ? Et quelle ait ton intention avec cette image ? (je pense avoir compris, mais je prerais savoir ce que toi tu voulais montrer, des fois que je sois un peu bouch.

Well - I think it's a good image, original and funny - and the title of the contest was "Humorous Poser Survivor Scene". It's hard to be humorous without offending someone. If this has been removed because it references canibalism, then that seems a mite oversensitive to me. (The only other reason that springs to mind is if it was removed due to that chat show man's face - which could be a copyright violation...)

I thought it was funny too.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/contest.ez?contest_id=294&ShowQuestion=9018

I'm thinking it's copyright, cos the pic attached is still in there.

If it was because of the Letterman pic, then replacing it with a Poser talk show host might be OK.

What? A public image...is copyrightable??? I mean, it was publicly aired from a show, it's only an image from a HUGE sequence of images, and it can be copyrightable??? So, what's next? Banning of TVs and videorecorders? Then, banning of EVERY stuff capable in capturing an image of a real thing, such as photographic cameras and camcorders? Then, no more pencils, pens, watercolors... AFAIK, when a public person go, well, public, as Lettermann in his show, then his image is no more covered by copyright, otherwise I could force every person with some resemblance to my face to go change his... Actually, if his face is copyrightable, he can quit doing shows as he can gain WAAAAYYYY more money suing all the newspapers, sites and so on that have his face in them, from the very start of his career. Oh, are you worried about the actual "real show ambience"? Eh, so next no more satyr (???), no more jokes about every public person or program or show, the politicians can catch you only for a one time spelling of the "Congress" word... I think this is going too much farter than the right measure. P.S. - And if you change the talk show pic with a poserized one, be sure not to resemble ANY of the real talk shows, as they can sue you for using their "idea"...bah!

Attached Link: http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

Lucstef, I mean no offence by this, but you really should read up on copyright. Any creator of an image holds the copyright over it. That includes the makers of any television program. Copyright is, "The right to copy". You can videotape a show for your own private playback, but you can't tape it and then put it on public viewing - whether or not you charge money for it is irrelevant. Similarly, you may tape a song you like off the radio and listen to it privately, but you can't make a dozen copies and give them to your friends. That's piracy. The fact that something is publicly aired does not mean anybody can reproduce it. Quite the opposite! This website is by definition a public reproduction of anything that appears on it, and as such subject to copyright law. The link attached you (and others) may find useful as it talks about many myths attached to copyright. Again I mean no offence and I hope you and others find this info useful. Better to be educated and careful than get bitten by a lawsuit :)

Karen, I'm not offended at all, sure :-) You have a point, but I think it's a weak point. The "money maker" of a talk show is the sequence of images and sounds, a single image without sound isn't so powerful; fact is, I saw many images taken from shows and reworked trying to make jokes about, and I never heard about harassments for the autors. Note that I'm speaking in general, not only about the whole WWW thing; TV satyr often uses popular shows ambients for its purpose, for example, and never (or almost never) gets sued (let alone the few cases in which the judge rejected the sue...). If we let pass this concept, we all are in a big trouble. And as I noted, if you poserize a talk show image you can be sued for trying to imitate something copyrighted: talk show base is a chair, a table and a microfone, with some people around them....ALL the talk shows...so you must be sure not to copy exactly a table, and a chair, and a microfone from none of them. Wait again: I can realize the potential trouble for the admins here, I can understand the motivations around this choice, I'm only ranting about all that "witch hunting" and "money hunting" I'm seeing around, and not only here at 'rosity, ok?

Actually it would fall under the catagory of satire- which means he can use the letterman image- it's a satire on both the survivor's contest AND letterman. It does NOT violate any copyrights.

And i still think it's hilarious ;) No worse than any saturday morning cartoons where people are stranded and look at the other toons and see themmorphing into hamburgers and hotdogs and chickens....

Just like this is satire

As far as copyright is concerned, the image plus the caption are at least 50 years old if not older, remember seeing it in a magazine as a kid.

Karen1573 is right television pictures are copyrighted even if it is satire it is still illegal to copy a picture from the television and use it this way, but someone mentioned making a poser scene of a talk show, that is not the same thing and probably would be allowed Most satires on television, also, change the name of the program they are satirizing, even slightly, so that they avoid being sued. Though I would say that the way the picture has been used in this instance (not for money) would probably not be bothered about by the company who makes the program. There are thousands of pictures from the star wars films on the internet but I cant remember hearing of one case where lucasarts sued someone about it. I think that nowadays, especially with the internet, that most companies dont really bother if a picture is used by someone, as long as the picture isn`t sold.

"I think that nowadays, especially with the internet, that most companies dont really bother if a picture is used by someone, as long as the picture isnt sold." Except Disney... they're forever closing down sites which use Disney characters or stills from film. And Marvel Comics are pretty nasty that way, too. Some companies won't pursue it, but others will. Trouble is, you never know which unless you ask first :-(

cannibalism,copyright...for a joke it's terrible no?humour desinfected clean ...i think you must keep the refused pic i'm sure they the better..thks for people who keep the liberty of art

Libertyart, I already have answered to you by IM why your image (and some others of this kind we have refused) could not be accepted. Cannibalisme can be considered as violence and violence is not allowed in this contest. You showed a men sitting in front of a (femal, named) skeleton saying that she was very tasty. This image has nothing to do with "survivor" TV show and was not humoristic at all. FRENCH TRANSLATION: Libertyart, je t'ai expliquclairement par IM pourquoi ton image (et quelques autres refuss pour les mes raisons) ne pouvait re accept. Le canibalisme est considcomme un acte violent et les images violentes ne sont pas accepts pour ce concours. Tu montrais un homme assis en face d'un squelette finin, nomm et le faisais dire qu'elle ait "goeuse". Cette image n'avait rien voir avec "Survivor" ou son pendant "Koh Lanta" en France et n'ait certainement pas humoristique.. gebe Contest Manager

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/contest.ez?contest_id=294&ShowQuestion=9018

Well, well, well. Gebe, you may wish to check out the other image in the contest which deals with canibalism, then, since clearly this is beyond what R'osity considers "good taste" (pun not intended...)

These people are ALIFE, not dead. They even doesn't look unhappy or like they are suffering. They speak together. This is humoristique. We have asked the admins and other mods for their opinion on this image and they agree. :-)gebe

really nice pic lol!!listen gebe..i will try another one but i hope you will accept...

People being boiled alive in a pot could be considered as violence...

Karen 1573 I was going to mention disney but decided not to. I think disney are a good example of a company being too heavy handed with the copyright laws and so now they seem like an evil empire. There was a case of someone not being allowed to use mickey mouse on a website as a picture for a small boy. I hope its okay to mention mickey mouse here, I dont want to wake up with a horse head in my bed...

Well I admit I can't really fathom the logic here. But hey, it's your contest. LOL @ Xantor - but wouldn't it be a mouse's head? ;-p

first of all, maybe actual cannibalism is verbotten but the attempts or such have long been a part of stock humor. several Warner Bros and other cartoons, mostly older, where the two characters are stuck on an island have them seeing each other as different foods, most frequently roast turkeys, and trying to eat one another. so i get the joke. second, look up fair use. satire is protected. the four criteria for fair use are: from Standford University 1. the purpose and character of your use (satire, commentary, non-commercial) 2. the nature of the copyrighted work (factual vs. fictional, published vs. unpublished) 3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market. i'd say this one meets all four. oh, and types of works that tend to meet fair use: from Nolo * Criticism and comment -- for example, quoting or excerpting a work in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment. * News reporting -- for example, summarizing an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report. * Research and scholarship -- for example, quoting a short passage in a scholarly, scientific, or technical work for illustration or clarification of the author's observations. * Nonprofit educational uses -- for example, photocopying of limited portions of written works by teachers for classroom use. * Parody -- that is, a work that ridicules another, usually well-known, work by imitating it in a comic way. just cause it's arguable on the copyright holder's side doesn't mean they're right. even if they win, it may be they just have better lawyers.

It seems to me that there is a lot of inconsistency in the censoring of this picture. In the picture with the people in the pots, they are actually in pots and they will be boiled, and later they will be eaten, so is it okay to show what happens just before the violence but not after? I think the recent censorship on renderosity has been heavy handed all `round.

The "people in the pot" have been disapproved too:-). We discussed this^problem and found that you were right to point this up. Thanks gebe

No im not for it, im agin it. I actually didn`t want EITHER of the pictures banned as their is no ACTUAL violence in either one.

Yep, Satires and Parodies are protected. You can produce anything as such and be free from copyright infringement. The violence in the image had preceded what the image represents. One can easily conclude that the male character slaughtered his victim and then ate them, this would be a violent act. The image causes one to step back and envision the violence that occured prior. The censorship did fall within the guidelines of the rules which stated up front, NO NUDITY, VIOLENCE etc etc. I have an entry that involves a Pirate landlord that is upset over back rent of the island and had to be very careful as to how I portrayed the event. I accomplished this without using violence, but made it seem like the Pirate Mike had legally taken the island under a police type action. Sure, the threat of viloence seems that it could occur if the competitors on Mike's island chose to fight him, but I was careful to not make it appear that they were. As it stands, they peacefully surendered into indentured servitude rather than fight the pirate. Tricky, but no violence involved. ----Will

Satire and parodies are NOT protected in britain and I think that the law is the same in america.

Attached Link: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

Read it for yourself. :) Satire is not protected under statute, although rulings pertaiing to it have been in favor of the satirist more often than not. It is not protected. Even as free speech.

Ynsaen, You should read "Fair Use" more closely as it is there in Black and white: QUOTED FROM copyright.gov website: The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the authors observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported. Generally if the courts have regarded this as FAIR USE, then YES one is protected by law from being sued. So, you are protected under statute. As long as it falls within the guidlines it's all good.

I did read it, hon. Statutory protection is NOT the same as a ruling. If a statute were to be written, it would override precedent (which the ruling is) and negate the prior rulings. The effect is similar, and it is not universal. The apellate Circuit court rulings do not apply over the whole of the US, only over specific areas within it. As I noted, the courts have ruled in the favor of satire more often than not, but it is not an absolute assurance, nor is it protected by statute. A court ruling is not an absolute guarantee of fair use. It is merely an additional element in one's favor. All cases are tried on their own merits, with precedence playing a role in the decision of the court, but precendence does not weigh heavier than the interests of the jurisdiction of the court or justice itself.

Aye, I see where you are coming from. Copyright is very grey though and for good reason. As it stands many people belive that their actual ideas and the way they are formatted are the copyrightable material but it is actually the artist's way of "expression" that it copyrighted. Fair use doe protect us and give us an avenue, but you are right that it is no guarantee. I think if fair use is followed within a varied boundry one is in the clear. There is almost no court in the country that will not decide in favor of Fair Use so long as it is not a blatant rip-off. Parodies and Satires vs. the original material they are drawn upon are almost as far as the moon is from the sun. One must remember I could sue just about anyone for copyright infringement for some of the most mundane things, but my chances of losing are greater than my adversary since the burden of proof is upon me and I must prove beyond distribution and copying that they have infringed upon my rights. Copying and distribution does not necessarily mean willful intent. Parodies and Satires, however, are not copies of the original but may contain similar or some content of the original. In their own right, most, are a separate expression of someone else's idea which, in fact, makes them less a derivative and more of an original since it's not the idea that is copyrightable.

Exactly, Keihan.