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

Thanks Tammy :O)

I suspect I know which image sparked this change. This looks like just a clarification rather than a big change. Is there any change on the 'crucifixion' restriction? That is, it's against the TOS, but when it's a religious (Christian) image, it seems to be allowed. Perhaps a minor change to the TOS would be in order there, too. And that is NOT a complaint, merely a suggestion based on recent controversies I've seen around R'sity. ;-) bonni

There is a clause in the TOS that deals with that; "Conversely there may be some images which, whilst in apparent violation of the rules, will be permitted to stay in the interests of free speech and religious tolerance. In such cases the artist may be asked to furnish reasons why the image should be permitted to stay and the decision of the Renderosity staff will be final." AgentSmith

Thanks Tammy

I'm glad.

Thank you for the link Tammy.

This is an excellent addition to the TOS.

Well thank God it's only in regard to humanoid-like creatures. I was getting ready to start my exposon young, angst-ridden pre-pubescent monkeys hanging from branches.

But glad to see some clarification. A few here tend to compete with good taste.

So... Christians really are more equal than anybody else? I doubt if you'll allow any depiction of Tantrism to remain no matter what excuse the artist delivered. And a frolicsome mermaid will get you banned as a child pronographer. But death and torture and mutilation are ok if there are rosy sunbeams dancing over the gore? I can't say that I'm the least bit surprised. This is a battle which the application of logic and the doctrine of fairness will not win. Carolly

I would ask that such images that apply to the new TOS addition be a depiction of a scene from some sort of recorded history, meaning we wish to allow pictures that are of an inspirational/religious nature, but to try and avoid abuse of this new addition to the TOS...a reference to a recorded event would be best. And, this new addition applies for any religion. I am not sure about Tantrism, since we are really adding this due to the nature of some blood, violence, etc, in some of the religious pictures. Tantrism has to do with female-centered sex-worship (originaly) That is an over-simplification of Tantrism, but I do realize the point you are making. AgentSmith

Do breasts count as 'genitals' ? I mean in terms of the TOS of course. Topless 17 year old - is that verboten? :] Fish

"Topless 17 year old - is that verboten?" Only if enough people think she "looks young". ;-) bonni

"Do breasts count as 'genitals' ?" No, they don't. Mons pubis, labia, vaginal opening, penis, testes are what we refer to as genitals. "Topless 17 year old - is that verboten?" Not automatically, no. It would depend entirely on the image. If it was, say, a beach scene then it would almost certainly be fine. If she was in a sexy, provocative, erotic scene then it would almost certainly be removed. Kev.

That wasn't already in the TOS?? Well, good addition, then.

Carolly: "So... Christians really are more equal than anybody else?"

Does that surprise you? Here in America the Christian president is trying to amend the Constitution to fit his "more equal" vision of this country. Don't get me started, my friend. :-(

-Heidi

Attached Link: http://www.wewantyoursoul.com/

HEY! I got "access denied!" I couldn't get a quote for my soul! :-/ Figures. I feel like Charlie Brown. "I got a rock." -H

Dratskies! And here I thought could sell them nothing for something, and be on the other end of the equation for once. ;^)

excellent addition, but shouldn't this rule have been here alot earlier?

It's been there in one form or another for a long time. This is just a rewording to hopefully make things a little clearer. Kev.

It's a sad world we live in. We are truely a brainwashed, controlling species. We are the only one that does it. Who am I to stand in the way of dislogical attitudes. Best of luck.

Ants do it.

thanks, considering how many pictures of the "fae" depicted in child form and in a sexual format. and with sex toys nearby were being posted on the site, and that includes the adult site that renderosity had for a time being. that was thinly disguised child porn. even though they the artists taht created them claimed that they were fae and not kids. if it looks like a kid even with fae ears and was in sexual poses, it still was child porn. and a good portion of those pics had various forms of sex toys, including bondage it was sickening. only aperverted mind would do stuff like that, then claim it was art.

I'd say that logic has won the day.

Good move.

Btw, the TOS is ok for me and has been before.

A laudable idea but one which I'm glad I don't have to enforce..especially with the 3D sexy schoolgirl outfit products that are sold as well as breast reduction morphs etc. As has been mentioned there are those who do fairies/faes and, one could argue, that they are in contravention of TOS..I don't think so myself. By the way Bees do it..even educated fleas do it

Well, since the Supremes have (so far) refused to condone Mr. Ass- oops, there I go again -ASHcroft's fatwa against virtual kiddie porn, it's legal in the US if not everyone's cuppa. However, who knows when the Forces for Good will, perhaps retroactively, be able to enforce the ban. So I believe the TOS are both reasonable and prudent; but at this juncture, it's a matter of taste and the Staff has a perfect right to enforce theirs. I DO find it interesting that so many nekkid kiddie characters, textures and mats are on offer, all with the "important parts" tastefully obscured in the demo images. Does anyone really believe these are all going to end up as forest sprites or skirt-and-panty clad cheerleaders?

i dont think so that most of them will end up as sprites. most of the materials most likely will end up as virtual child porn. to me IMHO, pedophiles are the lowest and should be put to death

Well frankly, I think the death penalty is barbaric, and I'm glad you don't run the world.

The death penalty IS barbaric, and should be reserved only for people who behave in a barbaric fashion. Like anyone who hurts kids. That being said.. It's a gray area. We live in a world dominated by a repressed christian state, and the rest of the world has to play along, Or Suffer The Wrath of God(tm). As right now American repressed Chistian Politicians think that anyone younger than 18 being naked/sexually active is evil, well, it's evil. I personally reserve that label for people who lust after kids who haven't hit puberty, or those that seek commercially to exploit that lust. This is just 'osity covering their butts, and it's smart to do so; I just hope that they keep that spark of free thought they occasionally show, and continue to allow things that are controversial to appear here.

The death penalty should be abolished. Period. Just my opinion. And before I get flamed with a bunch of "wait until it happens to you..." I am the mother of a victim. So yes, it has happened to me, and completely torn my family apart. And to quote Ghandi (I think it was Ghandi, anyway) "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." -H

Thank you Renderosity Team.... And I ditto Firekath.

Good words but not Ghandi - Martin Luther King. As for reserving barbaric punishment for barbaric acts, two wrongs don't make a right! Because another does something evil, doesn't make it OK for us to commit evil! We are supposed to be better!

My last word on this subject. Child pornography is bad because it hurts children. "Virtual" Child pornography hurts NO ONE. They are not people. They are not even AI's. Banning Virtual Child porn HURTS CHILDREN! If there is some one with what ever mental problem causes them to sexually arounsed by thoughts and images of having sex with children, then in the United States we ALL know they are not going to get any help because we have a profit based medical system that frequetly tosses the violent mentally ill back on streets rather than spend a dim on caring for them, so some who hasn't hurt some one will go compleatly untreated. Without any way to get help, and with no "virtual" outlet for their sickness, eventually... IT MUST MANIFEST. That means that eventually this degenerate who might have spent the rest of his life quitely waking off in private WILL go after a real child, and when he does, his fustration and commitment will MORE than likely result in his doing anything necceassy to cover up his act. That means KILLING the child to keep them quiet. Conversly, does ANYONE truely belive some one would actually do such a thing BECAUSE they saw a 3D picture? No... the next step would be to get pictures of REAL children, not an actual child. That a line we can police and catch them at. Think about that the next time you see an Amber alert. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but one banned picture could be worth a child's life.

I am not interested in condemning Brian Froud or Arthur Rackham, Gil Elvgren, Alberto Vargas, among others for their innovative imaginations. I approach this realm with these classics in mind, as have many others who now have the means to follow that artistic path using the digital world's new creative outlets. There are many imitators or inspired new artists obviously following. It's also obvious that the underground of such inspiration runs right along side due to freedom of expression. It always has. I agree with the TOS but I am more than reluctant to post any future Fae. It seems it's the government's sense of incriminating evidence which comes back to scare everyone. Yes I am paranoid.

"Freedom" in a group society only works when you are able to consider the group rather than your own ambitions. "Freedom" is currently not obtainable by the human race. And won't be for quite some time. -ScottA

they have found cases where the folks that had the virtual child porn went for the real stuff http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15252 http://www.pcanswer.com/articles/synd_virtualporn.htm The other side could argue that allowing virtual porn will open the floodgates to real porn by creating the impression that images of children engaged in sex is somehow acceptable. What's to stop production companies from churning out child porn films for our local video stores? And how are we to really know whether all that child porn is really virtual or really real? child porn is child porn, be it of of real children or virtual children

philebus: "Good words but not Ghandi - Martin Luther King" OK, well I knew it was somebody good. :-) And I totally agree with what you're saying. -Heidi

hmmm....touchy subject.... as a father of 3 daughters, i have to applaud this move, and hope that it extends to MP products such as various "young" Vic/Steph packs......there are a number available, and I for one, would happily see them gone in an instant.

Rattler, by law, be it virtual or real, child porn is illegal. and both harm kids

As a matter of legislative principle, I agree with Ratteler - I don't believe in legislating against victimless crimes, and I can't think of a good argument that CGI child porn directly victimizes any actual person.

However, I feel I should point out, it's not quite as simple as saying it provides a ""virtual" outlet for their sickness". Intuitively, it seems to make sense, but IIRC, without digging out my old Human Sexuality textbook, there is some evidence that "quietly wanking off in private" to child porn reinforces and strengthens the pedophilic tendancies of the person doing it (and this presumably applies to virtual as well as real images). Rather than relieve the urge, it may actually make it stronger. Of course, there's not very much good evidence either way, since it's hard to put together a random sample of pedophiles, for obvious reasons (most of the studies I'm aware of were used prisoners as their population base, most/all of whom were actual molesters, so the sample is inherently biased).

Last I heard, btw, it was still potentially up in the air whether virtual child porn actually is illegal. Congress passed a law against it, but the Supreme Court declared at least part of it unconstitutional. I think Congress may have revised the statute, but that the revised version hasn't yet been ruled on by the Supreme Court.

But of course, what may not be illegal, or even what Ratteler or I or anyone else think ought not to be illegal, has little or no relevance to what Renderosity may decide to disallow in their privately-owned online galleries (except for the fact that if they allowed illegal material to be posted, their galleries would be forcibly shut down before long).

To say that someone waking off in private will not manifest those desires in publc, is false. All things that grow including emotions/desires, when nurtured have consequences or 'bear fruit'. To deny that is to have no understanding of human emotional dynamics or potential. emotions tend to behave simular to the laws of physics.."a body in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an outside force. Isaac Newton". Ergo, emotions/desires unless acted on by an outside force or emotion, continue to develop to they're natural conclusion. This is not to say that one doesn't have free will, but to say that desires harbored in private, will come out... Regardless, if not sincerly altered by that individual, with help. Everyone has flaws, and there a lot of people in the mental health field, who are truly out to help people..and if you must know i am a group therapist. It just seems to me that renderosity is trying not to participate in the growing tide of child pornograpy on the net, and that's ok by me.

The fact that a millionair who was sent through a popularity contest paid for by billionairs, makes a rule for a group of special interests, or based on his own moral judgment, does not make that "Rule of Law" right. Claiming that Virtual Child Porn harms kids has no basis in fact. There has been NO study on kids who weren't hurt because pedofiles looked at virtual porn, and there for no numbers by wich to judge the non-detrimental effects. "If they expose themselves to pictures of <<>> it tends to create the impression that such activity is somehow "normal" and maybe even acceptable." This has been the excuse for a "moral" minority to force their will over groups for ages. Almost the exact same wording was used to condem Rock and Roll, Liberalism and Conservitism, and just about every religion, or lifestyle ever created. There is a very fine line between prtotection and persicusion. This is just the latest in a pattern of trying to censor the free speech of Americans. If a childs picture is "Morphed" to make it appear that child is in a sexual situation a CHILD is still used for the picture. In my opinion that is STILL hurting a child. If an adult is morphed to look like a child, it's still a consenting adult. No one thinks Andy Serkis is actually an evil creature who eat's fish and is obsessed with a ring because he was MORPHED into Golum. If the content is ALL 3D, the only person insvolved is the artist. No one was harmed in the creation of the art in any way. It's STILL not illegal have thoughts. Even bad ones. It's action that should be illegal. One of the links you posted mentions the "Slippery Slope", and points out that it exists on both sides of the issue. However it misses one important part of the argument. While every child has 2 parents somewhere who should be protecting them, we have no protection FROM the Law. As is stands now there are so many laws that it is immpossible to enforce them all. When law in any way becomes selectable enforcable, it becomes unjust. This "LAW" has tried, convicted and sentanced all of us because something we MIGHT do, might be misused. It's all fine and good to claim that you're protecting children, but are you? And at what cost? We might very well live long safe lives if we were rendered incapable of having bad thoughts, but would it be a life worth living? All these modern laws to "Protect Children" are making a world where ALL OF US only have the rights afforded to children. "Protect the Children" is the new sound bite to make anything they want to shove down your throat sound acceptable. After who (besides possibly me) would take the side of "NOT protecting the children?" Politic has become a game of social engeneering disguised as "democracy", and the law is the tool used by the government to control the people they should be "by, of, and for." In R'osity's defence, I can see why they would have no choice but implement such a rule. THey simply can't afford to be attacked even if they were opposed to it. It's our fault this happened for letting elitist bastard run our lives and make these irresponsible laws in the first place.

one of the reasons virtual child porn is also considered to be illegal. is at times it is harder to tell that it is virtual. that it isnt a real child that has been abused. plus alot of those who have the viritual child porn, tend to go for the stuff with the real children, that or molest children as well

Andy Serkis isn't an evil creature who eats fish and is obsessed with a ring??? Oh, man, my world view is shattered! ;-P

Yu said' All these modern laws to "Protect Children" are making a world where ALL OF US only have the rights afforded to children" It is interesting that you said that, bear with me a sec.. Now i saw a documatary on this modern civilization that has virually no crime. The amazing thing was that 100 yrs ago it was the most violent place on earth. and now governments all over the world go there to try to study and learn how they acomplished it. the only answer that they gave was that they, as a group decided to put the safety and security of they're children above their own rights. i sat in aweand watched as young men from 7-16 roamed in packs through the city (much like in america) playing and laughing. You are correct. Actions should be punished. NOT thoughts. and government should not try to regulate them. Least we end up with thought police. but with a hyper-sensitive society such as ours, and lax enforcement of the laws what do you expect? the best One can do is work on oneself and try to pass those qualities on, and teach them to others who will listen.

Hate to disallusion any of you whom do not agree, but some thoughts are just not acceptable as being 'normal' on the human front, and 'child porn' happens to be one of those. It's good to see the TOS finally addressing a real problem that has been developing for some time under the disguise of 'just' being 3D or virtual art; the 'thought' is still there and it's a sick one and there's just no excuse for it in any way shape or form, including 'anime' which unfortunatly is already running rampant on the net and everywhere else one can get away with having blatant or symbolic 'underage' frolic and fun.

I did not say some thoughts are not unexceptable, what i said is that they are private. the only one who should judge you for your thoughts is god, or your higher power. We as humans only have the ability to judge actions. Whatever inner conflicts we all have is personal.

"Hate to disallusion any of you whom do not agree, but some thoughts are just not acceptable as being 'normal' on the human front..." That is quite possibly the scariest statment I've ever heard. You can't even evaluate right and wrong if you can't think of "wrong". And who decides "NORMAL"? A few thousand years ago it was normal to take your first born to tample and watch a "preist" jab a dagger into their heart. Everyone did it and if you protested you weren't "NORMAL". In some countries a person reaches the "Age of Consent" at 13. Pretty sick my personal book, but "NORMAL" there. If we can't even reach a world wide agreement on "normal", how do you expect enforce your version of it. Even if it was possible to wipe out every image of child pornography, you won't end the cause. You'll just drive the afflicted into hiding making them harder to weed out. You're effectivly training every child sexual preditor on stealth. How do you think so many of them ended up as Catholic Preists? I say give them something that causes no one harm, and let them identify them selves by going after it. You don't get rid of "abnormaility" by trying to hide it. If anything, Zero tolerance to this level will cause people who MIGHT have gotten help to NOT to. In the mean team time, you're crippled any artist/storyteller from even creating cautionary tales that might give children a real advantage at avoiding these preditors, because the very subject matter is taboo. It a formular that can ONLY result in making super preditors and the perfect victums for them.

Some interesting views on an often debated [but never solved] issue. I am not going to repeat the remarks I have posted elsewhere on the subject...but will say that as usual nudity and pornography get confused when the issue is discussed. They do not mean the same thing to most 'healthy' minds.

Ah, Mondox, I agree, but who says Mr. Ashcroft and his accomplices have 'healthy' minds? Myself, I think they're right up there with the Gedankenpolizei and other puritains who, to paraphrase Mencken, are afraid that some people, somewhere, are enloying themselves. And how many K-Porn aficionados have found it easier to create their own pix than to take the chance of detection by mail order or trolling the net? Perhaps vrtual K-P will decrease the market in the real stuff and spare kiddies from (at least) photographic abuse. After all, you can pose the little buggers any way you like; so why go to the trouble and danger of sharing someone else's sick fantasy when you can depict your very own?