Stacey ... in all respect, I have to ask some questions. I'm not asking to cause trouble ... but from the perspective of an artist, I really have to know ... If I wanted to create an image of a baby running around nude in the house, arms held high in joy because he is free of the constriction of clothing (as babies often do!) would that be considered against the TOS? It's a perfectly natural part of life that shows the glee that the baby feels at that moment. I have seen it LOTS of times. What about cherubs? Can I put a cherub on a Valentine's day card and put it in my gallery? It's ok for lots of other people to put them on greeting cards ... or should we ban those too? Part of the reason that the staff has so many problems is because the TOS is very restrictive. And what one person sees as perfectly acceptable, another sees as crossing the line. It's all subjective.

The problem, Heart'Song, comes from the tos and their application. You and me may have a specific perception of sexual content. Some others have quite another feeling about it apparently. That's the heart of the problem. Mods hide themselves behing the sacred tos and never justify their appreciations. I would be very suprised you get any helping advice from them apart "follow the tos or get banned...

MorriganShadow: "Hooray for the other sites that allowed your image. It is not allowed here. Those are our rules" The sites I was speaking about use the same tos. Do you have any explanation for the diference of behaviour here and there? Yes. They have their rules and guidelines, and we have ours. "Either it was an erection, or you morphed it to be one heck of a long penis that's just hanging there." Ah! We made a lot of progress! For the very first time a mod express the hypothesis that it might only have been a long penis! Great! By the way, I don't think that long penis are forbidden by the tos, are they? We have rules against the tweaking of nipples and labia, and we consider the tweaking of the penis in that same rule. Perhaps we need to clarify it, because we seem to have to over-clarify every rule for people who wish to jump on the line. MorriganShadow

No Deecey- no babies in bath tub- no kids running around in the yard or home nakid- no babies on bare skin rugs- no cheribs- no nudism images of any kind. Also breast are irrevelant- it is just preception that counts- the preception of some right wing nut jobs who are far to overtly sensitive. Boobs and pubs are not the determining factor. Just opinion is!

Deecey, clearly as you descibed those scenes, the pics will be deleted for sure: "No nudity for underage" says the law. Well, the law is stupid. Stupid laws produce stupid systems. Does anyone know Ubu? Or Kafka? "The Castle" from Kafka describes very well how far a system can go in absurdity just by applying absurd rules.

It is NOT that there is sexual content. It is that there is nudity, and the model has the appearance of being underage. Having large breasts does not make an adult! Displaying the genital area of a model with the appearance of being underage IS clearly against the TOS:

"No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 where genitals are displayed and/or in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team."

If the model appears to be underage, they need to be covered. End of discussion. Teenagers, pre-teens, and children need to have their genitals covered. Bar none. If you render an image with a fae, and they are tweaked to look like an "eternally young fae", cover the crotch.

Cherubs fall under the same TOS. No matter what, if the image is depicting a young body (under 18), the genitals must be covered. If it is a baby running wild and free, the genitals need to be covered.

I understand that sometimes fae people look quite young. This stands to reason. However, the rules don't change if you place in your 'description' that they are 300 years old. If they look 12, the image goes. This is NOT a criticism of your art. However, it is an enforcement of the rules.

MorriganShadow
edited for clarity

Message edited on: 03/12/2005 10:29

Stupid laws produce stupid systems. Yes, it is extremely sad to watch what is happening to this country. Pretty soon, we will all be forced to believe in the same religion, watch one television station with approved programming, go to approved restaurants and movies, purchase only American-approved clothing and products, and take showers with our clothes on. It is very frightening. 8-(

yup Oliver The a-typical slippery sloap(sp) So- if it's against the all mighty TOS to show the chest area of a mill girl should it not EQUALLY be against the TOS to show the chest area of the mill boy? And whats the deal with the (spike selected and stacked) mods bitching about "pushing the edge". So friggin what!! Art is directly speech.

WAIT!!! Morrigan just said that the TOS says no underage nudity, and somebody else quoted the TOS to say no underage genitalia. Which is it? Is it nudity, or genitalia?? My little baby pics all have their genitals airbrushed out. But they ARE nude. Will the person in charge of all this PLEASE explain, right here, exactly what is allowed, and not allowed in terms that everyone can abide by? If there is no nudity of PT/PS characters and we are supposed to go back through our hundreds of old posts to search for nudity and remove it - then please just SAY so!! And send out an Admin-generated email to all members telling them to remove their old pics that have nudity.

I don't think the admin meant to say that I RECEIVED notification, I think they meant to say that they sent it. Hmmm. Well, that makes some sense, anyway. Still, that's a pretty big communication breakdown (which, admittedly, may not be anyone's fault, per se). This however.... One of the pictures wasn't even a nude, and def wasn't a child - she had a bottom on, but the mods said the bottom "brought attention to her genitals"!!!!!! Huh?! Yes, mods, please clarify. I'm about three times as confused as I was before... bonni

If the model appears to be underage, they need to be covered. End of discussion. Teenagers, pre-teens, and children need to have their genitals covered. Bar none. If you render an image with a fae, and they are tweaked to look like an "eternally young fae", cover the crotch. OK ... in the case of the baby or the cherub, if the leg is positioned to cover the genital area is that acceptable? Do you see why we are so confused? Do you see why you have your hands full with this? What one sees as OK, another sees as being against the TOS.

Please pardon me. I'm trying to post here with a 4 year old trying to use me as a jungly gym. The TOS says that genitals on underaged models needs to be covered. We usually, as a group, only require that the crotch area be covered. I will quote the TOS again: "No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 where genitals are displayed and/or in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." No genitals displayed on a humanoid giving the appearance of being under 18. That is very clear. It's been in the TOS for 2 years. MorriganShadow

MorriganShadow: "The appearance of being underage" Where is the line betwin a teenager and an adult visually? You must have a sort of guide book, a "mod bible", to be so sure of your own appreciation. IMO, as long as you're talking about appearence, your personal perceptions are involved. This means that your decisions are based upon a SUBJECTIVE point of view. Consequently unjust and tyranic by definition. Deecey, you already live in such system. Of course you have plenty of choice, USA are known for that. But the choices you're offered are all the same in spirit. Religion has a MAJOR place in your everyday life: "In God We Trust", does that recall you something? Think of the President elections too: could someone get elected claiming he does not believe in God? ... The worst is still to come and it will come faster than you may think.

I am asking very politely! Please publicly clarify which moderator is correct. Is there no nudity, or is there no genitalia? When genitals are airbrushed out, how can you say that genitals are showing? When a model is positioned so that another body part covers its genitals, how can you say that the genitals are showing? When a model is wearing a bottom and their genitals are covered, how can you say "removed because the bottoms draw attention to her genitals"? When a model's body shape and skin have been created from the body and skin of a 36-year-old woman (whom I personally know and have seen pictures of) how can you say it is a picture of a child? It is you moderators who are not following the TOS, and then you will not explain your actions. You say I have had plenty of warnings - but what use are warnings that explain nothing? I have had pictures removed because although the model was clothed, someone perceived the look in her eyes to be sexual!!!! I still have the notifications, so please don't try to deny this. I, and the rest of the members need clear cut rules. I don't really care at this point whether the rules are ridiculous, or pander to right-wing secret pedophiles. I just want CLEAR rules. And an apology for this ugly madness would be nice, though I don't expect I'll get one.

Oh, by the way, MorriganShadow, I'm still waiting for an explanation on the fact that 5 sites using the same tos as Ro act diferently from Ro... But maybe that question is a difficult one.

Oliver, Yes, personal perceptions are involved. Normally, it is a members personal perception that brings the images in question to our attention. We do put a lot of thought into it, and we always err on the side of caution. I'm sorry that you're not happy with that situation, but until computers can recognize the age of a humanoid character in an image, human perception will have to do. I'm not a prude, nor are many of the people on staff. However, if the character has the appearance of one under 18, it is removed, whether we remove it, or the member removes it. I realize that countries differ in respect to societal perceptions. I, myself, live in Canada, and, contrary to popular opinion, we are a bit less conservative in law than the US, however, we don't have as many artists of all media trying to push the line. However, the servers of Renderosity remain in the US, and must follow the guidelines and laws that pertain to it. As well, they have to follow guidelines set forth by their merchant processing services, as well as Paypal. MorriganShadow

I wouldn't count on any kind or form of apology from them. I wouldn't count on any justification neither. I went to Rendervision. Try it and love it, Heart'Song. You're loosing your temper, time and efforts in this place. Believe me: move, you'll feel so much better.

As far as I know 4 out of 6 of these sites are in USA, the 2 last being french. Yeah, now it makes 6 with Rendervision. :) I still wait for a real explanation.

I am asking very politely! Please publicly clarify which moderator is correct. Is there no nudity, or is there no genitalia? When genitals are airbrushed out, how can you say that genitals are showing? When a model is positioned so that another body part covers its genitals, how can you say that the genitals are showing? When a model is wearing a bottom and their genitals are covered, how can you say "removed because the bottoms draw attention to her genitals"? When a model's body shape and skin have been created from the body and skin of a 36-year-old woman (whom I personally know and have seen pictures of) how can you say it is a picture of a child? It is you moderators who are not following the TOS, and then you will not explain your actions. You say I have had plenty of warnings - but what use are warnings that explain nothing? I have had pictures removed because although the model was clothed, someone perceived the look in her eyes to be sexual!!!! I still have the notifications, so please don't try to deny this. I, and the rest of the members need clear cut rules. I don't really care at this point whether the rules are ridiculous, or pander to right-wing secret pedophiles. I just want CLEAR rules. And an apology for this ugly madness would be nice, though I don't expect I'll get one.

Please be patient. I've asked for someone to come clarify for you, since my clarifications were not enough. MorriganShadow

While we're at it, where can I find the TOS?

No nudity for underage. Consequently no genitalia. Those rules are very restrictive. Once again, I suggest you to deal with some other warm place where freedom of expression has still a meaning. there are some.

Scroll up to the top of the page. Look on the left hand side, and click on "Directory". TOS is a link contained within. MorriganShadow

If the TOS is so important for membership to follow, the link to it should be readily obvious, not buried within a Directory where people would never think to look for it.

Here's exactly what the TOS says: "No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 where genitals are displayed and/or in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." Thanks for the location of the TOS MorriganShadow. IMO it should be easier to find. I've never clicked on the Directory tab.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll bring that up with Mods/Admin. MorriganShadow

Thanks, rockets. Okay, so..............since the pictures I had removed did not have any genitals displayed in children under the age of 18, and none of the children were in erotic, seductive, provocative poses.......why were they removed, and why was I banned?

Rockets, yes, I just went back and reread all of the rules myself. It says NOTHING about underage nudity. It only says that the genitals should not be displayed, and/or in erotic poses. So a nude baby in a bathtub is OK. A nude baby lying on its stomach on a bearskin rug is OK. A nude baby running happily through your livingroom naked is OK, as long as his genitals are covered (unprovicatively) in some way, including by his limbs. Fairy art is OK as long as genitals are not seen. And if the genitals are airbrushed out, they are not seen, correct? Again, I can easily see why Heart'Song, along with many others, are confused about what is right and wrong. The solution is not to make the TOS more restrictive, but in communicating effectively to the STAFF and to the MEMBERS what is and is not allowed.

Heart'Song you forget the BEST part of the tos: "this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team" With such rules they can do whatever they want, you see. And as they never feel the need to justify their decisions with objective criterias about the pics they delete, you see what can happen here...

Under these circumstances I think Heart'Song does deserve an apology.

wow, this is almose dejavu from the thread 4 posts up :)

Yes. She does. But I would be very surprised she would.

I am still waiting for clarification from someone in charge, and I don't wish my questions to be lost in the body of this thread, so I will repeat them here: --------------- I am asking very politely! Please publicly clarify which moderator is correct. Is there no nudity, or is there no genitalia? When genitals are airbrushed out, how can you say that genitals are showing? When a model is positioned so that another body part covers its genitals, how can you say that the genitals are showing? When a model is wearing a bottom and their genitals are covered, how can you say "removed because the bottoms draw attention to her genitals"? When a model's body shape and skin have been created from the body and skin of a 36-year-old woman (whom I personally know and have seen pictures of) how can you say it is a picture of a child? It is you moderators who are not following the TOS, and then you will not explain your actions. You say I have had plenty of warnings - but what use are warnings that explain nothing? I have had pictures removed because although the model was clothed, someone perceived the look in her eyes to be sexual!!!! I still have the notifications, so please don't try to deny this. I, and the rest of the members need clear cut rules. I don't really care at this point whether the rules are ridiculous, or pander to right-wing secret pedophiles. I just want CLEAR rules. And an apology for this ugly madness would be nice, though I don't expect I'll get one.

As part of the discussion, we also need to be informed of what is considered "erotic."

For example, I have seen pictures of Vicky, with pigtails and a very young looking morph, wearing schoolgirl uniforms and licking a popsicle with a seductive look on her face. Clear erotic intent, and could be interpreted as being a young girl.

Message edited on: 03/12/2005 11:51

I go away for a couple of hours and this is what I find. Very nice. Oliver, I am glad that you find other sites to fit their TOS to your needs. However I believe that it is completely logical that we will apply our TOS differently since we are NOT them. When a jury decides on something they don't ALL reach the same conclussion. We are Renderosity, not RNDA or whatever and thus we are not going to ask them what they would do in any given situation. Come on, not even 2 people think the same. If this explanation isn't enough for you then I believe that the problem is you NOT WANTING to understand. As for the explanations of the TOS. I believe that you (and anybody else) is aware of what an erection is. If the TOS states something like "erection" I think we don't need to go into some pretty heavy explaining about what is an erection... Would you like to get a white paper on erections, what causes them and how to recognize one? It seems to me this is what you are asking (*sarcasm mode off*) Heart'Song. I haven't seen your gallery nor removed pics so I cannot say anything about the baby pics that you are talking about. However nude children are not just about genitals. A baby is one thing but a "preteen" wearing only a necklace that's nudity even if ler legs are covering the genitals and even if you want to call it "artistic nudity". I have no problems with adult artistic nudity, but a 14y old girl doing a "Vouge pose" doesn't work for me as art. As for the ones that complain about freedom. You kill a man, mutilate his body and take a picture to post it on this website. You call it art? ok. You feel like expressing yourself? ok. Can you post it here? no. Why? because I don't think that kind of picture is what you would like your children, nepews or little brothers to see. If you do then take them to Rotten.com or something, because we don't want this to become a "not suitable for all audiences" website just because you feel like posting whatever you feel like. If you have questions, post again. If you "don't understand me", take a grammar book and a dictionary. <---signature---> Free your Maya Opaque3D http://www.digital-opaque.net

This is true Deecey. What is erotic to one could be downright comical to others. :-)

Ok now for the nudity of a person with the appearence of being under the age of 18 if the person is posed that the front area of the genital is showing it is considered against our TOS this include if they are wearing a see through clothing. If the person with the appearence under the age of 18 is posed where the leg or view is not showing the genital area in any way this is ok as long as the pose is not considered provocitive. This is why they are brought up to the team as some walk the line and we have to determin if they cross that line or not. Even if you airbrush the genitals out the area where they are is still nude and in view. Most textures for the childeren come with no genitals but the area is still there. SndCastie

A member is sent a warning, two warnings, 3 warnings. As someone said, it is a completely different issue if you don't READ those warnings. However, we are not going to put a gun on your head or take you to the nearest computer so you can read your warnings. It is not our fault that people don't get the emails. If Heart'Song says she didn't get a warning she was either some exception to the rule (very rare) or she wants us to look like the bad guys. Can't be any clearer than that. <---signature---> Free your Maya Opaque3D http://www.digital-opaque.net

You know this is getting pretty ridiculous. No wonder Heart'Song is confused. Here's what the TOS says one more time: "No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 where genitals are displayed and/or in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." It says nothing about nudity.

genitals being displayed = nudity. You can't display genitals while fully clothed and covered (And my scenario does not allow for the interpretation of someone unzipping, unbuttonning or pulling down of pants or pulling up of skirts) MorriganShadow

We really need to get this clearified as we are giving conflicting answers. Our nudity for underage children is no genital area this is the bottom half not the top half of the child. It has to be covered with a cloth or anything that doesn't show it this does not include a see through cloth that makes it still nude, but if the pose is to the side and/or a leg is covering it to where the genital area is not shown this is ok as long as the pose isn't provocitive. Sandy

genitals being displayed = nudity

On the contrary. Nudity means completely unclothed. You CAN (meaning, it is possible to in the artistic sense) display genitals without being nude. And conversely, it is possible to be nude without displaying genitals.

Again, differences in interpretation that need to be clarified.

Message edited on: 03/12/2005 12:09

You would remove fae images in the gallery, but you would allow fae characters like these in the Market Place? Is there a different TOS in the MP? btw, I am just illustrating a point here and not trying to single out the merchant.

SndCastie ... THANK YOU! That is the point I've been trying to make all along. 8-) I'm glad someone heard it! LOLOLOL

It's not about fae characters. If that image were to show genitalia, it would not have been allowed. That fae is clothed.

This is why they are brought up for vote as you can see there are difference's of opinions :O) Now as for the nudity question nudity can be partial nudity as with bottom covered top not. What we are saying is the bottom must be covered on anyone looking to be under the age of 18 if the front view is shown. No genital area can be shown this includes the use of see through clothing. They also can not be posed in a provocitive pose even if they are covered. I hope this is clearer. :O) SndCastie

Well it looks like the point is made that the mods can't agree with what is and isn't nudity. IMO you can be nude and not have genitals being displayed.

Nemirc, what brilliant examples of sophism you bring us! It's amazing! :D For those who don't know what a sophism is, it is a sort of reasonment that has the appearence (once again) of a valid argument but that is not. It is specifically orientated to fool people and conscienciously make them believe in things that are completely false. First sophism: We are diferent so we act differently. Those 6 sites are diferent one another. But they did the same here. :) Second sphism: If your explanation isn't good for me then the problem comes from me! :D Is your argumentation so weak that you had to say that? You're stating that you're necessarly right and that everyone not agreeing with you is a fool! Oh! Really, Nemirc, how could you say that? :) Third Sophism: You think we don't need to go into some pretty heavy explaining about what is an erection. Precisely, I would be very curious to know your definition in visual terms (so that we could compare with the pic) of an erection. You're trying to hide the problem turning me ridiculous, which is called as "personnal attack sophism". Fourth sophism: "a 14y old girl doing a "Vouge pose" doesn't work for me as art" This is your personnal feeling. It has nothing to do with a valid argumentation. Fifth sophism: "You kill a man..." Your analogy has nothing to do with the case of Heart'Song: she did not take any physical person to make her pics. Here you try to darken the problem perverting its essence. And finally we have this great conclusion: "If you have questions, post again. If you "don't understand me", take a grammar book and a dictionary". How charming and delicate of you to consider us as a band of analphabets. Well, this shows the respect you have for the members of this site. Congratulations and thank you so much to illustrate my words so perfectly! ;)

Nope, I don't need a grammar lesson, nemirc. I just asked for clarification, which we still haven't received. No nudity, or no genitals showing? The TOS says no genitals displayed, but you are saying no nudity. Which are we to abide by? They are not the same thing in the English language. Nude means without clothing or covering on the body. Genitals are the organs of reproduction, NOT the lower half of the body. Please stick to dictionary definitions of words, at least. The TOS says "GENITALS DISPLAYED" So far, each one of you moderators has contradicted each other, and ALL of you contradict the TOS. And NONE of you have addressed the fact that I have had images removed because the committee didn't like the pants the model was wearing, or the way a clothed model's eyes looked!!!!!

Sorry for not clarifying my point...what I meant to state is that it is quite difficult to display genitalia without being nude. Not the other way around. You can, however, blatantly display the genitalia while having most of the rest of your body clothed, that wasn't the original issue. I do apologize for the confusion. As I tried to clarify before, when we consider whether or not an image is appropriate (concerning young-looking characters) is the showing of the lower genitalia, and I thought I made that clear when referencing "the crotch" area. I'm sorry for the confusion that I've caused. MorriganShadow