emotiguy is clearly over 18 so he's ok

Actually, as much as I am against the new policy, because I feel it is extreme, I do have to commend Rendo for making it very clear about new posts. I see notations during uploading that there are new guidelines in the TOS. Well done, Rendo, on that part. I'm trying to be fair, see? 8-)

I think this is getting off topic ... leaving :) Greets Chris

I think this is getting off topic ... leaving :) Greets Chris

casette wrote: " And you have wondered, Rosity, how many members (and how many sales in the marketplace) are you going to lose for this nice decission of cutting the freedoms?"
Not many. There are always new, unsuspecting members signing up everyday.

Sixus 1 - As they are not humanoid characters, they would not fall under this ruling. To all, please be patient, we are trying to answer all of your questions as quickly as possible. Thank you MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator

Thanks to God the American government dont administers neither the European museums nor the cathedrals ... and my wife can do top-less in any beach of Spain without any trouble O tempora, o mores SAD SAD SAD SAD. I go out. Bye.-

I can understand Rosity's concerns, but I think they were far too broad in the topless definition. Even in the most conservative Tennessee communities, boys have no shirt on in public places and no one even thinks twice about it. Girls, on the other hand, do bother people and I know some cultures don't see a difference, but in America, where Rosity is located, a good part of society does, especially if they are older, so I think that is where they should have limited their focus. And babies are ridiculous altogether. What baby do you see on network TV even that has a shirt on. They all just wear diapers. If the goal is to avoid porn accusations, the network television guidelines should serve well, which doesn't include problems with diapered babies and shirtless boys.

sigh. personally guys, I think I'd rather see a rule that says no nudes, all females must be clothed top and bottom, and all males must have bottoms on. My real problem isn't with the new TOS as they apply to female characters, it's just a little extreme when dealing with male characters and infents. I mean you can show more in a disney film then here under these rules.

"I think all textures and figures in the marketplace will be ok. Rosity won't do anything to hurt their profits" Maybe, but I want to know, in case anyone who bought or wants to buy the COTG want to know. :) I don't think that it will include kittens and horses and the like, but I wanted to know how humaniod something has to be fall under this update of the TOS. --Rebekah--

Well,

Ya'll will be pleased to see that I took my stil with the baby in diapers out of my gallery. And my animation with the same baby. And I won't upload the animation that I've been working on for two years that has the baby in the diapers in it either.

Interestingly enough, babies in diapers and cherubs etc. earn a "G" rating in the movies.

But I guess that's not good enough for Renderosity.

Oh well, it's not my site.

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 13:11

I rarely render images with children in them -- perhaps a grand total of 10 times in the years that I've been fooling around with Poser. And I've never posted any such images. It's not an interest.

But I find it to be particularly sad that our culture has pretty much stripped out all of the innocence. It's gone.

Lock the kids up. And don't let them be seen in public until they're 18.

Some human freak in Florida might do something to them.

I used to ride my bicycle all over the place......the biggest threat came from bullies my own age, or from older teenage bullies.

And nobody had ever heard of a kid coming back to school with a gun, and killing people. Shooting up the place.

Guns were easier to get back in those days, too.

Something's changed. And not for the better.

Better to put the TOS update and warning in the upload than in everyone's gallery, whether they have nudity or not, making it look as though they were warned about it...

Cross posted, sorry MorriganShadow. Thanks for your brief clarification. --Rebekah--

acctually MorriganShadow the Greys are humaniod, there not human or human based I think that's what you ment.

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 13:09

Thank goodness thixen isn't a mod here, or else he'll ban my arse so fast, the speed of dark couldn't even catch up. :o)

"I'd like clarification regarding nude images of 'The Girl' As she is of undetermined age, what is Renderosity's policy here? Aiko too: as she's more of a fantasy/anime/unreal character, can any one tell me how old SHE is and what images depicting her will be allowed???" I'd like to know too as I have some pics of of at least Aiko nude, don't remember if I have any of the Girl...

Rebekah wrote: "I don't think that it will include kittens and horses and the like, but I wanted to know how humaniod something has to be fall under this update of the TOS."
"this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team."
The TOS is very broad when they included that line.

Popcorn, anyone? Hurry up before it gets locked.

Oh for cripes sakes. This has nothing to do with the American government! If people who have their images pulled would quit trying to beat a dead horse and just gracefully pull their image and take it to another site and say "Ok Rendo..it's your site..your call...I'll take it another site"... None of this crap would have to happen in the first place. It's all the whining and bitching and mud slinging that brings on these kinds of problems. I'm not a Rendo advocate either, but this is THEIR site and they don't owe any single one of us squat. We're here posting our images because they are kind enough to put up a gallery here. They don't owe anyone, anything period. All the crying around here get's wearisome.

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 13:25

Hi, all, Please be patient with us. It appears that much of our staff can't be online at this time, and we're doing our best to find answers to all of your questions. And, as long as everyone is civil with each other, this thread won't be locked, I promise :D MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator

Not quite beachnut.... the gallery is a lure to the market place... It's about money, simple as that. Not the law, cold hard cash. And that's fine, no problem with that... it's just the extent they are taking it to...... no, calm, calm... 6,7,8,9,10 Jack

Hi, all, As far as Aiko, The Girl, and even Victoria (1,2,3) and Steph (Reg. and Petite)...even as far as the male figures (Mike, David, Freak). If you morph the character to look underage (in the face and body), and you render them nude, you cannot post them here. MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator

No prob Jack...No worries. Just getting weary of a new fight emerging every week in Poser-land. Maybe I should go back to watching soaps instead. ;)

"I'm not a Rendo advocate either, but this is THEIR site and they don't owe any single one of us squat", true but we don't owe them our commerce either. It's a two way street.

"Please be patient with us. It appears that much of our staff can't be online at this time... " MorriganShadow, It seems that you have a mostly volenteer staff then. If so I do commend you (esp you personally) for taking this seriously and trying to react to it in a timely manner. Lumer is right, shut down the gallery and the site wont last 3 months. Did I hear some one say keep it civil breaks out the pies j/k wink

lol under these rules the Starchild would be banned! (for those that don't know the term, this is the final shape of David Bowman in 2001 - a fetus hanging in space)

No prob Jack...No worries. Just getting weary of a new fight emerging every week in Poser-land. It's been that way for as long as I've been in the game. I don't see things changing anytime soon. This thread -- if it stays true to form -- will rage for a day or two, and then it will gradually fade away. It's sort of built-into the system. Something else will be the "hot topic" by the end of the week. Perhaps even sooner.

oh.. and also pictures from the bible and photos of the Sistine Chapel are hereby banned... and 30% of the Louve, Tate and English National Galleries... and ... the list goes on. have fun everyone..! I leave you to trying to point out the admins here what is art and what is porn...

Oh well there go any historically accurate images that include children.... So if I want to do an Egyptian Scene - I had better start dreaming up some sort of clothing for the top half that didn't exist? Now I know why I don't post images here any more....

Not permitting a male child under the age of 18 with his chest showing is a bit extreme. But as beachnut pointed out, this is Rosity's site.

Posting from Great Britain, where the law explicitly states that indecent pictures of somebody over-18 who happens to look underage are illegal. Over the years there have been several cases in the USA which are relevant. Most important, Renderosity could be prosecuted anywhere in the USA, under the local State Law, using that State's precedents on what sorts of image are indecent, and hence illegal. But the question about the Shirtless-Boy-On-The-Beach does seem to me to show the point at which things have gone too far. And there is a certain Disney movie in which the central character is a topless boy. Yes, I know that doing a render inspired by "The Jungle Book" could be a TOS breach for all sorts of other reasons, but even if Walt Disney himself were a Renderosity member he couldn't post a Mowgli image to the gallery. I understnad the reasons for this caution. I wouldn't want to have to pay the legal bills to fight off a criminal prosecuation. But the world we're in is insane.

But the world we're in is insane Antonia..you've hit the nail right on the head.

We have to say we are a little saddened by these turn of events. We were just thinking about uploading some images we did of the P6 children, which under these guidelines would be questionable as two bare shoulders can be seen, which could imply nakedness as the TOS is to broad. Also on a more personal note, We are also disappointed from the point of view that we spent many late nights sensitively developing and creating with Curious Labs, modelling and texture details on Ben & Kate with thoughts on this subject matter. However it is always good to keep an open mind on this issue, perhaps if Renderosity had a method of submitting for review, any imagery of this type for filtering, everyone would know were they stand. Best, Helena & Elliot Jolly

"Posting from Great Britain, where the law explicitly states that indecent pictures of somebody over-18 who happens to look underage are illegal" Thats one of the newer laws here in the US as well, but I believe in both versions of the law it allots for artistic nudity, but that's not my beef. It's the topless boy/infant that has be down in the dumps. I have a very nice picture of my son at the beach with the sun setting behind him that now I can't post.

Well parts of it sure are Antonia tongue in cheek. Parts of it are. Jack

"# No child nudity of any kind which includes NO exposed chest, buttocks or genitals."

Um somehow that didn't look right......
JV

or maybe it's written for my neigborhood (da hood). Now don't nobody go nowhere until we've clarified this... Message edited on: 03/21/2005 13:50

can't this be changed to indecent or something, I do not see anything wrong with bathing suits on young males, I feel that this is going just a little overboard don't you? I mean what year is this? Soon all the ladies will have to wear nikkers under their dresses?

I think the" no topless boys" is to preemptively Deal with those people who would inevitably post topless little Girls and claim that these are not Girls but effeminate/"androgynous boy "Faes". but hey, theres always the Fairy sites. . and to the issue of lost revenue I think top income producing merchants like Danae&morforno , ashanim etc.dont have to worry about the wrath of the fairy fans IMHO. but as Bobasur said, its their site oh well.

OK, I understand - "everything for money". But I thought it was mainly an ARTIST site, not MERCHANT. Put the democracy to the trash can, because you need those few more bucks. Think about merchants losing NOW even more bucks. C'mon, it's stupid. It has no sense. It has nothing to do with laws, it's just leaving mods less to work with, now they don't have to have dirty thoughts about kid's pics. May all the shirtless infants vomit you. Yup, a bit dissappointed. And nervous. Sorry, but you make me sick. When will you ban all those naked tits, 'cause they may inflict porn, which IS ALSO ILLEGAL ? Never, 'cause market for nekkid Vickies is way too big and too much money flows through there...

It's unfortunate to see how judgemental and hostile some of you guys are. On the one hand you want the admins to allow child nudity, but you take no responsibility for what happens to them if some kiddie porn slips in, and the site gets some prosecutor on its case. It doesn't really matter if some court somewhere thinks computer-generated kiddie porn is legal; what matters is whether some local D.A. decides to prosecute under their community standards. I have a feeling that if the child nudity faction weren't so demanding, condescending, abusive, hostile, self-serving and defensive about this whole issue, the admins would have compromised in favor of the child nudity enthusiasts. But now you'll have to take it to the few remaining sites that host pics of nude children, and hope they aren't subject to enforcement by over-zealous D.A.s.

@wolf359 You should have heard the things I said that I didn't post! [big grin}

According to this, no posting Laura, Luke, PT, Young Victoria,PS, new PS, mil boy, Arduinos's teen, all look way under age. Did I miss any? Oh yeah, V3 when you scale her down.

*IRT - rowan_crisp

"So beach scenes with a boy with his shirt off are out?

Clarification, not sh*t stirring, honestly. I'm trying to figure out just how broad this is. "

If the figure depicted appears under 18, yes, they are out.

MorriganShadow
Poser Coordinator*

So, when is Renderosity going to start selling Victorian Clothes? This aspect is a bit severe. No male can be topless? I guess we will render the little boys in bikinis and girls tops to meet TOS. I personally do not care about the no nude policy, but at some point all this sphincter tightening gets a bit ridiculous. It has reached that point.

lol some of us are worried about traditional artwork.. you know.. DaVinci, Rembrant, etc.. all those depictions of cherubs, half naked infant jesus's... what has been deemed acceptable for the last, oh I dunno.. 1500 years?

NO, Biggie, just a sign of the times,people. Also sign of the gradual and ongoing tightening of the rules here at Renderosity, which has now reached the point of self-caricature. Oh, well. Right now I am surfing the web, looking to buy some stock in us companys that make Burkhas. That should be a thriving business someday REAL soon!

there are people (usually guys) who get umm "excited" from looking at a shiny new 6 digit priced car or boat, shall we add automobile pornography to the list to ban as well? o man nice muffler! thats it baby roar that engine! i have a friend who gets her jollies looking at naked pandas, shall we ban all the animal pics as well? there are 7 billion people in this world and will always ALWAYS be someone who doesnt agree with one rule (or law) or another television has also gone through these arguments and laws were made, but laws werent made with mass overkill (some were but changed very quickly) if a pic of a boy on a beach with no shirt is here nobody is forcing anyone to look at it accual porn sites were whined at from having gay men and straight couples on the same site laws were passed and now the sites can post the same thing, but theres warnings on the front page if you dont want to see gay men then you may leave! barbie has figures that are underage, and accually have better detail than some of the pics here the figures are made of plastic and continue to be made, nobody forces anyone to buy them or to even look at them, and there are other dolls and things with even more detail, shall we ban all the industries in the world? ok ranting too much R'osity did too much, there are people complaining everyday that just nudity (even adult) is wrong and that they dont want to see it, yet by banning that, it would also ban a large part of art itself the human body itself is art, and has been since the beginning of the human race there has been many great artists all through history making art based on nudity, ive gone on trips to places around the world, ive seen the sistine (spelling?) chapel it contains pics of nudity and some are under 18 shall we rip it all down? ruin one of history's masterpieces? okokok now i late for work :x /end ranting

"This is the dictat of a fascist regime and a step too far." I pretty much stopped paying attention after that one. Good freakin' lord. ;P I highly doubt that they're going to ban images of shirtless boys at the beach, as long as it's obviously not created with the intention to sexually stimulate. Please give them some time to work out the fine points before everyone starts packing their bags and threaten to go to one of the non-fascist sites. ;) SnowS

"I highly doubt that they're going to ban images of shirtless boys at the beach," erm yes they are. see above. or ""So beach scenes with a boy with his shirt off are out? Clarification, not sh*t stirring, honestly. I'm trying to figure out just how broad this is. " If the figure depicted appears under 18, yes, they are out. MorriganShadow Poser Coordinator"

OK. I have stayed out of all this till now, because former professional opinion. And will probably resume my staying out again soon, but had to state a couple of things. 1. In your attempt to clarify the TOS, don't really think you did a good job. Seems, other than a stricter version, to be just as muddy before. At least IMHO. And you are now disallowing images, by the new terms, that NOBODY in their right mind would consider remotely out of bounds. IE, boys in bathing suits. 2. Yes this is Rendo's decision, so what we really think, in the long run, doesn't matter. They may listen, which would be great, but in the end, it is their decision, as they own the site. sigh As I don't even post to the galleries here anymore, it doesn't effect me. But I am saddened for those whose innocent art it does. 3. I investigated this type of crap. For years I worked investigating child abuse, which child porn is considered. Let me tell ya, there was no way we would even look twice at somebody who rendered an image of a faerie froliking through a meadow that didn't have a shirt on. It's just not child porn, no matter which US law you are looking at. Doesn't make a difference, since Rendo still has the ultimate control of the decision, but all the people against these images yelling "kiddie porn, burn the kiddie porn!" (OK, generalizing here, but may be close to what I have heard on this subject in these forums over the years.) need to lighten up. Nobody investigating ca, or child porn, would look twice. It just isn't it. Trust me. We have real issues to deal with like 70 year old men with naked pictures of 13 year olds taking showers at the local pool in their basements. THAT's kiddie porn.