Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL
Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum
Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom
Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 13 11:02 am)
Subject: Change in TOS...New Child Image Guidelines
I saw that reply, but I still think it was rushed to quiet down the mob. Like I said, give them time to polish these guidelines. If when all is said and done, they still ban pics of shirtless boys at the beach, then I'll agree that is a bit too much. Edit: OK Lemur, I see what you mean now. Thanks for clarifying. SnowS
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 14:09
my DeviantArt page: http://snowsultan.deviantart.com/
I do not speak as a representative of DAZ, I speak only as a long-time member here. Be nice (and quit lying about DAZ) and I'll be nice too.
Attached Link: http://www.llrx.com/features/updatecipa.htm
ok, I know this wont do any good, (i dont know it might) but here is a site that defines what is and isn't legal in the US as defined by the PROTECT Act of April 2003. From what I can see it's totally academic and non-baised politically.
GWeb got banned without warning and he have not violated any of the TOS. It is very important that he keep his account for marketplace and forum to discuss on some other things. He has alot to offer to the Poser community. His stuff is all blank due to new account, please give him some time to upload in it. Some of you guys did not know that he is one of the oldest renderosity member for more than 5 years. I know that he complained alot about the Poser6 renderer. He is realistic about it. He was deceived into purchasing P6, he was all excited and his expection was very high. When he found that Poser still use the same renderer engine with shading problem in previos versions. He want to show it to the community and hopefully that CL take the action and fix it before the release or for SP release. He also tried to re-post about the renderer problem after someone posted about preview to portray Poser's renderer capability. Renderer engine matters alot to my business because it promotes the image. I am sharing my business with him. I am asking that the account be given back to him. There are some other members who abused his effort should also be banned if GWeb is still considered to remain banned.
GWeb got banned without warning and he have not violated any of the TOS. It is very important that he keep his account for marketplace and forum to discuss on some other things. He has alot to offer to the Poser community. His stuff is all blank due to new account, please give him some time to upload in it. Some of you guys did not know that he is one of the oldest renderosity member for more than 5 years. I know that he complained alot about the Poser6 renderer. He is realistic about it. He was deceived into purchasing P6, he was all excited and his expection was very high. When he found that Poser still use the same renderer engine with shading problem in previos versions. He want to show it to the community and hopefully that CL take the action and fix it before the release or for SP release. He also tried to re-post about the renderer problem after someone posted about preview to portray Poser's renderer capability. Renderer engine matters alot to my business because it promotes the image. I am sharing my business with him. I am asking that the account be given back to him. There are some other members who abused his effort should also be banned if GWeb is still considered to remain banned. ? Isn't this a little....uh.....OT? *********************************************************** Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-zzzzzzzzz......
"I saw that reply, but I still think it was rushed to quiet down the mob. Like I said, give them time to polish these guidelines" If this is the case, shouldn't they of polished the guide lines before posting them and putting them into effect? By the fact that they are currently inforcing the new TOS it would say that they believed that they were polished enough.
Guess I won't be posting that pic my husband took last night. Me holding my 7 month old naked baby boy after he got out of the tub. You can see his naked back and one part of one very cute little butt cheek. I'm disappointed that a few pervs out there have to ruin beautiful moments for the rest of us. I guess the authorities will be showing up any minute now to arrest hubby on a charge of creating child pornography. Kristta
I guess that includes ALL anime images seeing that facially they all look around 12, despite having a size 50 HH chest.
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
CUT IT OFF!! BERGERGA It is not cloned account!! And GWeb is my husband!!! and my name is Christina!! Is that the way you have been treating GWeb like that??!!! Great! Good job! Excellent! You've managed to derail the thread! Or at least bumped it off course a little. Thank you! It was worth it, if only for that purpose alone.
Lovemends, whether or not you are a clone ain't really the issue here. This is the wrong thread for your post. This is specifically about the new image posting guidelines.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
Deleted my last post due to not reading Acadia's comment properly, Apologies, buddy.
Coppula eam se non posit acceptera jocularum.
Now that was a plot twist worthy of a soap opera. :D Thanks for the laugh Lovemends. Back on topic... Rendo definately has the right to change their TOS in whatever bizarre ways they wish, But I also feel we as Customers and patrons have a right... no a responsibility to complain about it. Maybe then they will change it to allow common sense Wholesome images of babies and kid's at the beach, while preventing the sick stuff. You don't need an H bomb to kill a fly.
What I would like to know is how can a little boy on a beach wearing a bathing suit trunks be considered "nudity" and "child porn"? If that were the case they wouldn't allow suntan lotion commercials on MAINSTREAM television.
As for infants and toddlers in diapers? Again, turn to any channel on television and you will see infants and toddlers running around in diapers ... if it were considered "kiddy porn" and "nudity", these diaper commercials wouldn't be permitted to run.
I can see Renderosity wanting to clean up it's act and rid the site of things that could be considered "kiddy porn", but kids in diapers or little boys on a beach with bathing trunks on and digging in the sand is NOT pornography.
Fine, clean up the site, but use commonsense for heaven's sake.
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 14:51
"It is good to see ourselves as
others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we
are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not
angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to
say." - Ghandi
has anyone ever given a moment's thought to the fact that this may not be a decision on the part of the Mods, owners, etc? It may be a dictat from their legal department. The lawyers have to keep an eye on current cases, rulings (establishing precedent, etc), and if a case went a certain way, then the lawyers would advise their clients ('rosity), that they are in an exposed or actionable position, and they'd better cover their buns (whether under 18 or not..;) by modifying the TOS accordingly.
There are all types out there on the web, and I mean all types. You wouldn't believe some of the areas of interest (whazza kwakiatul, anyway..kinda reluctant to find out..;). No matter what the object, there's someone out there who obsesses about it. It's a non-issue for me, I have zero interest in using kids in pics (with 2 children and 3 grandchildren underfoot), and Anime's always creeped me out a little, because it does look like little kids with big changes. (and why do they call it Anime, when the object seems to make sure nothing moves?..;) Let's see what goes, and what stays..you know, in the Victorian age, they used to 'airbrush out' (well, actually not paint in) certain attributes, especially when portraying the female form (see the White rock girl, or some of the pre-Raphaelites [and who's this Rafael, anyway?..;]), and when all else fails, you can always put some clothes on the puir dears..
I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit
anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)
has anyone ever given a moment's thought to the fact that this may not be a decision on the part of the Mods, owners, etc? It may be a dictat from their legal department. The lawyers have to keep an eye on current cases, rulings (establishing precedent, etc), and if a case went a certain way, then the lawyers would advise their clients ('rosity), that they are in an exposed or actionable position, and they'd better cover their buns (whether under 18 or not..;) by modifying the TOS accordingly. I have no doubt that lawyers were deeply involved in the the new TOS.
I highly doubt this was a lawyers recommendation as no lawyer worth his weight in salt would write such vauge guidelines. Perhaps though thats what the site needs is for the powers that be to hire a lawyer to write legally binding and specific TOS. There are also a ton of sites out there where you can find TOSes for this kind of stuff that you can use. If you're worried about legal issues use Daz's or CL's TOSes for their galleries, they did hire lawyers to define theirs. Why reinvent the wheel when someone is willing to give it to you?
The point is someone may get excited looking at my dog, that doesn't mean I have to keep him in the house... By assuming everyone is a "potential sicko" you limit the rights of the 95% of the people who aren't sickos. It's like saying that somebody gets off on looking at the underwear ads in the sears catalog, so let's ban the sears catalog. Gee that makes sense doesn't it? -_- STAY AWAY FROM MY DOG! :)
as no lawyer worth his weight in salt would write such vauge guidelines. ? A lawyer wouldn't write something vague? cough cough cough ......pardon me, I seem to have something stuck in my throat.......
"has anyone ever given a moment's thought to the fact that this may not be a decision on the part of the Mods, owners, etc? It may be a dictat from their legal department." pakled
I do not blame Rosity for this. Have those in charge suddenly decided they are appalled by unclothed children? Have Rosity-member prudes staged a coup? No, the cause is the outside world, (perhaps legal cases) and there is nothing we can do about that. We will just have to deal with it, so:
Top 10 workarounds for the new restrictions:
- Go to Poser Hair Room and put beards on all children, giving the impression that they are old (I know this will work because I have a beard and people can tell I'm old).
- Move Rosity from Tennessee to France, where the children wear no pants, and it's legal, I think.
- Use Carrara to create Fake ID's for all children, and post these in the Free Stuff section.
That's all I can think of. Anybody got a 7.?
America, the land of freedom". Where you go, America, where you go ... Since 30 years ago when here in Spain died General Franco and ended his dictatorship, all the freedoms that we have gained, you have lost them. Sad.
When I was a kid, in the '50's (I told you I was old), I read a prediction that someday the USSR and the US would pass each other going in opposite directions, the Russians gaining liberty and freedom and Americans losing them. At the time, I thought the writer was insane.
"D I S, N E Y, OSITY."
Actually they have no problem with topless boys, see : The Jungle book, and Tarzan just to name 2.
Also since they will release Tonari no Totoro next year it has topless girls in it (a very innocent scene.)
And god forbid Jack Jack in his diapers.
I'm no great fan of Disney, but they are nowhere near as.... well "Umbridge like*" as Rendo is becoming.
(* see Harry potter and the Order of the Pheonix)3
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 15:16
"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. There's the bottom line. There are some who have made no purchases here since the OT forum was shut down. The only ones who are really hurt are the "exclusive" merchants and this site.
the Russians gaining liberty and freedom and Americans losing them
KP is more-or-less allowed in Russia. In fact, the former Soviet Republics are probably the largest source of such material today.
Child prostitution is more-or-less allowed there, too.
Not the best example to use when one is defining "freedom".
Berserga - "You don't need an H bomb to kill a fly." i seen some flies that seem like it >_> it doesnt matter what the picture contains with 7 billion people in the world, and more everyday there is someone who likes every form of everything if not, that thing wouldnt exist in the first place rowan_crisp - " You don't even want to know how I feel when I'm browsing power tool catalogs." rowan, my friend likes pandas o_o so you arent the worst in the world heh can we ban all power tool catalogs from being made? hell lets make it illegal to advertise!! cant advertise that milk, it came from unspeakable parts of a cow and if its mentioned then some guy might get excited! ugh /end ranting
Ok, I normally only like to expose myself to the outside through my art and not through words, or complaints in the forums but here goes. I don't really see this as an attempt to help curb childporn, nor do I see this as something coming from the business side of Rosity. I see this as an attempt to "put a cork in it". I've noticed recently, and I gather it has happened often before, that the mods and admins have had their decisions questioned, most recently dealing with the Heart'Song affair. I can imagine they are tired of the emails and the postings questioning their decisions of TOS interpertations so I can see where they might decide to fix the issue once and for all. "No nude children". Makes things easier doesn't it? Overkill? Yes. Stiffles some artists means of expression? Yes. Makes for less question of TOS interpertation? Very much Yes. The new TOS makes a lot of sense depending on where you are standing, and to a Rosity mod or admin it would make a whole lot of sense.
So if i have a scene file with a female child fully clothed wearing a tube top or similar and i choose to zoom in on the face for dramatic effect and the tube top will be croped out, this would break the TOS because it looks like shes got no clothes on. What the .? Maybe Rendo Admins should go back to the drawing board and revise these new TOS just cutting some slack or tying it down a little. People will be afraid to post anything for fear of being banned. Huh have a think about it guys! hey maybe the owners of rendo are working their way up to a full hijab for all renders of women (no chance with all that pornography here) or maybe they are just fans of Marcel Marceau and feel the need for child imagery to be displayed in a typical mime way (heads, feat and hands only, with blacked out body) or maybe its just a filter effect removing all imagery of children = more naked images of victorias breasts. yahooo! not.
"Don't do it with an axe, get a chainsaw"
As a followup, under the terms thus mentioned, a 3D representation of the following paintings would be banned as being akin to kiddie porn: The Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by Michaelangelo ("The Flood" section shows naked children) "Ezekial" by Michaelangelo (naked cherubim) "Madonna Litta" by da Vinci (naked baby breastfeeding) "Virgin of the Rocks" by da Vinci (naked infants again) "Madonna" by Caravaggio (naked infant Jesus) ...and so on and so forth. I would suggest that a policy that does not allow one to replicate what are considered some of the greatest works of art by some of the most revered artists in the western world (and in one case I mentioned above, is located in a church) is a policy that is absurd.
Just one thing. Rosity's servers are in TN, and there is nothing in the news regarding this topic now. The current hot topic is Congress and Shrubbie interfering in the case Terri Schiavo for purely partisan reasons. So that dog doesn't hunt. Unless there is some sort of hidden rider on the No Gay MarriageCivil UnionLegalize discrimination again crap being shoved through in Nashville, there's nothing on the legal radar. Rosity is going to do what its going to do. And if crawling into bed with the New Puritan Movement is what chooses, so be it. No action occurs without reaction and long term consequence, so it will be interesting to see how the Big R's rep holds now that they essentially have -forced- NVIATWAS on the world...as in so much for the claims of being an 'art' site. Although I would =really= like to see some documentation of exactly -how much- of the community has been griping about illusions of kiddie porn. I rather suspect that the actual percentage is =well= below 10%....
jonbg1 -- I think that you've hit the nail on the head. Once this thread has burned itself out, we probably won't hear much about the subject in the future. If it's banished across the board, then people will eventually get used to the idea. The issue will lose a lot of steam. Fine with me. One less thing to scrap about in the forums all of the time.
Some of the people that have screamed the loudest on this issue don't realize just how self-defeating that screaming has been.
Privacy Notice
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
These changes are a result of a combination of several factors: feedback from the community, consistency between the marketplace and the community and the legal liability surrounding child nudity and pornography.
feedback from the community 'ay?
well how many times have you seen in the forum how sick people are of the same old nekkid v3 images,when you gonna ban those?
no,you won't do that,will you,instead of banning nudity that is meant to imply sex,you ban innocent nudity,
what is more UNSEXUAL..a child like faery fluttering thru the woods or the Friday night redhead of the week? (no offence Prog,I actually love your images)
-The3dZone
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 14:12
Funny YouTube video of the week - Bu De Bu Ai