Renderosity Forums / Community Center
Welcome to the Community Center Forum
Forum Moderators: wheatpenny Forum Coordinators: Anim8dtoon
Community Center F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 07 10:21 am)
Subject: Change in TOS...New Child Image Guidelines
Attached Link: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/05/Floridian/Real_Florida__Red_fac.shtml
Hmmmm...who will be deciding if a figure is 17-1/2 or 18 years of age? What, no buttocks? What about the Coppertone girl? Was she nasty? Obviously I see your point. But I'd still like to know how you'lll determine if a "child" is 17-1/2 or 18 years of age.
"Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." Well, it would be all good and nice, you are in the legitimate position to make your own rules (after all this is your community, we are absolutely free to leave if we don't like the TOS), but I don't think that the 'rosity team is so faultless whenm making judgements: a fine example is the GIRL being arbitrarily catalogued as a teen figure even while Kim Goossens clearly stated (at the time of her inception as a CG character) of being a "classical pinup" in the style of Rita Hayworth or Marilyn Monroe...
Well, of course you change the rule again after banning a few members first. Like I said before, shoot first, ask questions later. How are you going to earn respect from the members? I miss those days when the mods actually listen to members first instead of their bosses wallets. Just blowing off some steam. JV
Software: Daz Studio 4.15, Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7
Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM, RTX 3090 .
"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss
"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock
You'll get one "yes" vote for me against images depicting violence against women. Same goes for kiddie porn. There are a few sites that split off from here during the nude fairy debate several years ago, and some those sites may still allow images of nude children. So I don't see any reason for the admins, mods or site owners to have to suffer through this debate again. It may only serve to harden their hearts even further against the child nudity faction. That's the real crux of the matter. The child nudity faction can never understand our position of wanting to protect our children from harm, and we can never understand the child nudity faction's eagerness to put children on display as objects to desire, so we should just agree to disagree, and let this useless debate die a quiet death.
I read once that the "Coppertone Girl" image was a favorite among creeps, so there's no "safe" level of child nudity (or context it seems) when a subject like this becomes an issue.
BTW: Wasn't Jody Foster the original Coppertone Girl?
(I think it's brilliant image by the way - almost Rockwellian.)
uh, edited because I just realised that saying I think the image is brilliant, makes me sound like one of the "creeps" referenced earlier - eek! The issue was that it was favoured as a "trigger" image for their fantasies and sometimes even attacks. Nasty Stuff.
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 14:40
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 14:41
Mateo, it's not "eagerness to put children on display as objects to desire". Just read what superdoc said. If I want to create a Michelangelo pastiche or hommage with amori or little cherubs, I cannot put it here. I had a photo of a font, a real honest church font, from the cathedral in my hometown in the gallery. (Removed because the people were not interested in it. :-)) Under the new TOS, the pedestal of the font would be highly objectionable cause the putti (little boys) holding the font bowl up, are naked. That font has been there for the last 500 years and now you're telling me it's objectionable? Come on. Who are you, Voltaire? Kiddie porn? When did Renderosity have kiddie porn? Let's please not bring emotionally charged terms here. OTOH, what I really object are the reasons given why there will be no "child nudity" on Renderosity. Why not simply say, "we are afraid some jerk is going to sue us" and leave it? I can respect that. But this only irritates me. Anyways, yes, I agree that the judgment of the team is going to create conflict. Would be happy if it weren't so.
-- erlik
Mateo, I seriously question your impression of any "child nudity faction".
I agree with the rules against any sexual or questionably sexual depictions of 3D humans that are of questionable age. I agree with the no child nudity rules. 3D or not, it's not appropriate. What I don't think is necessary is to ban infants or innocent dress (beach wear for boys must now include t-shirts).
Now cherubs will be banned, is that really necessary and do you honestly think that fall into a "child nudity faction"?
The whole point of this and what brought it on by a mod who took the 'no genitals' rule and expanded it to include an image that was clothed and did not show genitals. I don't object to any rule that protects our children but I do object to a mod making up their own rules as they go. This new "clarification" is proof that overzealousness was the problem to begin with.
Adding further restrictions only creates the possibility for this to happen again. I personally think the TOS was fine to begin with.
...... Kendra
So, people yelped about the vagueness and the rules have become much tighter, and far more restrictive. You asked for clearer rules and now you have them. The mods have listened.
I agree with this decision and the reasonings for it even though I personally see nothing wrong with nudity among any age group (including old wrinkled crones as well as plump babies, with or without wings). This isn't a matter of being anti-fairy, but of not having some solicitor general serve papers or PayPal freeze the store or being featured on the nightly news when some pervert and his computer get carried off to the glare of flashbulbs. This is the way it has to be in order to avoid a large chunk of very ugly liability.
We live in a country where animal heads are hung on walls and where violence is celebrated and rewarded... yet kissing in public or walking down the street nude is frowned upon. This seems unreasonable, but this is the culture and laws of the land. 
A question does arise about all the art currently in the galleries which may be against the TOS. Do existing images get grandfathered in as of this date, or will they be pulled as spotted? Edit... just noticed, no grandfathering. That will be more consistent, even though harsh. It will remove the finger-pointing of "why is that one allowed?".
Carolly
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 15:04
"...or walking down the street nude is frowned upon." When considering my neighbor, I am thankful for such laws! Here's an idea: why doesn't Renderosity render up a child that meets their criteria for something unporn-like so Poser artists will know in advance what is allowable. T-Shirts on a computer generated male child out of fear? LMAO! What have we become? I know this isn't happening in real life, but it would appear that the only reason this is happening here is because the Christian Right "morality police" (luv that term, learned it here) are once again swinging their batons in the name of Jesus. Isn't it funny how the very product that created Renderosity is slowly killing it? In three more years, the only thing you'll be able to create with Poser will be mummies. It can't be a PayPal issue. Have you seen what can be purchased on eBay and paid for via PayPal?
ok there's 3 groups involved here... there's the Pro nudity / leave it alone there's the Renderosity is right brigade hwo many are in the "Fine Art has had these images for hundreds of years and no one calls them kiddie porn or looks at it as being wrong" group? thats the group I'm in. argue all you want about the rights and wrongs of certain images.. but if you ban certain area's of creativity such as the old masters have you belittle what this site is supposed to be about. agreed if you have a naked child in a "provocative" postion remove it. but if you have a cherub in the style of the old masters and you ban that or works that make up the Sistine Chapel, or works by Rembrant, Di Vinci and many other respected artists, then sorry. you have no right to call yourselves artists and have no right to run a site dedicated in anyway to artwork. since that image (my example) is classifed as artwork by institutions far older and greater than a website that has only been in existance around 10 years. they teach us the basics of the craft we endevour to show here.
some potentially great arguments here and it's interesting to see that stuff (I refuse to use the word artwork) created in Poser by juveniles looking for kicks is being compared to the great masters. If the standard of work here could be compared to Boticelli ot Raphael then I'm sure the mods wouldn't have got involved. Tasteful nudity is one thing but everybody has different ideas of what constitutes good taste and who would want to risk offending somebody with their work? There are plenty of places on the internet to display low rent stuff like this perhaps the staff here have reasonably decided it's about time some standards were applied. Standards that will keep the community alive, standards that will stop the lawyers getting involved and standards that will avoid you being placed at risk for downloading material that is classed as pornographic. Get a life, unfeasibly large breasted amazonians with tiny waists, images of young androgenous characters, pre teen models, children etc are not in my opinion modelled for their artistic merit and virtual porn has no right to be displayed in an artists community. Andy
I realise that but if the work displayed hee in the first place was in the same "good taste" as the old masters then the ban wouldn't have been neccessary and that was the point I was trying to make. Sadly there is no point in having a "grey area" because it will only cause more work and pointless arguments. as with so many things in life, if people had behaved sensibly in the first place they wouldn't be arguing about a ban now. Andy
- I don't like most of naked virtual models - not because of prudery, but because most of them look ugly and artificial. 2) I think that children pornography should be banned to avoid molestation of REAL children involved in REAL pornographic photographic sessions 3) 3D meshes ARE NOT children, they are not REAL, and all 3D meshes are younger than 18 years, because 18 years ago there was no 3D graphics (almost) So what is the point ? Why to forbid to post a picture showing a naked fairy with childish face? This is complete absurd! You can not kill people - but you can show factious killing - (in almost every movie, also in movies for under aged there are thousands of brutal killing scenes) You can not explode atomic bomb in heart of NY, but you can show it in a movie... You can not be drug dealer in real life, but an actor can play a drug dealer in a movie. So why someone can't show a 3D mesh looking like naked child? This is fiction! No one is hurt here, no one is molested. Stupidity does not know any frontiers... Of course owners of this site can impose any rules they want - this is their right - Next, I propose to forbid to show endangered species of animals or biplane aircrafts - it would be as much cleaver as this last rule...
Normally I don't comment on these sort of topics, but as of late I've been getting more and more fed up with the way society places more and more restrictions on the innocent, whilst granting more and more leeway to the guilty. It's useless to cry 1st amendment here, it's not relevent and does not apply, but it's a shame that honest art has to suffer for the freakshow that is allowed to run rampant out there. I've seen many images of mothers with babies in here, one or both figures nude, that are lovely. So sad to ban that because society insists that the monsters who prey upon children deserve any right other than the right to a speedy destruction. Blaming the art for the crime is less than feeble as well. Just another way to make an excuse for the animals our courts are afraid to eliminate. Sorry about all that...I'm not known as a ranter in here, but child molesters are the lowest form of scum there is, and to tell everyone else to mind their P's and Q's so the freaks don't get their jollies is lame. I will give the mods the benifit of the doubt that they have the best intentions in mind....but this smacks of 'slippery slope' to me.
So, people yelped about the vagueness and the rules have become much tighter, and far more restrictive. You asked for clearer rules and now you have them. The mods have listened. How does that make it any clearer when it also says: Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team. That just gives more room for interpretation and more excuse to do whatever their perception decrees, with no recourse at all. Isn't that more of a policy to eradicate any image that's even suspected of being near to the guidelines according to who is judging it?
Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and
hats
hummmm... No child nudity of any kind which includes no exposed chest ...... so I guess there won't be any more beach scenes, nor swimming pool scenes .... gotta keep the kids complete covered. guessing that a "child" in this new TOS is under 18 looking. errr a 10 y/o kid with beard and mustache ?? !! I can kinda understand the reasoning, but sometimes the cure kills the patient.
Oh, crap. I have a baby image in my gallery which has the baby with no top on. Guess I'd better delete it now, because it's clearly not an adult and its chest is exposed. I also have to wonder about boys having to cover THEIR chests. Little boys are generally allowed to go topless on a beach (just not at Renderosity). This looks like a standard "knee jerk" reaction to me. Whatever. I'm to the point where I just really couldn't care less. bonni
"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis
Here's a few other sites TOS
No nude artwork, animations or photographs of children under the age of 18 will be allowed anywhere on the site, however, artwork showing babies in a non sexual setting will be allowed, provided there is no showing of genitalia.
Q. What sort of images are totally unacceptable?
A. No hardcore pornography - mild artistic nudity is acceptable. No softcore or hardcore child pornography (no nudity of those who appear under 18 please)
CHILDREN DEPICTION OF CHILDREN OR CREATURES RESEMBLING CHILDREN
(INCLUDING IMAGINARY CREATURES SUCH AS FAIRIES)
UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN, EVEN IN NON-EROTIC SITUATIONS.
As a rule of thumb, make sure that all your models, virtual or real, look clearly over 20. We realize that this is subjective and hard to determine with virtual figures, but we prefer to err on the side of caution in this matter.
PICTURES THAT INCLUDE A TEXT SPECIFYING OR IMPLYING THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE,
OR THAT INCLUDE PROPS AND SCENERY IMPLYING SUCH, ARE FORBIDDEN.
This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of "teen" anything, high school desks and classrooms and other words and situations implying that one or more of the participants is under 18.
www.bclaytonphoto.com
bclaytonphoto
on Facebook
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=120512&Start=37&Artist=SndCastie&ByArtist=Yes
So, is SndCastie, a moderator here, in violation of the new TOS? See link. Man, I can see a full third of the outstanding efforts of thousands of artists disappearing from Renderosity's servers over the next two weeks. This is really sad news. It is truly pathetic. My sincere symapthy to those who suddenly qualify for censorship. Is this really the route to go? What is Renderosity trying to do, protect perverts from themselves? Or keep the morality police happy? I'm simply astounded.
Am I alone in thinking that a paedophile would NOT slip in a pic of a cherub and then dance for joy that it got past the censors?
Incidentally, our own TOS at PlanIt 3D is also specific to the point of...
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 PlanIt 3D team.
Note that the emphasis is on "sexual" type poses, and genital exposure...and that would still exclude an honest to goodness cherub.
If the galleries are going to be policed (which is GOOD i.m.h.o) then at least set some reasonable guidelines for the police force, not a blanket ban. [edited for 2:15 a.m. typo.]
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 20:26
The liver is evil - It must be punished.
YES, SndCastie's image is in violation of the TOS. Isn't that part of the "discretion?" Since age is so difficult to identify with 3D images, that image could be judged to be not applicable because the Baby New Year is ageless it's always renewed at the beginning of each year. It all depends on who's doing the identifying doesn't it?
Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and
hats
Can we get an official clarification on boys without shirts on? It does seem to say that in the text, but it seems like it violates common sense.
I'm not looking for any rants, just a Mod to clarify.
Beyond that, I take offense at the many people bringing out their hatred for Conservatives or Christians of which I am one. This is not a case of either one here. Its simply the business of lawyers. They are always looking for someones cause or position to exploit for their gain. I understand that Renderosity needs to protect themselves and I wont complain about that.
Message edited on: 03/21/2005 22:37
Actually, what amazes me are the number of responses that think this rule is NOT right.
LOL! Well, somebody better tell the companies that make disposable diapers that they'd better put shirts on those babies in the advertisements!
There was an official statement regarding shirtless boys in the thread on this topic in the Poser forum. No, it is not allowed. Not on the beach, not if it's a baby, under NO circumstances.
I think this has nothing to do with Christians or Conservatives. It has to do with the Admins being pissed off at the members for making a stink over someone's banishment, and they're putting the smack down hard, with too-restrictive rules now. They're gonna teach people a lesson, dammit. They're gonna just show us who's in charge.
Personally, I care less and less about Renderosity and their policies every day, and I spend less and less money here as a result.
bonni Message edited on: 03/21/2005 23:02
"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis
Content Advisory! This message contains nudity
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=807818&Start=1&Artist=mimezine&ByArtist=Yes
"Beyond that, I take offense at the many people bringing out their hatred for Conservatives or Christians of which I am one. This is not a case of either one here. Its simply the business of lawyers. They are always looking for someones cause or position to exploit for their gain." And they seem to never run out of clients; it's the clients who bring in the business. I never said I hated Christians or Conservatives. But I *will* go so far as to say they're usually the groups doing the most screaming over things like this. Ever watch Hardball with Chris Matthews? However, I do apologize if you were offended. I'm in agreement with the management for the most part and I can certainly understand their concerns. I took a few minutes and viewed a few galleries which I found to contain questionable work when it comes to the TOS and attached a link (NUDITY) containing what I would consider to be a female at approximately 14 years of age. Now the picture isn't showing anything of a sexual nature other than nudity, but I suppose there are those who would get their jollies off in viewing such content. This is where the problem is for management and it's completely understandable. After all, this is a business, and standards and practices must be maintained and upheld. But I still maintain that the new TOS does go a little far in trying to control content. From what I'm understanding, I cannot post to the photography section a picture of my darling 12 month-old granddaughter playing in a suds-filled bathtub because her chest is exposed, nor can I post a photograph of my 13 year-old son playing topless at the beach. You asked the question of whether or not a shirt was required for male adolescents. Here is your answer... *No child nudity of any kind which includes no exposed chest, buttocks or genitals. *No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes. Which certainly answers your question, and certainly informs me I can't post the pictures I mentioned above, and THAT, kind sir, is what I find so incredibly hard to believe. Renderosity has tossed the baby out with the bathwater...no pun intended. I'm not a Poser artist nor am I a member who posts content that shows nudity in any other medium, but I do surf a lot here and can't imagine the damage forthcoming to many artists galleries. I would hope management uses good judgment in determining what is pornographic and what is not. After all, pornography is the concern. I just hope the brush isn't too wide.
but "this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." is what I have a problem with.
Software: Daz Studio 4.15, Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7
Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM, RTX 3090 .
"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss
"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock
Elizabyte, go read a US Supreme Court case called Ashcroft v. Free Speech and then look at how Congress address that case and how Congress chose to rewrite the federal code. After you do that, you won't have any concern about the thinking and logic behind this new TOS. The way I see it, its a no-brainer. So spend less money if you like. Punish those who abide by the law if you like. Use faulty logic and wild reasoning if you like. Have a great day skateboarding.
I have personally been affected by this issue and have removed all images that I feel may be misconstrued or create offense. The image I was originally asked to remove was created using the milteen girl with morphs that matched my own 34 year old body shape and 'in my own opinion' was much older than 18; Yet it was still viewed as child like by others. When I seriously think about this and look in the mirror I think 'you've got to be kidding' and then I think of all the countless times I have been mistaken for my sons(he is 16yrs old) girlfriend then it really does make perfect (on some levels) sense to me :) I too am fine with the new changes as long as they are clearly defined, basically if I want to create childlike fae etc I still can I just can't put it in my gallery here at Render... however I find it slightly curious with the male chest side of things!?
Artist
Page ~ Store ~
OpenMindDesign (website) ~
OpenMindGallery
(website)
There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on every
beach in the world!
EricofSD, as I noted, tell it to the advertisers who make diapers and show babies without tops, wearing the diapers.
I noted elsewhere that I wouldn't have cared about the TOS changes, other than the "no shirtless boys on the beach" clause. Yes, I think babies should be able to toddle around in their diapers, and boys should be able to take off their shirt on the beach, and banning that from the galleries just makes this site that much more likely to be filled with nothing but boring Naked Vickis.
If you REALLY think that picture of a boy on the beach in a pair of swim trunks or a picture of a baby in a diaper is against the law, you're the one who needs to review the law you're citing.
bonni
Message edited on: 03/22/2005 01:14
"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis
Paedophiles don't go and don't post on Renderosity. These perverts have their own bloody shites. The criteria you set, with their vagueness, are an insult to the people on Renderosity. I've been on Renderosity for three years, and never seen kiddie porn or similar abominations. Now I'm not here anymore, and I'm perfectly happy of it!
I am worried that one of my images is breaking this new TOS!
Can some one please tell me, I am not wanting to get in trouble here!!
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=481811&Start=109&Artist=Ron%5FHarris&ByArtist=Yes
DOES ANYONE HAVE AN ANSWER WHY IT SHOULD BE BANNED TO SHOW 3D MODELS WITHOUT 3D CLOSING WHEN THEY RESEMBLE CHILDREN?No one can forbid to 18 year old looking 14 to act in hardcore porns - because she is 18, and she can do anything she wants - even to be a prostitute - this is legal.
Children pornography - REAL CHILDREN - from real world - is forbidden (justly) to protect minors against sexual exploitation practices - such law is useful.
What is the point to protect a 3D mesh from being displayed naked ????
There is no sense in such ban.
My post is not in support all those freaks crazy of naked fairies - I prefer other artistic subjects - my post is against STUPIDITY !
Maybe we should forbid to show 3D women's face? Muslim fundamentalist would be very happy!
OK, no naked fairies permitted - let's make more violence renders .... this is cool and legal. Yes! More blood! Show up more decapitated heads! Kill Bill is cool - no naughty fairies - just blood, just killing ! Perfectly legal and politically correct...
World is crazy...
THIS IS LEGAL :
http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=602974&Start=55&Artist=Ron%5FHarris&ByArtist=Yes
http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=741822&Start=109&Artist=potrimpo&ByArtist=Yes
THIS IS NOT :
http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=684350&Start=1&Sectionid=1&filter_genre_id=42&MostWanted=Yes
http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=913020&Start=1&Sectionid=3&filter_genre_id=0&WhatsNew=Yes
World is crazy!
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.
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=522
Dear Renderosity Members:As Renderosity continues to grow and evolve we find that we have to fine-tune our TOS from time to time. With that being said, we will be making some necessary changes around child nudity on the site.
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.
The following changes will go into effect today, Monday, March 21, 2005. (There will be a few weeks of education before warnings will be issued for violations):
No Child Nudity: Images of children or characters resembling children (including teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies and other imaginary figures) under 18 years of age, depicting nudity are no longer permitted.
Child Image Guidelines:
We respectfully request all members please review their galleries and make any necessary updates based on these new guidelines.
Going forward, as we are made aware of images that were posted prior to the new TOS change...and are now considered violating the new TOS, we will notify the artist of the new TOS change and remove the image/s.
Within the next couple of weeks, we will be communicating and educating those artists that are uploading images that reflect the previous TOS guidelines. This education will take place for a period of several weeks and then warnings will be given at the discretion of the Renderosity team.
If you find an image that needs to be reviewed, please send the URL to admin@renderosity.com.
Here you can review the TOS.
We feel this is a positive move for the entire community. We apologize for any inconvenience and we hope you understand the value these changes will bring. Working together we can have the best Community possible!
Thanks,
The Renderosity Team