Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=522

Let me be the first to congratulate the Renderosity team for heading in the right direction on the child nudity. After seeing the little link on the gallery page then reading what they have posted there i have to honestly say "Well Done And about Time Guys" :)

That's a touchy subject. Though I have never (and probably never will do such images) I think they may have gone to one extreme. I can see that you either need to say it's allowable (and thus abuseable) or not allow it at all. It's ashame really because it hinders true art.

It's fine with me.

Doesn't bother me. With the laws the way they are and the possible legal liability concerning child pornography, I think it is a wise move.
I say this due to a friend of mine that bought a computer from someone and the hard drive had tons of teen and child porn on it and he got busted shortly after he bought that computer. Deleting wasn't enough.... there were trojan dialers etc that alerted authorities to his activity on the internet even though he was gaming nearly all the time he was on the internet. He spent two years in prison for this. He just got out about a month ago.
That is what is sad.
I do agree with you Aldaron... Truely it is a touchy subject...and it does hinder what some see as true art, but art doesn't necessarily need nudity to be art. Don't get me wrong.... there are some really nice pieces of art that use nudity very skillfully and with good taste.

Actually this is a VEEERRRRYYYY GOOD THING!!! #1 While we must keep artistic freedom and liberty as uncompromised as possible - we are also eqaully obligated to regard the rights and dignity of others - and avoid situations where esoteric misintrepation of a given work might subjectively - yet validly also result in a situation where others might feel abused or exploited. #2 This decision will help make this a more diverse and universally accessable site - and will challenge artists to perhaps try different or more substanitive approaches to their work where they might be inclined to lean more away from the visually provocative - and more towards the intrinsically and dramatically meaningful, and intellectually, artistically, and emotionally challenging. #3 This may be the spoonful of academic dicipline necessary to kindle the fires of the creative kiln and perfect the primordial talents of many artists out there by challenging them to try a new approach to their work that is more thought and planning intensive - and less dependent upon overly simplistic visual factors. #4 I am a STAUNCH ADVOCATE of free speech on the net. However - I also realize that all things has it's proper venue - and this is - after all - someone's house.THEY have the right to set ground rules - and THEY have the right to accept or deny visitors.

Attached Link: http://images.google.com/images?q=cherub+fountains&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search

All I'm saying is this new policy doesn't allow art with the classic depictions of cherubs, fairies and other such artistic uses. Water fountains that are on public display of cherub peeing, etc are allowed in public but now that Renderosity has to take this extreme measure such artwork is not allowed.

I too agree with the message and am saddened by the necessity of the measure that has to be taken.

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 21:43

I like it, however, now that we cannot do little "cherubs"? If so..and it looks like it, then I think that perhaps they have gone too far with this, no?

Aaaahhh... I see the direction you were going Aldaron... I definitely do agree with you in that respect that it is hindering true art. 8) That was just my misunderstanding. But you are correct in your statement. 8)

This policy is in line with other similar sites that have had this type of thing in place long before Renderosity decided to do it. Also it brings the galleries in line with the marketplace on the whole child nudity thing and makes the policy even across the board. I get to see some of the comments by individuals on fairy type and other younger type beings in gallery images, and sometimes I feel I need a shower after reading them. This Policy is for the best believe me.....

you should see the thread in the Poser forum..you'd think the 3rd Reich had won the war..;) It's a non-issue for me, I have no desire to render children, I'm up to my arms in real ones..;)

just shows the poser guys arent cosher :P

I agrre Pakled - it's really not the end of democracy here - R'osity is a privately owned and operated site and they are perfectly within their grounds to change policy - besides - I have seen the fairy pictures floating around out there on the net - and while many are mystical, magical,mythological, moody, and fancifully imaginative - others will make your skin crawl,all the blood flow into your feet, and make you have the distinct urge to either faint or throw up. It all depends on context and the true intention of the subject matter, and no matter how many freaky people out there might "ambiguize" a specific image - they can't disguise the actual intention or sublimitive message or inuendo behind it....

Nobody is saying that you can't do naked fairies - heck - draw'em up frenching each other in a drunkin stupor if that floats your boat - the point here is - nobody ever said that it was an absolute must and die hard necessity that they had to be drawn in a way that made them look like pre-pubescent children! - heck - let's see some fairies with "over 18" qaulities for a change for cryin out loud!!!

Phtttt!! Can't make tiny cherubs is my gripe. All the rest I agree with.

Whilst totally in agreement with the stand Rend is making, I have to add one point to Ardiva's cherubs. What about little BOYS in swim trunks if no naked chests are allowed on the child figs?

This is a bad thing. There is a definite difference between child nudity and child pornography. I have studied artists who's entire body of work deals with naked children or children photographed in erotic positions (but with no genitals and not sexual). There is an inherent quality of the child nude that cannot be reproduced by a substitute. The child nude is an expression of the self as a contrast between the mature and immature elements of personality. The nudity can symbolize maturity as well as an emotional barrenness and vulnerability. See the works of Rineke Dijkstra, jock sturges, Sally Mann, Will Mcbride, and Ralf Mohr These photographers do not create child porno and in fact tend to dispell what is so taboo about the whole issue. ALthough personally not effected in any way, I feel that this strict issue will ultimately hold back 3D art from making breakthrough developments and a wide scape of art.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1224399

I do understand the purpose of these rules, and I submit to them within the confines of the website eventhough there are parts of it that I don't agree with. Obviously we don't want Renderosity to become a haven for child molesters to turn our art into porn. Therefore it is unfortunate but probably necessary.

On the other hand, (having taken a quite few art history classes myself and eventually going for a degree) majority of the best known and most revolutionary artists have painted or sculpted the nude child subject. The subject of the "Christ Child" is almost always nude. Let's not even talk about the Classical Greek/Roman art.

To illustrate I'll site a few:
Lorenzo Ghiberti's Sacrifice of Isaac 1402, Donatello's David 1420, Andrea Mantegna's Camera degli Sposi (The first known illusionistic painting that paved way to the Baroque period), Leonardo da Vinci's Virgin of the Rocks 1485, Michaelangelo... O my gosh The Sistine Chapel, Raphael's Galatea, Titan (too many)... That's just a small portion of the Renaissance, I could go on and on all the way to the 20th century.

The point is that there is a difference between child nudity in art, and child porno. The link is on members' favorite artists... See how many Michaelangelos, Rockwells, and even Giger? had a nude child: mother with child. I guess the question now is: Is this limiting one's artistic vision? Not really, not all of our works have to be posted in Renderosity. Do what you want with your art but only post in Rosity the ones that are allowed. Indeed it's not a democracy but a privately owned community (But there are other 3d communities out there ya know). Unfortunately this may hold back 3D art from making breakthrough developments and a wide scape of art as Madmax said.

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 02:50

Pakled is right about our Poser friends.303 comments is one hell of a thread!

If common sense is used I think these new rules are good. If you have an image of a water fountain with a little sculpture peeing I dont see a problem with that, being from europe I've seen many water fountains with tiny sculptures that look like they are peeing. Now if you have an image of little kids in sexual positions or pinup poses or naked kids with naked adults in sexual poses or pinup positions that would not be a good thing. Common Sense.

Sorry Analog, if the fountain was a childlike cherub and it was nude and you could see "chest, genitals, or buttocks", it would violate the new TOS.

As I said in a prior post, I totally understand and agree with the well-intentioned reasons for this legal appeasement and the need for Renderosity to offer a disclaimer to cover their behinds legally if nothing else. In its totality, it is in fact, a sad statement on the state of our present society.

Let there be no doubt that the legal necessity to impose this policy also imposes limitations to the artistic creative processes and invariably a step backwards for artistic freedom of expression.

Again, Renderosity proceeds to handle the real problem from a myopic point of view, which shifts the responsibility from their court and places it squarely on its membership, eliminating themselves from responsibility and imposing general limitations on free expression on their membership.

The problem is addressable by employing, either paid or volunteer, people to oversee the individual galleries and plucking questionable pieces that do not hold to the TOS, from the gallery before they make their appearance into the public eye. Pretty much like they do with the FreeStuff forum where the item is held for a period of time to verify continuity of contents and copyright but at a faster turnover rate. If in fact, as has been mentioned in an earlier post, that the Bryce Forum gets some twenty odd pieces of work in a day, then it is not such an overwhelming endeavor. This would allow for both, tasteful artistic expression and the filtering out of pornographic and lascivious pieces.

For many years other artist participation award sites such as Prism Break, Digital Artworks, Kotapress and 3D Cafto name a few, have been sifting through artists works in a selective process to insure the pieces that made it on their sites were of acceptable quality. I dont see why Renderosity, being a larger, merchant driven community couldnt do the same if not better.

Indeed, Renderosity is privately owned and do have a say as to what gets on their site or not, but burdening their membership by imposing general, catch-all restrictions solely to cover themselves legally at the expense of creative freedom and expression is not the way to go.

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 08:01

oh, the statue's call 'Mannekin P*s' missing i there..

Well, since I heavily into faeries in my gallery, I've taken off some last night that I surmissed violated the TOS. I'm sure I overlooked some more as my gallery is quite large. If anyone has some spare time and would like to scan my gallery, please feel free to let me know if there is any more I have missed that I need to take down. Thanks and hugs, Helen sheesh!

Hold On Everyone dont go running deleting images!!! Why dont we ask the Renderosity Team if Faeries and cherub's are ok before deleting them? I like Faerie Images, with nice wings and such.

Well I did as Mugsey suggested and rendered some adult fairies. Somehow they don't quite have the same "cute" appeal frolicking around in the flowers. (very tongue in cheek, and not meant to upset anyone. I ran a copy of this past a very good friend, who is gay, and both him and his partner thought it was hilarious!)

ROFLMAO! Hilarious, you're killing me here!

Start growing bigger flowers... Hope that helped...doh!

I dont know how you guys pull off making this stuff so quickly it would take me forever to come up with something like this.

LOL! That is just hilarious.

Oh THAT is an image I didn't need! :)

Geeez, that's funny! :) However mine really aren't, and I had to delete 20 of mine from my gallery. I'm sure the new TOS admins will find more. sigh

Ardiva, please, dont over react. Like I said before, Renderosity does not enforce their own TOS. They only are looking to protect their own legal asses. This has been proven time and again. Thats firstly, secondly, with many of the true artists, its easy to see that its not porno or lascivious representation. So, my advise to you isdont burn all the books, its not entirely the Spanish inquisition here or Nazi repression. People with common sense can determine what is art and what is porno. They need only to incorporate people to stop the hysteria.

Thanks, I hope your right, Quest. :)

Attached Link: http://www.weirdass.net

My only question is this- Has a child pornographer (whose numbers must truly be legion to warrant the attention we as a culture give to this issue) been caught using poser art for... whatever? I understand that there might be witches or commies who post here as well- maybe even all sorts of evildoer types! Sensational crimes are fodder for the enemies of speech. These enemies force large groups to discuss extreme issues dear to their hearts. Nudity=Sex=Sin=Porn=Childporn=Protect children from sin at all cost How much of an issue is this, really? I realize bad things happen to a lot of people, and a fetishist will eventually act on their obsession, but is a 3d enthusiast website really the frontline in this war? Lets see if we can't get renderosity to stop drunk driving or tax evasion next. -Mitch

I think I'm getting the hang of this no nekkid pics thing. Hmmm. Did I forget the beard?

Message edited on: 03/24/2005 02:58

Thats funny alvin!! You should put that up on your gallery! :)