Besides the discussions of what an artist is allowed to do or not, what makes me angry is the behaviour of the staff. I don't visit the forums often so I perhaps missed it, but this discussion about showing nudity and violence should have taken place first, before they changed the TOS. If Renderosity deserves the name 'community', they should have given us a proposal to discuss, an then change the TOS. They behave like masters and we are the slaves. But as Hegel, a german philosopher said: Without slaves, there are no masters'. I don't wanna be a slave. I don't wanna be part of a medieval-like inquisition. Today it's the children, tomorrow the adults, and in the end no pics of persons at all, like in the islamic world. I think it's time to leave Renderosity. Sorry.

Attached Link: http://www.stillpictures.com/categories/unep/UNEP02_2.html

Attached Link: http://www.stillpictures.com/categories/unep/UNEP02_2.html

Who cares about "not born again" starving children, the important is the morality crusade!.

Times and times again we become the church lady, banning everyting we could bann. It lies in the general climat in the western world today sadly enough. Strata

This is so stupid. Shall we start burning all paintings with naked children (lots of jezussus will go up in flames). Should we not read Gabriel Garcia Marquez, where a 90 years old tells about his love for a 14 year old girl? Should we start burning books again? If you go this direction, do you know where to stop? Tell woman not to where hot pants, because some dirty old mind could have bad thoughts about this outfit? Pfff, this world becomes increasingly dumber. Presidents that fly back from there vacations to undermine the Judges verdict. BananaRepublic, no cent better then Iran.

2 funny things here 1, 90% of the images being discussed aren't fit to be called art never mind getting compared to the old masters. If these images were created as "fine art" they've failed so miserably it's laughable and the only reason I can see that many of them exist is because they were created as the result of juvenile fantasies - that isn't art it's porn (albeit very poor quality), no matter how you dress it up or try and justify it's existance. 2, lots of people will shout and complain saying they won't post any more stuff here, they will leave and they will post on other galleries but they will invariably return when they find that puerile rubbish like this isn't welcome anywhere and that many CG galleries have incredibly high standards where images like the ones under discussion wouldn't make it to the also rans. Andy

I have used (adult) male nudes to display a sense of emotional vulnerablity. If these images were removed from my gallery I would be incensed, this is in IMHO bowing to a frenzied public reaction that does more damage then good anyway. If Renderosity starts turning "anti-gay", "pro-chrisitian" or adopts any other such ethos I for one am going to run for the hills. I would much less fear a discrete picture that involes innocent child nudity then the blatant poser porn that blights the galeries. CONTEXT PEOPLE!!!!!

Thank you for addressing this subject! I believe there are enough child porn sites or 'barely legel' porn sites out there without the danger of pedophiles cruising through our naked fae pics! Come on! Give us a break here! LOL This country's becoming waaaaaaaaaaay too conservative! We're already a laughing stock of the world as being anal-retentive, why do further damage? Why not get rid of the 'violence' and 'nudity' altogether? After all, porn seeking underage children could easily cruise through our galleries and find literally hundreds of naked gals and guys! So what will Renderosity end up being? Certainly not an 'Art Community' but merely a 'Politically Correct Moral Picture Community' BUT they no longer offend anyone------they will offend everyone with artistic talent and taste! It will become a parody! All the Great Masters are weeping with shame as they watch Art become 'correct'. It's the Burning Times, folks! Our government and corporate america are creating a paranoid society.

All I can think of is what I would have thought when I was 14 mowing the lawn with no shirt on if my mother had come running out of the house screaming "Put a shirt on! Some pervert might be watching you!" OR: I was at the beach and was the only boy there that was made to wear a shirt! Just my 2 cents. --Naylin

andy_K : why are you here? If you don't think what is created here is art, then GO AWAY! I suppose you're going to define and set the new standard for what Art is? LOL Art is creativity. Period. If offends your 'sensitive' palatte for what you define personally as "Art" then go somewhere else! But exhibiting that attitude will get you the same reaction in any artistic gallery or community. I work in oils, clay and inks, not digital art, but I do enjoy it and all its diversity.

just to answer your comments BlueLotus7. I'm not sure if you've managed to look past the end of your nose but there is more to renderosity than the kind of rubbish we are discussing on this thread and that is one of the reasons why I am here. Yes art is about creativity, I don't call downloading/buying models and clothing then throwing them into hastily constructed scenes with poor lighting and crappy composition creativity - do you? I'm not offended by tasteful art and I'd be the first to defend any genuine artist who felt they were being prosecuted but just because people have the tools, brushes, paints, software etc doesn't give anybody the right to call themselves an artist. Censorship has only become neccessary because of the direction the galleries were taking. When the merchants here are advertising "young teen" models and accessories to download you have to ask what is their primary market - or is it just me that finds that distasteful? (just as a reference it's not just me and the Daz newsletter has been the source of discussion on several forums). sooner or later if you push the boundaries you have to expect those charged with keeping things acceptable to the majority to react. Andy

... is that no one really seems to sit down and think of all the possibilities or all the permutations of the issue first before making the new rule. (which I have no problem with myself) In this case a simple brainstorm session of a couple of people thinking of all the different ways that a child figure can be artistically depicted might have worked wonders. Here's an idea, and something that I do with my students in classes at work but it can be done via email or on a chat forum as well - one person writes down 5 ways that a child figure can be depicted in art, then they pass this list on to another person and they have to think of 5 more ways, without repeating the first 5, and then that person passes it on... and so on as far as you like, but the more you have the better of course. Keep it going until you run out of ideas. Now what you end up with is a pretty extensive list of ways to depict a child figure. Now you sort out the acceptable from the unacceptable ways, possibly grouping them into themes/types as you go if you're able to to cut down the final lists. THEN you go to write you new TOS change covering the unacceptable methods but which would allow the acceptable methods. It should come out a lot more clearer and precise, rather than the blanket "Don't depict a child under age or that..." as has been done now as you have identified your unacceptable targets clearly beforehand. OK so it's a bit of work, but I feel this could clear up a lot of the TOS hassles that happen here on rendo' and make the TOS a bit less ambiguous and open to mod/admin interpretation than it is now. cheers Sean

andy k. ? another one, who tell us, what art is and what art is not... but andy k himself has no gallery here, surely - these dudes like andy k are boring me... ------------------------------------------ i've seen, that one of my pics are linked here. no problem to me, in this pic i want to show only the natural beauty of a body with natural proudness and looking far into the sky... - i don't think about the age during made this pic. the body maybe the body of under 18, but the face is old and young both (it was not few work to do this, because that's important to this pic). if this pic offends anyone (why ever) i only have to say: it's my pic and i don't have wanted to show "sexual" or "erotic" behaviour, i wanted only show a "natural beauty with a bit of expression". you can say "it's okay" to this pic and you can say "i don't like it" - but i see a difference between nudity, nudity and nudity, and i see this differences with the eye of an artist! this pic is only 1 of 9 - some of my other pics are in erotical nature, i know that, but especially this pic is NOT. mhm, if mods or admins give me a notice, to trim my gallery, i will do, sure. They make the rules. And i will go away than, because i would think, here's no place for (my) art anymore. if they say, my pics so far are okay, all is allright. It's easy to me to stay - it's also easy to me, to go.

"When the merchants here are advertising "young teen" models and accessories to download you have to ask what is their primary market - or is it just me that finds that distasteful?" If you think that the people making/buying that type of stuff are all perverts that aim to use it only in child-porn, have the ba**s to tell this CLEARLY. Don't hide behind a finger. "Censorship has only become neccessary because of the direction the galleries were taking." Yeah. A true load of pedophyle stuff, right. Are you sure we are both living on the same planet?

That is very clear, Now I hope you give us people who have huge gallery to go through them. And delete what is not acceptable.

To andy_k: You have no homepage nor a gallery. If all you do is cruise the site because you enjoy 'art' then perhaps you should be discerning enough to comment, if indeed you do comment, on the work that you personally deem 'artistic' to your taste. And I suggest that if you don't like nor appreciate the "rubbish" on Renderosity, then do as you do with your channel surfing and pass them by. If perhaps you "look past your nose" which seems to be rather upturned you will realize that this community is for BEGINNERS as well as those who are more capable in the digital arts! Hence the "poor lighting and crappy composition" which I take to be the signs of someone struggling and seeking advice which is what the comments are for! (And don't start about the 'backslapping' re comments! This is not a discussion re that issue!) If you find your sensitivities offended by beginning artists I suggest you take yourself somewhere more attuned to your tastes--such as an art museum or gallery...and while you're there ask about Andy Warhol's "Soup Can"! LOL

"Censorship has only become neccessary because of the direction the galleries were taking." Freud explains: "Who see dirt is because has dirt inside"

The only comment I can make on this new TOS is " ROTFL " I agree completely with the concepts expressed by Robert Czarny and BlueLotus. And especially with this link which I find moving and I want to resubmit: http://www.stillpictures.com/categories/unep/UNEP02_2.html Actually, I add that the new TOS' goal is NOT to protect children or to stop paedophiles - everybody with common good sense can understand that this is not the way to do taht. The new TOS' goal is simply to please the most bigot, prudish, retrograde, ignorant and -may I add?- perverted sector of the Public Opinion. For whatever the reason (I don't know it). If I was a provocative mind I would start now posting pictures of the non-naked children with their body parts dsrupted by our western bombs in the Iraqi hospitals - just to be a good guy who conforms to the rules. But since I am not a provocative mind, I just leave this thread disgusted.

@Ascinct ** quote 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!! ** quote well, looking at the picture in your link, YEP it does violate the TOS because ... "No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes." it is clear the boy is taking a shower and "most" people don't wear clothing when showering, hence the violation of "appearance of having no clothes" and besides, he doesn't have a shirt on, so that is a violation of the first law of the CHILD IMAGE GUIDE tisk tisk tisk .. just what are we going to do with you ??? showing a kid taking a shower without wearing a shirt. :-/ next thing we know, they'll all have to have shoes on too, can't have kids in barefeet either.

to mimezine and bluelotus7. your ignorance amazes me. Because I have no homepage or gallery here you decide that it is OK to assume that I know nothing and start flaming :) Perhaps a quick search of google would point you in the right direction? Perhaps if you read Computer Arts Magazine you would know who I was? Perhaps if you read 3D World Magazine you'd know who I was? Perhaps if you got your heads out of your own ***** and realised that renderosity was just a small corner of the 3D world you'd know who I was :) Just for your information and because you are obviously too idle too look I'll tell you - I've been involved with 3D graphics/art for nearly 20 years now since the days of the Amiga . I started off in 3D working with a program called Silver (later to be called Imagine) then moved on to early versions of Lightwave and 3D Studio MAX before "settling" on using trueSpace (which at the time was called simply Caligari)until a couple of years ago I switched to using Cinema 4D. Throughout my time as a 3D artist I have been involved in the beta testing and development of various 3D applications. I make a living out of 3D: as a modeller for numerous clients including the games company Namco (check out who did most of the promo artwork for Street Racing Syndicate :))and several major architects and interior designers. I review software and write tutorials and articles for magazines (mentioned above) and several CG sites including 3D Total. I teach 3D both on a one to one basis for clients and companies but in college courses for education authorities. Nothing to do with the topic but if you'd like to see the sort of work I produce and using Google or any other search engine is beyond your capabilities - then drop me a line and I'll send you a link to my web site :) Andy

LOL

someone please tell me,is this a community or is it "thier site"???...i believe we pay for this site with revenue from sales in the market place..i spend a boatload here,and usually have respect for what is sent our way..but to tell you the truth i have never noticed kiddy porn at this site..it makes me think someone is making these rules just in case someone is irresponsible and posts some perverted crap..deal with them then, and dont blanket us with these stupid obviously unwanted rules.some people are talking of boycotting the marketplace,to make a stand..some people have already left in search of the perfect gallery..Good Luck...

the mudslinging is getting pretty bad on this thread..lol..you guys crack me up..Andys porn site is pretty interesting indeed.but lets try and focus on the problem at hand...

Andy, Your credentials have nothing to do with your attitude, which has been, to be as polite as I can be bothered, less than helpful.

It wasn't me who started on the personal attacks - i criticised the genre of work which has led to the latest change in rules. There's nothing really to be helpful about, the rules have been changed and it's a case of live with it or leave. I was adding fuel to the fir4e by saying that in my opinion the decision was 100% justified and neccessary As to posting links to porn sites that just helps the moderators justify their decisions - if people can't behave unsupervised and realise where good taste ends then they need to be told. Andy

good, this has been a long time coming. im sure there are people out there who enjoy doing fairy renders for purely innocent reasons, but unfortunately there is also a large community of pedophiles who have realised for years that by slapping a pair of wings on an underage child they could post her/him in as erotic poses that they wanted - because this was no longer a child, it was a fairy. its unfortunate about male kids having to be fully clothed - i dont see why shirts are required, but if this is what it takes to finally cleanse the pedos from the 3D community (or at least the public galleries) then more power to it. again, its a shame about those who truly adore fairies for totally innocent reasons and are now forced to bundle them in parkas to render them, but im sure if those people think about it they will realise that this was a good decision. ive seen images by popular artists in the fairy mafia who had 6-year old prepubescent labia painstakingly postworked on them, it disturbed the hell out of me. unfortunately many people did post fae images for purely innocent reasons and they will now lose a form of artistic impression, and there will be people railing and raging at this decision, but i feel its for the best. and this decision came while i was working on a fae character myself, ironically. i wasnt upset at all. suffice to say that i had to change no part of the clothing to fit the new rules - that should tell you about the market it was intended for. sure your fae might have to be a bit more bundled up if they are based on child figures, so no more pasties and thongs for the preschooler, but if anything this will serve to further diversify the fairy renders with more elaborate outfits, variety in the figures used (whats wrong with an adult fae?) and i look forward to seeing the range of postworked clothing by the fine artists at rosity. cheers, -gabriel

Andy, there is no child porn on this site, so the rules are not changed because of that. There is an other reason. Try figure out witchs.

Sure, and Andy is the ONE who knows better WHERE GOOD TASTE ENDS.... Andy, you should be THE BIG BROTHER BIG BROTHER WAS THE ONE WHO ALWAYS KNEW EVERYTHING BETTER THAN OTHERS DID...

even the thought of them thinking i would post child pornography in my gallery is an insult..and to look thru it for that reason..i am really shocked and disapointed.and to think a young boy without his shirt is enough to get your picture yanked..how stupid.. my very first post here breaks the new TOS...and i will gaurantee there were no thoughts of perversion involved.. i have children and i agree,thier innocence should be protected ..but this is just stupidity..

to andy k - if someone post a message or comment a pic of mine and i don't know him/her, i took a look to his/her artistpage... i think that's more than some other people do... but do you think seriously, i have to look into searchengines for every nick, that posts here??? perhaps you think so, because you are a VIP and all the others are only crap-artists... isn't it so? by the way, if you speak about "poor artworks" at all in this threat, if it is not a personal attack to someone, it's a attack to all the artists here. there is no need to do that, and every time, i read those attacks, i think by me: why does a person that? for what reason? for selfhighlighting? regards mimezine

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Yes&Artist=Ardiva

Thanks and hugs,
Helen

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 11:24

I seem to have struck a sensitive nerve with Mr. Professional (andy_k) who has to revert to rude language to express himself! This tells more of a person's character than a thousand pictures! There are many more professional artists here who support the beginners and aid them in their personal endeavors to gain experience. You, too, were once a beginner! It's a shame that your own head is somewhere buried deep within the darkness of your own physical body! (Takes a writer to say it with style! LOL) And as I said several times before: Go away if you don't like it here!

BlueLotus7, I find your attitude amazing. Bercause I disagree with you and express an opinion about the quality of work on display I'm told by you to "go away" now I call that rude - it would be a strange world if every critic who disliked anything was immediately dismissed as not worthy of having an opinion :) Anybody who places their work on public display leaves it open to critique. I don't have to like it and I'm not duty bound to say how wonderful stuff is when quite frankly it's not. Of course, I was a beginner and of course I'm still learning - I find that teaching others helps me understand the software I'm using a lot better and anybody who knows me will tell you that I am more than willing to provide time and support to anybody who asks (another of your rash and incredibly innacurate assumptions shot down in flames). I wasn't rude I just made an observation. I didn't insult (or name) anybody. I made the point (which numerous people have agreed with by private message) that the genre of "work" that is classed as art is somewhat dubious and the quality for the most part is awful. Many of the images are hackneyed, corny pastiches of stuff that wouldn't have looked out of place on a 1970's Athena poster. Andy

Maybe Mr Professional could answer why people should be told (by him? by censors?) when the good taste ends? And what is wrong in showing naked factious, unreal figures? Whatever is their shape... childish, teen or adult... If someone assumes that naked poser model is a child, he must assume that Victoria is a woman, so you can't set a scene with killed Victoria because you commit a homicide doing this.... Are we trying to protect real children or 3D models? Maybe some freaks are gone too deep into "matrix" that they cannot make difference anymore between real world children exploitation and factious virtual characters displayed in pictures that are going to be banned... Poor people - those worlds are separate! - One is real, the other one is factious. Protect real children - not poser figures!

PEOPLE...If we revert to in-house fighting and insults, they will lock this thread and the REAL subject matter will be ended. Please stop for the rest of us who may have something to add. I read up the thread where Ardiva had deleted a lot of her images. This is an artist that has done countless images of perfectly beautiful and perfectly innocent faes that can actually be children's book covers. Isn't ANYONE here sickened by the thought that because some "team" decides this is best for all of us, she had to do that? And Hitler thought that he knew what was best too. I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but it doesn't even come close to what I am feeling at this moment. I am sick at heart thinking of all the wonderful images that have been made and have been here for so long and now are having to be removed. Especially when I think that one of the most viewed images here is of a personal shave and THAT IS STILL ALLOWED!

I am shocked that Ardiva has deleted images that where perfectly artistic works. Because of this mad rule thing. Is there any reason other then some cristian stiff religous people are making these rules, and the law tells the mod to follow that rule. Does it mean I cannot shoot maria with here child, as displayed in many of our churches? Should I ask them to remove these images, because there might be some perverted people having the wrong idear seeing there images? Where do we go next?

Please let's keep this thread civil and not make any personal attacks against other members. We want to keep this thread open for discussion but won't be able to if we can't keep it civil. Thank you, Stacey Community Manager

comparing the renderosity team to hitler is going way too far. if you want to create your own site where nude child renders are welcome and encouraged, by all means. renderosity is a community, yes. many of the members - especially those with the 'keep it free' and 'fuck merchants' attitudes who never purchase anything from the store fail to realise that this site wouldnt last a day in their hands. renderosity has such a whopping bandwidth bill that it would stagger you, as well as salaries of a dozen or more people that it has to cover each month before it even starts to realise a profit. if they want to disallow nude or provocative child renders thats their business. if you disagree with it, you are welcome to find another place to post your art. unfortunately such a place will soon cease to exist, since all of the other sites are implementing similar TOS changes. so to freak out here is absolutely rediculous. if you want to rail at someone, send a letter to your congressman and bitch about the new laws that are being passed. renderosity is merely reacting to them and protecting itself from a lawsuit - its nothing personal. ...and perhaps as a side-effect of this new rule we'll see some faeries with outfits more creative than a thong and pasties. im looking forward to see what the fae-fan artists that arent obsessed with rendering them in such outfits are going to upload to the galleries. if anything this can revitalize fae artwork, rather than 'kill' it like some of you are suggesting. cheers, -gabriel

"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."

You, and everyone else who have ranted in the name of "Jesus" need to seriously look around outside your own box once in a while.
I am against this new TOS and I am Christian. So put away your paintbrushes and try to think without falling back on the lame excuse that it must be the Christian Right pushing for this.

As much as the mods think this is crystal clear, what about newborn baby images? Are diapers not enough? Do babies need full clothing now? I'd really like an answer to this one. Good thing I pulled that "Motherhood" image I had of a new mother and her baby. Heaven forbid someone see that as "wrong" and think I need a "warning".

Gabriel, You know you have my respect, but to claim that this is as a result of the law is incorrect. The SCOTUS struck down COPA because of it's sweeping effect on traditional modes of art as well as any potential benefit in the fight against child porn. Any law against depictions of 3d characters would have to work around that, I believe. I think bonni and others are correct when they say that this is in reaction to other images being deleted and artists being barred, and having it questioned by the membership. ....Is it too late to invoke Godwin's law? You're very right. The mods aren't Hitler. They don't walk so funny. :) RC

"Especially when I think that one of the most viewed images here is of a personal shave and THAT IS STILL ALLOWED! " -Unicornst as much as i may consider it tasteless to post such an image here, i hardly disagree with it. shaving strongly implies sexual maturity. you might as well be complaining that "i can go out and bang a 19 year old, but i cant do the same to a 6 year old!". the problem is that this issue is very subjective. and when you have subjective issues there will always be members who push, and push, and push at their boundaries and try to get away with more and more each day. there is no way to prevent a certain kind of child nudity render without imposing a blanket ban on them all, otherwise you end up with a constant stream of arguments on a daily basis about wether or not this constitutes child porn or not. while it is unfortunate that some fine artists are losing a part of their galleries due to this, im sure that they will understand and their next fae renders will include even more creative outfits that cover them up a bit more. if that artist refuses to render fae in anything but pasties and thongs, then i question their motives to begin with.

You're right, Kendra. Puritanism isn't solely a Christian value, despite the name. ;)

Blackhearted sums up my feelings perfectly. Renderosity provides this to us for free, be happy it is here! Are naked faeries necessary? I have quite a collection of figurines and wall art of faeries, not one of them is naked nor have I seen many for sale that are. I do agree that banning small boys in swimsuits on a beach is a bit extreme, as a person who appreciates this free service, it's something I think the majority should be able to live with.

Okay...you know what? I've tried five times to answer you about the Hitler remark and eveything else you posted. But I give up. What's the use? Apparently, you have your mind made up and the powers that be can do no wrong and we who make fairy images have no right to protest over censorship, so I'll just go into my little corner and be quiet while everyone tells me what to draw...what to create...what to look at...what to think.

Now censor these! : ANTONIN MERCIE' "David" http://perso.wanadoo.fr/verat/David.jpg ANONYMOUS, Hellenistic period "The young idol" http://www.comune.firenze.it/soggetti/sat/images/idolino.jpg CARAVAGGIO "San Giovannino" (Young St.John Baptist), Galleria Borghese, Rome http://www.thais.it/speciali/Caravaggio/foto/012t.jpg CARAVAGGIO "San Giovannino" (Young St.John Baptist), Museo Capitolino, Rome http://digilander.libero.it/debibliotheca/Arte/caravaggio/pics/TN_01240100.JPG BENVENUTO CELLINI "Narciso" (Narcissus), http://www.iconos.it/typo3temp/36538cf303.jpg ANONYMOUS, Roman age "Narciso" (Narcissus), Pompei http://www.miti3000.it/mito/narciso_stagno.jpg ANTONIO CANOVA "Amore e Psiche", Paris, Louvre http://www.thais.it/scultura/image/media/sch00236.jpg ANTONIO CANOVA "Amore e Psiche", St.Petersburg, Hermitage http://snipurl.com/dl5o PARMIGIANINO "Cupido" (Cupid) http://rsta.pucmm.edu.do/biblioteca/pinacoteca/manierismo/imagenes/m2.jpg CORREGGIO "Danae", Rome, Galleria Borghese http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/c/correggi/mytholog/danae.jpg BRONZINO "Allegoria di Venere e Cupido" (Allegory of Venus and Cupido), London, National Gallery http://digilander.libero.it/debibliotheca/Arte/nudo/01020100.JPG JACQUES-LOUIS DAVID "Cupid and Psyche", Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of Art http://www.artunframed.com/images/artmis39/jdavid71.jpg CARAVAGGIO "Amore Vincitore" (Cupid winner) Berlin, Gemdegalerie http://www.thais.it/speciali/Caravaggio/foto/045t.jpg GIOVANNI BAGLIONE "Amor divino che vince l'Amor sacro" (divine Love winning over sacred Love), Galleria Nazionale, Rome http://www.biblhertz.it/Mitarbeiter/Strunck/baglione.JPG FRANCOIS P.S.GERARD "Cupid and Psyche" http://www.globalgallery.com/images/bm-g763.jpg POMPEO BATONI "Diana e Cupido" (Diane and Cupid) http://www.kyphilom.com/www/gif/baton-j1.jpg ELISABETH VIGEE-LEBRUN "Prince Henry Lubomirski" http://www.kyphilom.com/www/gif/vigee-j1.jpg WILLIAM ADOLPHE BOUGUEREAU "Cupid and Psyche" http://www.kyphilom.com/www/gif/bougu-j3.jpg ANGELICA KAUFFMANN "Cherubs painting" http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/WEB/US152A.jpg JEAN-BAPTISTE GREUZE "Love crowned by Psyche" http://www.loggia.com/art/artists/images/greuze.gif FRANCOIS-EDOUARD PICOT "Cupid and Psyche" http://www.hijo.de/HIJO/Pics/Psychef.jpg ANNIE SWINNERTON "Cupid and Psyche" http://snipurl.com/dl75 ANTOINE-DENIS CHAUDET "Amour" (Cupid) http://www.heeza.fr/BOUTIK/Fiches_Produits/PUSHTAC/images/CE062.jpg WILLIAM ADOLPHE BOUGUEREAU "Amour" (Cupid) http://digilander.libero.it/debibliotheca/Arte/nudo/00890010.JPG FRANCOIS BOUCHER "Nude" Muenchen, Pinakothek http://digilander.libero.it/debibliotheca/Arte/nudo/00870090.JPG GUIDO RENI "Amor sacro e amor profano" http://www.ambientepi.arti.beniculturali.it/flash/musei/palreale/fotohtml/img/042g.jpg GIOVANNI BATTISTA CARACCIOLO "Cupido dormiente" (Sleeping Cupid) http://www.whitfieldfineart.com/exhib/BATTISTELLO%20-%20Sleeping%20Cupid.jpg HENRY SCOTT TUKE "August Blue", Tate Gallery, London http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/ntm2/Images/ntm9-1-2.jpg THOMAS EAKINS "Swimmers" http://www.humanitiesweb.org/gallery/196/6.jpg DONATELLO "David", Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Firenze http://www.prometheus-imports.com/david-by-donatello-bb-l.jpg ANONYMOUS, Greek age "Boy from Marathon" http://www.prometheus-imports.com/g-youth-marathon-bb-l.jpg BERTEL THORVALDSEN "Ganymede and the eagle" http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Europe/img/Zeus-Ganymede-thorvaldsen.jpg ANONYMOUS, Bronze Age "Boys fighting", Akrotiri (Greek island) http://snipurl.com/dl7r JACQUES-LOUIS DAVID "Mort of Joseph Barra" (death of Joseph Barra) http://www.artonline.it/Img/museum/David/joseph_p.jpg ANONYMOUS, Greek Age "Antinoos" http://www.antinoos.info/bild/antin181.jpg ANNA LEA MERRITT "Love locked out" http://www.poster.net/merritt-anna-lea/merritt-anna-lea-love-locked-out-3600347.jpg MARY CASSATT "Young mother and two children" http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/art/images/228p.jpg PAUL GAUGUIN "Bust of a nude girl" http://www.art-liquidation.com/images/Gauguin/Bust_of_a_Nude_Girl_s.jpg And these are only a FRACTION of the art that would be lost if such stupid rules were followed everywhere and in all ages. Believe me, the list is only that long only because I got tired searching copying and pasting. I could go on forever with masterpieces that made the history of art and would be prohibited by this new TOS. - Orio

I had a rebuttal for Andy_K, but in respect to not get this thread locked, I deleted it out of this message. I've been thinking about this and reading the threads and I'm convinced at this point that it's not about pedophiles coming here to get their jollies by looking through the galleries for nude faeries. It's a matter of context. Most would agree that the Vicky art would be considered risque enough for Playboy or even a calendar pinup. Imagine if in that Playboy, you saw a lot of naked children running around playing in the sand, whatever, next to the pinup women? There would be a major uprising and Playboy would be forced out of business. I think the same thing applies here. It's not the context of the individual picture (no matter how innocent) as much as it is the association by which it resides. If I was not an artist and came to Renderosity, I'd have to wonder about this, and if someone was zealous enough, could force the issue into shutting Rosity down. Good of the community doesn't have to mean artistic freedom, as much as having a community to go to. Many are already uncomfortable with child nudity and the added context is enough to drive some people to these conclusions. So what is Rosity supposed to do? We don't know, maybe there is already been a formal complaint against them. It seems to me that it is in the best interest of the community that the community stay in business, albeit at the risk of losing some freedoms. While I can't see the male shirtless and diapered babies part of the rule, I understand why this was necessary.

My 2c
ShadowWind

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 12:45

orio - youre kidding, right? why is logic so scarce in these threads? you do realise that in certain periods of history it was perfectly acceptable that girls as young as 8-9 years old were married? in fact i think in certain parts of the world shockingly young girls are still wed. does this mean that we shouldnt impose any laws or regulations as to this? because it was acceptable at one time? at one time it was acceptable to kill someone over a percieved insult, to torture someone for weeks with red-hot pincers and various implements that would make you throw up simply on an accusation, to stone a woman to death based on an accusation of adultery. does this mean that these should be acceptable now? again, let me reiterate: if the inability to post underaged faeries in pasties and thongs upsets you so fucking much then i question your motives of posting 'fae' renders to begin with. noone is banning renders of faeries: they are just banning renders of half-naked, provocatively posed underaged ones.

Orio, all the works of art listed are in places such as museums or churches. They are not in our homes unless via internet. Persons of questionable sexual perversions aren't going to be fondling themselves in such places. As someone posted earlier, searching for anything on any search engine is going to pull up a ghastly amount of porn sites which is getting worse all the time.

I wanted to let you all know that we are going to allow the shirtless boy images. We will remove images where the gender is questionable at our discretion. Also the babies in diapers will be allowed as well. This will not include toddlers (unless male as stated above). We will be working on the new wording for the TOS surrounding this to reflect the shirtless boy images and babies in diapers and have that posted as soon as possible. Thank you all for your suggestions surrounding these two issues. Stacey Community Manager