Well, GOOD. That's at least SOME sense.

Glad to hear that you will be making that provision...

Blackhearted, my examples cover a range that goes from many hundreds of centuries before Christ, to last century. Some of the images I linked to, have been made by English or US artists living in an age, or near to an age, that is commonly known as "Victorian" and I am sure that you know better than me that it was not one of the most liberal ages when it came to the concept of what was morally decent And many of the images I linked to, were even made on order from catholic commissioners (priests). So the point was not in the morality of those times. It's in the ability to understand that the naked human body can be a subject of art without necessarily being an object of perversion. If you look at the images, you will notice that several poses are not much different from what is referred to, in this thread, as the "faerie-porn pictures posted on Renderosity". In particular, the Cupid poses come to mind with a striking similarity. In those cases, the real difference is only in the skill of the makers - most people here at Rosity (myself included) does not have the skills of those masters, yet, this does not mean that they are pornographers. Maybe a few are. But the large majority are, in my opinion, just amateur artists having fun and trying to learn. Not pornographers. This is the most hideous part of the TOS in my opinion: to state that someone is a pornographer only because he depicts naked human bodies. Painting or otherwise representing naked human bodies has been the foundation of Art for dozens of centuries. Why must it now suddenly become perversion?

so youre comparing the old masters painting cherubs to todays fairy outfits of pasties and thongs and lollipops and glitter makeup? its a shame this is the internet, id love to see if you could keep a straight face while saying that :)

Please make the specifics of the new TOS changes avaiabel as soon as possible. I'm having a rather unpleasant and difficult day, and this issue is directly responsible for half of it. I've already said my bit about dragging in the whole "porno/not porno" and "pedophile" bs, so I'll try my damndest to avoid letting my bad mood cause me to call those debating such things my children are not allowed to hear.

Blackhearted, yes, I restate that many poses (see the St.Johns by Caravaggio) of those masterpieces are not less direct and provocative than those of today's faeries. As i said, it's the skills that change -and sometimes the context, meaning that the Renderosity artists may often lack the ability to give conceptual depth th their scenes - they are struck by the visual qualities of a subject and forget that art should also be something deeper. But this is not the fault of Renderosity's artists, it is a fault that is general and common to all our contemporary age. As for the thongs and lipstick, they are only today's "accessories". In the past, you had laurel crowns and bowls of fruits and so on. Art should be judged by several aesthetic values. Such are the composition, the forms, the lighting, the colors, and the subject meant as "concept". In this TOS I see the same old problem of judging art (or porn, and the line in-between) only by moralistic prejudices, disregarding ALL artistic values that may be inherent to a picture. Let's make an example: if Donatello lived today and made with Poser an equivalent of his David statue, his artwork would have been censored by Renderosity. Of course this does not mean that we actually have a Donatello amongst us, but - what if we did? What if he subscribes tomorrow?

if Donatello lived today...., he would be in jail

Waitaminute...I can't post AnimeDoll or MayaDoll in the buff? Grrr...

"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." Sorry, but this is really silly. What is the difference between a seven-year-old boy's and a seven-year-old girl's chest? The fact that everybody knows what these chests will turn into in several years? If so, then the problem is not in the chest, but in the mind of the viewer. I could add something quite stronger, but will refrain and want you all to know that I'm refreaining from the comment. BTW, andy_k, it's not the matter of artistic value, it's the matter of principle. If there's a rule, then the rule is valid for eveybody.

Ok,I'm done...I've taken off 20 of my gallery images. The rest will stay up until the PTB tell me otherwise. To tell y'all the truth, I am feeling very, very discouraged at the moment. sigh

"if Donatello lived today...., he would be in jail" It's a possibility, yes. Ending up in jail for having sculpted a masterpiece statue of a naked boy. Now it is up to everyone of us to decide if this fact would speak more of Donatello's assumed perversity, or of our own idiocy. (BTW, Donatello never married, but not one single episode of his entire 80 years life is reported, where he may have behaved immorally)

" Orio, all the works of art listed are in places such as museums or churches.

They are not in our homes unless via internet..." -Luminaa

Just as a quick comment to this:

http://www.talariaenterprises.com/product_lists/renaissance_2.html

Here you can purchase an 11" high duplicate of Donatello's David for $98 and an 18.5" version for $227... And I'm sure that there are many more places to find such works. Hmmm... how much did you pay for Poser? $98 doesn't seem all that unresonable to me to have a piece of art in my home. Oh, and this is not meant to be a personal slam of any kind. Just a correction.

BTW: Thanks for the clarification on shirtless boys and diapered babies.

--Naylin Edit: You can also get a life-sized version of Michelangelo's David for $2310. While this is a bit pricey for me, I'm sure someone has it in their home, or office!

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 14:48

Donatello? Wasn't he one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

Orio, You are missing the point. This is not about art. This is about perceptions of the pictures posted here. You said yourself that some of the ones may be considered pornographers. I don't consider Playboy-esque images pornography, but then you don't see the latest centerfold hanging in the Louvre. Why? Because of perception. Renderotica does not allow children to be posted at all, even if completely covered in a turtleneck, jeans, sneakers, hat and sunglasses. Why? Because they are perceived as an adult site. And to have children on an adult site, no matter how innocent, is enough to get someone to think it's child porn. It's not worth the risk. Rosity, while not to the degree of Rotica has the same problem. In the midst of the playboy-esque images meant to be sensual and sexy, you can't present nude child images and expect people to consider them protectable art, if they consider the pinups to not be. They are not pornographic, but try telling that to a zealous viewer with a line to the ISP. Remember it's not what the law is, or how artists see it, it's how the public as a whole sees it. And there are people who have wanted the David statue covered...

Erlik, You are right, it is in the mind of the viewer and perception is what guides the world...

"Rosity, while not to the degree of Rotica has the same problem. In the midst of the playboy-esque images meant to be sensual and sexy, you can't present nude child images and expect people to consider them protectable art" ShadowWind, your comment sounds reasonable to me. Although I agree with it only to a certain extent. It is clear and I agree that if I mix adults and children in an erotic picture context, the content becomes unacceptable. But this should not lead to the banning of all artistic and decent nudity regarding minors. The equation that nude of a minor always equals indecent nude, does not find me in agreement, and if someone asks me why, I reply "just look at the art links I posted". I never made such an image (I mean an artistic picture with the nude of a minor), but now I am really tempted to produce one and submit it, just to start a discussion and raise the issue of what is acceptable or not.

"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." "Sorry, but this is really silly. What is the difference between a seven-year-old boy's and a seven-year-old girl's chest? The fact that everybody knows what these chests will turn into in several years? If so, then the problem is not in the chest, but in the mind of the viewer." Not only that, but do you really think that only females can be targeted by pedophiles?

Attached Link: Do you think this is porn?

@ShadowWind & Orio, The basic premise sounds good but Renderosity has seperated itself into galleries. If the pinups are in the pinup art gallery and the kids are in a different gallery, there is seperation. When I buy images from vendors online, they sometimes have both nude models and kids. However, they are in seperate and distinct sections. If Renderosity makes sure the images are seperate, it should be able to have the same legal protections as image vendors.

I really hope to hear your comments about this photo of mine... the more I think about it, the more I find it the perfect example (no need for me to make that scene anymore). It is perfect because it depicts what is normally referred to as "full frontal nudity". There is no possibility of misunderstanding, the child does not do anything to hide his nudity. And neither does he wear any clothes. As such, it should completely fall within the range of child porn as assumed by the TOS here at Renderosity. He even seems to have what looks like some face makeup. Yet, to me at least, it looks completely innocent, full of life, and positive energy. I can not see any single trace of perversion in this image. I wonder if this is just me, I wonder if you see perversion in this image. In full honesty, I anticipate that if the new TOS will force me to delete this picture from my gallery, I will delete the whole series. I can not accept to erase part of a work of art that is supposed to be appreciated in the whole - and this was the reason of my big photographic effort of last year, several days spent photographing that building. It will not be me to deface the work of art of the artist who painted those walls (which by the way was the biggest Italian Art Deco painter). I hope that this act I may make, may open some minds.

Rowan, Thank you.

StacyG, thank you for the clarification. Personally I don't think that this "new" TOS now differs anymore than the previous version of the TOS. Clothing on young characters and no genitals. It's reasonable.

"Attached Link: Do you think this is porn? Actually... I just remembered that I made a photograph of a wall decoration of a building in my hometown, it is part of a big photo series I posted last may, regarding this building." ehh, it borders on the uncomfortable. i wouldnt be pleased if someone painted something like that on the wall of my house. if i didnt paint over the whole thing, id at least paint a toga over the little bugger. the anatomy is seriously messed up too - especially the pectorals and ribcage. i dont see the big deal - if i had a penis that small, id want it covered up too. cheers, -gabriel

come on folks, look on the bright side, geez. what a bunch of sourheads you are. fairies flitting around in parkas could be just what we need to add some spice to an otherwise hum-drum fairy market. in fact i might just model my first fairy parka today :)

"Do you think this is porn" may not be the best way to ask the question. The most important question at this point is "Does this fit within the TOS." I don't think any of the PTB will dipute that some things prohibited by the TOS are not porn. However, I suspect that even though they might not view it as porn, they evaluate it based on the question, "what are the odds that someone else might think of this as porn and take some kind of action against us?" I looked at that image and didn't think it was porn. I wasn't sure of the age of the model either because it was highly stylized. But I'm not risking anything by hosting it so I don't care if he's 19 or 91.

Get with the times, model a fairy burka. :)

Anyone knows the famous fountain in Brussels?

Don't worry, is not so dramatic and it is not the universal diluvium.
It is happening only in Taleban's like countries and in most places the statues remain uncovered, museums are not censored, art is still art and a nude child is only a nude child.
If you have lost your freedom, just fight and recover it!
Liberte, Igualite et Fraternite.

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 16:00

andy_k: Birthday:November 21, 1957 Biography:hobby and freelance 3d artist, professional session musician Location:UK I find it interesting that he shares my birthdate, but my year is 1952. ;) Male Scorpion--explains a lot. NOTE: I didn't shoosh you out like a pesty rodent at the end of a broom! Again, misinterpreted. I merely said if you don't like what you find here, the option is to not come back. Enought time wasted on this. Time to go back to my sculpting! Good luck to one and all! I promise not to sculpt naked fae children! LOL

"Get with the times, model a fairy burka" what in the name of jeebus is a 'burka'?

Attached Link: Burqa

"(...)they evaluate it based on the question, "what are the odds that someone else might think of this as porn and take some kind of action against us?"(...) It is just this kind of attitude that is dragging the US right down the drain: the possibility that someone will find a lawyer so avid and a judge so stupid to put up a mockery of trial and sue for dollars anybody they desire for any reason they want... In many european countries we have VERY harsh laws regarding pornographic content/context, but them all ends when the risk of RIDICULE steps in: and do you know why? Because we trust the men behind the judicial system to take actions based on MATURITY and COMMON SENSE, not on a miriad of rules about skirt lenght, percentage of exposed nipples or sex of naked butts...

blaufeld: you may have a point there. Have the US lost their trust in the abilties of their judicial system? That may be the reason so many organisations set up their own "justice departments..." I wouldn't be surprised, regarding the immense load of totally ridiculous courtroom cases that have been in the new over the last dozen years or so... Cases that would have been dismissed by any self-respecting court.

Sorry, but I don't need to be 'educated'. I know what the laws are in this country pertaining to nudity in art. I follow those guidelines and I think that the TOS should also follow those guidelines. That is all that needs to be said! If someone goes a little 'too far', then that is why we have moderators! I will not remove my images. There is nothing wrong with them.

1. Re: Change in TOS...New Child Image Guidelines by Blackhearted on 3/22/05 13:13 "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." Nice comment....if people don't agree with your opinions then start swearing. I'm suitably impressed.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=2171360

I've already said it over in the Poser forum. In a much, much longer thread.

No need to do it again over here.

who was it that said 'only in America'...?:) I am not 'having a go' just stating the first thing that came to mind when I read the rest of this thread. I hope everyone has a lovely day.

lol, youre protesting the censorship of child nudity yet you think the word 'fuck' should be censored? my, what interesting standards some have. give it to some close-minded people to miss the point of my statement entirely and focus their attention on something as insignificant and stupid as my use of a cuss word. im glad youre devoting yourself to the important issue in this thread - my use of the word 'fuck'.

Orio, Whether the image is porn or not does not come into the equation. If there was enough complaints about that image you posted that it started to affect the business of that place, they'd take it down because the image is not worth losing their business over. It's Rosity's wall that we hang our pictures on, and as such, they want to be comfortable with what is posted on their wall. That's not unreasonable. The world is full of people who see things differently (look at the people who find the preacher in Little Mermaid has an erection). Most people wouldn't see that or care to even try to notice, but the revelation caused a big stink for the Disney Company and quite an embarrassment true or not. It's not worth dealing with this, so they have to make a TOS change that covers it. No website on the net is about artistic freedom. They all have rules to some extent on what can and can't be posted. Artistic freedom is the ability to create whatever image you want. It does not mean that the image has to be shown in a gallery or on a website. That is up to the owners. It's their wall and ultimately, they are responsible for what hangs there.

For the record junior I have not given my opinion for or against child nudity. And yes I think your cursing should be censored. It is inappropriate and resorting to swearing is the sign of a small mind. If a persons points are valid then they will be regarded as such without resorting to offensive language.

ShadowWind, I understand your explanation. It is true that we are hosted by Renderosity. It is also true that we are those who make Renderosity survive through our purchases (and some of us also being merchants). Therefore, it is not a one gives-the rest takes situation. It is more of a give-and take situation. Renderosity gives us the services and we give Renderosity our loyalty and money. So i don't think that we should not have any word at all in issues regarding the galleries. Also I am worried about this trend. I try to put myself in the shoes of a puritan, if I was offended by nudity, all nudity would offend me, not only that of a certain age. And certainly if I was someone who sees perversion in a naked child, I would also see it in a naked adult, and I would judge it, too, unappropriate. So my point is that you begin to give a finger to the censors requests, and then you end up giving a hand, and then the arm. It's all consequent. Look what happened with the TOS. It became more and more restrictive with the years, and by conceding more and more to censors, they (censor) feel like asking more and more. The next step, you can be sure, will be the banning of all nudity, regardless of age. I don't know when it will happen, but looking at this trend, I can say that it surely will happen someday.

@Kendra: "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." I already responded to one complaint; adjust your sensitive Jesus radar so as to read follow-ups in this thread. And I still maintain that the biggest issuer of complaints over this and other forms of free thinking are the Religious Right. And I DO look outside my own box, and I see my rights guaranteed me by the framers of our Constitution being slowly removed by such fanatic conservative religious groups. We can agree to disagree all night long on this subject, but I know damned well I'm in the majority here when I make a statement like this. 51% still doesn't equal 100%, honey, no matter HOW you do the math. 'Nuff said. I'm done with this thread.

Actuall, I wouldn't blame this on anything other than perhaps what's going on outside the box. The real world horrors that happen to children. I guess that fear causes people to point fingers everywhere..I want to say though..that it takes hours and hours to do a decent render of art, and it take like only a few short minutes of you..turning your head away..so your known child abuser..can snatch your kids. You ought to be looking out there..and not in some computer gallery of artists for your culprits. Frankly, maybe I haven't been looking around that much in here, but mostly the faeries I've seen have been fine. I haven't seen too many kids.. ones I have have been completely clothed.. then again, I'm not on some head hunt. Don't really want to get deeper into this, because I understand both sides of the coin here. I'm not whimping out either.. I just understand how people are feeling.

It's been decided folks! Quit whining and blaming...from the Poser forum! 336. Re: Change in TOS...New Child Image Guidelines by MorriganShadow on 3/22/05 13:48 Hey, all, quick message. We are making changes to the TOS as it stands now. Shirtless BOYS will be allowed. BABIES in diapers will be allowed. Shirtless MALE toddlers will be allowed. NO shirtless females appearing to be under the age of 18 will be allowed AT ALL. I know that everyone's stressed out, and I can understand. I want to thank you guys for being so civil. I've been following this thread, and, I've got to tell you, I expected a bigger explosion. Thank you for proving me wrong ;). MorriganShadow Poser Coord

I haven't the time nor the inclination to read thru every single post in this thread. I don't do renders of children or Fae, so this new TOS doesn't really affect me...but it does affect a lot of truly great artists. All I can say is that near as I can tell, Blackhearted is about the only voice of reason I am hearing in here...and as for andy_k....Moron comes to mind.

OK oh boy.
I stoped reading around the time the tiff with andy_k seemed to start.
1- no one is saying that child nudity is not art(in the right context) they are saying it is not allowed here(as apparently it is not allowed in alot of other sites)
2-yes of course there is child nudity that is art. again renderosity I dont think is saying BURN ALL CHILD NUDITY TAKE DOWN THE OLD MASTERS BANN BOOKS..it is saying we can not allow it here
3-if sndcastie's work is clearly showing a topless under 18 figure WHY is it still up? or is it because she is a mod? isnt this being discrimatory against the OTHERS here that have to pull work. and seriously makes it look as if the news rules are only to those that someone wishes to twist the thumb screws too. be consitant. even if it is a mod. if it is against the TOS please pull it and be fair.(work in question was the one posted as an example above :http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=120512&Start=37&Artist=SndCastie&ByArtist=Yes) according to your new TOS this is very much against it. and clearly underage.
4-actually I hate to say it but I was happy to see the new TOS. why? because unfortunatly there ARE people here that DO look at the nudity in the fairies and such in THAT way. yes it is disturbing yes it is not right and yes it is unfair to those that make art for the beauty of it. BUT unfortunatly that is also the way it is. you would be surprised where the perves go to look at things and what they actually look FOR. Renderosity is a company that has to think about other things then expression of an idea. there are rules and laws that if broken or certain groups wish to push could be the end of rendo and all the work in it. as well as those making it.

as shown above ..it seem most of the bigger sites have very similar TOS conerning the same subject matter.

While I understand that is is a Btch to deal with...you really do need to look past the knee jerk reaction of "omg we are being censored" and go and do some investigating into what alot of perves look at. you will be surprised it is not all XXX stuff. sometimes the ones that -are-INNOCENT are the ones that get these a*holes off. it is really sick.

(the pervs not the classical child nudity that is honestly innocent)

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 20:23

"We are making changes to the TOS as it stands now." The changes are a step in the right direction, although as it is probably clear by now, I object more the premise behind it all than the actual single commas of the law. But even when it comes to commas, there are still some things that don't make sense left in, such as the "NO shirtless females appearing to be under the age of 18 will be allowed AT ALL." Specific situations should be considered before making drastic statements. Take for instance summer scenes. I don't think I ever saw a little girl of less than 10 yrs wearing a bikini top - and I think that any logical person would find the opposite ridiculous, because such little kids have nothing to wear a bikini top for. There is simply no sex difference in that area at that age. Such situations should have been considered.

TerraDreamer, if you think that your opinion gives you the right to make broad sweeping statements about any group, think again.

oh my gosh... I was directed here by a friend who felt she had to remove an image with a little girl in it "just in case"...and this image is really NOT a problem...as are probably so many others...maybe artists should just "sit tight" and wait to be told about specific images? I read most, but not all, of the posts here...and while I agree that suggestive child nudes should NOT be in art, a new year's baby (really, the 3d babies are not very real anyway) and some fea's that might be covered with very little being removed is silly.... ON THE OTHER HAND I remember the changes forced on Renderosity by Pay Pal and that is the bottom line... a store with a community, here to make money.... What gets me, is how the STORE can have nudes to sell the texture sets.... you could put a young age on many of those girls... is this a double standard? The news here in the states of the sicko that got out of jail and was living in a neighborhood for a while and ended up kidnapping and killing a 9 year old girl just makes me want to throw up and I want him to STAY IN JAIL forever, as all those sickos should... so in this state of mind, I can see the need to be careful.... BUT only that- careful.... (and I SO do not thing that his kind would be coming HERE for kicks...there is SO much other really bad things on the net for them to go see, I am sure) Personally, I am a prude.. and I just try to "look around" the offensive (to me) embaressing parts and I buy a texture set...and put clothes on her/him... same with the kids... I need to read the TOS myself and see if young kids "at the beach" for example (boys) will really be allowed.. heck..come to think of it, I did a beach scene with Koshini and Ichiro and he has a naked chest..he is a cartoon! Is that a problem? That is about the only thing I did... well, hmmm I do have a knight passing gass to light a match to take down a dragon, and I think I put nudity on it just to, ah hem..cover my ass, for that.. (hardly anything shows)..... YIKES!! So this is what it does... cause a kind of paranoia in us normal folk?? SIGH And yes... we can post or not..and rosity will do what it needs to do to stay on the net...and I will continue to enjoy the more positive parts of this community as always... Just my random thoughts on the issue.

I don't think I ever saw a little girl of less than 10 yrs wearing a bikini top Ah, thus speaks the European. ;-) In the United States, little girls ARE expected to wear a top, or a one-piece swimsuit that covers their flat little chest. Yes, I think it's silly, too (and it's not the case in Australia; I've seen kids up to the age of five or maybe six playing on a public beach with nothing on at all, and nobody cared or thought anything of it, and no, it was not a "nude beach"). However, that's the way it is in the United States, and Renderosity is in the United States, and so are most of the people who will complain about images of children on the beach. ;-) bonni

What the people who post their WIP renders glued to each other so they can skirt the rule about only 1 image a day because they feel the overpowering need to post absolutely everything they render fail to realize is that many professional artists don't keep a gallery here. A person is still entitled to his opinions based on their merit whether he has a gallery or posts loving thoughts on your daily gallery images. It isn't "one picture-one comment" at this site. A considered opinion by a professional has just as much weight as any hobbyist who fills the halls to overflowing. As to why someone might not want to keep a gallery here? Look around. Now to move on to another topic... this is NOT about faeries. It is about underage models which are shown naked and/or provocatively posed. Wings are an excuse for some people to use the child models, but that is beside the point. Making any figure look childish is a big seller and a big gatherer of hits. You do have to wonder about the hit ratio and who is cruising through the gallery. This is NOT about freedom of speech. You are perfectly free to make whatever images you want according to your local laws. If you want to post the image here, you will have to abide by the rules of this site. You can post it elsewhere. Just find another site. If you don't want to abide by anybody's rules, get your own website and hang whatever you want on it. Carolly