is it possible to post this photography of a children sculpture i found on a castle in restauration, to post in my photography gallery ? or is it against the TOS ? when it is against the TOS, i want to ask " where is the borderline of sense and nonsense ? ".

Excellent question !!! I am waiting for an answer too ! Carlos.

There's lots of nonsense for sure!! I'm wondering too...let's see how silly things really are! ;)

I'll have an answer soon on statues.Not sure the take on a scupltors child depiction has been given the naysay as of yet. I do like the new TOS though for the rest of images. You will find more answers in the community center. The choice words "sense or nonsense" I doubt I could find an answer too though. But I do know someone I could ask about that.Down the street from me there is a family who lost a child to a pediophile and when caught, the police found thousands of hard drive images of naked children,human,non human the like. I bet those people would have a good answer to "sense or nonsense".

I think we all agree about protecting children against mental perv Doug, but to forbid, for ex, shirtless girls over shirtless boys, is definitely nonsense to me!

Hi Doug ! i agree with with Pascale.but i am very unsure since one of my photography of a Voodoo Sculpture was deleted in the past.This sculptuer was shown in the World Art Exhibition in New York and it is a religious culture artwork. about all this bad things in life, i would look to Hollywood and the cinema industry, also the TV and other Medias, like the Internet. these are the places who grows Violence against all Life.not in the photography of culture art. regards gerhard

It is sad....same as now I cannot shoot around a school.Even to take a picture of sun and clouds a block away had the police at the door...gone are good old days. Sure I could press the issue and in my right I am allowed,but it is not worth the hassle. There are millions of nature created artworks to find beauty in. Millions of inanimate objects to be creative with.

I have just re-read the new child image guide-lines and am very interested in getting an answer to Gerhard's question.

Historically, one of the major difficulties faced by those trying to make anti-pornography laws has been the difficulty of defining pornography - filth (like beauty) is in the mind of the beholder. This has also had the positive effect of allowing the censors to make complete fools of themselves (the very booring and worthy novel 'Black Beauty' was once banned in South Africa).

In this case, where it is in everyone's interest to have a clear and reasonable policy - may I suggest that the rules be interpreted in such a way as to classify sculptures like the one above (possibly on the facade of a church?) and paintings (and even photographs) as not being 'children' or even 'characters resembling children'.

Yours,

Charles

To me, the posting of statues should be 'armless' (sorry!!) But unfortunately the cut-off point must be somewhere. While made of stone, this is a clear depiction of a nude male child. If it was a stone statue of a woman pleasuring herself, that would not conform to TOS either, and would probably be objectionable to most people. If it helps, the way to look at it is this; we have a limit on the quantity of pictures we can post; there are some of our pictures that we like that never make it to the gallery because of this, and we have to admire them privately or put them on our own websites. The pictures affected by TOS are just like those pictures. (",)

what if I find a similar picture of an 'angel' taken from some piece of religious art inside a church or cathedral?

ok, my english isnt so good to have a correct dialogue. so i want to post a picture, maybe it tells better what i mean.

the titel is " give back Marys Child " !

as an european people i cant understand and i feel discriminated and i am against an universal censorship of a theme.
of course it need rules against Violence and Children Pornography, but also against Weapons and Horror, it needs intelligent rules. again i have to say sorry for my english and the uncompletet expression of what i want to say.hope you can unterstand me in the right way.

i love the life, even there are so bad stories. if i remind on children died under Bombs, Napalm,Orange B usw...........

regards

gerhard

LOL@Gerhard!!! I just love this!! Very sarcastic and straight to the point!! ;)

it's really a shame true art has to suffer to try & snuff out exploiting children, wish i knew the answer gerhard... there are just not enough mods to babysit & look at every single image of those that insist on pushing the limits... & why should they, are we not adults, can we not use common sense? you'd be surprised the images that come up for review... these members apparently do not read the TOS anyways

With the new TOS any random picture from the beach at summer is against the rules. Now I'm not saying there shouldn't be rules, but there's bare chested children.. and there's porn. If at a hot summers day I'm taking pictures of my nieces (age 3 and 4) having shirtless fun in the sand I'm concidered some kind of perv? Clearly sexual pictures should be taken care of, you'll get no contest from me. But that even pictures as shown in the topicstart are even in need of concideration is ludicrous IMHO. Maybe someone somewhere gets sexual satisfaction from an image like that, but does that mean the statue should get torn down? Where's does it end? Heck, there's people that get aroused by looking at an ankle, so from now on all angles must be covered. Tight clothing on women is clearly arousing to someone, so only loose clothing allowed.. or even better, burka's. My point is that there's rules.. interpreting the rules... and just plain paranoia and I'm getting the feeling that it's getting too close to the latter. Maybe.. just maybe people need to relax.

Cyn, I know that you have been a a moderator (whatever that means) and you must know much more than I do about the subject. I think what Gerhard is worried about is not that the obviously semi-pornographic will be banned but that a picture of a perfectly innocent 18th Century statue like the one on top or a picture of a cherub from a Rafael painting will get us into trouble. (I am even hitting the 'nudity' button for the first time ever!) Incidentally, the painting is called 'The Holy Family' and you can go and see it in the Louvre museum in Paris. Charles

oh I don't agree that fine art of the masters, statues, paintings, architecture should be censored... I have read the community center endless thread... don't know if the decision was made to cut down on work or if there was some underlying reason dealing with the marketplace & $ or if they were hit with some legality issue

they did make some amendments:

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.

they did allow Gerhard's photo of female babydolls...
so maybe not all common sense has been lost

i have a pic of myself as a toddler with no shirt on celebrating as the New Year's baby in my gallery & none to pleased about having to delete it... sigh

Message edited on: 03/24/2005 12:20

to me, there is nothing wrong with that statue, Gerhard. But according to TOS...dunno? Rinzy, you make some good points. True, there's a big difference between bare chested kids and porn. and what about those cute little naked baby shots? is that porn? well, i don't see it that way. like doug said though...the good old days are gone.

I have been reading the thread on the Poser forum. For fairly obvious reasons many of them feel more threatened by the ambiguities of these new TOS. Many of them suggest that this is a pre-emptive move to cover RR and its owners against being accused/sued/the general vagaries/occasional lunacies of the civil law in the US. If so, wouldn't it be appropriate for the legal department to publish their advice so that we can at least understand it? Charles

LOL... read that one too in the Poser Forum... just goes on & on doesn't it... & sure, if it was for legal reasons then I would think publishing that would put a stop to a lot of the bickering... I can only shake my head & hope when a piece such a Gerhard's post is brought to view it will be looked at as an exception instead of a threat the site is free, they make the rules, if we can't abide by them then we know what we can do but I do like this site & still have faith in a majority of fairness

"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"

I think Gerhards' concern is a valid one and one where i hope, like everyone else, that common sense will prevail.

i can't see how statues and paintings fit into the above reasoning. if it is for legal issues, what will happen to galleries and museums, churches and other historical sites in the society we live in?

Message edited on: 03/24/2005 13:21