ghelmer Actually one was .Taylor777 posted an image with Mary and nude Jesus as a child with other works around it and put censor tags all over the images and it was deleted and now his gallery and profile is gone .
I understand the tos to protect children and I dont have a problem with that .But what I do have a problem with is so many images with fae's and children have been posted with class as art .Not child exploitation and they are being ripped out of here faster than anything and even artists being banned ??? That I dont get .Some of these images have been around since I have been here and now they are bad ???I agree with AB,Primal and svdl in what has been said .I believe that the moderators have a job to do and I hope that they use tact and judgement before losing alot of members .
Like I said before, that it is sad that a freedom is being taking away because of the 2 P's Perverts and Prudes.The line between art and porno has been drawn very close together .Artists and masters have been doing images like this from the beggining and now all of a sudden it is bad. Were has innocents gone ?? So what do we do ??? Whats next ??? Is there a common ground we all can stand on ??? I hope so Bobby Pacock

Message edited on: 03/27/2005 10:20

"Fairies, dryads, nymphs and the like are supposed to be creatures of nature. The only species that has managed to loosen the ties to nature is homo sapiens. It is also the only species that is wearing clothes. I won't say that wearing clothes is unnatural - I'm not a hardcore nudist LOL - but I can't see why a spirit of nature would ever bother itself with the concept of clothing." Because as originally existing, classic fairies, also known as the sidhe, were creatures of nature, but they were also a royal court, with a king and queen, princes and princesses and all the attendant pomp and circumstance. Nymphs and dryads would certainly have been naked, but fairies would not have been.

You guys are beating a dead horse. The TOS has been written and it's going to remain. AB is right, it should be up to the community and members to police these things, to use restraint and good judgement. That choice is no longer available to us. Maybe Admin is actually trying to cover their asses, or maybe their bandwidth costs are such they wish to remove some of the images and this gives them an excuse? :) A bit paranoid perhaps? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Mistakes can and should be corrected. The most ridiculous part of the new TOS has already been corrected, the result of questions and opionions posted in the forums. Let's fix the remaining unreasonable parts too.

Why was Taylor777s Gallery deleted?is that going to happen to us?was thier a warning?was it because he challenged the TOS?

I dont know what they may call a challenge to the TOS .He showed nothing because they were covered with censor marks These paintings are from great artists of our past . The really sad part is that he never really posted nudity in any of his images I remeber .So why the whole ban .Because he spoke his opinion and stayed within the guidlines ???? Or was it because he posted some one elses art .That will probably be what they say. Either way some artists are going to lose this fight because they have the big ammo .A delete button Peace Bobby

I'm not entirely certain but I think Taylor777 removed the rest of his gallery himself after the one "Tongue in cheek" satire poking "fun" and "personal opinion" at the new TOS was removed by the mods. I'll try to find out from him about that. I saw his pic... It was complete satire, even if it didn't have the satirical censored signs it still would have been in no way offensive. All this crap is getting WAY out of hand!!! I suppose I'll be banned or slapped on the wrist for pointing this out. G

That would depend on whose art he is posting now wouldn't it? I don't see a problem with posting Michelangelo's art as long as the scan was copyright compliant. Not like Ol Mic or his heirs are going to complain. I didn't see the posting, but I assume he took an historic masters piece and covered it in censors marks as a protest? Good for him. He had to know they would axe his ass for it though. Don't you guys remember? We've had bannings for apologizing, and for calling a mod a "Dufflebag" for god sakes. Of COURSE they offed him because of this protest. THATS WHAT THEY DO! You aren't REALLY surprised by this are you?

"You aren't REALLY surprised by this are you?" Actually yes... very surprised. I've been of the mind that Renderosity was an open artistic community and not what it's turning out to be like in real life.

"Actually yes... very surprised. I've been of the mind that Renderosity was an open artistic community and not what it's turning out to be like in real life. " Well, I'd tell you to examine the old C&D and OT forums for examples of this not being a new thing, but alas those forums are no longer available to view.Hmmmmmmmm I wonder why that would be? :) Take my word for it, this is nothing new. This is NOT a community.This is a STORE FRONT. I know, it takes a while to realize that, it did me too. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but that's reality mate!

THanks Spiritbro77!! I still love Renderosity and I'm not gonna let stuff like this get me down. Just have to think of it in this new light and keep my opinions to myself I suppose. That's ok, I'm here to read and communicate about art and stuff... I'll leave my standing on a soapbox at the wayside where it belongs. Later! G

"I'll leave my standing on a soapbox at the wayside where it belongs." Or you could visit one of the many other sites that value freedom of speech a bit more when you want to vent or discuss a subject without worrying about getting the axe. XFX_3d.com, PoserPros.com Renderotica etc. At XFX_3d.com( be sure to add the little dash in there or you'll go to a porn site ) you'll find the new home of RFI. Radio Free Ironbear. Stop by, its a small but cool site owned by Dodger. I guarentee you'll hear a lot about the past, present and future of the community at large. :)PoserPros has a forum where you can say almost anything you want, just have thick skin cause the flames DO get going on occasion. There are places where you're opinion is not only tolerated, but appreciated. Rosity is what it is, not knocking it really, I still care about the place, I've just come to the realization that it isn't what it once was, nor what it should be. Good luck! Later

"This is NOT a community.This is a STORE FRONT. I know, it takes a while to realize that, it did me too. I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you, but that's reality mate!" That wasn't how it started, not how it always was.

"That wasn't how it started, not how it always was. " You are quite right. It wasn't always this way, and it's sad that things are as they are.

YOU SHHOULD SEE THE WRINKLRS ON MY

I dunno, I've been here a few years now and this style of thing all seems rather familiar...just a new topic. The simple fact is that the rules are the rules and we have to abide by them if we want to post our artworks in Renderosity's gallery. Have a lovely day everyone :)

Did you knew that Disney was censured?. The original faeries of the movie Fantasia were nude!, he must have been a paedophile and follower of Satan.....

Walt Disney was a closet anti-Semite. Despised Jews.

I suppose that the central subject of this thread will be debated ad nauseum.

If I desire to once again join the debate on this topic, then all that I need to do is to check back here in a day or two.

Without fail, someone will have started up a brand-new thread on the subject.

I think they will eventually tire of it, Xeno. They were much more vehement during an identical debate (the nude fairy debate) 3 or 4 years ago, but even that passed, as they realised there were other sites that welcomed their genre. Ironically, there are less such sites now than there were then, as these arguments have shown that their genre is only feasible in sites that don't allow dissent or criticism.

Okay everybody - take a deep breath - relax. I'm relatively new to the R'osity art world but it seems to me that the TOS is not an intractable position. It's just an attempt to play it safe so that R'osity and its parent company don't get sued -- which is quite understandable in this litigous world we live in. Why don't we try to communicate with R'osity and see if there is some middle ground. Basically what they are trying to do is to steer clear of the child pornography laws so bullet three under the TOS would seem to be okay - "No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context" - the other rules seem to be an over-reach and would not run afoul of any child pornagraphy laws. If they kept rule 3 and added that it would enforced under the "discretion of the Renderosity team", I think the solution could be workable for all.

"Walt Disney was a closet anti-Semite. Despised Jews." Disney?, Damn..., I always thought that was Hitler.

"as these arguments have shown that their genre is only feasible in sites that don't allow dissent or criticism" Unlike Rosity that embraces dissent and criticism? LMAO Why don't you ask Legume how Rosity embraces dissent and criticism?

DarkElegance, you can still use Aiko. I'm doing Aiko renders right now. I refuse to give up Aiko because of how young she looks. why should we stop doing Anime because of age? When did Anime become porn??? News to me. ;)

There is a differance between child nudity and child porn. People do not post Child Porn on Renderosity. It is pretty sad that people think Nude = Porn. If that were the case, the nude people in the National Geographic Magizines would be porn. So I believe this new TOS is a step in the wrong direction! First of all, if this is because there were complaints - Ummm if you don't like nudity, don't click on the pictures with nude tabs checked! Its sickening that prudes come here - to an ART site, they see a picture marked "Nudity" and are shocked to see a nude fae or a little girl without a shirt on and they go cry about it. What is even more sad is that Renderosity does not tell them to "Grow up and get over it." Instead they give into these people who hate nudity, but try to find it anyhow just to complain. Secondly, Child Porn does mean they have to be nude. They can be fully clothed but in sexual explicite poses which would make the image offencive. If people have been posting boarderline nude child images here, then punish them, not everyone. Turtle and Heartsong, two -- very great artist and by favorties -- have posted nude child images with nothing offensive in them at all. Why are they being punished? Renderosity has forgotten not only that are we artist, but also that artistic images of nudes is not illegal - real or not, weather they are 8 or 80. They have taken a step in the wrong direction and taking away our freedom of expression. They are going to have a lot of angry members. I myself will stop posting updates to my work on this site ang do elsewhere - May I suggest Fairtytop or FairyWylde where you can post anything you want other then torture and porn.

"Walt Disney was a closet anti-Semite. Despised Jews."
Disney?, Damn..., I always thought that was Hitler.

The Nazis had some famous early apologists in the US.

Celebrities like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh.....and Walt Disney.

Although Disney wasn't as open about his support as the others were.

Disney's anti-semitism is an "open secret" these days -- it's just not a subject that gets talked about very often. Too uncomfortable, I suppose.

It really saddens me to see once again that the silent majority is punished because the not-so-silent minority are yelling at the top of their lungs. I quietly took down an image of 2 little naked cherubs (nothing showing, no suggestive poses)just to keep from making waves. That was probably a mistake on my part. There are many of us who have done that just to keep peace here. I wonder why most of us feel that way. Maybe we should be like the puritans who scream the loudest and thus get their own way. PS - What does the late Walt Disney's anti-semitism views have to do with child pornography anyway?

"Disney's anti-semitism is an "open secret" these days -- it's just not a subject that gets talked about very often. Too uncomfortable, I suppose." Uncomfortable to whom? "PS - What does the late Walt Disney's anti-semitism views have to do with child pornography anyway?" Faeries, nude Faeries!, this is evil!

"Faeries, nude Faeries!, this is evil!" Ah, I see. Nude faeries, Walt Disney and nude children = evil. Hmmm, I should have figured that out!

Spirit, Legume may have gotten disgusted by the way he was singled out for censorship here. It merely proves my point - he couldn't stay because his kind of dissent wasn't tolerated here, whether for right or wrong. By analogy, I couldn't go to one of the nude fairy or pedophile sites and discuss with them why I think they are pedophiles, because that kind of dissent and criticism wouldn't be tolerated there. What they have there are "group-think" cultures, where approval by the "amen chorus" is the norm, and dissenters are quickly hounded out of existence, even as Legume tapered off his participation here, possibly due to ill treatment by his opponents. I would rather have him participate here, but I have no say in the matter. By the way, I don't think Legume was posting pedophile crap, so it may have been more about how he did things, than about any images he posted. Let him speak for himself, though. But we're seeing the same specious arguments here that we saw 4 years ago, when Thorne and the others split off in self-righteous rage and disgust. I think the nude child enthusiasts should think up some new arguments if they want to persuade anyone here. Garbage like "you mean, I can't post Michelangelo's (or the old masters') paintings of nude cherubs?" just doesn't cut the mustard, because this site is supposed to be for original works, not rip-offs or scans or reposts of European paintings.

My cherubs were nothing like "the old master's". Just my own creations in my own style. Most of us aren't "nude child" enthusiasts.

"By the way, I don't think Legume was posting pedophile crap, so it may have been more about how he did things, than about any images he posted. Let him speak for himself, though."

No he wasn't and I never said he was. My point was Rosity doesn't take criticism or protest very well and used Legume as a well known example of this. I would never try to speak for Legume, he does so on his own quite efectively.

"Garbage like "you mean, I can't post Michelangelo's (or the old masters') paintings of nude cherubs?" just doesn't cut the mustard, because this site is supposed to be for original works, not rip-offs or scans or reposts of European paintings."

This was used as an example. I don't think anyone want's to start posting scan after scan of the great masters works, there are other sites for that. Personally, I look at a great many scans of the masters and sometimes attempt to bring that feeling or mood out in my work. Not very effectively I might add :) I saw a work by Rembrandt where an old man was sitting by a window, I forget the name, anyway it looked like Rembrandt willed light to appear from the darkness on the canvas.I would love to recreate that effect .
Now, if someone wants to attempt to pay homage to one of the masters by using similar figures,ie cherubs.I can hardly see a problem. I HATE child porn, Pedophiles should be taken out of the courtroom and HUNG! OK, but I don't see anyone around here posting child porn. A mother holding a child, a cherub in an Angelic pose blowing a trumpet, etc.
Hey, as I said, the TOS is written, its not going to be changed, so this is beating a dead horse.Child porn is WRONG, I don't think anyone would disagree with you, but that was forbidden with the OLD TOS wasn't it?

Message edited on: 03/28/2005 14:30

"Disney's anti-semitism is an "open secret" these days -- it's just not a subject that gets talked about very often. Too uncomfortable, I suppose."
Uncomfortable to whom?

Uncomfortable to those that equate the name "Disney" with "child-like innocence".

"PS - What does the late Walt Disney's anti-semitism views have to do with child pornography anyway?"

Nothing -- but Walt Disney gets brought up as an example of squeaky-clean innocence.

It helps to point out the fact that other things are bubbling underneath the surface.

"But we're seeing the same specious arguments here that we saw 4 years ago, when Thorne and the others split off in self-righteous rage and disgust. I think the nude child enthusiasts should think up some new arguments if they want to persuade anyone here." Just as a point of clarification, Thorne NEVER did nude children. He was a victim of the if it doesn't have massive mutant boobs crowd it must be a child crowd. Thorne creates models of exactly the kind of women I've been involved with and married to and loved all my life. I can't blame him for leaving when he worked his ass off to create beautiful models, only to be accused of doing children. He and I happen to share the same taste in women, and as he told me once, all his models are based on a real person. I don't know the circumstances of anyone else leaving when Thorne did, bit I DO know his circumstances. His models are my favorite models and I use them constantly. Just as another clarification, Walt Disney adored his children to the point of obsession, and there was never a whisper of any impropriety. He loved all children, sorta why he did what he did, you know. And for someone that's supposedly an anti semite, his first partner was jewish, his head man ub iwerks was jewish and a very large number of his animators and employees were jewish. Kind of makes the point a bit moot. Are the same arguments to be found here as have been found in the past? Sure, because they're still valid arguments. I don't do nude kids. I almost did once, a while back, but the whole child porn freak out dissuaded me from showing a little boy butt in a picture. I do, as I said, use Thorne's models a LOT, since those are the kind of women I prefer, so I am a bit concerned that what is, essentially, a matter of taste in women, will be transformed into beiing accused of liking children because some viewer can't discriminate between a grown woman who's petite and has small boobs as opposed to the standard mutant boobed naked vicky in the temple.

I was going to post a new image (a landscape image created with Terragen) today, but then I noticed the new TOS, and decided not to post. I think the new TOS simply can not be tolerated. This sick crusade against "child pornography" has gone too far. Everybody should see it by now. And it will not stop here if we do not stop it. Every new cencorsihip that is accepted is an excuse for more, stricter cencorship. There is no end. Yes, site owners can set up any rules they like. But we, the members, have right to draw our own conclusions from it. I feel that at current situation, I do not want to post any images. And definitely do not buy anything advertised at Renderosity.

Attached Link: http://www.stockmaven.com/logsdon99_F.htm

Try doing a google search on Disney and anti-semitism. There's plenty of information floating around on the subject.

Sure, he's got his defenders, too.

As in so much else, it depends upon who one chooses to listen to.

Personally, I believe that the evidence is there. Although admittedly, he wasn't as outspoken on the subject as some others were. As I indicated earlier: a closet anti-semite.

In early 1940, Walt Disney was thinking of taking his studio public and asked Ford for his advice on the enterprise. Ford expressed his admiration for Disney because he was a successful Protestant in the film business- a field dominated by Jews. However; Ford warned, Jews also controlled the stock market, and Disney would be wise to sell his company outright rather than lose it to "them" one piece at a time. Disney, who may have had anti-Semitic leanings of his own, thanked Ford for his advice.

Well since i just found out today that another wonderul friend/artists/merchants gallery has been cleared without a warning, I suppose I should add my two cents in as well. People need to start being a tad more respectful on all sides. A majority of the people here try their best to follow the rules out of respect for other artists and the site. How do you expect those people to keep respecting this site and following the rules when you do not afford them the same courtesy? Maybe istead of defining the TOS all the time everyone should just define their idea of art that way people are making only what is appeasing to others, and making sure others fragile sensibilities are not getting warped. Sounds pretty stupid huh? But thats what this is turning into... I am a pretty optimistic person and hope that things can get better, but it seems like the same problem... lack of common courtesy towards others.

"Well since i just found out today that another wonderul friend/artists/merchants gallery has been cleared without a warning" Was it just their gallery or were they banned as well? Was it their ENTIRE gallery? Seems odd that every image in the gallery would be a violation of the TOS.

I don't think it's right to remove images that were already here. When you do that, it seems to me, something is very badly wrong with the new TOS. Keep it up and this site will no longer be an artist's site. We're artists, we're not politically correct and never will be. Hitler tried to make artists in germany be politically correct too. He failed. It seems to me that people who own and operate an ART site should have some respect for and understanding of the artists and the artistic process.

Just a suggestion, but why don't the owners of this site devote it entirely to art, and start a seperate sister site completely devoted to merchandising. seems to me that would solve the problem.

About that cleared gallery, I think I know what was the matter. If I'm right about the artist in question, the TOS violations had to do with linking to certain sites. I don't know what exactly happened. I know what I would have done were I a moderator: PM the artist, tell him his gallery violated the TOS, and allow him some time, something like 48 hours counting from the moment the artist received the PM, to fix his gallery. And only if the artist refused to fix it, either explicitly or implicitly, I'd delete it and record a warning - maybe even a temporary ban. It may have happened this way. I don't know.

Yes it was every picture in their gallery, and yes it was a link to their site that caused it but no they had NO WARNING. To me thats completely unacceptable...it shouldnt be tolerated by anyone here...next time it could be your gallery.

What was wrong with the link? Adult material on the site? Or is it now unacceptable to link to a site here? See this is the BS I'm talking about. They could have told this person hey, we have a problem with this, change it or we will delete it. Was this member banned as well?

No, this member was not banned. The site links were actual violations of TOS rules, AFAIK. Not some new rule made up after the fact, an older standing rule. When following the letter of the TOS and disregarding its spirit, the removal of the gallery was correct. Probably this member got a PM after the removal saying he had violated the TOS and that a warning was recorded. It could have been worse. Apparently this violation was regarded as one single incident, not as 50 or more separate violations - which would have led to an instant permanent ban. Apparently the moderators need to follow the TOS to the letter and the spirit be damned. I don't like this at all. Something must have forced this "Ordnung muss sein" attitude. I wonder what it is, and I wonder what the community can do to remove this need.

• Anyone that doesn't agree with Israel is an anti-Semite. - Anyone that doesn't agree with Bush is an anti-American. - Anyone that makes nude faeries is a paedophile. Do you think that people really care how you do call them?? Returning to more interesting themes: "I can't post Michelangelo's (or the old masters') paintings of nude cherubs?" just doesn't cut the mustard, because this site is supposed to be for original works, not rip-offs or scans or reposts of European paintings." You must remember that is a photograph gallery here and you can found those evil paintings/sculptures in photos of demoniac churches, cathedrals, monuments, palaces, buildings, etc.

either the server ate my post or it got removed. O.o but as I don't have a warning... why is it a picture of a cherub gets removed but that pick from sndcastie is still up? both babies naked. ok sndcastie has a diaper but according to the TOS that is very against it.(http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=120512&Start=37&Artist=SndCastie&ByArtist=Yes) now I have no problem with the TOS. I do not do underage art (though I worry of aiko work) so it is not a problem for me. I also have no problem with a pic of a "new year" baby. BUT (oh come on you knew there was a but) if the TOS is to be taken seriously it should at least be consistent. is the new TOS for members only? mods are absolved? personally if they are going to remove whole galleries and take down cherubs..then their own mods should be subject to the same strict rules. (note for the record. baby in diaper is not a problem to me. I just think that if cherubs are being taken down for topless or nudity..then "baby new year" should be too. fair is fair)

Nude Aiko's are going to be removed now as well? You have to be kiddin me....

There are two items in the Child Image guidelines that make sense: "No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context." "Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." These two bullets should be sufficient to protect 'rosity from legal issues. Maybe add a note that it is better to err on the safe side: when in doubt, the post will be considered to be a violation of the TOS. What I like about the first item is that it does not mention nudity. A very important point. Example: a young teenager, provocatively dressed (but no genitals or nipples showing) and posed, that is forbidden. As it should be. By this same rule, a nude cherub or Cupid would be just fine. As it should be. And there is one item that seems to be specifically designed to prohibit criticism of the new TOS: "No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of blots or Censored wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed." Hmm. Not very consistent with the American ideals of democracy and freedom.

Returning to more interesting themes

True. Like doing renders.

As opposed to wasting time engaging in interminable forum "debates" in which people talk at, rather than to each other.

I'd say that the TOS change is a fait accompli.

The rest is just venting.

"I'd say that the TOS change is a fait accompli." Ah, but rules have been changed before and laws have been re-written. Perhaps if debates are presented in a logical and calm manner, then the people in charge of the rules will be more open to considering change. And if not, then there has been a good discussion on the whole with people talking to each other and that in itself is educational. See, I'm an optimist. I believe reason prevails. And there have been some very reasonable suggestions by ones that have posted here.

See, I'm an optimist. I believe reason prevails. And there have been some very reasonable suggestions by ones that have posted here.

Admittedly, this thread has been a bit calmer than some of the others.

I doubt that it'll change anything. It's a case of "too little, too late". Reasonable individuals on both sides of the issue should have spoken up earlier, and told the rabid to tone it down.

My guess would be that a minor tweak or two might happen. But that's about it.