I just had a gallery image pulled with a Thorne and Sarsa character for V3 - Minuete - typical naked Vicky in a temple - that was clearly marked "upper nudity" and I even made her breasts larger so she would look older. So, are all of Thorne and Sarsa's characters under 18???? I think vendors need to say the so-called age of their digital character so we artists do not get in trouble with the TOS folks - because there is no clear rule of which characters are over 18.

It is based on appearance. V3 can be morphed to most any age with the right products. You should contact the Staff for details.

Thorne & Sarsa make very good characters. However, they do normally have them appear to be in the teen bracket. When I saw Minuette, I thought they had put a young teen girls head on a womans body.  I personally wouldn't have put her in the nude as I know some people would find it a bit distasteful. This is the problem with making characters for V3. We assume she will be a fully grown woman, this appears to not be the case as it all seems to depend on her facial appearance.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=1202802&Artist=Jules53757&Start=1&ByArtist=Yes

As stated before many times, each image is judged on its own merits and a majority opinion sought from staff before any action is taken.

The base character may serve as a general guide to age, but since all meshes are morphable, we cannot give a "blanket rule" for all images using that mesh.

Karen

I've been wondering about that rule since it came into being, was it created as a response to complaints raised against the gallery? And if so, was 'virtual' child nudity an increasing problem before this rule was put into action?

The "no nudity on characters appearing underage" has been in the TOS for many years.
It was clarified around a year ago and at the same time changed to prevent topless shots of young girls.

The wording and rules were put in place in response to both complaints from members viewing the galleries, and a problem with increasing numbers of inappropriate images of children and/or inappropriate comments on images of children.

Karen

We have never had a need to put the age on a character  because:

1. What it says in the store promo text has no bearing whatsoever on the subjective judments of the gallery admins.

2. The admin are going to "age" the doll by their own personal criteria, i.e., it is completely subjective to the viewers who decide these things. For example, Karen's cute little avatar picture here looks to me to be about 12 or 14, but then she isn't naked either. ;o)

3. There are many characters in the marketplace displayed nude (not ours), especially Aiko3 characters and some Miki's, that have very young faces; large breasts, bald pubes, or lack thereof notwithstanding. The Marketplace has said that Aiko is an adult figure and seems to understand the concept of anime. However, these same images would NEVER pass in the galleries because the galleries are still judged subjectively. I will certainly not point out which images or products because there are already plenty enough people to do that. Also I am not making judgements, only stating facts.  I utterly and completely respect Renderosity's right to make their own decisions on these things.

I suggest simply making another version that has the nipples covered. Then you would have "Nipple Covered Vickie in a Temple with a Sword", but at least it would probably be okay to post in the galleries here.  Alternately, please feel free to post tasteful, non-sexual nude images at http://www.faeriewylde.com of any of ours, or any other characters.

Lastly,  thank you very much, Drifterlee, for your purchase, and please understand we have no voice in these matters, even if we included their drivers licenses. ;o) Your image is welcomed at FaerieWylde, and with over 8,000 members would probably get more "first page" exposure anyway. ;o)

Hehehe, Thorne, people keep saying that, but I was 31 when that pic was taken :o)

Quote - I've been wondering about that rule since it came into being, was it created as a response to complaints raised against the gallery? And if so, was 'virtual' child nudity an increasing problem before this rule was put into action?

I TOO second this question.  I TOO want to know.  This whole issue is very surrealistic.  I can buy David Hamilton's books, which involve REAL pubescent HUMAN females posed and photographed in the nude, at my local bookshop in Tel-Aviv; but 'I' or anybody else is forbidden to render similar images in Poser, which on comprises only the arrangement and rearrangement of digital values (As to whether I WANT to render any such image, that is STRICKLY my own affair, and not one I'm willing to give truck to anyone to tell me differently).  Frankly, this whole attitude as to what constitutes CP as regards to CG images is both overly officious, and insane. 
As things stand now, all I can say is: "Cupid, go get a G-String, you're in violation of TOS!"
David P. Hoadley

Hi David, please read my post for an answer.

Karen

To me computer generated pixels have no age.  So far as I'm concerned they are neutered barbies or "toons" regardless of how "real" they may look.

I am not into porn, especially involving computer generated pixels. However, I personally have nothing against seeing nude pixels, because like I said, they aren't real and no real person is being  "exploited".

I would rather a pedophile get their rocks off on a computer generated "Barbie/toon" that looks 12 years old, than for them to go and snatch a 12 year old girl off of the street.

But then again I take my clothes off to shower and sleep too   :b_unbelievable:  so what do I know.

i think shes under 3 years old ;)

Quote - I would rather a pedophile get their rocks off on a computer generated "Barbie/toon" that looks 12 years old, than for them to go and snatch a 12 year old girl off of the street.

Being that I'm not in the psychiatric field I have no idea if one leads to the other. However, I think the common perception of the "average person" is that the presence of one will lead to the desire of the other. Hence the reason that any type of child porn, either "real" or "digital", is of concern.

karen1573: The wording and rules were put in place in response to both complaints from members viewing the galleries, and a problem with increasing numbers of inappropriate images of children and/or inappropriate comments on images of children.

Are you saying what I think you are saying that there was images of actual children in a sexual context posted in the poser-gallery? If not, then the claim above is a false one, as others have already pointed out.

I do also remember that about a year ago (I think) the new red text warning was placed in the "upload image" page, and there was a form of crackdown which followed where alot of old images were deleted due to containing 'inappropriate material'. One of them belonging to the most commented crowd and thus would unlikely have gone unnoticed before this.

The answer you gave was unfortunaly only a confirmation of what we already knew, if some material is deemed inappropriate for whatever reason then any rule that prohibits posting this material makes sense. But this isn't what was asked.

Deecey: However, I think the common perception of the "average person" is that the presence of one will lead to the desire of the other. Hence the reason that any type of child porn, either "real" or "digital", is of concern.

Is it also the perception of the average person that the existence of homosexual pornography will create more gay people? Isn't this just an appeal to popularity?

kinggoran ... I didn't say that is the way I felt, just my thoughts about why the laws might have been written the way they are.  In this case, the law was written to protect innocent children from harm.

And, yes, I would imagine that there are some people who think the existence of homosexual pornography creates gay people. I'm not one of them, but I'm sure there are some. 8-)

For the record, I love Thorne's work and find it strange that there might be some who think of it as "kiddie porn" ... but I didn't write the laws or the rules of various companies and Internet sites.  We all have different opinions on this issue, but whether we like them or not we have laws and rules to abide by. And each site owner interprets those laws and rules differently and errs on the side of caution in their own eyes.

kinggoran:

Are you saying what I think you are saying that there was images of actual children in a sexual context posted in the poser-gallery? If not, then the claim above is a false one, as others have already pointed out.

We wouldn't accept photos in the Poser gallery.
I referred to both photos and Poser images.
To what "claim" do you refer?

I certainly never posted any "kiddie porn", considering I am a 55 year old mother of two grown daughters, three cats, two rabbits, one hamster and my Egyptian mare, Mindy. I just thought the character was pretty, and there was nothing sexual about the image. I think some of this TOS has gone in the wrong direction, quite honestly.

Deecey: kinggoran ... I didn't say that is the way I felt, just my thoughts about why the laws might have been written the way they are.  In this case, the law was written to protect innocent children from harm.

The interesting question here would be: Does it protect innocent children from harm? If no evidence of this can be produced then what are the laws/rules for? Obviously, as has been pointed out already, rules like these are impractical as they rely on a measurement of something that does not exist (the age of a Poser-figure). It's sort of like trying to determine the colours of the emperor's new clothes. :-)

Deecey: We all have different opinions on this issue, but whether we like them or not we have laws and rules to abide by.

Being foremost a fractal-artist, I don't have much of a choice as it is very difficult to create images of human beings using fractals. Just for the record, I have no intention whatsoever of breaking such rules, and I do not contest the owners of Renderosity's rights to create them. I am merely curious.

karen1573: To what "claim" do you refer?

The one that said that inappropriate images of children had been posed in the Poser-gallery.

kinggoran:
I said that inappropriate images of children had been posted in the galleries. I didn't specify which gallery, but in fact many genre galleries have had inappropriate images removed.
Let me rephrase...
"The wording and rules were put in place in response to both complaints from members viewing the galleries, and a problem with increasing numbers of inappropriate images of underage figures and/or inappropriate comments on images of underage figures."

*and for "underage figures" you can take that as both "human children" and "Poser meshes designed to look like children".

drifterlee You didn't do anything wrong. I once thought a Vicky character I posted was only pretty and they pulled mine also. Nothing to be done about it since it's their call.

Why I was sure when I saw this thread's title that it surely would have a lot of answers...?

Why people open threads with the same endless questions?

Why I'm posting this here instead of wasting my time drawing some boobs?

(oofffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff...)

What I think is happening  here is only the beginning of what is to come.

There have been no changes to the gallery other than the "child /perceived child nudity" rules.  However, I suspect that it won't be long before a total "no nudity of any kind " will be introduced. This way there won't be any cause for debate or ho'ing and hum'ing about is it over/under 18?

I'm sure the moderators and admins are tired of having to make independent decisions, and I know we're tired of having someone look at something and tell us it's "dirty" or "inappropriate" and can't be posted "here" based on their own opinion; it's like my opinion has no merit.

There is a difference between "pornography" and "nudity" and "nude art".

Pornography involves sexual acts/poses for the purpose of sexual arousal.  The poses tend to be "out there" for maximum exposure and arousal.. such as "look at my genitals" or "look at my big boobies" type poses.

Nude(ity) is what we all are when we're born and what some of us continue to be when we shower, sleep, swim, or spend our days at home.

Nude Art is not meant to be sexually arousing. It's meant to celebrate the human form. Some of the greatest sculpturs and painters of our time and before have created beautiful nudes, that are still admired and coveted today....many of those depict children or what could be looked at as young teens.   These paintings and sculptures sit in private collections and public galleries and are admired.  The poses are casual, innocent, day-to-day living type, or erotic in a non sexual way (IE: a figure sleeping with the covers thrown off, a faery sitting on a flower with a bubble wand and butterflies, cupid flying around with a bow and arrow etc)

What is going on is that in some people's minds, these 3 genre's are being lumped into one, especially when it comes to perceived children.... or pixel "children".

As for nude images of  "children" in the galleries, I've seen many. Not everyone who posts their nude self portraits are of age.  You might want to browse around the art community to find out how many underage teens are exploiting themselves around the net in various galleries, including this one.

Thorne,  if you are still looking in this post  -- following e-bot replies -- for the record: I love your dolls.  Sylfie has my heart as few characters have had for some time.  Thank you very much for your fine work.  Long live Sarsa and Thorne!

Best Wishes All,

Rªnce

y'all should complain to the congress of the united states of america, since that's where the laws get made that have sites like this one worried they might get in trouble if there is even a hint of what some prude out there considers inappropriate sexualizing of children. and there are many such prudes, so i don't blame individual US sites for getting their virtual knickers in a knot. what do you expect in a country that's so screwed up about anything that could even remotely be linked to sex, and that's been consistently moving to the right in the last decade? and really, it's not like it's 100% certain to determine what's "just nudity" and what's sexually arousing, since the latter is intensely personal, and people are aroused by the darndest things (have a look at the still active fetish thread). the line is impossible to draw firmly. and therefore the rules can't be firm either, but have to be flexible. and mods will err on the side of caution. it does little good to pound on the mods here, or even on the site owners. are you ready to carry the legal costs for them? i'm not. if i wanted to post nude childlike appearing figures, i'd do so on my own server, so the person responsible for it would be only myself. i recommend that to anyone who feels artistically suppressed here.

Quote - mods will err on the side of caution. it does little good to pound on the mods here, or even on the site owners. are you ready to carry the legal costs for them? i'm not. if i wanted to post nude childlike appearing figures, i'd do so on my own server, so the person responsible for it would be only myself. i recommend that to anyone who feels artistically suppressed here.

Easy to say and a sound business decision but what happens when they start cracking down on individuals as well? Just like the RIAA did going after each and every downloader?  Since art sites have buckled under to this pressure about the hypothetical age of pixels, what else are they going to cave into next?

If an ID card works to show proof of age for models in photos, why can't the same be applied to digital models? If they are going to apply child porn laws to CGI characters why not be consistent and apply the same ID card laws to them as well?

That would certainly solve the problem and avoid the judgement calls necessary for the case by case basis by having a consistent standard and save the mods a lot of work.

If some say that ID cards aren't valid for digital models than the same applies to trying to apply the child porn laws to them also, each makes the same amount of sense since they follow the same logical assumptions.

If there is a "different" standard for the marketplace as opposed to the galleries, it seems there is a bit of hypocrisy going on but what else is new, money talks.  On the bright side, if there is one, perhaps it's better that they cater to the complaints.  The last thing we need is a group of "right-thinking" citizens starting a huge campaign against Poser "kiddie porn".

Quote - Deecey: However, I think the common perception of the "average person" is that the presence of one will lead to the desire of the other. Hence the reason that any type of child porn, either "real" or "digital", is of concern.

Is it also the perception of the average person that the existence of homosexual pornography will create more gay people? Isn't this just an appeal to popularity?

I would lean more to an appeal to belief... but this would only be relavent if you were under the mistaken impression that logic of facts had any bearing in these discussions.

what happens when they start cracking down on individuals as well? first they have to have jurisdiction, and not all of us are in the US. then it has to be worth it; this isn't quite the same thing as the RIAA, because nobody loses any money just because we render nude fairies. also, it is not at all certain that your average nude fairy constitutes child porn even in the US (i have read the relevant law) -- a lot of sites are completely overreacting IMO. if they want to come after me because they want to prove in a court of law that my nude fairies are child porn, let them bring it on. (of course i would first have to render some nude fairies. maybe i'll do it tonight, just to have an actual render at which somebody could get offended.) what do we do then? we do what people whose form of expression has been persecuted have always done. we go underground. we'll post anonymously on servers located in less prudish jurisdictions. don't get me wrong, i am not advocating we just roll over and give up. i am strongly in favour of banding together and standing up to this type of idiocy right here and now. i just don't necessarily expect a site like renderosity to stand up to it for us. i haven't been here long, but this site doesn't strike me as being a force for artistic expression, it strikes me primarily as a business, and the galleries are meant to bring in more business. nude fairy lovers have to look elsewhere for support.

Quote - i am strongly in favour of banding together and standing up to this type of idiocy right here and now. i just don't necessarily expect a site like renderosity to stand up to it for us. i haven't been here long, but this site doesn't strike me as being a force for artistic expression, it strikes me primarily as a business, and the galleries are meant to bring in more business. nude fairy lovers have to look elsewhere for support.

It won't help. The decision was made last year and had something to do with PayPal.

Quote - It won't help. The decision was made last year and had something to do with PayPal.

*The trouble with that agument was it was never proved that the amount of  "chargebacks" on credit cards that Paypal was so worried about wouldn't happen with those "adult" guidelines they wanted to enforce in place, since it didn't do anything about stopping that kind of fraud.

In all other cases of child porn that Congress has dealt with, the photographers and distributers were required to have valid proof of age on file in the forms of indentification. If all they were worried about was the liability of being sued then that would be all they would have to do to conform to the letter of the law.  I'm certain that if photographers only went on a case by case basis to determine the age of their models by the judgement of the web site mods they would be leaving themselves wide open to lawsuits.

So both those arguements don't seem to provide solutions to the problems they say they want to fix.

Quote - > Quote -

In all other cases of child porn that Congress has dealt with, the photographers and distributers were required to have valid proof of age on file in the forms of indentification. If all they were worried about was the liability of being sued then that would be all they would have to do to conform to the letter of the law.  I'm certain that if photographers only went on a case by case basis to determine the age of their models by the judgement of the web site mods they would be leaving themselves wide open to lawsuits.

And in the case of pixels, proof of age is not only impossible, but even ridiculous, hehe...so that should mean that computer generated pixels are exempt.  However, here they aren't.

That's that whole point isn't it? If they aren't exempt from being considered child porn, then they have to be able to show proof of age in the form of ID.

You can't have one without the other since if you accept  they can be underage, then they have to be able to be of legal age at some point. If you concede that they can't show proof of age then they can't be considered underage or child porn at any point.

You would think any lawyer worth their salt could prove that if the procecution tries to prove child porn that they can show that proof of age is possible and if refuted on that point that it refutes the whole assumption.

What is still up for debate seems to be with the solutions that have been decided upon, are the problems what they have been telling the members? Since their seems to be a big difference in what they say the problem is and what effect of the solutions are.

another thread like this?-_-

the limits to the gallery arent due to the law, it was ruled (in the servers area) that
computer generated pics weren't kiddie porn, the decision was "claimed" to be cuz paypal
yet i look at sites like CP, which allows paypal as well, and see promo pics that renderosity
wouldn't show, including some clearly underage, making the paypal excuse a bit useless

not allowing due to  innappropriate comments, and complaints? perhaps
but its an art site, art comes in all forms, i knew a guy who got a boner seeing his BOAT
behold the age of boat porn! oh man look at that engine! so strong! ......umm x_x

if people dont wish to see images, they dont have to look, but they choose to, to give
themselves something to complain about. those great paintings and statues that were made?
many people dont want them to be shown, but they were reconized as art, and in museums
do the people still complain? ofcourse

and on a side note about paypal, anyone checked out ebay lately?
ebay owns paypal, and ebay has some items that would fuel complaints for many years :P

Bored

(unsuscribing)

Quote - Hehehe, Thorne, people keep saying that, but I was 31 when that pic was taken :o)

In that case, given an image that looks exactly like that, one would have to say that the character looks 31 - because that's what a 31-year old woman looks like. This subjective judging is flawed because it makes no allowance for the wide range of human physiology, and furthermore, is strongly ethnocentric (I could phrase that more strongly).

Where "looks like under 18" has to be called for is in cases where a real person might be committing an offence. If a person who looks underage tries to buy alcohol, then the cashier does have to make a check because this is a real person who has a real age.

In the case of a digital image or even a drawing, there is no real age. So it is really far less important. There are three possible categories:

1. Figures that have to be under 18 (babies, small children).
2. Figures that have to be older than 18 (wrinkled faces).
3. Figures that, given the range in human aging and type, might or might not be under 18.

Now, I do not see why you have to judge all images in category 3 to be 1 and not 2. If an image could be over 18, could in fact be 31, then leave it. There is no real person committing a crime.

Quote - Hehehe, Thorne, people keep saying that, but I was 31 when that pic was taken :o)

I DON'T BELIEVE IT!  Tell the truth, you accidentally inverted the numbers, and really meant 13. 
David P. Hoadley

LOL David.

Maybe I should start selling my  "age defying secrets"?

Of course, that pic was taken about 4 months before I became a mod here. I might look a little older now ;-)

Dear Keren;
I read in another thread that you have a son, age 10.  Children are a blessing.  But I still think that you look like an agemate of my youngest daughter, who is in the tenth grade this year.
David

Maybe it's my son who keeps me young!

Although he's getting to the age now where he's probably going to start making me prematurely old, instead :biggrin:

Quote - Maybe it's my son who keeps me young!
Although he's getting to the age now where he's probably going to start making me prematurely old, instead :biggrin:

You mean that instead of 13, someday you might ACTUALLY look 14 or 15?
Nah!  I don't believe it.  Your's is the face that will remain ageless, unlike the rest of us.
David P. Hoadley

Formal censorship is by its nature idiotic. I seem to be the only person who has noticed the new nanny switch on the forums, the Language button. I always click it, because somehow I always seem to be using language to post. So now we are censoring "language." Whatever that means. It means whatever you want it to mean, folks, like the Victorians who called the lower part of a chair its "limbs" to avoid vulgarity.

Seriously, WTF (EEeeekkkkk ! He said "F"!!!) does "language" mean? My mother reprimanded me nearly fifty years ago for saying something was "screwed up." My response was "You're kidding." She wasn't. She also whacked us for saying "Jeeez," "Cripes," and "Gol" because she knew what we mean. She had no problem with "catch a nigger by the toe," by the way. "Language" is not offensive unless it is meant to offend, a principle that the average boy figures out before he hits two digits.

Censorship depends on identifying intention. So when Garth Brooks puts an American flag on the butt of his jeans, that's Patriotic, but when Abby Hoffman does it, it's Treason. And that American Indian fancy dancer with his face painted red and white and blue? You know what we did to them, so they must hate us, so it must be an insult. Right.

Sexual aggression, like all forms of aggression, should be regulated by the authorities, and the penalites should take into account the helplessness of the victims. But pornography, however repulsive, is meta-sexual. If there is harm, it is to the models, and you can't traumatize a mesh. There may be a case for censoring images of explicit sex involving children, but trying to legislate the "offensiveness" of nudity is a crock. But yes, R'osity owns the crock, so the question is moot and they can forbid pictures of cows sensuously chewing cud if they want to.

What the censors want to do is control what you think. If you don't resist that, you are a fool. I don't know what you think.You don't know what I'm thinking (just as well), and even if I tell you, you will interpret it. That's why we have freedom of speech.

I find semi-adolescent "fairies" and manga kiddies with balloon boobs very unpleasant to look at, and David Hamilton's photos strike me is over the line. But it's MY line, and I don't want Hamilton's books burned, I just stay away from them. I am far more deeply offended by the demeaning caricatures of women that make up the preponderance of R'osity's gallery images than I am of a photo -- yes, even a photo -- of a child incidentally nude. And anyone who thinks naked children are "pornographic" is a very sick, sick individual, pedophile or not.

I think you should just give it up, its not going to change anything. The admin will carry on just as they see fit. if your not “in” you will get your images pull and be banned for a few days,. But others work will stay, only today an image was posted that showed a female that (imo) looked under age with under developed breasts, a one off maybe? But looking at the artists gallery there was another image very much like the 1st. also in the same gallery an image of a vampire with his hand on a woman’s breast, ok she did have a top on so that’s ok( as the admins say “ so long as the hand is supporting and not fondling its ok” but I wonder. Why is not ok to have a ribbon or some such other covering an under age botticelli? But ok to have a hand, alien probe going where the sun don’t shine? Mmm maybe you can if your “in”.

So I say give it up. They know best, after all they are the admins

i find i funny how people act like its kiddie porn, when no kiddie is involved

does this mean that kids with crayons are making kiddie porn too?
all the naked stick kids!! ahh!!! BAN THE CRAYONS!!!!!

ok had my morning laugh runs back to rendering boobies

Quote - i find i funny how people act like its kiddie porn, when no kiddie is involved

The court of public opinion gives no weight to what is legal nor what is logical.

The court of public opinion is only interested in giving knee jerk emotionaly charged overractions to sensationalized situations.

The trouble is that businesses are alot more concerned with CYA so they bow to sensationlized situations even if they are only emotionally charged knee jerk overractions.

Incidentally, it is common on "adult" sites, that operate on a similar basis to Renderosity, to forbid ALL depiction of children, clothed or otherwise. I think this is perfectly right. The argument is, that on a site the very purpose of which is overtly erotic, any image appearing is eroticised by implication.

The other side of the coin is that for a site that is not erotic (like Renderosity) the depiction of nakedness is simply the representation of the natural state of mankind, whether of children or adults. In image of a child with no clothes on should cause no more trouble than the countless paintings of the child Jesus that you can see in any art gallery.

Quote - The trouble is that businesses are alot more concerned with CYA so they bow to sensationlized situations even if they are only emotionally charged knee jerk overractions.

Unfortunatly there are some very real consequenses to these emotionally charged knee jerk overractions. How well a business covers their backside may be the diffrence between staying in business and being ruined financialy by lawsuits, and/or hardware confiscation.

Attached Link: NoPants-LOGO

Show your support for N.O. P.A.N.T.S.

N.O. P.A.N.T.S. is

Non-agers

Opposing

Panickers

And

Narrowminded goody

Two

Shoes.

Download the N.O. P.A.N.T.S. logo, and put it on the clothing the TOS forces you to use:

Show them that they can make you put cotton over your Faeries a**,

but not the wool over your eyes.

FAERIE LIB, NOW !

stahlratte