If a figure is not wearing any (apprent) clothing at all, then yes most of the time, I would consider a figure nude. This applies to even a figure that has no nipples, no pubic hair and just an abstract texture applied to them. It also applies to figures, (with no clothing), that have just stone, or metal textures applied to them.

Now...this isn't truly an opinion, as much as it is a rule of thumb that I have developed over the years, mostly because of recieving e-mails from angry parent members, who have had nudity blocked in their profile, and are literally browsing the galleries with their kid sitting in their lap. And, to their dismay....an unclothed DAZ figure pops up, with a rock/metal/abstract texture on it.

Well...the artist sees it as not nudity, because the figure is say, a statue.

But, the parent has to start answering their kids' questions about why the "mommy' isn't wearing any clothes. (while they write AgentSmith a pissed off e-mail, lol.)

And, yes I agree nobody should just wildly browse Renderosity's galleries with their kids around, imho.

Yet, I also can agree if it looks like a figure, and it has no apparent real-world clothing, then yes I would see where parents could view that as nudity.

So, over the years I have leaned towards "better safe than sorry".

My apologies for the automated crude-ish e-mail ya got. Your image was extremely borderline, and really I would not consider it nudity myself, but I admit, I was playing it safe, and gave it the nudity flag.

Contact Me | Gallery | Freestuff | IMDB Credits | Personal Site
"I want to be what I was when I wanted to be what I am now"