Quote:
""Your definition includes several terms, especially "obscene", that are purely subjective, depending on their time and place in order to say something falls in that category.

Now this isn't to say that I don't know porn when I see it:: given present North American standards and my own background I can tell when an image is porn or not, and I agree porn shouldn't be here.  That said this is not something that can be defined as black or white.""

I absolutely 120% agree with you.  I knew I was diving into deep water with that one, but was at a loss to express the concept to people like the poster below you who seems unaware that porn exists.  There certainly is a very faint and foggy line there.  I even thought to myself as I posted it that much ART arouses.  The difference is that it has artistic merit - but who is to decide what does and does not.  Well that's a judgement call, one that Im not qualified to make for others, but I can certainly make for myself.

Now though, the owners of the site; well what would they do were they to have to determine whether each thumbnail qualified as having artistic merit?  I'm of the opinion that would perhaps land them in more mess than they are in now.  The lesser of two evils?  I say maybe.  People were taking it to extremes apparently and the site in order to keep up good reputation within the art community needed to do likewise.  

People including myself have mentioned other art sites that do not in any way censor nudity.  Well I would be interested to see if the owners of one of those sites, or museums named would find a SS of one of the old thumbnail pages something they would like to display on thier site.  I will bet my butt that the answer would be no, and any reasonably thinking person would agree.

Some of the more respected art sites, museums, houses might not have as much trouble telling people that they completely suck either - not be so nice when letting someone know that they are creating nothing more than porn.  (I've met a few rather pompous art types in my time).

Yeah when I really think about it, the fact that some of it is even here is incredibly lenient.

The problem I have with the new policy is that I prefer thumbnails which show enough of the picture to inspire me to see the main picture. Generally, I use autogenerate for the thumbs, in some cases I crop the picture to show a closer view of the main figure. However, I think that in some cases I've gone too far. If I think the best thing about a picture is the overall composition, then I want to show that in a thumb. 

By banning nudity in thumbs, it makes it harder to show what the picture is about if the nudity is essentially incidental, but is difficult to crop out?

Six of one......... half dozen of another.

That said, let me make it clear, I will be totally upfront honest.  I like porn.  I have no problem with it, hell I seek it out.  I won't hide behind some goody good pretense of offense, so on so fourth.   However, I do believe, even though i seek things like that out on my personal time, no one has a right to thrust their likes (or personal opinions) in anyone's face.

However, if you could not take your image, verbatim, and post it with your name on it in the window of the local megamart, it would seem obvious, that perhaps there is "something" about it, that is unacceptable.  

Is it bad?  Evil?  No, but it does carry a stigmata.  A social stigmata that does not make society bad, only differentiated by its different opinions.  In this day and age, while some could argue parents should be upon their children 24-7, that ideal is unrealistic, and they do, yes, surf the web.   I may have MY Preferences set to not show nudity, so that thumbnails and whatnot don't show up when a child is looking over my shoulder......

You are crazy to think my 12 year old cant "undo" the settings i put on her, and view something else out of my eyesight.

I do not see the thumbnail issue as a censorship, a labeling of "nude" art, or any such thing, but as a saftey valve to a community with "MANY" users that cannot cater to only one clientel.  Renderosity is just that, a community, who's members come from many walks of life.  Children (the importance of the saftey valve is strongest here), those with strict religeous guidelines, or whom simply prefer not to see such things.

Renderosity is a business, a community, and a gathering place.   Though some might feel, and it could be true, that those that find nudity offensive are in the minority, does that give anyone the right to expose it to them regardless of their wishes?   We, as artists still can post nudity in images, just not the thumbnail.    Our rights are preserved, however, the wishes of others perhaps, are not.  It is a balancing act to make all of the community happy, not just one genre of individuals.

Sometimes, when one (or a group) become very comfortable with a set of rules, they are reluctant, and even angry at the change....... without seeing the whole scope of why the change was done.  A thumbnail is just a thumbnail, an advertisement for what lay within, not the image itself.  No one is asking anyone to not do what they enjoy, nor are they asking anyone to stop doing what they love, or curtailing their ability to show it.

Those that like nudity, or baseline sensual pornography, will find it regardless of the thumbnail.  Consumers of genre's have an uncanny ability to find what they seek, and it is an insult to those that would seek it, that they are mentally incapable of understanding what the image holds when it clearly has a "nudity" tag.  One does not require a breast, nipple, male apparatus package, or backside to understand the ramifications that a nudity tag means "there's something going on under there".  It is a disservice for those of us that look for these images (I admit, I sometimes do), that I can't find it unless its visually displayed in front of me as If i cannot understand the english word "nudity" prominently displayed.

Perhaps, those that require the litteral "shot* of something erotic in their face, are the ones not looking for artistic merrit, but a cheap thrill.

In a world where so much is thrown in our faces, and we become numb to it, the thumbnail rule to me is quite welcome.  Welcome, to me?  One who has no problem with the nude form, and paints them herself?  Yes, yes i tell you yes!.

I have said it before, even begged for it.  Seduce me...... allure me, tempt me, tease me....... give me a promise of something euphoric and rapturous under a veiled thumbnail.   Make me want to see it, not with an outgoing "in my face" there it is........ drape it in subtlety, and make me think what I am veiwing really is elite......  lustful, even erotic.  Give it some discression, give it the respect it deserves as adult.....   

In effect, advertise it in a way I cannot resist.

So here is a question --

Is it permissible to use a thumbnail produced from a bowlderized version of a render? Suppose I had a NCGIABSWAS (Naked Catgirl in a Book Store with a Sturgeon), and I rendered a version where she was wearing clothes. Could I use the clothed version for the thumbnail? I understand that normally the thumb is supposed to come from the same render as the picture, but this might provide a reasonable accomadation, at least in those cases where it would be hard to produce a representative thumbnail without including incidental nudity.

This thread is going nowhere!!  Read on please!!!
The fact remains, this whole debacle could have been sorted easier and without all this fuss by making a small programming change, then everyone would be happy, the peeps who like to see naked thumbs [or fingers, LOL ;-)] and the ones who don't!

Done with a programme change, the only peeps who would see naked thumbs are the ones with "nudity allowed" in their profile, so where is the harm then????

Sorry but this clearly has nothing to do with "cleaning" up the site, there is more to this decision than meets the eye!!

Quote -> Quote - My suggestion is this: that the administration simply admit this was ill conceived, rescind the policy, and follow up with something that makes more sense. After all, everyone makes mistakes ...

You sound like sane fellow. I expect you are reasonably young and certainly idealistic. You need to understand that the Rules of Right do not work the way you learned Reason in school. M

Thank you. 
I am not so young though, and although I think to be an artist one must be a bit idealistic, I do not really expect the PTBs ("powers that be," as opposed to the monitors... they don't make the decisions) to rethink anything, much less admit to an error. That requires a level of maturity, which they have failed to demonstrate. Had the PTBs that level of maturity, they would have announced the REAL reason for the change... not this obvious façade of making the galleries look more professional… with absolutely no concern for the artist (ART Community??) and considering the nudity/violence filters already in place. No, I expect Renderosity to become increasingly commercially driven with the corporate style mentality (“This is the way it is insert placebo reason here  the new policy is here to stay”) regardless of the actual profitability and/or effect on clientele. I fully expect the more professional element to migrate to places such as Epilogue, GFX , and so on, while the mid-range will migrate to DAZ, Rendervisions and the like. I am in the process myself (plus, I have my own site to maintain) and have found that I am outgrowing this site.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Renderosity will continue to be a decent resource, just not particularly as elitist as they may envision… after all, that is the crux of this newest policy… yet another form of elitism. 

You know, they could just enforce posting to an amateur or beginner’s gallery, or a portion of each gallery… or even jury the whole place like Epitome. Frankly, I don’t like that place very much either, elitist at its finest. Funny, considering digital art has some distance before it will be fully embraced as “High Art.” 

No, I don’t think my suggestion will even be taken serious… PTBs probably do not see any problem with the policy.

Oops... second to last paragraph... I meant Epilogue juries their site. 
Although I think Epitome has made a come back, but I am not yet familiar with their policies.

I have been extremely amused as a European by the convoluted discussions in this thread, It really demonstrates how North Americans, particularly from the US have a propensity to get their heads stuck up their own a**.

Censorship has no place in Art.

Period.

Where there is censorship there is no art. Your choice is not my choice.

As an artist I don't give a flying f*ck about your kids or your grandma looking at my "inappropriate pictures". They are YOUR responsibility, not mine. If you don't like them looking at them, then stop them looking. Don't tell me not to make them. Don't push your responsibility on to someone else. Not comfortable that way round as you may find the kids will challenge you.

Incidentally, when I was a kid, if I had come across a site with zillions of thumbnails that said "Naughty Picture Here" I would have clicked on them all.

""Don't tell me not to make them.""

Pretty sure nobody did.

Maybe artists are afterall as o.0 as my grandfather said.  
Like whoa, people are hearing voices in here....

Quote - I have been extremely amused as a European by the convoluted discussions in this thread, It really demonstrates how North Americans, particularly from the US have a propensity to get their heads stuck up their own a**.

Censorship has no place in Art.

Period.

Where there is censorship there is no art. Your choice is not my choice.

As an artist I don't give a flying f*ck about your kids or your grandma looking at my "inappropriate pictures". They are YOUR responsibility, not mine. If you don't like them looking at them, then stop them looking. Don't tell me not to make them. Don't push your responsibility on to someone else. Not comfortable that way round as you may find the kids will challenge you.

The humanitariatism aside, I will throw in my two cents of course to this.

Pornography, in effect, has two precise definitions.  One a person does not need a dictionary to understand.

What is pornographic to the ARTIST
What is pornographic to the VIEWER

No dictionary, or country of origin can clearly define that in one simple, steadfast rule.  You can ask a hundred people, and get a hundred different answers on what pornography, is to them.

As for the children.......

I did, indeed use my child ...... but only as an example, as quite frankly, I paint my artistic nudes right in front of her.  I do not hide them, nor is there any stigmata in my house about it. So, here is my point.....

If my child can not purchase an adult magazine off a public rack, (even when such magazines do NOT advertise front pages with full nudity, and it is, considered an art form), why can you?   No one, is asking, or has asked, you to stop making the art you make.   Changing a thumbnail is a far cry from revolutionary persecutions.

Man......... its a thumbnail!

Perhaps its to my detriment, that I truly do look at a community at large, that I belong to.  Okay, so, I do my thumbnails in a different way.   

It is only a 200x200 pixel max advertisement of what lay beyond.  What lays beyond, I am free to display, am I not?

This is just my opinion of course.  Just as you have yours, I have mine, and I have no desire to change your mind.   It is however, to me, my obligation as a responsible adult, to occassionally abide by the wishes of others.   Since I can go anywhere I wish with something objected to here, and find a home and clientel for it....  it is no use beating a dead horse.

I hate to say this (not really smirk), but it's going to take a lot more than eliminating a few nude thumbnails to make this site appear more professional. As far as it looking like a 3rd rate XXX, have no fear of that. The worst this place will look like is a 3rd rate R rated site (which it already does anyway so that concern is a bit late). All one needs to do is "click" on a random selection of the "new and improved non-nude thumbs" to come face to face with some of the worst crap to ever be mislabeled art. Next, take a walk through the forums. It won't take to many threads before any inkling of "professional" flushes right down the toilet with the rest of the crap. Arguments over whether or not the latest nude Aiko looks too childlike, and members trying to stiffle other members by labeling them whiners or posting images of their cats to derail threads, the rediculous antics by both members and staff in threads regarding censorship, warnings, copyright violations (or not) and a myriad of other topics for example, pretty much prevents any idea this site is or ever will be professional.

Next, lets head to the marketplace and take a look at many of the items for sale. Can we say "post puberty adolescent wet dream"? Or certain items that make you scratch your head and wonder what besides greed whould have cause THAT to be approved for sale???

Even the so called Art Charts are just a relabeled, camouflaged rerun of the old Hot 20. Let's not forget one of the qualifications for an image to make it to the Art Charts is the number of members that have added it to their Favorites. It may be a "tad" more fair than the Hot 20 but it's still basically a popularity contest.

Don't get me wrong, there are a large number of professional quality merchants and artists here. But folks, there's more than enough drivel here to keep this place from ever being labeled as professional. And let's not be so indiscriminate with what we label as "Art" either. And the last thing that rarely ever rears it's head here is any sense of Community. No friends, what little is left of the community is a shambles and until the PTB stop running this place with an iron fist and find a way to promote tolerance, understanding, respect, and growth...this place will never stand a chance of being labeled "Professional".

So dear Acadia, I think it's Renderosity that's trying it's best not even bother to try understanding more times than not. Tell the PTB to go read the About Us page they created. When they figure out a plan to bring to life the values they wrote about on that page, they'll be on the road to being labeled "professional"!

Acadia wrote:

Quote - > Quote - I wholeheartedly agree that a policy change was needed. I wholeheartedly DISagree with the change that has been implemented. A disservice to both those who don't wish to view nudity and those who do.

Please reconsider. Please don't force the artists who create nude artwork to upload misleading thumbnails. Please don't mislead viewers who don't want to see nudity. Please don't mislead viewers who DO want to see nudity.

I think you are all trying to do your best to not even bother to try understanding.

Renderosity is a business, and first and foremost they have to look after their bottom line while taking into consideration the community itself.

They want their site to appear more professional and not like some 3rd rate XXX porn site, why is that so hard to understand?

Prior to the change this is how the galleries were viewed:

Nudity Filter ON:

• No nude thumbs.  The filter picks up on the nudity flags and displays  dozens upon dozens of Renderosity "content advisory" thumbs like this

Nudity Filter OFF:

• Dozens and dozens of in your face tits and ass thumbnails that were more indicative of a 3rd rate XXX porn site than a legititmate business catering to the graphic community and which also happens to have an art gallery for their members to use to display their images.

---

Now that there is a change in the thumbnail policy, this is how it is:

Nudity Filter ON (no change in how the gallery is viewed):

• No nude thumbs.  The filter picks up on the nudity flags and displays  dozens upon dozens of Renderosity "content advisory" thumbs like this:

**Nudity Filter OFF:
**- People have their nudity filter off for a reason.... so that they can look at all images, even nudes.

• Just because someone likes to look at nudes, doesn't mean they want to see an onslaught of in your fact tits and ass like you would see on a porn site.
• Now when the nudity filter is OFF,  you see "nice" looking thumbnails that aren't indicative of having just arrived at a "XXX Porn Site", which was very much the way it was before.
• The thumbnails that people upload are not misleading. The flag says "nudity", so just because you don't see tits and ass in the thumb doesn't mean you won't see it in the actual image when you click on it. 

As a result, the gallery looks more professional.  We can all still look at nude images. All not having tits and ass in the thumb means is not getting a double helping of tits and ass. You just have to click the image now to get your fix.  Simple.

hmm...shouldn't (actually can't) say where, but I've seen some crazy 3d Poser sites, and frankly, It's not up to the stuff I see here. Someone who wants a quick fix of visual pleasure doesn't always take the time necessary to put the finishing touches to make it a better pic (sometimes not even bothering with postwork, but that's another dead horse..;)

I think it's called Sturgeon's Law, that 90% of everything is crap (I know someone out there said it..;)

There are Poser prawnography sites out there, but there's even more of a sameness to the pics than what you see here.

I've seen good and bad sites, and 'rosity is better than most. Some places are top-notch (I don't even consider posting there..;), and some deviants out there are not ready for prime time (like I am..;) 

I'm tired of the idea NUDITY = UNPROFESSIONAL. RuntimeDNA is oneof the most professional Art and Poser sites I know and the automatic system of its galleries generates reduced thumbnails of the entire pics. You can see nudity as soon as you open the galleries, and NEVER I received an unprofessional impression

But of course, for people who think nudity is evil...

""But of course, for people who think nudity is evil...""

Casette,   could you explain to me your purpose in repetatively making this up?  Over and over again in this thread you have put these words in the mouths of those who disagree with your view.

To me that is no different than the religious zealots who insist that Pagans believe in the devil.  Yet you compared those who disagree with you to that as well.

Is it so difficult to actually take what is said at face value rather than to make up conclusions as you go?  Again and again you have said those words, and NOT ONCE in the entire thread have I seen one person who agrees with the change say "nudity is evil and unprofessional".  Is it too difficult to make your point if you don't make things up?

I don't mean to rub you wrong there - I'm sure I have.  But you are blatantly doing this and it has gone on page after page.  The "PTB" listen to your points and respond, while all the people on this side of the fence just regurgitate the same spew "you think nudity is evil".

**FOR THE RECORD:

I personally don't think nudity is evil or unprofessional.  (Nor do I personally know anyone who does)
**
To anyone else who does the same - do you really think anyone is going to listen to you when you can't bring yourself to listen to them?   A debate is a give and take.  Try following the formula and actually responding to points and see if that takes you any further.

Dear Jjroland: I was thinking on answer you, but... really I'm bored of this thread. I'm sorry because I'm guilty to start it. All the day ringing my email, another ebot from 'Another funny thread about nudity' and lots of comments which are unable to change anything. We can cry, shout, protest, laugh, groan, mumble, but Rosity is 'as is' and no one is going to change it but Mr. Money. So I apologize, I prefer not answer you

I leave this thread. I need my time to draw some nude women. Cheers.-

As long as the false implications stop, all is good on my end = ).

Now, here's a question:

If I produce an image of a couple having sex, both of them screaming out at the moment of orgasm, BUT they've got their clothes on and you can't see the naughty bits because they're otherwise engaged.

Is this OK for the kiddies or do I have to put a NUDE flag on it even though it isn't?

What if in my religion a nose is a "naughty bit"?

Consider Muslims, Some Muslims consider any female flesh apart from the eyeballs is naughty. By not flagging naked arm, we are discriminating against Muslims.  Don't suppose that bothers Renderosity though. Does Renderosity have a flag that says may offend Muslims? No, it doesn't and there lies the hypocrisy. It is all geared to white middle class America.

White middle class America doesn't create art. They consume. Art will go somewhere else as it isa not a consumer product.

Last time for me, unless something remotely thought out is posted.

Now you go so far as to imply that people who don't see from your point of view are racist.  At the same time being a bit of that yourself (I'm sure there are plenty of people from every religion who don't want to be overwhelmed by pornography upon opening an art gallery  - heck I would go as far as to say that there may be some atheists lol).

To me this is a classic evasion tactic.  I don't agree with you so first I will bring up religion, then politics, then we'll even go so far as to bring up race.   Want to complain next that McDonalds doesn't hang Keeley Hazell photos above the menus and it is obviously because they are white middle class republican christians catering to the same.  (WHY DID I NEVER GET A COPY OF DEBBIE DOES DALLAS WITH MY HAPPY MEAL? /stomps feet)

Let's try and see this situation from a business viewpoint. After all, Renderosity IS a business, and the galleries and forums are sort of a bonus, a way to lure customers to the marketplace. 
Nothing wrong with that. Just business.

Does this new thumbnail rule help Renderosity in a business sense? Will it attract more customers? Or will it chase them away?

I can't help wondering. We've seen members (=customers) pack up and leave, taking their galleries and their business with them. Which is a loss to Renderosity. On the other hand, the onslaught of T&A thumbs NEEDED to be dealt with. Not for me personally, I mainly find them boring, and a good guide to what not to click on, but plenty of members here find them irritating.

I tested the nudity filter yesterday. When it is enabled, the content advisory thumbnails pop up. I can still view the underlying image.
Now if I were browsing the galleries at work, I wouldn't want my boss to see the abundantly clear CONTENT ADVISORY warning on nine out of ten thumbnails. He'd wonder what kind of icky site I was browsing. 
Same goes for minors (though I don't know if minors here just have the nudity filter on, or that a different code base is run) - if it works the same way, they still can view nudity. Without a warning.
I'd say minors and viewers at work would be best served when the nudity filter would filter out the thumbnails leading to nude artwork.

A second group of viewers doesn't really mind nudity in art, but does not want to be hit between the eyes with blatant T&A thumbs. The new policy seems tailored towards this group. 

And a third group prefers thumbnails that accurately represents the underlying artwork, and takes the bad with the good. Truth in advertising, and so on. 

All three groups are customers of the marketplace. The new policy leaves two out of three groups out in the cold, while being a minor improvement for one group. The old policy was fairly OK for the "second group" - just enable tne nudity filter and you're done, and it was OK for the third group. For the first group, the viewers who don't want to see nudity at all, nothing has changed. They saw page upon page of Content Advisory thumbs, and they still do.

I'd suggest the following refinements to the software and the policy:

• change the label of the current nudity filter to "Don't show nudity in thumbnails".
• add a new filter "Don't show nudity at all", which filters out anything with a nudity tag, including thumbnails
• allow the upload of two thumbnails for images that contain nudity, one "nude" and one "non-nude". If no "non-nude" thumbnail is provided, it'll be replaced by the default Content Advisory thumbnail. If no "nude" thumbnail is provided, it'll be replaced by an autogenerated thumbnail.

The same could be done for violence.

It would mean some database changes and quite a lot of work, but I do believe that such a refinement would benefit all members (=customers!)

This is the sort of debate that goes on within business all the time. Expanding your base comes with rewards but there is also risk. At what point do you lose your hard core following? Rosity has apparently lost at least a few and maybe more but, as I've written before, it's not so much the new policy, which is not all that unreasonable, but the way it was implemented.  Artists who do post nudes here could quite understandably feel insulted by a lot of what was written by staff members. I didn't feel insulted, but didn't feel the need to express my opinions in the most diplomatic terms possible either.

I've found the whole thing quite amusing and have posted more renders than usual to see how many more hits and comments I could get compared to the usual response by piggybacking onto these very active threads. It worked! :O)

I must add this. I was aware of the new policy, but did not read all the details involved and posted a pic with a thumbnail, that did not feature nudity but was deliberately gimmicky to attract more attention. That type of thumb was clearly forbidden now and I hadn't made myself aware of that. Got an email, fixed the thumb and the pic was promptly reposted. It was done the right way and hope that sort of thing continues and hope any artists who either have or are considering leaving give it another shot and I hope that the site management here moves forward in their awareness of customer relations.

I have no plans to take special trouble to make thumbnails that don't properly represent my images that are flagged.  I'll use the default Content Advisory thumb.  If that causes people to not want to see my images, I'll get over that.  If admin staff has a problem with it, I can certainly spend my money elsewhere.

You could do what I'm planning to do, if I just can't compose a representative thumbnail without including the nude figure: you can make a second render (or possibly post-work) a version with the figure being clothed.

Quote - You could do what I'm planning to do, if I just can't compose a representative thumbnail without including the nude figure: you can make a second render (or possibly post-work) a version with the figure being clothed.

The other thing you can do for the thumbnail is to change the lighting to the  point where no one can tell whether there are knickers and bra there at all. The overall image should be discernible rather than a silly notice.

change the lighting to hide the torso?  paint clothes?  sorry, but that completely changes the  nature of a picture. 

you know, the longer this conversation goes on, the more i'm sorry i ever started posting here.  it was nice to get so many views, and such warm feedback, but this really isn't the kind of gallery i want to be part of.  i mean, it's obvious that i'm supposed to be doing pinups and only pinups, where nudity is only a turn-on, and women are only depicted to evoke lust.  the mods obviously think that if they feel that if they don't think changing the thumbs will change anything other than how "tasteful" the thumbnails are.  the people saying, "entice me, don't reveal it all" obviously think that too.  it amazes me that after making nudes from middle school to now, i have problems as an adult on a site where the average age of the user is above 30.  and that it's not enough for people to just not change their settings to allow nudes.

i mean, before the rule was implemented, my worst thumbnail was one that i could cut nudity from. it's almost completely unusable.  the only two with nudity looked much worse than that one when they were censored.  

i really have to think about this.  i originally  wanted to have an art gallery here, not  seek popularity through a bunch of "safe" portraits and pinups.  heck, for that i have the daz galleries- if i get in i get a lot more recognition and a voucher.  why should i contort my work into an image this site's staff finds acceptable? i'm just beginning to stretch myself; i don't need something to hold me back.   i'm really unsure whether it's better just to dump my gallery here  altogether than have my highest traffic gallery be mediocre and  unrepresentative

Quote - change the lighting to hide the torso?  paint clothes?  sorry, but that completely changes the  nature of a picture. 

It depends on the image. I'm not really big into Poser nudes myself, but two of my WIP (barely in progress, actually) have nudity. In one case, a nude character is standing behind a unicorn. In the other case, I have a naked Catgirl facing a (naked) cat. In both cases, it may be difficult to create a representative thumbnail by cropping, but I have no problem with posting the pictures with a nudity flag and tweaking the thumbnails to remove the nudity. That is the solution which I've chosen to live with.

Quote - You could do what I'm planning to do, if I just can't compose a representative thumbnail without including the nude figure: you can make a second render (or possibly post-work) a version with the figure being clothed.

That isn't reasonable, and is even less representative of a typical image than a closeup of some shoelaces.  No thanks.  People don't want titties in thumbnails, okay, "Content Advisory" will suffice.

Quote - > Quote - You could do what I'm planning to do, if I just can't compose a representative thumbnail without including the nude figure: you can make a second render (or possibly post-work) a version with the figure being clothed.

 

That isn't reasonable, and is even less representative of a typical image than a closeup of some shoelaces.  No thanks.  People don't want titties in thumbnails, okay, "Content Advisory" will suffice.

It is very reasonable for the type of images that I'm interested in creating, and, to a large extent, viewing. I would rather see a thumbnail of an image that says "Arete" which shows two slightly clothed hopolites fighting than see either a "Content Advisory" thumbnail or a cloesely cropped M3 head and have no idea what the image is about.

It really depends on the image, doesn't it.

It is much more reasonable still to have a thumbnail that represents the image, rather than the current fad of peekaboo here's-an-armpit here's-a-big-toe jumble.  The only guarantee under the new policy is that you will consistently NOT have a thumbnail that represents a nude image, so why bother investing effort to make it cutesy?  It still won't do it's job.  No, it doesn't particularly depend on the image to me.  Maybe for you, but that's you.  /shrug

PS:  I'd go on to say why I'm not very fond of the cropped head thumbnail trend but what I have to say there is rather unkind, so I'll refrain.

Yes, I'm with pjz99 on this one, if I were an artist, I would slap on a big sign that said "TITS AND ASS, COME AND GET IT" just to make everybody aware that my picture was chock full of nudity.
In fact, I'd love to see a contest of who could make the most attraction getting thumbnail, hehe that would be a riot indeed.

Being an artist means that you don't compromise your art, you don't make excuses, you don't take excuses, you simply just express your art and  let the world react to it the way they want to react to it. As for me, I'm a musician, if somebody had told me that my previews of songs couldn't have a speed which exceeded a certain bpm just because some people thought "it made the site sound unprofessional" i'd leave said site within the hour and never come back again.

So, again , I humbly ask anyone whose got an idea of similar sites such as this one, to give me a heads up via PM, renderosity is going to implement the nudity rule sooner or later.. and when that happens, I want to be where the artists are.

Also, a sidenote, Steve1950, nice name hehe :P

AnAardvark:

Quote - .. says "Arete" which shows two slightly clothed hopolites fighting than see either a "Content Advisory" thumbnail or a cloesely cropped M3 head and have no idea what the image is about.

I realize that I never addressed your suggestion - if you think I am cranky about having to find a demure non-naked armpit to make a thumbnail out of, it's pretty safe to assume that the annoyance-o-meter would go to ten and beyond if I started dicking with my lighting, rendering multiple versions, and loading inappropriate, badly-fitted clothes (because my characters are NEVER the default morph).  Just to kiss some stupid policy's ass?  Fuck that.  No thanks again.

I just want to say thank you for the new policy.

I tried to peruse the gallery and, not being afraid of nudity, got hit in the face with the "monster tits of doom" that I try to avoid more times in one session than in my entire time here.  So I will most likely stop looking at all but a couple of people's work.

I have no complaints with those that do like that genre, but I was able to make an informed desicion not to look when they were honestly represented on the thumbnail pages for what they were.  Now I am unable to do so.

I must side with the "there were/are filters in place for a reason" crowd. I had reserved forming an opinion on this new policy until I could see what it's implementation was going to do.  Well, my opinion is that it is crap.  If I am going to click on images that I would have preffered to NOT see, I being one to just close the tab it's in and move along, I see this ending up generating even more complaints from the puritants, as now they can blame Renderosity for their viewing of even more material that they "would never, never ever" instead of accepting responsibility for thier tastes.

My gallery was pulled in reaction to DaVinci, not the thumbnail policy, before anyone tries to make it anything else.

Again, thank you to the ones that put this policy in place, I have alot more free time not that cruising the galleries is out of my routine.

Quote - Yes, I'm with pjz99 on this one, if I were an artist, I would slap on a big sign that said "TITS AND ASS, COME AND GET IT" just to make everybody aware that my picture was chock full of nudity.

 
My advice was more towards those whose images are not "chock full of nudity", but do have nudity in them in a more incidental sense.

Quote - PS:  I'd go on to say why I'm not very fond of the cropped head thumbnail trend but what I have to say there is rather unkind, so I'll refrain.

I hate it too. I saw one gallery where there were twenty identical cropped head thumbnails. Didn't inspire me to look past the first full image.

first off, i think it's more and more clear this isn't about members or average viewers.  this is about how it appears to a casual observer of some type.  one who isn't going to actually view the images, or view a person's gallery.  if it was actually about our galleries rather than theirs, we'd have to change old thumbnails or they'd do something to separate the two.  the more i think about it, the more banner ads make sense; that's one of the main things that have changed.  it's now common for me to see banner ads for tech gear totally unassociated with creative work.  and acadia talked about how renderosity looked like a business other than it was.  to who?  it must be someone outside the community, because internally this site is known.

i'm probably wrong, and it's just a guess.  but it's a guess that makes sense to me.  i mean, in general, the t&a thumbs got more hits.  it got traffic.  just like a lot of the merchants that have been driven away in the past sold very well.  some people might say they don't  look or don't buy those items (like myself, in general, actually), but all the data  says  they're (we're?) in the minority.  ordinarily, sites want more money, not less.  so i'd be surprised if there were no monetary gain from this.  and it's so surface, and doesn't affect the actual viewing experience, that it makes no sense for it to be a ploy to "expand their market."  and many sites support their owners with banner ads.

second, what about davinci?  pardon?  that flew right over my head.

third, AnAardvark - that's exactly my point.  you don't need to have an image "chock full of nudity" for the nudity to not be incidental.  in fact, imho, the stuff i do where nudity isn't incidental is more meaningful, more like actual art,  pushes more boundaries, and is actually what i want to do.  if it's incidental, then i probably shouldn't have made the figure nude in the first place.  nudity communicates too much and isn't a common state.  just like magic or technology in a story, i think (in general) i shouldn't use it as a gimmick but as a meaningful and deliberate part of a whole artwork. 
though, interestingly, this policy has made me stop adding to my gallery.  so my one of my only three pics is my most simple and boring, a basic nude.  basically, the policy has stopped me from adding what i consider my best work.

please note that my values are quite particular to me, and that i think everyone else should create the art that's truest to them and what they want to do.   to me, as i mentioned, that was the point of posting here.  to have a basically unfettered creative outlet.  i already do work to spec.  heck, if rendo were rewarding us with just about anything other than use of their site, i'd have been for the changes. i don't care about daz restrictions because it's they're consistent and they make it into a contest.  not a gallery about the artist, but about the host company.  if rendo did the same, i wouldn't have minded.  as it is, i feel like a child who's had pins stuck in their clothes to enforce good posture in front of visitors.

One of the saddest things is that the gallery is a major cash cow for Renderosity and the vendors.  People literally fighting each other to advertise the products for sale here, with more self-referential embedded avertising on every page, to a willing audience.  Content updated nearly by the minute, always many times an hour at all hours of the day.  Tail continues to wag the dog I guess.

And there we have it. Just as was predicted by others, this thread has now faded into obscurity with no real response from the PTB's to let us know whether the thoughts and opinions expressed here will make any difference to the situation as it stands now.

Oh well ...

oh, i'm sure it will make no difference.  but you can't complain when the world goes to hell in a handbasket if you didn't at least stand up and say something.  not that this is that extreme, but the point still stands.  for now, i've decided to keep my gallery.  i waivered a long time between feeling like a fool cutting my nose off to spite my face and like a sell-out adding to content of a company whose policies i disagree with just for visibility.  we'll see how it goes.  

Going to be interesting to see the lawsuit that results the first time some wingnut clicks on a 'professional' thumbnail and gets exposed to vulgar nudity. Lets see... Misrepresentation. Mental Abuse and Duress.... For that matter, it may be a reportable offense to the BBB.... Film at Eleven....

Attached Link: A tribute to nudity AND violence

Quote - And there we have it. Just as was predicted by others, this thread has now faded into obscurity with no real response from the PTB's to let us know whether the thoughts and opinions expressed here will make any difference to the situation as it stands now.

Oh well ...

^^ precisely the thing that I thought was asinine from the beginning.  This thread is full of the "opponants" calling anyone who disagrees with them anything from puritan witch burners to racist nudity haters.  Yet you expect someone to respond to you?   Then on the same note, time and time again opponants have been called on to answer something - and time and time again refused to.

It's become more and more obvious to me that it's nothing more than a childish tantrum.  Some want to stomp thier feet and cry and whine about something that doesn't make them happy, but when invited to actual debate regarding it (something that might lead to resolution) they turn a deaf ear.

And the complete irony, like I said at the beginning here, is that some still actually expect someone to be listening to them.  I imagine (IMHO)  just like many adults when dealing with childish tantrums that have no level of reason involved whatsoever - some proponants just walked away.

Quote - Yet you expect someone to respond to you? 

There have been many responses, but the PTB (powers that be) responses have been of two basic varieties - "it's to make the galleries look more professional" which is nonsense, and "people complained about titties in thumbnails", which might not be nonsense, but is in dispute enough that it pretty likely wasn't a major concern.  Certainly there is a large amount of complaint in response to the policy change, and isn't my money as green as yours?  Then we get answers like "there were a lot of factors! ... but we're not going to give you any compelling ones."

Quote - And the complete irony, like I said at the beginning here, is that some still actually expect someone to be listening to them. 

No, only foolish people really expect the site admin staff to listen to these complaints - after all the policy change was rolled out with one week of warning and no open discussion.  The only thing that surprises me is that site admin staff bothered to reply to ANY forum discussion about it, what's the point?  They never would have altered the basic language of the new policy.

Attached Link: A tribute to nudity AND violence

One of the compelling ones might be putting the site up for sale. It does have that smell to it.

And you know, if they came out and said that, that'd shut me up.

Doesn't have to be selling the site. I guess Bondware would want to showcase their software to potential buyers, and Renderosity is proof that the software can support a rather large community - despite all our bitching it works fairly well.
Totally filtering out all nudity would mean the site looks smaller than it is. And in-your-face nudity in the thumbnails is not a good idea when trying to convince a potential client.
Agree with pjz99: if this is the case, just say so. It's a valid business reason.

Quote - ^^ precisely the thing that I thought was asinine from the beginning.  This thread is full of the "opponants" calling anyone who disagrees with them anything from puritan witch burners to racist nudity haters.  Yet you expect someone to respond to you?   Then on the same note, time and time again opponants have been called on to answer something - and time and time again refused to.

I don't recall having been puritanical or fanatical in any of my responses here, so why exactly should I not expect some sort of response to my points?

Show me any thread discussing a contentious issue such as this that doesn't contain radical view-points. The topic of discussion here is sufficiently contentious to exlude the possibility of at least someone getting a little hot under the collar!

The funny thing is that people seem to think that because this thread contains some heated responses that there is no need for any kind of response from the PTB's whatsoever. What a convenient viewpoint for those whose actions are in question!

I have just had an image removed from the gallery because in someones opinion it contains nudity. In my opinion it doesn't.

Any way they can leave it removed as I have no idea how to 1) reply to the message or 2) create a different thumbnail and post it or 3) argue the toss with small minded people.

No one can seem to answer this question  - if someone has set the "No Nudity filter", why are thumbnails containing nudity being shown to them. Isn't this a fault with the set up of the galleries?

We've already given a response. Repeatedly.

The reasons why we've made this change have been posted in the front page article since the beginning, and have been restated time and time again, in this thread and others.

At this point, in all honesty, I cannot see a reason to continue reposting the same information over and over. Some people have simply determined that they either don't agree with the reasons, or believe the reasons. I can't think that anything we could say is going to change that.

Anyone with genuine questions that haven't already been already answered repeatedly may contact admin@renderosity.com or site mail one of us mods.

Hi Steve,

Your image hasn't been removed. It's been put into holding.
Your image thumbnail is of someone's backside. Clearly defined as nudity in the guidelines.

1. The message you received from Jani clearly states her email address for you to respond to. Alternatively, in your site mail box, just press "Reply" to reply, or from your email program, press the "Reply" button.
2. Here is a tutorial on how to make a thumbnail:
   http://www.renderosity.com/mod/tutorial/index.php?tutorial_id=1570
   Jani also gave you instructions in her message on how to get the replacement thumbnail to her.
3. Arguing isn't compulsory.

No one can seem to answer this question  - if someone has set the "No Nudity filter", why are thumbnails containing nudity being shown to them. Isn't this a fault with the set up of the galleries?

They aren't. (Already discussed in the pages of this thread. Or simply switch on your nudity filter to see for yourself.)

If you want your image deleted then please reply to Jani to that effect. Thanks.

I'm already preparing to duck and put my kevlar on for this comment, but its reeeeeeeally something thats been bothering me from day one of the new thumbnail policy.  On the "thumbnails they are a' changin'" thread on the front page........ to posts,  I've seen this over and over, and it disturbs me, greatly.

Again, I'm getting my kevlar on, I know I'm gonna get an earful, but I'm compelled.

I've seen it alot, the argument of no censorship, that somehow art is of some calibre of untouchable heights.....  but, in some of these posts, of the most ardent complaintants, they will state the inability, or they do not want to "take the time" to make an appropriate thumbnail.

Wait up, hold the phone, back up the truck.......

If they are such elite, ardent and passionate artists...... and if it is art you are creating and you can figure out programs with a steep learning curve like poser, or work in digital camera function and make them spectacular.......  or pick up a brush and paint exquisite nuances to a female areola..... or a pencil and sketch it........ perservere with the computer knowledge it takes to scan it in, and make all the finishing details.........

You lack the time and ability to use select, copy, paste in a basic art program?  One of the most basic functions in any art program?  It takes seconds, not the hopeful HOURS you put into a peice of art.

Its just a point i find proposterous.   (kevlar again, covering all important vulnerable body parts here).   If there is so much work and passion in your art, why is it soooooo laborious to make a 200x200 pixel thumbnail?    I mean, to make an image, get it on the net, use programs or techiniques to make it and get it here........ thats some difficult stuff, theoretically.   I'd  like to think if people can do that, they can manage a thumbnail.

Incidentally....... I did put up a topless nude in the gallery, with a simple, plain BLACK thumbnail, with nothing on it.  It is not hurting for hits.