This site is really getting out of control. My new image "Mermaid Song" seems to have sent some mod named "jumpstartme2" into a headspin.
I didn't put an nudity advisory as I felt it didn't need it. She felt it neccessary to issue "an official warning" on my record since I failed to abide by these ever increasing restrictions.
And why the hell was it neccessary to revamp the thumb rules as well? Have we become so anal retentive here that the mere site of any hint of nudity is a reason to call out the mod-cops?
I swear it seems unless your posting images of bloody fairy's and little elves or some other cutsy picture your shunned. Or you band together into some inane clique who endlessly praise each others pictures (as long as they receive praise in exchange). Ive seen great works of art here recieve little praise and other pieces of crap recieve 50+ comments usually ending with "my friend" or "hugs and kisses" - many of them on the art charts.
Give me a break.

First off, it didn't send me into a 'headspin'.

Second, The image needed to be tagged as the mermaid wasn't wearing any clothing.

Third, you didn't receive a 'warning' you received a 'reminder' to tag images if they have nudity in them.

If you have complaints, you need to send an email to the admin at admin@renderosity.com.

Well, hey, PerfectN, I took a look at Mermaid Song, and it definitely needed the nudity advisory.  It's a very nice piece of art, but it absolutely needed the tag.

She's very clearly naked with breasts and buttocks showing, so ... yup ... needed to have the tag.

""I swear it seems unless your posting images of bloody fairy's and little elves or some other cutsy picture your shunned.""

I think if you post bloody fairys you have to tag that as well for the violence.  Not sure if it's the same as the nudity rule though. 

Lol...nice one jroland.

I’m consistently amazed at how incredibly defensive ‘artists’ can be, especially here at R’osity.

Sorry PerfectN, you failed to oblige to a very simple and explicitly detailed rule (your Mermaid's nipple is clearly visible) and you were informed of this failure. Your image wasn’t removed, nor were you banned from posting future images. What’s the issue?

Bear in mind, I am a fan of your work, but this innocent incident (that’s hard to say!) is hardly worth YOU getting into a head-spin.

I suppose one good thing has come from this. You’ve no doubt directed some traffic to the image in question, and subsequently your gallery on a whole. :)

PrfectN

You got their number spot on.

Right on!

That's the sum-up on the Poser section of this site - the photography and 2d and fractal sections actually are real artists, for the most part, trying to intelligently critique and praise ( some of the time not all of the time) each others work.

Not the tit for tat (should I post a language and/or nudity warning for that Freudian slip?) as do our band of self ingratiating self congratulators.

I got to agree with jumpstartme, perfectn... that's is definitely a nude picture. Please, bear in mind that nudity refers to naked skin, and not necessarily to genitalia exclusively (whether primary or secondry).

Fantastic piece of work, mind. Just as one minor comment, though... would a mermaid's tail really begin that low? Most mermaid images I've seen in the pst tend to have the fishy scales beginning waist-ish area, which kinda makes sense to me... otherwise you have the legs melding together lower down, which would just look very odd indeed! :)

jonthecelt

news to me #65,342 - mermaids have butts. :lol: AFAIK they decided to ban nudie thumbs on account of non-members being unable to block nudie pix in their gallery prefs, because as non- members have no prefs page to access. in case nobody mentioned this in any of the preceding messages.

I noticed that too .... the "mermaid" doesn't look like any mermaid I've ever seen (in art, I mean ... can't recall ever seeing one otherwise).  It looks more like there's a fish swallowing her starting at her feet ... poor thing.

However, it is a nice nude.  I can't imagine why anyone would think that didn't need a nudity flag.  Oh, and the people over in photography can be just as self-congratulatory as anywhere else on Rendorosity.  Don't get the idea that the Poser gallery is the only place where that happens.  It's been going on all over the site for years.

nice pic though

PerfectN

Quote - Ive seen great works of art here recieve little praise and other pieces of crap recieve 50+ comments usually ending with "my friend" or "hugs and kisses" - many of them on the art charts.

That's true enough.  It's also pretty obvious to everyone involved.  Don't worry about the numbers of this or that, they really don't mean very much (and a very tiny, meaningless bit of data, you'll get more hits and comments anyway with the nudity tag).

And yeah, it kind of obviously qualified as nudity.  Note that I am not a big Rendo uber-loyalist.

I wanted to show her butt - simple answer as to why I lowered the "fish" part. It was a commisioned piece.
I didn't put a nudity flag because I didn't see nudity, I was unaware as to how stringent the nudity clause is.
As for the "no nudity" in thumbs - that justification is bordering on asinine. If people want to see nudity or porn - there are millions of sites to do so. The thumbnails are all a series of headshots now. Boring and bordering on fanatic. And I love to know the motivating reason - and don't insult my intelligence by claiming its because they are afraid of some non-member perusing the gallery and...oh my....a nipple!?

Oh no argument there, thumbail rule is stupid as a box of rocks.

This discussion has been played out a thousand times over.

If you’re looking for justification for the new thumbnail policy, there’s plenty of material to peruse in other threads.

Regardless of if you agree with their reasoning, by choosing to post your images here, you are obligated to uphold their established conventions.

You wanted to show her butt, and she's also go a nipple showing and you "didn't see nudity"??

Am I missing something here?  I know what Renderosity's definition of nudity is because they pretty much spell it out ... but I am really curious as to what your's is.

Also, honestly, I don't much care what Renderosity's justification is for their thumbnail policy.  They are a business.  It is their policy.  If a company comes up with a policy that I can't live with, I don't do business with that company.  The only time I bother to complain about a policy is when I think the loss of my business will make a difference to the company.

Since you didn't bother to read the policies on nudity in thumbnails, and since you don't "see nudity" in a picture with a naked woman with exposed breasts, I'm not the least surprised that you got a reminder.

If I have a bloody problem with something Im going to speak up about it - I don't think for one second that the loss of me posting here will cause the higher ups at rendo to lose sleep. BUT to sit back and not raise my opinion with something that pisses me off is beyond my capacity.
And why is it when a topic has been brought to light again - there is without fail, some idiot claiming "that this has been discussed a thousand times". 
I understand that by posting here I have to comply with their regulations - thanks for the "Introduction to business" lesson. However just because something is regulation doesn't make it just and reasonable - and if I have something to say - Ill say it.
And to rickymaveety - the side of her butt is not nudity (to me). Her exposed nipple - yep...got me there. However...I really didn't see it. And you'd have to agree that you have to look for it.

Lets not revert to name calling and personal attacks.

Thanks

Gorgeous render, though!!!!!!

Regardless of opposing viewpoints on gallery policy, I think we can all agree that the image in question is absolutley fantastic (as is the rest of PerfectN's gallery).

Quote - ...the side of her butt is not nudity (to me). Her exposed nipple - yep...got me there. However...I really didn't see it. And you'd have to agree that you have to look for it.

To you, it isn't nudity, but I think Renderosity is using the "No clothes=Nudity" definition, in which case side of rear or not (and it is a nice rear, IMVHO) if there aren't any clothes on her, or on parts of her (chest and hip area specifically), then it needs the nudity tag.

Don't like it? Blame an overly conservative, "nudity is BAD" culture, not a website that has to obey the rules of said culture.:sad:

Just follow the rules here and no one gets their weak ego totally crushed.  Prevents a lot of whiney threads, too.

I'm not going to take sides on this - Renderosity (or any website) has the authority to define and enforce its own rules.  Them the breaks.

Now the part that I want to see is how Rendo will define 'nudity' with respect to animalia in general or so-called 'cat-people' (humans masquerading as animals or animals with very human characteristics).  Or even animals in general!  Do fur, feathers, or other natural bodily covering accutriments count as clothing - or are they still naked/nude?  This point can then be taken further - is sufficient pubic hair considered natural covering or is it still nudity?  Can I post fully-erotic pictures of horse-sex?  Not as defined by the ToS.  Then a 'scientific' rendering of the mating between, say, dragonflies is against the ToS - very sad, but not my place to say otherwise (!)

It will get perposterous after a while.  If you want to post 'nudity' or nature-sex without restriction, you'll have to find another venue for your images.

It's this or Renderosity will have to consider a more determined segregation of gallery images - maybe an adult gallery where you have to not only be a member to enter, but have provided some proof of age - which is always problematic and prone to ...well... litigious probabilities.

Make your own site with your own gallery and keep nudging people over to it if the ToS is too Draconian.

Quote - Just follow the rules here and no one gets their weak ego totally crushed.  Prevents a lot of whiney threads, too.

That's a foolish statement and a rude sentiment.

I don't know what the big deal is.  If you're even in doubt just tag it -  I tagged this image:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1378740

because I was afraid the aeorola was showing through the dress though it might just be the lighting.    So a few people who have nudity blocked won't see it.  It's my conviction that there are very few of those, even the ones ranting about nudity MUST have it allowed in order to be so knowledgeable as to what they're ranting about :)

The funny thing is I even got an IM from someone who commented on the tag and telling me I could very well have just left it without an adivsory since the nudity is so mild but I think I'll just tag everything I post from now on - I'd rather have people who are not opposed to viewing nudity viewing my gallery any day :)

Quote - I know what Renderosity's definition of nudity is because they pretty much spell it out ... but I am really curious as to what your's is.

A person that has no clothes is nude.
For example, a woman with shoes or a hat is not nude. What I have doubts is when she use glasses, is she nude or not?

Ah, I'm sick of this topic.  All my favorite artists are getting banned or leaving over this inspid rule.  DaVinci did nudes, Greek statues are wrought with nudity.  The rule is stupid.  It is a bunch of close minded bullshit.  I will purchase fine things from Rendo, but I see no need to post here for now.  I came here because I didn't want to do porn (Renderotica), but I wanted the freedom to express myself, Renderosity seemed like a fine community where I could be challenged and find a happy medium.

I'm not so certain anymore.

(I'm going to go whack-off over the fine nude pictures of textures in the market place, if anyone needs me...)

I still fail to see what the big deal is?  Nudity IS allowed - as long as it's properly tagged and the thumbnail doesn't have any.   So why leave?  I say we stay and flood the gallery with nudes   :) 

Quote - ...Also, honestly, I don't much care what Renderosity's justification is for their thumbnail policy.  They are a business.  It is their policy.  If a company comes up with a policy that I can't live with, I don't do business with that company.  The only time I bother to complain about a policy is when I think the loss of my business will make a difference to the company.

Since you didn't bother to read the policies on nudity in thumbnails, and since you don't "see nudity" in a picture with a naked woman with exposed breasts, I'm not the least surprised that you got a reminder.

There is however, the issue of 'Public Right of Way,' which could also apply to the galleries, and the new change in thumbnail policy.  Private property owners are often disallowed the right to fence their property if it should interfere with what had hitherto been a public access.  Just a thought.
DPH

As stupid as I find the thumb policy, there is no reasonable way to apply a right of way concept to a nominally free, privately owned website.  This isn't a lawn that people sit on while waiting for the bus, it's entirely privately held and the terms of use are solely determined by the owners and operators.  Millions of web sites are run exactly the same way.

Quote - As stupid as I find the thumb policy, there is no reasonable way to apply a right of way concept to a nominally free, privately owned website.  This isn't a lawn that people sit on while waiting for the bus, it's entirely privately held and the terms of use are solely determined by the owners and operators.  Millions of web sites are run exactly the same way.

Undoubtedly true, but ultimately it's the judge who interprets the law who decides what it actually means, not wha tanysingular legislator has written or intended.
DPH

Shonner - that was a pretty ballsy statement and easy to say from behind a computer. First off, this has nothing to do with a weak ego, nor was it a whiny statement. It had to do with a particular rule that I found unneeded. I don't care what the motivating reasoning is behind it - I had a problem with it - and I always say whats on my mind.
How do attribute my rant as a weak ego - had they said something along the lines of "your art shouldn't decorate the walls of a toilet" thats a blow to the ego.  Stick to modelling your coffee pots before you make a judgement call on my personality.

There should be Elf Warnings, Fairy Warnings, Middle Earth Warnings, Orc Warnings, Dragon Warnings, Insipid Amazon Women Advisories, etc. etc. I mean, fair is fair after all!

""I don't care what the motivating reasoning is behind it - I had a problem with it - and I always say whats on my mind. ""

I find it kind of interesting that you say this, but then appear to get your panties in a bunch everytime someone says something "on thier mind" that doesn't please you.   Two times at least I've seen you insult someone because they didn't agree with you.

I have no problem with those who want to "say what's on thier mind", your right to do so should be respected.  At the same time I giggle a little at people who aren't aware of the fact that that is a two way street.  It becomes a little more dynamic when you're dodging traffic now doesn't it.

No need for insulting others work - (stick to modeling coffee pots) I'm pretty sure a fair amount of people have taken the courteous route and bit thier tongue with yours.

To be completely fair, Shonner's comment was directly and personally rude.  Seems pretty clear to me feathers are ruffled over the rudeness, not the disagreement (note the calm reception of Kalypso's posts, which also disagreed).

Meh - went back and read and yeah somewhat over the top.  But he was afterall just "saying what was on his mind"  very similar imo to what was said regarding the moderator in the OP.

"you can leave your hat on" - Randy Newman 
sigh..I'm gonna have that stuck in me head all day..;)

I just go with "anything that would make Beavis and Butthead giggle" as qualifying..;)

PerfectN:   On this topic, before I responded, I decided to go over, view your image, and then paruse your gallery.  I will admit, it is very lovely and well done.  The mermaid, I actually like the different tail action, its very creative and her curves are beautiful.  Her hair is magnificent, as is the lighting and the detailing and the water.   All of your images hold an exceptional quality and calibre that is of the highest standard.

That stated, only one thing comes to my mind.   Though stated in a slightly, blase' way, about ego, though I see it in a slightly different way, I think that is the jist of it.

Regardless of how one feels about the rules here, it really is, one rule for all.  There is NOT another sub-set of standards for those who are "elite" artists.    I have seen artists go, which is a pity, over these rules here at Renderosity, but it does make me wonder.

Such anger, and jaded feelings ......... so heated and fatalistic ......... are they because somehow you are "so talented" you are above the rest of the "dregs" that have to follow those same rules?  I do wonder if some of the contempt for these rules stems from some feeling because of their artistic calibre, they are "above"  the rules that others have to follow.

The new rules are stated, clearly in english.   Its not her bare side of a bottom, its not a nude leg or arm, its the nipple.......... again clearly visible to anyone that views it.  They aren't picking on you, its a nipple.   Common sense says, "nudity flag", its not a conspiracy.  If that erect nipple poking through the sultry wet hair did not give you a clue, I am wondering what exactly your concept of nudity is, a crotch shot perhaps?

No one here is beating you with oppression.  No one is censoring you.   I think you might want to step back a few paces and realize the obvious.......

~oops, should have tagged it~.   Its pretty simple really.

Why did you post to the Poser forum when your stuff is in the Vue gallery?

dphoadly -- no, the public right of way concept is in no way applicable to this situation.  There is no way that it could be applicable.  Renderosity could choose, if the company wished, to close the site completely.  Nobody would be able to force them to keep it open so that the public could access nudity.  The analogy is too weak to even argue.

And, for all of you who seem to gloss his over, please keep in mind that there are some of us who think that Renderosity has the right (as a business) to set up whatever policies it wishes, and yet we are not opposed to nudity.  I, for one have no problem with nudity in the galleries.  I'm sure there are lots of galleries with naked men and women, individually or together, and some of them are good renders and some aren't.  There are lots of real world art galleries with nude images .... not a big deal.  However, I don't know of a single real world gallery that takes its most graphic examples of nudity and posts them on walls all over town for the public to see while strolling down the street.  If there is one out there, then, congrats you live in an extremely liberal city.

PerfectN .... if that's your preffered way of dealing with business policies, then knock yourself out.  Have a field day.  Complain all you want.  I don't really see what you will achieve by it, but some people just need to vent, and I would hazard a guess that you are one of those.  That's great.  However, the policy is what it is, the moderators are supposed to remind people of the policy, and you were reminded.  So, what happens now is really up to you.  You either choose to comply with the policy or you don't.

I didn't need to go looking for nudity in your image.  That's pretty much the central theme of the image.  Actually, it seems to be the central theme of most of your gallery.  They are really exceptional renders, by the way, you are a very good artist, and I do consider your nudes to be art, rather than what is commonly known as Poser porn.  So, please don't anyone get the impression that I am dissing PerfectN's skill at creating an image.  And, if I ever decide that I need to see a lot of well rendered naked women, I'll know where to go.  

But, the bottom line is, no matter how stupid you find the thumbnail policy, if you are going to post images of nudes in your gallery - as that word is defined by the policy and not as defined by kawecki - then you need to be aware of, conversant with, and willing to comply with that policy.  Otherwise, what will happen is that you will end up getting banned by the site and a lot of people you really like your images will be the worse for it unless they can find your artwork somewhere else.

If they decide for whatever reason, that the side of someone's butt is "nudity" ... then start using their definition or post elsewhere.  Yeah, I know that sounds harsh and crappy ... but that's the reality.  I didn't come up with it, so please don't start bashing me for it, I'm just pointing it out.

actually, no moderator has clarified here.  i would like to know if her nipple was covered by hair, if it would be fine not to tag.  because "if in doubt, tag," is against the t.o.s.   people have mentioned getting images pulled for non-nudes improperly tagged.  and i would really like to know how the magazine cover images i posted in casette's thread (and asked about multiple times)  would be tagged and if they'd fit in the new thumbnail policy.  because you can't follow the rules if they aren't clear.

Does that fall into the realm of implied nudity?  Idk

Quote - This isn't a lawn that people sit on while waiting for the bus, it's entirely privately held and the terms of use are solely determined by the owners and operators.

P2P servers run on private computers that are located in the home of people that is a private propriety.

RIckymaveety:

Quote - .... if that's your preffered way of dealing with business policies, then knock yourself out.  Have a field day.  Complain all you want.  I don't really see what you will achieve by it, but ... 

Entirely separate from this issue, I would be greatly surprised if I couldn't name twenty different things in your life that are much the better because somebody, somewhere, complained about a policy.

Kawecki, I don't see how the P2P server example applies here.

colbaltdream, it may have not been clarified in this particular thread, however, it has been clarified in other threads and, the thumbnail policy is not exactly murky on the topic.

It says:

No nudity. This implies no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images. 

So, no ... even IF her nipple were to be entirely covered by hair, she would still be a nude figure, so the thumbnail image would need to be cropped.

It also says:

No exposed buttocks – more exposure than a standard bikini bottom would constitute nudity.

So, PerfectN's thumbnail image showing no clothes AND more buttocks exposure than a standard bikini bottom would need to be cropped.

It's clear as glass to me.  I guess I'm having trouble understanding what part of the policy is unclear to people.

I used this analogy once before, and I'll drag it out and dust it off, and use it again because I think it is the one that best applies.

In the US (and perhaps in other countries ... I don't know), we have a rating system for movies.  A director can make pretty much any movie he or she wants, but it is going to get a rating as to whether or not is appropriate for some ages and not for others.

Essentially, if there is a fair amount of nudity or violence, the movie gets an "R" rating.  If you can see the analogy between a movie having nudity or violence  and a piece of art having nudity or violence, then we are ok so far.

OK ... so we have this movie with an "R" rating.  If the director (or producer) wants to preview this movie to the public at large, then they have to come up with a "G" or "PG" rated preview in order to advertise the movie at G or PG film showings or on the TV.  That's why you see the "This film preview has been approved for all audiences" note on most previews.

The director has the right to make the film the way he sees fit, he/she and the producer do not have the right to show the nudity and/or violence contained in that film as a preview to all audiences.

OK ... so my analogy is that the thumbnail image is like the preview for your artwork.  You have the right to make the artwork anyway you want.  Renderosity is like the movie theather .... they can look at your artwork and decide that:

1.  It is too graphic to be shown at all in their "theater" ... and they take the image down (your basic porn); or
2.  The image is fine, but it's rated "R" and needs to have a "PG" preview for the preview area, or
3.  The image is G or PG and so a full preview is fine for all audiences.

Now, mostly the artists (like the director) want to get people in to see the movie.  They can't show the nudity or violence that is maybe what will bring in their target audience.  So, fine ... rather than just complain about the theater's policy of showing only PG rated previews (which by law in the US they would have to do anyway at a PG film ... but we'll leave that aside for the moment and just say that it's the theater's business decision), the director decides to come up with a creative way to preview the movie without the nudity and violence.

There's your challenge people ... see if you can't come up with a creative way to crop your thumbnails so that it is still an interesting piece of art without the nudity or violence.

pjz99 ....

If enough people get organized and complain, or leave the site and create their own site, then maybe the policy wil change.

But, give it a try.  Come up with a list of things where the complaint of one individual .... acting alone .... made a difference.

I'm not taking about where someone came up with an alternative idea ... or started a revolution.  I'm talking about a "complaint."

Educate me ... I'm all ears.

Oh, and ps ... you promised me 20 ... so get cracking.  :)

Don't concentrate on what is in the picture ... read the policy.  The second figure is really there to demonstrate how much of the buttocks needs to be covered.  However, if you like, it also shows that if a female character has NONE of her breasts showing .... zippo, nada ... then you can show her from the back with no top.  But, she better have a bikini bottom on, or else she is nude.

Pasties (believe it or not) count as "clothing" .... hair does not count as clothing. 

Ricky:

Quote - But, give it a try.  Come up with a list of things where the complaint of one individual .... acting alone .... made a difference.

It genuinely makes me feel bad that people think that way.  I'll work on your list (currently deciding whether or not to go to work tonight).

oh, and ps, the rating system in the us is a subjective mess that is anything but simple and clear.  that's a great analogy because there's a lot of politics and complaints and personal issues involved, as well as the specific judgment of a small group of people. 

for example, splash was pg, even though daryl hannah is seen "nude" from the back.  so those raters didn't count a bare bottom with no indication of clothes as nudity, i guess.  and i believe there are several occasions where her hair is the only thing separating the movie from an R rating.