they just took down like 3 of my pictures, and none of them contaned nudity one bit. They are really the worst gallery i have ever posted on.

ill never post on there again

You should find out why, don't you think? I'd be interested in hearing about that.

How should i find out why, you would figure they would send me a darn e mail stating why they took down my work for nothing. Im so Ped off right now its crazy

Check your site mail, you'll find there their letter of explanation.
DPH

nope no mail as of yet. there the worst

AFAIK they allow nudie pix in their gallery. but if there is any hint of nips or crotch detail in the thumbnail, they may not allow it.

Please check your site and Email.

What ever, its a bad polacy, if a person has the nudity filter off then i see no reason i should have to make my own thumbpic. i barely have enough time to work with poser, never mind making some little extra pic for the gallery.

its cool im done with the gallery here, ill find a new one

OK

I think they would let you @#$!! the gallery actually, but there's an extra fee for that somewhere I'm sure.  :tt2:

pjz99 it costs 19.95 plus tax, payable with a money order or visa. All payments should be made out too darth_poserus.LOL Naw seriously, Meltz does make a valid point though, wich as of yet, has been absolutely ignored by the ptb here, in my own opinion. That point being, that it is not the fault of the artist who places an image in their gallery, if someone refuses to use a nudity filter and sees some t and a. Surely meltz and myself are not the only members who have a problem with being told that we are to be responsible for the action/choice of another member who chose not to use their nudity filters. Wich is what this policy does. It tells us all that its our fault when someone who has made the choice not to use their nudity filters, and who doesn't want to see some t and a, goes into our gallery and sees it.

Guess you'll have to stick to half naked Vickie's in temples. Wait, or is that against the TOS too? :)

Makes me glad I don't do art galleries.

Why not have the nudity filter on by default? That way the people who need protecting from a few naked 3d pixels can have that without having to disturb the rest of us who are actually mature enough to be able to cope with seeing them.

Why not have the nudity filter on by default?
It is.

The reasons for the new policy adoption were many. Not a question of "oh my god I saw a nipple and now I'm scarred for life."

• Consistency across the site
• Ability to feature images in the newsletter
• Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery

the funny thing is my pics dont even have nudity. just a few thong shots. I see worse on MTV !!

If only you were the judge of that, I think many of us would be ever so much happier!  Alas.  :(

Personally I think the thumbnail rule is dumb as rocks, but it's in place and they're not going to change it.  Good luck with that windmill.

I was never shocked if I opened a page and the first thing I saw was a nipple... Not even if close to my face. :p

Anyways, this policy thing needs some review.
In another 5 years there will be only architectural pictures allowed or what?
Or should this site end as an huge advertising platform for certain 2D/3D software?

Right now one could not even post pictures that document war crimes just because they are way to violent, disgusting, whatever and they depict people that maybe are naked and/or were or will be harmed, killed, ... Basically they often contain exactly the things that are not allowed to show.

I don't talk about the thumbnails, but the picture itself that must not contain this and that and whatever else and blabla. Basically an empty black picture is allowed.
Or one that depicts a small cat... But only if it's not aroused of course.
Shouldn't a bee sitting on a flower to collet pollen be forbidden as well? It's sexual action so to say...

Less offensive said: To separate all the pure sexual action oriented pictures from the more moderate ones was maybe a good step, but to comply with everyone who complains about that nature is as nature is, now that is simply not good.

What other reason than commerce is there to follow those complaints? I terribly fail to see it.
A professional art website should depict any art because philosophy and logic demands it.
Art is art, not because everything is perfect (than there would be not a single picture) nor because the artist is of great renown but because the art is an expression of somebody.
If it's an site dedicated to the art of ... Tizian, then there would be pictures done by Tizian.
If it's an site about art done with whatever then there would be art done with whatever and by whoever.

And nothing else.

The way things are going in 5 yrs all art will be banned & anyone caught looking at it will be branded a pervert, as it is right now anyone who uses Poser is a pervert, or so the saying goes.

Anyway the gallery is not about art & hasn't been for a long time, it's partly about selling the content in the store & partly about stroking the ego's of a select few "artists", another thing that's forgotten in the rush to political morality correctness is that pictures with naked pixels in the thumb get more views than anything else, SEX sells. On the rare occasions I go into the galleries if the thumb isn't interesting then I won't bother with the picture & I'm more inclined to click on something that has a naked nipple in the thumb than not. But hey I'm a pervert aren't I?

Quote - the funny thing is my pics dont even have nudity. just a few thong shots. I see worse on MTV !!

MTV? Thats one of those channels like Cinemax (aka Sin-a-max or Skin-a-max) or the playboy channel, that you have to pay a monthly fee for. thus not subject to the same rules as broadcast tv.

Maybe there are "thong shots" on broadcast tv. if so i'm not watching the right programs to see them. I definatly don't see them in the advertisements for shows.

Personlly i'm rather indiffrent about this particular rule. I have no problem with nudity, so i leave the gallery unfiltered. At one time I liked to scan the galleries in my downtime at work but with the thumbnails showing everything i had to be careful who was around. I didn't complain about it, i just chose not to view the galleries at work anymore.

MTV a porn channel? since when? are you sure you're talking about the same channel?

are we beating this old dead horse again? LOL.  I thought we broke the stick already and moved on?

I have to ask a question and this is not mean spirited, seriously it isnt, i'm really very curious.  I've seen this before, and it just amazes me, and leaves me somewhat stupified.

I have a severe problem understanding that some can visually create things and manipulate 3-d space, yet do not have the pride in the work involved to spend 30 seconds making an appropriate thumbnail for a public gallery?   I know people don't like the policy, and I'm definately not getting into that can of worms, but if you can spend that much time creating an image of merritt, I think its worth the respect to the creation to make it compliant to view.

your right it does only take 30 seconds to make a thumbpic, its just the point that NONE of my pictures contain nudity at ALL. yet they were still takin down because some chump that has a million hours on his hands decides my pics are nudity blah blah blah..

If they did contain nipples and that sort then i would have made the dumb thumbnails. But its really not worth speaking about it anymore, im tired of wasting my time with this subject!!!

Quote - MTV a porn channel? since when? are you sure you're talking about the same channel?

I was refering to the fact that you have to pay for access like those other channels.

I was implying that one should not compare the content of a free website with the content of a TV station that you must pay for access.

Quote - > Quote - MTV a porn channel? since when? are you sure you're talking about the same channel?

 

I was refering to the fact that you have to pay for access like those other channels.

I was implying that one should not compare the content of a free website with the content of a TV station that you must pay for access.

MTv is on basic cable. True, this does mean that you have to pay for it as part of your cable package, and not everyone has cable, but it really doesn't show anything in terms of nudity which isn't shown on broadcast TV.

My biggest quip - not that it affects me whatsoever - is that Renderosity made its name, brings home the bread and butter, and is the largest site all with respect to Poser.  Should be simple to see where I'm a goin' huh?

Let's talk to each other like we're five year olds.

1. What is Poser for?  Hmmm.  Working with 3d figures, most of which represent human beings so that they can be "Posed" and eventually rendered.

2. How would that affect renders (and galleries)?  Since most users here use Poser and most of Poser involves working with 3d representations of human beings, one must suspect that most of the gallery would be renders of 3D human beings from Poser (or related).

3. Art - well, art doesn't have to involve human beings and some of it doesn't - but surprisingly, human beings seem to find artwork involving other human beings to be compelling and interesting (probably something to do with empathy, aesthetics, and some other internal brain wiring).  If this weren't the case, art from cavemen to now wouldn't be so rife with humans in one form or another.

This all begs the question - what's the use of a website that depends on Poser that has a gallery where you can't show renders of human beings unless they are wearing non-descript boxes, large coats, or non-form fitting armor plating?

My advice: stop complaining and move your galleries to other sites that aren't towing a commerical business line and are instead geared towards actual art.

now what would be the point of that? we'ed have nothin to bitch and complain about!

A public service announcement:  If you do @#$!! the Renderosity Gallery, be smart.  Do it safely.  Always use virus protection.

Oh, Intercourse the Penguin! - Monty Python...;)

Having second thoughts about posting my latest :cough: masterpiece here after reading this. Seriously. It has a Sith lord playing with his lightsaber and there's a nekkid R2D2. Now that's gotta be perverted. ;-)

I agree in general, but daz takes in more money AFAIK. that would qualify it as the biggest poser site. jeez, I'm tempted to post a nudie pic, just to see what happens, y'all :lol:

Miss Nancy, do you have a gallery somewhere? I would love to see it.

I posted some porno toons and animations someplace, but they're several years outta date. they don't compare with the new stuff available here and elsewhere. they're doing some good stuff nowadays, when they mind their ps 'n qs. all it takes is reading the manual, photoshop actions, and all that.

Meltz - there's another render site that may be more suited to your needs- Renderotica ! I understand your concerns however this is not your site so you are obliged to follow the rules - if you dont like them - leave -or try to have a discussion with the moderators - griping to the general membership is hardly appropriate!

"griping to the general membership is hardly appropriate!"

Its called freedom of speach pal.

Renderotica is bacily a porn site, i do not do porno. My pictures were not even of a nude woman, they all have cloths on, but still they were takin down for i guess showing some skin off in them.

All im saying is im done with this gallery here on renderosity. Other then that i love renderosity, best place to shop for my poser stuff.

All i am saying is that there is a Gallery Filter button for member for a reason. So why not let them decide to filter there images or not.

It is even getting stranger in the store. Though right now they are allowed/forced to tell you there are nude depictions of body textures in additional pics accompanying the products, there is rapidly coming a time when these pics showing how you are spending your hard earned chump change on body textures will also be censored and the merchants will have to use censor buttons or bikinis on their renders like DAZ. What is the darn point of that? If I am going to buy a texture I want to see the texture detail not try to figure out what it will look like under the bikini or censor buttons. If I am going to buy a figure with altered or heavily morphed body parts I want to see those body parts and that includes both free and store character morphs! That is one of the reasons I stopped buying textures at DAZ. The problem is really those folks who prefer web browsing at work. If they would just concentrate on doing their work and not going on line there would be no concern as to what might pop onto their screen...right!? Uhhh...am I in trouble for suggesting that! Ok...ok...I am leaving! LOLOL

Well those people who spent their working time with visiting any non work related web sites should be sued and fired at once. What they look at doesn't matter in this case.

If a product is about hair colors or exterior settings there is no need to show anything that some screwed mind could think of as offensive but with body textures and many other stuff it makes no sense if one can only see a bit here and a bit there.
When using nude figures in the final pictures, I want to know what they will look like before buying them. It's often a game of luck as it is now because the preview pics are not always of sufficient size or quality.
Even if there's an option of refund or whatever it's way to long-winded to get rid of this particular product and my money back. Further the money can not work for me for the time I don't have it.
The latter maybe appears as an insignificant problem, but it becomes much more important if there are many transactions and much money involved. Additionally to the missed interest the transactions and working time will cost quite a bit.

The whole concept that they'd came up with here is... LOL.
There is no sense and nothing good. Actually I don't even know who should profit from it in the end.
Would be better to split the site into an area for art containing nudity (but not pornography) and one for art without. The same with the marketplace.
At least this would make a little sense then. But only a very little.

There's something about this place that reminds me strong of religious fanatics because these folks tend to make rules without any sense and without any logical consistence out of something that had some sense and logic consistence once.

Whatever. Pictures are the root of all evil and boobs are the evil itself...
Bloody beaten chicks that show their boobs while will give rise to the end of mankind and will provoke the wrath of whatever god (or at least some terrorist who want's to play god).
Let's make an art related website without art and no one could complain.

... @#$!!

-Whateverer

THe problem is commerce. For the sake of keeping every customer in the base files they try to placate them all. If someone even so much as sneezes offense at something they take that as something offensive to the majority or of "potential" offensiveness to the majority and dutifully censor the problem. I had a pic up at DAZ. They all loved it. They voted unanimously to put it in the gallery which I found quite flattering 'cause DAZ was a hard nut to crack for that years ago. It was up a few days and I get a letter from management telling me one person was offended and if I wanted them to keep it up I would have to censor the offending bits. It was a bit of the nipple of the preteen that you would have had to look for with a magnigying glass to really notice. Apparently someone was looking for it or had nothing better to look for because that little "bit" got their butt warmers up in a tight little bundle and they felt "obliged" to complain. I refused to fix it. it got pulled with profuse apologies from management. I never submitted work there again...just for the principal. The same thing is going on right now with all the anti-religion fanatics and pseudo-kiddie porn flag wavers and anti smoking lobbies and anti gun mommies......you get the picture. For the silly misguided agendas of the minority the majority suffer. Since this site belongs to someone else we either suck up and conform to their ever increasing pathetic rules or move on. I haven't posted here in a long time. If they want to delete my stuff they can. I have gotten past all of this. Though I would still like to see the products I am buying...I have spent just as little money here as well.

Well, the only thing that keeps me here is the marketplace and that it is here at ReRo not as childish as at DA with all it's emoticons and the kiddies running around there.
When thinking about doing a pic it's almost like "umm, got an nice idea... remove this for the TOS, remove that for the TOS... remove some more stuff for the TOS... Have a V3/V4/Jessi/Whatever with or without environment left."
Even during medieval age the catholic church was more open minded than those ReRo responsibles today. Any old cathedral is a true pornshow compared to what is allowed here.

The most creative one can come up with is to redo some scene already done a thousand times by everybody just with different light settings and the latest clothes/hair.
Just like all these valentine, x-mas, birthday, blablabla "cards".
Actually these should be subject to TOS as they are in the most cases less art than a pair of boobs.

Or you start to model your own stuff for weeks or months and have some more architectural pic that noone ever cares about. And I'm not that fascinated by model some stuff for the sake of modeling some stuff anyways...
The same it's with elaborated shader trees consisting of 100+ nodes. For what?
To have 1 more V3/V4 or some material that looks slightly different or totally weird and where the changes due to the funny 500-something kB filesize limit barely can be seen.

Whatever, things won't change, lol... Not here and not at DA.
The conclusion of all this is that I go sleep now and later this day I try again to be creative without violating the TOS. :p

Zarat and Shante, I'd be very interested to know what types of images you're wanting to post here but feel would violate the TOS.

As neither of you have ever had an image removed, I am concerned that you're misinterpreting the TOS. Unless your tastes run to very violent and/or sexual imagery? (Nothing wrong with that - this just isn't the place for it.)

Well...

I don't look at the gallery often.
If there is a good artist that I trip over, then usually I hope they have their own site which I can visit and check out - and bookmark.
There is so much crap being posted in the galleries that I very rarely go and check it out. Anything with baloon tits can go to hell. (You know the ones I mean. watermelons instead of apples.)
Of course, with the current thumbnails I can't tell it's a ballontit image before I click on it, so these days I don't bother looking at the gallery at all.
Sometimes I wish there were MINUS ratings. (now that would be an idea...)

Nevertheless, this is a wonderful, unique Gallery. With fairies-like figures with wings, sit on a green meadow with flowers. A background like in a magic realm - and everything without nipples.

Hi Karen To make sure I don't get attacked here I must start with this: I have been involved in the viewing and creation of erotica since I was in fourth grade and I am pretty long in the tooth so that is quite a long time. I don't like child abuse or pornogoraphy depicting children nor do I condone the prolific slave trade of women and children in Asia and Africa and Eastern Europe. I think however that I seem to be able to discern between Erotic Art and ignorant and blatent senseless Porno. I love women and I love children and just can't see harming them in any way. But I have always been in awe of the look and feel of human flesh in all its fantasitc gentle permutations. It is this the reason I have always pursued the human figure in my work and almost exclusively NUDE. I know nothing has been removed from my gallery yet. That wasn't my point. What I was refering to was the "walking on egg shells" "political Correectness to Suffocation" philosophy adopted by management especially visible in the marketplace and from all I have heard from even well known and reputable members of the "art" and merchent community. This a philosophy by the way seems to prevail in our government as well as industry. For example (and I site it here merely to make my case and not because I encourage it or discourage it one way or another), the nudity of children or anything referencing that, even if tastefully done or depicted as Fae Folk, has become anathema here and elsewhere and leads to creative and social suicide stigmatizing the artist and the facility the work is shown on. You can review many, many cases of such persecution and ruining of many creative lives and names in this offensive moralistic witch hunt only (in many cases) to have it all reversed in the high courts. Another example (and one I am constantly pissing about of late as mentioned in a previous note here) is merchants who can't show details of textures especially, again, in reference to textures of children are made to disguise their product in an obtuse manner and thusly affecting their revenue potential. You could argue that if you can't show children nude then why bother creating to sell such textures. Said textures, plentiful several years ago, are fewer and farhter between. So I guess if I am to render children in my renders I will have to texture them as wood grain from the neck down!? I did mention DAZ in my post who seem to have taken this philosophy to the maximum level. In discussing the issue with many in the management areas of some of these sites (DAZ for instance) it is made quickly apparent that what I stated: for the retentive purtported indignation of the very few the rest have to pay the censorship price and in some cases even management, though in agreement with our sentiments and concerns of said censorship, are placed in the very difficult position of deciding who will be alienated: the few with retentive undies or the many who just don't care. But in a society governed by the power of commerce : Money Talks And BullShit walks. That becomes the catch all here and that is what pisses many of "the rest of us" off. But I fear that Renderosity as well as other sites are following suit despite many of the court dictums that it is not necessary to do so. A 3d character depicted in most tasteful manners is not a human (child or adult) and therefore no injury can be purported for instance so why the big hubub? If the viewers don't like seeing this type of depiction it is their responsibility to filter their browsers (which is no different to placing the responsibility on parents to control their childrens' online forrays) and it is managements responsibility to make that clear when we all register for access to any site dutifully releasing the site admin and contributing memebers unconcerned with said depictions, of an recriminations. This would empower admin to say to the few offended: This is our site it is our decison and if you don't like it simply unsubscribe and go elsewhere. In doing so they protect the creative flow of artistic input, merchant contribution and revenue and more intelligently manage the rights of those who both have no desire to see it as well as the others who do. Seems site administrators don't want to be bothered prefering the "HEAVY ARMOR" approach: Blanket Censorship. What is funny is that this seems to be extremely endemic in the States proving that even in our supposed modern open society we are in fact not as modern and not as open. It is made clearer still that in fact, we are still tightly governed by the few empowered by a self righteous pseudo-Puritan ethic. I know there are limits to what can be shown at any site and I am quite familiar with the limits made here (as elsewhere) and I have tried to strictly honor them as I am sure have many others if for no other reason other than the fact I am a guest here and am therefore governed by the "House Rules". Love it or Leave it prevails here and elsewhere. But apparently some folks don't think the same or are not getting their work as open-mindedly and even handedly reviewed (or maybe are in fact breaking some of these rules). Whatever the case many have complained many merchants have left or are offering fewer product options here because of this in whole or in part. The concern is that all this censorship will get worse and it seems that it is...everywhere...even at sites like Renderotica who offer the obvious venue for said type imagery.

As an American concerned with upholding the attitudes and values of my fellow citizens, I have decided to be deeply offended by everything done by anyone, anywhere. In that spirit, I insist that all posts made in this site's galleries be pictures of models rendered without lights against a black background. Failure to adopt this policy will only prove your insensitvity to my sensitivity.....uh.... and....other.....important...sensitive issues, such as overpopulation. Just look at all these posts made by different persons. It's anarchy, I tell you. There's just way too much of you and not nearly enough of me to make it a decent world to live in.

I see that Shante has hidden ambitions to become the new ReRo site Admin. :p

I don't care being attacked or not nor do I agree with some parts of what Shante wrote in the first paragraph, but basically he said it all and there is not much I have to add right now.
I'll try to keep it non-offensive for I'm more concerned about the sites general state than about my understanding of judicature and the currently three or four TOS versions.
And well, the moderators are not really the one's who messed things up, so...

The photographs I mentioned in this thread in a note a few days ago and which I wanted to add are not relevant anymore as I didn't got the permission to do so. Politics...
Currently spending time with 3D and material settings only... [Beside some flaming on the ReRo forums :p]

But even if I only view pictures and leave some occasional comment it's a pain to navigate through all this content that I don't want to view. Not because I'm offended, but because the day only has 24h and they are gone fast with sleeping, working, social contacts.
It's a big mess.

There was this idea of some ReRo folks to make the site more professional.
Professional art is hard to find here because of the huge number of members.

With professional I don't mean that the artist has done a few comission works or makes his living with art. "Professional" is for example based on knowledge about academic painting, art history, graphic and design and the 3D/CG equivalents. The same goes for writing and the knowledge about how to do it right. It's not done with making a picture look nice.
(Just to make it clear: Nothing wrong with pictures made for fun; it's a different, usually less conscious, process of creating.)
So there are maybe 50000 contributors and 5 of them are professionals. This makes it hard to find a certain picture about topic X done via style Y if there's no separating of people by their level of professionality.

Actually the lack of classification by skill is is a very good aspect of ReRo and should be kept as it is. Just the ability to search for specific artwork is horrible and needs improvement.

Creativity...
Ratings for art are somewhat strange. Sure it's nice for the artist to see he got many good ratings. But if one does some mediocre pic and gets many good ratings the whole idea behind rating becomes a big joke.
Yeah, the critique article and all around this topic that came up lately are good and long overdone, - and soon will be forgotten again.
Study of art history, design and all the long years to train the eye were not thought of as a way to kill time for those who have to much...

TOS and creativity should work together. They do not.
As Shante already wrote, the TOS serves only a few people. For sure it does not serve to the functionality of this whole site, MP included.
If one want to study academic painting, there's some point where he's expected to draw and paint human bodies. Naked bodies of adults, teens and childs. While learning about art history this person would face many nude toddlers and childs and old man/woman and all in between whereas nothing of this can be considered porn. It was done, now it's there and it's a part of what is called art.
There are also more or less violent scenes from past centuries artworks.
Should art give the impression of an "perfect world" or should it be possible and wanted to depict reality?
So many things are going on which most simply can't think of and it's not allowed to depict them or write about them in detail because it won't be an appetizer or could cause some nightmares at worst.

What is missing here is some guideline and goal.
Should this be a site about greeting cards or a site about fairies or a site about NVIATWAS?
Or should it be a site about art in general and for everybody?

From past years I got the impression that it's a site for everybody and any kind of art.
Logical conclusion is that there would be something artistic about every thinkable topic.

For MP that would be great because it allows a wider spectrum of products.
Now one has to search in like 10 stores to find the stuff he wants. Some of these stores consist only  of maybe 20 products and it's no fun to get all the stuff again in case of data loss. It's already no fun to spend a few days searching all the stores on many sites.

If ReRo would think and act more Daewoo-like it would be a good experience for the consumer and the creators of new stuff. Daewoo-like means one can get everything of one source. From electronic components over ships, aircraft, all kind of mechanical parts to weaponry. Raytheon is a similar western example.
That wont work if there's someone who says "you can sell A, but not B and you may do ads for A and not B".
If there are pictures of customers that show the MP products in use, it's good.
If there are 1000 similar pics of some product one easily get the impression that this product is somewhat useless for anything else than these pictures.

Take Aiko and the fairy pics. Somebody new to Poser and art might think that Aiko was developed to make fairy pics and nothing else.
And V3/V4 and addon products are only good if bought with a temple prop.

Having a look at Asian art sites gives a totally different impression of the matter.
There are quite some beautiful works and often much more diversity.
While the rules or TOS of many Asian sites are less restrictive you will find porn mainly on true porn sites.
What's the problem with establishing this for an US-site?
With a growing number of users, all that is needed is a good search functionality and an easy to navigate layout. Not a more restrictive TOS.
It's really as Shante said:
"If the viewers don't like seeing this type of depiction it is their responsibility to filter their browsers (which is no different to placing the responsibility on parents to control their childrens' online forrays) and it is managements responsibility to make that clear when we all register for access to any site dutifully releasing the site admin and contributing memebers unconcerned with said depictions, of an recriminations. This would empower admin to say to the few offended: This is our site it is our decison and if you don't like it simply unsubscribe and go elsewhere. In doing so they protect the creative flow of artistic input, merchant contribution and revenue and more intelligently manage the rights of those who both have no desire to see it as well as the others who do."

Those who interact with this site should be the ones who make any possible rules; - by telling what they want to see and what not. There are possibilities to vote about art and styles just like there possibilities to vote online for a government or it's plans.
Prolly there's no need then to mention these things explicitly in TOS.

And I don't think that the majority is happy with current the state. Maybe the majority of the viewers doesn't care much about the TOS but the majority of the contributers (art or products) can not profit of it.
It's with art just like with scientific basic research. You have commercial and basic research and where do most of the really breakthroughs and theories come from? Basic research.

That's because one can look what's done already and what he's is interested in. If he got a reasonable idea he will get the money to do his research. In European Union often one don't even need a reasonable idea, but that's a different topic...
There are some basic rules like no money for research on WMD and the like, but all in all it's pretty open minded and there's almost always a way to get the money.

Similar the rules should be here to allow creativity. No Porn, paedophilia and so on, and anything else is treated like what it is. Art.
More strictly seen anything that someone expresses is art to some degree.
There may be many interested in NVIATWAS and fairies and pictures of their cats, dogs, whatever, but some are simply totally weird and want to express their weirdness.
With current rules it's only possible to do it in an very abstract manner or more clearly but then only to some degree. Really difficult it's with weird sexual themes.
Should there be many highly specialized ReRo derivates where all the people doing a specific kind of art are among their like? Or should there be few ReRo's covering a wide spectrum of expressions? More social is the latter.
I remember the days when doing CAD and browsing CAD forums and galleries.
500 different kinds of screws, ball-bearings, shafts. Boring. Yes, actually it was even worse then 500 different fairy pics...

If someone wants to write a story and can not use various words because they are not approved, then after some time all stories would look very similar.

With X³ you can express many things, with 5³ you are reduced to what 5³ contains and with 125 you can express even less. The TOS are like 5³ now and it looks like they will be 125 soon.
And if one finds himself at 124 or 126 he will prolly look for a different place to share his art.
That's what it's all about.

since this is coming up again, and Tyger_purr is bring up the whole notion of what is in normal society and what is not...

i once again ask for clarification on these magazine covers once seen in your average supermarket:

Quote -
do these pictures seen on quite popular magazines distributed practically everywhere fit the new thumbnail policy?
vanity fair - kate moss
bazaar - britney spears
vanity fair - scarlett johanson & kiera knightley
vanity fair - demi moore pregnant
vanity fair - demi moore painted
vogue - jennifer aniston
time - howard schatz cover
time - howard schatz cover 2

and just to say, i didn't look up "nude," "breast," or anything like that.  some i came across quite accidentally just looking for magazine covers.  and that doesn't even get into the perfume ads.

i've asked this multiple times in multiple threads.  and if the answer isn't uniform, please provide a cover by cover yes and no.  because the rules are not clear, which is why this keeps coming up. 

Tiari - i took days making thumbnails for each of my images, and more time just to make them work here.  i have about 4 or 5 of what i consider my best work that i cannot post here without including a thumbnail i consider excreable, so they simply aren't here.  i have some thumbnails i think are very weak because i had to crop them not for best composition, but to comply with censorship.  if you depict  a nude woman, the point isn't sex, and your camera angle and pose don't allow you to separate her head from her chest easily, then you're pretty much done.  because most of the time, unless you've really deliberately planned it, a picture of a stomach or feet isn't able to convey anything other than "sexy."

So for both of you, you have not told me what type of images you feel you are prevented from displaying here...

Shante, you have mentioned child nudity but said that it's "just an example". You also stated " So I guess if I am to render children in my renders I will have to texture them as wood grain from the neck down!?" - I am sure you are being facetious, but just in case, the answer is no - you just have to put clothes on them. A bikini will do... (or swim trunks for boys, of course. I think Luke would look a bit strange in a bikini, LOL)

Zarat, you have said that creativity and the TOS do not function together. But you haven't stated anything specific. I'm getting the impression from your post that you were happier when the marketplace accepted all kinds of sexual-orientated products?

The decision to remove those types of products was made on a business basis. Sales have improved and customer feedback is more positive since that decision was made. Naturally we can't please all people, all the time. Please also remember that Renderosity is based in the US and subject to US laws. US views on some subjects (such as sex) can be quite different to the European view ;-)

cobalt_dream - we've stated before that we are not going to waste the time of a panel of staff making decisions on images which aren't uploaded to Renderosity. We have made the upload guidelines as specific as possible. If you want to upload a thumb which you are not sure on, please email it to me or any other staff member and we will guide you appropriately.

Well, I would like to morph V4 into Karen and then render her naked in a temple with a sword. Would that be violating the TOS, or just violating Karen, LOL!

Quote - Why not have the nudity filter on by default?
It is.

The reasons for the new policy adoption were many. Not a question of "oh my god I saw a nipple and now I'm scarred for life."

• Consistency across the site
• Ability to feature images in the newsletter
• Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery

I'm sorry if this is "beating a dead horse" all over again. 

But that just does not make much sense to me. At least not when I stop and think about it.

Here's why:

First lets look again at the given stated numerous times, reasons for this policy change

#1: "Consistency across the site".
#2: "Ability to feature images in the newsletter "
#3: "Not such an "in your face" shock on opening the gallery"

Yet when I look at those a little more I find that:

1 Banning nudity in thumbnails doesn't provide any  additional "consistency across the site" whatsoever. 

Because, nudity is still allowed in the main images themselves, its still allowed in certain parts of the marketplace, and it's still allowed here in the forums too. To have any consistency with the rest of the site at all, there'd have to be a site wide ban on nudity as well.

2 Banning nudity in a thumbnail image, does not make it any easier too include an image from the gallery in the newsletter either. 

Because obviously if you don't want a nudity in a thumbnail in the newsletter, then it follows that you don't want some other plain thumb in there, that leads to the image with nudity in it either.
 
3 If folks who don't want to see nudity, were using the nudity filters they were already so graciously, and  freely provided by rosity to begin with, then there isn't any "in your face shock" whatsoever. 

As they won't see any nudity to begin with.

I volunteer to work on a Karen morph :)  Karen can we have an oblique and profile pic of your face please?  And perhaps a general idea of body shape, probably too much to ask for 3d.sk style reference photos ;)
ps:  I'm entirely serious.

I wanna throw something off in here..{groans from the crowd can be heard}

Now, this isn't directed at anyone, its just something I see often and want to point out one little detail...I see people pointing out all the time that if members dont want to see nudity,  they can just enable their nudity filter and all will be well...

Ok, so what happens when Joe Shmoe 'forgets', for whatever reason,  to tick the nudity content advisory when he uploads?

Yup, you guessed it..those members who dutifully enabled their filters get hit with nudity no matter what they do

Quote - Ok, so what happens when Joe Shmoe 'forgets', for whatever reason,  to tick the nudity content advisory when he uploads?

Then Joe Shmoe is caught by exactly the same moderatorship as has always been in place, the thumbnail change doesn't address that.  Joe Shmoe can still "forget" to upload an acceptable thumbnail, and it's actually a lot less likely that he'd "forget" to set the nudity flag, seeing as you are forced to engage with the pulldown when you post - no such check is placed on the thumbnail.  Not that I want to get sucked into this pointless conversation - the policy is aggravating and senseless, but there's obviously no chance it will change no matter how stupid it is shown to be.