Quote - "The separate gallery idea is a complete surrender to the notion that a nude render may be art, it tucks it away in it's own little shameful corner."

Oh man, I never even thought of it in that light. Good point! I guess a separate gallery for nudes would kinda be a censorship, which would ultimayely suck! Not to mention all of the new TOS crap that it would probably invoke :P

@Conniekat8: Easy, fluffy! Easy! I'm just kidding with you!  As for poking fun at you, that's all I'm doing! No harm intended. 
What's interseting is that the only person who really seems upset by my rant is the kind of  person who it doesn't apply to. Go figure!

"Well give me a scantily clad lady over a nude one anyday!!"
Absolutely!! Leaves more to the imagination, doesn't it? That's why I never post nudes, not even in forum examples! Now on my computer, there ARE a lot of 3D nudes but, I don't feel secure in posting them simply because of all this TOS crap! I just don't have time for that!

Quote - Well give me a scantily clad lady over a nude one anyday!!

I like men in speedo's
my euro roots are showing ;P

PerfectN, it really is a great image. You’re a talented artist, no question; and it’s a absolute crime that more people won’t see your image due to an over-cropped thumb-nail. Ultimately though, I do agree with the TOS.

It may not be perfectly suited to every single instance (your image is a prime example) but it’s as close to reasonable and acceptable middle-ground, and coverall solution that’s possible.

Sure, there’s still DeviantArt and Renderotica as viable alternatives. But I for one enjoy the (some would argue ‘artificial’) sense of community here at R’osity; and the somewhat rare acceptance of Poser as an Artistic medium.

What I’ve come to realise is at its core Renderosity isn’t in actuality an artist’s community; it’s a commercial site designed to sell products; with the gallery essentially being a means to display and endorse said products (wittingly or otherwise). As such, it must be consumer friendly to the largest possible contingent.

Still, this debate will always re-surface. You just can’t please everyone, and unfortunately for PerfectN, it’s sometimes the good ones that suffer for the greater good.

Quote - at its core Renderosity isn’t in actuality an artist’s community; it’s a commercial site designed to sell products; with the gallery essentially being a means to display and endorse said products (wittingly or otherwise). As such, it must be consumer friendly to the largest possible contingent.

Bingo!!!! That is so very true because I have seen numerous responses by the admins to people saying that Renderosity is a business. The forums and gallery are here as a "draw card"  to attract people here and get them to shop here.

Look what they tried to do with the new free stuff forum? It was only going to be for items here in the free stuff, no "outsiders".

I'm surprised that they allow other sites to advertise their products in the merchants forum. I suspect that will be coming to an end at some point because it takes away from Renderosity's Market Place and ultimately their bottom line.

I'*ve always understood that once the blood drains out of ta guy's head, a girl should not expect much in a way of conversation....  [ducking and running]

*There's blood rushing now, believe me, and it's not going downstairs. We men are such pigs. It's good that people are brave enough to expose us on a daily bases. Keeps us honest at least and gives us a healthy dose of feeling of guilt. It's my firm belief that this will make things better for all of us.
  inster chauvinistic remark here

I've often thought about using the nude filter here, since there aren't many artistic nudes, but my blood allways drains out of my head while making big decisions, so I just keep staring at the monitor, paralyzed. It's a vicious circle but I manage. Barely.

Someone stated that the problem with PerfectN painting a bikini on his thumbnail (only) is because it "misrepresents" the actual image. In fact, a thumbnail that crops out the nudity part of the full image is just as much a "misrepresentation" of the nudity as is a thumbnail with a painted on bikini. In both cases, a viewer wouldn't know there was nudity until he either saw it flagged as "contains nudity", or clicked upon the actual image. For example, if I saw Acadia's version of the thumbnail, I'd have no idea that the full image contained nudity, any moreso than if it was a thumbnail with a painted on bikini. Indeed, because Rendo allows thumbnails that are a partial clip of the full image, THERE IS NO WAY TO PREDETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THE ACTUAL IMAGE WITHOUT VIEWING IT. And that includes predetermining  nude content via the thumbnail.

Rendo's thumbnail policy is totally illogical. Note: I'm not discussing the issue of "fairness" or anything else. I'm discussing logic only. It's illogical.

Who thinks these things up?

The policy should be changed to "A thumbnail may not contain nudity, and an image with nudity must be specifically tagged as so. In the thumbnail image, either cover up the nudity, or clip it  out of the thumbnail". Anything beyond that (like saying "covering up the nudity in the thumbnail is not acceptable, whereas clipping it out is") has no logical basis in helping the viewer to predetermine nude content.

Man, I wish I could get a job where I can surf all day long on the Internet and get paid for it. Thanks to the working crowd that has to come here during work hours all the nudes have to be hidden so your boss doesn't see way to go chaps so dont bitch if you get an image pulled because of nudity. Got to keep the working force happy so their boss doesnt see they are slacking instead of actually doing what they are supposed to do, work.

Just flag every image whether it's nude or not and rate the site Rated R, then you wont have to worry about thumb nails.

*eyeroll.

Quote - For example let's say that I am a smoker and I go to someone's house and they are nonsmokers and don't want people smoking in their house. Do I disregard their rules and light up regardless of what they want in their own home, or do I respect their right and go outside to have a cigarette?

That's the problem, I have to go out and in of their house all the time!
And if gets to much anoying, I'll never visit their home again.

Whatever Renderosity does, it does in the best interest of their market majority. And certainly, I imagine those that browse the galleries while at work make up a portion of that. It may not please you specifically, but it's good business.

Honestly though, what would you have them do? Kowtow to those that complain the loudest and most frequently?

To ensure no crossed wires, that last statement was meant universally. It was not an attack on PerfectN, who I deeply admire as an artist.

Quote - Honestly though, what would you have them do? Kowtow to those that complain the loudest and most frequently?

That' seems to be pretty near what they did, although "loudest" was likely given greater weight than "most frequently".  Someone intentionally browsing nudity at work or in front of their eight-year-old kid?  You have to turn the filter off before you see anything naughty.  Come on.

That could very well be true pjz99.

I'd love to know the proportions of for and against for this brand of gallery 'filtering'. It'd be interesting to see just how many people would prefer the gallery returned to its pre-non-nude iteration. Although the likelihood of such a poll eventuating is miniscule at best.

Having said all that, I can honestly say that not allowing black-bars or similar 'masks' to hide nudity in thumb-nails is a little puzzling. I've read the reasons behind this decision, and see their point of view. I just don't agree.

Quote - It'd be interesting to see just how many people would prefer the gallery returned to its pre-non-nude iteration. Although the likelihood of such a poll eventuating is miniscule at best.

These things never happens, for what a poll, they know much better want the members want than the members themself.
Imagine a poll's result of 80% of members wanting the nudes again, this poll will never happen!

I think the intent was mainly to make the gallery "appear classy" even with the titty filter turned off.  Biting my tongue on further comment on that ;)

Not a comment on nudity in principle, after all more than half of my own artwork contains nudity, I just hate the idiotic "must use cropped thumbnails" bullshit and the illogic of the policy and inconsistency of how it's applied (don't look too hard at those merchant banners!  buy stuff!)

Quote - I can honestly say that not allowing black-bars or similar 'masks' to hide nudity in thumb-nails is a little puzzling. I've read the reasons behind this decision, and see their point of view. I just don't agree.

I believe the reason behind that is purely  esthetics and that it would make the gallery arrival pages look ugly with all of those "CENSORED" bars stamped across images, or blurring of certain areas or happy faces strategially placed etc.  Since everyone would have their own idea of how to do it, the gallery arrival pages would start to look childish and ugly. So they did the all or nothing rule....absolutely no censor-like thumnails.

Renderosity wants the arrival pages to be visually attractive and at first they weren't even going to allow people to use Censor thumbnails at all, but then they relented and  have been allowing people to use the standard Renderosity one because some people either don't know how, refuse to learn or are to lazy to learn  to make their own thumbnails.

Quote - I think the intent was mainly to make the gallery "appear classy" even with the titty filter turned off. 

Yeppers :)

Beautifying, or otherwise making the arrival pages more socially acceptable...sounds almost as though they're catering more to first time visitors than long-term members.

Discuss...

:P

Or investors, or paypal, or people considering buying the bondware storefront software, yeah.  Not about the community at all.

It looks to me like a rule intended to stop blatant gaming of the system -- the censorship-bars stuff -- has caught one of the edge cases. But you either have a rule that applies to everything that fits the nudity definition, or you get forums filled with screaming complaints. And I agree that in this case the rule doesn't have a good result. In the past, I've done thumbnails which try to catch the viewer's eye, modifying the colour and tonal dynamics of part of the image, picking out a detail, things like that. I can see how such tricks could fall foul of the current rule, if somebody wanted to act stupid, artist or admin. And I'd rather have Renderosity playing safe. There are images that would be quite legal in the USA which, where I live, could lead to huge trouble for me. There have been laws proposed in the UK which would make accessing Renderotica foolhardy, because they don't distinguish between photographs, however much faked, and other sorts of image. No, they're a long way from being on the books. But this isn't a US-only community. We're not all protected by your Freedom of Speech. Some of us, I'm sure, live in the countries to which you outsource torture. Renderosity has to live in a wider world than just the USA.

Again this just comes back to what I consider IMHO to be the simplest, easiest to implement, least contentious way of handling the situation.

Have a nudity flag and set it off by default. If somebody wants to view images containing nudity then they must conciously check the nudity flag and save their profile. Purely by the nature of this choice people cannot complain that they are not getting what they asked for. When someone who has not enabled the nudity flag browses the gallery, quite simply do not show any images or thumbnails that contain nudity!

This argument of 'I want to view nudity, but only if it's tasteful' isn't very strong IMHO. If someone willfully and knowingly chooses to view images containing nudity then they must be prepared to get what they asked for! They have effectively chosen to be their own censors, so why should they be given the opportunity to complain bitterly that they wanted nudity but 'not that kind of nudity'.

If someone is browsing the Renderosity galleries from work but is concerned that they may see 'inappropriate' content then they can simply switch off the nudity flag and never have to worry again! How much simpler than this can it be?

To sum up, as has been mentioned in this thread and elsewhere, rules should be simple, effective, easy to implement, and not rely on subjectivity to be enforced. What I have proposed here has been voiced by many many others and it fits the bill quite nicely don't you think?

As per usual, my 5c-worth. I'm now wearing my asbestos suit so let the flaming begin! :)

Quote - Have a nudity flag and set it off by default. If somebody wants to view images containing nudity then they must conciously check the nudity flag and save their profile.

Assuming you mean that nudity would be filtered by default - that's how it works now, and has been so at least since I joined.

Quote - > Quote - I can honestly say that not allowing black-bars or similar 'masks' to hide nudity in thumb-nails is a little puzzling. I've read the reasons behind this decision, and see their point of view. I just don't agree.

I believe the reason behind that is purely  esthetics and that it would make the gallery arrival pages look ugly with all of those "CENSORED" bars

Aesthetics is irrelevant. You are ignoring the compulsion that Puritans have for being perceived as open-minded and fair and, well, liked. Black bars would suggest that this was "censorship" rather than the simple requirement that everyone be reasonable. Even oppressors need love, you know. Not that kind, gutterbrain.

Seriously, the censor bar ban is utterly ludicrous. If the problem is burnt eyeballs, then blurred , barred , and added features to cover up the scorchers (like a painted-on bikini) all  work just fine. But they also put the prudish hypocrisy right there on view, crowding out the discipline appliances and Las Vegas goddess outfits.

M

That's exactly what I mean pjz99, sorry. :)

What I am suggesting is that when you have elected to view nudity, you will see thumbs and images containing nudity, and if you have elected to see no nudity then the images and their thumbnails will never appear when you browse the galleries.

I see what you mean.  That was suggested once or twice when this policy change was being implemented as well, and rejected by PTB - far too easy a solution I guess, like changing the ebil scawwy Content Advisory icon.

As I have already stated, I like the new thumbnail policy.

However, much grief could be avoided if Renerosity disabled "auto thumbnail" generator completely  and went back to where we all had to create our own. Either disable or  make some changes to it..

If you don't manually enter a thumbnail, the system generates one for you by resizing the full image.  think the feature was created to prevent people from uploading images without a thumbnail, thus making the gallery esthetically unappealing.

The auto thumbnail generator was fine prior to the change in thumbnail policy. But it's caused problems since the change.

You can pretty much code anything into a website if you know what you are doing, so I think they should change the code so that if the nudity and/or violence flags are ticked:

1. The auto thumbnailer is disabled and the image will not upload until a thumbnail is manually entered or

2.  Have the system generate the Renderosity content advisory thumbnail automatically if the nudity and/or violence tags are checked and no thumbnail is entered manually.

Another  separate suggestion would be for the system to generate a prompt error if you do not place a check mark next to:  violence, nudity, both or none.

Or they could do the extreme and go with a fully moderated gallery where all images are in holding after upload until they are manually approved by the site staff and released to the gallery.  This way there won't be any "pulled images", just ones that aren't approved for upload for whatever reason.  If the image is rejected, a note could be sent to the person indicating why.  However, I don't think anyone wants this option :)   However, having it so the images need pre-approval before being allowed into the gallery would go along way in easing up on the warnings and bannings IMHO because you can't violate rules if your image isn't allowed to be shown.

PS: urbanarmitage if that is you in your avatar, I think I'm going to move to South Africa! 

How's this for an idea. 

Someone sets there profile to censor nude images. They click on the gallery -- any gallery -- and all images with the nudity flag set are filtered out. No thumbnail drama. You just get a smaller subset of a gallery. This would work the same on censoring out violence images as well.

Well great minds must think alike... and be ignored.  What Urbanarmitage said...

Quote - How's this for an idea. 

Someone sets there profile to censor nude images. They click on the gallery -- any gallery -- and all images with the nudity flag set are filtered out. No thumbnail drama. You just get a smaller subset of a gallery. This would work the same on censoring out violence images as well.

That's not the point.

The problem wasn't and isn't about being able to filter out nude images.

The thumbnail policy was implemented to clean up the gallery thumbnails on the arrival pages for those who don't use the nudity filter because they want to view nudes.  I for one like to view truely artistic nude images, so tell me how my using the "no nudity filter" to block nude images is going to allow me to do that? 

The complaints were that the gallery arrival pages were looking like the backs of porn magazines with all of the close up shots of T & A. 

The thumbnail policy still allows for people to upload their nude and violent images, and it still allows those who want to browse the gallery without the nudity filter on, without being hit in the face with dozens of extremely tacky blown up body parts.

Quote - That's not the point.

The complaints were that the gallery arrival pages were looking like the backs of porn magazines with all of the close up shots of T & A. 

The thumbnail policy still allows for people to upload their nude and violent images, and it still allows those who want to browse the gallery without the nudity filter on, without being hit in the face with dozens of extremely tacky blown up body parts.  

And that makes the most sense to me! A simple 'nudity flag' as it it right now works quite well for me to let me know whether I should attempt to view the particular image (depending on the environment that I'm in at any given moment).
Lot of times a thumbnail will let me know whether the nudity is understated and 'soft' and artistic (like many pjz99's images), or if it's something I really don't want to see.

There's a difference in nudity that celebrates a nude human form vs. gratuitous nudity like crotch shots or boobs of the size they would cause major neck deformity.
It's really not so much about the nudity as it is about 'tasteful' nudity. (And for those whom like crotch shots, I don't mean 'tastes like...')
Now unfortunately due to a number of rather distasteful in your face type nudes, overall nudity is limited. Sort of like the case of few bad apples ruining it for everyone.

Ideally, one would classify the types of nudity, but I don't think that would be practical, and personally I have no Idea how I would define (in a form of a gallery or a thumbnail rule), what is tasteful and what isn't.

*""The complaints were that the gallery arrival pages were looking like the backs of porn magazines with all of the close up shots of T & A. ""
*I agree it did.  I got into this debate before and went and looked at some of the pro-nude artists and found some fabulous work.  Its a shame that they have to be grouped with those who do the tits = hits thing.  But I still have to agree with the thumbnail rule.  The default censor nudity flag worked just fine for me - but on the other hand I can see how someone who leaves the flag off because they like to view "artisitic" nudity still doesn't want to see the back of a penthouse every time they come to rendo.

If you give an inch they take a MILE and that is something that I have found to be a hard cold fact in my life.  As you can see now it's still true.  The rules seem to be very clear and precise to me but people will still do whatever they can to figure out how to get a boob or a pubic hair into the thumb.  No offense intended towards the original artist in discussion here.

As for a thong.  Well I  understand that in many places in the world that is pretty much the standard.  (Thank god not  here I DO NOT want to see 80 yr old women in thongs).  The way I would judge that one is to say what would I do if my 13 yr old tried to leave the house in one.  The answer is that I would beat her within an inch of her life and then chain her to the water heater - so to me I have to say yes a thong = nudity.

p.s.  I don't actually "beat" her that's a figure of speech for emphasis = D

Quote - This argument of 'I want to view nudity, but only if it's tasteful' isn't very strong IMHO. If someone willfully and knowingly chooses to view images containing nudity then they must be prepared to get what they asked for! They have effectively chosen to be their own censors, so why should they be given the opportunity to complain bitterly that they wanted nudity but 'not that kind of nudity'.

Using the same logic, those whom insist on, or have chosen to exhibit distateful nudity in a place with a rather general type of audience should be prepared to hear some backlash and complaints. This 'they get what they asked for' works both ways.

To use your own statement, but slightly modified:
They have effectively chosen to use an attention attracting exibit, so why should they be given the opportunity to complain bitterly that they wanted attention but 'not that kind of attention'

Quote -

The complaints were that the gallery arrival pages were looking like the backs of porn magazines with all of the close up shots of T & A. 

The thumbnail policy still allows for people to upload their nude and violent images, and it still allows those who want to browse the gallery without the nudity filter on, without being hit in the face with dozens of extremely tacky blown up body parts.

And still apparently frustrates the hell out of artists caught in the middle.

Quote - And still apparently frustrates the hell out of artists caught in the middle.

Very much so! And it's a very unfortunate too.
A case of a few attention seeking bad apples ruining it for a lot of others.

To comment back on the original posters image, as en example, an auto generated thumbnail of it's entired image would show such a tiny amount of nudity, and in such a small part that it certainly doesn't fall in what i would find uncomfortable viewing in a thumbnail form. It is much more inconspicuous then the 'NUDITY ADVISORY' thumbnail of the past, which would have shown up if I had the nudity filter on.

If I had some more conservative or more sensitive office people lurking around I may not choose to view it full size. At home, I'd probably look at it full size. We have art nude of a rather similar nature hanging on a wall (and it's much more tasteful then the bud girls posters our 17 year old boy has in his room).

Quote -
Very much so! And it's a very unfortunate too.
A case of a few attention seeking bad apples ruining it for a lot of others.

Yes, some people have no sense of self control: give them an inch and they want a foot, give them a foot and they want a yard. So because some showed no self control the situation in the gallery got out of hand and more and more people started to post such thumbnails in order to generate views. As I said before you can't have a rule that is loosely open to interpretation.  So to prevent "interpretation" and "What about this!?" or "Why not this?", Renderosity clearly stated "absolutely no nudity in the thumbnail."  That is not open to discussion or debate and cannot be misunderstood. No nudity is no nudity...of any kind.  They even stated what body parts are considered "nudity."

Quote - To comment back on the original posters image, as en example, an auto generated thumbnail of it's entired image would show such a tiny amount of nudity, and in such a small part that it certainly doesn't fall in what i would find uncomfortable viewing in a thumbnail form.

Yes, I agree. However, "give an inch, take a yard."  How do you "measure" acceptability? With a pair of calipers? or perhaps blowing it up in a graphic program and counting number of pixels the nude area covers? It's not possible.  If you start to allow some nude images to be resized using the auto thumbnailer, then you have to allow all because you will always have someone crying foul.

Quote - PS: urbanarmitage if that is you in your avatar, I think I'm going to move to South Africa! 

Yep, that's me, and yep, i'm now red as a beetroot!

I am mostly a wildlife, birdlife (no puns intended) and landscape photographer but I dabble in Poser too.

Quote - > Quote - PS: urbanarmitage if that is you in your avatar, I think I'm going to move to South Africa! 

 

Yep, that's me, and yep, i'm now red as a beetroot!

I am mostly a wildlife, birdlife (no puns intended) and landscape photographer but I dabble in Poser too.

Where did your gallery go?

Quote - Or investors, or paypal, or people considering buying the bondware storefront software, yeah.  Not about the community at all.

Yup.

Quote - Using the same logic, those whom insist on, or have chosen to exhibit distateful nudity in a place with a rather general type of audience should be prepared to hear some backlash and complaints. This 'they get what they asked for' works both ways.

To use your own statement, but slightly modified:
They have effectively chosen to use an attention attracting exibit, so why should they be given the opportunity to complain bitterly that they wanted attention but 'not that kind of attention'

Yes, you definately have a point. I agree that people on the other side of the coin must also be prepared to have the same sort of criticism leveled at them from the opposite camp. My standpoint though stems from the fact that the people who are viewing the nudity have consciously chosen to be exposed to nudity, so vetting that nudity presents a problem for those that use nudity in their art, or for that matter in their canned provocative images (no disrespect intended to anyone here). It directly affects their freedom of expression and the chance to have their work viewed unhindered. As Renderosity says in a great many places, this site is all about art and the artists behind it.

Also, i'm sure nobody is really going to expect people to take them seriously if they complain that some people refuse to view their images because they don't want to or are not permitted to view nudity, and have therefore switched it off. That would infringe on those peoples' freedom of choice.

It is a contentious issue. I just feel that the lesser of two evils (or weavels for movie fans) would be to have a clear-cut line which people may cross at any time, ie nudity or no nudity, and then rigidly stick to that with the TOS. There are obvious exceptions to this of course as dictated by the law in many instances and accepted global moral standards in others.

The only other real possibility that I can see is to have 3 categories instead of 2. Say for example 'no nudity', 'tasteful nudity' and 'in-your-face nudity'. When artists submit their work they would then have to understand that if they are submitting a really risque image, the chances are good that it will go into the third category and not the second.

Again, just my 5c. :)

Quote - Where did your gallery go?

I pulled my images a couple of months back because of the spate of image theft that was going on. My intention was and still is to resize them and put them back. Work and personal pressures just don't seem to agree. :)

I hear ya Acadia! We're on the same page on this one. 

I have no idea how to keep a few people from going oberboard, or how to define where that overboard division is. IRL one sort of has to rely on people's common sense and social graces to know how to stay on the safe side of what's socially acceptable. If Rendo reserves the right to refuse certain things, then they become the great villain. Seems like the flip side of give people an inch... People get used to coming here, and before too long they start feeling a sense of proprietorship of the place, and resenting the commercial side of it. 
There seems to be a hefty pull in a direction of 'anything goes' and it should all be free. I understand the 'feeling' here, I love to lose myself in fairytales too, but it amazes me how many people take it for granted, rather then being grateful.

[I can't believe I'm saying this, but I'm almost wishing for how a few things were in my old country when I was growing up, and there people whom went too far overboard were stigmatized by the majority - usually kept them in check]

Things on the internet, much like picking one's nose in a car) give people some degree of anonymity and safety. Safety from being intimidated and stigmatized into not going overboard.

One can post a distateful nude crotch shot borderlining softcore porn, and not have to suffer odd looks and frowns or people keeping distance. Like they would if they hung it in a public place and stood by it to hear comments by people with whom they interact on daily basis. 
Online, the exhibitor has a certain semblance of anonymity. Lot of peope only know each other by a nickname only. The interaction is limited. Our sustinance doesn't depend on each other in here. It's rather easy to post a provocative, envelope pushing image and not suffer much in a way of consequence.

For those viewing it, they are introducing this image into their daily environment, much more then the creator of the image.

I know someone is arguing about not limiting artistic expression. 
Well, for the sake of that argument let's create two groups pro nudes and anti-nudes. However arbitrary and unrealistic the division would be IRL, bear with me for the sake of the argument.

Pro nude's may feel limited by not being allowed to post overboard and provocative nudes. Anti-nudes may feel limited and turned off from coming here by  being bombarded by provocative nude (thumbnails).
Unless both sides agree on the middle of the road course, to not be overly conservative, or to not be overly provocative, the two extreme parts of those spheres of interests will always be in conflict.

Back to the question of limiting artistic expression.
By creating a hostile environment of going into extremes, both sides are suffering.
Seems like the 'popular' opinion is to allow overboard nudity, as if people are worried they will be labeled prude by saying, hey, that's too much for this place.

Heck, I was born and raised in Europe, and done the nude beach thing etc... But I don't walk around the house naked, I don't go to work or to the store naked. I still consider 'naked' to be a form of the expression that is leaning little into the extreme. Escpecially the sexually charged nakedness. So, I don't go insisting on exhibiting it in a 'general audience' type environment. 
I consoder rendo to be relatively general audience environment.

Recognizing that that there's a time and a place for things doesn't make one a puritan. When I see generalizations floppantly throuwn around like that, i have a hard time giving the rest of what the same people say much weight (besides an emotional vent.) I'm not op the opinion that every emotion needs to be catered to.

[bleh, I'm out of time to reread and wrap this up, so I'm hitting send]

Quote - The only other real possibility that I can see is to have 3 categories instead of 2. Say for example 'no nudity', 'tasteful nudity' and 'in-your-face nudity'.

There is that word "Tasteful" again.

Please define "tasteful" so that the definition and understanding for everyone is the same?

IMHO it's not possible because as I said before it's a highly subjective word because everyone has their own views and beliefs based on a variety of factors from geographic location to moral upbringing and everything in between. What is tasteful to you may not be to me, etc.

Quote - [Work and personal pressures just don't seem to agree. :)

hehe, you could always move to Canada ;)

That's why I always use a 'Nudty' flag on some of my images.  Where thumbnails are concerned, I just be a little creative about it; using colorful background, facials -- that kind of thing.  It doesn't make any sense with all this censorship and whatnot, but, as stated from the others, it is Renderosity's TOS, and it should be abided whether we like it or not.

To PerfectN, great image, you have a good sense of imagination -- hope to stop through your gallery next time.

JB

Quote -
Yes, you definately have a point. I agree that people on the other side of the coin must also be prepared to have the same sort of criticism leveled at them from the opposite camp. My standpoint though stems from the fact that the people who are viewing the nudity have consciously chosen to be exposed to nudity, so vetting that nudity presents a problem for those that use nudity in their art, or for that matter in their canned provocative images (no disrespect intended to anyone here). It directly affects their freedom of expression and the chance to have their work viewed unhindered. As Renderosity says in a great many places, this site is all about art and the artists behind it.

True, I agree with you on most points, except on one. I don't like the gallery thumbnails to be loaded with austentatious nudity, or with austenatious nudity warning. I think the thumbnails should have a level of discretion, and be a fair representation of what's in the image. That way the viewer can choose.
This whole thing is not really about nudity, but about allowing the viwers a decent tool to be able to chose whether to view a certain image or not.
To be honest, I've seen a number of images that have no nudity at all that are still too provocative to be viewed in all social circumstances, and to a degree I think that nudity in itself is being unfairly singled out here, and has taken on a meaning of content not necessarily acceptable to a broad varied audience. 
Art and artists and their expression forms are still very much subject to audience's acceptance.
So what happens is, if there are too many extremens, people go elsewhere. Artists and viewers alike.

Quote - Also, i'm sure nobody is really going to expect people to take them seriously if they complain that some people refuse to view their images because they don't want to or are not permitted to view nudity, and have therefore switched it off. That would infringe on those peoples' freedom of choice.

I've seen quite a few complaints from artists saying things to the effect of, it's not a nude, so I'm not getting very many views, or artists all heated up because they made image with a bare boob and have been asked to tag it as nudity.

Quote - It is a contentious issue. I just feel that the lesser of two evils (or weavels for movie fans) would be to have a clear-cut line which people may cross at any time, ie nudity or no nudity, and then rigidly stick to that with the TOS. There are obvious exceptions to this of course as dictated by the law in many instances and accepted global moral standards in others..

We have a content advisory for nudity. A small thumbnail allowing a person to get a general idea of the nature of the nudity (close to what we have now) IMO is suffioent. I can usually see if it's going to be a tasteful nude or a crotch shot by seeing a thumbnail of the whole image, and the thumbnails are small enough that if anyone is looking over my shoulder will not see enough to be offended.
What makes for uncomfortable gallery browsing in general social circumstances are closeup and sexually suggestive crops of T&A.

Quote - The only other real possibility that I can see is to have 3 categories instead of 2. Say for example 'no nudity', 'tasteful nudity' and 'in-your-face nudity'. When artists submit their work they would then have to understand that if they are submitting a really risque image, the chances are good that it will go into the third category and not the second.

I'd love to have three or four gallery categories for a lot of reasons.
LOL, this would cause even more contention, but it would be nice to have a PG rating to the images. G, PG, PG13, R, NC17 and X... LOL and a DDD ;)
That way one can see the softer nudes, and not have to be exposed to NC17's and DDD, or Y shots. 
I could just hear it... I know it's a crotch shot, but his goodies were all tucked in, so it's not really a crotch shot ;P
What a logistical nightmare that would be!

Quote -
I could just hear it... I know it's a crotch shot, but his goodies were all tucked in, so it's not really a crotch shot ;P
What a logistical nightmare that would be!

That is more true than  you can even imagine!!!!!

Quote - > Quote -

I could just hear it... I know it's a crotch shot, but his goodies were all tucked in, so it's not really a crotch shot ;P
What a logistical nightmare that would be!

That is more true than  you can even imagine!!!!!

Oh, gosh, I've seen one of the more recent threads where there was a debate which hair should be labeled as pubic hair and which shouldn't, literally getting down to splitting hairs. Can I say, oyyy!

But what do I know, perhaps splitting (pubic) hairs is a budding new form of artistic expression. ;P

Jeez, this thread is a hot topic. Took a little while to read through since I was here earlier on (I don't get email notification most of the time when there are posts).

I feel it should just be understood that if you are coming to Renderosity's gallery, you will see a lot of nude flesh. Complaining about is almost like logging into hustler and then complaining about finding nudity. Almost.
Doesn't make any difference to me one way or the other; except, I would personally rather just have thumbnails that show the whole picture. Anything else is bullshit, IMO.
Wonder if it could be made so that you could set your own thumbnail preferences?

Conniekat8
raunchyminds? penis puppetry?
Why you dirty kitty, you! :lol:

Well, if we are to have an expectation fo near hustler like atmosphere, then we shouldn't be mixing architecture, faeries, book illustrations, and other subject attracting mass audiences.

Also, with near hustler atmosphere, we shouldn't have our feelings bruised when other communities with more focus on technique and skill improvement and less emphasis on gratuitous nudity with mediocre art and technical skills don't take us as seriously. 

As much as I would like it, it's not realistic to want to have it both ways. 
It's much like wanting to be respected in the morning ;)

Quote - Conniekat8
raunchyminds? penis puppetry?
Why you dirty kitty, you!  

:-x

O.k., maybe hustler is exaggeration ;(
Still, I do expect to see nudity in the general gallery here on every visit.

When you're dealing with people who absolutely refuse to turn nudity off, but can't handle dealing with anything but a very subjective concept of "tasteful nudity", well, you've got problems. You have to deal with people who want the world to be an impossibly ideal place where everyone else has to somehow unreasonably anticipate what are the limitations/capabilities of every single one of those people, and accomodate it all. If the world really could be ideal, the way it would be ideal is if people simply didn't get so uptight and worked up about silly things.

Maybe Rendo ought to consider forcing new arrivals to view a page full of images of varying amounts of nudity. Next to each button would two checkboxes labeled "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable". When the user finishes "judging" the images, that user would be assigned a "nudity rating" (say, a value between 1 and 10, where 1 = "prude who would complain about the scantily clad figures on the sistine chapel" and 10 = "I'll look at anything without feeling the need to complain to Rendo about it"). Then an artist could assign a value to each of his images. Folks who have a rating less than that value would not be permitted to view it. Ultimately, only folks with a rating of 10 would be allowed to view everything.

The only way to convince some people how dangerous it is to start "judging" others and their work, is to give them a taste of their own medicine and judge the "judges". Once people start getting rated by their own choices, and given or denied freedoms based upon how tolerant they're willing to be, then you'll see these folks stop judging and complaining so much.

People tend to do things only when they think they can do it without impunity. As soon as they receive a taste of their own medicine, they back off really quickly.

As we can see, that problem is now solved - now you get it rubbed in your face even if the nudity filter is on.  :blink:

Quote - Maybe Rendo ought to consider forcing new arrivals to view a page full of images of varying amounts of nudity.

Yes, that's how the gallery front page works now.  I guess mission accomplished.