I'm not really one for bringing up contentious issues but I'm just curious here.
Now, I don't get chance to check on the forums or galleries much these days so apologies if this has been mentioned recently. Anyway, I've just been into the art charts section & there is a piece there from a well known & brilliant artist from here. Now, the girl is nude & is quite obviously underage. I personally don't object to it for two reasons. 1: She's not real & 2: It's a brilliant piece of artwork.
My issue is this. I was under the impression that no child nudity is allowed, at all, for obvious reasons. Now, I may be talking out of line here, but if this work was not done by an established artist here, would it have been pulled?
I don't want to cause any trouble for the artist as I love their work but during my time here I have known people's work to have been pulled for less.
Could an admin or one of the regulars here please state where these guide lines now stand.
I'm not on a personal mission here, I just like to see equal rights for everyone.

it takes 'em a while to yank all TOS violations. eternal vigilance and all that. I don't browse the poser section, hence I missed that one.

Question: Is child nudity allowed now?!!

Answer: No

Casette - I know it's not really allowed. I just don't understand how this piece was allowed through.

they gotta wait 'til somebody actually posts a TOS violation in order to discuss it amongst themselves, then delete it, if that's what they decide. they can't block 'em AFAIK. since 99.9% of the users don't post TOS violations, trying to check 'em prior to allowing 'em into the gallery would be unfair to the users IMVHO.

Storm

If you have concerns about TOS violations within the gallery/ies, please IM a member of staff.

Cheers

SamT

Mods aren't perfect and of course they have a private life. Maybe that work flee of their eyes. PM them :)

I am not trying to get into a flaming match , I am not a troll and I really don’t give a rat ass about being in anyones clickey group.

So I say what the hell I like saying, ok.

Right what I feel is a child and what the mods think is a child, are two very different things.

I put in a TOS about an image I felt was under age, she was totally flat breasted and looked very young. I know that some females can be flat up top. But this kid look under about 10,( this is in my opinion ) but the mods said that they had looked at it and decided that it was a young woman.

So I guess that’s it. They are the boss here, its there web site, if we don’t like it. sit down, shut up and buy more stuff or go else where.

Quote - Right what I feel is a child and what the mods think is a child, are two very different things.

Yes, very true.

Unfortunately the characters in our images are not real models and don't have a way of authenticating age, so determining age is highly subjective.  And as you say, what you may think to be a "child" may be considered "borderline" or even "adult" to someone else looking at that same image.  And in the end the only opinion that matters is the staff's.

For the most part the face is the deciding factor when it comes to whether an image is booted from the gallery or left.  Sometimes body shape IE: very petite, waist:hip ratio,  do play a part but most of the time it is decided based on how old the face looks.

You can have a character with size 99 ZZZ boobs, but if the face looks like that of a 10 year old, the character is considered "child" and the image then becomes a violation of the TOS.

Most of the time the images that come into question are Aiko characters.

I always tell people that if they  are unsure about the age of a character, to always run it by the staff first and get it "pre-approved" in order to prevent getting a blemish on their account.

now there's a sneaky way to make me look at the art charts and try to figure out whic image we're talking about! :woot:

Acadia Well said.

(You can have a character with size 99 ZZZ boobs, but if the face looks like that of a 10 year old, the character is considered "child" and the image then becomes a violation of the TOS.)

I would think its common sense really and in good taste not to post or create such an image, no matter how good the art is.

Rowlando

If you really liked the piece, then why bring the subject up at all?  Just let sleeping dogs lie.
DPH

in past threads about child nudity, there would always be some vocal defenders pointing out it's natural and not at all shameful, in an attempt to defend said images, after which the threads would degenerate into name-calling, thus forcing the mods to lock the threads. I must admit I'm pleased to see this hasn't happened here.

Everytime I tried to use a Thorne and Sarsa character nude I was asked to remove it. Now I make all of them with big boobs and they have not been yanked. How can a 10 year old have boobs?

I actually felt kind of guilty when I got up this morning, I really don't want to cause any trouble here. I guess I just read the situation wrong, I had this idea in my head that the artists reputation could have a bearing on the situation, I know I'm probably wrong.

"If you really liked the piece, then why bring the subject up at all?"
That really shouldn't be the point, should it. If something is deemed wrong, it's still wrong whether it's good or not.

drifterlee - It's interesting your T&S character was removed. I guess it's all down to opinion.

**With this work being in the art charts I just presumed it would have been seen by at least one of the admins.
**
**I'll leave this be now, there's more important things to worry about in life.
**

Quote - I just don't understand how this piece was allowed through.

Maybe she is not nude or maybe she is not a child.
I still want to know  how the Hell the age of a polygon is measured!!!

Burn the heretic!

Just remember gang, we are human, and do need some downtime...and with so many images going up, we're bound to miss a few. We do go thru the galleries on a daily basis, but some slip by.

As always, if you see something we have missed, please report it so we can check it out.

Thanks!

Quote - Everytime I tried to use a Thorne and Sarsa character nude I was asked to remove it. Now I make all of them with big boobs and they have not been yanked. How can a 10 year old have boobs?

i believe, but someone will correct me if i'm wrong, that "child" is interpretted as younger than 18 on this site and pretty much everywhere else when it comes to depictions of nudity.  puberty generally hits girls several years earlier than that.  personally, i was a D cup by 12 or 13, and the girls who weren't wearing bras by middle school were generally teased.  conversely, i know lots of adult women who are "barely there" (and look great, by the way). 

i find hips and breast size a much less reliable indicator of age than face, hands and neck.   and what really indicates age, gravity and drooping, i know of few morphs for.  i know that a lot of T&S characters make my boyfriend exclaim from across the room when he sees them in  scantily clad promos on my monitor.   and he's far from a prude.

Maturity is primarily reflected in the face.  Of course it goes without saying that maturity makes its mark in the body as well -- but the face is the first place where age is judged by most people.

Of course in the real world (RW), there are always exceptions to the rule.  Some people physically mature early and look like they are 25 when they are 14; while other people still look like they are 11 when they are 25.  But such cases are rare exceptions -- and they fall into a tiny minority.  The vast majority of people look like the age that they are.

When it comes to judging the apparent age of figures in 3D images, the mods can only go by the standard visual 'age cues' that the vast majority of the population follows.  Real life exceptions to the rule are all well and good: but that doesn't matter in a 3D image.  In 3D, a figure that looks like a child is a child.

Quote - In 3D, a figure that looks like a child is a child.

Um, no. In 3D, any mesh that looks like anything is just a mesh. Unfortunately, people's perceptions of virtual objects vary widely. Some can look at something in 3D (just as with a drawing or painting) and laugh or slightly cringe, whereas if it were real, they would become nauseous or deeply offended. Others are completely unable to see anything but the depiction, and it seems just as real to them as if it were a photograph. Because there is no way to serve separate websites to people based upon their perceptive abilities, then we must do things conservatively in order to avoid offending sensibilities.

recently a picture was removed for child nudity when only the head and arms and legs could be seen and it was a nativity picture simply taken way way to far , and as for when they get there thats bull this picture was removed with hours

just stumbled on to this thread. not to offend anyone but this just causes unnecessary attention. let's all just create art. don't like don't click i say.

Quote - recently a picture was removed for child nudity when only the head and arms and legs could be seen and it was a nativity picture simply taken way way to far , and as for when they get there thats bull this picture was removed with hours

Uh, so it had a naked head, arms and legs, and nothing else was visible, but the Magisterium was able to determine that it was a naked child and therefore to be cast into outer darkness? My surprise and dismay would be feigned.

I'm not going to track back who said, "In 3D, if it looks like a child, it is a child," but that is without question the silliest assertion I've heard all week. The entire function of art is to make things that look like something else (but, except in the eyes of total lunatics and determined Puritans, demonstrably are not). A statue of Johnnie Depp, I regret to report, is not Johnnie Depp, not even in "3D." And a drawing of Marilyn Monroe, regretably, isn't either.

M

Quote - recently a picture was removed for child nudity when only the head and arms and legs could be seen and it was a nativity picture simply taken way way to far , and as for when they get there thats bull this picture was removed with hours

Please don't tell untruths in the forums.

If it's the picture I think you're referring to there was a LOT more visible than that (like, all of the torso and the uncovered genital region.)

For gods sake it was a nativity scene you might like to spread it around about abuse but you really should take some time out and get yourself  together even other mods agreed that you were out of line and sorry not telling untruths as i still have the original picture in my collection no genital area shown.

as i said in my letter to the forum USA law states that child ponorgraphy should be counted as such when a child is shown or believed to in indulging in a sexual act  this was a nativity scene but you havent told the whole truth either how the picture after it was blanked out was removed because it was show as a protest so that gives you the right to take away free speach also

Kelvin, you're continuing to tell lies and I won't have it. You'll be getting coal in your stocking from Santa this year if you keep it up.

"even other mods agreed that you were out of line"
Wrong. Not sure where you're getting that from! All staff were in complete agreement that the image needed to be removed.

"this was a nativity scene"
For a nativity scene, there was a surprising lack of Mary, Joseph, wise men, angels, etc, and a rather unusual inclusion of scantily-clad Vickies. And, regardless of the intention - religious, fine art, or otherwise - the TOS is applied to all images.

"i [sic] still have the original picture in my collection no genital area shown. [sic]"
The genital area was clearly shown on the image.

"as i said in my letter to the forum USA law states that child ponorgraphy [sic]..."
Nobody mentioned child pornography. Except you.

"you havent told the whole truth either how the picture after it was blanked out was removed because it was show* [sic] as a protest "
Because that's also a TOS violation:
No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of blots or "Censored" wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed.

"that gives you the right to take away free speach* [sic] also"
Your right to free speech extends to government agencies. You have the right to say anything you like on your own property. If you want to go ahead and build your own website where you can post all the nude "nativity" scenes you want, go for it! On Renderosity, we have a set of rules which we will apply.

I'm not going to debate with you any more. Especially since this isn't even your image we're talking about. This issue has been dealt with and I'm closing the thread.