Not that this isn't a gorgeous character, but I've had gallery images pulled for thumbnails that showed less boob.  Are the rules more lenient for the ones who are making the site money?

I see that Giolon has observed some inconsistencies in the rules,

I've had gallery images pulled for thumbnails that showed less boob. 

Out in the real world, the rules can be even stranger ... I know of an instance
where a store manager has been charged with obscenity because of some
promotional murals ... one of the confiscated images showed just a little of
the side of the model's breast. 

Are the rules more lenient for the ones who are making the site money?

Sorry, that's too complex a question for me to answer. 

In any case, you might want to read and join this discussion thread, 
"Censorship v. Advertising v. Art? [nudity]" ... please bring 'Tanya' along for show and tell. 

Comments ... Please ...

--
Martin

Quote -

Not that this isn't a gorgeous character, but I've had gallery images pulled for thumbnails that showed less boob.  Are the rules more lenient for the ones who are making the site money?

No. The rules are not more lenient for lead in pictures.

The image example you post is fine.  She is wearing "pasties" which cover the areola and the nipple.  And you can see that she has a pantie bottom on as well, so she is not nude.

Breast skin doesn't automatically equate to being "nude".  According to the TOS here, if the nipples and areola are completely covered, the figure is not nude.

Acadia is correct.

What Giolon is trying to point out is that his/her gallery thumbs, which covered more, were pulled yet marketplace images such as the one being used as an example are allowed.   That is the inconsistency Giolon is pointing out.   I have to admit that I too have wondered why the marketplace tends to allow more leniency than the gallery. 

Giolon's thumbnail, to my knowledge, violated the thumbnail nudity rules, that's why Giolon was asked for a replacement.

Don't mistake the intent of this, my thumbnail was pulled ages ago.  I'm just making a comparision in the interest that the rules are applied fairly to all.

This image is from the original front page article showing the required clothed areas for the "new" thumbnail policy:

However, the actual description in the rules only states:
No nudity in thumbnails. This means no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images. 
No areola or nipple exposure, and no transparent fabric.

Here is a comparison of a thumbnail I've had pulled in the past for, and I quote, "A lot more Boob then needed in the thumbnail."

Any amount of boob was too much for the specific moderator at the time.  Here's another iteration that was also rejected for the same reason:

It ended up having to be changed to a headshot.  That thumbnail in the marketplace shows more boob than either of the two thumbnail iterations I have presented, and both pictures unarguably expose far more than the guideline image.  But I will admit, according to a narrow interpretation of the rules, only nipple & areola expposure is prohibited.

So, still I ask, why the different standard?

Quote -
However, the actual description in the rules only states:
No nudity in thumbnails. This means no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images. 
No areola or nipple exposure, and no transparent fabric.

Here is a comparison of a thumbnail I've had pulled in the past for, and I quote, "A lot more Boob then needed in the thumbnail."

Any amount of boob was too much for the specific moderator at the time.  Here's another iteration that was also rejected for the same reason:

It ended up having to be changed to a headshot.  That thumbnail in the marketplace shows more boob than either of the two thumbnail iterations I have presented, and both pictures unarguably expose far more than the guideline image.  But I will admit, according to a narrow interpretation of the rules, only nipple & areola expposure is prohibited.

So, still I ask, why the different standard?

There is no different standard.  In your thumbnail examples above the figure is nude. Yes, the hand is covering the breast and there is no nipple or areola showing, but the figure has no clothing on  which violates the part of the Thumbnail Rules that say " *no clothes,"

Pasties  equal clothing
Hand does not equal clothing

That is the difference.

Acadia is correct. Giolon, your thumb clearly shows that the figure is nude. The thumbnail you're complaining about clearly shows that the figure is wearing clothing.

Actually, she does have clothing on, and the reason stated for its removal was not lack of clothing.  It was exactly as I have quoted, "A lot more Boob then needed in the thumbnail." (additionally, the reason stated for the 2nd thumbnail was "still too much boob").

I can pull other thumbnails from other of the site's galleries (after the thumbnail rule) that show more, in some cases also "nude" by your definition Acadia, (no clothing showing, only a hand or an image crop to hide the naughty bits).  If you'd like, I can go get them for you and post them here to show how arbitrary the enforcement of the rules has been.

In any case, this is now tangential to the point of my original post.  The rules have been clarified for me.

Quote - Actually, she does have clothing on

But she doesn't have clothing on the top. In the full image there is a 1/2 sarong. She has body paint on her arms but no top.  Her hand is covering the breast.  If she had a pair of pasties on instead of a hand over her breast, the image would not have been pulled.

So far as the "more boob....etc" comment you say was made to you by a moderator, so far as I know they are supposed to use pre approved form letters. Those letters do not say anything like what you say was sent to you.  You can contact a site admin at admin@renderosity.com if you feel that the comment sent to you was rude and unjust. 

Yes, Arcadia you are right.  However, in the 2nd thumbnail, the area of her breast that contains the naughty bits is by far cropped off-screen, which is a tactic used by many in the galleries.  Here are some examples:

(Thumbnail images renamed and rehosted on my website to protect the innocent, but the actual thumbs remains unchanged, except in the case of the 3rd the initials were blacked out).

Is it the mere fact that there are some fingers curling around into view that makes mine objectionable?

I just want to make clear that I'm not asking this b/c I want my thumbnail restored, or that I feel slighted (this was nearly a year ago).  At this point, I'm trying to understand what makes the 2nd of my thumbnails inappropriate.  (We have established that the first is not b/c a hand is not clothing.)

As for the wording, yes there was a form letter.  The quoted bit was appended at the end in red, I assume to make it easier to find.  I can post the letter in its entireity.  I keep all my site mail.

maybe their rules mean that a girl grabbing her boobs or crotch is verboten,
as well as a dude grabbing some girl's boobs/crotch may be verboten.

Quote - Yes, Arcadia you are right.  However, in the 2nd thumbnail, the area of her breast that contains the naughty bits is by far cropped off-screen, which is a tactic used by many in the galleries. 

You are correct. I do not know the reasoning behind the decision to not allow you to use the second thumbnail that you made, or whether it was made arbitrarily or if it was a group vote. However I do agree with you that your second thumbnail was really no different than the other examples that you posted that show a great deal of breast tissue without the nipple or areola showing.

If the thumbnail you get to use is really that important to you, you can write and appeal it with admin@renderosity.com  and ask for a more detailed reason as to why the second one was not allowed.

Also don't post any letters that you get from moderators/admins/co-ordinators. That is against the rules and will get the thread deleted and another letter to you for breaking the TOS about privacy.

Quote - maybe their rules mean that a girl grabbing her boobs or crotch is verboten,
as well as a dude grabbing some girl's boobs/crotch may be verboten.

Covering is not the same as "grabbing"  Sexuality would be nipple manipulation, not simply the hand of the breast owner placed over the breast.

Giolon, the second version should have been acceptable. Drop a line to admin@renderosity.com if you want it reviewed.

Giolon, when this site became run by republican the merchants raise a stink because it became impossible to display for sale a skin texture without showing the product itself (nude skin).

Plus, paypal wouldn't let them display nudity. The site would be classified as a porn site otherwise. And paypals rules would let them (paypal) to lock up rendos bank account if they continued.

store > gallery

Personally I'd have droped paypal but greed rules. I assume they now get a lot of paypal payments. It probably gave a quick cash bump.
But look at the long term effect on sales, it's not very encourageing.

I see that geoegress raised some good points about the nudity policy,

Plus, paypal wouldn't let them display nudity.
The site would be classified as a porn site otherwise.

Interesting points ...

Some time ago, I was at the local office of my cable internet provider ... to pay a bill ... or exchange some equipment ... that happens a lot -- exchangeing equipment , that is. 

As they have internet access terminals there in the customer area, and I was talking about renderosity to another customer in the queue ... I tried to access the renderosity site ... I was rather surprised to find that it was blocked by some [@#$%] stupid content filter ... as though people paying their cable bill were weak-willed grade school kids.  Humpfffff

Comments ... please ...

--
Martin

Quote - Personally I'd have droped paypal but greed rules. I assume they now get a lot of paypal payments. It probably gave a quick cash bump.
But look at the long term effect on sales, it's not very encourageing.

I no longer have a credit card, so the only way I can pay is via PayPal. If this site or others didn't have PayPal, I wouldn't be able to make any purchases.

Not everyone has, wants, or qualifies for credit cards. PayPal is a nice alternative. Unfortunately I can't see why PayPal really cares what companies use their service for payments.. money is money.

I see that Giolon was showing examples of images to make,

a comparision in the interest that the rules are applied fairly to all.

In that same spirit, I have noticed some marketplace thumbnails that appeaared on the renderosity home page ... just today ...

Sultry Charisma

NGM Petit Size

Both of these seem to differ from the limits set in the image example "showing the required clothed areas for the "new" thumbnail policy" that was posted in this message thread on Feb 17, 2008. 

--
Martin

Both of those thumbnails are fully acceptable.
The nipple and aureolae are fully covered in the first.
The amount of buttock shown in the second doesn't exceed what we'd expect to see if the model was wearing standard knickers/bikini bottom.

I confess to bafflement as to why a boob with a hand covering most of it is not OK, but a boob with nothing but a tiny little pastie is OK.

If the render is of a pastie-wearing model and she has her hand over it,  the artist must move the hand, so exposing much more of the breast, in order to make it more `decent'.  Similar rules apply to virtual ladies' front bottoms. This is not rational, folks.

As stated previously:
Pasties are considered clothing.
Hands aren't.

I'm surprised someone popped this thread back up...

Quote - As stated previously:
Pasties are considered clothing.
Hands aren't.

I think Pearce's point is that the pasties, which expose far more than a hand, would have to be visible in order to make a thumbnail acceptable (should it actually be a picture of a figure wearing pasties w/ a hand over the top).  That kind of runs counter to the goals of the thumbnail rule of making the gallery thumbnails "tasteful" and nudity (or near nudity) less "in your face".

It's just an observation...I'm not here to argue against or for the rule.

pearce:

Your mistake in thinking is that they (the PTB) can
logically validate an illogically  position.

Kinda like argueing religion with a preacher. No win even with math, lol

You have to learn to live with inconsistencies around here or you'll be very miserable...  ;)

I showed a promo to an admin a while back before uploading it to the store because I was concerned it showed a little too much skin (it definitely didn't show as much as that though, character was wearing Bikini Babe from Daz and didn't look underage at all), I was told I should alter  it so it wouldn't show so much so it's not just difference between gallery and store...

oops! then it appears I was right about no girls grabbing their boobs in thumbs here :lol:

Quote -
As stated previously:
Pasties are considered clothing.
Hands aren't.

Umm...
Hmmm....
tries to think of something to say that doesn't involve needlessly obnoxious sarcasm

agrees that hands aren't clothing, possibly unless you're Hannibal Lecter escaping from prison
wonders why hands aren't clothing, when hands are skin, and leather can be clothing, but passes on considering that thought further

agrees for a second time that hands aren't clothing, just because they're not, unless you consider something like, say, deerskin gloves, which would probably be too much of a stretch

agrees for a third time that hands aren't clothing, with no alternative possibilities offered

Of course, one might wonder what the difference is. Covered is covered, after all. If we want to get technical what "grabbing" is, I submit that "grabbing" would result in a displacement of flesh, which is not evident in Giolon's thumbnails.
So, without the obvious physics which would be evident when something soft is "grabbed", how does one differentiate between that which is grabbed and that which is simply covered?
Or, shall we say it must be clothing  doing the covering?
So, shall I assume then that if those hands had gloves on them, minus the physical effects of "grabbing", they would then be simply "covering"?

Funny thing about this place. There's always a reason for everything, even if it involves reaching well beyond the limits of logic and reason. Very few people will ever publicly admit to simply making a judgement error.

Quote -   I have to admit that I too have wondered why the marketplace tends to allow more leniency than the gallery. 
 

Surely you haven't actually wondered.

Quote - Of course, one might wonder what the difference is. Covered is covered, after all.

An interesting question would be "If the figure is wearing pasties, how much of them must not be covered by the hands for a thumbnail to be allowed ?"

Quote - An interesting question would be "If the figure is wearing pasties, how much of them must not be covered by the hands for a thumbnail to be allowed ?"

Hmmm... Hands grabbing pasties, you say?
Wow, what a conundrum!  In that case I suppose it becomes a philosophical question: Which came first, the pastie or the hand?"

Another interesting question would be, "what if the clothing covering the boobmatter were made of a fabric in the shape of hands?"

Quote - > Quote - Of course, one might wonder what the difference is. Covered is covered, after all.

An interesting question would be "If the figure is wearing pasties, how much of them must not be covered by the hands for a thumbnail to be allowed ?"

You, sir, have won this thread.

Quote -
You, sir, have won this thread.

Yeah, I agree and nruddock is good at that sort of thing.

Thing is though, obvious as any "victory" it may be, it will not likely be substantiated with a concession from the PTB here; indeed, following their obvious defeat in the Court of Logic, it will be likely there will be no further reply. Considering corporations tend to avoid admitting mistakes, lest their customers and/or investors lose faith.

Nevertheless, we know the "correct" answers to these issues. Ironically, so do they, but dissent tends to be viewed by many in  upper management as a failure in "team spirit"...

I hope you saved your scene and your poses. Put some gloves on her and try again, and see if that changes anything.

Quote -
Of course, one might wonder what the difference is. Covered is covered, after all.

Because having no clothes on (e.g. covering boobs with the hand(s) only) is considered nudity, whereas having clothing on (e.g. pasties, microbikini) isn't nudity.

Let me put it this way.
If your thumbnail gives the impression that the model is nude, no amount of ducking and diving with statements like "A-ha! She has a 10mm nipple cover on behind her middle finger!" is going to work.
If, however, your thumbnail shows that the model is wearing clothing (and again, we consider "pasties" to be clothing) then you're fine.

Quote -
Let me put it this way.

Excellent. And on the behalf of the ignorant masses, I thank you.

Quote -
If your thumbnail gives the impression that the model is nude, no amount of ducking and diving with statements like "A-ha! She has a 10mm nipple cover on behind her middle finger!" is going to work.

Uh-oh! This started off sounding all professional and all, but kind of took a turn downward with the implication the Poserverse seeks to circumvent the rules - "ducking and diving". tsk tsk. Of course, they do, but they learn it's OK from statements as such. Do this, don't do that, and so on, not unlike the rules one's parents make up as they go along. ;-)

Of course, one might analyze the attempt of humor and sarcasm ("like "A-ha! She has a 10mm nipple cover on behind her middle finger!") as being in the same vein as the parent who has run out of good reasoning and has fallen back on the I Told You So thing, for lack of a better way of saying, "in my house we do things my way!"

And....
And....
And....

Hmmm... how about my idea that hands mingling with the mammaries are OK if covered with gloves (clothing)?
That would be legal, right? Or, no?
What if the pasties looked like hands? Better yet, what if the pasties were specifically designed to look like hands?
What if the "pasties" were actually hands?

Quote -
If, however, your thumbnail shows that the model is wearing clothing (and again, we consider "pasties" to be clothing) then you're fine.

Who decides what is "pasties" and what isn't?  Is there a clear definition of the difference existing at the time of this thread, or are you making this up as you go?

Well, maybe you're not exactly making it up. Dictionary.com defines pasties as "a pair of small, cuplike coverings for the nipples of a striptease dancer, nude model, etc."

It doesn't say anything about the make-up of said coverings. Could semi-cupped hands fulfill that requirement? Also note it seems the idea of said pasties being a "covering" is the primary idea.

So, I ask again, when hands cover, but show no signs of groping or grabbing, can they not be considered equivalent in that they fulfill the requirements of the approved "pastie"?

The proximity of the hands relative to the boobage might be an issue, but it would seem to me that in a static image, the intent can only be determined by any apparent reaction seen in the flesh in question, caused by the offending object.
"Intent" can't be determined in a still image without a demonstrative action one way or another.

And that's what really is at question, is it not? Intent?
If not some unwritten moral law, then the hands are serving exactly the same purpose as any other object, such as a "pastie".

Don't try to claim local laws which apply to actual humans ; this is a digital art site, not a strip club.
                                                                             

Mike. Pasties aren't hands.  Hands aren't pasties.
I really don't know how else to say this.

If the thumbnail has clothing (i.e. pasties) so that it can be seen that the model is not nude, then it's fine.

If the model is clearly not wearing clothing, then it's nude and can't be shown on the thumbnail.

Standing around with your hands over your boobs is not going to make you clothed. If you're not wearing clothes, then you're nude.

Quote -
Standing around with your hands over your boobs is not going to make you clothed. If you're not wearing clothes, then you're nude.

So, pasties are clothing, then?
Would you wear pasties to traffic court?

Actually, I don't care about the definition of clothing or pasties. I'm more interested in how one justifies one form of covering over another, which is what this thread began as.
I can say the image which was rejected did in fact "cover", but can you say the rejected image depicted "grabbing"?

You want  "cover", but prohibit grabbing. The disallowed image had cover, and no grabbing. Somebody was a little too happy on the delete button, is all it is.
And don't tell me they perfectly followed protocol and company policy - people are people, and people screw up from time to time.

As I said on the previous page, Giolon's first image clearly showed that the model was nude. But **his second thumb should have been allowed, because it wasn't clear whether the model was nude or not.
**
Is that what's causing the confusion? Maybe everyone missed me saying that?

Quote -
So, pasties are clothing, then?
Would you wear pasties to traffic court?

Heheh. No, but then I wouldn't wear a bikini, miniskirt, bra and knickers, or red PVC catsuit to traffic court either - and they're definitely clothing, in anyone's book :laugh:

so are you saying you intend to go to traffic court in the nood??

i'm confused now!!!

what is traffic court?

and what are pasties??

i used to have pasties at school break time, and a cup of chicken soup!!

so if you are supposed to wear the pastie now, then just what do you do with the chicken soup??

lol vince3

pasties are "nipple Shields" ...... i think, :/  personally i would consider them as jewellry rather than clothing (i like cornish pasties but i cant imagine those glued to me boobies though, bit of a hindrance)

I think with hands, it gives the impression more than anything that the woman/man is naked, the clothing does not even if it covers that much less skin,  at the end of the day the model is clothed.

if the image is so nude that you cant find a spot to use as a thumb then there is always the default "adult content" thumb to use in the gallery  (wasnt the thumbnail rule bought into place in the gallery due to offensiveness, I must admit that the "Adult Content" thumb is far more offensive as it sticks out like  a sore thumb...nail saying, "look at me I contain boobies and bumbums"

Now i want some chicken soup, lol

I've got a horrible mental image now of jamming a couple of cornish pasties onto my boobs...

I'm trying to decide if it would be worse if they were hot or cold...

:m_tongue:

well ya wouldnt go hungrey, think it might be a good idea, sitting her waiting for poser to render, "oh i feel rather peckish" .... leave the rest to imagination, lol

....... would get crumbs in the keyboard though, :)

Quote - I've got a horrible mental image now of jamming a couple of cornish pasties onto my boobs...

I'm trying to decide if it would be worse if they were hot or cold...

I'd recommend slighty warm with a good helping of baked beans :woot:

Don't forget to upload the video to YouTube :thumbupboth:

Quote - I'm trying to decide if it would be worse if they were hot or cold...

what the pasties or the boobies??

Quote - well ya wouldnt go hungrey

have you seen the size of 'em??

there are small nations that wouldn't go hungry for quite some time!!!

( i haven't actually seen the size of  'em (sighs) but that gag needed to have happened!!)

Quote -
As I said on the previous page, Giolon's first image clearly showed that the model was nude. But **his second thumb should have been allowed, because it wasn't clear whether the model was nude or not.
**
Is that what's causing the confusion? Maybe everyone missed me saying that?

Actually, I did miss that. Oops. 

Mike, you are in trouble now!!!! Go stand in the corner, I'll let you know when you can come out:)

heehee

Can I come out now? I really need to get ready for work. ;-)

Whoops,, sorry I forgot about leaving you in the corner...Yes you can come out now:) heehee

you left 'im in the corner for 2 minutes short of 24hrs there stacey!!

you are getting stricter you know.

(best not to mention that i spilt some coffee in the photoshop forum)