It is a real can of worms inshaala :(  It opens up a host of issues:

If a photographer is required to supply a "model release" and "Photo-ID" to post an image of an identifiable/recognisable person(s) on Renderosity, why is the same not required on Renderosity of an artistic image representing an identifiable/recognisable person(s)? Why should there be any distinction between the works of a photographer and those of an "artist"? Surely, an artist can supply similar evidence for any identifiable/recognisable person(s).

If an  artistic image of a person(s) is to remain exempt from the rule requiring permission to post. If a photographer posts a manipulated image of person(s) at what point would it be deemed "artistic", rather than "photographic"? Which category of TOS rule applies to the image? If Renderosity decide that this will be a Renderosity decision, will they start applying a "Renderosity approved" statement or symbol to approved images, to avoid being inundated with queries/complaints.

I'm not sure from the TOS statement, to whom does the "Photo-ID" have to belong, the photographer or the model? Can Renderosity clarify the statement please? If the "Photo-ID" is required of the model, what forms of "Photo-ID" are deemed acceptable and how can this be obtained for posting of images of other peoples babies and children?

I don't see how this TOS policy is "workable" for either Renderosity or the member photographers. Will this lead ultimately to a blanket ban on Renderosity of any photographic image of identifiable/recognisable person(s) unless: it is a self-portrait; pictures of our own children; or images where the person(s) contained therein are so small that facial features cannot be determined?