Would someone please explain the following:
I posted a render entitled "Too hot to Hunt". It was a fantasy piece that was marked for nudity when I posted it. There was no explicit sexual content- and the thumbnail was so small- even at 200 pix- that no physical detail could be seen.
 If a person's preferences are set to filter out nudity, and the piece is marked for nudity so that the render and thumbnail never show up, why would there be a problem that would require the render to be pulled until a new thumbnail is provided?
 If I had posted something pornagraphic or explicit, I could understand not showing the sexual content in the thumbnail, but under the current situation, it doesn't make sense to me why a fantasy piece is held to the same level of censorship.

Seems to me that the easy solution is create a thumbnail that doesnt have nudity in it. That shouldnt be hard. And I dont think I'd see it as "censorship", just good manners. Not everyone shares your view of what constitutes too much detail or lack thereof.

It's hard to argue with those who have the final say. I've had several works rejected for quite petty reasons IMO. When you're sacred of offending anyone, the bland take over.

At the top of the upload page, there is this notification, and it's been there since January of 2007:

ATTENTION: EFFECTIVE JANUARY 24, 2007, New Thumbnail Policy  

No Nudity/Violence in thumbnails, please read information at the above link

NOTE: These Are the Allowable Thumbnail Size:I

100 x 100 px (minimum)
200 x 200 px (maximum)
15kb (maximum, no minimum on the file size, just cant be larger than 15kb)
Nothing else will be acceptable.

I can understand that you're frustrated, but the policy was put in place because, well, even though many of us have nudity unchecked (so we can view nudity when we wish), going through the gallery with nudity in it presents a problem for many people.  There were a HUGE amount of thumbs that were just a tit shot or just a crotch shot, and, frankly, that made the gallery, on the whole, MUCH more amateur looking than is necessary.  Not to mention some of the thumbs were just crude and sometimes disgusting.  So, we changed the TOS to state that there can be no nudity and/or violence in thumbnails, and that the thumbnail cannot contain censor blots or clothing covering the body that isn't in the original piece, i.e. it must represent the main image. 
Also, we don't allow pornography on this site.  Nudity does not equal pornography, nor does sensuality.  All images posted to this site are held to the same standard, and we ask all artists comply with the TOS when posting their images.  It would be unfair of both our members AND our staff members to hold different genre's of artists to different standards.

>> There were a HUGE amount of thumbs that were just a tit shot or just a crotch shot, and, frankly, that made the gallery, on the whole, MUCH more amateur looking than is necessary.

Jen!!! How could you say that!!! It's ART, remember?????

Okay, running away and laughing before I get hit by a lot of people.....

*...There were a HUGE amount of thumbs that were just a tit shot or just a crotch shot...

*Then why doesn't the TOS single these angles out? In the case of my render, the thumbnail was a reduced verison of the entire render.
 Then too, No human textures were used- Textures resembling Zebras and Leopards were used.
  Guess I'm beating my head against the wall because I don't understand why my render has caused problems when none of the sexual overtones most people would protest against are present.

Quote - Seems to me that the easy solution is create a thumbnail that doesnt have nudity in it. That shouldnt be hard. And I dont think I'd see it as "censorship", just good manners. Not everyone shares your view of what constitutes too much detail or lack thereof.

That's what the "Filter images with nudity" gallery option should, IMO, be for.

I musta missed the squat shots in the thumbs :lol: gotta check that poser gallery more often :lol:

but anyway, one other bit of advice when posting images here (or any major 3d/art site):
put a big watermark with copyright and contact info over the image.  this will not only discourage
tubers, but it may be necessary if the upcoming orphan copyright bill is enacted (unlikely, but
possible) and if it passes the first court case (very unlikely IMVHO).

>> That's what the "Filter images with nudity" gallery option should, IMO, be for.

For the moment, it's not. Not to sound cold, but deal with it. It's not that big a deal to prepare a thumb that will be appropriate for the site's TOS. I mean, please, what, a minute of your time? C'mon, bud. Truly, is it that big a deal?

Quote - *...There were a HUGE amount of thumbs that were just a tit shot or just a crotch shot...

*Then why doesn't the TOS single these angles out? [/quote]

Because in cases like that there were abouyt two posts a day ofpeople arguing how their angle showed less nudity then someone else's which didn't seem to get pulled, and before too long admins and forums are bogged down with people arguing shades of gray of what constitutes appropriate nude angle vs. non approppriate nude angle. And everyone thinks their nude angle is not offensive, and someone else's is a lot worse. It becomes impossible to define it in a way that accomodates everyone's very subjective point of view.

Quote - For the moment, it's not. Not to sound cold, but deal with it. It's not that big a deal to prepare a thumb that will be appropriate for the site's TOS. I mean, please, what, a minute of your time? C'mon, bud. Truly, is it that big a deal?

I never said I had a problem with the TOS change, beyond feeling that the Filter Nudity option was more than sufficient for those who don't want to see nudity.

Is it that big of a deal to check that option if you don't want to see thumbnails with boobs and bits?

The thumbnail of a render is supposed to be representative of the render. I usually, simply reduce the render down in size to fit the thumbnail size.  Anything else would NOT be reprersentative of the render, but a chopped out block that shows nothing- which is what I had to send them this morning, because there was no way to create another thumbnail that would be representative of the render.
  In my view there was nothing wrong wirth the original thumbnail- and I have not yet received a satifactory explanation of what they beleived was wrong. Yes, the figures did not have clothes on- but the figures as rendered were not human.
 I am still waiting for a satisfactory explantion and for my render to be re-instated in my gallery.

one word-- PAYPAL

>> In my view there was nothing wrong wirth the original thumbnail-

And in the site administrators' view, there was. Again, not to sound cold, but it's their party, not yours. You're here as a guest. If you have issues with that idea, I earnestly suggest you put up your own site where you can throw as many boobies and bits to the wind as you wish without anyone saying you nay.

Again, I dont wish to sound cold, but that's how it is. And it's been like this for some time. Jen gave you some solid information regarding nudity in the gallery -- read it again if you have to.

Ok, how about this bit from the TOS Thumbnail Guidelines:

• No areola or nipple exposure*

The zebra characters had very human looking breasts, with nipples and areola.

And since this is considered nudity, then you have to go to the next bit of the thumbnail guidelines:

If you fail to upload a thumb, our system automatically generates a thumb for you, which is a miniature of your entire image. If your image contains nudity or violence, you must not use this feature. You must upload your own thumbnail which excludes the nudity/violence and is within the thumbnail size limits (minimum 100 x 100, maximum 200 x 200, max file size 15kb.

Ticking the nudity tag only covers those members who have those things filtered out in their gallery viewing options...if someone were to post an image that had nudity in it, and not tick the filter tag..then the nudity will show to those who are using the filter system, which then that becomes a moot point and quite useless....which is just another reason we do not allow nudity in thumbnails.

This way, everyone can see the nudity or not, whichever they choose. It might be frustrating, but it's the closest thing to fair viewing for everyone that we can get.

~Jani

There were a HUGE amount of thumbs that were just a tit shot or just a crotch shot, and, frankly, that made the gallery, on the whole, MUCH more amateur looking than is necessary.  <

Hey, how come those boob'n bits guys get all the criticism? Ass men like me used to constantly post thumbnails of butts all the time back in the good old days, but all anybody seems to remember is the "boobs and crotch," "tits and bits".

Dammit, we did our part in cheapening the whole gallery with our gratuitous bum shots, and we are sick and tired of being overlooked in these discussions.

The biggest reason, and the bottom line, LIKE IT OR NOT, is because the people who own the site and pay for it's maintainence have decided that this is the way they want it! These continual threads about "censorship" and "why can;t I" are all futile. If you don;t like the rules as they are presented then you have 3 options, find somewhere where you can present the pics as you want, start your own site and run it the way YOU want to, or concede to thewishes of the site owner/operators! That;s it, and the constant complaining and mile long threads aren;t going to change it.

Sorry to rant but I know if I owned a public gallery and set MY OWN rules, I'd eventually get tired of all the people that feel they are entittled to tell me just how I should be allowed to run it. Face it people as long as YOU AREN:T PAYING for membership here you really have not say in how the place is run, nor should you and frankly that's not an unreasonable situation.

mike

 Maybe they should just change the TOS so it explicitely says "NO NUDE HUMANOID FIGURES OF ANY RACE BREED OR LINEAGE"! That way we can stop hearing from people who think a face morph and leopard skin texture don't constitute nudity.

mdbruffy, what are you complaining about?

At least you got a second chance.

I once got banned from a writers' list because I correctly explained a copyright issue to a bunch of newbie writers. The explanation was not in agreement with the very mistaken theory of one of the influential members (that mailing your manuscript via the post office to yourself was the 100% guaranteed way to protect your copyright). He made a stink to the administrator. The administrator banned me.

In spite of complaints from other members on the list, I was not given a second chance.

Barring legislation that requires otherwise, whoever pays for, or otherwise makes available, the means of distribution of the message makes the rules. Period. No matter how arbitrary, unfair or wrong you and/or others may believe them to be.

Quote - mdbruffy, what are you complaining about?

At least you got a second chance.

I once got banned from a writers' list because I correctly explained a copyright issue to a bunch of newbie writers. The explanation was not in agreement with the very mistaken theory of one of the influential members (that mailing your manuscript via the post office to yourself was the 100% guaranteed way to protect your copyright). He made a stink to the administrator. The administrator banned me.

In spite of complaints from other members on the list, I was not given a second chance.

Barring legislation that requires otherwise, whoever pays for, or otherwise makes available, the means of distribution of the message makes the rules. Period. No matter how arbitrary, unfair or wrong you and/or others may believe them to be.

Aren't you supposed to be tilting at some windmills somewhere?!? Stop sounding so reasonable!!!   

Eh?

Z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z........:m_sleep:

Quote - I once got banned from a writers' list because I correctly explained a copyright issue to a bunch of newbie writers. The explanation was not in agreement with the very mistaken theory of one of the influential members (that mailing your manuscript via the post office to yourself was the 100% guaranteed way to protect your copyright). He made a stink to the administrator. The administrator banned me.

The idea of mailing something to yourself in order to establish copyright -- or to prove that you were the person who originally came up with the idea for an invention, etc. -- the 'mail it to yourself' scheme is a very old one.  Some time ago, one of my engineering professors told a class of us young fools to mail the plans for any item that we intended to submit to the patent office to ourselves.....he gave us that sage advice several decades ago.  I've also had a professional writer, who'd written screenplays for television: advise me to do the same thing with any stories that I might write.

Whether or not that's actually a good way to establish legitimate copyright I dunno -- I've never had a reason to try it.  Perhaps Poser character texture makers should start burning their newly-minted textures onto a CD or DVD; put the disk into a sealed envelope: and then mail it to themselves........  Or perhaps they should modernize the method and e-mail the textures to themselves as file attachments.  But of course: that would run the risk of hackers or of others snitching the textures from the e-mail........an then claiming them as their own work.......perhaps even sue the original creator for stealing 'their' work........

........but that's all chasing down a trail that I don't have any interest in following.  The main thing that gets my attention about your story is that while I can believe that merely arguing such a point might be enough to get you banned from some boards -- it's still a surprising action in its underlying pettiness.  Good thing that the mods around here aren't petty that way.

Quote - >There were a HUGE amount of thumbs that were just a tit shot or just a crotch shot, and, frankly, that made the gallery, on the whole, MUCH more amateur looking than is necessary.  <

Hey, how come those boob'n bits guys get all the criticism? Ass men like me used to constantly post thumbnails of butts all the time back in the good old days, but all anybody seems to remember is the "boobs and crotch," "tits and bits".

 

Dammit, we did our part in cheapening the whole gallery with our gratuitous bum shots, and we are sick and tired of being overlooked in these discussions.

Sorry.  Tit and crotch were the first that came to mind.  Ass only now came to mind, :lol:

Quote - The thumbnail of a render is supposed to be representative of the render. I usually, simply reduce the render down in size to fit the thumbnail size.  Anything else would NOT be reprersentative of the render, but a chopped out block that shows nothing- which is what I had to send them this morning, because there was no way to create another thumbnail that would be representative of the render.
  In my view there was nothing wrong wirth the original thumbnail- and I have not yet received a satifactory explanation of what they beleived was wrong. Yes, the figures did not have clothes on- but the figures as rendered were not human.
 I am still waiting for a satisfactory explantion and for my render to be re-instated in my gallery.

Ok, I'm gonna be blunt with this...
If you want us to seriously think that your character texture is zebra-like, then lose the human-style nipples.  Zebra (and other equine mammals) have completely different coloring and texture to their mammary glands than humans. 

I understand that you're going for a human/animal style representation, however, what you've achieved is, basically painting animal skin on a human body, then screamed bloody murder at us when we still see it as humanesque and expect it to follow the site's Terms of Service regarding humanoid characters. 
Please send the new thumbnail to the moderator that sent you the original email, or your image will drop out of the holding queue.  It will be automatically purged within 15 days of original holding placement if you don't.
And, as always, if you have problems with the situation, feel free to email admin@renderosity.com.  However, as you can see with Jani posting to the thread, admin is already aware of the situtation.

Jeni

so are baboon ass and crotch shots ok?

or is this just ok with zebras?

what if you have a baboon "grazing" on a zebra, as it were, this is ok because of the zebra?

To be quite honest, if the thumbnail and/or the image is completely tasteless and disgusting, we reserve the right to remove any content that we, as a team, deem unsuitable for the site (Yes, it's in the TOS). 

You guys, I know that some of you may think that we remove images willy-nilly, but we don't.  There have been times that, because it violated the TOS, I've had to remove remarkably extraordinary images.  I have been party to the banning of people I considered friends.  NO ONE is held to a different standard by us.  Everyone is held to the same TOS. 

as the newly elected spokesman of our baboon and zebra membership, we feel that our question have been overlooked, no-one ever takes us seriously, human this and human that...blah blah blah....baboons have a voice too and a right to an opinion!!

it is neither tasteless or disgusting that we demand a "baboon and pin-up" section, or even a "zebra and glamour" section, yes we like looking at other naked baboons, but we're not animals you know!!

.."what?"..........."oh!"...........apparently we are animals.....but still...

we are regular shoppers with the marketplace, and we are no different to a human shopper, i bet you couldn't even tell whether you have just been dealing with a baboon or a human shopper infact, zebras, well that's a different story!, as they are yet to invent a zebra friendly keyboard, they tend to make quite a few typos due to their clumsy hooves!!

so can we please get an answer to whether we are going to be allowed explicit content to be shown in the thumbnails ( hoovenails- for zebra section ) for the forth coming "Baboon and pinup"  section? as we are not humanesque will we be allowed to show our mammories please?

thank you for your prompt reply, not too prompt though please, as the zebras are slow readers.

Vince - you scare me sometimes :biggrin:

Do Iz need a nude kat tag fur dis?

In point of fact, I did send a new thumbnail- yesterday- and I'm still waiting for the render to be restored to my gallery.
 It llooks like everyone has some what strong feelings about this and there's no way everyone's going to reach a common ground.
 I've said what I wanted to say- and so has everyone else, so JenX, if you want to close this thread, feel free to do so.

Me thinks Vince really just wants to find out what all my new and improved "Jelly Pelter™" does, but is too shy to ask.

:lol:

Attached Link: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2006/08/25/the-myth-of-poor-mans-copyright/

p.s. IMVHO admins are the same everywhere.  they're more patient than most.  they won't
ban one for the opinion itself, but rather the way in which it's expressed: via repetitive posts
insisting the complainant is right, abusive wording in said complainant's posts, et al.

p.p.s. jumpy, that luminescent butterfly is fab!

Quote - p.s. IMVHO admins are the same everywhere.  they're more patient than most.  they won't
ban one for the opinion itself, but rather the way in which it's expressed: via repetitive posts
insisting the complainant is right, by use of abusive wording in said complainant's posts, et al.

Well said.

There are ways of debating a point -- and doing so with strength and passion -- without resorting to desperation tactics such as name-calling and questioning people's motives for saying what they've said.  Both tactics are commonplace in forums & in the world at large......but both tactics -- even when they seem to 'work' (which can happen with people who are easily intimidated or who are excessively sensitive) -- even when such tactics "work": they don't actually win.  They merely give the illusion of winning -- like finding fool's gold mixed into the mud.

I've never been impressed by endless strings of expletives wrapped together into an explosive bundle & then thrown in the general direction of an opponent as a debating tactic.  The ranting fool who stands and shouts at passerby on any downtown street corner can do the same -- and just as effectively.

It's a good thing that nobody's tried to do that in this thread.

Miss Nancy, my post to the writers' list in question was quite polite, did not flame, did not contain any expletives, was not abusive, etc., etc.

I agree with Xenophonz that it was unusually petty of the admin to ban me, but people are sometimes petty as we all know, and I have never before or since been banned from any such list, or otherwise. But I do think I might have said the other person was mistaken, and I guess he thought that was just too harsh a tone ...

One of the members on the list emailed me later and said that she'd discovered early on that virtually everyone on the list was hypersensitive to any critique of their work. She said they were the "teddy bear and chocolate candy" crowd, whatever that meant.

Anyway, aside from what one chooses to believe about how I may or may not have expressed my opinion, the main point I was making was that the admin makes the decision and it doesn't much matter whether it is wrong or right, fair or unfair, or whether you like it or not, so long as the admin is determined to stick by the decision -- as she was in this case.

Quote - Aren't you supposed to be tilting at some windmills somewhere?!? Stop sounding so reasonable!!!   

In a world in which reason seems, so often, to hold so little sway, perhaps the reasonable are tilting at windmills ...

The windmills in my region tend to be of the tall, skinny supporting framework-tower variety: with old, rusty, creaky rotating (or not) metal blades on top.  The windmills usually don't work, and they probably haven't actually been used for any real purpose since 1935 -- so they're not worth the bother of tilting at.  Besides -- tilt at one, and it might fall over and kill a cow.  Or worse yet: land on top of the farmer's tractor.  He might get upset about that.

I've driven through the 'windmill forests' outside of LA.  Now that would be a challenge.........but it might be a worthwhile tilting match, though.  Knock some of those 'environmentally-friendly' windmills over, and you could possibly end up saving the lives of some of the endangered birds which the windmills kill on a regular basis -- while producing very little power in a costly, inefficient way: that'll never amount to anything other than PR -- or to serve propaganda purposes.

But that's a different sort of windmill.  OT to this OT thread.

Oh, I just noticed that I didn't click the nudity tag for the cat butt picture... and I meant to.

Bad Kitteh!

Quote - Bad Kitteh!

moi?   neverrrrrrrr.
I better click on the language advisory too.... :lol:

mdbruffy - If you don't see your image within the next 12 hours, please feel free to re-email it to me at JenX@Renderosity.com, and I'll take care of it. Jeni Oh, as for the animal pics...no, no nudity tag is needed. HOWEVER, like I stated, if they're unsuitable for the site in any way, after discussion with the team, it may be removed. Now, before there is some silly yet pointed argument about being speciesist, let me state that I have YET to see a wild animal cover themself with clothing.

Quote - In point of fact, I did send a new thumbnail- yesterday- and I'm still waiting for the render to be restored to my gallery.
 It llooks like everyone has some what strong feelings about this and there's no way everyone's going to reach a common ground.
 I've said what I wanted to say- and so has everyone else, so JenX, if you want to close this thread, feel free to do so.

Flicks whipped cream at the kitty :lol:

whipped cream... yummmmm
Kitty sits and waits with mouth open
splat

I had issues with this policy when it was new also - and still do, but it's a moot point since they have been final for quite a long time now.  You know something, I've never once had an image pulled from the gallery, because I follow the rule.  If you dance around it and skirt the edge, sometimes you will fall off.

Quote -   If you dance around it and skirt the edge, sometimes you will fall off.

An apt quote if I ever heard one.

To be perfectly honest, I truly love pieces that push it to the edge without going over the edge.  I always have, and always will.  There are a LOT of members who, before posting a piece, will email one of us on staff and ask "Is this too much?"  That sort of thing is open to anyone who wants to use it.  We have super easy email addresses (staffperson'susername@Renderosity.com), and we're very VERY reachable at them.  I list my IM's on my contact page (yeah, I know, I just shot myself in the foot, didn't I? :lol:)  If you ever have a "Hey, would I be over the edge if I did this..?" kind of question, feel free to ask.  I'd MUCH rather go that route than have to pull an image, for  whatever reason.  I hate having to pull images, period.  Time, effort, and love goes into all images, and that's plain obvious.  I'd much rather spend time revamping the Poser Sub-Community page, coming up with more and better challenge ideas, checking out freebies, and maybe even reviving some of the other stuff we used to do (interviewing freebie creators, Staff Picks of the Week, etc.). 

Quote -  Maybe they should just change the TOS so it explicitely says "NO NUDE HUMANOID FIGURES OF ANY RACE BREED OR LINEAGE"! That way we can stop hearing from people who think a face morph and leopard skin texture don't constitute nudity.

Robots? 

Robots should be banned in any case, as they are tempting so many to abandon their mates and live their lives in sin.

(Oh, wait a sec. That's not going to happen for another decade or two ... kinda forgot everyone doesn't have a time machine ... and, really, I never should've mentioned it ... nevermind.)

When you have one that shows nipple, then yes!

15 Okays den. Kittehs, u keeps praysin da Ceiling Cat, and tells othar kittehs u frindz wit him. 

16 Dont furget! U gotta do niec tings fur othar kittehs, and share ur cheezburgers and stufz wit kittehz who have nun. Dis maeks Ceiling Cat real happys. 

• Hebrews 13:15-16

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LOLCat_Bible_Translation_Project

Quote - one word-- PAYPAL

Huh?

What does PayPal have to do with Renderosity "censoring" thumbnail images?
First, as it's been stated so often, this is Renderosity's site and they can set any rules that they feel like. If they don't want nudity in the thumbnails, then so be it: either follow their rules or don't post.

Second, PayPal has nothing to do with the policies in Renderosity's galleries. The rumor is that Renderosity changed the policies of the marketplace so no nudity was shown in the thumbnail or first sales image.
Why would PayPal care about nudity in an image gallery? I'm sure there are plenty of sites (both artistic and adult) which contain nudity... yet PayPal processes payments for those sites.

And why is the "poor man's copyright" myth still going around in 2008?
From Snopes, the Urban Legends Reference Pages:
"Mailing one's works to oneself and keeping the unopened, postmarked envelope as proof of right of ownership to them (a practice known as the "poor man's copyright") has no substantive legal effect in the U.S. [The site has] yet to locate a case of its use where an author's copyright was established and successfully defended in a court of law by this method."

Their page is dated 9 August 2005, so this issue was debunked by them almost three years ago.

From the US Copyright Office. (It can't get more official than this!)
"The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a “poor man’s copyright.” There is no provision in the copyright law regarding any such type of protection, and it is not a substitute for registration."

And these are just 2 examples I found in a few minutes of searching. Imagine what can be found if someone uses Google instead of blindly accepting "urban legends"! ;)

Quote - And why is the "poor man's copyright" myth still going around in 2008?

Actually, FWIW, the ban from the writers list of which I was speaking, i.e., ...

Quote - I once got banned from a writers' list because I correctly explained a copyright issue to a bunch of newbie writers.

... was probably about 5 years ago. Since I sometimes have trouble remembering what happened last week, I guess it made an impression. :unsure: