Hi,

i had been reading throuhg the TOS and i wonder if someone pointing a gun to an other character would fall under the restriction of violence on your TOS for gallery submissions?

I ask due to my Digital Comic i am uploading here having scene now coming up with this..?

Thanks for your help

Oliver

Mearly 'pointing' a gun is not considered violence..if  you are unsure about the image, feel free to send it to admin@renderosity.com or myself at jumpstartme2@renderosity.com and we can advise you.

Thanks!

Jani

thanks, i just send you an email. thanks for your help.

Interesting question. While I would not consider it violence, I have seen many images that I neither consider violent or nude flagged for either.  In the end I feel it is a matter of personal opinion, and many error on the side of caution.  Many of my works I do not Upload as I know full well they would constitue violent content, though I feel with a warning flag it should be fine, I just do not feel like dealing with the possible headaches it may entail.

On the TOU I see so many violations that I just don't care. I rarely post anymore because of this. One TOU says no harming or maiming, Killing of animals.... then you see a blood soaked creature stabbed, slain or hacked to bits with a sword... all acceptable FANTASY ART... yet for some their images remain unmolested or removed. For others... a swift reprimand and removal. So why bother.

Nudity in thumbnails is ALL OVER THE GALLERIES!!! Yet.... it seems to be overlooked! We are not talking about the old pics and the new thumb rules (*ad nauseum), but current thumbs on the first couple of pages of the gallery. I see it constantly. But i am not a mod or the site police.

So I also asked about creature violence, and adding blood to the image in PS... and
one of the mods offered the same thing that Jani offerred (*I know Jani keeps her promises...) BUT the other mod did not and as a result I just did not post the pic. *sigh Just ignore this rant, but I had to say it... :(

Ariana

Don't you point guns at people in real life? It's not violent it's COOL.

Quote - Don't you point guns at people in real life? It's not violent it's COOL.

I point guns at people in real life all the time - and then I hit them over the head with anvils and feed them dynamite sandwiches. It is cool. Nothing violent about it, nope.

Pointing a gun is now so common that some people dont even see the violence in it. It is amazing (and sad) how some people reached this point.

*"The New HD Toaster from Wamco toasts bread more evenly and acurately than Standard Toasters. Take advantage of the FULL resolution of your bread and try one today, because if your toast isn't in High Definition, you are not getting the most of your toast!"

*Truer words were never spoken!

Just trying to be a bit more upbeat today! :) And to quote Billy Idol... "...you don't need a gun"

HugZ!
Ariana

Quote - Pointing a gun is now so common that some people dont even see the violence in it. It is amazing (and sad) how some people reached this point.

It wasn't that I don't see the violent intention in the act if done in real life, my point was more that for purposes of an image, simply brandishing a weapon (gun, sword, toaster overn, PU36 Explosive Space Modulator, Small woodland creatures, etc...) isn't really violent, especially from a point of view of the TOS.  It is certainly not comperable to pictures depicting dismembered entities (people, dragons, monsters, animals, cartoon characters, small woodland creatures, etc...) - and there are dozens of such images in the galleries, many not even flagged.  As was mentioned already, it's as if by not showing the actual act that lead to the outcome it's Ok, whereas, I sincerely feel that the whole purpose of a violence filter would be to shield people from such gory images.  As I feel regarding nudity, I myself do not have a problem with some amount of violence in an image, if handled tastefully, and artisticly, and is a nescessary part of a larger idea.  I generally don't care for bloodbath imagery, or imagery that are violent just for the sake of being violent.

The bigger issue becomes where to draw the line.  A depiction of two martial artists, or even boxers engaged in a fight can be represented quite artisticly and appealing if handled right, but it is violence by the terms of the TOS.  Do we then extend it to remove any images that may be perceived to have violent implications - i.e. any image that depicts a weapon, or someone in fighting apparel, etc?  I think that is beyond the scope of the TOS rules on violence, and in that context I do not perceive it as violent.

One point here... art should never be censored by anyone. Classic imagery of Cherubs, Slaying a dragon, even Humans being shot (*especially in the context of street art or protest/revolutinary images), has an important place in society. Much of art is a way for the illiterate to see and understand things that otherwise they might not. It allows one to come to their own decisions on events past and present, real or imaginary. And often it can mislead (*as in art used as propaganda). But you must allow it to flourish and grow for civilization to be truly free and intelligent.

Art makes a statement about societal issues. Tells stories of mystery, bravery and magic. Tragedy, miscarriages of justice, and the agony that comes with seeing the world for the reallity it is! Would you censor Michaelangelo? Leonardo, Van Gogh or Giger???  Art depicts many things, it also tells truisms, and conveys outrage or the frustration of repression. Often these images are raw and brutal, like life, and have violence in them as a way to convey that life is raw and brutal!
You cannot whitewash art! Or life...

Art is a vital necessity of any genre or age. Like music. When you seek to "clean it up", or make it "acceptable", it cheats the artist, the viewer and society. Death, violence, crimes against humanity... to ignore and disallow these in artistic imagery is to actually turn a blind eye to the world's reality. What about the documentary "The Cove"? About the cruelty to dolphins? What if someone did a picture here that depicted this tragedy? To teach the illiterate that does not or is not aware of this crime against mother nature, our planet, her creatures??? Would that deserve to be censored? Because some do not want to see the truth? If the movie industry allowed these rules many would never have seen this travesty! Would that be GOOD??? 

Art is freedom of expression on every level. Often done on behalf of those who cannot speak out for themselves, say like Dolphins! Children in Somalia, or People fighting for human rights in China. Did someone actually say do not show President Kennedy's assasination, Tiananmen Square, or Kent State because it will offend the conservatives at home? In it's own sad way, it is art, it conveys an image on film of the history of our society. Art is supposed to do this.

The limits placed on art by anyone anywhere, is actually saying unless it is acceptable to a few, it should be denied.

~Ariana~

art is for the illiterate masses - great way to degrade art in it's entirety, and all artists.

OMGDDSS! get a grip, the Catholic Church used Art to convey the story of the bible 100's of years before I ever said anything, specifically to instruct the illiterate masses! Cave people used art to teach the people how to hunt and worship the unknown! I mentioned illiteracy as a form of non-educated in certain things that surround them. And that because visual cues often help many understand better the import of a given issue.

Art should make an impression and have impact on anyone viewing it. Weither it is the image's beauty, or the image's shock value. It plays an important part in delivering it's message.

If you want to quote me, do so accurately! "Much of art is a way for the illiterate to see and understand things that otherwise they might not." That is what I said... Also "Illiterate" can also refer to the ignorant of what is going on right under their noses.
 
**il·lit·er·ate **** **
–adjective
1. unable to read and write: an illiterate group.
2. having or demonstrating very little or no education.
3. showing lack of culture, esp. in language and literature.
4. displaying a marked lack of knowledge in a particular
field: "He is musically illiterate."
–noun
5. an illiterate person.

If you like art being censored, well you are entitled to your opinion... I actually speak for all artists and art lovers when I defend not having censorship. The freedom to create is essential to a healthy society.

Ariana

and this is a private site that can whatever rules they want, the same as any other gallery. which means yes. they can censor whatever they want on their site as they wish.

end of story, line and paper. if you don't like it, start your own website. QED.

and don't bother blasting me.. just pointing out Reality.

now. what shall we do with this here Dead Horse?

I don't care what you do with the pony... :)

I stand by my views, and will speak them as I see fit. Censorship is just wrong. I, as an artist, will always fight for your rights as well as my own. And you are welcome too. ;)

Ariana 

no. please never fight on my behalf. I beg you.

*Sorry you're part and parcel! :) Like it or not I do be your defender to artistic expression... ;)

Ariana 

no. really I mean it. please do not fight on my behalf. I'd rather lose. and stop winking. I mean it. do fight on my behalf in any matter. I'd rather lose.

;) Sorry I got a twitch... ;)

lol! ;)
Ariana

Quote - OMGDDSS! get a grip

You get a grip and stop over-reacting. Art has existed LOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNGGGG before the catholic church and exists for a variety of different reasons. To sum it up and simplify it as being for the illiterate masses is degrading and derrogatory toward all art and artists. Further by taking one or two aspects something can be used for and making a non-limitting statement that that is all it is used for or it's only purpose is narrow minded, short sighted, and rather crude.  It would be like saying that internet forums are for rude and argumentative people to troll.

 Worse even, to put words in my mouth because I point out a degrading comment just shows poor character.  Where did I say I agree with cencorship? Anywhere? No.

Also where did I quote you? I didn't I parphrased, quite accurately, what was said. You even said it agin in the current reply and tried to justify it... At least i didnt put words in your mouth.

I don't look at the violent stuff here, but it's not constructive to tell somebody to leave if they don't agree with one.  it's analogous to telling one to stay out of this thread if one doesn't agree with the opinions expressed herein.  personally I'm not defensive about whether art is for illiterates.  it's not only for illiterates, but for anyone else who looks at it.

Come on peoples..let's calm down