Hi all, Now let me preface these comments by saying this is a non US citizen speaking. But US laws often have a knock-on effect in the rest of the world. Renderosity have been faced with a problem, namely the forth coming legal case which will determine US law on Child Pornography and how that law is applied to images such as those created by Poser. I personally think their initial reaction was not well thought out and would like to see some changes to their response. But, lets be in no doubt, respond they must. I applaud them for realising this. If the law remains substantially unchanged, then that response may be simply; OK lets keep things as they are. If the law is changed so that it deals harshly with Poser created images then we (or at least US citizens, initially) may have to be extremely careful regarding what we do with Poser. So instead of calling each other names and casting sticky brown stuff at each other. May I suggest that all you US citizens send e-mails to your Senators/Representatives/whatever. Show the people who might make a difference to this ruling, that the Poser Community is not a hot bed of Child Pornography, so that they don't over react. Perhaps an organised response would be a good idea. Maybe someone on the Renderosity Staff could organise something there. If Poser gets associated with CP in the minds of the public we can kiss goodbye to the healthy growing Community we have now. Curious Labs and DAZ3D must be very concerned over this issue. They may be willing to put up a bit of cash to produce a good legal case to support our case. Whatever, lets not sit around squabbling amongst ourselves whilst the Justice Department passes Laws which might spoil our Community. Whichever side of the fence you sit on these issues, let your constitutional representative know how you feel, lest they make their decisions in ignorance or based on the opinion of someone who doesn't know the difference between a Joint Parameter and a Texture Map. IsaacNewton

As an outsider (artist by hobby only) would like to point out another community (little if at all known here) that has flourished for decades against adversed odds. The USPA (United States Parachute Association, we (USPA) have servived being regulated by the FAA and others by only one means, we 'regulate ourselves'. When a couple plane crashes in the early 1990's almost lost our right to continue being an indepent, self-regulated society it was "us" the skydivers who made changes to satisfy those who sought to regulate us. I know this is rather off-topic but open your minds for a moment, if you don't want others making your rules then you have to make the rules yourself. As for CP, well that's just plain sick wether it's photos or "animated" pics. BUT this issue of CP MUST be defined. As in the case of poor Thorne, that is just plain rediculas as 'that' is not porn nor "children". It's history, mythology, fantasy, and art. And not at all 'ill-taste' except to ones with already warped minds. Is destroying all of Van Gue's (sorry bout the spelling) or repainting the 16th Chaple or burning all the work of famous artist and writer's work going to stop CP, NO! There is No Relationship!. But, yes, I think the 3D art community does need to defend agianst those who would consider using such things as Poser, etc from doing 'animated' versions of CP. The problem I see here is that you all seem to regulate this already. I have yet to see any sick-o's using these fine models to depict children in porn type sick images (thankfully) but YES, we need the base naked models to creat the final art outcome. It's a strange and twisted world we have ALL come to but to ban art and take away the "tools" that make art will only have disasterous outcomes. And money greedy, single-minded lawyers and 'sue-happy' individuales don't make things any easier. It will take the communities as a whole to patrol against any such perpetrators and crusify them when found, BUT at the same time Do NOT, and I repeat DO NOT turn it into a "witch-hunt" where inocent folk like Thorne become victems. That too will only lead down a road of disaster.

I don't see much muck slinging amongst those posting on Thorne's decision to tone things down a bit. Mostly lamenting. There have been some really ugly tantrums thrown here in the past ,,, but nothing in the last days is either irresponsible or irrational ... and, surprisingly, fewer disagreements that would otherwise be heard. The impact of the US Court's interpretations on the case of virtual porn will impact on international relations. And on the sanctity of the net.. already the apple in NSA and the FBI's eye.

Huolong, You're right, that thread has been fairly well controlled but the one on CP in the Complaint forum certainly hasn't. Still igohigh (now I understand the name), has made an important point. If we want to continue as we are then we must regulate our selves, and be seen to do so. That means having agreed guidelines in place. Perhaps someone would like to draw up a draft set of guidlines relating to nudity so that we can debate them. Isaac

I like what both igohigh and Isaac are saying here. That's been the outlook of a few of us netizens for years that we have to regulate ourselves if we don't want outside agencies doing it. Look what happens everytime the gov [any gov] gets involved in internet regulation. Tons of conflicting and ultimately unenforceable rulings, or else draconian measures. Considering I'm pretty libertine on nudity issues, I doubt I have any business being involved in the drafting. But, I'll be happy to help debate them. ;]

Its all very subjective but I think you should be careful with what types of images you create or at least "publish" in a web forum. or on a web site. anyone who belives that we have unlimited freedom of expression here in the U.S. is WAY out of touch with reality. I dont know thorne and frankly his work is not my particular taste but it seems that some one or group has spooked him quite effectively to have him withdraw his contraversial imagery. as far as poser or other 3D programs that can make images of anatomically correct people being somehow "threatened" by legislation, that is UTTER nonsense!! they would have to ban paper and pencils first.

Wolf359, I'm not sure if you've read the posts in the Complaints Forum but there is US legislation forthcoming which may affect us all in the long run, if only by Poser getting a bad reputation. None of us want that, so lets come up with an alternative; self regulation. Anyone know if Renderosity staff are already working on this question? Anyone know what CuriousLabs or DAZ3d are doing about it? Isaac

The current assault on the Freedom of Expression is such that the defense of that Freedom is equated with the defense of Child Pornography which very few people are inclined to do. Particularly with 15 years in the slammer for mere possession of tainted imagery. Few commercial firms are willing to run the risk of pre-emptive seizure of their assets under RICO (the federal law intended to strip drug dealers of assets). Few commercial firms or prominent citizens are going to risk the wrath of the Righteous Right, the Politically Correct, and the Anti-Globalization crowd over such an issue. There are private citizens who are hacking into other private citizen's PCs with programs that seek out CP and transmit copies of such to law enforcement agencies. I don't see this site or any of the major firms going out on a limb in the name of perversity against the forces of decency.

Those tactics have been used against other freedoms also. Not just artistic expression. It's a convenient ploy to try and put your opponents in the position of trying to defend something without looking like they're defending something loathsome that's not really connected. An "are you still beating your wife?" question at it's finest, and just as hard to answer or refute.

Huolong, I agree with you and I am somewhat surprised that you should think that "defense of Child Pornography" was or is my intention. Perhaps I can illustrate that by starting the ball rolling with an introduction to a set of guidelines and the first of those guidelines. I would be surprised if anyone disagrees with the sentiments behind what follows, but you may think the wording or details could be improved. You may think that I have not gone far enough. Ok, this is only the first guideline and only a draft. Please let me know what you would change and what you would add. Guidelines for posting of acceptable computer generated images. Indtroduction Computer generated images made by programs such as Poser (CuriousLabs) can appear to be very life-like. The following guidelines exist to maintain a level of decency in these images that is within the Law and within standards acceptable to Society in general. It must be understood that no actual persons, other than the artist, are involved in the creation of such images. Therefore, terms such as "age", "child" and "individual" should be understood in the context of their creation from "polygon meshes" and "textures". They are virtual objects and not real people. Guidelines. 1) Images should not show: (a) individuals below the age of majority (18 years old)engaged in explicit sexual activity, individually, with other persons or with animals, (b) individuals below the age of majority (18 years old) bound and/or gagged in a sexual context, (c) individuals below the age of majority (18 years old) tortured or otherwise physically abused in a sexual context, (d) explicit views of the pubic area of individuals below the age of majority (18 years old) in a sexual context. So, what do you think? Isaac

I do not think, nor did I intend to imply that Isaac was acting in the defense of CP. I mean that few people are willing to do so as it is dangerous to do so, commercially and legally. My personal position regarding CP is that it's ban hides the crime of child abuse. Child abuse is the real problem, not it's imagery. Child abuse is the root of all evil. More so than greed, avarice, money (or it's lack), intolerance, and stupidity ... combined. Self site regulation for any reason whatever is as much a part of the freedom of expression as is any form of expression. I am opposed to any restriction of that freedom imposed through the use of the power of the state except as described in civil law regarding libel and slander.

OK Huolong, I think we're on the same wavelength. That is why, before anyone asks) I restricted my guideline to "in a sexual" context. Since some people may want to post images such as physical child abuse (or at least the result of it) as a means of publicsing the crime. I only wish we could have the same view on CP, I have heard it said before that CP is a scene of crime evidence. However, it seems that the US Justice Department has a single track mind on this issue, for example they don't seem to kick up too much of a fuss about how many kids get their brains blown out every day in the US. Therefore, we have to at least control the images we post which contain sexual conotations. Perhaps lascivious and lewd are better words to use? What do you think? Are there better phrases to use in the draft proposed guidelines? Isaac

Re: Post #10. I can't fault [so far] what you're proposing, Issac... but this whole line of endeavor, and the underlying premises behind the rulings that are provoking us to have to respond to them, are leaving me with a distinctly disquieted feeling. There is a very large part of me that keeps saying quietly in the back of my mind: "It's a 3D frigging mesh - it has no damn age or sexuality." Yeah, I know... that's a rational voice, and what we're dealing with isn't a rational argument or situation. Still... it leaves me feeling faintly ridiculuous. Keep having the rude thought: "If these people see poser images as provocative, what the hell would they think if they saw H.R. Geiger's collected works?" I think you have a good start, Issac. And I think I'll come back to this if/when I can do so without a rude part of me wanting to snicker loudly at the concept of us having to do it.

Your guidelines are a personal and commercial decision for the conduct of your own personal and commercial life. That's your business. If others want to take their business elsewhere...that's their business. Isaac: The most exciting time in our lives occurs from the onset of puberty, well before the age of 18. The most beautiful and magical times occur in those first moments when those yucky, gangly boys/girls (circle one or more), suddenly take on mystical powers. Every curve and shape of the body becomes exalted unlike anything else during those early years. Romeo and Juliet were teenagers. The average age of the Roman citizen was 24 ... 18 was pretty advanced. The characters in most Japanese Anime and Manga are high schoolers. An effective ban on images of under 18 characters would ban most of Japanese imagery in paper, film, and video. Banning the images of those magical first moments is, to me, like stepping on a flower. And crushing it.

Huolong, You don't seem to have read anything I've said to you. I agree with you that childhood is a truely magical time. Juliette was probably not much more than 12 years old at the beginning of the story. A Roman was declared legally adult at 14. I love Anime and Manga. I would hate to see a ban on images of under 18's. The naked youthful figure is intrinsically beautiful. Therefore, I want to protect our right to post and see such images!!! Therefore, I would like us as a community to adopt a set of guidelines in the hope that the US Justice Department will have less amunition to use in their attack on our rights. Don't forget, Renderosity only have the power to prevent us posting the images we love, at this site. The US Government may get the right, and will use it, to come knocking at your door (in the US anyway) to permanently remove those images and hand out a long stay in the slammer! I believe we are on the same side here! Can you make any useful modifications to the guidelines. Are they too stringent, do you think? Is there anything which should be added? Isaac

issacnewton Wrote: " I'm not sure if you've read the posts in the Complaints Forum but there is US legislation forthcoming which may affect us all in the long run, if only by Poser getting a bad reputation" No amount of pending legislation is even necessary to give poser a Bad reputaion, that has been accomplished quit handily by members of its the user base. Have you looked around the galleries Here?? Poser is not taken seriously by my fellow lightwave and cinema owners because of its poor rendering and texturing mapping. and any layperson that should stumble upon the Galleries or Marketplace would understandibly leave with the impression that this application was created primarily to do nude or seminude renders of women and pre-pubescent females. weather deserved or not posers reputation has been sullied long ago. and asking people to Police themselves is an exercise in futility in my opinion. equally futile would be asking web boards like renderosity to establish some "decency standard" which of course would be highly subjective and the subject of endless and tedious debate.

You know kids are only a collection of simple cells much as geometry is ultimately only 1 and 0s. It's all in what you do with them. Evil is Evil. Using children, even ones made of 1 and 0s is evil. No one ever had the right to yell Fire in a theater.

So, jamball77, do I take it that you feel the guidelines suggested in post #10 are too lenient? If so, can you suggest alternative wording or possible additions? Isaac