The staff is still trying to figure out where they stand on "child nudity" and it seems like they're putting the kibosh on a lot of things, even if it's really not needed. Just ride it out a little while longer till they all have one "rule" to follow and see what comes of it.

rampant political corectness rears it's myopic head even here from time to time. What? are we to be accused now of corrupt thoughts about computer generated mythalogical creatures? I saw the Faries book just the other day at barnes and nobel shall we picket them over that too. By the way your image is quite nice... What i wouldnt like to... Oh sorry. Bad bill! Bad bad bill!! never mind ;)

Hm. Ok, but how hard is it to come up with a clear policy? People have been asking for this for a LONG time, yet this issue keeps popping up. It's ridiculous. Let's see how long my NEW image lasts...

w--you are a troubled yet funny man. Y'know, the irony here is almost overwhelming. Or is it just me?

The US supreme court recently ruled digital pics of nude kids is not pornographic. Ron

Basically. But that may not be true in more repressed, hysterical places like the U.K., which is where this particular mod's email originated from.

Jeepers, that's a fairy, not a kid!

Well fairy-porn is illegal in 14 countries. Lucky there wasn't an ogre in the pic with her, then they'dve really socked it to ya.

martian, the distinction is that this isn't porn, by any even remotely rational interpretation. Ogre? What kind of ogre?

Yep, its a fairy all right. Since when is a fairy, and one that clearly has breasts, a "child"?

Hmmm...now which product might that be Mosca? We'd better get our torches and be sure all the fairies are pulled from the store right away since fairies violate the TOS. Say....aren't there some baby textures in there too? I know I've seen several for the preteen Daz figures, complete with nude pics of the products in use! We'd better be sure all that stuff is pulled too. After all, textures are naked you know so Renderosity is profiting from child porn smut by having them in its stores.

Bingo.

I'm just a hobbist and not involved in the running of the place at all, but I think the problem here seems to reek of sheer hypocrisy. They shouldn't be banning it anyway since it's not at all pornographic.('specially in light of recent rulings.) But for God's sake, if they ARE gonna ban it, they SURE AS HELL shouldn't be selling it!!! Beav(one out-in-the-sticks Hoosier opinion) Nie image btw...hubbahubba, right Bill??...lol

hmmm, they sell the figure but call it child porn when you use it? Guess they only allow child porn if they make a buck from it then. NW316

I don't see any sexual depiction here. To risk repetitiveness, Nude is not pornographic! Art that shows sexual activity may be considered porn, but not just nude. Jeez, you can't even see the nether bits.

Here's the code.. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=18&sec=2252 I don't know of any cases where that law has been applied to poser images, but quite frankly, the code is broad enough to allow a prosecutor to nail even cartoons of naked kids. Certainly poser has more quality capability than that. And, its not necessary to be involved in commerce or transportation (though posting an image for download would be a type of transportation). To be on the safe side, the debate will likely end in not allowing any image that even brushed close to that code.

I think that is the law the US Supreme Court over-ruled.

"To be on the safe side, the debate will likely end in not allowing any image that even brushed close to that code."

Right, even though the law was overturned, when the new one is instituted (I shudder at the thought), I wouldn't be surprised if the policy here was a "no nonsense" sort of policy that immediately gets anything that even LOOKS like it may have a nude "child" in it deleted.

If that's the case, and I hope it's not because I like to think the admins aren't that crazy, I can see problems with having Vicki in an image naked. Who is to say how "old" she is? And it's been mentioned before, but as soon as you use one of the smaller breast dials, you're inviting yourself into interpretation that she's young. Granted, not all of the time, but does anyone see where I'm going?

We're going to need clearly defined rules (not that I think we're not responsible enough, but it's a requirement to cover their behinds, I think), and I hope they don't go overboard. The last thing we need is to start deleting images of faeries. Oops, wait, that's already happened.

The Supreme Court just ruled that "community standards" can't be ignored when the ACLU tried to prove that censorship of images of nude children is a violation of free speech, and the Supreme Court sent such a case back to a lower court for review on those grounds. If the "community standards" of 'rosity are determined by a group of administrators, then they will eventually have to be consistent with each other, which will probably require them to either allow or ban all nudity, unless they develop specific standards that aren't secret, arbitrary and capricious.

Hehehee, the code is current and not overturned. Not by a longshot. But it has to be sexually explicit images. Not all images fit in that category. Personally, I would not find any of the above images to be sexually explicit in the context of general computer art, but change the context and load those on the nasty sites and it would be.

I think what the Supreme Court actually ruled in the first place was that nudity wasn't obscene. Then, the prosecutors got around that in the case of children because the state has an overriding duty to protect the children involved. Then...recently...the Supreme Court said that was ok...but that since no real children are involved in these images, they are ok, because the state has no burden of protection for digitally created characters. And I believe that's where it stands now. Beav

...I'd add that I find it strange that a group of people supposedly running a community of artists would take a position farther to the right than the law on something like this....go figure...maybe outta fear I suppose...but this is just the forum that I'd think would be objecting to any censorship in protection of its artists.. Again..just Beav spoutin' off Beav

Mosca-a Clear Policy: if the Fairy Felches it should be taboo. :) :) :) ANYBODY GOT A POSABLE SILLY STRAW?

Just my two pennyworth, I wasn't aware that I lived in a repressed and hysterical place. We have our self righteous types like any other country, but don't think this is typical.

Reminds me of a something that happened abt 15 years ago to a co-worker who took his 2y old granddaughter to the beach, think it was in the NY area. He was approached by 2 policemen who asked him whether the semi dressed child was a boy or a girl then fined him because she wasn't wearing a bikinitop.

Isn't it too bad that stupidity isn't against the law???

I hate to say this BUT ---If you do not know what the rule is yet, then there is no rule in place yet. The word "you" referring to the moderators of said gallery. Or is that all just too complex? Emily

as I've said before I agree totally with getting rid of child porn, but digitized pictures like mosca's up there at the top of this thread is NOT CHILD PORN!!!!! how are we to get through to the people who run things a little bit of naked flesh which has been artificially created is not going to make us all perverts. how long is it going to be before those in power get the stupid idea that curious labs and daz3d are allowing child porn to be created with their programs and meshes. if we let them carry on like this then poser will one day be destroyed as it can be used in the creation of child porn. Think about it a bit more before you help to destroy the one thing that keeps this site in existence and gives it a purpose.

Ridiculous...... Oh my, I can harldy believe this is going on.... And as Ron points out, 'The US supreme court recently ruled digital pics of nude kids is not pornographic'. Exactly. And since this site is US based, the censorship going on here is unacceptable. Then there's the whole faerie/kid thing, but that argument isn't even necessary here. Hey, by the way people, don't go on about how the marketplace 'sells the figures/textures, but you're not allowed to use them' - the end result might be that those products are removed, and that's even worse than the riduculous 'censorship' of Mosca's image, since it continues down the same path. So keep that argument down. Let's not wake up any more sleeping dogs. Mosca, can the image be seen anywhere in its undamaged original version? :] FishNose

I'm not really interested in this debate but Mosca wrote "more repressed and hysterical places like the UK" - what total crap! You'd be very hard pressed to find a more open, laid back society. Sure, our censorship is tighter but we don't have double standards, it applies right across the board. We don't pixilate breasts on TV programs like I've seen in imported US stuff. Please don't attack a society you obviously know so little about.

Great image Mosca. Don't they know that farries are not even human!? Let alone, children!

I was going to play "Devil's advocate" and point out how Poser could be used to...

But FishNoses comment stopped me with that VERY valid point. Let's not draw unwanted attention, and end up being the cause of the destruction of our artistic freedoms. Shhhhhhh!

Mosca, your image is wonderful and tasteful and I see no reason why it was censored. I think the one who censored it has a problem and not you. @hein: OMG, in the summertime hundreds of naked little girls and boys are running around at german beaches or swimbaths' - what a bad society are we over here, I think we all should be put behind bars. ;-)

Punto - it's the same here in Sweden - shocking! My girls used to run around the garden naked until they were about 7 - I'm such a bad bad father for letting them! I should have taught them to be ashamed instead. :o] :] FishNose

:) Tsk tsk Puntomaus You forget to mention all those evil Germans running around on our beaches, there's hardly any place for us to go around in the nude.

martian, the distinction is that this isn't porn, by any even remotely rational interpretation<< It was an attempt at being funny... There's nothing wrong with your pic. It's a very nice pic. They should have let you post it.

It seems we are lock stepping into a pasturized future where the powers that be (whoever they may be)can dicatate to us what is acceptable for us to view without turning us into slobbering pedofiles. I had hoped the days of the small minded moral minority bullying the vast majority into conformity were past, but it seems it is not so. Is this not a community created by and for artists. we should be in the forfront of free thinking as has always been the role of artists in the past, not finding sin in beauty. perhaps we should all go back to using the clothed P4 figures so as not to offend? Contrary to my joke early in this thread it would have never occured to me that Moskas farie could be construed as anything but innocent if it wasn't pointed out to me. That fly swatter on the other hand, oh baby... wait a minute perhaps we are all wrong and it is the now so obvious S&M overtones which got this filthy image banned? (;

LOL @ FishNose and hein

Oh for god's sake! Now artists are being found guilty of a crime against a law that was never passed (and probably won't be if commons sense prevails and then if it is will be appealed or overturned whent he first case goes to trial). I am so sick of big brother thinking he knows what I am thinking, he generally turns out to be wrong. Not to mention the acute absurdity of striking an image that does not break any current laws. Hell, it won't even break the laws once that bill is passed. I wonder if they will remove my butterfly Fae as well.... She is a petite woman, but I created her by using the PT mesh. Bad bad me!

By the way Mosca do you have a signed consent letter from the tasty with Butter girl, she's got aufuly slim hips for someone over 18

For the record: the U.S. statute attempting to ban CGI child porn was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. They found the statute overly vague (the language of it, if you've ever read the thing, contains a lot of "mights" and "coulds" and "appears to bes"), and they found, too, that it created a new class of victimless crime that was escentially a "thought crime"; unprecedented in U.S. criminal justice history. The Justice Department was unable to show that CGI child porn had ever hurt anyone, or that it was a pervasive problem. The community standards issue still aplies, but not to CGI images which are non-pornographic; i.e., those not placing images of children in a sexual context. CGI child porn is no longer a special class of porn, in other words--it's to be treated under the law like all other pornography. Despite its right-wing history, the Supreme Court acted wisely here, ruling that the potential harm which might be done to society by CGI child-porn was less significant than the potential damage to 1st amendment rights caused by the statute. It will be difficult for congress to pass a new law that bears much resemblence to the one that was overturned; the ruling was a pretty resounding rejection of Ashcroft and his allies. And there's not likely to be a more conservative court anytime soon. I hope.

you are right Mosca but the Admin here think they know more than the Supreme Court does.Obviously admin wants to be first in line for the censorship Parade. So now are all the fairy renderings being pulled? What a bunch of S..t!

Well if there is no child nudity then several products in teh marketplace need to be adjusted. go tot eh marketplace and choose >>3d Accessories>>millenium kids The first product is a nude thumbnail of the preteen girl, that's without even looking under characters or textures. So they need to apply those rules evenly. Even a privately owned site/company can be guilty of discrimination. If they open their doors for business then they can't discriminate, in this case they are discriminating against artists in favor of their vendors.

If only our esteemed moderators & admins would learn the value of a little benign neglect! If they don't have such a rule in force (and a really dumb one at that), perhaps they should be a little less ready to jump on things that MIGHT violate a rule they MIGHT have some day? A bit of patience would have avoided the incredible furor this is liable to generate--amusing as that is, sometimes. May i add that they did the same thing with their early "No Commercial Posts in regular forums" policy--applied it unevenly and by fits and starts, thereby angering lots of vendors and generally making their lives miserable. i won't forget that one soon, as i was one of the first to take a hit in that particular effort. Dear mods and admins, life here would be so much less fraught if you-all could get all of your enterprise "on the same page" before acting on a new rule. The constant jostling about we get is really unnecessary.

Hey all You know this is getting bloodey stupid now, in my eyes this is not child porn it is art i know the line is thin between them but come on ppl are you artist who see the work as work or no it all goodies who have nothing better to do than flame and ban ppls work. Now dont get me wrong as i dont want to be attacked here i hate nonce cases and they all should be hanged ,but please use a bit of commen sence cheers dolly

Hey, this is a marketplace. This is no longer a place of art. Mosca, you should have tried to sell your pic.

Heya Mosca, that is a beautiful image, what little I can see of it. You would be free to post it on poserpros.com you know. There, faeries and children are still free to be faeries and children, and sometimes run around nekkid in innocent ways.

Lordy. So I just got an email from one of the managers (nameless, for now), warning me that I'm on the verge of a 7 day suspension. I've asked his permission to post that particular email here (somehow I doubt that's gonna happen); suffice it to say, it was a little abrupt. No skateboarding in the mall, kids!

if moscas pic has been deleted for the reasons given perhaps you should immediately delete the following images# http://www.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=9545 http://www.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=9545&ViewImage=2#Image http://www.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=9545&ViewImage=3#Image http://www.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=8588&ViewImage=2#Image and there areabout 800 fairy images in the galleries. Probably half of them involve nudity as explicit or more explicit than Moscas image. Should keep you busy or maybe instead restore Moscas image