Attached Link: TOS

Please review. Area of change: Posting Unacceptable Images which include; 1. Depictions of physical arousal or sexual acts. 2. Genital contact with ANY object, other than sitting or clothing. 3. Rape or torture of any living or dead creature. 4. Genitals (of either gender) and female nipples must be covered in images displaying humans, fey folk, aliens and all other humanoid characters that have the appearance of being under the legal age in the US (18 years) or younger in human terms. Depictions of such youngsters must also avoid erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Determinations of appropriateness for any images that are not obviously of children will not be made by an individual but by a consensus of administrators and moderators.

Meaning Sex is offensive but violence and hate is not? Why do you not include a number 5 stating hatred is forbidden also? Does antisemitism not post a much bigger danger than the naked chest of a fairy? Two people making love is forbidden, but two killing eachother is allowed? No criticism here, just wondering...

Very good point.

I'm curious as to what's going on at Renderotica... if images showing genitalia are forbidden here, what's the policy over there? I have a membership there, I just don't like to visit it. Tilandra

Attached Link: http://www.renderotica.com/portal/tos.php

Tilandra, How long has it been since you visited Renderotica last? I used to not care for it much either, but over the past year; I have come to find it a warm and friendly place, where people respect each other and each others ideas. What is it about Renderotica that makes you uncomfortable? Renderotica is not affiliated with Renderosity in any way, and our terms of service are very simple: http://www.renderotica.com/portal/tos.php

So posting a pix of a 1 month old baby girl wearing a diaper but no top would violate the TOS? Sense does this make? I think not. Someone is over-reacting big time.

Odd... wonder why I thought Renderotica was the "Spice Channel" version of Renderosity? Seriously, I thought the two were run by the same people. It's been at least a year or more since I've been there.

This is over the top .. so far over the top it is just unbelievable .. I in no way want to see child porn on this site .. but an overreaction like this makes me feel the site has become so artistically stifling that posting here is a complete waste of time .. I for one certainly will not be adding to my gallery until some rational changes have been made to the "new" TOS and I will have to think hard on whether or not I even want the gallery I do have here to stay up .. I am NOT impressed. This from a member who has never even posted a naked fairy .. but I bloody well would have like the option to do so ... GET A GRIP!

Does this apply to the marketplace as well (I honestly don't expect an answer - this wasn't addressed in the other thread at all) If so how long are vendors given to comply?

QUOTE:
"Depictions of such youngsters must also avoid erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context."

I understand that you are trying to be fair and make rules that are clear, but you have just shuffled it all off onto the realm of the MOST subjective thing imaginable, thereby guaranteeing that this argument is FAR from over and there will be even MORE hard feelings in the future. This also guarantees that only the ones with the sickest, most depraved interpretations of any image will end up with the final word, because everytime they see anything that tickles their libido they will pounce on it as pornography. That is pathetic.

Acording to the quoted statement, this image could be construed as violating the TOS, as was prophetically noted yesterday by member Namja1955, who has graciously removed his comment at my request:

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=184075

Haha! See y'all in the funny papers!

=};-}>

Forgot to add, if the vendors don't comply by the time limit will 'rosity actually pull store items whose images depict nude children?

I have given up trying to understand the rationales behind the administative processes here. It's their site, their rules. They are trying to make this site as politically correct, and inoffensive as possible to anyone who might visit. My opinion is that in doing so, they will alienate a large portion of the membership. However, barring any drastic and sudden change (this has been creeping in for months no. Eventually, only Hallmark greetings and pastoral scenes will be allowed. >^_~), people are still going to come here. This is still the biggest resource for Poser specific information and related items. There are other places where the unclothed human figure is not viewed as something shameful.

The amazing thing to me is that a group of artists would do this. Unless of course the owners of 'rosity aren't artists at all but businessmen - then this could be somewhat understood. But since when do artists censor each other in regards to a law that doesn't exist? As for attracting others, if I wasn't already entrenchedc here I wouldn't stay here. If I was a newcomer and an artist looking for asupportive group and I came across these threads and so how frequently the terms of service were changed and how unfriendly this site has become to the artists who support it, I wouldn't stay here, I'd find another site to hang out and learn from. Since most of my online friends are already at another site, I already spend less time here, and I refuse to shop here from now on as a way of protesting. I'm sure they won't miss what little I spend here but I won't support repression and paranoia either.

Nekkid Faeries Welcome Here

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12357&Form.ShowMessage=701349&Reply=701894#12

Spike, I salute you to the ease with which you surpass my fears from yesterday. Do you have any guess what pics we are allowed to post a year from now? Maybe swords in temples without nude Vickies? :P

If you like we could put it up for vote?

since when would the votes or opinions of teh members matter?

Put what up for a vote Spike? The new TOS? Gee that might be a thought.. Or how about we skip the part were we all gather together to give you our resounding "We do not want this" and you just use a bit of common sense, admit you made a mistake, over reacted and change that TOS back to what it was.. Why is it you folks spend so much time hunting around for yet a bigger gun to shoot yourselves in the foot with?? Look you may not want to hear it .. and may refuse to believe it .. but you all are turning this site into a site that is ANTI ARTIST. And as much loyalty and fondness as my self and others have for this place .. you folks keep this up and eventually all you will have here are newbies who stay for a while until they realize how empty this place has become.

he meant the comment regarding no naked viuckies in a year I'm sure.

I guess it very clear now. The deal is this, Buy here post elsewhere. Cool I get my gallery fixed right away.

viuckies???

Hrm. Don't you hate it when you get out of the hospital, come home, log on, and find that everything appears to have taken a bizarre series of turns for the worse. Just thought I'd add: WTF?! When I read the new rules I checked my calendar to see if it was April 1st. Sadly, it's mid-May. sigh You know, my support of this place is beginning to wear thin. Regards, Paul

Why is it bad to show the nipples of underage girls, but not underage BOYS? Who is to say there isn't someone here who might be excited by the idea of young shirtless boys? What if some pervo sees a shirtless boy here and goes mad with boy-lust, snatches some young boy from a bus stop and sexually tortures and mutilates him? DO YOU WANT THAT ON YOUR CONSCIENCE? You should ban ALL images of children from this site, just to be safe. Further, I believe that animals should wear pants, and Renderosity should institute a rule banning the depiction of nude animals. Also, something should be done about the rampant ADULT nudity here. This place is RIFE with bare weenuses, and heinies, cooters, and honkers. It's DISGUSTING. This place needs to be SCOURED CLEAN with the RIGHTEOUS BRILLO OF CENSORSHIP so that DECENT artists can feel safe and comfortable, knowing that their sensitive credit card information is safe in the hands of CLEAN, UPSTANDING PEOPLE.

So, if there is a picture of a baby in just a diaper or a fetus in the womb, must the artist announce the gender of the child so we can determine if the nipples should be covered? Or, will we see just boy babies turn up in art and have female babies discriminated against? These questions may seem silly but come directly under fire whithin this TOS ruling. Hmm, in Ontario Canada Breasts have been legalized.

roflmao @legume Personally I think that within a year the galleries will be banned altogether. after all seeing nude women in lustful, gratuitous sexual positions could cause a person to go out, find a woman and molest her! So therefore to be safe these images must also be removed!

I almost forgot to mention... I spent 8 days recently working on a laptop to create the most perfect image I could ever accomplish... It's a sixteen year old girl lieing dead in a bathtub, with her arms slashed by razors, which sits in the middle of a downtown sidewalk. Men in business suits are passing by as if nothing is wrong. I'm gonna post it now... oh, wait, I can't. According to Spike it's not art, it's child porn. My bad. Paul

LadySilverMage: The galleries won't ever be banned... They'll simply become punishment. I heard there are plans in the making to force members who step out of line to spend time in the bland galleries to serve penance for their dastardly deeds. It's the only way anyone will ever look at them should the current policy changes continue. Paul

LOL, What I am noticing is that no one is addressing the issues of vendor products. So if I buy a vendor product that is of a child and pose it just like the vendor did in their images and post it in the galleries, it will be banned right? Gee, no double standards there... Maybe I should re-open 3-D Arena......

in 1973 miller vs.california, 413 US 15, dissenting justice douglas wrote on the application of "community standards:" We deal with highly emotional, not rational, questions. To many the Song of Solomon is obscene. I do not think we, the judges, were ever given the constitutional power to make definitions of obscenity. If it is to be defined, let the people debate and decide by a constitutional amendment what they want to ban as obscene and what standards they want the legislatures and the courts to apply. Perhaps the people will decide that the path towards a mature, integrated society requires that all ideas competing for acceptance must have no censor. Perhaps they will decide otherwise. Whatever the choice, the courts will have some guidelines. Now we have none except our own predilections. i'd urge that the TOS be tabled and further consideration be given to the final wording - not because of what it tries to do in specificity but because of the implications it holds for the further development of a "community" standard for a virtual environment of multiple standards and tastes.

Yes, that is a good idea Spook. What do you think Spike?

Ok everyone, please stand by. spook brings up a very good point here and also puts it in a very good light. We are looking into it now. Please give us some time to work out the details. (Yes, we hear you).

I would just like to ask for the addition of an anti-hate-crime provision to the TOS. Then if PoserPros or Renderotica want to corner the hate-monger clientele, they are free and clear to do so, without having to worry about competition from Renderosity in that area. I don't see it so much as censorship as a division of labor. Renderotica can become the acknowledged site for nude images of adults, and they can benefit economically from clients who are interested in buying related products. PoserPros can become the acknowledged site for nude fairies, without worrying about competition from other sites for the coveted nude fairy client base. Renderosity can concentrate on a wider-based nonpolitical and nonpornography approach, and sell products aimed at that market. So there's no overlap, just an efficient division of labor.

Thank you Spike. I for one appreciate that you will look at this again and put it through further thought. nyar1ath0tep, were you an efficiency expert in one of your lives?? (smiles) very succinct!

nyar1ath0tep: I would just like to ask for the addition of an anti-hate-crime provision to the TOS.

Sounds good. I have just two questions:

1. How will Renderosity define a hate-crime? This may sound frivolous, but honest questions and criticisms can be considered hate. Hey, on some colleges and public schools showing a national flag or "Straight Pride" messege is hate.

1. Will an anti-hate-crime provision be equally enforce? From observations, hate crime provisions are sometimes one way. Protected groups can "hate", while others get in trouble.

Let's be careful and not make the situation worse.

I think if we would simple state in the TOS no pornography and hate/crime (which includes the rape and torture of any living or dead creature part), everybody would know what is ment with that. We all know the difference between pornography and nudity, between pedophilia and a naked fairy, between hatred/crime and patriotism and in those cases where it is not clear, members can IM the Administration or/and they can still decide to take it off as it says in the TOS. It gives the artists more freedom and on the other hand does not offence nobody. This rule is carried by most contests and galleries (no pornography and hatred) and it usually goes very well.

lol @ nyar1ath0tep, so then 'rosity wouldn't sell any textures of children that contains genitalia?? Since the only reason to have that on the texture of a child model is to pose it nude..... Furthjremore you would expect them to give up all fairy models, and fairy wings in the marketplace?? Oh, forgot that you added nude adults to the things that wouldn't/shoiuldn't be here. So that means all textures across the board that contains genitalia as it's only purpose is to show said genitalia. So in total to keep up with nyar1ath0tep's idea 'rosity would need to empty the galleries and the marketplace of the following items: Guns, swords, knives, genital textures, wings (of all types), military clothing and weaponry, better add all religious items just in case, so crosses, paganstic items and stars of david, priests, nuns and robes in general, Oh better get rid of the mysitcal because they aren't terribly politically correct either, no magical items or clothing... I'm sure I've missed several items, I can just see 'rosity doing this now.

But creations that is the very rules they had to begin with. For some reason the admins here have become nervous nellies, they can't leave anything alone and feel that they must constantly clarify the terms. Funny thing is that most people understood those terms, I've yet to see an image here that could be considered child porn. If there are some who are throwing huge fits over naked fairies (and the admins have already stated taht they heed those they hear, and not those who are happy with the site) maybe the new TOS should state that anyone whining over nudity of fairies, Temple Vickies or free stuff items should be banned, unless the image clearly violates the laws regarding pornography.

I'm curious. The latest two banned images (that I'm aware of), arcady's and mosca's, - was there a complaint that led to it? Or was this just the reaction of the admins/mods to the age/nudity issue?

It just doesn't make sense for an art site, which was very relieved as a whole to the latest news on the virtual images ruling, to be so quick to censor. Censoring the images you (admins/mods) have is the direct opposite of what the law was determined to be.

Some muscles are being flexed here and "those in charge" have got to understand why the members are confused. If you don't see it then you aren't bothering to look. It's pretty obvious.

By flexing these muscles you're going to encounter resistance and people who will render images that are borderline in retaliation.

Is Renderosity under fire from someone or some group? Something we don't know about? Because I don't understand why Renderosity can't take the stance that "this is an art site and this is what our artists want". I was under the impression that this site existed for the artists. Not for spectators. I know some link to their galleries and have received paying work due to the exposure here but by and large this site is for the artists, isn't it?

Now the original three restrictions are understandable. But things are getting ridiculous and if you aren't going to listen to what the majority is saying, you're cutting your own throat here.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/gallery.ez?ByArtist=Yes&Artist=lalverson

Sorry It took so long (129minutes) but my gallery now conforms to the TOS. Please inspect it, and mark me as in compliance. I have $4000 worth of purchases I wish to keep acess to should my computer fail, and i do not wish to be banned. Thanks in advance! lalverson

The weird thing is that the CG community should be reveling and celebrating what was a definite win for us in the supreme court. Instead we find that we are censored, not from a law we were worried would be passed, but in fact from the very community/communities that we as artists have "chosen" to support, by making purchases, linking to, and encouraging growth through the galleries and forums. To be censored in this manner after these types of support is a slap in the face. Lalverson, that is an intersting point, if a member is banned - how do they get support for items they have purchased??

Ok, heres the deal. We recieve thousands of e-mails each week, many of them are about images posted. We deal with each image case by case. When we pull a image that breaks the TOS, the member then flys off the handle and says that we have no right to pull the image and demands we point out where in the TOS it says they can't post it. We spend many hours going throught this each week and felt that if we put something more clear in the TOS that it would stop all the e-mails. We be wrong! So, in light of all your very good points, We are going to remove the part we added to the TOS and rethink it. So, on that note, Post away! We feel that we will put this in a poll for the members to vote on and see where that takes us. Maybe something more like: Depictions of children/young teens in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. This includes human and humanoid characters such as fey folk, aliens, etc.

Can't you just ban the whiners? ;-D I'll bet that the majority of those complaining emails come from the same close minded people who have nothing better to do than to patrol the galleries. point fingers and whine. It's honestly difficult to believe that artists would be that closed minded. Is a skipping fairy such as mosca posted, lewd or provocative? Is a fairy licking ice cream erotic?? Will it be considered so if a member complains?

Good move.
I lament mostly the fact that those 'Infamous Renderosity Changes' come out of the blue. Some dialog would be good.

Why is the management getting strict on breasts? They were acceptable by the rules before. I agree with banning torture etc. Rule 4 seems to mention breasts of a sexually legally underage girl, and Dalo answering mentioned a female baby's breasts. Until puberty starts a girl does not have much if any more visible breast bulk than a boy. Does thus rule only apply during after puberty when the breasts start to enlarge? Ok, I know that this modern age's over-healthy highly growth-forcing diet is making children in the West come into puberty sooner and sooner and long before they are mentally ready to cope with it. As a matter of unclothed breasts, how would a picture of me be rated? I am a man, but I have been doing a lot of swimming in lunch breaks, trying to lose weight, but instead I piled on a lot of muscle and ended up looking like a stevedore (soon after Xmas 2001 someone in a shop asked me if I was a bouncer!) and beginning to look if I need a brassiere, even though the bulk is work-hypertrophied pectoralis muscles and not milk-secreting tissue. If deformity is added to the list, how would this affect two images of Hindu goddesses that someone put in the gallery?, with their characteristic extra arms.

Spike, all of this is covered in the TOS anyway. "Members/Users will not use this community for; Transmitting any libelous, defamatory, or any other material that could give rise to any civil or criminal liability under the law." Here's what I say... let people post what they want. If anyone emails you about an image they think should be removed, say "Tough Sh*t. We don't police our members." only in a more polite way of course. Place a very large graphic to that effect at the top of the gallery pages, to cut down on emails. Add a line to the TOS that reads, "Renderosity assumes no legal liability for images posted to our galleries." Remove an image from the gallery when someone is brought up on charges for it, not before. Doesn't anyone remember when I tried to decrease my liability for my bed product by adding an addendum to the licence restricting what it could be used for? I got some nasty IM's about that one. I reworded it to something similar to what I suggested above, and now everyone's happy. Stop trying to police us. If someone is offended by an image, tell them not to look at it. No one is forcing them to be here, or telling them what to look at. What, do they lie in bed at night and fume that a specific image is "out there"? They have much bigger problems to deal with, in that case. Most of them involve hours of therapy, or a trip to the gym. Creating art can be an exhaustive, cathartic, emotional process all by itself. Then add someone's expectations of what they think that art should look like? Possible exile from the community that is supposed to be here for them to express themselves? Artists cannot express themselves when people try to tell them how to do it. And when you write that Poll, be sure to add two things. A "None of the above" and a write-in for an explaination as to why.

well, seems im coming in here a little late.. but, i am impressed with how this was dealt with. people didnt get nasty, voiced their concerns, and what seems to have been a really bad decision by the admins has not even been implemented and is now in the process of being rectified. i think the new rule was way overboard (you should have seen my face when i read it, i was in total shock, i thought it was a joke)... but i see the need for A new rule. just not that one. i think the TOS needs to be more clear. the way it stands now, it is very open to interpretation. it needs to be crystal clear in what IS against the TOS and what is acceptable. that way we wont have the constant bickering back and forth about 'why was my image removed' or 'i want you to remove this image'. i, for one, would be happy to vote for a new addendum to the TOS, and i trust in the good intentions and morality of the rest of the community to find a good solution to this problem that will be accepted by most. however, i do know that there is a GLARING flaw with the polls. this was demonstrated a few months in a row, as a certain member secured his AOM victory by mass-messaging his friends in newsgroups, who created accounts for the sole purpose of voting him for AOM. this was REPEATED afterwards, until the new AOM vote was instituted and ended the possibility of any further manipulations of the polls. so the problem lies in this fact: the only people that will vote for the hot20, or AOM (up till now) are those people who have an active interest in its outcome. and these people are generally either voting at the request of the potential winner, or are friends/aquaintances. i think, in order to eliminate the possibility of a fixed vote, or one that is swayed by manipulations, the following should be done: the poll pops up for EVERYONE upon their next login to renderosity. that way EVERY MEMBER, not just those who are extremely interested in the outcome, must take a moment and read the new addendum and vote. this way you will get an ACCURATE vote, and not a manipulated one. if your coders fail to do that (which they shouldnt, since its quite easy to implement, simply a popup directing them to the poll), then send out an EBOT email to everyone, accompanied by an IM. urge them to take an active part in a poll that will so profoundly affect their community. as for the person who did manipulate the AOM proceedings two months in a row - if they hold true to the motive that they described in several forum threads - that they did it to PROVE the imbalance and the inadequacy of the current hot20/aom system, then this post shouldnt offend them at all, since it echoes the same outrage at a flawed system. cheers, -gabriel

Your welcome!

Well, I have to say this. The new wording wasn't really the work of the admins but a suggestion by me. I respect the fact that the admins are trying to do a job here, and that job is difficult. The wording used wasn't exactly mine but close enough to make it my idea. I didn't think people would have such a problem with it and was trying to give rosity a way to handle things if they wanted a rule. Tilandra makes a good point, and I think her idea is truely the way to go. This would be the best for us all I think and we can all breath easy with that one knowing that the TOS doesn't just protect the prudent few but rather the artistic masses.

If you do do a poll PLEASE word it in neutral tones. If word in the way you are suggesting, anyone not knowing about the controversy is likely to think you mean explicit child porn and not innocent depictions of artistic nude faeries and vote no as a matter of course.

Jesus, Gabriel, you must love the taste of Legume-meat, because you just can't seem to pull your goddamn teeth out of my leg. I'm not going into this with you again. You don't like how I won AOM. Tough shit. I didn't break any rules. My sin was having fans off-site who came to support me when I was nominated AOM. If Renderosity is the only place on the entire net where anyone likes your artwork, that's YOUR tough luck. As often as I see your name in the Hot 20, it's pretty clear that the same group of people vote for YOUR work all the time. Damn shame my fan base is bigger than yours. I was AOM in MARCH. It's almost JUNE. March is gone forever, Gabriel. It's over. It went BYE-BYES. There's nothing you can do about it. It's history. Bereft of life, it rests in peace. It has rung down the curtain and joined the bleedin' Choir Invisible. It is a LATE PARROT. So why don't you drop it already? You seem to have this preposterous notion that NOTHING should be put to a vote anymore, because Evil Doctor Legume will have his SubGenius pals vote. Well, I got some news for ya, sunshine...THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE POLICIES OF RENDEROSITY (neither do I, anymore, beyond laughing and watching the show), they just wanted to support my art. Steering the policies of Renderosity would seriously cut into the time they'd otherwise spend screwing and smoking dope.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=184075

In an earlier message, posted by THORNE, he mentioned a comment that I had made to the attached image. He had initially misinterpreted the fact that I was poking fun at the TOS issue that MOSCA's image had prompted. I removed the comment to prevent further misunderstandings, however, now that I've seen this thread it might be worth reposting my comment here. (Please check the image to understand the comment) "Given the recent MOSCA controversy this image may violate the terms of service. The ice cream cone is clearly a phallic symbol, the cherry on top is clearly a symbol of the virginal state of the young girl, and I'm not even going to address the image conveyed by the dripping ice cream"... Thorne's initial response was ctitical of me in that he thought that I was endorsing that view of the image. So early this morning, before this thread was even started, Thorne and I exchanged messages where I pretty much told him that I was trying to be sarcastic and that people who want to can see filthy images in even the most innocent images. There can be such a thing as innocent child nudity. (Look at the beaches in Europe and South America). When involved with children not everyone who sees a naked child has sexual intent, and not every priest has the work of God in mind. It's too easy to think that you can really regulate a deviant's behavior by restricting everyone's behavior. The real answer is to hold people accountable for what they actually do rather than what they think. The second part of that is that when we decide to hold a person responsible that we DO hold him responsible.