Attached Link: http://imdb.com/name/nm0000654/

Could also pass for Terrance Stamp with a little work. But very close to Peter Cushing.

Woo Hoo, in before it was locked. Even discusing warez here is a big No No.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves just for letting this "crap" air out in public. That is SO damn sad. None has very much to do with Poser at this point so should this topic at least be extruded into the off topic folder. I didn't see the original post. I don't care too, and I really didn't need to know any of this. Please take this "knock down, drag out" fight some other pub. Maybe you too ca start a yahoogroup so the only people who see this are the ones that give a damn.

Jezuz... why don't you two get a room already.

Well, what can I say. You seem to be a master of lying with the truth Armor. I'm sorry for any family you lost in WWII, and I can asure you I will "Never Forgot". I lost family freeing them. The rest of your arguing is bordering on nonsense to me, and while I would never let you work on ad campign, I will defend your right to spew it. Speech hurts NO ONE. It is only words. Pictures hurt NO ONE they are representations. Thoughts hurt NO ONE, they exist only in the mind of a person. Actions DO HURT people! Weather they are the actions of a child molester, a Nazi war Criminal, some one trying to stop words, pictures and thoughts by taking away our rights, or the ACTION of sitting idelly by and letting them do it. The question is what do we do about it all. I say listen, and hear everything. You can't do that if go around silencing people.

Attached Link: http://www.etsu.edu/philos/classes/rk/modernzenith/adobejpgimages/28deathcamplarge.jpg

Armor, I don't know where you get your information from, but the change in the TOS comes at the same time as the passing of a LAW that restricts that kind of image. I assume it is in compliance with this law that the TOS has has been changed. If R'osity had made this change as the result of you or any other group of users complaints, I would be flaming them full blast for catering to any ONE's moral sensibility. It would be like letting the Taliban dictate what could be posted here. There is no difference between what fanatic seeks to control what people are allowed to see. Be it their religion, or lack of it. "If you argue there should be censorship of any kind then you have just destroyed the very heart of your own argument!!!" Why? Because YOU say so? The line I draw is a very sensible one. Do I hurt some one in creating my art? In the case of any 3D representation, the answer is NO. In the case of photography the answer is yes. "Part of a successful ad campaign is to find the right image or combination of images to inspire a desire in consumers for what is being offered... in the ad biz there is no separation of pencil,cg,airbrush or photo-they are all viewed the same as the images are designed solely to entice the viewer into desiring what they see!!" You have OBVIOUSLY never worked in advertising. I have. I've had arguments over which shade of blue something should be, and over how saturated the reds are. No separation between pencil,cg,airbrush or photo? Are you INSANE? You talk about a medium who first law is Marshall McLuhan's famous phrase "The Medium is the Message". Ask a dropout advertising major, and they know those styles are NO WHERE NEAR interchangeable. "I'm not sure... but bet you don't do images of nude children in your work do you-if not,maybe that shows that even you draw a line you choose not to cross?" The point is that *I* get choose that line. Where ever I draw it is my business as long as I don't hurt some one else doing it. Now I don't have that choice. Did we suddenly cure every pedophile because we took away their CHOICE to be one? Of course not. You don't change a person's mind by silencing them. I CERTAINLY am not going to create or post images I find personally offencive. But looking at your examples: "an image of a group of klansmen lynching a black man in cg,a woman being gang raped by a group of black men or a child being molested by an adult white male." Every one of those images can be used to show the horror or the situation. They can make you sympathies with the victim and as a result tech you that doing those things is wrong. But not if you don't allow them to be created because you don't like the subject matter. Only a Klansman would look at the lynching and see some thing positive. Only the rapist would be aroused by gang rape. Only the pedophile would see themselves in the image of the child molester. A pervert can see a child being molested in a ink spot, or the cracks in his ceiling in the same way a religious nut can Jesus sweat stain. Are we all supposed to pay the price for one person being a pervert? Are we ALL guilty because some one is. Cain didn't kill Able in the Bible because he saw a picture of a murder. He did it because he chose to, and THAT was the sin. It wasn't the THOUGHT of killing Able that made him evil and wrong, it was the ACT he chose to do. It is you who are wrong. None of you arguments hold up to any form of logic. How DARE you think that your opinion is some how more valid than mine because it fits in with your own narrow faith or belief system. Everything you said can be summed up in one sentence. You're not allowed to talk about that. Well I believe I should be allowed to discuss ANYTHING, and YOU are no better than me to tell me otherwise. If we lived by your rules there would be no civilization because EVERYTHING humanity has become is based on our ability to WARN each other about the dangers in our world. You seek to end that communication, and all the lessons that go with it under some delusion that if you don't talk about maybe it won't happen. Check out the link above if you horrible images so badly. A Nazi would see and say it was picture of a great achievement. A Prude would see it and it was bad because it's got naked people in it. Me... I see it as an example of what can happen if you don't stand your ground and fight every day for rights against those who think they are right just because THEY say so. I see a lesson that a simple lack of communication can cause the death of millions. What do you see?

Armor, Last things firts. Most of us are questioning the Law, not R'osity's compliance with it. I look at R'osity as a victum here as much as we are. In a worst case cenario, they would be shut down for YEARS before they ever got a day in court to decide if they did anything wrong. They have been given the effective choice of comply or go out of business. What we are questioning is the Law. A photograph of a man in a sexualy suggest pose with a three year old involves putting a 3 year old in a sexually suggestive position. That's harmful in my book, and it harming a REAL 3 year old. If if it's "photoshoped" to put the 3 yeard in the position out of context, it's still harmfull to the childs reputation, and self image if/when that photo is seen by him. But in the case of 3D meshes... NO ONE WAS HARMED iN THEIR Creation. This Law is as stupid as saying 3D meshes shouldn't be allowed to seen in violent situatations. That would end the video game industry pretty fast. Also a good part of the movie industry. If creating the image hurts no one, there should be no law against creating it. How bout making a law that makes it illegal to lure a child with pornography or nude images of any kind? That would pretty much be targeted ONLY at the pedophile who missuses the art we created. It would just as effective as any other law, which means great for punishing the offender after the fact. Think about this, I can do an infinate number of 3D pictures of children being killed, and the law is irrelevent because it won't be sexual.

Janet Jackson Fiasco. You know why they are called "boobs"? They are named after the people the people who pay the most attention to them. So who are the biggest "boobs" in the country? The people spending millions of tax payer dollars to figure out how to keep one kind of "boob" from seeing the other.

Absolute Law means a clear and stable line that should not be crossed. That means that those who live within the Law have nothing fear. Grey area's where there is no real rule except what judge you get and what jury you get just make the something to be avioded. Don't EVEN get me started on Corprate Vs. Private law! The thing that amazes me most about our world today is we seem to want to forcably dumb down and simplify anything and everything so the least common denominator can have access to it, EXCEPT the law. That has to be so complex and convoluted that no one save a trained professional with a good upbrining and Ivy legue education, can possibly understand it. Like a crashing computer needs to be reset because to many programs have fragmented an overwritten each other, our NATION needs a reset. We need to STOP everything, then start it over right, maybe with some debugging to the "source code" of society. Otherwise it will crash completely and the only users will be the Virus and Trojans.

kbennett. That is kind of my point. I don't have a problem with the age, but DO consider the pose seductive. You don't. I'll repeat again, that I'm not really concerned with R'osity's position on this, but the with LAW that forced the update in the TOS. If it was an acutal photograph of a girl of the age that you think that figure is, would you still allow it in the gallery and marketplace? The spirit of this new Law is says that if you would say "no" to a real girl of that age, in that pose, then you should also no to the virtual one. Firekath seems to insists there is no differance. In order for law to be just, it must be absolute and universal. There can be no grey area and no room for subjective "human" leeway. When there is, as in our current society, there is no justice. Our LAWS have become nothing but another way to oppress people. That is my main point.

"No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 ... in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context." You must be able to see how one could worry about it. She "gives the appearance of being under the age of 18", and she in topless in an "erotic, seductive, provocative pose". The only reason it would not be against the TOS is, "...this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." Even though the first part of that stamenet infers that the image still appear to be over 18 years old, to be considered for R'osity teams discression. I have no problem with the image, it's a perfect example of the free expression what I've been talking about all along. But I'm sure some one, some where, would cosider it child porn. goldtassel and R'osity could both be criminally libel for breaking the child porn Law is some attracts the attention of the New all seeing Eye or Mordor that the "moral" right has installed with this law. The perceptions of the people who run R'osity are in charge, unless some from the government decides she's a depiction of a girl under 18 when it becomes Child Porn. How many years will R'osity be shut down before a jury even GET'S to decide if it is or isn't. Do you think the "Farie" defence will fly with the Religious Right Extremests? "Oh... so she not a child, she's representation of a magical creature that exist outside God's law?" When it's R'osity deciding it Ok. This is their private club and if I don't like their rules I can get out. But when this CAN even be a court issue, it means something has gone terrible wrong in our country.

This was the banner ad on the top of page as I came here to read your responce. By the TOS and your narrow minded definitions... it's Child Porn! Even if it's not it still might be against the TOS. I realize your point of view is from some one who has had personal experience with this, but I think that may be biasing your opinion. It a little like trying to ban hammers because some murdered a member of your family with one. It's not the Hammers fault it was misused. It's not the manufacturers fault. It the fault of the person who lost control and abused the item. Same thing with this sweeping definition of "Child Porn".

I've repeatedly supported R'osity. I know they have no real choice. It's like what's going on with Howard Stern right now, or the RIAA vs. the public. The new loophole in the Justice system is that when ever you want to destroy some one who doesn't agree with you, you attack them legally with the court system untill they HAVE to cave because they can't afford to fight back. It's really just a passive form of terrorism. They are using fear to control us all. Even if R'osity WANTED to fight against this, they simply can't afford too. Personal Responsibility. We have to make them take it, and we have to start by taking in on ourself. It's all our fault that our free speech is in danger, and it your fault is you've ever stood by while you thought a child was in danger. We let them take control. We let the billionairs tell us which millionairs we could vote for. Look at the recent California Recall Election. Did any one BOTHER to see who was the best person for the job? Nope. They voted for who they saw on TV. Since our free speech is going out the window anyway... I have a free speech restriction I want to see. NO POLITICAL ADD'S ON TV. NO COMMENTARY ON SPEECHES. Make people SEEK out their political news instead of being fed what some one deicides is right and wrong in soundbites. Maybe then it will start to be about issues and not about personaility.

I totally understand R'osity positition. They can be sued out of existance or have other legal action that would basically wipe them off the fast of the Earth. I can tell you I'm taking flack for taking a small stand, and I can't really be held accountable for anything.

Firekath... NO. My arguments are about free speech and expression. I REALLY resent being compared to a child molester because I think it's important to be able to talk about that subject matter. Talking about something is not doing it. The problem all you people who seem SO eager to restrict everyone elses right to expression have is the sick and unatural belief is that you can assign YOUR responsibility to some one else. People need to be responsible for THEIR OWN actions. When our "civilization" finnaly get's THAT through it collective thick heads then maybe it can reverse the decline it's been in.