Congratulations to the winners.

In the spirit of the Eurovision Song Contest held on Saturday my vote is as follows:

1). No.12 (5/cinq points)
2). No.10 (3/ trois points)
3). No. 7 (1/une point)

Thanks to all others who participated in the genre challenge. Well done.

Excellent work by all. Congratulations.

HeHe @ gradient:  Unless the bug recognises itself and complains!!!

"I'm not sure from the TOS statement, to whom does the "Photo-ID" have to belong, the photographer or the model? Can Renderosity clarify the statement please? If the "Photo-ID" is required of the model, what forms of "Photo-ID" are deemed acceptable and how can this be obtained for posting of images of other peoples babies and children?"

**Sorry to labour a point I just want clarity of the TOS statement, again I'll ask:
**To whom does the "Photo-ID" have to belong, the photographer or the model?
What forms of "Photo-ID" are deemed acceptable?
How can "Photo-ID" be obtained for posting of images of other peoples babies and children, or will Photo-ID only be requested for certain images e.g. nudes, etc?

As a UK photographer, I'm not required by law to obtain a model release or permissions. Does this mean that I can't post my images in Renderosity, even though I have complied with the law of my own country, and if approached by Renderosity for such permissions or releases will a statement to that effect be sufficient, or do I have to chase retrospective permissions (if possible), or will my images have to be removed from the site?

Can I ask, as a newbie to the forum, what does the "DITI" part of the title mean?

It is a real can of worms inshaala :(  It opens up a host of issues:

If a photographer is required to supply a "model release" and "Photo-ID" to post an image of an identifiable/recognisable person(s) on Renderosity, why is the same not required on Renderosity of an artistic image representing an identifiable/recognisable person(s)? Why should there be any distinction between the works of a photographer and those of an "artist"? Surely, an artist can supply similar evidence for any identifiable/recognisable person(s).

If an  artistic image of a person(s) is to remain exempt from the rule requiring permission to post. If a photographer posts a manipulated image of person(s) at what point would it be deemed "artistic", rather than "photographic"? Which category of TOS rule applies to the image? If Renderosity decide that this will be a Renderosity decision, will they start applying a "Renderosity approved" statement or symbol to approved images, to avoid being inundated with queries/complaints.

I'm not sure from the TOS statement, to whom does the "Photo-ID" have to belong, the photographer or the model? Can Renderosity clarify the statement please? If the "Photo-ID" is required of the model, what forms of "Photo-ID" are deemed acceptable and how can this be obtained for posting of images of other peoples babies and children?

I don't see how this TOS policy is "workable" for either Renderosity or the member photographers. Will this lead ultimately to a blanket ban on Renderosity of any photographic image of identifiable/recognisable person(s) unless: it is a self-portrait; pictures of our own children; or images where the person(s) contained therein are so small that facial features cannot be determined?

Tried to edit my previous post to add this:

Does the copyright and image permissions policies apply to avatars used by members if they are not of themselves?