Yes, because with a database this size it would probably take a full-time person just to go through and keep it up to date... The important part is that Spike said "When we issue a new warning, we will review the members records at that time and remove old strikes as needed." so nobody will be unjustly penalised. Kev.

It's most certainly not okay to infringe someone's copyright by tubing. Any that we catch here are removed as soon as we know about them and can verify that they're rip-offs. One thing you have to bear in mind though... we can't just pull it because a member points it out. We have to have some kind of evidence to work with (a link to the original, a complaint from the original artist, something like that) unless it's something so obvious that anyone would catch it. I've just looked at the image you mention. If you can provide a link to the original image of the girl, I'll gladly look into it deeper, but just because the artist says it came from a psp site doesn't automatically mean it's a copyright violation. There's always the chance the original artist posted the image at the psp site for others to use, and we have to bear that in mind too. Kev.

Hmm... there's a link in the menu bar called 2D, which takes you to a download page. I agree it's not quite in the spirit of Freestuff to do it this way. Kev.

Broad, isn't it :) Realistically you're going to need to do some work on the creature created with CC in some sort of modelling app, but so long as the final result can be shown as derivative of the creature file (which according to the rules should be available on request) then I don't see a problem. As for the rest... it's your call. The idea is to show just what can be done using CC as a starting point.

Sounds like you have the old favourite 'busted cookie' problem :) Log out from the site, close your browser, delete any cookies with 'renderosity' or 'bondware' in them and then come back and log in. That usually does the trick. Oh, and check your time and date as they need to be reasonably accurate.

Tricky one, but I'll answer as best I can. If an image is brought to our attention (either by a concerned member or by one of the team) as possibly being in violation of the 'underage' part of the TOS the sort of things we look at are: Does your first glance at the image tell you it's a youngster or an adult. Head size in proportion to body, what age does the face look, overall frame of body, width of hips, length of legs, size/shape of breasts, hairyness in the pubic region (yes, I have heard of razors;)), shape of hands. Basically we try to look at the image as both a whole and as elements, but if something stands out as being 'wrong' (to give an example: if you just took the milgirl mesh and gave her huge boobs and said 'look, she can't be under 18, she has big boobs') then it might sway the decision. I ought to add that it's almost always a group decision on the removal of images. If it's clear-cut then an image will just be removed, but if there's even the smallest doubt it goes before the whole team for discussion, at the end of which we usually reach a concensus on whether the image is okay or not. Given that the co-ord/mod/admin team here is geographically and culturally quite diverse we reckon that we usually come to the right conclusion (but then I would say that, wouldn't I ;) ) Not a perfect answer I'm afraid, but the best I can come up with. Kev.

Well, she "gives the appearance of being under the age of 18" certainly, but I can't see anything "erotic, seductive, provocative" about the pose.

Well, I beg to differ Heidi :) My interpretation of that particular banner is that her hands are crossed in front of her chest. No breasts are visible, and no hands touching breasts are visible. Clint and the MP team spend a good deal of time going over banner ads, and though they're human and inevitably the occasional banner will slip by, my own opinion on this one is that it is okay. Kev.

"By the TOS and your narrow minded definitions... it's Child Porn!" Not according to our TOS it isn't, and we wouldn't remove it if it were an image in a member's gallery. Kevin.

It's been there in one form or another for a long time. This is just a rewording to hopefully make things a little clearer. Kev.

"Do breasts count as 'genitals' ?" No, they don't. Mons pubis, labia, vaginal opening, penis, testes are what we refer to as genitals. "Topless 17 year old - is that verboten?" Not automatically, no. It would depend entirely on the image. If it was, say, a beach scene then it would almost certainly be fine. If she was in a sexy, provocative, erotic scene then it would almost certainly be removed. Kev.

shudders TOS violation doesn't come close... thanks for pointing it out Carolly.

Nice idea Anton :) I'll point this thread it out to the big guys and see what they think, okay? Kev.