Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/index.ez?viewLink=522

Dear Renderosity Members:

As Renderosity continues to grow and evolve we find that we have to fine-tune our TOS from time to time. With that being said, we will be making some necessary changes around child nudity on the site.

These changes are a result of a combination of several factors: feedback from the community, consistency between the marketplace and the community and the legal liability surrounding child nudity and pornography.

The following changes will go into effect today, Monday, March 21, 2005. (There will be a few weeks of education before warnings will be issued for violations):

No Child Nudity: Images of children or characters resembling children (including teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies and other imaginary figures) under 18 years of age, depicting nudity are no longer permitted.

Child Image Guidelines:

No child nudity of any kind which includes no exposed chest, buttocks or genitals.
No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes.
No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of blots or Censored wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed.
No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context.
Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team.

We respectfully request all members please review their galleries and make any necessary updates based on these new guidelines.

Going forward, as we are made aware of images that were posted prior to the new TOS change...and are now considered violating the new TOS, we will notify the artist of the new TOS change and remove the image/s.

Within the next couple of weeks, we will be communicating and educating those artists that are uploading images that reflect the previous TOS guidelines. This education will take place for a period of several weeks and then warnings will be given at the discretion of the Renderosity team.

If you find an image that needs to be reviewed, please send the URL to admin@renderosity.com.

Here you can review the TOS.

We feel this is a positive move for the entire community. We apologize for any inconvenience and we hope you understand the value these changes will bring. Working together we can have the best Community possible!

Thanks,
The Renderosity Team

very good very clear.. can hear the screams already... why not just say no fairies, children or midgets? would have been quicker ;)

Attached Link: http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/05/Floridian/Real_Florida__Red_fac.shtml

Hmmmm...who will be deciding if a figure is 17-1/2 or 18 years of age? What, no buttocks? What about the Coppertone girl? Was she nasty? Obviously I see your point. But I'd still like to know how you'lll determine if a "child" is 17-1/2 or 18 years of age.

Hi TerraDreamer, Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team. Thank you, Stacey Community Manager

"Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." Well, it would be all good and nice, you are in the legitimate position to make your own rules (after all this is your community, we are absolutely free to leave if we don't like the TOS), but I don't think that the 'rosity team is so faultless whenm making judgements: a fine example is the GIRL being arbitrarily catalogued as a teen figure even while Kim Goossens clearly stated (at the time of her inception as a CG character) of being a "classical pinup" in the style of Rita Hayworth or Marilyn Monroe...

Well, of course you change the rule again after banning a few members first. Like I said before, shoot first, ask questions later. How are you going to earn respect from the members? I miss those days when the mods actually listen to members first instead of their bosses wallets. Just blowing off some steam. JV

Software: Daz Studio 4.15, Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM, RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery My Other Gallery

maybe I am just plain stupid but the following sentence No child nudity of any kind which includes no exposed chest, buttocks or genitals. reads to me as a command to have children exposed their chest buttock or genitals. Could be you who could be classified as that.

And how about Mary having naked child Jesus on her arms? Should we tear all the pictures by Michelangelo, Raffael, Leonardo da Vinci off the wall? What's the sense in that? IMHO the much worse threat in so many pictures is showing violence and torture.

There are Disney feature-length animations with lead characters who would be in breach of the new TOS. That's how crazy the world is getting.

You'll get one "yes" vote for me against images depicting violence against women. Same goes for kiddie porn. There are a few sites that split off from here during the nude fairy debate several years ago, and some those sites may still allow images of nude children. So I don't see any reason for the admins, mods or site owners to have to suffer through this debate again. It may only serve to harden their hearts even further against the child nudity faction. That's the real crux of the matter. The child nudity faction can never understand our position of wanting to protect our children from harm, and we can never understand the child nudity faction's eagerness to put children on display as objects to desire, so we should just agree to disagree, and let this useless debate die a quiet death.

"but I don't think that the 'rosity team is so faultless when making judgements". Yep, my Christmas amnesty image only came 7th...What a joke.

I read once that the "Coppertone Girl" image was a favorite among creeps, so there's no "safe" level of child nudity (or context it seems) when a subject like this becomes an issue.

BTW: Wasn't Jody Foster the original Coppertone Girl?
(I think it's brilliant image by the way - almost Rockwellian.)

uh, edited because I just realised that saying I think the image is brilliant, makes me sound like one of the "creeps" referenced earlier - eek! The issue was that it was favoured as a "trigger" image for their fantasies and sometimes even attacks. Nasty Stuff.

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 14:40

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 14:41

Mateo, it's not "eagerness to put children on display as objects to desire". Just read what superdoc said. If I want to create a Michelangelo pastiche or hommage with amori or little cherubs, I cannot put it here. I had a photo of a font, a real honest church font, from the cathedral in my hometown in the gallery. (Removed because the people were not interested in it. :-)) Under the new TOS, the pedestal of the font would be highly objectionable cause the putti (little boys) holding the font bowl up, are naked. That font has been there for the last 500 years and now you're telling me it's objectionable? Come on. Who are you, Voltaire? Kiddie porn? When did Renderosity have kiddie porn? Let's please not bring emotionally charged terms here. OTOH, what I really object are the reasons given why there will be no "child nudity" on Renderosity. Why not simply say, "we are afraid some jerk is going to sue us" and leave it? I can respect that. But this only irritates me. Anyways, yes, I agree that the judgment of the team is going to create conflict. Would be happy if it weren't so.

-- erlik

Mateo, I seriously question your impression of any "child nudity faction".
I agree with the rules against any sexual or questionably sexual depictions of 3D humans that are of questionable age. I agree with the no child nudity rules. 3D or not, it's not appropriate. What I don't think is necessary is to ban infants or innocent dress (beach wear for boys must now include t-shirts).
Now cherubs will be banned, is that really necessary and do you honestly think that fall into a "child nudity faction"?

The whole point of this and what brought it on by a mod who took the 'no genitals' rule and expanded it to include an image that was clothed and did not show genitals. I don't object to any rule that protects our children but I do object to a mod making up their own rules as they go. This new "clarification" is proof that overzealousness was the problem to begin with.
Adding further restrictions only creates the possibility for this to happen again. I personally think the TOS was fine to begin with.

...... Kendra

So, people yelped about the vagueness and the rules have become much tighter, and far more restrictive. You asked for clearer rules and now you have them. The mods have listened.

I agree with this decision and the reasonings for it even though I personally see nothing wrong with nudity among any age group (including old wrinkled crones as well as plump babies, with or without wings). This isn't a matter of being anti-fairy, but of not having some solicitor general serve papers or PayPal freeze the store or being featured on the nightly news when some pervert and his computer get carried off to the glare of flashbulbs. This is the way it has to be in order to avoid a large chunk of very ugly liability.

We live in a country where animal heads are hung on walls and where violence is celebrated and rewarded... yet kissing in public or walking down the street nude is frowned upon. This seems unreasonable, but this is the culture and laws of the land.

A question does arise about all the art currently in the galleries which may be against the TOS. Do existing images get grandfathered in as of this date, or will they be pulled as spotted? Edit... just noticed, no grandfathering. That will be more consistent, even though harsh. It will remove the finger-pointing of "why is that one allowed?".

Carolly

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 15:04

So does this mean Poser will be banned?

Can you say sublimanalable?

How do I quit this joint?

This is way more offensive than any image I've seen here.

It's been a wild ride but it's not worth bending my principles. Free speech and all that crap.

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 15:51

"...or PayPal freeze the store..." Gotcha. ;)

Yes indeed blaufeld, I think you may be right there :)

"...or walking down the street nude is frowned upon." When considering my neighbor, I am thankful for such laws! Here's an idea: why doesn't Renderosity render up a child that meets their criteria for something unporn-like so Poser artists will know in advance what is allowable. T-Shirts on a computer generated male child out of fear? LMAO! What have we become? I know this isn't happening in real life, but it would appear that the only reason this is happening here is because the Christian Right "morality police" (luv that term, learned it here) are once again swinging their batons in the name of Jesus. Isn't it funny how the very product that created Renderosity is slowly killing it? In three more years, the only thing you'll be able to create with Poser will be mummies. It can't be a PayPal issue. Have you seen what can be purchased on eBay and paid for via PayPal?

ok there's 3 groups involved here... there's the Pro nudity / leave it alone there's the Renderosity is right brigade hwo many are in the "Fine Art has had these images for hundreds of years and no one calls them kiddie porn or looks at it as being wrong" group? thats the group I'm in. argue all you want about the rights and wrongs of certain images.. but if you ban certain area's of creativity such as the old masters have you belittle what this site is supposed to be about. agreed if you have a naked child in a "provocative" postion remove it. but if you have a cherub in the style of the old masters and you ban that or works that make up the Sistine Chapel, or works by Rembrant, Di Vinci and many other respected artists, then sorry. you have no right to call yourselves artists and have no right to run a site dedicated in anyway to artwork. since that image (my example) is classifed as artwork by institutions far older and greater than a website that has only been in existance around 10 years. they teach us the basics of the craft we endevour to show here.

Khai; You and the U.S. Supreme Court agree. Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 17:13

some potentially great arguments here and it's interesting to see that stuff (I refuse to use the word artwork) created in Poser by juveniles looking for kicks is being compared to the great masters. If the standard of work here could be compared to Boticelli ot Raphael then I'm sure the mods wouldn't have got involved. Tasteful nudity is one thing but everybody has different ideas of what constitutes good taste and who would want to risk offending somebody with their work? There are plenty of places on the internet to display low rent stuff like this perhaps the staff here have reasonably decided it's about time some standards were applied. Standards that will keep the community alive, standards that will stop the lawyers getting involved and standards that will avoid you being placed at risk for downloading material that is classed as pornographic. Get a life, unfeasibly large breasted amazonians with tiny waists, images of young androgenous characters, pre teen models, children etc are not in my opinion modelled for their artistic merit and virtual porn has no right to be displayed in an artists community. Andy

erm Andy? the ban is more than just Poser. it's 2D. it's Oil paintings. it's tS. it's everything. under these rules Boticelli ot Raphael are banned. it does not matter what you do it in or who you are it's banned. the old masters are banned.

I realise that but if the work displayed hee in the first place was in the same "good taste" as the old masters then the ban wouldn't have been neccessary and that was the point I was trying to make. Sadly there is no point in having a "grey area" because it will only cause more work and pointless arguments. as with so many things in life, if people had behaved sensibly in the first place they wouldn't be arguing about a ban now. Andy

I don't like most of naked virtual models - not because of prudery, but because most of them look ugly and artificial. 2) I think that children pornography should be banned to avoid molestation of REAL children involved in REAL pornographic photographic sessions 3) 3D meshes ARE NOT children, they are not REAL, and all 3D meshes are younger than 18 years, because 18 years ago there was no 3D graphics (almost) So what is the point ? Why to forbid to post a picture showing a naked fairy with childish face? This is complete absurd! You can not kill people - but you can show factious killing - (in almost every movie, also in movies for under aged there are thousands of brutal killing scenes) You can not explode atomic bomb in heart of NY, but you can show it in a movie... You can not be drug dealer in real life, but an actor can play a drug dealer in a movie. So why someone can't show a 3D mesh looking like naked child? This is fiction! No one is hurt here, no one is molested. Stupidity does not know any frontiers... Of course owners of this site can impose any rules they want - this is their right - Next, I propose to forbid to show endangered species of animals or biplane aircrafts - it would be as much cleaver as this last rule...

Better start putting moustaches on those `fairies' from now on , then?

:o)

Knees to shoulders - circa 1901 "you've come a long way baby" about time they got those femma nazi's God is welcome here- but your not. ---------------------- Hell've an attitude to express isn't it!!!

Normally I don't comment on these sort of topics, but as of late I've been getting more and more fed up with the way society places more and more restrictions on the innocent, whilst granting more and more leeway to the guilty. It's useless to cry 1st amendment here, it's not relevent and does not apply, but it's a shame that honest art has to suffer for the freakshow that is allowed to run rampant out there. I've seen many images of mothers with babies in here, one or both figures nude, that are lovely. So sad to ban that because society insists that the monsters who prey upon children deserve any right other than the right to a speedy destruction. Blaming the art for the crime is less than feeble as well. Just another way to make an excuse for the animals our courts are afraid to eliminate. Sorry about all that...I'm not known as a ranter in here, but child molesters are the lowest form of scum there is, and to tell everyone else to mind their P's and Q's so the freaks don't get their jollies is lame. I will give the mods the benifit of the doubt that they have the best intentions in mind....but this smacks of 'slippery slope' to me.

So, people yelped about the vagueness and the rules have become much tighter, and far more restrictive. You asked for clearer rules and now you have them. The mods have listened. How does that make it any clearer when it also says: Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team. That just gives more room for interpretation and more excuse to do whatever their perception decrees, with no recourse at all. Isn't that more of a policy to eradicate any image that's even suspected of being near to the guidelines according to who is judging it?

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

hummmm... No child nudity of any kind which includes no exposed chest ...... so I guess there won't be any more beach scenes, nor swimming pool scenes .... gotta keep the kids complete covered. guessing that a "child" in this new TOS is under 18 looking. errr a 10 y/o kid with beard and mustache ?? !! I can kinda understand the reasoning, but sometimes the cure kills the patient.

Oh, crap. I have a baby image in my gallery which has the baby with no top on. Guess I'd better delete it now, because it's clearly not an adult and its chest is exposed. I also have to wonder about boys having to cover THEIR chests. Little boys are generally allowed to go topless on a beach (just not at Renderosity). This looks like a standard "knee jerk" reaction to me. Whatever. I'm to the point where I just really couldn't care less. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Here's a few other sites TOS

3DCommune

No nude artwork, animations or photographs of children under the age of 18 will be allowed anywhere on the site, however, artwork showing babies in a non sexual setting will be allowed, provided there is no showing of genitalia.

Poser Pros

Q. What sort of images are totally unacceptable?

A. No hardcore pornography - mild artistic nudity is acceptable. No softcore or hardcore child pornography (no nudity of those who appear under 18 please)

Renderotica

CHILDREN DEPICTION OF CHILDREN OR CREATURES RESEMBLING CHILDREN

(INCLUDING IMAGINARY CREATURES SUCH AS FAIRIES)

UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN, EVEN IN NON-EROTIC SITUATIONS.

As a rule of thumb, make sure that all your models, virtual or real, look clearly over 20. We realize that this is subjective and hard to determine with virtual figures, but we prefer to err on the side of caution in this matter.

PICTURES THAT INCLUDE A TEXT SPECIFYING OR IMPLYING THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE CHARACTERS IS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE,

OR THAT INCLUDE PROPS AND SCENERY IMPLYING SUCH, ARE FORBIDDEN.

This includes, but is not limited to, descriptions of "teen" anything, high school desks and classrooms and other words and situations implying that one or more of the participants is under 18.

www.bclaytonphoto.com

bclaytonphoto on Facebook

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=120512&Start=37&Artist=SndCastie&ByArtist=Yes

So, is SndCastie, a moderator here, in violation of the new TOS? See link. Man, I can see a full third of the outstanding efforts of thousands of artists disappearing from Renderosity's servers over the next two weeks. This is really sad news. It is truly pathetic. My sincere symapthy to those who suddenly qualify for censorship. Is this really the route to go? What is Renderosity trying to do, protect perverts from themselves? Or keep the morality police happy? I'm simply astounded.

Am I alone in thinking that a paedophile would NOT slip in a pic of a cherub and then dance for joy that it got past the censors?

Incidentally, our own TOS at PlanIt 3D is also specific to the point of...

No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 where genitals are displayed and/or in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the PlanIt 3D team.

Note that the emphasis is on "sexual" type poses, and genital exposure...and that would still exclude an honest to goodness cherub.

If the galleries are going to be policed (which is GOOD i.m.h.o) then at least set some reasonable guidelines for the police force, not a blanket ban. [edited for 2:15 a.m. typo.]

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 20:26

The liver is evil - It must be punished.

YES, SndCastie's image is in violation of the TOS. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Nancy Deer With Horns
Deer With Horns Native American Indian Site

Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Boticelli, etc must be lucky to not have been born today. The Inquisition was a saint compared to those stupid Puritans!

Stupidity also evolves!

Well done. I like this new rule. Now folks will have to work at clothing their mesh. What a challenge. Actually, what amazes me are the number of responses that think this rule is NOT right. But, I guess that's the state of the nation these days.

YES, SndCastie's image is in violation of the TOS. Isn't that part of the "discretion?" Since age is so difficult to identify with 3D images, that image could be judged to be not applicable because the Baby New Year is ageless it's always renewed at the beginning of each year. It all depends on who's doing the identifying doesn't it?

Click to get a printed and bound copy plus T-shirts, mugs and hats

Can we get an official clarification on boys without shirts on? It does seem to say that in the text, but it seems like it violates common sense.

I'm not looking for any rants, just a Mod to clarify.

Beyond that, I take offense at the many people bringing out their hatred for Conservatives or Christians of which I am one. This is not a case of either one here. Its simply the business of lawyers. They are always looking for someones cause or position to exploit for their gain. I understand that Renderosity needs to protect themselves and I wont complain about that.

Message edited on: 03/21/2005 22:37

Actually, what amazes me are the number of responses that think this rule is NOT right.

LOL! Well, somebody better tell the companies that make disposable diapers that they'd better put shirts on those babies in the advertisements!

There was an official statement regarding shirtless boys in the thread on this topic in the Poser forum. No, it is not allowed. Not on the beach, not if it's a baby, under NO circumstances.

I think this has nothing to do with Christians or Conservatives. It has to do with the Admins being pissed off at the members for making a stink over someone's banishment, and they're putting the smack down hard, with too-restrictive rules now. They're gonna teach people a lesson, dammit. They're gonna just show us who's in charge.

Personally, I care less and less about Renderosity and their policies every day, and I spend less and less money here as a result.

bonni Message edited on: 03/21/2005 23:02

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=807818&Start=1&Artist=mimezine&ByArtist=Yes

"Beyond that, I take offense at the many people bringing out their hatred for Conservatives or Christians of which I am one. This is not a case of either one here. Its simply the business of lawyers. They are always looking for someones cause or position to exploit for their gain." And they seem to never run out of clients; it's the clients who bring in the business. I never said I hated Christians or Conservatives. But I *will* go so far as to say they're usually the groups doing the most screaming over things like this. Ever watch Hardball with Chris Matthews? However, I do apologize if you were offended. I'm in agreement with the management for the most part and I can certainly understand their concerns. I took a few minutes and viewed a few galleries which I found to contain questionable work when it comes to the TOS and attached a link (NUDITY) containing what I would consider to be a female at approximately 14 years of age. Now the picture isn't showing anything of a sexual nature other than nudity, but I suppose there are those who would get their jollies off in viewing such content. This is where the problem is for management and it's completely understandable. After all, this is a business, and standards and practices must be maintained and upheld. But I still maintain that the new TOS does go a little far in trying to control content. From what I'm understanding, I cannot post to the photography section a picture of my darling 12 month-old granddaughter playing in a suds-filled bathtub because her chest is exposed, nor can I post a photograph of my 13 year-old son playing topless at the beach. You asked the question of whether or not a shirt was required for male adolescents. Here is your answer... *No child nudity of any kind which includes no exposed chest, buttocks or genitals. *No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes. Which certainly answers your question, and certainly informs me I can't post the pictures I mentioned above, and THAT, kind sir, is what I find so incredibly hard to believe. Renderosity has tossed the baby out with the bathwater...no pun intended. I'm not a Poser artist nor am I a member who posts content that shows nudity in any other medium, but I do surf a lot here and can't imagine the damage forthcoming to many artists galleries. I would hope management uses good judgment in determining what is pornographic and what is not. After all, pornography is the concern. I just hope the brush isn't too wide.

but "this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team." is what I have a problem with.

Software: Daz Studio 4.15, Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM, RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery My Other Gallery

Elizabyte, go read a US Supreme Court case called Ashcroft v. Free Speech and then look at how Congress address that case and how Congress chose to rewrite the federal code. After you do that, you won't have any concern about the thinking and logic behind this new TOS. The way I see it, its a no-brainer. So spend less money if you like. Punish those who abide by the law if you like. Use faulty logic and wild reasoning if you like. Have a great day skateboarding.

I have personally been affected by this issue and have removed all images that I feel may be misconstrued or create offense. The image I was originally asked to remove was created using the milteen girl with morphs that matched my own 34 year old body shape and 'in my own opinion' was much older than 18; Yet it was still viewed as child like by others. When I seriously think about this and look in the mirror I think 'you've got to be kidding' and then I think of all the countless times I have been mistaken for my sons(he is 16yrs old) girlfriend then it really does make perfect (on some levels) sense to me :) I too am fine with the new changes as long as they are clearly defined, basically if I want to create childlike fae etc I still can I just can't put it in my gallery here at Render... however I find it slightly curious with the male chest side of things!?

Artist Page ~ Store ~ OpenMindDesign (website) ~ OpenMindGallery (website)

There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on every beach in the world!

EricofSD, as I noted, tell it to the advertisers who make diapers and show babies without tops, wearing the diapers.

I noted elsewhere that I wouldn't have cared about the TOS changes, other than the "no shirtless boys on the beach" clause. Yes, I think babies should be able to toddle around in their diapers, and boys should be able to take off their shirt on the beach, and banning that from the galleries just makes this site that much more likely to be filled with nothing but boring Naked Vickis.

If you REALLY think that picture of a boy on the beach in a pair of swim trunks or a picture of a baby in a diaper is against the law, you're the one who needs to review the law you're citing.

bonni

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 01:14

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Paedophiles don't go and don't post on Renderosity. These perverts have their own bloody shites. The criteria you set, with their vagueness, are an insult to the people on Renderosity. I've been on Renderosity for three years, and never seen kiddie porn or similar abominations. Now I'm not here anymore, and I'm perfectly happy of it!

I am worried that one of my images is breaking this new TOS!

Can some one please tell me, I am not wanting to get in trouble here!!

Gimmi some Privacy

to many stupid rules already...maybe we can all shop somewhere else,or put our stuff in another store?????you guys are taking this prude thing way to far..art should'nt have these type of stupid Rules that limit our creativity...This Sucks!I PROTEST!

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=481811&Start=109&Artist=Ron%5FHarris&ByArtist=Yes

DOES ANYONE HAVE AN ANSWER WHY IT SHOULD BE BANNED TO SHOW 3D MODELS WITHOUT 3D CLOSING WHEN THEY RESEMBLE CHILDREN?

No one can forbid to 18 year old looking 14 to act in hardcore porns - because she is 18, and she can do anything she wants - even to be a prostitute - this is legal.

Children pornography - REAL CHILDREN - from real world - is forbidden (justly) to protect minors against sexual exploitation practices - such law is useful.

What is the point to protect a 3D mesh from being displayed naked ????

There is no sense in such ban.

My post is not in support all those freaks crazy of naked fairies - I prefer other artistic subjects - my post is against STUPIDITY !

Maybe we should forbid to show 3D women's face? Muslim fundamentalist would be very happy!

OK, no naked fairies permitted - let's make more violence renders .... this is cool and legal. Yes! More blood! Show up more decapitated heads! Kill Bill is cool - no naughty fairies - just blood, just killing ! Perfectly legal and politically correct...
World is crazy...

THIS IS LEGAL :

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=602974&Start=55&Artist=Ron%5FHarris&ByArtist=Yes

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=741822&Start=109&Artist=potrimpo&ByArtist=Yes

THIS IS NOT :

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=684350&Start=1&Sectionid=1&filter_genre_id=42&MostWanted=Yes

http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=913020&Start=1&Sectionid=3&filter_genre_id=0&WhatsNew=Yes

World is crazy!

Besides the discussions of what an artist is allowed to do or not, what makes me angry is the behaviour of the staff. I don't visit the forums often so I perhaps missed it, but this discussion about showing nudity and violence should have taken place first, before they changed the TOS. If Renderosity deserves the name 'community', they should have given us a proposal to discuss, an then change the TOS. They behave like masters and we are the slaves. But as Hegel, a german philosopher said: Without slaves, there are no masters'. I don't wanna be a slave. I don't wanna be part of a medieval-like inquisition. Today it's the children, tomorrow the adults, and in the end no pics of persons at all, like in the islamic world. I think it's time to leave Renderosity. Sorry.

Attached Link: http://www.stillpictures.com/categories/unep/UNEP02_2.html

Western society occupy itself implementing prohibition on virtual child-shaped characters nudity... In the same time millions children all around the world are starving to death, are killed by diseases.... If Renderosity cares about REAL children and wants to make World a better place, it should share profits it makes on selling virtual characters (isn't it slavery?) with those millions NAKED African children starving and dying each day.

Attached Link: http://www.stillpictures.com/categories/unep/UNEP02_2.html

Who cares about "not born again" starving children, the important is the morality crusade!.

Stupidity also evolves!

Times and times again we become the church lady, banning everyting we could bann. It lies in the general climat in the western world today sadly enough. Strata

“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” Nikola Tesla

This is so stupid. Shall we start burning all paintings with naked children (lots of jezussus will go up in flames). Should we not read Gabriel Garcia Marquez, where a 90 years old tells about his love for a 14 year old girl? Should we start burning books again? If you go this direction, do you know where to stop? Tell woman not to where hot pants, because some dirty old mind could have bad thoughts about this outfit? Pfff, this world becomes increasingly dumber. Presidents that fly back from there vacations to undermine the Judges verdict. BananaRepublic, no cent better then Iran.

2 funny things here 1, 90% of the images being discussed aren't fit to be called art never mind getting compared to the old masters. If these images were created as "fine art" they've failed so miserably it's laughable and the only reason I can see that many of them exist is because they were created as the result of juvenile fantasies - that isn't art it's porn (albeit very poor quality), no matter how you dress it up or try and justify it's existance. 2, lots of people will shout and complain saying they won't post any more stuff here, they will leave and they will post on other galleries but they will invariably return when they find that puerile rubbish like this isn't welcome anywhere and that many CG galleries have incredibly high standards where images like the ones under discussion wouldn't make it to the also rans. Andy

I have used (adult) male nudes to display a sense of emotional vulnerablity. If these images were removed from my gallery I would be incensed, this is in IMHO bowing to a frenzied public reaction that does more damage then good anyway. If Renderosity starts turning "anti-gay", "pro-chrisitian" or adopts any other such ethos I for one am going to run for the hills. I would much less fear a discrete picture that involes innocent child nudity then the blatant poser porn that blights the galeries. CONTEXT PEOPLE!!!!!

www.digitalgrey.co.nr

Thank you for addressing this subject! I believe there are enough child porn sites or 'barely legel' porn sites out there without the danger of pedophiles cruising through our naked fae pics! Come on! Give us a break here! LOL This country's becoming waaaaaaaaaaay too conservative! We're already a laughing stock of the world as being anal-retentive, why do further damage? Why not get rid of the 'violence' and 'nudity' altogether? After all, porn seeking underage children could easily cruise through our galleries and find literally hundreds of naked gals and guys! So what will Renderosity end up being? Certainly not an 'Art Community' but merely a 'Politically Correct Moral Picture Community' BUT they no longer offend anyone------they will offend everyone with artistic talent and taste! It will become a parody! All the Great Masters are weeping with shame as they watch Art become 'correct'. It's the Burning Times, folks! Our government and corporate america are creating a paranoid society.

All I can think of is what I would have thought when I was 14 mowing the lawn with no shirt on if my mother had come running out of the house screaming "Put a shirt on! Some pervert might be watching you!" OR: I was at the beach and was the only boy there that was made to wear a shirt! Just my 2 cents. --Naylin

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
My Store My Gallery
____
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be misquoted and then used against you."

andy_K : why are you here? If you don't think what is created here is art, then GO AWAY! I suppose you're going to define and set the new standard for what Art is? LOL Art is creativity. Period. If offends your 'sensitive' palatte for what you define personally as "Art" then go somewhere else! But exhibiting that attitude will get you the same reaction in any artistic gallery or community. I work in oils, clay and inks, not digital art, but I do enjoy it and all its diversity.

just to answer your comments BlueLotus7. I'm not sure if you've managed to look past the end of your nose but there is more to renderosity than the kind of rubbish we are discussing on this thread and that is one of the reasons why I am here. Yes art is about creativity, I don't call downloading/buying models and clothing then throwing them into hastily constructed scenes with poor lighting and crappy composition creativity - do you? I'm not offended by tasteful art and I'd be the first to defend any genuine artist who felt they were being prosecuted but just because people have the tools, brushes, paints, software etc doesn't give anybody the right to call themselves an artist. Censorship has only become neccessary because of the direction the galleries were taking. When the merchants here are advertising "young teen" models and accessories to download you have to ask what is their primary market - or is it just me that finds that distasteful? (just as a reference it's not just me and the Daz newsletter has been the source of discussion on several forums). sooner or later if you push the boundaries you have to expect those charged with keeping things acceptable to the majority to react. Andy

... is that no one really seems to sit down and think of all the possibilities or all the permutations of the issue first before making the new rule. (which I have no problem with myself) In this case a simple brainstorm session of a couple of people thinking of all the different ways that a child figure can be artistically depicted might have worked wonders. Here's an idea, and something that I do with my students in classes at work but it can be done via email or on a chat forum as well - one person writes down 5 ways that a child figure can be depicted in art, then they pass this list on to another person and they have to think of 5 more ways, without repeating the first 5, and then that person passes it on... and so on as far as you like, but the more you have the better of course. Keep it going until you run out of ideas. Now what you end up with is a pretty extensive list of ways to depict a child figure. Now you sort out the acceptable from the unacceptable ways, possibly grouping them into themes/types as you go if you're able to to cut down the final lists. THEN you go to write you new TOS change covering the unacceptable methods but which would allow the acceptable methods. It should come out a lot more clearer and precise, rather than the blanket "Don't depict a child under age or that..." as has been done now as you have identified your unacceptable targets clearly beforehand. OK so it's a bit of work, but I feel this could clear up a lot of the TOS hassles that happen here on rendo' and make the TOS a bit less ambiguous and open to mod/admin interpretation than it is now. cheers Sean

andy k. ? another one, who tell us, what art is and what art is not... but andy k himself has no gallery here, surely - these dudes like andy k are boring me... ------------------------------------------ i've seen, that one of my pics are linked here. no problem to me, in this pic i want to show only the natural beauty of a body with natural proudness and looking far into the sky... - i don't think about the age during made this pic. the body maybe the body of under 18, but the face is old and young both (it was not few work to do this, because that's important to this pic). if this pic offends anyone (why ever) i only have to say: it's my pic and i don't have wanted to show "sexual" or "erotic" behaviour, i wanted only show a "natural beauty with a bit of expression". you can say "it's okay" to this pic and you can say "i don't like it" - but i see a difference between nudity, nudity and nudity, and i see this differences with the eye of an artist! this pic is only 1 of 9 - some of my other pics are in erotical nature, i know that, but especially this pic is NOT. mhm, if mods or admins give me a notice, to trim my gallery, i will do, sure. They make the rules. And i will go away than, because i would think, here's no place for (my) art anymore. if they say, my pics so far are okay, all is allright. It's easy to me to stay - it's also easy to me, to go.

"When the merchants here are advertising "young teen" models and accessories to download you have to ask what is their primary market - or is it just me that finds that distasteful?" If you think that the people making/buying that type of stuff are all perverts that aim to use it only in child-porn, have the ba**s to tell this CLEARLY. Don't hide behind a finger. "Censorship has only become neccessary because of the direction the galleries were taking." Yeah. A true load of pedophyle stuff, right. Are you sure we are both living on the same planet?

That is very clear, Now I hope you give us people who have huge gallery to go through them. And delete what is not acceptable.

Love is Grandchildren.

To andy_k: You have no homepage nor a gallery. If all you do is cruise the site because you enjoy 'art' then perhaps you should be discerning enough to comment, if indeed you do comment, on the work that you personally deem 'artistic' to your taste. And I suggest that if you don't like nor appreciate the "rubbish" on Renderosity, then do as you do with your channel surfing and pass them by. If perhaps you "look past your nose" which seems to be rather upturned you will realize that this community is for BEGINNERS as well as those who are more capable in the digital arts! Hence the "poor lighting and crappy composition" which I take to be the signs of someone struggling and seeking advice which is what the comments are for! (And don't start about the 'backslapping' re comments! This is not a discussion re that issue!) If you find your sensitivities offended by beginning artists I suggest you take yourself somewhere more attuned to your tastes--such as an art museum or gallery...and while you're there ask about Andy Warhol's "Soup Can"! LOL

"Censorship has only become neccessary because of the direction the galleries were taking." Freud explains: "Who see dirt is because has dirt inside"

Stupidity also evolves!

The only comment I can make on this new TOS is " ROTFL " I agree completely with the concepts expressed by Robert Czarny and BlueLotus. And especially with this link which I find moving and I want to resubmit: http://www.stillpictures.com/categories/unep/UNEP02_2.html Actually, I add that the new TOS' goal is NOT to protect children or to stop paedophiles - everybody with common good sense can understand that this is not the way to do taht. The new TOS' goal is simply to please the most bigot, prudish, retrograde, ignorant and -may I add?- perverted sector of the Public Opinion. For whatever the reason (I don't know it). If I was a provocative mind I would start now posting pictures of the non-naked children with their body parts dsrupted by our western bombs in the Iraqi hospitals - just to be a good guy who conforms to the rules. But since I am not a provocative mind, I just leave this thread disgusted.

@Ascinct ** quote I am worried that one of my images is breaking this new TOS! Can some one please tell me, I am not wanting to get in trouble here!! ** quote well, looking at the picture in your link, YEP it does violate the TOS because ... "No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes." it is clear the boy is taking a shower and "most" people don't wear clothing when showering, hence the violation of "appearance of having no clothes" and besides, he doesn't have a shirt on, so that is a violation of the first law of the CHILD IMAGE GUIDE tisk tisk tisk .. just what are we going to do with you ??? showing a kid taking a shower without wearing a shirt. :-/ next thing we know, they'll all have to have shoes on too, can't have kids in barefeet either.

to mimezine and bluelotus7. your ignorance amazes me. Because I have no homepage or gallery here you decide that it is OK to assume that I know nothing and start flaming :) Perhaps a quick search of google would point you in the right direction? Perhaps if you read Computer Arts Magazine you would know who I was? Perhaps if you read 3D World Magazine you'd know who I was? Perhaps if you got your heads out of your own ***** and realised that renderosity was just a small corner of the 3D world you'd know who I was :) Just for your information and because you are obviously too idle too look I'll tell you - I've been involved with 3D graphics/art for nearly 20 years now since the days of the Amiga . I started off in 3D working with a program called Silver (later to be called Imagine) then moved on to early versions of Lightwave and 3D Studio MAX before "settling" on using trueSpace (which at the time was called simply Caligari)until a couple of years ago I switched to using Cinema 4D. Throughout my time as a 3D artist I have been involved in the beta testing and development of various 3D applications. I make a living out of 3D: as a modeller for numerous clients including the games company Namco (check out who did most of the promo artwork for Street Racing Syndicate :))and several major architects and interior designers. I review software and write tutorials and articles for magazines (mentioned above) and several CG sites including 3D Total. I teach 3D both on a one to one basis for clients and companies but in college courses for education authorities. Nothing to do with the topic but if you'd like to see the sort of work I produce and using Google or any other search engine is beyond your capabilities - then drop me a line and I'll send you a link to my web site :) Andy

LOL

Stupidity also evolves!

someone please tell me,is this a community or is it "thier site"???...i believe we pay for this site with revenue from sales in the market place..i spend a boatload here,and usually have respect for what is sent our way..but to tell you the truth i have never noticed kiddy porn at this site..it makes me think someone is making these rules just in case someone is irresponsible and posts some perverted crap..deal with them then, and dont blanket us with these stupid obviously unwanted rules.some people are talking of boycotting the marketplace,to make a stand..some people have already left in search of the perfect gallery..Good Luck...

the mudslinging is getting pretty bad on this thread..lol..you guys crack me up..Andys porn site is pretty interesting indeed.but lets try and focus on the problem at hand...

Andy, Your credentials have nothing to do with your attitude, which has been, to be as polite as I can be bothered, less than helpful.

It wasn't me who started on the personal attacks - i criticised the genre of work which has led to the latest change in rules. There's nothing really to be helpful about, the rules have been changed and it's a case of live with it or leave. I was adding fuel to the fir4e by saying that in my opinion the decision was 100% justified and neccessary As to posting links to porn sites that just helps the moderators justify their decisions - if people can't behave unsupervised and realise where good taste ends then they need to be told. Andy

good, this has been a long time coming. im sure there are people out there who enjoy doing fairy renders for purely innocent reasons, but unfortunately there is also a large community of pedophiles who have realised for years that by slapping a pair of wings on an underage child they could post her/him in as erotic poses that they wanted - because this was no longer a child, it was a fairy. its unfortunate about male kids having to be fully clothed - i dont see why shirts are required, but if this is what it takes to finally cleanse the pedos from the 3D community (or at least the public galleries) then more power to it. again, its a shame about those who truly adore fairies for totally innocent reasons and are now forced to bundle them in parkas to render them, but im sure if those people think about it they will realise that this was a good decision. ive seen images by popular artists in the fairy mafia who had 6-year old prepubescent labia painstakingly postworked on them, it disturbed the hell out of me. unfortunately many people did post fae images for purely innocent reasons and they will now lose a form of artistic impression, and there will be people railing and raging at this decision, but i feel its for the best. and this decision came while i was working on a fae character myself, ironically. i wasnt upset at all. suffice to say that i had to change no part of the clothing to fit the new rules - that should tell you about the market it was intended for. sure your fae might have to be a bit more bundled up if they are based on child figures, so no more pasties and thongs for the preschooler, but if anything this will serve to further diversify the fairy renders with more elaborate outfits, variety in the figures used (whats wrong with an adult fae?) and i look forward to seeing the range of postworked clothing by the fine artists at rosity. cheers, -gabriel

Andy, there is no child porn on this site, so the rules are not changed because of that. There is an other reason. Try figure out witchs.

Sure, and Andy is the ONE who knows better WHERE GOOD TASTE ENDS.... Andy, you should be THE BIG BROTHER BIG BROTHER WAS THE ONE WHO ALWAYS KNEW EVERYTHING BETTER THAN OTHERS DID...

even the thought of them thinking i would post child pornography in my gallery is an insult..and to look thru it for that reason..i am really shocked and disapointed.and to think a young boy without his shirt is enough to get your picture yanked..how stupid.. my very first post here breaks the new TOS...and i will gaurantee there were no thoughts of perversion involved.. i have children and i agree,thier innocence should be protected ..but this is just stupidity..

to andy k - if someone post a message or comment a pic of mine and i don't know him/her, i took a look to his/her artistpage... i think that's more than some other people do... but do you think seriously, i have to look into searchengines for every nick, that posts here??? perhaps you think so, because you are a VIP and all the others are only crap-artists... isn't it so? by the way, if you speak about "poor artworks" at all in this threat, if it is not a personal attack to someone, it's a attack to all the artists here. there is no need to do that, and every time, i read those attacks, i think by me: why does a person that? for what reason? for selfhighlighting? regards mimezine

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

Sheesh! Since I'm into faeries quite heavily, would someone please take a look at my gallery and let me know which ones now violate the TOS...it would be much appreciated as I have deleted quite a few last night, but still could have overlooked more.

Thanks and hugs,
Helen

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 11:24

I seem to have struck a sensitive nerve with Mr. Professional (andy_k) who has to revert to rude language to express himself! This tells more of a person's character than a thousand pictures! There are many more professional artists here who support the beginners and aid them in their personal endeavors to gain experience. You, too, were once a beginner! It's a shame that your own head is somewhere buried deep within the darkness of your own physical body! (Takes a writer to say it with style! LOL) And as I said several times before: Go away if you don't like it here!

BlueLotus7, I find your attitude amazing. Bercause I disagree with you and express an opinion about the quality of work on display I'm told by you to "go away" now I call that rude - it would be a strange world if every critic who disliked anything was immediately dismissed as not worthy of having an opinion :) Anybody who places their work on public display leaves it open to critique. I don't have to like it and I'm not duty bound to say how wonderful stuff is when quite frankly it's not. Of course, I was a beginner and of course I'm still learning - I find that teaching others helps me understand the software I'm using a lot better and anybody who knows me will tell you that I am more than willing to provide time and support to anybody who asks (another of your rash and incredibly innacurate assumptions shot down in flames). I wasn't rude I just made an observation. I didn't insult (or name) anybody. I made the point (which numerous people have agreed with by private message) that the genre of "work" that is classed as art is somewhat dubious and the quality for the most part is awful. Many of the images are hackneyed, corny pastiches of stuff that wouldn't have looked out of place on a 1970's Athena poster. Andy

Maybe Mr Professional could answer why people should be told (by him? by censors?) when the good taste ends? And what is wrong in showing naked factious, unreal figures? Whatever is their shape... childish, teen or adult... If someone assumes that naked poser model is a child, he must assume that Victoria is a woman, so you can't set a scene with killed Victoria because you commit a homicide doing this.... Are we trying to protect real children or 3D models? Maybe some freaks are gone too deep into "matrix" that they cannot make difference anymore between real world children exploitation and factious virtual characters displayed in pictures that are going to be banned... Poor people - those worlds are separate! - One is real, the other one is factious. Protect real children - not poser figures!

PEOPLE...If we revert to in-house fighting and insults, they will lock this thread and the REAL subject matter will be ended. Please stop for the rest of us who may have something to add. I read up the thread where Ardiva had deleted a lot of her images. This is an artist that has done countless images of perfectly beautiful and perfectly innocent faes that can actually be children's book covers. Isn't ANYONE here sickened by the thought that because some "team" decides this is best for all of us, she had to do that? And Hitler thought that he knew what was best too. I'm sorry if that seems harsh, but it doesn't even come close to what I am feeling at this moment. I am sick at heart thinking of all the wonderful images that have been made and have been here for so long and now are having to be removed. Especially when I think that one of the most viewed images here is of a personal shave and THAT IS STILL ALLOWED!

I am shocked that Ardiva has deleted images that where perfectly artistic works. Because of this mad rule thing. Is there any reason other then some cristian stiff religous people are making these rules, and the law tells the mod to follow that rule. Does it mean I cannot shoot maria with here child, as displayed in many of our churches? Should I ask them to remove these images, because there might be some perverted people having the wrong idear seeing there images? Where do we go next?

Please let's keep this thread civil and not make any personal attacks against other members. We want to keep this thread open for discussion but won't be able to if we can't keep it civil. Thank you, Stacey Community Manager

comparing the renderosity team to hitler is going way too far. if you want to create your own site where nude child renders are welcome and encouraged, by all means. renderosity is a community, yes. many of the members - especially those with the 'keep it free' and 'fuck merchants' attitudes who never purchase anything from the store fail to realise that this site wouldnt last a day in their hands. renderosity has such a whopping bandwidth bill that it would stagger you, as well as salaries of a dozen or more people that it has to cover each month before it even starts to realise a profit. if they want to disallow nude or provocative child renders thats their business. if you disagree with it, you are welcome to find another place to post your art. unfortunately such a place will soon cease to exist, since all of the other sites are implementing similar TOS changes. so to freak out here is absolutely rediculous. if you want to rail at someone, send a letter to your congressman and bitch about the new laws that are being passed. renderosity is merely reacting to them and protecting itself from a lawsuit - its nothing personal. ...and perhaps as a side-effect of this new rule we'll see some faeries with outfits more creative than a thong and pasties. im looking forward to see what the fae-fan artists that arent obsessed with rendering them in such outfits are going to upload to the galleries. if anything this can revitalize fae artwork, rather than 'kill' it like some of you are suggesting. cheers, -gabriel

"T-Shirts on a computer generated male child out of fear? LMAO! What have we become? I know this isn't happening in real life, but it would appear that the only reason this is happening here is because the Christian Right "morality police" (luv that term, learned it here) are once again swinging their batons in the name of Jesus."

You, and everyone else who have ranted in the name of "Jesus" need to seriously look around outside your own box once in a while.
I am against this new TOS and I am Christian. So put away your paintbrushes and try to think without falling back on the lame excuse that it must be the Christian Right pushing for this.

As much as the mods think this is crystal clear, what about newborn baby images? Are diapers not enough? Do babies need full clothing now? I'd really like an answer to this one. Good thing I pulled that "Motherhood" image I had of a new mother and her baby. Heaven forbid someone see that as "wrong" and think I need a "warning".

...... Kendra

Gabriel, You know you have my respect, but to claim that this is as a result of the law is incorrect. The SCOTUS struck down COPA because of it's sweeping effect on traditional modes of art as well as any potential benefit in the fight against child porn. Any law against depictions of 3d characters would have to work around that, I believe. I think bonni and others are correct when they say that this is in reaction to other images being deleted and artists being barred, and having it questioned by the membership. ....Is it too late to invoke Godwin's law? You're very right. The mods aren't Hitler. They don't walk so funny. :) RC

"Especially when I think that one of the most viewed images here is of a personal shave and THAT IS STILL ALLOWED! " -Unicornst as much as i may consider it tasteless to post such an image here, i hardly disagree with it. shaving strongly implies sexual maturity. you might as well be complaining that "i can go out and bang a 19 year old, but i cant do the same to a 6 year old!". the problem is that this issue is very subjective. and when you have subjective issues there will always be members who push, and push, and push at their boundaries and try to get away with more and more each day. there is no way to prevent a certain kind of child nudity render without imposing a blanket ban on them all, otherwise you end up with a constant stream of arguments on a daily basis about wether or not this constitutes child porn or not. while it is unfortunate that some fine artists are losing a part of their galleries due to this, im sure that they will understand and their next fae renders will include even more creative outfits that cover them up a bit more. if that artist refuses to render fae in anything but pasties and thongs, then i question their motives to begin with.

You're right, Kendra. Puritanism isn't solely a Christian value, despite the name. ;)

Blackhearted sums up my feelings perfectly. Renderosity provides this to us for free, be happy it is here! Are naked faeries necessary? I have quite a collection of figurines and wall art of faeries, not one of them is naked nor have I seen many for sale that are. I do agree that banning small boys in swimsuits on a beach is a bit extreme, as a person who appreciates this free service, it's something I think the majority should be able to live with.

Okay...you know what? I've tried five times to answer you about the Hitler remark and eveything else you posted. But I give up. What's the use? Apparently, you have your mind made up and the powers that be can do no wrong and we who make fairy images have no right to protest over censorship, so I'll just go into my little corner and be quiet while everyone tells me what to draw...what to create...what to look at...what to think.

Now censor these! : ANTONIN MERCIE' "David" http://perso.wanadoo.fr/verat/David.jpg ANONYMOUS, Hellenistic period "The young idol" http://www.comune.firenze.it/soggetti/sat/images/idolino.jpg CARAVAGGIO "San Giovannino" (Young St.John Baptist), Galleria Borghese, Rome http://www.thais.it/speciali/Caravaggio/foto/012t.jpg CARAVAGGIO "San Giovannino" (Young St.John Baptist), Museo Capitolino, Rome http://digilander.libero.it/debibliotheca/Arte/caravaggio/pics/TN_01240100.JPG BENVENUTO CELLINI "Narciso" (Narcissus), http://www.iconos.it/typo3temp/36538cf303.jpg ANONYMOUS, Roman age "Narciso" (Narcissus), Pompei http://www.miti3000.it/mito/narciso_stagno.jpg ANTONIO CANOVA "Amore e Psiche", Paris, Louvre http://www.thais.it/scultura/image/media/sch00236.jpg ANTONIO CANOVA "Amore e Psiche", St.Petersburg, Hermitage http://snipurl.com/dl5o PARMIGIANINO "Cupido" (Cupid) http://rsta.pucmm.edu.do/biblioteca/pinacoteca/manierismo/imagenes/m2.jpg CORREGGIO "Danae", Rome, Galleria Borghese http://gallery.euroweb.hu/art/c/correggi/mytholog/danae.jpg BRONZINO "Allegoria di Venere e Cupido" (Allegory of Venus and Cupido), London, National Gallery http://digilander.libero.it/debibliotheca/Arte/nudo/01020100.JPG JACQUES-LOUIS DAVID "Cupid and Psyche", Cleveland, The Cleveland Museum of Art http://www.artunframed.com/images/artmis39/jdavid71.jpg CARAVAGGIO "Amore Vincitore" (Cupid winner) Berlin, Gemdegalerie http://www.thais.it/speciali/Caravaggio/foto/045t.jpg GIOVANNI BAGLIONE "Amor divino che vince l'Amor sacro" (divine Love winning over sacred Love), Galleria Nazionale, Rome http://www.biblhertz.it/Mitarbeiter/Strunck/baglione.JPG FRANCOIS P.S.GERARD "Cupid and Psyche" http://www.globalgallery.com/images/bm-g763.jpg POMPEO BATONI "Diana e Cupido" (Diane and Cupid) http://www.kyphilom.com/www/gif/baton-j1.jpg ELISABETH VIGEE-LEBRUN "Prince Henry Lubomirski" http://www.kyphilom.com/www/gif/vigee-j1.jpg WILLIAM ADOLPHE BOUGUEREAU "Cupid and Psyche" http://www.kyphilom.com/www/gif/bougu-j3.jpg ANGELICA KAUFFMANN "Cherubs painting" http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/WEB/US152A.jpg JEAN-BAPTISTE GREUZE "Love crowned by Psyche" http://www.loggia.com/art/artists/images/greuze.gif FRANCOIS-EDOUARD PICOT "Cupid and Psyche" http://www.hijo.de/HIJO/Pics/Psychef.jpg ANNIE SWINNERTON "Cupid and Psyche" http://snipurl.com/dl75 ANTOINE-DENIS CHAUDET "Amour" (Cupid) http://www.heeza.fr/BOUTIK/Fiches_Produits/PUSHTAC/images/CE062.jpg WILLIAM ADOLPHE BOUGUEREAU "Amour" (Cupid) http://digilander.libero.it/debibliotheca/Arte/nudo/00890010.JPG FRANCOIS BOUCHER "Nude" Muenchen, Pinakothek http://digilander.libero.it/debibliotheca/Arte/nudo/00870090.JPG GUIDO RENI "Amor sacro e amor profano" http://www.ambientepi.arti.beniculturali.it/flash/musei/palreale/fotohtml/img/042g.jpg GIOVANNI BATTISTA CARACCIOLO "Cupido dormiente" (Sleeping Cupid) http://www.whitfieldfineart.com/exhib/BATTISTELLO%20-%20Sleeping%20Cupid.jpg HENRY SCOTT TUKE "August Blue", Tate Gallery, London http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/news/ntm2/Images/ntm9-1-2.jpg THOMAS EAKINS "Swimmers" http://www.humanitiesweb.org/gallery/196/6.jpg DONATELLO "David", Museo Nazionale del Bargello, Firenze http://www.prometheus-imports.com/david-by-donatello-bb-l.jpg ANONYMOUS, Greek age "Boy from Marathon" http://www.prometheus-imports.com/g-youth-marathon-bb-l.jpg BERTEL THORVALDSEN "Ganymede and the eagle" http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Europe/img/Zeus-Ganymede-thorvaldsen.jpg ANONYMOUS, Bronze Age "Boys fighting", Akrotiri (Greek island) http://snipurl.com/dl7r JACQUES-LOUIS DAVID "Mort of Joseph Barra" (death of Joseph Barra) http://www.artonline.it/Img/museum/David/joseph_p.jpg ANONYMOUS, Greek Age "Antinoos" http://www.antinoos.info/bild/antin181.jpg ANNA LEA MERRITT "Love locked out" http://www.poster.net/merritt-anna-lea/merritt-anna-lea-love-locked-out-3600347.jpg MARY CASSATT "Young mother and two children" http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/art/images/228p.jpg PAUL GAUGUIN "Bust of a nude girl" http://www.art-liquidation.com/images/Gauguin/Bust_of_a_Nude_Girl_s.jpg And these are only a FRACTION of the art that would be lost if such stupid rules were followed everywhere and in all ages. Believe me, the list is only that long only because I got tired searching copying and pasting. I could go on forever with masterpieces that made the history of art and would be prohibited by this new TOS. - Orio

I had a rebuttal for Andy_K, but in respect to not get this thread locked, I deleted it out of this message. I've been thinking about this and reading the threads and I'm convinced at this point that it's not about pedophiles coming here to get their jollies by looking through the galleries for nude faeries. It's a matter of context. Most would agree that the Vicky art would be considered risque enough for Playboy or even a calendar pinup. Imagine if in that Playboy, you saw a lot of naked children running around playing in the sand, whatever, next to the pinup women? There would be a major uprising and Playboy would be forced out of business. I think the same thing applies here. It's not the context of the individual picture (no matter how innocent) as much as it is the association by which it resides. If I was not an artist and came to Renderosity, I'd have to wonder about this, and if someone was zealous enough, could force the issue into shutting Rosity down. Good of the community doesn't have to mean artistic freedom, as much as having a community to go to. Many are already uncomfortable with child nudity and the added context is enough to drive some people to these conclusions. So what is Rosity supposed to do? We don't know, maybe there is already been a formal complaint against them. It seems to me that it is in the best interest of the community that the community stay in business, albeit at the risk of losing some freedoms. While I can't see the male shirtless and diapered babies part of the rule, I understand why this was necessary.

My 2c
ShadowWind

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 12:45

orio - youre kidding, right? why is logic so scarce in these threads? you do realise that in certain periods of history it was perfectly acceptable that girls as young as 8-9 years old were married? in fact i think in certain parts of the world shockingly young girls are still wed. does this mean that we shouldnt impose any laws or regulations as to this? because it was acceptable at one time? at one time it was acceptable to kill someone over a percieved insult, to torture someone for weeks with red-hot pincers and various implements that would make you throw up simply on an accusation, to stone a woman to death based on an accusation of adultery. does this mean that these should be acceptable now? again, let me reiterate: if the inability to post underaged faeries in pasties and thongs upsets you so fucking much then i question your motives of posting 'fae' renders to begin with. noone is banning renders of faeries: they are just banning renders of half-naked, provocatively posed underaged ones.

Orio, all the works of art listed are in places such as museums or churches. They are not in our homes unless via internet. Persons of questionable sexual perversions aren't going to be fondling themselves in such places. As someone posted earlier, searching for anything on any search engine is going to pull up a ghastly amount of porn sites which is getting worse all the time.

I wanted to let you all know that we are going to allow the shirtless boy images. We will remove images where the gender is questionable at our discretion. Also the babies in diapers will be allowed as well. This will not include toddlers (unless male as stated above). We will be working on the new wording for the TOS surrounding this to reflect the shirtless boy images and babies in diapers and have that posted as soon as possible. Thank you all for your suggestions surrounding these two issues. Stacey Community Manager

Well, GOOD. That's at least SOME sense.

Glad to hear that you will be making that provision...

Blackhearted, my examples cover a range that goes from many hundreds of centuries before Christ, to last century. Some of the images I linked to, have been made by English or US artists living in an age, or near to an age, that is commonly known as "Victorian" and I am sure that you know better than me that it was not one of the most liberal ages when it came to the concept of what was morally decent And many of the images I linked to, were even made on order from catholic commissioners (priests). So the point was not in the morality of those times. It's in the ability to understand that the naked human body can be a subject of art without necessarily being an object of perversion. If you look at the images, you will notice that several poses are not much different from what is referred to, in this thread, as the "faerie-porn pictures posted on Renderosity". In particular, the Cupid poses come to mind with a striking similarity. In those cases, the real difference is only in the skill of the makers - most people here at Rosity (myself included) does not have the skills of those masters, yet, this does not mean that they are pornographers. Maybe a few are. But the large majority are, in my opinion, just amateur artists having fun and trying to learn. Not pornographers. This is the most hideous part of the TOS in my opinion: to state that someone is a pornographer only because he depicts naked human bodies. Painting or otherwise representing naked human bodies has been the foundation of Art for dozens of centuries. Why must it now suddenly become perversion?

so youre comparing the old masters painting cherubs to todays fairy outfits of pasties and thongs and lollipops and glitter makeup? its a shame this is the internet, id love to see if you could keep a straight face while saying that :)

Please make the specifics of the new TOS changes avaiabel as soon as possible. I'm having a rather unpleasant and difficult day, and this issue is directly responsible for half of it. I've already said my bit about dragging in the whole "porno/not porno" and "pedophile" bs, so I'll try my damndest to avoid letting my bad mood cause me to call those debating such things my children are not allowed to hear.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

Blackhearted, yes, I restate that many poses (see the St.Johns by Caravaggio) of those masterpieces are not less direct and provocative than those of today's faeries. As i said, it's the skills that change -and sometimes the context, meaning that the Renderosity artists may often lack the ability to give conceptual depth th their scenes - they are struck by the visual qualities of a subject and forget that art should also be something deeper. But this is not the fault of Renderosity's artists, it is a fault that is general and common to all our contemporary age. As for the thongs and lipstick, they are only today's "accessories". In the past, you had laurel crowns and bowls of fruits and so on. Art should be judged by several aesthetic values. Such are the composition, the forms, the lighting, the colors, and the subject meant as "concept". In this TOS I see the same old problem of judging art (or porn, and the line in-between) only by moralistic prejudices, disregarding ALL artistic values that may be inherent to a picture. Let's make an example: if Donatello lived today and made with Poser an equivalent of his David statue, his artwork would have been censored by Renderosity. Of course this does not mean that we actually have a Donatello amongst us, but - what if we did? What if he subscribes tomorrow?

if Donatello lived today...., he would be in jail

Stupidity also evolves!

Waitaminute...I can't post AnimeDoll or MayaDoll in the buff? Grrr...

Do the impossible, see the invisible

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

Touch the untouchable, break the unbreakable

ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER

"I wanted to let you all know that we are going to allow the shirtless boy images. We will remove images where the gender is questionable at our discretion." Sorry, but this is really silly. What is the difference between a seven-year-old boy's and a seven-year-old girl's chest? The fact that everybody knows what these chests will turn into in several years? If so, then the problem is not in the chest, but in the mind of the viewer. I could add something quite stronger, but will refrain and want you all to know that I'm refreaining from the comment. BTW, andy_k, it's not the matter of artistic value, it's the matter of principle. If there's a rule, then the rule is valid for eveybody.

-- erlik

Ok,I'm done...I've taken off 20 of my gallery images. The rest will stay up until the PTB tell me otherwise. To tell y'all the truth, I am feeling very, very discouraged at the moment. sigh

"if Donatello lived today...., he would be in jail" It's a possibility, yes. Ending up in jail for having sculpted a masterpiece statue of a naked boy. Now it is up to everyone of us to decide if this fact would speak more of Donatello's assumed perversity, or of our own idiocy. (BTW, Donatello never married, but not one single episode of his entire 80 years life is reported, where he may have behaved immorally)

" Orio, all the works of art listed are in places such as museums or churches.

They are not in our homes unless via internet..." -Luminaa

Just as a quick comment to this:

http://www.talariaenterprises.com/product_lists/renaissance_2.html

Here you can purchase an 11" high duplicate of Donatello's David for $98 and an 18.5" version for $227... And I'm sure that there are many more places to find such works. Hmmm... how much did you pay for Poser? $98 doesn't seem all that unresonable to me to have a piece of art in my home. Oh, and this is not meant to be a personal slam of any kind. Just a correction.

BTW: Thanks for the clarification on shirtless boys and diapered babies.

--Naylin Edit: You can also get a life-sized version of Michelangelo's David for $2310. While this is a bit pricey for me, I'm sure someone has it in their home, or office!

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 14:48

Donatello? Wasn't he one of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Orio, You are missing the point. This is not about art. This is about perceptions of the pictures posted here. You said yourself that some of the ones may be considered pornographers. I don't consider Playboy-esque images pornography, but then you don't see the latest centerfold hanging in the Louvre. Why? Because of perception. Renderotica does not allow children to be posted at all, even if completely covered in a turtleneck, jeans, sneakers, hat and sunglasses. Why? Because they are perceived as an adult site. And to have children on an adult site, no matter how innocent, is enough to get someone to think it's child porn. It's not worth the risk. Rosity, while not to the degree of Rotica has the same problem. In the midst of the playboy-esque images meant to be sensual and sexy, you can't present nude child images and expect people to consider them protectable art, if they consider the pinups to not be. They are not pornographic, but try telling that to a zealous viewer with a line to the ISP. Remember it's not what the law is, or how artists see it, it's how the public as a whole sees it. And there are people who have wanted the David statue covered...

Erlik, You are right, it is in the mind of the viewer and perception is what guides the world...

"Rosity, while not to the degree of Rotica has the same problem. In the midst of the playboy-esque images meant to be sensual and sexy, you can't present nude child images and expect people to consider them protectable art" ShadowWind, your comment sounds reasonable to me. Although I agree with it only to a certain extent. It is clear and I agree that if I mix adults and children in an erotic picture context, the content becomes unacceptable. But this should not lead to the banning of all artistic and decent nudity regarding minors. The equation that nude of a minor always equals indecent nude, does not find me in agreement, and if someone asks me why, I reply "just look at the art links I posted". I never made such an image (I mean an artistic picture with the nude of a minor), but now I am really tempted to produce one and submit it, just to start a discussion and raise the issue of what is acceptable or not.

"I wanted to let you all know that we are going to allow the shirtless boy images. We will remove images where the gender is questionable at our discretion." "Sorry, but this is really silly. What is the difference between a seven-year-old boy's and a seven-year-old girl's chest? The fact that everybody knows what these chests will turn into in several years? If so, then the problem is not in the chest, but in the mind of the viewer." Not only that, but do you really think that only females can be targeted by pedophiles?

Attached Link: Do you think this is porn?

Actually... I just remembered that I made a photograph of a wall decoration of a building in my hometown, it is part of a big photo series I posted last may, regarding this building. This particular photo portraits a child nude, precisely, the symbol of youth (you can see it is next to a fountain). I wonder if those who approve this new TOS, think that this is child porn, and think that I should delete this picture from the series in my gallery. Please note that this fresco is in a public place here, everyone who comes to the thermal building for the water therapies can see it. Well... I am interested to hear your opinion about this picture.

@ShadowWind & Orio, The basic premise sounds good but Renderosity has seperated itself into galleries. If the pinups are in the pinup art gallery and the kids are in a different gallery, there is seperation. When I buy images from vendors online, they sometimes have both nude models and kids. However, they are in seperate and distinct sections. If Renderosity makes sure the images are seperate, it should be able to have the same legal protections as image vendors.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

I really hope to hear your comments about this photo of mine... the more I think about it, the more I find it the perfect example (no need for me to make that scene anymore). It is perfect because it depicts what is normally referred to as "full frontal nudity". There is no possibility of misunderstanding, the child does not do anything to hide his nudity. And neither does he wear any clothes. As such, it should completely fall within the range of child porn as assumed by the TOS here at Renderosity. He even seems to have what looks like some face makeup. Yet, to me at least, it looks completely innocent, full of life, and positive energy. I can not see any single trace of perversion in this image. I wonder if this is just me, I wonder if you see perversion in this image. In full honesty, I anticipate that if the new TOS will force me to delete this picture from my gallery, I will delete the whole series. I can not accept to erase part of a work of art that is supposed to be appreciated in the whole - and this was the reason of my big photographic effort of last year, several days spent photographing that building. It will not be me to deface the work of art of the artist who painted those walls (which by the way was the biggest Italian Art Deco painter). I hope that this act I may make, may open some minds.

Rowan, Thank you.

StacyG, thank you for the clarification. Personally I don't think that this "new" TOS now differs anymore than the previous version of the TOS. Clothing on young characters and no genitals. It's reasonable.

...... Kendra

"Attached Link: Do you think this is porn? Actually... I just remembered that I made a photograph of a wall decoration of a building in my hometown, it is part of a big photo series I posted last may, regarding this building." ehh, it borders on the uncomfortable. i wouldnt be pleased if someone painted something like that on the wall of my house. if i didnt paint over the whole thing, id at least paint a toga over the little bugger. the anatomy is seriously messed up too - especially the pectorals and ribcage. i dont see the big deal - if i had a penis that small, id want it covered up too. cheers, -gabriel

come on folks, look on the bright side, geez. what a bunch of sourheads you are. fairies flitting around in parkas could be just what we need to add some spice to an otherwise hum-drum fairy market. in fact i might just model my first fairy parka today :)

"Do you think this is porn" may not be the best way to ask the question. The most important question at this point is "Does this fit within the TOS." I don't think any of the PTB will dipute that some things prohibited by the TOS are not porn. However, I suspect that even though they might not view it as porn, they evaluate it based on the question, "what are the odds that someone else might think of this as porn and take some kind of action against us?" I looked at that image and didn't think it was porn. I wasn't sure of the age of the model either because it was highly stylized. But I'm not risking anything by hosting it so I don't care if he's 19 or 91.

Before they made me they broke the mold!
http://home.roadrunner.com/~kflach/

Get with the times, model a fairy burka. :)

...... Kendra

Anyone knows the famous fountain in Brussels?

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery My freestuff

Don't worry, is not so dramatic and it is not the universal diluvium.
It is happening only in Taleban's like countries and in most places the statues remain uncovered, museums are not censored, art is still art and a nude child is only a nude child.
If you have lost your freedom, just fight and recover it!
Liberte, Igualite et Fraternite.

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 16:00

Stupidity also evolves!

andy_k: Birthday:November 21, 1957 Biography:hobby and freelance 3d artist, professional session musician Location:UK I find it interesting that he shares my birthdate, but my year is 1952. ;) Male Scorpion--explains a lot. NOTE: I didn't shoosh you out like a pesty rodent at the end of a broom! Again, misinterpreted. I merely said if you don't like what you find here, the option is to not come back. Enought time wasted on this. Time to go back to my sculpting! Good luck to one and all! I promise not to sculpt naked fae children! LOL

"Get with the times, model a fairy burka" what in the name of jeebus is a 'burka'?

Attached Link: Burqa

"what in the name of jeebus is a 'burka'?" Something supposed to make men feel comfortable by hiding nudity, and women feeling uncomfortable by being forced into a moving cage.

"(...)they evaluate it based on the question, "what are the odds that someone else might think of this as porn and take some kind of action against us?"(...) It is just this kind of attitude that is dragging the US right down the drain: the possibility that someone will find a lawyer so avid and a judge so stupid to put up a mockery of trial and sue for dollars anybody they desire for any reason they want... In many european countries we have VERY harsh laws regarding pornographic content/context, but them all ends when the risk of RIDICULE steps in: and do you know why? Because we trust the men behind the judicial system to take actions based on MATURITY and COMMON SENSE, not on a miriad of rules about skirt lenght, percentage of exposed nipples or sex of naked butts...

blaufeld: you may have a point there. Have the US lost their trust in the abilties of their judicial system? That may be the reason so many organisations set up their own "justice departments..." I wouldn't be surprised, regarding the immense load of totally ridiculous courtroom cases that have been in the new over the last dozen years or so... Cases that would have been dismissed by any self-respecting court.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery My freestuff

Sorry, but I don't need to be 'educated'. I know what the laws are in this country pertaining to nudity in art. I follow those guidelines and I think that the TOS should also follow those guidelines. That is all that needs to be said! If someone goes a little 'too far', then that is why we have moderators! I will not remove my images. There is nothing wrong with them.

Re: Change in TOS...New Child Image Guidelines by Blackhearted on 3/22/05 13:13 "if the inability to post underaged faeries in pasties and thongs upsets you so fucking much then i question your motives of posting 'fae' renders to begin with." Nice comment....if people don't agree with your opinions then start swearing. I'm suitably impressed.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=2171360

Oh, well.....*sigh*......

I've already said it over in the Poser forum. In a much, much longer thread.

No need to do it again over here.

Something To Do At 3:00AM

who was it that said 'only in America'...?:) I am not 'having a go' just stating the first thing that came to mind when I read the rest of this thread. I hope everyone has a lovely day.

Artist Page ~ Store ~ OpenMindDesign (website) ~ OpenMindGallery (website)

There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on every beach in the world!

lol, youre protesting the censorship of child nudity yet you think the word 'fuck' should be censored? my, what interesting standards some have. give it to some close-minded people to miss the point of my statement entirely and focus their attention on something as insignificant and stupid as my use of a cuss word. im glad youre devoting yourself to the important issue in this thread - my use of the word 'fuck'.

Orio, Whether the image is porn or not does not come into the equation. If there was enough complaints about that image you posted that it started to affect the business of that place, they'd take it down because the image is not worth losing their business over. It's Rosity's wall that we hang our pictures on, and as such, they want to be comfortable with what is posted on their wall. That's not unreasonable. The world is full of people who see things differently (look at the people who find the preacher in Little Mermaid has an erection). Most people wouldn't see that or care to even try to notice, but the revelation caused a big stink for the Disney Company and quite an embarrassment true or not. It's not worth dealing with this, so they have to make a TOS change that covers it. No website on the net is about artistic freedom. They all have rules to some extent on what can and can't be posted. Artistic freedom is the ability to create whatever image you want. It does not mean that the image has to be shown in a gallery or on a website. That is up to the owners. It's their wall and ultimately, they are responsible for what hangs there.

For the record junior I have not given my opinion for or against child nudity. And yes I think your cursing should be censored. It is inappropriate and resorting to swearing is the sign of a small mind. If a persons points are valid then they will be regarded as such without resorting to offensive language.

ShadowWind, I understand your explanation. It is true that we are hosted by Renderosity. It is also true that we are those who make Renderosity survive through our purchases (and some of us also being merchants). Therefore, it is not a one gives-the rest takes situation. It is more of a give-and take situation. Renderosity gives us the services and we give Renderosity our loyalty and money. So i don't think that we should not have any word at all in issues regarding the galleries. Also I am worried about this trend. I try to put myself in the shoes of a puritan, if I was offended by nudity, all nudity would offend me, not only that of a certain age. And certainly if I was someone who sees perversion in a naked child, I would also see it in a naked adult, and I would judge it, too, unappropriate. So my point is that you begin to give a finger to the censors requests, and then you end up giving a hand, and then the arm. It's all consequent. Look what happened with the TOS. It became more and more restrictive with the years, and by conceding more and more to censors, they (censor) feel like asking more and more. The next step, you can be sure, will be the banning of all nudity, regardless of age. I don't know when it will happen, but looking at this trend, I can say that it surely will happen someday.

@Kendra: "You, and everyone else who have ranted in the name of "Jesus" need to seriously look around outside your own box once in a while. I am against this new TOS and I am Christian. So put away your paintbrushes and try to think without falling back on the lame excuse that it must be the Christian Right pushing for this." I already responded to one complaint; adjust your sensitive Jesus radar so as to read follow-ups in this thread. And I still maintain that the biggest issuer of complaints over this and other forms of free thinking are the Religious Right. And I DO look outside my own box, and I see my rights guaranteed me by the framers of our Constitution being slowly removed by such fanatic conservative religious groups. We can agree to disagree all night long on this subject, but I know damned well I'm in the majority here when I make a statement like this. 51% still doesn't equal 100%, honey, no matter HOW you do the math. 'Nuff said. I'm done with this thread.

Actuall, I wouldn't blame this on anything other than perhaps what's going on outside the box. The real world horrors that happen to children. I guess that fear causes people to point fingers everywhere..I want to say though..that it takes hours and hours to do a decent render of art, and it take like only a few short minutes of you..turning your head away..so your known child abuser..can snatch your kids. You ought to be looking out there..and not in some computer gallery of artists for your culprits. Frankly, maybe I haven't been looking around that much in here, but mostly the faeries I've seen have been fine. I haven't seen too many kids.. ones I have have been completely clothed.. then again, I'm not on some head hunt. Don't really want to get deeper into this, because I understand both sides of the coin here. I'm not whimping out either.. I just understand how people are feeling.

It's been decided folks! Quit whining and blaming...from the Poser forum! 336. Re: Change in TOS...New Child Image Guidelines by MorriganShadow on 3/22/05 13:48 Hey, all, quick message. We are making changes to the TOS as it stands now. Shirtless BOYS will be allowed. BABIES in diapers will be allowed. Shirtless MALE toddlers will be allowed. NO shirtless females appearing to be under the age of 18 will be allowed AT ALL. I know that everyone's stressed out, and I can understand. I want to thank you guys for being so civil. I've been following this thread, and, I've got to tell you, I expected a bigger explosion. Thank you for proving me wrong ;). MorriganShadow Poser Coord

I haven't the time nor the inclination to read thru every single post in this thread. I don't do renders of children or Fae, so this new TOS doesn't really affect me...but it does affect a lot of truly great artists. All I can say is that near as I can tell, Blackhearted is about the only voice of reason I am hearing in here...and as for andy_k....Moron comes to mind.

OK oh boy.
I stoped reading around the time the tiff with andy_k seemed to start.
1- no one is saying that child nudity is not art(in the right context) they are saying it is not allowed here(as apparently it is not allowed in alot of other sites)
2-yes of course there is child nudity that is art. again renderosity I dont think is saying BURN ALL CHILD NUDITY TAKE DOWN THE OLD MASTERS BANN BOOKS..it is saying we can not allow it here
3-if sndcastie's work is clearly showing a topless under 18 figure WHY is it still up? or is it because she is a mod? isnt this being discrimatory against the OTHERS here that have to pull work. and seriously makes it look as if the news rules are only to those that someone wishes to twist the thumb screws too. be consitant. even if it is a mod. if it is against the TOS please pull it and be fair.(work in question was the one posted as an example above :http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=120512&Start=37&Artist=SndCastie&ByArtist=Yes) according to your new TOS this is very much against it. and clearly underage.
4-actually I hate to say it but I was happy to see the new TOS. why? because unfortunatly there ARE people here that DO look at the nudity in the fairies and such in THAT way. yes it is disturbing yes it is not right and yes it is unfair to those that make art for the beauty of it. BUT unfortunatly that is also the way it is. you would be surprised where the perves go to look at things and what they actually look FOR. Renderosity is a company that has to think about other things then expression of an idea. there are rules and laws that if broken or certain groups wish to push could be the end of rendo and all the work in it. as well as those making it.

as shown above ..it seem most of the bigger sites have very similar TOS conerning the same subject matter.

While I understand that is is a Btch to deal with...you really do need to look past the knee jerk reaction of "omg we are being censored" and go and do some investigating into what alot of perves look at. you will be surprised it is not all XXX stuff. sometimes the ones that -are-INNOCENT are the ones that get these a*holes off. it is really sick.

(the pervs not the classical child nudity that is honestly innocent)

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 20:23

https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/

Commission open.

"We are making changes to the TOS as it stands now." The changes are a step in the right direction, although as it is probably clear by now, I object more the premise behind it all than the actual single commas of the law. But even when it comes to commas, there are still some things that don't make sense left in, such as the "NO shirtless females appearing to be under the age of 18 will be allowed AT ALL." Specific situations should be considered before making drastic statements. Take for instance summer scenes. I don't think I ever saw a little girl of less than 10 yrs wearing a bikini top - and I think that any logical person would find the opposite ridiculous, because such little kids have nothing to wear a bikini top for. There is simply no sex difference in that area at that age. Such situations should have been considered.

TerraDreamer, if you think that your opinion gives you the right to make broad sweeping statements about any group, think again.

...... Kendra

oh my gosh... I was directed here by a friend who felt she had to remove an image with a little girl in it "just in case"...and this image is really NOT a problem...as are probably so many others...maybe artists should just "sit tight" and wait to be told about specific images? I read most, but not all, of the posts here...and while I agree that suggestive child nudes should NOT be in art, a new year's baby (really, the 3d babies are not very real anyway) and some fea's that might be covered with very little being removed is silly.... ON THE OTHER HAND I remember the changes forced on Renderosity by Pay Pal and that is the bottom line... a store with a community, here to make money.... What gets me, is how the STORE can have nudes to sell the texture sets.... you could put a young age on many of those girls... is this a double standard? The news here in the states of the sicko that got out of jail and was living in a neighborhood for a while and ended up kidnapping and killing a 9 year old girl just makes me want to throw up and I want him to STAY IN JAIL forever, as all those sickos should... so in this state of mind, I can see the need to be careful.... BUT only that- careful.... (and I SO do not thing that his kind would be coming HERE for kicks...there is SO much other really bad things on the net for them to go see, I am sure) Personally, I am a prude.. and I just try to "look around" the offensive (to me) embaressing parts and I buy a texture set...and put clothes on her/him... same with the kids... I need to read the TOS myself and see if young kids "at the beach" for example (boys) will really be allowed.. heck..come to think of it, I did a beach scene with Koshini and Ichiro and he has a naked chest..he is a cartoon! Is that a problem? That is about the only thing I did... well, hmmm I do have a knight passing gass to light a match to take down a dragon, and I think I put nudity on it just to, ah hem..cover my ass, for that.. (hardly anything shows)..... YIKES!! So this is what it does... cause a kind of paranoia in us normal folk?? SIGH And yes... we can post or not..and rosity will do what it needs to do to stay on the net...and I will continue to enjoy the more positive parts of this community as always... Just my random thoughts on the issue.

Life Requires Assembly and we all know how THAT goes!

I don't think I ever saw a little girl of less than 10 yrs wearing a bikini top Ah, thus speaks the European. ;-) In the United States, little girls ARE expected to wear a top, or a one-piece swimsuit that covers their flat little chest. Yes, I think it's silly, too (and it's not the case in Australia; I've seen kids up to the age of five or maybe six playing on a public beach with nothing on at all, and nobody cared or thought anything of it, and no, it was not a "nude beach"). However, that's the way it is in the United States, and Renderosity is in the United States, and so are most of the people who will complain about images of children on the beach. ;-) bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

What the people who post their WIP renders glued to each other so they can skirt the rule about only 1 image a day because they feel the overpowering need to post absolutely everything they render fail to realize is that many professional artists don't keep a gallery here. A person is still entitled to his opinions based on their merit whether he has a gallery or posts loving thoughts on your daily gallery images. It isn't "one picture-one comment" at this site. A considered opinion by a professional has just as much weight as any hobbyist who fills the halls to overflowing. As to why someone might not want to keep a gallery here? Look around. Now to move on to another topic... this is NOT about faeries. It is about underage models which are shown naked and/or provocatively posed. Wings are an excuse for some people to use the child models, but that is beside the point. Making any figure look childish is a big seller and a big gatherer of hits. You do have to wonder about the hit ratio and who is cruising through the gallery. This is NOT about freedom of speech. You are perfectly free to make whatever images you want according to your local laws. If you want to post the image here, you will have to abide by the rules of this site. You can post it elsewhere. Just find another site. If you don't want to abide by anybody's rules, get your own website and hang whatever you want on it. Carolly

Renderosity and Bondware need to protect themselves from the misguided puritanical moralsts that pervade some American power structures. If they are don't some crackpot that has the ear of some minor polititian that looking for media cover for thier re-election. Hey thats enough U.S politico bashing... support the decision and remember you still have a place to voice it and to share your art work... R My two cents all art movements set rules to define the difference

I just wonder who is really behind this... is it the United Nations? is it the FBI? is it the Bush administration? When I was young, even a completely nude child was absolutely no big deal, and noone even paid much attention to it... it was a non issue of no importance. Look what it has become now... a horrible crime worse than murder! astonishing! I fear this new type of mindset might backfire and spur a flood of new psychotic behavior in our society, with tragic consequences.

"An Example is worth Ten Thousand Words"

" I just wonder who is really behind this... is it the United Nations? is it the FBI? is it the Bush administration?"

None of the above, my buddy max-

It's the united states of dollar bills. No VISA and No Paypal equal no Rosity. Those two got Rosity right at the cajones.

The commercial part of this site has grown beyond the community part of site. That's just reality. Even a large caliber Merchant like Blackhearted is out defending the big R's cause. Sorry Gabriel, I respect you as an artist, but I think you sold out, buddy. JV Message edited on: 03/22/2005 23:58

Software: Daz Studio 4.15, Photoshop CC, Zbrush 2022, Blender 3.3, Silo 2.3, Filter Forge 4. Marvelous Designer 7

Hardware: self built Intel Core i7 8086K, 64GB RAM, RTX 3090 .

"If you spend too much time arguing about software, you're spending too little time creating art!" ~ SomeSmartAss

"A critic is a legless man who teaches running." ~ Channing Pollock

My Gallery My Other Gallery

bonni, I would like to state for the record. I am from Europe. topless beaches and naked tikes abound. I am not against naked children frolicking on a beach with mom and pop and family around. I am against the perves cruising this site and others looking for a truly cheap thrill. it is sad. I remember the days as stated above, when a child on a bearskin rug or blanket laid out on the living room was adorable and found in nearly every album in the family. Now, a film developer may turn your film over to the police for investigation. it IS sad. it IS a loss. but unfortunately it is the current state of things. there are many "watchdog" sites out here now that will zoom in on one wrong pic in a site and that is it. a nude fairy that is lavish in her innocence,,,,naked with a smile can get the whole place in hot water if the wrong watchdog bites down on it. yes again SAD but unfortunatly....true.

https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/

Commission open.

DE, I know you're Spanish. ;-)

I don't have issues with "no child nudity" when it's sensible. Prohibiting boys on the beach and babies in diapers was just plain overkill, however. If someone is going to get some perverted thrill from the ugly Millenium Baby as a cupid, well, there's nothing to be done about it. Some people get sexually aroused by pictures of shoes, too, but we don't ban those. ;-)

I DO think that the American extreme sensitivity to nudity is bizarre, and I've thought it for a long time (since long before I left the United States; must have been that the years I lived in Europe as a kid corrupted my mind, hehe). That, however, has nothing to do with my objection to the too-strenously worded ToS revision.

If they actually do change it so that it permits the 100% totally innocent depictions of babies in diapers with bare chests and little boys playing in swimming holes or at the beach, I'm okay with it. I don't care if they allow nude children or not, to be perfectly honest. Policing such a thing is a big headache, and they do have better things to do with their time.

Everyone who thought I was some sort of "Naked Children Free for All" person can now pick up their jaws from the floor. I don't post pictures of nude children (well, other than the scandalous topless baby who has since been removed), and I do believe in following the ToS. I just also believe that a ToS should be reasonable, and banning babies in diapers isn't reasonable (banning nude children is a reasonable thing, though, IMHO, although it does bar many perfectly innocent images; it's the balance they've had to strike and I can live with it).

bonni

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 00:20

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

".it seem most of the bigger sites have very similar TOS conerning the same subject matter." And guess in which Taleban's country those sites are...

Stupidity also evolves!

heh, naked mill baby...ew sorry the mill baby just..always gave me the creeps to begin with. the point I was making with the comment about the sndcastie pick(btw personally to my view that is so...un-offensive) was if they are going to state it that way they should back it up. even if it was one of their own mods. consitancy. actually backing their stance up. now some of the fae I have seen O.O....and sorry but when it comes to ages between 5(heck 4 sometimes) and say...15 sorry it is just to touchy right now in the world.16-18 hard call. open flat out sensuality...be careful. flat out sexual content heck no.

https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/

Commission open.

kawecki, seriously, to live under the taleban is NOTHING like geting a bit of TOS enforcement. no one is being murdered, mutilated, raped, bombed hijacked,having chemical and bio-chemical agents tested on them, no mass graves, no torture or anything else here. it is a small bit of TOS. not the upheaval of the "free"world.

https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/

Commission open.

naked mill baby...ew Yeah, but I was talking about one in a diaper. Under the ToS revision they presented originally, that would have been a violation. if they are going to state it that way they should back it up. even if it was one of their own mods. Well, yes, we'd ALL like to see that, I'm sure. ;-) bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

;)@bonni

https://www.darkelegance.co.uk/

Commission open.

" kawecki, seriously, to live under the taleban is NOTHING like geting a bit of TOS enforcement. no one is being murdered, mutilated, raped, bombed hijacked,having chemical and bio-chemical agents tested on them, no mass graves, no torture or anything else here." Sure, nobody sold gases to Hussein, Guantanamo doesn't exist, the Abdhul??? prison cases are fantasy, schools are only bombed with cookies, torture??? what is that?

Stupidity also evolves!

What she's saying is that Renderosity telling us not to put pictures of naked children on their server isn't equivalent to having your head cut off because your beard isn't long enough. bonni

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Not yet, it's only a question of time.

Stupidity also evolves!

Well, when Renderosity admins come to my house to make sure my kids are dressed, I'll agree with you. :-)

bonni

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 01:49

"When a man gives his opinion, he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion, she's a bitch." - Bette Davis

Texas, June 14 2010. Today John Smith had his death sentence executed in the electric chair, it must be remembered the horrid crime he has commited in Dec 2009 when was found in his possesion pictures of nude faeries once downloaded from the no more existent, thanks to God, demoniac site Renderosity.

Stupidity also evolves!

Now this is cause for celebration. Two threads ont he same topic, both filled with people with the same desire to make a rule change on a privately owned site into some sort of societal attack on their rights as they struggle in vain to discern the motives behind the change in rules. Those of you doing so are all ever so enjoyably simple. The more I look around this place, the more I find cause for laughing out loud at the antics herein. The Reason behind the rule change is irrelevant. For those of you with less capable vocabularies, that means it does not matter why the changed the rule. The overwhelming bulk of this thread is filled with poorly concieved and utterly indefensible arguments, as well. We have consipracy theories, darwinism, social engineeering, religion, sex, perversion, and digital models of infants whose gender is impossible to distinguish without social clothing conventions provided seperately. Good lord, people. It is apparent that you are so desperate for some semblance of adult conversation that you are willing to accept this instead. Stop. Sit back. Breathe deep the gathering gloom. Then get on with discussing the actual issue at hand, not the assumptive why or the hand wringing worry. That issue is that a rule change has been made. That rule change has since been modified or is in the process of being modified. Talk about those modifications. I agree, incidentally, that it will raise the spectre of sexism in art, but that spectre has always been exactly that -- a spectre. A half formed phantom, an illusion -- something that is used to scare and or frighten young children and the feeble of mind. However, the changes do accomplish what needed to be accomplished. Instead of an outright ban that would, in effect, create a massive workload for the staff, they have gone with a much more sensible approach and made the limitations effect the dress conventions of the location in which the site operates. As for everyone else, piss off. You don't run the site. I don't, either -- but I'm not accusing people of pedophilia or censorship or trying to make it seem like they are some sort of "anti-art" or hate fairie pictures. Someone said that Renderosity is a "give and take" place. In short, your assumptive reasoning is incorrect. For a small fee of 30.00 USD, I will correct it for you, although in so doing you will lose the entire structure of your argument and need to repost. Someone else inferred that people have no place to go (as well as mindlessly stating that the efforts here, predominantly created by people having fun, are inferior to other CG sites, predominantly created by people trying to get a job or working in the field -- now that is a real winner of a thought loop) other than here. Aside from being patently absurd and obviously made due to a lack of awareness, it too is eligible for the previous offer. One thing that I think would make much of this less troublesome is for the administration to invest a few minutes in pointing out that while they might have an interest in what people think, they have no true need to make changes based on the views of membership. It is their right and responsibility to do what they feel needs to be done. Not what the members feel. Indeed -- my post here, and those posts of all those who I am mocking, are all violations of the Terms of service, and everyone involved in doing so could recieve a warning for having done such or summarily be banned (I expect to be so by the end of the year, myself, given my procliviities). Since I am feeling generous, a list (inclusive of my own, which I cannot number) of those posts which violate one or more provisions of the TOS -- but purely at the discretion of the administration of this site: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 23, 28, 30, 34, 38, 45, 48, 50, 51, 55, 57, 58, 60, 62, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 72, 78, 80, 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 96, 97, 99, 104, 105, 107, 108, 112, 118, 119, 123, 128, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 141, 142, 145, 146, 152, 153, 154, and mine. (at the time of this writing, there are 161 posts, so the above list may expand) So stop it. Now. Deal with what really is, not with what you think it might be or why it might be.

"I don't post pictures of nude children" I never made pictures with naked children, but I am a photographer and I like art, so I may well stumble in artworks that Renderosity consider to be banned. It may happen with the fresco picture I linked to previously. It was one picture out of an almost 30 pictures series (and I haven't posted all that I have), but as I said, shall I be forced to remove it, I will remove the whole series as a protest. Now I wonder, what if I decided to publish those pictures I made years ago in Oslo at the Vigeland park. Probably 1/5th of the statues there (publicly exposed statues) would be banned by this TOS. I really feel this as something that goes much too far in limiting the artists choices. But as someone says, I may also end up posting elsewhere. But it would make me sad to leave my gallery here.

"Two threads ont he same topic, both filled with people with the same desire to make a rule change on a privately owned site ...... The Reason behind the rule change is irrelevant. For those of you with less capable vocabularies, that means it does not matter why the changed the rule." You must rememmber that this site is composed by the site owners, the artists, the merchants and the purchasers. - If the site owners decides to close the site, the site ends. - If the artists decide to withdraw, the site ends, maybe remain only a shop and nothing more. - If the merchants decide to go away, say goodbye to the site, no money no site. - If the purcharsers decide to not buy anymore here, the site ends too. You can see that this site is not so private as you think, it's a big partnership with many people. Any change done and not well accepted has as inmediate consequence artists going away, maybe some merchants too and many members not buying anymore here, making the merchants more pissed of with this site. Maybe some artists, merchants and purcharsers that had left can be replaced by new ones, but it's uncertain at what point are able to repair the damage done by who had say good bye to this site.

Stupidity also evolves!

ok i didnt come here for long but it seemed it finally went to the worst :)

so far it seems now that Mayadoll, Animedoll, Aiko3, Tenten or An an shoul dbe banned from all galleries then

great...

lets also make "illegal" the existence of asiate girls as a global way of thinking :)

i didnt come in RO for long but it seems for now it will only be a past purchase record holder and nothign more... i'm off with this mess, i feel betrayed and also sad for all the works of some artists like Maya, Yamato and such too i also like the part of "adult size breasts does not spare from breaking tos with childish face", yet the reverse aint tru, no matter than in real life there are petite builds of women RO will never allow them anyway as believing they are adult, yet as soon as you have a litle roudn face you are labelled as under 18 welcome in a world of big boobed artificial looking vickies whores that look liek ezvery magazine stuff.... btw tell me: how do you distinguish a 18yo girl from a 19yo one ? (especially in some ethnies like asiate countries) just curious anyway ok, this place is just over for me, fan art banned, anime banned, asiate banned, everything that dont look like RDA swimmer or tall highheel bigboobed slut banned :) enjoy this place much and wish you farewell....

Message edited on: 03/23/2005 06:19

So if I type in 'pompous art links' in Google I should get a link to Andy K's website then..Well, don't you have a lot of strings to your bow. Why, I feel as if I'm in the presence of a God. If your comments on the work shown here anf your responses to the posts are anything to go by then you must be a joy as a teacher. Who are you to criticise and denigrate the work of others? Even if you're the most talented artist the world has ever seen it doesn't give you the right to insult and offend. By the way...it's not the tools or media that one uses that classifies a creation. You remind me of those idiots who slagged off acrylics. Oh no, if it isn't in oils or gouache then it's not art..give me a break. So..off you go to look at my gallery and then you can come back and bitch just like a real critic. You know what they say...those who can, do...those who can't, teach...and those who can't teach, teach 3D art

Just goes to show, you can't please all of the people all of the time. You want my tppence on the subject, here goes. Firstly being in the UK, we have different ideas about what constitutes what, take for instance David Hamilton's collection of Photographs, "the age of innocence" lots of sexily posed very young girls, but not pronographic, hence the allowability of such imagery. Also UK law interprets "inappropriate" images of children to be real images. If you made a child porn movie in CGi, it would be perfectly legal, just as it's legal to murder a and mame a dummy animal on a film set, but not a real one. The great idea that is often taken into account when things are placed for the public to view weter they seek to or not (ie advertising) is, would the average person believe it is real. Of course this a national policy issue which doesn't apply to rosity (being US) but I think the ideals can still be applied where they do not contraveine law. I can understand wanting to tone down on images of kiddies, but I can't understand the need to tone down the renders. Who cares if you post a naked child faerie, or alien, or whatever else. I honestly believe that "synthetic" imagery needs to be fully free of any such restrictions, otherwise a great many things could be taken in the same light. So I can't post renders of naked children, which have involved no child in their making, but a render (or probably even a photo) of a mutilated copse with blood and guts, that's ok. Basically, I think that when guidelines or policies of this nature and instigated within any community/society, they need to be formed from a view point of actual human decency, and not from issues that create general "knee-jerk" reactions from people.

Extract: "You must rememmber that this site is composed by the site owners, the artists, the merchants and the purchasers." Comment: You mumble in error. This is a monarchy, and we are visitors. The Rulers have laws that you must agree to when you arrive. If you do not like those Laws, you either leave, or don't sign up. The store did not exist when this site was started, and, in truth, could be closed tomorrow and the site would continue. The value of this site is not the store. The value of this site is in the Galleries. They can make any rule they want to make about what goes into it, and that won't change the value of the galleries. There are 6 Billion people on the planet, more coming everyday. Even if they only allowed people to post variations on mondrian designs, the site would still exist. So, no. Your assertion of a partnership is both lacking in understanding of the actual reality of the situation and inflating of your own importance. On an average day they recieve over 50,000 individual visits that never even touch the forums, store, or ancillary areas. They come just for the images feverishly uploaded every second. A great many of those image uploaders don't care about this, and will continue to upload them. Everyone who has read even a part of this posting can up and disappear right now, and it won't make one whit of difference tomorrow to this site. That's what this is.

Forum: Community Center

Subject: Change in TOS...New Child Image Guidelines