Thumbnails...They Are a Changing
Wow, we made it to 2007! A brand new start, to a brand new year. Time to move forward with the goals that we would like to achieve collectively as an artist community.

One of our goals is to promote artists and show the world the wonderfully creative art work that is expressed through digital mediums. Another goal is to have consistency of the rules and presentation across all areas of our site: Galleries, Free Stuff, Tutorials, Blogs, Homepages and the MarketPlace.

In order to reach both these goals, we need to change the way thumbnail images appear to match the rules in the MarketPlace and the weekly newsletter. Thumbnail images across Renderosity will no longer contain nudity or graphic violence going forward.

Artistic nudity and violent images may still be uploaded to the galleries, and will still be marked with the appropriate content advisory warnings. The only thing that will change is what can be displayed in the thumbnail image.

Many Renderosity members have expressed to us that while they admire artistic nudity, they really don't like it when it's so "In Your Face" in the thumbnail.

In addition, we want to feature artists from the Art Charts in the weekly newsletter. However, since we don't allow nude thumbnails in our weekly newsletter, we can't do that until after we make this change.

Starting January 24th, if an image is marked with the nudity or violence flags, the artist will need to upload their own thumbnail.

If you fail to upload a thumb, our system automatically generates a thumb for you, which is a miniature of your entire image. If your image contains nudity or violence, you must not use this feature. You must upload your own thumbnail which excludes the nudity/violence.


Going forward, thumbnail images for all areas of the site may not display nude female breasts, male or female genitals or buttocks, or graphically violent images. Please see below for the rule of thumb guidelines.


  • No nudity. This implies no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images.
  • No areola or nipple exposure, and no transparent fabric.
  • No exposed buttocks – more exposure than a standard bikini bottom would constitute nudity.
  • No exposed male or female genitals
  • No Sexually Suggestive Language 
  • No  "Censored" language/images (some examples: "Warning: Nudity Inside" or black bars covering breasts/genitals)
  • No depictions of injury being caused to any living creature. This includes, but is not limited to, injury from either piercing or edged weapons/tools, projectiles, fire/chemical burns, blunt force trauma, punching, kicking, slapping, strangulation or crushing. This also includes accidents and self-harm.
  • Weapons may be shown providing a) they do not have blood on them, and b) the injured victim is not visible.
  • Images of minor bruising, burns or bloody wounds that have already occurred are acceptable



    Members that have their profiles set to not view nudity are still going to see the 'Content Advisory' default image if the Nudity or Violence flags are set. This change will only be visible to members that have their profiles set to view nudity. Going forward all thumbnails across the entire Renderosity site will be suitable for all ages. This change does not affect images uploaded prior to January 24th.

    Once this thumbnail change is in effect, in addition to featuring artists in the newsletter, we will be able to bring back the Top Ranking page of the Art Charts!

    We trust you will understand and support the goals that we have as an art site and a community. We work very hard to make this the best place on the Internet to display your work and interact with other artists.

  • Printer-friendly format


    Member Opinions:
    By: Turtle on 1/22/07
    I like the change. In the mornings some thumbnails are overwhelming.

    By: Paula Sanders on 1/22/07
    I agree completely with the thumbnail rule. This can actually open the galleries up to more people because the thumbnails will be without nudity or violence, and people can then decide if they want to look further.

    By: Rutra on 1/22/07
    I would prefer that the "Content Advisory" image would NOT be used, even for members with profiles set not to view nudity, and, instead, use the non-nude thumbnail and write in more visible letters "contains nudity" (currently this statement, under the image name, is barely visible). This way, the members with profiles set not to view nudity could still view the non-nude thumbnail and have some way to decide whether they should go for the full image or not. Just by viewing the "content advisory" image it's not possible to make an informed decision. My point is: it's a pity that some wonderful images are not being seen just because it could contain a bit of a female breast.

    By: Sabra on 1/22/07
    I have to agree with Rutra, since there is a vast difference between artistic and vulgair nudity. I do like this new rule, I'll put a Post-It on my screen cause I have the feeling that I'm going to need some time to get used to it though. :)

    By: brigadier on 1/22/07
    If the thumbnail is not an accurate representation of the contents of the image, I'm not going to be viewing everything just to find the few that suit my tastes. Turning on and off the Nudity and Violence filters on a person's account should be sufficient.

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    Its really not about turning on or off the nudity filters. Sure members can do that and not see ANY nudity but that isn't the objective here. Please read the full article to try and understand the reasons behind this change.

    By: DDevant on 1/22/07
    In legal terms, not personal preferences, what is the difference between a male nipple and a female nipple? Allowing one and not the other seems to me to be sexist.

    By: ggrace on 1/22/07
    This policy is censorship period! I will vote with my feet,, by moving on to other sites with better policies.

    By: 3DSublimeProductions on 1/22/07
    :)

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    DDevant,

    Well I would base that on the same idea as in the US a woman can't walk down the street without a shirt on but a man can. Renderosity is based in the US so we are applying those same US standards.

    By: awrc on 1/22/07
    Artistic censorship in any form is wrong. However, is a thumbnail art, or simply an ad for art?

    If you object to the need for the thumbnails to be viewable to the general audience, while still allowing all visitors to view all images if they wish, make your thumbnail a big "Censored" logo, showing nothing of the image at all. That way the viewer's received their warning and you've not had to "dilute" your art to produce a generally acceptable thumbnail. The only form they'll see your image in is as it was intended, if they choose to view it.

    Forcing your personal definition of what constitutes art down people's throat is wrong. That one cuts both ways.

    Putting up a warning logo prevents nobody from viewing your image, it just causes them some inconvenience. Turning the nudity filter into a choice between "you're exposed to the thumbnails for all images containing nudity, however graphic" and "you don't get to see any images featuring nudity at all, however artistic" is a greater censorship than placing restrictions on the content of thumnails.

    By: scanmead on 1/22/07
    This is just polite to me. As for not getting views based on a thumb not showing nudity: Thumbs are an artform. It's up to the artist to make them inviting.

    Good move, overdue.

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    NightVoice,

    The blurred bit will not be acceptable.
    Please see above

    "No nudity. This implies no clothes, clothes that are transparent or blurring of nude images. "



    By: VelvetMoxie on 1/22/07
    I'm afraid I'm seeing this as censorship, too, in a way. I also see the point being made here that if the thumbnail isn't representative of the image many won't look and some will be shocked when they open it up full. I understand in this world the squeaky wheels do INDEED lord over the rest of us--the majority has not ruled in some time--here or anywhere else it seems, but that aside I feel that the effort would be better served by simply not showing ANY thumbnail to those delicate souls who feel the need to use their nudity/violence filters if the image is deemed as nude or violent. As it is, the nudity rules are way over the top--most of us don't equate a hint of a breast or a baby's bear butt as pornographic and a lot of wonderful images are not being seen because of tiny hints of one thing or another. Unfortunately, the objections of the artists don't seem to carry much weight so I'm sure this will be implemented as stated. It does seem rather sad, however.

    By: hardnose on 1/22/07
    Censorship would be the banning of nudity in your POSTED images not the thumbnails. I believe in free speach but I don't believe one has the right to purposely affend. There is a time, place, and way for everything. I have no problem with making a thumbnail for any of my images containing nudity but I would have a problem if I couldn't post the image.

    By: Radlafx on 1/22/07
    There are minors browsing this site. I'm sure the authorities are too.

    By: densa on 1/22/07
    nudity is the way we came into this world maybe if we put less importance on it we won't get so upset when we see it what would be wrong with having a site that is just for nudity im 54 and sorry but to me the human body is beautiful in any shape or form we would never have had the famous art from the past if thats the case

    By: RAMWolff on 1/22/07
    Nice changes there but I still have an issue with the FreeStuff area. Some folks just refuse to take an extra minute to create a thumbnail for these gifts to the community. "Why should I, it's free, don't complain" kinda attitude is old. It makes the area look messy and I certainly will NOT download any freebie without some indication of what I'm downloading.

    Thanks for hearing me! :-)

    By: kahshe on 1/22/07
    I always thought it was kinda dumb to have "contains nudity" and there it is staring you in the face. I agree with scammead give people a choice and they might turn off the "don't show nudity" thing. (didn't know there was one)Be creative about your thumbs and they will view your work, sometimes even non nude pics are better croped because of the size factor. I'd like to see how they'd handle this on Renderotica, yikes, but then I don't suppose the prudish go there too often.

    By: jjean21 on 1/22/07
    I'm actually in favor of this new policy...I have absolutely no adversion to viewing nudity in any form however there have been times when the thumbnail is almost a slap in the face simply because we are forced to view only a single portion of the entire image and that particular portion is not always pleasing on it's own. I don't consider this to be censorship just a matter of sensitivity toward the viewers.

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    We are not changing the policy on nudity in images, this is ONLY about thumbnails. There are numerous people who do want to view nudity in the full image but do not want to see it in the "in your face" way of the thumbnails. I do believe that the artistic merit of an image can be easily transmitted through the thumbnail without the nudity.

    By: BBarbs on 1/22/07
    Ummmmmm. Well I am assuming that the thumbnail size for the gallery will be the same as well as the dimensions. Would love to see the same size and dimensions for the free section too. It is hard to remember two different specs. Also, I dont know which of my thumbs would be considered nudity so I guess I will leave them as they are.

    By: mejed on 1/22/07
    Just can`t can`t help yourselves, can you? "If it ain`t broke, don`t fix it", will never apply here.

    By: Circumvent on 1/22/07
    Authorities browsing this site? LOL. The authorities could care less if you are in the U.S. Nothing here is against the law no matter how offensive it is. It's protected by the first amendment as of now anyway.

    By: AnteriorLobe on 1/22/07
    Few people are in favor of "censorship," however, I don't believe there are many who would insist on an total anything goes policy: no restrictions on the topics depicted, no restrictions on file type and sizes, etc.

    The trick is where to draw the line between the acceptable and unacceptable, and it is probably impossible to reach an agreement on something like this which is totally acceptable to a majority, let alone everyone. One person might be offended by PG-13 level nudity, another, for totally different reasons, by my epoch 226MB bmp-file, "White Pixel in the Middle of Monocolor Blue." ("Making it a GIF *ruins* the artistic theme of man vs. pixel!" I yell until smacked on the head with a stale cheese cake.)

    I personally wouldn't come down too hard on the fine folks at Renderosity. The classic example is the quote from Justice Potter Stewart that hard-core pornography is hard to define, but "I know it when I see it." There simply isn't any objective way to come up with the dividing line for vulgar vs. artistic, or porn vs. erotica, or however one wants to call the things to be divided.

    A few details which I believe are worth keeping in mind:

    * Renderosity is a private site. They can do what they want. If they wish to, say, listen to Stephen Colbert and ban all images that include bears, well, they get to do that. Technically this is clearly "censorship," but it isn't at all a violation of the First Amendment. The government is not preventing you from displaying your works, you simply can't display them here.

    Another example, if I send Time magazine my article on why people don't like my MB+ bmp-file art because there is an international conspiracy against cartoons with dinosaurs, and they reject it, that isn't censorship of my ideas. That's editing.

    Of course one can send post their images elsewhere, just as I can send my article to the Hagerstown Daily Shopper.

    * Second, there is no sharp line. In order to promote fairness, and also, I'm sure, to minimize the amount of time Renderosity people need to take for individual cases, a simple set of guidelines needs to be in place.

    Because of what I believe is the intrinsic fuzziness of the unacceptable/acceptable image division no set of rules is going to be perfect. There are certainly images with extreme artistic merit that show nipples out there. Nevertheless, from a practical standpoint, simple rules such as the ones proposed make sense.

    * Finally, and most opinion-atically (hey, that's not a word!), my suspicion is that the laws governing what is and is not acceptable for thumbnails on a site like Renderosity includes fewer and vaguer guidelines, and isn't clearly defined from first amendment considerations.

    In other words, if the Tennessee or US government marched in with a court order to shut down Renderosity because of objectionable images that could potentially lead to a court case that goes all the way to the Supreme Court. Probably a few cases like that would be very useful for clarifying some of these matters, but, I can certainly understand the reluctance of Renderosity to try to provoke and take on such an expensive challenge.

    Related to this is the whole question of international law. For instance, what if Germany bans Renderosity because of images which have a swastika on the tail of an aircraft and thus, in their opinion, glorify Nazis? (Just an example, an unlikely but not outrageous example.) But that is a whole other can of red herrings far removed from thumbnails.

    Thank you for your time, I now return to my 13 GB bmp-file piece "Three white dots, two blue, and a fuzzy penguin." Penguins are in, this piece if a winner!!

    By: HorseFlesh on 1/22/07
    I think this is awesome because of the fact that many arworks here are overlooked and not commented on because they do not contain nudity in the thumbnails...The vieing and commenting now will be more fair, and artists here will have more of a chance to have thier art seen by others,because let's face it, tits get hits...And many people look art some of the work here only because of the nude thumnails.
    It's about time we cleaned up our image here and became more respectable.Good going Administrators!!!

    By: Rodma_Hu on 1/22/07
    TOS here is more relaxed than other sites. I appreciate that. Wanna hide nudity behind another click? I can cope.

    By: Paul Francis on 1/22/07
    I don't produce a lot of nude/tits work (!) but am happy to provide a "clean" thumbnail when I do...sure, it's a bit of extra work, but so what? I know that currently, I can't browse any galleries at Renderosity at work during my breaks beacause of the risk of semi-pornographic thumbnails, so any change there would be an improvement, IMHO. Like other people have said, if this upsets you so much, post elsewhere, no-one is forcing you to post just at Renderosity. If you want to post here, abide by the site owner's reasonable rules....after all, you wouldn't go to someone else's house and just do what you wanted, would you?

    By: Sivana on 1/22/07
    It´s OK with the thumbnails, but watching the great nudity probleme here I really wonder why RR hasn´t create a closed-section for those artists who want to create and to see nude renders or violent scenes? I think that could help much and not all good artists would leafe us in town....

    By: MoxieGraphix on 1/22/07
    Everybody knows I am the furthest thing from a prude you can get (I'm a smut peddler by trade). On that note, I'd rather not see a bunch of boobs in my face when I open the gallery. I have some old thumbnails with nudity in them I've been considering changing myself. The only reason there's boobs in anybody's thumbnails is to draw more hits. Everybody knows it. Censorship my left foot. It's their site, they make the rules. If you don't like it, there are other sites to post your nudie pics at.

    By: Incognitas on 1/22/07
    I sometimes wonder how some folk see the real world..Do they refuse to watch the news because there maybe disturbing images..Do they object to starving naked babies being shown on prime time news?

    Frankly I am not bothered by any of the images I've seen here or anywhere else..I tend to look at art from a critical viewpoint of whether it is excellent,good or mediocre, not whether models are nude or being violent because artists should hold a mirror up to us to reflect the world in which we live.

    Thus far I've not come across anything pornographic at this site and even if I did I'm not going to become all feint about it.Erotic art can be very beautiful without being crude.Indeed until I came to this site I'd never even thought to be shocked by nudity..Good job Rubins,Goya and Picasso weren't either.

    By: CuteMonger on 1/22/07
    I agree with bbratche's prediction that "... you will not be able to tell what the image is without looking ... and who wants to open every image ..."

    I expect that a nudity and violence ghetto will emerge here at Renderosity ... shunned by some, but indulged in as a guilty pleasure by others.

    I just hate the notion of censorship. I can't help it. It's patronizing. Although I appreciate people's views, I thought the system that's in place now is a good compromise.

    By: blindsay on 1/22/07
    I think you've defined what constitutes nudity very well (and I'm fine with it not being in the thumbnail). I'm not sure about graphic violence. How do you define that? If a character is standing over another character with a club, no violence has occured but it seems likely that it will. Does this mean there is graphic violence only if blood is shown? I'm not sure myself... but you may wish to define it a bit more as you did for nudity.

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    Hi blindsay,

    We will try and come up with the proper wording for the violence portion of the thumbnail change and add to the guidelines in more detail:)

    Thanks

    By: dreamlight on 1/22/07
    I really don´t like this new rule? Why? You see more breasts in a newspaper or gossip magazine than i a porn-magazine these days.

    Why is the human body so offensive? Is watching dead people, war and other horrible things on TV more acceptable than the human body - we all have?

    RO is going in the WRONG direction with this.

    If someone selects the violent/nude filter - then than should filter out all those thumbnails. Censoring art is NOT a good option.

    This will kill the thumbnails - that most people use to decide if they want to watch an image or not.

    RO is a great place - but this is REALLY a dissapointing change. Let´s face it - most people do watch nude stuff - or else nude images wouldn´t get most comments / views.

    So - who´s side are you on RO?

    By: anniemation on 1/22/07
    Cool stuff! Will make viewing the galleries from work or with children around a lot better.

    By: A_Sunbeam on 1/22/07
    If I don't want to see violence (and I don't), then I turn the filter on.
    As for nudity - some pictures are worth viewing; but there's a lot that don't appeal to me. If the thumbnail gives a good indication of the final picture then I can choose which one I might want to look at.
    At the most a banner (or Miss World sash?) across the bouncy bits would seem sufficient...

    By: Paldav on 1/22/07
    Poor America.....

    By: FlyByNight on 1/22/07
    Thumbs up!!!

    By: IgnisSerpentus on 1/22/07
    What happens to a person when theyre told theyre forbidden to something perfectly natural? They rebel.... and often express what was forbidden to a more excessive degree than they would have with a healthy expression of those issues in the first place. The same thing applies here, I think.

    While this policy will seldom affect myself, as most of my stuff is clothed, there are thousands of others that will be very limited in what they can do with the thumbnails now. As it is, we are already very limited with them - they gotta be so small in resolution and file size and yadda yadda. And in some cases, it makes it very hard to create a good one. Thumbnails are a major aspect of how an image is portrayed in the gallery. Now we've been given even more limitations, instead of freedoms.

    And like others have said, this wont end well... people will move on to places that allow for it. Not to mention creating their own sites. At times like this, Im really happy I have my own. But I digress, I can clearly see people have already started leaving way before now. Rules are good in some cases, but when u revamp the entire system to be totally censored and biased toward one crowd, its never going to bode well.

    Im not hip on censorship as a whole, because it stunts freedom of expression, one of the very things this country was founded on. I dont see why the filters cannot bleep out certain content, and be left at that. I think its pretty unfair to expect everyone to adhere to the standards of those who are embarrassed of sexual expression. Shouldnt it be them that has to adjust, so they dont have to see it? Then the system would bend toward both wills. Afterall, thats what the filters are there for. Its a little redundant to have both in place.

    On a final note, if people think nudity is a bad thing, then I guess Michaelangelo was a downright pervert :snickers: Yet hes more famous than any of us will ever be.

    By: Skydancer917 on 1/22/07
    When we sign up here, I believe we agree with the TOS. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I can't afford to buy out Renderosity and create my own TOS...I guess my point is DEAL WITH IT. Don't whine, don't complain, deal with it or move on.

    By: Avalonne on 1/22/07
    I think it's an excellent idea. Since I never use any nudity in my thumbnails, for me, it's business as usual :-)

    By: CuteMonger on 1/22/07
    I've decided to refine my opinion with an image that may shed light on this controversy.

    Warning. There is nudity in the thumb itself.

    http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1369718

    By: netseawolf on 1/22/07
    Sirs damne of Renderosity made not the thing has half! Decree to seek to like all the people and especially the puritan. We are all free and nobody likes the same things the society functions with “drawers” then made the same thing. To separate the galleries made from the galleries all public (prohibited nudity) of the galleries “naked artistic” forbidden to the -16 years and why not an erotic “Naked” gallery -18 years today photographs of Playboy or Pirelli calendar, which are “the Naked erotic” are classified like Art.
    Made that Renderosity is with the image of Artistiques diversities and that each one choose to return in the section which it chose,
    BECAUSE IT IS TRUE THAT IT IS NOT NORMAL TO SEE NUDITY ON PAGES VISIBLE BY ALL THE PEOPLE
    I was banished bus but images are too Erotique. I claim the right to a section “Art Erotic” - 18 years. The life it is not Black or White it is “Yin Yang” of the black with a white spot and white with black spot all an intermingled and complementary it is not GRAY as you are making in this lowering with the means general, it average general of the race go to the bottom step to the top the top it is the artist who left the batch because different to see shocking and it is them that it average admires made not gray mud of Renderosity until end will dare to separate the kinds and mentalities sought not does not have to mix them to link them that will not go,
    I made sociology and that are one of the guiding principle.
    Alain Bussi

    By: DDevant on 1/22/07
    Ah Incognitas the voice of reason. However I doubt the powers will take heed of your wisdom. Unfortunately Capitol growth is the greater God.

    By: ClawShrimp on 1/22/07
    There are people here saying the thumbnails are now worthless, given they may portray the artwork in it's entirity.

    Have these people forgotten that a great many people area already using custom thumbnails? I know I have done this to highlight specific areas of my images in order to pique the viewers interest (not always successfully I might add).

    I for one support the Renderosity crew in this movement.

    For one, I'll now be comfortable scanning through the galleries during my breaks at work.

    By: orfan87 on 1/22/07
    i heard that all of the early cartoons are being redone to remove certain parts where the characters are smoking, no smoking in cartoons regardless if they are classic or not. why? because 1 person only one wrote to warner and complained. so much for the majority rules concept. i for one have finished posting here for good. i dont spend 8 to 10 hrs on a render so i can spend another 3 trying to make a non offensive thumb. i love the united states dearly and searved in the gulf. but she is rapidly going to hell in a handbasket because a few immagants or minorities come over and complain. someone needs to stand up somewhere. just wish i had the pull to make a difference. ty for listening. i almost feel better.

    By: Giolon on 1/22/07
    Except ClawShrimp, there are people out there who flat out REFUSE to click on any thumbnail that isn't a preview of the entire image (most claim it's from being sick of misleading thumbnails). Crazy, I know, but I've seen enough of them post on the forums here to know that they're out there.

    By: chimera46 on 1/22/07
    As one of the "Titty-Slingers" on this site I can't say I like this idea, although I do understand and accept it. Even the filthiest hardcore sex magazine doesn't put the "money shot" on the cover. That said, I usually put some effort into making an appealing thumbnail, it need not include nudity, but if the image itself has nudity I want to show people what they're getting when they click.

    Frankly, I find that the stated goals relating to consistency to be rather weak. The decision to stem nudity in the marketplace was a deliberate choice, as is this. If you want thumbnails you can put in the newsletter it's far easier to ask a few artists to redo/edit theirs rather than ask everyone to change. The only compelling rationale was that "some people' don't like nudity to be in their face. The unspoken rationale is that you agree with such people. There's no harm in stating it outright, but i'd rather hear that than get a shovel full of fluff.

    Some additional points not yet raised:

    1. Implied Nudity: Does a thumb contain nudity if the figure is wearing no clothes but is otherwise covering the aforementioned areas (breast buttox, etc)? Similarily, will putting a black bar or some other form of post-work covering other than blurring suffice? My last image/thumb has a topless female character but you can't see any naughty bits, so how would that fare?

    2.Past Thumbs: Mabye I missed this but what's to be done with all past thumbs that have nudity? I've got 300+ images in my gallery, many of them with nudity in the thumbnail and it's far easier for me (and I suspect many others) to simply close up shop than to redo them all.


    By: Lakotariver on 1/22/07
    I can respect the changes and I do not mind the changes. It really is no trouble to me to follow these changes.
    Like Bart Simpson may say, (Don't Have a Cow Man)

    By: infinity10 on 1/22/07
    Tsk, this entire website should just be split from the topmost webpage.

    Start page asks User if they want to enter General Audience ( totally zero nudity ) zone, or Extended Audience ( artistic nudity and violence ) zone - including MarketPlace.

    Members entering latter zone must jump through the usual disclaimers, declarations, waivers etc etc for viewing and accessing such content.

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    We will not be allowing the "black bars" over the thumbs to act as a cover for nudity. If the figure appears to be nude, then it doesn't need to be shown on the thumbnail.

    As to your second question, it is stated in this front page article that we will be moving forward with this new policy, not going backward. We encourage members to edit their thumbnails in their galleries but it isn't required.

    By: MoxieGraphix on 1/22/07
    By the way, how hard is it to censor a thumbnail? You can't 'blur' but there are other ways to cover up nudity (they do it on porn video covers ALL the time with the explicit shots). Get creative, you're all artists. Right? Right?

    I suppose I fail to see why this is such a horrible change. Of course, no matter what they do here there's a small vocal minority who cry over "the worst change ever". Dunno why I thought this might be any different.

    By: cuddlyaries on 1/22/07
    Thanks Renderosity. I think it's a much needed change. I don't have a problem with the human body, and I do have issue with censorship BUT, if i'm browsing from work or some other place where others may look over my shoulder; I don't want to have to explain that i'm actually browsing a harmless artistic website. Based on a descriptive thumbnail I can choose whether or not to wait until I get home, or somewhere more private to continue on into that particular gallery.

    By: MoxieGraphix on 1/22/07
    Stacey,

    Why not allow the "black bars"? I guess I don't 'get' that part of the policy. If I want to use an entire picture as my thumbnail and cleverly disguise the nudity (so it's obvious it's cleverly disguised and not just mildly blurred), I'm not sure I do understand why THAT is not allowed. I don't have a problem with the "no nudity in thumbnails" rule at all, please understand, I just don't get this part of the new policy.

    By: orphee02 on 1/22/07
    Although I do not want to see poor representations of either the male or female body in the thumbnails here, I also do not believe in that form of censorship. I would prefer to tut tut as I normally do and move on instead of being denied the opportunity to chance upon a work which may be truly inspired.

    Censorship is becoming rife across the internet, and indeed society, do we really want to prosper it here too?

    By: wgardenhire on 1/22/07
    People that do not want to view nudity should not be forced to do so. O.K., fine. If filters are set for no nudity, then what's the problem. Censorship of the thumbs is not acceptable; a system that properly filters nudity, is. Rather than having a 'coder' spend a few hours on a fix, the burden of censorship is place on legitimate art. How about it, admin?

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    Moxie,

    I will talk to the rest of the team and see about the "black bars". We have a meeting tomorrow and we will discuss this amongst the admin and then with the mods/coords.
    I do understand to some degree what you are saying here so we will discuss.
    I'll clarify once a decision has been reached.

    By: Cppthis on 1/22/07
    Honestly I don't see the point of this change. I can totally understand the desire to not have 'in your face' nudity/violence (and I tend to fall in this group), but isn't this what the existing nudity/violence filter is for?

    Anyway, I'm glad this policy won't be retroactive, hopefully that will allay the fears of many who might be worried that a huge chunk of the galleries would get deleted due to lack of PG-mode updates (you might want to bold that part of the announcement, it is easy to miss).

    By: Giolon on 1/22/07
    StaceyG,

    On the "black bars", what if the entire subject of your image is a nude figure? Do you just pick out a 200x200 corner of the background of the image and then title it "hey there's a naked person in here!" If there can't be any sort of implied nudity in the thumbnail at all, then, I mean, how do you make a thumbnail of a nude image?! o_0 Maybe zoom in on an eyeball?

    By: DosPorticos on 1/22/07
    Why not just have a "Nudity" Gallery as a category choice. Like Photography, Poser, Animation, etc. There'd be no mistaking the topic then. If you're there it's because you want to be.

    By: SirJohn on 1/22/07
    Renderosity is truly becoming a lame place to be. I used to love this website... truly I did. The only reason that I come back anymore is because of the artists. I have never liked the changes since 'rosity was re-done, and this is yet another one of those changes that really do not need to be made. It really is a shame that such a good thing has gone so bad. An artistic community falling prey to cheesy censorship. Oh well, I guess you can't please everyone eh?

    By: boris0317 on 1/22/07
    Ok, given all said, aren't we talking about a few people being offended by 'nudity', 'in their face'? do they use the already in place, warnings about that? are we covering ALL nudity, as in this 'new' policy, or are we saying we are protecting a few who, say they don't 'mind' the nude human body, but don't like it in their face!
    To me, the artist has created the work to be posted here, and given the site's choice to use thumbnails as the only way for an artist to post the first idea of his/her art, has a choice to the thumbnail, as he/she sees fits.
    You don't want to limit the freedom of an artist to post nudity, but you want to restrict the only way he can FIRST express it here? that I'm not sure of. and only to 'protect' ones who have, already the option to limit what they see (rules already in place)
    To me, it's always the art that has to change, not the viewer.
    We can debate this, always! A good thing!
    But, since this is suppossed to be a 'community', were there other 'artists' involved, or was it just a commercial decision? Granted, this is your site and you have all the rights to your TOS, and all artists should be aware, but I wonder? Is this now going to be THE family friendly 'art' site? just a question, someone please respond!
    Boris0317

    By: Stan57 on 1/22/07
    Why would it be so hard to make a separate gallery just for nudes? That would make more since then what they are going to do now.

    By: Giolon on 1/22/07
    Darn lack of editing comments. RE: my last posted opinion, the gist of the question is this: How are we supposed to post a non-misleading thumbnail with these restrictions in place?

    God, why can't I be that succint in the first place...

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    This is a policy we implemented for several reasons as stated above. Its just the thumbnails not the full images that are affected.

    We understand that not all are going to agree.

    Thank you

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    Giolon,

    If the image is tagged as containing nudity and you make your thumb creatively depecticting the artistic merit of the image, it won't be misleading. Now if the image was nothing but t&a,with no face or anything else but solely the t&a then I guess it would be but hopefully there is more to the image than that, lol

    By: fotovizions on 1/22/07
    From what I gathered here it's the Renderosity membership complaining or being offended by seeing nudity or violence in a gallery thumbnail image?
    I could justify a TOS violation if I did not properly mark the image during submission. I am assuming the people complaining or offended are the same ones that are too lazy to use the "edit my gallery" section and put the check mark in place to filter this out?
    Try to keep things fair. When this new rule goes into effect if a person complains about nudity without having the filters marked in their gallery options that should also be a TOS violation.
    I disagree with the decision that a user cannot purposely blur or block out any nudity, but it's okay to use some "creative cropping" to put up a totally misleading thumbnail to what the image shows. Some clarification needs to be done about what the thumbnail has to consist of. Does it actually have to be part of the actual image uploaded? Can it be a totally blank thumbnail? A logo? Can the person simply use the "Contains Mature Content" thumbnail this site uses?
    My opinion is to leave things alone. If you're offended by nudity/viokence then use the filters. For those goofing off at work and with their kids around - were they really suppoed to be here anyway?

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    Also wanted to add something in here I forgot earlier.

    I see a lot of thumbnails in the galleries on a daily basis that are creatively done without nudity but the full image contains quite a bit of nudity.

    By: StaceyG on 1/22/07
    fotovizions,

    Its not just about people complaining as I've stated now several times above. There were several factors involved in coming to this decision, that being one of them.

    We don't want the gallery full of thumbs with "black tape", "a censored logo", etc.

    And creative ways of making your thumbnails is not misleading as I stated above, I see artists and vendors successfully accomplishing making thumbnails without nudity for an image that contains nudity everyday

    By: dwmccullough on 1/22/07
    I say Bravo! I don't take this as censorship since you still have a choice to view the full image. What I was getting tired of was the endless stream of T&A in the thumbs with the "Nudity" advisory... Uh, too late for an advisory when its all in the thumbnail.

    And lets face it... One persons art is anothers pornography.

    By: panko on 1/22/07
    All right, we are reverting back to the Dark Ages a little faster than I expected. One thing I learned from "discussions" of this kind though is that it is a total waste of time and energy to try and reason with a mentality endorsing censorship of artistic expression. If only they could realise how ridiculous all this is!...

    By: fuaho on 1/22/07
    I don't understand why there can't simply be another exclusive gallery for posting this content. Thumbnails and all other policies applied to this gallery can remain as they are now. No mucking about by the members trying to determine what fits the thumbnail guidelines, no heated discussions of why specific thumbnails were removed or if blurry bar-code is permissible, just one click on a clearly labelled entry link (with disclaimers if it makes the legal team feel more secure) would allow them access to that separate gallery.

    All those whose breakfast would be ruined by seeing a pair of human breasts "in their face" (obviously these folks were bottle fed) will be saved from indigestion and they can also surf at work and in front of the kids without fear of offending whoever might happen to be looking over their fully-clothed shoulder because they know that nothing embarrassing will appear unexpectedly.

    Further, if they do decide to visit this special gallery, perhaps at lunch, or just after tea, they will clearly know what to expect before they enter that part of the site and can be pre-armed with Rolaids and Pepto-Bismol.

    This also assists those intentionally looking for nude content as they will not have to pore through scads of unrelated entries in their unending Quest for NVIATWAS.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    <;))%%%><<

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    By: Hyria on 1/22/07
    Ok R'osity. An understandable decision. It is an annoying step in a way. Even tagging the images, imho it can still be promoting "misleading" thumbnails. Like they say R'osity'e tos rules and all *shrugs* I really hope this does work out for "all" of us.

    By: msebonyluv on 1/22/07
    Are bellybutton thumbnails allowed??

    By: infinity10 on 1/22/07
    Two types of misleading thumbnails:
    Type a: Looks safe, leads to "unsafe" content.
    Type b: Looks provocative, leads to general audience content.
    Conclusion: Correct tagging / flagging still needed.

    By: dreamlight on 1/22/07
    Stan57: That´s an excellent idea! A "nude" section! Love it!

    A LOT better than censoring the thumbs...

    A nude lover that wants to see breast, won´t need to click on a naked feet... lol

    By: genefleeman on 1/22/07
    I just have to laugh.. It's like a little kid that has found Dads penthouse and doesn't read the articles, he just wants pictures of "nekkid" women..a lot of people think their artistic just because they get a lot of hits from folks (mostly kids) that just go to the galleries to see the nudity.. MORE MORE MORE....put it back in your pants and get a clue.. art is art and nudity for JUST nudities sake or for one ego is SILLY...NOT ART.. if your looking for good art then you won't care if it's nude or not, just whether it's good art..it's only the thumbnail. GET OVER IT!!

    By: kansas on 1/22/07
    I appreciate this change. I have grandchildren who like to visit Renderosity and I have had to monitor carefully which galleries they go to.

    By: ClawShrimp on 1/22/07
    I'm getting a vibe that allot of people are against ANY changes to R'osity.

    Don't just complain for the sake of complaining.

    And I think the concept of a nudity sub-section in the gallery is not an ideal solution. I for one would not specifically go out of my way to find images with nudity, but I can certainly appreciate those with it.

    I think the changes to R'osity, as they have been suggested by StaceyG, are as good a compromise as any of us could come up with...black bar debate aside.

    By: Rykk on 1/22/07
    I agree with the person above - If nudity is in the thumbnail, then a viewer has NO CHOICE but to look at it if they are browsing a gallery. I like the female form AT LEAST as much as the next guy :-) and it certainly doesn't "bother" me but I think this is a good compromise. The folks who do that type of art can continue uncensored to upload anything - within the TOS of course - they wish or so it sounds. Heck, it would keep me from getting in trouble with my wife if I appear to linger too long over certain thumbs, too! - lol. Not to mention trouble at work. And if a person, or a kid, is new to Rendo and doesn't know yet how to block this stuff or doesn't have their own gallery, it could put some more sensitive people off.

    Not to mention some wacko who might want to sue because their kid was "exposed" to nudity which just "ruined" their poor little young life....don't laugh, the way things are going these days it wouldn't be a surprise for some funded org to come around here or DA with some "crusade" and rain on everyone's parade.....

    This change is a small "inconvenience" IMHO...

    By: Kimberly.3D on 1/22/07
    I agree with the rule, the nudity and rudity should be cut out of the thumbs. Not because of the nudity per say but sometimes there is just stuff I really don't agree should be in the regular galleries. Many times the content of some artists is quite vulgar and I think kids/teens/unwilling viewers should have a choice/option not to view to that. It might be a good idea to have that separate gallergy with a disclaimer. Although many artists do nudity in good taste....I myself find some nudes quite lovely. In addition there is an difference between nudes and erotica.

    By: saeltari on 1/22/07
    Those who use nudity in the thumbnails to get people to view their images are probably going to be upset, those who don't probably won't care much. Censorship is a nasty thing, but this looks more like a compromise than censorship. If all a person wants is nudity then there are sites specifically for that. I don't have a problem with this change myself and trust me I like nudity as much, probably more so than the next fellow.

    By: BeyondVR on 1/22/07
    A very practical decision. Thanks!

    John

    By: agdink on 1/22/07
    Hmmm... Quite the debate going on here. Or not really debate, just statement of opinions, since ours (users) obviously doesn't figure into this too much.

    So, at the risk of beating a (presumably) dead horse...I guess I'm missing the logic here. A system is in place for those who desire to avoid viewing nudity and violence to spare themselves the discomfort of those exposures. Is the issue that they find the galleries to be less enjoyable because of all those boxes declaring that something has been hidden?
    So why doesn't Admin just change the code so that if you don't want to see nudity or violence and find those blank boxes offensive, that the search parameters just don't return those images through your filter. Then everyone is happy.

    Those that want to see the nude thumbs can.

    Those that want to know they are there, but prefer the boxes get boxes.

    Those that prefer to live without knowing that the nudity is there live blissfully in ignorance. (or surf happily from work)

    What's so difficult about this? Wouldn't this make everyone clammering in this thread just happily go back to making or viewing art?

    Anyway. That's where I'm going--back to the canvas. Let me know how it all turns out.

    By: CrazyDawg on 1/22/07
    yes bout time to, the staff get my thumbs up on this one. Now how about some tightening up on galleries themselves...gee i wouldn't want to see anymore budding young artist be told to leave the site and not return by a parent because of an image the staff think its fine but the parent thinks its offensive..tighter guidelines on images could help as well.

    Many wont agree with me but how many underaged artist do we get on this site, underaged meaning below 21 in USA, below 18 in other places..

    By: 3-DArena on 1/22/07
    StaceyG said: "If the figure appears to be nude, then it doesn't need to be shown on the thumbnail."


    Uhm you are really going to need to explain that one. If the figure is wearing a tube top and the thumbnail shows the upper body that goes to the upper area of the top it willappear to be nude even it it's not. There is no nudity in the imge itself but your explanation implies that's a no-no.

    And yet on the flip side you are saying you don't want thumbnails showing a black bar or "Censored" comment. So what if one chooses to place a text "Censored" thumbnail up is that going to be a TOS violation? If so why? Because they aren't depicting the image? how about the multitude of thumbnails in the gallery already that are just blank with text or that have some image on them that isn't even a part of the image. Are those allowed because the main image isn't a nude? If so that's a bit over the top.

    While I have no problem with removing the nudity in thumbs as a policy to then turn around and state a limitation on how that nudity is removed is nothing if not censorship.

    StaceyG said: "DDevant,

    Well I would base that on the same idea as in the US a woman can't walk down the street without a shirt on but a man can. Renderosity is based in the US so we are applying those same US standards."

    I take it you don't realise that a woman is actually legally allowed to walk around topless in many states and can walk around in a sheer top as long as she is wearing a shirt it can be opaque.

    Texas, Ohio, Maine, New York and Hawaii all allow topless women and various localities as well. Heck in Maine it's been legally argued (successfully) that a woman can walk around naked due to the definition of genitalia. Many other states are considering revisions to the laws as well.

    By: MoxieGraphix on 1/22/07
    I find it almost laughable that anyone would consider no nudity in thumbnails censorship. It's ridiculous to even hold that mentality. The artwork is not the stupid thumbnails, the artwork is the image behind the thumbnail. Again, I am probably the least prudish person on this site (I photograph *gasp* nude women all the time, my husband is a 'light' porn producer) and it's not worth my time or energy to even think about being upset by this change. There are a LOT worse things to be upset by in this world. Not being able to show a bare nipple in your thumbnails isn't one of them. Don't you guys have anything better to be doing than complaining over something so insignificant like, I don't know, creating art?

    By: RobertJ on 1/22/07
    @saeltari on 1/22/07

    Absolutely right, i did a picture with such a thumbnail wich had nothing to do with the subject of that picture (mind you, she had still clothes on, nut much tho). Surprise, surprise, about 5x times more views than on average.

    Point is that there are rules for the pictures themselves so why exclude the thumbnails from those rules? Let's be honest a good thumbnail is what draws me into looking at a picture in the first place. Seeing the 435th NVIATWAS with a exposed breast in a thumbnail is not doing the trick for me, be creative with your thumbnail. If nudity is the only thing you can think off than you may well doubt your creativity.

    Artistic nudity, pah what a load of cr$%&**.. (no carrier).

    By: knightie on 1/23/07
    I'm glad there won't be nudity allowed in the thumbnails. I know several people who can't visit the gallery while they're at work because if someone has posted a picture with nudity and not done a thumbnail for it... and their boss or someone walks by they could lose thier job for having "porn" at work (Face it some people consider anything with nudity porn... no I am NOT one. I have looked at many nudes... some are beautiful some... well not my cup of tea.)

    I know personally I live in a small town and don't have high speed internet at home so I go into the local McDonalds and sure as heck don't want anyone walking by to see nudity on my screen when I'm just looking through to see what's new.

    By: odditorium on 1/23/07
    well don't think ppl are going to change
    the thumbs of their older images already
    posted in their galleries. i for one will
    not change my older thumbnail postings.
    i've been here for about 6yrs now. If you're
    offended by the thumb, then just move on.
    I'm not losing money because someone's pissin & moaning about some thumbnail. Freedom of expression is what we're all about.

    I send many of my possible Clients here to check my gallery out.
    Hell! i spend more time in the Marketplace, then i do my own gallery. LOL LOL!!

    I say leave it like it is. We do have that lil Nudity, and Violence button right??

    Believe me, i do love this place and i don't want to leave.








    By: beelzebulb on 1/23/07
    Don't think in all the years I have been a member here that I have ever posted a nude picture. I don't care for a lot of the nudes posted here as most of them are of a "T&A" hustler mentality in my opinion. But they do get the hits while a lot of good stuff goes un-noticed. That said however I have on occassion viewed some great artistic nudes which would rival some of the best artworks around the net on this site.
    However I am in no way sure if this new TOS will work because to me censorship is censorship no matter how it is presented. However as a privately owned site (company in reality) the rules are made by Renderosity and I am williong to live with them. As for those who say they will move to other places etc. I am curious if they will also stop buying from the marketplace or getting stuff from the freebie section:) That will show who is really serious about thier objections to the changes. I could care less as it doesn't affect my stuff and I actually very rarely post anything here anymore. Still like to drop in at least every week to see how many of the old members are still around from when this site was known by another name and run as a hobby by others, some of whom are still sorely missed by a few of us

    By: Lgium on 1/23/07
    I totally agree with RDL and am astonished that my previous opinion / comment was "censored" as well, thank you Stacey...

    By: Onslow on 1/23/07
    I support this move 100%, it is what I have been doing for myself anyway. Combined with the warning notice it is the only way to give viewers a choice of viewing the image or not.
    Richard.

    By: Bonci on 1/23/07
    Good idea, i like!

    By: gaius on 1/23/07
    In my opinion this decision is ridiculous ! Who are we ? Pornographers ? Violent people ? And who do you want to "protect" ? Kids ? If they want to see or watch actual nude bodies, sex or violence, they don't "visit" the Renderosity galleries ! This is not just being prudish this is censorship.

    By: Stan57 on 1/23/07
    Is it so hard to click a link to view a gallery? It it really going out of your way,I think not.

    A sub gallery is the best solution, no censorship on the thumbnails, actually see what the image is, not pot luck. Also if there are kids,childern surfing here this would be a better way to keep them and this site protected.

    PS: My email account was shut down because of a problem on comcasts end,long storie that origanilly started out with a problem with my payed for download speeds.

    I can be contacted at Stan920atAOL.com

    By: TheBryster on 1/23/07
    A sensible move in a changing world where even the youngest of our children can operate a computer and perhaps view images on the internet.
    However, I feel that work depicting or could be construed as depicting persons/characters of questionable sexual orientation should be either moved to a restricted area or removed altogether.

    By: Banbha on 1/23/07
    You know, there have been a couple of great suggestions in this already. In the end, if you don't want to see or have nudity in the thumbs, fine, your choice. I think most ppl are too lazy to set their flags and filters up to filter what is offensive. Hence this debate. Also, the Freebies section doesn't show a thumbnail if it contains nudity. So why can't you just do that then for the galleries?

    The newsletter, is another matter as it does get sent to emails all over the place. However, this IS an artistic community FIRST! People come here to express themselves in their work, and to get ppl's thoughts on it. Artists putting flags up on their images should be enough. For those surfing at work, or have children over their shoulder, well, set your filters up accordingly. Frankly though, I'm not embarrassed to show my kids tasteful nudity. It helps give them a good sense of appreciation for the human body. After all, they see a lot more flesh on tv or movies nowadays than what is available to them on the web.

    By: Lory on 1/23/07
    I love this new rule! :D People not able to conform to a normal rule sure have a serious problem... having more views than other people is NOT an certification of your artistic skills... because in the end, showing nudity to the level of porn for many members means more views, not an expression of their art... I know this place for too long and my statement is true...

    By: cruzin on 1/23/07
    I've been reading the whole deal here...long, but what about thumbnails posted prior to that date? Will they have to be changed as well?
    As for the rule...oh well, it's a rule.
    For those of you who view from work (I don't against DoD rules) I have seen those who do, the nude thumbnails aren't seen unless you opt to see nudes...there's a blue block or something over it saying nude, and the thumb is blocked I thought that was smart and good enought but that is really a moot point.
    Squeaky wheels and all that...
    Not all change is good, but changes happens and we must either adapt or leave. :(

    By: DBMiller on 1/23/07
    I have no problem at all with this. Maybe now more non-nude work will get viewed without all the naked breasts hogging the thumbs. I love a nice pin-up or just plain naked girl, but what attracts me quicker is the quality of the RENDER! Something with nice lighting and composition will get me to look as fast as a boob in my face.

    By: cyanure on 1/23/07
    The only "problem"I see here(except a crash of viewing for some peoples and some artists fleeing for greener pasture),is the fact that a parts of the thumbnails will now not truelly show what mage they are related...Now I better prepare a stack of thumbnails of peoples in full enclosed bike helm(after all you better hide this NAKED face to stay in the NO NUDITY TOS)

    By: cyanure on 1/23/07
    On a second though!Is there a possibility that the one who have selected to not see Nudity and violence flagged picture in their filter setting!Will not be able to see said pictures types AND their related thumbnail?

    By: cruzin on 1/23/07
    OOps I see my question was answered...in the guideline post, I'm getting old...older I mean.

    By: tatman6 on 1/23/07
    It looks to me to be a complicated issue, with good points on both sides. This rule change wont efect me personaly becouse I upload landscapes,but I do love a good pin up when im looking through the gallarys. Personaly I think a artistic nude section would resolve the problem although I know that wont please everyone eather but at least it would show the artist thumbs the way they intended it to be veiwed and the ones who dont want to see nudity shouldnt be there in the first place.Just one mans oppinion. I hope we all can resolve this issue without alot of great artist jumping ship, it would sure be ashame becouse there are alot of great artist I truley respect here at my faverite webstie. I would also miss seeing new works from them all. To all I wish you a good day.

    By: akulla on 1/23/07
    LOL, ya whats the worldc comming to -- perhaps I should post an image of Micheal Angelo's David, oops full frontal nudity and to think he painted the Sistine Chapel.

    By: aldorp on 1/23/07
    One of the problems with nudity is that it doesn't fit well in a work environment. Renderosity.com has a store that benefits from the galleries. It is in their best interest to make the site as work friendly as possible.

    On a personal note I will be very happy if renderosity.com could become a place you would feel comfortable sending a link to friends and family members. This might never happen but I find this change as a positive step.

    By: Argon18 on 1/23/07
    It's showing how lazy some people are that they won't set the no nudity in their profile. If they don't want nudity "In their face" then setting nudity filter will eliminate it from showing in the thumbnail. But that's not good enough, they want to force it onto everyone else not to see nudity. If it's in a work enviroment then why are they surfing Renderosity? It doesn't fit into most professions and those that is does shouldn't matter about nudity.

    By: StaceyG on 1/23/07
    For anyone that asked about your old thumbnails, please see the information at the link below in the FAQ/Help section

    http://www.renderosity.com/mod/service/index.php?questionid=122

    By: 4blueyes on 1/23/07
    The problem with T&A thumbs for me is that artists that create nice images are less likely to place nudity all over the thumbs. They know they are worth the clicks anyway. I am mostly left with horrid looking badly lit terribly posed and rendered tits (in the best case!) that other artists slap over the thumbnails in desperate search for clicks and popularity. If I like the colors and quality of the thumbnailed part of the image I am going to click on it anyway, even comment and vote, be it nudity or not. In-your-face poorly created T&A thumb is only going to make me angry. WTG Rendo :)

    By: jjroland on 1/23/07
    I'm going to go with an unpopular statement here. Will try to word it delicately though.

    When I take my children to the art museum - I never shield thier eyes - and there is a plethora of nude art there. The thing is - it is art - there is something more than the nudity, something expressed in the painting, something that makes you think.

    Here's the unpopular part. I have seen a good portion here that I would not label as art. There is nothing more to it than a set of tits. Stuff I wouldn't expect my children to appreciate as art, much less subject them to see.

    Who should be the one to decide? Well since it's a private site, I think they were nice enough to just filter it rather than have a committee to advise you "Hey this sucks and is in no way shape or form any sort of art other than what belongs in hustler".

    By: Greywolf Starkiller on 1/23/07
    This doesn't affect me since I have the nudity flag checked, however, I checked it
    BECAUSE of all the 'in your face' T&A in
    the thumbs. I don't mind REAL artistic
    nudity, but much of the stuff posted these days IS just T&A. The pity is, there are
    some lovely images that I usually miss because I needed the N flag to block out
    offensive thumbs. With this change in policy, I won't miss them anymore.

    The criers, 'freedom of expression' abusers, and 'artistic freedom' abusers can go to
    'Rotica if they are offended by such an insignificant change. I, for one, won't
    lose any sleep over it. :)

    By: kobaltkween on 1/23/07
    ok, since no one seems to have posted this...

    i can't change my thumbnail. i just tried about 10 times, in 10 different combos (by itself, with changes to tags, with changes to product listing, re-uploading the image with it, etc.). i would like not to delete my image as it's been added to people's favorites.

    please advise.

    on my opinion- sorry, but my 2 most "artistic" pieces are probably not going to be able to be posted here. pinups are easy to crop because all you need to say is "sexy." or "flesh." even a simple nude _might_ not be a problem. but art that's deliberately designed around nudity... seriously, the thumbnails wouldn't just be misleading, but also awful and incoherent. i frankly wouldn't have expected many views on them, they're not at all sexy (or goth, or horror, etc.). but my work has to meet my own standards, and that includes my thumbnails.

    By: StaceyG on 1/23/07
    cobaltdream,

    You have to do a hard refresh(F5) to see the new thumbnail:)

    By: Argon18 on 1/23/07
    The trouble is that the people that have a problem with the nudity in the thumbnails won't take the solutions that has already been in place. Instead of forcing the people that don't have a problem to change, why not just force the people to set the no nudity in their profile? That way it doesn't interfere with all the rest and only affects those with the problem

    By: jwiest on 1/23/07
    I for one don't understand why you can't just leave things as they are and have the default censored nudity warning for thumbs in the newsletter as needed. Seems rather silly and useless to me.

    By: kobaltkween on 1/23/07
    ah! thanks for the quick response. i just double checked, and the correct thumbnail seems to be in place.

    By: StaceyG on 1/23/07
    I'm going to make this point once again that was made already in the Article and by me in several opinion posts above, This isn't just about the members that do want to see the artistic nudity but not the in your face thumbnail nudity but several factors were involved in coming to this decision.

    By: Argon18 on 1/23/07
    There are other alternatives, why not use the avatar in the featured artist for the Art Charts? They already don't have nudity. Why go to an either or choice for the thumbnails. If the people "admire" it so much then why the complaints on the degree? I question their motives on what they have a problem with. The decision to have no nudity doesn't have any degree to it. If consistency is what you're going for then this isn't it. Isn't that just as bad as having nudity all across the site? Rather than having options to accomodate the personal taste, that you already have in place. Isn't that better than having it one way or the other?

    By: HorseFlesh on 1/23/07
    I think that three simple words will help most people here who oppose this thumbnail change...Are you ready....Here it goes: Get-Over-It.
    These folks have been providing a place for you to post your artwork free for years. Some people have begun brilliant careers in the cg industry, and with their digital art that they perfected by posting it here, and getting constructive critisism.
    What a pity that people can't be more appreciative and thankful for what they have!
    I "grew up" here where my abilities, and talent are concerned.Therefore I have a permanent place in my heart for Renderosity.I know there are other sites like this one that are more advanced, more popular with cg artists who are real pros.I vist those sites too. But this one is where I feel more at home than anywhere else.
    Manditory rules like this one, is it really censorship? You know better. It would be censorship if they tried to say you could'nt have nudity in your artwork AT ALL.
    Grow up.Stop acting like a rebelious teenager. Posting your work here is a privledge, not a right. This is their house, not yours. You are guests here, so you ought not balk. Dont piss and moan over such a reasonable rule...
    Ryan-

    By: thewall1 on 1/23/07
    If this change is done because someone may have been 'offended' then I disagree with the change. The purpose of 'free speech' is to protect those who disagree with the norm, which is 'offensive' Free expression in the arts is the same. There are limits, of course. But to draw down to a flatlined mediocer level brings staleness.

    However. It is Renderosity's site and therfore their choice.

    By: clifftoppler on 1/23/07
    I've been directed to this article by one of your staff and I'm both amazed and baffled by those rules. Indeed, some of the comments go further by it being agreed by StaceyG that black bars and the like are disallowed. She should read the conditions as set out!!!
    Can people really change their thumbnails for them to reveal content whilst excluding evidence? At the least you invite - require - trickery and driven by what? These rules are idiotic and you know it.
    Taste is in the eye of the beholder, as is any conception of good or bad in art. Thus I cannot argue the merits or otherwise of any of my pictures. The only safe thing is to cease posting more non-fractal images until commonsense emerges.
    I look forward to seeing some of my non-uploaded pictures being favoured in those weekly art charts - whatever they are. You give but to take away.


    By: gampas on 1/23/07
    Amazing know this.. For many times you allowed alot of things that didnt fit with your own TOS. This make me remember something that I read somewhere..when a Pope dedided to cut all the penis of naked scultures.

    So bad...very bad..

    Rob Gampas

    By: jjroland on 1/23/07
    Yeah since free speech and other civil liberties don't apply to privately owned websites....

    But since that is brought up, I'm not sure when the last time I saw a nude billboard in the US was.

    You have the right to see what you want, I have the right to NOT see what I want, it is as simple as that. I find it rather ironic that all these people are so up at arms about thier "rights", but they care none about mine.

    For those who say that people will now have to wade through so many non-nudes in order to find thier precious nudes, well wont they still be tagged with a nudity advisory? So you can still visually find what you're looking for if you are so inclined.

    Pretty sure Horseflesh hit the nail on the head.

    By: 2ni on 1/23/07
    I don't know in US but in France, TV pub spots show many naked girl every day without any warning. Also look at a pharmacy shop and you see breast and nipples for selling soap...
    I think people that don't want to see nudity may have a galery without any thumb with nudity tag so artist can continue to make thumbs as they want.
    The artist must not change its creation, the viewer has to change its navigation or configuration, or see elsewhere as with TV...

    By: drifterlee on 1/23/07
    I usually use the girl's face in the thumbnail so I don't care. Most everyone who comments on my art knows I do pinups. However, be warned, US citizens. If you put another Republican in the White House women here will have to wear veils and cover their hair. Our country is slipping back into the dark ages.

    By: ipixel8 on 1/23/07
    I think this is a great idea.

    But is it just me, or is it possible that most of the people who are complaining about this are missing the point?

    YOUR "ART" IS NOT BEING CENSORED.

    Your thumbnails can be seen by ALL, including children in the room. Think for a moment and realize that there actually people out there that DON'T share your love for pornog-- I mean nudity.

    Crop in on the subject's face, upload it, and get over it.

    And please forgive my bluntness on this, but if you're so upset by this that you're thinking of leaving Renderosity, please tell the staff. I'm sure we can all use your hard drive space after you leave.

    By: Frum on 1/23/07
    There is no such thing as a democracy or free speech. Its all an illusion. I know I am going to get it now, but how about some different art? I like boobs, but some artists like to use boobs a little too much. I do not think the thumbnail thingy is going to make peoples lives a misery. Less Boobs more context is what I say. Having said that I am a big fan of real boobs :)

    By: rickymaveety on 1/23/07
    I'm not a prude by any stretch, but I found that, most of the time, I just avoided browsing any of the galleries because I got tired of the seemingly endless onslaught of tits and ass.

    I'm sure I missed the work of a lot of great artists because of that, but that's just my loss.

    So, I support the change wholeheartedly. I can browse the galleries without feeling like I've walked into the local porn palace, and pick out the artworks I'd like to see. If an artist can't make a decent thumbnail without throwing a couple of breasts or a dick or three in there, they probably weren't much of an artist anyway, and I'll pass on their work.

    But real artistry will show through, even on an edited thumb, and then I can decide if the artwork is worth a closer look despite any nudity or violence tags.

    By: Metonicus on 1/23/07
    It would be a nice change to be able to show Renderosity to friends and family or co-workers without "questionable" thumbnails. Thanks. Keep up the good work.

    By: SGT2005 on 1/23/07
    I think is required we do this. Even if a someone forgot to check the nude button. This prevents those issues.I agree with rickymaveety. Thumbs are teases but lets keep it simple. Be creative in any other means but keep out the nude bits.

    By: Kalypso on 1/23/07
    Is this something that will go into effect starting Jan 24 or will we have to change all the thumbs from our galleries posted years ago?

    By: vkirchner on 1/23/07
    I love this site, many close friends are here. But I have had numerous conversations with our corporate admins regarding the free use of nudity on this site. I want to be able to converse during the day with others, but I am running the risk that unless something changes and the nudity is curbed, I will be unable to use the site at least during the day because of corporate filtering.

    By: hansklerk on 1/23/07
    Some very good artists already left renderosity and I'm afraid this kind of sensorship will eventually be the end of this great site. Now it is the thumbnails. What will be next....

    By: amadreea on 1/23/07
    I have read this thing about nude and violence. Dear renderosity staff can you answer to a pertinent question? If I am modeling a statue like michelangelo, using a michelangelo original statue as a model, the nude statue is a NUDE thing? Or maybe if someone wants to recreate a painting but in 3D taking as a model Goya or Monet... will this art that is exposed in the most prestigious galleries of the world, be considered a nude thing and the thumb will be a Venus from Milet with a bra or maybe the Atlas with boxer... I do humbly ask for your appologise but the situation is really not clear.
    In my oppinion nude to be banned is all about bad taste sexual oriented works which I found less artistical and less interesting for a graphic community.
    A nude painting can be seen in an art gallery too and there is no sign post: only for 18 yr and over... A bad taste Vicky with big breasts and sexy lingerie exibiting the intimate parts in a not so much artistical but more pornografical attitude... there's the NUDE to be hidden.
    Can someone do the difference and do not bane art ?

    By: iloco on 1/23/07
    HorseFlesh, couldn't have said it any better myself.

    By: art8boi on 1/23/07
    Out of all the problems in the world, Here and Now, you're having a debate, and there has been a debate ongoing for quite some time from the looks of this on Renderosity page. People are being killed in a war, New Orleans has been left to rot, another American city, like your home town, and these are the first two things off the top of my head that are not 3D content, but real and obscene things happing to real people!

    God! It's Computer Generations, nudes or not, I don't care, I came to this site to shop, not to gawk. I don't have time or need to look at what is useless to me, and most of the Cheese Ball Thumbnails are for content that is of Piss-Poor quality, and only survives in this site because it sells.

    If Thumbnails are so much of a problem for those of you who shop here, vote with your money, and don't shop here. More to the point, I think you should get out of the house more, and while out there, stop at your local library, and read a newspaper, a book, and get some reality into your sheltered lives.

    James McLoughlin

    By: Damsel on 1/23/07
    I have no problem with the new policy at all. If the only way you can get people to view your artwork is with nude thumbs, then you might want to look at being a bit more creative. I have nothing against nudity in artwork, it's been with us through the ages and is for the most part done beautifully. However, I don't need to grab viewers with a nude thumb who are merely out to see nudity. The nudity in any image of mine that contains it is "hopefully" only part of the artwork and creation as well as the beauty. At least that's what I strive for. :-)

    By: LillianaSapphire on 1/23/07
    I agree with rickymaveert on this one.When i create a nude image i do not put nudity in the thumbnail. I always do a crop of the persons face or a part of the image that is interesting. I tend to find its not just the thumbnail that attracts people to somebodys work, its their name and the person that they are and their artistic ability.
    Regarding nudity, as long as its only thumbnails rendo censor and not the art I don't mind.

    By: ThetaGraphics on 1/23/07
    I support this change, I have always been a little cautious about visiting this site when in a public place such as my campus. jjroland has a very valid point which I find applies to me and others very well. We have a right to be able to browse the galleries without overlarge breasts exploding out of the thumbnail. Not to mention any potentially traumatizing effect to a browsing child. (Many pics on here are quite suitable for children to enjoy.)

    Some requested a separate gallery for nudity, I find that this would be a rather bad idea. Someone's beautiful work that contains artful nudity would be thrown in with someone else's pinup of overlarge mammaries with no other reason behind it. I am sure there are many others like myself who would enjoy the artful nudity but prefer not to view the more risque images.

    I am a little puzzled as to why the black bar wouldn't be a suitable form of 'censorship' to the thumbnail, though it probably leads to the implied nudity rule. Also the fact that you probably want to keep the site looking more artistic than a bunch of black bars screaming nudity...I understand. Out of curiosity, would a woman with bare shoulders in the thumb be part of this implied nudity rule even though she may simply be wearing a strapless gown in the actual picture?

    An idea that I think could work, and I hope that the Rendo staff will consider, is by splitting the current nudity tag into two separate tags. Say, Artistic Nudity and Erotic Nudity (or whatever type of nudity t&s classifies under). Artists would add the appropriate tag to their image, and we should be safe from people clicking on a nice face and being bombarded by what they may find as pornographic.

    What do you think?

    By: Argon18 on 1/23/07
    If the nudity filter is set in the profile then the problem of the thumbnails is eliminated, what so hard about that? I'm not sure who they're trying to promote it to, but it seems dishonest to me try and sell an artist by the thumnail when the image is totally different.

    By: rstrenge on 1/23/07
    I think this perspective from the National Coalition Against Censorship is germane to this argument:

    "Of the many debates about censorship in recent memory, not one has opened with a public official saying, "Let's censor this." On the contrary, the standard initial talking point is "This is not censorship, we do not censor," followed by: "We need to be sensitive to community standards;" "We need to protect children who might see this," "We can't spend taxpayers' money to support work that might offend;" or "We don't consider this censorship at all, because you are free to exhibit your work elsewhere." The censor's current disguises of choice are the moral imperatives of "protecting children" and of exercising "respect for religious and cultural beliefs and sensitivities." Both, in themselves, laudable objectives and, for this reason, perfect disguises for other, less savory motives."

    And...

    "Some people equate all representations of nudes with pornography and associate all nudity with sex. As there is no established legal definition of pornography (In the famous words of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s “You know it when you see it”), and as contemporary art frequently toys with the conventions of porn, it is very hard to draw a line between the two. A working definition could be that the sole purpose of pornography is to create sexual arousal and that art (even as it might arouse some viewers - to each his own!) has multiple layers of meaning and creates multiple effects.

    Nudes in both art and porn enjoy constitutional protection, although art is protected to a higher degree. The only sexual expression that is not protected by the First Amendment is obscenity. Needless to say, nudes, even if they appeal to someone’s sexual imagination, are not obscene. To be obscene, material should, among other criteria, lack serious social, political or artistic value.

    Sometimes, even if a work is not considered obscene for adults, it might be deemed too sexually explicit for the eyes of minors. So-called “harmful to minors” standards are applied to shield children from material such as commercial porn. Sometimes, however, it is wrongfully used to justify the removal of representations of nudes. There is no evidence whatsoever that minors would be harmed by seeing sexually explicit expression, let alone by the sight of a nude sculpture."

    By: FutureFantasyDesign on 1/23/07
    First it's the thumbnail, you can bet next it will be the Pic. The Moral Majority, and Religious Right, at work protecting our country. Blech! Seriously...does a thumbnail that says "Contains Nudity" keep someone's kid from peeking? NO! And don't fool yourselves that this isn't what this is about....the "Protect Our Children" movement. After all it starts with an A3, and moves on to a Neutral V4 that turns Asexual, with no genitalia or Nipples. Is Body Stockings allowed in a Thumbnail>? Or is that also a "Grey" area? I don't care so much about not having a wang in my face....but breasts are natural and a food source, so if the women have to cover those...so do the men! It's only fair.

    By: dwmccullough on 1/23/07
    RE: Nudity filter...

    I don't think filtering ALL nudity is the answer when there are some wonderful artists here that do great work.

    I have nothing against nudity. I grew up in a family of photographers and artists and never thought the human body was anything other than a work of art itself.

    However, I've been coming here for several years now and have seen the steady increase in what can only be described as "poser porn" guised as art.

    Sorry, but that's my opinion and there is a difference between art and "porn" even if it's hard to define the line between the two.

    A nude pinup is not offensive in my opionion but a woman spread eagle upside-down on a cross with a nude man in front of her getting ready to do who knows what... Well, someone tell me that's art and I'll throw in my Wacom tablet and call it even.

    It's only a thumbnail and I see it as a courtesy.

    By: LOCRIANs on 1/23/07
    Bottom line is it's their site. This isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship just as every other site on the face of the world is. If you don't want your images censored, make your own site and display them there. I could care less one way or another myself but people complaining isn't going to help. Whats done, is done for the greater good, even if you feel as if your individual rights have been squashed a little. Still a great site with high trafic. Much more, then say, anyone heres individual site may get...I guess if people leave, they just leave. Kinda biting off they're nose to spite the face though.

    By: MoeGoofie on 1/23/07
    This is our community. But Renderosity is not OUR website. For all the admins and designers and techies - Thank you whole heartedly for providing this haven for us artists to come and enjoy each other's artwork, and also for creating the web's best marketplace for digital products.

    But for all those whining about censorship - if you wanna show off your thumbnails with complete nudity, you can always build your own website and do as YOU please.

    By: YARDOBE on 1/23/07
    Remember Alannis's suit at the Juno's?....stocking type spandex that barely held her nudity(a dig at Janet's wardobe malfunction}...we all laughed,like I'm doing now...welcome to the filtered net...screw the artist,pacify the money...well if it rids us of some of the smut that makes it here,I guess it's a good thing....Oh,what are 10-15 year olds doing on this site anyway?...searching for {Cyber} porn and wannabe's spreading for Joe-Just-Bought-A-Cam,please don't blame the software{Poser},or the accomplished,serious Artist,and double-please this isn't the work of religeous zealots who miracuously hold power over the 'net!

    By: LanceB on 1/23/07
    Bravo! I may even start posting my work on the site now that I know my Grandkids can take a look without being shocked by some of the thumbnails. I am a medical professional and have seen a lot of skin but I am also a resident of Montana and realize there are different standards for different situations. To the rosity staff: A very wise and successful man once said, "I don't know the secret of success, but I do know the secret of failure and that is to try to make everyone happy." Thanks for making a tough decision that will, of course, not make everyone happy.

    By: drifterlee on 1/23/07
    If you have to worry about people at WORK seeing nudity on Renderosity, maybe you need to get BACK to work. I was a reporter at a newspaper that was so strict they checked your Internet history every day to see what you had looked at. Some of the young men had been playing online games. Save Rendeosity and sites like it for at home, unless you wife objects, LOL!

    By: swordvaporcat on 1/23/07
    Greetings.

    What a plethora of opinions we have here, both harmonious and contentious! Our generous hosts have certainly kindled the flames of debate with this decision to bring some measure of control to the visual content of the preview images of this iste, a decision which I support.

    Yes, I must add my voice to those likeminded of my esteemed associates who agree with this decision, such as HorseFlesh, ipixel8 and Metonicus, to name just a few. And I also agree with dwmccullough's observation that over the years I, too, have taken note of the gravitation toward the more primal side of human creativity in the content submitted by the community.

    My dear colleagues, I must echo the sentiments of those who have spoken before me, and reiterate this point: It is a privilge to be a member of this community and share in the benefits of such membership. I implore you, cease the inane quibbling over this decision, and instead direct your energies into more creative pursuits.

    Machaer Faelisaetheris, Ensiger

    Pulchritudo Est In Loci

    By: paradigm on 1/23/07
    As with all change, good things and bad things will come of it. Some people will benefit and others will lose. Let's just hope the good outweighs the bad. Only time will tell.
    Posting opinions for or against seems to be redundant as their decision is already made.

    By: EdenEvergreen on 1/24/07
    If I want to see an unclothed female body, all I have to do is undress and go look in a mirror! Personally, I am tired of seeing female nudity nearly every where I look... and I utterly abhor the sexual harassment that usually accompanies it.

    I believe there is a healthy balance somewhere between "natural instinct" and "excessive restrictions" that is often missed. I define that elusive balance as "civilized behavior."

    *applauds Renderosity's policy clarification and revision*

    Some people will push any boundary, no matter how reasonable it is. I suspect that boundary-pushing probably has at least as much to do with this policy revision as any "squeaky wheels." Defining the boundaries more clearly could be a very good thing.

    Removing nudity from thumbnails also makes this site more friendly to folks wanting to browse at work, or while kids are around.

    No, it won't stop those who are determined to see it. It simply permits those who prefer not to see it an opportunity to choose. Isn't the ability to make choices exactly what "freedom" is all about?

    I had several brothers, who had several friends. I learned exactly how the average pre-teen or adolescent male who sees a lot of female skin will react. I saw the reaction far too many times to doubt the pattern.

    Adolescent males do not see "artistic nudity" ... they see **GIRL SKIN!!** Any female nude image hits them straight in the hormones, and that is the level upon which they react. Even when it is "only" exposed breasts.

    I don't consider that reaction, the one that dehumanizes females into sensual objects, to qualify as civilized behavior. If people feel the need to pursue hormone stimulation, they can still do that... elsewhere, or in some cases by opening the images behind the thumbnails. But the thumbnails themselves don't need to include it.

    Renderosity has not newly prohibited posting any material. They have only asked that the nudity and violence be kept out of the thumbnails so that each viewer can better choose their own "comfort level" with such images.

    People, please... try to respect differences, without taking it as a personal insult or getting angry when a decision goes against your personal preference. Sharing the world gracefully with folks who have different perspectives is just part of being civilized. =)

    By the way, I sincerely doubt Renderosity's decision has anything to do with any ethnic or religious group. Come on folks, that's just silly! Your prejudice is sticking out, and what a hideous thing it is!

    Thanks Renderosity. This change is appreciated by many. :)

    By: easyjobrob on 1/24/07
    can we not just have a whole section dedicated to nudity, that way those who wish to see it can "fill their boots" as we say in the UK. Yes to freedom of expression but also yes to my freedom of choice not to see nude images..tasteful or not.

    Great site BTW!!

    By: gaius on 1/24/07
    To Drifterlee : Bravo, a 100 times bravo, Sherrie. You're 100% right and it's a pity.

    By: Christel on 1/24/07
    Well, no matter what we say we have to stick to the new rules. No matter how stupid we thing thay are.. Its no problem for me to not have boobs and ass on my tumbnail, but whats the big deal?? As long as you dont see "all the way home"?! What is so incredible dangeroes with the human body? Is nudety really so incredible bad?
    I must laugh a little.. Sorry.. If some people cant handle this, well.. Poore guys ;) I dont mind the new rules at all.. But i think its a little funny! *LOL*

    By: Eseres on 1/24/07
    The censorship thing is a GOOD thing to them who like the nude/porn and violent expressions in an image, and those who don´t like them.

    I like looking at a nude women when i WANT to, but i don´t like to get hit in the face by such images at any given time.

    I´d like to choose what to see for my self.

    To those people who don´t like this censorship... You can filter out the non-violent/nude images.

    Remeber people... THE DOOR SWING BOTH WAYS!

    By: amadreea on 1/24/07
    I must say some of you just agreed with the idea of separating artistical nude from sexual pornographical one.I am not into nude modeling but oneday maybe I'll do a scene where Afrodite came out of the sea born from the foamy water... will I be forced to put a bra on the thumb? Hope not for it will be a disgrace. We should better put in the thumbnail only a part of the work like someone suggested... the face only and post NUDE warning... this way the thumbnails will have both decent and cautious look. This is my humble oppinion.

    By: FrankB on 1/24/07
    I accept the new policy in full, the main reason being it's your site, right?

    But I'm laughing out loud at you and others with their twisted morale about nudity.

    It's funny: there's virtually no protection for children in the US play killer games and you go to the shooting range for recreation in you lunch break, but when a woman would walk up with no shirt on you'd shriek and fall into a coma :-D

    I'm wondering what everybody with the "nudity thumbnail in your face" argument is afraid of? Do they come out the screen and snap at you?

    I'm not so passionate about it that I would leave Rero at all, but that's so ridiculous and probably it's good having somebody not from the US tell you that.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By: Aral3D on 1/24/07
    As many of others I usually take the face of my character for the Thmb, as a form of respect, I understand not all people agree about nudity, even if as artist I like a nice nude portrait.For this reason I respect and I agree with this decision, also I noticed when in my pic is set up the flag of nudity is most viewed..so in this case we will be more equal for all..

    The thing that make me upset is not Rosity stuff decision!But that it seems to be here a lot of "angels" don't want to seen nude images...but if you have a look at the most viewed images in Rosity history you'll see at the top of the charts there are nude images!

    Just 2 words about chensorship..
    I'm italian, probably we see nude statues wherever in our country...but what do you think if Michelangelo paintings or classical statues will have a nice swim suit because they are all nude!?!?!...but it seems classical nudes are very appreciated from tourist...and schools go to see classical museums with so many nude statues and paintings!!!What a pervert those teachers!!!...I cannot understand censorship...

    By: theseus88bc on 1/24/07
    I think it's a sensible idea. Last thing you want is to be browsing the galleries and suddenly there's a nipple glaring out at you like some accusing finger.

    By: Desiderius on 1/24/07
    Never I'll be able to understand this aversion about nudity! And the censure will remain always the censure and it is much more offensive in my opinion! However and a contrario, we would be able to respect each one here! Even those from which the ideas, the habits and moral are completely different from ours! I don't know what to think about it!! Will we should eternally to respect rules which we find stupid? So-called for the good of all! The life will quickly become a hell for all those which want to think and live freely in this world! But I'm not so pretentious to pretend to detain the true! So a contradiction to meditate! With hope this can moderate all stupid and definitive reactions! It will be always very hard to find a consensus!!!

    By: Rykk on 1/24/07
    A couple of things:

    Lots of talk in this thread about how this site is "for the artists" and how we can all "just turn off the nudity in the thumbs". Hogwash! This site is - should be - for the artists in that it draws lots of NON-ARTIST browsers who might actually buy a print of one's art. These folks don't have a page here and can't use any of the controls. If it is just some closed-loop, insulated elitist community that hinders the viewing by folks outside the site, I'm wasting considerable time here, then. Very few of the artists here are going to buy someone else's print and hang it on their wall - they're trying to make a market for their own stuff. I have fun with my art and consider it "play" but I did come here in the first place with the dream that someday maybe, just maybe I might be a "real" working artist if enough people liked what I created. That creates a need for this place to be as open and travelled as possible by art LOVERS, not just art makers.

    Anybody can make a thumb for their image even if they don't have a decent graphics editing program. Every Windows pc comes with MS Paint - just cut a 200x200 square out in that, save as a jpg and you're ready to rock.

    This does, however, bring up a question in my mind:
    If the thumbnail doesn't show nudity, it could lead some uninitiated visitors to think there isn't and they'd get a surprise I guess. But, then again, folks who are offended by that kind of thing would probably not click the thumb in the first place(?).

    It never ceases to amaze - and depress - me how people can take and take and take at a free site that most won't even pay a measly $5 a month to support and do nothing but bitch like they own the place and they are doing the host some big "favor" by taking up lots of storage space, slowing down the server and taking up the time of the admins/mods. Be thankful you HAVE a place to show your art at all that is rewarding in the encouragement you get from other like-minded folks....

    By: rstrenge on 1/24/07
    There is no potential legal or other liability associated with the posting of thumbnails as they are now posted, nor any sustainable argument the practice constitutes a threat to the well-being of children. Nudity in thumbnails (even nudity some individuals might think pornographic) is simply objectionable to some undetermined number of individuals.

    At a minimum, it is a likelihood that there are an equal number of people like myself, who find censorship far more threatening and objectionable than anything posted anywhere on this web site. This is not even an act of self-censorship, but the senseless censorship of the artistic creation of others by an entity that claims to be serving the interests of the artistic community. It is an action taken simply to placate those who believe they have the right to expect the cosmos will be altered in any way necesssary to ensure it conforms to their particular sensibilities and beliefs. And if you believe it is a trivial issue, I would argue that you have no understanding of the risk posed to creative liberty by the incremental, but nonetheless unending and unyielding forces of social and political erosion.

    By: Anar_K on 1/24/07
    Since my last comment on this issue seems to have not been posted I will comment again in a more succinct format.
    Everyone needs to reread what Stacey initially posted.
    THIS ISSUE IS A DONE DEAL.IT IS NOT OPEN FOR DEMOCRATIC DISCUSSION!
    Bottom Line
    If you are an artist that does not like Rendo rules go elsewhere there are alternative sites that allow nudity.

    By: JimFarris on 1/24/07
    Regretfully, because the new guideline would define a thong or string bikini as nude, I must disagree. I understand the reasoning for the decision, I agree that some thumbnails have gone a bit too far. However, I do not agree with the new definition. A thong is not naked.

    By: VbSparky on 1/24/07
    make it a option to show nudes or not like google does in there image search.

    By the way , Its leagel for a female to walk
    topless down the street here in NY state if
    she wants to.

    I guess I'll be missing alot of good stuff
    from artists becouse of your conformist
    postions on this topic.

    BTW , you might as well remove all the weapon thumbnails too. They might affend me and others too.

    so sad , so sad.


    By: Yotna on 1/24/07
    Umm, I have a technical query, at the moment if my thumbnail is too big the renderosity engine replaces it with one made from the image.

    So my image has nudity in it and I make an appropriate thumbnail but it for some reason is not accepted will the engine still make the thumbnail in the same way?

    If it does who is at fault the artist or renderosity?

    Your site, your rules & I expect somebody elses idea... One day the luddites will be gone, just not one day soon.

    By: boobunny on 1/24/07
    I don't get it. If they didn't like it in their face, why did they have their filters turned off?

    They are the ones who chose not to filter their thumbnails.

    Which is more convenient, to check a box to stop the nudity from showing or to go through alot of trouble to make a thumbnail with specific guidelines?

    It is much easier to tick a box.

    I agree with mejed, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

    As far as non members veiwing and not having the option to turn off the nudity. They can become a member just like anyone else. It's free.


    By: mboncher on 1/24/07
    Good, I can finally look at the galleries at work again and not worry about someone thinking I'm browsing porn. As far as I'm concerned with all the responses opposed to this policy shift in thread, people are hyperventalating over a major improvement to the quality of Renderosity. Mainly, making the galleries more accessable to people to see our art.

    Of course, this assumes that you're not making art designed for the sole purpose of... ahem... self... ... ummm... self abuse. Then, sorry, you lost your store front dancers then and guy screaming "girls girls girls", for that is the equivilant of what most of those thumbnails are. (no matter how much I may like them)


    By: caxeman on 1/24/07
    So we have to crop a thumb, oh well. As far as i can see it, i love nudity, in all its forms, and if we want to pose with breasts or genitals showing, we still have the right, so i say great :)

    By: bjergtrold on 1/24/07
    Hahaha, that's just wrong.

    By: altec101 on 1/24/07
    No matter what the above said opinion's are, and I say this with respect to you all, renderosity has made its mind up on what they think and required the artis to do in conforming to what they regard to be a thumbnail.. ok some will migrate to other site's, lets just remind ourselfs that Renderosity provides a huge gallery thats cost you nothing to join free tuturials and far to much to mention here. Yes I myself like to see nudity in thumbnails BUT I RESPECT THERE POLICY

    By: wmaness on 1/24/07
    If filters weren't already available, and if they were not the default setting, this morality-police action might barely be justified. However, a user has to choose to view nudity and violence through an action in their settings. The justifications about making renderosity 'work-safe' are specious on the outset. Call it what it is, Christian-ethic moralizing. I believe the managers of Renderosity are completely within their rights to take the action they have, but being within their rights doesn't make it the right thing to do. It's the wrong thing to do, by any objective measure you care to argue.

    By: Fylbrigge on 1/24/07
    I find it amusing that as I read this, the banner at the top of the screen is a right busty lady naked to her belly button. Consistancy is a good thing. Perhaps it could apply to the banner ads too.

    I cannot browse this site at work even though I do have the filters for the galleries up. Why? Because the filters do not apply to the banner ads.

    By: asdip on 1/24/07
    Tis a shame. I feel like a kid that found .10 cents and can't spend it due to the fact that EVERYTHING is .15 cents with TAX. I guess I will go back to FOTKI.com and enjoy the freedom that you will enjoy here on the 24th.

    By: DANDURANTE on 1/24/07
    I usually dont make thumbnails for my renders. But I'll start now. I dont want to offend anybody. Most of my images are nude, I always make sure the warning is there. This is no problem. I'd be happy to make a quick, tastefull thumbnail, combined with the nudity warning. I'll start next time I upload. Stop by and look at my gallery! Thanks!

    By: sylphie on 1/24/07
    i have done very few images that this new policy would apply to, but, i have often been irked that some artists seem to rely on nudity in their thumbs to increase their viewership. i post my work here for the critique, but since i have been more of a "lurker" in the forums and contests here, an image with my name on it doesn't necessarily garner the volume of views that i'd hope for. this policy evens the field a bit, i think, and i appreciate viewing thumbs that rely on skill and vision rather than titillation. if it was the images themselves being censored, i would most certainly object, but it's not. in fact, i look forward to seeing more creative thumbs!

    By: abhilash on 1/24/07
    Good, I can finally look at the galleries at work again and not worry about someone thinking I'm browsing porn. As far as I'm concerned with all the responses opposed to this policy shift in thread, people are hyperventalating over a major improvement to the quality of Renderosity. Mainly, making the galleries more accessable to people to see our art.

    By: ashokscape on 1/24/07
    Every society or community has its laws. We may not like or agree or understand them. We have a right to protest, but we have to follow the rules, if they haven't changed after protest.
    I agree with altec101.

    By: DavidEMartin on 1/25/07
    As long as the images themselves are not affected, especially MY IMAGES, I can see the point of these new parameters. Hell, I've been doing this since I figured out how to make a thumbnail for here. The thumb is a PG advert for yoiur image. Think of movie ads. You usually see the bright green "This promo is approved for all ages" and rarely see the bright red "This promo is meant for adult audiences" (even when you're IN an R movie).

    So I post a nude of Jenifer, a shin-to-head shot of her in all her natural glory (which would have GWFA complaining about "no feet"). I'm not composing a nude thumb, just a teaser to get the viewer to want to click onto the greater image. So I crop a section of Jen to show that she is quite probably nude but "you ain't seeing anything yet."
    Hell, look at women's magazines for examples of "PG nudity" (I swear there's more nudity in VOGUE than PLAYBOY) and use that as a working guide. Especially skin creme ads.

    By: DennisReed on 1/25/07
    I really took offence to this opening statement: "Time to move forward with the goals that we would like to achieve collectively as an artist community.".

    Where in this "collective" process were the artists of this community included! I beg the Renderosity Team to say it like it is! "We the Renderosity Team have decided to inact a new policy regarding Thumbs ..... I'm a big boy! I can accept this, since it is the way it is!

    It has always been useless giving feedback on how any of us think within these types of threads. Renderosity will do what Renderosity thinks fit! I'm OK with that!

    If the Renderosity Team wants the artists collective opinion then ask, but afterward post the consensus, or do it as a poll with instant feedback. If the results are not acceptable to the Team, say so, and continue in the direction the Team wants to go, and maybe even give an honest reason for why.

    It is not the Team's will I object to, its the &&^^%%^%^$# method the Team goes about inacting it!

    By: pjz99 on 1/25/07
    Rykk:
    This site is - should be - for the artists in that it draws lots of NON-ARTIST browsers who might actually buy a print of one's art. These folks don't have a page here and can't use any of the controls.

    That's rubbish. If you do not register as a user, you cannot view the gallery. If you register as a user, you have the controls that allow filtering of nudity/violence.

    This change is pretty stupid - why make thumbnails mandatory, why not just make the default be no thumbnail for those who choose to filter content? If I tag one of my images for nudity, I don't see how being forced to add a thumbnail helps anyone at all - you don't want to see nudity, the lack of a thumbnail isn't going to matter to you. You do want to see nudity, again, a thumbnail with nudity isn't going to matter to you.

    By: yarddog on 1/25/07
    I agree and have done it in my gal. here for years. No biggie. If you want respect ya gotta give it.

    By: beckyh2112 on 1/25/07
    I feel this obsessive need to point out that if you're worried about people not being able to tell what's in your image from a thumbnail and the warnings, then you're making a bad thumbnail.

    (Also, telling the html to resize the picture smaller is not the same as making a thumbnail, argh! But that's a whole 'nother issue.)

    Do kinda wish I could have thumbnails bigger than 15k, though.

    By: rmwright on 1/25/07
    Total censorship, prudity and religous lead nonsense. I too will vote with my feet.

    By: igorfo on 1/25/07
    I think it is a puritanistic way of thinking. Seen from the old continent it is more ridiculous than anything else... You know like somebody putting his hand in front of his eyes but spreading the fingers to still see through it! Nobody is forced to post here in the end! There are other sites where nude posting is not a problem... Don't forget, they're only a bunch of polygons...

    By: Cheers on 1/25/07
    Censorship gone crazy!
    Artistic freedom is what allows artists to push the boundaries.
    I agree this is Renderosity's site and they have every right to create and enforce the rules that they desire.
    I thought this was an artists site though. Some of the greatest art this world has seen is of the nude human form. Maybe, the problem isn't really what is shown, but the quality of it.

    I respect Renderosity's decision, but maybe they have lost grasp of what art is all about. Yes, censoring thunbnails isn't that great a step, but it is just one more step taken away from expression.

    By: tainted_heart on 1/25/07
    Another totally rediculous decision. There seems to be no point in having a non-nude thumbnail when you have a nudity filter that filters out the thumb anyway...out of sight, out of mind. For a place that promotes itself as one meant to "...create a thriving, productive environment that encourages an atmosphere of community, respect, collaboration, and growth...", this does little to promote tolerance and respect. Nudity is an artform and tasteful nudity in art should be respected, but the artists that create tasteful, nude images always seem to get stepped on. It's tough to grow when you're stiffled. It really isn't the "art that matters" here as the About Us page announces, and it hasn't been for a long time.

    By: Litehouse901 on 1/25/07
    I think I will just use my avatar for every render. Heaven forbid that I offend someone with my artistic taste or violate the TOS. Sad day that we have reached here at RR as I thought the filters the viewer HAS control of would make these imagines not appear in their viewing gallery. Apparently, it is now up to us to "hide" our work to make sure that no viewer is offended. I'm sorry but I just don't agree with the excessive roadblocks one has to put up in order to post a render. But, like I said, I'll just use my avatar for everything. Of course, unless there is a reason why RR could find fault with my avatar.

    By: Argon18 on 1/25/07
    I agree with bobunny, what is so hard about ticking a box? Turn it around, if you're going for consistency why not force people to put nudity in the thumbnails if the image has nudity that way the viewer has an honest representation of what the image is like instead of being decieved by a thumbnail that doesn't have it. How many artist want to be forced into that either?

    By: dicand on 1/25/07
    This is absolutely U.S. The amazing American standards never stops. The same people that allow "Chainsaw massacre" faints in the sight of a breast! As for "Just the thumbnails" this is just the beginning....

    By: Lordfox on 1/25/07
    At least now the rules in regards to the marketplace thumbnails make sense...I never could understand why the marketplace had to be *this* way to "promote professionalism" ,and yet the rest of the site contained the very thing that was being poo-poo'd.Now,get rid of those annoying banners that have absolutely NADA to do with models/the store/or even art for that matter :)and you'll be on your way.

    By: Elcet on 1/25/07
    I think that this decision of the Renderosity management is at best nonsense, at worse pure hypocrisy. Since the Antiquity all artists have figured nude humans except in reactionnary countries such as today the fascist-islamist nations. Why not put a tchador on Victoria’s or Sydney's posts tomorrow? Even for children, when they have books about human anatomy, they see nude men and women and even detailed view of genitals. God and the human evolution from an ape origin made that we are so today, and to recall our animal origins and stay humble we still retain a small patch of fur here, LOL. Renderosity is not an open site, it is accessible to registered members only. And we can presume that children are only a very small part of our visitors. Sure that artists must be responsible and consider that, from an artistic point of view, nudity is not a final goal (otherwise it would be porn, not art at all). Our final goal is to show something beautiful, expressive and creative. Regarding violence, I consider that artists have to question themselves why they show it and what conclusion the reader of the image can get of. To kill and to make prejudice to anybody is in itself a bad thing, and always when I show violence I take care to present what is the choice of justice, so I am a moral artist, LOL. But to depict our world as a kind of paradise with pink cute winged angels is to make oneself blind that we are living in a world of extreme violence. What is violence anyway? Is it simply to shoot at somebody with a saber or bullets, or more generally to make somebody suffer? And also to cause severe environmental damages to our planet. On September 29th, I posted «Summer souvenir», it was a sort of snowman made of trash elements on a polluted seashore. I consider that it is violence, and I quoted about the photograph: «contains violence»! But there is no weapon on it and no blood too. To ban nudity and to hide weapons from thumbnails simplifies the choice, that eventually could be confied to our beloved Ebot robot: if from image recognition Ebot automatically recognizes a nude breast, or a sword, or a Kalachnikov, wov, you artists shall be punished by wiping out your thumbnail! I have never hidden in my posts that I am a Christian artist, but I think that it is not only a stupid decision, it is alarming and we may question what shall be tomorrow the next repressive step. So I ask a drawback of this decision as soon as possible.

    Edouard Elcet, professional 2D/3D illustrator.

    By: argoforg on 1/25/07
    I respect the new policy, and understand the reason for it. I also understand that it's a case of only censoring the thumbnail rather than the actual art, which is good.

    And this is their site... there are really no 'rights' here. The fact that this is a privately-owned business site and they *allow* us to post our art here makes it a privelege, not a right. First ammendment dictates don't apply; if your mother doesn't allow you to use profanity in her house, you learn to live with it, or you don't visit.

    That said, this is the sort of thing that I've come to expect from the litigous society we've become. This is generally like McDonald's being forced to put 'Warning, Contents May Be Hot' on their coffee cups to avoid legal problems. This is very likely a direct response to people that are lazy enough to let their kids troll around the internet with no supervision and no sense of responsibility, and then willing to make a buck and blame others by claiming how scandalized they are that little Billy found a site with boobs on it.

    I understand the reason for this TOS change, and happily accept it. But there's definitely a part of me that rolls my eyes at the reason it's become necessary.

    By: cruzin on 1/25/07
    To clear something up, when you're a non user the nude thumbs were not shown. So now that all thumbs must be "clean", and for those of us who do post nekkid woman with exposed breast do we have to still click the nudity box. I mean since we are doing this so non members can view our galleries...and view our work why should those who post exposed breast have to make a "special" non-nude thumbnail AND click the nudity flag, non members couldn't see the thumbnails flagged with nudity in the first place...those members offended by exposed breast click the option that filters it.
    If people are clicking on more of the nude images...well what does that tell you...let's see more folks want to see that..simple math. Of course this isn't up to debate, but I'm so tired of reading those who put up the "I was so tired of seeing breast" when they never had to, they un checked the button that would have filtered out those thumbs and they wouldn't have had to see it. Yes, the default setting is to filter thumbs with nudity, the people at my job who do go on the site never change that option and won't click on anything that has the thumbnail stating nudity.
    So for the minority (meaning more views go to boobies so the supporters are the minority), good job, you got your way...but in the future if you want to vote Democrat don't check Republican in the voting booth because YOU made the choice to see nude thumbs, YOU had to CHOOSE to see them because the DEFAULT would have FILTERED them.
    Still long live Rendo!

    By: dricci on 1/25/07
    Tisk, Tisk.... What is the profile nudity flag for??? Hello, you don't want to see nudity, use it!!! What a waste of time this is, this site has gone downhill....

    By: RubyT on 1/25/07
    So, I have no prob with no nudity in thumb nails even though it is censership. What I do have prob with is that I created an image, made an appropriate thumbnail from part of the image itself, and it was deleted by Acadia. The thumb followed your guidelines as it was part of the image. LMAO!!!!

    I have always said about the rules here, it's Rendo's site and Rendo's right, but I have also said rules should be levied justly, which of course they won't be.

    By: FastLane on 1/25/07
    Like many of your members, I to disagree with this censorship. I have worked in many forms of art media with nudity of both the male and female form; which I believe is natural. This is yet another instance were the few dictate to the many. I like others will vote with my feet and leave Renderosity in favour of other sites that do not impose such dictatorial restrictions

    By: RenderMeister on 1/25/07
    Good call. My only question is, what if the item being sold IS a transparent / semi-transparent item of clothing? I understand exactly what you're saying, but perhaps give guidnace on what I see is the only gray area in this. Just being the devil's advocate. Otherwise, brillant work as always!

    By: DarkPascual on 1/25/07
    I don´t see the HUGE deal with this (it´s BIG, but not HUGE). I mean, it´s not the ENTIRE pic, only the thumbnail. If you try to censor the ENTIRE pic and not allow violent or nude PICTURES, forget it, this is not the Dark Ages.

    But I have a question: What are the Violence parameters? Shure, a warrior with a blood soacked sword and a mountain of severed limbs and heads behind him, thats violent, but two heroes few inches to clash against each other, is that considered violent? A person standing with a machine gun or any weapon, is that violent?

    "There is a thong line between art and porn"





    By: Jean-Luc_Ajrarn on 1/25/07
    Fine.

    Next!

    By: cosmoz on 1/25/07
    Well the times they are a changing! It was indicative of the degree this is heading when a recent 'V$' was released with all the things that may have distinguished the human form brushed out.
    One thing I hear a lot now days is that I don't care what 'they' snoop about me I have nothing to hide. Follow that thought line and we all end up in some kinda camp. Do you really think that all the wonders that they can uncover through tests are to help you?

    Pretty soon the issue becomes an issue of potential and not act.

    This is your site/business and whatever you choose is either acceptable to the would be poster or not.

    Sex sells, we have a (at times) a funny sense of moral values [no explanation req'd].

    At least the hooker that says 'I am a hooker' is more honest than those that dress up as moral pillars in the community and then do awful deeds.

    Perhaps you could borrow from the highly touted threat level index of colors or use an index like they do for the spiciness of Jalapenos.

    I begin to understand what was meant about a 'whimper' and 'not a bang'!

    By: 3-DArena on 1/25/07
    DavidMartin:
    "So I crop a section of Jen to show that she is quite probably nude but "you ain't seeing anything yet."

    Because Stacey said:
    "If the figure appears to be nude, then it doesn't need to be shown on the thumbnail."

    Which is theproblem I have with the rule, not thelack of nudity in the thumb but rather that even the thumbnail itself is censored by their vague specifications.

    By: MeredithWilson on 1/25/07
    Dear Everyone,

    I’ve tried to stay away from this whole thing but I seem to keep getting involved whether I want to or not.

    SO –

    Every place we go has rules. Your choices are abide by the rules or go someplace else. That is true at Renderosity, it’s true at McDonalds, and it’s true at my company, too.

    Each of us has to make our own choice whether to stay or go. I hope that everyone weighs the benefits versus the “costs” carefully – and particularly weighs them rationally and unemotionally.

    If you leave, I wish you would reconsider, but if you are determined to go, there is nothing I can say to change your mind.

    But assuming you are staying – what do you do???

    There is an old saying about “making lemonade from lemons!” It’s not about making “the best of a bad situation.” It is about turning a “bad situation into a good one.” Or even better – turning a “good situation into a great one!!!”

    To put it bluntly – whether you like or dislike the rule change, it is a fact of life. So how do you use this new fact of life to your ADVANTAGE???????

    Consider this – what is a thumbnail??? It is an advertisement – plain and simple. Whether you think of it as a preview, or a sign, or whatever, it is still an advertisement you are posting to induce someone to take a look at your picture. That is advertising!

    So forget the thumbnail rule changes and focus on ADVERTISING your work!!!

    And even better – advertising your WHOLE GALLERY!!

    How do your do that??

    Think of McDonald’s for a moment. Why are they successful?? Is it because they sell hamburgers? A zillion other folks also sell hamburgers. What differentiates McDonald’s from every other hamburger joint?

    And the answer is the “Golden Arches!” McDonald’s is a BRAND – and they work very hard and very wisely at promoting their BRAND!

    Whether you love McDonald’s or hate it – as soon as you see the Golden Arches you know what you are getting! You know what to expect! And most particularly, you recognize those Golden Arches. You can spot them from a gazillion miles away. That’s why their signs tower into the sky – so you will notice them. They don’t put up a “thumbnail” of a hamburger on those signs – because a hamburger isn’t distinctive – they put up a thumbnail of their BRAND.

    And once someone recognizes the brand and particularly if they like the product, they come back for more of that product and they can find that product easily because they recognize the brand.

    So how does this apply here at Renderosity? My preferences are set to 36 thumbnails per page. When I go to “What’s New” I can see 36 thumbnails at once. And after I upload, I always go to “What’s New” to make sure everything is OK.

    AND – even if there are 35 sexy nudes all over the page, I can still spot my post instantly – I can see them from across the room – and so can everyone else!! They may like what I post – they may hate what I post – but my thumbnails are gonna be noticed because I am working very hard at BRANDING my images and BRANDING my gallery!!

    As an example, my green and white “Woodland Wildlife Show” thumbnail is about as Plain Jane as it can be, but it STANDS OUT. It is a lot stronger BRAND than just another nude amid a zillion other nudes. When people click that green thumbnail, they know what is coming – just like you know what is coming when your drive into McDonalds.

    You can “sell” a single picture with nudity – just like you might sell a hamburger with a picture of a hamburger to a hungry person. But it takes a BRAND to become “McDonald’s” and to “sell” ALL of your pictures.

    And yes – my green sign doesn’t attract as many random clicks as a nude thumbnail would. And I could have “sold” more pictures starting off using nudity, but I chose instead to build loyalty to the “Woodland Wildlife Show” brand.

    So – it’s decision time for everyone. You can try to cut and crop to hint at nudity – along with everyone else that is cutting and cropping and hinting at nudity – or you can create your own DISTINCTIVE BRAND and use it advertise your picture, your gallery, and yourself and build “brand loyalty” that in the end is a lot stronger advertising for the long run!!!!

    Love,

    Meredith

    By: grind on 1/25/07
    Censorship is a stripping of freedom of expression whichever way you look at it...the beginning of the end.

    By: pjz99 on 1/25/07
    Cruzin:
    "To clear something up, when you're a non user the nude thumbs were not shown. So now that all thumbs must be "clean", and for those of us who do post nekkid woman with exposed breast do we have to still click the nudity box. "

    Hello, when you're a non user you cannot view the gallery AT ALL. Log out of the site and try.

    By: zenerabird on 1/25/07
    I'm not an artist (can't draw a straight line without a ruler), but I come here cause I can appreciate good artwork, and there's a lot of that here. All of you have good points and bad points. I have a suggestion; set up a new gallery set for violent and nude content. That should (I hope) quiet a lot of people. After that they can't complain if they are viewing the nudes cause nobody made them look. As for what some said about minors viewing the site; that is not the problem of the site. I have kids and I control what they get to see until they are old enough. It's the responsibility of the parents to control access to that kind of thing. A lot of you say you will leave, instead, offer suggestions that benifit everyone. Quit griping and try to solve the situation. I would be very dissapointed if some of my favorite artists left. But I will keep coming here even if I have to go thru every thumb the hard way. Thanks for reading.

    By: fluffybat on 1/25/07
    Well I could have sworn I had both the violence and nudity filters turned on the last time I looked at the gallery (some time ago). But when I went to my gallery options just now to turn them off before viewing the galleries before adding to this discussion they were already off.

    So I wouldn't rely too much on those filters, which then makes having rules on the degree of nudity in the thumbnails a good thing in some ways.

    The problem with having the nudity filter on is that its such an all-or-nothing filter it makes it impossible to judge whether the image may be artistic nudity or just huge breasts or in-your-face nudity or porn because they're all thrown in the same category with no way to tell without viewing the image itself.
    With the filter off with the current thumbnail rules if you go to the most viewed page it is pretty much mostly boobs in your face making it hard to see the gems. I gave up 3 pages in - too much work to find pictures that _I'm_ interested in. I like artistic nudes but huge breasts not only bore me, they get really annoying after a few pages. Its kind of interesting that there's far fewer nudity images in the best ratings and most commented views and that those that are there are less big boobs and more artistic.

    I can't see why it would be so hard to make a thumbnail that reflects the style or mood of your image without including the oversized breasts or pubic hair. But I guess the artists who are producing the artistic nudes that I like will probably have not much difficulty in meeting the new thumbnail rules - their thumbnails usually seem to be of a better quality anyway.

    I'd rather have stricter thumbnail rules than have to use the existing filter, although to be honest rather than either of those I'd prefer a rating system instead of the nudity checkbox e.g. 15 for artistic nude, 18 for big boobs, 21 for more adult images and be able to set your nudity filter preferences accordingly. Movies have ratings, and magazines are sort-of rated - the higher the shelf the more adult usually! Yeah I know there'll be some disagreement over exactly where the line is between each rating, but there's disagreement now over what counts as nudity as what doesn't.

    However I guess the new thumbnail guidelines require less re-coding than replacing the existing all-or-nothing filter with something more useful.

    By: Spawn2002 on 1/25/07
    I agree with a lot of the fine comments,placed here by staff & artists.But to add a "standard" bikini bottom to a fantasy image is extreme.Standard bikini bottom for where?Most beaches in most countries would not define a thong bikini as nudity.We do not have separate beaches for the wearing of such bikinis.Nudity is a major isssue for workers & children exposed to it,so this move does make 'rosity more accessible to more age groups.The definitions of nudity though need to be seriously looked at.Anyone familiar with Lois Royo,would see where i'm coming from with this comment.

    By: Cybertenko on 1/25/07
    I don´t understand why is America so afraid of nudity. Here in Europe is nudity quite normal. Nobody is offended by nudity, nobody cares much about nudity.

    By: Jochen38 on 1/25/07
    Sorry! But this makes me laughing like the little funny "beeps" in US TV-docus like American Chopper or Monster Garage I sometimes can see on TV in original. Typical US but these "beeps" are here translated in German TV ;o). But your page, your country....your rules. But be sure....we´re smiling and shaking amused our heads.

    By: Obaki on 1/25/07
    I fervently disagree!

    First off, I'm lazy and tend to not want do an additional thumbnail.

    I prefer seeing (and having) a full thumbnail of the image. Not being able to "censor" the "offending" portion is pretty poor. We're effectively stuck with partial images, which it appears isn't always good enough. Even "offensive" words aren't permitted.

    Shall I just make a black box with "Naughty Bits" and/or "Rough Stuff" for my thumbnail?

    People have the option to suppress images with nudity or violence already. So why are they complaining?

    I'm reminded of the joke about the old lady complaining about boys skinny dipping in a nearby creek. Even after they moved upstream she could still see them from the top floor of her house with her telescope.

    It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

    At most, let people that want to be able to list images with nudity or violence but not see the corresponding thumbnail BLOCK THE FREAKING THUMBNAIL!

    By: Obaki on 1/25/07
    One more note against.

    I particularly dislike "deceptive" thumbnails. More than once I've clicked a "nudity" image where all that's shown is something like a stocking, to find its based on M3 instead of V3.

    So my complaint is that thumbnails SHOULD accurately reflect the image.

    By: PatNoone on 1/25/07
    Surley the human body is a sight to behold made by the master of art God, we as mear mortals can only emulate that creation by in the beginning putting colored liquid onto any drawing medium we had, now we are advanced to the point we can now use computers, is still no where near that immaculate creation, or is it that renderosity are scared of offending those that make them profit, art for art sake,we know renderosity have to make a profit, so not to offend the none arty people who process the credit cards, they choose not to make a stand, understandbly, jobs are at risk, so why take the risk, you have a job that does not depend on nudity being shown or not shown, they risk at least hassle, at worst shutdown, we move to another site, they need a new job, there is no real answer just maybe a little understanding, Renderosity are not the artist champion just a company trying to make a profit, and why not they took the risk in business, they have the right to protect it, so I will go for the none nudity thumb, might make a difference to the 10,000 views of a crap pic with breast, as apposed to 10 views of a stunning vue 5 scene.

    By: SektorHP on 1/25/07
    Okay, so here's what the new thumbnail rule is doing for me... I find myself clicking more T&A because the thumbnails are misleading.
    If the main focus is T&A you shouldn't have to zoom in on a face or something for your thumbnail.

    Plus considering a girl in a thong 'nudity' is sooo 1983. So the 'nudity' tag doesn't mean that much anymore.

    I understand what you're trying to do with these rules, and I will respect them, but they're not working the way they should.

    I'd go for the All Or Nothing -filter option if I were the Ross.

    By: Giana on 1/25/07
    no nudity in the thumbnails, huh? damn, how will i know which images of pointless, non-artistic nudity to avoid now? like others, i'm no prude, and though i get weary of thumbs with just boobs or just a crotch, at least it was evident which images wouldn't interest me... heh...


    Stacey -
    .: you made mention about the Staff having a meeting and during the meeting you'd bring the "black bars" topic back up... what were the results?

    .: it was asked if navels will still be allowed in thumbnails - any word on that?

    .: i'm also curious what nude/non-nude thumbs has to do with "Once this thumbnail change is in effect, in addition to featuring artists in the newsletter, we will be able to bring back the Top Ranking page of the Art Charts!" as i don't understand the correlation - it sounds like whatever was unlinked in the AC was done so because of nudity in the thumbs prior to this new policy??... can you help?

    thanks so much for your time. it is greatly appreciated! :))

    By: StaceyG on 1/25/07
    Hi Giana,

    I just finished updating the TOS, Thumbnail guidelines and this article
    http://www.renderosity.com/news.php?viewStory=13472 (that is the thumbnail guidelines page that is on the gallery upload page). We will not be allowing the black bar type images

    I didn't see the question about the "navel" but I don't see a problem with that.

    On your last question, Bringing back the Top Ranking Page, do you mean that "Todays Top" main page that we had for about a week when we first converted (It had Todays Top Viewed, Top Commented and Top Ranked)? If so then YES that will be coming back. The featuring in the newsletter means that we haven't been able to feature any images in our weekly newsletter that have nudity in the thumbnails, now we can!!

    Thanks:)

    By: Giana on 1/25/07
    auh, thanks for pointing me in to the New Guidelines - very helpful...

    re: the chart thingy
    i guess i was just confused by the wording in the main article above as it sounded like the Top whatever was disabled *because* of nudity, and its coming back is somehow a benefit from the new policy on thumbnails...

    thanks again, and enjoy your upcoming weekend :))

    By: eol on 1/25/07
    Why is it not a viable solution to separate the nude from the non-nude artwork and keep the thumbnails unrestricted?

    RO is sooooo not the place to fill up the porn-stash, and artists that make use of nudity and erotica as part of their artistic expression have equall opportunities to capture attention and attract views and thereby valuable comments using unregulated thumbnails as their "marketing" tool.

    By: StaceyG on 1/25/07
    Giana,

    You weren't confused, the TODAYS TOP page was disabled for this reason but it will be back in a week or so:)

    Enjoy your weekend as well. I am looking forward to some relaxation

    By: TomDart on 1/25/07
    Stacey, your mail box is full! To me, the human body beautiful and at times terribly ugly. Much is the presentation. I do agree that "in your face genitals" are too much for a site folks of all ages and preferences view. Here this: I do not want censorship and don't like it one bit but I do see where a line must be drawn. I am glad it is not me drawing that line.

    To ask you at 'rosity to choose which images are tastefully presented and which are the "in your face lurker stuff" is out of order and over the line. That would open its own can of worms, certainly.

    I believe a tastefully done thumbnail might do it and serve those who post nudes. I hope it will since I do respect the work of those who do fine nude digital and photographic art. I have little respect for the "shock you" segment who will post a poor render of genitalia and then receive tons of views.

    As for thumbs, one of my images, "Private Woman" apparently appeared in the thumb to offer MORE sexual or sensual content than was really there..sure, the photo got lots of comments but sure got many, many more "views"..all the power of the thumbnail at work. I suspect the lurkers were disappointed. Those who like artistic work made their appropriate comments. Those were the views, the ones who commented..those are the ones that count.

    Best wishes in finding a solution. But being an open site to all ages, following registration, "in your face" nudity is not the best thing to show. I do have to agree with that. TomDart.

    By: ashokscape on 1/25/07
    Regarding Art and Nudity:
    Michelangelo and others created tasteful nudes. Now when a rule has to be made, as opposed to a free-for-all, 'tasteful' is a relative concept. One man's nude is another's bad news.
    The Good news:
    Now folks' think of it this way: Now we get to put thumbnail teasers, that should entice the viewer to click and see the big picture. It can be turned to our advantage!
    Sure, I also hate making thumbnails now for all my nude pix, instead of having it as an option, but let's wait and see. If it increases the visits to Rendy, great. If it deceases them, I'm sure the powers that be would change the rules back.
    If it is as they say, great for all. If it's bad news, I'm sure they'll have arelook. Cheers!

    By: Giana on 1/25/07
    oh, i had no idea there was even such a thing - the Today's Top page i mean, not the relaxing weekend bit... hehe ;)

    By: Ilenora on 1/25/07
    I like it ^_^
    Although because I have nudity filtered, the change won't effect me anyway, I'm still pleased you made this new rule.

    But I do tire a bit of people saying that nudity sound’s be censored at all because it's artistic, it's beautiful, it's the way we were born... That seems to be an excuse for lots of images of nude Vickies I've seen :P
    I myself am fine with nudity, to some extent. Huge gravity defying breasts and swollen lips aren't my thing, but lots of the people on here like that.
    Then again, you can come across the extremely rare image which actually has artistic nudity in it :)
    I'm not saying anybody's bad or anything, if they want to do nudes that may just be a little more brazen than what I like then go ahead, I can't stop you. I respect each person's preferences :)
    Please don't take this as an insult to anyone.

    By: viper on 1/25/07
    Ok I keep seeing the word censorship used here. There is no such thing as the first ammendment here at RR, same as there is no such thing as the first ammendment at your place of work be it the government or the private sector. You cant censor what you never had to begin with.
    Oh and if anyone thinks I am wrong about this simple put it to the test. Frame your favorite Nude image, take it to work and place in on your desk where everyone can see. It wont be up more than 10 min. Now when you are told to take it down tell them that making you remove it is censorship and violates you first ammendment rights and see where that gets you.

    By: Mutos2 on 1/25/07
    Hi all,


    Back to the dark times of censorship...

    This is the first step towards the '60 movies censorship where censors where looking at the screen and measuring each exposed bit of skin and debating on whether it should be cissorred !

    Linked to all these religious and rigorist crap in the general society ?


    @+

    Benoît 'Mutos' ROBIN
    Project Hoshikaze 2250

    By: art8boi on 1/25/07
    A modest proposal… All of those involved in this lunacy, please do the world a big favor, and take a long walk off a short pier, but before, send me a picture of yourself and you’re bank account numbers, I will make a 3D Figure of it and pass it off as you to gain extra cash for some 3D computer animation programs I can’t afford at the moment.

    On second thought, I will shop around my local port for a deserted dock, and take a very long walk, because if this is where the collective state of man is headed, we soon will think nothing of Murder, Sabbath Breaking, or Pointing!

    James McLoughlin

    By: dogor on 1/26/07
    Making this site non offensive for everyone is a step in the right direction. Time and place for everything.

    By: Dinoraul on 1/26/07
    I agree with those changes as Renderosity Gallery started to look like a pornpage (besides there is a special webpage for erotic renders - Renderotica).

    By: shadow_dancer on 1/26/07
    ill just make a standard thumbnail image and use it on all my pics like i did at another site i barely have enough time these days to make images much less a image th nail so,,,, don't be surprised when it shows up on my images lol
    censorship sucks the masters would all be censored in our times fudy dudy funies ......

    By: brubright on 1/26/07
    We come here that our art may be seen, that is what everyone says. So then, be thankful it is being seen regardless of whether or not you are even able to HAVE a thumbnail. We come here by free will choice, no one is forcing us to sit at our computers and upload our images.

    If all you are concerned about is the number of times your image is clicked on then your not concerned about your art anyway, you just want to get the most clicks, go build a website and let mindless drones click your images. If you want people to view your images because they have content and quality then make them of good content and quality and people will favorite you as an artist and you images and others will see your art from that as well. I have commented on many peoples art because I was viewing someone else's gallery and saw there favorites, I think just about everyone does.

    If the only way you are getting views is because you gotta show some skin, then you need to look at the ones that are actually producing "art" and learn.

    The argument is fruitless. Produce meaningful art and post it, and people will either view it or they will not. If you gotta trick people, then work on becoming a better artist so you can convey your message better. If you need help with that, there are plenty of excellent artists here that are more than willing to lend you a hand.

    By: biotech on 1/26/07
    On the plus side I feel better about opening renderosity at work now, safe in the knowledge I wont see a close up of a poser model's cock in the thumbnail.

    On the minus side, the no violence thing means some art is going to be very hard to thumbnail.

    Is the death star explosion violent? A million stormtroopers lost their lives.

    Is firing a gun violent in itself, even if we dont know what its firing at? Could be a target range, could be someones head, if its not in the image, how will we know.

    By: Thom1965 on 1/26/07
    I just have to laugh at all the pretentious "artists" who are screaming CENSORSHIP at the top of their lungs and huffing and puffing indignantly all over this thread and,no doubt others here and at other sites, yelling about how they're being oppressed by "The Man".

    Oh please.

    Get a life. Your images aren't being censored. You're being told that your thumbnails need to meet some really reasonable standards. Just like you meet reasonable standards when you go to the mall and *GASP* wear cloths ... OMG, society is censoring you!!!

    Censorship is bad, I'll agree in principal, but when an artist refuses to use common sense in presenting (ie. the public face - your thumbnails in this venue) their "art" without regard to the effect it might have on their audience then it's what you should expect.

    Rendo, all I have to say is "it's about time".

    By: mitchman on 1/26/07
    I find it amazing that more nudity is allowed in Churches from the Renaissance and more violence on CNN than is allowed with this rule.

    When are people going to grow up? We are catering to whiney babies who are offended by their own naked image in the mirror. Nudity is the first and most natural state, get over it.

    In trying to please everyone, no one is pleased.

    Thus a once great society of freedom crumbles to the pressures of the lowest common denominator... and another otherwise good community becomes a sanction for the disenfranchised, no longer in support of ART.

    Art is its own reward and will not be stopped by the uninformed... but artists will create and find new places to reveal the inner sublimity of the universe, elsewhere.

    By: blades-123 on 1/26/07
    Sighs

    By: troy_schopp on 1/26/07
    Seems to me the best way to make everyone happy is to compromise instead of complaining back and forth. How hard would it be to code the site so that artists can upload 2 thumbnails. One featuring the full thumb(nudity,violence etc included) and one that is "censored" and would be used when the "no nudity" filter is on or in Renderosity features like the Art Charts. I'm no expert at site coding, but cant imagine that would be too difficult, and then I think everyone(at least almost everyone) would be happy.

    By: JVRenderer on 1/26/07
    Will the thumbnails uploaded before 1-24-2007 be 'grand fathered'. I hate to go back to my old gallery to revise every thumbnails that violate your future policies.
    JV

    By: EPhi on 1/26/07
    At least we have a brand new game to play with: how many violations today to the TOS? (in the galleries, in the ad-banner running on top of the page, at the market place).There are, there are... (now I found at least 10, where? I won't tell;-)

    By: StaceyG on 1/26/07
    JVRenderer,

    Please see the information in the FAQ/Help section

    http://www.renderosity.com/mod/service/index.php?questionid=122

    By: sandman_dreaming on 1/26/07
    Pathetic just about sums it up.

    By: kore21 on 1/26/07
    practical problem with NO black bars or other warning: some "moral majority" person or worse, somebody's kid innocently clicks on a "clean" thumbnail, only to discover there's (gasp) NUDITY in the full pic. this is misleading. & someone will whine. loudly. & ultimately this may lead to banning ALL nudity here in any way shape or form.

    look at it from the perspective of someone who doesn't want to look at nudity. they will feel misled & annoyed. it's kind of like opening spam that has one subject heading & turns out to be porn. & they will no doubt raise further cain on the subject.

    that said, a category or section containing nudity AND clearly marked as such would not hurt. it can be difficult to tell if a figure or morph is worth buying if you can't see it. am i going to spend time clicking on everybody's thumb if i can only see the face, when it's a figure i'm looking for? hmmm....

    By: Argon18 on 1/26/07
    It's not about censorship, it's about forcing others to abide by intolerance.

    To use Meredith's example, what if you were a vegan and were forced to eat and McDonalds? What if you liked McDonalds but all restaraunts were Taco Bell?

    Those that have a problem with the thumbnails are forcing less options on the people that don't because they won't use the options they already have.

    By: davidoblad on 1/26/07
    A perfect example: A nudist group down in San Diego wanted to prove female discrimination was condoned by the laws of the city and state. They set up a test. They got three people to go topless at the beach. One was a male with medically enhanced breasts. He was a female impersonator in a Las Vegas show. One was a fat man with D-cup breasts. One was a female (twiggy) flat chested. All had long hair. The police reacted and tried to give citations. The girl was the only one they could give a citation to. And she looked like most of the boys on the beach. This shows it's not the breast size that offends, it's the nipple that really matters. Men can show theirs and woman can't! As stated in the guidelines above "Tasteful breast exposure. No areola or nipple exposure" Since this makes no sense, I must feel that there is something basically wrong with the logic, and hence, the intellect, behind such rules. Another funny one is the Rule: No "Censored" language/images (some examples: "Warning: Nudity Inside" or black bars covering breasts/genitals)... this is down-right funny and exposes a paradox. I big nudity warning serves to attract lookers and a small (or none) warning doesn't protect those easily offended. So the warning must be exactly the right size...hahahahahah. And censor bars on a thumb just beg to be looked at.. Demonstrating an exact point. Even though censor bars on an image protect the viewer from seeing something that offends, they also tend to attract a viewer to view. Banning censor bars on thumbs indicates the intention is to dissuade a viewing action rather than protect a browser from being offended. The message this sends is quite clear. The rules serve to reduce your audience rather than protect a sensitive viewer. If this silliness doesn't stop, I'll take my crayons and go home. I do feel for Rosity though.. talk about being caught in the middle.. Censors on one side and Artists on the other.. an age old battle still is being fought.. now on the digital art battle field. Best to all you guys from Dave :^) (now.. will my opinion get censored?)

    By: qmont on 1/26/07
    I Have no real problem with this new rule, and I can see both sides of it. This could be a challange to create some interesting thumbs, to draw attention to your art, and I for one will do that, but if the day ever comes where nudity is banned in the full size Image .........well I'm gone

    By: jmikem on 1/26/07
    I'm 55 & have a B.F.A. in art. Yes it is censorship [look it up]. I think one of the fears is that it starts with a thumbnail & leads to more. People that find the human body offensive don't realize the problem is in their minds. 'People are offended'? I've heard people talk of being offended when a person of a different race is protrayed in a positive manner. Hope they don't have any pull here. Also someone wrote that that characters with 'a questionable orientation' should be put in a different catagory. Well!!! I guess they feel that fits in with your new ideas. This site would supposedly relate to art and creatively, not a repressive religious site. The offensive..er I mean the offended ones that love this censorship seem to greefully point out'Naa-Naa-Naa we won! Sit down & shut up! Get over it!' Years ago a woman wanted legislation to force animal owners to dress/cover the animals. She was offended having to see the animals 'naked'. Fortunatly this stupidity was seen through. Bet the ranchers were relieved. If you go down this puritianical path to the past why not put a 'G' over thumbnails for general aud. 'N' for nudity, & 'X' for beyond nudity? Still, a bad idea is a bad idea. M

    By: ravenferret on 1/26/07
    Are we that closed minded, if you don't like what you see don't look!

    By: shadow_dancer on 1/26/07
    i have no say this..... most of my images are clothed anyways but i do think that censorship has gotten out of hand and the masters who painted cherubs or mother and baby scenes would just shy of being thrown in jail .... im not a religious person but i am spiritual and ill say that Christian god made everyone naked and MAN made it disgraceful....

    By: Tiari on 1/26/07
    Why would someone not view an image because the thumb doesnt have a breast in it? That seems to be the question here.

    Let me state this matter of factly. I do nudes, I like nudes, in a classical, romantic and roman sort of way. I've been a member of this community quite some time, and been pleased with it and those I've met here. I have NO objections whatsoever at looking at a lovely woman, draped in a sheet at her waist, and beautiful voluptous curves showing of the female anatomy.

    I do, however, get nauseated by the THOUSANDS of silicone injected waxy overinflated "breasteses" purged into my face on a regular basis. I'm not offended mind you..... if it were occassional, but often, there is too much of a good thing. There have been times, grazing over the galleries to see whats new, I think to myself:

    "If I see one more bloody *Hawtie Bewbchick #12* I'm gonna hurl". Period.

    I'm confused why this is such a debate. there have been many times an image I've done of stark nudity in other communities and in galleries have been denied. This does not mean I will walk away from them, why would I? One man's pleasure is another man's poison.

    This is not censorship. It is a community, and therfore those that run it see fit to make manageable the community for everyone. They are not here to cater to one specific user. It would be censorship, if, they said you can not make a nude, show a nude, anywhere at all.

    All they are asking, is common sense. If you could not put your image in the window at the local grocery store and not get arrested, why do you think its advertisement should be allowed to the general user?

    Even X rated men's magazines do not advertise with full nudes. Otherwise they would not be allowed on store shelves. This is the same phillosophy. You can still do what you do.

    As for the inability to make a thumb of a nude, because it would look terrible, I have only a few questions for that one.

    Would not lovely hair and a smoldering eye not make a catching icon? What of a sensual hand against a thigh? Is the image JUST "T&A" and no other body part? Even a navel on a concave stomach is alluring.

    I like this thumbnail rule, to me, its a tease..... tease me with your icon of the beauty that lay beyond.

    Seduce me..... titilate me..... don't rape me.

    By: ZoSoSwiM on 1/26/07
    So much for freedom of expression. OMG BOOBS! we all have them people. It's a little sad that people go so worked up over nudity. I can understand lots of violence since it's not natural (some would argue otherwise).

    Oh well... part the reason I only look at people's art on here now..

    By: danap_n_mt on 1/26/07
    I see no reason for the new rules since, users are allowed to filter such nudity already. Personally I have a very slow connection and thumbs provide a very good way of only selecting images that I have the time to view. I see no reasons behind these rules besides a minority group, being offended. The US is fully of laws based on the minority not the majority. I think RO is censoring and this will not be the end of this, until no nudity is allowed at all. I really enjoy the artists here, notice I'm not saying the site, it will be a shame when it is gone. I think that the site has no monopoly on tech. It would not be that difficult to set up a similar site. I really think this another one of Mr. Bush's agenda being fulfilled.

    By: dayvid on 1/27/07
    i am all for it you can create art without using naked women to get views i think they should have a seperate section for nudity and violence that is moderated and not accessable to under age kids alot of this stuff is there for a cheap thrill and is viewed by people who cant get onto porn sites either because they are to young or are not prepared to pay.Check my gallery for an on going debate about this issue .I dont believe in censorship but moderation .if the naked form is done well it is artistic but if it is tied to a wall with chains dressed in rubber then its not only degrading to women its pornography.

    By: billmiles on 1/27/07
    I must agree with the nudity cover up I have noticed the change of the content in some of the galleries It appears to me that they are becoming more a porn show, this is not what I thought rosity stood for lets hope that artistic qualilty comes back, those that dont like it can always go to renderotica.

    By: calum5 on 1/27/07
    Hello,
    Can I have a shout~?
    I think this is a ((GOOD)) idea!I go to the gallerys many times and looking through the thumbs(boobs,boobs,2 Dudes embracing~(c'mon),more boobs,a bum,many poor quality also)btw etc etc and Its NOT what Im looking for !I like nudity(In females) and horror so my pref's are on.I dont need to be hit with the ' in your face' stuff especially as some of my family members see the thumbs page also ! On a few occasions rendo had looked like a mini poor porn site with so many boob thumbs ~lol,well not really funny.
    So , if your work is any good~people can see by an artistic thumb whether your work is something they want to view imo.Its sad to think people need to show boobs to get hits like I used to in the past LOL !! hmmmmmmmm o.k.
    ,bye cal

    By: posfan on 1/27/07
    I don't have a problem with nudity, but I can understand that some people have.

    BUT,.....I see no sense in this change when all the old thumbs showing nudity will stay in place! So there still will be the "in the face" nudity when browsing the galleries.

    So this is a halfhearted decision that makes no sense!

    There were better ways to solve this by
    a) change the code to your nudity, so that all pics flagged "contains nudity" are filtered out or
    b) create a special gallery for nudity

    And to all people stating "now I finally can browse the galleries from my work": get back to your work, you aren't paid for surfing the galleries!

    By: Hellmark on 1/27/07
    Some of the new rules I think are inherently lame. No text warning of nudity? No censoring? I mean, how is that offensive? Telling a person who might be offended by a certain type of thing that they would see something if they look at the image is idiotic. A warning, and not actually showing what it is warning about, shouldn't be blocked.

    Also, no thumbnails to show injury of living things? Will you impose that rule on things to be considered not living? Are the "undead" now living?

    By: Burnart on 1/27/07
    This isn't censorship - its courtesy. I'm not offended by nudity but much of what gets posted falls a long way short of artistic. Anyway, the complete images are still available for those who want to look. (If the only way you get people to look at your images is to flash overly large completely unrealistic breasts in your thunmbnail then I supect your work probably isn't worth looking at anyway. Just a thought.)

    By: Hellmark on 1/27/07
    Burnart, I can understand it perfectly. There are times at which you may not want to be surprised by something that you normally wouldn't have issues with, and what not. I just do not see that having the words "Warning: nudity" on or for the thumbnail is of any harm. I would think that would be a courtesy as well, to make people aware of what it might contain if they do not wish to see that sort of material at that point in time.

    By: Hellmark on 1/27/07
    Also another nitpick, why is it that nipples and areolas are allowed to be allowed on a male figure, where as disallowed on a female? Yes, males do not have breasts in the traditional female fashion, but they still have nipples.

    By: magicmoondesigns on 1/27/07
    I agree with posfan, create a separate gallery for nudity and those that don't want to see it can just not browse that gallery.

    By: LunarSight on 1/27/07
    I'll chime in. I think you're bes bett is to simply allow for those who don't want to see nudity or violence to set that in their options. Automatically generate the content-warning thumbnail for them.

    However, for the rest of us, not being able to see the true nature of the thumbnail makes it more difficult to determine what to look at, and what not to. You're probably going to pass over a lot of fantastic images, merely because the artist had to do some serious cropping to eliminate the objectionable thumbnail material.

    I do agree that minors on the site are a problem - why not auto-set those under 18 to block nudity/violence, and then have a verification process for somebody to validate they're over that age?

    By: Silkylady on 1/27/07
    The real bottom line is simple. Please don't make offensive thumb-nails.. that simple! That way, if someone, say at work, or at home with the kids, can browse without worrying that a thumb-nail may upset a by-stander. (or co-worker, or Boss). A warning or censored type thumb-nail says something about the image content and gives a by-stander mis-information or a bad impression about the person doing the browsing who may just be scanning for, say, fractals.. It's simple and should have been handled that way without more silly rules and getting me upset about forced censorship. Best to ya from Dave :^)

    By: Hellmark on 1/28/07
    Silkylady, and the text saying "(contains nudity)" under the thumbnail is ok?

    By: AuGuR3025 on 1/28/07
    If you have your account to view nudity and violent images in the first place, you've already indicated that you don't find such content offensive. It's the viewer's responsibility to monitor their own viewing habits, not the artists. Any restriction placed on the artist for the sake of the viewer is, in my humble opinion, censorship.

    Blaming the artist's supposed inability to create a "creative" thumbnail that's kosher to those that choose to view said objectionable content is the pot calling the kettle black. However, the artist's inability to adequately categorize their artwork is to blame. I actually think this more of a result of a modesty issue. People just don't want to admit they look at nudity and gore, even if it's on a purely artistic level. Any decision that takes the choice either way out of the hands of the viewer, for whatever noble cause, is still censorship.

    Side note : If you're viewing ANY gallery at your place work, you chose to do so knowing that certain objectional material may appear on your screen at any point, yet you don't want to take responsibility for your own actions. On or off break, most companies have their own policies regarding the use of their network for non-work related uses and, for the majority of them, viewing a gallery does not fit within their guidelines. This makes that whole point of viewing Renderosity's gallery during work moot. I'd be more worried about them knowing that I was using company resources to view material unrelated to what my company actually does.

    By: Klutz on 1/28/07
    I'm sorry but I can't see the point....

    If you are offended by 'artistic nudity' you shouldn't be browsing a site like this anyway.

    ....and if it causes you problems at work, well the same goes for that IMO. :0/

    By: zenerabird on 1/28/07
    Well, there's at least 3 of us saying 'Open a separate gallery'. Anyone else want to jump in on this idea.

    By: troy_schopp on 1/28/07
    @ silky lady

    Your statement is the inherent overall problem with this. "Please don't make offensive thumb-nails...that simple!"

    Its not that simple. By who's standard is "offensive" to be judged? What is offensive to you, may not be offensive to others. This is been the reason that censorship raises such ire from both sides.

    Ultimately the new rule is not censorship as a whole, but, and I hate to be cliche, if you give them an inch, they'll eventually take a mile.

    You cant have both. True freedom means that some people are GOING to be offended. If you have to worry about offending someone, then you dont have free speech, free expression...you have censorship.

    By: StaceyG on 1/28/07
    If you have any more questions or comments please email to admin@renderosity.com


    Thank you all for your comments.



    Powered by Bondware
    Newspaper Software | Email Marketing Tools | E-Commerce Marketplace