Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Reading some of the comments here reminded me why I stopped posting images here years ago. The level of prudishness here is...well...rather sad. The human body is not an objectionable subject for artwork. If you go so far as to place that body into suggestive poses either with or without other people or props then I'll agree to looking at labeling something as pornographic.
Guess what it boils down to is people's comfort levels. The galleries here are missing out on some magnificent pieces - which are being displayed on sites like Deviant Art - simply because the side of a model's buttock, a woman's nipple or even the goin area (without showing sexual organs at all) is evident in the piece.
You all can keep your Disneyfied art over here. I'll continue to post elsewhere and enjoy viewing artwork that isn't limited by absurdly archaic and puritanical TOS standards.
With all due respect, some people should read Acceptable Ways of Handling Nudity by administrator Richard Haseltine.
Thank you and have a nice day. :)
Oh...I had. And it's that simplistic tripe that I was addressing specifically.
But, that's fine. I just find it rather sad that the possibility of someone seeing a naked bottom is enough to get the admins clutching their pearls.
I totally agree with you here. I had mentioned that it was withing DAZ3D's power to set up a way to have private galleries and have an opt in option for nudity and my post got completely ignored. The human body is beautiful, one of natures most gorgeous creations and yet this societal bull shit on covering up and all that is just sad and ridiculous!
I know how you feel. Before the new store opened in the summer (of this year or last year), I was able to upload renders of Victoria topless. Now, I cannot upload the same renders.
I remember reading an old thread where a moderator or two suggested that we post artistic nudes on DeviantArt until this Daz adds filters to this forum. Ok, I need to get ready for lunch. Bye
Let's take this for example...and see if the image gets removed. My model obviously is in a state of undress, but is not doing anything untoward nor is his nudity portrayed gratuitously. Thoughts? I'm just trying to figure out what constitutes objectionable to the appropriate police around here:
Image removed
All I see is a gorgeous man :Q
The reason has been stated before why DAZ adheres to legal standards of decency and Federal Trade Commision (FTC)
16 CFR Part 316 specifically would severely inhibit DAZ marketing and sales initiatives to general consumers in ways that sites like DA and Erotica are. Having the FTC and perhaps IRS recognizing DAZ in this manner would restrict the market and drive up cost through the roof. The new Gallery benefits DAZ consumers and supports its business model with marketing opportunities, and therefore its gallery and forum administration conform same policy standards as the product. Its also why versions only marketed to "Professionals" include gens, and its not advertised. So please understand why we need to adhere to rigid policies of what some pols and do-gooders call "decency" in this PC world but DONT BASH DAZ about it. Its quite obvious they are not prude. Even if its a Utah based company :P
Fair enough Dream Cutter. I mean I've seen some stuff on DA and a few other sites that are blatant porn - no question. I'm just disappointed that images such as Michelangelo's David would not be able to pass criteria to be posted in these forums. My disappointment was indeed voiced in a manner that was inappropriate. The finger pointing should certainly not be directed at DAZ...rather the archaic notions surrounding human sexuality in this country.
I'll play nice now. :)
What I object to is people who try to force their opinion on me and then call me names if I don't agree. There needs to be more respect around here for the various people who visit these forums, and the backgrounds they come from. Not everyone lives the same way or sees the world in the same way, and calling them names if they don't share your opinions or beliefs is just plain rude and disrespectful. That's my two cents.
I'm sure the image will be deleted soon as I just reported. It appears to show pubic hair which is not allowed.
Well said. If someone calls you specifically out on something, you should feel comfortable enough within a community of artists to respond, ask for clarification and qualify your position/work. As artists, we are all more than familiar with criticism. Having said that, however, Muon is quite correct in using manners and consideration when addressing a fellow artist's work and/or opinions.
Well since they sell a lot of the less than there clothes, then that's all that is going to be seen lol
Reading some of the comments here reminded me why I stopped posting images here years ago. The level of prudishness here is…well…rather sad. The human body is not an objectionable subject for artwork.
And too the topic about people here being prudish, I do not consider myself one but I find that I like to leave something to the imagination and that just can't be done with nudes or barley there clothing. Not that I can't appreciate them, I do. I just don't find them as sexy guess it's the mystery I enjoy.
I agree with this. Beautifully rendered images but geez, a little too much bum....
Well since your image is being flagged, Darkothe, might I suggest you upload your render of him with the dragon "Frostfyre" I think it's called? The branch seems to cover up the no-no areas. He's such a nice character and he should be in the gallery :)
Oh...I had. And it's that simplistic tripe that I was addressing specifically.
But, that's fine. I just find it rather sad that the possibility of someone seeing a naked bottom is enough to get the admins clutching their pearls.
If you don't like the terms of service then why did you agree to them when you became a member? Did you even read the TOS when you signed up or did you just check the box and go on.
DAZ owns the site. They can put what ever constraints they chose in their TOS. It's your choice to accept them or not. Obviously you accepted them when you became a member. If suddenly you don't then you should find a gallery that suites you work.
Good thought. Funny that just a bit of cropping on the bottom, and the image in question wouldn't raise an eyebrow.
it's not Moral just Rules
I've seen that picture before, don't remember where though *ponders* Do you have it on dA or something? Either way, it is Awesome ! and I personalyl wouldnt' have midned to see a bit more ;P
I've seen that picture before, don't remember where though *ponders* Do you have it on dA or something? Either way, it is Awesome ! and I personalyl wouldnt' have midned to see a bit more ;P
Yeah. I'm on DA with a much more risque collection over there.
Please do remember the ToS, the forum ToS which says, amongst other things, ''Criticism should be directed towards the subject or topic at hand, rather than an individual''
Thanks
oh, that reminds me, I should render Michael 4/Genesis male without a shirt and upload it to the Daz Galleries. lol :) I will still need to dress him in pants though.
And that's a point of contention with me. If I were running a business and some CREDIT CARD company TOLD me I couldn't allow nudity on my site I'd tell them to bugger off. If enough businesses stood up for their rights to artistic nudity, and that's really the proper term for what we are discussing here, they would give in but everyone follows like blind sheep and the credit card company lords those rules over businesses heads. It's ridiculous and wrong on my book !
The reason has been stated before why DAZ adheres to legal standards of decency and Federal Trade Commision (FTC)
16 CFR Part 316 specifically would severely inhibit DAZ marketing and sales initiatives to general consumers in ways that sites like DA and Erotica are. Having the FTC and perhaps IRS recognizing DAZ in this manner would restrict the market and drive up cost through the roof. The new Gallery benefits DAZ consumers and supports its business model with marketing opportunities, and therefore its gallery and forum administration conform same policy standards as the product. Its also why versions only marketed to "Professionals" include gens, and its not advertised. So please understand why we need to adhere to rigid policies of what some pols and do-gooders call "decency" in this PC world but DONT BASH DAZ about it. Its quite obvious they are not prude. Even if its a Utah based company :P
"the past 24 hours" include the most liked out of all the pics in the gallery so looking in the past 24 hours tend to have the same ones on the first page even if they were upload weeks ago. is it possible for "the past 24 hour" to only include those uploaded within the past 24 hours?
I'd suggest placing a daily upload limit on all users, maybe 3 uploads per day max or something like that.
...other sites do that.
I still don't see why the galleries can't be set up like they were in the past, why personal and the public (back then Monthly) galleries can't be segregated from each other, and why filters cannot be employed. Is it a "Magento thing"?
Sorry, Cho. You can whack me with your crud-gel if you want. My bad. Sorry if I offended anyone.
Its not only the payment providers, its also the advertising and social media outlets that help promote sales that too would be affected. Its the affiliates and PA's (sometimes a family business or charted organization) that have deliberate moral standards. For instance google adsence (mother of all web ads) and CJ will not publish on ads that advertise porn or publish ads on sites that host for anything that falls within a broad of definition of what is generally considered pornography & offensive topics.
Please remember that the forum TOS does not allow discussions of politics and religion - areas into which this thread is beginning to drift.