Jump to content
3DCoat Forums

The christian moral and EULA


Joat
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Member

I felt the need to open a topic about this.

The section in EULA lead to a closing of the news thread in cgtalk. It's sad but I can totally see why.

Sad it is, because it is a conversation that needs to be had. I am not a newborn christian, although I confess to have somewhat christian view of the world and have therefore no personal problem with the wish that is included in EULA. I also think it is a stand up thing to do to at least try to limit the damage done on moral values by something you have created.

But there's a lot more to this than initially meets the eye.

A few views to consider....

It has never been denied to depict sin, sexuality, horrors of hell or acts of obscenity in christian art. Back in the old days these images were made as warnings and reminders of the horrors that await in the afterlife for those who live their life in sin. In order to drive the horrors of hell to the hearts of people they needed to be shown what awaits. And if the purpose was right, those hellish creatures could be seen doing unspeakable things to naked human figures too.

Which brings us to nudity and human figures. The most important thing in producing convincing and accurate depictions of humans is to understand the human anatomy. It can be studied only by producing studies of the said anatomy. To my knowledge everyone serious about studying the art of drawing, sculpting or painting humans is likely to participate in sessions where there is a living naked model present. There is nothing obscene or wrong with that. It is the proven way to learn to depict human form.

Today the situation with the human anatomy's "acceptance" is really perverted in my view. This is the direct result of lobbying done by certain bodies of somewhat authoritative and fundamentalist religious groups in America. They have managed to distort the nudity to be automatically obscene. Which it really is not. We are all born that way. And as artists we should understand that the subject in itself is always different from the meaning we give to it through interpretation.

I totally get where the paragraph in EULA is coming from. And to me that really is not a problem. As an artist I work on the subjects that don't get even close to the areas that are considered to be gray in this context. But there is a lot of people out there who produce pictures of human anatomy or demonic creatures due to personal or professional necessities. And yet they can still be doing that without the intentions of being obscene or promote distorted or hateful content.

And I think we all deserve and need to have complete freedom as artists.

It should be our heart telling us not to produce images of obscenity or hatred for wrong reasons, not the EULA.

...and for those who have the agenda of producing filth to demoralize humankind, any statement in the EULA is going to be meaningless anyway. They are standing in the opposite corner already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I dont know if a agree or disagree to be honest. Some people lack the moral compass most of us have. I remember seeing a posting at 3dLuvr.com(I think it was there anyway) depicting a young asian school girl having here eyelids sewn closed. It was a technically beautyfull image but gruesome, Sadist and totally Evil. Really horrid stuff, its still burnt into my eyelids. It doesn't matter a bit how well made it was, it was still some sick animals fantasy about harming little girls. If i were Andrew I'd hate to think something I had created was party to the creation of such a sick and twisted image.

I don't understand your point about the depictions of hell being OK, Coercing people into a faith through fear is evil and corrupt. Who ever commissioned those works was degrading Christianity and more than likely just some rich bigot lining their pockets from the collections box. Imagine someone coming up to your sister today and telling her to join the church or she'll be raped and tortured, and then tell her it will be her own fault...Oh and its morally OK though because its demons doing. Thats OK?. NO that's sick and it sure doesn't speak of peace and love. Depictions of these subjects are either going to be to pleasure sadists, or force people to do what you wish by fear.

I dont like the idea of Censorship but I can sympathise with Andrew in trying to stay true to his beliefs.. However his view and my view of lewd may differ. Thats the problem with this its all down to culture and personal beliefs. I dont think the whole lewd thing has an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
I don't understand your point about the depictions of hell being OK. Coercing people into a faith through fear is evil and corrupt. Who ever commissioned those works was degrading Christianity and more than likely just some rich bigot lining their pockets from the collections box. Imagine someone comming up to your sister today and telling her to join the church or she'll be raped and tortured, and then tell her it will be her own fault...Oh and its morally OK though because its demons doing, ands her fault for not believing... Your saying thats OK?. NO that's sick and it sure doesn't speak of peace and love. Depictions of these subjects are either going to be to pleasure sadists, or force people to do what you wish by fear.

The works I was referring to are from the likes of Michelangelo, Luca Signorelli, Limbourg brothers, Taddeo di Bartolo and, say, Jacopo Tintoretto. Works, some of which were comissioned by Pope himself.

Back in the days the majority of the people could not read. And those who did, could not comprehend latin. Which was the official language of the church. Yet the church felt the need to get the message across to them as well. Using very graphic means indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
The works I was referring to are from the likes of Michelangelo, Luca Signorelli, Limbourg brothers, Taddeo di Bartolo and, say, Jacopo Tintoretto. Works, some of which were comissioned by Pope himself.

Back in the days the majority of the people could not read. And those who did, could not comprehend latin. Which was the official language of the church. Yet the church felt the need to get the message across to them as well. Using very graphic means indeed.

It was the church that prevented the translation of the bible into a common language so they could meter peoples knowledge of religion. The pope had the original english tranlator (John Wycliffe,) dug up and ordered his bones scattered. They had total control of the religion and didnt want people to inform themselves about the true word of the bible. Infact it was punishable by Death to carry an English Bible.

Im not trying to knock on christianity though its not perfect but the message is good. What im saying is certain depictions have no merit. And are just wrong. I dont think people need to be shown horrific acts of violence of be pushed into faith using fear. If you choose to follow a belief then thats fine. All this guilt and fear is just a way of creating a commercial empire around a well meaning idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
It was the church that prevented the translation of the bible into a common language so they could meter peoples knowledge of religion. Much easier to keep people afraid. Im not trying to knock on christianity though its not perfect but the message is good. What im saying is certain depictions have no merit. And are just wrong. I dont think people need to be shown horrific acts of violence of be pushed into faith using fear.

I agree with you on that. AND I think it's mandatory for artists to have a total freedom of expression.

In fact, it is the art that we don't like that often has the most impact on our thought processes. And it is one of the most important functions of art to make people think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
In fact, it is the art that we don't like that often has the most impact on our thought processes. And it is one of the most important functions of art to make people think.

Thats very true. I see where your comming from some of it is hard to accept though :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wont say much on the topic, but I will say this...

I find it rather annoying that some people (especially those on the cgtalk and newtek forums) just simply can't let things be. If you like the program and it's toolset, then by all means, use it! If you don't, then... Don't. Simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
I wont say much on the topic, but I will say this...

I find it rather annoying that some people (especially those on the cgtalk and newtek forums) just simply can't let things be. If you like the program and it's toolset, then by all means, use it! If you don't, then... Don't. Simple as that.

The reason I opened the topic is that for some people this issue can be a dealbreaker that stops them from checking out the program and it's toolset.

Which is a pity because all of them are the ones the paragraph in EULA is not meant to be directed at.

Those who produce truly immoral content are immoral and don't care what it says in EULA. They probably don't pay for the program either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I wont say much on the topic, but I will say this...

I find it rather annoying that some people (especially those on the cgtalk and newtek forums) just simply can't let things be. If you like the program and it's toolset, then by all means, use it! If you don't, then... Don't. Simple as that.

Indeed but I think people Interpret the EULA as Andrew imposing his standards on them. Which i dont think is the case. He puts it forward that were accountable before his God not him, If you don't believe in God then that leaves you accountable to your own morals and the Law. Which Is fine by me.

You could also Argue that Andrew isnt letting things be by including religion in a legal document, The statement invites the reaction. I cant say either is right but its cause and effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

I just read this post on cgtalk and was troubled. The guy involved actually claimed he was prevented from buying 3dcoat in the first place.

Discrimination is what it is.

I was not allowed to purchase a copy of the product based on my style of work. If I had realised that was their personal view point and agenda I wouldnt have touch them with a ten foot barge pole

Disgusting.

I recommend getting back on topic as this thread will be closed because of my original post here. I had to post it though as I am fuming about the whole email I got from them which was very condescending and rude.

Apparently, the offensive e-mail contained this quote:

"I saw your gallery and it is my pesonal opinion that it has obscene materials. Frankly speaking I do not judge you but I am sad. Really we do not want 3DC to be used in the production of such materials. God saved me from my corruption and I know that He may save you as well if you wants.

May God bless and help you,"

I honestly don't care about the eula or the e-mail containing religious rhetoric. Other people's beliefs are their business. However, this guy clearly states that he was actually prevented from purchasing the software to start with, which I don't find credible, but is the accusation nonetheless.

This implies that the owner of this software is conducting background checks and refusing to grant licenses on this basis. I really don't care if this is what's happening, however I believe this needs to be clarified, especially if it isn't true. If this is the case then rule me out of this software now, as a Disney artist I ain't.

Could the owner please clarify his position and the rules for using this software? Also, I did a search of this forum and didn't find anything, so if this has already been answered, apologies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
That man (Infinity) was not rejected to buy 3DC (it is technically almost impossible), sales manager (Stanislav) just told what he thinks about his art (he told "in my pesonal opinion").

Than man (Stas) can't answer other thing, othervice he will go against his conscience. He can't be "just manager".

Anyway we will consider this question more deeply as soon as I will be back.

Just for clarity I'll post this here. It's best if people read that and know the truth rather than making presumptions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
The reason I opened the topic is that for some people this issue can be a dealbreaker that stops them from checking out the program and it's toolset.

Which is a pity because all of them are the ones the paragraph in EULA is not meant to be directed at.

Those who produce truly immoral content are immoral and don't care what it says in EULA. They probably don't pay for the program either.

Actually, this is a concern for me, I have to admit.

I'm a Christian. I read with great interest Andrew's testimony, and really love what he is doing here.

I would also never use 3DC to create something pornographic, or hate filled. The example Roger_K gives of the sick artwork he viewed made me cringe. Of course, I would never want to do anything like that, and I can see why Andrew would never want to see his creation used for something like that.

However...

I read the post on Newtek. I visited the IR-Model website. And I have to say: I don't think any of it is pornographic. My wife gets a catalog from Victoria Secret. (Aside... how DOES that company make money? She places one order online, and now we get something like three color catalogs a month!) I see more revealing and suggestive poses on the cover of some Victoria Secret catalogs than the woman in lingerie from the artist in question.

So... this is my dilemma. I intend to respect the EULA. I would not want to be doing something with 3DC that Andrew feels is a violation of the TOS. But... when I see how broad his definition of pornography is... I can't really buy the product.

I don't think I am going to do anything pornographic. But if a woman in lingerie is pornographic... is a woman in a bikini? What about if I wanted to do a remake of the mover poster for 10000 Years BC, with Raquel Welch? (Which, actually, I have considered doing...) She is in a animal skin bikini, showing a lot of cleavage in that poster. Would Andrew see that and cringe because it is -- in his eyes -- pornographic?

I don't care about what is legal, and whether he can or would turn off my license. To me the point is much further up the line than that. If he feel so strongly that 3DC should not be used to create such art... then I, sadly, don't think I can buy the product. It's a real shame, because I would like to support it. But, I really don't think I can, unless Andrew clarifies his position, and I see that I have misunderstood him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
I don't care about what is legal, and whether he can or would turn off my license. To me the point is much further up the line than that. If he feel so strongly that 3DC should not be used to create such art... then I, sadly, don't think I can buy the product. It's a real shame, because I would like to support it. But, I really don't think I can, unless Andrew clarifies his position, and I see that I have misunderstood him.

This worries me too especially after seeing the material in question, I've seen more scandalous material in main street shop windows. As a Modeler I have had to create nude characters and i've even textured them with 3dc, I've never viewed this work as lewd or obscene. I think Andrew is going to have to nail down exactly what he means, for the sake of his own peace of mind and out of respect of his users and their personal beliefs. At the moment no one is able to make an informed choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Roger_K, I've seen a lot of pictures on cg-sites that were incomparable more horrorfying and shocking than what you've described :(

And always, people love (!) it ... award it ... etc. ...

I remember, at studies, there were some people (2 guys and 2 girls) watching "happy tree friends" (or how it's called) and they laughed a lot. Then one girl said "plase more" and I was near them and said "please not".

They looked at me, as I would been a sick pervert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Roger_K, I've seen a lot of pictures on cg-sites that were incomparable more horrorfying and shocking than what you've described :(

And always, people love (!) it ... award it ... etc. ...

I remember, at studies, there were some people (2 guys and 2 girls) watching "happy tree friends" (or how it's called) and they laughed a lot. Then one girl said "plase more" and I was near them and said "please not".

They looked at me, as I would been a sick pervert.

Im a little shocked your comparing a Dumb overly violent cartoon about squirrels to depictions of torture against a minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
Im a little shocked your comparing a Dumb overly violent cartoon about squirrels to depictions of torture against a minor.

And I am shocked you're saying I would have compared that anywhere???

I was clearly talking about some "cg-sites" and then, after a paragraph(!), i told a story out of my life which shows, that in these times we are living in, the one don't liking cruelty is the pervert. Besides that, maybe that's a dumb cartoon for you, for me it was a deep scar in my life, watching a short of this series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Why bother to even have this discussion? It's their way or the high way, simple as.

The fact is, these so called 'christian morals' will shut them off from a great deal of the talented CG community because of the restrictive use of the software.

Good luck :drinks: and thanks for the apology...... :clapping:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
And I am shocked you're saying I would have compared that anywhere???

I was clearly talking about some "cg-sites" and then, after a paragraph(!), i told a story out of my life which shows, that in these times we are living in, the one don't liking cruelty is the pervert. Besides that, maybe that's a dumb cartoon for you, for me it was a deep scar in my life, watching a short of this series.

That how i read it, if thats not your intention then i apologise. I'd imagine the reaction you got was probably more because people thought you were being a stick in the mud. Im not saying you are. but the odd one out allways gets sidelined

Infinite: I dont think we really expect to change anything, its just interesting to hear different views on these issues. Its a shame you couldnt have become part of the 3dc community your works pretty astounding.

[edit] actually lets not share that clipping /edit]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Has anyone confirmed if getting a refund is possible?

I was quite annoyed about having to agree to the EULA but got it anyway, but now reading through the forums reactions and how some have been treated. The program just feels awkward now.

I don't want to freaking sit down and make a monster or something, constantly wondering if I post this am I breaking their Christian rules. ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
Has anyone confirmed if getting a refund is possible?

I was quite annoyed about having to agree to the EULA but got it anyway, but now reading through the forums reactions and how some have been treated. The program just feels awkward now.

I don't want to freaking sit down and make a monster or something, constantly wondering if I post this am I breaking their Christian rules. ridiculous.

"Some?" Don't you mean "one". All the hoopla is over one email from one sales manager to one potential customer. Please don't tell me you give in to hysteria that easily

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Contributor
"Some?" Don't you mean "one". All the hoopla is over one email from one sales manager to one potential customer. Please don't tell me you give in to hysteria that easily

Egad, I will be glad to see this teapot taken off the stove and put away. So they didn't consult with Madison Avenue when they did there marketing and went with Ukrainian homespun instead, so what. This program is a winner and anybody that would give it a pass for emotional reasons is denying themselves hours of pleasure (which we all know is halfway to sinful). :drinks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...