Observations on daz3d.com/shop
ben_kapitan_5f1671dac1
Posts: 1
Recently I decided to introduce my 7-year old to Bryce, thinking he'd enjoy creating worlds using this product just as I did when I was young. A quick search on Google led me to daz3d.com/shop. At first I thought I had accidently entered a softcore porn-themed CGI site, and it took some minutes to realize that the page being displayed was indeed hosted by the same company that maintains Bryce software.
I have zero issues with mature/adult content (I've been using the internet for 21 years; nothing shocks me) and understand these are user-generated software packages- nonetheless I was extremely disappointed to find your main e-commerce page filled with erotic models. To see a company I respected so much and for such a long period of my life reduced such lows is terribly disappointing and (in my eyes) does great damage to its credibility.
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
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Daz does not condone nudity anywhere on the site. At its worst, the imagery in the shop is nothing different than what you'd see if you went to the beach.
While I can understand that the imagery on the site may not be what you want your child to see, it is a long way short of even a soft-core porn site. For the most part the most extreme imagery is like a store selling Halloween costumes. You may like to open a support ticket requesting a way to filter even that content out, though the site does have a lower age-limit of (I think) fourteen for membership.
I can sympathesize. I don't interact with any children, but I do agree that a lot of the products and rendered images tend toward the erotic. And I find virtually none of those appealing. mostly because they are overly exaggerated. But I just skip over them looking for products I can use.
While I'm not thrilled with all the 'heftily endowed white waif girls wearing next to nothing' that is pretty common, the original post seems wildly hyperbolic.
Looking at Daz shop right now, I see hairs, decent dresses, some fairly normal bikinis, hand morphs, some close headshots of pretty women, and maybe one or two somewhat risque shots.
I just did a Google Image Search for 'Thursday' and saw a bunch of cleavage, one sex act within the first 30 entries.
Indeed. The latest version of:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=NVIATWAS
"Something easy, unerotic, and pretending to be art."
How can one complain the promos in the store are erotic, only to say they are unerotic?
The promo stuff is far from erotic and I've wanted to say this since the OP started, but have avoided getting in the fray. However the continued cheap shots need to stop. Naked or half naked ladies do not equal eroticism people - if that is a word. And many of the promo pieces are far from easy to execute. And much of the promo art is actually, erm art. Only some of it is not "art". None of it may be high art, but that is a different cup of tea.
Art is just human expression. That is all. High art is something else. Some PAs don't have the skill as others, but I think some people are taking cheap shots because they can.
The promo art is fine.
The pieces that don't qualify for the easy barrier that enters you into the "Art"world are the technical renders done to show off material zones, UVs, polygon flows, HD details and stuff like that. But a lot of it is expressive, and art. And has a right to be displayed.
It's worth noting that people generally buy the *figures* in the character promo shots, not the clothes, so that means they need to see as much of the actual figure as possible... you are after all buying a fully naked figure for the texture as well as the body shape That unfortunately means that buyers need to see 90% figure and as little cover-up as possible.
I can't remember seeing any intertwined figures (apart from the couple on the Daz technology page if I were clutching for an intertwined straw), or sexual poses. Everything seems to be fairly typical model shoot, maybe some in the *glamour* sense, but nothing erotic or pornographic.
Could everything be a default T-Pose in a standard bikini, yes I suppose it could. But it's hard to get a feel for a figure (forgive the reference) with such a neutral pose. You need to see proportion, balance, build, how it changes when the figure bends etc... Other sites do cloak more revealing content under a "Nudity" warning, and others simply show it all... literally. I think the store is pretty well restrained and is no more revealing than the average beach photo or mail order catalogue. There is no *full* nudity as far as I have ever seen. If you're selling a skin texture, you need to show skin. If you're selling a bikini or underwear, visible skin is inevitable.
Perhaps OP, you could enter a search for "Bryce", and then store the resulting search results page as a bookmark to the site. That way you would go straight into the Bryce related items, and not see a single figure. As adults we have to accept the responsibility of what appears on our screens, and it's not too hard to actually create a safe scenario with a search and a bookmark. Unlike TV, we do have control over the internet to some degree, we just have to use that control.
I just took a quick look in the store and saw groins, major part of the buttocks, and very suggestive poses in the promos. Typing "Bryce" in the search box, I only noticed one promo that I would question. A few vendors seem to push the limits, but I've learned to stay away from their products. I didn't bother to look for violence.
Eroticism IS a word, Lars.
About as "erotic" as a Gap catalogue IMO... But everyone has a different level of what is considered "acceptable" or even what is to be viewed as "Erotic".
Nudity in general is not necessarily a direct connection to Eroticism. Context and intention are what help define what is erotic or not. Generally Eroticism is designed to titilate or arouse like a Diet Coke add for example. :) Which is not considered indecent according to modern standards ;) Once upon a time it was considered indecent to show ones ankles in public and in some places still, a women showing her bare neck can be quite shocking.
Maybe the OP's issue relates more to the context of not seeing the connection with Bryce (Primarily a landscape generation program) to the 3d human figure marketplace of Daz3D. A little like buying a hammer from a lingerie shop. Nothing wrong with either practice, but the average tradie may flinch just a little when walking through the lacy intimates to find a hammer. Especially if the store setup was a surprise to him. Sure I'm exaggerating the issue for clarification, but it may help define the issue a little better.
But at the end of the day any of the images found on site should fall into what is generally considered acceptable imagery for the intended age demographics both legally and under generally accepted moral standards. I urge you if you feel any image is questionable to report it for review.
larsmidnatt I'm with you 100%. What I don't like are the gruesome vampire and zombie pix. But you know, just because I don't like that, I'm not hatting on those who do. I do appreciate the creativity and imagination that goes into creating those creepy products and the renders from it though. I appreciate the artistic effort involved. I just don't buy it. I don't love everything I see in Daz, but I'm not offended by anything here.