Jump to content

Is porn allowed on photo.net


alethea_hollis

Recommended Posts

<b>Scott.</b> For me this is not about the cucumber, which I am surprised was not removed (from the site that is :-) ) <br>

For me it's about the freedom to get feedback on the kind of work I create. I've challenged people to look at my work and answer these questions. <br>

(a) Should I banned from the site if I refuse to brand it unfit for children ?

(b) If we have a "totally safe" / "not totally safe" flag, then do you agree that it is harder to remove unfit content since people opt in to "not totally safe". That means more porn not less. And my work gets lumped in with it.

© Give a clear statement of what can and can not be shown. You want the site to enforce rules, say what they should be. For example, <br> * Is a bare bottom acceptable in any circumstances ? What about one which can be seen through a net? (as in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1814152"> this one in the folder I link to above</a>), how about one in a bikini ? What about one of those thin string bikinis where the string disappears ? Are you going to frame a rule which says how wide a bikini or lingerie needs to be ? <br>

* Is a picture acceptable if the sitter is plainly wearing nothing, but showing neither bottom, nor breasts, nor genitalia (as in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1817428">"nude photography"</a>) ? <br>

* How much has to be visible before it counts. Would you brand a picture unacceptable the sitter is wearing a low cut dress ? Or does the nipple have to be showing ? What about genitalia - is showing hair the limit (and if so can a picture go from illegal to legal if the model shaves ?) or do we need to show labia before the line is crossed. ? <br>

 

If you want sites where there's never anything to embarass you - they're out there, stop trying to change this one. You wouldn't go into an art gallery and demand that they change what is on the walls so you could bring your children in, would you ? And as for the argument that people should be able to cyber-skive here while they are at work without fear of downloading something forbidden, if you're worried about that DO SOME WORK INSTEAD.<br>

 

I have to take issue with "this is a site for the masses". It is a site for photographers. 'For the masses' on the internet usually means porn sites, and elsewhere it is usually a call to dumb things down - for heaven's sakes people have been calling for photo.net to be reduced to the level of American Prime time TV. Someone said that TV news didn't show dead people - I'm sure I've seen US news footage of a mafia boss clearly showing his fatal bullet wound to the head. BBC news showed dead Iraqi soldiers, caused a real stir by showing some dead British ones too (although they were unusual, having been killed by the enemy and not by their American allies). Didn't Ellen get taken off prime time TV in US because its star came out as gay ? This is your role model ? If you want to see what is acceptable in Europe, you could see if you can get a copy of the English or French Vogue - not a mens mag, but a fashion one. Or do an image seach on Google for <pre>"sophie dahl" opium</pre> to see what a respected company like Yves SaintLaurent put on billboards.

 

You say <pre>The site administrators should make the right decision, </pre> Well obviously. But what is that ? I say it is the one they have alredy made.

 

Like I said, sort out the catergories and let people select top rated photos in categories with the content they like. That would allow people to dodge what they want to dodge, without requiring the photographer to second guess whether someone might find their pic offensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

On the subject of what's OK for a general audience and what's not, there's a really simple test.

 

If it could be shown on network TV, it's OK for a general audience.

 

No, I don't think network TV is a good measure of good taste, but it's a good measure of what "the general public" regards as material suitable for a general audience (or at least acceptable). I know it's a "lowest common denominator" approach, but remember the suggestion is NOT to ban everything else, just to make the viewing of everything else an affermative choice, not a default presentation. Just check a box in your workspace and you'd be shown everything accepted on the site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject bit to the death on this site. Some people even �Cut & Paste� they old responses. But what is very sad and make this place not getting good critiques is a fact that a lot of people have very limited preferences. They think that only their photos (subjects) are original and interesting. Everything else (bugs, flowers, landscapes, portraits and �) are boring and snapshots. To make it even more interesting when you visit portfolio (I have a habit of doing that) of those bored to death �original photographers� their own work is usually truly boring snapshots of no specified subjects at all. You have to be a shrink to understand the reason why they took those shots. Or maybe there is nothing to understand because there was no reason.

 

If I don�t like some categories I simple never click on the photo to see it. If the photo is very good even if I don�t like the subject I still can enjoy the skills of the photographer and try to learn from it.

 

And one more thing � work place is not the right place to study art if you aren�t an artist.

 

At the end I have a question is an attached photo a porno or hygiene?:) Are the animals included in the �adults only� check box? As you can see you can always turn your back on it, cover your private and don�t watch. Regards.<div>006QZw-15160484.jpg.71bdddcaacca5dc69a8e11e21c57b4ca.jpg</div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>>> "We will remove anything which could not appear in a public art Gallery". Which is about the standard we have here and it works.

 

That's not the standard here, and it mystifies me why anyone would think there's anything, short of illegal child porn, that could not appear in a public art gallery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In medical books it says that practically all healthy members of Homo sapiens masturbate on quite regular basis. In fact apes masturbated also and they don�t know nothing about the porn as well as they never dress so nudity is normal. They (apes) can�t talk about it but this is a difference I thought make us Homos stand above them. I have no clue how this is related to photography but must be somehow � it is mention in discussions including this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<b>Bob</b>It depends on the network doesn't it? <br>

If you choose what you would think of as a represive country (say Iraq or Afganistan), you'll get something different to say Holland. I think of British TV as being very conservative, but they don't discontinue programs because of the sexual orientation of the stars (see Ellen). If the standard you're going to apply is a US TV network then be prepared to be lobbied by people who beleive homosexuality is a sin to remove the work of any openly gay person who posts here.<br>

I suspect that the news coverage of the opening of the Saachi gallery in London (Saachi has bought a lot of stuff by Damien Hurst, and similar artists) would have been judged unfit for American audiences.

It doesn't seem to be based on religion: Ireland is very restrictive (although a lot of people there tune to British TV), but Franced and Italy is a lot more relaxed; all three are stongly Roman Catholic.<br>

 

Ultimately the removal process is arbitrary, the moderators do a good job as arbiters, and get a lot of criticism, most of which is unjustified. Bob, if your personal yardstick is "if I ran a TV network wouuld I let this go out", then that too seems to work. But Floris and Igor whose pictures kicked off this debate might well argue that TV in their home countries would not have a problem with such work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that we are actually that far apart. You've talked about categorization, and I think that's all anybody wants. I am self employed, so I have no problem browsing any time I want to. Telling me to "do some work instead" is sarcastic, pompous, and not really on point. My oldest child is 15, I also have no problem with him browsing p.net as we have had many discussions about the images that are found on this site. Personally, he would rather filter out flowers and sunsets as would many of us.

 

Photo.net administration has made the point many times that this site is for the masses, not for photographers. If this site was for photographers, this would never be an issue. If you want me to draw the line, I will. I'm not afraid to. Sure, some people will disagree, but that is ok. Obviously, it would be impossible to please everybody.

 

By this point, everybody knows how progressive you and your daughter are. Thats great. But there are many, many more users of this site that are not so progressive as you and I. You have made the decision on how to raise your children. Everyone else should also be allowed to make that same decision for their children as well as themselves.

 

There will always be a contradictory argument to be made. Some people just like playing Devils Advocate, and some are really good at it, throwing out absurdities to try to make a point. There are absurd points to be made on either side of any argument. Nobodies eyes are going to fall out over seeing a nude photograph for a second, and on the other side, no censorship is taking place by categorizing the "adult" images. Surely, your images would get may more views as the "Adult" category would get many more searches than any other. Why do you think that people put the word "nude" into their titles when there isn't a person in the frame?

 

I guess I just can't see a down side to categorizing nude images.

 

If you can keep it short, like fifty words, I would be interested in reading what you think the downside is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't normally answer to Jim. I've been called John on this thread, as well as liberal and progressive. :-)<br>

The business with my daughter is simple: pretending that stuff isn't there doesn't help anyone. It's just being a realist. It is worse to message that the body is something shameful only to be looked at furtively, than to confront it head on and say ... well you know what I say. <br>

 

And yes I think providing a way people can get to, or avoid, the pictures they choose, is a good thing. My objection is to asking people to brand their pictures as in some way "unfit". I've advanced a way that the former can be done, without sticking us with the latter.<br>

 

My point about people saying "There are nudes, I might get fired for surfing photo.net" obviously doesn't apply to you. I don't see people paying enough attention to what is on your screen at work get upset over a thumb nail on a page of other pictures. <p>

 

You asked for the downside of the check box opt in / opt out. <br>

(1) It makes it harder to remove porn - because people have opted in to nudes <i>of all kinds</i><br>

(2) The site has little resouce to implement it, and none to police it. I'm not branding my pictures as unsutiable for anyone. Who's going to do something about it ?<br>

(3) I am actually insulted when you say <i>Surely, your images would get may more views as the "Adult" category would get many more searches </I>. Have you looked at what I do ? I don't give a stuff about number of views, I just want to have a sounding board to help me improve my photography. Actually if a site like this takes the postion what I do is vulgar and needs to be shut away, then that would be a good reason to stop doing it.<br>

 

(4) No one has a definition for what constitutes nudity in need of filtration. I challenged you to and you couldn't. You suggest that I <i>just like playing Devils Advocate, and [am] really good at it, throwing out absurdities to try to make a point</i>. I linked to a fully clothed model above which someone classed as "lewd". Do you want to deal with what's lewd or do you want to throw people like me off the site ? <br>

 

(5) Who says that only nakedness should be filtered ? I note that your most recently uploaded image is one of violent cruelty to an animal. I think there is a pretty good argument to made that pictures of violence and cruelty - whether to people or animals - should be removed or at least filtered. Actually the picture in question is a good piece of photography, and it would be everybody's loss if that view were taken. But once you start down this road, where do you stop ?

So let me ask you this: if you were asked to put that picture in Pictures of dog fights and bear baiting (not that we have may) how would you feel ? If it is a single filter "not suitable for children", that picture of yours would have to go in. Wanna join me and the smut pedlars, you'll get loads of views ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christopher: I can�t imagine how the taking of the photo can be harmful to the bats? Is taking family photos harmful to people? If there is something I am not aware about please point me to it. I am interested of taking photos of interesting behavior of animals. Very often they are more for documentary purposes on the subjects I am working on. So, I usually don�t post them here.

 

In general I am very against any censorship as I came to live in United States after I had to leave my �fatherland� because I couldn�t tolerate the communistic government and lack of freedom. Even if I don�t like something I still believe the others had the right to show they work as long as it not harmful. Some nudes here can be of bad taste but they are not harmful and one doesn�t have to open the image and stare at it. Again, as I said before, at work one should work not cruise the Internet. If some employers allow this I want that job. If one works for government and do that I want him/her fired as my taxes are wasted.

 

One more thing. Sometimes what is a bad photo for one person it can be a great for somebody else and vice versa. Stick has two ends. You ask to ban somebody�s photos they might ask to ban yours ;) so better to be careful. It always will be people who think your photos are awful.

Best Regards, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James: Everything we are doing around another creatures effects them to some degree. I won�t go too deep into that subject, as this tread is about something else. Maybe taking flowers and landscape photos has none or minimal effects. As far as taking photos of bats it has much less effect on them then photographing some people or apes for an example. People can get so much angry that that in extreme cases want to kill you. Personally I know the case when the photographer was taking a photo of the man riding the camel and his women were walking in the front. Rider got so mad that he thrown the knife and cut the photog�s arm. Good the guy didn�t get killed. Apes can throw the feces at you when get mad. Bats, they don�t show any signs of stress when photographed. Especially the ones on my photos as they are part of artificial colony and they got used to peoples. On another hand can you imaging reaction of some peoples if you would try to take the photo of them in their �nest site� without permission :).

 

Mike: totally wrong - cave is lighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...