Wishes for understanding...

Found this on photo.net :

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?include=all&user_id=792278

 

Then found this through the chapter Terms and Conditions of Use :

 

"You may see material that is defamatory, abusive, obscene, offensive,

threatening, illegal, or inappropriate for children, before we have

seen it and have had the opportunity to remove it. For this reason, if

you are a parent, you should carefully monitor your children's access

to the Site. If you do encounter material that you believe falls into

one of these categories, we urge you to report it to us so that we may

remove it. But We may not be able to remove it as promptly as You

think we should. You can expect the Site to include information and

opinions from a variety of individuals and organizations other than

photo.net. It is easy for people to pose as experts in the public

posting areas without having any expertise whatsoever. We do not

endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting, regardless of

whether the posting comes from a user, from a celebrity or "expert"

guest, or from a member of our staff. There is no substitute for

healthy skepticism and Your own good judgment."

 

Can one explain to the photo.net community what is the purpose of

mixing on a public way bloody dead bodies, crime, suicide and

teenagers, angels ?

 

There is no criticism in my mind, only wishes of understanding.

 

Regards. SP

Photo.net has no way to control content which users upload. Photo.net can only remove content if it violates the terms of use. Since around 3000 images are uploaded each day (and perhaps as many forum posts), nobody at photo.net has time to look at them all. If images (or text) violating the terms of service are brought to the attention of photo.net (abuse@photo.net), appropriate action will be taken.

 

Photo.net is an eclectic site. Any image not violating the terms of use agreement may be uploaded. We don't just want pretty pictures of babies and cats. Photography isn't always "nice". Sometimes disturbing images are the most powerful.

'There is no criticism in my mind, only wishes of understanding'

 

Angsty middle-class teenager, feeling down.

 

Suicide pics pulled off a site like Rotten.com.

 

Interesting.

 

I guess it will get pulled.

 

At her age I was fascinated by pics like these - but that was pre-internet, so I had to

make do with the colour photos in medical text-books.

 

Is it wrong? I don't know. It's certainly a shocking juxtaposition of images.

several thousand views of her images.

 

server time required to upload over 80 pictures.

 

several obviously not her own work.

 

no comments offered or probably received.

 

Some form of presceening is the answer. That and volunteer help.

Bob,

 

Whilst you correctly state that you cannot oversee every image that is uploaded to photo.net, in this instance the pictures have been brought to your attention.

 

The moderators have stated in the past that they remove obviously pornographic images from the site, so I don't think it's too much to ask to remove a photograph of a small childs body with a bullet entry wound to the side of it's head - which was, in my opinion, trawled from another site and not taken by the photographer. People have been banned from this site before for using someone elses sky in their picture - so surely this is grounds enough to remove the offending images.

 

My children look over my shoulder all the time whilst I'm browsing this site and I don't have a problem with nudity, but pictures of people with their heads blown apart belong on another site.

Bringing images to my attention doesn't do a lot of good since I'm not a gallery moderator. In extreme cases I can remove images, but it's not a simple process for me. Mail to "abuse@photo.net" gets the attention of moderators with better tools than I have to administer in the gallery.

 

I'd agree that some of the images in this portfolio are probably inappropriate for photo.net, and even ignoring the subject matter, are probably not images on which the poster holds the copyright - which is in itself grounds for removal.

Bob,

 

I think a dead, and in this instance, probably murdered, child is an "extreme case".

I'm not a lawyer but PN might be liable in some way in the future. These are obviously not her photos and appear to show some crime and other scenes that the poster probably has no right to display. I wouldn't be surprised if part of the reason some of the photos were placed here was as to provide links to other sites such as Ogrish.com so in affect PN is aiding and abetting the distribution of these photos. By the nature of this post PN can not claim they were not made aware. Personally these kind of photos don't bother me and in a sick way I enjoy seeing them. But that is another matter.

Thanks for answers and comments.

 

I pushed up the thread because it made me worry, thinking what young children could see, plus the consequences (Bowling for Columbine...)

 

On another hand, I straight refuse to be a censor, cutting informations (like pictures) to public. So, I won't go to abuse@...... Do it yourself, if you feel like.

 

I surf on photo.net for art and harmony provided by human beeings, not for heartless instincts.

 

By the way : I often find wonderful (or awful) uploads by browsing pictures from the end (previous) of Top Photos. That is my way to enjoy the site :-)

 

Regards, SP

I haven't looked at this photo yet, but I would comment that

a post entitled "Wishes for Understanding..." doesn't exactly draw my attention as an abuse report.

 

If you want the administrators of the site to know about photos that concern you, please report them to abuse@photo.net. OR AT LEAST POST A THREAD IN THIS FORUM WITH A MEANINGFUL TITLE.

Are you sure you have posted the correct URL? The portfolio of "Jessica Duke"? These photos are not of great interest except perhaps to the photographer's friends, but I don't see any objectionable content here, and I don't see a photo of a dead child. I could be missing it because a lot of the photos are hard for me to see in the thumbnails.

Gerald, posting something in the forums, including this one, is not official notice to photo.net. There are 40,000 posts per month in the forums, and the administrators of the site don't read them all, any more than we look at all the photos.

 

If anybody wants to communicate with us with 100% reliability, send a letter to our Post Office box by registered mail, or find out our phone number. This is not publicized on the site but it can be found by the usual methods for finding phone numbers.

Brian I would tend to agree with you about posting to a forum not consitituting an official notice except by nature of Bob's responding above (although not sure what his official statis is at PN) and certainlly yours, PN can't say they don't know about this issue. Brian, I would like to thank you for all of your effort in keeping this site running until PN can get the equipment it needs. I can only imagine what it takes.

Brian,

 

The pictures in question of mutilated corpses and suicide pictures were already removed this morning (UK time) and I assumed that you had removed them.

 

Maybe Ms Duke removed them herself.

Abuse@photo.net was contacted about these photos, and I removed them and sent an email to the poster. I read all the abuse emails I receive and act on them as soon as possible. Since this is a volunteer position, and I have other things to do, sometimes it takes a little while!

Brian,

As Jeremy said, the photos of dead head shot child (and others) has been removed. That's it.

I shall never ask any removal of any picture, because I am not allowed to forbid other members to make and express their own opinion. And I don't allow myself to interfer to what people running photo.net want to do with it. As Bob said, photography is not only birds and cats. I respect it. Even if I do feel a photo offensive, inappropriate for children.

That's why I pushed it on discussion on the forum, and it's OK now. I wished to understand what is going on a public site, not to disturb anyone.

Regards, SP