Nudes at work?

[matthew_s._schwartz]

Hello,

 

I was wondering if it would be possible to somehow warn that there

are nude photos in a portfolio before I click on a gallery. I don't

know if this is feasible or not, but I often look at photo.net at

work, and obviously there is a policy against looking at

any "questionable" material over the Internet. Of course, everything

on here is undeniably NOT pornography, but A) the work policy doesn't

care, B) some of it does come close.

 

Here is my suggestion: On the photo submission page, right after "Is

this photo untouched?", perhaps you could place a checkbox that one

could select if his photo is a nude? Then perhaps there could be some

way to flag such galleries so that I don't accidentally open them at

the office (and possibly fired).

 

I don't know if this is at all feasible, but I would like to be able

to use this site at the office without fear of running across a

random naked person.

 

Then again, I probably should be working anyway. :-)

 

Matt

[Jerry_]

If you are working for Playboy magazine, you should be OK,

but as you admit, since you are working and browsing through Photo Net,

you takes your chances.....

[beepy]

I've wondered why there is no such (self-imposed) filtering on photo.net. Simply stating a

photo contains nudity is not a judgement - just an observation. Allowing someone to

filter out nudity when viewing due to whatever (the work thing is certainly the hard stop

problematic one) is self-censorship which does not impose a value judgement on other

members of photo.net.

<p>

Is it simply that it is too much work to implement? It can't be a question of problems with

censorship - which has been practiced by the people who manage photo.net in the past.

I'm curious about this myself.

[digitmstr]

>>Then perhaps there could be some way to flag such galleries so that I don't accidentally open them at the office (and possibly fired).<<

 

what would get YOU fired?

 

1) the fact that you were browsing on company time?

 

OR

 

2) the fact that you were looking at a nude picture?

 

Also, galleries are shown as a whole first (i.e. thumbnails). You have to actually click on a photo to enlarge AND, for the most part, people DO label folders as NUDES, PORTRAITS, etc...

 

Finally, the "office" excuse just doesn't cut it imo.

[matthew_s._schwartz]

I am allowed to surf the web while I am on a break, or eating lunch. Everyone in the office

is. I enjoy looking at photo.net but I have run into so many thumbnails of nudes, that I am

not sure if I will be able to look at it anymore. I would be fired for looking at naked

pictures, not for using the Internet. I think many people have the same kind of policy.

 

Matt

[phule]

You can search photo.net for long and fruitless discussions on this topic. It's been hacked at 6 ways 'till Sunday and there simply is no solution.

 

Your choice is to either not browse the gallery during work hours, or to take your chances.

[mike_morgan1]

Even Yahoo has nudes in their news photos. It happens all the time. If you're not wanking off, I don't see the problem.

[digitmstr]

>>I am allowed to surf the web while I am on a break, or eating lunch<<

 

I assume you mean at your workstation? If it is during lunch time (and indeed you are allowed to browse) I can assure you it would be VERY ill advised of anyone to fire you. It would cost them more than they owe you in salary.

 

The only issue could arise if you were using a "public" computer. That is, a monitor which was in the break room, hall, meeting room or any other area in which it may be seen by many, voluntarily or involuntarily.

 

At your workstation, during lunch hour you can read anything you want if you are allowed to browse. Could you read PHOTO magazine, Popular Photography or Playboy? Or is your boss censoring your reading material as well?

 

Unless your employment contract clearly regulates those issues there's absolutely nothing to worry about.

[r_e]

A good idea. Should be possible to install a flag, for example. It's a problem (repressed by some persons)not only at the office, but at home too. "I played with Clara this afternoon and her father looked at these strange pictures..."

[matthew_s._schwartz]

I understand that there are arguments on both sides, but I think that the minor amount of

self-censorship would, in the end, be less inconvenient than the possibility of getting

disciplined. The point about children viewing photo.net and coming across nudes also has

merit.

 

And think of it this way: Any photo the photographer has flagged will probably receive

three times the page views! :-) Just look at the "most interesting" photographers here...

do you think it's just a coincidence that the collection is almost entirely made up of

suggestive nude poses?

 

Maybe Brian can put up a poll to see how people feel about this. There might be more

interest in a self-imposed filter than one might think...

[pmj]

It might be a nice feature to have a photographer-set flad "Contains Nudity", but what happens when people start to rely on this filter to work properly (note: existing images, photographers (inadvertently) setting the flag incorrectly)? And what happens when it fails and people get into trouble? Will they blame photo.net? Sue? Cause other problems?

 

IANAL, but I think it can be very tricky to offer a filter, particularly with respect to this subject, if you cannot guarantee that it will work properly.

[matthew_s._schwartz]

If the filter didn't work properly all the time, or if some people failed to check the "nudity" box, photo.net would still be completely immunized from lawsuits. Take a look at the following line in the "Terms of Use" (accessible from the links at the bottom of the page):<p><blockquote><h4>UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL photo.net., OR ITS AFFILIATES, AGENTS OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE TO YOU OR ANYONE ELSE FOR ANY DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF USE OF THE SITE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LIABILITY FOR CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, EVEN IF WE ARE ADVISED BEFOREHAND OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.</h4></blockquote><p>So, the legalese is already in there. Photo.net could also explicity add a section to the TOS on "Nudity," and state that some photos contain nudity, and there is a filter in place, but it is not guaranteed and the user views the site at his own risk. Photo.net will not be responsible for any damages arising out of..... blah blah blah.<p>Photo.net doesn't have to guarantee it will work... Even without seeing a poll, I can guarantee you it would be very appreciated by many users, including me. :-)<p>Matt

[digitmstr]

>>The point about children viewing photo.net and coming across nudes also has merit. <<

 

where? who? Look, if you have no control over what your children watch or do on the computer you should re-consider your parenting skills. No offense but, now you are getting insulting.

 

Nudes are *not* equivalent to pornography and I for one resent the implication of your comment. You want to talk about "self-censorship"? Can you explain it and put it in an historically accurate context? I'd like to hear about "self-censorhip" as it relates to the Arts. Ah, but wait...Michelangelo should have put some boxers on that David...just in case YOUR kids (Heaven forbid) saw it. Were you one of those who rallied the Italian gov to cover the David?

 

So, if your neighbors happen to have pictures of nudes on their walls and you see their kids walking & playing normally about the room...are you going to call CPS on them? If your answer is yes you are beyond salvation. If your answer is no then, you understand the concept of privacy and choice therefore, you should respect it.

 

Or, if those neighbors invited you & your children over should they remove all their pictures from the wall everytime? That would be your request, I suppose. They would respectfully decline it and in the end...you won't see each others anymore :)

 

I call that Divisionism and Isolationism.

[digitmstr]

It seems to me that you what you are really saying is that you object the fact that your *employer* may fire you for looking at nudes. Otherwise you wouldn't have made the post, right? I suggest you take your argument to him/her/it. Have you complained to the employer about their policies? I venture to guess the answer is no. No sense in rocking the boat...much easier to ask Artists to "self-censor" themselves as per YOUR instructions. In essence, you have made a choice: you prefer to live in a world where in order to *obey* one's rules you don't think twice about curtailing another's freedom.

 

And, how did you go from viewing pictures at work to 'protecting the children'?

[matthew_s._schwartz]

Wow, looks like I've touched a nerve...

<p>

I am quite taken aback by the hostility, Giordano. You took my innocent suggestion and construed it as a personal insult against you! FYI, the "protect the children" idea wasn't even mine, it was Reiner's. I just thought he had a good point. Read on:

<p>

I have absolutely no problem with nudity. I just want to be able to click on photographers' names during work without nudity popping up on my screen. Respectfully, sir, there is quite a difference betewen Michaelangelo's "David" and, for instance, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1670391" target="_blank">this</a>, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1455780" target="_blank">this</a> or <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2014930" target="_blank">this</a>.

<p>

Don't get me wrong; I think those photos are all amazing, and deserve to be seen. But I would not want my children to see them. I would not feel comfortable looking at them on a work computer, or on a public terminal. They are great photographs, and very erotic... But eroticism obviously has no place in most offices.

<p>

Giordano, I am not "curtailing your freedom," and I sorry to hear you feel I am "beyond salvation." (I must admit, however, that was creative.) I am simply suggesting a simple check box, so that others would have the opportunity to filter out images they find offensive, or unsuitable for their environment.

<p>

That's all. Lighten up. :-)

<p>

Your friend,<br>Matt

[digitmstr]

>>and I sorry to hear you feel I am "beyond salvation."<<

 

perhaps you missed the *IF* clause? The offense is not to me, it's to the Art community. The thought that you want to *regulate* certain material which YOU retain unsuitable for viewing under certain conditions is offensive. The attempt at regulating is offensive, *not* you or your personal beliefs which I solemnly respect. You dig the difference?

 

But, you haven't answered whether or not you took the issue up with your employer. Or the neighbor scenario. I wonder why?

 

It's not a nerve, it's a debate: you see fit to allow your employer to make rules (which you obviously do NOT agree with) and at the same time want to ask Artists to "self-censor" their work. AM I wrong?

 

Why is my post considered a "nerve"? Simply because I aked you a few legit questions? Which you didn't answer...btw. If you don't want to answer them that's fine.

 

Censorship is NOT a "nerve" BTW...

 

 

Your BEST friend,

 

GP

[matthew_s._schwartz]

Perhaps we are coming at this from different angles. I don't see it as censorship; I used the

term "self-censorship" but probably a better term would be "notification" or "heads up,

there's some breasts in here." There are no value judgements attached to any such

flagging; it's just a factual statement.

 

I assumed your questions were rhetorical, but I'll do my best at answering them:

 

If my hypothetical children (I have none, as far as I know) were playing at the neighbor's,

and there were nudes on the wall, I would likely have no problem with it. My problem

would begin when the nudes turn toward the erotic. It is, of course, subjective, and a

definition of degree... basically I would have a problem once it became too close to

pornography. What is pornography? The greatest minds have grappled with that answer

and come up empty. I will paraphrase the US Supreme Court, which wrote that they could

not explicitly define pornography, but "I know it when I see it."

 

If my neighbors had erotica on the walls, I would probably prefer that my children not play

there.

 

You state that I have made a choice: In order to obey the rules, I would glady curtail

another's freedom. I urge you to look at this from the opposite point of view: I arguably

have the freedom to peruse photo.net at my leisure. Must I have nudity forced on me it

situations that don't call for it, a la the scenario YOU pointed out -- public terminals?

 

Photo.net is not advertised as a site with erotica, and honestly, I was stunned when I saw

that the most popular photographers have lots of erotica in their galleries. I was not

offended, mind you, only surprised. Nowhere in the terms of service or on the main page

or on the sign up page or on my membership page was I told that many galleries contain

nudity. Before I signed up and really started looking around, I had no idea nudity was even

permitted on the boards.

 

So, we both have different desires: You want the freedom to post nudity, and I want the

freedom to filter that nudity. We need not choose one freedom over another -- they can

live in harmony! The simple solution is an option for artists to designate their photos as

"nudes." This attaches no moral judgment to the photos, but only makes others aware of

it, and permits them to divert their gaze if that is what they desire. There is no regulation,

only categorization. The photos are still available to everyone who wants to see them.

Everyone is happy.

 

GP, how is checking a "Contains Nudity" box an undue burden upon your rights?

 

Your Companion through Thick and Thin,

 

Matt

[matthew_s._schwartz]

You know what, GP? I've changed my mind. You're right. Let's embrace the art on this site.

Let 's show it to our children, and to our bosses, and what the hell, let's post it on the

front page of photo.net.

<p>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=730431&include=all"

target="_blank">I think we should start with Jerry Hamilton's WONDERFUL photos, which

did NOT make me lose my lunch, DEFINITELY do not count as pornography, and are every

bit as classy as Michaelangelo's David.</a>

<p>

Thank you, GP, for showing me the light. This art has so impassioned me, I am almost

tempted to create my OWN art. Almost.<p>

Love,<br>

Matt<div></div>

[cgo]

What is porn or art is often subjective.

 

The question here is whether the owner of the computer and network used to access/view the art has the right to decide whether it is porn or art and whether it is appropriate or not to access/view on the owner's computer or network. The answer is yes ...

[digitmstr]

<i>GP, how is checking a "Contains Nudity" box an undue burden upon your rights?</i>

<br>

<br>

Why should I be <b>forced</b> to check boxes, write warnings/disclaimers? to make your boss happy? Shouldn't you take this up with your boss? Why should fellow photographers be forced into <i>"self-censorhip"</i> because you don't want to take this up with the entity which you fear will fire you?

<br>

<br>

Nothing is rhetoric when we have an ATTY General who went to great lenght to cover the statue of Lady Justice because he was offended by it. A revelaing move that turned out to be, covering justice, indeed.

<br>

<br>

I tell you what though, have the programmers put a box that YOU will have to check, not me/us the photographers. That way YOU can pick and choose which pix you want to look. Fair enough?

[matthew_s._schwartz]

GP,

 

The "submit photo" page now has a disclaimer requesting that people categorize their shot

as "nude" if there is any nudity in it whatsoever. I assume the PN people are preparing for

a day when they can give me the option to filter out those photos in inappropriate

situations.

 

Our comments had transformed into pure rhetoric, anyway, and neither you nor I are

changing our minds, so I see no point in continuing.

 

Thanks for an interesting debate,

 

Matt

[digitmstr]

>><i>if there is any nudity in it whatsoever.</i><<

<br>

<br>

Great...so, a shot of kids taking a bath would fall into this "check" system. Priceless. I hope your boss is happy :)

<br>

<br>

There is exactly ZERO rhetoric in my posts. Only legit questions, some of which went un-answered.

<br>

<br>

GP

[kelly_flanigan1]

So if a woman in the next cubical complains that you are looking at porn; does the IT departmant but a router block on 216.127.244.133 ? Some places just block out the IP addresses on first complaint.

[vlad po...]

There are two eternal problems on PN, low ratings and nudes. The former unlikely can be easily if ever resolved. However, I don't really understand why the "adult content on/off" filter is a big problem on PN? Other sites (e.g. usefilm.com) use it and nobody complains.

[june_ranson]

one of my first comments to Photo.Net was a request to have a seperate category for nudes. I don't think of it as censorship, but politeness. And a picture of naked kids romping under the lawn sprinkler on a hot day might not be 'nudes', unless it was showing their genitals. Ok? Not everyone wants to see nudes, for whatever the reason may be. Or maybe I should say they don't want nudes mixed in with the general gallery for all to see, as they browse through. Is a sub-category so difficult? Sounds like it would almost be as large as the rest of the gallery!