Log in

No account? Create an account
March 2018   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
NF-Lee's Gildor and Frodo

Update: Photobucket replied.

Posted on 2006.11.06 at 14:12
Hi, Art Travesty fans!

I just thought I'd post the reply Photobucket Support sent me regarding the removed images (bold-face emphases mine):

Dear [Mechtild],

Photobucket.com attempts to maintain a website that is absent of offensive, indecent or objectionable content. That is our general policy and your images were removed in accordance with that policy. The Photobucket.com Terms of Service, found at http://www.photobucket.com/terms.php, reflect that policy by giving Photobucket the right to remove content that, among other things, (a) it deems unlawful, obscene, harmful, threatening, defamatory, or hateful; (b) invades the privacy of any third party; (c) contains nudity, illustrated nudity, pornography, illustrated pornography, child erotica, or child pornography; or (d) Photobucket deems otherwise objectionable. The Terms of Service apply to all accounts whether Free or Pro or Public or Private.

Thank you!

Your Photobucket Support Team

Well, that's pretty clear. It doesn't matter if it's Michelangelo's David or some neighbourhood hottie posing in her bathroom for her boyfriend.

No nudity.

As you all know, I have several Art Travesties that are made from famous paintings in which one or both subjects is nude, not just the ones that came down. The biblical heroes, the nymphs, gods and goddesses. And I have copies of all the source paintings and sculptures in my Photobucket albums, plus many more. None of them are legal on Photobucket. There's no getting around the fact that Cupid and Psyche are nekkid. They are wearing drapes over their pubic areas, but that isn't good enough. The pubic area didn't show in the Clare Park manip that came down, either. I guess that one went under "obscene".

Unfortunately, I can't just walk off from the account in a snit because my albums of screencaps are there, too, which are the source for all my screencap entries for LotR, Flipper, Ridiculous Thoughts, and BBM. It would take FOREVER to upload and re-link all those images.

But what I could do is take down enough to go back to having a free account. Then, when I get the extra time (after my next manip project is up!), I will see about putting all the art and Art Travesties in the gallery that comes with my LJ account, which I haven't used at all because I didn't understand how to use it properly, it's so much more complex than Photobucket.

Livejournal's TOS forbids what would legally be "indecent", which is unclear since I don't know what "legally indecent" would be, and nothing pornish featuring minors (implying that pornish stuff featuring adults would be ok, no?).

Anyway, thank you all for your warm support and encouraging words. I have really appreciated it.

~ Mechtild

P.S. I did find one more image that had been cut. It couldn't count as "nude" since the subjects were completely clothed, so it must have come down as "obscene". The image was a publicity shot from a recent stage production of a Greek comedy called "Bursting the Grape" featuring Bacchus, satyrs, Silenus, etc., in which actors were shown dressed in leotards and tights, fake fur loin cloths, and comedy-phalluses made of stuffed woolen knee-socks in loud colours. Yes, even though they were fully-dressed (and were supposed to look ridiculous, not racy), that image came down, too.



ms_banazira at 2006-11-06 21:22 (UTC) (Link)
Quick somebody, we need a big padlock, a gigantic one. Because I was just at the Louvre and there was lots and lots of "nudity" there, some of it involving minors! Good Gravy, this is ridiculous!
mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:18 (UTC) (Link)
It IS ridiculous, Honey. Imagine! No shots of the Sistine Ceiling (chock-full of nudes), no statues, no Adam and Eve paintings, nothing. And no little baby cherubs flying around ("child porn!").
aquila0212 at 2006-11-06 21:29 (UTC) (Link)
How stupid! But I suppose it's easier for them to police "NO NUDITY" than to have to place judgements on which specific cases are OK or not. But really. This goes along with all the rest of the right-wing stupidity going on in this country these days. You might want to check out what is considered "indecent" before you spend a lot of time loading things on LJ. I know that people who had any sort of nudity in their default icons got them clipped.
mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:21 (UTC) (Link)
You are surely right, Achila. They just made a blanket rule that they can pull out when someone lodges a complaint. I don't think their ripping down people's pictures of babies on bear skin rugs or putti flying around on Valentine's Day cards. Those are nudes, too.

I tried loading images in LJ's Scrapbook this afternoon. As Sam said, "I think I'm getting the hang of it." But the quality of the image matters, too. Nota said the image quality at flickr was very good.

I really am sorry this happened; I've been very happy with Photobucket's service and reliability - and it's so easy to use! Even a dunderhead like me could figure it out in two seconds.
bagma at 2006-11-06 21:38 (UTC) (Link)
It's so ridiculous! *sighs*

You know, I have this little satyr

in my Photobucket album: well, you can see dozen of copies of it in every gift shop in Athens; it's very popular. But apparently it's too much for Photobucket...:(
mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:23 (UTC) (Link)
Oooh, Bagma. Niiiice. Just look at that: the original G-spot stimulator. No wonder those satyrs were popular.

Well, perhaps you should come back and take this image down (after I've saved it). Who knows but the Sneak might be lurking again, ready to report you to the nude image police. I would hate to see someone else getting harrassed.
primula_baggins at 2006-11-06 21:40 (UTC) (Link)
or (d) Photobucket deems otherwise objectionable.

Oh, that's just great! They get to decide what "objectionable" is.

mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:25 (UTC) (Link)
Yes, it is rather *mysterious*, Primula. I was agreeing with Aquila above that they probably have a broad rule like that so they can enforce it easily when they get a complaint. They really have never gone out of their way to bother with my albums or images -- or most people's I think. I believe it's just when someone turns in a complaint that they act, assuming the images aren't grossly "indecent" (whatever that precisely is).
hobbitlove83 at 2006-11-06 21:51 (UTC) (Link)
Good grief, this is pathetic!!

I just checked flickr.com, but as of now that is a Yahoo service,
and their TOS are equally vague. I just hope you'll be able to find a less narrow minded photohost, darling!
mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:27 (UTC) (Link)
I hear flickr has good image quality, Hobbit Love, and more flexible. Really, except in one other instance, Photobucket has never taken my stuff down -- but I never expected them to be taking down real art, for heaven's sake. I suppose they have to respond when someone complains and the complaint is justified according to their TOS.
elgato_gamgins at 2006-11-06 22:12 (UTC) (Link)
That just sucks!
mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:28 (UTC) (Link)
lame_pegasus at 2006-11-06 22:13 (UTC) (Link)
Goodness gracious, what next? Take the Laocoon-group down, for they are nude and doubtlessly pedophile and obscene, too - a father with his sons, all in glorious nakedness (and forget those snakes, we have no idea of all that tiring, classical Ilias-stuff!)?

And how would the Venus from Milo be able to stay in that case? Bare breasts, no matter that they are more than 2000 years old and carved of greek marble... for boobs stay boobs, dude, and we have to keep our stable clean!

*shakes head*

Such a band of dumb idiots.
mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:30 (UTC) (Link)
Oh, yes, those phallic snakes! Very obscene. I was telling Achila above, what about all those putti? They're naked. Are they going to pull all the images of infants cooing on their baby blankets? They're naked.

Again, I am sure they don't normally enforce their TOS stringently - only when they get a complaint. That's my theory.
whiteling at 2006-11-06 22:32 (UTC) (Link)
The museums would be pretty empty, would they follow the same guidelines as Photobucket :-P!

If Photobucket ever thinks of getting a mascot, I'd recommend this one:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:31 (UTC) (Link)
Oh, Whiteling, that's great!!!!! But I'll bet the complainant is not old. Us old ladies are actually pretty liberal. It's young ones who lead the charge.
maeglian at 2006-11-06 23:16 (UTC) (Link)
In one word:

mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:31 (UTC) (Link)
Another one word:

julchen11 at 2006-11-06 23:17 (UTC) (Link)
I'm with witheling, she's so right.
God gracious, it's unbelievable.
*big big hugs for you*
mechtild at 2006-11-07 05:32 (UTC) (Link)
Thanks, Julchen. I'll just have to shop more seriously for another hosting site for my art images. But it's SO STUPID!!!!!
mariole at 2006-11-07 06:29 (UTC) (Link)
"Obscene" is a matter of interpretation by a specific community. There is no standard. One community may consider something obscene that another is completely jiggy with (like the satyr statue). So don't waste your time trying to find the "legal" definition-- there ain't one. Like PB said, they're just (over)reacting to a childish complaint.

So remember, when you upload any artistic images: always wear clean underwear, just in case you get taken to the hospital.
mechtild at 2006-11-07 15:24 (UTC) (Link)
So remember, when you upload any artistic images: always wear clean underwear, just in case you get taken to the hospital.

Oh, you're hilarious!
Starlit Woods
starlit_woods at 2006-11-07 09:06 (UTC) (Link)
I think the only obscene thing is Photobucket removing the images!
mechtild at 2006-11-07 15:27 (UTC) (Link)
Oh, I guess they are just covering their ... posterior.:) If some irate nut screaming "THEY'RE HOSTING PORN"! brought suit, or just made them look bad to the gobs of people who use the site to display typical family snapshots, even if Photobucket won, it would cost them time and money.
taerie at 2006-11-07 18:30 (UTC) (Link)
That's it. I'm outta there. I can afford to stalk out in a snit but I don't want to do it silently. Where do I write?
mechtild at 2006-11-07 23:36 (UTC) (Link)
You mean a real letter? I just wrote my email to "Contact Us" at Photobucket. It was in their home page. You needn't protest, though, Taerie. Maybe it will just make them go through EVERYbody's albums weeding out Indecent Images. ((((((Taerie)))))))
frodosweetstuff at 2006-11-08 15:29 (UTC) (Link)
This is beyond ridiculous! What is the alternative to Photobucket????
mechtild at 2006-11-08 19:57 (UTC) (Link)
Other LJ'ers say they use flickr. The Terms of Service sound more lenient on LJ's own photohosting site, too, Scrapbook.

As I said above, though, Frodosweetstuff, Photobucket does not seem to make a point of sniffing out all the nudity stashed in people's albums. There was not a problem with the art work before, and loads of other people post nude art, even pornish stuff, from their Photobucket accounts. I think it was because the manips offended someone and they complained.
slipperieslope at 2006-11-18 01:00 (UTC) (Link)
At least you got an answer! I never got an answer and I emailed them twice when they absconded with one of mine! Bastards!

Oh dear, I think I am jealous you got an answer...

mechtild at 2006-11-18 01:56 (UTC) (Link)
Ah, Slipperieslope, I heard from another maker of Frodo manips from paintings who said that Photobucket pulled a couple of hers, too.

But as I said, since they left loads of other nude stuff (esp. the Greek stuff from the red-figure-ware with the orgy scenes), Photobucket didn't target me in particular. They no doubt responded to a specific complaint. They probably don't reply to anyone generally. I have a paid account, which might matter to them. Was yours a paid account at the time?

I loaded my Art Travesties into another album yesterday, though. Now it's in Livejournal's "Scrapbook" that comes with my paid LJ. Their TOS is more "adult". It seems that they just don't want folks putting up porn with underage models, which is perfectly right and understandable. Otherwise nothing that's "legally indecent", which I don't think Michelangelo's David -- even with Frodo's head on it -- is.

Thanks for stopping by, Slip!
Previous Entry  Next Entry