MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: fritz on December 30, 2017, 17:54
-
https://www.diyphotography.net/peta-makes-shutterstock-ban-unnatural-photos-apes-monkeys/ (https://www.diyphotography.net/peta-makes-shutterstock-ban-unnatural-photos-apes-monkeys/)
-
Idiots. PETA and SS
-
I know I'll get booed here for saying this, but I'm glad to see this change of policy.
If you want to photograph apes and monkeys, do the hard work of seeking them out in the wild. It's the right and "natural" thing to do.
-
Since humans are apes, that will severely restrict their collection.
-
The weird thing is that they are also banning photoshopped images of apes taking in their natural habitat. Where's the logic in that?
-
Remember kids, it started with monkeys, soon they'll have to ban all animals in un-natural environment (cats, dogs, hamsters, birds...). It will be a great day for creativity.
-
Remember kids, it started with monkeys, soon they'll have to ban all animals in un-natural environment (cats, dogs, hamsters, birds...). It will be a great day for creativity.
They should also ban tomatoes in un-natural environment.
-
PETA banning monkeys in such a way is just a first cornerstone (http://video-stock.org/peta-is-a-disease-for-photographers-and-videographers/) in banning all animals from stock agencies. Mark our words.
-
.
-
Idiots. PETA and SS
Why?
Wearing clothing or accessories, such as hats or sunglasses
Being shown in a studio setting or human environment, such as an office or circus
Exhibiting trained or unnatural behavior, such as dancing or performing
Engaging in unnatural interactions with humans, such as holding hands or being held
Situations like these are often set up without the animal being able to resist. What if it feels threatened or afraid, just because clients want a 'funny' photo of a monkey wearing sunglasses or performing dancing routines? Don't forget that animals like monkeys, elephants, tigers and lions are often mistreated during training for tourist attractions or the circus.
-
I know I'll get booed here for saying this, but I'm glad to see this change of policy.
If you want to photograph apes and monkeys, do the hard work of seeking them out in the wild. It's the right and "natural" thing to do.
Apparently you didn't read the blog post. According to the new rules, you can still photograph them in zoos, no need to venture into the wild.
I understand and support PETA's goal to minimize exploitation, but I don't think this rule is a great idea. Certainly banning animals being exploited by dressing them up in clothes or forcing them to do things they wouldn't do in the wild is understandable, but even photoshopping them? If you photograph an animal at a zoo, cut out the image and use it to make a humorous card, for example, where is the harm in that? What about editorial photos of animals being exploited that could be used to dramatize the problem and bring about its end? Blanket rules to enforce someone's idea of purity are almost never a good idea in my experience. Banning photoshopped images and editorials goes too far (I don't have either of animals, BTW, so this won't affect me personally one way or the other).
Wearing clothing or accessories, such as hats or sunglasses
Being shown in a studio setting or human environment, such as an office or circus
Exhibiting trained or unnatural behavior, such as dancing or performing
Engaging in unnatural interactions with humans, such as holding hands or being held
Situations like these are often set up without the animal being able to resist. What if it feels threatened or afraid, just because clients want a 'funny' photo of a monkey wearing sunglasses or performing dancing routines? Don't forget that animals like monkeys, elephants, tigers and lions are often mistreated during training for tourist attractions or the circus.
Agree 100%. Except what about when a baby animal is rescued - it could be interacting with a human protector. And no animals are hurt during photoshopping.
-
I know I'll get booed here for saying this, but I'm glad to see this change of policy.
If you want to photograph apes and monkeys, do the hard work of seeking them out in the wild. It's the right and "natural" thing to do.
Apparently you didn't read the blog post. According to the new rules, you can still photograph them in zoos, no need to venture into the wild.
I understand and support PETA's goal to minimize exploitation, but I don't think this rule is a great idea. Certainly banning animals being exploited by dressing them up in clothes or forcing them to do things they wouldn't do in the wild is understandable, but even photoshopping them? If you photograph an animal at a zoo, cut out the image and use it to make a humorous card, for example, where is the harm in that? What about editorial photos of animals being exploited that could be used to dramatize the problem and bring about its end? Blanket rules to enforce someone's idea of purity are almost never a good idea in my experience. Banning photoshopped images and editorials goes too far (I don't have either of animals, BTW, so this won't affect me personally one way or the other).
Wearing clothing or accessories, such as hats or sunglasses
Being shown in a studio setting or human environment, such as an office or circus
Exhibiting trained or unnatural behavior, such as dancing or performing
Engaging in unnatural interactions with humans, such as holding hands or being held
Situations like these are often set up without the animal being able to resist. What if it feels threatened or afraid, just because clients want a 'funny' photo of a monkey wearing sunglasses or performing dancing routines? Don't forget that animals like monkeys, elephants, tigers and lions are often mistreated during training for tourist attractions or the circus.
Agree 100%. Except what about when a baby animal is rescued - it could be interacting with a human protector. And no animals are hurt during photoshopping.
True, the policy change is maybe a bit too much. There should be exceptions to the rule such as your example. And photoshopping animals is okay IMO, if they're obviously fake.
-
The example image they showed in the blog post was obviously fake - I didn't see the harm in that. (I also didn't see the point of the image or how it would be useful but maybe that's my own lack of imagination.)
-
I know I'll get booed here for saying this, but I'm glad to see this change of policy.
If you want to photograph apes and monkeys, do the hard work of seeking them out in the wild. It's the right and "natural" thing to do.
Apparently you didn't read the blog post. According to the new rules, you can still photograph them in zoos, no need to venture into the wild.
I understand and support PETA's goal to minimize exploitation, but I don't think this rule is a great idea. Certainly banning animals being exploited by dressing them up in clothes or forcing them to do things they wouldn't do in the wild is understandable, but even photoshopping them? If you photograph an animal at a zoo, cut out the image and use it to make a humorous card, for example, where is the harm in that? What about editorial photos of animals being exploited that could be used to dramatize the problem and bring about its end? Blanket rules to enforce someone's idea of purity are almost never a good idea in my experience. Banning photoshopped images and editorials goes too far (I don't have either of animals, BTW, so this won't affect me personally one way or the other).
Wearing clothing or accessories, such as hats or sunglasses
Being shown in a studio setting or human environment, such as an office or circus
Exhibiting trained or unnatural behavior, such as dancing or performing
Engaging in unnatural interactions with humans, such as holding hands or being held
Situations like these are often set up without the animal being able to resist. What if it feels threatened or afraid, just because clients want a 'funny' photo of a monkey wearing sunglasses or performing dancing routines? Don't forget that animals like monkeys, elephants, tigers and lions are often mistreated during training for tourist attractions or the circus.
Agree 100%. Except what about when a baby animal is rescued - it could be interacting with a human protector. And no animals are hurt during photoshopping.
True, the policy change is maybe a bit too much. There should be exceptions to the rule such as your example. And photoshopping animals is okay IMO, if they're obviously fake.
Why is it important that it is obviously fake? What's the point of this? To protect people from seeing animals in unnatural situations or to protect animals from being placed in unnatural situations?
If it's the latter than the quality of the image manipulation is irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned there's nothing wrong with realistically showing an ape wearing sunglasses as long as you don't create the image by placing sunglasses on an ape.
-
Hm. No notice about this from Shutterstock. I wonder if they know about this decision?
-
Idiots. PETA and SS
Why?
Wearing clothing or accessories, such as hats or sunglasses
Being shown in a studio setting or human environment, such as an office or circus
Exhibiting trained or unnatural behavior, such as dancing or performing
Engaging in unnatural interactions with humans, such as holding hands or being held
Situations like these are often set up without the animal being able to resist. What if it feels threatened or afraid, just because clients want a 'funny' photo of a monkey wearing sunglasses or performing dancing routines? Don't forget that animals like monkeys, elephants, tigers and lions are often mistreated during training for tourist attractions or the circus.
No more than the beef or the pig at the origin of your barbecue meat
So no more photo of meat too!
-
It's maybe not necessarily only about harm to the actual animals in the images. It could also be about the way people view animals.
Vide the many reports which state that many young women say they are 'expected' to behave in ways some men see in porn. So even in the porn stars are consensual, it's creating an 'expectation' which not all woman are happy with.
Still, if this were the case, that would presumably also cover cartoons ...
(I wonder why they didn't go after images portraying hunting in a positive light? Oh, right: PETA is HQd in the USofA. ::))
-
It's maybe not necessarily only about harm to the actual animals in the images. It could also be about the way people view animals.
Vide the many reports which state that many young women say they are 'expected' to behave in ways some men see in porn. So even in the porn stars are consensual, it's creating an 'expection' which not all woman are happy with.
Still, if this were the case, that would presumably also cover cartoons ...
(I wonder why they didn't go after images portraying hunting in a positive light? Oh, right: PETA is HQd in the USofA. ::))
Yes seems a soft target I would have thought there are far worse things to go after.
-
It's maybe not necessarily only about harm to the actual animals in the images. It could also be about the way people view animals.
Vide the many reports which state that many young women say they are 'expected' to behave in ways some men see in porn. So even in the porn stars are consensual, it's creating an 'expection' which not all woman are happy with.
Still, if this were the case, that would presumably also cover cartoons ...
(I wonder why they didn't go after images portraying hunting in a positive light? Oh, right: PETA is HQd in the USofA. ::))
It's also not about animals in general (yet), but specifically apes. Are they afraid people will see a photo of an ape in a suit and immediately go out, get an ape and put it in a suit? Weird. I seriously doubt photos of apes in unnatural situations will warp people's minds about apes and create an 'expectation' that they belong in suits.
There is a big gap between this and actual abuse. There are atrocities being committed against animals, including apes, that deserve peta's attention far more than this.
-
Idiots. PETA and SS
Sad part is I can only give you one + not 100
It's also not about animals in general (yet), but specifically apes. Are they afraid people will see a photo of an ape in a suit and immediately go out, get an ape and put it in a suit? Weird. I seriously doubt photos of apes in unnatural situations will warp people's minds about apes and create an 'expectation' that they belong in suits.
There is a big gap between this and actual abuse. There are atrocities being committed against animals, including apes, that deserve peta's attention far more than this.
Another +100 point.
-
I agree animals shouldn't be put into unnatural and stressful situations, but still really struggle to understand why you can't photoshop a hat onto an ape?
-
Why is it important that it is obviously fake? What's the point of this? To protect people from seeing animals in unnatural situations or to protect animals from being placed in unnatural situations?
What I meant is that you should be able to tell whether the monkey is, for example, actually wearing a real hat or a photoshopped hat. If you can't distinguish real photos from fake ones, a photographer could get away by simply denying it's real. Which wouldn't be possible if the photo is an obvious fake.
-
Yes seems a soft target I would have thought there are far worse things to go after.
Just because murder is generally far worse than a DUI case doesn't mean the police should ignore the latter. It's not mutually exclusive.
-
Yes seems a soft target I would have thought there are far worse things to go after.
Just because murder is generally far worse than a DUI case doesn't mean the police should ignore the latter. It's not mutually exclusive.
They do prioritise though if you were being murdered you might expect them to rush from the scene of the burglary that took place next door ;-).
-
I find this very silly.
Dogs and cats will be next. No more santa cats and dogs or funny birthday cards.
And after that all children, because of course you donīt know if they are really voluntarily posing for the photographer or if their parents are forcing them to...
Obviously humans should in the end be banned too because how many people only do it for the money?
Maybe their soul will be stolen by the camera?
-
I find this very silly.
Dogs and cats will be next. No more santa cats and dogs or funny birthday cards.
And after that all children, because of course you donīt know if they are really voluntarily posing for the photographer or if their parents are forcing them to...
Obviously humans should in the end be banned too because how many people only do it for the money?
Maybe their soul will be stolen by the camera?
That's what PETA wants, soon they will demand we all become vegetarians and then the vegans will come to claim anything animal including food, is abuse. Where do people get off saying a photo of an animal, ape or dog, with a party hat or glasses is abuse. Oh right, it's so stressful, you can see it in their face.
Over the top? On the PETA site, "Chickens are arguably the most abused animals on the planet. In the United States, approximately 9 billion chickens are killed for their flesh each year, and 305 million hens are used for their eggs. The vast majority of these animals spend their lives in total confinementfrom the moment they hatch until the day they are killed." Chickens are bred, raised, grown and eaten, that's our choice not some animal rights group.
Animals rights should protect against the real abuse, killing for horns or sawing off tusks, abuse and criminal treatment, potential killing off species. Include protection of habitat. Prosecute the puppy farms, don't allow wild animals as home pets, prosecute people who actually abuse animals. Go after that, not a photo of a chimp.
-
Animals rights should protect against the real abuse, killing for horns or sawing off tusks, abuse and criminal treatment, potential killing off species. Include protection of habitat. Prosecute the puppy farms, don't allow wild animals as home pets, prosecute people who actually abuse animals. Go after that, not a photo of a chimp.
Good summary. There are very real problems of animal abuse that hopefully we all can agree should be stopped and prosecuted.
I would add trophy hunting of animals to the list - if you're not going to eat it and it's not a direct threat then don't kill it. I've never understood how someone can take pride from having the mounted head of a slain animal on their wall. If someone shot a trophy deer, for example, and used the rest of the animal I suppose the trophy could be a way to honor the animal - I could sort of understand that. But the head or skin of a big cat, for example, that was shot from a distance with a high-powered rifle or even a modern bow - that is not sport, it is murder. If someone really wants to prove their manhood with a trophy then they should be required to use a knife or a spear - I could respect that at least. Although I would be rooting for the cat. It would make for some very different facebook posts at least.
-
I find this very silly.
Dogs and cats will be next. No more santa cats and dogs or funny birthday cards.
And after that all children, because of course you donīt know if they are really voluntarily posing for the photographer or if their parents are forcing them to...
Obviously humans should in the end be banned too because how many people only do it for the money?
Maybe their soul will be stolen by the camera?
That's what PETA wants, soon they will demand we all become vegetarians and then the vegans will come to claim anything animal including food, is abuse. Where do people get off saying a photo of an animal, ape or dog, with a party hat or glasses is abuse. Oh right, it's so stressful, you can see it in their face.
Over the top? On the PETA site, "Chickens are arguably the most abused animals on the planet. In the United States, approximately 9 billion chickens are killed for their flesh each year, and 305 million hens are used for their eggs. The vast majority of these animals spend their lives in total confinementfrom the moment they hatch until the day they are killed." Chickens are bred, raised, grown and eaten, that's our choice not some animal rights group.
Animals rights should protect against the real abuse, killing for horns or sawing off tusks, abuse and criminal treatment, potential killing off species. Include protection of habitat. Prosecute the puppy farms, don't allow wild animals as home pets, prosecute people who actually abuse animals. Go after that, not a photo of a chimp.
But abuse might happen to the animal while the photographer is trying to get the photo of a chimp wearing a hat and sunglasses. I have read stories of some of the insane things some photographers do just to "get the shot." (Like endanger lives of airline passengers by flying a photo drone too close, etc. etc.) I am ok with this rule, but it does seem excessive to ban photoshopping, but then again they don't have the manpower or resources to track down and verify every photo for authenticity, so they have to make a general rule. They barely pay attention to the most basic of things, like copyright infringement. I am all for letting wild animals stay in their natural habitat and keeping humans away from exploitation.
-
I find this very silly.
Dogs and cats will be next. No more santa cats and dogs or funny birthday cards.
And after that all children, because of course you donīt know if they are really voluntarily posing for the photographer or if their parents are forcing them to...
Obviously humans should in the end be banned too because how many people only do it for the money?
Maybe their soul will be stolen by the camera?
That's what PETA wants, soon they will demand we all become vegetarians and then the vegans will come to claim anything animal including food, is abuse. Where do people get off saying a photo of an animal, ape or dog, with a party hat or glasses is abuse. Oh right, it's so stressful, you can see it in their face.
Over the top? On the PETA site, "Chickens are arguably the most abused animals on the planet. In the United States, approximately 9 billion chickens are killed for their flesh each year, and 305 million hens are used for their eggs. The vast majority of these animals spend their lives in total confinementfrom the moment they hatch until the day they are killed." Chickens are bred, raised, grown and eaten, that's our choice not some animal rights group.
Animals rights should protect against the real abuse, killing for horns or sawing off tusks, abuse and criminal treatment, potential killing off species. Include protection of habitat. Prosecute the puppy farms, don't allow wild animals as home pets, prosecute people who actually abuse animals. Go after that, not a photo of a chimp.
But abuse might happen to the animal while the photographer is trying to get the photo of a chimp wearing a hat and sunglasses. I have read stories of some of the insane things some photographers do just to "get the shot." (Like endanger lives of airline passengers by flying a photo drone too close, etc. etc.) I am ok with this rule, but it does seem excessive to ban photoshopping, but then again they don't have the manpower or resources to track down and verify every photo for authenticity, so they have to make a general rule. They barely pay attention to the most basic of things, like copyright infringement. I am all for letting wild animals stay in their natural habitat and keeping humans away from exploitation.
here are some insane hehaviour against animals:
https://petapixel.com/2013/08/20/photo-analysis-accuses-some-photogs-of-faking-cute-animal-images-in-cruel-ways/ (https://petapixel.com/2013/08/20/photo-analysis-accuses-some-photogs-of-faking-cute-animal-images-in-cruel-ways/)
-
I'm wondering if the new rule also applies to 3d rendered apes, they can look pretty realistic, possibly to the point of being mistaken for 'real'.
-
Says nothing on illustrated images. ???
-
But if I have signed MR? ;)
-
But if I have signed MR? ;)
Even if you did PETA would still drag you through the legal system
-
from Jon.
https://twitter.com/diyphotography/status/946695469517955072
-
from Jon.
https://twitter.com/diyphotography/status/946695469517955072
And is the image from the clickbait headline? Photoshop art supposed to be related to the story. Thanks for pointing out the Jon answer that all was voluntary and this is just more fake news.