MicrostockGroup

They've always spoken from both sides of their mouths on this issue. I've had images of women  (in swim suits) suntanning on the beach rejected for "sexual content". I would also advise being careful what you say about them in ANY forums...there's a reason I had to create a new account and use my "anonymous" title here in this forum.

The worst part about this thread is that NOW, as a result of Rene's "well meaning" post, some very good photos (that have substantial sales) are now going to be stricken from the StockXpert database. I know that every site has the right to run its business any way it chooses but every time I upload there, I feel like every image that has a female face on it needs to be veiled.

So in summary, Rene, I REALLY wish you hadn't awakened the sleeping censor giant (once again we plunge into the dark ages). Even while my modest images depicting women wearing swimsuits, shockingly showing their tummies, are given the boot for "too sexually suggestive", Iophoto's were proving that there are buyers for ALL styles of work...now they shall be censored - AFTER they were approved.

...and in Steve-Oh's defense, you are the rare mouth of any of these companies that openly communicates with us. For that we all thank you, even if we agree to disagree.

We have to give these guys a break sometimes.   StockXpert may have very good reason for refusing a bathing suit photo, erring on the side of caution, but I agree that yes, the same rules must apply to everyone and consistant reviewing is necessary.

I realize that I responded to another post a week or two ago with wrong information... I just went looking at the DT forum regarding this subject.. I said that it was a Moneybookers issue, but it was another service provider that DT uses who would not tolerate nudity.  This is part of a post from Achilles.

As promised here is an explanation of what happened. Authorize, our (now previous) payment gateway informed us that they don't allow sexually oriented content, not even behind a content filter. Not just nudes, but nothing that can be seen as sexually oriented. Your mileage may vary.

Considering how many complaints we had from photographers for filtering their submissions due to our severe rules, you will find this ironical. We hope that all photographers who saw us as being too severe from this perspective will now understand that it is serious issue. Not only from this perspective, sensitive issues are a fact of our modern society. It would be unethical to accept any kind of content just for the commercial sake.

One can argue that there are lots of examples where explicit stock imagery sells without a content filter. Or that our nudes are artistic. These are true, but not relevant in this case: we had to comply with their rules.

A professional stock agency cannot work without such content no matter what our personal beliefs may be and especially as this site is used by professionals.

You can find the entire thread here:  http://www.dreamstime.com/thread_9025

ditto..

and if the images shouldn't have been on stockXpert in the first place no one should feel hard done by by the fact that they were removed.