pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: SHUTTERSTOCK BAN ALL UNNATURAL PHOTOS OF APES AND MONKEYS  (Read 8450 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

fritz

  • I love Tom and Jerry music



« Reply #1 on: December 30, 2017, 23:56 »
+7
Idiots. PETA and SS

« Reply #2 on: December 31, 2017, 00:35 »
+14
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.

« Reply #3 on: December 31, 2017, 00:50 »
+11
Since humans are apes, that will severely restrict their collection.

« Reply #4 on: December 31, 2017, 01:42 »
+2
The weird thing is that they are also banning photoshopped images of apes taking in their natural habitat. Where's the logic in that?

« Reply #5 on: December 31, 2017, 01:56 »
+4
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.

« Reply #6 on: December 31, 2017, 02:16 »
+8
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.

« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2017, 03:19 »
+4
PETA banning monkeys in such a way is just a first cornerstone in banning all animals from stock agencies. Mark our words.

« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2017, 03:32 »
0
.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2017, 07:55 »
+12
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.

« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2017, 08:14 »
+1
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.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2017, 08:23 »
+1
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.

« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2017, 08:44 »
+2
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.)

« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2017, 10:12 »
0
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.

« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2017, 10:16 »
+1
Hm.  No notice about this from Shutterstock.  I wonder if they know about this decision?

« Reply #15 on: December 31, 2017, 10:19 »
+1
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!

ShadySue

« Reply #16 on: December 31, 2017, 10:22 »
+1
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.  ::))
« Last Edit: January 01, 2018, 13:04 by ShadySue »


« Reply #17 on: December 31, 2017, 10:51 »
+2
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.

« Reply #18 on: December 31, 2017, 11:04 »
+4
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.

« Reply #19 on: December 31, 2017, 11:59 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 12:04 by YadaYadaYada »

« Reply #20 on: December 31, 2017, 12:45 »
+6
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?

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #21 on: December 31, 2017, 13:20 »
+2

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.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 13:24 by Noedelhap »

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #22 on: December 31, 2017, 13:27 »
+3
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.

« Reply #23 on: December 31, 2017, 13:46 »
0
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 ;-).

« Reply #24 on: December 31, 2017, 18:40 »
+3
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 dont 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?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2017, 18:43 by cobalt »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3112 Views
Last post May 02, 2006, 04:07
by CJPhoto
5 Replies
2632 Views
Last post November 02, 2011, 16:36
by Claudio
19 Replies
4431 Views
Last post September 06, 2012, 20:18
by OM
8 Replies
3384 Views
Last post February 03, 2016, 05:52
by cobalt
16 Replies
2983 Views
Last post September 14, 2016, 02:03
by dpimborough

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results