Author Topic: ANYthing goes on MostPhotos (Read 18494 times)

mantonino · « **on:** April 27, 2008, 16:30 »

Someone here was dogging FotoMind for their nudity on the site. Does MostPhotos have any clauses about uploading parts full on? Because honestly, what buyer in their right mind is going to search for _____ and find a full on shot of a woman spread out and say "oh, ok, this site works for me at the WORK COMPUTER where I buy images"?

I mean ... just ... WOW.

I saw some stuff I don't need to be seeing. lol And I'm not by any stretch "prudish" lol

JC-SL · « **Reply #1 on:** April 27, 2008, 18:23 »

LOL!!! HAHAHA... Mantonino.. please don't sell yourself short, if you found (nude) images on MostPhotos wrong.. then you are prude! Stand up and be proud..

It's great to see a site that doesn't cave into the American (sub)standards and has the balls (sorry, no pun intended

) to show what the rest of the world likes and uses. After checking your folio, they not be your cup of tea.. but I saw nothing wrong, quite the contrary.. in the first ten pages I saw a lot of very beautiful images. Images that even you would be proud to have shot!

Having your images thrown off sites because you uploaded a nipple is what is wrong.

Look, enjoy and be inspired.

as my 6yr old son just told me.. "peace, love and have a good day"

cheers. JC

a.k.a.-tom · « **Reply #2 on:** April 27, 2008, 18:31 »

MODIFIED.
mantonino.... I've been figthing this battle since I got into the biz.

I can definitely tell you I am reaaaaaally no prude. I have no problem with nudity. I enjoy especially b&w classic nudes, body landscaping just to name two areas of photography. However...

...back when I first started microstocks, I was showing my daughter "dad's pictures" on the web. First thing that comes up on this one site is "recent uploads".... and what is it filled with? Not classic nude, not body landscape, and not a simple "nipple". ( Heck, I see that in the grocery store line on a regular basis, so's my daughter.) No. This crap was provacative, suggestive, erotic .... next step, soft porn. Needless to say... I was ticked of just a wee bit!! What the hecks this?

IMHO that was just downright unprofessional by this site. Everyone's view around this planet varies by culture and moral upbringing. And I don't care how 'liberal' some people think they are, world-wide, it is still not socially acceptable by the masses to the degree that it should be mixed in with everything else.

It needs to be behind a filter. And what is the big problem with that? Just one click of the mouse? It is only socially acceptable courtesy. And any site that just mixes it in with the flowers, jet fighters, waterfalls and women on telephones demonstrates the same mentality as some others of my gender who claim they only buy Playboy Magazine for the good articles!! It should be filtered.

The idea that this kind of filtering is "American" and "substandard" is ludicrous. I've lived all over this planet and I understand that some peoples do have more liberal views. I also know that all countries have different moral values related to public nudity. So what? Some would have hardcore sex on commercial television, some expect females to have their entire body covered in clothing... so what? And in every country the moral ideals on nudity run from one extreme to the other. The display of nudity on the front page of a microstock agency doesn't make them modern thinking and free of antiquated moral incumberance.

Microstock is an international business accessible by people of varying moral beliefs. America doesn't have the corner on the censorship market. And when it comes to busines, IMHO, I believe that nudity or editorial violence should be behind a filter. And the fact is, evidently, so DO most microstock agencies... including, non-american ones!

It's just intelligent business sense and a respectful practice, or a world-wide, socially acceptable courtesy towards their clients. On the WWW there is no end to nudity. For those that just can't get enough, there's so much, they can view it 24/7 for the rest of their lives and never run out.
It shouldn't be on the 'latest uploads' page of a microstock business. The young man stated that he wasn't a prude, yet he said that 'he saw some stuff he didn't need to be seeing". What's wrong with that? He's right. He DIDN"T need to see it. He was obviously looking for something else. If he wanted to see that, all he should have to do is click his mouse a second time. What's the big deal?

I don't know what he saw, I didn't go look. I do know what me and my daughter saw that day and it wasn't 'the artistic display of the beautiful human body". They weren't pictures that "I would be proud to have shot"... I personally have no problem shooting nudes for artistic use. These were crap. They had no artistic value at all. I wouldn't know what legitimate use anyone would have had for these pictures. Anyone that wanted could buy their own digital camera, go home and shoot pix of their girlfriends grabbing themselves in the bedroom and saved the 30 cent download. They had no place in microstock. Talk about "not stock material". I can only imagine that the reviewer WAS one of those clowns that "reads Playboy for the fine articles". Baloney!! And I certainly wouldn't have nudity on the lead page of my personal business website. That's just plain stupid.

I wrote that company about what I found and how I felt. I'm sure it wasn't my personal complaint that changed things, no doubt more than I complained. For shortly thereafter, nudity got filtered behind a warning.
I guess they weren't so liberal and advant garde afterall.

mantonino.. Right on!! If that's the way you feel, you stick to your guns!! There are plenty out here that feel the same way. I'm far from being a prude but I'm with you!!

=tom

madelaide · « **Reply #3 on:** April 27, 2008, 19:10 »

The same problem happens in SP because, like MP, it's a site that doesn't have submission inspection. There is an adult filter, however, in three levels (none, normal, strong).

There was a huge discussion about this in SP because there are many images that look porn to most (plus are very amateurish work, and sold as editorial without MR clearly due to the fact that the photographers would never get their "models" sign one).

The limit between artistic and erotic nude is a very subtle one, and as a.k.a.-tom said it varies from culture to culture. Go figure, I recently read that sex in public parks is or will be allowed in Holland (as long as it is not "performed" next to children).

Regards,
Adelaide

mantonino · « **Reply #4 on:** April 27, 2008, 20:54 »

Quote from: JC-SL on April 27, 2008, 18:23

Mantonino.. please don't sell yourself short, if you found (nude) images on MostPhotos wrong.. then you are prude! Stand up and be proud..

I'm just sayin...if you were a web designer/graphic designer and you were downloading pics off MostPhotos and your boss walked up behind you while you found these:

Not work friendly pic 1

Not work friendly pic 2

Not work friendly link 3

would you have a job?

How many buyers do you think have seen one of those 3 images and *never* gone back to the site? That's all I'm askin. lol

(Note: I don't mind searching for more.

Like I said, I personally am not a prude in this respect - but image buyers are *mostly* people doing a job for someone else)

jsnover · « **Reply #5 on:** April 27, 2008, 21:02 »

Quote from: JC-SL on April 27, 2008, 18:23

It's great to see a site that doesn't cave into the American (sub)standards and has the balls (sorry, no pun intended ) to show what the rest of the world likes and uses.

All that's needed here is what most sites have - a content filter. That needs to be on by default, and thus the site is "work safe" just about anywhere. If MostPhotos wants to become something other than an also-ran, they'll probably implement a content filter. Anyone who wants to see and buy the nudes can (although I suspect there's much more seeing than buying with those images); no censorship involved.

Graffoto · « **Reply #6 on:** April 27, 2008, 21:50 »

My company's IT department has such as aggressive filtering system that only IS can be viewed.
SS has its images blocked and sites such as DT and SX are just plain forbidden!

If you have a 'need' to see these sites ie, you work in the graphics design department, then IT will unblock the sites on a one by one basis.
Somehow I doubt that my company is alone in this. So, as most larger corporations my guess is MP would be automatically blocked.

windmill · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2008, 00:04 »

I agree!

Even if i am from Sweden and I have been used to more of this stuff, I think a adultfilter is a must. This site have to take the market for real, its funky and arty OK, but for how long if you don't respect your customers?

OK "swedes" are known for the sin and we are quiet fed up with pics like this, but we must bee aware of that the rest of the world has a little diffrent approach to this subject.

For example it happens quiet regularly that books are published with closeup genitals, pics like these are quiet regular in magazines to illustrate gender and feminismissues. One book was called "fittstim" (eg. a horde of cunts) actually had a hairy closeup of va..a on the frontshelf!

But for a commercial site, this can not bee the main approach to the market. Marketing has to be a much more debated issue for the MP staff and i really hope they understand this issue.

vikavalter · « **Reply #8 on:** April 28, 2008, 00:09 »

hahah, oh my, remember it's a swedish site, so hopefully it will also mostly market over scandinavia and europe. When you described how harsh the images were I got to imagine worse, then you post some pretty closed vaginas? Ok there is some pubic hair or none at all, but still far from porn.

JC-SL · « **Reply #9 on:** April 28, 2008, 00:55 »

this is too much fun really!! I was having a good laugh WITH Mantonino... not AT him! I love people who take the piss out of themselves...really!

But if your concern is that you can download 3 pics that aren't suitable to have at work ... THEN WHAT . ARE YOU DOING SEARCHING AND DOWNLOADING IMAGES UNSUITABLE AT WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE!!? fool.

Certainly don't blame the site if you're out being a naughty boy ... simple as that. There is unsuitable content all over the internet, in magazines, TV..videos..cds.. you just need to use your judgement, a little commonsense goes a long way....and helps you to keep your day job so you can come on here and play in this safe world with no stress.

If the content is not for your liking on TV, do you write and bag the tv station? Turn the dial.

good night Irene.. now mate...where were those pics again?

leaf · « **Reply #10 on:** April 28, 2008, 01:26 »

Quote from: JC-SL on April 28, 2008, 00:55

If the content is not for your liking on TV, do you write and bag the tv station? Turn the dial.

That is exactly the problem.. Customers are going to do just that. Turn the dial, and go to istock for example where the site IS work safe.

And just like television a site should not have 99% one type of content and then all of a sudden expose you to a type of content you find unnecessary. If a TV station did this, yes it's viewers WOULD write in and complain. Web sites are the same.

windmill · « **Reply #11 on:** April 28, 2008, 01:39 »

Get real!

"this is too much fun really!! "

?

If a commercial site does not take the market seriously is that fun?

I can stand these pictures, but i don't want my kids to see them as the first thing if they look at the latest photos on MP.

I take some quiet strong pictures my self sometimes. I am not afraid of the subject, but i am an adult and I don't submit them to IS or DT, i keep them so customers that ask for them can have them.

The problem is that you don't have to search to get these images.

If i am to recommend a site for people who might bee interested in buying my photos and i know they represents the government or any multinational company's, should i recommend a site that violates the public or corporate policy's?

How hard is it really to provide a basic tool for customers that don't want to have these pictures?

I really think its a little too easy to be ironic, and call people things just for the sake that they are not "brave" to handle photos like this.

The fact is that if a commercial site is going to survive, it is not a great strategy to offend and neglect you potential clients.

grp_photo · « **Reply #12 on:** April 28, 2008, 02:14 »

Quote from: mantonino on April 27, 2008, 20:54

Quote from: JC-SL on April 27, 2008, 18:23
Mantonino.. please don't sell yourself short, if you found (nude) images on MostPhotos wrong.. then you are prude! Stand up and be proud..

I'm just sayin...if you were a web designer/graphic designer and you were downloading pics off MostPhotos and your boss walked up behind you while you found these:

Not work friendly pic 1

Not work friendly pic 2

Not work friendly link 3

would you have a job?

How many buyers do you think have seen one of those 3 images and *never* gone back to the site? That's all I'm askin. lol

(Note: I don't mind searching for more. Like I said, I personally am not a prude in this respect - but image buyers are *mostly* people doing a job for someone else)

The third one is a actually a great stock concept.
The first one is just nice.
The second is for sure not my taste and from a photographic standpoint very purely made.
It's funny how the most prudish people insist that they are not prudish

thank god i'm living in Europe.

Contakt · « **Reply #13 on:** April 28, 2008, 02:34 »

Quote from: grp_photo on April 28, 2008, 02:14

Quote from: mantonino on April 27, 2008, 20:54
Quote from: JC-SL on April 27, 2008, 18:23
Mantonino.. please don't sell yourself short, if you found (nude) images on MostPhotos wrong.. then you are prude! Stand up and be proud..

I'm just sayin...if you were a web designer/graphic designer and you were downloading pics off MostPhotos and your boss walked up behind you while you found these:

Not work friendly pic 1

Not work friendly pic 2

Not work friendly link 3

would you have a job?

How many buyers do you think have seen one of those 3 images and *never* gone back to the site? That's all I'm askin. lol

(Note: I don't mind searching for more. Like I said, I personally am not a prude in this respect - but image buyers are *mostly* people doing a job for someone else)

The third one is a actually a great stock concept.
The first one is just nice.
The second is for sure not my taste and from a photographic standpoint very purely made.
It's funny how the most prudish people insist that they are not prudish thank god i'm living in Europe.

Those r not too bad its one partikular despicable old trout tahts popping up eveyrwhere that really makes me vomit. She's also on MP but i daren't go bak there for a 2nd look or ill barf all over the screen again. But do chek out the false set of boobs. they look like theyre made from carbon fibre. Sooooo Grrrooosssss

http://www.fotolia.com/id/1272293

rosta · « **Reply #14 on:** April 28, 2008, 06:03 »

Quote from: grp_photo on April 28, 2008, 02:14

Quote from: mantonino on April 27, 2008, 20:54
Quote from: JC-SL on April 27, 2008, 18:23
Mantonino.. please don't sell yourself short, if you found (nude) images on MostPhotos wrong.. then you are prude! Stand up and be proud..

I'm just sayin...if you were a web designer/graphic designer and you were downloading pics off MostPhotos and your boss walked up behind you while you found these:

Not work friendly pic 1

Not work friendly pic 2

Not work friendly link 3

would you have a job?

How many buyers do you think have seen one of those 3 images and *never* gone back to the site? That's all I'm askin. lol

(Note: I don't mind searching for more. Like I said, I personally am not a prude in this respect - but image buyers are *mostly* people doing a job for someone else)

The third one is a actually a great stock concept.
The first one is just nice.
The second is for sure not my taste and from a photographic standpoint very purely made.
It's funny how the most prudish people insist that they are not prudish thank god i'm living in Europe.

Why can you not grasp the concept that the images being on the site are not the problem, the problem is that they appear whether someone wishes to view them or not. Clicking onto MP and seeing them splashed across the sites opening page is not "choosing to view them" it is having content that may be offense to some brought into the workplace.
If your answer to that is "it's funny that people are so prudish" then perhaps you'll consider it funny when your images don't sell very well because potential buyers are either blocked by work filters or totally turned off by the content that they first see.
Of course since MP refuses to implement reviewers to enforce their uploading agreement then I seriously doubt that they would enforce a content filter.
How about it MP, let's see a content filter in place by June 14'th 2008.

JC-SL · « **Reply #15 on:** April 28, 2008, 06:50 »

Windmill.... your response is why I'm laughing so loud! thank you!...
Live on grp_photo and Contakt.. you're just to * funny!

Please don't brrraafffffff! $:-\$

And rosta ... the porn pics that offended Mantonino don't appear on the front page... you have to go looking for them.

very serious stuff here..eh?

windmill · « **Reply #16 on:** April 28, 2008, 07:11 »

TO JC-SL!

Why are you here?

To sell photos or look at nude photos?

For me a marketplace can bring both, but for some it is not OK to use worktime to look at nudes.

I am interested in that sites that i contribute to, have the highest possible sales. I am sure MP don't will reach a position in the big 6 with a waste of buyers time or by neglecting their policy's.

If thats funny or even gets you laugh, congrats you are then very easy to enjoy.

But please, grow up a little and start to see the real thing here. Its business not a playground.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #17 on:** April 28, 2008, 07:13 »

I will out myself and say I am kind of "prudish" and by the way also a German (living in liberal Europe

. You guys can laugh at me if you want, but there might be some "prudish" buyers who will not buy at mostphotos without a filter. In fact there are millions of "prudish" people out there, why should an agency not include a filter so that those people feel confortable buying there?

leaf · « **Reply #18 on:** April 28, 2008, 07:14 »

Quote from: JC-SL on April 28, 2008, 06:50

And rosta ... the porn pics that offended Mantonino don't appear on the front page... you have to go looking for them.

Mostphotos puts the most recent uploaded pictures on the front page, so if you happen to go onto the site after someone uploads porn pics... they will be on the front page.

anonymous · « **Reply #19 on:** April 28, 2008, 07:22 »

answer: Content Filter to protect those offended by such images (It's very easy to select "none" if desired).

The irony is I used one of those 3 images on a Hedonism II direct mail piece, and yes my boss saw it as he had to approve it.

mantonino · « **Reply #20 on:** April 28, 2008, 08:17 »

Quote from: JC-SL on April 28, 2008, 00:55

But if your concern is that you can download 3 pics that aren't suitable to have at work ... THEN WHAT . ARE YOU DOING SEARCHING AND DOWNLOADING IMAGES UNSUITABLE AT WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE!!? fool.

Maybe this will put it in context for you although I think you are too far gone to get it:

I work for myself, I'm a full time photographer. My only interest in MostPhotos is that they can sell my pictures. If they can't, I have no interest in them whatsoever. I am evaluating the site as a commercial entity and what made me go searching was that I found a similar photo like this ON the "most recent photos" next to mine.

I don't have a boss. I'm not going to get fired or in trouble for looking at these. That's the part you don't get and the reason you are misunderstanding me. This has *nothing* to do with me and these images. Nothing at all.

Now, I think MP does have some sort of content filter yes? Here's a simple answer: turn it ON by default. And don't let those images cross the "new" section if it's on. Make those who need it, like "anonymous" here, just turn the filter off to go find it. Much simpler, keeps buyers around, that's all we should care about as photographers, right?

(For the record, photo #1 is hot. I like the photo. photo #2 is actually poorly done only because it's so unattractive - her skin looks dead, it doesn't look real, and honestly, would you take #1 or #2 as a guy? And #3 is a great GREAT stock concept. It shouldn't appear next to kids & puppies on the most recent though.)

JC-SL · « **Reply #21 on:** April 28, 2008, 15:22 »

see, wasn't that easier Mantonino! Great job...

yep, I 'm here to sell nudes..

whatever! have a look before you open your mouth and don't take yourself too seriously windmill. There is a time and a place for all images.. your cup of tea just may not be mine, but I won't go crying if you serve tea I don't like. I'll Simply be a grown up and order the tea I'd like.. It's not too hard really.

cheers for now..

PS. Grow up? FO... never!!

madelaide · « **Reply #22 on:** April 28, 2008, 19:28 »

JC-SL,

The issue here is not the image sellability or quality. The issue is that any serious site should offer an adult content (set on as default) so users will not see images unless they want it.

Are you against such filters? Why?

Regards,
Adelaide

JC-SL · « **Reply #23 on:** April 28, 2008, 21:20 »

Madelaide (are you actually in Adelaide?)

Nope... I have no problems with filters (I have 3 kids)

BUT, this string was started about the content, NOT filters... and that has been my point all along....and that's why I congratulated Mantonino when the real issue was addressed.

In the meantime.. it's fun to be told I'm not serious and I need to grow up..

I found nothing wrong with the content, as long as it's used in context... and for the seriously prude amongst us, with filters.

Is that better windmill?

Cheers. JC

windmill · « **Reply #24 on:** April 28, 2008, 23:21 »

Love to all!

I must say that i enjoy our little chat here. And would like to end it with a harmless little picture dedicated specially to all our contenders on this special line. I have titled this photo "chat", and would just like to say thanks to all that have read or posted anything under this section. ;-)

Love to all from windmill

digiology · « **Reply #25 on:** April 28, 2008, 23:50 »

HAHA! Good one Windmill.

I have to admit I was startled when I happed upon the #2 pic a while back.

Thought it was a cadaver at first. I have also been cruising the "Latest" only to half the page turn up with nudies. Kinda awkward when the kids are around

. Guess I need to turn on the content filter. Always took it for granted since most sites have it enabled automatically.

JC-SL · « **Reply #26 on:** April 29, 2008, 01:56 »

My god... that photo is obscene! Leaf...where's the bloody content filter on this site!!?

We must practise what we preach!!

nite all.

Magnum · « **Reply #27 on:** May 02, 2008, 14:27 »

I don´t have an adult filter in my pants. Seeing it from above or front to front, is that such a horrible experience

So what if someone is selling photos of nude people. Kids nowadays for sure knows where to find them and much much more hardcore things. They just need to check the internethistory before it´s erased:)

Ok, I have a hard time understanding some photos. But someone told me it´s a big industry (magazines websites and so on) and that it sell really good. So get naked folks!

anonymous · « **Reply #28 on:** May 04, 2008, 09:05 »

Quote from: Magnum on May 02, 2008, 14:27

I don´t have an adult filter in my pants. Seeing it from above or front to front, is that such a horrible experience

So what if someone is selling photos of nude people. Kids nowadays for sure knows where to find them and much much more hardcore things. They just need to check the internethistory before it´s erased:)

Ok, I have a hard time understanding some photos. But someone told me it´s a big industry (magazines websites and so on) and that it sell really good. So get naked folks!

Done!

Beckyabell · « **Reply #29 on:** May 21, 2008, 02:58 »

Quote from: mantonino on April 27, 2008, 20:54

Quote from: JC-SL on April 27, 2008, 18:23
Mantonino.. please don't sell yourself short, if you found (nude) images on MostPhotos wrong.. then you are prude! Stand up and be proud..

I'm just sayin...if you were a web designer/graphic designer and you were downloading pics off MostPhotos and your boss walked up behind you while you found these:

Not work friendly pic 1

Not work friendly pic 2

Not work friendly link 3

would you have a job?

How many buyers do you think have seen one of those 3 images and *never* gone back to the site? That's all I'm askin. lol

(Note: I don't mind searching for more. Like I said, I personally am not a prude in this respect - but image buyers are *mostly* people doing a job for someone else)

None of these links offend me. Personally, I think it's funny that they would offend someone else.
But hey, It takes all types.

Half of us have Vaginas in this world... & hopefully the other half of us have seen one or two by now.

I'm a mother, and I just don't show my kids these type of photos... lock the door or hit that little x in the top left of your screen when they walk in. (if you've chosen to open the image beyond the thumbnail in the first place.)

Plus, your boss would most likely be pissed anyways that your on a microstock site instead of working, regardless of the nudity~lol. And if your a designer he would most likely understand.

....Nobody should tell another what to say, photograph or write.

imho

Beckyabell · « **Reply #30 on:** May 21, 2008, 03:17 »

Quote from: mantonino on April 27, 2008, 20:54

How many buyers do you think have seen one of those 3 images and *never* gone back to the site? That's all I'm askin. lol

Very Few....

Designers know & are taught that sex sells.

I believe that contributors are the the main reason for content filters.

Joyce · « **Reply #31 on:** May 21, 2008, 03:21 »

Those three weren't as bad as I was expecting from reading the thread. The first two are average to me, but the third one with the reversed censorship banners was great. I thought it was a good image, and a great concept.

At work I'm responsible for purchasing images at times. Occasionally some less work-safe images crop up thanks to keyword spamming by the site's submitters. Otherwise, I don't have a problem most of the time. Luckily for me, my boss has been around the internet long enough that an out-of-context non-worksafe image isn't enough to get me into trouble.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: ANYthing goes on MostPhotos (Read 18494 times)

mantonino

JC-SL

a.k.a.-tom

madelaide

mantonino

jsnover

Graffoto

windmill

vikavalter

JC-SL

leaf

windmill

grp_photo

Contakt

rosta

JC-SL

windmill

Freezingpictures

leaf

anonymous

mantonino

JC-SL

madelaide

JC-SL

windmill

digiology

JC-SL

Magnum

anonymous

Beckyabell

Beckyabell

Joyce

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors