Quote from: marthamarks on December 31, 2017, 00:35

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).

Quote from: Noedelhap on December 31, 2017, 07:55

    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.

Quote from: sgoodwin4813 on December 31, 2017, 08:14

Quote from: marthamarks on December 31, 2017, 00:35

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).

Quote from: Noedelhap on December 31, 2017, 07:55

    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.

Quote from: Dumc on December 30, 2017, 23:56

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.

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.  )

Idiots. PETA and SS

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.

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?

Quote from: Pauws99 on December 31, 2017, 10:51

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.