pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Same rules for everybody ?  (Read 3564 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 29, 2008, 05:27 »
0
I have found an intersting post about nudity rules at StockXpert forum. It seems that some submiters can upload what others cannot. I have just checked Iofoto's portfolio and nudes images are still there (2 months later).
http://stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=7711
http://stockxpert.com/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=10072


« Reply #1 on: January 29, 2008, 08:58 »
0
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.

« Reply #2 on: January 29, 2008, 09:36 »
0
Thanks, Rene. I've forwarded this to the head of our review team to take action on.

Don't worry. You don't have to be careful what you say in any forum about StockXpert. In part we rely on you guys for your perspective and observations, and we are nothing but appreciative. I think by now we've proven this to you.

-Steve

« Reply #3 on: January 29, 2008, 10:31 »
0
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.

« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2008, 10:58 »
0
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 am sorry for that.  It was not my matter. And I have absolutely nothing against iofoto. I am only against this anti nudity policy at StockXpert - I find it ridiculous. I do not like the way (completely random) how StockXpert approve the photographs.

« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2008, 11:15 »
0
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

« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2008, 11:28 »
0
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.

I must agree with Achilles on this one...

« Reply #7 on: January 29, 2008, 12:10 »
0
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.

I must agree with Achilles on this one...

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.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
10 Replies
5721 Views
Last post July 17, 2006, 16:31
by madelaide
6 Replies
2988 Views
Last post February 21, 2008, 03:08
by Peter
1 Replies
1758 Views
Last post April 10, 2008, 11:17
by leaf
28 Replies
7486 Views
Last post January 25, 2009, 17:56
by madelaide
21 Replies
6027 Views
Last post March 30, 2009, 21:55
by DanP68

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results