Comments | mechtild: Update: Photobucket replied.

mechtild

Update: Photobucket replied.

Nov 06, 2006 14:12

Hi, Art Travesty fans!

I just thought I'd post the reply Photobucket Support sent me regarding the removed images (bold-face emphases mine):
( Read more... )

Comments 32

ms_banazira November 6 2006, 21:22:56 UTC

Quick somebody, we need a big padlock, a gigantic one. Because I was just at the Louvre and there was lots and lots of "nudity" there, some of it involving minors! Good Gravy, this is ridiculous!

mechtild November 7 2006, 05:18:18 UTC

It IS ridiculous, Honey. Imagine! No shots of the Sistine Ceiling (chock-full of nudes), no statues, no Adam and Eve paintings, nothing. And no little baby cherubs flying around ("child porn!").

aquila0212 November 6 2006, 21:29:38 UTC

How stupid! But I suppose it's easier for them to police "NO NUDITY" than to have to place judgements on which specific cases are OK or not. But really. This goes along with all the rest of the right-wing stupidity going on in this country these days. You might want to check out what is considered "indecent" before you spend a lot of time loading things on LJ. I know that people who had any sort of nudity in their default icons got them clipped.

mechtild November 7 2006, 05:21:16 UTC

You are surely right, Achila. They just made a blanket rule that they can pull out when someone lodges a complaint. I don't think their ripping down people's pictures of babies on bear skin rugs or putti flying around on Valentine's Day cards. Those are nudes, too.

I tried loading images in LJ's Scrapbook this afternoon. As Sam said, "I think I'm getting the hang of it." But the quality of the image matters, too. Nota said the image quality at flickr was very good.

I really am sorry this happened; I've been very happy with Photobucket's service and reliability - and it's so easy to use! Even a dunderhead like me could figure it out in two seconds.

bagma November 6 2006, 21:38:46 UTC

It's so ridiculous! *sighs*

You know, I have this little satyr

( ... )

mechtild November 7 2006, 05:23:50 UTC

Oooh, Bagma. Niiiice. Just look at that: the original G-spot stimulator. No wonder those satyrs were popular.

Well, perhaps you should come back and take this image down (after I've saved it). Who knows but the Sneak might be lurking again, ready to report you to the nude image police. I would hate to see someone else getting harrassed.

primula_baggins November 6 2006, 21:40:19 UTC

or (d) Photobucket deems otherwise objectionable.

Oh, that's just great! They get to decide what "objectionable" is.

*huffs*

mechtild November 7 2006, 05:25:52 UTC

Yes, it is rather *mysterious*, Primula. I was agreeing with Aquila above that they probably have a broad rule like that so they can enforce it easily when they get a complaint. They really have never gone out of their way to bother with my albums or images -- or most people's I think. I believe it's just when someone turns in a complaint that they act, assuming the images aren't grossly "indecent" (whatever that precisely is).

hobbitlove83 November 6 2006, 21:51:38 UTC

Good grief, this is pathetic!!

I just checked flickr.com, but as of now that is a Yahoo service,
and their TOS are equally vague. I just hope you'll be able to find a less narrow minded photohost, darling!

mechtild November 7 2006, 05:27:37 UTC

I hear flickr has good image quality, Hobbit Love, and more flexible. Really, except in one other instance, Photobucket has never taken my stuff down -- but I never expected them to be taking down real art, for heaven's sake. I suppose they have to respond when someone complains and the complaint is justified according to their TOS.