Blurb and Freedom of Art

I

ilia

Established
Local time
11:28 AM
Joined
Feb 25, 2008
Messages
69
[FONT=&quot]Blurb and Art Freedom[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yesterday, May 13 Blurb took away a photo book of Anastasya Chernyavskaya [/FONT]http://www.styush.com[FONT=&quot] from the site. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is wonderful book is about maternity, family and he views. This book about love, art and beauty. Yes this book has a lot of nude images picturing Nastya herself and her daughters. The book was on a Blurb site more than a month and Nastya did not get any complaints either about context or quality of the photographs. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Blurb’s subcontractor refused to print this book because of the nude children pictures. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This news and behavior of Blurb shocked me. Blurb as a publisher can and should have a policy which clear states what are they publishing and what not. Like any other publishing house they can refuse to publish some books base on the California or Federal laws or just because of their policies. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Apparently this book does not violate any laws or Blurb’s policies, what this book does it hurt feeling of the print shop workers. Hurting somebody’s feeling was enough to took it away from the site and stop sale in United States. Imagine that you or I is getting an agreement with some publishing house about printing a book and later the publisher telling you that this is impossible because print workers do not want to print it for some reason. This is Blurb’s responsibility to print it. If this particular print house does not want to print it Blurb should find another subcontractor. I do not understand why somebody dictates me and you what should we see on Blurb. Tomorrow another worker will say that some pictures of the protest and violence from anti government or pro government demonstration will hurt his/hers feelings or moral believes and that book will be taken away.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I do not know what action should be taken. I just feel that we all should do something; this is about our rights and about our freedom of art expression.[/FONT]
 
Sorry, but Blurb is a private company, as is their subcontractor, and they can choose what and what not to publish. The photos were not about a protest or a demonstration (and even if it were, a company is not compelled to publish) rather the photos that caused the company to refuse to publish were of nude children. The company in question obviously wanted to avoid lawsuits or prosecution for publishing this material. Totally within their rights, IMO.

I particularly disagree with your statement that it is Blurbs responsibility toprint it.
 
Last edited:
Agree, but Blurb choose to publish it, and according to Blurb it not because the Blurb does not want to publish it but because Blurb's subcontractor does not want to print it
 
If Blurb agreed to publish it is Blurb's responsibility, they could refuse to publish it and could not accept it without any explanation, but after accepting it, having it in the store, selling something around 30 copies taking it away with explanation about print workers sounds very strange for me
 
Terrific link. Many years ago, we used a printer for the University Paper, who refused to run an edition with a word in it that offended his printers.

You cannot look at this work and be offended.

Regards, John
 
ilia said:
Agree, but Blurb choose to publish it, and according to Blurb it not because the Blurb does not want to publish it but because Blurb's subcontractor does not want to print it
Click to expand...

Well, then BLURB should be able to locate a different subcontractor. But if they removed it from their site that shows that they probably did not feel too safe either ...

I did check out the web page of Anastasya Chernyavskaya and while I would probably not get a book from her (simply not my style), I was impressed by the amount of intimacy in her pictures. And, at least from the images on the webpage, I failed to see a problem. The only problem here is the one in our society I guess, but that is nothing new ...
 
ilia said:
Agree, but Blurb choose to publish it, and according to Blurb it not because the Blurb does not want to publish it but because Blurb's subcontractor does not want to print it
Click to expand...

Well, were I a subcontractor who thought I might have legal issues if I printed a copy, I wouldn't. (Keep in mind that some countries think photos of nude children are "pornograhy". Just because YOU don't agree doesn't absolve contractors in these countries from legal liability.)

However, if Blurb accepted payment, then they should find another subcontractor to print it.
 
Al Patterson said:
However, if Blurb accepted payment, then they should find another subcontractor to print it.
Click to expand...
Problem with BLURB that they are working on commission basis, they are getting there money when somebody order the book, so I can say that if they put the book on the site they are on some kind of contract, and now they are out because they took book away
 
r2d2 said:
Censoring of books is one of the most insidious methods of controlling the population.

Here in France, Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" is illegal and possession is a criminal charge with a prison term.

I AM NOT A FAN OF HITLER, but the book is a historical document and could and should be studied by students of history or sociology etc.

"They" are taking away our history and imposing a new sanitised version.
Click to expand...

It's basically a rambling, racist 1920's version of an angry Livejournal post, in book form.
 
If they accept it and it's not against the law or their own terms of use then they should find a subcontractor who does the job. It's that simple.
 
If Blurb cannot fulfil its contractual obligation/agreement to print copies of this book, it should certainly refund any money spent by the books author.

But I think the OP wants to make this a bigger issue by invoking the creative art censorship spectre. IMO, the printing subcontractor is simply trying to stay away from potential trouble by not accepting this job which includes pictures of nude children. This is easily understandable IMO.
 
Right. I am not saying that these images should never/not be published (I have not seen them) I'm just trying to explain why a printing subcontractor would choose not to get involved: simply to stay away from trouble, and not because they are trying to force their moralities onto others (which would be wrong.)
 
Western world is going to hell, what to say.

Here in Riga, Latvia ad for opera had picture of Pinoccio, as a nude boy with long nose. No genitilia were pictured in any form. Some freaks figured out this is children porn and made a big noise. In this moments I feel Western cilture is too rotten, obsessed with porn and seeing it everywhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom