nudity in the gallery

back alley said:
mods don't make the rules.
Click to expand...

I agree. The owner should be made aware that the rule in place is wrong and changes should be made. RFF is under the United States so U.S. law superceeds RFF rules in a U.S. court of law. Besides the rule of using a photo for critique as a learning tool would be a benefit to us all. Thats the point i'm getting at.
 
Sanders McNew said:
Well, if it violates RFF rules then that is that. But at least under US copyright
law (other nations' laws vary) the post is not a "piracy and theft" of Horst's
"intellectural property." The US copyright laws recognize a Fair Use Doctrine,
that permits reproduction of copyrighted works without license under certain
circumstances, usually where the reproduction is for educational or critical
purposes, has no commercial value, is not intended to replace the original,
and causes no economic damage to the original. (See 17 U.S.C. sec. 107.)

In this case, the poster reproduced Horst's photograph to make a point, not
to profit from the photograph. If anything, the post probably helps increase
the value of Horst's work by increasing awareness of it. I would expect a US
court to find the post covered by the doctrine. Other nations might reach
different conclusions.

Sanders
Click to expand...

Sanders:
Thanks, I was about to reply, but I wouldn't have replied as well as you did. Indeed, I reproduced Horst's photograph to make a point, not make profit. In the French law, this use is not condemned either.

Btw, Sanders, how did you make the nude you've posted in the other thread? I'm very curious about the modus operandi: did you climb up the tree? Where did you find such a magical tree? how did react the elves and dwarves around ? 🙂


Jenni:
The fact that we see the genitalia doesn't make a picture/painting pornographical. What does make it pornograpihical, is the context, the intent, the way they are showed ... etc. How do you rate Gustave Courbet's painting? Porn or art? The title is "L'origine du monde" (the origin of the world) and is considered as a chef-d'oeuvre of 19th French realism. (personally, I don't like it for aesthetic, but I don't think it's a pornographic painting either). See below the painting Warning: adult only. Do not enlarge the picture otherwise. I have no intention to provoke!
Pablito: if you mind, the picture is in the public domain.

Ian, Ray:
Very interesting points you've made. My opinion is swaying between your two interpretation. Well, what leads me to classifly the picture in the vulgar eroticism/porn category, is the PS post-processing. I think the choice of tools/effect is highly important. I would rather prefer a raw light, B&W picture or even colours à la Eggleston. Besides, the position of the right holding the pearl necklace was pretty vulgar; that detail was disturbing. Finally, I would prefer, not a formalist picture (I share your criticism Ian) but an ultra-formalist picture that signales a clear intention of the photographer to deconstruct the whole Orientalism thing ... well I didn't make the picture, and it's easy to speak.

It would be great if the photographer participated in this thread and discussed his picture. 509, if you hear me ...

Cheers,
Marc

PS: With all due respect, Joe, I don't understand why the painting by Courbet has been deleted. It is a very famous painting, there are books written on that painting, it is by no mean offensive ... it was only in the 19th, when first exhibited.
So people you have to google "courbet origine du monde" to see the painting.
 
Last edited:
If the no nudity rule is in place purely to make the gallery work-safe, why not have a separate gallery space for nudes so that people don't browse it by mistake, as Marc A suggested earlier?

The in-principle banning of photographs containing genitalia just seems wrong to me. If such photographs can't be posted on a photography forum which is mainly inhabited by adults with a genuine interest in photography rather than solely a prurient interest, then something is amiss.

Ian
 
i second having a nsfw gallery space. this isn't so much about how good a photo is, but not getting in trouble at work and keeping it away from people who don't want to or shouldn't look at it.
 
back alley said:
mods don't make the rules.
Click to expand...

No, but this is constantly overseen by some folks here. At least in THIS case it does not make sense to blame the mods for any sort of censorship , just because they did what the rules say. There was no choice.

First if the rules would get more liberal at this point there would be room for censorship like decisions because then it is all depending on the mods personal understanding of "decent" or "still acceptable".

Considering how widespread the limits are in the personal understanding of "decent" , and how thoughtless some members keep their own understanding as "common" :bang: we woud have a situation best described as a "hells kitchen". A programmed moral war.

If there is a way out then the rules themselves are the key to make it better.
There are ARE reasonable definitions of where art ends and porn begins, why not use them ??!

bertram
 
Marc-A. said:
Ian, Ray:
Very interesting points you've made. My opinion is swaying between your two interpretation. Well, what leads me to classifly the picture in the vulgar eroticism/porn category, is the PS post-processing. I think the choice of tools/effect is highly important. I would rather prefer a raw light, B&W picture or even colours à la Eggleston. Besides, the position of the right holding the pearl necklace was pretty vulgar; that detail was disturbing. Finally, I would prefer, not a formalist picture (I share your criticism Ian) but an ultra-formalist picture that signales a clear intention of the photographer to deconstruct the whole Orientalism thing ... well I didn't make the picture, and it's easy to speak.

It would be great if the photographer participated in this thread and discussed his picture. 509, if you hear me ...

Cheers,
Marc
Click to expand...

That's a great point, Marc. Interesting how images can hang on the slightest detail, a simple gesture or the addition of a prop are all significant here, and again within the control of the photographer (an obvious conscious decision). I don't think the prop or the gesture necessarily make this image porn. Pornography has its code, and borrowing from it to doesn't make it porn, unless one goes too far and borrows too much from it, and this photo borrowed quite a bit from it, but for me it doesn't quite cross the line. Obviously it's near enough to incite strong reactions, but again was that the intent of the photographer? I don't know the answer (the poster could be Larry Flynt for all we know!!), but that's what makes this whole process so interesting.

🙂
 
Bertram2 said:
Considering what we are discussing here this is a really silly question , the comparison misses the point completely..... that is the attempt of making opinion... 🙄 You do not really contribute to the discussion of the controverse , you just try to provoke any sort of attention and applause... as so often.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm....
May be you should change your sig.

Kiu
 
rxmd said:
But of course they do, by making decisions every day where the rules get enforced and where they don't.

It's like saying "courts don't make the law", when in reality legal practice is determined by the courts more than by anyone else.


Yes.

Philipp
Click to expand...

we don't make the rules.
yes, we interpret and enforce them.

so i would be more like a judge than a legislator.
 
Marc-A. said:
PS: With all due respect, Joe, I don't understand why the painting by Courbet has been deleted. It is a very famous painting, there are books written on that painting, it is by no means offensive ... it was only in the 19th, when first exhibited.
For those who want to see the painting, please google "courbet origine du monde".



That's excessive Jenni. We didn't see the same book then.



Why with an erection? I don't get it.

Best,

Marc
Click to expand...

it was deleted for the same reason that the photo in the gallery was deleted.
it was full frontal nudity and very graphic.
 
as to section in the gallery, that would be stephen's call and his decision alone.
perhaps contact him directly.

but i'm not sure how it would work as eventually most of the photos would hit the random gallery section. perhaps a passworded section...
 
back alley said:
we don't make the rules.
yes, we interpret and enforce them.

so i would be more like a judge than a legislator.
Click to expand...
I guess we can agree on that, even if we probably have different ideas about what that means in practice.

Philipp
 
I had my say at length "on the day" and earlier in this thread, so I mercifully have nothing to add, but I would like to touch on two points Marc raises.

Firstly, the silence of the photographer. As Ray says, the lack of comment makes this interesting, but it also suggests that the picture was a teaser for his website. If so, It's a piece of cynicism which I object to far more than any content. 509, speak to us!

Secondly, I am incredulous that a painting any child can see in the Wikipedia or the musée d’Orsay is unfit for our tender eyes. Such things make you realise how different Europe and America are.

Vive la difference 🙂

Cheers, Ian
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MP Guy
New feature in gallery
Replies
7
Views
1K
Out to Lunch
O
robert blu
Gallery Picks from the week ending March 27
Replies
7
Views
1K
dotur
dotur
robert blu
Gallery Picks from the week ending March 20
Replies
19
Views
2K
dotur
dotur
robert blu
Gallery Picks from the week ending April 03, 2023
Replies
5
Views
1K
robert blu
robert blu
J
  • Article Article
Buying on eBay: A Savvy Guide to the World’s Top Online Auction Site
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
WoodallP
WoodallP
Back
Top Bottom