PDA

View Full Version : Censoring the Forum Gallery??



Herman_Robert
04-17-2007, 06:14 PM
I just got an email from some administrator of the gallery..stating that one of my images had been deleted. This particular image had been in the gallery since the inception of the "ourppa.com community.. The "possible" reasons for deletion given were, "partial or incomplete upload", "broken image" or " image not in keeping with PPA standards"... This image was hardly offensive, and was viewing fine since it was uploaded.. If PPA is going to become censors, at least have the courage to state specifically why an image that has been on the site for a long time is removed, and not just give 3 possible reasons... I surely hope this isn't some grand plan of PPA .. to play censors..

HR

Mark_Turner
04-17-2007, 07:26 PM
Well, wouldn't contacting an admin to find out have been more productive than a post? Find out the reason, and then gripe if need be.

D._Craig_Flory
04-17-2007, 07:47 PM
Hi Herman;

Besides the suggestion that Mark made, I have another. Look to see who the moderators of the Forum section are. Send them a PM telling them what they think happened and ask if you can send the image to see if they can tell you why it was deleted.

Considering that it seems to take 3 weeks, for an image to be approved, it could take that long to get an answer that way. So I think my idea may be quicker.

It is surprising that an image had been approved and appeared in the gallery all of this time only to now be pulled. I agree that a definitive reason should have been given. If it was fine, when approved, I can't see that standards changed.

Gregory_Aide
04-17-2007, 08:14 PM
We actually did two things with the Galleries today.

We removed images that had fully exposed breasts or genitalia. The forum committee decided at their fall 2006 meeting to not allow posting of these types of images on the gallery. More discreet nudes and boudoir type shots are still allowed. We went through today and removed some of the older ones that had been approved prior to the meeting.

We also ran a gallery utility that checks for broken links, corrupted or missing images or thumbnails, and other bad stuff in the data base and removes them.
The forum sends out an automated message when the images are removed. That is why the text is so generic.

Also, as an fyi, i am going to move this to the forum FAQ section for future reference.

Linda_Gregory
04-17-2007, 09:13 PM
Greg,

Is there a place that lists the new decisions made? I know this isn't the only one and it would be helpful to us to know what they were. Yes, it may bring up dialog on some of the issues that have already been decided but I believe it would still be a healthy way to handle changes.

Mark_Levesque
04-17-2007, 09:51 PM
It's fine that this action was taken, but it was a mistake to take it without announcing the change ahead of time. All it takes is a simple post letting people know what the new rules are, and then do the action. Even if it is announced concurrently with the action, that's still preferable to doing it being the scenes, unannounced. It adds an air of legitimacy, rather than a surreptitious feel to things. Transparency matters.

Herman_Robert
04-19-2007, 04:08 AM
Hi Herman;
It is surprising that an image had been approved and appeared in the gallery all of this time only to now be pulled. I agree that a definitive reason should have been given. If it was fine, when approved, I can't see that standards changed.

Craig,

It appears as though the standards have changed and makes one wonder what direction this is going.. I got emails from 2 members suggesting I email my concern privately instead of doing a public post, so as to avoid "flame wars"?? Quite the contrary, I felt this to be an issue everyone should be aware of..

Prior to this forum, it was very difficult for members to really voice their opinion(s).. so I was elated when this forum was born.. The benefit(s) of this forum are many.... but the most important is that it is a platform for any and all members to express opinions, share educational information so that we may all grow from reading the posts... The successful threads are those where the posters remain subjective and factual while the "flame wars" ignite when emotions and egos flare up.. When a thread gets to this point, it becomes boring to me, and usually burns itself out eventually.. Despite all this, the forum should be open to all members and those members should decide what they'd like to read and not read..

Which brings me to the original, but related issue... censoring the photo gallery.. We are a professional organization that function in a creative environment... Most of us are quite proud of the images we submit to this gallery for all members to see and/or comment on if desired. This is not a print competition where specific criteria are used to decide if a print is worthy of the PPA standards necessary to hang a print... it is simply an easy way to share images and learn from images submitted by others.. So to suddenly be announced that henceforth, all images showing breasts and/or genitalia will no longer be allowed is screaming censorship!! This is a disappointing development for those of us who may enjoy creating images other than puppies, babies and sunsets.. and I can't help but wonder where this is leading..

It was mentioned that this may have been done, in part because it's a public forum that can be viewed by anyone. If this is the case there can be disclaimers or at least have some or all of the gallery moved to the members only section..

I hope others share my concern and I'd love to see your opinions here so that all members can try to understand this logic.

HR

Linda_Gregory
04-19-2007, 02:06 PM
I belong to several photography forums such as this and the issue of nudity eventually comes up. It is just my opinion, but the best method I've experienced--and yes, it takes more involvement from management--is the private thread. This is one that members must request entry to, fully knowing there may be nudity offensive to some, and/or violence (photojournalism does experience this) that the general public may not wish to view unaware.

Is this an option for us?

Again, I know the management of such a forum is not easy, but it is OURppa, are there ways in place for us to help define how the list is managed? Is our only input to be our vote of President of PPA?

Gregory_Aide
04-19-2007, 02:06 PM
It was mentioned that this may have been done, in part because it's a public forum that can be viewed by anyone. If this is the case there can be disclaimers or at least have some or all of the gallery moved to the members only section..

Herman,

I think that you have an interesting point about having a section of the gallery for members only. I have passed this idea along to Greg.

KirkDarling
04-20-2007, 01:29 AM
Actually, 18 USC 2257 and 18 USC 2256 provide a reason to stay far, far away from it at all.

Herman_Robert
04-20-2007, 06:25 AM
Again, I know the management of such a forum is not easy, but it is OURppa, are there ways in place for us to help define how the list is managed? Is our only input to be our vote of President of PPA?

Linda,

Excellent point....at the outset of this forum, there was this great option with posting on the forum. You may remember it was a poll, where a member could post a "poll" question, where responding members input their answers and the stats were tracked and appeared in graph form... It was really cool...but, hmmm.. for some unexplained reason this function disappeared.. It was a great way to get quick opinions...

But to your point.. yeah, it would be great if this association of members were more of a democracy and could vote on specific issues along the way. As you say, "we get to vote for PPA president", et al.... where I usually don't know enough about anyone to cast a confident vote, but don't get a voice on decisions about print competition rules, gallery posting guidelines, etc...

Let's keep on hoping for more voice from "the people"!

HR

Gregory_Aide
04-20-2007, 12:51 PM
Actually, 18 USC 2257 and 18 USC 2256 provide a reason to stay far, far away from it at all.

Yes, after having a meeting with the committee we discovered that there is a federal law concerning having pictures of fully exposed breast and/or gentilia. The two laws above go into more detail about it.

Gregory_Aide
04-20-2007, 01:03 PM
But to your point.. yeah, it would be great if this association of members were more of a democracy and could vote on specific issues along the way. As you say, "we get to vote for PPA president", et al.... where I usually don't know enough about anyone to cast a confident vote, but don't get a voice on decisions about print competition rules, gallery posting guidelines, etc...

Let's keep on hoping for more voice from "the people"!

Herman,

I believe that I can answer this one for you. The reason that we don't have more of a "democracy" is because we have a little over 7,500 members on this forum. If we were to run a democracy where everybody was able to vote on any decisions made about this forum then we would never accomplish anything. Everybody has their own agenda, and having 7,500 opinions it is assumed that not everybody would have the same views on every subject.

Example: Congress is relatively split 50% democrat and 50% republican, look how many things get passed successfully there...

Democracy is great for a country to follow, but not for a forum.

If however, anybody does have any ideas as to what could make this forum better then please feel free to share your thoughts with a committee member, they would be more than happy to then discuss the matter with the rest of the committee on your behalf.

Gregory_Aide
04-20-2007, 01:46 PM
A lot of the concerns with showing nudity on the site are summarized here:
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/primer.html

Without proper record keeping, I could be personally liable for felony charges with both monetary fines and 5 years in prison. Additionally, if one of the images turns out to have been a minor, I believe I could face up to 15 years.

There was Absolutely no talk of "censoring" images in the galleries. It is a business concern first and foremost. In retrospect, I realize I should have posted information about this before we removed those images. So, please accept my apologies for the confusion.

We will include some info in the next forum newsletter, and the committee is looking at updating some of the rules of the forum so this issue will be more clear to new users as well.

Mark_Levesque
04-20-2007, 02:24 PM
Without proper record keeping, I could be personally liable for felony charges with both monetary fines and 5 years in prison. Additionally, if one of the images turns out to have been a minor, I believe I could face up to 15 years.
I don't understand that interpretation. You are not producing the materials; furthermore, they are not depicting "actual, sexually explicit conduct." Note that "mere nudity or simulated sex" are not covered by the act. Obviously this is not an adult site, as in "adult entertainment", and accordingly we don't have ANY depictions of actual, sexually expicit conduct. (Not even simulated!)

This decision appears to be based on fear and ignorance, and seems an overreaction. The government does not need to censor in fact so long as it intimidates people into self-censorship. Certainly it's "safer" in the short term to engage in wholesale deletion of perfectly lawful, artistic images. "Now we can't even be accused!" But if everybody cows so willingly to absurd extrapolations, then the censorship becomes de facto, even if no de juro. Sometimes, standing up and saying "this is BS; we are doing nothing wrong" is not only the brave thing to do, it's the right thing to do.

Gregory_Aide
04-20-2007, 04:38 PM
If you wish to display your nudes on your own website, then you are free to intrepret the laws and take the precautions that you see fit.

Personally, I have no problems with nude photography. I have shot nudes, and I have volumes with the nudes of Edward Weston, George Platt-lynes, Andre KKertesz, and Duane Michals on my bookshelf.

Without having all the documentation I have absolutely no way of knowing if a model on the site is 15-16 or 18 years old. In order to protect myself and ppa, it is recommended that we have proper records on file. And with minors the image doesn't have to involve erotic acts.

With adults I believe that if the pose "suggests" erotic acts, then it also must have proper paper work on file.

Ours is just one of many sites that have moved in this direction. I know of another magazine that pulled all of their artist galleries off of their website, because there was some nude content, and they didn't want to have to deal with the record keeping.

here is some additional cautionary information from the summary article I mentioned earlier.

"Because the penalty for knowing publication of child pornography starts at fifteen years imprisonment on the first offense, and because even the successful defense of such a charge is likely to have absolutely catastrophic effects on any producer or webmaster, legal, economic, and emotional, the webmaster should firmly, aggressively, and resolutely take every possible step to ensure that his site does not depict persons under the age of eighteen in any manner that is arguably suggestive or erotic. Harvesting that information in every case of erotic imagery protects the content provider from taking and distributing erotic, nude images of minors, which, even without sexual activity, is among the most seriously viewed crimes. Insisting on those records from the provider keeps the webmaster reasonably far from the same harm: The maximum penalty for distribution is the same as that for creation. The five-year Section 2257 offense acts as an outer perimeter to keep the sincere and law-abiding adult content provider and webmaster far away from the more dangerous fifteen-year child pornography offense under Section 2252A."

Gregory_Aide
04-20-2007, 04:47 PM
I don't understand that interpretation. You are not producing the materials; furthermore, they are not depicting "actual, sexually explicit conduct." Note that "mere nudity or simulated sex" are not covered by the act. Obviously this is not an adult site, as in "adult entertainment", and accordingly we don't have ANY depictions of actual, sexually expicit conduct. (Not even simulated!)

Mark,

First of all "sexually explicit content" is, as is defined by article 2256, shown in our gallery. They define it as:


(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;


(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person.

As for us not actually "producing" the images, you are correct because distributing the images is not seen as breaking the law.

Article (2257) Paragraph (h) section (3)

the term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted

In that matter then yes you are correct that we are not directly liable for the distribution. However, do you think that it is appropriate that we not take these actions and let the law come down on the photographers who posted the nude images in the first place? There are some gray areas of this and we did our own research to determine if we were actually at risk. It is one of our main concerns as PPA to protect you, the photographers, from all legal issues. We have decided to take the action of removing these images to prevent a legal issue from arising, NOT to censor the photographers images.

If you want feedback on your nudes then post them on your own website and refer the forum members to them. Just keep in mind of all the legal matters that are involved in posting those kinds of images.

David_A._Lottes
04-20-2007, 05:25 PM
please accept my apologies for the confusion.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

Apology accepted Greg. And while I'm at it I'd like to thank you and Matt for your other overlooked contribution to the management of the gallery. For those of you who don't know the images posted to the gallery must be approved after you upload them. In the past this process was slow. With the addition of Matt to the administrative team the approval time has been greatly increased. I see that an image uploaded yesterday at 9:37 a.m. was in the gallery by the end of the day yesterday! I hope all of you will take time to explore the galleries and learn to navigate them. I think they are the single most overlooked and possibly powerful tool for an individuals further education on this forum. None of us has really spent enough time there to realize it's potential. The more images posted there the slower the approval time will be but thanks to Matt and Greg it should never be as slow as it was in the past. Please take a look around and share any shortcuts, tips and tricks you learn for using the gallery. It's a very underutilized resource, mostly because few of us have explored it's potential. Also I'd like to suggest that if you post an image in a thread for quick consumption it would be helpful to also post that same image in the gallery for future reference. Finding them there is much simpler than trying to remember when and in what thread they were posted here. Thanks:)

Mark_Levesque
04-20-2007, 06:41 PM
First of all "sexually explicit content" is, as is defined by article 2256, shown in our gallery. They define it as:

(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person.

I believe you are misinterpreting the statute in both cases cited above. The first requires "lascivious" exhibition, which means the intent of the display is to provoke sexual arousal, especially of an obscene nature. The photographs in question having already been deleted, one can't point to any in particular and say this is demonstrating such a thing, but I can say that I've not viewed anything remotely so in the galleries. As this is a matter of judgment or interpretation, I suppose we can agree to disagree. But in the matter of the second, your misunderstanding seems plain. "When used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct" is the independent clause, upon which graphic is being defined. This is plain english that means that graphic means you can see all or part of the genitals of a person engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct. The mere display of genitals is insufficient. The subject must be engaged in sexually explicit behavior. Again, I never saw any depictions of actual (or even simulated) sex acts in the gallery, and remain skeptical that any such images were ever approved for posting. Indeed, I'd be shocked if any were even submitted.

This is all academic, of course, as this is a fait accompli. Nevertheless, it is worthwhile to discuss the subject, even belatedly.

Gregory_Aide
04-20-2007, 07:04 PM
I understand where you are coming from with all this. I don't really know much about laws, all I know is what I take from reading it. I don't see in section 10 where it says anything about the genitalia being involved in some kind of action.

What I get from it is:
When we are using the word "graphic" as a description of the sexually explicit content, means that any part of the genitals can be seen.

Again, I am agreeing to disagree with you on this topic because I don't want it to evolve into an argument. I believe that enough has been said about this situation and from now on it has been made clear that photos that show partial breasts or buttocks is allowed, however full on breast and/or pubic area will not be approved if submitted to the gallery.

KirkDarling
04-20-2007, 07:29 PM
Actually, a couple of cases and interpretations/summaries I found indicated that a website may very well be considered "publishing, duplication, reproduction, and reissuing."

Moreover, the non-prohibition of "mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted" is interpreted to be a protection for the non-decisionmaking support crew (stage hands, gaffers, grips, messengers, mail room attendants), not those who make the editorial decisions of the material that finds its way into publication.

If the OurPPA.com were a revenue-producing device (like a men's magazine), then it might be worth the financial cost of gaining and maintaining model documentation and it might be worth the financial risk of legal defense if the Alabama or Georgia courts decided to go after the PPA (those are the states where website servers reside and where editorial judgments for the site are made, respectively...notice that those are quite conservative states).

If the PPA were the ACLU and thus had the primary mission of expanding the boundaries of freedom of speech, then daring Georgia and Alabama courts would fall into the mission of the organization.

But OurPPA.com is not revenue-producing, nor does the PPA have the primary mission of pushing the boundaries of freedom of speech. Having a vital interest in the protection of freedom of speech is not the same thing as having the mission of expanding the boundaries of freedom of speech--it's like the difference between a state militia and the Marine Corps.

PPA is certainly not obligated to bear that risk and cost for individual photographers who do intend to expand the boundaries of freedom of speech, especially given that those photographers have more ability to self-publish today (via the web) than in any time in the past.

PPA already annoys federal and state governments by combatting them on issues like copyright modifications and health insurance. PPA is already on their "we don't like these people much" lists...why create unnecessary vulnerability on an issue that is not of substantial benefit to the vast majority of PPA members?

Being a publication venue for frontal nudity is of too minimal benefit to the vast majority of the OurPPA.com audience to take on the cost and risk. It just isn't worth it.




As for us not actually "producing" the images, you are correct because distributing the images is not seen as breaking the law.

Article (2257) Paragraph (h) section (3)

the term “produces” means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer generated image, digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depictedIn that matter then yes you are correct that we are not directly liable for the distribution.

D._Craig_Flory
04-20-2007, 07:48 PM
In our state photography competitions, in the rules it says to keep in mind that the general public may see the images and to keep that in mind.

The same goes for the gallery section... the general public has access. There are plenty of knowledgable photographers on the Forum. If someone has a romantic image they would like to get an opinion on they can PM and ask to send the image(s) to them.

Gregory_Aide
04-20-2007, 07:53 PM
Thanks Kirk, that was very well put. Again, I'm not the greatest at interpreting the law. :o

Ron_Jackson
04-20-2007, 09:47 PM
I for one completely understand the decisions made by the PPA on this matter and agree that it is in the best interest of the association and all who work for the PPA.

There is absolutely no reason in these days and times to take business risks when they can be simple avoided. If one wants to post questionable art on their own website, then fine, they can bear that responsibility. This is not censorship but a very solid and sound business decision based on Federal laws.

Charles_Rollins
05-01-2007, 12:50 AM
Herman,

I think that you have an interesting point about having a section of the gallery for members only. I have passed this idea along to Greg.

More segragration? More alienation but putting that as a members only also? I like the other idea, make it by request only...if someone wants to view that material then let them request it. I myself find such images offensive but I don't think it should be a ppa member thing only because there are many legit pros that are not ppa members and they should not be restricted because they choose not to pay that membership fee if they want to view the material.

Gregory_Aide
05-01-2007, 12:17 PM
We have gone over this, we have determined that there will be no images like these allowed. As of right now we will not be making a member's only section of the gallery.

Linda_Gregory
05-01-2007, 12:34 PM
A

We will include some info in the next forum newsletter, and the committee is looking at updating some of the rules of the forum so this issue will be more clear to new users as well.
[/COLOR][/COLOR]

I'm not sure I've ever received a forum newsletter, are they sent by email, are we to sign up for them or do they automatically get sent to members or are they posted somewhere on the site? How often are they published, on a timed basis or just when something worth noting comes up?

Thank you in advance for the explanation.

Jack_Reznicki
05-01-2007, 02:52 PM
but I don't think it should be a ppa member thing only because there are many legit pros that are not ppa members and they should not be restricted because they choose not to pay that membership fee if they want to view the material.

LOL.
Hope you don't take this the wrong way Charles, but let me understand that sentence a bit. Photographers who don't want to be PPA members but still want and expect to recieve some kind of benefits?
I don't want to sound snippy, but the last time I went to the Country Club I wasn't paying dues at, they seemed to have no trouble telling me I couldn't play on their course or swim in their pool. The nerve of them. :eek:

As Matt explained, we're simply doing the same policy for all here, no special section, but saying we shouldn't have a restriction against non-members who don't pay PPA membership dues is, well, what we call here in NY, chutzpah.

Best laugh I've had today.

And what we do already for "non-members" is this here Forum, lobbying in Washington, and many other things. It just amazes me at what people expect us to do for them with no support.
And you're not the only one Charles. Not by a long shot. I had someone recently at a regional banquet upset with PPA because we wouldn't help him with his specific problem, just because he wasn't a member. Chutzpah. He backed down when others at our table agreed with me, that as a non-member, there was no expectation of help.

Stan_Lawrence
05-01-2007, 05:59 PM
I kinda agree with Jack.....as a nonmember, I appreciate the use of the forum, I sure as heck don't expect any benefits for my non membership. C'mon, Charles, we don't need no stinkin gallery....;)

Jay_Kilgore
05-01-2007, 07:33 PM
Yes, after having a meeting with the committee we discovered that there is a federal law concerning having pictures of fully exposed breast and/or gentilia. The two laws above go into more detail about it.

2256 and 2257 also applies to inplied nudes as well.

If you want to stay fully compliant, you should remove those as well.

Charles_Rollins
05-02-2007, 02:51 AM
I don't look at those kinds of images anyway but I'm not expecting any benefits. You don't have to be a ppa member to be a pro. If Tiger Woods went to a country club he was not a member I bet he would still get the benefits of it just because he is a pro. Any member of this forum should have the right to request to view certain galleries and then Jack or someone else can give them the ok or not ok vote. Segragation is not good for anything whether it be race or photography.
As I said before, you don't have to be a ppa member to be a pro.

Gregory_Aide
05-02-2007, 12:24 PM
That's all fine and dandy, but I think you're missing the point that we're not going to segregate the gallery... I'm sure everybody knows that not all professional photographers are ppa members, and we're not implying that they're not professional if they aren't a member.

Linda_Gregory
05-02-2007, 12:31 PM
Charles,

You miss the point that in order for this list to be here, SOMEONE must pay the bill.

PPA members do. Non members do not. They still get the same benefits and SHOULD feel lucky that they don't have to pay.

Derek_Alvarez
05-02-2007, 12:36 PM
Segregation is not good for anything whether it be race or photography.
As I said before, you don't have to be a ppa member to be a pro.



Charles,

Surely you do not believe Segregation and Membership are the same thing?


As for being a PRO , my friend Stan is not PPA but he could very well be the poster boy for professionalism in photography.

Charles_Rollins
05-02-2007, 12:38 PM
Ok, that is what I gathered from the post.

Howard_Kier
05-02-2007, 02:12 PM
Thou shall not eat the young with it's mother's milk. Out of this one sentence (paraphrased) comes a complete way of life for some Jewish people and much debate over "dairy" vs "meat" So while it might be technically kosher to have milk and meat together, there is no way to make sure you are not accidentally consuming one drop of "a mother's milk" To make sure this never happens, orthodox Jewish people will not eat meat and dairy products at the same meal. For you see, if you don't ever eat meat and milk together, you'll never even accidentally cross the line of eating a young with it's mother's milk.

In this case, the powers that be, have decided to make sure we do not cross the line by setting a boundry that is a little further back. For if this line is accidentally crossed, there is a buffer that will protect us from accidentally crossing the real boundary.

Now I agree that censorship has its place. I censor what my kids see on TV. I also believe an adult should be able to view what they want. What is right for me may not be right for you. But in PPA's case, we are a community. As such we need to conform to community standards.

There are a great many battles for PPA to fight for us. Copyright protection and Health insurance are two big ones. Yes the censorship is another issue which may need to be fought at a later date. But today, it is not a top priority. I'd rather have PPA working on the issues which impact 100% of the photographer community rather than one which impacts 10% (just an example). As Spock would say "The needs of the many out weigh the needs of a few or even one"

Charles_Rollins
05-02-2007, 07:11 PM
Now that I can agree with..another good way is to do what they are doing now..review the work before it is posted and if there is any nudity in it that do not conform to their standards, delete it and email the poster about it..

BTW, that is old testament teaching in the bible and has nothing to do with New Testament living which is where we are now..

Jay_Kilgore
05-07-2007, 10:11 PM
So is the Decalogue, but it's still being followed today and no one's saying anything.

Mike_Dickson
05-18-2007, 02:59 PM
I am coming to this discussion late, and I can see all sides of the debate (except for the silly religious stuff that snuck in at the end). I will only make one more observation.

By grouping artistic nude photography with porn (the control of which is the intent of the quoted laws, as Mark pointed out), we are de-legitimizing that art form in the eyes of other photographers and the general public.

Just more food for thought.

...Mike

Gregory_Aide
05-18-2007, 07:16 PM
By grouping artistic nude photography with porn (the control of which is the intent of the quoted laws, as Mark pointed out), we are de-legitimizing that art form in the eyes of other photographers and the general public.

As far as I'm concerned this really has nothing to do with how PPA feels about nude artistic photography. They are not the ones that group nude photography with pornography, that is strictly the law makers decision, and a poor one at that.

Derek_Alvarez
05-18-2007, 08:31 PM
Here's a better Thought

How many of you where born with clothes on?


It's just plain natural:D

Now where's my Bombay sapphire martini.



Oh these are the same moronic law makers that put Explicit Lyrics Label on music
And increased sales for those albums 3000% now I don't have to guess when buying.

Doh!

KirkDarling
05-18-2007, 09:34 PM
Yes the censorship is another issue which may need to be fought at a later date. But today, it is not a top priority.

It has been said, very wisely, that one should "pick your battles wisely."

"Picking your battles" really amounts to "picking your battlefield." That is, whenever possible you attack your enemy at a time of your choosing and a place of your choosing, when and where you are strong and the enemy is weak.

The censorship battle is one of those PPA fights, but OurPPA isn't the battlefield where the PPA is strongest or where the enemy is weakest. It's the wrong place to give the enemy the bird.

MichaelImus
05-18-2007, 10:53 PM
I dont feel that any of this has to with whether we are ppa members or not, or whether nudity is an artform or not.

The truth is when we signed up to be on this forum, we agreed to the terms and conditions (you know the one nobody reads). If the forum decides to delete any post with a reference to bacon, well that is the way the forum is run. As long as this site is free for us, (which I am sure is NOT free for the admistrators) then it is what it is.

Sorry Mike dont agree with your that the "religious stuff" is silly.