Artistic nudes are banned in smugmug

[fotosmontt]

Hi:
I am smugmug client and I have a site, http://fotosmontt.com, where perhaps less than 2% of my pictures (that are almost 5.000) contain some degree of nudes; concretely, artistic nudes
In spite of the fact that when hiring the service, and until today's day, I have not still seen the rule that prohibits the artistic nude, I have received from an administrator of such a company kind invitations to shut down those nudes (if not, my account will be closed).
The messages that I have exchanged with an administrator appear below.
What do you think about it? I suggest you to visit my place and to verify the facts.
---------------------
FIRST MESSAGE FROM SMUGMUG
Hi Mario,

I am sorry but it has been brought to our attention that some of your images are not in compliance with our Family Friendly viewing policy:

Under our Terms of Use:

NUDITY
smugmug must remain a safe site for families with children, so we prohibit the uploading and display of photographs or other Media portraying explicit nudity that would be unacceptable in a public museum where minors visit, for example. If your photos would only be suited for adult sites, adult magazines, or R-rated movies, they are not suitable for smugmug. Judgement of suitable Media is the sole discretion of smugmug, and smugmug reserves the right to delete any photographs or other Media it deems to violate this policy and/or to cancel the account of any subscriber who posts photos or other Media violating this policy.


I don't want to cancel your account without giving you a chance to download your images or order a CD/DVD to save them. But if you do not want to have your account canceled immediately you need to remove those images completely and reassure us that you will never upload anything that is not family safe again. If you do not want to remove them and reassure us of your compliance in the future we will need to cancel your account a week from now. Please password protect them immediately or we will have to delete the galleries completely.


Here is the location in question:
http://fotosmontt.smugmug.com/Retratos/43385

All the best,
Toni

MY ANSWER:
Hi>
I am in holidays and i am not in my town , so i read my mails every 3
days. In the url you told me, a sub category, there are many galleries
of simple portraits without any nudity at all. I think you are talking
about this special gallery
http://fotosmontt.smugmug.com/gallery/239856
Meanwhile i-ll put a password to this gallery.
If do you think there are other obscenes IMAGES , please tell me
exactly which are to remove, move or delete.
2. I read your policies before i open the account and i didnt find the
paragraph you are showing me now.
In fact, before i open the account i search into your clients accounts
and found many nude portraits.\
3./ My site is not phornography. Personaly I think that it is possible
the nudity in the art and at least for me not every nudity is obscene
4./ Please be patient with my situation because like i told you i am
in summer holidays and ill return to my home feb 13.
Bye
SECOND MESSAGE:

Hi Mario,
I am sorry but many of those galleries have images that are not Family
Safe.
Your images are beautiful but we have to be very conservative about
this so we don't offend anyone.
We are certainly not saying they are pornographic. We are just saying
that they are not photos that everyone feels comfortable viewing. So
here are some basic guidelines:
no frontal nudity (for women that means no bare breasts and no
genitalia showing) (for men, no genitalia showing)
no poses that might be considered obscene or provocative
We sometimes have to make decisions on ones that are not so obvious but
many of yours show women's bare breasts and many of our visitors do not
feel those are appropriate for their children to see.


So please remove any photos to do not meet those general requirements
and think about what small children maybe should not be viewing. Or
even think about what a teenage boy might wish he could see but
shouldn't!

All the best,

Toni
THIRD MESSAGE:
Hi Mario,

Unfortunately, there seem to be more of your galleries that have unacceptable photos.
Please check through all of your galleries immediately and remove any that have bare breasts or otherwise might not be family safe.
If you are not sure about whether they might be family safe or not, they probably are not.
For instance, this gallery has some that are not acceptable:
http://fotosmontt.smugmug.com/gallery/261011/2/10482940

I have passworded that gallery and if necessary, we will password as many of your galleries as needed until they are family safe.
If you do not feel like you wish to remove those images, then we will be forced to cancel your account.

All the best,
Toni

MY ANSWER:
On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 14:45:37 -0800, Toni MacAskill <toni@smugmug.com> wrote:
> Hi Mario,
Hi
>
> I am sorry but many of those galleries have images that are not Family
> Safe.

Where in your site do you explain what Family safe means?


>
> Your images are beautiful but we have to be very conservative about this so
> we don't offend anyone.

Very Conservative you say. Why? because you are american? I
understand that the North American is a puritan and hypocritical
society, but I don't understand that you should promote such "values"


> We are certainly not saying they are pornographic.

OK. We agree; my pictures are not pornography

> We are just saying that
> they are not photos that everyone feels comfortable viewing.

Then, if somebody is not comfortable seeing them, simply that that
person doesn't see them. I don't understand this argument. With that
logic, that person so delicate could not browse in Internet, because
with more easiness than to find my site, he will find others that in
fact are pornographic


>So here are
> some basic guidelines:
When I hired with you, in any part I saw those rules. I find illegal
and arbitrary your attitude

> no frontal nudity (for women that means no bare breasts and no genitalia
> showing) (for men, no genitalia showing)
> no poses that might be considered obscene or provocative

What is the problem with bare breast? are they sinful? do they
produce lust? is the lust sinned? is the pleasure sinful? why?

> We sometimes have to make decisions on ones that are not so obvious but
> many of yours show women's bare breasts and many of our visitors do not feel
> those are appropriate for their children to see.

This is absolutely ridiculous. If a boy wanted to see bare breast or
pornography, he would never go to my page. There are other more
interesting and more evident ones in that sense.

> So please remove any photos to do not meet those general requirements and
> think about what small children maybe should not be viewing.
A small boy will grow obsessed with what you prohibit him. has nobody
told you that?


>Or even think
> about what a teenage boy might wish he could see but shouldn't!
> All the best,
> Toni
I understand that the most important reason for these threats is that
at the moment I am not a good client: I already paid in advance the
year; I have $30 in credit for the next renovation and I have more
than 4.000 pictures in my site.

If it was not that the reason, you should take out of their place the
following galleries with bare breast and genitalia:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/250672
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/30048

In spite of the fact that I don't share in the absolute your
commercial practices and your approaches moralists, while I look for a
more progressive photo hosting, I have taken out some galleries of
your site and I have hosted them in another part.
I hope your delicate skin allows that solution
Bye.
Mario Aguila

(http://aucia.cl/)

[ridetwistyroads]

I don't see what the big deal is.

You're in their sandbox, you play by their rules. Throwing a fit didn't change anything in 2nd grade, and it won't now. If you don't like the site, or the way it's run, then just move on? :dunno

[fish]

This part seems pretty clear to me:


Judgement of suitable Media is the sole discretion of smugmug, and smugmug reserves the right to delete any photographs or other Media it deems to violate this policy and/or to cancel the account of any subscriber who posts photos or other Media violating this policy.

[marlinspike]

Hi:
MY ANSWER:

Very Conservative you say. Why? because you are american? I
understand that the North American is a puritan and hypocritical
society, but I don't understand that you should promote such "values"


Then, if somebody is not comfortable seeing them, simply that that
person doesn't see them. I don't understand this argument. With that
logic, that person so delicate could not browse in Internet, because
with more easiness than to find my site, he will find others that in
fact are pornographic


When I hired with you, in any part I saw those rules. I find illegal
and arbitrary your attitude

What is the problem with bare breast? are they sinful? do they
produce lust? is the lust sinned? is the pleasure sinful? why?


This is absolutely ridiculous. If a boy wanted to see bare breast or
pornography, he would never go to my page. There are other more
interesting and more evident ones in that sense.

A small boy will grow obsessed with what you prohibit him. has nobody
told you that?


I understand that the most important reason for these threats is that
at the moment I am not a good client: I already paid in advance the
year; I have $30 in credit for the next renovation and I have more
than 4.000 pictures in my site.

If it was not that the reason, you should take out of their place the
following galleries with bare breast and genitalia:
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/250672
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/30048

In spite of the fact that I don't share in the absolute your
commercial practices and your approaches moralists, while I look for a
more progressive photo hosting, I have taken out some galleries of
your site and I have hosted them in another part.
I hope your delicate skin allows that solution
Bye.
Mario Aguila

(http://aucia.cl/)
First off it's their site and it's their rules, but secondly, your second answer is going to make anybody who would have supported you side turn against you. I've quoted the parts I'm talking about.

What's with your crack about Americans? Saying that "North American is a puritan and hypocritical society" is akin to saying "Mexico is lazy society." It's racist.

You try to make some sort of philosophical argument for nudity. Why do you want to get in a philosophical argument with a photo hosting company?

You defend yourself by saying that if somebody wants to find nudity on the net they can. Exactly, that's the whole point. Smugmug wants to prevent people from ACCIDENTILY coming across nude images.

Then you say smugmug is just trying to run you out because you have 4000 pictures and $30 credit. You realize that that $30 credit is nothing and that many smugmuggers have their accounts paid for for the next several years thanks to refferral credits right?

Then you close your response by insulting Toni? What the heck???
Richard

[onethumb]

Hi Mario,

At smugmug, we have a policy that the customer is always right. However, since this potentially opens my employees up to abuse and degradation from the rare customer who decides to demean them, there is one exception: if you're abusive, your account gets cancelled.

Congratulations on being the first person to trigger this exception. Your account has been cancelled and we will refuse service to you in the future. Getting abusive with what is arguably the best customer service department on the web was a bad move.

I want to be absolutely clear here: your account was cancelled because you insulted one of my employees, who was going above and beyond, trying to help you adhere to our policies (which you agreed to as part of the signup process). It was not cancelled because of our nudity policies or your violation of them. I have no idea whether you managed to adhere to them or not - I didn't have time to review your photos. You saved me the trouble.

Have a nice day.

Don

[ridetwistyroads]

onethumb - well done sir. :thumb

[wxwax]

God help me, I do love discipline.

[fish]

God help me, I do love discipline.
Don't post photos. :whip




Well done, OT. :clap

[lynnma]

Don't post photos. :whip




Well done, OT. :clap
Ditto:clap :clap :clap :clap :lynn

[fotosmontt]

1. - I regret the cancellation of my account, because in spite of everything your service was good.

2. - My critics were for your company and not for Toni (apparently he simply repeated the smugmug criteria and my critics were for that criteria)

3.- Those critics were hard, but I maintain them:
a) Your written rules are not clear; due to it, the interpretation and later use that you give to them transforms in arbitrary;
b) The justification your company give to reject absolutely any type of nudity is characteristic of the most conservative minds and this coincides with international and north american analysis, in the sense that your country has become more puritan and conservative that never (and the election of Bush proves it). And your society is hypocritical, because at the same time it is the main pornography source in the world.

4. - Finally I want to make an observation about Smugmug. Smugmug is not a community and it doesn't work as such; in the practice it simply works as a hosting service for pictures. This way, in most of the cases, each client worries about their place and nothing else.
For that reason, it is less understandable your worry for the fact that a client has 1% of artistic nude in their galleries.
Bye

[dkapp]

Cya...

I wish I could say you would be missed, but I know after this moment I will never think of you, or your ramblings again.

Dave

[Andy]

a) Your written rules are not clear; due to it, the interpretation and later use that you give to them transforms in arbitrary;

did you *read* the t.o.s. when you signed up? afaik, they haven't changed in this regard in over two years.

[marlinspike]

Since English isn't your native tongue, I'm going to refraine from picking at your sentences, but Toni is a SHE, and you did criticize when you said "I hope your delicate skin allows that solution." Also, cut the puritan crap. And cut the hypocritical crap too since it's not hypocritical, it's diverse. Finally, Smugmug is a community, you just don't get be part of it as a result of your transgressions.
Richard

[Aaron Wilson]

Andy you had to use that word did you? TOS... lol reminds me of the days of AOL!!! lol...
Well... If it was me I would do a diffrent site or shoot make your own web page! easy to make a web server!! for your nudes.. sorry to hear out of 5k pics there are so little g rated ones!! lol.

[fotosmontt]

did you *read* the t.o.s. when you signed up? afaik, they haven't changed in this regard in over two years. Andy:
The paragraph about nudity doesn't exist at that time.
And now, that paragraph is absolutely ambiguous and it allows the arbitrary that has another consequence: it makes lose all that client has paid in advance.
Bye
Mario Aguila
http://fotosmontt.com

[amc]

Mario,

In case no one has offered this suggestion yet, I would recommend that you have a look at www.photosig.com (http://www.photosig.com). They have "Erotic" and "Glamour" categories where you may not only display your work, but also get valuable critiques.

And just as a general comment on this issue... being a photographer who wants to display their work is not unlike a writer who wants to publish in a magazine. They will carefully research what kind of stories or articles a magazine accepts based on the established mores for that publication. For example, they would not submit a Penthouse-type letter to Readers Digest. So whether or not there are explicit, clearly stated rules, it is always in ones best interest to "go with the flow" and make your work consistant with the style of the publication.

amc

[fish]

1. - I regret the cancellation of my account, because in spite of everything your service was good.

2. - My critics were for your company and not for Toni (apparently he simply repeated the smugmug criteria and my critics were for that criteria)

3.- Those critics were hard, but I maintain them:
a) Your written rules are not clear; due to it, the interpretation and later use that you give to them transforms in arbitrary;
b) The justification your company give to reject absolutely any type of nudity is characteristic of the most conservative minds and this coincides with international and north american analysis, in the sense that your country has become more puritan and conservative that never (and the election of Bush proves it). And your society is hypocritical, because at the same time it is the main pornography source in the world.

4. - Finally I want to make an observation about Smugmug. Smugmug is not a community and it doesn't work as such; in the practice it simply works as a hosting service for pictures. This way, in most of the cases, each client worries about their place and nothing else.
For that reason, it is less understandable your worry for the fact that a client has 1% of artistic nude in their galleries.
Bye
You should know that you're on the verge of being banned from Digital Grin forums too. I'm not sure where you live, but I'm glad that your society isn't as horrible and hypocritical as ours. FWIW, Smugmug is not a product of American society, but of a small group of entrepreneurs who just happen to be American. Nobody is saying you can't peddle your nudes on the net...only that you can't peddle them on Smugmug. I hope you find a hosting site based in a society that meets your needs.

Goodbye.

[David_S85]

Andy:
The paragraph about nudity doesn't exist at that time.
And now, that paragraph is absolutely ambiguous and it allows the arbitrary that has another consequence: it makes lose all that client has paid in advance.
Bye
Mario Aguila
http://fotosmontt.com

Mario,... Is that your site above? If so, then why not use that to host your pics? Why do you need Smugmug?

[fotosmontt]

[QUOTE=fotosmontt]Andy:
The paragraph about nudity doesn't exist at that time.
And now, that paragraph is absolutely ambiguous and it allows the arbitrary that has another consequence: it makes lose all that client has paid in advance.
Bye
Mario Aguila
http://fotosmontt.com[/QUOTE (http://fotosmontt.com%5B/QUOTE)]

Mario,... Is that your site above? If so, then why not use that to host your pics? Why do you need Smugmug?
DAVID:
I had chosen a service like smugmug because it is easier to manage the galleries. With a hosting company it is necessary to use a html editor.
Mario Aguila
http://fotosmontt.com
Chile

[ridetwistyroads]

Boy, for someone who says "Bye" alot.....:dunno

[fotosmontt]

Thanks AMC...i'll take a look to that site but seemingly it is not a place to put great quantity of pictures
Mario Aguila Inostroza (http://www.google.cl/search?hl=es&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=mario+aguila+inostroza&btnG=B%C3%BAsqueda&meta=)

Mario,

In case no one has offered this suggestion yet, I would recommend that you have a look at www.photosig.com (http://www.photosig.com). They have "Erotic" and "Glamour" categories where you may not only display your work, but also get valuable critiques.

And just as a general comment on this issue... being a photographer who wants to display their work is not unlike a writer who wants to publish in a magazine. They will carefully research what kind of stories or articles a magazine accepts based on the established mores for that publication. For example, they would not submit a Penthouse-type letter to Readers Digest. So whether or not there are explicit, clearly stated rules, it is always in ones best interest to "go with the flow" and make your work consistant with the style of the publication.

amc

[Ben]

Andy:
The paragraph about nudity doesn't exist at that time.
And now, that paragraph is absolutely ambiguous and it allows the arbitrary that has another consequence: it makes lose all that client has paid in advance.
Bye
Mario Aguila
http://fotosmontt.com
Actually, Andy is 100% correct. Our Terms of Use have definitely not been changed in the short time you have been a smugmug customers. Those are the exact same Terms of Use you agreed to when you signed up. There are *very* few customers who signed up before those particular Terms of Use were formalized.

[fish]

First the CEO and now the Baron? :huh What's the matter? Duke was too pretentious? :rofl

Let me guess...Toni is now the Queen? Oh, btw, tell her she's got her very own smilie now :)

:toni

[onethumb]

First the CEO and now the Baron? :huh What's the matter? Duke was too pretentious? :rofl

Let me guess...Toni is now the Queen? Oh, btw, tell her she's got her very own smilie now :)

:toni

Technically, Toni is a 'Countess'. :)

Don

[pmaland]

If I were to post a picture of my wife breastfeeding our daughter, would that be in violation of the TOS?

[Andy]

If I were to post a picture of my wife breastfeeding our daughter, would that be in violation of the TOS?

in your gallery? i should think not. i would also think that you'd want this in a private gallery anyhow? if you were considering something like posting it here on dgrin, you could always just make it a link.

for most breastfeeding shots (i have 4 kids!) i can't imagine that they would be a violation.

if you have any doubts, could always check with smugmug (help@smugmug.com) by putting the shot in a private gallery, and sending a link to them for clarification. this might avoid a potentially bad situation, since i cannot know the nature of the shot you want to post :D :toni

[onethumb]

If I were to post a picture of my wife breastfeeding our daughter, would that be in violation of the TOS?

Breastfeeding is legally permitted in public, as it should be, so I can't imagine we'd consider it a violation of the TOS, unless they were of an obvious lewd nature (ie, breastfeeding photos to titillate rather than simply a child being fed).

Don

[flyingpylon]

I think I would consider locking this thread, the original issue has been resolved and now it's got the potential to go on forever (what about...).

Just my 2 cents. I know I don't have to read it.

[blackwaterstudio]

As long as were on the subject, and one person's site was shut down.

A search was run and over 3 pages worth of stuff came up.
http://www.smugmug.com/keyword/nude/1/15013289


This was found on page 3
http://www.smugmug.com/keyword/nude/3/3164284

I only think whats fair for the gander is fair for the goose.

[marlinspike]

That's not a photo, which makes it a bit different.

[fish]

I think I would consider locking this thread, the original issue has been resolved and now it's got the potential to go on forever (what about...).

Just my 2 cents. I know I don't have to read it.

you're right. it's pointless to continue this thread.