DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Results >> TOS loosely applied?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 93, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/21/2010 08:53:29 AM · #1
A couple years ago there were two photos DQ'd and removed from DPChallenge. I believe they were removed for violating the TOS (specifically item 4.2.iv - "contains explicitly sexual content"). It was a spoof done by Leroy (fotomann_forever) and Linda (21_F.gif ShutterPug).

This entry from the Lingerie challenge is very similar in nature to the one by Linda that was removed from this site. Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_867167.jpg

Where's the line?
04/21/2010 08:57:58 AM · #2
Originally posted by glad2badad:

A couple years ago there were two photos DQ'd and removed from DPChallenge. I believe they were removed for violating the TOS (specifically item 4.2.iv - "contains explicitly sexual content"). It was a spoof done by Leroy (fotomann_forever) and Linda (21_F.gif ShutterPug).

This entry from the Lingerie challenge is very similar in nature to the one by Linda that was removed from this site. Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_867167.jpg

Where's the line?


I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.
04/21/2010 09:01:11 AM · #3
Originally posted by scarbrd:

I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.

It's not the amount of clothing, it's the implied action taking place. In the photo Linda submitted she actually had MORE clothing on than in this photo.
04/21/2010 09:04:52 AM · #4
actually, no she didn't
04/21/2010 09:06:53 AM · #5
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.

It's not the amount of clothing, it's the implied action taking place. In the photo Linda submitted she actually had MORE clothing on than in this photo.


I guess I don't see the action so much. If you think it breaks a rule I recommend putting in a ticket with the SC to get their take on it.
04/21/2010 09:09:48 AM · #6
Originally posted by karmat:

actually, no she didn't

Hmmm...ok, hard to remember exactly when the image is gone. I'm pretty sure the image was taken at an angle that showed more hand, and implied use of that hand, than actual skin in that area. And, wasn't it more distant (much lower % of the photo than the lingerie one that's kinda up close and personal)?
04/21/2010 09:13:12 AM · #7
Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.

It's not the amount of clothing, it's the implied action taking place. In the photo Linda submitted she actually had MORE clothing on than in this photo.


I guess I don't see the action so much. If you think it breaks a rule I recommend putting in a ticket with the SC to get their take on it.

I did submit a ticket requesting validation (for DQ purposes) and obviously didn't hear anything back (rightfully so).

I really wonder where the line is on "sexually explicit" and where it lines up with the TOS...that's the gist of this forum thread. If I'm totally out of line in asking then SC can hide this thread, the earth will keep spinning along. :-)
04/21/2010 09:27:42 AM · #8
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

I don't know the image you are referring to, but this one is hardly sexually explicit. We've had full frontal nudes in challanges.

It's not the amount of clothing, it's the implied action taking place. In the photo Linda submitted she actually had MORE clothing on than in this photo.


I guess I don't see the action so much. If you think it breaks a rule I recommend putting in a ticket with the SC to get their take on it.

I did submit a ticket requesting validation (for DQ purposes) and obviously didn't hear anything back (rightfully so).

I really wonder where the line is on "sexually explicit" and where it lines up with the TOS...that's the gist of this forum thread. If I'm totally out of line in asking then SC can hide this thread, the earth will keep spinning along. :-)


I didn't mean to imply that you were out of line, it's just the SC can probably answer this better than the members. Unless you just want everyone's opinion.
04/21/2010 09:36:10 AM · #9
I look at the picture and see an 'implication'...but no real action or nudity.
04/21/2010 09:36:21 AM · #10
Originally posted by scarbrd:

I didn't mean to imply that you were out of line, it's just the SC can probably answer this better than the members. Unless you just want everyone's opinion.

No problem David...I didn't take it that way.

I don't have to worry about crossing this line as I will never enter a shot that remotely approaches the "sexually explicit" rules border. LOL.

I'm having a hard time thinking I'm alone in this observation and/or question, however based on the feedback in this thread thus far, it seems like a non-issue. The potential breech of the artwork rule recently garnered more attention. :-)

Should have titled this thread "Sex or Sexy?" :-D
04/21/2010 09:41:40 AM · #11
Now that I think about it, there's one in Lingerie that came real close to TOS section 4.2.(ix) - ("is generally offensive or in bad taste"). Then again, there was that "cheesy" photo that stuck around. :-)

So...I guess if the photo is not blatantly over-the-top then just about anything goes (except for the Leroy/Linda incident a while back).
04/21/2010 10:00:35 AM · #12
You aren't the only one that noticed it, Dad. I remarked to myself at the time, "I wonder if this will survive review, it's pretty suggestive." And I remembered Linda's picture, and recall thinking they were about the same level of suggestive, but as you pointed out it's hard to remember and Linda's is gone, of course.

I don't actually think it SHOULD be axed, incidentally; if we were at a point where THAT is too suggestive, that's be over-the-top puritanical, IMO. Not saying you do, just musing...

R.
04/21/2010 10:04:47 AM · #13
If I remember correctly, Linda's picture showed her with her hand down her panties, just like this one does. Same thing, in my mind. If 1 is DQ'ed, the other one should also be. But there's a history of discrepancies when it comes to DQ's, I've found out.
04/21/2010 10:13:50 AM · #14
Originally posted by KarenNfld:

If I remember correctly, Linda's picture showed her with her hand down her panties, just like this one does. Same thing, in my mind. If 1 is DQ'ed, the other one should also be. But there's a history of discrepancies when it comes to DQ's, I've found out.


I could be mis-remembering this, but it's my recollection that there was a *synergy* between Linda's and Leroy's images, a *dialogue* if you will, that magnified what was perceived as the inappropriateness. So perhaps Linda's alone, or Leroy's alone for that matter, would have survived? I donno. It was a long while ago.

R.
04/21/2010 10:17:07 AM · #15
They were looking at pictures of each other with the implication that's what they were using for "inspiration", if you will. LOL! I thought those were perfectly fine & in fun. I was surprised at the outrage at the time.
04/21/2010 10:50:38 AM · #16
Maybe I'm out of touch with female anatomy, but isn't there a biiig difference between straight fingertips down panties (this photo) and a whole hand down panties? (what I remember of the other photo)

eta: By which I mean, I don't see any "action" in this photo, just a slightly suggestive pose.

Message edited by author 2010-04-21 10:51:34.
04/21/2010 03:43:09 PM · #17
"implied action taking place"

So? Implied is the big word here. You can think what you like about what is being implied but in the end if it's not porn, it's legal. How can you state that this photo should be DQed just because of what you think is being implied? I can easily feel that the implication suggested in this photo is that she has crabs? Or she's about to scratch an itch.

Does the P in DPC stand for Prude? No it doesn't. :)

Great photo btw, well done.
04/21/2010 03:54:04 PM · #18
Yup, looks like an itch to me ...

:-)
04/21/2010 03:58:34 PM · #19
Originally posted by Jac:

"implied action taking place"

So? Implied is the big word here. You can think what you like about what is being implied but in the end if it's not porn, it's legal. How can you state that this photo should be DQed just because of what you think is being implied? ...

Well, if you read the OP you'll see that I was wondering how this image was allowed to remain based on the TOS. There was a precedent a couple years ago when a similar image was DQ'd and removed from the site.
04/21/2010 05:10:07 PM · #20
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:

Yup, looks like an itch to me ...

:-)

LOL

I do agree with the NON-DQ decision, because although it's not an itch, it's also not implying actual sexual action (not for a few extra seconds). But that did make me laugh ;)
04/21/2010 05:19:37 PM · #21
I'm no "prude", but in my opinion, any adult on this site that says they don't know what the "implied action taking place" is, is being disingenuous. I think this image walks right up to the TOU Agreement "line" and sticks a toe, err..finger, over the line.

It's a nice image, but I think my main concern would be that the TOU is there for a reason; there are a lot of children and young people on this site, and that is clearly not an image meant for their audience.

Not trying to fan flames. I have quite a few fairly young friends on this site, and I really wouldn't want them viewing images like that.

04/21/2010 05:29:53 PM · #22
WHAT IS IMPLIED? NOTHING.

You see everything that's going on. It may be implying that something's ABOUT TO go on, but nothing's happening at the moment the shutter is pressed.

ETA: Also think about it this way... what does 31_N.gif pawdrix's image imply here:
Copyrighted_Image_Reuse_Prohibited_815976.jpg

Message edited by author 2010-04-21 17:33:47.
04/21/2010 05:58:12 PM · #23
Originally posted by KarenNfld:

If I remember correctly, Linda's picture showed her with her hand down her panties, just like this one does. Same thing, in my mind. If 1 is DQ'ed, the other one should also be. But there's a history of discrepancies when it comes to DQ's, I've found out.


thats what i also remember.

04/21/2010 06:04:26 PM · #24
You can have a fingertip or 2 inside the top of your pants without masturbating! It's just an erotic pose.
However... Title including the word 'Lust' + Model looking at a photo of a guy + Whole hand down pants = Completely different situation!


04/21/2010 06:26:33 PM · #25
Originally posted by Konador:

You can have a fingertip or 2 inside the top of your pants without masturbating! It's just an erotic pose.
However... Title including the word 'Lust' + Model looking at a photo of a guy + Whole hand down pants = Completely different situation!


may be she was wondering what he has that she does not.

/// jus jokin

Message edited by author 2010-04-21 18:26:44.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/15/2018 09:23:42 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2018 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 08/15/2018 09:23:42 PM EDT.