|
Forums >
General Industry >
What the hell is Deviantart doing?
Look at this shit! I have been temporarily banned and they want model IDs for all my shots, WTF? Is this happeneing to anyone else? Here is the dumbass letter attacthed to all my pics I have up. Your deviation, listed below, has been made temporarily unavailable from deviantART due to it containing nudity or a model of questionable age, and therefore we require a Model Release Form: In order for your deviation to return to it's active state, please submit a fully completed Model Release form here. Important: If a model release form is not received within seven (7) days from the time you received this note, the deviation will be deleted. If you feel that you are receiving this in error, or have questions regarding it, then visit the deviantART Help Desk in order to submit an inquiry. It should be noted that replies to this note will go unanswered and your only course of action is the deviantART Help Desk! -- deviantART Staff May 14 06 10:49 pm Link Wow. I guess this will be the future. May 14 06 10:51 pm Link Wow. What the hell. I haven't seen this happen to anyone else I watch that has nude photography. (yet). Someone must've complained,being a stupid you know what. May 14 06 10:53 pm Link Thats crap. Makes you wonder if that other modeling site bought out Deviant....you know that other one....I forgot the name of it, three letters starts with an "O" ends with a "P"...has a "M" in the middle  May 14 06 10:54 pm Link I've actually had this happen before with a photo of me...a photographer had to provide them with proof of my age because I looked under 18. I don't blame them...I'm sure they could get in a lot of trouble if they wound up with kiddie porn on their website. May 14 06 11:00 pm Link MichaelBell wrote: May 14 06 11:07 pm Link Blame US Code : Title 18 : Section 2257 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html … -000-.html The US Govenrment sees nude as sexual and they believe they can enforce US Laws globally. May 14 06 11:10 pm Link oops i stuffed up there..... Michael i'm not sure of what name you go under on DA but looking at some of your images you have submited here i guess it's the question of ...How old are your models some of them look very young. I've been asked a few times for model realse forms so it's not just you hun:) Don't stress just submit the form i know it sucks but somethings you just have to do.... I hope you got your models to sighn a form! Best of luck Tracie May 14 06 11:11 pm Link I know of at least two other photographers that have had that problem in the last few months. One was a gal that had some pictures of a mom and a nude little kid (very innocent shots). The other did in fact turn out to be of a 17 year old. As far as I can tell if anybody reports a suspicion that the picture is of somebody under 18 they pretty much blindly go through this process of requiring a release. May 14 06 11:15 pm Link you should have releases anyway... May 14 06 11:17 pm Link San Francisco Nudes i know that lovely lady it's good to see she has those images back on line  May 14 06 11:17 pm Link DeviantArt recently pulled a couple of my images (no explanation - presumably because they were too naughty) while leaving others that are quite a bit naughtier. My requests for clarification have remained unanswered. Personally, I think it's beyond lame that a site that calls itself "deviant art" is pulling down even mild erotica. Meanwhile, the site has no problem with photos of models with simulated gunshot wounds in the heads, or models looking like they were beaten to death with a claw hammer and left in a bathtub. Abuse, murder, rape: acceptable. Orgasm, joy, sensuality: unacceptable. A few months ago I pulled my whole gallery from renderosity.com because of a related censorship issue. It's just gotten incredibly lame out there. I host my own gallery, so I don't have to give a sh!* what anyone else thinks, but it's nice to get attention by posting in the public sites. But the public sites are all being run by p*ssies, apparently, and are overwhelmed by backstabbers. One buddy of mine who used to post a lot on deviantart was apparently getting more "hits" than another photographer, who anonymously lodged a series of complaints about the images, to get them taken down. Wow, there sure are some small-minded people out there. mjr. May 14 06 11:25 pm Link Justin N Lane wrote: There are a large amount of fashion photographers who shoot with agencies that would actually laugh at that statement. May 14 06 11:30 pm Link Glad I left there when I did, after fully reading the terms of service and their usage rights section. I am surprised they had an issue unless the shots were of a sexual nature which I doubt. I am on an photography website which has members such as Jock Sturges and they are perfectly fine with what he posts. May 14 06 11:32 pm Link Hmmm Sorry to hear that They pulled 2 of mine saying i looked like i was masterbating!!!??? i do have one or two by John Keedwell that might look that way - on OMP right now... but I never saw it that way, i never had anyone else say that, and i DIDNT submit those style to Deviant Art anyway. But they are trying 2 work within the law baby so i take hat off to them, even despite the inconvenience You DO have releases dont you? Send any you do have 2 them... Damned annoying But try 2 be glad they are checking - if it WAS a pervert or exploitation, you'd want that checked up on ... right?? xxx May 14 06 11:36 pm Link Yea its stupid, Ive had that happen to me twice and had a feeling they were going to ask for a form so I had it ready to go. Theyre just trying to be safe and all I geuss. Some people even report photogs that submit b&w pics bare booty of 2 year olds sitting in an old washtub or something...I dont know what the cut off age for children is...but there is a line between innocence and the latter. Of course if it was Sally Mann she probably wouldnt get busted on DA. May 14 06 11:37 pm Link The only free speech platform is one you own yourself. Corporate-sponsored sites will always trend toward censorship to gain wider appeal and legal protection. Sorry my site is down for a few hours more (the link above), my ISP has been giving me new IP addresses at a much higher rate recently. With Net Neutrality now going the way of the dodo, politicians have finally found a way to shut up the ultimate democratic soapbox, by making it possible for state-sponsored monopoly Interent providers to not be required to provide full, bi-directional, content-neutral access in trade for their exclusive access to public right-of-ways. Sorry for the soapbox, but as a former founder of one Internet Service Provider, a former owner of another, and a strong "little 'L'" libertarian, it's a hot-button issue for me. May 14 06 11:57 pm Link Anjel Britt wrote: One of the ones they pulled of mine had a nude female who looked like she was enjoying herself but no hand near her genitalia... May 15 06 12:04 am Link Darrell wrote: While I'm no fan of 2257, at least we could try getting it right: May 15 06 12:09 am Link TXPhotog wrote: Things have reprocussions. Just because the law states so does not mean the scardy cats will not react based on fear. May 15 06 12:12 am Link I didn't get anything like that... May 15 06 12:14 am Link Justin N Lane wrote: Quite right. Just send them a copy. May 15 06 12:14 am Link Jack D Trute wrote: You're right. That's why I'm going to start driving 35MPH on the interstates - because if the state police say the speed limit is 65, they probably really mean it's 40 so I'd better be on the safe side. May 15 06 12:15 am Link Jack D Trute wrote: If they were scared by 2257 they would ask for copies of the model's ID and some other supporting information. They didn't do that. Instead they made a request which has nothing at all to do with 2257. They asked for a release - and that's all they asked for. 2257 does not require releases. May 15 06 12:20 am Link |
