Photo Essay

What's Now Acceptable on JPG?

John really wanted to try capturing a diptych, but ended up with a double exposure.

Under the old JPG regime, there were standards to be upheld, and if a photo didn't meet those standards, it was taken off the site. It has come to my attention that the rules have changed a bit. The new rules on porn are: " We're okay with artful nudes; however, sexually explicit work is not appropriate. We defer to the community's discretion in determining what is artful, gratuitous or explicit. Objectionable content may be flagged using the 'Report a problem' link on the photo page."

I don't think that goes far enough to eliminate the objectionable photos that are now appearing. I personally have 'reported' several photos, and those same photos were reported by others on the site, yet they continue to appear.

I realize that I can make the personal choice to visit the page of someone whose work includes sexually graphic images including full frontal nudity of both men and women; however, I am not given the choice when one or more of these photos is spotlighted, and appears at random. I find that completely objectionable and tasteless.

I am not sure what we as JPG participants can do; I for one would like to see the rules changed so that these objectionable sexually explicit and demeaning photos are banned all together.

I have included some nudes on my pages, but as you can see, they're presented with tongue in cheek humor rather than jaw dropping disgust. I don't have enough nude photos, so I've included two that allude to my wondering...have the folks at JPG lost their marbles?

VOTE: Do you like this story?

Tell a friend about this story!

Tell a friend about this story!

  1. or
Preview

Hi there!

thought you might like this story!

http://jpgmag.com/stories/13605

Thanks,
—The JPG team

24 responses

  • Dawn Duffield

    Dawn Duffield (Deleted) gave props (15 Oct 2009):

    Very well written, Susan...And I could not agree more!!!

  • Brian Betteridge

    Brian Betteridge gave props (15 Oct 2009):

    well, isn't the new 'safe filter' function designed for this very reason? If you have a photo with full frontal, use that option to block it from those not interested in seeing it. I think that's a perfect option. I don't agree with banning things, but hiding them or protecting people from them is what we're looking for. So I think we need to raise awareness of the safe filter feature and encourage those with nude portraits to use it.

  • Susan Littlefield

    Susan Littlefield said (15 Oct 2009):

    I agree, Brian, and don't have a problem if people want to post those photos, as long as they're not shoved in my face. Unfortunately some people think the rules don't apply to them, and continue to post and spotlight offensive photos, which is what prompted me to write this story. Hopefully the folks at JPG will be a little more aggressive in policing the site for these offenders.

  • Brian Betteridge

    Brian Betteridge gave props (15 Oct 2009):

    then maybe in addition to reporting images, we can recommend them for safe filter. So JPG, if you're listening, let's make that happen. Because personally, I believe people should be able to post whatever they want as long as it's not "porn," but I also agree that some people might be offended.

  • Karen Foto Fiddler

    Karen Foto Fiddler (Deleted) gave props (16 Oct 2009):

    I wiht you susan. I do not think the safe filter is enough. There are alot ofminors on here and that safe filter is not going to stop them from viewing. Maybe a special category for the so called artful nudeity. One a member has to sign up for specially to use and upload and you can only view if you sign up for that category also. IDK. But I have recived several emails from contaacts onhere asking me about the nudity also and how I feel about it. So good for you writing this. VOTE.

  • Bert Happel

    Bert Happel gave props (17 Oct 2009):

    With JPG's help, the user community could minimize this issue and take care of it ourselves. In addition to the option to "report" a problem image if the webmaster could give a feedback option for "Flag Image for Safe Filter" then perhaps the software could automatically apply the safe filter once some number of community members (3? more?) flag the image as needing a safe filter. Not only are there differing user values on what could/should be acceptable, there are community and national laws that may regulate images containing nudity. And (thinking on the fly) JPG could/should offer a user setting switch that would A) prevent (block) safe filtered images from being shown to the user in any way shape or form B) show the safe filtered images as is done now. And FWIW, IMHO, all non-registered persons accessing JPG should have safe filtered images blocked from display. Adopting these ideas would not stifle anyone's creativity and maximize JPG's "safeness" for community standards and use by persons of any age.

  • Sheila

    Sheila (Deleted) said (17 Oct 2009):

    Yes, I agree that something ought to be done. I'm new here, and I was showing my 9-yr-old my photos and some other nature-related photos when I clicked some general page and up pops a naked woman! I was mortified for my son, and confused because I didn't know what I hit to see that----some kind of spotlight photo as Susan mentioned?? I agree with Susan---I'm not in favor of "banning" but it's obvious that something needs to be done to place the nudes somewhere that a user can only get to by actively searching for them.

    I think Bert has a very good suggestion, and I will be dropping a note to JPG through "contact us."

  • Cindy Coubrough

    Cindy Coubrough said (18 Oct 2009):

    Well that explains some of the full frontal nudity I've see about the place. I just automatically reported them as it used to be against the rules. I did a post a while back about semi nudes popping up on on random pages in the spotlight. I like to surf at work during my breaks and I don't need NSFW photos popping up when least expect them.

  • Charles

    Charles (Deleted) said (20 Oct 2009):

    While I agree that full frontal nudity is a problem with a widely used site like this, I strongly disagree with "the user community could minimize this issue and take care of it ourselves". What a witch hunt that would turn out to be! Having the morals of a few dictate what is tasteful or not is the ultimate in censorship.

    I belong to another site that believes in absolutely no censorship, as art/photography is subjective and should not be deemed proper or improper by some to the point of changing the site. When an image is posted to the site, a rating and category must be given before it appears, and the guidelines are very clear. As a result, some thumbnails will appear blurred, and it's up to the individual to open/not open the thumbnail and decide what content they view. If an image is not rated properly, the admins remove it. It works.

    So, I understand the feelings here, but the radical "solutions" are not the end all that will benefit ALL members. My opinion, of course.

  • diana

    diana (Deleted) gave props (24 Oct 2009):

    well said susan. i am disappointed at the change in standards. i don't find these nudes appealing, and i am far from being a prude. to me an artful nude is the curve of a hip, the curve or shadow of a breast, a sexy back, etc. full on boobs, genitalia, and open leg crotch shots, (sorry), should not be displayed here. my 11 year old grandson looks at these photos. i know there are child jpgers here. something needs to be done to protect them. what's next? i'm almost afraid to imagine.

  • Michael Adams

    Michael Adams gave props (29 Oct 2009):

    I have also noticed these things. I am also seeing other subtle changes that are slowly driving me away from this site. What happened to the community that had been built? Where have all of the members that were here daily gone? I have not been visiting as often as the sense of community is lacking as of recently. really dis heartening with the group of people that used to be real close out here.

  • Maura Wolfson-Foster

    Maura Wolfson-Foster gave props (12 Dec 2009):

    I could not agree more....I enjoy the random nude shot, but for members who post themselves everday.....sheeeesh, it's like watching someone place with their naval, or, even worse, watching them watching paint dry. I love your intelligence Susan! Thank you for posting this.

  • Maura Wolfson-Foster

    Maura Wolfson-Foster said (12 Dec 2009):

    voted

  • Brittany Gentile

    Brittany Gentile gave props (6 Feb 2010):

    i agree with you Susan!

  • Oregon Curly

    Oregon Curly (Deleted) gave props (18 Mar 2010):

    Late getting here, but a) voted yes and b) totally agree that something should be done to limit the random exposures. There is such a thing as an artful nude, then there is just plain nekked...and nekked doesn't belong here.

  • Betty Maxey

    Betty Maxey   gave props (28 Mar 2010):

    I am late getting here too....but agree there needs to be a way not to be exposed if we don't want to be.....voted too!!!

  • David Johnson

    David Johnson gave props (2 Apr 2010):

    It's never too late! I voted and like the info from Charles (20 Oct 2009).

  • Andrea Petersen

    Andrea Petersen gave props (30 Jun 2010):

    I am just now getting around to voting. I totally agree with everything that you wrote...But I stay here for the wonderful members like you who inspire with your wonderful contributions to this site...Thank you for that...

  • Frank Summers

    Frank Summers   gave props (5 Jul 2010):

    GMV

  • Drew Nikonowicz

    Drew Nikonowicz said (30 Jul 2010):

    I don't like the policy on nudity because I can't check jpg at school anymore because it's blocked and tagged as porn. I think the safe filter helped but not enough to reimburse my abilities to check it at school. My discrepancy is that it seems that if you report a photo as inappropriate, whether it is or not, it get's hidden from public view. My most popular photo was under this filter and in it I am 100% clothed. I don't really know why the people at 8020 or wherever wouldn't verify each claim.

  • Saroj Swain

    Saroj Swain gave props (27 Feb 2012):

    well done!!! vote!!!

  • Susan Littlefield

    Susan Littlefield said (11 May 2012):

    Thank you so much Frank Summers for the nomination for Story of the Week!!

  • je suis moi

    je suis moi   gave props (20 Feb 2013):

    I too would like to nominate this story- story of the YEAR !!!!!

Want to leave a comment? Log in or sign up!