I am pretty disgusted by the decision to censor the image based on complaints. I'm not a huge fan of some of Francois' work - However, Francois is clearly a master of the genre he has decided to pursue. His lighting, processing, presentation and imagination have been inspirational.
Even if Francois had been a mediocre creator of images, I would still be disgusted!
One other point I would make. Much is made of that fact that it is considered a privilege to post here and in the past I would have agreed, however, since the site started serving ads, then I think this changes the relationship and while its not a right to post, it is no longer appropriate to be considered a privilege.
In my experience, this type of action never lifts the creativity and inspiration of the images on display, rather it has quite the opposite reaction - and ultimately, that is what should drive decisions on this forum.
Ultimately its Fred's choice, but I found his response and points posted to this thread extremely weak and was disappointed as a result.
Good luck Francois and I will watch out for you on 500px.
mhayes5254 wrote:
Lisa Holloway recently left the site because she did not want her work in the People form mixed with posts of nude women. She is correct that this would hurt her reputation and her business in parts of the USA. It is an ongoing battle that is worth fighting. It would be best for us if you both stayed.
Michaelparris wrote:
Don't open this can of worms....Lisa's narcissistic attitude did not like anyone saying anything that wasn't 100% gushing about her photography is the reason she left.....Great photographer but geez louise she was a handful
markperez wrote:
Lisa left because someone didn't like a photo and she had a 10 year old fit.
I'm fairly confident that some of the complainers went to see, and actually enjoyed, movies like Braveheart, where violence, blood-letting, bondage, and you name it, exceeds anything that's ever been posted on this forum by Francois or anyone else. Francois has been a good citizen by following the "known" rules, and there should be a solution that allows him to stay without feeling overly constrained or censored. Maybe something as simple as labeling posts with "These images may be considered offensive due to content". Another alternative is to do some "self censoring" by avoiding images that really push the envelope. Francois has already done this to some extent by placing age restrictions on some of his images on Deviant Art.
Francois, your mastery of light, posing and artistic interpretation is terrific, and I'm still hopeful that you can find a compromise that allows you to stay.
Nov 21, 2012 at 09:28 AM
Andre Labonte Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
1) As already stated: ...she did not want her work in the People form mixed with posts of nude women. She is correct that this would hurt her reputation and her business in parts of the USA
2) Because there were a number of people on this forum who were highly antagonisitc towards her and went out of their way to be rude and mean to her. In fact one of those individuals recently got banned from FM all together because he was rude to everyone.
If you want to call Lisa's reaction a 10 year old fit, then Francois' reaction is a 2 year old temper tantrum by comparison. Lisa wanted respect and decency, Francois wants his own way.
Gerry Kerr wrote:
I am pretty disgusted by the decision to censor the image based on complaints.
I do agree here too, but what happens on most forums is the moderator(s) don't have time allow/deny every image on a singular basis. They have to rely on the users to find the ones that (might) break the rules and then act on that.
This kind of thing works fine for other types of photography where few images will offend and few will seek out things that offend them. But for people photography that is sure to offend, it doesn't work.
Some people have a built-in tendency to seek out things they're not supposed to, they'll click on the NSFW or other 'warnings' in links even if they know it's likely to offend them just because there's something alluring or curious about what's on the other end. And then they get offended, report the image, and the admin either removes it by default or tries to make a judgement call, because whatever rules the site has aren't too clear when it comes to people photography.
All these things work against a people photography forum, for instance also the way that popular threads appear on the front page for anyone (even those who wouldn't normally visit the people photography forum) to click on. So the more popular a post, the greater chance (if its content is even slightly objectionable) it will be removed.
So really, I would say that people photographers who want to push the limits, or those who want to 'see it all', including the dark side photos, need to stick to places where the rules are well-defined and the moderators follow these rules to letter rather than relying on complaints to define that line.
Not to say a good portion of people photographers can't be perfectly happy on a forum like this, but honestly if the site is chasing off good people photographers, then maybe everyone would be better served with a site that caters to people photographers versus trying to appeal to all.
Because there's honestly no easy answers here, and nobody has done anything wrong.
One of the interesting things that have come of this is how a lot of FMers have now expanded and joined 500px and DeviantArt. I was on the dpreview forums for a few years before coming here, and just finally got tired of all the negativity there. Left dpreview and never looked back.
I've had a DeviantArt account for years, but could never really get into it. Haven't really explored 500px but probably will now. I'm just curious how many people will eventually drift to other sites as their online photo forum home after being exposed to them through this.
So there were some complaints from people who chose to click on Francois' link even thought he labeled it appropriately with a warning of sexual violence. Then we have 7 pages (and counting) of people mostly expressing their displeasure about Francois' departure, and about the censorship of the link. I'm curious how many pages will it take to support the complaints about a link that people have to choose to click on to view?
This issue with Francois' work is purely subjective. And yet, there have been FMers here who have been outright rude, mean-spirited, just complete jerks. I've put in complaints about them from time to time, and nothing happens. So the message to me is that it's okay to be hateful on this forum, but it's not okay to provide links to images that push the envelope. If you're going to manage this forum to that level, then it just doesn't make sense. And finally, there's plenty of times that a newbie posts a nude picture (instead of a link) and there's no moderator removing that. We let the OP know what's going on, and sometimes the OP will replace the pic with a link. I just don't understand why FM chooses to be vigilant in a case like this, and not in others.
If I wasn't such a newb and NEEDED the members of FM to help me become a better photographer, I would leave. I followed, confusingly, as Lisa left...her work was inspirational. I did start to wonder if her need to be publicly accepted was her vice. Francois, at the most that I ever saw, was give thanks to his critics. I'm starting to think I don't blame him for making his decision. I have a great amount of respect for some of the members here on FM, which I won't name for fear of ridicule. I have learned so much and would love to continue to do so, but as others have said already, this site (especially the People Forum) is going downhill fast. I feel so conflicted right now and I haven't even been here very long.
I'm sure that with 7 pages of comments thus far I'm probably repeating what many have said already. Yes, it is Fred's call in the end. But in this case I think it's the wrong call. The OP clearly followed the rules in posting this image. Fair warning is given to all viewers by the post title and link (and for most people, by already being familiar with the OP's work).
Let's say you go to the movies and see a variety of movie posters advertising the movies being shown. One of them is SAW 12. You are familiar with the SAW series and kind of have an idea what type of movie SAW 12 will be. But so far you're safe, you're not going to be subjected to the violence and horror of SAW 12 by simply walking through the theater. No, you have to go purchase your tickets for SAW 12 and then find the theater it's playing in to see it. But wait, now you're in the theater, the movie is starting and you're absolutely disgusted by the violence shown on the screen. Well, you probably should have known better since it is, afterall, SAW 12. But all is not lost... you can simply get out of your chair and exit the theater. It's that simple. Are you going to go to the theater management and complain about the violence depicted in SAW 12? Maybe, I don't know you. But is the theater management going to pull the movie based on your subjective opinions on violence. Hell no! You knew what you were going to see when you bought the ticket. Clearly no laws were broken during filming the movie and no laws are broken by showing it. No one is holding you captive and forcing you to watch it. It's so simple it's stupid: Leave. Just leave.
Aremac 01 wrote:
I'm sure that with 7 pages of comments thus far I'm probably repeating what many have said already. Yes, it is Fred's call in the end. But in this case I think it's the wrong call. The OP clearly followed the rules in posting this image. Fair warning is given to all viewers by the post title and link (and for most people, by already being familiar with the OP's work).
Let's say you go to the movies and see a variety of movie posters advertising the movies being shown. One of them is SAW 12. You are familiar with the SAW series and kind of have an idea what type of movie SAW 12 will be. But so far you're safe, you're not going to be subjected to the violence and horror of SAW 12 by simply walking through the theater. No, you have to go purchase your tickets for SAW 12 and then find the theater it's playing in to see it. But wait, now you're in the theater, the movie is starting and you're absolutely disgusted by the violence shown on the screen. Well, you probably should have known better since it is, afterall, SAW 12. But all is not lost... you can simply get out of your chair and exit the theater. It's that simple. Are you going to go to the theater management and complain about the violence depicted in SAW 12? Maybe, I don't know you. But is the theater management going to pull the movie based on your subjective opinions on violence. Hell no! You knew what you were going to see when you bought the ticket. Clearly no laws were broken during filming the movie and no laws are broken by showing it. No one is holding you captive and forcing you to watch it. It's so simple it's stupid: Leave. Just leave. ...Show more →
I am not into it but I am sure there are plenty of men/women who actually like that type thing...S+M...the whips, chains, cuffs and so on, the rougher the better.
Just like some have said you see worse violence/sex on TV and in movies.
fb101 wrote:
Due to a difference with the management of this forum, I have decided not to post here any more. Sincere thanks to all those who have followed me all these years. I can be found on Deviant Art ( fb101 ) or on 500 pixels ( F.Benveniste )
What a bunch of shit...FM has lost some good photographers on this forum alone just in the last month. Good luck to you.
François, like so many others, I am sorry to see you go. I can see Fred's side, that, as he put it, he chooses to err, if need be, on the side of escessive caution, and I can see yours, that you don't want to be held hostage to whomever might complain.
My question is, though, who has anything to gain in your leaving, except those who complained against stuff they didn't nee to watch in the first place, and are just erecting themselves as some kind of thought police?
What happened is unpleasant, and I feel for you. But does that mean that leaving the battlefield for the thought police to go out and eliminate others is a good idea? This is a battle worth fighting IMHO. It was Reagan who said "freedom is never more than one generation away from exctinction". Think about it, and see if you can be big enough to reconsider and fight for your beliefs. This thread shows that you enjoy massive support. Allons, enfants...
As a photographer, deleting any image is never an easy decision. It's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" type of things. There is no way to satisfy everyone, so we carefully consider each situation on a case by case basis.
I explained to Francois that it was not only the complaints, but also the disturbing comments incited by the image that were posted on the thread that contributed to our decision.
Keep in mind that he has been participating here for the over 7 years and we never deleted any of his images until now. But, this is a private forum and it is moderated. There were many borderline posts that we let slide in the past but this one in particular was removed. Regardless, no one asked him to leave. He made up his mind as soon as the post was removed and was contacted via PM.
As I have already posted, he is welcome back at any time. As evident in this thread, a great number of members would love to see this happen.
I am now closing this thread since this is a presentation only board. Please direct any additional comments or questions to me via PM.
