Nudes in the gallery section

[jlw]

Just now I jumped over to the gallery section, and in the recent-additions array, saw several female nudes.

They were beautiful, tasteful, and I really liked them.

On the other hand, some of us do occasionally view this site at work, where viewing of ANY nudes, no matter how artistic, might be an "issue."

Worse yet, if it got reported to some of the subscription blacklisting services favored by Corporate America's IT departments, it might get all of RFF blocked.

Isn't there supposed to be some way to prevent these types of photos, beautiful though they are, from displaying in the gallery's "lobby"?

[amateriat]

Good question, and a bit of a vexing dilemma: I know the images you speak of and they are wonderful, but this opens the proverbial can o' worms. Better to figure out an amicable solution sooner than later. Not having images of this sort at all on RFf, IMO, is not a solution.


- Barrett

[raid]

Maybe a Nude Gallery that requires the viewer to input her/his password first. This way, no nude shots are directly displayed while you are at work.

Raid

[terrafirmanada]

This censorship issue seems to be a recent theme here.
I think that there has always been good discretion used by posters on RFF. Figure study will always have a place in all forms of art. It would be a bit silly to think of the world of artistic expression in any other way (for me).
I can potentially see this issue as becoming a dividing factor for some folks here. I would not like to see that happen. This has always been a place of community, and I think it does become difficult to hold on to some of those feelings as a community grows as fast and large as we have.
Maybe we could have a separate gallery for these types of images, that would not come up without first accessing the gallery page. Maybe that gallery could be MEMBERS ONLY - then more people will join our little haven.

[RF-Addict]

I have no problems at all with nudes on this or any other photography site. I don't think the point that your employer will be after you when he/she sees that you are looking at nudes is valid - you are not supposed to look at RFF or any non-work related site at all when you are working - at least that's what your boss would say

[schmoozit]

Originally Posted by RF-Addict

I have no problems at all with nudes on this or any other photography site. I don't think the point that your employer will be after you when he/she sees that you are looking at nudes is valid - you are not supposed to look at RFF or any non-work related site at all when you are working - at least that's what your boss would say

Not bad. It only took until the sixth post to get someone hitting the nail on the head.

[aizan]

a NSFW tag should do the trick.

[dadsm3]

Yup, in that case my boss shouldn't be on Bloomberg.com checking his stocks five times a day either. While we're at it, all newspapers, magazines, and radio listening should also be banned. Unless they're on the 'approved' list of course......and don't forget to make everyone pee in a cup every once in a while, to see if Patty in reception smoked a joint in the last 2 weeks.

[NoTx]

Actually, I have had clients of mine, who fully allow their employees to 1) be on the web during breaks, 2) be on the web while waiting for calls (call center). In either case there were limitations on WHAT could be viewed. Nudes are something that should not be removed from the site, however it might be a good idea for them to be relegated to page two... or with a note that it might be NSFW. Heck, even a reminder that the gallery lobby could be NSFW isn't really something bad to have.

Oh, and getting fired over seeing someone surf a site with figure studies completly unbelieveable? Please believe. it would happen in a heart beat with some groups I have seen.

[tkluck]

Originally Posted by RF-Addict

I have no problems at all with nudes on this or any other photography site. I don't think the point that your employer will be after you when he/she sees that you are looking at nudes is valid - you are not supposed to look at RFF or any non-work related site at all when you are working - at least that's what your boss would say

IT manager friend of mine had a user get all bent out of shape when he uninstalled "World of Warcraft" from her work station.
Remember, your IT department knows Everything. Privacy at work is an urban myth.
Get someone with an admin password to show you around Microsoft Server 2003.
You'll never email your mistress from work again...

[jlw]

Originally Posted by RF-Addict

I have no problems at all with nudes on this or any other photography site. I don't think the point that your employer will be after you when he/she sees that you are looking at nudes is valid - you are not supposed to look at RFF or any non-work related site at all when you are working - at least that's what your boss would say

My work is partly photography-related, so it's perfectly legitimate for me to be looking at RFF while at work. My boss has no problem with it. (Besides, he spends most of his free time shopping for golf clubs on eBay...)

[jlw]

Originally Posted by terrafirmanada

This censorship issue seems to be a recent theme here.
I think that there has always been good discretion used by posters on RFF. Figure study will always have a place in all forms of art. It would be a bit silly to think of the world of artistic expression in any other way (for me).

I tried to make very clear in my original post that this is NOT a "censorship issue." I thought the nudes were beautiful, I enjoyed seeing them, and I'm glad they're in the gallery.

It's more of an "appropriateness" issue: no matter how wonderful these photos are, there are some settings in which viewing them would not be considered appropriate, so it makes sense to provide some sort of filtration so they don't pop up unexpectedly in those settings.

HR departments are obligated to make policies that provide a workplace free of sexual harassment, which specifically DOES include the display of "sexually provocative" images (companies have lost cases and had to pay damages for letting employees keep girlie mags around.) And while the nudes in the gallery are museum-quality and not sexually provocative, it would be difficult to make an HR policy that would permit them while still barring the kinds that would provoke lawsuits.

All I'm saying is that it might be smart to put some areas of the gallery behind a "door" that we could avoid opening if we're at work, or sharing our screen with Great-Grandma, or whatever. It's not about censorship, it's about choice.

[jano]

I agree, a nsfw tag would be nice for when I'm at work.

[ray_g]

I agree figure study has a place. However, who defines what is good discretion on the part of the poster, and who defines what is a beautiful and tasteful nude?

And where do we draw the line? What about erotic photography? As an extreme example, how about photos like Ralph Gibson's Black Kiss series? What if one of those photos came up on the Random Gallery Images when (forget about the boss or female co-workers) your child passes by?

I think the point jlw is making is about "choice," especially on a public website where membership or viewership is not age-restricted.

[aizan]

if your kid walks by, just say "you'll understand someday". either that, or scream "the devil made me do it!" and run around like crazy.

[amateriat]

Originally Posted by ray_g

I agree figure study has a place. However, who defines what is good discretion on the part of the poster, and who defines what is a beautiful and tasteful nude?

And where do we draw the line? What about erotic photography? As an extreme example, how about photos like Ralph Gibson's Black Kiss series? What if one of those photos came up on the Random Gallery Images when (forget about the boss or female co-workers) your child passes by?

I think the point jlw is making is about "choice," especially on a public website where membership or viewership is not age-restricted.

Hmm...forgot about those. Yep, those might be rather strong for some, without a separate gallery of some sort...and I won't even go on about Tress or Mappelthorpe...


- Barrett

[jan normandale]

all the images are thumbnails unless you decide to 'go to the gallery and view large versions... the employer will need binoculars to see your screen. Just don't go into the gallery.. easy peasy .. right?

Finally all the images on the screen will show as a 'gallery' ... if the IS department looks at your activity records.

Just consider the viewing circumstances and act accordingly. How hard is that? I don't drive at 100 kph on black ice during a sleet storm, I adjust to the situation. I'm sure everyone here can. BTW I find the nudes boring... sorry about that.

Or look at Pnet during work hours... :D

[migtex]

WOW! I'm lucky!
I do not have to comply with that kinda rules on my country,(Yet?!) but as IT consultant I know someday they will come... unfornately!
It is just comon sense really, who wants to see nudes with their fellow workers (male or female) passing by?
Not me and I do Nude photography since I'm 14!
The "rulling" just get me nervous... what you should see, listen, eat, when to sleep ... that kind a"thing".... and fortunately in my country the constitutional laws are not bend when you get in the company, in fact there's where they should enforced!
Back to the issue, a warning (like Photosig.net) should be enough.
Apologies if went sideways....

[jlw]

How many times do I have to say this? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with nudes or that they shouldn't be in the gallery. They DO belong in the gallery. That's great!

But for those of you who don't work in Corporate America to pretend it isn't a potential issue, well, that's just not realistic.

And if the only answer is to avoid the gallery section entirely, then doesn't that kind of detract from the utility of the gallery?

Suppose that in the course of my work (I'm a graphic designer) I see a great architecture or landscape photo in the gallery that I think we should license for an advertising campaign. I don't remember enough of it to find it on a search -- the only way I'm going to be able to show it to my boss is to go to the gallery section.

So, with the boss and the (female) account manager gathered around my desk so I can show them my great idea, I click the gallery link. The gallery entry page appears, with the lovely, artistic nudes in the 'Recent additions' array. The account manager says: "Wait, this isn't some kind of porno site you're showing us, is it?" My credibility as an image-picker has already sunk, no matter how good the subsequent images are.

All I'm saying, for the Nth time, is that nudes and other kinds of potentially corporate-unfriendly photos should appear in the gallery ONLY after you've taken some kind of positive action to enter; they shouldn't appear on the top-level gallery page, where it's impossible to steer potentially-offended viewers around them.

[jano]

I'm with you on this, jlw. It's NOT about censorship, but rather, common sense on the server side to help us prevent accidental issues/embarassments/etc. I avoid the nudes at work, but sometimes, the thumbnail may look completely harmless, and then suddenly, you have a beautiful, artistic nude staring at you. And then your secretary walk in, sues you for sexual harassment, etc etc. Maybe I should just stop visiting rff alltogether, it's too dangerous.

[mpt600]

Or maybe just stop visiting it during office hours?

[stesm]

There are plenty of work-arounds that you could employ without changing this site at all. For example, if you want to show others a photo from the gallery, simply copy it to your desktop, or warn them there is the potential for "coporate-unfriendly" images. Use a privacy filter over your screen. The potential for trouble is not something that exists here, it is something that exists at your workplace.

[Socke]

Originally Posted by jlw

On the other hand, some of us do occasionally view this site at work, where viewing of ANY nudes, no matter how artistic, might be an "issue."

People here should be old enough to know what they may do at work, most companies I know prohibit private use of company equipment, browsing RFF could be considered private use in most businesses.

[Socke]

Originally Posted by jano

I'm with you on this, jlw. It's NOT about censorship, but rather, common sense on the server side to help us prevent accidental issues/embarassments/etc.

Instead of applying common sense on the user side? Computers are smart, but not as smart as humans. hopefully.

I avoid the nudes at work, but sometimes, the thumbnail may look completely harmless, and then suddenly, you have a beautiful, artistic nude staring at you. And then your secretary walk in, sues you for sexual harassment, etc etc. Maybe I should just stop visiting rff alltogether, it's too dangerous.

Jep, if you can't fire the secretary

[Socke]

Originally Posted by NoTx

Oh, and getting fired over seeing someone surf a site with figure studies completly unbelieveable? Please believe. it would happen in a heart beat with some groups I have seen.

How I miss the 70's, miniskirts, see through blouses .....

Now we are heading back into the middle ages.