Author Topic: 100+ Files Deactivation by IStock for Nudity (Read 22337 times)

danhowl · « **Reply #25 on:** September 17, 2015, 21:25 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2015, 12:43

Must we see the nude photos of women in the thread? I'm not interested in seeing them one bit, really.

Are you serious? That is at the core of this topic. The content was described in the text. It was not displayed. You did not have to click on it.

PixelBytes · « **Reply #26 on:** September 17, 2015, 21:53 »

This makes no sense. Istock already have an adult content filter. Anyone at work or who got kids with access to their computer or just don't want to see it can filter out such content.

They may even lose commercial sales cuz guys that want to browse hot girls might pick up other stuff while their at it.

cathyslife · « **Reply #27 on:** September 17, 2015, 22:16 »

Quote from: danhowl on September 17, 2015, 21:25

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 17, 2015, 12:43
Must we see the nude photos of women in the thread? I'm not interested in seeing them one bit, really.

Are you serious? That is at the core of this topic. The content was described in the text. It was not displayed. You did not have to click on it.

She wasnt talking about your link, she was talking about someone else who actually posted a pic in their post. It has been removed, fortunately.

cathyslife · « **Reply #28 on:** September 17, 2015, 22:28 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on September 17, 2015, 12:12

The internet is awash with porn for those who want it and Istock decide to purge tasteful nude images a recognised art form since the time of the Greeks (at least). Nice one

Explain to me in what context would a partially or fully nude woman be used as a business stock photo, except in the context of something to do with sex or porn? To me, it seems like more a badge of honor for the photographer.

[size=78%]If it is done as artistic content, then it should be on an art site, not a stock photo site, since the stock photo sites dont allow content to be used in porn. Why they ever accepted them to begin with is beyond me, when it goes against what they have in their own Agreements.[/size]

danhowl · « **Reply #29 on:** September 18, 2015, 00:44 »

Quote from: cathyslife on September 17, 2015, 22:28

Quote from: Pauws99 on September 17, 2015, 12:12
The internet is awash with porn for those who want it and Istock decide to purge tasteful nude images a recognised art form since the time of the Greeks (at least). Nice one

Explain to me in what context would a partially or fully nude woman be used as a business stock photo, except in the context of something to do with sex or porn? To me, it seems like more a badge of honor for the photographer. [size=78%]If it is done as artistic content, then it should be on an art site, not a stock photo site, since the stock photo sites dont allow content to be used in porn. Why they ever accepted them to begin with is beyond me, when it goes against what they have in their own Agreements.[/size]

Wow. What a limited view of the scope of stock imagery and usage. I don't think it is anyone's job to explain to you what and how many different contexts that images containing nudity of various levels have market potential. If you don't want to shoot or view that content, fine, but please don't even try to deny there is a market for it.

Exactly how many more sunsets do stock libraries really need...?

Microstockphoto · « **Reply #30 on:** September 18, 2015, 02:26 »

Quote

Even though Getty Images and iStock by Getty Images does accept artistic partial and full nudity in photography for royalty free photography we reserve the right to reject/deactivate any image, including images that we feel are clichéd, overtly stereotypical, too explicit, verge on the pornographic, obscene or represents gender roles in a sexist manner. We may also reject/deactivate images in these categories that we feel are not commercially viable

Could it not just be that the image in the OP falls under those categories?

Tror · « **Reply #31 on:** September 18, 2015, 03:32 »

Whats wrong with nudity? And why are the US Folks still scared by tits?

lol

cathyslife · « **Reply #32 on:** September 18, 2015, 05:50 »

Quote from: danhowl on September 18, 2015, 00:44

Quote from: cathyslife on September 17, 2015, 22:28
Quote from: Pauws99 on September 17, 2015, 12:12
The internet is awash with porn for those who want it and Istock decide to purge tasteful nude images a recognised art form since the time of the Greeks (at least). Nice one

Explain to me in what context would a partially or fully nude woman be used as a business stock photo, except in the context of something to do with sex or porn? To me, it seems like more a badge of honor for the photographer. [size=78%]If it is done as artistic content, then it should be on an art site, not a stock photo site, since the stock photo sites dont allow content to be used in porn. Why they ever accepted them to begin with is beyond me, when it goes against what they have in their own Agreements.[/size]

Wow. What a limited view of the scope of stock imagery and usage. I don't think it is anyone's job to explain to you what and how many different contexts that images containing nudity of various levels have market potential. If you don't want to shoot or view that content, fine, but please don't even try to deny there is a market for it.

Exactly how many more sunsets do stock libraries really need...?

If there is such a market for it, why are they removing it? And, not anyones JOB to explain how it could be used, but no one will, because i already covered the two reasons.

Scared by tits...LOL! Yeah...that's the reason.

ShadySue · « **Reply #33 on:** September 18, 2015, 06:56 »

Hmmmm.
What is 'tasteful' or 'pornographic' in nudes is so subjective that I'm emphasising that the following is only my opinion.

I did a search for nude women and sorted by 'Most popular ... all time', these were all IMO very tasteful images and I could see they would have many uses.
(I reverse image searched one of them and found to my astonishment a link for 'free nude women photo' linking back to iStock. Following the link, it was just that they had 'free' as a keyword.

Anyway, interesting that a far greater percentage of 'nude women' are actually nude rather than the much smaller number of allegedly 'nude men'. That in itself indicates a degree of sexism, IMO. Also, sorting nude women by 'new' shows a big percentage of far less tasteful (IMO) nudes than the 'most popular - all time' search.
Looking over at the iS discussion, which I can't quote, it looks like the incompetents they hired to do the retitling and new keywording are now doing the deactivations. I wonder if they have hired the mob from whom I once got an Alamy email objecting to a description on one of my pics: but it wasn't one of my pics.

Still, the port of the bloke with many IMO 'soft porn' images is still apparently complete. Those who have been around iS for a long time will know who I mean - he used to be vocal on the forums.

cathyslife · « **Reply #34 on:** September 18, 2015, 07:33 »

Quote

What is 'tasteful' or 'pornographic' in nudes is so subjective

That is correct.

I am honestly asking for someone to share an idea of how the OP's image in the link could be used commercially for something other than a business related to sex or porn. Maybe I am missing something. I don't consider it pornographic, but I do consider it to be related to sex, which in my mind, leaves it out of the uses I can think of. Breast cancer ad? No. Breastfeeding ad? No. Fitness center ad? Possibly, but I don't typically see any nudity in those types of ads. You don't usually work out at a gym in the nude. Victoria's Secret ad? Sure, because they market sex. Maybe a plastic surgery business? Maybe, but again, I think the experession on the model's face and her pose swing more toward the sex side.

I would never defend what istock or getty does, because we all know they have been whacked for years. And leaving some contributors' ports up and getting rid of others has always happened there, and happens on other sites as well. So that isn't any surprise either.

If there is a huge market for these types of images, I say find the correct outlet to sell them, and have at it. Apparently the istock/getty photo site isn't going to be the place.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #35 on:** September 18, 2015, 08:25 »

Interesting post Sue. Yes the balance of male vs females nudes is sexist but I think its not really to do with the site but mainly a reflection of the world we live it - the fact is pictures of pretty/sexy women sell things. From Bounty Bars, Cadbury's Flake Manikin Cigars (Those from the UK who are old enough will remember). It also sells newspapers - it amuses me every year that it seems 95% of people completing exams are attractive females! I think it also reflects the fact that most photographers are Male. I have done pictures of models in the past and confess I'm more comfortable with and enjoy taking pictures of females. I gave it up as being uneconomic. I did do a few topless/nude as a small part of any shoot and they have sold but not particularly well. I must confess I never really gave much thought as to what they were used for.

At the end of the day its down to any site what they choose to accept and we have to live with it.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #36 on:** September 18, 2015, 09:45 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on September 18, 2015, 08:25

Interesting post Sue. Yes the balance of male vs females nudes is sexist but I think its not really to do with the site but mainly a reflection of the world we live it - the fact is pictures of pretty/sexy women sell things. From Bounty Bars, Cadbury's Flake Manikin Cigars (Those from the UK who are old enough will remember). It also sells newspapers - it amuses me every year that it seems 95% of people completing exams are attractive females! I think it also reflects the fact that most photographers are Male. I have done pictures of models in the past and confess I'm more comfortable with and enjoy taking pictures of females. I gave it up as being uneconomic. I did do a few topless/nude as a small part of any shoot and they have sold but not particularly well. I must confess I never really gave much thought as to what they were used for.

At the end of the day its down to any site what they choose to accept and we have to live with it.

Actually, studies have shown that photos of pretty/sexy women don't sell things. It's entirely a reflection of a male-dominated society that pretty, sexy and nude women are plastered all over products despite the fact that they don't sell. I'm just really tired of seeing them, after years of drawing nude women in art classes and decades of my male coworkers and bosses having photos of nude women covering their office walls (advertising industry).

I try to imagine a colleague's, boss's or subordinate's reaction if I, a middle-aged woman, covered my office walls with photos of nude men. I think every man in the agency would think I was some kind of super creepy cougar pervert and would feel really uncomfortable being in my office space and would most likey avoid me in the halls. When you look at it the other way around, it just seems really strange to use nude men to sell Bounty Bars (whatever they are).

Noedelhap · « **Reply #37 on:** September 18, 2015, 10:06 »

Quote from: cathyslife on September 18, 2015, 05:50

If there is such a market for it, why are they removing it?

You make it sound like there's any logic in iStock's decision-making.

danhowl · « **Reply #38 on:** September 18, 2015, 10:19 »

Quote from: cathyslife on September 18, 2015, 07:33

Quote
What is 'tasteful' or 'pornographic' in nudes is so subjective

I am honestly asking for someone to share an idea of how the OP's image in the link could be used commercially for something other than a business related to sex or porn. Maybe I am missing something.

Advertising a product or business is certainly not the only application for a stock photo. A significant amount of downloads are used for Illustrating editorial in magazines or blogs, direct sale on products like posters are all outside the definition of advertising.

In regards to this image and genre. All of the images recently (that I could identify) removed by iStock are still selling for me on Shutterstock and Dreamstime. I loosely label the genre as glamour and they perform roughly the same as several other genres of my work. Additionally, unlike many micro-stockers, I am a full-time commercial assignment photographer and have been for 20+ years. While most of my assignment work is casual and bridal fashion for manufacturers and catalogs, glamour is also a percentage of my commercial assignment work.

It's not for everyone, and in my observation, there are more photographers interested in this genre that are justified by the market, but the same can be said of travel and landscape photography.

danhowl · « **Reply #39 on:** September 18, 2015, 10:26 »

Quote from: drial7m1 on September 17, 2015, 12:28

You can always search by the deactivated files option, use the file number from the e-mail sent to find out which files have been taken off, that was what I had to do.

I looked for something like this but I did not see it. Where do I find it on the contributor page?

edit: found it. thanks

xst · « **Reply #40 on:** September 18, 2015, 14:11 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 17, 2015, 18:58

Quote from: disorderly on September 17, 2015, 18:52
Quote from: tickstock on September 17, 2015, 18:19
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 17, 2015, 10:55
Well, their site, their choice. I don't see anything wrong with that image. Maybe they're being forced to be PC.

Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.

That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies. I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request. So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.

Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.

there is market for those images - "covers of romance stories".
There are a lot of self-published books of this kind (even on Amazon)
www.amazon.com/Their-Stepsister-Alexa-Riley-ebook/dp/B00U02FK12
And (wearing my designer hat now) sometimes it is more convenient to have nude image even when final product won't show any private parts. Covering them by texts, etc makes it visually more pleasing then have it covered by clothes. Illusion sells...

tickstock · « **Reply #41 on:** September 18, 2015, 14:59 »

Quote from: xst on September 18, 2015, 14:11

Quote from: tickstock on September 17, 2015, 18:58
Quote from: disorderly on September 17, 2015, 18:52
Quote from: tickstock on September 17, 2015, 18:19
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 17, 2015, 10:55
Well, their site, their choice. I don't see anything wrong with that image. Maybe they're being forced to be PC.

Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.

That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies. I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request. So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.

Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.

there is market for those images - "covers of romance stories".
There are a lot of self-published books of this kind (even on Amazon)
www.amazon.com/Their-Stepsister-Alexa-Riley-ebook/dp/B00U02FK12
And (wearing my designer hat now) sometimes it is more convenient to have nude image even when final product won't show any private parts. Covering them by texts, etc makes it visually more pleasing then have it covered by clothes. Illusion sells...

I guess romance novelists will have to go elsewhere to get nude images that they want to crop or cover up so there is no nudity in the final copy. Seems like a very limited set of buyers though at least. BTW it looks like the image you used for an example would still be allowed wouldn't it?
I also don't think they should get rid of requiring releases for commercial work just because a buyer could crop, blur or cover the parts of the image to make it ok.

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #42 on:** September 18, 2015, 21:48 »

Quote from: Holmes on September 17, 2015, 11:48

Yep they nailed five of mine shot tastefully with a Playboy model (paid).

Once again, iStock/Getty is just SO desperate. I guess they have to find something to tell the board members when asked how they are fixing things.

admin edit: image removed to keep the site SFW ... although I agree it was a tasteful nude that wasn't very nude.

Did these photos make back the expense of the paid model?

kelby · « **Reply #43 on:** September 20, 2015, 05:35 »

the funny things is how the istock policy is totally different for Yuri Arcurs and all hus account on istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/the-perfect-shape-73583991?st=bfb5297
just an example of the stuff they to accept to him

vectrostockstudio · « **Reply #44 on:** September 25, 2015, 06:39 »

I have the same warn:

iStock has deactivated 160+ of my files from istockphoto.com base (but it still available on partners site)

Karen · « **Reply #45 on:** September 25, 2015, 11:13 »

Quote from: kelby on September 20, 2015, 05:35

the funny things is how the istock policy is totally different for Yuri Arcurs and all hus account on istock
http://www.istockphoto.com/photo/the-perfect-shape-73583991?st=bfb5297
just an example of the stuff they to accept to him

Wow!!!
iStock is deactivating hundreds of nude photos from other's contributors
and at the same time is accepting Yuri Arcurs's nude photos?
Search for nudity in his portfolio:
http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/PeopleImages?order=Age

Shelma1 · « **Reply #46 on:** September 25, 2015, 11:29 »

Well, gang, I got an email today from iStock that they were deactivating one of my illos that has absolutely no nudity whatsoever. When I checked my deactivated files to see which one it was, I saw they've deactivated a whole bunch of my images, none of which feature women or nudity. But I only got notified about the one. I think the CEO is making some sort of clean sweep of files that have any suggestive keywords (like "breast," maybe?) or haven't sold well. It's a shame, because I have a few images that sold for the first time recently after being online there for a year (though they all sold well at SS).

Maybe everyone should check their deactivated files.

cathyslife · « **Reply #47 on:** September 25, 2015, 15:20 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on September 25, 2015, 11:29

snip
Maybe everyone should check their deactivated files.

Or maybe everyone should deactivate their own.

RapidEye · « **Reply #48 on:** September 26, 2015, 11:39 »

This is much wider than nudity.

I once did a silly little shoot with a couple of friends involving a man in a suit crawling on the floor wearing a dog collar, being led by a woman in stockings and heels (only her feet and lower legs visible). Deactivated yesterday. Stereotypical gender roles, I guess.

It's a shame, because some of them were sellers.

I'm a little more puzzled by the removal of impassive headshots of women with tape over their mouths, intended to convey the idea of censorship and/or lack of a voice. Apparently they're being interpreted rather differently. I have a picture of a gagged male child, as well -- so far still active.

And then I have some shots of a woman wearing a dunce cap. Also a man, but only the shots of the woman are being deactivated.

xst · « **Reply #49 on:** September 27, 2015, 12:29 »

Quote from: tickstock on September 18, 2015, 14:59

Quote from: xst on September 18, 2015, 14:11
Quote from: tickstock on September 17, 2015, 18:58
Quote from: disorderly on September 17, 2015, 18:52
Quote from: tickstock on September 17, 2015, 18:19
Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 17, 2015, 10:55
Well, their site, their choice. I don't see anything wrong with that image. Maybe they're being forced to be PC.

Maybe models threaten to sue when those images are used for escort services, porn sites, or other things they don't like.

That's a violation of Getty's own release (pornography or defamation), which is the one I use with all the agencies. I've had it happen twice in ten years and was able to have the images taken down immediately with a DMCA request. So no, whatever the reason for iStock's change in policy, I'm confident that you haven't identified it.

Some of those images look like they could only be used for those kinds of things, if they can't legally be used per the terms then it makes sense to cull them.

there is market for those images - "covers of romance stories".
There are a lot of self-published books of this kind (even on Amazon)
www.amazon.com/Their-Stepsister-Alexa-Riley-ebook/dp/B00U02FK12
And (wearing my designer hat now) sometimes it is more convenient to have nude image even when final product won't show any private parts. Covering them by texts, etc makes it visually more pleasing then have it covered by clothes. Illusion sells...

I guess romance novelists will have to go elsewhere to get nude images that they want to crop or cover up so there is no nudity in the final copy. Seems like a very limited set of buyers though at least. BTW it looks like the image you used for an example would still be allowed wouldn't it?
I also don't think they should get rid of requiring releases for commercial work just because a buyer could crop, blur or cover the parts of the image to make it ok.

BTW it looks like the image you used for an example would still be allowed wouldn't it? - Nop. Deactivated.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 100+ Files Deactivation by IStock for Nudity (Read 22337 times)

danhowl

PixelBytes

cathyslife

cathyslife

danhowl

Microstockphoto

Tror

cathyslife

ShadySue

cathyslife

Pauws99

Shelma1

Noedelhap

danhowl

danhowl

xst

tickstock

YadaYadaYada

kelby

vectrostockstudio

Karen

Shelma1

cathyslife

RapidEye

xst

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors