Banned from the Offical Second Life Flickr feed

[AlexandriaBrangwin]

I think ambiguous grey areas are always difficult in heavily policed rules.

Show what a wonderful platform it is...but don't advertise.

Express yourself...but only if others approve.

Create something iconic...but get too close to something copyrighted you won't even be able to kiss yo azz goodbye it will be vaporized so fast.

I just wish they would use a bit of common sense instead of believing everyone they meet is a terrorist, out to screw everyone over as much as possible before they're shut down.

[AyelaNewLife]

12 hours ago, Kytteh Wytchwood said:

You're lucky OP that Flickr has not deleted your account for incorrect filters for your pics. 

They don't do that, they just slap a content restriction across your entire account, so that everything will be treated as if it was tagged "restricted", no matter what tag you actually give it. Even then, all you have to do is quickly fix the incorrectly rated photos, flag it for re-review and they'll remove the restriction.

You can also set your account to give your work a different default content rating. As my work covers all three categories, I set mine to "moderate" (as most of mine should be "moderate" anyway) so that if I do forget to rate my work, it will be hidden behind the "age verification" wall (that children can get around easily; but that's flickr's problem not ours). The line between "moderate" and "restricted" is kinda blurry, but also policed less harshly by flickr.

I mark mine as Illustration/Art/Animation/CGI because I edit my work, sometimes fairly heavily. None of mine are "faithful representations" of what you can see in your viewer, and I feel that the "CGI" tag more closely fits what I'm doing than a gameplay screenshot. But as loverdag said, the main purpose of those two categories is to keep the actual photography away from everything else.

18 hours ago, loverdag said:

(I dare to guess the picture is new and she got the ban years ago - so all the comments about the swimwear on the picture doens't seems to be fitting the situation.)

I agree, I just wanted to counter the people that think that wearing a swimsuit (not even a bikini!) in a non-suggestive pose was enough to justify a ban or that the picture wasn't family friendly. I also wasn't a fan of the criticism of the clever and beautifully done perspective in her photo. Kindness is free and pretty great, and all that

[Kytteh Wytchwood]

11 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

The line between "moderate" and "restricted" is kinda blurry, but also policed less harshly by flickr.

 

. I also wasn't a fan of the criticism of the clever and beautifully done perspective in her photo. Kindness is free and pretty great, and all that

Click Guidelines at the bottom of the Flickr website. Click the link inside and click the safety filters section. It explicitly states that moderate is bare breasts and butts while full frontal nudity is restricted. False statement. Flickr does police when Flickr members flag a picture for the incorrectly set filter.

No criticism. It's a fact. The foreground is blurry.  Not once have I seen a picture selected by LL for pic of the day to have any blur in it. I mentioned it because it would never be picked for that reason. Your statement about the blur being beautiful is an opinion, not a fact. I am kind. My observation has zero to do with me as a person. 

[loverdag]

31 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

 I also wasn't a fan of the criticism of the clever and beautifully done perspective in her photo. 

Yes, to comment DOF, while they were talking about bans ...it had nothing to do with that. People can like it or not, but its never reason for ban.

[loverdag]

37 minutes ago, AlexandriaBrangwin said:

I think ambiguous grey areas are always difficult in heavily policed rules.

Show what a wonderful platform it is...but don't advertise.

Express yourself...but only if others approve.

Create something iconic...but get too close to something copyrighted you won't even be able to kiss yo azz goodbye it will be vaporized so fast.

I just wish they would use a bit of common sense instead of believing everyone they meet is a terrorist, out to screw everyone over as much as possible before they're shut down.

I agree, there is great grey area also between safe and moderate and the guidlines doesn't help at all. I remember when male blogger got set his account as "moderate" while there was no  nudity at all. No official explanation of course, so they put "unofficially" together it was for picture of him topless and wearing jeans with low waiste - when it shows "too much" bodyhair in this area, its probably supposed to be "moderate". I would never guess that ....

[AyelaNewLife]

11 minutes ago, Kytteh Wytchwood said:

Click Guidelines at the bottom of the Flickr website. Click the link inside and click the safety filters section. It explicitly states that moderate is bare breasts and butts while full frontal nudity is restricted. False statement. Flickr does police when Flickr members flag a picture for the incorrectly set filter.

Context absolutely matters.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ayelanewlife/42951569882/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ - not safe for work.

Is this "moderate" or "restricted"? Technically, all you can see is bare breasts and butts, so it should be rated as "moderate" right? Nope, the pose is extremely suggestive, and inappropriate for general viewing. Even if I added shorts and a t shirt, to cover everything up, would this be family friendly? Absolutely not, it's still, uh, "self-love"; still sexual content.

Or for a more blatant, older example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ayelanewlife/27323427337/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ - also not safe for work.

No bare butts, no bare breasts (okay maybe a hint of sideboob), should this one be rated as "safe"? Of course not, it is extremely obvious what is happening here, and that is far from family friendly. This is rightly rated as "restricted"; "moderate" is not enough.

You're also selectively ignoring my words. I never said that flickr does not police incorrectly set filters; just that they do so less harshly. 

Oh, and next time, if you're going to play the "go read the guidelines" card, make sure you've actually read them first:

23 minutes ago, Kytteh Wytchwood said:

No criticism. It's a fact. The foreground is blurry.  Not once have I seen a picture selected by LL for pic of the day to have any blur in it. I mentioned it because it would never be picked for that reason. Your statement about the blur being beautiful is an opinion, not a fact. I am kind. My observation has zero to do with me as a person. 

Depth of Field is a pretty basic concept for photographers of both the real life and second life varieties. You're perfectly entitled to feel that it has been used inappropriately here, as it is definitely an unconventional use of DoF, but "blur is bad" is naive from someone who (like me) is still learning and progressing as an artist. You yourself have used DoF blur in your work!

And I'd recommend actually looking at the pics of the day before making such blatantly incorrect sweeping statements. Here's the most recent pic of the day:

See that? Blur. And nicely done too. You can check through the recent pics if you'd like, to see just how many contain "blur". Not all of them, sure, because it's not always appropriate. But enough to make it clear that blur does not discount your work from pic of the day selection.

 

[AyelaNewLife]

Relevant xkcd:

[AlexandriaBrangwin]

You would be surprised to know I actually DID get the content restriction on my stream...but not for the reasons you may think.

Because I deal in latex fetishwear in Second Life that was deemed more volatile than nudity.

So this pic is restricted...but unzipping to let the ladies out would have been moderate.

[Kytteh Wytchwood]

35 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ayelanewlife/42951569882/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ - not safe for work.

 

: https://www.flickr.com/photos/ayelanewlife/27323427337/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/ - also not safe for work.

 

You're also selectively ignoring my words. I never said that flickr does not police incorrectly set filters; just that they do so less harshly. 

Oh, and next time, if you're going to play the "go read the guidelines" card, make sure you've actually read them first:

 

 

Depth of Field is a pretty basic concept for photographers of both the real life

"blur is bad"

You yourself have used DoF blur in your work!

And I'd recommend actually looking at the pics of the day before making such blatantly incorrect sweeping statements. Here's the most recent pic of the day:

 

 

Pic 1 is moderate. Moderate pics are not seen by the public. They have to register.

Pic 2 is Restricted. That is a sexual position.

3. Assumption in the first sentence. Second sentence, I disagree. Flickr is harsh. Flickr relieson its members to flag/ report other members. Then if Fickr staff see that the user is breaking policy, they take action. reports go into a queue so it doesn't happen as soon as the report user/ flag photo is pressed. 

4.Assumption again. I did read them. I read the ToS, Spam Policy and Safety filters. I can only guess that since SmugMug has partnered with Yahoo, they changed things around. It did not state that before SmugMug arrived. I also read the new policy of SmugMug. Though I had not gone back to the safety filter section since what you pasted was not mentioned in that section nor was there a link to that section. 

5. Your irrelevant statement of DOF has nothing to do with my observation. 

6. I never implied that blur is bad. I merely stated that there was blur involved. I did not like it as well. That is okay. Everyone is entitled to what they dislike. I thought there was too much bur and it took away from the visual of the avatar. 

7. What does my pics have to do with pic of the day? I do not submit pics to that group. I am not in the group. This is not about me. This is about the sl flickr group and the op. This has now become a personal attack. Stop. 

8. It is not "blatantly incorrect". Every pic I have seen picked did not use blur. Never did I state that every single pic picked does not have blur in it. I am human and I made an assumption. An assumption because out of the many I have viewed, no blur was in sight. Also, I should have stated that what I was also thinking, is I have never seen blur when those pics afre selected, they can also be used for advertising. Not one pic used on the homepage of the SL website nor on the SL marketplace, has ever had blur in it. That is what I was thinking when I made my statement.

As for your next post, that was uncalled for. A bold attack on me. I reported you for attacking me.

Edited June 26, 2018 by Kytteh Wytchwood
stressed and forgot to add more info-added number 7

[Kytteh Wytchwood]

2 minutes ago, AlexandriaBrangwin said:

You would be surprised to know I actually DID get the content restriction on my stream...but not for the reasons you may think.

Because I deal in latex fetishwear in Second Life that was deemed more volatile than nudity.

So this pic is restricted...but unzipping to let the ladies out would have been moderate.

I do find that odd. Did this happen before the partnership with SmugMug or afterwards?

[AlexandriaBrangwin]

Just now, Kytteh Wytchwood said:

I do find that odd. Did this happen before the partnership with SmugMug or afterwards?

Way before.

[Kytteh Wytchwood]

4 minutes ago, AlexandriaBrangwin said:

Way before.

The only thing I can think of, is that the panties do not fully cover the mound. I can see some mound. perhaps that is why them deem it to be Restricted. 

[AlexandriaBrangwin]

No, I think it was because the rules were drafted in reaction to events rather than having a clear roadmap.

I do have my suspicions my Official SL Feed banning was due to advertising...despite me not selling any products whatsoever.

As for the Flickr moderation, because a lot of people have done unmentionable things totally covered head to toe in latex without an inch of skin showing...and the people who do show skin tend to be doing only that...the knee jerk reaction hit the fan.

So now anything shiny gets the boot by default.

Because...lets be honest...who are we to show due process to?

One little insignificant person among thousands per day?

[Kytteh Wytchwood]

4 minutes ago, AlexandriaBrangwin said:

No, I think it was because the rules were drafted in reaction to events rather than having a clear roadmap.

I do have my suspicions my Official SL Feed banning was due to advertising...despite me not selling any products whatsoever.

As for the Flickr moderation, because a lot of people have done unmentionable things totally covered head to toe in latex without an inch of skin showing...and the people who do show skin tend to be doing only that...the knee jerk reaction hit the fan.

So now anything shiny gets the boot by default.

Because...lets be honest...who are we to show due process to?

One little insignificant person among thousands per day?

Hmm, that could be possible, but I feel those safety rules were in place before the SL community came along. There is a huge community of adult rl photos on Flickr. A lot of xrated photos in positions and people in lingerie etc. 

Free members can not have a link that leads to a sales page. Nor can we place links on a pic. The only image trademarks allowed is a logo or your name. 

With the new SmugMug policy, Pro members now have to request in writing for permission to advertise.

 

[Kytteh Wytchwood]

10 minutes ago, AlexandriaBrangwin said:

 

I do have my suspicions my Official SL Feed banning was due to advertising...despite me not selling any products whatsoever.

 

Also, free members cannot have pics that are ads, no logo pics. yet SL users do it all over Flickr. When I used to have a fashion group on Flickr, people got so mad I did not accept free members to post their pics to the group pool when I saw a marketplace link or saw there was a marketplace link in their blog. I eventually deleted the group due to the spam and harassing emails i received after banning people for breaking group rules. I had the rules all over, including the discussion area. 

[AyelaNewLife]

1 minute ago, Kytteh Wytchwood said:

Pic 1 is moderate. Moderate pics are not seen by the public. They have to register.

Pic 2 is Restricted. That is a sexual position.

3. Assumption in the first sentence. Second sentence, I disagree. Flickr is harsh. Flickr relieson its members to flag/ report other members. Then if Fickr staff see that the user is breaking policy, they take action. reports go into a queue so it doesn't happen as soon as the report user/ flag photo is pressed. 

4.Assumption again. I did read them. I read the ToS, Spam Policy and Safety filters. I can only guess that since SmugMug has partnered with Yahoo, they changed things around. It did not state that before SmugMug arrived. I also read the new policy of SmugMug. Though I had not gone back to the safety filter section since what you pasted was not mentioned in that section nor was there a link to that section. 

5. Your irrelevant statement of DOF has nothing to do with my observation. 

6. I never implied that blur is bad. I merely stated that there was blur involved. I did not like it as well. That is okay. Everyone is entitled to what they dislike. I thought there was too much bur and it took away from the visual of the avatar. 

7. It is not "blatantly incorrect". Every pic I have seen picked did not use blur. Never did I state that every single pic picked may have blur in it. I am human and I made an assumption. An assumption because out of the many I have viewed, no blur was in sight. Also, I should have stated that what I was also thinking, is I have never seen blur when those pics afre selected, they can also be used for advertising. Not one pic used on the homepage of the SL website nor on the SL marketplace, has ever had blur in it. That is what I was thinking when I made my statement.

As for your next post, that was uncalled for. A bold attack on me. I reported you for attacking me.

I'm amazed that you think the second pic is sexually suggestive and should be restricted... but I do see where you're coming from. Hypothetically, if that "wandering hand" did not belong to me but instead belonged to another (with nothing else exposed), would that count as a sexual position? I think that they both count. But I also think that this falls into that "grey area" where flickr is unlikely to take action against your account if I were to set that one to moderate, even if it should be restricted. 

The very first pic of the day (that I could find) contains blur, from August 2011. Several more from that first week also use DoF. I just couldn't get my head around how you could possibly think that using DoF - which is so ubiquitous in all kinds of photography or screenshot-based art - could disqualify you from the pic of the day when we have seven years of winning examples that disagree. But everyone makes mistakes, not a big deal 

I was mocking myself with that last picture, if you want to report me for self-deprecating humour, then be my guest, I guess... 

1 minute ago, Kytteh Wytchwood said:

The only thing I can think of, is that the panties do not fully cover the mound. I can see some mound. perhaps that is why them deem it to be Restricted. 

I think you're right. You can also see the nipple outline, I'm guessing it's been treated the same way RL bodypaint would - treated as nude. While there is no way to be certain, I think this is one of those cases that would have been allowed if it was marked as moderate. There are guidelines, those guidelines are subjective and often open to interpretation, certainly with the edge cases; the fact that we're trying to bend logic to justify why flickr have penalised this latex picture is a perfect example of this.

Simply saying that flickr doesn't police it as harshly doesn't really explain what I mean that well, and that's my fault. Let me put it this way; if my first picture was marked as moderate, and assuming that flickr thinks that it should instead be restricted, would that one infringement be enough to restrict my account and give me a warning point? Would every customer service rep apply that punishment, or do you think that some would let that slide? Now imagine that I had instead marked that picture as safe; do you not agree that flickr would be more likely to punish me for it? That's what I meant by saying they policed incorrectly-marked safe pictures more harshly. I hope that made sense 

[loverdag]

34 minutes ago, Kytteh Wytchwood said:

Also, free members cannot have pics that are ads, no logo pics. yet SL users do it all over Flickr. When I used to have a fashion group on Flickr, people got so mad I did not accept free members to post their pics to the group pool when I saw a marketplace link or saw there was a marketplace link in their blog. I eventually deleted the group due to the spam and harassing emails i received after banning people for breaking group rules. I had the rules all over, including the discussion area. 

Thats not clearly said like that. Non-Pro should not link their marketplace (aka "shopping carts links"), thats correct. But there is said nothing about restriction of logos in pictures etc. Esp. if the picture is not clearly "vendore picture" showing only the dress (the product) but when its there entire scene, for the instance dancing avatars in the club - I'm not lawyer or anyhting, but I beleive to add logo of brand who made their dresses or to add logo of the club doesn't collide directly with the restiction for non-Pro.

"If you have a free account and don’t have a Flickr Pro account, you may not link directly to a shopping cart, checkout page, or pricing pages on other sites, and you may not list prices on your Flickr photo descriptions." https://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines

I beleive the restriction should be seen as "don't use Flickr as your e-shop to sell products directly from there" and you pushed it a little too far in extreme. There is not said non-Pro aren't allowed to add links to blogs or other pages. As long as the blog itself does NOT contain the prices or shopping carts, its not restricted.

--------

(And OP talked about rules of the SL group, not about general Flickr rules BTW.)

[AlexandriaBrangwin]

Can we all agree the one thing we would like from The Lindens is "Due Process"?

Beginning from the assumption of innocence before acting in such a permanent manner with no possibility of review?

Talking to the community they say they value?

[AyelaNewLife]

Just now, AlexandriaBrangwin said:

Can we all agree the one thing we would like from The Lindens is "Due Process"?

Beginning from the assumption of innocence before acting in such a permanent manner with no possibility of review?

In other words, the way they would treat your Second Life account? Yeah, that would be nice 

[loverdag]

I think you still can try to send the flickrmail, maybe at least to get explanation why you are banned. Well, I would not be really surprised if you will never get answer ... but at least you can try.

Anyways - point of view from the other side - I was member of the group back at 2012 or so and I was there for few years, then I stopped to feel comfortable with the "you give us unlimited rights" rule, so I left, but i didn't remove my pictures from the group pool. I don't remember when I left but it must be years ago. And last year one of mine old pictures was used as headline pic for Marketplace. It was landscape picture of beach, LL added red price tags to the shown objects (stones, waves ...) and some advertising text. I felt it as "punisment" for ever being member of the group and it made me even more sure I dont wan't to participate on "community advertisings" anymore ... My point is, you didn't have a choice, you were removed and banned, but not everyone see as honor to have their work used as LL advertising ...it was not fair to you, but maybe is not so bad to be out...? Esp. when you dont like how LL treat you about that, do you really want to give them your work to use it for free...? (Those are more rhetorical questions, its my personal approach, I know thats not general and doesn't work for everyone.)

 

[AlexandriaBrangwin]

No, I think my early ideals of charity towards them are gone.

All I'd want now is to prevent the same thing happening to anyone else.

And to encourage other hopefuls to build their own stream for their benefit instead.

[AyelaNewLife]

33 minutes ago, loverdag said:

Anyways - point of view from the other side - I was member of the group back at 2012 or so and I was there for few years, then I stopped to feel comfortable with the "you give us unlimited rights" rule, so I left, but i didn't remove my pictures from the group pool. I don't remember when I left but it must be years ago. And last year one of mine old pictures was used as headline pic for Marketplace. It was landscape picture of beach, LL added red price tags to the shown objects (stones, waves ...) and some advertising text. I felt it as "punisment" for ever being member of the group and it made me even more sure I dont wan't to participate on "community advertisings" anymore ... My point is, you didn't have a choice, you were removed and banned, but not everyone see as honor to have their work used as LL advertising ...it was not fair to you, but maybe is not so bad to be out...? Esp. when you dont like how LL treat you about that, do you really want to give them your work to use it for free...? (Those are more rhetorical questions, its my personal approach, I know thats not general and doesn't work for everyone.)

Out of curiosity, was this image linked back to you in any way? Could it have given you any increased traffic or publicity? If they just "stole" (with your permission) it and used it purely for their own ends, then yeah I fully agree with you that's kinda a bad, one-sided deal.

[loverdag]

40 minutes ago, AyelaNewLife said:

Out of curiosity, was this image linked back to you in any way? Could it have given you any increased traffic or publicity? If they just "stole" (with your permission) it and used it purely for their own ends, then yeah I fully agree with you that's kinda a bad, one-sided deal.

No, its purely adv for MP shopping, linked with the part of the MP (landscaping). I found screentshot, so i can show you:

https://gyazo.com/fd527b6f1b51fcaf938b87845658ea07 There is only my name on it, thats all. Is that helpul? I don't believe so.

The screenshot was taken on MP at August 2017.

Original pic was uploaded on Flickr and added in the group at February 2013 https://www.flickr.com/photos/loverdag/8484641123/in/album-72157632797159336/

 

It so old, that I would not want it linked together, I beleive I have better pictures to show today, than back at 2013.

[Maitimo]

On 25/06/2018 at 9:27 PM, Kytteh Wytchwood said:

You're lucky OP that Flickr has not deleted your account for incorrect filters for your pics. Also, you need to correctly select your photo type. All SL pics are screenshots. I have recently been correcting my pics in the Organizer. 

Flickr does not delete/ban an account for incorrect settings. They just flag your entire account as"Unsafe"  (Adult/Restricted) until you fix the settings, then you ask them for a review and they check everything again and change you back to Safe.

Edited June 28, 2018 by Matty Luminos

[AlexandriaBrangwin]

Tried to join again today....................................*sigh*

I keep messaging group admin, funny they're not there to hear you but on the spot to punish you!

Edited June 29, 2019 by AlexandriaBrangwin
more