|
you probably were nipsa'd for hosting banners.
you should go through email help and contact staff .. ask which specific shots you need to mark as may offend or remove in order to get off the nipsa list.
nipsa = not in public site areas
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
jawboneradio, Flickr is a community for photographers. Your photostreams seems to be a collection of illustrations.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
heather, does this mean that anyone participating in the 700 hoboes project will be nipsa'd? .. i was considering drawing a hobo and i don't want to have the axe drop on me.
or would i have to have a photostream that is mostly or entirely drawings for that to happen?
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
striatic edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
Hmm...I can pull off that banner...I didn't even think about that. I can pull that off.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
Now I have no idea what this 700 hoboes stuff is about, but is it necessary for the images to be in the public site areas? If not, they can be marked may offend by the uploader from the get go and no one has to worry about their entire stream being NIPSA'd.
[edit] After taking a look at your photostream jawboneradio, I don't think that just taking off the banner is going to do it, it doesn't look to me like you've got ANY photos in your stream. Not that I really think that's bad or anything, but it'll keep you out of the public site areas for sure.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
jacqueline-w edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
one or a few illustrations in a photostream primarily consisting of a persons photos will not get you NIPSAed.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
heather (staff) edited this topic 33 months ago.
|
|
|
one or a few illustrations in a photostream primarily consisting of a persons photos will not get you NIPSAed.
okay cool thanks.
jawbone, looks like you need to start uploading some photos or something.
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Ok, point well taken. So, if I add some photos I can be added back to the 700 Hoboes project?
Posted 33 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I'm a little puzzled as to why an illustration saved in Photoshop is apparently verboten, but a photo saved in Photoshop is okay. Seems a little arbitrary to me.
I also think you oughta be a little more upfront about this rule; I wouldn't have bothered signing up in the first place if I'd been aware that people had issues with illustrations.
Maybe I should've gone into photography instead of illustration when I was in college?
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
there's nothing arbitrary about the distinction between photos and illustrations (such as the ones you put up).
I also think you oughta be a little more upfront about this rule; [...]
- about flickr: "almost certainly the best online photo management and sharing application in the world." (emphasis mine)
- flickr community guidelines: "And yes, Flickr is for photos. With some exceptions, it's OK to post other images, but if the majority of your photostream contains content other than photographs (like illustrations, screenshots, diagrams, etc.) it's very likely that your account will be marked Not in Public Site Areas (NIPSA)."
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Really? What about the illustrations that had photos encorporated into them?
I've been working in prepress, advertising and graphic design for 16 years. In my experience, the distinction between the two gets blurrier all the time, especially with the same software - and sometimes hardware - being used for both. Is there a problem with retouched photos as well?
As for the community guidelines, I had to hunt around for awhile to find that part. I certainly didn't see it anywhere when I first signed up, unless it was hidden in the fine print somewhere. Obviously I should've poked around more before I signed up, but it honestly never occurred to me that people would have issues on this topic.
And all that aside, what difference does it make, ultimately? Will the existing photos on the site be damaged somehow by my illustrations? Will the holy sanctity of photography be sullied by juxtaposition with paintings and drawings?
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
howyadoin edited this topic 29 months ago.
|
|
|
I suppose I should be more specific. Take a look at these two images:
www.jkrweb.com/comics/images/mckean1.jpg
www.rebas.se/aboutme/pics/example_mack.jpg
Some people would describe the first as a photo, even though it encorporates a great deal of illustration. Similarly, the second one would, I'd guess, be considered an illustration, even though it's a collage of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional objects which was then shot with - you guessed it - a camera.
I get the idea that this isn't my sandbox, and I have to abide by the rules. I just don't understand the rationale behind the rules, which is why I posted in the first place. If the rationale is "because I said so", then yes, I think that's arbitrary.
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
And all that aside, what difference does it make, ultimately? Will the existing photos on the site be damaged somehow by my illustrations? Will the holy sanctity of photography be sullied by juxtaposition with paintings and drawings?
This misses the point entirely. Many of us joined this site not just to share our own photographs but also to see others' great photography. If I do a tag search on any given subject it's because I want to see photographs related to that tag: I don't want to see illustrations, listen to music or watch films. As I've just written in another thread on this subject; there are plenty of other sites for sharing other media. Flickr is a photo sharing site - for sharing photographs.
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I get the idea that this isn't my sandbox, and I have to abide by the rules. I just don't understand the rationale behind the rules, which is why I posted in the first place. If the rationale is "because I said so", then yes, I think that's arbitrary.
This has been hashed over and over and over. You might do a search and see if you can get any understanding of the rationale behind the rule. You will learn if you do the research that none of the members of flickr has a clue, so posting the query here will just stir up the sandbox but produce no answers. If you want answers, email staff.
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Thanks, Civilized Explorer. I did a search in the first place; that's how I found this particular thread.
Your point is well taken, though.
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
for the record, howyadoin, i didn't mean to come off as a self-appointed judge of what can and cannot be posted on flickr, far from it. i'm just saying: it's (supposed to be) pretty obvious flickr is for storing/displaying/sharing photos. i'm not slagging off your, or anyone's, creative work.
as for the two images you linked to, i wouldn't really categorize either one of those as photos per se. i'm not saying there shouldn't be a place on flickr for those kinds of images, just that an account entirely made up of images like that could end up being nipsa'd, or worse, terminated by staff as it is not the intended use of flickr.
there is a grey area in between photos and "non-photos", and you can always come up with tricky examples open to debate, but it all has very little bearing on what's essential here: flickr is for photos.
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
|
Fair enough. That point of view baffles me, but I'm not bent outta shape about it. Thanks for the input anyway.
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
|
I once tried to figure out why they think a scanned drawing is verboten but a photographed drawing is okay. All I got was those standard replies like the ones Staff people made in this thread.
Posted 29 months ago.
( permalink
)
|
Feed – Subscribe to help discussion threads
Flickr Blog |
About Flickr |
Terms of Use |
Your Privacy |
Copyright/IP Policy | Report Abuse
|
Deutsch
|
English
|
Español
|
Français
|
|
Italiano
|
Português
Copyright © 2008 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Save to del.icio.us
