Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Rule Change: Half-naked Woman  
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 20020 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

Hello all,

Although proven very popular, I have after much consideration decided to remove photos where the main subject is a woman, often half-naked. I apologize to the photographers effected.

Airliners.net wants to keep a professional reputation and will in the future stay away from such cheap and tacky photos. True, they do get a lot of clicks but if that was the only thing important, I'd soon be running a porn site.

examples of photos that will not be accepted in the future include:








Photos shot with some class and with an aircraft visible (like some from St. Maarten) will remain in the database.

Regards,
Johan


Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
136 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineThom@s From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11955 posts, RR: 46
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 19811 times:

Sounds fair enough to me.  Smile

Thom@s



"If guns don't kill people, people kill people - does that mean toasters don't toast toast, toast toast toast?"
User currently offlineLHRSIMON From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1343 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19765 times:

Booooooo Hisssssssss....... It always gave me a good eyefull when one of these pictures came up  Smile

Seriously I can can see why its being done. Better to stop the issue before it become a problem i guess....

Anyone got any links to some porn sites  Smile  Smile
(Thats a joke by the way so please don't post any)

Simon C


[Edited 2004-12-10 13:55:52]


Canon 1D Mk III,Canon 20D+17-40 L f4.0,70-200 L IS USM f2.8,400 L USM f5.6,135 mm L f2.0, 50 mm f1.8,1.4 x II extender
User currently offlineCabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19756 times:

Here is me thinking the Swedish are open minded!

It's your site Johan but I do think bit by bit the goal posts are getting smaller, the rules getting larger and the advertisements getting bigger.

We all love aviation here and we are all mature to distinct between porn or simple aviation related photograph with a human being! in it. Your comment of half naked got me confused? I stared at the Hooters Air Orange Girl cockpit shot for 5 min trying to make them half naked but I couldn't.

I guess you have your reasons for it Johan, But PLEASE don't take the enjoyment out of it, the greatest thing about Airliners.net is the diverse amount of photographs and seeing a "Half Naked Women" as you put it is a refreshing change, We see them 1 in every 1000 photographs, they are respectful, they are part of aviation, these people, man or women are part of aviation.

I think you will receive lots of feedback about your decision, many of it bad. You have your reasons which I respect isn't the greatest thing about A.Net the ability to discuss things before making the decisions, discuss it with the people who make the site what it is?? After all its these people who have made the site as popular as it is.

Don't take the fun out of this Johan, Keep it respectful, I don't agree to topless women, I don't agree to sexual innuendo, none of the A.net photographs show any of these?

Thanks




User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19700 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

>Here is me thinking the Swedish are open minded!

That's one of the reasons to why they are gone. I am open minded and realized it was disrespectful to woman (treating them like objects) and we should be able to stay above that, even though we are 99% men.

>Your comment of half naked got me confused?

Then maybe you should read my comment again (note "often").

>discuss it with the people who make the site what it is??

Not everything is up for discussion. I participate frequently in the Photography and Site Related forum, it is totally absurd to insinuate that I do not listen and discuss things with photographers and visitors.

Regards,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineJkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19657 times:

Johan,

Well how disappointed I am!  Big grin

In all seriousness Airliners.net has to up-hold its professional front, so I can understand the removal of such pictures. It's up to you what's on here so fair play!

Whether people agree on it or disagree on it, the change has been made so its kind of tough to revert that now. Of course I will voice my opinion, but at the end of the day not everyone will have things their way.

With the VS one being top of yesterday I can imagine there were some complaints about the level of nudity (Hubba hubba) in that shot. Personally I think someone (most people) have it in for Branson!  Laugh out loud

Cheers,

Justin  Smile


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 19631 times:

Johan,

Your site, your rules. I don't honestly think they were doing any harm - it was just a bit of fun, and let's face it, nice to look at.

Cheers



James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineAriis From Poland, joined Sep 2004, 422 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19566 times:

Hi there,

I understand and respect your will and I actually agree with you.

I would only argue about the last example photo you placed above, i.e. mr Branson and the bikini girls. This one photo, apart from other ones, commemorates a more or less noticeable event, and I think it is worth keeping in the database. I would personally consider this particular one as an exception to what you have described as "cheap and tacky".

Just a thought
FAO



FAO - Flight Activities Officer
User currently offlineNeilalp From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 1034 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19557 times:

I agree 100%, however the Virgin Atlantic picture on the wing I feel is aviation. The concorde crew although clothed has their picture on a wing. This is a shot of unification between two countries and new airline service. I understand the toss up and I agree some of those pictures make you look at things other than the aircraft itself.

Now on a related topic, are we not going to see half-naked women on the banner adds? There are adds for Sexy Singles that are just like any of those pictures posted.

But like said earlier you're the boss.


User currently offlineEGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12443 posts, RR: 35
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19554 times:

I had no beef with those photos, I felt they were valid, fun contributions to the database (although when Derek's first photo was accepted I was a little bit sceptical as there wasn't much aviation in the photo). I think this is a more light hearted side to A.net that has now been erased and I think we've taken a step back by doing so. But after all, its Johan's site and he can do what he want with it.

User currently offlineChrisH From Sweden, joined Jul 2004, 1136 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19544 times:

Good riddance! These shots should go on myaviation.net or something instead.


what seems to be the officer, problem?
User currently offlineCFIcraigAPA From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 223 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19529 times:

So, how about moving all those pics to www.airlinerchicks.net??  Big thumbs up
Man, those were some great shots. I understand the decision, though.
CM



Prior Proper Preparation Prevents Piss-Poor Performance
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19487 times:

Perhaps Johan is right ... I've just had a look at some warbird pics on A.net. Talk about your tacky and cheap. I will not shame the photographers by posting examples, but if you can stand the moral depravation, go and have a look at "The Dragon and his Tail" or "Hard to Get"



Smile)

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineFergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1916 posts, RR: 52
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19481 times:

Johan

Your site, your rules.

I love the site and the forum. I enjoy logging on and reading all the tips photographers post when it comes to photography and equipment, I have learnt so much in the last month and I can't thank those involved enough for their advice.
I just have one question for you. If you say you have this morality issue with woman in bikini's then why do you allow advertisment of half naked women for screensavers on you site. Surely if you have a problem with these photo's then you must with this kind of advertisment. I understand you need advertisment to pay for the site, but surely you can screen what is advertised!

Just my thought

Fergul Big grin



Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19483 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

>mr Branson and the bikini girls

If Mr Branson wants his memorable moments on Airliners.net from now on, he'll have to celebrate them without the tacky bikini girls. But as I presume Mr Branson gives little regard to what happens on Airliners.net, it will be up to the photographers.

This is a good example of a photo that's Airliners.net material:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Paul Dopson - AirTeamImages



Aircraft clearly visible and in focus. The inclusion of Mr Branson naturally makes the photo even better.

>I felt they were valid, fun contributions to the database

They might have been fun but hardly valid in an aircraft/airport database such as ours.

I am very, very sorry I did not deal with this at an earlier stage, I hate having to remove photos.

Regards,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19460 times:

he'll have to selebrate them without the tacky bikini girls.

The inclusion of Mr Branson naturally makes the photo even better.

Well, no accounting for taste  Smile

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 19454 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN

>allow advertisment of half naked women for screensavers on you site

I do not approve of those at all and have been trying to get them removed. Same goes for all ads by that advertiser (they run "free smilies" ads as well) as their software comes very close to being spyware. I see your point about being consequent and will again try work together with our ad agencies to have them removed.

>I've just had a look at some warbird pics on A.net

The Airliners.net policy on nose art is that we do not accept close-ups of the art (just like we do not accept close-ups of airline logos), but we do accept photos that display a part of the aircraft including the art/logo (like tail close-ups).

I have no problem with nudity in photos as long as it is not the main focus and abide to other upload rules.

/ Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineTappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 41
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19426 times:

Good. If I wanted the other stuff I would go to another site  Smile/happy/getting dizzy...
BUT...I think other pics (like Johan said) like SXM or other exotic beach stuff should STAY...
Mark


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 768 posts, RR: 16
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19412 times:

OK Johan joking aside, I do understand why you have made this decision but, if so, you need to be consistent.

"tacky" "disgraceful" are very subjective - are you saying if the girls in Sam's pics were wearing formal evening wear, they would be allowed to stay? How about mid length skirts? Mini skirts? It's not a sustainable criteria. Aside from the bikini girls, some of Sam's pics were no less "aircraft related" than Paul's Branson pic which you applaud.

The problem is, I don't see how you can fairly and consistently apply this decision without rigorously enforcing the "bad people" rule, which, now you've set the precedent, should entail removing all pics which offend this rule - otherwise you are discriminating unfairly against some photographers simply based on the sex of their subject matter.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineNonRevKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19401 times:

So I take it you'll be removing this:

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/609283/L/

...and what about the recently accepted shot of the DC3 crew just standing in the doorway? (I cant remember the airline, or I'd have a link)

You shouldn't retro actively apply new, made up rules to photos already in the database. The photo past the screeners at the time, with the standards in place. If that's the case why don't you start removing the older photos that obviously don't fit today's standards? The fair thing to do would be to allow these photos, since there already in the database, and announce the new policy as you're doing and start applying it now.

The Hooters shot was only my most popular photo and the 15th most popular on the site, taken from an arranged shoot, and published in a magazine. They're not half naked, and since they are actual CREW members, this photo has significance, it's not just some hot girls that happened to be there.

Brian - SPOT THIS!

PS: 5 bucks says you'll find some excuse to let the Sky Europe pic I linked above stay in the database


User currently offlineGKirk From UK - Scotland, joined Jun 2000, 24964 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19371 times:

NonRevKing: Cheers for that link  Big thumbs up
New desktop in case it is removed  Smile/happy/getting dizzy



When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
User currently offlineAdministrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19370 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
SITE ADMIN


>Sam's pics were no less "aircraft related" than
>Paul's Branson pic which you applaud.

That is not true. The photo I used as example clearly show an aircraft in focus. That was not the case with the photos removed.

>"tacky" "disgraceful" are very subjective - are you
>saying if the girls in Sam's pics were wearing formal evening wear,

No, their presence would still have been utterly unrelated to aviation. They are there as "eye candy" and serve no other purpose. Anyway, the main point is still that an aircraft was not in focus. There are more photos in the database like this that will be removed.

>should entail removing all pics which offend this rule

It is very simple Colin - I do not want people to be the full focus of the shot. In addition to that, I will not support the use of "bikini girls" in publicity shots, it's just so lame. Sure that's a subjective view I guess but every photo on this site is accepted or rejected based on subjective views.

This is not ok:


While this is ok:


I hope I have made myself crisp clear.

Thanks,
Johan



Working on the site from morning 'till night that's livin' alright (1997-2007)
User currently offlineDcrusafon From Spain, joined Apr 2004, 333 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19365 times:

The pic from the DC3 seems that it has been removed as I don't find it. I think it was taken in Wien, isn't it?



User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19354 times:

I only look at a.net for the articles  Wink/being sarcastic

Most of us are plane geeks one way or another, and will see the aviation element in almost any picture. I was perusing - for research purposes - one of my other half's fashion rags. Motorola were running a campaign which featured a girl in an evening dress standing inside the cowling of a turbofan. I swear my first thought was "that looks like a JT9D..I wonder if it is...." before I berated myself for being sad.

Oh well.

Cheers

James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
User currently offlineGary2880 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19350 times:

lets not be sexist, i hope this extends to half naked men aswell


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui





25 Jat74l : ... but I can get someone to stand under a plane on Maho beach with their tits out and that's OK? Isn't this all getting a bit out of hand? John
26 Post contains images NonRevKing : Further I want everyone who's reading this to let this fact sink in: Johan Lundgren, the owner of airliners.net, has publicly called the photos of som
27 INNflight : Lets face it... it is not possible ( not to say impossible ) to get a SXM beach shot without any people dressed in swimming clothes... I think we all
28 Post contains images KC7MMI : Great Johan! Only thing left to do is to clean up the non-av forum!
29 Post contains links Administrator : >So I take it you'll be removing this: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/609283/L/ No. The girl is clearly relevant to the shot with the aircraft in
30 Administrator : >lets not be sexist, i hope this extends to half naked men aswell No, I will not remove that photo for reasons already explained at least three times
31 Post contains images NonRevKing : It is very simple Colin - I do not want people to be the full focus of the shot. In addition to that, I will not support the use of "bikini girls" in
32 INNflight : - Is that really a photo you would like to have as your "top" photo? I, speaking for myself, would... I think the unfair point about this new "rule" i
33 Ckw : Sure that's a subjective view I guess but every photo on this site is accepted or rejected based on subjective views This really is quite pathetic, a
34 NonRevKing : >So I take it you'll be removing this: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/609283/L/ No. The girl is clearly relevant to the shot with the aircraft in
35 Jat74l : Johan, I have to agree with Florian and this "Rule Change" should not have been been invoked via this forum. It, and similar events which lead to remo
36 NonRevKing : Aren't you being a bit silly now? If you call "silly" being upset because my most popular photo was removed with no warning after being up for over a
37 MartinairYYZ : I agree with the idea for the Hooters Air pic, but what about exceptional one-chance pictures such as the Richard Branson one in Australia as shown ab
38 LHSebi : Johan, I must agree with many on here. It is fully understandable to me that you want to impose such a rule, which I am very ok with, and I fully agre
39 Post contains images Fergulmcc : Johan I must agree with some of the comments here. You have acted quite unprofessional here. This knee jerk reaction of yours could have been avoided
40 NonRevKing : Very well said Fergul! I'm upset right now, and I need some time to calm down and think rationally. I think I'm gonna use my day, among other things,
41 Post contains images Javibi : Oh, no!!! What a disgrace!!! Just when I had convinced my gorgeous girlfriend to pose half naked in the cockpit and was going to get the hits I do not
42 S.p.a.s. : I hardly post here, and I´m hardly a well known name or something like that.. But, I have to agree with Brian, and Derek who also had a photo removed
43 S.p.a.s. : Javibi, But I understand the photographers' frustration when having their popular shots removed, we all love hits! I think the root problem here is by
44 Post contains images Javibi : And Derek, Brian: Please do not remove your photos, you've got lots to be proud of: Do you really want to be remembered for those removed shots? j
45 Javibi : RS: I agree with you and the rest who said that Johan should have contacted the photogs prior to removing the pics, but I honestly think hits play an
46 Post contains images Gman94 : You're going to have to change the name of this site to puritans.net. Take the Virgin shot, a PR event arranged by an 'AIRLINE' to promote and celebra
47 Gary2880 : dont bite my head off or anything im just making an example, sams one i mentioned earlier, must have clearly have meant for that guy to be in shot, if
48 NonRevKing : I think we all agree this site is not a "girls' pictures site", so I think even the owners of the pics know Johan has a point. You think wrong. Brian
49 EGBB : Do you really want to be remembered for those removed shots? I want to be remembered on Anet for standing up to what is right! I expect people to be p
50 Post contains images LHRSIMON : Derek i can see you wish to stand up for what you believe but please don't remove your pictures. They are some of the best on the site , and ones i al
51 Post contains images Kaddyuk : @Gman94, Airbus wouldnt use women to advertise their aircraft if you paid em. They are french and far too up tight to be as liberal as to use "sex" to
52 Post contains images AdamWright : *Canceling Ticket to SXM* ( )
53 Post contains images Gary2880 : would have been nice to get a mention in hannahs after editing it for her
54 Post contains links ExitRow : Johan said: I participate frequently in the Photography and Site Related forum Great! Then could you look at this thread I started two days ago that's
55 Bigphilnyc : The following are bulletpoints of my own views, not views that I am pushing on anyone, just a voice of my opinion. - I can completely understand the r
56 Post contains images LHRSIMON : I just wanted to point out something in this rather sad thread.... And thats the fact that A.Net NEEDS the photographers to make the site popular. BUT
57 CcrlR : I don't want to get anyone angry or start any flaming, but the one with Richard carrying the surfboard is somwewhat appealing to what Richard is doing
58 Post contains images Fergulmcc : No one is arguing that this is Johan's site and he can do what he likes with it. That's not what is in question here, I think anyway. Its the fact tha
59 Mygind66 : .. Hi all.. Two things: 1. Johan has the right to take these kind of desicions, is his website........but He acted rashly and wrongly removing the pho
60 Mygind66 : ........................The rule should be applied for pics uploaded since today........ SOORY for the wrong sentence and for my bad english...I wante
61 Post contains links and images LGB Photos : Sorry but I am in agreement with Brian on this and with Big Phil partly. I feel that both the Hooter Air cockpit shot(which contains NO nudity) and th
62 TZ : Sorry Stephen, I disagree. As Johan has told us, that shot could hardly be MORE relevant. The girl is not a gratuitous and irrelevant addition to the
63 ExitRow : So now photographs of scheduled PR events must pass a "skin test"? The Branson shots were a press event. And a press event for an aviation/airline pro
64 S.p.a.s. : The girl is not a gratuitous and irrelevant addition to the photo, which I'm afraid Hooters Restaurant Waitresses and Bikini Girls standing on wings
65 Aa61hvy : I agree with the change, I knew it would be a matter of time. But I think in a situation like this its a lose lose situation. Pictures are gone, guys
66 TZ : Renato To answer your question, a photograph primarily featuring an aircraft, also including the boss of the airline is allowed (see Paul Dopson's sho
67 Post contains images BA747-436 : this is hilerious
68 Beechcraft : i agree, Dan what i still can´t see is how that hooters pic falls under the "half naked" category. Also, that rule would be sort of ok with me for to
69 TZ : Johan said: "I have after much consideration decided to remove photos where the main subject is a woman, often half-naked." Please take care to read t
70 Post contains links and images ExitRow : "I have after much consideration decided to remove photos where the main subject is a woman, often half-naked." View Large View MediumPhoto © Vik
71 TZ : Exit Row. To further quote Johan: "Photos shot with some class and with an aircraft visible (like some from St. Maarten) will remain in the database."
72 Willo : What relevance are the semi-naked girls on the Virgin aircraft to the airline industry? ...well how about the surfboard for a start. Most women I know
73 LHSebi : Speaking of the restaurant waitresses, Brian, I believe, said that they are actually the flight attendants, and not just waitresses! Or are we calling
74 Post contains images ExitRow : Tamsin, My point is simple. These are PRESS events. That alone is reason to include them. (I am not talking about SXM thong shots here. I've always th
75 Clickhappy : Sebastian, with regards to the Hooters women, I believe that Hooters flights are actually crewed by both "regular" F/A's and volunteers (waitresses fr
76 Post contains links and images Dazed767 : Just to get an idea about something... Lets say for instance Brian's shot was a very wide angle full cockpit shot such as this: View Large View Medium
77 Post contains links Futterman : What a nice thread. A half-baked idea snowballs into cutthroat hypocrisy, and the only consensus appears to be the fact that one can't be reached. I a
78 S.p.a.s. : Errrr Sir Branson, mind to send the gals away for a while? Wanna make a photo for A.net Seriously now, Tamsin, point taken... Maybe the VS photo could
79 Post contains images ExitRow : Futt... brevity is a good thing.
80 Post contains images Futterman : haha Up to and in High School I'm told to always support everything I say. Let's (for once!) leave it at that. Besides, I'm an attention whore. Long p
81 Jaspike : These shots should go on myaviation.net or something instead. I'm discussing this with Henrik & Rob... we're not sure whether we do want these on MyAv
82 MartinairYYZ : Tom, I thought that Myaviation.net "Is your photo album, no photos are to be rejected" And that those should be accepted. 1 more question: How in the
83 Ariis : Tom, why do you say that you don't know if you want these pictures in myaviation.net? As far as I know, there is no screening there, so it is not up t
84 David T : In my humble opinion and with all due respect to Johan, I very much disagree with this new policy and the wording attached to it. Firstly, to remove p
85 Lennymuir : I don't have an opinion either way, but Johans first line is intriguing. Although proven very popular, I have after much consideration... Sorry Johan,
86 Post contains images Eksath : Johan, Perhaps a "grandfathering" in rule will be more appropriate.i.e. If you feel that certain irresposible and tabloid type photographers ( ) are
87 Post contains links and images JetBlast : Guys PLEASE let's CALM DOWN!! It's Johan's site, I think that he can do what he wants with it! I thank Thom@s, Sulman, Ariis, Neilalp, Fergulmcc, and
88 NonRevKing : JetBlast, do you upload photos on here? If not, you will never understand. Sorry Stephen, I disagree. As Johan has told us, that shot could hardly be
89 Aa61hvy : I think it should be done on a case by case basis. If there is a topless women in one of Chui's photos in SXM but its out of focus/in the background e
90 N328KF : I cast my vote for the SRB photo being relevant.
91 Post contains links and images Andrewuber : Amazing. Brian, Derek, everyone who is having photos removed - I'm on your side. I think this is outrageous. Photography is art. Some shots you like.
92 Airbus Lover : I'd also say SRB photo should be considered relevant. Unless we think it this way: "Imagine the people are removed, will the shots still be accepted?"
93 ShyFlyer : I've given the issue much thought, and I would like to note the following: The incident that prompted this latest action by Johan occurred on MyAviati
94 Bigphilnyc : This does come as a shock because I never knew this was a pending issue. It's just "Hey, by the way, this is bad I thin and i'm yanking it." If there
95 Post contains images Eksath : Isn't this gratuitous ? A screenshot from little while back [Edited 2004-12-11 04:28:54]
96 Andrewuber : Eksath- My thoughts exactly. You have an incredibly good point. I'm curious to see a response from Johan about that. Drew
97 Scottieprecord : I must say that I do usually click on photos like this, but I sure don't agree with them even being accepted into the database. -Mike
98 David T : It is time to present this level of censorship to CNN! They will be interested in this, on a slow news night of course.
99 Tu154m : There is another site...........looking at the list of photogs I see most already know about it. And for the record.........there is nothing better th
100 NonRevKing : I have asked Johan in an email if he would reconsider, and put the photos back up, and apply the new rule from now on. That is the fair thing to do. I
101 United4EverDEN : Eksath, Do you read, Johan clearly said he does not approve of those ads and is trying to rid of them ASAP. Good job Johan, I approve of the actions t
102 Shep : DRAMA is the spice of life. DRAMA keeps life ticking. We see DRAMA here - for whatever reason - it is happening. We appreciate images that are somewha
103 Post contains links and images VIAF : "Half-naked Women" not accept on Airliners.net BUT "Half-planes" View Large View MediumPhoto © Marcel Brunner I`m not understanding this!!! Pictu
104 Post contains images LGB Photos : I see no response from Johan on here in a while so I wonder if you are gonna get a response Stevenson. I have not uploaded to this site in almost 2 ye
105 Sulman : That's N739PA, the nose of which provided us with some of the most haunting images of our time. I think we should be grateful for any pictures of her
106 Post contains images United4EverDEN : I see no response from Johan on here in a while Woah, really! I thought Johan just sat around all day on his computer waiting for replies to his threa
107 INNflight : Now wait United4EverDEN.... You have 52 photos in the database... if Johan removes them ALL WITHOUT telling you, you'd still say "Hey Johan, your site
108 9A-CRO : I don't like to see photos going off this site. Enouh pictures disappear for some other reasons and I don't think political correctness should be a re
109 Rindt : Well, I feel this site has just taken a step back in the wrong direction about a hundred years... I'm sorry people, but if you're offended by seeing t
110 Post contains images TupolevTu154 : *sigh* My view is, if you want to see completely naked or semi-naked women, go to a porn site. If the photo is clearly focused on the aircraft, but wi
111 VIAF : United4Ever etc..... Aviation related ? The Hooters Girls don`t sitting on the beach(and they are not half-naked)! They are in the plane or not? Ciao
112 Capricorn1 : I don't normally feel like joining in a discussion on here, I don't upload pictures but I pay for a First Class membership as I want to support a grea
113 Dazed767 : VIAF - That was one of the first shots on this website, a lot of first shots were pretty bad. Had to start somewhere. The SXM shots are fine, the ofte
114 LHSebi : United4EverDEN, To be blunt, who the hell do you think you are? I truly hope not, it is a shame they were accepted in the first place. When I saw thos
115 Codeshare : It should have been like this: the shots that were accepted - let them stay -and- inform everybody that from now on we will not accept these kind of p
116 Post contains images Mandala499 : As the copyright owner of the Hooters photo, you DO NOT have my permission to use my it, and I want it removed from your post immediately. Johan, I th
117 Mygind66 : .. the shots that were accepted - let them stay That's right Codeshare.. Ok, don't accept such pics in future but old should be left 9A-CRO Right agai
118 Chris78cpr : """""""United4EverDEN, To be blunt, who the hell do you think you are? I truly hope not, it is a shame they were accepted in the first place. When I s
119 Jaspike : As far as I know, there is no screening there, so it is not up to you to decide, what to put on that site. There is screening. It is partly up to me t
120 Ryan h : I can see what Johan is trying to do, but I think photos that are already in the database should be left alone. With the Branson photo I would make a
121 Jaspike : but I think photos that are already in the database should be left alone. But then there would still be images that are "cheap and tacky", which doesn
122 LHSebi : Tom, The same thing can be said about the other rules. You and I both know how many threads there have been here that go along the lines of "Look, thi
123 Ckw : people would then say "why can't I upload these images, there are already images like it in the database".. which is EXACTLY the case with the old bad
124 Gman94 : But then there would still be images that are "cheap and tacky" I'm sorry but I think it is rude of people to call these shots cheap and tacky. Im sur
125 Post contains links and images Jaspike : When older images were put on the site, they were the best quality at that time. If they were removed, we'd have no photos from... the 1990s for examp
126 Mygind66 : .. If the big problem are 5 or 10 pics...why all this mess? 705,278 photos up to date....That's a 0.0014% from the total! If the photo from Mr Branson
127 Post contains links and images Lorm : View fullsize http://img42.exs.cx/img42/4676/halfnekkid9jb.jpg Taken 0303 Dec 11 2004 -10GMT[Edited 2004-12-11 15:52:42]
128 Jaspike : From one of Johan's posts in this thread: >allow advertisment of half naked women for screensavers on you site "I do not approve of those at all and h
129 Joe pries : I agree with alot of what Colin says. I have to admit I used to really enjoy uploading here but I only do it once every few months or so now- it's jus
130 LHSebi : Tom, When older images were put on the site, they were the best quality at that time. I still think this can be applied to our current situation. The
131 NonRevKing : I truly hope not, it is a shame they were accepted in the first place. When I saw those, and their 'top-of-the-year' or whatever status, and some of m
132 Jaspike : Brian, I didn't mention a photo of yours in particular, and I just used his words because I didn't know how else to word it off the top of my head.
133 Shep : There is nothing cheap or tacky about any of the photos on this site - weather they show women or not. However, If I was an ugly woman or a gay man, I
134 Flpuck6 : For what it's worth I think that the pictures that exisist here snow hould stay now and that the rule should be implemented as of now ... but leave th
135 Psych : I have been following this thread since last night and I have to say that the whole thing appears to have got out of hand. There seems now to be a lot
136 Administrator : Hello again, Amazing how much fuzz the removal of less than 10 photos from a database of 700,000 can create. I'm going to comment on a few issues, mos
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Did The Double Rule Change? posted Wed Mar 1 2006 13:05:25 by PUnmuth@VIE
Change In Photographer Name posted Thu Nov 9 2006 04:10:13 by BigPhilNYC
Clarification Of The Double Rule posted Wed Nov 1 2006 11:20:47 by Timdegroot
For A Change! Acceptable Motive? posted Thu Jul 6 2006 22:04:42 by PipoA380
This Needs To Change posted Tue Jun 20 2006 02:31:12 by DLKAPA
Hybrid/Special Rule Changed? posted Fri May 5 2006 19:56:19 by TransIsland
Any Change Of Being Uploaded?(shot Inside) posted Wed Apr 5 2006 02:35:52 by Aircanada333
Would This One Constitute A Rule-breaker? posted Sun Mar 12 2006 07:40:40 by DLKAPA
Small Change To How Photos Are Added To The Db posted Mon Feb 6 2006 11:19:26 by Administrator
Half Blurred Half Not, Not The Lens! posted Mon Jan 23 2006 00:33:32 by Davejwatts