Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts. Posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13793 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FOUNDER
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
Cabbott From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 13529 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?
Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts. Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13473 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW LEAD DEVELOPER
>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
Jkw777 From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 13430 times:
Johan,
Well how disappointed I am!
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!
Ariis From Poland, joined Sep 2004, 352 posts, RR: 1 Reply 7, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13339 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".
Neilalp From United States, joined Apr 2000, 1034 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13330 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.
EGGD From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2001, 12376 posts, RR: 34 Reply 9, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13327 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.
Ckw From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13260 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"
Fergulmcc From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1799 posts, RR: 49 Reply 13, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13254 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!
Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts. Reply 14, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13256 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW LEAD DEVELOPER
>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:
Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts. Reply 16, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 13227 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW LEAD DEVELOPER
>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
Tappan From United States, joined Oct 1999, 1516 posts, RR: 33 Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13199 times:
Good. If I wanted the other stuff I would go to another site ...
BUT...I think other pics (like Johan said) like SXM or other exotic beach stuff should STAY...
Mark
Ckw From , joined today!, posts, RR: Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13185 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.
...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
GKirk From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jun 2000, 23060 posts, RR: 58 Reply 20, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13144 times:
NonRevKing: Cheers for that link
New desktop in case it is removed
When you hear the noise of the Tartan Army Boys, we'll be coming down the road!
Administrator From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts. Reply 21, posted (3 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 13143 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW LEAD DEVELOPER
>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
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined May 1999, 3251 posts.
From Norway, joined Oct 2000, 11734 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2002, 1275 posts, 
From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 497 posts, 
From , joined today!, posts, 
From Poland, joined Sep 2004, 352 posts, 
From United States, joined Apr 2000, 1034 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2001, 12376 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Oct 2004, 1799 posts, 
....gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (Scotland), joined Jun 2000, 23060 posts, 