Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LHRSIMON
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 5:59 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:21 am

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 always look forward to viewing..

I hope im right but i think maybe Johan used the words "Disgace" in the wrong context. I don't think anyone would class the image or you in any way a "Disgrace".I don't think the word was ment to be aimed at you but in general !!!!

I can see why you are annoyed but please reconsider. The site will be a poorer place without your excellent images.

Simon C
 Sad

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
 
kaddyuk
Posts: 3697
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:04 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:24 am

@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 publicise aircraft.

I can see the french using cheese or wine to publicise their aircraft... but not women hehe

On Topic:
Johan, Sex Sells... Its a known fact and the way the world works. Like it or not, those photos were popular becuase this is a male orientated hobby. Like it or lump it, few females take the time to photograph aircraft and upload them to a.net. Im not saying they DONT im just saying not many do.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Karis Weller
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Hannah Gunter



Kudos to Karis and Hannah...!

Understanding that this is a male orientated hobby means that many people looking at this website actually like to look at photos with females in them.

Still its your decision, doesnt really affect any of my shots but I do like to look at those with girls in em.

Shame you had to ask for your photos as well Derek, I too check your photos with some regular occourance...
Whoever said "laughter is the best medicine" never had Gonorrhea
 
AdamWright
Posts: 602
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 2:58 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:34 am

*Canceling Ticket to SXM*
 Sad


Big grin)
 
Gary2880
Posts: 1856
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2004 8:52 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:35 am

would have been nice to get a mention in hannahs after editing it for her  Sad
Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel :- Samuel Johnson
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:44 am

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 been on BOTH AvPhoto and Site Related (moved by mods) and seemingly overlooked?:

https://www.airliners.net/discussions/site_related/read.main/30292/

I know the tone is terribly pro-active and non-confrontational, but I had hoped to get a respose back from you regardless.

I'd appreciate if you could look at that other thread since you pride yourself on your close, tight-knit and transparent relationship with your "photography suppliers."

wm
 
bigphilnyc
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:43 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:46 am

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 reasonning behind not accepting photos that are more about women than planes. This is an aviation site and some motivs

- I feel that the Hooters shots inside the cockpit would honestly be a good example of what should not be accepted in the future under this rule, since it does not necessarily count as "aviation-related enough", but I feel that it is unnecessary to retro-actively remove the photo, since the photo contains no nudity and has zero offensive content.

- I also feel that shots like Sam Chui's richard Branson shot with the girls on the wing should be kept. This is aviation-related, and I feel that aviation photogpraphers should be able to dispaly such aviation-related photos to enthusiasts or to those who may be interested in purchasing such a photo. Offensive or not, that photo is a part of the airline industry. The same would go for Stevenson's shots of the Hooters girls standing outside the plane, as that is more a promotional publicity shot.

- I think that most SXM shots, with people on the beach, should be kept. The motive behind these shots are the planes, in relation to the people on the beach, whom are existing factors and a PART of that scene, not a sexually motivated distraction. The shots that more closely show a women or someone that is clearer in the photos and perhaps in an offensive position or view, perhaps can go on a case by case basis.

- Consistency is important, but ultimately, this is Johan's site and it is all at his discretion. The opportunity presented on this life, has in no joke been life changing for me. I am grateful for the free service that Airliners.net affords me, and if Johan wants to remove all Americna Airlines photos jsut becuase he doesn not liek them, then he really has that right. Thankfully, he also lets us voice our opinions hear, but it is his option ot follow the feedback.

- Honestly, I don't think that someone posting someone else's photo on an airliners.net message board can be copyright violation, as this was chosen, when uploading, as the place that the photo can be used. I think to suggest that it can be copyright violation creates all sorts of trouble with the thousands of photos that we've linked to hear on these boards.

I hope we can all resolve this and walk away from this conversation on good terms.

-Phil
Phil Derner Jr.
 
LHRSIMON
Posts: 1315
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2002 5:59 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:47 am

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 the photographer also need A.NET the most popular site in the world to get maximum exposure. One does not work without the other.

Pretty simple realy. No photographers = no site. No site = nowhere special to show your pictures.....

I think we should ALL just try to remember this  Sad

Simon C

[Edited 2004-12-10 18:51:48]
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
 
CcrlR
Posts: 2195
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2001 9:24 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 2:57 am

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(his campaign-to bring flights to different destinations, and service to SYD-he's had other people try to do some crazy and scary stuff before) "Now Boarding to Australia". Now what if it were hula girls instead of the ones on there now if he were to introduce service to Hawaii. Would it be the same thing? The one Below Brian's cockpit shot is really stupid and the other two below those don't make any sense. I really just look at the pictures as a theme, service to different cities or the startup of an airline. I know we shouldn't treat women as a sex thing or other bad stuff but he has a point about the other ones.


Don't get discouraged, just find a site to stick them on. I would rather see some famale photographers who are intersted in putting some aviation photos up just like we do than see this stuff.
"He was right, it is a screaming metal deathtrap!"-Cosmo (from the Fairly Oddparents)
 
fergulmcc
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:36 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:21 am

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 that Derek had to find out on the forum what happened to his photo and on top of that, his photo called 'disgraceful' The screeners allowed it, who in turn take their direction from Johan.
Its also the fact the Johan could have and should have afforded Derek the common curtesy of informing him personaly. THAT to me is disrespectfull!!

And on top of that to say that he didn't have the time! You make the time! Even if the photo had to be pulled imediatley, an e-mail should have gone out that same day informing the photographer of such a decision.

Fergul  Smile

Zambian Airways, Where the Eagles fly free!!
 
mygind66
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 7:13 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:27 am

..

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 photos. There's a sentence I've learned here: Photo uploaded is a photo that deserve to stay in A.net.
The rule should be applied for pics uploaded since today....
Mr Lundgren is a good businessman but a bad communicator and this thread is an example...

2. To apologize is correct ( referring to the lack of communication to the photographers before the pics were removed..) but to rectify is much better...

Just my opinion

Enrique Ferrer
 
mygind66
Posts: 1033
Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 7:13 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:33 am

........................The rule should be applied for pics uploaded since today........

SOORY for the wrong sentence and for my bad english...I wanted to say "from now on..."

Thank you

Enrique
 
Guest

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:49 am

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 the Branson shot should both be kept and if then clean out all shots with women in them period.

Johan, if you want to keep it consistant and clean out the database then get rid of this shot:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Viktor László - Budapest Aviation Photography



Otherwise you are a hypocrite in not keeping the "aviation related" part consistant and you should keep the Hooters Air and Branson bikini wing shot.

Stephen
 
TZ
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 4:55 am

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 photo, which I'm afraid Hooters Restaurant Waitresses and Bikini Girls standing on wings most certainly are.

This one is in because the girl's image is also on the aircraft. The others are out because the females have no relevance to the aviation content.

There is absolutely no hypocrisy here, and Johan has made a welcome move by tidying up an area of uncertainty.

Tamsin (a.net screening crew)
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:24 am

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 promotion. Seems relevant to me. Sam's shot even induced an interesting thread in CivAv concerning Branson's marketing prowess. Nothing gratuitous or "disgraceful" in that.

These shots (the A.net, not Myaviation ones) would have been best left in the DB under a grandfather clause and the new criteria should have become effective from here on.

Was this enacted to appease the parents of underaged visitors?

And by the way, if "moral integrity" is the reason, there's some SERIOUS cleaning up to do in NonAv. If my memory recalls correctly, there was a thread entitled "Am I Gay"? Which would have been an acceptible conversation if the discussion concerned cultural issues and didn't revolve around everyone asking this guy, who confessed to giving his frat brother oral sex, if he swallowed. Yes... this is the kind of discussion that exists and stays put in NonAv. Then you delete Brian's shot because the focus is on the two girls and not the instrument panel?

The policies here are often as clear as mud.


 
User avatar
s.p.a.s.
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2001 2:04 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:32 am

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 most certainly are.

hun?
The bikini girls mentioned are, just by chance, together with the airline owner and CEO (which is well know for his PR stunts) on a route opening event. If this is irrelevant, then pardon my ignorance, but what would be?

Rgds

Renato (photographer submitting photos to a.net)
"ad astra per aspera"
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:41 am

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 are unhappy, pictures there, some girl somewhere is upset.
Go big or go home
 
TZ
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:55 am

Renato

To answer your question, a photograph primarily featuring an aircraft, also including the boss of the airline is allowed (see Paul Dopson's shot mentioned above).

What relevance are the semi-naked girls on the Virgin aircraft to the airline industry? Similar scenario with the restaurant waitresses.

It's not only about whether or not bare (or even covered-up) flesh is offensive, but also about whether it's necessary or contributes to the shot. Where the flesh is being used gratutiously, then it's not necessary.

Pop quiz - what's the difference between:
1. (a) A female airline pilot vs (b) An attractive female passenger,
2. (a) A female CEO vs (b) A bikini-clad model standiing on a airport apron,
3....

Tamsin (a.net screening crew)

(and it's not a male/female thing - pictures of topless male bodybuilders stood on the wings would also be pointless)
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
 
BA747-436
Posts: 1192
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 11:03 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:59 am

 Laugh out loud this is hilerious
Dan Valentine - Bad Ass MOFO Photographer
 
beechcraft
Posts: 731
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 2:10 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:12 am

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 be applied on pics screened from now on, but why remove the old ones? i don´t get it....

Denis
That's it! You people have stood in my way long enough. I'm going to clown college!
 
TZ
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:16 am

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 the boss's words carefully.

Tamsin (a.net screening crew)
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:19 am

"I have after much consideration decided to remove photos where the main subject is a woman, often half-naked."


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Viktor László - Budapest Aviation Photography



 Insane

I am not trying to split hairs here. I am just saying it seems like an unclear criteria. Add it to the list.

 
TZ
Posts: 908
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:21 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:25 am

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."

I fail to understand how it's not reeeaalllllyyy obvious that there is a direct relevance here between the girl and the aircraft. The Virgin girls and Exeter flybe. girl had no revelance to the aircraft at all.

Tamsin (a.net screening crew)
TZ Aviation - Aeropuerto de los Banditos Team Images
 
willo
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 10:21 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:25 am

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 would go surfing in a bikini or swimsuit, and as Mr Branson is dressed in shorts, is holding a surfboard that states "now boarding", the shot was taken to publicize a new airline service to one of the great surfing countries of the world, I would suggest that the girls are relevant to the photo in question.


edit

spelling mistake

[Edited 2004-12-10 22:27:23]
 
LHSebi
Posts: 1007
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2004 4:24 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:30 am

Speaking of the restaurant waitresses, Brian, I believe, said that they are actually the flight attendants, and not just waitresses! Or are we calling FAs waitresses now? A few people might be a little unhappy.....

Sebastian
I guess that's what happens in the end, you start thinking about the beginning.
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:34 am

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 thought those were cheap-hit generators.) It's not the bikinis or Hooters sweatsuits that are relevant/irrelevant... it's the EVENT. To exclude those claiming they are "unprofessional" is just misinformed. Is Reuters "disgraceful" and unprofessional for publishing the same type of shots?

This just seems like the killing of a moth with a sledgehammer.

Don't misunderstand me... I WANT the beauty queen to stay. Along with the Hooters girls, Branson bikinis and even beefcake should some airline decide to have a press conference with your buff dudes in Speedos.  Big grin

Think this through.


wm
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9175
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:39 am

Sebastian, with regards to the Hooters women, I believe that Hooters flights are actually crewed by both "regular" F/A's and volunteers (waitresses from local Hooters locations) so in this context the women pictured actually are waitresses, not F/A's.

Royal
 
Dazed767
Posts: 5005
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:55 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:45 am

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
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia


but with girls sitting there looking back. Would that have been acceptable or no?

Now lets say Sam's shot with Branson and the girls was a full shot 3/4 front such as this:

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Art Brett


Now since the whole aircraft is visible (and the main subject) and Branson/girls were on the wing that would be OK?

So we could have such images in the database as long as the ladies are not the main focus?

Justin
 
futterman
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:04 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:45 am

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 actually sent Johan an email regarding the 'badmotiv' rejection a photo of mine received (only tiny version available). The gentleman posing with his aircraft does bear significance to the Concorde, and that should make all the difference. I'm biased, but also think it's safe to say there's not too much butt-cheek visible.
__________________________________________________________________

I believe the administration should heed to what Airliners.net has become, and revise, if not disregard what their initial intentions were however many years ago. The site and its photos have inevitably grown into an ENORMOUS aviation-empire, and having policies that reflect the ideas of one or a small group of individuals has been proven to be lethal.

Regardless of what one may think of blondes, brunettes, and redheads in bikinis, jumpsuits, or evening gowns, what the vast majority visit the site to see (and I'm straying slightly off course here) should be taken into account. Photos that make the most popular lists or have an enormous number of hits are an obvious sign that people like what they see, and want more of it. Why isn’t it apparent that this is not being recognized? Is it at all? I’m a hit junkie, absolutely, but use those numbers as a way of determining what I can do to push my own limits and please others in the process. It’s a win-win situation, at least for me. Until I get one of those rejections, of course.

I digress. Anyway…

Stevenson's shot topped off the first page of the all-time most popular shots here, taking 15th place (or so I read). If you (meant ambiguously) think just the 40-someodd photographers in this thread are all the people you need to convince of revisions to and new rules for the photo database, think of Chui's portrayal of juicy steaks and dental floss got the attention of more than 20,000 people in less than two days. There’s no way, as has already been proven on a minute scale, that this is going to be received with smiles and flowers. I’m interested in seeing how this is going to be broken to them without Johan getting superfluous emails.

Yes, people don’t (well…shouldn’t) DEPEND on these shots, but they are an integral breath of fresh air that is practical and relevant at the same time. ‘Practical’ and ‘relevant’ are definitely subjective adjectives but I’m not going to talk about that.

It's clear, yet debatable, that the subject of the VS promo shot was a bit off target--and that helped with the overwhelming success of the shot--but (haha) it's conceivable, and actually true, that the same 20,000 people are on the verge of viewing G.P.K. Savit's shot of the same aircraft with much more of the aircraft in the frame. I admit that I was surprised at seeing Sam's shot uploaded, but didn't object. Nor did I object to Brian's or Derek's. And I sure as hell wasn't the only one.

How pertinent a subject is to aviation is definitely a major concept on the table here, at least for the Hooters and Virgin images. It's already been said, so I'm not drone on, but airline employees have every right to be pictured in their workplace, choreographed poses or not. Inaugural celebrations are also entitled a place on this website, Branson's unique style notwithstanding. And not just on an occasion or as a rarity. If need be, make a new section for the human element that has EVERYTHING to do with the site and what it’s intended to depict; reinstate the photos that were pulled and their respective hits; do whatever, Johan, but the worst thing you can do—and are doing—is nothing at all. It’s the least that can be done as a common courtesy to both employees and photographers (although it is just a half-baked idea). It’s more relevant to improving the site in general, but broadening the horizons for A.net so it has something new to look forward to in addition to the onslaught of takeoffs, touch downs, side ons that we see.

Correct me if I’m wrong (which I may very well be in the premature stages of this incident).

____________________________________________________________________________________


Tamsin, with all due respect and then some, your comments make no sense to me. The photo of Miss Europe 2003 is excessively redundant. We already know what the model looks like (she also seems to be quite a presence on the aircraft, or lack thereof, that's behind her). I've had photos rejected for a bit of an engine being cut off, but it seems if Gluteus Maximus does the job in covering up any photographic blemishes.

There is more detail in the woman's fingernail than there is on the plane. Cuticles are hardly relevant to this website, so that must mean it is perfectly appropriate for this thread.

It's extremely clear that the woman, although significant in her own right, bears no relation to the aviation industry or anything this website currently claims to be interested in. You see a more favorable difference in this photo when compared to those that have been pulled? Pray tell.

You also say that Johan is tidying up an area of uncertainty, where it seems as if he has done nothing more than create one. Sorry, but actually reading the thread does have its perks.
__________________________________________________________________


Okay folks. Happy Holidays!

Brian
(When addressing ‘Brian’, please specify ‘Futterman’ or ‘Stevenson’.)

[Edited 2004-12-10 22:54:37]
What the FUTT?
 
User avatar
s.p.a.s.
Posts: 944
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2001 2:04 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:46 am

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 have been seen as a odd case photo.. The girls were there, no way to remove them, and at the same time the photo shows a special event, something newsworthy and with relevance for the aviation industry.

Something 180° different would be taking a nice girl on bikinis, and put her, on purpose, standing close to a plane...without any relation to it.

Cheers

Renato
"ad astra per aspera"
 
ExitRow
Posts: 1630
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:52 am

Futt... brevity is a good thing.  Big grin

 
futterman
Posts: 1261
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 11:04 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:00 am

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 posts get attention...people don't necessairily read it, but hey, you can't have everything.  Big grin
What the FUTT?
 
Jaspike
Posts: 4843
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:40 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:06 am

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 MyAviation... we'll make a decision as soon as we can. It is an aviation site afterall, and that usually means you'll find photos of aircraft and airports..

Tom
 
martinairyyz
Posts: 1188
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:42 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 7:38 am

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 world did it get accepted in the first place if the main subject is meant to be the plane? I didn't know that the rules are That flexible!

Marty
Chelsea Football Club supporter.
 
ariis
Posts: 390
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:04 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:16 am

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 to you to decide, what to put on that site.

But, I don't think these pictures should now be moved by the crew to myaviation.net anyway, since they are property of their authors and the photographers themselves have the exclusive right to decide where their photos should go to. If Johan has removed the photos and is not willing to upload them back, then you should just forget about them and let their authors decide where to put them next.

Another thing is that these now-removed photos were once screened by the screeners and accepted the way they were. So, the crew must admit that it was also the screeners fault to allow such photos here.

This thread is getting a bit sour now, so I hope someone (Johan?) will make wise conclusion to it so everyone involved will feel convinced at last.

Just a thought again
FAO
FAO - Flight Activities Officer
 
David T
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 5:07 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:19 am

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 past photographs which were appoved by screeners and clearly do not fall under the category of "half naked" is stretching an embellished point or argument. I have looked closely at those pictures and the ladies are not half naked, except for Bransons photo op where they are merely wearing a bikini in keeping with Bransons flamboyant free marketing style.

Secondly, should we not welcome pictures such as this and introduce glamour and sex appeal to the industry, rather than a bunch of people standing around with 2 inch think glasses, pocket protector, scanner and binoculars?

There was a screeners comment earlier referring to Johan as the "Boss". While yes I agree he is the administrator, my feeling is that all users of this site are the Bosses, as I am a big believer that if it were not for the people, this site would not exist.

We still live in a Sept. 11th world and these pictures, although RARE are a welcome addition and should be viewed for what they are, and perhaps a different kind of perception than what Johan suggests, "porn" as noted in his topic address. Johan, this is not porn and you could have found a more politically or factually correct term to use instead.

Again, my comments are simply my must humble opinion and submitted with respect to the decision made.
 
User avatar
lennymuir
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 7:58 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:26 am

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, but you knew these kind of photographs populated the database for a very long time.

What pressure have you experienced to make this decision?
You surely didn't wake up this morning and just decide to take this action today, or did you?
At the very least, please be honest to the guys affected.
You have a duty of care to communicate with trust to these photographers.

Gerry
 
User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:49 am



Johan,

Perhaps a "grandfathering" in rule will be more appropriate.i.e. If you feel that certain irresposible and tabloid type photographers ( Acting devilish) are dragging the good name of A.net thru the mud by this "sensational and blatant exploitation of female flesh for a quick click on a photo, you should inact the rule from now onwards and not retrospectively. After all these years,why the sudden urge to cull the pictures?.....If you dont like the pictures just dont ACCEPT them,right? FAIR IS FAIR.It should work both ways!

 Wink/being sarcastic


.....and i thought Europeans were more liberal than Americans! Boy was i wrong!
World Wide Aerospace Photography
 
jetblast
Posts: 950
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 11:19 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:19 am

Guys PLEASE let's CALM DOWN!! It's Johan's site, I think that he can do what he wants with it! I thank [email protected], Sulman, Ariis, Neilalp, Fergulmcc, and all the others who agree with me. Johan, we all respect you. To back that up, check this out-
https://www.airliners.net/discussions/site_related/read.main/30146/
Thanks for all your hard work Johan!
Also, I do think that the photo with Richard Branson on the A340 wing is aviation-related. Just my two cents.

Regards
JetBlast @ BWI  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Speedbird Concorde One
 
Guest

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 10:41 am

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 MORE relevant. 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 most certainly are.

You are wrong. My shot featured members of the CREW of a Hooters Air flight, what could be more relevant than that? It's not like I took a point and shoot shot of one of them bending over in the isle while I was on a flight. THAT would gratuitous.

The SkyEurope shot is a photo SOLEY of a woman, not an aircraft. Let there be no doubt, the focus is on her. A blind man can see this.

This one is in because the girl's image is also on the aircraft. The others are out because the females have no relevance to the aviation content.

Again, the Hooters shot features CREW from the airline, which make this airline unique. If the girls image is on the aircraft, can't the viewer just see what she looks like by looking at the aircraft? This IS an aviation site right? This is a HUGE hypocracy, and the photo should be removed if you want this site to have a shred of credibility in the eyes of many, many people.

There is absolutely no hypocrisy here, and Johan has made a welcome move by tidying up an area of uncertainty.

Welcome by who Tasmin? I had no idea this was such a cancer on this site, here I was foolishly thinking they actually brought visitors to a.net.

It's good to know you drank the kool-aide. You'll feel differently once Johan burns you with something like this.

Brian - SPOT THIS!



[Edited 2004-12-11 03:02:49]
 
aa61hvy
Posts: 13021
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 1999 9:21 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:24 am

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 etc. It should be accepted. I think if there is a girl laying on a Cessna in a bikini for no good reason, that should not be accepted. I thought Sam's photos of the VS A346 at SYD were sweet. That is Branson's style. Censoring that is censoring a huge part of aviation.

Go big or go home
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 6019
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:27 am

I cast my vote for the SRB photo being relevant.
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
andrewuber
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:45 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:42 am

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. Some shots you don't. It should be up to the user to decide.

It is absolutely rediculous that the Hooters cockpit photo has been removed. The girls were crewmembers, and were wearing long sleeves for God's sake. Yet shots like this stay in the database (again, not picking on you Brian, but this is crazy):

View Large View Medium

Photo © Brian Stevenson - SPOT THIS!



View Large View Medium

Photo © Art Brett


So let me see if I've got this straight. It is offensive to have a Hooters Air crewmember in a photo (even though the only skin you can see is her face, neck and hands), but bare-naked female breasts on the beach at SXM is acceptable?

I don't get it. To see die-hard seasoned a.net photographers (and even a.net crewmembers) sounding off in here makes me feel a WHOLE lot better. I'm glad that people are standing up for what they think is right, even if it means feeling differently from Johan.

Just out of curiosity, what sparked this sudden reconsideration of female decency? Did someone from some religious organization send hate mail to Johan? Did someone complain about the "indecency" of this site?

At the end of the day it's really not worth it. Look at the situation Johan. You've liberated women. And it seems you really shook up the a.net community in the process.

Drew

[Edited 2004-12-11 03:45:46]
I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
 
Airbus Lover
Posts: 3163
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2000 10:29 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:57 am

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?"

Then I'd think there is a bit of inconsistency as the SkyEurope shot would not have been accepted it if wasn't for the girl. On the other hand, the VS shot might stand a chance of being accepted if it showed more of the tail.

Will the Hooters' shots be accepted? Perhaps so because it shows the cockpit but then there is the badpeople (not saying there's no consent from those involved) but it seems like the focus is on the girls and not the cockpit.

It's hard to draw a line based on what we've been told thus far.
 
ShyFlyer
Posts: 4698
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 11:38 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:05 pm

I've given the issue much thought, and I would like to note the following:


  1. The incident that prompted this latest action by Johan occurred on MyAviation.Net, did it not? My feeling is that changes need to be made over there, not here. Look at the original post. All but two of those photos were MyAviation only photos.


  2. Brian's photo of the Hooter's crew at the controls of a 737 does not shock, offend, or otherwise degrade the good name of Airliners.Net. As Brian said, they were crew members. This picture is no different really from others featuring crew members.


  3. The photo featuring Branson & friends in Sydney was a press event. Other press event photos have been allowed, specifically photo 254524 & 609283. Maybe more of the aircraft should be visible, but it is obvious that there is an aircraft there.


I'm afraid that some of this site's best talent will choose to stop uploading here because of the ill will that has been generated by this latest action. Now that is a real problem.
I lift things up and put them down.
 
bigphilnyc
Posts: 3874
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2002 10:43 pm

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:07 pm

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 were complaints, I don't think anyone here really knew it.

I'd liek to see these shots back. I think it's unfortunate to see them leave. But, again, it is Johan's site and we must abide by his rules whether we like them or not.

-Phil
Phil Derner Jr.
 
User avatar
eksath
Crew
Posts: 1341
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:19 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:25 pm

Isn't this gratuitous ? A screenshot from little while back



[Edited 2004-12-11 04:28:54]
World Wide Aerospace Photography
 
andrewuber
Posts: 2142
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:45 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:28 pm

Eksath-

My thoughts exactly. You have an incredibly good point. I'm curious to see a response from Johan about that.

Drew
I'd rather shoot BAD_MOTIVE
 
scottieprecord
Posts: 1208
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 5:38 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:38 pm

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
 
David T
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2001 5:07 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:43 pm

It is time to present this level of censorship to CNN! They will be interested in this, on a slow news night of course.
 
tu154m
Posts: 613
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2001 4:52 am

RE: Rule Change: Half-naked Woman

Sat Dec 11, 2004 1:56 pm

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 than good looking planes and good looking women. I really don't see how both cannot co-exist peacefully.
CEOs should swim with cement flippers!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 5 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos