Ask yourself this — do you find this painting obscene? There are no warnings regarding it’s placement in the museums all ages gallery. And why is it not ok to show the backside of painting of a woman in a museum, but it seems perfectly fine for people to show full frontal nudity of the famous statue of Michelangelo’s David? isn’t it a double standard for Flickr to say that great art of females ought to be treated differently than great art of males. The basic problem is that the Censorship Division at Flickr is unchecked. They’ve been given unlimited power over who sees our images and who does not. Flickr relevancy to our culture is too important not to resist these intrusions. Censoring great works of art is an insult to all photographers and artists. Like the Victorians of yesteryear who ruined many sculptures by plastering fig leafs over their private parts, Flickr wields the censors sword flippantly and seemingly without consequence. This is bad for morale, bad for Flickr/Yahoo’s PR, bad for Yahoo shareholders and causes Flickr to lose both revenue and important users and contributors who have great things to offer the world. - Thomas Hawk

the latest image of mine that Flickr has censored. - Thomas Hawk

Of course not. - Todd Hoff

Obscene, no. An example of why painters should study anatomy, yes. (This is one of the many reasons I'm weaning myself off of Flickr.) - Jennifer Dittrich

Not obscene. Who are they protecting anyway? This reminded me of something I heard the on NPR about people in Seattle being upset that their kids maybe exposed to a nude cyclist from time to time at the park or a local festival. GET OVER IT. Kids are not scared by nudity. Behavior yes. So as long as the naked people are minding their own business... not an issue. This surprises me from Flickr, how do they justify this? #puritancolonyethics #liveuptothefoundingfathersintentions - SAM

nudity is not obscene unless sexually explicit - kids certainly are not traumatised by nudity - never understood that anglo saxon hangup - Iphigenie

Flickr currently has this image censored in my photostream. They censored it behind my back. I hate it when they do that. Thousands of children view this image every year as it hangs in an all ages gallery at the Art Institute of Chicago. - Thomas Hawk

SAM, they justify it because the Censorship Division at Flickr seemingly has no accountability to anyone. - Thomas Hawk

Exactly Joelle. Thomas: They don't even email you to let you know they feel some of your content is objectionable? - SAM

Not obscene enough ;) - Jemm

Perhaps it's some poorly paid student doing rapid mass-checks? - Lech from BuddyFeed

No - Lars Clausen

that's beautiful! Of course it's not obscene...jeez, what's next, just showing the wrists or ankles on a woman is going to be considered obscene!?! - Kamala Whitaker

Pat, so why does the backside of a painting of a woman by a famous artist violate the Flickr TOS while the front side of Michelango's David seems perfectly fine? Isn't it a bit of a double standard to try and enforce a policy whereby hundreds of (use your own favorite euphemism for male member) are allowed unfettered on Flickr while a female's behind is not? Both are great works of art, why censor one and not the other? - Thomas Hawk

I'd be fine with that Pat, I'd appreciate the publicity. But you've neglected to answer the question as to why it is ok for flickr users to photograph and post Michelangelo's David statue showing full nude male frontal genitalia while a photo of a similar work of famous art is censored when it depicts the backside of a female. - Thomas Hawk

Absolutely not obscene! Pathetic that some might think it obscene. In school I learnt about the great painters and most of them had nudes, some a lot more full frontal and yet it was about the art, not about the nudity. I would have no problems showing these type of pictures to my kids who are all under ten. The human body is amazing and beautiful and should be glorified! - travispuk from iPhone

Nup - Amy

No. Wow Pat, nice attempt to derail the convo. Did you know STUDENTS in EUROPE frequently spend DAYS at museums stealing from the Great Masters -- by making illegal copies of paintings! Not photographs, actual paintings! The horror! Think of the dead artist's great great grandchildren! Now, if you want to contemplate something worth while, what if I were to make an oil painting of one of Thomas' photos without his permission? What if I make a litho series? What if it wasn't from Thomas' photo, but a photo I found on Flickr? Of the outside of the Louvre say... an absolutely unremarkable snap shot anyone could have taken? There are interesting questions, but yours aren't. - Richard Walker

I dont find it obscene. There are many paintings, like you said, hanging in art museums all over the world that have this kind of scene. - Shevonne

I'll give a hint to what I think is the correct answer: How much you "borrowed" depends on how much interpretation that person put in. Since Thomas interprets quite a bit, that would be the problem. That you used an ARTISTIC photo without permission. However, making a single fine art painting is unlikely to "damage" Thomas or make the photo less valuable. The litho series is where it becomes a serious violation. Mass production. - Richard Walker

There is literally more explicit nudity on the walls and ceiling of the Vatican than that. - Alex Scrivener

Many Americans have issues with nudity - often equating it with pornography - and apparently being unable to discern the difference. Silly while all around us media is awash in sexual imagery. The more humans attempt to control something the greater attraction it has. Where nudity is no big thing there is far less pornography just as where everyone drinks wine with meals there are fewer alcohol related problems. No company manages to apply policies consistently when they have many employees or many entry-level employees. Did you know you can buy copies of famous paintings for under $100 online? - Internet Strategist

Obscenity laws in America are obscene. - Ankush Narula

Yes, but in a good way ;-) - Rubin Sfadj

whats obscene! we've created in the first place:) - samantha

I like how I can post this image to FriendFeed and don't have to worry about it being censored. Maybe Flickr ought to consider replacing their censorship division with FriendFeed's censorship division. I think it would be a big step forward for them. That Flickr thinks that they have to "protect" their users from images like this is absurd. - Thomas Hawk

Obscene, no; Mature, possibly, but you might see more at a news stand or magazine rack. - Grant Bierman

Pat, flickr doesn't own the image,Thomas does, so if they block him posting to FF, there are other issues they would need to address. The problems with censorship is that you need to be consistent, otherwise you run the risk of being hypocritical, and it's pretty clear that in this case there was a lack of consistency. - Deepak Singh

Pat, Flickr has not removed the restriction. This is the second version of this image that I've posted. The first version is here: http://www.flickr.com/photos... That image is still censored by them. I appealed their decision via email today and received the following reply back from Flickr staffer Terrence: "As per our Community Guidelines, Female breasts, bare/thong bottom, see through topless nudity, pasties, etc.. images need to be marked as "moderate". (this includes images of paintings, drawings, illustrations, etc...)" - Thomas Hawk

I sent a follow up email back to Terrence asking him if this prohibition only applies to females and why, for instance, Michelangelo's sculpture (with full frontal male nudity) is not censored, but I have not heard back from him yet. Hopefully I will soon. It is ridiculous that they would censor this image on Flickr and I hope to have this decision reversed. The Censorship Division at Flickr is horribly managed and Yahoo needs to take a serious look at how it is alienating their core users and generating bad PR and ill will towards the company. - Thomas Hawk

No ...but it's probably NSFW - .LAG liked that

I think Terrence answered your question. You didn't follow the rules Thomas. They are at the least being consistsnt. If you properly labled the pic it would have been left alone. Flickr never said it was obsene they just want those people who are sensitive to the issue to be able to filter it out. - Jason Williams from iPhone

no the picture is not obscene. - Kim Landwehr

not obscene - MiniMage, enterRUPPted

Not obscene to me, but that of course depends on your cultural background. What I believe the web needs are 'global' standards against censorship and a strong institution to enforce them. Both of which is probably a long way from being put into place. E.g. I think in the US those issues are pretty much left to the companies while in Germany we would ask government or other officials to get behind it. It's a big problem. Apart from that, female nudity seems to be a special issue with Americans while it's close to insignificant in many European countries. - Jens Holze