Boobs

Righto then - we've now done BUM.

Can anyone please tell me please how or why a waist-upwards nude bust (a statue!!) can violate P'bucket's terms of use?

The image was residing happily in my series from the Abbottsford Convent, taken last weekend, and posted by me on P'bucket, then to our own Photos forum.

I've now added the image to the PU Gallery so you can see it again to make your own judgement (and perhaps enlighten me in the process) - link

Would someone have seen it here, or on P'bucket, and complained? Should I have photoshopped the boobs off? Or perhaps put some electrical tape over the sensitive bits before taking said shot? (Being facetious here )

On that account, clearly I could not upload a picture of the statue of David in its entirety either - or am I mistaken there?

Yr obdt svt &c

rather bemused...

To be offended by a classical statue - that's certainly misplaced puritanism.

But again, in some cultures it seems more important to hide natural beauty (i.e. the human body) than the real horror of war and violence.

perhaps they thought it was politically incorrect to show photographs of amputees

The mysteries of why may never be resolved, but probably with a very, very big site you have fallen foul of a rapid decision by someone with a huge number of issues to get through.

My advice would be to forget it and move on. If you wanted to you could ask for the decision to be reviewed. Best not to rant at them though, just make a valid point.

Without wanting to start another Flickr vs Photobucket debate, Flickr has no restrictions on sexual content at all. So maybe you should only upload your boob shots there

I expect it was just someone being too literal minded about the rules, always much easier and quicker than using judgement.

Photoshop a stone bra on to make a point.

I'm guessing automatic software might have made the decision.
You are up against all sorts of mad people on the www. (:roll

If you search the bucket or "statue" boobs appear.

Of course - it was so obvious! (Why didn't I think of that...)

@ John - no rant intended - here or at P'bucket. I am thinking of dropping them a line though

Thank you all for the moral support, it is nice to know I wasn't the only one taken by surprise.

Tally ho.

No Venus de Milo, a ban on Degas stautes!

That's hilarious! Sadly, it might just be true...........

I'm disappointed by this thread title...

I checked out the "woodpecker chick" thread and was dismayed. The "wearing glasses and shooting" thread was underwhelming.

This internet thing is just not as dirty as I've been led to believe.

A fiend was working for Scottish Television and an email he was sending was automatically stopped because it contained the word 'shit', he changed to the Scottish version 'shite' and it went no problem.

Mr. Berg, I've just commented on the gallery that it's strange the photo wasn't classed as adult content. That was a joke. Who in their right mind would find offence in the works of the so-called Masters? There's nothing wrong with boobs, in my view. If this were a real woman standing in this pose, albeit with arms, it'd still be a great shot.
Well done.

Edit: typos.

Ken - I'm sorry - I'm howling with laughter [ thanks BTW I need that today ]

Absolutely brilliant and I'm sure totally innocently done