Highly Subjective

Location: San Francisco, CA - Edge Studios
Model: Iona Lynn

This afternoon I posted this image (without the star) over on my JPG Magazine account. A few hours later they pulled it off the site and sent me this email:

Dear paul,

Thanks for participating in JPG, but your photo, "Iona Lynn #1," had to be removed from the site. The reason for removal was:

*Inappropriate content: Your photo had content that is inappropriate for JPG Magazine. We're okay with artful nudes, but do not allow photos where the genitalia region is visible or photos that are explicitly pornographic. Do not upload the same photo again -- that's grounds for account termination.

Please be sure to read the photo guidelines before uploading again. You can find them here: http://jpgmag.com/about/photos.html. Note that once a photo has been deleted from the site, it's gone and we can no longer access it for review. Please don't take this personally - it's not! We just want to keep the JPG site focused on the kind of photography that we print in JPG Magazine.

Thanks,

My initial reaction was, WTF! But, I decided to go check out their Photo Guidelines before getting too pissed off. Ironically, their Photo Guidelines don't mention anything about nudity. However, if you dig a little deeper into their FAQs, you'll find this text:

Q) What about nudity?
A) JPG is okay with artful nudes, but please keep it professional. Anything overtly pornographic will be removed. We know the difference and we know you do, too. If that's not clear enough, try this: No penises, no vaginas, period.

Am I reading that correctly? Is JPG actually claiming that any image that shows a penis or vagina is pornography? That's a pretty broad definition! It's also one that the Supreme Court of the United States would NOT agree with. Nevertheless, JPG has apparently judged my photo to be, "overtly pornographic", because they did remove it from the site.

Debating this definition is a discussion that could go on for a long time, so I'm going to put that aside for a moment and concentrate on what their official FAQs state... "No penises, no vaginas, period." Technically speaking, my image does not show a vagina. It shows pubic hair (click the image for the uncensored version). So, it does not violate their posted policy. Although, it appears that they can broaden that policy, without notice, to include, "photos where the genitalia region is visible", as stated in the email I received. Apparently they think any image that shows pubic hair is also pornography.

I have to say, I'm pretty annoyed (and disappointed) in JPG's attitude. Not only because they pulled an image from the site that I personally don't believe is pornographic, but also because they say, "once a photo has been deleted from the site, it's gone and we can no longer access it for review." Apparently, JPG isn't interested in providing any channels for appeal. Once it's gone, it's gone! They actually went as far as to threaten to terminate my account if I uploaded the photo again. I wouldn't really be angry at all if they had simply posted their policy as something like, "it's our policy not to publish pictures containing genitalia or pubic hair", and left it at that. But, that's not what they did. They went one step further when they stated that any pictures containing those items are pornography. That's hardly an enlightened attitude for a photography magazine, especially one with a tag line of, brave new photography.

I'm really wondering if this was the act of a single overly-sensative individual, or is this the philosophy of JPG? Fortunately, their offices are here in San Francisco. I think I'll be taking a little field trip down to their office to try to talk to someone about this. I'll update this post after the trip.

I'm also going to forward this post to them. I'm hoping they'll reply in the comments. I invite all of you to tell me what you think too, is this image pornography? It's OK, be honest.

UPDATE (2.10.08): OK, so it looks like JPG didn't actually call me a pornographer. Their policy isn't as rigid as it sounds in their current FAQs. JPG Business Director, Devin Poolman, left a comment clarifying their position. Check the comments for the full story.

Tags: Color, Iona Lynn, JPG Magazine, Nudes, People, Pornography, Studio, Women

This entry was posted on Friday, February 8th, 2008 at 1:27 am and is filed under My Photos, News & Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.