Grandpa Loc: Sacramento, CA

As the manager of this section I will be looking a lot closer at the images that are posted to ensure that they meet the posting requirements for this site. Any image that does not will be deleted and the poster will be notified.
Thank you all for the images and constructive comments that are made. We can all learn a lot from each other.

Leon S Loc: Minnesota

I appreciate your position on this matter. I think you have done an excellent job doing so to date. I haven't seen a single post that I would consider a nude photo posting. I would hate to see any deviation from the standards that have been used.

Grandpa Loc: Sacramento, CA

Thank you Leon. I also would appreciate the help from all the members if they see a post that is questionable to bring it to my attention.

snails_pace Loc: Utah

OK ... so I'll be the one to do it.

To avoid misunderstandings and ensure that guidelines are enforced uniformly, what is the definition of nudity? Or will it be based on arbitrary feelings of "good" or "bad" photos?

I'm a conservative person who lives in what may be the most conservative state in the US. If you'd like, I can post the definition of public decency that is used here. It allows for more exposure than I've ever seen in this section.

I'm not trying to cause problems. Quite the opposite ... not defining things is what will lead to problems.

And just a reminder of sorts .... in a couple of threads I've seen a lot of references to "family friendly" and how people want things to be "safe" for kids and grandkids .... here is a quote from the Terms of Usage:

"ALL PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 ARE DENIED ACCESS TO THIS WEBSITE. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR YOU TO VISIT, READ, OR INTERACT WITH THIS WEBSITE OR ITS CONTENTS IN ANY MANNER. THIS WEBSITE SPECIFICALLY DENIES ACCESS TO ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT IS COVERED BY THE CHILD ONLINE PRIVACY ACT (COPA) OF 1998."

If you're letting your kids or grandkids who are under 18 years old use this site ... then it's strictly against the rules.

I've just seen how all this can play out. A slippery slope if not handled right. Personally, I'm hoping for an atmosphere of tolerance and a certain artistic license ... even if it isn't what I would do.

One of the schools here ... about 25 yrs back ... was able to get a display of world class sculpture. Rhodin's "The Kiss" was put in a separate room with restricted access ... because it might be a bad influence. And this in a state where public breast feeding is specifically allowed. See what I mean?

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

I think you need to post exactly what your definition of a "Nude" is. A view of someone's bottom? Cleavage or is a nipple the dividing line? Is there a section for those photos? I have never seen any photos here that I would have problems sharing with anyone interested in the art and science and skill of photography.

Will this be disallowed?

waltchilds Loc: Central Florida

Steve, I agree with you completely. I have never seen anything here but first class photography and a resource to learn and grow as a photographer. I would hate to see that change.

Baz Loc: Peterborough UK

Grandpa, while I may not like some of the photographs in this section, that is due to style, not content. I do not think I have as yet seen any photograph that is in any way offensive. Keep up the good work you are doing.

Singing Swan

Does that include babies??

br3kes Loc: Tarentum PA

Havent seen an 'Offensive' photo yet! Keep up the good work. Oh, yes...watch out for those naked Babies! =)

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

Top of the morning to you, Grandpa. I bet you did not expect your comment to trigger some of the questions and comments that followed. All I can say is best of luck to you trying to answer. Although, I think you could easily either defer to, or seek guidance from the Forum Admin as it is a forum wide, not a section wide policy.

In any case, don't stress and pull at your hair. Many of us believe you will exercise your best judgment pending any needed clarification from Admin.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

I think it does or at least to authorities. I read recently where someone got in big trouble for posting a picture that had their little girl's buttocks showing, similar to the famous Coppertone billboard ads. The goal posts have moved due to over-reactive and hyper sensitivities.

I wonder what the great masters of old would think now that their work is called pornography or nude filth according to the standards of some. Odd world no doubt.

gmcase Loc: Galt's Gulch

I agree with the definition, as best as possible, being developed for what is verbotën otherwise it turns into a subjective bucket of snakes. Now that someone has unnecessarily swatted the hornets nest a few will certainly get stung but I hope we don't lose the benefits the bees bring to the table.

Maybe a suggestion - use examples of what has been posted with a comment such as "OK" or "over the line" or "nudging the line". After all, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

I wouldn't call his message "Stupid". Stupid no, both sarcastic and insensitive, yes. Perhaps, it was just an attempt at humor. It's hard to tell from here.

Jackinthebox Loc: travel the world

Typical, twist and turn. Of course there are many individuals that have learned a lot in the UHH forum. That is what we are here for.
We are not here to be brow beaten by a grumpy grandpa about a non existing subject.
So answer the questions asked by most so far.
1. Did SB's submission pass mustard and
2. how about my lady in India?

Sorry grandpa, we are on the same side of the fence but it irks me to be down talked to for no reason what ever. I have never seen nudity on UHH, did you?

Jackinthebox Loc: travel the world

You are right. It was at least to me an obvious attempt at humor.
oooops, I must have missed the warning about attempting humor.