[Clipart] More nsfw stuff
chovynz at gmail.com
Tue May 4 01:28:20 PDT 2010
Thanks Nicu. Good replies. Mine below on the parts that I actually have a
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Nicu Buculei <nicu_gfx at nicubunu.ro> wrote:
> On 05/03/2010 11:45 PM, chovynz wrote:
>> Hello Librarians, Admins, and Developers.
> I am one of those that don't care much about the nudity thing but about the
> automatic trace part. We should not allow submission that are just
> automatically vectorised photos, what's the point for them? They are not
> clipart, who needs them, should better use the original photo.
I think automatic traces are valid. Jon does (as per his recent upload of
300+). However it's a different style. Autotrace is still Vector. Vectored
photos can be scaled up with no loss of quality, original photos often can
not. As we can see Jon has been re-defining "clipart" for a long time now so
I have no problem with autotraced photos.
I'm more interested in quality clipart being uploaded, but again, Jon has
said that's a value judgement.
> Do you reckon this person is vectorising images that are not his? I'm
>> starting to suspect so since the two females are different people.
>> Basically, we have no proof that these are PD anymore, and no way (that
>> I know of) of contacting him and asking.
> Yup, that's a real problem.
> Would it be a good idea for every clipart that has a vectorised person
>> in it like these to have a model release form uploaded as well? I
> By "vectorised" do you mean automatically traced like the examples above or
> also hand drawn images?
> For example if I would submit the source SVG for
> http://nicubunu.ro/pictures/fairy-wip.png (I won't, since it is not
> clipart), that would require model release?
I would consider that "clipart" in the same vein as what's been uploaded in
> previously thought that was too restrictive, but am starting to think it
>> would be a good idea. Also I would like to see all NSFW checked cliparts
> I still believe in keeping the barrier to entry as low as possible and not
> require many formalities from our contributors.
As do I.
> to not appear in _any_ search. I suggest a nsfw toggle in the users
>> preferences that they can display nsfw clipart if they choose to. By
>> default this would be off.
> That's a slippery slope. We had people in the past asking for removal of
> images with weapons, I believe we had flags asked for removal and so on.
> What if tomorrow I will get offended by religious propaganda and aks out
> from the default results all crossed and Christianity symbols? (I won't, I
> believe in free speech)
Free speech does not apply when we (OCAL) are supplying pornography to
minors. Vectorised or not, that is what those particular images are, and
there is no precedent "against" them. If there ARE original PD pornographic
clipart then my kids will find them if there are no filters in place. It is
not about offense. It is about being able to include a large number of
people of all sorts of walks in life that do not want to see pornographic
images - for whatever reason.
Also, note here that I am not advocating removal of the cliparts in
question, but rather that they can be chosen to be hidden. There is a huge
difference. They are still there IN the library, but the user can hide them
if they don't want to see them. OR they can view them if they want to. THAT
is free speech in spirit and in truth.
I mention the most obvious again.
Many churches will not be able to use OCAL because of the search results
providing pornographic clipart. I personally know of a church that has 400+
members. I know for certain they will not use OCAL because of the potential
porno issue. I know of many churches that could benefit from using OCAL, IF
there were suitable filters in place. Why do we need OCAL to be a porn
factory? Isn't google enough?
Other cases. Universities are not keen on the same. Their school policies
don't allow those kinds of things. Students get expelled if caught looking
at pornograhic material. And so on.
How many home-schools are now in America? Same issue. Those are not to be
taken lightly and that is a growing percentage of society.
What about social clubs?
As I mentioned before, it's not about offense; it's about including people
in the OCAL community. The more people that are involved the better off OCAL
will be directly. The more people we exclude because of *our* nonexistent
policies, then the less people are involved, and the worse off OCAL will be
(in terms of only having a small percentage of the population involved.)
> I'm quite serious about the porn repository issue. Schools and
>> universities cannot use OCAL until it is a "safe" environment. I don't
>> like to let my 6 year olds or other kids on OCAL until I know they won't
>> find things. (For the moment, I go hunting and print out appropriate
>> pictures for them to draw on and colour in - but searches like "girl",
>> and "green", "stand", "school" will show some things that are not age
>> appropriate.) Same goes for churches. They won't like to use this until
>> there is some "safety".
> I think our primary mission is to provide images. Those that want only
> parts of it can take the database/content (that's the purpose and PD), do
> any selection and use as they see fit.
You misunderstand. My children cannot take parts of the library, they must
take the whole. We must assume that any user that comes to OCAL must take it
as the whole. My children do not have the technical knowledge to separate
those images that they do not want out. Niether do they have the
life-experience knowledge to filter out images that I do not want them to
see. Don't you dare tell me that they have freedom to choose what images
they can view, when that's exactly what we are not providing in the first
*Choice. Filters. Filters give choice. They don't remove "free speech" as
you like to call it, rather filters enhance free speech. They enhance
freedom rather than take away freedom. Filters are a good thing. Deletion is
judgemental censorship. Filters are freedom.*
> If we as OCAL are going to supply PD images (which is great!) then we
>> also need to provide protection for minors, and for age.
I accept that I have used an appeal to emotion, however, I do not accept
that I have used fallacy. Be wary of throwing out the good points by
bringing up "fallacy" issues.
Current system excludes many people (all those mentioned before, including
many muslims and other faiths, not to mention just the practical side of
schools and universities). I want to see more people use OCAL, and therefore
OCAL gains directly. Hence; put filters in place so that they can browse
"safely" while allowing those who want to view all content to do so. I would
go so far as to suggest we make a weapons filter as per your example above.
Or a christianity filter if you prefer. That's bordering on ridiculus
though. Where do we stop? Magic mushrooms? Aqua Icons?
Porno (and drugs) is a recognised adult thing. It is not suitable for
children. If we want more people who are involved with children to use OCAL
"freely" then porno/drug-promotion filters are a must. That's not fallacy.
That is proven via many surveys. I do not need to go into it to any great
lengths here. The very reason of many universities policies are because of
> So; two issues.
>> 1. Are these clipart from user:share actually PD? How do we know?
> I am confident those break copyright and are not clipart.
I thought we needed proof to remove them. I have no way of knowing - I'm not
a porno expert - and I don't want to go searching either. Some of you have
said that she looks recognisable so I guess it would be good to remove her.
I disagree that they are not clipart. I think they are.
> 2. What's the plan for protection for minors from OCAL's side on the
>> issue of nsfw and age appropriateness?
> I prefer we don't have a plan for that.
That's your choice, and one that you can use (when the filters are turned
off, on your account). I prefer that we do have a plan for it, since
currently it excludes a huge amount of people from participating in OCAL.
Refusal to "protect" children, or accomodate the many people who have
children, or are involved with children (playcentres, kindys, home-schools,
universities, high-schools, parents who do care about what their kids are
viewing, churches, and families) then we -OCAL- do so at our own loss. I
would prefer to see more people involved in OCAL. that includes more kids
and families and churches and schools and universities. Again, not a fallacy
And again, I know there is lots of support out there for having the filters
I think I've said enough. Getting tired of this issue! :)
Thanks again Nicu. You had thoughtful replies. I appreciate that you've
taken the time to reply. I hope we can come to some workable solution to
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the clipart