An Open Letter to Yahoo/Flickr.

Dear Yahoo,

Recently, you changed the status of my flickr account to "restricted"--so that users would have to sign in and verify that they were adults before seeing my photographs.

I have over three thousand images on my flickr account.  Most of them are public--visible to everyone, not just friends.

Out of some 3,600 images, when you flagged my account as problematic, there was a SINGLE nude image depicting a penis.

That was it.  

For that, my account was flagged "restricted."  

That single photograph was journalistic:  it was from a gay street fair.

This strikes me as (a) overkill on your part and (b) homophobia.

Ironically, since then I have added images from another 

San Francisco public event:  a foot race in which many runners race naked.

These photos have now been carefully tagged.  Now photos of naked people with exposed genitals are set to "restricted" and are tagged with the words "nude" and "naked."

There were still only 56 such images--out of over three thousand images.

There is another dozen set of images of topless women or naked people with genitals NOT exposed.  These I have sent to "moderate"--the equivalent of PG-13, I suppose--and I tagged them with the word "racy."

Your email to me claimed that I had images that were "nude/sexualized" (in one email) and "sexualized/nude" (in another).  (I wonder if there's a difference.)

I hope you are able to explain to me what "sexualized" means.

If my ability to use your paid service to public my artistic expression can be terminated based on your definition of the word "sexualized," it would be kind of important for you to define it clearly.

I would be very disappointed to learn that Yahoo is a commercial venue open to the public but which treats gay customers differently.

Sincerely,

Edward R. O'Neill

P.S.

Late Saturday night, Flickr replied:  

On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Flickr Support  wrote:

Hello,

Content like the following examples from your photostreamare still marked as "safe".

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwardoneill/2356201835/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/edwardoneill/2356212905/

These are but two examples.
You need to moderate your entire photostream accordingly.

-Terrence

So here are the images they objected to.

"Hot cross buns."  Get it?

I didn't paint and pose the guys.  I just photographed them.

Buttocks.  That's what they think is upsetting.  Buttocks.

Or is it the paint?

The crosses?

And here's another one.

Okay, he's

 dressed as Jesus.

Is that the bad part?

He's dressed.

Scantily, yes, but clad.

So we can see pubic hair?  Is that the problem?

These folks at Flickr have no ground rules!  None.  

Flickr offers "community guidelines."

But as specific as they get is this:

Don’t forget the children.
Take the opportunity to filter your content responsibly. If you would hesitate to show your photos or videos to a child, your mum, or Uncle Bob, that means it needs to be filtered. So, ask yourself that question as you upload your content and moderate accordingly. If you don’t, it’s likely that one of two things will happen. Your account will be reviewed then either moderated or terminated by Flickr staff.

I'll ask my "mum"--what are we, British?--if she minds buttocks or pubic hair.

So here's what I wrote back to flickr:

So any human buttock is restricted?

The second image shows no penis.  It is a man wearing a loin cloth.

Is any suggestion of pubic hair "restricted"?

I would be happy to moderate according to your rules.

Please let me know what they are.

--E. R. O'Neill