Fotoagência NMM-Tabajara “In Violation” of Photobucket Terms of Service!

The image “” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
I have been wondering what changes might occur now that News Corp. has acquired the Photobucket photo hosting site, where I upload a lot of the imagery I present. I used to use Flickr, but they imposed a cap on uploads, and wanted money to “go professional.” Too much money.

Here’s the first change I have seen myself: an old photo of mine suddenly turns up as “violating our terms of service.”

I have to go through tons of old files to discover what exactly that photo was as photo of.

Never mind what term of service it might have violated. As far as I can tell, the terms of service are, bottom-line, that the site reserves the right to remove any content at any time for any reason, without prior notice or explanation.

The photo showed an advertising poster, displayed on the storefront of a big chain drugstore, which I snapped at the Conjunto Nacional (Av. Paulista and Consolação) here in São Paulo a year or so ago.

The poster, advertising some kind of diet remedy, depicted the naked flanks of a woman, shown in profile — the flesh of her thighs and hips bearing the kinds of buttons you see used in, for example, leather upholstery.

The idea being that you could use the diet remedy to reupholster your body to make it more attractive and comfortable to sit on.

I posted it to illustate a point I was making about the commodification of the body, or some such thing. Yada yada yada. Feminists do have a very valid point about the sadomasochistic implications of such imagery, I think.

Still, it would be interesting to know what, under the terms of service of Photobucket, was objectionable about the image?

The nudity — which was far from being full-frontal; I have seen much naughtier things on the cover of Maxim and Stuffper se?

Or the message?

Or did Photobucket find I was violating the intellectual property rights of the advertising agency or the firm for whom the ad was produced?

If imagery positioned to be viewed by the densest foot traffic in the city is not out there in the public domain to be recorded, what is in the public domain?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s