IMDb photo upload guidelines are getting insane

@jeorj_euler​ True except that I don't understand what's so offensive and horrific about that poster that it can't be on IMDb. You can easily post screenshots of violence but god forbid there's even a cartoon of nudity! I mean that's so hypocritical and silly to me. It's like the epitome of American puritanism. It's not like it's pornography or anything, it's a pair of drawn tits. How are breasts forbidden in America but guns aren't? I mean, FreeTheNipple and all that!

I always thought that was the whole point of cinema. Frankness, openness, an open discussion of ideas. Not censorship of paintings.

Also why shouldn't IMDb accept drawings of breasts or any other body parts regardless of artistic merit? What's so harmful about that?

Well, it is neither offensive nor horrific. Right, it is also not pornographic. That's doesn't mean that it is necessarily allowed (or allowable) in the context of IMDb policy.

By the way, trust me please when I point out that womanly breasts are far less forbidden than firearms are in the United States, which also varies from State to State, despite a Bill of Rights that supposedly protects both. There was no need to even try to bring such a quasipolitical analogy into this, as it relates to the cultural zeitgeist of sentiments held by United States citizens, who have always been quite fractured in philosophical thought processes. We have a lot of fascists, communists, puritans and perverts around here, trying to live together somehow and be fairly governed by the same corrupt federal government. Also, the concept of "not safe for work" (which has nothing to do with the law of the land) can extend to violence and gore.

I'm just worried about things getting out of hand if too many exceptions are made, or if the parameters within the guidelines change back and forth too much. I cannot ever expect IMDb (and sites like it) to be bereft of censorship.

That is certainly not the impression that IMDb gives off. I can, for instance, post a picture of a gun or someone getting shot or someone's dead body. Of course, they're all fake but so are the breasts in the poster above. Now if a fake gun or a fake gunshot is allowed but fake breasts are not does that not seem to you to be insane?

All countries live with a variety of political views. The USA is not unique in that regard at all and that has nothing to do with artistic freedom which should be absolute regardless of prevailing politics. But if open carry of a firearm is allowed then why are painted breasts not?

What does safe for work mean? Why is a painting of breasts not safe for work? Where I work there's a nude painting in the lobby. Is my workplace unsafe?

What example is there of a poster in which somebody's brains are being blown out at point blank range? Something like that might very well go against IMDb's image guidelines. (I will definitely have to check the particular category of guidelines to try to be certain.) A firearm pictured all by itself, whether real or fake, is of course totally fine, just as would be photograph of a sword, a grenade, a bazooka, a tank, an attack chopper, a predator drone, a fighter jet, an aircraft carrier or an intercontinental ballistic warhead, not being used to in the moment maim and destroy a human being. An equivalence cannot be soundly made in any context outside of a use case of violence or gore.

Some of our States do forbid the open carrying of firearms in addition to women going topless, with all manner of exceptions for both cases. Some of them only forbid one. I'm unaware of s State that doesn't have some kind of statute that authorizes proper agents of a civil service to haul a naked women to her home (or the commune grounds), a psychiatric hospital or a court of law for "indecent" exposure. If women wanted to protest these statutes in great enough numbers, there wouldn't be enough community agents to capture all the naked ones among them and keep them captured. Now, though, there is the problem of the regulations imposed by the Federal Communications Commission, in the sense of how lax the rules seem to be in regards to violence and gore. The fact that any American sincerely believes that the federal government had any authority to assume the role of licensing for OTA traffic to begin with might be the problem.

"Why is a painting of breasts not safe for work?" Because, varying with the nature of the work, it usually very distracting (not as distracting as a painting of what is between a woman's legs) to straight males in the work place and probably the general public, unless they are used to it, which usually they aren't. Unsafe? Safety has nothing to do with this! Comfort, discomfort, arousal and disgust are the issues.

The whole "not safe for work" (NSFW) thing is merely to signal that emailed content could get the recipient in docked, demoted, fired or blacklisted if opened while at work, and has nothing to do with literal safety. Why would somebody in trouble at work for something categorized as such? Well, it is going to apply to anything that has absolutely nothing to do with the common types of work, hence wasting of company resources.

Maybe you see things differently than I do because I do not understand why a nude painting would cause any sane person comfort, discomfort, arousal or disgust.

But as much as I am enjoying this discussion (and I really am, I'm not being sarcastic) I think we're getting away from the point that it seems to me utterly unfair and ridiculous to be penalized for trying to upload a painted movie poster which is neither pornographic nor rude nor explicit and which is available on other safe-for-work websites such as Letterboxd, Google, and FIlmAffinity. It's quite unsettling to get sternly worded emails for uploading a movie poster to a website that carries movie posters.

It's also quite ironic, to be honest, since the film deals precisely with our relationship with nudity and how silly this knee jerk reaction to it all is. That makes this whole thread quite metatextual which I like.

I'd hang this up in my apartment:

Yeah, I too would hang the poster up in my apartment. However, I might have to be particular about whom I expose (without warning) to the area in which the picture is visible, A lot of folks would be at the very least puzzled by the image. I can imagine a child observing it, and exclaiming, "Ay! Look at the boobies! And there is no face!"

Well, that's not the worst reaction possible :D

@mbmb​ That's not at all what I'm saying. I'm just pointing out that one thing is apparently OK on one website but not OK on a very, very, very similar website. I don't see what's so different between IMDb and Letterboxd.

And no, this is not a fanmade poster.

I mean, it's a movie poster, for god's sake. And a painting at that. If there's any place on Earth it should be posted on it's IMDb which is supposed to be the most complete movie database online. Well, it's not so bloody complete if it won't allow posters to be uploaded to it.

That's why I'm exploring the idea of an exception being made, but again, I'm worried about it getting out of hand.

I do see your point there but I also think that painted or drawn official posters/covers should be exempt from the nudity rule. I mean I can understand (even though I vehemently disagree) why someone wouldn't want a nude screenshot or even a poster featuring a "live nude person" on it but I'm at a loss why drawings/paintings would ever be considered too rude for a movie database. Of course, it should all be policed anyway for validity, authenticity, quality etc. so I don't see it getting so apocalyptical on the back of this exemption.

Well, if the guidelines wind up being amended altogether to allow for the use case at hand, definitely somebody, upon seeing it, will complain about it, as though IMDb is absolutely some kind of family-friendly site rather than a humanities-oriented entertainment business/hobby venue, but at least the category of matters would be settled. I'm looking forward to seeing whether or not the IMDb staff will recognize that the restrictions don't apply to drawings/doodles containing anthropomorphic elements so precise as to clearly be recognized as being based upon topless women.

@jeorj_euler​ Maybe you're thinking of the same posters as I am. I've been trying to remember which film it was but I definitely know there's a poster on IMDb which is a drawing of a female reproductive system laid out. There's another in which plates (and cups I think) are arranged so they resemble a topless woman. I just can't, for the life of me, remember which films they're for.