WNBR, and Flickr rant

Saturday 12 and Sunday 13 June 2010 were two of the best days ever. Saturday was the World Naked Bike Ride in London and Sunday was the same in Brighton. My fourth London ride and my first Brighton one. I took plenty of photos and a few videos. But I came across problems when uploading them.

Flickr has three safety filter settings. "Safe" is the lowest rating, which is for general photos that wouldn't offend anybody or as they say "Content suitable for a global, public audience." "Moderate" is next, about which they say "If you're not sure whether your content is suitable for a global, public audience but you think that it doesn't need to be restricted per se, this category is for you." Finally, "Restricted" means "content you probably wouldn't show to your mum, and definitely shouldn't be seen by kids." There's no specific guideline as to what that means.

I was aware of the safety filters when I uploaded my photos from the 2009 event. I was totally unsure which setting to use for any of the pictures. After all, there were children at the event, and any unsuspecting member of the public could see all the naked bodies on display. I eventually settled for "Safe" as there was nothing inappropriate about any of the pictures. Then someone must have reported me to Flickr, who set every single photo I had uploaded, reglardless of its content, as "Restricted". I didn't want this, and although they told me how to request a review and have my "Safe" and "Moderate" content visible to those who want to see content at those levels, there was still nothing to say what pictures should be marked with what filter. I eventually managed to find out that "Moderate" includes bare breasts and buttocks, and "Restricted" means anything more than that, i.e. full frontal nudity. And of course sexual content.

Fair enough. No problems with that. Until 2010. I took videos of the event. The difference being that Flickr doesn't allow videos to contain "Restricted" content. I assume this is to stop people uploading pornography. But my video was simply an 8-second clip of a man who chose to run instead of cycle at the World Naked Bike Ride, and as I cycled past him, my camera got sight of his penis flapping around a bit. I uploaded it at "Moderate" as it was clearly harmless, and sure, why wouldn't I show it to my mother? I received an email after a few hours from Flickr HQ:

As per our Community Guidelines, “restricted” video content is not allowed on Flickr . We’ve removed your video.

If you continue to upload videos that contain “restricted” content, we may take further action on your account.

Regards,

Flickr Staff

I wrote them a reply, basically saying that I understood why they deleted it, and that I would follow their rules, but explaining that it was a legitimate protest that was supported by the police, and that treating sexual content and non-sexual nudity as if they were exactly the same was highly unfair, and I accused them of having a Victorian attitude to nudity. This was yesterday morning and I am yet to receive a reply.

I then uploaded the video to YouTube. They soon sent me an automated email.

The following video(s) from your account have been disabled for violating the YouTube Community Guidelines:

World Naked Bike Ride London 2010 - runner - (sweetiepetie)

Your account has received one Community Guidelines warning sanction, which will expire in six months. Additional violations may result in the temporary disabling of your ability to post content to YouTube and/or the termination of your account.

Sincerely,

The YouTube Team

I haven't written back to them. There are, however, other WNBR videos on YouTube, and I could appeal, but I can't be bothered (plus don't know how). I would also like to upload some of my longer videos to YouTube, such as the singer/cellist on Brighton nudist beach, but that contains lots of nudity and I'm not sure YouTube would even allow it if I appealed. I'm rather annoyed and I would like to see some sort of change on both sites. Flickr needs to make a distinction between sexual content and non-sexual nudity. Perhaps make a fourth setting, or allow non-sexual nudity to be "Moderate". YouTube would benefit from similar filters, though I don't think they should allow sexual stuff, there are plently of PornTube-type sites out there.

Anyway, I have since uploaded three further videos to Flickr, none of which contain a single penis. Have a look at my London and Brighton photos. Or have a look at a few of my favourites below!