Since when is cleavage offensive? Oh, and copyrights....

[HEMI6point1]

Not to me, and not to any other red-blooded hetero male.

However, people on Youtube seem to think so. When I first started posting my babe videos on Youtube, a friend at my job said, "better be careful about posting that stuff, it might get pulled."

Last week, I got an email saying that one of my videos was "flagged" and pulled for "inappropriate content." It was a montage to a certain busty web model that so far was my highest-viewed video in the last couple of months. This video featured no nudity, just massive cleavage (you tend to have that with 30G's) and sexy Maxim-style poses.

Yet it got pulled. I had one previous that was pulled before but again, that video also featured no nudity. What pisses me off is that Youtube decided to punish me by locking me out of my account for 2 weeks. I can't even edit my own videos!

I can't imagine who would "flag" it. Certainly not heterosexual males or girls that appreciate another good-looking female. That leaves mormons or bitter/jealous women. And please don't say "what if it was a mother that caught her son looking at it and found it offensive." Please, if anyone finds my video(s) offensive then I guess coverage of award shows, hollywood afterpartys or a day at the beaches must be offensive as well because they show just as much skin.

In case you're wondering, Youtube doesn't have an "over 18" section. It has to be flagged by fellow Youtuber's and then staff will decide whether to leave it on the site (and make users confirm their birthdate before watching it) or pull it. The reason why Youtube doesn't have an age-restricted section is that they are so big (I think they're the largest video sharing site) they want to be viewed as "higher-class" due to them being so big. Which actually translates into "we don't want to offend mommy if she catches little Timmy watching a girl in a low-cut tank top."

The problem is, letting end users flag videos for staff to review instead of having a dedicated "over 18" section is bad not only for reasons above, but for 1 other reason: retaliation. Remember the other video I mentioned? Well it was getting high views but low marks. I edited the description to say "the people who are giving this low marks must have no fucking taste in women. Sorry but I like women who have curves and boobs." Less than a day later it was flagged and pulled, when it wasn't even flagged before.

Oh, and I have been getting copyright flack from Youtube for the songs that I use as a backdrop to my videos. Please! I only use it as a backdrop to the video, I don't intend to make a profit or sell them. So far, 3 of my videos were pulled for copyright and I disputed all of them - 1 was successful, one was not and the other still ongoing.

It's crappy because Veoh, while lenient on what you can post content wise, is even bigger of a tool with copyright: I posted a video and it got pulled immediately, yet the same video stayed on Youtube. Dailymotion is a pain because a) they only have a max 150mb size limit and b) no multi-video uploader, so uploading all my videos will be a huge pain.

Sorry for the length....

[Flyndaran]

Gs? I would find that disgusting, and grossly disturbing. A personally made montage of extreme cleavage would be sexual and therefore, unlesss I'm mistaken, be pullable.
YMMV ( Your melons may vary.)

[HEMI6point1]

Well not all of them were cleavage shots. However, the model in question is British. There must be something in the water there are many of their models are big-busted: Lucy Pinder, Michelle Marsh, Lindsey Strutt, etc....

[anriana]

I can't imagine who would "flag" it. Certainly not heterosexual males or girls that appreciate another good-looking female. That leaves morons or bitter/jealous women.

This statement is so enlightening! I've always thought I'm not attracted to large-breasted women because I find masculinized women attractive, but now I see the truth. Clearly I and every other woman attracted to butch women is just jealous that we don't have the sort of enormous tits wonderful people like you make homage vidoes to.

I'm also in awe of the amount of wisdom that led you to say that all gay men are morons and to imply that all heterosexual men are attracted to the same body types.

[HEMI6point1]

This statement is so enlightening! I've always thought I'm not attracted to large-breasted women because I find masculinized women attractive, but now I see the truth. Clearly I and every other woman attracted to butch women is just jealous that we don't have the sort of enormous tits wonderful people like you make homage vidoes to.

I'm also in awe of the amount of wisdom that led you to say that all gay men are morons and to imply that all heterosexual men are attracted to the same body types.

When did I mention gays? Gay guys would not be interested in seeing my babe videos anyway, so what's your point?

I'm sorry that you have clearly taken my post out of context, I didn't want to come right out and say it, but I was taking about the women who constantly go around and complain that magazines like Maxim are "degrading to women." Which I clearly never understood as the women who pose for mags like Maxim are doing it out of their own free will (not to mention a lot of $$$$), which can only mean one thing: Jealousy. Anyway, this is worthy of a separate topic so I'll stop here.

Anyway, I see a mistake in my original post, I didn't mean to say "morons." I changed it now.

[Flyndaran]

I'm still a red-blooded hetero male. I still find the very idea of G sized breasts disgusting and disturbing. I'm not one of those anorexic chasers either, but I prefer my women closer to normal healthy human proportions than to have literal melon sized breasts..

[HEMI6point1]

Yeah but would you flag a video you came across that had super-busty models as "inappropriate" causing it to get pulled and ruining it for everyone else that wants to see it? Oh and by the way, none of the models I mentioned in one of my post above are enhanced, they're all real.

[anriana]

When did I mention gays? Gay guys would not be interested in seeing my babe videos anyway, so what's your point?

"not heterosexual men or girls that appreciate another good-looking female. that leaves..."

non-heterosexual men
and
women with different tastes than you.

or, in your words, "...That leaves morons or bitter/jealous women."

I'm sorry that you have clearly taken my post out of context

Thanks for the apology!

I didn't want to come right out and say it, but I was taking about the big women who constantly go around and complain that magazines like Maxim are "degrading to women." Which I clearly never understood as the women who pose for mags like Maxim are doing it out of their own free will (not to mention a lot of $$$$), which can only mean one thing: Jealousy.

Yes, these are clearly the only type of women other than those who appreciate your definition of a "good-looking girl."

Anyway, this is worthy of a separate topic so I'll stop here.

I agree! This is definitely a seperate topic, so let's keep posting about it.

[Rapscallion]

My Internet connection fell over last night as I was going to post, so I'll keep this mercifully brief.

Youtube is a privately owned business. Its policies are that you can use its services for free provided you follow the rules - very much like CS and this website, for example.

One of the policies are that if a certain number of viewers flag something as inappropriate, they either pull it or try to ensure that whoever views it is over eighteen years of age. They pull entirely when it's a case of copyright violation.

So, you're using a free service and the company offering that service has policies that you have violated according to them. They've noted copyrighted content (fair use only covers usage of small amounts, and I suspect that even a montage of one model would breach fair use - you don't own the copyright on those images or the soundtrack used), and they have decreed, within their policies, that the imagery is dubious.

In short, it's free and you crossed the line of their policies. So, where's your complaint? Not sure you have a leg to stand on here, mate.

Rapscallion

[DrT]

Well, you put together pictures which rights you don't own, with a soundtrack which track you don't own.
Then you publish it out to the public world.

A few though:
-you have a lot of time on your hands. This is a zero profit operation, unless the skills gained in putting together these things improve your net worth
-if it's a hobby, you should enjoy the act of making these videos, and whether they are seen or not is not the issue
-putting it out in the public arena means exposing it to the views of people with enough time on their hands to looks at such things, and this population is somewhat composed of a high proportion of morons
-as said above, it's a privately own site which lets you use its services for free. In this context, complaining is nearly meaningless

[ThePhoneGoddess]

In my opinion Maxim-style wanking pictures are on the same level as award shows and Hwood afterparties---they're all pretty boring. I lump magazines like Maxim, with it's almost-but-not-quite-pornographic pictures, in with magazines like Cosmo, with it's "WHAT MEN WANT IN BED!" headlines. They both cater to the same type of demographic, only separated by gender.

Personally, I'd rather read The Economist.

I seriously doubt any "bitter/jealous" females flagged it. Perhaps hardcore anti-porn crusaders (which can be of either gender) took offense, or maybe, just maybe, people who have read and understand YouTube's policies flagged it because you violated those policies. As Raps said, it's a private site. Your only real choice here is to follow their rules or don't use the site.

[HEMI6point1]

Well for one thing I give credit to all the original photographers in the end credits. Secondly, the videos showed no nudity or actual sexual content, which I know is not allowed on Youtube.

As far as the songs, most of the time they place ads on the songs that are copyright flagged, yet some others are removed. Strange, huh?

[Rapscallion]

Did you have their written permission to use the photos? If not, it's still a violation of copyright.

I can't speak for Youtube on why some videos were pulled and some weren't. I suspect it's down to the number of reports they have to wade through.

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

I'm back home now, so I can add more. The models and the photographers make their living by selling those photos that you're happy to give away free. Youtube as host runs the risk of being sued over their existence on their servers, so they're protecting themselves through their policies. They don't want a photographer to tie up their time with a nuisance suit claiming that the video being there cost them X amount of cash in lost sales. Giving the photographers credit does squat for them - that doesn't pay the rent.

What really gets me about this, though, is that you admit to having had three other videos pulled, assumedly for similar things, and you seem to think that everyone ought to agree with you - the whole 'red-blooded hetero males' comment you begin your thread with. You know your content is skirting the edge of acceptability at Youtube and it's run into problems with the authorities there before.

Maybe the other videos you think are breaking similar policies haven't been reported? Maybe the fact that you've had three videos pulled so far made them keep a more active eye on anything uploaded by your account?

So, again, I ask what your problem is? They have their policies, and you stepped over the bounds of them. It's not a case covered by the first amendment, since it's not the government, so that's not a claim you can make. You seem certain that everyone should think the same way, which is a claim that is fairly easy to deny, so that doesn't really work for me.

What is your argument? That a private company such as Youtube should be forced to risk itself financially with your videos so that you can upload what copyrighted (to other people) material you want at no cost to yourself? That a free service operated by someone else ought to do what you want?

Can't see where you're coming from, mate.

Rapscallion

[Slytovhand]

I'm gonna do a small bit of devil's advocate...

I think our society, with it's wonderful internet, has changed our perceptions of what's accpetable and what's not - including what we are able to do or not. Social networking sights like MySpace, Facebook, Youtube etc, have given our (mostly) younger generation the belief that they can post what they want, how they want, where they want. They have the belief that they have complete freedom of expression and speech.

Thus, when they post something, they get offended - the same sort of offence taken to any other basic human right - the right to freedom of expression.

So, this isn't about what's 'right' or 'wrong' legally, but what is presumed right or wrong morally.


FTR - I'm obviously either gay, morMon, or female and haven't noticed ...

Oh - btw, you've just managed to segregate MASSIVE sections of the world's population... not a good idea!