Tag Archives: YouTube

YouTube has age-restricted my video and I don’t know why

This is the message you get when YouTube restricts a video:

“The YouTube Community has flagged one or more of your videos as inappropriate. Once a video is flagged, it is reviewed by the YouTube Team against our Community Guidelines. Upon review, we have determined that the following video(s) contain content that may not be suitable for all viewers:  2008 Transformations by Christopher Agostino

As a result, we have age-restricted this content.  For more information on YouTube’s Community Guidelines and how they are enforced, please visit the help center http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=92486.  “

You can check out the video, or my post about it:

45,000 Views — 2008 Transformations    http://wp.me/p1sRkg-tD

I am very glad that they have only age-restricted it, and not removed it completely. Below is the relevant section of their guidelines, I think, which explains that things deemed inappropriate by Community Guidelines may still be allowed for artistic content with the age-restriction warning.  I was talking just yesterday about online censorship issues (before getting this message) with my very slashdot savvy son, who has a much wider understanding than I do about just how many problem areas there about what some people post, and that therefor there do need to be some lines draw as to what is or isn’t appropriate, especially on a completely open platform like YouTube.

I do remain concerned, as an artist, that judgement on my video here is only in the hands of a “YouTube Team” and they don’t offer me a chance to ask why? Where is their line? What image is ok, what is not? Can I take an image or two out and get the age-restriction removed?

I am also concerned that the process is initiated by some anonymous  viewer deeming my work inappropriate and flagging it by clicking a button. I think that is too easy, clicking a button. I invite whoever flagged it to send me a message explaining what images are inappropriate and why—I’d like to be able to add your side of this to the discussion. Or you can add your viewpoint as  a comment here if you prefer. (I won’t get into a  fight with you, you can say your piece and I’ll leave it at that)

From YouTube’s site:

“When videos violate our Community Guidelines, we remove them. Some videos don’t violate our policies, but may not be appropriate for all audiences. We age-restrict these.  When a video is age-restricted, a warning screen displays before the video plays. Only users 18 years of age or older can then proceed to view the material. In order to reduce the chances of users accidentally stumbling across these videos, they are not shown in certain sections of YouTube (e.g. honors pages like ‘Most Viewed’).

In deciding whether to age restrict content we consider issues such as violence, disturbing imagery, nudity, sexually suggestive content, and portrayal of dangerous or illegal activities.

Notable Exceptions

There are exceptions for some educational, artistic, documentary and scientificcontent (e.g. health education, documenting human rights issues, etc.), but only if this is the sole purpose of the video and it is not gratuitously graphic. For example, a documentary on breast cancer would be appropriate, but posting clips out of context from a documentary might not be. Videos that qualify as educational, artistic, documentary or scientific that would otherwise have been removed are typically age-restricted instead.”

—————————————————————————–

To see some more possibly inappropriate fine art bodypainting:   https://thestorybehindthefaces.com/body-painting/

A few related posts about censorship of bodypainting images:

84-  Breast Cancer Awareness Body Painting Project  and  SURVIVORS Magazine    http://wp.me/p1sRkg-r0 

85-  Body Painting on TV in a Superbowl Ad, a Good Thing, Right?  http://wp.me/p1sRkg-rx   

86-  What really bothers me about this…  http://wp.me/p1sRkg-rH  

87-  Nipples    http://wp.me/s1sRkg-nipples 

88-  Is this ok, Twitter?    http://wp.me/p1sRkg-sg  

What really bothers me about this…

by Christopher Agostino

The two things that bother me the most about this Facebook censorship of the Breast Cancer Awareness images:

— 1—

That the removal of the images indicated no regard to the social impact of the project or the women participants. In this particular case it is the very act of allowing their unclothed, painted bodies to be seen publicly that is meant to facilitate the healing of the individuals and to be the vehicle for increasing breast cancer awareness. There seems to have been no consideration of that when judging whether the images met the vague Facebook standards—standards vague enough you’d hope they would allow leeway for a good cause.

— 2 —

That the actual nature of the images seemed to be of little or no consequence: in the particular case of Jamie, the survivor/model whose quote about having her photos removed by Facebook appears in my initial post, the image that was removed so completely obscured her torso through bodypainting and digital touchup that it’s hard to guess what the justification is. (see the post, her quote and the image: http://wp.me/p1sRkg-r0 )  Was the reason for removing the image only because there is body painting involved, as if that act is enough to make an image inappropriate? From a body painter’s perspective that possibility is troubling. More troubling is the suggestion in some postings about the image removal that it is specifically because these images have to do with breast cancer that they were flagged in the first place—that breast cancer images draw Facebook scrutiny. I don’t know if that is true. I do find it curious that the image of the cover of Survivors Magazine was removed from my Tweet about that initial posting, whereas the image of the cover of the Art Color Ballet book was not, even though it also shows a painted naked female torso.

So that’s what troubles me most.  

Now, the thing that is the most annoying about these kind of image removals is how coldly they are done—no explanation, and no vehicle for appeal. (If you don’t believe me, see the info below about Scott Fray’s attempts to deal with this problem, who has gone much further into it than I have) I’ve had a few bodypainting images in tweets just disappear, no notice to me at all. You Tube was nice enough to send me a message telling me they were restricting one of my videos, but no specific explanation why and no recourse offered to ask about or argue the decision. The best guess I’ve heard from anyone is that some viewer flags the content, then the powers that be take a look at it and the default setting is that they remove it, deux ex machina. These social media sites all have their Terms of Use we all have to agree to, and in there is language about their right to remove inappropriate content, but exactly how that is defined and how they apply their standards in a particular case is not something the user is privy to—Google, Facebook, all of them, are much more concerned about protecting their corporate privacy than they are about protecting our privacy.

I’ve pretty well run my course on this censorship issue and if I keep talking about it I run the risk of passing myself off as an expert in a field in which I’m only an occasional victim, and a minor one at that, as nothing yet of mine that has been removed was particularly troubling to me. I have one more post in me about this which should be coming up pretty soon: “Nipples”.

One more thing, I had a bunch of people contact me by email about the last few posts and their own issues with FB and censorship. I invite any and all of you who read my posts to add your comments here on the blog page and help move the conversation forward.

——————————————————

On The Media just broadcast     The Facebook Show      Check it out to get an inside look at this privately controlled entity that has such a public impact and now has almost 1 billion users after only 6 years of existence. My favorite factoid might be about the guy who got FB to give him a copy of all the information they keep on him and it totaled up to 1,200 pages of data.

——————————————————-

A few months ago I was led to the art of Scott Fray. I don’t know Scott, and he was not one of the artists that contacted me about the recent censorship posts. His work is beautiful, breathtaking, championship winning, and apparently not appropriate for Facebook. See an article about his own problems with FB:  http://www.yesweekly.com/triad/article-12740-ufffdwe-are-the-champions-of-the-worldufffd.html

From the article, regarding what happens when Facebook bans your work: “Unfortunately, their Terms of Use are rather ambiguous, at least their policy toward bodypainted images. There seems to be no differentiation between nudity and what many (but obviously not all) would consider art. Nor is there any clear explanation on their FAQ page. The form e-mail the four received stated: ‘You uploaded a photo that violates our Terms of Use, and this photo has been removed. Facebook does not allow photos that attack an individual or group, or that contain nudity, drug use, violence, or other violations of the Terms of Use. These policies are designed to ensure Facebook remains a safe, secure and trusted environment for a users, including the many children who use the site. If you have any questions or concerns, you can [sic] visit our FAQ page at www.facebook.com/help/?topic=wphotos.’  The FAQ page offers nothing in the way of clarification, particularly on where bodypainting falls in that gray area between nudity and art. And, even more unfortunately, the corporate office in Palo Alto, Calif. is unavailable for comment. No fewer than 20 interview requests via phone calls and e-mails from this reporter went unanswered. Granted, Facebook does not seek out offensive comments or photos, rather it waits for someone to report them.

See my fine art bodypainting at  https://thestorybehindthefaces.com/body-painting/

To learn more about our programs and performances:  http://www.agostinoarts.com

Related articles