<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>michaelhocter.com - Latest Comments in FYI, JPG Magazine thinks pubic hair is genitalia</title><link>http://michaelhocter.disqus.com/</link><description>Michael Hocter Photography</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:13:47 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: FYI, JPG Magazine thinks pubic hair is genitalia</title><link>http://michaelhocter.com/index.php/2007/12/20/fyi-jpg-magazine-thinks-pubic-hair-is-genitalia/#comment-44626</link><description>Jason,&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thanks for taking the time to respond personally to my post and for giving me some background.  I'm actually surprised and delighted that you even found my little slice of the blogosphere!  Usually I'm just rambling to myself over here.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Glad to hear that you will be clarifying the guidelines this year.  I really do enjoy JPG magazine, both online and in print.  Keep up the good work!&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;-Michael</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">desaturated</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:13:47 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: FYI, JPG Magazine thinks pubic hair is genitalia</title><link>http://michaelhocter.com/index.php/2007/12/20/fyi-jpg-magazine-thinks-pubic-hair-is-genitalia/#comment-44230</link><description>Heya! This is Jason S. from 8020 Publishing and JPG.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I think you're absolutely right, we do need to be more clear about what we mean by "no genitalia photos." To give you some back story, that got added to the guidelines around the time we launched the Beauty Redefined theme for Issue 10, which was sponsored by Suicide Girls. We weren't looking for SG-esque pictures but man, we got a bunch. A lot of us took turns watching what was getting uploaded and deleting that which was over the top. I dubbed it "genitalia watch" and we perhaps got focused on that word, which for all I know may have influenced how the additional guideline got written.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It's something we've been thinking about the last couple of weeks here in the office (as you're not the only photographer to bring this up!). While I don't think anyone working on JPG would mistakenly think that all nudity is explicitly sexual, we do have people from all over the world, and of all age groups, using the site. That doesn't give us any specific legal concerns, but it does become very difficult to draw the line between what's artful nudity and what's pornographic. Combine that with the fact that there's only a handful of us here able to sort through every photo that gets posted to JPG, and it becomes impossible to make these kinds of editorial decisions without drawing a hard line somewhere.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Christi &lt;a href="http://jpgmag.com/blog/2007/12/why_was_my_photo_deleted_1.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;posted a clarification to the blog&lt;/a&gt;, but of course not everyone reads the blog, so in 2008 we intend to have clearer rules and guidelines up on the site, and hopefully better communication when a photo gets deleted.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Thanks for sticking with us! And for voicing your concern. We're always trying to improve on what we do and how we do it.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jaschu</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:30:07 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>