Wed, January 12, 2005
Exile on Spring Street
The gun's pointed at my head – shouldn't I decide whether it's funny or not?
In December of 2002, I was looking for a fresh, innovative idea for my photo on my personals profile at Nerve.com. The picture is the most important part of any online personal ad, and it's the only place you can really break free of the dopey standard questions they ask you to fill out. Remembering a really hilarious moment from the Clerks animated series, I decided to spoof a well known photograph from the Vietnam war, and put myself in it. (It was my friend Drew's genius idea to go with a facial expression that you usually see in family photos from Six Flags – I was just going to imitate the expression of the original photograph subject.)
So, Drew took the picture, I spent a day Photoshopping it together, and it came out great. I knew it would have a limited niche appeal, so I decided I couldn't use it as the photo on my primary profile. But if anyone out there found it as hilarious as I did, I'd want to meet her! So, I created a new profile, named it "ow" (fittingly, I think), and uploaded the image.
A day or so later, I received this notice from Spring Street Networks, the people who run the personals service that's partnered with Nerve.com, The Onion, and countless other "alternative" websites.
From: tos-violations@springstreetnetworks.com
Subject: Nerve Personals: Customer Service Notification
Date: December 10, 2002 1:40:10 pm PST
To: jameson@ph7media.comHey there!
We've removed the photoshop picture of someone executing you from your ow personals profile on Nerve. Please post a photo of yourself which is in compliance with our picture posting guidelines. Thanks.
If you have any questions, you can review our terms of service from your personals site or at: http://www.springstreetnetworks.com/tos/.
Thanks!
Spring Street Networks Customer Service
help@springstreetnetworks.com
Pretty standard boilerplate stuff. Well all right. But I felt like there was a little misunderstanding involved. I followed the link, scanned through the thick legalese of the terms of service, and couldn't find anything that specifically addressed my photo. Plus, I thought it was a stretch to refer to it as a "picture of someone executing [me]," since the image is so familiar that anyone looking at it would know that I was never there. Plus, it seemed like it might be fun to see how this thing would play out, so I sent back a well reasoned and polite response.
From: jameson@ph7media.com
Subject: Re: Nerve Personals: Customer Service Notification
Date: December 10, 2002 3:11:59 pm PST
To: tos-violations@springstreetnetworks.comHello, and thank you for writing.
I certainly never intended to violate your picture posting guidelines. The ones I read (on nerve.com, where I posted the profile) were somewhat less specific, but even after reviewing the extended terms of service on Spring Street's site, I'm still curious why my photo can't stay. The best guess I can fathom is that it qualifies as "otherwise objectionable" or "encourages conduct that could constitute a criminal offense." If so, please allow me to respectfully register my argument for allowing me to re-post the photo as-is.
The image I posted is not intended to depict an execution and I do not believe that a reasonable viewer of the image on your sites would draw the conclusion that it does so. The image is constructed to satire a well-known media photograph, and even if a viewer of the image were unfamiliar with the original photo, I believe that from the expression on my face alone (not to mention the growing savvy among mass-media consumers for recognizing the malleability of the printed or moving image due to current technology), no viewer would infer that I was ever in harm's way.
It's meant as satire; only a joke, admittedly one in questionable taste. However, if tasteless humor were eliminated as a means of self-expression I don't believe Spring Street (certainly not partner sites like The Onion or Nerve.com) would be able to stay in business. I constructed the image as a way of injecting a little of my skewed sense of humor into my profile so it's not just another boring head shot. I think it gives my profile the ability to grab the user's attention, and get to know a little about me.
I can certainly respect the perspective of Spring Street in this matter, but I believe that viewers of Spring Street's sites are far more likely to "get it" than the average web viewer, and I strongly believe that understanding the image as satire wholeheartedly undermines the disturbing nature of its content. Certainly, this is not the sort of image I would post on match.com, but because I know that Spring Street has a "hipper" and more savvy audience, I feel that it's a perfectly reasonable pushing of the envelope in the interest making a unique statement.
I have attached two copies of the image: the original and another version that makes use of a familiar cartoon cliché to further underline the intended satire. Of course, I would greatly prefer to re-post my original image as-is, but if Spring Street feels strongly that the original doesn't comply with the picture guidelines, will the new version do?
I realize that this is not a free-speech issue, because it's Spring Street's site and Spring Street's server and Spring Street will be the final arbiter of what's in good taste and what's objectionable – but I do think it's a self-expression issue, and I would respectfully argue that self-expression is at the core of Spring Street's business and that greater self-expression by Spring Street's users will lead to greater success of the users' profiles and greater happiness with the overall Spring Street experience.
Thank you again, and I look forward to your reply.
Yours,
Jameson(attachments)
Here's the alternative photo – I just added a little cartoon flag like you might see in a Looney Tunes short.
Admittedly, I didn't really expect Spring Street to change their mind on the issue, but I thought I came up with a damn fine argument, so I figured it was worth a shot. At least I'd get past the unpaid intern who screens incoming images and sends out the boilerplate message. Maybe someone at a higher level would understand what I was trying to do.
Not really.
From: mconnors@springstreetnetworks.com
Subject: RE: Nerve Personals: Customer Service Notification
Date: December 10, 2002 3:26:51 pm PST
To: jameson@ph7media.comThe image in question is extremely objectionable, offensive and in really bad taste (not to mention that the image is copyrighted). Whatever your intentions are - the image IS of an execution, and the 'look on your face' is the element that in fact makes it objectionable. There are plenty of off color, funny, witty and hip ways to extend your self expression into your picture without being offensive. Your image was unanimously deemed offensive by a staff of people (Nerve and Spring Street) that deal with a lot of things on a daily basis and are anything but overly Politically Correct. I'm really sorry we disagree on this matter, we obviously like to encourage creativity and outrageousness, but there are limits. Again, I'm sorry but please select another image.
M A T T C O N N O R S
customer service manager | matthew@springstnet.com
520 broadway | 6th floor | new york | NY | 10012
_____
S P R I N G S T R E E T N E T W O R K S
www.springstreetnetworks.com"Spring Street Named One of FORTUNE MAGAZINE'S 13 Coolest Companies of 2002"
http://www.fortune.com/lists/cool––-Original Message––-
From: Myles Fennon On Behalf Of TOS-BIN
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 6:15 PM
To: Matthew Connors
Subject: FW: Nerve Personals: Customer Service Notificationm y l e s f e n n o n
content review specialist | myles@springstreetnetworks.com
212-625-3426 ext 239
_____
S P R I N G S T R E E T N E T W O R K S
www.springstreetnetworks.com
At this point, I decided to give up. As I said in my note, I didn't have any legal ground to stand on. I was just hoping to find someone who was willing to acknowledge that, while their sense of humor isn't the same as mine, someone else out there might still find it funny. I was tempted to write back in response to the whole snippy "not to mention the image is copyrighted" and explain about fair use and satire, but it wouldn't have made any difference. (I also thought it would be great to Photoshop in a new picture of me, weeping or begging for my life – or missing half of my skull – since "the 'look on [my] face' is the element that in fact makes it objectionable.")
Besides, I was happy that "a staff of people" who are too uptight (or too touchy-feely, or too opposed to the Vietnam War) to find the image funny were forced to look at it as part of this quorum. My sense of "a staff" is about six, but we know that at least three of these idiots saw it, at a minimum – the unpaid intern, Myles, and Matt. So, that part was fun.
I've uploaded it as part of my profile at Audioscrobbler, and so far I haven't heard anything negative from them. I'm guessing it's only a matter of time.
Brandon — Sat, 1/15/05 12:02am
Excellent response, Jameson - well-written and with just the right amount of restraint.
And this from l'il Matty Connors...
I'm really sorry we disagree on this matter, we obviously like to encourage creativity and outrageousness, but there are limits.
Uh... no. If you're going to encourage creativity and outrageousness, you don't set limits. (Well, unless you're a humorless, unimaginative shitbag who has no clue how real creativity and outrageousness works; then, by all means, set those limits! Yeee-HAWW!) His sentence is so ripe with contradiction that I'm surprised it hasn't imploded.
"Brian" — Thu, 2/17/05 7:30am
The person who nixed your photo is a graduate student at Yale art school who himself has first-hand experience of being censored. Pasting your head on a photo that famously represents the atrocities of war for no apparent purpose other than being silly is your prerogative. I think it's insensitive but it's your right to do it and post it on your blog. However, in an online community where it's somebody's job to balance the rights and sensitivities of 1.5 million paying subscribers (ie, when somebody gets offended, they call up their credit card company) how would you want Matt Connors to respond to the inevitable flood of complaints about people who are offended by the image?
The point is no one is questioning your right to mock the horror of war. Go right ahead. But an online dating site with diverse membership is not the venue. Your blog is.
Bee Boy — Thu, 2/17/05 8:46am
Oh, this is just what you'd expect a Yalie to say. "He was just doing his job – keeping an eye on the bottom line!" I really wasn't that bothered by this – it just makes a fun story – but if Matt and his colleagues did anything wrong, it was not giving their subscribers more credit. I don't think there'd be any "inevitable flood of complaints." (You have to realize, nobody ever looks at my profile.) If someone hassled Spring Street over my picture, I'd want him to respond by saying, "This is Nerve.com, pal. We published a picture of a woman with a ball python in her vagina. Lighten the fuck up."
I never said anyone questioned or infringed upon my rights. In fact, quite the opposite:
Matt was perfectly polite with me. I appreciated his personal and respectful reply. He did his due diligence, showing the picture to some people in his office. The only thing that irked me was the lack of perspective. I'd expect an art student to be familiar with the concept of fair use and satire; I'd expect him to understand that what an image depicts and what an image "IS of" can be two very different things; I'd expect him to place more value on creativity and outrageousness. (I think Brandon's absolutely right – you can't truly "encourage creativity and outrageousness" in an environment where "there are limits.") I wish Matt had thought about how he felt when he got called on the carpet for smearing pigshit on a picture of the Pope (or whatever his "first-hand experience" was – his seventh grade teacher probably just made him turn his Hüsker Dü t-shirt inside out). Sounds like he just pushed all that aside and focused on the hypothetical hordes of angry subscribers who have their credit card companies on speed dial.
Which is fine. It's not his fault he doesn't have a sense of humor; it's just a shame that he, and "a staff of people" with similar sensitivities, had their hands on the rudder of one of Fortune's Coolest Companies of '02. Just consider this: ABC aired the Clerks episode in prime time (mocking the same picture, but superimposing Randall on the shooter, not the kid in the madras shirt). And we all know how wildly oversensitive TV networks are to complaint. They're serving a much broader audience – which may include children – over the public airwaves. Nerve is serving a small, adult constituency who have paid and logged into a site that pushes boundaries. Which one would you expect to have the itchier trigger finger when it comes to questionable taste? If you're like me, you're surprised by the right answer.
And I'm really not in it to "mock the horrors of war" – I'll leave that to the neocons for now! – if anyone, my photo mocks those stores at the mall who will insert you into a picture with Tom Cruise or Gorbachev. Those goons have been shilling the same boring photo of Demi Moore from the Ghost premiere for years – it's time to offer something more interesting!
(And, please don't call this a blog.)
Joe Mulder — Thu, 2/17/05 9:46am
Just consider this: ABC aired the Clerks episode in prime time (mocking the same picture, but superimposing Randall on the shooter, not the kid in the madras shirt).
Actually, that episode of Clerks wasn't one of the two that aired on ABC. With the photo and the joke about the Challenger exploding, they might have had an uphill climb in getting that on network TV.
Bee Boy — Thu, 2/17/05 10:42am
Shit. There goes the meat of my eloquent little argument. I could swear I remembered watching it with you – I guess I was thinking of the DVDs.
Next time, consider e-mailing me this kind of thing instead of posting it publicly for all to see. We don't need to give "Brian" any more ammo for the next time he comes trolling through, Googling Matt Connors and scribbling "'Brian' Connors" in curly writing on his Trapper Keeper.
Joe Mulder — Thu, 2/17/05 4:38pm
We don't need to give "Brian" any more ammo for the next time he comes trolling through, Googling Matt Connors and scribbling "'Brian' Connors" in curly writing on his Trapper Keeper.
Har!
Also, I could have e-mailed, sure, but, the truth must be heard!
Plus, the spirit of your point remains; clearly, the photo gag got enough OKs to appear in the finished Clerks episode, regardless of whether it aired, and thus is fair game to be used by you to prove your argument.
Anyway, look at how excited you are about being shot! Who could stay mad at that face?
"matt connors" — Sat, 4/2/05 1:22pm
wow - get a friggin life... - Move on already.....I'm sure you have enough distractions with all the love letters that must have come streaming in from your super witty profile....non?
Bee Boy — Sat, 4/2/05 7:00pm
I'm sorry but your use of "friggin" violates this site's terms of service. A team of dozens has reviewed your post and deemed it wildly offensive by any standard of taste. (Besides, you gotta be conservative with those ellipses, buddy – this is wartime!)
Also, "Non?" That's Fronch, isn't it? I take back everything I ever said in defense of a Yalie.
AC — Sun, 4/3/05 5:35pm
Matt Connors, ladies and gentlemen!!! It's not a huge leap to "Me in a murder victim's head."