We're aware of an issue with converting some DOC, DOCX, ODT, and RTF files to EPUB through our Ebook Wizard.

At this time, we're investigating the problem and looking for a solution.

If you've encountered this issue while converting your file, we suggest attempting to create and upload an EPUB directly to our system.

While there are a number of EPUB conversion options, Calibre (Download Here) has shown the best results for creating an EPUB for the Lulu system. Please review their extensive Help resources (Found Here) to create an EPUB 2 that our system can validate.

We've also created this Forum Thread. Post questions here and we'll do our best to respond and assist.

"Amélie" cover too racy for Lulu's partners

Joe_Bondi_BeachJoe_Bondi_Beach San Francisco Bay Area Creator

My cover image (from the original painting here) apparently proved too much for Lulu's partners in the 21st century as it did for Parisian society in the 19th century. So now it's been, well, changed, in the Book Promotion thread, in the hope it does not unduly shock. Yes, I'm irritated. Not at Lulu but at their partners. Next time I'll go for a full-busted female bursting her brassière.
«1

Comments

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    They obviously don't know the difference between art and porn.  Some social networking site has just deleted some nude art by some famous ancient artist (who's name slips my mind) that sells for £millions. Some algorithm deleted them, apparently. Makes you wonder what the software is progged to search for. Of course the deletions have been met by derision.

    It's remarkable really, how few clothes an artist can get away with painting on, before the image is banned as potential 'porn.' I have such art ( as above) on a POD site that deals with images, and they have the option to set to 18+ when uploading, and one cannot see them unless one is logged in, with, I assume, stating one is over 18 when opening an account. (Not that they ask for proof.)



  • Joe_Bondi_BeachJoe_Bondi_Beach San Francisco Bay Area Creator
    edited July 31

    They obviously don't know the difference between art and porn.  Some social networking site has just deleted some nude art by some famous ancient artist (who's name slips my mind) that sells for £millions. Some algorithm deleted them, apparently. Makes you wonder what the software is progged to search for. Of course the deletions have been met by derision.

    It's remarkable really, how few clothes an artist can get away with painting on, before the image is banned as potential 'porn.' I have such art ( as above) on a POD site that deals with images, and they have the option to set to 18+ when uploading, and one cannot see them unless one is logged in, with, I assume, stating one is over 18 when opening an account. (Not that they ask for proof.)



    Indeed. Sotheby's advertised the "Rolla" painting at 400–600K GBP. It sold for 1,385 [EDIT: 1.385 million] GBP. The image earns its "Morning after" title, but does it as art, not porn. FWIW, Amélie is marked "18+" or whatever the Lulu designation is, so presumably it won't end up in the children's literature section.
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius
    I am not sure if the 18+ (is Lulu's Adult setting actually 18+?) carries over to every site, but some places are very puritanical anyway, and like to 'protect' their viewers from seeing things they may not approve of. Perhaps they also have sex in the dark ...
  • Skoob_ymSkoob_ym Teacher
    So... What is art, and what is pornography?

    Believe it or not, the first "pornography" -- literally the graphics made by the Pornai -- consisted of nothing more than bare female footprints on sidewalks, leading to a house of ill-repute. Those who made the footprints, the Pornai, were the lowest class of "streetwalkers" -- literally, as they advertised by walking with painted feet in the streets.

    So, one must ask, is a bare footprint pornographic? well, in the most literal (and etymological) of all senses, it obviously must be; In the middle sense, it can be if one is inclined to think of it thusly; and in the most conservative of senses, it is obviously not.

    One is reminded of the joke about the man who is shown a series of Rorschach drawings. As the psychologist asks him to identify each picture, the patient describes a sexual act taking place in the picture. Finally, the psychologist states that the patient seems obsessed with sex, to which the patient replied, "Me? You're the one with all the dirty pictures!"

    That is to say... To a person so inclined, anything may be a sexual image or metaphor; to the innocent mind, nothing is a sexual image or metaphor. Porno soit qui mal y pense.
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius
    It may not be surprising, but those old master's nude paintings, or should that be paintings of nudes? were at first faced with shock and often even banned from galleries.
  • Joe_Bondi_BeachJoe_Bondi_Beach San Francisco Bay Area Creator
    edited August 1
    It may not be surprising, but those old master's nude paintings, or should that be paintings of nudes? were at first faced with shock and often even banned from galleries.
    "Rolla" was removed from its first exhibit for exactly that reason. But success  (even notoriety) is the best revenge:

    "Gervex was undeterred and inspired by Manet’s decision to exhibit his Nana, another scandalous depiction of a literary courtesan, after its rejection from the Salon the previous year, Gervex opted to show Rolla at Bague’s gallery on the fashionable Chaussée d'Antin. The whole of Paris came to see it and what followed is one of the great succès de scandales of 19th century art."

    In describing the scene depicted the Sotheby's piece says the prostitute, Marie, "luxuriates" while Rolla plans to end his life. I think she's dozing but I guess one can doze as part of luxuriating.


  • Skoob_ymSkoob_ym Teacher
    It's also possible that she was dazed. Perhaps he was simply that good.
  • Joe_Bondi_BeachJoe_Bondi_Beach San Francisco Bay Area Creator
    Skoob_ym said:
    It's also possible that she was dazed. Perhaps he was simply that good.
    Or, of course, she's a really good actor ...
  • Skoob_ymSkoob_ym Teacher
    btw... off the topic... I don't know if you're a Rex Stout fan, but I saw recently that the WolfePack is opening a raceme in the bay area.
  • Joe_Bondi_BeachJoe_Bondi_Beach San Francisco Bay Area Creator
    Skoob_ym said:
    btw... off the topic... I don't know if you're a Rex Stout fan, but I saw recently that the WolfePack is opening a raceme in the bay area.
    I am a fan, but what's a WolfePack and a raceme?
  • Joe_Bondi_BeachJoe_Bondi_Beach San Francisco Bay Area Creator
    OK, got it. (Thank you, internet). I'm probably not current enough to participate since my last exposure (pretty intense) was over 30 years ago.
  • LarikaLarika Bibliophile
    edited November 6
    I saw a magazine with  a report of "Porn" from Saudi. It was a picture of a woman in an abaya, (It is a long robe or cloak, usually black in color. It is worn over the clothing and covers the whole body. It is worn by women when they are in a public place in Saudi.) It showed the woman's ankles and her bare feet!
    I think in some countries Western artists would be imprisoned for their depiction of women either nude or scantily clad as shown by Kevin. We here in the West are more open to nudity. What one person considers porn another may consider "art". I think where you draw the line between ‘art’ and ‘porn’ really depends completely on the viewer, and I don’t think there’s any hard-and-fast rules we can give, because it’s ultimately subjective. It was a subjective decision by the Lulu partners to reject your initial cover Joe, just as the "Salon" rejected "Rolla".



  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    I saw a magazine with  a report of "Porn" from Saudi. It was a picture of a woman in an abaya, (It is a long robe or cloak, usually black in color. It is worn over the clothing and covers the whole body. It is worn by women when they are in a public place in Saudi.) It showed the woman's ankles and her bare feet!

    It's a fact that Victorians (middle and upper-class ones only, that is) used to cover the bottoms of table legs up, if they were carved in the shape of anything that looked like a foot. Speaking of an Abya, I saw a young lady wearing one, and it was so thin it was almost see-through in bright light. Under it she had a just visible thong and bra on. Paying lip-service only to their religious laws ...

    These laws were only invented by religious leaders who were celibate (and still are) and did not want the thought of sex or temptation put in to their minds, if it's even possible for them not to think of it. It's nothing to do with actual religion, many 'laws' are not.


    I think in some countries Western artists would be imprisoned for their depiction of women either nude or scantily clad as shown by Kevin.

    Indeed, but in some of those countries I bet they own art showing it.

     We here in the West are more open to nudity.

    Since the 1960s only perhaps, apart from in art, but it does have to be classed as 'art', Playboy was never classed as art.

     What one person considers porn another may consider "art". I think where you draw the line between ‘art’ and ‘porn’ really depends completely on the viewer,

    Then again, it could be classed as porn, due to the porn laws. But some do think that nudes are porn, and some think that ... well, I won't say what, is not porn.

     and I don’t think there’s any hard-and-fast rules we can give, because it’s ultimately subjective.

    As I have said before, there are laws. This is to do with films, etc >>  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography#Legal_status

    But it can also apply to the various age groups in fiction.

     It was a subjective decision by the Lulu partners to reject your initial cover Joe, just as the "Salon" rejected "Rollo".

    I think there's more than meets to eye with the banning of Joe's cover. This seems to be OK!! >>   http://www.lulu.com/shop/99-naked-photos-erotica-xxx/touch-my-boobs-grab-my-tits-best-breast-places-paris-eiffel-tower-london-big-ben/ebook/product-21697548.html

  • LarikaLarika Bibliophile
    Good grief Kevin and those books were passed by Lulu!!!! hmmmmm.  It does seem strange that Joe's cover was banned.
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Not only passed by Lulu, but apparently also the places the ISBNs got them on to. Those places that Lulu often say set the rules, not them.

    But then again, Lulu do not look at the books unless someone uses the Report This button, and at times that could just be vindictive people, and even at times people one knows.


  • LarikaLarika Bibliophile
    edited November 6
    https://www.covenanteyes.com/2016/01/29/is-naked-art-a-form-of-pornography/  I think this article by Matt Fradd is very interesting, So if one agrees with Matt both Joe and Kevin must ask themselves  what is their goal with their paintings?
    As Fradd says "The goal is to get the intention of the artist and the viewer in sync, along with the goodness and dignity of the human person."


  • Well, Fradd makes some good points but, I think, gets a little off the rails on others.

    I found myself amused by the comments he and Waldstein made regarding Michelangelo's thoughts and motives (especially Fradd's apparent ability to read the artist's mind: "if Michelangelo was told his paintings in the Sistine Chapel did little to arouse delight and instead aroused a strong sexual desire, he would either be bothered that his paintings had this effect or worried about the mental health of the informer."). For instance, when one realizes that Michelangelo was gay, this throws a very different light on his depiction of the naked human body---if nothing else, it explains his difficulty in depicting realistic nude women, all of whom look like muscular men with breasts uncomfortably attached.



    As opposed, say, to his depiction of men...



    But the one line I really had some trouble with was this one:

    The goal is to get the intention of the artist and the viewer in sync, along with the goodness and dignity of the human person.

    Really? Does Fradd really mean to suggest that the goal of depicting the nude in art is to convey the "goodness and dignity" of its human subjects? Where does this leave the work of artists ranging from Goya to Ivan Albright and Lucien Freud?
  • But then again, Lulu do not look at the books unless someone uses the Report This button, and at times that could just be vindictive people, and even at times people one knows.

    To emphasize this point - we cannot check every book that gets run through our system. So we rely on reporting to remove offensive material. If you see something that doesn't appear to comply with our standards, please report it.
  • LarikaLarika Bibliophile
    edited November 6
    Ron, Maybe Gadd looks at such artists subjectively and maintains that they are not showing respect to the human body or viewing it with "goodness and dignity." We'll have to ask him. It's just his point of view.  I don't  see much art in Tracey Emin's "My Bed," yet she was shortlisted for the Turner prize! Porn or art it's all subjective for the individual, but as Kevin said there are laws for films etc.  Kevin I guess no one reported the 2 books you mentioned so they remain in Lulu.
  • LarikaLarika Bibliophile
     True Kevin just as they probably have secret wine cellars!
  • Larika said:
    Ron, Maybe Gadd looks at such artists subjectively and maintains that they are not showing respect to the human body or viewing it with "goodness and dignity." We'll have to ask him. It's just his point of view.  I don't  see much art in Tracey Emin's "My Bed," yet she was shortlisted for the Turner prize! Porn or art it's all subjective for the individual, but as Kevin said there are laws for films etc.  Kevin I guess no one reported the 2 books you mentioned so they remain in Lulu.
    Ah, but Gadd was speaking in absolutes, rather than qualifiers. I don't recall him ever saying even once, "In my opinion..." or "It's my belief that..."

    He has every right to look at art and report on it subjectively, but he also has a responsibility to make it clear that his opinions are, in fact, subjective.

    Well, it's all a moot point for me, anyway. I haven't seen any porn since I lost the needle to my pornograph.
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    To emphasize this point - we cannot check every book that gets run through our system. So we rely on reporting to remove offensive material. If you see something that doesn't appear to comply with our standards, please report it.

    And what is Lulu's opinion (you right now) of those two examples I found in 'Erotica'? Finding those makes me think it's no wonder some people get confused as to what Lulu says is allowable or not.

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    The chap is right about what porn is, but I do think that some people analyse art too much, and I often wonder if they are artists themselves? You know, like professional food critics, who cannot cook.

    So, speaking as an artist, I just do art because I can. People should not read anything 'deep' in to it. The art of semi-naked ladies I have done, was simply based on the sort of females seen in Manga, Marvel comics (and now films) and computer games (my offspring play.) I did them to see if I could, it's as simple as that. (And if anyone does want to view them 'deeply,' they should notice they are all SF in some way.)

    My book covers? Why I do those speaks for itself. There's nothing to analyse, no one needs to try to guess what was in my mind, they just literally Show (he he) a scene from each story.

    As to a lot of old masters, well, they had no cameras. Many made their living painting portraits, which can be seen in mansions still. Although some only painted themselves (selfies) and sold nothing. The incredibly rich could afford them to paint their ceilings and walls because there was no other way to do it. Nowadays people just buy wallpaper and paint, or huge posters.

  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius

    Attach image does not work.



  • LarikaLarika Bibliophile
    edited November 8
    mine worked Kevin. 
  • LarikaLarika Bibliophile
    edited November 7
    Such a shame they named "The Turner Prize" after a great artist.
     Joseph Mallord William Turner would turn in his grave if he knew. Mind you the giant buttocks by Anthea Hamilton made me laugh out loud!
  • Just KevinJust Kevin Lulu Genius
    Copy and paste will not work for me (that's that little cross on my last posting) and Browse does not show all the folders on my PC, and even if I move an image to a folder it does show, and I choose that image, it does nothing! It's reet peculiar.
  • Did you try drag and drop? That should work as well.



«1
Sign In or Register to comment.