What constitutes a "Pet"?

[bombilla]

I suspect maybe I'm not supposed to bring this up here, but I'll give it a try. Today I posted a photo of a dog leaning out of the window of a truck. It was part of my series of photos taken in the Low Country of South Carolina and Georgia. The photo was deleted in about one minute. I've been told that "photos of pets are not allowed."

Now, my question is, what is a "pet"? For photography -- and for TE -- purposes, I mean. This was not my pet. I did not know this dog. I did not know the owner. The dog in the truck was a sight I saw while traveling the world. If it had been a person leaning out of the window, the photo surely wouldn't have been deleted. But the animal goes.

But moreover, it went because it was a dog. If it had been a horse it would have stayed, even though most horses are owned just like most dogs are. If it were a domesticated falcon, it would have stayed. Any number of animals in zoos get to stay.

I'm bothered by this rule. What would I have to do to show a dog? This was a pretty good photo, too, I think. The dog was looking across at me with a strange kind of intensity. It wasn't a snapshot of a "pet."

Any thoughts?

[danielswalsh]

As the overall theme of TrekEarth is to learn about the world through photography, common photos of pets do not really fit into that theme.
If the moderators allow you to post a pet photo, then it sets a precedent for everyone to start posting photos of their dogs, cats, hamsters etc.
Personally- I didn't join this site for pet photos....

All the best,
- Dan

[bombilla]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I did not post a photo of my dog or cat or hamster. I posted a photo of a dog seen in the context of traveling.

Here's another way to look at it. Today, for example, there is a post of a photo of two birds eating a peanut. No context. How do you know those birds aren't pets?

It seems to me there are pet photos, and there a photos of animals in the world. Not all dog photos are "pet" photos, IMO.

[danielswalsh]

I'm sorry you don't see my point....
- Dan

[Loic_bzh]

Hugh,

tons of photos are uploaded daily. IMO the moderators can't spend 15 minutes on every borderline pict to try to understand what was the idea behind the shot. I understand your point but keep in mind that TE is a free site with people spending their free time to allow us to post picts and coment. So forget about this pict and go ahead uploading an other photo! ;-)

Cheers,

Loïc

[prantik]

It may have been deleted by some automatic word-check or something. Did you use the word 'pet' anywhere in the title/text?
Otherwise, there should not be any reason why TE would not allow you to post a dog in a car in the context of traveling or just mere street photography. I have seen plenty pictures of dogs in TE.

[cam]

Hi Hugh
There are pets and then, there are pets.
In fact, it all depends of the note, if through the photo and the note, we learn something of the world, then it will stay.
A pet without a note, especially a household pet will be remove.
Just look at my galery, you will see pets, butterflies and birds,even a black cat, all topics for Treknature, but the notes tells you something about that part of the world, a festival, the symbolism of the condor to the Incas, etc.
Have fun taking photos, don't bother too much about this one.

Charles

[bombilla]

Yeah, I give up. I don't agree with the premise, but you can't fight City Hall. I appreciate the TE site and all it offers.

(Though don't kid yourself. I'm sure, given the advertising, that there's a business model behind it somewhere, and our participation is part of that.)

But I'm not going to belabor the point. Tomorrow, I'm posting some wild birds instead. . .

Best regards,
Hugh

[bombilla]

Hi, Prantik. No, I didn't use the word "pet." I've been referred to the Terms of Service again, and, reviewing them, it does indeed say that photos of pets "(even other people's)" are "highly discouraged." My point, of course, was that I didn't consider this a pet photo.

I am very aware of the rules. I never even post a photo of someone I remotely know -- much less a family member (and I see plenty of disregard of that rule).

But, anyway, as I said in my response to another comment, I'm not going to belabor the point. We could have semantic arguments or philosophical arguments all day about what is a "pet" and what it means "to learn about the world" -- but I'm just going to accept the decisions of the moderators and move on.

Best, -Hugh

[bombilla]

Hi, Charles,

Yes, I took a quick look at your very nice gallery and, for certain, I would say that that black cat on the scale in Peru qualifies as a pet. Absolutely. So, I see the policy as somewhat arbitrary.

Maybe it's because I didn't really have much of an explanatory note . . . But anyway . . . as you say, not worth bothering over anymore.

Thanks for your considerate response.

-Hugh