Ridiculous: Apple & Ulysses
Ok, this is really good, we all know Apple has banned any porn or even Playboy-style nudity on their devices despite the fact that those things would: 1) require purchase. 2) exist on a device primarily owned by grown-ups. They have this right, even if I find it disturbing. Why disturbing? Because these things tend to get ridiculously absurd pretty fast. How fast? Apple has banned an App it’s been selling that’s an adaptation of Joyce’s Ulysses, which was itself banned some 60 years ago for “being obscene.” And why this comic book? A single panel showing a nude man leaping into the water. He has an abstract and flaccid penis. And yes, I’m posting the picture inside: Article UPDATED!
And yes, in case you were wondering, you can view that screenshot on any Apple product by using the web – you can’t read the entire comic, but because of Apple thousands are going to see the offensive shot and … what if they are children? As Tycho at PennyArcade once put it:
You can’t throw a rock on the Internet without hitting a vagina!
He’s right and with that vagina is usually a penis. A very large and very not flaccid penis.
What bothers me, aside from censoring something that’s based on literature and not at all offensive, is that real people worked on this graphic novel and now they’ve been denied the opportunity to sell it on the hottest comic book viewer on the market.
Oh and the book was banned previously because of a frank masturbation scene. Courts later determined it wasn’t offensive because it didn’t “promote lust.” Apple is proving we’re going BACKWARDS now because, well, does that panel above really promote anything except maybe shrinkage and nude swimming?
Apparently the App is still at the App store but the offending panel has been replaced by something less offensive. You know, it’s now 100% less “penisy.”
EDIT/UPDATE: Artist/Writer Robert Berry makes it clear in a message board post below that he agreed to change the panel to comply with Apple’s standards for the iPad WILLINGLY. Apple didn’t pull the App and force him to change it. This is an important distinction but it doesn’t change my opinion in fact or content. The very idea an artist has to change something this minor as a matter of policy… in fact THE VERY IDEA that an artist has to change anything or contemplate changing anything like this makes my skin crawl. I’m not putting words in Berry’s mouth, but I’d argue his comic is changed by this panel. It’s still his vision and his choice, but it does change the story. The minor shock value of the panel is a part of his telling of the story. I’m sorry he had to change it – but don’t blame him in any way. An artist shouldn’t have to compromise, but an artist also needs to get his work in front of as many eyeballs as possible. It’s a rough balancing act, commerce and art, and I don’t presume to judge this balancing act.
June 10th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Okay. That is absurd. Apple needs to grow up and realize that one animated penis exposed to the viewing public is not going to cause any great harm or commotion. I’m perfectly fine with them banning porn because there isn’t any way of regulating age on the App Store, so Apple could be selling porn to minors, which, I believe, is illegal. However, there is nothing pornographic about this comic book.
June 10th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
Does anyone bother to check the sources on news stories any more? It’s so easy now with the internet and all…
As the artist and originator of the ULYSSES “SEEN” comic and iPad app I gave two very good interviewers frank answers to adapting my work to fit Apple’s guidelines; one at The New Yorker;
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2010/06/no-buck-naked-on-the-ipad.html
and one at Robot 6;
http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2010/06/ulysses-and-the-road-to-the-ipad/
These articles were then picked up by other internet publications like TheBigMoney, Digital Spy, MacWorld and the like and re-written to say that I was “censored” or, more out of context, “bowed down to censorship” by Apple.
As the original articles state, we made a second version of the comic in order to meet with Apple’s guidelines and the original pages are still available on the website.
None of the writers of these other articles, nor you yourself as blogger, bothered to check the original articles or even email us through are website as a source.
If you want to hate Apple then, by all means go right ahead. But if you want to use my work or comments you may’ve seen accredited to me by other people I’ve never spoken with as a method for getting more people to join you in that hatred, well, I’d prefer to be left out of it. Failing that, at least take the time to check your sources.
-Robert Berry
ULYSSES “SEEN”
June 10th, 2010 at 7:52 pm
That is silly. On the other hand, if they banned Ulysses because it is one of Joyce’s worst works, then I would have been fine with that.
June 11th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Robert,
That is well put and I apologize for not doing all the legwork I could have done.
But you realize the only thing this changes is the notice that you did this willingly. That’s important. But I have to note that my main problem is the very IDEA that you had to (even willingly) remove a picture that innocuous to meet Apple’s ridiculous standards.
Now I’m going to accuse YOU of being knee-jerk in that you didn’t read my blog post very closely. I DID NOT implicate YOU in any of this. I just think Apple is being ridiculous and as an advocate for parents, I need to comment on stories like this. Especially stories like this.
June 12th, 2010 at 8:46 pm
How hard is it to enable parental controls? PS3 and 360 both do it, and they don’t have the benefit of tying the platform to a monthly subscription service that *already* supports parental controls (AT&T cell service). Get off your ass and do it, Steve.
June 13th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
Thanks for the update and corrections, Andrew. Sorry if my initial response was a bit snarky, but last week I saw a lot of what I did say in interviews be turned to other purposes by news groups I’d never spoken with. You kind of got me on a bad but busy damage control day.
I and my partners on ULYSSES “SEEN” had a lot of trepidations about the “no nudity” aspect of Apple’s app developer guidelines. After all, we’d been planning this for over a year; building what we believe is a unique way to look at annotated books on the tablet. Had we decided not alter my pages then the restriction on the art would’ve made it impossible for us to present the uniqueness of our idea.
To my mind that is one of the biggest flaws in Apple’s policy; it stifles the imagination of developers by having them appeal to a narrow selection of audience or consumers. Say whatever you may want about the moral content and purposes of some game designers or pornography websites but you certainly can’t deny that there’s been some elegant code and navigational solutions written in those industries. Achievements that have made web-based media a much healthier and more fertile territory for all of us. As the leading technology company in the world, Apple certainly should realize that contributions to a new territory require innovative people coming to useful solutions from different purposes. Limiting those purposes limits the potential for new and faster development.
As an artist, I don’t support the restrictions Apple’s made on content, but as a businessman with an innovative product to show the world, I have to work within those restrictions to get my ideas out there in the earliest platform. So we simply made an “Apple-approved” version separate from the original.
*for anyone wanting to hear more about how I feel about Apple’s guidelines;
http://ulyssesseen.com/landing/2010/06/a-response-from-rob-on-the-apple-kerfuffle/
Thanks again for your interest and supportive comments on the project, Andrew. You’re right. You do need to report on stories like this. In trying to sanitize things for children or broader audiences it’s easy to overlook the fact that innovation actually comes from a pretty messy place of no restrictions.
-Rob
June 14th, 2010 at 8:33 pm
It was not that long ago that Andrew proclaimed the iPad the greatest portable gaming device to date. Hardly qualifies as an Apple hater.
As a film maker I understand the notion that a distributor might make requests for content changes to increase market viablilty but putting something on the app store hardly requires the same risk managemant as manufacturing and delivering 2000 prints to movie theatres.
And Steve’s request has nothing to do with investment risk, it is purely a matter of taste. Jobs has decided to be in the Internet business but he doesn’t want the messyness or trouble of the freedom that comes with the internet.
By no means is he responsible for providing anything in his store but I’m also not responsible for purchaseing anything from his store. I would rather risk being offended than be treated like a child.
One thing can be said about this. I might never have heard of this publication had there not been a curfuffle. I may just check it out, but I won’t be doing it via the app store.