Illustrated story or not ?

[SexyShel]

I am near to completing the follow up story to one of my earlier stories.

As it is a true story we have the photos which were taken during the action. I can turn these into a format which is acceptable on Lit. but is it worth the effort ?

Do people think it adds anything to the story to have a few illustrations in it, or is a story consisting of just words better ?

Shel

 

[HeyAll]

Illustrated stories get a ton of views. So that's a plus.

 

[KeithD]

Considering what Lit. lets through on avatars, I wonder how much liability they are willing to take on for posting private sex photos they have little chance of establishing legal use permissions for. This is a very public nasty lawsuit in waiting to pounce. Will be interested to see where they go with this.

 

[Handley_Page]

I am near to completing the follow up story to one of my earlier stories.

As it is a true story we have the photos which were taken during the action. I can turn these into a format which is acceptable on Lit. but is it worth the effort ?

Do people think it adds anything to the story to have a few illustrations in it, or is a story consisting of just words better ?

Shel

Take a look at some of the illustrated stories around the thread.
I would not recommend and "real" photos of real people, even if you have their written and attested permission

 

[Bramblethorn]

Be aware that Literotica restricts what can be shown in illustrated stories. Photos are limited to "soft nudity": no intercourse (including oral), no masturbation, no "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person", among other things.

https://www.literotica.com/faq/05238710.shtml

As Keith indicates, these restrictions are routinely flouted when it comes to forum avatars. But last I looked (admittedly, quite a while ago) they seem to be enforced more strictly on the story side.

 

[SexyShel]

My photos would be "stylised" into a drawing or cartoon form as I have seen on lots of illustrated stories. They would also NOT show faces at all.

That was the point of my question. As the illustration is far removed from a photograph of actual people, does it add anything to the story ?

 

[tomlitilia]

My photos would be "stylised" into a drawing or cartoon form as I have seen on lots of illustrated stories. They would also NOT show faces at all.

That was the point of my question. As the illustration is far removed from a photograph of actual people, does it add anything to the story ?

My two cents: Make up your mind whether you want to tell a story with images or words. If the story works on its own, will the illustrations really add anything? I don't know the quality of your illustrations, but perhaps there is a risk of ruining the readers' experience by showing illustrations that aren't as exciting as what they've made up in their minds. On the other hand, if you have really great illustrations that essentially tells the story, there is no need to describe with words what's already shown with images, and you can just add minimal description. Pick a lane.

 

[KeithD]

An artist illustrated some of my stories and, although his illustrations didn't fully capture my own view of the characters/actions, they gave interesting dimension to the stories, I thought, and I would have welcomed more illustrations if the artist hadn't gotten antsy about Turkish Internet scrutiny. If what you'll have are drawings, I think it would be interesting to have them included.

 

[SimonDoom]

A few thoughts:

1. You must have permission to use the photos/illustrations. Don't take somebody else's artwork without their permission.

2. Photographs cannot show hardcore content. You can show a naked body but not X-rated stuff and not intercourse.

3. There are no similar restrictions on non-photographic artwork. With photo-shopping tools that convert photos into drawings the line can be blurry between the two.

4. Illustrations probably will get you a much bigger audience. If you look at the toplists for the last year, many of the most viewed stories are in the illustrated category. So don't hesitate because of possible reader reaction. Reader reaction probably will be favorable, and there will be more readers.

 

[SexyShel]

I have used Photoshop to change the real life photos into something that looks "not real". But I have searched all over Lit. and can't find the rules and "how to" for inserting the illustrations into my story. Could someone point to them please ?

 

[ElectricBlue]

I have used Photoshop to change the real life photos into something that looks "not real". But I have searched all over Lit. and can't find the rules and "how to" for inserting the illustrations into my story. Could someone point to them please ?

https://www.literotica.com/faq/05238710.shtml#06028542

 

[Bramblethorn]

3. There are no similar restrictions on non-photographic artwork. With photo-shopping tools that convert photos into drawings the line can be blurry between the two.

Per https://www.literotica.com/faq/05238710.shtml#06028542 the restrictions on photos include "photographs manipulated in a graphics program."

 

[SexyShel]

Thanks all. Have now decided to forgo the photos, which is a shame as they would have nicely shown some unique sex.

Ah well, you'll just have to read the story and use your imagination.

Shel

 

[SimonDoom]

Per https://www.literotica.com/faq/05238710.shtml#06028542 the restrictions on photos include "photographs manipulated in a graphics program."

Yes, I've seen that, but it leaves open whether after a sufficient degree of manipulation it's no longer a photograph but the equivalent of a drawing.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes, I've seen that, but it leaves open whether after a sufficient degree of manipulation it's no longer a photograph but the equivalent of a drawing.

That particular requirement is motivated by 18 USC 2257, the gist of which is that if you're hosting post-1990 explicit photo/video of real people you need to keep proof-of-age records. Literotica aims to be 2257-exempt by not hosting any material of the kind covered by that law.

The language of that law encompasses "digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being". There is no mention of any "sufficient degree of manipulation" exemption. AFAICT, no matter how much the image had been manipulated, it would still fall under that law.

Obviously, with a sufficiently manipulated image it would be very difficult to spot (supposing the poster had not already flagged their intention to do so in a forum where the site owners read...) but AFAICT it would still be a violation of section 2257, and could be prosecuted if that became apparent (e.g. if the original photo surfaced elsewhere and an image search detected the similarity).

In that case, site owners might be able to get off on the grounds of ("mistake of fact"). But it seems like an unkindness to put Laurel and Manu in that position in the first place.