Canadian filmmaker Ivan Li’s animated short, ‘Fruit,’ was permanently removed from the streaming platform – that positions itself as a champion of bold cinema and art - despite endorsements from staff curators, a successful 2-year festival run, and ARTE broadcast in France; the artist hopes his case serves as a warning sign to independent filmmakers.
After a successful festival run that saw his film, Fruit, screen at Annecy, Ottawa, Vienna Shorts, Fantasia, and even on France’s ARTE channel, Canadian animator Ivan Li was all set to share his new film on Vimeo.
Fruit had been uploaded to Vimeo (privately) in May 2021. In October 2021, Li uploaded another screener intended solely for ARTE distribution (again, not public). ARTE eventually broadcast the film in May 2022.
All started well when Li launched the film publicly on Vimeo on August 23, 2023. Early on, a Vimeo staffer even liked the video and began following Li. Then, on August 27th, just as the film was picking up steam online, it was, without any warning, removed from Vimeo. Li’s upload for ARTE was also removed. On August 29th, he uploaded another private screener (changing the name to Not Fruit). That version was removed on September 5th, and Li’s channel was restricted.
Here is Vimeo’s initiation email from August 27th:
Hello TEACHERS NIGHTMARE.,
Your video "Fruit" has been removed for violating our Guidelines.
Reason: We do not permit content that depicts explicit nudity or sexual acts.
For more information on our content and community policies, please visit
https://vimeo.com/help/guidelines.
If you believe this was an error, please reply to this message as soon as possible to explain. (Please be aware that Vimeo moderators take action as violations come to our attention. “I see other people do it” is not a valid explanation.)
Sincerely,
Vimeo Staff
Li responded:
I am replying to this video regarding the deletion.
This video had been up for 3 years and was public for 2 weeks. This video has been an award-winning animated short film shown in major, mainstream film festivals and even a television broadcast (ARTE.TV).
See https://www.ivanivan.ca/fruit for full screening and broadcast details.
The sexual imagery featured in this piece of work is abstract, and I can confirm no human genitalia was shown in this video.
Prior to the deletion, it was also liked by a fellow Vimeo Staff Pick Curator Ina P.; in progress for a potential staff pick selection.
Please restore this video ASAP.
Ivan.
Vimeo was unmoved in this August 28th reply:
Hello,
Your clip was terminated for violating Vimeo's Terms of Service (https://vimeo.com/terms) and Community Guidelines
(https://vimeo.com/help/guidelines).
Vimeo does not allow videos that contain explicit depictions of sexual acts. This can also include fetish gratification videos or overtly sexualized depictions of nudity or activity.
We are unable to restore the clip that have been terminated for this kind of violation.
We wish you the best of luck in finding a hosting platform better suited to your needs.
Li continued to appeal, even with endorsements from Vimeo's curators. However, Vimeo’s Trust and Safety Department (yes, that’s a real thing) remained unmoved.
Now, I know the film. It’s funny, bizarre, violent (the violence is so utterly over the top that you can only snicker at it), and a bit raunchy (if you’re the type who is offended by surreal computer-generated images of weird fruit/human hybrids having an orgy), but how is it that it’s considered okay enough to screen on French television (where they have broadcast standards) and numerous acclaimed international festivals, yet is too iffy for Vimeo (even with a mature warning attached)? Even some of the Vimeo curators could not understand why the film was removed and tried to appeal to the taste-makers department. Even more confusing is that the extreme and explicit violence in the film is not mentioned by Vimeo, nor is the use of public images of the Naked (Fruit Juice Company) logo, Quentin Tarantino, and Samuel L. Jackson. In short, it’s absolutely ludicrous that Vimeo has removed Fruit.
Li says that at no point did Vimeo mention the violence or celebrity parodies: “I've prepared a response to that just in case, given the comedic nature of the content, the usage of these personnel and brands should be protected by Parody's law in Canada; see South Park for reference.”
Meanwhile, here are some other works on Vimeo that have been deemed a-okay (and they are in my view) by the Trust and Safety gods:
That said, I’ve never understood a society that gets offended by artistic representation. It’s an animated film created by a binary code in a computer system. It’s not actually happening. Some morons can’t seem to process that. Secondly, have the prudes not learned that the moment you start banning and censoring stuff, it only brings more attention to the issue? It’s like swearing and kids. I never quite grasped why parents would react so emotionally and aggressively if someone swore around their kids. If you respond aggressively to it, are you not planting a seed? If the parent ignores the mention of the word, then maybe the kid doesn't even think about the word and doesn’t have a clue that anything offensive was mentioned. The moment we spotlight it, the kid becomes aware. “Ah, here’s a word that upsets my parents. It must have magical powers,” and sure enough, one day that kid will tell the parent to get fucked.
We are a deeply immature and hypocritical species. You can’t tolerate your kid swearing, but you’re okay with your kids going to McDonald's and Walmart and being seduced and devoured by endless questionable consumer products.
Ah, I see that I’ve gone off on my road here. Let’s get back on track, shall we?
I sympathize with Li and see that Vimeo tastemakers are prudes who should be gently slapped with tree branches. Clearly, their idea of creative expression is a bit sketchy. At the same time, Vimeo is a for-profit company. Yes, it’s a public company, but in the end, they can do as they see fit.
“Certainly, as a company, Vimeo has its rules,” admits Li. “But this is a company that has historically platformed similar content with no issues. The company positions itself as a champion of bold cinema and art, actively engaging in partnerships with esteemed film and animation festivals, offering cash prizes, and encouraging filmmakers through its staff picks program, with employees giving talks about ‘Why Vimeo after festival circuit’ while attending festivals. I've witnessed firsthand how Vimeo benefits my career exposure with my previous film Finding Uranus (the film launched a second round on the festival circuit after it was staff picked on Vimeo, 2-3 years after going public online). This current outcome indicates an unfair bias.”
Oddly enough, Finding Uranus, a hilarious ode to masturbation, didn’t raise any Vimeo eyebrows.
Is being refused by Vimeo any different than a festival rejection? You can dislike, say, my selection decisions, but at the end of the day, it’s our call, and most animators respect that (even if they want to strangle me). And honestly, I am not even sure that I can always give a rejected animator a totally satisfying or logical answer as to why we didn’t take their film. Sure, you could argue that filmmakers like Li are paying for Vimeo’s service. Festivals like Ottawa and Annecy don’t have entry fees, but many festivals - wrongly - do. My point is: filmmakers generally accept the “ruling” of a festival, so is this issue with Vimeo not somewhat similar?
“Being de-platformed from a conventional streaming site is worse than a festival's rejection,” says Li. “Festivals primarily cater to a specific, niche cinema-going audience. Their scale is incomparable to the broad reach of web audiences. Much like a contest or competition, festivals openly announce that only a limited number of films will be ‘selected’ - a fact I am well aware of when submitting my work.”
That said, Li has paid for Vimeo’s service. It’s an important platform for independent filmmakers. One that provides an ad-free space and that is a bit more reliable than the free-for-all that is YouTube.
"I tried uploading this film to YouTube back in 2020,” says Li, “but its content detection algorithm removed it automatically. I am quite surprised to see the progress. Sadly, it is still a populist-centric platform, and its algorithm-driven content library is not as curated as Vimeo. I highly doubt it will reach a large group of people.”
Li’s initial response was to reach out to various animation publications in the hope that it might pressure Vimeo to reverse their decision. So far, that hasn’t worked, so Li is currently seeking legal support. “Given that the outcome is not on board within Vimeo internally, it is obvious that the Trust & Safety department has the final say on Vimeo's catalog. Based on my interaction with them, their corporate department member shows no interest in content curation. Throughout the appeal process, their steadfast position and unresponsiveness led me to doubt whether I had been interacting with an actual person or an AI chatbot all along.”
Li remains hopeful that his case serves as a warning sign to independent filmmakers. “Corporate Vimeo appears to disregard the decisions of esteemed film festivals (including their own partnered events), their own employees, and reputable broadcasters such as Arte France, as they arbitrarily label content as inappropriate. It highlights the sad reality that creators in similar situations have little to no avenues for resolution.”
Meantime, here’s some Fruit for you to savor: https://youtu.be/6egNNfLSN1w?feature=shared.
A well-known figure in the world of independent animation, writer, author & curator Chris Robinson is the Artistic Director of the Ottawa International Animation Festival.
