quote:

ORIGINAL: WCPD09

I think it all depends on how big the "comparison" database is. TinEye is almost billion images. I'm sure there are multiples of that actually on the internet. But my sense is when suggesting a photo is not out there, that doesn't validate a profile as real, if it does turn up the image elsewhere, thats a pretty good indication that its likely not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaliko
I've tried it, though, with a picture of myself that I know for a fact is plastered all over the web, and it didn't pick it up

quote:

TinEye which is a reverse image search tool. You can install it and right click on any image on the internet and it quickly searches almost 2 billion imagines and tell you if there are other versions of that same picture online.

quote:

i would have thought that cm would be bothered about people who use other people's photo's but apparently not. i have twice reported one user for using the cropped image of an actor and yet he is still using it months later. i guess copyrights don't matter here so who care who uses who's photo's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WCPD09

For most reasonably intelligent people, identifying a fake profile takes mere seconds. Yes, the one of the 22 year old, 5'10", 110 lb blue eyed blonds with 36DDs in her pictures...probably not real (sorry to offend anyone meeting that description or implying thats the ideal). Regardless, if you're ever confused there is a simple tool which is pretty reliable. I have no commercial or other interest in the product, but there is a plug-in called TinEye which is a reverse image search tool. You can install it and right click on any image on the internet and it quickly searches almost 2 billion imagines and tell you if there are other versions of that same picture online. It even finds "similar" or modified images. Its free and I've been shocked at how many profiles include pictures available on porn or other sites online. Why CM doesn't screen posted photos this way is beyond me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

i would have thought that cm would be bothered about people who use other people's photo's but apparently not. i have twice reported one user for using the cropped image of an actor and yet he is still using it months later. i guess copyrights don't matter here so who care who uses who's photo's.

The problem is, it is not your picture, so you are in no legal position to dispute their use of it. It is possible that the profile is the actor, or perhaps has attained permission to use the picture. The  rules for reporting pictures are quite clear. If you are the owner of the copyright to the picture then you can ask to have it removed, and after you establish (according to CM's quite clearly laid out guidelines and methods) that you are the owner of the picture, it will be taken down. Your silly suppositions can be easily set aside if you would only take the time to read the various rules and guidelines readily available on the site.

Now, to the OP. Just because a picture IS available on the Net does not mean the profile is fake. granted it is a pretty darn good indication of it, but it is not for sure. Angelina Jolie is rumoured to be kinky, so it is possible she has a profile on here or on Fet. If a woman has posed for some professional porn shots for some other site, why on earth wouldn't she want to use those very flattering shots on here. As well, if there was a picture of yourself that was plastered all over the net already, then it sort of makes sense to limit the number of such shots so publicised and to reuse the ones that are already out there.

Now, I am not stating that any of the above is the case, only that they are valid reasons why one might use a picture that is already available online.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

Good old needles, not actually reading the post she is replying to.

And when you reported the photograph, did you provide proof that the one who made the profile was not the owner of the photograph and/or didn't have permission to use it? No, I didn't think so.

The reason that CM doesn't just remove pictures when you say they belong to somebody else is because they do not KNOW who owns the picture. If you provide them proof that you own the picture, or notify the owner of the picture (not always the one in the picture, or the photographer BTW) and the owner of the picture provides them with such proof, the picture will be removed.

Otherwise it is no different from the blacklisting issue, it is your word against theirs. Lets say some HNG writes you and you reject his approach. To get back at you he saves your pictures, posts them online then reports it to CM giving the URLs of where he had posted them as evidence that your picture isn't you.

Now, what should CM do?
1. Take his word for it and remove your picture.
2. Check with you to confirm that you do in fact own the picture (This would involve you proving your identity)
3. Allow the accuser to prove their identity and ownership of the picture.
4. Ignore it and not get involved in some petty revenge scheme intended to harass you.

I am assuming you will go with #3, and in the absence of any such evidence to default to #4. So how, in the eyes of the CM staff, does your reporting his picture differ from the HNG reporting yours.

Here are the guidelines the site uses for reporting stolen photos:
http://www.collarme.com/personals/stolen.htm
and
http://www.collarme.com/personals/dmca.htm

As you can see, you did not follow either of the procedures clearly set out on the pages linked at the bottom of every page on the other side, so your reports were put right where they belonged...the circular file.

RTFM.