RE: Profile Photos (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

TieMeInKnottss -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 4:02:10 PM)

New peeve...pictures of a man's cock entering a woman's vagina or ass...we all know how sex works so why do I need a photo of you penetrating someone? And BTW, who is holding the camera?i

Thanks to this thread I am now noticing all of the "Dom stares" in photos. In fact, I got three in a row.



TheLilSquaw -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 4:09:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stellauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I have to agree. Nowhere does it say you must be the person in the photo or the photographer. It's just a copyright thing and who has rights has NOTHING to do with who took the photo or who is in the photo. It has to do with "who has the rights". Would that be pretty damned deceitful? Sure. But it's not against the TOS.



I'm sorry but I strongly disagree.

It's law, in fact more than this it's international law.

And what's this about copyright not having anything to do with who took the photo or who is in the photo?

It has everything to do with whoever took the photo and who is in the photo. The photographer is the original copyright holder, and both producers and publishers buy that copyright either as an entity in its own right or as part of a licence, e.g. 'first rights'.

The law clearly states that unless you are the photographer or are in the picture then you must have permission to upload any photo to Collarme because via the website you are publishing the photo and making it publicly available.

I don't know where people get this idea that just because some creative work can be found on the Internet then it's public domain. Not true. If it was then the music industry would have given their blessing to the development of Napster.

There's an entire ethical argument here.

If I picked up your car keys and decided to waltz off for a drive in your car without asking you first and without putting any gas in your car you'd probably be pissed.

The point I'm trying to make is that you wouldn't dream of using something of someone else's or taking something of their's without asking permission first, would you?

Then why is it different when we're talking about a photo on the Internet?


THIS

It's that simple.
Photographer is the original copyright holder unless in the contract with the model they sign over that ownership. In EVERY time I work with photographer or videographer they sign a release stating that they do not own the work but I do and that they have no legal right to it.

Simply because something is online photo, song, or writing it does not automatically fall under fair use. If you use it and you do not have legal right to use it, it is stealing.

You can be sued by everyone who owns the copyright.

Don't believe me look at the music industry and how they shut down sites that were STEALING their copy written material.

You're right I don't own that photo but that doesnt change the fact that if you do not own the right so that photo and you are using you are violating the law.



Aynne88 -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 4:17:27 PM)

What a passive aggressive little game player you are Descrite...why?


http://www.collarchat.com/m_4253295/mpage_2/tm.htm



JeffBC -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 4:17:56 PM)

fast reply
OK, perhaps I'm being stupid here but I have to admit I still don't understand the assertion that he doesn't own the rights. How did we learn that? I'm also waiting for confirmation that he isn't Ben.

edited to reflect the link Aynne88 posted
"Well, I can't say for sure, but I think the guy I ripped that pic off from had posted it about 5 or 6 years ago" - descrite

OK, NOW I understand. I have to say that if there is some miscommunication here then it's descrite's fault because that quote and it's context seemed pretty clear to me.



Aynne88 -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 4:24:15 PM)

Thanks Jeff. [:)]



OsideGirl -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 5:43:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

I have to agree. Nowhere does it say you must be the person in the photo or the photographer. It's just a copyright thing and who has rights has NOTHING to do with who took the photo or who is in the photo. It has to do with "who has the rights". Would that be pretty damned deceitful? Sure. But it's not against the TOS.


Actually, it kind of is against TOS. From the edit profile area of CM:

Please only post pictures you took yourself
Please do not post commercial photos or artwork
Please do not post explicit primary photos



lizi -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 8:43:53 PM)

I have been in contact with the owner of the picture Descrite is using, I guess we'll have to see what he decides to do about it -if anything.



littlewonder -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 9:51:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
And I suppose that if anyone is really concerned about poor Ben then they should drop him an email and let him know his pic is being used here. At that point, Ben... who will certainly know if he's descrite and likely know about the whole copyright thing can make his own decisions about doing a DMCA take down request.



Thank you Jeff. Done.





descrite -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 10:11:19 PM)

quote:

It's law, in fact more than this it's international law.



International. Law.


Aha.

Another Attorney On The Web stands tall and proud.

Care to cite that law?


Oh, golly, kids...there are lots of ways to legally acquire photo copyrights.

Ahem


It's nice y'all want to protect the intellectual property of someone you've never met...I'm sure he'll be awfully pleased by your efforts.

Crusade on, loyal CollarMe soldiers! Good to see your efforts and intellect applied in such noble pursuits.

[Somewhere, a kid starves to death.]



Aynne, Jeff: you're doing valiant work. Now...can you spot any qualifiers in that sentence?




Quick! To the CopyrightMobile!

[duhnuhnuhnuhnuhnuh.....AynneJeff! AynneJeff. AnnnnnnneJeeeeeef.]



Sooooo....how 'bout them profile photos, eh? From what OsideGirl states, a lot of the types of photos that piss off posters on this thread are against the CM TOS. Anyone been reporting all those violators?

littlewonder, you took that photo of the mouse, right?

squaw, those are your feet?

This would be a fun game, wouldn't it?

Hey, something just occurred to me...those pics the admins use as avatars...did they take those? Make the graphics?

Hmmmmmm...............





JeffBC -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 10:14:37 PM)

Well OK Oside, I agree if those are to be interpreted literally. Honestly I'm not sure what to make of this in general. How do people feel about the trainwreck thread and it's posted images? I understand that CM needs to be protected legally. But do we users really wish to apply modern IP law diligently? If so A LOT of images posted here are going away and a lot of avatars also. What about Kana's pic?

IP law, in general, is corrupt and dangerous in its current incarnation so I am not "by the book" about it. .



littlewonder -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 10:32:16 PM)

The thing is many of the photos that people post online here for fun, have copyright marks on them so they are not being used illegally. However, when you are using a photo and stating that you stole it and you are using it as your own and calling it your own, that is when it becomes illegal imo. Many of the avatars that you see people here using, are clearly not of that person and most admit that it is not of them or it is a free use avatar that collarme itself has listed as one of their avatars to use.



tj444 -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 11:00:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC

Well OK Oside, I agree if those are to be interpreted literally. Honestly I'm not sure what to make of this in general. How do people feel about the trainwreck thread and it's posted images? I understand that CM needs to be protected legally. But do we users really wish to apply modern IP law diligently? If so A LOT of images posted here are going away and a lot of avatars also. What about Kana's pic?

IP law, in general, is corrupt and dangerous in its current incarnation so I am not "by the book" about it. .

I am not a lawyer and I dont play one on tv [:D] ..but.. in most of the trainwreck pics, the website or name of the person that did it is usually in one of the corners.. there is no one claiming they own it or trying to sell it.. And while someone owns the copyright, if they want to sue, wouldnt they have to show a financial loss, meaning you sold it for money they should have gotten? with music, the artist &/or his music company own the rights and sell the songs, so unless you can show you paid for the music, they can say they have a financial loss.. It is proveable.. i think that is harder to do with pics in many cases.. especially online where you can do a search and find the pic many places but still no idea who actually owns it.. and too, if the person that took the pic put it online and never sold it or profited then how can they say they have a financial loss? I think you need to prove the financial loss aspect to sue someone for money.. course that doesnt mean you cant try to get the pics taken down from each website (if it violates the TOS of those websites)..

I find it interesting that Instagram (which is owned by the sleazoids at Facebook) changed their terms of agreement to them being able to use anyones pics in ads and any way they see fit.. there was a major outcry and also now a class action lawsuit against Instagram over that..
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/instagram-hit-proposed-class-action-lawsuit-article-1.1227183



tidbit5021 -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 11:21:42 PM)

OP: Getting back to your Yankees comment, yes, they are the Evil Empire! I lived in Boston for 17 years and all I can say is "Go Sox!"

As for pictures, even more than the "showing me how to have sex" photos, I can't stand the ones of guys on the beach in hats, sunglasses, swim trunks, no shirt and holding a beer. Or the ones that obviously have a woman cropped out of the photo. Sheesh. Get someone to take a photo of you!



JeffBC -> RE: Profile Photos (12/29/2012 11:50:35 PM)

I also am not a lawyer.

I only know of this stuff because of my web work and Carol's art work. None of that is my understanding of how it works Littlewonder and tj444. Having a copyright notice is actually meaningless legally. You're not required to put one on your work to "protect" it. It doesn't matter that one is there in terms of usage. There are exactly two questions to my understanding:

A) Do you actually own rights?
B) If not, is it "fair use"?

Nor must you try to sell it and I don't think there needs to be a demonstration of financial loss to trigger the penalties. But in point of fact those websites could demonstrate financial loss quite easily. Every impression of the image from here is a lost impression from their web site which is lost advertising revenue.

I'm pretty sure those pictures are not OK. Instragram and Facebook play by different rules because they are corporations which means they have lobbyists and lawyers. It'll be interesting to see how it goes with that lawsuit because that is a pretty egregious expansion of rights on their part.



needlesandpins -> RE: Profile Photos (12/30/2012 2:09:08 AM)

i should think that when someone puts a pic on a site like lolcats they expect it to be passed around, and it is done so probably covered by the fair use rights. however, were someone in this forum to use one of those photo's and claim it as their own then that would be different. also if they were reproducing it for sale.

that is the difference. we are also talking about profile picture on the other side where people are looking for others in whatever context. therefore to have a photo in your profile that is not you, that you do not own, nore own the rights to is against the TOS. you are also misleading those that would be looking at that picture, and believing it is you because you let them. now we see so many people happily jumping on the males using fake profiles with stolen pics of women because they are decieving people. i think it is exactly the same stealing someone else's photo and passing it off as yourself.

i also don't like the photo's that show someone clearly drunk, or that they are making a big deal about the drink in their hand. i'm all for a good time, but seriously that's the image you want people to know you by. it's bad enough when it's teens, but when it's guys in their 30's and over it's just sad.

needles



freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Profile Photos (12/30/2012 3:17:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: descrite
Sooooo....how 'bout them profile photos, eh? From what OsideGirl states, a lot of the types of photos that piss off posters on this thread are against the CM TOS. Anyone been reporting all those violators?

Yes, I have.

If you report more than a tiny handful at at time, your profile gets deleted for "excessive use of the reporting facilities".




TheLilSquaw -> RE: Profile Photos (12/30/2012 5:09:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: descrite

squaw, those are your feet?



Those are MY feet, in fact I own the copyrights to every single picture I post. Even the ones with other models in them like the ones I use on my fet or my websites. THAT is easily proven with documentation.

Nice attempt at deflecting though.

As to your question do I report copyright violations. There have been many times I have. There have also been times where I knew the model or copyright holder and went to them and let them know their material was posted in specific spots.



Jeff,
You are correct.
You don't have to watermark a photo for it be covered under copyright.
Many people do watermark their photos and vids so its easier to identify when they are doing searches for DMCA violations.

And as I have said, I'm not a lawyer but I do now about copyright laws, DMCA and 2257 requirements.


Needles,
That reminds me whats with the photos of liquor bottles I see this a lot especially with men. Lol




descrite -> RE: Profile Photos (12/30/2012 7:22:41 AM)

quote:

have copyright marks on them so they are not being used illegally.


Oh. So if you steal a car, all you have to do is put a sign on the window with a c inside a little circle, and you're not stealing it?


Gosh. It's so good to have ready access to a plethora of legal scholars when discussing topics here.


[Hint: Jeff is correct]



TheLilSquaw -> RE: Profile Photos (12/30/2012 7:35:11 AM)

Comparing copy right laws and DMCA regulations and car theft is like comparing apples and kale.



tj444 -> RE: Profile Photos (12/30/2012 9:30:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffBC
Having a copyright notice is actually meaningless legally. You're not required to put one on your work to "protect" it. It doesn't matter that one is there in terms of usage. There are exactly two questions to my understanding:

A) Do you actually own rights?
B) If not, is it "fair use"?

Nor must you try to sell it and I don't think there needs to be a demonstration of financial loss to trigger the penalties. But in point of fact those websites could demonstrate financial loss quite easily. Every impression of the image from here is a lost impression from their web site which is lost advertising revenue.

I never said that they needed to put a copyright notice on the pics, but if there is one then it does make it easier to determine who owns it.. and that the person is not trying to pass it off as his/hers.. thats all..

A person could argue the exact opposite regarding advertising revenue.. It could be argued that people using the pics (with the website addy on the bottom) acts as advertising to actually increases traffic to those sites so potentially increases revenue.. on more than one occasion I have gone to the website addys in some of the funny kitty pics (I like kitties [:)] ).. if I do that I am sure plenty of others do also..



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
6.201172E-02