|
|
Currently no members online:)
You are an anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
We have 31 guests online !
|
|
|
|
|
Drama: Persistent Stupidity |
Posted by
ickgirl on Tuesday, February 26, 2002 - 02:21 PM PST
Every single one of you pissy little shits who submitted a photograph claiming it was you when it wasn’t, can kiss my ass! Someone please tell me what it is that is gained by this. So you have poor self esteem, who doesn’t at one point or another? Great, I can appreciate your sad pathetic state. THEN DON’T POST A FUCKING PICTURE! How absolutely disrespectful to everyone on this site, and mostly to Devin. It’s not easy to piss off Devin the Diplomat – WHY should he bother wasting his time with this crap anymore? He shouldn’t have to be the playground teacher. You’ve gone beyond owing him an apology; you owe him the respect of getting fucking LOST! (Unless you have the immediate capability of giving him a blonde and a LOT of chocolate).
I’m not a diplomat, I will name names. sorceress_ly, egnima, and malice_Kay are our most recent offenders, but there have been others in the past. On a site with 400 members and countless visitors, did you really think SOMEONE wouldn’t recognize a photo you stole? If it’s a small world, it’s an even smaller world on the ‘net!
Do we need a test? Something to let us know you’re not a complete fucking MORON? Should we just eliminate the photo gallery altogether? Are people really that pathetic that we can’t even have a photo gallery without having to worry about identity theft and copyright infringement?
If you want to play with us grownups, then I suggest you learn some amount of class. Not everyone is conventionally physically attractive and not everyone on this site is drop-dead gorgeous to everyone who sets eyes upon them.
When it gets down to it, you’re just a brain in a bag to me. And I’m very UNimpressed by how you people have handled yourselves, and THAT my friends, is what makes someone UGLY.
|
Note: Had to be done folks. And yes I'm mean, and no I will not apologize. -ickgirl |
| |
|
|
This article has not been rated
|
|
|
|
|
|
Persistent Stupidity | Login/Create an account | 74 Comments |
| Comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by sorceress_ly (angeldustan@yahoo.com)
on Feb 26, 2002 - 02:31 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I enjoy your use of words... they are true and I will be the first pn to admit, I was wrong, I am sorry.... forgiveness is somthing I would like from you but I'm sure I will not get it
|
Re: Persistent Stupidity by SindelChaos on Feb 26, 2002 - 03:03 PM (User info | Send a Message) | i highly agree i could tell the last pic posted was way to professional to be really posted by someone and expected to be real. people piss me off. im glad devin is changing the rules:) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by SindelChaos on Feb 26, 2002 - 03:41 PM (User info | Send a Message) | i like devin's idea, but then again he would have to take alot of time going through each new person or guest, maybe we could get a little staff or something... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Rogue (judenouveau@yahoo.com) on Feb 26, 2002 - 06:19 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Hey, i have a little staff that you could use. ;-) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Suggestion by gothvail (vail@gothicamateur.com) on Feb 26, 2002 - 06:38 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.gothicamateur.com | Two ways "proof" could be obtained:
1) someone else on Shmeng has to be able to vouch for you that it's your picture.
2) you have a website full of stamped, original photos that make it very obvious that it must be you in them, because how did you get so many pictures of that person? (this one gets me under the wire) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: copying movie clips by Phalkon13 (phalkon13@godisdead.com) on Feb 26, 2002 - 07:36 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.geocities.com/phalkon13 | That last pic was from the movie "The Crow"...
I should know, since I've seen it more than a hundred times (see what no life did for me!)
I was thinking that it was just putting a clip from a good movie on, since she didn't say that it was her or anything. The only thing that I don't like is the fact that that actual clipped picture is copyrighted by the respective owners (Miramax), and it irked me a little that they actually put it on here, since that automatically puts the blame on Devin, should anyone from Miramax see it. They might just ask for it to be removed, or plugged respectively, but there's always the chance that they can try to take some kind of legal action upon Devin. That is what pisses me off. I do think that it would be better if a staff be elected/erected (no pun intended). One idea, just an idea mind you, is that the pics go through a couple people for verification, like at least 5. I do believe that you must have a website, showing that you are, in fact, that person. It is what would keep me from posting a pic of Luke Skywalker, and saying it's me, when I was on Vacation at the Tattooine Sand Sea and Spa. ;) If that isn't possible, then maybe the pics section sould be removed, lest it turn into a "Hot or Not" frenzy (You all know you've been there, I will not name anyone, specifically). Devin has been far more lenient than some people I know would have been. I, for one would have killed the pics as soon as I saw both pics from Goth Babe Of The Week posted at the same time. Ok, I'm done venting.... ~fin~ ;) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by Arthegarn on Feb 26, 2002 - 03:09 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Now, just a couple of things. I am always trying to be nice and understanding but:
1) Devin doesn't deserve to get pissed off. He is kind enough as to have created this wonderful site and let us all be part of it, so please don't annoy him anymore
2) Do you know what is goth as fuck? POSTING YOUR OWN PIC IS GOTH AS FUCK. I am short, with a beerbelly, almost bald and definitely not handsome and I posted my own anyway and guess what? Nobody laughed.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Rogue (judenouveau@yahoo.com) on Feb 26, 2002 - 06:14 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Aw, come on, you're a sexy man Arthegarn. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Rogue (judenouveau@yahoo.com) on Feb 27, 2002 - 05:24 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Me, or Arthegarn? *crosses fingers* |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Feb 27, 2002 - 11:37 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | you are asking the mistress of orgies to choose between you two? silly it wouldnt be an orgies if there was only two people there.... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Arthegarn on Feb 28, 2002 - 12:41 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Hope you're not backing up just yet... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by pAris on Feb 26, 2002 - 03:09 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/279/unbalanced_load.html
|
Good for you! What sucks is that it is ruined for the rest of us. I do not think you are mean - I think you are being fair and possibly not harsh enough. The only pics of other people I uploaded were 2 with friends (that were posted) and one of my grrlfiend (not posted). Maybe we should concentrate on other forms of mental stimulation and conversation anyway.
I for one liked the pic gallery cause it gave me a way to post some artwork and to see others' art and I will miss it and the dialogue which it created. If it returns, hopefully the dumb shites who cheated will learn from their mistakes, or at least reflect upon why they did what they did.
As for trying to be something you're not; well a lot of people do that every day, but you'd think that in a site devoted to being different, people would be able to be themselves for a change.
note to clueless people: don't piss of the dieties of the website you like...ever.
|
Re: Persistent Stupidity by ickgirl on Feb 26, 2002 - 03:23 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.envy.nu/ickgirl | Paris,
I agree with you that it is a shame, and I hope that we can come up with a system that devin is happy with. if anyone has legitimate ideas, i'm sure he'd love to hear them (probably not today, but maybe tomorrow or something...after he has plenty of air, nicotine, and chocolate).
more than anything, it's just sad. sad that THE site about shmeng is being invaded by people attempting to drown us all in their shmeng.
I KNOW that people post fake pics all over the net, but i wish they'd just stay away from this site and stick to bad yahoo clubs and chat rooms if they need a compliment about someone else's picture to make them feel "good(?)" about themselves.
_____________________________
(side note and cute story...)when i first met devin, he had been very much screwed over by a fakecake (the infamous "michelle". Devin and I were spending countless hours talking with the one and only rae (the fakecake cop), but of course we hadn't MET her yet, because she lived in floriduh. so anyway, she was so worried about being thought fake, that she sent devin her expired drivers license! while, that would be one way to verify who you are, I'm thinking that's a bit extreme. a cute story nonetheless! |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Meranda_Jade (scurtis510@home.com) on Feb 27, 2002 - 05:12 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Devin and I had a friend who lived near me and was going to visit him...so he had her take pictures of me and bring them to him... he knows I am me...:-) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Screening Idea
by Rae (darkness_embraced1@yahoo.com)
on Feb 26, 2002 - 04:13 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://darknessembraced.vibechild.com
|
This is sad, sad, sad. Even after a big blow up on the same subject not even a week or two ago. Some people just never learn. *sigh*
Anyways, enough of that... What is more important at that moment is coming up with some sort of screening method that will work effectively. I have a few floating in my head that may or may not work when they are thoroughly analyzed, but it's an attempt none the less.
Possible solution 1: Restrict picture uploads to only the elder members of the board that you know are legit.
Ok, maybe this sounds a bit unfair to other members, but this would not be the first board to implement such measures..or..
Possible Solution 2: Set up administrators that would specifically handle pic screenings. (I would volunteer) and have them take care of this. One way to validate someone's pic would be if they had a website set up with photos of themselves. This way, administrators could go to that website, and send a confirmation email to the email address listed on that site and not validate the pic until confirmation was received back from that website webmaster or webmistress. This won't be a complete catch all, but it would slow it down....or
Possible Solution 3: set up a P.O. Box for members to send their ORIGINAL photographs to. If they want to post thier pics bad enough, what is 34 cents? (oh, and a additional 34 cents with a self stamped addressed envelope to return the photo to)
Well, that is all I have for the moment. Maybe they are something that would work, maybe not..just putting the ideas out there.
|
Re: Screening Idea by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Feb 26, 2002 - 06:56 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | to play devels advocate to the devils advocate
solution 1 makes ahving a pic up a badge of authority, or social power and makes it a goal oriented thing. so that would sorta change the whole feel of the gallaries to some sort of hall of ministers and busts of rules.
solution 2 a panal of judges can be a good thing and it can be a bad thing. who gets to judge, how do they judge and what do we do to them when they make a mistake. are hey willing to accept the liabilty risk (yes the legal liability risk)?
solution 3 pics get lost, eaten and put thru the washer in real life. po boxes cost money and we dont pay Devin anything for the use of his server, and lots of people are too forgetful to include the return envelope, or address it correctly, or give thier real names, etc.
Other stranger solutions include
only allowing one's freshman pic from highschool for upload (must be grainy and black and white)
the photo must be taken by some other shmeng member who can vouch for you and for the pic. (this makes posting a fake pic and actual prosecutable crime)
all photos that are submitted are run thru photoshop, puzzlemaker, then photoshop fiters again and then posted to the site.
maybe we could offer a reward for anyone that figures out what the picture started out as.....
I dislike that the glalery has become a meat market. i think it is sillly and rarely read, look at, or post to it because i dont like that kind of fake sex. But that is me and not a violation of law (ok at least not in most cases)
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Screening Idea by Rae (darkness_embraced1@yahoo.com) on Feb 26, 2002 - 07:28 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://darknessembraced.vibechild.com | Hmmmm....I see your point on suggestion one and three. suggestion one could bring conflict of interest and suggestion 3 can be scratched completely.
What I meant by suggestion 2 is not by judging whether or not a image would be accepted, but whether or not it is legit by means of going through the email process I had suggested. But then again, not everyone has a website, or the know how to create one. So maybe not such a good idea.
But, I think another member standing in as proxy for a unknown member isn't such a bad idea. So, that is at least one suggestion that seems to be in agreement with everyone so far. But, bottom line, I guess that it is up to Devin and what he decides to do, if he even wants to do anything at all. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Screening Idea by Alugarde on Feb 27, 2002 - 04:52 PM (User info | Send a Message) | I'm not sure if this would legally be an option, but maybe have anyone who wishes to upload a picture have to agree to accept the legal liability themselves in the event of copyright infringement? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Yes! That would do! by Arthegarn on Mar 01, 2002 - 10:54 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Yes! That would do! A statement that could go like
"By submitting this picture I am hereby declaring to be the model and/or maker of the picture, and to own the right to publicly post it through electronic means. I am also declaring to be fully aware of the applying normative on copyright breach and identity theft, to be of legal age as to own and distribute the material contained in the picture, and to accept any and all liability regarding any possible legal actions about the abovementioned submited picture."
A great idea, Alugarde. We could even add a penal clause like
"In case it was proven that I have submitted a picture whose maker or model is not me, I hereby agree to provide Shmeng's Webmaster with a compensation of US$500 for the disturbance, moral damage, and abuse of confidence"
I think that covers everything, and five hundred bucks are enough for the proverbial blonde and LOT of chocolate. And I will not charge you on this, either...
Arthegarn
(Perhaps it needs re-writting by a native english-speaker... I bet our two grammarians would do it quite well) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Yes! That would do! by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Mar 01, 2002 - 11:07 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | my dad has a clause in one of his contracts on a chat room that if you are a jerk, my dad gets your organs. 5 lawyers have passed it as legal so far.....
I like the idea that it be a contract of sorts, that all Shmeng is doing is providing a forum of distribution, as compared to being the distibutor. that takes a lot of the risk out.
And hey think of theup side when someone wants to be bad, we could start a slush fund for group outings (giggle) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Yes! That would do! by Meranda_Jade (Meranda@mymind.com) on Mar 01, 2002 - 11:25 AM (User info | Send a Message) | There's an idea... all fines go to a Shmeng Convention fund...about once a year or two, we can all get together and have a large gathering, kinda like the rainbow gathering, or burning man... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Yes! That would do! by Arthegarn on Mar 02, 2002 - 05:07 AM (User info | Send a Message) | And free plane tickets for the poor Europeans! |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Yes! That would do! by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Mar 02, 2002 - 11:20 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | maybe we could throw a party at your house? that puts the burden of travel on us (probably a good thing as US citizens tend not to travel) and the burden of cleaning up on you!
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Yes! That would do! by Arthegarn on Mar 03, 2002 - 04:19 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Whenever you feel like it! |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Yes! That would do! by Monolycus on Mar 04, 2002 - 12:29 PM (User info | Send a Message) | "Burning Man"...? Has the price of oil gotten that out of hand...? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
My thoughts...
by VampCourt (Morbidchic@hotmail.com)
on Feb 26, 2002 - 04:39 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
I think we need to eliminate the fakers... yes, and i also think that it should be done as devin has suggested only because this is his website after all..
You know, its funny.. how people just post thier pictures.. thier *fake* pictures for exceptance.. are we that bad? that we make people scared to post thier own image?
I dunno.. I never posted my pictures for acceptance.. or for attention.. I posted them for fun.. take em or leave em.. Im a wierd gal.. Its just something fun to do.. I think that these people should relize that its just a website.. a link.. for people to contact and observe other individuals.. not judge them by thier buety.. (which i might add seems to happen alot here.. and that sucks..)
Ickgirl is correct tho', Just post yourself.. and if you cant do it.. then just plain dont.. but dont go and steal peoples images.. thats awful.. thats rape.. thats violation.. would you like someone running around with your face? saying thier you? how would that feel? pretty damn fucking shitty i would tend to think.
I have learned to love myself for who i am. Im no supermodel.. nore would i ever want to be.. i work with what i got and I like what i got.. stop worrying about what others think about how you look and think about you.. coz really thats what it comes down to...
..... a makeover for your selfesteem...
|
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by Ianthe99 on Feb 26, 2002 - 05:03 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Hmm.. how to screen. Perhaps you need to send more than one pic.. like, one you want posted and one you don't. They have to be completely different tho.. like maybe the one you don't want posted is just a plain old candid shot or something. I don't know. Personally, I don't see how any of the identified fakecakes could stand to stick around. I'd be way to embarrassed by my immaturity and would hide under a rock.
|
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by Rogue (judenouveau@yahoo.com)
on Feb 26, 2002 - 05:37 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Time to be devil's advocate here, so everybody get out your flame sticks. Has anybody considered relaxing about the whole thing? Of course i agree that one should post one's own pictures unless said picture is understood to be an avatar and not merely pilfered copyrighted material that someone else has worked to create. However, i feel that it is wrong for the non-offenders to swarm like hyenas once an offender has been spotted. Aside from the inconvenience and mild insult of the whole thing, no harm is done and it is really of little to no concern to anyone but Devin. Of course i also agree that our belevolent but severe Deity does not need this degree of anger in his otherwise serene existence, but my suggestion is that he not let this kind of thing get to him or outweigh the positive returns from this site...notably the real pictures of Callei, Tinkerbell, and a few others (you know who you are). Personally, i have better things to do with my time than worry about such things, so if anyone would like to view my image they can just look up "Antonio Banderas" on Google and look all they want.
|
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Rae (darkness_embraced1@yahoo.com) on Feb 26, 2002 - 05:46 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://darknessembraced.vibechild.com | Unfortunately there is potential harm in individuals doing this. Many are not aware, but Devin could get into a alot of hot water if let's just for example "Hot Topic" came across his site and seen images used from their catalogue here without their permission. Even though Devin did not post the pics himself, the fact that they are residing on his server would be enough. He could be sued for having Hot Topics "intellectual property" on his server. Sometimes places are not as anal about it and just request the image to be removed, but it's like playing Russian roulette, you never know when your going to push the trigger and the gun is loaded. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Rogue (judenouveau@yahoo.com) on Feb 26, 2002 - 06:10 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Sure, i understand it from that point of view and that is something else that Devin does not need. My concern is that a lot of people on here are increasing the negativity in their lives for something which is really not worth that kind of stress. Just deal with it in whatever way works and go on with your life, that's my view on it. This place is normally great fun and i hate to see that disrupted unnecessarily. Now let's all change procedure as Devin sees fit and go back to the debauchery. Devin, let me know if there is something i can do to help alleviate this situation and calm the sublime mind within your golden skull. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Hyena Bite Ointment by Monolycus on Feb 27, 2002 - 03:31 AM (User info | Send a Message) | My Dearest Coder...
My first foray into posting on this site was also about the very issue you are now addressing. As you are no doubt aware by now, there are two distinct issues at hand. As Callei very kindly and civilly pointed out to me (and I am indebted to her for her level-headedness) there is a legitimate legal issue involving proprietary identities and the potential for minors to run afoul of the standards imposed by the global community. There is little for me to say about that; As long as this remains a public forum, there is legal risk involved and Devin et al are well within the bounds of common sense to minimise that risk.
Unfortunately, there is a second issue no less legitimate at work here which you had intended to address. The "swarming hyenas" effect that you had expressed your disapproval of had also bothered me. This effect may be rationalised by the individual hyenas in question by concerns about the first (legal) issue, but that is, at the end of the day, simply an excuse to let oneself be all the hyena one can be.
The hyena factor is not unique to this site... rationalising one's hatefulness is what Capitalist culture is all about. The reductio ad absurdum to this is the justification of the wholesale slaughter of men, women and children any time that a public official finds their approval ratings sagging. That is the same thing as getting a waiter fired because the mashed potatoes they brought you were cold; It is simply a question of scale. What I am saying by this digression is that you should not be surprised to find what is ethically unconscionable on this site or anywhere else. Being inhumane is what humans do.
While the inability to feel or demonstrate any compassion is so often extolled as a virtue, I am and hopefully never will be an advocate of it. I have tried to gently nudge people into taking their heads out of their own asses and think of others with little success... they will continue to rationalise and justify their own agenda at the expense of everyone else no matter what I or the rest of the world does (There is a very long rant inside me about the perpetuation of this recursive evil... and one that would never be approved for print in a million years). I think you will find it is easier in the long run to simply try to get over hateful people than to try to get them to get over themselves. I look forward to hearing from you in future. I am
your faithful friend,
Monolycus.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Identity theft
by gothvail (vail@gothicamateur.com)
on Feb 26, 2002 - 06:34 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.gothicamateur.com
|
Identity theft is illegal. Now, I know picture stealing is not identity theft, it's just stupidity. It's not illegal, but it won't earn you any friends. You WILL get called on it eventually, either by the person in "your" picture or by someone else. And then you will look stupid. What could possible be so wrong with you that you can't post your own face? I'm not going to be crying for your poor self-esteem, believe me!
|
Re: Identity theft by Shade on Feb 26, 2002 - 07:31 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | Umm, Picture stealing; as in grabbing a photo off the net and saving it to your harddrive wthout permission, or grabbing photo's off "protected" sites is technically illegal. And using the photo of someone else to represent yourself is actually identity theft...hence also illegal. umm, right Arthegarn? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Legalbabble by Arthegarn on Feb 27, 2002 - 12:56 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Sure?
I’ll try to keep it short. First thing to understand is that not all illegal acts are crimes, crimes are only those acts pursued by penal law and that have a punishment as a juridical consequence. Illegal acts are prosecuted by an “offended part”, and have an indemnization as juridical consequence (meaning a crime can be prosecuted both ways). Second thing is that Continental European and Anglo-Saxon law systems (called the Code System and the Common Law system) vary greatly in philosophy and making, though not so much in content.
A) Penal law: Identity stealing is a crime, but the fact is we are not facing an identity theft crime, but an image theft. Egnima never claimed to BE Gohtvail, she just said that was her body. Identity goes beyond just bodily appearance. If she had tried to mimic Vail’s history, relations, idiosyncrasy, etc and claimed that she WAS the owner of gothicamateur.com (Hey, it’s true, she’s always in her PJ’s), that would have been identity theft. I’ll put an example: If I post a Tom Cruise pic and say that’s me, Arthegarn, that’s no identity theft. If I post a Tom Cruise pic and then claim to be Tom Cruise, that IS identity theft. So Egnima and Sorceress_ly and so on and on did not commit any crime
B) Civil Law: the PACA is incorrect or, at least, inexact. There is a huge doctrinal discussion about the collision between the right to privacy and proper (own) image and the right to information. Defenders of the right to information (mainly photographers, yellow press and their lawyers) claim that it is above anything, so if they get a photo of anything that actually happened and then post it to inform the public of it nothing happens and the photo can’t be withdrawn (they use an analogy of exceptio veritatis, saying that if it’s not a crime to call someone son of a bitch if he really has that ancestors, then it shouldn’t be a crime to post a photo of anything that is true, no matter how embarrassing) . Defenders of the right to proper (own) image (mainly yellow press famous people and their lawyers) say that their image is theirs and so they have a right to decide when, where and how much of such a personal emanation from their person as a picture of their physical body is, should and could be used. Defenders of the right to privacy (mainly people who are sick of being monitored by a crowd of “Hallo!” and so photographers every time they move, mainly European nobility, royal houses, extremely “beautiful people” and their lawyers) say that they have both a private and public life and, though they understand being photographed and these photos printed when it regards their public life, they should be left alone to live a private, intimate life like anyone else.
This whole iurisbabble thing means that, though the photographer, as an artist, owns the exploitation of the photograph, he might not own the right to publish it (or otherwise broadcast it) without permission from the model.
So, what happens if you use a photograph you didn’t take without permission from the owner of the copyright? That’s illegal and you are entitled to indemnization for any profit loss he could have got, plus some amount of moral damage. What happens if you post a photograph of anyone besides you? that person might sue you for using his image without hir consent, and you’d have to pay an indemnization that covers her cost of opportunity (what s/he’d had earned if he had sold it), plus the economic translation of the damage to hir image (many people live from their public image) plus moral damage
This are roughly the international regulation of these activities. These might get harder in some parts of the World, and please consider it’s all extremely simplified and hence inexact (but not incorrect).
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by Shade on Feb 27, 2002 - 01:52 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | So I was right and wrong, Arthegarn, I am always impressed by the way you make the legalese at least partially understandable. Either way the Fakecakes screwed up royally |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Feb 27, 2002 - 02:06 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | actually there is a secondary issue. The people that posts the pictures may not (in the case of gothvail's pic definatly were not) old enough to view, possess, or distribute those pics.
It is against the criminal code for people under 18 years of age to have ANYTHING to do with erotica (includung the written word, but that gets broken the most).
It is also illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to view, possess, or distribute any erotica with a BDSM* flair. well illegal in most states. there are 3 states to my knowlege that allow people over 18 to consume, in any fashion, BDSM erotica and gothvails pic would could as BDSM erotica.
For Devin to allow that picture to remain on his site would have been condoning underage lawbreaking. There is a criminal charge assosicated with that, as well as many civil code charges.
We dont reach our full majority in America until the age of 25, so at the age of 18 our lives are not yet our own.
I am not a lawyer, but i do have some experience with the criminal code (i was a teenager) and the civil code ( I am an adult) and for that matter some passing knowlege about commercial and corporate law as well ( i own a small corporation)
I know just enough to be a danger to myself and others.
*email me if you want that translated giggle.
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by gothvail (vail@gothicamateur.com) on Feb 27, 2002 - 06:40 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.gothicamateur.com | Just to be clear, the picture of me that was stolen came from Goth Babe of the Week, which is NOT an age-restricted site. The site GBOTW got the picture from was my BloodDoll.com site, which is also not age restricted. But the original location of the photo was actually my naughty website GothicAmateur.com. Makes me nervous thinking that underaged kids are going there. Just reassuring myself, really. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by Arthegarn on Feb 27, 2002 - 06:56 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Ah, but that's another story that will be told another time. Anyway, you're right about Devin having to be careful not to distribute pornography to underages.
Now, what I am really shocked at is that you can not posess erotic material with BDSM flair until you are 21, and that you do not reach full majority until 25 (actually, If I recall correctly, you can't be President until you are 40, and considering that passive suffrage is a basic civil right that means you get full majority at 40, huh?). So... that means you can have sex, but you can't see others having sex? Or is there a law that forbids 19-year old people from practising light SM (Vail, for instance, was not certainly whipped nor tied in her pic, just had a slight and very erotic insinuation of it) in the privacy of their own bedrooms? What sort of ridiculous nonsense is that?
My, my, my... I had read that sodomy and oral sex were still crimes in some states, but never thought any government actually took that seriously. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Feb 27, 2002 - 08:48 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | Erotica distributed by the underage is also a crime (again both civil and criminal) so IF they were 17 and they send the erotic pic here, then that was a crime.
But yes you cannot enter a BDSM adult shop until you are 21 in most states, and in many you cannont enter an adult shop at all until you are 21. you can legally have sex at 18 (some states allow sex at an earlier age but really only for women) but you cant buy adult toys until you are older. In most states BDSM is a crime in almost all forms. And sometimes is still prosecuted. Sodomy (sex without the intent to procreate) and oral sex are illegal in all but 2 states (it might be only one, Nevada) as well. But as those laws are seen as anti-gay laws they arent enforced anymore. BUT they are still one the books and recently have been made harsher in many states, as an anti-gay measure.
pornography is illegal while erotica, an art form, is legal. Even a light hint of bondage makes it BDSM erotica in America, and illegal to those under 21, to some degree (this is in court right now in like 12 or 15 states and may go to supreme court before its settled).
If you ever get very very bored there are websites that go into great detail about the cases that are pending and the laws of each state. I get that bored sometimes.... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by Arthegarn on Feb 27, 2002 - 09:50 AM (User info | Send a Message) | I agree, but I am so pissed off that if they commited a crime by submitting that pictures, and they get caught, I will not shed any tears for them. I would counsel, nonetheless. By the way, each written report is €100 (you see how generous can I get to be, hehehe) |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by Schizo on Mar 03, 2002 - 08:48 PM (User info | Send a Message) | Sex without the intent to procreate? Does that mean what it sounds like? So sex is only allowed when it's trying to get some girl pregnant? Does that mean that birth control is technically illegal?
I knew that it's illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor, but is it really illegal for a couple of hormone-crazed highschoolers to do it in her room when her parents are gone?
And oral sex illegal!!! How the hell do they enforce this stuff, anyway? Set up cameras in bedrooms or climb trees to peek in windows?
I find this all alarmingly ludicrous! Except maybe the under 18 part. I really don't think most adolescents are truly ready for sex. I know I wasn't at that age. But then again, I'm not really too keen on making things illegal just because they're potentially harmful in some way or other. If people want to fuck themselves up (no pun intended) they'll find some way to do it, laws or no laws. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Mar 04, 2002 - 02:53 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | In some state it is illegal to have sex without the intent to procreate, and funnliy enough california home of the Castro is one of those states. I believe Utah and Idaho share the law as well. and yes that is why birth control is only sort of legal in most states. Also it is not illegal for a 15 year old to marry someone over 18, just illegal for them to have sex. But since all sex inside of marriage must be for procreation (since the man would go somewhere else for fun) the sex is legal, EVEN IF SHE IS 15 AND HE IS 45!!!!!
oral sex is, as far as i know, technically illegal everywhere except a few counties in Nevada.
American sex laws a very, very strange. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by Rogue (Rogue@skew.org) on Mar 04, 2002 - 11:59 AM (User info | Send a Message) | In Ohio it is technically illegal to commit sodomy, and the definition of sodomy includes fellatio. Seems like Indiana is not that way, since there is a state near here to which people used to travel to stay in hotels and scratch their illicit itches outside the blanket of prosecution. All I can really say about this is, either they don't enforce these laws or most of the people I know are in trouble. This of course raises the question of which party is guilty of 'sodomy', and how they have traditionally proven it in court. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by Monolycus on Mar 04, 2002 - 12:34 PM (User info | Send a Message) | It is my understanding that the only time(s) it traditionally comes to prosecuting these largely useless sex laws is in the event of an ugly break-up. When two or more people gather together to dissolve a relationship, one discovers that people routinely break all manner of laws. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
My English needs an upgrade by Arthegarn on Mar 05, 2002 - 06:42 AM (User info | Send a Message) | My English needs upgrading. Mmmm... Let's see, about terms. In Spanish, a Fellatio is oral sex, we all agree here... but Sodomy (sodomia) is anal sex, from the city of Sodoma; and having sex without the intention to procreate is Onanism (From Onan, a guy in the bible who used the Reverse method and seemed to... mmm... how was it?... reboot a lot.
Isn't that so? What is the difference between onanism and sodomy in English, if there is any? |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: My English needs an upgrade by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Mar 05, 2002 - 10:58 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | The major different is that sodomy has a legal meaning, seperate from the common English or common useage meanings. Onanism does not have a legal meaning, is very rarely used here, and when it is used is applied to masterbation only.
for more information on the sodomy laws of the US try here
There are many cases in process right now and states are changing thier laws to decriminalize some parts of sex. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Legalbabble by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Feb 27, 2002 - 08:51 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | And i will not even start on women's 'right to vote' or the wording there of, since one way to read the amendment is that a woman is not a citizen until she marries, and then only through her husband. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by Shade on Feb 26, 2002 - 07:29 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://www.hotelshade.com
|
I have a thought, it would be cheaper than using the us postal nervous and easier than maintaining a personal web gallery. Ickgirl mentioned Rae sending her expired ID in to prove she was who she looked like, what about that? we could send in a scanned copy of our ID with any personal photo's. I'd do it, or at least I will once I get around to plugging the web cam in and getting a picture I like :P
I know some might say we don't all have scanners, and you'd be right, we do, on the other hand have Kinko's (13 cents-ish per scanif you want colour) or the foreign equivelent. if you're worried about Devin or Ick or Callei (or one of the other two or three editors-in-staff/pantheon members) knowing about your personal information...get over it. They're not fucking psycho's they just have strange senses of humour.
Other than that I like the Gallery Devin, I really enjoy Feralucce's Tarot cards, I enjoy getting to put a face to the voice. anyway, that's my two cents...and apparently anyone who wants to know what I look like check out the new Lestat in Queen of the damned. I haven't seen it myself, and I've heard it's sooo bad I'm sure I'll bother until it's out on tape, but I've been getting some wierd mesages from my friends.
|
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Rogue (judenouveau@yahoo.com) on Feb 27, 2002 - 05:23 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Back in tha day, the photocopy of your driver's licence thing was pretty common and nobody complained. Am speaking of the dial-up 300 baud days of BBS's, and besides age verification it helped give a warm fuzzy to the sysops who were increasingly concerned about legal issues until the internet rendered all that irrelevant. What we did was simply redact the Social Insecurity Number and Licence Number from the copy and sent the rest. Being a foolish idealist (and who better than an idealist to lead crusades?) i think that all this should not be necessary (or any law for that matter) because people know what is wrong and should simply not do it. Speaking of which, Shmeng is (as of today) blocked by my company's firewall because it is in the category 'sex' according to them... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by callei (plyn@plynlymon.com) on Feb 27, 2002 - 08:54 AM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.plynlymon.com | oh my gawd. there is less sex here than there is around the vending machines at break time!
Poor darling!
See what i mean Arthegarn? sex is banned or illegal almost everywhere, even a hint of sex can 'taint' a site, store, or person.
Sex is illegal in the US of A. |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Shade on Feb 27, 2002 - 12:38 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | Use a proxy or write your own, I've seen a number of them online that are free and specifically offered for the purpose of surfing for porn in the work place. i don't have the addresses on hand (Sorry) but they shouldn't be too hard to find |
[ No anonymous comments ]
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Shade (Shade@Gothcult.com) on Mar 04, 2002 - 10:09 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://www.hotelshade.com | I'm not sure how intense your company's screener's are, but two other options would be to use Shmengs IP address, numerical instead of text based, or do the old trick that I have heard works on some of the slower filters, but have never had a chance to try, which is type in http://www.cnn.com@shmeng.com
try cut and pasting it into your browser...("Look ma! I hacked CNN!) heh basically it's just whatever giberish you want before the at sign, with the actual address after. it might work, it might not.
Just another two cents cause I like the idea of helping someone hack their company filters |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity by Devin (devin-at-vibechild-dot-com) on Mar 04, 2002 - 11:33 PM (User info | Send a Message) http://devin.vibechild.com/ | The IP address won't work because the site is virtual-hosted - it needs the SERVER_NAME header to be sent by the browser. The other one might work tho |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by Anonymous-Coward on Feb 26, 2002 - 09:57 PM
|
If anything I'm more than willing to subject myself to being on the 'flame' staff. I know what its like to have your identity stolen. I still deal with it today with lame ass jerks thinking they know me inside and out as someone who was pretending to be who I am.
I'm not ashamed of what I look like. I'm not ashamed of posting my real pics here and I'll admit that I'm not exactly a supermodel but I'm proud of what I am and how I look simply because its ME. If I'm needed or wanted I'll be around. And I doubt that appologies and people saying "Well I know I was wrong" is going to help.
For Sorceress_ly, egnima, and anyone else who did it. I won't say shame on you because that's just like giving a theif a slap on the wrist. If I have the support of the RESPECTABLE people here I have only one thing to say. Pack up your shit and GO. This is just one mistake that NEVER should have been made.
You should have known you'd be caught and you also should have known that what you did is not only illegal but a federal offense. There are LAWS against identity theft and if they choose to do so the people you stole the pictures from CAN press charges against you for Online Fraud.
Again I have to stress I'm just one of the backyard girls that watches and waits for people to mess up and tell them they messed up but really. You being here is doing more damage than good. And I'm ashamed that you ever thought that it took a pretty face to 'get in good' here. I'm far from being beautiful but I like my look and no one, I repeat, no one can get me to change. You were born to be as you are, not anything different unless you alter your look. But that's just vanity and fool pride. I beg forgiveness of Devin and anyone else if I'm stepping out of line but I must digress that under the circumstances. This has gone too far.
Seraphim Silence
|
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by pAris on Feb 27, 2002 - 07:36 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/279/unbalanced_load.html
|
Okay. Enough of this; it's really up to the deities to decide (deicide?) what to do. I like the suggestion of proof. I think offering potential posters a choice of sending a copy of their photo ID (sent snail mail - it's too easy to photoshop the age or have a fake made) or perhaps additional pics of them in other poses/outfits/unflattering angles would do it. Or if the pics sent in were not that flattering to begin with (a la my recent ones).... But anyway, this whole mess sucks. It could have gotten Devin et al in trouble, it promotes the whole "look how purty I am" crap, and identity/image theft on any level sucks (trust me - I've been a victim of it on a video that I did not want shared, but that's another shmeng).
So for now, our words must carry our images/selves. Quite gothic, huh? S'matter of fact, I think writing is Goth as Fuck.
|
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by Sardonic-Pain (Lilgothicchicka@yahoo.com)
on Feb 28, 2002 - 06:39 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Well.....I am new member ....And i rather enjoyed the picture gallery...I think its a shame that a few people are stupid enough to do that....Who cares if you don't look all that great and I am sorry if you are worried that much about your looks to steal someone elses photo. I know I am not the sweetest face to look at and I know I am kinda short kinda plump ect.....I posted my own damn picture one here.....I mean lets act our ages...Hell I am younger than a lot of people here and I act older than some of you guys.....Your outward appearace has nothing to do with what you are capable of doing
I mean haven't you seen those really ugly porn stars! THey get paid lots of money and they just don't sit around and be pretty. IGNORANCE PISSES ME OFF!!!!
Hell for posting someone elses person not only have you done a mistjustice to whom ever the person really was in the picture but to everyone who had a picture on this site.
I swear god must love stupid people cause he mad SO MANY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Screening Problem solved...easily.
by Dolorosa on Mar 01, 2002 - 09:36 AM
(User info | Send a Message)
|
Just have your next picture sent in, have both you and something, anything with your call sign on it. Like, well...we all know Bettie, but she could have a Betty Page poster in the back...Me, when I finally decide to show my goofy ass face around here, I'll write Dolo on my forehead or something. It doesn't have to be too obvious, but once it's seen, it's known. Sure you can fake it, but if people have the time and resources to really work at being someone else, well fuck...We do it in the military, and so far it's worked. No Arabs with "Miller, John T." name tags have popped up yet.
Workable?
|
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Screening Problem solved...easily. by Meranda_Jade (Meranda@mymind.com) on Mar 01, 2002 - 10:47 AM (User info | Send a Message) | Love it! And once your face in known, you can send anything in without a name tag, right? as long as it's you, I mean... |
[ No anonymous comments ]
Re: Persistent Stupidity
by Abbadon on Jun 10, 2003 - 12:20 PM
(User info | Send a Message)
http://
|
The hipocracy inherent in these words astounds me. I posted a picture of my good self and it was never put up.
|
|
|