# Stolen Pics



## CAMellie (Feb 9, 2008)

I'm not sure if this is the proper place to post this thread...so please bear with me. 
I was at another site and came across a couple of pictures of ladies that post here. The pics are boldly emblazoned with the site's watermark...even though I know that they don't "own" the pics. The site has added comments below the pics...of a VERY degrading manner.
I'm not going to link directly to the site, but here are the addies of the 2 pics that I've come across, so far. 

crazyshit dot com/cnt/pics/14481

crazyshit dot com/cnt/pics/14831

Please forgive me if I have violated any rules with this thread. I just think that the ladies should be aware that their pics are on this site.


----------



## Jon Blaze (Feb 9, 2008)

Here we go again....

I think the second is copyrighted, but I don't know about the first. I'll tell Rhonda about the second one.


----------



## CAMellie (Feb 9, 2008)

Jon Blaze said:


> Here we go again....
> 
> I think the second is copyrighted, but I don't know about the first. I'll tell Rhonda about the second one.




Thanks, doll


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 9, 2008)

i have seen worse posted in counter strike servers but im not reporting them. no reason to do so.


----------



## Blackjack (Feb 9, 2008)

gangstadawg said:


> i have seen worse posted in counter strike servers but im not reporting them. no reason to do so.



Except for, you know, the whole copyright infringement thing. Which is against the law.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Feb 9, 2008)

gangstadawg said:


> i have seen worse posted in counter strike servers but im not reporting them. no reason to do so.




why wouldn't you report them? If they are using pics that they don't own, especially if they are using them in a disrespectful manner. I would hope that if anyone were to see my pic floating around anywhere that they would not only report the offender but notify me as well.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 9, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> why wouldn't you report them? If they are using pics that they don't own, especially if they are using them in a disrespectful manner. I would hope that if anyone were to see my pic floating around anywhere that they would not only report the offender but notify me as well.



because counter-strike (mainly the source version) is a game and each server is privatly owned and there are over 10000 servers and at least 25-30 players on each. do you think im going to go through each server to find and report it?

and picture usage is not on the server but on the player themselves. the players use the pics as sprays so they spray (or tag) a surface in game with the pic. but it only stays up for 5 minutes so no reason to report it plus what are you going to do go on the server(s) and tell em to ban players that spray pics?

and counter strike isnt the only game. any game using the half-life 1 or source engine (all on steams service google it) that has a online multi-player component aswell has the ability to do this. in other words IMPOSSIBLE TO STOP.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Feb 9, 2008)

gangstadawg said:


> because counter-strike (mainly the source version) is a game and each server is privatly owned and there are over 10000 servers and at least 25-30 players on each. do you think im going to go through each server to find and report it?
> 
> and picture usage is not on the server but on the player themselves. the players use the pics as sprays so they spray (or tag) a surface in game with the pic. but it only stays up for 5 minutes so no reason to report it plus what are you going to do go on the server(s) and tell em to ban players that spray pics?




So basically, not your picture not your problem. Right?


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 9, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> So basically, not your picture not your problem. Right?


did you not read what i typed? plain and simple impossible to enforce. for example lets say im on some counter-strike game server (lets call it l33t squadron) and lets say there are 45 players on it. i see a picture of YOU sprayed on the ground by another player but i didnt see which player did the spray. who do i report to? you?, the server admin? steam (owned by valve)? lets say i tell you what are you going to do? are you going to go to that server? do you own a copy of the game so you can do that?


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Feb 9, 2008)

gangstadawg said:


> did you not read what i typed? plain and simple impossible to enforce. for example lets say im on some counter-strike game server (lets call it l33t squadron) and lets say there are 45 players on it. i see a picture of YOU sprayed on the ground by another player but i didnt see which player did the spray. who do i report to? you?, the server admin? steam (owned by valve)? lets say i tell you what are you going to do? are you going to go to that server? do you own a copy of the game so you can do that?




I read what you said, I pretty much summed it right up. The very least you could do would be to notify the owner of the picture. Then they could do whatever they felt needed to be done. Even if that meant purchasing a copy of the game.

If I saw a picture of you splashed across something with negative connotations you can bet that I'd be contacting you.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 9, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> I read what you said, I pretty much summed it right up. The very least you could do would be to notify the owner of the picture. Then they could do whatever they felt needed to be done. Even if that meant purchasing a copy of the game.
> 
> If I saw a picture of you splashed across something with negative connotations you can bet that I'd be contacting you.


but lets say i did see the player what can you do? steam wont ban the player for that because there is no rule for it. and the admin wont either if he doesnt have a rule for it which im letting you know NO counter-strike server has a copy write picture rule because there is no way to track the pic plus no legal action could be done to any server for some thing like this because the server admin cant stop what the player chooses to be his picture for his spray. 

and i cant report the player to you because i would need his steam id because his name doesnt mean shit because it could be 4800 other players with the same damn name.

so its not entirly the same thing. if you saw a pic of me on a site yeah thats easy for that to be fixed but on a game server thats a a whole nother ball game.


----------



## Butterbelly (Feb 9, 2008)

Unfortunately, this problem is becoming increasingly worse. This is the biggest reason why I stopped posting any newer pictures of myself on the boards or in chat. Friends were constantly notifying me that they'd come across my pictures posted on yahoo groups, photo sharing websites, etc and the captions below them were degrading. 

I'm sorry that someone is stealing these pictures and posting them on websites in a degrading manner. I wish it was easier to stop this kind of thing


----------



## pudgy (Feb 9, 2008)

Sorry, but I'm gonna have to side with gangstadawg on this one. I'm afraid it's like talking to a faucet and expecting not to drip. You either have to cut off the water (and as long as there are women and the internet, there will be women posting pictures of themselves on the internet) or take out the faucet (and no one is removing Counterstrike anytime soon).

So a simple warning: if you want to show your pictures, be sure to do so as privately as possible, or be okay with it being posted everywhere. It's the nature of the Internet. I'm sorry.

P.S. On further thought, I also agree with Ella: a simple email or message couldn't hurt anyone. I promise that if I ever see copyrighted material on the interwebs, I'll request it be taken down.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Feb 9, 2008)

gangstadawg said:


> but lets say i did see the player what can you do? steam wont ban the player for that because there is no rule for it. and the admin wont either if he doesnt have a rule for it which im letting you know NO counter-strike server has a copy write picture rule because there is no way to track the pic plus no legal action could be done to any server for some thing like this because the server admin cant stop what the player chooses to be his picture for his spray.
> 
> and i cant report the player to you because i would need his steam id because his name doesnt mean shit because it could be 4800 other players with the same damn name.
> 
> so its not entirly the same thing. if you saw a pic of me on a site yeah thats easy for that to be fixed but on a game server thats a a whole nother ball game.




I guess. I'm not familiar with the types of games you're talking about so I can't begin to comment there. You could at least let the person know right? At least they'd know their picture was out there. I think I'd like to know.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 9, 2008)

pudgy said:


> Sorry, but I'm gonna have to side with gangstadawg on this one. I'm afraid it's like talking to a faucet and expecting not to drip. You either have to cut off the water (and as long as there are women and the internet, there will be women posting pictures of themselves on the internet) or take out the faucet (and no one is removing Counterstrike anytime soon).
> 
> So a simple warning: if you want to show your pictures, be sure to do so as privately as possible, or be okay with it being posted everywhere. It's the nature of the Internet. I'm sorry.
> 
> P.S. On further thought, I also agree with Ella: a simple email or message couldn't hurt anyone. I promise that if I ever see copyrighted material on the interwebs, I'll request it be taken down.


but thats on a website. you can email a website but you cant email a online game server thats privately owned. you can post a message on the server by joining and playing on it but if the admin is not on he/she will not see it because the message will be up for about 5 seconds and its only enough room for medium sized sentance. and the admin cant delete a pic thats been sprayed. the game will get rid of it after about 3 rounds and the admin can tell a player to delete a pic because it on the players own PC.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 9, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> I guess. I'm not familiar with the types of games you're talking about so I can't begin to comment there. You could at least let the person know right? At least they'd know their picture was out there. I think I'd like to know.


guess not lol. welcome to being out of the tech loop. it happenes to the best of us.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Feb 9, 2008)

gangstadawg said:


> guess not lol. welcome to being out of the tech loop. it happenes to the best of us.



Its not about being out of the tech loop, its about not having time to play games. 

Would you or would you not make someone aware of the fact that their picture was being used without their permission? That's what I'm interested in knowing.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 9, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> Its not about being out of the tech loop, its about not having time to play games.
> 
> Would you or would you not make someone aware of the fact that their picture was being used without their permission? That's what I'm interested in knowing.


depends if im cool with the person or not. if i dont like the person or vice versa then no im not gonna snitch like that not that i am a snitch. but if im ok with em then yeah ill tell. 

like for example: 
lets say for example me and ashley (the bbw model) dont get along like lets say she is a real negative person towards me and we argue online alot and lets say mercedesbbw and lilly are both cool with me as in we get along pretty well. now lets say i see pictures and movies of all 3 women uploaded on a site. who do you think im going to notify? 

answer: lilly and mercedes. ashley could ask but because she (in this scenario/example only) has been a conflict starter then she lost out.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Feb 9, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> Its not about being out of the tech loop, its about not having time to play games.
> 
> Would you or would you not make someone aware of the fact that their picture was being used without their permission? That's what I'm interested in knowing.



Gangsta used to be very good about letting people know that their pictures were being banded about without their knowledge until he got piled on for doing so here. the complaint was that the knowledge exposed here out in the open caused undue distress to the person whose picture was stolen. I don't blame him for not wanting to go to a person to tell them of something nobody can do a thing about. I could see if it was on a website or some page somewhere but a 5 second temporary spray tag used by a anonymous player who could be in Tokyo or Uzbekistan perhaps? The picture is already gone by the time he realizes who's in it. What's he going to report?


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Feb 9, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> Gangsta used to be very good about letting people know that their pictures were being banded about without their knowledge until he got piled on for doing so here. the complaint was that the knowledge exposed here out in the open caused undue distress to the person whose picture was stolen. I don't blame him for not wanting to go to a person to tell them of something nobody can do a thing about. I could see if it was on a website or some page somewhere but a 5 second temporary spray tag used by a anonymous player who could be in Tokyo or Uzbekistan perhaps? The picture is already gone by the time he realizes who's in it. What's he going to report?




I'm sorry that you got piled on for being a gentleman Gangsta.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 9, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> Gangsta used to be very good about letting people know that their pictures were being banded about without their knowledge until he got piled on for doing so here. the complaint was that the knowledge exposed here out in the open caused undue distress to the person whose picture was stolen. I don't blame him for not wanting to go to a person to tell them of something nobody can do a thing about. I could see if it was on a website or some page somewhere but a 5 second temporary spray tag used by a anonymous player who could be in Tokyo or Uzbekistan perhaps? The picture is already gone by the time he realizes who's in it. What's he going to report?


exactly lilly. you totally understand. thats also why i dont snitch the info anymore. i only tell the info to people that im cool with because that way i dont have to worry about that lil incident happening again. this is why i dont notify alot of the models (not mentioning names) of some of the stuff i see on the net. thats for both here and fullfiggas.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 9, 2008)

Ella Bella said:


> I'm sorry that you got piled on for being a gentleman Gangsta.


its ok bella. no biggie. i just know to keep certain info to myself. lesson learned.


----------



## BBW Northwest (Feb 9, 2008)

Here is the company that hosts their website

Technical Contact [244871]:
Domain Register [email protected]
CS Networks Inc.
1750 North Florida Mango Rd.
Suite 406
West Palm Beach
FL
33409
US
Phone: +1.5618335520

An email to [email protected] with the page and the file name of the photo noting that you are the copyright holder of the pic and they are using it without permission should compel the host to notify the site owner to take it down.


----------



## ThatFatGirl (Feb 11, 2008)

I think it's better to contact the person in the photo directly rather than posting links to the photos here on the boards. Those links probably had at least 100 extra hits today just from Dimmers wondering who's in the photos (myself included.. but just the first link), plus who knows how often they actually read the message boards? I'm not critisizing you, Mellie.. You definitely have the best intentions. I see stolen photos (or videos on youtube) of so many bbws we could fill a board with new threads. 

The whole thing is just sad. I'm posting less photos at least in part because of it.


----------



## RKC (Feb 11, 2008)

As I have previously stated, very little can be done about this from a prevention standpoint. This isn't the answer people want to hear, but, it is the most practical. Either develop thicker skin, or don't post pictures online where they can be accessed by others. To think you can prevent others from stealing your pictures is a farcical notion. One could easily spend their entire day searching for their own pictures online.​


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

gangstadawg said:


> but lets say i did see the player what can you do? steam wont ban the player for that because there is no rule for it. and the admin wont either if he doesnt have a rule for it which im letting you know NO counter-strike server has a copy write picture rule because there is no way to track the pic plus no legal action could be done to any server for some thing like this because the server admin cant stop what the player chooses to be his picture for his spray.



Funnily enough, there is a rule for it - its called the Digital Copyright Millenium Act (DCMA) i.e. it is illegal. No excuses.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> Funnily enough, there is a rule for it - its called the Digital Copyright Millenium Act (DCMA) i.e. it is illegal. No excuses.


and how would it get enforced when the pics are client side (the players themselves) not server side? and its not the admins job to enforce this on a game server. no need to since the pics are only going to be up for 5-10 minutes or 3 rounds then disappear unless resprayed on a surface in Counter-strike source or any mod using the half-life 2 engine. that lil DMCA rule may not apply here at all because there is no way to enforce it in this particular scenario plus i though that rule was for people that take others work and try to redistribute as there own. 

remember the servers are not owned by any company. they are servers owned by the players themselves. its not like you can log in like a forum and see it then say something. you have to own the game and join and just randomly see it. if you complain the admin will just boot you of and/or ban you so you cant rejoin that server. if its a IP ban there is no way to get back on that server so you will have to rebuy the game and get a new steam account just to go back the that one single server.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> Funnily enough, there is a rule for it - its called the Digital Copyright Millenium Act (DCMA) i.e. it is illegal. No excuses.



And how is such a law enforced when someone in Thailand takes a "copyrighted" picture (in itself, a loaded term, as simply watermarking a photo doesn't make it proprietary) and plasters it all over his website? A country-specific law is meaningless when broken outside of that particular country & worse than meaningless when it is virtually unenforceable.

I don't post photos of myself that I wouldn't want the rest of the world to see. To me, that is the easiest solution. I treat the internet as if it is a communal watering hole. I don't expect privacy. Anything that I post, any pictures that I share ... I know could be seen by anyone, at any time (including bosses, parents, my child, spouse, friends etc).


----------



## LillyBBBW (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> Funnily enough, there is a rule for it - its called the Digital Copyright Millenium Act (DCMA) i.e. it is illegal. No excuses.



You want to prosecute someone for this, good luck with that. Thousands of fans of paysites download copywritten material for their personal use every day. You can start with them, not so easy. Lets say one of the patrons of a porn site takes one of the pictures he downloaded and sends it to a bunch of kids. Public outcry wants to hang somebody. Should the porn site be held accountable? They are not liable. AOL is not liable. Dell Computer is not liable. Intel, Microsoft, Apple - not liable. Who's responsible? The guy who sent the pictures if you can find him. The police will work on this case but unless the tag contained kiddie porn or images from a crime they're not going to waste the manpower hours on a video game tag, especially if the dude is in Egypt.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 11, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> You want to prosecute someone for this, good luck with that. Thousands of fans of paysites download copywritten material for their personal use every day. You can start with them, not so easy. Lets say one of the patrons of a porn site takes one of the pictures he downloaded and sends it to a bunch of kids. Public outcry wants to hang somebody. Should the porn site be held accountable? They are not liable. AOL is not liable. Dell Computer is not liable. Intel, Microsoft, Apple - not liable. Who's responsible? The guy who sent the pictures if you can find him. The police will work on this case but unless the tag contained kiddie porn or images from a crime they're not going to waste the manpower hours on a video game tag, especially if the dude is in Egypt.


thank you lilly. you one of the few here that understand


----------



## CAMellie (Feb 11, 2008)

:blink: Um...all I was trying to do was tell a couple of ladies that I came across their pics on another site. wtf? :blink:


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> You want to prosecute someone for this, good luck with that. Thousands of fans of paysites download copywritten material for their personal use every day. You can start with them, not so easy. Lets say one of the patrons of a porn site takes one of the pictures he downloaded and sends it to a bunch of kids. Public outcry wants to hang somebody. Should the porn site be held accountable? They are not liable. AOL is not liable. Dell Computer is not liable. Intel, Microsoft, Apple - not liable. Who's responsible? The guy who sent the pictures if you can find him. The police will work on this case but unless the tag contained kiddie porn or images from a crime they're not going to waste the manpower hours on a video game tag, especially if the dude is in Egypt.




I didn't say anything whatsoever about prosecution. I simply mentioned, in response to Gangstadawg's comment that there was no rule, that there is a rule. I know nothing will ever come of it, just a shame people give up so easily.


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> And how is such a law enforced when someone in Thailand takes a "copyrighted" picture (in itself, a loaded term, as simply watermarking a photo doesn't make it proprietary) and plasters it all over his website?



The sheer act of taking a photograph instill in you, the photographer, the copyright. Nothing else is necessary. Watermarked simply makes it easier to assert your copyright.


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

gangstadawg said:


> and how would it get enforced when the pics are client side (the players themselves) not server side? and its not the admins job to enforce this on a game server. no need to since the pics are only going to be up for 5-10 minutes or 3 rounds then disappear unless resprayed on a surface in Counter-strike source or any mod using the half-life 2 engine.



The amount of time the law was broken for is irrelevant. Thats like saying, I'm going to punch you in the face, but because I do it just the once, the law doesn't apply! LOL


----------



## LillyBBBW (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> The amount of time the law was broken for is irrelevant. Thats like saying, I'm going to punch you in the face, but because I do it just the once, the law doesn't apply! LOL



No it's like saying, "I know one of you guys just sucker punched me in the face but I don't know which one of you did it so I'm going to hold the guy who owns the bar accountable."


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> No it's like saying, "I know one of you guys just sucker punched me in the face but I don't know which one of you did it so I'm going to hold the guy who owns the bar accountable."



I didn't say anything about who should be held responsible. This whole thread has gone a little off track from the original post. I fully agree, since we are now talking about one specific problem, that of in-game tags or sprays, that this is difficult to enforce. I suspect, that if you read the Counterstrike:Source End User Licence Agreement (EULA), that it does mention about copyrighted material. I think all that could be done, is a statement that players using copyrighted material will be banned. It is easy to ban people from a server, as the Valve Anti-Cheat system has shown. But its still very hard to enforce. Doesn't make it any less wrong though.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> The sheer act of taking a photograph instill in you, the photographer, the copyright. Nothing else is necessary. Watermarked simply makes it easier to assert your copyright.



That's just not true. Sorry ... I agree in principle to this notion, and I understand the horror & sense of violation at finding one's pictures in a venue that permission was never granted for ... but it's not a violation of the law ... and even if it is in some circumstances, enforcement is nigh unto impossible. 

I've seen these threads so many times, and it's depressing. I feel for the people who are violated, and I'm not excusing the behavior of people who use photographs obviously not intended for public displays. But ... my outrage at the atrocious behavior of an internet dirtbag doesn't make the victims any less mortified, hurt & embarrassed.

Sometimes, the best defense *is* a good offense. I have posted pictures of myself that I know could be used to ridicule me. But I've done so knowing that I could find my photos plastered all over a heavily trafficked area of the internet (one that my friends/family/colleagues frequent) and I do not make public any information or photographs that would embarrass or humiliate me.


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> That's just not true. Sorry ... I agree in principle to this notion, and I understand the horror & sense of violation at finding one's pictures in a venue that permission was never granted for ... but it's not a violation of the law ... and even if it is in some circumstances, enforcement is nigh unto impossible.
> 
> I've seen these threads so many times, and it's depressing. I feel for the people who are violated, and I'm not excusing the behavior of people who use photographs obviously not intended for public displays. But ... my outrage at the atrocious behavior of an internet dirtbag doesn't make the victims any less mortified, hurt & embarrassed.
> 
> Sometimes, the best defense *is* a good offense. I have posted pictures of myself that I know could be used to ridicule me. But I've done so knowing that I could find my photos plastered all over a heavily trafficked area of the internet (one that my friends/family/colleagues frequent) and I do not make public any information or photographs that would embarrass or humiliate me.



Taken from http://copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright

"Exploring copyright issues in photography, registration advice and specific considerations that apply to photographers.

1. Who owns the copyright on photographs?

Under law, it is the photographer who will own copyright on any photos he/she has taken, with the following exceptions:
* If the photographer is an employee of the company the photos are taken for, or is an employee of a company instructed to take the photos, the photographer will be acting on behalf of his/her employer, and the company the photographer works for will own the copyright.
* If there is an agreement that assigns copyright to another party.

In all other cases, the photographer will retain the copyright, if the photographer has been paid for his work, the payment will be for the photographers time and typically an allocated number of prints. The copyright to the photos will remain with the photographer, and therefore any reproduction without permission would be an infringement of copyright.

Examples:
* If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.
* If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used."

Also, taken from http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

""If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted."
This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure.

It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either.

The correct form for a notice is:

"Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]"

You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights."

2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain."
False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them.

Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of.

Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place.

(*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings.

Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it.

Our sponsor gives this testimonial:
When web-mastering PokerJunkie.com your page helped me a great deal! In web publishing, you must get these things right. Thanks a bunch for helping me enhancing my online poker site!

Dylan Fleeceman, webmaster for PokerJunkie.com
4) "My posting was just fair use!"
See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.

The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.

Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough

See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law.

5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!"
False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended.

You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like a "Delta" airline. Delta Airlines "owns" that word applied to air travel, even though it is also an ordinary word. Delta Hotels owns it when applied to hotels. (This case is fairly unusual as both are travel companies. Usually the industries are more distinct.) Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on this law for details.

You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv."  You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the holder.

6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me."
False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission.

Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that.

There is a major exception -- criticism and 
parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made.

However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more

7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!"
Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests.

8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?"
Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited because he didn't charge, but congress amended the law to cover that.

9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising."
It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars.

10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it."
To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour.

11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?"
Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No, copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used.

While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive.

The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, has some validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need to violate a copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no value" you should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general, respecting the rights of creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate adhering to.

In addition, while quite often people make incorrect claims of "fair use" it is a still valid and important concept necessary to allow the criticism of copyrighted works and their creators through examples. It's also been extended to allow things like home recording of TV shows and moving music from CDs you own to your MP3 player. But please read more about it before you do it. "



So actually, I was right.


----------



## CAMellie (Feb 11, 2008)

*eats some popcorn and watches to see where her hi-jacked thread is gonna stop next*


----------



## TraciJo67 (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> Taken from http://copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/p16_photography_copyright
> 
> "Exploring copyright issues in photography, registration advice and specific considerations that apply to photographers.
> 
> ...



OK, hoss ... please go out and enforce your "rightness."


----------



## LillyBBBW (Feb 11, 2008)

> "Examples:
> * If Bill Smith asks Peter Jones the photographer to photograph his wedding. Peter Jones will normally provide a single copy of the prints as part of the fee, but any additional prints Bill or his family and friend want must be ordered via Peter as he is the copyright owner and controls who can copy his work.
> * If Bill Smith engages the services of XYZ-Photos for the same job, and Peter is an employee of XYZ-Photo who instruct Peter to take the photos, XYZ-Photos will be the copyright owner and control how they are used.""



Let's say Bill Smith posts his wedding photos in his blog. Has he broken the law? Can Peter pursue him and ask him to take them down? You are aware that your clients are downloading your photos are you?


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> OK, hoss ... please go out and enforce your "rightness."



*goes out, begins enforcing rightness*


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> Let's say Bill Smith posts his wedding photos in his blog. Has he broken the law? Can Peter pursue him and ask him to take them down? You are aware that your clients are downloading your photos are you?



Yep, from that website I quoted (without permission of course!), Bill would be breaking the law!


----------



## LillyBBBW (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> Yep, from that website I quoted (without permission of course!), Bill would be breaking the law!



No, I really don't think so. Not unless Bill exchanged the photos elsewhere for money. It would be interesting to see how a judge would rule however I suspect that since Bill funded the photography and granted he didn't sign any contracts forbidding him from displaying his wedding photos he does have some rights here.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> *goes out, begins enforcing rightness*



While you're on that quest, be sure to search out the people who *took* the photos in question, as they would be the "copyright owners". The subject of the photo is not covered by copyright laws. Since most of the problems posted here arise from subjects of photos finding themselves subjected to viewings unintended for broader public consumption, the copyright laws that you are quoting aren't really applicable to them.


----------



## jewels_mystery (Feb 11, 2008)

I agree. A couple of years ago, I used to be an OP in one of the bbw channels on irc. It got out that some anti fat site in Canada had some of our members pixs up. The captions on the pixs were horrible..... What made is worse was some had the ladies telephone numbers and addresses. One of my friends felt betrayed by that.


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

TraciJo67 said:


> While you're on that quest, be sure to search out the people who *took* the photos in question, as they would be the "copyright owners". The subject of the photo is not covered by copyright laws. Since most of the problems posted here arise from subjects of photos finding themselves subjected to viewings unintended for broader public consumption, the copyright laws that you are quoting aren't really applicable to them.



In most cases, the person in the photograph knows the person taking the picture, unless it is those weird candid pictures.


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 11, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> No, I really don't think so. Not unless Bill exchanged the photos elsewhere for money. It would be interesting to see how a judge would rule however I suspect that since Bill funded the photography and granted he didn't sign any contracts forbidding him from displaying his wedding photos he does have some rights here.



"2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money."

Its still illegal, even if you don't charge for it. I suspect that the contract Bill signed when he enlisted the photographer would mention no unauthorised reproduction. I've had professional family photographers taken, and no photographic shop will copy them, as it is a break of copyright. The law can be odd at times, but its still the law.


----------



## RKC (Feb 11, 2008)

The simple solution is to charge more for paysite photos, as people who steal the photo's will have a higher barrier to re-entry if they are banned for illegally sharing the photos.​


----------



## RKC (Feb 11, 2008)

RKC said:


> The simple solution is to charge more for paysite photos, as people who steal the photo's will have a higher barrier to re-entry if they are banned for illegally sharing the photos.​



This presents a problem of profitability however, since the market is so over-saturated. Models would starve.


----------



## LillyBBBW (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> "2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
> False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money."
> 
> Its still illegal, even if you don't charge for it. I suspect that the contract Bill signed when he enlisted the photographer would mention no unauthorised reproduction. I've had professional family photographers taken, and no photographic shop will copy them, as it is a break of copyright. The law can be odd at times, but its still the law.



It's a sick sad world.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 11, 2008)

fatchicksrockuk said:


> I didn't say anything about who should be held responsible. This whole thread has gone a little off track from the original post. I fully agree, since we are now talking about one specific problem, that of in-game tags or sprays, that this is difficult to enforce. I suspect, that if you read the Counterstrike:Source End User Licence Agreement (EULA), that it does mention about copyrighted material. I think all that could be done, is a statement that players using copyrighted material will be banned. It is easy to ban people from a server, as the Valve Anti-Cheat system has shown. But its still very hard to enforce. Doesn't make it any less wrong though.


but VAC (valve anti cheat) is only for cheats it cant ban for this at all unless jpg files can contain data code that says its copy right. and steam doesnt ban for copywrite either. and server admins dont aswell.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 11, 2008)

RKC said:


> The simple solution is to charge more for paysite photos, as people who steal the photo's will have a higher barrier to re-entry if they are banned for illegally sharing the photos.​



but then "some" peeps will just wait for site rips on bootleg sites. also how can you prove who is sharing the pics? if you allow people to download them how do you know which ones are sharing the pics? you would need that person IP address unless they have a screenname they use for most forums that they are members of.


----------



## gangstadawg (Feb 11, 2008)

LillyBBBW said:


> It's a sick sad world.


yep and thats why i hate the MPAA and RIAA.


----------



## BBWDREAMLOVER (Feb 11, 2008)

Mellie THANK YOU very much, I didn't even see this post till a friend pointed it out. If you ever come across anything of mine please feel free to contact me personally or anyone else. They took it down. 


**BIG HUGS**
Rhonda


----------



## CAMellie (Feb 11, 2008)

BBWDREAMLOVER said:


> Mellie THANK YOU very much, I didn't even see this post till a friend pointed it out. If you ever come across anything of mine please feel free to contact me personally or anyone else. They took it down.
> 
> 
> **BIG HUGS**
> Rhonda




You're MORE than welcome, gorgeous! I'll remember to contact you personally if it happens again.

Smooches,
Melanie


----------



## SweetSangria (Feb 12, 2008)

I find this very sad. Just the other day I spent a good amount of time looking at the pictures posted in the 'fat sexuality' forum. Having felt uncomfortable with my body for so long now, I looked at the pictures in total admiration for the women who love their body and are not ashamed of it. 

After a while I became inspired to do something I have never done before...taking pictures of me just to see how I looked without clothes on. I honestly rarely saw myself naked before. It may seem strange, but I don't even have a mirror in my apartment, I avoid looking at my body because of the extra weight!

Just looking at the pictures of some of the confident women here helped me overcome my fears... and it does sadden me to know that other people steal your pictures to make fun of them. 

I don't know if I would have ever had the courage to post my pictures in the forum, but reading this thread certainly made the decision a lot easier. It is too bad too because I get the impression that posting pictures and receiving compliments can really increase a person self-esteem, something I desperately struggle with.

I don't know if this has been suggested before, but why not make the 'fat sexuality' forum private and protected by a password? I, myself, run a website and message board (totally unrelated to weight issues) and I password-protect several forums to make members feel safer when they share things about their personal lives. Just an idea...


----------



## fatchicksrockuk (Feb 12, 2008)

SweetSangria said:


> I find this very sad. Just the other day I spent a good amount of time looking at the pictures posted in the 'fat sexuality' forum. Having felt uncomfortable with my body for so long now, I looked at the pictures in total admiration for the women who love their body and are not ashamed of it.
> 
> After a while I became inspired to do something I have never done before...taking pictures of me just to see how I looked without clothes on. I honestly rarely saw myself naked before. It may seem strange, but I don't even have a mirror in my apartment, I avoid looking at my body because of the extra weight!
> 
> ...



I think that something similar is in place. If you post a pic, and the pic is attached to the post, and not linked from an external website, only registered members can see the pic.


----------

