TO COLLARME.

TO COLLARME. (Full Version)

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

Message

impayshunt -> TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 1:10:00 AM)
THE PHOTO YOU HAVE REMOVED,WAS FROM //WIKEPEDIA// NON COPYRIGHT. SHOWING A BONDAGE POSITION. IN VIEW OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PHOTOS ON THE SITE I FIND YOUR ATTITUDE STRANGE.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 1:54:11 AM)
Just because an image is published on Wikipedia does not mean it's not protected by copyright. You might want to read Wiki's copyright policy more closely.

Termyn8or -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 2:00:29 AM)
Perhaps you should elaborate a bit. First of all it wasn't your's, and I have no idea if fair use applies here. You say noncopyrighted, so CM has to take your word, which YOU took from wiki ? That's about fifth hand knowledge and you don't take those kinds of chances without something to gain. If you really don't want to put up a pic of yourself, just make something up in a graphics program or something. What's more if you're new to the,,,,,, err what would we call it,,,, you might not be aware of the legal restrictions. I refer to USC2257. Perhaps wiki is in compliance to show that picture, but the does not automatically extend to CM (per the specific wording of USC2257). Therefore they could get into hot water, or at least a legal hassle of some type. Risk the hammer coming down,,,,for WHAT ? Stick to home brew pics is the best bet. If you are the originator that means the papertrail is possibly sufficient to quash any problems under federal law. Actually it's not really law, but they will rnforce it anyway and the reasons that it is not real law are beyond the scope of this text. If you want to explore that subject, I will be around. Note that if we get into a serious discussion about USC and the UCC and a few other things, others will come and FUBAR the whole thread. T

myotherself -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 3:12:25 AM)
I once used a copyright-free pic from a website (and I could prove it was copyright-free). CM decided it wasn't 'my' pic and removed it. I just shrugged and moved on. It's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. SHOUTING ABOUT IT WON'T HELP! [8\|]

Termyn8or -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 3:32:20 AM)
Doesn't matter my, have you read USC2257 ? It requires any publisher, in this case CM would be a republisher which falls under the jurisdiction of USC2257 (if it has any) because the distinction is not made between what they term as primary and secondary publishers. When USC2257 was enacted a few years ago it almost shut down all porn in the US. But then memory is short. When CM has a picture people can see, legally that means they published it. Now US "law" requires not only a paper trail back to the person(s) depicted in the picture with sworn affidavits and copies of their government issued IDs, but a physical office where the feds can drop by and inspect all pertinent records. The law is actually null and void because the spirit of law in this country is that congress cannot delegate it's own responsibilies, and it could be fought on that grounds, but that is an uphill walk on water, in quicklsand with your hands tied to your feet. Even CM might not be all that kinky. What's more, recent changes in treaties and international law have made it a problem all over the world. We got some guy took a picture three thousand miles away getting dragged here in chains to face a trial in a country where he does not know the language or any.........nevermind. If I had a halfway successful website I would have no tast for such a fight with the big boys. T

tiggerspoohbear -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 5:44:21 AM)
Pic was pulled. You were told why. You're an adult. Suck it up buttercup. 'Nuff said!

thishereboi -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 5:46:43 AM)
Your yelling and crying because an internet site removed your wiki pic? In view of the age listed in your profile, I find your attitude strange.

LaTigresse -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 6:07:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: impayshunt THE PHOTO YOU HAVE REMOVED,WAS FROM //WIKEPEDIA// NON COPYRIGHT. SHOWING A BONDAGE POSITION. IN VIEW OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PHOTOS ON THE SITE I FIND YOUR ATTITUDE STRANGE. And I find you petulant and immature. Given the choice, I'd rather be strange.

angelikaJ -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 6:21:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LaTigresse quote: ORIGINAL: impayshunt THE PHOTO YOU HAVE REMOVED,WAS FROM //WIKEPEDIA// NON COPYRIGHT. SHOWING A BONDAGE POSITION. IN VIEW OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PHOTOS ON THE SITE I FIND YOUR ATTITUDE STRANGE. And I find you petulant and immature. Given the choice, I'd rather be strange. I love knowing I am in good company.[:D]

biblondewoman -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 6:30:18 AM)
Thank you for the invitation. Ladies and couples can come to me in real life. What to expect? I will tell you then.

barelynangel -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 6:31:43 AM)
I am too lazy to go check but doesn't the TOS indicate that the photos either must be of you or ones that you have actually taken? I know a lot of the profiles disregard this, but if that is the TOS, whether or not other people do it is not at issue. You broke the TOS by using a picture you yourself did not take. So it was removed. Also, depending on what the picture was, it simply could have been very offensive and enough people reported it and it was removed. Either way, you may want to take this up with support as they should be able to tell you why it was removed. angel

stef -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 8:33:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda Just because an image is published on Wikipedia does not mean it's not protected by copyright. You might want to read Wiki's copyright policy more closely. Haven't you heard? If it's on the net, it's public domain. Just ask Judith Griggs! ~stef

LadyPact -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 8:52:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: barelynangel I am too lazy to go check but doesn't the TOS indicate that the photos either must be of you or ones that you have actually taken? I know a lot of the profiles disregard this, but if that is the TOS, whether or not other people do it is not at issue. You broke the TOS by using a picture you yourself did not take. So it was removed. Also, depending on what the picture was, it simply could have been very offensive and enough people reported it and it was removed. Either way, you may want to take this up with support as they should be able to tell you why it was removed. angel To the best of My knowledge, you're right. Edited: Whoops, I forgot the OP. OP, the pic wasn't of you, so why are you upset that the site wouldn't allow you to use it? I've seen two threads that you've started so far and neither of them are painting you in a very good light.

Faust067 -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 9:04:34 AM)
what pic ???? uhh

Faust067 -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 9:06:21 AM)
waht pic dont remember only posted my pic o welll

Lockit -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 10:33:37 AM)
impayshunt, you are having a difficult week aren't you? Disappointed because no one will meet, confused about the attitude of CM because you can't post anything you want... I know it's difficult, so I'll try to understand... but if you want to meet someone and you want answers, there are good ways to accomplish these things and you haven't hit one of them yet. Use a real picture of yourself, shape up on that angry/poor me attitude and your problems will be solved. No issue with CM and you won't have to understand them and you might present as someone another might want to know. Done deal.

Rule -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 11:41:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: impayshunt THE PHOTO YOU HAVE REMOVED,WAS FROM //WIKEPEDIA// NON COPYRIGHT. SHOWING A BONDAGE POSITION. IN VIEW OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PHOTOS ON THE SITE I FIND YOUR ATTITUDE STRANGE. Shucks, there are stranger things in life: one of my neighbors watches his goldfishes.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 12:04:08 PM)
LOL! I remember your pictures. They were women in rope bondage. Didn't you say in your profile that you were looking for women interested in doing what the pictures represented? I'm pretty sure your profile said you took them from bondage.com or a site similar. I don't remember the exact site you listed, but I do remember that you listed one because what came to mind was that I didn't expect your photos to last long, because of copyright issues! Too funny.

DarkSteven -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 1:18:08 PM)
OP, if it means that much to you to show prospective women pictures of what trained riggers are capable of doing, then just put a link to those pics in your profile. That's entirely within the TOS. That said, I can post links of Brad Pitt and it doesn't mean that I look like him. Of course, if you legitimately want to meet people, then do as Lockit said. Post a pic of yourself, write a profile that shows a mature attitude, and act like an adult, and maybe you'll accomplish your goal of meeting someone. Or just attend some munches and meet people right there.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: TO COLLARME. (11/21/2010 1:31:55 PM)
Seriously, if you are that adamant that you are right and the photos were removed without justifiable cause, write to support. Send them a link to the site you pulled the pictures from, proving that the photos aren't copyrighted and they might (doubtful but anythign is possible) restore the photos.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.320313E-02