Milena Velba (non-Daktari pix, etc...) MERGED

Offline · « **Reply #45 on:** November 21, 2003, 09:04:30 AM »

Sometimes this place just amazes me. Ah, hello McFly???
The keyword here is "PUBLIC." In the world that I live in, the public is comprised of many types of individuals. There are those that follow the rules, those that push the envelope, and those that cast all rules aside. Its because of this that people create private organizations to control the membership so that members of the organization can concentrate on what the club is about.

And another thing... I can't believe how the organizers of this site cast judgement as to what is right and wrong. I keep thinking about Lord of the Flies or even Animal Farm. Wasn't this site created with content that was never purchased by this site? Did this organization ever send its own photographers to a shoot? 99% of what I see here is either blatant copyrighted material or slightly modified material. I can see if a model wants to publish her own material as a teaser as acceptable. But the rule of not posting pics or material should apply to all models. Not just the ones that get off their duff to sent a nasty legal letter. I guess its ok to ruin the livelihood of an individual if she's not complaining. She might have creditors and lawyers knocking at her door but lets keep posting.

jbear · « **Reply #46 on:** November 21, 2003, 11:52:24 AM »

Awesome boobs! She's my new favorite.

E_W · « **Reply #47 on:** November 21, 2003, 12:00:29 PM »

Now there's a pic that's begging for morphing.

Palomine · « **Reply #48 on:** November 21, 2003, 01:33:40 PM »

Quote:

Sometimes this place just amazes me. Ah, hello McFly???
The keyword here is "PUBLIC." In the world that I live in, the public is comprised of many types of individuals. There are those that follow the rules, those that push the envelope, and those that cast all rules aside. Its because of this that people create private organizations to control the membership so that members of the organization can concentrate on what the club is about.

And another thing... I can't believe how the organizers of this site cast judgement as to what is right and wrong. I keep thinking about Lord of the Flies or even Animal Farm. Wasn't this site created with content that was never purchased by this site? Did this organization ever send its own photographers to a shoot? 99% of what I see here is either blatant copyrighted material or slightly modified material. I can see if a model wants to publish her own material as a teaser as acceptable. But the rule of not posting pics or material should apply to all models. Not just the ones that get off their duff to sent a nasty legal letter. I guess its ok to ruin the livelihood of an individual if she's not complaining. She might have creditors and lawyers knocking at her door but lets keep posting.

Hello Art,

A few thoughts on your comments:

Images that you consider to be "slightly modified" (i.e.: morphs) in fact do not constitute copyright infringement as they are generally regarded to fall under fair use guidelines.

You should definitely make an effort to examine the site more fully before coming up with your estimate of "99%".... the vast majority of galleries (and images contained therein) in the Member's areas contain morphs, along with fakes, original art and other images that are not simply reposts of unaltered copyrighted material.

With the exclusion of the MG/UG which (within the posted terms of service) is an 'open' area available to both members and the public and does (as a result of this openness) contain unaltered reposts of images that are both copyrighted and in the public domain, image posts elsewhere on the site (galleries or forum) are intentionally structured to serve specific purposes.

As for 'casting judgement' ...the rules here are made by two people: the Owner and the Webmaster. Moderators such as myself are volunteers with no financial interest in this site, and we simply attempt to enforce the policies of this site as determined by the Owner/Webmaster. In enforcing these rules (such as the ban on images of Nadine for example) neither I nor anyone else sits in 'judgement' of people who violate the rules by accident or intentionally. I happen to enjoy looking at images of Nadine as much as the next guy... my objection stems from people knowingly and willfully deciding to violate rules, and thereby placing this site at risk.

If you're simply saying that copyright violations exist in these pages, of course you'll get no argument from me. I spend most of my time as a moderator trying to stem to most egregious instances of this, within the policies set forth. This community has been active for years and years, and I for one would like to see it continue to be around for a long time to come. IMHO, it's only by finding a livable balance between what folks want to post/view and what's legally survivable (for the site) that a sustainable future for the BEA can be achieved. The policies put in place by the Owner and Webmaster are intended to make that possible.

Finally, if you have a suggestion or criticism that you'd like to have heard by those who can and do decide how this site operates (as opposed to just the members and visitors who happen upon this thread) by all means PM Imaginos with your comments. If you feel a policy ought to be changed, and it makes sense to do so, I am sure that he (and the Owner) will give your comments serious consideration.

Thanks for your post.

DrHyde · « **Reply #50 on:** November 22, 2003, 01:35:40 AM »

There's a Yahoo group that floats around that posts full sets of Bettie, Nadine, etc. in the XDrive storage site and regularly posts some pictures in the message board. Well, that's where I got mine anyway.

rtpoe · « **Reply #51 on:** November 22, 2003, 10:36:23 PM »

Jeez! $13 (US) per month for *both* Bettie and Nadine's sites is the best damn buy for big boob lovers on the entire Internet and there are still cheap bastards who pirate the stuff??

Must sic Sadistyk and HeavyMetal on them...

rtpoe

Offline · « **Reply #52 on:** November 23, 2003, 07:38:23 PM »

So where do the images come from that are modified? Are the rights for these images bought by the artists that modify them? I am talking about the rights to use use the photos for other than their own personal viewing. I'd say probably not, since most publications are not going to sell the rights of their contents at a cheap price. Are these photos then stolen property?

Also, according to copyright law the following provisions are prohibited in regards to an artist's work:
(a)Intentional distortion, **13**, other modification of work that would be prejudicial to artist's honor or reputation
(b) Destruction of work of recognized stature
(c) Use of author's name on work not created by author
(d) Use of author's name on work created by author, but modified in such a way that would be prejudicial to artist's honor or reputation

If someone performs a bad "morph" of a photo could this be interpreted as making the original artist look bad. The right lawyer might be able to make this case and win. Especially when an organization uses these photos to receive compensation. I don't know about you, but if you steal a car and then paint it another color, that doesn't negate the fact that the car was stolen in the first place. The car is still stolen property and anyone attempting to buy this car knowing that it did not become the seller's property through a legal means is in fact guilty of receiving stolen property.

sheber · « **Reply #53 on:** November 24, 2003, 03:08:41 AM »

Please refer to any one of the previous threads on copyright available through the search link at the top of forum.

Vandelet Industries?

3pyon · « **Reply #54 on:** November 25, 2003, 12:45:08 AM »

Vandalay!
SAY VANDALAY!!!

sheber · « **Reply #55 on:** November 25, 2003, 12:53:11 AM »

And you want to be my latex man......

murphyo2003 · « **Reply #56 on:** November 29, 2003, 06:44:39 PM »

Has Milena got a yahoo group yet ?

Also is cinema juggs still going ?

Craig_Mercer · « **Reply #57 on:** December 01, 2003, 10:17:59 AM »

Hey, it's December innit? That means that any minute know Bettie Balhaus will unveil her latest discovery/guestgirl I-cupper Milena, any idea when Bettie updates her site?

murphyo2003 · « **Reply #58 on:** December 01, 2003, 10:23:55 AM »

Does Milena have her own yahoo sit yet?

Also whats happened to cinema juggs?

bigtitfan · « **Reply #59 on:** December 01, 2003, 12:16:23 PM »

Hi,
it has been anncouned on bettie-b.de that Milena will be posted tomorrow (Dec. 2nd). Can't wait to see her ;-)))

Greez bigtitfan

Re: Milena Velba (non-Daktari pix, etc...) MERGED