[F_Cup_Fitzgerald]

Quote:
Some threads can go on and on... Nadine's webmaster does not want Nadine's pictures here, the webmaster and moderators of the BEA do not want the pictures here. Topic closed.

Well, not exactly. We can still TALK about her all we want. Pardon me, but I'm thinking about her breasts right NNNNNOOOWWW!!!

I don't like being Napsterized any more than the next pervert, but what can you do?

By the way, Nadine, Inc. should really think twice about suing anyone, regardless of the righteousness of the lawsuit. There are as many lawyers that frequent THIS site as Nadine's. That means just as many willing to defend as to prosecute.

Palomine and Imaginos can do what they want,  it's their site. But they should extend a polite reminder to Nadine's people that ONE picture, every so often, is just good publicity for Nadine's site. The smart heroin dealer gives the first shot away for free.    

[Palomine]

Quote:

By the way, Nadine, Inc. should really think twice about suing anyone, regardless of the righteousness of the lawsuit. There are as many lawyers that frequent THIS site as Nadine's. That means just as many willing to defend as to prosecute.  

Are you volunteering your services, pro-bono? If so, you might drop Imaginos a PM for future reference (actually, I AM half serious about this). In this case, a lawsuit wasn't explicity "threatened" as far as I know... a cease-and-desist letter was sent... the consequences of not complying with such a request are implied.

Quote:
Palomine and Imaginos can do what they want,  it's their site.  

It's certainly not "MY site" ...though sometimes I think a little piece of it ought to be given how much time I spend here! Of course, using that logic, Munchwolf would be the shareholder with 97% ownership! Though I'm not privy to the details, I don't think that the BEA is actually Imaginos' site either (though maybe a bit?).... as far as I know, this site is still owned by it's Owner, who ran it before Imaginos took over the job of webmaster.

Quote:
But they should extend a polite reminder to Nadine's people that ONE picture, every so often, is just good publicity for Nadine's site. The smart heroin dealer gives the first shot away for free.    

No doubt, copyright holders (including Nadine's webmaster/photographer) have heard this argument ("letting others/our site infringe on your copyright a little bit is simply free publicity for you and thus, makes good business sense") many times... he doesn't need to hear it again from anyone here, I'm sure. Though I understand the analogy, and agree that Nadine herself is rare and special and probably somewhat addictive in the best sense of the word, I seriously doubt that Nadine or her rep would consider their product to be equivalent to heroin or themselves to drug dealers... but I get your point.

...and speaking of spending so much time here, I'm gonna get offline for a few hours and go put a coat of paint on my deck... those UV rays really take their toll on painted surfaces.

[RandomX]

Let me sum this up and we can all end the bickering! (yeah right)

Some people posted too many pictures of her. Her webmaster complained. Since its HER body and HER pictures, we have no right taking them. The people who posted too much of her ruined it for everyone else. End of story.

*sniffles* I want my Nadine...the ban on her is making me irritable.

[tndvrs]

Message understood, I'll wait................  

[The Warlock]

This is a privately owned website.  The owner and/or webmaster can allow or disallow anything they want here.  Your first amendment rights do not enter into it.

Besides that, your first amendment rights do not allow for the appropriation and alteration of someone else's property.  Ever.

We should be glad for the models that don't mind us posting their pictures.

Sorry to bring this subject back up, Palomine, but people justifying theft as one of their 'rights' really pisses me off.

The Warlock  

[Omega_Morph]

 

Quote:
This is a privately owned website. The owner and/or webmaster can allow or disallow anything they want here. Your first amendment rights do not enter into it.  

Right, just like a movie theater can expel you for speaking during a movie.

 

Quote:
 Besides that, your first amendment rights do not allow for the appropriation and alteration of someone else's property. Ever.

Wrong, sort of. Creating exact duplicates without any alteration IS a violation. The Fair Use clause states  "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright." Morphs and other derivitive works could considered a form of comment upon the original work and thereby protected by copyright law themselves.

[geoffk]

What you are saying is true, but what constitutes a "fair use" is a fuzzy issue.  If the copyright owner doesn't think it's fair--even if he's wrong--then he can still sue you for it, and defending yourself could be almost as expensive as losing.

That's why a "no posting, even if it's a fair use" policy may be necessary, given that there's a potential legal threat.  I assume you don't plan to indemnify the BEA on behalf of morphers...

 

[Omega_Morph]

 

Quote:
If the copyright owner doesn't think it's fair--even if he's wrong--then he can still sue you for it, and defending yourself could be almost as expensive as losing.  

Oh, absolutely true. I agree that a copyright holder has the right to sue. All I'm saying is morphs may not be "theft" as defined in copyright law. I'm taking issue with Warlock's "zero tolerance" approach that any alteration is "theft."

 

Quote:
That's why a "no posting, even if it's a fair use" policy may be necessary, given that there's a potential legal threat. I assume you don't plan to indemnify the BEA on behalf of morphers...

I agree. I'm simply arguing the larger points of the law, not this specific case. Nadine, and her webmaster, have excercised thier absolute right to stop us from using her images.

  Besides that I don't find Nadine particularly attractive. One of my requisites for morphing is that I must find the subject appealing in the first place.  

[geoffk]

Ok, you should realize, though, that "fair Use" and "derivative works" are two separate legal issues.  "Fair Use" says "You can make an exact infringing copy, as long as it's limited in scope and for an allowable purpose", for example, copying a page from a book at the library.  "Derivative work" says "Your original creation is similar or derived in some way from this other copyrighted work.  Is it close enough to be infringing?"  For example, I can write a novel about an English spy, but I can't call him James Bond, 007.  How close two works have to be to infringe is very hard to say, and basically is up to a judge.  In some cases, even the general "look and feel" of something may be enough for an infringement (eg. HR Pufinstuff vs. McDonaldland).  There are also legal exceptions for parody works, but I'm not sure if a morph would qualify or not.

The one thing that you can definitely say about copyright law is that there are very few absolutes.
 

[Omega_Morph]

 

Quote:
There are also legal exceptions for parody works, but I'm not sure if a morph would qualify or not.

I'm saying, yes, I believe Morphs are protected as parody or commentary. Having said that, the copyright holder still has the right to sue if they think the work infringed upon thier copyright. Then it's up to the justice system.

Quote:
 The one thing that you can definitely say about copyright law is that there are very few absolutes.

Just the absolute right of the copyright holder to persue legal action if they feel their copyright has been violated.
 

[tndvrs]

Wouw............... thats heavy reading material for a guy like me..........    but I think I got it..........

 

[MrHHH]

Out of curiosity, has any members of Nadines site written to them about this?

Any of the morphers that have their works on her site, have you asked to take those down?
 

[Palomine]

Quote:

Any of the morphers that have their works on her site, have you asked to take those down?
   

Morphers here HAVE asked about their Nadine morphs, present and future. Right now, Imaginos is looking into the issue of whether the BEA will have to remove existing Nadine morphs from galleries, or not, etc...

For the time being, I'd simply suggest that artists leave their existing Nadine morphs alone (ie: in their galleries) and that they pause from creating any new additional Nadine morphs until Imaginos lets us know the details. Of course, if an artist prefers to remove his Nadine-based-artworks, that's his/her own perogative of course.

As soon as we get a clarification re: Nadine morphs, it'll be posted for all to see.

[Palomine]

I have "un-deleted" this thread since it serves to advertise the new policy regarding no-posting-of-Nadine-pix here. As mentioned in the pinned thread on this policy: http://forum.bearchive.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB1&Number=126953&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1#Post127806 ...we are in the process of determining the status of Nadine-based-morphs. If anyone feels the need to do so, they are more than welcome to discuss this policy or the more generalized ramifications of copyright law, fair-use exceptions, etc.... in this thread, the pinned thread or any other appropriate place.

[Hothitter]

For a non-lawyer, geoffk, you do pretty well.  As much as we boob lovers are compelled to think with our dicks on this issue, the courts don’t.  “Fair Use,” as a legal term of art, is a moving target.  Lawyers on either side will disagree, and will do so in court.  By the time the court renders a decision (regardless of what it is), the BEA could be broke, shut down and forever history.

The only thing I would add is that, while it is true that the first amendment is mostly irrelevant to the morphing issue, defamation may not be.  Though most parody is safe, if the alteration or secondary use of an image is deemed libelous by the subject of the image, costly legal proceedings could follow.  It’s a treacherous world out there.