[MrHHH]

Er, I know about being a fan. But posting a webmodel's ENTIRE photoset is a scummy thing to do.

If you like Nadine at all, this thread should be deleted.
 

[F_Cup_Fitzgerald]

Look at #11. I think we've found Nadine's new passport photo:

"Guten abend, Fraulein Jansen! Your papers, please! . . . Ja, your papers zeem to be in order--ACHHHH! MEINE LEIBER GOTT! . . . Uff course, zere vill haff to be ze *ahem* mandatory strip search . . . und *ahem* zee zimulated lesbian material! (turns to another guard) Send in Chloe Vevrier! (back to Nadine) Ve vill require you to perform zeveral acts uff zimulated lesbianism mit Fraulein Vevrier! Ve vill, uff course, haff to take zeveral pictures--for our official records. . . ."

Seriously, I like the casual clothes, and the outdoor setting. With some creative camera angles, and some convincing acting, you could get Nadina and Dana Benn to do a little simulated oral sex. You wouldn't have to have them actually *do* it, just act like it. That's why they get paid to model. I'd like to see some simulated cunnilingus with Dana Benn in next month's set. Nothing like a good sham 69 to take the edge off.  

[kalani]

I'm puzzled by this new use of the forum -- as a gallery.  We've had several "discussions" recently that don't just take advantage of the forum's attachment feature to illustrate a point or announcement but use it to post a long string of pics.

Thank you, Beer_is_Good, for at least linking the pics so that they don't show when this discussion is loaded (waiting for ~30 pics to load just to read a discussion -- aaggghhh!).  But I'm also inclined to agree with MrHHH.  A couple of pics to illustrate Nadine's assets and the reason for your enthusiasm would have been a more respectful use of her [pay]site's material.  Judicious use of model website material might be roughly gauged by whether or not it could potentially boost site revenue as opposed to reducing it -- a problematic rationalization, yes, but better than no thought given the matter at all (but not as good as respecting the model's stated wishes at the website).

Perhaps this run of mini-floods in the forum reflects the greater longevity of photos when attached in the forum as opposed to being posted in the user gallery?  And the ability to post more that five or six at a time?
 

[Palomine]

Images in the forum do stay up longer than UG pix, which slide into the MG and are thus accessible to paying members only. As to whether this is a misuse of the forums I do not know... I don't think we (the site) have a policy about this at present, though perhaps we should.

As for posting links to sets or multiple sets... Like Mr. HHH I also feel that it's not a good idea for a number of reasons. However, this too is currently not explicitly covered by site policy. So, for the time being such posted links will probably remain, even though some members feel that they aren't quite kosher.

Hopefully, both of these issues will be resolved by some sort of consensus in the not-too-distant-future.

[thcbl]

I'll haveta agree. While I appriciate it myself, I would say that posting a few pics from a set is kosher. What you do with the rest after that is up to you ... but ... uh ... my personal hint would be to let us know you have more and we are welcome to PM you for details on how to get it if you get my drift.  

[geoffk]

A lot of these pictures have "ng" in the title.  I think that may have come from Usenet or a public source.  That's not a legal copyright defense (or else every Score pic on Usenet would end up here as well), but it does seem less egregious than copying from her site directly--at least this stuff would have been publicly available before.

There's a lot of great pictures in the Forums, but I have to say that the Forum is somewhat inconvenient to use as a gallery.  Especially compared with the real one.
 

[E_W]

The trouble is that the forum is the only place where  discussing the pics is allowed.  You can't really have a meaningful conversation in the gallery; in fact you're not supposed to.  Linking to the pictures in the gallery from the forum isn't a very good solution for non-members.  

Entire photosets, where the sole purpose is to make pictures from a pay site publicly available, should be kept out of the BEA though.  Disobeying that rule could lead to the BEA being closed down, and you don't want to bring THAT down on us all, do you?  Posting a small number of pics from the photoset for the purpose of a site review, heads-up, or ID inquiry for example would be OK with me, as long as you link to the original source if known, but it isn't my call.  

[geoffk]

Quote:
The trouble is that the forum is the only place where  discussing the pics is allowed.  You can't really have a meaningful conversation in the gallery; in fact you're not supposed to.

Right, but that's what the UG Forum is supposed to be for.  I understand that the forum eliminates the UG restictions on posting limits, picture size and uptime, but these are artificial limits which have been imposed deliberately.  If they aren't wanted, it would be better to just lift them altogether, rather than **77** people to use a backdoor work-around.

On the other hand, I have to agree with what you're saying about posting whole picture sets.  Basically, any copyrighted picture post comes down to fair use.  Regardless of the total Score ban here, posting a single Score pic, especially for the purpose of identifying someone or illustrating a point ("look at how much weight Kelly has gained...") is probably a fair use.  Posting a whole set clearly is not.  This applies just as much to Nadine's, Keisha's or Christina's pictures as it does to Score ones.

Note:  One other point about fair use--if a copyright owner disagrees about what is "fair"--even if he is totally wrong--he can choose to sue you and run up a huge legal bill for your defense.  Even if a court decides that he is, in fact wrong, your legal bills and costs will probably not be recoverable, so you've still been screwed.  Hence, if a copyright owner is a litigious/threatening sort, it may be wise not to exercise rights, even though you actually have them.
   

[Beer_is_Good]

Hey sorry everyone, I never intented to cause a big deal about my post. I've never been flamed before for posting too many pics of a set (on other boards). Like I said I'm new here, so I'm still learning what's ok here. From now on I'll just post a few pics or a set.

My bad.  

[geoffk]

Sorry BiG, I didn't mean to come down hard on you.  Among other things, I'm a lawyer, so my natural tendency is to be conservative and list all of the dire (but unlikely) possibilities.  For whatever it's worth though, many of the original sources of these kind of pictures are lurkers or contributors here, so they have gotten upset in the past.
 

[kalani]

Beer_is_Good, don't feel you're being flamed by everyone.    Most of what I see in this discussion has been even-tempered and in the way of helpful question/suggestion.  Your enthusiasm for our favorite topic is much appreciated and you're certainly no less welcome a participant in the goings-on here at the BEA just because some folks disagree with you from time to time.  It happens to us all.    

[Imaginos]

I have just been contacted by Nadine's Webmaster/Photographer. No Nadine photos or links to her photos are permitted here so please don't post them.

Thank You
Imaginos

[DrHyde]

Yeah, I figured when they posted 100 pictures in a row, their webmaster might get a bit angry.

[Palomine]

Does this apply only to photos OF/THAT INCLUDE Nadine herself with her copyright notice on them, or also to Nadine pix from Bettie's site and elsewhere too? (Nadine's earlier stuff)

Thanks in advance for clarifying so we keep the BEA out of hot water.

[Imaginos]

I am sure its any photos that Nadine owns the copyrite to.

Imaginos