[GizmoWidget]

Palomine said;

Quote:
No, the rule is now NO NADINE PIX period. I don't yet know if morphs are acceptable due to parody use (as with Score pix) but I think probably not... since we are honoring a request from the copyright holder directly.

I disagree with this.  Posting a morph or some other alteration of a pic of Nadine is a first amendment issue.  In the U.S. that morpher has a constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression of his artistic license.  There is a ton of judicial decision that has already affirmed such.  

Now, if Nadine's webmaster wants to be a dick-shitfuck and threaten the BEA, unfortunately, I doubt the BEA has the resources to defend it's constitutionally and legally confirmed rights.  It's all about money, nothing more.  Nadine and/or her webmaster are being money grubbing dirtbags, nothing more.  But, they have no legal right to stop an artist from engaging in artistic expression.  

I'm just sorry that the BEA isn't in a position to defend those rights.  Like so many other "rights" in our country, it's the amount of money you have that directly determines the amount of "rights" you have.

 

[thcbl]

Whether you agree with it or not, it is the new rule. Deal with it.

I can see the point behind it. Someone posted a whole photo set. For free. Meaning hundreds of people had free access to something that one person paid for.

Is that being money grubbing? No. That is being fair. Having worked in the adult internet business, I have a totally different view than I once did.

The models that are nice enough to get naked for us aren't doing it 'cause they just like being naked - if that were the case, they'd make a free site. They realize that they can make money by showing off their bodies.

Respect the models and follow through with the new ruling.

The BEA is a service that is partly free, which is great. It is not an institution of money that can fight against models wishes just because some members don't agree with it.

Nadines site is so modestly priced it isn't funny.

If you don't like the new rules, don't whine and bitch about it - go somewhere else where they have no morals.

You do bring up a good point about the first amendment and the money issue ... but dude ... it is much easier to agree with a request from a model than argue your point, lose and be sued, therefore losing this lovely site.

You have to know when to pick your battles. This isn't one that needs to be picked. Nadine doesn't NEED to be morphed. So just live with it man.

[Palomine]

Quote:

I disagree with this.  Posting a morph or some other alteration of a pic of Nadine is a first amendment issue.  In the U.S. that morpher has a constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression of his artistic license.  There is a ton of judicial decision that has already affirmed such.

Gizmo, I have to take exception with your thinking here. REGARDLESS of the legality of fair-use appopriation of Nadine images for re-distribution as morphs, if BEA management/ownership decides to prohibit these Nadine morphs as well as regular Nadine images, then THAT'S the policy here. You can discuss it, dislike it, disagree with it, etc... but everyone's gotta abide by it. BESIDES, I said that I wasn't sure about morphs... but until Imaginos says otherwise, it's probably best to play it safe and avoid ALL Nadine pix as her webmaster/photographer requested... that's simply a matter of courtesy to the copyright holder. IF Imaginos or the Owner decide that they only wish to consent to PART of Nadine's request by permitting morphs, that's up to them and they'll say so. Please bear in mind that you and I don't own this site or make the rules here, nor is it a democratic institution... if the ownership decrees one day that no pix of women with blue eyes are allowed, then THAT would be policy... and we'd have to abide by it or take our business and enthusiasm elsewhere. Of course, that's just a hyperbolic example... IMHO this site has managed to get along for years with a happily modest amount of rules.

Quote:
Now, if Nadine's webmaster wants to be a dick-shitfuck and threaten the BEA, unfortunately, I doubt the BEA has the resources to defend it's constitutionally and legally confirmed rights.  It's all about money, nothing more.  Nadine and/or her webmaster are being money grubbing dirtbags, nothing more.  But, they have no legal right to stop an artist from engaging in artistic expression.    

Again, I have to disagree with both your tone and thinking here. Images of Nadine that she owns the copyright to are HER PROPERTY. She (or her representative) are entitled to the benefits of that ownership. Period. Of course they're in it for monetary gain.... and so is every other professional model, actress, dancer, etc... Some MAY also enjoy their work, and a few might do it anyway even if they couldn't get a penny for their work, but ALL have every right to assert ownership of what's theirs. When a copyright holder or even a model/photo subject contacts this site and request that their material be removed, we comply. True, we might not HAVE to comply in every case from a legal standpoint, but generally we do, as it seems the right thing to do. Of course, these issues are considered (not by me or other mods, but by our webmaster and the owner) on a case-by-case basis. BTW, I don't think Imaginos or I or anyone here has said that Nadine's representative THREATENED the BEA... he CONTACTED us and made a REQUEST, as is his right.

Quote:
I'm just sorry that the BEA isn't in a position to defend those rights.  Like so many other "rights" in our country, it's the amount of money you have that directly determines the amount of "rights" you have.

No disagreement that justice is not equally available to all in this country... having money gives you a better chance. However, even if the BEA had infinite resources to engage in litigous tussles with every complaintant, what would be the sense in doing so? There's PLENTY of material out there, and new models and amateurs coming online all the time... so why not just accept that we can't simply do every single thing that some members might like to do (i.e.: freely and openly and massively share as much of any content as they wish) and just move on?

Sure, I'll miss seeing Nadine pix at this site. If I have an unquenchable hankering, I can join her reasonably priced site or look elsewhere... just as anyone else here is capable of doing. Life is too short and time to precious to tilt at every single windmill on the horizon (believe me, I know from experience that this is true)... so, let's just enjoy what we do have and pick our windmills with some discretion, ok?

[GizmoWidget]

Quote:
Whether you agree with it or not, it is the new rule. Deal with it.
...
If you don't like the new rules, don't whine and bitch about it - go somewhere else where they have no morals.

Where did I say that I wasn't willing to deal with it?  Don't put words in my mouth unless you want me to do the same to you...  Also, take your insult about my "morals' and blow it out your crusty, smelly ass.  Maybe your head will come out in the process.  Just because I think that they're being money grubbing doesn't mean that I myself don't have morals...  I'd like you to explain the logical sequence that brought you to that conclusion.  Further, who the hell are you to abridge my first amendment rights by telling me to shut up?  I see from the rest of your post that you fall into the same camp as those who want to abridge first amendment rights when they think that it's preventing someone from making a buck.

Quote:
You do bring up a good point about the first amendment and the money issue ...

You really got me fooled... based on the first parts of your post!!!  So you're being two faced now?

Quote:
it is much easier to agree with a request from a model than argue your point, lose and be sued, therefore losing this lovely site.

Again, where did I say we shouldn't comply with the request?  Again, you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't utter.  Pull it out dude...  

[GizmoWidget]

Palomine said;

Quote:
Gizmo, I have to take exception with your thinking here. REGARDLESS of the legality of fair-use appopriation of Nadine images for re-distribution as morphs, if BEA management/ownership decides to prohibit these Nadine morphs as well as regular Nadine images, then THAT'S the policy here. You can discuss it, dislike it, disagree with it, etc... but everyone's gotta abide by it.

C'mon Palomine... I expected better of you... you've read enough of my posts that I would think you wouldn't fall into the typical knee jerk reaction of attributing attitudes to me that aren't actually stated in my words.  If I have something specific to say, I'll say, I won't just imply it indirectly.  I NEVER SAID I WOULDN'T COMPLY WITH THE POLICY.  I WAS EXPRESSING MY OPINION.

Quote:
I have to disagree with both your tone and thinking here. Images of Nadine that she owns the copyright to are HER PROPERTY. She (or her representative) are entitled to the benefits of that ownership. Period.

Oh Christ... did I say anything of this sort?  NO.  Don't attribute this to me WHEN I DID NOT SAY IT.

Quote:
...but ALL have every right to assert ownership of what's theirs.

Again, did I say this? NO.  Again, DO NOT ATTRIBUTE TO ME WHAT I DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SAY.

Quote:
When a copyright holder or even a model/photo subject contacts this site and request that their material be removed, we comply. True, we might not HAVE to comply in every case from a legal standpoint, but generally we do, as it seems the right thing to do.

Finally... this is what I was saying, nothing more.  Jeez.

Quote:
There's PLENTY of material out there, and new models and amateurs coming online all the time... so why not just accept that we can't simply do every single thing that some members might like to do (i.e.: freely and openly and massively share as much of any content as they wish) and just move on?

Yet again, where did I say I wasn't willing to accept this?  C'mon Palomine... is this misinterpretation of my post all you took away from it?  I would think that you of all people here would be more thoughtful and insightful than to end up doing that.  Okay, sure, maybe I used overly strong language, but the fact of the matter is that even using a few curse words doesn't mean that I said the things you seem to think I did.  As I mentioned earlier, I think you've read enough of my posts and my responses to others that you should know that I say what I mean, and if I don't say it, I don't mean it.  

[thcbl]

Quote:
Where did I say that I wasn't willing to deal with it?  Don't put words in my mouth unless you want me to do the same to you...  Also, take your insult about my "morals' and blow it out your crusty, smelly ass.  Maybe your head will come out in the process.  Just because I think that they're being money grubbing doesn't mean that I myself don't have morals...  I'd like you to explain the logical sequence that brought you to that conclusion.  Further, who the hell are you to abridge my first amendment rights by telling me to shut up?  I see from the rest of your post that you fall into the same camp as those who want to abridge first amendment rights when they think that it's preventing someone from making a buck.

Well ... much to your dismay, I'm not going to ensue a flame war, but I will politely ask you to do the same thing you asked me - don't put words in my mouth and retract the insults - there was no need for it.

No where did I put words in your mouth. I did not say that you were unmoral - I said if you didn't like it, you can go somewhere that doesn't have morals and won't listen to requests from models/webmasters. Of course, the way you choose to read things is up to you ... however, I suggest that you not think that everyone is out to be against you.

So - there is the explanation to the logical sequence of you thinking that they are money grubbing to me thinking you are unmoral - there was no link - you decided to equate that yourself.

Now, I shall ask you ... where did I tell you to shut up? Sure ... in reality, I might have ... but I don't remember doing so. I guess I shall find out when I post this and scroll back up and look. If I did ... oh well ... deal with it. Quit whining. If not, be the man you are supposed to be and humbly apologize for putting words in MY mouth.

As for your precious little first amendment ... I'm Canadian - so I don't believe in those things. I feel that they are only there for people that don't have the brain power to do things for themselves and can't think of something good enough to say themselves, so they wimp out and stick with that ... possibly never understanding what it truly means.

Quote:
You really got me fooled... based on the first parts of your post!!!  So you're being two faced now?

Actually ... you fooled yourself. Good trick man. You chose to interpret my post the wrong way - not my fault. And I'll appriciate you realizing your mistake and retracting that comment too.

Quote:
Again, where did I say we shouldn't comply with the request?  Again, you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't utter.  Pull it out dude...

I would believe you said that with your first statement that said "I totally disagree with this."

See ... to disagree means that you do not follow, which means that you will do opposite. So ... there ya go. That is where you said it.

So, in conclusion, I would say that you should take a look at threads in a neutral attitude and not think that what people are saying is against you. Don't be a hypocrite and whine about people putting words in your mouth or name calling. You did it yourself.

[Adlatus]

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

Adlatus    

[Palomine]

  Gizmo,

I'll spare all of us the extra time/effort by NOT responding individually to each and every part of your response to me.

Let me clarify for you: I did not interpret your words to mean that you didn't intend to abide by the new site policy. Though I was surprised by your tone, and the tone of your following post, I simply took your rather agressive post as an opportunity to explain to ALL (not simply respond directly to you or your post) WHY the policy is as it is, and why IMHO it makes sense.

I *honestly* think that you may be misinterpreting the meaning of what I posted while you are occupied by accusing others (myself included) of doing the same. I say this with NO malice towards you.

When you exclaim that we ought to be able to do something OTHER than what Imaginos has stated is now site policy simply because your reading of copyright law says we can, you CAN'T really be surprised to get folks responding... which is to say: regardless of what anyone thinks re: the legality or necessity of complying with Nadine's request, the policy is what the policy is. If I were to simply not respond at all to what you posted, it's possible that some might perceive my silence after your fair use argument to mean that I agreed with it, or that site policy was not what I had earlier relayed. That would be irresponsible of me as a moderator. Basically,

Imaginos revises site policy (why is his concern)...
I relayed the info when folks started discussing the whys and wherefores of the new policy...
As folks continue to object, I attempt to clarify, illustrate and reinforce...

If you perceived my posts as some kind of knee-jerk response to you... as if you ACTUALLY believed that I thought you were saying you weren't going to follow policy because you didn't have to based on fair use... then you are simply mistaken. Nowhere in anything you've posted have I seen anything that would lead me to think you won't abide by policy. Clearly, you underestimate my ability to discern objection from intent.


GIZMO, IF YOU TAKE NOTHING ELSE FROM THIS POST, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS: WHEN I SAY SOMETHING IN MY POST IT IS NOT NECESSARILY ME ATTRIBUTING THE CONTRARY TO YOU. WHY WOULD YOU THINK THAT IT IS? BY ME RESTATING POLICY I AM NNNN-OOOO-TTTT ATTRIBUTING A N Y T H I N G TO YOU WHATSOEVER!!! I AM SIMPLY RESTATING THE POLICY... NOTHING MORE AND NOTHING LESS.


Again, I'd like everyone to relax a bit if possible re: all this. Despite the bad language I'm not going to lock this thread as I hope that with further dialog we can smooth things out a bit.    

[Sadistyk]

I feel real bad about this whole situation.  As anyone who saw the thread knows, I replied to the thread and thanked him for the pics.  I had no idea he was going to keep posting them(36 in all).  I blame myself for possibly making it seem alright to him.  I want to say that if anyone wants to blame me that I am truly sorry and deeply saddened by the loss of Nadine at the BEA.

[Palomine]

Quote:
I feel real bad about this whole situation.  As anyone who saw the thread knows, I replied to the thread and thanked him for the pics.  I had no idea he was going to keep posting them(36 in all).  I blame myself for possibly making it seem alright to him.  I want to say that if anyone wants to blame me that I am truly sorry and deeply saddened by the loss of Nadine at the BEA.  

Nobody is to blame for anything, not even the original poster of all the Nadine pix... at that time, there wasn't a specific policy forbidding such practices. Folks suggested that it might not be a good idea, but that's not the same thing as a policy.

Likely as not, this would have happened eventually... if not this poster, then someone else would have put up a link, or attached a bunch of pix and THEN Nadine's rep would have sent the same request. Who placed that last straw, or when or why is really not all that important.

I hope that:

A) the folks posting in this thread above can take it easy... lots of groundless stress here it seems to me, and...

B) that enough BEA users/visitors/members will READ the post rules and abide by them so that the 'cease and desist' letters can be fewer and farther between, and so that it won't be necessary to clean up after 'accidental' postings. As I've mentioned elsewhere, ignorance of site policy is not an excuse for violating it, especially when the policy in question is intended specifically to keep this site from being shut down as a result of legal action.

   

[Palomine]

Quote:


My Bad? My BAD? Thanks to you, no one is allowed to post any more Nadine pics here ever again!

Being sorry isn't good enough, you have to fix what you've broken. A good start would be contacting Nadine (or whoever emailed Imaginos) and apologizing.
   

 Look, this probably would have happened eventually... if not as a result of Beer_is_Good's actions, then as a result of someone else's posts... well-intentioned but less-than-well-considered links to other web sites featuring huge collections of Nadine content have been getting posted in the forums fairly regularly. Chances are that one of those, or another forum-thread-as-gallery post would have prompted Nadine's rep to send his cease and desist request.

BiG didn't knowingly violate an explicit site policy... as there was no such policy at the time (forbidding such bulk posts). He/she chose to post a lot of copyrighted images from a single source and then chose to leave the posts up even though some suggested that it might not be such a good idea... that's perhaps poor judgement IMHO, but not an intentional attempt on his/her part to get the BEA in hot water. Thus, there's really not much reason for anyone to direct their wrath towards him/her, nor is there any real reason for anyone here to be angry with Nadine's webmaster... he's well within his rights to make the request he did.

I very much doubt that having BiG get in touch/apologize to Nadine's rep will have any positive effect whatsoever. It certainly isn't likely to prompt her rep to spontaneously reverse his cease and desist request, thereby enabling us to resume posting Nadine's copyrighted material here, if that's what you're thinking when you say "fix". So, let's just live with the new BEA site policy (of NO posts of Nadine content) and move on, OK? What's done is done.    

[geoffk]

Just a quick FYI.  People keep mentioning the First Amendment, and there is no reason to.  The First Amendment says that "GOVERNMENT shall make no rule..."
If George Bush prevents you from posting Nadine on YOUR website, that's a First Amendment issue.  If a private owner prevents you from posting Nidine pix on HIS website, then it's a private matter and totally outside of the First Amendment.  You could argue that all copyright is a First Amendment restriction, and that's probably true from a philosophical standpoint, but it's also a government-granted legal right, and not held to be in conflict as a legal matter.

In short, if you don't like the policy here, go somewhere else or start your own website.  Better yet, join Nadine's--I hear they have lots of pictures of her there.
 

[geoffk]

BTW, I vote for a poll on the next model who gets pissed off at us enoiugh to lock us out:

1. Cristina
2. Chelsea
3. Rio Natsume
4. ??

 

[tndvrs]

Palomine

I am a morpher, I like to make fakes and have a few BE morphs of Nadine in my gallery and a few wallpapers.

Must I delete those?

Is a facefake "a donor head" on the body of Nadine also forbidden ??
Please let me know ...................


 

[Palomine]

Quote:
Palomine

I am a morpher, I like to make fakes and have a few BE morphs of Nadine in my gallery and a few wallpapers.

Must I delete those?

Is a facefake "a donor head" on the body of Nadine also forbidden ??
Please let me know ...................


   

Not only do I know that you are a morpher, you happen to be one of my favorite artists here (as well as forum contibutors). I am waiting to hear from Imaginos re: Nadine morphs.... he hasn't said for sure one way or the other yet, and while I think you might pause a moment before starting any NEW Nadine morphs for posting here, don't immediately pull any older existing ones out of your gallery YET.

Pls PM Imaginos (and I'll do the same again) and let's see what he says. I suspect/hope that we WILL be able to at least leave Nadine BEs posted, but of course it's up to Imaginos and the Owner, not me.