[Morphermor]

one of the best reasons i know supporting the arguement, that you should ask for, and receive permission before altering any image. after all, theft is theft...

MM

[MrHHH]

Quote:
I have "un-deleted" this thread since it serves to advertise the new policy regarding no-posting-of-Nadine-pix here.  

Heh, I was thinking about that when you deleted this thread after going through all the trouble of removing all the pictures from his posts.

Also, to your previous post, maybe apologising to Nadine and asking her nicely will let us be allowed to have morphs of her again. Like the situation we have with Score.
 

[Palomine]

Quote:

Quote:
I have "un-deleted" this thread since it serves to advertise the new policy regarding no-posting-of-Nadine-pix here.  

Heh, I was thinking about that when you deleted this thread after going through all the trouble of removing all the pictures from his posts.

Also, to your previous post, maybe apologising to Nadine and asking her nicely will let us be allowed to have morphs of her again. Like the situation we have with Score.
   

Actually, someone else deleted the thread, I think overlooking the fact that I'd deleted all the pix first. Also, though I personally doubt that apologizing will make any difference whatsoever,anyone is free to do as they wish of course re: that. Personally, I think such negotiations are best left to Imaginos and his counterpart at Nadine's site w/o any extra input/interference from BEA folks, but that's just my opinion.

[Kenard]

Just a couple things...

I agree that the BEA Can ban whatever it likes, Its not a constitutional issue.   This is a private owned venture, not a goverment owned place.

Nadine is great, and her site is a budget value, If you like her, spend the cash for a month. (ten bucks)

ChristinaModel is going to be the next one knocking on the door.  Her webmaster/owners keep watching for Yahoo,MSN,Smartgroups that have her pictures and have them removed on a regular basis.  I would suggest moderation in posting any of her materials.  Most of the ones I see are her free pics, So just post a link to her site and the pic.

As or the Parady issue, To me a Parady is Humorous in some form.  A Sexy Morph isnt nessarily funny, so it might just be considered an alteration, not a parady.

A picture could be posted of Nadine and morphed if it was a tutorial on morphing probably, both morphed and unmorphed and not be a copyright infringment, but its still within the BEAs right to prohibit those images..

just my random thoughts, I stand with the BEA on the Issue  

[The Warlock]

Quote:
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."

The alteration is, technically, theft if said alteration is something the copyright owner did not want to occur.  It's a copyright violation, or in other words, attempted theft of a copyright.

The Colonel is wise in seeking permission.

And while it may be possible that morphs and other alterations could possibly be seen as parody, I think if you are using a photograph for the purpose it was intended (sexual stimulation) if you alter that photograph for use in the same manner as the original, well, that's not parody, that's a violation.

Now, I am not saying my word is law; this is how I see it.  We are and always have been running outlaw in many ways, and many people refuse to accept that.  It bugs me.

The Warlock  

[Morphermor]

Copyright  

[TheZookie007]

...too bad it DID happen, though.

I guess the general rule to follow is: posting one or two pictures is OK, but definitely not hundreds and hundreds. One or two pictures, and a link to the rest, is the best. Otherwise, we stand the risk of pissing off the providers of the content.

The only downside of this restriction, is the inevitable "black market" that will spring up...to your IRC & UseNet tents, O Israel!

[The Warlock]

Thank you, Colonel.  Nice to 'see' you again.  

The Warlock  

[Kowalski]

I'm sure sorry to see my Nadine avatar gone.
That one was a real crowd-pleaser, let me tell you.

[3deroticer]

Okay ,most of us already heard of the verdict about CG altered copyrights as being subjected to the first admendment. A sad outcome nevertheless, A person used a picture of a [censored] [censored] and made a 3d mesh of it and use it for pornagraphy, and was found innocent. However if the whole picture of her was naked and use would be a violation. Recreating a work from a collage of picture for your own art would be protected.

1) I would suggest not ever post original photo on the gallery for others to morph. If your going to post, make it obvious that its been really altered.

2) wouldn't worry about running out of babes for morphing, there this whole asian markets left, and soon after Iraquis gets establish with a free gov't, there's going to be bevy of them hottie left to exploit for BE (I can only hope)  

[tndvrs]

Wouw, I have looked at the page and read it all

Just fucking simple..........

I can morph all there is, BUT never can share it with others
or,  give it away.
I have to keep it hidden from all people.

I can share it, after getting permission from the copywrite holder.

But,
If I write a story and say something like
she had a face like, Britney Spears on the boddy of Dolly Parton, then its free to share it becauze its in my own
writting and its fiction.
Or are those names also protected.........

If a picture paints a thousant words, why can't I make it
visible for everyone to see.............

Greetings

 
   

[geoffk]

Quote:

If I write a story and say something like:
"She had a face like Britney Spears on the body of Dolly Parton" then I'm free to share it becauze its my own writing and its fiction.
Or are those names also protected.........
 

Generally speaking, just a name alone wouldn't be copyrightable.  For example, I can write a novel with a character called "James Bond".  However, that character cannot be a British spy, because then I'm not just using the name, I'm producing a "derivative work" from the original James Bond stories.

For real life, famous people, you are also generally free to use their names as you wish (subject to defamation and libel laws, of course).  However, they have a right to the use of their faces and images for gain.  For example, you couldn't put a photo of Dolly Parton into an ad without getting her permission (and probably paying her), even if you have the copyright to the photo of her that you're using.  This even holds true for dead **28** such as Charlie Chaplan's tramp, Marilyn Monroe, etc.  (their estate or agent will collect the money).
 

[Shimmerin]

If I remember correctly J.R.R.'s son (chris i think) was actually succesful in copyrighting the name Tolkien.  Hmmm let me check into this and get back to you.

[geoffk]

I find it very hard to believe that he could have done this.  For one thing, he didn't even create/write the name "Tolkien"--it's his real name, that he was born with.  Moreover, although it's an unusual name, there must be quite a few other prople (his son, for one)  who also have this same name.  Are they infinging his "copyright" every time they sign a check?

What is more likely is that "Tolkien" was registered as some kind of trademark, for example as a trademark for fantasy fiction.  That would be fairly reasonable and not uncommon ("Ford", "Chrysler" and many other names are registered as trademarks).
   

[3deroticer]

hmm, I remember a case where macdonald (the major franchise) wanted to sue a burger hut that was also name macdonald's but there was nothing they could do because the owner last name was macdonald. So the [censored] who were born with tolkien as there last name do not have to pay for use of their last name. But design and logo can be copyrighted. The former macdonald could not use the golden arches for the logo.