Couple things 1. yes she does own ALL copywrite to her image. Photos taken by another person when at an event do not nessisarily confer copywrite to the person taking the photo.
According to law, it does if she was in a public venue, or the venue she was in allowed the public to take pictures, and she was clearly visible in those areas that pictures could be taken in.
You have no expectation of privacy from photography in a public setting, where you're presence and actions are clearly viewable by the public.
Also, if someone paid her money to take the picture. In that event she has sold the copyright to the person who paid to take the picture.
2 yes she infact can request that she be not discussed here 1 per precident for several ladies out there that we dont post or discuss, 2 as the server is in IIRC California and the LLC that runs the place is in california it has to comply with california law. Which allows exactly that. (right to be forgotten laws on the internet the prototype is the GDRP laws in Germany but california and several other states have similar law)
She can request that she not be discussed here, but there is no legal obligation for this site to comply, in California or any other jurisdiction. The laws you cite do not apply to those who are public figures. Entertainers, politicians, etc. Ms. Charms chose to make her career in the public eye. This is why the media can continue to discuss Celebs, long after they may wish to disappear, as long as they are not publishing libelous material about them.
Their activities and existence is considered part of the public domain, because they themselves put it there to make a living. Therefor, the public has a write to discuss, and publish such regardless of the person liking it or not.
3 Her life her rules not our business
Her "rules" as you put it, only legally extend so far. What she requested crossed the line of what she can reasonably, legally expect.
4 She doesnt owe anybody anything (see rule 2)
I'm not saying she does, but as I have explained, she doesn't actually own anything you cited in your rule 2.
Just because she is a model that we all like to look at, does not and should not give her, or anyone, the excuse to step all over other's rights. She doesn't owe her public anything, but her public doesn't owe her anything either. It has been a mutual business relationship. One that has served her quite well over the years.
5 keep the Speculation to yourselves if she wants to discuss it she can do so through channels that are open to her.
As I was not speculating on her life, I will not address this comment.
6 you guys acting like this are why these ladies DONT stick around her you either get drooly weird or stalker fucking creepy.
7 After 21 years of not being able to hide, not knowing if someone likes you for you or for your figure, (as some of you guys have money ask yourselves does the chick like you for money or your wallet? shes got the same deal you do her issue was physical rather than financial but can you see how corrupting that might be to relationships?
8 and yea A LOT of the ladies that we have been passionate about DO want to go back into civilian life without us drooling neanderthals following them around
Remember what happened to Chrystal Gunns? She retired and went on to be a normal everyday person. But her previous career bit her on the ass a few times Including getting her fired from a job as a lunch lady. https://www.foxnews.com/story/school-pressured-to-fire-lunch-lady-former-porn-star
so seriously guys stop being salty, grow up just a little bit, and hell i dunno maybe offer some help cause it sounds like she needs it. Yall are acting like someone took away your favorite toy and while yes that might be the case your grown ass men. act like it
I will lump all of this together. The human tendency to discuss and speculate on a sudden change in attitude, or circumstance of a person of interest, in the absence of information, is completely natural and occurs often in everybody's life. I have yet to see any speculation here that has Maligned Ms. Charms.
Further I am simply pointing out that her request was not only unreasonable, for a person who has made an entire career and a substantial amount of income from being a public figure, but it also had no basis in law.
This is no different then if Jennifer Aniston suddenly deciding to leave the public eye all together, and then demand that not only every news paper and media outlet not talk about and discuss her anymore, but to also demand that every picture ever taken of her walking down the street in public, or at events where pictures were allowed to be freely taken, be removed from all media sites forever.
She could not legally make such a demand.
Ms. Charms is no different. She does not own this site, and she did not own that thread, and although she may have owned some of its content, she didn't own all of it. Now this site can do what it wants. And if it decides to honor her request, no matter how unreasonable it may be, that is their choice, but this site must also weigh the consequences of alienating members who's pictures, the members owned copyrights to, were deleted when no rules were broken.
I don't even think Ms. Charms is that guilty. She likely didn't know exactly what was in the thread, and probably just wanted her copywritten pictures removed, but didn't make that exactly clear. The site made the biggest mistake by simply doing a slash and burn without looking at what exactly they were deleting. So the guilt is probably 70% this site, 30% Ms. Charms.