Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSquealer
Look you annoying cunt... You make a case for taking down a photo or a video (you used the singular) because you have no real clue whats being discussed or what the problem actually is. It's a constant problem for anyone that produces content. It's not about single images. Its about content sets that are sold and resold, uploaded to tube sites, used in promotion materials, leased to other companies, used in members areas which people paid to see and so on. There is no "take down the image".
It's not as simple as accepting your totally credible premise that lawyers are douchebags and just taking them down because "time is money" as you have no fucking clue how expensive it can get and what the actual costs are... not to mention the fact that its almost always impossible to remove the content from the web as it ends up scattered all over the place, making it a moot point and impossibility - just so the douche lawyer who finally got a skank to suck his cock and wants to defend the new love of his life's honor and get her 100 man, triple penetration gangbang taken offline forever so he can take her home to meet mom is way out of line. This is why many producers have a clause allowing the model to buy the content back and its made clear that whats online is always going to stay online no matter what.
But wow.. thanks for stating the obvious and letting people know they need to weigh the costs as a followup. I'm sure no one has ever thought of that without your crayon illustrations. Thats fucking brilliant advice to follow up your blanket advice that has no bearing on the reality of the problem, its scope and the actual costs involved - which makes your advice not only irrelevant but indescribably shitty.
|
Dude, you do realize that the OP said, "he's an affiliate" and he is going to take the images down. So in other words, I think its fair to assume that the OP isn't Steve Hirsh at Vivid who received a letter from Sunny Leone's legal counsel and consequently he has to decide whether to spend a gazillioin dollars to remove her image from DVDs, websites, marketing materials, DVDs, Blu-Ray, etc.? Perhaps reading comprehension and context isn't your strongest trait, but Jesus dude, get over yourself. It seems like you are the one giving shitty advice, i.e., Rowan the affiliate should cringe at the prospect of losing millions of dollars due to taking down an image which, SURPRISE, he already said he would take down (hope he recovers from the millions of dollars lost and countless man hours lost)
Or maybe he just takes the image down (on the sites he controls--which apparently he has done or intends to do), calls/email the provider, and has a cup of coffee. But I guess that just makes too much sense.