GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

HQ · 04-02-2001, 09:08 PM

Gemini,
this is what i thought. if you have a pic on a site that makes you money, even though the pic isn't a part of what you are selling, then it's still considered profit because of association. and using a pic you do not own for profit is bad.

aprilkorova,
i said that Lin Milano sounds like a bitch, i didn't say she was one. (big difference huh?) although i believe everything Pete Dogg says, i also understand Lin Milano's point of view too. she's within legal rights to be the bitch that she might be. i find it odd that Lin Milano would do things that would hurt her clients. i could almost compare her to the music industry sueing mp3.com for selling more music. so what if they were putting their own copy of the already-sold song on my.mp3.com instead of the purchased version. it's the same thing in the end, and they're selling more music, so what's the problem? see my point? if a fan site is promoting a client in a manner that is beneficial for the client, then why shut them down? apparantly Lin believes if you are making $2/day off of it then it's no longer beneficial...? do you think? it's too bad common sense is overridden by law sometimes.

of coures, you can always take it to the other extreme. i do not agree with defamation in the least. britney has every right to sue sites and tabloids that do this. i agree with 'promoting' a celebrity, not disgracing them.

Pete Dogg,
you make a good point about your cousin's pic of Lopez. it's the internet that challenges these points. before the internet, your cousin wouldn't have the extremely easy ability to publish such pictures. we are all publishers now. we have the power to show off to the world whatever it is that we get our hands on. it's too easy really. i don't know if we should be allowed to publish any pic we take. we do own the photos, that's for sure. do we own the rights to sell them though? it would seem we do, only if we do not commit defamation i guess

sweetjimmy,
how is france a solution? less strict laws? if i just hosted there would i also be under france's laws?

------------------
HQ

HQ's Daily Nude
http://www.hqdailynude.com/

Traffic Trade?
http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html

Free Content?
http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn

[This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-02-2001).]

04-02-2001, 09:08 PM
HQ Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 3,539	Gemini, this is what i thought. if you have a pic on a site that makes you money, even though the pic isn't a part of what you are selling, then it's still considered profit because of association. and using a pic you do not own for profit is bad. aprilkorova, i said that Lin Milano sounds like a bitch, i didn't say she was one. (big difference huh?) although i believe everything Pete Dogg says, i also understand Lin Milano's point of view too. she's within legal rights to be the bitch that she might be. i find it odd that Lin Milano would do things that would hurt her clients. i could almost compare her to the music industry sueing mp3.com for selling more music. so what if they were putting their own copy of the already-sold song on my.mp3.com instead of the purchased version. it's the same thing in the end, and they're selling more music, so what's the problem? see my point? if a fan site is promoting a client in a manner that is beneficial for the client, then why shut them down? apparantly Lin believes if you are making $2/day off of it then it's no longer beneficial...? do you think? it's too bad common sense is overridden by law sometimes. of coures, you can always take it to the other extreme. i do not agree with defamation in the least. britney has every right to sue sites and tabloids that do this. i agree with 'promoting' a celebrity, not disgracing them. Pete Dogg, you make a good point about your cousin's pic of Lopez. it's the internet that challenges these points. before the internet, your cousin wouldn't have the extremely easy ability to publish such pictures. we are all publishers now. we have the power to show off to the world whatever it is that we get our hands on. it's too easy really. i don't know if we should be allowed to publish any pic we take. we do own the photos, that's for sure. do we own the rights to sell them though? it would seem we do, only if we do not commit defamation i guess sweetjimmy, how is france a solution? less strict laws? if i just hosted there would i also be under france's laws? ------------------ HQ HQ's Daily Nude http://www.hqdailynude.com/ Traffic Trade? http://www.hqdailynude.com/webmasters.html Free Content? http://www.oliver-klozov.com/cgi-bin...i?ref=hqdailyn [This message has been edited by HQ (edited 04-02-2001).]