What is the difference?

[someoneelse37]

I posted here a little while back in the non-tickling section, some pics of girls that I know. Not to say that I'm friends with them or anything, they are just random pics of these girls that I have met before. People kept asking if they knew they were on the site. I lied and said yes and I'm sorry for that. I would especially like to apoligize to MistressValerie for lying to her. I didn't post any of their last names, I just posted the pics and there first names. I also included their shoe sizes if I knew what they were and if I knew anything about them being ticklish I posted that too. I took them all down because everyone kept giving me crap and I started to feel bad. My question is what is wrong with me doing that? I only ask this because people post "Mainstream" pics all the time, and no one says anything. I'm doing the same thing except the fact that I'm doing a little more to stimulate the imagination of anyone who reads the post. My pont is I'd like to re-post, I just don't know how I feel about it, or how anyone else feels. Please leave me some feedback so I can decide on how to proceed.

 

[Canadian Ninja1]

The difference is that mainstream would be pictures from movies, TV, what have you. You'll notice that the amateur stuff, unless that person wants to disclose it, there's no personal information. No first name, no last name, no shoe size, nothing.

 

[someoneelse37]

Understood, but a lot of mainstream pics are from MySpace and other on-line photo sites. No one says anything about those girls who have no idea they're on here either. Thats what I meant by mainstream.

 

[Canadian Ninja1]

They willingly put up the material.

 

[someoneelse37]

not to mention the fact that if I wasen't being honest about the info I post, I could have made everything up that I wrote. No one would even know the difference.

 

[someoneelse37]

they don't willingly put up the material on this site. And thats where I get them from. The same places I named.

 

[Canadian Ninja1]

Just to humor you, I checked some of these mainstream Myspace etc. pictures.

I don't see any personal information.

 

[someoneelse37]

I didn't say there was any. My question is what makes the information (real or not) the deciding factor in wether it is ok or not to post them. The bottom line is the girls don't know they are on this site.

 

[someoneelse37]

And when I say they don't know they are on this site, that goes for all those posts, not just mine.

 

[Canadian Ninja1]

This is my last post. Flounder in disbelief and try to prove me wrong by saying 'you don't know it's real!' but I won't bother myself with this any longer.

Don't post personal information. Don't post real personal information. Don't post fake personal information. If you really can't understand why you're not supposed to do this, I really pity you.

 

[someoneelse37]

Ok thats fine. But just to be clear you're saying its ok to post girls without their consent (which is obviously wrong in the first place), but not ok to write info about them? Just making sure making sure I'm allowed to do one immoral thing but not another.

 

[Betchass1]

On one hand, the difference is obvious: models and celebrities make themselves public figures, and live off of people wanting to see/know about them, and individuals you know don't and don't.

On the other hand, there is no difference: the pictures people trade online of celebrities/models are mostly copyrighted, and posted in violation of "law", so they don't want their pics here any more than your friends.

I tend towards the first. The idea of copyright is destined to fade into irrelevance.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Private citizens are entitled to a greater right of privacy than celebrities or other public figures. Generally, posting photos or other personal information of a private citizen without permission in a way that would be offensive to a "reasonable person" could be considered an invasion of privacy.

As far as I know, interactive forums like this are treated as ISPs and are thus somewhat insulated from liability for members' postings, but we would still be required to remove the offending photos and personal information upon being notified, and, if there were legal action (very rare in practice), to hand over the account information of the member who posted it.

 

[someoneelse37]

I understand all points that are being brought up. But what I was asking was about pics from Myspace and other picture websites. Celebrities need not be included in this conversation. Because I see a lot of pics of random girls on these forums so my question is, Is that not wrong?

 

[MistressValerie1]

If someone posts their own pics on Myspace or other sharing sites, without password protection or restrictions on viewing, they probably understand that said photos will be downloaded and reposted all over the Web. In such a case, I think that it would be difficult for them to claim invasion of privacy since they chose to share the images freely with the general public. Of course, you would still need a model release to use the images commercially.

 

[someoneelse37]

Well that is where I get the pics from. So to me it doesn't seem wrong, since everyone else does it. I'm just trying to figure out where the line is so I or anyone else can avoid crossing it.

 

[MistressValerie1]

I think it's OK to post publicly displayed amateur pics from Webshots, MySpace, etc., as long as the models do not appear to be underaged and you credit them as webfinds.

 

[someoneelse37]

Thank you MistressValerie. That is where I get them from, so I will label them as such from now on. Now I have to ask, lets say for example the picture I post is of a girl named Bridget. If taken from her Myspace or webshots, most usually they would say her name on them such as "Bridgets album" or things of that nature. Wouldn't that be ok to post the name since it is public knowledge as well?

 

[Journia]

Long debate coming up, droppinbg ender right here.



YUou don't have to care about them.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Thank you MistressValerie. That is where I get them from, so I will label them as such from now on. Now I have to ask, lets say for example the picture I post is of a girl named Bridget. If taken from her Myspace or webshots, most usually they would say her name on them such as "Bridgets album" or things of that nature. Wouldn't that be ok to post the name since it is public knowledge as well?

No problem. Posting the first name is fine if it's listed on the profile, but I would never post a last name or any other identifying information, even if the person were foolish enough to put it on her profile.

 

[P[a]pi]

I still think it's wrong to take pics from myspace, webshots, or any non-fetish place and post them on a fetish forum. I'm not saying it's illegal. I just think it's morally wrong.

Stuff from TV or movies is different to me because they were paid and actresses are expected to have male fans (aka guys who they think they are hot, ticklish, have nice feet, etc.).

But that's just me...

 

[Kittamaru1]

I'll give a good example of this, and something that resulted in a morally decent (as far as I knew) site being taken down.

There was a site used for up and coming child actors and models- it was completely clean, except they did a lot of barefoot and bathing suit modeling. Apparently it was found out that some of their members to the site weren't using it as a means of hiring children for tv shows and commercials, but rather as a source of pleasure.

The site in question was Pinderloy. I must say they had some talented kids on there, ranging from 5 to 25 years old and it is a shame that the less pleasent people in society can ruin something for everyone. the kids really seemed to enjoy posing and acting and dressing up for the cameras (hey, at that age who didn't love being the center of attention?) but ultimately a few bad apples shut them down.

 

[someoneelse37]

I totally agree with you Kittamaru. Thats not right all. I do however think that example is a little extreme, so were kind of talking apples and oranges here.