@ Wayne- I'll bet you see it all!
@ Rabbit- My dear, in order to be debriefed, you have to be wearing them. So, I think that would typically present a problem for you. Nonetheless, I'm up for going through the motions ;-)
BT
<p>About a week ago I came across a profile that stated something like, "Warning: I am a represenitive of Sydney University. I am here to conduct studies and research your profiles." It was funny, but I had to flag his profile and make him change it. It was creating a panic. One person saw it and reported it saying, "Oh my God! Sydney University is HERE! Please delete my profile immediately!"</p>
BT- you know I’m always up for a good debriefing from you.
~rabbit~
Rabbit, I can't remember how I twisted it around, but I think if I look for it, I might find it. I'll have you know, the disclaimer on my current profile is also twisted toward humor. Take a look. If you like it, perhaps you'll allow me to ramify you (legally and illegally) in the near future?
BT
I have always been perplexed by what seems to me to be the contradiction in the prosecution under these warnings.
If someone "steals" a non-facial pic of myself or my wife, which is destined to remain anonymous, why would I go public with prosecution to reveal that she or I am the subject shown in that pic??
Secondly, as big as this world is, and as many people as there are in this world, and as many websites as there are on the internet, what are the odds of someone who would recognize us crossing paths with our pics on a certain website.
We have fucked several people, but I doubt that any of those people could identify us solely from a non-facial picture, nor could we identify them. We are typically too busy enjoying the moment to commit "the look" to memory for later recall from a picture.
I don't want to be gullible or naïve, but I also do not want to be overly-paranoid either.
The stupidest thing is that the statutes that are cited have little to nothing to do with the content of the stupid warning. So, yeah, auto no from me, because I have no time for too lazy to do any research.
I used to write a sex blog and it magically appeared on a xxx site. It wasn't so much that I minded the content being on a hardcore site, but they used an id I was still using elsewhere. I contacted the original host and they must have issued an immediate DMCA, because it was gone from the site in less than 24 hours.
TBR- when I was an SF that warning was an instant no from me too. If a profile had it they were too paranoid for me.
When BT first contacted me through his old couple profile LTLogride I was dismayed when I got to the bottom of their profile and saw the warning. Then I started reading it and realized they had twisted it to be funny instead of serious. One of many reasons I’ve fucked BT
Scamp is more forgiving so that stupid urban legend warning is not an automatic no from us.
~rabbit~
@RonKathy, J who was born at Kennestone says, "Toss them in Allatoona!" :) Nice to see someone from back in the old stomping grounds!
@KCsquared, Ms C and I have run a pair of Tumblr blogs featuring original content. We've have to use a DMCA notice a couple of times to an ISP to get content taken down. The average person generally has a hard time fighting a DMCA takedown, which is why the big companies use it so often.
I suspect that most of the "warning messages" are the result of fear of exposure rather than any real experience with copyright violation. Luckily, J is with an organization that prides itself on diversity. Unless you are committing a crime, they don't care with whom you are having sex.
Not on this site but on other sites I have had them take down pictures I took. I took pictures at a dance event. The dance event used my pictures w/o permissions. I would have been flattered and maybe let it slide, but then they started using it to promo merchandise. They wouldn't even give me anything in return, like an event T shirt they were promo'ing for my son. Had that taken down and it didn't take a lawyer.
Don't put anything on the internet you don't want your grandma to see...
If someone posts that on their profile, that is an immediate no for us.
If someone files a DMCA takedown notice with the correct agent, most sites will get the content off the site. And there are a mess of lawyers that will enjoy going after any site that has a deep enough pocket, as the law has some pretty nasty penalties to make it worth their while.
This is the reason so many folks watermark their photos, if they reuse photos from the swing sites on content providers such as Tumblr, etc. Once a watermark is on the photo, it's difficult to claim you didn't know it was owned.
And if the site won't respond in a number of cases, their hosting ISP will. They don't want to deal with the DMCA issue either.
