Quote:
Originally Posted by maxdelmax
So I guess I'm unclear on a couple of the rules around here - are porn stars ok if they are posted in a non-porn way? Take this post for example
: pics 1 and 5 are easy to find porn-stars (Proxy Paige and some Russian pretend-amateur. But the pics posted don't seem porny. Here's another easy to find example: pic 2 in this post is porn-star Crystina Rossi.
Also, what about the NIP models that are clearly being photographed and videotaped by sites like NIP-Activity, NudeinSF and other NIP sites? They typically walk around the city naked - there often are no watermarks - but they are clearly professional models (made to look amateur) being professionally shot. Probably the only real aspect are some of the reactions of the public around them. Take this post: Pic 1 is Jenni from NudesInSF; pic 2 is yanna from hegre; Pic 3 is clearly from some staged NIP photoshoot; pic 4 is Gwen from nude-in-public; and pic 5 has been floating around forever and it's been claimed by both voyeurweb and shesfreaky
thanks |
Almost all the NIP pictures from pro studios were watermarked at one time or another. I believe we should deem them to be copyrighted material, and therefore a violation.
Pro porn models are just that, and borderline celebrities. Consider them off limits. If the mods would have to review every picture of a porn star on a case-by-case basis, we'd need another few dozen mods.
I think since there is such a proliferation of cropped watermarks, pros, and porn stars, I think everyone who no longer wants a pure amateur site should PM Alex and have him change the rules so we can look like every other "post what you want" site.