WNBR 2018

[BURRUS]

Originally Posted by yeyeyd

Hi do you have anymore of the oasis redhead girl? thanks

is this girl?

[dixler]

Great pictures, guys. Thanks for all your work compiling them into this thread. I think it is clear from these pictures that pubic hair is coming back into style. Thankfully!

[flanker7]

Originally Posted by dixler

I think it is clear from these pictures that pubic hair is coming back into style. Thankfully!

Thread derailing in 3, 2, 1...

[kempie]

Originally Posted by staypuftbr

well... from the rules of the forum, if an image has a watermark, it should meu cropped

Quite the opposite - 5. DO NOT post a picture with the watermark edited out in order to circumvent rule #4.

Originally Posted by staypuftbr

many times i've posted pictures with the original filename from instagram or flickr, they were deleted, so I can only assume that the moderation doesn't like to let a track of the origin of the picture.

Never assume. Unless the reason for removal is given look to the Rules for guidance.
6. DO NOT post or request any copyrighted material without the consent of the owner.
Any and all copyrighted pictures posted without the owners permission may be removed. Identification and removal may depend upon a complaint being raised. If such a complaint is raised it is correct for removal to occur. Seeking to disguise a copyright picture so that such a complaint is likely to be avoided just adds a level of deceit to the copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by staypuftbr

Talking about the Copyright of a simple picture taken on the street is also complex, we are not talking about a book or a song, we are talking about a single click, if its on the web

Not complex at all. Copyright automatically exists upon creation of the image and remains unless relinquished or limited by the owner. That is no different to a book or a song (which is also available at a single click on the web). You may be unaware of the copyright status of many images sourced on the web but beneath each Flickr image you altered and posted was clearly printed © All rights reserved.

[fizen]

Originally Posted by BURRUS

is this girl?

great shots gonna look for some more Toronto Vids looks like they did a lot pre ride and post ride.. should be more out there...

[ozjake2]

Originally Posted by staypuftbr

well... from the rules of the forum, if an image has a watermark, it should meu cropped, and many times i've posted pictures with the original filename from instagram or flickr, they were deleted, so I can only assume that the moderation doesn't like to let a track of the origin of the picture.
Talking about the Copyright of a simple picture taken on the street is also complex, we are not talking about a book or a song, we are talking about a single click, if its on the web, you have not control about it at all, it will simple be shared, and changed, years and years after your death.
About cursing the girls I agree, even when they are not gorgeous, I apreciate their courage and detachment

Copyright is not complex. If a pic has been declared subject to copyright, any breach of this is a breach of copyright. Simple. Its not just books and songs that are subject to copyright. Images are as well. This site is starting to understand this as are other users. But breach copyright at your own peril, because this site has a clear understanding of its legal liabilities. Breach copyright, my friend and you are on your own. Just try the “its complex” argument before a judge when you are being sued.

[staypuftbr]

first- it is complex because we are not talking about selling someone else's picture, we are sharing pictures that are not even on paid sites. pictures will always surf on the web, if not here, somewhere else, whatsapp groups... i dont know. this is simple uncontrollable

second- i'm sure you cannot take a picture of a girl on a beach and exploit it commercially without the girl's autorization, so this "copyright" is not entirely yours. If someone uses a picture on a commercial banner, it is easier the guy to be sued by the girl than by the photographer, because is her IMAGE that are being used incorrectly, and this is way more serious than the copyright of the photographer being breached

[nacko2]

Watermarked album on flickr here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/papa_r...45981831/page1

Photographs of excellent quality if a little small; still rather that than out of focus pics of riders with sharp images of buildings behind.

[nacko2]

1. Copyright is complicated. Remember that contributors to this thread have, over the last three weeks, posted photographs from the UK, Belgium and the USA. All have different copyright laws. They may be similar but they will not be the same.
2. Simply claiming copyright cannot protect something which is not copyrighted. However to be clear taking a photograph is a creative act and the photograph will be capable of protection even if it is a picture of the Statue of Liberty or the Tower of London.
3. There would appear to be some confusion between copyright and privacy. Again privacy is a minefield across jurisdictions but generally speaking someone in a public place has no right to privacy. Someone riding naked around Brighton can hardly claim an expectation of privacy so my photographs, for instance, are safe from that issue.

[kempie]

Originally Posted by staypuftbr

first- it is complex because we are not talking about selling someone else's picture

Copyright is not contingent upon commercial usage. It automatically exists upon creation of the image and gives the owner/s exclusive rights in regard of consent for reproduction, adaptation, etc. unless they disclaim or limit such rights and until copyright expires.
Copyright under the Berne Convention must be automatic (it is prohibited to require formal registration) and sets a minimum term of 25 years from the year the photograph was created (countries party to the Convention may set longer terms). If by some stretch posting in this forum fell into "fair use" or the various "fair dealing" provisions such as private study, teaching, research, criticism, review, or news reporting, most jurisdictions would expect an acknowledgement of the original work.

Originally Posted by staypuftbr

second- i'm sure you cannot take a picture of a girl on a beach and exploit it commercially without the girl's autorization, so this "copyright" is not entirely yours.

Copyright and personality rights are not the same thing and unless you are receiving payment to publish on this site I fail to see why you again explicitly reference commercial usage.


Posters can unwittingly post copyright material without owner consent and may choose to knowingly post copyright material without owner consent (even going so far as disguising the material to avoid detection) but we/they certainly have no right to cry foul if said copyright material is subsequently removed.