 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / March 2008Celebs On Steroids - Fun Photo Gallery
Gang, A local radio station in my area has posted an AWESOME photo gallery of what celebrities would look like if they were on steroids. Obviously photoshopped, but funny! You should see Eva Longoria and Calista Flockhart all bulked up! LMAO http://www.idigbig.com/pages/celebsteroids.html Check it out... Chuck > Gang, > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Check it out... ...if you don't mind a site that's trying to install malware on your PC every few seconds.  Signaturedvus > > Gang, > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ...if you don't mind a site that's trying to install malware on your PC > every few seconds. and is incredibly unamusing. >> > Check it out... >> >> ...if you don't mind a site that's trying to install malware on your PC >> every few seconds. > >and is incredibly unamusing. What, the malware? >> Check it out... > > ...if you don't mind a site that's trying to install malware on your > PC every few seconds. Thanks! Fortunately my system is locked down hard enough that all I got was a bunch of warning messages, others might not be so lucky Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg I've not looked, but I'm guessing they are using images stolen from a Worth1000.com contest: http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp?contest_id=18801&display=photoshop > Gang, > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Chuck >I've not looked, but I'm guessing they are using images stolen from a >Worth1000.com contest: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> Chuck You didn't even look at it. And you are to stupid to realize how arrogant you are. What a pity.. Now I HAVE looked at it... and I'm arrogant enought to realise I was right. They have lifted images from the Worth1000 contest I mentioned and used them without seeking permission or crediting them. >>I've not looked, but I'm guessing they are using images stolen from a >>Worth1000.com contest: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You didn't even look at it. And you are to stupid to realize how > arrogant you are. What a pity.. >Now I HAVE looked at it... and I'm arrogant enought to realise I was right. >They have lifted images from the Worth1000 contest I mentioned and used them [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> You didn't even look at it. And you are to stupid to realize how >> arrogant you are. What a pity.. If you looked at it, and confirmed they were lifted from someone else's web site, you are completely right to criticize it. I only complained about your guessing (even if you were right), but now you can state it. Because you have seen it. I looked at the first few, ant it is boring. >Now I HAVE looked at it... and I'm arrogant enought to realise I was right. >They have lifted images from the Worth1000 contest I mentioned and used them >without seeking permission or crediting them. Who should be credited and whose permission needs to be sought? The copyright owners of the original images? The people who probably stole the images without permission and pasted them together to zero artistic, or other, merit? Or the site, Worth1000, that hosts the probably stolen and used-without-permission images, pastes its own URL across them and otherwise tries to profit from them? Worth1000: Yet more proof that Web 2.0 = reinterpreting the word "Share" to mean trying to profit from other people's stolen material and hard word, while claiming no responsibility under the DMCA. Btw, as I will post to any TPF: Are you confident that you appear to be professional in your electronic communication? Consider this: A: No Q: Can I top post? Are you arrogant enough to continue posting like a lazy moron? >>>I've not looked, but I'm guessing they are using images stolen from a >>>Worth1000.com contest: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> You didn't even look at it. And you are to stupid to realize how >> arrogant you are. What a pity.. > Who should be credited and whose permission needs to be sought? erm... Worth1000.com? Where the photoshopped images appeared. It's clearly explained in their FAQ. > The copyright owners of the original images? The people who probably > stole the images without permission and pasted them together to zero > artistic, or other, merit? Or the site, Worth1000, that hosts the > probably stolen and used-without-permission images, pastes its own URL > across them and otherwise tries to profit from them? Photoshopping images of celebrities and politicians is more than covered by parody, if you're referring to the ownership of the original unaltered images. Worth1000 does not acquire images and paste their "URL" across them. They watermark images submitted by their members to photoshop/photo-manipulation contests. In contests not involving celebs though people are expected to get source images from sites like stockxhange and morguefile which allow images to be used freely. You obviously know next to nothing about Worth1000 if you think they are doing anything for profit. > Worth1000: Yet more proof that Web 2.0 = reinterpreting the word > "Share" to mean trying to profit from other people's stolen material > and hard word, while claiming no responsibility under the DMCA. I still don't understand. How are Worth1000 profitting from "stolen" images? What does Worth1000 have to do with the DMCA? What are you talking about? > Btw, as I will post to any TPF: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Are you arrogant enough to continue posting like a lazy moron? No... I'm very, very sorry. I promise I won't do it again. BTW.... was it OK to post inline instead of top post or bottom post? I don't want to get into any more trouble. >> Btw, as I will post to any TPF: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >to post inline instead of top post or bottom post? I don't want to get into >any more trouble. Congrats. This is the way to do it here because this is the way you would have done in a normal conversation. >> The copyright owners of the original images? The people who probably >> stole the images without permission and pasted them together to zero [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >parody, if you're referring to the ownership of the original unaltered >images. Interesting theory. Let's see what Worth1000 themselves say about parodies: http://www.worth1000.com/contest.asp?contest_id=462 "In this contest you will create original parodies of the popular Absolut vodka ad series." "Do not use original vodka ads for your source material (legal problems)!" Yet, according to you, people can take _actual_ original copyrighted material, without permission, make a small change to it, and it's all legal and fine as long as you claim you are parodying the subject of the material. Oh, and post some website address to where you happened to find the material... >Worth1000 does not acquire images and paste their "URL" across them. >They watermark images submitted by their members to >photoshop/photo-manipulation contests. No, they _paste_ their URL (worth1000.com) over the images. Have you even seen one? Next time you do, look closely in the corner. >In contests not involving celebs >though people are expected to get source images from sites like stockxhange >and morguefile which allow images to be used freely. You obviously know next >to nothing about Worth1000 if you think they are doing anything for profit. Right at the top of the FAQ you claim to have read: # Can I just donate money out of love and respect? # Where can I find out about sponsorship and pricing information? # Who do I contact if I'm interested in purchasing high volume advertising on Worth1000? Even after 5 seconds reading the site I obviously know more about Worth1000 than you do. In fact I'm starting to wonder if you've even been there before. >> Worth1000: Yet more proof that Web 2.0 = reinterpreting the word >> "Share" to mean trying to profit from other people's stolen material >> and hard word, while claiming no responsibility under the DMCA. > >I still don't understand. How are Worth1000 profitting from "stolen" images? What do you think the ads are about? Don't you know how "free" sites make money? >What does Worth1000 have to do with the DMCA? What are you talking about? http://www.worth1000.com/help.asp?help=copyright |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.