General Discussion

big_dog

(4,144 posts)

26. the problem is that the context of the photos are totally missing in this story

Thu Sep 4, 2014, 05:39 PM

Sep 2014

Last edited Thu Sep 4, 2014, 08:35 PM - Edit history (2)

i realized that cultural norms are changeable and hard to define, but an exhibit of hard porn should have certain limitations (like 1,000 feet from a school) and most likely is not covered under the first amendment

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

61 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton Nude Photos To Be Shown In Florida Art Exhibit (lifesized--on canvas) [View all] big_dog Sep 2014 OP

As part of the "Fear Google" lapfog_1 Sep 2014 #1

That stuff is not in the public domain. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #4

not if J-Law's ex boyfriend claims owernship of the pictures big_dog Sep 2014 #6

You don't understand IP law, do you? The photos were stolen. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #8

Yes, I understand that. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #11

Yes, it was equivalent. MohRokTah Sep 2014 #17

no, they aren't. lapfog_1 Sep 2014 #12

This message was self-deleted by its author big_dog Sep 2014 #20

TMI lapfog_1 Sep 2014 #23

the problem is that the context of the photos are totally missing in this story big_dog Sep 2014 #26

What the fuck? NuclearDem Sep 2014 #48

Pretty sure the "facial" pics Dr Hobbitstein Sep 2014 #54

The stars still own the copyright to their own pictures -- so no, it is not public domain pnwmom Sep 2014 #42

No. They're not. That's not how public domain works. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #51

I shouldn't have used a legalistic term. I just meant they were out in the public. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #52

I think public pressure might get that exhibit shut down Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #2

one phone call from Detroit Tiger hurler Justin Verlander would shut down 1/2 the exhibit big_dog Sep 2014 #3

This message was self-deleted by its author Laelth Sep 2014 #27

No, it's not. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #5

Yeah, it is. eom MohRokTah Sep 2014 #7

Yes, it is. NuclearDem Sep 2014 #49

We'll see Blue_Tires Sep 2014 #55

check your raincoat at the door policy big_dog Sep 2014 #61

Oh so WE weren't supposed to see them underpants Sep 2014 #9

their Facebook page if you care to comment Beaverhausen Sep 2014 #10

this will be global world wide news by the weekend big_dog Sep 2014 #14

Just to let everyone know, I don't care a flying fig Quantess Sep 2014 #13

i think J-Law wishes it was just about the boobies big_dog Sep 2014 #21

Sigh... My fault for posting at all. Quantess Sep 2014 #32

I know, right? cwydro Sep 2014 #47

ZOMG BOOBIES! nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #56

indeed. Marlene Dietrich once said hifiguy Sep 2014 #58

That is excellent. nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #60

Unless permission is granted from the victims. They are committing a crime still_one Sep 2014 #15

Surely they can get a court order to stop this? BainsBane Sep 2014 #16

This message was self-deleted by its author Laelth Sep 2014 #29

It is shameful that these photos are in the public AngryAmish Sep 2014 #35

there are films too apparently from what TMZ said big_dog Sep 2014 #57

I sincerely wish some artist would secretly follow "XVALA" and get the most revealing, unflattering KittyWampus Sep 2014 #18

Someone is angling for 15 minutes of fame. Or infamy. Whatever. -eom- HuckleB Sep 2014 #19

the problem is that this is bordering on infamy for J-Law too big_dog Sep 2014 #22

Ethics matter. So, exactly. HuckleB Sep 2014 #25

Infamy? AngryAmish Sep 2014 #37

New Laws Needed sub.theory Sep 2014 #24

CA's new "revenge porn" law is a start anyway. n/t nomorenomore08 Sep 2014 #59

There are loopholes for artistic expression flamingdem Sep 2014 #34

Indeed there are. hifiguy Sep 2014 #36

Those loopholes don't allow a whole image to be appropriated. pnwmom Sep 2014 #43

Crazy thing is that if there's a lawsuit the artist flamingdem Sep 2014 #45

Yeah, I know what you mean. Artists suck. Hissyspit Sep 2014 #50

Artists don't suck flamingdem Sep 2014 #53

Googleheim is the new Guggenheim Blue Owl Sep 2014 #30

If there is a legal remedy hifiguy Sep 2014 #38

That's a few blocks from where I work...I wonder if people will see it? Sancho Sep 2014 #39

Will the exhibit be considered a "sex crime" phil89 Sep 2014 #40

While the law may be an ass hifiguy Sep 2014 #44

will not. they know it. C&D order = no prints. elehhhhna Sep 2014 #41

This is so much more than about Google or the failures of the cloud. alarimer Sep 2014 #46