Now Some Photos...

[Pij02]

Hello All,

I said I would post some of the pictures I have accumulated (These are not the ones I "made" using Photoshop and GIMP. I will post some of those soon.). I opened an account on PhotoBucket to upload them. The link is...

s885.photobucket.com/albums/ac52/Pij02/

~Paige

[devogirl]

Paige, when I invited you to post images, I meant ones you had drawn or otherwise created. Please do not post photos of real people without their knowledge or permission. If there are any in this group that you do know personally, and who have explicitly said it's ok to put their photos on a devotee site, they can stay up. The one from Avatar can stay also. Please take down the rest now.


Posting links to other sites or to YouTube videos is fine, but copying photos here is not ok. People get understandably upset when their photos get copied around the internet, and disabled people in particular don't always like showing up on a devotee site without their knowledge. It's one of the things that makes them hostile towards us.

[Pij02]

Please forgive my egregious error, as it was NEVER my intention to violate the rules of this forum. I was not aware that such postings were inappropriate. I have removed the photos. Should I remove the link to Photobucket as well?

I would like to take a moment to explain my reasoning...

It has always been my opinion that, if one posts their image to the Internet, they are willingly entering it into the public domain. One must know that such images can be copied, downloaded, distributed and redistributed. Therefore, they must be OK with such distribution. Why would one make their image publicly available and then be upset when the public gets a hold of it. It seems like an illogical position, to me. However, I can only extrapolate from how I would feel about photos of me...

Before I post any of the images that I have altered, using image manipulation software, I want to make sure they are permitted. They are professional images (photo-shoots images) of celebrities and male models, that I have altered. They are "real people" photos, but would seem to fall into a different category? I would assume that it is OK, because their is a "Celebrity Photo" area on the website. I am unsure, so I will wait for authorization before I proceed.

Again, I am sorry for my actions,
~Paige

[Lee]

Paige,
The celeb photos and the posting of any photos on this website are a topic on which Devogirl's and my opinions have sort of diverged. Personally, I'm less offended by these stolen photos, but she's probably right.

I made the celeb photos in my younger, more carefree days. Ethically, was it "right" to make those? Probably not. But there's a fuzzy line in erotica, and they've been up there for many years and I'm not taking them down. As for the "real" photos, I would take them down if the person in the photo requested they be removed. But I take responsibility for being morally questionable and people do bash me on websites. That's okay, I can live with that.

Anyway, this is going to be a matter of "do as we say, not as we do." Or rather, do what Devogirl says. As far is this message board goes, she is the boss and I defer to her opinion.

[Pij02]

Lee,

It seems that you and I are more similar in our ethical views.

Regarding celebrity images, I would say that is a (very light) gray area. In my opinion, celebrities are making these photos for the express purpose of being copied and disseminated. If not for that reason, then why? As such, I would say they have less rights concerning their treatment. It would fall under the same category as a comedian being banned from satirizing a celebrity. Many would say that choosing to be a celebrity opens one up to such things.

Regarding non-celebrity people, I would say that is LESS morally questionable than altering images. After all, with modified images, the original content is altered in a way that the depicted person might not approve of. In the case of a "stock" image, like I posted earlier, the content is unchanged and viewed in the state that the depicted person had intended. What could be their complaint? That they don't like what one is thinking when viewing the photo? Are they really crying foul on the grounds of someone committing thought 'crimes' against them? I would say that defense is indefensible.

I DO NOT condone taking pictures/videos of people without their consent or posting private pictures. That is a horse of a different color. To stalk around taking photos of a person, and then posting them online, or stealing private photos and posting them, is morally reprehensible. In this instance, the person did not consent to have their image enter the public domain. That is the part, for me, that is critical to drawing the moral line.

However, I will defer to Devogirl on this, as it is not my intention to ignite a controversy or be problematic. I am not petitioning for any changes to this board's policy or trying to convince anyone of my opinion. I am just clarifying my position on the subject. Like Lee, I am willing to take responsibility for any perceptions of moral ambiguity.

Devogirl, please advise if you would like me to remove the link from my original post, as I will happily comply.

~Paige

[devogirl]

I realize that I have never posted a set of guidelines on photos. I don't have time to do it today, but I'll put it up soon. Short answer: photos of models, actors, celebs, etc are fine, even if they have been manipulated. But a lot of the photos you posted appeared private: snapshots of people on vacation, in rehab, hanging out with friends, some even with the date stamp of a digital camera, so clearly not commercial photos. The way you posted them without any attribution there was no way to know where they came from, if they were taken from commercial sites, had been lifted from flickr or facebook, or had been emailed to you personally. If they do come from public sites, posting a link to that site is much better than copying the picture, because the photo remains in context.

If I am erring on the conservative side here, it's because there is a huge problem on other devotee websites with devs posting photos without the subject's knowledge, sometimes even photos taken covertly in public, and it's one of the reason we have such a bad name. Imagine a young guy, recently injured--he might post photos about his injury and rehab on a blog or on facebook, mainly for his friends and as a form of therapy. But if he finds those photos have been swiped without his knowledge and posted on a disability fetish site, he might be really upset, especially if he has never heard of devotees before. Even if those photos are on the internet, I don't think they are all fair game to post here.
And since these are the people we devs are hoping to have relationships with, it's incumbent on us to be cautious about these things.

Anyway, clear guidelines are coming soon.

[Neffie]

You know the photo's don't offend me half as much as the fact you refer to yourself as "one".

Pij (I don't have a clue what that stands for but I'm betting it's not 'Pretty Impressive Jugs'). I don't want to be funny but this site is about being yourself and if you're naturally a horny dev living in Victorian England then that's fine with us.

If you're not a time traveller can you explain why you speak or write this way?
I know everyone's dying to ask but only Neffie has the balls.

Seriously, what's the deal?

[devogirl]

Ok, guidelines are posted. You may post manipulated photos of celebrities or models if you want to. You can also repost those among the deleted photos that comply with the guidelines.

Everyone has the right to know where and how private photos of him/herself are being used. Just because you can steal someone's photo doesn't mean you should.

[Pij02]

DevoGirl,

I could not agree more, in regards to images taken in a covert way. I also understand your concerns, regarding images of a more private nature, even if I am not quite as militant as you. Of course, I will do everything I can to respect your authority on this matter.

To that end, I will add the modified professional photos, of celebrities and models, to Photobucket and only link the album to this site. (As opposed to posting the images directly.)

I am really trying not to be a nuisance on my 26th post!



Neffie,

What can I say? I can assure you I am not a time traveling devotee, from an England past. (and I would not divulge my secret identity if I was!)

Pij is not an acronym, but a nickname my sister gave me when I was young (pronounced like the first syllable of pigeon). I have used it for a number of usernames/screenames since then.

I never really thought of my speech as 'Victorian'. I naturally speak in, what some might consider, a formal way. I abhor slang, jargon and profanity. The abbreviated and grammatically incorrect style of texting, emailing and Instant Messaging makes my skin crawl. The use of a common word, when a beautiful alternative is available, seems like a waste.

I am sorry if referring to myself as 'one' bothers you. Actually, I don't think I was referring to myself as one, but someone else. I substituted the word 'one' for 'you'. That is what I would have done had we been speaking face to face. I don't like the use of 'you', in that context.

I could try to be accommodating, and say I will alter my style. However, I will not comply. This is the way I have always spoken/written and I see no reason to change now. If you believe this to be a false representation of myself then you are mistaken. You could ask any of my friends or family and they would confirm that I am being genuine.

I am glad you had the gumption to ask a question, that has apparently been on the tip of everyones tongue! (I am surprised that my manner of speaking is such a hot topic!) I hope everyone will be candid and open, like you have proved yourself to be, as it was a valid query, that required an address.

Have I succeeded in answering you question? If you would like to discuss it further feel free...

~Paige

[Neffie]

Ya know what Pij? I like my profanity and I wear my gumption somewhere down near my knees but I like a woman who addresses an issue and answers a question honestly.

No one wants to change you, we just wanted to know why you talk like that. Your explanation was fab so thank you for that.

I was kind of hoping you were a time traveller but hey, one can't have everything can one?

[Samantha]

My point of view: I see nothing wrong with the photos posted. They are on the site to be celebrated and loved. We are not ridiculing the people. Is there any harm being done? I guess I get devo girls point of the guy in rehab not wanting his photos on a fetish site. But that comes with showbiz duh, and those of the average person who is it hurting? I mean we praise these images!!! I just don't really get it. Maybe. Its cause when I was young and my grandparents left me alone for days with internet and a webcam I made the most of it. I know somewhere out there still but it doesn't bother me that someone could be getting hot to a 12 year old me cause I'm getting hot to a cute guy in a chair. I just don't get the harm. a persons ego? Privacy? Reputation? Are they gonna ruin there reputation by being disabled. Dignity? maybe but that's a bit of a complicated one

[Dee Dee]

Personally I really like the way in which Paige writes - none of all those troublesome abbreviations ( ) plus it´s a great English lesson for me, whose mother tongue is Danish .

[robbb]

Back onto subject:
Pij, I like your pics and don't have a problem with any of them as long as the subject knows and approves of them being on the net. Covert pic's are a different matter.

Slightly off subject:
I've met the guy in one of your pictures (won't say which as I don't want to stress anyone out about privacy, but if anyone wants to know they can PM me) and he is one of the nicest and sexiest guys I've ever met.

Way off subject:
I love that you speak English correctly Pij, not "everyone's dying to ask".

Robbb.