what were the 3 other images?

Prudent.  Fair use or not, I'd rather see us lose a few images than become entangled in a legal shitstorm.

I'd like to extend a warm and hearty fuck you to the pissed off parties.

orangeplus wrote:

One was porn,...

Thanks for narrowing it down...

sic wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

One was porn,...

Thanks for narrowing it down...

Yeah, I know, but there's a good bit of generic porn on this thread, it won't be missed. I do regret deleting the fat guy with the spikes, he was cool.

GOD DAMNIT STOP POSTING PORN IN THE NORMAL LINKS!  NOW I CNA"T READ THIS THREADDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

Removed image due to RT's employment.

Guess the mail issue hasn't yet resolved itself or I'd seen this too.

So we got poked by Puerto Rican Pollack for links to his site?

I'm glad you acted on this but we should probably toss offenders onto the Questionable pile and at least talk tough before deleting next time.

Did he mention how he found the site/banner?  I'm curious.  It's not like the person who made the banner linked back to his webpage...

Curious.  Please answer!

Choad, I would agree with an immediate removal due to obvious copyright issues especially if the 'asker' can prove it and asks nicely.  Why wouldn't we remove it?  I mean come on, as an artist, and photographer, if someone uses my shit and doesn't at least ask first, I will come with guns blazing if it isn't removed after a pleasant request.

Since you are someone who thinks we should protect our intellectual property, I can't imagine we should be having any sort of discussion as to talking tough to people who choose to protect their rights to their photographic properties.  It's a no brainer.  If it's theirs, and they ask, then remove it.

Hey... I chase assholes every few months on Ebay, and on other sites for using my images to make money, or claiming of...

I try not to post stuff with cr on it, or website addys, though the latter isn't always possible...

d

Roger_That wrote:

Did he mention how he found the site/banner?  I'm curious.  It's not like the person who made the banner linked back to his webpage...

Curious.  Please answer!

I didn't ask, and really have no desire to get into a back and forth with him on how he 'busted' us. There are several organizations out there that troll for copyrighted materials using different means, even as dull as just google'ing the filename and checking the hits. He might also have watermarks on his images that can be automatically discerned through processing the image. Not a terribly difficult thing to do. Since he wrote me at a little after 8 this morning, I would expect that he subscribes to a service that trolls for his watermarks and he gets reports of offenders every morning and sends his boilerplate takedown notice. But that's just a guess from a guy who gets a stack of reports every morning.

choad wrote:

If, for insistence, Rogers Cadenhead turns around and demands we stop using the slogan, "The Web's Bitter Afterbirth" - and I suspect he already has - what do we tell him?

What?  Why would you suspect that?  Rogers has always seemed to be pretty supportive of us miscreants trying to keep something alive...

Besides his copyright is on Web's Bitter Aftertaste.  2 diff words and ideas if you ask me.

orangeplus wrote:

I didn't ask, and really have no desire to get into a back and forth with him on how he 'busted' us. There are several organizations out there that troll for copyrighted materials using different means, even as dull as just google'ing the filename and checking the hits. He might also have watermarks on his images that can be automatically discerned through processing the image. Not a terribly difficult thing to do. Since he wrote me at a little after 8 this morning, I would expect that he subscribes to a service that trolls for his watermarks and he gets reports of offenders every morning and sends his boilerplate takedown notice. But that's just a guess from a guy who gets a stack of reports every morning.

So someone left the watermark/copyright notice up, instead of blurring it out a bit or making it otherwise less troll-able. So really, people pay to have some tard troll the internet looking for abuse of their images? 

The reason I was curious is because finding this place doesn't seem to be a very easy thing to do right now.  Not like we come up in google image searches yet.

I just wasn't aware of the places that troll for copyrights.  News to me. 

Anyways, I didn't expect you would email him and ask how he figured it out, I was just curious to see if he mentioned it in the original email.

opsec wrote:

Well, while we're hashing this out, why does the cruel blurb link to cruel.com (which goes straight to drudge?).  I'm not sure why cruel needs to be mentioned at all, it means nothing to noobs, and cade isn't exactly giving us front billing anywhere.

I think we need to have a backpage "meeting" with Rcade and sort all of this out.

Roger_That wrote:

So someone left the watermark/copyright notice up, instead of blurring it out a bit or making it otherwise less troll-able. So really, people pay to have some tard troll the internet looking for abuse of their images? 

The reason I was curious is because finding this place doesn't seem to be a very easy thing to do right now.  Not like we come up in google image searches yet.

The watermark would be steganographic in the image and not visible. So the only way to get rid of it would be by changing the images' format, and even then, I don't know. Digimarc, I believe, will create watermarks for you and troll for them.

opsec wrote:

Well, while we're hashing this out, why does the cruel blurb link to cruel.com (which goes straight to drudge?).  I'm not sure why cruel needs to be mentioned at all, it means nothing to noobs, and cade isn't exactly giving us front billing anywhere.

THANKS!  I thought the same.  I just noticed it yesterday.  It should link to here, or not link at all.

And what is "Sofie's Choice"?  Also likely meaningless to n00bs.

choad wrote:

What he said was ambiguous and might have meant something else. At the time, I said nothing and complied.

Ok, look, this will happen again and tediously often, I imagine. Next time, no questions, just delete?

Has anyone actually heard from Rogers as of late?  He hasn't responded to my email..even to say "nope, not going to happen". 

And it doesn't look like he's been on here for awhile.

I wouldn't mind knowing his stance on us using some of the former Cruel-ism ideas and such in order to attract like minded guests.

Roger_That wrote:

And what is "Sofie's Choice"?  Also likely meaningless to n00bs.

Opsec, where's that Smitty money shot you're hiding?

choad wrote:

Opsec, where's that Smitty money shot you're hiding?

No money shots as yet.  I need a telephoto.

Fortunately, as I was surfing late last night, I *did* finally find accurate targeting coordinates.   

Points at RT and laughs.  You should know better!

Just so long as Tub Girl and Goatsie don't come after us...

Rest easy, it's all safely stored in my fortress-like data warehouse (a thumb drive). 

I haven't used any of that info since the infamous Meg Kelso beatdown.

"Red Cross?!  I thought it was a target marker!!!"

Sounds good to me, orange.

orangeplus wrote:

All the menu items we need are on the top bar anyway.

Except one.  Contact Us.  There's currently no easy way for users to contact the responder list.

opsec wrote:

orangeplus wrote:

All the menu items we need are on the top bar anyway.

Except one.  Contact Us.  There's currently no easy way for users to contact the responder list.

ALSO: Your banner uploader is fucking awesome. Everyone should see that.