91–100 of 301 posts
I guess it's because feet just toe the line between ordinary photos - there are huge celeb sites - and more intimate ones you wouldn't want to see posted online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I upload photos to Instagram, I am not explicitly consenting to my photos being used for people's fetishes, even privately. I can't stop people from doing what they want privately with my public photos, and I know that, but I still find it morally wrong and disturbing. But I'm not sure that it's legal to republish someone's public Instagram photos on another website either. I'm no legal expert, but I believe it'…
What if it was just text links to the instagram accounts? What if it was iframes?
2. text links sure, because it has a whole other behavior and then if someone wants they can take the picture down, make it private or whatever. same thing for iframe but I bet it won't happen there because instagram itself will shut down the iframing reeaaalll quick.
so in short, yes, if it was a bunch of other things that have some similarities but are not exactly the same it would probably be ok with people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not agree. These are photos posted publicly on Instagram or Facebook. Anyone could see them. This website just aggregates them, but there's technically a live link to these pictures. And no, the fact that someone uploads them to a service whose ToS they have accepted makes no difference. You're posting something publicly? To me that's explicit consent that you want people to see them. If those pics were behind e…
Alright then, for the sake of argument then how would you feel if there was a website named "wikipedo" where people take the normal photos of children posted on social media and aggregate them thusly with a vastly different intent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pictures are an intellectual property of the author, if a person wants other people to spread them, he/she needs to explicitly set the allowing license. It's more complicated than that. What actions require a license? Nobody needs a license to create a hyperlink. The concept of a "link license" was a big subject of debate in the 1990s, but after much hand-wringing and heated discussion, we converged on a permission…
> Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks That's a huge loss of generality.
I don't think so. The author's core discomfort (to which I'm sympathetic) seems to not be about the image hosting, but about people enjoying pictures of her feet in a way that makes her uncomfortable. I don't think that wikiFeet moving to a hyperlink model would alleviate the author's discomfort with wikiFeet existing, so we need to talk about that core discomfort, not about the specific mechanics of image sharing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, OK basically? Indecent things are allowed. You can criticize them, of course, but they are still allowed. People have the right to write non-nice things about you (as long as it's not libel). They can write that they don't like you for whatever reason, or they can write that they get off thinking about you. There's freedom of expression to do stupid, non-nice and indecent shit.
No one is saying it's not legal. Most people here understand what libel is and what freedom of expression is. The point is that it's still a bit weird, creepy and unpleasant. This man can continue doing it, and I can continue thinking he's quite damaged.
That's alright. I'm pretty much indifferent to the whole thing, but I still enjoyed the interview. Notice that the man may be "quite damaged", but still the first thing that he does is ask the interviewer if she was offended by her public photos being there, and offering to delete them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pictures are an intellectual property of the author, if a person wants other people to spread them, he/she needs to explicitly set the allowing license. It's more complicated than that. What actions require a license? Nobody needs a license to create a hyperlink. The concept of a "link license" was a big subject of debate in the 1990s, but after much hand-wringing and heated discussion, we converged on a permission…
> Now let's suppose for the sake of argument (and without loss of generality) that this foot fetish site were just a list of hyperlinks That's a huge loss of generality.
Not really. It's just a couple of innocent javascript lines away (on a browser extension) to the site with visible photos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, legal, but not a nice or decent thing to do.
So, OK basically? Indecent things are allowed. You can criticize them, of course, but they are still allowed. People have the right to write non-nice things about you (as long as it's not libel). They can write that they don't like you for whatever reason, or they can write that they get off thinking about you. There's freedom of expression to do stupid, non-nice and indecent shit.
Great article- I appreciate how pleasant both parties were! Some of us, admittedly, like women with nice ass. I think feet is less creepy if you really think about it. But to each to their own!
Liking people's bodies isn't creepy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not agree. These are photos posted publicly on Instagram or Facebook. Anyone could see them. This website just aggregates them, but there's technically a live link to these pictures. And no, the fact that someone uploads them to a service whose ToS they have accepted makes no difference. You're posting something publicly? To me that's explicit consent that you want people to see them. If those pics were behind e…
>You're posting something publicly? To me that's explicit consent that you want people to see them. To see them where I posted them . Pictures are an intellectual property of the author, if a person wants other people to spread them, he/she needs to explicitly set the allowing license. Copyright, fair use and such is a hot and nuanced topic, but the bottom line here is that personal pictures getting shared is not wha…
We exist in the age of information and the age of mash ups, there is nothing _technically_ stopping these people from doing this so to do so we need to _create_ something to do this. Otherwise we're just being previous with a "why isn't the internet like this..." whine.
The question we need to ask ourselves is do we want to spend public money on enforcing personal copyright by making it a crime that we enforce? It's understandable when it comes to content people don't post themselves (e.g. personal porn) but its much greyer here where they post it here but don't like seeing it there.
I would imagine the only way this works today is for the victim to make a DMCA claim and what's wrong with that approach? I feel like given the current age and technology its an appropriate solution for now given the considerably lower impact this case arguably has.
EDIT: people downvoting that merely disagree need to get poked in the eye with rose thorns tbh. I ain't being offtopic, I'm pulling in further references, I'm positing, I'm asking questions. What on earth is wrong with that? Bloody eternal September...