Model jacob dooley
- Thread starter james_steeep
- Start date
CdeLorraine
Expert Member
It's not just mine it's all pics in this thread. He or someone in his camp probably complained about being on this board. Seems silly since all I posted was stuff I found on IG anyway
It's this very lack of transparency which disturbs me about this site. If something is deleted there should be a notice explaining what and why, so that nobody posts the same material again. At present it's all so secretive and leaves an unpleasant taste -- the very sort of thing I thought @Mr. LPSG said he wanted to get away from.
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2013
- Posts
- 143
- Media
- 11
- Likes
- 440
- Points
- 333
- Location
- Dorset (England)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 69% Gay, 31% Straight
- Gender
- Male
It was the standard promise by a user to post a jack off video and then never follow through with it. He posted a censored preview where you couldn't see anything so you didn't miss anything[
There's nothing unclear about it. If the owner of a copyright sends a notice to the site to remove his content, the site removes it in accordance with the law. The site is shielded from liability for copyright claims or prosecutions if it complies with those notices. The people who posted the copyrighted material remain liable whether they are removed or not.
The fact that something is posted on Instagram or some other forum doesn't end the copyright owner's right to control where the images are posted. That's a source of confusion for some people who think posting something to Instragram makes it "public". But copyrighted material can and often is publicly presented. (Songs are played on the radio, movies in theaters and on television, etc.). The copyright owner can decide where/whether to allow others to use their material, and usually are paid a licensing fee when they do.
I've not looked into copyright law closely, but this post appears to be mostly accurate. The biggest defense I see is that many of the pictures may not have been taken by Jacob himself and it's unlikely that he went to the level of fully copywriting his publicly available instagram posts (it could be possible that he did though). Also, this might fall within a de minimis exception. Again, I don't know for sure. Ignorance of the copywrite laws is not a defense either, but I wanted to offer this opinion to those who may have posted something.
What Automatic Copyright Laws Do and Do Not Protect
I've not looked into copyright law closely, but this post appears to be mostly accurate. The biggest defense I see is that many of the pictures may not have been taken by Jacob himself and it's unlikely that he went to the level of fully copywriting his publicly available instagram posts (it could be possible that he did though). Also, this might fall within a de minimis exception. Again, I don't know for sure. Ignorance of the copywrite laws is not a defense either, but I wanted to offer this opinion to those who may have posted something.
What Automatic Copyright Laws Do and Do Not Protect
I'd just note that one doesn't have to do anything other than create the image for it to be copyright protected. It may be, by contract, owned by the model, the photographer, or both. Registering with the copyright office offers some added benefits for the owner (it establishes notice, and therefore makes infringement intentional and subject to greater damages/punishment).
Bumping this back to the top. I’ve got plenty to trade if anyone has anything on Jacob
You missed the whole point. If we don't know why something is deleted, it could be re-posted by someone else--and that person get banned. You have assumed that these pictures were deleted because the owner of a copyright sent a notice to the site to remove his content, but you don't know if that is true any more than I do.
