Natacha Merritt's "Digital Diaries"

[Ginny]

would make a great Christmas present for your lover.....or yourself.....turtle bought a copy for me for my birthday last year....and then bought one for himself....we have really enjoyed looking at the photographs...together.....

she has a fresh, hot style....images so erotic...but different....not your standard issue erotic fine art....very sensual....explicit....

all photos Natacha Merritt




you can order book online.....just search amazon.com......great lil sexy stocking stuffer....

www.nerve.com
http://www.digitalgirly.com/
http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/books/adults_only/all/facts/01320.htm

 

[Monazwx]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, so senual as well as sexual.
It's on my wish list Ginny.

 

[Silverluna]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, so senual as well as sexual.
It's on my wish list Ginny.

I love them...I had seen the website before ...ah very sensual indeed...

 

[Rubyfruit]

I treated myself to a copy a few months ago.

Excellent book from a very creative young mind.

 

[modest mouse]

Alright, Ive seen her work, in this book and boyond... but I gotta say that this thread is the EXACT reason for so much of this copyright hassle. Maybe you should be more diligent in using care to prevent problems for the board, Ginny.

 

[tortoise]

Your concern is touching, mouse, but this thread contains NO attached copyrighted images, only inline images, which are in essence links back to the original website. Copyright is simply NOT an issue in such cases, as I've explained before on several occasions.

But thanks for playing.

 

[modest mouse]

I could give a fuck aobut anything other than any hassles taht directly involve me.

Right, tortoise, because the owner of a website will NEVER be contacted because there are links to images on someones elses site. Bandwidth theft of copyrighted images never bothered anyone. That must have been some abberation.

Is there some deafult to tortois setting or do I get Ginny onan alternating plan?

 

[tortoise]

I responded because I happen to know quite a bit about this issue, having done a lot of research on it. What I stated was a simple fact, you can choose to believe whatever you like. I think your concern for Laurel and Manu is genuine, but your grasp of the details involved is incomplete.

And yes, I'm sure Natacha would be livid were she to discover that her book was being promoted in such a manner.

Have a nice day!

 

[modest mouse]

The images are linked from Nerve, not from Natacha. Im sure they love their server getting hit for images they pay to show, yet their advertising is never seen.

 

[lavender]

 

[Silverluna]

can we just get back to admiring what pictures are displayed already in the thread???

 

[zharling]

These are great definetly worth the buy

 

[tortoise]

Thank you for posting that information, lavender, as well as the pointers to Laurel's sticky on the AmPics forum. My personal feelings about you are irrelevant to the discussion. If someone I cared for posted exactly what you just did, I like to think would respond exactly as I do below.

I read through all the information you provided. The sections pertaining to inline images were interesting, but they seemed quite nebulous to me concerning the potential copyright ramifications, containing phrases like: "The doctrine of contributory infringement might apply..." I follow Brad's interesting logic (though I disagree with a few of his conclusions), but I fail to see anything concrete in a legal sense (speaking as an admitted layperson ).

I also happen to have a very concrete grasp of the bandwidth issue, as I own a website (www.hoppingcreatures.com) that I have used to host SEVERAL inline images on this very forum. The bandwidth hit is negligible, and has never come close to incurring any extra monetary expense, even given my low-rent webhosting service. Believe me, if it did cost me a dime, I would not do it, nor would I knowingly cause other website owners to suffer monetary consequences.

Thus, after studying all of the information, I am left with the same conclusion that I arrived at the last time we had this discussion: if Laurel or Manu asks me (or the board as a whole) to stop posting inline images, I will gladly do so, and I will advise others to do so as well. If you can produce a link to a single post to that effect, or if they post one in the future, I will immediately cease and desist. I stopped attaching copyrighted images long ago specifically because of Laurel's request to the board.

If you have a problem with that policy, that is entirely your prerogative, and you are free to voice your opinion to that effect.

Thanks again for the information, and good night.

 

[tortoise]

Love the sig, mouse.

 

[The Heretic]

I agree with what Lavender stated and whether the bandwidth is significant or not depends on how many people link to the images and how many people view those links. I don't think it can be so easily dismissed.

I would say one thing though; most website servers have settings that can control such issues - i.e., they can set certain options that prevent such inline linking of images. That is why some inline images do not show up here when inserted into a post. It isn't that big of a deal to do, just a fairly simple setting that has no effect on anything else. So why do so many website owners allow it? I think it is mostly because they have no idea that it is happening. Doesn't make it any more ethical, and I don't believe that they really think it is free advertising.

Yes, I have linked a few images myself, but anymore I generally also provide the URL as a link to where the image came from so people will visit the site. The exception is when the owner explictily expects such linking (e.g., the smilies sites).

 

[glamorilla]

i think it looks like a cool book.

 

[Minkey Boodle]

Do we really take things 'round here that seriously?

Sheesh!

 

[Spinaroonie]

Whether or not the bandwith is signifigant to you, and whether the bandwith is signifigant to others is a completely different thing.

I know I've done it, and I know I shouldn't and I'm cutting down on it. But inline linking is clearly theft. In fact, the inline linking is what will get you caught more than anything. How many views does this thread have? How large are those pictures. Those visits are resulting in megabytes of bandwith being stolen from the author of these images- this "free advertising" isn't quite so free.

It's a serious problem to some. Richard 'Lowtax' Kyanka has hd to resort to such measures as overhauling his server with a hack that changes leeched images to a different image- I believe either goatse or the dewy penishead, I'm not sure at the moment.

However, overall, it's disrespectful to Laurel. She asked you not to do this several times.

However, I must commend you, Ginny, you put up a copyright notice and links to where you can buy the book, etc. How many people don't? At the moment, I don't. And I should start.

However, let's work in stages with this. Ginny, I Know you can persuade tortoise to get some serverspace on hoppingcreatures by giving him iPod time*. Could you try to at least use that space for a while and slowly cut back?

Either way, we ALL need to cut back on copyrighted images. I've seen forums who have had to get rid of image linking all together and it isn't fun. There are grey issues abound, but let's try to stay on the safe side. Under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, all it takes is an accusation from ONE angry webmaster to get a report to Laurel's ISP to get lit shut down for an indefinite time "until proof that the problem is remedied". That will blow.

P.S. Hi Ginny, did you buy any of those pillows?

* head

 

[Aphrodisiac]

Ginny,

I liked the images that you posted and I think I will be buying this book for my man. I think he is going to love the book, it will make a great Christmas present for him.

Thanks.

 

[Ginny]

<smiling at Aphrodisiac>

yay on buying the book!....you two will have an arousing time checking it out together.....Natacha just rocks.....mmmmmmm...

Natacha Merritt

 

[tortoise]

However, overall, it's disrespectful to Laurel. She asked you not to do this several times.

Therein lies the rub, Spindude. I've honestly never seen one post or message from Laurel asking us not to post inline images. If such a message exists, or if I see one in the future, I'll gladly stop. At that point, the legal issues become completely moot. It's her site, and if she asks me not to post the word "spatula", I won't.

 

[Angel]

I own a website, on which I used to place pictures of my paintings, drawings, the few photographs I took and some digital art.

I had to shut it down because of people directly linking to the files on my server was killing me. I was paying way more than I had ever intended to pay for my webhost, and I was forced to take it down or spend way more than I could afford for hosting.

Not to mention the number of people who took them and displayed them on their own websites as 'theirs'.

I changed over to webdesign and graphics, and I used to have tons of freebies that I made for people to take and upload onto their own server, and yet again people insisted on remotely linking to the images, causing problems.

When I found places it was happening, webhosts were contacted, and accounts were terminated.

I don't do that anymore. It's not worth it.

That said, you'd be surprised at the number of webmasters who will actually say yes if you do ask them if you can remotely link, this way they can keep track of it. I've asked quite a few and have rarely gotten a no.

This is what I do now, for certain people.

 

[Aphrodisiac]

<smiling at Aphrodisiac>

yay on buying the book!....you two will have an arousing time checking it out together.....Natacha just rocks.....mmmmmmm...

Natacha Merritt

Ginny,

I have a very strong feeling he is going to love it , its a little some thing different for him. We will enjoy it very much .. * big grin*

I also went into her webpage and she has such talent, I like how she see things and photographs them. I like her edge.

Gracias...

 

[Lasher]

Inline Linking... Such a pretty little euphemism that is, lol. Back in the olden days when I was a webmaster we called it Hot Linking and it basically pisses off any self-respecting webmaster who is having their bandwidth stolen.

I just brought up a page called The Internet Marketing Dictionary and here's their definition of Hot Linking


A link to images, videos, sounds, downloads etc., on somebody else's web site and integrating into another site's content.

Hot Linking is considered unethical unless the other web site specifically grants permission for it, as it increases the other site's costs without increasing their Page Views, advertising revenue, or sales.

That's a rather polite definition - and actually probably works better with the pretty little euphemism supplied above, but I think it makes the point - it is UNETHICAL (and not very nice, lol) to do this without the permission of the other web site. This isn't a concern over legalities - I doubt this is technically illegal even at this time - but it is very bad etiquette.

Btw, those pictures suck - I hate artsy crap like that.

 

[Spinaroonie]

Therein lies the rub, Spindude. I've honestly never seen one post or message from Laurel asking us not to post inline images. If such a message exists, or if I see one in the future, I'll gladly stop. At that point, the legal issues become completely moot. It's her site, and if she asks me not to post the word "spatula", I won't.

I took stop posting copyrighted images as stop posting copyrighted images. Your argument is like saying that you're not murdering people, just bludgening them to the point where they bleed to death, but I mean if you wanna do it, go for it, I can't stop you. But put those images on your own webspace. Posting inline imaging is asking to be caught. You know that when an admin checks their logs and sees the disproportional amount of image views to page views and then sees a large amount of trafic from a forum site, they're gonna check it out.

Post them inline, just do it on your own dime and on your own space. The odds of getting caught that way are severely lessened at least. How long until somebody inline links to some prick's artwork and he has lit shut down for a period of time under the DMCA?