Ugh, everything keeps getting rejected

[KeithD]

I

There are many, many rules that most of us break every day:

• jaywalking
• wearing an American flag on clothes or using it in advertising
• premarital/extramarital sex (some states)
• connecting to unsecured wifi without permission (a lot of phones and computers give you the option to do that automatically)
• swearing in public (some states)
• sharing a Netflix password
• copying a song for a friend
• playing poker or pool for money
• using your cell phone to give you driving directions (some states)
• sharing prescription medicine (You have a headache? I'll give you prescription strength ibuprofen)
• smoking pot (some states)

Well, no, I don't think so. Are you suggesting that people using a site like this just aren't, generally, honest people or are "the rules aren't for me unless I'm caught" people and maybe we see a lot of threads like this because there are a lot of those people here--you know, like the kind of people who would steal stories and market them at Amazon as their own? That's our kind of people here?

Does that raise the question of who owns the image of your avatar?

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Well, no, I don't think so. Are you suggesting that people using a site like this just aren't, generally, honest people or are "the rules aren't for me unless I'm caught" people and maybe we see a lot of threads like this because there are a lot of those people here--you know, like the kind of people who would steal stories and market them at Amazon as their own? That's our kind of people here?

I'm not sure why you're angry about any of this, and I really don't understand why you're angry at me for trying to understand where people are coming from. There is nothing - absolutely nothing - in my post about swiping people's work and selling it. Your characterization of my post is nowhere close to a fair interpretation of what I actually said. The only copyright issue in that list of random rules people break without thinking about it was copying a song. Not selling it to someone, and not copying albums wholesale. Sometimes people get excited about a song and just want to share it with a friend. Obviously, it's illegal, and obviously, you shouldn't do it. I don't think most artists would have an interest in enforcing a copyright law in that context.

I understand that as an author whose work has been stolen and sold, it's an important issue for you. But that's not what I was talking about. Not even close.

I'm pretty sure the people on this site do jaywalk. I do. I'm not a dishonest person because of it. There are plenty of places in cities where jaywalking is a virtual necessity. I also walk across my neighborhood street without going to the intersection. I'm pretty sure most people here don't got to an intersection to walk across to their neighbor's house across the street. I'm pretty sure people here do other things on that list. It doesn't make them dishonest.

Do you seriously never break the speed limit? Never cross the street without going to an intersection? Never have sex outside of marriage? The questions are rhetorical, of course. It's none of my business if you do any of those things. But to suggest that it's dishonest to break any rule is a bit much for me to swallow.

I don't think it's at all appropriate to say that I suggested people on the site are dishonest. I'm pretty sure you know perfectly well that's not what I said and not what I meant. I don't have any problem with you disagreeing with me. I don't understand why you're angry, but I don't take issue with it. I do take issue with mischaracterizing what I said in that fashion.

I'd prefer a discussion, but I don't mind an argument. But if it's going to be an argument, it should be fairly argued.

Edit: No, it does not raise the question of who owns my avatar, and you have no basis for the insinuation that I stole it from somewhere. [Deleted a sentence regarding the artist for privacy reasons.] And yeah, I have his permission to use it. I have the paper and pencil original signed and dedicated by the artist. He's had plenty of his work appropriated over the years, including this one, and he accepts it with grace and good humor. Why is my avatar your concern? Is it bothering you?

 

[MechaBlade]

That's your answer on why, clearly understanding the rules and that you violate them, you won't take responsibility upon yourself for following them? As I noted, I think it's a problem that illuminates a lot of what's behind this thread discussion.

Agreed. It shows that the rules are arbitrarily enforced by those who write/recite them. It shows that the intent of the rules is more important than their exact words and whether they are followed or not. If avatars were screened and stories were not, I could get away with posting my story and my avatar would have been automatically removed.

In the end, my enjoyment of my avatar is worth less than helping Laurel keep order and avoid consequences (though I highly doubt the government cares). And pornography in the av seems to be judged harsher than copyrighted material in the av. Looking through forum posts, I easily found other users with hard cocks and sex. Still, I'll change it, probably to something copyrighted.

Huh? You lost me. JAF0 posted the rules, and his avatar's a cougar. What avatar are you talking about?

JAF0 posted a link to the rules post. The rules were actually posted by chargergirl, who has a Sabrina the Teenage Witch avatar. That image belongs to Viacom, if my understanding of television distribution rights is correct.

 

[GroverLang]

Looking through forum posts, I easily found other users with hard cocks and sex. Still, I'll change it, probably to something copyrighted.

JAF0 posted a link to the rules post. The rules were actually posted by chargergirl, who has a Sabrina the Teenage Witch avatar. That image belongs to Viacom, if my understanding of television distribution rights is correct.

As you will know from my earlier post I got confused and thought someone had objected to Nyx’s avatar but after the confusion had been sorted and I scrolled back I realised it was yours. Whether you (MechaBlade) retained that avatar or not doesn’t matter to me but I did say I thought it lacked imagination. You are correct about other avatars which also lack imagination on this site but that’s up to them.

As for copyright if I had a picture of Iron Man I shouldn’t think it would bother Marvel and if I had a box of cornflakes Kellogg’s would probaby think it another bit of product placement but in actual fact my avatar is my own. But it isn’t my face.

 

[jaF0]

I'd say fully 80%, maybe 90% of the AVs in use violate the 'ownership' rule as do nearly all of the pictures posted on various threads. Across the web in general, that rule is broken widely. That horse is out of the barn, that bridge crossed. Ownership is rarely an issue anywhere unless use is somehow for commercial gain.

But I've only seen a small handful of AVs that cross the content rule. That one is still in play and can get legally sticky.

Posting a snippet of the rules is a gentle nudge.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I do think it's an interesting subject. There are loads of avatars on here that are dick pics or tit pics, and as I understand the rules, those are fine. Does it make sense that a dick pic is fine, but not if there's a mouth on it? Not to me. That's why I was curious about why this particular is objectionable.

The rules also forbid "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person", among other things - it just wasn't in the bit that jaF0 quoted. So most of the dick pics people use for icons here would also be against the rules, if anybody chose to report them.

This is driven by 18 USC 2257, which requires sites that host sexually explicit photos or videos to keep records to prove that the models were over 18. Literotica aims to be exempt from this rule by not hosting such material.

AFAIK, breasts alone aren't covered by that law, so those aren't forbidden here.

 

[SimonDoom]

The rules also forbid "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person", among other things - it just wasn't in the bit that jaF0 quoted. So most of the dick pics people use for icons here would also be against the rules, if anybody chose to report them.

This is driven by 18 USC 2257, which requires sites that host sexually explicit photos or videos to keep records to prove that the models were over 18. Literotica aims to be exempt from this rule by not hosting such material.

AFAIK, breasts alone aren't covered by that law, so those aren't forbidden here.

What's interesting too is that the rule doesn't against explicit content does not apply to 3d illustrations, some of which are fairly realistic, and, with improvement in the software, will keep getting more realistic, to the point that if looked at quickly may soon seem indistinguishable from the real thing.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

The rules also forbid "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person", among other things - it just wasn't in the bit that jaF0 quoted. So most of the dick pics people use for icons here would also be against the rules, if anybody chose to report them.

This is driven by 18 USC 2257, which requires sites that host sexually explicit photos or videos to keep records to prove that the models were over 18. Literotica aims to be exempt from this rule by not hosting such material.

AFAIK, breasts alone aren't covered by that law, so those aren't forbidden here.

I didn't realize/remember the lascivious exhibition bit. I realize I must have read it at some point, but as I don't lasciviously exhibit anything here, it probably made no impression on me. It really is just a fig leaf, though, given the vast trove of AV porn posted on threads. There are even some accounts that have GIF videos of penetrative sex in the signature lines. It's jarring when it pops up on the screen, but it's an adult site that hosts adult content, so I'm not going to clutch my pearls over it.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm pretty sure the people on this site do jaywalk. I do. I'm not a dishonest person because of it. There are plenty of places in cities where jaywalking is a virtual necessity. I also walk across my neighborhood street without going to the intersection. I'm pretty sure most people here don't got to an intersection to walk across to their neighbor's house across the street. I'm pretty sure people here do other things on that list. It doesn't make them dishonest.

Do you seriously never break the speed limit? Never cross the street without going to an intersection? Never have sex outside of marriage? The questions are rhetorical, of course. It's none of my business if you do any of those things. But to suggest that it's dishonest to break any rule is a bit much for me to swallow.

I agree with this sentiment. There are rules, and there are rules. Some are worth getting really concerned about. Others, less so. If I found out my next-door neighbor was a bank robber, I would turn him into the cops. I would not do so if I found out he was a jaywalker or if he drove over the speed limit. It would never occur to me to think, "I just can't stand the fact that some people get away with their rule-breaking, and I want them turned in."

Same thing goes here. If I find out somebody is ripping off a Literotica author, to me that's immoral and very bad and I'm going to turn them in. If I feel that someone is being abusive in a forum, I will report them.

But Avatars that breach the rules? I don't care. I'll let Laurel enforce that.

Stories that get past Laurel's filter even though they seem to violate her rules? I let those go too. I just don't care. I don't think it's an important enough thing to worry about the unfairness of inconsistent results. Life is inconsistent and unfair every day and to me this is an unfairness I'm not going to care about. It's at most an infraction, not even a misdemeanor, and I feel no obligation to report it, so I don't.

Part of it is that I have no strong feelings about Laurel's content rules. I think they're somewhat arbitrary, and that there's nothing morally compelling about them, but they're within her prerogative. But let her enforce them. I don't care much.

 

[jaF0]

So most of the dick pics people use for icons here would also be against the rules, if anybody chose to report them.

Cockatars are violations and some have been removed.

There are even some accounts that have GIF videos of penetrative sex in the signature lines.

HumpaSigs are violations too, but I have animations including GIFs disabled, so I don't notice them.

I agree with this sentiment. There are rules, and there are rules. Some are worth getting really concerned about. Others, less so. If I found out my next-door neighbor was a bank robber, I would turn him into the cops. I would not do so if I found out he was a jaywalker or if he drove over the speed limit.

But Avatars that breach the rules? I don't care. I'll let Laurel enforce that.


Part of it is that I have no strong feelings about Laurel's content rules. I think they're somewhat arbitrary, and that there's nothing morally compelling about them, but they're within her prerogative. But let her enforce them. I don't care much.

More on point, if my community had a law or ordinance against co-habitation of unmarried persons (which many still do) and I found out my neighbors were doing so, I would not get involved. Unless one of them were underage.

In this case, simply posting a snippet of the rule for educational purposes seems to have worked.

 

[KeithD]

I'm not sure why you're angry about any of this, and I really don't understand why you're angry at me for trying to understand

I'm not angry. Try not to project.

I didn't come into this thread until very late in the game and, while constantly noting I didn't care what people posted, I pointed to hypocrisy that others had already pointed to and I noted dishonesty, with the willingness to be dishonest, as long as it's convenient and it is considered to be just at the petty level, just continuing in the posts. That in no way indicates puffed up anger. I suppose saying it does offers a distraction.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I'm not angry. Try not to project.

I didn't come into this thread until very late in the game and, while constantly noting I didn't care what people posted, I pointed to hypocrisy that others had already pointed to and I noted dishonesty, with the willingness to be dishonest, as long as it's convenient and it is considered to be just at the petty level, just continuing in the posts. That in no way indicates puffed up anger. I suppose saying it does offers a distraction.

You know what you actually wrote, and you know what I actually wrote. If you feel there's something you need to discuss, please feel free to PM.

 

[KeithD]

You know what you actually wrote, and you know what I actually wrote. If you feel there's something you need to discuss, please feel free to PM.

You seem to think that I care enough to pursue this by PM. You think wrong. I've been here nearly 15 years. I know where discussions like this go at Literotica. Nowhere.

Have you decided who owns that image you're using for your avatar yet and whether or not you are using it without permission? Just more jaywalking?

 

[AlinaX]

something something something

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

You seem to think that I care enough to pursue this by PM. You think wrong. I've been here nearly 15 years. I know where discussions like this go at Literotica. Nowhere.

Have you decided who owns that image you're using for your avatar yet and whether or not you are using it without permission? Just more jaywalking?

Apparently you did not read to the bottom of my response. The part with the big, bold EDIT. Not only do I have permission, but it was drawn for me, dedicated to me, and I have the signed original.

It's fine if you don't "care enough" to pursue this by PM. I suggest you apply the same attitude toward the public sniping at me. You're no longer talking about an issue of interest to everyone else.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

something something something

I think he would be the first to say that I was very appreciative.

 

[ruddygore]

Melania and Chelsea

Sure. I'll do you one better. Here's all my stories here: [Link Removed]

My last two submissions were Pink Box (hard rape) and Covfefe (politics).

[Links to offsite work should be confined to your bio, signature, and the designated "Authors and their Books" sticky at the top of the forum, or passed via Private Message. -AH Mod]

Because (in my imagining that led me to write the comment), the comment fight would quickly cease to be about the story, and become about all the other things that Americans seem to be fighting with each other about.



Because it would only take one person posting "did you see this story about Trump on Literotica" onto Reddit, or Facebook or whatever the kewl activitsts are using these days, to bring the hoardes. My larger point being, things with Trump are almost primed to go viral, because almost everyone has a hardened opinion about him, one way or the other. Much more so than any other political figure I can think of.



Trump and Hillary? Or Trump and Bill?

 

[Bramblethorn]

What's interesting too is that the rule doesn't against explicit content does not apply to 3d illustrations, some of which are fairly realistic, and, with improvement in the software, will keep getting more realistic, to the point that if looked at quickly may soon seem indistinguishable from the real thing.

Yep. The relevant US law applies to photos/videos, not illustration, and Literotica's rules observe that distinction. Photorealistic 3D was a long way off when those laws were written, but I expect that will cause a messy test case one of these days.

The background is that the law was, at least purportedly, introduced to prevent use of under-age models in porn by requiring sites to keep documentation on their ages. This obviously isn't feasible for drawings where the artist can claim there was no model.

I didn't realize/remember the lascivious exhibition bit. I realize I must have read it at some point, but as I don't lasciviously exhibit anything here, it probably made no impression on me. It really is just a fig leaf, though, given the vast trove of AV porn posted on threads. There are even some accounts that have GIF videos of penetrative sex in the signature lines. It's jarring when it pops up on the screen, but it's an adult site that hosts adult content, so I'm not going to clutch my pearls over it.

Important distinction between "posted" and "hosted".

When you pick an image as your avatar, Literotica hosts that image - a copy of it is uploaded and saved on a Literotica server. For instance, your avi is saved at https://forum.literotica.com/image.php?u=5371419&dateline=1589437378. When I view this thread, my browser downloads that image from Literotica.

But signature images generally aren't hosted here. People just hotlink, i.e. provide the URL to an image that's hosted elsewhere. For instance, RejectReality's sig has an explicit image located at http://www.darkniciad.com/covers/minis/rear_ended_thum.png which is obviously not a Literotica URL. When I view that sig, Literotica tells my browser the address, but it doesn't provide the image - for that, my browser needs to go ask darkniciad.com.

Literotica's official rules here boil down to: you can hotlink to explicit photos/video hosted elsewhere, but you're not allowed to host/upload them here. Avis require hosting; sig images don't.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1200747 - note the distinction made between attachments, remote linking, and avatars/profile pics.

AFAICT, for avis Literotica mostly just depends on users reporting content rather than mods seeking it out. For picture threads, it is a bit more heavily enforced, and threads have been closed when users kept uploading explicit material to Lit.

 

[SimonDoom]

Literotica's official rules here boil down to: you can hotlink to explicit photos/video hosted elsewhere, but you're not allowed to host/upload them here. Avis require hosting; sig images don't.

.

All of which makes sense if the point is to avoid the requirements of 2257, because you don't have to comply if your website users merely link to another website, regardless whether that website does comply or not.

 

[Bramblethorn]

All of which makes sense if the point is to avoid the requirements of 2257, because you don't have to comply if your website users merely link to another website, regardless whether that website does comply or not.

Exactly. It's now Somebody Else's Problem.

I suspect it's also safer for a generic photo hosting service to host such content than for Literotica to host it. The law is the same, but a site that's clearly identified as a porn site can expect more scrutiny and less assumption of good faith. A generic photo site might get away with throwing up their hands and say "oh, we only intended our site to be used for flowers and kittens, we are shocked to find people have been storing porn here!" but that won't fly for Literotica.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Important distinction between "posted" and "hosted".

When you pick an image as your avatar, Literotica hosts that image - a copy of it is uploaded and saved on a Literotica server. For instance, your avi is saved at https://forum.literotica.com/image.php?u=5371419&dateline=1589437378. When I view this thread, my browser downloads that image from Literotica.

But signature images generally aren't hosted here. People just hotlink, i.e. provide the URL to an image that's hosted elsewhere. For instance, RejectReality's sig has an explicit image located at http://www.darkniciad.com/covers/minis/rear_ended_thum.png which is obviously not a Literotica URL. When I view that sig, Literotica tells my browser the address, but it doesn't provide the image - for that, my browser needs to go ask darkniciad.com.

Literotica's official rules here boil down to: you can hotlink to explicit photos/video hosted elsewhere, but you're not allowed to host/upload them here. Avis require hosting; sig images don't.

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1200747 - note the distinction made between attachments, remote linking, and avatars/profile pics.

AFAICT, for avis Literotica mostly just depends on users reporting content rather than mods seeking it out. For picture threads, it is a bit more heavily enforced, and threads have been closed when users kept uploading explicit material to Lit.

I didn't even realize they were linked when you see the picture and not a url. I assumed people were copying the pictures and uploading the copies they made. I've never paid a lot of attention to the rules for posting photos because I don't post photos. The legal distinctions are interesting, though. It will be interesting to see what they do with the renderings. There's no underage model to use as the reason behind legislation of those images, so are they going to look the other way, or just admit the reason they want to legislate it?