What is Digg?93 Comments
- krystofr, on 02/14/2009, -0/+41She'd sue me too if she knew what I did with THAT photo!
- CTK14A, on 02/14/2009, -1/+35I always preferred the Heidi Klum version...
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/918/51damqfzibl ...
NSFW - WordsnCollision, on 02/14/2009, -0/+29Guilty as charged... not the dudes she's suing, me for having the poster on my wall back in the day.
- immatellyouwhat, on 02/14/2009, -0/+25Her nipples could cut glass.
- skyjis6, on 02/14/2009, -0/+22if fapping's illegal, the Digg community may as well be the largest band of outlaws in history.
- Insolent, on 02/14/2009, -0/+21I was going to disagree with you but I looked at the wikipedia entry on Mohs scale of mineral hardness and I'll be damned, there it was right above Feldspar!
5.5 Window Glass
6 Feldspar (KAlSi3O8)
6.5 Farah Fawcett's Nipples
7 Quartz (SiO2) - inactive, on 02/14/2009, -2/+21Turn in your man card.
- sloppychris, on 02/14/2009, -1/+19What's hot about that photo (aside from the attractive female) is that she looks like a real person, not an airbrushed ***** robot.
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -2/+19This is what happens when your only asset wears out by the time you're 35 and you live past 60, you turn to lawsuits for income.
- sloppychris, on 02/14/2009, -0/+10(Although ***** robots would be pretty awesome)
- oxymoron69, on 02/14/2009, -0/+9Yeah man.... she's got those sharp knees you hate so much eh?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/88/213423984_a82afc ... - bixby1, on 02/14/2009, -0/+8A good chance to see that photo again. I have no idea what the article is about.
- fugazied, on 02/14/2009, -0/+7Not everyone needs gay midget sex to get off you know.
- SaladCactusKing, on 02/14/2009, -0/+7large areolas.
- fr0mundacheese, on 02/14/2009, -0/+6She need to file suit against Father Time
- kkeut, on 02/14/2009, -0/+5her forced 'pan-am' smile in that photo has always bothered me.
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -1/+6Because it's humorous, you dolt.
- retral, on 02/14/2009, -10/+14That picture is not hot.
(someone had to say it). - OutpostNetwork, on 02/14/2009, -0/+4Yep, had that one on my wall. What a wonderful image to have in my mind when I went to sleep. Very pleasant dreams indeed.
- terrya64, on 02/14/2009, -0/+3I had this poster on my door, Cheryl Tiegs and Susan Anton on the walls.
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -0/+3We should go back to the original system where a copyright is valid for 28 years and can be renewed once.
This whole "Author's death + 70 years" thing is absolutely absurd. It may as well be perpetual. - 1ofMany, on 02/14/2009, -1/+4Even I had the poster on my wall -- and I'm gay! (seriously)
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -0/+3Maybe you're confused?
- eavesdrop, on 02/14/2009, -0/+3It's worked for plenty of people. Some people have never had an honest job in their life. Not that I'm condoning sue-happy people, they're just ***** lazy.
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2Nice except for "here"
- hfactor, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2They are free to do so :) I was just wondering what people see in that photo. I wouldn't want to look at it twice, there are better and way sexier pictures in any given issue of every men's magazine. Maybe it's just a matter of the time period it was published in. Or maybe it really looks different in larger sizes.
- lorem1000, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2To clarify for other commentators, publishing rights and copyrights are two different things.
Photographers own the copyright of their art by default, same with musicians, as it should be.
Model releases allow the artist to use the art for profit, and agreements have to be made if that is to be shared. Unless a contract is written, specifically detailing the sharing of rights, a model or publishing company has zero copyright ownership. - kodax, on 02/15/2009, -0/+2@JQP123. I see little distinction between slavery and the contracts entered into transferring ownership of an image between an artist who makes a living off her image and a company. Despite what you think or have seen in movies, slaves were not running around in shackles or toiling behind high walls preventing escape. In most cases, the primary restrain was the law which recognized them as property. But this is not the kind of slavery I am speaking of.
Any contract that forced someone to labor (even if being paid well and the work is very easy) is not recognized by the law as enforceable. This is because this is morally akin to slavery. Maybe you are saying that an individual should be allowed to enter into this kind of agreement anyway if he desires but the general consensus on this is that maybe in some small cases it can be an exercise in a person's discretion but overwhelming number of these contracts will be adhesion contracts where rich company owners will take advantage of the desperate and poor. How many people in Detroit do you think would snap up an offer by GM to work again even if it means they could not quit for 20 years? This throws so much leverage into the hands of the employer that GM would basically have slaves working for only food and board in one or two economic downturns.
This is one of those times a nanny state does look after you one one of the few things the government has done to protect the individual from exploitation.
- kodax, on 02/15/2009, -0/+2@lorem1000. I dont think contracting out work is problematic as long as it does not transfer ownership. There is an old article by Courtney Love on the mechanics of record industry contracts with anecdotes of artists unable to play their song book live because the record companies owned the songs and would sue them to stop. In other cases, record labels contract with a band simply to keep them from joining another label and competing with one of their existing acts.
Personally, a couple of years ago, I took my family for photographs at a photo studio franchise (I believe this was called Venture Studio) after the 3 hour studio session they asked me to sign some kind of release. Reading the small print, the release essentially stated that I was transferring ownership of the photos to the studio and would not reproduce to use the photos. Digital copies would not be given to me although the studio had them and technically, if I scanned the photos and put them on a website for my family to see, the studio could stop me from doing this. On the other hand, since they own the rights, the studio could put the photos on a web gallery and charge us a fee to access. Of course I did not sign and did not pay for the session. - DrBadfish, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2mmm international pie
- zip000, on 02/14/2009, -2/+4I agree that it isn't particularly hot, but I bet back in the 70s it was.
She's too boney for me. - kodax, on 02/14/2009, -2/+4Personally, I think laws should be amended so that one cannot own (i.e., copyright) another person's image or other identifying feature (voice). They can claim ownership of some profit margin if it is sold to them but the object of the piece should always have the last word in distribution etc.
For example, Farah has to pay the photographer or production company a certain amount whenever the poster is sold but she should be able to shelf the poster forever if she feels like it. Another example, a record label can claim a portion of a record sale whenever it is sold but the artists can force the label to stop selling whenever they want.
Copyright laws are completely anachronistic to today's society and were one sided to begin with. - kodax, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2You did not get my point which is that record labels should not be able to legally purchase these kinds of rights no matter how "gladly" the artist is to sign them over. For one thing, this is IMO a kind of adhesion contract and should not be enforceable. More importantly, there is an esoteric issue of permitting transfer of ownership of something that inalienably should belong only to you such as your image. The law already recognizes this for labor and one cannot gain ownership of another persons labor or services no matter how much is paid.
- silfiriel, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2and that someone is probably over 40 today.
- inactive, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2Millions of people think the complete opposite of you.
- kodax, on 02/14/2009, -0/+2Yes. Irrevocably contracting away something that inalienably belongs to you (like your image) should not be enforceable in the same way you cannot irrevocably contract your labor. If you sign a contract to work for a year (let alone forever) and decide to quit, no court or contract can force you to continue working though you might have to give back any money you received or pay some damages.
Under current copyright laws, actual ownership is transferred by contract and I think that is wrong. The company actually owns the image/music etc. I think record labels publishers etc should be protected by contracts so they can claim damages for breach etc if an artist pulls out or decides to let another publisher but what we have now is intellectual slavery.
BTW, this is ironically exactly what DRM is trying to do to consumers. You pay for something but it still belongs to the copyright owner. If you try to use that Maroon 5 song you purchased legitimately on your website, the record label can force you to stop. - eRenee, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1Aw, she should at least get a million.
- FreddieD, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1Rainn Wilson after a month long twinkie binge.
- realunderdog, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1"Does Alan Parsons have no rights or say in "Dark Side of the Moon?" He arranged and presented the raw recordings of sounds into the completed songs and album... does he count as one of the "artists"?"
We may disagree as to where to draw the line.... can we agree that RIAA is not part or the equation? - JQP123, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1@kodax
"You did not get my point which is that record labels should not be able to legally purchase these kinds of rights no matter how "gladly" the artist is to sign them over."
Why? Because you say so? Because you don't like record labels? Because you're the keeper of all that is right and good and you know what's best for others?
Slavery is obviously illegal and for plenty of good reasons. But trying to equate slavery with the rights to a recording or a photograph is a stretch that lacks any legal or rational basis in my opinion. A recording or a photograph doesn't physically impose or restrict the individual in any way. Why shouldn't the individual be allowed to decide what is best for them and sell it if they choose? - jbond, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1I always preferred Philip Castle's version. http://www.sci-fi-o-rama.com/2008/09/04/philip-cas ...
- realunderdog, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1WTF?
- JQP123, on 02/14/2009, -1/+2"Another example, a record label can claim a portion of a record sale whenever it is sold but the artists can force the label to stop selling whenever they want."
Your comment demonstrates a very poor understanding of copyright law.
Record labels have no rights under copyright law. The only rights addressed by copyright law are those of the artist/author/creator. Legally, record labels can't "claim" anything without the artist's permission. But what happens is that most artists gladly sign over at least some of their "copy rights" to the record labels in a legally binding contract. They do this in exchange for the record label's promotional services and a shot at becoming rich.
In other words, half of your complaining has nothing to do with *copyright*, it has to do with contract law and the legally binding contracts that artists enter into. - lorem1000, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1kodax "The law already recognizes this for labor and one cannot gain ownership of another persons labor or services no matter how much is paid."
citation needed
I'm not saying there are circumstances where this might apply, but there are plenty where it doesn't. Tell this to the guy that invented plastic for Dow or the guy who lost Bratz to Mattel.
If I make art, and someone wants to publish it, there are plenty of kinds rights for sale. First rights, distribution rights, promotional rights, North American rights, full rights, work-for-hire, time-limited exclusivity, etc. But *copyright* is still mine in most of these cases (if I sell full rights, I'm screwed regardless).
It's kinda how an artist pays his bills. - Sonixunite, on 02/14/2009, -1/+2Of course YOU would find something sexier in a magazine full of men.
- llopez1223, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1I'm guessing her rent is overdue.
- kodax, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1"That's brilliant. And by extension every bit side actor, dolly grip, and assistant to the regional manager should be able to shelve any movie they worked on. That is clearly a better system. /slippery slope"
There. Fixed that for you. - Wakkyweed, on 02/14/2009, -0/+1Ah, that poster. It brings back childhood memories of many a blissful afternoon spent gazing at her beauty, and then fapping myself silly.
- rowlodge, on 02/15/2009, -0/+1there used to be a "nude" version, "painting", of it a long time ago, but he got sued and had to stop selling them too.
-
Show 51 - 97 of 97 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
