Primarily Picture Threads will be gradually reduced.

[jaF0]

What makes your images appropriate and mine not? It would be your opinion that does that.

My 'opinion' in that you're hosting explicit images on your own site to try and get around the rules here. Your actions have not gone unnoticed. And the number of messages you get is not relevant.

 

[magic_rat]

Also, how is image posting here any different than Tumblr, Patreon, Bdsmlr, sex.com, instagram, pinterest, fb, imgur, or any other website that accepts image posting? It's not.

You're right. It's not.

Tumblr etc set the rules as to what can be posted. Just like here. You violate those rules at your peril.
But more broadly, the internet has created a nightmare for photographers because everyone assumes that if it's on the net, it's fair game. It's not.

How would you feel of something you had made, whether a photo, a story, whatever, was posted elsewhere without your permission and someone else took credit for it?

 

[magic_rat]

So these grey areas surrounding pic posting, the powers that be decide who can draw outside the lines and how far?

Somene has to draw the line. Otherwise we're in bandit country. I've been on unregulated forums in the past where, once people realised nobody was watching, illegal images started to show up, and once they went unnoticed, they proliferated.

You may not agree with where the line is drawn, but you get to vote with your feet.

 

[Mr_bogey]

In others news, sex site to limit sexual content.

 

[BBCfan]

You're right. It's not.

Tumblr etc set the rules as to what can be posted. Just like here. You violate those rules at your peril.
But more broadly, the internet has created a nightmare for photographers because everyone assumes that if it's on the net, it's fair game. It's not.

How would you feel of something you had made, whether a photo, a story, whatever, was posted elsewhere without your permission and someone else took credit for it?

How did I feel?

...flattered it was deemed good enough to copy exactly word for word and post elsewhere.
I think I made a smartass comment to likes of "glad you liked my story, thanks for the credit", but actually it felt good after I got over my ego based reaction.
I get zero for it on here so what does it matter?

These days everyone knows once you put something online it's there for ever and for all if it's a "legal product". To try and put your finger in that universe sized hole in the dyke is futile.
To pull A "Metallica" for something you are not gonna get monetary benefit for anyway, is wasted vitriol.

 

[BBCfan]

Somene has to draw the line. Otherwise we're in bandit country. I've been on unregulated forums in the past where, once people realised nobody was watching, illegal images started to show up, and once they went unnoticed, they proliferated.

You may not agree with where the line is drawn, but you get to vote with your feet.

I'm already frequenting here less.
If the reasons I come are gone, then I will vote with my feet.

I understand if there's been complaints about copyright et cetera, certain things can be a problem. My guess it's likely not, it's likely just some authors with sway that don't like the way things have evolved into?

My guess is most of the moderators are female and women are more generally more interested in verbal and guys are more visual.

So I think that might be part of where this dichotomy of philosophy begins. Perhaps I'm way off. I'm not criticizing either, I just think there's room for both.

I am an author, although a small one, but I have garnered for this site almost 400,000 views, and I have over 150 followers.
Get 0 monetary benefit.

I have a story in the works that I know will likely get over a million because it's a bit more mainstream.

Obviously if I feel the hawkish eyes of fascism on the forum, I'm going to just take my donation elsewhere.

No big deal either way, I realize I'm a tiny drop in the bucket. Drops add up though.
It just seems a little counter productive from a logic standpoint to bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Cfnmlover84]

How did I feel?

...flattered it was deemed good enough to copy exactly word for word and post elsewhere.
I think I made a smartass comment to likes of "glad you liked my story, thanks for the credit", but actually it felt good after I got over my ego based reaction.
I get zero for it on here so what does it matter?

These days everyone knows once you put something online it's there for ever and for all if it's a "legal product". To try and put your finger in that universe sized hole in the dyke is futile.
To pull A "Metallica" for something you are not gonna get monetary benefit for anyway, is wasted vitriol.

Plus it's impossible to enforce given that different countries have different laws on copyright and fair use.

 

[HoldYouDown]

I'm already frequenting here less.
If the reasons I come are gone, then I will vote with my feet.

I understand if there's been complaints about copyright et cetera, certain things can be a problem. My guess it's likely not, it's likely just some authors with sway that don't like the way things have evolved into?

My guess is most of the moderators are female and women are more generally more interested in verbal and guys are more visual.

So I think that might be part of where this dichotomy of philosophy begins. Perhaps I'm way off. I'm not criticizing either, I just think there's room for both.

I am an author, although a small one, but I have garnered for this site almost 400,000 views, and I have over 150 followers.
Get 0 monetary benefit.

I have a story in the works that I know will likely get over a million because it's a bit more mainstream.

Obviously if I feel the hawkish eyes of fascism on the forum, I'm going to just take my donation elsewhere.

No big deal either way, I realize I'm a tiny drop in the bucket. Drops add up though.
It just seems a little counter productive from a logic standpoint to bite the hand that feeds you.

My personal theory (just an opinion, nothing more) is the reduction in images has to do more with bandwidth and money than some noble attempt to protect copyright, or following some kind of general government anti-pornography law that does not exist. Otherwise Lit could just ban images outright and make this a text-only site to avoid any conflict.

The definitions cited by Lit in its image posting guidelines refer to the Child Protection Act, i.e. the ban of child porn, not a general government ban on adult pornography which we know does not exist "under current United States law." Unless Lit is a site for children which I hope it's not. We know that adult porn is legal and it's Lit's prerogative if they want to limit it to "soft nudity." But they probably want to prevent rogue posts of truly illegal images which is understandable.

As for copyright, it's understandable to forbid the uploading of images with clear copyrights, watermarks, or whose authors have requested they be removed. Linking images from other sites is not really reproduction, and as someone noted, once something is published, it's out there. (Are mod avatar images originals?) Like I said it would be easier to disable image posting than to police each one. Embedded links (esp. GIFs) and uploads probably take up a lot of bandwidth.

My theory is that protecting artists, returning Lit to a primarily-textual site, and forbidding legal porn images by invoking the government are just smokescreens. It costs money to maintain a site and servers aren't free. (Some of these threads loaded with GIFs take a while to load and I agree that at some point it's just one after another without much thought or intellectual interplay.) It's their site and they can do as they wish - I just don't believe the reasons, they should just state their prerogative as owners and I hope we would all respect that. Not that they should care what I think.

Just sharing my opinion - and I mean no disrespect to the mods or owners.

 

[BBCfan]

My personal theory (just an opinion, nothing more) is the reduction in images has to do more with bandwidth and money than some noble attempt to protect copyright, or following some kind of general government anti-pornography law that does not exist. Otherwise Lit could just ban images outright and make this a text-only site to avoid any conflict.

The definitions cited by Lit in its image posting guidelines refer to the Child Protection Act, i.e. the ban of child porn, not a general government ban on adult pornography which we know does not exist "under current United States law." Unless Lit is a site for children which I hope it's not. We know that adult porn is legal and it's Lit's prerogative if they want to limit it to "soft nudity." But they probably want to prevent rogue posts of truly illegal images which is understandable.

As for copyright, it's understandable to forbid the uploading of images with clear copyrights, watermarks, or whose authors have requested they be removed. Linking images from other sites is not really reproduction, and as someone noted, once something is published, it's out there. (Are mod avatar images originals?) Like I said it would be easier to disable image posting than to police each one. Embedded links (esp. GIFs) and uploads probably take up a lot of bandwidth.

My theory is that protecting artists, returning Lit to a primarily-textual site, and forbidding legal porn images by invoking the government are just smokescreens. It costs money to maintain a site and servers aren't free. (Some of these threads loaded with GIFs take a while to load and I agree that at some point it's just one after another without much thought or intellectual interplay.) It's their site and they can do as they wish - I just don't believe the reasons, they should just state their prerogative as owners and I hope we would all respect that. Not that they should care what I think.

Just sharing my opinion - and I mean no disrespect to the mods or owners.

Yeah, that's a very logical reason. $$$ .

 

[32aa]

So, is that why up to a week ago, when trying to insert an image, instead of the box coming up with the "copy image" a box with an 'http//:' comes up? in the preceding weeks, I had loaded numerous images that had either a watermark or at the bottom the location of the site where the original image was posted.

Just curious.

 

[32aa]

Well, they did it. All of the images that I posted are gone. Yes, they were all from internet sites most with fine print of the site where they came from. Strange, as i look through the various newly posted images, a lot are from internet sites with location of where they came from.

So, i guess between what i posted above and this, my image posting days are over.

 

[jaF0]

^^^ You're not the first one to report that kind of thing, but I've only seen four or five other members. But I don't recognize your ID at all until this thread. There are people that post very little else other than images and they haven't lost their ability to do so. No one really seems to know what causes it and Admin hasn't made any statements about it.

 

[windwater]

I'm already frequenting here less.
If the reasons I come are gone, then I will vote with my feet.

I understand if there's been complaints about copyright et cetera, certain things can be a problem. My guess it's likely not, it's likely just some authors with sway that don't like the way things have evolved into?

My guess is most of the moderators are female and women are more generally more interested in verbal and guys are more visual.

So I think that might be part of where this dichotomy of philosophy begins. Perhaps I'm way off. I'm not criticizing either, I just think there's room for both.

I am an author, although a small one, but I have garnered for this site almost 400,000 views, and I have over 150 followers.
Get 0 monetary benefit.

I have a story in the works that I know will likely get over a million because it's a bit more mainstream.

Obviously if I feel the hawkish eyes of fascism on the forum, I'm going to just take my donation elsewhere.

No big deal either way, I realize I'm a tiny drop in the bucket. Drops add up though.
It just seems a little counter productive from a logic standpoint to bite the hand that feeds you.

Here Here, Good Man or Woman, or...

 

[jaF0]

To be honest, the latest regime of moderation seems a bit excessive, and in some ways it’s spoiling the atmosphere of lit.

Literotica is a site for authors to create and publish works.
.

Removing most of the forums and leaving only the Author's Hangout and others directly related to stories would not be spoiling the atmosphere of Lit. The rest is fluff to help pass the time. From the number and frequency of rule violations, it almost seems like some are pushing for that.

 

[eric_erosfan]

Why did this old thread get dredged up?