lmao thanks fam im a moron for not bothering to hit reply
- 9,836
- 3,228
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2015
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
when they upload em on IG, they basically lose their copyright claims to it to FB inc.
lol NBA thread is doo doo
And yeah younger folks use twitter more because it's easier and you're not censored like on a message board plus everyone else uses it
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
da dumb Hanna Montana acolytes just ironically stumbled upon da perfect way to keep "appreciation threads" open.
you concentrate each thread on ONE person at a time.
treat da chicks like pair of Jordans, each colorway gets its own thread.
by concentrating on one broad at a time, da thread is easier to regulate just in case da heathens got NSFW material thats better scrutinized and since majority of da time these broads are bout thottin' on da gram or public figures, take down notices should be rendered nill.
also since its not random broads being posted, da free for all aspects should be better corralled.
- 47,130
- 96,440
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2013
If thats the case then Duff is a pair of 15s
- 7,331
- 28,780
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
That is categorically false. Where are you getting your information?
You grant IG/FB a license to use content you upload to their service. You maintain ownership of that content. From their terms - which you really should've looked up before making a declarative statement on the matter:
"They shouldn't have taken the photo in the first place" reeks of the "she asked for it" defense, which is vulgar and unacceptable. Users are not permitted to abuse our service to violate the rights of others.
HBO is the latest victim of high profile media piracy. I don't see anyone saying "if HBO didn't want their creative work stolen, then they shouldn't have produced creative work of interest to the public in the first place."
It is, admittedly, difficult to put the genie back in the bottle when it comes to the viral sharing of online content. That doesn't give us the right to be among the many guilty parties redistributing stolen content.
If a photograph taken of someone in their youth comes back to haunt them in their personal or professional lives years later, it's easy to understand why they'd request the removal of that content from any websites that come up in a search.
We will comply with those requests because it is the ethical and responsible thing to do and, in many cases, it's the course of action required by law.
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
Instagram does not claim ownership of any Content that you post on or through the Service. Instead, you hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post on or through the Service, subject to the Service’s Privacy Policy, available here http://instagram.com/legal/privacy/, including but not limited to sections 3 (“Sharing of Your Information”), 4 (“How We Store Your Information”), and 5 (“Your Choices About Your Information”). You can choose who can view your Content and activities, including your photos, as described in the Privacy Policy.
da key here is how your photos are controlled once their on da possessions of IG, is what im emphasizing.
- 7,331
- 28,780
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
So it's your contention that Instagram is sub-licensing these images to random people, who are then lawfully republishing them on NikeTalk?
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
basically once da images are uploaded on Instagram, they became public domain in terms of distribution/consent rights, thats essentially what that blurb da Instagram legal beagles are saying, so say someone imbeds though IG posts or screenshots em, you're essentially giving up your right to control da image from a monetary or overall usage.
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
- By using our Service you understand and agree that we are providing a platform for you to post content, including photos, comments and other materials ("User Content"), to the Service and to share User Content publicly. This means that other Users may search for, see, use, or share any of your User Content that you make publicly available through the Service, consistent with the terms and conditions of this Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use (which can be found at http://instagram.com/legal/terms).
- Our Policy applies to all visitors, users, and others who access the Service ("Users").
- 7,331
- 28,780
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
You're confused. Embedding an Instagram post or sharing a link is different than downloading and redistributing that image. The content still lives on Instagram.
You're also assuming that any photo of this nature must, somehow, have been uploaded in Instagram, which is untrue.
If you want to take on the liability, you're welcome to host these images on your own domain.
- 17,160
- 23,994
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2009
I'm 29. I've been posting off and on since 2009 and was lurking before that. I like the fact that NT skews alittle older. NTers can offer some legit good advice based on experience and alot of the dialogue that goes on here is mature than alot of other boards IMO.
Narcissist
formerly drusum
- 3,369
- 1,105
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
This place reminds me of The Coli a lot lately
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
which still basically absolves da ability to control what happens to da image once it gets in da hands of Instagram.
This means that other Users may search for, see, use, or share any of your User Content that you make publicly available through the Service.
you're under no legal obligation to take down images that are published on IG that aren't private.
now if you're saying "yo im doing chicks favors cuz they ain't know better" then hey, i don't care..you da boss round here b, thats a morality play, not a legal one.
- 7,331
- 28,780
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
Spoken like someone with no familiarity with copyright law, who saw the word "share."
The terms you've cited pertain to Instagram users' ability to share content on or through the Instagram service. This is what allows users to essentially "re-tweet" Instagram photos, embed them, etc. It does not mean you can take photos from someone's Instagram and use them as you see fit.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/oliver...-use-in-the-age-of-social-media/#1fba1a8e3300
Attempting to make a case for "fair use" via artistic or sufficiently transformative modification (as has been famously exploited by a variety hack "artists"), or claiming that it's for "non-profit" uses would be considered separate from your blanket misinterpretation of Instagram's policies.
Again, if you'd like to put your theory to the test - you accept liability for it, and you host it. Put your money where your mouth is.
- 48,296
- 28,348
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
To all those out there that think NT is an "old head site"...
get off my lawn!
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
so what are we talking about here? this is a semantics deal..if da pics are on Instagram and u embed them here whats da problem?
like i said i don't care either way, i used to sleep on all da appreciation threads unless is showcase someone i like in particular, which means i would've gone to ol girl's IG in da first place.
- 7,331
- 28,780
- Joined
- Dec 8, 1999
If you link or embed, the IG account holder can remove the image and the hosting of that image is IG's responsibility.
If someone uploads it to our site such that it's hosted on NikeTalk.com, then it becomes our problem.
Either way, we wouldn't allow inappropriate images to be posted to the site, which is a separate issue, but embedding/linking avoids the copyright concern. It allows the copyright holder to exercise control over their images.
- 28,802
- 10,773
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2006
NT was awesome ...
Tony $now
formerly lilyo06
- 8,177
- 6,744
- Joined
- May 25, 2008
NT was awesome ...
It still is. Sometimes change is hard, but it's still my favorite site on the net.
Like another poster suggested, I would love a sub forum that required a certain post count before posting. That way we could eliminate trolls and have constructive convos on various topics
- 24,468
- 21,216
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2014
Thread about nothing killed NT
- 13,724
- 12,799
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2016
Majority is probably "old heads", but I don't think so.
- 8,818
- 4,296
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
Change is hard. I've been visiting the site less and less since the move.
Big part of my life for over a decade
Big part of my life for over a decade
- 70,049
- 24,223
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2004
general suffers from that malignant cancer, but da 20 threads per page boosted da "speed" of da page.
