|
|
 | | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
| (...) Actually, they're covered under fair use. The parody/satire clause, IIRC. (...) Because I'm not interested in a shitstorm. (...) I'd laugh my ass off. Besides, I've done far (URL) worse> (warning, really messed up adult content) than that (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
| Moving back to admin.terms since this is not an off topic debate. The images do not *clearly* violate TOS if they have been moderated. Considering the size and obviousness of the lettering, it can't be argued that the admins didn't see it, and as (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
| (...) But aren't those types of edits the right of the creator alone? (...) Why not? (...) No "crime", but put it this way: how would you feel if somebody posted pics of their recreation of (URL) with a lewd caption on it? You might think it's (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
| (...) From the TOS: "You agree to not use the Service to: (a) upload, post or otherwise transmit any Content that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, tortuous, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another's privacy, (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Brickshelf find: Hello Vifam
|
| Which secion of the TOS do those images specifically violate? Perhaps I'm missing it, but I didn't see any that those were *clearly* in violation of. Jeff (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-05, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
|
|
