What happened to the Celebrities subforum?

[DarthSkywalker]

Just so I am clear, clips from the films actually released, posters and the like are alright, right?

 

[Human Torch]

Seems like someone clearly wants to see SHH out of business.Are other sites (that shall not be named) going through this?


Are the mods gonna delete old posts for us,or are we supposed to go back through the past couple years and do it ourselves?

 

[The Squirrel]

So even though it's perfectly legal to take photos of filming (or a celebrity) that is taking place in full public view on a street... it's suddenly not legal to actually view those photos?

 

[flickchick85]

Are the mods gonna delete old posts for us,or are we supposed to go back through the past couple years and do it ourselves?

We've asked if we should start deleting stuff outside of the Celebrities subforum and were told to hold off "for now," so there aren't currently plans for us to do that. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea for you guys to go ahead and do so if you're worried about your old posts, because there's no telling when they could be found and flagged.

So even though it's perfectly legal to take photos of filming (or a celebrity) that is taking place in full public view on a street... it's suddenly not legal to actually view those photos?

It's not the viewing, it's the posting. Basically we're dealing with potential 3rd party claims that someone else's property is being posted (and therefore distributed) without their permission.

 

[antsman41]

So, if certain posts become ban worthy by the North Korean SHH Lawyers, will any quote reply also lead to a 'death sentence'?

Also, if it's illegal to post "paparazzi pics and the like"

...what is the point of anyone taking said pics of celebrities on red carpets, our favorites franchises being in-progress, and what have you?

If no one can see or talk about said images, then we might as well start community camera burnings.

And, is fan art technically illegal since it involves likenesses?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

It was nice knowing all of you.

The feeling is mutual.

 

[fatzke]

We've asked if we should start deleting stuff outside of the Celebrities subforum and were told to hold off "for now," so there aren't currently plans for us to do that. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea for you guys to go ahead and do so if you're worried about your old posts, because there's no telling when they could be found and flagged.

i always thought that mods have administrative rights and can do whatever they want? If this place is falling apart and you don't even get paid, why not do this and help out the people here a little. And who told you to hold out, if the communication is as bad as stated?

The next thing i am asking myself the whole time is if these "infractions" and "bans" and "third strikes" have any other legal consequences in real life besides being kicked of this board? What would be the actual drama about that? So what? Show the finger, go for good and find a new place (though there might be the same lawyers).

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

the mods should go out in a blaze of glory. I'd follow.

 

[Marvolo]

I hope you start feeling better. When I had one it was the worst experience I ever had. The treatment helped a lot. I really hope you feel better.

Thank you.

About this whole thing, I have few questions for the Mods. Have y'all corresponded with the lawyers directly? Over the phone or through an email that is confirmed to be originating from a law firm? And can a mod tell us the name of the law firm that is handling this?

 

[regwec]

I don't really post many celebrity pictures as such, and I presume I am in no particular danger of "punishment", but I must say that I think this has been handled extremely badly. Badly run companies have an unerring talent for alienating their prospective customers, but I can think of no better way to cause offense and bad feeling than targeting movie fans through their discussion boards.

A plague on their estates.

 

[Superwoman Prime]

Seems like someone clearly wants to see SHH out of business.Are other sites (that shall not be named) going through this?


Are the mods gonna delete old posts for us,or are we supposed to go back through the past couple years and do it ourselves?

I'd accept a ban before I ever bothered.

 

[Schlosser85]

Thank you.

About this whole thing, I have few questions for the Mods. Have y'all corresponded with the lawyers directly? Over the phone or through an email that is confirmed to be originating from a law firm? And can a mod tell us the name of the law firm that is handling this?

No.

 

[regwec]

I'm glad I don't work for a law firm whose workload includes forensically moderating internet forums. I would have to question whether I could have done more with my life.

 

[Marvolo]

No.

I know it's upsetting y'all just as much as us. Thank you for responding.

 

[Schlosser85]

We have had zero direct communication with these people. None at all. What little scraps of communication there is goes through the site-owner, and believe me, there's not much.

 

[Spider-Aziz]

I'm glad I don't work for a law firm whose workload includes forensically moderating internet forums. I would have to question whether I could have done more with my life.

Wonder if ChickenScratch is one of the lawyers.
Or if his company lawyers work on the lawsuit.

 

[Marvolo]

We have had zero direct communication with these people. None at all. What little scraps of communication there is goes through the site-owner, and believe me, there's not much.

Do you think it's possible that this is all a sham and that there are no lawyers or clients claiming copyright infringement? Just some *****e bag owners trying to reboot the Hype and change things with fear and a fabricated witch hunt?

 

[terry78]

As the Sony hack taught us, do they wanna take the chance it's not?

 

[flickchick85]

i always thought that mods have administrative rights and can do whatever they want? If this place is falling apart and you don't even get paid, why not do this and help out the people here a little. And who told you to hold out, if the communication is as bad as stated?

The next thing i am asking myself the whole time is if these "infractions" and "bans" and "third strikes" have any other legal consequences in real life besides being kicked of this board? What would be the actual drama about that? So what? Show the finger, go for good and find a new place (though there might be the same lawyers).

No real-life legal consequences for posters. Which I guess is why "legal rights" (like being retroactively punished for breaking a rule you weren't even told about) don't seem to enter into it.

As for who suggested we hold off on the deleting, it was the site-owner. Same person who deleted Hunter's announcement about the whole situation.

 

[fatzke]

No real-life legal consequences for posters. Which I guess is why "legal rights" (like being retroactively punished for breaking a rule you weren't even told about) don't seem to enter into it.

As for who suggested we hold off on the deleting, it was the site-owner. Same person who deleted Hunter's announcement about the whole situation.

Ah ok, thx for the info/update.

 

[Fallen Angel]

Do you think it's possible that this is all a sham and that there are no lawyers or clients claiming copyright infringement? Just some *****e bag owners trying to reboot the Hype and change things with fear and a fabricated witch hunt?

If this is the case I will find this guy and beat the ever living crap out of that frikin muppet with a crowbar.

 

[flickchick85]

Ah ok, thx for the info/update.

No problem. We're all in this together, after all.

 

[Dark Raven]

No real-life legal consequences for posters. Which I guess is why "legal rights" (like being retroactively punished for breaking a rule you weren't even told about) don't seem to enter into it.

As for who suggested we hold off on the deleting, it was the site-owner. Same person who deleted Hunter's announcement about the whole situation.

Why are you told to hold off on the deleting? Is it so that the posts remain there and lawyers or whoever can sift through them (ie like not wanting to delete the evidence)? Or is it that the site owner is saying not to worry about deleting them because they might be able to stand as it is without being punished for them?

 

[Vartha]

So, if certain posts become ban worthy by the North Korean SHH Lawyers, will any quote reply also lead to a 'death sentence'?

Also, if it's illegal to post "paparazzi pics and the like"

...what is the point of anyone taking said pics of celebrities on red carpets, our favorites franchises being in-progress, and what have you?

If no one can see or talk about said images, then we might as well start community camera burnings.

And, is fan art technically illegal since it involves likenesses?

It's how they make their money whether it's in good taste or not. If the image starts out on THEIR own site it IS still their property.
Put it this way, you own a bike, you leave it out in your front yard with a lock, Someone cuts the lock and walks off the bike, it's still your bike if you registered it and all.

 

[roach]

It seems like we are in this together....more than we know. I write for a little website and we got a letter from a lawyer over paparazzi pics from the behind the scenes pics of Flash vs Reverse Flash. It's the first time we see him in full. The guy who snapped the pics copyrightted them and is hitting every web site that posted them. I'll try to find more information.