I would have went with SebLeb02I0 personally, with an i rather than the 1.
Your free lessons by Sebastien Lebel ( SebLeb0210 ) lesson 2 ! :)
Sort:
sebleb211 wrote:
I feel like deleting all of these forums where I was acting like an idiot and hurting people with my bad coaching skills....
Good lad.
sebleb211 wrote:
I feel like deleting all of these forums where I was acting like an idiot and hurting people with my bad coaching skills....
Ok, ,get out of here before I tell staff. Who are you ?
Ok its enogh I am going to tell them
SebLeb0210 wrote:
Ok its enogh I am going to tell them
'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery'.
pelly13 wrote:
I've been so free as to copy part of a remark I made on another thread.
On the net , you are anonymous. You can be anybody you want people to think you are.You can even be omnipotent if you just change your nationality and fiddle with your time-sector on your profile.
Some of you might have noticed I have recently had a complete make-over of my profile and changed large parts of my "indentity". Since I did that , I received quite a lot of messages on my profile mostly about the avatar.
Reading SelLeb's lessons on this forum , I was initialy lured into thinking he really was the boy in the photo.It didn't take me long to find out he was an adult with a very clever tactic to satisfy his masochism and how to induce a reader to react to his posts.He (un)willingly exposed that this is the real aim in one of his post.
The thing is , when I read someones posts I make a mental picture of the writer.The more I read his/her posts the more I make adjustments to my model.The strange thing is however , that I seem to be prone to optical delusions when it comes to members having an avatar showing real people in normal situations. I have the tendency to believe what I see . No brains working here , but something very primal.
Is there anybody else that suffers from this weakspot too ?
Stop being a bully, you know exactly who SebLeb and you should be ashamed of talking to him this way... I hope you get banned.
I am just not sure hwo this is ! But he probably will get banned
richie_and_oprah wrote:
get over it and yourself
pics on the web are fair game for anyone to use at anytime for any reason
Well, you're clearly not a law expert. Completely false.
This is getting into nutty land. I honestly don't know which one is the real Seb now. Is it 210 or 211??
First you must prove the picture is you and then -
You can stop a website's use of your image for three reasons: invasion of privacy, violation of right of publicity, or defamation.
Invasion of privacy can occur if you are portrayed falsely and in a highly offensive manner. For example, your photo was posted at America's Most Wanted's website, and you are not wanted -- by the law. Your privacy may also be invaded if the photo was taken by someone who intruded on you in a situation in which you had a reasonable expectation of privacy -- for example, in your own home. It is not an invasion of privacy to photograph someone in a public place or at any event where the public is invited.
Another reason to stop the use is known as the right of publicity. This occurs if your image is used for commercial purposes such as to sell products or to imply that you endorse a product. If the photo is used in a commercial website -- that is, one sponsored by a business or that sells products or services -- the unauthorized use of your image would probably violate your right of publicity. The public must be able to identify you in the photograph.
You can also stop the website use if the photo defames you -- that is, it creates a false impression and injures your reputation. For example, it would be defamatory to doctor a photo to make it seem as if you were shoplifting. The fact that an unmodified photo is unflattering is not enough to claim defamation. The photo must falsely portray you and must cause people in the community to think less of you.
So FlamingZombies, we have to take a sample set of Seb's neighbors and relatives in his community? And if they, for the most part, agree that Seb has lost a lot of his luster to them since being duplicated on Chess.com....THEN we can get a court case pending?? Let's do this thing.
Mr_Tarkanian wrote:
So FlamingZombies, we have to take a sample set of Seb's neighbors and relatives in his community? And if they, for the most part, agree that Seb has lost a lot of his luster to them since being duplicated on Chess.com....THEN we can get a court case pending?? Let's do this thing.
Rotfffffffffffffffff umm that's one way of looking at it !
Well....he's definitely not Lionel Richie star power. I would argue that he's more of a celebrity than Nicole Richie.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
richie_and_oprah wrote:
get over it and yourself
pics on the web are fair game for anyone to use at anytime for any reason
Well, you're clearly not a law expert. Completely false.
actually, i am indeed a law expert, and specifically on this very issue:
avatars are not protected
if you want images protected and not reused you have to write code that does not allow them to be copied or downloaded by other users
watermark them so that it is obvious they have been used without permission
anyone can use an avatar
now, is it in poor taste sometimes and a breech of ethics or terms of service on a specific website? quite possibly, but it is not illegal
If you use a picture of yourself as an avatar it comes under the same laws as a normal picture of yourself. Lets say you are a police officer and I take your pic from your avatar pic and put your face on a man who is stealing a car and it gets to your Captain. You are suspended while IAD investigates - I have broken the law and steps can be taken against me...
Nor does your post about non copywrite protected images.
Unless you know that it's not his image. I've seen a lot of accusations of that, but no evidence.
Your post about non copywrite protected images has no relevance.
What is hard to understand?
Of course they wont, that hardly proves that the use is proper does it?
@362 obviously. Which this appears to be.
richie_and_oprah wrote:
that is a significantly different scenario and has zero application here
there has been no crime commited here, no fraud, no intent to decieve, especially as the second user has made it clear what are the intent and purposes of the use
The scenario was to show you the legalities of avatars and that they are the same as any other picture.
I doubt there is anything illegal here but thought I wouuld explain what is illegal.
Oh and anything would hinge on the oridgional person proving that the photo is indeed off himself and is current. ( Or cloe to current)
Yeah, I did not see that one comming.