
Originally Posted by
BleeckerSt_Girl
The complaints were probably only asking for members to have the courtesy of following Forum rules (non-applicable sections removed):
Expected Conduct:
No foul language.
Use NSFW: as prefix in the title of threads that are Not Safe For Work
No Pornography (*see below)
No Copyright Infringement **
No Unauthorized Direct/Hot-Linking of Photos ***
Forums Are Monitored
We will routinely review posted messages to ensure that message content meets the requirements set herein. Messages not in line with this stated policy will be edited or deleted, at our discretion. Repeat offenders may be temporarily or permanently banned from the forums.
* Art or Porn?
Artistic nudes that do not reveal genitalia are permissible, but threads containing such images should be prefixed with NSFW: in the title. Also, if the image could be considered controversial, an explanation of such should be made in the post, and the image should be linked to rather than embedded in the post.
** What Is Copyright Infringement?
"Creative works" such as text, photos, and drawings are automatically protected by Copyright at the time of their creation. Unless the author/photographer/artist explicitly grants permission to reproduce the work, you most likely do not have the right to cut-n-paste the work into the forums.
*** What is Direct/Hot-Linking?
Direct Linking occurs when you "pull" a photo directly from a different website for embedded display in your post. If you do this without permission from the site on which the photo is hosted, you are in effect stealing bandwidth from them.
For instance, posting the Leibovitz picture can only be done through copyright infringement or hot-linking. Linking to it with a NSFW complies with the rules (at least, that is my interpretation). I suspect that flickr account is collecting a nice set of copyrighted photos that are not owned by the flickr account owner.