egafd.com

I've revised my position considerably on this due to the weight
of comment and evidence presented here, and the tipping-point
was my unexpected discovery tonight that now Melanie Rowen's
had her pic removed from bgafd- but NOT from iafd !!
4WIW I now believe the loss [or potential loss, which amounts
to the same thing in the end] is, or is fast approaching, the
non-trivial and some serious thought must be given to posterity.
I don't know if it's subjective or not, but I get the feeling
that removal-requests and other losses are increasing, even on
egafd, and that action needs to be taken both to stem the tide,
and to retain the removed information in a way that will not
compromise those who [validly] seek privacy but still provide
for its free availability to individuals prepared to offer
appropriate guarantees. The lack of pics, particularly, for many
girls may well come to seriously hamper future research.

And a pertinent question: am I right in assuming that information
removed from egafd's public database is not necessarily permanently
deleted? That it's still stored on a private database? If not....
well, the damage will already have been done.

I couldn't agree more with you, jj! This is all very accurately (and wisely...) presented.

And I'm sorry to insist that you are wrong that it was in the database.

So it wasn't only too much paranoia !happy!

Her picture was removed several years ago. So far back that I've forgotten when.

no problem I trust you

It was news to me, which perhaps shows how rarely I visit
'the other house' these days [img]http://www.egafd.com/forum/smileys/tumbleweed.gif[/img]

It appears to me that many if not most of the pics on BGAFD and EGAFD have been used without the permission of the copyright owner. Usually this is not a model depicted in the image, as Rob4 has said. However, because of the unauthorised usage, the BGAFD and EGAFD webmasters' hands are not entirely clean and fair use is debatable.

A solution in my opinion is to use images in their entirety of physical artefacts, for example actual films, videos, DVDs, magazines or books. Although some models may request the removal of such images, they should be resisted. Provided that the image content is not illegal, there is no law that I know against showing a physical entity such as magazine or video.

Below is an image of a magazine with the whole front cover and some of the surrounds visible. The beautiful young woman in the centre is relevant to this discussion. The copyright to this image belongs to me, fannatastic. I hereby give permission for its free use on any website provided that the accompanying text is included:

"Image copyright ? fannatastic 2009, used with permission"

!cool!

[IMG]http://img251.imagevenue.com/loc30/th_09832_ro66a_123_30lo.jpg[/IMG]

The past cannot be erased or airbrushed out of existence like a photograph of the Politbureau at the Kremlin. What has happened has happened and everybody should learn to deal with it.

Images which we do not have specific permission to use are either caps or crops from covers or posters from films which are listed and therefore advertised. Their source is acknowledged and no copyright owner has so far objected to their use. If they did, we would remove them.

We do not practice a 'double standard' as you put it but we do have a standard. The reason we don't allow references to escorting in relation to specific models is because the forums are for the discussion and sharing of information relating to commercially available adult entertainment. We found out early on that if you allow enquiries about escorting they soon multiply to the point where the primary purpose of the forum is compromised.

This is a non-judgemental position which we have explained many times both on the forums and in correspondence with models wanting to know why their posts have been removed. There are innumerable forums out there dedicated to escorting, just about all of which contain threads about porn stars. If we wanted to generate several thousand extra visits a day, we could set up one but frankly we're not that interested and have enough in our dog dish as it is. !doggy!