Monster Muscles - Enhanced FBB Photo's and Art Work
Michelle Harris
I am starting a new website that will feature artwork and photographs of
enhanced female bodybuilders. That is to say, female bodybuilders with
monster muscles. The site address will be: www.monstermuscles.com
I have plenty of server space as my partner is a web site designer and can
assure you this website will be free of charge and free of advertisements.
A froum for discussion will be added next week. Sadly there is only one
page active at the moment that features "Sprigly's Enhancement's" at:
http://www.geocities.com/sprigly/sprigly.html - This fantastic work is
shown on a free website that is often unavailable because of bandwidth
restrictions and unable to contact Sprigly at the address given, have used
his work slightly modified and copied a link to his page.
What I need though is much more work. Original or otherwise, as long as it
is not copyrighted or the owner gives permission, I would like to show the
work free of charge on my site. Full credit and links back to the owners
website, if available, will of course be given.
Enhanced photographs and fantasy FBB artwork is preferable. Outrageous
monster muscles are the name of the game and the more the better. If you
come across any websites that feature enhanced pictures, please let me know.
I can provide a links page and possible use some of the material if the
owner will give permission.
If you can help, please drop me a line or send your work to:
pict...@monstermuscles.com
Many thanks for your time and help.
I sincerely hope that with your assistance I can provide a quality site with
fantastic content that is both free of charge and advert free.
Kindest regards
Michelle
BILL DOBBINS
monster...@btinternet.com wrote on 7/1/04 1:11 PM:
>
> What I need though is much more work. Original or otherwise, as long as it
> is not copyrighted or the owner gives permission
Actually, ALL the photos are covered by copyright. So legally you need
permission from all the copyright holders (not the models).
BD
Michelle Harris
Ah, that's a little unfortunate to say the least. There are many other
sites though that feature 'mondified' pictures... I guess they just break
the copyright law.
Will have to look into that in a little more detail. Thanks for the info
though.
Michelle
BILL DOBBINS
Kill...@homo.com wrote on 7/8/04 12:19 PM:
> its way easier to beg for forgivness than to ask for permision, most
> of the authors are going to be ok with it, Mr Copyright Asshole
> wouldnt give his mom permission to reproduce one of his art works as a
> tatoo on her ass.
>
> killbill
What graphic content do you produce?
BD
skllbs
Ahh Dobbins can you please relax? they are not making any profit from
it. Awesome enhacements BTW. Thanks Michelle.
BILL DOBBINS
skul...@yahoo.com wrote on 7/9/04 5:46 AM:
> What I need though is much more work. Original or otherwise, as long as it
>>> is not copyrighted or the owner gives permission
>>
>> Actually, ALL the photos are covered by copyright. So legally you need
>> permission from all the copyright holders (not the models).
>>
>> BD
>
> Ahh Dobbins can you please relax? they are not making any profit from
> it. Awesome enhacements BTW. Thanks Michelle.
It isn't a matter of "relaxing." I wasn't raising any objections to
limited, personal use - I never do. I was answering the question as to what
is covered by copyright and what is not. The original post specified "as
long as it is not copyrighted" and I pointed out that EVERYTHING (expect
maybe Mathew Brady Civil War photos and the like) is covered by copyright.
Okay?
BD
Michelle Harris
Thank you too for all the visitors to www.monstermuscles.com
I hope to create some new pictures in the weeks ahead and perhaps get
permission from other artists to display their work. I'm sorry you don't
approve 'Bill Dobbins' but there are many other sites that use manipulated
photographs that are copyrighted from well known sources such as WPW and Ray
Martin etc. I don't want to cause any trouble for myself or any designer
who may contribute to the content of my site but at least I don't charge
people to view my content which cannot be said for some other sites.
I certainly don't want to make any enemies and do appreciate that nearly
every picture is copyrighted. I designed another website, not online yet,
last year and asked every female bodybuilder I wanted to feature for their
permission to show photos and for any comments they wanted to make. It
turned out to be a nightmare in the end with most wanting guarantees that no
mention of steroids etc. would be found on the site and strict guidelines as
to what and who-else could feature.
I would most certainly remove any pictures that cause offense or, even after
manipulation, were objected to by their lawful owner.
It's times like these that I wonder if all the time and effort put into
making something work is worth anything..?.. I guess it's impossible to
please everybody but I can't understand why watching the little guy squashed
is so entertaining for some.
Thanks again for the support all who gave it.
Kindest regards
Michelle
James Bond 007
"KillBill" <Kill...@homo.com> wrote in message news:nirte09q8b8cidku7...@4ax.com...
>
> So Michelle, do you lift weights yourself?
I was wondering that, too.
BILL DOBBINS
Kill...@homo.com wrote on 7/9/04 10:04 AM:
> You don't get it, you could object to whatever the hell you want, and
> nobody would give a fuck.
YOU don't get it. Copyright law has nothing to do with whether or not you
approve of the person owning the copyright. Give me your address so I can
come to your house and steal some things you own. Let's see how much you
"give a fuck."
(This exchange is not about the photo enhancement post...but the ongoing
attitude of many that they can and should ignore copyright because their
transgressions are so petty that nobody is going to do anything about them.
Even to the point of downloading and posting entire galleries belonging to
the websites of Amazon women they say they admire!)
BD
BILL DOBBINS
monster...@btinternet.com wrote on 7/9/04 11:07 AM:
> I'm sorry you don't
> approve 'Bill Dobbins'
Your total inability to read and understand will make you fit right into
this NG. You mentioned FBB photos not covered by copyright and I pointed
out there is no such thing. What else did I say that involved disapproval?
In fact, you admit the right of ownership of photos by (quite correctly)
saying you would ask permission from the copyright holder. So what are we
arguing about?
BD
BILL DOBBINS
Kill...@homo.com wrote on 7/9/04 1:49 PM:
> You know your absolutely right and i still dont give a shit.. save
> your breath, nobody gives a crap about copyright infrigment.
Except people who actually own and create content...and those who like the
results and want them to keep doing it.
You don't give a crap because you just take and can't create. Please give
me your address and I'll feel free to take whatever I want from your house.
We'll see what your views really are about stealing.
BD
Impulse Productions
record industry.
Rich
"BILL DOBBINS" <bill...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:BD1462F1.82F8%bill...@verizon.net...
Hollywood Muscle
infringement. I have several books and screenplays registered with the US
copyright office. I care about my ownership of that material, as do
millions of other authors and artists.
"KillBill" <Kill...@homo.com> wrote in message
news:k31ue0108a0bu7tv9...@4ax.com...
>
> You know your absolutely right and i still dont give a shit.. save
> your breath, nobody gives a crap about copyright infrigment.
>
>
Michelle Harris
pictures yet though. ;)
And Bill: "Your total inability to read and understand will make you fit
right into
this NG. You mentioned FBB photos not covered by copyright and I pointed
out there is no such thing. What else did I say that involved disapproval?
In fact, you admit the right of ownership of photos by (quite correctly)
saying you would ask permission from the copyright holder. So what are we
arguing about?"
I already posted in my last article that I didn't want to make any enemies
and acknowledged what
you wrote regarding copyright. Yes, you are correct!
My reference to disapproval was grounded from reading the replies
to other articles posted on this topic and was not directed at your original
reply to me.
I am disappointed you have resorted to isulting me in particular, and
others, on this NG.
I can read and understand perfectly well and have a degree in English
literature from
an English University. Yes, I live in the UK. Thank you for your kind
understanding!
I would be obliged if you would reserve judgement until you know a little
more about me or I
cause you personal offence, as you have to me.
Moving On:
It was, and is, my hope to offer pictures of enhanced female bodybuilders
free of charge on my site.
I have plenty of space too should anybody wish to submit their own artwork
or any other material
related to the overall theme. The email address on Sprigly's Enhancement's
site is no longer active
and due to bandwidth restrictions, the site is often unavailable.
I wrote this in my original posting but most importantly, that site is not
copyrighted. I understand
however that the images shown, before altering, were copyrighted and as such
should not have been
used without permission.
I do not wish to upset anyone and do respect copyright.
My point is that there are other sites offering the very same material but
they charge you to view
the very same pictures. Now of course that doesn't make what I'm doing
right (showing some
material available on another site that wasn't copyrighted), but I am not
profiting
from the work of others and that can't be said for everyone. Many images
are altered so much they
bear little resemblance to the originals - I know again that doesn't make it
OK.
I would like to sincerely apologise if I hadn't made this clear before and I
am sorry too if I have offended
anybody. I would never agree with using other people's work without prior
permission, and without giving
them due credit... AND would certainly not ever profit from doing so.
I am a graphic designer myself and know how many hours go in to creating
some work. In my last article in this
thread I illustrated the problems getting consent to use original material
from certain sites has caused me in the
past.
I don't want to dig myself a bigger hole here so will get out now.
Thanks for your time
Michelle
B2431
>Date: 7/8/2004 2:19 PM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ud7re09gdjtmootgl...@4ax.com>
>
>its way easier to beg for forgivness than to ask for permision, most
>of the authors are going to be ok with it, Mr Copyright Asshole
>wouldnt give his mom permission to reproduce one of his art works as a
>tatoo on her ass.
>
>killbill
>
You have to understand dobbins is convinced the only rules, agreements,
contracts and laws that have to be universally enforced are copyrights. If you
read all his other threads he has said it is perfectly ok to violate a contract
if you don't agree with it.
Let's face it, the boy is a legend in his own mind.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
BILL DOBBINS
Productions at impul...@prodigy.net wrote on 7/10/04 5:24 AM:
> It's this type of arrogance that is causing shockwaves in Hollywood and the
> record industry.
> Rich
You are quite right. In this case, technology has allowed for such easy
access to and ability to copy/distribute intellectual content that neither
the laws nor common practice have evolved to do deal with the situation.
Napster was the first casualty. We've seen a lot more since. Unauthorized
copying and distribution of music in Mexico has almost destroyed that
country's music industry, with top Mexican groups losing recording contracts
because the companies they record with can't make any money. It remains to
be seen what happens to the movie industry as we get more broadband access.
But in the case of photos/mpegs of Amazon Women, in the vast majority of
cases when content is stolen (large volumes shared in floods, in particular)
it isnt just the creator/copyright owner who is hurt - it is the women
themselves. They depend on photographer/video makers to create the content,
which they use on their own websites or sell/distribute themselves. If the
content creators can't afford to work with them the women end up losing
money.
We'll see what happens in the future. But chances are constant violations
will lead to further regulation I would almost guarantee.
BD
BILL DOBBINS
hmsta...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/10/04 7:24 AM:
> putting Billy's preaching aside, there are those who do care about copyright
> infringement. I have several books and screenplays registered with the US
> copyright office. I care about my ownership of that material, as do
> millions of other authors and artists.
You're revealing your personal bias and hostility. Why don't you simply say
you agree about the need for observing copyright without the snide comment
about "preaching?"
Your side remark aside, I'm glad to see somebody speak up on the subject.
BD
BILL DOBBINS
monster...@btinternet.com wrote on 7/10/04 8:56 AM:
> I am disappointed you have resorted to isulting me in particular, and
> others, on this NG.
My only negative remark about you is that you misread what I posted to infer
I was making a negative remark about you. You are doing it again.
BD
BILL DOBBINS
b2...@aol.com wrote on 7/10/04 8:59 AM:
> You have to understand dobbins is convinced the only rules, agreements,
> contracts and laws that have to be universally enforced are copyrights. If you
> read all his other threads he has said it is perfectly ok to violate a
> contract
> if you don't agree with it.
Making up total nonsense like this, are you sure you aren't Rush or
O'Reilly? Or perhaps a writer of fiction.
BD
Ernest
killing the business. The truth is if you make a good album, people will
buy it! If artist would stop making an album with one or two good songs
then people will buy it. How do you explain Outkast's sales? Usher's
sales? And there are lots more people selling tons of records in spite
of the evil file sharing practice. Artist of all kinds need to step up
their game if they want people to buy their stuff. If you put out crap ,
you will recieve what crap is worth. Consumers are tired of getting
ripped off. Dishing out up to 20 bucks for a CD with one good song. The
industry has been getting over on us for years. Maybe they will wake up
now and start making a good product.
That's my two cents, or three or four...
Ernest
Ernest
killing the business. The truth is if you make a good album, people will
buy it! If artist would stop making an album with one or two good songs
then people will buy it. How do you explain Outkast's sales? Usher's
sales? And there are lots more people selling tons of records in spite
of the evil file sharing practice. Artist of all kinds need to step up
their game if they want people to buy their stuff. If you put out crap ,
you will recieve what crap is worth. Consumers are tired of getting
ripped off. Dishing out up to 20 bucks for a CD with one good song. The
industry has been getting over on us for years. Maybe they will wake up
now and start making a good product.
That's my two cents, or three or four...
Ernest
Hollywood Muscle
corporations and artists may be screwing the public, they still own the
material. The answer is to stop buying the crap. The industry is entirely
money driven. Stop buying compilations and purchase single songs online,
the industry will then start to respond to consumer demands. The real issue
is that despite the crap produced, people are still buying it in bucket
loads.
"Ernest" <phil...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:qnHIc.36706$Xb4....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
BILL DOBBINS
hmsta...@hotmail.com wrote on 7/13/04 3:53 AM:
> This is true, but it doesn't justify copyright theft. regardless of how
> corporations and artists may be screwing the public, they still own the
> material. The answer is to stop buying the crap. The industry is entirely
> money driven. Stop buying compilations and purchase single songs online,
> the industry will then start to respond to consumer demands. The real issue
> is that despite the crap produced, people are still buying it in bucket
> loads.
It's nice to be able to agree with you occasionally.
BD
Ernest
what you are buying before you buy it? Am I to go and purchase each song
on these legal download sites and then go buy the album? Up until
recently that crappy idea wasn't even available. Consumers can't shop
around when it comes to music or some other forms of art. You can't
return a bad CD. You can't return the pictures you download from
someone's site. You take a really big chance when you purchase these
things. There are no guarantees. It's a truly hit or miss game. I
download music for the purpose of finding what I will or will not buy. I
use it as a tool to help me save money. I don't like to play a game of
chance with music. Movies on the other hand are different. I will pay
to see any movie in the theater, because the movie experience is like no
other in my opinion. Anyways, how am I to make a smart choice when it
comes to purchasing music?
Ernest
Ernest
single? That's just foolish in my opinion. I work at Best Buy, we don't
even carry singles anymore. People don't wanna pay $5-10 for one or two
songs. Just doesn't make sense.
Ernest
Michelle Harris
re-post, send to pcit...@monstermuscles.com or better still, give me the
URL for the file.
Thank you KillBill, and everybody else, for your support.
Kindest regards
Michelle
On 13-Jul-2004, KillBill <Kill...@homo.com> wrote:
> Heres a monster muscles animated clip that you might want to put on
> your web site Michelle, of course others will tell you that you would
> have to get permission from AWE first, but I could care less...
Hollywood Muscle
prior, through friends, radio, movies, etc. As to playing the game of
chance, I guess that's just part of the deal.
If consumers don't demand something different its not going to change. If
consumers resort to theft, the industry will respond, but only with theft
protections, not with offering a more adequate service.
"Ernest" <phil...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:E7eJc.289$oD5...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...
Hollywood Muscle
single. I think its ridiculous as well. Apparently there are some
consumers who think otherwise, but I don't know who they are.
"Ernest" <phil...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:M7eJc.291$oD5...@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...