Add Age Back In To Profiles - page 2 Total results: 60 Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 [ 3] |
|---|
 ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-09-07 18:08 Ugnius Kiguolis:
[Carib Goodies: ...]
Carib: paypal dropped us because of the members under 18, lots of payment
systems dont want to work with us because of that.
Additionally Google adsense blocked our account because of member with age 13,
even there were no anything related to any nudity. The girl was with dress in
normal pose, but they thought that she was with lingerie. We explained all the
situation, but we still don't know if they will get us back to the program.
If things will go the way like they are going now, we will loose the site, as it
doesn't earn money anymore. we cant develop the site without financial
support.
So one of decisions is not to show the age. Another decision is to remove all
accounts under 18 years old... And this is not Lithuanian Law, this is American
Law. So we think that the first decision is better at this time, but things are
not good with models under 18...
Sir, I will concede the point regarding many credit card companies and Google
Adsense. Private companies can determine their own standards regarding credit
card processing and the placement of their site content.
However, your citing of U.S. law is incorrect. The United States of America has
no law banning nudity of minors. In fact, I will email you two Supreme Court
rulings affirming that according to the U.S. Constitution no state or the
federal government can make laws forcing U.S. citizens to wear clothing on U.S.
soil. While some city or state governments have indecency statutes, they
cannot be enforced.
I state this based upon my 18 years of law writing experience and the volumes of
the U.S. Code and Judicial Review sitting in my office.
What federal law does prohibit is sexual exploitation
or sexually explicit images of minors. The distinction between those
prohibited acts and nudity is one many companies prefer not to wrestle with it
challenged by a member, client or consumer. Under statute a minor who is fully
clothed can be considered to be posed in a sexually explicit or
exploitive manner and thus in violation of law. This fine line is probably what
is scaring Google and your credit card processors.
The United Kingdom is who bans nude images of minors, not the United States.
I hope you solve your billing problems soon. Banning under 18 would be a drastic
step especially since every other modeling site I know of continues to accept
minors, credit cards and, if they so choose, Google Adsense. Perhaps the happy
medium would be to prohibit accounts of minors from 1) being able to view images
with adult content; 2) prohibit minors from displaying images wearing lingerie,
nude, implied or posed in sexual manners; and 3) being able to list
lingerie/nude as an available modeling option. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should  |
|---|
|
|---|
| Date: 2007-09-07 20:19 Karl I understand the differing legal destinctions, but the point of decency and
responsibility to parents/guardians is being ommitted from your statment
above!
Banning of Under 18s would be an awfull shame yes, but we should have a
responsibility as adult members to ensure that relevant photos are submitted by
minors at their ports!
Your knowledge is highly respected Karl and I admire your wish for people to
have more freedom of choice, however, I would suggest that the environment in
which you reside differs greatly from that of most of us and within that
environment people are more involved with one another from day to day in a more
village like existance!
This is much like the environment I grew up in within England, that here
unfortunately has changed drastically in recent years and I believe that would
be probably so of 90% of the members here. People in highly populated Towns
throughout the world live more hectic lives and more insular existances often
not knowing who lives two doors down from them, it's sad but true! With all this
in mind and the greater freedom of communication through technology for
youngsters has come many problems which can and have led to 'At Risk'
sittuations for young people!
I would suggest that rather than quoting a 'How Far Can you go' in different
Countries statement, a more responsible attitude would be to be socially aware
of what could happen! How we could improve safety for minors! And to not let
very young people have such a free hand in moulding their portfolios! These are
young school children for god sake that whilst need encouraging also look for
guidelines and limits from adults, that we have not provided here until now!
Google and the like are not our enemy, they have evolved in their standards with
the modern world and popular thinking! it is up to us now to be more progressive
here and set standards of quality!
I am sorry to disagree with you Karl on this one as I know you have your
standards and morals, I just think you may have taken your eye off of the ball a
bit on why these things happen! Read my previous posting please! The girl put
'This One Is For The Boys' on that photo comment! She pasted her e-mail address
on the next photo! She is 13!
We let this happen and others without checking! and that minor now may have put
this site into serious sh** street! I could go on openly here regarding what I
have noted and advised previously, and I think you know one of which I have in
mind! but I won't, unless of course measures are not taken here!
As a caring single parent I am fairly street wise and my children are very
enlightened in life, care for others and are aware of feminine issues, unlike
many boys/men! Yes I want my kids to ride motorcross bikes on the common! Yes if
someone upsets them more than three times for no reason they can punch them! I
am no way a prude! I am however a realist! I work with parenting groups and
voluntary events, my business revolves around children, so I am very well versed
in this subject and will make it a point to post and post if points are not
addressed regarding child safety here!
Enough said!
MIKE! |
|---|
|
|---|
| Date: 2007-09-07 19:25 I SO WANT MY EARLIER POSTING NOTED - HENCE POSTING AGAIN! AS
FOLLOWS:
Ugnius Kiguolis
You say maybe you will show the age for registered members, have I not posted
that as a possible sollution in two related forums already?
Re: The photo! I have also advised in previous forums and messages to moderators
that this kind of problem would occur if you allow minors to post photos without
checking them first! And that was happenning here, only the other week a young
pre-teen girl was registered here with provocative photo shots, how can that be
allowed? Yes it is removed now, but I guess that is after the google wake up
call! I have warned of these things on several occasions and still am concerned
regarding the activities of some members of similar age here!
All minors photos should be checked to see that they are suitable for the
age!
Further: I think you will also find that the photo google banned had a caption
saying 'This one is for the boys' That probably didn't help matters!
It was alongside another photo which had the girls e-mail address pasted on the
photo!
My business relates to these age groups and it is neccessary to have great
attention to detail! |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-09-08 00:44 UK: I have not seen the image you described but clearly, from your description,
that image with the accompanying statement could rightly be construed by those
companies as sexually explicit.
I have to wrestle with those issues everyday. Perhaps I let my hat as a
legislative employee who has to work within constitutional guidelines override
my sense of professional decorum as a photographer.
In my photography I have never shot a minor in any way close to being immoral. I
have never even taken on a job to photograph minors in bathing suits with the
exception of beauty pageants. As a photographer, I don't think that minors
should be photographed in revealing or provocative attire must less nude. Minors
should not be in the glamour business and even in the commercial industry I
applaud those major clothing chains that will no longer print children modeling
underwear in their catalogs.
I ended up with several matters that my co-existing sets of morals could not
ignore:
1) You know I am a stickler for getting things right. I could not let pass an
inaccurate statement regarding U.S. law, otherwise, in ignoring it, I would have
been contributing to people's ignorance of the law. This passive stance would in
fact have meant that I was lying by my silence. How can I accurately describe a
point if I let the inaccuracy upon which it was founded remain?
2) Upholding the law is part of my moral fiber. I also have morals that say 'no'
to lurid images of minors. The law does not say that I have to participate in
this despicable behavior of minors, so I don't. But also this law says that I
cannot stop someone else wishing to create and display such photos. If fact I
would be breaking the law to say that the acts are illegal.
3) With all of my morals intact...morals shared by a majority of the world...I
suggested an alternative in my prior post that would allow under-18 to remain on
the site but ban any activity by minors that can be interpreted
as sexually explicit. This solution is common on sites all over the internet and
I was puzzled why it was not in place here.
I do assure you that the images you referred to were not seen nor approved by
me. There are many other moderators on the site. But also, I have realized, the
images are visible on the site the instant someone uploads them. This means that
torrid images are seen by some members before a moderator can
get to them. This is a very active site with sometimes over a hundred new
registrants a day. The number of pictures uploaded daily is also phenomenal. It
is a bit of a chore for the moderators to keep up with. The site needs more
moderators and, dare I say, is to the point numbers wise where it needs people
moderating full time, everyday. Of course, that costs money and I have not the
foggiest idea if this site makes anywhere near the money to afford that.
Perhaps Jurgita is in that transitional state and we have to grin and bear the
growing pains.
But Mike, please do not ever believe that it is my intention to condone that
behavior. As I said, in my legislative role, I am duty bound to protect the law.
It is a law I struggle with as I am itching to write legislation that says "Keep
your clothes on, Idiot!" but have yet to find the loophole that would make such
a law legal. So, it remains up to the moral right to erect societal barriers to
this behavior, to discourage it, to make it unprofitable, to make it
unfashionable and thus make it unpalatable to the youth and to
those who would make money off of them. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
| Date: 2007-09-08 00:53 Carib Goodies:
The United Kingdom is who
bans nude images of minors, not the United States. Karl, I cannot allow
this statement to go unchallenged, seeing as how it is factually incorrect.
UK law (Protection of Children Act 1978) made it an offence to "make, take or
possess with intent to distribute" an "indecent photograph" of a person aged
under 16. That was amended by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 such that the age
limit was raised to 18. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 also made it an offence
simply to "possess" such an image.
A pseudo-photograph, such as a digital file which can be displayed as an image,
is included within the term "photograph". Case law clarified that intentional
downloading of such images from the internet onto one's computer constitutes
"making" such an image.
The term "indecent photograph" is one which has been widely debated on other
modelling forums but we have case law which attempts to define it in R v Oliver
2002 which ruled that "indecent" photographs came in five levels, varying from
"depicts erotic posing", through sexual acts, to "sadism or bestiality" (based
on the COPINE levels).
Of particular note in that ruling was also the specific comment that simple
nudity was not necessarily a reason to judge a particular photograph
indecent.
What it comes down to the UK is what constitutes "erotic posing" and that is
left to a competent court to determine on a case by case basis. In my
estimation, the picture you linked to earlier might be provocative, in that the
young lady certainly appeared to understand the effect it would have on
adolescent boys, but I don't believe a reasonable person would find that pose to
be "erotic".
I am greatly disturbed by the degree of power which people like Google
apparently wield when it comes to issues of censorship, and I hope that this
site is successful in finding a way to avoid being dictated to by them.
On the other hand, the welfare of all models, especially those under 18, is a
very important subject and might be best addressed by insisting that any models
under 18 have a parent who is separately contactable by site management, so that
we can know that the young people are being supervised and are being helped to
realise their modelling ambitions safely. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-09-08 00:53 Ugnius Kiguolis:
I think its hard to tell if the girl is 16, 17 or 18, so there will be a bit
less problems.
For the younger girls we still have a problem.
At this time all these young girls can be seen only after logging in. Maybe we
will show the age for registered members, but let us find the solution for
payment system and adverting support first.
Its hard for me to understand such laws, but we need to comply somehow.
here is the photo which google treated as Adult (mature) content and blocked our
site.
photo
Is that so BAD? Google decided to drop because of photo like this. Girl is 13
years old here.
[fairydreams: ...]
A legally accepted method of age verification, that gives the cite legal shelter
in case of age fraud, is to require an activity swipe of a credit card. During
an activity swipe, no money is charged, it just verifies that the card exists.
This verifies the age of the user and can assist in assuring that minors are on
the site with parental permission. No, it would not help against a stolen
number, but court cases have determined that the merchant is not at fault for
the use of a stolen number.
Of course, the caveat to this system is that persons without credit cards would
not be able to use the site. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
Mystique Eyed Phoenix IonU |
|---|
 ID: 114505 Posts: 936 | Date: 2007-09-08 04:43 Send in the Saints.
Peter was like "the Rock"...
Cheers to the 'alter' call for a NO AGE= = Gap.
Ringing front desk bell;.
Can we get bigger cropping size for Forum photo uploads?
[Sorry, but some cropping actually cuts into the Natural Flow of Finished
Pictorials.
SO-O, Tack that on the list of things to do--PLEASE & Gr8* Thank YOU! |
|---|
|
|---|
| Date: 2007-09-08 19:16 In summary of the posted responses here it is clear to see that removal
of age is not the issue!
With kind thanks to Karl & Rick we are well versed in the laws regarding images
of minors!
Everyone knows now my own views!
We have now a greater clarity on the problems facing Jurgita and also the
problems we see as needing addressing!
May I suggest a following simplistic 'Possible' sollutions that could move us
forward:
1/ Registration of minors should require a consent by Parent/Guardian!
(With my own site I will only add after an e-mail is received by Parent/guardian
to give consent and I also reccomend that selected images are sent at the same
time, thus ensuring a parent has approved! This does not always happen I
realise, but I am talking 'Ideals' and guidelines here)
2/ Moderation of differing areas of Jurgita be carried out by those with
specific knowledge or active involvement in that area!
(ie: Someone with great knowledge of Modelling Agencies & scams moderates that
area! Someone with a great knowledge and awareness regarding pre-teen and teen
moderates that area and so on! moderation issues could be sanctioned and
endorsed quickly by someone overseeing all moderation!
3/ Age is re-instated on profiles but D.O.B and reference to Town is ommitted
for security purposes
(This information can be obtained if relevant when parties concerned are in
contact and therefore not a concern of Jurgita)
4/ Main/Default photos of all models, talents and members should be a clear
facial image only! The other images at their ports being otherwise!
(This way Google search, google ad sense and other web-crawlers only pick up the
main facial photos of members! This would not of course be relevant to Industry
professionals particularly, unless they wish to show their own personal
image)
5/ New members should not be allowed to place BLOGS or MESSAGES before
verification!
(This is frightening that this is possible - I have noted pre-teen events
advertised by people un-verified here with addresses and I have commented on
that! It simply cannot be allowed! In addition since free messaging I am now
getting all types of dating messenges from unknown people! Next I will be
getting the African scam letters as they are free! The ones about the family
needing to get the riches out of the country lol!
Would you like the examples from other sites jurgita?)
In addition I would suggest that certain forum areas are more clearly defined
with perhaps a restriction on age for more 'Adult' subjects! Again I do not no
how, it is simply a Common sense thing from a 'Realist' lol!
Just a few ideas to move us on I hope! Perhaps others can expand on this and we
will pull together in a more progressive way to help make our site a Safer and
more Profitable, fun place to be!
Best wishes from
MIKE! |
|---|
|
|---|
| Date: 2007-09-09 08:41 The following persons images were banned from the internet some time ago:
http://www.jurgita.com/models-id155442.html
Yet we have them here as a ligitimate member! This is not a member! it is
someone registering for reasons unknown and hidden agenda pretenting to be that
person!
This is simple schoolboy stuff Jurgita! They registered and added photos from
banned photos! the photos even show the original www. source! Yet no one picked
up on it????
I can give you the link to why the model and person promoting was banned from
the internet and links were removed if you wish? there were many others! So why
can someone add those photos here now and they are still here today? After all
we talk about?
The profile name is Amber C yet the photos say
whitney-model.com
I checked these kinda things out long long before geting involved in age related
issues! I am so dissapointed with Jurgita! Would you like me to point out the
other fake ones here? Find the pervs behind them? I am opening your eyes
finally, but I tried doing this tactfully before in messages!
Beware sandra teen model was someone that everyone was concerned about on the
internet for years now - Due to unsuitable images for her age and a un-healthy
adult following! [b]Oh I just saw she is a member here! Oh Wow how can that be!
This is very very niave![/b]
I think it is about time you really did some checking here!
If you doubt that then put
whitney-model.com into a google search with filter off and see what you get
ok?
It may give you an insight into the profile saying that they are her! |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 182744 Posts: 1748 | Date: 2007-09-08 20:50 I am familiar with the case in point...a company operating out of Florida. For
years the Florida was debating legislation as to how to ban the company called
Child Super Models as the expressions and poses of the models were interpreted
by that state's legislature as akin to porn with clothing on.
The government kept losing in court so concerned citizens banded together and
started filing lawsuit after lawsuit against the company until it became too
expensive to fight the lawsuits and make a profit. The company disbanded.
But even before that Google took the position that it would block the companies
hundreds of sites from search engine.
The site was a collector's carnival with pre-teen girls prancing about in
swimsuits, underwear and provokative clothing. Every couple weeks paid
subscribers would be given dozens of new photos of each girl subscribed to.
There was no purpose to the images except to provide eye-candy of minors. Most
of the girls were from South American or Eastern Block countries making it
difficult for the law to investigate individual circumstances. Legitimate model
and advertising agencies tried to assist law enforcement with emails to the
company saying they would like to hire certain girls for photo shoots since
Child Super Models claimed to be a modeling site. All requests for hire were
summarily turned down by the administrators! Hmmm.
As far as some of those ports turning up on Jurgita, when I have seen them I
have rejected them because I know what they are. Unfortunately it takes more
than one administrators to wipe a portfolio.  I have sent it to
moderation once again! In my 25 years I have seen a lot of crap in this industry
and recognize some of the sleazy players still around. I am not sure the newbies
do so others may not understand easily why I see trouble in some ports where
they see no problems. Have faith that the universe will unfold as it should |
|---|
|
|---|
| Date: 2007-09-08 21:00 Carib Goodies:
I am familiar with the case in point...a company operating out of Florida. For
years the Florida was debating legislation as to how to ban the company called
Child Super Models as the expressions and poses of the models were interpreted
by that state's legislature as akin to porn with clothing on.
The government kept losing in court so concerned citizens banded together and
started filing lawsuit after lawsuit against the company until it became too
expensive to fight the lawsuits and make a profit. The company disbanded.
But even before that Google took the position that it would block the companies
hundreds of sites from search engine.
The site was a collector's carnival with pre-teen girls prancing about in
swimsuits, underwear and provokative clothing. Every couple weeks paid
subscribers would be given dozens of new photos of each girl subscribed to.
There was no purpose to the images except to provide eye-candy of minors. Most
of the girls were from South American or Eastern Block countries making it
difficult for the law to investigate individual circumstances. Legitimate model
and advertising agencies tried to assist law enforcement with emails to the
company saying they would like to hire certain girls for photo shoots since
Child Super Models claimed to be a modeling site. All requests for hire were
summarily turned down by the administrators! Hmmm.
As far as some of those ports turning up on Jurgita, when I have seen them I
have rejected them because I know what they are. Unfortunately it takes more
than one administrators to wipe a portfolio. I have sent it to
moderation once again! In my 25 years I have seen a lot of crap in this industry
and recognize some of the sleazy players still around. I am not sure the newbies
do so others may not understand easily why I see trouble in some ports where
they see no problems.
My sympathies are with you Karl as moderator! we seem to have a unique
un-blinked view of this sittuation that can be rectified so simply yet is not! I
also note that this important forum is not being responded to despite its
importance to members in the future!
In my life I have seen many companies and places where people want to be just
disappear through others simply not being bothered to react, I hope this will
not be the same of Jurgita! |
|---|
|
|---|
 ID: 146728 Posts: 91 | Date: 2007-09-08 21:13 I've been saying minors have to be tightly monitored and parental oversight
established for some time.
I've also discussed in earlier mod threads about what pics are age appropriate.
At the time glamour was given the Ok as long as no crotch or butt shots.
Apart from the legal issues this is a topic I’m interested in exploring,
anyone familiar with candid pics and youtube dance videos popping up pts and
teens are posing and dancing provocatively without coaching.
There is a also the artistic question and whether we bow down to the same
hysteria that has people going off about bare nipples but are Ok with extreme
violence on tv.
A lot of food for thought.
BTW my 2cents on the display of age, that shouldn’t be an issue if the pics
are ok and parents have OK the bio and pics. |
|---|
|
|---|
| Date: 2007-09-08 22:18 Karl yes I am fully aware of that sittuation with childsupermodels and never
bothered to mentioned those things historically here, assuming Jurgita my site,
were on top and above that!
That is why I am so amazed that a simple girl from guildford in Uk can add
anything she wishes at the age of 13 like a teen dating site or myspace and
Jurgita wonders what went wrong!
My 14yo son saw it coming a mile off! He commented on that original problem
profile and others and knew where they would b headed!
So how sad are adult members that allow them? |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 146728 Posts: 91 | Date: 2007-09-08 22:55 UK Indulgence while I'm looking for parental oversight I had no problem with the
uk girls pic. If that one was a problem the whole teen photographic industry
would have to be closed down or on similar lines no teen bikini or underwear
pics.
BTW considering Paypal it looks like they are run by ultra conservatives as they
have closed down many accounts that would be considered mainstream glamour. |
|---|
|
|---|
| Date: 2007-09-08 23:42 Hi Mike,
Your absolutely right... I also saw a young 15 year old posing and suggesting
her bottoms were coming off. Is that not only illegal but against what this site
is trying to promote? Just a thought ..
Sheryl |
|---|
|
|---|
 ID: 2 Posts: 20 | Date: 2007-09-09 04:27 hello everybody:
here are the answers to your thoughts:
1. I think you all dont know, but whole site, all pictures are moderated, not
only models under 18. All pictures are carefuly checked, but it seems that
moderators didnt find anything wrong with that picture, I dont see anything
wrong either. Of course there can be issue with texts, everything was checked,
but it seems it looked ok for many moderators.
2. UK most of your thought leads to one thing - banining models under 18. Its
because what you are proposing takes too much time, too many resources, too
costly.. we are searching for happy medium.
3. parent consent... how do you imagine to do that? how do you know that consent
is given by the parents, not by anyone else? its impossible to implement..
anyone can write - I'm a parent, I approve the pics. We will end the same way,
google and other companies dont care if the consent is or not. they banned us
without notification.
4. active moderation - that means we need more moderators, who can work, who can
spend their time.. its not so easy to find. traffic to the site is quite big and
it takes a lot of time to do that.
5. main photos - clear facial. we dont have a problem with main pics. we can
install the script for face detection in photo, but I think the site will become
boring and it will look closer to dating site, not modeling.
6. new members cant post anything, unless approved. that was since the start.. I
think there is a bug for blogs only. we will fix that.
7. regarding model Amber C. Same reason - moderators approved it. What do yoy
advise to do? to change moderators, because they made a mistake? its really hard
to trace fakes, but we try. if you find something, please send via tickets
system for removal.
8. carib - such accounts you should send via tickets system, they will be
removed. We dont posses information like that... If you know something its
better to tell..
9. Simon - we dont know what is age OK now. I gave an example, it looks ok for
me, but it was not ok for google. Nobody knows what is ok for google. |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 146728 Posts: 91 | Date: 2007-09-09 05:49 I bet onemodelplace hasn't lost its paypal and it has models under 18. So what
gives? |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 146728 Posts: 91 | Date: 2007-09-09 05:50 Cheri Clark just spotted your bio on onemodelplace and it said you do glamour.
To you what does that imply and at what age do you think models should be able
to do glamour? |
|---|
|
|---|
ID: 2 Posts: 20 | Date: 2007-09-09 05:53 ask them how. we dont know.
Simon Moffitt:
I bet onemodelplace hasn't lost its paypal and it has models under 18. So what
gives?
|
|---|
Announcement |
|---|
| From now on 50 activity points will turn into 1 credit, so you may earn credits as easy as never before !!!
All models and photographers are able to moderate photos! We will save a lot of time for moderators this way. Please read the short instruction on how to moderate and earn points very quickly.
Also, models and photographers can moderate part of the profiles as well! This is a fast way to earn some action points and credits! |
|---|
Total results: 60 Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 [ 3] |
Jurgita forum 
For UNITED (WE @ JURGITA FAMILY & FORUM) STAND!
