• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Posting Images (intern and extern hosted)

Go to CruxDreams.com
CamCrux said:
Would this incur the underage ban ? The girl does look rather young. I have her booked for a possible new picture.
As I don't visit underage sites I think she's "over 18" but I don't remember who she is or where I found her so I can't be sure. What do you think ?

View attachment 928564
Click to expand...
It really depends on where you got her. If you generally pick up images (as I do) from established sources of images of nude models, you should be okay. Those sources would, because of their own legal liability, only post images of women who were old enough. However, if you get images from other sources (such as galleries from Nudism or Naturist websites, which sometimes post images of entire nude families, including underage people) then there might be an issue. She does look young, but as Wragg noted, there are a number of models that trade on looking young, and this girl could easily be one of those.
 
I'd add, it depends how you use her. In a scene with other young women - say a slave-sale - she might not stand out as much different, but avoid images that draw attention to and emphasise her 'undeveloped' look, which make the model look like an underage youngster, even if she may actually be 18+.
 
Hi Camcrux, I'm getting nowhere with reverse searches, I'm sorry. :(

Two hopes remain; firstly this is clearly a png where the model has been subtracted from her background, and that is foxing the searches. You don't by any chance have the original with her in a background, do you?

The second hope is that one of the geniuses on this site will come along and say, "Ah, yes, that's Jane Smith, and she was forty-two when that picture was taken."

Otherwise, as Eul says, strictly non sexual and clothed. I shall delete her from this thread if we don't get an answer in a day or so.

Sorry...
 
My very first impression of that pic was that's not a photo but a render, I'm still not sure. But if in doubt, why not search for a girl with a similar shape from a source you can be safe ?
 
CamCrux said:
Would this incur the underage ban ? The girl does look rather young. I have her booked for a possible new picture.
As I don't visit underage sites I think she's "over 18" but I don't remember who she is or where I found her so I can't be sure. What do you think ?

View attachment 928564
Click to expand...
She doesn't look real. More of a computer generated head superimposed on a real body. If somebody said that she was any age between 16 and 24 I could see no reason to doubt them. If as I suspect that she's some "hybrid" then you won't find her with any image search.
 
melissa said:
She doesn't look real. More of a computer generated head superimposed on a real body. If somebody said that she was any age between 16 and 24 I could see no reason to doubt them. If as I suspect that she's some "hybrid" then you won't find her with any image search.
Click to expand...
I believe there are signs of photo editing; the shadow line along the chin (for example) is very suspicious; I think this head doesn’t belong on this body. Possibly the head is over-18 and the body under-18.. or vice versa. :confused:
 
Thunar said:
My very first impression of that pic was that's not a photo but a render, I'm still not sure. But if in doubt, why not search for a girl with a similar shape from a source you can be safe ?
Click to expand...
Definitely not a render, but clearly an image in which the background has been erased to make it easier to do manips with it. She does look a tad young, but is probably 18 or more, although it's very hard to judge age by appearance alone. Several years ago there was a legal case where a guy was accused of posessing images of an underage girl, but in fact it turned out to be Melissa Ashley, who is famously flat-chested and waif-like. He explained this to the police but they chose to prosecute him anyway, and Ms Ashley herself appeared in court as a witness for the defence and was able to prove that she was 26 (iirc) at the time the photos were taken, and thus he was aquitted.
 
Darkprincess69 said:
Definitely not a render, but clearly an image in which the background has been erased to make it easier to do manips with it. She does look a tad young, but is probably 18 or more, although it's very hard to judge age by appearance alone. Several years ago there was a legal case where a guy was accused of posessing images of an underage girl, but in fact it turned out to be Melissa Ashley, who is famously flat-chested and waif-like. He explained this to the police but they chose to prosecute him anyway, and Ms Ashley herself appeared in court as a witness for the defence and was able to prove that she was 26 (iirc) at the time the photos were taken, and thus he was aquitted.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks to all for your help and interest and to reply to your posts : this is definitely a photo, not a render, and it's possible that the head and body come from 2 different persons because at a time I was an adept of head transplant :). I've had this pic for quite some time and never used it until now.
It doesn't change much to the problem in any case of course.
And no, I no longer have the background.
I was (still am ?) planning to use her in a scene where she is a young captive from a Germanic tribe and rebelling against her new Roman owners, and being confronted by them. There is nothing overtly sexual in the scene (except her being naked of course).
I might cover her with a light tunic, breasts and all, all the more as her complete nakedness is hard to account for rationally in the scene. Would that make it alright or would it still be a no-no ?
 
CamCrux said:
OK, thanks to all for your help and interest and to reply to your posts : this is definitely a photo, not a render, and it's possible that the head and body come from 2 different persons because at a time I was an adept of head transplant :)
I doesn't change much to the problem in any case.
And no, I no longer have the background.
I was (am ?) planning to use her in a scene where she is a young captive from a Germanic tribe and rebelling against her new Roman owners. There is nothing overtly sexual in the scene (except the nudity of course).
I might cover her with a light tunic, all the more as her complete nakedness is hard to account for rationally in the scene. Would that make it alright or would it still be a no-no ?
Click to expand...
Don't worry, even i have posted 'flatter-looking' women than her! And don't bother with the tunic unless you wish to...
 
CamCrux said:
OK, thanks to all for your help and interest and to reply to your posts : this is definitely a photo, not a render, and it's possible that the head and body come from 2 different persons because at a time I was an adept of head transplant :). I've had this pic for quite some time and never used it until now.
It doesn't change much to the problem in any case of course.
And no, I no longer have the background.
I was (still am ?) planning to use her in a scene where she is a young captive from a Germanic tribe and rebelling against her new Roman owners, and being confronted by them. There is nothing overtly sexual in the scene (except her being naked of course).
I might cover her with a light tunic, breasts and all, all the more as her complete nakedness is hard to account for rationally in the scene. Would that make it alright or would it still be a no-no ?
Click to expand...
At this point I would say go ahead and post anyway. If the mods feel that it falls foul of the rules then they can always delete it, but the fact that you have clearly conducted due dilligence by discussing it with everybody in here should keep you safe from any official reprimands :)
 
thehangingtree said:
Don't worry, even i have posted 'flatter-looking' women than her! And don't bother with the tunic unless you wish to...
Click to expand...
But I don't want my picture to be banned and even less to be dragged into jail for pedophilia :) !!
CamCrux said:
Would this incur the underage ban ? The girl does look rather young. I have her booked for a possible new picture.
As I don't visit underage sites I think she's "over 18" but I don't remember who she is or where I found her so I can't be sure. What do you think ?

View attachment 929001
Click to expand...
Cool ! I love the dressed version !
 
CamCrux said:
OK, thanks to all for your help and interest and to reply to your posts : this is definitely a photo, not a render, and it's possible that the head and body come from 2 different persons because at a time I was an adept of head transplant :). I've had this pic for quite some time and never used it until now.
It doesn't change much to the problem in any case of course.
And no, I no longer have the background.
I was (still am ?) planning to use her in a scene where she is a young captive from a Germanic tribe and rebelling against her new Roman owners, and being confronted by them. There is nothing overtly sexual in the scene (except her being naked of course).
I might cover her with a light tunic, breasts and all, all the more as her complete nakedness is hard to account for rationally in the scene. Would that make it alright or would it still be a no-no ?
Click to expand...
Thanks Cam, and thanks all.

Feel free to ping it at me in a pm if you like. Meantime I've given her Josephine's old dress to wear.
 
CamCrux said:
I was (still am ?) planning to use her in a scene where she is a young captive from a Germanic tribe and rebelling against her new Roman owners, and being confronted by them. There is nothing overtly sexual in the scene (except her being naked of course).
Click to expand...
That seems to me to be the kind of scene where she'd be fine.

It's helpful that you've raised this question, an opportunity to clarify an issue that we're obviously having to make judgements on pretty well daily.
 
Praefectus Praetorio said:
I have some files with a jfif extension and I cannot seem to upload them. Any ideas?
Click to expand...
Try renaming them to .jpg - the actual file format should still be readable (depending on how well your OS supports the standard of course). Try posting one here to test it. It seems that Windows 10 in particular tends to save JPG files as JFIF, which is causing problems for those people stuck in the Windows ecosystem. Technically, all JFIF files are JPG, but not all JPG are actually JFIF.

Personally I've not come across a JFIF that wouldn't read as a JPG, but there may well be some out there, somewhere. Just try renaming and it will probably work just fine
 
CamCrux said:
I have a picture of 4000 x 3000, 18 GB but it's "too large". What is the maximum size in pixels and GB's ?
Click to expand...
I've never heard of anyone wishing to post a pic that is 18GB. Are you sure it's not 18 MB? In either event it would probably be too big. There's no real need to post a pic bigger than 500KB although many people do post 1 to 4 MB. I've not seen any limit on pixel size. The max size of a movie is 10MB. If your pic or movie is hosted externally then it is the host that determines the size.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom