|
|
| Author |
Message |
jp2
|
|
Babe-a-day
| 
Apr 5 18:14 UTC 2002 |
This item has been erased.
|
| 24 responses total. |
tsty
|
|
response 1 of 24:
|
Apr 6 05:48 UTC 2002 |
so.. where are the pics?
|
jp2
|
|
response 2 of 24:
|
Apr 6 17:06 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jazz
|
|
response 3 of 24:
|
Apr 6 18:23 UTC 2002 |
If you can't get to porn, make porn come to you.
|
janc
|
|
response 4 of 24:
|
Apr 7 04:55 UTC 2002 |
Well, here's a picture of a babe for today:
http://www.baberuth.com/images/gallery/lg/rutb045.jpg
|
jp2
|
|
response 5 of 24:
|
Apr 7 07:23 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
janc
|
|
response 6 of 24:
|
Apr 8 02:18 UTC 2002 |
Are there? Babe Ruth died in 1929, 73 years ago. I'm no expert at
copyright law, but I'd think most pictures of him would be in the
public domain by now.
Anyway, a picture of Babe Ruth on a Babe-a-day web site would probably
be fair use under the satire rule.
Though I've never been a baseball fan, whenever people start talking
about "babes" I always visualize Babe Ruth. Not quite the stimulating
image intended, I guess.
|
jp2
|
|
response 7 of 24:
|
Apr 8 02:35 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
bruin
|
|
response 8 of 24:
|
Apr 8 13:05 UTC 2002 |
BTW, Babe Ruth died in 1948.
|
gull
|
|
response 9 of 24:
|
Apr 9 16:53 UTC 2002 |
The person who took the picture would have to have been dead for 75
years, right?
|
jp2
|
|
response 10 of 24:
|
Apr 9 16:58 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 11 of 24:
|
Apr 9 17:55 UTC 2002 |
It's pretty complicated.
|
mdw
|
|
response 12 of 24:
|
Apr 9 20:19 UTC 2002 |
The rules change too - so there really is no reason to learn them. The
shortest summation that I have heard is this: the rules will always be
such that anything to do with Mickey Mouse is fully protected. Whether
that's right or not is debatable, but so far nobody has gone to bat for
poor Mickey's freedom.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 13 of 24:
|
Apr 9 20:22 UTC 2002 |
Wrong. Check out the Supreme Court's current docket.
|
mdw
|
|
response 14 of 24:
|
Apr 9 20:38 UTC 2002 |
01-618. Yes? But this mostly covers retroactive copyright extension;
Disney still has a year to bribe our politicians to pass another law to
keep poor Mickey in chains.
|
brighn
|
|
response 15 of 24:
|
Apr 9 20:49 UTC 2002 |
<sarcasm>
Something they've done fairly well. There's hardly any pirated Mickey Mouse
stuff at all.
</sarcasm>
|
janc
|
|
response 16 of 24:
|
Apr 13 22:14 UTC 2002 |
Well, he used to be a major film star, but he hasn't done much other
than appear in ads for decades. About the best line he's had is
"Howdy! Welcome to Disneyland!" Quite a come-down for a mouse who in
his youth shook up the industry. I think most people today see him
less as a character than as a corporate icon--another MGM lion. I sure
he's suffering from major artistic frustration. This will be proven
when and if the copyright ever expires. I expect we'll see him
appearing in a wave of very diverse features. He'll even get to do
those sex scenes he's always wanted to do.
|
brighn
|
|
response 17 of 24:
|
Apr 14 04:53 UTC 2002 |
The threesome with Minnie and Clarabelle, for instance...
|
tsty
|
|
response 18 of 24:
|
Apr 24 17:51 UTC 2002 |
there was, a while ago, some 'art' of *all* teh disney chracters
inovlved with each other in a veritable cornucopia of sex acts.
and, the print glowed under ultraviolet light
1the print was probably 11x17.
it just didn't register on me then how valuable a work of
art could be.
i'd hate to have to guess what one of those would bring at auction
these days.
it was totally hilarious!
anybody else remember that?
|
brighn
|
|
response 19 of 24:
|
Apr 24 18:51 UTC 2002 |
I've seen some pieces from Linser (the guy who does Dawn) of a few of the
Disney characters in compromising positions. Beast and Beauty doing the nasty,
Arial just looking pert 'n' nekkid, etc.
|
bru
|
|
response 20 of 24:
|
Apr 25 03:24 UTC 2002 |
certain porn sites dealing with cartoons are aswarm with disney characters
in compromising positions.
|
jaklumen
|
|
response 21 of 24:
|
Apr 25 08:08 UTC 2002 |
Well, it's no secret that many Disney animators are just.. dirty-
minded and a little sex-preoccupied.
A friend of mine said he knew someone who was working at Disney and
was describing to his co-workers a Disney toon porn video, completing
it with imitations of the characters, such as Mickey saying, "Fuck
off, Goofy!"
He was fired that day because Roy Disney happened to walk in.
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 24:
|
Apr 25 13:55 UTC 2002 |
Disney characters are also popular subjects for 'fan art' by people with
weird kinky attractions to cartoon animals.
|
aruba
|
|
response 23 of 24:
|
Apr 25 14:17 UTC 2002 |
I once went to a speech by the writer of the book "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".
He was also heavily involved with the making of the movie. He said they
drew a scene in Toontown that went like this: A long limo pulls up to the
corner on a dark street. The back door opens, and a figure gets out. The
voice of the Big Bad Wolf comes from the back seat, and says "Thanks Toots."
Then the limo speeds away, and the figure that got out walks into the light,
where you see that it's Snow White, and she's counting money.
They put the scene in and none of the Disney execs seemed to catch it in the
first few rounds of editing. I think he said it made it through what was
supposed to be the final review, and then a few days later they got a call
saying "You can't show Snow White taking money for sex!", and that was it.
|
mooncat
|
|
response 24 of 24:
|
Apr 26 15:03 UTC 2002 |
Last night while watching the Discover channel there was something
about the first half of the 1900s and morality and so on...
At one point while talking about the 20s or 30s (I think) they showed
several little cartoon books that had maybe ten pages- and all showed
cartoon characters in compromising poses- many of them showed Mickey
and Minnie getting it on. So this stuff is hardly new.
|