Emma Watson Fake??? - Page 4

leviathan0999 · September 21st, 2016, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Spade

"Proof" in the case of fakes should consist of the original, unfaked image.

Which was posted first, along with a very similar partner, before it was very visibly edited into the fake posted by sozelle with the false claim that it's the original.

But the idea that simply looking at the obvious edits doesn't constitute proof of fakery is just silly.

**Wendigo** · September 21st, 2016, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leviathan0999

It's not about wanting proof. It's about integrity.

But the one sozelle posted, claiming it to be the original,

Quote:

Originally Posted by leviathan0999

Which was posted first, along with a very similar partner, before it was very visibly edited into the fake posted by sozelle with the false claim that it's the original.

But the idea that simply looking at the obvious edits doesn't constitute proof of fakery is just silly.

Let's be honest here he found an image that looked like it was the original. It's hardly common for someone to fake an image in that way. Almost the reverse of most other fakes on the web, other than airbrushing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leviathan0999

is a clearly proven, demonstrated fake. anybody can zoom in on the picture in any image viewer, and see the edits as plain and clear as if they were done with construction paper and a glue stick.

Anybody ? That is true but the vast majority of us just look at an image, see if we like it or not and move on. Very few of us examine images in micro detail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leviathan0999

Promoting that fake image as real is a stain on VEF's integrity.

The image is not being promoted, we have no banner adverts showcasing it, it is not in flashing lights nor do we offer printed images of it for sale or discount vouchers if you download it. It is just one of many millions of images posted on VEF. There could be other fakes in other threads, images are posted by members, Mods do not check the source of each individual image, if we see obvious fakes we remove them, if images are pointed out as suspect we move them to the discussion threads.

It's really time to move on from this personal obsession and let this total non-issue to most of us just die a natural. The next fake will be no doubt be along shortly.

leviathan0999 · September 21st, 2016, 04:33 PM

Since the fake has now been removed from the "legitimate" thread, and the legitimate ones returned, I have no more complaint.

**Sirch** · September 21st, 2016, 05:09 PM

The thread served it's purpose. Some of us wondered why the "real" looked fake and the "fake" looked real. Now we know the answer.

**pharoahegypt** · September 21st, 2016, 07:16 PM

It always gives me that bit more proof of pix being genuine when the celeb in question launches such law suits or as they called this one "cease & desist" order, as then you know that the person knows they posed for them, and doesn't want them seen by the whole world. But having already had them floating around the net for two weeks, that will now never happen....

Now if that cctv footage of Dannii Minogue & her lap dancer friend could resurface for a couple of weeks again, before getting removed... like it did before anyone I've ever spoken to could see it the first time around..... lol.

**Sirch** · September 22nd, 2016, 01:48 AM

Making a fuss always makes things worse. It's a lesson people never seem to learn.

fordprefect739 · September 22nd, 2016, 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImTheMan

Nudography is reporting her lawyers are kicking up a fuss about the pics. How ironic that had they kept quiet the images could have easily been written off as fakes and would have quickly been forgotten (and the majority of online celeb sites seemed to be leaning towards saying they were fake anyway). Now everyone knows they're real. Talk about counterproductive lol.

Yeah. I was still leaning undecided until the lawyer story.

**JCat** · September 22nd, 2016, 11:10 AM

I haven't read any stories about this, so I'm just speculating here. I'm wondering if her lawyers may also represent other celebs as well. If so, they may be trying to make an example of the website that posted these and send a message to anyone else who may be considering posting "owned" pics of a star. However, they can't stop the paparazzi from snapping her. Especially if she continues to choose not to wear underwear, apparently a habit of hers based on some past photos as well.

If my theory is correct (and I'm no lawyer), Miss Watson isn't being well represented by her legal team. Instead, it could be more of an agency decision who may be more concerned with their other stars and preventing any future potential scandals from coming to light.

EDIT: I just read a brief article about this. I'm amused by the claim they make:

Quote:

The photos were reportedly taken by Watson’s stylist, who then gave all the rights to Watson.

As if this immediately happened.

I'm sure the stylist wasn't thinking of that at the time. The lawyers had to create a story to explain ownership.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/20/em...aunchy-photos/

**Sirch** · September 22nd, 2016, 12:53 PM

Quote:

The photos were reportedly taken by Watson’s stylist, who then gave all the rights to Watson.

Who ever took the picture owns the publication/distribution rights unless they transferred those rights to another individual. It used to be theirs to do with as they wish. Because the world is so prudish about nudity, various laws have gone into effect (in some countries) that forbid a copyright owner from publishing or releasing these kinds of pics without the consent of the "model", even though they own the copyright.

fordprefect739 · September 23rd, 2016, 01:01 AM

This pic isn't really nudity though. It's a bit suggestive but still not nudity.

September 21st, 2016, 05:09 PM	#34
Sirch Vintage Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,216 Thanks: 18,391 Thanked 12,680 Times in 1,147 Posts	The thread served it's purpose. Some of us wondered why the "real" looked fake and the "fake" looked real. Now we know the answer. __________________ Cock A Doodle Doo! Last edited by Sirch; September 21st, 2016 at 05:14 PM..

September 21st, 2016, 07:16 PM	#35
pharoahegypt Vintage Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Middle England Posts: 4,491 Thanks: 10,176 Thanked 43,616 Times in 4,154 Posts	It always gives me that bit more proof of pix being genuine when the celeb in question launches such law suits or as they called this one "cease & desist" order, as then you know that the person knows they posed for them, and doesn't want them seen by the whole world. But having already had them floating around the net for two weeks, that will now never happen.... Now if that cctv footage of Dannii Minogue & her lap dancer friend could resurface for a couple of weeks again, before getting removed... like it did before anyone I've ever spoken to could see it the first time around..... lol. __________________ Arguing with a intelligent person is hard; but arguing with a stupid person is impossible!

September 22nd, 2016, 01:48 AM	#36
Sirch Vintage Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Posts: 1,216 Thanks: 18,391 Thanked 12,680 Times in 1,147 Posts	Making a fuss always makes things worse. It's a lesson people never seem to learn. __________________ Cock A Doodle Doo!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

September 21st, 2016, 04:33 PM	#33
leviathan0999 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 152 Thanks: 1,599 Thanked 1,560 Times in 140 Posts	Since the fake has now been removed from the "legitimate" thread, and the legitimate ones returned, I have no more complaint.

September 23rd, 2016, 01:01 AM	#40
fordprefect739 Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 911 Thanks: 1,672 Thanked 5,436 Times in 866 Posts	This pic isn't really nudity though. It's a bit suggestive but still not nudity.