Guest *Ste***cque** Report post Posted February 15, 2013 I picked my handle for a few reasons. Main reason, I couldn't get my old handle back. Also, when I was young friends would call me Steve McQueen or Steppenwolf. Not sure why? Maybe cause i was a bit of a wild child, the song "born to be wild" and my name being Steve?? Who knows how we get our nicknames. It could have been worse. Anyway, I thought i would use it since my old handle was gone. My concern here is does anyone know the potential problems with using a public persons name and pic for my handle and avatar on CERB? I wouldn't want to get sued by Steve McQueen's estate, given the nature of this site. Am I violating a CERB policy? I may as well find out now, in case i need to change it. I welcome your advice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300292 Report post Posted February 15, 2013 Not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but it's an anonymous board handle, your real name isn't likely linked to it Unless your filthy rich, I doubt it would be worth their while to sue Plus your in Canada, Steve McQueen's NOK and estate are in the United States...I doubt they go on-line browsing all the escort boards around the world looking for someone using his name as a board handle Coming from a guy who's avatar is John Malkovich, and I'm not worried about him coming after me But if your truly concerned, best advice, consult a lawyer RG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SamanthaEvans 166767 Report post Posted February 15, 2013 I wouldn't worry about it. As RG says, it's an anonymous board handle. You're not representing yourself as that Steve McQueen. I think that paid companions need to be more careful because we do use our names on our websites, in correspondence and in public. I am Samantha Evans, even though I was given a very different name when I was born. I researched my name to be sure that it wasn't the name of a famous person (famous but unknown to me) and also to be sure that it wasn't such an uncommon name that it might embarrass someone else to find that their real name was associated with my work name. The Internet being what it is, our names are going to follow us around for a long time. I would hate for some teenager to be bullied or afflicted because her unusual name was the same as a prostitute's! Checking a site like howmanyofme.com, which gives US Census name information, helps. I think that as long as there are at least 20 people with the name, it's okay to use it. There are 27 Steve McQueens there, so you're probably okay! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bcguy42 38594 Report post Posted February 15, 2013 One of my daughters has the same name as a porn actress. Not on purpose but there it is. She has an interesting time setting up accounts on sites like Facebook using her real name. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest S*rca****sid Report post Posted February 15, 2013 I would suggest refraining from using his image. I would bet that it's copyrighted. Simply using a name may be the better choice. Copyright is a very serious issue these days, especially when it comes to images. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phaedrus 209521 Report post Posted February 16, 2013 Even if Steve McQueen didn't like it, he'd be well advised to research the Streisand Effect before doing anything stupid with lawyers... 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest S*rca****sid Report post Posted February 16, 2013 Steve McQueen is long deceased. His estate makes lots of money and I'm sure can afford good lawyers. Usually the first step is to ask to remove the image and that would only affect the Mod. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
roamingguy 300292 Report post Posted February 16, 2013 No lawyer here again :-) but if a copyrighted image could it be so freely obtained on the internet. If it was watermarked, or the estate somehow made the image unable to copy as a thumbnail avatar image then they might have a case But then again, I would think the estate would set it's sights higher, like whoever ran his photos on the internet to begin with...not with someone who anonymously uses the avatar image only linked with his handle, on an escort board that the estate likely never heard of RG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Athos 108589 Report post Posted February 16, 2013 Of course there is also the issue of what would be the remedy. There is no commercial gain from utilization of either the name or the photo. There might be a case that somehow McQueen's image and reputation has been damaged, but given there can be no possible inference that this is actually THE Steve McQueen (unless he is hobbying from the grave), then I don't think that argument would get very far. At the most, there would be request to have the image and name removed, and that request would go to the Board. As RG says, I think the estate probably would have it's sights set a little higher. Porthos Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SamanthaEvans 166767 Report post Posted February 16, 2013 In my "other" life, I'm a figure and portrait artist. On that basis, I can say that, when it comes to images, the copyright often belongs to the photographer or artist who created the image. Public figures such as politicians and movie stars are not automatically accorded the same degree of privacy as private citizens. I'm allowed, for example, to take a photograph of the Prime Minister or the Queen and publish it or create artwork using it without their permission. This is why the papparazzi can cause so much trouble for popular figures, politicians, actors and the Royal family. They own the rights to the photographs and can often sell the pictures for considerable amounts of money. If I take a photograph of roamingguy (whom I've not met in person) and want to use it for commercial purposes, I should get him to sign a model release that gives me permission. But if I sell or give the photos to him, he will need to have my permission before he copies, alters, distributes or uses the photographs because I'm their creator. The creator of a photograph or other image has some leeway as long as the people in the image are not obviously identifiable. Getting model releases is extremely important when minors are the subjects of photos and other artwork. If there's an issue about using Steve McQueen's photograph, it's likely to be with the photographer who created it. Copyright on companions' photographs will vary, depending on the photographer. Because many of them are so personal and intimate, most respectable photographers will retain the right to use the photos as part of their own promotion material, such as their websites, but give the right to copy, alter and distribute the images to the lady herself. Things start to get murky when the photographs are taken by friends and relatives for one purpose but are later used for very different purposes, or when someone acquires private photographs and releases them by publishing them on the Internet, for example. 2 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BarrhavenWoody 10776 Report post Posted February 16, 2013 Okay now I'm worried that Cap'n Crunch might send his lawyer The CrunchBerry Beast after me. Will they make me walk the plank? 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest *Ste***cque** Report post Posted February 18, 2013 Decided to change my profile pic, just to be safe. Thanks for the advice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stevecurious 42059 Report post Posted February 18, 2013 Okay now I'm worried that Cap'n Crunch might send his lawyer The CrunchBerry Beast after me. Will they make me walk the plank? Yeah I agree, the owners of my avatar have deep, deep pockets. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
