ASHLEY JUDD, the feminist: USED by EBAY SELLERS via Fake Nudes

It would be helpful of Ashley Judd, or some other feminist actress with a lot of influence, would put in a call to eBay and ask why THIS is allowed:

Shouldn't pictures like this require a seller to state, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, that they have signed model releases of age and consent? And shouldn't those model releases be included in the ad?

At the moment, eBay will remove an item like this if Ashley Judd or a representative asks...provided THEY fill out a form stating that the material is NOT authorized. (vero@ebay.com)

We believe that no stars, and no women (the ones on those "500 hot chicks on a CD-R" items loaded with material stolen from "revenge porn" websites) should have to jump through eBay hoops.  FEDERAL LAW:

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256). 

Sellers MUST have a signed model release stating age and consent. Where in these ads, is Judd's signature on a document stating she has agreed to the sales of the photos, and that the photos are compliant with Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257a of Federal Law? 

Elizabeth Gillies and "Offensive Materials"

Ebay has rules against "Offensive Materials" that demean a race or religion. But not women.

Somehow, imagining female celebrities raped is ok with EBAY?

Is it really asking so much of a website that already has quite a few rules and regulations of common sense and morality, to stop letting sick, nickel-and-dime misogynists get away with this? 

It's also in violation of Federal law regarding pornographic materials that require a signed model release of age and consent.

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256). 

Sellers MUST have a signed model release stating age and consent. Where, next to this image is her signature on a document stating she has agreed to the sales of the photos, and that the photos are compliant with Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257a of Federal Law? 

Twitter Bans Porn Without Consent - EBAY does not

Today's news is that Twitter has banned "revenge porn."

On eBay, this is fine.  

Why is Twitter more moral than Ebay? Is it because Ebay makes more money off this material? 

Here's a typical fake image on Katy Perry that an eBay seller is making money on, without stating that there's a signed form of consent. This is one of the milder images. Check the postings below for much worse on such a wide range of women, from underage actresses to the President's wife. 

FEDERAL LAW:

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256). 

Sellers MUST have a signed model release stating age and consent. Where, next to the Katy Perry image, is her signature on a document stating she has agreed to the sales of the photos, and that the photos are compliant with Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257a of Federal Law? 

The uploader should get a form letter stating: "You have nude photos with NO statement of age or consent. Provide this or remove the material." When it comes to obvious violations, such as Photoshopped nude celebrity or "leaked celebrity" images, they should be removed instantly, as well as the "ha ha, look at the drunk naked girl" pix or "my girlfriend naked, sleeping." In the latter two cases, people can find other things to post if they desperately need to amuse strangers.

REDDIT RIDS IT - EBAY HAS NOT

This website would LOVE to report that EBAY has done what REDDIT just did.

The CEO at Reddit is a woman. Her name is Ellen Pao. Her statement: "No matter who you are, if a photograph, video, or digital image of you in a state of nudity, sexual excitement, or engaged in any act of sexual conduct, is posted or linked to on Reddit without your permission, it is prohibited on Reddit." 

How about FEDERAL LAW, too. Shouldn't all websites obey it? 

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256). 

Sellers MUST have a signed model release stating age and consent. Professional porn (Hustler, Playboy, Vivid Video etc.) all have this material on file, and say so. And yet EBAY allows any parasitic pervert to Photoshop images of stars, or dupe stolen/hacked nude photos, and sell them...WITHOUT A SIGNED AGREEMENT OF AGE AND CONSENT. Isn't that just plain AGAINST THE LAW? 

Raping Patricia Arquette Turns EBAY bidders on

While Patricia Arquette was clutching her Oscar, and demanding equal rights for women, for EBAY SELLERS it was business as usual.

EBAY is where they sell Patricia Arquette topless, with a gun to her head. This doesn't fall under the EBAY "Offensive Materials" rules, or rules against selling stolen property?

Yes, two sellers offering the same item. There's no honor among thieves.

EBAY smugly insists, "It's up to Arquette to find these images on our sneaky, hidden "adults only" section of our site, and then send a complaint to vero@ebay.com"

But aren't these images in violation of FEDERAL LAW?

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256). 

Sellers MUST have a signed model release stating age and consent. Where, next to these images is Arquette's signature on a document stating she has agreed to the sales of the photos, and that the photos are compliant with Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257a of Federal Law? Where is the document from the film company saying they've give these parasites the rights to make a profit over screencaps from the movie? 

EBAY hasn't answered the question of why they don't obey Federal  Law.

Desperate to Humiliate TAYLOR SWIFT with Photoshop Porn Images

What can you say about an EBAY seller who is desperately intent on abusing and visually raping Taylor Swift? To hide items from her VeRO rep, THIS seller spells her name TAYLER, and spaces out her name so it won't show up in a search. But any pervert, stalker and potential rapist who checks this seller's list of women will find the images.

What solves this problem? 

EBAY should add "celebrity fantasy" and "celebrity nude" images to their "offensive material" list. This junk should be BANNED the same way material abusive to blacks and Jews can not be posted. Anyone can report a KKK or Nazi item, or a "fantasy image" of a Jew being tortured or a black being lynched. 

EBAY should obey the law when it comes to sellers offering adult material WITHOUT having "age and consent" form on file.

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256). 

Sellers MUST have a signed model release stating age and consent. Hustler wouldn't dare print pictures like this, but EBAY sells them!

Where, next to these images of Swift, is her signature on a document stating she has agreed to the sales of the photos, and that the photos are compliant with Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257a of Federal Law? 

The ad copy on these Taylor Swift frauds calls each photo "a parody." Ha ha. Except "parody" is not acceptable if it violates rules on sexually explicit photos, or photos that involve stolen property or underage women. Exploiting a woman without her consent is NOT PARODY.  

Read on, and see other examples, as well as the laws that EBAY is currently ignoring. 

Emma Watson Pedophilia Porn Still Condoned on EBAY?

Does EBAY think this is not an "OFFENSIVE MATERIALS" violation?

Where is the compliance with Federal Law, that models be over 18, and consenting? Where is the signed model release from Emma Watson?

Does EBAY think that it's ok to fantasize about the gang-rape and abuse of an under-age movie star? Apparently it does: 

What would happen if an eBay employee circulated photos of a female eBay employee in these "fantasy" poses? That person would be fired, if not arrested. Why would it be ok for any woman to be abused and degraded by "fantasy" or "lookalike" material such as this?

Where is the signed model release from Emma Watson? Where is the signed model release from the porn actors, allowing THIS seller to use a collage photo for his own sleazy profit? 

Why doesn't EBAY amend its OFFENSIVE MATERIALS rules and its ADULTS ONLY rules? It's common sense that for items like this, a seller must include a copy of the SIGNED MODEL RELEASE of age and consent. 

It's also FEDERAL LAW that depictions of sexual, "adults only" items require a signed model release of age and consent:

Title 18, Sections 2257 and 2257A: all models, actors, actresses, performers and/or other persons who appear in any visual depiction or “sexually explicit conduct” (as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. §2256)...

...MUST sign a document of AGE AND CONSENT.