Rolling Stone to EBAY: "IT'S NEVER ACCEPTABLE..."

Maybe Jann Wenner should place a call to the CEO of EBAY, and read him a line from a new article on the website:

"It's never acceptable to share sexual images of someone without their consent." 

He might be referring to EBAY having over 100 raunchy photo fakes on BEYONCE including these:

OR he could be referring to hundreds of other images of the top female singers that Rolling Stone covers, including TAYLOR SWIFT.

TAYLOR SWIFT may be a singer-songwriter to most of us, but to EBAY sellers in the "adults only" section, she's TITS BOOBS. Like so: 

The picture doesn't even bother to say it's a "fantasy." Or unauthorized. Here's another, in which Taylor Swift's adjectives are: PUSSY ASS SLUT

These are among TODAY's finds on EBAY.

An irony is that TODAY, Rolling Stone's feature website article is about the morality of the news media "sharing" private sexual texts and photos. Anthony Weiner, a disgraced politician, and Leslie Jones, the "Saturday Night Live" actress, both were victims of the Internet's habit of grabbing private photos and tossing them around for smirks and laughs. 

In this excerpt, the most important line of the piece is highlighted: 

That line is ESPECIALLY important in regard to EBAY where the items aren't available for "news" purposes, or for "sharing" among a community of snickering pervs in a private forum. On EBAY, the images have been downloaded so they can be SOLD. The Photoshop fakes (and sometimes stolen actual hacked nude photos) are grinder through a printer and sold WITHOUT CONSENT. WITHOUT A SIGNED MODEL RELEASE. 

Even at their most mild, they are an outrageous invasion of privacy. THIS particular EBAY seller gives the impression his downloaded Photoshop fakes are licensed, and that Taylor Swift is either happy to pose naked, or happy to let someone fake an image and make money off her while demeaning her

Hopefully EBAY will address this overdue problem and prohibit "celebrity porn" on its site. The rule against "offensive materials" needs to include material that obviously is intended to demean women. Currently the rules simply address religious and ethnic groups. CONSENT is what separates "good" porn from "bad" porn. 

Lastly, EBAY has a limp rule about duplicating photos without permission. Right now, if someone red-flags an image and reports it, EBAY will simply state "we have no idea whether the seller has permission to duplicate this or not." They toss the problem to their "VeRO" department, declaring that if the person in the photo objects, and registers with their "VeRO" program, they'll remove it. Otherwise, not. 

EBAY should, in egregious situations, be asking a seller who has had multiple complaints and VeRO stoppages to either show some signed documents or CEASE AND DESIST and obey their rules: 

Right now, the loophole is that they pull a Sgt. Schulz and "know nnnnuthing, nnnnnuthing," about whether a seller's material is "authorized" or not, and DON'T ASK. A reason for that is that lax Internet law technically doesn't require them to ask. At the moment, Internet law requires copyright owners and owners of intellectual property to police the entire Internet and be everywhere and see everything, while website owners scan simply pretend not to notice abuse...or question it.