Innocent Shirley Temple.
Most sellers who indulge in the "gray zone" of COPYING photos and selling these counterfeit dupes, would put their images of Shirley Temple into the general category of "Movie Memorabilia" or "Vintage Photographs."
Not the porn seller who routinely offers fake images of Maria Sharapova, Britney Spears and Scarlett Johansson. That seller, PKC527, posts a seemingly innocent Shirley Temple in the category:
PHOTOS, RISQUE.
Why? Because perverts and pedophiles surf THAT category, and they'll be attracted to a "leggy" pose of little Shirley Temple, where her panties are ALMOST showing.
Yes, in case you couldn't read the category, it's been blown up for you:
COLLECTIBLES - Photographic Images - RISQUE
Shirley Temple, born in 1928, was, according to Wikipedia, "Hollywood's number one box-office draw as a child actress from 1935 to 1938." Meaning, from the age of 7 to 10. How old does she look in the picture above? The one in the RISQUE category, aimed at PEDOPHILES?
Below, some of the other items being sold by PKC527, who kept breaking eBay's rules against publishing contact info in ads, to let everyone know to send checks and money orders (because she was thrown off Paypal) direct to Patricia Crain at her New Jersey address.
The excuse at eBay is "we're just a venue," and so they can't be aware of every seller's misdeeds. But that's why there's the "report item" feature, which they've ignored hundreds of times with this seller, refusing to end obvious and blatant Photoshop fakes, evil miscategorization (it's against eBay rules to miscategorize) and images sold with NO model release of age or CONSENT.
Nice that eBay has a few women on their executive team:
What would happen if an employee showed around Photoshopped images of these two, naked and in pornographic poses? That employee would be fired.
On eBay, however, sellers don't get suspended. The seller below, FEMALE, has been at it for a year now, and has hardly even gotten a restriction. Every week, 8,000 auctions are up, and loaded with offensive FAKE NUDE images, and nude pictures for which the seller has NO model release of AGE or CONSENT.
Today on eBay you'll find, Patricia Crain offering obviously FAKE images of Maria Sharapova. The fake images imply that the tennis star routinely poses naked, and has no modesty even on the tennis court.
It's up to Maria's high-powered agent MAX EISENBUD to spend his time checking eBay's sneaky "adult category" section every week to protect her reputation? He should ask an intern to do it? Shouldn't any fan of Sharapova's be able to report these items and have them removed based on eBAY rules?
Supposedly this material is covered by the nebulous "ADULT MATERIAL/not allowed at all." Ebay does NOT define what "not allowed at all" means. The chance of someone using "report item" to get these images stopped is less than 50-50. Why? Because eBay hires a lot of low-pay people in foreign countries who don't even understand specific eBay rules. The VeRO department understands, but they can only act IF a star has an authorized rep sending faxing or emailing auction numbers. The VeRO department also can't automatically suspend anyone. Another rather lax department is in charge of this, and it can take many reports and warnings before a seller is reluctantly removed.
Meanwhile this seller PKC527 has been on eBay for years doing the same thing, which involves having NO permission for duplicating images, and selling fakes that pretend that actresses pose naked and don't care who sees the images. MILA KUNIS:
MEGAN FOX...SELMA HAYAK....
When a woman chooses to appear nude on stage or in a film, its because the plot requires it and it's part of who the character is. People such as Patricia Crain sell screencaps often pulled from split-second moments, and offer them as ACTRESS NAKED.
Why haven't eBay's FEMALE CEO's insisted that eBay's "offensive materials" rules include "celebrity nude images?" Why don't they insist that images of nude women without a model release of age and consent be banned? Why not ban "screencap" nude scenes from movies printed on a computer out of context and sold for sniggering degradation and voyeurism?
The Sharapova images make a cheap profit. Three dollars a picture. That's worth the risk of murder or rape?
Actress Rebecca Schaeffer was killed by a deranged fan. Monica Seles was nearly killed by a deranged fan who liked a rival tennis player! Gwyneth Paltrow, Taylor Swift and others have had to take out restraining orders against "fans." Yet...here is an irresponsible seller on a supposedly responsible, famous, and prosperous website (rival only to Amazon) who will sell fake images of Maria Sharapova to some stranger who may think the images are real and want to stalk her. Stalk her like sports reporter Erin Andrews was stalked with a hidden camera. Stalked like Monica Seles or Rebecca Schaeffer.
Why allow this? Why not tighten eBay rules? If anyone circulated fake nudes on Maria Oh Huber, that person would be fired instantly. THIS seller hasn't been suspended yet.
Another insanity is that when Paypal "cut her loose" (an employee at Paypal's own word for it), eBay did NOT. Ebay actually allows sellers to use banned payments (check and money order) in the ADULT section, even when they don't allow it in the general area of the site!
WHY? Because they want sellers who have been kicked off Paypal to keep selling degenerate porn. Paypal actually has no "terms of service" rules against nudity or even adult material. It's a question of how 'offensive' it is. They found Patricia Crain offensive. Ebay hasn't.
Crain puts ALL 8,000 of her auctions in the adult category, even the thousands of ordinary counterfeit images of clothed celebrities, because eBay rules would not allow her to use checks/money orders for payment outside the ADULT category. Is she clever, or is eBay stupid? Or is it that eBay just doesn't care all that much about the rights of women?
Celebrities are just famous women. That doesn't mean they aren't human and won't bleed if you stick a knife in their back (as someone did to Monica Seles). It doesn't mean they can't be hurt and devastated by stolen images (Jennifer Lawrence) or feel degraded by fakes (Scarlett Johansson, who publicly complained about the problem being all over the Internet). Ebay has tried to be more and more like Amazon, in offering new merchandise, and turning the site from being a glorified thrift shop and garate sale. Yet, AMAZON does not allow nude celebrity photos and does not maintain a secret "adult" section for "found" images, "my wife" images, or hidden camera upskirts on Britney Spears or fake images of Spears and a hundred others.
Marie Oh Huber shouldn't be walking around in a baldcap, but in one way, she could be a LOT more like Jeff Bezos: not allowing the degradation, humiliation and abuse of women via nude images posted without a model release of age and consent.
Who is on the "HIT LIST" of this EBAY seller? Who is the victim of visual rape? Who is being literally EXPOSED without authorization or a signed model release?
Who is being degraded for profit?
Kristin Chenowith
Mena Suvari
Angie Dickinson
Laura Antonelli
Marisa Tomei
among others
According to EBAY phone support, yes, the seller known as MONX4 of Syracuse IS in violation. The seller has been in violation and warned and warned and warned.
Sellers should NOT offer sneaky invasion-of-privacy images. Fake nude images. They shouldn't be freeze-framing movie scenes looking for nude moments to take out of context and SELL.
So why is the seller STILL offering up hundreds of these items despite having had warnings and having NO signed model releases?
Er. Uh.
Ebay offers a "REPORT ITEM" hot link on every ad. Anyone who is offended by seeing a crude and illegal item, such as those below, should be able to send it to ADULT/Not allowed at all and it will be removed. But it's not.
The excuse? "We get so many reports coming in. We can't get to them all." Oh. And you take your profit off every single offensive image that gets sold because YOU don't have enough staff or enough competent staff to see and pull auctions that are obviously unacceptable.
The other reason the problem exists: Not enough women are aware that eBay has a sneaky ADULT section, that they are being preyed on, and that if they assign someone (anyone, it need not be a lawyer or a Web Sheriff being paid $100 an hour) the item will be removed.
Creepy seller MONX4 could be like several other grifters and simply sell illegal copies of ordinary movie stills and publicity photos. Nah. The seller knows that guyyyyss like DIRTY PHOTOS and Photoshop fakes. Sex sells best. Naked pictures. Abusive pictures. Demeaning and degrading pictures.
The seller even writes in every ad that should the subject in the picture discover the abuse, please DO NOT GO TO EBAY. Just contact the seller direct and the item will be removed. After all, GO TO EBAY and the seller might get that final strike that leads to permanent suspension. Here's that caveat that may have helped the seller. As in: I've INNOCENTLY abused and humiliated YOU. Just keep this between you and ME, and let me keep on abusing your friends and Hollywood colleagues so I can make money here in Syracuse.
No question about it, if Angie OR Mena OR Kristin (or any of a dozen others who could have their pictures here) sent a DMCA to eBay's VERO office (Verified Rights Owner) this seller would be deservedly KAPUT.
Fake images, sneaky telephoto invasions-of-privacy, stolen images off a computer...NO woman should be subjected to this. This is the 21st Century. This is #metoo and TIMESUP. Isn't it? Is the excuse that nobody can get to Kristin, Mena or Angie? That, at best, a manager or webmaster might get the message instead and shrug and not bother to take it further and blow the whistle on a jerk like MONX4?
Why let someone get away with this kind of dangerous and illegal activity and laugh all the way to the bank?
It's a question to ask...
Christina Ricci, Priscilla Presley, Pia Zadora, Melanie Griffith, Morgan Fairchild, Orenella Muti, Sharon Stone, Kim Novak, Linda Blair, Michelle Pfeiffer, Lucy Liu, Nancy Sinatra, and dozens and dozens of others who...
....can authorize DECENT sellers to offer photos to their fans.
....can authorize sellers to give a portion of the sales to charity and not keep it all.
....can make sure that maggots like MONX4 are OUT OF BUSINESS ENTIRELY.
Whatever happened to #metoo?
Whatever happened to TIMESUP?
It seems they were passing fads. Once Senator Al Franken was pressured to resign, pressured by the otherwise comatose Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, and once Harvey Weinstein and Woody Allen stopped making movies, that was enough.
Having Ruth Bader Ginsberg on the Supreme Court, and Judge Judy on television, that's also enough? Is it really Happy Christmas every day, and "War is Over?"
Where is Senator Gillibrand on "a woman's right to choose," and why is it up to a Trump-slanted Supreme Court to reverse the progress women have made over the past decades? The news today has a quote from a doctor in Louisiana who is tired of going it alone.
With abortion clinics being shut down all over, the Hope Medical Group has found itself one of the last clinics standing. It's bad enough that doctors have been assassinated, and buildings threatened with arson. Where's the safety in numbers when people are looking to ONE clinic and one Brave Eagle to fly the flag of freedom?
Here's the quote:
"If I'm the only one left, I'm not going to continue...apparently women don't care enough to fight for their rights..."
On THIS website, the question is why there aren't ENOUGH women who care enough to fight for their rights? If there were a few more famous actresses with a VeRO (Verified Rights Owner) rep on eBay to send in a DMCA complaint, there wouldn't be THIS:
If Senator Kirsten Gillibrand got on the podium and called attention to eBay violating FEDERAL LAW by not making sure there were SIGNED MODEL RELEASES OF AGE AND CONSENT for the nude images on its site, ORDINARY WOMEN wouldn't be subjected to THIS:
"FOUND PHOTO." Really? Where did you FIND it? And who gave you the right to sell it? Do we call this "slut shaming" and profiting from theft? If a woman chooses to indulge her fantasy of being in Playboy or Penthouse, that doesn't mean her images can become "revenge porn," thrown onto a website and then downloaded by somebody trying to sell them as "FOUND" photos.
WHERE is the model release of age and consent? WHERE is EBAY'S RESPONSIBILITY AND MORALITY?
The answer is that just as women must continue to fight for their rights. All mistreated people from the Jews to the blacks to the Latinos to the Asians must have watchdogs and whistleblowers. They need people in power positions to make sure abuse does NOT go unpunished.
Ebay has allowed a seller using the handle PKC527 to stay on the site despite several VeRO complaints...because not enough celebrities have lawyers, managers or FANS sending in DMCA's. Ebay can shrug, "If Miss X and Miss Y and Miss Z have sent us complaints, that doesn't mean that Angie Dickinson, Scarlet Johansson or Mila Kunis haven't given consent. And guess what, we're "just a venue" and we won't ask the seller to provide those documents of consent.
Part of the problem is of course EBAY, who noticed that this seller, cut loose from PAYPAL, was telling customers to send her money orders (a banned method of payment). All they did was shut down auctions where she mentioned that fact. So she uploaded more. EBAY was told that this seller was in violation of their own TOS by offering faked celebrity images and stolen celebrity images and hidden camera celebrity images. Dozens and dozens of these auctions were removed. The seller uploaded more. That's because Senator Gillibrand and the others in power have not addressed the problem...and have not addressed even more pressing ones involving women's rights, including the abortion issue that is now reaching a crisis level.
A frustrating problem here is that famous actresses are difficult to contact, can usually only be reached by finding a number of an agent or manager, and those people, for perverse reasons, will not even accept the FREE offers that VERO reps give them. A reason why VERO reps make these FREE offers is that the more women they represent, the easier it is to get a seller suspended. Strength in numbers. Instead, like the doctor in Louisiana, a VERO rep sees a friend abused, stops the auction, and can't do anything about the 100 other women on the seller's list.
The seller often leaves a teasing email: "You got me on HER, but I have a hundred more and I'm making a VERY nice living doing almost nothing but putting a few print-outs into envelopes!" And degrading women. And pretending women in faked photos are really posing that way. And encouraging the buyers to consider women as nothing but entertainment. Or, to quote the seller's header for the Emma Watson picture nothing but "PUSSY, ASS..."
Constant vigilance is part of freedom. Being an activist is part of freedom. One can't rely on others to do it, or one lone doctor in Louisiana or only a few VERO reps on eBay. And one can't count on THESE two women:
How nice, EBAY has TWO women among its vast army of executives. Huber has blocked anyone on Twitter who contacted her about the pornography problem. Huber has also ignored letters, because they don't have Senator Kristen Gillibrand's logo on the top, or any other powerful elected official.
EBAY has been very slow to enforce general rules about celebrity pornography on the site. PAYPAL has suspended sellers who use their service and sell via EBAY. But EBAY has too often ignored "report item" complaints, shrugged over phone-in complaints, and allowed sellers to profit from the most grotesque and even violent abuses of women.
The headlines today also mention BLACKFACE, and the outrage that in the 80's, a few Virginia officials degraded the dignity of African-Americans by dressing up in minstrel-like poses. What about the degradation of women, who are deliberately subjected to Photoshop fakes, and totally hostile rape fantasies and abuse, of which the Emma Watson image is only ONE example?
The Abortion issue, the BLACKFACE issue, whatever issue...it takes public awareness, and whatever other measures need to be taken: new laws, enforced laws, a front page news report, or legal action. Apathy is not the answer.
Who decided time's up for TIMESUP? Who said "no longer interested" at #METOO? Who is hanging up the phone and ignoring the emails when a VERO rep says "I can represent YOUR client, too, and free. We have a problem here and it should be solved."
