Just to play devil's advocate...hear me out ;)

I think the issue at hand is not that you are using thumbs to link to the galleries.

We all know that's legal and does not violate copyright. cite whatever google case here.

However I think the issue is that you ARE "skimming."

In other words you are using copyrighted thumbs to send anywhere but the actual gallery on the domain that the thumb & larger picture are licensed to.

So the google comparison IS NOT ACCURATE. It would be accurate if google was "skimming," as well...but that's exactly what they are not doing.

You are in a sense making money, gaining traffic whatever it boils down to benefitting wihtout paying for that usage...regardless if it's only 50% or 5%.

It's an interesting dilemna. I can see the point he's trying to make even tho' I don't like the guy or his company.

I think if I was running a sponsor, I would be ok with this. This is the time for a sponsor to step in and explicitly state that they are definitely ok with skimmed thumbs using their content...

A. Steve Easton is usually wrong.
B. Not this time. At least he's not COMPLETELY wrong this time.

The problem is in fact with the skim. The customer of the content isn't generally allowed to relicense use of the images to other webmasters. This could be covered in the license agreement. However, if Joe Webmaster submits a gallery to a TGP and provides a thumb to link the galleries, and then the TGP uses that thumb to advertise another website, that TGP is in fact using that content without a license. There has to be a good faith relationship between the content provider and the TGP, which does not generally exist. Furthermore, the TGP owner does not generally even have an idea where that content came from - so why are they allowed to use it as an ad for someone else's site?

Geesh, thanks for all of your comments guys, I appreciate them, it's a good discussion.

As far as people talking about using content and licenses, rite now I'm using all sponsor hosted galleries from sponsors that pretty much have their own content like Nasty Dolalrs, Bang Bros, Extreme Paychecks, Cash From Stars/Teen Mega Cash, so in that case, it's not like they're using licensed content from Matrix or anything like that.

I don't see any problem with the skimming, and NSCash.com partners do it. We do not have a problem with it. I don't see what the big issue is, because the more traffic the affiliate gets, the more signups he could send the sponser, that's the way we feel!

jDoG

popel earning much money with it

As a provider and someone with at least a quarter of a brain I would like to voice an opinion on this.

In regards to skiming i.e. profiting without a license. Nearly every website in the adult industry is for profit in some way. Linking to or getting linked from such a site bennifits both site owners in some way as well.

Now in regards to the thumbnail preview TGP site that skims or not. Shall we keep in mind that nearly every provider has almost the same license terms word for word. So instead of using my license which is very liberal I am going to randomly click one of my provider book marks and check their license real quick. By doing so I quickly find this line in a license "may use up to 10 images from licensed material in banner and promotional webpage design elements on non licensor owned domains".

That line more than covers ones liability for posting to a thumb preview TGP.True some providers do say all material must be hosted on your own website for any usage, generally this will not be the case though. Still read and check your licenses.

The real area of concern for Thumb Preview TGP's is when the snag a thumbnail that shows actual non simulated hardcore sex acts. Yet then it is not APIC's delima but a potential problem with the Justice Department. Since I am damn sure that the TGP owner does not have the title 18 info for every thumbnail image.

since the subject of banners was brought up: were exactly DO banners fall in the discussion? if they want to start "riding" the preview thumbs --wouldn't an advertising banner fall under the same rules? content used in the banner ... served off every webmasters server ( IE --different domains than the ones licensed ) ... shown to make profit. it would seem the arguement theiy're using against preview thumbs could be broadly applied to banners also.

and as far as the content being un-licensed: wasn't lil2rich roasted by Matrix because he didn't have the licenses to the pics that were used in a site design he bought ? in a way --that same arguement could be applied to preview thumbs. the thumb site owner doesn't have the license to the content, but is displaying it. the same arguement Matrix was using could be applied ... no direct license --no showing of the content in any way, shape or form.

This is all covered in the license agreement that you get with your content.

Most content providers dont allow you to use the images for advertising purposes ( i.e. making a page layout )

This leads to overexposure of the content. It devaluates the pics , making them overexposed.

It all boils down to your content license and what they allow. And i personally have never seen one that stipulates, " you may use the thumbnails of your content on an unlimited amount of domains for whatever purpose you may desire. "

pfft, silly webmasters.

porn is illegal for the most part, and youre worried about some assheads with a patent?

'porn

n : illegal activities designed to stimulate sexual desire [syn: pornography, porno]'

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=porn

they are arresting people for selling dildos and hardcore movies all across america and some tie with a patent has you worried?

freeadultcontent:

re: the skim.

Big difference between a banner and what thumb tgps are doing.

#1 A sponsor licenses content and as some licenses point out some of that can be used on a banner.
That banner is then used on a domain name then to promote that sponsor.

#2 A webmaster buys content to use on a gallery.
The thumb tgp webmaster pulls a thumb puts it on his thumb tgp site..now if that were to click through just to the gallery that would make it the same.

But the difference is the thumb preview tgps use a script where some of that traffic goes to that gallery that the content is licnesed to, and some of the traffic goes to other tgps or pay per click sponsers etc.

This is probably what APIC is going to try and argue.

So once again I think the issue is the skim. The webmaster who runs the thumb tgp is benefitting from content by using it to send to other domains than the ones that licensed the content originally.

But then I guess some of us here have less than a quarter of a brain and can't figure this shit out. ;)

edited to add: 50 jihads on apic beeyotch!

I knew that was coming.

Other common clause in many licenses.

up to X images may be used providing that a link to a licensor owned domain is provided

Again I think this also covers it.

actually you are correct Fletch.

Growing up back in the old days 70's and 80's "porn" is illegal.
If you made an adult movie that just had nothing but sex in it and no story then you made just "porn."

Which is why they had those lame ass story lines...there had to be some attempts at it being "art," in order for it be protected from obscenity charges even though some people were still charged.

But the word "porn," has taken on a newer meaning. It's more accpetable now and the meaning doesn't imply something that is "illegal." Webster needs to update ;)

I think you're missing the point.

Wouldn't that only apply if the thumb links to the "licensor's owned domain?"

What you are missing is that on thumb tgps that thumb could lead to the domain that has licensed the content as well as 10 other domains *depending upon the skim script* that hasn't licensed the domain.

This is a serious question.

Do you know what a thumb tgp is and how they work?

Do you know how cj's and cj2's work?

Yes, standard TGP cept instead of text links it has thumbnails. Now when you click a thumbnail ussually the first click goes through to the actual gallery, after that X percentage of every additional click on that page is sent to another TGP as a trade.

Licenses just like most contracts are always up for legal interpretation. Generally the language of such a contract is very important if it comes down to a legal dispute. If a license did not say that it was not permitted, and did have the clause I mentioned above then by all rights it would be decided on the side of the licensor. Since the page in question does have a link to the licensors domain as required in the contract, and since the contract does not stipulate that it must be the only link, nor that all traffic must go to the linking page.

So again this is just a license issue, but still does not cover the other liability I mentioned before.

Okay cool I feel ya, and get what you're saying now.

Like I said before it's an interesting dilemna. Don't know exactly how it will hold up or even if that's what he *Easton* is arguing...just thought I'd put it out there as part of the discussion.

If the skim is random, I don't think APIC's proclamation would apply or hold much water. Random means that sometimes the gallery is viewable completely and this obviously falls within the content license agreement.

On a side note, I do know of several providers that do state clearly in their licenses that ALL images must be hosted on licensors servers. This would prevent Thumb preview posts.

There are a LOT of content providers reading the GFY board every day. Why not simply post here:

1) you MAY use my licensed content to post galleries on thumb preview TGPs

2) no, you may NOT use my licensed content to post galleries on thumb preview TGPs

That simple - make a statement, in B7W, that is straight to the point. Otherwise, it is up to the gallery builder to contact the content provider on this matter.

I think this is a very good thread. I ran a few thumb preview TGPs, and after getting hounded by Steve at APIC about images, I just fucking gave up. I really didn't need this guy e-mailing every contact at my host in regards to 'illegal' matters. Imagine him contacting your top sponsor and getting your account frozen - even if they just look into it.

I don't know, maybe it was the niche I worked in (pornstar) but I was tired of responding to him. And even though I have a few scripts that could manage a thumb preview TGP with ease, I still wont touch it until I know I am 100% in the clear.

Turn the clock back a bit.

When thumb TGPs came out a lot of people weren't sure about it.
Many webmasters thought it was a great idea but didn't want to
put other peoples thumbs on their site for possible legal reasons.

When the courts cleared this up and said thumbs are in-fact "fair
use" we all jumped in because we now know that this style of
linking is in fact quite legal.

I really can't see skimming affecting "fair use" especially since on
pretty much every TGP the majority of traffic is sent to the thumbs
source gallery.

Seems everyone agrees that APIC has their head up their ass.

I don't see content providers complaining however if individual
content producers want to chase webmasters (their customers)
that's alright with me, they can do that, I'll just take note and
make sure I never buy from them.

Anyone that tries to put the genie back in the bottle needs their
head examined. Thumb TGPs aren't illegal....

-Ben

The problem isn't with the relationship between the producer and his customer. The problem is that there is no relationship between the TGP and the producer. The TGP is receiving financial gain through use of copyrighted work.

Thumbnails were not made legal in that court decision. Use of the thumbnails is the key - if the third party TGP is using the thumbnails as a banner for a fourth party, there exists no good faith, only a conspiracy to defraud the rightful owner of the images.

The scary thing is that after the Perfect 10 decision, EVERYBODY who is deriving economic gain from the violation of the copyright is a contributory infringer.

The main problem with this blind linking and skimming is that it trains the surfers to not click on that model's content ever again. They will click a pic of a girl, let's say her name is Tawnee Rock, and get redirected to another tgp. They won't ever click that pic of Tawnee Rock again, and possibly any other pics of Tawnee Rock agin. This damages the company that owns Tawnee Rock's site that was nice enough to let the affiliate use that image. If I were Brightspeed I would be quite pissed if I caught someone doing this. Yet it happens every day.

you're a fucking moron :321GFY

I'd like to see any gallery make money without TGPs out there
making money. Which came first the chicken or the egg?

I conspire to send send galleries traffic. I can stop.

The real hard part is actually when it comes time to prove the
models age. Yahoo isn't responsible for their outbound links and
neither are TGPs. Even with that being the case webmasters
really should still be making sure nothing underage or illegal
makes it onto their site. To do this they don't really need the
model release, it's just a simple matter of not listing content that
is suspect and setting that bar fairly high.

Surfers click the same thumb multiple times on a single site what
makes you think they'll never click an image again over the whole
internet?

If I were "Brightspeed" I'd be real fuckin happy that my brand/girl
was getting exposure all over the place like this.


Give me one good reason why content providers, gallery posters,
paysite owners or anyone else for that matter should get upset
about this. We all have something to gain.

-Ben

Everybody has something to gain except the person that owns the images. That photographer makes his living selling licenses to use his work on other peoples' websites.

By using his work for skimming you are piggybacking on someone else's license who is piggybacking on someone else's license. And from the copyright holder's point of view, he should be selling three to four licenses on this set of images. Instead he's only selling one. And two other people are using his images without paying him.

Why is it stupid?

When I was creating WinAmp Skins and was asking content providers to use their images... a lot of response was as long as the image links to the site it was ok... otherwise... No. So... the pic would have to link to the download and not a join page so I was not able to use certain images from certain companies...

Why is this different? It is their image, they spent their money for the shoot and the model, so they have every right to say that the image NEEDS to be used to generate sales for that site... I am sure the content provider did not create and spend money creating those images to sell other psoples sites.

Personally, I would cancel their affiliate account if I found any of my people doing that.

:2 cents:

At first glance, each time a TGP uses a thumb to skim traffic (ie not to send to the gallery from which the thumb is taken), that is a clear breach of license. But...

On "straight" TGPs (ie with most traffic going to the galleries) the whole point of skimming is to increase traffic. Done properly, it works, so from that point of view a content provider who objected would be working to the detriment of his licensees. Doesn't mean he couldn't object, but he wouldn't sell much content to those who perceived him as interfering with their business.

This is one of those issues where print photographers adapting their licenses for the internet just doesn't cut it. Print licenses may look restrictive but the vast majority allow anyone in the print media to work within their norms without constantly checking the license to see if it is okay. Internet content providers can either produce licenses that allow webmasters to work within the (fast-changing) norms of their industry, or watch their sales slip away.

Is APIC being guided by legal counsel when it goes after websites?

By that logic a NON-thumb TGP would be costing you a loss since it links to a gallery, and if it didn't you would have sold another set to that TGP ... again, by that logic.

In actuality, the TGPs, Thumb TGPs, etc, create a demand for more content, spurning webmasters who submit to buy more content, and so the more of these the more you sell. :2 cents:

interesting.