So, if APIC writes you an email, you then place the burden on YOUR webmasters to prove they are not thieves? What a nice Stalinesque policy. Its actually pretty disturbing.

It's all rather hazy, but there is a guy that heads up APIC, but I forget his name at the moment. They have their roots centered in the whole Alyssa Milano contraversy from 4 years ago. Her mom went on a rampage to have her daughter's illegally used pics removed from the net. A bunch of rather noteworthy models also joined the crusade, one of them being miss Alley Baggett. I remember hearing about quite a few webmasters being sued back then, and rightfully so.

These days APIC is there also as a service to content producers, who can buy a membership there in order to have their content policed and protected, so in that regard APIC is a very valuable service. But there are cases like this one where the webmaster is NOT at fault and has been falsely accused (by some unseen party apparently, APIC probably doesn't act alone in these matters), so the point people are trying to make about giving the webmaster the benefit of the doubt and allowing them to either remove the content or show proof of permission-of-use or ownership is a valid one.

his name is steve eastin (sic). though i don't think he runs apic anymore.

I don't think its wise to use topbucks anymore if the company removes accounts so quickly.
They should get all their info correct and not delete an account on the spot.
Shame on you topbucks.

That's right, Steve Easton was his name.
I'm not sure of his status as "head of APIC" at the moment either.

I can definitely see something like APIC being a valuable service, and btw thank you for answering my question CDSmith :)

However if this association originates from Alyssa Milano's mom (yeah I know the whole story lol) then well, it seems likely that these people would hate adult webmasters in general and very possibly are biased when it comes to our part of the net.

Hey, maybe I am wrong and just jumping on APIC and really don't know much about them. But I do know that I have grown up in Hollywood, and when someone like Alyssa Milano and her mom is mentioned it just does not lead me to believe that their intentions are in our favor.

(ok so i have to mention the part about how most people wanted to see alyssa come to the "dark side" anyhow--term quote jenna)

Kyle's mom from Southpark (sheila b--?--sky)

Exactly you contact the webmaster FIRST and remove later. Good job Lensman.

Topbucks is a fucking joke to simply delete an account instantly. I'm actually mad a company I thought was pretty good will act like that.

i know enough about them to say stay the fuck away from them if you produce content. they are like the slow, 6th grade bully. ask around....

of course, this is all imho :)

I think I remember seeing an APIC logo on the Oliver Klozov sites a while back. Maybe Glyn has some good insight about it.

What I do know is that APIC definitely serves a purpose, and that purpose should mainly be about protecting the rights of the owners who own legal copyrights and electronic intellectual property. As far as Alyssa Milano and her mom goes, they were just sick of seeing alyssa's pictures being illegally spread all over the net, and I don't blame them one bit. Why should a hundred thousand so-called webmasters make a fortune from pics that they stole or "doctored up" in some way?? The Milano's aren't against webmasters, she has an income from modelling just like a lot of stars have, so legitimate webmasters are her friends too.

It's about how wrong it is to use pics on your website when you have no legal right to do so. It's about people who fuck over content producers, and it's about doing what's right for a change. And APIC charges for their services because donations just don't cut it.

yeah, but I'm sure as with most "non-profit" organizations, the people in charge at APIC make a nice, FAT paycheck.

Again, its about money.

Think of them as "hired bodyguards for your pictures". Companies that provide personal protection services get paid, why shouldn't APIC?


What I do take issue with is the way they go about their business sometimes. Like I said earlier, I'd like to think some people deserve the benefit of the doubt instead of being shut down without first having the chance to address the accusations. In cases of clear-cut violation it's a non issue, but there are a lot of cases where it's NOT clear-cut.

last time i had a problem with apic, it was another webmaster. seems they had emailed apic complaining i was using their images. apic didnt even check up on it, just started blasting me. took forever to fix.

yeah, it's too difficult to patrol your own content. apic is the answer. not. i have roughly 35 HOURS of exclusive digital video on the net, and i don't need to hire unprofessional bullies to keep copyright violation under raps.

No, you're absolutely right. And, if your members are even the slightest bit loyal to your site and your work, they themselves will report illegal use to you. At least that has been the case with the few paysite owners I have worked directly with. None of them felt the need to seek out APIC's services either.


It would be nice to hear comments from someone that is a paying APIC member though, just to hear the other side.

And it's about shutting down celebrity fan sites (even those that DON'T have any unlicenced content) because they are competition for your own...

BTW, did anyone mention that Steve Easton used to run a celebrity site?

yes, members give us tips daily. so do other webmasters. as well, i work on it (along with one of my employees) as a part time job - looking at the members areas of other sites that might have a reason to 'borrow' content. it's very satisfying shutting down infingers :)

regardless of any effectiveness they might have - just take a look at the link i posted earlier on this thread. or kenny's predicament. it's a joke. anyway, i'm done with this topic.

I don't have any problem with providing proof of my license purchase to any sponsor that wants it after it has received a REAL complaint.

I do have a problem with the way APIC does things. They should list the stuff RAM pointed out. This type of stuff is REQUIRED uder the DMCA. I have filed several DMCA claims, and fail to see how it is so hard to do correctly.

Personally - I would never do business with them - too many stories about incompetence. They should be filing the form under the penalties of perjury - as required under DMCA (which doesn't even deal with sponsors - but with hosts).

I would love for some webmaster that gets canned to sue them. They need a good lesson. There is no reason they can't follow the DMCA instead of doing this (unless the host is in some country like Russia).

Here is my sample DMCA - one that I actually used with names and domains deleted out- request if anyone wants one:

ATTENTION:
DMCA CONTACT NAME - CAN GET FROM http://www.copyright.gov/onlinesp/list/
HOST'S NAME
HOST'S ADDRESS

FROM:
MY NAME
MY ADDRESS
MY PHONE NUMBER
MY EMAIL



Digital Millennium Copyright Act Notification

SUMMARY: Below is the info required by the DMCA. In short ? the pages listed are among a complicated scheme by at least two individuals to copy dozens and dozens of my sites that rank well in the search engines and interlink them all to try to duplicate my rankings. The pages they copied are protected under copyright law.

I am seeking that the following sites (all the default root/main page(s)) be disabled or removed ASAP:

A) [deleted]
B) [deleted]
C) [deleted]
D) [deleted]
E) [deleted]
F) [deleted]

These six sites (the main pages of each site) should be removed ASAP. Unless they respond with the format required under the law and signed under the penalties of perjury ? these six sites should be not be reinstated. Even if they do respond ? once you notify me of this ? I am allowed 10 days to file suit against them before you reinstate the pages. As I expect to continue legal action against them if they persist ? I ask that you follow the letter of the law and give me time to present a copyright suit before reinstating their sites.

Please let me know the status of my notification as soon as you can.

Pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3)(A), I hereby notify you of the following:

1) A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

SEE BOTTOM #5 & #6

2) Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

The following pages belong to me and are among those infringed upon by those sites listed in #3 below. This is most likely not a complete list, but due to the complexity of their scheme ? it is the best I could come up with on short notice and is a representative sample of my sites they are infringing upon.

A) [deleted]
B) [deleted]


3) Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

Links on the following sites infringe upon dozens of my copyrighted works:

A) [deleted]
B) [deleted]
...
DD) [deleted]
EE) [deleted]

4) Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

MY NAME
MY ADDRESS
MY PHONE NUMBER
MY EMAIL

5) A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

I have a good faith belief that the use of the material complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.



_____________________
MY NAME

6) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

I hereby swear and affirm above under the penalty of perjury that the above information is accurate and that I am authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner of an exclusive right that has been infringed.




_____________________
MY NAME
DATED: 05/28/2002


Just sign it and fax it over.

I understand now why content protection service is important, but cutting out a flow of income should not be the first methond of action, I mean what if I was using another sponsor that would completely delete my account at APIC's request, and what if I needed that money to feed my children?
Actually they accused me of being a thief before confronting me first, thats how a true asshole acts

FUCK APIC

I'm not really comfortable with TopBuck's policy on this one.

DMCA is US law. And in the US, the burden of proof is on the accuser. Innocent until proven guilty and all of that good stuff.

You should give the webmaster the opportunity to provide you with a copy of his or her content license, BEFORE you take any kind of action against them.

And remember, its the webmasters that are putting $$$ in your bank account, NOT APIC.

sue apic

For defacement of charcter? Should I file a law suite?

Like Hyper said mistakes do happen. The original conept of APIC is pretty good - but they should have better procedures. I liked them when i started using legal content :thumbsup

Shut down my hosting / sponsors or whatever when you receive an order from the court AFTER having my day in court and the accuser having proved beyond a reasonable doubt that I am in the wrong.

When did the US legal system get replaced??

Funny how the moment a few people started calling Top Bucks inadequate and started questioning there methods.and a few other posts along those lines Alison has disappeared. I think there policy is about as effective as that shit entry console they have...

I had APIC send one of those emails to me a while back on content I bought from Charlie at Jokersx ....

I was pissed to say the least .... The crew at Jokersx where brilliant and super fast to clear the matter up ... I think Scotty from Jokersx was mader than I was.
In short JOkers were BRILLIANT !

Same can not be said for APIC, I recieved a reply from APIC saying "sorry for the error we have a new staff member". What a lame ass crock of SHIT reply that was ... FUCK ME if your business fucked up do you just blame your staff ? ... its your business you run it YOU FUCKED UP!!!

And as for TOP BUCKS ... bad business folks is all I can say .... ASk your webmaster who is busting his balls to make a $ first before you pull the rug. Deactive accounts, bullshit he may have a gallery primed for many sales while in de activation mode and lost hard earned sales ....

No kidding imagine you just bought a paid listing on thehun (paid host) and your topbucks sponsor account was deactivated over a false claim.
Scary shit.
Though it won't make any difference to topbucks but I've decided not to do any business with them. There are simply too many sponsors to choose from & a company who is willing to sell out the webmaster isn't worth my traffic. Even though I don't have tons of traffic I would rather it go to a company who is willing to ASK the webmaster first if a problem comes up.

If you guys read what Allison said - the account still gets clicks and sales credited. They should of handled it better with the webmaster - and the admited that.

The webmaster didn't lose any money.

I am sure (or hopeful) - they will handle it differently in the future.

To their credit - when I asked Allison to can a webmaster about a month ago - she replied saying:

"Hi Chris,

Thanks for letting us know about this webmaster.
We have contacted him and requested that
he remove the stolen designs from his site....."

There was more to it - and I generally don't like to post emails, but I think that TopBucks just screwed up on this one in the way they communicated with the webmaster.

Different companies have different policies on how they deal with it.

Topbucks doesnt terminate the account, it puts it on hold until it's straightened out with the webmaster.

Lensman does not, but i am sure if he gets the proof he needs, then the account will be terminated.

I think all webmaster programs need to clarify this in theit TOS and Faqs.

Rather than to blame someone for not handling this situation the way you want.

We need to learn from this experience and grow from it, so there is no misunderstandings in the future when it comes to dealing with APIC

I agree - it would be nice if all sponsors would have a link on their front page that said something like "copyright violations? click here."

Then they could put down what was required and so on.

Something like google has for the DMCA:

http://www.google.com/dmca.html

But not as complicated - as it wouldn't be for the DMCA.

.

Anybody know the APIC URL?

That is NOT what she said....she said they can block an account
without losing data....the way I understand it is that the already
recorded data will not be lost.

If hits/sales are still counted.....then explain me what blocked
means......To me it sounds that the history is saved nothing more.

DynaMite :2 cents:

Oh I forgot something.....


FUCKING APIC COCKSUCKING MORRONS!!!! I WOULDN´T
EVEN LET YOU EAT MY SHIT YOU COMPLETE BUNCH OF IDIOTS!!!


So ready.....I feel better now!

DynaMite :thumbsup

That's what i figured. It's great that the integrity of the webmaster never comes into play, and the worst is assumed from the git go. If that is the case, and clicks and sales are not counted during the temporary deactivation period, then that is very shitty indeed. So until the webmaster proves his innocence (rather than the shitheads at APIC proving his guilt. Hell, why should they have to prove anything, they can just fling accusations left right and centre and attempt to fuck people over!), the account should remain fully active.

I thought it was obvious to everyone that APIC are a pack of useless gits. That thread where he accused Lensman of supporting cheating webmasters is a prime example.

APIC, go fuck yourselves.
Topbucks, i sincereley hope that you see why this would be an issue with webmasters, and hopefully you'll deal with similar situations in the future differnetly.

"APIC can be wrong, but with the system we have here at TopBucks we can easily work it out when they are wrong. We are able to deactivate accounts temporarily without losing any info or sales data for the webmaster."

Maybe you are right - I took it as meaning what I said, but I can see what you are saying about why call it blocked then. I wasn't reading it that way, but one could for sure.

Whatever it means - Hopefully they will work it out - TopBucks has been always more than fair in my experience.

Steve at APIC does not just act without provocation, he normally has recieved a complaint from one of his members. He does not bother with the content of his non members.

You can see the respect your sponsor has for him in the speed they pulled your site. They did not even ask you, they pulled you, so think about that when you are reading all these idiots posting anti APIC posts. If you are a producer who do you want watching your back a pussy cat or a bulldog?

But you can sort it out.

Do you know that Zip content have the license?
Are you contravening the license by the way you are posting them?
You do not know the history of this content, find it out. Do you hold the Model Releases and IDs.
Post a picture I may even be able to tell you who shot it.

Make sure of your facts first, then email APIC, your sponsor and ZIP all the info.

Respect. Interesting point you raise there Charly. Where's Kenny's respect? I'm sure he's worked hard promoting his site and topbucks' sites along with it.

Or are his rights completely null and void once APIC rears it's ugly head?

You want someone firm but not someone who acts like an unprofessional bully.
Do you agree the way they acted with Lensman was unprofessional?
They don't seem to handle things well and act too hostile.
You need someone to protect your content but APIC acts in a very immature & bully-like mannor.

If APIC is so wonderful then explain why they didn't e-mail the guy they had a beef with? Instead of getting his side of the story they instantly tried to fuck his source of income......If you deal with those scum bags I sure as hell won't buy content from you.

Oh please do it that way. That would be perfect.

APIC is not infallible, they do make mistakes. But not very often.

An infringer may operate out of his loft on a rented computer, but the host and sponsor is not, they have money to lose. So when he?s had his day in court and lost his rented computer. The sponsor, host and everyone else that was making a profit from the illegal act has had to pay out big time.

The Internet is full of people stealing content as if it?s ?Public domain? APIC is the only organization I have seen protecting us producers.

Go to the site and see who belongs to them.

http://www.apic-adult.com/board/addmessage.html

Including me. So if you buy content from me and it?s being posted illegally, I stop it with an email.

Anyone here remember the thread about the Content Provider auctioning his site on Ebay? Do you know who removed the guy and got him shut down? APIC

OK in the 6 years has there been one other organisation to get the respect/fear of the sponsors, hosts, etc.

Yes APIC screwed up with Lensman, but I see the emails that go back and forth between APIC and the people stealing my content. APIC is hard through necessity.

Criticize all you like but show me the alternative PLEASE. Better still you start up an alternative. Not going to do either? Therefore do not critisise.