|
Pornhub now requiring “recent images of the performer & recently signed agreements”
I received a document request from pornhub Julia yesterday, which I quickly replied to with the id and contact for the model in the video
——ph julia replied Hi there, Our Team has reviewed the provided by you documentation and would require recent images of the performer(s) seen in the following content to be provided please, along with recently signed co-performer agreement(s). "WATCH HER STORY behind the scenes compilation of iowa teen JESSICA (sample)" March 18, 2020 "partying late night with hot brunette then using a dildo and finger banging her tight twat" June 30, 2020 You can find the co-performer agreement template here: https://www.pornhub.com/docs/Perform...eement_UGC.pdf If you do not wish to provide those still and wish to have your account removed, let me know. All the best, -- Yulia —————- I then replied that it’s not possible, as I am no longer in contact with this model. The video was from 10 years ago. I provided all 2257 required documentation, and section 2257 of federal code does not stipulate any expiration to the documentation ——— Now they replied with We have permanently disabled your Pornhub account because it has seriously and/or repeatedly violated our Terms of Service. Pornhub is a community-based platform committed to protecting the safety of our users and integrity of our platform. All rules and community guidelines must always be respected. As outlined in our Terms of Service, we have the right to terminate a user’s account for the reason of violating our Terms & Services. ——— What the fuck is wrong with those idiots at pornhub? Cancel culture and the right to be forgotten concepts getting all mixed up in their cognitively impaired minds!! https://i.postimg.cc/MZfDJMm5/A4-B03...0374-B8490.png |
What kind of content it is? Are there any people captured other than the performers?
|
If they want just UGC and only accounts run by the performers themselves, then this is the way to go. But then they should just say "no stock content" or "no 3rd party producers".
none of my content would qualify under these rules either. But calling valid 2257 documentation a repeated violation is a bit of a stretch though |
Quote:
the video that the model reported was a compilation of all the best stuff she did with me. |
Keep it tidy . . .
|
That's fucked, after the ugc purge a huge percentage of pornhub content is 5-10-15 years old.
|
Sounds like OP has not been paying attention MC and changes taking affect very soon
|
Quote:
and I have the official MC document here |
Quote:
|
Sign of the times.
|
Pornhub is under tremendous pressure in the media.
Not surprised at all. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I also believe that this is a new trend that could start, needing recent ids and contracts from girls. One big note on this issue with pornhub, They deleted my model account, which is the same account that they were requesting more current contracts for... This could be a new policy aimed towards small time producers... THIS HAS NOT AFFECTED MY MAIN PARTNER PORNHUB ACCOUNT - AT LEAST NOT AS OF YET |
Quote:
however, pornhub was banned from the credit card networks back in november 2020, it seems they have a snowballs chance in hell of getting processing back... and their market share of traffic is trending down as well... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I deleted the email, The model does not look like she used to look, so I don't see how the videos could be affecting her anymore. |
Quote:
the movie will be LEGAL as long as they keep the model ID up to date? Meaning Expired date of model id will mather Big time? :1orglaugh shit |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Platforms will ask for new IDs / releases to be able to prove to MC that consent is still valid. It has nothing to do with 2257. There's about to be a whole lot of content coming down off all sites, not just UGC tubes. This will apply to membership sites as well. Amateur sites are probably going to take the brunt of this. Every model that wants their old content down will simply request it come down and if you dont agree, the model will go to the platform and the platform will remove it and probably terminate your account. If you have your own site, the model can go upstream to MC or the processor directly and request that your processing be shut down. https://adultbizlaw.com/2021/04/27/m...ers-operators/ |
Quote:
What does "new" mean? If the release was signed 2 months ago is that still new? Or does it depend on the expiration date of the ID?? There should be some time period defined for models during which they can't request such a take-down to avoid them doing it right when the content goes online. The solution for future production: Put a clause into your model agreement stating that the person is prohibited to initiate any removal of the content on free or pay sites in the next say 10 or 15 years without paying a fee to the producer. :2 cents: |
I want to see an MC document that says that providing a currently valid ID solves the complaint from a performer who wants their content removed.
C4S has posted the document, they just removed the MC logo: https://c4swebinars.com/videos/MC_AN...dStandards.pdf There is nothing in there that says that. |
oopsy doopsy
|
Quote:
I wonder how this would apply to something like DVDs? Also, everyone should have seen this coming. |
Quote:
If you want to arbitrate your made up clause in your model release be prepared to spend $20,000+ to do so... arbitration isnt cheap. Edited my earlier comments -----> this probably wont apply to membership sites immediately... This is going to be a nightmare for some content producers on platforms. |
Quote:
Quote:
:2 cents: |
I wonder if MC is applying these new rules across mainstream sites also? Or are they just doing it to us? Seems a bit discriminative if they are not. my :2 cents:
|
Quote:
MC doesnt care about your third world legal system. If you take MC you play by their rules. Not the kangaroo court at the end of your street... |
Quote:
My point was that producers can easily deter models from filling these take-downs if they have agreements protecting them from damages. Models asking to have their (legally shot, published and sold) content removed from a paysite cause a damage to creators/producers/paysite operators. BTW, I had a (real) lawyer create my papers , so kindly fuck off you arrogant asshole. |
Quote:
I'm not saying that only because he's an attorney, but because he is telling you the actual outcome of your great idea. Yes, you can try and deter them from knowing their rights as human beings, but that doesn't mean that any court of law would care about your agreement. Not only because the models would believe that they have no legal recourse (through fear), but because it could also create a scenario where they believe they have no way out, period. Put simply, your agreement wouldn't work out the way you think it would in today's society. Everyone has a right to be forgotten, and just because you paid someone $1,000 - $2,500 for a scene doesn't mean that you can hold it over their head infinitely, and that you can call it a "whore's regret" when push comes to shove. Try to think of it rationally, and not in a literal sense. You're dealing with actual human beings, with souls. If you honestly believe that you can buy someone's dignity, and expect yourself to be able to market their naked bodies even if they don't consent anymore, then there is honestly something wrong with your way of thinking, and that's something for you to figure out. |
one of the oldest sites on PornCMS has boomer models shot 20+ years ago and few are deceased. so MC thinks the site owner should contact all the models annually for updated IDs and model releases?
PornHub is in panic mode and trying to get out of the toilet, but is anyone seeing messages like this from their biller or other platforms? sounds like more paranoid bullshit.. # |
Quote:
And you're clueless. You might want to Google "Girls Do Porn prosecution" They had model releases... it did nothing for them. The court ignored the releases. Just as MC will ignore your self drafted model release... Just because you put it in a model release doesnt make it valid or enforceable. But good luck... |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And I will just repeat one more time... we don't use model releases, all artists use agreements and mine is created by a lawyer. You are the clueless person here as the GDP case was a fraudulent (criminal) operation from the very beginning , that's why their papers had zero significance in court. We don't talk about fraudulent activities here, we are talking about models that were legally hired, captured on video and published, causing a damage to producers by their nonsense take-downs. Yeah, good luck to your clients, I feel sorry for them... :1orglaugh |
Quote:
I think the point PornLaw is trying to get across is very simple. MC will pull your ability to use their cards. It is HIGHLY likely that Visa will then do the same. If You dont process yourself then people using your content will be in that position. Regardless of the paper work you have the girls/guys sign. Kind of sounds like MC is creating a way for a model to get paid and then order a take down right away and hardly have her images spread anywhere and there is little to nothing creators can do about it. |
Quote:
I wrote, that you can prevent models from issuing these take-downs by signing agreements with them (prior to the shoot) ,that prohibit that. If I insert a clause into my agreement that sets a fine of 2000€ for these take-downs (which are against the consent to have the content published and distributed with no limitations, which is a part of the agreement) then I can deter the models from doing so... As long as the agreements are legal. It has nothing to do with MC and their requirements ... jesus... :upsidedow It's the models that use the form to take down their content, not MC. Is there a law that allows models to issue take-downs if they had previously (and legally) agreed to have their content shot, edited, distributed, sold and/or published on internet? No, not here. :2 cents: The only legal way for them would be to have a court make the agreement void. |
Quote:
I understand your thought process. But MC is going to get notified of that content and you will be forced to make a decision. Take it down Or Lose MC. So lets say you take it down. Then you have to go through the issue of having your attorney sue the girl/guy. And even if you win, Who is going to collect? Does the judge toss her ass in jail until she can pay? Most likely not. |
Quote:
But ALSO, at the same time, if the content stays UP (whether legal action is taken or not) and the model contacts MC to say it wasn't removed, you lose MC processing. Losing MC would not affect the Agreement between the model and Producer. The Producer loses MC AND the model has to pay the Producer for the takedown. Most models will not want to pay this penalty so will not (theoretically) contact MC. That about right? |
Also: a "solution" - a way to avoid losing MC processing - is to simply remove any content a model wants taken down. Would it suck big time to lose videos that make/made you money? Sure - but it's simply the cost of doing business.
Better to takedown whatever is requested immediately than fight it and risk losing the whole pie. That's my view anyway. You can always shoot more content but losing MC would be a real blow (no pun intended). |
Quote:
Even if there is a fully legitimate model release that irrevocably transfers 100% interest in ownership of content to the content producer or their assignees and irrevocably grants consent to the content producer or their assignees to use, publish, distribute and sell the content and any derivative works, in any way, in any format now known or created in the future, the arbitration will still cost the content producer, content owner or merchant ~$20,000. Quote:
|
Ya I got out of the live model bit myselfabout a year ago.
Quote:
|
Hmmm places like Mister Skin?
Quote:
Who is Mr. Skin? Jim McBride - AKA Mr. Skin - is the founder and proprietor of Mr. Skin, the #1 online celebrity nudity entity since 1999. McBride appears as "the world's foremost authority on naked celebs" on more than 500 radio shows annually, including a weekly feature on The Howard Stern Show. McBride has been profiled in The New York Times, USA Today, The Chicago Tribune, The Chicago Sun-Times, and dozens of other publications, as well as on VH1, WGN, and other media outlets. I GUESS MISTER SKINZ MAY HAVE TO GO AND FUCK HIMSLEF SOON AND TAKE A VIDEO OF THAT FOR SALE .... BBWWWAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA :1orglaugh |
Quote:
|
Quote:
i have no love for pornhub or any tube. # |
Quote:
I personally would also feel very uncomfortable engaging a "lawyer" that essentially says you should have to remove all legal content and eat up limitless losses on your business at the whim of any model. With that kind of advices you will soon have no client with enough money left to still pay your bills. |
Quote:
|
It's hiTlarious that pornhub now wants to abide by the rules... fucking thieves.
|
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123