Got letter from Apic about copyright issues..
 

I just got a letter from Apic world about me using copyrighted thumbs that I shouldn't be using, since some of these thumbs are of pornstar.. how serious should i take this letter???

Any comments will be greatly appreciated.

Jason

REAL serious they don't fuck around Ive seen web sites pooooof and never heard of again ya better do what they say. That is my :2 cents:

If you have a license for the content, don't worry about it. Just send them a copy of your license with a friendly note telling them to "eat a dick". Something tells me you aren't using licensed content though. If that's the case, you're fucked...and rightfully so.

Take it to your lawyer and he will seriously make you understand very quickly.

I'd either produce the licenses or take it down before it gets worse.

wasn;t there a ruling recently that thumbnails have no copyrights?

if it wasnt for my ibm hard drive kicking the bucket i'd still have the link to the article.

:321GFY IBM

ya dont want to fuck with APIC...

Why not? Sounds like fun.

hehe... ask that one guy, absolute-series that was in the top #10 on the counters or so, in EUROPE and got his plug pulled haha

he'll tell ya!
=-)

Hi,

it depends are you just displaying thumbnails as a link which takes you to the site that hosts the HTML page with the gallery?

Than it should be fine as this is the same with Google, Altavista and other image search engines.

Read more about here:
(last paragraph, left column, conclusion)
http://www.techlawjournal.com/alert/2002/02/07.asp

Thumbnails?

Tell them to blow you.

Steve is a cunt.

Good post Maui.

After reading that article It would seem the only thing I would see him being concerned about would be the nature of his site then. If the site is an adult search engine or TGP even (which is a search engine of sorts) he might be able to fight using that ruling. But if his site is any kind of Pay or free site that doesn't make the bulk of his money through advertising he'd better make those thumbs dissappear quick. Unless for instance they are Jill Kelly thumbs that link to a JKcash free content gallery that promotes her site or directly to Jill Kelly's.

In short, If you are wrong Jason you already know it, so don't even think about fucking with APIC.




Pornnwolf is not a lawyer and all legal advice is based on what little common sense he might have left.

wonder if that would hold up if its not a search engine, and if u don't like the thumbnail to anything.

would that be considered content just the same as a full size image?

Good luck with it,

i hope you won t get in serious shit!

Mzzl Da DJ

FlyingIguana, are you trying to say the size of a picture makes it exempt?

I would love to see how they wrote that law.

Unless you have a license and check that the person who gave you the license has the rights. TAKE THEM DOWN.

Because the next person they serve notice on is your host.

APIC have been doing this for a long time and they know what they are doing, if those images are not you your arse belongs to them.

TeenGodFather [Labret] If you have the balls try messing with APIC. You guys are constantly moaning about freeloaders and pirates. APIC is the only organisation that is doing some thing to clean up this side of the net.

i'm not sure, i don't have the article anymore with the ruling. i wouldn't bother making a site with celeb thumbnails to find out tho, its just not worth it.

No, APIC are hyprocrites.

Its widely known that they ignore some and target others. APIC can be bought.

I produce my own content, and I dont want them on my side. Ill protect my own content. Fuck those crooks.

yeah labret! Your always talking about those damn pirates :1orglaugh



On the real though bomber, if you do not have a license for it pull them, or apic will.

True, Labret, true. Since they are a service, anyone can buy their service.

You produce your own content, and I'd guess you don't sell it to other webmasters, so you don't have that much to worry about. Everyone commercially selling content is in a bit of a different boat than you are.

Are they the be all, end all? Nope. Do they do a fairly good job at producing results for their paying clients? I guess if they didn't, no one would use them.

haha! bomber is fucked :)

The only sites APIC target are the ones that steal from their members. And this they do very well. Do you expect them to protect those that dio not support them?

I guess you are all right until you find some one like downloadable.com or see your stuff all over newsgroups for free.

Hang on, may be I know why you don't have a problem with people stealing your images.

If you knew what kind of content I produced perhaps that statement would have some merit. But you do not so you can take your eastern european serf ass and go fuck yourself.

People have stolen my images... its usually a matter of contacting their processor and or their host to get it taken down. I dont need Easton.

I work in niche. Easier to track images of black gay midgets. And I dont sell my content, I prefer to make money off of it.

He's not saying it, the courts have said it. Read it all about it:

Court Rules 'Thumbnail' Images OK, Full-Sized Copies Not

By Brian Krebs, Newsbytes
WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.,
07 Feb 2002, 4:07 PM CST

In an important decision for the application of copyright law on the Internet, a federal appeals court has ruled that while Web sites may legally reproduce and post "thumbnail" versions of copyrighted photographs, displaying full-sized copies of the images violates artists' exclusive right to display their own works.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed and reversed in part a district court decision in a case brought by Leslie Kelly, a professional photographer who sued Web search engine Arriba for carrying his pictures on its site.

...

Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Thomas G. Nelson said that the indexing and use of thumbnail images was a fair use, in part because it was "transformative" or added value to the work, and also because it did nothing to diminish the market for Kelly's works.

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174326.html

Bomber,

As long as you are using 'public domain' pornstar content from newsgroups etc. you'll be fine.... LOL:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Laberet, first you are a few months behind on your knowledge. Steve Easton is no longer with APIC. Second APIC does do a fairly decent job for the customers that are using them to find their content being illegally used...Nuff said.....

The bottom line isnt about APIC, it;s about the use of Stolen content period. If someone does not have the proper license to use any image on their sites, then they should be held accountable for their actions..period end of story.

I agree. You should see me hunt down a content theif. I am livid to say the least. I would personally like to beat them all with a cueball in a sock.

I just said I dont like APIC. Thats it.

I agree 100%, but a sock full of 3 rolls of quarters works pretty well also. Never tried the que ball, that will be my next weapon to try:winkwink:

MrFiction,

I am afraid you misinterpret the ruling of the court. What they are saying is that if you have license to the full size pic you do not need a separate license to make thumbs of them.

Bomber,

I am not sure what difference you think it makes if the subject of the photo is a pornstar or not. for the record, it makes no difference. Any picture that you did not take is protected by copyright, it is automatic. Does not even have to be applied for.

Take it down, or start finding an attorney.

Of course, if you want to win free licensed content . . . . see my signature.

First of all, pirating content is a bad thing...
But there *is* a difference between thumbnailed images and full-size images.
What if you just use the thumbnailed image as a link to the HTML page where the image is refered to? (as I wrote earlier)
It *should* be nothing else than a text-link. That is what the ditto.com ruling actually showed.
I agree that clicking on the link and just showing the full-size image is different as it is not in the original sites context anymore.

Forbidding thumbnailed links is a serious thread to the nature of the internet. It should treated as a usual text-link.

What if a search engine uses a text-link that includes a trademarked phrase, e.g. from the page title. Is that also illegal?

Of course, the ruling does not say how big the thumbnails are, so
that is a major issue.

baddog,

I am not sure if you are right.

From the site:

"Writing for the three-judge panel, Judge Thomas G. Nelson said that the indexing and use of thumbnail images was a fair use, in part because it was "transformative" or added value to the work, and also because it did nothing to diminish the market for Kelly's works"

http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174326.html

Ditto.com made a mistake at the start as they were linking directly to the full-sized image not to the HTML page.
That was there problem and they removed the direct link shortly after the court trial started.

On a sidenote.. regarding TGP's

If i were to knowingly approve content that has been stolen? What then? Am i responsible at all?

how are u suppose to know? its up to the people submitting the content to have the license. you're just providing links to the content.

Yip, only they just tie you to a Tele. pole and shoot you No lawyers, hearings, trials, they might still email you that they will cometh to get you have not checked in awhile...

You're not legally responsible, but you're helping people make money by ripping off your friends at GFY.

I think their is a misconception here.. I wasn't using pictures of pornstars from copyrighted images from a content provider.. i was using thumbs just to link to other movie sites... thatz it.. thumbs that are from other sites.

Basically I'll remove anything that they feel is copyrighted material.

Bomber

There's no doubt that image theft is a big problem, probably as big a chargebacks or maybe bigger

There are lots of sites that teach surfers to join and then cancel, as well as telling them how many chargebacks or refund requests to make before getting blacklisted by the cc processor, even going so far as to tell them that they can make full cb's after being a member for a period of a month or more.

Similarly there are tons of "webmasters" who download content that isn't theirs get sponsors, post it and make money off of it.

The way that I look at it is that if I am buying content, why the heck should I list stolen pics on my tgp? It doesn't make sense.

Anyway so now unless the galleries I get are from a known webmaster, have a licensee url embedded in the pic, or at least a licensing or 18usc statement on the gallery, I don't bother listing it.

It makes reviewing pretty quick anyway

Well, they should feel that it's all copyrighted images, since they are. If you helped yourself to some thumbs without paying or having someone who issued the license say it was ok, you're a content thief.

Maybe you didn't intend to do it on purpose, but you've done it. Easy thing is to take it down and get to work with some licensed content :)

You are missing the point. Thumb, or full pic, it doesn't matter. If you do not have the license to use it, then you are quilty and you should be shot......period...is that simple enough??

Also it doesnt matter if the pic is of a pornstar or of your mom...if you dont have the proper legal license to use it then your a thief.........!!!

whats this 18usc statement? i have too much content to embed shit on the pics. just ups my workload. but i've been thinkin about doing it anyways just to try and catch content thieves.

any easy way to embed shit on a large number of pics? i'll have to check and see if superjpg can do it later.

My advice, remove your content before they do.

Some time ago I also used to 'loan' content. Basically they give you a warning the first time. I ignored this and *poof* 200 galleries down the drain :(

So save yourself some work and listed to them.

images licensed to xyz.com contact abcwebmaster.notathotmail-or-yahoo.com images conform to 18usc ....

it should be pretty much in your license statement

or if you're using pics from max cash.... images courtesy of karas adultplayground

it's pretty easy to add that to your galleries ;)

o boy, place ur email on every gallery, that should help the spam bots out :)

I'm pretty sure that you can use anything on the Internet unless it's copywritten by me.

You are 100% wrong. The ruling basically says that anyone can copy thumbnails as long as they link to the site where they came from.

Read it again, there is no license involved whatsoever.

Read the article - copying thumbs is 100% legal.

I'm not saying I agree, I'm saying that the law is on the side of thumbnail thieves, not content owners.

Again, read the article.

Edited to add the link again: http://www.newsbytes.com/news/02/174326.html

Just ignore them, they'll go away =)
:thumbsup

if the caped crusader has you in his sites and you're an image theif - kiss you websites goodbye and expect a lawsuit for about 10X what you've maid from using them to date. Long as you have licence to use the pics you are fine, if you don't - goodbye,

Damn that sleazy just made sense...

You have 3 options:

1. Take a picture of your erect cock or your toilet after you took a shit, and mail it back to them, requesting they suck on it.

2. Remove all content in question.
(if you do not have the rights to use it) and do not communicate with them.
Just hope it blows over.

3. Contact a lawyer ASAP.