ROFL! I like this sarcasm! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

And essentially shooting yourself in the foot, because this devalues the content far more quickly than joe blow over here and joe blow over there using it here and there.. You are giving it that much more surfer exposure and therefore it has a shorter shelf-life. Not too fair to bite the hand that feeds you either, unless of course you plan on taking your own picutres anytime soon :)

Heres the only thing that really matters in this thread.

<font color="yellow">When content providers get hip to this, and add 'No Hosted galleries' to their license, it will not matter.</font>

Its true, it really is.

Nothing matters except the fact that content providers are against it. Nothing anyone can say to debate it, lawyers or not - doesn't matter. If content providers are against it and add it to their license under the 'DOn't do' column - can't say shit.

And as we see content providers have one by one shown their dislike for 'hosted galleries'

I don't understand this. You keep talking about responsibility.

I build a tour page and put two pics of some chick on it and let you link to my tour page.

I build a gallery wtih 10 pics of the same chicks and let you link to it.

How does responsibility for the use of the images factor into anything?

If you host the tour you are responsible for the images.

If you build a gallery page you are still responsible.

What's the difference?

Please, 80% of the sites only uses feeds and a little bit of paid content. The chances are that the set you bought to promote this paysite will not be in the paysite.

I have no problem with hosted galleries as long as I am properly compensated for the devaluing of the content for the resale to anyone else, OR they buy the set outright, all fine with me.

Having no hosted galleries in the license IS important for content providers who want to ensure this.

Is that against most licences? Nope. I can shootmyself if I feel like it, might not be reasonable.. but I'm allowed to do it.

Guess it's worth reading the license or asking the provider first then :) A lot of people don't. Although you're welcome to shoot yourself in the foot if you like. Can I take pictures and sell them though? :P

Yeah. You can make hosted galleries of it, if you want.

lol no I don't do that...

but if I find a really kickass set of cheerleader pics that I know will convert well, and then make a gallery to promote a lightspeed site, and when the surfer joins and looks for the set of the girl that got their nuts off and does not find them and the video he thinks will go with it... I risk a chargeback.

not always the case, just an example to answer your question... of course there are a ton of other factors involved.

But chargebacks often occur by misrepresentation, and if a surfer joins a site to see something specific and its not there I surely do not want to lose money, nor should the sponsor because I dont know how to promote their site.

thats all. :)

You start using the images contrary to the license agreement and I have your info and I know who to deal with if it's required. When you agree to a license you are essentially entereing a legal contract that says you will use the images responsibly. Sort of like a driver's license. You are saying to everyone else in the world that you are not infringing copyrights as well. And believe me you, you do NOT have to be the owner of a copyright to sue someone for copyright violation. Joe blow on the street can sue you for infringement. The onus is on YOU to prove you have legal rights. It's NOT on him to prove you don't.

As far as I know most content providers have it specifically mentioned in their license agreements that using the content for hosted galleries is not an acceptble useage for their images. Those that don't, well, go nuts? :P

Oh and I should mention, they would be MY picutures, being the photographer. I could use em however I wished :P

i do not shoot myself in the foot! I can use the same image on my paysite tour and have my affiliates to link directly on my tour.

Following this logic of no "hosted gallery" - it will be forbidden to have one of my affiliate to link on my "hosted paysite tour". And this is rediculous. You cannot forbid me in your license that it is forbidden that someone link to my pages. It is not my responsability.

I am NOT doing anything wrong with these pages, if the whitehouse wants to link on my pages, it's up to them. Same for the TGP, the search engines or whatever.

A "hosted gallery" is no different than a "hosted paysite tour". It is a page where i put some pictures with the intend of making a sale. Anyone can link to these pages if they feel to.

If the set get spoiled faster because i got a lot of people who saw the set... then YES! I made my money and my ROI.

Then if the sponsor build a tgp gallery with the content he has in his member section... problem solved! You will promote content that is in the site in question.

next thing youre gonna say is that a content provider cant give you a % number of pics you can use in a free gallery.

yeah they can. they have, and do.

You forget you dont <i>OWN</i> the content, you're simply <i>using</i> it.

You cannot do that. It won't stand up in court. Because this is no "TGP Hosted Gallery" this is a page with pictures on it.

You cannot forbid someone or sue someone if a third link to his page from a TGP gallery. It is out of his control. I will fight for this in court anytime :)

Again, you don't <i>own</i> the ? to the images, in court, what you say will matter almost less than what it means here.

Judge: Who has legal ? over these Images

Provider: I do your honor.

case closed.

I am not a content provider but IMO I am thinking that content providers do not like the hosted galleries because it lowers their sales. They would much rather sell the sets to 50 or 100 tgp gallery makers versus 5 or 10 sponsors making hosted galleries.

IMO hosted galleries are making it tougher for the gallery submitters as the tgp's do not need to take as many submissions as they can easily plug in some hosted galleries. I am sure not all gallery submitters will die but the number of them has to be decreasing, thus lowering sales for content providers selling to these webmasters.

Just a thought,
BV

I don't forget anything. They can forbid me to put more than X number of picture on the same page. Of course they can and that will be legitimate.

But they can't forbid me to have a third linking to my pages.

it has been my experience, that in regards to contracts. Anything can be worded, and if inserted into a legal binding contract, again what you say matters not.

the contract is the only definition of what can and cannot be done between two parties and their agreements regarding licensed images.

Debate it all you want. Contracts hold up to the law, not opinions.

Ummm no.

If I have a license and i did not breach any clause of the license i have the right to use those pictures. The judge will listen to the plantiff and decide if the licensee breach any clause on the license.

Read what I type before you reply.

I said if its inserted into the contract, and if 'no hosted galleries' is in the contract.

try again.

I even made it yellow since I predicted you wouldnt notice.

Guess then you should make sure to read the license and make sure whomever you license content from allows you to use the content on hosted galleries.. What more can I say? Apparently I can explain the "logic" until I'm blue in the face but it won't make much difference. People want their buck, they want it fast, and don't care much about anything else. Fine :) Just don't violate my licensing agreements and best of luck to you :)

that is not true. there is a lot of thing you cannot put in a contract.

i.e: (in some cases) you cannot restraint someone from working even if there is a non-competition clause. if someone loses his job and find something else where but it is a competitor of his previous employer... Well, even if that person signed a non competition contract - you can't restraint someone from working.

There is a lot of things that has to be respected in a contract. Call the BBB (better business bureau) and you'll see that there is a lot of things that you can't put into a contract.

Amen.

tell ya what

I'm gonna submit all my paysite tours to the hun.

Do you think he will list them? No.

Why not? Because paysite tours are NOT free porn. Galleries are.

too much free porn. old ass seen a dozen times on every tgp free porn.

Yes, but remember, the people who buy licenses do NOT OWN the images.

Think of it like this.

If you lease a car, you do not OWN that car, the COMPANY owns the car. YOu are simply purchasing rights to use that car for a certain period of time. If you ABUSE that car while you have it, you end up paying for the abuse. Not really much of a difference when licensing content, when all is said and done.

No hard feelings here. I don't even have hosted galleries with content that is not exclusive to me. I totaly understands your oppinion here, and i do understand your concerns.

I just don't think this thing can be resolved that way.

Yes but your license doesn't restraint me on "per view" basis. If you want to include that in your license it would be all ligitimate, but hard to evaluate.

This is crazy the only way a content provider can stop this is to put a clause that says you cannot use it on TGP's at all.

Then only the cheaters and thieves will use it so you really stop nothing.

If my license says I can use 15 pics per set to promote my site and If I give a TGP cash to have the link on the page, or split the sale with him what is the difference, I do both now, the end result is the same.

The end result for me is traffic, one way or another I will have it so to me it does not matter, however I do what the content providers want, I don't think many can say that?

Regards,

Kevin

True but there are stipulations about you allowing others to drive it, insurance etc...

Of course thehun will not list your paysite, because he his listing page with a very specific page format/layout.

There is a lot of paysite that does have more content on their tour that a tgp gallery can have.

That's why our license does not allow for hosted galleries :)

And no hard feelings here either! I just really think it's important for webmasters to be educated about content. It's a shame more of them aren't, they would keep themselves out of trouble, and everyone would be happier! :)

That's right. But there i do not allow any one to USE the content (like USE my car) on their own domain name or servers. They are just linking to it.

I know you struggle with the English language, but thats basically 'using the images.'

I guess the bottom line is I recently bought some really nice and pricey content for one of my sites.

I paid to have some really nice galleries made with them as well. Then I found the same content on a tgp.

I tracked down the affiliate program and holy shit,.... they have all this same content in free hosted galleries and no way in hell will any tgp now list my galleries because of this.

flooded. And its fuckin up my game :1orglaugh (i dont use affiliates just for the record)

I know what you mean, i shoot content too and i am a sponsor as well.

But what i am trying to say is there is no difference between a "hosted gallery" and a "hosted paysite tour". They are both on my servers, both on my domain names.

The appellation "hosted gallery" means nothing from a legal stand point. Because both are pages with pictures with an intent of making a sale. And trust me, i know what i am talking about.

The very truth behind this, is that you and i both know that a page with a certain layout (tgp gallery) will get more hits than another page with a different layout (paysite tour). And why? because there is some sites on the internet that prefers to list on a page with a certain layout.

this is exactly my same point,, content providers need to know that there isn't any difference

So, everyone who links to my tour are using my images then.

damn well I learned something new today... time to get busy :winkwink:

Again, I dont care to argue since its up to the content providers.

I am simply trying to give them the heads up.

As Hershie mentioned, my thread helped him get his together and protect himself. Now he no longer has to worry about this.

Thats all that matters.

The more content providers know, the better.

So bizump.

:smokin

What if a sponsor decides not to call these pages "hosted gallery" but alternative tours to his paysite...

Tour1, tour2, tour3, tour4...

*typo

Then technically, wouldn't linking to a paysite tour also constitute as "using the images"?

CONTENT PROVIDERS. If you don't want people using your content as HOSTED GALLERIES, you need to make it CLEAR in your LICENSE. Otherwise, hosting galleries on one of my domains, allowing other people to link to the galleries is NO DIFFERENT than allowing other people to link to my content rich TOUR.

You know, there's this whole concept called "buy your own."

what part of not interested in arguing do you guys not understand?

haha

im done, bout to roll to a friends.

i cant play no more.


:smokin

What about Gamma and the Bruno B galleries?:Graucho

they have a special license and most of the content is exclusive i think.

and good bukakke content is hard to find... time to invest in some exclusive I suppose.

cuz I don't want to invest in good content and then see it overexposed all over the tgpees. :(

Oh sorry, I must have missed the "special license" bit when he said "We don't allow our content to be used on ANY hosted galleries".

Its not exclusive, you can see the majority of the vids in the Bruno B tour onsale at AC.ca , I own most of them.