good bukacky is hard to find.

thats for sure.

100 bitch

fuck

in yo fucking face bruh.

NICE OBSERVATION RIGHT THERE


Furthermore

The whole point that Fletch is trying so desperately and vulgar ("those punks") to make about once per month evolves around the difference between "hosted galleries" and "hosted galleries".
Untill now no one including Fletch has been able to explain the difference, nor have the valid points of TGF, x582, FatPad and others been answered.

The speculation made by some that content on galleries which share traffic and/or sales with the tgp webmaster are going to be overused more or faster than
content on galleries that do not share hits/sales with the webmaster is just that - pure speculaion - and besides that: plain WRONG yes WRONG.

The average "hosted gallery" won't get more hits than a gallery of a fairly (look I said "fairly", not a sleazydream type of poster) established webmaster who doesn't share hits. Read and try thinking for a sec before brabbeling out of your ass once again... (targetted to no one specifically):
A webmaster sharing hits with tgp webmasters will get more hits in TOTAL, YES, but only BECAUSE HE GETS MORE GALLERIES LISTED AT ONCE BUT TO ACHIEVE THIS HE ALSO GOT TO BUY MORE CONTENT HOW HARD IS THAT TO UNDERSTAND?.

The whole point of "hosted galleries" that share hits or sales is to get more galleries listed at ONCE/in shorter time. Before you blatantly deny this tell me what your business relation is with hosted galleries and what insite knowledge you have or whether you aren't rather making wild accusations and assumptions built on pure ignorance.

A) Webmaster sharing hits = gets 10 listed at once = buys 10 sets
B) 10 webmasters getting 1 gallery listed each = buying 10 sets

Case A: One webmaster buys 10 sets.
Case B: 10 webmasters buy 1 set each.

Same money for the content provider in both cases, only he got to deal with more people in the 2nd case. What was the problem again?

And besides all this: Whether I give the tgp webmaster money, hits, sales or natural goods, or am friends with him, to get listed with more than 1 gallery at once, is NOT THE BUSINESS OF the content provider.

Unless he specifies something to the effect "max tgp's", "max galleries in one tgp" etc etc etc. I am not saying that content providers shouldn't or couldn't do that, I am all for it, however just saying "no hosted galleries" OBVIOUSLY won't cut it. Because a gallery is gonna be hosted to make sense or? You find that ridiculous... then explain the difference...

Again... you're gonna end up with something like "cannot improve chances to get listed through paying money, goods or begging to the tgp webmaster".

Go on and try putting that in your license

Obviously content providers CAN do something and it is their RIGHT but just to say "no to hosted galleries" will NOT be a valid differentiation in the license unless you prohibit tgp galleries at all OR explain what type of "hosted galleries" you won't allow, but even then it has to be valid i.e. it has to be something that the content provider actually CAN regulate and no he cannot regulate just everything including relationships of the license holder with the tgp owner.

Either explain the difference or do not allow tgp use for your content.

But my main point was that it actually does NOT hurt the content providers. See above

Sure you can go and dream about how just about every newbie webmaster is going to buy your content over and over again just to find out that he doesn't get listed with it. In such a world the HYPOTHETICAL "loss" would be indeed there compared to webmasters sharing hits (10,000 webmasters buying 1 set each for 1000 gallery slots = 10,000 sold - 1,000 listed), however if you do your maths with real world figures you'll find out that there are only so many gallery slots and that the average "hosted gallery" doesn't get more exposure than the average gallery of a webmaster who hasn't begun posting just yesterday.

It's amazing how the same few content providers repeatedly prove that they do not understand the tgp biz at all.

And I say it again: Don't want your content get overexposed? Don't allow tgp use.

Ohhh and don#t worry I'll put my $1,000+/month elsewhere and won't buy yours...


To Fletch: Since it ain't even remotely your business I can only assume that you're trying to help a remote board friend of yours who got listed #1 on almost every tgp just a few months ago and is slipping down the list more and more as time goes by...

Or you're just a notorious _put_something_here_

Sure, assumptions, but makes much more sense than your repeated "hosted galleries" brabelling which you obvisouly have absolutely no clue about.

As I've shown clear enough (oh sure you know better I know ... out of your ass right) this is not a business loss for content providers so don't give me that "I care for content providers BS".

If you were so much concerned about content providers (which you aren't) then you'd talk about the big sponsor's "hosted galleries" rather than "those punks" with which you obviously don't mean the big sponsors. Now tell me that theirs is exclusive and prove once again how much you do not understand


But anyways..no offense meant and here we go again.

I will try and address some points here:

1. A Hosted Gallery is not the same as a paysite tour. My license allows a maximum 10% of the content to be used on a paysite tour or in banners etc. This is not the same as a gallery with 20 picutres on it. If you would like to build a gallery with 3 pictures from a set as an "alternate paysite tour" and submit it to TGP's go for it!

2. A person buying the content and submitting to a 1000 TGP's is totally different than a hosted gallery. Firstly, they arent going to get listed everywhere, and secondly they are really only going to be able to submit the same set of pictures once a month at the max.

This is totally different from a program who buys a set of content, puts it into a hosted gallery builder, and now we have 2000 webmasters able to build say 30 variations of galleries with that set and submit the pictures. On top of that you have TGP owners who submit the pictures because they are going to get a commission off them.

Do you not think that this will result in way more listing and way more exposure than a single person buying a set of content and submitting it themselves.

3. If the extra exposure is so false, then why have some TGP's for example banned old sponsor hosted galleries from companies like Nasty Dollars because of exposure.

4. If you want to go and pay 1000 TGP's to list your gallery, go for it. It is still different than 2000 webmasters submitting a shitload of galleries all the time. No one is going to do that either - its not a realistic proposition and Content Providers know this when they allow content use for TGP's. What wasnt envisioned was the hosted gallery situation.


I have one program that has put my content into a gallery builder, and it did affect things. And my clients werent happy and I got plenty of emails and ICQ's with people complaining that its ruining the content they paid for - so this isnt just my view - its the view of other TGP gallery builders.

I think both sides have a point here.
Personally I don't like hosted galleries because they cut into my profits as a gallery builder. I spend more and more money every month buying slots for my galleries because there's so many damn hosted galleries out there why would the TGP owner link to yours and get nothing for it? Margins are getting pretty slim.

However, the most popular hosted galleries (nastydollars, oxcash, scoreland etc) are all made with that programs exclusive content. They shot the content so they can do what they please with it. So even if all of the content providers got together and changed their licensing arrangements, it wouldn't put much of a dent in the number of hosted galleries out there.

Ok just to add in another twist.

What do providers feel about the whole BYOT program with ARS. Afterall it is using licensed content, for paysite design, yet hosted on someone elses server, and used by other webmasters.

Im sure if ARS are providing content it is exclusive. Also, the limit on domains that most providers have (normally around 20) would stop non exclusive content being used.

Also the limit that the licensee must be the owner of the domain would stop non exclusive content being used.

BrunoB got 70 videos on it. 50 of them are exclusive to the site and not available on adultcontent.ca. Everything new is exclusive to the site. Only the first 20 videos that were there before we join the site to Gammacash are in the hosted and we already drop the price of those videos on adultcontent.ca.

For sure if we have a site together, I'll let you use my content in our hosted galleries :)

http://www.LegalPictures.com
Doesn't allow its images to be used for Free sites, TGP etc. That way they keep their content very exclusive. All the sites we promote supply us with their own exclusive content to help us make money this includes their own TGP gallery's and we find this helps a lot in sign -ups compared to site that just buy cheap crap to make TGP gallery's from.

Http://www.busty2.com is the main site we promote and their sign-ups are the best, i think because they don't have any content other than their own exclusive stuff.

Cindy xx
:thumbsup :thumbsup

I totally agree to this. If it is all on the domain you licenced, it should all good. I do understand the other side too though.

As aprogram owner building galleries right now, I am interested to read all ..

A hosted gallery isn't going to be listed everywhere either.

Really... I can understand the concept "uh if they get a share they'll list it for sure". But let's not forget that the tgp's care for a few other things as well, such as their surfer's experience aka increasing bookmarks and whether or not they want to deal with a new sponsor and/or "hosted gallery" webmaster at all.

None of my "hosted galleries" gets even close the exposure that my own daily no-share gallery gets.

Sure, ALL my "hosted galleries" TOGETHER get more exposure than my own daily no-share gallery but I bought MUCH more content for them too, sooo....




It seems you misunderstand the concept of "hosted galleries". They don't get submitted _anywhere_. No tgp is going to take "hosted galleries" with a sponsor code of the submitter in them. He'd rather list the same gallery with his OWN sponsor code


First off, you mean the free content that they let webmasters download and build galleries, AVS etc with - TOTALLY different subject. Content gets out of control of license holder, gets on other domains and servers.

Besides that, Nastydollars offers "hosted galleries" too. Those do indeed not get listed by tgp's and never have. Just as with the "hosted galleries" of other programs: The tgp owners rather list them with their own nastydollars code in them.

Besides that, in case of ND it is their exclusive content afaik

ALSE LET ME ADD: Nastydollars is THE BIG exemption of the rule. Their "hosted galleries" have indeed a HIGH exposure but that doesn't prove that "hosted galleries" in general do. They kinda invented all this as far as I know, and they have WAAAYY more exposure than all the followers.

Again, you misunderstood it and I think a few others have too. Just as you put it... it's like paying the tgp webmaster to list your gallery. Only dfference is he's not paid cash but either traffic or a share of the sales or all sales. No one is getting the content from the license holder nor does it get submitted by others anywhere

Actually most of the submitted tours are not using ARS provided content. They are made with content webmasters have bought with standard licenses.

Niicceee:1orglaugh

http,

but hosted galleries do get listed by TGP's when submitted by webmasters.

Maybe not so much of the static galleries provided by a program, but a number of companies offer gallery builder programs - you choose a template, choose a set of pictures and it builds a unique gallery - with a UNIQUE URL every time and webmasters do submit them and they do get listed.

Its still a "Hosted Gallery" as it is on a domain or domains hosted by the program owner, not the webmaster doing the submitting.

So my point is why should someone be allowed to spend $20 on a set, and then let webmasters create thousands of UNIQUE URL's based on multiple templates that get submitted to every TGP in the world countless times.

Even lets say your right and they dont get listed, what it does mean is that TGP owner sees the pics heaps, and wont take galleries submitted by webmasters who do buy the content based on the fact that he thinks its overexposed or because he thinks its sponsor content.

And you dont understand my point. There is no risk for you in doing a revshare or sponsor payment type thing on a hosted gallery. There is a big risk if you go and PREPAY IN CASH for 1000 TGP's to list your gallery.

There arent many people that will by content and pay for listings on 1000 TGP's - and if they do then good luck to them.

There are plenty of people who will risk a bit of hosting cost to provide a hosted gallery.

Therefore, there is far more chance of the hosted gallery scenario happening over someone actually prepaying for listings. Therefore more galleries get listed.

My point was content providers make those sort of assumptions when deciding how to license their content - its not like we dont know how other parts of the business work!!

Hosted Galleries are new and would not have been factored into content providers license agreements originally.

o.k. then I misunderstood you... I meant a "classic" hosted gallery, hardcoded layout and nothing to download or change for the webmaster using it, except the sponsor code that he can add the end of the URL. These type of galleries should make 90% or more (I think - those mentioned by you might be hard to "detect" on tgp's)

I don't know about that configurable and submittable ones.

And as I pointed out in my earlier post - most licenses allow 10% of a set to be used for paysite tours or banners. So take your 3-5 pictures from a set and build a gallery and go for your life.

I am sorry but a lot of license does not state that. And even if they were, you can take 3 content set to build your gallery.

Witty.

Wow, finally done reading.

Lots of good stuff .. funny how some people call the paysite program owners "cheap", while the content providers want to see more money too.

If they weren't in it for the money, they should try to get their pics into art galleries and make 50k/year.

I'll read my licences again before launching our hosted galleries, and I have to agree with http, I'll spend our money elsewhere if we cannot use a few pics in the hosted galleries. Lots of people are looking forward to the money spent.

Well I don't know how that "risk" issue matters in this context. besides that it's not "a bit of hosting cost".

And again, if I want to build 100 galleries with 15 pics I need to purchase 1500 pics at least (assume 1500 x $0.30 = $450).

Sell those 1500 pics to 20 different webmaster (20 people buying 75 pics each, again you end up with $450) and go sure that these pics get way more exposure than on an average hosted gallery program. The combinded effort of those 20 webmasters, some with submitter acounts, some newbies and 1-2 pro's with close relations to tgp owners, will be able to push their set of pics much more than the same pics on the hosted galleries.

Again, you are mistaken about the greediness of tgp webmasters, i.e that every hosted gallery out there gets a good let alone superb exposure. It just ain't so. A mildly successfull webmaster with 20 pics can outdo a hosted gallery with the same 20 pics any day

Even if I prepay or not, this is not the content provider's business. I can pay someone to list my gallery or share the money with him if i feel like to. It is exactly like the other dude pointed out - a hosted gallery is the same thing as paying someone to list your gallery on their TGP.

Firstly, for us this really isnt a big issue. We have very little content licensed non exclusively and havent shot any since May last year.

But if any of you honestly think that this doesnt damage a content providers chance of recouping their costs on the set, let alone making a profit then you really need to think about it more.

I dont disagree that a gallery submitter has more chance of making money by doing his own gallery than using a hosted gallery.

I dont dispute that there will be gallery submitters who have more of a chance getting a gallery listed than a hosted gallery may have.

But if we are talking hosted galleries you need to talk about both the static hosted type AND the gallery builder type because it would be impossible to differentiate between them.

I also agree that the Gallery Builder type is more damaging than the static type.

But, lets say a program like ARS goes and buys a bunch of $20 sets and puts them into a gallery builder program.

How many times do you think each of those sets is going to get submitted to TGP's - heaps. And TGP software wont pick it up as a duplicate submission as every URL is different.

So they may get listed, heaps of exposure, very soon they will stop getting listed because the content is classified as old. So then customers who guy and buy the set themselves have just wasted the cost because no TGP is going to list it.

Also paysite owners are not going to by the content - if they are doing there job and no whats out there then they are going to think its over exposed too, more customers gone.

Even if it starts not getting listed, or never gets listed. Alot of TGP's dont like sponsor content so people will have less chance of getting that picture set listed because the TGP owners have seen it before. So the same result is the content providers customers cant get any value from the content they bought - do you think they are coming back?

This is not just about exposure to surfers.

Yeah but last time i looked alot of licenses do. And you dont often see non series galleries listed and lots of TGP's dont take them at all.

I know there is a loophole in most content provider's licenses vis a vis 'hosted galleries' usage. It is definitely something a content provider should be paid more for, in some cases alot more for.
But that's the content provider's choice, if a sale is that important to him he can ok any usage. But essentially 'hosted galleries' are no different than me licensing a 1,000 photosets/videos from a content provider, putting them up on my own domain and then leasing them out as plugin. The ONLY difference in the two situations is that with the plugin the licensee is taking cash money, with 'hosted galleries' the licensee is taking traffic as payment.
Most web licenses already did have language in them that did cover this but it is kind of vague and open to interpretation, mostly because all content licensed that isn't put inside a members area will be used in some kind of barter for traffic, TGP, Picpost, you can even argue link lists and search engine listings.
So it's a major issue for everybody, mostly content providers.

Personally, I think content providers who just let their licensed non-exclusive content be used for hosted galleries without getting paid for that value are morons. Any webmaster, ESPECIALLY webmasters who buy content for members areas should be made aware of the content providers policy on hosted galleries, buying members area content that has been used by several programs as 'hosted galleries' is just a waste of money. Webmasters can't keep on top of all this, some disclosure from the content provider should be expected.

As a guy selling custom content this effects me, so yeah i have a bit of an agenda just like everybody else who has an opinon on this issue. There are only two reasons any company is going to buy custom content from me and the other people who sell it - one to make their paysites unique and hopefully to satisfy their paying members expectations and two, to be able to take the content and do whatever they want with it to promote their sites which usually means giving their affiliate webmasters 'free content' to promote the sites with - either as 'hosted galleries' or
allowing them to use the pics/video on their own sites.

'Hosted Galleries' usage of non-exclusive licensed content is an 'end around' in my opinion. I have no idea what the appropriate price increase shoud be for that usage, would depend on the size of the program possibly.

It's hard to come out against people who actually buy any content, since a quick check of any TGP will still reveal that in 2003 75% of photo content is still stolen.

I am not arguing that there could be better market conditions for content providers but that goes for all involved in this business. Everyone needs to evolve. Obviously, overall tgp's aren't that generous anymore so you'd either buy a slot, give them a share or be friends with them, or have exclusive content.

A newbie starting with tgp submitting will have a hard time anyway so it ain't accurate to compare POSSIBLE "loss" based on theoretical sales to masses of small webmasters. Those would be initial sales for the most part, unless these webmasters figure out that it doesn't work.



Anyways, I am not getting content from those who stated on this board or on their site or in their license that they do not want it, I think those who say that rather hurt than protect their business but it's up to them

I am leaning more towards the exclusive route myself, and most I have is supplied by the paysite owners.

Mmmhh excuse me but that IS the concept of any tgp gallery. One buys the content and hosts it, the tgp sends traffic to it.

You're saying don't allow tgp use which is fine, just say so in your license.

Do me a favor.....If you intend to buy non-exclusive content for hosted galleries....Do not buy it from me.

If you own a decent paysite and know WTF you are doing then you can afford to buy exclusive content and not lower the value of my non-exclusive content and my models by blasting them all over the TGP's.

For the record, I have not read this thread nor do I intend to....I am just giving my input after an ICQ conversation with Naughty.

Carry on. :glugglug

uh oh not only paysite it's gotta be decent too

don't allow tgp use - end of story, no need for web board posing

Could you break this down into English for me please?

I do allow TGP use.

no I can't

That's what I thought.

Next....

Blow me

We do allow TGP use as well. IN fact, we have a special service for Gallery builders, however, hosted galleries are a different story, and I think a lot of valid points have been made. No matter what the naysayers might say, content providers are not going to change their policies anytime soon regarding this I'm quite sure. We have to pay our bills too, and models, equipment, time, editing etc etc do not appear out of thin air. Might want to give that a thought.

Grow up.

No one asked anyone to change anything.

no problem












(you're the one to grow up my friend)

I rest my case. I gave my input, you post a reply that makes no sense...I ask you to give it in a language that we can understand, you tell me to blow you and then change my quote.

Yep, You're an adult.

Manny is worth more of my time than you are. At least his bullshit is interesting...sometimes.

Good to have you back, buddy! :thumbsup

Thanks bro...You just broke 100 posts here... Go email eric and claim your t-shirt.

Ohh please...

and make that "language that YOU can understand"... speak for yourself

Sweet, I hadn't noticed.. Thanks for pointing it out! Too bad it'll be some months before I can wear a t-shirt in this arctic tundra without freezing to death! :D

hahaha

yeah okay.

I love the ghosts who claim to know everything.

I simply ran across 2 different sponsors using some content Ai bought, thats why I posted this.

read into it however you want.

hahaha

ASSume.

Hello

I have skimmed through this post so i did not ready what everyone said. But i am both a content provider, as well as an independant webmaster.

First of all when someone buys content even if they only buy 100 pictures, the average gallery only has 15 pictures on it so the surfer is only seeing 15 pictures of the content at a time and if there are 300 galleries on the page the chances are each surfer is not going to look at EVERY gallery

I guess my point is this, to me there is no difference between hosted galleries and people using the content they buy to build and submit galleries. If you buy the content and you are using that content on domains its licensed for then as long as what you are doing is legal then it should NOT matter if its hosted galleries, free sites, tgp galleries, avs sites, or paysites. Webmasters buy content to USE it and if that content is licensed to be used on a domain then they should be able to use it for whatever their needs are

This is just my opinion but i will say this if you buy content from us at http://www.faproductions.com and you list a domain that you are going to use for hosted galleries then you are COVERED

Like i said just my :2 cents:

:D

The guys that stuck to their guns who bought and supported quality content will make a fortune. There are already too many fish swimming around at the bottom of the barrel. Start putting content providers out of business and you will be left with lass of a choice.

It will be the newbies from Russia and those at the top charging $50+ a set that are left and the guys at the top will soon realise they can get more for their money.

We have two sites, the one in my signature and Bargain Basement Content Store. The license on PMCS (where the good stuff is) is clear, 10 URLs, 20 images on TGP or AVS sites that only the owner owner can post up and the page must be directed to the site carrying the bulk of the set.

On BBCS (where the poorer sets are), as many URLs as you wish, give it to affiliates, post it on TGP and AVS sites and a low price.

This aproach tends to be working, you want semi exclusivity and a better chance of building and retaining members you have to be willing to pay for it.

Anyone found using PMCS content on a hosted gallery will have their license revoked.

what, this time you didn't mention what a pimp you are with sooo many posts?

oh wait, you said "ghost" cuz I don't post 100/day...

"PUNK", "ASS".... right on...

The hosted galleries are not intended to the Gallery Submitter, but to the TGP owner.

The industry is changing, and i bet my balls that in 2 years, the Gallery Submitter won't exist anymore, or they will have very few of them.

When you think about it, it's fucking rediculous to promote a site with pictures set that aren't in the members area of the paysite you promote. This leads to customers emails asking "where can i find the pictures of this girl? etc..."

This is why i think it is the responsability of the paysite/program to provide their affiliates with proper tools to promote their paysites.

If your license allow the content to be used outside a members area, the licensee can then build some pages with a layout called TGP gallery and ask TGP sites to link to his gallery.

Whether it's a Program or an Gallery Submitter; both are making TGP gallery pages and both are asking TGP sites to link to their pages.

Some Gallery Submitter buy a "link" from TGP sites. So the Program can buy "link" from TGP sites as well.

If a webmaster build a gallery with a picture set, buy paid links on tgps like TheHun, AL4A, Sleazydream, etc., he is in fact providing a "Hosted Gallery" for the TGPs to list. They will make money by listing the gallery the webmaster paid to have listed.

It is NO different than what sponsors do. They build TGP galleries with content sets, host it, and pay the TGPs a commision for listing the gallery.

There is no way that you can allow the first scenario and deny the second. That would be a double standard and wouldn't stand in court.

In essence what you say is correct, but I was speaking more hypothetically to try to illustrate my point. If everyone stopped driving cars tomorrow and riding their bicycles, the car companies would go out of business.... that sort of idea :) However, I think everyone has their place and even the RUssian content providers who sell crap content for rock bottom prices have their places in the "food chain" so to speak. Everything is relative, and if everyone was on the "top" with nobody on the bottom, how would you gauge success? :)