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.

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.