Started by admin at 11,Jul,15 18:10 other posts of admin
 | I was asked in private to explain my position on what people can and cannot post on this site. Again. I started to explain and suddenly wrote more than I wanted. So I thought it worth posting it here. It's really the same I explained before in various topics. Just don't want it go to waste, may later direct people to this thread instead of explaining all over again. So here it is:
=============== There are two major concerns - only registered users can see external links and only registered users can see external links (which is more important for this site, actually, but varies in different countries so I should consider most wide range) and only registered users can see external links that allows exceptions from DMCA. It's all hard to read and correctly understand. You have to understand legal language, be familiar with precedents, common practice on those, typical cases, etc. Below is my personal position, not exactly same as legal one. Copyrights are not that much of a problem in reality. Most copyright owners just don't care about couple of pics. I had very little actual legal complains from copyright owners. May be 2 in all 7 years. I delete those accounts mostly because if they post pics from internet - they pretend to be someone they are not and it may cause all kinds of consequences. Though most of them are just dumb some of them may actually cause identity theft lawsuit. And that is much more dangerous than copyright claims which, unless you violate copyrights constantly on a major scale never go to court and not even demand satisfaction other than removing the materials. So I delete them just to be safe from identity theft implications. I do not delete paid accounts for internet images because those people usually show their real data in the payment, vouch with their money and therefore are very unlikely to cause this kind of problems. As for the proofs - I have my years of experience in adult biz. You should understand that those fakes usually lie without any shame. Couple of times people were trying to convince me they shot photos that I actually shot many years ago myself, personally. However, their behavior is something different from people, who really post their photos. They say similar things, but in a different manner. It's something I cannot explain, I just sense when someone is lying from past experience. Not always. Otherwise - if image has copyright mark, cropped from bigger original - it's 98% chance it's not theirs. People who made photos almost always have originals, even if they post on different sites, they don't take photo from one site to post to another, they have the original, unless in some rare cases they wiped it out by accident or lost due to equipment failure. But I repeat, it's rare. If you see a well-made gallery (consequence of images with one theme) with woman posing like a model and showing her face - it's 95% that it's taken from some commercial site, even if you cannot google or tineye it (if it's inside members area you can't find it). Real women rarely do 30+ images galleries and rarely wish to show faces being nude with pussy explicitly shown. If you find a link to commercial porn site with the same photos - it's 99.99% proof. Indeed links to anonymous image sharing boards, sites like this one or personal blogs can't be a proof. You never know who taken from where. They may as well took it from here. But then again - if you see a full image there and cropped here - it's surely taken from there, not the other way around. By my estimate no less than 75% of female accounts on this site are fake. May be more. I'm not familiar with male porn cause it's not my thing, so I cannot tell for male accounts that well, other than that some pics are too professional. But it's not that common to see male fakes, they mostly "suffer" from photoshop alternations of their own pics, which is ridiculous, but not dangerous in terms of identity theft. If I stood by my own principles, I should have exterminated all those fake female accounts myself. But yet on early stages of this site I discovered to my surprise that a lot of people love those fake accounts. I always thought people come to sites like this for dating. For me it always caused frustration on other dating sites to be unable to meet real women. I thought that site owners create those fake accounts intentionally and pay to employees to maintain them. I was shocked to discover people do this on massive scale themselves for free. Indeed I was aware of trolling that people from anonymous culture (4chan, etc) do on dating sites, but they are not that many. And I was more shocked to discover that visitors like those fake profiles often more than real female profiles. Now, after years of observation I understand why. In short - those fakes create impressions of what men consider better women than real women. And many of those visitors pay, even some of those fake profiles pay. More than that - every time I deleted popular female fake I got bombarded by messages like "why you deleted her she was so nice", "you delete good people while let jerks overrun the site", "that profile was what this site require more of and you deleted it", etc. So I had to leave them here. So if the fake is nice and popular, does not solicit money or spam, I do not touch it even if I clearly see it's fake. World is not what I think is correct and should be, regrettably. This site was not a crusade for what I think is right, it was just a business. I simply followed what customers wanted. |
Similar topics: 1.Your first orgasm. Men and women. 2.Australian federal police malware/spyware 3.Straight with occasional thought or pondered on playing around with a guy. anyone else thought about it? 4.Copyright material in blogs 5.Is getting verified mean anything?
SO....would this image get a member deleted??
It's got 10+ pages of matches on a Google search, but they're all "anonymous image sharing boards, sites like this one or personal blogs". It's now been stated -- TWICE!! -- that these cannot be used as 'proof' against the member. **WHAT _CAN_ BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST A FAKE??**
OK, so maybe it's web-derived....SO WHAT?? There's no claim of identity. There's no solicitation or harassment of members. It's just...here. And 1000 other websites. **IS THAT WRONG?? IS MERELY SUBMITTING THAT IMAGE GROUNDS FOR DELETION??**
MAYBE the sad sap who posted this isn't me...maybe they have been here a month, half a year...SO WHAT?? **DOES IT MATTER HOW LONG A PERSON HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THIS SITE??**
So, why you give this pic as example, instead of picking up any of obviously fake female photos? You should not even be looking at dicks if you are interested in women.
You have just proven one of the points. You do not care about fakes, you do not like competition. Even worse, since women don't give a damn about dicks. You do not like that fake pic of dick attract more attention from men (they are who look and comment at dicks mostly, not women) than yours.
As I said, you are still right, internet images should not be more popular than genuine on a site like this but your motivation is completely wrong and your statements do not add up with your actions.
I'm sorry, I know you're frustrated but I'm really just trying to understand.
But you're completely out of line to suggest that being a straight male means I do not care about fakes; it's precisely BECAUSE I'm interested in FAIR COMPETITION that I'll report someone who is BREAKING THE RULES, regardless if it's a "woman" -- or a "dick" like Saddleback, who is posting a cropped image of a verified member at another site:
/d90c26tr2dr3pic.html
/ua5xem2y03iopic.html
only registered users can see external links
They are breaking the rules of the site, the spirit of the site, and the trust of the good members of this community. But we can't report them. And it's probably because they kicked you some cash, even though you say (on the membership page):
"Warning!!!
Posting and behavior rules still apply! ...[It] does not allow you to post pics from internet without permission of their owners"
...and again on the very next page:
"Warning!!!
We appreciate that you spend your money for the good of this site, but you still have to obey site rules and copyright and other applicable laws. Remember that posting pics from internet without permission of their owners or posting of **** content like **** porn, **** or copro is forbidden here."
So, which is it: ARE PAID MEMBERS -- ARE **ANY MEMBERS** -- ALLOWED TO POST INTERNET PICS OR NOT??
WHAT *CAN* BE USED AS EVIDENCE THAT A MEMBER HAS POSTED INTERNET PICS??
ARE INTERNET IMAGES GROUNDS FOR DELETION, OR NOT??
Please answer as directly as possible...
You kinda proving this point right now. I already explained everything you need to know, but you are still trying to get "straight" answers. I can give you a straight answer but you won't like it.
In short my straight answer should be this - you lack common sense and therefore should not be allowed on the panel. This is pretty much it.
P.S. Paid members are not "allowed" to post internet pics. I just won't accept anything else than a correct DMCA report about them, as it should be legally. That's why I do not allow people on the panel to judge them.
Because referrals have been made for posting similar photos in the past, would you delete a member for posting this pic:
[deleted image]
(Of course, I may have been Star Chambered and deleted before you have a chance to see and respond to my question.)
If entire account consisted or re-posts and memes I would probably wonder what's it doing here on the site, but if not spotted in some kind of abusive behavior I would let it live.
Look, I don't have illusions about people of the panel. Most of them don't care about what's right and wrong they just remove the competition or people they don't like. Those are wrong reasons, but they are still right - on a site like this where people are supposed to share their photos people with internet photos should not be more popular than those who submit their own photos and definitely should not behave in abusive manner.
And still, like in 20% of cases, they do something really useful, like deleting people who openly write they are not of age, who solicit money or send spam or post il.legal photos. And do that quick, so I don't have to fear every moment I'm away from computer that this site can be shut down any day.
Photos of this nature are referred to the panel frequently, and many members argue for immediate account deletion because of them. Now we know where you stand in this regard.
You've been very helpful.
--------------------------------------- added after 12 minutes
You added that last bit after I had posted.
I totally understand the points you make in the last two sections of your post. That 20% that you mention SHOULD be deleted.
My argument with the panel has always been over the frequency of deletions based on the "wrong reasons" you mention.
Either members can post images they do not have permission to post, or they cannot post those images.
Either posting web-derived images is grounds for deletion*, or it is not.
A single rule, consistently applied, is the only sensible solution.
*(Personally, I think deleting any member who breaks the rules is justified, but it may be more appropriate to delete only the 'stolen' image -- can you make THAT happen, Admin??)
The basic concern over web derived images is the people who post nude pics that don't belong to them. This protects all of the folks who are afraid that they are falling in love with someone who isn't real. It also bolsters the pride of the members who get cranky when other pics get more exposure than theirs. (The "pretend wieners are more popular than mine!" group.)
Many of the people who vote on the panel have web derived non-cock pics posted on their pages.
What Admin is saying is that--because images like the one I posted above (or, maybe pics of kangaroos in a courtroom) are OBVIOUSLY not an attempt to "fake" your profile.
They do no harm, so let them be.
--------------------------------------- added after 5 minutes
While we're on the subject, this is the original debated photo I was talking about:
[deleted image]
--------------------------------------- added after 23 minutes
This is also a web derived image:
[deleted image]
Should the posting member be deleted?
--------------------------------------- added after 26 minutes
According to what Admin has said above, the answer is no.
Therefore, anyone can post any pic that comes from any site that's not a commercial source, because there's no way to determine the true "owner." The mere act of posting a pic here makes the member the de facto 'owner,' and there can be no recourse against them.
Consequently, this isn't "Show YOUR Dick" anymore...it's "Show ANY Dick You Want" and is no different at all from any of the million tumblrs out there.
2) "visitors like those fake profiles often more than real (profiles) ...so I had to leave them here."
Therefore not only can we no longer justify deleting fakes, but fakes should be ENCOURAGED because they are good for your business model. Fakes are 'simply what customers want.'
I will now begin posting internet images, because I have your blessings, and I expect protection from deletion on the above basis.
Thank you for clearing things up, Admin.
But you manage to disturb me even with the panel. People from your group come to me whining this very shit you just wrote here every time when you cannot outvote the opposite group.
Same as people of the opposite group come whining that your group "does not give people enough time to react", "delete everyone only to earn points", "delete people just because they don't like them" etc.
I'm sick and tired of this. So either use the panel or shut up. I don't want to hear it anymore. If you are not content I will close the panel and will be processing reports myself, but anyone who questions my decision will be banned as well. Just for questioning, as actually most of sites do. If you can't live in democracy you will have dictatorship.
I will ban some accounts much more quickly than panel does, because I know a lot of commonly used female images but for many I will ignore reports completely since very few of you actually can write a correct report and I just consider it a waste of my time looking for the proof myself because of reasons explained above. Most of your reports are retarded shit with no solid proof. It will be a lose-lose situation for both of your groups.
And I repeat - I won't be listening to this whining anymore. Don't like the site or my policies - go find another. It's not a problem.
Now you can write reply with another popular melody - that I treat people like shit and that's why the site is dying. I have not heard it in a while. Since yesterday I think.
But from the above: what's the use of the panel? You have just given the posting member 'ownership rights' to internet images. **Anything but commercially-copyrighted images are fair game on this site now.**
If you do intend to keep the panel up, it would at least be helpful to voters to get your guidance -- please answer true or false: **Anything but commercially-copyrighted images are fair game on this site now.**
I never gave a damn about copyrights since I knew from experience that it's not that big of a deal. I had more problems removing my properly copyrighted materials from other sites than from copyright claims on sites under my supervision and at one point I had over 1000 domains (not my own, but I was somewhat responsible for them).
I wrote in rules about copyrights because it's much harder to explain anything about identity theft and revenge porn laws to common folks.
But those are and always were my real concern. That's why I still delete profiles who obviously pretend to be someone they are not if they are reported to me - they are a possible source of real problems - money scams, blackmail, angry disappointed followers, and simply site dramas that I do not like. Not every one of them, indeed. Real problems are still rare, but since they are possibly more serious I prefer to delete such people even if every one of them only has a 0.1% possibility of causing problems. Still, if they are not reported I do not care because it means they are silent or cool and many of them are exactly what people here want. I have no way of changing the world as I think it must be. If people want the fakes so much, the fakes they will have.
But I'm tired of people who from one side complain that I do nothing about fakes and from another side complain that I encourage deletion of "innocent" profiles for points, out of revenge, etc.
As I said, there is no much point to hear the same shit about panel as I was hearing when I was doing it myself. I would have already closed it down, but it's really useful for me in prompt deletion of retarded people who occasionally post something really il.legal - bes.tiality, ch.ild porn, ect. It still happens once in a while and I'm not here 24/7. If not deleted promptly it may cause a serious shutdown.
So I'm asking you last time - please figure out this among yourselves, or I will have to take matter in my own hands again risking that site is closed completely if something serious is not deleted in time when I'm not here.
P.S. and I remind you again that I also have zero-tolerance for ill-written reports, not only for obviously fake profiles that are correctly reported. In fact, I usually block people who file invalid reports several times so that they don't bother me anymore.
Please allow me to recap what you've written, as I understand it, and feel free to correct me where I'm wrong.
1) "Post only your own photos or photos of people you have their explicit permition [sic] to post" (from the photo upload page)
This means that a member must post a photo whose subject is either themselves or someone who has given the member explicit permission to post. Pretty self-explanatory.
We’ll call any images that don’t meet either requirement ‘internet images,’ for shorthand.
2) "There are two major concerns - [DMCA] and [Identity theft] (which is more important for this site, actually...)"
The rule on uploads protects the site against legal action on copyright grounds or, more importantly, claims of identity theft, libel or fraud.
You further reinforce this when you later explained: “I wrote in rules about copyrights because it's much harder to explain anything about identity theft and revenge porn laws.”
3) Therefore, from 1 & 2, members who post images they do not have explicit permission to post -- for shorthand, "fakes" -- break both the spirit and rules of the site, and put it in legal jeopardy.
4) "I delete those accounts mostly because if they post pics from internet - they pretend to be someone they are not and it may cause all kinds of consequences."
You (Admin) therefore remove 'fake' accounts to reduce your exposure to liability, if not to maintain the integrity of the site.
This is later reinforced when you write: “That's why I still delete profiles who obviously pretend to be someone they are not if they are reported to me - they are a possible source of real problems - money scams, blackmail, angry disappointed followers, and simply site dramas that I do not like.”
So far, I’m with you. Everything you’ve said is pretty normal and logical.
Here’s where I start to get confused:
5) "I do not delete paid accounts for internet images because those people usually show their real data in the payment, vouch with their money and therefore are very unlikely to cause this kind of problems."
I'm confused because you said that images posted to this site without the subject's express permission expose the site to legal action. Just because the member paid you money does not mean you're free from the legal risk. It ONLY makes sense then that ANY member should be following the rules regarding 'internet images' -- and subject to the consequences for breaking the rules.
6) "visitors like those fake profiles often more than real [profiles]...many of those visitors pay, even some of those fake profiles pay. [I got harassed for deleting popular fakes]...So if the fake is nice and popular, does not solicit money or spam, I do not touch it even if I clearly see it's fake."
Now, the 'fake' doesn't even have to give you money; you let it slide as "what the customers want" -- just another "business decision" -- and easier for you.
Two thoughts: (a) pandering to the audience also does not remove legal exposure (b) neither does the convenience of inaction.
7) “That's why I created the panel where you can vote your opinion on this matter.”
You seem to be saying that you leave it up to the community to decide whether a member should stay or go, when they appear to be breaking the rules. You may instead be saying that you want the community to evaluate the risk a particular member poses to you; I’m not sure because you later suggest that the panel is useful to you mainly as protection against criminal activity: “I would have already closed it down, but it's really useful for me in prompt deletion of retarded people who occasionally post something really il.legal”
Because I do sometimes vote as a member of ‘the panel,’ I am most concerned about the following statement:
If you meant for the panel to evaluate members as ‘fakes’ then you severely undercut them with this statement. Literally any website without a copyright is disqualified from consideration.
The popularity and ubiquity of ‘anonymous image sharing’ sites means that they are the primary sources of private images on the internet -- if a member were to misrepresent themselves here, and post images that they do not have express permission to post, the overwhelming likelihood is that they derived the image from one of “anonymous image sharing boards, sites like this one or personal blogs.”
**THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF YOUR STATEMENT is that whenever a member posts to this site an image that can be found elsewhere on the internet, the posting member must be assumed to either be the subject of the image, or have the permission of the subject. Moreover, when evaluating a submission to the panel, voters cannot rely on ANY site that is not copy-righted as evidence that a member is posting images that they are not expressly permitted to post.**
Seriously, think about it: there are members here who would post images they do not have explicit permission to post. How are we supposed to identify those members?? With what can we support our position??
Finally, there’s one point I’d like to come back to with a rebuttal:
9) “I discovered to my surprise that a lot of people love those fake accounts. I always thought people come to sites like this for dating. For me it always caused frustration on other dating sites to be unable to meet real women.”
I’d like to argue that you’re both right and not: the people responded to the ‘fakes’ only because they THOUGHT they were real!! They do not “prefer” the fake profiles – it may appear so because most *respond* completely ignorant of the lie – they’ll tell you that, had they known the poster wasn’t the person in the pics, they would not have responded as they did. Visitors have an expectation that “you” are the “dick” in ‘Show YOUR Dick’ (replace with female nouns accordingly). It’s what sets this site apart from the million Tumblrs of the world.
It’s what makes this project worth all that worry and frustration for.
I say to you what I know about copyright law application in porn. And it's pretty much simple. Almost no one gives a shit about copyrights of several porn pics these days. If I was systematically posting fresh porn from member areas of popular paid sites or encouraged others to do this - I would be owned. But I don't do this.
Most of fakes post outdated pics that have been all over the net - no one will be suing this site or me for this. I still may delete non-paying members if I see the pics are obviously from the net, but I'm doing it rather from a goodness of my heart and in memory of old days when I was selling licensed nude photos and people were stealing from me. Not because I fear I could be sued.
Strictly speaking I may not bother at all until I receive a proper DMCA complaint from a copyright owner. And I received 1 or may be 2 in all years. Most of your reports have nothing do do with DMCA form, because most of you are not even copyright owners for those materials. The closest to DMCA is when one member reports another for using his own pics and clearly states those pics are his. It's still not a correct complaint, it lacks proper attributes, but I'm OK with it. But as for the rest - when you report someone for using pics from other sites, even clearly commercial ones, I could completely ignore them and be legally safe. You are not owners of those sites. As I said, I respect those reports or let the panel process them only from a goodness of my heart.
As for paid members - it's something from practice that you do not know. If I have a free host and allow every moron to post copyrighted materials and make money out of it - I can be held responsible, it's not that straight, but possible, but with paid members I'm pretty much just a service provider and in case of problems those people will be directly responsible. Aside from this consideration, no paid profile caused me this kind of problems so far (some wreaked havoc with their behavior, but this is another story), so I'm quite safe to assume they won't cause them in future. So why should I delete them for several internet pic if legally I'm safe and they bring money to the site? Indeed, if a correct DMCA comes from the copyright owner I will delete those photos immediately.
Yes, links to other sharing sites and boards are not a proof. I myself would ignore them. When many years ago I wrote a complaint to hosting provider about a site using my pics with links to my sites, commercial ones, they told me to shove it up my ass. They said - get a lawyer and write a correct DMCA. At that point it was easier to me just organize an attack on that site. Only then they took the page down. But actually I was bad in this story, not them.
This is how it works - even if you are a copyright owner they can tell you to go fuck yourself if you do not file the complaint correctly. And you are asking me to take some doubtful sites as proof? Won't happen. I gave you the panel so you can play. But if I take it in my hands again - I will ignore that nonsense.
I won't waste my time on investigations when someone writes "I think I've seen those pics in the net", or "I've seen them on newbienudes". What do you think I should do? Block account, ask for scans of photo ID? Almost no one of those who post their own photos would comply, they would rather let me delete them. Or am I supposed to contact that newbienude account and ask them if they are ok with same photos on this site? May be that account have stolen the photos from this site, would they confess? No. It's a total waste of time and I refuse to do it. If you are fancy to waste your time this way, I allow you to participate in the panel.
I will also shortly comment on 9. If it was so as you think I would not be hearing constant whining about deleted "cool" profiles and "evil" panel members deleting only people they don't like or "only hunting for points". You speak from your point of view and I speak from mine. And I see both sides because of my position here.
Though I wonder, why no one of those whiny bitches appeared to confront you in this thread so far. As always, everyone expect me to fight for their interest which I totally have no sympathy about. Very well, next time I will tell them were to go with that whining.
Right now it seems that _avg_ is focused on copyright infringement. When I see referrals and statements made that this picture can be found in "this" blog, I want to spit nails. Any picture from this site can be taken and used in a blog elsewhere. With that said, it's possible that any picture posted on dick.net, zoig, might be found on a blog so it is possible when we have members that basically scrutinize each new member it is quite possible that their picture or pictures can be found elsewhere. New members are not required to disclose that they're posting elsewhere and they might be shopping for a new site with different members to explore. The screening and "interrogation" process that they're subjected to is frustrating, overwhelming and unnecessary. Another thing, offering evidence of a jpg picture found on the Internet means nothing and should not be considered.
Also, there seems to be a lack of understanding or perhaps tolerance. I'm not sure if either of you remember a German member that was one here and used the screen name of allyouneedislove. The most fantastic pictures you could imagine and he was thoughtful and kind. He hadn't been online in a couple of days and one of his pictures, his penis with a bug or a fly on it was referred to the panel for deletion for posting il.legal images/besti@lity. Bullshit! Members deleted for having specks of BL00D in their pictures yet a "tortured" category is offered. Bullshit! And then there are the members that are referred because there are ch.ildren in the background/foreground, the members who are referred for deletion because their age appears "tenuous" and voting members forget, they are 50 and 60 years old and of course an 18 year old is going to look really young. Bullshit! These aren't matters that are urgent, we have 10 days to resolve the matter and it is important to reach out to the reported member to see if this can be resolved rather than to be so quick to delete.