Copyright Issues - Pictures, Text, etc...

[rawTOP]

This site gives you pretty broad capabilities to post and upload stuff. DON'T abuse that ability. Simply put, a fair amount of stuff you find on the Internet should not be posted here. Definitely not if you got it from a paid members area, and sometimes even if you got it free.

It's fine to post images of yourself. It's fine to post images of people you know IF they're OK with you posting them. And it's sometimes OK to post commercially produced images IF they're watermarked promotional images.

Here's a list of content you should never post here...

• TitanMen / Titan Media / Titan Studios
  (Titan LOVES lawsuits - if you post a Titan picture I'll do everything I can to figure out who you are and make sure they sue you when they sue me - don't even think about posting Titan - it can bankrupt you...)
  
• Aaron Loftin / Aaron from fratmen.tv
  
• All American Guys
  
• Brent Everett / Brent Everett.com
  
• Brewer Twins
  
• Dan Jacobs
  
• David Henrie
  
• James Buseli aka James B u s e l l i
  
• Jeremy Lory
  
• Jesse Jardine
  
• Joseph Sayers
  
• Josh Ohl
  
• Josman/Josman Art
  
• Justin Berfield
  
• Kevin McDaid
  
• Leighton Stultz
  
• Lyric B - also known as Lyric Rossi
  
• Matt Lanter
  
• Matthew Ludwinski, or any content by Walter Kurtz and Dylan Rosse
  
• Paul Tornabene
  
• Ryan Lebar
  
• Thierry Pépin
  

Again, commercially produced photos must include a watermark that gives the producer credit for the photo. Further, they must be promotional images - not the actual product the producer is selling. In other words, pictures promoting a video are (generally) OK because the video is what is sold, but when the photos are what the producer is selling, then you need to be certain the photos you post are the freely distributed promotional images.

It's never OK to post images of guys under 18 (even clothed) - this forum is way too sexual for that to ever be OK.

In terms of text - don't think of copying it if there's a copyright notice on it.

[JoshLandaleXXX]

Id like to say in addition to this, that people can be free to post any picture from my blog here, SO LONG AS THEY CREDIT THEM TO ME. All the pics on my blog are of me and my hookups - and they're all happy with the pics being used. Just make sure you link to where you got them from. :-p

[Webster9]

To accompany a story in the, "Chem Sex Fiction" section, am I allowed to post a picture of a meth pipe, or shards of meth, or someone smoking meth ?

[Guest whoremonger]

On ‎5‎/‎4‎/‎2010 at 4:52 PM, rawTOP said:

... commercially produced photos must include a watermark that gives the producer credit for the photo. Further, they must be promotional images - not the actual product the producer is selling.

Hi - I worked for 5 years as a professional photographer (and took thousands of adult photos). Some of them I sold (e.g. to porn magazines), and no longer possess the copyright. But I have a huge number of adult photos for which I still retain the intellectual property rights. If I was going to post some of these on the forum, should I insert a watermark (giving myself credit) - as I don't really want them to become "public domain" images? Just to add, I'm no longer interested in selling them, so they're not "product" (but nor are they promotional images). Should I simply treat them as private images I'm happy to share with others on this site?

Thanks for your help.

[Guest SUBGAYPIG]

no option to delete your pics on here i left the site due to work reasons PLEASE DELETE MY PICS I LEFT THE SITE THANKS

[tupolino]

Quick question: what about a still of a video I'm actually searching the video for? I'm just reading here and now I'm a bit unsure. 
It is in this discussion here: 
[think before following links] https://breeding.zone/topic/73004-cumming-up-you-boys-nose/

 

[Guest]

There was a few months ago this issue on Instagram also where they decided that anyone may post whatever image they wanted to be it commercial copyright etc as long as they acknowledged the original owners & left the image " courtesy of ".

Which seems a very fair approach. it stopped the whole discussion about using copyright photo's & content.

This approach may be a better approach.

[ErosWired]

7 hours ago, manhole4use said:

There was a few months ago this issue on Instagram also where they decided that anyone may post whatever image they wanted to be it commercial copyright etc as long as they acknowledged the original owners & left the image " courtesy of ".

Which seems a very fair approach. it stopped the whole discussion about using copyright photo's & content.

This approach may be a better approach.

That “approach” does absolutely nothing to satisfy the stipulations of U.S. copyright law, and does nothing but ensure that the people using images without permission know the identity of the people whose rights they’re infringing.

We don’t get to decide ad hoc what seems like a fair approach. What’s fair is laid out specifically in the Fair Use doctrine of the law as upheld by the courts. Everything else is entirely at the sole discretion of holder of the copyright, who may allow or deny the use of the work at his or her pleasure, with or without compensation. To claim that one is using an image “courtesy of” the copyright holder is an expression that one has received an explicit waiver of copyright protection for that display of the image, and should only be construed to imply a waiver for that single use, and no other.

The only times at which you can freely post (i.e. “publish”) an image on the internet are if:

• It is your own original creative work;

• You have received explicit permission of the owner of a work that is not yours through waiver of copyright, or by purchase of specific use rights (which may be limited and conditional in both cases)

• The work is completed by someone you have hired to produce the work for you (a “work-for-hire”)

• The copyright holder has voluntarily placed the work in an open-use status such as the Creative Commons, in which case you are required to adhere to the limitations placed on use depending on the classification of the work

• The work is in the Public Domain.

Aside from these (and potentially a few other unusual circumstances) posting images you don’t own is technically in violation of copyright and potentially actionable.

In answer to the OP’s question, you technically do not have a right to repost any content produced by the studio in any form, including a static image of a moving picture. Your intent, however, may matter to the copyright holder in deciding whether the infringement rises to the level of warranting the cost of adverse action to defend the copyright. The fact that it’s a one-off posting with no intent to make any money, and in fact may benefit the studio by drawing attention to their video may dispose them kindly toward the use. All of which assumes that it comes to their attention out of the surging ocean of the internet in the first place, and even if it did, the likely result if they didn’t like it would be to request its removal.