Question on posting pics w/fiction

[BootmanLA]

In another thread, RawTop (in my view, correctly) levied infractions on a member for posting third-party pictures in a pozzing fiction story - given that the person in the photos almost certainly hadn't consented to their use in illustrating a backroom-level fiction story about infecting someone with HIV.

Should there be a general rule about posting pictures in the fiction section? Even outside of the Bugchasing/pozzing forum, I can see there might be stories in the General barebacking forum or in the other fetish forums, where someone whose picture got online and then used in these forums could really piss off the guy in the picture.

I'm seeing this more and more lately - still a small minority of the posts, but a trend I could see exploding.

And if such a rule were put in place, I'd suggest a pinned post in each relevant fiction section reminding people of that. 

[drscorpio]

There is already a limiting factor. Your total file size allowance for inserted photos in all your posts is pretty low. Most people hit it after 1-2 stories. 

I don't object to such a rule, but that is why you don't see it spreading too widely. 

[BootmanLA]

22 minutes ago, drscorpio said:

There is already a limiting factor. Your total file size allowance for inserted photos in all your posts is pretty low. Most people hit it after 1-2 stories. 

I don't object to such a rule, but that is why you don't see it spreading too widely. 

That certainly helps. And honestly, I get the appeal of illustrations - I'm a visual guy. But - still, it seems to me a bad policy to allow people to attach photos of others - people not even known to be gay, much less into bareback sex (even as a fantasy) - to fiction that describes someone (presumably of similar type) doing exactly that.

[rawTOP]

Also, don't forget that you're liable for copyright infractions. Do not upload pictures that you do not own or do not have a license to use. Images watermarked with the porn site that originally featured the video are generally safe - they're promo images that are meant to be distributed. And thanks to Google Images a court case has determined that "hotlinking" images (e.g. using "insert image from URL") is OK as well. That said, often those URLs break over time and they create an unsightly mess. And remember - just because "you found it on the internet" does not mean it's "public domain"!

[ErosWired]

@rawTOP - Given that the site serves members across the EU, are you liable for adherence to restrictions against the storage or publication of a person’s private data - as defined as his photograph - under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) laws now in effect, even though you’re not an EU-based company? What happens if someone goes howling to the authorities in the EU that his picture is on Breedingzone and he doesn’t want it there? Can they fine or otherwise sanction you? The laws apparently have significant implications abridging freedom of speech in Europe.

[BootmanLA]

To be clear: should we report images when used to illustrate fiction posts, given that they aren't part of a porn video promotion and it's highly likely they don't belong to the poster?

[rawTOP]

18 hours ago, ErosWired said:

@rawTOP - Given that the site serves members across the EU, are you liable for adherence to restrictions against the storage or publication of a person’s private data - as defined as his photograph - under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) laws now in effect, even though you’re not an EU-based company? What happens if someone goes howling to the authorities in the EU that his picture is on Breedingzone and he doesn’t want it there? Can they fine or otherwise sanction you? The laws apparently have significant implications abridging freedom of speech in Europe.

American companies (like mine) are technically bound by EU laws like GDPR. But it's difficult for the EU to penalize a company that has no presence in the EU.

That said, I do try to generally comply with GDPR. Data is encrypted when at rest, account deletions are possible, etc.

However, if a person uploads an image they own or have a license to use, there is no way GDPR applies unless they ask us to take it down claiming it contains personal information, and we fail to do so. We do remove personally identifiable information from posts when a person can prove they're the person in question – so that's a non-issue.

 

17 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

To be clear: should we report images when used to illustrate fiction posts, given that they aren't part of a porn video promotion and it's highly likely they don't belong to the poster?

In most cases, no. If it's a watermarked promo image from a porn studio, those are intended to be spread around. The watermark is advertising and porn studio model releases typically warn the model that the image/video may be used in contexts that they find embarrassing or offensive. If it's unwatermarked and shows personally identifiable parts of the body like a face or distinctive tattoo - then you might want to report it if you're reasonably certain the person who posted it doesn't own the image or have a license to use it.

But please DO report it if you believe it's "revenge porn" or child porn – those are both totally prohibited since they're illegal.

[ErosWired]

1 hour ago, rawTOP said:

However, if a person uploads an image they own or have a license to use, there is no way GDPR applies unless they ask us to take it down claiming it contains personal information, and we fail to do so.

Well, that’s the thing. From what I’m reading, the GDPR is being interpreted to include a person’s photographic likeness per se, absent any other attached data, as personal information. Therefore the EU could make such a claim about any photograph in which an individual could be recognized.

Let’s say Dietrich, a citizen of Germany, visits the United States on holiday and, being the Schlampe that he is, decides to ass-up on a picnic table in a public park where he is happily fucked in front of spectators. He is also photographed. Under U.S. law, given his choice of venue, he likely has no reasonable expectation of privacy, so the photographer is within his rights to document the public event, has no general obligation to obtain a model release to post his images for non-commercial purposes on social media, owns copyright to the work, and as owner of such license elects to post it here.

Dietrich, on his return to Germany, discovers the photograph of him blissfully taking it up the ass posted online, and demands that it be removed. Under U.S. law, he has no grounds to make that demand. Under EU law, he does. If you accede to the EU demand, you abridge the right of the photographer under U.S. law. If you don’t, you abridge Dietrich’s right under EU law.

The pressure, it seems to me, is likely to be on you as a business to fall on the side of EU law, since that’s where you would face possible sanction if you failed to act. Yet this is unfortunate, as it essentially places freedom of expression in the United States under the thumb of EU laws which we have no part in creating. The last time we had a situation like this, we began the resolution of it by dumping someone’s cargo of perfectly good tea into Boston Harbor, but it’s hard to know what the internet equivalent of that would be today.

 I don’t envy you the convolutions of your business environment.

(And thank you, Dietrich, for causing all this trouble in the first place.)

[Guest]

any photos or imagines i have posted are all of myself be it dressed or nude. as to my stories are also all about me and my sexual experiences and if for some reason a fantasy they are strickly mine, both my desires and fantasies and do not involve any one else unless someone did it to me and yet that person who did it to me is annonymis in my story and account of events.

[Guest takingdeepanal]

4 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Well, that’s the thing. From what I’m reading, the GDPR is being interpreted to include a person’s photographic likeness per se, absent any other attached data, as personal information. Therefore the EU could make such a claim about any photograph in which an individual could be recognized.

Let’s say Dietrich, a citizen of Germany, visits the United States on holiday and, being the Schlampe that he is, decides to ass-up on a picnic table in a public park where he is happily fucked in front of spectators. He is also photographed. Under U.S. law, given his choice of venue, he likely has no reasonable expectation of privacy, so the photographer is within his rights to document the public event, has no general obligation to obtain a model release to post his images for non-commercial purposes on social media, owns copyright to the work, and as owner of such license elects to post it here.

Dietrich, on his return to Germany, discovers the photograph of him blissfully taking it up the ass posted online, and demands that it be removed. Under U.S. law, he has no grounds to make that demand. Under EU law, he does. If you accede to the EU demand, you abridge the right of the photographer under U.S. law. If you don’t, you abridge Dietrich’s right under EU law.

Whereas Simon in Melbourne, Australia, would welcome the exposure and sharing of all pics and vids - no matter what they contain. 

[BootmanLA]

7 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Dietrich, on his return to Germany, discovers the photograph of him blissfully taking it up the ass posted online, and demands that it be removed. Under U.S. law, he has no grounds to make that demand. Under EU law, he does. If you accede to the EU demand, you abridge the right of the photographer under U.S. law. If you don’t, you abridge Dietrich’s right under EU law.

It's not actually that way for the US. Under US law, the photographer has a right (himself) to distribute the photograph he took of Dietrich. But absent a contract with RawTop that guarantees his ability to display his images online, the photographer has no "rights" tied to the ability to post it on RawTop's site. Everything posted here is, broadly speaking, at his benevolence and he can deny or withdraw permission to post such materials at any point. So honoring a takedown request from Dietrich under EU law would give the photographer no cause of action whatsoever.

[BootmanLA]

9 hours ago, rawTOP said:

In most cases, no. If it's a watermarked promo image from a porn studio, those are intended to be spread around. The watermark is advertising and porn studio model releases typically warn the model that the image/video may be used in contexts that they find embarrassing or offensive. If it's unwatermarked and shows personally identifiable parts of the body like a face or distinctive tattoo - then you might want to report it if you're reasonably certain the person who posted it doesn't own the image or have a license to use it.

But please DO report it if you believe it's "revenge porn" or child porn – those are both totally prohibited since they're illegal.

I'm good with following whatever rule you think is appropriate. But it seems to me that the likelihood of person A, who's writing bareback and/or pozzing fiction, also owning (or having the license for) a clearly very-high quality image of a model-looking young man are, shall we say, slim. Slimmer than the pickings on a bread aisle in the grocery store just before a hurricane is due to hit.

Now, is there a huge amount of harm that occurs when Joe Straight Boy's pic swiped from some online forum somewhere gets used to illustrate the apple-cheeked youth that some guy is conning into taking poz loads? Maybe not. I just know if I were that guy, I'd be really, really pissed at a website that let people use my pic to illustrate erotica that had zero to do with me. It's probably unlikely he'd find out, and there's probably not much illegal about it if it's not revenge porn or whatever, but it just doesn't sit right with me as a practice to be tolerated. It just seems really, really creepy.

[rawTOP]

On 3/24/2021 at 10:14 AM, ErosWired said:

Well, that’s the thing. From what I’m reading, the GDPR is being interpreted to include a person’s photographic likeness per se, absent any other attached data, as personal information. Therefore the EU could make such a claim about any photograph in which an individual could be recognized.

The key phrase in what I said was "own or have a license to use". In the example you cite, the person posting probably didn't own or have a license to use.

On 3/24/2021 at 5:59 PM, BootmanLA said:

It's not actually that way for the US. Under US law, the photographer has a right (himself) to distribute the photograph he took of Dietrich. But absent a contract with RawTop that guarantees his ability to display his images online, the photographer has no "rights" tied to the ability to post it on RawTop's site. Everything posted here is, broadly speaking, at his benevolence and he can deny or withdraw permission to post such materials at any point. So honoring a takedown request from Dietrich under EU law would give the photographer no cause of action whatsoever.

Yes, the photographer has rights (especially if the photo is taken in a public place), but the moment the photo is sexually explicit the model has significant rights as well.

So using the example at play here – if the photo of Dietrich was taken on a public beach in the US and he was in a bikini and didn't have a visible penis line (so not sexually explicit), then Dietrich has not right to request a takedown (AFAIK). This is because Dietrich doesn't own the photo - the photographer does.

On 3/24/2021 at 6:08 PM, BootmanLA said:

I'm good with following whatever rule you think is appropriate. But it seems to me that the likelihood of person A, who's writing bareback and/or pozzing fiction, also owning (or having the license for) a clearly very-high quality image of a model-looking young man are, shall we say, slim. Slimmer than the pickings on a bread aisle in the grocery store just before a hurricane is due to hit.

This is why I specifically mentioned watermarked publicity photos from porn sites. They're a form of advertising/marketing for the porn site, and the model probably signed a release acknowledging that they might be used in embarrassing, untrue, fictional contexts.

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, rawTOP said:

This is why I specifically mentioned watermarked publicity photos from porn sites. They're a form of advertising/marketing for the porn site, and the model probably signed a release acknowledging that they might be used in embarrassing, untrue, fictional contexts.

Right. But that's not the kind of posting I'm talking about. I'm seeing people posting what are clearly *not* porn video advertisement photos - not watermarked, no studio, and from all appearances just random shots swiped from somewhere on the web - being used to illustrate the characters in a story.

That said, the pictures I was specifically concerned about seem to have mysteriously vanished from the story in question, with no indication in the header of the post(s) that the post was edited. And a comment that praised the picture for showing such a hot guy to illustrate the story also seems to have vanished. 

[drscorpio]

I am not sure which story you are talking about, but I know I have deleted some photos recently. We get reports asking for photos to be deleted from posts virtually every day.