Posting of Copyrighted Photos in Gaiety Dancer Threads

[ddarko]

I've noticed that some of the photos in the Gaiety dancer threads are photos taken from Stock Bar's subscription-based website, nudemaledancers.com. These pictures are only available for paying members of Stock's site; they are not freely available. Unless Stock Bar consented to the reposting of its photos, I think uploading these photos onto photo sites constitutes copyright infringement. I hate to be a killjoy because I appreciate being able to see what the dancers look like, many of whom work at Stock. But reposting Stock's pictures onto other websites without permission is not fair to Stock and I think M4M members who have posted these pictures should refrain from doing so in the future. I am not associated with Stock in any way aside from a couple of drinks there but I wanted to raise the issue. And of course, if the people who posted the photos do have Stock's permission, then it's all moot and happy posting.:-)

 

regards,

 

ddarko

[JT Brooklyn]

About how some photos from Stock site are Occasionally.. Gaiety Dancers and posted in "G" thread..I think the statement should be "apparently no one from StockBar is concerned about photos being used, As they do also Advertise for the StockBar". The photos used are far from the entire series also. All the great reviewing done also by Likembig,Foxy,Cooper along with the VDN photos and others contributing, has caused many of us to visit the StockBar ..Before I started following "G" thread I would have never even heard of the Stock Bar. Any Publicity is good Publicity in this... situation. :+ :+ :+

[Pierce_NYC]

Is there a lawyer in the house?

 

Perhaps someone can explain what the legal implications are in posting copyrighted pictures on websites.

 

Have there been any past problems with this issue? and how do other websites handle these concerns?

[ddarko]

I am a lawyer, which is probably why I posted about this. The penalties for copyright infringement are quite severe, both financially and jail time. Of course, it all depends on the copyright holder - Stock Bar - taking action. I would be cautious of adopting JT Brooklyn's attitude, which seems like a gamble. It's a risk to assume that Stock's silence so far means it consents to the repostings; it may simply not be aware of them yet. And take my advice, it's no legal defense to argue that the postings benefit Stock. That may very well be true but only Stock is authorized to advertise itself or deputize others to advertise for it with its copyrighted photos. People can't simply take it upon themselves to do it for Stock. Stock chose to make the pictures available only to its paying subscribers; it is perfectly capable of posting the pics on a free section on its site if it wanted to. The fact that it doesn't is a strong indication that it doesn't want those photos distributed.

 

Again, I caution against assuming silence is consent. If people insist on posting the photos, there's nothing anyone can do to stop them but I hope they are aware of the risk.

 

regards,

 

ddarko

[+ Lucky]

RE: Threads

 

Quite frankly, this post reminds me of the pony-tailed girl in grade school seeing me throw a spitball and running to tell the teacher. Stock bar hasn't complained, why should you?

[ddarko]

RE: Threads

 

Don't be so defensive and don't shoot the messenger. :-)

 

I posted to caution members, some of whom may not be aware of the risks. As I said in my original post, I've got no affiliation with Stock and I don't intend to do anything about the posts. You imply that I'm going to say something to Stock. In fact, I haven't and I won't. They can take care of themselves. It was out of concerns for the members of M4M that I posted. It would be a shame to see anyone get in trouble. We aren't children on a playground and there are real consequences. Whether my post influences anyone is up to them. Everyone's an adult here and can weigh the risks for themselves.

 

regards,

 

ddarko

[JT Brooklyn]

"I am a Lawyer, which is probably why I posted about this" What does that mean? A Lawyer who thinks "Photos of Naked Men" should only be paid for? There are a few Lawyers on this site, apparently much busier than yourself! :+ :+ :+

[mercury40]

>Have there been any past problems with this issue? and how do

>other websites handle these concerns?

 

Although it's not written in their message center rules, I recall Ace on muscleservice removing copyrighted pictures.

[tonytender]

Just post the photos that are public domain and not in the members area to be safer?

[Chuck50]

Thanks Ddarko for your info. HUGS

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

No Fair! Or Is It?

 

Hey ddarko aka killjoy (just kidding :+)

 

I am not an attorney so I defer to your high ground position on this issue. The following represents my understanding and is posted more for my edification than as any attempt to refute your concern. That being said...

 

First, the copyright holder (CH) 'owns' the rights to the use of the material. However, that does not mean that the material cannot be used without permission. Just that if it is used without permission and the CH issues a 'cease and desist order' then futher use is undertaken at one's legal peril. Also, any income genreated from that use might be forfeited if the CH wishes to pursue it. Some CHs publish a statement of limited rights along with the copyright notice that puts everyone on notice that in most instances use is prohibited without permission or is prohibited entirely depending on the exact statement.

 

It is my understanding that the Fair Use Clause[/] of the Copyright Law, permits limited use, without permission, of copyrighted material for 'legtimate purposes' of commentary and criticism. Determining fair use[/] is somewhat sujective but guidelines are published as part of the copyright law. That does not mean that the CH cannot take exception to the so-called fair use and take it to court. But there is an exception provided in the law and guidelines provided for the exception.

 

The fair use exception concerns the use of 'limited' copyrighted material for the purposes of commentary and criticism. Another factor entering the fray is 'does the use of the material deprive the CH of income from that material. Potentially more subjective fodder for consideration. I think a variation of this factor often considered is: Does the entity that appropriated the limited material make income off of it. The arugment follows that if $ are made off the material then that belongs to the CH exclusviely. How this issue plays against legitimate commentary and concern is the subjective area.

 

With that as prolog... I think the use of copyrighted pics is very limited here. Second, there is no income being generated by its use. (Now if HooBoy charged for the site it would be a differrent kettle of fish altogether.) Third, there is an argument to be made that the pics are being used for legitmate commentary and critique purposes. Fourth, and probably the most subjective is: does the use cause harm to the CHs reputation that negatively impacts the CHs income. A sticky question whether use of strip club pics on an escort review website that also fosters discussion of general topics, strip club reviews, politics, and religion among other things damages the strip club reputation.

 

Finally, the weakest point and possibly one that gets lost in the dust of the others is: Has this site illegally appropriated the pics? The pics are viewed directly from the strip club server and are not stored on this site. This site only provides a publicly published portal (URL) to the CH's server which the CH provides for public perusal. In reality the reader has been directed to the CH's site and that might be argued to benefit the CH. Now it could be argued that the pics appearing under HooBoy's banner gives the appearance that the pic is 'associated' with the site, whatever that means. Again a gray area. However, the reasonable argument that HooBoy generates no income off that image would lend support that there is no substantial 'association'.

 

In the end, the copyright law provides Fair Use exclusions with guideline interpretations that can be contested in court. So ultimately there is some risk of civil action, even if not a clear cut case of violation. However for most, civil actions are a pain in the ass and pocket book whether one prevails or not.

 

More detailed discussion of Fair Use can be found at:

 

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

 

Disclaimer: I hope that article doesn't shoot down any of my arguments as I have only skimmed the top level. :o

 

(Yeah, things were slow tonight and I had time on my hands. :7 )

[+ Lucky]

RE: No Fair! Or Is It?

 

The other assumption is that Stock bar itself has the right to use the photos and copyright them. I would doubt very much that they are registering their copyrights even if they are legally theirs.

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: No Fair! Or Is It?

 

I am not familiar with Canadian copyright law but the US Law bestows defacto copyright on the author or his asignee, without registration. All that is required is that the author affix a copyright notice to the document. (Even that may not be necessary but if not then it is certainly prudent.) Of course registration is preferred if one anticipates potential legal protection concerns. Just makes the legalities cleaner proving copyright ownership, thus cutting billable hours a smidgeon.

[ddarko]

RE: No Fair! Or Is It?

 

Tampa Yankee's right to say that registration is not required for copyright protection. In fact, you don't even need a copyright notice anymore; that requirement was dropped in 1989. As soon as the work is fixed in a tangible form of expression, it has a copyright. You don't need to do anything else.

 

Fair use isn't going to fly here because you have to be commenting on or criticizing the copyrighted work that's being fairly used, i.e. you quote a passage from a book in your review of the book. The Stock photos aren't being used to comment on their photographic quality or even to criticize Stock itself. Maybe if the topic of the thread was "are these photos worth $30 a month?"

 

And yes, Stock has a copyright to its photos in the U.S. even though it is a foreign entity because Canada is a signatory to the Berne Convention, an international copyright treaty. If you want to read all the gory, mind-numbing details of copyright law, check out this primer from the U.S. Copyright Office:

 

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

[beefeater]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

I find this discussion of "copyrighted pictures" very amusing, especially on a website that's dedicated to reviewing and hiring of escorts. Just how "legal" is that? For example: "Last night I hired John Smith, a dancer from Club ABC, and for $200 we..." :-)

 

I assume the author of this thread sent his concerns directly to Hooboy for his consideration. Afterall, won't he be the one facing any action if action were to be taken?

[JT Brooklyn]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

Tampa You are the man! Apparently this Discussion was started by someone who doesn't like the idea of others "Visually" enjoying Photos.. HE PAYS FOR! I can somewhat understand that, but this site is far from the only place any of that exists on the Internet! So I hope he as a Lawyer, is "enlightening the rest of the Internet" (for free) as to the Legalities of Free vs Pay....:+ :+ :+

[Pierce_NYC]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>So I hope he as a Lawyer, is "enlightening the

>rest of the Internet" (for free) as to the Legalities of Free

>vs Pay.

 

I don't view this discussion as being so simplistic as "free v pay". It's a discussion on the publishing of copyrighted pictures and what the ramifications of doing it can be. I've read the arguments in defense of the copyright protection laws, but perhaps our distinguished attorney can give us the other sides position and enlighten us on what arguments can be used to defend the posting of copyrighted pictures on free websites. Also, has anyone ever heard of a case that involved a free website being charged with copyright infringement? If so, what was the outcome?

[ddarko]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

JT Brooklyn,

 

Look, enough is enough. This is the second post you've insulted me or questioned my motives. Worse, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Where did you get the idea I subscribe to Stock's website? Because I know those photos are only available to subscribers? I know they're only available to paying members because they're not available on any part of Stock's free section. Duh. Use some common sense.

 

Instead of taking cheap, misinformed shots, how about adding something relevant to the thread? It seems like there are at least a couple people who are interested in hearing more about this. If you're not one of them, don't post. Copyright problems can be thorny and if more and more copyrighted pics are going to appear here, folks should at least be aware of the implications. If you've bothered to read the thread so far, you can see some people don't know the law or have questions about it. Sticking your head in the sand or attacking people who raise the issue isn't going to make it disappear.

 

Grow up or go away.

[ddarko]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>I find this discussion of "copyrighted pictures" very

>amusing, especially on a website that's dedicated to reviewing

>and hiring of escorts. Just how "legal" is that? For example:

>"Last night I hired John Smith, a dancer from Club ABC, and

>for $200 we..." :-)

>

>I assume the author of this thread sent his concerns directly

>to Hooboy for his consideration. Afterall, won't he be the one

>facing any action if action were to be taken?

>

 

I agree there's something weird about discussing breaking the law on a site for escort experiences. On the other hand, there's nothing illegal about talking, even talking about something illegal - isn't there a monthly magazine devoted to marijuana? - whereas you can get in trouble with posting these pics.

 

I emailed Hooboy and he said copyrighted pictures shouldn't be posted without permission. However, he isn't inclined to do anything because the photos aren't technically posted on M4M; the posts contain links to the pictures which are posted on other sites. The browser automatically replaces the link with the picture drawn from those sites, which is why it may appears that the photos are hosted on M4M but in fact, they're not.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>I emailed Hooboy and he said copyrighted pictures shouldn't be

>posted without permission. However, he isn't inclined to do

>anything because the photos aren't technically posted on M4M;

>the posts contain links to the pictures which are posted on

>other sites. The browser automatically replaces the link with

>the picture drawn from those sites, which is why it may

>appears that the photos are hosted on M4M but in fact, they're

>not.

 

That's an interesting fine point. I wonder if it's been addressed in any court case to date? I sort of/kind of do recall a case where the use of linked, copyrighted material was one of the issues being addressed, but don't recall the specifics... one of the benefits of passing 50, I guess. :+

 

If I were HB, I'd be a little more concerned than what you have indicated. In actuality, I don't really think there's a huge chance of Stock Bar coming after M4M, because they do benefit form the publicity. But what if the relations soured for some reason? For example, suppose there ended up being some really bad criticism of Stock going on here and it was hurting them? In that case, their attitude could easily change and the use of material they own could provide the basis for legal action. Why risk that, even if the risk is seen as being low today?

 

But there's also another argument against the use of copyrighted material belonging to others: it's not ethical. Beyond whether or not there is practical legal risk here, posting pictures that are only supposed to be visible to Stock's paying membership is theft. It's the same thing as going to Stock and stealing a beer when the bartender isn't looking and thinking it's ok because he didn't see you and there's not much chance of someone reporting you.

 

Saying that someone is a spoilsport because they don't want people to enjoy photos is to completely miss the point. The photos evidently belong to Stock and Stock charges money to view them. If someone wants to view them, they should go to Stock's site and pay the fee that Stock charges.

 

And, frankly, HooBoy -- as the owner of a commerical website -- shouldn't be seen as tolerating the use of copyrighted material that belongs to others. It's not legal, it's not right and it's not ethical.

 

BG

[+ deej]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>The browser automatically replaces the link with

>the picture drawn from those sites, which is why it may

>appears that the photos are hosted on M4M but in fact, they're

>not.

 

You left part of that sentence unsaid. The fact that the images are not hosted on this website protects HOOBOY and *only* Hooboy. The poster who links to those pics is wide open for legal action.

 

If you nay-sayers don't think legal action may happen, consider this. Titan Media sued David Forest for copyright infringement and won a big settlement, which includes any revenue from his website moving forward. As such, he no longer charges for his website. They also won a similar lawsuit against a magazine that put that magazine out of business.

 

There IS real exposure to legal consequences here. Just not to Hooboy.

 

Someone above suggested sticking with "public domain" images. NO IMAGE IS PUBLIC DOMAIN UNLESS SO DECLARED. Just because it's in a free area of a site, it is NOT public domain. Putting an image on a web page makes that page copyrighted material.

 

The RIAA is already filing suits against individuals for sharing copyrighted movies and music. What makes anyone think nekkid pictures are exempt?

[MTLover]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

Within this discussion I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but the pics are definitely available for viewing free of charge at the Stock Bar website. It's only the live feed at the club that costs additional and that's actually contained in a different website altogether.

[ddarko]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>Within this discussion I'm not sure if it makes a difference,

>but the pics are definitely available for viewing free of

>charge at the Stock Bar website. It's only the live feed at

>the club that costs additional and that's actually contained

>in a different website altogether.

 

Really? Where? I see a "take free tour" link that takes you to a page with strippers but the pics there are teasers, g-rated without any nudity. Is there a free section I'm missing? Care to enlighten us?

 

[Edit]

 

MTLover,

 

Never mind, I see what you mean. stockbar.ca is a separate site from nudemaledancers.com, although stockbar.ca does not have nude pics and some of the pics that have appeared here have been nudes, which I assume comes from a subscription section. But as you and deej said, it doesn't matter whether the pics are free; Stock still has a copyright to them.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

It's a good point. But I'm not convinced it makes a difference, from an ethical point of view.

 

Someone at Stock has been paid to spend time and energy to put together their website. Someone has been paid to take photographs for that website. And Stock most certainly is paying someone to host their site. All of these are things that the management of Stock has chosen to do to promote their site, in the hope that people who visit it will either spend money with them through the website or by coming to the bar itself.

 

Publishing Stock's photos on another site may seem to be ok ("After all, we're giving them good publicity.") but it's not. It's only ok if Stock has agreed to this use, which I really seriously doubt they would -- especially since the photos here are being used to promote seeing dancers at another bar (the Gaiety) in another city and country entirely.

 

So what we've got is people basically stealing photos of dancers that belong to a business in one country and posting those photos on a commercial website (yes, this is a commercial website) as advertisement for a business in another country. To add insult to injury, every single time one of these photos is viewed, Stock's website is serving it, meaning their usage goes up. Depending on their agreement with their ISP, they could be shelling out real money to pay for their photos being viewed on someone else's website to promote someone else's business. Serving photos costs money. Why do you think HB doesn't want it done here?

 

I like seeing pictures of hot guys as much as the next guy. But how can this activity be justified by anyone who believes in the concept of private property? Those photos belong to Stock, plain and simple. Stock hasn't approved their use here so that use is illegal. The fact that the photos are hot and we like to look at them has nothing at all to do with anything.

 

BG

[Barry]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>And, frankly, HooBoy -- as the owner of a commerical website

>-- shouldn't be seen as tolerating the use of copyrighted

>material that belongs to others.

 

Some good points BG but the MC is totally non-commercial. It's even on it's own server. It's a free, open forum and as such to what extent can the owner be held responsible for it's content?

 

I know the 9th Circuit ruled on this issue regarding libel on an open forum though I'm not sure if the case went further than that. All copyright infringement cases I've heard of started with the defendant receiving and ignoring cease and desist orders from the copyright holder. This may not be required but why would the holder go after someone without first telling them to stop?

 

Barry