Posting of Copyrighted Photos in Gaiety Dancer Threads

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>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.

>

 

With a caveat for 'fair use' which might be arguable or not, I agree with your ethcial and legal arugment based on your premise that access to the copyright pics is shielded by membership requirement -- prima facie evidence that unathuorized use injures the copyright holder through loss of income. However in the case of Stock, not all pic access is shielded by membership. Such pics freely available to perusal by the general public consitute advertising, no different from pic postcards that Stock hires guys to place on car windshields parked in the street. It is specifically designed to be put in the public 'stream'. Casual use of those pics for discussion of the club or the dancers does not consitute injury to the copyright holder IMO, quite the contrary. Use of those pics in a manner to generate income does cross the ethical and legal line based on the 'income injury argument' .

 

Regarding deej's point that in the given circumstance the website is held to be free of liability for posting but that individuals are not, I suspect that in all likelyhood this also applies to the issue of libel with regard to the individuals that post at the MC and submit reviews. Something else to think about it we are going to start thinking. (And thinking is seldom bad.)

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

> 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...

 

I think it is required. It is difficult to ask the court to protect a copyright holder's data rights if the copyright holder has made no prior attempt to enforce them. Difficult in the sense that if the court determines that there has been no prior attempt at resolution between parties then the court will send them away to negotiate a resolution before taking up court time and resources. In some cases a demand for lost compensation might accompany that initial cease and desist order -- probable fodder for the courts.

 

>but why would the holder go after someone without

>first telling them to stop?

>

 

Could it be a secondary business plan in that some see the potential by intimidation or by use of the courts for gaining significant settlements in the form of continuing income or a lump sum settlement in the form of taking over a website domain. One is usually hurt by injury but a few manage to thrive on it.

[Boston Guy]

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 guess we could argue over whether it's commercial or not; I'd argue that it was. But I don't think we'd argue much over who owns it. And, commercial or not, most people running websites -- HB included -- want to stay on the side of what's "right" and ethical. My point has been that use of pics that belong to Stock is neither right nor ethical.

 

>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

 

I guess that's not the point I'm addressing. I think it's wrong to use their pictures on anything but perhaps a very occasional one-time use. I think the ethical position has little to do with whether Stock chooses to pursue an action or not.

 

BG

[Boston Guy]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

TY:

 

My points here have been more related to what's the right and just position to be taking on the use of someone else's property, although I do think there's a probably legal violation here. The use of copyrighted materials is theft, as far as I'm concerned. But:

 

> Such pics freely available to perusal

>by the general public consitute advertising, no different from

>pic postcards that Stock hires guys to place on car

>windshields parked in the street. It is specifically designed

>to be put in the public 'stream'. Casual use of those pics

>for discussion of the club or the dancers does not consitute

>injury to the copyright holder IMO, quite the contrary. Use

>of those pics in a manner to generate income does cross the

>ethical and legal line based on the 'income injury argument' .

>

 

I think you're overlooking two things:

 

1. Stock hasn't given it's permission. So it doesn't matter what we think. The only legal way to use copyrighted material is with permission of the author.

 

2. Each and every viewing of these pics is served by Stock's servers. HB frequently mentions the huge volume that this site sees. Well, every time someone looks at those pictures, Stock is paying for that. I'd call that very different than a postcard on a windshield. An easy case could be made that Stock is suffering an injury each and every time someone opens a thread that causes the pictures to be viewed.

 

You've been around here a long time. Do you remember when HB started forbidding the use of uploaded photos a few years ago? The reason he didn't want them on this site is because they were driving his costs up. Well, now they're on someone else's server and that person is paying for them. It's not free and, like I've said above or below or wherever in this thread I am right now, I think it's tantamount to theft and HB shouldn't allow it as a regular activity on this site.

 

He's free to disagree; it's his site and he makes the rules.

 

BG

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>Publishing Stock's photos on another site may seem to be ok

>("After all, we're giving them good publicity.") but it's not.

 

I'm not so sure that this is all that clear cut depending on the use of the pics and whether in fact Stock cares enough to enforce the copyright. I also think that the 'ethics' issue is not indpendent of intent and result. What is the intent of the usage? What is the result of the usage?

 

> It's only ok if Stock has agreed to this use,

 

I guess this depends on the definition of 'ok'. It might be ok even if Stock hasnt agreed to usage and doesnt care. Not all copyright holders choose to enforce their rights or they may choose to enforce them selectively. How does one know without asking? Often a use limitation statement is printed with the copyright notice. When it is not then it is unclear. However, 'asking' implies that there is an organized entity seeking to use the pics or acting as agent for those that do. This in contrast to the occasional individual acting on his own from time to time to post pics on an open discussion website. The fact that such an entity would even ask could bestow on them 'legal target status' where they had none before asking.

 

Of course in the best of all possible worlds each individual poster would seek permission. It is polite, it is ethical, it is clear cut. We all await that world to dawn.

 

>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.

>

I'm not so sure about this. First, I'm confident that Stock management knows many dancers go to new york to work temporarily. I suspect that they are also well aware that many New Yorkers come to Montreal to see those dancers and others at Stock Bar that don't make it to New York. I don't think the symbiotic relationship is lost on them since the clubs are NOT in direct competition and each clearly benefits for the presence of the other.

[JT Brooklyn]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

I am sure this conversation over Stockbar Photos could go on until the Snow Melts. By now I am sure Stockbar is aware of the isssue of the use of Photos, of the guys on the site. Of which some I believe are old and don't even work there anymore..They will either ignore this whole matter or express the wishes of Stockbar. THEY do have the final word. :+ :+ :+

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>TY:

>

>My points here have been more related to what's the right and

>just position to be taking on the use of someone else's

>property, although I do think there's a probably legal

>violation here. The use of copyrighted materials is theft, as

>far as I'm concerned. But:

>

 

>I think you're overlooking two things:

>

>1. Stock hasn't given it's permission. So it doesn't matter

>what we think. The only legal way to use copyrighted material

>is with permission of the author.

>

 

I understand the principle of your position and cannot argue with it in principle. However, much of the world operates with benign neglect every day, often to the benefit of all involved. Does that make it right? Probably not. Is it acceptable? Maybe, I come back to intent and result. All of us that hire in the US hope for benign neglect from the authorities and our neighbors. It is defintely illegal but many of us deem it acceptable because of the intent and result. Definitely not principled but practical for day to day life.

 

>2. Each and every viewing of these pics is served by Stock's

>servers. HB frequently mentions the huge volume that this

>site sees. ...

 

I appreciate the bandwith cost issue and that goes to result. It is a legitimate concern. Many sites try to maximize the number of hits, which can be tied to site income. The trade between hits and download bandwith is a legitmate concern for some websites. Nevetheless, specifically in the case of Stock sites, download bandwith is the product they deliver. I suspect that the couple of hundred hits a week that the Strip Club forum generates is lost in the electronic dust of the regular weekly site output. Even so, this is just an observation and not a justification factor since this discussion goes beyond Stock type websites.

 

On another facet... Assuming we are not violating membership boundaries and compromising income, do you draw any distinction between pics posted as they now are from the Stock server but displayed under HB's banner from the Stock-pic URL being posted in the thread? The latter directs the reader to the same site using the same bandwith but the pic is displayed under the Stock site banner. The intent and the result seem to be the same. Doesn't the prohibition of the latter under copyright law basically cut off of effective word-of-mouth discussion for any site or at least severly hamper it. Hardly a good result for anyone it seems.

 

I guess for me the issue of theft in this subject comes down to value and intent and result. The copyright law assesses value by income -- real or potential. If income hasn't been compromised or stolen then there is no effective 'theft'. As an author I take personal pride in 'ownership' that includes control of my work. Thus I am probably more sensitive about my copyright rights than the law permits. For example, I might not be thrilled to give someone rights to quote for an unfattering review. Hence the Fair Use clause. Nor do I want to see someone publish my words and ideas as their own. But if they do how does the court assess damage? Not by my hurt feelings and frustration but about compromised income. How many books did I not sell because that other person sold his. Or how many paid speaking engagements were not realized because some other guy was competing against me with my own words and ideas. As individuals we are much more sensitive than the law will support, else drawing and quartering would be a premissable remedy.

 

The cost associated with the use of servers is not a copy right issue but a site access issue. It is unclear whether that access is unauthorized or not, again assuming that we don't go behind the member's curtain. It is not clear if this cost issue is theft of services or just too much success. I lean toward the latter as per my ground rules we are in a public area of the website open to anyone. Violating the members access area is a different cup of tea.

 

>He's free to disagree; it's his site and he makes the rules.

>

 

Agreed. In the event that he chooses to ban copyrighted pics i suspect it possible that all pic posting will be banned. It is just that much more material that will need vetting, that many more alerts. It is enough to monitor MC members for rules violations but essentially every pic will have to be vetted. And has already been mentioned, every photo has a copyright explicit or tacit. So only creators or their asignees could post.

[Boston Guy]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

TY:

 

As always, you make good points. And I always respect your opinions, for themselves and for the man behind them.

 

If we were talking about something here and there, I wouldn't think twice about it. On a regular basis, if it were my site, I'd probably ask for it not to be done. Or I'd contact Stock and ask for permission; who knows? Maybe they're delighted for the publicity.

 

Anyway, we all know where we all stand. Time for the next big issue of the day: snowblowing the driveway! :-)

 

BG

[HotdadENYC]

I think that all of this discussion about copyrights, etc. has been somewhat enlightening, but it ultimately doesn't get to the point.

 

Would it be TOO much to ask that those guys, who post the pics on here, simply ask Stock if they wouldn't mind using THEIR images?

 

If Stock says yes, in writing, via e-mail, then this thread can die a peaceful death.

 

If Stock says no, then I would hope and expect that the posters would respect their wishes and cease and desist.

 

GOD, does EVERYTHING have to be SO DIFFICULT ?

 

Regards,

 

hd NYC

[Barry]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

>Anyway, we all know where we all stand. Time for the next big

>issue of the day: snowblowing the driveway! :-)

 

Well I took time to snowblow my driveway of the measly 10" here in Chitown. Based on what you are getting in Boston I think PLOW is a better word.

 

Be careful out there.....

 

Barry

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

RE: Copyright infringements, lol

 

> Time for the next big

>issue of the day: snowblowing the driveway! :-)

 

 

Lol... yes we agree there. Fortunately I think I'm coming out on the short end of the shovel on this one. If you can call a measley 18+ inches the short end. Every time I check the weather that number keeps growing. :o The obvious conclusion... stop checking. Happy Blizzard!! x(