Legality of thumbs preview TGP

[quotealex]

As anyone consulted with a lawyer concerning having thumbs submitted hosted on a TGP? Since the TGP didn't purchase the content, isn't that illegal?

[Panky]

Maybe TGP's aren't responsible cuz they have a clause that says "Not responsible for the content on links listed here" or something like that.

Maybe the clause that says " You also are stating that any images used in your site are in compliance with state 18 U.S.C. 2257." or

"All Models Appearing On This Website are 18 Years or Older And Are In Compliance With 18 USC 2257.
This website is for use by adults over the age of 21 only.
The owners of this website cannot be held liable for misuse by a minor or use in communities where adult content is restricted by law.
The owners of this website have no association with the links to other sites on it's pages and holds no responsibility for their content."

or the clauses about rape, beastiality, child, ...

<img src="http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/k/dontknow.gif" width="37" height="15">


<img src="http://smilies.sofrayt.com/%5E/r/biggrininvert.gif" width="15" height="15">

[monaro]

i have been thinking the same thing

okay now we are on this topic, I would like to point out a site that made me really extra mad. do a search on your log files for tgfind,com
most of us are listed there and i guess like myself have never given the okay to host our galleries inside a locked up members area. I have requested the webmaster a few times to remove these galleries have been taken when i submitted them to only a single very well known and professional TGP

I was going to keep this out side the boards, tho i looked again and they are still there, thumbs, I do not know if this site loads these galleries inside a frame, i am not going to pay to view my own galleries i submit.

If this site was a well known TGP, well i would pay to be listed.


Anyone see what i see?

Mark

[monaro]

Originally posted by quotealex
As anyone consulted with a lawyer concerning having thumbs submitted hosted on a TGP? Since the TGP didn't purchase the content, isn't that illegal?


I was just reviewing again,

[02] ACCEPTABLE USES OF LICENSED CONTENT

it states" quote..

Thumbnail Posts: Up to thirty (30) images may be used at one time in a thumbnail post URL, so long as the material remains hosted at the licensee's site. If the material is to be hosted at the Thumbnail post's URL, then up to fifteen (15) images may be used, providing that all images are clearly identified as being from the Licensee owned site, and a link to that site is provided. ... end quote

[XxXotic]

that actually all falls down to the individual content providers acceptable use policy as outlined in their license agreement. Technically that would be a violation of most licenses but no one is going to bust balls about it if they allow their content to be posted at TGP sites.

1st step as a content provider is to contact the webmaster and say hey you dont own this content remove it, if they don't remove it (and any tgp owner would i'm sure) then the C&D/contact host/sponsor etc etc but highly doubtful it ever makes it that far.

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by XxXotic
that actually all falls down to the individual content providers acceptable use policy as outlined in their license agreement. Technically that would be a violation of most licenses but no one is going to bust balls about it if they allow their content to be posted at TGP sites.

1st step as a content provider is to contact the webmaster and say hey you dont own this content remove it, if they don't remove it (and any tgp owner would i'm sure) then the C&D/contact host/sponsor etc etc but highly doubtful it ever makes it that far.
As a content provider, I would find it hard to argue with anything that was said in this post.

WE, aren't gonna freak over an 88x88 thumbnail on anyone's site, but we WILL go after someone that is blatantly neglecting our license agreement.

[XxXotic]

Originally posted by Ronaldo
As a content provider, I would find it hard to argue with anything that was said in this post.

WE, aren't gonna freak over an 88x88 thumbnail on anyone's site, but we WILL go after someone that is blatantly neglecting our license agreement. yeah, we allow our content to be posted to tgp's and we won't bust anyones balls for listing thumbs either. Doubt there are any that would to be honest but one never knows now-a-days.

TGP owners may run into some problems if ever investigated by the feds since 9/10 times they are hosting the thumbs on their servers which could technically require them to be able to produce documentation if asked. I'm not really 100% clear on that however, I hardly think a "disclaimer" is enough to clear them of any liabilites they may have in the off chance that some agency actually say something to a tgp owner (which i would think is highly unlikely)

[quotealex]

Sounds like I'm not going to be doing TGP thumbs preview sites any time soon. I don't think it is worth the risk of being hassled by APIC or content producers for it.

Thanks

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by XxXotic

TGP owners may run into some problems if ever investigated by the feds since 9/10 times they are hosting the thumbs on their servers which could technically require them to be able to produce documentation if asked. I'm not really 100% clear on that however, I hardly think a "disclaimer" is enough to clear them of any liabilites they may have in the off chance that some agency actually say something to a tgp owner (which i would think is highly unlikely)
Interesting point raised here.

If you are linking to something that IS legal, and the content on that link is CHANGED to something illegal without your knowledge, could you be held liable?

In any case, NO disclaimer is gonna clear them if they have a picture on their site. Hosted or hotlinked. If their defense is they are only showing face shots, and the content they're linking to is underage girls, they're up shits creeks. So technically, they WOULD have to have 2257 information posted for EVERY link on their site.

This brings up the 2257 question again. Aaron? Aaron?