Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
I believe the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities that you refer to, doesn’t give you the right to sell the content.
Also, no USA based affiliate can officially promote this site.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
Rob, I understand and respect your choice.
Conran, the difference in your comparison is that our copyrighted content in RateTheseGuys.com is placed in a members area which people need to pay to gain access to. We have made it clear we are not putting the videos into the public domain for free, by ONLY presenting them in a private access area where we provide access to individuals who pay to see the content. The trailers and teasers which we DO send out into the public domain (on blogs, tube sites etc) we fully understand those will be passed around freely without our permission, and nor will our permission be needed. Regarding the guys on HackedJocks.com , they are uploading their naked images into the public domain and are purposefully sharing them for free with ANYONE, allowing all to access, take and use their images without permission. Completely two different sets of actions.
But I also respect your decision not to promote the site.
Cheers,
Wayne
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
Dennie, Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities is a set of agreements that their users are accepting when they use the service. What it states is that the images they upload under the Public settings are now in the public domain. Facebook has no control over images in the public domain and whether external companies choose to make money from the use of those images.
Indeed many times in just the last few months, I have seen newspapers take images from a user’s public facebook profile (for example, a suspected murderer awaiting trial). What is that newspaper doing? It is making money by selling a story on that person and using their public domain image without their permission.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
It may be “legally” permissible to use an image uploaded by someone without having to ask their permission, but they didn’t get permission for the other people in that image.
What happens when one of those guys in one of those images files a law suit against HJ because they didn’t give permission? Is HJ gonna say “your friend uploaded it!”
In which case, stop attacking the file sharing sites, because their friends uploaded it without your permission too and apparently that makes it okay.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
Sorry, I meant Dennis. Apologies.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
good way for affiliates to get sued.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
I think a major site rethink is required to be honest.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
Conran, are you under the impression I have been attacking file sharing sites? You may have me confused with someone else, I haven’t said anything about them. But on that point, that is probably why we’ve seen some gay paysites now have in their t&c that the member is not allowed to share with their friends any content from that site’s ‘members area’.
On the point of other people in those images, if any guy from any photo approaches HJ and states they want their image taken down or obscured, that will happen immediately. They can’t sue HJ however, because the image was in the public domain when it was aggregated. The only person they can sue is the person who first made that image available to the public domain, who shared it without their permission: their friend.
Another line in Facebook’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities is: “You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook.” By agreeing to this the user takes responsibility, stating their have the full rights to share that content with everyone in the world (should they upload it publicly).
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
[QUOTE=RateTheseGuys Wayne;105670]Rob, I understand and respect your choice.
Conran, the difference in your comparison is that our copyrighted content in RateTheseGuys.com is placed in a members area which people need to pay to gain access to. We have made it clear we are not putting the videos into the public domain for free, by ONLY presenting them in a private access area where we provide access to individuals who pay to see the content. The trailers and teasers which we DO send out into the public domain (on blogs, tube sites etc) we fully understand those will be passed around freely without our permission, and nor will our permission be needed. Regarding the guys on HackedJocks.com , they are uploading their naked images into the public domain and are purposefully sharing them for free with ANYONE, allowing all to access, take and use their images without permission. Completely two different sets of actions.
But I also respect your decision not to promote the site.
Cheers,
Wayne[/QUOTE]
It’s hard for me to explain this very clearly or succinctly because it’s quite complex…
A pirate site works on the assumption that the person who uploaded a file has permission to use it. Most of them state this to their users and it’s ignored.
In our example, the guy uploading images of his friend with his dick in his face is acting as the pirate. He’s uploading pics that he might be allowing himself to be in, but his friends probably haven’t given permission for THEIR image to be shared.
I understand the difference between the theft of copyright content and using an image in the public domain, but what I’m talking about is the moral contradiction.
You’re saying it’s okay that the other guys in those images probably didn’t give their permission, and you know full well that they wouldn’t want their images to be sold on an adult site without their permission, but you condemn a file sharing site for ignoring the same moral obligations.
If a file sharing site says “a user uploaded a file they claimed to own, you can’t touch me” you’d be angry about that and want them shut down even though it was a user uploading that content. Yet it’s okay that the other guys in those images didn’t give permission?!
In this scenario the webmaster having his content stolen is the other guy in those pics. The pirate is the guy uploading them to a profile without the permission of his friends in that image, and you are the pirate site spreading that around while claiming that it’s “all in the public domain” while you don’t know what that guys friends think!
Do you see what I mean?
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
I do understand what you mean Conran, and I fully appreciate your moral concerns.
However, morals are a very subjective thing and it is not my job to decide what is or isn’t morally acceptable (which varies from person to person). I’m here to promote the site I work for and ensure it makes a lot of money legally.
What I would say is that newspapers and gossip magazines do this all the time. If you buy any of those, you should probably stop so as to be consistent with your moral standpoint.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
I agree with you that it’s a similar problem as an invasion of privacy for the family of a celebrity. And I don’t buy into that either. I don’t buy any gossip mags and I don’t buy any of our UK tabloids either. I find them all pretty much morally corrupt 
I’m not into celebrity envy and I really couldn’t give a toss what insert celebrity is up to. I’ve never been that way.
We actually have an ongoing press ethics committee process being televised right now in the UK, with people like JK Rowling, Sienna Miller and Hugh Grant detailing the invasion of privacy with their phones being hacked and their kids being photographed. So it’s a very topical discussion in the UK right now.
I guess my point is more of a general one. You’re correct that I haven’t seen you discussing the theft of content, but we have that discussion regularly on these forums and it seems highly relevant to this discussion.
I just can’t understand how people can on the one hand promote content when they know that those involved have not given their permission for it to be used in that way, while complaining that their own content is being used and shared without their permission. It just seems extremely hypocritical to me.
Thanks for the discussion, it’s certainly an interesting one.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
people are giving facebook the right to use their pictures. no anyone, especially a pay site. promoting this you just risk getting sued.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
Actually the FB TOS say pictures may be used by third parties, however I doubt this is not the way the content can be used. But who knows… Would be great to see what Chad has to say about it.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
Pass… to much controversy. If something smells off, play safe and pass.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
I think the bottom line from what I’m reading is this… a loop hole is being exploited… just my opinion… and no offense intended towards anyone.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
“Facebook owns user photos and can freely use them for any commercial purpose under their terms of service. Once users upload their images into public space they lose control of them in the sense of ownership and any privacy rights.”
http://pacelegal.com.au/facebook-photos-stolen-for-internet-dating-site/
that is correct. facebook owns the photos. they are not public domain.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
I would expect this to change in the near future. Privacy advocates are working on restricting the ownership rights of data and media uploaded by users.
The idea is that any space allocated to a member will be considered their property and not the property of the company providing the service.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
http://www.stockphotosecrets.com/questions-answers/can-i-use-photos-from-facebook.html
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
if you take pics from the web, you truly have no idea of how old the models are. a guy who looks 19 could easily be 16 or 15. there is no such thing as public domain of contemporary art. as for your quote, i don’t think “allowing” means giving legal permission to others to take and use the photos - it’s more of a warning to let users know that people will be able to take the pics. many countries’ laws respect intellectual property.
Re: Is this stuff really HACKED?
You posted this thread asking for advice. As others stated on here, I’d firmly rethink your business plan if you want to be in this industry for the long term.
First you are opening yourself for invasion of privacy lawsuits:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-invasion-of-privacy.htm
Second, as others mentioned, Facebook owns these photos and they are not in the public domain. Facebook DOES NOT allow you to use photos or Facebook user data to sell or advertise any products. See quote below:
â>Facebook has firmly told app developers that it’s not okay for them to steal your wife’s photo from her profile page and use it to entice others into a sexy local singles dating service.
According to Facebook, this has never been allowed:
Please remember that developers have never been allowed to send user data received from Facebook to ad networks, and we take firm action against this.
Thirdly, you have no proof of age on any of the photos (and users can easily fake their age on a profile), and as far as I know, once you are selling the images, you are liable to follow US 2257 laws.
It seems like a lot of these kinds of sites are popping up, but IMHO it’s only a matter of time before they start getting sued and facing other legal consequences. Unfortunately, these kinds of sites further damage the already bad reputation our industry gets.
You could easily get this kind of content legally produced, why not do that instead of stealing photos from Facebook?