Using AW private gallery photos in UKP reviews

[Foxtail17]

Gents, what is the score on using escort’s private gallery photos in reviews? I usually include a couple of public gallery ones with a review but is it ok to use any from a private gallery I may have purchased?
A lady I saw recently has a few face pics in her private gallery, woukd it be breaking rules or etiquette if I posted them?
Cannot see anything in the rules but might have overlooked something.

Many thanks

[Charliehutton]

I'd say don't. We can give a pretty accurate appraisal without the risk of compromising a girl's anonymity.

[James999]

Why not, they are in the public domain 

[James999]

I'd say don't. We can give a pretty accurate appraisal without the risk of compromising a girl's anonymity.

It has nothing to do with anonimity, the pro$$ie or her pimp put the pictures there so they are clearly fine with them being seen.

[SlamBoy]

Gents, what is the score on using escort’s private gallery photos in reviews?

We all know that from a legal standpoint, no images on AW should be copied or reproduced anywhere without permission. We all also know that no one follows that. Against that background, given everyone uses the public AW images in their posts, there is no legal difference between using the public and the private ones (they are just images that the SP wants to be paid for you to see).

The issue for these boards, however, is why we post the images in the first place - I think the underlying rationale is twofold:

(a) so others can see if they fancy the SP (i.e. free advertising for them); and

(b) to identify the SP so as to determine whether there have been any profile swappy-swaps in the future.

If you are concerned about (b) and the private photos identify the SP better than her public (sometimes the case) then you might be tempted to post the SPs private photos - I am not advocating that of course, as it would be unlawful.

[B4bcock]

Copyright notice
All of the contents on our website(s), and all of contents of any downloadable or viewable documents, files or programmes provided to our users (guest or registered) are our intellectual property unless otherwise stated.

Our copyright terms apply to all original works, content, publications, training, guides and other information products, whether purchased or not, that are obtained from our website(s), or otherwise acquired in any format whether or not they were obtained by accessing our website(s).

This is from the LEGAL section of the AW website.   Any solicitors amongst us??

[lewisjones23]

I’d have no issue with posting them if I had paid for the private gallery.

It isnt as if the WG is bothered about hiding them, they just want to milk the extra 2/3 quid - almost as if £120+ p/h isnt enough

[lewisjones23]

Copyright notice
All of the contents on our website(s), and all of contents of any downloadable or viewable documents, files or programmes provided to our users (guest or registered) are our intellectual property unless otherwise stated.

Our copyright terms apply to all original works, content, publications, training, guides and other information products, whether purchased or not, that are obtained from our website(s), or otherwise acquired in any format whether or not they were obtained by accessing our website(s).

This is from the LEGAL section of the AW website.   Any solicitors amongst us??

Well seen as Admin tells people to fuck off when they comes quoting shit like this at him then what does it matter?

[lewisjones23]

Posting face pictures etc mined from social media is a whole different story though IMO

[scutty brown]

Why not, they are in the public domain 

legally, no they're not
you're paying for a limited licence to view the photos for a limited set time period.
There's no legal use beyond that, and no legal right to reuse / repost them. Doing so is a breach of copyright - but how anyone could enforce that against Admin or the website remains to be seen.
However it may be possible to track posters down via the AW website - presumably they have a record of who has accessed and downloaded which galleries, in which case a poster could theoretically be sued for copyright breach - and outed. Whether this would ever happened is debatable though

[Derrick101]

legally, no they're not
you're paying for a limited licence to view the photos for a limited set time period.
There's no legal use beyond that, and no legal right to reuse / repost them. Doing so is a breach of copyright - but how anyone could enforce that against Admin or the website remains to be seen.
However it may be possible to track posters down via the AW website - presumably they have a record of who has accessed and downloaded which galleries, in which case a poster could theoretically be sued for copyright breach - and outed. Whether this would ever happened is debatable though

How would the recent EU copyright legislation affect this. Any website will be responsible for removing copyrighted material or face fines etc 

[James999]

Copyright lies with whoever created the image, that wouldn't be AW and possibly not even the pro$$ie, if it were the pro$$ie and she wanted to out herself and try and persue and pay for the costs, well that's about as likely as them submitting a proper tax return 

[scutty brown]

How would the recent EU copyright legislation affect this. Any website will be responsible for removing copyrighted material or face fines etc 

But how are you going to enforce any action against an overseas registered site with anonymous hosting? I presume Admin has obscured the ownership and payments trail, so there is no-one to serve any legal orders against

[Foxtail17]

legally, no they're not
you're paying for a limited licence to view the photos for a limited set time period.
There's no legal use beyond that, and no legal right to reuse / repost them. Doing so is a breach of copyright - but how anyone could enforce that against Admin or the website remains to be seen.
However it may be possible to track posters down via the AW website - presumably they have a record of who has accessed and downloaded which galleries, in which case a poster could theoretically be sued for copyright breach - and outed. Whether this would ever happened is debatable though

A good point. Can WGs see who has bought their gallery or movies? A possible source of the WG identifying a reviewer?

[scutty brown]

A good point. Can WGs see who has bought their gallery or movies? A possible source of the WG identifying a reviewer?

I believe so, but not certain.

[Derrick101]

Copyright lies with whoever created the image, that wouldn't be AW and possibly not even the pro$$ie, if it were the pro$$ie and she wanted to out herself and try and persue and pay for the costs, well that's about as likely as me posting a review   

Corrected it for you   

[Happyjose]

Post them

No chance of any comeback

[lewisjones23]

Corrected it for you   

Bore off you soft twat

[James999]

Corrected it for you   

You really are a stupid old twat, still butt hurt when you got outed as a moron when you first joined, so much so that you had to change your username, but you're arsehole personality shines through again 

If you#ve got an issue PM me or report me, don't hijack this thread with your own pathetic agenda

[SlamBoy]

Copyright lies with whoever created the image, that wouldn't be AW and possibly not even the pro$$ie, if it were the pro$$ie and she wanted to out herself and try and persue and pay for the costs, well that's about as likely as them submitting a proper tax return 

That's true. However, it is possible to transfer copyright and it may be that under the terms of uploading your pictures to AW, you are required to transfer the copyright to them (I don't know the answer to that) or at least give them a perpetual licence which is possible (could be why 'adultwork.com' appears on the face of the profile pictures) that they could enforce against copyright infringers.

The reality is, it ain't gonna happen. Neither AW (who don't care - as it would only protect the WG) nor a WG (who doesn't have the cash - and won't want to out herself) is going to undertake expensive international copyright litigation.

[Fuzzyduck]

Copyright lies with whoever created the image, that wouldn't be AW and possibly not even the pro$$ie, if it were the pro$$ie and she wanted to out herself and try and persue and pay for the costs, well that's about as likely as them submitting a proper tax return 

The original copyright for sure, but I'll bet AW makes it part of the agreement that SPs pass over all rights to AW when they want to post images on the AW platform. She/Sergei probably just sign the document and give little thought about whether they actually own the rights to sign over.

Putting aside the letter of the law (no AW pictures should be published without permission), it's the potential loss of revenue that would be the catalyst for any legal action. However, I doubt there's really enough money in it to make it worthwhile for AW to pursue UKP.

An individual SP could come along and request that pics (public or private) be removed but evidence suggests that this hasn't been successful in the past.

[James999]

The original copyright for sure, but

That's true. However, it is possible to transfer copyright

Whilst correct you're both missing the point, the average pro$$ie likely doesn't own the copyright in the first place, pics could have been taken by an ex or a pimp or a dealer, or a friend.

It's great to talk about copyright in the commercial responsible world, but here it's something that operates below the radar with assumed names on an offshore website, potentially posted on another offshore website, seriously, if it were Apple or Microsoft they may have an interest / resources to follow it up, but CocksuckSally from Manchester would rather spend her cash more productively on a £20 bad of weed or some white lightnig cider 

[Fuzzyduck]

Whilst correct you're both missing the point, the average pro$$ie likely doesn't own the copyright in the first place, pics could have been taken by an ex or a pimp or a dealer, or a friend.

It's great to talk about copyright in the commercial responsible world, but here it's something that operates below the radar with assumed names on an offshore website, potentially posted on another offshore website, seriously, if it were Apple or Microsoft they may have an interest / resources to follow it up, but CocksuckSally from Manchester would rather spend her cash more productively on a £20 bad of weed or some white lightnig cider 

Thanks for agreeing

[Foxtail17]

Thanks for all the comments, very helpful

[HarryZZ]

Additionally, it may be possible for the SP to identify you from your review, if she goes off on one and starts posting your credentials on SAAFE, she'll perhaps have your AW username, your mobile number and definitely your UKP handle then it might create problems for you in the future. At the end of the day they're putting them in PG for one of a number of reasons, all of which you'd be ignoring.

[Doc Holliday]

That's true. However, it is possible to transfer copyright and it may be that under the terms of uploading your pictures to AW, you are required to transfer the copyright to them (I don't know the answer to that) or at least give them a perpetual licence which is possible (could be why 'adultwork.com' appears on the face of the profile pictures) that they could enforce against copyright infringers.

The reality is, it ain't gonna happen. Neither AW (who don't care - as it would only protect the WG) nor a WG (who doesn't have the cash - and won't want to out herself) is going to undertake expensive international copyright litigation.

That's correct although I haven't ever uploaded images to AW, so like you I don't know the exact nature of that agreement, but it is likely to be a ‘permission to use’ similar to social media. As James says it cannot be a copyright transfer as this is a much more complicated process and you would need to prove ownership in the first place.

As has also been said it is an academic legal discussion only and never going to happen least of all because ultimately you don't know who this website owner is.

If you read this and if it was to be applied by law to any real degree, the internet would cease to exist as we know it.

External Link/Members Only

[Doc Holliday]

Looking at the opening question again it was more about site rules than copyright and I cannot see anything in the rules which would preclude it?

Privacy of service providers

* It is not allowed to post personal info of service providers, such as real names and personal social networking profiles.
* General description of incall locations is acceptable, but not specific house numbers or street names or postcodes.
* Phone numbers may be posted in full only if they are published in adverts / profiles.
* Linking porn work is allowed.
* Modelling work is also allowed depending on circumstance, e.g. face pics showing on both prostitution profile and modelling profile.
* News items may be posted depending on circumstances (e.g. criminality).
* Previous working names are never censored, regardless of reasons.
* Objections from service providers to any privacy-related info will need to be raised with Admin for consideration

The last one allows any service provider to object although once again from a practical point of view if you can see it on screen at any moment in time it is potentially out there for ever.

[Xtro]

Very interesting thread.

I'd also imagine most of our avatars are copyright images.

[Doc Holliday]

Very interesting thread.

I'd also imagine most of our avatars are copyright images.

Indeed yes ... unless yours is a selfie. 

Attempts are made to pursue the copyright laws and the sophistication of image searching technology makes this possible.

I ran a couple of sports related websites for a number of years, where we created news stories and sometimes used images from the internet for illustration purposes. During that time we received three notices of copyright infringement (all justified) from companies who search for images and whom individuals have registered those images with. Two of these were cartoons and it seems cartoonists are much more likely to protect their usage.

Basically the action consists of a relatively small fine (under £100) and either taking the image down or taking out a paid for licence agreement. Not sure how far these companies would pursue it if you don't comply but obviously they are only going to target cases where they can identify a real person or business.

So ironically it is more likely that 'non adult' images we frequently use, including avatars, are more likely to be registered with copyright protection companies, but once again of no consequence here as they will be unable to identify the owner.

[scutty brown]

I'd love to see someone try a copyright claim on my avatar...........!
Dates from 1611

[Hobbit]

Why not, they are in the public domain 

I agree. It's in the public domain so anyone can access it. So I don't see an issue.

[Xtro]

Indeed yes ... unless yours is a selfie. 

Doc, you're a funny man. 

[Doc Holliday]

I'd love to see someone try a copyright claim on my avatar...........!
Dates from 1611

You'd be surprised

Hidden Image/Members Only

[scutty brown]

You'd be surprised

cheeky bastards! Copyright on that  book expired a long time ago

well done on finding the link though - its worth reading

[JamesFD]

Would anyone have any objection to their reviews being copied & posted on another punting website?

[daviemac]

Would anyone have any objection to their reviews being copied & posted on another punting website?

Yes. my reviews are for this site only, if I wanted them anywhere else I would post them myself.   

[lewisjones23]

Would anyone have any objection to their reviews being copied & posted on another punting website?

I’ve seen it happen - Goldfinch does or used to copy reports from here on to the NW forum when members over there asked for information on girls that didnt have reports over there.

I don’t agree with that at all and hope he has now stopped

[James999]

Would anyone have any objection to their reviews being copied & posted on another punting website?

Are there any other sites still around?

[Doc Holliday]

I’ve seen it happen - Goldfinch does or used to copy reports from here on to the NW forum when members over there asked for information on girls that didnt have reports over there.

I don’t agree with that at all and hope he has now stopped

I think he was told it was against the rules so he stopped.

Which poses the question who owns the copyright to a report?  (sorry couldn't resist)

[Anikhayley]

It’s always nice when someone post them from their private gallery, because a lot of them pics show pictures that are not photo shopped and you have a really good idea of how they look, I hope people keep posting them.

[scutty brown]

It’s always nice when someone post them from their private gallery, because a lot of them pics show pictures that are not photo shopped and you have a really good idea of how they look, I hope people keep posting them.

I hope that members here post reviews, but some of them don't...........

[scutty brown]

Are there any other sites still around?

Yes, but no-one with a brain is going to link to them here

[hungrypunt]

They are not PRIVATE. You just have to pay. If they were private only the people she wanted to see would be able to see.

Once ion the internet they are there for the world no matter what they say. Ive posted Pg pics before and will again if I think they are required.

I wonder how many would say no if the girl robs them and true face pics are in PG

[James999]

Yes, but no-one with a brain is going to link to them here

Well, Prozzienet, Top, auto-censored, Puntingzone have all closed....whats left apart from a few struggling piss poor regional forums 

And whats the purpose of copying reviews from here to try and get some interest on a shit failing site?

[Goldfinch]

I’ve seen it happen - Goldfinch does or used to copy reports from here on to the NW forum when members over there asked for information on girls that didnt have reports over there.

I don’t agree with that at all and hope he has now stopped

Yes I did indeed do it.😳

After some North-West region members complained,Admin asked me not to do it again,which I apologised and havn't/will not do it again.

[JamesFD]

The point is that it's the same issue: copyright. If you don't object to posting pictures off an AW profile then you can't object if someone uses your reports.

[daviemac]

The point is that it's the same issue: copyright. If you don't object to posting pictures off an AW profile then you can't object if someone uses your reports.

No, you're trying to compare two different things, a photograph is what it is, an individual picture, a review is only part of a thread and could be very misleading if the whole thread isn't read.

Here we're talking about posting pictures so we can see what an escort looks like, 'warts and all', we aren't cropping out the bad bits to give a false impression. Copy and pasting a review does not show the full picture, a link to the full thread would have to be posted so nothing is 'cropped' out.

[TailSeeker]

They are not PRIVATE. You just have to pay. If they were private only the people she wanted to see would be able to see.

Once ion the internet they are there for the world no matter what they say. Ive posted Pg pics before and will again if I think they are required.

I wonder how many would say no if the girl robs them and true face pics are in PG

Maybe they're not 100% private, but they're not 100% public.

Think of it like a movie at the cinema. Just because someone else paid doesn't mean you get to watch it for free. Perhaps you can find a free torrent/download/stream, but everyone knows it's illegal. The original upload is violating copy right.

An argument could be made if the WG is a danger to others (public interest), but if not, then you are violating the terms of the purchase (hell, you are even with a WG who is a danger, but there's grounds for that being done).

If someone were to post my PG pics, I'd flag it to admin, my public gallery is fine, but my private is very different. But then I have my face clearly shown in my public gallery. Putting up my private would only be to cut into my earnings.

[Doc Holliday]

Maybe they're not 100% private, but they're not 100% public.

Think of it like a movie at the cinema. Just because someone else paid doesn't mean you get to watch it for free. Perhaps you can find a free torrent/download/stream, but everyone knows it's illegal. The original upload is violating copy right.

An argument could be made if the WG is a danger to others (public interest), but if not, then you are violating the terms of the purchase (hell, you are even with a WG who is a danger, but there's grounds for that being done).

If someone were to post my PG pics, I'd flag it to admin, my public gallery is fine, but my private is very different. But then I have my face clearly shown in my public gallery. Putting up my private would only be to cut into my earnings.

All legally and probably even morally correct, but of little practical importance for the reasons discussed. As you know, if you make something available on the internet (whether free or not) it is available for people to chose what they do with it legally or otherwise and you are generally powerless .. even the 'big boys' in terms of movies etc have not succeeded in stopping what you rightly term illegal.

With regard to this forum as you say you could flag it to admin whom I'm sure would consider under the rules but I suspect we both know what the decision would probably be? In addition his decision would be final and there would be nothing you could do about it.

When Mrs Holliday retired it took us some time to try and remove 'traces' (or for them to remove themselves with time) She had advertised on a number of escort sites which had become largely inactive and impossible to contact the owners. Image searches showed hits in places she didn't even know about. Some escort sites back then (maybe now still) used to steal ads from others to boost their traffic.

Adultwork was obviously easy to take down, but the main issue at the time was with a couple of reports on a national site we are not allowed to mention, where the author had included an email contact address which she had foolishly used on occasion in real life and a google search revealed both. Took many months to get those reports deleted.

Out of curiosity I did a comprehensive search about three years ago and could find nothing left .... but that was a decade on!

As an SP nothing when you advertise is private and everything may become public very easily and beyond your control.

[James999]

violating the terms of the purchase

 

Pro$$ies operate below the radar and can't expect others to follow rules when they themselves ignore them, how many have their premises registered for work with the local authority, have public liability insurance, pay correct tax  and national insurance, adhere to the terms of leases, not work whilst claiming benefits, offer servises they don't provide, the list goes on, but they expect others to follow strict rules surrounding pictures because they want the cash