New 'Site Rule 29'

[Head1]

29 No Adultwork verification photos or private gallery photos to be posted

[chadpitt]

Why?

[scutty brown]

Why?

It was always legally iffy due to copyright, but OldAdmin was safely hidden away overseas behind a relatively bulletproof hosting company.
Maybe things have changed, probably best not to ask too much

[LLPunting]

Why?

Copyright infringement.

[Mr Doodle]

Maybe by AW hiding them all have sent a clear message they may pursue copyright infringements? Head1 - over to you?

[scutty brown]

Maybe by AW hiding them all have sent a clear message they may pursue copyright infringements? Head1 - over to you?

I suspect if he wanted us to know the reason he would have told us. If there is legal shit its best kept off the board

[stevedave]

Why?

Because Head1 said so.

Good.enough for me.

[Kev40ish]

Because Head1 said so.

Good.enough for me.

Totally agree.
The owner of the site has decided on a new rule.
I’m not sure why anyone thinks he needs to justify his reasons..

[tantraman]

29 No Adultwork verification photos or private gallery photos to be posted

No problemo, Boss


It just remains to heartily thank magnetico for the Herculian effort in posting 8223 verification photos to date ... I'll miss his posts, as he's saved many a punter from a found hiding behind those WG front doors.

[myothernameis]

29 No Adultwork verification photos or private gallery photos to be posted

Does this include normal galleries, as some escorts, include the same photo in normal and private galleries

[daviemac]

Does this include normal galleries, as some escorts, include the same photo in normal and private galleries

The ones in private galleries. If a photo is on the main page then there's no need to go into the private gallery to see it.

[Blackpool Rock]

Copyright infringement.

But pics in the normal gallery also come up with a message about copyright infringement.

Anyway the rule will have been made for a good reason whatever that is and as others have said there may be reasons why it can't be openly discussed

[Dipper]

No problemo, Boss


It just remains to heartily thank magnetico for the Herculian effort in posting 8223 verification photos to date ... I'll miss his posts, as he's saved many a punter from a found hiding behind those WG front doors.

Agreed.

Top man

[David1970]

Because Head1 said so.

Good.enough for me.

+1

[meptalon]

It just remains to heartily thank magnetico for the Herculian effort in posting 8223 verification photos to date ... I'll miss his posts, as he's saved many a punter from a found hiding behind those WG front doors.

+1 to that! Thanks again Magnetico, you saved my early punting career from many disappointments!

[finn5555]

Head 1 wouldn’t have taken this decision lightly I suspect so we should all respect his wishes and not question the whys and if’s ... I don’t envy his task managing this valuable site but we all benefit 

[tesla]

It just remains to heartily thank magnetico for the Herculian effort in posting 8223 verification photos to date ... I'll miss his posts, as he's saved many a punter from a found hiding behind those WG front doors.

+1  a big thank you

[LLPunting]

But pics in the normal gallery also come up with a message about copyright infringement.

Anyway the rule will have been made for a good reason whatever that is and as others have said there may be reasons why it can't be openly discussed

Pictures published free into a public domain are subject to copyright but it's harder to argue if they're simply republished within context and at no gain to the "culprit".  If they were used to advertise something/one else for gain then that would be good cause for seeking copyright infringement.  It's why T&Cs on social media sites and others require you to sign away your rights to anything you publish, this allows them to use any of your content to advertise anything across their portfolio.
The pics that are supposedly private or restricted via sale are more readily considered protected and where sales are lost the culprit can be on the hook.

[conrod]

My company got a bill from Miscon De Reya for unauthorised use of an image on my company's website.  They wanted £1800 for a year's use.  We settled at £600. 

As the company was using it to sell products, it infringed the copyright.  If the website was for a non-financial purpose it wouldn't.  Therefore Adultwork falls into the former whereas UK Punting is in the latter. 

I don't see UK Punting having a problem.

[winkywanky]

It does make sense.

Regardless of the legalities of it, it just seems 'right' that stuff which is openly on view on AW, would be OK to openly have on view on here (seeing as UKP contributes much of AW's traffic and also facilitates WGs generating custom).

But Private Galleries have to be paid for on AW, so posting images here circumvents that. The fact that UKP is a publicly viewable forum is of relevance.

And for AW verification photos which are purposely hidden by a WG for her personal discretion, to have them viewable on here doesn't seem right?

I think a good call by Head1 (and in any case its his website, so tough shit if you don't like it  ).

[daviemac]

My company got a bill from Miscon De Reya for unauthorised use of an image on my company's website.  They wanted £1800 for a year's use.  We settled at £600. 

As the company was using it to sell products, it infringed the copyright.  If the website was for a non-financial purpose it wouldn't.  Therefore Adultwork falls into the former whereas UK Punting is in the latter. 

I don't see UK Punting having a problem.

All totally irrelevant, the fact is the man who owns the site has made an addition to the rules and that is PG and Veri pics are not allowed.

[Liverpool]

Will this be added as a warning on the review template, saving the Mods some work in the long run given how many don't bother reading the rules?

Also will this apply to agency escorts in the long run?

[daviemac]

Will this be added as a warning on the review template, saving the Mods some work in the long run given how many don't bother reading the rules?

Also will this apply to agency escorts in the long run?

Do agencies have private galleries, all the ones I've seen have the photos displayed on the profile.

[anonymouse72]

For clarity are images posted on Twitter acceptable?

[winkywanky]

For clarity are images posted on Twitter acceptable?

I'd have thought only if the account in question is the 'professional account'?

ie not a personal Twitter account.

[Doc Holliday]

I'd have thought only if the account in question is the 'professional account'?

ie not a personal Twitter account.

Yes this is covered in Rule 22

22 Privacy of service providers
It is generally not allowed to post personal info of service providers, such as real names and personal social networking profiles and photos from messenger providers like WhatsApp. To clarify this means no personal photos at all from anywhere.

[anonymouse72]

Yes this is covered in Rule 22

22 Privacy of service providers
It is generally not allowed to post personal info of service providers, such as real names and personal social networking profiles and photos from messenger providers like WhatsApp. To clarify this means no personal photos at all from anywhere.

Noted. Thank you.

[LLPunting]

Do agencies have private galleries, all the ones I've seen have the photos displayed on the profile.

There are a few agencies who have membership only galleries, some of those may require subscription which would probably be the gate for legal considerations.

[daviemac]

There are a few agencies who have membership only galleries, some of those may require subscription which would probably be the gate for legal considerations.

i would imagine they would come under the same rule if that is the case. I think as a general rule of thumb if a picture is in the public domain on an escort's advert then it could be posted, if it's on any social media or private gallery then not.

[LLPunting]

i would imagine they would come under the same rule if that is the case. I think as a general rule of thumb if a picture is in the public domain on an escort's advert then it could be posted, if it's on any social media or private gallery then not.

There's no specific privacy law as yet in UK but a general provision is made under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
SPs who post face pics to their work sites are laying themselves open to being connected to their social media presences.  The current right to privacy in the UK would not likely protect them legally.
SPs who could only be recognised and associated through meeting in person would have a right to privacy so whether she shows your her sm accounts or you discover them, disclosing them and disrupting her private life could leave you open to prosecution for breach of privacy.
External Link/Members Only

[OakTree]

I'm wondering if it is because someone posted on here recently they could get past and reveal a WGs verification photo even if she had made it not to be seen.

Whatever anyway, the owner has made a rule and I go with it.

[daviemac]

There's no specific privacy law as yet in UK but a general provision is made under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
SPs who post face pics to their work sites are laying themselves open to being connected to their social media presences.  The current right to privacy in the UK would not likely protect them legally.
SPs who could only be recognised and associated through meeting in person would have a right to privacy so whether she shows your her sm accounts or you discover them, disclosing them and disrupting her private life could leave you open to prosecution for breach of privacy.
External Link/Members Only

All irrelevant, why try to complicate matters, on this site what Head1 says goes and he says pictures that are not in the public domain are not allowed to be posted.

To clarify again, that means photos from any private galleries, AW verification, any social media or any pictures that are not in the public domain and openly available for all to see.

[LLPunting]

All irrelevant, why try to complicate matters, on this site what Head1 says goes and he says pictures that are not in the public domain are not allowed to be posted.

To clarify again, that means photos from any private galleries, AW verification, any social media or any pictures that are not in the public domain and openly available for all to see.

Irrelevant indeed to the dictat of Rule29 but it was in response to your rule of thumb.
By "subscription" in my earlier post I should have been clearer and said "paid subscription", just having to register for an account does not render sm private without question.  For instance employers are allowed to consider sm when making decisions about (continued) employment.

[Xtro]

Is it still possible to post the link to the veri pic but not the pic itself?   

And for AW verification photos which are purposely hidden by a WG for her personal discretion, to have them viewable on here doesn't seem right?

Not all SP's hide their veri pic.

[Blackpool Rock]

Is it still possible to post the link to the veri pic but not the pic itself?   


Not all SP's hide their veri pic.

I believe AW now hide them by default

[daviemac]

Is it still possible to post the link to the veri pic but not the pic itself?   


Not all SP's hide their veri pic.

No, if you post a link it's virtually the same as posting the photo.

 Why do people have to make this so complicated.    Forget all about the laws of the land in any shape or form, this is a rule of Ukpunting.

If a picture is clearly visible to everyone on an escort's advert then it can be posted, if it is NOT clearly visible to everyone then it can't. If in doubt don't post it, or ask.

Not forgetting pictures from any social media are not allowed either.

[Xtro]

No, if you post a link it's virtually the same as posting the photo.

 Why do people have to make this so complicated.    Forget all about the laws of the land in any shape or form, this is a rule of Ukpunting.

If a picture is clearly visible to everyone on an escort's advert then it can be posted, if it is NOT clearly visible to everyone then it can't. If in doubt don't post it, or ask.

Not forgetting pictures from any social media are not allowed either.

Thanks for clarifying.   

New members, new rule..... You have my deepest sympathies dm.   

[winkywanky]

Is it still possible to post the link to the veri pic but not the pic itself?   


Not all SP's hide their veri pic.

That's true, but sometimes at a future date a WG may choose to hide her AW Veri-pic. Perhaps her personal circumstances change or perhaps she gets herself a stalker  .

Or even just the fact that many new WGs just fuck up and leave their Veri-pic visible in error  .

So it does make sense to me to have a blanket ban on Veri-pics.

[winkywanky]

No, if you post a link it's virtually the same as posting the photo.

 Why do people have to make this so complicated.   Forget all about the laws of the land in any shape or form, this is a rule of Ukpunting.

If a picture is clearly visible to everyone on an escort's advert then it can be posted, if it is NOT clearly visible to everyone then it can't. If in doubt don't post it, or ask.

Not forgetting pictures from any social media are not allowed either.

Exactly, it's the same shit with a certain current situation which we're not allowed to mention on unrelated threads. Why do people always look at ways around what is a very clear principle? 

[Doc Holliday]

I believe AW now hide them by default

Yes my understanding is that, for a little while now, they are at no point any longer publicly visible. They are however stored in a folder on a server somewhere and there has been discussion about some 'clever IT types' still being able to access them. I have no idea as to the validity of that? Should that be the case then clearly Head1 has wisely ruled that such 'hackers' should not subsequently post them here.

[stevedave]

I really don't understand why people are wittering on about this, questioning this and that, even linking to the fucking Human Rights Act?!

Putting it in the most simple terms:

Man who owns website says it's not allowed. End of chat. It really isn't a difficult concept 

[scutty brown]

I really don't understand why people are wittering on about this, questioning this and that, even linking to the fucking Human Rights Act?!

Putting it in the most simple terms:

Man who owns website says it's not allowed. End of chat. It really isn't a difficult concept 

Human  Rights Act? Not much use round here, the prossies reckon we're all fucking animals.   Or at least treat us like that

[winkywanky]

Human  Rights Act? Not much use round here, the prossies reckon we're all fucking animals.   Or at least treat us like that

I did try a sheep once but it seemed immune to my charms. And then the others in the flock. Same result 

Perhaps it was herd immunity?

[scutty brown]

I did try a sheep once but it seemed immune to my charms. And then the others in the flock. Same result 

Perhaps it was herd immunity?

You weren't speaking Welsh

[David1970]

I really don't understand why people are wittering on about this, questioning this and that, even linking to the fucking Human Rights Act?!

Putting it in the most simple terms:

Man who owns website says it's not allowed. End of chat. It really isn't a difficult concept 

+1
How hard is it to understand what the man who owns the website said FFS

[tynetunnel]

I know I’m adding to this but, I keep seeing the little orange “new” tag appended to this thread and feel compelled to view it despite knowing it’s completely pointless. Head1 made a statement which didn’t seem to be an invitation to discussion or negotiation. Yet there are almost 50 posts here!

[mrfishyfoo]

Totally agree.
The owner of the site has decided on a new rule.
I’m not sure why anyone thinks he needs to justify his reasons..

He doesn't. 

His site his rules. 

Those that don't like it can logoff and fuckoff. 

[snaitram99]

... the prossies ...

So we can say that now then? 

[garfield]

What about the vivastreet verification pictures?

[daviemac]

What about the vivastreet verification pictures?

What about them?