egafd.com

amaninspired Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some photographers are a bit cheeky with airbrushing; and some are cheeky
> with their descriptions of what the sets actually
> show. Two British (specifically English)
> photographers spring to mind. One has a license
> agreement that is, at best, in part unenforceable,
> and at worst preposterous


I ain't got a clue how someone can think they can stop people talking about their boxes, especially when it comes to deliberately misleading descriptions.

JayKaye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I ain't got a clue how someone can think they can
> stop people talking about their boxes, especially
> when it comes to deliberately misleading
> descriptions.

Some good content on there from some honest people but also some really trying it on.

"Media covered by this agreement is for personal viewing...and must not be...discussed or described on any form of media or publicised...in particular the media must not be discussed...or mentioned in any way on fan forums or message boards?

So lets think this through, you buy a box, are disappointed with being misled, and share that disappointment with others so they don't waste their money as well. Apparently fair and balanced criticism will cost you ?10k.

Unfair contract terms comes to mind. How is that going to stand up in court?

How far would misrepresentation go for being an effective defence....if you did discuss it publicly?

Content described as x, content turns out to be y.

Its happened to me when I bought something on bentbox but I took it up with the photographer directly.

spare_leg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JayKaye Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > I ain't got a clue how someone can think they
> can
> > stop people talking about their boxes,
> especially
> > when it comes to deliberately misleading
> > descriptions.
>
> Some good content on there from some honest people
> but also some really trying it on.
>
> "Media covered by this agreement is for personal
> viewing...and must not be...discussed or described
> on any form of media or publicised...in particular
> the media must not be discussed...or mentioned in
> any way on fan forums or message boards?
>
> So lets think this through, you buy a box, are
> disappointed with being misled, and share that
> disappointment with others so they don't waste
> their money as well. Apparently fair and balanced
> criticism will cost you ?10k.

I don't know if you are specifically referring to my contract or others which are similar. Mine has been reproduced both with and without my permission.

The first point is that I only act on breaches of specific licence. I tend not to pursue copyright breaches on content within the public domain. ie, if you reproduce images from free areas or portfolio hosting sites I am not going to care unless the model asks me to act.

The second point is not whether my licence agreement would or would not stand up in court. Who is going to test it? The point is to prevent content being used illegally and stolen and also to preserve the models privacy, which in a private arrangement protected by licence, they are absolutely entitled to.

If you do not buy the content you simply have no right to view it...end off. For some reason some people seem to think they have an entitlement to steal or misuse expensively produced licenced material. Would the same person go to Waterstones and steal a glossy ex[pensive book from the shelves...its exactly the same thing.

If you do choose to buy the content, then you agree to the terms of the sale. If you don't like the terms of sale don't buy. If you don't like the price, don't buy it. Surely that is pretty simple. But one thing is sure, you are not ENTITLED to any of my content for free unless I give it to you.

Most people play be the rules. In the few cases where people have not adhered to the terms of a licence or played by the rules, a simple polite request to the the individual or a DMCA takedown to the publisher has resolved the situation.

There has been the odd occassion it did not and my back up plan comes into play. People on the internet tend to be a lot braver than in real life and tend to think the are anonymous and can hide behind a keyboard.That is a total misconception. It is relatively easy, if a bit expensive on occasion, to find people.

I found a particular individual (or at least my people did) who thought he was a smartass and could do what he liked.

He changed his tune when a process server interupted a family barbecue at the weekend to deliver a solicitors letter and compensation demand. The Server was under instructions to act in the opposite of a discrete a manner and to cause the individual maximum embarrassment and ensure as many people as possible knew the purpose of his visit.

It did not cost him 10K I only billed him for my expenses..which ran to four figures...he paid within 48 hours.

The point is that I have no intention of going to court. I am not interested in compensation. I just want fairness and for people to understand when they buy content they are committing to an agreement.

I am not heavy handed, I would rather give people a chance than go in immediately with all guns blazing.

But if you steal my property and stick two fingers up I will punish you. I have the facilities and the means to deal with most particular scenarios and it will be very unpleasant for the individual concerned and although will be entirely within the law, is very unlikely to involve court.

Great post. Wise words.

I suspect if cases did get as far as court people would shake hands on the steps outside rather than go through a costly process.

Hi Iain,


Fair comment and now at least lets people know they cannot get away without consequences

Hi Iain

On the below

He changed his tune when a process server interupted a family barbecue at the weekend to deliver a solicitors letter and compensation demand. The Server was under instructions to act in the opposite of a discrete a manner and to cause the individual maximum embarrassment and ensure as many people as possible knew the purpose of his visit.

The server should also have reported him for breaking the lock down

That would have really spoiled his day

Jonboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Iain
>
> On the below
>
> He changed his tune when a process server
> interupted a family barbecue at the weekend to
> deliver a solicitors letter and compensation
> demand. The Server was under instructions to act
> in the opposite of a discrete a manner and to
> cause the individual maximum embarrassment and
> ensure as many people as possible knew the purpose
> of his visit.
>
> The server should also have reported him for
> breaking the lock down
>
> That would have really spoiled his day

This was well before lockdown I,m not sure delivering a warning to someone for breaching a porn licence would be considered essential in current times, so I think all parties would be in trouble!

Although with the moaning I see about prices you would think porn was more essential than food. Lets be honest, its a frivolous luxury which people don't need but choose to have.

Interesting reading the comments re Bentbox. I have been a semi pro photographer for many years working for the likes of Paul Raymond, TVX and UKAP at their awards and parties as well as doing private portfolio shoots for models.

I have recently started to use Bentbox to sell my modelling sets. After reading this thread I have today re-edited all my titles and information to give more details on full names of the models and what they do.

I feature amateur models as well as established porn stars such as April Paisley, Belle O'Hara, Eva Johnston and have many more to load in the current weeks including Piggymouth, Harley Sin, Isabel Dean, Jaye Rose, Jessica Jensen, Lucy Love, Millie Santoro, Myla Elyse and many more.

Any feedback and advise is greatly welcomed so please check out my page as SBGlamour.