The Dynamics have changed , and could be partly attributed to the sole traders who demonstrated the wealth that can be achieved by ownership.
Hence when a platform has come to market where all technology is available to master ones own profile with content.Who needs to leave the front door or interact with another person , Male Older and has given slightly bad vibes .
It does amuse me that the models have been able to tap into the male psychology for the need to see a nude person and exploit the male .
Boot on the other foot , equality and empowerment..simple Girl Power !
I hope the tax returns are in order two and the house insurance as well.
Again I have not an account with the Fans Only.
Males seems to have a lot of disposable income , how long this will last in our present situation , could be interesting.
Also interesting males need to have a Fix of Flesh , and it can't be of the same freelance model to often.
Any one seen the BBC Channel 3 Documentary on the topic of web models and the funds they earn .
Males ever thought of being Fleeced ...& by who , it has changed...
Bentbox,...
Re: Bentbox,...
IainT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spare_leg Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > IainT Wrote:
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Yes it was your contract that had drawn my
> > attention before my post. I'd still be
> interested
> > in knowing more about your policy of
> threatening
> > legal action for those who ?discussed or
> describe
> > on any form of media...or mentioned in any way
> on
> > fan forums or message boards? the content of
> your
> > boxes on BentBox. Is that expression of
> opinion
> > really going to prompt you to challenge for the
> > max ?10k damages in small claims court?
> >
> > I am not talking about stealing content so
> please
> > park the erroneous Waterstones analogy and
> > address the concern of threatening your buyers
> > with gag orders on feedback and criticism when
> > they pay to access the photos of sex workers
> you
> > produce.
>
>
> What I said in my first post applies. If you don't
> like the conditions of the sale don't buy the
> product.
>
> Generally the people who criticise this particular
> contract and my content in are those who have
> never bought it and are unlikely to ever buy it.
>
> As for criticism. I have absolutely no problem
> with reasonable criticism of my work and I
> certainly would not enforce the licence over
> that....as long as the criticism was about me.
> This is not what my licence is about and I'm sure
> you know that.
>
> That particular clause exists for one reason. What
> many models hate more than anything is being
> discussed and dissected on forums like pieces of
> meat
> or having individuals try to discuss content they
> have shot with them directly. And what almost
> every model hates is illegal content appearing in
> places where she did not agree to have her image
> reproduced.
>
> The licence is there for two reasons.
>
> 1.To protect my expensively produced content from
> theft or reset (and lets be clear it is theft the
> same as any other theft)
>
> 2. To protect the models privacy, which contrary
> to what some would have you think, they are
> absolutely entitled to in the circumstances this
> material was produced.
Thanks Iain for engaging with this post. I think you have explained your reasons for having taken the approach you have done with your licences as well as your contradictory position allows. While I don't agree with much of the logic you employ, and it's unlikely we will see eye to eye regarding freedom of speech, you of course have a right to conduct your business as you see fit until others challenge you in court.
For the record I have previously supported you indirectly by subscribing to websites you were affiliated with such as APD Nudes and more recently supported you directly by purchasing some of your content directly from Bentbox. I was very pleased with what I downloaded from APD Nudes but was less impressed by what I received from the boxes you had marketed on Bentbox. I have never traded so much as a frame of that content, I have abided by the conditions of the sales but feel your marketing style combined with your gagging of customers is morally unacceptable and legally unenforceable. I have concerns with this particular contract and would advise others against ever buying from you under these terms.
I will never understand your assertion that you value the privacy of those you make money from marketing. The protective bubble you offer for them will inevitably burst one day, for each and every one of them, you just might not be around to see it.
-------------------------------------------------------
> spare_leg Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > IainT Wrote:
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Yes it was your contract that had drawn my
> > attention before my post. I'd still be
> interested
> > in knowing more about your policy of
> threatening
> > legal action for those who ?discussed or
> describe
> > on any form of media...or mentioned in any way
> on
> > fan forums or message boards? the content of
> your
> > boxes on BentBox. Is that expression of
> opinion
> > really going to prompt you to challenge for the
> > max ?10k damages in small claims court?
> >
> > I am not talking about stealing content so
> please
> > park the erroneous Waterstones analogy and
> > address the concern of threatening your buyers
> > with gag orders on feedback and criticism when
> > they pay to access the photos of sex workers
> you
> > produce.
>
>
> What I said in my first post applies. If you don't
> like the conditions of the sale don't buy the
> product.
>
> Generally the people who criticise this particular
> contract and my content in are those who have
> never bought it and are unlikely to ever buy it.
>
> As for criticism. I have absolutely no problem
> with reasonable criticism of my work and I
> certainly would not enforce the licence over
> that....as long as the criticism was about me.
> This is not what my licence is about and I'm sure
> you know that.
>
> That particular clause exists for one reason. What
> many models hate more than anything is being
> discussed and dissected on forums like pieces of
> meat
> or having individuals try to discuss content they
> have shot with them directly. And what almost
> every model hates is illegal content appearing in
> places where she did not agree to have her image
> reproduced.
>
> The licence is there for two reasons.
>
> 1.To protect my expensively produced content from
> theft or reset (and lets be clear it is theft the
> same as any other theft)
>
> 2. To protect the models privacy, which contrary
> to what some would have you think, they are
> absolutely entitled to in the circumstances this
> material was produced.
Thanks Iain for engaging with this post. I think you have explained your reasons for having taken the approach you have done with your licences as well as your contradictory position allows. While I don't agree with much of the logic you employ, and it's unlikely we will see eye to eye regarding freedom of speech, you of course have a right to conduct your business as you see fit until others challenge you in court.
For the record I have previously supported you indirectly by subscribing to websites you were affiliated with such as APD Nudes and more recently supported you directly by purchasing some of your content directly from Bentbox. I was very pleased with what I downloaded from APD Nudes but was less impressed by what I received from the boxes you had marketed on Bentbox. I have never traded so much as a frame of that content, I have abided by the conditions of the sales but feel your marketing style combined with your gagging of customers is morally unacceptable and legally unenforceable. I have concerns with this particular contract and would advise others against ever buying from you under these terms.
I will never understand your assertion that you value the privacy of those you make money from marketing. The protective bubble you offer for them will inevitably burst one day, for each and every one of them, you just might not be around to see it.
-
Dave Wells
- Posts: 2714
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Bentbox,...
IainT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Did you write this with one hand?
It is hilarious, but if it is what you get off on, then more power to you.
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
Did you write this with one hand?
It is hilarious, but if it is what you get off on, then more power to you.