Photo Requirements - Jan 1 and beyond

[TotallyOz]

I spent some time this AM removing some images from people testing to see if the new rules would be enforced. They will be. I want to be totally clear so read the below.

No dick, ass, sex shots allowed. Anything that can be seen as past R rated should not be here. Sexy photos of gogo boys, massage boys, etc. are highly encouraged. Just not nudes.

As always, no photos with a copyright notice allowed. Photos that do not follow the above from this day forward will be deleted without notice, removed from inside of posts without notices, or threads deleted.

[Riobard]

Concordo. Threads stay on, threads stay up. 

[TotallyOz]

40 minutes ago, Riobard said:

Concordo. Threads stay on, threads stay up. 

I don't quite understand this. So, I can't say if it is correct. There are threads that are live that I'll clean up. I am just not sure how to clean them up yet.

[Riobard]

15 minutes ago, TotallyOz said:

I don't quite understand this. So, I can't say if it is correct. There are threads that are live that I'll clean up. I am just not sure how to clean them up yet.

Sorry, my bad. I meant “threads” as clothing, non-nude, etc, on which forum threads are conditional. 

[RockHardNYC]

2 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Sexy photos of gogo boys, massage boys, etc. are highly encouraged...As always, no photos with a copyright notice allowed. Photos that do not follow the above from this day forward will be deleted without notice, removed from inside of posts without notices, or threads deleted.

I'm sorry, but this is a bit of a contradiction, since ALL photos, whether they have a © symbol or not are in fact copyrighted in the U.S. The © symbol may act as a kind of "warning," but it does not guarantee that the image is, in fact, registered. To register an image, the minimum cost is $50. Needless to say, most photo uploaders DO NOT register their images, even if they're smart enough to add a © to their photo.

It's far more important for Oz to understand the definition of FAIR USE, and then explain that definition to board members. It seems to me, the number one allowance for FAIR USE:

1. Educational, nonprofit, scholarly, reporting, reviewing, or research

might give most of the image uploads here a FAIR USE pass. This board is, after all, a forum to offer information. We research, review, and report. We not only educate ourselves but also other members. While many of us are not scholars, there is plenty of scholarly thought and words here. And finally, our contributions have no profit motive whatsoever. Since Oz is making a small amount of money on ads (or I'm completely wrong about this), then claiming non-profit status could be a problem.

IMO, I think a clearer line needs to be drawn. And I'm truly sorry to make Oz work harder than he might want to.

[Suckrates]

13 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

I spent some time this AM removing some images from people testing to see if the new rules would be enforced. They will be. I want to be totally clear so read the below.

No dick, ass, sex shots allowed. Anything that can be seen as past R rated should not be here. Sexy photos of gogo boys, massage boys, etc. are highly encouraged. Just not nudes.

As always, no photos with a copyright notice allowed. Photos that do not follow the above from this day forward will be deleted without notice, removed from inside of posts without notices, or threads deleted.

I wasnt testing you sir, you simply had never fully DEFINED what was VERBOTEN .  You referred to X-rated photos.  The photos I had posted which you have now deleted were indeed nude, BUT in my definition not porn or x-rated.  simply a matter of interpretation.   I get it now and there wont be any more photos for you to delete.   

Seems Rockhards shirtless teen got a PASS ?.... I'll use that as a guide.  

[Lucky]

I understand about copyrighted photos. I don't understand why someone in their birthday suit with no eroticism added is a problem.

[Riobard]

37 minutes ago, Lucky said:

I don't understand why someone in their birthday suit with no eroticism added is a problem.

Because the central agenda of this Board is eroticism, not medical textbook illustration.

If you post an aubergine image on a cooking site it is associated with nutrition and meal dish ideas ... yum yum. If you post it on a gardening site it is associated with agriculture ... dig plant water harvest. If you post it on an erotically themed site it is associated with ...  nyumnyumnyumnyumnyum! unhunhunhunhunhunhunhunh! 

[Suckrates]

 

To be fair here, the images that I posted which Oz had to remove were simply "unclothed"  rear and over the shoulder pics of beautiful men.  One was a gif of a guy exercising.

Both showed NO genitals, NO butthole, not even a hint of Balls hanging from behind.   They were no worse than what you might see if you went to a performance of Broadway Bares, and THAT is why I thought they would be acceptable pics to post?   No fetish, no penetration, NOTHING, simply unclothed.   

I was not trying to be rebellious, anarchist or disrespectful to Oz' original request.   I was Not testing him or pushing the boundary. I just thought they were images that might work under the new guidelines and bring some missing eye candy to the site ?   Guess I misjudged, and I have apologized to Oz for it.  

As for Riobards' point above about "association", I tend to agree, as I found a recent pic by another member, of a shirtless 17 tear old boy with his tongue out in an erotic way far MORE sexual than the pics I had posted, and his pic was allowed to remain.  Go figure.  ?  

Obviously, based on my "passion for pics", I wont be posting here much going forward ..... but have appreciated Oz allowing me to do so. 

As much as I dislike the "other site" and its owner,  he has found a compromise in allowing specific nude pics to show, and under his guidelines the pics that were removed here would have been allowed to STAY there.... At least that's something enticing !  

[RockHardNYC]

If I'm not mistaken, the issue is COPYRIGHT, not necessarily sex or porn, although that is a side issue that the DMCA will exploit, if the model appears to be too young. All I'm saying is COPYRIGHT for internet images is a rabbit hole with no end in sight.

Oz' current dilemma is no different than the copyright fight currently going on at Twitch, except there the fight is around internet music.

I feel Oz's pain, and as learned as I am, I have no clue how any board owner can successfully handle this dilemma without shutting down ALL PHOTOS. You simply can't encourage sexy photos of men from the board's members, if the members can't prove an image is not copyright protected. After all, the advertising banner at the very top of this page features naked men whose ages I cannot prove. But we can assume the advertiser can claim ownership of those images. But we really don't know for sure.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but can someone tell me where this ends? The board whiners are now going to judge photos as FAIR or UNFAIR? Favoritism? LOL. The ignorance astounds me.

Regarding Jacob Sartorius, I can assure everyone of this: the social media selfie that I posted of seventeen-year-old Jacob Sartorius is not a photo that is registered with the U.S. Office of Copyright. The photo is a selfie posted by the owner to several social media sources. The photo has been copied, circulated, by millions of people on the internet. His story around the photo went viral. This is a news story, which means, according to copyright law, Jacob Sartorius can't claim copyright protection on this image (as it pertains to sharing the news).

However, I do not know the original social media source that Jacob used. I do not know if Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, etc., make members sign over ownership rights when uploading images to their platforms. If they do, then it's possible one of those social media companies owns Jacob's photo, and that company would have the power to file a cease-and-desist order to Oz for the image I posted. But...

The FAIR USE clause in our U.S. Copyright law allows several passes, which I stated above. In addition to those passes, there is another important one: LOW RESOLUTION IMAGES. From what I gather, the law doesn't state the number, but I can assure most members here that 72ppi images, the internet standard, are all considered LOW RESOLUTION. These images are mostly worthless to a professional community because the data is too destroyed to do anything profitable with them.

That leads this entire fight to the chicken and the egg, and which came first. As I said, it's an endless rabbit hole, or better yet, SHIT HOLE.

I always enjoyed the fact that Oz had one up on Daddy: the issue of photos. It looks like now it's a fait accompli.

Unless Oz is prepared to ban all photos from his board, the threat of DMCA will always be there. Tis the season to point fingers at your competition with the will to destroy.

I'm happy to blame it all on Trump. 

Edited January 2, 2021 by RockHardNYC

[RockHardNYC]

Since we can no longer show young men playing with young cock, here's a modest treat that may not last forever on YouTube.

As far as I know, embedded video from YouTube is not a copyright violation, since "embedding" is the way of social media these days. Don't ask me why the same doesn't hold true for internet photos. Our world is crazy, and that's the simple answer.

[Suckrates]

 

Seems like you are allowed to post xxx-rated pics and video snippets in the LATIN DESTINATIONS forum, since the ones posted there, some awhile ago HAVE NOT been removed ?

This makes the messaging about this issue confusing.   

Is there some differentiation about posting X-pics there that is acceptable because of a Travel related connection, which seems like it will be the new Brand of this site ? 

Just asking for a friend .... 

[Riobard]

The Brazilian images comply with the Society for Applied Cultural Anthropology standards. 

Edited January 4, 2021 by Riobard
Splng

[TotallyOz]

On 1/4/2021 at 7:45 PM, Suckrates said:

 

Seems like you are allowed to post xxx-rated pics and video snippets in the LATIN DESTINATIONS forum, since the ones posted there, some awhile ago HAVE NOT been removed ?

This makes the messaging about this issue confusing.   

Is there some differentiation about posting X-pics there that is acceptable because of a Travel related connection, which seems like it will be the new Brand of this site ? 

Just asking for a friend .... 

No, just trying to figure how to get all removed. Suggestions?

[Riobard]

32 minutes ago, TotallyOz said:

No, just trying to figure how to get all removed. Suggestions?

I think you mean how to retroactively identify them, the problem not being that you don’t know how to technically delete a post once you tracked the URL for a post, but that there are so many and that most are embedded in the text of posts?

In that case, I suggest sticking to the ones that were clustered as more of an image agenda, and going forward eliminate new problematic images or, in fact, any post containing them. However, this takes all the fun out of Oz’ participation because he has to scan through all posts as a one-man census board and submit URL’s, locations etc to the webmaster. That is additionally unfair because Oz is the vulnerable one. 

Everybody knows what a ‘jacket & tie’ event means. Just respect the host and the guidance behind the threshold of an attire situation that deviates from the guidance. 

 

[Suckrates]

1 hour ago, TotallyOz said:

No, just trying to figure how to get all removed. Suggestions?

Oh, and another Inquiry (for a friend)... there was a thread called "Masked Men"  originally posted in the General Forum, showing attractive guys wearing Covid 19 surgical masks.....They were all clothed, either fully or partially, except perhaps for a butt in a jock or g-string....  The thread was moved to the Photos section, and now is totally erased... Wondering WHY ?    So I guess my question is that if the REAL goal is to omit any sort of "eye-candy" photos and move to a bland, antiseptic formula of uninteresting and inconsequential topics ?   If so, that's OK, just be transparent about it and stop all the govt regulation mumbo-jumbo....

On the other hand, I DO appreciate you at least offering up some explanation for the "changes", although IMO only, it might not be the complete truth....

Thank you

[RockHardNYC]

2 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

No, just trying to figure how to get all removed. Suggestions?

I am very sorry Oz has to deal with this bullshit. And, yes, it is bullshit.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know it takes money to hire a good one. 

I find it very hard to believe that 99.9% of the photos uploaded to this site, even the pornographic photos, are not protected under FAIR USE. It's my understanding that most internet forums fall under the category of "criticism, commentary, and news reporting."

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

But if the DMCA is breathing down your neck (for whatever reason), someone is going to have to cough up some coins to defend any position you think you may have.

Copyright Fair Use and Online Images

Court Deems Screenshot Fair Game for Fair Use Defense in Copyright Action

[TotallyOz]

8 hours ago, Suckrates said:

Oh, and another Inquiry (for a friend)... there was a thread called "Masked Men"  originally posted in the General Forum, showing attractive guys wearing Covid 19 surgical masks.....They were all clothed, either fully or partially, except perhaps for a butt in a jock or g-string....  The thread was moved to the Photos section, and now is totally erased... Wondering WHY ?    So I guess my question is that if the REAL goal is to omit any sort of "eye-candy" photos and move to a bland, antiseptic formula of uninteresting and inconsequential topics ?   If so, that's OK, just be transparent about it and stop all the govt regulation mumbo-jumbo....

On the other hand, I DO appreciate you at least offering up some explanation for the "changes", although IMO only, it might not be the complete truth....

Thank you

Ah. I see. So your question is why a thread that was totally photos of masked men got moved to the Photos section of the website? I am asking (for a friend) if you do not know the answer to that question already?  Plus, it wasn't just eye candy but also ass shots (posted by you) and one with a dick coming out (posted by you). So, to be transparent, photo only threads were moved to the photo section back then. Even more transparent, trying to move a thread from a fun thread of sexy guys to one with X images was problematic. Does that help your friend understand more?

I am glad some explanations are appreciated.

[Latbear4blk]

11 hours ago, TotallyOz said:

Suggestions?

I think you gave us enough explanations. I wish the pics could stay, but it is your site and your decision. My suggestion would be to use your time wisely. For instance, ignore the whiners only interested in pictures, and devote one hour everyday to clean up old threads. More specifically, I would recommend you to check all my posts in the escorts forums and clean them up.

I would do it for you, but you have always ignored my cry for editing rights.

[RockHardNYC]

Can anyone tell me how https://www.waybig.com/blog/ and http://www.dudetubeonline.com/ get to upload all their porn photos, maintaining thriving sites that post photos owned by other people/studios? And yet lowly BoyToy.com has the attention of DMCA?

Something seriously stinks here, and I'm not buying it's legit. But it probably costs a fair amount of money to fight.

If Oz doesn't want to sink one more penny into defending BoyToy from bullshit threats, I don't blame him.

[TotallyOz]

43 minutes ago, RockHardNYC said:

Can anyone tell me how https://www.waybig.com/blog/ and http://www.dudetubeonline.com/ get to upload all their porn photos, maintaining thriving sites that post photos owned by other people/studios? And yet lowly BoyToy.com has the attention of DMCA?

Something seriously stinks here, and I'm not buying it's legit. But it probably costs a fair amount of money to fight.

If Oz doesn't want to sink one more penny into defending BoyToy from bullshit threats, I don't blame him.

Those are all affiliate photos and legal to use and there are links to the porn company when someone clicks and subscribes, the sites gets a commission. This is very common practice with many porn companies. They have affiliates they allow to post. I have done so in the past with Bel Ami and others.

[RockHardNYC]

22 minutes ago, TotallyOz said:

Those are all affiliate photos

That may be true of WayBig, but I don't think it's true of dudetube. The guy who runs dudetube pulls photos and videos from everywhere. He's just a fan of porn, and created his own branded share blog.

[TotallyOz]

While trying to clean things up, I made the Latin America Forum and the EU Forum non-viewable for anyone who has not posted on the site for at least 10 posts. Why? Well, it helps me and gives me time to go through thousands of threads.

[Yyzguy84]

That's why I can't get back to the Latin America Forum.  Soon enough.  

 

[tallstud8]

Sad they're invisible now