Open Discussions about the VoyeurWeb.com site
User avatar
By FastFive
#69856
VW Upload Rule #3:
The submission of any content or materials which are not the exclusive property of the Contributor, or the submitting entity, is illegal and subjects the webmaster and or the submitting entity to both civil and/or criminal penalties and will require them to indemnify, defend and hold Voyeurweb, RedClouds and HomeClips harmless against any and all claims of third parties. This also includes pictures or movies which were taken without having the full consent of the individual(s) shown.
From today's Private Shots:

http://www.voyeurweb.com/contributions/ ... apchat-hoe" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Big Titty Snapchat Hoe

Posted by: None
March 17, 2016

Some snaps of a hoe I used to talk to..

Uploaded by
phatdick329
So the user has not-so-eloquently admitted that the pics are not their own, but VW publishes the set regardless? :roll:
#70048
Most sites assume that the poster has the right to post unless the copyright holder says otherwise. Since the photographer owns the copyright, it looks like that would be the girl in this case. It would be nice if there were better copyright enforcement, but the situation is not unique to VW. Almost every online service disavows any knowledge or responsibility for copyright violation and will not release information on the violator. The best you can get them to do without going to court is to remove the material.

I don't see evidence to support that it is a revenge post. It may be, but it also could be that the girl doesn't care. Finding the model would answer the rest of the questions.
#70049
I'm not saying it's a revenge post... there's no way to know if it is or not. CN might be right, but there's no way to know.

But Merlin... read what I quoted from VW's upload rules, and look at the title and content of the contri.

The fact is, I'm not assuming anything, or jumping to any conclusions. I'm reading what's been written by the contributor and looking at the pics he submitted. The fact remains that this person admits in the title of the contri that he's uploading Snapchat pics. Therefore, they are not his. As the rule states, "any content or materials which are not the exclusive property of the Contributor... is illegal".
#70099
Yes, I know what the rules say. Pretty much the same as all the sites. Went through the same thing on Deviantart. I was reporting people posting obvious things from TV shows and porn sites, and they told me they were not going to do anything about it unless I was the copyright holder. I can get my stuff removed, but they don't want to bother with anything else, and there are no penalties for repeat violators. It puts anybody creating original image in the position of playing wack a mole with the violations.
By SomeDude
#70147
That last sentence pretty much wipes out the "What I Saw" section, doesn't it?

You could also take the angle that these aren't web exclusives, they're at, e.g. http://www.tumbex.com/tumblr/mccr93/post/137352710922/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but we know how well THAT works, too.

Since "Damon" is involved with the posts, manually reviewing them and creating a transformative work by adding value with is comments, citing DMCA Safe Harbor is hardly a slam dunk. Here is another example where a representative of VW KNEW these posts violated their own rules and was PROBABLY a copyright violation.

The days of this site caring about copyright or rules - even their own - are gone.
By SomeDude
#70148
Ditto for most of the pics of "my ex". Are those present with the consent of the copyright holder AND the person being shown or are they revenge porn? Hunter Moore was sentenced to 18 years in jail for running a revenge porn site, admittedly of a very different type than here. Courts are getting serious about such things.
User avatar
By Alamein
#72431
I saw this contri the other day: http://www.voyeurweb.com/contributions/ ... ntral-park" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I was curious about the story behind the play so I did some googling and it only took me minutes to find out that the contri was nothing but screen caps stolen from this Salon video: http://www.salon.com/2016/05/23/this_ns ... see_today/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's pretty blatant theft. That's a professionally produced video on a major website, so the person was pretty stupid if they thought they wouldn't get caught. Like I said, I wasn't even looking that hard for it. I'll be keeping an eye on that contri, because if it isn't taken down by VW I'll definitely be letting the people who actually created it know that some a-hole is trying to make money off of their work.
#72447
I wouldn't even wait. Tell the owners of the video right away. VW will be much more likely to listen to them than to anyone of us reporting a stolen contri. There are plenty that I have reported (with evidence in the form of links to other sites that have had the pics up for years) and they've not been taken down.
8th Amendment

Speaking of lard-encased posteriors as johnforbes […]

Committee Suppressed

AGAIN AGAIN, what johnforbes is trying to say once[…]

See? I told you johnforbes had no justification fo[…]

After Stewart slammed Trump, which showed Stewart […]

The Best Man for the Job?

Surprisingly, Scientific American has leaned to th[…]

Mr Forbes does have the strength of a machine. An[…]

Had Kamala been an apple/tomato/cherry/peach pick[…]

8th Amendment

We have all been wondering, in the context of the […]