This bothers me and I'm not sure if it should...

[toyou444]

So in my normal course of looking for mainstream picutres to share with y'all I find this site:

http://www.tickle-in-everydays-life.com/index.html

And its a pay site.

That kind of ticks me off a bit.

Am I wrong in thinking that no one should be making money off simply providing links to other people's stuff?

Hell its safe to assume that most of that stuff has already been posted here (at least the tickling stuff...there are other things there too).

Do you know how often I've been tempted to sell my collection of mainstream stuff? Times when the money really could have helped too...not just because I'm greedy. And this person is charging just for the links...that bothers me a good bit.

I guess I just wanted to vent and see if anyone agreed with me or not.

Maybe I'm wrong.

~ toyou

 

[Headsnap]

Seems like a legitimate complaint to me; at best he's making money off other people's intellectual property, plus there's a whole moral issue as well as the legal stuff too. Would you want to go onto a site like that and find some random pic of your wife/ girlfriend/ sister/ daughter/ whatever wearing handcuffs in a friendly, playful setting being offered up as some sort of porn or whatever you'd call this sort of thing?

I also found this funny:

Remember however, that the mood of the pictures must be light-hearted, innocent fun. That means no cruelty, no meanspiritedness, and no sexuality

I've got dozens upon dozens of albums filled with photos containing none of those things. What the fuck do I want to pay you 13 quid a month for if that's all I'm going to see? Sorry mate, off to ticklingparadise.com I go!

 

[Redmage]

Am I wrong in thinking that no one should be making money off simply providing links to other people's stuff?

Is the stuff in question copyrighted? If it is, then is the website owner paying an agreed royalty to the copyright holder?

The site owner's effort in collecting and presenting material to you may have monetary value. It depends on whether the material is stuff you're interested in, and how much of your own time and effort it would take to find it for yourself. As long as he's paying the owners of the material what they'd consider a fair price, or if the material is in the public domain, I see nothing wrong with it.

 

[The Last Laugh]

I have to admit that it bugs me too. Even if it's not technically illegal (and I'm not sure it's not), I think it's at least wrong. I can't imagine doing something like that.

 

[ImNotDave]

I know somebody on this site (not naming names) created a 'pay for' site with 'amazing models'.
But the amazing models acutaly turned out to be pictures of girls he'd stole off Myspace.

This bugs me too, not sure how illegal it is tho, cause the images probably arent copyrighted.

 

[toyou444]

You guys hit the nail on the head.

Its not "illegal" (I don't think) but it still sort of bothers me.

Again, mainly because (as far as I can tell) the site doesn't even have the pictures on their own server but rather just hotlinks to the original pictures.

Maybe it just seems intellectually lazy to me since I used to take the time to save the pictures and present them in an organized manner (see my signature).

Ah, I'm getting cranky in my advanced years...thanks for at least letting me know I'm not completely out of line.

~ toyou

 

[The Last Laugh]

This bugs me too, not sure how illegal it is tho, cause the images probably arent copyrighted.

Indeed. But while one can't expect everyone who posts pictures on MySpace or elsewhere on the Net to go to the trouble of copyrighting their pictures, I think it's still very wrong to simply copy them and make money from them, no matter if it's technically legal (which, if it's the case, is total BS, if you ask me).

 

[drew70]

I agree it isn't right. I certainly wouldn't pay a dime for it. As for whether or not my wife/girlfriend/daughter appears on a website, I don't see myself caring about that.

 

[toyou444]

I agree it isn't right. I certainly wouldn't pay a dime for it. As for whether or not my wife/girlfriend/daughter appears on a website, I don't see myself caring about that.

Well THAT moral issue I fight constantly!

Even though I do it for the pure pleasure I'm sure some people are getting off sexually and it bothers me to a certain extent.

And I have posted pictures of my wife's feet and relatives I've tickled so I feel I am being fair when I posted random pictures and videos too. Plus anyone can find the pictures I am posting...I just put them in one place. I often feel I am even better off doing that so people don't go and harrass the people who posted the picutre originally.

~ toyou

 

[drew70]

No matter what you do, there will always be somebody who will object to it. The only thing that matters is that you are comfortable with it. I've enjoyed your candid tickling material for years. Anybody who gives you crap about it, just do what I do, and invite them to pound sand. 🙂

 

[Redmage]

I have to admit that it bugs me too. Even if it's not technically illegal (and I'm not sure it's not), I think it's at least wrong. I can't imagine doing something like that.

If there's no copyright issue, then how is it wrong? As near as I can tell, the fellow is saying, "I've collected these links to public domain tickling material. I want you to pay me X dollars for access to my link collection." In other words he's gathered the same sort of collection that you might put together yourself in your browser's bookmarks.

Is that a fair summary? If so then the only question is whether or not this collection of links/bookmarks is worth what he's charging for it. A customer has to decide if it's worth paying that fee to avoid collecting the stuff himself. But that's a financial question, not a moral one.

 

[GuldenVleugel]

Also, that candid and voyeur kind of thing makes the man in question seem low and loserly. It's as if you're sexually frustrated and can't control yourself.

 

[The Last Laugh]

If there's no copyright issue, then how is it wrong? As near as I can tell, the fellow is saying, "I've collected these links to public domain tickling material. I want you to pay me X dollars for access to my link collection." In other words he's gathered the same sort of collection that you might put together yourself in your browser's bookmarks.

How is that wrong? Are you serious? So you have all these ordinary people posting their personal pictures on the Net for fun. They're just casual pictures, so there's no reason to actively copyright them. I'm sure many people wouldn't even know how. Then some guy searches the Net, finds the pictures, is turned on by them and/or knows that some other people will. He creates a site with links to the pictures and charges people for access to his links. He's basically making money off the pictures of poor people who certainly never gave him their permission, and wouldn't if he asked them. That's not wrong in your book? Ask the people who've posted the pictures in the first place how they feel about it. And I don't care about the argument that they shouldn't post them on the Internet if they don't want anyone using them for their own profit, that they should know better. It's still just plain wrong, regardless of the official legal status of such activity. It's disgusting, really.

Oh well, that's quite enough of this thread for me.

 

[GuldenVleugel]

It's indeed sad to know there are some primates who vigourously fap on just plain pictures of plain women who aren't posing with erotic intends. I have never figured out this love of some fetishists for this perverse disgusting habit. Most sexually normal people are able to divide sex from social life.

Anyway, what I really see with ticklephiles are some parallels with both pedophiles and homosexuals. The parallel with pedophiles is made due to the fact most seem to be sexually frustrated in not finding a 'lee (which they shouldn't be, if they just went outside, and try to meet women while keeping the fetish thing aside for a while) .
The parallel with homosexuals is in the fact they are urgeing into making their fetish become acceptable. It's like those disgusting gay parades, with drags with brown plumes stuck into their arses. Your fetish is to be kept inside your bedroom are among those who are VERY open-minded about sex life.

Just my two cents.

 

[Coda]

I think it's impolite to post anyone else's material without their permission, regardless of whether they've explicitly copyrighted or not, unless it makes pretty obvious sense to do so and doesn't repackage a significant amount of the material (for example, if you're reviewing a movie and you include a couple of screen shots for reference). I think that most people realize that, and the point of US copyright law is to keep people in check who might otherwise abuse the ability to just sell material they didn't create.

If this is something people probably shouldn't do, then I think it's a good thing that it's the only site anyone's been able to find-- out of a great many-- that does this. It probably should be as rare as it is.

 

[GuldenVleugel]

I remember, not long ago, on tickletheater. Someone was sharing his wife's feet. than someone responded in a fashion like this: "WOW! These look gorgious! If you ever need assistance to lick these gorgous soles I'm there!".

What happened. This guy directly deleted these pics. Really happened. 😉

 

[Redmage]

How is that wrong? Are you serious? So you have all these ordinary people posting their personal pictures on the Net for fun. They're just casual pictures, so there's no reason to actively copyright them. I'm sure many people wouldn't even know how. Then some guy searches the Net, finds the pictures, is turned on by them and/or knows that some other people will. He creates a site with links to the pictures and charges people for access to his links. He's basically making money off the pictures of poor people who certainly never gave him their permission, and wouldn't if he asked them. That's not wrong in your book? Ask the people who've posted the pictures in the first place how they feel about it. And I don't care about the argument that they shouldn't post them on the Internet if they don't want anyone using them for their own profit, that they should know better.

Sorry, but it seems to me that the fact that the pictures were posted publicly is crucial to the question. Someone who makes their personal pictures available on the net is saying that they do not care who sees them.

If a man and a woman have sex in a public park, they have absolutely no grounds to complain if someone videotapes them and posts the tape on the internet for money. This is no different.

 

[GuldenVleugel]

Yet, it doesn't take away those who film it are perverted voyeurs and mostly - how biased I may sound - losers.

 

[Redmage]

Yet, it doesn't take away those who film it are perverted voyeurs and mostly - how biased I may sound - losers.

No, it doesn't change your opinion about this, that's true. But there is a big difference I think between "pathetic" and "immoral."

 

[GuldenVleugel]

The bachelor guy who wanders filming random women's feet mostly does it due to the fact he cannot get to a woman. This type of guy is definately to be labeled as a loser how crude it may sound. Having romantic/sexual contact is one of the main needs of a succesful human being who isn't asexual IMO. You cannot live a lifetime without it and say your life was complete.

Anyway, the main issue on this topic is the fact some people exploit these stuff to gain financial profit from. Well, I for one can hardly believe they have costumers. ^^

 

[toyou444]

Redmange -

I agree the question of legality is moot. Most of this stuff is free of charge to see so if someone is simply providing a gateway to them he is not breaking any law.

My original point (perhaps badly worded) is that while some of us try to provide this content for free it kind of bothers me that someone would charge for it.

Is it illegal? Probably not.

Is it immoral? Probably not.

Is it wrong? Well, its just capitalism...filling a need.

That's why I'm not 100% sure it bothers me.

More or less I got ticked off because a lot of the pictures I found were on the main page and I felt like I got ripped off.

But to teach his own and since I'll never join I guess it doesn't matter all hat much.

I take the non-sexual pictures personally. LOL! Since that is what I do the most of around here.

~ toyou

 

[Oddjob0226]

But then, how much stuff posted here - the mainstream clips forums, the art forms, the tickling and nontickling images, etc., is posted without written consent of the copyright holder? Doesn't matter that it is "free" to view these things. There are many postings by those who created the works who choose to put the clips/images/stories her to be seen by the tickling community. But there's also plenty of things here that haven't been posted by the choice of the creator or copyright holder. They just don't know it is here. Think Lindsey Lohan, her agent, or the Time/Life photography bureau that generated photos of LL have given the legal ok for her images to be posted on this adults-only fetish site w/o a licensing fee involved? The only legal "out" this site has is that if someone requests that the images, clips or writings be taken down they are taken down.

Look in many printed items and you'll see this: "This work cannot be reproduced whole or in part without written consent of..." Then think of how many tickle-related sections, lines or other entries from novels, plays, interviews, cyber chats, etc. have been excerpted here in some of the "Mainstream" sections. I don't think any deals were brokered reguarding those.

In a court of law it could be argued that this guy's collection is, taken as a whole, a "work"; a cyber-collage if you will, and therefore he is entitled to make money off of what he created if he so chooses to do so. I'm not saying it would be a successful tactic, but not comepletly unreasonable either considering how the Interent has shaken up the principals of copyright vs. the pragmatic, practical reality of information sharing in a new and largely, legally untested, realm. Perez Hilton charges for his site, and although the target of many lawsuits he continues to make it.

Speak softly and sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Iggy pop]

All images posted on the internet, unless otherwise stated, are under copyright. For example, if you post a picture on your website, it is automatically copyrighted. Unless stated in the terms and conditions for Myspace, images, text, and videos are also copyrighted. Technically, you need a release for that material.

Now in the real world, images, video, and text are often used without permission. Most people don't care or unware enough to try prevent the theft of their "copyrighted" material.