Help keep this site alive with your VIP membership and unlock exciting site features available only to our supporting members!
UPGRADE to get lifetime access to dig420's video section, the Meet Up! forums, AD FREE surfing and much, much more!
Peak makes a comeback
- Thread starterpeakmb
- Start date
It is with a very heavy heart that I have to say that I am pausing here in putting any new captions onto this site. This is because someone in Admin here decided to make a landgrab for the copyright of all the material and put on all pictures posted a site logo. My objection to this is threefold.
Firstly, it often ruins the caption. Visually I put a lot of effort into enhancing the core subject of a caption so that it is clear and stands out. I often amend the original picture to take out distracting detail or to create a space where I can put the words in such a way that the background doesn’t affect legibility. Taking away a section of the picture means it will inevitably cover either the subject or worse, the writing. Either way it distracts massively and ruins the mood I am trying to create.
Secondly, I object to the premise that in some way the caption once posted belongs to the site. Legally, it should be obvious that in any major country legal zone it doesn’t. The original picture is most often picked from a picture web site and doesn’t belong to me (or often, the site) but the words are mine alone and do belong to me. I’m fine with this site using any of them to promote the site if they wish. Overall they use all the site’s material to generate views and revenue. I’m fine with that, but they don’t own the content and shouldn’t try to put their brand mark on it.
Lastly, the free posting of pictures often drives others to try to create material of their own. Some put pictures up just hoping someone else will use them to create captions or other content using it. Others are inspired by what they see and may create their own work for the first time. Clearly this becomes more difficult if it already comes with a site logo on it and then it gets worked on and another site logo goes on, possibly somewhere else. The really experienced users might be capable of removing it, but that can take some time and the vast majority won’t even try.
There seems no sound reason to defend this practise. It spoils enjoyment, limits participation and doesn’t even work to establish legal ownership. It might limit some from stealing here to post elsewhere, but frankly if other sites exist which don’t use such marks but which do have users which appreciate the work, authors might just go there anyway. It therefore becomes self defeating to do it.
I like this site and I do love creating this material. In particular, I really appreciate the comments and likes that it has produced from you, the readers. If you don’t agree with my stance, then do nothing or maybe say so here. If you do, then write to the site moderators yourself and say so. They may listen if enough people speak up. My two threads have over 2,000 captions now and have been viewed over 70,000 times in just over a year, by you. I remain eternally grateful for this but I now need your help to continue.
Firstly, it often ruins the caption. Visually I put a lot of effort into enhancing the core subject of a caption so that it is clear and stands out. I often amend the original picture to take out distracting detail or to create a space where I can put the words in such a way that the background doesn’t affect legibility. Taking away a section of the picture means it will inevitably cover either the subject or worse, the writing. Either way it distracts massively and ruins the mood I am trying to create.
Secondly, I object to the premise that in some way the caption once posted belongs to the site. Legally, it should be obvious that in any major country legal zone it doesn’t. The original picture is most often picked from a picture web site and doesn’t belong to me (or often, the site) but the words are mine alone and do belong to me. I’m fine with this site using any of them to promote the site if they wish. Overall they use all the site’s material to generate views and revenue. I’m fine with that, but they don’t own the content and shouldn’t try to put their brand mark on it.
Lastly, the free posting of pictures often drives others to try to create material of their own. Some put pictures up just hoping someone else will use them to create captions or other content using it. Others are inspired by what they see and may create their own work for the first time. Clearly this becomes more difficult if it already comes with a site logo on it and then it gets worked on and another site logo goes on, possibly somewhere else. The really experienced users might be capable of removing it, but that can take some time and the vast majority won’t even try.
There seems no sound reason to defend this practise. It spoils enjoyment, limits participation and doesn’t even work to establish legal ownership. It might limit some from stealing here to post elsewhere, but frankly if other sites exist which don’t use such marks but which do have users which appreciate the work, authors might just go there anyway. It therefore becomes self defeating to do it.
I like this site and I do love creating this material. In particular, I really appreciate the comments and likes that it has produced from you, the readers. If you don’t agree with my stance, then do nothing or maybe say so here. If you do, then write to the site moderators yourself and say so. They may listen if enough people speak up. My two threads have over 2,000 captions now and have been viewed over 70,000 times in just over a year, by you. I remain eternally grateful for this but I now need your help to continue.
I'm not claiming copyright on the photos, merely the words, and clearly only the original photographer of the picture would have the picture rights. Virtually every picture site on the net has this problem which is why they all carry the phrase 'if you see something of yours that you don't want here, let us know and we will take it down' or similar.
A caption usually alters the context of a photo, it creates a short story to give a new mental image of what is going on. A few words to add to the thousand words that the picture itself creates. The trick is to use the caption words to transform in some way the words that the picture creates. A new starter if you like, that the readers fill in for themselves. There is creative spark needed to get the words right. I put them up and the readers here judge, but don't think its in some way random or the work of a few seconds.
Finally, look at the bottom of the page. There is a small line saying terms and rules. There is a line here that states, 'the copyright for all submitted material remains with you'. That is there for two reasons. One, it's the law. They can't put a rule up that goes above the law or subverts it in some way, it would fail in court. Second, if they did claim copyright they lay themselves open to claims of breach from original owners. That could get very messy, very quickly, and why most sights use that phrase in the first paragraph.
My principal objection remains the artistic one though. Whether you like my captions or not, I did do them and I don't like someone else defacing them. If you painted your fence, you wouldn't want someone else daubing it with another colour would you.
A caption usually alters the context of a photo, it creates a short story to give a new mental image of what is going on. A few words to add to the thousand words that the picture itself creates. The trick is to use the caption words to transform in some way the words that the picture creates. A new starter if you like, that the readers fill in for themselves. There is creative spark needed to get the words right. I put them up and the readers here judge, but don't think its in some way random or the work of a few seconds.
Finally, look at the bottom of the page. There is a small line saying terms and rules. There is a line here that states, 'the copyright for all submitted material remains with you'. That is there for two reasons. One, it's the law. They can't put a rule up that goes above the law or subverts it in some way, it would fail in court. Second, if they did claim copyright they lay themselves open to claims of breach from original owners. That could get very messy, very quickly, and why most sights use that phrase in the first paragraph.
My principal objection remains the artistic one though. Whether you like my captions or not, I did do them and I don't like someone else defacing them. If you painted your fence, you wouldn't want someone else daubing it with another colour would you.
Cheshire. You seem to be being deliberately obtuse here. I have admitted twice that picture copyright is not owned by me. By exactly the same rule, it's not owned by the site either.
One point you might want to consider. The Internet has largely destroyed much of the profits within the adult industry. Why pay for what you can download for free. I'm not saying it's right, merely that it is so. Nearly all my captions (and most done by others) feature established stars from the industry. They and their agents are well aware of the problem but they still put the material out there because it furthers their fame and reputation. They can then charge more for personal appearances and performances. It's the same problem and solution in the music business. The videos go on YouTube and earn peanuts but that leads to sold out concerts that earn more. That's why so little material is requested to be taken down.
One point you might want to consider. The Internet has largely destroyed much of the profits within the adult industry. Why pay for what you can download for free. I'm not saying it's right, merely that it is so. Nearly all my captions (and most done by others) feature established stars from the industry. They and their agents are well aware of the problem but they still put the material out there because it furthers their fame and reputation. They can then charge more for personal appearances and performances. It's the same problem and solution in the music business. The videos go on YouTube and earn peanuts but that leads to sold out concerts that earn more. That's why so little material is requested to be taken down.
I'd like to thank you all for the continuing support on this issue. I'd also say that I don't want to stop and in fact I called it a pause. A pause until the logos stop appearing on my artwork and someone else's picture. As a reward to all of you, I'll drop the odd caption here occasionally just to keep it in mind. Maybe admin needs a constant reminder of what it is missing...
(specially picked with nothing in bottom right corner, but a bloody nuisance)
(specially picked with nothing in bottom right corner, but a bloody nuisance)
