Forum Moderators: martinibuster
2) Yes.
Is web sites with funny pictures are good for adsense?
Do you have enough text on the page for Adsense to work?
If some user upload copyrighted picture, is that breaking google adsense TOS?
Doesn't that depend on the country the server is located in? ;)
Do you have enough text on the page for Adsense to work?
But i can't solve the copyright problem. I can't control what users upload.
But i can't solve the copyright problem. I can't control what users upload.
Don't do it, you'll only create yourself problems unless you have very, very deep pockets.
You can solve the copyright problem by not creating it in the first place.
I carefully vet the copyright status of each and every one of the ~20,000 images on my main site, getting a written waiver from the photographer/author if possible, and if not possible then I try decide whether the image is likely in the public domain, and if I might be depriving any copyright owner of revenue by displaying it. I have so far had to take down only ~10 of those images after various discussions with authors and lawyers over the years, so I reckon that my hard work has been worthwhile.
It will be entirely your responsibility if some thuggish relative of the RIAA or MPAA comes and beats on your door, or that of your ISP anywhere in the world that they do business, or beats on G's door demanding a cut of your earnings.
Look up "Berne Convention".
You can't just fail to be "duly diligent" and and knowingly make money out of someone else's work, and then throw up your hands saying "I can't control it".
Rgds
Damon
[edited by: DamonHD at 4:02 pm (utc) on Aug. 20, 2006]
[edited by: FourDegreez at 4:26 pm (utc) on Aug. 20, 2006]
And let's face it, the reason everyone here is advising against doing it is because every single one of the pictures will be copyrighted by someone else. Not too many "funny" 19-century daguerrotypes floating around the Web.
I suspect that G might make the effort for an individual site in the face of, say, a DMCA complaint, as they would not want to find themselves accused of aiding and abetting theft...
It's also quite easy for G's robots to detect:
1) Hotlinked images.
2) Copied images (eg with an unchanged MD5 hash from a much older location). Indeed this *might* be part of their "authority site" mechanism.
Rgds
Damon
[edited by: DamonHD at 9:28 am (utc) on Aug. 21, 2006]
G probably just will not want to get involved unless it HAS to, eg after a DMCA complaint.
But G does give itself the contractual right to kick out an AS user on these grounds, presumably after G has had to spend time and money getting involved.
Rgds
Damon
[edited by: DamonHD at 10:00 am (utc) on Aug. 21, 2006]
[edited by: Hubbard at 10:24 am (utc) on Aug. 21, 2006]
Or is it because of the number of visitors and money made that Google turns a blind eye?
B. If you have the mind of a casual thief that could suggest you might be the same type of person who would encourage friends and family click on ads on your website.
C. Google, alerted to A might subject your websites to closer scrutiny for B.
D. You get booted but you don't mind since, as a casual thief, you expect to get caught. You also expect to wiggle free if snagged.
E. Given D you will begin to take steps to set up your cousin with the same type of operation and resume steps A - D.
F. Given A - E either Google will eventually screen for membership as an AdSense publisher, OR G will allow advertisers more granular control over where their ads are displayed, OR the price of advertising on certain categories of websites will begin to slip towards $.001/click, which will either drive out the fringe market and its players OR will compel the fringe to engage in less well concealed fraud to make it profitable.
G. G is for Google and good day mate.
H. H is for have a nice day. :)
[edited by: Webwork at 12:29 pm (utc) on Aug. 21, 2006]
Then what to do, to remove permissions of users to upload pictures. If i do that, i must close and the site, and no more problems.
But there is so many sites and no body care about this.
I'm an amateur photographer, primarily of rock bands; I don't sell my pictures but when I give them for reproduction, I expect a photo credit, and I periodically go out and look for people using my photos without credit - and I frequently find them.
As long as they don't get in trouble themselves, I doubt Google care much. It's money for them. I saw a forum owner asking his users to click on the ads, with a screenshot demonstration of where to click. He later posted a photo of his check. I reported it, with the precise link, received a reply from what seems like a real person... months later, the ads are still up. They don't give a hoot.
F. Given A - E either Google will eventually screen for membership as an AdSense publisher, OR G will allow advertisers more granular control over where their ads are displayed, OR the price of advertising on certain categories of websites will begin to slip towards $.001/click, which will either drive out the fringe market and its players OR will compel the fringe to engage in less well concealed fraud to make it profitable.
I don't know if Google will ever screen applicants more carefully, since the AdSense version of Pandora's Box has already been opened. However, Google has already begun to outsource some of its QC chores to advertisers (via domain blocking and site-targeted CPM ads). And it's reasonable to assume that refinements in "smart pricing" and quality scores (a la the quality scores used for AdWords landing pages) will eventually send a message to excessively greedy and/or foolish AdSense publishers.
IMO there's also such a thing as "planning to fail". That means having a fatal flaw in your business plan that becomes more acute the more successful you become. That's what this copyright issue is. As long as you're under the radar you probably won't have any problems. But as soon as you start to have any significant success, maybe even knocking the rightful copyright owners or other "funny picture" websites out of the top spots, you can expect to have neverending headaches.
That's what this copyright issue is. As long as you're under the radar you probably won't have any problems. But as soon as you start to have any significant success, maybe even knocking the rightful copyright owners or other "funny picture" websites out of the top spots, you can expect to have neverending headaches.
Doesn't the term "bottom feeder" imply staying below the radar? :-)
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo
But there is so many sites and no body care about this.
He (or she) appears to be taking the position that "It ain't my problem." Some of us don't think that makes for a successful business model, regardless of the type of infringed content that's being used.
I'm interested in starting a Widget gallery because users have requested it... a place to post and rate pictures of their widgets. I think it would bring in a lot of visitors, but I'm worried about the copyright issues too.
But like any place where users can post content, there is the copyright issue... How can a webmaster be held responsible for content that users post? If they are, then no forums would be able to function, would they? Users are going to be stupid and post a copyright pic, or part of an article, or quote now and again without permission.
What can webmasters do to protect themselves from stupid users (and should it even be their problem?) Have a good TOS where people agree to not post copyright content and delete it if they do?
