Log in | Register
Forum > Site Discussion > Thread

Flagging pics as "Private"

Jan 04, 2021 - permalink

An issue came up where our favorite user Kristifigure was posting her personal pics and they where getting reposted on other websites, but she expressed she wanted them to say here just for us. I have also seen this happen and I believe this site gets scraped from many other sites bots. I suggest we block bots from stealing content we can mark certain pics as "private". which will only appear once you login. Its not a 100% fix but Ive found this to work well in the past with other sites I managed. This feature can be expanded later to control user access to certain pics. Like a user needs certain rights or karma to see other content.

Its just a thought.

Jan 05, 2021 - permalink

Good idea, sans the karma bit. It gives me ptsd from saradas. As soon as you try to enforce users to contribute the quality of the uploads will be seriously compromised.

Jan 05, 2021 - permalink

Thank you for bringing this up. It doesn’t totally bother me but I really give everything to this site and I want this site to have the credit for what I post. But there are instances where if I post a picture here it can appear on girly muscle.com or something like that almost instantly after I post it here. Which in a sense degrades the value of this site. I know it’s not a pay site so I can’t really say anything about it and most of the pictures are posted here from Instagram grabs from our members which is fine. but if the site did protect its images that are from direct uploaders like myself it could give this site a little more value maybe.

Jan 06, 2021 - permalink

Good points by both

Jan 06, 2021 - edited Jan 06, 2021 - permalink

Yeah good points, I defiantly don't want to see this site be a repeat like Saradas. I think original posts like those of Kristi is a goldmine for this site. We should make this a good experience for any muscle girl (or content originator) wanting to post pics here so they feel their pics have some sense of privacy being omitted from google image searches and other bots (if they do so by selecting "private" when posting).

Jan 06, 2021 - permalink

Yeah, about that. Girly muscle seems to take images from here directly, without even bothering to change the name of the uploads (or giving credit)

Jan 07, 2021 - permalink


Jan 18, 2021 - permalink

I understand photos being taken from one site to another. I've done that with photos I've posted here on GWM but it's when, as Kristi said, the photos appear almost instantly on another site the moment after they have been posted here. That's when it is not a good thing and it's not really sharing but trolling and stealing(I don't know if they're the right words but it's the only ones I can think of).

We don't want to lose GWM or lose women like Kristi from GWM because of any of this.

Jan 18, 2021 - permalink

In no way do we want to lose Kristi, who has stuck here when many have moved on, though preventing images being reposted on another site is hard and the best we could probably do is just make it a little more inconvenient. I say this, because I don't want to give any false hope.

We can't promise a photo is not copyable, since just like snapchat videos and photos that are meant to be temporary, we know they end up elsewhere. As moderators we also spend our time removing photos that were meant to be private to a pay site. In the realm of copy protection it is said that if you can hear or view something, then there is likely a means to copy it.

Would the ability to watermark an approved model's image with 'Reserved for girlswithmuscle.com', or something equivalent, be an interesting compromise?

Another thing that could be possible is maybe preventing hot-linking specific photos, but anyone making a business of copying photos will know how to work around it.

Jan 19, 2021 - permalink

I wouldn’t mind that option. I know one can always take a snapshot of anything and put it where they like. But it’s a little more trouble and wouldn’t be copied so easy. So I’m all for slowing the process down a little. Such as disabling the right click save or “finger” save on a touch screen. But otherwise the watermark might make then less attractive to repost.

Feb 25, 2021 - permalink

You know this IS what I go on about RESPECT...and all the great supporters here love this lass...she is dedicated ..funny..smart..a great lover of female musculature..shes OKay...

Feb 27, 2021 - permalink

Hugs and kisses G, it's whatever yall decide, but this is the only place I put my stuff. I'm a 'dedicated' personal uploader. Seems it would help protect or give more value to this site to being somewhat protective of those that do that. But again, just my two cents. I do this for nothing more than interaction with yall and a few crazy comments and compliments. Just for fun. :)

Feb 27, 2021 - permalink

I agree with you Kristi!

Tamarok, putting a watermark on the images sounds like it would be great marketing for this site. But it will do little to nothing in stopping bots or people from reposting content. Its your call if you want to do that feature, it won't hurt. Thanks for looking into this.

Feb 27, 2021 - permalink

Any decision to implement such a feature is up to Chainer, based on a number of factors (time, priorities, effectiveness, etc), since he is solo developing the features on the site. I’ll mention it to him, if he hasn’t seen the thread yet.

Feb 27, 2021 - permalink

I am all in favor of anything that encourages kristifigure and other wonderful ladies like her to continue to post pics and interact with us.

Mar 04, 2021 - permalink

It turns out the challenge is that no matter what we do someone will find a way to work around it. The number of SnapChat photos and images from paid sites floating around the net confirm that.

It is likely that any measures we put in place would give a false sense of security, when in reality they are leaking through the back door. In that light it can also be argued that developing features that won't be circumvented daily, may be more rewarding to the site members? This is not to diminish any concerns, but to indicate that it is not an easy problem to solve.

Apr 28, 2021 - permalink

I hope the video clips of Kristi looking at Tina on her computer don't get posted.

May 04, 2021 - permalink

@tamarok Agreed its not easy. Many sites work on making it hard to extract images and videos from their platforms, however there is usually a way around it. An analogy I can put it as, a lock cannot prevent someone from breaking into your house but would you want your house to not have a lock? Allowing images to appear in google search results is honestly a door wide opened. Making a scraper to automatically grab content from a google search or directly from this site is not much work. Just requiring authentication so see images would break 99% of the scrappers out there. However you still want vast majority of the images to be searchable on google, its the best way to get organic traffic.

May 04, 2021 - permalink

Nothing can stop screen capturing software. Even if it's watermarked, it's just as simple as cropping that out. The only guaranteed way to not have something passed around the internet is to just never upload it.

In the future, the only way that changes is if these companies that make the screen capturing software are required to make it so it will not record or capture paysite content. So they would have to work together with onlyfans and whoever else wants in on it for protection.

May 04, 2021 - permalink

Even that would be insufficient to stop it. The bottom line is that if it can be seen/accessed, it can be copied. At the extreme end, you run into what's called the "analog hole." Simply put, content has to be viewable, such as on a monitor, and if that content can be viewed then it can be copied with a recording device.

May 06, 2021 - permalink

As an extreme preventative measure, there is what unsee.cc does, where it plasters the picture with your IP as a transparent watermark. It's all over the pic so it can't be cropped out.

I would never do this on GWM of course, but it's the most extreme possible anti-copying measure I can think of.

« first < prev Page 1 of 1 next > last »