[grindradiox]

This is what DMCA actually is:

The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is a 1998 U.S. law that updates copyright rules for the digital age. Key points:

    Purpose: Implements two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties and addresses online copyright infringement and protections for digital content.
   
Anti-circumvention: Makes it illegal to bypass technological protection measures (like DRM) that control access to copyrighted works, and to traffic in tools that enable circumvention, with certain exceptions.
   
Safe-harbor for online service providers: Limits liability for platforms (ISPs, hosting services, sites) for user-posted infringing content if they:
       
Adopt and reasonably implement a repeat-infringer policy,
       
Respond promptly to valid takedown notices from copyright owners,
       
Designate an agent to receive notices and register that agent with the U.S. Copyright Office.
   
Takedown and counter-notice process: Copyright owners can send a DMCA takedown notice to request removal of allegedly infringing material; recipients can submit a counter-notice asserting good-faith belief of non-infringement or fair use, which may lead to content restoration unless the owner files suit.
   
Penalties: Civil and criminal penalties exist for willful infringement or circumvention in certain circumstances.
    Limitations & criticisms: Criticized for possible abuse of takedown notices, chilling free expression, and broad anti-circumvention provisions; some exemptions (e.g., for research, accessibility) are granted periodically by the Copyright Office.

[RichT]

Getting the copyright and takedown protection is what has to be paid for. Not all models have copyright protection and this is something that has to be paid for. DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for. So maybe I should have worded things differently.

The takedown protection is a service that automatically searches the web for any content and gives web hosts DMCA take down notices. This is requres a paid a subscription. And yes, copyrights can expire. It all depends on what the person paid for. Once a copyright expires, the work enters the public domain and can be used without permission or payment.

I was talking about DMCA takedown services like this:

https://dmcaspecialists.com/cam-model-protection

I knew precisely what you meant.  It is simply not true to simply state that "DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for". The DMCA protection/takedown you refer to is an entirely optional service and no model needs to pay for it. The various applicable laws already provide copyright protection and all streamers (or whoever their have transferred their rights to) have it by default (although in some cases they also record themselves) - the point is nobody needs to pay for it. Furthermore, any streamer can issue their own "takedown" notice(s), also for free - I have issued hundreds (with success rates of 90+%) and never paid one cent. Of course these "DMCA Protection" companies do not tell you this - why would they? 

As to copyright expiry, this varies with jurisdiction; but I believe that, in the USA, copyright for an individual expires only 70 years after the death of the copyright holder; so, 'expiry' is hardly a practical concern.

Also, the DMCA logos and notices have no legal value whatsoever. All they do is remind a viewer that the streamer is aware of their legal rights. To think these help in any other way is to suggest that wearing a "protected from crime" button/badge when  walking down a dark street at night will somehow stop you from being mugged, or give you extra rights with the police if you are robbed.

You clearly didn't know what I meant. I'm fully aware that service I mentioned is optional. But most (or a lot of) models and studios with copyright protection use these services to make things easier. And yes these type of services have to be paid for. I wasn't talking about a model or studio doing the DMCA takedown themself.

I'm starting to think you are a disinformation shill who works for a studio or you just want to believe things work that way. A copyright isn't something a model gets automatically just by working a on a cam site.

Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright. It just mean you bluffed the website owner and he didn't want to take the chance of a lawsuit. A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't. A lot of website owners are not going to ask for proof and don't want to deal with a potential lawsuit, so they just remove the video. This won't work on all websites.

It would be almost like you robbing a person with a realistic toy gun. And then claiming that toy guns are just as effective as real guns for robberies, and real guns are not necessary for robberies. lol.

Copyrights that last 70 years are very expensive. And I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long. Another thing to mention, is that the production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit. Nice try with the disinformation. Try harder next time.

WTF If anyone is misinforming anyone it is you! Read your actual words then educate yourself on the facts and the various laws.  You have copied and pasted but failed to understand. You are also fixated on the USA, but fail to understand the laws that govern the rest of the planet.

"Takedown and counter-notice process: Copyright owners can send a DMCA takedown notice to request removal of allegedly infringing material; recipients can submit a counter-notice asserting good-faith belief of non-infringement or fair use, which may lead to content restoration unless the owner files suit." This is precisely what I have been saying!

"A copyright isn't something a model gets automatically just by working a on a cam site. - basically, yes it is!

Try reading CB's T&Cs section VI, para b: "Content Submitted to the Platform. All materials submitted and/or streamed by Community Members through the Platform, including Member Content, and created by such Community Member ("Community Member Content") is and shall remain the property of the Community Member or Independent Broadcaster who created it.". Also read paragraph e) "Infringement and the DMCA".

You can read more specifically what the U.S. Copyright Office says about The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) here. The issues of expiration under Copyright Law of the United States is explained here: "The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years."

In the USA, copyright is created automatically "the moment an original work is fixed in a tangible medium" (e.g., written down, recorded, or saved to a disk). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not create copyright, it updates and expands existing copyright laws to address "the digital age", in particular it introduces the concept of "takedown" notices.

With my DMCA takedowns, there is no need to bluff. I simply send properly-formatted DMCA takedown notice, which is unbelievably easy! Just one easily-found set of idiot-proof instructions can be found here. Many web sites even provide links to online forms to submit DMCA takedown notices. There may be many reasons they comply, even when they do not need to, and this can be issues with their web site hosts, or de-listing by Google. Also note that Chaturbate even offers a free DMCA takedown service!

[RichT]

This is what DMCA actually is:

The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is a 1998 U.S. law that updates copyright rules for the digital age. Key points:

    Purpose: Implements two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties and addresses online copyright infringement and protections for digital content.
   
Anti-circumvention: Makes it illegal to bypass technological protection measures (like DRM) that control access to copyrighted works, and to traffic in tools that enable circumvention, with certain exceptions.
   
Safe-harbor for online service providers: Limits liability for platforms (ISPs, hosting services, sites) for user-posted infringing content if they:
       
Adopt and reasonably implement a repeat-infringer policy,
       
Respond promptly to valid takedown notices from copyright owners,
       
Designate an agent to receive notices and register that agent with the U.S. Copyright Office.
   
Takedown and counter-notice process: Copyright owners can send a DMCA takedown notice to request removal of allegedly infringing material; recipients can submit a counter-notice asserting good-faith belief of non-infringement or fair use, which may lead to content restoration unless the owner files suit.
   
Penalties: Civil and criminal penalties exist for willful infringement or circumvention in certain circumstances.
    Limitations & criticisms: Criticized for possible abuse of takedown notices, chilling free expression, and broad anti-circumvention provisions; some exemptions (e.g., for research, accessibility) are granted periodically by the Copyright Office.

I see you have very heavily edited this since I started to reply!

PS I found this for you to read: A simple guide to US copyright law; it is fairly clear and simple to understand. Although not specific to webcamming, it makes clear who owns copyright by default (the creator) and that there is no need to register it (or pay for it).

[grindradiox]

I knew precisely what you meant.  It is simply not true to simply state that "DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for". The DMCA protection/takedown you refer to is an entirely optional service and no model needs to pay for it. The various applicable laws already provide copyright protection and all streamers (or whoever their have transferred their rights to) have it by default (although in some cases they also record themselves) - the point is nobody needs to pay for it. Furthermore, any streamer can issue their own "takedown" notice(s), also for free - I have issued hundreds (with success rates of 90+%) and never paid one cent. Of course these "DMCA Protection" companies do not tell you this - why would they? 

As to copyright expiry, this varies with jurisdiction; but I believe that, in the USA, copyright for an individual expires only 70 years after the death of the copyright holder; so, 'expiry' is hardly a practical concern.

Also, the DMCA logos and notices have no legal value whatsoever. All they do is remind a viewer that the streamer is aware of their legal rights. To think these help in any other way is to suggest that wearing a "protected from crime" button/badge when  walking down a dark street at night will somehow stop you from being mugged, or give you extra rights with the police if you are robbed.

You clearly didn't know what I meant. I'm fully aware that service I mentioned is optional. But most (or a lot of) models and studios with copyright protection use these services to make things easier. And yes these type of services have to be paid for. I wasn't talking about a model or studio doing the DMCA takedown themself.

I'm starting to think you are a disinformation shill who works for a studio or you just want to believe things work that way. A copyright isn't something a model gets automatically just by working a on a cam site.

Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright. It just mean you bluffed the website owner and he didn't want to take the chance of a lawsuit. A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't. A lot of website owners are not going to ask for proof and don't want to deal with a potential lawsuit, so they just remove the video. This won't work on all websites.

It would be almost like you robbing a person with a realistic toy gun. And then claiming that toy guns are just as effective as real guns for robberies, and real guns are not necessary for robberies. lol.

Copyrights that last 70 years are very expensive. And I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long. Another thing to mention, is that the production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit. Nice try with the disinformation. Try harder next time.

WTF If anyone is misinforming anyone it is you! Read your actual words then educate yourself on the facts and the various laws.  You have copied and pasted but failed to understand.  You are also fixated on the USA, but fail to understand the laws that govern the rest of the planet.

"Takedown and counter-notice process: Copyright owners can send a DMCA takedown notice to request removal of allegedly infringing material; recipients can submit a counter-notice asserting good-faith belief of non-infringement or fair use, which may lead to content restoration unless the owner files suit." This is precisely what I have been saying! 

"A copyright isn't something a model gets automatically just by working a on a cam site. - basically, yes it is!

Try reading CB's T&Cs section VI, para b: "Content Submitted to the Platform. All materials submitted and/or streamed by Community Members through the Platform, including Member Content, and created by such Community Member ("Community Member Content") is and shall remain the property of the Community Member or Independent Broadcaster who created it.". Also read paragraph e) "Infringement and the DMCA".

You can read more specifically what the U.S. Copyright Office says about The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) here. The issues of expiration under Copyright Law of the United States is explained here: "The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years."

In the USA, copyright is created automatically "the moment an original work is fixed in a tangible medium" (e.g., written down, recorded, or saved to a disk). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not create copyright, it updates and expands existing copyright laws to address "the digital age", in particular it introduces the concept of "takedown" notices.

With my DMCA takedowns, there is no need to bluff. I simply send properly-formatted DMCA takedown notice, which is unbelievably easy! Just one easily-found set of idiot-proof instructions can be found here. Many web sites even provide links to online forms to submit DMCA takedown notices. There may be many reasons they comply, even when they do not need to, and this can be issues with their web site hosts, or de-listing by Google. Also note that Chaturbate even offers a free DMCA takedown service!

It's you who doesn't understand and you are taking things out of context and giving incorrect information.

I'm not fixated on the United States. DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is a United States federal law and applies only within the U.S. jurisdiction. Other countries have similar copyright protection laws, but this isn't DMCA. We were talking about DMCA not the copyright laws of other countries.

I'm not interested in what Chaturbate claims is infringment. Chaturbate doen't make copyright laws. And again you are taking things out of context. Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal. They are basically saying they are not responsible for what models do on camera.

A model just working on a cam site doesn't give them copyright protection. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. That would be like saying if a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video. Chaturbate is nothing a but a middle man between the customer and the model.

Automatic copyright protection has requiments. It doesn't apply to everything. Originality, creativity, and fixation is what qualifies for automatic copyright protection. Meaning a person had to create something that no one else has done before. Like art or music. It doesn't apply to porn. A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art. And hypothetically even if a model did qualify for automatic copyright protection. This doesn't count as a registered copyright.

A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee.

When automatic copyright does not apply:

Public domain works — works whose copyright has expired or were never eligible.
   
Pure ideas, procedures, methods, systems, or facts — only the expressive form is protected, not the underlying idea.
   
Works lacking sufficient originality (very trivial or purely functional expressions).
   
Unfixed works — purely improvised speech or performances not recorded/fixed.
   
Government works (varies by country) — many national governments place official works in the public domain or limit protection.
   
Where copyright has been expressly waived or dedicated to the public domain by the author (e.g., CC0).
   
Infringement exceptions and limits — fair use/fair dealing, compulsory licenses, or other statutory exceptions may allow use without permission.
   
Works created by some categories of non-human authorship — most jurisdictions protect human-created works; machine-only generated works may have different treatment depending on jurisdiction

(And the only reason I edited the last post was to make it easier to read. I didn't change any of the words. Only spaced out the sentences and bolded the main points I was trying to point out.)

[RichT]

You clearly didn't know what I meant. I'm fully aware that service I mentioned is optional. But most (or a lot of) models and studios with copyright protection use these services to make things easier. And yes these type of services have to be paid for. I wasn't talking about a model or studio doing the DMCA takedown themself.

I'm starting to think you are a disinformation shill who works for a studio or you just want to believe things work that way. A copyright isn't something a model gets automatically just by working a on a cam site.

Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright. It just mean you bluffed the website owner and he didn't want to take the chance of a lawsuit. A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't. A lot of website owners are not going to ask for proof and don't want to deal with a potential lawsuit, so they just remove the video. This won't work on all websites.

It would be almost like you robbing a person with a realistic toy gun. And then claiming that toy guns are just as effective as real guns for robberies, and real guns are not necessary for robberies. lol.

Copyrights that last 70 years are very expensive. And I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long. Another thing to mention, is that the production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit. Nice try with the disinformation. Try harder next time.

WTF If anyone is misinforming anyone it is you! Read your actual words then educate yourself on the facts and the various laws.  You have copied and pasted but failed to understand.  You are also fixated on the USA, but fail to understand the laws that govern the rest of the planet.

"Takedown and counter-notice process: Copyright owners can send a DMCA takedown notice to request removal of allegedly infringing material; recipients can submit a counter-notice asserting good-faith belief of non-infringement or fair use, which may lead to content restoration unless the owner files suit." This is precisely what I have been saying! 

"A copyright isn't something a model gets automatically just by working a on a cam site. - basically, yes it is!

Try reading CB's T&Cs section VI, para b: "Content Submitted to the Platform. All materials submitted and/or streamed by Community Members through the Platform, including Member Content, and created by such Community Member ("Community Member Content") is and shall remain the property of the Community Member or Independent Broadcaster who created it.". Also read paragraph e) "Infringement and the DMCA".

You can read more specifically what the U.S. Copyright Office says about The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) here. The issues of expiration under Copyright Law of the United States is explained here: "The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years."

In the USA, copyright is created automatically "the moment an original work is fixed in a tangible medium" (e.g., written down, recorded, or saved to a disk). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not create copyright, it updates and expands existing copyright laws to address "the digital age", in particular it introduces the concept of "takedown" notices.

With my DMCA takedowns, there is no need to bluff. I simply send properly-formatted DMCA takedown notice, which is unbelievably easy! Just one easily-found set of idiot-proof instructions can be found here. Many web sites even provide links to online forms to submit DMCA takedown notices. There may be many reasons they comply, even when they do not need to, and this can be issues with their web site hosts, or de-listing by Google. Also note that Chaturbate even offers a free DMCA takedown service!

It's you who doesn't understand and you are taking things out of context and giving incorrect information.

I'm not fixated on the United States. DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is a United States federal law and applies only within the U.S. jurisdiction. Other countries have similar copyright protection laws, but this isn't DMCA. We were talking about DMCA not the copyright laws of other countries.

I'm not interested in what Chaturbate claims is infringment. Chaturbate doen't make copyright laws. And again you are taking things out of context. Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal. They are basically saying they are not responsible for what models do on camera.

A model just working on a cam site doesn't give them copyright protection. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. That would be like saying if a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video. Chaturbate is nothing a but a middle man between the customer and the model.

Automatic copyright protection has requiments. It doesn't apply to everything. Originality, creativity, and fixation is what qualifies for automatic copyright protection. Meaning a person had to create something that no one else has done before. Like art or music. It doesn't apply to porn. A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art. And hypothetically even if a model did qualify for automatic copyright protection. This doesn't count as a registered copyright.

A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee.

When automatic copyright does not apply:

Public domain works — works whose copyright has expired or were never eligible.
   
Pure ideas, procedures, methods, systems, or facts — only the expressive form is protected, not the underlying idea.
   
Works lacking sufficient originality (very trivial or purely functional expressions).
   
Unfixed works — purely improvised speech or performances not recorded/fixed.
   
Government works (varies by country) — many national governments place official works in the public domain or limit protection.
   
Where copyright has been expressly waived or dedicated to the public domain by the author (e.g., CC0).
   
Infringement exceptions and limits — fair use/fair dealing, compulsory licenses, or other statutory exceptions may allow use without permission.
   
Works created by some categories of non-human authorship — most jurisdictions protect human-created works; machine-only generated works may have different treatment depending on jurisdiction

(And the only reason I edited the last post was to make it easier to read. I didn't change any of the words. Only spaced out the sentences and bolded the main points I was trying to point out.)

I give up. All you do is copy and paste (mostly totally irrelevant text), but fail, fail, and fail again to actually understand anything!  Trying to explain this to you is like trying to explain something to a turnip. It is just not worth the effort to argue with you.

Before you rant on, posting utter BS, please get someone to explain it all you. It really is not complicated!

Other people can go here and see what WIPO says.

PS You changed your post significantly, such deleting calling me "a disinformation shill who works for a studio". I think it is pretty well known that generally I abhor webcam studios for their typically dishonest and abusive practices.

[RichT]

PLEASE! Someone explain this to him!

[grindradiox]

WTF If anyone is misinforming anyone it is you! Read your actual words then educate yourself on the facts and the various laws.  You have copied and pasted but failed to understand.  You are also fixated on the USA, but fail to understand the laws that govern the rest of the planet.

"Takedown and counter-notice process: Copyright owners can send a DMCA takedown notice to request removal of allegedly infringing material; recipients can submit a counter-notice asserting good-faith belief of non-infringement or fair use, which may lead to content restoration unless the owner files suit." This is precisely what I have been saying! 

"A copyright isn't something a model gets automatically just by working a on a cam site. - basically, yes it is!

Try reading CB's T&Cs section VI, para b: "Content Submitted to the Platform. All materials submitted and/or streamed by Community Members through the Platform, including Member Content, and created by such Community Member ("Community Member Content") is and shall remain the property of the Community Member or Independent Broadcaster who created it.". Also read paragraph e) "Infringement and the DMCA".

You can read more specifically what the U.S. Copyright Office says about The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) here. The issues of expiration under Copyright Law of the United States is explained here: "The term of copyright for a particular work depends on several factors, including whether it has been published, and, if so, the date of first publication. As a general rule, for works created after January 1, 1978, copyright protection lasts for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years."

In the USA, copyright is created automatically "the moment an original work is fixed in a tangible medium" (e.g., written down, recorded, or saved to a disk). The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not create copyright, it updates and expands existing copyright laws to address "the digital age", in particular it introduces the concept of "takedown" notices.

With my DMCA takedowns, there is no need to bluff. I simply send properly-formatted DMCA takedown notice, which is unbelievably easy! Just one easily-found set of idiot-proof instructions can be found here. Many web sites even provide links to online forms to submit DMCA takedown notices. There may be many reasons they comply, even when they do not need to, and this can be issues with their web site hosts, or de-listing by Google. Also note that Chaturbate even offers a free DMCA takedown service!

It's you who doesn't understand and you are taking things out of context and giving incorrect information.

I'm not fixated on the United States. DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is a United States federal law and applies only within the U.S. jurisdiction. Other countries have similar copyright protection laws, but this isn't DMCA. We were talking about DMCA not the copyright laws of other countries.

I'm not interested in what Chaturbate claims is infringment. Chaturbate doen't make copyright laws. And again you are taking things out of context. Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal. They are basically saying they are not responsible for what models do on camera.

A model just working on a cam site doesn't give them copyright protection. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. That would be like saying if a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video. Chaturbate is nothing a but a middle man between the customer and the model.

Automatic copyright protection has requiments. It doesn't apply to everything. Originality, creativity, and fixation is what qualifies for automatic copyright protection. Meaning a person had to create something that no one else has done before. Like art or music. It doesn't apply to porn. A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art. And hypothetically even if a model did qualify for automatic copyright protection. This doesn't count as a registered copyright.

A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee.

When automatic copyright does not apply:

Public domain works — works whose copyright has expired or were never eligible.
   
Pure ideas, procedures, methods, systems, or facts — only the expressive form is protected, not the underlying idea.
   
Works lacking sufficient originality (very trivial or purely functional expressions).
   
Unfixed works — purely improvised speech or performances not recorded/fixed.
   
Government works (varies by country) — many national governments place official works in the public domain or limit protection.
   
Where copyright has been expressly waived or dedicated to the public domain by the author (e.g., CC0).
   
Infringement exceptions and limits — fair use/fair dealing, compulsory licenses, or other statutory exceptions may allow use without permission.
   
Works created by some categories of non-human authorship — most jurisdictions protect human-created works; machine-only generated works may have different treatment depending on jurisdiction

(And the only reason I edited the last post was to make it easier to read. I didn't change any of the words. Only spaced out the sentences and bolded the main points I was trying to point out.)

I give up. All you do is copy and paste (mostly totally irrelevant text), but fail, fail, and fail again to actually understand anything!  Trying to explain this to you is like trying to explain something to a turnip. It is just not worth the effort to argue with you.

Before you rant on, posting utter BS, please get someone to explain it all you. It really is not complicated!

Other people can go here and see what WIPO says.

PS You changed your post significantly, such deleting calling me "a disinformation shill who works for a studio". I think it is pretty well known that generally I abhor webcam studios for their typically dishonest and abusive practices.

You're giving up because you have no valid points. Me copying and pasting is irrelavant. Facts are facts. You are free to do your own research if you think anything I said isn't true. If things worked the way you said, then everything can be copyrighted. The world doesn't work that way. sorry.

And I think you are studio shill because you mentioned doing DMCA takedowns on hundreds of videos. Why would an average joe just watching porn need to do something like this.

[RichT]

It's you who doesn't understand and you are taking things out of context and giving incorrect information.

I'm not fixated on the United States. DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) is a United States federal law and applies only within the U.S. jurisdiction. Other countries have similar copyright protection laws, but this isn't DMCA. We were talking about DMCA not the copyright laws of other countries.

I'm not interested in what Chaturbate claims is infringment. Chaturbate doen't make copyright laws. And again you are taking things out of context. Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal. They are basically saying they are not responsible for what models do on camera.

A model just working on a cam site doesn't give them copyright protection. You don't know what the fuck you are talking about. That would be like saying if a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video. Chaturbate is nothing a but a middle man between the customer and the model.

Automatic copyright protection has requiments. It doesn't apply to everything. Originality, creativity, and fixation is what qualifies for automatic copyright protection. Meaning a person had to create something that no one else has done before. Like art or music. It doesn't apply to porn. A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art. And hypothetically even if a model did qualify for automatic copyright protection. This doesn't count as a registered copyright.

A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee.

When automatic copyright does not apply:

Public domain works — works whose copyright has expired or were never eligible.
   
Pure ideas, procedures, methods, systems, or facts — only the expressive form is protected, not the underlying idea.
   
Works lacking sufficient originality (very trivial or purely functional expressions).
   
Unfixed works — purely improvised speech or performances not recorded/fixed.
   
Government works (varies by country) — many national governments place official works in the public domain or limit protection.
   
Where copyright has been expressly waived or dedicated to the public domain by the author (e.g., CC0).
   
Infringement exceptions and limits — fair use/fair dealing, compulsory licenses, or other statutory exceptions may allow use without permission.
   
Works created by some categories of non-human authorship — most jurisdictions protect human-created works; machine-only generated works may have different treatment depending on jurisdiction

(And the only reason I edited the last post was to make it easier to read. I didn't change any of the words. Only spaced out the sentences and bolded the main points I was trying to point out.)

I give up. All you do is copy and paste (mostly totally irrelevant text), but fail, fail, and fail again to actually understand anything!  Trying to explain this to you is like trying to explain something to a turnip. It is just not worth the effort to argue with you.

Before you rant on, posting utter BS, please get someone to explain it all you. It really is not complicated!

Other people can go here and see what WIPO says.

PS You changed your post significantly, such deleting calling me "a disinformation shill who works for a studio". I think it is pretty well known that generally I abhor webcam studios for their typically dishonest and abusive practices.

You're giving up because you have no valid points. Me copying and pasting is irrelavant. Facts are facts. You are free to do your own research if you think anything I said isn't true. If things worked the way you said, then everything can be copyrighted. The world doesn't work that way. sorry.

And I think you are studio shill because you mentioned doing DMCA takedowns on hundreds of videos. Why would an average joe just watching porn need to do something like this.

I give up banging my head against a brick wall. I don't need to make my points; instead of copying and posting text at random and without context (as you have done), which you do not understand, or which are irrelevant, and making demonstrably false statements (as you have done), I have posted links to relevant, independent, reliable sources, which any intelligent person can read for themselves. I have done my research; it is a shame you have not, despite all the help I have given you. Please, just stop posting bullshit and misleading people!

Moreover, I am not "an average joe just watching porn", nor am I a "studio shill"; I am a decent guy who has befriended several models (IRL) and who has helped them to get on with their lives once they have have quit streaming and to avoid being blackmailed. Yet again, you just demonstrate your ignorance.

[RichT]

More reading for anyone interested Berne Convention: International Legal Basis of Copyright Protection.

1. Automatic Copyright Protection
International copyright protection is automatically granted in all Berne member countries worldwide when a work is created in a fixed form, which refers to a tangible manifestation of the work. Accordingly, copyright protection does not necessitate any form of registration or deposit with a government copyright office.

2. Copyright Duration
In each nation, the copyright statute governs the duration of copyright. It is life-plus-seventy in the European Union (EU), Canada, and the United States. Varying degrees of deviation from these overarching principles of copyright duration may be attributable to particular works and circumstances.

3. Three Basic Principles'

• Under the “national treatment” principle, works that originate in one of the Contracting States (i.e., works whose author is a national of that State or works initially published in that State) shall be afforded equivalent protection in all other Contracting States as those that grant the same protection to the works of their nationals.
  
• Protection should not be contingent on the observance of any formalities; this kind of international copyright is known as the “automatic” protection principle.
  
• Protection is granted irrespective of the presence of protection in the nation where the work was created (principle of “independence” of protection). However, in the event that a Contracting State grants an extended duration of protection beyond the bare minimum specified by the Convention, and once the work is no longer protected in its country of origin, safeguarding may be withheld.

Copied and pasted:
Berne Convention: Establishes who owns the work and what minimum rights they have globally (e.g., the right to reproduction and translation).
DMCA: Provides the how for enforcing those rights online in the US, specifically through "Notice-and-Takedown" systems and "Safe Harbours" for platforms.
DMCA Compliance: Because of Berne, the DMCA takedown process does not require the creator to have a US copyright registration to have their work removed from a platform.

[RichT]

Some manifestly and demonstrably false statements (for the benefit of others):

• Independent models eventually lose their DMCA protection after a year or two. After this point, there is nothing they can do to remove their content from the internet (link).
  
• Not all models have copyright protection and this is something that has to be paid for (link).
  
• DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for (link).
  
• And yes, copyrights can expire. It all depends on what the person paid for (link).
  
• Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright (link).
  
• A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't (link).
  
• Copyrights that last 70 years or more are very expensive and I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long (link).
  
• The production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit (link).
  [What risk to filing a lawsuit in USA where porn is legal?]
  
• Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal (link).
  
• If a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video (link).
  [It is copyright protected immediately it is recorded, regardless of uploading to YouTube.]
  
• A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art (link).
  
• A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee (link).
  

I suggest you copy and paste these into AI (e.g., here) and ask "is it true these statements are all false?". I did, and the answer I got was "Yes, you are absolutely correct. Every single one of those statements is legally false. They reflect common 'internet myths' rather than actual law".

[Skrillex697]

Yeah it could be that they did it before I peeked. I even saw spread pussy tag on JaneM but she changed to exclusive and it went away. I doubt those are real, but I wonder what is triggering these tags. Another thing I have seen happen is when a clothed sitting model goes private, it will right away show a tag that usually goes away after a few seconds when they go into exclusive. That must be a bug, maybe a tag from her previous private show that somehow shows up when they start a new private.

The AI tags are only availble during open private shows. Not Exclusive shows. So that is why the tag would disappear immediately if a model switches to Exclusive. On the rare occaisons when the tags are incorrect, it's because the model could be in a position that looks similar to what the AI is supposed to tag.

For example, if a model is laying on the bed in underwear with legs open and there is a lot of skin showing in the crotch area or her underwear is slightly transparent, that could trigger the "spread pussy" tag. Also, that tag can be misleading to some people about what they consider "spread pussy." The "spread pussy" tag only tags when a model is naked with her legs spread open. It doesn't actually mean a spread open gaping pussy.

From my experience, I would say about 8 out of 10 times the AI tags are usually correct. What is more annoying is when model is actually naked and the AI doesn't tag anything. Sometimes I wait to see the "topless" or "spread pussy" AI tag before peeking and it never shows up. And when I peek to see what the model is doing, she was already naked the entire time. It makes me wonder if models have the option to disable the tags.

However, AI is something that is supposed to learn and improve through trial and error. So I think in time the tags will become almost 100% correct.

Anyone who has been here long enough knows the limits of the girls we are talking about. And everyone talks quickly if a girl like alisha decides to go nude.  I have seen lucretia with a shirt without shoulder cover trigger the topless tag. But dont get your hopes up that is happening any time soon.

Hi there ,

Do you or does anyone have any image of what she was wearing on that day ? I have seen her few times and I’m new here but never seen her wear something revealing like that . Does she change into more of revealing outfit in pvt ?

[grindradiox]

Some manifestly and demonstrably false statements (for the benefit of others):

• Independent models eventually lose their DMCA protection after a year or two. After this point, there is nothing they can do to remove their content from the internet (link).
  
• Not all models have copyright protection and this is something that has to be paid for (link).
  
• DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for (link).
  
• And yes, copyrights can expire. It all depends on what the person paid for (link).
  
• Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright (link).
  
• A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't (link).
  
• Copyrights that last 70 years or more are very expensive and I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long (link).
  
• The production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit (link).
  [What risk to filing a lawsuit in USA where porn is legal?]
  
• Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal (link).
  
• If a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video (link).
  [It is copyright protected immediately it is recorded, regardless of uploading to YouTube.]
  
• A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art (link).
  
• A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee (link).
  

I suggest you copy and paste these into AI (e.g., here) and ask "is it true these statements are all false?". I did, and the answer I got was "Yes, you are absolutely correct. Every single one of those statements is legally false. They reflect common 'internet myths' rather than actual law".

If you would like me to provide sources for everything I copy and paste, I can do that also. I didn't bother posting the sources because I know the majority of people are not going to take time out of their day to read through all of that boring bullshit. But moving forward I will post the sources just for you.

1. Again, something has to have some form or originality or creativity to qualify for automatic copyright protection. A model showing her holes on a live stream does not qualify as something that is original or creative in a tangible medium. However a recorded video she is trying to sell on the internet could possibly qualify. 

sources:

https://cyber.harvard.edu/copyrightforli...riginality

https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


2. You were telling me to ask the AI to debunk everything I said. The way you ask the question and the context matters. We are not talking about vague hypotheticals. You have to word things specifically to what you are talking about.

I asked the AI : "In what situations would an adult webcam stream not recieve automatic copyright protection under Berne convention laws?"

And it gave me this answer from sources I listed above:

"Automatic copyright protection under the Berne Convention requires a work to be an original "work of authorship" fixed in some tangible form. For an adult webcam stream (live video) that might mean it does not receive automatic Berne protection in these situations:

- No originality / purely mechanical content:
 
- If the stream contains only purely mechanical, noncreative content (e.g., a continuous static shot with no creative choices, routine surveillance footage), it may lack the minimal originality required. 

- Not fixed in a tangible medium (live-only, no fixation):
 
- If the broadcast is truly ephemeral and never recorded / fixed anywhere by the author or with their authorization, some jurisdictions require fixation for copyright (Berne itself does not require formalities, but national law may). Where national law conditions protection on fixation, [b]an unfixed live-only stream may not be protected[/b]. 

- Joint or third-party ownership ambiguities:
 
- If the content is created by multiple contributors without clear authorship and no party qualifies as an author under local law, claiming automatic protection may be problematic. 

-Performer-only acts without creative authorship:
 
- Purely performative acts with no creative expression (e.g., functional demonstrations) could fail the originality test in some jurisdictions. 

- Works in the public domain or lacking eligibility:
 
- If the material is a direct copy of public-domain content (no new creative input), it adds no new protected authorship. 

- Where local law excludes certain categories:
 
- Some national laws exclude specific categories from copyright (for example, very short phrases, titles, or certain official government materials). If the stream consists solely of such excluded elements, it may not be protected. 

- Lack of authorization for fixation by others:
 
- If someone else records and posts the stream without the performer/creator’s authorization, the recorder may hold fixation but the creator’s rights could be unclear; protection depends on local rules about performer/author rights.

Notes (brief): Berne establishes a baseline of automatic protection for original works, but actual outcomes depend on whether the stream meets the minimal originality requirement and on national law differences (e.g., fixation rules, exclusions)."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3. You reposting what I said and simply calling it untrue doesn't make something fact. I already said my wording was wrong in the original post. I should have said Copyright protection, not DMCA protection. But it amounts to the same thing anyway. Because without a copyright you can't get DMCA protection. I stand by everything else I said.[/b]

[grindradiox]

Some manifestly and demonstrably false statements (for the benefit of others):

• Independent models eventually lose their DMCA protection after a year or two. After this point, there is nothing they can do to remove their content from the internet (link).
  
• Not all models have copyright protection and this is something that has to be paid for (link).
  
• DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for (link).
  
• And yes, copyrights can expire. It all depends on what the person paid for (link).
  
• Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright (link).
  
• A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't (link).
  
• Copyrights that last 70 years or more are very expensive and I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long (link).
  
• The production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit (link).
  [What risk to filing a lawsuit in USA where porn is legal?]
  
• Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal (link).
  
• If a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video (link).
  [It is copyright protected immediately it is recorded, regardless of uploading to YouTube.]
  
• A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art (link).
  
• A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee (link).
  

I suggest you copy and paste these into AI (e.g., here) and ask "is it true these statements are all false?". I did, and the answer I got was "Yes, you are absolutely correct. Every single one of those statements is legally false. They reflect common 'internet myths' rather than actual law".

Another thing, people have tried your fake DMCA takedown bullshit on websites that understand the law and have failed. This is why websites like Recurbate (Recu) and CamWhores can continue to run legally. Chaturbate themself tried to file a lawsuit against Recurbate and failed. They were only able to get them to change their domain name because it was ruled that the domain name was too similar to Chaturbate. People who create porn tube sites are not stupid and understand what they can legally get away with.

sources:

https://recurbate.com/

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/deci...3-3737.pdf

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/deci...3-4983.pdf

https://recu.me/ (formerly Recurbate)

You say you are a guy that befriended models in real life and you choose to take down videos to help them. If this is true, this makes you a simp and you're being used purely for your money. These models are not meeting you in real life for your charming personality and good looks. So enjoy being a sugar daddy and a simp.

[RichT]

Some manifestly and demonstrably false statements (for the benefit of others):

• Independent models eventually lose their DMCA protection after a year or two. After this point, there is nothing they can do to remove their content from the internet (link).
  
• Not all models have copyright protection and this is something that has to be paid for (link).
  
• DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for (link).
  
• And yes, copyrights can expire. It all depends on what the person paid for (link).
  
• Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright (link).
  
• A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't (link).
  
• Copyrights that last 70 years or more are very expensive and I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long (link).
  
• The production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit (link).
  [What risk to filing a lawsuit in USA where porn is legal?]
  
• Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal (link).
  
• If a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video (link).
  [It is copyright protected immediately it is recorded, regardless of uploading to YouTube.]
  
• A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art (link).
  
• A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee (link).
  

I suggest you copy and paste these into AI (e.g., here) and ask "is it true these statements are all false?". I did, and the answer I got was "Yes, you are absolutely correct. Every single one of those statements is legally false. They reflect common 'internet myths' rather than actual law".

Another thing, people have tried your fake DMCA takedown bullshit on websites that understand the law and have failed. This is why websites like Recurbate (Recu) and CamWhores can continue to run legally. Chaturbate themself tried to file a lawsuit against Recurbate and failed. They were only able to get them to change their domain name because it was ruled that the domain name was too similar to Chaturbate. People who create porn tube sites are not stupid and understand what they can legally get away with.

You say you are a guy that befriended models in real life and you choose to take down videos to help them. If this is true, this makes you a simp and you're being used purely for your money. These models are not meeting you in real life for your charming personality and good looks. So enjoy being a sugar daddy and a simp.

OMG It's genuinely painful! You continue to talk utter crap! To state that "websites like Recurbate (Recu) and CamWhores can continue to run legally" is stupidly simplistic and simply not true. Just because they continue to operate, does not mean they are doing so legally. If they were legal, they would not need to hide and change domains so frequently - would they? Sites like Camwhores chose to locate themselves in countries like Russia, not because it is legal, but because the authorities do not care.

As I said, most sites willingly comply with DMCA 'takedown' requests, some do not. DMCA is enforceable in the USA only; however, other laws apply in other jurisdictions. Moreover, Just because a site does not operate within a jurisdiction governed by DMCA, does not mean they are operating lawfully - that is just a monumentally stupid thing to say. Copyright laws apply in most countries, including Russia, and almost two hundred countries have signed up to the Berne Convention (see here).

The reality is that, even if a sites does not technically need to comply with DMCA specifically, many do comply, either simply because they are honorable or ethical, or because it is in their best interests. Compliance with DMCA 'takedown' notices avoids risking losing 'safe harbor' protection. Sites may be hosted in the USA and they do not want to risk issues with their hosts. Sites may have other ties to the USA (e.g., payment providers), which they need to consider. A further major potential problem is being delisted by USA-based search engines, such as Google or Bing. The fact is, DMCA has become the standard, and a DMCA notice can be effective in other jurisdictions simply as a valid legal notice.

I can tell you, for a fact, that although it generally operates in a grey aware, Camwhores does typically comply with 'takedown' requests. Simply find any video, click on "Report Video", select "Copyrighted material", claim ownership and detail the source - bingo! No need to even mention DMCA, but it helps. Here's just one such example: "The video you’re trying to view has been taken down in compliance with a DMCA".

I am well aware what happened to Recurbate. Five of their domain names were seized (see your links) following a successful legal action by Chaturbate (Multi Media, LLC). However, the basis of the action was not violation of copyright of the videos they hosted, but abuse of the "Chaturbate" name, due to the similarity in domain names and their claim to be a "Chaturbate archive". They now brand themselves as "The #1 Webcam Archive". Since Chaturbate does not own copyright to the videos they hosted, there would be no valid legal action in that regard. Your point is irrelevant. All of that having been said, Recurbate, like Camwhores, does comply with "takedown" requests, and even provide a form to make submissions here.

Getting away with something, does not mean what you are doing is legal, it just means you are avoiding or evading justice.

To suggest I am a "simp" because I made friends with some models just says all there is to know about you. Firstly, you appear not to even know what the term means: "Simp is an internet slang term for someone (usually a man) who shows excessive attention, affection, or deference to another person, often in hopes of gaining romantic or sexual favor. It describes behavior deemed desperate, submissive, or overly desperate for someone who does not reciprocate". Secondly, has it even occurred to your tiny brain that I don't need to spend money on models when we are friends? I don't know about you, but I help my friends; I do not need to pay them, nor do they need to pay me!

[RichT]

There are enough recordings of every model here if someone wants something. The studios only try and remove when they are trying to rebrand someone like Eva because they are now making money off of her in a different way. But her videos are still available.  You think widestream cares about a girl who leaves if they are no longer making money from her?

Very true.

[RichT]

Some manifestly and demonstrably false statements (for the benefit of others):

• Independent models eventually lose their DMCA protection after a year or two. After this point, there is nothing they can do to remove their content from the internet (link).
  
• Not all models have copyright protection and this is something that has to be paid for (link).
  
• DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for (link).
  
• And yes, copyrights can expire. It all depends on what the person paid for (link).
  
• Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright (link).
  
• A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't (link).
  
• Copyrights that last 70 years or more are very expensive and I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long (link).
  
• The production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit (link).
  [What risk to filing a lawsuit in USA where porn is legal?]
  
• Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal (link).
  
• If a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video (link).
  [It is copyright protected immediately it is recorded, regardless of uploading to YouTube.]
  
• A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art (link).
  
• A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee (link).
  

I suggest you copy and paste these into AI (e.g., here) and ask "is it true these statements are all false?". I did, and the answer I got was "Yes, you are absolutely correct. Every single one of those statements is legally false. They reflect common 'internet myths' rather than actual law".

If you would like me to provide sources for everything I copy and paste, I can do that also. I didn't bother posting the sources because I know the majority of people are not going to take time out of their day to read through all of that boring bullshit. But moving forward I will post the sources just for you.

1. Again, something has to have some form or originality or creativity to qualify for automatic copyright protection. A model showing her holes on a live stream does not qualify as something that is original or creative in a tangible medium. However a recorded video she is trying to sell on the internet could possibly qualify. 

sources:

https://cyber.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/Module_3:_The_Scope_of_Copyright_Law#The_Concept_of_Originality

https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


2. You were telling me to ask the AI to debunk everything I said. The way you ask the question and the context matters. We are not talking about vague hypotheticals. You have to word things specifically to what you are talking about.

I asked the AI : "In what situations would an adult webcam stream not recieve automatic copyright protection under Berne convention laws?"

And it gave me this answer from sources I listed above:

"Automatic copyright protection under the Berne Convention requires a work to be an original "work of authorship" fixed in some tangible form. For an adult webcam stream (live video) that might mean it does not receive automatic Berne protection in these situations:

- No originality / purely mechanical content:
 
- If the stream contains only purely mechanical, noncreative content (e.g., a continuous static shot with no creative choices, routine surveillance footage), it may lack the minimal originality required. 

- Not fixed in a tangible medium (live-only, no fixation):
 
- If the broadcast is truly ephemeral and never recorded / fixed anywhere by the author or with their authorization, some jurisdictions require fixation for copyright (Berne itself does not require formalities, but national law may). Where national law conditions protection on fixation, [b]an unfixed live-only stream may not be protected[/b]. 

- Joint or third-party ownership ambiguities:
 
- If the content is created by multiple contributors without clear authorship and no party qualifies as an author under local law, claiming automatic protection may be problematic. 

-Performer-only acts without creative authorship:
 
- Purely performative acts with no creative expression (e.g., functional demonstrations) could fail the originality test in some jurisdictions. 

- Works in the public domain or lacking eligibility:
 
- If the material is a direct copy of public-domain content (no new creative input), it adds no new protected authorship. 

- Where local law excludes certain categories:
 
- Some national laws exclude specific categories from copyright (for example, very short phrases, titles, or certain official government materials). If the stream consists solely of such excluded elements, it may not be protected. 

- Lack of authorization for fixation by others:
 
- If someone else records and posts the stream without the performer/creator’s authorization, the recorder may hold fixation but the creator’s rights could be unclear; protection depends on local rules about performer/author rights.

Notes (brief): Berne establishes a baseline of automatic protection for original works, but actual outcomes depend on whether the stream meets the minimal originality requirement and on national law differences (e.g., fixation rules, exclusions)."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3. You reposting what I said and simply calling it untrue doesn't make something fact. I already said my wording was wrong in the original post. I should have said Copyright protection, not DMCA protection. But it amounts to the same thing anyway. Because without a copyright you can't get DMCA protection. I stand by everything else I said.[/b]

You just do not even understand what you are reading! What do you think "DMCA protection" means? Of course the streams are copyrighted. Have you considered the millions and millions of "takedown" notices with which companies like Google have complied? Are you seriously saying they are all wrong as the work was not copyrighted? FFS!

The bar for originality is extremely low, and copyright law has no concept of either morality or quality. Not all jurisdictions require fixation, but I think you will find that platforms record everything by default. Regardless, any broadcaster can easily record themselves. Job done - stream is copyrighted. Claim authorship and ownership - read the platform T&Cs.

"Content Submitted to the Platform. All materials submitted and/or streamed by Community Members through the Platform, including Member Content, and created by such Community Member ("Community Member Content") is and shall remain the property of the Community Member or Independent Broadcaster who created it. Community Member Content shall also include any chats, or other materials that are transmitted through the Platform when you use the Platform." (Chaturbate Terms and Conditions, VI. CONTENT, b) Content Submitted to the Platform).

Your argument that "a model showing her holes on a live stream does not qualify as something that is original or creative in a tangible medium. However a recorded video she is trying to sell on the internet could possibly qualify" is just unbelievable stupid. The work is what is copyrighted, not the fact that it is being sold. Jeez!

You also need to understand the distinction between something being copyrighted and owning a copyright. To suggest a stream (original work) with multiple performers cannot be copyrighted is just plain stupid. With multiple parties in a stream, unless a prior agreement exists, they would typically jointly own copyright.

I have rebuffed every single false statement you have made, and I have backed it up with links to reliable sources. I have not just copied and pasted AI answers or quoted short texts taken out of context, as you have done.

[grindradiox]

Some manifestly and demonstrably false statements (for the benefit of others):

• Independent models eventually lose their DMCA protection after a year or two. After this point, there is nothing they can do to remove their content from the internet (link).
  
• Not all models have copyright protection and this is something that has to be paid for (link).
  
• DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for (link).
  
• And yes, copyrights can expire. It all depends on what the person paid for (link).
  
• Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright (link).
  
• A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't (link).
  
• Copyrights that last 70 years or more are very expensive and I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long (link).
  
• The production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit (link).
  [What risk to filing a lawsuit in USA where porn is legal?]
  
• Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal (link).
  
• If a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video (link).
  [It is copyright protected immediately it is recorded, regardless of uploading to YouTube.]
  
• A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art (link).
  
• A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee (link).
  

I suggest you copy and paste these into AI (e.g., here) and ask "is it true these statements are all false?". I did, and the answer I got was "Yes, you are absolutely correct. Every single one of those statements is legally false. They reflect common 'internet myths' rather than actual law".

Another thing, people have tried your fake DMCA takedown bullshit on websites that understand the law and have failed. This is why websites like Recurbate (Recu) and CamWhores can continue to run legally. Chaturbate themself tried to file a lawsuit against Recurbate and failed. They were only able to get them to change their domain name because it was ruled that the domain name was too similar to Chaturbate. People who create porn tube sites are not stupid and understand what they can legally get away with.

You say you are a guy that befriended models in real life and you choose to take down videos to help them. If this is true, this makes you a simp and you're being used purely for your money. These models are not meeting you in real life for your charming personality and good looks. So enjoy being a sugar daddy and a simp.

OMG It's genuinely painful! You continue to talk utter crap! To state that "websites like Recurbate (Recu) and CamWhores can continue to run legally" is stupidly simplistic and simply not true. Just because they continue to operate, does not mean they are doing so legally. If they were legal, they would not need to hide and change domains so frequently - would they? Sites like Camwhores chose to locate themselves in countries like Russia, not because it is legal, but because the authorities do not care.

As I said, most sites willingly comply with DMCA 'takedown' requests, some do not. DMCA is enforceable in the USA only; however, other laws apply in other jurisdictions. Moreover, Just because a site does not operate within a jurisdiction governed by DMCA, does not mean they are operating lawfully - that is just a monumentally stupid thing to say. Copyright laws apply in most countries, including Russia, and almost two hundred countries have signed up to the Berne Convention (see here).

The reality is that, even if a sites does not technically need to comply with DMCA specifically, many do comply, either simply because they are honorable or ethical, or because it is in their best interests. Compliance with DMCA 'takedown' notices avoids risking losing 'safe harbor' protection. Sites may be hosted in the USA and they do not want to risk issues with their hosts. Sites may have other ties to the USA (e.g., payment providers), which they need to consider. A further major potential problem is being delisted by USA-based search engines, such as Google or Bing. The fact is, DMCA has become the standard, and a DMCA notice can be effective in other jurisdictions simply as a valid legal notice.

I can tell you, for a fact, that although it generally operates in a grey aware, Camwhores does typically comply with 'takedown' requests. Simply find any video, click on "Report Video", select "Copyrighted material", claim ownership and detail the source - bingo! No need to even mention DMCA, but it helps. Here's just one such example: "The video you’re trying to view has been taken down in compliance with a DMCA".

I am well aware what happened to Recurbate. Five of their domain names were seized (see your links) following a successful legal action by Chaturbate (Multi Media, LLC). However, the basis of the action was not violation of copyright of the videos they hosted, but abuse of the "Chaturbate" name, due to the similarity in domain names and their claim to be a "Chaturbate archive". They now brand themselves as "The #1 Webcam Archive". Since Chaturbate does not own copyright to the videos they hosted, there would be no valid legal action in that regard. Your point is irrelevant. All of that having been said, Recurbate, like Camwhores, does comply with "takedown" requests, and even provide a form to make submissions here.

Getting away with something, does not mean what you are doing is legal, it just means you are avoiding or evading justice.

To suggest I am a "simp" because I made friends with some models just says all there is to know about you. Firstly, you appear not to even know what the term means: "Simp is an internet slang term for someone (usually a man) who shows excessive attention, affection, or deference to another person, often in hopes of gaining romantic or sexual favor. It describes behavior deemed desperate, submissive, or overly desperate for someone who does not reciprocate". Secondly, has it even occurred to your tiny brain that I don't need to spend money on models when we are friends? I don't know about you, but I help my friends; I do not need to pay them, nor do they need to pay me!

1. Porn tube sites like Recurbate and CamWhores are completly legal as long as they are not hosting copyrighted material. Them changing their domain names has nothing to do with trying to evade the law. There are several reasons why a website would want to have multiple domains names.

First of all, even if what a website owner has on their website isn't illegal, it still has to follow the rules of the web hosting company / domain registrar. The only way around this is if the website owner has their own server or has their website on the dark web. Some domain registrars have been know to take down websites if the website has content that a lot of people don't like, or if the local government is pressuring a registrar to remove the website.

This is regardless of if the website breaks any of the registrar's rules or not. Even if something isn't illegal, you still have to defend yourself legally in court to prove this. This costs money and time. And domain registrars simply don't want to deal with this hassle. By having your website registered with different web hosting companies you are not limiting yourself to the rules of one web hosting company and if one host removes your website, you still have back ups. This website NobodyHome does the same thing. It's why the domain url switched from .tv to .ws.

Another reason that websites use multiple domain names, is to protect themselves from hackers and DDOS attacks. It's always good to have a mirror back up of your website in case of hacks.


2. CamWhores isn't registed to a Russian domain. WTF are you talking about? Russia has very strict laws about the production of porn. They would have no advantage of using a Russian domain to host a porn site. However the owners of the website are Russian. CamWhores.tv is registered with NameCheap which is an American webhost. They also spoofed their contact location and orgranization name for privacy.

Recu is also registered with an American webhost called PorkBun. So your assumption about them being registerd in countries that don't enforce DMCA laws is false. It all comes down to what the web host allows. Not what is legal. Recu is smart and uses PorkBun because they wont be pressured as easily into taking down a website and they give their customers more freedom. These websites are not getting away with anything illegal. They are not doing anything illegal and they use good webhosts that will allow their content.

sources:

https://www.whois.com/whois/camwhores.tv

https://www.whois.com/whois/recu.me


3. You are correct when you say some websites will take down a video regardless of it it's copyrighted. This is mainly because these websites don't want to deal with hassles with the webhost or having to defend themselves legally in court. It has nothing to do with them taking down the video just to be nice or "ethical". Some people just don't have a lot of money and don't want to deal with the potential hassle.

It's similar to how some people choose to stand up to bullies and others dont.


4. Some models and studios actually do have registered copyright protection. This is what CamWhores and Recu takes seriously. CamWhores doesn't just remove videos just because a model or person doesn't want a video up. And I know this because the owners talk about this in the CamWhores forum https://camwhores.chat/home

The owners of the CamWhores actually mock and laugh at models who want to their videos taken down when they don't have any actual copyright protections.

On the times when CamWhores actually does remove video that isn't copyrighted, it's because they were bluffed into believing the person has copyright protection. It all depends on how the take down request is worded.


5. You are a simp and I know what the word means. You soley need to use money to attract women and you are being excessively nice and a white knight with the hopes they will like you romantically. This makes you a simp. There is no standard definition for the word simp. It's bascially a guy who kisses a woman's ass and sucks up to her in the hopes of getting pussy or a romantic relationship.

If you had good social skills and were trying to attract women within your league you wouldnt need to do any of this. Healthy romantic relationships should just be about two people bonding. It's not about a man flexing his money to impress a woman or him being excessively nice and kissing her ass to win her love. Maybe society has lead you to believe this is normal and you need to do this, but it's not and you don't need to do this.

[RichT]

Another thing, people have tried your fake DMCA takedown bullshit on websites that understand the law and have failed. This is why websites like Recurbate (Recu) and CamWhores can continue to run legally. Chaturbate themself tried to file a lawsuit against Recurbate and failed. They were only able to get them to change their domain name because it was ruled that the domain name was too similar to Chaturbate. People who create porn tube sites are not stupid and understand what they can legally get away with.

You say you are a guy that befriended models in real life and you choose to take down videos to help them. If this is true, this makes you a simp and you're being used purely for your money. These models are not meeting you in real life for your charming personality and good looks. So enjoy being a sugar daddy and a simp.

OMG It's genuinely painful! You continue to talk utter crap! To state that "websites like Recurbate (Recu) and CamWhores can continue to run legally" is stupidly simplistic and simply not true. Just because they continue to operate, does not mean they are doing so legally. If they were legal, they would not need to hide and change domains so frequently - would they? Sites like Camwhores chose to locate themselves in countries like Russia, not because it is legal, but because the authorities do not care.

As I said, most sites willingly comply with DMCA 'takedown' requests, some do not. DMCA is enforceable in the USA only; however, other laws apply in other jurisdictions. Moreover, Just because a site does not operate within a jurisdiction governed by DMCA, does not mean they are operating lawfully - that is just a monumentally stupid thing to say. Copyright laws apply in most countries, including Russia, and almost two hundred countries have signed up to the Berne Convention (see here).

The reality is that, even if a sites does not technically need to comply with DMCA specifically, many do comply, either simply because they are honorable or ethical, or because it is in their best interests. Compliance with DMCA 'takedown' notices avoids risking losing 'safe harbor' protection. Sites may be hosted in the USA and they do not want to risk issues with their hosts. Sites may have other ties to the USA (e.g., payment providers), which they need to consider. A further major potential problem is being delisted by USA-based search engines, such as Google or Bing. The fact is, DMCA has become the standard, and a DMCA notice can be effective in other jurisdictions simply as a valid legal notice.

I can tell you, for a fact, that although it generally operates in a grey aware, Camwhores does typically comply with 'takedown' requests. Simply find any video, click on "Report Video", select "Copyrighted material", claim ownership and detail the source - bingo! No need to even mention DMCA, but it helps. Here's just one such example: "The video you’re trying to view has been taken down in compliance with a DMCA".

I am well aware what happened to Recurbate. Five of their domain names were seized (see your links) following a successful legal action by Chaturbate (Multi Media, LLC). However, the basis of the action was not violation of copyright of the videos they hosted, but abuse of the "Chaturbate" name, due to the similarity in domain names and their claim to be a "Chaturbate archive". They now brand themselves as "The #1 Webcam Archive". Since Chaturbate does not own copyright to the videos they hosted, there would be no valid legal action in that regard. Your point is irrelevant. All of that having been said, Recurbate, like Camwhores, does comply with "takedown" requests, and even provide a form to make submissions here.

Getting away with something, does not mean what you are doing is legal, it just means you are avoiding or evading justice.

To suggest I am a "simp" because I made friends with some models just says all there is to know about you. Firstly, you appear not to even know what the term means: "Simp is an internet slang term for someone (usually a man) who shows excessive attention, affection, or deference to another person, often in hopes of gaining romantic or sexual favor. It describes behavior deemed desperate, submissive, or overly desperate for someone who does not reciprocate". Secondly, has it even occurred to your tiny brain that I don't need to spend money on models when we are friends? I don't know about you, but I help my friends; I do not need to pay them, nor do they need to pay me!

1. Porn tube sites like Recurbate and CamWhores are completly legal as long as they are not hosting copyrighted material. Them changing their domain names has nothing to do with trying to evade the law. There are several reasons why a website would want to have multiple domains names.

First of all, even if what a website owner has on their website isn't illegal, it still has to follow the rules of the web hosting company / domain registrar. The only way around this is if the website owner has their own server or has their website on the dark web. Some domain registrars have been know to take down websites if the website has content that a lot of people don't like, or if the local government is pressuring a registrar to remove the website.

This is regardless of if the website breaks any of the registrar's rules or not. Even if something isn't illegal, you still have to defend yourself legally in court to prove this. This costs money and time. And domain registrars simply don't want to deal with this hassle. By having your website registered with different web hosting companies you are not limiting yourself to the rules of one web hosting company and if one host removes your website, you still have back ups. This website NobodyHome does the same thing. It's why the domain url switched from .tv to .ws.

Another reason that websites use multiple domain names, is to protect themselves from hackers and DDOS attacks. It's always good to have a mirror back up of your website in case of hacks.


2. CamWhores isn't registed to a Russian domain. WTF are you talking about? Russia has very strict laws about the production of porn. They would have no advantage of using a Russian domain to host a porn site. However the owners of the website are Russian. CamWhores.tv is registered with NameCheap which is an American webhost. They also spoofed their contact location and orgranization name for privacy.

Recu is also registered with an American webhost called PorkBun. So your assumption about them being registerd in countries that don't enforce DMCA laws is false. It all comes down to what the web host allows. Not what is legal. Recu is smart and uses PorkBun because they wont be pressured as easily into taking down a website and they give their customers more freedom. These websites are not getting away with anything illegal. They are not doing anything illegal and they use good webhosts that will allow their content.

sources:

https://www.whois.com/whois/camwhores.tv

https://www.whois.com/whois/recu.me


3. You are correct when you say some websites will take down a video regardless of it it's copyrighted. This is mainly because these websites don't want to deal with hassles with the webhost or having to defend themselves legally in court. It has nothing to do with them taking down the video just to be nice or "ethical". Some people just don't have a lot of money and don't want to deal with the potential hassle.

It's similar to how some people choose to stand up to bullies and others dont.


4. Some models and studios actually do have registered copyright protection. This is what CamWhores and Recu takes seriously. CamWhores doesn't just remove videos just because a model or person doesn't want a video up. And I know this because the owners talk about this in the CamWhores forum https://camwhores.chat/home

The owners of the CamWhores actually mock and laugh at models who want to their videos taken down when they don't have any actual copyright protections.

On the times when CamWhores actually does remove video that isn't copyrighted, it's because they were bluffed into believing the person has copyright protection. It all depends on how the take down request is worded.


5. You are a simp and I know what the word means. You soley need to use money to attract women and you are being excessively nice and a white knight with the hopes they will like you romantically. This makes you a simp. There is no standard definition for the word simp. It's bascially a guy who kisses a woman's ass and sucks up to her in the hopes of getting pussy or a romantic relationship.

If you had good social skills and were trying to attract women within your league you wouldnt need to do any of this. Healthy romantic relationships should just be about two people bonding. It's not about a man flexing his money to impress a woman or him being excessively nice and kissing her ass to win her love. Maybe society has lead you to believe this is normal and you need to do this, but it's not and you don't need to do this.

I really cannot be assed to waste any more time on your stupidity and ignorance. You don't even know the difference between a registrar and a host. I didn't bother reading past that point. You are just embarrassing yourself.

Here's some AI for you:
Recu.me (formerly Recurbate)
Recu.me is the new domain for the site formerly known as Recurbate. It functions as an automated archive for live adult webcam broadcasts from platforms like Chaturbate and MyFreeCams.

• Content: It hosts a vast library of recorded shows, often allowing users to search for specific models to view their past performances.
  
• Controversy: The site is highly controversial because it records and sells access to content that is often stolen or non-consensual. Many performers have reported difficulty getting their content removed despite sending legal takedown notices.
  
• History: The original "recurbate.com" domain was seized by authorities, leading the operators to move to "recu.me" to continue their service.

Camwhores (often camwhores.tv or .com)
Camwhores is a similar but distinct site that serves as a repository for amateur and webcam-based adult videos.

• Similarity to Recu.me: Like Recu.me, it is frequently cited by content creators as a "piracy" site that hosts recorded live streams without authorization.
  
• Security Risks: Domains associated with this name are frequently flagged by security software for hosting riskware or luring visitors into fraudulent schemes.

In short, both sites are considered "cam archives" that profit from recording live shows and re-hosting them, often against the wishes of the original performers.

I am not judging, simply explaining the facts. Why can't you do the same, but get your facts right and stop being an offensive c**t just because you keep being proven wrong.

[grindradiox]

Some manifestly and demonstrably false statements (for the benefit of others):

• Independent models eventually lose their DMCA protection after a year or two. After this point, there is nothing they can do to remove their content from the internet (link).
  
• Not all models have copyright protection and this is something that has to be paid for (link).
  
• DMCA is a law that protects copyrighted content that has been paid for (link).
  
• And yes, copyrights can expire. It all depends on what the person paid for (link).
  
• Just because a video gets taken down and you didn't pay for a copyright, that doesn't neccesarily mean that model or studio had a copyright (link).
  
• A lot of models and studios with no protection pretend that they have a copyright and they actually don't (link).
  
• Copyrights that last 70 years or more are very expensive and I'm willing to bet that no studio or model has a copyright that lasts for this long (link).
  
• The production of porn is illegal in a lot of Eastern European countries. So hypothetically even if a model or studio in these countries had copyright protection, they would risk incriminating themself if they filed a lawsuit (link).
  [What risk to filing a lawsuit in USA where porn is legal?]
  
• Chaturbate says this to protect themselves legally in case a model does something illegal (link).
  
• If a person records a random video of his dog and uploads it to Youtube, that dog video is copyright protected just because Youtube is hosting the video (link).
  [It is copyright protected immediately it is recorded, regardless of uploading to YouTube.]
  
• A model showing her naked body on webcam isn't something original that she created and doesnt have a tangbible medium like music or art (link).
  
• A true copyright has to registered with a government copyright office and the person has to pay a filing fee (link).
  

I suggest you copy and paste these into AI (e.g., here) and ask "is it true these statements are all false?". I did, and the answer I got was "Yes, you are absolutely correct. Every single one of those statements is legally false. They reflect common 'internet myths' rather than actual law".

If you would like me to provide sources for everything I copy and paste, I can do that also. I didn't bother posting the sources because I know the majority of people are not going to take time out of their day to read through all of that boring bullshit. But moving forward I will post the sources just for you.

1. Again, something has to have some form or originality or creativity to qualify for automatic copyright protection. A model showing her holes on a live stream does not qualify as something that is original or creative in a tangible medium. However a recorded video she is trying to sell on the internet could possibly qualify. 

sources:

https://cyber.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/Module_3:_The_Scope_of_Copyright_Law#The_Concept_of_Originality

https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


2. You were telling me to ask the AI to debunk everything I said. The way you ask the question and the context matters. We are not talking about vague hypotheticals. You have to word things specifically to what you are talking about.

I asked the AI : "In what situations would an adult webcam stream not recieve automatic copyright protection under Berne convention laws?"

And it gave me this answer from sources I listed above:

"Automatic copyright protection under the Berne Convention requires a work to be an original "work of authorship" fixed in some tangible form. For an adult webcam stream (live video) that might mean it does not receive automatic Berne protection in these situations:

- No originality / purely mechanical content:
 
- If the stream contains only purely mechanical, noncreative content (e.g., a continuous static shot with no creative choices, routine surveillance footage), it may lack the minimal originality required. 

- Not fixed in a tangible medium (live-only, no fixation):
 
- If the broadcast is truly ephemeral and never recorded / fixed anywhere by the author or with their authorization, some jurisdictions require fixation for copyright (Berne itself does not require formalities, but national law may). Where national law conditions protection on fixation, [b]an unfixed live-only stream may not be protected[/b]. 

- Joint or third-party ownership ambiguities:
 
- If the content is created by multiple contributors without clear authorship and no party qualifies as an author under local law, claiming automatic protection may be problematic. 

-Performer-only acts without creative authorship:
 
- Purely performative acts with no creative expression (e.g., functional demonstrations) could fail the originality test in some jurisdictions. 

- Works in the public domain or lacking eligibility:
 
- If the material is a direct copy of public-domain content (no new creative input), it adds no new protected authorship. 

- Where local law excludes certain categories:
 
- Some national laws exclude specific categories from copyright (for example, very short phrases, titles, or certain official government materials). If the stream consists solely of such excluded elements, it may not be protected. 

- Lack of authorization for fixation by others:
 
- If someone else records and posts the stream without the performer/creator’s authorization, the recorder may hold fixation but the creator’s rights could be unclear; protection depends on local rules about performer/author rights.

Notes (brief): Berne establishes a baseline of automatic protection for original works, but actual outcomes depend on whether the stream meets the minimal originality requirement and on national law differences (e.g., fixation rules, exclusions)."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3. You reposting what I said and simply calling it untrue doesn't make something fact. I already said my wording was wrong in the original post. I should have said Copyright protection, not DMCA protection. But it amounts to the same thing anyway. Because without a copyright you can't get DMCA protection. I stand by everything else I said.[/b]

You just do not even understand what you are reading! What do you think "DMCA protection" means? Of course the streams are copyrighted. Have you considered the millions and millions of "takedown" notices with which companies like Google have complied? Are you seriously saying they are all wrong as the work was not copyrighted? FFS!

The bar for originality is extremely low, and copyright law has no concept of either morality or quality. Not all jurisdictions require fixation, but I think you will find that platforms record everything by default. Regardless, any broadcaster can easily record themselves. Job done - stream is copyrighted. Claim authorship and ownership - read the platform T&Cs.

"Content Submitted to the Platform. All materials submitted and/or streamed by Community Members through the Platform, including Member Content, and created by such Community Member ("Community Member Content") is and shall remain the property of the Community Member or Independent Broadcaster who created it. Community Member Content shall also include any chats, or other materials that are transmitted through the Platform when you use the Platform." (Chaturbate Terms and Conditions, VI. CONTENT, b) Content Submitted to the Platform).

Your argument that "a model showing her holes on a live stream does not qualify as something that is original or creative in a tangible medium. However a recorded video she is trying to sell on the internet could possibly qualify" is just unbelievable stupid. The work is what is copyrighted, not the fact that it is being sold. Jeez!

You also need to understand the distinction between something being copyrighted and owning a copyright. To suggest a stream (original work) with multiple performers cannot be copyrighted is just plain stupid. With multiple parties in a stream, unless a prior agreement exists, they would typically jointly own copyright.

I have rebuffed every single false statement you have made, and I have backed it up with links to reliable sources. I have not just copied and pasted AI answers or quoted short texts taken out of context, as you have done.

You keep linking me to the Chaturbate terms and conditions as if that means something. Chaturbate doesn't make laws. And what you are pointing out doesn't even help your argument.

Chaturbate is simply saying that the performer's stream is not owned or controlled by them. It's the performer's "property". Chaturbate just doesn't want to take responsibility for anything the model does. They are saying that the performers are indepedent broacasters and responsible for them own streams. Them calling a live stream "property" is false if we are going by legal definitions.

You are completly delusional and you keep trying to find ways to twist the law out of context to fit your narrative. You are right every country has their own standard of what is considered original and creative content. The fact is most countries will not consider an adult live stream eligible for automatic copyright protection. If you believe this is false. Show me the sources. This type of work is technically illegal in most European countries. So do you really think the laws of these countries going to give them automatic copyright protection for a porn stream. Your opinion means nothing to me. All that matters are the legal facts.

You haven't rebuffed shit. So far all you have done is made yourself look ingnorant of the law and prove you are a white knight simp. None of the sources you have provided has contradicted anything I've said. All of my sources have debunked everything you said. I provided all the sources to everything I copied and pasted as well as asked the AI like you requested. Local laws take priority over Berne. And most countries don't consider a porn live stream eligible for automatic copyright protection. Sorry that you are butt hurt about this.

[RichT]

If you would like me to provide sources for everything I copy and paste, I can do that also. I didn't bother posting the sources because I know the majority of people are not going to take time out of their day to read through all of that boring bullshit. But moving forward I will post the sources just for you.

1. Again, something has to have some form or originality or creativity to qualify for automatic copyright protection. A model showing her holes on a live stream does not qualify as something that is original or creative in a tangible medium. However a recorded video she is trying to sell on the internet could possibly qualify. 

sources:

https://cyber.harvard.edu/copyrightforlibrarians/Module_3:_The_Scope_of_Copyright_Law#The_Concept_of_Originality

https://www.wipo.int/en/web/copyright/

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/2.html

https://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


2. You were telling me to ask the AI to debunk everything I said. The way you ask the question and the context matters. We are not talking about vague hypotheticals. You have to word things specifically to what you are talking about.

I asked the AI : "In what situations would an adult webcam stream not recieve automatic copyright protection under Berne convention laws?"

And it gave me this answer from sources I listed above:

"Automatic copyright protection under the Berne Convention requires a work to be an original "work of authorship" fixed in some tangible form. For an adult webcam stream (live video) that might mean it does not receive automatic Berne protection in these situations:

- No originality / purely mechanical content:
 
- If the stream contains only purely mechanical, noncreative content (e.g., a continuous static shot with no creative choices, routine surveillance footage), it may lack the minimal originality required. 

- Not fixed in a tangible medium (live-only, no fixation):
 
- If the broadcast is truly ephemeral and never recorded / fixed anywhere by the author or with their authorization, some jurisdictions require fixation for copyright (Berne itself does not require formalities, but national law may). Where national law conditions protection on fixation, [b]an unfixed live-only stream may not be protected[/b]. 

- Joint or third-party ownership ambiguities:
 
- If the content is created by multiple contributors without clear authorship and no party qualifies as an author under local law, claiming automatic protection may be problematic. 

-Performer-only acts without creative authorship:
 
- Purely performative acts with no creative expression (e.g., functional demonstrations) could fail the originality test in some jurisdictions. 

- Works in the public domain or lacking eligibility:
 
- If the material is a direct copy of public-domain content (no new creative input), it adds no new protected authorship. 

- Where local law excludes certain categories:
 
- Some national laws exclude specific categories from copyright (for example, very short phrases, titles, or certain official government materials). If the stream consists solely of such excluded elements, it may not be protected. 

- Lack of authorization for fixation by others:
 
- If someone else records and posts the stream without the performer/creator’s authorization, the recorder may hold fixation but the creator’s rights could be unclear; protection depends on local rules about performer/author rights.

Notes (brief): Berne establishes a baseline of automatic protection for original works, but actual outcomes depend on whether the stream meets the minimal originality requirement and on national law differences (e.g., fixation rules, exclusions)."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


3. You reposting what I said and simply calling it untrue doesn't make something fact. I already said my wording was wrong in the original post. I should have said Copyright protection, not DMCA protection. But it amounts to the same thing anyway. Because without a copyright you can't get DMCA protection. I stand by everything else I said.[/b]

You just do not even understand what you are reading! What do you think "DMCA protection" means? Of course the streams are copyrighted. Have you considered the millions and millions of "takedown" notices with which companies like Google have complied? Are you seriously saying they are all wrong as the work was not copyrighted? FFS!

The bar for originality is extremely low, and copyright law has no concept of either morality or quality. Not all jurisdictions require fixation, but I think you will find that platforms record everything by default. Regardless, any broadcaster can easily record themselves. Job done - stream is copyrighted. Claim authorship and ownership - read the platform T&Cs.

"Content Submitted to the Platform. All materials submitted and/or streamed by Community Members through the Platform, including Member Content, and created by such Community Member ("Community Member Content") is and shall remain the property of the Community Member or Independent Broadcaster who created it. Community Member Content shall also include any chats, or other materials that are transmitted through the Platform when you use the Platform." (Chaturbate Terms and Conditions, VI. CONTENT, b) Content Submitted to the Platform).

Your argument that "a model showing her holes on a live stream does not qualify as something that is original or creative in a tangible medium. However a recorded video she is trying to sell on the internet could possibly qualify" is just unbelievable stupid. The work is what is copyrighted, not the fact that it is being sold. Jeez!

You also need to understand the distinction between something being copyrighted and owning a copyright. To suggest a stream (original work) with multiple performers cannot be copyrighted is just plain stupid. With multiple parties in a stream, unless a prior agreement exists, they would typically jointly own copyright.

I have rebuffed every single false statement you have made, and I have backed it up with links to reliable sources. I have not just copied and pasted AI answers or quoted short texts taken out of context, as you have done.

You keep linking me to the Chaturbate terms and conditions as if that means something. Chaturbate doesn't make laws. And what you are pointing out doesn't even help your argument.

Chaturbate is simply saying that the performer's stream is not owned or controlled by them. It's the performer's "property". Chaturbate just doesn't want to take responsibility for anything the model does. They are saying that the performers are indepedent broacasters and responsible for them own streams. Them calling a live stream "property" is false if we are going by legal definitions.

You are completly delusional and you keep trying to find ways to twist the law out of context to fit your narrative. You are right every country has their own standard of what is considered original and creative content. The fact is most countries will not consider an adult live stream eligible for automatic copyright protection. If you believe this is false. Show me the sources. This type of work is technically illegal in most European countries. So do you really think the laws of these countries going to give them automatic copyright protection for a porn stream.  Your opinion means nothing to me. All that matters are the legal facts.

You haven't rebuffed shit. So far all you have done is made yourself look ingnorant of the law and prove you are a white knight simp. None of the sources you have provided has contradicted anything I've said. All of my sources have debunked everything you said. I provided all the sources to everything I copied and pasted as well as asked the AI like you requested. Local laws take priority over Berne. And most countries don't consider a porn live stream eligible for automatic copyright protection. Sorry that you are butt hurt about this.

I cannot be bothered to read ANYTHING you write. I am adding you to my ignore list. Bye bye,

[RichT]

To anyone else who had to suffer this moronic tirade of utter waffle, I apologise. Please do your own research; just do not trust what this idiot says.

[grindradiox]

OMG It's genuinely painful! You continue to talk utter crap! To state that "websites like Recurbate (Recu) and CamWhores can continue to run legally" is stupidly simplistic and simply not true. Just because they continue to operate, does not mean they are doing so legally. If they were legal, they would not need to hide and change domains so frequently - would they? Sites like Camwhores chose to locate themselves in countries like Russia, not because it is legal, but because the authorities do not care.

As I said, most sites willingly comply with DMCA 'takedown' requests, some do not. DMCA is enforceable in the USA only; however, other laws apply in other jurisdictions. Moreover, Just because a site does not operate within a jurisdiction governed by DMCA, does not mean they are operating lawfully - that is just a monumentally stupid thing to say. Copyright laws apply in most countries, including Russia, and almost two hundred countries have signed up to the Berne Convention (see here).

The reality is that, even if a sites does not technically need to comply with DMCA specifically, many do comply, either simply because they are honorable or ethical, or because it is in their best interests. Compliance with DMCA 'takedown' notices avoids risking losing 'safe harbor' protection. Sites may be hosted in the USA and they do not want to risk issues with their hosts. Sites may have other ties to the USA (e.g., payment providers), which they need to consider. A further major potential problem is being delisted by USA-based search engines, such as Google or Bing. The fact is, DMCA has become the standard, and a DMCA notice can be effective in other jurisdictions simply as a valid legal notice.

I can tell you, for a fact, that although it generally operates in a grey aware, Camwhores does typically comply with 'takedown' requests. Simply find any video, click on "Report Video", select "Copyrighted material", claim ownership and detail the source - bingo! No need to even mention DMCA, but it helps. Here's just one such example: "The video you’re trying to view has been taken down in compliance with a DMCA".

I am well aware what happened to Recurbate. Five of their domain names were seized (see your links) following a successful legal action by Chaturbate (Multi Media, LLC). However, the basis of the action was not violation of copyright of the videos they hosted, but abuse of the "Chaturbate" name, due to the similarity in domain names and their claim to be a "Chaturbate archive". They now brand themselves as "The #1 Webcam Archive". Since Chaturbate does not own copyright to the videos they hosted, there would be no valid legal action in that regard. Your point is irrelevant. All of that having been said, Recurbate, like Camwhores, does comply with "takedown" requests, and even provide a form to make submissions here.

Getting away with something, does not mean what you are doing is legal, it just means you are avoiding or evading justice.

To suggest I am a "simp" because I made friends with some models just says all there is to know about you. Firstly, you appear not to even know what the term means: "Simp is an internet slang term for someone (usually a man) who shows excessive attention, affection, or deference to another person, often in hopes of gaining romantic or sexual favor. It describes behavior deemed desperate, submissive, or overly desperate for someone who does not reciprocate". Secondly, has it even occurred to your tiny brain that I don't need to spend money on models when we are friends? I don't know about you, but I help my friends; I do not need to pay them, nor do they need to pay me!

1. Porn tube sites like Recurbate and CamWhores are completly legal as long as they are not hosting copyrighted material. Them changing their domain names has nothing to do with trying to evade the law. There are several reasons why a website would want to have multiple domains names.

First of all, even if what a website owner has on their website isn't illegal, it still has to follow the rules of the web hosting company / domain registrar. The only way around this is if the website owner has their own server or has their website on the dark web. Some domain registrars have been know to take down websites if the website has content that a lot of people don't like, or if the local government is pressuring a registrar to remove the website.

This is regardless of if the website breaks any of the registrar's rules or not. Even if something isn't illegal, you still have to defend yourself legally in court to prove this. This costs money and time. And domain registrars simply don't want to deal with this hassle. By having your website registered with different web hosting companies you are not limiting yourself to the rules of one web hosting company and if one host removes your website, you still have back ups. This website NobodyHome does the same thing. It's why the domain url switched from .tv to .ws.

Another reason that websites use multiple domain names, is to protect themselves from hackers and DDOS attacks. It's always good to have a mirror back up of your website in case of hacks.


2. CamWhores isn't registed to a Russian domain. WTF are you talking about? Russia has very strict laws about the production of porn. They would have no advantage of using a Russian domain to host a porn site. However the owners of the website are Russian. CamWhores.tv is registered with NameCheap which is an American webhost. They also spoofed their contact location and orgranization name for privacy.

Recu is also registered with an American webhost called PorkBun. So your assumption about them being registerd in countries that don't enforce DMCA laws is false. It all comes down to what the web host allows. Not what is legal. Recu is smart and uses PorkBun because they wont be pressured as easily into taking down a website and they give their customers more freedom. These websites are not getting away with anything illegal. They are not doing anything illegal and they use good webhosts that will allow their content.

sources:

https://www.whois.com/whois/camwhores.tv

https://www.whois.com/whois/recu.me


3. You are correct when you say some websites will take down a video regardless of it it's copyrighted. This is mainly because these websites don't want to deal with hassles with the webhost or having to defend themselves legally in court. It has nothing to do with them taking down the video just to be nice or "ethical". Some people just don't have a lot of money and don't want to deal with the potential hassle.

It's similar to how some people choose to stand up to bullies and others dont.


4. Some models and studios actually do have registered copyright protection. This is what CamWhores and Recu takes seriously. CamWhores doesn't just remove videos just because a model or person doesn't want a video up. And I know this because the owners talk about this in the CamWhores forum https://camwhores.chat/home

The owners of the CamWhores actually mock and laugh at models who want to their videos taken down when they don't have any actual copyright protections.

On the times when CamWhores actually does remove video that isn't copyrighted, it's because they were bluffed into believing the person has copyright protection. It all depends on how the take down request is worded.


5. You are a simp and I know what the word means. You soley need to use money to attract women and you are being excessively nice and a white knight with the hopes they will like you romantically. This makes you a simp. There is no standard definition for the word simp. It's bascially a guy who kisses a woman's ass and sucks up to her in the hopes of getting pussy or a romantic relationship.

If you had good social skills and were trying to attract women within your league you wouldnt need to do any of this. Healthy romantic relationships should just be about two people bonding. It's not about a man flexing his money to impress a woman or him being excessively nice and kissing her ass to win her love. Maybe society has lead you to believe this is normal and you need to do this, but it's not and you don't need to do this.

I really cannot be assed to waste any more time on your stupidity and ignorance. You don't even know the difference between a registrar and a host. I didn't bother reading past that point. You are just embarrassing yourself.

Here's some AI for you:
Recu.me (formerly Recurbate)
Recu.me is the new domain for the site formerly known as Recurbate. It functions as an automated archive for live adult webcam broadcasts from platforms like Chaturbate and MyFreeCams.

• Content: It hosts a vast library of recorded shows, often allowing users to search for specific models to view their past performances.
  
• Controversy: The site is highly controversial because it records and sells access to content that is often stolen or non-consensual. Many performers have reported difficulty getting their content removed despite sending legal takedown notices.
  
• History: The original "recurbate.com" domain was seized by authorities, leading the operators to move to "recu.me" to continue their service.
  

Camwhores (often camwhores.tv or .com)
Camwhores is a similar but distinct site that serves as a repository for amateur and webcam-based adult videos.

• Similarity to Recu.me: Like Recu.me, it is frequently cited by content creators as a "piracy" site that hosts recorded live streams without authorization.
  
• Security Risks: Domains associated with this name are frequently flagged by security software for hosting riskware or luring visitors into fraudulent schemes.
  

In short, both sites are considered "cam archives" that profit from recording live shows and re-hosting them, often against the wishes of the original performers.

I am not judging, simply explaining the facts. Why can't you do the same, but get your facts right and stop being an offensive c**t just because you keep being proven wrong.

What the fuck does this prove? All you have done is provide a description of the websites. You don't even have an argument any more. So you are trying to strawman and take the argument somewhere else. What does any of this have to do with copyright laws? The fact that you are trying to strawman now just proves you lost the argument

You don't even know what the fuck you are talking about. CamWhores and Recu don't "profit from recording videos". CamWhores doesn't record videos. They host videos that other people upload. And they make money through advertisements. Recu does record videos and makes money through having paid subscriptions for users to stream or download the videos that they record.

I'm being offensive because you are a delusional moron that doesn't make sense and you are giving incorrect information about the law to fit your narrative. And you know that you lost the argument so now you are trying to strawman and pivot to an unrelated argument.

[RichT]

Can someone please post a naked picture?

A delusional idiot seemed appropriate )

[RichT]

For balance (yes, it is Melania)

[jesuisla12]

leona looking hot tonight  :heart:

Spoiler: Img

Hello, do you have any news about Leona? If not, perhaps some videos? I miss her so much.

[Rert]

Anyone news about Lucretiaphos? I miss her, she is gone for so many days all the time... I do not understand.

[Rert]

I didn't know she had insta??? I am happy I have a couple of photos of her. Special woman.

[grimm]

Anyone news about Lucretiaphos? I miss her, she is gone for so many days all the time... I do not understand.

All of them are like this now, they all seem to work very little these days. Some appear to have quit, like MilaMiers and LeticiaMoon.

[crossedeyes]

angelina is back tonight with new account angelbright. claims to be 29 and danish lul

[grindradiox]

Anyone news about Lucretiaphos? I miss her, she is gone for so many days all the time... I do not understand.

It means she is making money in other places and she will quit soon.