Removed by publisher

CarlisleCarlisle
edited June 2020 in - General Discussions

Hi, I have some questions regarding entries that have been removed from the website.

I have noticed that there are cover entries that are not visible in the cover list of the site which they are part of, but can be found through the search functionality. Of course these are all of the "Removed by publisher" type, although sometimes the cover is still there. Clicking on them leads to a "Cover with ID: '...' has been removed from the site" error message.

But there are also completely deleted entries which at one point were definitely there, but are now completely unattainable including model alias, date, website and set/video name.

While I do understand that you have to remove covers on request since they are copyright protected, I don't think that holds true for corresponding data entries like the four mentioned above.
Same thing about model entries. Pictures and real name of that model need to be deleted on request. But the data that model w was part of video x on date y at website z should be retained.

Why are there sets that are partially hidden, while others have been completely deleted?
Why is so much meta data deleted on request?

Comments

  • RussellRussell

    Hi, thanks for your message

    There are two levels of 'removal'

    1. where the image set/video has been removed from the publishing site and can no longer be found there - our entry is a historical record of the publication and the evidence can still be seen (cover/gallery).

    2. where the image set/video has been removed from the site by demand (DMCA) by either the publisher or the model. This is particularly annoying both for the user and this website as the historical data is destroyed. Many entries where the set contains 2 or more models have had to be removed just for one persons complaint.

    But we do our best :)

  • mataramasukomataramasuko

    I was planning to ask a similar question. But this topic is already available, so here it is:

    I am organizing photo sets according to your ICGID system :) It is perfect for girls with multiple aliases and makes tracking sets&sites much much easier.

    Here is a preview of how wonderful it is:

    But as Carlisle said, i sometimes saw the faded cover, i can see her ICGID but not her model page. It is unfortunate for me not seeing her other site names or aliases.

    I'm not interested much in covers/sets or copyrighted material. My priority is "Model Pages" and "Other Links" sections with names.

    TL;DR: Is it somehow possible to see/access that kind of "removed" pages?

  • RussellRussell
    edited June 2020

    you could try a google search or waybackmachine - love the database :)

    have you used the .csv dawnload on the cover pages?

  • CarlisleCarlisle

    Thank you for the fast response.

    What you say about the two types of removal makes sense, but its the data on the website that confuses me.

    Example:

    The search for "Breast Mud Mask Massage" leads to two search results (link).

    Both covers were deleted, but the metadata is still there.

    But they do not appear in the cover list of the website they are part of. (1, 2)

    Only the csv file shows that there are hidden entries.

    But they cannot be found through a search via a model name (link)

    It is interesting that the metadata is still there, but that they are not listed and difficult to find.

    I get why you need to delete the covers on a DMCA request. But I don't get why these entries are "hidden" as metadata should not fall under DMCA.

    Same goes for the removal of model pages. On a removal request for a model page, her pictures and her covers need to be removed. I get that. But the information in which sets/videos she appeared should retain. Currently the whole profile is deleted. Since the metadata entries are still there, that should not be a problem.

    Briefly speaking, I think you are deleting/unlinking more information than required by law.

  • mataramasukomataramasuko

    @Russell said:
    you could try a google search or waybackmachine - love the database :)

    have you used the .csv dawnload on the cover pages?

    Thanks for the reply.

    Google search/cached version sometimes works, but damn.. I am using waybackmachine for dead sites, but never think of using for thenude.eu!! I'll give it a shot.

    I download and use CSV's for spotting missing sets from huge sites like MetArt or FemJoy. But on the other hand, it doesn't much fit to my ICGID categorisation.

    Also i searched for alternative solutions to this removed pages issue yesterday. Maybe, just maybe selfhosting a copy of thenude.eu on my local network should work.

    So, if your hoster reports unusual amounts of HTTP requests on following days, it's not a DDOS attack. It's me :D

  • mataramasukomataramasuko
    edited June 2020

    @Carlisle said:

    Briefly speaking, I think you are deleting/unlinking more information than required by law.

    I kind of agree with this statement.

    Have a look at this -> https://www.thenude.com/Simone Linsell_48358.htm

    She is the duplicate of a girl has been removed around 2013. (I won't give that removed ID/link until admins give a reasonable explanation)

    Are you going to merge this one with that ID or remove this page too :)

  • RussellRussell

    "deleting/unlinking more information than required by law."
    you're probably right but when a DMCA comes in we have to act on it and we don't want to have a second DMCA because the law isn't clear.

    of course if you were to become an admin....it may be different :)

  • mataramasukomataramasuko

    @Russell said:
    "deleting/unlinking more information than required by law."
    you're probably right but when a DMCA comes in we have to act on it and we don't want to have a second DMCA because the law isn't clear.

    of course if you were to become an admin....it may be different :)

    Fair enough :)
    I've read about some paysites hiring teams just for DMCA requests. Your job is difficult.

  • CarlisleCarlisle

    @Russell said:
    "deleting/unlinking more information than required by law."
    you're probably right but when a DMCA comes in we have to act on it and we don't want to have a second DMCA because the law isn't clear.

    of course if you were to become an admin....it may be different :)

    Well, actually I think the law is clear. If I were admin, I would seek legal advice by asking a lawyer, since it would be my hard work that is beeing "attacked". And the worth of the work you do stands in no relation to the cost of a legal advice.

    I could also imagine that a significant amount of the DMCA requests you get are actually false positives generated by bots searching for file-sharing sites.

Sign In or Register to comment.