ewd

Websites for Escorts & Agencies

97 posts in this topic

Dear All

I was alarmed to read yesterday and today all the comments pointed to my client Anglia Escorts.

Within this industry (Web Design) we specifically explain to all clients that if they want to use images on any website which is registered to their company that they should use either images that they own or those from a stock company.

When designing the site in question we used several images purchased through i stock photos (the header banner and image buttons). The reasons for doing this is not to "Bait & Switch" (I believe this to be the correct term) but because they are there to be used and we have the rights to do this once they are purchased.

Several other agencies, directories and such like, do the same thing and have no problems. To make comments as to clients wanting to hire the images in the header when they are not portrayed in the Escort Portfolio is bizarre and pointless. We have never placed those two images into the Portfolio as escorts as they do not exist as escorts but they do as images.

Does this mean that we need to alert everyone to ask all agencies if they can send the pair of eyes to them that appear in the header banner????? I am confused to why using stock photos is a problem and to why you would ask to hire someone who is not in the portfolio?

Please do give me some feedback as I find something that is legal to use has caused such a big issue and people are taking offense etc

Kind Regards

Laura Killon

Escort Website Designers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The preceding post is quite correct - it is a perfectly normal and acceptable practice to use stock photos on a website's headers, footers, or anywhere else provided they do not have a girl's name associated with them making it appear that she is available for bookings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think it was the use of stock images that got everyones back up at all. Alot of sites use them on their front pages they just dont say that they are the girls they have working. It is more down the the fact that these images were used as a girls profile pictures when it was obvious to everyone they were not her own images. A client will look at profile pics and book the girl they like the look of if the pictures are fake then the agency will be accused of bait and switch as the girl turning up is not the one they asked for.

A different example for you. I breed bulldogs, if on my site I had pics of my champions and said they were for sale I would be hounded out of the bulldog world if I then tried to pass off mongrels instead. You expect to get what is advertised..end of!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Laura

I have only browsed the other threads, it got a bit too heated for me, however its looks like you may have done the same.

The issue as I understand it was not the header, or the pretty button images throughout the site as your right this is practise used by many designers within the industry and you are obviously no exception.

The issue as I understand it related to this profile http://angliaescorts.co.uk/jaye.html displaying an image of a known porn star. Now this girl obviously doesnt work for Anglia Escorts so why is she being advertised within the gallery?

Your clients refusal to acknowledge thier mistake has been considered highly foolish, thier refusal to apologies or even accept any form of responsibility or to even admit thier mistake makes clients and others on here think the must consider thier potential client base in very low regard to continue to try and pull such a fast one. If they have apologiesed since I apologies, I personally got board of the abuse being thrown about by some.

I cant speak for everyone on here but this matter has covered two threads now and you risk it spilling into a third. In mosts opinion its quite simple Anglia Escorts were attempting a bait and switch, its not unheard of within this industry, nor do I suspect anyone was really suprised however many now hold them in distain for thier refusal to acknowledge or admit defeat and apologies when they have been so obviously caught out, that said do you really think you now need to jump on the bandwagon to continue the fued, or can you agree its probably best left well alone now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as i said in another thread....

this is a snippet - not aimed at anyone...

snide digs were coming from both sides, but when a bully mentality has taken hold by a few members of this forum, i do belive i have the right until speaking to the girl concerned to defend her and my agency.

it has got heated on both sides and if i have gone too far then i'm sorry but when your buisness is being ripped apart and digs and insults thrown, you tend to fight fire with fire...

i will stick by my girls 100% nothing wrong with that...

now can we all move on please, i t was bad enough last night people making bookings the girl turning up to be told, your not the girl in the picture - yes it was a forum member that did it... that was petty......

but as i say lets move on...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but as i say lets move on...
Originally Posted by SaSfan

But we know stolen pictures when we see them.

Originally Posted by Anglia Escorts

really, well until there proved to me by the girl in question then there not, then again as your god and whiter than white you must be right.

Originally Posted by SaSfan

I have produced proof that the picture of Jaye in question is a B/W, cropped and blurred copy of an Athena Lundberg picture, I await proof from yourself that I am wrong.

Originally Posted by Anglia Escorts

proof to follow......

i admit i'm wrong when i am... not until.....

Now please correct me if I'm wrong, but that is not what I would call a natural point from which to move on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you like arguning don't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you like arguning don't you?

Where is your proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

every post you make your looking for argument....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now can we all move on please

When did I last hear that. ??

Yes, it was when the MP's expenses scandal hit the headlines. :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol expenses... i remember that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The issue as I understand it was not the header, or the pretty button images throughout the site as your right this is practise used by many designers within the industry and you are obviously no exception.

The issue as I understand it related to this profile http://angliaescorts.co.uk/jaye.html displaying an image of a known porn star. Now this girl obviously doesnt work for Anglia Escorts so why is she being advertised within the gallery?

That is correct, the issue is that this picture is a B/W, cropped and blurred copy of the picture in the third row first on the left from here and was used in the link you quote. It is simply that and nothing else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
every post you make your looking for argument....

No, just looking for the proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is correct, the issue is that this picture is a B/W, cropped and blurred copy of the picture in the third row first on the left from here and was used in the link you quote. It is simply that and nothing else.

that image is no longer on the website... view the website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is correct, the issue is that this picture is a B/W, cropped and blurred copy of the picture in the third row first on the left from here and was used in the link you quote. It is simply that and nothing else.

If the picture was cropped and blurred it is highly likely that is a breach of Copyright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that image is no longer on the website... view the website.

That is correct, now all that is needed is the proof you said you would supply. BTW, that was a quick removal job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is correct, the issue is that this picture is a B/W, cropped and blurred copy of the picture in the third row first on the left from here and was used in the link you quote. It is simply that and nothing else.

AE, instead of posting worthless random statements like this, why don't you just clarify the major issue, which is whether or not you were aware that the photograph mentioned above was a stolen and doctored version of a Playboy image (and displayed it anyway hoping no-one would notice), or whether you used it on your site after obtaining it from the lady in good faith and were just a bit lax in that you didn't bother checking it (since the lady is said to resemble the Playboy model who is identified)?

You cannot accuse me of bullying or trying to start an argument, since this is the first comment I've made although I was following the thread on Wednesday night and it took me all of ten seconds to tineye the picture and identify it before it was removed. That is all anybody wants to know, so why don't you clear things up? You're really not doing yourself any favours at the moment and that won't improve the more you avoid the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All

Ok let me explain, with website design we collect information from clients via email to upload to their chosen sites, we do not have to verify the authenticity as this is not our job to do so.

We do ask clients to express in writing that the images or content used is theirs and they are allowed to use it, then we sign copyright over to the client which means we are not responsible.

The image in question was supplied to us by a Lydia James and she signed the rights over to us to use the images, we then set up a template for Anglia under a name of an escort that did not exist so that he had a template to work from.

What I mean by this - Ashlee-Jaye does exist and we used three images of hers the other was a Lydia James and as a template, it was a guide. Due to being away from my business for some 2 weeks from build and failing to educate Anglia on how to change various items on the site is where the problem occurred.

The only proof I have to back up what I am saying is that we said she would only visit for a minimum of 4 hours as Ashlee lives in Heathrow and she would not entertain a visit to East Anglia. Her site has also been used to show clients how we can display their images and business and therefore this is why there is an array of different images. Having just spoken with Ashlee she is adimant that her site will be live by Sunday with ALL HER ORIGINAL OWN IMAGES.

I hope this makes sense as this is not an error on Anglias behalf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AE, instead of posting worthless random statements like this, why don't you just clarify the major issue, which is whether or not you were aware that the photograph mentioned above was a stolen and doctored version of a Playboy image (and displayed it anyway hoping no-one would notice), or whether you used it on your site after obtaining it from the lady in good faith and were just a bit lax in that you didn't bother checking it (since the lady is said to resemble the Playboy model who is identified)?

You cannot accuse me of bullying or trying to start an argument, since this is the first comment I've made although I was following the thread on Wednesday night and it took me all of ten seconds to tineye the picture and identify it before it was removed. That is all anybody wants to know, so why don't you clear things up? You're really not doing yourself any favours at the moment and that won't improve the more you avoid the question.

it was used in good faith as has been mentioned on other posts...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it was used in good faith as has been mentioned on other posts...

In that case, over to you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We do ask clients to express in writing that the images or content used is theirs and they are allowed to use it, then we sign copyright over to the client which means we are not responsible.

.

You can't just "Sign away" your legal responsibilities.

But I do like the way you feel you are not responsible, its everyone else of course :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

last night people making bookings the girl turning up to be told, your not the girl in the picture - .

If you show pictures of one girl and send another girll that is known as "bate and switch" and the girl should be turned away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In that case, over to you...

I am unsure how the Anglia Escort Client is wrong? If we built the template and said we used Ashlee pics, then went to our central stock photos held at our office and said they were fine to use. due to signed disclamers it is not his fault!

He was told Ashlee, we messed up, used a Lydia James pic and the circus began!

I personally can not believe the slander that has been thrown about by people who won't admit who they really are. If this was a legitamate industry then I guess we would be discussing this with QC's present and moving this to court. I really feel that all this throwing of comments should stop and we should move on.

If anyone is to blame it would be us at EWD as we did not train Anglia on how to turn the site on and off. For this I APOLOGISE as I can not believe my actions on behalf of EWD have tarnished Anglia.

Going back to my previous point how do we take action against a Lydia James who

1 does not answer her phone now

2 may not exist as this is her working name

3 we don't ask for birth certificates when building sites

Maybe Nominet should ask for photographic id before allowing sites to go live when domains are purchased.

Please can we leave Anglia alone this is so unfair for a man who is honest, upfront and a genuine nice guy, if he wasn't EWD would not deal with him.

Kind Regards

Laura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's about context, are the images presented in such a way that a reasonable punter/customer would make the assumption those girls are available.

Sometimes the images are so stylised it's obvious they are stock or that it doesn't matter. Sometimes its obvious they are some of the agencies girls. Sometimes, it can be quite nuanced, unclear as in this case.

The design Anglia Escorts header could be taken either way. The left hand image is heavily air brushed suggesting stock image, but airbrushing is becoming increasingly common on some escort sites as well, so that leaves a question mark. The right hand image does look like she could be on the books because it is quite a natural feel to it. This impression is compounded by the way the photos are so prominent and framed by the Agency name, and very much in the foreground.

I think if I had not read the previous threads I would probably assume those girls could be available mainly because of the way the photo are framed by the Agency name and relatively in the clear.

Bait and Switch is a major issue for punters and I use tinyeye as standard practice. That should be reason enough to avoid stock images, even though they are normal/acceptable in more mainstream web-design situations.

However, as other have said, the biggest issue is fake gallery images. A professional agency and web-studio, should be using tinyeye to validate images as standard practice not least because punters do, but because of the potential for copyright issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as i said in another thread....

this is a snippet - not aimed at anyone...

snide digs were coming from both sides, but when a bully mentality has taken hold by a few members of this forum, i do belive i have the right until speaking to the girl concerned to defend her and my agency.

it has got heated on both sides and if i have gone too far then i'm sorry but when your buisness is being ripped apart and digs and insults thrown, you tend to fight fire with fire...

i will stick by my girls 100% nothing wrong with that...

now can we all move on please, i t was bad enough last night people making bookings the girl turning up to be told, your not the girl in the picture - yes it was a forum member that did it... that was petty......

but as i say lets move on...

That is correct, now all that is needed is the proof you said you would supply. BTW, that was a quick removal job.
Hi All

Ok let me explain, with website design we collect information from clients via email to upload to their chosen sites, we do not have to verify the authenticity as this is not our job to do so.

We do ask clients to express in writing that the images or content used is theirs and they are allowed to use it, then we sign copyright over to the client which means we are not responsible.

The image in question was supplied to us by a Lydia James and she signed the rights over to us to use the images, we then set up a template for Anglia under a name of an escort that did not exist so that he had a template to work from.

What I mean by this - Ashlee-Jaye does exist and we used three images of hers the other was a Lydia James and as a template, it was a guide. Due to being away from my business for some 2 weeks from build and failing to educate Anglia on how to change various items on the site is where the problem occurred.

The only proof I have to back up what I am saying is that we said she would only visit for a minimum of 4 hours as Ashlee lives in Heathrow and she would not entertain a visit to East Anglia. Her site has also been used to show clients how we can display their images and business and therefore this is why there is an array of different images. Having just spoken with Ashlee she is adimant that her site will be live by Sunday with ALL HER ORIGINAL OWN IMAGES.

I hope this makes sense as this is not an error on Anglias behalf.

In that case, over to you...

see above, already done....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.