Models, Photographers and Copyrights… San Antonio, I want YOUR OPINION…;)

[Novatx]

Originally Posted by Slave Guinevere

It is just WHO I am… So, for me… While, the selfie's help to show a day to day progress of where I am physically… the professional photo shoots allow me to express myself in a much more creative and playful manner…

Dearest Slave G,
I adore your creativity in your photos and would never suggest that you refrain from having professional shots taken.

What I meant was , maybe have the professionals done without all the legal documents etc. Professional but non-professional if that makes sense

[a10bomb]

So I did a little research and found this website with a list of copyright myths

http://webnet77.com/webstuff/copyright.html

The most interesting one to me is myth #5:

MYTH # 5 "If I am not making money off the photos, I am not violating copyright."

Copyright infringement is not excused if you are doing it for some reason other than profit, such as malice or the collectivist notion that an individual's creative work "should be free for all to share." These are the typical motives of some people who post thousands of Playboy photos to newsgroups. The court may fine you more or treat you more harshly if you have a profit motive. But you can still get punished-badly-if your actions are harming the commercial value of the infringed pictures. Or if you infringed "knowingly" or "willfully." Or if the judge thinks it appropriate to "send a warning" to discourage other would-be infringers.

Violating copyright is illegal whether you do it for money, love, competitive advantage, malice, or any other reason.

[Precious_b]

...and I was just watching The People Vs Larry Flynt the other night.

Guy did alot for First Amendment Rights.

[Kit_Kat]

Originally Posted by Still Looking

Sorry Mokoa you are wrong. I requested that all providers submit photographs that had NO PHOTOGRAPHERS names on them. The providefor trs name was just fine. Two of the ladies submitted pictures with water marks on them which I removed. I was contacted by BCD and was asked to up load the original version of the pictures. This is their right as it was "mine" to remove the pictures. I requested BCD contact the providers to explain why they were removed. The spirit of the Calenda was to show what beautiful ladies we have here on ECCIE. Not high light a photography studio that slaps large banners accross the pictures. As I stated in another threAD, I will make it a point to start a National threAD to draw attention to these caliber of photographers. (After The Hoilidays!) BCD is exactly why I requested providers submit pictures without these large water marks. While I can not publish my private correspondance with each provider here, Slave will back me up that I in fact requested NO PHOTOGRAPHERS NAMES on the pictures.

Mokoa I have taken a picture or two LOL. If I took the picture how come if a provider requrests "her" picture be taken down, you do so? After all the picture doesn't belong to them according to you it belongs to me? Right??? Very interesting..... IJS.

Hmmm, first off let me say that if you took a picture of a provider (either bcd or in public) that is a show of trust on her part. If that picture wound up posted here, I hope you would return that good faith by honoring her request to remove; not just because someone might remove it without you, but out of courtesy and respect.

As for the watermark - I understand that's one of the ways photography studios advertise to prospective clients. So I can see how they would want to be credited. Were the names of the photographers/studios posted along with the images?

SG you have zero to worry about if you pictures are anything to judge by! I'm curious as to whether or not you signed a contract with BCd studios reguarding rights to the images and such? Most studios I've worked with or contacted have had something to that effect, presumeably to cover situations such as this should they arise. If so then that would be what to go by. If not....meh, I'm not a lawyer but I'd say go for it seeing as it's an image of you!

[Whispers]

Originally Posted by Slave Guinevere

I will end this with one photograph from each of these four photographers .....

Craig and Megan's photos of you would have a positive impact on you getting my business.

The other two do nothing for me.

You should use 1 from each as gateways from ads and measure the click-thru in some manner.

[Slave Guinevere]

Originally Posted by Whispers

Craig and Megan's photos of you would have a positive impact on you getting my business.

The other two do nothing for me.

You should use 1 from each as gateways from ads and measure the click-thru in some manner.

Sir Whispers…

I thought we had already decided... that when I am in your presence... that I should always wear TIGHT, BLACK PLEATHER PANTS... a BLACK PLEATHER CORSET & 6 inch BLACK STILETTO HEELS…

Your intrigued slave,

Guinevere

[Whispers]

Originally Posted by Mokoa

When a picture is taken it belongs to the one who operated the camera (the photographer) that took it.

That is not totally Correct Mokoa. Then again you make blanket statements with a weak understanding of rules at times so it is not surprising that you might jump to that conclusion.... it is not as "absolute" as you want to make it sound.

If the photographer is under contract to a studio it could be that his rights were already reassigned.... If he is hired to take the pictures they could belong to the person that hired him.....

That is why there are watermarks in the pictures. They clearly identify the owners of those pictures. Still Looking removed those watermarks from some of the pictures and then posted them. That was a mistake. Those pictures are not his to modify or post. Unless BCD Studios sold or otherwise released to him the rights to those pictures, they have every right to be upset and tell him to remove them.

Unfortunately it is not as clear as just assigning blame to Still Looking. Where did he get them, Where else are they posted? Are they cropped and reposted? In every case does the photographer actively pursue enforcement?

MANY, MANY copyrighted pictures get posted here on ECCIE every week. There is verbiage in any site like this one's registration agreement that probably says that anything posted to the site becomes the property of the site.

If an owner does not aggressively pursue his copyright with the same veracity he dilutes his claim by his own in actions....allows others to gain rights to assert their own claim....

If a lady posts an ad and uses those pictures and the agreement here says the pictures then become the property of ECCIE and the studio is not actively pursuing ECCIE for allowing them to be placed, then ECCIE may very well have a right to exert their claim and allow them to be re-posted on ECCIE....

If the lady uploads those pictures to another site, maybe some modeling site, cropped and the watermark no longer visible and the photographer does not pursue it there than it becomes reasonable for others to be able to expect to use them as well..

Sorry Mokoa but it is NOT quite as simple as you want to state it.

Then again you are a bit frustrated with Still Looking and probably want a reason to say he is wrong....

Now maybe you were present when they were shot and are aware of the agreement in place and forgot to mention that to us.

[Whispers]

Originally Posted by Slave Guinevere

Sir Whispers…

I thought we had already decided... that when I am in your presence... that I should always wear TIGHT, BLACK PLEATHER PANTS... a BLACK PLEATHER CORSET & 6 inch BLACK STILETTO HEELS…

Your intrigued slave,

Guinevere

darling.......

You need to be in leather..... not pleather......

I missed seeing you last week......

I wanted my date to take note of how you were dressed..... No matter how... I am sure she could have learned a lesson or two.....

Do keep in mind when we start our "re-education and awakening series" here in San Antonio in a few weeks that there may be some fallout..... dress appropriately so SL, I and the rest of the team recognize you as a "friendly non-combatant".....

[Still Looking]

Originally Posted by Precious_b

Still Looking, *you* are incorrect.

Mokoa stated you removed the water mark and you admitted to it.

Regardless if the instructions you asked the submitter were not followed, *you* removed it.

Creative artist don't like that.

So be careful removing that tag from your pillow or mattress that says not to remove it

Wrong in that "they" did not ask me to remove the pictures.

[Still Looking]

This isn't over by a long shot. I asked all providers to submit pictures "without" photographers names on them. Two did not do this. I removed the names. The photographer requested the names be put back on. I requested the pictures be promptly removed as the Admin Staff promptly did so.

The studio was in their rights to make the request. I'm within my rights to not want large banners slapped across a picture. My efforts were to draw attention to the beautiful ladies of ECCIE not a photographer.

I would like to point out that Slave is one of the hottest providers in the universe and any picture of her would look fabulous. She doesn't need any big ass banner slapped across her pictures distracting the viewer. If this is done it should be done discretely.

[Guest062114-5]

Originally Posted by Still Looking

Sorry Mokoa you are wrong. I requested that all providers submit photographs that had NO PHOTOGRAPHERS names on them. The providers name was just fine. Two of the ladies submitted pictures with water marks on them which I removed. I was contacted by BCD and was asked to up load the original version of the pictures. This is their right as it was "mine" to remove the pictures. I requested BCD contact the providers to explain why they were removed. The spirit of the Calenda was to show what beautiful ladies we have here on ECCIE. Not high light a photography studio that slaps large banners accross the pictures. As I stated in another threAD, I will make it a point to start a National threAD to draw attention to these caliber of photographers. (After The Hoilidays!) BCD is exactly why I requested providers submit pictures without these large water marks. While I can not publish my private correspondance with each provider here, Slave will back me up that I in fact requested NO PHOTOGRAPHERS NAMES on the pictures.

Mokoa I have taken a picture or two LOL. If I took the picture how come if a provider requrests "her" picture be taken down, you do so? After all the picture doesn't belong to them according to you it belongs to me? Right??? Very interesting..... IJS.

From a legal respective, you violated the copyright when you removed the watermark and posted (i.e., published) the photos in your compilation calendar under your own name. It appears to be an honest lay person mistake that was handled appropriately.

No biggie.

And monetary gain has nothing to do with violation of a copyright. The most common form of copyright violation is photocopying something from a published work for your own use or casual distribution.

[Guest062114-5]

Depending on the agreement, many photographs will allow photographs to be used in certain ways. Some give up all rights, some retain enough rights to control any and all use. You can't make a blanket statement about professional photographs and how they can be used.

However, if a photo is captioned or watermarked, it's usually safe to assume said photographer has limited its use to only contain the watermark. This is because they have almost always offered the ability to purchase said photo without the watermark and with less restrictive limits on usage.


I ALMOST FORGOT...

slave G...you look amazing!!!

[Phil35789]

Slave, thanks for starting this interesting thread. It does show how confusing copyright issues can be especially for non-attorneys.

a10bomb, thanks for the link about the copyright myths. It does give a good summary of some common misconceptions. I did find the attorney's copyright notice informative.

"© 2000 David L. Amkraut - All rights reserved. Permission granted to reproduce this document provided the document is reproduced in its entirety, including the information about the author and his contact information, and this copyright notice. Quotations for review, reportage, etc. are permitted as long as there is proper attribution and full contact information as follows: "From The 7 Deadly Myths of Internet Copyright" by Los Angeles Attorney David L. Amkraut"

Seems to support what others have said that the copyright owner can limit the permission granted. If you want to protect your rights in your photos, then you really should put a copyright notice on the picture or text so others know what you are allowing and not allowing. Making this clear from the start will minimize, not eliminate, confusion and conflict later.

LilMynx69, I found your comments spot on. It does appear to have been a lay person error which was handled correctly. Especially liked your explanation on the use of watermarks.

Slave, this makes me think. I wonder if I can contact your photographer and purchase some pictures of you without the bothersome watermarks. You are so hot that I would pay good money for those pictures!!!

[johnnyglaze]

slave your are beyond sexy!!! body is just amazing to stare at.

[Still Looking]

Originally Posted by Kit_Kat

Hmmm, first off let me say that if you took a picture of a provider (either bcd or in public) that is a show of trust on her part. If that picture wound up posted here, I hope you would return that good faith by honoring her request to remove; not just because someone might remove it without you, but out of courtesy and respect.

If ANY provider requested a picture to be removed it is done by me imeadiately!

As for the watermark - I understand that's one of the ways photography studios advertise to prospective clients. So I can see how they would want to be credited. Were the names of the photographers/studios posted along with the images?
Yes they were. I removed them.

SG you have zero to worry about if you pictures are anything to judge by! I'm curious as to whether or not you signed a contract with BCd studios reguarding rights to the images and such? Most studios I've worked with or contacted have had something to that effect, presumeably to cover situations such as this should they arise. If so then that would be what to go by. If not....meh, I'm not a lawyer but I'd say go for it seeing as it's an image of you!

First off let me say I promptly communicated and followed up to resolve the issue with BCD. Then I spoke to my attorney about the issue. When he got done laughing he said... you'll love this one... "Tell them to sue STILL LOOKING! He had to call me back to give me legal advise. (Fucker!) I love the guy but he can be such an asshole. Wait... thats also what I love about him. Bottom line... I was not out to screw BCD STUDIOS. I simply requested no photographers names be on the pictures and that didn't happen. Right or wrong I honored their request by having the pictures removed. No one else contacted me requesting credit for the other providers pictures.