Submissions copyright issue / model or photog is screwing me

furrygirl · 2005-07-30, 07:52 PM

I'm dealing with an irritating situation today, and I'm wondering if anyone else has an experience like mine.

On my site Veg Porn, I advertise that I buy exclusive photos submitted by models. I am very clear with models that I only buy exclusive content, so they can't submit the same pics to other sites. Veg Porn is not a fancy set-up, and as far as I know, most of the models shoot their photos with their partners or friends. (Harkavy shot one set, and he's credited with it.)

Today, someone emailed me that a guy going by "Skulz" is giving away free CDs of content I purchased from a model on his Geocities page. (I've already complained to Yahoo about a possible copyright issue.) The page tells people that it's stupid to pay for porn when he'll happily send you the full set for free on a CD, and he names another site he claims to have taken photos for and is giving away content from. The sites says,

"Some of the photos above can be found @ (Veg Porn :: Models : Ewon) and many other porn related web sites. ~ I posted some photos here as I was the photographer yet I did not get credit for this work. I have posed some of the images here for free. No need to pay to see them @ (Veg Porn :: Models : Ewon) or if they are still on Suicidegirls.com I am not clear on that issue. The set was taken for Suicidegirls.com in May of 2004. I am a general photographer, it was Erin Crabill who sold the photos I took to porn web sites, not H Street Studio / Nowhere Productionz."

So, either this guy is lying, or the model purposely sold me something she didn't own, or she did not understand the concept of exclusive and made an honest mistake.

Anyhow, I've been screwed by someone. I do realize that the law side with the photographer as the owner of copyrights, but it's bullshit that there's no way for me ensure that, buying submission from a model, that I actually "own" them.

I guess I should add a clause in my model release with something to the effect of the model stating that his/her photos are both exclusive and owned by them solely. (But it would still feel like a catch-22, such as if an under 18 person signs a contract: it's null and void since they are under 18.) A model can't sign away the copyright on photos she didn't take.

I don't know what else to do besides scratch this as a loss, but I have emailed the model to get her side of it. I've asked to either get a copyright release from her photographer or get back the $240 I've paid her for "exclusive" content, but I'm not counting on getting either.

Any advice on not getting screwed again in this arena?

emmanuelle · 2005-07-30, 08:58 PM

When I purchase exclusive photos, I insist on them signing my 'transfer of copyright' document.

furrygirl · 2005-07-30, 10:14 PM

That's what I thought at first, but how can that be legally binding? If a photographer owns the copyright of an image because s/he shot it, how can a model sign away the copyright? It's like me selling my neighbor's car.

emmanuelle · 2005-07-30, 10:24 PM

I dont buy photos from models. I buy them from the photographer, and have the model sign my release wherever possible.

furrygirl · 2005-08-02, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

I dont buy photos from models. I buy them from the photographer, and have the model sign my release wherever possible.

So, does that mean you usually buy content from a photographer who provides you with copies of his/her own model release, plus his/her copyright release?

Like most other sites in the "alt porn " world, I'm running Veg Porn in a more model-centric way than traditional porn. Many of these sites buy their content directly from models, and have actual model involvement in the sites. (I'm not saying that everyone else cheats and beats their talent, but I do think that some sites have more model input and respect than others.) While some sites have staff photographers, I think a lot of our models simply get their partners to shoot the pics, or even do so themselves.

What's my point? I suppose just that this is common practice in one corner of the web, and I still prefer dealing directly with models.

As an update to the situation, the model in question got back to me, and it seems like the problem is perhaps one part confusion over her deal with the photographer, and one part the photographer being a pissy ex-boyfriend.

emmanuelle · 2005-08-20, 12:08 PM

Sorry for the delay, I missed this.
When I purchase content from a photographer, it is usually shot to spec, and so the model is available to sign my own release, rather than the photographer's. Since I buy exclusive, there really is no need to sign the photographer's release, since he has no rights to use it anyway. I then have the photographer fill out my transfer of copyright form. Only after he has done this, does he get paid.
I do my best to avoid situations such as your's, since shared content makes me really uncomfortable. What I have done in the past with webgirls, is to purchase the content on an exclusive basis (often at a slightly reduced rate), and then issue them a license so that they can use it on their personal websites. This allows me to dictate the terms of how & where they can use it (usually confined to their member area); and provides an opportunity to define each of our roles in the situation.

So far it has worked well for me.

2005-07-30, 07:52 PM	#1
furrygirl No offence Apu, but when they were handing out religions you must have been out taking a whizz Join Date: May 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 281	Submissions copyright issue / model or photog is screwing me I'm dealing with an irritating situation today, and I'm wondering if anyone else has an experience like mine. On my site Veg Porn, I advertise that I buy exclusive photos submitted by models. I am very clear with models that I only buy exclusive content, so they can't submit the same pics to other sites. Veg Porn is not a fancy set-up, and as far as I know, most of the models shoot their photos with their partners or friends. (Harkavy shot one set, and he's credited with it.) Today, someone emailed me that a guy going by "Skulz" is giving away free CDs of content I purchased from a model on his Geocities page. (I've already complained to Yahoo about a possible copyright issue.) The page tells people that it's stupid to pay for porn when he'll happily send you the full set for free on a CD, and he names another site he claims to have taken photos for and is giving away content from. The sites says, "Some of the photos above can be found @ (Veg Porn :: Models : Ewon) and many other porn related web sites. ~ I posted some photos here as I was the photographer yet I did not get credit for this work. I have posed some of the images here for free. No need to pay to see them @ (Veg Porn :: Models : Ewon) or if they are still on Suicidegirls.com I am not clear on that issue. The set was taken for Suicidegirls.com in May of 2004. I am a general photographer, it was Erin Crabill who sold the photos I took to porn web sites, not H Street Studio / Nowhere Productionz." So, either this guy is lying, or the model purposely sold me something she didn't own, or she did not understand the concept of exclusive and made an honest mistake. Anyhow, I've been screwed by someone. I do realize that the law side with the photographer as the owner of copyrights, but it's bullshit that there's no way for me ensure that, buying submission from a model, that I actually "own" them. I guess I should add a clause in my model release with something to the effect of the model stating that his/her photos are both exclusive and owned by them solely. (But it would still feel like a catch-22, such as if an under 18 person signs a contract: it's null and void since they are under 18.) A model can't sign away the copyright on photos she didn't take. I don't know what else to do besides scratch this as a loss, but I have emailed the model to get her side of it. I've asked to either get a copyright release from her photographer or get back the $240 I've paid her for "exclusive" content, but I'm not counting on getting either. Any advice on not getting screwed again in this arena? __________________ furrygirl.com & vegporn.com & vegsexshop.com & eroticred.com

2005-07-30, 10:14 PM	#3
furrygirl No offence Apu, but when they were handing out religions you must have been out taking a whizz Join Date: May 2005 Location: Seattle Posts: 281	That's what I thought at first, but how can that be legally binding? If a photographer owns the copyright of an image because s/he shot it, how can a model sign away the copyright? It's like me selling my neighbor's car. __________________ furrygirl.com & vegporn.com & vegsexshop.com & eroticred.com

2005-07-30, 08:58 PM	#2
emmanuelle 0100011101100101011001010 1101011001000000100001101 1010000110100101100011 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,441	When I purchase exclusive photos, I insist on them signing my 'transfer of copyright' document.

2005-07-30, 10:24 PM	#4
emmanuelle 0100011101100101011001010 1101011001000000100001101 1010000110100101100011 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,441	I dont buy photos from models. I buy them from the photographer, and have the model sign my release wherever possible.

2005-08-20, 12:08 PM	#6
emmanuelle 0100011101100101011001010 1101011001000000100001101 1010000110100101100011 Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Montreal Posts: 1,441	Sorry for the delay, I missed this. When I purchase content from a photographer, it is usually shot to spec, and so the model is available to sign my own release, rather than the photographer's. Since I buy exclusive, there really is no need to sign the photographer's release, since he has no rights to use it anyway. I then have the photographer fill out my transfer of copyright form. Only after he has done this, does he get paid. I do my best to avoid situations such as your's, since shared content makes me really uncomfortable. What I have done in the past with webgirls, is to purchase the content on an exclusive basis (often at a slightly reduced rate), and then issue them a license so that they can use it on their personal websites. This allows me to dictate the terms of how & where they can use it (usually confined to their member area); and provides an opportunity to define each of our roles in the situation. So far it has worked well for me.