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

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 Originally Posted by Novatx

Beautiful Nova...

You are always sooo SWEET to ME!! Thank you sooo much!!

You offer a very good suggestion and I think that would work for me if I didn't enjoy the modeling so much… While it is a PAIN IN THE TUCKUS to diet, work out, study fashion magazine etc… it has given me a VERY POSITIVE OUTLET in my world of seclusion..

Because of my disorder I have to spend a great deal of time alone… Which I do not normally mind since I am introverted… However, I needed a DISTRACTION from the daily mental and physical chores that I need to perform daily in order to ensure that I stay healthy and strong for my family…

The other reason I am willing to deal with the LEGAL ISSUES of using a professional photographer is that with each photo session I get better and better at this craft… each photographer has a different outlook and style and it is a CHALLENGE to anticipate what he or she may want from me and to stay focused and sharp throughout the entire process..

The other reason to use professional photographers is to begin to establish a GOOD REPUTATION in the modeling world… I have a VERY GOOD reputation… I show up on time, I am always at the desired weight, I do not wear any type of clothing that will leave marks on my body and because I do ballet on a daily basis I can hold and maintain poses for a long time without complaining TOO MUCH… Lol..

I would have to say that MEGAN LOVE and I had the BEST mental connection and that surprised me because she was the first female photographer that I had worked with… but I seemed to know exactly what she wanted me to do before she even said it… So, even though our shoot lasted 6 hours… it really FLEW BY!!

Thank you for looking after me beautiful… your kindness and friendship means a lot to me and the other ladies in our lovely city…


Your adoring slave,

Guinevere

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. Originally Posted by a10bomb

RESEARCH…RESEARCH… REASEARCH!!

DAMMIT A10BOMB!! Stop trying to TURN ME ON!! YOU KNOW HOW I LOVE THAT!!

The next thing you know… Netx9 will have found a computer program to help with this matter…lol

Your FRISKY SLAVE can only HANDLE SO MUCH!!

Your dazed slave,

Guinevere

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!

Originally Posted by Kit_Kat

Hi SEXY KK!!

I just LOVE your name… KIT KAT!! YUMMY!! Thank you for the lovely compliments on my photos… that is very much appreciated!!

As of yet, I have not had the pleasure of working with BCD in Kansas City… However, the photographer there is VERY TALENTED and some of my favorite photos are on his website… there is one of a beautiful blonde, laying on red satin sheets and thigh high vinyl boots that is INCREDIBLE!!

When I first took professional photos I did not KNOW that I could negotiate the contract… However, as I have become a more accomplished SLAVE I have learned and I was able to negotiate with Russell Kenna, Megan Love and Luscious Leo…

With Megan Love I bought the rights to my images out right… and we negotiated other things so that we would both be comfortable.. So, when SL asked me to be in his calendar and HE DID SPECIFY that the photo I submit be CLEAR and without the WATERMARK of the photographer and he asked that it be a photo that had NEVER BEEN SHOWN BEFORE…

So, the easiest thing for me to do was to use a photo from my "Little Red Riding Hood" photo shoot with Megan Love…and since, I am in better shape now then I was last June… I did not feel like I was misleading anyone…

Your affectionate 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"..... Originally Posted by Whispers

Sir Whispers…

I am MOST FLATTERED that you noticed my absence last week… I know that you have had a great deal of responsibilities on your plate as of late. However, one of my munchkins was really sick and I needed to put on my SUPER MOMMY CAPE!!
(Yes, that cape is in PINK)

If your companion of last week was as adorable as the one you brought with you before than I am REALLY SORRY that I missed meeting her!! I am not sure there is any thing I can teach her… However, I must confess that I do love fashion and sex… and well, rumor has it… quite a few other things…

Last but not least… I HAVE MADE A SPECIAL NOTE to remember to wear my CREAM SA CHRISTMAS DRESS when you and your "BUDDIES" decide to descend upon our humble little town…

If nothing else… I will be easy to find…

Your blushing slave,

Guinevere

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!!! Originally Posted by LilMynx69

Hi Beautiful!!

What a PLEASURE to see you in our SA CO-ED section!! Thank you for joining our little discussion! I am not sure that I meant for it to get sooo heated but if nothing else it gets everyone to start THINKING!!

When I was a new provider there were sooo many things that I needed to do… Create a showcase, create a website, create an avatar etc… and so, basically almost everything that I needed in the beginning required some PHOTOS OF ME being NAUGHTY!!

And to think that I used to be SHY in front of the CAMERA!!

Your welcoming slave,

Guinevere

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!!!


Originally Posted by Phil35789

Sir Phil…

You see… I had to do SOMETHING to get YOUR ATTENTION!! Lol…

Now, I think I am going to run and HIDE before he SPANKS ME!! WAIT… Did I just say HIDE?!?

Your naughty slave,

Guinevere

slave your are beyond sexy!!! body is just amazing to stare at. Originally Posted by johnnyglaze

Sir SL and Sir Johnnyglaze…

Your flattery is most welcome and appreciated… Who said CHIVALRY was DEAD?

Your adoring slave,

Guinevere

this has to be the most in depth and informative thread I think I've ever read on here. Definitely something for people to think about. I like people explaining the legal jargon for people like me that don't understand it.


of course, pictures always great. providers like slave that use professionals can project a fantasy with beautiful pictures that are clear.

But all pictures are good, especially current ones.

Generally if you haven't signed a model release form no one has authority over your pictures other than you. I believe you're aware of what my own policy is so I won't detail it here.

My own thought is that any picture on a Provider site should be scrubbed. I've run across two cases where photographers have used a Provider's pics on their advertising sites with references to the Provider's RW names.

Sl was right in doing that scrubbing and providing due dilegence in protecting the security of the ladies. We don't operate in the RW. We're outlaws and (should) protect each other. ~ End of Rant!

Now... does anyone realize how hot you look in clothes?

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.

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!!!
Originally Posted by Phil35789

Your welcome Phil and that is an interesting point you also bring up though. Not really can you buy the pictures but should you be able to buy the pictures and is the model ok with that. From a legal standpoint it looks like the photographer is allowed to sell any pics he wants unless otherwise stated in the negotiations. But do some models not even realize that he could do this and if so which pictures is he selling the ones with the blurred faces or the untouched ones. Something to also think about.

RESEARCH…RESEARCH… REASEARCH!!

DAMMIT A10BOMB!! Stop trying to TURN ME ON!! YOU KNOW HOW I LOVE THAT!!

The next thing you know… Netx9 will have found a computer program to help with this matter…lol

Your FRISKY SLAVE can only HANDLE SO MUCH!!

Your dazed slave,

Guinevere Originally Posted by Slave Guinevere

SG That's what I do, the old debate guy from high school came out!!
I would apologize but I like the thought of this nerdy guy turning on the prom queen!!!

Oh and I am sure Netx9 has already been working on that which is why we haven't heard from him yet!




Sorry bud I owe you a beer for that one next time you are in town but I couldn't resist

Now... does anyone realize how hot you look in clothes? Originally Posted by Loxly

If you think she looks hot in clothes you should see her out of them! I think nearly broke my jaw when it hit the ground so hard the first time I saw her out of clothes!

Wrong in that "they" did not ask me to remove the pictures. Originally Posted by Still Looking

Where did I say "they" did not ask you to?

You were wrong to remove a stamp of creative license thus hiding the source of the person who created the image. Artist don't like that. *ThatL* is all i'm stating.

...

The studio was in their rights to make the request.

...
Originally Posted by Still Looking

Just read that after my last response. Still haven't read the whole thread yet.

But knowing the reason why the studio requested it, than I don't have to state anymore.

Generally if you haven't signed a model release form no one has authority over your pictures other than you. I believe you're aware of what my own policy is so I won't detail it here.

My own thought is that any picture on a Provider site should be scrubbed. I've run across two cases where photographers have used a Provider's pics on their advertising sites with references to the Provider's RW names.

Sl was right in doing that scrubbing and providing due dilegence in protecting the security of the ladies. We don't operate in the RW. We're outlaws and (should) protect each other. ~ End of Rant!

Now... does anyone realize how hot you look in clothes? Originally Posted by Loxly

I like your style Loxly!

Where did I say "they" did not ask you to?

You were wrong to remove a stamp of creative license thus hiding the source of the person who created the image. Artist don't like that. *ThatL* is all i'm stating. Originally Posted by Precious_b

Talking in the third person gets confusing. LOL

Just read that after my last response. Still haven't read the whole thread yet.

But knowing the reason why the studio requested it, than I don't have to state anymore. Originally Posted by Precious_b

At no point have I argued or questioned the rights of photographers or the copy rights they might have in place. The photographer did NOT request the pictures be taken down. That was the correction and was factual. I was simply NOT willing to have a large banner slapped across the picture as was requested. It is my feeling that any photographer that slaps these large banners across their pictures is tasteless and only motivated in promoting themselves. It goes without saying that any photographer might want credit for their creative work by placing a "tasteful" stamp or signature on their work.

Let's not lose sight of what happened here. I took the time to secure pictures from providers. I requested "unpublished" pictures if possible and requested NO PHOTOGRAPHERS names on the pictures. I did this by PM and email. My mission was to highlight that this board has some unbelievably beautiful ladies second to none. I think I accomplished the task at hand. The rest.... well its all bull shit.

Sir Phil…

You see… I had to do SOMETHING to get YOUR ATTENTION!! Lol…

Now, I think I am going to run and HIDE before he SPANKS ME!! WAIT… Did I just say HIDE?!?

Your naughty slave,

Guinevere Originally Posted by Slave Guinevere

Slave,

You always have my ATTENTION! And, yes after you starting this thread you deserve to be SPANKED. I am ready, willing, and able to properly spank you. Let me know when you are ready. You know how to get hold of me ............... and to hold me!

Interestingly, or at least for those who have found this copyright thread informative or interesting, Sarah Palin was recently sued for positng on her Facebook a famous photo of firemen raising an American flag 9/11 without permission. She is claiming "fair use" and explains why it is fair use. Some of the prongs of the test could apply here.

Also, for those in San Antonio the SA artist who created the "Light Channels" under Interstate 37 at Commerce Street and Houston street just sued Birmingham Alabama companies for breach of contract and copyright infringement because they plan on making more light channels based on his work. The attorney quotes are interesting about typical way to resolve these matters. One attorney says "when a person buys an art piece, the artist retains the rights to his idea. The public may own the piece, but the bundle of intellectual property rights that go with it are not necessarily attached."

This all just illustrates that it is not as simple as it appears on the surface. Maybe some of us should stay at a Holiday Inn Express and give a seminar on the topic the next day..... Just kidding.