help regarding usc model release

[clare40dd]

Hi someone has sold content of me without contract or model release when i first started out just stumbled across it seems to be doing quite well from it !
where do i go from here to report it get it took down they have no photo id either

[planeterotica]

There was a case several years ago i cannot remember the exact details, where a model went to the High Court to try and get compensation for photos that were published of her without her permission, once it was established that the model had recieved payment for the shoot the Judge dismissed the case stating that as the model had recieved payment she would be deemed to be a professional and must therefore expect the photos to be used in a commercial manner, as far as IDs go this has more to do about establishing the models age than rights to the photos.

[clare40dd]

ok well i didnt recieve payment for this i was just starting out some guy took some pics and vids for me i didnt know about anything then obviously now i think how dumb! even so he shouldnt be using it without my consent or model releases surely

[planeterotica]

If you didnt recieve payment and you didnt give consent for publication then you probably have a case, best of luck.

[TheDonkeyWork]

Unfortuantley, Clare, the model release isn't really worth the paper it is written on. Serious producers/publishers insist on them because they don;t want the aggravation of dealing with copyright disputes. In general, copyright resides with the photographer.

As planeterotica points out, the 2 photo id's are just for proof of age purposes... so unless you can say "I was under 18 at this point in time", for what you're wanting to do (i.e. get this material pulled - I presume) - the ID's (or lack of) is irrelevant.

There's very little you can do other than contest copyright, but in all honesty, I think it's just a case of a lesson learned and a lesson for others to learn from.

[clare40dd]

Yes lesson deffo learned cant believe i was so gullible wouldnt dream of doing that now so models out there who are new to the industry dont let any wannabe photographers take vids of you unless your being paid ! as you could just see urself on the net on various sites

Anyway guys my site should be done by this weekend woot!

[TheDonkeyWork]

OR - as opposed to getting paid, get the copyright and get it in writing... i.e. that copyright shifts from the 'tog to you, the model... That way you most certainly will be able to approach the webhost and say :-

"I own the copyright for that material - here is written, signed proof of that - please remove it"

[Snow Patrol]

Send a DCMA to their host:

Sample DMCA appears below. Adjust and use:
----------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Notice of Copyright Infringement

Dear Mr/Mrs/Site. BlahBlah,

Below are DMCA Notices of Copyright Infringement. Please note that the below lists specific posts and/or comments within the original article/post. Please remove them as soon as possible.

I certify under penalty of perjury, that I am an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner of the intellectual property rights and that the information contained in this notice is accurate.

I have a good faith belief that the page or material listed below is not authorized by law for use by the individual(s) associated with the identified page listed below or their agents and therefore infringes the copyright owner's rights.

I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU ACT EXPEDITIOUSLY TO REMOVE OR DISABLE ACCESS TO THE PAGE OR MATERIAL CLAIMED TO BE INFRINGING.

This notice is sent pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the European Union's Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society (2001/29/EC), and/or other laws and regulations relevant in European Union member states or other jurisdictions.

My contact information is as follows:

Organization name: Your Company Name
Full: YourName/YourCompany
Email: blah@blah.blah
Phone: 118-118
Mailing address:
1 Blaheblah Road
Blahblah,
Blah

*** INFRINGING PAGE OR MATERIAL ***

Infringing pages/materials that I demand be disabled or removed in consideration of the above:

Infringing title: blahblahblah
Infringing URL: http://www.blahblahblah.com/blah/blah.blah
Infringing post: Posted by blahblah at insert-date-and-time-of-post-here

Infringing title: blahblahblah
Infringing URL: http://www.blahblahblah.com/blah/blah.blah
Infringing post: Posted by blahblah at insert-date-and-time-of-post-here

My electronic signature follows:
Sincerely,
Yourname/Your Company

----------------------------------------------------------

A DMCA is a Digital Millenium Copyright Notice and is recognized by law... A host cant just ignore it.

[paul jones]

Risky.

She isn't the copyright holder.

If you take pics, the copyright is yours - that's how paparazzi live.

This dispute is over "who could do what" with them, and that can only be settled by a court seeking to understand the original verbal agreement.

IMO Claire should contact the guy and say "you didn't pay for the shoot, and it was supposed to be private. I would charge X for that today, with a release and IDs etc. Please pay me or I will go to to Small Claims Court.

It's a reasonable request, and any reasonable tog should see it as a fair, no aggro, way of sorting the matter.

Clair - find out what SCC will cost - I think both sides pay their own costs, but they are low, and so even if you lose, you will cause him aggro. Even if you win, you will still have to enforce (if he doesn't pay up) and that can be difficult

I'm told the court officials are very helpful, so give them a call. Present as a damsel in distress

Good luck.

[Snow Patrol]

paul jones wrote:

> Risky.
>
> She isn't the copyright holder.
>
> If you take pics, the copyright is yours - that's how paparazzi
> live.
>

Sorry Paul, I respectfully disagree.

Paparazzi use pics that were taken in a public place. A park, a beach, a road, whatever, where the person whos pic has been taken 'Cannot expect reasonable privacy, as they are in a public place'

However, Im assuming that in this situation, that isnt the case. She allowed a guy to take pics, that were not for publication. He took those pics under either the agreement they wouldn't be published (hence no model release) or that he would pay her, and get a model release.

He did neither and is now profiting from those images.

Whether or not Clair wants to try and get reimbursed, and go through the courts, (Your way) or simply stop them from being used (My way) is of course, 100% down to Claire herself...

However in this case, as I currently understand it, the paparazzi argument does not apply