Let me get this straight about Cybernet..

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I just read this:
[snipped from YNOT site]
When I get a model release signed by talent, I am the one paying the bill. This company wants me to pay them, sign a model release, so they can use my (or anyone else's) image for their own commercial purposes.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? I pay them so they can use my image to make money.

In my world the producer pays the talent so the producer is entitled to earn money off the images.

This is kind of through the looking glass stuff. Would someone please clarify for me why this is included in the terms of purchase?

*shrug* I consider it SOP for CYA purposes - a snapshot of a bunch of webmasters hanging out at the bar so they can say "Hey look at the good times at the last one" is the general end result. And the PITA that would result from taking that snap, then having to go get signatures from every person in the bar? Bleh: not worth it.

Plus, let's be honest: a lot of folks, industry-wide love trolling the pix after a show, and this give the show-throwers the opportunity to be able to provide that.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

*

Plus, let's be honest: a lot of folks, industry-wide love trolling the pix after a show, and this give the show-throwers the opportunity to be able to provide that.

I do, but I promise I won't look at ANY pictures with certain people (who shall remain nameles, lest I trip some sort of promotional payout scheme for fame and fortune using his/her/its name.)

I do, however, enjoy keeping track of that donut stealing fat bastard that shall also remain nameless. It's always fun to see what fine chic he's pushing up against, who is trying to appear friendly, but making sure he doesn't really touch any vital part of her......

[Hell Puppy]

I dont really like the policy, but it is what it is. I dont need my fat ugly ass plastered all over, consider it my gift to society and blindness prevention. JFK has got a couple of heinous ones of me.

But it's SOP, it's typically the same even for mainstream shows now. If they snap a pic, they want to be free to use it however they see fit without any legal BS.

Now in reality, I've never seen a shooter of any type, including JFK, at these shows who wont steer away if you just politely let 'em know you dont wanna be photographed.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

I dont really like the policy, but it is what it is. I dont need my fat ugly ass plastered all over, consider it my gift to society and blindness prevention. JFK has got a couple of heinous ones of me.

But it's SOP, it's typically the same even for mainstream shows now. If they snap a pic, they want to be free to use it however they see fit without any legal BS.

Now in reality, I've never seen a shooter of any type, including JFK, at these shows who wont steer away if you just politely let 'em know you dont wanna be photographed.

wrong. I asked JFK politely to not shoot me, he did and it took me three weeks to get my pic removed. Then he did it again at a gfy christmas party.....same thing. three weeks to get it removed. He doesn't give a shit. He told me i should not be ashamed of working in porn. I wasnt, but at that time I could have lost.....say.....sixty thousand dollars because of his pictures. It was simple, Julius don't take my picture. No big deal. I have been taking pictures long before Julius got his first camera and I really do not appreciate an amateur snapper trying to teach me my business. Happy snaps are fine. They make money and pay his rent, but he is not a photographer. And don't fuck with people that don't want to be snapped at porn parties. Dude, you are not a journalist. You are a hack with a camera that has carved out a niche. but we both know that, right Julius?