owning your image

[Lexi_Nova]

sorry i think this is a better place to post this.. I was wondering if there is any sites that you don't have to sign away all of rights of video and pictures to be used for promotion or whatever they see fit?

 

[Lexi_Nova]

hello? does that mean there isn't one? I understand that your image will still be on the internet I just wouldn't want to be used for advertisement and stuff with out getting paid for it.. So I signed up for flirt4free got through everything then read the fine print.. so if someone could point me to one that didn't do that it would greatly be appreciated!!

 

[Sevrin]

hello? does that mean there isn't one? I understand that your image will still be on the internet I just wouldn't want to be used for advertisement and stuff with out getting paid for it.. So I signed up for flirt4free got through everything then read the fine print.. so if someone could point me to one that didn't do that it would greatly be appreciated!!

I don't think you'll find one. Without the unrestricted right to reproduce images of models, sites would not be able to show those images legally without having to ask permission every single time each time they would want to use those hundreds and thousands of images or recordings to promote the models or themselves, which would be a nightmare.

 

[zippypinhead]

hello? does that mean there isn't one? I understand that your image will still be on the internet I just wouldn't want to be used for advertisement and stuff with out getting paid for it.. So I signed up for flirt4free got through everything then read the fine print.. so if someone could point me to one that didn't do that it would greatly be appreciated!!

I don't think you'll find one. Without the unrestricted right to reproduce images of models, sites would not be able to show those images legally without having to ask permission every single time each time they would want to use those hundreds and thousands of images or recordings to promote the models or themselves, which would be a nightmare.

Except no, that's not right. There is a difference between what cam sites do, which is classify all model material as work made for hire, and what all of the rest of the internet does, which is utilize a nonexclusive license agreement that has all the power to cover exactly what you're talking about, but keeps the ownership of the intellectual property in the hands of the creator (the model.) By calling material work made for hire, the cam sites make claim of outright ownership of that material. It's dirty tricks, and is dubiously legal, really. I mean, who owns the rights to a feed that's simulcast between two separate cam sites that have the same for-hire clause (and they ALL have that same for-hire clause)? Are independently-produced photos and videos that are posted on a model's profile also considered works made for hire? How the hell can these sites even uphold such a claim? At worst, it's predatory use of law. At best, it's wrong-headed and largely useless. Either way, it's not good news for models, who should rightfully own the content they are providing.

To answer your question, Lexi_Nova, I have yet to run across a model agreement that hasn't had the work for hire clause in it. I think "keep your rights!" would be a good selling point for a startup cam site, but so far, nobody has taken that leap.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

Except no, that's not right. There is a difference between what cam sites do, which is classify all model material as work made for hire, and what all of the rest of the internet does, which is utilize a nonexclusive license agreement that has all the power to cover exactly what you're talking about, but keeps the ownership of the intellectual property in the hands of the creator (the model.) By calling material work made for hire, the cam sites make claim of outright ownership of that material. It's dirty tricks, and is dubiously legal, really. I mean, who owns the rights to a feed that's simulcast between two separate cam sites that have the same for-hire clause (and they ALL have that same for-hire clause)? Are independently-produced photos and videos that are posted on a model's profile also considered works made for hire? How the hell can these sites even uphold such a claim? At worst, it's predatory use of law. At best, it's wrong-headed and largely useless. Either way, it's not good news for models, who should rightfully own the content they are providing.

To answer your question, Lexi_Nova, I have yet to run across a model agreement that hasn't had the work for hire clause in it. I think "keep your rights!" would be a good selling point for a startup cam site, but so far, nobody has taken that leap.

I agree with Zippy.
What the camsite should do is have model grant a non exclusive license for anything that is put on and streamed from their website for promotional purpose. What they do instead is make extraordinarily broad claims for reasons which are a mystery. I mean it is possible that one of the talented artist and musician who also cams song or piece of art could hit it really big, and because it was available on MFC or SM, the companies could get a piece of it cause it was original/performed distributed on camsite. My guess is that a decent lawyer would prevent that from happening.

I have read a few of the agreement and they all basically require you to give up ownership of your images. My believe is that very few young woman who sign up to model, are familiar with the nuances of copyright law, the camsites know this and take advantage of the ignorance. So I think its could you ask about it. You could always modify the agreement as you think is fair and see if the camsite agrees. Most of the time when I ask for modification to agreements with companies I get rejected but sometimes they agree.

 

[Sevrin]

There is a difference between what cam sites do, which is classify all model material as work made for hire, and what all of the rest of the internet does, which is utilize a nonexclusive license agreement that has all the power to cover exactly what you're talking about, but keeps the ownership of the intellectual property in the hands of the creator (the model.)

The "rest of the internet", by which I suppose you mean social media, does not contract with models to broadcast their image performing adult acts for paying customers. Social media provide access to materials posted on them by members for free. How could websites confidently sell access to such images without being owners?

No one is obliged by cam sites to sign up with them. Models on an adult web site are adults, earning a living as adults, and should be treated as such, rather than as children.

 

[zippypinhead]

There is a difference between what cam sites do, which is classify all model material as work made for hire, and what all of the rest of the internet does, which is utilize a nonexclusive license agreement that has all the power to cover exactly what you're talking about, but keeps the ownership of the intellectual property in the hands of the creator (the model.)

The "rest of the internet", by which I suppose you mean social media, does not contract with models to broadcast their image performing adult acts for paying customers. Social media provide access to materials posted on them by members for free. How could websites confidently sell access to such images without being owners?

No one is obliged by cam sites to sign up with them. Models on an adult web site are adults, earning a living as adults, and should be treated as such, rather than as children.

There are no subscription models in place in camland that I'm aware of. Just as with social media, the lion's share of media that is posted and accessed on cam sites is as "for free" as anything else, so I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that cam sites must outright own all material that lands in its domain in order to properly display it. That just simply isn't true. And outside of camland, it isn't the standard way of doing business. I can't imagine that services like Youtube or Twitch, for example, are dealing with situations of content protection that are any less complex than MFC. Youtube most certainly contracts with content providers to display their work, and to make money from the display of that content. That's what the ToS is that everyone signs, but nobody reads. It's a contract. More than that, Youtube has pay walls for certain content, and displays adult material, and it has an active system in place to deal with copyright disputes. I would say that it's a far more complex system in place, and yet it manages all this without having to own everything that gets uploaded. Why is that? Because it's unnecessary, and frankly, it's bad for business.

There really is no purpose that cam sites serve which necessitates a work for hire agreement. The models are not exclusive acts. They are independent content providers. They set their own prices, they provide their own equipment, they produce their own peripherals, and so on, and so forth. They have no legal protection stemming from the the contract they sign, and they have no legal recourse should they have a complaint. In short, they receive absolutely no compensation for the rights they sign away, which is straight fucked, yo.

TL;DR: "Because tits" is not a good excuse for shady dealing.

 

[Lexi_Nova]

thank you guys for your input! Thats what i was afraid of but i will see if the will modify it, but am not gonna count on it

 

[Teagan]

No site will modify their sign up rules or TOS for a girl. It's not a negotiation. You either agree or dont. If you dont then you can GTFO as far as their concerned. And any site you want to work for (established, has traffic, proven to pay out, etc) has the same legal lingo in it. They own whatever is on their feed or site for forever no matter how long you work there and they can do what they want with it if they choose to.

Now this was good in a way as it gave the sites rights to your stuff but also gave them the right to send DMCAs for you if you wanted them to. This was a long stated thing as the one bonus to the contracts we sign. However Streamate doesn't send them for girls, MFC stopped sending them unless it was their own feed, Chaturbate has proven impossible to get them to send them out, as has Clips4sale. So the one bonus that used to come out of it really isn't even a thing anymore. They just own your stuff for forever.

So what do you do? You can't negotiate and they don't even help send DMCAs now. Well your best bet is at the least not be on a site who uses (abuses) your stuff. It's a small thing you can choose. MFC does not take girls feeds or private shows and use them for advertising. Clips4sale does not either. They use other methods to advertise which is a small consolation. And if you quit and delete your stuff they don't then use you either. So that's cool. Chaturbate for a while used girls stuff to advertise by signing them up on dating or find someone to fuck sites without their knowledge or permission. (They did this even before they had girls sign contracts so no permission was given to them to use girls stuff. Highly illegal actually.) But then they changed it and made contracts be mandatory. They of course denied at first it was them even doing it but through a process of elimination and very smart girls it was proven. To which they said they would stop. If im not mistaken though they seemed to have for a while but again reports cropped up within the last few months. Even ads on craigslist supposedly being CB girls but weren't. It may be white label promoters now and not specifically CB but just fair warning you will be used and CB encourages white labels. As well as ads CB does use their feed on other sites. Those lil pop ups on the right of your screen showing some girl live is sometimes CB. So you are being used there as well. It's CB and white labels there.

The worst of the offenders is Streamate though. They use and abuse you and your image for life. They advertise using pop ups of girls. They take your feed from free chat, private, exclusive, and gold shows and make videos of you and sell them on your page. They don't show them to you and you can only see them if you're a member signed in looking at a girls page. It looks like the girls are selling them but in reality the girls have no way to see them without a work around, have no control over them or what they are, and get not a cent from the sales of them. They girls arent even told they are there in any way but they are. They also take all those shows and use them to advertise and promo in not only pop ups but they post them on tube sites as well. Usually your name is not included so if someone did like you they wouldnt be able to easily find you either. So the odds of you making money off of those either is slim. (Contacting SM does nothing to get them down either. They tell you it's their right to post them basically.) They will also give affiliate marketers and white label guys your content for them to use how they want to. Craigslist, dating sites, fuck for free sites, etc are all fair game for them to post on. So those guys are making money off of sign ups, click traffic, etc by using shows you did. All to get traffic to their white label stuff or blog or get affiliate money. Again you're not getting a penny from that really either. Usually your name is never on those so again some guy who likes you would have to find you which is very hard for them to do. (Again contacting SM support to get those videos down just leads to them telling you the marketer has the right to the video and will not take it down. Youre stuck in those ads and tube sites for forever.) SM also takes those shows and sells them to other sites for them to use to promo. MFC for instance could buy your SM shows and use it to promo themselves even though you've never been on MFC a day in your life. Now MFC doesn't do this but there are hundreds of sites who do. Then they use you to get click traffic money, sign ups, and/or traffic to some other site you aren't even on. Do you get money from that? No. (And yet again trying to send DMCAs is fruitless as they have permission from SM to use you as they see fit so it's there for life.)

Sm also says this will not happen to you if you geoblock. I can say for a fact that is an outright lie. Always has been. Me as well as several others have been used in ads despite geoblocking. And when you ask SM about it directly they tell you it's for your own benefit as it brings traffic to the site and therefore you. They couldnt explain to me how taking a recording of my gold show and selling it to another site that I was in no way linked to or even on and didnt even have my name in the ad was good for me or any other girl on the site. The only person it benefitted was SM making even more money off of me. They even make a lil threat that if you opt out of ads or geoblock that it will hurt your placement on the site. And it does. They lower your placement if you do it. Pfff.

So yeah SM is by far the worst offender as far as taking advantage. I know some girls dont care and work there anyway cause of the traffic and money and such by my gosh the cost of that is to much for me. At 35% cut (30% depending on your country) and they were making hand over fist selling and reselling my stuff as well as every other girl on there as well. It's ridiculous and they get away with it every day.

Now there is always tube sites and torrents that put you out there the second you cam and that's always a risk you take. But at the least girls can work on sites that don't double and triple fuck them by using them for life.