I personally know a program that received a $1,200,000 judgement against them doing exactly what you're talking about doing. Are you a gambling man?

They're no longer in business. They couldn't afford to operate after the judgement.

Xenigo, I think you're new to Cam_Girls. Logic has no home in this conversation.

Some light reading so you know who you're engaging in debate:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...365742538.html

http://fragerfactor.blogspot.com/201...t-on-rick.html

I call bullshit again!

Shelly I've explained 20 times already those news articles are based on forgeries.

You've already posted here at great length about your time spent committed to a psychiatric hospital due to the events described in the first article. Anyone can pull up posts made by your user name to back up the information in the links above.


You're right, they must be forgeries. Must be the blasted mind control waves the Australian Govermnet is beaming down from space, making you admit to those acts.. shame on them. We all know it's only a matter of time before your true greatness will be revealed to all when you finally win the James Randy prize.

You can call bullshit as many times as you'd like, but that doesn't bring truth to anything you're talking about.

I've sent this thread to a few attorneys that regularly post on this forum. Hopefully they'll be able to enlighten you, and steer you in the right direction.

Yo Fuck Face
You call cam models sluts?

I call you a cheap cock sucker :)

Uh, the fair use cite from Wikipedia clearly details review sites as being fair use.

As for your $1,200,000 case supporting your dubious claims, if it was that much there would be a newspaper article.

You are blind, stupid, and a liar, all clearly proven above.

That's 2 GFY liars caught out today!

Except you know and I know that you're not talking about stealing cam feed content so you can "review the site".

Hit me up on ICQ or Skype if you think I'm not being truthful, and I'll let you know more than enough details.

Then I recommend actually contacting an attorney before you lose your ass in a most serious kind of way. :)

What governs this situation is the terms between the web cam performer and the network/company she is doing freelance work for. If there's a work for hire provision, then the finished product--the streamed performance is owned by the network. If there's no such provision, the rights owner is the performer by default by operation of what Xenigo described above. The performer is the "photographer" or "videographer".

As someone posted already, there are default laws (similar in all countries, just a little different between US and Euro), but these applies if there's no one contract that overwrites them. So this is not same for all cam shows but it depends by the agreement (TOS - Terms of Service) between the cam girl and the site, and also between the customer and the cam site. In a TOS a site can write that you accept to pay them forver for no reason until you are alive, and if you accept it, that's it, you are bound to it, even if this is silly. So if a model accept a TOS where all his private chats are property of the site and she have no one right (not evne moral right) and she accept also these clips to be used in advertising so published without need to ask further consents, well she agreed to this and she can't complain so much. If in agreement the model would accept also that users get right to own store distribute freely the private chats, that make the users entitled to do what they want and in practice, the model agrees the private chats videos goes into the public domain.
So the question should be made about a specific site and should be provided the TOS of member and contract of model, to say definitely what's the case, site by site.
In general (but not always) the copyright of video is either by model or site, and so the customer should get written consent from model, site or both, to redistribute or even store on own computer a copy of the private video (unless already provided as site feature).
In the specific case of our site ChatGF.com, we decided we're like skype or yahoo messenger and so, we have right to stream the private once, but copyrights keeps to the model for redistribution, so the user should get a written consent from model to store and especially redistribute the private chats recordings, plus get copy of 2257 docs if he don't want other type of issues.
Usually, guys don't ask at all and simply may record private chats and upload in forums or tubes - then when a model finds her private in forums accessible from her neighbours, write upset to us (the cam site) and asks us to contact those forums or tubes for take down (russian teenager girls may be not the top laywers out there so is normal they ask the cam site to intervene).
I know of a model who got a color printed copy of her private chat frames, sticked to her home door in Kiev. Neighbours had quite fun at it, obviously she had not that much fun. It happens.

50 MoFo's that can't read a law and understand it.


...


He probably does and that just proves how stupid people are about copyright law.

They've been lulled into certain beliefs about copyright because of piss poor enforcement.
They've gotten away with it all their life, so they don't think they are breaking any laws.

But in the end it's like speeding :The fact that cops let other people speed down my
street for 50 years doesn't mean I will not get a speeding ticket when I do it yourself.

I like the phrase I have seen in some apartment leases where it says :

"Failure of management to enforce rules in no way invalidates any rules, nor prevents
the future enforcement of any rules".

That's what selected individuals are experiencing when they get busted for
copyright violations. They can't understand why they are prosecuted and nobody
else was. LOL! Nobody else got that speeding ticket either.

:1orglaugh


On the other hand, the people who "don't get it" actually do "get something".
They "get it" that they can use that material and there is a "long shot in hell" that
anyone will ever do anything serious about it.

Note : A "long shot in hell" that strikes the temple will probably be fatal.

:1orglaugh

How are you comparing video conferencing and skyping between two individuals and watching a cam model on a private website?

CAM TO CAM is offered on many Camgirls sites.

How does Pay Per Minute change the fact the software is the same as used for video conferencing?


http://hercshome.com/sunnies.jpg


Put the glasses on the left on, and you can go meet someone at the park and there is an option to record the whole thing.

Put the glasses on the right on, and you can go meet someone at Skype.com/session23844 or CamGirls.com/Room12 and there is an option to record the whole thing.

One you can do what you want with the images you recorded, one you can't!

What about a 20 guys 20 girls virtual orgy, everyone sees everyone nekked? Who owns what?

Sorry about the $20 camera line, touchy subject? Hit an ego-nerve?

Actually, there are laws against recording people in private situations w/o their knowledge, especially for profit. Just because you record something with your camera doesn't mean you own it, it doesn't just apply to performances.

Now what if the user can zoom and pan with his keyboard? Now HE is creating the video...

No he isn't, he's just zooming and panning. The cam device, computer, and software combined are still creating the video.

Good rule of thumb is if you're worried about the legality of what you're doing. Don't do it. :2 cents:

There are broadcast rights for companies.. ie.. NFL.

Are you really the guy on your avatar?? HAHAHA

you are fucking UGLY, dude!!?

It must be very frustrating to pay for sex your entire life, HAHA.

You look like a fucking android!!!! I can't remember the actor's name, but it was a movie about extraterrestrials and one of the guy looked EXACTLY like you!!! hahahaha. :1orglaugh

Now go talk about the law, you have no fucking idea, dude. Make sure you update yourself, before you waste shitloads of money in vain. :pimp

Just check what other people are saying in their posts, you are obviously completely mistaken, you have no fucking idea, Android. hahaha.

It was a GOOD QUESTION yesterday.
:error

The user is recording the video for sure, but creating the video??????????


PLEASE!!!!!!!


That's like saying that if my TV allows panning and zooming then I'm creating the
NFL Super Bowl if it's broadcast and I sit there and fuck with my TV while I'm recording it.


:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

What doesn't apply? What private situations? What law?

You're just full of shit Smelly Crotch.

Now you say nobody owns any photo's, totally spurious argument just designed to ignore the comparison from virtual and real world meeting.

Stick to your repeated identical ad hom arguments where you make up all the shit in the world.

Lamis, Gene is an attorney. :2 cents:

Attorney's are paid to win arguments, not decide the law.

Whoever's side they're on, they'll substantiate certain laws in their favor.

For instance, Gene only mentioned "rights", and deliberately left out "use" of the video.

Because the legal "use" of the video depends on who owns the "rights" to the video.

:warning

Listen dude, I'm not an attorney... but my brother is an attorney, all of his friends are attorneys, and a lot of my own friends are attorneys. I get all the legal advice I could ever imagine for free, and I get a lot of it. I've done a TON of research on this very topic because my entire business revolves around it. Often times we spend evenings discussing issue exactly like the one I'm talking about with you. I guess you could say I'm quite an "enthusiast" on the subject of copyright.

Really, I would absolutely love to understand where you're coming from. All I know is that if I were to sit down in front of a judge, with my attorney, and have an arbitration... with someone who had your perspective on IP infringement, we'd all have a good chuckle when you would be signing the check.

If you don't want to take anyone's word on it, go find some court cases... read them. Carefully. Really carefully. Then read them again.

Come back and let us know what you learn. :thumbsup

Listen, dude.

You are obviously stuck on time. This is 2011. Not 2002, so your BUSH ERA Conservative nazi rules and "judgement" is completely out of the point.

Maybe you did not notice MGM and Blockbuster are both broken?

Do you see the tube owners in jail? NO.

Do you see the file sharing sites owners in jail? NO.

Do you see them broken? NO.

do you see MGM and Blockbuster broken? YES.

Do you see content shooters like you quiting the business every single day because they fail MISERABLY to adapt to 2011? YES.

Seriously android, go read some cases. Carefully. Really carefully. Then read them again and again and again.

And then "maybe" come back.

:pimp

If you spent 10 years studying copyright law and never heard of fair use, you must have done some selective reading.

The only answer you'll ever believe is YOU THE PHOTOGRAPHER OWN EVERYTHING 100%.

I'm not going to look up case studies, you said look up WIKIPEDIA and it CLEARLY SHOWS FAIR USE APPLIES TO REVIEW SITES.

FFS haven't you ever seen a movie review on TV?

WHAT DID YOU SEE? A commentary on the choice of name for the movie?

NO YOU IDIOT, YOU SEE 5 MINUTES OF BRAD PITT AND MEGAN FOX IN ACTION!

You think 100,000 TV stations around the world paid $X million to Paramount for exemptions to the copyright?

PULL YOUR FAT FINGERS OUT YOUR EARS.

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT COPYRIGHT OR NOT, I'M THE TRUMAN, MOST OF THE STORY LINES ARE STOLEN FROM MY LIFE.

BUT I WILL SPEAK UP WHEN THE THREAD GOES LIKE THIS.



WE FILMED IT WE OWN EVERYTHING!

IT'S THE LAW!

IT'S MINE MINE MINE

YOU SUCK YOU FUCKING RETARD

HOW DARE YOU ASK A QUESTION ABOUT COPYRIGHT ON A CAMGIRL SHOW?






:thumbsup

I never said "nobody owns any photo's". :error

If you really care to know the legality of recording conversations w/o the other party's consent google "surreptitious recording" if you really want to know the answer.

If the law worked the way you'd like to think it does there would be no reason for consent forms or licensing agreements, etc..

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Time to up your dosage again...

Why call her a Webcam Slut, Web cam performer is the industry standard term.

You're a fucking idiot. Fair Use, even as you just described, would apply to excerpts of a body of work. Movie reviews on the news show short clips. Review sites do the same. You can't display the entire body of work and claim it's Fair Use. Reviews of books quote small passages, they don't print the entire fucking book. Amazon posts 30 second snippets of songs from a CD, not the entire song/CD.

Additionally, when you do see clips of movies on TV shows, it always says "Courtesy of Paramount" or whatever studio owns the rights to the film. Studios provide the review show with clips to use...the reviews shows don't just make their own copies to use. So, using a full webcam show, recorded/copied by the viewer, is not Fair Use. Unless the cam site provides the "viewer" with copies, they are not Fair Use material.

It's not quantum physics...