Business Model Morals How Times Have Changed ?!!!

[TrashyContent]

So... I know "Solo Models" are not the big thing they used to be... However, about 4 years ago I spent a shit load of money shooting 1 particular model, I told her at the time we would produce a members website with the content, and even offered her a % to be interactive with the site...

When the site finally went live, she went mental ! Basically saying that she thought we were creating a site to promote her, and a paysite she had launched... of course we did not pay her all that money just to promote her site, which as the time we shot her, we didn't even know she was going to build...

So twice this year she has contacted a company to represent her and issue us with a DMCA... the first time round we showed the company the model release and the ID's and they went away happy that we was in the right... not 8 months on and a different company are back knocking on the door, and even though we've shown them the model release and ID's they are saying that we are in the wrong...

So here's the question, how many solo sites out there actually have an active model behind the site, I know there are some, but if I am honest I'd say 10%... But still the sites position themselves as though the models are interactive, for me this is all part of the industry... or am I morally wrong ?

I think if the surfer doesn't believe the model is interactive then there is less chance they will join... even when we joined a very well known clip site, they said to us, even if the models are not involved, you should use text as if it was written by the girl and not a third party... so I don't think we're doing anything different from others...

I also know for a fact two big well known solo sites, no longer have the models interaction, and haven't for a number of years... but again everything about the site, is as if the girls are running the sites themselves...

I know things over the last couple of years have changed, with a lot of girls doing webcam and clip sites, where they don't even have to leave their bedroom... but should that mean that work they did before and signed releases etc, should be devalued or have to change to fit their wants... my opinion is not.

Now I don't doubt there will be a few trolls who want to turn this into drama, but anyone who's had experience in solo model sites, I am sure will know that this is common practice. As I said not only did we pay her a lot of money, we also offered her a % to get involved, treated her like a frekkin pricess... and now we're the big bad

Not looking for the sympathy vote, but interested in constructive input...

[TisMe]

I think it comes down to your model release and what editorial rights it gives you. Past that I world counter the DMCAs that you receive and see what happens.

I would also speak to lawyer.

[Pseudonymous]

Most sites these days actually have the model involved, mainly due to the platforms that exist now. And the small-medium businesses ceasing to exist due to a maturing industry.

Once the content is yours, its yours. You have the rights to use her name and images however you see fit, my model release is extremely detailed.

Its entertainment. It doesn't need to be real. Like reality tv. They are paying for the content that costs to shoot

Definitely not morally wrong, I would threaten to sue. She is illegally claiming rights to content she does not own. In a DMCA notice, which she is having filed, she is swearing that she owns the right or has the approval from the owner to be taking it down.

Obviously this is all dependent on your model release being done by a professional and it covering all of this.

I assure you that she will stop when she gets a notice from your lawyer, something you should have done the first time

[astronaut x]

Originally Posted by TisMe

I think it comes down to your model release and what editorial rights it gives you. Past that I world counter the DMCAs that you receive and see what happens.

I would also speak to lawyer.

Yea. I would talk to a lawyer.

[TrashyContent]

Originally Posted by TisMe

I think it comes down to your model release and what editorial rights it gives you. Past that I world counter the DMCAs that you receive and see what happens.

I would also speak to lawyer.

I have total confidence in our model release... when we showed it to the first DMCA company the guy dealing with it basically said "it's airtight" and confirmed it gave us the right to use the content, the models name, her bio, and pretty much her soul...

It's pissed me off that certain things like the videos we had on PornHub have come down already, I guess they have to be pro-active... but we have issued a counter DMCA in regards to that...

[TrashyContent]

Originally Posted by Pseudonymous

Most sites these days actually have the model involved, mainly due to the platforms that exist now. And the small-medium businesses ceasing to exist due to a maturing industry.

Once the content is yours, its yours. You have the rights to use her name and images however you see fit, my model release is extremely detailed.

Its entertainment. It doesn't need to be real. Like reality tv. They are paying for the content that costs to shoot

Definitely not morally wrong, I would threaten to sue. She is illegally claiming rights to content she does not own. In a DMCA notice, which she is having filed, she is swearing that she owns the right or has the approval from the owner to be taking it down.

Obviously this is all dependent on your model release being done by a professional and it covering all of this.

I assure you that she will stop when she gets a notice from your lawyer, something you should have done the first time

Thanks Ryan... Yeah I understand things are changing... we shot this content however 4 years ago before the likes of OnlyFans and other clip and webcam sites had the female talent singing "Sisters Are Doing It For Themselves"... I acknowledge that and applaud it... but that shouldn't devalue our stuff...

We paid a pretty penny for the content and still offered her a % to be interactive with the site I think we were more than fair... and are now being painted as the bad guys... I am confident our Model Release as us covered... one DMCA company as already told us it does, however this new DMCA company seem to want to push the extra yard, I guess they are only looking out for their client, just a shame she's a disgruntled model...

[TrashyContent]

Even though originally she did say the content was hers (with the first DMCA company) I think she's more saying we shouldn't position the site as if she is involved in the site... my point is to my knowledge every one does that... I doubt more than 10% of sites have the models interaction... maybe that percentage is a bit higher in recent times... but I bet with all the sites out there, there's loads of sites built on content where the model just received a payment for the shoots, or as long left a % deal...

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by TrashyContent

I have total confidence in our model release... when we showed it to the first DMCA company the guy dealing with it basically said "it's airtight" and confirmed it gave us the right to use the content, the models name, her bio, and pretty much her soul...

It's pissed me off that certain things like the videos we had on PornHub have come down already, I guess they have to be pro-active... but we have issued a counter DMCA in regards to that...

There is your answer. If you have a model release, her ID, and hopefully canceled checks the content is yours and you can do what you want with it...

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by Rochard

There is your answer. If you have a model release, her ID, and hopefully canceled checks the content is yours and you can do what you want with it...

I wouldn't say "anything you want" can be done.
For example : using the content to make false claims would be a problem.

There is also the concept of "unfair business". Lawsuit juries understand "unfair" better than the law.

[Bladewire]

Are you impersonating her interacting with subscribers via email and or chat? Just curious. You guys have been around a long time and seem on the up-and-up with everything I've seen. Just curious if that's what might be ticking the model off.

Maybe you can offer to put free Banners up in your members area to her site in return for her stopping the DMCA bullshit? and if you're an affiliate then you can get money for every sale on her clips4sale or whatever the clip side is. There's no reason she can't make some money off your sites traffic too, it's not like you're going to lose money by linking up to her current stuff in your members area right?

[Busty2]

In 50 years of shooting porn there are two things i have learnt you must never do when dealing with them. (1) marry one (2) go into business with one.

[GAMEFINEST]

It will only change more as people change

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by Busty2

In 50 years of shooting porn there are two things i have learnt you must never do when dealing with them. (1) marry one (2) go into business with one.

So fucking them, getting fucked by them, ok?

[The Porn Nerd]

Contact a lawyer. If she wants the content back she can BUY IT BACK from you. Quote her a price: the original cost you paid PLUS 5 years of projected income.

This is a BUSINESS. Pay a lawyer to write her a letter. Anyone who takes the content down have the lawyer send THEM letters along with the letter you sent to the model.

You paid for the content and you can use it for (almost) anything you want. Let HER sue you and see how it goes for her. Then she will owe you attorney fees too. You can even counter-sue her for damages.

[Busty2]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

So fucking them, getting fucked by them, ok?

I think 1 & 2 cover most things including getting fucked by them. But this is just how i deal with them. Everyone is different ?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Busty2

In 50 years of shooting porn there are two things i have learnt you must never do when dealing with them. (1) marry one (2) go into business with one.

thank you so much

[badgirlfilms]

Originally Posted by TrashyContent

Even though originally she did say the content was hers (with the first DMCA company) I think she's more saying we shouldn't position the site as if she is involved in the site... my point is to my knowledge every one does that... I doubt more than 10% of sites have the models interaction... maybe that percentage is a bit higher in recent times... but I bet with all the sites out there, there's loads of sites built on content where the model just received a payment for the shoots, or as long left a % deal...

THIS^^^

Do not position it as "Her interacting" because in the new world..she is considered an "artist" and artist can still have rights to their art and to actively seek damages forever and 70 years..times are changing...make it more a "fan site" and less of the 90's-2000's girl is involved. But that might not make her go away, if she gets a lawyer and some money to fight.

[Busty2]

Originally Posted by Grapesoda

thank you so much

You are most welcome, but i suspect you already knew this ?

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by badgirlfilms

THIS^^^

Do not position it as "Her interacting" because in the new world..she is considered an "artist" and artist can still have rights to their art and to actively seek damages forever and 70 years..times are changing...make it more a "fan site" and less of the 90's-2000's girl is involved. But that might not make her go away, if she gets a lawyer and some money to fight.

Even an "artist" can sell her "art" and not be compensated in the future. It's called "rights" and when you shoot/buy the content (the "art) the Rights are yours, not "the artist". She is a model who signed a MODEL release, not an "artist" selling/licensing her 'art" (body).

If there is legal precedent for this new consideration (models vs. "artists") I'd love to hear from the GFY lawyer brain trust on this. Hey, it IS a new era but I still think a valid model release does not expire.

[CaptainHowdy]

Originally Posted by Busty2

In 50 years of shooting porn there are two things i have learnt you must never do when dealing with them. (1) marry one (2) go into business with one.

You have not lived in vain, Busty2 . . .

[TrashyContent]

Originally Posted by Bladewire

Are you impersonating her interacting with subscribers via email and or chat? Just curious. You guys have been around a long time and seem on the up-and-up with everything I've seen. Just curious if that's what might be ticking the model off.

Maybe you can offer to put free Banners up in your members area to her site in return for her stopping the DMCA bullshit? and if you're an affiliate then you can get money for every sale on her clips4sale or whatever the clip side is. There's no reason she can't make some money off your sites traffic too, it's not like you're going to lose money by linking up to her current stuff in your members area right?

Yes the site is set up in a way like she's interactive with it, but as I said every one does this, I know some of the biggest solo sites and their owners... the models have long since stopped shooting and interacting with those sites, yet they still position the sites as though the girls are still active... which ever way you cut it, whether certain people think this is right or wrong, in increases sales...

We do actively promote her other site (as an affiliate) and would gladly promote her site more, and any other revenue streams she has through clip sites, but so far her boyfriend has called me a paedophile and threatened to come down and stab me, so he's obviously not blessed with diplomatic negotiation skills... the pedo dig I found particularly ironic considering her started dating her when she was 16 and he was in his 30's...

[TrashyContent]

Originally Posted by badgirlfilms

THIS^^^

Do not position it as "Her interacting" because in the new world..she is considered an "artist" and artist can still have rights to their art and to actively seek damages forever and 70 years..times are changing...make it more a "fan site" and less of the 90's-2000's girl is involved. But that might not make her go away, if she gets a lawyer and some money to fight.

So the fact she shot this way back 4-5 years ago, was told from the off set we was making a members website, and she signed a release which gives us power to do what we want with the content we paid her for (remember there was no % deal agreed even though we offered it, and it definitely wasn't a content share shoot/project) so we 100% own the content...

So the fact she signed those rights to us now... now in 2018 cause Girls want to do it all for themselves (their choice of course) she should be able to break the contract, and infact threaten us with legal action lol... I think not

[Bladewire]

Originally Posted by TrashyContent

...but so far her boyfriend has called me a paedophile and threatened to come down and stab me, so he's obviously not blessed with diplomatic negotiation skills... the pedo dig I found particularly ironic considering her started dating her when she was 16 and he was in his 30's...

Damn boyfriend's & girlfriends always fuck things up

[SpicyM]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Even an "artist" can sell her "art" and not be compensated in the future. It's called "rights" and when you shoot/buy the content (the "art) the Rights are yours, not "the artist". She is a model who signed a MODEL release, not an "artist" selling/licensing her 'art" (body).

If there is legal precedent for this new consideration (models vs. "artists") I'd love to hear from the GFY lawyer brain trust on this. Hey, it IS a new era but I still think a valid model release does not expire.

That depends on the law of the country where he lives. There are many reasons a court could rule an agreement invalid here. If a model release is a form of agreement, is it defined in law?

Locally, one of the reasons could be that the agreement is against morals (porn naturally is), or that the agreement was made under harsh conditions, or in need. This also depends which part of law the agreement is based on, whether it was a civil code , or a commercial code.

If you use an agreement for porn modeling or porn work in a country where pornography is not officially recognized as a form of business/work, you are always on thin ice.

I would consult a local lawyer.

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by SpicyM

That depends on the law of the country where he lives. There are many reasons a court could rule an agreement invalid here. If a model release is a form of agreement, is it defined in law?

Locally, one of the reasons could be that the agreement is against morals (porn naturally is), or that the agreement was made under harsh conditions, or in need. This also depends which part of law the agreement is based on, whether it was a civil code , or a commercial code.

If you use an agreement for porn modeling or porn work in a country where pornography is not officially recognized as a form of business/work, you are always on thin ice.

I would consult a local lawyer.

Yes absolutely, location is a key factor. But that goes both ways. If the model is from a country as you described, or just in another country period, suing someone is greater cost. So there's that to consider.

Also, the fact that she is currently in "porn" (modeling) for her own site kind of deflates the argument that the release was signed under duress or harsh conditions. If we're talking a pure amateur, who shot some nudes/scenes years ago but is now a soccer mom I could see a court siding with her. But even then it might be a challenge.

Hope it all works out!

[eroticsexxx]

Glad to see some of the legal viewpoints coming to the fore.

Interesting.

[TrashyContent]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Yes absolutely, location is a key factor. But that goes both ways. If the model is from a country as you described, or just in another country period, suing someone is greater cost. So there's that to consider.

Also, the fact that she is currently in "porn" (modeling) for her own site kind of deflates the argument that the release was signed under duress or harsh conditions. If we're talking a pure amateur, who shot some nudes/scenes years ago but is now a soccer mom I could see a court siding with her. But even then it might be a challenge.

Hope it all works out!

Just to clarify, both the model and the production company TRASHY CONTENT are based in the UK...

[TrashyContent]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Yes absolutely, location is a key factor. But that goes both ways. If the model is from a country as you described, or just in another country period, suing someone is greater cost. So there's that to consider.

Also, the fact that she is currently in "porn" (modeling) for her own site kind of deflates the argument that the release was signed under duress or harsh conditions. If we're talking a pure amateur, who shot some nudes/scenes years ago but is now a soccer mom I could see a court siding with her. But even then it might be a challenge.

Hope it all works out!

Thanks Dude... she actually shot with us 4 or 5 times (would have to check my records to be sure) She was paid around £3000 (think that's about $1.4 Million) so she definitely wasn't under any duress... she's just a disgruntled model who is pissed someone who paid her for content 4-5 years ago is making money from that content... and some how conflicts with what she is doing nowadays with her own stuff...

[Goethe]

Originally Posted by TrashyContent

She was paid around £3000 (think that's about $1.4 Million)

Eh what?

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Busty2

You are most welcome, but i suspect you already knew this ?

I forget sometimes

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by TrashyContent

Thanks Dude... she actually shot with us 4 or 5 times (would have to check my records to be sure) She was paid around £3000 (think that's about $1.4 Million) so she definitely wasn't under any duress... she's just a disgruntled model who is pissed someone who paid her for content 4-5 years ago is making money from that content... and some how conflicts with what she is doing nowadays with her own stuff...

Well with the wacky UK porn laws I do not know the legal solution here being US-based. But you could always try the New York response:

"Tough titties honey. Sue me." LOL

Good luck either way!