Use of DMCA to enforce "model regret" ?
 

I've just received a nice legal notice from a lawyer in Hungary, quoting both Hungarian and USA law, pointing out that his client did modelling some time ago, and would now like the photos of her removed from the internet.

I'm an affiliate, using those images with permission. As a model I presume she signed a release, therefore, the DMCA cannot be used to remove such images as she does not actually own copyright. Is this correct?

The email also mentions issuing a cancel message (RFC 1036) which I think is for usenet, so this lawyer is obviously fishing. I'm going to remove the images, for her sake, but this lawyer sounds like he's incompetent, or an asshole. Or maybe both.

Well, what did his email claim? That he (she) owned the copyright?

The only mention of the word "copyright" seems to be in the DMCA boilerplate notification text. Including - "I swear under penalty of perjury that I am fully
authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder." :winkwink:

The email also references what seems to be a privacy act in Hungary.

Since I am not in Hungary or the USA neither law applies to me. Fishing.

BTW: just checked the paysite and her thumb still appears on the tour, implying there's content of her inside. I'll contact the program and see what they have to say.

i'd forward that to the sponsor

reminds me of the lawyer boyfriend from AZ

I would just email the sponsor and ask if they still hold the ownership of the content, or if they have recently sold the rights back to the model? Usually when that happens though, the sponsor notifies all affiliates stating that is the case, and to please remove the content at your earliest convenience.

One of my clients will pull down a model's content IF the model pays him what he paid for the content. Some girls pay, some don't--so their content stays up.

If the model in your case signed a properly worded release and is over 18, there's no legal reason to remove her content, AFAIK.

The sponsor hasn't updated their website since 2007, so I'm not really too hopeful of a quick response.

The email also included her date of birth, an identification number, and a street address. Guess it's necessary to properly identify her to the actual copyright holder, but if this lawyer is sending this info to everyone who's ever posted a pic of her on the net, well...

I once had a model ring me up asking me to remove her images from my affiliate site. I removed them but had the devil's own task in trying to explain to her that I was just an affiliate and had no control over the rest of the images on the net! :D

Wish someone would explain that to her lawyer, although I suspect he knows exactly what he's doing.

Quick search...

3340 web page results
2340 image results

She was promoted using her REAL name (not sure why she ever allowed that) so I'd say it's going to be near impossible to get rid of all traces of her modelling pics from the net.

Incidentally, it looks like she's a lawyer herself now, specialising in antitrust.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Photos are owned by the program or the company that took the photos. Model has no claim at all.

Documents pending of course.

Have received the same and whilst they might not own the content, I take it down purely to save continued head fuck.

Removing her images is a good idea. Forget the legal reasons. Removing them will help you sleep tonight because you did the right thing. It's not like there's any shortage of models to promote either and who knows? The next one you promote may make you more money.

dont take down shit. upload more. aggravate her. buy a domain just for her pics, put it for sale. sorry but i have no more sympathy for jaded video models who were paid

these hoes will walk all over you if you let them. fuck that

A friend sent me a link to this thread and seems to want me to post.

OK. The "C" in DMCA stands for copyright. It's a federal statute dealing with something that's exclusively entrusted to the federal government, namely Copyright. States have no jurisdiction and no say in copyright.

The right of publicity is a creature of state law, incubated in early court decisions and state legislative acts.

These two areas of law converge in every posed photograph and every candid photo depicting a human being. You cannot safely publish any image for commercial purposes without securing a way past copyright - the rights of the person who owns the image - and past rights of publicity - the rights of the person depicted.

DMCA - passed by Congress and signed by the President - deals only with copyright liability.

That being said, things become quite more confusing when we look at 47 USC 230 which deals with "intellectual property rights". There is a division in the courts about whether the model's right of publicity is an "intellectual property right".

what is the site

Unless the model was also the photographer, she has no claim of copyright to the images.

As I said in the OP, "I'm going to remove the images, for her sake [...]"

But there's 100+ other domains that feature her content, including other modelling pics from a pageant about 10 years ago. I don't think it's going to be possible for her lawyer to remove everything - there's got to be at least one person who says "fuck you" or never responds - so it's likely there will forever be modelling images tied to a search for her real name. I do feel sorry for her, but at the end of the day she was an adult and signed a contract. We don't yet have the "delete all youthful indiscretions going forward" option that Eric Schmidt of Google mentioned. It's all super softcore content anyway, just topless.

may as well be you. had you been the photographer who paid her you'd take this more serious

Years ago we worked with a first-time model we paid $400 for the first shoot. It went well, got some great shots. During the shoot she mentioned she wanted some non-adult modeling portfolio shots, but didn't have the money to pay for the photography. I offered to do some in exchange for doing a second adult shoot for us. She agreed.

A few weeks later we arranged to shoot her modeling shots down by a scenic area of the Niagara river gorge. We went to a lot of time, effort and labour staging the shoot. The shots turned out terrific - she was pleased as punch. I spent another few days post-editing to make them perfect for her.

Came time for her to do the second adult shoot she agreed to - and she flaked. No show...no call. We'd booked the studio time and wasted the better part of a day waiting to hear from her. Nothing.

A week or two went by without a call...despite our repeated efforts to contact her. Finally she called us with some lame excuse and informed us she was moving "out west" in a matter of days and wouldn't do the shoot.

I told her if she did the shoot she'd agreed to - we'd do another shoot with her at triple the price of the first paid shoot. That enticed her to finally show up. We did the shoot, and then I never bothered contacting her again.

A year goes by - and she sends me an email (from 'out west')saying she had model regret...and asked if we'd take her photos down from our site. I told her it'd cost her $1600 (the $400 we initially paid her, plus another $800 for my post-editing time...and another $400 for the day she flaked on us).

We never heard from her again.

We left the photos up.

That makes no sense.

Ohh man, that's rich. Ripe with richness!
Ds

I just take it down and wish them the best. I do this when asked by the model. So many models and scenes. Seems foolish to extend someone digitally when they aren't into it.

Only happened a handful of times for me and I work with Max Hardcore. Go figure.

Paully

Just remove it and move on. it's not going to effect you if one model is removed.

lol, that just seems silly, this is a business.

No, but I don't really appreciate being strong-armed by a C&D from a lawyer, threatening legal action if I don't remove the images. The ask nicely approach would probably work better as a first contact attempt.

I can't believe all these people saying they will remove content just because someone claiming to be a model asks. Is this a business or a hobby for you guys?

First of all, is it even realistic to agree to this? The content that I own personally- and I imagine it's similar for other webmasters- is spread across a plethora of web sites including but not limited to a pay site or a VOD site; other VOD networks; my hosted galleries; TGPs, link lists; tube sites; affiliates free sites; adult resource sites etc.. Not to mention DVDs,TV, magazines and various other places. There's no way to put the genie all the way back in the bottle even if I wanted to.

And secondly, why would you want to encourage former models and their new boyfriends or husbands to interfere with your business and cost you money and aggravation? Not to mention all the times I see you guys guys pass on the hassle of pulling content to your affiliates.

When Should You Use Affect?

Affect with an a means "to influence," as in, "The arrows affected Aardvark," or "The rain affected Amy's hairdo." Affect can also mean, roughly, "to act in a way that you don't feel," as in, "She affected an air of superiority."


When Should You Use Effect?

Effect with an e has a lot of subtle meanings as a noun, but to me the meaning "a result" seems to be at the core of all the definitions. For example, you can say, "The effect was eye-popping," or "The sound effects were amazing," or "The rain had no effect on Amy's hairdo."

"Are you guys hobbyists or businessmen? To be honest I don't see too many posts that seem to be made by businessmen."

-Shap

On the other hand, some empathy may recruit more models into the industry.

100% correct, bottom line
Ds

I can tell you this as a guy who has been specializing in producing porn with new faces for over twenty years. There are more new models- and younger and more beautiful girls- getting into porn every month. It's a steady increase with no sign of abating.

Why are none of you fat ass shit stains listening to this man?

LOL at "model regret".
If you are the shooter {so this is not directed at affiliates}, and "some period" of time goes by, and the model gives you some sob story {whether you shot her once, or 30+ times}...don't fall for that crap.
They signed model releases, did 2257, etc...and suddenly found a new man, or whatever lame excuse...too bad.
Because, in once instance with me...where I "paused" using the content, then eventually used it to the full extent of months worth of content...the model whined and moaned...and 6 weeks later {earlier this year} was shooting with Holly Randall.

These chicks, LIE and bullshit around, when they think it will "benefit" them.
Fuck that!

I'm sorry for skipping right to the bottom without reading and ignore if answered, but shouldn't you have the documents or ability to get them from the sponsor if sponsor provided? If so, I'd just reply with a scanned copy or something similar.

Exactly. The best bet is telling them up front that this will be up forever & once the cat is out of the bag just own it
Ds