Who knows copyright laws? NastyDollars slut is claiming she's the copyright holder.
 

This bitch is having her husband fill out DMCA info stating she's the copyright holder of the Nastydollars content featuring her.

Can copyright be transfered to another entity? i.e. could ND have somehow passed on the copyright of the material to her?

I've tried hitting up ND in the past but gotten nowhere and of course they haven't informed any affiliates whether any content should be taken down even though they've removed most, but not all of it.

i assume she signed a release to Nasty Dollars?

Copyright belongs to the creator (exceptions, in-house salaried employee, etc) ... you of course need a release. If she was paid for the shoots she won't have the copyright unless you assigned it.

But I only practice law on GFY so second opinion is advised.

One would assume so.. This content was initially on an ND site from Feb 2003 until late last year.

if you don't have the proper release, EVERYBODY involved in the work including fluffers own a piece of it.

So you're saying ND could have assigned the copyright to her in some way?

Copyrights typically default to the creator, thus in this case the photographer or videographer.
Unless of course said person above is employ of a company and that is their job duty, photographer/videographer, with some exceptions.
Yes copyrights can be assigned, sold, and given to someone else all together.

To apply a real world situation:
A man and a woman hire a photographer to take photos of their wedding. They order a given number of pictures. The photographer owns copyright on every single photo taken. The photographer's only responsibility is to deliver said number of photos to the couple. The photographer keeps the negatives and such and is legally the only person who can authorize or produce more of such pictures. Unless of course the couple has negotiated for and signed into the contract that they own the copyrights and they get the negatives.

Did her husband shoot the content and then sell it to ND?
That would make a big difference.

Copyrights default to the creator BUT not in this case.

heres how it works. When a photographer shoots a model he owns a copyright on those photos and she owns a copyright on her image.

The purpose of a model release id to reassign her rights to the photographer. If the model release is properly worded it is air tight. If you don't have a model release you will lose, but so will she because neither of you can use the content without the others consent.

Relax, relax... I own the copyrights to her content. Tell her Fletch said you could use the images and there is nothing she can do legally.

Make as much as you can now and go forth and fill the internets pages with xxx smut and porn.

if they are filing a false dmca on you, there are some harsh penalties for them if you choose to counter it.

If she signed a model release no way the content belongs to her.. It belongs to the person who created the works unless she was given special conditions in the release to hold the copyright, which I REAALLLLLLY doubt.

Anyone want to name the model (and preferably post pics with a dick in her mouth?)

hit me up with the model name / stage name and i'll let you know.

ICQ: 263522417

Message sent...

Having similar issues??

You can pretty much bet that ND is the copyright holder for ALL their content. :2 cents:

its interesting a lot of people dont know that

the model in question is Celeste from Cumfieta. We still own the copyrights, but removed the scene from the site and promo area as a courtesy to the model. if you have this scene, please remove it and replace it with another scene. hit me up if you have any questions.

ICQ: 263522417

Nasty Mo

Actually, you are close, but no cigar.

Absent a work for hire agreement, the copyright ALWAYS is owned by the person who created the work. In the case of a photograph, it is the person who pushed the button on the camera.

The model DOES NOT OWN A COPYRIGHT on her image. What the model does own are her rights to her LIKENESS and her rights to privacy and publicity. The model release assigns those rights to the photographer for the specific purpose of the content produced at that specific photo shoot. Likeness is not only her face, but anything on her body that identifies HER. A tattoo, etc.

If a model DOES NOT sign a release, than the photographer is STILL the copyright holder, he just cannot use the content he produces for a commercial purpose.

So now I need to decide if I want to bitch slap them..

Bet her husband is proud....Shes a waste anyways, imo