Let me get this straight about Cybernet..

[softball]

I just read this:

2. The undersigned authorizes Cybernet Expo, YNOT Network LP, and event sponsors to copyright and publish any and all photographs, videotapes and/or film in which he/she appears while attending this event. He/she further agrees that YNOT Network LP and event sponsors may transfer, use or caused to be used, these photos, video tapes, or films for any exhibitions, public displays, publications, commercials, art and advertising purposes, and television programs without limitations or reservations.

When I get a model release signed by talent, I am the one paying the bill. This company wants me to pay them, sign a model release, so they can use my (or anyone else's) image for their own commercial purposes.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? I pay them so they can use my image to make money.

In my world the producer pays the talent so the producer is entitled to earn money off the images.

This is kind of through the looking glass stuff. Would someone please clarify for me why this is included in the terms of purchase?

[JFK]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I just read this:



When I get a model release signed by talent, I am the one paying the bill. This company wants me to pay them, sign a model release, so they can use my (or anyone else's) image for their own commercial purposes.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? I pay them so they can use my image to make money.

In my world the producer pays the talent so the producer is entitled to earn money off the images.

This is kind of through the looking glass stuff. Would someone please clarify for me why this is included in the terms of purchase?

Obviously you have not been to too many shows lately. They all have similar disclaimers, eighter signs at the door, or as part of the sign up forms.

[softball]

Originally Posted by JFK

Obviously you have not been to too many shows lately. They all have similar disclaimers, eighter signs at the door, or as part of the sign up forms.

Yes you are right about the fact that I don't go to shows. I don't care whether they all do it or not. I am questioning why I should pay money for you to make money. If I want you to take my picture at a commercial event that I pay for, then get me to sign a generic release. Don't make it a term of entry. Why should I pay money for you to make money? Either that or make it free, then it would make sense.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Yes you are right about the fact that I don't go to shows. I don't care whether they all do it or not. I am questioning why I should pay money for you to make money. If I want you to take my picture at a commercial event that I pay for, then get me to sign a generic release. Don't make it a term of entry. Why should I pay money for you to make money? Either that or make it free, then it would make sense.

Thats standard even on the B2C shows these days..even the C2C show Im going to this weekend.

[softball]

Originally Posted by gonzo

Thats standard even on the B2C shows these days..even the C2C show Im going to this weekend.

Maybe we should make it the standard for the business. Models pay us and we sell their pictures. I don't care if it is the standard. It sucks. I just wonder why you guys have let them get away with making money off of your images with no reward. Not even a link back at the very least.

[JFK]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Yes you are right about the fact that I don't go to shows. I don't care whether they all do it or not. I am questioning why I should pay money for you to make money. If I want you to take my picture at a commercial event that I pay for, then get me to sign a generic release. Don't make it a term of entry. Why should I pay money for you to make money? Either that or make it free, then it would make sense.

I dont run the shows, this is just part of the admisson to any of them. If they want to do a pictorical, for later promo, or you happen to be in a video even in the background they want to cover themselfes. So Infact admission to a show constitutes your agreement to have your image used in any promo they decide to do.

[softball]

Originally Posted by JFK

I dont run the shows, this is just part of the admisson to any of them. If they want to do a pictorical, for later promo, or you happen to be in a video even in the background they want to cover themselfes. So Infact admission to a show constitutes your agreement to have your image used in any promo they decide to do.

I understand the logic. But being in the background and being the subject of a promotional picture are two totally different things.

[Hammer]

Dude, you're talking like JFK or anyone else would actually try to make money from a picture of you or any model you brought with you. When would that happen? As far as I know, JFK's website and magazine are free and I don't know of any other commercial photographers that go to the shows. Oh, the guy from Klixxx is usually there running around but they don't make money from the show pics either.

You simply sign the release so the show promoters can use pics that are taken at the show to promote the show next year and not have to worry that if Rhetorical happens to be in one that they have to get his permission.

[gonzo]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I understand the logic. But being in the background and being the subject of a promotional picture are two totally different things.

Are you weasling on going now?

I told you Id buy dinner you fucker!

Honestly no one takes your picture there if you tell them not to.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I just read this:
[snipped from YNOT site]
When I get a model release signed by talent, I am the one paying the bill. This company wants me to pay them, sign a model release, so they can use my (or anyone else's) image for their own commercial purposes.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this? I pay them so they can use my image to make money.

In my world the producer pays the talent so the producer is entitled to earn money off the images.

This is kind of through the looking glass stuff. Would someone please clarify for me why this is included in the terms of purchase?

*shrug* I consider it SOP for CYA purposes - a snapshot of a bunch of webmasters hanging out at the bar so they can say "Hey look at the good times at the last one" is the general end result. And the PITA that would result from taking that snap, then having to go get signatures from every person in the bar? Bleh: not worth it.

Plus, let's be honest: a lot of folks, industry-wide love trolling the pix after a show, and this give the show-throwers the opportunity to be able to provide that.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

*

Plus, let's be honest: a lot of folks, industry-wide love trolling the pix after a show, and this give the show-throwers the opportunity to be able to provide that.

I do, but I promise I won't look at ANY pictures with certain people (who shall remain nameles, lest I trip some sort of promotional payout scheme for fame and fortune using his/her/its name.)

I do, however, enjoy keeping track of that donut stealing fat bastard that shall also remain nameless. It's always fun to see what fine chic he's pushing up against, who is trying to appear friendly, but making sure he doesn't really touch any vital part of her......

[Hell Puppy]

I dont really like the policy, but it is what it is. I dont need my fat ugly ass plastered all over, consider it my gift to society and blindness prevention. JFK has got a couple of heinous ones of me.

But it's SOP, it's typically the same even for mainstream shows now. If they snap a pic, they want to be free to use it however they see fit without any legal BS.

Now in reality, I've never seen a shooter of any type, including JFK, at these shows who wont steer away if you just politely let 'em know you dont wanna be photographed.

[softball]

Originally Posted by Hell Puppy

I dont really like the policy, but it is what it is. I dont need my fat ugly ass plastered all over, consider it my gift to society and blindness prevention. JFK has got a couple of heinous ones of me.

But it's SOP, it's typically the same even for mainstream shows now. If they snap a pic, they want to be free to use it however they see fit without any legal BS.

Now in reality, I've never seen a shooter of any type, including JFK, at these shows who wont steer away if you just politely let 'em know you dont wanna be photographed.

wrong. I asked JFK politely to not shoot me, he did and it took me three weeks to get my pic removed. Then he did it again at a gfy christmas party.....same thing. three weeks to get it removed. He doesn't give a shit. He told me i should not be ashamed of working in porn. I wasnt, but at that time I could have lost.....say.....sixty thousand dollars because of his pictures. It was simple, Julius don't take my picture. No big deal. I have been taking pictures long before Julius got his first camera and I really do not appreciate an amateur snapper trying to teach me my business. Happy snaps are fine. They make money and pay his rent, but he is not a photographer. And don't fuck with people that don't want to be snapped at porn parties. Dude, you are not a journalist. You are a hack with a camera that has carved out a niche. but we both know that, right Julius?