/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

Well Jnig apparently agrees that the photographer is childish.

"I was about to post a huge rant..... and then... TWO FUCKS WERE NOT GIVEN! :D

Keep calm and... Nigri on?"

She really bitched about the photographer who demanded her to stop selling prints without their permission.

Jessica has hit a new level of full of it.

Miscommunication and people jumping on band wagons, business as usual.

>>6805260
>that fucking beta commenting at the bottom
What a tool lol.

Technically, neither of the model or photographer are legally allowed to make money off the photo. And from what I'm seeing on the photographers actual facebook page, the link was taken down anyway.

>>6805291
> Jnigs being underhanded, self-absorbed and trying to profit by piggybacking off other people's work and assuming the rules don't apply to her because she's a cute girl, business as usual.

Fixed.

>>6805299
>Technically, neither of the model or photographer are legally allowed to make money off the photo

That isn't true, what are you smoking. It depends on the photographer, and the conditions of which the photo was taken, if it is stated that the photos belong to one party or the other, the party in which they belong to has all legal rights to make money, however in TFP or the like, the photos belong to both parties at the same time, which means neither party can profit off of the photos.

Honestly as a photographer I'm not sure how I would have handled this situation.
Nigri has too many people riding on her cock to really make a lasting point without being blasted by enormous amounts of blind whiteknighting.

As far as the actual legality of anything goes doesn't really matter, but the fact that she took off someone's watermark without their permission is shady as fuck. Every deviantard and tumblrfag I know would've gotten pissy at that.

Yes it's totally childish to ask someone to stop stealing their work without their permission and selling it for your own profit.

Also, the overflowing amounts of creepy and beta in this guys post made me chuckle.

>>6805304

and the fact that people are trying to make money off the image of a character under copyright doesn't factor into it?

>>6805307
So cringeworthy.

>>6805307
>>6805319
I can practically hear the mouthbreathing.

I mean why not just split profits with the photog? I'm sure as long as there is pay for both sides there shouldn't be a problem?

>>6805299
Technically, if you post it on facebook at all, it's now their image, not the photographer nor the model's.

>>6805323
>I mean why not just split profits with the photog?
Obviously she'd rather not and just take all the profit for herself from those shitty prints.

And really what can the photog do? I mean..

Not even slightly surprised, considering how she likes to pass off other people's work as her own by not ever giving credit unless the person is Volpin for example.
I think it is hilarious she didn't just apologize and move on.

>>6805308
No it does not. Why would it? It's the same concept as original fan art.

>>6805325
No, that's not true either, facebook doesn't own the rights to your image in its entirety, they own the rights to use it.

>>6805356
Actually, even with fan art, companies like Marvel, DC, etc. could crack down if they wanted to, but know better because of what a blow that would be to their fans, and subsequently the company's own profits.

>>6805323
Because she's literally only into cosplay to make money off of neckbeards with more expendable income than brains, and doesn't particularly care who she climbs over to get her way, and gets away with it because of her army of deluded whiteknights and the occasional person fooled by her IRL "omg so nice~" routine. This is common knowledge.

>>6805413
so every single poster sale she's done there has been 0 part of that profit to the photographer? That sounds really stingy and I doubt they would keep working with her if that was the case

I'm sure she gets enough orders to be able to split and have decent profit left for herself

>>6805423
If the photographers are lonely neckbeards, I doubt they'd care.

>>6805423
She's sold over 200 posters.
Yeah, Photographers need to step up and call her out. One did and then she sends her whiteknight troupe against him

>>6805307
I am preeeetty sure the bottom commenter is being sarcastic, just FYI.

>>6805456
Ljinto doesn't care, he pays for her flight tickets to go to events. The guy thinks if he showers her enough she will get with him.

From their slightly hidden support section:
"Storenvy takes your creative rights very seriously. We have a "zero tolerance" policy for any kind of theft of intellectual property including but not limited to trademarks, patents, copyrights and existing creative works. If at any point a merchant has is suspected of offering merchandise or products containing intellectual property that they do not own or have written permission to reproduce and/or sell, the store will be suspended immediately. Unless the merchant can provide proof they they are the creator of the work or have permission to reproduce and/or sell the work, the closure will remain permanent."

Of course if she goes to another place then he'll have to chase and go for another takedown, repeat ad naseum.

Her beta orbiters and neckbeards aren't gonna care about integrity or whoever photographer she fucks over.
As far as they're concerned, anyone trying to claim rights to that picture is just getting in the way and muddling their opportunities to have it and get their rocks off.

>>6805466
Does anyone have a pic of Ljinto? I am quite curious about him.

Well this is disappointing. :/ I was just starting to feel neutral about her.

>>6805413
>Actually, even with fan art, companies like Marvel, DC, etc. could crack down if they wanted to
Could they? I'm not too familiar with American copyright law but I was under the impression fanart could come under fair use, especially if it's not being sold.

It'd be harder in countries with fair dealing.

>>6805236
Ok so... I do not care much about jnig one way or the other. But I'm sure this will be taken as white knighting, but oh well.

I find it HIGHLY unlikely that with the marketing/business advisers that she probably has that they don't have a contract drafted up that photogs have to sign off on with whichever shoot they are using specifically for print sales. I mean, she's been doing this long enough that it would really blow my mind that she and her advisers hadn't thought of that from the get go to cover their asses since that's how she's making money. I mean, with me thinking that, it sounds like this guy didn't read the fine print and got butthurt about it, realized his mistake, and then took down the post after realizing that.

>>6805568
And before I get someone saying 'lol she doesn't have any people working for her, she's not a professional' it's not as if most people, even people with few contacts, don't have SOMEONE in either a legal or some kind of marketing position and I would not be surprised if she's asked for advice from people she knows about that kind of thing.

I didn't mean to make it sound super professional or anything, just that I didn't believe she didn't have something in place to cover her ass so she can sell the prints based on advice from someone in her network.

>>6805568

I think you are giving her team too much credit.

but on the flip side a lot of con photographers dont know shit about the business of photographer so I can see that happening. I can also see the photog not having model release on him.

>>6805590
she has an agent and gets paid to attend cons now .... I think she's a "professional" as much as most people hate to admit

but yeah I think she just assumed this random photographer who happened to take 1 good photo would of been cool with it but apparently he's not so it backfired on her

>>6805568

The post is still up on their facebook, they didn't delete it. And she took the photo down from her store so I'm not sure that's the case

>>6805638
Ah ok, I hadn't checked either FB to see, I simply went off what was said here about it being deleted. Welp, then I agree, it appears she tried to get away with something and it backfired.

>>6805638
>And she took the photo down from her store so I'm not sure that's the case
Nice. Serves her right.

>>6805629
>she has an agent
Lol no she doesn't

>>6805569
Yes, they can indeed. Disney is notorious for cracking down hard whether it's telling a daycare center that painted Mickey on its walls to brighten the interior or some kid drawing a Disney character and posting it online to share their work, Disney has been known to get bitchy about people using their characters without authorization or buying an officially licensed product.

Both of the things I mentioned are real cases. That said, the Daycare center would've been ok to use Disney branded wall decals or something to decorate, but the kid... the kid still would've gotten it. The kid's family was issued a letter telling them to take down his artwork or they'd use a legal course of action. It's the same idea when Disney doesn't allow cosplay in the parks (1 reason being because you could be confused with staff), but when they do allow it for special days, you can't come in wearing say, a princess dress or any costume that could be construed as officially licensed merch because they want to sell their products only. They're very protective of their characters etc.

I think most companies realize that fan-created content, whether it's actual art or cosplaying their characters and getting photos, is a way to basically build their base up with the fans. Most game and comic companies tend to be pretty neutral or ok with fan-created content.

Out of curiosity I went to her fb page and the amount of pathetic fawning beta comments there are insane

>>6805666
>>6805629

I'm curious, does she have a kind of PR team or some type of handler? Can anyone name names?

>>6805629
>she has an agent

Oh yeah, because horny men who don't know where else to put their money = agents.

>>6805629
>she has an agent

Kindly Fuck off

>>6805681
Slim Summers is not an agent. Just guys who want big breasted women at cons.

>>6805677
To be fair, Disney is worse about copyright issues than most, for example their attempting to get long-public domain fairytale characters copyrighted for the fact that they've used them.

>>6805681
She promotes herself and gets her beta fanboys to help. The only money she makes is from selling prints of herself. The cons she's a guest at will cover her travel expenses but cosplay guests usually don't get per diem. When they do it's still not even close to enough $ to use to afford an agent. Her day job is at Trader Joe's. That speaks for itself.

So I know some cosplayers sell prints of themselves, but are their photographers that sell prints of the cosplays they've photographed?

Anyone have any they can recommend?

She doesn't have an agent. You're all full of poopy shit.

>>6805713
Agreed, hence my last sentences. Most companies don't budge unless someone makes a huge issue, nabs a lot of attention, and/or stands to gain significant amounts from their property e.g. fan-made video games or movies.

>>6805297
I read it as sarcasm/mockery in my head. I prefer to think that there aren't people in the world who are that big of tools.

>>6805329
Storenvy is a small platform for selling. Realistically, the photogrpaher could contact storenvy with the matter and have it taken down. So long as they have a written agreement that the shoot was not to be used for profit/does not belong to another party, it would be taken down pretty quick. I've seen similar happen with other stores who were selling things under less than honest pretences.

>>6805413
>>6805569
>>6805677
I remember reading a while back that DC/WB issugin cease and decists against a bunch of tattooists and fans for tattooing their characters on people/having DC characters tattooed on them. I don't know if anyone actually was taken to court for it, however.

So yeah. I think they can and will, actually.

http://www.comicmix.com/news/2011/04/01/dc-comicsto-prosecute-tattoos/<wbr>

Her fans are pathetic.

"I apologize for this Jessica as I have been spamming your wall quite a bit, but some comments are starting to piss me off and it needs to be said

First off, for all of those who want Jessica to do porn, go watch brazzers or something. It's extremely disrespectful to tell a woman to do porn just because you want to see them nude. Jessica will not do porn and will not pose nude. It's not happening. Deal with it.

Second: For those who are upset at Jessica for posing in lingerie when you came here for cosplay, again deal with. Jessica isn't only a cosplayer, she is a model and spokesperson. Yes her main thing is cosplaying but that isn't all she does.

Third: I am restating the last two subjects in a smaller more blunt fashion. THIS IS HER FAN PAGE! She has the freedom to post whatever the hell she wants. If you don't like whatever but you still want to like the page, simply hide all of the posts you get from her.

Now excuse me, I need to go eat.

P.S. Jessica I am sorry for posting this rant, but it somewhat needed to be said and needed to be seen by everyone. Not that anyone will care and I am most likely going to blocked from this page for posting it."

>>6805768
Unless that's the tattoo artist's primary art style, most "character" tattoos end up looking goofy as shit. I can see them going after the tattoo artists but what can they really do to a fan who already has that tat? Tell them to get it removed or just tell them not to get more tattoos of their characters? Body art seems like it would be a completely different realm when it comes to use of copyrighted material since you can't just "take it down" like fanart on a website or something.

>>6805779
>Now excuse me, I need to go eat.
And then they ate a whole pizza in the bathtub and everyone walked the dinosaur.

>>6805568
Fucking this. This sounds more like the photographer realized he could be making more money then whatever situation the two of them initially agreed upon, and lost his shit. As far as taking the print down, it doesn't mean it's an admission of guilt. Wouldn't you take it down if there was such bad negativity surrounding it?

nb4 whiteknight

>>6805807
But she did remove the watermark which is fucked up no matter how you spin it.
Because regardless the photog should at least have the credit on THEIR work left alone.

>>6805460

I'm pretty sure you're that beta fag and you're trying to play the LOL SARCASM card.

0/10

>>6805830
Fascinatingly vague. I just want to know, if the photographer was in on this and getting a profit, why was the watermark blacked out instead of a clean copy given for the prints?

Apparently the photographer in OP tried to handle things professionally, but I guess the public post was the "second strike" as she calls it.
Niglette is acting like a scumbag.

>>6805830
>don't believe everything you read on the internet
Well I'm reading your comment jnigger, what now?
And if you preach about "talking" things out, then actually message the photographer instead of leaving passive-aggressive little snippets on peoples' pages, since you're having an oh so professional reaction about this whole ordeal.

Immature twat.

>>6805830
>mfw she would pitch a shitfit against the girl that made a video about how cosplay doesn't make you privileged

>>6805857
Dude those panties are from target....
I would know, I'm wearing them now and They are comply as fuck

I find it quite stupid that she gets all uppity about it yet deletes the watermark off the picture.

Does anyone have any very old photos of this attention whore?

Like from when she was pudgy and not platinum blonde? She looked better then.

>>6805302
>cute girl
Heavily applied makeup girl.
Fixed for ya.

>>6805260
Why wouldn't she?

The photographer isn't groveling at her feet and allowing her to get away with it, and JNig's passing that off as "childish".

>>6805460
You would be surprised at just how desperate some people can get.

>>6805953

>links a twitch girl getting $1000 donation
>not soda, or titters getting $12k - $50k dollars

>>6805955
Saw that, but still damn. Pandering so much that people will give you 1k for just sitting on your ass for looking average.

You know if I didn't have my dignity and pride I totally would.

>>6805892
So theoretically Target could take legal action because she's selling prints of herself in their underwear and they're not getting paid for it.
Even when she's not in a costume, she's ripping people off.

Tattoos are another instance where companies and people can sue you for getting their artwork tattooed on you. I know Alex Grey (artist for Tool) has seeked out and sued people who've gotten his work tattooed on them without permission.

>>6805719
any photographer can get their prints done at various places (adoramapix, bayphoto, among others). if you want a print of yourself you can probably ask a photog who took a photo you like to get you a print done. smugmug also has a thing setup where a photog can get prints done with a little webshop kind of thing.

>>6805714
She has to have an agent at this point. She is doing promotions for Suda51 in Japan (outside of her winning the lollipop chainsaw crap.) and if you know anything about business in Japan you need the right amount of professionalism in order to do deals.

>>6805857
She liked the hat anon. Needs more bling though.

THUG LIFE

>>6805830
>doesn't want to support ~anymore~
>implying she ever wanted to support the photographer

Its almost like rubbing her watermark off was in favour of supporting the photographer or something

>>6805969
Are you her secretary now?

>>6805654
*Shrug* If shes smart she will just "give" them away to people who order X amount from her store. So shes probably not going to be learning anything from this.

>>6805969
Don't you have other women's boyfriends to go fuck?

>>6805969
You should be given some sort of monetary compensation from other cosplayers for how you derail their drama threads and then start taking the brunt of their haters.

In b4 shit storm for my comment.

>>6805982
Technically you need copyright permission to even make a free copy but it's a lot easier to keep on the downlow if you just throw it in randomly ("buy $25 and receive a free 4x6 of me, jnig!")

>>6805983
Details pls.

>>6805981
No but I am the representative for THUG LIFE inc.

>>6805983
I had one fuck once and then I gave it away.

>>6805993
I take payment in burritos.

Weird, my comment got baleeted. As did the one trying to troll me, huh.

>>6805981
No I am just the representative for THUG LIFE inc.

>>6805993
I take payment in burritos.

>>6806040
What are you trying to contribute to this thread? Do you have anything relevant to the discussion to say?
>Miscommunication and people jumping on band wagons, business as usual.
I'm assuming this is you implying that you have some sort of inside information on the situation, because you are "friends" (or at least acquainted) with the parties involved; whom, of course, are well-known in this niche corner of the internet. Oh, that must mean you have notoriety by proxy, right? Is this what you're trying to draw our attention to?

Sage for off-topic.

Jnig's a self entitled cunt, news at 11!

>>6806111
Clearly I haven't been posting enough lately if my motives are being called into question.

Anyway it's pretty obvious this is all down to miscommunication, shit happens.

>>6806111
she's not friends with her
she keeps linking jnigs to all the current drama about her thinking she's doing her a favor and thinking "maybe now jessica will want to hang out with me and I can get some e-fame!" yeah not gunna happen it's so pathetic

>>6806168
I am so desperate for that e-fame ;___;

>>6806173
You are. That's why you're all Batman "Set the dogs on me" to distract from Harvey Two Face who got caught shooping a water mark off of her photo.

>>6806040
>Weird, my comment got baleeted
You can't take a hint...

>>6806173
You already have so many nudes out though.

>>6806175
haha, that's a great and imaginative analogy. I would pay to see it illustrated.

but still no. If you've been around here any length of time you'll know I will always stick up for the under dog because it winds you all up.

>>6806182
Thank you, it was.

And I've been around these boards since Yaya and Adella were posted on /s/ so much they had to make this board. I wouldn't really call Jnig the "underdog" here, but more like the popular girl who got caught leeching answers from the geek behind her. Or rather, he spoke up about it this time.

And I like you, ai-honey. I just don't understand why you care, or your perspective.

>>6806183
I think it was more Kipi, Miyu, and FranDan on /s/ than Yaya and Adella, but it's good to see a fellow oldfag.

>>6806183
Her perspective is simple: attention.

>>6806181
Oh that glorious potato shop nude, why aren't I e-fame yet. ;___;

>>6806183
>I like you, ai-honey

I hear there's an antidote for that. My condolences.

>>6806187
I MISS KIPI

>>6806189
I am so desperate for that attention. ;___;

>>6806173
You really are though, it is sad. You had your 15 minutes of fame/drama/posts about you every other day and you still won't fuck off. You're almost as much of a tryhard as Masa was, thank goodness his dumb ass no longer seems to circulate here.

>>6806216

You rang? :v

>>6806216
>thank goodness his dumb ass no longer seems to circulate here

Well that was a silly thing to say.

>>6805236
Cant you get full rights to an image from photography places? Thats what I did for senior pictures.

Also you dont have "copyright" you didnt actually purcahse a copyright.
Ownership is not black and white its really grey

*especially if it is an Image of you that someone else starts selling. (im saying is it even OK for the photographer to sell it herself?)

Seriously what if I took a picture of someone without them knowing and started selling it...Do I still have full rights to the image? Do they?

>>6806230
>you dont have "copyright" if you didnt actually purcahse a copyright.

this

>>6806230

This photographer is desperate

according to U.S. copyright frequent questions on
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#register

>Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”

Why should I register my work if copyright protection is automatic?
Registration is recommended for a number of reasons. Many choose to register their works because they wish to have the facts of their copyright on the public record and have a certificate of registration. Registered works may be eligible for statutory damages and attorney's fees in successful litigation. Finally, if registration occurs within 5 years of publication, it is considered prima facie evidence in a court of law. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration” and Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), on non-U.S. works.

This means that the photographer didnt actually register copy right so the best she can do is complain on the internet. Also its shitty she didnt because ITS NOT A PICTURE OF HER.. if it was of herself or an art work copyright would be more black and white

>>6806240
>This means that the photographer didnt actually register copy right so the best she can do is complain on the internet. Also its shitty she didnt because ITS NOT A PICTURE OF HER.. if it was of herself or an art work copyright would be more black and white

>>6805768
> April 1st

learn to fact check pls.

>>6806230
"Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#what

The moment the photo is created the copyright is granted to the photographer.

I have a question...so if it was the reverse situation, and a phoghraper took a picture of Jessica and started selling it without her permission would Jess have right to complain?

I mean...technically she was the one who MADE the image, she was in it...why does everybody only think whoever pressed the button matters most.. I think person in it was the MOST involved...idk can someone tellme more i dont really understand..im being serious

>>6805423
I know one of her photographers, the guy that owns the t-shirt brand she used to model for, will sell her posters at his table, so i'm sure he was making at least something. I'm not certain about the others though.

>>6806247
yes I know but
> You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work
>This means that the photographer didnt actually register copy right so the best she can do is complain on the internet.
>ALSO its shitty she didnt because ITS NOT A PICTURE OF HER.. if it was of herself or an art work copyright would be more black and white

Did you even read what I typed or are you some kind of nigger

>>6806263
Yes. If a cosplayer and photographer want to profit from the images they collaborated on they should work together and split the profits.

>>6805568
fucking this

>>6806285
/thread.

>>6805638
what if the just did it to avoid drama?

this >>6805568 is probably still the case, she and or her manager probably told her to take it down to avoid shit (not just legal shit meaning) even if they are in the right


Are you all a bunch of retards?

>>6806206
Yes, I just have to keep reading your posts on here, and that would remedy it for me.

If this whore wants to make money off her pics, she should either do nudes or submit a set to Cosplay Deviants and show us something we want to see!

>>6806321
she already makes enough money with these on her own, if she really was a whore she would have done nudes long ago.

besides that still doesnt solve the copyright issue you stupid faggot

>>6806300
>she and or her manager probably told her to take it down to avoid shit (not just legal shit meaning) even if they are in the right

Yeah because to most people removing a watermark and then calling the person who took the photo for you "immature" is BAD PRESS.
No bueno for businesso.

>Selling posters
Okay
>without permission from the photographer that took the photo
Not okay
>while also removing the watermark placed on my the photographer
Not okay BY LAW

I'm not so sure when it comes to profits for the photographer or model, but what really sucks is that she removed the watermark. Why?

My photographer friends are really upset with this issue as well and I don't blame them since its their work and we the cosplayers should at least give them credit. I know there are a few times where jnig credit people, but I don't know why she would remove the watermark.

>>6806422
>but I don't know why she would remove the watermark
So she could sell the print, watermark free. Thing is, had she communicated with the photog, he probably would have sent a high-res version sans watermark if he received a cut. Seems like she just got greedy here and got called out.

Out of cosplay, models usually have to sign contracts from photographers, just so these kind of problems don't happen and later can be used in court. If there was no contract, he was not professional about it and deserves to learn this lesson the hard way so next time he'll be sure to have a contract for his models to sign. Some photographers don't care, however it isn't cool regardless to not give credit where it is due. Models are meant to advertise, not steal. It's an amateur mistake on both parts which is probably why she took it down, it's the right thing to do in that kind of situation. You should always ask the photographer first before doing anything.

On the flip side, I also hate when photographers advertise your pictures without consent. Many of them will use them to sell their own things, making money/fans off your image and you were't paid anything for it. Some don't even credit you either! It's the problem with not having a contract, can't really do anything about it if you don't have evidence of an agreement. You've gotta be prepared to handle this kind of crap when you put yourself out there.

Thats why I just have close friends and or family take my photos.

Why risk with these whinny faggots

>>6805260
>the servitude to your legend is enough for me in that regard

>>6805830
>>6805976
I know, right? I was just about to say that.

It's like pirating a video game, then saying "well, I'm just not going to support you any more" when the devs get upset that you're doing so. You never did!

>>6806240
>This means that the photographer didnt actually register copy right so the best she can do is complain on the internet.
That's exactly what they did. So, uh, congrats on pointing out the obvious?

>>6806230
agreed. That means any creeper with a camera can start selling photos of someone without their knowledge. There needs to usually be paperwork with consent and such before this can done.

>>6806545

Or at least some kind of agreement. Clearly, there wasn't one in this case.

Just credit people, it ain't a big deal. Without them people like JNig wouldn't HAVE pictures to get popular with on the internet, so what is the big goddamn deal about giving them a little nod? Especially when they already do the same to her?

>Buying prints of JNig

That's got to be the worst thing to waste your money on.

>>6806576

Just as bad as buying art from Ramy.

>>6806351
fucking this.

I hope everyone who's screaming "JNig is such a bitch" reads what's now on Masamune's page.

copy and paste from a post left on the photographers wall by JN

"1. This photo was taken WITHOUT permission during LoneStar Comic Con, which I am the owner and organizer of. No photo authorization forms were filled out, therefore this photo was not authorized to be taken.

2. Jessica Nigri was not compensated for this photo or any others that she has appeared in as part of your portfolio to draw "fans" or future photography business to your site.

3. Jessica did not charge for the photo, none of our clients charge for the photo. They charge for the autograph itself, so no profit is being made on the actual photo. She spends her own money to get the prints done.

4. As mentioned before, since the photo was unauthorized to be taken, no release forms were filled out, and it was taken during MY convention without permission, she has just as much right legally to have them as an autograph option in her store, as you have to post them on your facebook page or other websites."


So she's not selling posters she's selling autographs the poster is just a freebie that comes with it get your facts straight people

I've been shooting for 4 years.
I don't have this problem because I have a huge watermark on the center of the image.

>>6806810
The major point is that she rubbed out the photographer's watermark. It'd be mostly fine if she consulted the photographer and didn't cover the watermark.

>>6806805
Screencap?

>>6806814
Real photographers don't ruin their photos by defacing them.

>>6806805
What? I didn't see anything alarming at all.

>>6806810

Wait, JN owns and organized an actual con?

>>6806829
I'm guessing the owner posted it and she copied it to the photographers wall

>>6806833
Jessica posted it, but the owner of the con said it.

>>6806841
so by this logic I can sell posters but really just say I'm selling autographs with a free poster included and bingo no need to give profits to photographer?

>>6806810
I'm confused, why would you intentionally pose for a photo that was taken 'without' permission? Or did they mean not given permission to publish it? And why would you use said photo, that you didn't give permission to be taken?

God, now it's deleted from the page, as well as his apology. I don't know what the case is, but I won't put that picture back up until everything settles.

>>6806841

>Photo was taken without permission

then they say..

>She was nice enough to allow you to not only take the photo

They mean use without permission right?

>>6806841
I mean I guess that's some kind of legal and fair workaround, but it kind of makes me cringe a little that even some Con organizers are her fanboys. I guess that's just perks. But watching the whole thing it feels like tattling to the teacher and you happen to be the favorite student. And I actually think she is fine and dandy. In fact this is like the one thing drama worthy I've ever seen her do herself (or at least retaliate to).

>>6806841

Saved it before you deleted it.

>>6806855
well it's an auto archive board, don't worry

>>6806819
Digital watermarks are easily removed when you're the one who put them on.
4 years in the game, bud. If I wasn't doing something right I wouldn't eat.

>>6806856

Forgot about that.

So basically. What I'm getting from this thread is the following:

>Jnig poses for photographer
>Jnig then uses photo to sell posters, after removing watermark
>Photographer called her out on using his work for free
>Jnig takes photo down
>Jnig cries to convention buddies
>Convention buddies tell photographer that he didn't pay Jnig and that even though she posed with no intention of getting paid, she should have paid her, and shouldn't be using said photo to promote his business
>Nyahnyahnyah

What a mature little crowd we've got going here. So glad for those lectures we got on model releases, now. Fuck.

>>6806876
Except there was no promotion.
She just conveniently...cough I mean "unintentionally" removed his watermark. Then used THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S photo to make money.
Which isn't legal.

>>6806810
1.- If that's the case then it's also her fault, especially if she knew that for getting pictures taken the photographer needed a permission.

2.-Yet she tried to gain profit from it.

3.-They charge for the autograph but they use the picture as a tool to get money.

4.- She's equally guilty for not being aware of this.

Even if she was "only selling the autograph" she was still using an "unauthorized" picture to sell them. Not only that, but she didn't even give credit to the person who photographed her.

I think that's basically what started this whole fiasco. Had she been more careful and thoughtful about it, she wouldn't have gotten into trouble.

>>6806841
>Taken without permission.
So why was it that she posed for the picture and acknowledged it's existence in the first place? Both the photographer and Nigri both know what they did and the photographer obviously has right to his work.

>Jessica photos can't be used to bring fans to your site.
Yet she can do it to other people? Interesting.

>She has as much right to put the photo in her shop as the photographer has as much right to put it on facebook.
So, if the photographer wanted, he can use it as an item in his store if he wanted to? Jessica seems to do it and it's apparently fine.

>the removal of the water mark wasn't on purpose.
Bullshit. If you see a water mark and it had to be edited out, it's obvious that the photographer wasn't told that they were going to use his picture, thus stealing his work. You can't just accidently remove a watermark.

>You would have to remove all pictures including Jessica, myself, or Lone Star Comic Con.
Jessica, the OP of that facebook post, and Lone Star Comic Con would have to remove all the pictures from their site that wasn't their work or was "borrowed" from another person. Same thing.

Damn, and I was just starting not not hate Jnigger.

How the fuck does one take photos like Op's without permission?

Does she roll around allover the con floor? That's gross.

>>6806885
She's Catwoman, of course she rolls around the floor!

>>6806884
She's butthurt that her tits aren't winning the guy over and that she had her ass handed to her.

I was trying real hard not to hate her, but as an artist this takes the cake for me.

>Taken without her permission
>She's looking right at the camera.
uhh....

>>6806892
Jessica's Logic!

>>6806873
"you would be nothing without me" basically

>>6806855
>>6806873

question for science: could her head actually be any further up her own bleached asshole?

>>6806901

Only if she's used The Great American Challenge regularly.

>>6806224
This was pretty special. Gotta admit.

Jnig is showing her true color for once. If there's nothing to hide, she wouldn't have wiped out the watermark. She could have just apologized and settle this privately, but instead her ego gets the best of her. She's not even thinking clearly before replying, and she's only making this worst on her end.

I have never bothered posting in her threads even when she was spamming here. I think it's amusing that she knows she fucked up, but her ego is so inflated she won't admit it.

Truthfully if this was ANYONE else selling "unapproved" pictures the photographer wouldnt give 2 shits

Its because Jessica is a cash cow
He saw her and got $$ in his eyes

>make some obscure agreement with her
>call her out when she sells it
>profit

whether it is for $ profit or more traffic/fans to site and more bussiness from drama...its still profit

everyone just got trolled by photographer
especially Jessica Nigger

If anything photographer just took advantage of his one hit wonder...he's just butthurt he wasnt appart of it.

The thing that bugs me the most is that she went to the trouble to black out the guys watermark. It's one thing if she didn't know any better and the guy was blowing it out of the water, but she deliberately went out of the way to remove credit for the photo to make a profit. Either the way the photographer is in the right. He owns the permissions to the photo's, not her. It's a little douchey to not just quietly ask her to get a cut of the profits but it's equally as douchey to hide the watermark.

Does anybody have a version of the picture with the blacked out watermark visible? I missed that and I want to see how blatant it was.

>>6806935
its rather ugly actually i dont mind she deleted it

u mad I bought one /cgl/?

>>6806931
As an artist, I wouldn't care who and what stole my art. I would only care for the fact that they stole something my work, not given me any credit and tried to make a profit out of MY work without MY permission.

It's sort of similar to someone cheating off your homework and ending up with a better grade than you. It's the same feeling.

>>6806938

why did you buy it if you thought it was ugly.

>>6806897
Evidence that the fame has gotten to her head and all of this talk about how nice and sweet she is in person is just her acting (since she's been trying to get into acting anyway)

>>6806946

She wants to get into acting? Hahahaha. Maybe she'll get a role in a youtube video like Adella did.

>>6806942
But it wasnt really HIS photography that made the image famous....it was the actual image of JESSICA

this is shitty, I guess there is a double standard when it comes to Jessica with /cgl/

I mean remember when people would get all pissy bitchy when someone used another cosplayers fame to get attention...

you are all faggots

>>6806948
...you do know she is asked by companies in Japan to do shoots and commercials for games and shit right
an acting career doesnt have to mean in the west.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akXe5DKZjfM

>>6806958
It's so disgusting. They look and act like whores.

>>6806958

That's her acting?

>>6806963
if you were being begged to come to Japan to be paid to model cosplay what would you do even if you were bad at acting?

typical jelly weeaboo response

>>6806966

1/10 for making me reply.

>>6806958
She should avoid push up bras with those new implants it just makes them look extra fake and stiff

>>6806966
To act like retarded blob, flashing tits and ass for male amusment? Is that something to be proud of? Is that a worthy accomplishment for you?

Ok, unrelated to this particular event.


Why do you guys hate her so much? Really? I've never seen so much unanimous hatred towards a person most of you have probably never even met.

And no, I'm not Nigri, just a confused dude wondering if this is the way women socialize.

>>6806958
>acting career
>camera mainly focuses on her tits

yep
she'll go places

>>6806985
Considering fake big tits is what gets women famous now a days, yes.

>>6806984
I don't hate her per se. I don't think she's a good representation for "ALL" of the cosplay community, but obviously life is life. I've met her before at a show where she was friendly enough. I'm not an ass and tits cosplayer though, so it's more of, "We don't see eye to eye in what cosplay is about."

>>6806984
She used to post herself here a lot before she got big and basically spam us with her photos. That's most of the reason she's disliked on /cgl/

>>6806989

As much as I like your response, you're replying to a troll.

>>6806953
A photographer makes the subject of his photo looks as he please. Jessica may have been the subject, but the photographer made her look good, he could as easily left it the way it was and not edited it to make her look better.

All that aside, I just said that she had no right to take his photo and tried to make a profit. It didn't matter if she is"famous" or not, his water mark was removed and that's fucked up no matter how you look at it.

>you are all faggots
Either you are from /fit/ or summer came early this year.

>>6806995
Exactly this. Nigri is the scrum of the earth.

>>6806994
No, really. I don't come here too often but every time I do, I see a thread about her, and the contents don't vary all that much. It's always about how ugly she is and how fake/small/padded her boobs are.

>>6806989
>implying you "dont cosplay for attention"

also you probablly dont cosplay with T and A because you dont have a nice fit hour glass with nice T and A

btw big T and A with a fat waist line dont count

>>6806992
posting with no proof

>>6806999

Actually quite recently most people here have been feeling pretty neutral about her. And for months any mention of her would be purged by janitors. So I'm guessing you're talking about before /cgl/ for new janitors.

ITT: jealous bitches crying over spilled milk.

There's a lot of legitimate cunts and douchebags in the cosplay community deserving of true animosity. Jessica has never been one of them.

>>6807007
got new*

>>6807008
its the only thing these jealous fat bitches got on her

let them splurge

Why did the photographer upload a picture big enough to print an 8.5x11 from?

Step it down to something like 1440x900 or 1920x1080 resolution. No one will need anything higher for what they should be using it for without them paying you ahead of time.

>>6807008
ITT: jealous bitches crying over spilled milk and butthurt fanboys who want to defend Nigiri.

FTFY

Can we keep this thread on topic? Less trolling/jnig drama and more info about cosplay photography legal issues?

>>6807013
Well maybe because he didn't know how to use photoshop properly.

>>6807052
Did you just pull that out of your ass?

>>6807016
it's basically "get clear usage rules established ahead of time" "get copyright if you can" "don't be an idiot and try to negotiate after you put shit up"

even with tfp the copyright goes to the photographer since he's the "maker" of the photos. if you as a cosplayer want copyright then you have to negotiate with the photographer. if you even think you might want to sell it then try to get it but if it's a dealbreaker you might want to lay off (let's be honest and say that most will never actually sell or use for commercial purposes). model releases also important for the photographer (again let's be honest and say that most photographers aren't going to sell cosplay photos or use for commercial either) if they think they might want to sell it.

most importantly before you even shoot you should have stuff hammered out. don't bring shit up right at the shoot because if someone says nope and no one budges then you're both just wasting each other's time.

>>6806442
>>6806442
>>6806442

Fucking this. I bet the photographer has learned this lesson the hard way. Everything you do now days pretty much needs a contract.

>>6806984

In an attempt to answer the question in a serious business honest way:
It pisses a lot of people off that she pretty much got famous un-ironically for being really shitty at cosplay. Even now when her costumes appear decent it's because of other people's work that she can't be bothered to give credit for half the time. She's basically straight up in it for the money and attention and manipulated the neckbeards into thinking she's relevant. She was offered all these opportunities that she arguably didn't really earn, that were offered to her because of dudebro-fueled sexist standards and their fucked up ideals for aesthetics.

There's also shit like her "Sexy Connor" costume which is objectively racist even if she didn't redden her skin with makeup. And acting like she was somehow above the "no booth babes" rule at PAX didn't help her case either.

On top of all this, it's also pretty aggravating to have people play the "jealous fattie" card whenever someone rightly criticizes her.

TL;DR she's just not a particularly great person in general.

>>6807008
why the fuck are whiteknights still playing the jealous card

she's the laughing stock of the cosplay community at large. There is exactly nothing to envy.

You sound like a basement dweller who's scared of her 15 minutes running out.

>>6806442
Sadly that's not how the law works though.

The credit goes to the photographer and he has the rights, just as much if someone painted a picture of Nigri - SHE doesn't get it just because it's of her.

Alas, laws.

>>6805304
I assume >>6805299 means because cosplay means they're copying a character, whose image is copyrighted to the publishing house/company/whoever invented that character in the first place.

>>6806999
In general, most human beings are programmed to dislike stupidity and vanity and she is a pretty reliable source of both. She's kind of like the Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian of cosplay - "famous for no reason" type people usually become that way so people can have a chuckle about them.

>>6807141
In silly news, is her site down now?

Absolutely despicable

>>6807139
Same anon.
I never said she gets to own it 'because it's of her.'
Re-read?
Using contracts is how 'the law' works. It clearly states in the contracts that the picture belongs to the photographer and that they aren't allowed to use it for advertising purposes, ect. So signing it is proof that you've agreed to the terms. If there's no contract, there are no rules besides common courtesy. I would know, I have them and use them.

>>6807139
Same anon.
I never said she gets to own it 'because it's of her.'
Re-read?
Using contracts is how 'the law' works. It clearly states in the contracts that the picture belongs to the photographer and that you aren't allowed to use it for advertising purposes, ect. So signing it is proof that you've agreed to the terms. If there's no contract, there are no rules besides common courtesy. I would know, I have them and use them.

Cosplayers aren't normally considered actual paid models. Just like at conventions, not all photographers are pro. So there's a lot of inexperience and miscommunication when profit and legal rights get thrown into the equation. But I think it's over now since she took down the picture. I think both of them acted a bit immature and should have discussed it in a private message like most people do.
Got to see Jnigs angry side.

am i really the only one that thinks the photographer is a huge asshat?

getting decent at taking pictures of cosplayers does NOT a professional photographer make

Whomever that photographer was, unless she paid him/her and/or there was a contract signed giving him the rights to her image in that picture he has no rights to it and that's as it should be - it's still her image he is using

>>6807218
Man, lrn2law. It's not 'her image', the photographer created it and so it belongs to them. You'd hardly say the model for the Mona Lisa owned the rights to it, would you?

>>6807222
the law in this area is extremely specific, and I'm right. That's why most fashion models stay away from stock photography jobs - they sign away all their rights to those pictures, which in turn can be used for whatever the owner wants.

I can't quote you the exact law and back it up with a link (though if you can to prove me wrong, PLEASE do) but my sister worked in the fashion industry for years as a model so I'm not speaking out of my ass

>>6807218
It's not her image you fucking retard.
all photos taken by the photographer are owned by the photographer.
unless a different kind of agreement was made.

which in this case it wasn't.
get the fuck out.

>>6807218
No no no. When an artist takes a photo it is the same as an artist doing a painting. The model does NOT have the rights to the photo because it is not their work, they are NOT the creator. When I worked at a photographer studio we held all rights to the photos, we could hang them on the walls and whatever we pleased with them (Of course if someone wanted their photo down we would but by law we could leave it up.)

>>6807233
prove it because what I learned says the contrary and it was from someone who would actually know due to their profession, and not from some hobby photographer or cosplayer.

>>6807247
it's not a painting though, it is a photo

that is why taking a photo of someone (if you want to actually use it for something) requires a SIGNED LEGAL RELEASE

whereas a painting (wait for it).... DOES NOT

>>6807252
They are the same, they are both artist creating a image. You can try and disagree with it but by LAW the photos belong to the photographer unless otherwise agreed to with a contract.

fucking cosplayers and hobby photographers have the most warped perception of ownership

cosplayers who refer to their reference sketch of a preexisting character in a preexisting outfit as "original content"
neckbeard with a camera who thinks competent use of a camera makes him an artist

it's pretty pathetic

>>6807252
Uh no... What about all those paparazzi that sell celebrity photos? No one is signing any release... And they sell them for hundreds and thousands to the highest bidder who then puts it in their magazine... Lol if there were laws like that, ` WORST BEACH BODIES' for example wouldn't exist in celebrity tabloids...

>>6807222
>>6807218
They BOTH have rights to it. Time For Pictures is just that. Photographers get to take pictures of models for free, and models get pictures from photographers for free. They share benefits off each other that way. The whole situation was just handled poorly and clearly the photographer wanted more rights than they previously discussed.
Also stop comparing pictures to paintings like it's any different, painters do the same with models, and both sides credit each other equally. TFP is a lot more lax than paid work. If this had been a actual paid shoot, Jnig would have no rights to sell or touch up the pictures unless the photographer willed it from the get go. But we aren't aware of the conditions of which they actually agreed upon so our assumptions are meaningless right now.

What we've learned:
>Clarify Photoshoot Conditions
>Get Watermark Copyrighted
>Print Out Contract
>Communicate
>Credit Everyone
>Ask Permission
>Problem Solved

>>6807263
This. Though it's so fucking sad how there aren't more laws about paparazzi

>>6807252
wow.. you are so fucking wrong LOL
go educate yourself on some laws, kid

>>6807271
No they don't. Not for money at least.

If a shoot is done for free then:
the photographer can sell the photo for money. but only if it's non commercial
the model cant sell the photo for money WITHOUT the photographer's strict permission.


I honestly cannot believe how uneducated the majority of people on /cgl/ are on this matter.
no wonder shit like this happens. Even Nigri has no clue.

>>6807271
Actually, time for pictures means that neither of the parties can legally make money off of the photo.

>>6807281
LOL i'm really not
you'll have to forgive that i did not communicate clearly that you need a release if you want to use the picture PROFESSIONALLY and COMMERCIALLY. You know, in the real world

sage because no one even bothers to look this shit up, it's just a bunch of assholes reiterating the same wrong facts

>>6806873
Wow she's a cunt.

>>6807291
>>6807286
I never mentioned money with the TFP's. Each TFP is different regarding the conditions they both come up with before the shoot, even then they still usually come up with a contract if the photographer wants rights to the pictures. I'm not defending Jnig, but I'm also not defending the photographer who should have been on top of this from the beginning before she even thought of selling it. Once again, there should have been a written document on this if the photographer wanted to own it. Jnig claims she's not selling the picture, but her autograph. The picture she gives away free, even if it's a tool for advertising, she can't be sued for giving away pictures of herself. Hence all the pre-cautions photographers have to take. I don't think this will go anywere.

>>6807323
>I don't think this will go anywere.
I think they both realize this at this point. And that's why it's turned into a pissing contest of who can make the biggest asshole out of whom, and racketeering fan opinion on their pages which unfortunately Nigri would win just because she's popular.
Maybe if enough people on her page drown out the fact that she was in the wrong as well it'll make her look absolved from the issue. Either way she's being a bully.

>>6806966
she's better thant the fake japanese girls.

>>6806973
your jealousy is showing.

>>6806984
most women hate other women.

>>6806958
She won't make it in Japan because they don't like her look over there. Too manly. They're partial to the Dakota look. Saging for offtopic.

>>6806953
...Do you know how modeling works at all?

>>6807358

japs love tits though

>>6806938
I know lonestar comic con floors and that's definitely lonestar comic con floor you got there. I OWN THIS HUUAUHGUAHUHAHA

>>6807183
still a bit off
One doesn't have to make an art and then contract with anyone or anything, or even sign it up on something, or patent that art to have rights on it.

Photography is the same.

All he has to do is prove he was the original owner and misuse comes at the fault of the other party -JNIG.

Not trying to be difficult, just currently in lawschool and had a copyright class.

>>6807286
>the photographer can sell the photo for money. but only if it's non commercial
>sell the photo for money
>non commercial

0/10

>>6805236

God damn, the things I would do to her

>>6806989
Lol you called her a cosplayer. You give her too much credit.

>>6807638
what makes a cosplayer anon?
your shit closet cosplay you show up in at your local con in?

>>6807247
Anon

>I pose in front of camera
>time set flash
>some random faggot runs up and pushes button
>doesnt even look into camera
>snap

Then who was owner person?

>>6807788
Yes, lets use a completely stupid hypothetical situation to try and make a point that the model owns the photo even though the laws clearly state the photographer does.

>>6807788
There's a lot of gray area here, however I think a good basis to go by is:
>Do you own the camera?
Then you own the photo.

Same deal as if you handed a camera to a friend to take a photo of you. I believe that in this case, as you own the camera, you own the photo, not your friend who you lent it to for a minute.

I could, however, see gray area in a case such as a photographer doing a shoot on rented equipment, though I believe in this case since it's not just a couple second 'borrow', the photographer would in this case still own the photos. This is a very good question though, and if anyone has actual legal expertise in copyright/art law I'd love to know.

>>6805260
blake is always getting involved in everything

>>6807795
The person operating the camera owns the photo. It's irrelevant who owns the camera.

>>6807795
When you are renting it you're a owning it for that time period so any photos taken will be your. Not to mention I hardly think someone would return it with all the photos.
As far as the lending a friend..In legal terms the photographer/friend who is using it owns it. Of course the owner of the camera could start shit and said they did take it but for most people I doubt they would try and take credit/sell his work of course.

Like >>6807801 said it doesn't matter who owns the camera, it only matters who takes it.


For this >>6807788
I don't think it would matter who took the photo. If the random person who took it actually stayed it would became a legal issue as to why they fuck they touched someone else property and therefore it wouldn't matter if they had the rights to the photo. Any court would throw it right away.

>>6807801
I really don't think that would be the case in every situation, though. Such as in anon's implausible but still in the realm of possible situation, I don't believe the person who runs up and takes the photo would be the owner in such a case.

Say the person doing the self-shoot had about 100 other photos they'd been taking of themselves, a full set of photos. Then, there is that one photo "taken" by the person who comes up to the camera. So that one photo from the set, despite the legwork of arranging it being done by the model, still belongs to the person who walks up to the camera? Somehow I just don't buy that.

(This is completely irrelevant btw to the Jnig situation, it's pretty obvious she's in the wrong here, but regardless I am curious about this.)

>>6807810
I don't think it's irrelevant though, the ownership of the photo is still in question whether there was touching of unowned property or not. You never know, it could be a desirable celeb photo. Run up to a paparazzi's camera when they're following Snookie, snap a shot on their camera, suddenly you own it?

>>6807817
Out of technically they would own it. They only way it is disregarded is if there is proof someone just ran up and used the camera in question without permission. Then a judge would have to find they took the photo in question in a unlawfully way.

Of course if someone took a random photo and ran away with it, it wouldn't really matter since they wouldn't have the photo and therefore couldn't prove they took it.

(If that happen to me though I would simply curse them ,tell them not to touch my shit and delete their pleb level photo)

>>6807820
See, the reason I find this a plausible situation is if the photo later became well known and circulated (on celeb blogs, etc), and the snapshotter tries to sue for the rights and royalties from the photo. If they had a witness they could prove they took the physical photo, that is.

So if it's the case that the judge would decide it was taken unlawfully and this overrules the technical ownership by taking the photo, that would make sense.

I feel like this might become relevant if a celebrity was asked for a photo by a fan, and the fan then went on to sell the photo for a lot of money (of course I would think a celeb would know better, but then we see the situation in this thread...)

>>6807829
There is also another issue even if they did bring a witness it would VERY difficult to prove without some sort of video evidence considering the circumstances surrounding the situation would have be sooooo perfect for some to do that and get away with it unharmed, and even to have the specific photo picked for commercial use. (During normal model photoshoots 300+ photo easily..The likely hood of that one photo being picked would be smallllll)

>>6807810
this is fucking stupid

So your saying if I fucking stole someones expensive camera..took a prize winning photo with it...then it was found out I stole the camera....id still own all photos I took so far on it...

The law cant be this black and white
and if it is, its shitty
its also shitty how /cgl/ blindly agrees with it

kill yourselves
all of you

>>6807978
yes they would have the right to the prize winning photo still

its the law

Maybe this will clear some stuff up

http://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/

>>6807978
Don't get mad at /cgl/. get mad at laws.

>>6808214
>implying people will read any of that

can't you just summarize it for us?

>>6807978
It really isn't. If I'm an artist and I steal a bunch of expensive paint and shit, then paint an award winning picture, I'm still the one who did all the work despite the materials to help me do the materials being stolen

>>6808214

Would publishing the photo on his facebook account be considered commercial use by advertizing? Advertizing for his photography business that is.

He still owns the photo, but unless there were release forms signed, neither party can use the photo for commercial use.

>>6808220
Not that anon but I will take the most important parts from the article.

>

In general, when the shutter is released, the photographer who pressed the button owns the copyright. An exception is when the image falls into the “work-made-for-hire”(also known as “work for hire”) category.

>If I don’t register my copyright, do I still own the copyright to my photos?

>Yes. When a photo is not registered with the US Copyright Office prior to an infringement (or within three months of the first publication of the photo), a copyright owner may recover only “actual damages” for the infringement (pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 504 (b)), instead of statutory damages.

>Your copyright does not have to be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office for you to take advantage of this provision.

>Copyrights and rights of privacy for people are different rights. When photographers take photos of people, they must be careful to not invade their privacy. This happens when someone enters a person’s private domain in a manner that would be considered offensive to the average person. As a photographer, the act of going on someone’s land without permission would be trespassing and also may violate the person’s right of privacy.

>Commercial use of a photograph usually occurs when the picture of the person has been used purely for “advertising purposes.”

>As the creator of art, the copyright owner has the exclusive rights in the art such as for reproduction. Courts have disagreed as to whether taking photos of copyrighted works is a violation. Regardless, the law prevents you from having copyright ownership of anything that is an infringement.

>If an illustration of one of my photographs is made and used commercially or editorially, is it an infringement of my copyright?

>Yes, if it is deemed to be a derivative work and the illustrator has copied your copyrightable elements.

>>6808371
TL;DR if you still find that too long to read.

Basically both the con organizer and Jnigger are bullshitting.

The photographer has the rights of the picture because he was the one who took it [with her permission and for free]

She was infringing copyright when she decided to remove the watermark of his picture and sell it, because doing so is basically being all "lol not giving credit to the motherfucker" and claiming the work as her own.

The organizer of the con doesn't even have a say because it was an agreement between this bitch and the photographer, so they're full of shit.

He doesn't have to register the photo to get a copyright. He's automatically the owner of the pic by taking it.

Simple as that.

>>6807263
tabloids count as editorial which doesn't require a release

>>6808606
Except it's not the tabloids they were talking about, it's the photog that's selling the photo.

This whole thing really really disappoints me. I used to like Jnig and thought she'd be an okay person. Right after she got her implants and then this? I really have no respect for her anymore.

>>6805754
I want to believe this, too, but......sadly I just don't know....

>>6808725
If you take a look at >>6806873 then this is the icing of the cake.

>>6808725
where is the proof for the implants...that never happened

>>6806953
thats like saying if a photo has the statue of liberty in it, it doesn't matter if a photo is beautiful, it's souly the fact that it's the statue of liberty that makes the photo good and worth something.

>>6808662
The photog was never selling the photo, where do you get that from?

>>6808980
did you follow the comment string up or...?

>>6809005
I've been following since the beginning, and I kept wondering why people kept saying he was selling the photos, it wasn't him, just Jessica selling the photo

>>6809043
no i mean the comment string about the paparazzi. it was simply in response to this post
>>6807252

Jessica Nigri = Yaya ver. 2.0. I think we all saw this coming a mile away.

>>6808351
I don't believe so because it's posting it on his personal site, there is no direct profit being made. Unless there was a contract between them stating otherwise he can post it wherever her pleases

>>6806906
I feel disgusting knowing exactly what you're talking about.

>>6805260

Holy shit, that last comment.

I have no reaction image in two folders full of reaction images appropriate enough for that.

>>6810009
Pretty sure that comment was made in complete sarcasm.

>>6810026
Actually it wasn't. The same guy then posted a giant hate rant about the photographer for how fucked up he is thinking that he owns the photo.

The guy is completely serious. No sarcasm there.

Yo, as a cosplayer what do you think is a fair deal for the rights to my pictures or permission to use them for distribution?

>>6810077
Fucking whiteknights.

>>6810109
Generally photographers will have no problem with you sharing them online. You reach a gray area when you start printing them, and it's a definite no-no to sell them. For example, printing some 4x6s to give away would be fine, but selling the 4x6s is not (and "selling the autograph" doesn't cut it). It's best to ask the photographer what they want, and if you're approaching gray areas always get it in writing.

If you want to sell photos without getting into legal trouble, you'll have to negotiate a license. There's no set cost and it really depends on intent. The type of print would be specified in the license. Example, a license to print and sell 100 4x6 pictures would be cheaper than a license to print and sell 100 11x14 pictures. A "fair deal" would be influenced by how much you expect to make off them, too.

Of course, this is assuming the photographer knows what they're doing. If they're just a hobbyist and you can convince them to sign away the rights to sell the picture any way you want, you just struck gold.

>>6805830
>Claims she was supporting the photographer's work
>Removing said photographer's watermark
I used to be neutral toward JNig but after this I think she's a selfish greedy bitch. Way to go, JNig.

>>6810133
And what's the regular deal I can expect for the rights to use a picture vs a license?
I don't want a photographer abusing me either.

>>6810133
If I had my photos being sold, I'd expect some sort of part of the cash from it being paid from the sales... like 15%-20% or something?

>>6810152
You could take it to court, but the reality is that after the deed is done you'll have a very hard time getting a fair deal.

That's why it's always better to discuss terms before anything happens.

>>6810151
Depends on what you mean. It's completely at the photographer's discretion but the general agreement is the model can use it for their portfolio and the photographer can use it for theirs. Not many photographers would sell prints of cosplayers to people other than the cosplayer themselves.

>>6810152
Are you talking from the cosplayer's perspective or the photographers? The license the photographer gives to the cosplayer is basically covering that cost. I'm not sure a cosplayer would agree to a flat fee + a percentage of the profit.

This is retarded and there are morons on both sides.

US copyright law is very clear on these matters. Even if you don't actually register copyright, copyright can be claimed by default and certain things are guaranteed with that.

Unless the photographer took the shoot under existing contract or signed over copyright to Jessica in the release, Jessica has no right at all to sell, edit or reproduce the photos. If the photographer did sign copyright over in the release or took the shoot under existing contract then the photographer has no ability to complain about anything.

This shit is really black and white. It's not like this is a unique case, there is precedent for this.

Since neither of them is sharing the release, nobody can say any more on the subject. One of them has copyright, the other does not. Which one it is, only the release can say.

Cosplayers should be completely honest and know that unless they actually have a name for themself that their photo is not going to be sold for anything. Jnig built herself up to the point where people will buy stuff because it's her. 99% of other cosplayers do not have that same situation. Seriously, don't kid yourself.

>>6810187
This. I don't see how anyone can side with Nigiri if they knew anything about copyright laws.

>>6810217
Tits cloud judgement, so does retarded fandom.
You miss the two together and you get cult followers.

>>6810217
Exactly how I see it.
The must be random Anons who fap to her photos and know how to use google.

>>6805307
What's with the sudden influx of guys like that lately? When that whole DC "controversy" happened last week I was swarmed with betas on my twitter asking if I would "boycott" the game.

So I guess all of the other posters she's sold were photos taken by photographers who don't care that she's profiting off of their work without giving them a cut?

>>6810905
Or she made a deal or arrangement. Some guys are star stuck and see it as a way to get a boost in PR in trade for rights. Maybe some or just nice enough to let her profit of their work. Maybe she actually paid some of them a flat some or a percentage. Won't really know unless some of those photographers talk.

Lame for Jessica to take someone's photo without permission. But also lame for the photographer to claim legal domain over a picture he never got permission to take in the first place.

I doubt Jessica meant any harm by it though. She's still just sort of naive to the ways of the cosplay community. When she first started cosplaying she didn't always give credit to people that made stuff for her which caused her haters to piss and moan (like they're doing now) and now she always makes sure to give credit. Just because a person is a popular cosplayer doesn't mean they're familiar with all the serious business rules of the community.

>>6810907
What about the people who made her the costumes she wears in the posters she sells? Does she give her seamstresses and prop-makers a cut for profiting off of wearing their work? Or does she pay them up front and then promise to credit them?

>Cosplayers selling their pictures
>For profit
>Without the photographer's permission
It's like the perfect storm of conceited and illegal.

>>6810911
If she's making money off of the cosplay community, she should probably already be aware of the business side of things. Responsibility etc. She's friends with Yaya, so there's the perfect resource for her to learn from.

>>6810922
>Implying that Yaya learns from her mistakes

>>6810911
>never got permission to take

They did get permission to take the photo.

Yes in this post >>6806855 the con manager says it was taken without permission, but only in the first bulletin point. Later down he contradicts that by stating "she was nice enough to allow you to not only take the photo, but to allow you to use it as promotional tool of your own."

So yes, the photographer did get permission to take the photo.

>>6806855
My money's on the con chair is heavily white knighting in futile hopes at a chance of fucking her.

>>6810914
the latter
royalties off wearing costumes?
lol what

>>6810911
I was actually at that convention it happened at, I walked around the corner and there was 3 guys taking photos of her posing in that catwoman suit. I don't see how they didn't have "permission"

Now that I think about it, isn't this the second time a photographer called her out on making unauthorized prints? I think it was a photo someone took of her in her Pikachu costume and her response to the whole matter was, "lolk." Why is it so hard to give a photographer credit? Fame really has gone to her head... kinda sad how fake she has become.

>>6806944
I think anon meant the watermark.

>>6808737

you can tell implants from real ones because when a girl lays down, even if they're wearing a push-up bra, boobs lay flatter, in this photo, you can see the "ring" which usually happens with implants.
>>6806958

>>6811249
Looks natural to me.

>>6809073
Not even. At least Yaya has worked a day in her life.

I was there and saw the 3 photographers taking her photos in different locations and poses. they spent 20-30 minutes with her. clear they had her permission.

>>6811262
I thought Jessica worked at best buy... I knew she used to have a retail job at least.

>>6811267
She works at Trader Joe's.

>>6810911

Yeah, no. She's lying her ass off and so is anyone else saying the photographer had no permission. She actively allowed the photo be taken. Why would she even try to sell a picture of herself that she didn't authorize? Don't be a dimwit.

Her "haters" piss and moan because she's dumb as fuck and greedy to boot, and this whole debacle is proof of it.

>>6811280
It's amazing how some people get so angry and vengeful at Jessica Nigri. She's like the most chill, drama-free person in the entire cosplay community. Her haters have to make mountains out of molehills and pile on childish insults just to make her seem like some sort of villain.

>>6810922
You've obviously never asked Yaya a question.
>"What is the 4th letter in the alphabet?"
>"Rawr, you're going to steal my copyrighted blahblah patent pending herp durp schmloogooly flong flong"

>>6811293
...you've really been paying no attention to the central issue ITT, have you.

>>6811293
"drama-free"...selling photos without photographers permission... hm.

aaand this is why I make people sign model release forms.

>>6805413
>Actually, even with fan art, companies like Marvel, DC, etc. could crack down if they wanted to, but know better because of what a blow that would be to their fans, and subsequently the company's own profits.

They don't crack down on it cause Lawyers are expensive as fuck.

>>6805963

There are court cases where it's been ruled that you can take pictures of many inanimate objects without impunity. This is why you can take pictures of cars without being sued by Ford or Toyota.

This doesn't apply to certain circumstances. Strangely enough, many outdoor sculptures are actually copyrighted and even publishing a picture of said sculpture for profit could land you in hot water if the sculptor thinks your full of shit. Likewise with brandable items, like DVD cases, cereal boxes, and other items.

>>6811397
You don't need to get people to sign release forms.
Unless you're looking to use your photos commercially.
Selling your images is perfectly fine though

>>6811620
Which country are you living in where selling your photos isn't considered commercial use?

>>6811719
You don't need a model release to sell the photo as-is to a customer.

You need a model release if you want to sell a photo to a company to be used in advertisements, etc. The difference is the person is associated with the product, versus just being a photograph.

In actuality you don't need a model release, but any company who knows anything will want one, so they can't have legal action taken against them later.