/cgl/ - Cosplay & EGL

[Anonymous No.7063725]

Looks like Heroes of Cosplay finally majorly fucked up.

http://bgzstudios.com/blog/photography/heroes-of-copyright-infringement-the-photographer-litigation-against-syfy/

[Anonymous No.7063729]

>>7063658

[Anonymous No.7063734]

>>7063729
I think this thing deserves its own thread
also for the sake of visibility

[Anonymous No.7063739]

>>7063734
agree

[Anonymous No.7063742]

Seriously??

[Anonymous No.7063747]

Can someone explain to me how a bigwig company like NBC can fuck up this bad?

[Anonymous No.7063753]

I personally don't give a shit, I just want to see the show get canned so Yaya will have to go back to her tits4cash cosplay business model.

[Anonymous No.7063756]

Not surprised at all

[Anonymous No.7063759]

>>7063747
uh the same way the Glee show can steal songs from artists without crediting them or paying them? The bigger the company, the more money they can throw at lawsuits to win them, so they don't care to follow the rules since they know they have more money than you.

[Anonymous No.7063760]

>>7063747
someone didn't get an IP lawyer in the loop to okay everything for whatever reason. be it they thought the co-authorship thing, thought it wasn't necessary at all, thought cosplay photographers wouldn't do dick all, etc.

[Anonymous No.7063762]

He should have hired a laywer.

That letter is terrible.

[Anonymous No.7063771]

>>7063762
Looks fine to me but I don't know stuff about law

[Anonymous No.7063778]

ahahahaha shit. I wasn't able to watch this show because I cancelled my cable, but I knew this was gonna happen.

[Anonymous No.7063779]

Well that's that

[Anonymous No.7063791]

Since they ignored him the first time, what will happen now?
Not sure if they're going to pay up.

[Anonymous No.7063795]

>>7063778
ditto

[Anonymous No.7063796]

>>7063791
if he can get a lawyer to take the case that's what's next. now, whether or not said lawyer can actually do anything is another thing. NBC might just stonewall it to death somehow. They're the ones with the high-powered legal teams and that's how big companies do things: they beat you into submission

[Anonymous No.7063801]

Cosplay Photographers: More elitist than the "heroes".

This is so stupid.

[Anonymous No.7063802]

>>7063771
>>7063771
Law has a really stupid, unique way of citing to things. Not using it screams HELLO NBC LAWYER, TAKE ME UP THE ASS.

[Anonymous No.7063803]

>>7063801
What?

[Anonymous No.7063807]

next you'll be saying "they're giving you international exposure! be grateful!"

[Anonymous No.7063809]

Huh. So he's in the right if he's the owner of the copyright, in the wrong if he's not the owner of the copyright.

If the photos are from private shoots and he's smart, he probably had the models sign any ownership claim away. If he's stupid or they're floor photography, I don't know -- isn't the industry standard that the person who takes the photo owns it?

[Anonymous No.7063812]

>>7063809
General standard law is that the photo belongs to the person who pushed the trigger.

BGZ Studios is known to primarily do location shoots as in not in convention space.
The reason why NBC or SyFy hasn't responded is because they know how fucked they are.

[Anonymous No.7063814]

Now, I may have missed it when skimming the link. What photos are his that he's suing for? Surely it's not just photos that were put on the FB, right?

[Anonymous No.7063815]

>>7063809
>>7063809
>isn't the industry standard that the person who takes the photo owns it?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.7063819]

>>7063814
he didn't point out which ones pulicly. all them scrambled links.

[Anonymous No.7063828]

>>7063809
Yea he would definitely own all the images.
Unless he signed them over which I sincerely doubt.

[Anonymous No.7063833]

Someone explain why they would do this??

[Anonymous No.7063844]

>>7063833
Why else? Because they think they can get away with it. It's just like the weebs who steal/trace popular art on deviantart, they don't think anyone will notice the theft or give a shit if they do notice.

[Anonymous No.7063845]

>>7063833
they thought they had legal usage ("co authorship") or they thought the lawyers would take care of it

number 2 is more likely

[Anonymous No.7063848]

....is he seriously asking for $3500 for EACH PHOTO?

srsly

[Anonymous No.7063850]

http://pastebin.com/uLQuZsX3

If anyone is bored I put some excerpts from the copyright code in a pastebin.

[Anonymous No.7063865]

>>7063848
it's high, even for pro photo standards, but then again I've never dealt with shit being used in TV

[Anonymous No.7063867]

>>7063865
I think it was just used on their webpage.

I wonder how much Ackson got for his Katsu footage that was on the show proper, though.

[Anonymous No.7063869]

>>7063865
Well look at it if it was reversed in a different situation. The NFL charges a lot more for the rights and usage of their images and footage.

[Anonymous No.7063876]

>>7063869
yeah, all I know is that $3500 is what a decent name wedding shooter would charge for the whole shebang.

and yes, brides do pay for that shit happily.

[Anonymous No.7063882]

>>7063833
For the same reason they did it on their Facebook page.

[Anonymous No.7063883]

>>7063876
Sometimes that doesn't even include all the print sales.

[Anonymous No.7063889]

>>7063848
It's pretty low

[Anonymous No.7063912]

Dude's got a point

[Anonymous No.7063915]

The $3500 per image is their "out of court" settlement. If they don't respond agreeing to pay, it jumps up to 150k per image, which would make the total 1.2 million. Heck even if it when that far and then he settled for half that, making 600k for 8 photos.

[Anonymous No.7063922]

You guys are dreaming if you think this photographer is going to get any money from them, and at that over 3k for each photo.

[Anonymous No.7063933]

>>7063922
Then you should be prepared to be amazed because it is going to happen.

[Anonymous No.7063936]

>>7063933
We'll see, won't we?

[Anonymous No.7063937]

>>7063922
IA. Also, pic related.

[Anonymous No.7063939]

>>7063915
$150K is the maximum a judge can give them per violation. The judge can give as little as $200 per violation.

[Anonymous No.7063941]

>>7063937
This guy's response made me think the photographer was a whiny dick. The part he omitted about SyFy "turning around and attacking" the cosplayers was probably just SyFy saying "The cosplayers told us we were good and we had no reason to believe otherwise, so take it up with them."

[Anonymous No.7063943]

>>7063939
8 images... 8 counts of violation.

[Anonymous No.7063945]

17 USC 201(b) for the terminally bored.

>(b) Works Made for Hire.--In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
>unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them

[Anonymous No.7063952]

>>7063945
So tell me if I'm applying this correctly: Then Syfy isn't in the wrong since they're considered the employer for which the photos were prepared for, are to be considered the owners, and that's because the photographer and their party didn't expressly agree in a written statement over copyright?

[Anonymous No.7063954]

>>7063943
Yes. I know. So a maximum of $1.2 million and a minimum of $1,600.

>In a case . . . the court finds[] that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200 [per violation].

[Anonymous No.7063956]

>>7063952
syfy wouldn't be in the wrong because they believed the cosplayers who thought they had joint ownership of the photo (which they didn't)

as for the "for hire" bit that's up to interpretation as to who is doing the hiring between the cosplayer and the photographer. lawyers are going to have to hash that one out on their own as to whether it's a model being hired by a photographer or a photographer being hired by a cosplayer.

[Anonymous No.7063958]

I haven't been watching the show, but as any /cgl/er would, I do love the drama.

Anyone who lives in America, can you tell me how heavily this show has been advertised? I'm curious how much of a hit/how much audience they wanted for it.

[Anonymous No.7063962]

>>7063958
it's basically piggybacking off of face off's audience trying to snag them and then word of mouth by convention/cosplay fans. ironically also the ones most likely to know that half of it is bullshit. it's not advertised much at all outside the network spots and the usual online coverage.

[Anonymous No.7063963]

>>7063956
"But the cosplayers told us it was okay!" isn't going to hold up in court

[Anonymous No.7063969]

>>7063963
Yes it will because then the cosplayers are liable. So the court will point at them and tell the photog to chase after em. Stuff like that matters, especially when there is no written agreement between any of them to bind words.

[Anonymous No.7063970]

>>7063954
>>7063954
Those are statutory damages on top of losses/profits.

The photographer can also recover any profits he can prove SyFy made off the photos or recover any losses he suffered from SyFy using the photos. Unfortunately it looks like the burden of proof is on the photographer to prove profits or damages, so... good luck with that, buddy. If he gets anything, it'll be the statutory damages, since I think he just has to prove "They used my image" to get those.

[Anonymous No.7063972]

I really get the feeling the producers asked the cosplayers for photos to use for the production and the girls just sent them some. They have no clue what copyright is and assumed since it's a pic of them that everything would be cool. Given the Georgia address, I take it this is either Yaya, Monika, or Riki who fucked up.

[Anonymous No.7063983]

>>7063937
>photographer winds up suing Yaya
Can this happen, pretty please?

[Anonymous No.7063985]

>>7063972
Except being that they have been in professional shoots they SHOULD know about copyright considering they should have been in shoots with photags who weren't idiots and had them sign contracts for the prints and rights to them.

[Anonymous No.7063989]

>>7063985
Should, but someone like Monika doesn't always seem the brightest.

[Anonymous No.7063992]

Does anyone have links to the pictures used?

[Anonymous No.7063994]

hell even I knew to ask if the copyright of my wedding photos were mine or the photographer. Someone that does that much cosplays KNOWS if they own the copyright or not.

[Anonymous No.7064000]

This case isn't worth enough money for any lawyer to help BMZ.

[Anonymous No.7064004]

Honestly I think the photographer doesn't have a case and is just puffing themselves up to make it seem bigger than it actually is.
But on the other hand, I really fucking hate Yaya and the majority of the people on that show and I wouldn't mind that photographer stirring the pot just to give them all some shit.
I'm so conflicted...

[Anonymous No.7064047]

>>7063983
Doubt this would happen

[Anonymous No.7064077]

>>7063983
Except there would be no money gained in it. Also, some of these photographers willingly give Yaya RAW files of the photography so she can put her name on the photos, essentially giving up their copyright.

[spooky !TtE9LXiOmc No.7064117]

>>7063963
this. i don't know why people think it will fall back on the cosplayers, it wont. unless they have amazing lawyer who can talk their way out of a shit situation.

in absolutely no situation do models own the pictures shot of them- unless specifically said so in a contract. for Syfy to believe that these photos were owned by the cosplayers and not the photographers they would have asked to see the contracts saying that the cosplayers owned them. not just "we need photos of you, can you get us some?" "sure here!" "and you own these?" "uhhhh, well they're of me right?" "okay good enough, let's run them on a national level".
it doesn't work like that. idk where you guys get law info but like lol no when it comes to shit like that they need paper work of /everything/. they skipped it, didn't think anything would happen.
Syfy fucked up, but they are a big enough company that they may be able to pay their way out of it without ever admitting anything.

law stuff is so stupid, like Syfy obviously is in the wrong here but it's going to take forever to fix.

[Anonymous No.7064128]

>>7063937
>>7063941
tl;dr I'm a victim, its not my fault

Real talk, own up to your mistakes(not reading shit), wtf?

[Anonymous No.7064132]

>>7064117
except many cosplayers don't know that part of the law. Some of them could be arrogant dicks that they don't consider photographers involved in it.

Plus, who knows how Syfy worded the release form for the photographs.

[spooky !TtE9LXiOmc No.7064138]

>>7064132
but that doesn't matter. when Syfy asked for photos they /had/ to make sure that the cosplayers owned the photos, to see a signed contract from the person who took the photos saying the cosplayers could use them for whatever they wanted. obviously, Syfy did not get that.
the cosplayers are not at fault, at all, it is 100% Syfy's responsibility to get the consent of the person who OWNS the image. and Syfy knows those laws, i promise. they just didn't ask, that's the only way this could have happened. or they just took the images. either way, it's 100% on Syfy.
according to the post the cosplayers gave the producers pictures, along with sources to contact the photographers and get consent. they just skipped that consent part.

[spooky !TtE9LXiOmc No.7064140]

>>7064138
producers prob isn't the correct title, i doubt producers handle that. they gave the images to whoever was in charge of that shit. you get my point.

[Anonymous No.7064148]

there is no such thing as "lolitastuck done right!!"

that is all

[Anonymous No.7064554]

>>7064128
this

[Anonymous No.7064586]

Heroes of Cosplay/NBC really fucked up on this. The cosplayers submitted photos with photographer credits included (as BGZ states in his blog). The photos in question are used in the show and on online promotion with watermarks cropped and in most cases no photographer credits.

NBC and their legal department should know better than to use unverified photos on a national television show and promo. They dropped the ball and should have gotten the proper documentation for the images being used. You don’t let shit like this go live without the proper receipts, releases and legal review.

[Anonymous No.7064596]

I have a feeling this is the last nail in the coffin and Heroes of Cosplay won't be back for a season 2.

[Anonymous No.7064611]

>>7064596
This sounds logical to me
...which sucks
I know its only 2ep in, but I really like this show so far.

[Anonymous No.7064622]

>>7064611
The show itself isn't hatable. I really don't understand why people are getting their panties in a bunch about it. I really don't.

[Anonymous No.7064715]

>>7064622
What do you even like about it?

[Anonymous No.7064718]

>>7064715
Because although the way they are working it is showing the dark side of cosplay, if you look closely enough you can see what makes cosplay great. jesse or james or whatever the guys name is a great example. He is creative and spunky and passionate. Sure he isn't the best, but he has it where it counts.

[Anonymous No.7064729]

>>7064715
I like the fact that it is actually entertaining. I can make the distinction between entertainment and real life and not get personally offended by every little thing. I can laugh at the people on the show, and root for the people on this show, and actually have a good time because as a no-name cosplayer this show doesn't actually affect me, and my personal life, and how I view the hobby in any way.

[Anonymous No.7066435]

Any updates on this?

[Anonymous No.7066491]

>>7064718
>the way they are working

But they're not really. The other HoC threads, and that post by tenleid, have shown that some are just reusing costumes - so all that rushing to get stuff done, and OMG IM NOT GONNA GET IT DONE ON TIME, is a lie.

[Anonymous No.7066508]

>>7063812
>General standard law is that the photo belongs to the person who pushed the trigger.

not once it is posted on the internet or the person/subject of the photo decides to use it (unless there was a contract signed prior to the photo shoot )

The photographer also has no right to the character the cosplayer is dressing as and CAN get in actual trouble if Capcom, Marvel etc wanted to make a stink of it

[Anonymous No.7066509]

>>7063828
>Yea he would definitely own all the images.

no he doesn't retard

[Anonymous No.7066526]

>>7066508
>you have no rights to something once you post it on the internet
Hey everybody, get a load of this moron!

[Anonymous No.7066548]

>>7066508
the fuck are you on?

[Anonymous No.7066558]

>>7063725
NBC will send out the lawyers and settle for a fraction of what the studio is looking to get out of this deal. Probably enough to pay the studio's lawyer.

[Anonymous No.7066559]

>>7066508
>there are no copyrights on the internet

I just know you're one of those people who thinks that everything on google images is free to use as you please.

[Anonymous No.7066616]

>>7066559
Pisses me off people like that exist.

[Anonymous No.7066642]

The nail in NBC's coffin will be that they cropped out the watermarks.

[Anonymous No.7066694]

>>7063753
>tits4cash business model
oh anon, thank you for that laugh.

[Anonymous No.7066717]

>>7066526
>>7066548

retards with no idea what laws ACTUALLY state

[Anonymous No.7066730]

>>7066642
>The nail in NBC's coffin will be that they cropped out the watermarks.

ok retards
you have no idea what if any contracts were used and what they stated
simply taking a picture does not give you MUH CREATOR RIGHTS! I R COPWRITTEN CAUSE I TOOK TEH PICTURE

Taking a picture of a person dressed as a copy written character enters into all kinds of murky legal waters

Hell just call a wedding photographer and you will learn more about the legalese than the retards on this board know

[Anonymous No.7066736]

>>7066730
>dat faggotry
SyFy pls

[Anonymous No.7066743]

>>7066730
>mfw I've gotten my information from real photographers
Sorry Anon, you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.7066762]

>>7066730
wow you are all kinds of retarded

[Anonymous No.7066826]

>>7066730
drawing/painting/sculpting something, even if it's of another company's ip, gives you copyright over your work. not the character, but the actual piece of work you have created.
same with photos

if anything is going to be a nail in the coffin it'll be ratings and it's doing... okay, i guess. could be better. it's currently losing about half a million going from face off to heroes of cosplay. it's up slightly from the first week to last week's numbers too. if it continues to go up, maybe second season. if it goes down til the end, probably gets cut.

[Anonymous No.7066827]

No case if it's Yaya. She has publishing rights to her images.
The only thing that could possibly be brought up is that his name has to be SOMEWHERE on the SyFy/NBC site for helping with the picture.

[Anonymous No.7066841]

>>7066827
It's not Yaya, it's some other chick.

[Anonymous No.7066855]

>>7066730
>simply taking a picture does not give you MUH CREATOR RIGHTS! I R COPWRITTEN CAUSE I TOOK TEH PICTURE

Yes it does.

[Anonymous No.7066863]

>>7066730
By that logic, HoC is doing a copyright infringement because they are filming and making money of people dressed up as copyrighted characters...

[Anonymous No.7066871]

>>7066826
where did you find ratings, I've been looking everywhere for them

[Anonymous No.7066882]

>>7066871
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2013/08/14/tuesdays-cable-ratings-rizzoli-and-isles-amish-mafia-top-charts-320020/cable_20130813/
http://www.thefutoncritic.com/ratings/2013/08/21/tuesdays-cable-ratings-rizzoli-and-isles-claims-top-spot-in-viewers-demos-663512/cable_20130820/

[Anonymous No.7067018]

As someone who has shot with BGZ I know he is very meticulous with his equipment, setups and locations. His editing is very dramatic and the photos look like something you would see on a movie poster. His photos are very much his creations and he's very picky about what he puts out there. If you go to his site you will quickly see that what he does is more than just taking a couple hall shots of a cosplayer.

[Anonymous No.7067241]

>>7067018
so?
unless you can provide some contract or legal evidence his subject did not also have rights to use the pics he is shit out of luck

Even in civil cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff

but you know what this is /cgl/ and the most ignorant and shittiest board on 4chan I am done trying to give you fucktards any knowledge

[Anonymous No.7067252]

>>7067241
No. That's not how it works and I'm blown away by your stupidity.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

[Anonymous No.7067258]

>>7067241
you aren't very bright are you?

[Anonymous No.7067259]

>arguing with JIDF

So many summerfriends ITT.

[Anonymous No.7067265]

>>7067252
Can people stop with copyright? If he gave ANY of his models ANY sort of publishing rights his case means shit.

[Anonymous No.7067279]

>>7067265
That's true, but most photographers don't do that. He'd be pretty moronic to pursue this case if he did that as well.

[Anonymous No.7067283]

For the sake of not having to make a new thread

What does CGL think of this show? Does it do cosplay as a whole justice or does it show an ugly side to it?

Do you like or hate this show?

[Anonymous No.7067288]

>>7067283
I haven't even watched it, probably not going to.

[Anonymous No.7067293]

>>7067279
You really think some wannabe cosplay model isn't going to make sure she has the ability to do shit with her pictures before doing photos?

[Anonymous No.7067321]

>>7067293
Yes, and I think it's far more likely that the cosplayer wouldn't know they don't have rights than a photographer to sign their rights away and then pursue legal action.

[Anonymous No.7067426]

>>7067293
Most of them don't pay attention at all times things like copyright. This generation has very little knowledge of that sort of thing thanks to the Internet. Remember how people kept being told not to plagiarize with stuff off the Internet in their essays? Same general problem

[Anonymous No.7067455]

>>7067426
It isn't copyright though. If he had it in the contract/form that they can do what they want with their photo then they have publishing rights. He still has the copyright, but that ultimately wouldn't matter since they have the right to post their picture or have it posted somewhere, they just can't claim that they took the picture

[spooky !TtE9LXiOmc No.7067462]

where is everyone getting the idea that the cosplayers he took photos of have contracts where it states they can use the pictures for whatever they want?

because, yeah, if that have that then he has no case at all. but i just want to see where people got that idea or if it's just speculation.

[Anonymous No.7067471]

>>7067455
I've worked with a bunch of photographers and the model releases almost always read the same way. I have rights to publish my photos online for promotional purposes, but not if money is being made from the photos in ways other than me booking more modeling gigs.

[Anonymous No.7067553]

>>7067471
And SyFy is using the photos for reasons other than promotional reasons?

[Anonymous No.7067558]

>>7067553
>>7067553
>but not if money is being made from the photos in ways other than me booking more modeling gigs

[Anonymous No.7067560]

I like Heroes of Cosplay simply because these cosplayers making fools of themselves on national television has brought some life back to this board. :)

[Anonymous No.7067564]

>>7067558
Did you forget the rest of your post? All I see you quoting the same shit

[Anonymous No.7067578]

>>7067564
>>7067564
Okay, let me spell it out for you in terms you can understand, since you can't seem to understand what was stated previously. The majority of model releases that aren't for paid shoots say the model can use the photos for promotional purposes, and then goes on to define what constitutes promotional purposes. If they want to post pictures on their Facebook or on an online portfolio, it's okay. If they want to submit the photo to a magazine, that is not okay. Why isn't the magazine submission okay? Because the magazine makes money and is not directly affiliated with the model, even if they work with the model. The model has tenuous permission to make use of the photo, but that permission does not extend to using the photo to promote herself through media that makes money.

[Anonymous No.7067579]

Do we know who yet? The FB albums mostly Dragoncon. I only spotted Riki, Alissa (not on the show), and maybe Scruffy in some heavy paint for Star Wars

[Anonymous No.7070328]

>>7067579
I haven't seen the episode yet, so no idea

[Anonymous No.7070447]

I'm planning on doing a Imp Midna cosplay for next year and atm I'm starting to plan. Would Worbla be the best material for the helmet and what kind of paint I should use for the body suit? (I need Black and White paint)

[Anonymous No.7070563]

>>7067578
All the cosplayers on Heroes of Cosplay are now related to SyFy, and the website directly links you to ways to contact the person and find their cosplay pages. Seems promotional to me.
Also I should add this guy is suing over two images that have 3 different sizes each. That means it is likely the profile picture, header, and thumbnail for two different Atlanta cosplayers. Two of the Atlanta cosplayers (Yaya and Riki) have requirements that they have the rights to do what the fuck they want with their photos since they regularly publish pictures taken of them on merchandise. That means if the guy wants a case ONE of his models HAS to be Monika. In that case he can sue (assuming he has full rights to everything he took of her) for 5 pictures (two of them are a mix of two pictures that, again, would have to feature Monika in them), but he won't make any large amount from the thumbnail picture. Assuming Syfy just says whatever and gives him cash, he's looking at 5k. That's assuming those five pictures have Monika in them

[Anonymous No.7071842]

>>7070563
>Two of the Atlanta cosplayers (Yaya and Riki) have requirements that they have the rights to do what the fuck they want with their photos since they regularly publish pictures taken of them on merchandise.

I very much doubt this. From what I heard they're definitely including Yaya's pictures in this lawsuit.

[Anonymous No.7071873]

Fact of the matter is this: if this fucker wants to take SyFy to court, he has to prove that SyFy has (mis)represented the pictures as their own or otherwise having the right to use of and by doing so SyFy unfairly gained profit he would have gotten - i.e. it had shooped in the logo of the show and the SyFy channel, or it was shown as a lead-in/out to commercial breaks. Photos being displayed in the show under the strict context of "these are photos of the cosplayer and the cosplayer gave them to us"? Fat fucking chance.

Just rocking up and saying that "had you bought these pics from me it would've cost $3500 per image and by not paying me that you robbed me of that" is unheard of, and in fact this outrageous sum could very well be the arguing point for SyFy: "this guy wanted $3500 for images that he allowed the cosplayers to distribute for free, which the cosplayers have done in the medium of the show and was solely used in the light of promoting the cosplayers"

[Anonymous No.7073437]

>>7071873
You, Sir, are wrong, plain and simple. The photographer as the creator has the sole right to decide where and how his photos are going to be used. SyFy is not allowed to simply take and use his photos, just because the staring cosplayers are depicted on them. They'd have to get proper licensing via him, which they didn't. And not only that, they even refused to credit him, which is usually grounds for doubling potential licensing fees. Regarding that and given the size of SyFy and the show, 3500 USD is actually a very modest price per photo.

[ai-honey !eEQ3LJoZmM No.7073449]

My friend said a lot of things about this case but this is the interesting part of what he said:

"There is the added problem with America that you lose your ability to contest copyright if you don't take legal action against every single instance of infringement. Which means if someone posts your photo on Facebook and you don't formally take action against them, you then can't complain when a TV network uses the picture. It's really, really stupid, and may be why SyFy aren't too worried. If they can prove those pictures were already being shared around, the case would get thrown out."

So SyFy may use something like this to railroad the photographer out.. if it did go to court. I mean it wouldn't look good on them, but I doubt they would care. As my friend also said:

"But this is SyFy, we're talking about. The guys who paid medical for a white male wrestler but wouldn't pay medical for a white female and two hispanic male wrestlers. It's not a classy company."

So yes.. I don't think they will pay unless they very much have to. I think if he'd gone for 1k an image (apparently closer to the average) they may have paid but even then.. eehhh.

I'm still interested to see what happens, though.

[Anonymous No.7073450]

>>7073437
YOU are wrong. He didn't take a picture of some fucking landscape. He took a picture of high profile models who have REQUIREMENTS that they can publish any photo taken of them in a photoshoot.
This case is going nowhere. This photographer (which is honestly probably you) is a stupid fuck who is wasting his time. I already described the problem with this whole thing right here >>7070563.

[Anonymous No.7073452]

>>7073449
AFAIK that only holds true for trademark claims, not for copyright claims, but I may be mistaken

[Anonymous No.7073458]

>>7073450
You assume they have requirements, but you most certainly do not know the contents of their model releases (if any), do you?

[Anonymous No.7073469]

I'm so glad this is happenedening

The whole show was so fucking fake anyway, Sure people buy costumes but this show glosses up with a ton of bullshit that isn't needed all that fucking drama (while somewhat true) is nothing like how it is on here or at cons.

They just want to show the tit top side of cosplay for dosh.

Can that shit so the crappy actors can go back to being just a nice rack to stare at.

[Anonymous No.7073475]

>>7073449
What I really don't understand is, and I hope I'm not the only one, why do you think anyone would want to listen to your worthless irrelevant whore opinion.

[Anonymous No.7073473]

>>7071842
I agree with you, those actors aren't to bright to begin (and apparently the creators as well) with and any decent lawyer can tear through this show like a hot knife through butter.

[Anonymous No.7073488]

>>7064117
>in absolutely no situation do models own the pictures shot of them- unless specifically said so in a contract.

STFU internet lawyer retard

[Anonymous No.7073519]

>>7073452
With trademarks you lose the rights to the trademark if you don't defend against infringement. Another company could come along, copy your product exactly, sell it as their own and take full credit for the idea.

With copyright you always retain copyright but you lose the ability to contest infringement. You can't complain when people continue to share your work around but you can still complain if somebody tries to claim it's their own.

[Anonymous No.7073543]

I'm enjoying all the people who are arguing over things they are just assuming about the laws, cosplayers and photographers.

[Anonymous No.7076303]

SyFy will survive

I mean, publishing images without license is what we do on 4chan here thousands of times daily.

[Anonymous No.7076304]

>>7076303

Yeah but the key is that we're not making any profit off of it. SyFy is. If we wanted to go into semantics, if the original anons who drew the reaction faces had some concrete proof of them drawing it, they could probably shut down all of the merch and shit that is being sold irl.

[Anonymous No.7076305]

>>7076303
That only goes for people who, you know, use the images for something they profit on. Nobody here profits from posting an image.

[Anonymous No.7076308]

>>7073543
So what do you make of this then

http://bgzstudios.com/blog/photography/protecting-yourselves-legally-cosplayer-and-photographer-copyrights/

[Anonymous No.7076314]

>>7076308
lol, what's with the retard thinking just because you spend money on your cosplay means you have co-ownership

[Anonymous No.7076322]

I dunno man, Photographers always seem so damn pretentious.

I mean, yes, there is skill involved with taking photographs. Composition, aperture settings, light balance, expose rates, etc. But with everything digitized now you can literally shoot thousands of pictures within a few hours.

Kinda irks me this guy saying that "LOL YOURE IN PUBLIC TOUGH SHIT I CAN SELL PRINTS OF YOU WITHOUT YOUR CONSENT LATER". Its a bit of a cunt move imo. Photosets and shoots fine. Its like if someone comes up to me, asks for a photo, and I say no, then they snap a shitload anyways and they can sell that shit? Kinda BS.

[Anonymous No.7076331]

>>7076308
/p/ro here and there are so many flaws in that I don't know where to begin tearing it apart. I feel bad for them that they've been ripped off so badly but they're talking utter bullshit.

[Anonymous No.7076336]

>>7076331
Well I'd like to know?

by law, if I ask a photag to take photos of me in cosplay and they pick the site, no release, who owns the rite to profit off the image?

[Anonymous No.7076339]

>>7076322
well yeah, how do you think paparazzi make money legally?

I don't think he's being a dick about it, I think he's saying it's literally the law?

[Anonymous No.7076348]

>>7076339
I realize I'm just saying that the law itself is pretty stupid.

[Anonymous No.7076354]

>>7076336
The photographer does.

The only right you get is the right to complain if the photos end up being used in a way which could be seen as defamation of character and they're making money from it, like crediting it to a false name and selling it to a fetish site or something like that. If they're not making money from it then there's shit-all you can do.

You can only profit from the images yourself if a release is written up where the copyright holder grants you that ability. The copyright holder is always the photographer unless the release states otherwise. It doesn't matter how much work you put into the costume, the set or the photoshoot. Without a release you get nothing.

[Anonymous No.7076362]

>>7076354
Ok so he's right on that part, which parts is he 100% off base? You'd think he'd have done his research if he's already in the spotlight with the lawsuit and decided to write up an article on laws.

[Anonymous No.7076370]

>>7076322
This.

I understand it and sure, it's fine, but at the same time I have to pull the old geezer card here and just say "Back in my day!" when photographers weren't treated like the popular kids even despite their social awkwardness by cosplayers who want their photos and videos and didn't charge up the ass just to get five pictures.

Again, I get it. The culture is a lot more mainstream now, and everyone wants money for their hard work. But... eesh. It used to be cosplayers spent their money on costumes and got nothing in return for it but pictures. And photographers spent their money on equipment and got nothing in return for it but pictures. Now its all about who can earn the most and who has the most contacts and who can namedrop and signing a million contracts and oi. OI.

[Anonymous No.7076380]

>>7076362
Everything. Like just to take the most basic photo 101 part:

>Not even cops can stop a photographer from taking pictures in public.

Yes they can. They just can't make you delete images you've already taken.

>There is no need to contact anyone, anywhere in order to commercially sell photographs taken in public. Period.

Dangerously wrong. If you're publishing an image where you can easily identify a person and it could be sen as defamation of character you need to get their permission. Even if it's for editorial.

>Cosplayers I shoot have the right to use the images I take of them for personal use, personal marketing, websites/blogs and even personal print for banners/business cards.

This invalidates his claim that he's not allowed SyFy and the cosplayers featured to use his images. In court allowing someone to use your photos for their business cards or display on their own websites is the same as allowing them to sell signed 8x10s or letting them feature your photo in publicity for a TV show they are in.

And that's just the bottom segment of that page, the most basic stuff.

[Anonymous No.7076384]

>>7076380
>Dangerously wrong. If you're publishing an image where you can easily identify a person and it could be sen as defamation of character you need to get their permission. Even if it's for editorial.

except what about paparazzi? they don't ask permission for those photos

Sorry you're saying he's wrong, but I'm not seeing sources from you either?

[Anonymous No.7076389]

>>7076384
Theres a difference between a photo taken of someone walking down the street or getting out of a car and a photo of them appearing to be yelling at a midget with the caption "Miley Cyrus hates midgets"

[Anonymous No.7076393]

>>7076380
So is this all wrong too then? Or did he need to say 'unless you are interfering with the police doing their job or breaking the law'

[Anonymous No.7076395]

>>7076393
https://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers

forgot my link

>>7076389
I'm confused, Paparazzi would sell that image no problem, legally? Or are you saying that's illegal, even though they wouldn't have made the caption? Because I see those kind of photos everywhere in magazines.

[Anonymous No.7076402]

>>7076384
>>7076395
Paparazzi get around it because US law is bullshit and allows you to publish those sorts of images if you can argue that the subject should expect such pictures to be taken. If you take a picture of a white man in the street giving a black man the finger, that guy could take action against you. But Paris Hilton can't do shit if you take a picture of her flashing her vag at a night club.

What I said >>7076380 is correct for members of the public, like on a convention floor, which is what we're talking about. But yes, if you're a celebrity, however z-list, US law will waive your rights.

Yes, we all know it's retarded. Hypocrisy is everywhere in our laws. I wish we'd adopt the Japanese tact of removing the separation of celebrity and public, but this is what we're stuck with.

[Anonymous No.7076408]

>>7076402
Do you have sources for all this? You keep saying you're right but not providing anything to prove it. So when you said 'the cops can ask you to stop' you meant only in a situation where you were interfering with their job or breaking the law, correct? I guess in his article he should have defined those exceptions, is what you mean?

[Anonymous No.7076414]

>>7076380
>This invalidates his claim that he's not allowed SyFy and the cosplayers featured to use his images. In court allowing someone to use your photos for their business cards or display on their own websites is the same as allowing them to sell signed 8x10s or letting them feature your photo in publicity for a TV show they are in.


But he does say this?

>I require cosplayers to contact me for ANYTHING else past this – which include commercially selling, print sales, product placements and promotion for third parties (such as SyFy).

[Anonymous No.7076418]

>>7076408
If you want an internet source to glance at, ACLU is indeed a decent enough source. Another Anon posted a link to their rights overview above. B&H also put up a video of a pretty good seminar on photographer's rights, it's on youtube somewhere. Our government also does have all laws and rights published online which you can look up, but that's a lot to read through.

If you want a real source, consult a lawyer. It's what I've had to do several times precisely because I thought that what I read on the internet was totally okay when actually it wasn't. I can only apologise that my experience comes from work and not a URL. I learnt the hard way to not trust my career in the hands of what some blogger says is okay. So if you want to read something quickly, check out what I mentioned above. In all honesty though I only advocate seeking actual legal guidance if you want to know how all this shit works.

[Anonymous No.7076419]

>>7076418
Just confused why no one else has brought up any of this on that page.

[Anonymous No.7076420]

>>7076414
And that's wrong. He's contradicting himself.

[Anonymous No.7076421]

>>7076420
So he's going to lose the lawsuit then

[Anonymous No.7076424]

>>7076418
>consult a lawyer
First intelligent post in this entire thread.

[Anonymous No.7076442]

Also wouldn't the production company be at fault and not NBC/Universal? because most of these reality shows are made and packed by a production company. Because Scify/NBC did not make the show, they are just airing it.

[Anonymous No.7076490]

>>7076442
Depends if the production company were making the show and NBC picked it up for broadcats or if NBC funded it from the get-go.

[Anonymous No.7076488]

>>7076421
In the blink of an eye.

[Anonymous No.7076500]

>>7063747
the people photoed claimed part authorship of the photos. since they signed their rights for their likness to NBC and gave them permission to use the photos. bam they did it. it was the cosplayers fault.

[Anonymous No.7076507]

>>7076500
>claimed
>wrongly claimed

Is what it hinges on. The cosplayers say they have half the rights to the pictures, the photographer says they don't. If they do, NBC is fine. If they don't, NBC is fucked.

[Anonymous No.7076735]

>>7076500
Cosplayers are so stupid, I swear

[Anonymous No.7076793]

>>7076500
yep. it all depends now if the cosplayer and the photog singed a contract. if no contract was signed then full rights are retained by the photog. its his "art".

[Anonymous No.7079406]

Anyone friends with this person? What are the legal updates?

[Anonymous No.7079452]

Is everyone missing the fact that these aren't even BGZ's photos?
He just wants a nice juicy cut from whatever poor sucker actually took the photos.

[Anonymous No.7079730]

I'm just waiting for a license holder or production studio to swoop in and go, "this is all based on our IP. We're suing SyFy, the photographers, and the cosplayers."

[Anonymous No.7080044]

>>7079730
This, I still think its weird that even after cosplay is so big now that there hasn't been any companies ordering C&D or suing cosplayers that profit off of cosplays of their IP.

[Anonymous No.7080070]

>>7080044
there was an article about that, and why companies are hesitant on suing cosplayers

[Anonymous No.7080149]

>>7080044
It is simple.
Companies sue cosplayers, cosplayer say fuck that company and their anime, no one supports them, company goes under. They are already fighting pirating, they can't afford to lose any more money.

>>7079452
They are Bryan Humphrey's photos. He is too lazy to deal with legal stuff himself. BGZ saw it as a moment to make a partnership and possibly some money in it.
>>7079406
We most likely wont be hearing from SyFy at all. I am guessing the next update wont be until the “PAST DUE” date of 9/24/2013

[Anonymous No.7080524]

>>7080149
>>company goes under
>>Implying Marvel, DC, Square-Enix and Nintendo are going to lose money

[Anonymous No.7080695]

>>7063848
I thought I read that those were the price for publishing his works without permission? Of course the price will raise if they go to court. They could go the easy way out and pay that small price but I think they may have already set money to the side in an account to gain interest the moment he responded.

[Anonymous No.7080707]

>>7080070
>>7080044

Additionally copyright as it pertains to "2D image" into "3D garment" is actually pretty complicated -- use of symbols like the superman S and the batman bat would be against the law but a powergirl suit wouldn't, because you can't copywrite construction methods / design elements like the boob window. So even if you wanted to sue, you could only go after people using your iconography so it wouldn't accomplish much in terms of stopping the whole hobby

[Anonymous No.7080715]

>>7080707
>>7080070
Also, the parody law goes into play.

[Anonymous No.7080824]

>>7063915
Even if he does get 600k, I'm only assuming he will agree to hire one of the three lawyers if not all of them. Lawyer fee's can be a bitch at the end of the day.
>>7076370
>Back in my day....photographers spent their money on equipment and got nothing in return for it but pictures
I actually worked under a photographer as an assistant for years until I branched out on my own but it seems your thinking photography EVERYTHING hasn't gone up/changed over the years? Take into consideration about on/off site printing, editing, time, assistants working behind the scenes with equipment etc.
Those don't come cheap.
It's one thing if someone has an iphone or a disposable camera and print the pictures at costco or something but it's different if the photographer had to take the photos in a place were an entrance fee and vender fee is required +assistant(s) all while using equipment that has a shelf life. Shelf life might be that the camera or any equipment has a few years in before it breaks down from constant use or that all equipment becomes outdated in a few years.

Btw, does anyone know where the pictures were taken at? Was it at a convention or was he privately hired on the models/photographers time?

[Anonymous No.7081124]

>>7063869
The right shot taken at an NFL event will have a far greater value than a random cosplayer.

It's unlikely even in America the use of these photos will be judged to have caused a loss of $3500. The plaintiff will be expected to show evidence they could be worth that for say exclusive use which can't be exploted now. I suspect the plaintiff has never made anywhere near that for a cosplay photo. If they have even one example then they might have a case. (The example could be someone elses sale)

Has anyone here got knowledge of similar cosplay photos of a non-celebrity subject (well know cosplayers don't count as a celebrity) selling anywhere near that amount?

Now that's not to say they aren't worth something, but $1,000 for the lot would probably considered a good deal if you were approched beforehand.

[Anonymous No.7081130]

Rock solid proof that us copyright law is complete bullshit and needs a major overhaul

[Anonymous No.7081135]

>>7081124
There is no need for them to have a case, copyright law is fucking nonsense and favors only those with good lawyers

[Anonymous No.7085892]

Doesn't he have to justify the cost? Like proof that the fee is reasonable based on past licensing or equivalent sales from the same angle. Cause then who's to say they couldn't change a bajillion dollers per pic. If I drew a smiley face and someone stoke it from me, I couldn't say he stole $X,000 worth of art from me. Its worth what I can prove people will pay for it. So he needs to show records of past sales to prove that his compensation is reasonable.

[Anonymous No.7085898]

>>7085892
that's really not even a valid point. He has to prove, first and foremost, that they did not have permission to use the pictures before they can even discuss the cost.

[Anonymous No.7085901]

>>7085898
er- valid is the wrong word sorry, it is a valid point to justify the price, but that price won't even be relevant unless he can prove they did not have rights to use the pictures, is what i mean

[Anonymous No.7087788]

>>7085892
I don't know how it's done in the US, but usually there are certain prices for certain uses, such as showing photos in a national TV show, no matter who the artist is. Adding to that an extra fee for using them uncredited.