http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/0PlZS.jpg

Wouldn't NALEM technically need a model release from Jay (and everyone) before they can legally post the picture online or claim ownership?

I'm sure I could find some court cases to reference this if I cared enough. That's before knowing you actually have to copyright something before it's protected under dmca. And you can't protect what you don't legally own, and you don't legally own it without model releases.

That's before it's clear relationship to on-going, newsworthy, overall industry topic that directly relates to why/how/what the pictures were taken for. Nobody would be doing it for profit, republish as the org, etc.. overall, a monkey could fight this in court and win. That goes for all industry pictures... taken by anyone.

Does this guy have to apply for press / media certification before he can attend any show?

If he does then why on earth would anyone ever let him in?

i remember signing an agreement a couple of times at registration that i know and accept that pictures are taken at the show. that way it's covered.

JFK just removes pictures if you ask him, no court order needed ;)

And because people feel uncomfortable when .xxx sponsored pictures are made, we don’t allow commercial pictures taken by photographers on the Dutch Webmaster Meeting. It looks like people get itchy balls and stiff fingers when Nailem is around. It is also not very nice that our visitors have to visit several sites to see if there are pictures they want to remove.

Except JFK, the official webmaster meeting photographer and Baddog no commercial pictures can be taken.

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying they aren't allowed or some don't have the right, or that it's a bad thing at all, I like the Industry pictures.

My focus is the idea that asking someone to take down an Industry event picture posted on an industry forum, covering an industry topic, wouldn't stand a chance in court... that's before the fact that a release wasn't signed, copyright never claimed and I bet they don't have a registered agent, making the request for take down frivolous when you can't make a registered counter claim.

http://lulzimg.com/i23/a00919.jpg

http://lulzimg.com/i23/a8088a.jpg

http://lulzimg.com/i23/cc56f7.jpg

feel free to use my avatar if you like

ROFLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL dwb

What a little bitch. You try to make a living by taking pics of people who for the most part don't want their pics taken or didn't ask to. You don't credit them or put their name or identifying info on the pics of the subjects so that there is some benefit to them... there is only a benefit to you, but someone chops one of your pics and its a huge deal.

Fucking idiot.

Has Alex ever had a successful project?

:thumbsup

hahahahahahahahahahaha :1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Fuck what this .xxx loving nalem wants.....:2 cents:

I am teaching my 3 year old to use a digital camera. She actually does a better job.

So following your train of thought :

The Asian Jesus would just eat his dog.


Right?

fuck nalem for requesting that takedown
 

FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld

FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld
FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld

FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld
FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld

FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld
FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld

FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld
FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld

FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld
FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld

FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld
FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld

FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld
FUCK the ICM Registry
FUCK NALEM
FUCK the .xxx tld

Fuck NALEM

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:thumbsup

I would just call it a Fan Sign thread, no?

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Is this dude gay or just looks like one?

For More Family Photos :winkwink: Visit NALEM Now

NALEM, fuck off nobody wants you here idiot.

And cut with spamming GFY with your threads, I haven't seen you pay for advertising so a ONE TIME announcement is all you're allowed, not ten of them.

http://i56.tinypic.com/29qfr89.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/29qfr89.jpg
http://i56.tinypic.com/29qfr89.jpg

Who has popcorn?

Damn this guy seems to be the most hated man in hobiz lol

NO. Ownership/copyright is established by taking the photo. I believe a model release is typically needed for commercial purposes/advertising.

Anywhere you're allowed to be, you can take photographs. You would then own the copyright. You can then post the picture online, your flickr account, even sell copies of the photo. You cannot use the photo in an advertisement without permission.

That's simply not true, and good luck finding a court case to back that up.

Copyright protects the original work, it doesn't grant rights to logos, trademarks, people, likeness, etc of anything within the picture, simply because someone took it (in some cases it does). Those are unique rights, that have to be granted before the image is used.

with Flickr you're choosing to publish your pictures with your own limitations. Nobody is saying you can't sell/buy or whatever, what you own. But you have to make sure you are not in violation of trademarks, etc, first.

Well, try to sue someone for something you think you own, but you never registered the copyright on it. Like if I make music beats, just like yours, but I created it as well. Or if I shoot a video (my work) with your art work or song in the background, of my kids ballgame then sell that to other parents to pay for costs/time, good luck on that copyright as it's not what is being sold. And yes... to truly be protected, you need to 'actually' copyright it - otherwise you're pissing in the wind.

You can definitely sue someone that violates your copyright, or send them a DMCA notice, and it's not just "pissing in the wind". Either way will get them to stop infringing your copyright. You can do this because the photographer owns the copyright to the photo the minute it's taken.

If you register your copyright, you can sue for statutory damages up to $150,000.

THAT is the benefit that registering provides.

You can sue for any reason, that doesn't mean you will win or get money.

For DMCA to be valid you need to have registered your copyright just like the infringing person needs to be a registered agent to be protected under DCMA. To truly be protected, you need to register on both ends.

Yes, we know if you take a picture, the picture has a copyright on it. But that doesn't grant your exclusive rights/ownership to everything in the picture, just the actual work, the actual photo, the digital or printed item, as a whole work.

Aye, you can sue for that amount, but it's awarded based on the total violations of your content vs non violations of your content - and not anything else or other peoples violations. So if I have 1 picture that is yours out of a million that aren't yours, the awarded amount will be micro as the earnings from it would be equal to its use.

You DO NOT need to register your copyright in order to file a DMCA notice.

nalem fucking sucks

Couldnt anyone he took a picture of request for the image to removed?

No offense to you Nalem but you're are a relatively new person in this business doing something JFK has done well for years.. And you support .xxx which is one of the dumbest most hated things by everyone who has morals in this biz.. so you can not really expect people who have been in this business for years working hard to build their brands to be happy with any of this shit!