Just to follow on what Iain is saying, the point of legal notices is dissuasion rather bringing the hammer down. I keep an eye on the usual points of sharing content* and as a rule, no-one shares his work because that notice is there, they certainly don't afford other producers that courtesy.
*Main reason for keeping an eye of them is not for profit loss, but because the kind of people who trade/steal content seem to think a model's private life is fair game, and that's the reason for policing it. There's a thread on one of the sites about a particular model who dared to post and the abuse and entitled attitude of what are end of the day, thieves she has received is shocking.
Seems harsh, but it's like most things on the internet. If you're getting it for free, someone isn't getting paid for it, which eventually means no new content to nick.
Besides, paying for boxes means you become a valued custome, you get to suggest things, models etc.
There is a very real issue of all pay sites like others have said of pretending content is more than it is, or using the old bait and switch to get people to sign up to sub pages then only offering premium stuff behind a secondarty paywall. That's a genuine thing to complain about publically, but it can be done without naming model names etc. Producers are fair game in this regard though imho.(Not pointing any fingers at you Iaint, your stuff is always a great buy, there are several other box makers on here too and have only had few instances were I really thought "Well that's money down the drain for nothing" and in that case that's the last thing I buy and I won't plug them, that's a real complaint)
Also, go check out what I have up! (not a lot yet, but lockdown fubared all the shoots in planning) SexiestUKmodels Bentbox
Bentbox,...
Re: Bentbox,...
I have seen this and have wondered if the thoughts of Protection of rights is now where the Models are being a damn nuisance over material taken a good few years ago
It appears that Models WERE happy to be paid for media recording and now they are Crying Fowl over too much exposure of the body bits , (where babies pop out )
funny old game , point and pay , then the damn bird returns to say circulating of my fanny Now I'm a recognised "Model" ain't good for my business....& I have a law to protect me & my lips ....
They change their name , and hey presto // a New Model // is produced ...
No. You posed , You knew how you posed You were over 18 and its recorded , but some how . They Still maintain that they are right & the owner of the material is wrong and Must Not show , or profit from the early days
Reminds of Linda Lusardi Law case that she lost ..... with a hairy beaver ...!!
It appears that Models WERE happy to be paid for media recording and now they are Crying Fowl over too much exposure of the body bits , (where babies pop out )
funny old game , point and pay , then the damn bird returns to say circulating of my fanny Now I'm a recognised "Model" ain't good for my business....& I have a law to protect me & my lips ....
They change their name , and hey presto // a New Model // is produced ...
No. You posed , You knew how you posed You were over 18 and its recorded , but some how . They Still maintain that they are right & the owner of the material is wrong and Must Not show , or profit from the early days
Reminds of Linda Lusardi Law case that she lost ..... with a hairy beaver ...!!
Re: Bentbox,...
M25crash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have seen this and have wondered if the thoughts
> of Protection of rights is now where the Models
> are being a damn nuisance over material taken a
> good few years ago
> It appears that Models WERE happy to be paid for
> media recording and now they are Crying Fowl over
> too much exposure of the body bits , (where babies
> pop out )
>
> funny old game , point and pay , then the damn
> bird returns to say circulating of my fanny Now
> I'm a recognised "Model" ain't good for my
> business....& I have a law to protect me & my
> lips ....
>
> They change their name , and hey presto // a New
> Model // is produced ...
>
> No. You posed , You knew how you posed You were
> over 18 and its recorded , but some how . They
> Still maintain that they are right & the owner of
> the material is wrong and Must Not show , or
> profit from the early days
>
> Reminds of Linda Lusardi Law case that she lost
> ..... with a hairy beaver ...!!
Copyright in the UK is fairly simple. Unless there is paperwork to say otherwise, the rights lie with the producer. The model or performer, unless they are the producer has no rights over the work and has no say in where, when and how it is reproduced.
But as you point out, very few models seem to think beyond the short term. Problems tomorrow are much less important than money today...until they happen.
Licensing is entirely different and very enforceable.
What does surprise me is that more models don't specifically licence their Only Fans content and take action against any illegal reproduction. In the case of self shot material, the model is the Producer and copyright holder.
It also staggers me is that some girls are apparently making five figures a month....their content is clearly worth a fortune, yet they do nothing to protect it or their future earnings.
Its that short term thinking again. This is fortunate for a few consumers of adult material posting on forums who sail very close to the wind. If the penny ever really dropped with models....
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have seen this and have wondered if the thoughts
> of Protection of rights is now where the Models
> are being a damn nuisance over material taken a
> good few years ago
> It appears that Models WERE happy to be paid for
> media recording and now they are Crying Fowl over
> too much exposure of the body bits , (where babies
> pop out )
>
> funny old game , point and pay , then the damn
> bird returns to say circulating of my fanny Now
> I'm a recognised "Model" ain't good for my
> business....& I have a law to protect me & my
> lips ....
>
> They change their name , and hey presto // a New
> Model // is produced ...
>
> No. You posed , You knew how you posed You were
> over 18 and its recorded , but some how . They
> Still maintain that they are right & the owner of
> the material is wrong and Must Not show , or
> profit from the early days
>
> Reminds of Linda Lusardi Law case that she lost
> ..... with a hairy beaver ...!!
Copyright in the UK is fairly simple. Unless there is paperwork to say otherwise, the rights lie with the producer. The model or performer, unless they are the producer has no rights over the work and has no say in where, when and how it is reproduced.
But as you point out, very few models seem to think beyond the short term. Problems tomorrow are much less important than money today...until they happen.
Licensing is entirely different and very enforceable.
What does surprise me is that more models don't specifically licence their Only Fans content and take action against any illegal reproduction. In the case of self shot material, the model is the Producer and copyright holder.
It also staggers me is that some girls are apparently making five figures a month....their content is clearly worth a fortune, yet they do nothing to protect it or their future earnings.
Its that short term thinking again. This is fortunate for a few consumers of adult material posting on forums who sail very close to the wind. If the penny ever really dropped with models....
Linda Lusardi
M25crash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Reminds of Linda Lusardi Law case that she lost
> ..... with a hairy beaver ...!!
Hi
Linda did quite a bit for the magazines Mayfair I think twice, photographers were John Allum (RIP) and I think Ed Alexander
She also did Parade , Penthouse , Razzle ,German Praline, Playboy, Bravo,
But back in the 1980s A a lot of models worked for Amateurs way above their publication limits (A bit like today)
I don't know if you remember Peter from New Image Studio, he was a friend of Mick from the Tower and was a regular at the "Seminars" He would rent out the studio to amateurs, and had a list of well known models who did explict adult, including one who had a major part in a national advertising campaign
Those were the days before the internet and the models could be reasonable sure they were not going to end up on a UK bookshelf, unlike today where the image can be online minutes after it is taken
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Reminds of Linda Lusardi Law case that she lost
> ..... with a hairy beaver ...!!
Hi
Linda did quite a bit for the magazines Mayfair I think twice, photographers were John Allum (RIP) and I think Ed Alexander
She also did Parade , Penthouse , Razzle ,German Praline, Playboy, Bravo,
But back in the 1980s A a lot of models worked for Amateurs way above their publication limits (A bit like today)
I don't know if you remember Peter from New Image Studio, he was a friend of Mick from the Tower and was a regular at the "Seminars" He would rent out the studio to amateurs, and had a list of well known models who did explict adult, including one who had a major part in a national advertising campaign
Those were the days before the internet and the models could be reasonable sure they were not going to end up on a UK bookshelf, unlike today where the image can be online minutes after it is taken
Jonboy
Re: Bentbox,...
Some of the photos of Linda are openly available on the net
Re: Bentbox,...
IainT Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if you are specifically referring to
> my contract or others which are similar. Mine has
> been reproduced both with and without my
> permission.
>
> The first point is that I only act on breaches of
> specific licence. I tend not to pursue copyright
> breaches on content within the public domain. ie,
> if you reproduce images from free areas or
> portfolio hosting sites I am not going to care
> unless the model asks me to act.
>
> The second point is not whether my licence
> agreement would or would not stand up in court.
> Who is going to test it? The point is to prevent
> content being used illegally and stolen and also
> to preserve the models privacy, which in a private
> arrangement protected by licence, they are
> absolutely entitled to.
>
> If you do not buy the content you simply have no
> right to view it...end off. For some reason some
> people seem to think they have an entitlement to
> steal or misuse expensively produced licenced
> material. Would the same person go to Waterstones
> and steal a glossy ex[pensive book from the
> shelves...its exactly the same thing.
>
> If you do choose to buy the content, then you
> agree to the terms of the sale. If you don't like
> the terms of sale don't buy. If you don't like the
> price, don't buy it. Surely that is pretty simple.
> But one thing is sure, you are not ENTITLED to any
> of my content for free unless I give it to you.
>
> Most people play be the rules. In the few cases
> where people have not adhered to the terms of a
> licence or played by the rules, a simple polite
> request to the the individual or a DMCA takedown
> to the publisher has resolved the situation.
>
> There has been the odd occassion it did not and my
> back up plan comes into play. People on the
> internet tend to be a lot braver than in real life
> and tend to think the are anonymous and can hide
> behind a keyboard.That is a total misconception.
> It is relatively easy, if a bit expensive on
> occasion, to find people.
>
> I found a particular individual (or at least my
> people did) who thought he was a smartass and
> could do what he liked.
>
> He changed his tune when a process server
> interupted a family barbecue at the weekend to
> deliver a solicitors letter and compensation
> demand. The Server was under instructions to act
> in the opposite of a discrete a manner and to
> cause the individual maximum embarrassment and
> ensure as many people as possible knew the purpose
> of his visit.
>
> It did not cost him 10K I only billed him for my
> expenses..which ran to four figures...he paid
> within 48 hours.
>
> The point is that I have no intention of going to
> court. I am not interested in compensation. I just
> want fairness and for people to understand when
> they buy content they are committing to an
> agreement.
>
> I am not heavy handed, I would rather give people
> a chance than go in immediately with all guns
> blazing.
>
> But if you steal my property and stick two fingers
> up I will punish you. I have the facilities and
> the means to deal with most particular scenarios
> and it will be very unpleasant for the individual
> concerned and although will be entirely within the
> law, is very unlikely to involve court.
Yes it was your contract that had drawn my attention before my post. I'd still be interested in knowing more about your policy of threatening legal action for those who ?discussed or describe on any form of media...or mentioned in any way on fan forums or message boards? the content of your boxes on BentBox. Is that expression of opinion really going to prompt you to challenge for the max ?10k damages in small claims court?
I am not talking about stealing content so please park the erroneous Waterstones analogy and address the concern of threatening your buyers with gag orders on feedback and criticism when they pay to access the photos of sex workers you produce.
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know if you are specifically referring to
> my contract or others which are similar. Mine has
> been reproduced both with and without my
> permission.
>
> The first point is that I only act on breaches of
> specific licence. I tend not to pursue copyright
> breaches on content within the public domain. ie,
> if you reproduce images from free areas or
> portfolio hosting sites I am not going to care
> unless the model asks me to act.
>
> The second point is not whether my licence
> agreement would or would not stand up in court.
> Who is going to test it? The point is to prevent
> content being used illegally and stolen and also
> to preserve the models privacy, which in a private
> arrangement protected by licence, they are
> absolutely entitled to.
>
> If you do not buy the content you simply have no
> right to view it...end off. For some reason some
> people seem to think they have an entitlement to
> steal or misuse expensively produced licenced
> material. Would the same person go to Waterstones
> and steal a glossy ex[pensive book from the
> shelves...its exactly the same thing.
>
> If you do choose to buy the content, then you
> agree to the terms of the sale. If you don't like
> the terms of sale don't buy. If you don't like the
> price, don't buy it. Surely that is pretty simple.
> But one thing is sure, you are not ENTITLED to any
> of my content for free unless I give it to you.
>
> Most people play be the rules. In the few cases
> where people have not adhered to the terms of a
> licence or played by the rules, a simple polite
> request to the the individual or a DMCA takedown
> to the publisher has resolved the situation.
>
> There has been the odd occassion it did not and my
> back up plan comes into play. People on the
> internet tend to be a lot braver than in real life
> and tend to think the are anonymous and can hide
> behind a keyboard.That is a total misconception.
> It is relatively easy, if a bit expensive on
> occasion, to find people.
>
> I found a particular individual (or at least my
> people did) who thought he was a smartass and
> could do what he liked.
>
> He changed his tune when a process server
> interupted a family barbecue at the weekend to
> deliver a solicitors letter and compensation
> demand. The Server was under instructions to act
> in the opposite of a discrete a manner and to
> cause the individual maximum embarrassment and
> ensure as many people as possible knew the purpose
> of his visit.
>
> It did not cost him 10K I only billed him for my
> expenses..which ran to four figures...he paid
> within 48 hours.
>
> The point is that I have no intention of going to
> court. I am not interested in compensation. I just
> want fairness and for people to understand when
> they buy content they are committing to an
> agreement.
>
> I am not heavy handed, I would rather give people
> a chance than go in immediately with all guns
> blazing.
>
> But if you steal my property and stick two fingers
> up I will punish you. I have the facilities and
> the means to deal with most particular scenarios
> and it will be very unpleasant for the individual
> concerned and although will be entirely within the
> law, is very unlikely to involve court.
Yes it was your contract that had drawn my attention before my post. I'd still be interested in knowing more about your policy of threatening legal action for those who ?discussed or describe on any form of media...or mentioned in any way on fan forums or message boards? the content of your boxes on BentBox. Is that expression of opinion really going to prompt you to challenge for the max ?10k damages in small claims court?
I am not talking about stealing content so please park the erroneous Waterstones analogy and address the concern of threatening your buyers with gag orders on feedback and criticism when they pay to access the photos of sex workers you produce.
Re: Bentbox,...
spare_leg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IainT Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > I don't know if you are specifically referring
> to
> > my contract or others which are similar. Mine
> has
> > been reproduced both with and without my
> > permission.
> >
> > The first point is that I only act on breaches
> of
> > specific licence. I tend not to pursue
> copyright
> > breaches on content within the public domain.
> ie,
> > if you reproduce images from free areas or
> > portfolio hosting sites I am not going to care
> > unless the model asks me to act.
> >
> > The second point is not whether my licence
> > agreement would or would not stand up in court.
> > Who is going to test it? The point is to
> prevent
> > content being used illegally and stolen and
> also
> > to preserve the models privacy, which in a
> private
> > arrangement protected by licence, they are
> > absolutely entitled to.
> >
> > If you do not buy the content you simply have
> no
> > right to view it...end off. For some reason
> some
> > people seem to think they have an entitlement
> to
> > steal or misuse expensively produced licenced
> > material. Would the same person go to
> Waterstones
> > and steal a glossy ex[pensive book from the
> > shelves...its exactly the same thing.
> >
> > If you do choose to buy the content, then you
> > agree to the terms of the sale. If you don't
> like
> > the terms of sale don't buy. If you don't like
> the
> > price, don't buy it. Surely that is pretty
> simple.
> > But one thing is sure, you are not ENTITLED to
> any
> > of my content for free unless I give it to you.
> >
> > Most people play be the rules. In the few cases
> > where people have not adhered to the terms of a
> > licence or played by the rules, a simple polite
> > request to the the individual or a DMCA
> takedown
> > to the publisher has resolved the situation.
> >
> > There has been the odd occassion it did not and
> my
> > back up plan comes into play. People on the
> > internet tend to be a lot braver than in real
> life
> > and tend to think the are anonymous and can
> hide
> > behind a keyboard.That is a total
> misconception.
> > It is relatively easy, if a bit expensive on
> > occasion, to find people.
> >
> > I found a particular individual (or at least my
> > people did) who thought he was a smartass and
> > could do what he liked.
> >
> > He changed his tune when a process server
> > interupted a family barbecue at the weekend to
> > deliver a solicitors letter and compensation
> > demand. The Server was under instructions to
> act
> > in the opposite of a discrete a manner and to
> > cause the individual maximum embarrassment and
> > ensure as many people as possible knew the
> purpose
> > of his visit.
> >
> > It did not cost him 10K I only billed him for
> my
> > expenses..which ran to four figures...he paid
> > within 48 hours.
> >
> > The point is that I have no intention of going
> to
> > court. I am not interested in compensation. I
> just
> > want fairness and for people to understand when
> > they buy content they are committing to an
> > agreement.
> >
> > I am not heavy handed, I would rather give
> people
> > a chance than go in immediately with all guns
> > blazing.
> >
> > But if you steal my property and stick two
> fingers
> > up I will punish you. I have the facilities and
> > the means to deal with most particular
> scenarios
> > and it will be very unpleasant for the
> individual
> > concerned and although will be entirely within
> the
> > law, is very unlikely to involve court.
>
>
> Yes it was your contract that had drawn my
> attention before my post. I'd still be interested
> in knowing more about your policy of threatening
> legal action for those who ?discussed or describe
> on any form of media...or mentioned in any way on
> fan forums or message boards? the content of your
> boxes on BentBox. Is that expression of opinion
> really going to prompt you to challenge for the
> max ?10k damages in small claims court?
>
> I am not talking about stealing content so please
> park the erroneous Waterstones analogy and
> address the concern of threatening your buyers
> with gag orders on feedback and criticism when
> they pay to access the photos of sex workers you
> produce.
What I said in my first post applies. If you don't like the conditions of the sale don't buy the product.
Generally the people who criticise this particular contract and my content in are those who have never bought it and are unlikely to ever buy it.
As for criticism. I have absolutely no problem with reasonable criticism of my work and I certainly would not enforce the licence over that....as long as the criticism was about me. This is not what my licence is about and I'm sure you know that.
That particular clause exists for one reason. What many models hate more than anything is being discussed and dissected on forums like pieces of meat
or having individuals try to discuss content they have shot with them directly. And what almost every model hates is illegal content appearing in places where she did not agree to have her image reproduced.
The licence is there for two reasons.
1.To protect my expensively produced content from theft or reset (and lets be clear it is theft the same as any other theft)
2. To protect the models privacy, which contrary to what some would have you think, they are absolutely entitled to in the circumstances this material was produced.
-------------------------------------------------------
> IainT Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > I don't know if you are specifically referring
> to
> > my contract or others which are similar. Mine
> has
> > been reproduced both with and without my
> > permission.
> >
> > The first point is that I only act on breaches
> of
> > specific licence. I tend not to pursue
> copyright
> > breaches on content within the public domain.
> ie,
> > if you reproduce images from free areas or
> > portfolio hosting sites I am not going to care
> > unless the model asks me to act.
> >
> > The second point is not whether my licence
> > agreement would or would not stand up in court.
> > Who is going to test it? The point is to
> prevent
> > content being used illegally and stolen and
> also
> > to preserve the models privacy, which in a
> private
> > arrangement protected by licence, they are
> > absolutely entitled to.
> >
> > If you do not buy the content you simply have
> no
> > right to view it...end off. For some reason
> some
> > people seem to think they have an entitlement
> to
> > steal or misuse expensively produced licenced
> > material. Would the same person go to
> Waterstones
> > and steal a glossy ex[pensive book from the
> > shelves...its exactly the same thing.
> >
> > If you do choose to buy the content, then you
> > agree to the terms of the sale. If you don't
> like
> > the terms of sale don't buy. If you don't like
> the
> > price, don't buy it. Surely that is pretty
> simple.
> > But one thing is sure, you are not ENTITLED to
> any
> > of my content for free unless I give it to you.
> >
> > Most people play be the rules. In the few cases
> > where people have not adhered to the terms of a
> > licence or played by the rules, a simple polite
> > request to the the individual or a DMCA
> takedown
> > to the publisher has resolved the situation.
> >
> > There has been the odd occassion it did not and
> my
> > back up plan comes into play. People on the
> > internet tend to be a lot braver than in real
> life
> > and tend to think the are anonymous and can
> hide
> > behind a keyboard.That is a total
> misconception.
> > It is relatively easy, if a bit expensive on
> > occasion, to find people.
> >
> > I found a particular individual (or at least my
> > people did) who thought he was a smartass and
> > could do what he liked.
> >
> > He changed his tune when a process server
> > interupted a family barbecue at the weekend to
> > deliver a solicitors letter and compensation
> > demand. The Server was under instructions to
> act
> > in the opposite of a discrete a manner and to
> > cause the individual maximum embarrassment and
> > ensure as many people as possible knew the
> purpose
> > of his visit.
> >
> > It did not cost him 10K I only billed him for
> my
> > expenses..which ran to four figures...he paid
> > within 48 hours.
> >
> > The point is that I have no intention of going
> to
> > court. I am not interested in compensation. I
> just
> > want fairness and for people to understand when
> > they buy content they are committing to an
> > agreement.
> >
> > I am not heavy handed, I would rather give
> people
> > a chance than go in immediately with all guns
> > blazing.
> >
> > But if you steal my property and stick two
> fingers
> > up I will punish you. I have the facilities and
> > the means to deal with most particular
> scenarios
> > and it will be very unpleasant for the
> individual
> > concerned and although will be entirely within
> the
> > law, is very unlikely to involve court.
>
>
> Yes it was your contract that had drawn my
> attention before my post. I'd still be interested
> in knowing more about your policy of threatening
> legal action for those who ?discussed or describe
> on any form of media...or mentioned in any way on
> fan forums or message boards? the content of your
> boxes on BentBox. Is that expression of opinion
> really going to prompt you to challenge for the
> max ?10k damages in small claims court?
>
> I am not talking about stealing content so please
> park the erroneous Waterstones analogy and
> address the concern of threatening your buyers
> with gag orders on feedback and criticism when
> they pay to access the photos of sex workers you
> produce.
What I said in my first post applies. If you don't like the conditions of the sale don't buy the product.
Generally the people who criticise this particular contract and my content in are those who have never bought it and are unlikely to ever buy it.
As for criticism. I have absolutely no problem with reasonable criticism of my work and I certainly would not enforce the licence over that....as long as the criticism was about me. This is not what my licence is about and I'm sure you know that.
That particular clause exists for one reason. What many models hate more than anything is being discussed and dissected on forums like pieces of meat
or having individuals try to discuss content they have shot with them directly. And what almost every model hates is illegal content appearing in places where she did not agree to have her image reproduced.
The licence is there for two reasons.
1.To protect my expensively produced content from theft or reset (and lets be clear it is theft the same as any other theft)
2. To protect the models privacy, which contrary to what some would have you think, they are absolutely entitled to in the circumstances this material was produced.
Re: Bentbox,...
Hello Iain .
I can understand the need to protect ones investment and to maximise the supply to
receive the necessary return from customers. Allowing the business to flourish . and to continue the circle of net merchandise.
If the terms are set from the out set no one should cross the boundaries.
However, If were to buy a dvd/ or (possibly a book )and follow the copyright instructions about to whom it is allowed to lend or not . I'm guessing Everyone has been lent media of one source or another .The DVD would never leave the shelf , or the book form the library.
I don't think I have an issue with the purchase, as I have never had the need to buy any material off the BentBox place , too much free material available
The part that rattles me is when I have in the past hired a freelance model after knowing poses have been struck , to hear the reply //
My rates have increased now as I have been published and photographed By #### and I was told that I can command this for that . Plus I don't do That for all.
Then suddenly it appears the freelance models does do a lot more and even PLUS.
Before she was happy to earn a fair payment without hidden levels , then Wham an image appears to suggest that the menu is very large , All Due to Certain
criteria of skilled camera operators .
Also I don't really get the collectors of material to some levels , A Freelance Model poses and will be paid and media taken , Why do folks not buy a bleeding camera and snap away , instead of chasing the under the counter material , only then to trade and hassle the Models
Models should either not have hidden levels or should accept payment by all for these levels that they don't want to be known for.It will always surface the more explicit. Or Collectors should just walk away and not feed the suppliers with funds to basically take the piss....
Also let not forget a new model does a set of new material which might include a level of body parts ,posted on a UK site// Suddenly Stromboli pitches up
Hires and pays a booking , low fees and the sells to the market , Great return .
The Victim , Models is not happy and leaves the modelling site and another chance to hire has gone .
I can understand the need to protect ones investment and to maximise the supply to
receive the necessary return from customers. Allowing the business to flourish . and to continue the circle of net merchandise.
If the terms are set from the out set no one should cross the boundaries.
However, If were to buy a dvd/ or (possibly a book )and follow the copyright instructions about to whom it is allowed to lend or not . I'm guessing Everyone has been lent media of one source or another .The DVD would never leave the shelf , or the book form the library.
I don't think I have an issue with the purchase, as I have never had the need to buy any material off the BentBox place , too much free material available
The part that rattles me is when I have in the past hired a freelance model after knowing poses have been struck , to hear the reply //
My rates have increased now as I have been published and photographed By #### and I was told that I can command this for that . Plus I don't do That for all.
Then suddenly it appears the freelance models does do a lot more and even PLUS.
Before she was happy to earn a fair payment without hidden levels , then Wham an image appears to suggest that the menu is very large , All Due to Certain
criteria of skilled camera operators .
Also I don't really get the collectors of material to some levels , A Freelance Model poses and will be paid and media taken , Why do folks not buy a bleeding camera and snap away , instead of chasing the under the counter material , only then to trade and hassle the Models
Models should either not have hidden levels or should accept payment by all for these levels that they don't want to be known for.It will always surface the more explicit. Or Collectors should just walk away and not feed the suppliers with funds to basically take the piss....
Also let not forget a new model does a set of new material which might include a level of body parts ,posted on a UK site// Suddenly Stromboli pitches up
Hires and pays a booking , low fees and the sells to the market , Great return .
The Victim , Models is not happy and leaves the modelling site and another chance to hire has gone .
Re: Bentbox,...
M25crash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Iain .
>
> I can understand the need to protect ones
> investment and to maximise the supply to
> receive the necessary return from customers.
> Allowing the business to flourish . and to
> continue the circle of net merchandise.
>
> If the terms are set from the out set no one
> should cross the boundaries.
>
> However, If were to buy a dvd/ or (possibly a
> book )and follow the copyright instructions about
> to whom it is allowed to lend or not . I'm
> guessing Everyone has been lent media of one
> source or another .The DVD would never leave the
> shelf , or the book form the library.
>
> I don't think I have an issue with the purchase,
> as I have never had the need to buy any material
> off the BentBox place , too much free material
> available
>
> The part that rattles me is when I have in the
> past hired a freelance model after knowing poses
> have been struck , to hear the reply //
>
> My rates have increased now as I have been
> published and photographed By #### and I was told
> that I can command this for that . Plus I don't do
> That for all.
> Then suddenly it appears the freelance models does
> do a lot more and even PLUS.
>
> Before she was happy to earn a fair payment
> without hidden levels , then Wham an image
> appears to suggest that the menu is very large ,
> All Due to Certain
> criteria of skilled camera operators .
>
>
>
> Also I don't really get the collectors of material
> to some levels , A Freelance Model poses and will
> be paid and media taken , Why do folks not buy a
> bleeding camera and snap away , instead of chasing
> the under the counter material , only then to
> trade and hassle the Models
>
> Models should either not have hidden levels or
> should accept payment by all for these levels that
> they don't want to be known for.It will always
> surface the more explicit. Or Collectors should
> just walk away and not feed the suppliers with
> funds to basically take the piss....
>
>
>
> Also let not forget a new model does a set of new
> material which might include a level of body
> parts ,posted on a UK site// Suddenly Stromboli
> pitches up
>
> Hires and pays a booking , low fees and the sells
> to the market , Great return .
> The Victim , Models is not happy and leaves the
> modelling site and another chance to hire has gone
> .
I appreciate what you are saying, but I just don't agree.
A model has every right to set her levels as she chooses and shoot the levels of her choice with whomever she pleases. Thats called free trade. It will piss some people off, of course it will. To bad.
When I was shooting general publications there were many models who would not shoot with me but would shoot higher levels with hobby photographers on the understanding it was for their own use. Did this piss me off..? No, her body, her rules. Probably a wise move in hindsight!
People like me are generally dinosaurs now because the penny has dropped for many models who have taken control of their own content production, and in some cases are apparently making a heck of a lot more money than I ever did. Good luck to them.
I hope some become savvy enough to protect their content more.
The sense of entitlement some people have boils my blood. When I see people sharing Only Fans content just to save $10 subscription or whatever and moan because a model has the audacity to charge $25 for a video. I guess she should be giving everything away for nothing?
The content belongs to the model. Subscribers have no right to share or publish OF content. I just hope some of these models who are making the big bucks put some aside to protect their brand and start going after sharers.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hello Iain .
>
> I can understand the need to protect ones
> investment and to maximise the supply to
> receive the necessary return from customers.
> Allowing the business to flourish . and to
> continue the circle of net merchandise.
>
> If the terms are set from the out set no one
> should cross the boundaries.
>
> However, If were to buy a dvd/ or (possibly a
> book )and follow the copyright instructions about
> to whom it is allowed to lend or not . I'm
> guessing Everyone has been lent media of one
> source or another .The DVD would never leave the
> shelf , or the book form the library.
>
> I don't think I have an issue with the purchase,
> as I have never had the need to buy any material
> off the BentBox place , too much free material
> available
>
> The part that rattles me is when I have in the
> past hired a freelance model after knowing poses
> have been struck , to hear the reply //
>
> My rates have increased now as I have been
> published and photographed By #### and I was told
> that I can command this for that . Plus I don't do
> That for all.
> Then suddenly it appears the freelance models does
> do a lot more and even PLUS.
>
> Before she was happy to earn a fair payment
> without hidden levels , then Wham an image
> appears to suggest that the menu is very large ,
> All Due to Certain
> criteria of skilled camera operators .
>
>
>
> Also I don't really get the collectors of material
> to some levels , A Freelance Model poses and will
> be paid and media taken , Why do folks not buy a
> bleeding camera and snap away , instead of chasing
> the under the counter material , only then to
> trade and hassle the Models
>
> Models should either not have hidden levels or
> should accept payment by all for these levels that
> they don't want to be known for.It will always
> surface the more explicit. Or Collectors should
> just walk away and not feed the suppliers with
> funds to basically take the piss....
>
>
>
> Also let not forget a new model does a set of new
> material which might include a level of body
> parts ,posted on a UK site// Suddenly Stromboli
> pitches up
>
> Hires and pays a booking , low fees and the sells
> to the market , Great return .
> The Victim , Models is not happy and leaves the
> modelling site and another chance to hire has gone
> .
I appreciate what you are saying, but I just don't agree.
A model has every right to set her levels as she chooses and shoot the levels of her choice with whomever she pleases. Thats called free trade. It will piss some people off, of course it will. To bad.
When I was shooting general publications there were many models who would not shoot with me but would shoot higher levels with hobby photographers on the understanding it was for their own use. Did this piss me off..? No, her body, her rules. Probably a wise move in hindsight!
People like me are generally dinosaurs now because the penny has dropped for many models who have taken control of their own content production, and in some cases are apparently making a heck of a lot more money than I ever did. Good luck to them.
I hope some become savvy enough to protect their content more.
The sense of entitlement some people have boils my blood. When I see people sharing Only Fans content just to save $10 subscription or whatever and moan because a model has the audacity to charge $25 for a video. I guess she should be giving everything away for nothing?
The content belongs to the model. Subscribers have no right to share or publish OF content. I just hope some of these models who are making the big bucks put some aside to protect their brand and start going after sharers.