cubicmicron photography wrote:
I work - Content Scammers Profit

I know I am not a top notch photographer.  However, I put about 20 hours into every TF shoot and license the images to models for portfolio and personal non-pay web site use.  I specifically prohibit magazine submissions in my Use License.  Models can ask me to make a submission for them if they like.  Now I see that these free content contest scamming sites are creating commercial Facebook  pages (click to pay is right on the Facebook page) to further their use of copyright materials.  Models are encouraged to "share" to these facebook pages.  Should I not be unhappy about models posting to this type of page?  I am.  My intention in licensing social web site use is that the images go on the model's page, not advertising Facebook pages promoting pay sites.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I feel similarly about Pinterest.

I would be pleased if you can take a few minutes of your valuable time to respond.

http://www.facebook.com/SolisMagazine

Here is a case where a free content collecting PAY to subscribe print and online magazine, "Solis" has a facebook page to promote their site and, in my opinion, facilitate use of copyrighted materials.  Solis is a PAY subscription magazine on web and in print.  They have over 10,000 "Likes" and do not know the proper use of the words "their" and "there".  While online viewers of their site may read interviews, viewers must PAY to see images.  Solis apparently encourages "sharing" of copyrighted materials by postings to the Solis facebook page.  They do claim to accept actual submissions  of images to their dot com site from copyright holder only and they require high resolution 300ppi images for dot com upload, obviously for print,  which I do not provide to models, but make no offer to pay the provider.  Most such sites excuse themselves for any common sense in the matter by using language like; "By uploading you state that you own the copyright."  Unlike most, they (Solis) clearly state they do not own the content…. they just charge for viewers to see it. 

This (below) is harsh language I now use in my communications with models to whom I have shared images from TF shoots.  It does not work.  Models, unfortunately, seem to have very little retention and no respect for copyright.

(For me, this is harsh language)
This must be communicated very clearly:  
I do not and will not license images to be submitted to online magazines.  That is all inclusive. NO magazine submissions for contests or any other reasons.  I will not WORK to provide free content for online magazine SKUZBAGS and models shouldn't either!  Magazines, either print or online, should PAY for content.  This is simply a matter of principle and copyright respect.  The fine type in every magazine submission request I have read says:  "You own the copyright and you are transferring it permanently to me by uploading."  That is ludicrous.  Would you give away the title to your classic car to have it judged in a contest?  Models have NO copyright from my shoots.  Models receive a specific Use License for portfolio, personal non-pay web site, and personal social media.  Use License is expandable neither by declaration nor by ignorance of the model.

Your post is hard to follow, but essentially, you're mad because naive models upload your work for a 3rd party to benefit?

Managing Light wrote:
I can understand your anger at organizations who use your copyrighted works for profit without compensating you.  I would feel the same way in your place.

What I don't understand is why you're wasting time complaining about it here: you don't need our permission to go after those who abuse your rights.  Why not start sending demand letters and issuing DCMA takedown notices?

In cases of clear copyright violation, I do just that. 

This sharing to another facebook page doesn't seem clearly a copyright violation and I still do not like it.  I'm am [complaining] here because I would like to know other's opinions on the subject.

cubicmicron photography wrote:
In cases of clear copyright violation, I do just that. 

This sharing to another facebook page doesn't seem clearly a copyright violation and I still do not like it.  I'm am [complaining] here because I would like to know other's opinions on the subject.

2 questions - - -

Q1:    Are you registering your images with the copyright office?

Q2:    I see that you mark all your images with a small logo "U3", at least, with or without other words. Are you seeing this being removed, cropped out, or covered over, in the instances you are criticising - on-line magazines, ect.? [either by the model or the third party user]

Studio36

cubicmicron photography wrote:
This (below) is harsh language I now use in my communications with models to whom I have shared images from TF shoots.  It does not work.  Models, unfortunately, seem to have very little retention and no respect for copyright.

(For me, this is harsh language)
This must be communicated very clearly:  
I do not and will not license images to be submitted to online magazines.  That is all inclusive. NO magazine submissions for contests or any other reasons.  I will not WORK to provide free content for online magazine SKUZBAGS and models shouldn't either!  Magazines, either print or online, should PAY for content.  This is simply a matter of principle and copyright respect.  The fine type in every magazine submission request I have read says:  "You own the copyright and you are transferring it permanently to me by uploading."  That is ludicrous.  Would you give away the title to your classic car to have it judged in a contest?  Models have NO copyright from my shoots.  Models receive a specific Use License for portfolio, personal non-pay web site, and personal social media.  Use License is expandable neither by declaration nor by ignorance of the model.

Your harsh language may well be counterproductive. 

So far, I have encountered only one model who wilfully thumbed her nose at my copyright.  All the others seem to act in good faith but do not always understand that what they do may facilitate copyright breaches.

Rather than ranting at them, as you seem to do with the above text, I think you will get much better results if you explain politely what you don't want them to do and why you don't want them to do it. 

As the saying goes, honey is far more effective for catching flies than vinegar.