Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:
Wait...aren't you now infringing on copyrights then, since you just posted a gif with clips from TV shows which have well known celebrities in them?  The gif also has a website on the bottom.  Are you now promoting that website? 

I'm genuinely asking, since the work on that gif belongs to other entities and I don't believe you shot any of the frames. 

Or is an animated gif excluded from all that?  Are memes excluded as well?  What if you copy an image from another website and post it in a thread here?  Is that not stealing the copyrighted image? 

There's the letter of the law and then there's the spirit of the law.  I meant no harm in posting the banners I did.  It wasn't for my financial gain and it wasn't something I was taking credit for.  It was for a simple, fun thing MM does every year.  I never thought they would be picked, simply because they weren't anything special and took no effort at all to make; as opposed to some of the very talented work by others here, including someone who apparently isn't too fond of me now. 

Could I have created a banner using images I shot myself?  Sure; I'd say I'm fairly comfortable with all the buttons and stuff on my camera and every once in a while create a semi-decent picture.  If I do create one though, will it win next year?  Will I even care?

Like I said, I meant no harm and I certainly didn't receive (nor is it likely I ever would have) received any financial gain from this. Someone is now suggesting I be removed from this site because of this transgression.  In all honesty I have to ask...does that punishment fit the crime?

Depends. First your argument was "It's just a stupid banner, who cares?"

Now you're arguing "Everyone else is doing it, why can't I?"

I mean, didn't you do TWO submissions? Most people like to just bitch, that shouldn't surprise you. But I think it was less the infringement and more the indifference to it that pissed people off.

Also, my GIF isn't being potentially used as promotional material for a business.

-CTN- Photography wrote:
There were some very nice ones. The legit ones. Which one was too graphic??!

This one, as an example (and I hesitate to single one out), but there are a few others.  I have no problem with the image, but I don't think others should be able to see it over my shoulder.

It might be a cultural thing, I suppose.  Maybe a picture of a mutilated female corpse might be acceptable in the US when bare breasts are not, but if I was looking at MM on a train, or somewhere else public, in the UK, I would be unhappy if some of the images popped up.

It might just be me, of course.  But take some of the images out of the context of a halloween competition, and remembering that some nations don't celebrate halloween with the fervour that Americans do, then it could give someone the wrong idea.

Orca Bay Images wrote:
As a Model Mayhem official, should you really be congratulating contestants for so blithely and defiantly stealing copyrighted material?

Model_Jenny wrote:
Oh dont be such a killjoy. I guess you have nothing else to do today right.

Wow. It's bad enough to see a supposedly very experienced photographer 1) violate copyright by plagiarizing, 2) be defiant in defense of that, and then 3) admit total cluelessness regarding copyright law and the fair use clause.

The situation strains credulity on a whole new level when a MM official applauds the plagiarism.

Then you take it even further by insinuating that someone's objecting to that plagiarism is nothing more than a result of boredom. Is this the quality of MM management/moderation now?

I was simply saying well done to all those who took part.

You congratulated *everyone* even after it was pointed out that there were some blatant copyright violations. No attempt to recant or qualify that endorsement.

If someone has to use someone elses images to create something then its their own stupid fault.

And if MM defends -- even applauds -- copyright violators, then it's MM's stupid fault, too.

You represent MM. MM should be much more careful about who gets to represent it. A good start would be people who understand copyright... or at least who give the impression they give a shit about copyright.

Kent Art Photography wrote:


This one, as an example (and I hesitate to single one out), but there are a few others.  I have no problem with the image, but I don't think others should be able to see it over my shoulder.

It might be a cultural thing, I suppose.  Maybe a picture of a mutilated female corpse might be acceptable in the US when bare breasts are not, but if I was looking at MM on a train, or somewhere else public, in the UK, I would be unhappy if some of the images popped up.

It might just be me, of course.  But take some of the images out of the context of a halloween competition, and remembering that some nations don't celebrate halloween with the fervour that Americans do, then it could give someone the wrong idea.

Given that it is a Halloween contest I'm not sure this Zombie photo (an original shot credited appropriately to both model and makeup artist btw) is any worse than anything from the Walking Dead image lifted by Eros that started all the complaining. 

I truly do apologize for offending you, but honestly if you are opening MM at work with people able to look over your shoulder then you probably need to rethink what kind of site you're going to.

Orca Bay Images wrote:
As a Model Mayhem official, should you really be congratulating contestants for so blithely and defiantly stealing copyrighted material?

Dean Soapbox Killer Photo wrote:
She didn't congratulate anyone for blithely and defiantly stealing copyrighted material.

She congratulated everyone who participated after it was made clear that some participants had stolen copyrighted images. So, yeah, she congratulated the image thief[s], too.

-CTN- Photography wrote:
There were some very nice ones. The legit ones. Which one was too graphic??!

apparently mine, or at least it was zeroed in on by one of them.

David Stowers wrote:
I truly do apologize for offending you, but honestly if you are opening MM at work with people able to look over your shoulder then you probably need to rethink what kind of site you're going to.

Seriously

Woven Thought wrote:
Look, there are some awesome photographers on here.  BUT I don't understand how you cannot understand copyright.  I really don't.  How can you have a business and just not get this?

I'm not posting anymore on this.  Just pisses me off and obviously pointless.

Not that I can speak for any one person, but I think it's less about not knowing copyright, and more not caring.

David Stowers wrote:

Given that it is a Halloween contest I'm not sure this Zombie photo (an original shot credited appropriately to both model and makeup artist btw) is any worse than anything from the Walking Dead image lifted by Eros that started all the complaining. 

I truly do apologize for offending you, but honestly if you are opening MM at work with people able to look over your shoulder then you probably need to rethink what kind of site you're going to.

I have no problem with the image, as I said, and you have no need to apologise as I am in no way offended.

I'm beginning to think it's a cultural thing about what is acceptable.  I can quite easily sit on a train and look at photos of Page 3 girls (topless) in the Sun newspaper in the UK, and no-one would bat an eyelid.  The same would apply to the worksafe pics on MM (mostly) if I had my computer open on the table.  Okay, I might be discreet and pick a corner seat and keep the lapto turned away from the aisle, and I might not do it if someone was sitting next to me.  However, other people seeing some of the images without knowing about the Halloween competition might not find those images acceptable.

Maybe worksafe mode should be abandoned for the duration of the Halloween competition.

Kent Art Photography wrote:

David Stowers wrote:
Maybe worksafe mode should be abandoned for the duration of the Halloween competition.

It would depend on the workplace.  Nothing is black and white and conversely it matters less if a coworker looks over your should than which coworker looks over your shoulder and the regulations of your particular company.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
Not that I can speak for any one person, but I think it's less about not knowing copyright, and more not caring.

I believe the fine is in the tens of thousands of dollars, you'd think someone would care about that!!  And it DOES look like llama Mayhem does.

Woven Thought wrote:

I believe the fine is in the tens of thousands of dollars, you'd think someone would care about that!!  And it DOES look like Model Mayhem does.

I didn't realize there was an actual fine, not to mention, who enforces it?

No, copyright infringement has gone on for a long time, and the internet made it easier. Just a matter of whether you get caught. And no matter what the RIAA tries, they've shown that it's harder to get caught than people think.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:

I didn't realize there was an actual fine, not to mention, who enforces it?

No, copyright infringement has gone on for a long time, and the internet made it easier. Just a matter of whether you get caught. And no matter what the RIAA tries, they've shown that it's harder to get caught than people think.

Whoever owns the image would sue Model Mayhem for copyright infringement, I believe.  I imagine then Model Mayhem could sue whoever misrepresented themselves.  I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. 

David Stowers wrote:

Kent Art Photography wrote:

David Stowers wrote:
Maybe worksafe mode should be abandoned for the duration of the Halloween competition.

It would depend on the workplace.  Nothing is black and white and conversely it matters less if a coworker looks over your should than which coworker looks over your shoulder and the regulations of your particular company.

You misunderstand.  What is the point of having a "Toggle Worksafe Mode" button on MM, which removes the pictures marked M from view, if banners which ought to be marked M don't get hidden?

And we've really messed up the quotes thing, haven't we!

Woven Thought wrote:

Whoever owns the image would sue Model Mayhem for copyright infringement, I believe.  I imagine then Model Mayhem could sue whoever misrepresented themselves.  I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on TV. 

My point was I didn't realize there was a set fine. I think there is a minimum fine, but it depends on loss of potential monies, or something. But $10,000 wasn't the number i heard last time it was brought up either. It was much more

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:
Most people like to just bitch, that shouldn't surprise you. But I think it was less the infringement and more the indifference to it that pissed people off.

^yes

Devils Door wrote:
wow this is fun!  nothing like mayhem...on mayhem!

i guess if you cant take a creative halloween photo, you can steal one off the web.
awesome.... i can sell my camera!  lol.... (yes - that is sarcasim folks.. i wont steal)

also - metallica should not be mad at people stealing music.. they were "just listening to it"  not re-selling it or winning money from it..  so..... no harm no foul, right?

wheeeee..... i am enjoying reading all of the comments, when they are not pompous..  to all of the entries that were turned in, and 100% real work from the contributor..  GREAT JOB. I have sen some awesome works in the contest, winner or not... very inspirational.

now lets go have some fun -

I always love when people use Metallica as the poster children for anti piracy, considering they encouraged people to bootleg their concerts, which was what made labels want to sign them in the first place

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:

I always love when people use Metallica as the poster children for anti piracy, considering they encouraged people to bootleg their concerts, which was what made labels want to sign them in the first place

Hahaha - amen! 

mistivus wrote:
i won

Yes.  Yes you did.  And you deserve it - great photo - congrats to you and the photog on a great colab!

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:

My point was I didn't realize there was a set fine. I think there is a minimum fine, but it depends on loss of potential monies, or something. But $10,000 wasn't the number i heard last time it was brought up either. It was much more

$35,000 is the number jumping in my head, but that's not a really accurate source.... 

Brian Diaz wrote:


Photographer: Greg Gardner DFAP
Model: Jenn Ryan

I don't get this picture, can some one explain it pls.

Mnemosyne Photography wrote:

Depends. First your argument was "It's just a stupid banner, who cares?"

Now you're arguing "Everyone else is doing it, why can't I?"

I mean, didn't you do TWO submissions? Most people like to just bitch, that shouldn't surprise you. But I think it was less the infringement and more the indifference to it that pissed people off.

Also, my GIF isn't being potentially used as promotional material for a business.

But my question is (and I'm not trying to provoke here, I'm genuinely interested in hearing the answer)...did you get expressed permission from either the production company; the actors in the scenes; the cinematographer; or the website to copy that GIF and post it or reproduce it in any way shape or form?

It would seem to me in the extreme adherence to copyright law that no person should ever copy any image, drawing, film clip, etc from any website and then paste that media onto any other page; simply because you do not have that right.  And if that's true, then anyone and everyone who has ever posted a meme, gif, image, etc from another source is therefor also in violation of copyrights. 

On the other hand, a huge portion of the multimedia you find on the net seems to be a parody of the original.  It's not like people are taking images, full length films or TV show and claiming to be the creator of the media; they're only taking a fragment of it (except in the case of images) and adding something more to it. There's no intention of gaining anything monetarily from it, it's just done for the fun of it. 

Take the Hitler scenes from movie "Downfall" for example.  For a long time Youtube allowed tons of parodies to be posted, even though the only thing being changed was the subtitles.  Recently however, the production company asked Youtube to remove all the video parodies.  Youtube could have argued and fought it in court, but they instead complied and honored the wishes of the company. 

I'm sure other production companies could go after video websites; wallpaper websites; soundbite websites; etc, in an effort to stop all the violations going on out there, but I'm guessing the internet is simply too huge for them to go after every individual who posts something.  "Hitler learns..." videos became viral though and got millions of hits, which is likely what brought it to the attention of the studio. 

In all honesty, I saw what I did along the lines of a parody.  "The Walking Dead" is one of the most popular shows on TV today and that scene from the first episode is on the verge of becoming iconic (in my opinion).  I knew good and well tons of people would know where that image came from, so I in no way was trying to pass it off (as if that could ever happen) as my own work.  That would be like taking a still from the movie Star Wars and saying you created it...very doubtful many people in the world would buy it.

MM has had this contest for several years in the past, and in the past I've submitted funny banners that included movie characters (such as IT), so I just did the same thing and didn't bother reading the new rules on this one.  Admittedly, I'm NOT deeply versed in copyright law.  I've read the arguments about it here and on other sites, and I clearly understand that I can't take someone's photo and sell it, but I've never actually taken a copyright law book and read it from cover to cover. 

Like I said before, I wasn't seeking any financial gain from this and wasn't trying to pass something off as my own work.  The banners I made were sourced from well known media which has floated around the internet repeatedly for a long time now, so I knew good and well they would be easily recognized.  Did I take them directly from the respective artist's sites?  No.  If you Google "Walking Dead" or "Zombie", you'll see millions of links related to both images I used; 99.9% of which are not related at all to the original artist or AMC. 

I'm not trying to justify myself, I'm simply trying to explain myself and hopefully convince you I'm not the asshole many of you think I am.  I tend to shoot from the hip here and clearly overstepped some boundaries this time.  To those whom I offended by my comments, I genuinely apologize.  I erred by not recognizing that even though I wouldn't be receiving any financial gain from this, MM is a private business which does earn income and cannot use another entities image(s) to promote their business without permission.  I humbly ask for your forgiveness and promise it won't happen again. 

(by the way, someone better quote this and frame it; because I'm not necessarily known for bowing my head around here.  )

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:
...

This will be my absolute last response to this thread.


PS: You've got a lot to learn about commercial/advertising vs actual fair-use. I mean even if you you yourself wouldn't get financial gain from it, MM would in a manner of speaking as part of site content, and it was per rules not to submit content you didn't own the copyright to. So kind of a duh either way there.

PS #2: trying to explain yourself is pretty much the same as justifying it.

Kent Art Photography wrote:

I have no problem with the image, as I said, and you have no need to apologise as I am in no way offended.

I'm beginning to think it's a cultural thing about what is acceptable.  I can quite easily sit on a train and look at photos of Page 3 girls (topless) in the Sun newspaper in the UK, and no-one would bat an eyelid.  The same would apply to the worksafe pics on MM (mostly) if I had my computer open on the table.  Okay, I might be discreet and pick a corner seat and keep the lapto turned away from the aisle, and I might not do it if someone was sitting next to me.  However, other people seeing some of the images without knowing about the Halloween competition might not find those images acceptable.

Maybe worksafe mode should be abandoned for the duration of the Halloween competition.

Yes, it is limited to your island.

Here, nudity is not okay where people can see it, but zombies are fine.

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:
But my question is (and I'm not trying to provoke here, I'm genuinely interested in hearing the answer)...did you get expressed permission from either the production company; the actors in the scenes; the cinematographer; or the website to copy that GIF and post it or reproduce it in any way shape or form?

It would seem to me in the extreme adherence to copyright law that no person should ever copy any image, drawing, film clip, etc from any website and then paste that media onto any other page; simply because you do not have that right.  And if that's true, then anyone and everyone who has ever posted a meme, gif, image, etc from another source is therefor also in violation of copyrights. 

On the other hand, a huge portion of the multimedia you find on the net seems to be a parody of the original.  It's not like people are taking images, full length films or TV show and claiming to be the creator of the media; they're only taking a fragment of it (except in the case of images) and adding something more to it. There's no intention of gaining anything monetarily from it, it's just done for the fun of it. 

Take the Hitler scenes from movie "Downfall" for example.  For a long time Youtube allowed tons of parodies to be posted, even though the only thing being changed was the subtitles.  Recently however, the production company asked Youtube to remove all the video parodies.  Youtube could have argued and fought it in court, but they instead complied and honored the wishes of the company. 

I'm sure other production companies could go after video websites; wallpaper websites; soundbite websites; etc, in an effort to stop all the violations going on out there, but I'm guessing the internet is simply too huge for them to go after every individual who posts something.  "Hitler learns..." videos became viral though and got millions of hits, which is likely what brought it to the attention of the studio. 

In all honesty, I saw what I did along the lines of a parody.  "The Walking Dead" is one of the most popular shows on TV today and that scene from the first episode is on the verge of becoming iconic (in my opinion).  I knew good and well tons of people would know where that image came from, so I in no way was trying to pass it off (as if that could ever happen) as my own work.  That would be like taking a still from the movie Star Wars and saying you created it...very doubtful many people in the world would buy it.

MM has had this contest for several years in the past, and in the past I've submitted funny banners that included movie characters (such as IT), so I just did the same thing and didn't bother reading the new rules on this one.  Admittedly, I'm NOT deeply versed in copyright law.  I've read the arguments about it here and on other sites, and I clearly understand that I can't take someone's photo and sell it, but I've never actually taken a copyright law book and read it from cover to cover. 

Like I said before, I wasn't seeking any financial gain from this and wasn't trying to pass something off as my own work.  The banners I made were sourced from well known media which has floated around the internet repeatedly for a long time now, so I knew good and well they would be easily recognized.  Did I take them directly from the respective artist's sites?  No.  If you Google "Walking Dead" or "Zombie", you'll see millions of links related to both images I used; 99.9% of which are not related at all to the original artist or AMC. 

I'm not trying to justify myself, I'm simply trying to explain myself and hopefully convince you I'm not the asshole many of you think I am.  I tend to shoot from the hip here and clearly overstepped some boundaries this time.  To those whom I offended by my comments, I genuinely apologize.  I erred by not recognizing that even though I wouldn't be receiving any financial gain from this, MM is a private business which does earn income and cannot use another entities image(s) to promote their business without permission.  I humbly ask for your forgiveness and promise it won't happen again. 

(by the way, someone better quote this and frame it; because I'm not necessarily known for bowing my head around here.  )

You didn't copy though. You created a derivative work.

Parody is allowed, derivative works aren't. So again, your comparison isn't exactly a good one. Nothing you did was parodic, no matter how iconic the photo may be. Especially considering one of the main rules was no copywritten work.

Kaylars wrote:

I don't get this picture, can some one explain it pls.

Hey there! I'm the model in this photo. It was shot in a doorway behind a sheet. The photographer wanted a "ghostlike" effect so I basically pressed myself against the sheet in different positions to create movement and shadows. Then he just spliced them all together! I love the way it turned out...reminds me of American Horror Story. So glad the MMers liked it, too!

nyk fury wrote:
some rather nice ones i think.

curious though, doesn't blood fall into the M category like certain body parts on MM?

yeah its supposed to.

they even took away one of my avatars and marked it 18 plus because it showed "bondage" which is one of the things not allowed. it was a headshot.

"blood" is also on the list.

so I'm pretty peeved at their response about not making exceptions when they put up banners with blood.

mistivus wrote:
i won

Congrats!

Jenn Ryan wrote:

Hey there! I'm the model in this photo. It was shot in a doorway behind a sheet. The photographer wanted a "ghostlike" effect so I basically pressed myself against the sheet in different positions to create movement and shadows. Then he just spliced them all together! I love the way it turned out...reminds me of American Horror Story. So glad the MMers liked it, too!

Brian Diaz wrote:


Photographer: Greg Gardner DFAP
Model: Jenn Ryan

This is amazing, I love it

Brian Diaz wrote:


Photographer: Jeffery Timbrell
Model: mistivus

The eyes in this one... fucking amazing