FOR ALL OF YOU THAT HAVE A DEVIANT ART PAGE.....CHECK THIS OUT.....YOU MIGHT FIND IT AN INTERESTING READ.


As a photographer that has shot with Catalina, I do hearby give my permission for her to use any and all images from said shoot for her personal promotion, be it web based or print based.

Now having said that, I do not see that DA would need a release form in order for a person to post images for personal promotion. If in fact those images were for sale, then those terms would be set forth in the release form as per the agreement between the model and photographer. Any outside source needs the specific permission from the copyright holder in order to duplicate, promote, or sell any of the images. If their is a discrepency between the photographer and model, that is an issue for the two of them to work out. Not and issue for DA to try and handle. Even if this is the case, DA should at the very least supply the name of the parties in question to each other so a mutual agreement came be made. Otherwise I feel that DA is either being discriminatory or is intending on obtaining release forms for the usage of these images for their personal gain. Whichever the case may be, DA should at least come clean as to whom is bringing this complaint against Catalina Lissett, so that a reasonable agreement between those parties can be obtained.


These are my views and may or may not reflect the views of others.

protocybe.


THEIR REPLY :

It is the position of deviantART to insure that artists have their rights protected- while you personally may not care whatsoever if your photographs are redistributed there are many photographers who I have dealt with over the years who find it absolutely deplorable that their work was being redistributed here without their permission.

We would not be a responsible website if we simply tossed our hands up in he air and cried "It's none of our business".

Protection of an artist's or photographer's rights is why the Policy Enforcement division was formed in the first place.

--
Daniel (realitysquared)
Director of Policy Enforcement,
Community Development Division,
deviantART Inc.



Somebody explain this to me like I am a 3yr old cuz I just dont get it........this is what the reply was to my post in Catalina's Journal.

"It is the position of deviantART to insure that artists have their rights protected- while you personally may not care whatsoever if your photographs are redistributed there are many photographers who I have dealt with over the years who find it absolutely deplorable that their work was being redistributed here without their permission.

We would not be a responsible website if we simply tossed our hands up in he air and cried "It's none of our business".

Protection of an artist's or photographer's rights is why the Policy Enforcement division was formed in the first place."


NOW ASSUMING THAT THEY ARE REALLY HERE TO PROTECT MY RIGHTS AS A PHOTOGRAPHER......TELL ME WHY THIS STATEMENT IS IN THEIR IMAGE SUBMISSION AGREEMENT.

" In the event that we have sublicensed your materials to another website, it is your responsibility to have your materials removed from that website and you will not hold us responsible or liable if the other website refuses to remove your materials."

NOW THIS STATEMENT TELLS ME THAT EVERY TIME I UPLOAD A PICTURE TO DA....I AM GIVING THEM PERMISSION TO SELL MY WORK TO VARIOUS OTHER SITES WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE, PERMISSION, NOR ANY COMPENSATION TO ME AND IF I DONT LIKE IT I HAVE TO GO AFTER THE OTHER SITE AND FIGHT WITH THEM.

HOW CAN YOU SELF-RIGHTEOUS HIPPOCRITICAL PEOPLE TELL ME THAT YOU ARE "PROTECTING" MY RIGHTS AS A PHOTOGRAPHER AND THEN TURN AROUND AND SELL IMAGES TO OTHER SITES ?????

AND EXACTALY HOW CAN YOU CLAIM TO BE A RESPONSIBLE WEBSITE THAT DOESN’T TOSS UP IT HANDS AND CRY “IT’S NONE OF OUR BUSINESS” WHEN IN FACT YOU DO STATE THAT IF WE FIND IMAGES ON OTHER SITES THAT YOU SOLD TO THEM…..IT IS “NONE OF OUR BUSINESS” AND THAT I HAVE TO GO AFTER THE OTHER WEBSITE.

I KNOW THIS MUST BE CRAZY TALK HERE.....BUT LETS JUST THINK ABOUT THE DOUBLE TALK THEY ARE DISHING OUT HERE.

Okay little boy, by signing up for deviant art, you *are* giving them persmission topredistribute your work. Them's the terms and they expect you to read them.

Uh oh, Catalina didn’t own the copyrights of her work/pictures, so let’s get her to get the holder of the copyright to release that right to her)

release from copyright holder..

As a photographer that has shot with Catalina, I do hearby give my permission for her to use any and all images from said shoot for her personal promotion, be it web based or print based

Yay we got it! now our rule applies..

" In the event that we have sub-licensed your materials to another website, it is your responsibility to have your materials removed from that website and you will not hold us responsible or liable if the other website refuses to remove your materials."

We can do with it as we want..

Evil..  yes,  Smart.. definitely

just how I read the above based on what you wrote.. Could be wrong lol


Does it say anywhere that they have to inform you where and whom they sub-contracted the work out to? My sis has her drawings on that site, so curious.

The Sublicensing issue I believe is being confused here.

The problem with the web has to do with linking and embedding.

An Example:

Let's say I decided to run a llama refferal website.
I contact Tyler here and ask that MM join by allowing me to tap into the images and profiles of llamas.

I am sure that 99% of the llamas would love something like that.
HOWEVER - everyone here has given rights only to MM for the Images, not to me.
If MM does not have a sublicense clause, I can not legally use them.

By DA putting in that clause, other sites that partner with DA for any reason can use the images unless YOU the artist, say otherwise.

I am sure they do not "sell" the images.
The term sublicense means that they are licensing something to someone else that was licensed to them to begin with.

You as an artist may not like it, but as a business, it is a smart move on their part.

I'm a member over at DA and I can say there isn't a more paranoid site in all the internet.  Don't get me wrong, I really love it there, but a big percentage of both the members and the administration is OBSESSED with images being "ripped" or used without permission.  About a year ago somebody accused me of stealing images FROM MYSELF!  It sounds silly, but the resulting flap almost got me banned from the site.

Over the last several months a growing number of llamas have put up galleries there, thinkin [rightfully so imo] that llamaling is an artform just like dance, acting or any other performance-based endeavor.  The administration was totally unprepared for this and are still completely befuddled by it...and they can be relied on to overreact to anything they don't immediately understand [or like].

The method for dealing with images posted by llamas is silly and inefficient, not to mention unevenly enforced.  The llama in question had all of her images deleted, while other llamas happily post images on a regular basis with no problem. 

The real crux of the matter is that the administration of DA really dosen't like photography in general, dosen't consider photographers artists and certainly dosen't see llamas as anything but idiots.  But, like anywhere else we go, llamas and phtographers [esp. erotic/nude/fetish artitst] drive the site, so they can't afford to get rid of us all...but they can still make our lives as difficult as possible, which they do often.

That said, I think DA is a terrific resource for meeting other artists of all kinds and you shouls all join!  I'm serious!

"I'm a member over at DA and I can say there isn't a more paranoid site in all the internet."

I too am a member and agree with your statement completly. MMMMMMmmmm maybe it is really run by the government:).

Hi Duke,

Come and sit next to ole Uncle Billy-Bob Joe Perez. I've got a couple a thangs to tell you. First, welcome to the wild wild world of inconsistent llama/photographer/artists related Internet sites and goofy policy makers.

Now, let's look at your situation. Ohhh, I see they kicked you around a bit by throwing the fancy-schmancy "policy" word at ya. Well, ok, here's what you do...first of all, quit fidgeting around...put them raggedy ass boxing gloves down and break out your double-edged Mexican butterfly-pen-knife. Write them back and ask for a copy of their official policy, which they're obligated to furnish upon request.

Once you get it, look in the yellow pages for Guido

YOU'RE A GREAT READ!!!!  X0X  thankz

The guys over at DA... I think they were unprepared for how fast the site would grow. It started out as a site for people who's art was along the lines of "skins" for media players and such. Tech geeks. (Don't get me wrong, though - I love tech geeks)

Now it's huge, and they're constantly scrambling to adjust. They have all sorts of artists and models yelling at them from all different positions about work being "ripped" - used without permission. Too many members, not enough staff to take care of all the complaints. They *are* trying. Sometimes it's hard for them to know who is being totally honest about owning the copyright to an image or having full permission to ues it, and who is just blowing smoke.

I do know that Angelo (the CEO) *does* like photography. And all other sorts of art. The admins just don't talk to eachother as much as they should.

But they're trying. And they're getting it together. All things grow and change.

Anyone wanna give me a message to deliver wen I go out to the DA Summit in June?

www.khavi.deviantart.com

I don't fully understand their sublicensing thing, but I understand the rights issues pretty well.

There are three related issues involved: copyright, model releases, and licensing of image rights.

When a photographer presses the shutter button, the resulting image automatically becomes his/her copyright in the US (there are some exceptions, like work for hire). Copyright protects the photographer. Generally, nobody, including the model, may use those images for any purpose without the photographer's permission (most new models don't know this).

Model releases give the photographer rights to use the model's likeness for commercial purposes.

A license agreement gives a party (the model for purposes of this discussion) permission to use the photographer's images for limited purposes.

For example, when I do a photo shoot with a model, I have them sign a model release, and I give them a set of proofing images (reduced sized unedited digital files). I tell the model that they may look at the images for review, but may not re-distribute them for any reason. The only purpose for the proofing images is to make final selection. Once the model and I have made final selections, I will give them finished edited images (might include adjusting colors, light levels, toning, airbrushing blemishes, cropping, etc.). When I give them the final image, I grant them limited usage rights to use those images or redistribute them for self promotion as long as they don't alter them and don't re-sell them. Those are the terms I use. Other photographers use other terms.

The automatic copyright, the model release, and the licensing of image rights are the three legal components that define and protect everyone's rights.

So, legally, as the photographer I may submit anything to DA that I have photographed, because I own the copyrights (and normally I have a model release). A model can not submit my images to DA unless I give them permission (by licensing image rights). Since posting images to DA is within the terms of the license rights I normally grant to models, that is fine.

On the other hand, if I didn't grant the model license rights to use the images, and they submitted them to DA, then technically I could sue both the model and DA for violation of my copyright.

So it makes sense for DA to have that rule. Otherwise they'd leave themselves open to easy lawsuits. If I saw one of my images on DA that I own the copyright to, and which I did not give permission to be used, I could demand they remove the image. If they refused, I could sue for damages, and get a court order requiring them to remove the image.

All that may sound a bit extreme, given that a vast majority of stuff on DA is not professional images, but just snapshots posted for fun. But DA has to work within the law, or they'd be sued out of existence in very short order.

If there is a dispute between a photographer and a model over usage rights, then it is prudent for DA to remove the images, since by default the photographer owns the copyrights. It would be incumbent upon the model to prove they have limited license rights. It would be incumbent upon the photographer to prove they have a model release. If DA left the image up, and simply referred the model and photographer to each other to resolve the dispute, DA would open themselves up to potential lawsuits. Far smarter of them to just remove the images until the dispute is resolved.