Model photography unauthorized use

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Boss GreenNutz**

Out of curiosity for the OP. The model you painted is copywrited by GW. Did you get permission from them to post it? If not aren't you just as guilty as the guy that used your painted pic to post an e-bay ad?

**Clay Williams**

Putting something online through a hosting site, depending on the site, may open your images up to the public domain. Be sure you read all terms before using these sites if this sort of thing does bother you.

**insaniak**

twistinthunder wrote:actually he cannot sue his work is NOT registered as copyrighted with the us/uk government therefore no legal action may be taken.

You don't need to register copyrights. That used to be the case in the US. It's not anymore, and never was in most of the rest of the world. You own the copyright simply by being the creator of a copyrightable work.

**Kilkrazy**

You're not legally required to register your work for infringement to be actionable. It just makes things easier.

**JohnHwangDD**

Failure to register a work after 1978 does not invalidate Copyright. If the creator / owner does not specifically relinquish rights, he still has them, and may continue to enforce them.

**insaniak**

Boss GreenNutz wrote:The model you painted is copywrited by GW.

That stops you from making a mould from it and casting it. It doesn't prevent you from taking photos of it after you've painted it.

**Kid_Kyoto**

twistinthunder wrote:

actually he cannot sue his work is NOT registered as copyrighted with the us/uk government therefore no legal action may be taken.

Not true, in the US registration is not required for copyrights or for trademarks. However proof that you produced the work or used the mark first is required.

Dunno about the UK.

**OldPeculiar**

Is it just me or does anyone else think it's also a bit 'off' to use a picture of a (very well) painted mini in order to sell a single un-painted, un-assembled figure from the AOBR box?

I rather suspect the sellers own painting skills are not up to the job of 'selling' minis with this tactic - even if the OPs image is not used in future, I think someone elses will

**insaniak**

OldPeculiar wrote:Is it just me or does anyone else think it's also a bit 'off' to use a picture of a (very well) painted mini in order to sell a single un-painted, un-assembled figure from the AOBR box?

Not really any more so than the practice of most miniature companies of using well-painted studio minis to sell unpainted, unassembled miniatures.

And less dodgy (IMO) than the practice of certain miniature companies of using well-painted studio minis to sell poorly painted, less-well cast miniatures...

**beef**

If somebody used my model to show a painted captain on ebay I would be flattered. As long as he was not selling a painted model trying to pass it off as the one in his picture. If the person clearly stated his was sold unpainted i dont see the big deal. But then I guess some of the people who frequent this forum do so for the sikple reason they can turn small things into much bigger things.

Personnaly I would contact the seller (especially if I sold stuff that was painted myself on ebay) and say look post a link of my stuff along with yours or recomend me as a painter in your sales.

If it was the one off whats the big deal. Worry about climate change instead

**twistinthunder**

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Out of curiosity for the OP. The model you painted is copywrited by GW. Did you get permission from them to post it? If not aren't you just as guilty as the guy that used your painted pic to post an e-bay ad?

he painted the model.

he took the picture.

he is therefore the artist and gains copyright for the work he did.

also sorry guys i didn't know you no longer had to register to take legal action. thanks for clearing that up.

**MagickalMemories**

I had some success with having auctions yanked for using my image when the last LE Black Library Chapbook came out.
Someone nabbed my image (only hosted in the auction. Nowhere else online) and used it in a competing auction.

The auction was removed the same day I reported it.

Eric

**Ghidorah**

insaniak wrote:Absolutely. And if my neighbour didn't want me 'borrowing' his car, he shouldn't have left it in his driveway.

More akin to leaving it running downtown with the doors open and expecting nobody to hop in and drive off.

OP: Dude, your painted mini only got the guy $3.25. Time to step up your game so the image thieves can make more money off of your effort. Pretty selfish of you, I think...

Ghidorah

**Che-Vito**

Ghidorah wrote:
insaniak wrote:Absolutely. And if my neighbour didn't want me 'borrowing' his car, he shouldn't have left it in his driveway.

More akin to leaving it running downtown with the doors open and expecting nobody to hop in and drive off.

OP: Dude, your painted mini only got the guy $3.25. Time to step up your game so the image thieves can make more money off of your effort. Pretty selfish of you, I think...

Ghidorah

If he wants to protect his work and his creations, then so be it. He can do that...

**Ghidorah**

Wow. Just... wow.

Ghidorah

**oni**

Thankfully I've always been asked and credited for the use of my photos.

I can understand if someone were to use your photos and try claiming them as their own, but in cases where it may just be for the sake of example (like this eBay auction) I'm not sure it's anything to get up in arms about.

**njpc**

Pictures being used without consent is most certainly not against the law. If you are posting pictures on any internet database: dakka, myspace, facebook, photobucket etc as many of them indicate this when you sign onto their site. In a sense, you give up your rights to your intellectual property, and give the right to reproduce or have your work reproduced.

Ebay as a site can opt to remove pictures by request, but there's nothing really saying they "have" to do it, more than feel it is appropriate business practices.

**twistinthunder**

njpc wrote:Pictures being used without consent is most certainly not against the law. If you are posting pictures on any internet database: dakka, myspace, facebook, photobucket etc as many of them indicate this when you sign onto their site. In a sense, you give up your rights to your intellectual property, and give the right to reproduce or have your work reproduced.

Ebay as a site can opt to remove pictures by request, but there's nothing really saying they "have" to do it, more than feel it is appropriate business practices.

By posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you warrant and represent that you own or otherwise control all of the rights to your Submission as described in this section including, without limitation, all the rights necessary for you to provide, post, upload, input or submit the Submissions.

**insaniak**

njpc wrote:If you are posting pictures on any internet database: dakka, myspace, facebook, photobucket etc as many of them indicate this when you sign onto their site. In a sense, you give up your rights to your intellectual property, and give the right to reproduce or have your work reproduced.

This may be the case on certain hosting sites, but it's not the norm. There was a rather large uproar in the artistic community back when Geocities free sites were big when someone actually took the time to read the fine print of the hosting agreement and discovered that Geocities were claiming ownership of anything uploaded to a Geocities site... But most hosts aren't that cheeky. They may claim rights for limited use (promotional purposes or whatever) but that's usually it.

**Kilkrazy**

Facebook tried to bring in the "ALL OF YOUR CONTENT ARE BELONG TO US" system and were forced to back down within a few days.

Dakka's legal position is this:

MATERIALS PROVIDED TO DAKKA DAKKA OR POSTED AT ANY DAKKA DAKKA WEB SITE

Dakka Dakka does not claim ownership of the materials you provide to Dakka Dakka (including feedback and suggestions) or post, upload, input or submit to any Dakka Dakka Web Site or its associated services (collectively "Submissions"). However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your Submission you are granting Dakka Dakka, its affiliated companies and necessary sublicensees permission to use your Submission in connection with the operation of their Internet businesses including, without limitation, the rights to: copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, translate and reformat your Submission; and to publish your name in connection with your Submission.

If you think about it logically, it would be impossible for Dakka to operate if it had to seek a user's permission every time another user wanted to look at a post.

The point of Dakka is sharing and helping each other to enjoy the wargaming hobby which requires easy exchange of information.

**Balance**

njpc wrote:Pictures being used without consent is most certainly not against the law. If you are posting pictures on any internet database: dakka, myspace, facebook, photobucket etc as many of them indicate this when you sign onto their site. In a sense, you give up your rights to your intellectual property, and give the right to reproduce or have your work reproduced.

Ebay as a site can opt to remove pictures by request, but there's nothing really saying they "have" to do it, more than feel it is appropriate business practices.

Your statement is somewhat nonsensical. You mention a specific instance where a specifi entity (I.E. photobucket, etc.) is given the right to use uploaded images. They wouldn't need to state that if it was clear.

Anything you produce has some copyright on it. Making it clear is a good thing, and watermarking can make it even clearer. Of course, this varies by locality, and it is pretty much impossible to prosecute.

**ZandrisIV**

Balance wrote:Of course, this varies by locality, and it is pretty much impossible to prosecute.

You might not be able to prosecute, but you will certainly be able to name and shame. Internet wargaming as a hobby is small enough that bad rep gets around quickly (especially if you know where to post your news).

**lord_blackfang**

insaniak wrote:
This may be the case on certain hosting sites, but it's not the norm. There was a rather large uproar in the artistic community back when Geocities free sites were big when someone actually took the time to read the fine print of the hosting agreement and discovered that Geocities were claiming ownership of anything uploaded to a Geocities site...

I remember that. IIRC, they adopted that policy when Yahoo bought them. Luckily it was not retroactive, so existing users had the option of deleting their content before it was stolen.

**Dracos**

The fact of the matter is that the individual who put up the auction is using someone else's art without their permission. Irregardless of the circumstances, the artist has the right to pursue this person to their satisfaction. This may seem petty to others, but it is still their right.

If you want to be able to defend your rights, then show the same courtesy and not condemn someone for standing up for theirs.

**Death's Messenger**

I have to say that i bet when he posted this question he was not expecting such a large scale debate about it!