If you chat with a Webcam Slut and you record the show

[Lamis]

If you pay a webcam slut for a webcam show with you and you record the show.

Who owns the copyright of the video and why?

If you say "The Webcam Site", then tell exactly why do say they own the copyright?

It doesn't matter if their TOS on their site says: "We own the copyrights of everything"

I'm not talking about TOS, but about the copyright of the video. Who owns it? Is there really a law that talks about this specific case?

[u-Bob]

good question.

[xenigo]

Copyright law specifies that the photographer owns the copyright to the work, unless ownership of the copyright is transferred to another entity by the photographer.

It comes down to the agreement between the cam model and the site they're working for. Without an agreement stating otherwise, the model is the one who owns the copyright. The model is the photographer, creating the image.

With an agreement between the site and model, it is possible that the site will require use of the material for promotion of the site, promotion of the models feed, etc. I think it would be an unusual circumstance if the site were to actually own the copyright on the content, however... I'm sure they build something into the terms that say the content can be used by the site for whatever purposes they see fit, for as long as they want to use the content for.

But if you're asking if you somehow have a claim on the copyright because you paid the model for a cam show... you are quite mistaken. With the assumption that you owned the copyright on a work that you captured, you're somehow under the assumption that you'd be able to sue anyone and everyone that used that work for financial gain without your permission. Does that sound right to you? I didn't think so. That's because it's not.

[Lamis]

Originally Posted by xenigo

But if you're asking if you somehow have a claim on the copyright because you paid the model for a cam show... you are quite mistaken. With the assumption that you owned the copyright on a work that you captured, you're somehow under the assumption that you'd be able to sue anyone and everyone that used that work for financial gain without your permission. Does that sound right to you? I didn't think so. That's because it's not.

Of course im not going to sue anyone..

I just want to know if someone can claim the copyright of a webcam show a user recorded.

If yes, who do you think is closer to claim the copyright, the model or the site?

Is a "TOS" enough to claim the copyright? Is there no Law talking about this specific case?

[CaptainHowdy]

I'm no lawyer...

[xNetworx]

Originally Posted by Lamis

Of course im not going to sue anyone..

I just want to know if someone can claim the copyright of a webcam show a user recorded.

If yes, who do you think is closer to claim the copyright, the model or the site?

Is a "TOS" enough to claim the copyright? Is there no Law talking about this specific case?

1. you are a douche bag IF you do that.
2. You would get your ass sued by the site she is performing on if you tried to sell it and/or didn't take it down.
3. Don't be an ass clown

[MikeSmoke]

Good thing you were specific.

The law is VERY different, depending on whether it's a "webcam Slut" or a webcam model.

Sheesh.

[cooldude7]

IMHO everything is owned by program owner.,

i use cam programs recorded videos for promotion [with their permission].,. its fully their property.,

[LeRoy]

What would you do if you need to show proof of 2257?

[xNetworx]

Originally Posted by LeRoy

What would you do if you need to show proof of 2257?

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by Lamis

Of course im not going to sue anyone..

I just want to know if someone can claim the copyright of a webcam show a user recorded.

If yes, who do you think is closer to claim the copyright, the model or the site?

Is a "TOS" enough to claim the copyright? Is there no Law talking about this specific case?

I think I answered that already. The model owns the copyright.

The site they are working with will most likely require being licensed to use the content for promotional purposes.

You, the surfer, have no claim to anything. Why would you think you would, anyway?

[Tom_PM]

Why would it not be the same as if you recorded a hollywood blockbuster with a camcorder in a theater?

[xNetworx]

[2MuchMark]

In Canada, Copyright by default is owned by the cam site she works for, not her, and definately not for the person who paid for the show. The cam model owns nothing UNLESS otherwise specified in an agreement.

The chat model licenses her image, likeness, screen name and performance and is paid by the cam site who for all intents and purposes, also "directs" the performance (ie, work for us by getting naked and providing sexual fantasies via webcam) including all rights to future use of those shows unless otherwise stated in a model release. (IE: No model release, the cam site owners everything, she owns nothing).

The customer who pays for the chat show pays for the one-time-only license to view that single performance. Recording it even for personal use might be against the TOS of most cam sites and is definately against the TOS and COPYRIGHT to redistribute.

The same also applies to graphics designers who are employed at web design firm for example. The company, not the individual, owns all copyright on the images and artwork created.

[Supz]

Originally Posted by pimpporn

1. you are a douche bag IF you do that.
2. You would get your ass sued by the site she is performing on if you tried to sell it and/or didn't take it down.
3. Don't be an ass clown

Sounds like he is more worried about the site releasing the video. Not him using the content. I might be wrong.

[ShellyCrash]

Some cam sites will let you record and archive private shows you have paid for, but those videos are property of the site and reside on their servers.

The bottom line is you're not paying the cam girl to create a licensed video that you can sell and redistribute at your own discretion, you're paying her for a one time live performance. You're not paying the cam girl to create a licensed video, you're paying her for a live performance.

[Barry-xlovecam]

We do, the broadcasting site usually by its model and customer TOS agreement.

You (the customer) only have license to view for your payment. It is no different that you viewing a copyrighted film.

Redistribution is copyright infringement.

Should you retain a copy for your own personal use we would not make an issue of that ...

[LeRoy]

@ 4.00 per minute or more. You can do it the right way for the same cost ;)

[KillerK]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

We do, the broadcasting site usually by its model and customer TOS agreement.

You (the customer) only have license to view for your payment. It is no different that you viewing a copyrighted film.

Redistribution is copyright infringement.

Should you retain a copy for your own personal use we would not make an issue of that ...

It's a little different.

The user is actually creating the entire movie. Telling her what to do/say etc.

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by KillerK

It's a little different.

The user is actually creating the entire movie. Telling her what to do/say etc.

LOL whatever dude. If a client is on the phone with me during one of my photoshoots being a backseat photographer saying "shoot it this way, shoot it that way! Do this, do that!" I still own the copyright to my work.

Nice try, though.

[Domain Diva]

You are simply paying to view...even if it is interactive.

[HomerSimpson]

Originally Posted by LeRoy

@ 4.00 per minute or more. You can do it the right way for the same cost ;)

good point...

[Si]

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash

Some cam sites will let you record and archive private shows you have paid for, but those videos are property of the site and reside on their servers.

The bottom line is you're not paying the cam girl to create a licensed video that you can sell and redistribute at your own discretion, you're paying her for a one time live performance. You're not paying the cam girl to create a licensed video, you're paying her for a live performance.

He/She is providing an experience to the viewer and not a product for re-sale.

[VladS]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Why would it not be the same as if you recorded a hollywood blockbuster with a camcorder in a theater?

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

We do, the broadcasting site usually by its model and customer TOS agreement.

You (the customer) only have license to view for your payment. It is no different that you viewing a copyrighted film.

Redistribution is copyright infringement.

Should you retain a copy for your own personal use we would not make an issue of that ...

Case closed.

[cam_girls]

some potential for ADD-VALUE, start a library in each users account, you pay, you direct, you own. At the models discretion.

[Lamis]

Originally Posted by xenigo

I think I answered that already. The model owns the copyright.

The site they are working with will most likely require being licensed to use the content for promotional purposes.

You, the surfer, have no claim to anything. Why would you think you would, anyway?

Well you are wrong in the case the model allows to use the recorded show.

I know you are very very angry at all those tubes and torrents using your content, but.. You must live with it, right?

This is 2011, not 1999, heh.

If your earnings are shrinking don't blame it on others. Blame it on yourself, for WASTING so much of your time on this board.

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by Lamis

Well you are wrong in the case the model allows to use the recorded show.

I know you are very very angry at all those tubes and torrents using your content, but.. You must live with it, right?

This is 2011, not 1999, heh.

If your earnings are shrinking don't blame it on others. Blame it on yourself, for WASTING so much of your time on this board.

Who ever said anything about shrinking earnings? You came here asking a completely retarded question. You are completely misguided.

You know nothing about copyright law. Do yourself a favor and consult an attorney before you get sued by someone like myself who actually has a leg to stand on.

Go take a look at the Wikipedia entry about copyright law if you want to get schooled. Then maybe you won't sound like such a fucking idiot, talking out of your ass about a subject you clearly can't comprehend.

I've been a photographer for a pretty long time, and I've studied these issues for many years. I've read MANY court cases involving copyright infringement, and know more about the laws covering copyright law than attorneys coming out of law school.

So shut the fuck up, and educate yourself before you get your ass handed to you in court.

[2MuchMark]

Lamis, Xenigo is completely right.

Here's another way to look at it.

Let's say that you go to Xenigo's photo studio to get a portrait done for yourself. You pay him for his time and he gives you your portrait. You like your portrait so much that you use it as a sign on your website or on a sign over your office promoting your services. Guess what: Xenigo could sue you for copyright infringement, and he would win. !

What? But you paid for your photo you say. It's a photo of you you say. Certainly, you own the copyright, right? No. Xenigo owns the copyright.

Google search copyright law, and take the time to read it. You're idea of copyright and what is legal is completely wrong and will cost you alot of money one day.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

Why would it not be the same as if you recorded a hollywood blockbuster with a camcorder in a theater?

It would be exactly the same; so end of story.

But it's fun to read all the other dumb shit posted in the
thread anyway

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by KillerK

It's a little different.

The user is actually creating the entire movie. Telling her what to do/say etc.

[Brujah]

It doesn't matter if you setup a Tube site. Everyone knows Tube sites don't need copyrights or model IDs on file, or 2257 documents, etc...

Tube on brotha!

[cam_girls]

It could get cloudy with more interaction, the user controlling the motorized camera with a joystick or dataglove, clicking the photo snap button himself.

Let's say the camgirl co. is leasing their communications platform via their payment platform for the viewer and performer to engage in video conferencing.

The viewer takes temporary virtual control of the performers camera and vice versa.

If I Skype with political member and get a photo of the politician published in the paper there is no way the politician could sue me.

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by cam_girls

It could get cloudy with more interaction, the user controlling the motorized camera with a joystick or dataglove, clicking the photo snap button himself.

Let's say the camgirl co. is leasing their communications platform via their payment platform for the viewer and performer to engage in video conferencing.

The viewer takes temporary virtual control of the performers camera and vice versa.

If I Skype with political member and get a photo of the politician published in the paper there is no way the politician could sue me.

You're also very mistaken. If the politician owns the camera, and the camera is shooting him, and you're recording video / photo / whatever with the video camera, he owns the copyright on the content. Yes, you can be sued because you do not own the content. The photographer does.

Get it? It's pretty fucking simple.

Want to know something else that's interesting about copyright law? Want to take the world's most spectacular picture with MY camera? I own the copyright on that too.


Just because you WANT to own the content, does not give you claim to the content.

[ShellyCrash]

Originally Posted by cam_girls

It could get cloudy with more interaction, the user controlling the motorized camera with a joystick or dataglove, clicking the photo snap button himself.

[cam_girls]

Originally Posted by xenigo

You're also very mistaken. If the politician owns the camera, and the camera is shooting him, and you're recording video / photo / whatever with the video camera, he owns the copyright on the content. Yes, you can be sued because you do not own the content. The photographer does.

Get it? It's pretty fucking simple.

Want to know something else that's interesting about copyright law? Want to take the world's most spectacular picture with MY camera? I own the copyright on that too.


Just because you WANT to own the content, does not give you claim to the content.

I call bullshit. You can't show someone a pic of your friend from Skype?

Video conferencing is just a meeting place.

If you expect sheilas to show themselves naked over the internet and think they're legally protected you're in for a shock, it's unenforceable.

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by cam_girls

I call bullshit. You can't show someone a pic of your friend from Skype?

Video conferencing is just a meeting place.

If you expect sheilas to show themselves naked over the internet and think they're legally protected you're in for a shock, it's unenforceable.

You think you have legal rights to whatever is streamed to you? How exactly did you have a part in the production of that work? Did you pay for it? Did the person who actually produced it sign away the rights for you to utilize it however you choose?

I'm streaming a movie on Netflix right now. That's streamed to me exactly the same way Skype is. You're saying I can go out right now, and republish the work, and sue anyone that takes it from me? You're saying I own the copyright on that work, because it's being streamed to me... is that correct? And now you're saying it's unenforceable?

Do you know what you're talking about? Do you know who the RIAA is? Do you know who the MPAA is? Do you know that a lot of companies make a lot of money doing nothing but suing idiots like yourself who literally have zero comprehension of the way copyright law works?

You're a fucking retard. You have no business spewing the bullshit that comes out of your keyboard.

Go take a few classes in law school, then maybe you can come back here and share with us what you've learned. Until then, go fuck yourself.

[cam_girls]

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash

Now only $369.99!

[cam_girls]

Originally Posted by xenigo

You think you have legal rights to whatever is streamed to you? How exactly did you have a part in the production of that work? Did you pay for it? Did the person who actually produced it sign away the rights for you to utilize it however you choose?

Do you know what you're talking about?

You're a fucking retard. Shut the fuck up.

Oh if that's your argument I better let you win then. After all it's her $20 webcam! That's all there is to it!

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by cam_girls

Oh if that's your argument I better let you win then. After all it's her $20 webcam! That's all there is to it!

You think this has something to do with the cost of the camera?

[cam_girls]

Originally Posted by xenigo

Go take a look at the Wikipedia entry about copyright law if you want to get schooled. Then maybe you won't sound like such a fucking idiot, talking out of your ass about a subject you clearly can't comprehend.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Practical effect of fair use defense

All the factors are considered and balanced in each case: a book reviewer who quotes a paragraph as an example of the author's style will probably fall under fair use even though he may sell his review commercially. But a non-profit educational website that reproduces whole articles from technical magazines will probably be found to infringe if the publisher can demonstrate that the website affects the market for the magazine, even though the website itself is non-commercial.

It seems that you could sample a few minutes of as many camgirls' shows as you've got footage of and put up affiliate links! No different to movie reviews on commercial TV.

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by cam_girls

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Practical effect of fair use defense




It seems that you could sample a few minutes of as many camgirls' shows as you've got footage of and put up affiliate links! No different to movie reviews on commercial TV.

I personally know a program that received a $1,200,000 judgement against them doing exactly what you're talking about doing. Are you a gambling man?

They're no longer in business. They couldn't afford to operate after the judgement.

[ShellyCrash]

Originally Posted by xenigo

Do you know what you're talking about? Do you know who the RIAA is? Do you know who the MPAA is? Do you know that a lot of companies make a lot of money doing nothing but suing idiots like yourself who literally have zero comprehension of the way copyright law works?

Xenigo, I think you're new to Cam_Girls. Logic has no home in this conversation.

Some light reading so you know who you're engaging in debate:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/20...365742538.html

http://fragerfactor.blogspot.com/201...t-on-rick.html

[cam_girls]

I call bullshit again!

Shelly I've explained 20 times already those news articles are based on forgeries.

[ShellyCrash]

Originally Posted by cam_girls

I call bullshit again!

Shelly I've explained 20 times already those news articles are based on forgeries.

You've already posted here at great length about your time spent committed to a psychiatric hospital due to the events described in the first article. Anyone can pull up posts made by your user name to back up the information in the links above.


You're right, they must be forgeries. Must be the blasted mind control waves the Australian Govermnet is beaming down from space, making you admit to those acts.. shame on them. We all know it's only a matter of time before your true greatness will be revealed to all when you finally win the James Randy prize.

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by cam_girls

I call bullshit again!

You can call bullshit as many times as you'd like, but that doesn't bring truth to anything you're talking about.

I've sent this thread to a few attorneys that regularly post on this forum. Hopefully they'll be able to enlighten you, and steer you in the right direction.

[Tjeezers]

Yo Fuck Face
You call cam models sluts?

I call you a cheap cock sucker

[cam_girls]

Uh, the fair use cite from Wikipedia clearly details review sites as being fair use.

As for your $1,200,000 case supporting your dubious claims, if it was that much there would be a newspaper article.

You are blind, stupid, and a liar, all clearly proven above.

That's 2 GFY liars caught out today!

[xenigo]

Originally Posted by cam_girls

Uh, the fair use cite from Wikipedia clearly details review sites as being fair use.

As for your $1,200,000 case supporting your dubious claims, if it was that much there would be a newspaper article.

You are blind, stupid, and a liar, all clearly proven above.

That's 2 GFY liars caught out today!

Except you know and I know that you're not talking about stealing cam feed content so you can "review the site".

Hit me up on ICQ or Skype if you think I'm not being truthful, and I'll let you know more than enough details.

Then I recommend actually contacting an attorney before you lose your ass in a most serious kind of way.

[$5 submissions]

Originally Posted by Lamis

Of course im not going to sue anyone..

I just want to know if someone can claim the copyright of a webcam show a user recorded.

If yes, who do you think is closer to claim the copyright, the model or the site?

Is a "TOS" enough to claim the copyright? Is there no Law talking about this specific case?

What governs this situation is the terms between the web cam performer and the network/company she is doing freelance work for. If there's a work for hire provision, then the finished product--the streamed performance is owned by the network. If there's no such provision, the rights owner is the performer by default by operation of what Xenigo described above. The performer is the "photographer" or "videographer".

[adultmobile]

As someone posted already, there are default laws (similar in all countries, just a little different between US and Euro), but these applies if there's no one contract that overwrites them. So this is not same for all cam shows but it depends by the agreement (TOS - Terms of Service) between the cam girl and the site, and also between the customer and the cam site. In a TOS a site can write that you accept to pay them forver for no reason until you are alive, and if you accept it, that's it, you are bound to it, even if this is silly. So if a model accept a TOS where all his private chats are property of the site and she have no one right (not evne moral right) and she accept also these clips to be used in advertising so published without need to ask further consents, well she agreed to this and she can't complain so much. If in agreement the model would accept also that users get right to own store distribute freely the private chats, that make the users entitled to do what they want and in practice, the model agrees the private chats videos goes into the public domain.
So the question should be made about a specific site and should be provided the TOS of member and contract of model, to say definitely what's the case, site by site.
In general (but not always) the copyright of video is either by model or site, and so the customer should get written consent from model, site or both, to redistribute or even store on own computer a copy of the private video (unless already provided as site feature).
In the specific case of our site ChatGF.com, we decided we're like skype or yahoo messenger and so, we have right to stream the private once, but copyrights keeps to the model for redistribution, so the user should get a written consent from model to store and especially redistribute the private chats recordings, plus get copy of 2257 docs if he don't want other type of issues.
Usually, guys don't ask at all and simply may record private chats and upload in forums or tubes - then when a model finds her private in forums accessible from her neighbours, write upset to us (the cam site) and asks us to contact those forums or tubes for take down (russian teenager girls may be not the top laywers out there so is normal they ask the cam site to intervene).
I know of a model who got a color printed copy of her private chat frames, sticked to her home door in Kiev. Neighbours had quite fun at it, obviously she had not that much fun. It happens.