Milovana.com

Hi,

This has no doubt been covered before but im struggling to find it.

What s the policy with regard to copyright and how does it work. I'm thinking about doing my first webtease and wanted to use pictures of some celebrities. If i was to just google images of say 'britney spears' and use them in a tease is that allowed or is it a copyright infringement?

thanks
Pete

i'd imagine if they're publicly available they'd have a serious problem trying to enforce anything IF it were an infringement.. however i have recently been thinking about putting audio into a webtease, using that from a website [especially if its free hosted paid for content] would be a different case i'd imagine.

In the case of Milovana, and the use these pictures are put to, they can be considered as falling under "fair use", which means you are not trying to take credit for, imply or state that you have ownership, or using the property for any sort of monetary gain, among other things.

Pretty much anything posted in any media form is considered protected by copyright, even if warning is not placed, such as "Copyright 2006 by Me".

On the other hand, the intent is important. For the uses here on Milovana, unless the picture has specific warnings attached denying use such as this, then it is fair game.

Problem is most people dont really know what Copyright means.

As for the audio, same rules apply. If you want to use a popular song in your tease, you can. If you want to use a popular song to sell a product, you cannot.
As long as Milovana is a free site, then these rules apply. but dont ask for money in your tease

littlepos wrote:As long as Milovana is a free site, then these rules apply. but dont ask for money in your tease

You are correct that copyright is automatic and requires no notice or warning. However, you are completly wrong and mis-informed with respect to how fair use works (at least under US law).

Rights conferred by copyright:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/us ... -000-.html

Fair Use exceptions:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/us ... -000-.html

The only thing close to what you're rambling on about is 107(1):

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

I highly doubt horny guys masturbating on the Internet qualifies as nonprofit educational purposes.

No, the police are not going to drop in on anyone or raid servers or anything like that. Copyright is actionable by the right holder in civil court...

The interesting thing is that there are teases where permission has been explicitly granted -- those ones with the sponsored links. Without knowing anything of the deal behind it, I'd say that is a smart move for both sides.

1) This site isn't hosted in the US, so US law is irrelevant.

2) Fair use is a somewhat amorphous legal concept which tends to mean whatever a good lawyer can convince a judge it means. Just because you believe you are publishing something under fair use, doesn't mean the copyright owner can't successfully sue you.

3) That's irrelevant because fair use is a concept under US law, see 1)

4) As far as I am aware, picture sites basically never get sued for copyright infringement. If you're a celebrity, it's far more harmful to draw attention to the fact that you're being used in porn. If you're a porn star, the free advertising is worth more than the lost revenue.

5) This site hasn't been sued for copyright yet, despite the fact that almost none of the pictures here are posted by the copyright owners (we love you, little miss jay!). This includes a number of teases using celebrity picks. One more web tease isn't going to be the straw, I'm guessing.

6) A far bigger problem than copyright for this site would be 2257 violation. That's the well-intentioned-but-poorly-written law that says that any sexually explicit materials (too vaguely defined) have to be backed up by not-well-enough-guarded-to-ensure-safety-and-privacy-of-the-models records proving the age of the models. It's way more scary to be prosecuted by the US government for child porn than it is to be sued by Britney Spears. Except see 1)

7) That would be a fun case, in some unlikely hypothetical world where Britney's lawyers cared and the images were posted on a site hosted in the US. Does Britney's semi-pornographic public use of her own image mean other semi-pornographic public uses fall within the first amendment, under a similar kind of public figure justification established in People v Larry Flint where the court basically ruled it was ok for Larry Flint to say Jerry Falwell lost his virginity to his drunk mother in a toilet because Falwell had voluntarily placed himself in the public eye, and is the reason Jon Stewart is allowed to do what he does and thank god for that? Yes, I'm a law geek in case you hadn't noticed by now.

8) Does anyone remember a story from orgasmdenial.com or somewhere back in the day where a mistress catches her slave beating off to Britney and makes him sing oops I did it again while she spanks him or something equally delightfully humiliating? That was a hot story.

9) Talking of od.com and 2257, the reason the orgasmdenial.com galleries and webteases went down (tragedy!) and this site was created hosted outside the US (genius! better than ever!) was because of fear of 2257 prosecution.

10) Even if you ignore all this, it's the owners of the site who would get in trouble, not you.

11) Go for it on the tease, you have nothing to worry about, is my convoluted point here.

1) I did not realize that. However, the Netherlands is a signatory to the Berne Convention so the local laws (of the Netherlands) would apply equally to international works.

http://www.ivir.nl/legislation/nl/copyrightact.html

Also, the About page mentions a potential server in Toronto, which would (possibly) make Canadian law apply to that.

2) Yes, a good lawyer can prove that black is white under certain circumstances, so you never really know for certain how something will come out in the end. This point is spurious because I could say the exact same thing - that a good lawyer could refute Milovana's disclaimer entirely (you can't always disclaim yourself out of liability)

3) Yes, the term is American. Canada uses "Fair Dealing", and the act I linked above from the Netherlands doesn't use any specific term however Article 16, for example, is pretty much the same thing.

4) Yes. It's probably not profitable to sue for a number of reasons including the value of any specific image. That the site does not make money would not remove liability, however it would certainly mitigate any monetary claim.

5) As I said, the fact that there are sponsored images shows that the right thing has been done and permission has been sought. That individuals uploading their own content is fantastic and is an implicit, if not explicit, grant of permission for use. All of this would certainly go to mitigate any problems as it demonstrates that Milovana is not a site that capriciously or even routinely seeks to violate copyright. This is all good in Milovana's favour.

6) fair enough.

7) Jon Stewart can do what he does because of usual exemptions for satire and news reporting. He does both, so he is fine under copyright. Truth is always a defense against slander and libel, for anyone against anyone. You cannot defame someone with the truth. Lies and fantasies, on the other hand, are not. However, yes, it's not like any government polices slander or libel - individuals and clients have to do the work of tracking down "bad guys".

8) Hmm.. copyright infringement punishment series. A master/mistress punishes a "bad" user for violating copyright.

9) Yes, the US is becoming quite annoying for various morality laws. They have good reason for existing, but the laws can sometimes be used to do the wrong thing.

10) Not necessarily, although probably. You cannot simply disclaim liability and, since (as far as I understand) Milovana hosts, provides access to, and transmits the images, there could be a measure of culpability there. You can't just say "I am not liable for any damages caused by this brick" and then throw it through a window and expect to have indemnity. Again, good lawyer, etc..

11) Here is the meat of the problem and I'll expose why I am on a certain point of view. I am a published author of several books, and copyright is the thing that helps me make money. I am no billionaire. I make my modest living by selling books (both electronically and not) and enjoy international protections of copyright. It sustains my life in all ways and, as such, I respect it a lot more than a lot of people seem to do.

But let us forget copyright for a moment, and get to the heart of the problem... What gives you the right?

If you didn't create something, if you don't have permission to use it, what gives you the right to exploit it for any reason? It's hard to make an analogue between infringement and theft because one is clearly not like the other.

Anyway, the bottom line is that most people, including (apparently) you, don't understand what INTERNATIONAL copyright law seeks to protect. It serves to grant creative people exclusive exploitation rights over their work, usually for a limited time as so to eventually enrich the public domain, in order to encourage them to create more.

By using things without permission, you discourage creative people from being creative. Why would anyone go into professional photography if they have no way to profit from their work? Sure, it may be a fun hobby, but professionals devote their lives to it. Why write a book, make a movie, paint a picture if no one is going to pay you? "The Last Supper," "Mona Lisa," even the mural on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were done for profit.

It doesn't matter much to me, anyway, because no one here is violating my rights. At the end of the day, what matters most is how much the infringement matters to whomever owns the rights. I think we both agree that most copyright owners probably wouldn't care about the level at Milovana, and would be better served by coming up with an agreement like the "sponsored" kink.com images than suing anyone.

I implore the original poster to do the right thing and NOT use images that they do not have the right to use, simply on the grounds that it is not right. But, do as you like, it doesn't affect me and you'll probably get away with it.

And, aside from all that, Milovana Terms of Service 5(c) forbids you from uploading stuff that you do not have permission to upload.

So don't do it.

Thanks for the detailed reply, teasetoy.

You're right in general that being outside the US doesn't grant immunity. But I think it is fair to say it makes it much less likely there'd be prosecution.

On the flexibility of fair use, I didn't mean to be so generic. Having had some experience with fair use, I think it's an especially wishy-washy area of the law, and more open to interpretation and fancy lawyering than normal. That's not really quantifiable though, just my impression.

This might be one of those things that's better not said, but the fact is the vast majority of the pictures on milovana aren't either sponsored or the property of the uploader. The official images the site uses (in Urge) are, but pictures used in most teases not so much (kink.com being the exception). I agree Milovana doesn't actively encourage this and explicitly forbids it in the tos (as it should) - but this is a cya clause, no? Not that there's anything wrong with that. In any case, no problem so far.

You make a good point that the photographer as the producer of the work would have grounds to sue, which is really more a true copyright issue than Britney suing, which would be a use-of-image type of issue - which is what led me to that digression about Jerry Falwell.

I think we're both agreed that realistically, it's incredibly unlikely there would be any sort of legal action. If there was, it would further be likely that it would just consist of a cease and desist letter which milovana could satisfy by yanking the images.

I think it's a little unfair to say I'm ignorant of the reasons behind copyright law since I didn't address that in my post at all. I'll try and avoid being too long winded on this big question here, but I will say that I agree with you about the legitimacy of copyright as a concept, and the right that producers of a work have to profit from that work. However, unlike someone republishing your books without permission, Britney Spears (or her photographer) isn't at risk of loss of income due to the republishing in this obscure corner of the web of a few pictures already available on google image search - and I'd say any court case based on that would stretch the sensible reach of the law towards frivolity.

If we're raising moral questions though, it's maybe worth considering that since Britney Spears is not actually a porn star there's some vague consent issues involved with turning her into one. It's a little like those sites that trawl social networking sites for sexually suggestive images of random college girls and repackage them as porn, which I've always thought was a little creepy.

In any case, the moral decision is up to the conscience of the op.

Thanks again for the posts, I like it when we have discussions in this community.

First, allow me to apologize for going a bit too far with the ignorant stuff. You're obviously, at the very least, knowledgeable and, more importantly, quite thoughtful. My comment in-line was quite rude and out of line.

The underlying problem with media, in general, is that reproduction is nearly trivial. It's hard to value in the same terms that we value physical things. All the rules are artificial and vague and are different from culture to culture. Where one person sees something to be exploited for profit, another person sees opportunity to cultivate culture.

One of the interesting things about a web tease that uses "stolen" images is that it is itself something new. That is, it's a sort of derived work that enhances and changes the perception of the image. The girl in the image isn't just a sexy model anymore, a new narrative or story has been added that can change what the audience sees. Compare, for example, with fusker (a tool which had a primary use of bulk-downloading images, mostly from porn sites) which added nothing new - just stealing the images.

And this goes to the idea of Britney Spears, who is not a porn model. An image of her is sexy and is co-opted for a new, perhaps unintended, purpose. The template "pop-star" is corrupted into a "seductress" template and a new perception is unveiled. That's a hard thing to apply a morality label to. I mean, on one hand you could call it corruption and, on the other, call it artistic liberty.

Copyright is one of those interesting things. It's a law that is difficult to clearly define, far too easy to break, and almost impossible to quantify in specific terms (a.k.a. RIAA mathematics).

:)