the surprising reason why I probably won't post more nude photos
Jun 12, 2017 20:19:49 #
Jun 12, 2017 20:23:36 #
MichaelH
Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI
PaulG wrote:
Perhaps one way around it is to post low grade images.
Way to think outside the box!!!
Or just describe the image in text - but they will own the text!
Jun 12, 2017 20:38:16 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter
Loc: Los Angeles
MichaelH wrote:
I have to admit that I had not read the TOU. And I... (show quote)
by which I mean sell banner ads A model just gave me a suggestion: "Why don't you just post your worst photos?" Another idea, as posted above, is the idea of posting a link to photo hosted off UH.
Jun 12, 2017 21:31:36 #
MichaelH
Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI
A potential issue with photographers who have contracts with models or entities they photograph (like a hotel for example) could potentially be extending to UHH rights to the images that the photographer does not have the right to give. That could open him or her to liability from the model AND the UHH site. I read the amount $100,000 a couple of times in the TOU. And that was not $100k that UHH would be paying you - it was $100k to them if you got UHH in trouble.
Jun 12, 2017 22:33:42 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
A model just gave me a suggestion: "Why don't you just post your worst photos?" Another idea, as posted above, is the idea of posting a link to photo hosted off UH.
"...any communication between Visitor and Website is deemed a submission."
Not a lawyer but I would be careful about posting a link, which is considered a "submission", license of which you have granted to the website.
Jun 13, 2017 09:31:02 #
MichaelH
Loc: NorCal via Lansing, MI
focuspuller wrote:
"...any communication between Visitor and Website is deemed a submission."
Not a lawyer but I would be careful about posting a link, which is considered a "submission", license of which you have granted to the website.
Not a lawyer but I would be careful about posting a link, which is considered a "submission", license of which you have granted to the website.
https://www.google.com/webhp ::: https://www.wikipedia.org/ ::: https://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/flicker/
Oh, no! I just gave UHH worldwide rights to Google, WikiPedia and Flickr.
I am sure the law does not work that way. If Google's TOU said that Google owned your home if you do a search on Google I am sure that would not be enforceable.
Jun 13, 2017 09:42:31 #
rmalarz wrote:
Why stop at nudes? This might be a reason to cease posting any work.
--Bob
--Bob
It seems,explicitly, to mean that any image posted to UHH by any photographer at any time in the past has been posted with explicit licensure by the posting photographer to UHH to use that image in any manner it wishes for its own purposes.
Dave
Jun 13, 2017 11:13:54 #
MichaelH wrote:
Yeah, it surely wouldn't work in the examples you give. Since you do not own Google, WikiPedia, and Flickr (taking a wild guess here), you do not have anything to license, so your analogy is not apt. A link to photos you own MAY be interpreted to fall within the extremely broad claims of the UHH TOU. Like I said, I am not a lawyer, only advising to "be careful."
Jun 13, 2017 13:03:31 #
Los-Angeles-Shooter wrote:
the following from ugly hedgehog terms of service amounts to an unfair rights grab. It's unfair to many photographers, and unfair to many models. Some photographers don't mind giving ugly hedgehog an eternal license to do whatever he wants with their photos. I am bothered by that demand. I also note that members give up the right to take legal action if ugly hedgehog exceeds even this overly broad parameters.
I'm not particularly worried about it but if I were, I'd just watermark the hell out of my images.
Jun 13, 2017 15:05:04 #
Yes, although I find watermarks annoying to look at, jeep's suggestion may be the best option here, although it could require going back to the original file and doing so. The watermarks would have to be in a place where they don't distract from the pic, but can't be easily 'Shopped out. And yes, for most of what we do in the nudes/budoir section, low rez and smaller size images should work.
Jun 13, 2017 15:50:12 #
I NEVER post anything here that I would sell or put on a Stock site. For the reasons mentioned above.
Jun 13, 2017 16:15:40 #
Just my opinion, but posting degraded, lo-rez, heavily watermarked, inferior pics to a photography website to avoid the likelihood of the work being appropriated by the website defeats the purpose of posting in the first place. For me, I post for constructive criticism of my work. How that can happen with seriously inferior photos is beyond me.
Jun 13, 2017 17:34:54 #
I said nothing aboutposting "heavily" watermarked, "degraded", or "inferior" photos. Most of the c&c regarding focus, composition, posing, tone, lighting (which is most of it) can readily be accomplished with photos of smaller size and lower resolution than what would be needed for re-sale. No need to exaggerate.
Jun 13, 2017 21:40:57 #
The solution to this is to find another site that does not abuse the users as this site obviously does. If someone knows of one, we can all abandon this site and go to the other. The other option is for someone with the ability to do so to start a new site that is fair to all.
Jun 13, 2017 22:21:00 #
I'm just wondering how many other people on other sections of UHH are aware of this issue? 
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.