Thrown off MM!

Emeritus · by **Emeritus** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 1:50 pm

I was just thrown off Model Mayhem. My profile, they say, is being deleted.

Why? Because I removed some copyrighted material from the site, asked that copies other people had made of it be removed pursuant to their Terms of Service, and they refused. I said I would send a DMCA takedown notice, and they announced that my profile would be deleted.

I made a post about it prior to that in their Site Related forum. In case it still exists, here is the link: http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa ... 4073&page=

And here is the message they just sent me:

"Please feel free to, however our terms of service are clear and our interpretation is that these are archived versions of your text.

In the meantime I am going to be removing your profile from the site as I do not want any other material from you added to the site when your interpretation of our Terms is different than our interpretation."

jwb imagery · by **jwb imagery** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:17 pm

Roger the thump you just heard was my jaw hitting the ground.

It looks to me as if MM is becoming a combination of OMP and a bad social site and grubbing more and more for money. And when I followed your link I found:

This thread was locked on 2009-10-14 13:56:36. Reason: Divulging private correspondence - against the rules.

Thread hidden.

Damn IB has totally lost it and at this moment I am reviewing their rules as published.

Addition:
Just scanned the rules and TOS not 100% sure but I do not see the above rule.
End of addition...

Dumbfounded but glad to see you here!

The Original Sin · by **The Original Sin** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:18 pm

Oy.

That means I have to send all the other models I usually send to you for excellent advice and common sense over here.

Oh noes!!! I imagine I'll get tossed off MM next, for sending newbies to your site for advice and reality checks.

They suck, Roger. You hold 'em, I'll kick them in the crotch.

SLE Photography · by **SLE Photography** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:25 pm

So basically they're refusing to honor the terms of their own TOS where it says once you take your material down it terminates their license to use it?

AFTER the huge flap about them trying to force a "perpetual" license they're now using semantics to say "We own your stuff until you take it down, unless someone quotes it in which case we own it forever"??

Uh...

I'm going to ask Chris to weigh in here on how MI handles this issue.

Lumigraphics · by **Lumigraphics** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:27 pm

OMG that's insane. I have told them chapter and verse about how MM is losing its way. I don't think they got the message. :evil:

Danielle Hampton · by **Danielle Hampton** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:28 pm

Unbelievable...Are they insane?

You were a wealth of knowledge on that site and one of the few people that always made sense. I am sorry they did this to you but they should soon realise it really is their loss.

SLE Photography · by **SLE Photography** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:34 pm

Danielle Hampton wrote:Unbelievable...Are they insane?

You were a wealth of knowledge on that site and one of the few people that always made sense. I am sorry they did this to you but they should soon realise it really is their loss.

What's TRULY pathetic about this is that Roger was recently told he WASN'T helpful, and was no longer welcome to post on MM, which's why he decided to pull the threads down.

Instead, they've now thrown him off the site while leaving all the info up. So while he's "not helpful" or welcome on the site, the site owners are still claiming to own ALL is material. Uh... :roll:

The Model Insider · by **The Model Insider** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:55 pm

The issue of removing posts that are quoted presents a problem, but not an insurmountable one.

Removing all posts by a user is a simple backend operation that can be done in about ten seconds. Finding all quotes, however, requires a full text search for known text. That would mean that whomever wanted it deleted would have to provide the text to be deleted in order to find it.

As it turns out, that's exactly what the DMCA asks for, so the work requirements are in-line with the legal framework.

So, all that said, if someone were to exercise their DMCA rights, I would ask them to provide me the text they want to be removed, I would run the search and remove the text. The first time, it might take a while. I'd surely build a tool for doing it, though.

I can only speak for MI, though. I strongly suspect that other sites with less-than-optimal database design for their forums might be in a serious quandary should such a request have to be fulfilled.

KMVS · by **KMVS** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:58 pm

I wonder whose agenda it was to toss you?

But help me out here someone, I'm not sure I understand what happened.

Roger wrote "X" in a thread and went back to remove it.
In the meantime in having a discussion with Roger in a thread someone quoted his "x."
Roger asks that person to remove their quote of his post and they refused?

And MM is saying that you can't go back and edit out your posts?

HUH?

SLE Photography · by **SLE Photography** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:36 pm

KMVS wrote:I wonder whose agenda it was to toss you?

But help me out here someone, I'm not sure I understand what happened.

Roger wrote "X" in a thread and went back to remove it.
In the meantime in having a discussion with Roger in a thread someone quoted his "x."
Roger asks that person to remove their quote of his post and they refused?

And MM is saying that you can't go back and edit out your posts?

HUH?

Remember the flap about the new TOS earlier this year where IB tried to claim a perpetual & irrevocable license to ANY content (images, words, whatever) that people posted on MM?

They backed down on it after the huge public outcry that ensued and changed the TOS to say their license was limited and when you removed your content it voided their license.

Roger removed all his own posts in some of his educational threads, like his "Is it a scam???" thread. However, other members had QUOTED his words. He contacted MM and asked them to either hide those quote posts or just hide the threads under the TOS terms.

Their response to Roger was "Well once someone else quotes it, we feel that gives us ownership until THAT person removes it, even if it was yours to begin with & you took it down." They're basically making an end-run around their own TOS to claim that they own your content forever if someone quotes it.

The Model Insider · by **The Model Insider** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:43 pm

There's a fundamental problem with this theory.

If by quoting someone else it gives IB a license, that means (read closely) if I take your image and post it, it's no longer yours to control. By IB's logic, if what was posted above is accurate, they're claiming that anything anyone posts is licensed to them. But if what is posted does not belong to the poster, that's problematic, at best. Should Roger send a DMCA notice, it's no different than if someone had posted, even via a quote, one of Roger's photographs. Absent permission to use it, it's a license violation and subject to a DMCA takedown.

Please note that this is not legal advice, but is simply my interpretation and opinion on the subject. I am not advising Roger (or anyone else) on how to deal with this issue. That said, were it me, I would feel that a DMCA was in order.

Emeritus · by **Emeritus** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:53 pm

As soon as I said I didn't agree with their interpretation and intended to send a DMCA notice, they deleted my profile.

The post I made on Site Related is here: http://www.newmodels.com/Terms.html

I've just returned from the post office, where I sent Internet Brands a DMCA takedown notice.

Roger

Emeritus · by **Emeritus** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 3:55 pm

Laura Ann Photography · by **Laura Ann Photography** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:09 pm

Asshats.

The Original Sin · by **The Original Sin** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:25 pm

MM has no real concept of just what they are doing, do they?

Roger, I hope they decide to be asshats. I would love to see what you could do with $10,000 a day, per day, per instance.

Party at your place to celebrate your purchase of MM?

Greg Kolack · by **Greg Kolack** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:27 pm

The "don't rock the boat" mentality has obviously become a part of MM's mantra.

I wonder how many others are on their hit list.

Is anyone following the SG thread, where they are saying SG is not considered porn and therefore can be networked for? Where is their logic?

I had a bad feeling when Tyler sold, and it is all come to be true.

Elizabeth Claret · by **Elizabeth Claret** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:31 pm

I'm honestly....not surprised...

Well, mildly surprised about the copyright thing, but to be honest, I don't know enough about to be properly outraged.

But, you've had a feeling for some time that they were going to start removing vocal members of the site.

Laura Ann Photography · by **Laura Ann Photography** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:46 pm

SLE Photography wrote:
Danielle Hampton wrote:Unbelievable...Are they insane?

You were a wealth of knowledge on that site and one of the few people that always made sense. I am sorry they did this to you but they should soon realise it really is their loss.

What's TRULY pathetic about this is that Roger was recently told he WASN'T helpful, and was no longer welcome to post on MM, which's why he decided to pull the threads down.

Instead, they've now thrown him off the site while leaving all the info up. So while he's "not helpful" or welcome on the site, the site owners are still claiming to own ALL is material. Uh...

It's so amazingly shitty.

So the site that we point all models to, newmodels.com isn't useful? And the author of that isn't useful? And the guy who helps clarify isn't helpful?

Bullshit.

They're bastards, and they're hiding because they know they're bastards.

KMVS · by **KMVS** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:49 pm

SLE Photography wrote:
KMVS wrote:I wonder whose agenda it was to toss you?

But help me out here someone, I'm not sure I understand what happened.

Roger wrote "X" in a thread and went back to remove it.
In the meantime in having a discussion with Roger in a thread someone quoted his "x."
Roger asks that person to remove their quote of his post and they refused?

And MM is saying that you can't go back and edit out your posts?

HUH?

Remember the flap about the new TOS earlier this year where IB tried to claim a perpetual & irrevocable license to ANY content (images, words, whatever) that people posted on MM?

They backed down on it after the huge public outcry that ensued and changed the TOS to say their license was limited and when you removed your content it voided their license.

Roger removed all his own posts in some of his educational threads, like his "Is it a scam???" thread. However, other members had QUOTED his words. He contacted MM and asked them to either hide those quote posts or just hide the threads under the TOS terms.

Their response to Roger was "Well once someone else quotes it, we feel that gives us ownership until THAT person removes it, even if it was yours to begin with & you took it down." They're basically making an end-run around their own TOS to claim that they own your content forever if someone quotes it.

ok thanks.

that's what I suspected.

now my question is this because they're too lazy or don't have the mechanism for removing things and a mod just gave this as an excuse or is this actually policy that they are claiming a license once something is quoted.

SLE Photography · by **SLE Photography** on Wed Oct 14, 2009 4:51 pm

Elizabeth Claret wrote:I'm honestly....not surprised...

Well, mildly surprised about the copyright thing, but to be honest, I don't know enough about to be properly outraged.

But, you've had a feeling for some time that they were going to start removing vocal members of the site.

Let me see if I can clarify the copyright thing. Kind of like what Chris was saying, if I were to take a photo of you from somewhere online & post it in the MM forums, they're now saying they OWN it... even tho *I* never owned it & had no right to it.

Yeah, uhm, no.

Removing some of the vocal members has certainly been on the horizon, but this copyright thing's a shocking legal mess.

Thrown off MM!

Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!

Re: Thrown off MM!