Over in the WAM forum, I've seen a couple of posts which go like this (paraphrased):
"I've made some videos and posted them online, but then I deleted them because I felt embarrassed. I want someone else to post them for me so that I can't delete them, because I want to be humiliated."

See:
https://umd.net/forums/can-we-admit-that-exposure-and-humiliati

(I posted this as a new thread rather than a reply, because if that person deletes his post then any replies will disappear too.)

As I understand it, a producer needs to have a model release before they can post videos here. What happens if the model changes their mind later? It has happened before, e.g. Messy Jessie asked for her topless videos to be taken down when her kids started school, and the producers all cooperated. Can the producer say no? After all, if they've paid for all the costs of a video (not just the model fee) and then they take it down, they'll lose any more sales. This should probably be covered by the contract, and maybe there should be a "buy out" clause.

Now consider the OP's scenario. Suppose that I said "Sure, I'll post your videos, and I won't take them down". He then changes his mind and I say "Nope, sucks to be you!" Then he posts on here with a plaintive story: "My employer/family/neighbours saw those videos, and it's ruining my life. I've begged flank to take them down, but he won't do it." In that situation, I haven't lost any money (since I never paid for the shoot and I'm not selling anything), so I'd look like a complete arsehole to everyone else.

Based on that, I wouldn't touch that arrangement with a bargepole, and I'd advise other people to avoid it too. However, I am curious about how the UMD would handle that situation. E.g. would they take the videos down when the "producer" wants to keep them up?

Legally there isn't anything a model can do once they've done a "work for hire" and signed the release. Like I always say, Tom Hanks couldn't show up at a Walmart and start kicking all the copies of Forrest Gump off the shelf

In our world there's more to it though. We are *required* to remove content if a claim has been put against it by a model, plus we have to document the incident with the biller per the latest CC requirements. Even after temporary removal, I always work with the model and the producer to try and resolve the issue, which most of the time is a conflict over who can own and sell the content.

That all said, there is nothing that says a producer with a heart can't remove something out of respect for the model, laws and contracts notwithstanding. And people on this site happen have a whole lot of heart. That's what you saw with the Jessie situation.

Hope that answers

[Edited to remove the phrase "90% of the time is the model trying to reclaim their content so they can sell it themselves..." That wasn't only nonscientific but sounded like models being two-faced or something, which wasn't the intent. Conflict over owning and selling is more accurate.]

What about yelling "Nope! Na na na na boo boo!" in her ear and slamming the phone down?

If a model signs a release and asks for it to be removed and the producer decides not to, no matter how big of a stink the model makes, the UMD would not force it? Would that mean that like Jayce could release some of hers that Ariel said no to but Jayce is being a decent person?

The producer doesn't have a choice. I'll suspend the content and see if we can get some sort of resolution.

I've always wondered about this and how it works an a industry wide scale i remember I spoke with a lawyer named Lawrence about how the porn industry handles legal forms of consent an A form which is before you shot something on video or audio and then a b form afterwards to confirm you are comfortable with what just happened before any of it is allowed online. He also said he has to approve things of hired by sites or studios.
https://youtu.be/V72OBM4-PcQ?si=GaIzTv9prNC-EuE5

If a model can revoke consent what is the point of signing a contract or release? It kind of screws the producer in that sense.

The model release establishes ownership of the content and the model can't revoke that. But we still have to suspend content if we get a complaint.

If they sign a model release, my understanding is that's the end of it legally. That's the whole reason why we have model releases. There is no other.

That said, if I get such a request, I will honor it.

I shot my videos years ago. There isn't a single scene that's under 10 years old now. Sometimes things change.

Nessie

That makes sense. I was looking at things more from a model falling out with a producer viewpoint and not a model decided that they did not want their content to be sold anymore for personal reasons and hoping to work with the producer. In those situations I fully support the model being able to purchase their way out of the situation. Work out a deal with the producer.

Let's say a model decides to make a complaint against the producer to the UMD to have their content removed without any kind of payment to the producer for the rights. Would the producer be able to go after the model for violating the contract, or for loss of income if it was a top selling video?

This is an interesting post, if only because it encourages us to recognise the multiple issues that must arise on a site like this.
And to think of the work that goes in, behind the scenes.
So, thanks to Messmaster.
Otherwise, none of us would be here.
And a final thought; I've been posting my pictures/ vids of my wet trunks for years.
I'm glad that no-one disputes ownership!
Peter

From the legal perspective, copyright laws are given to the person who created the images. Unless a photographer/videographer sells the rights to their images, it belongs to them for them to use as they please. Models are not given any rights to any image they appear in unless the copyright holder agrees to give them rights. And for anyone who makes such deals, get it documented. In the U.S, it's customary for models to sign a consent forms. But the lack of a signature does not diminish the producer's rights to the images they produce. Rather a consent form is intended to protect the producer by having a physical document which can be produced if necessary to show a model agreed to appear in the producer's images.

Of course a model may change their mind and wish to have images which they appear in, removed. But if the producer refuses the model's request, under the law, the model has no recourse.

The model could offer to purchase the copyrights to the images they appear in, but there is no guarantee that a producer accept the offer.

In general, I usually grant such requests. With only one exception. We had worked with a model a few years ago. She was a fantastic model and I really wished we could have worked with her more often. But she thought we were making a lot of money on her images and thought she should be paid more. Another words, she got greedy. We don't make very much doing wetlook. So when we refused to pay her more and chose not to work with her, she requested we take down all photosets she appeared in. I did! For a few years, but then I put them all back up again.


Outside UMD's policies, the model would have no recourse. The producer can simply ignore the model and continue selling their images, perhaps outside of the UMD, if necessary.

EdwinR
asplashofglamour.com

I like this where the producer could set up an Only Fans for the content. It feels like the model request policy is giving more rights to the model than the producer.

It's been my experience that when businesses have policies, those policies are intended to protect their interests.

We could speculate on why UMD has such a policy, and we can assume that it's there to protect them, but in the end, they can operate their business as they please, but at the same time none of us are obligated to use them.

EdwinR
asplashofglamour.com