File: 1367357430908.jpg-(90 KB, 471x429, jnigbitch.jpg)

90 KB JPG

Well Jnig apparently agrees that the photographer is childish.

"I was about to post a huge rant..... and then... TWO FUCKS WERE NOT GIVEN! :D

Keep calm and... Nigri on?"

She really bitched about the photographer who demanded her to stop selling prints without their permission.

Jessica has hit a new level of full of it.

Miscommunication and people jumping on band wagons, business as usual.

>>6805260
>that fucking beta commenting at the bottom
What a tool lol.

Technically, neither of the model or photographer are legally allowed to make money off the photo. And from what I'm seeing on the photographers actual facebook page, the link was taken down anyway.

>>6805291
> Jnigs being underhanded, self-absorbed and trying to profit by piggybacking off other people's work and assuming the rules don't apply to her because she's a cute girl, business as usual.

Fixed.

>>6805299
>Technically, neither of the model or photographer are legally allowed to make money off the photo

That isn't true, what are you smoking. It depends on the photographer, and the conditions of which the photo was taken, if it is stated that the photos belong to one party or the other, the party in which they belong to has all legal rights to make money, however in TFP or the like, the photos belong to both parties at the same time, which means neither party can profit off of the photos.

Honestly as a photographer I'm not sure how I would have handled this situation.
Nigri has too many people riding on her cock to really make a lasting point without being blasted by enormous amounts of blind whiteknighting.

As far as the actual legality of anything goes doesn't really matter, but the fact that she took off someone's watermark without their permission is shady as fuck. Every deviantard and tumblrfag I know would've gotten pissy at that.

File: 1367358741445.jpg-(81 KB, 471x429, forreal.jpg)

81 KB JPG

Yes it's totally childish to ask someone to stop stealing their work without their permission and selling it for your own profit.

Also, the overflowing amounts of creepy and beta in this guys post made me chuckle.

>>6805304

and the fact that people are trying to make money off the image of a character under copyright doesn't factor into it?

>>6805307
So cringeworthy.

>>6805307
>>6805319
I can practically hear the mouthbreathing.

I mean why not just split profits with the photog? I'm sure as long as there is pay for both sides there shouldn't be a problem?

>>6805299
Technically, if you post it on facebook at all, it's now their image, not the photographer nor the model's.

>>6805323
>I mean why not just split profits with the photog?
Obviously she'd rather not and just take all the profit for herself from those shitty prints.

And really what can the photog do? I mean..

Not even slightly surprised, considering how she likes to pass off other people's work as her own by not ever giving credit unless the person is Volpin for example.
I think it is hilarious she didn't just apologize and move on.

>>6805308
No it does not. Why would it? It's the same concept as original fan art.

>>6805325
No, that's not true either, facebook doesn't own the rights to your image in its entirety, they own the rights to use it.

>>6805356
Actually, even with fan art, companies like Marvel, DC, etc. could crack down if they wanted to, but know better because of what a blow that would be to their fans, and subsequently the company's own profits.

>>6805323
Because she's literally only into cosplay to make money off of neckbeards with more expendable income than brains, and doesn't particularly care who she climbs over to get her way, and gets away with it because of her army of deluded whiteknights and the occasional person fooled by her IRL "omg so nice~" routine. This is common knowledge.

>>6805413
so every single poster sale she's done there has been 0 part of that profit to the photographer? That sounds really stingy and I doubt they would keep working with her if that was the case

I'm sure she gets enough orders to be able to split and have decent profit left for herself

>>6805423
If the photographers are lonely neckbeards, I doubt they'd care.

>>6805423
She's sold over 200 posters.
Yeah, Photographers need to step up and call her out. One did and then she sends her whiteknight troupe against him

>>6805307
I am preeeetty sure the bottom commenter is being sarcastic, just FYI.

>>6805456
Ljinto doesn't care, he pays for her flight tickets to go to events. The guy thinks if he showers her enough she will get with him.

From their slightly hidden support section:
"Storenvy takes your creative rights very seriously. We have a "zero tolerance" policy for any kind of theft of intellectual property including but not limited to trademarks, patents, copyrights and existing creative works. If at any point a merchant has is suspected of offering merchandise or products containing intellectual property that they do not own or have written permission to reproduce and/or sell, the store will be suspended immediately. Unless the merchant can provide proof they they are the creator of the work or have permission to reproduce and/or sell the work, the closure will remain permanent."

Of course if she goes to another place then he'll have to chase and go for another takedown, repeat ad naseum.

Her beta orbiters and neckbeards aren't gonna care about integrity or whoever photographer she fucks over.
As far as they're concerned, anyone trying to claim rights to that picture is just getting in the way and muddling their opportunities to have it and get their rocks off.

>>6805466
Does anyone have a pic of Ljinto? I am quite curious about him.

Well this is disappointing. :/ I was just starting to feel neutral about her.

>>6805236 (OP)
Ok so... I do not care much about jnig one way or the other. But I'm sure this will be taken as white knighting, but oh well.

I find it HIGHLY unlikely that with the marketing/business advisers that she probably has that they don't have a contract drafted up that photogs have to sign off on with whichever shoot they are using specifically for print sales. I mean, she's been doing this long enough that it would really blow my mind that she and her advisers hadn't thought of that from the get go to cover their asses since that's how she's making money. I mean, with me thinking that, it sounds like this guy didn't read the fine print and got butthurt about it, realized his mistake, and then took down the post after realizing that.

>>6805413
>Actually, even with fan art, companies like Marvel, DC, etc. could crack down if they wanted to
Could they? I'm not too familiar with American copyright law but I was under the impression fanart could come under fair use, especially if it's not being sold.

It'd be harder in countries with fair dealing.

>>6805568
And before I get someone saying 'lol she doesn't have any people working for her, she's not a professional' it's not as if most people, even people with few contacts, don't have SOMEONE in either a legal or some kind of marketing position and I would not be surprised if she's asked for advice from people she knows about that kind of thing.

I didn't mean to make it sound super professional or anything, just that I didn't believe she didn't have something in place to cover her ass so she can sell the prints based on advice from someone in her network.

>>6805568

I think you are giving her team too much credit.

but on the flip side a lot of con photographers dont know shit about the business of photographer so I can see that happening. I can also see the photog not having model release on him.

>>6805590
she has an agent and gets paid to attend cons now .... I think she's a "professional" as much as most people hate to admit

but yeah I think she just assumed this random photographer who happened to take 1 good photo would of been cool with it but apparently he's not so it backfired on her

>>6805568

The post is still up on their facebook, they didn't delete it. And she took the photo down from her store so I'm not sure that's the case

>>6805638
Ah ok, I hadn't checked either FB to see, I simply went off what was said here about it being deleted. Welp, then I agree, it appears she tried to get away with something and it backfired.

>>6805638
>And she took the photo down from her store so I'm not sure that's the case
Nice. Serves her right.

>>6805629
>she has an agent
Lol no she doesn't

>>6805569
Yes, they can indeed. Disney is notorious for cracking down hard whether it's telling a daycare center that painted Mickey on its walls to brighten the interior or some kid drawing a Disney character and posting it online to share their work, Disney has been known to get bitchy about people using their characters without authorization or buying an officially licensed product.

Both of the things I mentioned are real cases. That said, the Daycare center would've been ok to use Disney branded wall decals or something to decorate, but the kid... the kid still would've gotten it. The kid's family was issued a letter telling them to take down his artwork or they'd use a legal course of action. It's the same idea when Disney doesn't allow cosplay in the parks (1 reason being because you could be confused with staff), but when they do allow it for special days, you can't come in wearing say, a princess dress or any costume that could be construed as officially licensed merch because they want to sell their products only. They're very protective of their characters etc.

I think most companies realize that fan-created content, whether it's actual art or cosplaying their characters and getting photos, is a way to basically build their base up with the fans. Most game and comic companies tend to be pretty neutral or ok with fan-created content.

Out of curiosity I went to her fb page and the amount of pathetic fawning beta comments there are insane

>>6805666
>>6805629

I'm curious, does she have a kind of PR team or some type of handler? Can anyone name names?

Kindly Fuck off

>>6805677
To be fair, Disney is worse about copyright issues than most, for example their attempting to get long-public domain fairytale characters copyrighted for the fact that they've used them.

>>6805681
She promotes herself and gets her beta fanboys to help. The only money she makes is from selling prints of herself. The cons she's a guest at will cover her travel expenses but cosplay guests usually don't get per diem. When they do it's still not even close to enough $ to use to afford an agent. Her day job is at Trader Joe's. That speaks for itself.

So I know some cosplayers sell prints of themselves, but are their photographers that sell prints of the cosplays they've photographed?

Anyone have any they can recommend?

>>6805713
Agreed, hence my last sentences. Most companies don't budge unless someone makes a huge issue, nabs a lot of attention, and/or stands to gain significant amounts from their property e.g. fan-made video games or movies.

>>6805297
I read it as sarcasm/mockery in my head. I prefer to think that there aren't people in the world who are that big of tools.

>>6805329
Storenvy is a small platform for selling. Realistically, the photogrpaher could contact storenvy with the matter and have it taken down. So long as they have a written agreement that the shoot was not to be used for profit/does not belong to another party, it would be taken down pretty quick. I've seen similar happen with other stores who were selling things under less than honest pretences.

>>6805413
>>6805569
>>6805677
I remember reading a while back that DC/WB issugin cease and decists against a bunch of tattooists and fans for tattooing their characters on people/having DC characters tattooed on them. I don't know if anyone actually was taken to court for it, however.

So yeah. I think they can and will, actually.

http://www.comicmix.com/news/2011/04/01/dc-comicsto-prosecute-tattoos/

Her fans are pathetic.

"I apologize for this Jessica as I have been spamming your wall quite a bit, but some comments are starting to piss me off and it needs to be said

First off, for all of those who want Jessica to do porn, go watch brazzers or something. It's extremely disrespectful to tell a woman to do porn just because you want to see them nude. Jessica will not do porn and will not pose nude. It's not happening. Deal with it.

Second: For those who are upset at Jessica for posing in lingerie when you came here for cosplay, again deal with. Jessica isn't only a cosplayer, she is a model and spokesperson. Yes her main thing is cosplaying but that isn't all she does.

Third: I am restating the last two subjects in a smaller more blunt fashion. THIS IS HER FAN PAGE! She has the freedom to post whatever the hell she wants. If you don't like whatever but you still want to like the page, simply hide all of the posts you get from her.

Now excuse me, I need to go eat.

P.S. Jessica I am sorry for posting this rant, but it somewhat needed to be said and needed to be seen by everyone. Not that anyone will care and I am most likely going to blocked from this page for posting it."

>>6805768
Unless that's the tattoo artist's primary art style, most "character" tattoos end up looking goofy as shit. I can see them going after the tattoo artists but what can they really do to a fan who already has that tat? Tell them to get it removed or just tell them not to get more tattoos of their characters? Body art seems like it would be a completely different realm when it comes to use of copyrighted material since you can't just "take it down" like fanart on a website or something.

File: 1367365756002.jpg-(38 KB, 635x477, 29203.jpg)

38 KB JPG

>>6805779
>Now excuse me, I need to go eat.
And then they ate a whole pizza in the bathtub and everyone walked the dinosaur.

>>6805568
Fucking this. This sounds more like the photographer realized he could be making more money then whatever situation the two of them initially agreed upon, and lost his shit. As far as taking the print down, it doesn't mean it's an admission of guilt. Wouldn't you take it down if there was such bad negativity surrounding it?

nb4 whiteknight

>>6805807
But she did remove the watermark which is fucked up no matter how you spin it.
Because regardless the photog should at least have the credit on THEIR work left alone.

>>6805460

I'm pretty sure you're that beta fag and you're trying to play the LOL SARCASM card.

0/10

>>6805830
Fascinatingly vague. I just want to know, if the photographer was in on this and getting a profit, why was the watermark blacked out instead of a clean copy given for the prints?

File: 1367367001889.jpg-(124 KB, 640x960, scumbagiri.jpg.jpg)

124 KB JPG

Apparently the photographer in OP tried to handle things professionally, but I guess the public post was the "second strike" as she calls it.
Niglette is acting like a scumbag.

>>6805830
>don't believe everything you read on the internet
Well I'm reading your comment jnigger, what now?
And if you preach about "talking" things out, then actually message the photographer instead of leaving passive-aggressive little snippets on peoples' pages, since you're having an oh so professional reaction about this whole ordeal.

Immature twat.

File: 1367367388578.jpg-(59 KB, 300x229, 1366479077530.jpg)

59 KB JPG

>>6805830
>mfw she would pitch a shitfit against the girl that made a video about how cosplay doesn't make you privileged

>>6805857
Dude those panties are from target....
I would know, I'm wearing them now and They are comply as fuck

I find it quite stupid that she gets all uppity about it yet deletes the watermark off the picture.

>>6805302
>cute girl
Heavily applied makeup girl.
Fixed for ya.

>>6805260
Why wouldn't she?

The photographer isn't groveling at her feet and allowing her to get away with it, and JNig's passing that off as "childish".

>>6805953

>links a twitch girl getting $1000 donation
>not soda, or titters getting $12k - $50k dollars

>>6805955
Saw that, but still damn. Pandering so much that people will give you 1k for just sitting on your ass for looking average.

You know if I didn't have my dignity and pride I totally would.

>>6805892
So theoretically Target could take legal action because she's selling prints of herself in their underwear and they're not getting paid for it.
Even when she's not in a costume, she's ripping people off.

Tattoos are another instance where companies and people can sue you for getting their artwork tattooed on you. I know Alex Grey (artist for Tool) has seeked out and sued people who've gotten his work tattooed on them without permission.

>>6805719
any photographer can get their prints done at various places (adoramapix, bayphoto, among others). if you want a print of yourself you can probably ask a photog who took a photo you like to get you a print done. smugmug also has a thing setup where a photog can get prints done with a little webshop kind of thing.

>>6805714
She has to have an agent at this point. She is doing promotions for Suda51 in Japan (outside of her winning the lollipop chainsaw crap.) and if you know anything about business in Japan you need the right amount of professionalism in order to do deals.

>>6805857
She liked the hat anon. Needs more bling though.

THUG LIFE

>>6805830
>doesn't want to support ~anymore~
>implying she ever wanted to support the photographer

Its almost like rubbing her watermark off was in favour of supporting the photographer or something

>>6805969
Are you her secretary now?

>>6805654
*Shrug* If shes smart she will just "give" them away to people who order X amount from her store. So shes probably not going to be learning anything from this.

>>6805982
Technically you need copyright permission to even make a free copy but it's a lot easier to keep on the downlow if you just throw it in randomly ("buy $25 and receive a free 4x6 of me, jnig!")

>>6805969
You should be given some sort of monetary compensation from other cosplayers for how you derail their drama threads and then start taking the brunt of their haters.

In b4 shit storm for my comment.

Weird, my comment got baleeted. As did the one trying to troll me, huh.

>>6805981
No I am just the representative for THUG LIFE inc.

>>6805993
I take payment in burritos.

>>6806040
What are you trying to contribute to this thread? Do you have anything relevant to the discussion to say?
>Miscommunication and people jumping on band wagons, business as usual.
I'm assuming this is you implying that you have some sort of inside information on the situation, because you are "friends" (or at least acquainted) with the parties involved; whom, of course, are well-known in this niche corner of the internet. Oh, that must mean you have notoriety by proxy, right? Is this what you're trying to draw our attention to?

Sage for off-topic.

Jnig's a self entitled cunt, news at 11!

>>6806111
Clearly I haven't been posting enough lately if my motives are being called into question.

Anyway it's pretty obvious this is all down to miscommunication, shit happens.

>>6806111
she's not friends with her
she keeps linking jnigs to all the current drama about her thinking she's doing her a favor and thinking "maybe now jessica will want to hang out with me and I can get some e-fame!" yeah not gunna happen it's so pathetic

>>6806168
I am so desperate for that e-fame ;___;

>>6806173
You are. That's why you're all Batman "Set the dogs on me" to distract from Harvey Two Face who got caught shooping a water mark off of her photo.

>>6806040
>Weird, my comment got baleeted
You can't take a hint...

>>6806173
You already have so many nudes out though.

>>6806175
haha, that's a great and imaginative analogy. I would pay to see it illustrated.

but still no. If you've been around here any length of time you'll know I will always stick up for the under dog because it winds you all up.

>>6806182
Thank you, it was.

And I've been around these boards since Yaya and Adella were posted on /s/ so much they had to make this board. I wouldn't really call Jnig the "underdog" here, but more like the popular girl who got caught leeching answers from the geek behind her. Or rather, he spoke up about it this time.

And I like you, ai-honey. I just don't understand why you care, or your perspective.

>>6806183
I think it was more Kipi, Miyu, and FranDan on /s/ than Yaya and Adella, but it's good to see a fellow oldfag.

>>6806183
Her perspective is simple: attention.

>>6806181
Oh that glorious potato shop nude, why aren't I e-fame yet. ;___;

>>6806183
>I like you, ai-honey

I hear there's an antidote for that. My condolences.

>>6806187
I MISS KIPI

>>6806189
I am so desperate for that attention. ;___;

>>6806173
You really are though, it is sad. You had your 15 minutes of fame/drama/posts about you every other day and you still won't fuck off. You're almost as much of a tryhard as Masa was, thank goodness his dumb ass no longer seems to circulate here.

>>6806216

You rang? :v

>>6806216
>thank goodness his dumb ass no longer seems to circulate here

Well that was a silly thing to say.

File: 1367374565439.png-(25 KB, 244x200, 4241432+_3b325f60666b2a5c(...).png)

25 KB PNG

>>6805236 (OP)
Cant you get full rights to an image from photography places? Thats what I did for senior pictures.

Also you dont have "copyright" you didnt actually purcahse a copyright.
Ownership is not black and white its really grey

*especially if it is an Image of you that someone else starts selling. (im saying is it even OK for the photographer to sell it herself?)

Seriously what if I took a picture of someone without them knowing and started selling it...Do I still have full rights to the image? Do they?

>>6806230
>you dont have "copyright" if you didnt actually purcahse a copyright.

this