I'm pretty Monkia is at least 20. If I recall correctly she said in the episode that she has been cosplaying since she was 13.
SyFy's Heroes of Cosplay
- Thread starter Art Andrews
- Start date
I'm pretty Monkia is at least 20. If I recall correctly she said in the episode that she has been cosplaying since she was 13.
.:MirrorminD:.
Sr Member
Nice, I'm sure you'll get edited at some point.
Monika will be 23 in December and actually a really cool person same with Scruffy and Riki who are all members here.
DoubleD
Sr Member
The show portrayed Monica as some child, but as mentioned, she's in her 20s. After watching the first two episodes I don't think I'd be very happy if I was part of the cast. They're making some of the women to be caddy, and as far as I can tell, Scruffy and Riki are good eggs in real life.
I could be wrong, but I've got to think SyFy and their lawers got their ducks in a row with the photos. Plus the guy producing the series is a veteran at producing shows I've got to think he's run into similar situations before and there is some 'fair use' clause or shared rights or something.
I guess we'll see what happens. I'm excited for a new episode.
I guess we'll see what happens. I'm excited for a new episode.
SuperFLY
Well-Known Member
I don't know why they made such a big deal out of it. Her diablo costume shows more skin than ivy did!
Very tasteful with a hint of burlesque in my opinion. Not my favourite costume by a long shot but certainly not 'sexy' or as 'risqué' as they were making out.
I couldn't help thinking how hypocritical certain others were being considering their 'offerings' over the years but there we go
Very tasteful with a hint of burlesque in my opinion. Not my favourite costume by a long shot but certainly not 'sexy' or as 'risqué' as they were making out.
I couldn't help thinking how hypocritical certain others were being considering their 'offerings' over the years but there we go
Astrokid248
Well-Known Member
Totally necroquoting this but holy crap Top Shot's back? I picked up archery because of the second season of that. Is it still on History Channel?
I'll edit this in a minute with my HoC thoughts, because I have a ton but I want to see if anyone else here saw the crap I've seen on Tumblr.
Edit:
Quick fyi: cosplay is a portmanteau of "costume" and "role-play". Role play is a bit different in Japan than it is over here, as should be evidenced by the differences between Western RPGs (choose your class, alter your appearance, choose your weapons, level the way you want) and JRPGs (the character's class and appearance is set and weapons tend to level linearly with less choice) and when costuming at cons crossed the Pacific, they blended in their flavor of roleplay and created the hobby as it's known today. If you aren't roleplaying (Aka walking and talking "in character") you aren't technically cosplaying.
Alright, my thoughts on this whole mess: the 8 who agreed to be a part of this, even the three that I'm a fan of (Crabcat+Chloe) are just as culpable as the producer for any bad blood that comes about from this show. It's painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain that the producers approached Yaya about this and she gave them a list of her hottest friends, and then they picked Jesse up off a con floor to throw in the prerequisite normal guy. I'm really glad that a bunch of people both here and in other internet spaces have taken the time to find out the truth of the behind-the-scenes, because wow.
Some stuff from my hometown con, Anime Matsuri, which will be episode 4: first off, and in case you didn't attend the Masquerade there, I'll put the rest of this in spoilers,
Syfy promised $1800 in prize money to the winners, who were not any of the 8 on the show, and then decided to not pay up when their cast didn't win. Anime Matsuri pulled the promised prize money from the con funds and payed the winners instead.
Final edit: Art, for some reason I can't comment on your spot-on review about the second episode from the Pulse, but I'll leave a picture here that sums up my feelings on this BS Yaya vs Jnigs crappola:
I mean, cosplay whatever you want, even if it's already designed sexy or you redesigned it to be sexy, but I'm not a fan of either and I'm finding this all to be way too hilarious.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, you would be wrong. There is *no* such thing as fair use of photography for commercial purposes, save for one-off "fine-art" works that are significantly "transformative" i.e. having a completely different purpose than the original. None of which applies to this situation. The reason I stress this is because "fair-use" gets trotted out every time copyright is mentioned as if it is some magic bullet to kill claims of infringement, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The guy behind the show may be a veteran, but whoever is responsible did *not* have their ducks in a row and did infringe on the copyright of the photographer, that is 100% certain (unless he is lying and did give either the network/production or the cosplayers rights to use the photos for free, which I think we can agree is unlikely).
The only question is if the show made the mistake or the cosplayers did. The latter seems much, much more likely... as the "subject is co-creator" excuse is patently ridiculous.
Hope you don't end up on the cutting room floor
Did you wear a revealing costume to MC? :lol
Did you wear a revealing costume to MC? :lol
I don't know, it's hard to believe with so many cooks in the kitchen that no one got the rights to those photos or knows something we don't know about using them on tv.
All I know is time will tell us the answer.
All I know is time will tell us the answer.
kibosh
Sr Member
Maybe them not winning is the point. The "cast" seems to portray themselves as "professionals". Seeing them lose time after time against apparent unknowns seems to not them down a peg or two. Almost makes you want to root against them.
When I say unknowns, I mean in terms of the general population watching the show. Those people may be known here, I didn't recognize them myself, but they clearly aren't part of the show.
And I don't want to see anyone get knocked down, and I am certainly not rooting against anyone, but it seems that's the direction the producers are going. I think everyone on there did a great job at what they do. I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling from watching the show.
There can be a thousand cooks in the kitchen and it won't change the fact that the person pressing the button on the camera is the copyright holder (unless the work is work-for-hire, which it wasn't according to any information we have). The same way that a wedding photographer owns the copyright to your wedding photos, even if you hired him/her to shoot your wedding.
So there isn't that much uncertainty about the infringement... because unless the cosplayer or production has a written contract of a full-on commercial licence (transferrable in the case of the cosplayer) for the photos (that the photographer is ignoring), they were not used with permission from the one person who is in the position to give it.
The only thing time will tell is who screwed up and sadly it is very likely that the cosplayer will be burnt if they falsely claimed to own the licence and legal action is taken. Even the initial legal costs will be in the thousands and chances are they have already admitted fault in the contracts they've signed.
Edit: obviously it is possible that the photographer has messed up by giving such a licence, the blog posts are so poorly constructed that it is hard to tell where the photos were taken and whether there were model-releases with self-promotion clauses or the self-promotional use was granted in email form etc. nothing however indicates that a transferrable, non-limited commercial license has been given, as it would be lunacy for a photographer to do so.
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
Finally read through the copyright infringement stuff here.
This stuff is a lot more complicated than most people recognize.
Any lawsuit against SyFy will either be dismissed, or settled as a nuisance suit for a relatively minor cash payment just to make it go away. The devil is in the details on a lot of this stuff. For example, if the photographer gave the subject of the photograph a written release or license permitting them to use the photo, the precise language of that release will be what this turns on. If it's worded poorly, the photographer is screwed. Most of the time when people draft their own releases, they do it poorly and fail to adequately protect themselves.
The notion that only a photographer has the right to show pictures they've taken is not entirely correct. If the subject paid the photographer to take pictures, then it's a work for hire and the photographer either retains no ownership or only limited rights to the work in question. Regardless, SyFy will not be the ones who are hurt by this. Most likely they'll have required the participants to sign documentation both representing and warranting that they have the right to use any of the materials they provide to the show (from costumes to photos), and which also include indemnification language that'll mean that even if SyFy loses a lawsuit, they'll just turn around and make the cosplayer pay for the loss if it was caused by their negligence or willful misconduct.
To my way of thinking, the biggest legal question mark about this show is SyFy benefitting financially from the (likely unlicensed) display of the costumes themselves. The costumes are derivative works. While there MIGHT be an argument for a fair use defense by the cosplayer themselves, that fair use defense would (I expect) not extend to protect SyFy. Thus, SyFy would likely need to secure releases from the rights holders to use these (unlicensed) derivative works on their show. Did they do this? Who knows. But if they didn't, I'd bet they're far more exposed financially and legally speaking from, say, infringing a Disney copyright (e.g., stormtrooper armor) or an Electronic Arts copyright (e.g., N7 armor) than they face from a cheesed off photographer who may or may not even be represented by counsel yet. But again, that may turn on releases from the cosplayers themselves, who will likely face the brunt of this if it all goes to hell in a handbasket.
As for fair use, that's a very complex and nuanced topic that most people on the internet don't fully understand, not to mention one that requires a full analysis of the facts in the case. Since it comes up once in a while here, it's worth noting that fair use is an affirmative defense, which means that it basically admits to the underlying use of copyrighted material in the first place, but claims that the use is protected under the fair use doctrine and therefore does not qualify as infringement in a legal sense. But make no mistake: infringement and fair use are basically the same thing; the only difference is that one has passed a four-part test for protection, and the other hasn't. It's still all unlicensed reproductions or derivative works, though.
This stuff is a lot more complicated than most people recognize.
Any lawsuit against SyFy will either be dismissed, or settled as a nuisance suit for a relatively minor cash payment just to make it go away. The devil is in the details on a lot of this stuff. For example, if the photographer gave the subject of the photograph a written release or license permitting them to use the photo, the precise language of that release will be what this turns on. If it's worded poorly, the photographer is screwed. Most of the time when people draft their own releases, they do it poorly and fail to adequately protect themselves.
The notion that only a photographer has the right to show pictures they've taken is not entirely correct. If the subject paid the photographer to take pictures, then it's a work for hire and the photographer either retains no ownership or only limited rights to the work in question. Regardless, SyFy will not be the ones who are hurt by this. Most likely they'll have required the participants to sign documentation both representing and warranting that they have the right to use any of the materials they provide to the show (from costumes to photos), and which also include indemnification language that'll mean that even if SyFy loses a lawsuit, they'll just turn around and make the cosplayer pay for the loss if it was caused by their negligence or willful misconduct.
To my way of thinking, the biggest legal question mark about this show is SyFy benefitting financially from the (likely unlicensed) display of the costumes themselves. The costumes are derivative works. While there MIGHT be an argument for a fair use defense by the cosplayer themselves, that fair use defense would (I expect) not extend to protect SyFy. Thus, SyFy would likely need to secure releases from the rights holders to use these (unlicensed) derivative works on their show. Did they do this? Who knows. But if they didn't, I'd bet they're far more exposed financially and legally speaking from, say, infringing a Disney copyright (e.g., stormtrooper armor) or an Electronic Arts copyright (e.g., N7 armor) than they face from a cheesed off photographer who may or may not even be represented by counsel yet. But again, that may turn on releases from the cosplayers themselves, who will likely face the brunt of this if it all goes to hell in a handbasket.
As for fair use, that's a very complex and nuanced topic that most people on the internet don't fully understand, not to mention one that requires a full analysis of the facts in the case. Since it comes up once in a while here, it's worth noting that fair use is an affirmative defense, which means that it basically admits to the underlying use of copyrighted material in the first place, but claims that the use is protected under the fair use doctrine and therefore does not qualify as infringement in a legal sense. But make no mistake: infringement and fair use are basically the same thing; the only difference is that one has passed a four-part test for protection, and the other hasn't. It's still all unlicensed reproductions or derivative works, though.
This is not really the case, work-for-hire would only apply if the photographer was a legal, full-time employee of the person paying for the photos. Otherwise, copyright and the sole ability to grant reproduction rights rests with the photographer, even if he/she worked for the person in the photos. For example, if you hire a wedding photographer, the photographer owns the photos and holds the copyrights to them.
The photographer *could* have given the person hiring them an unlimited commercial license, as usually happens if a photographer is hired by a business, but that is extremely rare for private clients. To use the wedding example, you would probably get a certain number of photos (as defined in the package you bought from the photographer) with a certain number of prints and a licence to use those photos unaltered for non-commercial purposes, while retaining the photographer's logo/signature.
p51
Sr Member
I, too, feel the word, "cosplay" is more geared for anime than just recreating sci-fi movie and comic book costumes. I can't stand the word, frankly. What they're doing traditionally used to be called, "Costuming" as I dabbled in that as early as the 1980s (back when cons were small and the ONLY thing you won was bragging rights and maybe a small trophy).
I hadn't been in any competion for that since probably 1990 or so, but I was not shocked to see where this has gone. Giving out large cash awards and prizes ruins the "look what Johnny built, isn't that cool?" factor that these competitions used to be.
My Dad told me when i was a kid that if there was more than one person doing anything, eventually they have to develop some kind of sanctioned and rule-laden contest to see who's the best at it (suggesting it ruined the fun in the process). I've never forgotten that as he's proven himself right over and over, every time I hear of something like this.
Beats me why anyone into a hobby has to push to label themsevles as a 'professional.' Really, do you pay your rent with it? No? THEN, YOU'RE A HOBBIST!
I find the show interesting only to see what people come up with at the end of the show. Otherwise, these folks are way too wrapped up in a comical level of self-importance. They seriously need to get over themselves, especially since they aren't winning anything!
facepalm
I hadn't been in any competion for that since probably 1990 or so, but I was not shocked to see where this has gone. Giving out large cash awards and prizes ruins the "look what Johnny built, isn't that cool?" factor that these competitions used to be.
My Dad told me when i was a kid that if there was more than one person doing anything, eventually they have to develop some kind of sanctioned and rule-laden contest to see who's the best at it (suggesting it ruined the fun in the process). I've never forgotten that as he's proven himself right over and over, every time I hear of something like this.
I am so glad to read this, I thought I was alone in thinking exactly that! I laughed for a minute or two at the Seattle episode when none of them won and I felt good about how they all thought they were competing only with the others on the show and then all the awards are handed out to people you never saw before the competition.
Beats me why anyone into a hobby has to push to label themsevles as a 'professional.' Really, do you pay your rent with it? No? THEN, YOU'RE A HOBBIST!
I find the show interesting only to see what people come up with at the end of the show. Otherwise, these folks are way too wrapped up in a comical level of self-importance. They seriously need to get over themselves, especially since they aren't winning anything!
facepalm
Exactly. If you pay the wedding photographer to photograph your wedding, you are paying them for a "package of photos" that you will get when done. The photographer owns the rights to the photos. Any other photos beyond the package you have paid will require you to buy more from the roll.
This is why you cannot take wedding photos to a photo developer like a camera shop or drug store and ask to print copies of the ones you bought. They will turn you away as the photographer retains the rights and they don't want to get in trouble for themselves. Even KINKOS won't make color copies of the pictures.
This is why you cannot take wedding photos to a photo developer like a camera shop or drug store and ask to print copies of the ones you bought. They will turn you away as the photographer retains the rights and they don't want to get in trouble for themselves. Even KINKOS won't make color copies of the pictures.
Solo4114
Master Member
Ah, you're right. It's been a while since I looked at the statute. But the parties can agree in writing that it's a work for hire. Although, from my admittedly limited experience, you don't do that with things like headshots. Most of the time when I encounter this stuff, it's explicitly stated in a document (or explicitly stated that it ISN'T a work made for hire).
Regardless, I think it's a safe bet that SyFy will have insulated itself from a fair bit of the headaches they could face by carefully writing whatever releases they had the cosplayers sign, which will effectively shift the burden of any lawsuits to them on the notion that they've supposedly secured the rights to use any and all copyrighted or trademarked materials they bring to or display on the show. And I'd bet the cosplayers didn't read any of that stuff particularly carefully, either.
Like I said, time will tell.
While we can know the law we don't know what contracts, language, agreements, or deals have been made. We're all just arm-chair quarterbacking this situation without knowing all the facts.
That's why I try to be very careful to not make 'definitive' statements on the RPF about what I know for a 'fact'- it saves me from eating humble pie if I'm wrong. I will give my opinion, what I think and believe, but I try to never make statements of 'fact' if I don't have all the facts.
Time will tell.
While we can know the law we don't know what contracts, language, agreements, or deals have been made. We're all just arm-chair quarterbacking this situation without knowing all the facts.
That's why I try to be very careful to not make 'definitive' statements on the RPF about what I know for a 'fact'- it saves me from eating humble pie if I'm wrong. I will give my opinion, what I think and believe, but I try to never make statements of 'fact' if I don't have all the facts.
Time will tell.
Yes, the parties can agree that "the work is to be treated as a work-for-hire", in terms of copyright ownership that means that the client is assigned an exclusive licence to make use of the work for the duration of the copyright protection. If the guy signed such an agreement with a non-business client that wasn't paying him a hefty sum, he is a fool.
There are also a few categories where work automatically belongs to the person commissioning it, I had to look these up.
Works are considered work-for-hire in independent-contractor situations, meaning that copyright ownership only automatically belong to the client, if it falls into one of the following categories:
1. Contribution to collaborative work, such as a magazine or encyclopedia.
2. A work that is part of a motion picture or audiovisual work.
3. A translation
4. A supplement prepared as an adjunct to a work by another author, such as a foreword or a chart.
5. A compilation, i.e. a new arrangement of pre-existing works
6. An instructional text
7. A test
8. Answer material for a test
9. An atlas
As you can see, the range of work in which a client paying for the work from an independent contractor results in the automatic transferral of copyright is limited to specific use cases and types of projects.
Now, the one where it *could* theoretically work is if the network or production paid for the photos as part of the show's production, however, that is clearly not the case here. Also, if the photos were paid for by a cosplayer to build an audio-visual work (a website *could* qualify under certain conditions), again I don't believe that to be the case here. Either way, these terms would have to be put into writing to allow for the rights to be transferred.
You are completely right with regards to having covered their asses. The cast will probably have signed papers stating they hold sole responsibility for the use of any material they provide to the production team, such as the infringing photos.
Similar threads
