Vtuber camgirl mentioned before on BB just got kicked off of Twitch because her 3d modeler is claiming he "owns" her body

#1

In case anyone here forgot who she is, here’s the article from back in February

Well today she opened up about her recent ban on twitch for reasons that surprising has nothing to do with being too dirty

Many of you probably are wondering about the recent Twitch ban, so I wanted to share some context about my Twitch Ban since it relates to an issue I’ve been dealing with the last several months.

A 3D modeler (DigitrevX) filed DMCA takedowns on all of my VODs, claiming he owns the copyright to my body. He had also been posting about this on twitter for weeks as well, but since I try to avoid drama, I’ve ignored it (it’s been hard). Given that he is now trying to get me de-platformed, he has escalated the issue and now I have to make a response, publicly, which includes providing all of the relevant receipts.

Digitrevx has been stirring up trouble years ago in the vocaloid community too way before this. I remember a vocaloid concert promoter getting in trouble because she used a model which Digitrevx made that used lifted assets from models he didn’t made which is widely considered a big no no in the MMD maker world and vocaloid communities. There are even more stories about this guy on reddit.

Long story short. He used a combination of pimp tactics along with DMCA abuse.

Update: her twitch ban has been overturned

7 Likes
#2

I’m confused. Is Projekt Melody a character DigitrevX created and operated in Unity, or did DigitrevX hire someone to perform using the avatar, or did an actual webcam performer hire DigitrevX to design an avatar for them, or was it an equal partnership between DigitrevX and a performer that’s since soured?

6 Likes
#3

I could whip up a model for her in no time. Free of charge. It may not be her body though.

4 Likes
#4

According to Melody she owns the IP, concept and design of her avatar (a point even mentioned by Digitrevx in some DMs). She brought in Digitrevx as an outside contractor afterwards to make the model around the time of her initial kickstarter for said model.

3 Likes
#5

If that was in the contract, that would make the art work for hire and DigitrevX’s copyright claims copyfraud.

4 Likes
#6

I’m confused, which one’s the AI?

1 Like
#7

A quick update. This story has been picked up by The Verge.

1 Like
#8

When a body owns a body
Express’d thro’ AI,
– Robbie Burns 2.0

1 Like
#9

If that’s the case, then the copyright angle on this is pretty clear. It’s work for hire, and she clearly retains the copyright. He has no claim.

Sort of like pimps have no claim of ownership over their women.

#10

I agree that if it’s in the contract it would be copyfraud, but it likely wouldn’t be “work for hire”, not because she wouldn’t own the copyright but because work for hire is a specific legal term in US copyright, not just work that is “hired”.

Generally “work for hire” is specific to employees (with a few weirdly specific additions) and doesn’t apply to contractors. Instead, if you hire a contractor you need a contract that assigns you copyright. Walmart found this out the hard way when they fired their long time AV contractor and discovered Walmart did not own the copyright to all the videos they had commissioned over the years. It also applies to other art work you commission, such as wedding photos or tattoos- the contractor owns the copyright by default. If they aren’t your W-2 employee, chances are you don’t own the copyright absent a contract to that effect, even though you “hired” them to do the work.

3 Likes
#11

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.