Free or cheap Photoshop pictures

That is not correct , the copyright always belongs to the person who TOOK the photo. That person can sell the rights or sign over the rights but unless that is done the only thing the person in the photo is legally entitled to is what the specific photo release includes . The only way the photos in the images BELONG to the person IN the image is if the photographer sells or gives them exclusive rights , other than that it is illegal to do anything other than use them for for own private personal use .
This is a subject i deal with on a daily basis , digital copyright laws were written to protect the photographer or artist from theft of thier work . the law is always on the side of the photographer on this one . Originally Posted by LaStang

yes it does protect the work of the photographer,artist,person,cor poration etc, that owns the property.

Let say a famous athlete hire you to take his picture for whatever reason, you decided to use it in a advertisement for your company, without paying him or getting his permission first, what do you think will happen, do you have exclusive rights to use it whenever and whatever,

no one is going to hire you to do a photoshoot for them and give you exculsive rights, unless they don't know better. most will have you sign over those right and most will give you limited permission to use those/some of the images as long and it falls within the guideline they dictate

remember i'm talking about people hiring you, not the people the photographer is hiring, in that case yes it should be spelled out in the modeling contract what the consideration is and any other particulars, you don't automatically get to use them for whatever you want if there is no agreement, if they give up all rights then yes you do have exculsive rights, if no consideration is given and no agreement signed then there is no meeting of the minds and the contract is void, and you just have some picture.
Let me ask you something, do your models sign the release before or after you pay them, I can safely bet it's going to be before you pay them and before you do the shoot.

You know she wouldn't have these situations if she kept it professional, not BCD, pay for the photoshoot straight up, that will eliminate that, I mean she really didn't have to do anything, that was her choice, keep everything above board. and you won't have that happening.

Kimmie does need to get a understanding of the laws, but I don't think he was referring to ladies with professional pictures, the ones that would need him are the ones who take the camera phone pictures, with all the clutter in the room. that would benefit them at no cost.
Let's take about those pro images
Not all pictures taken by the photographer belongs to him, if it's not stated in the photoshoot agreement the rights of the images belong to the person in the images, remember the photographer is being paid for the photoshoot, he is not paying the person to model and she is not getting any consideration for her time and image, there is no modeling agreement, signed by both parties that shows the photographer is the owner and the model signed her rights away. he can't just use them anyway he wants or force her to use them in a particular way without being brought to task himself. Originally Posted by dreamvacationdates

I believe most professionals do have a written agreement - mine did.
That would be the difference of professionals vs. hobbyist with camera. A lot of the gents who posted in this thread are well known photographers.

copyright law is very explicit on this:

a copyright is created and protection begins at the moment of creation, and the ownership of that copyright belongs to the creator - the photographer in this case. the person IN the photographs has no rights whatsoever unless explicitly given by the artist.

that's the law. what happens in life obviously doesn't always follow suit.

it's important to understand two things. first, the reason pro photographers use contracts is to define what images can and cannot be used for. it's not up to the photograph-ee. for example, mine - as is common - states that commercial images may be used for advertising purposes only, and not direct revenue generation. in other words, you can put an image on a billboard, but the minute you start selling coffee cups with one of my photos on them, we have an issue. obviously, if you're a pro athlete or a movie star, the contract has to be structured accordingly. that's where royalty payments come in. most contracts also state that artistic content may not be modified in any way without prior approval by the artist.

the second thing is that almost nobody wins a copyright infringement lawsuit unless the images were registered, at least not in the lawsuit sense. a violator will be issued a cease and desist, but ain't nobody getting paid.

now...in this game, it's even more convoluted because contracts require one key thing: your identity. how many of us are willing to go down that road? i do, and i know ddbd does, but we're probably the exceptions, as are girls willing to sign.

my recommendation is that if a girl wants pro photos, only engage a shooter who works from a contract. even if you don't sign one, the level of professionalism is still there and you should be able to count on mutual respect. for shooters...come with a contract, and if infringement is a worry, register that shit. it's cheap and easy.

regardless...contract or not...the best thing is open communication beforehand. both parties should be absolutely clear as to their expectations. sound familiar?

i can't believe anyone would agree to a shoot that 1) didn't have a written contract, 2) the photographer had the audacity to ask for sexual favors as payment, 3) was completely unprofessional - equipment, setting up the shots, the incessant pestering from the photographer....

An exception to the ownership occurs if the work was done as work for hire. This is the case when a photographer or other artist signs a contract to produce a work or works for a fee. In this contract "work for hire" is specifically noted. The artist or photographer relinquishes all rights to his or her work. Those rights are assigned to the client. In other words, your client--not you--owns the copyrights . This transfer of rights has been the source of much controversy and many legal battles.Copyrights for work for hire continue for 100 years past the date of publication.

In short the person hiring you is going to have you the photographer give up all rights and assign those rights to them, if a person doesn't have that in the contract for hire, then they made a grave mistake, if the photographer disagrees then no photos are taken, find you one that will agree to the work for hire contract you understand fully, never let the photographer keep the copyright rights to the images in a work for hire contract.

i don't know where your'e coming up with this. it's just plain wrong. a contract MAY be structured that way in certain commercial situations, but that's not how copyright works.

what you're talking about is licensing, which is a separate issue.

from here, and it's not a licensing agreement,
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

they are deriving their rights to copyright from you the photographer, if you don't want to give them that right they don't need to hire you. they should find someone that will, and since the people lets say on this board will be using those photos for their business, it would seem prudent for them to get those rights.
I'm not saying they should go out and change the image, I'm saying they should be able to use the image without having to ask permission or pay a fee to use the image, or where they can/can not use the image, now that would be a licensing agreement

i don't think you're interpreting this correctly. "works for hire" applies to works generated by employees. in other words, if ddbd hires a second shooter to take photos under his brand, then d retains copyright, not the employee.

this is the first paragraph of the document you linked, under the "who can claim copyright protection" section:

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is cre* ated in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who cre* ated the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

look, it's not a matter of not allowing the client to use the photos. it's about defining accepted usage, and that's what the contract does. my contract, which is pretty standard, gives the client all the rights necessary to use images for advertising, and clearly states what other things are NOT allowed. that's how licensing works. NO professional photographer in their right mind just cedes all control of their images. it's just not done.

Man, I just read this thread. Awesome trolling by the OP. Bravo, bravo.

After reviewing common law of agency as it pertains to employer, employee relationship and for most people they wouldn't be considered employers, under work for hire i must concede my position, but it you were hired as a contributor to a collective work, then work for hire would come into play,.
.

hey, it's complex stuff.

the main point in all this is that everyone is better off when things are handled professionally. there are enough ways that girls can be taken advantage of...the photography that helps them earn a living shouldn't be one of them.

yes complex
So if a person has a license agreement, which allows usage, but not copyright ownership, would this not effect how a person can claim DMCA infringement, since yes they may "own" the picture but don't own the copyright, it's seem DMCA is geared towards the copyright owner, which would leave the image owner with no recourse, since the copyright is vested to the creator of the image.

the true image owner is always the image creator and as such is usually the only person with any legal recourse against infringement.

however, what has happened is that courts have ruled in favor of an "image-ee" in cases where their picture was used for commercial gain without permission by either the photographer or by a third party. a good example is advertisers scooping images off photo sharing sites like flickr. but, that's not an infringement issue; it's generally looked at as loss of revenue or invasion of privacy. it's also why any shooter who thinks they may use images of someone for commercial purposes should always get a model release, and why girls should always be careful about signing them.

personally, i never ask girls in this game to sign model releases because i never intend to use their images for anything else. once delivered to the client, those pictures never leave my hard drive again.

I'm a long time photographer (not a GWC) recently focusing on glamor and would like to discuss model releases. Is it OK to hijack, since this thread is going in that direction, or should I start a new thread?

I'm a long time photographer (not a GWC) recently focusing on glamor and would like to discuss model releases. Is it OK to hijack, since this thread is going in that direction, or should I start a new thread? Originally Posted by straightshooter30

I like the direction this thread has taken and even thought it started off a little hard it's good to see it turn into something informative. I think it's ok to continue if the OP does not object.