Copyright & Pictures

Given http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1638863 Perhaps a good review of how copyright of pictures works by someone with professional expertise (ShysterJon?) might be in order? When does the model own the copyright? When does the photographer own the copyright? Etc From 6 years ago... http://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=18378

Seriously? This is not a current legal issue. And, it's not specific to hobby.

All professional photogs are well aware of copyright rules. In general, the photog, or the photog's firm, owns the image and copyright, unless transferred, or usage restricted by written agreement.

It might be helpful for those in the hobby who are not professional photographers...

OP: The material content in the first post you linked has been removed, so I can't tell what the issue was there.

The basic answer to your questions is: The rights of the parties to a contract are generally governed by the language in the contract. If there was no written contract, but an oral agreement, the agreement is usually still valid, and the rights of the parties are determined by what they said and agreed upon. If the right to ownership of an image was not part of the agreement between the model and photographer, and either of them obtains a copyright of the image, the presumption is that the party with the copyright owns the image.

I agree with you Jon, with a clarification.
In that most professional photogs are aware if the rules, they usually endevor to post the pic somewhere/anywhere to establish the copyright for themsevles.
Thus, we're back to an agreement between photog and model.
Ladies, if a photog will not agree to a written contract with you, that you are happy with (ie picture copyright ownership or whatever) there are other photogs.
You are running a business, a deal with a photog is a business deal, treat it as one.

I agree with you Jon, with a clarification.
In that most professional photogs are aware if the rules, they usually endevor to post the pic somewhere/anywhere to establish the copyright for themsevles. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Posting an image doesn't create a right to ownership or a copyright.

OK, I was on a ski lift when I posted that quickly. But:

If appropriately labeled it does. And that's straight from the US Copyright office.

Here's a couple links for those who like to research things:

The US Govt copyright office quickie
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

The American Society of Media Photographers web page on the topic
http://asmp.org/tutorials/which-imag...l#.Vsj80Z3naM8

Back to the gals needing photos, although trust goes a long way, a written agreement about this stuff goes further.

OK, I was on a ski lift when I posted that quickly. But:

If appropriately labeled it does. And that's straight from the US Copyright office. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Again, I disagree. Labeling a photo 'copyrighted' doesn't create a right -- doing so is a reflection of rights gained by applying for and obtaining a copyright.

Ok counselor. I disagree. But there's a thing in a bit that's on my schedule so I'll drop off.
But, where I pick up some extra spending money for using a long lens, it's all written agreement because of these issues.

This may be splitting hairs, but the copyright exists from the moment the work is created. Registering the copyright establishes the owner of the copyright and is necessary in order to take legal action against anyone infringing on the copyright.

Somewhat correct tandy.
Yes needed to litigate, but that only claims the copyright, which could still be subject to dispute. Also, depending on when registered, different types of court determined penalty or compensation values would be applied. As with other issues, it can get expensive if there are competing claims for copyright that actually go to court.

This morning I want to introduce a companion issue:
A "Model Release" that gals might sign.
A basic model release usually gives no rights whatsoever to the gal, and would enhance the photogs position. And, unless signed under duress or fraud, a gal will be in an impossible position to claim any rights to, or stop publication of, or other use of, the pics.

Back to the core issue:
As there's significant value in a gal's "brand" or image, etc, gals need to be careful with whatever they agree to for a photo shoot. So get it in writing.

This time not in a ski chair lift.

A basic model release usually gives no rights whatsoever to the gal, and would enhance the photogs position. And, unless signed under duress or fraud, a gal will be in an impossible position to claim any rights to, or stop publication of, or other use of, the pics. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Suppose I represent a model who wants to challenge your ironclad model release. I go to the courthouse to file my petition. According to what you wrote, the clerk won't let me file my petition because my client "will be in an impossible position to claim any rights."

Nah, hogwash. Anyone can sue anybody for anything. Show me your ironclad model release. I'll find holes in it to sink that fucker like another ironclad, the Cairo.

Also, your magic model release could be challenged as a contract of adhesion. Look it up, ski boy.

Jon,
What I've been saying all along, condensed, is that it's difficult to go up against the copyright owner, and thus, it's better to have a written agreement in advance.
The gals need to protect their image and brand and most do not understand the “rights” that are basic in the world of photogs.

Do not most disputes result from lack of an agreement? Or that folks don't understand the agreement? Which is why I also introduced the model release, as that document is commonly misunderstood, and frequently abused by unsavory photogs.

Yes the standard model release is a contract of adhesion, and I didn’t have to look it up. Frankly, no one should sign those. Did I not say that they give the gal no rights? That was a blatant warning to not sign those. Perhaps you didn’t catch that.
But, by your attack on that type of document I assume you also think they should not be signed. Correct me if I'm not correct on that assumption.
But if willingly signed, are we not back to my comment of fraud or duress? And I'd be disappointed in any atty that did not at least try to find a hole in any agreement on behalf of that atty's client.

Yes folks can sue anybody for anything. And a court clerk will stamp pretty much anything as long as the filing fee is paid.
But, would not an atty ask for a retainer? It starts to get expensive.
And sometimes folks do settle quickly. But why would a photog that's straight even be concerned? Besides, every pro I know has their an atty on a retainer.

Let’s get back to the core issue, a gal upset about use of photos of her.
Would you not agree that prevention is better than fixing things later (with additional cost)?
Throughout my above statements do I not say get a written agreement and be careful what you sign?
Would you not agree that it's preferable to have a clear understood agreement upfront that deals with ownership/copyright/usage license, etc?

Btw, most of the KC hobby community know who lilmama’s photogs are. One of whom a friend had a run in with.

I think you've missed the point of everything I've written in this thread. I've discussed contract law in general. You seem to be advocating a position regarding a particular model.

btw, a contract of adhesion, by nature, isn't enforceable.

I think you've missed the point of everything I've written in this thread. I've discussed contract law in general. You seem to be advocating a position regarding a particular model.
btw, a contract of adhesion, by nature, isn't enforceable. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

I understand where you're coming from Jon. My whole point is that sometimes the gals don't quite understand what they sign, or they just go with a misunderstood verbal. Thus, they should be more careful up front.