So... listen to this... (model vs. photog copyrights) - TriStateTuners.com :: Home of Tristate Auto Enthusiast

TurboV · 01-20-2009, 12:31 AM

Has anybody heard of this?

Shoot is done for for established magazine including a model, of what the photographers are listed in the publication as staff photographers. Model then turns around 3 months later and claims she owns all the copyrights on the photographs taken during the shoot, even though they were NEVER released to her, because her face and body is in them, claiming that unless you are a member of the press (uh... isn't a magazine press?) or have a signed release from the model, she (the model) automatically owns all the copyrights and the photographers have no right to use any of the pictures.

The model was a willing participant, it's for an upcoming cover for a magazine. Apparently, she feels the need to raise hell with the staff photographers over copyrights. No forms were signed between photographers and model (nor between magazine and photographers).

Basically, she is claiming anytime a photoshoot is done with the model, the model automatically owns all copyrights, and the photographer(s) have no right to the photos.

Umm.. is this model just crazy or what? I mean, photographers of models would be in a world of hurt if this was true, right?

SpEcRv9 · 01-20-2009, 12:32 AM

silly models, just sit there and look pretty.

Im2Slow · 01-20-2009, 12:36 AM

i would imagine, that a photographer would need some type of signature or contract from a model , for him to be able to take pics of her and display them in a magazine or a website, if the model signed a contract and or a waiver/release, then the photographer owns the rights to the photos, if nothing was signed then he has no proof of permission to use them photos

TurboV · 01-20-2009, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Im2Slow

i would imagine, that a photographer would need some type of signature or contract from a model , for him to be able to take pics of her and display them in a magazine or a website, if the model signed a contract and or a waiver/release, then the photographer owns the rights to the photos, if nothing was signed then he has no proof of permission to use them photos

She KNEW it was a cover shoot, the magazine contacted her to do it. She wasn't just randomly there. It was a shoot for the magazine. This wasn't "oo, look, there's some girl, let's put her on the cover" The pictures being in the magazine isn't the issue, it's the illegal use of them by the model.

97TurboDSM · 01-20-2009, 12:39 AM

the only way she would gain any ground is if the photog is using the photos for something other than what he or she was assigned and hired to shoot for. at least thats what i take of the situation.

Im2Slow · 01-20-2009, 12:41 AM

with out her signature and proof of a agreement, the photographers have no chance if it goes to court,

PAFirefighter11 · 01-20-2009, 12:47 AM

This is why, no matter how big or how small the shoot is, I ALWAYS have a release stating the situation of the shoot, what the model gets, and that I own the photos. It's signed every time.

It's not that she has the copyright, it's that she isn't allowing a photo of her being used. Without a model release, she can argue this.

TurboV · 01-20-2009, 12:53 AM

The materials are being strictly used for the magazine and the magazine's promotional stuffs. It's actually the model that is using the pictures for non magazine related stuff.

jspek · 01-20-2009, 01:50 AM

my question is why wasnt a release form or anything signed???

i really dont believe she has the rights to the photos. but a release still should have been signed.

Zillon · 01-20-2009, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspek

my question is why wasnt a release form or anything signed???

Agreed.

ALWAYS make a model sign a release form. Doesn't matter who, what, when, where. Always.

jspek · 01-20-2009, 02:04 AM

this may help...a lot to read tho
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

**TROLL** · 01-20-2009, 02:09 AM

She has a very basic understanding of usage rights for COMMERCIAL photo rights. She is totally wrong when it comes to editorial (non-commercial) purposes.
I'm sure the magazine is much more informed on this than she is, aren't they?
Regardless this should be a learning lesson for them to require a release on every shoot, just to avoid this kind of crap in the future.

TurboV · 01-20-2009, 03:36 AM

It's not known what's exactly between the magazine and the model. (I think it was a "good faith" thing that went array when a model started to think she is more important than she really is, honestly. I use to model, and I shake my head at the things that she's trying to claim.) I heard the word "contract" in there, but I am not sure the details.

Oh, and BTW, I'm not the photographer in question, heh. But... I am associated with the magazine, and "know" the model, and am trying to help sort things out as I was present at the shoot and witnessed her behavior. Let's just say, it's pretty damn dumb as an upcoming model to burn the magazine that just gave you a cover IMO. I think there might be a over zealous man-boy "manager/boyfriend" putting ideas into her head. The photographers are indeed staff members of the magazine, and therefore are "press," or whatever she's trying to claim they are not. I'm not sure if she's just too dumb to realize that the photographers weren't like randomly picked off the street corner and do work for the magazine or WTF is going on. Like I said, I'm bewildered, I haven't seen models given this kind of opportunity (cover) turn around and potentially sabotage the whole thing. I'm recommending a host of release forms to the magazine from now on, for both photographic and videographic footage (compiling ones now, and trying to get wording/stuff right, I hate legal jargon).

I dunno, the whole thing to me is like "what the ****... is she... doing?!" Don't piss off the people that are launching your "career," if you wanna call it that.

TurboV · 01-20-2009, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jspek

this may help...a lot to read tho
http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

Very helpful link! Thanks a ton! Got it all bookmarked

As far as what I gathered, just because she owns her likeness, doesn't mean she owns the copyrights on the pictures (which is what I was assuming). And... because it was editorial, and the images aren't going to be sold commercially (at least not by the photographers who are the ones holding the copyrights, and I hope not by the magazine, I don't see them doing that), a release isn't technically needed and she doesn't have much ground to make demands upon. I think it's just something that got blown up by her for some reason.

Now, does anybody know if the compensation has to be mentioned in a model release in NJ? I don't even know what to put in there for compensation... "uhh, you just got published in a magazine, kthnx"? Seriously, I hate legal jargon! I don't know why I decided *I* would be the awesome one and make up releases for everyone to use... lol.

Kaleo55 · 01-20-2009, 11:19 PM

I gotta tell you guys, if you're going to shoot any BODY, you better get a signed release before you do anything with it, meaning any type of publishing, print, broadcast and web/internet use, or you can get sued. In all my years in the business both as client and photographer, whenever a model is involved, not matter what the final use, magazine, brochure, poster, catalog, whatever. Even if for a non-profit organization.

GET A SIGNED RELEASE.

There are loop holes and draw backs to releases and sometimes not that easy to get, especially of there's money, or no money involved. But in most cases the law is side on the models side, because she/he is most vulnerable. Just like the law would most likely side with you if your photo were published by a magazine, organization or company without your written consent. While you may be the author of the image, you DO NOT have the right to publish as you please without a signed release. Look at this way, if YOU were the model, and the photographer said "don't worry, it's only going to print here XYZ, I give you my word", and then all of the sudden the image ends up someplace else that you didn't want it be for whatever reason, you'd be pretty pissed off and rightly so. So the release works for both sides, there are many kinds of release forms, some simple some complex, it really depends on what it's going to used for. Check with ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers).

01-20-2009, 12:31 AM	#1
TurboV Tri-State Addict Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: NJ Member #7584 My Ride: 02 Spec V, 94 Supra TT iTrader: (0)	So... listen to this... (model vs. photog copyrights) Has anybody heard of this? Shoot is done for for established magazine including a model, of what the photographers are listed in the publication as staff photographers. Model then turns around 3 months later and claims she owns all the copyrights on the photographs taken during the shoot, even though they were NEVER released to her, because her face and body is in them, claiming that unless you are a member of the press (uh... isn't a magazine press?) or have a signed release from the model, she (the model) automatically owns all the copyrights and the photographers have no right to use any of the pictures. The model was a willing participant, it's for an upcoming cover for a magazine. Apparently, she feels the need to raise hell with the staff photographers over copyrights. No forms were signed between photographers and model (nor between magazine and photographers). Basically, she is claiming anytime a photoshoot is done with the model, the model automatically owns all copyrights, and the photographer(s) have no right to the photos. Umm.. is this model just crazy or what? I mean, photographers of models would be in a world of hurt if this was true, right? __________________ A few Sentras, couple of Nikons, and a Supra on top.

01-20-2009, 12:39 AM	#5
97TurboDSM TST Ruined My Life! Join Date: Sep 2005 Member #849 My Ride: '03 IY 20th GTI iTrader: (3)	the only way she would gain any ground is if the photog is using the photos for something other than what he or she was assigned and hired to shoot for. at least thats what i take of the situation. __________________ FOR SALE! Canon 5D\|17-40L\|85mm f/1.8\|Sigmalux\|580ex

01-20-2009, 12:53 AM	#8
TurboV Tri-State Addict Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: NJ Member #7584 My Ride: 02 Spec V, 94 Supra TT iTrader: (0)	The materials are being strictly used for the magazine and the magazine's promotional stuffs. It's actually the model that is using the pictures for non magazine related stuff. __________________ A few Sentras, couple of Nikons, and a Supra on top.

01-20-2009, 03:36 AM	#13
TurboV Tri-State Addict Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: NJ Member #7584 My Ride: 02 Spec V, 94 Supra TT iTrader: (0)	It's not known what's exactly between the magazine and the model. (I think it was a "good faith" thing that went array when a model started to think she is more important than she really is, honestly. I use to model, and I shake my head at the things that she's trying to claim.) I heard the word "contract" in there, but I am not sure the details. Oh, and BTW, I'm not the photographer in question, heh. But... I am associated with the magazine, and "know" the model, and am trying to help sort things out as I was present at the shoot and witnessed her behavior. Let's just say, it's pretty damn dumb as an upcoming model to burn the magazine that just gave you a cover IMO. I think there might be a over zealous man-boy "manager/boyfriend" putting ideas into her head. The photographers are indeed staff members of the magazine, and therefore are "press," or whatever she's trying to claim they are not. I'm not sure if she's just too dumb to realize that the photographers weren't like randomly picked off the street corner and do work for the magazine or WTF is going on. Like I said, I'm bewildered, I haven't seen models given this kind of opportunity (cover) turn around and potentially sabotage the whole thing. I'm recommending a host of release forms to the magazine from now on, for both photographic and videographic footage (compiling ones now, and trying to get wording/stuff right, I hate legal jargon). I dunno, the whole thing to me is like "what the ****... is she... doing?!" Don't piss off the people that are launching your "career," if you wanna call it that. __________________ A few Sentras, couple of Nikons, and a Supra on top.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
New photog, old equipment. Need advice.	RSX Type-Slow	Photography	6	10-27-2010 11:03 AM
Silver WRX w/ photog - Colmar: 10:15pm	DPancoast	Spotted!	3	12-29-2009 07:29 PM
Gauging Interest...Photog Meet?	jspek	Photography	23	11-30-2008 06:27 PM
what will we listen to??	96Stang	Off-Topic	8	04-28-2006 06:49 PM

01-20-2009, 12:36 AM	#3
Im2Slow Tri-State Addict Join Date: Apr 2007 Member #4567 iTrader: (0)	i would imagine, that a photographer would need some type of signature or contract from a model , for him to be able to take pics of her and display them in a magazine or a website, if the model signed a contract and or a waiver/release, then the photographer owns the rights to the photos, if nothing was signed then he has no proof of permission to use them photos

01-20-2009, 12:41 AM	#6
Im2Slow Tri-State Addict Join Date: Apr 2007 Member #4567 iTrader: (0)	with out her signature and proof of a agreement, the photographers have no chance if it goes to court,

01-20-2009, 11:19 PM	#15
Kaleo55 Tri-State Aficionado Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Philly Member #5754 My Ride: 95 240SX iTrader: (0)	I gotta tell you guys, if you're going to shoot any BODY, you better get a signed release before you do anything with it, meaning any type of publishing, print, broadcast and web/internet use, or you can get sued. In all my years in the business both as client and photographer, whenever a model is involved, not matter what the final use, magazine, brochure, poster, catalog, whatever. Even if for a non-profit organization. GET A SIGNED RELEASE. There are loop holes and draw backs to releases and sometimes not that easy to get, especially of there's money, or no money involved. But in most cases the law is side on the models side, because she/he is most vulnerable. Just like the law would most likely side with you if your photo were published by a magazine, organization or company without your written consent. While you may be the author of the image, you DO NOT have the right to publish as you please without a signed release. Look at this way, if YOU were the model, and the photographer said "don't worry, it's only going to print here XYZ, I give you my word", and then all of the sudden the image ends up someplace else that you didn't want it be for whatever reason, you'd be pretty pissed off and rightly so. So the release works for both sides, there are many kinds of release forms, some simple some complex, it really depends on what it's going to used for. Check with ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers).