Model
SaraElisabeth
Posts: 75
New York, New York, US
I understand that photography is a skill and that photographers put in a lot of effort after a shoot with editing, and before with equipment. I understand that when someone takes a photo of the public or a landscape or a sporting event, that is THEIR photo and their work because the subject was there, like that anyway;
HOWEVER,
models are not found in the wild spending all day rolling about sensually in the sand, oiled, in a bikini!
just like the photos, that is a finished product. we wax, pluck, wardrobe, expensive skin care, haircuts, work out, work on being comfortable and understanding where our bodies go, when they look good when they dont... its not JUST sitting there and looking pretty for the hours during the shoot for us either. Even on the shoot, we contribute and often I find myself with a photo I like, that I got myself ready for, standing a way I do because I put thought previously into how my body looks, and in a set that came about because I saw it and ran over there and the photographer followed, and its my OWN face looking back at me, yet... he owns the image. Sometimes I cant even have the unedited photo? I cant even have the hires photo so I can get prints made as I please (or as I spill coffee on the ones that I have...) Not that he didnt capture it, but I definately did something... right?
Why is it that a photographer usually owns the work that comes from a shoot?
dont flame me, this is a serious wonder.
Photographer
Michael Gundelach
Posts: 763
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
This is why I actually pay models... I pay the whole package (the hair, theworked out body, the waxed legs etc...). Since I pay for it - the rest of the process belongs to me - also the rights...
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
It has everything to do with actual copyright law. The photographer is known as an artist in the law, the model the subject of the art. Legally, once that photographer pushes the shutter release button on his camera, the photograph is immediately copyrighted to him/her and therefor owned by him/her. Do a good search on the Berne convention and you will see all sorts of information on the copyright laws.
Some photographers, like me, let the model use her images for anything she wants except for money making purposes. She can display them on any website as long as credit is given to me. If she wants to make money from them or if I make money from the shots outside of what was originally planned, we split the profits.
I would also like to address the "we wax, pluck" and so on.
Photographers practice, spend all kinds of money on their craft, have to learn all kinds of camera settings, what setting will create what result. What filter to use on their lens when, when to use a flash and when not to, when to over expose and under expose the shot, how to pose the model in the lighting situation at hand. We have to be good at getting into the models head to bring out her best for the shots we both need. Just like models arent just sitting there looking pretty, photographers are not just turning on a light and pushing a button and everything just happens to come out well.
And just as you hate when what you said is ignored, a lot of models, especially models who are new and or have an attitude, photographers hate it when the fact that we are doing more than just putting the camera on automatic and pushing the button is ignored as well. Not to sound arrogant or anything but I as well as many other photographers feel there is a lot more knowledge involved in doing photography than there is in "wax, pluck cut my hair" etc etc.
Ray
Photographer
Glamour Boulevard
Posts: 8628
Sacramento, California, US
Hartsoe,
Wether you pay the model or not, or pay for anything for her or not, as soon as you snap the shutter, that photo is copyrighted to you.
Model
SaraElisabeth
Posts: 75
New York, New York, US
I was definately more asking about the legal issue, not challenging the legitimacy of the skill of any photography in any way. (I'm not saying there is anything easy about photography. I'm barely an amatuer photographer, but have taken enough art in college, and was about halfway to my degree, to know what is involved.)
But, i do get this wierd feeling when I tell people to look at my work and.. "technically" .. I dont have any work. Its not mine.
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
The same reason the painter owns the copyright, the same reason the writer owns the copyright.
You are a prop, a part of the whole. Even if you are the only thing showing in the photo you are still just a prop. The angle, focus, choice of lens, exposure, speed, film type, lighting.. etc are all the photographer.
Photographer
Michael Gundelach
Posts: 763
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Posted by Glamour Boulevard:
Hartsoe,
Wether you pay the model or not, or pay for anything for her or not, as soon as you snap the shutter, that photo is copyrighted to you. You're right about that. I actually just want to state that this is for me a reason to pay for a model. What I do with the "product" (sorry I hate this term) in the end should belong to me. I think that's fair...
Model
SaraElisabeth
Posts: 75
New York, New York, US
sort of on the side, but, arent there disclaimers on works that say they werent based on anyone living or dead...etc?
again, im just trying to understand here, not challenge the skill of anyone.
Photographer
Tim Downin
Posts: 633
Salem, Oregon, US
Posted by Mike Cummings:
The same reason the painter owns the copyright, the same reason the writer owns the copyright.
You are a prop, a part of the whole. Even if you are the only thing showing in the photo you are still just a prop. The angle, focus, choice of lens, exposure, speed, film type, lighting.. etc are all the photographer.
I will agree with this but also add that when you look at a photo, you're seeing that photographer's *interpretation*, no one else's. You are seeing the world through another person's eyes, no matter what else external goes on, the creation is ultimately theirs.
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
sort of on the side, but, arent there disclaimers on works that say they werent based on anyone living or dead...etc?
again, im just trying to understand here, not challenge the skill of anyone. That is to get around libel issues. This is the same reason you have a release. Without the release I still own the image, I just can't use it to portray you in a false light. I can't take the image I own and place a caption about how you like to get stoned or have orgies. (I am assuming these are untrue of you)
Photographer
Gary L.
Posts: 306
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
Well said.. i agree with every word, 110%. -g Posted by Glamour Boulevard:
It has everything to do with actual copyright law. The photographer is known as an artist in the law, the model the subject of the art. Legally, once that photographer pushes the shutter release button on his camera, the photograph is immediately copyrighted to him/her and therefor owned by him/her. Do a good search on the Berne convention and you will see all sorts of information on the copyright laws.
Some photographers, like me, let the model use her images for anything she wants except for money making purposes. She can display them on any website as long as credit is given to me. If she wants to make money from them or if I make money from the shots outside of what was originally planned, we split the profits.
I would also like to address the "we wax, pluck" and so on.
Photographers practice, spend all kinds of money on their craft, have to learn all kinds of camera settings, what setting will create what result. What filter to use on their lens when, when to use a flash and when not to, when to over expose and under expose the shot, how to pose the model in the lighting situation at hand. We have to be good at getting into the models head to bring out her best for the shots we both need. Just like models arent just sitting there looking pretty, photographers are not just turning on a light and pushing a button and everything just happens to come out well.
And just as you hate when what you said is ignored, a lot of models, especially models who are new and or have an attitude, photographers hate it when the fact that we are doing more than just putting the camera on automatic and pushing the button is ignored as well. Not to sound arrogant or anything but I as well as many other photographers feel there is a lot more knowledge involved in doing photography than there is in "wax, pluck cut my hair" etc etc.
Ray
Model
SaraElisabeth
Posts: 75
New York, New York, US
i just have images of me taking self portraits with a shudder remote and an assistant to push the tripod around after me... ;p
I understand the modeling and the photography, and like to think of myself as a rank beginner in niether, but recently i found it wierd to say " go look at my work and... " when I really dont have any. Its just a contemplation post, or a legal one if not.
so in order to own a photo, a model either has to agree in writing that the copywrite is shared, buy the rights, or... is that it?
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
i just have images of me taking self portraits with a shudder remote and an assistant to push the tripod around after me... ;p
so in order to own a photo, a model either has to agree in writing that the copywrite is shared, buy the rights, or... is that it? Yes except it is the photographer that has to agree, he owns the copyright by default.
Model
SaraElisabeth
Posts: 75
New York, New York, US
Posted by Mike Cummings:
Yes except it is the photographer that has to agree, he owns the copyright by default. yes, thats what i meant.
its a long story I wont relate publically in its entirety, but recently i decided i'd rather have a print in a different size (the size the damn thing was supposed to be in in the first place, not the size it arrived in), and found myself contemplating having my print guy scan it because the photographer wont part with a highres so I can even get it printed again in the correct size, nor can he be bothered to get it done properly.
I think this is a rotten move and wont be working with him again (not just for this reason) but its frusterating and definately rubs in my face how distinctally NOT mine that photo is... even tho it shows nothing but my face. ;p
Model
Lindsay Jolly
Posts: 118
Toronto, Iowa, US
I posted this elsewhere but it is important to remember that the law in Canada states that whomever commissions or pays for the shoot owns the copyright - not always the photographer. www.LindsayJolly.com
Model
SaraElisabeth
Posts: 75
New York, New York, US
i wont thread-hijack my own thread, but i'd be interested on a seperate note to read various releases that others use. 
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
Posted by Mike Cummings:
Yes except it is the photographer that has to agree, he owns the copyright by default. yes, thats what i meant.
its a long story I wont relate publically, but recently i decided i'd rather have a print in a different size (the size the damn thing was supposed to be in in the first place, not the size it arrived in), and found myself contemplating having my print guy scan it because the photographer wont part with a highres so I can even get it printed again in the correct size, nor can he be bothered to get it done properly.
I think this is a rotten move and wont be working with him again (not just for this reason) but its frusterating and definately rubs in my face how distinctally NOT mine that photo is... even tho it shows nothing but my face. ;p Yep and the sooner you come to terms with that and decide if what you want is worth the release, the better off you will be. (you being models in general... I am not throwing stones)
Photographer
Michael Gundelach
Posts: 763
Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
i wont thread-hijack my own thread, but i'd be interested on a seperate note to read various releases that others use. Lol - I can send you my german one ;o)
But it stated, that the model has every right to publish the original picture for whatever reason she might have...
She get a complete CD/DVD with fullsize files too...
But then again - I'm not professional anyway...
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
i wont thread-hijack my own thread, but i'd be interested on a seperate note to read various releases that others use. Releases are provided by the photographer in most cases. Ask for a copy of the release BEFORE agreeing to a shoot. If you feel changes need to be made, make them BEFORE agreeing to the shoot and submit them for approval. Releases limit what can be done with an image but do not change copyright. As for this shared copyright, it only exists in limited cases. Most of the time it is when a paper or study is co authored.(sp?)
Photographer
piers
Posts: 117
London, Arkansas, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
so in order to own a photo, a model either has to agree in writing that the copywrite is shared, buy the rights, or... is that it? No. Although it is technically possible it should never be done.
If you want usage you buy (or trade) a licence for that use.
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
There is a sticky thread that explains copyright.
The sum of it though it pretty clear.
Because the photographer is considered the Artist, unless exception is made either by contract, release, or based on another country's law, The artist always has copyright.
Otherwise, the debate would probably tie up the courts for ages until a set of definitions was defined.
As for releases, go to most major photography sites, and you will see sample releases.
Unlike most photographers, I give joint rights to finished product.
This is better than paying the model in my opinion, because in general, I have made much more money off of some of my images than would be fair if I paid the model $50 to shoot. (My first poster made well over $2000 for me)
Model
SaraElisabeth
Posts: 75
New York, New York, US
i meant i've seen plenty of photographer releases, but never one for any sort of joint copywrite. sorry if that didnt come across.. havent had my coffee yet this am.
i usually see clearly spelled out what i get (cds/prints/edits/percent of sales) but i guess if the copywrite thing is never done thats why ive never seen it. ;p
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
i meant i've seen plenty of photographer releases, but never one for any sort of joint copywrite. sorry if that didnt come across.. havent had my coffee yet this am.
i usually see clearly spelled out what i get (cds/prints/edits/percent of sales) but i guess if the copywrite thing is never done thats why ive never seen it. ;p I'll bet you have never seen Bigfoot either.. Like shared copyrights there are plenty that say they have seen Bigfoot. Art Bell where are you???
If you need certain things out of a shoot and the photographer agrees to them, put it in writing. Hopefully then you won't have any problems.
Model
SaraElisabeth
Posts: 75
New York, New York, US
Posted by Mike Cummings:
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
i meant i've seen plenty of photographer releases, but never one for any sort of joint copywrite. sorry if that didnt come across.. havent had my coffee yet this am.
i usually see clearly spelled out what i get (cds/prints/edits/percent of sales) but i guess if the copywrite thing is never done thats why ive never seen it. ;p I'll bet you have never seen Bigfoot either.. Like shared copyrights there are plenty that say they have seen Bigfoot. Art Bell where are you???
If you need certain things out of a shoot and the photographer agrees to them, put it in writing. Hopefully then you won't have any problems.
its my first issue. Honestly, in the past 6 years I can't remember a photographer who didnt offer more than was in the release, or go out of his way. I dont expect problems to be a trend. Just wanted to discuss...
Photographer
Ty Simone
Posts: 2885
Edison, New Jersey, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
i meant i've seen plenty of photographer releases, but never one for any sort of joint copywrite. sorry if that didnt come across.. havent had my coffee yet this am.
i usually see clearly spelled out what i get (cds/prints/edits/percent of sales) but i guess if the copywrite thing is never done thats why ive never seen it. ;p I posted one in another thread.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet: i meant i've seen plenty of photographer releases, but never one for any sort of joint copywrite. sorry if that didnt come across.. havent had my coffee yet this am. i usually see clearly spelled out what i get (cds/prints/edits/percent of sales) but i guess if the copywrite thing is never done thats why ive never seen it. ;p a thought for you..
you shouldn't look at a photogrpher any differently then a sculpture or a painter, the only difference is the medium used...its still the photographers composition and skill that create the images...
as the subject of a painter or sculptures work, do you think you should get credit for the final work?
anyway..i am not positive two people can hold copyright on the same work...
Photographer
CreativeSandBoxStudio
Posts: 1984
London, England, United Kingdom
Silly Rabbit becasue.....one has to make a living from what they do, so there is your answer...bottonline.
Photographer
Mark Crismond Photos
Posts: 78
SICKLERVILLE, New Jersey, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
its a long story I wont relate publically in its entirety, but recently i decided i'd rather have a print in a different size (the size the damn thing was supposed to be in in the first place, not the size it arrived in), and found myself contemplating having my print guy scan it because the photographer wont part with a highres so I can even get it printed again in the correct size, nor can he be bothered to get it done properly.
I think this is a rotten move and wont be working with him again (not just for this reason) but its frusterating and definately rubs in my face how distinctally NOT mine that photo is... even tho it shows nothing but my face. ;p Juliet,
I'm sorry that this happened to you. Every photographer is different as far as what they agree with their images. I personally let each model have hi-res on a CD and on my release I give usage rights, stating that you can reprint these images for your own promotional, non-commercial purposes. Usage rights, however, do not change the owner of the copyright.
Posted by Doug Swinskey
a thought for you..
you shouldn't look at a photogrpher any differently then a sculpture or a painter, the only difference is the medium used...its still the photographers composition and skill that create the images...
as the subject of a painter or scultures work, do you think you should get credit for the final work?
anyway..i am not positive two people can hold copyright on the same work... This is the answer to your original question. The person who creates the image owns the copyright.
I can see your point about co-ownership of an image, but only in the following circumstance:
[b]the model comes up with the concept to be shot
she "hires" the photographer
she rents the studio and equipment
she pays the MUA
the concept and design of each shot is discussed and created collectively...
This would be the only scenario I can think of that I would share a copyright.
Photographer
CreativeSandBoxStudio
Posts: 1984
London, England, United Kingdom
Posted by Mark Crismond Photos:
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
its a long story I wont relate publically in its entirety, but recently i decided i'd rather have a print in a different size (the size the damn thing was supposed to be in in the first place, not the size it arrived in), and found myself contemplating having my print guy scan it because the photographer wont part with a highres so I can even get it printed again in the correct size, nor can he be bothered to get it done properly.
I think this is a rotten move and wont be working with him again (not just for this reason) but its frusterating and definately rubs in my face how distinctally NOT mine that photo is... even tho it shows nothing but my face. ;p Juliet,
I'm sorry that this happened to you. Every photographer is different as far as what they agree with their images. I personally let each model have hi-res on a CD and on my release I give usage rights, stating that you can reprint these images for your own promotional, non-commercial purposes. Usage rights, however, do not change the owner of the copyright.
Posted by Doug Swinskey
a thought for you..
you shouldn't look at a photogrpher any differently then a sculpture or a painter, the only difference is the medium used...its still the photographers composition and skill that create the images...
as the subject of a painter or scultures work, do you think you should get credit for the final work?
anyway..i am not positive two people can hold copyright on the same work... This is the answer to your original question. The person who creates the image owns the copyright.
I can see your point about co-ownership of an image, but only in the following circumstance:
[b]the model comes up with the concept to be shot
she "hires" the photographer
she rents the studio and equipment
she pays the MUA
the concept and design of each shot is discussed and created collectively...
This would be the only scenario I can think of that I would share a copyright. A buyout would be better than a shared ownership of image. And the work-for-hire......means they might own the image(physical film)
Photographer
piers
Posts: 117
London, Arkansas, US
Posted by Mark Crismond Photos:
the model comes up with the concept to be shot
she "hires" the photographer
she rents the studio and equipment
she pays the MUA
the concept and design of each shot is discussed and created collectively...
That simply makes it a typical client shoot and the point about current copyright is that in that situation the client does not own, share or have any stake in the copyright.
WFH is a red herring - unfortunately there seem to be lots of posters who think commissioned = WFH. It doesn't*. Fortunately WFH doesn't even exist here in the UK.
Now, you could agree to work under a contract that removed all the protection and benefits of copyright law.
But why would you want do that?
* Apparently Canada is an exception.
Photographer
Mark Crismond Photos
Posts: 78
SICKLERVILLE, New Jersey, US
Posted by Alex Alexander:
A buyout would be better than a shared ownership of image. And the work-for-hire......means they might own the image(physical film)
I agree Alex that a buyout would be best, but most models may not be able to afford what we would charge them. On work-for-hire, I personally still hold the copyright and work out usage rights. I had many bad experiences in the 80's that made me decide never to sell my copyright away again. (I may have been able to retire if I wasn't so young and naive.)
Photographer
Curt at photoworks
Posts: 31812
Riverside, California, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
i wont thread-hijack my own thread, but i'd be interested on a seperate note to read various releases that others use. fyi, I have a mini-portal on releases on my site. Lots of examples and much information.
http://photoworks.ws/model_release.htm
Curt
Photographer
Curt at photoworks
Posts: 31812
Riverside, California, US
Although I understand the notion of the model being a "prop," I think it's misleading with respect to the origin of the confusion on this issue. The problem, if it can be called a problem, is that the model is a conscious prop and thus different from any other kind of prop.
Photographer
H. Robert Holmes
Posts: 104
TALL TIMBERS, Maryland, US
Indeed! A conscious prop! But, SAP that I am, I'm actually grateful for the models I work with!
And although I own the copyright for all the pics, I give them the rights to use the finished pics in any way they like. If they sell, they pass on a percentage of the profits. I give them all of the shots they want, (unless I absolutely hate a shot. No one gets that!). I give them a High Res CD and even specific requests they have.
After all, if it wasn't for the models, my pics would be a bit empty....
Model
chelsey
Posts: 154
Lea Hill, Washington, US
The best thing to do is find out what the photographer expects in a TFP or paid shoot before you shoot with them. If you don't like it maybe try to let him know what it is that you want and maybe you can negotate terms. If not don't work with them or find a photographer that works with you. Every photographer is different. Theres some photographers i won't work with because I don't like what I get back or I only work with them limited to which photographers I establish mutual terms.
Photographer
Marvin Dockery
Posts: 2243
Alcoa, Tennessee, US
Posted by SpaceAgeJuliet:
I understand that photography is a skill and that photographers put in a lot of effort after a shoot with editing, and before with equipment. I understand that when someone takes a photo of the public or a landscape or a sporting event, that is THEIR photo and their work because the subject was there, like that anyway;
HOWEVER,
models are not found in the wild spending all day rolling about sensually in the sand, oiled, in a bikini!
just like the photos, that is a finished product. we wax, pluck, wardrobe, expensive skin care, haircuts, work out, work on being comfortable and understanding where our bodies go, when they look good when they dont... its not JUST sitting there and looking pretty for the hours during the shoot for us either. Even on the shoot, we contribute and often I find myself with a photo I like, that I got myself ready for, standing a way I do because I put thought previously into how my body looks, and in a set that came about because I saw it and ran over there and the photographer followed, and its my OWN face looking back at me, yet... he owns the image. Sometimes I cant even have the unedited photo? I cant even have the hires photo so I can get prints made as I please (or as I spill coffee on the ones that I have...) Not that he didnt capture it, but I definately did something... right?
Why is it that a photographer usually owns the work that comes from a shoot?
dont flame me, this is a serious wonder. There is one way that a model may own all rights to her images.
Work out a Shoot for Hire agreement with a photographer that still shoots film. (If he shoots digital, you will need to supply him with a card for his camera)
He takes the film out of the camera and hands it to you, at the end of each roll. After the shoot he writes you a release to all images he made of you on a given date. Have a witness sign the release. Then write him a check, and mark it paid in full for photography for hire.
I have done this for commercial customers, and a lot of wedding photographers are doing this.
The down side is that you must have the film processed, and pay for all scanning and editing cost.
The cost to you will be higher, but you are paying this price to have total control.
Model
A BRITT PRO-AM
Posts: 7840
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, California, US
Maybe im not understanding this question... u want to have the photos / Images of you... therefore surely you just want copies?
no problem! is there???
I never had a relationship where the photographer refused me copies even when he just paid $800 for the shoot, and none have refused me use of their images
Only 2 in 20 years have asked me not to change any with digital art / enhancement etc and they were both last year
(even though Im ARTY & adequate with photoshop)
But why would you want the rights??? Is that what you want?
ps
Actually the only photos from shoots i have ever had taken and NOT already been given copies of all images taken - were the two (separate) guys I was seeing/sleeping with at the time...
Hmmm
I probably just havent got around to asking yet!
Model
A BRITT PRO-AM
Posts: 7840
CARDIFF BY THE SEA, California, US
actually that not quite true
theres a guy in London who deleted a load by accident then only saved the remainder at low res coz he as new to digital....
and then there is ED GORDON from www. EXPLORELIGHT.com who cheats models into nude TFP and then makes excuses about being too ill to communicate with them (while he swans around the world TEACHING photographers) and despite being asked and outed...this Ed GORDON has never gives a single image to the models involved INC me!
HUH!
technically a photographer ... personally a ****
Model
Jen-E
Posts: 113
Nashville, Tennessee, US
to me, it's about art. It's like when I finish a painting....I own it. If I take a picture of my child and put it in my family album, I own that, too. That's the way it's looked upon by most and in the copyright law, IMO.
Now, every photographer I've worked with has a model release form specifying the rights to the photograph. I usually own at least shared rights of my photos unless I'm paid for the gig. Then, they belong to the photog and not me.
Photographer
Mike Cummings
Posts: 5896
LAKE COMO, Florida, US
Posted by Curt Burgess:
Although I understand the notion of the model being a "prop," I think it's misleading with respect to the origin of the confusion on this issue. The problem, if it can be called a problem, is that the model is a conscious prop and thus different from any other kind of prop. I think the model understanding she is a prop will help her understand why I own the copyright.
I am not saying that models don't contribute to the shoot or that they are not a part of the creative process. In fact I would rather have a model say "can we try this" than one that won't think at all.
|
