Lorin Edmonds wrote:
It all about discussing what you need before the shoot.

past history and trust are the issues here.

One on my prints - was a cover for a magazine crediting another photographer.

He and the model were both credited.

Your example just seems to be a misunderstanding or mistake.

I'm talking about stuff like when I see photographers plastering a HUGE watermark on photos, rendering them unusable for the model's portfolio, not to mention, they just ruin the photo in general. Why would it be so uncouth to ask a photographer politely if they could downsize/leave the watermark off in certain instances so the model could get more use from the photo? I have a feeling most photographers here would not like the idea, but it seems fair to make a compromise, to me anyway.

Creative Studio One wrote:
the owner of copyright has final say. If you want images altered, buy the copyright. simple.

Okay, but my question is why does the photographer have ultimate copyright? Without the model, there would be no photo. Why is the copyright not shared?

emleighdee wrote:
So why is it that generally, the photographer has most of the rights to the photos(how many and which ones the model gets, where the watermark is placed, if they can be edited, which websites they can be displayed on, etc), when the model is to comply with his/her "rules" about the photos.

Who is paying whom?

Negotiate before the shoot.

emleighdee wrote:

Your example just seems to be a misunderstanding or mistake.

I'm talking about stuff like when I see photographers plastering a HUGE watermark on photos, rendering them unusable for the model's portfolio, not to mention, they just ruin the photo in general. Why would it be so uncouth to ask a photographer politely if they could downsize/leave the watermark off in certain instances so the model could get more use from the photo? I have a feeling most photographers here would not like the idea, but it seems fair to make a compromise, to me anyway.

I think it would depend on what your intentions are with the image.  Keep in mind, you (the model) are selling your face/body (for lack of a better terms).  That's how you make money.  The photographer makes money by taking the pictures of your.  It's a back and forth thing.  I wouldn't have a problem with it if you just wanted a couple prints for your portfolio and were willing to credit me if asked who did them.  But if they are on the internet in anyway, I would insist that my watermark be there in some way.  It can still be stolen, but not only is that image a reflection of your work, but also the photographer's.  I would have a hard time releasing full size files of my work without a watermark.  The contract would have to be VERY precise because I wouldn't want someone to take my photos and try to claim they took them.  However, if a model came to me and asked me to consider non-watermarked prints and possibly more opaque watermarks on their digital copies, I would consider it.  Nothing wrong with asking the question, as long as you're honest with your intentions.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who lie too so be understanding on why a photographer may be skeptical.

emleighdee wrote:

Okay, but my question is why does the photographer have ultimate copyright? Without the model, there would be no photo. Why is the copyright not shared?

-It depends on the agreement.

-It is not prudent to assume you share a copyright.

Mark Salo wrote:

Who is paying whom?

Negotiate before the shoot.

I edited into the OP that I'm talking about trade shoots. Not where someone is being hired.

emleighdee wrote:

Okay, but my question is why does the photographer have ultimate copyright? Without the model, there would be no photo. Why is the copyright not shared?

From what I've heard, the copyright law in Canada (where you are) is rather different than what it is in the USA, so you may wish to consider that when evaluating many of the opinions expressed herein.

emleighdee wrote:
...I'm just posing a question here.

and i'll pose one back to you.  ever wonder why so few models get involved in "model release" discussions?

for every dozen or so "no release - no shoot" responses made by photographers there is rarely a model that chimes in and says, "make your release specific to who and where my likeness is being released and i'll sign it.  don't and you should go look for someone else."  imagine if every model had that understanding and stance in protecting their likeness rights...

what that non-argument says in general terms is models don't care or aren't savvy enough concerning their rights as are photographers.  that should put the other areas of your concern into perspective.

emleighdee wrote:

Okay, but my question is why does the photographer have ultimate copyright? Without the model, there would be no photo. Why is the copyright not shared?

The copyright is to that particular image.  It was their artwork and how they end up making a profit.  However, I agree that if the image goes to print in media both the model and photographer should be credited.

curtis wood wrote:

-It depends on the agreement.

-It is not prudent to assume you share a copyright.

I'd never assume, I'm just wondering why it isn't customary. That's all!

emleighdee wrote:

I edited into the OP that I'm talking about trade shoots. Not where someone is being hired.

-trade makes no difference.

-you need to negotiate these things before hand.

BrokenWings Photography wrote:

The copyright is to that particular image.  It was their artwork and how they end up making a profit.  However, I agree that if the image goes to print in media both the model and photographer should be credited.

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't the photographer's artwork. It is artwork produced by both the photographer and the model. Just because the photographer captures the photo, it doesn't mean, (in imo anyway) that they are creating it, because the model is also holding down her/his part in the deal by posing, emoting, and helping to create a feeling for that image. It takes two!

291 wrote:

and i'll pose one back to you.  ever wonder why so few models get involved in "model release" discussions?

for every dozen or so "no release - no shoot" responses made by photographers there is rarely a model that chimes in and says, "make your release specific to who and where my likeness is being released and i'll sign it.  don't and you should go look for someone else."  imagine if every model had that understanding and stance in protecting their likeness rights...

what that non-argument says in general terms is models don't care or aren't savvy enough concerning their rights as are photographers.  that should put the other areas of your concern into perspective.

Agreed.  And in regards to why the shooter does the watermark - who's face is in the image?  You can easily prove that was you in the photo.  We have a much harder time proving it was us who took it.

curtis wood wrote:

-trade makes no difference.

-you need to negotiate these things before hand.

I think trade definitely makes a difference. If someone hires me, I agree to work by their terms, and vice versa. If I hired a photographer to shoot my wedding and I said I would like 50 photos and I paid for them, I'd expect them to hold that end of the deal up. But trade should benefit both parties.

I also have no issue negotiating, this is just a general discussion.

Creative Studio One wrote:
the owner of copyright has final say. If you want images altered, buy the copyright. simple.

emleighdee wrote:
Okay, but my question is why does the photographer have ultimate copyright? Without the model, there would be no photo. Why is the copyright not shared?

As an aspiring self-portraitist, that bolded statement makes no sense.

Yes, there would be a photo without the model. In fact, models are a rarity among photographs. Almost 50% of my income is from aerial photography, which does not include a model.

emleighdee wrote:
I think trade definitely makes a difference. If someone hires me, I agree to work by their terms, and vice versa. If I hired a photographer to shoot my wedding and I said I would like 50 photos and I paid for them, I'd expect them to hold that end of the deal up. But trade should benefit both parties.

I also have no issue negotiating, this is just a general discussion.

-most photographers will not have an issue with what you are posing here....

-you just have to make the agreement so that there is not an issue down the road.

emleighdee wrote:

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't the photographer's artwork. It is artwork produced by both the photographer and the model. Just because the photographer captures the photo, it doesn't mean, (in imo anyway) that they are creating it, because the model is also holding down her/his part in the deal by posing, emoting, and helping to create a feeling for that image. It takes two!

Like I said, you are in the image and can prove your part of the "artwork."  However the photographer is the one who took the image.  They put together the set, did the post production work to the image afterwards, used their own personal artistic ideas.  So to say it's not OUR artwork isn't quite fair.  And like someone else mentioned, what about the MUA's and designers?  Say I have to hire an MUA and their art is in makeup - which is on you - does that mean they are not a part of the artwork?  This is such a complicated subject.  Make sure the contract is how you want it and work with photographers who are willing to work within your terms.

J Henry wrote:
A lot of times, it takes more than two people to create an image of a person.  There may be specific people for hair, makeup, wardrobe, and perhaps a few photography assistants.  In which case, the model is the least important person on set. 

In smaller productions, the photographer is still responsible for the concept, set, editing, etc.  The photographer is still responsible for the finished product.  Especially if the model is being paid, the photographer is still in charge. 

A good model certainly helps a photo.  A great model can be incredibly valuable.  But even on the model's best day, there's still a hundred ways for the photographer to get the image right or wrong.  No matter how great the model's contribution, it's still the photographer's work/reputation/butt on the line. 

Plus, the photographer retains the copyright. 

I agree with the top part, I am moreso talking about small productions though.

Not always is the photographer responsible for the set or concept. I have worked on shoots where I chose the set/concept, or where we both agreed to something together.

But WHY does the photographer get the copyright? That's the root of this discussion. I am asking why isn't the copyright shared between whoever is participating, and an appropriate contract/release drawn up covering EVERYONE'S butts?

For instance, if a photographer posted a horrible photo of me on a public website, I couldn't do much about it. I could nicely ask them to put a more flattering photo in, but they don't have to, so then I am stuck, the photo reflecting badly on my modeling. But if I put up a photo that I edited badly to make the photo look awful on a public website, the photographer would definitely have a bit of a freak out. Make sense?

(Also, never would I edit a photo without permission, just using this as an example.)

Paul Bryson Photography wrote:

Creative Studio One wrote:
the owner of copyright has final say. If you want images altered, buy the copyright. simple.

As an aspiring self-portraitist, that bolded statement makes no sense.

Yes, there would be a photo without the model. In fact, models are a rarity among photographs. Almost 50% of my income is from aerial photography, which does not include a model.

I am obviously talking about shoots involving a model, as expressed in the OP.

emleighdee wrote:

Okay, but my question is why does the photographer have ultimate copyright? Without the model, there would be no photo. Why is the copyright not shared?

Actually, without a model there can be a photo (of a cow, or a tree, ...) but without a photographer there is absolutely NO picture taken, hence the copyright staying with the photographer. That can be negotiated with the rest of the shoot and its usage very early on, including the presence or size of watermarks.

In the end, the shoot will happen if all parties get what they need for a fair compensation, whatever that may mean.

BrokenWings Photography wrote:
Make sure the contract is how you want it and work with photographers who are willing to work within your terms.

-agree, this is the key to the OP's question.

-if you understand this, there is no issue.

curtis wood wrote:

-agree, this is the key to the OP's question.

-if you understand this, there is no issue.

I agree, I wouldn't work with a photographer if I didn't like their terms.

I guess I'm just wondering why some photographers (SOME, not all, people) feel so self important that they absolutely refuse to budge in order to help a model out (things such as downsizing a watermark, or taking an unflattering photo down.) Just because you have the legal rights to something it doesn't mean you have to be a hardass about it. (Not you...just some people in general haha.)

tenrocK photo wrote:

Actually, without a model there can be a photo (of a cow, or a tree, ...) but without a photographer there is absolutely NO picture taken, hence the copyright staying with the photographer. That can be negotiated with the rest of the shoot and its usage very early on, including the presence or size of watermarks.

In the end, the shoot will happen if all parties get what they need for a fair compensation, whatever that may mean.

Agreed with the last part. The first part, as I explained, I am talking about shoots that involve a model, where the photographer WANTS to involve a model. Without a model, a photographer cannot take a photo of a model. Haha. Hope that clears things up. Not saying we models are the most important people in a shoot, but you can't have a model shot without us!

emleighdee wrote:
I agree with the top part, I am moreso talking about small productions though.

Not always is the photographer responsible for the set or concept. I have worked on shoots where I chose the set/concept, or where we both agreed to something together.

But WHY does the photographer get the copyright? That's the root of this discussion. I am asking why isn't the copyright shared between whoever is participating, and an appropriate contract/release drawn up covering EVERYONE'S butts?

For instance, if a photographer posted a horrible photo of me on a public website, I couldn't do much about it. I could nicely ask them to put a more flattering photo in, but they don't have to, so then I am stuck, the photo reflecting badly on my modeling. But if I put up a photo that I edited badly to make the photo look awful on a public website, the photographer would definitely have a bit of a freak out. Make sense?

(Also, never would I edit a photo without permission, just using this as an example.)

Oh, make no mistake, there WILL photos you don't like of you online, just like there will be good ones of you posted.  Models cannot contribute enough to determine the final outcome.  The quality of the photo will depend on the photographer. 

I'm sure you suggested locations and concepts, but you didn't have the final say.  The final say was when the photographer hit the shutter.  I only mention that because it may help you understand your clients (photographers) in the future. 

The copyright belongs to the photographer because the final product is the photographer's responsibility and the photographer's property.  Models, MUAs, editors, etc. provide valuable services.  Only the photographer provides a product.  The difference is critical in understanding everyone's roles on set. 

Hope that helps.

emleighdee wrote:

I agree, I wouldn't work with a photographer if I didn't like their terms.

I guess I'm just wondering why some photographers (SOME, not all, people) feel so self important that they absolutely refuse to budge in order to help a model out (things such as downsizing a watermark, or taking an unflattering photo down.) Just because you have the legal rights to something it doesn't mean you have to be a hardass about it. (Not you...just some people in general haha.)

Because some people are jerks.  I wouldn't have an issue with it but some would. Just don't work with those types of people.

J Henry wrote:

Oh, make no mistake, there WILL photos you don't like of you online, just like there will be good ones of you posted.  Models cannot contribute enough to determine the final outcome.  The quality of the photo will depend on the photographer. 

I'm sure you suggested locations and concepts, but you didn't have the final say.  The final say was when the photographer hit the shutter.  I only mention that because it may help you understand your clients (photographers) in the future. 

The copyright belongs to the photographer because the final product is the photographer's responsibility and the photographer's property.  Models, MUAs, editors, etc. provide valuable services.  Only the photographer provides a product.  The difference is critical in understanding everyone's roles on set. 

Hope that helps.

I appreciate your insights.

I guess my beef is with people who are hardheaded and self important. I don't work with those types and won't in the future, but your insights on providing a service vs a product were very helpful.

emleighdee wrote:
What about the models? ...

Basically, it takes two to produce a photo featuring a person. A photographer, and a model.

Only two? What about wardrobe and makeup? Using your argument, any of those artists could be entitled to a copyright claim.

As others have noted, you are entitled to what you negotiate.

eekimelphoto wrote:

Only two? What about wardrobe and makeup? Using your argument, any of those artists could be entitled to a copyright claim.

As others have noted, you are entitled to what you negotiate.

Sorry, as stated before I said small scale shoot involving the photographer and model, that is all.

emleighdee wrote:

I appreciate your insights.

I guess my beef is with people who are hardheaded and self important. I don't work with those types and won't in the future, but your insights on providing a service vs a product were very helpful.

I do agree with what others posted here though:  you may be able to negotiate a lot of these details before each shoot.  Your experiences will vary from one shoot to the next.

DougBPhoto wrote:

From what I've heard, the copyright law in Canada (where you are) is rather different than what it is in the USA, so you may wish to consider that when evaluating many of the opinions expressed herein.

Yup. Canada is the only country I know of in which the copyright may default to the model. Barring an agreement to the contrary, whoever commissions the work owns the copyright in Canada. In other countries, it's whoever commits the work to tangible form.