DougBPhoto wrote:
Actually, I've been informed by rather credible sources that in Canada, it is not really accurate to say that model releases and copyright have nothing to do with each other.

Apparently, the model release forms in Canada typically releases both privacy/publicity rights AND any possible claim on copyright.

291 wrote:
please source that information.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Scroll up above your post where a working Canadian model agreed?

or look at #3 on the following:

http://www.capic.org/download_pdfs/Form … eement.pdf

or

http://web.uvic.ca/ail/model.htm

or

page 5 - long form release http://www.carfacontario.ca/images/model_releases.pdf

I could go on, but I presume you know how to Google.

I also have additional references/sources, but will only disclose them privately.

i suggest rather than me do the google you review the links you provided (and subsequent text) to determine where copyright provision is required to the party releasing their likeness.

one link is a release where such language is included without substantiation it is required, the other links don't include such language which stands to reason based on that learned opinion it isn't required.

the release of one's likeness is not entitlement to ownership of imaging produced, however, as stated in this thread by other respondents there are applications where such entitlement exists.  however, such provision for ownership is not provided through the release of likeness. 

the fact is, such provision could be applied whether a release is signed or not.  thus, it is not a release that stipulates copyright provision as a release has different intent and purpose.

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!

Who makes sure the model is properly lit? Who's job is it to produce a high quality image?
Who sets the backround and the scene?
It IS the photographers art work. Are YOU lighting the photo, playing with the buttons on the camera? The model is a part of the art work, YOU by no means pressed that button.

291 wrote:

DougBPhoto wrote:
Actually, I've been informed by rather credible sources that in Canada, it is not really accurate to say that model releases and copyright have nothing to do with each other.

Apparently, the model release forms in Canada typically releases both privacy/publicity rights AND any possible claim on copyright.

i suggest rather than me do the google you review the links you provided (and subsequent text) to determine where copyright provision is required to the party releasing their likeness.

one link is a release where such language is included without substantiation it is required, the other links don't include such language which stands to reason based on that learned opinion it isn't required.

the release of one's likeness is not entitlement to ownership of imaging produced, however, as stated in this thread by other respondents there are applications where such entitlement exists.  however, such provision for ownership is not provided through the release of likeness. 

the fact is, such provision could be applied whether a release is signed or not.  thus, it is not a release that stipulates copyright provision as a release has different intent and purpose.

You said there is no correlation between the two, I've just shown you that there is, yet you're still arguing in the face of the facts that Canadian copyright law differs from US Copyright law, and as a result, it is very common for Canadian photographers to include a waiver of copyright claims in the model release.

With the two things being addressed in the same legal document in Canada, they are not the completely separate issues that they are in the USA.

Even the Professional Photographer's of Canada wants to change the Canadian copyright laws to automatically give photographers of commissioned works copyright in their photographs, but I'm sure you will have a rationalization for that as well.

Perhaps I should ask you to justify YOUR expertise in Canadian copyright law and the precedents that contradicts what many Canadian photographers feel they need to do to ensure they have a sole, unambiguous copyright to their images.

That's okay though, you really don't need to, because I respect the opinions of those who shared their knowledge on this issue with me.

DougBPhoto wrote:
Apparently, the model release forms in Canada typically releases both privacy/publicity rights AND any possible claim on copyright.

In spite of uninformed arguments by those who believe U.S. law applies universally, your above statement is 100% correct.

Gary Livingston wrote:
Simple answer:

Models are a prop.

Ha!! Really??  Is that your final answer?

Gary Livingston wrote:
Simple answer:

Models are a prop.

Apparently not. She thinks because one models for a piece of art, that she made it. No. She HELPED make a piece of art, but as model, she obviously didnt click the button for said photos which makes it the photographers art.

Silly OP.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Ha!! Really??  Is that your final answer?

The model can really make the peice of art that wondeful, but its the photographer that lights you, clicks the button, edits your photos, etc.

Jessyka Ann Photography wrote:

Who makes sure the model is properly lit? Who's job is it to produce a high quality image?
Who sets the backround and the scene?
It IS the photographers art work. Are YOU lighting the photo, playing with the buttons on the camera? The model is a part of the art work, YOU by no means pressed that button.

Im okay with being artwork but my no means is what we do not an art.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Im okay with being artwork but my no means is what we do not an art.

As someone who does self portraits, I agree with you.

Gary Livingston wrote:
Simple answer:

Models are props.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
Ha!! Really??  Is that your final answer?

so your just a lens? No talent or skill back there just a lens?   Heres my take on all the elitist attitudes around here.  You get good models to build your business because average girls want to look like us, so they come to you to make them look like us, we sell products, even whole magazines, we sell clothes, makeup etc....Id say thats more than being "just a prop."

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Ha!! Really??  Is that your final answer?

No. I fixed my grammar.

But, if you remove your ego you'll realize that is the truth.

A photographer could be shooting with any model of any talent level in the world and the success of the execution of an image doesn't rely on the model even a fraction as much as it does on the photographer.

If the opposite were true any image of Heidi Klum in her prime would be a wildly successful work of art no matter what photographer took it.  Whether it is my 10 year old cousin or Helmet Newton.  But, that is not the reality of it at all.

The photographer is in charge of the execution of taking the concept from intangible form to tangible form.  The role of a model is nothing more than a prop to support that process. And, as creative as the most amazing model is, that contribution is miniscule in scope of the entire process.

This of course becomes more obvious as you work with higher level photographers that have a master command of their skill set and understand how to expertly take the images in their head and execute them.

Think of it another way, can a photographer create a personalized style without using a specific model over and over again?

What defines a photographer's style?

What is necessary for any artist to execute at an expert level?

emleighdee wrote:

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

This is a very good question/point that i wonder about also. When it's trade yet the photographer seems to have copyright? Is it because he does the mechanical/computer/chemical "producing" of the image?

Jessyka Ann Photography wrote:

The model can really make the peice of art that wondeful, but its the photographer that lights you, clicks the button, edits your photos, etc.

Agreed and appreciated.  Im just saying you dont see models running around degrading photographers in every other thread all the time. It almost seems like it doesnt matter what the topic is, someone always seems to throw in the I dont need you Im above you remarks towards models, totally unnessecary and not what she was asking.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Gary Livingston wrote:
Simple answer:

Models are props.

so your just a lens? No talent or skill back there just a lens?   Heres my take on all the elitist attitudes around here.  You get good models to build your business because average girls want to look like us, so they come to you to make them look like us, we sell products, even whole magazines, we sell clothes, makeup etc....Id say thats more than being "just a prop."

You seem to be confusing the value of your "celebrity" with that of your skill set.

Jessie Shannon wrote:

Agreed and appreciated.  Im just saying you dont see models running around degrading photographers in every other thread all the time. It almost seems like it doesnt matter what the topic is, someone always seems to throw in the I dont need you Im above you remarks towards models, totally unnessecary and not what she was asking.

I wasn't saying models are not needed.

I am very bluntly explaining a model's role. 

Just because I need my camera doesn't mean my images belong to Canon.

Gary Livingston wrote:

I wasn't saying models are not needed.

I am very bluntly explaining a model's role. 

Just because I need my camera doesn't mean my images belong to Canon.

I would never expect a photographer to give up his right to an image without good rhyme or reason.  Im tired of seeing models constantly getting the your beneath us treatment.  The girl was asking a question.  Because your a prop is not an answer

Lizzy Borden wrote:

This is a very good question/point that i wonder about also. When it's trade yet the photographer seems to have copyright? Is it because he does the mechanical/computer/chemical "producing" of the image?

-it is whatever way the agreement is written.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
I would never expect a photographer to give up his right to an image without good rhyme or reason.  Im tired of seeing models constantly getting the your beneath us treatment.  The girl was asking a question.  Because your a prop is not an answer

You may disagree but, in reality that is the true reason for why a model does not get any ownership (full or part) of an image they are in.

I'm sorry if that is too "harsh" for you to accept. But, that is why copyright law in the US exists as it does. 

A model is interchangeable. A photographer, a good one, could swap any number of models that share a similar look and achieve as successful of an image as the last.

Your argument about certain models selling more products or driving more business does not apply because that is where the value of celebrity comes into play and they are in no way related. 

And, a top tier model that is used for an ad is paid for that value of celebrity and does not walk away with part ownership of the images.

Even if the model is not paid, s/he is not paid they are not entitled to full/part ownership of the image.

That is because a model at the core function within the creative process is nothing more than a prop to support the photographer's execution of his/her vision.

Even if a model PAYS a photographer to do a shoot the model in no way owns the copyright in full or part.  Only if a contract is signed that assigns ownership in full or part to a model (or any other client) does that occur.  It is not by default. Because, money also plays a miniscule role in the execution of an idea.

Once again, because you seem to be misunderstanding, I am NOT saying a model is not needed nor beneath anyone.

I am simply stating the role of a model in the creative  process and why a model is not entitled to ownership of an image.

curtis wood wrote:

-it is whatever way the agreement is written.

Just be aware that without an agreement that states otherwise in the US the law is set up to grant the photographer full ownership of the images produced regardless of who is involved or if payment was exchanged.

Gary Livingston wrote:
Even if a model PAYS a photographer to do a shoot the model in no way owns the copyright in full or part.  Only if a contract is signed that assigns ownership in full or part to a model (or any other client) does that occur.  It is not by default. Because, money also plays a miniscule role in the execution of an idea.

-Gary has stated this correctly.

-why is this so hard to understand?

curtis wood wrote:
-Gary has stated this correctly.

-why is this so hard to understand?

Its not, I agree if you read my posts Ive never said otherwise.  Im simply saying the elitist responses on here and the comments about how much one has spent and the calling of a model a prop is unnessecary and is repeated far to often.  A good model can also achieve the same look and style across photographers as well as many even the good ones.are also interchangable but we dont go bragging around and slamming it unnessecarily in your faces all the time.  an unknown non celebrity thats a good model can still sell a product well it not just about celebrity.  We are part of the art, in fact we are the art Captured not created only enhanced and modified by you, the constant downgrading needs to go.  As you have said and I have said the law determines the ownership.

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?

ok, I did not read the entire thread because this topic has been worn down to the bone in the forums. I do not know Canadian law, but in my state/USA, the rights to the image are given to the photographer by LAW, not by chance. I have a model agreement and I also give the model a studio document that defines the 'usage' of the image by the model. The model can read both before the shoot and negotiate alternative terms. respectful, reasonable, and professional communications can lead to a lot of latitude with me. Blunt demands = next! that is true in most business scenarios.

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?

if you want the copyright, take self portraits.

Jessie Shannon wrote:
As you have said and I have said the law determines the ownership.

-I agree.

-This is the only determination possible.

Nedah Oyin wrote:
Why do people always throw in how much they paid for their equipment like anyone else should give a flying fuck..? It perplexes me every time..

How much you paid for your stuff is irrelevant to everything except how much you paid for your stuff, period..

+1

jeez.

danchez wrote:
if you want the copyright, take self portraits.

Or live in Canada.... oh wait.. she does

she can commission the work, she can negotiate terms, can pay the photographer, there are lots of options.

It is kinda funny though, that her questions were basically wondering why photographers are frequently so self-important, which has been wonderfully illustrated by so many in the thread.

DougBPhoto wrote:
It is kinda funny though, that her questions were basically wondering why photographers are frequently so self-important, which has been wonderfully illustrated by so many in the thread.

Isn't that the truth!

This will not be a popular statement, but photographers in the U.S. should be thankful that their copyright ownership is protected by law - the substance of which actually predates the invention of photography.  In this day and age of retouching everything that comes out of a camera, a strong argument can be made that the retoucher is the real "author of the work" and simply uses the basic image "manufactured" by the photographer as a raw material in a similar fashion that a painter uses paint "manufactured" by whomever. 

At the end of the day, a photographer does not own the copyright because of his/her relative skills or contributions - but rather because the antiquated law of the land says they do.  Fair?  In some cases, probably yes - in other cases likely no.  Fact?  Absolutely yes.

--Ishtar-- wrote:
...
In other nations, copyright defaults to 50/50 split between tog and model in absence of a model release.

This is misleading, but thanks for saying, "in other nations."  I would be curious to know which nations these are.

In the States, the model release simply frees someone (the person to whom it is granted) from possible privacy legal liabilities (i.e., lawsuits).

It has nothing to do with owning the material.

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?

Lorin Edmonds wrote:

It all about discussing what you need before the shoot.

Where's the OP?

emleighdee wrote:
and have come to realize I was once quite naive as a model!

Apparently, you still are.

Natalia_Taffarel wrote:

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?

Lorin Edmonds wrote:

It all about discussing what you need before the shoot.

Where's the OP?


Apparently, you still are.

emleighdee wrote:

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

You are still being hired for trade shoots.  The payment is in pictures, not money.

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?

This is a legal issue set into law. The copyright can be negotiated and sold but it is the photographer's, by law, in the first place to negotiate with.

Why is it not shared with the model to begin with? Simple, photographers shoot more than one element in a picture. It would be to difficult to determine what percentage of the photo and thus copyright belonged to each element. Should the Mua have part of the copyright? The person who cut your hair? The maker of your cosmetics? The clothing manufacturer? Your dentist? The owner of the background or location. It would be way to difficult to sort those things out. Therefore the photographer is the legaly designated "captain of the ship" so to speak and he is in charge of the photograph and owns the copyright.

Many of the elements have, in their own way, been compensated already. The clothing and cosmetic maufacturer when their product was purchased, the land owner by issuing permits, etc. So it is up to the model to negotiate what would be adequate compensation for her contribution to the whole.