Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
I don't watermark my images (I don't like defacing them ). I add my ID to the metadata, where it doesn't get in the way.

I own the copyright in the images, but the model has a license to use them, almost entirely without limits (I'd be annoyed if she or he attributes them to another photographer, or claims to own the copyright, but that's about it).

That's how I feel. I make no claim that anyone else has to feel the same way.

I cannot believe that with all of the posts that have been made so far, this is the only one from a photographer that reflects my attitude on logos ( the word watermark is essentially being misused ).

Photography is about producing images. Introducing a logo to that image is adding an element that is not part of the image. Do you see exhibited prints / paintings with logos splashed all over them ? No.

Why are loads of people going on about copyright ? It is nothing to do with logo or not logo. Putting a logo on is about self-publicity or ego stroking. Look around at images produced by working professionals who have images widely seen in the public domain, no logos. If you produce images for an agency you will not have your logo on those images. Putting a logo on your images does not change your right to own the copyright. If you are using a logo that is so bold and large that someone else 'photoshopping it out' will destroy the image then you have already destroyed the image so why bother even putting it out there.

The time when I do put a logo clearly across the images is for event galleries online, the printed images do not have a logo.

emleighdee wrote:
Why is it that both parties don't draw up a contract/release together based on what both of them would like to see done with the photos?

Some of us do. Provided the images are not used for direct financial gain I give equal useage rights for images from TF photoshoots since I need to uphold my end of the implied and stated contract of a TF agreement. If those images are to be used for direct financial gain ( performance artists advertising posters, CD covers etc, then that is another matter.

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!

That comment is like saying that the designer of a building should co-own copyright in a photo I would take of say City Hall because I did not create the photo alone ... does that make sense?

Imagine music for a minute, should Fender be able to claim copyright to mus c where there guitars are used because without that guitar there would be no song?

See where this argument can end up ...

I am not saying models do not do their part in the creation of our photographs (without the amazing talent I have worked with my work would not look anywhere near as good as it does), but so does my mua, my stylist, my retoucher ... so should ALL of them own copyright?

When it comes time to publish the image or do something with it ... WHO's permission do we need ... EVERYONE has to agree?

This is not practical or logical. Hence why the law (in Canada and USA) states the creator of the work (in this case photographer) is the owner of copyright.

Paul Venomous
www.paulvenomous.com

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

if the image is unusable it really isn't a trade then. he should be paying her then cause she is getting nothing out of it

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..

Which is kind of ironic since many models are constantly going on  about how much they spend on wardrobe and personal makeup, and a gym to keep fit. And many state that they would not shoot with a photographer who used a P&S.

Old argument on many other threads.

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

+1
the copyright issue is really a no brainer, it is what it is and should not be changed.

Faith EnFire wrote:
if the image is unusable it really isn't a trade then. he should be paying her then cause she is getting nothing out of it

+1 except to define usable

perhaps it is more a matter of presentation. there are many examples of logos or watermarks, call it what you will, that DO RUIN the image (i dare not post examples) because they seem to take precedence in their presentation, in which i can see where the model is on the short end of the stick and the images may be unusable. there are however clean, classy, none obtrusive examples that do not impact the image negatively. as a model it may be best to like the presentation of the togs work and simply clarify the issue before deciding to shoot. some examples of the clean and classy marks

DougBPhoto wrote:

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.

Are you trying to say that the OP's question was barely dealt with?
No kidding.

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

Faith EnFire wrote:
if the image is unusable it really isn't a trade then. he should be paying her then cause she is getting nothing out of it

Nail and head on a collision course Faith, I completely agree with you. Logos and copyright are separate matters.

Faith EnFire wrote:
if the image is unusable it really isn't a trade then. he should be paying her then cause she is getting nothing out of it

So then you would agree that if a model doesn't give me that exact look, pose or energy that I'm trying to capture, the model should then pay me even though our original agreement was trade?

Herman Surkis wrote:

Which is kind of ironic since many models are constantly going on  about how much they spend on wardrobe and personal makeup, and a gym to keep fit. And many state that they would not shoot with a photographer who used a P&S.

Old argument on many other threads.

mostly only when photographers start whining about how much their brand new camera cost

New Dawn Photography wrote:

So then you would agree that if a model doesn't give me that exact look, pose or energy that I'm trying to capture, the model should then pay me even though our original agreement was trade?

no and it's not the same
models are not robots and the model should be giving her best. if the model is hungover, drunk, or strungout...I'd send them home

but smacking a watermark over a model's face makes the image unusable

Faith EnFire wrote:

no and it's not the same
models are not robots and the model should be giving her best. if the model is hungover, drunk, or strungout...I'd send them home

but smacking a watermark over a model's face makes the image unusable

I agree that smaking a watermark over a models face is not the same. The model should get the same image that the photographer uses. Though I can't imagine that happens very often. Doesn't really seem like something that needs to be discussed before hand unless you see this in the photographers book. I've seen it only a couple of times and it was done by new/inspiring photographers whom, I assume, were just paranoid about someone on the internet stealing their work. It doesn't add up though. You do that and get "No one able to steal your work AND little to no one willing to work with you". Don't do it and you get "Models willing to work with you so you have a chance of producing images that someone would want to steal from you." The latter makes more sense if you intend on shooting models. It sucks that there are those who may steal your work but that's life and as mom always said, "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face."

Herman Surkis wrote:

Which is kind of ironic since many models are constantly going on  about how much they spend on wardrobe and personal makeup, and a gym to keep fit. And many state that they would not shoot with a photographer who used a P&S.

Old argument on many other threads.

Vast majority of the time it's in response to some douchewaffle saying we should pay him/her because of the cost of their camera..

I don't work with photographers who use point and shoots.. You can't do shit to a shot out of one, they're for baby showers and trips to the zoo..

Nedah Oyin wrote:
Vast majority of the time it's in response to some douchewaffle saying we should pay him/her because of the cost of their camera..

I don't work with photographers who use point and shoots.. You can't do shit to a shot out of one, they're for baby showers and trips to the zoo..

Ummm, that is a very inaccurate representation (the bolded part).

Many point and shoots can shoot RAW format files, and have full manual control, just like the expensive DSLR's and you can do exactly as much to a shot out of one of them.

It is interesting that you say you can't do shit to a shot out of a point and shoot, you must have a really low opinion to Polaroids, which you can do even less to.

No, I don't use a point and shoot, I just don't like grossly inaccurate statements.

As is frequently said, it isn't the camera that matters, it is the person using the camera.

Herman Surkis wrote:
Which is kind of ironic since many models are constantly going on  about how much they spend on wardrobe and personal makeup, and a gym to keep fit. And many state that they would not shoot with a photographer who used a P&S.

Old argument on many other threads.

Nedah Oyin wrote:
Vast majority of the time it's in response to some douchewaffle saying we should pay him/her because of the cost of their camera..

I don't work with photographers who use point and shoots.. You can't do shit to a shot out of one, they're for baby showers and trips to the zoo..

Funny. I just agreed to work with someone next month who will be using a point and shoot. I told him I didn't care if he shot with a 110 camera he found in a box of cornflakes as long as his results are good.

Nedah Oyin wrote:
I don't work with photographers who use point and shoots.. You can't do shit to a shot out of one, they're for baby showers and trips to the zoo..

untrue

photoimager wrote:
Photography is about producing images. Introducing a logo to that image is adding an element that is not part of the image. Do you see exhibited prints / paintings with logos splashed all over them ? No.

You're wrong on a whole ton of levels.

Let's take it at face value, as a piece of artwork:



Picasso used to put a little smiley face or logo next to his signature frequently on his works of art and he is by far not the only artist who does this either.

As for photography, many world famous photographers sign their prints or put a logo on the print itself. I've done work for Peter Lik and all of his images have this logo on them next to his signature:



That includes his exhibited prints and originals, which often sell for tens of thousands of dollars.

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?

Because that's just how copyright law works in the US

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?

A-M-P wrote:
Because that's just how copyright law works in the US

pssst: the op's in Canada 

things are a little different there.

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!

If you pose for a painter do you feel you should be the owner of the painting?

A-M-P wrote:

Because that's just how copyright law works in the US

But she's not in the US...

theda wrote:

But she's not in the US...

Sorry I was just commenting on my experience as I'm only knowledgeable of US law. But to my understanding the only difference in Canada is if the model hires the photographer than she becomes the copyright holder.

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!

In an art project, the photographer chooses the model(s) who will fit his vision, as well as the right MUA/Hair Designer/Designer... He will make the lighting work with that vision, will choose the location of the shoot, the background... I don't want to insult anyone here, but the model is only one element of the photog's vision.

Now, as a model, if you do have a vision, put a team together, find the location and ther hire (TF or paid) the right photog to bring your vision together, that would be an entirely different matter. You would be able to negotiate and put by writing that the copyright will be yours.

Can you imagine what would happen if everyone involved (designer, MUA, model...) would share the copyright? What a mess every time one of you would want to make something with the pics.

It has been a known fact for years that many known authors have their novels written by junior writers. Whose name appears on the front page? Stephen King...

Martin K Photography wrote:
A bit of devil's advocate position, Canadian context (OP's and mine)

She wants some pictures taken, her idea, her poses, her looks.  They have a fun low key shoot. 

1. She gives him $1. She owns the copyright. 

2. She does not give him $1. He owns the copyright. 

1. Does not happen, because most photographers will not start shooting without assurance that copyright will be his e.g. wedding. But why? I think quite often on a principle that photographer owns the copyright  - as a rule not to be broken easily as it may lead to a slippery slope. Not the practicalities, whose vision, effort, experience, equipment it was.

Similar situation happened to me once in my brief experience. Model was 16, parents were there etc, but I found no use for the pics really, so instead of getting the release, signed by both parents, edit, select, send etc...I simply deleted the crap from the card and gave them the card (for $20 actually)

Was I a hired photographer, was it TF, was it common sense, was is profound unprofessionalism of mine?   

Maybe prevalent thinking is that copyright "shall be" photographer's on principle and law?

Is it really necessary that cash change hands? Couldn't a good or service of value be construed as payment?

Eralar wrote:
But for the original OP, I have always believed that TF meant the model would have pics she can use for her portfolio. It sounds a bit dishonest to give her heavily watermarked images for a session.

Have you ever had a nude model write her name in big letters on her boobs for a TF? That would be the same

I'm doing that at my next TFP.

Martin K Photography wrote:
A bit of devil's advocate position, Canadian context (OP's and mine)

She wants some pictures taken, her idea, her poses, her looks.  They have a fun low key shoot. 

1. She gives him $1. She owns the copyright. 

2. She does not give him $1. He owns the copyright. 

1. Does not happen, because most photographers will not start shooting without assurance that copyright will be his e.g. wedding. But why? I think quite often on a principle that photographer owns the copyright  - as a rule not to be broken easily as it may lead to a slippery slope. Not the practicalities, whose vision, effort, experience, equipment it was.

Similar situation happened to me once in my brief experience. Model was 16, parents were there etc, but I found no use for the pics really, so instead of getting the release, signed by both parents, edit, select, send etc...I simply deleted the crap from the card and gave them the card (for $20 actually)

Was I a hired photographer, was it TF, was it common sense, was is profound unprofessionalism of mine?   

Maybe prevalent thinking is that copyright "shall be" photographer's on principle and law?

theda wrote:
Is it really necessary that cash change hands? Couldn't a good or service of value be construed as payment?

That is precisely what I've heard is part of the "problem" with trade in Canada.

If cash does not change hands, and it is a trade without monetary exchange, it appears to be unclear if the model is providing compensation to the photographer by the modeling services/time they are providing, which *could*, under Canadian law, be construed as a commissioned work, resulting in Copyright going to the model.

Now, I'm not a court of law, and I don't personally know if there are any actual precedents in Canadian law specifically related to a TF modeling shoot, but my perception is that this possibility is why so many Canadian photographers wish to "perfect" their ownership/copyright in the works by having copyright addressed in the signed model releases.

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!

There are some cases where what you are describing is true - when the artist and model agree to completely collaborate on creating a result.  But even in those cases, the photographer is the one who is ultimately determining: composition, lighting, angle/perspective to shoot from, whether what the model is doing "looks" right and just the right moment to capture - because the photographer is the one looking through the viewfinder...the person who can see how all the elements are coming together and how they need to be tweaked to make it all work better.  In most cases, it is also the photographer who does the majority of the prep work for the shoot (the setting, props, acquiring and setting up equipment, etc.), and the post production work to the images.

But it all comes down to what each party (photographer/model) wants.  They can discuss and agree on anything they wish to prior to the shoot, as far as actual collaboration and rights to the images.

Any way you slice it however, the photographer is the primary creator of a photograph.  He or she controls the majority of the many elements that make up a photo.  The model's contributions are often VERY important, but are just part of the whole equation - the person taking the shot is the final arbiter of how all the elements will work together to form a whole (the photo).

[And of course, I'm talking here about cases where the photographer is acting as the de facto director.]

RalphNevins Photography wrote:
new changes to the canadian copyright legislation :
"The Harper Government has reintroduced a bill to amend Canada’s Copyright Act. The government says the Copyright Modernization Act will ensure that Canadian copyright laws are “modern, flexible, and in line with current international standards”. The bill also includes changes that will make photographers the first owner of copyright on their photographs, which will be protected for 50 years after the death of the photographer. People who commission photographs will still be able to make personal or non-commercial use of the photos unless there is a contract that specifies otherwise."
from
http://www.canphoto.net/2011/09/reintro … ographers/

I belive this brings Canadian copyright closer to the world norm ...
!note this bill has many other nasty bits but it is good for photography!

Ralph, would you please comment on what I posted above..

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … st16138026

As a photographer working in Canada, would you say my impression is a fair representation of the concern over the current law, or if no, can you elaborate pls.