BCRPhotography wrote:
Picasso didn't sign all the way across the face of the subject, nor did Van Gogh, nor........

And the only time I've ever seen a photographer plaster a massive watermark or logo right in the center of an image is because it's  a proof.

I've seen WAY more photos in models profiles on here with the word "PROOF" or "SAMPLE" on them than I ever have with giant photographer's logos on them taking up 75% or more of the image. Any photographer who deliberately ruins an image like that should never have been booked for a TFP shoot to begin with and any due diligence on behalf of the model would have caught that.

DougBPhoto wrote:

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?

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.

Most TF model releases have a copyright clause e.g. I am using a following:

"Model agrees that copyright, moral rights, and all other intellectual property rights to the Photos belongs to Photographer and/or his or her heirs, licensees or assigns, with full right of lawful disposition in any manner."

theda wrote:

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

Not sure. I think they use word commissioned work.

Martin K Photography wrote:
Most TF model releases have a copyright clause e.g. I am using a following:

"Model agrees that copyright, moral rights, and all other intellectual property rights to the Photos belongs to Photographer and/or his or her heirs, licensees or assigns, with full right of lawful disposition in any manner."

Agreed, in fact, I mentioned similar a few pages back.

What I was seeking was, from Canadian photographers, to indicate if this is because of the commissioned works issue in the law, and concern that the model's contribution of time/services to a trade shoot could be seen by a court as providing valuable consideration, and thus creating the importance of including the copyright assignment verbiage in the model releases.

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 can be if you agree up front.

Remember that you get the US version of truth here. In other countries the copyright is shared in canada it may go to the model not the photographer.

It's all up for negotiation up front.

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

So in a TFP shoot in Canada you would be prepared to buy the copyright from the model?

BrokenWings Photography wrote:

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.

+1

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..

I suppose if Avedon built a home made pinhole camera, and asked you to pose you would turn him down?

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!

A Harper/Conservative bill has nasty bits...you must be kidding???

Bill has yet to pass, as far as I know.. Old rules still apply.

A model (from Middle French modèle),[1] sometimes called a mannequin, is a person who is employed for the purpose of displaying and promoting fashion clothing or other products and for advertising or promotional purposes or who poses for works of art.

Linux99 wrote:

It can be if you agree up front.

Remember that you get the US version of truth here. In other countries the copyright is shared in canada it may go to the model not the photographer.

It's all up for negotiation up front.

Where is copyright shared???

John Malloch Caldwell wrote:
Where is copyright shared???

If you are not careful, if you don't deal with it by contract, it could easily happen right close to [your] home if a model decides to invoke a claim under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Section 10(1). [UK]

This is the British equivalent of the Canadian problem with copyright ownership. In fact, in Britain it is much more far reaching, and potentially a much more serious issue for the photographer, than just dealing with the/a model.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Oh, Canada!

OK folks, after 5 pages of model v. photographer let's throw a cat amongst the pidgins:

I were to ask you [the/a Canadian photographer] to shoot some pictures of my fantabulous looking g/f, who just happens to be a world class glamour model, and I offered, in exchange, no money but rather to wash and wax your car, and you did the shoot and I washed and waxed your car...........

Who owns the copyright?

[This ^^^ is not a trick question]

Studio36

This plays on the uncertainty of the word "paid" and it's a legitimate concern because there is no case law to guide us. Whether it requires a monetary payment or just any value consideration/barter/trade is anyone's guess. At the same time since it hasn't come before the courts in all the time we've had this copyright law and since we will have a new copyright law before the year is done, it's a moot point moving forward.

M A R T I N wrote:
This plays on the uncertainty of the word "paid" and it's a legitimate concern because there is no case law to guide us. Whether it requires a monetary payment or just any value consideration/barter/trade is anyone's guess. At the same time since it hasn't come before the courts in all the time we've had this copyright law and since we will have a new copyright law before the year is done, it's a moot point moving forward.

Ah, but it has been the subject of the court's examination in Canada. The answer doesn't hinge on copyright law, though that will be from where the relief is granted, it hinges on contract law.

In contract law there must be an offer [my offer to the photographer to wash and wax his car in exchange]; their acceptance of that offer; and consideration [I actually do wash and wax his car]. The contract is complete. The relief found in copyright law is that I own the copyright because it was I, and not the photographer, who commissioned the work; and it was I who paid for it, albeit in kind but not in cash. Cash is not required as long as an ordinary and customary value can be placed on what I supply to the photographer as a service.

That was the very essence, in both respects, of: Paul Couvrette Photographs v. The Ottawa Citizen et al.(1985), 7 C.P.R. (3d) 552 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) where nothing of particular hard value actually changed hands but where there was merely a waver of a customary fee [by the model in that case] as the medium of consideration, and, also, in that case, the model was clearly the commissioner of the work because they were the party that first contacted the photographer.

Ergo, in the situation as I described it, in Canada and as the law now exists, I own the copyright to the pictures of my fantabulous g/f, by default, UNLESS there was an agreement to the contrary, and that agreement was IN WRITING.

Just as interesting, is that, also in Canada and as the law now exists, if the photographer had come to me and asked if I could arrange it so they could shoot my fantabulous g/f and they would provide "x" images for her time [or for my personal spank bank as the case might be] -  THEY would be the commissioner of the images and as long as the promised images were in due course actually supplied THEY would own the copyright BY DEFAULT. In this instance the photographer, in contract law, is the offerer [the party proposing the arrangement] AND the commissioner [in copyright law]; and I am the offeree [the one to whom the offer is made]; and the consideration is the photographs.

The point of the above discussion is to demonstrate the importance of the way the contract comes into existence, even if it is an oral contract, and not just what it says in the present iteration of Canadian copyright law. If the default position of the existing Canadian copyright law is not going to change, by agreement as part of the contract, and the commissioner of the work actually makes a payment even a payment in kind, then no written agreement is even necessary. The commissioner of the work on making payment owns the copyright.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Thanks for clear explanation. So now we know that  the copyright clause in most Canadian TF model releases is just to avoid the potential mess that you just described.

Martin K Photography wrote:
Thanks for clear explanation. So now we know that  the copyright clause in most Canadian TF model releases is just to avoid the potential mess that you just described.

If it does not avoid it, depending on who asked whom to do the work and who was paying for it; it certainly sets it out as a matter of agreement on the terms. The least best position is to do or say nothing, and commit nothing to writing; for then the default position operates, and that is, in some future dispute, where it could be a mess.

It might be that you have in a TF* = model presumptively holds the copyright by default
* a model asking for some TF* images [model is commissioning the work]
* the model's time is seen to have value but they do not actually charge anything for their time choosing to wave any fees they might otherwise charge for the value of images [following Couvrette]
* there is NO agreement otherwise, and in writing, on the copyright ownership [an oral agreement is not permitted - where copyright changes hands the agreement MUST be in writing and signed by the presumptive holder the copyright - in this case the model]

OR

It might be that you have in a TF* = photographer will hold the copyright by contract
* a model asking for some TF* images [model is commissioning the work]
* the model's time is seen to have value but they do not actually charge anything for their time choosing to wave any fees they might otherwise charge for the value of images [following Couvrette]
* BUT there IS agreement otherwise, and in writing and signed by the model, on the copyright ownership in favour of the photographer.

OR

The last variation is where the photographer asks the model to pose TF* in exchange for photos = photographer holds the copyright by default as long as they deliver the images.
* here the photographer is the commissioning party
* here the photographer makes payment as agreed
* here it is possible to rely on an oral agreement, HOWEVER, for certainty the model should affirm IN WRITING that the photographer is the owner of the copyright.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

If it does not avoid it, depending on who asked whom to do the work and who was paying for it; it certainly sets it out as a matter of agreement on the terms. The least best position is to do or say nothing, and commit nothing to writing; for then the default position operates, and that is, in some future dispute, where it could be a mess.

Isn't it funny that someone from across the pond knows more about this stuff than we do.

This is taken from a release that was used by a professional photographer for model's TF portfolio shots.

"Model agrees that copyright, moral rights, and all other intellectual property rights to the Photos belongs to Photographer and/or his or her heirs, licensees or assigns, with full right of lawful disposition in any manner.

Model agrees that, while he/she may use the Photos for purposes related to the promotion of Model's modelling business, including, but not limited to: advertising, portfolios, composite cards, exhibitions, contests, and promotional web sites, Model will not sell or otherwise transfer publication rights to any of the Photos without Photographer's prior consent.

Likewise, Photographer agrees that while he/she may use the Photos for purposes related to the promotion of Photographer's photography business, including, but not limited to: advertising, portfolios, composite cards, exhibitions, contests, and promotional web sites, Photographer will not sell or otherwise transfer publication rights to any of the Photos except with Model's prior consent."

and I think this is enough for everyone and covers everything.

BTW , under this release Stephen Markman's model (from another thread) could give high res copies to the third party in question without asking him. And this release above includes high res files

Martin K Photography wrote:
Isn't it funny that someone from across the pond knows more about this stuff than we do.

Broadly that is because it is what I do as a matter of my current business representing my client's interests... and they are an international group including some in North America.

Studio36

Martin K Photography wrote:
Model agrees that, while he/she may use the Photos for purposes related to the promotion of Model's modelling business, including, but not limited to: advertising, portfolios, composite cards, exhibitions, contests, and promotional web sites,
---
Model will not sell or otherwise transfer publication rights to any of the Photos without Photographer's prior consent.

You do realise that, as a practical matter, the first three lines above are in direct conflict with the last two?

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

You do realise that, as a practical matter, the first three lines above are in direct conflict with the last two?

Studio36

No, the first paragraphs says what the model may do and the second paragraph says what the model may not do. The first gives model limited publication rights (for self promotion only) and the latter states that model can't transfer nor sell those rights.

Martin K Photography wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
You do realise that, as a practical matter, the first three lines above are in direct conflict with the last two?

Studio36

No, the first paragraphs says what the model may do and the second paragraph says what the model may not do. The first gives model limited publication rights (for self promotion only) and the latter states that model can't transfer nor sell those rights.

Then you have taken no account of, or it doesn't matter to you, what implications or conflicts occur as a matter of some contest's or website's Terms of Service where the model is/might be required to grant licenses to those third parties? Often licenses that will be broader and more far reaching, including granting further sub-licensable rights to other third or subsequent parties, than that you have actually granted to the model?

Well, some day, and it could happen, when you find one of your images decorating a poster in a bus stop advertising some brand of beer in Lower Slobovia, don't come around here complaining about it. LOL

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Then you have taken no account of, or it doesn't matter to you, what implications or conflicts occur as a matter of some contest's or website's Terms of Service where the model is/might be required to grant licenses to those third parties? Often licenses that will be broader and more far reaching, including granting further sub-licensable rights to other third or subsequent parties, than that you have actually granted to the model?

Well, some day, and it could happen, when you find one of your images decorating a poster in a bus stop advertising some brand of beer in Lower Slobovia, don't come around here complaining about it. LOL

Studio36

You are right, I have taken no account of, but at the same time it doesn't matter to me ...I got what I wanted from TF.

I'd rather see my image on something better than beer in Lower Slobovia;  if it ends up on a cover somewhere I'd be pissed off but that ain't happening Or maybe my avatar is good enough to sell cheap lipstick?

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. Of course, one could say, if you don't like it, don't work with the photographer, which I would do, but I'm just posing a question

You are free to ask for more photos, discuss editing, watermarks before you agree to shoot.  Maybe you two can compromise. 

If not, you can then decide whether you want to continue to plan the shoot.

Martin K Photography wrote:
Or maybe my avatar is good enough to sell cheap lipstick?

Sominex   http://www.sominex-sleep.co.uk/

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Ah, but it has been the subject of the court's examination in Canada. The answer doesn't hinge on copyright law, though that will be from where the relief is granted, it hinges on contract law.

In contract law there must be an offer [my offer to the photographer to wash and wax his car in exchange]; their acceptance of that offer; and consideration [I actually do wash and wax his car]. The contract is complete. The relief found in copyright law is that I own the copyright because it was I, and not the photographer, who commissioned the work; and it was I who paid for it, albeit in kind but not in cash. Cash is not required as long as an ordinary and customary value can be placed on what I supply to the photographer as a service.

That was the very essence, in both respects, of: Paul Couvrette Photographs v. The Ottawa Citizen et al.(1985), 7 C.P.R. (3d) 552 (Ont. Prov. Ct.) where nothing of particular hard value actually changed hands but where there was merely a waver of a customary fee [by the model in that case] as the medium of consideration, and, also, in that case, the model was clearly the commissioner of the work because they were the party that first contacted the photographer.

Ergo, in the situation as I described it, in Canada and as the law now exists, I own the copyright to the pictures of my fantabulous g/f, by default, UNLESS there was an agreement to the contrary, and that agreement was IN WRITING.

Just as interesting, is that, also in Canada and as the law now exists, if the photographer had come to me and asked if I could arrange it so they could shoot my fantabulous g/f and they would provide "x" images for her time [or for my personal spank bank as the case might be] -  THEY would be the commissioner of the images and as long as the promised images were in due course actually supplied THEY would own the copyright BY DEFAULT. In this instance the photographer, in contract law, is the offerer [the party proposing the arrangement] AND the commissioner [in copyright law]; and I am the offeree [the one to whom the offer is made]; and the consideration is the photographs.

The point of the above discussion is to demonstrate the importance of the way the contract comes into existence, even if it is an oral contract, and not just what it says in the present iteration of Canadian copyright law. If the default position of the existing Canadian copyright law is not going to change, by agreement as part of the contract, and the commissioner of the work actually makes a payment even a payment in kind, then no written agreement is even necessary. The commissioner of the work on making payment owns the copyright.

Studio36

interesting case, I've seen it referenced before but can't find it online. Not sure if your analysis is correct though since it seems to imply that it was the photographer who approached the agency but nonetheless the waiver of model's fee was seen as an act of commissioning? it's hard to tell without reading the case. Do you have access to it by chance?

emleighdee wrote:
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?

The answer to the question as asked is because that's what the law says.

If you're asking why the law is written that way, I don't know. Knowing the way that the government worked, there was probably someone lobbying on behalf of photographers.

In music recording it's different, everyone who makes a creative contribution is a co-owner - in the absence of an agreement that states otherwise.

That's the thing to remember in this case, that the photographer owns the photo in the absence of an agreement. You can make an agreement that says anything.

The reality is having the copyright means nothing, it's the usage rights that matter. There are some uses that everyone has automatically, but the reality is that a photographer can't have full use of the photo without a release signed by the model and the model can't have full use of the photo without an agreement with the photographer. The only time it's lopsided is tradeshoots for portfolios because the photographer is able to use the photo without a release and the model is not.

What you need to do is figure out what you need to be able to do with a photo, and only sign the release if they agree to your usage terms. Specify where you may show it, specify a minimum number of photos from a shoot and specify non-watermarked files for prints. You can also make the release you sign contingent upon photos being delivered within a certain amount of time after the shoot.

There is one problem with this approach which is that there are a lot of photographers who really don't understand these concepts and their default is to refuse anything but whatever they've written up, so you may get people refusing reasonable requests because they simply don't understand. Plus there's a culture around here of not giving up any form of control of your photos. There are even a few people who put their photos on Tumblr and complain when they get reblogged.

A lot of models ask for things that they don't need. They don't need to be part owners of the copyright, that still doesn't give them unrestricted use. They don't need more than a couple of photos. So photographer do experience models who have no understanding of what they need making unreasonable requests.

If I were you, I'd make a note on your port saying that you're looking for photographers who will give you non-watermarked photos for your book. Don't write it that you won't work with people who won't, it makes you come across badly, but you can make that your practice. When a photographer contacts you for a shoot, ask them if they will give you watermarked or non-watermarked photos. If they're watermarked, and that makes them useless to you, then ask for money to make it worth your while and don't use the photos. Experienced photographers will understand your need for unwatermarked images. You're probably not missing out if you pass on a trade shoot where a photographer refuses to give you what you need.

Linux99 wrote:

So in a TFP shoot in Canada you would be prepared to buy the copyright from the model?

Who's buying anything??? It's simple: Model wants to shoot, my MR is signed before we start shooting, and even before MUA is done. The law here states that copyright is model's without prior agreement. That's where my MR comes into play. It's signed 'prior' to the shooting commencing. Guess what's in my MR? Doesn't take a genius to figure it out (not directed at you or anyone else specifically, Linux). I plaster a copy on my page for their perusal, and the ones NOT via MM I send a copy via e-mail whether they ask for it or not.

I'm the photographer, not a picture-taker who allows himself to be bitched-out by the model. I should allow myself to lose out to a model I test with whom I need to work with on her poses and expressions because it's only her 3rd shoot? (Again, only an example) No thanks. No MR, no shoot. MR=MY copyright. I ain't buyin' sh**! Lol!

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://dbiphotography.co.cc
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551

John Malloch Caldwell wrote:

Where is copyright shared???

Not here. Without prior agreement, the model owns the copyright. Stupid, admittedly. I blame it on stinking Liberals, but I'm not gonna get off on *that* tangent! Shared is ridiculously flawed, and personally am not aware of any country with laws that reflect viewing copyright in this fashion. (Pun intended!) I'm not a lawyer nor an expert.

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://dbiphotography.co.cc
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:

Not here. Without prior agreement, the model owns the copyright. Stupid, admittedly. I blame it on stinking Liberals, but I'm not gonna get off on *that* tangent! Shared is ridiculously flawed, and personally am not aware of any country with laws that reflect viewing copyright in this fashion. (Pun intended!) I'm not a lawyer nor an expert.

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://dbiphotography.co.cc
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551

.....+ 1

M A R T I N wrote:
interesting case, I've seen it referenced before but can't find it online. Not sure if your analysis is correct though since it seems to imply that it was the photographer who approached the agency but nonetheless the waiver of model's fee was seen as an act of commissioning? it's hard to tell without reading the case. Do you have access to it by chance?

I do not have a copy and it is not a case that is published in full on-line. However, your understanding is different than mine in what transpired and in what order, it seems, various thngs occurred.

In the case of Paul Couvrette Photographs v. The Ottawa Citizen et al. the photographer approached a modeling agency with an offer to photograph models for his portfolio in exchange for prints. He took photos of one of their models and sued when a newspaper used one of the images without his permission.

Thereater the court found:

"...In the absence of agreement to the contrary, the whole bundle of rights (to use the expression of counsel for the defendant), classed as "copyright rights" are reserved to the person who ordered and paid valuable consideration for the original. The consideration was in the form of waiver of the model's normal fee of $60 to $70 per hour. (this case is not available online, see Paul Couvrette Photographs v. The Ottawa Citizen et al.(1985), 7 C.P.R. (3d) 552 (Ont. Prov. Ct.)."

As I read this:

the photographer approached a modeling agency with an offer to photograph models for his portfolio in exchange for prints.

What I see is not a definitive and specific offer in respect of any particular model on the agency books but rather a general enquiry - in effect Courvette merely making it known that he will do some kinds of work on a particular basis. This equates to an "advertisement." A sort of advertisement, verbally expressed at that, that he is available to do shoots with "models" not an offer in respect of any particular "model." Also it appears that Courvette may have been indicating willingness to an exchange based on supplied images.

This is NOT an "offer" at this point in contract law, however, but rather an "invitation to treat" and as it is not an "offer" it is not subject to "acceptance." For an offer to be capable of becoming binding on "acceptance," the offer must be definite, clear, and final. If it is a mere preliminary move into negotiation which may lead to a contract, it is not an offer but an invitation to treat. The offerer [Courvette] must have been initiating negotiations from which an agreement may or may not in time result, e.g. with, or in respect of, some particular model. The important point to note is that, since an invitation to treat is not an offer, but rather a preliminary to an offer, an invitation to treat is not capable of an acceptance which will result in a contract.

However, in Courvette, once he was in due course contacted by the/an individual model an actual negotiation ensued between the two parties and a contract ultimately came into being. Thus the model was initiating and negotiating the offer as against her ordinary fees and she was the offeror. It was for Courvette, as the offeree, to accept or not. Once Courvette agreed and tendered an "acceptance" then it is clear that it was the model, not he, that actually was the commissioner of the shoot.

I have been suggesting all along that this case had more to do with contract law, and how the model came to be the commissioner, than with copyright law per se. It does certainly seem to be the case that it does go that way.

Studio36

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
Not here. Without prior agreement, the model owns the copyright.

This is a fundamental error of thought whenever this particular Canadian issue comes up. The "commissioner" of the work, once it is paid for, is the owner of the copyright but that "commissioner" may NOT be the model OR the photographer. It could be ANYONE ordering the work and who then makes the payment.

Look at wedding photography, in Canada, and as the law now stands. The groom's soon to be "monster-in-law" actually contracts for the photography services. They pay the money. Who owns the copyright [absent any agreement to the contrary]? Only one guess allowed.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
This is a fundamental error of thought whenever this particular Canadian issue comes up. The "commissioner" of the work, once it is paid for, is the owner of the copyright but that "commissioner" may NOT be the model OR the photographer. It could be ANYONE ordering the work and who then makes the payment.

Look at wedding photography, in Canada, and as the law now stands. The groom's soon to be "monster-in-law" actually contracts for the photography services. They pay the money. Who owns the copyright [absent any agreement to the contrary]? Only one guess allowed.

Studio36

I make no errors. Know why? I don't get involved with the micro-analyzation of the laws. I get the 'bottom-line' facts essentially, and protect myself accordingly. I care little about wedding photography, because it's not within my current field of interests. The issue of whom owns copyright in Canada is often debated, so the clear solution would obviously be a document that clearly states that the model understands and agrees that the photographer is the *sole* copyright owner, and signs on the dotted line. Their signing that written document trumps practically any scenario one could postulate as a vague possibility to the contrary, and frees up guys like me from fearing his shadow and everything else so he can create his work. I've personally found in life that when muddled with indecision, I simply skim the grey areas and look at the core black and white of an issue, and making decisions based on hard cold FACTS makes life for me run a lot smoother and stress-free   To each their own however, I do suppose

IMHO alone, as always;

~Danny
http://dbiphotography.co.cc
https://www.modelmayhem.com/1983551

Edit: Yes, caveman-style. I sleep like a baby...when I get a chance to sleep   I'm not highly-informed with respect to the law. I'm simply not a hobbyist.

DBIphotography Toronto wrote:
Edit: Yes, caveman-style. I sleep like a baby...when I get a chance to sleep   I'm not highly-informed with respect to the law. I'm simply not a hobbyist.

Do you really think cavemen slept like babies? With all those sabre toothed tiggers and other large, not to mention hungry, critters lurking around outside their cave?  ROTFLMAO

The analysis is likely of more value to others than it might be to you, but that is not to say it has no value at all in the discussion.

Studio36