Retoucher

Jamie Retouch

Posts: 8

London, England, United Kingdom

Hi guys, I was wondering as retouchers who we ultimately need permission from?

If a model approaches with some images to edit, do you need to contact the photographer?

And vice versa?

Thanks! x

Dec 05 12 07:19 pm Link

Photographer

SPierce Photography

Posts: 19790

Amherst, Massachusetts, US

Photographer. You need the permission of the copyright holder- the photographer. The model (hopefully) if approaching you, has already gotten permission but I would always double check.

Dec 05 12 08:03 pm Link

Retoucher

Alena Hovorkova

Posts: 123

Brno, Jihomoravsky, Czech Republic

SPierce Photography wrote:
Photographer. You need the permission of the copyright holder- the photographer. The model (hopefully) if approaching you, has already gotten permission but I would always double check.

+1

.. many models have permissions/images provided by photographers for further edit, that´s fine. But some do not, even though they say they do.
Always double check.

Otherwise you take a risk that you may find out later that the photographer is not happy about you/your editing, since the permission actually was not given to a model.

The potential ´copyright issues´ (and some previous experience, maybe) is perhaps also why some retouchers have a general ´I do not retouch for models, sorry´ statement in their profiles.

..
The same applies to when you approach the model that you like, to edit her/his images (if this is what you mean by ´vice versa´).
Always ask the photographer.

Dec 05 12 10:23 pm Link

Retoucher

Kristiana-Retouch

Posts: 289

London, England, United Kingdom

I agree with statement above - check twice. So, yes, you should ask photographers permission before touching his photo smile

Dec 06 12 07:04 am Link

Retoucher

Peano

Posts: 4106

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

Jamie Retouch wrote:
Hi guys, I was wondering as retouchers who we ultimately need permission from?

It depends on what you're going to do with the retouched image.

A lot of folks here imagine (incorrectly) that photographers have absolute rights over every possible use of their photographs. The short answer is: they don't.

Dec 06 12 04:45 pm Link

Photographer

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 4603

Jacksonville, Florida, US

In most cases the Photographer, but could be the Model may have obtained the copyrights and or has permission from the photographer to edit........check with photographer 1st to be sure.

Dec 06 12 04:50 pm Link

Retoucher

Peano

Posts: 4106

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
... or has permission from the photographer to edit........check with photographer 1st to be sure.

This illustrates the point I made in my previous post. You don't always need the photographer's permission to edit a photo. It depends on what you're going to do with the edited photo. You could use it in many commercial ways with no editing and no permission at all.

EDIT: Here's an actual case:

Jones, a photographer and graphic designer, created poster for a band to use on a concert tour. The next year, another poster, another tour -- and so on for many years.

Smith, an author, decides to write a history of the band covering 30 years of its career. He discovers the posters produced over the years by Jones, who still holds the copyright.

Smith negotiates with Jones for a license agreement to use the posters in his book, but they can’t agree on a fee. So Smith decides to use the posters anyway. He places reduced copies of the images throughout his book to illustrate the group’s concerts over the years.

Jones sues Smith for copyright infringement. Smith claims it’s fair use, so he didn’t violate the copyright.

You be the judge. Who prevails in this case? Smith? Or Jones? Explain your verdict.

====

The trial court and appellate court both agreed that this was fair use. Smith wins.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_mat … ersley.pdf

Dec 06 12 05:05 pm Link

Retoucher

pixel dimension ilusion

Posts: 1355

Brussels, Brussels, Belgium

Peano wrote:

This illustrates the point I made in my previous post. You don't always need the photographer's permission to edit a photo. It depends on what you're going to do with the edited photo. You could use it in many commercial ways with no editing and no permission at all.

EDIT: Here's an actual case:

Jones, a photographer and graphic designer, created poster for a band to use on a concert tour. The next year, another poster, another tour -- and so on for many years.

Smith, an author, decides to write a history of the band covering 30 years of its career. He discovers the posters produced over the years by Jones, who still holds the copyright.

Smith negotiates with Jones for a license agreement to use the posters in his book, but they can’t agree on a fee. So Smith decides to use the posters anyway. He places reduced copies of the images throughout his book to illustrate the group’s concerts over the years.

Jones sues Smith for copyright infringement. Smith claims it’s fair use, so he didn’t violate the copyright.

You be the judge. Who prevails in this case? Smith? Or Jones? Explain your verdict.

====

The trial court and appellate court both agreed that this was fair use. Smith wins.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_mat … ersley.pdf

+1

Dec 06 12 05:30 pm Link

Photographer

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY

Posts: 4603

Jacksonville, Florida, US

Peano wrote:

This illustrates the point I made in my previous post. You don't always need the photographer's permission to edit a photo. It depends on what you're going to do with the edited photo. You could use it in many commercial ways with no editing and no permission at all.

EDIT: Here's an actual case:

Jones, a photographer and graphic designer, created poster for a band to use on a concert tour. The next year, another poster, another tour -- and so on for many years.

Smith, an author, decides to write a history of the band covering 30 years of its career. He discovers the posters produced over the years by Jones, who still holds the copyright.

Smith negotiates with Jones for a license agreement to use the posters in his book, but they can’t agree on a fee. So Smith decides to use the posters anyway. He places reduced copies of the images throughout his book to illustrate the group’s concerts over the years.

Jones sues Smith for copyright infringement. Smith claims it’s fair use, so he didn’t violate the copyright.

You be the judge. Who prevails in this case? Smith? Or Jones? Explain your verdict.

====

The trial court and appellate court both agreed that this was fair use. Smith wins.

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_mat … ersley.pdf

Any current situations/ laws ? the one you quote is 2005/ 2006.....tis true usage laws would play a part, but copyright is still in force I would think ?...just asking, if needed I would seek advice of a lawyer...jmo smile

Dec 06 12 05:45 pm Link

Retoucher

Mike Needham Retouching

Posts: 369

Cheltenham, England, United Kingdom

Who prevails in this case? Smith? Or Jones?

Does it depend if Smith is from the UK or the US? If the former I expect them to be deported to the US to stand charges, if the latter, then of course no recourse should be sought wink

Jurisdictions and all that jazz.

Rights are wherever you are, if you are given them. If you are lucky enough. Anyone had much success stopping the tide of fake imports out of China for instance. What makes you think images are any more applicable?

To answer the question though, ultimately the photographer, unless.....

Dec 06 12 06:34 pm Link

Retoucher

Peano

Posts: 4106

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

Mike Needham Retouching wrote:
Does it depend if Smith is from the UK or the US?

Of course. The linked decision is from a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Dec 06 12 07:04 pm Link

Photographer

MC Photo

Posts: 4144

New York, New York, US

Why do people worry about the law so much?

If you use an image legally and piss of the people connected to it, that will just add to the list of people who will never hire you.

Dec 06 12 08:23 pm Link

Digital Artist

Platinum Dust

Posts: 106

San Francisco, California, US

PDF IMAGES PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:

Any current situations/ laws ? the one you quote is 2005/ 2006.....tis true usage laws would play a part, but copyright is still in force I would think ?...just asking, if needed I would seek advice of a lawyer...jmo smile

Fair use hasn't really changed, so 2005/6 is plenty recent. Fair use is part of copyright law, so yes, copyright law is still in force -- here the law says you don't need permission because it falls into one of the exceptions.

In any legal situation it would be best to talk with a lawyer, but to be honest fair use is so fuzzy there's even less guarantee than usual even if you speak with a lawyer.

Dec 06 12 08:59 pm Link

Digital Artist

Andreea Cernestean

Posts: 495

Baia Mare, Maramureş, Romania

I never ask who the copyright holder is. A lot of extra hassle and time wasted waiting on approval. Whoever comissions me gets the job done. If there was any miscommunication between the model and photographer or viceversa regarding who gets to do what with said photographs, it's not my problem to deal with.

Photographers are overly sensitive on the subject of copyright, claiming it's always theirs, but it's not quite as simple and one-sided as they make it out to be.

Dec 06 12 10:07 pm Link

Retoucher

btdsgn

Posts: 2212

Wahiawa, Hawaii, US

If a photographer sends you images to retouch, how can you verify that they are indeed the actual photographer? Should you ask to see behind the scenes footage of the photographer shooting the images?

Dec 06 12 10:17 pm Link

Retoucher

Alena Hovorkova

Posts: 123

Brno, Jihomoravsky, Czech Republic

The OP asked about the situation
" If a model approaches with some images to edit .. "

Assuming - the model approaches with some images OF HERSELF/HIMSELF to edit (so - he/she knows who the photographer is.)

In that case the situation is easy, everything is pretty straighforward here. (However - weather the involved parties do - or do not - ´bother/hassle´ with the copyright issues, that is another story, though.)

On the other hand -
there are - of couse - many other different situations possible - especially when agencies - or some other 3rd (or even 4th, 5th, 6th) parties are involved in a project .. Many different people/departments in the project hierarchy have some different limited tasks/goals (and responsibilities) - and the retoucher (or designer, illustrator etc.) only is often ´hired/commissioned´ just as a part of the whole project.. In those cases the copyright is being solved on some other/different ´levels´, than on the retoucher´s one.

A different situation may be for a creative retoucher/compositor (or - designers etc.) working on a freelance basis (not covered by any agency commissioned contract) - using different (other photographers´) resources (and again - it depends - wheather working with stock imagery, imagery provided by the agency-photograper, or by some photographer directly, wheather using his/her/retoucherś own resources, to what extent etc ... for his/her compositing/design work)

Another different situation may be while retouching for publishing/magazines, another - completely different again - for other publishing purposes (artists´s monography, for example, using composited/derivative work) .. another situation is for retouching ´private´ photos that regular people bring/send to retouch .. (family etc.) ..

A lot of different possible situations -
but - that is not what the OP was asking about, imo.
(But I might be wrong, though).
a.

Dec 06 12 11:11 pm Link

Photographer

Thomas Sellberg

Posts: 140

Bloomington, Illinois, US

btdsgn wrote:
If a photographer sends you images to retouch, how can you verify that they are indeed the actual photographer? Should you ask to see behind the scenes footage of the photographer shooting the images?

Several us set our cameras up so that ever time we take a photo it attaches/embeds our name and other information in the photo. So unless someone strips that data it will always be attached/embedded in the meta data.

Dec 06 12 11:27 pm Link

Retoucher

Peano

Posts: 4106

Lynchburg, Virginia, US

Andreea Cernestean wrote:
Photographers are overly sensitive on the subject of copyright, claiming it's always theirs, but it's not quite as simple and one-sided as they make it out to be.

That's the main point to take from this thread. Copyright law isn't nearly as simple and one-sided (their-sided) as they think.

Dec 07 12 06:04 am Link

Photographer

richy01

Posts: 153

Amsterdam, Noord-Holland, Netherlands

It also varies form country to country....here in the Lowlands normally the person(s) on the photo own the portraitright, the copyright is owned by the maker/photographer
Also it depends on if it is commissioned or not.

Dec 07 12 07:01 am Link