W Robbins wrote:
Well, truth be told....there is a law and its under the laws of copyright. Being dead serious for I've witnessed a few cases here in the DC superior courts hearing the arguments presented. It's not talked about much for it's not global yet. But a lot of that relies on people knowing the law. Copyright is a mother dude. Its why its the field that pays so much as an attorney.

I did like a few of them. But managed to have someone retouch them and they turned out way better for they reflect my natural skin tone. I mean looking at your default image, I wouldn't bronze tan the body of that current model just because dark-skinned models are scarce and unique...I'd just leave them as is with a few minor adjustments.

I did tell him but I got no response for that was a month and a half ago. Yet, hes logged plenty of times on here. So my guess is hes being belligerent. Although when it comes to the style, it is the same pose, same venue, and whatnot....but the altered skin-pigmentation isn't present in his portfolio.

And yes. Editing does take quite some time but for 5 photos? That's questionable. Anyway, thanks "SP" for your help for its greatly appreciated.

Yes, for just 5 photos. And 5 photos from a shoot is alot.

Also, if you are just putting on FB or on MM, no, you don't need to credit the photographer (though it's always a good idea).

If you are submitting for publication, its' an entirely other matter and unless you have permission to do so, you shouldn't be submitting for pub either. Did you ask the photographers permission before you got them retouched, too? Because that's a whole other can of worms.

When it comes right down to it, your photographer DOES hold the copyright to the shots. Should anything want to be done with them, you need to go through him. If you really want to get down to specifics- you shouldn't be asking us on MM (non of us are lawyers), you should be asking a lawyer.

W Robbins wrote:
Well, truth be told....there is a law and its under the laws of copyright. Being dead serious for I've witnessed a few cases here in the DC superior courts hearing the arguments presented. It's not talked about much for it's not global yet. But a lot of that relies on people knowing the law. Copyright is a mother dude. Its why its the field that pays so much as an attorney.

I did like a few of them. But managed to have someone retouch them and they turned out way better for they reflect my natural skin tone. I mean looking at your default image, I wouldn't bronze tan the body of that current model just because dark-skinned models are scarce and unique...I'd just leave them as is with a few minor adjustments.

I did tell him but I got no response for that was a month and a half ago. Yet, hes logged plenty of times on here. So my guess is hes being belligerent. Although when it comes to the style, it is the same pose, same venue, and whatnot....but the altered skin-pigmentation isn't present in his portfolio.

And yes. Editing does take quite some time but for 5 photos? That's questionable. Anyway, thanks "SP" for your help for its greatly appreciated.

I don't know what you mean when you said you have heard these things in "superior court."  I don't believe that the DC Superior Court can handle copyright matters.

ei Total Productions wrote:
I don't know what you mean when you said you have heard these things in "superior court."  I don't believe that the DC Superior Court can handle copyright matters.

Well than you must be misinformed dude for the Superior Courts in DC are what? A trial court correct? Well, in most trial courts they tend to deal with cases involving both criminal and Civil Law right? Isn't Property Law under Civil Law? Now take the literal definition of "Copyright" and tie that into my question.

Even if the Superior Courts revokes a case, guess who has the authority to review the case? The District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Why? Because the "Court of Appeals" is authorized to review all final orders, judgments, rulings, and any other specified interlocutory order of their associated branch known as the Superior Courts.

I'm not in law school yet but only a 3rd year undergrad. However, I find the law interesting, and have honestly helped some lawyers in certain cases held here in the District of Columbia. How so? Because both "Law" and "Politics" are simply nothing but poetry so there you have it.

PS. If a person has the money, the courts will review it. If the person has even larger money, the courts will rule in their favor.

-JAY- wrote:
I once had a project in which the model needed to be blue.

I could not find a blue model, so I found one whose look I liked, and edited her skintone in post.

I see. But did you express this to the model beforehand? If not, to this day he or she can honestly file a suit against you under the "Deformation of Character" clause. Like seriously, they can argue in court saying because you made them blue without their consent, you have in fact hindered their reputation as an up and coming model. Is it trivial and pathetic? Well in my eyes it really is, but than again, I only speak for myself.

W Robbins wrote:
I'm a professional, and since professionalism is key to all business

No You are not , You'd  like to think you are but you are just another guy trying to get his picture taken , because if you were a actual professional you would've known the following;

First and foremost rule to being a professional Business man in any field ,
 
LEARN HOW THE INDUSTRY YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ENTER WORKS.

  Learn how the business really works.
  If you had you would have avoided all of this in the first place.

   www.newmodels.com

  Atrocities ... please  , this wasn't a concentration camp or the world trade center.

  Ask the photographer for less edited images.

move on .
 
Leave the Drama For the girls in your school.


on a side note , I don't understand how people think a multi national multi billion dollar industry would be just about getting your picture taken all the while THROWING common sense and logic out the window .....
  ]

W Robbins wrote:
Well than you must be misinformed dude for the Superior Courts in DC are what? A trial court correct? Well, in most trial courts they tend to deal with cases involving both criminal and Civil Law right? Isn't Property Law under Civil Law? Now take the literal definition of "Copyright" and tie that into my question.

Copyright law is under federal jurisdiction. Maybe you are thinking of contract law cases that were heard in state superior court.

W Robbins wrote:
I see. But did you express this to the model beforehand? If not, to this day he or she can honestly file a suit against you under the "Deformation of Character" clause. Like seriously, they can argue in court saying because you made them blue without their consent, you have in fact hindered their reputation as an up and coming model. Is it trivial and pathetic? Well in my eyes it really is, but than again, I only speak for myself.

I don't shoot without a model release which basically states that I can modify the images in pretty much any manner I like (with some limitations).  I don't need models freaking out on me for not respecting their wishes in how they would like to be portrayed (especially retroactively).

It seems you didn't sign such a release in this specific case, but have shown exactly why others like to have them (even for cases where they are not legally necessary).

I'm not doing this for headaches and drama.

W Robbins wrote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now here is the reality of it all. Prior to participating in the photo shoot there was no paper contract other than a verbal contract. So my question is this. Despite the atrocities he conducted on the behalf of his end, must I still give him credit to the photos he took? Hence, no licensing agreement was orchestrated from both our ends (Referring Back To The Law).

I know some of you might through out the word "Copyrights" on here. But here is my question, is he still protected under that law that requires me to tag him to my photo even if no licensing agreement was signed by both parties? Thought I'd ask since Copyright isn't the law I'm focusing on but rather International Law.

You're not happy with the photos (atrocity was your word) but you still want to use them?? They're not representative of you, yet you're asking if you have to credit him?

Something doesn't add up there.

W Robbins wrote:
First and foremost, I am going to make this very brief so that the rest of you can continue helping others on various vexed issues.

For starters, in the beginning of my semester (Fall 12'), I participated in a photo shoot here in DC with a photographer from New York. We took shots that lasted 2-3 hours, with hopes to create 20-30 well developed images. After the photo shoot was done, he stated he'd return the photos within a 3-week time period after being edited. Now unfortunately for the both of us, that didn't happened for it turned into months.

When I first received the photos, he drastically altered my photos making me appear as if I was a dark-skinned Sudan, compared to my natural complexion. Having said that, I became upset because the photos are now misleading, and would ultimately undermine the idea of ethical business practicing (The Law).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now here is the reality of it all. Prior to participating in the photo shoot there was no paper contract other than a verbal contract. So my question is this. Despite the atrocities he conducted on the behalf of his end, must I still give him credit to the photos he took? Hence, no licensing agreement was orchestrated from both our ends (Referring Back To The Law).

I know some of you might through out the word "Copyrights" on here. But here is my question, is he still protected under that law that requires me to tag him to my photo even if no licensing agreement was signed by both parties? Thought I'd ask since Copyright isn't the law I'm focusing on but rather International Law.

PS. I'm not a douchebag that goes around trying to get photographers in trouble for I'm a professional, and since professionalism is key to all business negotiations; I thought I'd raise the question on this thread since you all have been in the industry longer than I have.

If you don't like the pics... why do you want to use them... seems to me you like the pics but don't like the photographer.

Laura UnBound wrote:
So, you had someone else re-edit the photos he sent you without his permission?

No, you don't have to credit him, as you shouldn't be posting them in the first place. YOU violated his copyright, mr. Law major over here.

+1000

Good Egg Productions wrote:

You're not happy with the photos (atrocity was your word) but you still want to use them?? They're not representative of you, yet you're asking if you have to credit him?

Something doesn't add up there.

His second reply, he had someone else "fix" the photos

Laura UnBound wrote:
So, you had someone else re-edit the photos he sent you without his permission?

No, you don't have to credit him, as you shouldn't be posting them in the first place. YOU violated his copyright, mr. Law major over here.

Yep +1

W Robbins wrote:
Now here is the reality of it all. Prior to participating in the photo shoot there was no paper contract other than a verbal contract. So my question is this. Despite the atrocities he conducted on the behalf of his end, must I still give him credit to the photos he took? Hence, no licensing agreement was orchestrated from both our ends (Referring Back To The Law).

I know some of you might through out the word "Copyrights" on here. But here is my question, is he still protected under that law that requires me to tag him to my photo even if no licensing agreement was signed by both parties? Thought I'd ask since Copyright isn't the law I'm focusing on but rather International Law.

1)  If you don't like the photos, why would you include them in your book?

2)  Verbal contracts are worthless.  Verbal contracts is the same as "no contracts".

3)  I am unaware of any "law" that requires you to credit the photographers of the
     images in your book.

4)  There is no "satisfaction guaranteed" clause in nearly all TF* "contracts".

5)  What looks horrible on your monitor might look great on another monitor. 
     Monitors are usually not consistent.

So, if I understand you correctly, I would do the following:
...  I wouldn't include the images in your "book".
...  If these things are important to you, I wouldn't accept "verbal contracts".
...  I wouldn't worry about "laws" that require you to use all the images you get
     and that require you to credit every image you get.  Such things don't exist.
...  Don't worry, be happy.  Sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear
     eats you.  You aren't going to like every image you get.

Laura UnBound wrote:

His second reply, he had someone else "fix" the photos

Oh. Well THAT'S better.

International Law student.


Good luck with that.

W Robbins wrote:
Well, truth be told....there is a law and its under the laws of copyright. Being dead serious for I've witnessed a few cases here in the DC superior courts hearing the arguments presented.

I doubt that there is a law that requires you to use every image you receive.

W Robbins wrote:

I see. But did you express this to the model beforehand? If not, to this day he or she can honestly file a suit against you under the "Deformation of Character" clause. Like seriously, they can argue in court saying because you made them blue without their consent, you have in fact hindered their reputation as an up and coming model. Is it trivial and pathetic? Well in my eyes it really is, but than again, I only speak for myself.

I'm not a lawyer, although I do have some basic legal education. First, it's "Defamation of Character", not "Deformation". Second, I'm pretty sure that since a model would be considered a "public figure" you need to prove malice for a defamation of character suit. I hardly think that an artistic modification of a photograph, the copyright almost certainly being owned by the photographer, could be construed as malice.

J  Welborn wrote:
You only have two images in your portfolio and the rules are at least four ----????

I had six in the beginning but I deleted four of them. You need at least four to create a portfolio not to maintain one.

Keith Allen Phillips wrote:
You guys must have missed the part where he got a 3rd party to retouch them more to his liking... ya know, because THAT is totally cool under copyright law

If there is no contract than there is no copyright. I asked because I wanted to be sure. Once someone confirmed this with me, I did as I pleased.

Ed Woodson Photography wrote:
This is why it's important to have both a models release and a usage license agreement.

Point taken Savannah, Georgia. Thank you.

J  Welborn wrote:
You only have two images in your portfolio and the rules are at least four ----????

LOL.. And one of the pics is from the photographer he doesn't like.

W Robbins wrote:

I had six in the beginning but I deleted four of them. You need at least four to create a portfolio not to maintain one.

Here we are, from the rules:-

Provide 4 Different Photos (or more!)
At least four different photos are required for all accounts. No duplicates, re-crops, or manipulations of the same image. Members are expected to maintain a minimum of four relevant photos at all times.

This might make your other statements a little suspect.

W Robbins wrote:

If there is no contract than there is no copyright. I asked because I wanted to be sure. Once someone confirmed this with me, I did as I pleased.

You are absolutely clueless. I'm sure others who enjoy banging their heads against a brick wall will be along shortly to argue with you. I'm gonna duck out of this before it gets any dumber

ei Total Productions wrote:
I don't know what you mean when you said you have heard these things in "superior court."  I don't believe that the DC Superior Court can handle copyright matters.

W Robbins wrote:
Well than you must be misinformed dude for the Superior Courts in DC are what? A trial court correct? Well, in most trial courts they tend to deal with cases involving both criminal and Civil Law right? Isn't Property Law under Civil Law? Now take the literal definition of "Copyright" and tie that into my question.

Or you are very misinformed.  You better do some research.   Copyright actions can only be filed in Federal District Courts, not the DC Superior Court, just as it can't be filed in a state superior court.  I think you need to do a little bit of legal research on the limits of jurisdiction for the Superior Court for the District of Columbia.

W Robbins wrote:
If not, to this day he or she can honestly file a suit against you under the "Deformation of Character" clause.

lol, deformation.

W Robbins wrote:
If there is no contract than there is no copyright.

Seriously?  You're paying for an education to have people teach you law?  Trust me, you want to get a refund.

ME_ wrote:

Copyright law is under federal jurisdiction. Maybe you are thinking of contract law cases that were heard in state superior court.

Again, it depends on the case. Not saying you are wrong but there is overlap that allows you to choose either court. Hence, I said civil law. It's just not heard as much. If you want I can go down there tomorrow, and pull the case number and send it your way.

W Robbins wrote:

If there is no contract than there is no copyright. I asked because I wanted to be sure. Once someone confirmed this with me, I did as I pleased.

Hhhaaaaaaah.


Here in the glorious USofA, the minute he took the photo it was copyrighted. Get a new hobby, law doesn't suit you

Kaouthia wrote:

lol, deformation.

I think that comes under the liquify law.

W Robbins wrote:

If there is no contract than there is no copyright. I asked because I wanted to be sure. Once someone confirmed this with me, I did as I pleased.

WHO confirmed this with you? If it was an attorney, fire them immediately

Kent Art Photography wrote:

Here we are, from the rules:-

Provide 4 Different Photos (or more!)
At least four different photos are required for all accounts. No duplicates, re-crops, or manipulations of the same image. Members are expected to maintain a minimum of four relevant photos at all times.

This might make your other statements a little suspect.

So what does that say about the system than? If my account is still operational, what does that say about ModelMayhem? -_-

Now to EVERYBODY. Deformation. Who cares it was a misspell. Get off my back lol. I logged on, asked for help, and got it early on. When it comes to professionalism? I gave the photographer the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't be shady. Well..lesson learned. Don't conduct a shoot with a photographer and/or model without a contract. On that note, do enjoy the laughs for it doesn't phase me for my question was answered.

W Robbins wrote:

So what does that say about the system than? If my account is still operational, what does that say about ModelMayhem? -_-

Now to EVERYBODY. Deformation. Who cares it was a misspell. Get off my back lol. I logged on, asked for help, and got it early on. When it comes to professionalism? I gave the photographer the benefit of the doubt that he wouldn't be shady. Well..lesson learned. Don't conduct a shoot with a photographer and/or model without a contract. On that note, do enjoy the laughs for it doesn't phase me for my question was answered.

It says "a moderator hasn't yet looked at your portfolio"


That's...all it says. You want to be automatically disabled the moment you delete your images?