login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Knowing The Law & Knowing Your Photographer Search   Reply
first1234last
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,533
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Michael Lohr  wrote:
Copy right has its limits.
If he did not pay you then you have rights to use the pictures as you wish.(For ONLY Personal use)

Copyright is broken when another person uses other pictures for material gain.
IE AD, promotion, etc.

The applicable term is Fair Use. With out the photograher having a prior contract there would inherantly an understanding that there was a trade.

Also,In this case unless a prior contract stated otherwise, no credit would have to be given.

In addition a photographer must register the pictures at the copyright office to be able to sue for damages. Since there wasn't any material worth to the photo shoot. This type of case would NEVER be heard in court, as there are no material damages to sue for.

please do not talk about stuff you do not have knowledge of. In particular please do not talk about the law or medicine as you risk doing real harm.  you raised 5 points. None (zero, zip, zilch) are correct. That's a pretty bad average zero for five. actually the last one is really two sub-points (two sub-zeros?).  Thats horrible.  even my cats would do better (and two of them are dead). I'm going to steal your 3rd point. One of my buddies teaches the copyright portion of the IP law class at my alma mater. he's gonna use it as as one of the multiple choice answers on his next exam.

Dec 09 12 07:03 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
KeithDewey3
Posts: 1,425
Plattsburg, Missouri, US


This is definitely one of the more interesting threads I have read in a while.  I thought it was a "Saturday Night Live" script at first with Eddy Murphy and Dan Akroyd.  But the OP is serious so it becomes more of a Duck Dynasty script.
Dec 09 12 07:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Lohr
Posts: 510
Los Angeles, California, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
please do not talk about stuff you do not have knowledge of. In particular please do not talk about the law or medicine as you risk doing real harm.  you raised 5 points. None (zero, zip, zilch) are correct. That's a pretty bad average zero for five. actually the last one is really two sub-points (two sub-zeros?).  Thats horrible.  even my cats would do better (and two of them are dead). I'm going to steal your 3rd point. One of my buddies teaches the copyright portion of the IP law class at my alma mater. he's gonna use it as as one of the multiple choice answers on his next exam.

I have been in a Commercial working photographer in Los Angeles for over 20 years. I suspect I have been on shoots whose budget is more than all your shoots combined.This is how I make my living. I have studied copyright law. I am aware of my fellow photographers who had to travel down this path to get restitution.

The cost alone to bring a case like this to court is astronomical. There isn't a lawyer who would ever take it. Simply because there are no proven damages.
You may cite any case to prove me wrong.

Under your logic, most models here are breaking copyright law by using the photograhers pictures in their portfolio.
This is patently false.
It is equally false that a photographer needs a model release to use any picture for his portfolio.

Again, you claim to have passed the bar. Show me one case in the history of copyright infringement that relates to this case.

Dec 09 12 07:42 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mirror With A Memory
Posts: 287
New York, New York, US


Why not just count the shoot as a loss and move on.
Dec 09 12 07:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 8,293
Olney, Maryland, US


Wes R wrote:
myspace trolls

Is there a hierarchy of http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-iw5TaUpM1OI/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAABg/oWjr6XtVW8o/s120-c/photo.jpg types?

Dec 09 12 07:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
David Parsons
Posts: 972
Quincy, Massachusetts, US


Michael Lohr  wrote:
Copy right has its limits.
If he did not pay you then you have rights to use the pictures as you wish.(For ONLY Personal use)

Copyright is broken when another person uses other pictures for material gain.
IE AD, promotion, etc.

The applicable term is Fair Use. With out the photograher having a prior contract there would inherantly an understanding that there was a trade.

Ughh.  You are as bad as the OP.

Dec 09 12 08:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Marc Damon
Posts: 6,562
Biloxi, Mississippi, US


KeithDewey3 wrote:
This is definitely one of the more interesting threads I have read in a while.  I thought it was a "Saturday Night Live" script at first with Eddy Murphy and Dan Akroyd.  But the OP is serious so it becomes more of a Duck Dynasty script.

Keith, I think you nailed it!
Now we just need a swamp, a few MILFs and a video camera!

Dec 09 12 08:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
R Michael Walker
Posts: 11,985
Costa Mesa, California, US


Wes R 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.

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.


http://www.modelmayhem.com/help/rules/m … quirements

Dec 09 12 08:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Broughton
Posts: 2,229
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada


Mark Salo wrote:
Is there a hierarchy of http://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-iw5TaUpM1OI/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAABg/oWjr6XtVW8o/s120-c/photo.jpg types?

it's sort of an inverse hierarchy, with all of them competing to sink as low as they can.

Dec 09 12 08:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,533
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Michael Lohr  wrote:

I have been in a Commercial working photographer in Los Angeles for over 20 years. I suspect I have been on shoots whose budget is more than all your shoots combined.This is how I make my living. I have studied copyright law. I am aware of my fellow photographers who had to travel down this path to get restitution.

The cost alone to bring a case like this to court is astronomical. There isn't a lawyer who would ever take it. Simply because there are no proven damages.
You may cite any case to prove me wrong.

Under your logic, most models here are breaking copyright law by using the photograhers pictures in their portfolio.
This is patently false.
It is equally false that a photographer needs a model release to use any picture for his portfolio.

Again, you claim to have passed the bar. Show me one case in the history of copyright infringement that relates to this case.

too funny! do the letters J.D. mean anything to you? or since you are a commercial photographer for over 20 years and old as dirt perhaps you recognize L.L.B. instead?
You raised 5 points. All were wrong under US law. All of them.  Now you want to claim i said something that I didnt in order to make a point. All I said was you were wrong on all five. i was lazy so i didnt bother explaining why you were wrong on any of them.  so there is no logic you can claim is wrong.  quit making shit up. Trying to argue with someone who actually knows this stuff when you are wrong is clueless behavior lol.

p.s. I'm not going to cite anything because you are trying to play misquoting games.  But even if I wanted to play along there is no requirement of passing any state or provincial bar to cite.  anyone can do it.  this has been fun.

Dec 09 12 08:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,533
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


David Parsons wrote:

Ughh.  You are as bad as the OP.

sorry I missed this. you said much more succinctly smile

Dec 09 12 08:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Images by MR
Posts: 7,674
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


The OP has left the building.........
Dec 09 12 09:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Al Lock Photography
Posts: 15,844
Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand


Wes R wrote:
If there is no contract than there is no copyright.

You might want to read the Berne Convention and the US Copyright law. Copyright existed the moment the image was created.

Dec 09 12 09:04 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
The Aperture Studio
Posts: 95
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Laura UnBound wrote:

Hhhaaaaaaah.


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

Agreed.

Dec 09 12 09:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Light and Lens Studio
Posts: 1,362
Sisters, Oregon, US


Michael Broughton wrote:
i really should have stopped after reading the first few sentences instead of reading this whole thread, for now my brain hurts.

Yes, yes, yes.  This, This, This+1,000,000.

The OP is living proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. 

I didn't realize, however, that so little could be so dangerous.  :-D

Definitely falls in the F'tard class.

Dec 09 12 09:16 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photos 4 The Memories
Posts: 1,281
Kewaskum, Wisconsin, US


Images by MR wrote:
The OP has left the building.........

That didnt take long.

Dec 09 12 09:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Brian T Rickey
Posts: 4,007
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


Images by MR wrote:
The OP has left the building.........

that's ok, I think someone else has moved in to carry on the Mayhem 

borat

Dec 09 12 09:23 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 16,833
El Segundo, California, US


Michael Lohr  wrote:
Copy right has its limits.
If he did not pay you then you have rights to use the pictures as you wish.(For ONLY Personal use)

Not inherently, no.

Michael Lohr  wrote:
Copyright is broken when another person uses other pictures for material gain.
IE AD, promotion, etc.

That, along with many other things, is one way to violate copyright.

For just one trivial example: if you "give away" or use an image in a way which diminishes the copyright holder's potential gain for that image, you're liable--even if you don't make a cent on it

Michael Lohr  wrote:
The applicable term is Fair Use. With out the photograher having a prior contract there would inherantly an understanding that there was a trade.

That is not correct. Please check even the copyright FAQ, if reading the (pretty straightforward) law itself. Case law may modify, but your claim would be incorrect in most cases.

Dec 09 12 09:35 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LA StarShooter
Posts: 1,839
Los Angeles, California, US


Kevin Connery wrote:

Michael Lohr  wrote:
Copy right has its limits.
If he did not pay you then you have rights to use the pictures as you wish.(For ONLY Personal use)

Not inherently, no.

Michael Lohr  wrote:
Copyright is broken when another person uses other pictures for material gain.
IE AD, promotion, etc.

That, along with many other things, is one way to violate copyright.

For just one trivial example: if you "give away" or use an image in a way which diminishes the copyright holder's potential gain for that image, you're liable--even if you don't make a cent on it


That is not correct. Please check even the copyright FAQ, if reading the (pretty straightforward) law itself. Case law may modify, but your claim would be incorrect in most cases.

That's a good explanation. I have some familiarity with copyright law because as a writer, and having worked as a writer-for-hire, and having signed confidentiality agreements it is important to know such things.

Dec 09 12 09:44 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Vito
Posts: 4,169
Brooklyn, New York, US


Michael Lohr  wrote:
Copy right has its limits.
If he did not pay you then you have rights to use the pictures as you wish.(For ONLY Personal use)

Copyright is broken when another person uses other pictures for material gain.
IE AD, promotion, etc.

The applicable term is Fair Use. With out the photograher having a prior contract there would inherantly an understanding that there was a trade.

Also,In this case unless a prior contract stated otherwise, no credit would have to be given.

In addition a photographer must register the pictures at the copyright office to be able to sue for damages. Since there wasn't any material worth to the photo shoot. This type of case would NEVER be heard in court, as there are no material damages to sue for.

I don't care how long you've been in the business, everything you said above is WRONG, PERIOD.

Dec 09 12 10:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Vito
Posts: 4,169
Brooklyn, New York, US


Wes R 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.

The OP has left the building. Maybe because of not having 4 photos, maybe because he closed his account because no one will take his side or maybe he learned the truth and is too embarrassed to return. Either way, he and that other "legal eagle" (ML) have no idea about copyright laws and rights of photographers/models.

ADDED: I just checked, he removed all his photos, cleared out his Bio. It looks as though it was his choice to leave.

Dec 09 12 10:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Lohr
Posts: 510
Los Angeles, California, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
too funny! do the letters J.D. mean anything to you? or since you are a commercial photographer for over 20 years and old as dirt perhaps you recognize L.L.B. instead?
You raised 5 points. All were wrong under US law. All of them.  Now you want to claim i said something that I didnt in order to make a point. All I said was you were wrong on all five. i was lazy so i didnt bother explaining why you were wrong on any of them.  so there is no logic you can claim is wrong.  quit making shit up. Trying to argue with someone who actually knows this stuff when you are wrong is clueless behavior lol.

p.s. I'm not going to cite anything because you are trying to play misquoting games.  But even if I wanted to play along there is no requirement of passing any state or provincial bar to cite.  anyone can do it.  this has been fun.

Not misquoting anything.
Simple copyright infringement is much more complicated then  pushing the button.

Yes it is a fact that when you push the button you own the copy right.
However to sue for damages you MUST register your pictures with the copyright office.

http://www.copyright.gov/

This will allow you to sue for damages. Without damages there is no cost efficent way to proceed with a lawsuit. I believe the intial suit can be filed at $1500 per image. (This may have changed)


Now in this instance there didnt appear to be any legal grounds either.If the photographer didnt pay and have the model sign a release it can be assumed this was a mutual collaboration. The "model", pompus as he may be has the right to use the pictures for his portfolio.
Now if the model  signed his rights away then he would not.

Here is another thing. A model release is meaningless unless the model was paid. This has to be at least one dollar. ALL releases state "for valuble consideration". If one does not fullfill what is essentially a contract, the the release is null and void.

Now for those part time, hobby photographers, weighing in like they actually know what is going on in the real world, I welcome any case citation, where a model was ever sued (sucessfully) for copyright infringement without a prior contract or release in place stating they had no  rights to the pictures.
Without  signed release OR a contract stating the models cant use the pics, in a TFP sitution, then there is no standing.

Dec 09 12 10:43 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Lohr
Posts: 510
Los Angeles, California, US


I believe this rulling would show why the photographer would not have standing to succesfully sue a model for simple use of his pictures. (IE without a release or contract)

The court not only investigates whether the defendant's specific use of the work has significantly harmed the copyright owner's market, but also whether such uses in general, if widespread, would harm the potential market of the original. The burden of proof here rests not on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. See Sony Corp v. Universal City Studios,[19]
Dec 09 12 11:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,533
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Michael Lohr  wrote:

Not misquoting anything.
Simple copyright infringement is much more complicated then  pushing the button.

yes you are misquoting me.  And you just did again. I never said that simple copyright  infringement is less complicated  or much less complicated than pushing a button.  I just said you were wrong in your original statements and you proceed to say that I said something more than "you are wrong".  Just like you did here.  Sorry. Not gonna fly.  You cant get away with misquoting someone who is taking the time to watch what you write.  Try it somewhere else.  Maybe you are used to getting away with it on FB?  I snipped the rest of your last post because I'm ignoring anything else you say.  Everyone here knows you are wrong. so quit trolling. I'm not biting.  your sophistry is weak and not fooling anyone.

Dec 09 12 11:50 pm  Link  Quote 
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 27,321
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Michael Lohr  wrote:
Not misquoting anything.
Simple copyright infringement is much more complicated then  pushing the button.

Yes it is a fact that when you push the button you own the copy right.
However to sue for damages you MUST register your pictures with the copyright office.

http://www.copyright.gov/

This will allow you to sue for damages. Without damages there is no cost efficent way to proceed with a lawsuit. I believe the intial suit can be filed at $1500 per image. (This may have changed)


Now in this instance there didnt appear to be any legal grounds either.If the photographer didnt pay and have the llama sign a release it can be assumed this was a mutual collaboration. The "model", pompus as he may be has the right to use the pictures for his portfolio.
Now if the llama  signed his rights away then he would not.

Here is another thing. A llama release is meaningless unless the llama was paid. This has to be at least one dollar. ALL releases state "for valuble consideration". If one does not fullfill what is essentially a contract, the the release is null and void.

Now for those part time, hobby photographers, weighing in like they actually know what is going on in the real world, I welcome any case citation, where a llama was ever sued (sucessfully) for copyright infringement without a prior contract or release in place stating they had no  rights to the pictures.
Without  signed release OR a contract stating the llamas cant use the pics, in a TFP sitution, then there is no standing.

The photos the photographer gave him, sure, nobody argued that.

The photos that the llama got back from a third party that he gave them to to have them re-edited because he didn't like the way the photographer did it the first time and then never got an answer from the photographer on whether or not he could use them in his portfolio? No...

Dec 09 12 11:51 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Lohr
Posts: 510
Los Angeles, California, US


Laura UnBound wrote:
The photos the photographer gave him, sure, nobody argued that.

The photos that the model got back from a third party that he gave them to to have them re-edited because he didn't like the way the photographer did it the first time and then never got an answer from the photographer on whether or not he could use them in his portfolio? No...

That was my understanding. He was annoying so I stopped reading his post at one point. From what I understand he didn't like how "dark" the pictures were so I assumed he had them lightened.
Someone rightly pointed out there may have been more to the story then he was letting on.

I have dealt with every scenario with a model. Invaribly they or their agents will crop, modify or pick the very worst picture.( This is why I never give out the entire shoot) I think it is waste of time and energy to control others. I am honest up front that I only want credit on pictures where I do the final retouching.

However the facts remain the same. If a agency used a picture I wasn't happy with. Unless I can prove their actions materially damaged me. I would not have any standing for a succesful lawsuit. (Again there is an assumption this is for PERSONAL promotion only)

Dec 10 12 12:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kevin Connery
Posts: 16,833
El Segundo, California, US


Michael Lohr  wrote:
Here is another thing. A model release is meaningless unless the model was paid. This has to be at least one dollar. ALL releases state "for valuble consideration". If one does not fullfill what is essentially a contract, the the release is null and void.

That depends on the jurisdiction (among other things). In NY, for example, it is NOT necessary to be a contract. In Other words, the use of ALL is simply  and completely incorrect.

Dec 10 12 02:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Lohr
Posts: 510
Los Angeles, California, US


Kevin Connery wrote:

That depends on the jurisdiction (among other things). In NY, for example, it is NOT necessary to be a contract. In Other words, the use of ALL is simply  and completely incorrect.

You appear to be correct....
VI. Model Releases and Contract Concerns
A. Bargained-For Consideration
Typically, and traditionally, consideration is required for contract enforceability.  Under the "bargain theory of consideration", for an agreement to be enforceable as a contract, two requirements must be met:

    i.    a bargain between the parties; and
    ii.   an exchange.
          a.)    give (or promise to give) a return benefit, or
          b.)    take on (or promise to take on) a detriment.

In order for a model release to be enforceable, the party seeking to uphold the release must have given consideration. Consideration in the context of model releases often refers to a sum of money paid to the model and/or prints to be made of the photos for the model.  "Although courts do not ordinarily inquire into the adequacy of consideration, if the consideration is given as a mere pretense, joke, or sham, it will not suffice." R. Kelso, Supplementary Material for Contracts I, p. 12, (1994).

There can be significant exceptions to the general requirement of consideration.  For example, New York has specific statutes addressing model releases and the right of privacy.  These statutes require no more than "written consent" for a waiver of an individual's right of privacy to be valid.  Therefore, this issue should be considered on a jurisdictional basis before executing a release without consideration.

Dec 10 12 07:24 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,152
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom


Michael Lohr  wrote:
Here is another thing. A model release is meaningless unless the model was paid. This has to be at least one dollar. ALL releases state "for valuble consideration". If one does not fullfill what is essentially a contract, the the release is null and void.

If one believes their work is worth nothing, then perhaps.

If a photographer's typical day rate is (random number, plucked out of the air), $500, and they treat a model (that they're working TF with) exactly as they would a client, deliver to them exactly what they would deliver to a client paying $500, that model has essentially received $500 worth of service and/or product from that photographer.  It has value.

Dec 10 12 07:47 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
Tampa, Florida, US


Vito wrote:
The OP has left the building. Maybe because of not having 4 photos, maybe because he closed his account because no one will take his side or maybe he learned the truth and is too embarrassed to return. Either way, he and that other "legal eagle" (ML) have no idea about copyright laws and rights of photographers/models.

ADDED: I just checked, he removed all his photos, cleared out his Bio. It looks as though it was his choice to leave.

Perhaps he removed his profile so he could concentrate on his LSATs for entrance into Georgetown.

Dec 10 12 07:55 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Lohr
Posts: 510
Los Angeles, California, US


Kaouthia wrote:

If one believes their work is worth nothing, then perhaps.

If a photographer's typical day rate is (random number, plucked out of the air), $500, and they treat a model (that they're working TF with) exactly as they would a client, deliver to them exactly what they would deliver to a client paying $500, that model has essentially received $500 worth of service and/or product from that photographer.  It has value.

Valuble consideration does not mean money. It can be in the form of goods and services. (example Pictures.) But something must be exchanged for this type of contract to be binding. I beleive the dollar figure comes from a rulling the exchange can't be a joke.. ie a backrub or a penny.

Dec 10 12 08:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
M Pandolfo Photography
Posts: 12,116
Tampa, Florida, US


Michael Lohr  wrote:
In order for a model release to be enforceable, the party seeking to uphold the release must have given consideration. Consideration in the context of model releases often refers to a sum of money paid to the model and/or prints to be made of the photos for the model.  "Although courts do not ordinarily inquire into the adequacy of consideration, if the consideration is given as a mere pretense, joke, or sham, it will not suffice." R. Kelso, Supplementary Material for Contracts I, p. 12, (1994).

There can be significant exceptions to the general requirement of consideration.  For example, New York has specific statutes addressing model releases and the right of privacy.  These statutes require no more than "written consent" for a waiver of an individual's right of privacy to be valid.  Therefore, this issue should be considered on a jurisdictional basis before executing a release without consideration.

"Consideration" can be ONE digital image provided. Consideration does not equal monetary compensation. It doesn't even have to be anything tangible.

I would really recommend you do more comprehending of the words you're reading rather than just cut & pasting snippets from any source and trying to interpret, quite poorly from what I've seen.

Dec 10 12 08:00 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Kaouthia
Posts: 3,152
Lancaster, England, United Kingdom


Michael Lohr  wrote:
Valuble consideration does not mean money.

Yes, that was my point.  You were the one who mentioned a dollar.  So, what was yours? smile

Dec 10 12 08:02 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4,144
New York, New York, US


Michael Lohr  wrote:

Not misquoting anything.
Simple copyright infringement is much more complicated then  pushing the button.

Yes it is a fact that when you push the button you own the copy right.
However to sue for damages you MUST register your pictures with the copyright office.

http://www.copyright.gov/

This will allow you to sue for damages. Without damages there is no cost efficent way to proceed with a lawsuit. I believe the intial suit can be filed at $1500 per image. (This may have changed)


Now in this instance there didnt appear to be any legal grounds either.If the photographer didnt pay and have the model sign a release it can be assumed this was a mutual collaboration. The "model", pompus as he may be has the right to use the pictures for his portfolio.
Now if the model  signed his rights away then he would not.

Here is another thing. A model release is meaningless unless the model was paid. This has to be at least one dollar. ALL releases state "for valuble consideration". If one does not fullfill what is essentially a contract, the the release is null and void.

Now for those part time, hobby photographers, weighing in like they actually know what is going on in the real world, I welcome any case citation, where a model was ever sued (sucessfully) for copyright infringement without a prior contract or release in place stating they had no  rights to the pictures.
Without  signed release OR a contract stating the models cant use the pics, in a TFP sitution, then there is no standing.

Consideration can be in forms other than money.

There can be situations where things can be implied, but nothing can be assumed.

You can sue for any amount.  There's no law that says you can't sue for $1 per image or $1 billion. What you can actually get may be drastically different than what you sue for.

Dec 10 12 11:52 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4,144
New York, New York, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:

"Consideration" can be ONE digital image provided. Consideration does not equal monetary compensation. It doesn't even have to be anything tangible.

I would really recommend you do more comprehending of the words you're reading rather than just cut & pasting snippets from any source and trying to interpret, quite poorly from what I've seen.

+1

Dec 10 12 11:53 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4,144
New York, New York, US


Michael Lohr  wrote:

Valuble consideration does not mean money. It can be in the form of goods and services. (example Pictures.) But something must be exchanged for this type of contract to be binding. I beleive the dollar figure comes from a rulling the exchange can't be a joke.. ie a backrub or a penny.

Do you think there has been a court case over a back rub or a penny? If there hasn't been, there's no ruling on that.

Dec 10 12 11:55 am  Link  Quote 
Model
Laura UnBound
Posts: 27,321
Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Michael Lohr  wrote:
That was my understanding. He was annoying so I stopped reading his post at one point. From what I understand he didn't like how "dark" the pictures were so I assumed he had them lightened.
Someone rightly pointed out there may have been more to the story then he was letting on.

I have dealt with every scenario with a model. Invaribly they or their agents will crop, modify or pick the very worst picture.( This is why I never give out the entire shoot) I think it is waste of time and energy to control others. I am honest up front that I only want credit on pictures where I do the final retouching.

However the facts remain the same. If a agency used a picture I wasn't happy with. Unless I can prove their actions materially damaged me. I would not have any standing for a succesful lawsuit. (Again there is an assumption this is for PERSONAL promotion only)

Irrelevant.

The only person to bring up lawsuits at all (until you came in to talk about things nobody was talking about) was the model in regards to his "deformation", nobody said anything about the photographer suing him for damages done by using images that were edited by a third party, they simply advised him that what he did was wrong and he shouldn't use the photos at all.
Regardless of if the photographer would or could sue, or what the damages would or could be, the model was still not in the legal right, which was funny because he was spouting off a lot of legal mumbo jumbo he had no appearance of understanding.

You've done an awful lot of talking about an awful lot of points that were never touched on in the first place, and chanced being awfully wrong, a lot. Doesn't make a lot of sense.

Dec 10 12 12:37 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Michael Lohr
Posts: 510
Los Angeles, California, US


AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
please do not talk about stuff you do not have knowledge of. In particular please do not talk about the law or medicine as you risk doing real harm.  you raised 5 points. None (zero, zip, zilch) are correct. That's a pretty bad average zero for five. actually the last one is really two sub-points (two sub-zeros?).  Thats horrible.  even my cats would do better (and two of them are dead). I'm going to steal your 3rd point. One of my buddies teaches the copyright portion of the IP law class at my alma mater. he's gonna use it as as one of the multiple choice answers on his next exam.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
please do not talk about stuff you do not have knowledge of. In particular please do not talk about the law or medicine as you risk doing real harm.  you raised 5 points. None (zero, zip, zilch) are correct. That's a pretty bad average zero for five. actually the last one is really two sub-points (two sub-zeros?).  Thats horrible.  even my cats would do better (and two of them are dead). I'm going to steal your 3rd point. One of my buddies teaches the copyright portion of the IP law class at my alma mater. he's gonna use it as as one of the multiple choice answers on his next exam.

.

1 You can not sue for damages without registering your pictures at the copy right office. If you do not register you can only sue for copright infringement.

This is a HUGE difference. For example If I took a killer picture and someone used in a national ad. I would be able to sue for damages at the prevailing rate. This could be for tens of thousans of dollars on top of the copyright infringement.

2/3 If a llama and photographer shoot together on a free shoot. No contract, No release, No exchange of money. Then the photographer susbsequently gives the llama pictures from the shoot. The llama has rights to use those pictures.

Example, I have done my fair number of shoots here. I can not go back and contact llamas who have worked on a TFP basis, No release, no contract. and tell them they can't use my pictues anymore.

4 Credit. Even on a paid shoot there is no law that states a person using a photographers work MUST credit the photographer.

As a copyright holder I can negotiate terms in advance if I so choose. This falls under liscensing requirements. So I can liscense a photograph with specific terms. IE, How long the photo can be used. Usage Fees, whether or not the photo will be credited. or anything else. So absent  an agreement in advance. A llama would not have to credit the photographer.

Just an FYI.
Not sure why some people here feel the need to be snarky. If one disagree with another points then fine. Point out what is wrong so others can learn.
Simply saying the other person is wrong provides no benifit to the community.

Dec 10 12 12:40 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
RE Imaging
Posts: 97
Deer River, Minnesota, US


Michael Pandolfo wrote:

"Your Honor, this dude didn't tag me in the photo..."

Can't stop giggling.

Dec 10 12 12:54 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Paul AI
Posts: 1,046
Shawnee, Oklahoma, US


RE Imaging wrote:
Can't stop giggling.

Pretty much sums up the entire thread.

Dec 10 12 01:12 pm  Link  Quote 
first1234last   Search   Reply