NOTE - THIS IS A UK SPECIFIC COMMENT

Theft is a criminal offence, so is fraud, whilst infringement generally is not unless it is "in the course of a business" when it - is - a criminal offence. That's why there are two different laws now covering two different sets of facts.

Misrepresenting the use of, or the right to use, an infringed image in the course of a business for gain [or to cause a loss] is fraud. [Fraud Act 2006]. The Fraud Act was specifically made to include IP exactly because of the technical difficulty in charging theft under the Theft Act(s) 1968 and 1978. The question resolved to what it was not to deprive the rightful owner of the possession of property, but rather the value of it. That, it turns out, is fraud and not theft. In fact, a number of Theft Act(s) offences were shifted to the Fraud Act 2006 for the same reason.

Infringement that is criminal but that does not constitute fraud is treated as a criminal offence under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 s:107 and the associated penalties under that Act, including fines and / or a prison term.

So there is no use trying to split hairs on what to call infringement in a legal sense.

Studio36

NO!!! Now you're just as bad as the people on the other side!
Posting something on the internet doesn't mean that the ownership rights are relinquished. It does NOT mean that people can use them for whatever they want...

Jesus fuck! This site is beyond wrong.

It's not a ridiculous assumption because she legally doesn't own the rights to that image. Unless someone expressly signed over the rights to her, which is extremely unlikely, she doesn't have permission to use the image. There really isn't even any gray area in this at all.

Facebook is actually involve in a class action lawsuit right now for illegally selling images. Although I feel bad for the people whos images are being used and sold, Sadly Facebook will most likely WIN the case, due to the fact that THEY did not actually sell the images (which in include "private" nudity and sexually explicit images that the posters thought were only available to select friends), they sell the web space to people who build "APPS", which in turn the apps inform users that in order to use the apps, they must "agree" to the terms of the apps. Many people don't READ the terms and just click "YES" or "I AGREE" most of the time, one of the terms that are written in the permissions page is " to use, sell, or distribute my images and personal information for promotion of this app." or something vaguely similar. Even Model Mayhem has a terms of use page that gives a little more freedom to its owners than I am comfortable with which is why I don't post any images on my profile or albums that I don't feel comfortable being used or sold.  Not to mention that laws in the United States vary from many other countries-the internet is worldwide so we are ALL at certain risk when we use it.

you are wrong on so many levels. you do not give up any rights by posting images on line. They are still your property. you have given up nothing - legally. She legally has not right to use the image.

You are confusing owning her and owning the likeness of her. Two very different things. When she went to work and got paid for her llamaing, she most likely signed a release relinquishing her rights to her LIKENESS for that shoot. Hence, her going back and taking an image she doesn't own a copyright to or a usage right to makes this theft. It's not only legally true, it's ethically sound as well.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? Seriously dude, you should hang up your "photographer" plaque right now and go do some reading in a place that gives you actual, factual advice for a change. You couldn't be more wrong if your name was Wrongo Wrongenstein. Where do people get this shit from? Oh yeah, other ignorant people on Model Mayhem forums, I forgot.

Yes - but if we're going to debte ethics, we need to also debate the ethics of a photographer from withholding a models image. It's her face. Just let her show her friends and family and potential clients that she is hireable. Photographers fight for that copyright ownership when working with clients (rightfully so!) but the models don't have that power we all have. It behooves us to let the models apply the images to their portfolios.

Some of us are good about getting the images to the models, others are good at telling them "This is where the final images will be presented... look in these magazines around this time." Others won't say anything at all, but won't care if the model pulls it from our site to show in their books.

But others are dicks who just say "You want it? Fuck no. Pay me. I'm the photographer!!!!! Everyone on earth must pay to look at my images" I think this latter group has some serious social and ego issues, and I believe they lack teamwork skills required in the business. I think this way of thinking is dead.

read copyright law. Yes. the photographer owns the image. its a work of art, created by him. Yes. the model is IN the picture. No - she doesn;t have any rights to the use of that image unless the photographer grants a license.

Likewise, the model has simialr rights. I have to get permission from for commercial use of your 'likeness'.

So yes you do have rights. but no, generally, you're not entitled just because you're in the image.

Name a couple real working professional photographer who is working with real working models on real jobs that would deny a model the right to use a copy of the images for their portfolio.

In MANY cases the models don't use commercial images because they suck so bad, but they would have that right since it's their image. That is why you can go to any legitimate agency and see images pulled from ads and editorials on all their working models.

What planet do you live on ?

Ever hear of the International Berne Convention or the US Copyright Law?

You should do some research to understand just how wrong you are in your thinking.

KM

I generally agree with you on this. the big issue i have is the entitlement attitude (by a few) and the poor attitude by some models. "Pay me and give me your images." If she needs to build her portfolio, she and the photographer can trade their time to joinly benefit thier portfolios. But it's the models that demand to be paid, and demand iamges on top of that compensation - that attitude just kills me. If it was a private shoot (ie not commercail with a paying client), and the photographer is paying the model she should ask. And  he should (and does) have the right to say no.

see my last post

Couldn't agree more. Every time I'm published I actually get it in writing from the publisher that any photos of models they are using that I please can get extra copies for them and, so far, nobody has ever given me any grief about this. Personally, I get great satisfaction of handing over a fresh copy of a magazine to one of the models I worked with as a gift to him or her.

I think while there are many differentiating opinions on the subject of whether a photographer to allow the shots, a lot of this is up to the situation.

If the model was pleasant, and the image was absolutely gorgeous, its understandable she'd want to market it and credit you. But it doesn't mean its necessarily good for her to do so. Morals or not, she is potentially burning a bridge. And that can be bad business sense. It's so easy these days for a model to just ask simply "hey can I get a copy of that?" "ok sure". And if the photographer wants to be paid, it might just be easier to pay the amount after asking, and keep the photographer for future jobs/more business. But if the shot is truly that awesome, it might be better for the photographer to keep the contact of the model, and have her advertise his work. It honestly depends on many things.

Honestly, with so many ways for both sides to be courteous, I fail to see how either side would ever choose the rude option.

+1

Correction.. it is not a work of art created by him, the photographer, it is a work of art created by an entire TEAM - that is, the model, the makeup artist, the hair stylist, the wardrobe stylist, the director, the client, and the photographer..

All I am saying is that it is an utter shame us models are forced to sign these bullcrap 'model release' relinquishing ALL our rights. It is not us you should be afraid of, but rather those scavenging on the internet, stealing images, and re-selling them or using them in advertisements. We models are merely putting it in a freakin portfolio! There is no money involved there. And if anything, photographers should be happy because we are often asked by clients who did the picture, thus.. free advertisement for you! And a (real) professional model gets seen easily by at least 8 clients a day... If anything.. us models should get paid for this lol =P

If I get 10 photos from a photog an then I see 100 on FB then just like anyone one else..Copy, Paste, Save and tag. Thank you.

What about the 1000's of magazine reprints we see online where models have scanned their pages or grabbed images from the magazine's online editions.  When was the last time you heard of a magazine suing the model who is the subject of the photo for using the image in her online portfolio?  The answer is "it never happens."  That is the way that the industry works.  Models pose, get published, get tears, build their book and get more work.

What I don't understand is, if major companies don't care, why do you?  They aren't selling the photos, they are showcasing the work they have done.

That is why the Internet has so little acceptance by the mainstream.  People want a different set of rules that the mainstream doesn't want to accept.

He's talking about technically, not legally.

A tear sheet in a model's book is legal without permission. Copyright is about the right to make copies. IF the model has purchased a copy of a magazine, she can tear a sheet out of her personal property and put it in a book.

Making a scan is different.

I agree with this and yet I have a feeling the vast majority of photographers on this site combine the two documents (to the point that the word "release" seems to have taken on a new definition).

that the photographer owns.

Just because you were involved in the making of an image does not make you, or anyone else other than the photographer, the creator of the image. It makes you a contributor.

The law differentiates the terms and most understand what that means. You should try to understand it too or you'll just continue to be bitter that you're not given the same rights the actual creator of the image possesses.

If that were true they would each own part of the copyright. It isn't and they don't.

Maybe 20 years ago. Then, you would have received physical prints, and you controlled who saw your physical "book," when, and in what circumstances. Now you want to put the images on-line. That is not anywhere near the same thing. If you actually had [or have] a real paper based physical "book" [literally a "portfolio"] with paper based photographs and tear sheets, actually cut from printed-on-paper publications, you would encounter a lot less photographer resistance [= none]. Now photographers have a lot more concerns when they furnish you with electronic copies of images. Even you, the model, have absolutely no control on the unauthorised distribution or unauthorised use of your images once they are on-line, and the photographers know it. 

I wish models would just stop referring to their "book" or a "portfolio" when it is highly likely, at least when the terms are used here, that they don't have one to start with. A website or a Facebook page is NOT a "book" or even a "portfolio." It is much more akin to actual publishing. In some countries it IS publishing by definition.

Studio36

lol. That is all I have to say..

I love it when photographers have no understanding of their own craft.

In the US, the moment a photograph is taken its copyrighted to the person who took it. Ergo, see bolded part, is moot (when discussing photographs)


Thats just the first thing wrong with what you wrote... But since it pretty much sums up the incorrectness of your post I dont feel like I need to keep going.

Of course, and every time a model scans a page out of a magazine in which she appears and puts it into her online portfolio, she may well be infringing.  This isn't a question of law but industry practice.

When was the last time you read of a magazine suing a model for scanning a page on which she appeared and put it into her online portfolio?

I have been doing this for forty years and I can't remember it ever happening.  Indeed, I have been sent hundreds of comp cards from agencies in which magazine photos have been reproduced.

Which goes back to my point.  This isn't a question of law, but how the mainstream industry works.  A model would never get sued, or called to the carpet for what we are talking about here.  This is a problem on the net, but not in the mainstream.

That's the part that gets me.

Also, tear sheets are one thing, and ok.
But I do have a problem with a model getting paid full rate, and then ending up with images as well. Now a negotiated rate is something else.

In pre-historic times I was known to do a trade shoot, model got the agreed upon images, and if she wanted more, she paid for prints, with a profit margin for me. This was the working system with agency models.

Do some copying of a Sony video/movie, music/song, or ANYTHING Disney and see how far that thinking gets you.

Just posted a bunch of your images on my site. Thanks for the permission.
BTW, no attribution so people can assume whatever they want.
Again, thanks for giving blanket permission.

I normally have no problem whatsoever with a model using a picture or pictures for her own use or to show off her work. I am not hogging the pictures at all costs. This was a case of a third party using my pictures in marketing to sell modeling services without permission. In my eyes a huge difference from a model using them on FB or on a homepage to show her work.

There are 2, please note 2 valid discussions here, and a lot of horse pucky.

Courteous is one issue, and legality is another.
There is a lot in life that I am legally entitled to do, but choose not to.

E.G.  I may choose to give a street person a bunch of $$$, but they are NOT entitled to reach into my pocket and take it.

You're taking this off the topic, theft is theft, other things are not theft, because you think they are wrong does not make it theft.

Wait a minute, is Studio36uk telling me that its okay to make incorrect statements about things because you think that should be the case and if anyone corrects you they are splitting hairs? Interesting...

A while back I contacted a model about doing a fashion style shoot that I can show to agencies.  She gave me her rates and then was all giddy that she would get some fashion images for her portfolio.

I told her to hold her horses that if she wanted any of the pictures for herself she would need to renegotiate her rate.  She did reluctantly.

When it came time to set up a date and time, she disappeared.