x Nikki M x
Posts: 6
Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
Hi, I'm Nikki and im a model..I was wandering how photographers would feel if they were asked to sign a contract,or even if that would be necessary, for the model to have rights to publish the finished images IF the shoot is her idea's?
I just read a discussion where a model planned on publishing an image and the photographer wasn't happy about it.
I personally would of told the photographer i was going to publish it, but i wouldn't be impressed if they then told me i was not aloud to after arranging the shoot and putting a lot of thought into it specifically for publishing it.
I haven't yet done a shoot that made me want to try publish it, I'm still learning, but i have a note book full of ideas and details of photos i want to do..and i wouldn't want to have no say in what happens with them.
Do models have any rights over their images?
Shandra Stark
Posts: 13,422
Boston, Massachusetts, US
If you want rights to publish, sell...etc...the images yourself, you're going to need to hire a photographer, and pay whatever they're asking for usage, so you can call the shots, like any other client.
Or, you need to discuss these wishes in a trade agreement, and make sure to get everything in writing...but, this path is not easy for a model who isn't established, and not recommended unless you have a really great working relationship with the photographer, to warrant asking for such a thing.
For this you will need a usage license. You can easily draft a usage license for the photographer to sign. It is essentially the equivalent of what a model's release is when photographers present us with it.
This is a great resource to read about rights models have to their photos and what all a usage license entails: http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html
You will find it very rare that a photographer will sign one. But, if they are up for it, this is the proper documentation.
x Nikki M x
Posts: 6
Aberdeen, Scotland, United Kingdom
Danielle Hieronimi wrote: For this you will need a usage license. You can easily draft a usage license for the photographer to sign. It is essentially the equivalent of what a model's release is when photographers present us with it.
This is a great resource to read about rights models have to their photos and what all a usage license entails: http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html
You will find it very rare that a photographer will sign one. But, if they are up for it, this is the proper documentation.
Thanks! I'm a little confused now tho..what if i pay the photographer like the people ^^ up there said, then do i own the photographs? or does the photographer still have full rights over them?
Thanks! I'm a little confused now tho..what if i pay the photographer like the people ^^ up there said, then do i own the photographs? or does the photographer still have full rights over them?
You own the photographs and the right, you paid for them.
Thanks! I'm a little confused now tho..what if i pay the photographer like the people ^^ up there said, then do i own the photographs? or does the photographer still have full rights over them?
When you pay a photographer for a shoot, he has the copyright to all of the images he photographed of you even though you are in them.
Now, if you want to be able to publish the photos, you can suggest that he sign a usage license that you've drafted.
Never bring up a usage license to a photographer you aren't paying, though.
x Nikki M x wrote: Thanks! I'm a little confused now tho..what if i pay the photographer like the people ^^ up there said, then do i own the photographs? or does the photographer still have full rights over them?
I'm not a lawyer, so you should take what follows as a statement of my personal belief, rather than a statement of fact, and do your own research to confirm or deny it.
If you pay the photographer, you get what you pay for. That is, you need to agree with the photographer who is going to own what as a result.
My understanding is that at least in the USA, the photographer always owns the images unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. That agreement might transfer ownership outright, in which case the photographer would need permission from the new owner to make any further use of the images, or might give usage rights--again, the rights would be agreed on.
Even a model who does not own an image has the right to restrict commercial (but not artistic or editorial) use of the image unless there is a written agreement to the contrary, even if the model does not own the image.
Danielle Hieronimi wrote: Never bring up a usage license to a photographer you aren't paying, though.
Why not? If a trade shoot is an artistic collaboration between model and photographer, I would think the model should have the same usage rights as the photographer.
Why not? If a trade shoot is an artistic collaboration between model and photographer, I would think the model should have the same usage rights as the photographer.
Fair enough! That's just my advice, because alot of photographers on MM would take offense if you brought it up for a TF shoot. They're fine with you having it in your port, but dare ask them if you can have usage rights and publish and some go ballistic.
x Nikki M x wrote: Hi, I'm Nikki and im a model..I was wandering how photographers would feel if they were asked to sign a contract,or even if that would be necessary, for the model to have rights to publish the finished images IF the shoot is her idea's?
You are in the UK, so I'm not sure of my answer. But in general, the photographer is the one who owns the copyrights of the images he makes, so you would indeed need the permission of the copyright owner to publish any of his images.
If you want to own the copyrights to "your" images, you would need to hire the photographer & include the appropriate legalese in your contract so that the photographer explicitly transfers the copyrights to you.
If, on the other hand, you are suggesting a shared copyright -- I would think that most knowledgeable photographers would shy away from such an arrangement. Shared copyrights are a nightmare and would have to be covered by a detailed legal contract. Such a contract would have to address questions like...
... Who can license the image?
... What prevents the owning parties from competing against each other?
... How are revenues shared?
... Can one party veto the usage favored by the other party?
... How are disputes settled?
... Who keeps the books?
... Who is responsible for legal costs?
... If someone sues, who pays?
... What happens if one party dies?
... Can one party sell their interest to a third party?
... What if one party moves & fails to inform the other party?
... How is accounting done?
... Can one party audit the books of the other?
and so forth.
So, in summary -- yes, you are facing an uphill battle, especially if the images in question are valuable commercially.
x Nikki M x wrote: Thanks! I'm a little confused now tho..what if i pay the photographer like the people ^^ up there said, then do i own the photographs? or does the photographer still have full rights over them?
Usage rights are not ownership. You will never own the image regardless of how much work you put into it. The copyright exists for the execution...not the ideas. The photographer holds the copyright/ownership UNLESS he signs that over to you which is extremely unlikely without very good financial compensation.
When you approach a photographer with an idea for an image that you would like to get published, you don't need to OWN the images, you just need to be granted the rights to USE them for commercial purposes (I'm assuming commercial).
So, when you've found a potential photographer, tell them your intent and they will recommend the best way to do that. They will most likely present a Usage Agreement. If you really feel you need to OWN the images, there can be a transfer of copyright, but it would be expensive and not really necessary for your purposes.
x Nikki M x wrote: Thanks! I'm a little confused now tho..what if i pay the photographer like the people ^^ up there said, then do i own the photographs? or does the photographer still have full rights over them?
Tiffiney C wrote: You own the photographs and the right, you paid for them.
Not in this country, we were speaking of a usage agreement. The photographer "owns" them unless they transfer copyright, something most professional get paid thousands per image for...
x Nikki M x wrote: Thanks! I'm a little confused now tho..what if i pay the photographer like the people ^^ up there said, then do i own the photographs? or does the photographer still have full rights over them?
You may want to do some more research regarding this because if you mean what I think you mean, that's not correct.
+1
Completely not correct unless that particular photographer has agreed to such.
No. Payment does not equate to ownership. Just because you pay a photographer for PRODUCING images doesn't mean you own them or have any inherent rights or claims of copyright ownership. You may not even have commercial usage rights to the images unless those are expressly granted by the photographer.
If you're under the impression that because you paid a photographer for a shoot that you own the images or the copyright is just flat wrong.
It might just be easier for you to work with photographers who from the get-go would like to have their work published, and they'll take care of it themselves.
Go into a shoot letting them know you would really like to have the results published, where, and what would need to be done, rather than coming to them after the fact asking them if YOU can be the one to do it and they need to hand over the rights.
Depending on where youre trying to have your work published, even if you DO have the rights to the images, a lot of places still wont even bother accepting submissions from you because its not the norm, and they dont want to end up in the middle of "the llama wasnt allowed to do that! now you have to remove the photos!" battles.
Danielle Hieronimi wrote: For this you will need a usage license. You can easily draft a usage license for the photographer to sign. It is essentially the equivalent of what a model's release is when photographers present us with it.
This is a great resource to read about rights models have to their photos and what all a usage license entails: http://www.newmodels.com/Usage.html
You will find it very rare that a photographer will sign one. But, if they are up for it, this is the proper documentation.
Incorrect. A Model Release is a legal document to allow another person to use a persons' likeness for the purposes outlined in said Release and agreed to by the signer as evidenced by their signature. A Usage License is a document the owner of a copywritten photograph/piece of artwork/etc provides another person with as proof of the holders' legal rights to use said image/item/wtvr in the manner outlined in the License. This includes geographic limitations, oftentimes. So as you see, a License & a Release are 2 completely different items; and yes I have given due consideration to our geographic differences. A pear is a pear is a pear, and a license is a license is NOT a release
Disclaimer:I am not an expert, nor do I claim to be. Anyone who questions the weight of my opinion(s) is free to validate my words based upon their review of my work – which may/may not be supportive.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,315
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Michael Pandolfo wrote: People may feel free to amend my comment based on specific UK Copyright issues. Oh StudioUK36, where are you? lol
Watching and waiting. Actually, the OP could approach this in a way that I am aware of [but will not detail here] except that: 1) they would only get away with it once; and 2) any future modelling career they anticipate would come to an immediate and sad end.
What I have in mind is a nuclear option contra the photographer that is best avoided except in some cases of exceptional value in the images, or, as a defensive counter-claim after being seriously threatened with litigation.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,315
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Images by MR wrote:
Danielle Hieronimi wrote: For this you will need a usage license. You can easily draft a usage license for the photographer to sign.
I doubt any photographer would be willing to sign your usage license.
FWIW it may not be quite that easy. Licenses to be valid vis a vis British law must ALWAYS be constructed as a contract. You just can't whack one up in 5 minutes on your word processor and call it good. There are some other forms of consent for a model to do things with images but they are going to be more like grants of rights and not actually licenses, and grants of rights come with their own, often unintended, consequences.
And, no, most photographers are not just going to sign off on some scrap of paper a model drags in.
Why not? If a trade shoot is an artistic collaboration between model and photographer, I would think the model should have the same usage rights as the photographer.
That's not the way it works, without some extra paperwork.
Up until very recently, a paid for shoot gave automatic rights to model in Canada..(this was just changed last year..photographer now own copy and publish unless he signs it away..)
Since our law is based on British Common Law, it may be the same there unless they also revised the copyright laws.
studio36uk
Posts: 20,315
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Rick OBanion Photo wrote: Up until very recently, a paid for shoot gave automatic rights to model in Canada..(this was just changed last year..photographer now own copy and publish unless he signs it away..)
Since our law is based on British Common Law, it may be the same there unless they also revised the copyright laws.
No the common law in the UK has been extinguished by the copyright statutes. There is very, very little, if anything, left of the common law in this area.
NewBoldPhoto
Posts: 4,646
PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US
It is worth noting that one should never take fashion advise from someone carrying a white cane.
OP: Shandra is both successful and knowledgeable and does not carry a white cane.
NewBoldPhoto
Posts: 4,646
PORT MURRAY, New Jersey, US
studio36uk wrote:
Watching and waiting. Actually, the OP could approach this in a way that I am aware of [but will not detail here] except that: 1) they would only get away with it once; and 2) any future modelling career they anticipate would come to an immediate and sad end.
What I have in mind is a nuclear option contra the photographer that is best avoided except in some cases of exceptional value in the images, or, as a defensive counter-claim after being seriously threatened with litigation.
Studio36
Dear God Man- why do you insist on offering people hand grenades? Especially here were the odds of self immolation are so high?
Rick OBanion Photo wrote: Up until very recently, a paid for shoot gave automatic rights to model in Canada..(this was just changed last year..photographer now own copy and publish unless he signs it away..)
Since our law is based on British Common Law, it may be the same there unless they also revised the copyright laws.
.
Not quite. In lieu of proof that the shoot was anything but an equal-trade/Tee Eff shoot, the model was legally deemed to be the 'employer' thanks to case log from back in the 80's. My releases have always included a section that specifically outlined how the photographer - moi - retained copyright, and in all communications I refer to unpaid shooting as a test-shoot. When asked about TF, I decline. Asked twice, I get firmer. A third query? I tell the model to go Tee Eff Off.
It falls under "Work Made in the Course of Employment". Models were previously deemed to have given "valuable consideration" to the photographer by way of their modelling services, and therefore were the legal copyright owners since they were the "employer". And like it says, in absence of an agreement to the contrary! Model release I have signed before unpaid shoots states I retain copyright. No sign-ey sign-ey, no shooty-shooty. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to find work-arounds that are perfectly legal & legally binding
studio36uk
Posts: 20,315
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
NewBoldPhoto wrote: Dear God Man- why do you insist on offering people hand grenades? Especially here were the odds of self immolation are so high?
LOL At least I kept that one in the box. But, hey, if this is supposed to be about the "business of the business" then it is what it is. Most of the time this place reminds me of the expression "What burns a gallon of gas and doesn't go anywhere?" To which the answer is almost always - - - three guesses [but the first two don't count.]
Fair enough! That's just my advice, because alot of photographers on MM would take offense if you brought it up for a TF shoot. They're fine with you having it in your port, but dare ask them if you can have usage rights and publish and some go ballistic.
Some will go ballistic, some won't. Usage license is all part of the discussion for TF shoots. An unexpected document day of the shoot will generally bring a negative response.
No, you don't. Especially not if the photographer owns the camera and studio. You are like every other customer, who books a family portrait or similar.
Yup. Within my releasing documentation [not a US style model release] I include the following specific language putting the model on notice about their initial usage rights [NONE!] and the model is signing off on this initially.:
...I understand that no rights, express or implied, are granted to me [model] regarding use of the photographs except as may be set out in a separate written license agreement. ...
That, exactly is where you need to start ESPECIALLY for TF* working arrangements.
There is absolutely nothing wrong, improper, or underhanded, with including similar language in a US style model release, but you should also prepare and use a pro forma license to go with it, setting out the initial rights granted and expanding or restricting them on a case by case basis.
Thanks!
| 
| 
| edu