LightFeatherRetouch wrote:
Just a couple of months ago, one I shot with took the liberty of not only add some psychedelic colors to it, but also a lovely frame (the kind of shit uncle Bob would add), and sign the photo in my behalf... so that everyone could see the master piece "I created and signed".

I don't even sign my photos... but apparently some decide to add a touch of their artistic talent and "autograph" it in your behalf...

Loved it! That photo would definitely improve my career, if I didn't go and ask her to remove it, which of course she wasn't happy about...

One of my favorite photos ended up on a Car Wash flyer! I did freak out that time! But was still nice about it.

Most recently I photo that I did for a model that is a friend gave it to some, who then cropped my watermark out, made it black & white (when the color I created was a huge part if what made it look good) and then it somehow got somewhat pixelated and then had text written over it. I was not at all happy about that.

She removed it and also told her to please tell the guy that did it not to use it or I will sue him for copyright infringement. I don't take it lightly.

LightFeatherRetouch wrote:
Cool story, but of course, you will be a creep, a jerk, an asshole, a nazi and whatever more... at least that's what she will say about you in your back... business as usual...

I have learned that no matter how hard you try or how good your intentions are, there will always be one that will call you a creep, a jerk, an asshole, a nazi, perv, or a myriad of other things and say it behind  your back, when she never showed any disagreement in person.

I just simply DGAF anymore...lol

MoRina wrote:
It's good that you are going to take the time to explain this to your models upfront and give them an information sheet.  So many photographers expect new models to magically understand that images that contain their likeness are not theirs.  Being proactive can only help avoid the situations you outline.

You may want to make clear in your post that copyright still belongs to the photographer even when model did not get paid (as in a TF arrangement).  I think a lot of misunderstanding comes when photographers here spout the "your pay is the images" statement without qualifying that the model does not actually own those images she traded her time for.

Good point - I updated it.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
There is one thing that I see a lot of newer and even somewhat experienced models neglecting to learn about and that is Copyright Laws.

This is very important because it can get you or other people in a lot of trouble and cost you or those people up to $150,000 per violation plus legal fees.

A few general tips...
...

A photographer explained Model Usage rights to me. Until that time I realized I had not asked for this in my shoots which I now do, (have it listed in my profiles here and this is the reason I am shooting right now.)

JenB

Shot By Adam wrote:
My stuff is stolen all the time but my two favorites were when a model I did a shoot with on a TFP basis submitted the photos to a magcloud magazine without telling me. A cosplay magazine out of Canada wanted to publish them and pay us for the shoot but when they found the magcloud images they told me they were no longer interested. I then went medieval on the magcloud rag for publishing the images without consent of the photographer and made them pay for the lost revenues I would have made from the other magazine. This ties right into what the OP is saying. Just because you are in the photos doesn't mean that you have the right to submit them anywhere for publication.

My other favorite one came this year when a writer from a newspaper stole one of my photos and used it on the newspaper's blog. It was a lot of fun watching the newspaper editor squirm over this one. She even sent me a copy of the email where she ripped the writer a new asshole over this.

I have heard you are very good at protecting your copyright from a mutual friend. Good for you.

Alexis Aiden wrote:
Curious about copyright violation and image editing...

It's pretty common for people to repost or edit iphone shots, point and shoot photos online to sites like facebook, instagram that their friends have taken.

Where does the legal distinction get drawn? Obviously there's a huge difference in quality between some standard iphone snaps and DSLR photos that a photographer invested considerable time in editing. But technically, they're all photos, so does the law distinguish between some level of "sweat of the brow" involved? Or does this mostly apply when using the images for commercial purposes/promotions?

I'm mostly asking because I've gotten all kinds of photos from shoots in the past - some point and shoot, some unretouched. In certain cases, I've done the retouching and shared it with the photographer/team.

Is it better to try and get some kind of written agreement if I am doing the retouching? What do TF retouchers do in these cases (assuming it is not work for hire)?

Thanks to anyone that has answers! (And any pointers to relevant passages for California law are especially appreciated).

As far as I know there is no distinction between the two and really there should not be since you can do amazing things with just an iphone and some app. Really if you modify an image at all you are creating a derivative work and only the copyright holder can do that without permission.

Laura UnBound wrote:
*in the United States.

* for freelance models

Alexis Aiden wrote:
Curious about copyright violation and image editing...

It's pretty common for people to repost or edit iphone shots, point and shoot photos online to sites like facebook, instagram that their friends have taken.

Where does the legal distinction get drawn? Obviously there's a huge difference in quality between some standard iphone snaps and DSLR photos that a photographer invested considerable time in editing. But technically, they're all photos, so does the law distinguish between some level of "sweat of the brow" involved? Or does this mostly apply when using the images for commercial purposes/promotions?

I'm mostly asking because I've gotten all kinds of photos from shoots in the past - some point and shoot, some unretouched. In certain cases, I've done the retouching and shared it with the photographer/team.

Is it better to try and get some kind of written agreement if I am doing the retouching? What do TF retouchers do in these cases (assuming it is not work for hire)?

Thanks to anyone that has answers! (And any pointers to relevant passages for California law are especially appreciated).

Alexis:   Welcome to Model Mayhem.   (MMers: You should look at her port )   I suggest that you google some of these topics and California Law.  There is also a world of information on this subject in the forums.   You may want to do a search if you really want to read up on people’s opinions.  If you read every thread that comes up on this subject in the future, you will eventually get a reasonable understanding of it.  People do link good resources and laws.  Pay attention to posts from guys like GPS in California.

My best advice is to ask the photographer involved before doing anything.   There are a lot of reasonable people out there who will discuss your ideas and intent and grant permission.  The forums aren’t a place where everybody is represented or willing to express their opinions.   There are ways around copyright laws but you need to understand a lot of issues.   Copyrights are not absolutes.  Copyrights expire, there are fair use issues, derivatives and transformative works.  Get your permission in writing, even if it is only an email.

As far as the medium used to create a work:  if I get lucky and catch something on my iPhone that is wonderful, does the technology make it worth less?  Does that mean that any photograph should be worth less copyright protection than paintings?  After all, any photograph is the result of technology.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
As far as I know there is no distinction between the two and really there should not be since you can do amazing things with just an iphone and some app. Really if you modify an image at all you are creating a derivative work and only the copyright holder can do that without permission.

If only life was so simple.

Derivative works have copyright protection but it doesn't extend the copyright of the original.  There are also TRANSFORMATIVE works.  A properly executed transformative work renders a valid copyright unenforceable and creates a new copyright for the transforming artist.  (Damn artists.)

So where does a work cross the line from derivative to transformative?  Richard Prince anyone?

http://www.photo-mark.com/notes/2013/ju … come-fair/

http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/new … ight-suit/

Is the OP really suggesting that a beginning model KNOW copyright law?  Or just conform to the laws that he wants him/her to know?


My understanding is that I can photoshop the model out of your copyrighted studio photograph, and mount her to the bow of a ship, and it is transformative and legal.  I can't simply adjust the colors in the photo.  That would be a violation of your copyright.

But what the hell, ultimately I want my copyright respected as much as you want yours respected.  So I will create my own original photos and my works will be from them.  Do unto others ....

  I feel obligated to use these since someone went to the trouble of creating a list.   Thank you someone!

Isis22 wrote:
No one had to tell me these things. Maybe it's because I'm a much older model but it's common sense not to mess with someone else's work. I have asked photographers if they could crop something for me and they have told me to do it myself. I always ask in advance where I can post photographs. Even when I have been given prints I have refused to sell them.

I do think it's good that you give your models a heads up. Unfortunately, most of us in the forums already know all of this. You're going to get a lot of nods in agreement, not much educating to those who need it.

Too true (the last)

Many photographers would give you permission, if you ask, and seem to know what you are doing. If you respect me, then I will respect you.

Most of us know that what we like may not be exactly what the model likes or needs. If the model can make some tweaks that make the image better for her, then why not.

Koryn wrote:
You do know that sometimes people steal photos off the internet, and fuck them all up in image editing programs, then repost them on the interwebnetz, right?

I've found images that were originally of me, that were taken without the photographer's permission, then someone changed the colors, added text, did all kinds of crap with them. Deviant Art is TERRIBLE for people doing that; a few years ago, someone on DA took one of my images and inserted their crappy (and it was really, really bad) poem, like this wall of text, across my torso. it's easy to just assume it's all the model's fault, in every instance, when often these photos turn up altered, because people steal them.

And on the flip side, people post on DA with a CC permission to see what others can do with their image. There are some very talented people on DA.

Problem is that too many on DA suddenly get this idea that everything on the web is under CC. Really wish some would try it with the Mouse or the Cola's.

Garry k wrote:
Thank You Nico

I shot with a new model the other day and immediately afterwards she started trying to dictate to me which pictures I could use and which I couldn't and that she could do whatever she wanted with the pictures because they were" hers "

If You had written thread a few days earlier - I would have just directed her to read this and saved myself a lot of headache

Was she just recently in Victoria?
Feels very, very familiar.

Koryn wrote:
You do know that sometimes people steal photos off the internet, and fuck them all up in image editing programs, then repost them on the interwebnetz, right?

I've found images that were originally of me, that were taken without the photographer's permission, then someone changed the colors, added text, did all kinds of crap with them. Deviant Art is TERRIBLE for people doing that; a few years ago, someone on DA took one of my images and inserted their crappy (and it was really, really bad) poem, like this wall of text, across my torso. it's easy to just assume it's all the model's fault, in every instance, when often these photos turn up altered, because people steal them.

+1

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Alexis:   Welcome to Model Mayhem.   (MMers: You should look at her port )   I suggest that you google some of these topics and California Law.  There is also a world of information on this subject in the forums.   You may want to do a search if you really want to read up on people’s opinions.  If you read every thread that comes up on this subject in the future, you will eventually get a reasonable understanding of it.  People do link good resources and laws.  Pay attention to posts from guys like GPS in California.

My best advice is to ask the photographer involved before doing anything.   There are a lot of reasonable people out there who will discuss your ideas and intent and grant permission.  The forums aren’t a place where everybody is represented or willing to express their opinions.   There are ways around copyright laws but you need to understand a lot of issues.   Copyrights are not absolutes.  Copyrights expire, there are fair use issues, derivatives and transformative works.  Get your permission in writing, even if it is only an email.

As far as the medium used to create a work:  if I get lucky and catch something on my iPhone that is wonderful, does the technology make it worth less?  Does that mean that any photograph should be worth less copyright protection than paintings?  After all, any photograph is the result of technology.



If only life was so simple.

Derivative works have copyright protection but it doesn't extend the copyright of the original.  There are also TRANSFORMATIVE works.  A properly executed transformative work renders a valid copyright unenforceable and creates a new copyright for the transforming artist.  (Damn artists.)

So where does a work cross the line from derivative to transformative?  Richard Prince anyone?

http://www.photo-mark.com/notes/2013/ju … come-fair/

http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/new … ight-suit/

Is the OP really suggesting that a beginning model KNOW copyright law?  Or just conform to the laws that he wants him/her to know?


My understanding is that I can photoshop the model out of your copyrighted studio photograph, and mount her to the bow of a ship, and it is transformative and legal.  I can't simply adjust the colors in the photo.  That would be a violation of your copyright.

But what the hell, ultimately I want my copyright respected as much as you want yours respected.  So I will create my own original photos and my works will be from them.  Do unto others ....

  I feel obligated to use these since someone went to the trouble of creating a list.   Thank you someone!

Yes I'm suggesting they learn the actual laws.

Your understanding is incorrect you can not take part of someone else's image and use it to create a new one if it is recognizable.

"Right to Prepare Derivative Works
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare,
or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of
that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author
or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the
author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without
the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection
will not extend to any part of the work in which such material
has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaption of
a work may constitute copyright infringement."
Source: http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTUqEG32aY

If someone has some case law or statutes that prove otherwise please present them.

Koryn wrote:
You do know that sometimes people steal photos off the internet, and fuck them all up in image editing programs, then repost them on the interwebnetz, right?

I've found images that were originally of me, that were taken without the photographer's permission, then someone changed the colors, added text, did all kinds of crap with them. Deviant Art is TERRIBLE for people doing that; a few years ago, someone on DA took one of my images and inserted their crappy (and it was really, really bad) poem, like this wall of text, across my torso. it's easy to just assume it's all the model's fault, in every instance, when often these photos turn up altered, because people steal them.

That's not what I'm talking about. Of course I know this... I'm talking about models giving permission they do not have the power to give or altering it themselves.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
Yes I'm suggesting they learn the actual laws.

Your understanding is incorrect you can not take part of someone else's image and use it to create a new one if it is recognizable.

"Right to Prepare Derivative Works
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare,
or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of
that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author
or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the
author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without
the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection
will not extend to any part of the work in which such material
has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaption of
a work may constitute copyright infringement."
Source: http://copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf

Also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtTUqEG32aY

If someone has some case law or statutes that prove otherwise please present them.

I posted references.  You have discussed derivatives.  Not transformatives.  Not fair use.
If I am wrong Richard Prince would have lost on all counts.

From one of the articles:
"Recently, Prince convinced the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that all but five of his "artworks are transformative of Cariou’s photographs and, accordingly, do not violate Cariou’s copyrights."

"Transformative use has become the touchstone of almost every copyright case involving fair use in the last couple decades. This confuses many people because the term "transformative" doesn't appear anywhere in the copyright statute's definition of fair use. In fact, the right to prepare derivative works is one of the exclusive rights conveyed to copyright holders. Derivative works are defined as, among other things, a "form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."

I'm wrong?  Prove it.

edit:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/arts/ … .html?_r=0

"Mr. Prince used dozens of the pictures as the basis for a series ..."

"... should be allowed under the fair-use exceptions to federal copyright protections, which permit limited borrowing of protected material ..."

"The appeals court, which heard the case last May, ruled that Judge Batts’s interpretation was incorrect and that “the law does not require that a secondary use comment on the original artist or work, or popular culture,” but only that a reasonable observer find the work to be transformative."

"The court found that most of the works by Mr. Prince under consideration were permissible under fair use because they “have a different character” from Mr. Cariou’s work, give it a “new expression” and employ “new aesthetics with creative and communicative results distinct” from the work that Mr. Prince borrowed. But five other works, the court said, were so minimally altered by Mr. Prince that they might not be considered fair use by a reasonable observer. Those were sent back to the lower court for a determination using the appeals court standard."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/arts/ … wanted=all

edit:
http://www.photo-mark.com/notes/2013/ju … come-fair/
Justice David Souter: "Under the first of the four §107 factors, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature…,” the enquiry focuses on whether the new work merely supersedes the objects of the original creation, or whether and to what extent it is “transformative,” altering the original with new expression, meaning, or message. The more transformative the new work, the less will be the significance of other factors, like commercialism, that may weigh against a finding of fair use."

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
I posted references.  You have discussed derivatives.  Not transformatives.  Not fair use.
If I am wrong Richard Prince would have lost on all counts.

From one of the articles:
"Recently, Prince convinced the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that all but five of his "artworks are transformative of Cariou’s photographs and, accordingly, do not violate Cariou’s copyrights."

"Transformative use has become the touchstone of almost every copyright case involving fair use in the last couple decades. This confuses many people because the term "transformative" doesn't appear anywhere in the copyright statute's definition of fair use. In fact, the right to prepare derivative works is one of the exclusive rights conveyed to copyright holders. Derivative works are defined as, among other things, a "form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted."

I'm wrong?  Prove it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/arts/ … .html?_r=0

"Mr. Prince used dozens of the pictures as the basis for a series ..."

"... should be allowed under the fair-use exceptions to federal copyright protections, which permit limited borrowing of protected material ..."

"The appeals court, which heard the case last May, ruled that Judge Batts’s interpretation was incorrect and that “the law does not require that a secondary use comment on the original artist or work, or popular culture,” but only that a reasonable observer find the work to be transformative."

"The court found that most of the works by Mr. Prince under consideration were permissible under fair use because they “have a different character” from Mr. Cariou’s work, give it a “new expression” and employ “new aesthetics with creative and communicative results distinct” from the work that Mr. Prince borrowed. But five other works, the court said, were so minimally altered by Mr. Prince that they might not be considered fair use by a reasonable observer. Those were sent back to the lower court for a determination using the appeals court standard."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/01/arts/ … wanted=all

So basally anyone following what you are saying should be prepared for a costly legal battle or to settle out of court for paying a lessor amount as that's the reality of the situation. Expect $20,000 - $40,000 in legal fees just for defense of their use of stolen images.

And fair use rarely holds water from what I have seen. And once again will still have to be defended in court at a great expense?

The company I work for just got sued (for something else basically a frivolous lawsuit and the case has not even gone to court and so far it's cost $40,000.

So any one thinking they can hide behind these kinds of nebulous cases that are open to different interpretations by different circuit courts should be forewarned that they will have to defend their case at great expense.

And what's with you argumentative tone with me from the start? This post was meant to educate and help people and prevent them from being sued and have to fight costly legal battles.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
So basally anyone following what you are saying should be prepared for a costly legal battle or to settle out of court for paying a lessor amount as that's the reality of the situation. Expect $20,000 - $40,000 in legal fees just for defense of their use of stolen images.

Legal fees work both ways.  If you are going to loose, why would you sue?

Edit:

Prince won.  He made millions beyond his legal fees and got millions more worth of publicity.   Crime pays.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:

Legal fees work both ways.  If you are going to loose, why would you sue?

Read above and I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to steal other peoples work or advise others to go right ahead. It's not smart and causes problems.

Nico Simon Princely wrote:
Read above and I'm not going to argue with you. If you want to steal other peoples work or advise others to go right ahead. It's not smart and causes problems.

read above:

Hunter GWPB wrote:
But what the hell, ultimately I want my copyright respected as much as you want yours respected.  So I will create my own original photos and my works will be from them.  Do unto others ....

edit:
Reading articles about legal decisions that impact my life, and sharing that information with other people isn't telling them to do anything.   Except to be informed.

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
Legal fees work both ways.  If you are going to loose, why would you sue?

Edit:

Prince won.  He made millions beyond his legal fees and got millions more worth of publicity.   Crime pays.

He won. That does not mean the next person will. It depends on the judge, jury if it goes that far, District and each situation. Crime does not always pay and it come back on you. So have fun with that. People have been sued and had to settle for much less than using images. Look as David LaChapelle.

And what Originally said is correct. The model do not have the rights to give other people permission without the photographers consent. How many models do you know that have $40,000 to fight a case?

Have a nice night.