Nise wrote:
if it is a tfp trade then dual,
if model pays you for print then dual,
if you pay model, then you paid for the right.

The above statement is acceptable if what you're saying is that you want the right to use the images for non-commercial use.  What killed me was when I was told that I would have to sign her contract which stated only she had copyrights to the images; that I had none.  It still makes me laugh.

Athen Grey Imaging wrote:
Why are some models demanding that I sign THEIR contract stating that I sign over the copyrights of my images to them?  I simply tell them I'm not interested, good luck.  Why would a photographer do that?  I can't imagine a professional photog signing away her/his copyrights.  Can anyone add some insight?

I've posted a separate thread about photographers paying models.

I'd interpret that kind of behavior from a model as borderline criminal/scammer conduct.
Any contract being 'presented' by a model is ludicris.

John

Nise wrote:
if it is a tfp trade then dual,
if model pays you for print then dual,
if you pay model, then you paid for the right.

From a legal standpoint that is foolish.  By owning a portion of the copyright there is nothing you can do without signature of the other party.  So any motive to the images must have a sign-off.  Have fun with that! 

What the Hell do you want the copyright for?  Let the photographer have that as the actual creator of the work.  You want unrestricted image usage rights if that is the objective.  You eliminate the sign-off and you're on your own.

area291 wrote:

From a legal standpoint that is foolish.  By owning a portion of the copyright there is nothing you can do without signature of the other party.  So any motive to the images must have a sign-off.  Have fun with that! 

What the Hell do you want the copyright for?  Let the photographer have that as the actual creator of the work.  You want unrestricted image usage rights if that is the objective.  You eliminate the sign-off and you're on your own.

I so enjoy your posts.

But I must say, watching people respond to your posts is, well, more funner.

The day a "model" asks me to sign a dual copyright form will be the day I laugh so hard, I piss myself.

Athen Grey Imaging wrote:
Why are some models demanding that I sign THEIR contract stating that I sign over the copyrights of my images to them?  I simply tell them I'm not interested, good luck.  Why would a photographer do that?  I can't imagine a professional photog signing away her/his copyrights.  Can anyone add some insight?

I've posted a separate thread about photographers paying models.

I think the advocates  of so called "shared copyright" don't understand the complications and perils of "shared copyright".  From my layperson's perspective the only way to make shared copyright work is to consider the copyright to be asset of some business entity governed by an entity agreement that specifies who can make decisions about the asset, and that doesn't strike me as appropriate for a model/photographer relationship.  Most models are willing to listen and learn how licensing works, if the photographer takes the time to explain it to the model.  The approach I use when someone wants a written statement about how they can use the images (always a good idea) is to ask them to send me a written list of how they want to use the images.  I then cross out the things on their list that I'm unwilling accept and send the list back to them.  If they can't accept that modified list or we can't work out an accommodation the meets both our needs, we're done.  If the modified list is acceptable to the model, I write a letter that parrots her/his list (along with restrictions on usage that I want included) and there's the model's proposed license.  Everyone is good to go -- without the concept of  "shared copyright".  And I do this all before the shoot so everyone knows what's going to happen before the images are created – no surprises – no muss – no fuss.

area291 wrote:
From a legal standpoint that is foolish.  By owning a portion of the copyright there is nothing you can do without signature of the other party.  So any motive to the images must have a sign-off.  Have fun with that!

Actually, that is not completely true. If a person pays, it is called a "work for hire" and the person paying legally owns all copyrights.

However,if no cash is exchanging hands, each party may commercialize the work and grant non-exclusive licenses to the work without the permission of the other. Therefore they may still use it for portfolios, personal advertising, and general personal model usage, even make and sell 100 magnets or posters. They MUST share any profits they make in the process. But, because each party is free to license the work, if one desires to only license the work to Time Magazine, and the other is willing to license the work to Penthouse there is nothing that the party can do.

However, assignments and exclusive licenses can only be done with the permission of the others, like selling it to a magazine for "exclusive north american rights".

Parties can agree to restrictions on any of the above, but it is only enforcable if it is in writing. Remember that changes to a typed document must be done in pen with a single line for cross outs, and all modifications must be initialed by both parties.

Nise wrote:
if it is a tfp trade then dual,
if model pays you for print then dual,
if you pay model, then you paid for the right.

i am not sure two people can hold copyright ownership of the same work...

as a professional photographer i can tell you that you wont be working with many professionals in the area with the stipulations you have set forth...

and i dont mean "web" professionals....i mean landbased real world photographers.

John Allan wrote:
Any contract being 'presented' by a model is ludicris.

That's quite a blanket statement. I might as well say any contract being present by a photographer is ludicrous. Hell, many of them are.  Situations vary.  What is reasonable and fair varies. VBelieve it or not, some models know what they're doing.

Cassandra Alexis wrote:
Actually, that is not completely true. If a person pays, it is called a "work for hire" and the person paying legally owns all copyrights.

You are not correct.

"Work for hire" only applies to work done for a specific projected use for pay, and only applies to the use for which the photographer was hired for.  It also is typically unenforceable for those who aren't full time employees of the company.

mag-jr wrote:
The day a "model" asks me to sign a dual copyright form will be the day I laugh so hard, I piss myself.

I should have mentioned how she would be lucky to get those unrestricted rights...one thing at a time!

Cassandra Alexis wrote:
Actually, that is not completely true. If a person pays, it is called a "work for hire" and the person paying legally owns all copyrights.

Now just where do you come up with that?  Paying a photographer does not explicitly apply anything.  This depends entirely on the work for hire agreement which would offer rights beyond usage.  Payment is not a given to copyright ownership. Where that doesn't apply is being under the employ of for purpose of imaging.  There is a huge difference between the two.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
i am not sure two people can hold copyright ownership of the same work...

They can.  It would likely be viewed as Joint Tenant in Ownership, similar to property.  If one dies the ownership would be transferred to the other tenant, pending legal squabble through probate if one would choose to do so.

Cassandra Alexis wrote:
Actually, that is not completely true. If a person pays, it is called a "work for hire" and the person paying legally owns all copyrights.

Actually, THAT is completely false. Everything is negotiable. Just because a person pays for something does not mean they own it. Microsoft has a usage right fee (license agreement) to software, but you don't own the copyright. Wedding photographers charge you for wedding photos, but you don't own them. People hire me to photograph products all the time, but don't own the copyright unless the negotiate for that up front (based on my contract my attorney drew up for me).

Athen Grey Imaging wrote:
The above statement is acceptable if what you're saying is that you want the right to use the images for non-commercial use.  What killed me was when I was told that I would have to sign her contract which stated only she had copyrights to the images; that I had none.  It still makes me laugh.

Do you hear it???

There it is...

That's the sound of a middle finger woooooooshing into the air!

Studio36

Nise wrote:
if it is a tfp trade then dual,
if model pays you for print then dual,
if you pay model, then you paid for the right.

A photographer should NEVER sign away copyrights to a model.
The model(s) should get Full Usage Rights for a TFP/CD.
Same for when a model pays. Again, full usage rights, but not copyright.
I wish models (and some photographers) would understand the difference.

Cassandra Alexis wrote:
Actually, that is not completely true. If a person pays, it is called a "work for hire" and the person paying legally owns all copyrights.

That is not true either. Just because someone pays for the photos, it DOES NOT mean the Payer owns the copyright. That can be arranged, in a contract, but it is not automatic. And that usually applies to commerical photography where, for example, Nike pays a photographer to shoot with a model, Nike is buying the images AND the copyright(s). When a model pays a photographer for photos, that is not usually the case. The model is paying for the photographs and Full Usage Rights in perpertuity, not the copyright. Of course, for the right amount of money, the photographer can assign the copyright to the model, but that amount could, should be high, as those photographs can never generate income for the photographer again in the future.

Luke Copping wrote:
Another good source for anyone looking to learn more about Copyright and IP practices should consult some of the publication released by ASMP, and the American Society of Media Photographers website - http://www.asmp.org

Thanks for that link!

theda wrote:
We used to have a sticky post with links to several sites with excellent and accurate copyright and privacy/publicity rights information (mostly US), but it went a way.

and now all thats left is an ad to "project eve"  ..............nice.

Vito wrote:
That is not true either. Just because someone pays for the photos, it DOES NOT mean the Payer owns the copyright. That can be arranged, in a contract, but it is not automatic. And that usually applies to commerical photography where, for example, Nike pays a photographer to shoot with a model, Nike is buying the images AND the copyright(s). When a model pays a photographer for photos, that is not usually the case. The model is paying for the photographs and Full Usage Rights in perpertuity, not the copyright. Of course, for the right amount of money, the photographer can assign the copyright to the model, but that amount could, should be high, as those photographs can never generate income for the photographer again in the future.

The Nike situation you described would be a copyright buyout. And the fee for that is very substantial.

A few years ago a mentor of mine showed me how he bid a similar project, an ad campaign involving people photography for a major fast-food chain. It was a relatively simple assignment, not terribly complex technically, and would take a few days to shoot. One of the required conditions was full copyright buyout of all images. (A corporation this size with advertising this prominent doesn't want it's advertising imagery to later be resold to a competitor or as stock after exclusivity runs out.) His creative fee and buyout fee (excluding expenses) went well into the six figures. I asked him if the price was set so high because of the size of the client. He responded "no, that would be unethical, and they're no fools, they wouldn't pay more than they have to. This is the right price for what they're asking."

He got the job for what he asked.

Copyright is very valuable, people. We already destroyed the testing market. Let's not destroy advertising (and our entire industry) by giving away copyright for free, or merely the right to photograph some hot chick. This stuff has a trickle-down effect.

rdmdc2000 wrote:
The only time that a model needs a copyright is when they plan on making money from the images shot.  In that case the photographer should be compensated. This goes visw versa also for photographers as well.

No, they don't need copyright for this. All they need is a Usage License. That may say that the photographer is to get a percentage (or not).

Ty Simone wrote:
Second - Joint Copyright DOES NOT mean both people have to sign off.
Again, misinformation.
A Joint Copyright agreement, of which you can find several online that are good, basically says thus:

I as a photog get to do whatever I want with the images I take, and you as a model get to do whatever you want with the images I give you.

I use one on a regular basis!
It is all in the wording of the agreement.

Joint Copyright DOES NOT mean both people have to sign off. Again, misinformation.  Nope.  Copyright defines ownership.  You best check on not having all signatures required upon disposal of that ownership.

When you give images to models to do whatever they feel like, as a copyright holder you are granting usage rights.  If you are handing them copyright, then the model selling that image would require your signature to do so as a partial owner of the work.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

i am not sure two people can hold copyright ownership of the same work...

Yeah they can, it's a pain in the ass but yes it can be done.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
as a professional photographer i can tell you that you wont be working with many professionals in the area with the stipulations you have set forth...

and i dont mean "web" professionals....i mean landbased real world photographers.

You got that right!

Ty Simone wrote:
Second - Joint Copyright DOES NOT mean both people have to sign off.
Again, misinformation.
A Joint Copyright agreement, of which you can find several online that are good, basically says thus:

I as a photog get to do whatever I want with the images I take, and you as a model get to do whatever you want with the images I give you.

I use one on a regular basis!
It is all in the wording of the agreement.

Nope. First of all, a copyright is NOT an agreement. It is a filing with the United States goverment claiming (creative) ownership of (in our cases) a photograph or a group of photographs (images). There are instances of joint-copyright ownership, but between a photographer and a model, it is unnecessary and overkill. Are you filing for copyrights on these images with the Copyright Office? with both your names? If not, then only you are the owner of the copyright, period.
All the model needs (to do whatever she wants to with the images) is a Licensing Agreement that gives her (unlimited) usage to the images (in perpertuity). That agreement can include (but doesn't have to) details about future sales the model may make and any royalties owed to the photographer. Of course, it doesn't have to, and since you're a "nice guy" and feel the "model deserves" it, you don't have to include any royalty payment arrangements. That's fine too. I would probably do the same thing for most models too.

Bottom line here is that unless you're actually filing with the Copyright Office, then only the photographer owns the copyrights to an image.

Athen Grey Imaging wrote:
Why are some models demanding that I sign THEIR contract stating that I sign over the copyrights of my images to them?

To me this is the result of neither party understanding the point of view of the other.  I am not going go into who is right or who is wrong.  I am not going to discuss the rules of copyright or license, the topic has been beaten to death.

Models write their own agreements because they feel they have been treated badly by some photographers.  It is that simple and clearly, as photographers we have some bad apples in our baskets.

Certainly there are photographers that have agreements which are far too restrictive for a TFP situation (they provide no benefit to the model to do the shoot).  There are also models that are overly demanding as well.

The answer is that we need to have the "us -vs- them" mentality come to an end.  Tha is what this is all about.  I don't do TFP, I prefer to pay talent and when I pay talent, so I have a lot more flexibility in setting the terms.

My advice is for photographers and models to talk before a TFP and see what each party expects.  Just as every model will not want to shoot with every photographer and every photographer will not want to shoot with every model, the terms being offered by the other may be unacceptable as well.

If a model asks you for something you don't like, negotiate and if that doesn't work, move on without getting upset.  If a photographer offers useage rights, that to you , as a model, are unacceptable, move on.

There have to be people out there that can come to terms and be happy.  Let's just not look at it as "us -vs- them."

That's my view.

area291 wrote:

Joint Copyright DOES NOT mean both people have to sign off. Again, misinformation.  Nope.  Copyright defines ownership.  You best check on not having all signatures required upon disposal of that ownership.

When you give images to models to do whatever they feel like, as a copyright holder you are granting usage rights.  If you are handing them copyright, then the model selling that image would require your signature to do so as a partial owner of the work.

Right....big difference....see what happens when people don't talk to an attorney before they do things!

Vito wrote:

No, they don't need copyright for this. All they need is a Usage License. That may say that the photographer is to get a percentage (or not).

Allow me to clarify this point.

What I am refering to is the point that a model request copyright for an image and the need for that request at all.

You are correct.  The model can get use of the images for monetary purposes from a license.

However this is not as concrete as obtaining copyright as licensing does not assure ownership of the images and the ability to do with them as they please without going through the photographer or checking with a lawyer to see if a use that is "grey area" won't violate the terms of the license.

In context to my original post, this scenario (where the model envisions profiting from the images) is the only one that I can see where a model would want copyright over the images. Image managment concerns and (as you point out) limited use for monetrary profit can be addressed in the Model Release.

David Solomon wrote:
Wait a minute...   I think you are all getting off the point.  The reason why Photographers need models to sign a release is to legally have the copyright of the pictures.  The Rights to Copy the picture and release the picture for sale or anything we want to do with the photos that's established in the release. 

Now if the model doesnt sign a release...  Then the model has more rights to the pictures than the photographer.  The reason for that is because there is no way other than that release that the photographer can prove he took that picture or pictures.  A model has more right because it is a picture of himself or herself...  He or She needs to prove nothing other than it's a picture of themself which is usually obvious.  Can a photographer prove otherwise if a model say, "I took that picture myself of myself...  I set up a tripod and timer and took the picture."  It's unrealistic but possible.  As a photographer we can have the negatives, the scandisk or whatever but that isnt evidence that we took the picture.  The only witnesses are usually just the model and photographer.

A model doesnt need copyrights signed over to him or her...  That's already established if no release was signed.  A release is releasing the rights of model's pictures to the photographer.  If a photographer takes a picture of a model and doesnt have a release signed and think he or she can do what ever they want with the picture than they are mistaken.  They can be sued by the model.  If a model doesnt have a release signed and a model does what ever they want with their picture a photographer has no legal legs to do anything about that.

Thanks for the floor MM
David Solomon

I wanted to cut the quoting down as far as I could, but there was just so much wrong information in your post, I had to quote the whole thing.

First, as soon as the shutter is clicked, the photographer owns the copyright to a photo (image). That's the law. Period. The fact that a release is signed or not has NOTHING TO DO WITH COPYRIGHT!!!!!!!

A model release only gives permission to the photographer to use the images of the person (or property) in the photo for commerical profit. WITHOUT A RELEASE, the photographer can still use the image for Editorial uses.

A model has no (copy) right to a photo if there is no release signed, and has less rights if there is no wording in the release or in a seperate agreement to use the photos.

Your last paragraph was so wrong, it hurts my head to think about responding directly. Owww!

A model has NO RIGHT to use a photograph a photographer took without a usage license. And as I said before, there are certain cases where a photographer doesn't need a release (but should always have one).

Added: A photographer has the negatives or original digital images to prove he/she took the photos