Vito wrote:
I don't know what the UK copyright laws are, but if they're similar to US, did they file for copyright? You don't have to file in the US.

In the UK there is not even a system for filing. Copyright is automatic - the "creator" owns it. Sometimes that generates even more problems in infringement exactly because there is no form of central registration on an official level. Photographers (in the UK) need to keep extensive and accurate records and do a number of other things in self protection of their copyright.

Vito wrote:
It is very rare that "REAL" photographers will give models co-copyright. They will gladly give unlimited usage (except for some people), where you can do as you will, but it's just bad business sense to give co-copyright. Too many things down the line that that would screw-up.

The UK has another problem, however, in their copyright law. Without an "opt out" style release, or a specific statement to the effect of intent to NOT create a work of joint authorship from model, a joint copyright may be established by default in the UK. In the US there needs to be an affirmative agreement (oral or written) to do the same thing.. that is all joint ownerships should be intentional and there should be evidence of intent.

The same problem can, and could, and has in court, been realised with any other creative input to a single work - where the contribution of a (ANY CREATIVE INPUT) participant can not be be separated in the whole of the finished work. I could shoot a picture and, if not careful at the start, in a court catfight over copyright ownership wind up with a whole line-up of unexpected co-owners.

My release is designed exactly to avoid that - "...I the undersigned..." being the model in this case

"...The photographer reserves, in every instance, the right to be identified as the sole maker of the work, and I, the undersigned, agree that the images mentioned herein are not the result of a collaborative work...."

Studio36

area291 wrote:

Ty Simone wrote:
In my case, The agreement states that either party my profit without the need to report profit to the other, and that each "owner" is limited by certain criteria for the granting of rights and assignment.

Not sure what that means other than defeating the purpose of seeking the highest value without placing restriction on your doing so.  Why would you position yourself to be "limited by certain criteria of rights and assignment" through co-ownership when that isn't required?

Limited by certain criteria of rights and assignment:
It basically means that the model can not sign over her rights to select groups, nor can her heirs or assignees do it either. Amoung which are publishing companies.
She may License to them, that is different, and then, that must be non-exclusive, but she can not assign over her rights to them.

There becomes two questions; first, why extend copyright when those potential problems exist, and two, what about distribution of assets upon death. The "dual copyright" may very well be viewed in probate as a common joint tenant agreement, thus your heirs are not entitled to those assets, they will become the sole property of the co-holder.  It may not seem like a big deal, but what if the value of your work skyrockets upon your death?  Wouldn't you like to see that retained by your family?  Or give them the opportunity to publish your work in tribute without having to track down the co-owner (now the owner of imaging awarded through probate)?

I overcome that issue because I do not own the Copyright of anything I create. My corporation does. Therefore, even after I die, the rights do not revert.

Another example of why this isn't really a smart move would be upon a purchase of imaging where full disclosure of copyright was necessary and sign-off required, each holder of the copyright would be required to sign.  If the standard procedure is to always share copyright, then that co-holder would not only need to be found, but must agree to sign-off.  That greatly reduces your ability to bargain and leverage a percentage of payment on that sale.

Again, that is forbidden within the agreement already.
I think the problem is in the point of view of what you and I want to accomplish.
I understand photographers that make a living of photography, and for them, joint copyright may not be something they want to persue.

I however am not in it for the money aspect. Do not get me wrong, I love the extra income. But it is not what keeps my family feed nor does it keep the roof over my head.
Therefore, I feel it only fair to share with the models that help me to create the images I so love to make.

Also understand, If the images are for a commercial project, and I go into the shoot knowing that, then I do not offer joint copyright.

An example of that was a girl named Megan I did a shoot for.
She wanted me to create 4-5 images for her to use for promotional purposes.
She could have paid me to do it, in which case, I would have given her the copyrights outright (as a work for hire type deal) However, she said she could not afford it. Therefore we agreed to do it as my copyright, and her having a license to reproduce and market (unlimited, non-assignable, non-transferrable)

The images I did of her were the premiere images in my portfolio. I was planning on making one of them the cover image for my book.

She ended up not going to the event where she wanted to use them for marketting, and because of another issue, she got out of modeling.

She landed a job at a prestigeous company, and realized that those images of her could hurt her job. She asked me to remove them, and to not use them again.

This went against everything we agreed to, and put a serious kink in my plans for my book.

I know a ton of photogs on here that would have said, Screw that, I worked for this, this is my stuff, etc...

Or they would charge her a million dollars to buy the copyrights etc....

Me, After debating about, I realized that I had this 20 year old girl's future in my hands. In all my dealings with her, everything was fair. She did not present me with any problems during the shoots (we had 2 together) nor did she do anything at all that would be considered bad or dishonest etc...

And here I am, with the ability to bring her promising future to a halt, and all for the potential of making a few dollars....

Unlike most that I see post here with their "It's mine all mine!!!" attitude, I did the right thing. I did the honorable thing. I sold her the copyrights completely.
I removed the images from my site and from all 4 of my portfolios.
I destroyed the raws as well.
I put everything she owned on a CD, and set it aside for her.

How much did I charger her for all this?

ONE DOLLAR.

Because to me, It is not about the money.

This joint copyright ownership is a little perlexing for standard imaging purpose.  I can see the value upon doing a volume of work that encompasses a single project or team aspect, that makes sense.  Songwriters do this all the time, but do so under wide provisions found under actual publishing agreements.  But to simply provide it here and there for photography without a specific publishing route that denotes a similar "team" aspect it just doesn't hold up as the most reasonable method for allowing image use for those being photographed.

Again, I think it is a perspective, and an evaluation of why you or I are doing this.
To date, I have never had an issue with it.

studio36uk wrote:

You forgot to mention one teeny weensy little problem... joint copyright also means joint ownership of any derived profits.

Imagine... that I (or you, or anyone else) shoot 500 newbie models over, say a 10 year period. Then in my, or your, dottering old age there is a decision to publish a book to be called "Models when they were just starting out" and I, or you, go on to make a million bucks from the book.

ONE GUESS who owns half that money if they also own half the copyright. It's a no brainer to come to the conclusion that someone is going to sue me, or you, for their share of the profits derived from that JOINTLY OWNED COPYRIGHT.

Studio36

Normally you would be 100% correct, However, as I posted in that same post, That aspect is covered in our agreement as well.
Neither party is obligated to report or share revenue generated from their efforts on the joint copyright to the other.

So, If I go out and make a million dollars, and she does nothing, then she gets nothing.
If she goes out and makes a million dollars, and I do nothing, I get nothing.

But you are right that short of that stipulation in our agreement, it would be a problem.

Ty Simone wrote:
Normally you would be 100% correct, However, as I posted in that same post, That aspect is covered in our agreement as well...

...But you are right that short of that stipulation in our agreement, it would be a problem.

I understand that with you Ty, but so many others here seem to think it is a good idea to share copyright without the stipulation. Or just don't think at all. And that's dangerous ground.

Sorry about the delay in noting this - only just managed to get back on the site.

Studio36

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.

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.

I'm hoping you've already been roundly corrected over and over in this thread, but I couldn't even wait to read the rest of the thread to find out after reading your post, I just had to respond!

Did you get this info? From the psychotic friends network? From www.couldn'tbemorewrongorbackwards.com?

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'd love to write a book about the bizarre and insane legal/copyright myths that photographers, models and wannabe's of both stripes propagate and where in the fucking hell on earth they get this ridiculous crap from! So help me start my research,  were you tortured and brainwashed by space aliens on a mission to make people more ignorant?

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I share copyright with all my models and have never had problem with it.  Not once.  Not ever.  If you deal with responsible, ethical, reasonable people, there shouldn't be any problem with a mutual rights agreement.  If you're dealing with immature, unprofessional, unreliable, dishonest wannabes, then you're going to have problems no matter who owns what.

You haven't had a problem with it because nothing has come up that you're aware of, and probably because neither you nor your models are making any sorts of uses in which problems would arise.  But the minute one of you was in a position to license (or even sell the copyright, god forbid) the image for a commercial/advertising use you would both need to agree to terms with the buyer/user/client unless it was a royalty free type of license where they don't care what else is happening with the image.

But most commercial clients want exclusive usage of the images they license for at least certain geographic markets, and at least industry/competitor wide, and for a certain period of time. They also usually need to know the previous history of any other uses made of the image. So if you are each operating totally independently, both as owners of the images, none of that really works. You'd both have to check with each other each time you were going to license the image and keep the other apprised of usage terms and periods at the very least, that being for non-exclusive uses, but more likely you'd both have to sign off on the vast majority of any agreement a client would be willing to sign.

Edited to add that now that I've read the rest of the thread I see that Melvin and Ty have mostly addressed these issues and don't forsee making any true commercial uses of their work, but in general it's a ridiculous idea and it's ridiculous to imply that that photographers who don't do this kind of thing are being unfair. It's unheard of in the real world.

Aaron_H wrote:

I'd love to write a book about the bizarre and insane legal/copyright myths that photographers, models and wannabe's of both stripes propagate and where in the fucking hell on earth they get this ridiculous crap from! So help me start my research,  were you tortured and brainwashed by space aliens on a mission to make people more ignorant?

Amen

Aaron_H wrote:
Edited to add that now that I've read the rest of the thread I see that Melvin and Ty have mostly addressed these issues and don't forsee making any true commercial uses of their work, but in general it's a ridiculous idea and it's ridiculous to imply that that photographers who don't do this kind of thing are being unfair. It's unheard of in the real world.

I hope you understand that I am not inferring that all photographers should do this.
I do it because it is not about the money for me. It is not my living. I completely understand Professional photographers that make their living behind a lens not doing it.

raveneyes wrote:

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.