Robert_Vega wrote:
Oh.  That sucks then.


Anyone knnow what the field in landscape or natured photography is like?
I don't know how much more I can take of annoying models that think they know more about photography than the photographer.

Next time try and find professional models to work with instead of amateurs then. It might cost you or be harder to find but the results would be so much better since there is a sense of professionalism in there. Amateur models may be very shady and flaky just as amateur photographers may be the same.

About landscape and nature photography, I met this photographer based here in Michigan who does such work and sells her photos for a whole lot. It helps too that she really studied photography and constanty travels the world to work on her photography.

Check her bio and work out at:

http://www.claudiaadams.com/html/biography.html

raveneyes wrote:
Ok, once again:

Copyright belongs to the photographer from the moment of the photograph's inception.

Likeness rights of the model are only able to be violated if the photographer uses the photos to illustrate a product or situation that the model would not normally be in.  The model can not sue for simply having her photos posted somewhere, only if the photo is posted as supporting a particular product or service.

Rights to privacy don't come in to play because there is no expectation of privacy due to the fact it is a shoot.

No one is suggesting that he doesn't own the images.  The question is whether he can use them without a release, and with the model contesting the usage.  I always thought a portfolio was okay, whether the model objected or not, but I have several times on these forums seen established photographers mention that it's not that cut and dry, and that in the internet age, some courts are considering posting something online to be publishing.

In any case, if any of my models requested that I no longer use their likeness, I wouldn't.  I'd hope that no one image is so important to my body of work that the rest can't survive without it.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
No one is suggesting that he doesn't own the images.  The question is whether he can use them without a release, and with the model contesting the usage.  I always thought a portfolio was okay, whether the model objected or not, but I have several times on these forums seen established photographers mention that it's not that cut and dry, and that in the internet age, some courts are considering posting something online to be publishing.

This is not the current law, nor is there any case law supporting any type of decision like this.  Also just as printing out a portfolio book is to the same extent 'publishing' as putting your photos on your personal website or  one like modelmayhem. 

If a model sued a photographer for putting her photos in a web portfolio s/he wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Sita Mae Edwards wrote:
In any case, if any of my models requested that I no longer use their likeness, I wouldn't.  I'd hope that no one image is so important to my body of work that the rest can't survive without it.

Very true, but all she's done is refuse to sign the release, indicating only that she doesn't want the photos used for advertising or for herself.  He is free to do with them as he pleases so long as he does not violate any of her rights.

Robert_Vega wrote:
well i just happened to leave my ink pen in my car and she didn't have one on her so i couldn't get it signed.  she told me she'd mail it to me a.s.a.p. and then just today she says she was unsatisified.  idk. 
as far as using a pro model... they wouldnt be a little "wtf" shooting in a hotel room-turned-studio?  :-\

GQ...I'll have to dig up the specific issue...sometime within the past two years.  Whole spread done in a hotel room.

Robert_Vega wrote:
my model refuses to sign a model release because she didn't like the "shooting conditions," which were in a hotel room type of thing with a small background I put up.  I photoshopped the backgrounds out, so it looks just like a studio, and has nothing showing that would resemble a "hotel room shot" whatsoever.
She claims that without the release form being signed I can't post the pics on-line.
True?
I always thought the form was mainly if I was going to sell or distribute the shots beyond a portfolio.

First off, the fact that she did the shoot shows that she agreed with the conditions. As for the release, if you are not making money from them you really do not need one but it is best to have one. If you have not given her any of the photographs as of yet, especially edited ones, I recommend telling her that she can either sign the release or she can come over and witness you deleting every single image of her from the shoot to show that you will no longer have them , or she can buy them from you.Whatever happens I recommend you write her off and never work with her again.

Rx wrote:
If your model didnt like the shooing conditions, why did she agree to shoot with you in the first place and waste both of your time?

I guess if a model doesn't sign the release, then you cannot use the photos. That would also apply to her: she cannot use your photos.

True, but then again a model never leaves my shoots without signing either a normal release form or a TFP release form. If she refuses to sign one, no photographs are taken.

Glamour Boulevard wrote:
True, but then again a model never leaves my shoots without signing either a normal release form or a TFP release form. If she refuses to sign one, no photographs are taken.

Would you mind sharing your TFP release form?  I'm interested to know what it contains and how it might differ from a standard release.

raveneyes wrote:
If a model sued a photographer for putting her photos in a web portfolio s/he wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Very true, but all she's done is refuse to sign the release, indicating only that she doesn't want the photos used for advertising or for herself.  He is free to do with them as he pleases so long as he does not violate any of her rights.

As for your suit comment, that is not necessarily true. Especially in verbal contract states like California. All she has to do is convince the judge they had a verbal agreement to not display her photographs anywhere and she wins. Hard to prove, but not impossible to convince a judge that the agreement existed.

Robert_Vega wrote:
well i just happened to leave my ink pen in my car and she didn't have one on her so i couldn't get it signed.  she told me she'd mail it to me a.s.a.p. and then just today she says she was unsatisified.  idk. 
as far as using a pro model... they wouldnt be a little "wtf" shooting in a hotel room-turned-studio?  :-\

711?Circle K? There is usually some place which sells a bic for a buck somewhere close to where you are at any given time.Did you not park in the parking lot of this hotel? The  front desk did not have one you could use for a few seconds?

raveneyes wrote:

This is not the current law, nor is there any case law supporting any type of decision like this.  Also just as printing out a portfolio book is to the same extent 'publishing' as putting your photos on your personal website or  one like modelmayhem. 

If a model sued a photographer for putting her photos in a web portfolio s/he wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.


Very true, but all she's done is refuse to sign the release, indicating only that she doesn't want the photos used for advertising or for herself.  He is free to do with them as he pleases so long as he does not violate any of her rights.

Well, I think the photographer would be sued senseless if he posted nudes of her shoot online without a release. I think you have to understand the difference between using an image for your (print) portfolio and your "web" portfolio. You, the photographer have control over who sees your portfolio (and usually limit it to one person at a time or so). A web portfolio is viewable by every friggin' human (and then some) on Earth, all at once or at any time.  See the difference. I wouldn't post one of these images, but putting in a physical portfolio should be okay.

Robert_Vega wrote:
my model refuses to sign a model release because she didn't like the "shooting conditions," which were in a hotel room type of thing with a small background I put up.  I photoshopped the backgrounds out, so it looks just like a studio, and has nothing showing that would resemble a "hotel room shot" whatsoever.
She claims that without the release form being signed I can't post the pics on-line.
True?
I always thought the form was mainly if I was going to sell or distribute the shots beyond a portfolio.

rule #1:
get the release signed before the lens cap comes off

Robert_Vega wrote:
as far as using a pro model... they wouldnt be a little "wtf" shooting in a hotel room-turned-studio?  :-\

While it's possible to do a solid shoot in a hotel room, the working conditions aren't the best, and there is the issue of perception.

Have you thought about renting studio space instead?  You aren't that far from Detroit and for sure there are spaces available there for $25-35/hr; check with your local small studio guys too, often they won't mind picking up a few extra bucks when they don't need their space.

As for the release... bet you remember to bring an extra pen next time

Robert_Vega wrote:
my model refuses to sign a model release because she didn't like the "shooting conditions," which were in a hotel room type of thing with a small background I put up.  I photoshopped the backgrounds out, so it looks just like a studio, and has nothing showing that would resemble a "hotel room shot" whatsoever.
She claims that without the release form being signed I can't post the pics on-line.
True?
I always thought the form was mainly if I was going to sell or distribute the shots beyond a portfolio.

If you were close to me I would shoot with you

Amy Dunn wrote:
[Disclaimer: NOT legal advice]

I just studied meticulously for the New York bar exam (and passed, woohoo!), so  know a lil' about copyright issues. Under Sec. 107, FAIR USE, the photographer does indeed own the copyright and may use it for his or her own promotional efforts (i.e. online portfolio). He may NOT sell it or distribute it w/o the model's consent.

So if you took a good photo, my friend, enjoy it. It's yours. Just respect the model's wishes and keep it limited to your portfolio. Cheers.

I was just gonna post that. I worked at a law office and had an issue a year ago that was similar. One of the lawyers here advised me as I had shot with her about 4 times and there were a few shots that I liked and I was not really aware of what the rights were either way. So, enjoy the shots for your book!

Amy Dunn wrote:
[Disclaimer: NOT legal advice]

I just studied meticulously for the New York bar exam (and passed, woohoo!), so  know a lil' about copyright issues. Under Sec. 107, FAIR USE, the photographer does indeed own the copyright and may use it for his or her own promotional efforts (i.e. online portfolio). He may NOT sell it or distribute it w/o the model's consent.

So if you took a good photo, my friend, enjoy it. It's yours. Just respect the model's wishes and keep it limited to your portfolio. Cheers.

I was just gonna post that. I worked at a law office and had an issue a year ago that was similar. One of the lawyers here advised me as I had shot with her about 4 times and there were a few shots that I liked and I was not really aware of what the rights were either way. So, enjoy the shots for your book!

Dee wrote:
they shot for the 3 hours without hinting that they werent goign to be agreeable when it came time to sign the contract...

Watch out for the shoot that (seemingly) goes well and falls apart later! I refer to this as the morning-after syndrome.

theda wrote:
I could again try to explain the possible legal tangle of having a release signed for photos before they are taken, but no one will listen.  Have fun.

Theda

In some states a release must be signed after the shoot, not before.  A person can not release something that has not happened.  But lots of photographers get them signed before the shoot. (You can only release something after the fact)

Since I pay most of my models, I have them sign, after the shoot, and just before I pay them. When they see the cash in my hand, they sign faster. I also get a thumb print on all releases, and have for a long time.

Marvin Dockery wrote:

Theda

In some states a release must be signed after the shoot, not before.  A person can not release something that has not happened.  But lots of photographers get them signed before the shoot. (You can only release something after the fact)

Since I pay most of my models, I have them sign, after the shoot, and just before I pay them. When they see the cash in my hand, they sign faster. I also get a thumb print on all releases, and have for a long time.

I remember you talking before about that, can you explain why you get the thumb print?

theda wrote:
Depending on your jurisdiction, the model may have a right to privacy that internet posting would violate.  Rights of publicity and rights of privacy are two different things and both most be observed.

I agree with theda. If no contract is signed then i would not even do the shoot, its not worth it to you or the model because with no contract either one can say "No you cant use them" and the photos are worthless to both of you at that point. You cant post them anywhere, print them, use them in your port or show them to anybody.
It would be like taking candid photos of your girlfriend and posting, showing them to people and she has a problem with that......your in the wrong right off the bat.

EDIT: A posting above by someone who just passed the bar exam says that the photos are his property and he can use them in his port with her consent.
Would you also point out the position he would be in if she DOES NOT give her consent to use them even in his port.
Your original comment that they are his and he can is too general and people will take that as a rule "If the model approves".

Monsante Bey wrote:

I remember you talking before about that, can you explain why you get the thumb print?

I would take a guess that it would be just like cashing a check..