pullins photography wrote:

John Edward wrote:
edit: wait... that can't be true. Just being at a shoot doesn't mean you can sell images of me. Otherwise, you'd be able to sell prints of people just walking down the street that didn't know you were taking photos of them.

If it's in public, yes you can do that, under certain conditions, depending upon the usage.

depends upon the situation and state

Situation yes, state, no.

If the image was taken in public, and the use is editorial, IE: "Hey, look what happened on Main Street Today." It's legal for any paper in the US to publish it. Having said that, depending on what the photo is of, they may or may not, but the option is there.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Did you sell her all rights? Could she have sold a shot to a bridal magazine or a bridal shop for advertising legally?

If you read the above, I sold her a "Usage Release." so no, she could not have sold them for that usage. However, I have sold Full Rights to Images, and priced that release accordingly.

John Edward wrote:

pullins photography wrote:

John Edward wrote:
edit: wait... that can't be true. Just being at a shoot doesn't mean you can sell images of me. Otherwise, you'd be able to sell prints of people just walking down the street that didn't know you were taking photos of them.

If it's in public, yes you can do that, under certain conditions, depending upon the usage.

depends upon the situation and state

Situation yes, state, no.

If the image was taken in public, and the use is editorial, IE: "Hey, look what happened on Main Street Today." It's legal for any paper in the US to publish it. Having said that, depending on what the photo is of, they may or may not, but the option is there.

you might want to ask Donald Trump about his experience in Colorado with marla maples before you say that

Al Lock Photography wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
Sure... at the right price. Hell, the client can have my first born at the right price.

Studio36

I didn't ask if you would. I asked if you had.

That was the answer: "Sure... at the right price."

Studio36

GD LEVY wrote:
This is hysterical. Ask a lawyer. Period. I would. And I am a lawyer. And I personally would ask a lawyer because I am not an intellectual property lawyer.  Its not an expensive process or problem and you establish a relationship with the lawyer. There really is no such thing as a form.

If it important enough do it right. Thats what my dad taught me.
 

WHO CARES what a photographer thinks or tells you to do. Reading copyright laws might be fun for some photographers but they should stick to taking pictures. It would be as unintelligent as asking a lawyer how to properly take a photograph or to light it. Sure, they can read a book or two and dispense advice like a big shot.....but is it what they do for a living?

DAMN STRAIGHT!!!!

Nuff said!!!!! 

... well almost:

I mean Sahweeeeeeet Jesus!!!

Damianne has a simple issue 1 Btween her n a photographer.

End of story.

I pop back to say Hi to the kid n see pages of posts????   

WTF????

I'm not T'n off on any1 in particular, but there R sooooo many forum posts where lots of photographers LOVE2play lawyer, consulting like they're Zeus sittin on Mt Olympus, farting lightning bolts and creating a drama tsunami just 2 hear the sound of their fingers typin wildly away in their Mama's basement...

... Intellectual property/copyrights/trademark/enforcement r NO place 4 amateurs.  Get hooked in21 of these type of issues/litigation???

Ya...

HOLD on TIGHT n get ready to to$$$$$ $50k u're lawyer's way...

in anyplace other than cyberspace on a forum??? like this -- B prepared to Reach in2 u're wallet deep!!! n often.

These R issues that have NO place 4 an armchair Perry MasonwannaB that read an article, once... while on break at his/her job baggin groceries at the local Piggly Wiggly...

Legal advice should not B tossed 'round so casually/thankfully the dribble I read on these forums that passes 4 legal advice doesn't land someone in litigation where the reality is that REAL ducket$$$$ get shoveled 2 prosecute or defend actions...

Damianne asked a wonderful question, the kid's what 19???? broke and lookin ta do EVERYTHING RIGHT!!!! Some of UshouldB frickin ashamed of u'rselves!!!!! 4 transforming a lovely lady's simple question in2 an opportunity 4 self serving pomposity.

B thankfull I'm in a good moooood2day.

n Trust me when I say this: U wouldn't want me 2introduce U2 the realities of intellectual property litigation...

Peace out.

GD LEVY wrote:
WHO CARES what a photographer thinks or tells you to do. Reading copyright laws might be fun for some photographers but they should stick to taking pictures. It would be as unintelligent as asking a lawyer how to properly take a photograph or to light it. Sure, they can read a book or two and dispense advice like a big shot.....but is it what they do for a living?

In a way, it is what we do for a living. We survive or don't business-wise on intellectual property issues (as do authors, recording artists, painters, etc.). We are a significant part of the reason that copyright law in the US reads as it does. We even have a professional association that keeps a number of intellectual property lawyers on staff to keep us informed of these issues.

We also had an intellectual property lawyer give advice on here (regarding work for hire). Work for hire normally applies to work done by employees for employers. US Labor Law requires that employers withhold income taxes, withhold and pay Social Security, pay unemployment insurance, etc. Although there is some support for work for hire contracts signed prior to the commencement of a project may be considered work for hire in nine categories, photography is not one of the categories. Case law has been so limited that it is not a sure thing to rely on. If full rights are what someone wants, it's much safer (legally) to purchase full rights.

I'm not a lawyer, my degree is in history... which is really all lawyers historically are... people who look at the history of a law and its interpretation and argue how that applies to their case. Just think, when John Adams practiced law, there was no such thing as a Juris Doctor (or for that matter, when Abraham Lincoln practiced law).

Damianne wrote:

I pretty much got the answers I was looking for.

Now I'm just interested in the conversation that has rolled its way out of it, getting educated and what not.


What did you mean by the bolded section?

If someone wanted me to sell the copy right for 1 image i'd prolly do it for 2 grand.  My friend Tim in Austin would sell a copyright on one of his images for no less than 20 grand.

I value my intellectual property different than other people.  There is no standard answer it just is what it is.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

In a way, it is what we do for a living. We survive or don't business-wise on intellectual property issues (as do authors, recording artists, painters, etc.). We are a significant part of the reason that copyright law in the US reads as it does. We even have a professional association that keeps a number of intellectual property lawyers on staff to keep us informed of these issues.

Ok hotshot.  Your reasoning is akin to asking a criminal about criminal law. Or asking a cop about criminal law.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
to the OP, you don't seem to understand "copyright", yet you want to own it...

if you want guaranteed rights to use the images, get an unlimited usage license from the photographer.

every commercial photographer in the real world has one.

Thats good advice--NOT. If you were going to purchase a house would you ask the seller to prepare the deed or your lawyer?  If you were buying the rights to a book would you use the author's form? Hello..wanna be lawyers. Hire one.

But if its not a big deal then I guess it really doesn't matter. Then again, I don't half ass it.

JohnStJohn Photography wrote:

DAMN STRAIGHT!!!!

Nuff said!!!!! 

... well almost:

I mean Sahweeeeeeet Jesus!!!

Damianne has a simple issue 1 Btween her n a photographer.

End of story.

I pop back to say Hi to the kid n see pages of posts????   

WTF????

I'm not T'n off on any1 in particular, but there R sooooo many forum posts where lots of photographers LOVE2play lawyer, consulting like they're Zeus sittin on Mt Olympus, farting lightning bolts and creating a drama tsunami just 2 hear the sound of their fingers typin wildly away in their Mama's basement...

... Intellectual property/copyrights/trademark/enforcement r NO place 4 amateurs.  Get hooked in21 of these type of issues/litigation???

Ya...

HOLD on TIGHT n get ready to to$$$$$ $50k u're lawyer's way...

in anyplace other than cyberspace on a forum??? like this -- B prepared to Reach in2 u're wallet deep!!! n often.

These R issues that have NO place 4 an armchair Perry MasonwannaB that read an article, once... while on break at his/her job baggin groceries at the local Piggly Wiggly...

Legal advice should not B tossed 'round so casually/thankfully the dribble I read on these forums that passes 4 legal advice doesn't land someone in litigation where the reality is that REAL ducket$$$$ get shoveled 2 prosecute or defend actions...

Damianne asked a wonderful question, the kid's what 19???? broke and lookin ta do EVERYTHING RIGHT!!!! Some of UshouldB frickin ashamed of u'rselves!!!!! 4 transforming a lovely lady's simple question in2 an opportunity 4 self serving pomposity.

B thankfull I'm in a good moooood2day.

n Trust me when I say this: U wouldn't want me 2introduce U2 the realities of intellectual property litigation...

Peace out.

Nice points. But would be easier to understand if you typed with words instead of like a teenager texting.

GD LEVY wrote:

Ok hotshot.  Your reasoning is akin to asking a criminal about criminal law. Or asking a cop about criminal law.

Both LEOs and criminals often know the law that applies to them better than some criminal lawyers do. They use it everyday. The lawyer? That depends on how good he actually is and how recently he has researched the applicable laws.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
to the OP, you don't seem to understand "copyright", yet you want to own it... if you want guaranteed rights to use the images, get an unlimited usage license from the photographer. every commercial photographer in the real world has one.

GD LEVY wrote:
good advice--NOT. If you were going to purchase a house would you ask the seller to prepare the deed or your lawyer?  If you were buying the rights to a book would you use the author's form? Hello..wanna be lawyers. Hire one. But if its not a big deal then I guess it really doesn't matter. Then again, I don't half ass it.

heres the difference between someone that works in the industry and someone that doesn't.

right now my images are licensed for use in several mainstream publications....and i don't get a fucking lawyer every time i license usage to my images. my standard license agreement is fine for 99% of my clients.

EDIT: oh i get it...levy is a fucking lawyer..no wonder he said "go see a lawyer"...

FYI levy, lawyers aren't always needed....

Doug Swinskey wrote:

Doug Swinskey wrote:
to the OP, you don't seem to understand "copyright", yet you want to own it... if you want guaranteed rights to use the images, get an unlimited usage license from the photographer. every commercial photographer in the real world has one.

heres the difference between someone that works in the industry and someone that doesn't.

right now my images are licensed for use in several mainstream publications....and i don't get a fucking lawyer every time i license usage to my images. my standard license agreement is fine for 99% of my clients.

EDIT: oh i get it...levy is a fucking lawyer..no wonder he said "go see a lawyer"...

FYI levy, lawyers aren't always needed....

No need to curse.  You don't get the point. She is not a photographer that has used documents created by lawyers to protect the Commercial photographers rights.  Why are you so stubborn.  I am sure you would dispense medical advice too if you worked in a hospital.

You are not a model.  Your "forms" are not prepared from that point of view. 

You must have had a bad experience with a lawyer. Sorry about that. Yes we are all "fucking lawyers" untill you need real help or you or your family are in real trouble. Then its a different story. You want the best lawyer money can buy. lol.

Al Lock Photography wrote:

Both LEOs and criminals often know the law that applies to them better than some criminal lawyers do. They use it everyday. The lawyer? That depends on how good he actually is and how recently he has researched the applicable laws.

Or it depends on how crooked the cop is or how smart the criminal is.  If you ever get arrested, Maybe that jailhouse lawyer will defend you better than a layer. You are absolutely right. There is a chance that it could happen. Go ahead. Do it. Show us all.

GD LEVY wrote:

Ok hotshot.  Your reasoning is akin to asking a criminal about criminal law. Or asking a cop about criminal law.

there are some criminals who know criminal law better than do lawyers
cops have to know the laws they are charged to enforce, therefore they do know some

However, this entire thread is about if anyone has what the OP is looking for, not what we all "think" she should be doing regarding usage terms.  After suggesting she look at copyright law, perhaps she can draft her own agreement to use?

GD LEVY wrote:
Or it depends on how crooked the cop is or how smart the criminal is.  If you ever get arrested, Maybe that jailhouse lawyer will defend you better than a layer. You are absolutely right. There is a chance that it could happen. Go ahead. Do it. Show us all.

Love the comment about crooked cops. Says it all, doesn't it? I guarantee that I can introduce you to LEOs who understand the laws pertaining to probable cause better than you do. But what do I know? I'm just a photographer that has won three copyright infringement cases.

GD LEVY wrote:

Nice points. But would be easier to understand if you typed with words instead of like a teenager texting.

+1

Its funny how some photographers want to talk about THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of dollars for a copyright agreement, yet thier images arent even worth the paper printed on. Just sayin.

ADHD wrote:
Not sure why so many people are up in arms.  The photos are property.  Put a price tag on them and move on.

eyenorite?

GD LEVY wrote:
No need to curse.  You don't get the point. She is not a photographer that has used documents created by lawyers to protect the Commercial photographers rights.  Why are you so stubborn.  I am sure you would dispense medical advice too if you worked in a hospital. You are not a model.  Your "forms" are not prepared from that point of view.

i am a north easterner, its part of my vernacular...

the part you are missing is that the OP doesn't own the images and will need to deal with the person that does...although she thinks she needs to own copyright, she doesn't....plus, most professional photographers aren't going to sign anything a model is going to present them..

my point (that you seemed to think was invalid), was that every commercial photographer on the planet has a license agreement, for the very purpose the OP wants. unlimited usage to the images. she needs to license the images, not buy them...mostly because to buy out images usually costs about 10x more then licensing them.

she doesn't need a lawyer, she needs a pro photographer. she doesn't need a lawyer for legal advice, she needs to understand the industry.

she doesn't need legal advice, she needs professional advice...

GD LEVY wrote:
Ok hotshot.  Your reasoning is akin to asking a criminal about criminal law. Or asking a cop about criminal law.

That's fckn ridicules..ask a criminal about scams, B&E..but not the law...although there are plenty of criminals who know a heck of a lot about law, even more than their lawyers! What else do you think they do with their hard time?


A great deal of us are Engineers with quite a few attorneys, including an IP or two. Engineers are pretty damn expert at reading law and interpreting..we do it on a daily basis. It's part of our job! Some of us worked DOD/DOE contracts where government documentation is 75% of the damn job. If were are so inept, we would be in jail, fined and could never work at our trade. It's a photographers job to understand and comply with copyright law..it's our business! Some of us just do it better than others..that's why we're still in business.

Doug Swinskey wrote:

i am a north easterner, its part of my vernacular...

the part you are missing is that the OP doesn't own the images and will need to deal with the person that does...although she thinks she needs to own copyright, she doesn't....plus, most professional photographers aren't going to sign anything a model is going to present them..

my point (that you seemed to think was invalid), was that every commercial photographer on the planet has a license agreement, for the very purpose the OP wants. unlimited usage to the images. she needs to license the images, not buy them...mostly because to buy out images usually costs about 10x more then licensing them.



she doesn't need a lawyer, she needs a pro photographer. she doesn't need a lawyer for legal advice, she needs to understand the industry.

she doesn't need legal advice, she needs professional advice...

Exactly.  When I have a client, say a famous pro athlete, (true story) and they want to hire a photographer, we hire an IP lawyer to negotiate with the photographer or his lawyer. Why, on god's green earth would I want some photographers form. And i NEVER start a negotiation with someone else's document.

Like i wrote (but you did not read) If you want it done correctly, then do it correctly.  I guess if your wife had been divorced 50 times before she married you and you wanted to divorce her, and she said, oh just sign this, I am a pro at getting a divorce, then that would be ok.  After all, he needs professional advice, not legal advice.  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa

Rebel Photo wrote:

That's fckn ridicules..ask a criminal about scams, B&E..but not the law...although there are plenty of criminals who know a heck of a lot about law, even more than their lawyers! What else do you think they do with their hard time?


A great deal of us are Engineers with quite a few attorneys, including an IP or two. Engineers are pretty damn expert at reading law and interpreting..we do it on a daily basis. It's part of our job! Some of us worked DOD/DOE contracts where government documentation is 75% of the damn job. If were are so inept, we would be in jail, fined and could never work at our trade. It's a photographers job to understand and comply with copyright law..it's our business! Some of us just do it better than others..that's why we're still in business.

But its not your job to dispense legal advice to a model who needs advice from HER point of view or perspective.  The problem with your expertise is that it does not train you in how to represent a a person other than your own perspective. It seems easy to the non lawyer. But sometimes its not.

I read  hundreds of examples in here all the time and I do not comment. People are going to have their own beliefs.  Stupid is as stupid does.  If the law was as simple as just reading a statute then I guess we would not have judicial opinions interpreting them.  And then, I guess we would not have other judges and scholars interpreting what those judges wrote. and then there are so many other issues.

Anyone can learn the information. Just like anyone can learn medical information. But when you do it for a living, you can give better advice than the lay person.

There are exceptions to every rule and to every situation.  I am sure an engineer can figure it all out.  But It will take a hell of a lot longer than someone who does it for a living.

GD LEVY wrote:
And i NEVER start a negotiation with someone else's document.

and as a pro photographer, neither do i....

Doug Swinskey wrote:

and as a pro photographer, neither do i....

Ok, I give up. You are smarter than all lawyers and they are out to get you.

Feel better?

W Lawrence Stevens wrote:
What you need to be thinking about is a written agreement which specifically states that the photographer is creating a specially commissioned work under the engagement; the work is being done solely on a "work for hire" basis; to the extent that the work for hire provisions of the copyright act do not apply, the photographer irretrivably transfers any and all rights (including copyright) to the photos to you as the party engaging his services, in perpetuity. 

If you pay, you should own completely.  Follow the above and you will.

Besides a bit of glamour photography, I am also an intellectual property lawyer.  (See, WeinLawGroup.com.)

Cheers!

Steven

Maybe you should find photographers that will do this for a price the OP can afford before you recommend it!

Most pros worth paying will charge WAY too much for work-for-hire.

I'm visiting the Detroit area this weekend. It would be like telling me that to be safe I should travel with 20 bodyguards, a convoy of armored cars, and $50 million in life insurance just in case. Well...uh...sure except my budget doesn't allow it

Damianne wrote:

That's why I need a form, because if I'm paying for them, I want complete rights to the photos.

Do you understand that the industry standard for payment for 'all rights' to the photos is usually 8 - 12 times the usual charge for a photo session?

If you think your $500.oo photo session is really worth $6,000.oo, then you should be happy to buy all rights.

But ask yourself this . . . do you really need ALL rights? . . . or just some rights?

What do you really need the photos for . . . and what usage can the photographer have that won't really bother you if the photographer uses them?

KM

Lumigraphics wrote:

Maybe you should find photographers that will do this for a price the OP can afford before you recommend it!

Most pros worth paying will charge WAY too much for work-for-hire.

I'm visiting the Detroit area this weekend. It would be like telling me that to be safe I should travel with 20 bodyguards, a convoy of armored cars, and $50 million in life insurance just in case. Well...uh...sure except my budget doesn't allow it

times dey R a changin`
everyone is different.  plenty of photographers do work for hire all the time and are happy for the income.   If my name was  Stephen Eastwood and I had an income stream to match I would turn down work for hire.  Since I dont look good in that particular color of sungasses I dont turn down work for hire.  so shoot me for being a traitor to the cause.  id rather make my mortgage payments every month (or close).

Doug Swinskey wrote:
she doesn't need a lawyer, she needs a pro photographer. she doesn't need a lawyer for legal advice, she needs to understand the industry.

she doesn't need legal advice, she needs professional advice...

He pretty much hit the nail on the head here. I apologize to all the attorneys that we have on MM for any client fees that you might miss out on, but we just don't need you for this.

Doug Swinskey wrote:
and as a pro photographer, neither do i....

GD LEVY wrote:
Ok, I give up. You are smarter than all lawyers and they are out to get you. Feel better?

you give up? why don't you just admit you don't know what you a talking about? the industry has worked the way it has, for the past hundred years.

while getting a lawyer to handle situations, you don't fully understand is advice..it's not good practical advice in this instance..

your suggesting to this model that she should hire a lawyer (are you working gratis?), so that she can pay 10x more for image usage then she need to...is it good advice to her? not at all...

but directing her in the right direction, lessens your billable hours..so i know exactly where you are coming from.

But its not your job to dispense legal advice to a model who needs advice from HER point of view or perspective.  The problem with your expertise is that it does not train you in how to represent a a person other than your own perspective. It seems easy to the non lawyer. But sometimes its not.

I read  hundreds of examples in here all the time and I do not comment. People are going to have their own beliefs.  Stupid is as stupid does.  If the law was as simple as just reading a statute then I guess we would not have judicial opinions interpreting them.  And then, I guess we would not have other judges and scholars interpreting what those judges wrote. and then there are so many other issues.

Anyone can learn the information. Just like anyone can learn medical information. But when you do it for a living, you can give better advice than the lay person.

There are exceptions to every rule and to every situation.  I am sure an engineer can figure it all out.  But It will take a hell of a lot longer than someone who does it for a living.

You are correct that some people spout off shit and don't know shinola. The OP was given good sound professional advice from a few professionals in this field. It doesn't take a savant or legal genus to know what the OP needed. It does take a Professional Photographer who has dealt with IP. I'm also pretty sure a few of us are members of the PPA and/or have dealt with IP.
-(You from Texas? sounds like it.) .....yep..I just checked! You'd pay some one to advise you on a simple matter..and I'd bet you ignore it. Pay another for the same quite basic advice, just because it's not what you want to here. Sorry Charlie.-
No one here (that I saw) was acting on behalf of the OP. They were providing her with basic advice. No law against that and like all advice, some of it is wrong - even Lawers do it. She's free white and over 18, she can do as you do or do as she will.  There's a difference between "advice" and "to advise", though it is a narrow line, some of us are qualified to do either in basic issues of the profession.

It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to build a rocket. An Engineer can make it go in the right direction. It does however take one to build a manned rocket that won't blow up. (maybe you get my point...maybe not) oh and the Astronaut Farmer was Hollywood, not real life.