|
Forums >
Model Colloquy >
Photographer release
Doug Swinskey wrote: Doug Swinskey wrote: 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. I guess i do not have any idea what i am talking about. Feb 22 10 08:56 am Link studio36uk wrote: Hell, there are days when I think that the right price for my first born should be less than the copyright to an image Feb 22 10 08:58 am Link Next thing he'll say is he did a cover for Rolling Stones. Feb 22 10 09:02 am Link A couple of thoughts as I (painstakingly) read through the entire thread thus far: 1. You are concerned about the photographer selling the image without further compensation to you. Since, according to your profile, you don't do porn and you might do nudes if the photographer can convince you that it's needed, what kind of images do you think can be shot and have commercial value? Granted, the photographer could sell it to a microstock agency but are you really going to demand 50% of the 75¢ he makes off of the image over the next five years? The notion that photographers successfully sell every image they make for thousands of dollars is a nice dream, but it doesn't happen. You said the photographer could use the images on his website. Do you realize that using an image on his website can bring the photographer a lot more money through booking new clients than selling the image ever would? Three or four excellent images from weddings can help me land several new bridal clients which, in turn, could generate tens of thousands of dollars in revenue. Not from the images alone, but a portfolio is the strongest selling tool we have. The only hard and fast rule anyone should have is to not have hard and fast rules. To state that, if you pay for the shoot, then you should have total control over the images is one of those hard and fast rules you may want to re-think. For example, you contact Nigel Barker and he quotes you $5000 for a photo shoot. But then he says, "if you sign a commercial model release so that I can use the images, I'll only charge you $1000." You're still paying him but you got a great discount and he can use the images. 2. "I think it's not fair/I think it's not cool/I think..." One thing that I keep inferring from your posts is that you are being guided by what you think is right and fair. Unfortunately, the law doesn't give a rat's ass about what you think is fair or right. Nor does it give a rat's ass about what I think is right or fair. If you are going to spend time on this playground, you need to learn the rules of the sandbox - namely federal copyright laws as well as rights of privacy or publicity for your state. If you stop thinking about what YOU feel is right, this whole thing will become much easier. Remember the golden rule - he who has the gold, makes the rules. So, the more you pay, the more you can control how those images are used. As a couple of posters have said, check out a work for hire scenario if you want that level of control. But, as others have noted, be prepared to pay. Finally, as another poster said, we are flexible and willing to negotiate.  Feb 22 10 09:11 am Link Rebel Photo wrote: Haha. Don't be a jealous hater. If you have been around back in the day, when the stones came to town they hired photographers to cover the concerts and did not allow press. Other bands allowed press You basically handed over your film at the end of the night. It was very different that the norm. Mick Jagger has always had an eye out for IP rights. Of course, I never got to see or talk to him, just look at him through my lens. Feb 22 10 09:18 am Link JohnStJohn Photography wrote: Given your avatar, that's vastly amusing. Your use of it shows you have no understanding of such laws. Feb 22 10 09:30 am Link Rebel Photo wrote: +100. Feb 22 10 09:34 am Link This thread is almost entirely filled with rubbish, amongst which the useful posts have been lost. OP, if you feel your question hasn't been resolved, just PM me and tell me exactly what you want, and why you want it - I'll then be able to give you some tips, either by PM or skype. Feb 22 10 09:35 am Link SLE Photography wrote: Or it's a sign of the freakin' apocalypse! Feb 22 10 09:37 am Link SLE Photography wrote:
Feb 22 10 09:42 am Link GD LEVY wrote: thats about the most intelligent thing you have said in this thread... Feb 22 10 09:46 am Link Damianne wrote: Oops! Feb 22 10 09:51 am Link Doug Swinskey wrote: Heck, has anyone ever really READ the full Blockbuster member agreement??? It's FAR more complicated than the average model release or usage agreement. Feb 22 10 10:04 am Link JohnStJohn Photography wrote: SLE Photography wrote: Ooops. Looks like the mods saw the same thing I did. Feb 22 10 10:05 am Link I just want to tell the OP that there are a lot of wrong information and bad advice given in this thread, more than the average even in MM's standard. There's nothing I or anyone can say or do to save this thread. Feb 22 10 10:24 am Link Al Lock Photography wrote: This type of thing gets signed all the time in tinsel town. If I was paid for a specially commissioned shoot (I am currently "loaned out" to our production company), I would have no problem conveying the copyright. Every creative working on on a feature film (that long list of credits at the end) agrees to this type of thing in one form or another. When I did strictly commerical jobs in the 80s (calendars, posters, products brochures), I did exactly the same. The client got all the rights, including copyright. Feb 22 10 11:06 am Link GD LEVY wrote: jealous? Don't flatter yourself. Feb 22 10 11:09 am Link Merlyn Magic Photo wrote: Repost of my first post with the irrelevant info redacted. Why the repost? Feb 22 10 11:37 am Link PM'ing instead... Feb 22 10 01:57 pm Link Lumigraphics wrote: You have no idea what the OP can and can't afford. Feb 22 10 02:06 pm Link W Lawrence Stevens wrote: You got your answer here, OP. All the rest of the answers and opinions here, to the extent that they are from non-lawyers, should be taken as the idle speculations of amateurs, posers, pretenders, various other wannabes. INCLUDING MINE. Feb 22 10 02:08 pm Link Let me just post this and be very clear about it once and for all, maybe I'll stop getting PMs telling me what a horrible person I am. I posted this thread with no idea what the rights are involved with the other side of paying for photos, mostly because I have zero experience with it. I am very careful with legalities because that makes it easier to have an easygoing, fun experience with no random unhappy complications down the line, so all information I can get is good. I thought I needed copyrights, due to the responses to my naive wording in my OP. I have since learned (yes, people can come into a forum and learn and develop new opinions) that I apparently absolutely would require usage rights, perhaps desire a caveat for commercial usage rights but would most likely mention that I might want them and negotiate if it becomes necessary since it is so unlikely, and under no circumstances would I want the copyrights of the photographer. I would also discuss all of what I'm looking for with the photographer, he or she would be writing up the contract and it would be tailored to fit both of our comfort zones. I would also discuss some sort of caveat for limited usage for the photographer, since I would be uncomfortable with paying for shots that the photographer then makes money off of. This would be something I would discuss with the photographer ahead of time and depending on what they're willing to do and how badly I want to work with them, it could be included. This is what I'm working with now, with all the information I have been given during the course of this thread. Thank you all, and if you feel the need to respond again, please keep in mind that THESE are the things I believe I want. One more time: I do not want copyrights. I'm posting this on the OP to try and stop the spamming of my inbox; I have enough shoot conversations getting buried and forgotten already. Feb 22 10 02:34 pm Link dp Feb 22 10 02:34 pm Link Damianne wrote: While I understand your frustration, if you got a PM from ixxxix you should read it, he really does know what he's talking about. Feb 22 10 02:56 pm Link Damianne wrote: [...] I apparently absolutely would require usage rights, perhaps desire a caveat for commercial usage rights but would most likely mention that I might want them and negotiate if it becomes necessary since it is so unlikely, and under no circumstances would I want the copyrights of the photographer. I would also discuss all of what I'm looking for with the photographer, he or she would be writing up the contract and it would be tailored to fit both of our comfort zones. You got it. License the usages you want to use the photos for, release the usages of your likeness you are willing to release. Negotiate all of it. Very good. Feb 22 10 03:03 pm Link Davepit wrote: Did you bother reading the OP's profile? Feb 22 10 07:29 pm Link SLE Photography wrote: ixxxix is always allowed to PM me, he has some great information and has on other occasions proven that he is very honest and keeps in mind exactly what is going on from all perspectives. Feb 23 10 02:00 am Link It appears the OP might have some project in mind in which she is in the brainstorming phase. She wants to have total control of the images and be able to use them for any reason at any time in the future and preclude the photographer from doing the same. It appears the most valid reply is the one stating that this model would be considered commisioning a photographer for a certain project. Regarding the law. I would add that the law is one thing and enforcing it is another. Otherwise there would be no need for courts and lawyers, everyone would just point to the wording in some magic book and it would be written in a way that there would be no other way to interpret it. Regarding being able to find a boilerplate agreement, I seem to remember some book of legal forms for phographers at B&H Photo Store. I don't remember the details. For that one store, try calling them on the telephone, ask to speak to someone in the book department. They are blessed with a large, patient, and knowledgeable staff. Also be aware that not every document is posted online. And the majority of what is online is not indexed or cataloged by a search engine or directory. Google is not the only search engine or directory. And google does not contain everything ever indexed or catologed. Anytime you conduct research or an investigation, you have to use multiple on and off line sources. You will run out of time before you run out of sources. FOR EXAMPLE: you can enter my paternal granmother's name in google, and find a circa 1920's image of her, implied nude, covered in a mink. This just happened in the past year or so. Some conservative political blog cuts and pastes vintage risque photos in their articles. Where was that photo? How did they find it? I wrote the publisher and he explained that some members of his website have bought up old boxes of such photos, flea markets, etc, and just randomly she came up. If I had to guess, it was among hundreds put in a box forgotton for years, then disccovered and valued by the recent phenomena of nostalgs. Now there must be half naked photos in existence one or more other persons on MM's grandmothers, nude photos are not a recent phenomena, but not all those photos still exist, and not all the ones that exist have been posted online, were spyderd by google or anyone else, and the ones not on line , there may be no way to find them except to search every area on the planet, which in theory is possible, but to execute is not. A Shrodinger's cat discusion. GETTING BACK TO WHAT THE OP, IMHO, should do: IMHO, this would be the steps to use (in this particular order): 1. Find a photographer who could transfer you concept to an image(s), within your budget and who would, at first, orally agree to your legal terms. 2. Find an attorney, within your budget, to draft a custom agreement to your approval first, and the photographers next, within that attorney's knowledge of the law and relevant court decesions. 3. Do your project. And enjoy your success 4. Standby ready to defend an action by the photographer challenging the validity of the agreement. Be ready to decide whether it is better for you to pay to fight him or her or pay to pay to stop the legal action. (read the legal history of facebook.com to see what I mean) 5. Decide how much effort you will put in to ensuring that photographer, or anyone else for that matter, uses your image(s) for profit and be ready to decide whether to pay to fight them or accept payment from them to grant retroactive permission. Using the photo of my half naked grandmother as an example, I have no time, energy or inclination to do anything about her photo on that website. Perhaps my father would, he has the money and time to pay a lawyer to deal with that. However, I chose not to tell him about it, because I can not predict his reaction and realistically, he probobably has five years or less of a productive life. I would rather see him spend time and money on his sailboat then a legal action. Now I have no idea what my grandmother, as the model, would want, she dies before I was born and she left that industry to be a restaurantier before my father was born. Not every instance of a law being broken has resulted in a legal action. Now for those who want to see the half naked photo of my granmother, that would be threadjacking, I already posted it in its proper catagory, SF2, where naked grandmothers should be. Feb 23 10 05:13 am Link Damianne wrote: Be sure you talk to the photographer before the shoot.. I would hate to see him walk off at that time... Feb 23 10 05:18 am Link Damianne wrote: and that is part of what he copyrights... I would sure get your boyfriend or your mom to do it... Feb 23 10 05:21 am Link In this country it's perfectly legal to buy the copyright, although a phototographer would probably have a much higher rate for that. Again, for this country, Australia- another fairly simple solution would be to share copyright and have a simple document that states that, so you both have the rights to sell the images. a lot of people mix up artists rights and copyright- one is the right to be recognised as the author of a 'work' and the other is the right to make money directly from the image (again, that's how it works in my country) don't sweat it- a lot of people can get pretty worked up about rights that don't have an overly strong legal basis- eg here the copyright would not always automatically lie with the photographer, it would lie with the party who created the image. If a photographer takes a picture of your painting hanging on a wall, you own the copyright. If he does something extraorginarily artist with the image, maybe he does. Copyright is a grey area which is why you're right to get a release or 'contract', 'cause once it's in writing that trumps the rest, including copyright. It isn't that you can't get copyright, it's that you're unlikely to get a good photographer to sign it over without serious bucks. Hope this helps ps- I'm also a photographer and if you were in my area I'd sign over my soul for the right price, the rest is negotiable Feb 23 10 05:35 am Link RL_11214 wrote: no 5 could be circumvented by buying a CF card and having the photographer hand it over after the shoot and having post done by another party. Just a thought. Feb 23 10 05:41 am Link Mythical Ink wrote: Good idea. And I was being sincere. Feb 23 10 05:50 am Link Harold Rose wrote: Or a professional photographer who was willing to do it within her budget, under her terms and considitons.. Feb 23 10 05:51 am Link GD LEVY wrote: lol!!! Feb 23 10 09:46 am Link |
