Forums > General Industry > TFCD and rights pertaining to images

Model

Liza Lewis

Posts: 1

Green Bay, Wisconsin, US

Being a model and collaborating with a Photographer on a TFCD shoot, isnt the ownership equal pertaining to these images since we Both collaborated on this shoot.

I here too many phptos saying that they own the pics once there take them, But my image cant be own just because you took the pics, The photo can use them in any way, but I have to get a photographer release just to do the same...


JUST LOOKING FOR INPUT AS TO WHAT PPL THINK ABOUT THIS HERE....

SINCE TOO MANY AMATUER PHOTOGRAPHER TRY TO CLAIM THIS AS WELL.. i

GUESS IT MAKES THEM FEEL MORE CREDITABLE...

Apr 02 10 08:27 am Link

Photographer

A M Johnson

Posts: 8024

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Liza Lewis wrote:
Being a model and collaborating with a Photographer on a TFCD shoot, isnt the ownership equal pertaining to these images since we Both collaborated on this shoot.

I here too many phptos saying that they own the pics once there take them, But my image cant be own just because you took the pics, The photo can use them in any way, but I have to get a photographer release just to do the same...


JUST LOOKING FOR INPUT AS TO WHAT PPL THINK ABOUT THIS HERE....

SINCE TOO MANY AMATUER PHOTOGRAPHER TRY TO CLAIM THIS AS WELL.. i

GUESS IT MAKES THEM FEEL MORE CREDITABLE...

This thread might get moved to General.

Since we are both in the US, I will answer based on what I know about US law. Wisconsin might have a slightly different bent on this.

In the US, the person that captures the image is the one and only absolute copyright holder. No one else has a right to do anything with the image except for a couple of limited uses, ie editorial and education.

That means that you as a model are not allowed to use the image unless he gives you a usage license or transfers the copyright to you.

Apr 02 10 08:32 am Link

Photographer

AVD AlphaDuctions

Posts: 10747

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

ummmmm first of all I doubt this belongs in site-related so I imagine a Mod will be along to move it soon?  Second the whole concept of 'ownership' such as you discuss is not simply a matter of opinion.

There are default laws governing most of it, and although people are free to contract around a lot of the default laws you may  find a lot of people you want to work with will either refuse or say "its against the law". 
I'm sure it will be an 'interesting' discussion wherever this gets moved smile

dan


EDIT: it has nothing to do with pro or amateur.  It has to do with how willing people are to change defaults in the law.  As you saw from the post above mine, it's pretty clear not many will.

Apr 02 10 08:38 am Link

Photographer

B R U N E S C I

Posts: 25319

Bath, England, United Kingdom

Liza Lewis wrote:
isnt the ownership equal pertaining to these images since we Both collaborated on this shoot.

No. Not in the USA or UK. The images belong to the photographer, although depending on your territory he may need a release from you to use them for commercial purposes.

Liza Lewis wrote:
I here too many phptos saying that they own the pics once there take them

Maybe because they do! wink

Liza Lewis wrote:
But my image cant be own just because you took the pics

Yes it can, and it is.

Liza Lewis wrote:
The photo can use them in any way, but I have to get a photographer release just to do the same...

As I said above, in certain territories the photographer may need a release from you to use the images commercially. However, yes, you always need a license (not a release) from the photographer to use them as they are his images.

If you don't like this state of affairs then either stop modelling or become a photographer and take your own photos. Then you can have your cake and eat it too! big_smile


Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Apr 02 10 08:43 am Link

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

Liza Lewis wrote:
JUST LOOKING FOR INPUT AS TO WHAT PPL THINK ABOUT THIS HERE....

SINCE TOO MANY AMATUER PHOTOGRAPHER TRY TO CLAIM THIS AS WELL.. i

GUESS IT MAKES THEM FEEL MORE CREDITABLE...

the issue is not determined by the level or status of the photographer.

your posting gives clear indication there is much more you need to know about modeling and photography.  here's a place to begin your journey:  www.newmodels.com

Apr 02 10 08:54 am Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 18390

Elmhurst, Illinois, US

291 wrote:
the issue is not determined by the level or status of the photographer.

your posting gives clear indication there is much more you need to know about modeling and photography.  here's a place to begin your journey:  www.newmodels.com

Yes, by her profile she says she has been modeling a month. This is a common misconception of brand new models.

Apr 02 10 09:02 am Link

Photographer

Marc Damon

Posts: 6562

Biloxi, Mississippi, US

Read this. It's a very basic explanation of copyright, model releases and usage rights.

www.marcdamonphotography.com/rights.html

Apr 02 10 09:04 am Link

Photographer

Omaroo

Posts: 1102

Madison, Wisconsin, US

Liza Lewis wrote:
Being a model and collaborating with a Photographer on a TFCD shoot, isnt the ownership equal pertaining to these images since we Both collaborated on this shoot.

I here too many phptos saying that they own the pics once there take them, But my image cant be own just because you took the pics, The photo can use them in any way, but I have to get a photographer release just to do the same...


JUST LOOKING FOR INPUT AS TO WHAT PPL THINK ABOUT THIS HERE....

SINCE TOO MANY AMATUER PHOTOGRAPHER TRY TO CLAIM THIS AS WELL.. i

GUESS IT MAKES THEM FEEL MORE CREDITABLE...

Apr 02 10 09:29 am Link

Photographer

ontherocks

Posts: 23575

Salem, Oregon, US

for trade shoots i just ask for marketing (self-promotion) rights. when i'm paying a model i get full rights (including the theoretical ability to profit from the images). as far as what the model does with the images, life's too short for me to care much about that.

Apr 02 10 09:58 am Link

Photographer

Leonard Gee Photography

Posts: 18096

Sacramento, California, US

Liza Lewis wrote:
JUST LOOKING FOR INPUT AS TO WHAT PPL THINK ABOUT THIS HERE....

What we or you think is irrelevant and anyone can believe whatever they want.

Who has what rights is governed by copyright law in your country. Some laws are not logical and defy "common sense".

Apr 02 10 09:59 am Link

Photographer

Gaze at Photography

Posts: 4371

Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, US

https://media.point2.com/p2a/htmltext/1dab/734d/3ad9/abbc853706ccbf7656a2/original.jpg

As the bottom sentence states.  It's very easy to have a photographer let you do what ever you want with the photos, within reason, but he has to give you permission in writing to cover your butt. 

Any and all rights can be negotiated, but just because you have the CD doesn't mean you own any picture that's on it, even if it's a picture of you.

Apr 02 10 10:01 am Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 18390

Elmhurst, Illinois, US

I'm getting the feeling the OP expected different answers.

Apr 02 10 10:03 am Link

Photographer

pullins photography

Posts: 5884

Troy, Michigan, US

A M Johnson wrote:

This thread might get moved to General.

Since we are both in the US, I will answer based on what I know about US law. Wisconsin might have a slightly different bent on this.

In the US, the person that captures the image is the one and only absolute copyright holder. No one else has a right to do anything with the image except for a couple of limited uses, ie editorial and education.

That means that you as a model are not allowed to use the image unless he gives you a usage license or transfers the copyright to you.

you might want to re-read us copyright law regarding who might own a photo...and wisconsin law has nothing to do with copyright law

Apr 02 10 10:05 am Link

Photographer

OnSite Photography ca

Posts: 369

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Have a look at this post so you can see comments from photographers.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=575339

My belief is negotiate what you want. US copyright law does provide the photographer with the rights to ownership. You can always write the deal the way you want. Instead of signing a model release, have a photography agreement where you get the benefits you need.

I'm all about trying to create success. If I can help the model be successful then I may be able to use those skills for someone else and charge for it.

Apr 02 10 10:08 am Link

Photographer

Gary Davis

Posts: 1829

San Diego, California, US

I think the OP is confusing two different issues - rights to the photos and rights to her image.

In the US, the photographer automatically has the copyright, which basically means he must grant permission for use, copying etc. of the photograph (he "owns" the photo).  This does NOT necessarily mean he can do anything he wants with it.

The model has certain rights to her IMAGE.  Image and photo are separate things in this context.  In order for the photographer to publish a photo of a model or use it commercially, he must have permission from the model to use her image.

So, the model can't use a photo without the photographers permission and the photographer can't publish or use the photo commercially without the models permission.

There is no "shared" ownership of the photo just because you two worked together or because the photo is of you.  Being the subject of the photo in and of itself gives you absolutely no right to the photo itself, but you do have the right to prevent your image from being used certain ways.

This is why it is important that both of you discuss and agree to what each is entitled to before the shoot.

This is all very simplified and there are certain exceptions, but that's the gist.  The links provided by others should explain in more detail.

Apr 02 10 10:18 am Link

Photographer

Awesometographer

Posts: 10973

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Liza Lewis wrote:
JUST LOOKING FOR INPUT AS TO WHAT PPL THINK ABOUT THIS HERE....

SINCE TOO MANY AMATUER PHOTOGRAPHER TRY TO CLAIM THIS AS WELL.. i

GUESS IT MAKES THEM FEEL MORE CREDITABLE...

People claim this cause it's what the laws say.

I wonder if the OP will come back and say "oh, I didn't realize that, thanks for referring me to newmodels.com and informing me of US copyright laws" or if she'll just vanish?

Apr 02 10 10:22 am Link

Photographer

291

Posts: 11911

SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARK, California, US

OnSite Photography ca wrote:
My belief is negotiate what you want. US copyright law does provide the photographer with the rights to ownership. You can always write the deal the way you want. Instead of signing a model release, have a photography agreement where you get the benefits you need.

i think it's been established this model needs to be better informed on many aspects of this biz as shown in her post and confirmed by those responding. 

suggesting one to start writing her own agreements with such limitation really isn't such a smart idea or very helpful.

Apr 02 10 10:23 am Link

Photographer

sig

Posts: 612

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, US

Liza Lewis wrote:
I here too many phptos saying that they own the pics once there take them

Hmm.... too many?  They should all be saying that..

Apr 02 10 10:29 am Link

Photographer

descending chain

Posts: 1368

San Diego, California, US

Liza Lewis wrote:
Being a model and collaborating with a Photographer on a TFCD shoot, isnt the ownership equal pertaining to these images since we Both collaborated on this shoot.

No.  Although driving up to Canada to shoot with photographers might give you a case for ownership, especially if you pay them.

Liza Lewis wrote:
I here too many phptos saying that they own the pics once there take them, But my image cant be own just because you took the pics,

Yes it can, if I am reading your Manglish correctly.

The photo can use them in any way, but I have to get a photographer release just to do the same...

Here is the balance.  The photographer must go to you for permission to use your likeness (model release) and you must go to the photographer for permission to use the photo (usage agreement).  The photographer cannot just simply "use them in any way" unless you have given permission.

Liza Lewis wrote:
JUST LOOKING FOR INPUT AS TO WHAT PPL THINK ABOUT THIS HERE....

SINCE TOO MANY AMATUER PHOTOGRAPHER TRY TO CLAIM THIS AS WELL.. i

GUESS IT MAKES THEM FEEL MORE CREDITABLE...

It is generally not a good idea to end your first MM post with yelling.

Apr 02 10 10:33 am Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 18390

Elmhurst, Illinois, US

OnSite Photography ca wrote:
Have a look at this post so you can see comments from photographers.

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=575339

My belief is negotiate what you want. US copyright law does provide the photographer with the rights to ownership. You can always write the deal the way you want. Instead of signing a model release, have a photography agreement where you get the benefits you need.


I'm all about trying to create success. If I can help the model be successful then I may be able to use those skills for someone else and charge for it.

She can negotiate anything she wants.

That still doesn't change the fact that the photographer owns the copyright to the image, which the OP seems to think is untrue for some reason with TF. And for some reason, she seems to think it's not true for amateur photographers.

Also, many photographers are not going to sign a release the model provides.

Apr 02 10 10:42 am Link

Photographer

A M Johnson

Posts: 8024

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

pullins photography wrote:

you might want to re-read us copyright law regarding who might own a photo...and wisconsin law has nothing to do with copyright law

Wisconsin law has everything to do with usage, if they have a law covering it. In the US, the creator holds the copyright. Period. No reason to read up on the law here.

Apr 02 10 10:57 am Link

Photographer

Photography by BE

Posts: 5652

Midland, Texas, US

Greg Kolack wrote:
That still doesn't change the fact that the photographer owns the copyright to the image, which the OP seems to think is untrue for some reason with TF. And for some reason, she seems to think it's not true for amateur photographers.

Also, many photographers are not going to sign a release the model provides.

I thought it worked this way:

The more clothes a model takes off, the more she charges;  Such as $40 per hour fashion; $65 per hour Swimsuit; $85 per hour implied, and $122 per hour nude.

Whereas a photographer works this way:

Fashion, 2 images per look;  5 images for Swimsuit,  15 for implied, and all images on a CD for nude plus anything else the model has on "her" release.  wink

Apr 02 10 10:57 am Link

Photographer

Tony Lawrence

Posts: 21474

Chicago, Illinois, US

Photography by BE wrote:

I thought it worked this way:

The more clothes a model takes off, the more she charges;  Such as $40 per hour fashion; $65 per hour Swimsuit; $85 per hour implied, and $122 per hour nude.

Whereas a photographer works this way:

Fashion, 2 images per look;  5 images for Swimsuit,  15 for implied, and all images on a CD for nude plus anything else the model has on "her" release.  wink

LOL....

OP, the photographer owns the image but you are in charge of your likeness.
He isn't quite free to do what he wants but is free for example to display it as
he chooses.  Selling it for stock for example might be a problem in some
places without a release from you.  It depends.  The photographer owns the
copyright to the image.  You do not share it.  Here there is no difference between
amateur or pro the law is the same.

Most photographers would also not be willing to sign any sort of release a
model provided nor any agreement.  States do vary in what defines a release.
Some say a signed document is needed before a image can be displayed or
sold.  Others aren't so defined but again we hold the copyright.  It is not shared.

Apr 02 10 11:18 am Link

Photographer

Lumigraphics

Posts: 32780

Detroit, Michigan, US

OP, you have a whole menu of rates on your portfolio. If you are being paid, you get nothing else. No images, no usage, NOTHING, at least as a starting point.

If you do a trade or pay a photographer, usage is negotiable. Often you'll get promotional use only in a license agreement.

I strongly suggest that you read some of the links such as newmodels.com and then contact some of the MM model mentors for advice about your profile, rates, and business practices. You'll be likely to get some great advice that will further your career. Right now it appears that you have some unrealistic ideas and expectations and we'd hate to see you get frustrated and quit modeling because of it.

Apr 02 10 11:25 am Link

Photographer

John Edward

Posts: 2462

Dallas, Texas, US

I think, but it's hard to say for sure, that the OP is trying to rewrite all the rules, to suit her personal fantasies of what photography/modeling is all about. I say think because Manglish is not one of my second languages. But at any rate the point is moot, because I don't believe the OP is coming back to defend her position, since it's obviously Not, what she wants to hear.

I wish her all the best in her career.

Apr 02 10 12:14 pm Link

Photographer

pullins photography

Posts: 5884

Troy, Michigan, US

A M Johnson wrote:

Wisconsin law has everything to do with usage, if they have a law covering it. In the US, the creator holds the copyright. Period. No reason to read up on the law here.

and usage has nothing to do with ownership, which is the OP's issue

Apr 02 10 12:50 pm Link

Photographer

studio36uk

Posts: 22898

Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna

Stefano Brunesci wrote:

Liza Lewis wrote:
isnt the ownership equal pertaining to these images since we Both collaborated on this shoot.

Not in the USA or UK.

Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

There I fixed that for you.

If you don't know why I excluded the UK PM me.

Studio36

Apr 02 10 12:51 pm Link

Model

Rachel Jay

Posts: 20439

Nashville, Tennessee, US

Lumigraphics wrote:
I strongly suggest that you read some of the links such as newmodels.com and then contact some of the MM model mentors for advice about your profile, rates, and business practices. You'll be likely to get some great advice that will further your career. Right now it appears that you have some unrealistic ideas and expectations and we'd hate to see you get frustrated and quit modeling because of it.

I second this advice.  Some helpful resources for the OP:
www.newmodels.com
http://racheljay.wordpress.com/modeling … -watching/

And the MM Model Mentors list: https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=342128

Apr 02 10 12:57 pm Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 18390

Elmhurst, Illinois, US

pullins photography wrote:

and usage has nothing to do with ownership, which is the OP's issue

Yes, the OP is claiming she should have ownership of the image.

Liza Lewis wrote:
Being a model and collaborating with a Photographer on a TFCD shoot, isnt the ownership equal pertaining to these images since we Both collaborated on this shoot.

Apr 02 10 12:59 pm Link

Photographer

A M Johnson

Posts: 8024

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Greg Kolack wrote:

pullins photography wrote:
and usage has nothing to do with ownership, which is the OP's issue

Yes, the OP is claiming she should have ownership of the image.


Then she goes on to say

Liza Lewis wrote:
I here too many phptos saying that they own the pics once there take them, But my image cant be own just because you took the pics, The photo can use them in any way, but I have to get a photographer release just to do the same...

which speaks to usage. In my mind, her use of the term "own" may not mean the same thing to her as it does to us. That is why I mentioned both.

Apr 02 10 01:26 pm Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 18390

Elmhurst, Illinois, US

A M Johnson wrote:

Greg Kolack wrote:

pullins photography wrote:
and usage has nothing to do with ownership, which is the OP's issue

Yes, the OP is claiming she should have ownership of the image.

Then she goes on to say

which speaks to usage. In my mind, her use of the term "own" may not mean the same thing to her as it does to us. That is why I mentioned both.

Yes, I get the feeling she really has no clue about any of this.

Or, like I said before, someone is filling her head with this stuff.

Apr 02 10 01:34 pm Link

Photographer

A M Johnson

Posts: 8024

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Greg Kolack wrote:

Yes, I get the feeling she really has no clue about any of this.

Or, like I said before, someone is filling her head with this stuff.

Makes sense, some sidewalk lawyer is her BFF.

Apr 02 10 01:35 pm Link

Photographer

RTE Photography

Posts: 1511

NORTH HOLLYWOOD, California, US

It doesn't matter WHAT you think, it is the law.
Tommy

Apr 02 10 01:36 pm Link

Photographer

John Edward

Posts: 2462

Dallas, Texas, US

Greg Kolack wrote:
Or, like I said before, someone is filling her head with this stuff.

Well, since the OP is not coming back, her education will have to wait, until she goes to Kinko's, or the corner Kodak machine, with Her CD, of Her Images, and wants prints made.

Then she can read the "Copyright Notice," posted on the front of it, or maybe one of the nice clerks can explain it to her, when they inform her, that without a "Usage Release," she can't print HER pretty pictures.

Ugh, Reality, such an ugly word.

Apr 02 10 01:41 pm Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 18390

Elmhurst, Illinois, US

A M Johnson wrote:

Makes sense, some sidewalk lawyer is her BFF.

Or another photographer is responsible.

Read her profile.

Apr 02 10 01:43 pm Link

Photographer

A M Johnson

Posts: 8024

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Greg Kolack wrote:

Or another photographer is responsible.

Read her profile.

Ah! Things are suddenly clear.

Apr 02 10 01:48 pm Link

Photographer

Lucas Chapman

Posts: 6129

Scottsdale, Arizona, US

Greg Kolack wrote:
I'm getting the feeling the OP expected different answers.

And because she didn't get what she expected.....  POOF!

Apr 02 10 01:50 pm Link

Photographer

pullins photography

Posts: 5884

Troy, Michigan, US

Greg Kolack wrote:

Yes, I get the feeling she really has no clue about any of this.

Or, like I said before, someone is filling her head with this stuff.

oh ok...I see where you got the usage part...most don't get that there's a two part issue..ownership and issue. Most don't get because you own a song you bought, you don't have the right to disseminate it freely..guess folks never heard about Napster back in the day

Apr 02 10 02:05 pm Link

Photographer

Greg Kolack

Posts: 18390

Elmhurst, Illinois, US

pullins photography wrote:

oh ok...I see where you got the usage part...most don't get that there's a two part issue..ownership and issue. Most don't get because you own a song you bought, you don't have the right to disseminate it freely..guess folks never heard about Napster back in the day

Napster...you're dating yourself.

Of course, I am too, since I know what you are talking about...

Apr 02 10 02:09 pm Link

Photographer

A M Johnson

Posts: 8024

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

pullins photography wrote:

oh ok...I see where you got the usage part...most don't get that there's a two part issue..ownership and issue. Most don't get because you own a song you bought, you don't have the right to disseminate it freely..guess folks never heard about Napster back in the day

Are you advocating that it is fine to distribute copyrighted material without a license to do so?

Apr 02 10 02:09 pm Link