Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
Generally and by law the photographer owns the pictures so he / she doesn't need permission to do anything they like with the pics.

You an ask what they're going to use them for and hope to get an honest answer but at the end of the day, it's a moot point.

There should always be a model release stating that.

Now, if you end up in a shot that was taken in public informally like at an event or something then yes, the photog would need a release from everyone in the shot in order to use the image

Just about everything you said is backwards.

Miz Jennifer wrote:
What are good questions to ask a photographer as to what they're going to do with the pics they take. I understand they're also adding to their port but has anyone seen their pics show up somewhere else w/o their permission ?

"What do you plan to do with the pictures?" is one of two questions you should ask.  The other is "May I see a copy of your release before committing, please?"
That release will probably include something like,

"unrestricted permission to copyright and/or use, and/or publish photographic portraits or pictures of me, and the negatives, transparencies, prints, or digital information pertaining to them, in still, single, multiple, moving or video format, or in which I may be included in whole or in part, or composite, or distorted in form, or reproductions thereof, in color or otherwise, made through any media in his studio or elsewhere for art, or any other lawful purpose.
       I hereby waive any right that I may have to inspect and approve the finished product or copy that may be used in connection with an image that the Photographer has taken of me, or the use to which it may be applied.
       I further release the Photographer, or others for whom he is acting, from any claims for remuneration associated with any form of damage, foreseen or unforseen, associated with the proper commercial or artistic use of these images unless it can be shown that said reproduction was maliciously caused, produced and published for the sole purpose of subjecting me to conspicuous ridicule, scandal, reproach, scorn and indignity."

In other words the photographer can do pretty much whatever he wants with them.  What you will want to do is then say (And very sweetly and nicely) "Gee, I thought this was going to be a portfolio shoot.  Would you mind changing that part to something like

"Both photographer and model may use the photographs in promoting themselves and their businesses, and have equal right to publish and exhibit the photographs for that purpose. Both parties acknowledge that any other photographers, providers of supportive services or models participating the same shoot share similar rights to the same photographs. No other usage rights are granted hereby."

but the likelihood is that the answer will be no, especially if the photographer thinks he may have some chance of making money from them, in which case you have to decide whether to fish or cut bait. 

Understand also, copyright automatically vests in the person creating the art work, i.e. the photographer and is a federal law, whereas usage of your personal image is governed by the states and those laws will vary from state to state, so the only really useful advice I can give you is to consult a local lawyer for the answer that applies to you. 

Unfortunately, if the picture is ever published anywhere, in a book or magazine or on the web, whether in your portfolio or anywhere else, the potential that it will be copied and posted or even altered without either your permission or the photographer's is real and happens from time to time, although not as often as people like to think.  So the only real protection is to either be very, very careful that you not pose for any pictures that you wouldn't want to have seen by everyone you know or to adopt an attitude of "Screw 'em!  I'm going to do what I want and no apologies to anybody!" and risk the consequences.

All IMHO, as always.

Miz Jennifer wrote:
I understand they're also adding to their port but has anyone seen their pics show up somewhere else w/o their permission ?

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
A model would have to have either trade marked or copyrighted her likeness in order for that to be true.  Sorry, but wrong, at least in the U.S.

IN this country the photog owns the images and as a matter of fact, there are new laws in place this year making that an even truer statement. Wrong again--The photographer owns the picture, but right of privacy laws protect the model from unwanted commercial exploitation.  There are at least two separate issues here, copyright and privacy.  Copyright is protected by federal law and privacy by state laws.  It can be very, very expensive for photographers to be unaware of the differences.  Trademark is a separate federal matter.

They're making it much easier for photogs to prove ownership and sue over copyright issues.

So unless you're a movie star and you've secured your "likeness" the artist will always win.

Now, if an artist were to say, deface the image and use it to intentionally discredit or hurt you or your career then you're talking about slander which again in the US has a 1% conviction rate because it's almost impossible to prove your losses we caused by the act.

Rays Fine Art wrote:

Show me I'm wrong because that's the way I understand the law. Unless the usage will negatively impact or is discrediting to the subject (slander or libel) then all is fare.

http://www.photographerregistry.com/copyright.html

Also see FAQ's
http://www.photographerregistry.com/faq.html#p1

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:

Show me I'm wrong because that's the way I understand the law. Unless the usage will negatively impact or is discrediting to the subject (slander or libel) then all is fare.

http://www.photographerregistry.com/copyright.html

Aaron you as the producer or maker own the copyright to your image but a person has a right to how that image is used or at times displayed.   If, I take a photo of a model playing tennis I can't then sell that image to Nike to use for their shoes because its commercial use.   Its advertising their product.   The photo can be used in general of websites like MM as examples of your work.   However even that isn't always something that is legal as it can vary from state to state.   Lets say you a shot of a model nude at a public beach.   A newspaper could publish it without a release because she would have no right to privacy but you couldn't sell the photo to a suntan lotion company because that would be commercial use.

Some states require a signed written release for most use,   States like Calf, others do not and a verbal one is enough.   The nude shot I mentioned could be dicy for the newspaper also as how was it taken.   Was the model in a bathroom or a area she could expect privacy or walking down the beach.   In general model releases protect photographers because it gives some clear definition on what a model is allowing.   Gallery use for example doesn't require a written release but again selling your work to others to sell a thing or product or even the model likeness requires a release.

Miz Jennifer wrote:
What are good questions to ask a photographer as to what they're going to do with the pics they take. I understand they're also adding to their port but has anyone seen their pics show up somewhere else w/o their permission ?

a) They are NOT 'your' photos.

b) If you want exclusive usage rights then PAY for a shoot instead of doing TF.

c) In the US, not signing a model release will go some way towards limiting the photographers' use of the photos, but not many in the US will shoot TF without a full release.




Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Aaron you as the producer or maker own the copyright to your image but a person has a right to how that image is used or at times displayed.   If, I take a photo of a model playing tennis I can't then sell that image to Nike to use for their shoes because its commercial use.   Its advertising their product.   The photo can be used in general of websites like MM as examples of your work.   However even that isn't always something that is legal as it can vary from state to state.   Lets say you a shot of a model nude at a public beach.   A newspaper could publish it without a release because she would have no right to privacy but you couldn't sell the photo to a suntan lotion company because that would be commercial use.

Some states require a signed written release for most use,   States like Calf, others do not and a verbal one is enough.   The nude shot I mentioned could be dicy for the newspaper also as how was it taken.   Was the model in a bathroom or a area she could expect privacy or walking down the beach.   In general model releases protect photographers because it gives some clear definition on what a model is allowing.   Gallery use for example doesn't require a written release but again selling your work to others to sell a thing or product or even the model likeness requires a release.

Right I understand. I stated that about public photos and I'm clear on that. I have 10,000 + shots which I took as a paid photographer of softball tournaments last year and I realize I can't use a single one because I don't have releases.

However, if a model comes to my studio, saying that I had a studio, and signs or even doesn't sign a release, I own the copyright, period. Now I'm also the kind of person that will tell the model, if they ask, what I'm going to do with the images.

However, if 5 years down the road I want to use one of those images for say promotional material, I can and I will and if I make 10 million dollars from that material, the model has no claim and no rights to the image.

If you say take candid shots of someone in a place, like a bathroom where the person perceives a certain level of privacy then yes, you're infringing on they're privacy and could probably be sued. But I assumed that wasn't the topic of the OP's question

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
Show me I'm wrong because that's the way I understand the law. Unless the usage will negatively impact or is discrediting to the subject (slander or libel) then all is fare.

http://www.photographerregistry.com/copyright.html

Also see FAQ's
http://www.photographerregistry.com/faq.html#p1

under NY law it is a misdemeanor to use a person's likeness 'for purposes of trade' without a written release

"Sec.  50.   Right  of privacy.  A person, firm or corporation
that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade,
the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having
first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a  minor
of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/50

moreover, they can sue you for damages.

§  51.  Action  for injunction and for damages. Any person whose name,
  portrait, picture or voice is used within  this  state  for  advertising
  purposes  or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first
  obtained as above provided may  maintain  an  equitable  action  in  the
  supreme  court  of this state against the person, firm or corporation so
  using his name, portrait, picture or voice, to prevent and restrain  the
  use  thereof;  and  may  also  sue  and recover damages for any injuries
  sustained by reason  of  such  use  and  if  the  defendant  shall  have
  knowingly  used  such  person's name, portrait, picture or voice in such
  manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by  section  fifty  of
  this  article, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/51

BeautybyGod wrote:
under NY law it is a misdemeanor to use a person's likeness 'for purposes of trade' without a written release

"Sec.  50.   Right  of privacy.  A person, firm or corporation
that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade,
the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having
first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a  minor
of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/50

moreover, they can sue you for damages.

Leave it to the US to have clearly and completely contradicting laws. I guess it's pretty important to have a signed release then which would then make Sec. 50 null and void.

And on Sub Section 51, that'll never hold up. Damages are so difficult to prove it's ridiculous.

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:

Right I understand. I stated that about public photos and I'm clear on that. I have 10,000 + shots which I took as a paid photographer of softball tournaments last year and I realize I can't use a single one because I don't have releases.

However, if a model comes to my studio, saying that I had a studio, and signs or even doesn't sign a release, I own the copyright, period. Now I'm also the kind of person that will tell the model, if they ask, what I'm going to do with the images.

However, if 5 years down the road I want to use one of those images for say promotional material, I can and I will and if I make 10 million dollars from that material, the model has no claim and no rights to the image.

If you say take candid shots of someone in a place, like a bathroom where the person perceives a certain level of privacy then yes, you're infringing on they're privacy and could probably be sued. But I assumed that wasn't the topic of the OP's question

Your example could depend on some things.   Think this way.   Lets follow your example.   Model does a shoot in some great clothes I provide but those things were a designers and the resulting images used a promotion for her designs even if only at my studio but in places the public can see and with her name as a designer and her contact information.   That's commercial even at just  one place.   Its published.   I'm showing it to others.*   When you become a commercial photographer and owing a studio open to the public makes you that you must be aware of current laws.  http://dslrblog.com/do-you-need-a-model-release/

You may know that most agency Test shoots don't require models to sign a release and agency models don't sign them.   That resulting work is usually just about promoting model and shooter but if for example the images were to be used by a jewelry designer in a ad then I would need a release or she would from the model.   * Showing it for sale and as advertising.

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
Leave it to the US to have clearly and completely contradicting laws. I guess it's pretty important to have a signed release then which would then make Sec. 50 null and void

the whole copyright thing is a federal deal. privacy laws are state laws.

kinda like the marijuana being somewhat legal in Cali... prohibited by federal law.

i moved to LA from Albany two years ago... i did a lot of research on this.   the release thing, not the marijuana. lol

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
And on Sub Section 51, that'll never hold up. Damages are so difficult to prove it's ridiculous.

don't kid yourself. and if somebody sues you, you're still going to have to hire a lawyer.

BeautybyGod wrote:

under NY law it is a misdemeanor to use a person's likeness 'for purposes of trade' without a written release

"Sec.  50.   Right  of privacy.  A person, firm or corporation
that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade,
the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having
first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a  minor
of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/50

moreover, they can sue you for damages.

+1
Depending on the release type the model signs is if the photographer can use the images for commercial purposes or not.

Copyright is owned by the Author (photographer)... but that doesn't mean that you can profit from the image of an individual (model) without their consent (model release).

... and without a signed release I wouldn't even post a photo of a model in FB

Rays Fine Art wrote:

Miz Jennifer wrote:
What are good questions to ask a photographer as to what they're going to do with the pics they take. I understand they're also adding to their port but has anyone seen their pics show up somewhere else w/o their permission ?

"What do you plan to do with the pictures?" is one of two questions you should ask.  The other is "May I see a copy of your release before committing, please?"
That release will probably include something like,

"unrestricted permission to copyright and/or use, and/or publish photographic portraits or pictures of me, and the negatives, transparencies, prints, or digital information pertaining to them, in still, single, multiple, moving or video format, or in which I may be included in whole or in part, or composite, or distorted in form, or reproductions thereof, in color or otherwise, made through any media in his studio or elsewhere for art, or any other lawful purpose.
       I hereby waive any right that I may have to inspect and approve the finished product or copy that may be used in connection with an image that the Photographer has taken of me, or the use to which it may be applied.
       I further release the Photographer, or others for whom he is acting, from any claims for remuneration associated with any form of damage, foreseen or unforseen, associated with the proper commercial or artistic use of these images unless it can be shown that said reproduction was maliciously caused, produced and published for the sole purpose of subjecting me to conspicuous ridicule, scandal, reproach, scorn and indignity."

In other words the photographer can do pretty much whatever he wants with them.  What you will want to do is then say (And very sweetly and nicely) "Gee, I thought this was going to be a portfolio shoot.  Would you mind changing that part to something like

but the likelihood is that the answer will be no, especially if the photographer thinks he may have some chance of making money from them, in which case you have to decide whether to fish or cut bait. 

Understand also, copyright automatically vests in the person creating the art work, i.e. the photographer and is a federal law, whereas usage of your personal image is governed by the states and those laws will vary from state to state, so the only really useful advice I can give you is to consult a local lawyer for the answer that applies to you. 

Unfortunately, if the picture is ever published anywhere, in a book or magazine or on the web, whether in your portfolio or anywhere else, the potential that it will be copied and posted or even altered without either your permission or the photographer's is real and happens from time to time, although not as often as people like to think.  So the only real protection is to either be very, very careful that you not pose for any pictures that you wouldn't want to have seen by everyone you know or to adopt an attitude of "Screw 'em!  I'm going to do what I want and no apologies to anybody!" and risk the consequences.

All IMHO, as always.

Very well spoke er uh typed...lol

Stefano Brunesci wrote:
c) In the US, not signing a model release will go some way towards limiting the photographers' use of the photos, but not many in the US will shoot TF without a full release.

Miz Jennifer wrote:
Im just reading all of these responses and WOW thank you....So it doesnt REALLY sound like a model has any REAL control over his/her images. I also agree w/ keeping most pics off FB..I have no intentions or desire to take pics that I wouldnt want my parents or son to some day see..thats how I look at what I will and will not do..

Actually you do have the option of full control. Just simply ask the photographer what their fee will be for a full copyright release. Then you own everything lock, stock, and barrel. However this is usually a very expensive option.

And for a model not to be on Facebook is ridiculous. Facebook is the way to network if you are modeling and looking for work.

Fred Gerhart wrote:
And for a model not to be on Facebook is ridiculous. Facebook is the way to network if you are modeling and looking for work.

If you post an image on FB you as the poster give all image rights to FB. Which most models don't have the right to do in the first place because they don't own the rights to give away.

Read the EUA, FB has the right to do anything they like with anything you post there releasing the poster of any ownership to that image, music file, movie, whatever.

So do you still think that? If a model is worried about how their images may get used they I'd say that FB is the last place you'd want them.

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
If you post an image on FB you as the poster give all image rights to FB. Which most models don't have the right to do in the first place because they don't own the rights to give away.

Facebook's "TOS" gives them the right to post the images, as do the "TOS" of every professionally run web site.

Miz Jennifer wrote:
Because this is new to me, regardless if Im nude or not I thought it was a good question. The question was actually asked to me and I didn't have the answer..You all have a ton of knowledge I have to re-read these responses b/c there were so many as well as look up the laws..

Note Tony and Stephano's posts. 

One of the operative words is commercial use. Depending on the state, many uses, including displaying in an art gallery do not require a release.

It's not black and white by any means.

BeautybyGod wrote:

under NY law it is a misdemeanor to use a person's likeness 'for purposes of trade' without a written release

"Sec.  50.   Right  of privacy.  A person, firm or corporation
that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade,
the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having
first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a  minor
of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/50

moreover, they can sue you for damages.

§  51.  Action  for injunction and for damages. Any person whose name,
  portrait, picture or voice is used within  this  state  for  advertising
  purposes  or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first
  obtained as above provided may  maintain  an  equitable  action  in  the
  supreme  court  of this state against the person, firm or corporation so
  using his name, portrait, picture or voice, to prevent and restrain  the
  use  thereof;  and  may  also  sue  and recover damages for any injuries
  sustained by reason  of  such  use  and  if  the  defendant  shall  have
  knowingly  used  such  person's name, portrait, picture or voice in such
  manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by  section  fifty  of
  this  article, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/51

This appears to be written in regard to advertising. It doesn't address a photographer selling the photos for other purposes.

Cherrystone wrote:

Just about everything you said is backwards.

You beat me to it.

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:

If you post an image on FB you as the poster give all image rights to FB. Which most models don't have the right to do in the first place because they don't own the rights to give away.

Read the EUA, FB has the right to do anything they like with anything you post there releasing the poster of any ownership to that image, music file, movie, whatever.

So do you still think that? If a model is worried about how their images may get used they I'd say that FB is the last place you'd want them.

FB has that in writing simply so they can cover themselves when it comes to images being on FB.  I know what it says.  Do you think I can't request to have an image removed from someone's profile?  I have and will again if I see fit to.

Have you read the similar things on MM?

Aaron Lewis Photography wrote:
Now, if you end up in a shot that was taken in public informally like at an event or something then yes, the photog would need a release from everyone in the shot in order to use the image

For commercial use, that is true.

For editorial or journalistic use, that is not true.

Miz Jennifer wrote:
So it doesnt REALLY sound like a model has any REAL control over his/her images.

If they are yours, yes you do. If you purchase the copyright you can have a very large degree of control.

Under most circumstances however, the photographer owns the copyright, so they are not your images.  They are images of you. 

Ways you can have some control over images of you are through what model releases you do and do not sign as well as what types of shoots you do and do not accept.

BeautybyGod wrote:

under NY law it is a misdemeanor to use a person's likeness 'for purposes of trade' without a written release

"Sec.  50.   Right  of privacy.  A person, firm or corporation
that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade,
the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having
first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a  minor
of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/50

moreover, they can sue you for damages.

§  51.  Action  for injunction and for damages. Any person whose name,
  portrait, picture or voice is used within  this  state  for  advertising
  purposes  or for the purposes of trade without the written consent first
  obtained as above provided may  maintain  an  equitable  action  in  the
  supreme  court  of this state against the person, firm or corporation so
  using his name, portrait, picture or voice, to prevent and restrain  the
  use  thereof;  and  may  also  sue  and recover damages for any injuries
  sustained by reason  of  such  use  and  if  the  defendant  shall  have
  knowingly  used  such  person's name, portrait, picture or voice in such
  manner as is forbidden or declared to be unlawful by  section  fifty  of
  this  article, the jury, in its discretion, may award exemplary damages.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/51

This is a breath of fresh air actually seeing law being quoted that pertains to where the model resides. I live in Canada and as such am under a different set of laws. However, TFP is rather grey. My understanding of the laws where I reside is ownership falls to who pays. A photographers time is worth money, a Models time is worth money, and both are paying in time to produce a photo-shoot. Both are also expecting some end product for their time that in some way either currently or down the road either enhance their ability to create income or directly creates income.

So:

Photographers – If you wish to shoot with a certain model work out some form of compensation.
Models – If you wish to shoot with a certain photographer work out some form of compensation.

So I would say the good question to ask would be how much to own the rights to the prints, then you control where they are published.

If you don't believe the person you wish to work with is worth being compensated – why even shoot with them unless you are being compensated.