Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 32 of 32

Thread: Copyright issue questions

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    Finally, someone who managed to give an more accurate view than most. One small thing though, I'm still doubtful shooting people in public places is against any law.
    It is not against the law to shoot people in public place. I didn't say it is I say it a different thing. Such as if there no model release for the other party and you made money out of the photo. You might have a sticky situation. It seen you don't know about the famous picture "Lover kiss in paris" Here the link for you because you alway doubt me

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/Arts/A...462037576.html

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/a...sneau.kiss.ap/

    So you can take pictures of people in the public and make $ and have all right to the image. Provided they are not aware you are taking their pictures which what "spontaneous moment" means and you making $ out of it or the subjects are not hire to pose for the job. If they are hired or are aware then a release is in order or you might end up in court with the subject or their children or even their grand children to ask you for a cut of the profit that you have already spent
    Last edited by singscott; 18th October 2005 at 04:20 AM.

  2. #22
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    I'm not sure why you're taking this personally, in what I was trying to inspire as a healthy meaningful discussion. I'm sure that those who wish to rely on advice here hope to see some basis and references to support the advice as well, unless of course what you're saying is your own personal opinion, in which case, you are pretty much free to opine.

    I'm also not sure that the "Bornet" case supports your idea that a model release is necessary if the photographer wishes to sell the photograph for the following reasons:


    1. The 1990s case in which Bornet sued Doisneau for $18,500 and a percentage of sales of the photo was rejected by the Paris court.


    2. The Rapho photo agency, Doisneau's employer when he took the picture, owns the rights to the photo.

    3. Bornet never received royalties from the reproduction and can only sell her photograph for private use.



    Like yourself, the above was gathered from a cursory internet search and can be subject to dispute - if you find contrary information do let us know.


    Also, perhaps you can elaborate on how this case supports your idea.


    Anyway, even if the case supports your idea that a model release is necessary, the case, as always, may not be applicable under Singapore law. Just like the US cases are not very helpful because in the US, they have SPECIFIC legislation enacted to cover the issue of model releases. Other countries may also have general privacy legislation which MAY be stretched to include this issue. Singapore has NEITHER.


    Something worthy to note is that in Singapore, the two leading cases where plaintiffs sue over the misuse of photographs taken of them (one a famous model and the other a Member of Parliament). Both these cases did NOT allege the lack of a model release as a grounds of action. Both relied on defamation and one relied on copyright infringement (which was only possible because the photographer and ad agency assigned all copyrights to the plaintiff)


    The references for both these cases are [1998] SGHC 219 and [1995] SGHC 109 if you look these up for yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    It seen you don't know about the famous picture "Lover kiss in paris" Here the link for you because you alway doubt me

    http://www.theage.com.au/news/Arts/A...462037576.html

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/STYLE/a...sneau.kiss.ap/

    So you can take pictures of people in the public and make $ and have all right to the image. Provided they are not aware you are taking their pictures which what "spontaneous moment" means and you making $ out of it or the subjects are not hire to pose for the job. If they are hired or are aware then a release is in order or you might end up in court with the subject or their children or even their grand children to ask you for a cut of the profit that you have already spent

  3. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    Again you over read and over reacted I say you might have issues like these as in example in the case above. NOT that you will lose such a case

  4. #24
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    In that case, assuming that I misread your original statement that "As long the general public is there then you have all right to photograph any thing but people in public places that a different thing all together again", and the following quote, it seems that you are now limiting all your original statements to just "possible issues" rather than firm statements that model releases are required.

    So you can take pictures of people in the public and make $ and have all right to the image. Provided they are not aware you are taking their pictures which what "spontaneous moment" means and you making $ out of it or the subjects are not hire to pose for the job. If they are hired or are aware then a release is in order or you might end up in court with the subject or their children or even their grand children to ask you for a cut of the profit that you have already spent
    I also have not received any elaboration on why you think the case of Bornet supports your view.

    In such an event, I therefore reiterate my initial statement that I'm still doubtful shooting people in public places requires any model release.

    Anyway, not sure why you prefer pointed barbs of a personal nature rather than objective discussion though.

    All of that said, given your last comment that I might have "overread and overreacted" and that you have limited your initial comments to saying that there "might have issues like these" , I guess we can conclude our discussion on this note that the case of whether model releases are required is still unclear. There are no laws applicable in Singapore prescribing either way and in the absence of laws, its doubtful any rights of action can be inferred.

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    Again you over read and over reacted I say you might have issues like these as in example in the case above. NOT that you will lose such a case

  5. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    www.whltelightphotographer.com
    Posts
    1,834

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123

    1. The 1990s case in which Bornet sued Doisneau for $18,500 and a percentage of sales of the photo was rejected by the Paris court.

    2. The Rapho photo agency, Doisneau's employer when he took the picture, owns the rights to the photo.

    3. Bornet never received royalties from the reproduction and can only sell her photograph for private use

    Something worthy to note is that in Singapore, the two leading cases where plaintiffs sue over the misuse of photographs taken of them (one a famous model and the other a Member of Parliament). Both these cases did NOT allege the lack of a model release as a grounds of action. Both relied on defamation and one relied on copyright infringement (which was only possible because the photographer and ad agency assigned all copyrights to the plaintiff)

    The references for both these cases are [1998] SGHC 219 and [1995] SGHC 109 if you look these up for yourself.
    You should know by bring so many example. That these things happen. So again I have to explain in details to you know you from last few dicussion healty or not. That these things do happen when you take picture of people in public. But it is not the case if you take a picture of a landmark or a building the public have access to. All along I been saying that. It might happen when there people are the subject. Where the chance you been sue when you take a photo of a public access bulding unless they think you are a terrorist is almost zero.

    Do you reallllllyyy know singapore copyright. Even you are commission to take a photo in Singapore you don't own all right to it unless it is stated in the contact or your quote. Have you read the issue regarding the lastest Health Promotion Broad Photo Contest. Our law is different then US but is benefiting other rather then the photographer. We are trying to fight to change it at PPAS. So please don't bring cases trying to prove you are right because you are right but I am wrong to say these cases happen. Again you overreact and over read my information. Frankly today I in a good mood that why I am writing so much most of the time I wouldn't be brother with you.
    Last edited by singscott; 18th October 2005 at 01:45 PM.

  6. #26

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    curious....r u all lawyers?
    头可断,血可流,倩女不可不追求 carpe diem,when in doubt, hoot first,apologise later:p GALLERY

  7. #27
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    I agree with all your statements only except in relation to your exception where people are the subject. I think you don't have to prove to me that you know other things - especially since I'm only talking about one topic.

    I think you are the one overreacting as I've not even mentioned anything about buildings and commissioned works but you brought them up, which i have no idea why. In fact you would notice that I said that you were correct in relation to buildings.

    Not sure why you are bringing up so many tangential issues and again, pointed personal barbs abound your replies.

    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    You should know by bring so many example. That these things happen. So again I have to explain in details to you know you from last few dicussion healty or not. That these things do happen when you take picture of people in public. But it is not the case if you take a picture of a landmark or a building the public have access to. All along I been saying that. It might happen when there people are the subject. Where the chance you been sue when you take a photo of a public access bulding unless they think you are a terrorist is almost zero.

    Do you reallllllyyy know singapore copyright. Even you are commission to take a photo in Singapore you don't own all right to it unless it is stated in the contact or your quote. Have you read the issue regarding the lastest Health Promotion Broad Photo Contest. Our law is different then US but is benefiting other rather then the photographer. We are trying to fight to change it at PPAS. So please don't bring cases trying to prove you are right because you are right but I am wrong to say these cases happen. Again you overreact and over read my information. Frankly today I in a good mood that why I am writing so much most of the time I wouldn't be brother with you.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Sion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    新天地
    Posts
    4,768

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    Quote Originally Posted by eow
    curious....r u all lawyers?
    I am no lawyer lah. But two of them are in my family. You know when you put two lawyers together.....

    I could get free legal advice on copyrights law but I won't. Personally I listen to my photo agencies who offer me the best practice in photo sales. I leave law to lawyers.

    By the way the 2 lawyers in my family are not my mother-in-law and father-in-law.

  9. #29

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    Since you had mentioned your client, why not ask him and let us know his opinion?[/quote]
    Its real simple - if my client is a stock photo agency and they insists on a property release as a must for acceptence then if you want to make the "sale" you do the paper work. It is pointless "discussing" that they are wrong ect. If I shooting this on commission for some one - then my b&w will state that it's client responsibility to get releases for their pictures - no way I am going put my tender bxxxx sxxe on the line for the client - they never pay enough for that. Most professionals have an adversion to people asking for "free" advice - some make it clear point that they will not do this. I see no point irritating my client to ask for a free professional opinion in a situation where the answer is as they say in legal circles to be moot.

  10. #30

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    Bro - I think we all know your from PPAS. What is the opinion of the legal advisers on the matter of property rights and the need for property release in picture meant for commercial usage. As you also know if the owner of the rights chooses not to enforce their rights or not. A trend is starting that property owners are aware that they have those rights and will act to protect them either by compensation or by restricting the access to photography. Most people have some confusion over PR and CR.Our twin durians when it was first opened had major restricts on photography - basically no unauthorised clicking with professioal looking equipment. They enforced their rights no they seem to have relaxed to allow people to take pictures freely.It is always nice not be the one sweating when the legal letter comes, knowing that other people do not have a problem or appear not to have a problem is of little comfort. Remeber most contracts put the legal libility on the photog not the client...so client can in theory merry use the pictures and redirect the fire to the poor photog.
    Quote Originally Posted by singscott
    Well the thread starter did ask about copyright. Do you know how many people take pictures of the city hall building, parliament house new and old and even the immigration building on the outside not inside is possible and have them printed in traveling books or mags or maps like lonely planet. Just go borders see travel guides. Not only ours but other countries public buildings as well. Oh by the way the white house is the most photographed building in the world. This building have armed guards and anti aircraft missiles guarding it. See how many White House pictures there are out there. As long it is a public have access to the building meaning the outside not inside, property right don't come in play. Only case where outside is an issue is the land you are stand on is not open to public and ptely own. High security places like army bases, prisons and highly sensitive places didin't expose themselves they have perimeters for a good reason. Here a few example ask them where did they get the property rights :

    http://www.photovault.com/link/citie...GVolume01.html

    http://www.worldisround.com/articles/100886/index.html

    http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldgui...ngapore/images

    http://www.thingsasian.com/goto_arti...ssay.1772.html

    There thousands of them. Oh by the way I am not a lawyer, I am just member of the Professional Photographer Assiocation Singapore.

  11. #31
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    If the photographer is a man of straw, the clients will bear the brunt of the copyright infringement suit regardless of the indemnity (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to by "putting legal liability on the photog) - if assuming there is infringement in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by ellery
    Remeber most contracts put the legal libility on the photog not the client...so client can in theory merry use the pictures and redirect the fire to the poor photog.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Copyright issue questions

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    If the photographer is a man of straw, the clients will bear the brunt of the copyright infringement suit regardless of the indemnity (which is what I'm assuming you're referring to by &quotutting legal liability on the photog) - if assuming there is infringement in the first place.
    Plse elaborate. this sounds interesting .... the straw man defence or it is not joy humping a dead body.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •