Photographer's or Model's rights?

[redstone]

http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thre...read_id=202543

Quote: Originally posted by bangzi: I bring up http://sgcafe.com/showpost.php?p=1354787&postcount=321 photographer takes photo of someone and posts on web. Model in photo asks him to take it down , he is rude and says it is very lucky he is willing to take it down because model has no rights to photo please explain if true then it is dangerous to walk down street and let photo be taken of you

Think this would be a matter concerning most of us.

[kcuf2]

so the case is now: u are standing in public, and got a photographer take pic of u?

points to take note:
a) Since this is in a public place, anyone standing in the photohgrapher's position can whip out a camera and take a pic of that person i.e. its a public property. In this case the public property = the pic of u. Assuming that the photo is not indecent eg. zao geng photos, the photographer can lawfully keep the photo.

b) As a photographer, in a public place taking photos of anything, the right of the photo belongs to the photographer. This is so because the photographer is the creator of the masterpiece.

c) If the place is not public place, and u went to shoot the person's photo, this case it will be the photographer's fault. This is because, this can be considered (i)trespassing and (ii)watever is inside the private place belongs to the owner, including the photographs inside.

thus wat the person said above is right, u take pics of the person in public place, the ownership of the photograph is that of the photographer. Feel free to go out and snap the babes on the streets (thats assuming u are fit enough to fend off their muscular bf)

[wildstallion]

Originally Posted by redstone http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thre...read_id=202543 Think this would be a matter concerning most of us.

Its the photographers photo, he has a right to use it, but no right to sell commercially unless the model signs a release form.

This is my understanding of it anyway.

Originally Posted by kcuf2 so the case is now: u are standing in public, and got a photographer take pic of u? points to take note: a) Since this is in a public place, anyone standing in the photohgrapher's position can whip out a camera and take a pic of that person i.e. its a public property. In this case the public property = the pic of u. Assuming that the photo is not indecent eg. zao geng photos, the photographer can lawfully keep the photo. b) As a photographer, in a public place taking photos of anything, the right of the photo belongs to the photographer. This is so because the photographer is the creator of the masterpiece. c) If the place is not public place, and u went to shoot the person's photo, this case it will be the photographer's fault. This is because, this can be considered (i)trespassing and (ii)watever is inside the private place belongs to the owner, including the photographs inside. thus wat the person said above is right, u take pics of the person in public place, the ownership of the photograph is that of the photographer. Feel free to go out and snap the babes on the streets (thats assuming u are fit enough to fend off their muscular bf)

Agree, this is what I believe the case to be aswell.

[kcuf2]

Originally Posted by wildstallion Its the photographers photo, he has a right to use it, but no right to sell commercially unless the model signs a release form.

Regarding this part, this is where i m not sure already.. theoretically if u have the right to the photo, u can rightfully sell it away already rite?

eg. those ppl that camp near the place where the stars stay so tat when the stars come out, they can snap the pics and sell the pics to the newspapers for quick bucks? in this case they didnt have the model's consent at all..

[photografixed]

Originally Posted by kcuf2 Regarding this part, this is where i m not sure already.. theoretically if u have the right to the photo, u can rightfully sell it away already rite? eg. those ppl that camp near the place where the stars stay so tat when the stars come out, they can snap the pics and sell the pics to the newspapers for quick bucks? in this case they didnt have the model's consent at all..

pictures taken in public places........if it's for editorial publications(eg. newspaper) it's ok but not for commercial(eg. advertisement).

my 2 cents worth. pls correct me if i'm wrong.

[AReality]

Looking at the whole scenerio, she's asking for it.

Wear a costume to cosplay, and dun want photos of her to be taken.

It's like wearing a short skirt and walk down Orchard Rd, and don't want anyone to look at your legs. Or tight fit t-shirt, and don't want anyone to ogle at your muscles.


.

[redstone]

I have a question. Pardon me.

I've done TFCD for a model.
When I use it say, my online gallery, must I tell her? Or must she give me permission?

TIA.

[kenzi]

Perhaps we should model releases done via sms...that way we get an agreement and get the model's number too....**kidding**

[benedium]

If the model uses a photo of herself taken by a photographer to promote her next paid model shoot, does that constitute using the photo for commercial purpose/advertising?

[drumma]

Originally Posted by benedium If the model uses a photo of herself taken by a photographer to promote her next paid model shoot, does that constitute using the photo for commercial purpose/advertising?

wah. i would like to see some light shed on this one.
but essentially i think she doesn't make money out of the photo directly.

[wildstallion]

Originally Posted by kcuf2 Regarding this part, this is where i m not sure already.. theoretically if u have the right to the photo, u can rightfully sell it away already rite? eg. those ppl that camp near the place where the stars stay so tat when the stars come out, they can snap the pics and sell the pics to the newspapers for quick bucks? in this case they didnt have the model's consent at all..

Er, you have the right to sell it if a face is not shown or if it counts as 'editorial' e.g. David Beckham scoring a goal, outdoor concerts (where photography is permitted)

Otherwise they have to sign a release for a commercial sale to be made.

Originally Posted by redstone I have a question. Pardon me. I've done TFCD for a model. When I use it say, my online gallery, must I tell her? Or must she give me permission? TIA.

Nope, its up to you, just dont sell it without her signing a model release form.

Originally Posted by photografixed pictures taken in public places........if it's for editorial publications(eg. newspaper) it's ok but not for commercial(eg. advertisement). my 2 cents worth. pls correct me if i'm wrong.

Your right...

Originally Posted by benedium If the model uses a photo of herself taken by a photographer to promote her next paid model shoot, does that constitute using the photo for commercial purpose/advertising?

Yes, the photographer has to agree to this sort of usage. Unless the pic was taken under TFCD circumstances i believe

Originally Posted by drumma wah. i would like to see some light shed on this one. but essentially i think she doesn't make money out of the photo directly.

And she would.....

[Cikgu101]

From what I see , Photography and Cosplay FUN could be marred by such incidents.

IMHO, we should enjoy both without any iritating politics and bigots. Like we should enjoy Photography without BLOODY BRAND POLITICS ... SAAVY

[sk.images]

Originally Posted by drumma wah. i would like to see some light shed on this one. but essentially i think she doesn't make money out of the photo directly.

yes and no.

the model is in fact using the image to generate income, therefore it is considerd commercial use, BUT most photographers, that give/sell images to a model do so with the understanding that the images will NOT be used for commercial pourposes EXCEPT in the case of self promotion. That is, a model can use an image (photorapher allowing) for a comp card, but the models agency cannot use the image to promote the agency (without agreement with the copyright holder - the photographer).

This is actually a point that really iritates me. I have found that often, for shoots where the model is being paid for his/her time by the organiser that they still expect to receive images (usually in the form of a CD) at the end of the shoot. I say, forget it - if this is a TFCD then I want my money back. I feel that this is more the organisers fault then the models. It maybe that the model has offered lower rates to the organiser for both money and images - this however is rarely told to the photographers until after the shoot.

I for one will not provide free images to a model/organiser where I have paid for the shoot unless the agreement is made prior to the shoot. This has nothing to do with being impolite it has everything to do with having a professional attitude (regardless of the fact that photography is my hobby).

[drumma]

Originally Posted by cyber_m0nkey yes and no. the model is in fact using the image to generate income, therefore it is considerd commercial use, BUT most photographers, that give/sell images to a model do so with the understanding that the images will NOT be used for commercial pourposes EXCEPT in the case of self promotion. That is, a model can use an image (photorapher allowing) for a comp card, but the models agency cannot use the image to promote the agency (without agreement with the copyright holder - the photographer). This is actually a point that really iritates me. I have found that often, for shoots where the model is being paid for his/her time by the organiser that they still expect to receive images (usually in the form of a CD) at the end of the shoot. I say, forget it - if this is a TFCD then I want my money back. I feel that this is more the organisers fault then the models. It maybe that the model has offered lower rates to the organiser for both money and images - this however is rarely told to the photographers until after the shoot. I for one will not provide free images to a model/organiser where I have paid for the shoot unless the agreement is made prior to the shoot. This has nothing to do with being impolite it has everything to do with having a professional attitude (regardless of the fact that photography is my hobby).

great! i agree with you and this is well said.

why would the organisers want images back and expect photogs to pay? that's outrageous.


i read a comment that says : photographers in sg are like living in 3rd world.

i got to agree to a certain extent!

[wildstallion]

Originally Posted by cyber_m0nkey yes and no. the model is in fact using the image to generate income, therefore it is considerd commercial use, BUT most photographers, that give/sell images to a model do so with the understanding that the images will NOT be used for commercial pourposes EXCEPT in the case of self promotion. That is, a model can use an image (photorapher allowing) for a comp card, but the models agency cannot use the image to promote the agency (without agreement with the copyright holder - the photographer). This is actually a point that really iritates me. I have found that often, for shoots where the model is being paid for his/her time by the organiser that they still expect to receive images (usually in the form of a CD) at the end of the shoot. I say, forget it - if this is a TFCD then I want my money back. I feel that this is more the organisers fault then the models. It maybe that the model has offered lower rates to the organiser for both money and images - this however is rarely told to the photographers until after the shoot. I for one will not provide free images to a model/organiser where I have paid for the shoot unless the agreement is made prior to the shoot. This has nothing to do with being impolite it has everything to do with having a professional attitude (regardless of the fact that photography is my hobby).

Yup, totally agree with you. Very well put.

[redstone]

Originally Posted by cyber_m0nkey yes and no. the model is in fact using the image to generate income, therefore it is considerd commercial use, BUT most photographers, that give/sell images to a model do so with the understanding that the images will NOT be used for commercial pourposes EXCEPT in the case of self promotion. That is, a model can use an image (photorapher allowing) for a comp card, but the models agency cannot use the image to promote the agency (without agreement with the copyright holder - the photographer). This is actually a point that really iritates me. I have found that often, for shoots where the model is being paid for his/her time by the organiser that they still expect to receive images (usually in the form of a CD) at the end of the shoot. I say, forget it - if this is a TFCD then I want my money back. I feel that this is more the organisers fault then the models. It maybe that the model has offered lower rates to the organiser for both money and images - this however is rarely told to the photographers until after the shoot. I for one will not provide free images to a model/organiser where I have paid for the shoot unless the agreement is made prior to the shoot. This has nothing to do with being impolite it has everything to do with having a professional attitude (regardless of the fact that photography is my hobby).

Interesting! Yeah!

[CreaXion]

Correct me if I am wrong. I thought that if somebody commissioned me to shoot, the photographers does not have the rights to sell it commercially unless with written consent. However, if I were to shoot something or people in a public place, the rights belong to me and therefore, I can sell it commercially. Please correct me if I am wrong on this aspect. it is a matter of being commissioned or not.

[Canonised]

Originally Posted by AReality Looking at the whole scenerio, she's asking for it. Wear a costume to cosplay, and dun want photos of her to be taken. It's like wearing a short skirt and walk down Orchard Rd, and don't want anyone to look at your legs. Or tight fit t-shirt, and don't want anyone to ogle at your muscles. .

This has been discussed and condemned many times. When a girl wears sexy clothes, she doesnt asked to be raped. Change your opinion ......

[CreaXion]

Originally Posted by Canonised This has been discussed and condemned many times. When a girl wears sexy clothes, she doesnt asked to be raped. Change your opinion ......

OT liao. My personal opinion coincides with Areality even though I do not ogle at the person. It does not mean that we intend to rape cause when u rape, u are infringing on the rights of a person. However, the person is just inviting trouble when she does so.

For those who are old enough and have watch the show "Accused", Jodie Foster was raped in that show and there was contention by the defendent whether she was inviting enough to be raped. Therefore the person wearing such clothes may be actually inviting trouble for herself.

Let's put it in another way. Why shd the model be wearing sexy clothes in a tech ad like Stuff simply because they are trying to attract attention so that buyers would be more attracted to the mag. I stop buying when the magazine gets more and more sleazy.

[Trigger Happy]

does anyone actually have the S'pore Police Force's view on this matter? this is a controversial matter, and everyday some of us are out there with our cameras in public. its inadvertable or in some cases deliberate, that we get someone in frame. on the one side of it, i can understand the feeling of intrusion, but behind the lens, i see differently (pardon the pun). no point guessing and debating about rights, if someone can find, and post, some official word on such practices that would be good for everyone.