Giving credit to a photographer

[mutabor]

Hi,
I just want to clarify one question with you guys.

A while back a did a shoot with a girl, she paid for the photos. After that she went to a couple agencies and was offered a contract with Phantom. So they put her photos online, but cut out Copyright by (C) XXXX from the photos. Here is the model's web page:
http://www.phantom.com.sg/female.php...item=portfolio

So my question is it legal for them not to give credit to the photographer and remove Copyright (C) from the images?

Thanks,
Yury

[zac08]

Did she pay fully as in to commision for the shoot and get all rights to the pictures?

If so, she has all rights to use the photos as she wants. But it's always courtesy to credit the photographer even if it's a paid service.

[mutabor]

Originally Posted by zac08 Did she pay fully as in to commision for the shoot and get all rights to the pictures?

Yes she paid for the shoot. But still I'm find it amusing how cheap local agencies are, they rarely send their models to a photoshoots and use photos that a model brings to them.

[Youhong]

Maybe you want to refer to the Copyright Act (Chapter 63) - PART XIII RIGHTS MANAGEMENT INFORMATION...

However, since you are commissioned to do the shoot... Refer to section 30 of the Act...

I'm still trying very hard to comprehend the whole Act...

[mutabor]

Thanks, I'll take a look on it tonight.

[Dream Merchant]

What agreement did the model sign with you?

Almost all commercial/commissioned shoots practiced here will not allow a photographer to watermark the photos simply because it will interfer with any intended layout.

[mutabor]

Originally Posted by Dream Merchant What agreement did the model sign with you?

Nothing was signed during the shoot. If it matters, when the shoot was made she wasn't working any with agency.

[TheQuestion]

Originally Posted by mutabor Nothing was signed during the shoot. If it matters, when the shoot was made she wasn't working any with agency.

nothing was signed and she paid then there's nothing you can do. Copyright act more or less states that since you're commissioned and money exchanged hands then she legally owns the rights to the images. Also note since money changed hands she is not obligated to credit you as the shooter at all. It is your job to have a released signed not the model and since you didn't have the forward thinking to prepare a release there is nothing you can do. about your comment about agencies being cheap it really depends. sometimes they need to rush to put a comcard together and will use any decent available images but actually hold off on printing the cardboard card till they have better shots for the girl. If you're that concerned about they agency using your images for their card then i suggest you contact them directly and inquire about it.

[TheQuestion]

eh ts i was at their site earlier and i noticed all her pics have your watermark in them. did you speak with them?

[mutabor]

Originally Posted by TheQuestion eh ts i was at their site earlier and i noticed all her pics have your watermark in them. did you speak with them?

I emailed to them asking to put back the watermaks or give credit for the photos on the web page. They didn't reply to the email, but apparently put back the watermarks.

[yqt]

Originally Posted by mutabor Yes she paid for the shoot. But still I'm find it amusing how cheap local agencies are, they rarely send their models to a photoshoots and use photos that a model brings to them.

For a non tested or new model, some agency will not sent them for a comcard shoot provided they have some usable images. This is what some of the bigger agencies do. They don't see the point of the model wasting time and money for the shoot when they don't even know if she'll last in the business.

On the other hand, some agencies sent each and every one of their model for photo shoots just to make some money from the shoot as well as the printing of the com-card.

For your info, phantom have full time studio photographers who are willing to do simple test shots for them FOC.

[jkaiser]

hmmm i shot for a theatre grp, paid, recently.. the photos came out in ST and ZB, both credited to the theatre grp.. i not sure how this works, but i think yea once they paid for it, photos become theirs. In fact they are oftern nice enuff to lemme use some shots for my portfolio...

then again, what would i give to have my name in the papers haha!

[vince123123]

Since you have been paid for the shoot, copyright belongs to the model and no longer yours. Hence, you have no say over what happens to the photographs.

Originally Posted by mutabor Hi, I just want to clarify one question with you guys. A while back a did a shoot with a girl, she paid for the photos. After that she went to a couple agencies and was offered a contract with Phantom. So they put her photos online, but cut out Copyright by (C) XXXX from the photos. Here is the model's web page: http://www.phantom.com.sg/female.php...item=portfolio So my question is it legal for them not to give credit to the photographer and remove Copyright (C) from the images? Thanks, Yury

[Optodexine]

Yeah actually she should have asked you to remove the watermarks.

[agape01]

I'm not sure whether does Singapore copyright laws allow for images to be copyrighted to say that the ownership of a particular set of images belongs to so and so.

[vince123123]

Yup it does.

Originally Posted by agape01 I'm not sure whether does Singapore copyright laws allow for images to be copyrighted to say that the ownership of a particular set of images belongs to so and so.

[Kimura_papaya]

Originally Posted by mutabor Yes she paid for the shoot. But still I'm find it amusing how cheap local agencies are, they rarely send their models to a photoshoot and use photos that a model brings to them.

yury, u are right, i fully agreed with you local so called talent and model agency are very cheapo, they can simply use cheap photog in their comcard and take it as prof port folio.

i had a bad encountered with local agency, they pay photographer like dog **** for port folio comcard creation.

for your case, they just use ur photo without having to notify you, that shows that they didnt even bother about the basic courtesy. this sound despicable.

[vince123123]

Are you sure you are correct in saying that the agency is despicable (to the photographer) for using a photograph provided by the model, of which full copyright is owned by her?

Originally Posted by Kimura_papaya yury, u are right, i fully agreed with you local so called talent and model agency are very cheapo, they can simply use cheap photog in their comcard and take it as prof port folio. i had a bad encountered with local agency, they pay photographer like dog **** for port folio comcard creation. for your case, they just use ur photo without having to notify you, that shows that they didnt even bother about the basic courtesy. this sound despicable.

[Kimura_papaya]

Originally Posted by vince123123 Are you sure you are correct in saying that the agency is despicable (to the photographer) for using a photograph provided by the model, of which full copyright is owned by her?

if the agency know the picture is done by mutabor, as courtesy should at least get the model to informed the photog. unless there is a written contract say that model can use picture freely or there is an agreement between model and photog (which in this case is sad, they doenst have).

i assume when model hand in picture, the agency should know who is the photographer oredi.

cheap and despicable, becos i find the model agency should have use own studio to shoot model pf instead of using other people picture.

[vince123123]

Do note that under the Copyright Act, in the absence of any agreement, the model gets copyright to the photographs by operation of law.

Hence, there is no need for any written contract or written agreement.

In light of the above, do you still think the agency is despicable? Or even a need to ask the photographer?

Originally Posted by Kimura_papaya if the agency know the picture is done by mutabor, as courtesy should at least get the model to informed the photog. unless there is a written contract say that model can use picture freely or there is an agreement between model and photog (which in this case is sad, they doenst have). i assume when model hand in picture, the agency should know who is the photographer oredi. cheap and despicable, becos i find the model agency should have use own studio to shoot model pf instead of using other people picture.