Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Photograher's copyright vs client preferences

  1. #41

    Default Re: Photograher's copyright vs client preferences

    Quote Originally Posted by felix hug View Post
    No offence Vince,

    lets call it "case and statute law" knowledge then.

    I'm glad that you retreat to Singapore now, as you were wrong about most of your overseas assumptions. There is still the "Esplanade" case to solve though.

    You assuming again when you are saying that its doubtful that a case for a Model Release abuse would go anywhere.

    So lets not assume, lets ask if there is anybody outthere reading this forum who knows a case that happen here in Singapore with either outcome, a negative or positive one?

    Maybe somebody in the Model, or Commercial industry?

    I'm sure that would prove of interest to all of us and help to know where we are standing in Singapore with this.

    Regards

    felix
    hi felix
    my work is based in the US and Singapore, and I've been reading through the threads and I don't see how Vince's input has been incorrect in any way

    Corbis suing people for using their photographers' work is copyright infringement, a totally different issue from model releases (which are related to other laws including defamation)

    "Now, I'm not sure I can follow you correctly. On one end we hear here that most likely is no MR or PR needed, but then you admit Big Libraries need the releases to cover themselves against legal cases??"

    All advertising agencies, and stock photo libraries will ask for model releases.
    Model releases allow companies to use and associate their photos with their products in whatever way they wish as allowed in the model release without worrying about whether they are going to be sued by the model. (Sue for what, I'm not sure, but the closest thing I can think of is for defamation http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_versi...st&method=part)

    Whether it is NECESSARY in view of the laws in Singapore is another matter.

    I am not so familiar with property releases and from anecdote the only time that seems to be a necessity is when the building is trademarked.
    Otherwise you would see many big fashion houses being sued for shooting against the backdrop of famous landmarks.



    "Thanks for the back up on the building story, Matt. I have no idea why the Esplanade is covered by a similar "landmark act". Would they get money paid in case of abusing it... no idea, don't think there has been a case yet. I just know for sure they asked us to pay for it. Unlikely they would take Mr. Tan to court, but if its Microsoft using the building for their advertising.. they might well do so."


    If you paid to shoot on the premises of the Esplanade then that is understandable,What you paid for may not have been for a Property Release, but rather a Location Fee.
    But if they were demanding you pay them even if you were not shooting on their premises, I would suggest you pay a lawyer for their advice on this issue in the future and let us know so I can save a few thousand dollars should I wish to shoot the Esplanade in the background in the future.

    to back vince up abit, model releases ARE required for most commercial jobs as STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, but are not necessarily LEGALLY required. This is interesting to me too and I would like to hear more about if there's a law that actually states a requirement for a model release..
    Last edited by mattlock; 21st November 2008 at 05:55 PM.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Photograher's copyright vs client preferences

    Vince, Matt .. I eat my words. looking further into the issue I found the site of the "Intellectual Property Office of Singapore" On their www, is the answer a bit more "fleshed" out.

    Legislation Governing Copyright

    The Copyright Act (Cap. 63) and its subsidiary legislation form the legislation governing copyright law in Singapore.

    The latest legislation updates can be viewed here.

    Copies of the legislation are available at www.snpcorp.com/webshop or

    SNP Corporation Ltd at
    1 Kim Seng Promenade, #18-01, Great World City East Tower,
    Singapore 237994 Tel: (65) 6826 9691.



    Ownership

    Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:

    Employment: If the work is created by an employee pursuant to the terms of his employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.

    Special situation for newspaper/magazine/periodical employees: Where an employee of a newspaper, magazine or periodical creates a literary, dramatic or artistic work pursuant to the terms of his employment and for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or periodical, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright in respect of publication in or reproduction for the purpose of publication in any newspaper, magazine or periodical. The employee owns the remaining rights that make up the copyright bundle of exclusive rights.

    Commissioning: If a portrait/photograph/engraving is commissioned by another party, the commissioner owns the copyright in the work. If the portrait/photograph/engraving is required for a particular purpose, this purpose must be communicated to the commissioned party. While the commissioner is the copyright owner, the commissioned party has the right to stop others from doing any act comprised in the copyright, unless such act is done for the particular purpose for which the portrait/photograph/engraving is created.

    So, yes I misread the article 30 (5), on the good side I know now for sure how copyright works here in Singapore.

    Lets move on to Model release and Property Release. Would be great to find a similar conclusive answer.



    Felix
    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock View Post
    hi felix
    my work is based in the US and Singapore, and I've been reading through the threads and I don't see how Vince's input has been incorrect in any way

    Corbis suing people for using their photographers' work is copyright infringement, a totally different issue from model releases (which are related to other laws including defamation)

    "Now, I'm not sure I can follow you correctly. On one end we hear here that most likely is no MR or PR needed, but then you admit Big Libraries need the releases to cover themselves against legal cases??"

    All advertising agencies, and stock photo libraries will ask for model releases.
    Model releases allow companies to use and associate their photos with their products in whatever way they wish as allowed in the model release without worrying about whether they are going to be sued by the model. (Sue for what, I'm not sure, but the closest thing I can think of is for defamation http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_versi...st&method=part)

    Whether it is NECESSARY in view of the laws in Singapore is another matter.

    I am not so familiar with property releases and from anecdote the only time that seems to be a necessity is when the building is trademarked.
    Otherwise you would see many big fashion houses being sued for shooting against the backdrop of famous landmarks.



    "Thanks for the back up on the building story, Matt. I have no idea why the Esplanade is covered by a similar "landmark act". Would they get money paid in case of abusing it... no idea, don't think there has been a case yet. I just know for sure they asked us to pay for it. Unlikely they would take Mr. Tan to court, but if its Microsoft using the building for their advertising.. they might well do so."


    If you paid to shoot on the premises of the Esplanade then that is understandable,What you paid for may not have been for a Property Release, but rather a Location Fee.
    But if they were demanding you pay them even if you were not shooting on their premises, I would suggest you pay a lawyer for their advice on this issue in the future and let us know so I can save a few thousand dollars should I wish to shoot the Esplanade in the background in the future.

    to back vince up abit, model releases ARE required for most commercial jobs as STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, but are not necessarily LEGALLY required. This is interesting to me too and I would like to hear more about if there's a law that actually states a requirement for a model release..

  3. #43

    Default Re: Photograher's copyright vs client preferences

    This is what I found so far, but its US and in this case from Photo Shelter:

    Model Release
    When you sell an image commercially that has identifiable people in it, you're required to have a signed model release granting you permission to sell the image. The concept of the model release falls under two main intellectual property rights:
    The Right of Privacy
    The Right of Publicity
    In a nutshell, no one should be able to profit from your image without your consent. Consult a lawyer to obtain a model release that covers your rights and protects you from lawsuit. If you don't have a release, then you should limit your sales to editorial usage.

    So, if i understood your guys correctly its different here?

    Felix




    QUOTE=mattlock;4539315]hi felix
    my work is based in the US and Singapore, and I've been reading through the threads and I don't see how Vince's input has been incorrect in any way

    Corbis suing people for using their photographers' work is copyright infringement, a totally different issue from model releases (which are related to other laws including defamation)

    "Now, I'm not sure I can follow you correctly. On one end we hear here that most likely is no MR or PR needed, but then you admit Big Libraries need the releases to cover themselves against legal cases??"

    All advertising agencies, and stock photo libraries will ask for model releases.
    Model releases allow companies to use and associate their photos with their products in whatever way they wish as allowed in the model release without worrying about whether they are going to be sued by the model. (Sue for what, I'm not sure, but the closest thing I can think of is for defamation http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_versi...st&method=part)

    Whether it is NECESSARY in view of the laws in Singapore is another matter.

    I am not so familiar with property releases and from anecdote the only time that seems to be a necessity is when the building is trademarked.
    Otherwise you would see many big fashion houses being sued for shooting against the backdrop of famous landmarks.



    "Thanks for the back up on the building story, Matt. I have no idea why the Esplanade is covered by a similar "landmark act". Would they get money paid in case of abusing it... no idea, don't think there has been a case yet. I just know for sure they asked us to pay for it. Unlikely they would take Mr. Tan to court, but if its Microsoft using the building for their advertising.. they might well do so."


    If you paid to shoot on the premises of the Esplanade then that is understandable,What you paid for may not have been for a Property Release, but rather a Location Fee.
    But if they were demanding you pay them even if you were not shooting on their premises, I would suggest you pay a lawyer for their advice on this issue in the future and let us know so I can save a few thousand dollars should I wish to shoot the Esplanade in the background in the future.

    to back vince up abit, model releases ARE required for most commercial jobs as STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, but are not necessarily LEGALLY required. This is interesting to me too and I would like to hear more about if there's a law that actually states a requirement for a model release..[/QUOTE]

  4. #44

    Default Re: Photograher's copyright vs client preferences

    Ok, Property Release; This one is from the US as well and the articel is to be found on the ASMP (American Media Photographers) site.

    Property releases

    By Richard Weisgrau and Victor S. Perlman

    This article originally appeared in “A Subject of Urban Legend,” which is posted in our Legal Resources area.

    The whole subject of property releases is filled with urban legend, assumption and myth, along with a bit of actual law. As you know, using a person’s likeness for trade or advertising purposes requires a model release. That is because a person has a reputation to protect, a right of privacy and (in some states) a right of publicity. Property has none of these rights. So why should you go to the trouble to get a release?

    It’s a good question, but one that requires a complicated answer. ASMP has never seen a statute or a legal case that requires a release for property. The recommendation that you get one is based upon two legal theories.

    Below, we use a house as the property in question. Remember that the theories can apply to property other than real estate, such as pets, cars, works of art and other personal property.

    Association. The first theory is that a person’s identity might be connected to the property. Take a picture of a house and use it in an article about drug users, and the owner might get angry enough to sue. Why? because everyone on the block knows whose house it is, and, since the house is not actually connected with drugs, the image was used out of context and paints the owner in a bad light. If the owner sees the use of the image as defamation of character, a lawsuit might be the response.

    Conversion. The second theory is that there is an offense called conversion, which means that you used another’s property to your own personal gain without the owner’s permission. It is a bit like copyright infringement, which covers intangible property, except it covers tangible property. If I rent out your house while you are away without your permission, I have converted it to my personal gain. That is conversion. The question is this: Is it conversion if I rent out a picture of your house for an advertisement without your permission? The picture of your house is not your tangible property. Is the photo of the house the equivalent of the house (at least for these purposes)?

    We know of no case that has ever settled those kinds of questions. ASMP advises that property releases be acquired whenever possible because we don’t want to see you be the test case.

    I guess Singapore is the state similar, or even more in favour of the photographer?

    Felix

    QUOTE=felix hug;4539357]This is what I found so far, but its US and in this case from Photo Shelter:

    Model Release
    When you sell an image commercially that has identifiable people in it, you're required to have a signed model release granting you permission to sell the image. The concept of the model release falls under two main intellectual property rights:
    The Right of Privacy
    The Right of Publicity
    In a nutshell, no one should be able to profit from your image without your consent. Consult a lawyer to obtain a model release that covers your rights and protects you from lawsuit. If you don't have a release, then you should limit your sales to editorial usage.

    So, if i understood your guys correctly its different here?

    Felix




    QUOTE=mattlock;4539315]hi felix
    my work is based in the US and Singapore, and I've been reading through the threads and I don't see how Vince's input has been incorrect in any way

    Corbis suing people for using their photographers' work is copyright infringement, a totally different issue from model releases (which are related to other laws including defamation)

    "Now, I'm not sure I can follow you correctly. On one end we hear here that most likely is no MR or PR needed, but then you admit Big Libraries need the releases to cover themselves against legal cases??"

    All advertising agencies, and stock photo libraries will ask for model releases.
    Model releases allow companies to use and associate their photos with their products in whatever way they wish as allowed in the model release without worrying about whether they are going to be sued by the model. (Sue for what, I'm not sure, but the closest thing I can think of is for defamation http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_versi...st&method=part)

    Whether it is NECESSARY in view of the laws in Singapore is another matter.

    I am not so familiar with property releases and from anecdote the only time that seems to be a necessity is when the building is trademarked.
    Otherwise you would see many big fashion houses being sued for shooting against the backdrop of famous landmarks.



    "Thanks for the back up on the building story, Matt. I have no idea why the Esplanade is covered by a similar "landmark act". Would they get money paid in case of abusing it... no idea, don't think there has been a case yet. I just know for sure they asked us to pay for it. Unlikely they would take Mr. Tan to court, but if its Microsoft using the building for their advertising.. they might well do so."


    If you paid to shoot on the premises of the Esplanade then that is understandable,What you paid for may not have been for a Property Release, but rather a Location Fee.
    But if they were demanding you pay them even if you were not shooting on their premises, I would suggest you pay a lawyer for their advice on this issue in the future and let us know so I can save a few thousand dollars should I wish to shoot the Esplanade in the background in the future.

    to back vince up abit, model releases ARE required for most commercial jobs as STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, but are not necessarily LEGALLY required. This is interesting to me too and I would like to hear more about if there's a law that actually states a requirement for a model release..[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

  5. #45

    Default Re: Photograher's copyright vs client preferences

    ASMP on Model Release:

    The Right of Privacy

    Although the laws of the 50 states vary, all states recognize that individuals have a right to be let alone in their daily lives and that harm (in the form of embarrassment, scorn or loss of status) can result if that right is violated.

    However, the right of privacy is not absolute. In particular, the courts have long held that news reporting and social, political and economic commentary — the things the First Amendment was designed to protect — are more valuable to society than an individual’s right to be let alone. Therefore, images that are part of the public colloquy about events have usually been exempt from privacy lawsuits. In contrast, the courts have generally held that making money is distinctly less valuable to society than the right to be let alone.

    Thus, privacy issues typically arise when an image is used for purposes of trade or advertising. That is, it’s not the picture, but how it is used that determines the need for a release. For instance, an image that is printed in a newspaper, shown in an exhibition or reproduced in a book might well be immune from a privacy suit. But the commercial sale of coffee mugs or t-shirts with the same image would probably not enjoy such protection. An advertisement almost certainly would not be immune.

    Therefore, if you are on an advertising assignment, you will need to collect releases from every person in your shots. News assignments are a little trickier. You are always better off if you have permission to photograph your subjects and can prove it. But it’s not always possible to get permission and, in the U.S., you can report the news without it. Lacking a release, however, you are limited in how you can license the image later on.

    These days, even editorial clients are requiring releases — and releases using their specific forms — with more and more frequency, so you need to check the terms of your agreements with your clients and stock houses to see what is required.

    The Right of Publicity

    In an increasing number of states (California in particular), a famous individual has an additional “right of publicity”: the right to control how his fame can be exploited for commercial purposes. Unlike rights of privacy, which die with the persons to whom they belong, rights of publicity survive their owners and can be passed along for generations. Rights of publicity also tend to be more specific in their prohibitions than rights of privacy.

    Attorney Andrew Berger offers a more in-depth explanation of this right, with examples, on the Editorial Photographers web site.

    For photographers and their clients, the right of publicity can become a problem when people become celebrities after you have taken their picture. It can especially be a problem with crowd scenes.

    Defamation

    A defamation lawsuit alleges that a person has been portrayed falsely or maliciously in such a way as to damage his reputation. (The term “defamation” includes both slander, which is spoken, and libel, which is published in some tangible medium.) The falsity may be direct, such as by compositing several images to depict a scene that did not happen, or indirect, such as advertising a rehabilitation clinic with a picture of someone who has never been a patient there. As always, there is a distinction between commercial use and editorial use, with commercial uses being held to stricter standards of truthfulness.

    Regards

    Felix

    Quote Originally Posted by felix hug View Post
    Vince, Matt .. I eat my words. looking further into the issue I found the site of the "Intellectual Property Office of Singapore" On their www, is the answer a bit more "fleshed" out.

    Legislation Governing Copyright

    The Copyright Act (Cap. 63) and its subsidiary legislation form the legislation governing copyright law in Singapore.

    The latest legislation updates can be viewed here.

    Copies of the legislation are available at www.snpcorp.com/webshop or

    SNP Corporation Ltd at
    1 Kim Seng Promenade, #18-01, Great World City East Tower,
    Singapore 237994 Tel: (65) 6826 9691.



    Ownership

    Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:

    Employment: If the work is created by an employee pursuant to the terms of his employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.

    Special situation for newspaper/magazine/periodical employees: Where an employee of a newspaper, magazine or periodical creates a literary, dramatic or artistic work pursuant to the terms of his employment and for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or periodical, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright in respect of publication in or reproduction for the purpose of publication in any newspaper, magazine or periodical. The employee owns the remaining rights that make up the copyright bundle of exclusive rights.

    Commissioning: If a portrait/photograph/engraving is commissioned by another party, the commissioner owns the copyright in the work. If the portrait/photograph/engraving is required for a particular purpose, this purpose must be communicated to the commissioned party. While the commissioner is the copyright owner, the commissioned party has the right to stop others from doing any act comprised in the copyright, unless such act is done for the particular purpose for which the portrait/photograph/engraving is created.

    So, yes I misread the article 30 (5), on the good side I know now for sure how copyright works here in Singapore.

    Lets move on to Model release and Property Release. Would be great to find a similar conclusive answer.



    Felix

  6. #46

    Default Re: Photograher's copyright vs client preferences

    Wow, I certainly did not expect a simple question of mine to erupt into such an interesting discussion. Anyway, think I should close the thread as my query has been answered long ago. Please do open up another thread more relevant to the topic at hand, for further discussion

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •