Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Photographer's copyright vs client preferences

  1. #1

    Default Photographer's copyright vs client preferences

    Starting the thread to continue on from where Felix left off...

  2. #2

    Default Re: Photographer's copyright vs client preferences

    Once again, bare accusations with nothing to back up what you say....

    You have a habit of saying things but not backing them up. Please elabourate where I forgot my own posts and misuqote the law.

    Quote Originally Posted by Felix.hug
    Ok, i have seen and read enough...

    Thanks Matt for some appreciated input

    enjoy Vince its all yours, make sure you stop not forgetting your own posts and misquoting the law.

    For those of you, who need to look up 30 (5) themselves and make their own take on it:

  3. #3

    Default Re: Photographer's copyright vs client preferences

    Now felix, this is soemthing you should really be reading instead of your own view with blinkers on.

    Quote Originally Posted by mattlock
    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

    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..

  4. #4

    Default Re: Photographer's copyright vs client preferences

    Felix: As for your remaining posts quoting the US position, I have never once disputed that under the US position, model releases are required and without one, it would open you to legal exposure.

    Hence, quoting all that US text/sources/etc does not help your case at all. I'm not even sure why you did so.

    Addon: Your US quotes goes futher to even show that even in the US, the requirement of property releases are dubious at best. Much less in Singapore.
    Last edited by vince123123; 21st November 2008 at 07:04 PM.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Photographer's copyright vs client preferences

    Also note that even model releases are not so straightforward requirements in the US

    Philip Lorca diCorcia was brought to court by a Jewish man for taking a photograph of him on a street for his "Heads" series, in New York.
    No model release was sought.
    Philip Lorca diCorcia won the case, however, and the image was used in a book, in exhibitions, and in sales of prints in a gallery context.


Posting Permissions

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