Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Photo Copyrights

  1. #41

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    Incorrect. ... Congratulations you have just failed the most basic piece of knowledge a professional photographer is required to have. Go and read my post earlier and absorb what it says. Also read the posts by catchlights on the subject.
    Thanks for the enlightenment, but I got the info from books. Maybe it's referring to the law in another country. Is there any law of Singapore stating that all assignments are by default work-for-hire?

    As for model releases, I read that the photographer is not required to obtain them in order to sell their photos. It's the responsibility of the publisher/licensee to ensure whether the use of the photo requires it or not. Obtaining a release only makes the photo more saleable, unless it's for self-publishing. Again, this may not apply to Singapore's case.
    Last edited by gnohz; 25th December 2009 at 03:11 PM.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by Agetan View Post
    Generally, yes, but if the case is in similar context. However, this does not give u anything to do with photography copyright.

    To be honest, legal aspect is very complex and it is for everyone best interest to seek professional advise rather than based on what we have wrote here. All we are doing here is sharing what we know and that does not form an advice nor give u an accurate point in the long run.

    Do it if you care, if you don't then its up to you.

    Hart
    Indeed. The complexity of the matter shows when one is trying to get it done right.

    May I also ask roughly, just very roughly, how much you guys spent on a consult and drafting of contract by a lawyer? Just want to have a general idea if I am looking at a 3 figure bill or 4 figure. High 4 or low 4...
    WTB Manfrotto RC4 L Bracket

  3. #43

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by gnohz View Post
    Thanks for the enlightenment, but I got the info from books. Maybe it's referring to the law in another country. Is there any law of Singapore stating that all assignments are by default work-for-hire?

    As for model releases, I read that the photographer is not required to obtain them in order to sell their photos. It's the responsibility of the publisher/licensee to ensure whether the use of the photo requires it or not. Obtaining a release only makes the photo more saleable, unless it's for self-publishing. Again, this may not apply to Singapore's case.
    My guess is that if you are shooting for a company; like if you are a in-house photographer for an events company, press or magazine, you are an employee on a payroll (eg got CPF deductions) so all images you created professionally while under their employment, you don't own copyright, the company does.

    If you are a freelancer, or you own a photography company (even if its just you in the company - sole proprietorship), you are 'work for hire', a contractor or sub contractor, but as discussed earlier in the thread, the commissioning party (the client) owns the copyright, unless otherwise stipulated in the sales/hiring contract.

    Then on the matters of contracts, there are also concerns on the legal capacity of the contracting parties (assuming for weddings, do you contract with the bride or her mother who is actually the one paying the bill? which one is valid?), common practices, and if the is contract deemed fair or did it stray excessively away from the norm to benefit one party.
    WTB Manfrotto RC4 L Bracket

  4. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by gnohz View Post
    Thanks for the enlightenment, but I got the info from books. Maybe it's referring to the law in another country. Is there any law of Singapore stating that all assignments are by default work-for-hire?

    As for model releases, I read that the photographer is not required to obtain them in order to sell their photos. It's the responsibility of the publisher/licensee to ensure whether the use of the photo requires it or not. Obtaining a release only makes the photo more saleable, unless it's for self-publishing. Again, this may not apply to Singapore's case.
    As I stated earlier in this thread (or the other recent one on copyright), Model Releases are only a fully legal implemnt in the USA, no other country I know of actually requires them by law. However, with that said it is far better to have a generic release (with terms and conditions on the reverse, including copyright reassignment to you, along with a clause allowing you to use the shot for any private or commercial purpose you deem ok. The reason for having a release is that it covers your ar$e if a person in a shot tries to stop you using an image without payment etc as most courts will accept a release as a valid contract with terms and conditions. The bad news is that unless you specify which court will have jurisdiction then the legality of the contract may be open to questionning.


    Quote Originally Posted by sjackal View Post
    Indeed. The complexity of the matter shows when one is trying to get it done right.

    May I also ask roughly, just very roughly, how much you guys spent on a consult and drafting of contract by a lawyer? Just want to have a general idea if I am looking at a 3 figure bill or 4 figure. High 4 or low 4...
    My standard terms and conditions are pretty much iron clad internationally and cost me a low 5 figure sum.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  5. #45

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    As I stated earlier in this thread (or the other recent one on copyright), Model Releases are only a fully legal implemnt in the USA, no other country I know of actually requires them by law. However, with that said it is far better to have a generic release (with terms and conditions on the reverse, including copyright reassignment to you, along with a clause allowing you to use the shot for any private or commercial purpose you deem ok. The reason for having a release is that it covers your ar$e if a person in a shot tries to stop you using an image without payment etc as most courts will accept a release as a valid contract with terms and conditions. The bad news is that unless you specify which court will have jurisdiction then the legality of the contract may be open to questionning.




    My standard terms and conditions are pretty much iron clad internationally and cost me a low 5 figure sum.
    Thanx for the reveal. Much appreciated.
    WTB Manfrotto RC4 L Bracket

  6. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by sjackal View Post
    Thanx for the reveal. Much appreciated.
    You're welcome, it shouldn't cost you that much for a SG only contract .. I'll start a thread a bit later on what should be in a standard photographers contract in the terms and conditions.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  7. #47

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian View Post
    You're welcome, it shouldn't cost you that much for a SG only contract .. I'll start a thread a bit later on what should be in a standard photographers contract in the terms and conditions.
    Wow, thanx! That would be very helpful to get start off.

    I got a few template from online searches, but I guess its all worded based on US laws.
    WTB Manfrotto RC4 L Bracket

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Perth Australia
    Posts
    2,548

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Quote Originally Posted by sjackal View Post
    Wow, thanx! That would be very helpful to get start off.

    I got a few template from online searches, but I guess its all worded based on US laws.
    Most of the ones I've seen are pretty light weight. I won't be wording it, but rather covering hte important parts to have covered in terms of sections.
    The Ang Moh from Hell
    Professional Photography - many are called, few are chosen!

  9. #49

    Default Re: Photo Copyrights

    Paiseh paiseh...I think I was really drunk or something can't think properly

    Just to point out my typo mistake after re-reading the previous posts.
    Like what Ian and the rest have mentioned, by default, the photographer does NOT own the copyright to the photographs he (under work for hire), unless there's an agreement with the client saying that the assignment is work for hire but all the rights remain with him.

    No wonder I found it a bit wierd and couldn't keep up...shouldn't drink while writing

    Cheers!

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
  •