Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Thread: Photography legal rights?

  1. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Prismatic
    Don't think that you cannot be sued just because there's no specific privacy law written in the Constitution. The person can choose to sue you on grounds of a whole lot of other reasons too, ultimately it's the judge who decides where there is a valid case or not. So to avoid trouble, just take your pictures in an appropriate manner.
    yes, you are right, the person can choose to sue you on grounds of other reasons that might arises from the photo, but taking the photo per se, you can't. waste of money too. keke

  2. #42

    Default

    Normally...juz try to settle the matter privately....its the best way for both parties...instead of asking for a lump sum...ask for a percentage...under 5...coz not all people who use your photos in publications will make big bucks due to your photo...

  3. #43

    Default

    My situation is like this, hope someone can help~
    Just recently I shot a model portrait at Auto Expo (in Perth), could I send the picture to a newspaper photogrpahic competition?

  4. #44
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungCool
    My situation is like this, hope someone can help~
    Just recently I shot a model portrait at Auto Expo (in Perth), could I send the picture to a newspaper photogrpahic competition?
    I'm not sure how the copyright and model release situation are like in Australia, it really depends on what's the nature of the competition. You have to read the rules and regulations carefully, some competitions have very specific rules like no pictures of celebrities (sometime this includes models), portraits must be taken with appropriate model release documentation etc etc.

    I've seen your post on the the other thread, the model is probably considered a paid professional at a privately-organised event WITH public access. So it can get a bit tricky.

  5. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungCool
    My situation is like this, hope someone can help~
    Just recently I shot a model portrait at Auto Expo (in Perth), could I send the picture to a newspaper photogrpahic competition?
    You need to get written approval from the model o enter the picture into a newspaper competition ..... commercial activities .

  6. #46

    Default

    y dun u juz email the paper and ask them for comments on this issue...they org the competition anyway..

  7. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Witness
    y dun u juz email the paper and ask them for comments on this issue...they org the competition anyway..
    They wouldn't comment on the issue. It's your own copyright issue, they do not need to comment on your copyright issue, they will either ignore it or to ask you to sort it out yourself.......

    Which organiser who organise competition need to provide lawyers for participant's issue?

  8. #48
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    2,614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blurblock
    They wouldn't comment on the issue. It's your own copyright issue, they do not need to comment on your copyright issue, they will either ignore it or to ask you to sort it out yourself.......

    Which organiser who organise competition need to provide lawyers for participant's issue?
    They will specify in the Rules and Regulation - participate must ensure sole ownership of the picture. or anything with similar effect.

    If participate kenna sued, it is his/her own liability.

  9. #49
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    and the topic arises again. icer, do a search on this topic - it has been discussed qutie a fair bit.

    dropzone generally seems to get the idea correctly.

    Quote Originally Posted by dropzone
    I was told by my friend that in Singapore, there is no law about privacy in a public place. The photographer is allowed to take photos of anyone on the streets. Once you take the photo, the image becomes your property, and you own the right to delete it or not if someone demands it to be deleted off. Of course, things might end up in a police station. But I dont think the person in the photo can sue the photorapher just because he had taken a photo of her/him. There must be some case of basis which will form the base of the argument for sueing someone. Examples are taking upskirts of women which cause an outrage of modesty.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kira
    OKie, here's my view. Don't flame me if I'm wrong, NUS only teach engineering student contract law and law of tort.

    2. You are allow to use your street photos as long as there's no monetary gains. eg, post on your website, portfolio.

    3. You can send your street photos for competitions as long as there's a so call model release, or an understanding from the subject that this will be use in some publications, competitions, etc, etc. But then again, how to get model release if you shooting in lets say a remote part of china? Prepare all the forms and ask everyone you shoot to sign? They might not even understand why they are signing. So personally I feel that if you want, just send the photos for the competition if the organiser allows. If that person really sue, then splite the winnings, if any, with that person loh.
    I would be interested to know the case authority or statute which says that model releases are required. AFAIK, Singapore laws do not have the concept of model releases. hence discussions on use whether commercialy or otherwise would not be important. model releases is more a concept of the US, where specific laws are enacted to prevent the commercial usage of photographs without a model release. perhaps those which say that model releases are required in Singapore could direct us to the appropriate case/statutes or even third party sources which show this concept?

    Quote Originally Posted by reachme2003
    If legal costs is the main issue, one may request the Court for legal costs to be awarded against the defendant, if the plaintiff is successful in the suit. Do not let the big boys 'bully' the small boys, like me.
    the only problem with this is, most of the time, you wont get back 100% of your costs. technically, it is still possible for the big boys to throw away $$$ at a little boy just to win in a war of attrition. the little boy often would still be out of pocket even where costs are awarded to him.

    hope it helps
    cheers!

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123

    I would be interested to know the case authority or statute which says that model releases are required. AFAIK, Singapore laws do not have the concept of model releases. hence discussions on use whether commercialy or otherwise would not be important. model releases is more a concept of the US, where specific laws are enacted to prevent the commercial usage of photographs without a model release. perhaps those which say that model releases are required in Singapore could direct us to the appropriate case/statutes or even third party sources which show this concept?
    I don't know whether this is classified as a case authority or statute or not, I am not a lawyer......

    Singapore Statutes, Chapter 60, Section 30, Part 5(a) ?


    (a) a person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the taking of a photograph, the painting or drawing of a portrait or the making of an engraving by the other person; and

    the first-mentioned person shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part, except that if the work is required for any particular purpose, that purpose shall be communicated to that other person and that other person shall be entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that particular purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.

    ----------

    Still does not know whether this is classified as authorative or not .....

    From IPOS singapore :

    Photographer or artist If a photographer is engaged to take photograph of a person or an artist is engaged to draw a portrait of a person, that person owns the copyright and has the right to restrain the photographer or artist from using the photograph or painting for any purpose that he has not agreed to.

    ------------

    Thus in my personal view, again not authorative, if the person in the portriat does not agrees to use his/her photograph in a compeitition, he/she is entitled to sue the photographer as his/her copyright is infrigned..... Am I right to say that.

    If he/she provide a model release form to signify he/she agrees to the photographer's request to enter his/her photograph in a contest or competition, everything is ok, right?
    Last edited by blurblock; 27th April 2004 at 10:24 AM.

  11. #51
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    yeap, it shows u did some leg work which is good! .

    ok now lets see the sections in turn:

    Quote Originally Posted by blurblock
    I don't know whether this is classified as a case authority or statute or not, I am not a lawyer......

    Singapore Statutes, Chapter 60, Section 30, Part 5(a) ?


    (a) a person makes, for valuable consideration, an agreement with another person for the taking of a photograph, the painting or drawing of a portrait or the making of an engraving by the other person; and

    the first-mentioned person shall be entitled to any copyright subsisting in the work by virtue of this Part, except that if the work is required for any particular purpose, that purpose shall be communicated to that other person and that other person shall be entitled to restrain the doing, otherwise than for that particular purpose, of any act comprised in the copyright in the work.
    Under S7(1), the author of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, ie the photographer. Sections 30(4), (5) and (6) are exceptions where copyright in the author's work is not given to the author.

    In the section that you have highlighted, ie S30(5), commissioned works, ie where a person makes an agreement with another person for valuable consideration to take a photograph, so long as the work is made in pursuance to the agreement, the copyright will belong to the person commissioning the work and not the author. In other words, if A pays B $50 to take a photograph of C, copyright of the photograph belongs to A even though B is hte author.

    The second part means that the copyright is only given to the commissioner for that particular purpose. the author may veto the use of the photographs by the commissioner if the use does not fall under the ambit of the "particular purpose".

    S30(5) is meant to vest copyright in the commissioner of a work and who has paid valuable consideration for it. I dont suppose that the person in the portrait (at least from the discussions on Street Photography), paid you to take his photograph right? the idea here is that there has to be valuable consideration given by the commissioner.

    Hence, S30(5) does not relate to model releases or otherwise.

    ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by blurblock

    Still does not know whether this is classified as authorative or not .....

    From IPOS singapore :

    Photographer or artist If a photographer is engaged to take photograph of a person or an artist is engaged to draw a portrait of a person, that person owns the copyright and has the right to restrain the photographer or artist from using the photograph or painting for any purpose that he has not agreed to.

    ------------

    the quotation from IPOS essentially states what s30(5) sets out. However, i dont really understand how you arrived at the following conclusion based on the IPOS quotation and S30(5):

    Quote Originally Posted by blurblock
    Thus in my personal view, again not authorative, if the person in the portriat does not agrees to use his/her photograph in a compeitition, he/she is entitled to sue the photographer as his/her copyright is infrigned..... Am I right to say that.

    If he/she provide a model release form to signify he/she agrees to the photographer's request to enter his/her photograph in a contest or competition, everything is ok, right?

  12. #52

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vince123123
    yeap, it shows u did some leg work which is good! .

    ok now lets see the sections in turn:


    the quotation from IPOS essentially states what s30(5) sets out. However, i dont really understand how you arrived at the following conclusion based on the IPOS quotation and S30(5):
    Trying to be on the safe side. If I have a model release form, chances are I can use that as an evidence if the other party wanted to sue me for infringing his/her copyright.

    If I do not have a model release form, then it is my words against his/her.

    For Street photography, I don't really know, grey area there. Someone want to be the first person to try?

  13. #53
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blurblock
    Trying to be on the safe side. If I have a model release form, chances are I can use that as an evidence if the other party wanted to sue me for infringing his/her copyright.

    If I do not have a model release form, then it is my words against his/her.

    For Street photography, I don't really know, grey area there. Someone want to be the first person to try?
    Blurblock, you are using the terms too loosely. The subject can't sue you for infringing his/her copyright. The term "copyright" usually applies to intellectual properties. In this case, this refers to your photo. When you take the photo, the copyright of the photo belongs to you. This is of course, unless the subject has a patent or registered an copyright ownership of his/her appearance (which is quite absurb unless you are a superstar). Then in which case, taking a photo will constitute to an illegal reproduction of a copyrighted material.

  14. #54
    vince123123
    Guests

    Default

    Yeap, I guess there is no harm if you really want the person to sign your release. However, my point is that you dont need a release, the person is unlikely to be able to do anything about it. you will not be infringing his copyright as copyright is not his/hers in the first place - there is no copyright to infringe. this is clearly not a s30(5) case.

    Quote Originally Posted by blurblock
    Trying to be on the safe side. If I have a model release form, chances are I can use that as an evidence if the other party wanted to sue me for infringing his/her copyright.

    If I do not have a model release form, then it is my words against his/her.

    For Street photography, I don't really know, grey area there. Someone want to be the first person to try?

  15. #55

    Default

    haiz....just type ya own agreement form and get the fellow to sign on the spot???

    if dowan sign then u keep e photo for personal viewing pleasure lo...

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
  •