Under Singapore laws, a model release is not necessary. There aren't any statute law or case law which recognise this concept or places this obligation in Singapore.
Wow.. thanks for explaining.
Under Singapore laws, a model release is not necessary. There aren't any statute law or case law which recognise this concept or places this obligation in Singapore.
does the worker in the assembly line use his/her own tools and materials? I own the tools to the creation.
If I take a picture of you in public, does the right of the image belong to you?
I'm not sure where you get this kind of information but I totally disagree with you.
I provide photography services. Do I own the copyright to the photos that I take for my clients? If I don't, is there any way that I can own the copyright? I want to showcase the best photos in my website and brochures.
In general, clients who pay for your services own the copyright to the photos taken. ...
If I get hired by someone to do a job, I make sure that they are aware of my terms and conditions which state that unless agreed upon beforehand in writing, I own the copyright to my work and I'm authorized to use it for my portfolio.
It's not unethical to use the photos for your own portfolio or otherwise if the client is fully aware of what you plan on doing with the photos. That is why giving a contract with your terms and conditions on it is very important. Without it, anything goes really.
And why do you say that pro photographers think the world owes them everything? I take it you're not a pro with a statement like that. The issue here is simply about protecting your own work with a copyright which is belongs to the photographer unless otherwise agreed upon in a contract
So if you get a plumber or electrician to fix your house's installation, it belongs to him/her?
You'd be surprised: In many countries, you may own some rights to the photo, but you cannot do anything with it (not even show it) without the explicit consent/licence of the person shown, because it would violate their rights.
So if you get a plumber or electrician to fix your house's installation, it belongs to him/her?
You'd be surprised: In many countries, you may own some rights to the photo, but you cannot do anything with it (not even show it) without the explicit consent/licence of the person shown, because it would violate their rights.
Vine123123, buddy while you are not wrong legeally there does not seem to be any mention of model releases in Singapore law statues.
The concept of ownership of a likeness ie and its use in commercial setting means that this (model release) is needed to forstall any down the road legal claims for unauthorised use of that person's likeness. The IP area in terms of Singapore is well in its early stages so case law is not build up yet. There are US cases regarding model releases - which supports the position that you need this in a commercial setting. No one wants to be frigging sued for big bucks when the images is used nationwide and it's the photographer that has the bear with the cost of such claims.
This is because in Singapore, as well as in other countries, this is the law.
totally irrelevant comparisonsAs a hired worker on an assembly line, you assemble products for the company. You don't own the products you made.
As a hired construction worker, you build someone else's house. The house won't belong to you.
absolutely ridiculous. can i bring the bride home too? since i paid for everythingIf you want to own the rights for wedding photos, you should pay for the set (the wedding), hire the models (the couple and the guest), get model releases, etc.
This has been a very informative and interesting read to say the least. Thanks Vince for your posts and keen knowledge on the subject. In all the years I have been a photographer, around 15 or so, I have only run into the problem of copyright issues about two times. And one of those was just recently right here in Singapore. I have only been shooting professionally here for the past one year so I won't pretend I know the laws inside and out. But what I can say is of all the events that I have shot, more than 60, in addition to magazine and editorial work, there has only been one instant of a complaint regarding copyrights. This was explained in one of my earlier posts in the forum. My contract and terms and conditions clearly states that I own the copyright unless otherwise agreed upon. In my opinion I don't think it's unfair or unethical and since I'm not challenged by it, I continue on the way I have been.
It certainly will make me think twice regarding the copyright the next time I do a shoot. Thanks again for the info.
Hmm guess I should have qualified my posting. From a commercial photography point of view - you need a model release. If you are shooting for otherwise you can do without it. Contest ?? sheesh if they expect to be back end covered then they (the contest organizer need to look at what they are putting on the table first).
With a model that you are on goo terms with it may be possible to get a model release at reasonable non commercial terms. If you are using commercial rate models then they should be prepared to sign a standard release without qualms.
Grin it is advice like that keeps lawyers well fed when it all hits the fan. Be proactive (commercial ) and let's strave the lawyers by not letting them have work to do. Kidding everyone has to earn a living somehow.
Yup, in the absence of any agreement, the photographer does not own the copyright.
As for returning all images, I suppose its an unusual thing - does your contract say that you only need to return some? If not, better put it in first