Giving credit to a photographer

[yqt]

sorry vince i m abit confuse.

going by the way the discussion is developing, i think it's a matter of courtesy... the agency can use ur photo w/o crediting u, since the photo in the eyes of the law no longer belongs to u. It's a matter of whether they are nice enuff to tell u or not.. they dun have to, but it's good if they do

as quoted by jkaiser, since the photographer sold or work for the magazine agency or model agency issit that the copyright owner is the magazine agency? and if the agency let say let me use the photo, do I still need to seek permission from the photographer?

In this thread, the TS was paid for the shoot with the model and in the absent of a contract stating the condition of sale, it's considered an unconditional sale. This being the case, the model have every right to use the image as she sees fit. The model agency don't need to credit or ask you for permission as the model paid for the copyrights to the image.

In your example, you mentioned that the photographer sold the image to the magazine and you use a page of the magazine. Though you have been given permission by the magazine, you're not sure of the condition of sale between the photographer and the magazine hence Vince suggested you check with both.

If the photographer works for the magazine, than depanding on his term of employment, the copyrights belongs to the magazine.

 

[yqt]

If the photographer works for the magazine, than depanding on his term of employment, the copyrights belongs to the magazine.

Forget to add,

If the photographer works for the magazine, than depanding on his term of employment, the copyrights belongs to the magazine. But the photographer is still the creator of the image and should be allowed to use it as his own portfolio.

 

[vince123123]

YQT: I'm still a bit more cautious about saying that a creator has the right to use it as a portfolio even though he has assigned all rights away to the commissioner. I'm just wondering where that came about. I do know it is industry practice and no one really got sued for it before, but it may be necessary to figure out the legal position before commercial photographers rely on it.

I have not yet encountered it myself since I don't do photography for a living

Edit: ADDON, a disclaimer is that I haven't really researched this point, so I could be wrong

 

[TheQuestion]

YQT: I'm still a bit more cautious about saying that a creator has the right to use it as a portfolio even though he has assigned all rights away to the commissioner. I'm just wondering where that came about. I do know it is industry practice and no one really got sued for it before, but it may be necessary to figure out the legal position before commercial photographers rely on it.

I have not yet encountered it myself since I don't do photography for a living

Edit: ADDON, a disclaimer is that I haven't really researched this point, so I could be wrong

ya can expend on this point? coz it sounds like the photog wouldn't have to ask his client's permission to use the work in the photog's port.

 

[vince123123]

yqt is saying that the photographer has the absolute right as creator, to use it in his portfolio.

I'm saying that I'm not sure if that is indeed the case or not because I haven't looked it up. Offhand, I don't think there's anything which grants the creator this right, but I can be wrong.

ya can expend on this point? coz it sounds like the photog wouldn't have to ask his client's permission to use the work in the photog's port.

 

[yqt]

YQT: I'm still a bit more cautious about saying that a creator has the right to use it as a portfolio even though he has assigned all rights away to the commissioner. I'm just wondering where that came about. I do know it is industry practice and no one really got sued for it before, but it may be necessary to figure out the legal position before commercial photographers rely on it.

I have not yet encountered it myself since I don't do photography for a living

Edit: ADDON, a disclaimer is that I haven't really researched this point, so I could be wrong

ya can expend on this point? coz it sounds like the photog wouldn't have to ask his client's permission to use the work in the photog's port.

Vince you're right to say that it's industry practise and in this case, it's because of industry practise of how a release is worded.

In most commericial copyright release, it's usually stated what the client is allowed to use the image for including where, the time frame and for how much. Restriction on the photographer are usually worded as, not to release the image to any other third party for any purpose or cause the image to be use by any third party.

It usually never stated that the photographer can't use it for his own portfolio purpose.

Since the release is specific in it's usage and restriction, anything not included is taken as not to be considered.

Again, the devil is in the details of the contract.

 

[yqt]

yqt is saying that the photographer has the absolute right as creator, to use it in his portfolio.

I'm saying that I'm not sure if that is indeed the case or not because I haven't looked it up. Offhand, I don't think there's anything which grants the creator this right, but I can be wrong.

Hi Vince

It's more the right to use as the creator of the image by default of how a normal commericial release is worded, not absolute by law lar, but that how it's precieved and in the absent of a actual law or test case, that how it's being practise.

Sorry if I confuse you guys :sweat:

 

[Bobman]

Thanks guys for the feedback

 

[vince123123]

My view is that if it is a commissioned work, everything goes to the commissioner unless otherwise carved out.

Hence, not having a provision which says you cannot use it in your portfolio, doesn't mean you can. The default position is that you cannot.

Unless of course, there is some law out there (which as I said, I have never researched) which grants such a right to the photographer. Absent such a law, and absent such a provision in the contract, it would be the photographer who has the burden of proof in any suit.

I always find it hard that such contracts are called "commercial releases" - always wondered what is being "released". Probably a spread/hangover from the whole idea of model releases from the US.

By the way, industry practice is not always congruent with existing laws. We all know the industry practises model releases, but the legal authority of which still is suspect under Singapore law.

Hope this helps

Vince you're right to say that it's industry practise and in this case, it's because of industry practise of how a release is worded.

In most commericial copyright release, it's usually stated what the client is allowed to use the image for including where, the time frame and for how much. Restriction on the photographer are usually worded as, not to release the image to any other third party for any purpose or cause the image to be use by any third party.

It usually never stated that the photographer can't use it for his own portfolio purpose.

Since the release is specific in it's usage and restriction, anything not included is taken as not to be considered.

Again, the devil is in the details of the contract.

 

[vince123123]

Eh yqt, I think hor, maybe we shd continue the discussion offline. The more I say, I think the more photographers are starting to be disadvantaged hehe I prefer to say as little to compromise us photographers as possible, even though this affects commercial photographers more than hobbyists.

 

[yqt]

Eh yqt, I think hor, maybe we shd continue the discussion offline. The more I say, I think the more photographers are starting to be disadvantaged hehe I prefer to say as little to compromise us photographers as possible, even though this affects commercial photographers more than hobbyists.

Agreed