Models giving photos w/o photographers premission

[Deadpoet]

Under US laws, yes the photographer needs a release because there is specific legislation providing the model with a cause of action against the photographer. In Singapore, there is at yet, no cause of action.

Hence, until the courts decide otherwise, no release is needed for use in Singapore.

If the photographer decides to sign something with the model restricting his own use of the photographs, that is his own prerogative.

Counsellor, so, do we or do we not need a release in Singapore? Are you saying, in Singapore, the photographer has the usage rights even without a release?

In the US, the copyrights, without a release, is assumed to be the photographer's. However, the photographer may not use the photo in question if a release is not signed giving the photographer the rights to use the photo. Essentially, you own the photo, but cannot use it. *Using this particular photo for non commercial/self promotion basis, is a very grey area. So, I want a release sign with almost everyone I shoot in the US and Europe. In Asia ... oh well, another grey area.

 

[vince123123]

Aiyo, don't call me Counsellor, in the Internet, we are all the same

In my humble view, there is no case law or statute in Singapore that gives a model a cause of action for usage of photographs. Hence, my view is that no release is required (of course until the courts suddenly decide otherwise).

The issue of copyright should be separated from the idea of model releases. Hence you are correct, in the US, it is entirely likely that the copyright belongs to the photographer (I can't be 100% sure since that is US we are talking about), and yet the photographer can't use the work commerically without a model release.

Hence, yup in the US, getting a release is probably almost always a must, whcih is why every website you see out there tells you about this.

The same isn't true in Singapore. I'm not sure about other Asian countries though.

Counsellor, so, do we or do we not need a release in Singapore? Are you saying, in Singapore, the photographer has the usage rights even without a release?

In the US, the copyrights, without a release, is assumed to be the photographer's. However, the photographer may not use the photo in question if a release is not signed giving the photographer the rights to use the photo. Essentially, you own the photo, but cannot use it. *Using this particular photo for non commercial/self promotion basis, is a very grey area. So, I want a release sign with almost everyone I shoot in the US and Europe. In Asia ... oh well, another grey area.

 

[jusgaki]

i can say a lot of the models are under 21 yrs old. when models under 21yrs old, their parents have to sign anything with them, if not any doc signed will not be legally protected. there's singapore law. and i dun think e models(some of them) willing to let their parents know what are they doing especially those lingerie,bikini or sexy shots, and the parents may not be to free enough to come down n sign e doc.

and since everyone told me tat copyright of a photo is 100% belongs to the photographers
why still have photographers ask me did i get approve from e models to use their photo?(i get of cos )
confused*

 

[vince123123]

In your first post, you merely said that the photographer is not happy that you use the photos, regardless of whether you say that the photos were given by the models.

Now you're telling us that the photographers are asking you to ask the models to allow you to use the photographer's photos?

Sorry but you are not quite clear in what you're saying/asking.

i can say a lot of the models are under 21 yrs old. when models under 21yrs old, their parents have to sign anything with them, if not any doc signed will not be legally protected. there's singapore law. and i dun think e models(some of them) willing to let their parents know what are they doing especially those lingerie,bikini or sexy shots, and the parents may not be to free enough to come down n sign e doc.

and since everyone told me tat copyright of a photo is 100% belongs to the photographers
why still have photographers ask me did i get approve from e models to use their photo?(i get of cos )
confused*

 

[Deadpoet]

Aiyo, don't call me Counsellor, in the Internet, we are all the same

In my humble view, there is no case law or statute in Singapore that gives a model a cause of action for usage of photographs. Hence, my view is that no release is required (of course until the courts suddenly decide otherwise).

The issue of copyright should be separated from the idea of model releases. Hence you are correct, in the US, it is entirely likely that the copyright belongs to the photographer (I can't be 100% sure since that is US we are talking about), and yet the photographer can't use the work commerically without a model release.

Hence, yup in the US, getting a release is probably almost always a must, whcih is why every website you see out there tells you about this.

The same isn't true in Singapore. I'm not sure about other Asian countries though.

aiyo, not call you counsellor, then call you what? :dunno: anyway, your wish ..

YO ...

In the US, the copyright is assumed to be the photographer's. The model release does 2 things. Re-affirm the copyrights or define the copyrights, and define the usage rights. The second point is utmost importance.

If there is no release signed, or the release did not address usage rights, it is assumed that the photographer can use the image for non-commercial usage (this is a grey area though). The model actually cannot use the image, even for non commercial usage, unless the release allows it. However, any usages, that can be consturded as derogatory, if the model release does not specifically address them, the water gets muddy.

A while back, a family (parents and 2 children) sued a large stock agency, even though they had signed the normal standard industry release granting all usages, when their images were used in an anti-child abuse campagne. And they won big time on the basis of derogatory depiction of the subjects.

This is what copyright and IP attorney told me awhile back.

Even in Singapore, I want a release signed.

 

[jusgaki]

i oso quite confused.
mosst of them tell me that i unable to use the photos due their copyrights, though the models confirmed wif me that i able to use them
and 2 of photographers pm me, asking me did i get the models approval b4 i use the photos.
thats y i am confused, since copyright is with e photographers, they shld more concern did i get their approval than the models'.

In your first post, you merely said that the photographer is not happy that you use the photos, regardless of whether you say that the photos were given by the models.

Now you're telling us that the photographers are asking you to ask the models to allow you to use the photographer's photos?

Sorry but you are not quite clear in what you're saying/asking.

 

[vince123123]

You could have interpreted them wrongly.

To summarise:

1. Photographers own copyright. Even if they passed to the model, it does not mean the model has the right to pass to you.

2. If you want to use it, you need to ask the owner, not the model. The model has no title to grant to you and hence any approval from the model is useless (see roygoh's analogy at post 2).

3. The photographer may have asked you whether you got permission from the model just for asking's sake. He may factor that into his decision whether to grant you permission to use, but certainly the final decision rests with the photographer.

Hope this clears up your doubts.

i oso quite confused.
mosst of them tell me that i unable to use the photos due their copyrights, though the models confirmed wif me that i able to use them
and 2 of photographers pm me, asking me did i get the models approval b4 i use the photos.
thats y i am confused, since copyright is with e photographers, they shld more concern did i get their approval than the models'.

 

[vince123123]

In my superficial understanding of US laws, the model release does not affect copyright. Rather, the model release gives a defence against the statutory cause of action given to a model for use of her likeness commercially.

If there's no release signed in the US, what this means is that the photographer can use the photos in any way he wants as a starting point. BUT if he uses them commercially, he will then run afoul of the statutory cause of action.

Hence look at it this way.

1. Copyright is the base right granted to the owner to use it any way he wants.

2. The statutory cause of action against commerical use enacted in the US is an exception to this right

3. By getting a model release, the photographer now has a defence against (2), and getting an exception to the exception. Thus he's back to (1).

For derogatory depiction, that is another cause of action altogether. That cause of action, is in fact, recognised under Singapore law and is a separate legal concept from the model release issue.

In Singapore, whilst you don't need it if use is confined to Singapore, having one doesn't hurt either if the model is willing to sign and/or doesn't jack up the price for signing. It may also come in useful if you ever want to sell your photos outside of Singapore.

Hope this helps to clarify

aiyo, not call you counsellor, then call you what? :dunno: anyway, your wish ..

YO ...

In the US, the copyright is assumed to be the photographer's. The model release does 2 things. Re-affirm the copyrights or define the copyrights, and define the usage rights. The second point is utmost importance.

If there is no release signed, or the release did not address usage rights, it is assumed that the photographer can use the image for non-commercial usage (this is a grey area though). The model actually cannot use the image, even for non commercial usage, unless the release allows it. However, any usages, that can be consturded as derogatory, if the model release does not specifically address them, the water gets muddy.

A while back, a family (parents and 2 children) sued a large stock agency, even though they had signed the normal standard industry release granting all usages, when their images were used in an anti-child abuse campagne. And they won big time on the basis of derogatory depiction of the subjects.

This is what copyright and IP attorney told me awhile back.

Even in Singapore, I want a release signed.

 

[guanny]

US Law ... ? Hmm.

How about Singapore Law?
I mean shouldn't it be more practical to discuss Singapore's Law here rather than the US' since we are all based in Singapore.
I don't think much of the US can be applied here in Singapore. ;p

 

[Deadpoet]

US Law ... ? Hmm.

How about Singapore Law?
I mean shouldn't it be more practical to discuss Singapore's Law here rather than the US' since we are all based in Singapore.
I don't think much of the US can be applied here in Singapore. ;p

Please read the entire thread. Vince had in details, outlined and explained both Singapore and US laws.

Btw, why such myopic view. You are not expecting to step out of this island, and none of your work will gone beyoing the territory?

US copyrights and usage laws are definately more draconian. In these circumstances, it's always prudent to adhere to what is the strictest.

 

[vince123123]

Yup, already covered the Singapore position - which is something I'm more confident in rather than the US position.

Actually I wouldn't say that US laws are more draconian. Rather, US laws are geared towards protecting the small man rather than the big corporations, such as their stronger consumer laws etc.

Model release laws are also intended towards protection of the small man, in this case the model, as compared to the large corporations or business entities dealing in the model's likeness.

Please read the entire thread. Vince had in details, outlined and explained both Singapore and US laws.

Btw, why such myopic view. You are not expecting to step out of this island, and none of your work will gone beyoing the territory?

US copyrights and usage laws are definately more draconian. In these circumstances, it's always prudent to adhere to what is the strictest.

 

[tunster]

To my understanding is this

1. Photographers always own the copyright of the photographs taken (as an art piece)
2. If the photographer was HIRED by a company to take the picture, the photographer STILL own the right to the photos. The company only has the usage right to what is written on the contract (meaning if the contract says to allow the pic to post on 1 publication, no further use is allow unless the photographer gives the right).
3. If the photograph involve human subject, a release is required ONLY to those country that has that particular law (Hong Kong is one that doesn't need one)
4. Here's a link to a wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
5. As you see above, there're some areas that do not require a release (such as news articles).
6. Models don't OWN the copyright. Instead, the release is require for the privacy law.

 

[vince123123]

1. Correct
2. Wrong under Singapore law. Copyright belongs to the company by operation of law, unless otherwise decided by contract.
3. Correct. Singapore is another example where the concept of a cause of action for lack of a model release has yet to be recognised by law.
4. Wikipedia may or may not be accurate
5. Perhaps only to US.
6. Yup, in the United States.

To my understanding is this

1. Photographers always own the copyright of the photographs taken (as an art piece)
2. If the photographer was HIRED by a company to take the picture, the photographer STILL own the right to the photos. The company only has the usage right to what is written on the contract (meaning if the contract says to allow the pic to post on 1 publication, no further use is allow unless the photographer gives the right).
3. If the photograph involve human subject, a release is required ONLY to those country that has that particular law (Hong Kong is one that doesn't need one)
4. Here's a link to a wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_release
5. As you see above, there're some areas that do not require a release (such as news articles).
6. Models don't OWN the copyright. Instead, the release is require for the privacy law.

 

[tunster]

1. Correct
2. Wrong under Singapore law. Copyright belongs to the company by operation of law, unless otherwise decided by contract.
3. Correct. Singapore is another example where the concept of a cause of action for lack of a model release has yet to be recognised by law.
4. Wikipedia may or may not be accurate
5. Perhaps only to US.
6. Yup, in the United States.

Hm...think 2 is different from HK here.

http://www.hkipp.org/ver3/tnc.php?lang=eng

Above has some reference video to HK's copyright to photographers.

 

[vince123123]

Have not researched the position under HK law, but I'm very sure of the position under Singapore law. Am not surprised if there's indeed a difference.

Hm...think 2 is different from HK here.

http://www.hkipp.org/ver3/tnc.php?lang=eng

Above has some reference video to HK's copyright to photographers.

 

[guanny]

Please read the entire thread. Vince had in details, outlined and explained both Singapore and US laws.

Btw, why such myopic view. You are not expecting to step out of this island, and none of your work will gone beyoing the territory?

US copyrights and usage laws are definately more draconian. In these circumstances, it's always prudent to adhere to what is the strictest.

I dont think its myopic. Its realistic. We are here, on clubsnap, in Singapore. Of course, its great to go abroad like the US. You seem to be very confident "stepping out of this island", the question is, why are you still here?
Anyway, all the best and hope you move on very soon. It will be an honour to see greatpoet's work beyond the territory. :bsmilie::bsmilie::bsmilie:

 

[cutecdo]

Hi, anybody can tell me if what this guy says is applicable in Sg? http://www.danheller.com/model-release-primer.html

 

[rncw]

US law don't apply here in Singapore.

 

[vince123123]

Second that.

 

[roaringqueen]

then use old models only lor xD
hahahahaha!!