Models giving photos w/o photographers premission

[jusgaki]

hi,

i have been organising shoots lately.
and i very honest to say that i have received a lot of photographers' pm telling me that i am not suppose to use the photos that i have posted up.
i have 100% asked the models can i take any photos from your multiply/friendster/portfilio.
and they said "can" happily. and i trusted them
and then the trouble comes.

i have been following my gf for some group shoots b4, and the organisers also just ask the models premission on behalf of the photographers in those group shoots. and the models never gave false info.(like photos can't be used, but she just tell e organiser to post up)

i dunno why models now become like this(is it bcos i am using models that are very new to CS? as i dun see any other new organiser having this problem), sometimes they dun even know that that particular photographers dun feel comfortable to let organiser to post his photos, until i tell them. and they even tell photographers i didn seek their permission to use the photos?(as i receved pm asking me did i get approved by the models to use the photos) :dunno:

i dunno in what ways that we can stop this from happening(i have met one case that the photographer told me that he have told that model e photos can be only used by herself, yet e model told me i can use any photos from her portfilio). it was bad for both photographers n organisers. as photographers will get unhappy of seeing their photos being posted up as they dun feel comfortable, and reputation of organiser (ok mainly me) will drop.

haix

 

[roygoh]

You cannot push all the responsibility to the models.

The models do not usually own the copyright to the photos they are subject of.

The best way to stop this is for you to not make wrong assumptions about copyright ownership. Always find out who owns the copyright, and then get permission form the copyright owner to use their pictures.

If you walk pass a beautiful house one day and a man standing at the door of the house told you that he is selling that house for a good price, and you are indeed interested in buying that house, would you just pay him the money without first verifying he is the actual owner of the house?

 

[jusgaki]

hi,

haha.. for e house example. quite a handful of ppl being cheated on their downpayment for rent.
ya, u are right. i cant put full blame on them, and that is e lesson i learnt.
but sometimes is hard to find when e photo is get from a group shoot.
tats e problem i encage in e latest shoot, e model did a group tfcd shoot, and she is kind of blur which shoot is by which photographer
anyway i have learnt my lesson on e copyright n trust of e models.

 

[Deadpoet]

First of all, let me comment on the photogrpahers. Just do not give the models any pictures lor. Simple. Duh! And see them as free advertising! Oh, they were that bad huh

To the organisers, the models do not own the copy rights. The permissions to use lie with the copyright owners Why ask someone for permission when it is not up to said person to give permission.

To models, well, waste of time. If you give models pictures, I more or less expects they will do whatever they like with them. C'est la vie.

Btw, to TS, if you use pictures I took of a model, and I own the copyrights to these pictures, and you use them for commercial purposes .... the can of worms is really appetiting

 

[roygoh]

hi,

haha.. for e house example. quite a handful of ppl being cheated on their downpayment for rent.
ya, u are right. i cant put full blame on them, and that is e lesson i learnt.
but sometimes is hard to find when e photo is get from a group shoot.
tats e problem i encage in e latest shoot, e model did a group tfcd shoot, and she is kind of blur which shoot is by which photographer
anyway i have learnt my lesson on e copyright n trust of e models.

This is not a trust issue with the models. They are simply thinking in terms of whether they want to let you display pictures of them on your threads/website. From their perspective they probably treated that as signing a model release, which is not the same as granting copyright.

They are not out to deceive you I believe, but just being as ignorant as you were (no offence intended ).

As for not being able to find out who the photographer was for a particular picture, better be safe than sorry. Just don't use it. There is no such thing as "finder's keeper" practice when it comes to intellectual property.

Next time you organise a shoot, arrange with the photographers before hand. Ask them nicely if you could use their pictures for promoting your future events.

 

[jusgaki]

hi,

thx for the advice. i will ask e photographers perimission instead nxt time
but then y i ask e models in my last 2 shoots, because when i follow my gf to group shoots.
the organiser always ask my gf and other models in the theme shoot will e photographer let, so i tot that e models would know and asked those photographers, as my gf will always ask clearly that can she give it to agency n organisers.
anyway big mistake i have made.
sry to those photographers will take note of it in later shoots

 

[Canonised]

imo the problem is there because most of the time the photographers DID NOT give the images directly to the models or anyone, and the models actually dl the images themselves from either the photographer's site, or from those posted by the photographers in the forum and the model is assuming that since it is her face in the image she is entitled to the ownership .....

 

[Deadpoet]

imo the problem is there because most of the time the photographers DID NOT give the images directly to the models or anyone, and the models actually dl the images themselves from either the photographer's site, or from those posted by the photographers in the forum and the model is assuming that since it is her face in the image she is entitled to the ownership .....

That is why, I want a release signed. Everyone knows where everything stands. In the US, Oz and Europe, every shoot, regardless of test or paid, a release is always signed. Now in Singapore, I have no idea why there is such a phobia towards a contract, especially from the models.

 

[contaxable]

To give photos away to please the pretty ladies will sometimes invite such misunderstandings. Reason is, there was no disclaimers on usage and no instruction on how not to use them. If the model posted it on their facebook, would photographers wack them the same way?

I know its about copyright, but perhaps such misunderstandings can be cleared at the point of releasing the pictures. The shoot organisors usually would ask models on usage and since models got them free without a condition, they may overlook on the matter.

Commercially, i had seen citibank using my company theme product photo to promote my competitors' products with credit card flyers. Worse was, my company was not part of their program and there was no mention of credits. Now, i feel that is a deliberated mistake as being a large organisation, they pretty well know what copyright is about. My marketing people had to give them a wake up call then, well of course, it wasnt their fault as they outsourced the project to a third party.

There is always a good reason why something accidental can occur. If its something minor like a casual shootout, i guess sometimes, we can close one eye and enjoy the free publicity when the pictures already has the watermark to showcase our works.

Chill guys, its not all that bad until you are in my shoes.

 

[Deadpoet]

To give photos away to please the pretty ladies will sometimes invite such misunderstandings. Reason is, there was no disclaimers on usage and no instruction on how not to use them. If the model posted it on their facebook, would photographers wack them the same way?

I know its about copyright, but perhaps such misunderstandings can be cleared at the point of releasing the pictures. The shoot organisors usually would ask models on usage and since models got them free without a condition, they may overlook on the matter.

Commercially, i had seen citibank using my company theme product photo to promote my competitors' products with credit card flyers. Worse was, my company was not part of their program and there was no mention of credits. Now, i feel that is a deliberated mistake as being a large organisation, they pretty well know what copyright is about. My marketing people had to give them a wake up call then, well of course, it wasnt their fault as they outsourced the project to a third party.

There is always a good reason why something accidental can occur. If its something minor like a casual shootout, i guess sometimes, we can close one eye and enjoy the free publicity when the pictures already has the watermark to showcase our works.

Chill guys, its not all that bad until you are in my shoes.

Very misguided. We are photographers and if we do not stand up for copyrights, you think Citibank or their ad agency will?

Back to the topic, the models, if they use the photos for their face book or just on their multiply account, I really do not see any problem. I don't see any problems if they use them for their CS thread for test shoots. However, when the photos are used for commercial purposes, ie: a paid shoot, as I said earlier, it is openning a huge can of worms. Does that means the photographers can start selling the photos of the model?

Best is to have a release signed. Everyone knows what to expect.

My approach is, if it's a paid shoot, I expect a full release to be signed. If the model does want to sign a release, I will not work with the model again. If it's a test shoot, a modified release will be required, allowing the model to use the images for non commercial self promotion only, and that applies to the photographer also.

 

[agape01]

Very misguided. We are photographers and if we do not stand up for copyrights, you think Citibank or their ad agency will?

Back to the topic, the models, if they use the photos for their face book or just on their multiply account, I really do not see any problem. I don't see any problems if they use them for their CS thread for test shoots. However, when the photos are used for commercial purposes, ie: a paid shoot, as I said earlier, it is openning a huge can of worms. Does that means the photographers can start selling the photos of the model?

Best is to have a release signed. Everyone knows what to expect.

My approach is, if it's a paid shoot, I expect a full release to be signed. If the model does want to sign a release, I will not work with the model again. If it's a test shoot, a modified release will be required, allowing the model to use the images for non commercial self promotion only, and that applies to the photographer also.

That is the reality of the entire situation in the real world.

If models do not wish to have their images used in any way, then that should be stated in the T&Cs of the shoot.

 

[vince123123]

In any paid shoot, the photographer will have the right to use the photos in any way he pleases. The model has no say as to how the images are to be used. It is simply a job hazard/risk/exposure that they take when agreeing to do the job.

 

[Tiger-in-the-woods]

In any paid shoot, the photographer will have the right to use the photos in any way he pleases. The model has no say as to how the images are to be used. It is simply a job hazard/risk/exposure that they take when agreeing to do the job.

Are you sure?

Just for argument sake, if one takes a picture of model and say, uses it for a 'dubious' site.. does it mean the model has no recourse? I remembered one case involving a particular model complaining use of her pic in a social escort website.. can't recollect the details of a case though I believe she did not consent use of her image for such instances.

Can a photographer take a pic (assume release signed) and then sell it to unscrupulous dealer and later claimed zero liability if the model feels pic is used wrongly and not as originally intended (assuming for building of personal portfolio)?

Interesting thought. Pls correct if i'm worng.. thx

 

[roygoh]

My understanding is, unless otherwise specified the photographer owns the copyright, but he still need the model to sign a release to allow him to use the pictures for whatever purpose specified. Terms of use of the pictures will be covered in the release. For example, the model can specify what usages are not allowed so even if the photographer owns the copyright he cannot use the picture anyway he wants.

Now if the photographer agrees to let someone else publish the photo, then the publisher needs to get a release from the model.

In the TS's case here I'd say that he has got a release (though informal) from the models but not the permission from the photographers to use the pictures.

 

[soeypixels]

maybe something like this ?? i also not sure :bsmilie:

5) The Photographer retains the copyright to the images taken during the shoot. He is allowed to use these images in his website, gallery, blog or forums to promote his services other than commercial usage

The model is granted a license to use the images for personal and private use only. The model is allowed to use the images in the model’s personal website(s) and the personal website(s) of the model's friends and family.

6) Any use for general public or for monetary gain will be considered copyright infringement. The model must obtain written permission from the photographer, and compensate the photographer, prior to the model or their friends and family publishing or selling the images.

 

[wrx_sti_22b]

I took photographs of this HK star that was in town to endose my company's product. I was 'official' photographer, but i do not know if i owned the rights to the photos, most probably not? Then my boss go & give i-weekly the photos, 2 came out as photos on the write up of the event . I didn't even know until l saw it... Then am i suppose to be pissed with my boss?

 

[soeypixels]

tat is call '3 leg' in hokkien
just pray for better performance bonus :bsmilie:

 

[vince123123]

Okay, I apologise for the somewhat sweeping statement because I have answered such questions so many times that I'm starting to shorten my comments with each repeated question (do a search on my other posts involving the same topic and you can see I've dealt with it on many occasions already). S

Save for defamatory use or outrage of modesty, a photographer can use the photo any way he wants. The social escort case involving Hanis Hussey is an example of defamatory use.

For your second example, yes the photographer can. The model's recourse is not against the photographer in this case, but against the "unscrupulous dealer". I believe the same was true in the Hanis Hussey case.

Are you sure?

Just for argument sake, if one takes a picture of model and say, uses it for a 'dubious' site.. does it mean the model has no recourse? I remembered one case involving a particular model complaining use of her pic in a social escort website.. can't recollect the details of a case though I believe she did not consent use of her image for such instances.

Can a photographer take a pic (assume release signed) and then sell it to unscrupulous dealer and later claimed zero liability if the model feels pic is used wrongly and not as originally intended (assuming for building of personal portfolio)?

Interesting thought. Pls correct if i'm worng.. thx

 

[vince123123]

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.

My understanding is, unless otherwise specified the photographer owns the copyright, but he still need the model to sign a release to allow him to use the pictures for whatever purpose specified. Terms of use of the pictures will be covered in the release. For example, the model can specify what usages are not allowed so even if the photographer owns the copyright he cannot use the picture anyway he wants.

Now if the photographer agrees to let someone else publish the photo, then the publisher needs to get a release from the model.

In the TS's case here I'd say that he has got a release (though informal) from the models but not the permission from the photographers to use the pictures.

 

[vince123123]

In your case, because you are an employee of your company and you took the photographs in the course of your employment, copyright belongs to your employer by operation of law.

Hence whilst you can be pissed with your boss, you can't really do much about it legally.

I took photographs of this HK star that was in town to endose my company's product. I was 'official' photographer, but i do not know if i owned the rights to the photos, most probably not? Then my boss go & give i-weekly the photos, 2 came out as photos on the write up of the event . I didn't even know until l saw it... Then am i suppose to be pissed with my boss?