Runway Fashion shoot. Do i need permission to shoot or post pics on blogs?

[Fallenphoenix]

think Hart and Jing has already answered your question.

just sum it up.
the owner of the venue has the right to stop anyone from taking photos, the organizer of the event has right to stop anyone from taking photos. they don't enforce it does not mean they allowing it.

you can post anything in your site, blog, but you are fully responsible for what you putting in your site, blog.

you own the rights of the photographs you've created, unless it is commissioned assignment. But you don't own the copyrights of the cloths design, building, or whatever design appear in your photos. by proper channel, no photo buyers will buy photos without proper rights releases come with the photos.

2nd that....
Just like why u can't sell a night shot of Eiffel tower - the lighting is patented and copyrighted. If the cloth designs are copyright or IP-ed, u're basically asking for trouble. If u want to sell pics to stock or microstock, u'll ve to send in model release form (assuming u've no problems with the cloth designers). Of course, if the models sign the forms, lucky u. Nonethelss, this procedure is even the same for national geographics. Yes, even landscape shots require property release form. For blog usage, u could say that u upload the pics for editorial purposes and u might want to check that one up.

 

[3in1c]

think Hart and Jing has already answered your question.

the owner of the venue has the right to stop anyone from taking photos, the organizer of the event has right to stop anyone from taking photos. they don't enforce it does not mean they allowing it.

Seconded this. "Open event" or event held at a public venue is still an organized event. Organizers spent money whether socially or commercially purposed. Fashion shows, artiste show etc welcome media attractions by all means. Thats why only the official pg has access where public pg are kept at bay.

 

[watchthewaves]

2nd that....
Just like why u can't sell a night shot of Eiffel tower - the lighting is patented and copyrighted. If the cloth designs are copyright or IP-ed, u're basically asking for trouble. If u want to sell pics to stock or microstock, u'll ve to send in model release form (assuming u've no problems with the cloth designers). Of course, if the models sign the forms, lucky u. Nonethelss, this procedure is even the same for national geographics. Yes, even landscape shots require property release form. For blog usage, u could say that u upload the pics for editorial purposes and u might want to check that one up.

The lighting is patented and copyrighted??

The clothes got IP, you get the models to sign the release and you are in the clear?

Landscape shots require property release? You take a picture of Mt Fuji, but before you sell it, you gotta get clearance from the government of Japan?

Do you know what the heck you are talking about? Sheesh! :dunno:

 

[Fallenphoenix]

The lighting is patented and copyrighted??

The clothes got IP, you get the models to sign the release and you are in the clear?

Landscape shots require property release? You take a picture of Mt Fuji, but before you sell it, you gotta get clearance from the government of Japan?

Do you know what the heck you are talking about? Sheesh! :dunno:

Try googling copyright, Eiffel tower lights and the light designers. Almost all stock and microstock agencies use this classic example.

Clothes and models -> please read again...

Property release -> Yes, if the government fence it and charge public for entry. This is the guideline advised by national geographic stock creative team when they want to acquire my landscape. I was asked by the creative team to get property release done by asking the Korean authority for permission if necessary. For your aforementioned example, I guess it should be Japanese tourism board if they fenced Mt.Fuji and charge the public. I know what I'm doing for this one because I've been through it but do you know what you are talking about?

Please mind your attitude as not all the members in CS are as young as you. Many are mature working professionals who are enthusiastic about photography.

 

[catchlights]

The lighting is patented and copyrighted??

The clothes got IP, you get the models to sign the release and you are in the clear?

Landscape shots require property release? You take a picture of Mt Fuji, but before you sell it, you gotta get clearance from the government of Japan?

Do you know what the heck you are talking about? Sheesh! :dunno:

perhaps Fallenphoenix is referring to the lighting design on the building.

and landscape is actually referring to cityscape.... you know.... buildings...

as for stock images, as long the wardrobe does not show patent design, logo, brand name, and it design looks generic, usually is acceptable by stock agencies, and model release is a must... btw, they even ask for a release from tattoo artist if a model showing a tattoo.

 

[Fallenphoenix]

perhaps Fallenphoenix is referring to the lighting design on the building.

and landscape is actually referring to cityscape.... you know.... buildings...

as for stock images, as long the wardrobe does not show patent design, logo, brand name, and it design looks generic, usually is acceptable by stock agencies, and model release is a must... btw, they even ask for a release from tattoo artist if a model showing a tattoo.

Yes, the lighting design and the pattern it is set to go off.

My landscape to Nat geo stock is a picture of 2 historical earth mounds on a plain. I was surprised when I was asked for the release. Their guideline on when to get the property release for landscape is -> if the area is fenced and the entry is restricted or charged, you will need to get the permission from the respective body.

 

[hotwork77]

Ladies...now stop quibbling.

We supposed to provide factual information and not half truths masquerade as the gospel truths.

(1) Shopping Malls/Clubs: even if it is accessible to the public, it is still considered a private property. However any photos you have taken is considered fair game unless it is stated explicitly in words or deed.

(2) Public Area: any photo you have taken, the copyright belongs to you and nobody has the right to ask you to remove it. This also applies if you take the picture of "X" sitting at a fountain and "X" ask you to delete under threats or demands as long as you have not take the picture inappropriately.

(3) Organised Event: you attend a fashion shoot organised by some fashion house like Chanel, you take a shot and decide to post it in your blog. The photo taking and posting in a blog or magazine by itself is not copyright infringement.

What is a copyright infringement?

(1) You attend an event, which some photographer snap a unique picture of a model. You use the same photo with the same pose but you pp the colour of the clothes from white to pink. That's copyright infringement.

What is not a copyright infringement?

(1) You attend an event, which you stand side by side with another photographer to snap the same model with the same pose. That photographer sells his photo for $1000 but you post yours in you blog. There's no infringement in this case.

Know your rights. There are some cases where the copyright holder wants to browbeat you into submission simply because you snap an almost identical image.

 

[watchthewaves]

OK, first off, sorry if I caused you offence. Not intended. I shall restrain my tone.

Now then, to seek clarity on the matter. I think there is a need to differentiate intellectual property rights and other issues like contractual rights, private property laws, stock photo company being conservative, etc.

Thanks for the info on the Eiffel Tower. Very illuminating (pun intended, haha). I find the French court decision that simply shining light on a tower creates an "original visual design/creation" which is copyrighted "interesting" to say the least, but that's just me. May work in France, but whether it passes the test of "artistic craftsmanship" here and elsewhere is questionable. It could well have no copyright protection outside of France, but stock companies won't take that chance or can't bother to ensure they sell outside France only, and not into France. So possible more an issue of stock company being conservative rather than a copyright issue.

Regarding the point you made about patent, if there is a patent on the lighting system or the manner of lighting the building, then infringement happens when you work the patent, not when you take a photo of the scene.

As for a dress design, if you google fashion design copyright, you'll find that the general view is that the dress itself has no copyright protection. The sketches, dress pattern templates, prints on the fabric or logos shown may attract copyright protection, in which case the question of what and how much is copied comes into play. Making a knock off dress which includes the logo and unique prints is very different from photographing the dress on a person (just like a Paris night shot panorama which includes the Eiffel Tower is acceptable by some stock photo companies). So, IMO, its not so clear that you're "basically asking for trouble" when you take a photograph. IMO, possibly pretty far from it actually. However, again, if stock photo companies refuse to accept it, then that is more an issue of being conservative on their part. And they are entitled to take that position. In which case, it isn't really because there is copyright infringement, but because of the volume they deal with, they don't have the desire to take a position on whether there is infringement in every instance, so they draw their line very far from infringement to play safe. So this situation is shaped more by practical commercial concerns on their part more than copyright. Which, I suppose, at the end of the day, is what matters to someone selling to them anyway.

And as for landscape shots, thanks for clarifying that its not all such situations but where there are restrictions like fencing in and fee charged. And no, Mt Fuji is not fenced in, neither is there an entrance fee. So at least that's one landscape in the clear.

Peace.

 

[mcn]

a PINK color equivalent would be nicer :kiss:

 

[Gizmore]

read IPOS please.

If you think you are right... by all mean, do what you like... its your choice...

Shopping centre is own and manage by a management team... and shopping centre is not a public area... it is still consider as "property". Just like, if you visit someone else house, a person has every reason to not allow you to take pictures. very simple argument and very simple property law. There are different law govern different thing and IPOS is just a guideline.

Not asking written permission is asking for trouble...

Similar incident with the music copyright... years and years and years, we all know that you can't use the music without paying if it is play in public... people do it, now they get fine for that because the official decide to take action. Same argument like, eh, but I own the CD... I can do what I like... is it really?

No action now does not mean it is right and why take risk based on hear say?

What I am trying to say is, protect yourself... it doesn't concern me if you prefer not to protect yourself...

Hart

I would be interested to hear what exactly is a property law? A written statutes in Singapore?

 

[Agetan]

I would be interested to hear what exactly is a property law? A written statutes in Singapore?

If you want to check the exact conditions that is set by an individual property owner, you should contact the property owner for more information.

I should re-phrase myself, I should say Simple Property-Related Law.

For example, like a state land, there is almost always have a sign saying, "No Trespassing", it is State own "property" and they are putting restriction on the use of that particular "property".

Of course, you can take a picture of the land but you will need to find out from the state/government what exactly they are restricting.

There are a lot of Grey area and my experiences tells me, if it is arguable, get yourself covered.

I am not a lawyer and if I am in doubt when dealing with something about legal issue, I will talk to a lawyer specialised in that area, just in case.

Of course, if people want to sue someone, there should be enough reason for them to do so...

I think this is a big OT anyway... but somehow is relevant.

The issue I want to raise here is not about the law (as I am not a lawyer) but if you think it is sue-able, you may want to protect yourself.

Regards,

Hart

 

[Gizmore]

If you want to check the exact conditions that is set by an individual property owner, you should contact the property owner for more information.

I should re-phrase myself, I should say Simple Property-Related Law.

For example, like a state land, there is almost always have a sign saying, "No Trespassing", it is State own "property" and they are putting restriction on the use of that particular "property".

Of course, you can take a picture of the land but you will need to find out from the state/government what exactly they are restricting.

There are a lot of Grey area and my experiences tells me, if it is arguable, get yourself covered.

I am not a lawyer and if I am in doubt when dealing with something about legal issue, I will talk to a lawyer specialised in that area, just in case.

Of course, if people want to sue someone, there should be enough reason for them to do so...

I think this is a big OT anyway... but somehow is relevant.

The issue I want to raise here is not about the law (as I am not a lawyer) but if you think it is sue-able, you may want to protect yourself.

Regards,

Hart

Hi perhaps I have the impression that what quantify as a Law as something that is written in the statues.

It is generally reasonable to assume one has jurisdiction over their property rather then anything else.

My humble knowledge leads me to believe that Property laws primarily deals with the possession/lease/transaction rights of the property itself.

And indeed, when it comes to photography, there are a lot of grey areas left for open interpretation. Even though event organizers place certain restrictions, if restrictions are such that it is unreasonable, I certainly do not think that it is enforceable if ultimately the affected parties decide to contest it in court.

Take for example restraint of trade. Even if an employee is aware of such clause prior to the signing of the employment agreement, it does not mean that it is enforcement. If contested in court, the court will scrutinize the reasonableness of such clause.

What I'm trying to say is that, in court, be it a civil dispute or whatever, restrictions on certain action will also be subjected to the same 'test' of reasonableness.

 

[blurry80]

**** we need a part time lawyer here.

 

[myopia]

As this is an open forum, anyone can view their opinion and interpretation of the law, or even experiences of the industry. However, every single event is unique so again is very subjective, very hard to just give a general idea....which also will mean nothing. The more you read into it, you get more confused cos everyone have their positive or "right" well justified view of things. But far as advice goes, I suggest to take as face value but to know more indepth, one should consult real legal advice, not just one but a few to be sure.
Even so, sometimes law has not one right answer.....always depends on situation, precedent...but one thing for sure, ....have paper work better than no paper work.