What kind of rights?

[LArdius]

Sorry for being a noob here. But what rights does a photographer have over his photos?

Does he need to make the client sign a contract stating what are the limits of the use of the photos or does all the rights disappear as soon as you give it to the client?

Secondly, I would also like to know if i need a contract to state that i would like to use the photos for advertising as well?

 

[catchlights]

I research the copyrights and ownerships issue on portrait photography, this is what I found

Ownership

Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule. Some exceptions are:

Employment: If the work is created by an employee pursuant to the terms of his employment, the employer owns the copyright in the work.

Special situation for newspaper/magazine/periodical employees: Where an employee of a newspaper, magazine or periodical creates a literary, dramatic or artistic work pursuant to the terms of his employment and for the purpose of publication in a newspaper, magazine or periodical, the proprietor of the newspaper, magazine or periodical owns the copyright in respect of publication in or reproduction for the purpose of publication in any newspaper, magazine or periodical. The employee owns the remaining rights that make up the copyright bundle of exclusive rights. Commissioning: If a portrait/photograph/engraving is commissioned by another party, the commissioner owns the copyright in the work. If the portrait/photograph/engraving is required for a particular purpose, this purpose must be communicated to the commissioned party. While the commissioner is the copyright owner, the commissioned party has the right to stop others from doing any act comprised in the copyright, unless such act is done for the particular purpose for which the portrait/photograph/engraving is created.

For other types of commissioned works, ownership belongs to the commissioned party, unless the commissioner and commissioned party otherwise agree.

As mentioned in the introduction, the copyright owner may transfer his rights to another party or entity either partially or wholly.

taken from http://www.ipos.gov.sg/leftNav/cop/Ownership+and+Rights.htm

and also this

1. Copyright Copyright at Work
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. However, you have limited rights in that if the photos are required for any particular purpose (e.g. a corporate client wants glamour shots of the senior management, to use in its annual report), your clients should tell you and you are entitled to prevent the photos from being used for other purposes.

In practice, however, many photographers have their own terms of engagement with clients. The parties are free to have their own agreement, which automatically overrides the above default position. Thus, for example, you and your clients can mutually agree that you will own the copyright in the photos but that your clients can use the photos for certain purposes; or that your clients own the copyright but you have the license to reproduce the photos in your website and brochures.

In simple words, photographers does not own the copyrights of the photographs, from the moment we collect money from the our customers, unless both parties enter an agreement to supersede the default law. (see the print in blue above)

 

[LArdius]

I research the copyrights and ownerships issue on portrait photography, this is what I found

taken from http://www.ipos.gov.sg/leftNav/cop/Ownership+and+Rights.htm

and also this

In simple words, photographers does not own the copyrights of the photographs, from the moment we collect money from the our customers, unless both parties enter an agreement to supersede the default law. (see the print in blue above)

So my next question would be, the agreement could be based solely on verbal but safer to have it on paper?

How about us using the photos for advertisement? Since the client obviously does not sign a talent release form, it would be possible for them to sue the photographer for using the photos without their permission?

Thanks for the great info by the way!

 

[Agetan]

So my next question would be, the agreement could be based solely on verbal but safer to have it paper

If u can prove it in court should there be a case with verbal, it will be fine. It is about evidence.

Regards,

Hart

 

[JasonB]

So my next question would be, the agreement could be based solely on verbal but safer to have it on paper?

How about us using the photos for advertisement? Since the client obviously does not sign a talent release form, it would be possible for them to sue the photographer for using the photos without their permission?

Thanks for the great info by the way!

No such thing in Singapore, model release, even big name celebrity had tried suing and lost. But good to have.

Of course, financial might and stamina in a law suit matters.

 

[catchlights]

So my next question would be, the agreement could be based solely on verbal but safer to have it on paper?

How about us using the photos for advertisement? Since the client obviously does not sign a talent release form, it would be possible for them to sue the photographer for using the photos without their permission?

Thanks for the great info by the way!

all you need to do is Ask Them Nicely for using their image as portfolio. a little respect will go a long way.

 

[siewsphone]

Does this means if I pay a model for portrait shooting, I own the right to publish the photos without permission from the model? :embrass:

 

[Clown]

Does this means if I pay a model for portrait shooting, I own the right to publish the photos without permission from the model? :embrass:

depends on what's written on the model release you make them sign.

 

[siewsphone]

depends on what's written on the model release you make them sign.

I see, so if I did not prepare the document after shooting, that means there will be a risk for me to use the photo in any kind of purpose right?

Thanks

 

[Clown]

I see, so if I did not prepare the document after shooting, that means there will be a risk for me to use the photo in any kind of purpose right?

Thanks

Yes. (10chars)

 

[Rashkae]

Well, if I read the above...

"Commissioning: If a portrait/photograph/engraving is commissioned by another party, the commissioner owns the copyright in the work. If the portrait/photograph/engraving is required for a particular purpose, this purpose must be communicated to the commissioned party. While the commissioner is the copyright owner, the commissioned party has the right to stop others from doing any act comprised in the copyright, unless such act is done for the particular purpose for which the portrait/photograph/engraving is created. "

And:

"Generally, the person who created the work (i.e. the author) owns the copyright in the work. However, there are exceptions to this general rule."

In this case, the commissioner is the Photographer, as he paid the model. So long as he clearly communicated that the pictures were for publication in a portfolio, he owns the copyright, but as stated, if he uses it for a purpose other than what was agreed the model can chase after him.

But for clarity and to be safe, there should be a signed agreement that clearly states the purpose of the shots, especially if people's faces are identifiable (model release form).

That's the way I interpret it at least...