Wed, February 2nd, 2005 by btezra
In the humor department...
I wanted to stress how important it is to get a signed release for any model you shoot, agree to terms ahead of time and settle on a $ amount if any images are used commercially...
Why do I bring this up?
Well it seems this guy hit the jackpot after realizing his image was used in advertising for far too long without being compensated for it...always settle up first before you start cashing any checks!
February 2nd, 2005 at 12:01 pm
That's a great story. It also makes me think that it would be a good idea if we had a section (maybe in the Wiki) with copyright issues, model releases, when a photographer should get a model release, etc.
February 2nd, 2005 at 12:59 pm
definitely- b/c here is my question: if i take a picture of someone standing out on a public street, do i need a release if i want to sell that image? i mean, if you are in public, you have no expectation of privacy- but i'm not sure if that affects your ability to control the sale of your image. in practical terms, it would make selling most street art impossible, since it's impractical to carry around releases and get each victim/subject to sign.
February 2nd, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I would hope that there's a HUGE difference between you as the photographer selling the image and big corporation XYZ buying it from big ad agency ABC for use in a big ad campaign.
I would hope there's a difference between commercial USE of an image and selling and image for profit.
Then again, I am not a lawyer, so I wonder.
February 2nd, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Also not a lawer....
...but as I understand the law, you could definately sell the photos for editorial use.
You definately could NOT sell them for commercial use.
As an art print....I'm not sure. I would suspect there wouldn't be a problem as long as you are the starving artist type. If you become Richard Avedon and sell it, you better have a release.
I'm suprised that this guy was paid $250 to model and didn't sign a release that would hold up in court to allow the $250 to be just compensation for commercial use. I'd suspect in the right court, an appeal would win.
Again, not a lawyer. Just a schmoe with a camera.
February 2nd, 2005 at 4:50 pm
Matt, the following page exists in the wiki. Not sure if it's quite what you're talking about, but it's a start:
http://wiki.photoblogs.org/wiki/Photographer%27s_Rights
February 2nd, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Brandon,
That is what I was looking for. Lots of great info there. Thanks.
February 2nd, 2005 at 6:02 pm
the reality is that he was compensated, (at least on paper) and did sign a release. none of the paperwork fully protects you from a lawsuit of any kind. the same thing has happened with the guy who did the "who got mail" voice for aol. they gave him 200 bucks. 10 years later, he goes in for more money and gets it. its the court system. o.j. walks. james brown goes to jail. welcome to america. if the image becomes famous -- if there is real money involved, all the paperwork in the world aint gonna save you from getting sued. right or wrong.
February 3rd, 2005 at 2:57 am
the key point of the case was that the man was compensated for a particular use of his likeness. In this case, he released his likeness for limited usage in Canada only.
Later the man's image became part of the branding of the product on a worldwide level - which went far beyond the original release. Thus he was due some compensation for the additional usage.
in the end... the Coffee company boned themselves on this because they did not properly clear rights on the image before using it like crazy.
February 3rd, 2005 at 4:25 pm
I used to work for a fine art stock photography house. The rule of thumb, and there are many exceptions, was that you are free to use an image in the perview of your own work, including fine print sales and exhibitions and monographs ( a possible exception being the cover which amounts to packaging; monographs are a little cagier than exhibitions and terms will likely be dictated by publisher ), with little fear of repercussion unless the image is proven libelous, slanderous, misrepresentative, etc. It is a judgement call but the same goes for editorial usage where the person is not released. If the image is slanderous, misrepresentative, etc. then editorial usage is not necessarily free of legal repercussions.
As far as the rest of the thoughts above. Where there are third parties, i.e. clients, ad agencies, etc. and money involved, any potential use should be supported by a model release. Sometimes an indemnification clause can be executed by the photographer where you assume all responsibility if a lawsuit is entered due to the publishing of your image... but you would only do this is you were certain that there will be no ill will from such publishing even though you have no release. Sorry this is a short answer to a long question but I have to fly.
Also, I am not a lawyer but I did deal with a lot of this stuff once upon a time.
Gordon
February 4th, 2005 at 5:47 am
Talking about copyrights, it seems that photographing the Eiffel Tower at night is deemed illegal now:
http://blog.fastcompany.com/archives/2005/02/02/eiffel_tower_repossessed.html
February 4th, 2005 at 9:15 am
Speaking of copyrights and places, in keeping with the contemporary trends of privatizing public space, Chicago's Millennium Park is now copyrighted.
http://newurbanist.blogspot.com/2005/01/copyrighting-of-public-space.html
Been saying for years you better make them while you still can. Goes double for candid public people photography. Going, going...
February 9th, 2005 at 8:36 pm
I took a full frontal 1:1 photo of my self and registered it with the library of congress so if anyone trys to shoot a photo of me, I can sue them for copyright infringement so me and my lawyers can get paid. AND I even signed a model release.