Paul Sorenson wrote: > You can retain copyright in all cases, but still assign the right to > reproduction for weddings and portraits just like you do for > publication. You can then continue to use the images for advertising, > etc, as long as you have had the equivalent of a model release built > into your contract. > > -p >
Here in the U.S., a photographer can generally use photos he has made as advertising at his place of business without a model release. e.g. - I run a portrait studio and you come in for a sitting. Afterwards, I can plaster a photo of you on the front window or inside the business for advertisement purposes without your permission. Granted, I would personally get at least a verbal agreement that you don't mind me doing so, and if you asked me to take it down I would. But I don't think I would necessarily be obligated to do so unless it was written into the work order/contract before the sitting occurred. A few months ago my wife took Megan to The Picture People for an Easter photo or some such. They called a few days later wanting to know if they could hang a photo of her in the studio and would we come in and sign a model release. So either I'm smoking crack or The Picture People like to cover their bases in order to avoid legal entanglements. Probable a little of both. > >>> From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >>> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> >>> Subject: Re: DMCA Takedown (was Stolen Photos) >>> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:27:36 +0900 >>> >>> >>> When I was in that game, that is exactly what I did. I gave em an >>> album of proofs, and the negatives and wished them all the best. >>> The problem is that a lot of photographers want to hold onto residual >>> rights, and specify in their contracts that they are the first owners >>> of copyright. >>> In your country, I believe that the creator of the work is first owner >>> of copyright unless they specifically sign it away by contract. In my >>> country, it is exactly the opposite, wedding photography is considered >>> work for hire, and the person paying for the work is considered first >>> owner unless there is a written agreement to the contrary. >>> What the whole thing means is that photo lab clerks are now expected >>> to be lawyers as well as lab techs, which is a little unfair to both >>> them and their customers, especially since the penalties for >>> transgression can be very onerous. >>> >>> Couple of years ago we decided we wanted a few of our wedding photos reproduced for use in a scrap book. Each of our mothers was to receive one. So we called our wedding photographer and he quoted us an unreasonable (at least we thought so) price for a handful of 5x7 prints. We countered with an offer to buy the negs and the rights to reproduce them ourselves. He asked for a sum almost as much as we paid him to shoot the wedding in the first place. As a result, he made nothing and we didn't get the photos. We considered disassembling our wedding album and reproducing them ourselves, but, legal ramifications aside, we decided it would be too much trouble to reassemble it. Should I decide to shoot weddings on the side I'll be handling the photos Bill's way. Fewer headaches all the way around. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
