I suspect you're right about displays at your place of business, although in today's world it's not a bad idea to CYA. If you have the model release you can extend the images to other forms of advertising, too.
-p Scott Loveless wrote: > 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. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
