Interspersed...
On Feb 11, 2014, at 1:17 PM, Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ...
> Essentially, the concern I raised can be expressed in the following
> question (more academic in nature):
> 1. If the guy did it correctly, in a legal way
> (i.e. hired somebody to do produce great shots for him [wedding or not -
> does it matter - as it can be even done with the staged "model" wedding
> or just a regular wedding, as long it is done correctly from the legal
> point of view]),
> would it be acceptable to display those photos in his business portfolio?
Yes. I think a legitimate business model would be for me to hustle
business at wedding shows, then to hand off the actual shooting to
competent photographers. What my employees or contractors produce for me
is mine to claim, to sell, and to show to potential clients as examples
of the work I can produce for them.
*While I agree a legitimate business model would be for the studio to
drum up the business, then hire shooters and promote the results as an
example of what the studio produces for its customers, this raises the
copyright issue again. If the shooters are employees, who have W-4s and
I-9s in file and get legitimate W-2s at the end of the year, then the
employer owns the resulting copyright.*
*If, however, the shooters are contractors who receive 1099s at the end
of the year, they are considered work-for-hire and thus can claim
copyright for their images. The studio would need to have very specific
contract language with the shooters as to who owns and has the ultimate
use of the images produced as work-for-hire.*
-p
>
> And a variation of that, based on your [Stan] example:
> 2. Do you feel OK to put shots produced by your hired assistants into
YOUR
> business portfolio?
Yes, same answer. In my business model my reputation is based on the
quality of the work my studio produces, whether I actually push the
shutter button or not. At some point purists may quibble about whether a
work is by Michelangelo or from one of his assistants working under his
supervision. If Mike is willing to have put his name to the work, that
is good enough for me.
stan
>
> If the answers for 1. and 2. are different, then
> 3. What is the difference between the situation described in 1. and 2.
> above?
>
> I would be very interested to hear what different PDMLers think about
> this type of situation.
>
>
>
>>
>> And, as I pointed out earlier, he's completely screwed from the
>> standpoint of model releases.
>>
>
> Mark, that's a good point. However, it is hypothetical at this point
> (even though this is something that would be likely, as the photographer
> does not seem to be very scrupulous).
> In principle, if the "seller" is scrupluous and had obtained the model
> releases for his own needs (especially if it was on a basis similar to
> TFP) then that part wouldn't be a problem.
>
> Igor
>
>
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the
PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
--
Being old doesn't seem so old now that I'm old.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
