Kaitlin Lara wrote:

If you acknowledge he was within his rights then what's the point of this thread? If she signed a release, there's nothing she can do but suck it up and not do it again, or shell out some cash and pay him for the rights to the photos.

...it's simply about the release and contract, nothing more or less.
A photographer and model need to discuss the Adult Model Release
prior to signing and shoot. The release IS the enforceable agreement/contract.

In this case, the model paid for the shoot and should of had a simple contract/agreement that defined copyright/ownership to her.
I pay my models, they sign an Adult Professional Model Release contract/
agreement and we shoot - with no doubt as to ownership of copyright and use.

I do think the fact she paid for the shoot, absense of a contract to the contrary,
is worth discussing with a lawyer.

Vito wrote:
Now, where is Copyright part of the Constitution?

"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

In modern usage we do not usually describe the creator of a work of the visual arts as an "author," but both context and analysis of the usage of the time indicate that the Framers clearly meant to include visual artists within the scope of copyright protections. This clause is the basis for both the Patent Office and the Copyright Office and the functions thereof. Even if this were not so, both this clause and the Commerce Clause clearly give Congress the power to protect the usage of works of visual art, and they have unequivocably done so with the full consent and cooperation of the Federal courts.

You may disagree. However, you would then be in a small and, more importantly, legally impotent minority.

M

dgold wrote:
I do think the fact she paid for the shoot, absense of a contract to the contrary,
is worth discussing with a lawyer.

Okay, let's discuss it. What is your potential objection to this fact?

M