Peter Dattolo wrote:
I myself would have the model sign something saying she gives you the right to edit them and something to the extent that her signature releases you from the photographer or other entities connected to the photos from coming after you for anything involving the editing.

This is dangerous advice in that if the model has not been granted derivate works rights, and if those rights are not transferable, then both parties are open to a copyright infringment suit.  Imagine that I take a song from the radio and have my buddy re-record it - after I sign a piece of paper saying it's OK.  It's not!

  Even though the model is in the photograph, she has no more right to allow someone to edit the photos than she does to have them re-record a song for her.   Unless, of course, she has secured said rights from the photographer (or, for that matter, the record company!).


    - Joe


(p.s. a good read of http://www.copyright.gov might be in order here)

Joe Tomasone wrote:
This is dangerous advice in that if the model has not been granted derivate works rights, and if those rights are not transferable, then both parties are open to a copyright infringment suit.  Imagine that I take a song from the radio and have my buddy re-record it - after I sign a piece of paper saying it's OK.  It's not!

  Even though the model is in the photograph, she has no more right to allow someone to edit the photos than she does to have them re-record a song for her.   Unless, of course, she has secured said rights from the photographer (or, for that matter, the record company!).


    - Joe


(p.s. a good read of http://www.copyright.gov might be in order here)

Well i was assuming the model was not stupid and knew if she could or could not have them edited. I suppose if she (model) was not so smart then it would be a problem.

Joe Tomasone wrote:
A well-worded release will also specify if the rights are transferrable.

People really confuse Model Releases.  By design they have nothing to do with granting model privileges, it is a document allowing the photographer rights to use model likeness, that's it...nothing else.

Beyond that, a separate document should be prepared for granting image use rights.

Model Release = Image (person) "Likeness" for release to use
Usage Rights = Allowing use to other by the owner of the "photo"

Combing both of the above becomes a dual party agreement (and obligations such as delivery) with different intention.  When all obligations (again, delivery) are not met it could render the release null and void.

Separating the agreements creates singular intention with sole intention for each party.

Where this becomes important:  You shoot for a client and the Release states you will deliver images to the model.  The client says, "No, these images are for specific intent and purpose, do not release them where they can be posted all over the Internet."  The model doesn't receive her images...that could be viewed as a condition to void the release.

Keep the documentation separate.

Peter Dattolo wrote:
If a model wants to use one of these photos she has every right to edit that photo if she wanted to use it.

No, she does not have the "right" to edit photos without having express permission to do so from the author. Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author (the person who originally created the work) or someone who has obtained rights from the author.

Peter Dattolo wrote:
At the time it is edited it is technically not the same photo at that point.

It is still the same photo, technically. Unless drastic changes have been made, it is still recognized as mostly the original with a few minor touch-ups and does NOT constitute an original work nor a copyrightable derivative.

Peter Dattolo wrote:
EDIT: As an example i would say that it is so and so photo but i edited it for the model for her portfolio. Besides all the model has to say is she edited the photos herself, who is gonna know if she really did or not?

"... who is gonna know?" is a dangerous question.

Better to ask: "Will I be sued if the photographer finds out I edited his pictures without permission?"

Picture This wrote:
It is still the same photo, technically. Unless drastic changes have been made, it is still recognized as mostly the original with a few minor touch-ups and does NOT constitute an original work nor a copyrightable derivative.

Actually, it is legally considered a derivative work, albiet one that infringes on the copyright of the creator of the original work; and, as you correctly stated, is not copyrightable itself.

Peter Dattolo wrote:
Well i was assuming the model was not stupid and knew if she could or could not have them edited. I suppose if she (model) was not so smart then it would be a problem.

In any respect, her absolution of the editor from legal claims by the photographer are meaningless and would hold no weight in court if she did not have assignable rights, and are meaningless and not needed if she does.   The language you used is similar to language I've seen used to "justify" other actions that were not quite on the up and up, but I probably should not have presumed. 

Looknsee Photography wrote:
The issue isn't whether you can edit a picture -- the issue is what you intend to do with the edited picture.  Heck, I pick up pictures on the Internet all the time & practice my photo editing skills on them, but that's as far as I go -- I don't publish them, distribute them, show them to others, or what not.

While technically illegal, you are right, no one is going to know or care about it.  The author, by publishing a photo on the Web knows that a copy will have to be transmitted to your computer for you to see it and effectively grants you said right.  The technically illegal part is when you made a copy to work on.   But again, this is a hair that is too finely split to matter in reality.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Side note:  For example, a painter has ask permission to base some of her paintings & drawings on some of my nude photography, and I have given her my blessing.  She has made over a dozen paintings from my images, and we are both pleased by the results.  But it was very gratifying to me that she requested my permission before making the images -- I suspect that I would have been upset if I had found these images without her having asking for permission.  (See http://www.yourart.com/go.php?id=42283& … 1vbi5jb20=)

You granted her the right to make a derivative work, which you, as the copyright holder, can do.   Since you have done so, she now has copyright to the painting and drawings, for which you can ask for derivative work rights to photograph them.... AHHHHHH!   

NikkiC wrote:
however, even if the photographer VERBALLY agreed to that it was okay - i would STILL make a documentation of it. Because if it was EVER brought to court, verbal agreements don't fly - ya might have a better chance if you can find a witness to your verbal agreement.

Verbal agreements can and have held up in court, but, of course, it depends on what corroboration you have and how likely the events you described are likely versus what the other pary claims.   Written agreements are the best bet. 

What does this mean to everyone reading this thread?  GET RELEASES.

NikkiC wrote:
Then I'll make sure that she makes a documentation signed by him, then signed by HER and then signed by me. I know it's a bitch to go thru - especially since she's in Cali and I'm way over here in Iowa - however, i'd rather spend 37 cents on a stamp than $25,000.00 (minimum you can sue for to bring to small claims courts)on a lawsuit PLUS court costs and attorney fees  Definitely don't have that!

This is a good idea since many photographers do not have releases from models permitting derivative or other works to be made. 

By the way, small claims court is usually $2,500 - not $25,000. 


   - Joe

No contract is needed specificaly for this purpose. The contract they have the model sign and the copyright cover this.

Joe Tomasone wrote:
You granted her the right to make a derivative work, which you, as the copyright holder, can do.   Since you have done so, she now has copyright to the painting and drawings, for which you can ask for derivative work rights to photograph them.... AHHHHHH!   

Giving permission to someone to edit a photo does not transfer copyright.

Peter Dattolo wrote:

Joe Tomasone wrote:
This is a good idea since many photographers do not have releases from models permitting derivative or other works to be made. 
   - Joe

No contract is needed specificaly for this purpose. The contract they have the model sign and the copyright cover this.

If the contract (release) grants those likeness rights (as I said).   If not, then that would need to be negotiated, hence this contract.

Peter Dattolo wrote:



Giving permission to someone to edit a photo does not transfer copyright.

Correct (essentially), but that's not what I said.  In that example, there was no editing, per se, but a completely original work BASED off the photograph.  The photographer maintains copyright for the photograph, but the painter gains copyright to the painting, which is made copyrightable by virtue of the right to create a derivative work of the photograph granted to the painter by the photographer.

If you edit a picture (with permission, of course!), the EDITING you do is copyrighted, not the entire (edited) photo!   From Section 103 of the Copyright Act of 1976:

(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

    - Joe

Picture This wrote:
Joe,

Thanks for the information and pro attitude. It's nice when people can get solid advice from those who know without getting sneered at.

My pleasure, sir.   I never sneer, it makes my nose look funnier than it already does. 

By the way, those of you who have concerns in this matter (and don't we all?) should read the relevant sections of the Copyright Act (it's only a two-Advil document; nothing like tax law!) and understand the rights you do (and do not) have.   It might be important to you someday. 


    - Joe

area291 wrote:
People really confuse Model Releases.  By design they have nothing to do with granting model privileges, it is a document allowing the photographer rights to use model likeness, that's it...nothing else.

Beyond that, a separate document should be prepared for granting image use rights.

Model Release = Image (person) "Likeness" for release to use
Usage Rights = Allowing use to other by the owner of the "photo"

Bingo, I have never understood why photographers and models have such a difficult time with this concept.  If your paperwork is clear, there are no misunderstandings. 

More importantly, if your paperwork is clear, you can convey to the model those rights you wish to convey and retain those you do not.  Ambiguity is the killer, not clarity.

Starstruck Foto wrote:
All rights revert back to the photog.Model must posess a written release to alter his work.Cut out the model middleman and simply phone the photog.He can grant a verbal agreement that is binding over the phone.All you have to do is ask.If the photog objects then the model is out of luck.Its that simple.

I understand your point, but that is nonesensical.  The original poster has presumed that the model has been granted some rights in writing.  The model has whatever rights she has been granted and there is no reason to believe that they revert to the photographer.

That is the problem.  Booking a model and granting a license is a binding written agreement.  If a license grants broad rights, a model will have broad rights.  A badly written license might permit a model to make reasonable edits to a photo.

So, while it would certainly be a good idea to ask a photographer in the case there is uncertainty, the first step would be to look at the license grant provided by the photographer.

All of that having been said, the original poster is making this way too complicated.  Likewise, even if she were to have been allowed the right to edit a photo, she will not gain copyright to it, since that will always remain with the original photographer.

Visions Of Excess Studi wrote:
Contact the model and ask her to send a copy of the signed release and the usage rights if any were given. If the model wasn't astute enough to get a copy, don't edit the pics. If it's a generic release, don't edit the pics.

\\

Good advice.

Joe Tomasone wrote:
This is a good idea since many photographers do not have releases from models permitting derivative or other works to be made. 
- Joe

But they should Joe, they should...

My release states:

"...I understand that the photographer reserves the sole right to reproduce, display, use, publish, or republish, license or sell the specified photographs, or rights thereto, or in any derivative work, in which my image may be included in whole or in part, in colour or monochrome, and for use in any media, including for commercial uses, at their studio, place of business or elsewhere, including the use of any printed matter in conjunction with such photographs, except as may be provided by separate written agreement (if any should be made.)..."

The last part allows for more restrictive release agreements (riders) and also for certain licenses back to the model.... AS LONG AS they are separately formulated and written down.

As for "implied rights" which some rely on and that cause no end of disputes:

"...I understand that no rights, express or implied, are granted to me regarding use of the photographs except as may be set out in a separate written license agreement...."

No paper? No rights! As well as clearly and definitively separating the model's release to me from EVERYTHING else associated with the work(s).

Studio36

NikkiC wrote:
Dont' worry guys I got it all under control - I simply just created another release form and agreement -

It has to be signed by the photographer, the model - basically anyone that would give me an image - it would have to be signed by ALL parties involved in the creation of this image - EVEN the MUA - oh yes - i've been thinking over here.

How about I copy and paste??





Artist Release Form & Agreement


This Agreement must be completed & be signed by all parties involved in this project and returned before Artist can schedule and/or begin this job.


I, ___________________________, Owner & Creator of the listed
       (Owner of listed images )
images, hereby  grant permission to ______________________, for the                              ( Artist )
use of listed images for photo editing purposes only & also
grant ________________________________ to send ______________________
                    ( model )                          ( Artist )
______ copy (copies) of image(s) listed, in order to begin the job
( qty. )
requested. It is also agreed that the original image(s) and/or copy (copies) of original image(s) are only permitted for use with this assignment. Any use of original image(s) and/or copy (copies) of original image(s) is prohibited. Let it also be understood that the original and/or copy(copies) of reproduced image(s) will solely be owned by ____________________________, unless otherwise noted
                                          ( Artist )
& agreed to in a separate agreement. Furthermore, any use of reproduced
image(s) granted by the Artist are to have Credit Line of all persons
involved in the finished work(s). This agreement is to make sure to give credit where credit is due & to abide by the law, and by the code of fair practice.

I'm pretty happy with that

then after that will be areas to sign - name/title then , phone, email , signature and date. phone and email was a personal preference for me - so when filed - and needing to find contact info - it's easily found.

I will get the original signed agreement - and send copies of the agreement(s) to the other people involved in the project.

I also will have a sheet that has a table to list all files/images that are said to be edited. I think that i made this agreement fair to every person involved I'm happy w/ how it turned out - although - I still think I should cover or touch on if the reproduced work is wanted by someone for use in editorial work. And say that the artist will receive, 30%, photographer 35% and model 35% - give me some feedback on what you consider fair as far as that possibly happening.... I felt that the photographer and model should get more than me - because....it's because of THEM  and their permission that  I was able to edit the images and that the image was wanted by an agency - they were the sole creators - i just helped out the image. So, do you think my thinking is right? if i made ANY sense? Do you feel that something of that nature would be fair? Artist = 30%, Model= 35% and Photographer = 35% OR Artist = 30%, Model = 30% and Photographer = 40%? Now I know mostly photographer post in here lol - so i won't be shocked if you all agree with the photographer receiving more haha

Anywho - sorry so long - let me know what you think of the form and the percentages of pay outs in case someone was intersted in a photo I edited....

Thanks for ALL your words

Nikki

NO, sorry, not close. The edited version (if for unfathomable reasons a photographer was going to agree to let you edit his/her images in a case like this at all) still belongs to the photographer not the "artist" (retoucher) and control of the image and ability to license it editorially or commercially still rests with him, and whatever financial agreements already spelled out in the original agreement would still hold. (aside from whatever he might be paying you to retouch, but no reworking of modeling fees) It's not your place to license the image or spell out any financial arrangements, especially the terms you're suggesting!

There is no law about giving all parties credit, I've never even heard that myth before, did you invent it yourself? There are sometimes contractual agreements about byline/credit lines between the photographer and end users. There is no such thing as a "code of fair practice"

As far as any payment goes, there are high end retouchers used for some commercial work that get paid very well, but even they don't remotely dream of getting any copyright, control of usage or splits or royalties on future uses, they get paid one time for their work, end of story. The idea that a photographer would be paying anyone, let alone some unknown friend of a model, to retouch a models portfolio shots or test shots is quite a stretch of the imagination. If, however, they were going to do that for some reason they would pay you some flat or by the hour fee and that would be the end of it, no royalties or percentages.

It boggles the mind why anyone would allow anything close to such an agreement. An agreement was already made in the original model release and usage agreements, but now you are going to "edit" or retouch a photographers work and gain the right to license the work yourself and dictate the terms and arrange for extra payment to the model on top of whatever was originally agreed to? Sometimes I hate the fact that the internet was ever invented!

Aaron_H wrote:
As far as any payment goes, there are high end retouchers used for some commercial work that get paid very well, but even they don't remotely dream of getting any copyright, control of usage or splits or royalties on future uses, they get paid one time for their work, end of story. The idea that a photographer would be paying anyone, let alone some unknown friend of a model, to retouch a models portfolio shots or test shots is quite a stretch of the imagination. If, however, they were going to do that for some reason they would pay you some flat or by the hour fee and that would be the end of it, no royalties or percentages.

Actually, this is usually a "work for hire" arrangement and the copyright stays with the photographer.

If, however, the photographer agrees to let another person edit their work and licenses the right to do so, the new derivative can then be copyrighted as a new work and sold independently of the original, provided enough changes have been made to claim it as "new" material. If it's simple retouching, it won't qualify as "new".

Derivative Work

"A “derivative work,â€? that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an “original work of authorship.â€? Derivative works, also known as “new versions,â€? include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a “derivative workâ€? or “new version.â€?

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new workâ€? or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

NO, sorry, not close. The edited version (if for unfathomable reasons a photographer was going to agree to let you edit his/her images in a case like this at all) still belongs to the photographer not the "artist" (retoucher) and control of the image and ability to license it editorially or commercially still rests with him, and whatever financial agreements already spelled out in the original agreement would still hold. (aside from whatever he might be paying you to retouch, but no reworking of modeling fees) It's not your place to license the image or spell out any financial arrangements, especially the terms you're suggesting!

There is no law about giving all parties credit, I've never even heard that myth before, did you invent it yourself? There are sometimes contractual agreements about byline/credit lines between the photographer and end users. There is no such thing as a "code of fair practice"

As far as any payment goes, there are high end retouchers used for some commercial work that get paid very well, but even they don't remotely dream of getting any copyright, control of usage or splits or royalties on future uses, they get paid one time for their work, end of story. The idea that a photographer would be paying anyone, let alone some unknown friend of a model, to retouch a models portfolio shots or test shots is quite a stretch of the imagination. If, however, they were going to do that for some reason they would pay you some flat or by the hour fee and that would be the end of it, no royalties or percentages.

It boggles the mind why anyone would allow anything close to such an agreement. An agreement was already made in the original model release and usage agreements, but now you are going to "edit" or retouch a photographers work and gain the right to license the work yourself and dictate the terms and arrange for extra payment to the model on top of whatever was originally agreed to? Sometimes I hate the fact that the internet was ever invented!

All i

NO, sorry, not close. The edited version (if for unfathomable reasons a photographer was going to agree to let you edit his/her images in a case like this at all) still belongs to the photographer not the "artist" (retoucher) and control of the image and ability to license it editorially or commercially still rests with him, and whatever financial agreements already spelled out in the original agreement would still hold. (aside from whatever he might be paying you to retouch, but no reworking of modeling fees) It's not your place to license the image or spell out any financial arrangements, especially the terms you're suggesting!

There is no law about giving all parties credit, I've never even heard that myth before, did you invent it yourself? There are sometimes contractual agreements about byline/credit lines between the photographer and end users. There is no such thing as a "code of fair practice"

As far as any payment goes, there are high end retouchers used for some commercial work that get paid very well, but even they don't remotely dream of getting any copyright, control of usage or splits or royalties on future uses, they get paid one time for their work, end of story. The idea that a photographer would be paying anyone, let alone some unknown friend of a model, to retouch a models portfolio shots or test shots is quite a stretch of the imagination. If, however, they were going to do that for some reason they would pay you some flat or by the hour fee and that would be the end of it, no royalties or percentages.

It boggles the mind why anyone would allow anything close to such an agreement. An agreement was already made in the original model release and usage agreements, but now you are going to "edit" or retouch a photographers work and gain the right to license the work yourself and dictate the terms and arrange for extra payment to the model on top of whatever was originally agreed to? Sometimes I hate the fact that the internet was ever invented!

Picture This wrote:
Actually, this is usually a "work for hire" arrangement and the copyright stays with the photographer.

If, however, the photographer agrees to let another person edit their work and licenses the right to do so, the new derivative can then be copyrighted as a new work and sold independently of the original, provided enough changes have been made to claim it as "new" material. If it's simple retouching, it won't qualify as "new".

Derivative Work

"A “derivative work,â€? that is, a work that is based on (or derived from) one or more already existing works, is copyrightable if it includes what the copyright law calls an “original work of authorship.â€? Derivative works, also known as “new versions,â€? include such works as translations, musical arrangements, dramatizations, fictionalizations, art reproductions, and condensations. Any work in which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship is a “derivative workâ€? or “new version.â€?

To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a “new workâ€? or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a preexisting work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes. The new material must be original and copyrightable in itself."
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.html

NikkiC wrote:
No sorry - you  need to go to http://www.gag.org

and look at the code of fair practice - i have the book right in front of me - and everything i have put down - like it or not - can happen.

I have the book of Pricing & Ethical Guidelines by the Graphic Artists Guild(GAG) right in front of me - and i've read it MOST of it. 

I'm not going to sit here and explain - and try to quote everything from the book that are obtained to help graphic artists protect themselves and to also make sure and abide by the law - Code of Fair Practice IS REAL! l

http://www.gag.org/about/fair_code.php

There is no such thing as a code of fair practice in professional photography, and the control of licensing belongs to the photographer unless he signed those rights away, something a competent professional photographer would virtually never sign away to a test shoot or portfolio shoot model, or to some third party that would be retouching his work. Therefore the code of fair practice you mention would have no relevance, even if it's something graphic artists feel bound to, because it would still be the photographer making any licensing arrangements not the graphic artist. I'm not familiar with that graphic artists code, I'm not a graphic artist, but you used it without explanation in proposed paperwork that you expect photographers to sign and implied that it's a known code that photographers should be living by, or possibly, depending on how you interpret your wording, that it's even the law!

NikkiC wrote:
It's not like I made this paperwork over night and just threw something together - i've been working on paperwork for 3 weeks - and this is just something i thought of last minute to make sure everyone was protected

but - not sure why you have to be such an asshole when replying. Everyone else was pretty helpful and polite - you on the other hand like to make others look and feel stupid and talk down to them. Good luck with that.

I’m sorry you feel like I was being an asshole, but you asked what we thought of it and I told you, but even if you hadn’t asked but you posted that you’d have to be ready to hear what people thought of it.

The fact is though that your proposed paperwork and your ideas on the whole scenario are insulting to professional photographers, many would think that by your proposals and suggestions that you were being an asshole, but even so I wasn’t being impolite or trying to be an asshole, I was simply giving you matter of fact commentary on your document and the ideas within and trying to explain some of the flaws, and I think that is being helpful. So many people don’t understand many of these issues and I’m correcting some invalid assertions you’re throwing out to the public, so even if you don’t find that helpful for some reason, you’re not the only one reading it. It does get pretty tiring to see the continual barrage of misinformation, myths and skewed understanding or perceptions/demands of all these issues surrounding copyright, usage, and the model/photographer (and now third party “editorsâ€?) business relationships.

NikkiC wrote:
oh - and the PHOTOGRAPHER is NOT paying me - read again!

I don’t need to read again, you posted proposed paperwork in which you get the rights to license the image yourself and you would get a percentage of the licensing fee, that is a form of payment to you from the photographer because he’d be allowing you to license his image and take a cut. I further talked about more realistic ways a photographer could or would pay you rather than giving away licensing rights to you and getting slightly a above equal 3 way split. That idea would be fantasy in the real world of professional commercial or fashion photography.

NikkiC wrote:
The model is paying me because she's getting sick of waiting 6 weeks or LONGER for the images to be sent to her! All Im asking is for permission to edit the images.

I applaud you for knowing and caring that you’d need permission, but in your proposal it’s certainly not “allâ€? you’re asking for. You’re asking for the right to control part of the licensing of the image and take a percentage, the image could theoretically be licensed editorially (the type of usage you ask for control of) any number of times, but even one usage under your terms would probably pay you more than a standard range hourly editing/retouching fee would have paid you for the work you did if you were paid hourly in the standard fashion. Not only that but you seek to negotiate percentage splits for the model as well even though she was already compensated in whatever fashion she already agreed to in the original deal (prints, files, or money). It doesn’t make sense.

NikkiC wrote:
However, if it were to arise that someone liked my touched up photo, and wanted to pay money for it - I would get the least amount. The photographer would get the most. We all had a part in it - and It's also w/ in my rights of being the said creator of the reproduced image - aka DERIVITIVE WORK - that person that responded KNOWS what he/she is talking about - you on the other hand is only going on how you can't IMAGINE a photographer to allow someone to edit his images - it happens! I've had photographers ask me to ALSO edit their images - and they DO pay for it.

You’re assuming that I’m “onlyâ€? going on what I can’t imagine, and it’s bizarre that you’d want to make the determination that the other person “knowsâ€? what they’re talking about and I don’t when you obviously don’t know yourself, so how can you judge which one of us does? Well guess what? You guessed wrong, he didn’t know, he’s misunderstood derivative works and he quoted selectively and left out the crucial parts of the law. It’s only the original copyright holder that can make, and copyright, derivative works, or give permission for others to make derivative works. Here is the mysteriously left out last section of the law;

“WHO MAY PREPARE A DERIVATIVE WORK?
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. The owner is generally the author or someone who has obtained rights from the author. Anyone interested in a work who does not know the owner of copyright may search the records of the Copyright Office. Or, the Office will conduct a search at a fee of $75* per hour. For further information, request Circular 22, “How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work.â€?

NikkiC wrote:
I'm contacting the photographer directly - to see if he will even allow the photo editing this model has requested of me. I just don't see how I could piss off a photographer with this post - this whole time I have been talking about giving credit where credit is due, having the photographer get more money than i would - but making it fair –

You may not see it but I’ve been trying to explain it. You might not be pissing off many people on model mayhem, but if you approached most working professional commercial/advertising/fashion photographers, unsolicited, and said hey, the work you did of such and such model or subject really needs some editing/retouching and I’d like to do it for you, I’ll also want the rights to claim ownership of the new version as a derivative work and have the rights to license and publish it myself and then give you 35% of the cut….. Well, let’s just say I think you’d get some pretty colorful responses!

You seriously can’t see that it’s insulting to approach a photographer (that doesn’t even know you) out of the blue and offer to, or request to, edit his work, and present him a contract with your terms, which include assigning yourself part of his copyright and you giving him a small cut of potential fees for doing a service that he didn’t ask for?

NikkiC wrote:
i understand that this is not FULLY my decision at all - that's why I will discuss this with the photographer. That's what agreements are there for - he can CHOOSE to sign it or not.

That’s the part I was saying “I can’t imagine,â€? I can’t imagine a photographer with any sense would agree to such an arrangement. Look, if there was some possibility of publishing the image and it needed retouching the photographer would probably want to do it him/herself, and if the model wanted to pay for retouching, then again, he’d want to do it himself and get paid for it, but if it was going to be published and needed retouching that he/she couldn’t or didn’t want to do herself than he’d find someone to do it for a reasonable one time fee not someone who wanted to become a licensing/owning partner taking royalties. Like I said, it doesn’t make any sense.

NikkiC wrote:
And if not, we will work together on revising it so it is suitable for the both of us. I don't expect to take HIS image and make it all mine - and i don't want any rights for original image - ALL I WANT - is permission - to edit the photos - LOL - and the funny thing is??? THIS IS NOT FOR ME!!!! lmfao THIS is for a model!!! - i'm trying to step in and take it into my own hands by asking him MYSELF, because I don't know this model from one person to the next....and I do not want to send it to her to have her give it to him - tell me that he signed it - and find out she forged it. LOL. Anyways - this whole post was in order to get some insight - see what people thought was fair - however - I'm not sure if i got ANY responses from models - ...hm....

I wish you’d stop saying all you want is permission to edit when that’s clearly not all your asking for in that contract, you’re also asking for lots more that simply isn’t done in the professional realm and isn’t reasonable, including changing the fundamental agreement between the model and photographer just because you’ve come in and edited an image. I know you’re easily offended, but I’m sorry, I have to be honest, it’s ridiculous.

NikkiC wrote:
Not trying to get attacked and not trying to make photographers look stupid?!? I'm here for advice, but not to be ridiculed, looked down upon, or talked down to like i'm an idiot.

I think you’re overreacting and taking it too personally. You took honest criticism and commentary on your proposal as all those things but that’s not what I was doing, at the most I’ve been incredulous at some of the points.

NikkiC wrote:
P.s. And I don't think anyone in here thought I was coming across as an asshole --- maybe an uneducated person on the subject of legal rights for everyone - but I did NOT come off to be a jerk - NOR was I trying to insult anyone!?!?!

Look, I didn’t come out and call you an asshole or say you were being an asshole, you called me an asshole and couldn’t understand why I was (allegedly) being one, so my response was that some photographers might take your suggestions and proposal as you leaning that way and tried to point out why it was insulting, so that if I came across a little exasperated (which you take as being an asshole) maybe you’d understand why. But it seems you’re too defensive to see it.

NikkiC wrote:
Who said being helpful meant responding negatively????

It is helpful to show mistakes and problems with your contract, your plan and your perceptions, not just for you, but for others reading this as well. Like I pointed out before, you not only asked for thoughts but what you wrote demanded thoughts/critique regardless, and in this case pointing out the problems and mistakes in the law was necessary. When you’re throwing out ideas like this that others might latch onto, but that would cause all sorts of problems, it’s not the time for “if you don’t have anything nice to say….â€?

NikkiC wrote:
I didn't know my proposals and suggestions were "assholish" –

For the last time, you started the asshole thing, I didn’t call you or your ideas “assholishâ€? in my critique, I simply dealt with the points I felt needed dealing with and explained the problems, only when you deemed that “assholishâ€? on my part did I gently point out where your own proposed words and actions could be taken that way. I didn’t come here to call you an asshole, I came to help prevent you from being one (if those are the terms you need to put it in)