|
Forums >
General Industry >
shared copyright - try #2
I was just on a model's port reading her profile. One thing that she mentioned was photographer's have to agree to share the copyright with them. So this is for models seeking this and for photographers agreeing to this. There is NO such thing as a shared copyright. The photographer can grant you a license to use the images or transfer ownership of copyright only. Jun 07 05 02:26 pm Link i agree, as a photographer you would be foolish to ever sign your rights away to a photograph unless they are buying it. and no copyright is ownership and can't be shared but granted access too. and if your releases are written correctly can be revoked as well. what bothers me is i allow any model to post the photos of her for her portfolio but then they don't give you credit, that pisses me off to no end. Jun 07 05 02:46 pm Link shared copyright?? with a model??? Fred this is the type of amateur madness you will only ever come across by using models from sites like this. Take such requests with a pinch of salt as they have no bearing in legality. ( at least in europe ) Jun 07 05 03:01 pm Link At best the model could get some form of liscence agreement to use the photo in a specific fashion, either that or buy the rights outright. Jun 07 05 03:12 pm Link Copyrights is granted to the creator of the image and is never shared by a model, unless the model is hiring the photographer to do images for her promotional inwhich she retains ownership of said images. Only by written contract-payment to this idea, but only a foll would agree to this. Jun 07 05 03:16 pm Link Posted by Alex Alexander: You mean "fool," don't ya? lol Jun 07 05 03:24 pm Link Of course there is asuch a thing as shared copyright. I do see a lot of models (gnerally fetish models) asking for this for TFP and getting it. Although most are satisfied with royalty-free unrestricted usage agreements. Jun 07 05 03:30 pm Link shared copyright exists certainly. It exists in the same way the guy at the bar who will smack your head in if you make him drop his pint exists. You avoid it as you would avoid him  Jun 07 05 03:45 pm Link Posted by Alex Alexander: Or someone who wanted to charge the model a couple grand for the copyright. Jun 07 05 05:24 pm Link Posted by theda: I wouldn't want to be the model if the photographer decides to take her to court. Personally I will grant a model to use images but any model who thinks they deserve the right for outright use of images is smoking crack! If they want this then maybe they should start shooting photos like most of the girls who can't make it in this industry are doing Jun 07 05 05:33 pm Link Posted by ( ANT ) Mgaphoto: Posted by theda: I wouldn't want to be the model if the photographer decides to take her to court. Personally I will grant a model to use images but any model who thinks they deserve the right for outright use of images is smoking crack! If they want this then maybe they should start shooting photos like most of the girls who can't make it in this industry are doing ouch! Jun 07 05 05:49 pm Link I have no problem sharing rights with models. As far as my work is concerned, they are co-creating the work with me and are more than entitled. Simple as that. Jun 07 05 06:44 pm Link Posted by *!photofashion!*: Posted by ( ANT ) Mgaphoto: Posted by theda: I wouldn't want to be the model if the photographer decides to take her to court. Personally I will grant a model to use images but any model who thinks they deserve the right for outright use of images is smoking crack! If they want this then maybe they should start shooting photos like most of the girls who can't make it in this industry are doing ouch! Damn double ouch...which poses my next question what type og girl makes it in this business? Jun 07 05 06:52 pm Link Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: good luck. Jun 07 05 06:56 pm Link Posted by *!photofashion!*: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: good luck. "Luck" has nothing to do with it. I'm not in a position to pay my subjects, and most of them aren't interested in money anyway. The models I work with enter into my work with the idea of collaborating on a work of art. To me it's no different than the relationship between a lyricist and a composer...You need both Bacharach AND David to write "The Way to San Jose" -- without one, it's just a passably interesting piano solo and without the other it's just a rather clever poem. Combine the two and you have something that transcends cultures. Jun 07 05 07:12 pm Link Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: Posted by *!photofashion!*: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: good luck. "Luck" has nothing to do with it. I'm not in a position to pay my subjects, and most of them aren't interested in money anyway. The models I work with enter into my work with the idea of collaborating on a work of art. To me it's no different than the relationship between a lyricist and a composer...You need both Bacharach AND David to write "The Way to San Jose" -- without one, it's just a passably interesting piano solo and without the other it's just a rather clever poem. Combine the two and you have something that transcends cultures. sorry, but you have to understand that this is my profession and the only thing that puts bread on my table ;-) Jun 07 05 07:22 pm Link don't you be hatin' on elmer fudd, man!! LOL Jun 07 05 09:41 pm Link Posted by *!photofashion!*: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: Posted by *!photofashion!*: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: good luck. "Luck" has nothing to do with it. I'm not in a position to pay my subjects, and most of them aren't interested in money anyway. The models I work with enter into my work with the idea of collaborating on a work of art. To me it's no different than the relationship between a lyricist and a composer...You need both Bacharach AND David to write "The Way to San Jose" -- without one, it's just a passably interesting piano solo and without the other it's just a rather clever poem. Combine the two and you have something that transcends cultures. sorry, but you have to understand that this is my profession and the only thing that puts bread on my table ;-) Well that just proves my point further...Nobody does anything alone, do they? All the more reason to share the fruits of the labors. Jun 07 05 09:58 pm Link Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: Posted by *!photofashion!*: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: Posted by *!photofashion!*: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: good luck. "Luck" has nothing to do with it. I'm not in a position to pay my subjects, and most of them aren't interested in money anyway. The models I work with enter into my work with the idea of collaborating on a work of art. To me it's no different than the relationship between a lyricist and a composer...You need both Bacharach AND David to write "The Way to San Jose" -- without one, it's just a passably interesting piano solo and without the other it's just a rather clever poem. Combine the two and you have something that transcends cultures. sorry, but you have to understand that this is my profession and the only thing that puts bread on my table ;-) Well that just proves my point further...Nobody does anything alone, do they? All the more reason to share the fruits of the labors. Although I agree that it can be colaborative effort to create the image, that has nothing to do with the law. The anology about song writing doesn't work in this case. For songs, lyrics, etc. one has to file a copyright. It's an application with room for all parties invovled. In photography, the copyright by law goes to the photographer automatically. Not the photo assistant, not the mua, not the model, not anyone but the photographer. This is why there are no such things as shared copyrights. Now using the image is a different thing because the owner of the copyright can allow usage of the image or he can transfer owner ship of the copyright or he can do nothing at all and not allow any usage of the image what so ever. Those are the 3 options, period. Jun 07 05 10:23 pm Link You are no more required to file colyright for songs, lyrics, books, etc than you are for images. The same principal of copyright affixing upon creation applies. The same principals of assigning copyright also apply. The photographer would have to assign shared copyright, which is unsual at best. It is also extremely hard to prove should the issue be later challenged, but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility. Posted by Fred Brown: Jun 08 05 12:50 am Link The most overused phrased on this site in the forums & in profiles is "the industry" "I'm new to.." "I've been in.." "I'm just what..." the industry this the industry that... it's almost a sure sign that the writer knows nothing about "the industry." Only in the bizarre whacked out incestuous circle jerk world of "internet modeling" or GWC/GWB (girl with body)relationships do such concepts as shared copyright between photographer and model or subject exist. It's further evidence for anyone still trying to answer the age old question "is internet modeling a joke?" The concept certainly doesn't exist in the real modeling "industry" or the commercial, fashion or editorial photography "industries" Fred is wrong that it's not possible or legal, there are all sorts of joint copyrights between partners, just ask Mert & Markus or Herrmann & Starck. Herrmann & Stark are also experts at the business of photography, copyright and licensing, they've been hired by the ASMP to give seminars to members. They register every single thing they shoot with the copyright office as soon as they shoot it and no joint copyrights have been rejected so far. But that's a separate issue from what's being discussed here. One of the sad things is that the logic of that world is so skewed that the very idea of a model actually hiring (egads! what? ur kidding right?) a photographer to shoot a test is relegated to the stuff of legend or myth akin to flying pigs! "well, I mean IF a model was paying (har dee har har, snicker snicker) then it might be a different story..." Well fucking NO it's not a different story! WTF??? The entire "industry" of professional photography is built on the basis of licensing copyrights, copyrights they retain even while they are being paid to produce the work, even while being paid massive amounts of money to shoot giant national ad's or campaigns. Smart and experienced photographers don't give up copyrights even when they're being paid 5, 50, or a hundred grand for major work. Those are simply the photographers fees with certain amounts of licensing usage built in. Yes, unfortunately many photographers don't understand this, don't believe it, are too scared, cave in etc. So yes, you can all show me counter examples of people giving up copyright. But it's bad business for them and the "industry." It's also off the point, which is that even when giant corporations are pay many or tens of thousands, good smart photographer keep copyrights, so the mere fact of being paid, especially a bargain basement models portfolio or test shoot fee is sure as hell not a paradigm shifting circumstance which should move a photographer to share his copyright! Any model in the real world who showed up at a shoot demanding co-copyright, or even the whole copyright as I've seen some models here claim, would probably be shot on sight, or at least be told to leave the set and would be immediately dropped by an agency if she had one. Folks, the models importance to a shoot determines her pay and maybe other perks as well, that's the way it works. Name your favorite supermodel, they get paid a boatload of money to shoot an ad or a campaign, way more than you do, & maybe they also get rose petals in their toilet water in the trailer, but what they don't get is a joint copyright in the work!!!! Not Naomi, not Kate, not Linda, not Claudia, not Christy, not Elle, none of them! PDN used to have these articles online for free, scroll down to the one called Estimating 101: Making the triple bid work for you. Now you can pay 7 bucks for it. It's a great article for a photographer to read in general, it shows how to bid or estimate jobs & how and why agencies choose the winning bid. Coming in too low with your bid shows you don't know what you're doing, don't have a grasp of what the job entails and loses you the gig. But the point of it for this discussion is that the example used was a run of the mill national ad, a single photo being produced and used, and the average bid of the three was about 50 grand if I remember right. I think about 15 grand of that was the winning photographers fee out of that figure which included the production expenses. Correct me if anyone still has the magazine or pays the 7 bucks. (I have the issue somewhere, maybe I'll look for it) Many routine day to day corporate, commercial and advertising jobs from local to regional to national are paying $2500 to $7500 or up depending on the scope of the usage. If you're trying to do professional modeling, aiming for decent or high paying advertising gigs that commercial & fashion models do, or the editorial fashion tears that help fashion models get those gigs, then you need a strong book. How do you build that book? By shooting with photographers who shoot that kind of work or are able to produce work of that caliber. How do you shoot with such photographers? You can get hired for real gigs and use the tear sheets, you pay for a test, or you can get a free test. Doing the first one usually doesn't happen until you have work to show from doing one of the latter two, although sometimes new fashion models can get sent to castings with no book, nothing more than Polaroids. It doesn't really happen in commercial work, you need professional photos. Your photos are your marketing materials, they are your tools, they are the cornerstone of your career. They are the basic requirements to entering and staying in the field, they allow you to make a living as a model if that's going to happen for you. When was the last time you've heard of a model paying more than a few hundred bucks for a test or portfolio shoot with a legitimate, quality photographer who produces work in the commercial or fashion advertising worlds or work of those styles and calibers? You must realize the value such work has, both in the kind of money that gets paid to people who produce it and in it's necessity to your career as a model. So when a good photographer who can give you the kinds of photos you need is charging you $250, $450, or even 600 bucks for a shoot, out of which you should hope for one usable shot for your book, 2 or 3 at most, that is a bargain!, a steal, something to be thankful for. You're getting this low discounted rate because of many reasons, one of which is knowing that aspiring models don't usually have a lot of money. Be happy. Amplify these thoughts even further when you're lucky enough to be getting a free test!!! So, shared copyright???? PuuuuuLEEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! There is still more to say about relative values between model & photographer, stages of the ladder they're each on, the internet phenomenon of photographers paying models, art photographers etc., but this is already probably the longest post in history and I have to go out to eat now! Jun 08 05 01:09 am Link to finish: PDN used to have these articles online for free, scroll down to the one called Estimating 101: Making the triple bid work for you. Now you can pay 7 bucks for it. It's a great article for a photographer to read in general, it shows how to bid or estimate jobs & how and why agencies choose the winning bid. Coming in too low with your bid shows you don't know what you're doing, don't have a grasp of what the job entails and loses you the gig. But the point of it for this discussion is that the example used was a run of the mill national ad, a single photo being produced and used, and the average bid of the three was about 50 grand if I remember right. I think about 15 grand of that was the winning photographers fee out of that figure which included the production expenses. Correct me if anyone still has the magazine or pays the 7 bucks. (I have the issue somewhere, maybe I'll look for it) Many routine day to day corporate, commercial and advertising jobs from local to regional to national are paying $2500 to $7500 or up depending on the scope of the usage. If you're trying to do professional modeling, aiming for decent or high paying advertising gigs that commercial & fashion models do, or the editorial fashion tears that help fashion models get those gigs, then you need a strong book. How do you build that book? By shooting with photographers who shoot that kind of work or are able to produce work of that caliber. How do you shoot with such photographers? You can get hired for real gigs and use the tear sheets, you pay for a test, or you can get a free test. Doing the first one usually doesn't happen until you have work to show from doing one of the latter two, although sometimes new fashion models can get sent to castings with no book, nothing more than Polaroids. It doesn't really happen in commercial work, you need professional photos. Your photos are your marketing materials, they are your tools, they are the cornerstone of your career. They are the basic requirements to entering and staying in the field, they allow you to make a living as a model if that's going to happen for you. When was the last time you've heard of a model paying more than a few hundred bucks for a test or portfolio shoot with a legitimate, quality photographer who produces work in the commercial or fashion advertising worlds or work of those styles and calibers? You must realize the value such work has, both in the kind of money that gets paid to people who produce it and in it's necessity to your career as a model. So when a good photographer who can give you the kinds of photos you need is charging you $250, $450, or even 600 bucks for a shoot, out of which you should hope for one usable shot for your book, 2 or 3 at most, that is a bargain!, a steal, something to be thankful for. You're getting this low discounted rate because of many reasons, one of which is knowing that aspiring models don't usually have a lot of money. Be happy. Amplify these thoughts even further when you're lucky enough to be getting a free test!!! So, shared copyright???? PuuuuuLEEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! There is still more to say about relative values between model & photographer, stages of the ladder they're each on, the internet phenomenon of photographers paying models, art photographers etc., but this is already probably the longest (2 part now!) post in history and I have to go out to eat now! Jun 08 05 01:44 am Link wtf? I'm trying to put the rest of my post here that wouldn't fit in the first one but only the first few words show, yet when I click on the edit button all of the text shows as if it had posted!???? Jun 08 05 01:47 am Link Ok, I see the problem now, let's try again. PDN used to have these articles online for free: http://www.photoserve.com/photoserve/store/index.jsp scroll down to the one called Estimating 101: Making the triple bid work for you. Now you can pay 7 bucks for it. It's a great article for a photographer to read in general, it shows how to bid or estimate jobs & how and why agencies choose the winning bid. Coming in too low with your bid shows you don't know what you're doing, don't have a grasp of what the job entails and loses you the gig. But the point of it for this discussion is that the example used was a run of the mill national ad, a single photo being produced and used, and the average bid of the three was about 50 grand if I remember right. I think about 15 grand of that was the winning photographers fee out of that figure which included the production expenses. Correct me if anyone still has the magazine or pays the 7 bucks. (I have the issue somewhere, maybe I'll look for it) Many routine day to day corporate, commercial and advertising jobs from local to regional to national are paying $2500 to $7500 or up depending on the scope of the usage. If you're trying to do professional modeling, aiming for decent or high paying advertising gigs that commercial & fashion models do, or the editorial fashion tears that help fashion models get those gigs, then you need a strong book. How do you build that book? By shooting with photographers who shoot that kind of work or are able to produce work of that caliber. How do you shoot with such photographers? You can get hired for real gigs and use the tear sheets, you pay for a test, or you can get a free test. Doing the first one usually doesn't happen until you have work to show from doing one of the latter two, although sometimes new fashion models can get sent to castings with no book, nothing more than Polaroids. It doesn't really happen in commercial work, you need professional photos. Your photos are your marketing materials, they are your tools, they are the cornerstone of your career. They are the basic requirements to entering and staying in the field, they allow you to make a living as a model if that's going to happen for you. When was the last time you've heard of a model paying more than a few hundred bucks for a test or portfolio shoot with a legitimate, quality photographer who produces work in the commercial or fashion advertising worlds or work of those styles and calibers? You must realize the value such work has, both in the kind of money that gets paid to people who produce it and in it's necessity to your career as a model. So when a good photographer who can give you the kinds of photos you need is charging you $250, $450, or even 600 bucks for a shoot, out of which you should hope for one usable shot for your book, 2 or 3 at most, that is a bargain!, a steal, something to be thankful for. You're getting this low discounted rate because of many reasons, one of which is knowing that aspiring models don't usually have a lot of money. Be happy. Amplify these thoughts even further when you're lucky enough to be getting a free test!!! So, shared copyright???? PuuuuuLEEEEEEAAAAAAASSSSEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! There is still more to say about relative values between model & photographer, stages of the ladder they're each on, the internet phenomenon of photographers paying models, art photographers etc., but this is already probably the longest post in history and I have to go out to eat now! Jun 08 05 01:49 am Link Posted by theda: The only documented support for your statement regarding photography is pretaining to what's called Joint Work (Joint Copyright) which is usally done when there is a work for hire type of situation. The consent of all joint copyright owners is required in order to grant an exclusive license. Each joint author owns a pro rata share of the copyright in the work (for example, two joint authors each own one-half of the copyright, three joint authors each own one-third, and so on)-unless they agree upon some other proportions of ownership. Notice this has nothing to do with models or the subject of the image but of the authors that produced it (perfomance, plays, productions, etc more commonly then photographically) which is what I was referring to. But in any case, the proper froms have to be filled out. Jun 08 05 01:50 am Link Posted by theda: True, but without registering certain images and such, proving said copyright sometimes can be a major pain in the butt, especially if you yourself have not use them prior to the offender. Jun 08 05 02:07 am Link If you are a photographer, whether you consider yourself professional or amatuer, you don't give up your copyright! Jun 08 05 02:26 am Link Posted by Fred Brown: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: Posted by *!photofashion!*: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: Posted by *!photofashion!*: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: good luck. "Luck" has nothing to do with it. I'm not in a position to pay my subjects, and most of them aren't interested in money anyway. The models I work with enter into my work with the idea of collaborating on a work of art. To me it's no different than the relationship between a lyricist and a composer...You need both Bacharach AND David to write "The Way to San Jose" -- without one, it's just a passably interesting piano solo and without the other it's just a rather clever poem. Combine the two and you have something that transcends cultures. sorry, but you have to understand that this is my profession and the only thing that puts bread on my table ;-) Well that just proves my point further...Nobody does anything alone, do they? All the more reason to share the fruits of the labors. Although I agree that it can be colaborative effort to create the image, that has nothing to do with the law. The anology about song writing doesn't work in this case. For songs, lyrics, etc. one has to file a copyright. It's an application with room for all parties invovled. In photography, the copyright by law goes to the photographer automatically. Not the photo assistant, not the mua, not the model, not anyone but the photographer. This is why there are no such things as shared copyrights. Now using the image is a different thing because the owner of the copyright can allow usage of the image or he can transfer owner ship of the copyright or he can do nothing at all and not allow any usage of the image what so ever. Those are the 3 options, period. Whatever you call it, I'm happy to share it with my models. They earn it through their hard work and dedication to my art. I'd put all my models in my will if I actually had anything to leave them! Jun 08 05 07:08 am Link Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: I didn't name it, congress did. Jun 08 05 10:26 am Link I think at this point it would help to distinguish between artistic models and commercial and fashion models. (Though one model may of course work in all those areas.) In the latter two categories, yes, it's pretty unheard of to share copyright with the model. That makes sense - she's usually paid to do a job, and off she goes. She's gotten her compensation. If you pay attention to who asks for - and receives - joint copyright, I think you'll find that they are usually models who are collaborating on an art project without monetary compensation, at least at the time of the shoot. It's like apples and oranges, really. They're just not at all the same thing. Jun 08 05 11:41 am Link Hey, what happened to the other thread? I don't understand the concept of locking threads in general, I don't think it helps anything, but why delete all the posts on top of that? That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not to mention that people don't get to see what it is specifically that crosses a line in the moderators judgements for future reference. Ridiculous. Been meaning to start a baby/bathwater thread for a while now, I guess I'll have to. Jun 08 05 12:35 pm Link Posted by Aaron_H: Aaron, as I recall the original thread didn't have any posts on it. I think the poster may have started a new one because the first one timed out and didn't log profile information - I remember there being two created at almost the same time. Jun 08 05 12:50 pm Link Posted by Fred Brown: Posted by Melvin Moten Jr: I didn't name it, congress did. You just don't seem to understand where I come from on this: I'm totally fine if a model sells copies of the work we collaborate on without my consent. The modelling release that I MAKE her sign gives ME that right, dosen't it? Why does everything have to be so one sided? My models are vitally important to what I do, my work does NOT happen without them and to withhold their rights to the work we create TOGETHER is preposterous to me. The day I don't let a model use an image that they've created with me is the day i hang it up, for I shall have crossed over to the Dark Side of the Force. Jun 08 05 02:27 pm Link Posted by Shyly: Now why didn't I think of that? Jun 08 05 02:28 pm Link Believe it or not, many models (most even) are not out to get all they can for free. Just like not every photographer is a scummy GWCesque perv. Amazing, ain't it? If I made money off a picture taken by a photographer who chose to share a copyright, I'd be sure some of that profit got back to them. But it's highly unlikely that would even occur in the first place. I'm doing this because I love it, making money is the icing on the proverbial cake. If I wanted to sell calendars, I'd be shooting much different material. What happened to good people colaborating on art? Oh yes, we must all be professional. Whatever "the industry" has decided that should mean, in regards to our art. *sigh* Jun 08 05 04:19 pm Link Posted by AstraDivaJ: I've already said this in another thread: One of the problems with most artforms [yes, photography AND modelling are artforms imo] is that we have way too many moneychangers in the temple. Jun 08 05 04:24 pm Link What other thread? If you're referring to the duplicate thread Fred posted that came up without his name, he posted this one immediately after and asked me to delete the first one. Since I can't delete threads, I just locked the duplicate (which had no replies) so we wouldn't end up with two conversations on the same topic going at once. For future reference, not only can moderators not delete threads, we cannot delete individual posts. Posted by Aaron_H: Jun 08 05 04:31 pm Link ok, then i'll have to figure out which thread i'm really talking about then and find the posts i mean. haha Jun 08 05 05:46 pm Link |
