Ron Blouch wrote:
Do most photographers give joint copyright to models for TFP/CD or paid shoots?

No, it's somewhat rare actually.  What the model usually gets is usage rights, like portfolio, self-promotion etc.  The exact terms can vary and should be agreed upon before shooting.  Some amateurs may be more willing to give away copyrights but most professionals won't.

Ron Blouch wrote:
Do most photographers give joint copyright to models for TFP/CD or paid shoots? I am asking this because a colleague of mine had an issue with a photoshoot with a model on a TFCD basis and this became an issue due to the model wanting joint copyright of all images taken as per their own release.

The people I get paid to shoot don't even get copyright.  You should never share or give up your copyright unless you are getting paid quite a bit to do so.  You only grant them the right to use and reproduce approved images for the portfolio or comp cards.

Ron Blouch wrote:
...this became an issue due to the model wanting joint copyright of all images taken as per their own release.

Where did the model get their form (copy) of a "release" they wanted signed? Would be interested to see a copy [or at least the main text] of that one.

Model releases are usually ONLY a photographer's document [or a client's] and not something a model drags around them self and has a photographer sign off on.

If it gets down to, on the model's part, give me joint copyright ownership or I won't sign a release at all for you [the photographer] - they can f**k off with nothing - no release/license [to them], no pictures and no pay.

Even unreleased photos, on the photogrpaher's part, retain some value to the photographer and they still have several ways to use and exploit the images where a release is not required.

Studio36

Ron Blouch wrote:
The model had a release that their manage created. I don't have the realise but I did read it. Really the only thing in question was the copyright issue. I personally do not give anyone joint copyright.
Unfortunatly the release was brought up after the session was over. I felt bad for the photographer because of all the work involved and now the photographer has no release.
I would suggest that if a model has their own release they should show it to the photographer befor the shoot starts. That way if it is unsatifactory to either party the shoot can be cancelled.

In this respect where the model has her own release from whomever, I hope the photog had a release for her to sign "Before" the shoot. The release signed before the shoot between her and the photog takes presedence over any other releases. This being because that was the only release present and on the table that both agreed too "Before" the shoot was established and conlcuded.
This model made two mistakes, one being whipping it out after the shoot and proclaiming if the photog does not sign it she will not give whatever, this is wrong in the fact that this in effect is her renigging on the first release which she signed (breach of contract).
Second for her to have a contract by a "Manager" is wrong, if she has a manager and using his contract then technically you should be setting up the shoot with that manager, not her.
Tell him to not give in, if he had her sign a contract before the shoot then that is the only effective contract.
NOTE: On all contracts have the model sign the date, time and place of the shoot. Any changes to the contract have the model write those changes in her hand writing and then you sign with your initials last when all editing is complete. Of course any editing is subject to you "Ok", so if you dont like something or feel it is too far out there then dont make the change. Its your contract for a reason, you write it to suit you as a photog and be fair to both you and the model.
If he has a contract that she signed before the shoot then that applies to all photos taken on that shoot, the date on the release and photos would need to be the same for legal reasons. He can do what he wants with the photos per what is stated in the release he had her sign before the shoot, but check with a lawyer because the model is wrong.

Ron Blouch wrote:
Smart man. You gave the best advice I have seen. I think that most photographers have the model sign the release after the shoot. I will personally have the model sign the release befor the shoot.
I will pass this information along with the other commets to the photographe in question.

I am not a big fan of signing the release "After" the shoot because this type of situation really would have you in a bind and at a loss.

Ron Blouch wrote:
Do most photographers give joint copyright to models for TFP/CD or paid shoots? I am asking this because a colleague of mine had an issue with a photoshoot with a model on a TFCD basis and this became an issue due to the model wanting joint copyright of all images taken as per their own release.

Short answer:  *NO*

Actually, depending on your state, you can't do that without a lot of paperwork.

Copyright remains with the creator, eg: the photographer/artist, unless specifically given away in writing, according the laws of your state/jurisdiction.

This also applies to most countries, under the uniform copyright acts.

Models in TFP seem to think they have equal creation rights, but they don't.  They are a MODEL or SUBJECT of the work, not creator of the work, reguardless of what they may think.  Unfortunately, you'll find on-line, they think they own it all.  What they own is their likeness, which they trade/sell/barter in exchange for something money/prints/experience/etc.  So, while they do own their likeness, it's what they are offering up for your time/prints/etc.  So, completion of your end of a TFP type contract is important, or the contract is null and void (eg: SEND THE CD!  With return reciept, if you have questions about the way the shoot went).

This is not true, in something like a student project, where one student photographs the other for a joint grade.  In that case, they are collaborators, where one happened to be taking the picture, and the other happened to be having the picture taken.  There are exceptions to every "rule," but that's what makes them RULES (eg: the exceptions).

Scott
aka Bodyartist

Inferi wrote:
It depends.  People have very varied opinions on the topic.  Do what works for you and don't worry about it.  There's no right and wrong in this instance which is what I don't think most people understand.  That's not to say people don't have strong opinions about it; just decide what your own limits are and how much leeway you want to give the models you work with (as a general rule or on a case by case basis) and don't worry about what other people think or do.

sound good but here is another view. We photographer, artist graphic designers etc are in one small community. It is imperative that we maintain certain standards otherwise we all suffer in the end. I never will do a dual copyright and I don't think any photographer should. So when I talk to a model I explain this in detail some reply well "so and so" will give me dual copyright why not you! As a photographer it is important to realize our services are valuable and give in to lower rates or dual copyright is a bogus way to go! Think of how your action will affect other photographers...

Bodyartist wrote:
Actually, depending on your state, you can't do that without a lot of paperwork.

I am not suggesting that it is a good thing to share copyright.  Doing so has all kinds of difficult issues and pitfalls.  But I do want to correct you slightly on somethign you are saying.

Copyright is federal law and has nothing to do with the states.  All that the copyright act requires is that a transfer be made in writing (oral transfers are not allowed).

One sentence on a piece of paper indicating that the parties agree to share copyright would be operative under the law.  There is no paperwork to complete other than joint registration (if indeed you choose to register the image).

The problem is that such a simple agreement wouldn't delineate such things as who would have the right to license the image for publication or use, i.e. would it require both signatures or only one.  It wouldn't discuss how the revenue would be divided since both people owned the copyright.  Think of it like owning a car with a partner.  When the car is sold, both partners would get their share.  Intrinsically, that would be true if one partner got money from the image unless some other agreement had been reached.  Such an agreement wouldn't spell out the nature of the partnership and the liability of the parties (or lack thereof).

Transferring copyright is simple.  You could scrawl it on a napkin and that would be sufficient.  Writing an appropriate shared ownership agreement for copyright is complex and is something best left to attorneys.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Copyright is federal law and has nothing to do with the states.  All that the copyright act requires is that a transfer be made in writing (oral transfers are not allowed).

I'm sorry, you are wrong.

There are laws concerning transfer of copyrights that extend the artists rights in both NY, and CA, and I'm sure other states by now.

So, while there is federal and international copyright law, there are also STATE laws that govern it.  The idea was originally to prevent artist abuse, but it's gone beyond that.

Most prevent copyright from being transferred with the sale or purchase of a work, even if the work is an original, one of a kind, such as a sculputure or painting.  A negative or slide would fit into that category.

Scott
aka Bodyartist

Bodyartist wrote:
I'm sorry, you are wrong.

There are laws concerning transfer of copyrights that extend the artists rights in both NY, and CA, and I'm sure other states by now.

So, while there is federal and international copyright law, there are also STATE laws that govern it.  The idea was originally to prevent artist abuse, but it's gone beyond that.

Most prevent copyright from being transferred with the sale or purchase of a work, even if the work is an original, one of a kind, such as a sculputure or painting.  A negative or slide would fit into that category.

Scott
aka Bodyartist

Scott, I understand your point but I can't find anything in any of the California statutes that deal with the issues you suggested.  It woudl seem that the state lacks the authority to override Federal Law since copyright is an issue of both interstate commerce and international treaty.  The federal government has the sole authority to determine who holds a copyright, registration and transfer.

I am aware of state laws that deal with copyright, but not in the way that you are suggesting.  California, for example has a couple of principle statues.  One is designed to enforce collective bargaining agreements and performance licenses against retail establishments.  The law basically provides a mechanism for performers to enforce their contracts in state court rather than federal court.  Some of these statutes talk about ownership of copyright and enforcement of rights, but none re-defines any of those rights.  Indeed, they specifically defer to the federal statutes.

Another deals with the theft of copyrighted materials in the state.  It provides state criminal penalties, confiscation and other similar remedies.  The crux of these statutes is to create a method to enfore copyright violations on the state level.

You have suggested that there is state law that says that you don't transfer the copyright of a protected material by simply selling the material.  As an example, if you sell a negative you are merely selling the negative but not the copyright to the image itself.  That right is already specifically covered in federal copyright law.  I could find nothing anywhere in California law that changed any of the federal definitions.  Neither the state of California nor the state of New York appears to have a registration requirement to transfer a copyright since that is also already covered by federal law.

I wanted to be certain of my undestanding before I did this post.  I just did a comprehensive Westlaw search of both statutes and cases for California (I didn't do a similar search for New York).  I could find neither cases nor statutes which require one to transfer a copyrighted work with the state or to register with the state for two parties to share a copyright.  I also found nothing which dealt with the issue of copyright not being transferred if the physical media were sold.

I have been wrong about these things in the past.  I searched Westlaw with every possible keyword combination that I could think of and had my nephew, an attorney, do a similar search.  Neither one of us could find anything regarding copyright that dealt with anything other than criminalizing some of the conduct on the state level or otherwise enforcing performer's rights.

So I am interested in learning about the statutes that you think apply.  Could you please provide links to or quotes from any of these statutes which deal with either shared copyright or the transfer of a copyright from one party to another?

As I have said, I am not impeaching you.  It is more a matter of curiousity.  Having carefully re-read the statutes that apply and I could see how you might interpret them that way, but it appears pretty clear that they are simply deferring to federal law.  So if you are correct, I would be very interested in seeing the statutes because it is alway good to learn something new and I would be the first to admit it if I have misread the statutes.

Bodyartist wrote:
Most prevent copyright from being transferred with the sale or purchase of a work, even if the work is an original, one of a kind, such as a sculputure or painting.  A negative or slide would fit into that category.

I read your paragraph again in detail.  What you are suggesting has really nothing to do with my original point.  That is that copyright has to be transferred in writing.

However, if you look at the copyright act, and for that matter case law, it is already well established under federal law that selling the item doesn't also transfer the copyright unless the copyright is explicitly transferred in writing.

A good example is a painting.  An artist could create a painting.  He could then have plate made from it.  He could then sell the original, however under federal law, the purchase would own the painting but not the copyright.  The artist could then make duplicates of the painting and then re-sell them, as prints, for example.  However, the owner of the painting could not do the same.

But that is all laid out in federal law already.