Photographer
Fade To Black
Posts: 411
Baltimore, Maryland, US
I have sort of an odd question.
I have photographs of a person on my website. She has posed freely for me. She has copies of all works that were done of her, prints and digital copies. However, now she want's me to take my photos of her off of my site. She claims that we have no contract stating I have the right to use her image.
I know selling and publishing is illegal without a copyright release, I'm not selling her image, it's just on display on my website. Am I wrong for keeping my photos? I made the slip of not having her sign a release I know, and I know you arent lawyers, but what are my rights in this case? Do I need to take them down?
Thanks.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
yep..unless the images are for editorial use, you need a release...
Artist/Painter
any artist
Posts: 107
Chicago, Illinois, US
Photographer
CAP603
Posts: 1438
Niles, Michigan, US
Take them down. Without a signed release, you cant prove that you had her permission to publish them for commercial use ( self-promotion on your website is commercial use). Get a signed release to avoid this in the future
Photographer
Fade To Black
Posts: 411
Baltimore, Maryland, US
That's what I needed to know. Thanks.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
CAP210 wrote:
self-promotion on your website is commercial use NOT TRUE - it would wholly depend on any text or other things associated with the image(s). Merely displaying them does not amount to commercial use: appropriation, OR to invasion of privacy [intrusion,] revelation of private facts, or false light - the four torts.
OTOH copyright law gives the creator the right to, among other things, display their work, make copies and issue copies to the public. Absolutely no difference here between a website and an art gallery as long as the images are merely being displayed with no overt commercial message.
Studio36
Photographer
photogjohn
Posts: 70
Irving, Texas, US
studio36uk wrote:
NOT TRUE - it would wholly depend on any text or other things associated with the image(s). Merely displaying them does not amount to commercial use: appropriation, OR to invasion of privacy [intrusion,] revelation of private facts, or false light - the four torts.
OTOH copyright law gives the creator the right to, among other things, display their work, make copies and issue copies to the public. Absolutely no difference here between a website and an art gallery as long as the images are merely being displayed with no overt commercial message.
Studio36 I agree with Studio36
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Fade To Black wrote:
I made the slip of not having her sign a release . . . . Yes, you did. And that has consequences. It MIGHT be true (as some have suggested) that you can put the pictures on your site without a release and still prevail if a lawsuit is brought. Do you really want to find out?
Get the pictures down.
Photographer
S W I N S K E Y
Posts: 24376
Saint Petersburg, Florida, US
i play fast and loose...unless i am using images for commercial or special purposes, i dont ever have models sign a release...i just dont need one...likewise, none of the model i have worked with have my written permission to use my images..
Photographer
Robert Randall
Posts: 13890
Chicago, Illinois, US
Everyone might benefit from a trip to this link. These people are on the fore front of rights issues with regard to photographers and their images. A few of the members have actually helped to write the laws and lobbied to put them into effect. No better source anywhere. http://www.apanational.com/i4a/pages/in … ageid=3289 Note the numbered pages on the left under the word "copyright".
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that, regardless of the title of this thread, it's not a copyright question.
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
TXPhotog wrote:
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that, regardless of the title of this thread, it's not a copyright question. That is true.
I don't understand why people want to continually push the legal envelope and advise people to do it. It is absolutely true that, under certain circumstances, a release isn't required to post photos. Self-promotion is one of the very grey areas though. It relies upon a subjective issue of whether or not you are promoting a commercial enterprise, specifically are you selling and endorsing your own work.
The bottom line is you might get away in some circumstances with posting without a release, but in others, who knows? Some cases you will lose!
My quesiton is Why take the risk? It is so easy to have a release prepared and executed. Even if that release is nothing mroe than a promotional release with very limited rights, you will have protected yourself if you want to post on your site.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
My quesiton is Why take the risk? It is so easy to have a release prepared and executed. Even if that release is nothing mroe than a promotional release with very limited rights, you will have protected yourself if you want to post on your site. True, Alan, but in this case it's a matter of 20-20 hindsight.
Studio36
Photographer
Fade To Black
Posts: 411
Baltimore, Maryland, US
Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
TXPhotog wrote:
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that, regardless of the title of this thread, it's not a copyright question. Yeah, I realized that a bit too late.
However, a further part of my question would be, The model claims to have a right to hold on to her photos for display, but I think I got something worked out.
I'm taking my lesson, I pulled the photos, it's just not worth the headache of it all.
|
