Photographer
CaliModels
Posts: 2721
Los Angeles, California, US
Group photo events are fun and rewarding...However, just to remind Photographers and Models, (but mostly photographers);
*Events are Non-Released*
Photos or Images taken at Non-Released Events are for your Personal Use Only...Unless you get a release from the model. That means you Cannot Post Photos on the Internet/Web unless you have a release. That includes ModelMayhem.
Events are also Non-Commercial. That means you Cannot get commercial rights. If the model is that important to you, schedule your own private shoot and negotiate the proper release.
The only exempt clauses, (that don't apply) are public events and celebrity status. We are Neither.
ANY Photographers on this site or others that have Non-Released Photos should IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PHOTOS.
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
and exactly what legal basis to you have for this?
Star
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
CaliModels wrote:
Photos or Images taken at Non-Released Events are for your Personal Use Only...Unless you get a release from the model. That means you Cannot Post Photos on the Internet/Web unless you have a release. That includes ModelMayhem. Unmitigated tripe.
Photographer
Carpe Imago Photography
Posts: 1757
Dousman, Wisconsin, US
Edit...thought this came from a mod. Forget what I said.
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
Carpe Imago Photography wrote:
I understand the logic here, but won't it be difficult or impossible for the MM mods to know which photos have signed releases on file? I'm not going to have to post a release with each image am I?
Also, does this mean that any editorial shots are no longer fair game? That would be sad, as I've seen some great editorial shots on here that were clearly not be posted "looking for a buyer".
I'm just curious, but I completely understand the idea here. No, this "buisness person" has decided that photographers who pay large amounts of money to be a part of the group shoots they hold cannot use the photos for any purpose.
HOWEVER, as far as I know this assertion has no legal basis. Unless the photographer signs away his/her copyright the group shoot organizers have no say in how they use the photos.
ADDITONALLY they are telling photographers they are not allowed to secure a modeling release to be able to use the photos. This sounds like someone trying to scam photographers out of their rights and as such makes me very dissapointed with their ethics,
Star
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
CaliModels wrote:
Group photo events are fun and rewarding...However, just to remind Photographers and Models, (but mostly photographers);
*Events are Non-Released*
Photos or Images taken at Non-Released Events are for your Personal Use Only...Unless you get a release from the model. That means you Cannot Post Photos on the Internet/Web unless you have a release. That includes ModelMayhem.
Events are also Non-Commercial. That means you Cannot get commercial rights. If the model is that important to you, schedule your own private shoot and negotiate the proper release.
The only exempt clauses, (that don't apply) are public events and celebrity status. We are Neither.
ANY Photographers on this site or others that have Non-Released Photos should IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PHOTOS. That's absolutely rediculous.
John
P.S. Anyone anticipating participation in one of these "photo cluster-fucks", might want to view the attitude displayed here by one of the promoters.
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
CaliModels wrote:
Group photo events are fun and rewarding...However, just to remind Photographers and Models, (but mostly photographers);
*Events are Non-Released*
Photos or Images taken at Non-Released Events are for your Personal Use Only...Unless you get a release from the model. That means you Cannot Post Photos on the Internet/Web unless you have a release. That includes ModelMayhem.
Events are also Non-Commercial. That means you Cannot get commercial rights. If the model is that important to you, schedule your own private shoot and negotiate the proper release.
The only exempt clauses, (that don't apply) are public events and celebrity status. We are Neither.
ANY Photographers on this site or others that have Non-Released Photos should IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PHOTOS. I assume you are specifically referring to group events you have been involved with, in which case you have every right to set guidelines.
Due to your wording, however, this could easily be mis-interperted as a blanket edict to all of us who participate in such events.
Perhaps a private e-mail to the group participants would have been more appropriate?
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
or a proof of the signing away of the photographer's copyright?
Photographer
CaliModels
Posts: 2721
Los Angeles, California, US
-Please read post and click avatar if necessary-
This is a group photo event that pays for Non-Commercial Use. (That tells you there's a commercial rate.) The rules state No Release and No Commercial Use.
The models at group events are mostly participating for Photos, Experience and/or Networking. If the models were to automatically give-up rights, that's simply unfair and it may change the rental rates.
If you do a private shoot with a model and Don't get a release, your rights are limited to this same topic. Just because it's a group event, the rules of the world don't change.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
From his event website:
"The organizer of this event does Not issue a release. Photos / Images taken by Photographers are for Personal Use. No Commercial Use. Models and Photographers need to discuss releases between themselves."
That wording does not prohibit photographers from getting releases from models. Despite his "advice" to models, they are free to give releases if they choose.
And good luck with keeping people from making editorial use of pictures taken at the events.
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
CaliModels wrote:
-Please read post and click avatar if necessary-
This is a group photo event that pays for Non-Commercial Use. (That tells you there's a commercial rate.) The rules state No Release and No Commercial Use.
The models at group events are mostly participating for Photos, Experience and/or Networking. If the models were to automatically give-up rights, that's simply unfair and it may change the rental rates.
If you do a private shoot with a model and Don't get a release, your rights are limited to this same topic. Just because it's a group event, the rules of the world don't change. Again, you're just plain wrong, and embarrassing yourself.
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
CaliModels wrote:
-Please read post and click avatar if necessary-
This is a group photo event that pays for Non-Commercial Use. (That tells you there's a commercial rate.) The rules state No Release and No Commercial Use.
The models at group events are mostly participating for Photos, Experience and/or Networking. If the models were to automatically give-up rights, that's simply unfair and it may change the rental rates.
If you do a private shoot with a model and Don't get a release, your rights are limited to this same topic. Just because it's a group event, the rules of the world don't change. I'll qualify my statement to include the fact that I'd never participate in one of these group events, so I have no idea what your custom contract specifically states or to what length it redefines standard terms.
However, within the industry, "commercial use" would not include use within an MM (or similar) portfolio.
John
Model
Catriona
Posts: 3674
Portland, Oregon, US
CaliModels wrote:
-Please read post and click avatar if necessary-
This is a group photo event that pays for Non-Commercial Use. (That tells you there's a commercial rate.) The rules state No Release and No Commercial Use.
The models at group events are mostly participating for Photos, Experience and/or Networking. If the models were to automatically give-up rights, that's simply unfair and it may change the rental rates.
If you do a private shoot with a model and Don't get a release, your rights are limited to this same topic. Just because it's a group event, the rules of the world don't change. Um...actually, as far as I'm aware, unless legal paperwork to the contrary is signed, a photographer has all rights to their photos and can do what they please with them whether a model release is signed or not. Think about it: How else would the paparazzi make a living?
So, if I'm understanding correctly, your business is setting up group photoshoots where, according to you, no one has the right to use any of the photos anywhere. What is the point to this?
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
I think Sluggo has a harem!
Photographer
CaliModels
Posts: 2721
Los Angeles, California, US
John Allan wrote:
That's absolutely rediculous.
John
P.S. Anyone anticipating participation in one of these "photo cluster-fucks", might want to view the attitude displayed here by one of the promoters. This is the reason why this post is necessary. There are a few that think $25 bucks allows them to do whatever they want...And ruin the events for everyone else.
Photographer
WOLF WILSON
Posts: 648
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US
I agree with Christopher.... "you're just plain wrong, and embarrassing yourself"
Model
Catriona
Posts: 3674
Portland, Oregon, US
CaliModels wrote:
This is the reason why this post is necessary. There are a few that think $25 bucks allows them to do whatever they want...And ruin the events for everyone else. Please explain to us exactly how posting a photo on MM "ruin[s] the events for everyone else"?
Photographer
Sophistocles
Posts: 21320
Seattle, Washington, US
CaliModels wrote:
This is the reason why this post is necessary. There are a few that think $25 bucks allows them to do whatever they want...And ruin the events for everyone else. Show me the contract that photographers sign to give away these rights that are theirs, and we'll talk. Until then, you've got gravy on your shirt.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
CaliModels wrote:
The only exempt clauses, (that don't apply) are public events and celebrity status. We are Neither. Wrong. As an event open to the general public, you are a "public event".
CaliModels wrote:
ANY Photographers on this site or others that have Non-Released Photos should IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PHOTOS. There's this little, bitty problem with that: you have no standing to demand it. You do not have the rights to the model's image. Only the model does. She may attempt to demand it, and perhaps even make the demand stick, depending on use. But you can't.
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
CaliModels wrote:
This is the reason why this post is necessary. There are a few that think $25 bucks allows them to do whatever they want...And ruin the events for everyone else. I have participated in many events that cost $25.00 less than yours. And I have signed releases and guilt-free portfolio images for my efforts.
The "cash prizes for models" concept sounds sleazy to me. Bringing money into the picture ruins the fun.
You come across as a "reverse-Sluggo" that looks out for the models but wants to control photographers!
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
CaliModels wrote:
This is the reason why this post is necessary. There are a few that think $25 bucks allows them to do whatever they want...And ruin the events for everyone else. I think you've just "outed" yourself and I'll bet potential customers reading this that had actually considered participation, are seriously rethinking that inclination.
John
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
CaliModels wrote:
ANY Photographers on this site or others that have Non-Released Photos should IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PHOTOS. Geez, I was trying to think of a polite yet witty answer in a few words,
First Amendment came to mind...
...then I thought about editorial use...
But I think I'll just settle for F U C K O F F
Studio36
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
CaliModels wrote:
ANY Photographers on this site or others that have Non-Released Photos should IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PHOTOS. What if models from the event want to post them? Is that OK?
Photographer
C R Photography
Posts: 3594
Pleasanton, California, US
CaliModels wrote:
ANY Photographers on this site or others that have Non-Released Photos should IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PHOTOS. Seig-Heil!
Now go back to memorizing Mien Kampf!
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
rp_photo wrote:
What if models from the event want to post them? Is that OK? You know better than to ask that rp. And you KNOW the answer as well. So don't play the fool for him.
Studio36
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
rp_photo wrote:
What if models from the event want to post them? Is that OK? No, of course not. By his reasoning, that would be "commercial use", which is prohibited. Besides which, he doesn't want people exchanging releases, which means the model would not have a copyright license from the photographer. She can't use the pictures for anything at all. According to him.
I'm sure that helps with model recruiting a whole bunch.
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
studio36uk wrote:
You know better than to ask that rp. And you KNOW the answer as well. So don't play the fool for him.
Studio36 You right, me bad!
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
The OP should have titled this:
How to destroy a modeling event business in one thread
If he has half a brain, he's trying to figure out how to destroy the thread - while what should happen is that it becomes a sticky for all actually considering participation in one of these things.
John
Photographer
American Glamour
Posts: 38813
Detroit, Michigan, US
The problem with these things is that the language is unclear and not everyone understands what is trying to be said.
What Calimodels wants to do is to create an event where photographers come and shoot models for a low fee. In exchange for the minimal entry fee, he wants the photographers to limit the use of the photos to their portfolios unless they make some other agreement directly with the model. He is trying to convey to the photographers that he, (the promoter), is not providing a release with the admission price.
The problem is that is not what he is saying, either in his posts or on his websites. He terms this to be a "non-release" event. I am not a lawyer, but I think a reasonable interpretation of that statement would be that you are not getting a release, which means you are limited to the uses that you would have in any other situation where a release was not required.
TX makes a good example. A release is not generally required for editorial use or newsworthy events. That is how paparazzi generally get away with it. A release is often not required for artwork or for a gallery exhibition. If you were an amateur photographer and wanted to display your work on a webpage to show your art, that may well not need a release. On the other hand, many kinds of commercial uses would require a release.
The point though is that declaring an event to be a "non-release" even simply limits the photographer to those uses that don't require a release. I have seen events which were instructional where there were greater restrictions. At those events, the photographers were required to sign an agreement not to use the photos except for the specific purposes agreed to. That agreement would be binding since admission would be conditioned on such an agreement.
Again though, I am not a lawyer. None the less, I can clearly see where the OP's intentions and what he is actually accomplishing are not the same thing.
Photographer
CaliModels
Posts: 2721
Los Angeles, California, US
This is exactly the type of responses I was expecting. I was wondering whether to let models leave because they were mad with photographers for posting Non-Released photos or recommend to them to file lawsuits against photographers.
If any of you read the post, it states events are No release and No commercial use. It doesn't say you can't ask the model(s) for releases. That's also on the website. We pay for rental...If that wasn't clear. If you pay for rental, that means it's not free. Again, if any of you read the post, we pay for Non-Commercial Use, as Opposed to Commercial Use.
Photographer
jac3950
Posts: 1179
Freedom, New Hampshire, US
CaliModels wrote:
-Please read post and click avatar if necessary-
This is a group photo event that pays for Non-Commercial Use. (That tells you there's a commercial rate.) The rules state No Release and No Commercial Use.
The models at group events are mostly participating for Photos, Experience and/or Networking. If the models were to automatically give-up rights, that's simply unfair and it may change the rental rates.
If you do a private shoot with a model and Don't get a release, your rights are limited to this same topic. Just because it's a group event, the rules of the world don't change. So, the OP is talking about one specific event or a specific series of events that he is connected to, and which has "rules," again specific to the aforementioned?
Not all such experiences fit this category. I have a weekend set up for July 14-16 with photographers and models signed up to participate. My promotion on my website very clearly states this is a TFP/TFCD event with details, including recommended releases, to be worked out between individual models and photographers. Because we are using property I own, I have also prepared a property release for each participating photographer.
So, please, let's not generalize... if you're talking specifics, be specific instead stirring yet another endless argument over legalities.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
John Allan wrote:
...what should happen is that it becomes a sticky for all actually considering participation in one of these things.
John Yup... ALL TOGETHER NOW... sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, Quick somebody call a Mod sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky, sticky,...
Studio36
Photographer
nevar
Posts: 14670
Fort Smith, Arkansas, US
Another reason never to participate in gang bang photo shoots..... Not that the OP has a legitimate legal leg to stand on, such harranging over people using images from a workshop that they paid for is enough to make me gag.
Photographer
Emeritus
Posts: 22000
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
CaliModels wrote:
This is exactly the type of responses I was expecting. I was wondering whether to let models leave because they were mad with photographers for posting Non-Released photos or recommend to them to file lawsuits against photographers. If anyone has any recourse against the photographers, it is the models, not you. If they choose to file lawsuits they will win or not. In either event, it's up to them.
By the way, if one of them does choose to file, and the case gets to trial, it will provide that test case of exactly this issue that so many people have pointed out does not exist.
Photographer
J O H N A L L A N
Posts: 12221
Los Angeles, California, US
CaliModels wrote:
This is exactly the type of responses I was expecting. I was wondering whether to let models leave because they were mad with photographers for posting Non-Released photos or recommend to them to file lawsuits against photographers.
If any of you read the post, it states events are No release and No commercial use. It doesn't say you can't ask the model(s) for releases. That's also on the website. We pay for rental...If that wasn't clear. If you pay for rental, that means it's not free. Again, if any of you read the post, we pay for Non-Commercial Use, as Opposed to Commercial Use. Your biggest problem (legal hurdle) here is that you are defining inclusion within an MM portfolio as "commercial use" - It is simply not. Now you may have a specific contractual clause that prohibits photographers from using the images for self-promotion (don't know why anyone would sign that knowingly, but I've seen worse), but that's different.
John
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
The point though is that declaring an event to be a "non-release" even simply limits the photographer to those uses that don't require a release. It is the responsibility of the photographers to get releases from the models, and the responsibility of the event organizer to remind photographers and encourage doing such. There should be a period set aside during the event to facilitate release review and signing, such as a coffee break.
If the organizer has a hidden agenda that discourages this, then be afraid, be very afraid!
Photographer
Star
Posts: 17966
Los Angeles, California, US
CaliModels wrote:
-Please read post and click avatar if necessary-
This is a group photo event that pays for Non-Commercial Use. (That tells you there's a commercial rate.) The rules state No Release and No Commercial Use.
The models at group events are mostly participating for Photos, Experience and/or Networking. If the models were to automatically give-up rights, that's simply unfair and it may change the rental rates.
If you do a private shoot with a model and Don't get a release, your rights are limited to this same topic. Just because it's a group event, the rules of the world don't change. ACTUALLY a photographer would have to specifically sign away their copyright to the image, you have no say in how they use it since you are NOT the copyright holder
Model
Catriona
Posts: 3674
Portland, Oregon, US
CaliModels wrote:
This is exactly the type of responses I was expecting. I was wondering whether to let models leave because they were mad with photographers for posting Non-Released photos or recommend to them to file lawsuits against photographers. Those models who are mad have the emotional right to be upset - though it shows that they really should have done more research before they decided to get into modeling - but no legal right to file suit against photographers who photographed them with their consent at a public event. I mean, they can, but they wouldn't win. And you still haven't explained how a photographer posting an image from one of your sca--oops, I mean, "events" would ruin it for everyone. Unless by "everyone" you meant "you."
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
CaliModels wrote:
we pay for Non-Commercial Use, as Opposed to Commercial Use. I think you better go away while you are ahead and come back once your lawyer tells you what the term "commercial use" really means... it's not what you think it means.
You are a classic case of someone who wants to be IN the business but doesn't know, or want to know, anything about the business of the business.
Studio36
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
CaliModels wrote:
we pay for Non-Commercial Use, as Opposed to Commercial Use. An oxymoron: Since participants are paying, is it not commercial?
|
