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.

It sounds to me like you wanted the models to be mad, perhaps encouraging them to be so if necessary...

CaliModels wrote:
ANY Photographers on this site or others that have Non-Released Photos should IMMEDIATELY REMOVE PHOTOS.

yeah..ill get right on that....

CaliModels wrote:
Again, this thread is exactly what I was looking for. There's a reason why all of this was done...Some Models are mad about photographers posting Non-Released Photos. Many of them don't tell the photographers. Many of them don't tell us, but they side-set the issue.

"side-set"???  WTF is that?

Studio36

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.

Uh...what use, exactly, do the MODELS get of the photos?
And since the event is something you're promoting thru an online site, what's the point of having photos & telling people they can't use them in their online portfolios as well as their physical portfolios??

Star wrote:
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

You don't think the models have copyrights to the photos?

CaliModels wrote:
It seems to me that someone here also runs a group event/shoot and I don't think they allowed photographers to post photos freely on the internet without a release.

Again, this thread is exactly what I was looking for. There's a reason why all of this was done...Some Models are mad about photographers posting Non-Released Photos. Many of them don't tell the photographers. Many of them don't tell us, but they side-set the issue.

So now your intent was not to tryi and unduly restrict photographer's use of images taken at your events, but simply creating a thread that would show models how rediculous their anger was.

Is anybody buying this? - LOL

John

rp_photo wrote:
It sounds to me like you wanted the models to be mad, perhaps encouraging them to be so if necessary...

That, or he makes a point of hiring - or "hiring"; I don't know if these girls are being paid - very new, inexperienced models who have no idea how modeling actually works.

EDIT: Checked one of his casting calls for models, and nope, they're not being paid. But "top models" do get "cash prizes"...WTF?

CaliModels wrote:
You don't think the models have copyrights to the photos?

NOT unless they pay the photograhper. and he agrees to give up the copyright.

Or it is stipulated that the photograhper is signing over the rights in a release

CaliModels wrote:

You don't think the models have copyrights to the photos?

In a word? No.

Seriously, my friend, you're embarrassing yourself.

Isys Entertainment wrote:
4. The usage should not be limited I mean after all why have the event in the first place? What is the point of the event?

I can understand limiting commercial sale of the images, but self-promotion on websites???
Especially since the models get promoted that way & it's being promoted as a network & promtion event ON a website???

I need a beer.

John Allan wrote:
Your biggest problem (legal hurdle) here is that you are defining inclusion within an MM portfolio as "commercial use" - It is simply not.

Actually, it depends on what you are doing with your MM portfolio.  If you are trying to make money as a photographer and you are using your MM portfolio as a way to endorse your work, then the inclusion may well be commercial.  If you are an amateur and you are simply showing off what you have done, then it probably is not.  There are a lot of factors that go into the determination, but your blanket statement, unfortunately, is not always correct.

That having been said, I think the OP wants to ban all use on MM and I am not sure that declaring the event to be "non-release" does that either.

In any event, as always, I refer you to a great article by Dan Heller.  He is a noted author and is also based in California:  http://www.danheller.com/model-release.html

He offers a good discussions on release and when they are needed or not needed.   He also touches on the subtlties of using an image for self-promotion, i.e. the fact that such use can sometimes be considered commercial.

CaliModels wrote:

You don't think the models have copyrights to the photos?

Are you kidding me with this? How old are you?

John

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 guess the guy from Select Models is screwing up his events each time he posts new photos from one of his events.

Question...so I pay $25 and take a photo.  I get a release and I post it on MM.  We're cool right?  But if I don't get a release, I ruin the whole event for everyone?  Hows does my posting of a photo w/o a release ruin the event?

Isys Entertainment wrote:

NOT unless they pay the photograhper. and he agrees to give up the copyright.

Or it is stipulated that the photograhper is signing over the rights in a release

There is no "or" involved. Even if the photographer is paid, copyright is not automatically assigned (except, of course, in certain work-for-hire arrangements and also when dealing with those whacky Canadian folk :-))

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
If you are trying to make money as a photographer and you are using your MM portfolio as a way to endorse your work, then the inclusion may well be commercial.

I totally disagree. It absolutely does not constitute commercial use. It is self-promotion.
Talk to one of the major agencies. If promotional use was commercial use, they would certainly be after their cut for every non-released image in portfolios around the world.

John

Star wrote:
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

CaliModels wrote:
You don't think the models have copyrights to the photos?

Why no.
No they don't.
Not under any accepted standard of copyright law I've ever heard of.
Doesn't mean anyone can USE the images for ANYTHING they want.
But the person who took the picture owns the image, and no one else, unless there is a specific contractual agreement signing those rights away.

CaliModels wrote:
You don't think the models have copyrights to the photos?

I don't even have to think about that one.

THEY DON'T

The models own the rights to nada, zip, zero, nothing... ONLY the photographer owns the copyright AND all the use rights, either by law [non-commercial use] or by release [commercial use], unless they sign it away IN WRITING. And a snowball's chance in hell of getting that.

Studio36

CaliModels wrote:

You don't think the models have copyrights to the photos?

Yes I don't. Do you know HOW copyright works at all?

Star

CaliModels wrote:

You don't think the models have copyrights to the photos?

A model's rights/control over images results from one and only one thing. Their ability to sign a modeling release to permit commercial use of their likeness. Period.

John

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
If you are trying to make money as a photographer and you are using your MM portfolio as a way to endorse your work, then the inclusion may well be commercial.

John Allan wrote:
I totally disagree. It absolutely does not constitute commercial use. It is self-promotion.
Talk to one of the major agencies. If promotional use was commercial use, they would certainly be after their cut for every non-released image in portfolios around the world.

John

Then you are swimming upstream, particularly with the Courts in California.  Again, I suggest that you read Dan Heller's article.

You are confusing two different issues, issue one is whether using an image to promote your own business is commercial and the second is whether use on your personal website is something that most agents and models object to.

Generally speaking, if you book a model through an agent and you display their image in your online portfolio, few agents will object.  You are not selling the photo.   Their commission came from the booking, not the display.  The same is true of the model.

The problem comes if they do object.  The term "Commercial" means "in commerce."  There have been a number of interesting cases on this in California.  The most famous deals with one of the chains of portrait studios in California (I won't mention names).  They would take pictures of clients and then hang them on their walls for clients to see.   They weren't even publishing the images.  They were sued and lost.

What the court found was that the purpose of hanging the photos was not to display art but to promote their own business, which was a commercial use.  They lost and were required to pay statutory damages.

Since then essentially all of the major portrait studios in California use the same procedure.  They quote you a rate for the shoot, say $200.  They then offer to buy back one photo, for say $50.  Ultimately then, they charge you $150, which was the price all along, but get a release to use the one photo they have bought back.  That keeps their noses clean.

I grant you that most models don't object to the use of their image in an online portfolio, but it is something you have to be careful of.   The fact that most permit it does not make it a right and it can come back to sting you.  In a situation like the OP's group shoots where you have been put on notice that there is no release, a model might have a cause of action for your use for self-promotion of a business.  On the other hand, if it was merely to display art, they may not.

My advice though is to read Dan Heller's article and perhaps consult an attorney.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
There is no "or" involved. Even if the photographer is paid, copyright is not automatically assigned (except, of course, in certain work-for-hire arrangements and also when dealing with those whacky Canadian folk :-))

LMAO..It is very rare I indeed but  I stated it has to be AGREED to, AGREED is the operative word.

Copyright will always belong to the photographer unless a contract or release specifies otherwise. Most will not even do a joint copyright (another rare occurance).

Besides who cares if no money is being made from the images.
If money is being made, then I am sure that anbody with an ounce of business savvy would cover that in the contract.

CaliModels wrote:
You don't think the models have copyrights to the photos?

Ummm NO!  The photographer holds copyright and there is a ton of case law that backs that up... Unless, he/she signed away copyright or signed over "joint copyright" but even that allows the photog to maintain copyright...

John Allan wrote:

So now your intent was not to tryi and unduly restrict photographer's use of images taken at your events, but simply creating a thread that would show models how rediculous their anger was.

Is anybody buying this? - LOL

John

That's exactly Not what written. Photographers need to be aware of the restrictions. This thread showed how many photographers don't care about models.

Alot of you are professional forum posters. You have 1000+ posts. What you do is select bits and pieces to create a flame. And I know it just like all the others who don't post. This is 1 reason why models are afraid to step forward, and even some photographers.

eyelight wrote:

Ummm NO!  The photographer holds copyright and there is a ton of case law that backs that up... Unless, he/she signed away copyright or signed over "joint copyright" but even that allows the photog to maintain copyright...

Thanks for posting one of the few helpful responses.

CaliModels wrote:
Photographers need to be aware of the restrictions.

You keep saying that, even when shown quite conclusively that there are, in essence, no restrictions like those that you claim exist.

For the third time, you are embarrassing yourself. Scratch that, you have embarrassed yourself. Quite thoroughly.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
If you are trying to make money as a photographer and you are using your MM portfolio as a way to endorse your work, then the inclusion may well be commercial.

Then you are swimming upstream, particularly with the Courts in California.  Again, I suggest that you read Dan Heller's article.

You are confusing two different issues, issue one is whether using an image to promote your own business is commercial and the second is whether use on your personal website is something that most agents and models object to.

Generally speaking, if you book a model through an agent and you display their image in your online portfolio, few agents will object.  You are not selling the photo.   Their commission came from the booking, not the display.  The same is true of the model.

The problem comes if they do object.  The term "Commercial" means "in commerce."  There have been a number of interesting cases on this in California.  The most famous deals with one of the chains of portrait studios in California (I won't mention names).  They would take pictures of clients and then hang them on their walls for clients to see.   They weren't even publishing the images.  They were sued and lost.

What the court found was that the purpose of hanging the photos was not to display art but to promote their own business, which was a commercial use.  They lost and were required to pay statutory damages.

Since then essentially all of the major portrait studios in California use the same procedure.  They quote you a rate for the shoot, say $200.  They then offer to buy back one photo, for say $50.  Ultimately then, they charge you $150, which was the price all along, but get a release to use the one photo they have bought back.  That keeps their noses clean.

I grant you that most models don't object to the use of their image in an online portfolio, but it is something you have to be careful of.   The fact that most permit it does not make it a right and it can come back to sting you.  In a situation like the OP's group shoots where you have been put on notice that there is no release, a model might have a cause of action for your use for self-promotion of a business.  On the other hand, if it was merely to display art, they may not.

My advice though is to read Dan Heller's article and perhaps consult an attorney.

Well I think your commercial portrait studio example is a bit different, although I'm sure they extrapolated my position in court to apply to them. First it's a chain, so it's not necessarily the photographer including a non-released image in his/her portfolio. Second it was work for hire.

Electronic portfolios (such as MM) are just a technological extension of the same hard portfolio. Courts have produced stacks of case law over the century, that folds into existing law/findings/etc where only the technology has evolved representing basically the same thing.

Would love to have an attorney contribute to the thread, but I don't need to chase one down to know that MM portfolios don't constitute commercial use. Now if my website was displaying non-released images and viewers had to register 1st using their credit card and pay a $25/mo fee - that's different.

John

CaliModels wrote:
Alot of you are professional forum posters. You have 1000+ posts. What you do is select bits and pieces to create a flame. And I know it just like all the others who don't post. This is 1 reason why models are afraid to step forward, and even some photographers.

In the words of the Almighty..... errrr.... maybe not so Almighty.... G W Bush

BRING 'EM ON

I'm sure we're all ears.

I may be a profesional forum poster now, as you observe, but I also have been in this business for over 45 years, long enough to have retired from it, and know the scent of bullshit when I smell it. You my friend are full of it.

Hey guys, can I put that on my CV? "Professional forum poster"

Studio36

CaliModels wrote:
It seems to me that someone here also runs a group event/shoot and I don't think they allowed photographers to post photos freely on the internet without a release.

Again, this thread is exactly what I was looking for. There's a reason why all of this was done...Some Models are mad about photographers posting Non-Released Photos. Many of them don't tell the photographers. Many of them don't tell us, but they side-set the issue.

I presume you are referring to me since I used to offer workshops and events often and occassionally do one now.   Actually, my rules are entirely different than yours.  We had a sign-in sheet that spelled out the rules explicitly.

Our events were "non-release" but we expected that photographers could and would use the photos for non-commercial, self-promotion or any other purpose where a release was not required.  The restriction was that the photographers agreed not to put "nude" photos on their online portfolios without a release.

However, we had a very inexpensive and low cost structure for photographers that wanted to use images for other purposes.  If a photographer wanted to use a "non-nude" image for self-promotion, merely on his portfolio, we would typically provide a release for that specific purpose either for free upon request.  The purpose of the release was that it made it clear that they could only use non-nude images.

Promotional releases were available for nude images, typically for a one-time fee of $50.  Commercial releases were available for non-nude images for $50 or nude images for $100.  The primary reason why we put the rules in place was so that a model wasn't shot nude at a workshop and then had a plethora of nude images all over the net without any compensation.  Few of the models objected to the use of their images for self-promotion, even by a working photographer, if the images weren't nude.

Obviously if a photographer wanted to sell the images, the model felt she should be paid.

That is entirely different than what you are suggesting.  Also, there is no nudity at your events so the ground rules are different.

I am not criticizing you for what you want to accomplish, I just think the language you are using isn't expressing what you want to do.  Whether or not photographers will agree to your terms are a different matter.  I just think you have a language problem.

None the less, my rules were different and the purpose was only to discourage the proliferation of nude images of the models without them getting some compensation.

CaliModels wrote:

That's exactly Not what written. Photographers need to be aware of the restrictions. This thread showed how many photographers don't care about models.

Alot of you are professional forum posters. You have 1000+ posts. What you do is select bits and pieces to create a flame. And I know it just like all the others who don't post. This is 1 reason why models are afraid to step forward, and even some photographers.

I don't see that this has anything to do with photographer's feeling towards models.

John

DigitalCMH wrote:
I go into a studio and I PAY for my photo to be taken.  I don't care about copyrights, in my opinion, *I* own the photos.  I paid for them.  I OWN them.  If I find my face in the yellow pages advertisting your studio, I'm coming after you.

You're missing the point here... he is CHARGING THE PHOTOGRAPHERS to shoot the models. Effectively is is a paid shoot with the cost shared between the photographers. And he expects the same photographers to come away without ANY right to use the images?

I want some of what he's been smoking.

Studio36

EDIT: On second thought maybe not, it must be some bad shit.

DigitalCMH wrote:
Alan,

I haven't read the article you're recommending, but the lawsuit you pointed out makes complete sense to me.

This to me is COMMON sense.

I go into a studio and I PAY for my photo to be taken.  I don't care about copyrights, in my opinion, *I* own the photos.  I paid for them.  I OWN them.  If I find my face in the yellow pages advertisting your studio, I'm coming after you.

If some photographer contacts me and says, "hey dude, want your picture taken for free?" and after said session I see my face in their window or their OWN advertisement, I'm going to think, "hey that's neat!"

I understand that a lot of photographers feel that self-promoton isn't commercial use of photos.  In many cases it is not.  But there have been a number of attorneys who have posted on these forums and there are experts like Dan Heller who caution that it isn't always the case.  I know these photographers are sincere in their belief.  To that I respond, "read what the experts say and then feel free to disagree."

My advice to photographers is if you are in the business of photography and you want to use an image of a model to promote your business, get a release.  It is that simple.  If you have a release, there are no questions.

I personally don't see the point of walking the thin line.  You may well use fifty images of models in your portfolio and not have a problem.  All it takes is one model to get offended and take you to court to ruin your day.  It is always a crap shoot when you go before a judge.  There is no guarantee that they will agree with your position.  Whether they do or not, you can avoid the risk by getting a release.  I always do when I book a model.