Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
If the situation were that you hadn't even started editing the book, I think there would be no question, she could change her mind since there would be no reliance and no damages on your part.  It really depends on how far along you are and if you can convince a judge that you were injured by her change of heart.

TXPhotog wrote:
That's why I said, "sent to press".  Not "sent to a publisher".

I don't think there is any question, once it goes to press, it is too late for her to revoke her consent.

Catriona wrote:
e]
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?

This is a poor assumption, paparazzi target public figures and celebs, you need a release for commercial use of many images depending on the law in the country they were taken and who what they were taken of (and intended usage), but there is no way a photographer who pays to do a shoot with a model cannot use images in their own portfolio unless they signed to say they would be bound to this, what the heck would they even take a snap for or be paying for if they cannot at least use it in their portfolio....the mind boggles.

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.

Let me get this straight.. The sole purpose of your events is so that the models can get free portfolio photos. Meanwhile the photographers that pay to go to your event get the privilege of providing said free images. Meanwhile the paying photographer gets nothing more than something to show his buddies?

So that I do not get chastised for making a personal attack against you (ie telling you to go fuck yourself) I will refrain from making such a statement.

John Jebbia wrote:
So that I do not get chastised for making a personal attack against you (ie telling you to go fuck yourself) I will refrain from making such a statement.

I admire your forebearance, John.

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

Apparently you have no idea what you are doing. Get out of the business before YOU get sued.

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

You have got to be kidding right.
The only way models or clients get copyrights is if they are signed over to them by the photographer, and very few photographers will just sign over copyrights without a great deal of compensation.

John Jebbia wrote:

Apparently you have no idea what you are doing. Get out of the business before YOU get sued.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha Definately!

He never answered my question early on which was "How old are you?"

John

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

No. (All the following is based on Copyright law in the USA. UK, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the world have differences, even with the basic agreements [Berne Convention, Uruguay Round, etc] being the same)

US Copyright Law, Title 17, 201 (a) wrote:
Initial Ownership. — Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are coowner of copyright in the work.

While it may seem (or be) "unfair", the author--for purposes of copyright--is the photographer, not the model, and the model is not considered a co-author.

Unless there's a transfer of copyright in writing, they do not have any copyrights to the photos.

US Copyright Law, Title 17, 204 (a) wrote:
A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

studio36uk wrote:
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.

The models have the right to their likeness. In that regard,  limitations on usage IS a right they have--for some kinds of usage.

John Allan, responding to Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
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.

No. Not work for hire. That's a very specific phrase in Copyright law, and it does not apply here unless the studio deliberately added it to their contract (which would be silly, albeit possible).

John Allan wrote:
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

ActionShots Photo wrote:
Since when has a photographers portfolio (online or otherwise) been 'commercial use' that would even require a release?

In general, John's summary is mostly correct. Unfortunately, it's still being decided whether that's going to the The Way Things Are. Most courts have decided as you indicate. Some courts, however, have determined that web pages--free or not, commercial or not, paysites or not, self-promo or not--constitute "publishing" under the traditional meanings, and fall into "commercial" usage, even if the intent isn't commercial in any other traditional sense.

Not quite as clear-cut as one would expect.

As for the rest, I'm going to stay out of it.

[EDIT: Corrected spelling of John Allan's name. Sorry, John.]

Kevin Connery wrote:

Clarification: My name is All(a)n  not  All(e)n.
There is actually another photographer (also on MM I believe - I know he's on OMP), from Colorado named John Allen

John

John Jebbia wrote:
So that I do not get chastised for making a personal attack against you (ie telling you to go fuck yourself) I will refrain from making such a statement.

Geez, John, I said that on page one of this thread... about half way down the page.

And I wasn't nearly polite as you seem to want to be.

Studio36

CaliModels wrote:

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

Okay, color me confused. I respect folks like Alan and Select enough to the point where I hold model/photographer events about once a month. Releases are exchanged and models and photographers both pay, because both benefit. The point of my events, which are different from others, is that new models and photographers can always use the face time without having to spend a couple hundred dollars to get it accomplished. Trying to book paid portfolio work on line is pretty much a joke. Models owning copyright? What bizarro planet do you live on? The last two models who demanded co-copyright who intended to attend one of my events never attended because they were summarily giggled at. Didn't need their money that much.

US Copyright Law, Title 17, 204 (a) wrote:
A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law, is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner's duly authorized agent.

studio36uk wrote:
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.

Kevin Connery wrote:
The models have the right to their likeness. In that regard,  limitations on usage IS a right they have--for some kinds of usage.

And I cut that point between released and unreleased images and commercial and non-commercial uses. Any rights the model might have to their image in a commercial v. non-commercial sense, in the US, are covered fundamentally in state privacy law and the tort law on privacy and not in copyright law. As a side note: Where I live I don't have to worry about "image rights" to any extent. There is no general law of privacy or any case law of import on "image rights" in the UK.

But in the US...

In a case where a model voluntarily poses for a photographer [US] then the first three of the torts are out in almost every instance [intrusion; private facts; false light] leaving only appropriation [of image].

Some states recognize two types of appropriation:

Private People's Right of Privacy: using their name or picture without consent would cause embarrassment, shame, emotional distress, but this wouldn't hold for people who seek out and depend on publicity [models]. They don't suffer emotional harm from public attention.

Right of Privacy (Private Person)
    * personal right - can only be exercised individually
    * right to left alone - does not apply here [e.g. no "intrusion"]
    * violation causes mental harm - but not economic harm as in celebrity cases
    * right dies with the person

Celebrity's Right of Publicity [does not apply here]

As to the model v. photographer: In the instance of merely taking and publishing a photo, however, and keeping in mind that the models appeared voluntarily and for compensation, even the right of a private person must be, by them, demonstrably injured [as above] beyond the mere exposure of the images to the public. Further, in the specific case at hand the ready defence of unreleased "non-commercial" use is one of "implied consent" in the absence of a specific release primarily and exactly because the model posed voluntarily [and for compensation] in the first place. The commissioner of the work [in this instance the photographer] and who pays for it, has a right to use it for the purpose, and in the circumstances, for which it was created and for which the compensation was paid. Whereupon the photographer falls back on copyright law for an examination of the extent of their rights in their copyrighted works. Implied consent can be withdrawn, yes, but not retroactively. One can not un-ring the bell of prior use. Implied consent is also an individual right and generally can not be granted or withdrawn by another party - such as this events organiser.

As to the organiser v. the photographer: The organiser is holding a public event; the invitation is to the interested general public; photographers are the class of the public interested in the event; the organiser is holding them self out to be a business - thus, and by way of, supplying a product or service for money to the public; there is an implied, if not express, warranty that the product or service is suitable and sufficient for the intended use; the photographer pays a fee to attend specifically for the purpose of photography and not some other purpose; the photographer is thus a "business invitee" [on payment of his fee] and the photography is done neither by being "unauthorised" or by way of trespass. Absent any contract to the contrary - photographer has no case to answer vis a vis the organiser, if the organiser complains as they have here. Organiser controls neither the models rights or the photographer's rights in this instance only such rights as may exist by way of the actual business activity.

Studio36

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

Not a matter of what I or they think....

I [b]know[\b] they don't own the copyrights. More importantly, so do the courts.

John Jebbia wrote:

Let me get this straight.. The sole purpose of your events is so that the models can get free portfolio photos. Meanwhile the photographers that pay to go to your event get the privilege of providing said free images. Meanwhile the paying photographer gets nothing more than something to show his buddies?

So that I do not get chastised for making a personal attack against you (ie telling you to go fuck yourself) I will refrain from making such a statement.

If I recall something I read a long time ago, without a release, technically, he can't even show his buddies. But that's technically.

Vito wrote:
If I recall something I read a long time ago, without a release, technically, he can't even show his buddies. But that's technically.

Then neither can the model... in spades.

Studio36

Vito wrote:
If I recall something I read a long time ago, without a release, technically, he can't even show his buddies. But that's technically.

Do not believe much of what you read, they can show who they like, ethics are another matter entirely.

studio36uk wrote:
But in the US...

In a case where a model voluntarily poses for a photographer [US] then the first three of the torts are out in almost every instance [intrusion; private facts; false light] leaving only appropriation [of image].

That is an interesting lecture, but some U.S. attorneys don't seem to agree with you.  Here is a pretty good treatise on the issue:

http://www.vjolt.net/vol6/issue1/v6i1a03-Carpenter.html

One of the better known cases was Louder -vs- Compuserve, which became a class action.  I know Charlene pretty well.

The Compuserve case was pretty much on point with this discussion.  A photographer, Robert Schwartz, went to group shoots and shot models.  There was no release.  He then sold the images to Go Graphics / Compuserve and they were posted on the Internet.  Two of the models sued.  Eventually it was declared a class action.

The defense made all the arguments you have presented here.  The attorney for the plaintiffs, argued for invasion of privacy, negligence, commercial use of an image without a release and a couple of other torts.  The case eventually settled for $650,000.

There is no case law here, but the case is often cited in articles and treatises since it broke ground with the Internet.  You can't interpret these things in such absolute terms as you have, but I do understand your reasoning.  The law is rarely black and white but shades of gray.

To my knowledge, there are no published court cases which say that a model gives up here right to privacy merely because she chooses to pose.   That was the major issue in the Compuserve case and that was a big part of the defense.

People who get releases don't have to worry as much about these issues.   As it relates to the OP, it still goes back to the same thing.  Absent a release, the photographers cannot use the images taken for anything that would require a release.  Obversely, the lack of release would not prevent them from using images in a manner that did not requier one as well.

Vito wrote:
If I recall something I read a long time ago, without a release, technically, he can't even show his buddies. But that's technically.

gregausit wrote:
Do not believe much of what you read, they can show who they like, ethics are another matter entirely.

Actually, some years back (in the 1970's), there was a case where a model sued because a photographer was displaying nude images of her in his portfolio without a release.  Remember, back in those days, it was all film and no Internet.  She claimed an invasion of privacy.

She won the case.  The judge found that displaying the image in the photographer's printed portfolio was, in fact, a form of publication.  I still have a copy of the written decision of the judge in my storage room.  The decision was based on common law and was never appealed.  The judge issued the written opinion, I suspect, because he expected an appeal and wanted his reasoning to be understood.

When the decision happened, it made a lot of waves in the biz and people who were around still talk about it.  For a long time, the basic tenet was, you didn't do anything with a photo without a release from the model, you controlled the copyright, she controlled her likeness.

Since then, a lot of things have changed.  The definition of "publication" has been codified in the copyright act.  While not necessarily binding on other statutes, it has defined, more closely, how publication rights are tied to the copyright holder.

California attempted to codify common law and wrote a statute which better defines commercial use and model's rights.  Again, while not binding on other states, California is a bit of a trend setter which is sometimes looked at by other courts.

There have also been some interesting cases on first amendment rights.  There have been some particularly notable ones in New York, although they have their own set of laws on the matter.  You do have to remember that some states have a right to privacy in their constitution.

The bottom line though is that it would still be possible to get sued for putting a model's photo in your portfolio without a release, but far less likely.   The scenario I see would be if you deliberately did it to embarass the model.  I could see a situation where you took photos for a test and promised not to show them to anyone and instead deliberately put them in your book and showed them to her friends and family.  The point though, is that I think you would have to go pretty far out of your way to get to the point of being sued.

Fortunately, the state of the law has matured over the years and I doubt that merely putting in a photo in a book is much of a risk.

However, I am not a lawyer, I am just relating my experiences over the years.   That decision, when it came out, was interestingm but I personally don't think there is much risk of that decision again.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:

Actually, some years back (in the 1970's), there was a case where a model sued because a photographer was displaying nude images of her in his portfolio without a release.  Remember, back in those days, it was all film and no Internet.  She claimed an invasion of privacy.

She won the case.  The judge found that displaying the image in the photographer's printed portfolio was, in fact, a form of publication.  I still have a copy of the written decision of the judge in my storage room. 

yada, yada, yada

That's the one I'm probably remembering.

TXPhotog wrote:
The law hasn't advanced much since that time in Minnesota.  There still is no statutory privacy right there, and the common law rights come entirely from that Supreme Court decision.  But arguably in Minnesota, any picture that a model doesn't want shown to someone, which is shown - even in a photographer's portfolio - is a potential cause of action for a lawsuit.

I think you hit the nail on the head.  There are no absolutes.  Cases like this are unusual, but they do happen.

TXPhotog wrote:
Another interesting case is Lake vs. Walmart, from Minnesota in 1998.

Imagine the situation:  in 1998 (!) in Minnesota there was no statute providing for a right of privacy, and no case law (common law) which recognized a right of privacy.  One might think in such a case that a release is not required, and that you can't be sued for showing pictures of someone to someone else.

You would be wrong.

In that case, a Walmart store employee showed some snapshots to others, and the girl in the shots heard about it and sued the store.  No commercial use, no money being made, nothing like that.  Just one guy showing others some pictures.

She lost at trial.  The trial court said that there was no recognized right of privacy in Minnesota, so no cause of action.

She appealed.  She lost again in the Appellate court.  They agreed:  no recognized right of privacy in Minnesota.

She appealed that to the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The court simply created a brand new right of privacy, found that the store (its employee) had violated it, and she won her case.  The court announced that, henceforth, three of the four recognized causes of action in the Privacy Tort would be accepted in Minnesota.

Again, please note that this case had nothing to do with "commercial use" - it was just one guy showing other guys some naked pictures of a girl.  And he had, he thought, every legal right to do that.

The law hasn't advanced much since that time in Minnesota.  There still is no statutory privacy right there, and the common law rights come entirely from that Supreme Court decision.  But arguably in Minnesota, any picture that a model doesn't want shown to someone, which is shown - even in a photographer's portfolio - is a potential cause of action for a lawsuit.

ok slightly off topic... but who develops nudes at a walmart? the place that has teenage boys working in their photo department.... some people are DUMB.

studio36uk wrote:
But in the US...
In a case where a model voluntarily poses for a photographer [US] then the first three of the torts are out in almost every instance [intrusion; private facts; false light] leaving only appropriation [of image].

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
That is an interesting lecture, but some U.S. attorneys don't seem to agree with you.  Here is a pretty good treatise on the issue:
---

One of the better known cases was Louder -vs- Compuserve, which became a class action. 
---

The Compuserve case was pretty much on point with this discussion.  A photographer, Robert Schwartz, went to group shoots and shot models.  There was no release.  He then sold the images to Go Graphics / Compuserve and they were posted on the Internet.  Two of the models sued.  Eventually it was declared a class action.
---

The defense made all the arguments you have presented here.  The attorney for the plaintiffs, argued for invasion of privacy, negligence, commercial use of an image without a release and a couple of other torts.  The case eventually settled for $650,000.

---

First, you don't mention the KEY argument to the framework of the CompuServe decision:

Louder v. CompuServe, Inc.,  BC153274 (Los Angeles Superior Court, filed 7/5/96).  Action alleging violation of California Right of Publicity statute arising from unauthorized posting of fashion models' photos to CompuServe's photo library. Although Right of Publicity is expressly a commercial right, plaintiffs allege that making their photos available for downloading by CompuServe subscribers, who pay CompuServe by the minute for access, constituted a commercial use of the photos. Action also alleges violation of privacy.

The discussion here, and arising from the OP's demands in message #1 of this thread, is about non commercial use, that is mere display but not sale, and mere display would not rise to the level of the CompuServe complaint that alleged commercial conversion.

One also wonders why it was CompuServe that was held culpable and the suit was not agianst Robert Schwartz, the photographer, in his original sale of the images... the answer is in the nature and substance of the complaint.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
To my knowledge, there are no published court cases which say that a model gives up here right to privacy merely because she chooses to pose.   That was the major issue in the Compuserve case and that was a big part of the defense.

---
As to privacy... models at a public event / an event open to the public are entitled to no more [and no less] right of privacy / publicity in respect to their images as a member of the public would be in any other public place in respect of their images...[e.g. street shooting] In fact it could be argued even less so as they intentionally put themselves in harms way.

Privacy, and even publicity, rights are not a straight either / or proposition but rather a continuum from one extreme to the other.

Probably why there are no such cases... if any were ever brought specifically on the issue they most likely also never saw a courtroom.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
People who get releases don't have to worry as much about these issues....

True, ture, true...

Until we see this, that and the other model insisting on changes from a rational broad, and legally sound, release to something tailored to their whims... changes made by themselves or the photographer neither of which ordinarily has the necessary expertise to make those changes comprehensively. The "Law of Unintended Consequences" prevails here.

Until we see event organisers opining that models have copyrights, or even unfettered use rights, to their images.

Let one of 'em friggen sue and maybe we'll get some case law. Until then I'll trust my lawyer and the model can take it or leave it, but, where I do use releases for a purpose, I am not going to change it to suit them.

Studio36

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
People who get releases don't have to worry as much about these issues.

I don't mean this as an argument - I'm sincerely curious...

If you "always" (predominantly?), get releases for your projects, how do you put together a shoot with any complexity (Stylist/hair/MUA, agency level model), where you don't have a client in place, for bookbuilding, without the costs absolutely going through the roof? TFR goes so far, but isn't much use when working with agencies or models that are agency level for instance.

John

John Jebbia wrote:
So that I do not get chastised for making a personal attack against you (ie telling you to go fuck yourself) I will refrain from making such a statement.

ROFLMAO.....  this is a priceless! bursts into applause

CaliModels wrote:
BTW, participants sign a contract for each event. The cities and property owners or managers have contracts...And surprisingly they expect us to follow it. So, yes the participants have signed something.

A good deal of this discussion has revolved around the assumption that photographers had not signed a document which took away some of the rights that they otherwise would have.  That's a critical element in the discussion.  So now you say they have signed "something".

What, exactly, they signed is left to the imagination.  Perhaps what they signed does not do what you claim is done.  Perhaps it does.

CaliModels wrote:
Lastly, you can make comments to this, I'm not going to reply;

And, of course, having thrown that little hand grenade into the converstion, you exit, stage left.  That being the case, since you will not say what it was that was signed, we ought to assume that your grenade was a dud.

studio36uk wrote:
One also wonders why it was CompuServe that was held culpable and the suit was not agianst Robert Schwartz, the photographer, in his original sale of the images... the answer is in the nature and substance of the complaint.

The suit was against Robert Schwartz as well as Go Graphics.  Each ultimately contributed to the ultimate settlement.  Louder -vs- Compuserve is what is known as the "Short Title."  They were all named and they did all pay.

You might want to write to David Amkraut, he is the attorney who prosecuted the litigation.  This isn't a swipe at you, but I think your are at direct odds with his allegations.  The entire complaint is available online and I think I have a copy around here somewhere as well.

The entire graveman of the case was whether the models had waived their rights by posing at a semi-public event.   If you go through the history of the case, that argument was made by the defendants and rejected early by the court.  I believe they demurred on those grounds at one point.  Nobody challenged the fact that the use by Compuserve/Go Graphics was commercial, they contended that there was a waver of rights by the models because of the nature of the event.  Likewise, Compuserve claimed that they should not be liabile since Schwartz uploaded the photos with the promise that he held the rights to do so. 

In the end, the result is commonly known and is often cited in treatises dealing with Internet privacy and publication.

John Allan wrote:

I don't mean this as an argument - I'm sincerely curious...

If you "always" (predominantly?), get releases for your projects, how do you put together a shoot with any complexity (Stylist/hair/MUA, agency level model), where you don't have a client in place, for bookbuilding, without the costs absolutely going through the roof? TFR goes so far, but isn't much use when working with agencies or models that are agency level for instance.

John

I will send you a private message on the issue.  Don't want to hijack the thread since it is already going all over the place.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES


                                        (Filed: July 5, 1996)
CHARLENE LOUDER, individually               )    CASE NO: BC153274
and on behalf of all individuals                )
similarly situated; OJIBWA JENNA-           )    CLASS ACTION
LEE CROWDER-STARKS, individually         )    COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
and on behalf of all individuals                )
similarly  situated                                 )    1) VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE
                                                        )       SECTION 3344
          Plaintiff,                                   )    2) INVASION OF PRIVACY
                                                        )    3) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
            vs.                                        )    4) ACCOUNTING
                                                        )    5) NEGLIGENCE
COMPUSERVE INCORPORATED; ROBERT    )
SCHWARTZ; GO GRAPHICS, INC.;            )
and DOES 1 through 1000,                     )
Inclusive,                                            )
                                                        )
          Defendants.                              )
                                                        )

Unfortunately, the forum script screws up the formatting.

TXPhotog wrote:
She appealed that to the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The court simply created a brand new right of privacy, found that the store (its employee) had violated it, and she won her case.  The court announced that, henceforth, three of the four recognized causes of action in the Privacy Tort would be accepted in Minnesota.

Wouldn't this be a case of retroactively applying a new law?

I thought that this generally could not be done.

Here in Houston, the Tom DeLay scandal centers on an issue like this.

CaliModels wrote:
I can't believe this is still going on. There are rules to the event. OK. Everything is debatable, but I didn't think some of you would take things and continue to twist it around...Especially my sarcasm.

Kurt my friend... I've known you for years... as you have attended MANY of my past events... you're heart is in the right place... looking out after the welfare of YOUR models... opps... better say THE models... as you wont survive long here with an insinuated 'sluggo moniker' lurking nearby.  But dude... the reason this is 'still going on' is because you HAVENT admitted the fact that you were WRONG concerning 'copyright ownership'.  And all the photographers participating in this thread have NO PROBLEM beating you into the ground RE this topic.  And why are there VERY few models responding?  Simple... most all of them KNOW where they stand on the subject of copyright.  True... everything IS debatable... that's why we have court systems... where the MAJOR debates take place.  And about that 'scarcasm' thing?... well... we all know that there is a time and a place for scarcasm.  I think you've discovered where there ISNT a time and a place for it...

AGREEMENT BY EVENT ORGANISER IN CONSIDERATION OF ATTENDANCE FEE PAYMENT BY PHOTOGRAPHER

IT IS AGREED, THAT, in consideration of photographer's payment of the event attendance fee to ........................... [organiser] organiser hereby acknowledges and agrees that neither they, as the event organiser, nor any and all models sponsored by them, and attending, shall have any usage rights in image(s), or shall they receive copies of any such image(s), created by photographer during the event without obtaining a license detailing, and limited to, any mutually agreed uses and such license conveyed in writing;

AND PROVIDED THAT any such license for the use of any image(s) created by photographer during the event held by the organiser, and for which photographer agrees to pay, and does pay, the attendance fee, and including any license issued, individually or collectively, to organiser or any and all models sponsored by them, and attending, during the event, shall only issue on payment of a fee, in advance, to photographer, as the sole copyright owner, in the amount of $35.00 for EACH such image licensed;

AND FURTHER, that on receipt of payment and issuance of license, but not before, photographer agrees to supply copies, as paper prints or electronic files suitable for reproduction, of such images as my be selected.

AND FURTHER, that organiser shall inform any and all models sponsored by them, and attending, of the terms of this agreement. In the event of a failure to so inform the models, and obtain their consent to the terms of this agreement, in writing, organiser agrees to accept full and unlimited responsibility for any unauthorised uses of any image(s) created by photographer during the event whether that unauthorised use is by the organiser, them self, or by any other person or organisation on their behalf, or by any model, attending, and not agreeing and conforming to the terms of this agreement.

YOU sign here........................................Event Organiser

OK, pal, there's MY rules

Studio36

TXPhotog wrote:
She appealed that to the Minnesota Supreme Court.  The court simply created a brand new right of privacy, found that the store (its employee) had violated it, and she won her case.  The court announced that, henceforth, three of the four recognized causes of action in the Privacy Tort would be accepted in Minnesota.

rp_photo wrote:
Wouldn't this be a case of retroactively applying a new law?

I thought that this generally could not be done.

Here in Houston, the Tom DeLay scandal centers on an issue like this.

Legislatures generally can't write laws that apply retroactively.  Courts don't make laws, they interpret them.  I think what TX is saying is that, until the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled there was a right to privacy, it had either been unrecognized by the lower courts or there were conflicting views.  The right to privacy had existed all along, but until the Supreme Court made its ruling, there was no enforceable precedent.

That is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court did in Roe -v- Wade years ago.  They ruled that there was a right to privacy, which was implicit in the U.S. constitution, not explicit.  While the decision remains controversial, even contemporary justices, such as Samuel Alito see at least some limited privacy rights (although it remains controversial as applied to Roe -v- Wade).

So to answer your question, the Minnesota Supreme Court simply found that there was indeed a previously unrecognized right to privacy.  They did not create law retroactively.

CaliModels wrote:
I can't believe this is still going on. There are rules to the event. OK. Everything is debatable, but I didn't think some of you would take things and continue to twist it around...Especially my sarcasm. My "show" examples and some "questions" were sarcasm since I was leaving for the day. You either accept it the rules or you don't. Copyrights can be debated forever. That why it's subject to interpretation. The way events are run can be debated forever...We already know that.

BTW, participants sign a contract for each event. The cities and property owners or managers have contracts...And surprisingly they expect us to follow it. So, yes the participants have signed something.

Lastly, you can make comments to this, I'm not going to reply; but keep in mind there's an event that recuits our models and allows posting of images...Fine. There's another event that has Sued Models for not following their rules...Fine. I have rules for reasons. Many of them have been time-tested by others. Again, no perfect system, we use the one(s) that fits best at the time.

Yeah I can't believe this was allowed to go on this long either. Your first post should have been moved to CASTING CALLS. I must admit I admire your clandastine way of placing a CASTING CALL in the General forum. Kudos.

"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. "

Secondly, "our models"? are you a manager or talent agency? If so you are not abiding by the agreement and terms of MM.

"Lastly, you can make comments to this, I'm not going to reply; but keep in mind there's an event that recuits our models and allows posting of images"

Sounds to me that you are a Sluggo, and you are getting pissed because your pimping skills are not up to par. Sorry Sluggo, photographers own the copyrights, you don't own shit. Any action is between the photographer and the model.