|
Forums >
General Industry >
How is that? A question of copyright.
I recently did a tfp/tfcd job that the relationship became so disastrous that I just gave the model all the high resolution files she requested just so I could get rid of her and her BS. I later come to understand that she posted the picture online here at MM/MYSPACE/MODELPLACE and wherever else she might have posted it and that is fine, but what I was not happy about was that when I saw the images myself online it was copyright to her So It led me to ask the following questions. (1)Is this legal (what she did) (2)How is that it's only here on these sites we seem to always questions on this topic but have know definate answers with regards to the copyright law and how it works. (3) Can we get a lawyer that specialise in this kind of law on here (4) How come we never hear of top photographers going through this. people like Herb Ritz,Patrick demarchelier,lachapelle,lindberg Etc. Jul 11 06 12:10 pm Link This should be a permanent link somewhere on Model Mayhem (and any other photographer/artist sites out there): http://www.copyright.gov/ What she did was wrong; she can't take credit for your work by "copyrighting" it because she does not own the copyright to it. She also can't post the images without your authorization because it's copyrighted work; she needs some sort of licensing agreement in order to use any of it. My guess is she has no clue about copyrights and isn't trying to "steal" your work. You may want to send her a quick email and let her know she's in violation of copyright law. However, this leads me to a question: If you don't like the work, then why worry about it? Do you want your name associated with it? You could simply ignore the whole thing and not deal with her or the images again. Obviously, this is up to you. -P- Jul 11 06 12:17 pm Link Dexter Fletcher wrote: Yes, there are several, but whether they will respond to a question like this is another matter. Jul 11 06 12:17 pm Link I think you've already received more than sufficient information about copyright and usage in other threads within which you participated to answer your question. How did the TFP sessions rise to the level of disaster. If the images turned out badly, why in the world would you distribute them (particularly in hi-res). This isn't the first thread where photographers are whining about things after having acquiesced to a model's irrational demands. Geeez - get a backbone people. John Jul 11 06 12:19 pm Link Dexter Fletcher wrote: No. Dexter Fletcher wrote: Read Title 17 for yourself. It's not that long. Dexter Fletcher wrote: No. Jul 11 06 12:21 pm Link John Allan wrote: it's not the images that was was disastrous it's the relationship between us that became unbearable Jul 11 06 12:24 pm Link I said people on these sites because i never hear of it happening to top photographers Herb Ritz,Peter Lindberg,Patrick Demarchellier, David Lachapelle, Etc.. Jul 11 06 12:28 pm Link Dexter Fletcher wrote: Well, I'd still say that there are other/better ways to sever a professional relationship, than simply letting her have her way at your expense. Jul 11 06 12:28 pm Link This should lead you to make a conclusion on your question... http://www.cybercrime.gov/17usc506.htm 17 U.S.C.§ 506 Criminal Offenses § 506. Criminal offenses (a) Criminal Infringement.--Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either- (1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, [break in text] (c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice.--Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500. (d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice.--Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500. [break in text] (f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.--Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a). ----------- Studio36 Jul 11 06 12:37 pm Link I just realise the model in my avatar is the model in question lol Jul 11 06 12:48 pm Link You own the copyright. The artist at the creation of the work is the copyright owner. The only exception would be work for hire, where you actually work (as in day to day job) for someone eles or a contract where you sign away your rights. Jul 11 06 12:48 pm Link Andrew J Baran wrote: Understood. Jul 11 06 01:00 pm Link bump Jul 11 06 01:16 pm Link Dexter, another thread is running on this type of question: https://www.modelmayhem.com/posts.php?thread_id=60102 Specific to MySpace - just notify them of the copyright infringement with a notice to myspace. There are forms for this posted already. For MM contact a moderator. Big name photographers generally don't give away hi-res photos without paid lawyers and make models and clients sign contracts. OK, I don't either. Jul 11 06 02:36 pm Link Leonard Gee Photography wrote: thanks Jul 11 06 03:50 pm Link Dexter Fletcher wrote: There's a saying in law school, that verbal agreements are only worth the paper they're written on. And please, people, don't start posting oral contract law from Wiki, the saying is a joke. Well, sort of. Jul 11 06 04:06 pm Link bump Jul 11 06 04:25 pm Link Dexter Fletcher wrote: Why? Jul 11 06 04:27 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: apparently not the answers one wanted to hear? Jul 11 06 04:49 pm Link KM von Seidl wrote: Seems to be a lot of that going around . . . . Jul 11 06 04:58 pm Link Dexter Fletcher wrote: What exactly did she did? (2)How is that it's only here on these sites we seem to always Two reasons. One, nobody likes the answers they get so the arguments just go on forever, and two, copyright infringement is a question of fact and not of law so there *are* very few definite answers. (3) Can we get a lawyer that specialise in this kind of law on here Guilty. However, while I will answer general questions, I decline to provide legal advice. I may or may not be licensed to practice in your jurisdiction and you should consult a professional licensed in your jurisdiction regarding specific legal questions. (4) How come we never hear of top photographers going through this. people like Herb Ritz,Patrick demarchelier,lachapelle,lindberg Etc. Because their attack lawyers deal with the issues quietly and efficiently. Jul 11 06 07:41 pm Link Dexter Fletcher wrote: TXPhotog wrote: Ahem. Going on twelve years as an IP counsel, first to an industrial design firm, and currently general counsel to an electronics manufacturing company. I've sued people all over the world for copyright, trademark, and trade secret infringement. I'm also a licensed patent attorney. Jul 11 06 07:42 pm Link Double-post deleted. Jul 11 06 07:43 pm Link Dexter Fletcher wrote: StMarc wrote: It is nice to see you here. You were one of the ones that I thought of and YES your answers are worth reading. Jul 11 06 07:49 pm Link "(1)Is this legal (what she did)" No, not really, but when we use the term "illegal" we usually refer to criminal violations. What you have here is a civil tort. "(2)How is that it's only here on these sites we seem to always questions on this topic but have know definate answers with regards to the copyright law and how it works." Huh? Could you translate "have know definate answees ..." To "know" is to have knowledge; is that really what you meant? But that aside from that, there is lots of accurate info about © on this forum, but you have to weed it out from the rumour, folklore and guesses. "(3) Can we get a lawyer that specialise in this kind of law on here" I recall a while back, a lawyer responded to a question about ©, but all of those with solid "rumour, folklore and guesses" thoroughly trashed him for not saying way was popular and apparently chased him away. "(4) How come we never hear of top photographers going through this. people like Herb Ritz,Patrick demarchelier,lachapelle,lindberg Etc." Because they are not doing TFCD sessions and are not pissing and moaning on forums. They work with actual real world clients, though I have to say I suspect they would find this board highly entertaining. But in answer to your point, yes what she did violates your copyright. You can't have her put in jail, but you can sue her in Federal Court. The question is do you realy want to and can you afford it; is it worth 5 to 10 thousand bucks to get a lawyer to take your case into Federal Court? Have you registered the images with th © office, which is required in order to file suit? Does she have the resources to allow you to collect anything? Do you really want the reputation of filing suit against models for what is more than likely done from a total lack of knowledge? After all, a good 99.5% of models and 90% of photographers on this forum really have no idea of what © is and how it works. Why not just send her an email saying you retain copyright and she has no right to claim it. Finally, does it really matter in trhe whole scheme of things? Jul 11 06 08:13 pm Link Dexter Fletcher wrote: Do you want Tyler to hire an attorney to advise us all, or just recruit one to work pro bono? Either way, why in the world would you think MM or an attorney would do that? Dexter Fletcher wrote: Because they hire their own lawyers like any good business person. Jul 11 06 08:25 pm Link |
