MalameelPhotography wrote:
Okay, I am not a lawyer.

However, my understanding is that you are allowed to show, use in your portfolio, but without a release form, you cannot use it commercially.
M

YEP

Ruben Vasquez wrote:
Wow! Thanks for all the responses (minus one).

Thanks.  So now I can't show my interest and curiousity in a different pricing system...

Vance wrote:

YEP

Well, this may not be true.... Personal portfolio usage is certainly allowed (i.e. in your printed portfolio book) but, PUBLISHING the image on the web (here on MM or on your own website) may not be considered "personal portfolio use." 

My understanding (I am not a lawyer) is that the courts are moving (have moved??) into agreement that putting a picture on the Web is "publishing".

So, you want to publish the image on MM.  Why?  To attract new clients to your photo business?  Essentially, a court could determine that you are using the image "commercially."   Interestingly, if you wrote a story about glamour-con an put it on your website and included the image as part of the story, you would be in the "editorial" area and, you would have less of a chance of having the claim that the image was used "commercially." 

Now, given the context of when, where and how the image was shot, posting it on MM will likely not be a problem without a release.  But, you say the images are provocative (or something).... publishing a provocative shot of a model on the web without a release..... hmmmm, your call. 

FYI:  I don't focus my lens on any model unless they either 1) sign a release or 2) pay me to shoot him/her.

Merlyn_Magic Photo wrote:
These were taken at a convention where the models charge to have the picture taken per image. Glamour, sci-fi, porn conventions all work like this. Just a way to make a buck off the fans after they spend $25+ per day to get in the door.

Most of the "models" at these things are freelancing and otherwise unpaid by the promoters. They may even be paying the promoters for the space to do their thing.

We have a similar situation in UK table / lap / pole dancing clubs [don't know about practices in the US in similar establishments]... the girls come in... unpaid... dance for "tips" and split their takings ca 60:40 with the club. In effect they are paying the club for the opportunity to earn their portion using the club's premises... but they are not employees and are not paid wages to be there. Still, some can clear more [+++] than a grand a week, so definitely better than a McJob in the local grocery store.

Studio36

Pixel Fisher wrote:
The only thing that you can't do is to sell it to a third party, meaning commerically to be used for the public eye or sale.
PixelFisher.

Here in the US, there is no copyright, privacy, or right to control publicity law that says you can't sell an unreleased image to a third party.

Many people confuse laws about "commercial usage" with "engaging in commerce."

Within certain bounds, you ARE free to sell an unreleased image -- you could sell it to a newspaper or magazine for editorial usage, for example. What you can't do without a release is use it in a way that suggests the subject is endorsing or advertising a product or service.

In theory, using it in your print portfolio could be questionable, but as a practical matter, the chances of you getting in trouble over this are infinitesimally small.

I recently shot a concert (Crosby, Still, Nash, and Young) where for the first time, the waiver I had to sign to gain access to the event specifically prohibited my using the images in a portfolio of any kind. Sheesh. So in this case, I won't be putting any of them in my portfolio, but everything else is fair game. . .

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't even play one on TV.

Paul

RED Photographic wrote:
The law is different in the UK, and, I think, simpler, so can someone explain the difference in US law between showing your book to people and putting a picture in your portfolio on this site?

Right, in the UK there is NO general law of privacy. Done and dusted. No right to privacy; no established "images rights"; no established "publicity rights"... ect. Virtually the only thing to consider is photographic libel [false light] and breach of confidentiality... but in an unmodified image, shot at a public event, that is a legal impossiblity.

Studio36

Miss Anya wrote:

Thanks.  So now I can't show my interest and curiousity in a different pricing system...

Pricing system? If u get married, you gonna tell the wedding photographer how much he should pay you to do your wedding? LOL!

Photographers need to put a piece of bread on the table too.

RED Photographic wrote:
The law is different in the UK, and, I think, simpler, so can someone explain the difference in US law between showing your book to people and putting a picture in your portfolio on this site?

The difference is that posting an image on a website COULD be considered publishing or advertising. Printing in a portfolio that is shown to a few potential clients, typically one at a time, whether or not it legally is advertising, is just not likely to get you in trouble, if for no other reason than that very few people know what's in your portfolio. On the web virtually every human being on the planet has access to your work, raising the chance of somebody objecting to your usage of their image.

I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, so this isn't legal advice.

The bottom line is that the legal system is a pain in the ass. Even if you do everything absolutely perfectly, you can still get sued and have to bear the expense and hassle of responding to a suit. Far better to reduce the likelihood, by getting a broadly-worded model release whenever possible. Don't be lazy -- just do it!

Paul

FosbreStudios wrote:

Pricing system? If u get married, you gonna tell the wedding photographer how much he should pay you to do your wedding? LOL!

Photographers need to put a piece of bread on the table too.

Go back and read the entire post including her original question.  She wasn't trying to deny photographers the right to make a living, but was just asking about a different way that models charge for services at these larger shows. 

Dude, relax!

Merlyn_Magic Photo wrote:
These were taken at a convention where the models charge to have the picture taken per image. Glamour, sci-fi, porn conventions all work like this. Just a way to make a buck off the fans after they spend $25+ per day to get in the door.

Do they get a t-shirt with the letters G-W-C on it for the $5 too? 

While I get a bit agitated when many of the self-proclaimed pros (not to be misconstrued with the actual pros) get on their "Death to GWCs" kick, this pretty much screams GWC.  Let's face facts, you have little input into the shoot's theme, talent, lighting, or set-up.  All you're doing is showing up and taking a picture of a pretty girl that someone else set up.  This is a little too close to the $10 lap dance for me...thank you very much. 

When I've done lighting workshops in the past, a similar arrangement is used.  You pay a fee for the workshop, and then utilize the models in your own setups (within the limitations of the studio or items that you bring).  For that workshop fee, you receive a release to use printed images in your portfolio.  At the end, you have the option of paying an additional modest sum to any or all of the models for a nearly unrestricted use release (adult website use forbidden only).  It's still not as good as actually setting up your own shoot, but at least there you are receiving some instruction.

I don't fault models who choose to go this route as it's likely an easy way to make a nice chunk of money in a business that is not overly lucrative.  But as a legitimate photographer I can't imagine a reason that I'd go this route.

All right, let the flaming begin.

Carpe Imago Photography wrote:

Go back and read the entire post including her original question.  She wasn't trying to deny photographers the right to make a living, but was just asking about a different way that models charge for services at these larger shows. 

Dude, relax!

DUDE! Why does everyone say "DUDE"!!

I already EMAILED her! I was telling her I was in the mood to "break balls" today, and was being FUNNY, trying to get a Giggle.....

So you relax!

FosbreStudios wrote:

DUDE! Why does everyone say "DUDE"!!

I already EMAILED her! I was telling her I was in the mood to "break balls" today, and was being FUNNY, trying to get a Giggle.....

So you relax!

Sorry, I just have this aversion to people that appear to be relatively inactive (28 posts in more than year's time), take ideas and comments out of context, and then proceed to climb all over people for their own amusement.  I didn't know that you e-mailed her, and quite frankly if you're going to get up on her in a public forum then you should have probably shared that info in the same forum. 

As far as the use of the term "Dude", I find it more relaxed than saying, "Lighten up Frank!"