markcomp wrote:

That is why I preferrence it by "I don't recall". lol

I would agree with the differences in the state laws except where the Federal laws override (and I use that loosely in light of the tenth amendment).  So, let's get to the meat of it, does your interpretation of copyright allow for the self promotion of a non release TFP?

Yeah ok I got 10secs of my life to waste! (Whitesnake plays in the background..."Here I go agian....")

99% of all models on this site are clueless as to the laws regarding releases and even more so of those governing copyright.  50% of the photographers here appear to suffer the same problems.

If you do fall into the percentage that knows the laws governing releases and those governing copyright from the kleenex you used to wipe your ass then no need to retaliate to my post.

If you dont know your ass from a hole in the wall then feel free to go ahead and bitch!

This is the only advice I will offer to photographers on the matter and no not one bit of it is legal advice!

When I find a model I want to use or one replies to a casting call I write back an email outlining exactly what we will be doing and what will be expected from the model.  If I am paying a model I rarley give them a disc from the shoot unless they ask nice.....if it is a TFP they get a disc.  However in the initial email it reads....."I require you to sign a release prior to the shoot as this serves to protect me.  This is not optional"   And it never has been an option any model that turns up and wont sign a release before we get started can turn around and go home.

I have found that by making myslef very clear in initial contact I have no issues with any of the models and they have no issue with signing the release.

At the end of the day due to sites like MM there are so many models to chose from just work with the ones that will play by your rules......and if they wont....find another.

These models that shift the paramaters of the agreements at the eleventh hour wont be around long enough for anyone to notice anyway so move on to models you think could become regulars for you...........ah shit it took 20secs not 10!!

I am done!

Xiss wrote:
I think you should have stated that you need a release prior to the shoot.

And photographers, BE CAREFUL because you do not have the legal right to post images on the web without a release, even if it is non-commercial.

Wrong
Although there are some none commercial uses that could create a liability for [photographer] the statement as written is wrong.

Although many people do this and nothing happens, it can be grounds for a lawsuit if there are damages to speak of.

Always ask for a release if there is doubt about the nature of the pictures and where you want to post them.

Yuriy wrote:
But let's look at the big picture here... If you work in law I'm sure you know that if a judge sees tfps as being an uneven trade where you received a blanket release in exchange for the rights to use the models likeness (for whatever uses) then the judge can also invalidate the release for trial. It all comes down to compensation, if the judge considers the compensation to be unjust then most of your case (with your blanket model release) goes right out the window.

I'm not at all sure where you got this from.  Not (yet) being admitted to the Bar, I'm not going to get into long legal discussions where I state what I know the law to be, but -- just generally and speaking hypothetically -- I would think this goes to the weight of the evidence, not to admissibility. 

And I think it would also be a question for the jury as to whether the compensation was just. 

Not that it really matters all that much what either of us has to say about it.  It's what will matter if one of these cases really ends up in front of a judge and jury.... 

-- rick

P.S. There is a lot of -- what did you call it? -- incorrect information, I think is what you said -- being handed out in this thread.  It's amazing how much of it is non-lawyers-with-no-legal-training pontificating about the law.  But I'm not surprised.  My brother is a jeweler with his own successful store.  He, too, thinks he knows more about the law than those who study and work in it daily. 

Webspinner wrote:
Agency models are told not to sign releases unless there is compensation. If you are doing nudes however, you should have a copy of the drivers license.

this is true.. the FBI is starting to check on things like this.

SKPhoto wrote:
No ID, no release, no work, paid or otherwise.

That about sums it up boys and girls...

Xiss wrote:
Xiss wrote:
I think you should have stated that you need a release prior to the shoot.

And photographers, BE CAREFUL because you do not have the legal right to post images on the web without a release, even if it is non-commercial.

Although many people do this and nothing happens, it can be grounds for a lawsuit if there are damages to speak of.

Always ask for a release if there is doubt about the nature of the pictures and where you want to post them.

Yuriy wrote:
Wrong
Although there are some none commercial uses that could create a liability for [photographer] the statement as written is wrong.

Ok, I would like to hear your point view. What I've been advised is that because of personal rights to privacy, photographers do not have the right to post someone's likeness on the web without consent unless they are a) a newsworthy figure b) at a public place where they don't expect privacy. However if there are no damages and it's non-commercial, there are no grounds for a lawsuit.

TXPhotog wrote:
The issue under discussion is models releases, which have nothing whatever to do with copyright.  Consequently, there is no reason to interpret copyright law since, as I said earlier, it does not apply.

What does apply is the various state laws on privacy, right of publicity and appropriation of likeness.  There is enormous variation in these laws, and there is no relevant federal law which "overrides" them.

What about 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)? Not relevant to the issue at hand, but certainly apropos to Federal issues in its particular scope.

Or would you consider that "additional" instead of "overriding?"

Yuriy wrote:
However, I was speaking about the variables; as you know every situation, jurisdiction, and judge are different and most of the time such a case would be thrown out of a court but it is also possible that with a few circumstances the case could be seen and even, although unlikely, won.

I still don't get where you come up with this stuff.  "Every situation, jurisdiction, and judge are [sic] different...."  There may be differences in situations, jurisdictions and judges -- they aren't all different.  If they were, we'd have one helluva time practicing law, because everything would be a "case of first impression" with no precedents on which we could rely.  While there may be some alterations in specifics here and there, the law itself isn't quite so malleable.  Via stare decisis, some rules from prior cases will apply.  And the judges don't just make judgments -- when it is their province to make those (as opposed to the jury's) -- on a whim. They're going to follow the law.  So there is some predictability.  It's that way on purpose. 

Yuriy wrote:
What I was referring to was that in some circumstances a model release may not be sufficient while in others it may not be necessary.

That's practically a truism. 

Yuriy wrote:
1. I am not a lawyer, although I do study business and intellectual property law well enough to not have to call my attorney for every question I have (it’s also a former hobby of mine before I ever became a photographer).

Ah...a hobbyist lawyer!  My favorite kind!  For the record, IP law is so complex that it has some of the highest malpractice insurance rates in our little neck of the woods (California) and at least one malpractice carrier I know of will cancel coverage if the "regular lawyers" -- people with way more training and time looking at this stuff than you -- ever tried to handle an IP case. 

Yuriy wrote:
I also know (although I have not yet stated) that laws can be different everywhere so there are places where I am spot on while in others I will be dead wrong.
This is why I usually refrain from going into specifics and speak very broadly.

I hope the other reason you do that is because some jurisdictions don't look kindly on practicing law without a license.   

Yuriy wrote:
2. I do not have any cases that I can cite. I do not study case law but I do partake in the study of contract law (a hobby). Contracts have been invalidated in the past (before you ask, no, I cannot provide you with specific cases) for various reasons one of which has been compensation.

When I went to law school -- but maybe things have changed since I graduated last year -- we were taught that the courts won't often look at whether the compensation was fair or sufficient or any of the other things you seemed to indicate before.  We were told the courts will usually assume the compensation was "fair enough."  After all, the courts think (so we were told), the person who signed the release knew what he or she was signing and obviously when they signed it, they considered it fair. 

The only exceptions I know of are those involving so-called "contracts of adhesion" where a big powerful entity basically offers a less-powerful entity a "take-it-or-leave-it" deal and the less-powerful entity is powerless to negotiate or go elsewhere to negotiate similar services.  Last I checked, that didn't seem to apply to most MM stories I've heard. 

One thing I'm learning about the law from these boards that I didn't learn in law school, though, is that I might stand a pretty good chance of making better money cleaning up contract messes created by non-lawyers-who-study-law-as-a-hobby than I do right now handling criminal defense cases where the clients stop paying after the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" juries throw them in prison despite the lack of evidence in the case.   

-- rick

P.S. Don't rely on anything I've said above as legal advice you can take to the bank.  For one thing, while it's not true that "every case is different" enough that it can't be commented upon, it is true that I'm not providing anyone any particularized advice.  I'm just explaining something about the generalities we were taught in law school that appear to be in conflict with the things the "hobbyist lawyers" who did not go to law school are saying.

Vegas Alien wrote:
I booked a model last week for a shoot tomorrow night. We spoke and discussed ideas, terms and details. I called her just now to confirm.  She asks if I have a release to sign and I said, "yes." She says she does not sign releases for TFP/CD, only for paid work, and can I offer her any compensation.

I asked how either of us would be able to use the images without a signed release, and she says, "for self-promotion by both of us." I told her that that is precisely what my release states, self-promotional and non-commercial usage by both parties. It is the same usage she describes but is signed and also has a place for her date of birth, which we will need for nudes in addition to proof of ID.

She says, "Sorry, I'll have to pass." I told her it would have been nice for her to bring up this "policy" when we first spoke, so I could have booked my studio in place of she and I shooting. Her: "OK, thanks."

Am I the unusual one here? I prefer something more than a verbal agreement for usage of images.

Christopher Ambler wrote:
What about 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (a)? Not relevant to the issue at hand, but certainly apropos to Federal issues in its particular scope.

Or would you consider that "additional" instead of "overriding?"

I suppose I should defer to one of the 1 1/2 lawyers who have been taking part in this thread, but I see nothing in the statute to indicate that it is "overriding", and in fact I know that it is routinely used in conjunction with state law claims on the same issues of fact.  That sure sounds "additional" to me.

So Shoot Me! wrote:
Hope that helps!

the problem regarding the use of releases goes a little deeper than just the legal aspect.  it pertains to the use of the document at both levels of the parallel universe of modeling / modeling photography.

in the internet world there is strong confirmation of "no release-no shoot" for non-specific tfp/test work directed toward the model.  in the non-internet world, the "no release-no shoot" for non-spcific testing will reverse that direction toward the photographer.

--face reality

FaceReality wrote:
the problem regarding the use of releases goes a little deeper than just the legal aspect.  it pertains to the use of the document at both levels of the parallel universe of modeling / modeling photography.

in the internet world there is strong confirmation of "no release-no shoot" for non-specific tfp/test work directed toward the model.  in the non-internet world, the "no release-no shoot" for non-spcific testing will reverse that direction toward the photographer.

--face reality

For whatever that may mean, that's fine by me.  I was commenting on the legal discussion in this thread and my part in it.   

-- rick

So Shoot Me! wrote:

Yuriy wrote:
However, I was speaking about the variables; as you know every situation, jurisdiction, and judge are different and most of the time such a case would be thrown out of a court but it is also possible that with a few circumstances the case could be seen and even, although unlikely, won.

I still don't get where you come up with this stuff.  "Every situation, jurisdiction, and judge are [sic] different...."  There may be differences in situations, jurisdictions and judges -- they aren't all different.  If they were, we'd have one helluva time practicing law, because everything would be a "case of first impression" with no precedents on which we could rely.  While there may be some alterations in specifics here and there, the law itself isn't quite so malleable.  Via stare decisis, some rules from prior cases will apply.  And the judges don't just make judgments -- when it is their province to make those (as opposed to the jury's) -- on a whim. They're going to follow the law.  So there is some predictability.  It's that way on purpose. 

Yuriy wrote:
What I was referring to was that in some circumstances a model release may not be sufficient while in others it may not be necessary.

That's practically a truism. 

Yuriy wrote:
1. I am not a lawyer, although I do study business and intellectual property law well enough to not have to call my attorney for every question I have (it’s also a former hobby of mine before I ever became a photographer).

Ah...a hobbyist lawyer!  My favorite kind!  For the record, IP law is so complex that it has some of the highest malpractice insurance rates in our little neck of the woods (California) and at least one malpractice carrier I know of will cancel coverage if the "regular lawyers" -- people with way more training and time looking at this stuff than you -- ever tried to handle an IP case. 

Yuriy wrote:
I also know (although I have not yet stated) that laws can be different everywhere so there are places where I am spot on while in others I will be dead wrong.
This is why I usually refrain from going into specifics and speak very broadly.

I hope the other reason you do that is because some jurisdictions don't look kindly on practicing law without a license.   


When I went to law school -- but maybe things have changed since I graduated last year -- we were taught that the courts won't often look at whether the compensation was fair or sufficient or any of the other things you seemed to indicate before.  We were told the courts will usually assume the compensation was "fair enough."  After all, the courts think (so we were told), the person who signed the release knew what he or she was signing and obviously when they signed it, they considered it fair. 

The only exceptions I know of are those involving so-called "contracts of adhesion" where a big powerful entity basically offers a less-powerful entity a "take-it-or-leave-it" deal and the less-powerful entity is powerless to negotiate or go elsewhere to negotiate similar services.  Last I checked, that didn't seem to apply to most MM stories I've heard. 

One thing I'm learning about the law from these boards that I didn't learn in law school, though, is that I might stand a pretty good chance of making better money cleaning up contract messes created by non-lawyers-who-study-law-as-a-hobby than I do right now handling criminal defense cases where the clients stop paying after the "guilty-until-proven-innocent" juries throw them in prison despite the lack of evidence in the case.   

-- rick

P.S. Don't rely on anything I've said above as legal advice you can take to the bank.  For one thing, while it's not true that "every case is different" enough that it can't be commented upon, it is true that I'm not providing anyone any particularized advice.  I'm just explaining something about the generalities we were taught in law school that appear to be in conflict with the things the "hobbyist lawyers" who did not go to law school are saying.

While I realize you are not offering legal advice, I still have to say that your observations are both consistent and coherent. You'll make a decent lawyer one day.

(JOKE: What do you call 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? ANSWER: A good start!  Sorry, couldn't resist...lol)

Vegas Alien wrote:
I asked how either of us would be able to use the images without a signed release, and she says, "for self-promotion by both of us." I told her that that is precisely what my release states, self-promotional and non-commercial usage by both parties. It is the same usage she describes but is signed and also has a place for her date of birth, which we will need for nudes in addition to proof of ID.

Maybe I'm missing something (it's a long thread and I haven't read all the posts), but if your releases states that the only usage granted is self-promotional and non-commercial, then why do you insist on a signed release in the first place?  I'm not a lawyer, but I would think you would already have had those rights anyway -- as the model herself pointed out to you.  If the point of the release was to give you what you're entitled to in the first place, why not just forget the release and shoot?  I'm puzzled.

Frank McAdam wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something (it's a long thread and I haven't read all the posts), but if your releases states that the only usage granted is self-promotional and non-commercial, then why do you insist on a signed release in the first place?  I'm not a lawyer, but I would think you would already have had those rights anyway -- as the model herself pointed out to you.  If the point of the release was to give you what you're entitled to in the first place, why not just forget the release and shoot?  I'm puzzled.

If you are using the photos for self-promotion by posting them on the web or publishing them without profit, in most cases you still need a release, especially for nude photos. Most likely no one will make a fuss, but the photographer can be liable for damages in a lawsuit if there is no written consent. I know it doesn't seem that way most of the time, but posting pictures from a non-public environment without a release equals not being careful.

Frank McAdam wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something (it's a long thread and I haven't read all the posts), but if your releases states that the only usage granted is self-promotional and non-commercial, then why do you insist on a signed release in the first place?  I'm not a lawyer, but I would think you would already have had those rights anyway -- as the model herself pointed out to you.  If the point of the release was to give you what you're entitled to in the first place, why not just forget the release and shoot?  I'm puzzled.

Xiss wrote:
If you are using the photos for self-promotion by posting them on the web or publishing them without profit, in most cases you still need a release, especially for nude photos. Most likely no one will make a fuss, but the photographer can be liable for damages in a lawsuit if there is no written consent. I know it doesn't seem that way most of the time, but posting pictures from a non-public environment without a release equals not being careful.

The unfortunate fact is that as the government continues its effort to get a grip on the internet, rules like "2257" will only increase in number and severity.  At this stageof the game, it's simple common sense for a a photographer to be covered as many different ways as possible.  Having a signed release from every model one works with basically amounts to "CYA 101" given the current climate.

The fact is there's really no legal absolute here.  I once asked a law professor about this subject and he informed me that there's no document a good lawyer can't get someone out of -- if they have enough money.  Given this fact, the model release is more a display of good faith by both the model and the photographer and proof that [at the time] both parties were in agreement regarding the terms of the shoot.  Any model who dosen't understand this is someone I would personally avoid working with.  By the same token, it's incumbent on the photographer to make sure they carefully explain the reasons for and terms of their particular release form.

Xiss wrote:

If you are using the photos for self-promotion by posting them on the web or publishing them without profit, in most cases you still need a release, especially for nude photos. Most likely no one will make a fuss, but the photographer can be liable for damages in a lawsuit if there is no written consent. I know it doesn't seem that way most of the time, but posting pictures from a non-public environment without a release equals not being careful.

Well, I don't think that's necessarily true.  I can't imagine what damages a model would feel she has suffered, and would have a right to recover in a court of law, if I were to post her (non-nude) photo on my MM port.  On the other hand, I agree that there's no point in taking chances.  I think the best course, unless one has the money to retain an IP attorney, is simply not to do TFP at all.  That pretty much makes it a moot point whether a release is required or not.

Frank McAdam wrote:
I think the best course, unless one has the money to retain an IP attorney, is simply not to do TFP at all.  That pretty much makes it a moot point whether a release is required or not.

I respectfully disagree with you.  The problem [imo] isn't TFP/CD, the problem is that there's so much mistrust between models and photographers who consider words like "cooperation" and "collaboration" to be euphemisms for "i lose out".  The key is to be careful who one works with.  I work solely TFP/CD and I never have these problems...Because I only work with people who understand what I do and sincerely want to be a part of it, regardless of whether or not they profit monetarily from working with me.  Judging from what's discussed here and in other fora, more problems arise when money is changing hands than not.

Christopher b Smyth wrote:
I do not know what the laws are in other countries.

Don't feel bad, even the people that write and administer the law don't always know. I can't say what the situation in Canada is [where there is similar law to Britain's]  but in the UK ever since the Data Protection Act came into play there have been questions as to whether a mere image [with nothing else] should be considered as personally identifying "DATA" in the same way that a name and address and other similar personal information is. Even the Data Protection Commissioner, who enforces that law, can't answer the question. It will have to wait for a court case and that could be years in coming. In the mean time we do what we can and a model release is one way to deal with the law on the issue until it eventually becomes clear in case law. Informed consent, under that law, allows use, distribution and publication.

Street work and news editorial, however, are handled somewhat differently because there is no expectation of privacy in the first place, as opposed to shooting in a studio. Brit copyright law also has a privacy provision but that has only a very limited scope and application for what is to be "private and domestic uses" of commissioned work... such as wedding pictures or portraits.

Studio36

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
The problem [imo] isn't TFP/CD, the problem is that there's so much mistrust between models and photographers who consider words like "cooperation" and "collaboration" to be euphemisms for "i lose out".

Actually I read it slightly differently Melvin. I see it as models, primarily, who consider words like "cooperation" and "collaboration" to be euphemisms for "I own it too". That belief creates no end of problems.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Actually I read it slightly differently Melvin. I see it as models, primarily, who consider words like "cooperation" and "collaboration" to be euphemisms for "I own it too". That belief creates no end of problems.

Studio36

I have yet to have a problem looking at my work with models as a collaboration.  In the end it's all in who you work with.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
The unfortunate fact is that as the government continues its effort to get a grip on the internet, rules like "2257" will only increase in number and severity.  At this stageof the game, it's simple common sense for a a photographer to be covered as many different ways as possible.

as so many others do, you have confused "2257" with a model release.  2257 falls under chapter 110 record keeping requirements to protect sexual exploitation of children.  a model release grants permissable use of likeness.  these are two entirely different forms of documentation.

--face reality

studio36uk wrote:
Actually I read it slightly differently Melvin. I see it as models, primarily, who consider words like "cooperation" and "collaboration" to be euphemisms for "I own it too". That belief creates no end of problems. Studio36

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I have yet to have a problem looking at my work with models as a collaboration.

You would think twice if you had to contend with this:

[UK] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Part I; Copyright; Chapter I; Subsistence, ownership and duration of copyright

"Works of joint authorship.
   
        10.—(1) In this Part a "work of joint authorship" means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors."

Becasue of that I will N E V E R even allow the use of that word in a conversation with a model or, especially, in a written document and my release contains the following specific language to avoid it:

[from model release] "...The photographer reserves, in every instance, the right to be identified as the sole author of the work, and I, the undersigned, further agree that the photographs mentioned herein, by mutual agreement, are not the result or product of a collaborative work...." [model signs off on this or there is no shoot at all]

The point is that where I live and work, using that "C" word in some sloppy way in a conversation, a negotiation or a document like a contract for a model's services - and they may very well have a good claim to ownership - or rather half the ownership - of works you create together.

I have a MAJOR and INSURMOUNTABLE problem looking at my work with models as a "collaboration." And for damn good reason as you see.
     
Studio36

FaceReality wrote:

as so many others do, you have confused "2257" with a model release.  2257 falls under chapter 110 record keeping requirements to protect sexual exploitation of children.  a model release grants permissable use of likeness.  these are two entirely different forms of documentation.

--face reality

While it may not be necessary for proof of age, you'll never get an image on a site like Michelle 7 or CleanSheets with out a signed release in addition to proof of age.  My point was that anyone posting images without at least a signed release is asking for trouble in a big way.

studio36uk wrote:
Actually I read it slightly differently Melvin. I see it as models, primarily, who consider words like "cooperation" and "collaboration" to be euphemisms for "I own it too". That belief creates no end of problems. Studio36

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
I have yet to have a problem looking at my work with models as a collaboration.

studio36uk wrote:
You would think twice if you had to contend with this:

[UK] Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Part I; Copyright; Chapter I; Subsistence, ownership and duration of copyright

"Works of joint authorship.
   
        10.—(1) In this Part a "work of joint authorship" means a work produced by the collaboration of two or more authors in which the contribution of each author is not distinct from that of the other author or authors."

Becasue of that I will N E V E R even allow the use of that word in a conversation with a model or, especially, in a written document and my release contains the following specific language to avoid it:

The point is that where I live and work, using that "C" word in some sloppy way in a conversation, a negotiation or a document like a contract for a model's services - and they may very well have a good claim to ownership - or rather half the ownership - of works you create together.

I have a MAJOR problem looking at my work with models as a "collaboration." And for damn good reason as you see.
     
Studio36

As a songwriter with several partners, I have much experience with works of joint authorship.  I have no problems applying the same principles to my photographic collaborations.  I use that "C" word with full knowledge of what it imples, because in my work the model's contribution is every bit as important as mine.  If it ever becomes a question of money, I have a feeling there will either be enough for both of us or so little that it won't be worth arguing over. 

The fact is, there are some of us for whom this is not about money.  Not a better outlook, just a different one.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
As a songwriter with several partners, I have much experience with works of joint authorship.  I have no problems applying the same principles to my photographic collaborations.  I use that "C" word with full knowledge of what it imples, because in my work the model's contribution is every bit as important as mine.  If it ever becomes a question of money, I have a feeling there will either be enough for both of us or so little that it won't be worth arguing over. 

The fact is, there are some of us for whom this is not about money.  Not a better outlook, just a different one.

Well, your personal feelings aside, in the US there IS a different outlook in copyright law on when joint authorship arises, than that applied by UK copyright law. The must be, in the US, an express agreement to create such a work. In my cast that is not true and a work of joint authorship can arise by merely NOT stating an agreement NOT to create such a work. Otherwise joint authorship is the DEFAULT position in law.

I am not looking to any other issue here except clear title to the copyright. Nothing at all to do with uses or even agreements on revenues. Only an unambiguious answer to the question - "Who owns it?"

I have a good and recent case in music that you would be interested in. A session musician who was asked to and played a riff of his own creation whilst being recorded with a band. Years later he sued for some share in the profits of the recording which bombed on it's first release but was by then picked up and being used in an advertisement. 

Instead of what he was actually asking for [merely additional fees] the court substituted a joint authorship claim and awarded him a portion of the actual copyright ownership... retroactively... and the profits that went with it. As long as the song will make money he will be entitled to his share of it.

OOPS!!!!! And to think that by working his agreement to sit in with the band in the appropriate way that could have been avoided. Good for him... but a red flag for everyone else.

Studio36

Hamza wrote:
If your TFP/CD shoot is TRULY collaborative, how much of the sales of said photographs would go to the model?

The best answer is this... ASSUMING THERE IS FACTUAL JOINT AUTHORSHIP AND JOINT OWNERSHIP OF ©, if there are two collaborating authors then 50% and the  respective percentage decreasing as more authors are involved, splitting the whole in equal shares. If there were 5? Then each would own 20% by default.

The key to that "best answer" is that the contributions need not be equal. One could do 90% of the work and the other 10% - but their ownership entitlement in the eyes of the law would still be 50/50.

Absent any other agreements that set other agreed shares in revenues, then, by default, the % share of revenues would be the same as the % share of actual ownership in the IP.

Studio36

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
As a songwriter with several partners, I have much experience with works of joint authorship.  I have no problems applying the same principles to my photographic collaborations.  I use that "C" word with full knowledge of what it imples, because in my work the model's contribution is every bit as important as mine.  If it ever becomes a question of money, I have a feeling there will either be enough for both of us or so little that it won't be worth arguing over. 

The fact is, there are some of us for whom this is not about money.  Not a better outlook, just a different one.

studio36uk wrote:
Well, your personal feelings aside, in the US there IS a different outlook in copyright law on when joint authorship arises. The must be an express agreement to create such a work. In my cast that is not true and a work of joint authorship can arise by merely NOT stating an agreement NOT to create such a work. Otherwise joint authorship is the DEFAULT position in law.

I am not looking to any other issue here except clear title to the copyright. Nothing at all to do with uses or even agreements on revenues. Only an unambiguious answer to the question - "Who owns it?"

I think we've had this discussion before.  The fact is, I consider the people who work with me equal contributors to the resulting images, well deserving of shared copyright -- which I make quite clear before work commences.  This is probably why many of them agree to work with me without regard for conventional payment:  The chance to be regarded as a full partner in the creative process is a rarity, as threads like this bear out. 

In the case of my work, the answer is "We Both Own It" -- which i clearly state in my release.  As I stated earlier, if it ever comes to dollars and cents there will either be plenty to share or not enough to bother over.  I sure wouldn't be doing fetish images with toycameras if I were in this for the money.

studio36uk wrote:
I have a good and recent case in music that you would be interested in. A session musician who was asked to and played a riff of his own creation whilst being recorded with a band. Years later he sued for some share in the profits of the recording which bombed on it's first release but was by then picked up and being used in an advertisement. 

Instead of what he was actually asking for [merely additional fees] the court substituted a joint authorship claim and awarded him a portion of the actual copyright ownership... retroactively... and the profits that went with it. As long as the song will make money he will be entitled to his share of it.

OOPS!!!!! And to think that by working his agreement to sit in with the band in the appropriate way that could have been avoided. Good for him... but a red flag for everyone else.

Studio36

There's lots of cases like that in music, espeically recently with sampling technology on the rise.  The question of "who owns it" is more fluid than ever.

Hamza wrote:
If your TFP/CD shoot is TRULY collaborative, how much of the sales of said photographs would go to the model? 


If your TFP/CD shoot is TRULY collaborative, how much would the model get paid if you did sell any photos from said shoot?

In both cases, 50% of the net profits after recoupable expenses.  All of this is spelled out in my release form.

Melvin Moten Jr wrote:
There's lots of cases like that in music, espeically recently with sampling technology on the rise.  The question of "who owns it" is more fluid than ever.

All the better reason then to protect it in the first instance.

I won't share © BY DEFAULT [even if I would share it by agreement] any more than I would put the name of the guy that washes and waxes my car on the title as a co-owner... or the architect who "creates" a new kitchen in my house as co-owner on the deed to the house. No, no, no. Not gonna happen.

Studio36