Oh you lot are still upset about the White House. Look if we buy the paint will that make you happy?
Canada and the US made a deal a long time ago. Canada would take the French and the US would take the religious nuts. And to this day both countries are paying for it.
I'm a real American, with no sense of History or Geography. I have no idea that you're referring to the War of 1812. However, if you wanted paint my house... I'm willing to forgive.
Remember the Robert Heinlein novel, where in the far distant future the protagonist is explaining Canada to someone who had never heard of it, "Canada was a part of the United States, which somehow managed to avoid paying it fair share of taxes..."[/quote]
Heinlein abviously had the situation mixed up. I think we we separated so we could pay MORE taxes in keeping with our British Heritage. At least it seems that way!
The last time the US invaded we went down and burned the white house. Now I'm sure if we took up a collection enough paint could be found. I've got a few half empty cans. Can't promise they'll all be the same colour but hey it'll look festive.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
This has taken an odd turn....
Reading the other messages, I did a search to find her age. I entered in Yahoo! "cameron diaz bio".
First page I clicked on was this one -
For the curious, and those NOT at work, you should click it.
These topless pictures are apparently NOT the first ones she has had done.
Which makes me wonder if this isn't simply a case of "CYA" much too late.
My personal concern is the way this is being handled. There are cosp involved, but no charges (which is VERY odd to me). Lawyers aplenty, and someone may or may not be a sleaze bag.
I worry now if I should bother working with models at all!
Here is a question though....
Sans a model release can one exhibit in any way FOR FREE work involving the model?
Official Photo.net Villain
[FONT=Comic Sans MS]DaVinci never wrote an artist's statement...[/FONT]
Traci Lords was the highly rated porn star who had made a number of movies then admitted that she was underage which send a wave of panic throughout the industry. She later went on to make "real movies".
It has been my understanding and my practice throughout the years of being in business that a professional photograper, can, display the work he does of his clients in advertising brochures, internet web pages and other venues as long as he is just using it to show his work. He obviously can't use it in an ad for anthing else. I have had display cases in malls, run ads in newspapers, distributed brochures, etc and never ever had a problem.
If your website typifies the work you do, I would hardly think there would be reason for any client to object to their images being used to promote your business. Your work is family oriented and highly marketable.
However, I would think that the photographer does have the right to use an image as stock, which can provide additional income. But also the responsibiilty to discern where and who will use the image and how it will reflect on the individual whose photograph is being used. A responsible photographer should have a model release, but not use it as carte blanche to whoever wants to use it.
A family orientated portrait would make a good ad for any pharmaceutical company, insurance company, etc etc. Would it be necessary to contact the individual and tell them you are selling their face as stock for an ad? Or even negotiate an additional fee for the individual whose face may appear as a national campaign?
If they said no, but they signed a model release, would you still sell it, especially with thousands of dollars at stake?
Time & tides wait for no one, especially photographers.
I don't have clients sign model releases. But if I did I think there would be a problem. They paid me for a portrait, I didn't pay them, as models. Therefore if I sold the image, I am being compensated in the marketplace and they aren't.
If a person did a portrait and tried to sell it to, say, a drug company even with a model release I think the customer has the right to sue, unless they signed a agreement beforehand on it's use, the amount of use, or compensation. etc.
I think legally there is a huge difference between someone paying you, as a photographer for a portrait and you paying a model for their image.
So my longwinded answer is if you have a release from a portrait sitting and you sell the image I think you will get your ass sued off.