Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,537   Posts: 1,544,269   Online: 775
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 51
  1. #41
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Further elements for discussion about model release.

    I just read this:

    http://www.petapixel.com/2012/08/21/...-18000-payday/

    Frankly, this is puzzling me.
    The photographer certainly has the copyright for the wedding photographs he produces (unless his contract with the client states that all rights shall belong to the client).

    But in this case a firm is using this particular "face" to promote their goods. I would bet that the firm should obtain a model release from the bride at the very least. And I would suppose that the cost would be higher than the one paid to the wedding photographer.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #42

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    Frankly, this is puzzling me.
    Read through the 73 comments below the article for more information.

  3. #43
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,596
    Images
    122
    And another reason why I would want copyright of my wedding images transferred to me if I ever got married again!


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  4. #44
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    Read through the 73 comments below the article for more information.
    Read them. Did not find any further information.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    Read them. Did not find any further information.
    See for example:

    John Mireles : I've been getting this question a lot on my blog. This sale happened awhile ago so I don't remember all the details. At any rate, I'm sure I advised the photographer to obtain a model release from the bride. My advise in this situation is to go back to the client and pay them specifically for the requested use so that there's no question that both photographer and client have permission to use the image. I would never recommend anyone to do a sale like this without express permission - I don't care what the wedding contract says.
    Oh... and one point of clarification. The article identifies me as a consultant, but I'm actually a long time advertising and wedding photographer.

    and

    Guest: Model release is part of our wedding contract

    and

    Martin: If you look at any wedding photographer contracts, it states model release for whatever the contract states such as "marketing, advertisements, competition entry, portfolio, online usage, commercial, etc" If the clients read thoroughly and didn't agree, then they would have to arrange another contract of course.
    Standard model releases aren't out of the norm to be in wedding agreements/contracts at all, so don't be surprised if you do find MODEL RELEASE statement on all wedding agreements.

    Notice that the laws may differ in other countries.

    Damian: For the argument on who "owns" the photo... I'm a graphic artist, I fix the photos not take them; however I was involved in a conversation with some photographers a while ago and it was rather interestingly brought up that in the U.S. professional wedding photographers own the photos they take - it's in their contracts. (Having a professional is way different than giving your third cousin twice removed a $100 digital camera.) However in Canada it's the reverse, the couples own the photos unless they sign them over. I heard it's actually the law in some areas of the country. Just an interesting note.

  6. #46
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,596
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Prof_Pixel View Post
    I was involved in a conversation with some photographers a while ago and it was rather interestingly brought up that in the U.S. professional wedding photographers own the photos they take - it's in their contracts. (Having a professional is way different than giving your third cousin twice removed a $100 digital camera.) However in Canada it's the reverse, the couples own the photos unless they sign them over. I heard it's actually the law in some areas of the country. Just an interesting note.
    The law in whichever country is the default position if it is not specified in the contract.

    It can however be specified contrary to the default by a clause in the contract.

    i.e. a contract in Canada can specify that the photographer gets the copyright or a contract in the US can specify that the customer gets copyright.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  7. #47
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    The problem I see is that when the generic "release" the clients sign specifies commercial use, portfolio use etc. it is, in my understanding and presumably in the understanding of the client and the judge, that it is granting right of commercial use relative to the photographer's commercial activity.

    To be clearer: we have often seen wedding photographers putting wedding pictures outside of their shop. When a potential client enters the shop, the photographer will show them some specimen albums with wedding of other couples. If the photographer has a website in order to attract commissions, this web site will feature wedding pictures; if the photographer buys a page in the local newspaper, or places an advertisement in the local television, he needs to show his work by showing some weddings.

    All those are commercial purposes that do require a model release. This release is normally given without problems and the "standard" release which is referred in the answers in my understanding of how wedding photography works refers IMU only to those commercial purposes.

    I don't think that this kind of release, worded simply as in this text:
    <<
    If you look at any wedding photographer contracts, it states model release for whatever the contract states such as "marketing, advertisements, competition entry, portfolio, online usage, commercial, etc" If the clients read thoroughly and didn't agree, then they would have to arrange another contract of course.
    Standard model releases aren't out of the norm to be in wedding agreements/contracts at all, so don't be surprised if you do find MODEL RELEASE statement on all wedding agreements.
    >>

    would ever work in this case as the couple will find themselves used to promote a different product. I don't think that it is customary to have bride and groom sign releases for "any" commercial product promoting "any" thing. That would be very strange. I have not seen this standard contracts but I imagine that they mean marketing, advertisements, competition entry, portfolio, online usage, commercial, etc of the photographer's business.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  8. #48
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ryde, Isle of Wight
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    8,596
    Images
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by Diapositivo View Post
    I don't think that it is customary to have bride and groom sign releases for "any" commercial product promoting "any" thing. That would be very strange.
    I would certainly never sign one. But as I wrote earlier, I would want all the rights assigned to me anyway.


    Steve.
    "People who say things won't work are a dime a dozen. People who figure out how to make things work are worth a fortune" - Dave Rat.

  9. #49

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Penfield, NY
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,027
    Diapositivo,

    We all know that laws and customs can vary greatly between countries, don't we.

  10. #50
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,361
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    The problem with that wedding scenario is probably a case of poor communication - the couple may in fact have given the photographer legal permission to sell the image on for commercial advertising purposes without realizing it, and the photographer never bothered to clarify their assumption that "commercial" meant more than just self-promotion for the photographer. When the couple read the contract (assuming they actually READ the contract instead of skimming it), when they got to the line about "commercial" they should have asked. And the photographer should have given them a straight answer to include the possibility of him selling the use of the images for advertising other products and/or services. Shame on both, but more on the photographer, as that's just shady. I would think that most of us photographers know that the consuming public has at best a marginal idea of copyright and contract law, and often has zero clue what any of that stuff means. Which is why so many people try to take their wedding proofs to WalMart to have copies made.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin