Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,274   Posts: 1,534,690   Online: 1027
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    I'd say in this case, why not just agree to the 50/50 contract with the fellow. No, it is not normal, but I think it is pretty much a moot point in this particular case. And it is a good, cheap, and harmless way to learn a little lesson for next time, when it might really matter.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    618
    I think if this guy actually is a friend of yours, I'm not sure why it's a problem to split the money. It'll probably be pennies if anything, but isn't sharing what friends do?

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    41
    2F/2F: The whole thing started because he suggested I sell copies. There is no sale happening so no real money. What I am splitting right now is hairs

    thegman: He is a friend and we often share lunch/dinner. Money has never been an issue.
    However, in terms of photographic principles, I've borne the efforts and costs of equipment, deciding the pose, arranging lighting, making the shot, getting the roll processed printed and scanned.

    Given these facts, if at all there was a sale, I don't think 50/50 would be justified.
    I'll probably spend all the earnings to celebrate my very first sale.
    This friend would of course be a part of it but, principally, no 50/50.

    Maybe in future if he does half the work...

    Cheers,
    Som

  4. #24
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    I "grabbed" a photo at a car show of some girls in bobby socks and saddle shoes against the wheel of a friends Buick.
    I never sold a print, but did win a jurried show award (no cash) and this guy thinks I own him hundreds of dollars.
    I have a print in my studio and he comes by and always makes comments.... sour grapes, I did give him an 11x14.

  5. #25
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,676
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by KanFotog View Post
    Mark Barendt: Agreed. It makes sound business sense to ensure firm footing on legal/financial basis and naturally that would involve spending/investing money and time.
    The bigger point I was trying to make is not that the legal/financial (and marketing btw) were important (which they are), my point is that they are the business.

    Quote Originally Posted by KanFotog View Post
    Having said that, if I (even accidentally) shoot a landscape which happens to impress people, would it be easier to sell it when compared to a picture involving people or private property?

    Maybe I'm wrong but the lack of model release and private property permission requirements seem to make landscapes more attractive for commercial purposes.

    And as VPWPhoto said, most people would avoid hanging a stranger's photo on their wall but a river or mountain wouldn't attract the same kind of doubts.
    I seriously disagree. As would Elliot Erwitt, Henri Catier-Bresson, Karsh, most every National Geographic photographer, ...

    Sure landscapes are legally easy, socially easy, generally hold still, and don't complain much, so what?

    Every Tom, Dick, & Harry can compete with you too.

    If you really want to be successful, even in landscape, you need to do the 80-90% of the work that others aren't willing to do.
    Last edited by markbarendt; 09-14-2011 at 06:46 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #26
    vpwphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Indiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,107
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    7
    You need a release if you are going to sell/publish photos of people taken in private situations. Public places another grey area. (Bresson didn't get many model releases, he did get some id's for editorial work). Most of my career is editorial work of willing participants or people in public places and I don't mess with a release, and I do not find it ethical to "pimp" my subjects for stock photo sales, as they were just regular folks that I am telling the story of. (don't mean to say stock houses are bad)
    Now a Chemical Company sent me to 12 states this year to photograph people for a publication, we did get a model release from each of them to confirm that they knew they were going to be quoted and photographed... I was not involved in the compensation, and again I don't plan on (nor should I) use the photos for any other use.

    RE OP's photo
    IF that were a photo of someone famous or "exotic" I think it would be more "saleable" and then the release spelling out additional compensation IF any would be needed.
    Last edited by vpwphoto; 09-14-2011 at 07:57 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #27
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,676
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    As I understand it there are three factors that truly matter.

    Commercial use; stock photos, advertising, and the like should have releases.

    Art; Cartier-Bresson type stuff. Basically anything shot in a public space and sold as art, generally no release. Shooting on private property complicates the issues.

    News; in a Bonafide news organization if they can get a shot they can use the shot as news. They can't stick it in an ad for a clent though without a release.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  8. #28
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Art; Cartier-Bresson type stuff. Basically anything shot in a public space and sold as art, generally no release. Shooting on private property complicates the issues
    Only shooting on private property in which photography is a no-no complicates the issue. Photography being barred gives the people there on the private property, and the property itself, a reasonable expectation of privacy. If photography is allowed in the place, there is no issue, as people there have no reasonable expectation of privacy. So, in terms of art, it isn't really a cut-and-dried public versus private property issue. It is an issue of whether or not there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in that location.

    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    News; in a Bonafide news organization if they can get a shot they can use the shot as news. They can't stick it in an ad for a clent though without a release.
    That is not always the case. You cannot just waltz onto somebody's property to get a news photo, except in special circumstances. See Florida Publishing Co. (Times-Union) v Fletcher for a famous example in which a newspaper photographer was allowed to do this. It is worth looking into because it explains why he was allowed to do to so, thus also explains why someone might not be allowed to do so.

    This issue has never reached the Supreme Court. Lower courts have generally based their decisions on the special circumstances in each case, instead of making sweeping rulings. But generally, there have to be special circumstances present in order for this to be allowed. In the Fletcher case, the circumstances were that fire fighters invited the reporter onto the property, and that nobody objected to his presence at the time (even though the owner of the house was not present). You have to feel the emotional distress and anger of the mother who found out about her 14-year-old daughter's death by seeing the char mark left by her body published in the newspaper. However, one person's personal distress is usually not enough to block the liberties granted to the press in this country.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 09-15-2011 at 06:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  9. #29
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by vpwphoto View Post
    I "grabbed" a photo at a car show of some girls in bobby socks and saddle shoes against the wheel of a friends Buick.
    I never sold a print, but did win a jurried show award (no cash) and this guy thinks I own him hundreds of dollars.
    I have a print in my studio and he comes by and always makes comments.... sour grapes, I did give him an 11x14.
    You don't owe him anything. A car show is usually open to the public, and photography is usually allowed, so there is usually no reasonable expectation of privacy for anyone there, or their property (cars, trucks, etc.). If he didn't want his car shot, he shouldn't have brought it out into the public view. It's as simple as that.

    IME, the best course of action is to explain this to them once or twice, and if they still don't get it (which they never do), tell them to please consult a lawyer, and that you do not wish them to discuss it with you any more. If they do consult the lawyer, they will waste their money being told the same thing you just told them. if they continue to bother you, they are committing harassment, and possibly coercion, depending on the circumstances.

    Publishers are given great liberties in this country. But they must be constantly defended from illegal attack, unfortunately.
    Last edited by 2F/2F; 09-15-2011 at 06:21 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  10. #30
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,676
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    So, in terms of art, it isn't really a public versus private property issue. It is an issue of reasonable expectation of privacy.
    a perfect clarification, thanks.

    Quote Originally Posted by 2F/2F View Post
    You cannot just waltz onto somebody's property to get a news photo, except in special circumstances.
    Absolutely agreed, having legal access and shooting without a prohibition in place is important.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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