egafd.com

Bob Singleton wrote:


>
> The biggest problem, as I see it, is so-called professional
> producers posting here telling everyone it's OK to breach
> someone's trust and to breach a (verbal) contract because they
> own the copyright.
>

You asked what the LEGAL situation was, which I answered in my first post. If you wanted to debate the moral and ethical situation, you should have made that clear.

Beth Sutherland wrote:

> So, instead of signing a model release to officially give
> copyright to the tog, could a model get the tog to sign a
> photographer release giving the copyright to her?
>
>

The situation is quite simple. From the moment a picture is taken, the photographer owns copyright in it until 70 years after his death and can dispose of it anyway he likes, *Unless agreed otherwise*

If a model would like to attach usage or any other conditions to this, its up to her to raise and agree the issues with the photographer before the shoot. if the terms are agreeable to both parties, you can have pretty much anything written into the contract, a 'model release' being just a contract agreed between to parties.

The term 'model release' causes problems, because it implies the model actually has something to release. Its just a contract between two parties.

This is a little rant that i have with ALL industries not just the one we walk, run and play in.

I'm going to use Fish and Ponds as my examples as i dont want to name examples or anything.

A little fish in a small pond just making its way in he world, has to be very carefull in their operations because fish poo sticks, so you need to meet the right people, make good contacts, and build a reputation for supplying good caviar, As time goes on ickle fish grows into a big fish in a little pond and decides they need more room to run.

Now big fish in the pond moves to the lake, where he is a little fish in a big lake, he takes a beating from the bigger fish but with hios good rep and previous form carries on to grow and earn the respect of the other bigger fish, then once he is big enough to be a big fish in the lake, all of a sudden they change.

its like a magic switch.

Now instead of watching out that they are liked and, respected, and operate fairly and keep their good rep, now they are of the opinion, I'm a fucking whale in this game and your plancton, get in my way and il eat you. I dont care about your issues, do the job and get out.

Its a case of Il do and sell as i please because i'm big enough that you cant do anything about it, I have more money than you, and all those other fish fall in line because they need something off me or are too affraid of me saying bad stuff about them.

I have been the above soooo many times its almost pre-ordained.

What happens to people who start out nice and then turn into monsters ?

Can it be that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely ?

Peter wrote:

You asked what the LEGAL situation was, which I answered in my first post. If you wanted to debate the moral and ethical situation, you should have made that clear.


=======================================================

Peter, you yourself wrote "The situation is quite simple. From the moment a picture is taken, the photographer owns copyright in it until 70 years after his death and can dispose of it anyway he likes, *Unless agreed otherwise* "

It WAS a case of "unless otherwise agreed" so the question is still a LEGAL one as well as a moral one!

I'm sure you don't mean to, but the manner of your response just gives justification to the lowlifes on this forum who believe because they've been around a while they can ride roughshod over (legaly binding) verbal agreements.

The sooner people stop reciting the "I own the copyright so I can do as I please" mantra, the better! If the agreement was that the content wasn't for public release it doesn't matter who owns the fucking copyright, YOU CAN'T PUBLISH IT!

As Samuel Goldwyn said, "A verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on!" If you think you have an agreement, make sure it's written down.

People get really confused over this sort of thing- -the distinction between being able to prove the existence of an agreement and the meaning of the agreement.

You're right that the model had an agreement but if the photographer denied that there was one I can imagine a barrister shaking his head and sucking his teeth over the chances of winning a court case. It depends what you're really asking. Do you want to know what her rights are? Or do you want to know her chances of enforcing them in court?

Another problem which has not been mentioned (unless in a deleted post) is what constitutes publication. There's plenty of legal argument to be had there even where the matter seems clear cut.

Fraser wrote:

As Samuel Goldwyn said, "A verbal agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on!" If you think you have an agreement, make sure it's written down.

=======================================================

What utter bollocks!!!

Should a girlfriend make her boyfriend sign such a document just in case 20 years later he decides to publish. And even if she did, what's to say in 20 years time she still has the document.

The onus of proof that it's OK to publish should be with the photographer.

If you havn't got a model release, that means you never had an agreement it was OK to publish. Why else do people ask for model releases?

If they are so worthless, why do people get so hett up about them? Or is it just the usual case of "I'm going to pretend it's for personal use only, but in a couple of years I'll publish these and make some money... and you can't stop me because I own the copyright, na na na!"

A written agreement may lead to fewer problems than a verbal one, but a verbal one is still legally binding!

I was one involved in a verbal contract dispute which dragged on for months. (Never found out who won, and I didn't contribute to the decisiion)

Basically Man A claimed he gave his ?5000 rolex as surity to Man B for a ?100 loan. Man B claims he bought the watch for ?100.

How do you sort out that verbal contract?

Hi Bob

As I understand it, if you pay the model a commercial fee, then she should expect that you may sell the material, even without a release form.

If your friend posed for a laugh, or for a friend, or for an amateur fee (eg at a camera club) then the photographer could not legally sell the material. No respectable magazine (I should even include PRP here) will buy pictures without proper proof that the model has agreed for her pictures to be published and has received an appropriate fee.

If the photos are taken in a public place, then it's possibly difficult for the model to comlain. She is prepared to show off in public (presumably in front of "the public"), so she could not complain if the public is extended to the entire world!

Peter