Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
Mark, Yep, I felt I was going too "nerdy" with that. In any case, - thanks for the pointers, those are useful. As I wrote before, this is more of an "academic" interest for me, rather than anything practical. Igor Mark C Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:08:16 -0700 wrote: Very detailed questions that I can't even try to answer. I expect that the specifics could vary a lot in different jurisdictions. I do want to clarify that I was not accurate when said that commercial use was basically when you made money from the photo. Your first examples suggested using the photos for publications or advertising which I believe would be commercial use. But I don't think hat the same issues pertain to all situations where one makes money from the photo. Obviously, newspapers try to make money off the content they publish, but none the less journalistic use in not the same as commercial. Selling individual prints for profit may or may not be commercial use. Suggested topics to search: "right of publicity" and "Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia" Mark -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
Very detailed questions that I can't even try to answer. I expect that the specifics could vary a lot in different jurisdictions. I do want to clarify that I was not accurate when said that commercial use was basically when you made money from the photo. Your first examples suggested using the photos for publications or advertising which I believe would be commercial use. But I don't think hat the same issues pertain to all situations where one makes money from the photo. Obviously, newspapers try to make money off the content they publish, but none the less journalistic use in not the same as commercial. Selling individual prints for profit may or may not be commercial use. Suggested topics to search: "right of publicity" and "Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia" Mark On 4/15/2015 11:48 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: Reading previous responses, I had another old thought brought up to the surface (and some corollaries). 1. If a photographer takes a photograph of person A, (a photo session or a candid portrait), A buys (can buy) that photo. In the absence of any explicit contract clause related to this, can yet another person, B, buy the photo of A? From the logic discussed in response to my earlier questions, - the answer is "No" (or rather "not really"). If both A and B are in the photograph (a "group photo"), - then both A and B can buy it. Now, if we consider the case in between the two, - how much [*] of "B" must be in the photo to be able to buy the photo of A? [*] - What portion, e.g. a head, a portion of it, a hand, ..., or, - in what capacity (in the foreground, in the background). While this is primarily an "academic" consideration, - there could be a practical case. E.g. if A is a celebrity walking on the street, and B is passing by while the photograph is taken, managing to "get into the picture". At what point can B _legally_ buy that photo? 2. And yet a different branch of the same thought process is related to the studio question (1a in the previous message, below). I guess there is a way how the studio can argue the legality: If the instructor is present in the group photo, then the photo can be legally purchased by (or on behalf) of the instructor. Then, it is now the relation between the studio and its employee. So, assuming that the instructor does not object the deal (sort of, the instructor hand the picture on the studio's wall), then it is ok. [The legality of such a transaction between the instructor and the studio, especially since it involves a financial consideration, namely the salary, is a grey area; it is too complicated to discuss it here.] 3. And finally, can a third party, C, _legally_ comission (a financial transaction) a photo (say, as a piece of art) of a person A without a release from A? (And not for the purpose of news publication.) Because an alternative view of the same question is: can the photographer make money legally from the photograph of A without a release? And, from what I know, the answer to the latter formulation of the question is "no". If the answer to the first formulation is "no" (C cannot legally comission a photo of A without a permission from A), then some might already see a legal solution to that situation: C comissions the photographer to take a photo of A, while asking B to be in it. Then B allows C to have the photo that he legally buys from C. [My inquisitive mind is starting thinking: in that case, would it be legal for C to cut off a portion of the photo that contains "B". But let's not venture into that.] In all of this, I assume that the photo is otherwise taken legally (e.g. on a public property, in a situation without an expectation of privacy, not presenting the person in a wrong way, etc.) I would be curious to hear what different PDMLers think about these logical exercises. (I hope that maybe even the lurking Pentaxian, laywer, M.G. would share his informal opinion.) Cheers, Igor On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I have a question for PDMLers who might have experience with that. (I had never thought of these questions before...) Let's consider a photo session (in studio or on location), and the photographed subjects (or their parents) are ordering photographs (specific example: individual and group photos of kids at school, sport teams/dance studios...). Question: Can the photographer use these photographs elsewhere without an explicit model release(s)? I would consider three sub-questions related to the purpose 1) for some explicit profit (e.g. sell to a 3rd party, including stock, magazine, etc.) 1a) can the studio/venue where it happend (dance studio) buy the photo? 2) for advertizing purposes (on the photographer's website, on other websites, in the printed ads) 3) without any profit or explicit advertisement purposes (e.g. on the community website, free giveaway to some news media). I know that under this conditions (unless specified ot
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
Reading previous responses, I had another old thought brought up to the surface (and some corollaries). 1. If a photographer takes a photograph of person A, (a photo session or a candid portrait), A buys (can buy) that photo. In the absence of any explicit contract clause related to this, can yet another person, B, buy the photo of A? From the logic discussed in response to my earlier questions, - the answer is "No" (or rather "not really"). If both A and B are in the photograph (a "group photo"), - then both A and B can buy it. Now, if we consider the case in between the two, - how much [*] of "B" must be in the photo to be able to buy the photo of A? [*] - What portion, e.g. a head, a portion of it, a hand, ..., or, - in what capacity (in the foreground, in the background). While this is primarily an "academic" consideration, - there could be a practical case. E.g. if A is a celebrity walking on the street, and B is passing by while the photograph is taken, managing to "get into the picture". At what point can B _legally_ buy that photo? 2. And yet a different branch of the same thought process is related to the studio question (1a in the previous message, below). I guess there is a way how the studio can argue the legality: If the instructor is present in the group photo, then the photo can be legally purchased by (or on behalf) of the instructor. Then, it is now the relation between the studio and its employee. So, assuming that the instructor does not object the deal (sort of, the instructor hand the picture on the studio's wall), then it is ok. [The legality of such a transaction between the instructor and the studio, especially since it involves a financial consideration, namely the salary, is a grey area; it is too complicated to discuss it here.] 3. And finally, can a third party, C, _legally_ comission (a financial transaction) a photo (say, as a piece of art) of a person A without a release from A? (And not for the purpose of news publication.) Because an alternative view of the same question is: can the photographer make money legally from the photograph of A without a release? And, from what I know, the answer to the latter formulation of the question is "no". If the answer to the first formulation is "no" (C cannot legally comission a photo of A without a permission from A), then some might already see a legal solution to that situation: C comissions the photographer to take a photo of A, while asking B to be in it. Then B allows C to have the photo that he legally buys from C. [My inquisitive mind is starting thinking: in that case, would it be legal for C to cut off a portion of the photo that contains "B". But let's not venture into that.] In all of this, I assume that the photo is otherwise taken legally (e.g. on a public property, in a situation without an expectation of privacy, not presenting the person in a wrong way, etc.) I would be curious to hear what different PDMLers think about these logical exercises. (I hope that maybe even the lurking Pentaxian, laywer, M.G. would share his informal opinion.) Cheers, Igor On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I have a question for PDMLers who might have experience with that. (I had never thought of these questions before...) Let's consider a photo session (in studio or on location), and the photographed subjects (or their parents) are ordering photographs (specific example: individual and group photos of kids at school, sport teams/dance studios...). Question: Can the photographer use these photographs elsewhere without an explicit model release(s)? I would consider three sub-questions related to the purpose 1) for some explicit profit (e.g. sell to a 3rd party, including stock, magazine, etc.) 1a) can the studio/venue where it happend (dance studio) buy the photo? 2) for advertizing purposes (on the photographer's website, on other websites, in the printed ads) 3) without any profit or explicit advertisement purposes (e.g. on the community website, free giveaway to some news media). I know that under this conditions (unless specified otherwise in the contract), the photographer keeps the copyright (even though it is a work for hire). But what about the rights of the people imaged (in the context lined out in the cases above)? Thank you, Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
John, Bill, Mark and Mark!-Mark, :-) Thank you, guys for your thoughts. Those pretty much confirming what I had been thinking. In this particular situation, the question was not originated from my photographic efforts, but rather from thinking it from the client's side. At two different places for kids, they had photo-sessions (one - couple of weeks ago, and the other one - tonight). In both cases, there was no contract, what-so-ever. In the previous one, I knew from the last year that the photographer is very mediocre (and his assistant is incompetent and stupid, borderlining rude), so we said "no" from the beginning. For today's session, it was promising: Looking at the group photos from the last year (posted at the dance studio, where it was happening), we thought there is some potential, and the photographer sounded reasonable when I spoke with her. So we decided to try, especially since our daughter was excited about it. But it all got me thinking about the questions I asked... Again, thanks to all who responded! Igor PS. I will send a separate message with some really geeky followup thoughts. On Wed, 15 Apr 2015, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I have a question for PDMLers who might have experience with that. (I had never thought of these questions before...) Let's consider a photo session (in studio or on location), and the photographed subjects (or their parents) are ordering photographs (specific example: individual and group photos of kids at school, sport teams/dance studios...). Question: Can the photographer use these photographs elsewhere without an explicit model release(s)? I would consider three sub-questions related to the purpose 1) for some explicit profit (e.g. sell to a 3rd party, including stock, magazine, etc.) 1a) can the studio/venue where it happend (dance studio) buy the photo? 2) for advertizing purposes (on the photographer's website, on other websites, in the printed ads) 3) without any profit or explicit advertisement purposes (e.g. on the community website, free giveaway to some news media). I know that under this conditions (unless specified otherwise in the contract), the photographer keeps the copyright (even though it is a work for hire). But what about the rights of the people imaged (in the context lined out in the cases above)? Thank you, Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
When I shot the Whitney Center stills which this is from https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1604247/PESO/PESO%20--%20whitneycentergroupphoto.html I was given explicit written permission that I could use any and all images for self promotion. I'm not allowed to sell prints per. se. but I can make prints and give them away as promotional material. This one by the way was blown up to mini billboard size and for while graced the side of a bus. On 4/15/2015 6:41 PM, Bill wrote: On 15/04/2015 2:26 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I have a question for PDMLers who might have experience with that. (I had never thought of these questions before...) Let's consider a photo session (in studio or on location), and the photographed subjects (or their parents) are ordering photographs (specific example: individual and group photos of kids at school, sport teams/dance studios...). Question: Can the photographer use these photographs elsewhere without an explicit model release(s)? Technically no, as a matter of course, if you don't have a release, you probably don't want to use the images. In practice, providing the usage is non commercial in nature, yes. As always, legal advise off the internet is worth what you pay for it. bill I would consider three sub-questions related to the purpose 1) for some explicit profit (e.g. sell to a 3rd party, including stock, magazine, etc.) 1a) can the studio/venue where it happend (dance studio) buy the photo? 2) for advertizing purposes (on the photographer's website, on other websites, in the printed ads) 3) without any profit or explicit advertisement purposes (e.g. on the community website, free giveaway to some news media). I know that under this conditions (unless specified otherwise in the contract), the photographer keeps the copyright (even though it is a work for hire). But what about the rights of the people imaged (in the context lined out in the cases above)? Thank you, Igor -- I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
On 15/04/2015 6:13 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Bill wrote: On 15/04/2015 6:04 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Regardless of the legality, I think taking photos of people under specific conditions, like portraiture, under which the clients have perfectly reasonable, fixed assumptions of the purpose and intended use of the photos, and then using the photos for something else is a pretty shitty thing to do. So I wouldn't do it. When I was in the wedding game, my contract had a clause that I would be able to use their pictures in my portfolio. It was one of the must agree to clauses in my contract. That's pretty reasonable. As an addendum, I actually had one wedding refuse the clause. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
On 15/04/2015 6:13 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Bill wrote: On 15/04/2015 6:04 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Regardless of the legality, I think taking photos of people under specific conditions, like portraiture, under which the clients have perfectly reasonable, fixed assumptions of the purpose and intended use of the photos, and then using the photos for something else is a pretty shitty thing to do. So I wouldn't do it. When I was in the wedding game, my contract had a clause that I would be able to use their pictures in my portfolio. It was one of the must agree to clauses in my contract. That's pretty reasonable. I'm Canadian. What else would you expect? bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
Bill wrote: >On 15/04/2015 6:04 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: >> Regardless of the legality, I think taking photos of people under >> specific conditions, like portraiture, under which the clients have >> perfectly reasonable, fixed assumptions of the purpose and intended >> use of the photos, and then using the photos for something else is a >> pretty shitty thing to do. So I wouldn't do it. > >When I was in the wedding game, my contract had a clause that I would be >able to use their pictures in my portfolio. >It was one of the must agree to clauses in my contract. That's pretty reasonable. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
On 15/04/2015 6:04 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: Regardless of the legality, I think taking photos of people under specific conditions, like portraiture, under which the clients have perfectly reasonable, fixed assumptions of the purpose and intended use of the photos, and then using the photos for something else is a pretty shitty thing to do. So I wouldn't do it. When I was in the wedding game, my contract had a clause that I would be able to use their pictures in my portfolio. It was one of the must agree to clauses in my contract. bill -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
Regardless of the legality, I think taking photos of people under specific conditions, like portraiture, under which the clients have perfectly reasonable, fixed assumptions of the purpose and intended use of the photos, and then using the photos for something else is a pretty shitty thing to do. So I wouldn't do it. -- Mark Roberts - Photography & Multimedia www.robertstech.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
If you are publishing the images for commercial usage (i.e. - making money from them) - you should have a release. I think all of your example except perhaps a subset of #3 would fall into that category. With #3 - if the usage was editorial or journalistic a release may not be needed. Take a photo of people enjoying a concert in the park - no release would be needed to give the photo to a newspaper to print in a news account about the concert. A release would be needed to give the photo to the band that was playing to use in their promotional materials. As a general rule of thumb - if someone is profiting from the commercial use of another person's likeness, a release is needed. General promotion of a product or fund raising by non profits would fall into that category. release not needed for journalism or editorial use. There are lots of nuances and shades of grey - if you are dealing with school events and minors I'd suggest being cautious - parents can be pretty touchy about things involving their kids (and more power to them.) Mark On 4/15/2015 4:26 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I have a question for PDMLers who might have experience with that. (I had never thought of these questions before...) Let's consider a photo session (in studio or on location), and the photographed subjects (or their parents) are ordering photographs (specific example: individual and group photos of kids at school, sport teams/dance studios...). Question: Can the photographer use these photographs elsewhere without an explicit model release(s)? I would consider three sub-questions related to the purpose 1) for some explicit profit (e.g. sell to a 3rd party, including stock, magazine, etc.) 1a) can the studio/venue where it happend (dance studio) buy the photo? 2) for advertizing purposes (on the photographer's website, on other websites, in the printed ads) 3) without any profit or explicit advertisement purposes (e.g. on the community website, free giveaway to some news media). I know that under this conditions (unless specified otherwise in the contract), the photographer keeps the copyright (even though it is a work for hire). But what about the rights of the people imaged (in the context lined out in the cases above)? Thank you, Igor --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
On 15/04/2015 2:26 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I have a question for PDMLers who might have experience with that. (I had never thought of these questions before...) Let's consider a photo session (in studio or on location), and the photographed subjects (or their parents) are ordering photographs (specific example: individual and group photos of kids at school, sport teams/dance studios...). Question: Can the photographer use these photographs elsewhere without an explicit model release(s)? Technically no, as a matter of course, if you don't have a release, you probably don't want to use the images. In practice, providing the usage is non commercial in nature, yes. As always, legal advise off the internet is worth what you pay for it. bill I would consider three sub-questions related to the purpose 1) for some explicit profit (e.g. sell to a 3rd party, including stock, magazine, etc.) 1a) can the studio/venue where it happend (dance studio) buy the photo? 2) for advertizing purposes (on the photographer's website, on other websites, in the printed ads) 3) without any profit or explicit advertisement purposes (e.g. on the community website, free giveaway to some news media). I know that under this conditions (unless specified otherwise in the contract), the photographer keeps the copyright (even though it is a work for hire). But what about the rights of the people imaged (in the context lined out in the cases above)? Thank you, Igor -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: photo-session photographs - can a photographer use those elsewhere?
On 4/15/2015 4:26 PM, Igor PDML-StR wrote: I have a question for PDMLers who might have experience with that. (I had never thought of these questions before...) Let's consider a photo session (in studio or on location), and the photographed subjects (or their parents) are ordering photographs (specific example: individual and group photos of kids at school, sport teams/dance studios...). Question: Can the photographer use these photographs elsewhere without an explicit model release(s)? I would consider three sub-questions related to the purpose 1) for some explicit profit (e.g. sell to a 3rd party, including stock, magazine, etc.) 1a) can the studio/venue where it happend (dance studio) buy the photo? 2) for advertizing purposes (on the photographer's website, on other websites, in the printed ads) 3) without any profit or explicit advertisement purposes (e.g. on the community website, free giveaway to some news media). I know that under this conditions (unless specified otherwise in the contract), the photographer keeps the copyright (even though it is a work for hire). But what about the rights of the people imaged (in the context lined out in the cases above)? Thank you, Igor Depends on whether you want to get sued or not. 1) You're definitely gonna' get sued. 1a) Probably won't get sued if a dance studio wants to use a group photo in its own promotional efforts. Individual portraits might be a bit more iffy unless the individual distinguished themselves ... won a state level competition ... 2) Shouldn't get sued for having them on your own website or promotional media. 3. Probably won't get sued if you're providing images to promote a community event ... and example being a group photo of a school sports team given to the newspaper when the team wins a city championship or an individual who won a competition, etc. Of course, you could always add explicit language to your contract that holds you harmless, and avoid the whole thing. When you're talking about photographing somebody's kids you need to CYA all the time. -- Science - Questions we may never find answers for. Religion - Answers we must never question. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
