What exactly is the law on model release forms
Discussion
Done google, done search here = still left looking for the actual factual 100% difinitive answer.
My understanding is this, if someone comissions me for work and pay me for that work I cannot sell that work on witout a contract in place that permits it, as they comissioned the work it is theirs. Correct?
My understanding is that a photographer owns the rights to any shot they take unless it was comissioned. Correct?
So if its bascially not comissioned, just happens work, I own the rights yes? its kind of how pap photographers can take shots and sell them, ie, you do not own your own self image nor can you copyright your own self image. So where the hell is all this recent uptake in talk of release forms coming from? America I can understand but here, is it just people hearing the term used on US based forums then taking it as gospen and applying it without understandin it?
I'm not looking for some opinion, I'm not looking for "I dont knot but..." answers, I just want factual replies from those that know and if possible with some link to something that provides a legal backup to the fact.
Ta
My understanding is this, if someone comissions me for work and pay me for that work I cannot sell that work on witout a contract in place that permits it, as they comissioned the work it is theirs. Correct?
My understanding is that a photographer owns the rights to any shot they take unless it was comissioned. Correct?
So if its bascially not comissioned, just happens work, I own the rights yes? its kind of how pap photographers can take shots and sell them, ie, you do not own your own self image nor can you copyright your own self image. So where the hell is all this recent uptake in talk of release forms coming from? America I can understand but here, is it just people hearing the term used on US based forums then taking it as gospen and applying it without understandin it?
I'm not looking for some opinion, I'm not looking for "I dont knot but..." answers, I just want factual replies from those that know and if possible with some link to something that provides a legal backup to the fact.
Ta
Stiggy
Are you confusing 'model release forms' with 'permission to use'?
I understood a model release form to be an arrangement between the 'toggy and the model i.e the model allowed the images to be used for any purpose. I understand your issue to be ownership and use of your own work. In the latter case if FHM contract you to take some photos (and pay you for the work) then you can't just sell them to Zoo and Nuts the next week without FHM's permission.
I doubt there is any definitive answer to any of these questions because there are a lot of 'local agreements' between different parties.
IF you do find an answer, please let us know.
Are you confusing 'model release forms' with 'permission to use'?
I understood a model release form to be an arrangement between the 'toggy and the model i.e the model allowed the images to be used for any purpose. I understand your issue to be ownership and use of your own work. In the latter case if FHM contract you to take some photos (and pay you for the work) then you can't just sell them to Zoo and Nuts the next week without FHM's permission.
I doubt there is any definitive answer to any of these questions because there are a lot of 'local agreements' between different parties.
IF you do find an answer, please let us know.
from AOP:
Who owns the copyright in the images?
In the same way that musicians control who can reproduce their music, photographers control who can reproduce their images. Authors of original works own the copyright in their work and this is enshrined in legislation – the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 – more information on copyright ownership can be found at www.patent.gov.uk
Shops, hairdressers and pubs etc all need licences to play music - photographers, like musicians, own the copyright in their work and issue licences to enable people to reproduce their images. This is why it is important that you discuss your commission and fully brief your photographer including details about where and how you would like to use the images. The photographer will give you a licence that will reflect the agreed media - ie. on a website, in a brochure etc ., the time period and territories. The use of these images will be exclusive to you. This means that the photographer will not be able to allow any third party to use the images they shot for you during the time they are licensed for your use and beyond if this is agreed.
Who owns the copyright in the images?
In the same way that musicians control who can reproduce their music, photographers control who can reproduce their images. Authors of original works own the copyright in their work and this is enshrined in legislation – the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 – more information on copyright ownership can be found at www.patent.gov.uk
Shops, hairdressers and pubs etc all need licences to play music - photographers, like musicians, own the copyright in their work and issue licences to enable people to reproduce their images. This is why it is important that you discuss your commission and fully brief your photographer including details about where and how you would like to use the images. The photographer will give you a licence that will reflect the agreed media - ie. on a website, in a brochure etc ., the time period and territories. The use of these images will be exclusive to you. This means that the photographer will not be able to allow any third party to use the images they shot for you during the time they are licensed for your use and beyond if this is agreed.
stigmundfreud said:
Done google, done search here = still left looking for the actual factual 100% difinitive answer.
My understanding is this, if someone comissions me for work and pay me for that work I cannot sell that work on witout a contract in place that permits it, as they comissioned the work it is theirs. Correct?
Wrong.My understanding is this, if someone comissions me for work and pay me for that work I cannot sell that work on witout a contract in place that permits it, as they comissioned the work it is theirs. Correct?
stigmundfreud said:
My understanding is that a photographer owns the rights to any shot they take unless it was comissioned. Correct?
So if its bascially not comissioned, just happens work, I own the rights yes? its kind of how pap photographers can take shots and sell them, ie, you do not own your own self image nor can you copyright your own self image. So where the hell is all this recent uptake in talk of release forms coming from? America I can understand but here, is it just people hearing the term used on US based forums then taking it as gospen and applying it without understandin it?
I'm not looking for some opinion, I'm not looking for "I dont knot but..." answers, I just want factual replies from those that know and if possible with some link to something that provides a legal backup to the fact.
Ta
The photographer owns all rights in work they create, commissioned or not. If he is an employee, and takes photos as part of his employment, then the rights belong to the employer. Obviously in the terms of any contract under which a photographer is commissioned, rights may be assigned or licensed or waived, but if that is down to the contract. Often a period of exclusivity may be agreed, for example. If a magazine commissions you to shoot some photos of a car for them, the rights granted would usually be, for example, first UK use, which means they have the right to use them first. Once they have, you can sell them to whomever you want. Of course, many magazine these days are demanding "all rights" when they commission work, so they can do what they want. If sooting on these terms your fees should be appropriately higher. The exception to the above is if work is commissioned for "private or domestic" purposes, then there is an additional right the commissioner has not to have those photos published without their permission, but the copyright still belongs to the photographer - ie if I took photos of your Granny for your mantelpiece I could not sell them to the papers when it turns out she's an axe murderer because they were commissioned for private use, but neither could you because they are my copyright.So if its bascially not comissioned, just happens work, I own the rights yes? its kind of how pap photographers can take shots and sell them, ie, you do not own your own self image nor can you copyright your own self image. So where the hell is all this recent uptake in talk of release forms coming from? America I can understand but here, is it just people hearing the term used on US based forums then taking it as gospen and applying it without understandin it?
I'm not looking for some opinion, I'm not looking for "I dont knot but..." answers, I just want factual replies from those that know and if possible with some link to something that provides a legal backup to the fact.
Ta
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is the applicable bit of law.
Model release forms are different and unrelated to copyright - I could take a photo of you walking down the street and publish it in an editorial context (say in a newspaper article about how so many people walk to the shops these days) with a caption saying, " A pedestrian in the High Street of Anytown", but I could not put it in an advert saying "This pedestrian wears Acme shoes and says they're the best shoes he's ever worn." That would be a libel as it is implying an endorsement of Acme Shoes by you. By signing a model release, the subject signs away their right to complain about how the photo is used. Similarly a property release would also be required if you wanted to put a brand or other identifiable trademark into an advert or commercial use.
There's no specific law about this, as it is simply a contract really, or a waiving of rights.
I'm not a lawyer so don't quote me when the magistrates have you up against the wall, but I am a professional photographer and have sat exams in this stuff.
tog said:
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is the applicable bit of law.
Which part specifically refers to photographs in this context? Is it Section 85 'Right to Privacy' or something else?Simpo Two said:
tog said:
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is the applicable bit of law.
Which part specifically refers to photographs in this context? Is it Section 85 'Right to Privacy' or something else?CDPA said:
Right to privacy of certain photographs and films
(1)A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have-
(a)copies of the work issued to the public,
(b)the work exhibited or shown in public, or
(c)the work broadcast or included in a cable programme service;and, except as mentioned in subsection (2), a person who does or authorises the doing of any of those acts infringes that right.
(1)A person who for private and domestic purposes commissions the taking of a photograph or the making of a film has, where copyright subsists in the resulting work, the right not to have-
(a)copies of the work issued to the public,
(b)the work exhibited or shown in public, or
(c)the work broadcast or included in a cable programme service;and, except as mentioned in subsection (2), a person who does or authorises the doing of any of those acts infringes that right.
stigmundfreud said:
thanks all, so it is pretty much as I had expected. I shall not bother with these waste of time paper efforts, it certainly appears to be something only the yanks require.
I'll double read back the posts as only just skimmed through but thanks one and all
You might find that while the paper isn't required legally it focuses the mind and helps you avoid a legal wrangle in the future - the cost (and hassle) to enforce your legal rights being not inconsiderable.I'll double read back the posts as only just skimmed through but thanks one and all
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff