Jump to content

john_h.1

Members
  • Posts

    5,773
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

5 Neutral
  1. If we follow your "fairness" standard, selling people DVDs of movies, phonographs of music, ect, means they own the copyrights to the content found on such tangible items. The person bought a tangible item. that is all they are and should be entitled to.
  2. This is an incredibly deranged statement. There is something seriously wrong with this person and this type of comment has no place in a business oriented forum.
  3. "Isn't selling a photo without the permission from a model or property owner pretty much the same as a publication using my photo without permission?" Not at all. Infringement involves ownership and use with consent is almost always required except for fair use and public domain, ect. and is criminal in some instances. Property releases are almost never required and model releases are only required to avoid liability in four situations. Most commonly advertising/promotional/endorsement uses. Also known as commercial use. Most times the person inquiring is seeking for a legal basis to avoid liability unlike the infringing uses they complain of.
  4. "In this instance the model changed her mind" If the type of use requires consent, the model can revoke the consent unless there was a contract for perpetual use (or at least a contract that doesn't mention a termination date) The contract usually comes in the form of a model release or has release language in a broader contract. Some releases don't contain the elements of a contract and are revocable. Here, the model changed her mind and provided notice of it. If consent is needed for this particular use, it no longer exists.
  5. "Location could matter with this because laws are not the same everywhere." ---For a claims of intrusion, yes, For a claim of disclosure of private facts, mostly rarely. For claims of false light, very rarely, For commercial use/misapproriation, no. Location is irrelevant. The issue will be if the likeness is used for endorsements, promotions and advertising. In all states.
  6. "The subject, or the hired attorney, will go after the photographer and the client." ---Unless there is a claim for intrusion, disclosure of private facts or false light, there is no legal basis to "go after" a photographer for a third party misappropriation. claim.
  7. >>>or use them in any other way for profit<<< "And there, I believe, lies the rub..." ---Making profit by selling an image is irrelevant. It does not amount to commercial use. Commercial use involves uses relating to endorsements, promotions and advertisements. "many agencies and clients wouldn't accept the image without a release, or insist that you indemnify them" ---The OP is contemplating direct sale art images, mentioning ebay specifically. releases and indemification won't be an issue.
  8. "Will these people ever go away? Don't think so. Weddings should cost about $3000 for 1 or 2 shooters" No. No one owes other photographers a living. If you can't compete on price, you better do so on results.
  9. "you'll likely run into clients like that again, so taking a stand as a matter of policy is in your own business interest in the long haul" That would be accomplished by not turning over images when there is an outstanding balance but without all the hassle and fuss.
  10. <blockquote> <p>What would you do if you were me?</p> </blockquote> <p>Nicely remind her of the issues you just provided to us.</p>
  11. <p><strong><em>"Their choice is either to sign the cancellation agreement and only lose the retainer, or be liable for the entire contract amount."</em></strong></p> <p>Don't assume a court will enforce the latter part when there has already been a clear repudiation of going forward already. If the contract is just as "crystal clear" that the form has to be filled out, to effectively cancel, that might help but don't count on it. Your best position will be if the contract is "crystal clear" that you can't start mitigating and looking for other work until the form is done. Even that might not fly. These forms are CYA worthy when signed but too often not final dispositions when they are not. Trying to use them can put oneself in a predicament. A contract that says any written or electronic notice by the client indicating that the services are to be canceled or no longer desired will trigger the retainer/liquidated damages clause and release the photographer from any duty to shoot the event is sufficient and doesn't require chasing after people for speculative results. </p>
  12. <p>Subject: Being around others photography people obsessing over non-photography people ...<br /><br />Go to social dining event, spend the time embarking on something completely different thinking everyone else should as well, wonder why people completed social dining event without them.<em><br /></em></p>
  13. <p>"They want 70 photos for $500. We don't mind doing this if it'll get them off our case forever"<br /><br />Agree to these terms only if there is also included an executed release of liability from all claims of any kind arising from the shoot and imagery. Tell them this is because they raised the spectre of litigation. If they don't agree. Tell them that you're obligations were discharged long ago and good day to you sir.</p>
  14. <p>For general scenic photography Orleans to Provincetown is where there is an abundance of shooting locations compared to the 'elbow to armit' region. As to the intended subject, any non-busy water area has good potential. Protected non vehicular traffic areas of the National Seashore will tend to have many terns and plovers such as the north spit of Nauset Beach. Learning where to park for such places is another issue. The National Seashore area in Eastham has lots of easy access though and a mix of different water environments.</p>
  15. <p><strong><em>"Under what situation/stipulation would I have to oblige?"</em></strong><br /> <br /> http://copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf<br /><br />The more formal critria is fairly clear cut. The tricky scenario is if your shooting were within the scope of your employment. A review of many factors is required to show whether, on balance, there was sufficient control by the hiring party. Using your own equipment is just one factor which goes in the lack of control column. We don't know the whole story so its impossible to say if the activity was within the scope of employment.</p> <p><em><strong>"One could say that if you took the pictures when they were paying you, then it was part of your job."</strong><br /><br /></em>Not really. But, it may be one of the factors.<em> <br /></em><br /> <strong><em>"No matter, ask that you get a photo credit on the website if your images are used."</em></strong></p> <p>Eschewing a discussion over whether credit actually has any meaningful value, if the employer owns the image that's all that can be done to get it. To ask.<strong><em><br /></em></strong></p>
×
×
  • Create New...