Ex-girlfriend suddenly wants photo credit...

<p>This is not a photography issue, nor a rights issue - it's a relationship issue. I agree with Thomas, taking down the images removes her power over you, cuts the need for communication and gives you the opportunity to start getting new, and hopefully, better images...</p>

<p>Maybe your new girlfriend doesn't get invited to take the pictures?</p>

<p>I would take them down. It ends your problem and it will really piss her off. By the way, if she tries to sell your images without a model release from you......</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if she tries to sell your images without a model release from you......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are no restrictions on "selling" images of other people (in the U.S.) unless it results in one of the four invasion of privacy torts. The most common type, misappropriation, is a cause of action due to promotional/advertising use It would be a rare phenomenon that selling an image, in of itself, could amount to misappropriation. The displayer, not the seller, is liable for misappropriation in any event. Assuming there even is such a use ultimately.</p>

<p>Selling images, absent a scenario where the sale itself, amounts to false light, intrusion, disclosure of private facts or misappropriation, is not subject to restriction. Unless you have information showing these situations to be the case, you are just providing misleading information and if it were relied and acted upon, it would just result in more grief.</p>

<p>An example of why it's unwise to get legal advice from internet forums</p>

<p>1. You might want to read up on the five stages of the <em><strong>grief process</strong></em>, both to assess her psychology as well as your own. Coming here for what amounts to marital advice is just plain foolhardy. If you want real psychological information on handling your emotions, and maybe a bit on hers, see a professional. What do you think you'll learn from photo hobbyists you never met?</p>

<p>2. Same for legal advice. Most of the posts above are just plain BS, foolhardy. You need to speak to an attorney if you are hell bent on using photos taken by her on your important web site. Not your mom and pop attorney who writes a will, does the occasional family estate proceeding, and the occasional tort case. Copy write and intellectual property law is a specialty among attorneys, most attorneys not knowing a darn thing about it. And you want to rely on the advice of anonymous, and in many cases juvenile, posters from the Internet? More foolhardy than you can possibly know.</p>

<p>This is a photo site. Time for new photos anyway, right?</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>OK John. You are the lawyer. So stop throwing hand grenades and tell everyone the law. We are given to understand you are a lawyer and that photography is your field. More annoying than someone giving bad information is someone claiming to be an expert and then refusing to answer the questions. <br />So my direct question to you is...Can this ex girlfriend use his images to advertize her services as a photographer without his consent? Can she sell them for profit to someone who wishes to display them? Maybe is not an answer. If you want money for your opinion then say so. <br>

If it is unwise to get legal advice from internet forums as you say perhaps you will reconsider your giving half answers yourself. That or put the rain-making in the classified section.<br>

My recommendation remains. Take them down. Do not give her the satisfaction of seeing her name in print. Then tell her you do not want her to use your pictures for any reason. Let her get the lawyer to find out what her options are if she wants to defy you. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So stop throwing hand grenades and tell everyone the law</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What are you talking about? John has responded, not thrown "hand grenades." </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe is not an answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Actually, every lawyer I've seen has been careful to point out that law is subject to interpretation and that "maybe" is often answer.</p>

<p>Phil B is right. Unless you had her sign a contract claiming that any photo she took for were consider to be "work for hire" and that you were owner, she owns any and all photos that she took. Give credit where credit is due, and don't let your next girlfriend touch your camera when you're working an assignment.</p>

<p>Maybe she still loves You, digital fool?<br /> (Digital sound and photo have made photographers and musicians so stupid....)<br /> As for legal matter: those photos ARE DEAD. Those photos can not be published or used in any way for any matter - because the photographer (she) has NO RELEASE CONTRACT with the model(s) (he+ friends+the misic band), **and** the stupid holder of samples of copyrighted artwork (photos) has no : signed contract with copyright holder (she), OR she was not paid for the work (if she was paid it can be considered as it was a presence of a contract in the moment of taking pictures).<br /> Those contracts (better signed, including the pecefull permissions from both sides) on using the existant artworks can be re-established in a court or (much better) in peace-full manner. Until that moment those photos can not be published by any person, including the author.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those photos <strong>can not be published or used in any way for any matter</strong> - <strong>because the photographer (she) has NO RELEASE CONTRACT</strong> with the model(s) (he+ friends+the misic band), **and** the stupid holder of samples of copyrighted artwork (photos) has no : signed contract with copyright holder (she), OR she was not paid for the work (if she was paid it can be considered as it was a presence of a contract in the moment of taking pictures).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not sure that is correct either. A release contract is not specifically required by any law - the reason that agencies (and other end-users of the photograph) request it is just in case, in those rare instances, someone takes exception to its use and in the context it is being used. And as we know in US, awards can run into millions. Besides, the end-user calls the tune and so can put the burden of release on the photographer so it is no skin off their nose.<br>

It is like wearing a seatbelt in a car - you don't wear one because you <em>are going</em> to have an accident, you wear it because in the very rare event that you do have an accident, the inconvenience of wearing it is outweighed by the injuries you potentially save yourself.</p>

 

<p>I have the same gut feeling as has already been said - if she is doing this to be awkward, will giving her credit end the matter? So I would take them down. But if the photographs are the main part of your FB site (or the main attraction) then credit them and see where it leads.<br>

If she is a budding photographer with semi-pro ambitions remove them and discuss usage with her.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A release contract is not specifically required by any law</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is my understanding too. They are only there to clarify things at a later date if something goes wrong.<br>

Same with contracts.</p>

<p>Those photos are (probably) artworks of ANOTHER COPYRIGHTED WORK, called musical performance, including dance, play, wardrobes, show lights etc. The copyright holder (she) should have not only RELEASE or permission, but a license too. Any photo of a human person could be claimed *derivative work* due to make-up, wardrobe, emotional playing expressed on face etc, that is why any serious should have a RELEASE from model, even if the "model" is a stranger on a street.<br /> This discussion is meaningless, because those photos are, as I said, dead: they exist but can not be published without a written contract between both sides.<br /> If they were spouses, they will each hold 50% of the copyright property and therefore do not have to have a permissions from the holder of another 50%. But .... they are no spouses, and therefore have to make a deal with each other.<br /> Additionally, in court he could claim, for example, that he was AN ORIGINATOR of photos - in this case the copyrights belong not only to photographer (she), but to the director (he), AND to stage light director, to band show producer, to misicians, to dancers etc. I can add here A LOT of arguments for BOTH sides.<br /> They better to settle. For instance, they better to .... marry each other. Bingo! All problems solved.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those photos are (probably) artworks of ANOTHER COPYRIGHTED WORK, called musical performance, including dance, play, wardrobes, show lights etc. The copyright holder (she) should have not only RELEASE or permission, but a license too.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, that's all completely wrong. The performance may have copyright, but you only breach it by trying to copy the performance, not by making a photograph of a moment in it. Designs of stage clothes may be protected by design rights, but you infringe them by trying to make a physical copy of the dress, not by taking a photograph of someone who happens to be wearing it. Otherwise we would be in deep poo every time we took a photo of someone walking down the street - most people who do so are wearing clothes, and those clothes are protected by design rights. It's one example of why you should take all advice on an internet forum with a pinch of salt.</p>

 

<p>Dump the photographs get new ones. Be done with her.</p>

<p>http://rightofpublicity.com/statutes</p>

<p>The above is generic, likely out of date, Internet fluff. But, the message is get a lawyer who does intellectual property rights. Everything else being posted is varying degrees of junk from real genius legal eagles.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>More annoying than someone giving bad information is... ...refusing to answer the questions. So my direct question to you is...Can this ex girlfriend use his images to advertize her services as a photographer without his consent? Can she sell them for profit to someone who wishes to display them? Maybe is not an answer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The original poster asked if the photographer could require photo credit as a condition for continuing to post the photos online and that has been addressed in detail. No one else asked any questions nor were there any other questions. There were some somewhat off topic statements, including yours, that I responded to, to the best of my knowledge, which happen to give an overview of the answers to the questions you pose now. I don't have more precise details for the particular jurisdiction you live in. Whatever it is. Sorry. If you have any other questions, I will be glad to help if I can.</p>

<p>Sergiy:<br /><br />No releases are needed for editorial photo usage in the United States. Hence, the photographer can license these photos for use in magazines, newspapers, books etc with no issues whatsoever as long as the photos are not used in a defamatory way or used in advertising. If the photographer is paid or not makes no difference.<br /><br />The main part of my business is to photograph police in public. Meaning officers making arrests, traffic stops, talking to victims, interviewing suspects, investigating crime scenes etc. I never obtain releases from the officers or the members of the public that appear in my photos. My images are licensed very frequently by some of the biggest textbook publishers in the United States and not once have lawyers from any of these publishers requested a release. Simply because releases are not needed for this type of image use. <br /><br />Learn the differences between <em>commercial use</em> (has nothing to do with if the photographer is paid or not) and <em>editorial use</em> in the United States and I think you'll get a far better understanding of when releases are needed. I'm guessing you're looking at the law in a different country perhaps?</p>

<p>The OP is listed as a new member since yesterday, and this is his only post. But it does not stop all the legal advice and relationship consoling.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The OP is listed as a new member since yesterday, and this is his only post. But it does not stop all the legal advice and relationship consoling.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, he wanted legal advice. The social counseling was gratuitous but still responsive to the dynamic of the legal situation. The poster brught up "ex-girlfriend" not "a photographer". It shouldn't be surprising someone seeking advice, even if new, receives advice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But, the message is get a lawyer who does intellectual property rights.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it really worth the bother and expense of a lawyer? This seems to be the answer to everyone who ever posts a question about copyright infringement.</p>

<p>Much easier to do some research and learn the facts of the law.</p>

<p>To those of us in the rest of the world, it appears that Americans can't do anything without consulting their lawyers or psychiatrists first!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is it really worth the bother and expense of a lawyer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, it's not worth the bother and expense. The answer was given at the beginning of the thread - she's entitled to a picture credit. It's all quite simple. The rest of the thread was just fluff.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If they were spouses, they will each hold 50% of the copyright property and therefore do not have to have a permissions from the holder of another 50%.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? Can you point to the element of copyright law that states that?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Additionally, in court he could claim, for example, that he was AN ORIGINATOR of photos - in this case the copyrights belong not only to photographer (she), but to the director (he), AND to stage light director, to band show producer, to misicians, to dancers etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sergiy - you seem to know a fair bit about copyright law. Can you point me in the direction of this part of it (or of any cases where this has been a factor)</p>

<p>I agree with Simon. Interesting as the rest may be. www.copyright.gov can fill in the details for U.S. purposes.</p>

<p>I should add that I agree with Simon that a photographer can require credit as a condition for allowing (licensing) use of images they own. The OP asked about his particular situation, however, and (as mentioned before) we don't know if there were already binding agreements with different terms allowing the use. If there were, it may be may be difficult to prove the existence of any such agreement and/or the terms. I am guessing, from the description, there were no agreements and, if that's the case, I agree with Simon as to this particular instance since the default rules would then apply.</p>

<p>To Simon Crofts: You wrote "Of course, that's all completely wrong.The performance may have copyright, but you only breach it by trying to copy the performance, not by making a photograph of a moment in it. Designs of stage clothes may be protected by design rights, but you infringe them by trying to make a physical copy of the dress, not by taking a photograph of someone who happens to be wearing it."<br>

Really? So You do not allow the Hollywood director to PRINT scripts, but you do allow him to shot a movie without charges to the author of script?!<br />So you suggest that if taking photo pictures of music band performance without the permission and distributing photos is legal, - than taking home video recording of latest holywood movie in movie theatre - is also legal, the same thing.<br />Unfortunatelly, the term "derived work" is much broader that you might expect.<br />Who is the "author" of those photos is a very broad question. The FIRST author - is the originator of the artwork. The author of Holywood movie is not a photographer, is not a movie script's author, but a FILM DIRECTOR - the person who has in mind the creative idea AND how to reliase it using art technology.<br /><br />To John Henneberger:<br />You wrote "The original poster asked if the photographer could require photo credit as a condition for continuing to post the photos online and that has been addressed in detail."<br />Yes, THE AUTHOR - under US copyrigh Law and International Bern convention - has a right to be MENTIONED on, or in, or near, or around every sample of an artwork, including PUBLISHED, distributed or non-published samples.<br />But this is only the first step. In this particular case the problem arises when the music band will make money. The next step of the girl after obtaining credits under every photo - will be getting compensation (MONEY) for artworks.<br /><br />To:Mikael Karlsson:<br />You wrote "No releases are needed for editorial photo usage in the United States.....The main part of my business is to photograph police in public. Meaning officers making arrests, traffic stops..."<br />So what? Any law has exceptions. There is no law in universe without exceptions, including all Bible's law. Your example is a so-called "Newsworthy item" under a First Amendment to US Constitution.<br />Read more here:<br />http://www.photoattorney.com/2006/02/commercial-vs-editorial-use-of.html<br /><br />To Mike Hitchen: You wrote "Really? Can you point to the element of copyright law that states that?".<br />This is not about Copyright law, this is about CIVIL LAW. If the copyrighted work or patent has TWO or more owners the use of it and relationships between the owners are governed by local Civil law (and Family Law) - varies from country to country. <br /><br />You wrote "Sergiy - you seem to know a fair bit about copyright law. Can you point me in the direction of this part of it (or of any cases where this has been a factor)"<br>

<br />Why should I? This site photo.net itself has problem with understanding copyright law - they do not allow citations, allowed by US Copyright Law and Bern Convention.<br />Why do I have to explain here, on photo.net, what is freely available elsewhere in Inter-net?</p>