Ex-girlfriend suddenly wants photo credit...

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course distributing photos of a music band you photographed is legal. That is how music band photographers work. In the US it would be another matter making merchandise out of it (though in many other jurisdictions such as the UK it would be OK). Bands often try to limit the photographer's ability to do this by conditions on entry or by limiting access unless they agree to limit the photographer's rights contractually, precisely because the photographer has the right to use his photos.</p>

<p>And of course, making a copy of the film with a video - is making a copy of the film, and is totally different from photographing a band. Photographing a band performing is not even the same thing as taping and distributing their music. The latter breaches their copyright, the former of course doesn't.</p>

<p>Sergiy, there are so many wrong and wild statements in what you are saying, that it would be a full time job keeping up with them. I would respectfully suggest that you just go and read up one of the links on copyright law that have been given.</p>

<p>Simon Crofts wrote: "Sergiy, there are so many wrong and wild statements in what you are saying, that..."<br /> Oh, no. The WILD things are 10000+ pages of so-called "US Tax Code" or 2000 pages of so-called "Health reform bill" or 2500 pages of "US Financial reform bill".<br /> The copyright law is very simple - as it was in 1886 (Bern convention). There are two principles:<br /> 1). The author has a right to be mentioned on every sample of artwork - regardless of the money received, or no money received at all.<br /> 2). The originator of an artwork (an author) has a right to obtain a fair money compensation for his/her work - from the buyer of the rights to make and distribute copies of an artwork.<br>

Copyright is an artifficial monopoly granted to REAL author - in order to compensate the easyiness of making copies and therefore the danger of author's povetry.<br>

Good Buy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>1). The author has a right to be mentioned on every sample of artwork - regardless of the money received, or no money received at all.<br />2). The originator of an artwork (an author) has a right to obtain a fair money compensation for his/her work.<br />Good Buy.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Give an exact citation for this.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So you suggest that if taking photo pictures of music band performance without the permission and distributing photos is legal, </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it's legal. It's done all the time, including by big media. I do it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So what? </p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not "So what?" It's the way it works.</p>

<p>Virtually everything you say is wrong. You give no citations and you seem to completely misinterpret the concept of "author."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The copyright law is very simple - as it was in 1886 (Bern convention). There are two principles:<br /> 1). The author has a right to be mentioned on every sample of artwork - regardless of the money received, or no money received at all.<br /> 2). The originator of an artwork (an author) has a right to obtain a fair money compensation for his/her work - from the buyer of the rights to make and distribute copies of an artwork.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Copyright law is actually pretty complex, and has far more principles than the two you mention (and even those two principles you have stated wrongly - in other words they aren't principles at all). And the current Berne Convention is 1971, it's moved a long way since 1886. It's implementation in national laws, and the conflict between those laws, is highly complex, so doesn't really lend itself to sweeping generalisations.</p>

<p>Tax law is also complex, for sure. But please read up on copyright law a bit before making sweeping nonsense (I am sorry, but that is what they are) statements.</p>

 

<p>Jeff Spirer wrote:"Give an exact citation for this."<br>

Where is the magic word?</p>

 

<p>I wonder how much hinges on the fact that permission for publication was (presumably) given and now it has been withdrawn. Was there an initial contract (even if only a verbal contract) and can that be proven? If there was a verbal contract what did it allow? Was the contract conditional on the basis of the personal relationship between the two parties? Was the granting of permission for photo use a gift? Was that gift conditional on the personal relationship?</p>

<p>Tricky situation. In the absence of any contract and/or if the pictures had been taken and published AFTER the breakup, then there's no question that the photographer can impose any condition of use that they want. Payment, credit or whatever.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that if the photographer wants a photo credit in exchange for publication rights, if you want to publish the image you have to provide a credit. Could be worse, they could be demanding payment as well.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>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. <strong>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 </strong>(and Family Law) - varies from country to country.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So you are saying that legal rights or contractual arrangements of one person automatically applies to their partner (married or otherwise). In the situation described by OP, copyright rests with one person and one person only - the person who took the photgraph. Their partner may have a right to a share of the money that comes in as a result of that copyright but that is a completely different branch of the law.<br>

And the key part of your comment is in bold . The person being photographed has no claim over copyright whatsoever - they can only object to how it is used. And they take that action against the person who prints the photograph, not the person who took it (which is why agencies as the photographer to obtain it because the agency would find it very difficult to follow up later).</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><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>

</blockquote>

<p>PhotoNet do allow citations (referring to another location): just post a link to the regulations and let me know the relevant paragraph. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course distributing photos of a music band you photographed is legal. That is how music band photographers work. In the US it would be another matter making merchandise out of it (<strong>though in many other jurisdictions such as the UK it would be OK</strong>)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not saying you are wrong (I know next to nothing about copyright and use of images outside of architecture) - but I find the statement very surprising - that here in the UK you can use an image that you had taken of a band to generate your own merchandising.</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find the statement very surprising - that here in the UK you can use an image that you had taken of a band to generate your own merchandising</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Bands, especially the better known ones, tend to restrict use contractually as a condition of taking the pictures. And some venues also have restrictions on photography. But assuming that no express restrictions like that have been applied, then why not?</p>

<p>In the UK, the ability to use the pictures in adverts etc. is restricted by (a) the risk of being sued for defamation - for example if you use the photo on products that implies something that isn't true; and (b) in the rules of the Advertising Standards Authority. The latter doesn't apply if you're not a member, and wouldn't apply to producing mugs with someone's face on.</p>

<p>There's also the issue of the Human Rights Act - people are entitled to a certain level of privacy, but that generally protects home and family life or situations. It wouldn't apply to someone performing in a public situation.</p>

<p>So normally there's no particular problem with using the images commercially without a model release, provided you stick within those limits. I understand that in the US the law is quite a lot more restrictive.</p>

<p>Mike Hitche wrote:"The person being photographed has no claim over copyright whatsoever - they can only object to how it is used."<br /> <strong>Copyright </strong>is <strong>a right to make copies</strong> - by the DEFINITION of this english word. Intellectual property from the legal point if view has one, only one feature: it is easy (very inexpensive) to m-a-k-e c-o-p-i-e-s. Actually, it is the main and only legal feature. Making copies - in various forms - itself means "use it".<br /> Therefore your above message is meaningless. "Object to how it is used" means monopoly to allow or dis-allow, or C-O-P-Y-R-I-G-H-T.<br /> Copyright is nothing more than that - again, a monopoly of an author or/and copyright holder.</p>

<p>Sergiy - no. Again, each of your sentences above is wrong. Starting with "<strong>Copyright </strong>is <strong>a right to make copies". </strong>Copyright is in fact a property right - <strong>a right of ownership</strong> that has a whole host of other rights attaching to it. I'm sorry, there's not much point in going through each of your sentences explaining why they are wrong, life is too short, they just are.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>We all make errors from time to time but Sergiy obviously has no idea of what he is talking about. Its too much, as Simon observes, to address it all. The independent resources already provided here give all the information needed and that anyone reading can review it for themselves. Social related suggestions were provided as well. The usefulness of this thread seems to have come to an end.</p>

<p>was she a good cook?</p>

<p>Jesse, I fully understand that breakups are hard and difficult, and that her demands initially might look irritating to you. But on the other hand, if you turn the case upside-down. if you were the photographer, who were asked to take photos, wouldn't you also have the copyright? I agree with many of the posters before, let her have her name as the photographer's byline, or remove all the images.</p>

 

<p>You give credit where credit is due. Are you going to say you <strong>took</strong> the photo where you clearly did not?</p>

<p>You're angry, she's angry.</p>

<p>The way to stop this is not argue over things like this. She took the photos and she is entitled to credit for it. This is just common sense.</p>

<p>Stop thinking as if she's taking something from you, she's not. They always were, and always will be, photos she took. Give credit where credit is due.</p>

<p>Presumably you would have told people, "actually X took that one", in the past, so what's the problem now ?</p>

<p>Oh, yeah, you broke up.</p>

<p>Tough. Welcome to the Adult World. Start behaving like one.</p>

 

<p>I with the ones who say take all the photos down. This is more than a business relationship between you two and my gut feeling says their is more to come. A polite email to you ex informing her all the photos will be deleted and you have nothing to do with this matter. End of story move on.<br>

Photographers never date models or anyone they photograph and now you know one of the reasons why.<br>

Bill</p>

 

<blockquote>

 

<p>was she a good cook?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Brilliant. LOL.</p>

<p>women are crazy....especially the ex's......get yourself a lawyer......expensive, yes....but worth the effort</p>

<p>and to all you ladies .....love all of you......just sometimes u go over the edge.....</p>

<p>I don't think it is so difficult to give her the credit, or remove the photos she took. Spend some time on this and it saves your lots of trouble.</p>

<p>Good luck and life goes on. She may make everything difficult, but you have to make it easy. :D</p>

<blockquote>

and to all you ladies .....love all of you......just sometimes u go over the edge.....

</blockquote>

<p>

s/ladies/humans.

</p>

<p>Certainly is a pain for you, but as far as I can see you don't have a leg to stand on. She took the photos and is the copyright holder. Legal or no, if she requests, it's the right thing to do. Just going to have to suck it up unfortunately I think.</p>

<p>Remove photos and move on, or send her a notice that she can't not use any photos of you without a model release, or make an small money offer to buy out the copyright. Either way go with the path of least resistance. It will save you money on therapy later. Tom</p>

<blockquote>

<p>send her a notice that she can't not use any photos of you without a model release</p>

</blockquote>

<p>We already covered the fact that model releases are only needed for very narrow circumstances.</p>

<p>The <strong>only </strong>sound advice to appear in this thread (i.e., sound from both a legal and a social point of view) is to delete the photos and cut ties to the ex. </p>

<p>Don't get a lawyer. Don't call the ex. Don't draft agreements. Just get away from her.</p>

<p>I am sometimes amazed by which questions stir up a hornets' nest -- I wouldn't have predicted 70 responses to this one.</p>

<p>I am routinely <em>amused </em>at the extent to which questions of law are irresistibly attractive to people who have a marginal understanding of the law, but are keenly interested in declaring what they think it is and how they think it applies.</p>

<p>John Henneberger, who <em>does </em>know what the law is, routinely pours thousands of dollars' worth of excellent legal advice into these forums, often without thanks. Fortunately, John seems to have a good sense of humor. If you post a question here and are fortunate enough to receive some analysis from John, pay attention to it. Especially when he gets all <em>Dear Abby </em>on you.</p>