Is this legal????

[Maverick2002]

Here's the scenario:

A photographer does a photoshoot with a model. The model doesn't pay him anything. He doesn't pay her anything. There is no written contract/nothing is signed whatsoever.

Now the photographer claims he has rights to the photos, can do anything with them, etc etc. Furthermore, he is unwilling to sell right to the photographs as well.

The question is, can he legally sell/distribute the photographs without the model's consent? Which part(s) of anything I listed above are legally enforceable?

Lastly, is there a group/law firm/etc I can call to get legal advice/verify this?

 

[zanejohnson]

yes you can post your g/f's pics here.

 

[OdiN]

Is it a professional model? You might have some ground, but not much.

All photos taken by a photographer are copyrighted to that photographer, and that photographer can do anything he wishes with those photos. People in the photos, if in a public area, cannot prevent the photographer from publishing/selling photos. Mainly because if you are in public, there is little expectation of privacy. If the same photographer used a zoom lens and took pictures of you through your houses window - you'd have a case easily as you have a general expectation of privacy in your own home.

Now, the model may be able to (and without a contract...it's a maybe) prevent the photographer from selling the images which feature her, if it's obvious it was a setup shoot, done in a studio, etc. if the photographer did not get a model release. Usually releases are required as they give permission to sell the image of the model - especially if it is a professional model. I dont' know all the legalities if there is no contract whatsoever - he could claim there was a verbal contract, and then it would be his word against that of the model and it's a standoff.

Now - if the model prevents him from selling the photos - that does NOT mean he has to give the model any photos. It also does not mean he can't use them for non-commercial use. He could put them in his portfolio or use them to promote himself, so long as he isn't selling the photos.

You cannot force a photographer to sell you the rights to his photographs.

But he is right - he owns the rights to those photos the instant he presses the shutter release.

 

[Maverick2002]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Is it a professional model? You might have some ground, but not much.

All photos taken by a photographer are copyrighted to that photographer, and that photographer can do anything he wishes with those photos. People in the photos, if in a public area, cannot prevent the photographer from publishing/selling photos. Mainly because if you are in public, there is little expectation of privacy. If the same photographer used a zoom lens and took pictures of you through your houses window - you'd have a case easily as you have a general expectation of privacy in your own home.

Now, the model may be able to (and without a contract...it's a maybe) prevent the photographer from selling the images which feature her, if it's obvious it was a setup shoot, done in a studio, etc. if the photographer did not get a model release. Usually releases are required as they give permission to sell the image of the model - especially if it is a professional model. I dont' know all the legalities if there is no contract whatsoever - he could claim there was a verbal contract, and then it would be his word against that of the model and it's a standoff.

Now - if the model prevents him from selling the photos - that does NOT mean he has to give the model any photos. It also does not mean he can't use them for non-commercial use. He could put them in his portfolio or use them to promote himself, so long as he isn't selling the photos.

You cannot force a photographer to sell you the rights to his photographs.

But he is right - he owns the rights to those photos the instant he presses the shutter release.

Ok, to elaborate:

It was a private shoot. Define professional model? It's a model that's been featured in publications before and the shoot was done in a studio. I'm not sure what makes a model a "professional".

I understand that it may be possible to use them to promote himself (such as in a potfolio or a gallery), but what I'm getting at is this: is he allowed to sell photographs, taken in a private studio, without any form of written contract?

 

[technophile82]

might want to look at this...but it might not apply to your specific situation

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
Ok, to elaborate:

It was a private shoot. Define professional model? It's a model that's been featured in publications before and the shoot was done in a studio. I'm not sure what makes a model a "professional".

I understand that it may be possible to use them to promote himself (such as in a potfolio or a gallery), but what I'm getting at is this: is he allowed to sell photographs, taken in a private studio, without any form of written contract?

In short - yes.

A professional model would be one whose career is modeling, or the person receives money in exchange for modeling.

Bottom line, it's the fault of the model for not insisting on a contract. And it's the fault of the photographer for not getting a model release. The fact that he didn't get a model release is the only ground you will have to stand on - whether or not it will hold up or not, I couldn't tell you.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: technophile82
might want to look at this...but it might not apply to your specific situation

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

This doesn't really apply - this is more for those who are taking pictures in public and are challeneged about their rights to do so.

 

[Gooberlx2]

She *might* be able to get judgment in a civil suit for royalties.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
She *might* be able to get judgment in a civil suit for royalties.

Yup, that's about all I can think of - but I still highly doubt he can be completely prevented from selling them.

 

[darkxshade]

ask him to post the pics here and we'll go from there mmmkay?

 

[Maverick2002]

Yea this was a private photoshoot, no consent forms signed. The photographs are above a PG rating (if that matters with regards to a person's right to reasonable privacy).

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
Yea this was a private photoshoot, no consent forms signed. The photographs are above a PG rating (if that matters with regards to a person's right to reasonable privacy).

Well obviously the person went to the studio and was quite aware that photos were being taken - privacy doesn't really come into play in that sense.

 

[Maverick2002]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
She *might* be able to get judgment in a civil suit for royalties.

Yup, that's about all I can think of - but I still highly doubt he can be completely prevented from selling them.

So what you're saying is a photographer can take pics of a "professional model" (one who has in the past been reimbursed monetarily for photos) and sell them without her signing a consent form/contract?

 

[biggestmuff]

Pics of model?

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
She *might* be able to get judgment in a civil suit for royalties.

Yup, that's about all I can think of - but I still highly doubt he can be completely prevented from selling them.

So what you're saying is a photographer can take pics of a "professional model" (one who has in the past been reimbursed monetarily for photos) and sell them without her signing a consent form/contract?

There's no contract that prevents him from doing so just the same as there is no contract that requires him to compensate the model.

As said - you may be able to get royalties based on your status as a model, but I'd be surprised if you can stop the person from selling the photos altogether.

 

[Maverick2002]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Maverick2002

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
She *might* be able to get judgment in a civil suit for royalties.

Yup, that's about all I can think of - but I still highly doubt he can be completely prevented from selling them.

So what you're saying is a photographer can take pics of a "professional model" (one who has in the past been reimbursed monetarily for photos) and sell them without her signing a consent form/contract?

There's no contract that prevents him from doing so just the same as there is no contract that requires him to compensate the model.

As said - you may be able to get royalties based on your status as a model, but I'd be surprised if you can stop the person from selling the photos altogether.

Isn't lack of a contract something that prevents him from selling the photos?

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
She *might* be able to get judgment in a civil suit for royalties.

Yup, that's about all I can think of - but I still highly doubt he can be completely prevented from selling them.

So what you're saying is a photographer can take pics of a "professional model" (one who has in the past been reimbursed monetarily for photos) and sell them without her signing a consent form/contract?

probably not. what kind of photographer would take a picture of a model with the intent to sell it later without having paperwork done in the first place?

seems like one of those things thats at the top of the to-do list.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Maverick2002

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
She *might* be able to get judgment in a civil suit for royalties.

Yup, that's about all I can think of - but I still highly doubt he can be completely prevented from selling them.

So what you're saying is a photographer can take pics of a "professional model" (one who has in the past been reimbursed monetarily for photos) and sell them without her signing a consent form/contract?

There's no contract that prevents him from doing so just the same as there is no contract that requires him to compensate the model.

As said - you may be able to get royalties based on your status as a model, but I'd be surprised if you can stop the person from selling the photos altogether.

Isn't lack of a contract something that prevents him from selling the photos?

No - but as I said, the lack of a model release may be the only thing you have to stand on, and I can't tell you how much that will help - IANAL.

 

[MotionMan]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Maverick2002

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
She *might* be able to get judgment in a civil suit for royalties.

Yup, that's about all I can think of - but I still highly doubt he can be completely prevented from selling them.

So what you're saying is a photographer can take pics of a "professional model" (one who has in the past been reimbursed monetarily for photos) and sell them without her signing a consent form/contract?

There's no contract that prevents him from doing so just the same as there is no contract that requires him to compensate the model.

As said - you may be able to get royalties based on your status as a model, but I'd be surprised if you can stop the person from selling the photos altogether.

Isn't lack of a contract something that prevents him from selling the photos?

Certainly someone owns the photographs and someone is allowed to profit from them - I doubt it is the model. However, the model may be entitled to some compensation, but the lack of contract, IMO, works against the model, not for her.

MotionMan

 

[Jugernot]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Is it a professional model? You might have some ground, but not much.

All photos taken by a photographer are copyrighted to that photographer, and that photographer can do anything he wishes with those photos. People in the photos, if in a public area, cannot prevent the photographer from publishing/selling photos. Mainly because if you are in public, there is little expectation of privacy. If the same photographer used a zoom lens and took pictures of you through your houses window - you'd have a case easily as you have a general expectation of privacy in your own home.

Now, the model may be able to (and without a contract...it's a maybe) prevent the photographer from selling the images which feature her, if it's obvious it was a setup shoot, done in a studio, etc. if the photographer did not get a model release. Usually releases are required as they give permission to sell the image of the model - especially if it is a professional model. I dont' know all the legalities if there is no contract whatsoever - he could claim there was a verbal contract, and then it would be his word against that of the model and it's a standoff.

Now - if the model prevents him from selling the photos - that does NOT mean he has to give the model any photos. It also does not mean he can't use them for non-commercial use. He could put them in his portfolio or use them to promote himself, so long as he isn't selling the photos.

You cannot force a photographer to sell you the rights to his photographs.

But he is right - he owns the rights to those photos the instant he presses the shutter release.

You are supposed to preface your statement with "I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV."

 

[jpeyton]

If there are no written contracts, then by default the photographer owns the rights to their images, and they can do with those images whatever they want.

The model has no legal leg to stand on unless they have the photographer's signature on some piece of paper somewhere that says otherwise.

 

[sygyzy]

What's the real story here? The wannabe/amateur model went to some photographer's (read: friend from the clubs, who is also a photograph student at the local CC) studio and took off her top for some "glamour" shots. Now he put the photos in his online gallery? Embarrassing, possibly. Career ending? Hardly. I doubt this guy is out passing the photos to strangers on the street.

 

[mugs]

Depends on the state:
http://www.publaw.com/rightpriv.html

Rights to the photographs clearly belong to the photographer. Rights to use them however he wants is not so clear.

But I have to ask - what did she the photographer was going to do with the photos?

 

[Maverick2002]

Originally there was a verbal agreement to sell just the shots taken as a 1 time thing and split the earnings. Then (after the photos were taken) he decided he wanted to be an agent and have her sign a 1 year contract, which was not part of the initial agreement. Obviously this is not what she wanted and now she doesn't want to even sell the shots. The details (about where they were going to be sold to) were supposed to be worked out at a later date. Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the original question, which is that of whether or not a photographer can sell a model's photos without written permission.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Jugernot

Originally posted by: OdiN
Is it a professional model? You might have some ground, but not much.

All photos taken by a photographer are copyrighted to that photographer, and that photographer can do anything he wishes with those photos. People in the photos, if in a public area, cannot prevent the photographer from publishing/selling photos. Mainly because if you are in public, there is little expectation of privacy. If the same photographer used a zoom lens and took pictures of you through your houses window - you'd have a case easily as you have a general expectation of privacy in your own home.

Now, the model may be able to (and without a contract...it's a maybe) prevent the photographer from selling the images which feature her, if it's obvious it was a setup shoot, done in a studio, etc. if the photographer did not get a model release. Usually releases are required as they give permission to sell the image of the model - especially if it is a professional model. I dont' know all the legalities if there is no contract whatsoever - he could claim there was a verbal contract, and then it would be his word against that of the model and it's a standoff.

Now - if the model prevents him from selling the photos - that does NOT mean he has to give the model any photos. It also does not mean he can't use them for non-commercial use. He could put them in his portfolio or use them to promote himself, so long as he isn't selling the photos.

You cannot force a photographer to sell you the rights to his photographs.

But he is right - he owns the rights to those photos the instant he presses the shutter release.

You are supposed to preface your statement with "I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on TV."

I am a professional photographer - I do have some knowledge of the subject.