No offence Vince,
lets call it "case and statute law" knowledge then.
I'm glad that you retreat to Singapore now, as you were wrong about most of your overseas assumptions. There is still the "Esplanade" case to solve though.
You assuming again when you are saying that its doubtful that a case for a Model Release abuse would go anywhere.
So lets not assume, lets ask if there is anybody outthere reading this forum who knows a case that happen here in Singapore with either outcome, a negative or positive one?
Maybe somebody in the Model, or Commercial industry?
I'm sure that would prove of interest to all of us and help to know where we are standing in Singapore with this.
Regards
felix
hi felix
my work is based in the US and Singapore, and I've been reading through the threads and I don't see how Vince's input has been incorrect in any way
Corbis suing people for using their photographers' work is copyright infringement, a totally different issue from model releases (which are related to other laws including defamation)
"Now, I'm not sure I can follow you correctly. On one end we hear here that most likely is no MR or PR needed, but then you admit Big Libraries need the releases to cover themselves against legal cases??"
All advertising agencies, and stock photo libraries will ask for model releases.
Model releases allow companies to use and associate their photos with their products in whatever way they wish as allowed in the model release without worrying about whether they are going to be sued by the model. (Sue for what, I'm not sure, but the closest thing I can think of is for defamation http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_vers...ve.pl?&actno=Reved-75&date=latest&method=part)
Whether it is NECESSARY in view of the laws in Singapore is another matter.
I am not so familiar with property releases and from anecdote the only time that seems to be a necessity is when the building is trademarked.
Otherwise you would see many big fashion houses being sued for shooting against the backdrop of famous landmarks.
"Thanks for the back up on the building story, Matt. I have no idea why the Esplanade is covered by a similar "landmark act". Would they get money paid in case of abusing it... no idea, don't think there has been a case yet. I just know for sure they asked us to pay for it. Unlikely they would take Mr. Tan to court, but if its Microsoft using the building for their advertising.. they might well do so."
If you paid to shoot on the premises of the Esplanade then that is understandable,What you paid for may not have been for a Property Release, but rather a Location Fee.
But if they were demanding you pay them even if you were not shooting on their premises, I would suggest you pay a lawyer for their advice on this issue in the future and let us know so I can save a few thousand dollars should I wish to shoot the Esplanade in the background in the future.
to back vince up abit, model releases ARE required for most commercial jobs as STANDARD INDUSTRY PRACTICE, but are not necessarily LEGALLY required. This is interesting to me too and I would like to hear more about if there's a law that actually states a requirement for a model release..
Last edited: