photographer's copyright

[vince123123]

Actually, again, the concept of model releases may not be relevant in the Singapore context. what you're probably referring to is obtaining a license from the commissioning party.

Quoting from this page from IPOS (Copyright Ownership and Rights) :

From the above, if the photograph is taken for (commissioned by):
a) a person - copyright belongs to the person.
b) an object owned by XXX - rights owned by photographer unless transferred to XXX; or YYY is XXX didn't request for ownership transfer.

In the case of a person, the law is pretty clear -rights belong to the person, unless the photographer puts in the contract or sales agreement that the photographer has rights to re-use or re-sell, in which case, the photographer has to get the commissioning party to sign a model release.

 

[eikin]

i am very new to human portraiture shoots ... according to Darren's post #18, in the case of TFP and other human portraiture shoots not involving any monetary payment, does it mean that the copyright belongs to the 'model' ?

 

[vince123123]

probably not.

i am very new to human portraiture shoots ... according to Darren's post #18, in the case of TFP and other human portraiture shoots not involving any monetary payment, does it mean that the copyright belongs to the 'model' ?

 

[jbma]

Actually zig's answer may be misleading.

In the absence of any terms, copyright belongs to the person who commissioned you if it is for valuable consideration. You'll need specific contractual terms to make it the way you want it to be.

I totally agree with Vince123123. If someone pays you to shoot something obviously he wants the photos right? So you agree to take it for him and he pays you so the photos belongs to him. However you can make the deal in any way you or the client wants it to be. It must be in black and white. Always have a clear and thorough contract. There is no one size fits all solution.

 

[eikin]

probably not.

just to further the question, so does it mean that both parties have the copyright or just the photographer(s)? i am referring to a case whereby there is no written agreement.

 

[Darren]

i am very new to human portraiture shoots ... according to Darren's post #18, in the case of TFP and other human portraiture shoots not involving any monetary payment, does it mean that the copyright belongs to the 'model' ?

Bearing in mind that I am not lawyer, from a layman's point of view :-

Commissioning does not necessarily mean that money has changed hands eg. I can "commission" someone to take my portait just by asking "Can you take my picture for me, and I buy you coffee?". If the photographer agrees, I have just "commissioned" him; and according to IPOS, the rights to the photograph now belongs to me unless the photographer then asks "Is it okay if I display this beautiful, classic photograph of your finely chiseled features with such a full head of hair on my online gallery?". If I then agree, I then confer upon the photographer the right to display online (but not necessarily the right to resell if GQ magazine then approaches the photographer after seeing the photo online). The above is of course based on verbal "agreement" but to make it more concrete, some form of paper agreement might be useful.

For the TFP scenario, I think the same principle applies even though no monetary compensation is involved
a) The model offers her time (which is valuable and can have a $$ value attached to it).
b) If the photographer(s) accepts offer, the model is deemed to have "commissioned" the photos.
c) The model may then confer rights to the photographer to re-use or re-sell depending on situation.

 

[vince123123]

Just to add on a clarification, what you probably mean is that the element of "valuable consideration" does not necessarily mean that money has changed hands. The commissioning has to be done with valuable consideration in order to fall under the "commissioning" exception to copyright.

Bearing in mind that I am not lawyer, from a layman's point of view :-

Commissioning does not necessarily mean that money has changed hands

 

[uncleparty]

hhmm just to pose a couple of hypothetical situtaions in the hope that we could all learn. asked a law lecturer as well before but he couldnt give clear cut answers as well. perhaps the more familiar photographers could help us out here?

1) u are paid to do a wedding shoot. would there be differences in copyright ownership if the picture was taken...
a) in her/his home
b) at the void deck of her/his block
c) during dinner in the banquet hall

2) you go to the esplanade for fun and am not paid to shoot. who does the copyright belong to if u shoot...
a) the exterior of the building
b) candid shots of ppl, with the building as a background.
c) a portrait of a friend, in the building itself.
d) you are in the concert hall (no cams allowed) and realise there's a beautiful view of the high court through the window of the concert hall. you shoot.

im posing these questions cos was told that copyright is also determined by the location of a shoot, whether its public or private property?

i know the hotel and esplanade prob wont do anything even if it is their right, but in a "by right" situation, who owns the copy right?

 

[eikin]

Bearing in mind that I am not lawyer, from a layman's point of view :-

Commissioning does not necessarily mean that money has changed hands eg. I can "commission" someone to take my portait just by asking "Can you take my picture for me, and I buy you coffee?". If the photographer agrees, I have just "commissioned" him; and according to IPOS, the rights to the photograph now belongs to me unless the photographer then asks "Is it okay if I display this beautiful, classic photograph of your finely chiseled features with such a full head of hair on my online gallery?". If I then agree, I then confer upon the photographer the right to display online (but not necessarily the right to resell if GQ magazine then approaches the photographer after seeing the photo online). The above is of course based on verbal "agreement" but to make it more concrete, some form of paper agreement might be useful.

For the TFP scenario, I think the same principle applies even though no monetary compensation is involved
a) The model offers her time (which is valuable and can have a $$ value attached to it).
b) If the photographer(s) accepts offer, the model is deemed to have "commissioned" the photos.
c) The model may then confer rights to the photographer to re-use or re-sell depending on situation.

thanks for the explanation, that was what i thought so too, but there seems to be different views on this

 

[eadwine]

my fragile wittle bwain is in pain....so much information!!
But I'm learning alot from this thread here!!!

 

[SniperD]

I think it's in the summary that if you want the terms to be in your advantage for future uses, draft a contract that's based on that direction and get a counter signature to back it up

 

[eikin]

Just to add on a clarification, what you probably mean is that the element of "valuable consideration" does not necessarily mean that money has changed hands. The commissioning has to be done with valuable consideration in order to fall under the "commissioning" exception to copyright.

if it isn't too much to ask for, can you share with us what can or cannot be constituted as 'valuable consideration'? thanks

 

[vince123123]

This is by far the best advice given, why grapple with complex issues of law for which there isn't even local case law to interpret them as of yet? Just put everything in paper and settle the issue

I think it's in the summary that if you want the terms to be in your advantage for future uses, draft a contract that's based on that direction and get a counter signature to back it up

 

[vince123123]

1) u are paid to do a wedding shoot. would there be differences in copyright ownership if the picture was taken...
a) in her/his home
b) at the void deck of her/his block
c) during dinner in the banquet hall

nope

2) you go to the esplanade for fun and am not paid to shoot. who does the copyright belong to if u shoot...
a) the exterior of the building
b) candid shots of ppl, with the building as a background.
c) a portrait of a friend, in the building itself.
d) you are in the concert hall (no cams allowed) and realise there's a beautiful view of the high court through the window of the concert hall. you shoot.

unlikely that there is a difference, in the absence of further facts, probably you in all cases.

im posing these questions cos was told that copyright is also determined by the location of a shoot, whether its public or private property?

This is something new... heh

 

[espn]

I think it's in the summary that if you want the terms to be in your advantage for future uses, draft a contract that's based on that direction and get a counter signature to back it up

Pro comment!!

 

[vince123123]

I concur

Pro comment!!

 

[derricktsc]

The Copyright Act of 1976 made clear tat photographers are the copyright owners of their images, except when those images were made as an employee, or when the photographer has conveyed the copyright to another party in a written and signed agreement.

Copyright is earned the moment you fix your photographic expression in a tangible form; that is, when you create the latent image on film.
An Art director can have a great idea for a great photograph, but he dont get the copyright.
ASMP recommends tat all photographs carry a copyright notice, even though it is no longer required by law. The lack of notice could seriously limit the recovery of damages in an infringement claim.
eg: c 1997, Pat Photographer
Copyright 1997, Pat Photographer

"Extract from ASMP Professional Business Practices in Photography (5th Ed)"

Models do have their rights protected too! Try calling modelling agencies and check their rates, they charge around S$800 per day (veri little money) but conditions are they allow only 1 year of usage for the images taken, no bargain. And best of all, images use in media, newspapers, got different pricing...
So if models also have their rights, we as photographers should be protect like them too. I should see that we should make adv agencies or bosses know that without us, they are technically dead!

I just got into an argument wif a director yest regarding tis issue, coz my contract states tat the images can only be use for a period of 3 years and he try telling me tat throughout his 20 over years in this adv industry, no photographers give him tis clause!!! I just started my job as a photographer just one year ago and it is sad and disappointing to know that the people here dont respect their works (no matter how big or small, it is). For two hours, he try to convince me not to do tat in Singapore, or I will fail in my business.
But I love photography more than any other things in my entire life and I dont want to cheapen photography like everybody do.
So eventually he give in, asking me to add in a clause that if he is still using this images after 3 years, pls remind him!
I can see that he respect me as a young photographer coz I respect my work so much tat he is amaze how a photographer is willing to protect his work to the extent of losing money.

Please pls pls anybody or everybody who read tis thread, let every photographers know his rights, protect your own rights because WE LOVE PHOTOGRAPHY!

 

[vince123123]

You should note that there may be differences in the US Copyright Act as opposed to the Singapore Act. Also, I shd point out that the ASMP stands for the American Society of Media Photographers.

Nevertheless, kudos to you for standing up to what you believe in

The Copyright Act of 1976 made clear tat photographers are the copyright owners of their images, except when those images were made as an employee, or when the photographer has conveyed the copyright to another party in a written and signed agreement.

 

[John Teoh]

Bearing in mind that I am not lawyer, from a layman's point of view :-

For the TFP scenario, I think the same principle applies even though no monetary compensation is involved
a) The model offers her time (which is valuable and can have a $$ value attached to it).
b) If the photographer(s) accepts offer, the model is deemed to have "commissioned" the photos.
c) The model may then confer rights to the photographer to re-use or re-sell depending on situation.

Hi Darren

I don't think the flow is correct.

First of all, I believe someone (most likely is the organiser) must have made an offer (in a form of announcement or email etc) to the model. If not, the model will not know that some photographers are looking for a model shoot.

If the model agrees, then it will be that the model has accepted the offer. In this case, it should be that the organiser, which act on behalf of the photographers, has commissioned the service of the model.

In this case, the photographers are the owners. In the event the model wants to have the photographs, he/she needs to pay for it.

However, the copyright law states that the copyright owners can only do the following:

Literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works - Authors enjoy the exclusive rights to reproduce the work; publish the work; perform the work in public; communicate the work to the public; and make an adaptation of the work.

So I guess selling is a no-no.

Cheers
John

 

[vince123123]

This statement by IPOS is not an exhaustive one. You can also sell the photos either by assigning copyright to the new owner or sell the right to use in the form of a license.

However, the copyright law states that the copyright owners can only do the following:

Literary, dramatic, musical, artistic works - Authors enjoy the exclusive rights to reproduce the work; publish the work; perform the work in public; communicate the work to the public; and make an adaptation of the work.

So I guess selling is a no-no.

Cheers
John