there is no end ... are ur images in here ?

[Youhong]

Can mods sticky this thread and all other related threads?

This issue has been around for very long and I think there is a need to consistently remind potential modeling agencies wannabes as well as model/talent wannabes about the concerns many photographers have with regards to copyright issues.

 

[iluvmazda]

saw your pm... revisited the site, no need to apologize to me, since i'm not affected... (yet)

but i think by deleting the images, you still did not solve the problem, you said you pass over to the other guys and such... and now u practically leave the site barren. so i'd rather suggest you take down the site and post up an apology instead. doesn't that sound more logical and pleasing to the people affected?

by taking it down mean you admit your negligence, but does not offer your apologies yet.

Ok... let me see what can be done for this.

 

[Cheesecake]

If by monday pics arent taken out, we will form a class.
and gather all evidence. and we will take legal action from there !

pls include me if all else goes wrong.

thank you.

 

[vince123123]

Just a few nuggets of legal information:

1. Giving credit to someone is not a legal defence for using the works in an unauthorised manner. Credit is just but one factor in which copyright holders decide whether or not to grant the license.

So long as a license to use is not granted, giving credit is as useless and will be regarded as infringement.

Up till this day, I have no idea why the "internet generation" thinks that they can copy/cut/paste just as long as they give credit. That is a seriously wrong and major legal misconception.

2. It is not a legal defence against infringement for the modelling agency to say "the model gave me, I don't know". The fact is that copyright is infringed by reproduction of the work on your website, irrespective of who gave you the photos.

If the model is not authorised to grant you a sub-license to use the work, then you are prima facie, infringing the work.

3. If a photographer owns copyright in the work and gives photos to the model for fun, grattitude, etc, it does not matter that no terms were said. It does not mean that if a copyright holder gave a license to use without stating explicitly what it CANNOT be used for, the licensee (ie model) can use it in any way he/she wants.

All the copyright holder needs to do is inform the model "From today, such use is prohibited", thereby modifying the scope of the initial license granted. So long as the scope of the initial license is not granted irrevocably, the copyright holder always retains the right to modify the license any way he wants.

If he feels sufficiently pissed off, the copyright holder/photographer, can even revoke all past licenses granted and tell the model "too bad, since you pissed me off, I am now revoking my license granted previously and you now CANNOT use it anywhere - if you do, such use is infringing".

I hope this helps to clarify the strong legal position of photographers who own copyright in their works and for those who think they can easily exploit this, to really think twice before proceeding.

 

[TheQuestion]

Just a few nuggets of legal information:

1. Giving credit to someone is not a legal defence for using the works in an unauthorised manner. Credit is just but one factor in which copyright holders decide whether or not to grant the license.

So long as a license to use is not granted, giving credit is as useless and will be regarded as infringement.

Up till this day, I have no idea why the "internet generation" thinks that they can copy/cut/paste just as long as they give credit. That is a seriously wrong and major legal misconception.

2. It is not a legal defence against infringement for the modelling agency to say "the model gave me, I don't know". The fact is that copyright is infringed by reproduction of the work on your website, irrespective of who gave you the photos.

If the model is not authorised to grant you a sub-license to use the work, then you are prima facie, infringing the work.

3. If a photographer owns copyright in the work and gives photos to the model for fun, grattitude, etc, it does not matter that no terms were said. It does not mean that if a copyright holder gave a license to use without stating explicitly what it CANNOT be used for, the licensee (ie model) can use it in any way he/she wants.

All the copyright holder needs to do is inform the model "From today, such use is prohibited", thereby modifying the scope of the initial license granted. So long as the scope of the initial license is not granted irrevocably, the copyright holder always retains the right to modify the license any way he wants.

If he feels sufficiently pissed off, the copyright holder/photographer, can even revoke all past licenses granted and tell the model "too bad, since you pissed me off, I am now revoking my license granted previously and you now CANNOT use it anywhere - if you do, such use is infringing".

I hope this helps to clarify the strong legal position of photographers who own copyright in their works and for those who think they can easily exploit this, to really think twice before proceeding.

i got question vince...in this kind of case dun the people filing action have to prove some kind of damages incurred otherwise the case gets thrown outta court doesn;t it?