Its an analogy that bad practice all around leads to mess. Not having a model release is a bad practice; not able to protect your own rights as a photographer is a bad practice.
Look beyond the "written law" my friend.
What is my rights?
- Thread starter sha0ye
- Start date
- Status
Its an analogy that bad practice all around leads to mess. Not having a model release is a bad practice; not able to protect your own rights as a photographer is a bad practice.
Look beyond the "written law" my friend.
Hey pal, all yo have to do is to ask the to produce a document with your writing that you allow them to do any of that, and that you always have that practice. If they cannot show relevant documents, the words they put in your mouth has no effect.
Dude, you don't need to prove that you retain copyright
If they want to use it, they NEED to produce black and white that you gave them rights to use. Hope that helps.
Dude, you don't need to prove that you retain copyright
If they want to use it, they NEED to produce black and white that you gave them rights to use. Hope that helps.
thks, bro... yeah, i had to really put my foot down on this matter. funny thing was, i gave them avenues to rectify the situation but they didn't want to pursue. guess some pple just wanna insist on being right...
V
vince123123
Guest
You are absolutely right, model releases are just a practice, and causes of action based on lack of which are not supported in written law in Singapore
You are absolutely right, model releases are just a practice, and causes of action based on lack of which are not supported in written law in Singapore
Well, we have gone back and forth on this enough already and I am not taking the bait. Do what you will and best of luck. Perhaps you should either work in an ad agency or a modeling agency, or at least be an apprentice to a fashion photog, then maybe you will appreciate what I am saying instead of quoting from the general law which is not industry applicable.
Let me know if you need further pointers, I'll help in whatever way I can. If so, we should take this offline in PM. Good luck.
V
vince123123
Guest
It is not a bait, and in the same vein, perhaps you should either work in a law firm, or the AG's Chambers, or perhaps IPOS, or maybe clerking in the courts and maybe you will better appreicate what I'm saying instead of relying on industry practice which may not be applicable when pursuing or enforcing legal rights or causes of action in a court of law.
And it is not "general law" as you say, Intellectual Property Rights are a highly specialised area of law.
And it is not "general law" as you say, Intellectual Property Rights are a highly specialised area of law
.
V
vince123123
Guest
Yeap, it was good discussing this matter with you We can all learn together by sharing what we all know
As for Section 201B, I'm still not quite sure that the Government counts as a body incorporate - but I think that is probably not that critical now. If this point is important to you, let me know and I'll look it up further to confirm.
And yes, as with any suit against the Government, it is usually quite a uphill battle hehe
We can all learn together by sharing what we all know As for Section 201B, I'm still not quite sure that the Government counts as a body incorporate - but I think that is probably not that critical now. If this point is important to you, let me know and I'll look it up further to confirm.
And yes, as with any suit against the Government, it is usually quite a uphill battle hehe
Discussion and feedback is always good and I did read it wrongly. :sweat:
Section 201B is relevant because the government is a corporation (not in the business corporation sense)
Yes. However, they also quantified the statement with "from time to time reasonably requires". Sounds likes an uphill battle if one wishes to take the government on for copyright infringement.
It is not a bait, and in the same vein, perhaps you should either work in a law firm, or the AG's Chambers, or perhaps IPOS, or maybe clerking in the courts and maybe you will better appreicate what I'm saying instead of relying on industry practice which may not be applicable when pursuing or enforcing legal rights or causes of action in a court of law.
And it is not "general law" as you say, Intellectual Property Rights are a highly specialised area of law
Just wondering if there is a law that states that company have to sign a contract when they make deals. If there is, please do show. If not, I wonder why companies do it, since if there is no law. However, I am very sure those contracts are enforceable even if it is just a industry practice for business. For the record, a model release is a contract, and a contract is always enforceable.
Secondly, whatever I have suggested you do so you know, I have already done it and am in the industry, so I would expect that you have worked in a law firm or AG's chambers or perhaps IPOS or the clerking office in the courts? Otherwise, your suggestion is not acceptable by me since you yourself have not done it and whatever you claimed is based on your own interpretation of the law, which to this point, has been a futile exercise in semantics. By the way, ad agencies, model agencies and commercial/fashion photographers DO have lawyers, an d in bigger firms, a legal department to handle such stuff. Since I have worked in or with most, if not all these bodies before, I would at least have that experience with the legal side of the business/industry. Now perhaps you should at least do the same and prove your qualifications?
Lastly, rather than going round and round in circles, this is what I propose: Do find and provide *irrefutable* proof that a model cannot seek claims if a photographer decides to use said model image for commercial and/or other purposes, other than portfolio or own marketing usage, without the express consent of the model in the form of a model release or similar contract, or in a similar scenario ( I have to add this because you have the uncanny ability to argue base on semantics rather than context) if the model do seek claim, that the courts or whoever decides will not rule in the model's favor BECAUSE Singapore do not provide such provision rather than evidence provided by the photographer to indicate otherwise, whether incidental, referential or circumstantial. Otherwise, please do stop this because I have noticed that you are not discussing nor debating for the benefit of the forum but simply vying for a one-upmanship in the arena of law.
As a post note and as an evidence of you using semantics rather than context, my reference to "general law" means an area as practice by lawyers; lawmakers; enforcers; watchdog etc but you can pick apart the words use to argue your way to a "specialized area of law". I do admit I am no lawyer and I may not know law per se, but I do, as a professional photographer, knows what photography practice is, and if the whole industry practice it, it WILL be enforced. So there. I am done. Unless you can either (1) provide background to your qualification to comment further or (2) provide irrefutable proof to refute my statements, it is helpful to all to just keep further personal intepretations and/or comments on this subject to yourself. Until then I await to be stand corrected.
V
vince123123
Guest
In order to prevent an ongoing discussion on a favourite (but often misconceived) topic from being prematurely terminated on the grounds of going off topic, I have taken the liberty of starting a new thread specifically to discuss the issue of model releases here:
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?p=3640243
A response to #70 may also be located there.
My apologise to the TS for going OT here, but with the new thread, this will be the last of such an occurence in this thread
Cheers
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?p=3640243
A response to #70 may also be located there.
My apologise to the TS for going OT here, but with the new thread, this will be the last of such an occurence in this thread
Cheers
- Status
