==============================================
= Muse wanted, Pittsburgh area. For details, check here: [link]
==============================================
= My OMP Portfolio (Model/Photographer Site): [link]
==============================================

You can see the flag-draped coffins [HERE]

==============================================
==============================================
Journal Entry Begins Below:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rights to use an image, who "owns" it, copyright vs use, and all the things that get between photographers and models -- especially in a TF* arrangement -- are *NOT* cut and dry, nor all in the photographer's favor, as most forums would like to have you believe.


This is something that comes up again and again on other boards and forums, and like "science" which should be "fact" not fancy, much of what is touted is speculation, supposition and not based on real fact.

Yes, it can vary from country to country and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the basic rules of business apply -- not only "copyright".

People start pulling in the concepts of 'work for hire' and start to confuse art and commercial or portrait photography, with the concept of what TF* is, or what art is.

They also confuse -- or ignore -- contract and business law when trying to use "copyright" as way to claim they own all rights to the image.

In most jurisdictions, business and contract law have evolved to prevent this sort of one-sided abuse.

In a recent thread, a model asked if he could alter an image (crop it) for his portfolio. No other real information was given, like what sort of shoot, or even the specific image. So, this is based on just that question.

One reply said, in no uncertain terms,

>> Nope it is the Togs image. It is in my release that
>> model may not edit or alter the images in any way.

So, as usual, I begged to differ.

Did you pay them?

Or is it TF* where the model has to settle for what you consider "fair" payment?

If you pay the model, agreed upon cash, it's one thing. In TF*... the situation changes, greatly. There are a lot of threads on it, so no point here, but TF* *is* a contract, and as such should be fair to both parties. TF* has a lot of things that pull it outside the "norm" of a paid/contracted shoot, and it's *not* a way for a photographer to get "free" models, or a model to get "free" images.

So, it's interesting to see photographers who put such "restrictions" on the final product, yet fail to deliver _FAIR_ compensation for the model's time/input to the shoot.

People get hung up on "ownership" and the letter of the copyright law, which does not always apply. If you follow the case-law and explanations out from the various copyright sites, you will see that "collaborations" and "collections" fall into very, very gray areas, and even gray out on the whole "work for hire" concepts.

Bottom line, in a TF* arrangement, there is much, much more flexibility in ALL aspects, depending on the nature of the shoot, and the terms, and even the solicitation -- eg: who's idea(s) it was, who contacted whom, what was the nature of the contact -- eg: to build your/our portfolio, etc.

If you pay cash, usually that is considered sufficient for the photographer's terms/contract/release to be enforced --USUALLY. On TF*, though, there is much, much more flexibility.

So to get back to the OP's question, in light of this reply, it really depends on the relationship between him and the photographer. If it's a good one, maybe ask if you can re-edit/change it. If it was not a good one, and you feel "short changed" in what you got for your time... well, it's not cut and dry *AT*ALL*.

Example. It was a TF* arrangement, you put in 4-5 hours with travel, and work. The photographer took 2-300 photos. You got 6 web-sized images, with a watermark, that are not suitable for a model's portfolio -- but instead show off only the photographer's "skill" and is an attempt to use your time/portfolio to promote their work, not give you the "compensation" you need/expected/desired for your COLLABORATION on the TF* project.

90% of the photographers, and models who K**s their B*tts will say "NO! You can't."

But, the actual, *real* legal answer is far, far from cut and dry, unless you were paid fairly for your time in something *OTHER* than the images themselves. "Copyright" law not withstanding.

Then, someone added this.

>> just adding... photos are not to be retouched, pped,
>> cropped etc once the model/mua/designer gets their copy.

Ok, where did *that* come from? That's not in any _LAW_ anywhere I've ever seen. Images are *ALWAYS* redone, and done again if they are worth anything, and how many of us have seen the same image used different ways in advertising?

But, then, someone hit the nail on the head, by posting this, and this cut to the chase, and to what I often respond with a very, very dissenting view.

>> As much as the image represents your modeling abilities and
>> looks, it represents the photographer's lighting, technique and
>> composition. You change any of that and you are not letting
>> the photographer shine through for what he can truly do.

Again, this is the whole crux of the concept.

If the model was PAID for their time/input, in something other than images, or for a "specific" image where the goal was a single "look" or single image, then yes, the photographer has pretty much full control over the final product.

If it was TF*, the idea here is *TRADE*. Both parties are supposed to get fair compensation, and the MODEL'S NEEDS for a "good image" are far, far different from a photographer's need. What is a "good" image or even a "great" image for a photographer's portfolio, that shows his skill, may not -- and often IS NOT -- the best, or even a good image for a model's portfolio.

The model's portfolio is to show off the model. Not the photographer.

TF* is not a way to get free models or to exploit them and their portfolios. (Nor, vice versa)

Somewhere, on these boards, that is forgotten. In TF* the photographer has to GIVE UP a *LOT* of the "control" they have if they were paying the bills in cash. If they pay in _IMAGES_ the payment has to be fair, and reasonable, and since the results are known only *AFTER* the shoot happens, the concept of what is fair and reasonable is fully open to interpretation and negotiation -- and deliberation in the courts should it go that far. The model can't agree ahead of time that the compensation in "6 images" or "2 images from each look" is fair and reasonable, if the results of the shoot (trade for time) didn't justify it. The photographer is obligated to make good in more images to fill the gaps.

"Images" (especially digital) are intangibles when it comes to value. But, time is not. If both parties put in the same time, and same effort, why should one party get *all* the value (images) and the other be subject only to what that party feels is "fair" rather than what *is* fair? Just because the photographer clicked the shutter, does not give them more "rights" in the contract than the model/etc. Copyright is *NOT* contract/business law. And, copyright is *NOT* use rights.

So, answers are *NOT* cut and dry, and there is no one definitive answer. But, it's not *ONLY* copyright law that applies, but business, contract, and even TAX law.

So, the 'rights' the model has to alter/use the image are not the same in a TF* agreement, as they are in a contracted/paid shoot where compensation was spelled out in fair economic terms (eg: $30/hour) that the model agreed to. As a side note, if the photographer has a "pattern" of short changing the models on TF* agreements... smile It could get nasty if the issue is pushed in court, and if the IRS decided to get involved.

Point being most of this thread, and the points made are OPINION's and wishful thinking, rather than a clear understanding of what "rights" people do have, and how those rights change. "Follow the money" is a really good principle to keep in mind. The rights follow the payment, and the compensation for time/effort. *NOT* simply the letter of the law, or copyright law. *AND* copyright law does *NOT* give absolute protections.... You can still own copyright but have to have broadly shared "use" rights, including alteration, manipulation, and even defamation.

Business law is not the same as IP law, or copyright law. Contract law is different again from all of those, and can vary widely by jurisdiction.

If the photographer was *really* "shining through" the model would not have questions/needs to re-edit, recrop, or alter the images given. But, again, that is a whole other thread.

Oh, and this applies to models too.... like models who refuse to sign a release on a TF* agreement, and such. The rules also give the photographer fair use, when the model breaks the spirit/intent of a TF* agreement. It's not just one-way, but on these boards it almost always seems like it is.

Scott

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:.






======================================================
Deviants I've Worked with: