Andy have you seen this

jwear

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0523/p11s01-ussc.html no cameras soon

luckyrwe

Good reading. Here is another question. I hire you to take pictures for me. You take the pictures, hand them to me, and along with the images you sign over complete rights and ownership of the images. In turn I pay you fairly.

Now the photos are my property 100%. I decide to use them in advertising. I have no model release but I sell the images anyway. Naturally, I will one day get a phone call asking for damages and/or compensation.

My questions is: Do you as the phtoographer have anything to worry about?

Angelo

luckyrwe wrote:

Good reading. Here is another question. I hire you to take pictures for me. You take the pictures, hand them to me, and along with the images you sign over complete rights and ownership of the images. In turn I pay you fairly.

Now the photos are my property 100%. I decide to use them in advertising. I have no model release but I sell the images anyway. Naturally, I will one day get a phone call asking for damages and/or compensation.

My questions is: Do you as the phtoographer have anything to worry about?

If you hire me to take pictures I'm going to ask that you secure model releases first. Second, I'm going to refer you to a shrink because I would think you were out of your mind to hire me for portraiture when there are so many better photogs available for hire.

wxwax

luckyrwe wrote:

Good reading. Here is another question. I hire you to take pictures for me. You take the pictures, hand them to me, and along with the images you sign over complete rights and ownership of the images. In turn I pay you fairly.

Now the photos are my property 100%. I decide to use them in advertising. I have no model release but I sell the images anyway. Naturally, I will one day get a phone call asking for damages and/or compensation.

My questions is: Do you as the phtoographer have anything to worry about?

Rights/ownership are separate from liability. If you, as the purchaser, expect to indemnify the shooter, you need to say so in the contract. Otherwise, both you and the shooter are fair game.

colourbox

Is a model release necessary if the person is not readily identifiable? For example, if the photo in use only shows a close-up of an eye or neck, with no visible dead giveaways such as jewelry? And is the answer the same whether the close-up was from a street or studio shot?

luckyrwe

colourbox wrote:

Is a model release necessary if the person is not readily identifiable? For example, if the photo in use only shows a close-up of an eye or neck, with no visible dead giveaways such as jewelry? And is the answer the same whether the close-up was from a street or studio shot?

If you cannot identify the person whatsoever, no release is needed. But if you can get one anyway, better safe than sorry.

bfjr

I think I'll stick to animals (non human ) sounds otherwise like to much work

luckyrwe

Animals are fine if you cannot recognize them either. If you take a picture of my dog for Purina, you need my release.