Warning To SP's About Photographers...

[james29]

I've taken my share of pics of SP's before. Some for them to use as promotion or for websites and some for my personal pleasure.

One technique that's common and makes sense is for the SP to provide the memory card, you take the pictures and she keeps the card. This way she's in control of the pictures and who gets them.


High-end cameras often come with TWO memory card slots. They can do many things, but some photographers use them for backup. Every picture taken can be written to both cards. So even if you as an SP keep your card, there could still be another one in the camera with a copy of all the pics.

Just a heads up.

 

[Aeiyah]

Actually, the photographer owns the photos. In the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, the photographer has the exclusive right to use the photos (i.e. resell them, use them in his portfolio, publish the work).

An exception is if the photographer is commissioned (e.g. paid by the model or third party to perform the work). In this case, the photographer still owns the photos, but cannot use the photos without explicit permission from the individual who commissioned the work.

 

[turquine]

In this case, the photographer still owns the photos, but cannot use the photos without explicit permission from the individual who commissioned the work.

You got the first part right, about the photographer normally owning the work. However, in the case of a "work-for-hire" the employer owns copyright of the work. The photographer may keep copies for their portfolio only. No other commercial use.

 

[Inamorato]

Actually, the photographer owns the photos. In the absence of a written agreement to the contrary, the photographer has the exclusive right to use the photos (i.e. resell them, use them in his portfolio, publish the work).

An exception is if the photographer is commissioned (e.g. paid by the model or third party to perform the work). In this case, the photographer still owns the photos, but cannot use the photos without explicit permission from the individual who commissioned the work.

Thats all good if you're dealing with a reputable photographer, but I suspect James is referring to the fly-by night guys who advertise their services on Craigslist, usually in exchange for SP services, and aren't going to be concerned about the legality of the situation.

In this internet era, it doesn't matter who legally owns a picture, if it's being passed around cyberspace without your consent. Better to play it safe and make sure you are aware of who has copies of these images.

 

[Sandman333]

Hmm. Firstly, there's only a few cameras that have 2 slots, and they usually retail for about $5000 or more. I don't see a hobbyist using one of these, but a professional would.

Secondly, any modelling shots should be done with a modelling contract outlining the usage of the photographs for both parties. This contract would be legal, and any breech of this contract could result in litigation. Any photographs should be done with a signed contract, and both parties should get a copy.

As long as your bases are covered, there shouldn't be any issues, and it will weed out the real photographers, and the not-so-real.

 

[CODe333]

Hmm. Firstly, there's only a few cameras that have 2 slots, and they usually retail for about $5000 or more. I don't see a hobbyist using one of these, but a professional would.

Some amateurs have the money and inclination to own (or rent) and use highend cameras and equipment. It may not be a common situation but it's likely a few that do have access to that type of equipment would want to photograph SPs and clients for any number of reasons. There are certainly lots of amateurs that collect and trade private photos and videos. If I were an SP I'd be concerned about that possibility.

 

[Sonny]

Some amateurs have the money and inclination to own (or rent) and use highend cameras and equipment... If I were an SP I'd be concerned about that possibility.

So, the SP should rent the highend camera and equipment, and hire the photographer to take the pictures using "her" stuff. Then have the clean-up work done on her computer (with the internet disabled to prevent sneaky sending of work to another PC). Maybe paranoiac a bit, but if she wants total control, this may be the way; and she has to not mind spending a few more dollars to get it done.

Otherwise, only use a reputable, well-established and highly referred professional, who will honourably adhere to a contract, in which the SP can include a clause specifying that she has all the work and that no one else has any copy.

 

[Katlyn]

Really there is not much to discuss here. From my modelling experience the only one thing I can always rely on no matter how trusting or creepy a photographer might seem is:

sign a model release

Anyone taking photos without signing something is in BIG trouble. SO many things can, and do happen. Photographers die and though you may have trusted them, what about the someone that inherits the photos? What if you get really famous or go on to run for School Trustee, etc? SIGN SIGN SIGN NO MATTER WHAT.

The model release is protection for the model that her photos are only going to be used the way she outlines (sometimes the release says they are for her only and he is not even to use them in a portfolio). The model release is also protection for the photographer from a model who has changed her mind (as happens a lot in adult work). And the release is also very very important for the photographer should he ever be audited and accused of child pornography or exploiting a sex-slave worker, etc. "Look here's the release, she's legal".

Doesn't matter what the purposes of the photos are, always sign a release so that later the other party can not use the photos in ways you do not want and also can not change their mind and make you stop using the photos.



btw this is a really relevant thread and it is good that you started it. I have known way too many girls that have gotten in trouble. Being diligent is really important. Someone that is a good person and you trust will not be offended, even a boyfriend. If they are offended or say something like "that's not necessary" it is a sign to RUN no matter who they are.

Also unless you know a photographer never go to an indoor shoot or an outdoor shoot in a private location alone. I had one photographer who wanted me to come to a shoot and told me outright "you do not need a chaperone" and when I said I would bring one anyway he made a big deal about it and told me not to. Needless to say I did not photograph with him and his name went out to all the art models I know.

 

[turquine]

All good advice Katlyn. As a semi-pro photographer myself I always make it a point to invite the model to bring a chaperone. It makes the feel of the shoot less weird.

 

[Aeiyah]

Also unless you know a photographer never go to an indoor shoot or an outdoor shoot in a private location alone. I had one photographer who wanted me to come to a shoot and told me outright "you do not need a chaperone" and when I said I would bring one anyway he made a big deal about it and told me not to. Needless to say I did not photograph with him and his name went out to all the art models I know.

Whether or not to have a chaperone is another can of worms which I've seen lengthy debates on photography forums. If the chaperone sits quietly in the corner during the shoot, the photographer shouldn't have a problem with the model bringing one.

 

[james29]

Talking about model releases and things like "copyright" are find and dandy, but look at what business we're talking about here - escorting, which is technically illegal. This is why I bet a lot of escorts don't do things "by the book" (model releases).

What if the photographer gets a virus and someone steals their photos? Or steals their computer/laptop? What good is a model release if something like that happens? Come to think of it, if your pictures ended up on the internet how would you prove the photographer broke your contract? Could anyone here actually afford the legal costs to go after the photographer? Would you want the publicity? If the photographer simply said "I had a laptop stolen from my car" then that would be the end of your case. Unless you think you can get a photographer to put something into the contract that makes them responsible for "leaked" pictures whether through theft or any other means (which I doubt anyone would put into writing).


If I was an escort I'd simply demand that I own the pictures and never let anyone else have copies of them. If I was taking "normal" fashion type shots, I might not be concerned, but if I was taking nudes or more explicit stuff, then I'd be damned sure nobody had copies of my pics but me.


BTW, I know that few cameras have dual memory card slots, but I'm using that as an example of what devious photographers can do. There are also wireless transmitters where cameras can send pics to a laptop through a wifi connection. And with high-end cameras dropping in price all the time you know these features will be in the hands of more photographers as time goes by.

 

[maxx50]

get your facts right

first off James29 ., how long have you been reading this board and you still thing that escorting is illegal.. Prostitution is legal in Canada escorting more so because they have to get a city licence to operate as a mobile escort or as an agency
There was another thread on this last month and i thought that concluded that A individual has the sole right to there own image when it come to any part of it being published or used in advertising . unless they have signed an agreement of some kind . that could be a contract to model for a product or service. or a release that allows the photographer to use the photos as he wants. and in both cases the model has been payed.
Now the problem allways come with enforcing your rights. First if you don't see it being shown , then you don't know . If some one pulls it off the Internet they may be braking copy right law because alot of picture site have a automatic copy right to the person that post the picture such as frickr and other photo sharing site There you can not publish those pictures with out written consent from the poster. But then a gain you must track down the correct offending parties and pay for legal action.. if you have the ability to do that... If there was not any large amount on money made from the pictures then there is very little you will be able to try to claim
Here on perb we are talking about nude and explicit picture .. and once they are shown here they are basically in the public domain and they could show up any where . Of course they are not the originals.
Any pictures that you allow take of your self you are doing under a level of trust .. and understanding of how those pictures are to be used..
Two people that i have taken a number of photos of MIa and Audrey actually may know more about this .. because they have been involved with professional photographer and with modeling contracts.

 

[Katlyn]

Talking about model releases and things like "copyright" are find and dandy, but look at what business we're talking about here - escorting, which is technically illegal. This is why I bet a lot of escorts don't do things "by the book" (model releases).

What if the photographer gets a virus and someone steals their photos? Or steals their computer/laptop? What good is a model release if something like that happens? Come to think of it, if your pictures ended up on the internet how would you prove the photographer broke your contract? Could anyone here actually afford the legal costs to go after the photographer? Would you want the publicity? If the photographer simply said "I had a laptop stolen from my car" then that would be the end of your case. Unless you think you can get a photographer to put something into the contract that makes them responsible for "leaked" pictures whether through theft or any other means (which I doubt anyone would put into writing).


If I was an escort I'd simply demand that I own the pictures and never let anyone else have copies of them. If I was taking "normal" fashion type shots, I might not be concerned, but if I was taking nudes or more explicit stuff, then I'd be damned sure nobody had copies of my pics but me.


BTW, I know that few cameras have dual memory card slots, but I'm using that as an example of what devious photographers can do. There are also wireless transmitters where cameras can send pics to a laptop through a wifi connection. And with high-end cameras dropping in price all the time you know these features will be in the hands of more photographers as time goes by.

Everything you just said is erroneous, I'm sorry. Escorting is TOTALLY legal to start with and as for the whole someone stole my laptop thing...well you just proved my point. Of course you wouldn't go after the photog, you'd go after the person using them illegally. If it came out in the investigation that the photog actually sold them or provided them than yah he is in trouble as well. But if someone is using your photos (ie the person that stole them, etc) and you do not have a signed model release you are powerless. If you have one then you can go after them. If a magazine/website/etc published photos of you and you have a release that proves they did not have permission to do that you have a solid case against them. You ever hear of a celebrity sex tape scandal where a company is taken to court because of the release? No never because they only buy and publish stuff that they can not get in trouble for (ie no release stating they are not allowed to)...naughty photos someone made with their boyfriend at the time (no release) are the ones that get out, not the naughty photos that they did for fun at the end of their implied nudity shoot for Vanity Fair (where a release would have been signed) -- and believe me those types of photos exist in abundance but we will never see them.

 

[turquine]

There was another thread on this last month and i thought that concluded that A individual has the sole right to there own image when it come to any part of it being published or used in advertising . unless they have signed an agreement of some kind .

Sorry maxx, the law doesn't support this conclusion. Creators of a work automatically have copyright of their work, unless it's a contracted work-for-hire. In this case, the creator is the photographer and the work is the photography.

Photos taken in a public place, or anywhere that the subject(s) in the photo have "no reasonable expectation of privacy" belong to the photographer. If you were walking down the street, I could snap your photo and sell it, and if I made millions from it you would have absolutely zero recourse.

 

[Sandman333]

Hi again...kinda keeping track of this thread. There are several examples of model releases online, even some you can download. You just have to google it. I always use one when shooting models (the whole cover-your-ass technique).

Just a little background, I have been in the photography industry for over 15 years. When I first started, Canada didn't have any copywright laws pertaining to photographers, illustrators, and graphic artists - essentially a model release was worth nothing at the time. Many people fought long and hard to get those laws put in place. As a result we now have them, and reputable photographers, illustrators, and graphic artists will not release their rights, as they shouldn't.

A reputable photographer will use a release, and won't mind a chaperone. It's the ones that don't use a release you should run from.

 

[JustCallMeR]

So much misinformation!

There's been so much complete misinformation here, let's set it straight.
(and yes, I am a professional in this particular area, and no, I'm not taking on new clients, and yes, this has all been vetted by the lawyers).

First, a nude/semi nude photo of someone who can be identified from the photograph is NOT the same as taking other types of photos of someone, nor is it the same as taking a photo of someone in a crowd or someone who's newsworthy or who is photographed at a newsworthy event. It gets into different areas of "expectations of privacy" and the public implications about their "moral reputation", etc.

Second, "ownership" of such photos may allow you to use them privately (by yourself) but it does NOT mean that you can sell them or show them to others UNLESS YOU HAVE A MODEL RELEASE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO SO. PERIOD.

End of story.