MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Shutterstock.com => Topic started by: Axel Lauer on April 16, 2014, 11:59
-
Hi,
4 weeks ago one of my employees made that joke and the whole team were laughing their heads of:
"Wait a while - soon SS will ask for a PR of the tatoo-artist if you shoot a portrait and the person has a tatoo."
Oh boy - what a laughter....
You should never make jokes like that............
Rejected:
"TATTOOS-We require a property release from the tattoo artist for all prominent tattoos"
Example: http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg (http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg)
And for this one i have to send you 12 PRs???
http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg (http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg)
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Oh no, i am sure it will be like this:
You need a PR from the farmer who owns the sheep D&G made that coat from the model wears on your shooting.
Thats the future.
Strange that its always SS which makes these "special" rules.
Why dont they invent something useful instead?
BTW:
I heard there will be a new agency with 90% split for the photographers in the first year and not less than 75% forever , no subsystem and you set your price yourself and they have a big print-company in the background as financial sponsors.
Does anyone knows more about that?
---
admin edit: updated title
-
I'd say that's pretty prominent artwork. What's the difference if it is drawn on paper or skin?
-
If these people had tattoos of your photos, you would want a release required, right? The tattoo artists, if it's assumed that they hold the copyright to the design (I'm not sure if they always do, but it's certainly original art in many cases), should have some control of where their art is displayed.
I see a disturbing trend in this forum that dismisses the value of art other than photography. People decry the slighted devaluing of photography but are continually angry that they can't take advantage of other art forms.
-
???
You really dont know the difference between a more or less documentary photo of a painting (which can be considered as a copy) or a photo of a model which has a tatoo she paid for (which can be considered as a own, new artwork)????
Sean, this really surprises me!
If this would be true than the tattooartist would have a kind of sovereign power above the person the tattoo is on.
The model paid for a tattoo and after that she is not free anymore to do what she wants??
this is the most weird concept / idea i have ever heard of (beside timetravel)
@ppdd
what surprises me too is the absence of knowledge.
If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself if it has a certain level (Schöpfungshöhe http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he))
thats a fact - even in law and even in international law.
so why should i complain about that??
-
If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself
The hypothetical painting of your photograph may breach copyright however. Exactly the same as a photograph of a photograph or a traced vector.
-
If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself
The hypothetical painting of your photograph may breach copyright however. Exactly the same as a photograph of a photograph or a traced vector.
NOT TRUE
read some courtsentences or this one:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he))
-
???
You really dont know the difference between a more or less documentary photo of a painting (which can be considered as a copy) or a photo of a model which has a tatoo she paid for (which can be considered as a own, new artwork)????
Sean, this really surprises me!
If this would be true than the tattooartist would have a kind of sovereign power above the person the tattoo is on.
The model paid for a tattoo and after that she is not free anymore to do what she wants??
this is the most weird concept / idea i have ever heard of (beside timetravel)
@ppdd
what surprises me too is the absence of knowledge.
If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself if it has a certain level (Schöpfungshöhe [url]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he[/url] ([url]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he[/url]))
thats a fact - even in law and even in international law.
so why should i complain about that??
First, tattoo designs are copyrightable: http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/tattoo_artists_are_asserting_their_copyright_claims/ (http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/tattoo_artists_are_asserting_their_copyright_claims/)
Second, by the same logic, I can do anything I want with a painting I purchased? Not true.
It seem that SS has a clear concern about this issue.
-
NOT TRUE
read some courtsentences or this one:
[url]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he[/url] ([url]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he[/url]))
Conceivably Germany has different rules. But I do not speak German and therefore cannot comment on the article.
Stock agencies need to account for lowest common denominator international regulation and therefore you are going to need a property release when you include someone else's design in a photograph. Someone owns the design of every tattoo ultimately - whether it is an identifiable logo or not.
And reference your previous point: No the models do not necessarily own the rights to what is inked on their skin. The Coca Cola or Apple logo for example. The same for anything less identifiable too.
-
Been like this with SS for YEARS!
http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63537&highlight=tattoos (http://submit.shutterstock.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=63537&highlight=tattoos)
That thread dates back to 2009!
Where have you been?
Hi,
4 weeks ago one of my employees made that joke and the whole team were laughing their heads of:
"Wait a while - soon SS will ask for a PR of the tatoo-artist if you shoot a portrait and the person has a tatoo."
Oh boy - what a laughter....
You should never make jokes like that............
Rejected:
"TATTOOS-We require a property release from the tattoo artist for all prominent tattoos"
Example: [url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url])
And for this one i have to send you 12 PRs???
[url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url])
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Oh no, i am sure it will be like this:
You need a PR from the farmer who owns the sheep D&G made that coat from the model wears on your shooting.
Thats the future.
Strange that its always SS which makes these "special" rules.
Why dont they invent something useful instead?
BTW:
I heard there will be a new agency with 90% split for the photographers in the first year and not less than 75% forever , no subsystem and you set your price yourself and they have a big print-company in the background as financial sponsors.
Does anyone knows more about that?
-
It's been that way on a few sites in the last 3-4 years. Tattoos are taboo!
-
@ppdd and bunhill,
i appreciate your contributions a lot but i would appreciate it more if you would read what i have wrote - even if it is not my motherlanguage i am writing in.
once again:
1: documentary photo of a painting (which can be considered as a copy)
2: photo of a model which has a tatoo she paid for (which can be considered as a own, new artwork)
This is not a documentary copy-shot of the tattoo!!
http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg (http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg)
If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself if it has a certain level
http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/ (http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/)
one more to think about:
Who is the copyrightholder of a fashionshoot with a prominent make-up, a hightower-haircut and a prominent outfit??
The coiffeur?
The make-up-artist?
the fashion-designer?
No, its the photographer.
The idea of Co-Copyright-holders is just a theory and has never ever become judged in practice.
Simplified you can say that its the person who pulls the trigger on the camera who owns the copyright
Indepentend from the number of assistents (light, make, style tec) he has
btw: we europeans dont have a copyright
@sean locke
what would you say if your lighting-assistent claims the copyright on your pictures (we all know that the light is the most important on an photograph)??
You like that idea?
-
I was doing a commercial shoot/ television series and the model showed up with a new Tattoo.... a disney Character.... she was sent home.
This was 12 + years ago.....
-
Hi,
4 weeks ago one of my employees made that joke and the whole team were laughing their heads of:
"Wait a while - soon SS will ask for a PR of the tatoo-artist if you shoot a portrait and the person has a tatoo."
Oh boy - what a laughter....
You should never make jokes like that............
Rejected:
"TATTOOS-We require a property release from the tattoo artist for all prominent tattoos"
Example: [url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url])
And for this one i have to send you 12 PRs???
[url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url])
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Oh no, i am sure it will be like this:
You need a PR from the farmer who owns the sheep D&G made that coat from the model wears on your shooting.
Thats the future.
Strange that its always SS which makes these "special" rules.
Why dont they invent something useful instead?
BTW:
I heard there will be a new agency with 90% split for the photographers in the first year and not less than 75% forever , no subsystem and you set your price yourself and they have a big print-company in the background as financial sponsors.
Does anyone knows more about that?
what's the big deal? just get a property release. problem solved.
-
The Coca Cola or Apple logo for example.
Not relevant.
Model does not pay Coca-Cola or Apple for using their logo - but she did that with the tattooartist.
and one more:
If this would be true than the tattooartist would have a kind of sovereign power above the person the tattoo is on.
The model paid for a tattoo
-
A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.
-
Hi,
4 weeks ago one of my employees made that joke and the whole team were laughing their heads of:
"Wait a while - soon SS will ask for a PR of the tatoo-artist if you shoot a portrait and the person has a tatoo."
Oh boy - what a laughter....
You should never make jokes like that............
Rejected:
"TATTOOS-We require a property release from the tattoo artist for all prominent tattoos"
Example: [url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url])
And for this one i have to send you 12 PRs???
[url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url])
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Oh no, i am sure it will be like this:
You need a PR from the farmer who owns the sheep D&G made that coat from the model wears on your shooting.
Thats the future.
Strange that its always SS which makes these "special" rules.
Why dont they invent something useful instead?
BTW:
I heard there will be a new agency with 90% split for the photographers in the first year and not less than 75% forever , no subsystem and you set your price yourself and they have a big print-company in the background as financial sponsors.
Does anyone knows more about that?
what's the big deal? just get a property release. problem solved.
On what planet are you living??
-
A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.
You hit the nail
-
Calm down now, just a normal discussion going on
-
A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.
Not necessarily. Because a design may be either copyrighted, trademarked or both. It's obvious if the design is well known logo but less obvious in most cases. Therefore you can see why the agencies need to take a one-size-fits-all cautious approach.
I could hire you to tattoo the Apple logo on me. But neither you nor I could sign a property release for that.
-
A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.
Not necessarily. Because a design may be either copyrighted, trademarked or both. It's obvious if the design is well known logo but less obvious in most cases. Therefore you can see why the agencies need to take a one-size-fits-all cautious approach.
I could hire you to tattoo the Apple logo on me. But neither you nor I could sign a property release for that.
Yeah, thats obvious. I said its not strange to think I didnt say it was definite. But my tattoo on my back is my design and the artist tattooed it. Its unique, and I told what to tattoo, so technically I own the copyright to my own tattoo
-
FYI - there is a related debate with respect to who owns the copyright to graffiti.
A graffiti artist might have acted illegally and the property owner may not have been best pleased. But in many countries the graffiti artist would still ultimately probably be ruled to own the rights to the work. Because copyright law is neutral with respect to how an art work came to exist or what it is painted on.
-
I'd say that's pretty prominent artwork. What's the difference if it is drawn on paper or skin?
The difference is that, while no one can claim the authorship of the tattoo except the artist who's created it, ALL the other rights belong to the person who has paid for it.
The tattoo is nothing more than a commissioned work, where the person who has paid for it can do whatever he wants except saying that it was made by John when it was in fact made by Joe.
If a company contracts you to photograph an event, they own all the rights except authorship over the photos unless stated otherwise. The same with wedding photos, where the married couple own all the photos.
The only problem I would consider is if the depiction of the tattoo is defamatory to the artist. Other than that there's no case.
And why should a tattoo be any different especially if it's painted over the body of someone else. Wouldn't that be a limitation of the individual liberties of the individual?!
Why should a tattooed person not be allowed to be a model, despite being the owner of ALL the rights over the tattoo? You may allow your house to be used in an advertisement, but not your body?! Does this make any sense?
At least in Portugal the Code for Author's Rights make a distinction between Authorship and Ownership. As mentioned earlier the only right an artist preserves is the Authorship. Other than that the Owner can do whatever he wishes with the work. Even set it on fire...
-
FYI - there is a related debate with respect to who owns the copyright to graffiti.
A graffiti artist might have acted illegally and the property owner may not have been best pleased. But in many countries the graffiti artist would still ultimately probably be ruled to own the rights to the work. Because copyright law is neutral with respect to how an art work came to exist or what it is painted on.
But if the owner of the wall paid for the graffiti, the artist would have absolutely no rights except claiming authorship. Just like a wedding photographer.
The person who paid owns all the rights.
-
one more to think about:
Who is the copyrightholder of a fashionshoot with a prominent make-up, a hightower-haircut and a prominent outfit??
The coiffeur?
The make-up-artist?
the fashion-designer?
No, its the photographer.
The idea of Co-Copyright-holders is just a theory and has never ever become judged in practice.
Simplified you can say that its the person who pulls the trigger on the camera who owns the copyright
Indepentend from the number of assistents (light, make, style tec) he has
Germany law would require that you get a release from the make-up-artist and fashion-designer. I don't have the time to find a link for you but I'm sure you can find the info.
-
I was doing a commercial shoot/ television series and the model showed up with a new Tattoo.... a disney Character.... she was sent home.
This was 12 + years ago.....
That is a completely different case. The problem is not the tattoo, but the character depicted in it which is protected by copyright.
-
I cannot speak for Portugal. But in many countries the photographer owns the copyright to wedding photos unless there is a contract to the contrary.
-
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/06/hangover-tattoo-dispute-ed-helms-hangover-2-tattoo.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/06/hangover-tattoo-dispute-ed-helms-hangover-2-tattoo.html)
-
It may be that the agencies just find it easier to demand a release than having to find out on every occasion 1) whether the matter in the tattoo is a registered trademark or copyrighted material 2) whether it is straight "work for hire" or was there some contractual provision that left copyright with the artist.
The economics of microstock do not allow for detailed research in cases of doubt, so the agencies generally apply the precautionary principle and reject stuff unless the photographer provides good reason for them not to. If you must use tattooed models, it's up to you and the model to produce the paperwork they want - regardless of whether it is strictly needed or not. Those are their rules and they have them for a reason.
There are plenty of other areas where they are over-cautious and reject images that are almost certainly not going to create problems.
-
By they way, I don't see "skin art" listed in the listing of "work for hire".
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf)
Just because you pay someone for a service doesn't mean you own the art. Same as hiring a photographer to shoot your wedding, in lieu of a contract saying copyright is transferred.
-
I do if I told him what to tattoo.
-
I do if I told him what to tattoo.
Why would that be different that telling your wedding photographer what to shoot? It's the act of creation and originality, not the definition of the source material.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-raustiala-tattoo-copyright-20131006,0,3026228.story#axzz2z4yNTAyu (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-raustiala-tattoo-copyright-20131006,0,3026228.story#axzz2z4yNTAyu)
-
Its my idea and design, the tattooist just uses a tool to translate it to my skin
-
Its my idea and design, the tattooist just uses a tool to translate it to my skin
And the photographer just uses a tool to translate it to a piece of paper. I'd argue there's more skill in the act of translating an idea successfully to someone's skin than capturing a photo.
-
If I set up a shot, place the people, dial the settings, and just ask someone to click the shutter, I own copyright to the shot
-
If I set up a shot, place the people, dial the settings, and just ask someone to click the shutter, I own copyright to the shot
That's not the same as saying "I want this Superman logo on my arm", unless you're picking the ink, choosing the needle, dialing in the settings, etc.
-
Another interesting read....
http://www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/commentary/copyrighting-tattoos-97374498/ (http://www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/commentary/copyrighting-tattoos-97374498/)
-
[url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/06/hangover-tattoo-dispute-ed-helms-hangover-2-tattoo.html[/url] ([url]http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/06/hangover-tattoo-dispute-ed-helms-hangover-2-tattoo.html[/url])
That situation is different from what we're talking about, because the tattooer did not sue Mike Tyson for appearing in the movie with a tattoo of his authorship. As far as I can tell he would have no case since Tyson owns the tattoo, and above all his own body.
The tattooer has no rights over anyone else's body. And this applies to a model in a photo shoot. It would be surreal if it was given permission for a tattoo artist to command the life of others, and their way of living. That would not stand in any court in the world.
The issue of the case mentioned is closer to plagiarism. The studio used his design and copied it to the face of another person. In that case there could be a violation of authorship, but not ownership. A simple case of plagiarism. But not more than that I think.
The agencies may be careful with this issue because of cases like the one mentioned earlier about a tattoo of a disney character. Since the agencies cannot determine if the tattoo is an original work or a copy of somebody else art - Disney characters, coca-cola and apple are easy, but what about the rest? - they take the cautious approach.
-
I was doing a commercial shoot/ television series and the model showed up with a new Tattoo.... a disney Character.... she was sent home.
This was 12 + years ago.....
That is a completely different case. The problem is not the tattoo, but the character depicted in it which is protected by copyright.
So if the artwork is created by Disney it has copyright, but if the artwork is created by someone else it doesn't have copyright?
-
Another interesting read....
[url]http://www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/commentary/copyrighting-tattoos-97374498/[/url] ([url]http://www.globallegalpost.com/blogs/commentary/copyrighting-tattoos-97374498/[/url])
Just read that article and it coincides with most of my comments.
-
The tattooer has no rights over anyone else's body. And this applies to a model in a photo shoot. It would be surreal if it was given permission for a tattoo artist to command the life of others, and their way of living. That would not stand in any court in the world.
You seem to be disinclined to give the tattoo artist the rights he is due regarding promotional use of his art, merely because the choice of medium is skin instead of canvas. No one is saying the recipient can't go to the store or do whatever he likes. We're discussing using the artwork on their body as a focal point for a commercial use. If they are someone who uses their body for this kind of thing on a regular basis, they should know enough to secure the proper permission for a custom piece of work.
-
So if the artwork is created by Disney it has copyright, but if the artwork is created by someone else it doesn't have copyright?
I think the issue is copying a character or unique design versus a common subject such as a flower
-
So if the artwork is created by Disney it has copyright, but if the artwork is created by someone else it doesn't have copyright?
I think the issue is copying a character or unique design versus a common subject such as a flower
Exactly.
We should not mix up "skill" with "creation".
If the act of picking the ink, choosing the needle, dialing in the settings, etc. would be ART (instead of the creation of the image on the skin), then all sewing, embroidery, basket weaving, carpentry etc would also be ART, and therefore require a PR. But no, it is only needed if there is a true "creation".
My mother loves embroidery, and she's very skilled, but she only works from an example, so she's not "creating" anything. I'm not saying such skills cannot be art, just that the act itself does not make it art. Pottery is a great example : you can make true pottery art, or you can just use your pottery skills to make a basic vase. The same way a tattoo can be just a tattoo (like a word) or a piece of art.
Interesting discussion!
-
The tattooer has no rights over anyone else's body. And this applies to a model in a photo shoot. It would be surreal if it was given permission for a tattoo artist to command the life of others, and their way of living. That would not stand in any court in the world.
You seem to be disinclined to give the tattoo artist the rights he is due regarding promotional use of his art, merely because the choice of medium is skin instead of canvas. No one is saying the recipient can't go to the store or do whatever he likes. We're discussing using the artwork on their body as a focal point for a commercial use. If they are someone who uses their body for this kind of thing on a regular basis, they should know enough to secure the proper permission for a custom piece of work.
This is relatively similar to photographing copyrighted architecture. If your main focus in a photo is a particular building, there could be a violation of copyright. Yet if that building is seen in a skyline of a city or a cityscape those rights cannot be invoked.
So, if the photo or filming focuses specifically in a tattoo or tattoos there could eventually be a case of copyright violation. But if the photo or filming focuses on the model, where the tattoo is a part of the "landscape" and not even the main focus I do not believe that would be considered a copyright violation.
But in the end it all comes down to who OWNS the art. And that would be the person who contracted the artist and paid for it. Again, the tattooer only owns the authorship and can only profit in cases of plagiarism (like the movie case) or eventually the use of his work in defamatory or sensitive cases at best, like having a close-up of his tattoo used in a racist or political ad.
-
I guess this thread is a perfect example of why Shutterstock is opting to be conservative in hopes of avoiding copyright problems...
::)
-
I guess this thread is a perfect example of why Shutterstock is opting to be conservative in hopes of avoiding copyright problems...
::)
I agree with you and Paul about that, but if I sign a PR of my tattoo, I have every right to do so. If I sign the PR, shutterstock will accept it, in case the tattoo artist goes after SS, they will show the PR, the artist will come after me, and I will have no issue as I told him what I wanted and paid him to put it on me, so its fully mine. I am will even say this, if the artist chooses to put that tattoo on someone else he could well be copying my design.
-
"But in the end it all comes down to who OWNS the art. And that would be the person who contracted the artist and paid for it."
Ownership does not indicate copyright. You can own a Porsche, but that doesn't give you promotional rights to it. This is basic stuff.
-
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Yes, if your model is wearing a D&G coat and it is obviously a D&G coat you would need a property release. Same with any trademarked brand of clothing. Shoes most often create the biggest problem in this area...recognizable logos are not OK to sell commercially.
-Mat
-
"But in the end it all comes down to who OWNS the art. And that would be the person who contracted the artist and paid for it."
Ownership does not indicate copyright. You can own a Porsche, but that doesn't give you promotional rights to it. This is basic stuff.
That is a completely different thing that cannot be compared with the tattoo issue. You are buying a vehicle and the utilitarian aspect of it, an object. You are not buying the design concept that wraps around the utility. You buy the object but a "license" for the use of the design, sort of.
In a tattoo, you are paying for a unique object custom made by you specifications. The artist have the authorship but the rights over the work cease there. If the tattoo was made in a pork skin, the artist would own all rights if he kept it. If he sells it, the same happens.
He's protected against plagiarism, but doesn't own any more rights over the work.
This is basic stuff.
-
Hi,
4 weeks ago one of my employees made that joke and the whole team were laughing their heads of:
"Wait a while - soon SS will ask for a PR of the tatoo-artist if you shoot a portrait and the person has a tatoo."
Oh boy - what a laughter....
You should never make jokes like that............
Rejected:
"TATTOOS-We require a property release from the tattoo artist for all prominent tattoos"
Example: [url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url])
And for this one i have to send you 12 PRs???
[url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url])
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Oh no, i am sure it will be like this:
You need a PR from the farmer who owns the sheep D&G made that coat from the model wears on your shooting.
Thats the future.
Strange that its always SS which makes these "special" rules.
Why dont they invent something useful instead?
BTW:
I heard there will be a new agency with 90% split for the photographers in the first year and not less than 75% forever , no subsystem and you set your price yourself and they have a big print-company in the background as financial sponsors.
Does anyone knows more about that?
what's the big deal? just get a property release. problem solved.
On what planet are you living??
On what planet are you living? Why don't you respect the copyright of other artists who work in a different format than you have chosen? What if someone made a painting or an illustration (or a tattoo) of one of your images for example? How is that 'different'?
-
If I set up a shot, place the people, dial the settings, and just ask someone to click the shutter, I own copyright to the shot
I think that if you do a little looking around, not even this is clear cut. The person pressing the button can be seen to hold the copyright in many cases. It's never simple.
-
Now this make me worry. I bought vinyl backdrops for my photography. After some inspection, I think the texture and pattern printed on the vinyl are stock images. I assume the well known seller probably bought extended right for resell. Can I submit the photos taken with this backdrops to be sold as stock photos? Do I need a release or need to buy extended license from the artist too?
-
It wouldn't be any different than a picture in a frame. You'd need a PR.
-
If I set up a shot, place the people, dial the settings, and just ask someone to click the shutter, I own copyright to the shot
I think that if you do a little looking around, not even this is clear cut. The person pressing the button can be seen to hold the copyright in many cases. It's never simple.
Not in Canada, the person who clicked the shutter owns the copyright. Although if it was my camera and my setup I and it was a big deal, I would bring it to court. Not that I could afford to hire a lawyer.... but....
A lot of these tattoo artists work from a "sample book" don't they? So even they don't own that copyright - the people publishing the sample book would. Murky, yes. But those tattoos are usually the "hey, I'm drunk... lets go get a tattoo" kind. Anyone I know who is serious about their tattoos work for weeks with their artists and preplan everything.
-
Here's an actual legal paper related to exactly this topic, lightly covering implied license, fair use, etc.
http://coatsandbennett.com/images/pdf/the-copyright-implications-of-tattoos.pdf (http://coatsandbennett.com/images/pdf/the-copyright-implications-of-tattoos.pdf)
-
Hi,
4 weeks ago one of my employees made that joke and the whole team were laughing their heads of:
"Wait a while - soon SS will ask for a PR of the tatoo-artist if you shoot a portrait and the person has a tatoo."
Oh boy - what a laughter....
You should never make jokes like that............
Rejected:
"TATTOOS-We require a property release from the tattoo artist for all prominent tattoos"
Example: [url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-paula-mandy.jpg[/url])
And for this one i have to send you 12 PRs???
[url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url] ([url]http://www.axellauer.de/wp-content/uploads/slider-anna-just.jpg[/url])
What comes next....??
PR from Dolce & Gabana if a model wears a D&G coat?
Oh no, i am sure it will be like this:
You need a PR from the farmer who owns the sheep D&G made that coat from the model wears on your shooting.
Thats the future.
Strange that its always SS which makes these "special" rules.
Why dont they invent something useful instead?
BTW:
I heard there will be a new agency with 90% split for the photographers in the first year and not less than 75% forever , no subsystem and you set your price yourself and they have a big print-company in the background as financial sponsors.
Does anyone knows more about that?
what's the big deal? just get a property release. problem solved.
On what planet are you living??
On what planet are you living? Why don't you respect the copyright of other artists who work in a different format than you have chosen? What if someone made a painting or an illustration (or a tattoo) of one of your images for example? How is that 'different'?
Its different because its not work for hire. You take a photo and copy it. In this case the OP has a MR and the agency doesnt accept it. The model, who owns the tattoo, gave permission.
-
So what if the tattoo artists decides he doesnt want his work to be seen in public, does that mean he can demand me never to take my shirt of ever again when on the beach or in a swimming pool?
-
So what if the tattoo artists decides he doesnt want his work to be seen in public, does that mean he can demand me never to take my shirt of ever again when on the beach or in a swimming pool?
We aren't talking about display. We're talking about commercial usage. Same as you can by a poster at Target and display it where you like, but you can't use it in your stock photos. I'm not sure why this is thought to be 'work for hire'. We all seem to understand wedding photography isn't work for hire, but there seems to be some mental block here.
-
It may be that the agencies just find it easier to demand a release than having to find out on every occasion 1) whether the matter in the tattoo is a registered trademark or copyrighted material 2) whether it is straight "work for hire" or was there some contractual provision that left copyright with the artist.
The economics of microstock do not allow for detailed research in cases of doubt, so the agencies generally apply the precautionary principle and reject stuff unless the photographer provides good reason for them not to. If you must use tattooed models, it's up to you and the model to produce the paperwork they want - regardless of whether it is strictly needed or not. Those are their rules and they have them for a reason.
There are plenty of other areas where they are over-cautious and reject images that are almost certainly not going to create problems.
Yes excactly.
Its easy enough for the agencies to pass the joker to the contributors. There are images and contributors enough, so they play it safe and place the risk where it belongs. BUT let us not forget that that is also a competitive edge among the agencies. They can guarantee the images, and attract more customers.
Outsourced means that everything is outsourced, the work, the risk, the investment. The agencies just find the customers.
Thats fine enough, as long as they dont get sneaky, and begin to cheat us, like some other well known agency did.
-
So what if the tattoo artists decides he doesnt want his work to be seen in public, does that mean he can demand me never to take my shirt of ever again when on the beach or in a swimming pool?
We aren't talking about display. We're talking about commercial usage. Same as you can by a poster at Target and display it where you like, but you can't use it in your stock photos. I'm not sure why this is thought to be 'work for hire'. We all seem to understand wedding photography isn't work for hire, but there seems to be some mental block here.
I was just asking a new question.
Anyway, it all seems simple to you, but if you search the internet its not so 'basic stuff'.
I dont want to get into a discussion where the one that shouts the loudest is right.
I dont agree with you, lets keep it at that.
-
So what if the tattoo artists decides he doesnt want his work to be seen in public, does that mean he can demand me never to take my shirt of ever again when on the beach or in a swimming pool?
We aren't talking about display. We're talking about commercial usage. Same as you can by a poster at Target and display it where you like, but you can't use it in your stock photos. I'm not sure why this is thought to be 'work for hire'. We all seem to understand wedding photography isn't work for hire, but there seems to be some mental block here.
I was just asking a new question.
Anyway, it all seems simple to you, but if you search the internet its not so 'basic stuff'.
I dont want to get into a discussion where the one that shouts the loudest is right.
I dont agree with you, lets keep it at that.
If the tattoo artist draws an original image on a piece of paper, are you allowed to feature that piece of paper in an image for commercial licensing?
-
what surprises me too is the absence of knowledge.
If someone makes a painting out of my photograph that painting is a piece of art which stands for itself if it has a certain level (Schöpfungshöhe [url]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he[/url] ([url]http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he[/url]))
thats a fact - even in law and even in international law.
so why should i complain about that??
So... can you point me to a link that says the other way around would be totally fine? I mean if you take a picture of a painting (say, by Picasso), you believe that you have the Copyright (or Urheberrecht) in the whole piece and could commercially sell those images?
I dare you to try that.
-
Anyway, it all seems simple to you, but if you search the internet its not so 'basic stuff'.
Hey, there's some voice of reason: Yes, it's not so "basic stuff". So it's not just a simple call of "right" or "wrong". Then why should an agency not be allowed to make their own judgements based on the risk and expected rewards?
People like the OP may or may not be right. You may or may not be right. Chances are that everyone is right when you construct the hypothetical situation in a way that suits their point. In the end, we are dealing with selling images with a license for commercial use to an unknown kind of customer in an unknown kind of location, so none of us can be sure that our judgement would work in all cases. And as Shutterstock (along with Getty/iStock) are among the few agencies who are actually giving a legal guarantee to the client, I think it's no surprise that in case of a doubt they decide not to take that risk...
-
I never said the agency cant make their own call, in fact I fully understand why they do it. But its not the law they uphold.
-
When you buy an original painting, you buy the physical object to have and enjoy. In most circumstances you own only the artwork, not the copyright to it. That remains with the artist unless they specifically sign over their copyright to the buyer, or it was done as work for hire, or the copyright has expired.
You don't automatically acquire the right to reproduce a painting as cards, prints, posters, on t-shirts, etc, along with the painting. It's the same as when you buy a book, film, music, vase, carpet, table, etc: you're acquiring the right to own and enjoy the item but not the right to reproduce it.
or it was done as work for hire would pertain to something like a hired fresco painted in someone's home or a painted portrait.
-
I never said the agency cant make their own call, in fact I fully understand why they do it. But its not the law they uphold.
Sure it's the law. Unless other arrangements were made, copyright to a tattoo image resides with the artist who designed it.
The only way a model can claim copyright to a tattoo is if either a.) they drew the design entirely themselves and just hired a tattoo artist to do the ink, or b.) they had the tattoo artist sign over copyright. And even under those circumstances it is still wise for agencies to reject stuff with prominent tattoos visible. Even in a case where the model claims to have rights to the tattoo design, who knows really if that is accurate. It's very common for people to just snag designs off the web and go to tattoo shops and say "Here, put this on me."
I know Von Glitschka was having a big problem with this for a while. He'd have people email him photos saying, "Check out this tattoo I got of one of your designs!" Really those people have no right to just take his work and get a tattoo of it. A tattoo in itself is a reproduction of a copyrighted work in some cases.
-
I got an email recently that someone had one of my stock icons tattooed on their arm:
(http://www.emberstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/leaf-tattoo.jpg)
It's a complicated story, the guy hired a "designer" to do a logo for his business, the "designer" gave him a stock icon and claimed it was original, the guy loved it so much he got it tattooed, then later found out it was stock and contacted me to try and work out a rights buyout.
Anyway, as it relates to this topic, suppose the guy went and did a stock shoot as a model. If that tattoo features prominently in an image, I wouldn't want those images to be used commercially without my consent. That's my design, I still own the copyright to it.
It doesn't matter that it's on a business card, a piece of paper, or someone's arm. That is still my design, and I own the rights to it.
-
Great anecdote.
-
I never said the agency cant make their own call, in fact I fully understand why they do it. But its not the law they uphold.
Sure it's the law. Unless other arrangements were made, copyright to a tattoo image resides with the artist who designed it.
The only way a model can claim copyright to a tattoo is if either a.) they drew the design entirely themselves and just hired a tattoo artist to do the ink, or b.) they had the tattoo artist sign over copyright. And even under those circumstances it is still wise for agencies to reject stuff with prominent tattoos visible. Even in a case where the model claims to have rights to the tattoo design, who knows really if that is accurate. It's very common for people to just snag designs off the web and go to tattoo shops and say "Here, put this on me."
I know Von Glitschka was having a big problem with this for a while. He'd have people email him photos saying, "Check out this tattoo I got of one of your designs!" Really those people have no right to just take his work and get a tattoo of it. A tattoo in itself is a reproduction of a copyrighted work in some cases.
I mean, the agencies dont follow exact law, they are tougher then the law. Same with model releases. Not all images need a MR, but they do ask for it.
Funny fact. I was recently asked by a Dutch agency to remove the model release as it wasnt needed.
-
I got an email recently that someone had one of my stock icons tattooed on their arm:
([url]http://www.emberstudio.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/leaf-tattoo.jpg[/url])
It's a complicated story, the guy hired a "designer" to do a logo for his business, the "designer" gave him a stock icon and claimed it was original, the guy loved it so much he got it tattooed, then later found out it was stock and contacted me to try and work out a rights buyout.
Anyway, as it relates to this topic, suppose the guy went and did a stock shoot as a model. If that tattoo features prominently in an image, I wouldn't want those images to be used commercially without my consent. That's my design, I still own the copyright to it.
It doesn't matter that it's on a business card, a piece of paper, or someone's arm. That is still my design, and I own the rights to it.
But that completely backs up my earlier statements. I told the artist what to tattoo on my back, so I own it.
-
It's a difficult argument. I would think many tattoo artists use stock or common imagery in their work (I don't know for sure, as I have no tattoos, but I see the same or very similar tattoos on lots of people). So who owns the copyright? The original designer of the tattoo? The artist who inked it? Lots of images here are keyworded "tattoo." (Some of mine are.) Does the photographer need a release from me and the tattoo artist then?
-
The artwork might be protected, if it's an original design.
The ink job isn't.
I don't know why it's gotten into a deep convoluted debate. If the tattoo artist used a stock book design, it's not protected.
The agency can't know, so they ask for a release to protect themselves and AND the buyer.
This isn't really new. We can't use Graffiti either, now tell me some little criminal tagger with cans of spray paint has the rights and protection, to their art work. What's better is I'd love to see them in court, and then have them tossed for a few years or have to pay for damages for their "art". :)
But beyond my personal feelings about destruction of others personal property, they are protected. That's the way the law works. Not always what we'd like it to be, but on a consistent basis of fairness and equal protection.
A protected original art tattoo is the same as an oil painting. The End.
It's a difficult argument. I would think many tattoo artists use stock or common imagery in their work (I don't know for sure, as I have no tattoos, but I see the same or very similar tattoos on lots of people). So who owns the copyright? The original designer of the tattoo? The artist who inked it? Lots of images here are keyworded "tattoo." (Some of mine are.) Does the photographer need a release from me and the tattoo artist then?
-
Can the people who voted my comment down explain to me why I am wrong? Honest question, because when its my design, on my skin, why shouldnt I hold copyright? Whats different from Mike having copyright to his design?
-
I didn't vote you down, but if you suggested something, but the tattoo artist had to sketch it and come up with the actual design, then I would say he owns it. Not sure if that's your situation.
I remember, when I was designing clothes, I had one client who would say "I need a pair of pants," and I would sketch a bunch of designs and she'd select one and I'd sew the darned things, then she would asked for them to be lengthened or shortened. Yet she got a writeup in the NY Times Magazine and told the reporter she designed her own clothes...and the article was accompanied by a photo of all the clothes I'd designed for her. >:/ Grrrr.
-
Ron I think there's a big difference between telling a tattoo artist what you want done and designing a tattoo yourself.
If I take one of my stock images to a tattoo artist, I still own the design. Someone downloads one of my stock images and takes it to a tattoo artist, again I still own the design. I tell a tattoo artist I want a leaf tattoo and he/she draws/designs it, they own the design.
Just because something is on your skin doesn't mean you own it. You own your skin, or the paper the design is drawn on, or the screen you're viewing the image on. The image itself is copyrighted by the person who created the image.
-
So if I tell the artist what I want done, I tell him I want a tribal with a radioactive sign and he draws it for me, and I pay him for it, its his copyright?
-
So if I tell the artist what I want done, I tell him I want a tribal with a radioactive sign and he draws it for me, and I pay him for it, its his copyright?
Yes. It may be your idea, but it's his copyright when he puts it in a fixed medium like a tattoo.
-
Maybe this is the reason they want a release?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-raustiala-tattoo-copyright-20131006,0,3026228.story#axzz2zAS0uKbC (http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-raustiala-tattoo-copyright-20131006,0,3026228.story#axzz2zAS0uKbC)
-
Here's an actual legal paper related to exactly this topic, lightly covering implied license, fair use, etc.
[url]http://coatsandbennett.com/images/pdf/the-copyright-implications-of-tattoos.pdf[/url] ([url]http://coatsandbennett.com/images/pdf/the-copyright-implications-of-tattoos.pdf[/url])
Very thorough and useful article. It clearly explains that the tattoos are copyrightable by whoever designed them. As a practical matter, because they are on someone else's body, presumably forever, it would be wise to get a transfer of ownership from the artist if you plan to be tattooed.
-
So if I tell the artist what I want done, I tell him I want a tribal with a radioactive sign and he draws it for me, and I pay him for it, its his copyright?
Yes. It may be your idea, but it's his copyright when he puts it in a fixed medium like a tattoo.
Ok, thanks for taking the time explaining it to me in a decent way.
-
This isn't really new. We can't use Graffiti either, now tell me some little criminal tagger with cans of spray paint has the rights and protection, to their art work. What's better is I'd love to see them in court, and then have them tossed for a few years or have to pay for damages for their "art". :)
Copyright law, typically*, is neutral with respect to how the work came into existence. And that makes perfect sense since how the work came into existence is irrelevant with respect to the issue of copyright.
*Eg in the US.
If Banksy does your garden wall one night, then your garden wall is going to massively increase in value. You will own the artwork, he will own the copyright.
-
It wouldn't be any different than a picture in a frame. You'd need a PR.
Sean, I assume you are responding to my earlier question.
But what if we use fabric as backdrop? I know I will need a PR using the framed photo analogy. But what about those printed fabric worn by model?
Sorry for I know this is slightly off topic, I could start a new thread.
-
I don't use any noticeable printed pattern on models so I don't have to worry about it.
Yes, you wouldn't be able to use a printed backdrop unless it's your own image. For example, I have a friend who designs and sells backdrops:
http://www.thekandishoppedrops.com/index2.php#/gallery1/3/ (http://www.thekandishoppedrops.com/index2.php#/gallery1/3/)
-
.
-
Absolutely correct. That's the point. The artist retains rights, even when producing the work, under illegal circumstances.
I like Lisa's idea also. Get the rights to your own Tat on your body. :)
This isn't really new. We can't use Graffiti either, now tell me some little criminal tagger with cans of spray paint has the rights and protection, to their art work. What's better is I'd love to see them in court, and then have them tossed for a few years or have to pay for damages for their "art". :)
Copyright law, typically*, is neutral with respect to how the work came into existence. And that makes perfect sense since how the work came into existence is irrelevant with respect to the issue of copyright.
*Eg in the US.
If Banksy does your garden wall one night, then your garden wall is going to massively increase in value. You will own the artwork, he will own the copyright.
-
I recently came across a dead sheep in a field - it had been savaged and killed by wolves - an increasing problem round here. Fairly generic dead sheep, green field, no buildings, nothing special. And FT wanted a property release!!!
-
I recently came across a dead sheep in a field - it had been savaged and killed by wolves - an increasing problem round here. Fairly generic dead sheep, green field, no buildings, nothing special. And FT wanted a property release!!!
yes, you would need a property release. Not for the sheep, but for the property the sheep was on. That has pretty much always been required. Most times the agencies are sticklers about that...sometimes, in the past, stuff got through with no property release required. I imagine as time goes on, they will want to cover their a$$ more and more.
-
I recently came across a dead sheep in a field - it had been savaged and killed by wolves - an increasing problem round here. Fairly generic dead sheep, green field, no buildings, nothing special. And FT wanted a property release!!!
yes, you would need a property release. Not for the sheep, but for the property the sheep was on. That has pretty much always been required. Most times the agencies are sticklers about that...sometimes, in the past, stuff got through with no property release required. I imagine as time goes on, they will want to cover their a$$ more and more.
That's different. A property release is really for creative content, but agencies use them to prove you had permission to be on a property. And a random field isn't going to incur the wrath of anyone, so that's kind of silly.
-
...As a practical matter, because they are on someone else's body, presumably forever, it would be wise to get a transfer of ownership from the artist if you plan to be tattooed.
I guess this should be something models should know, or be informed of. Really I'd think this should come up in conversation with the tattoo artist. You're sitting there sometimes for hours at a time, sometimes for multiple sessions. I'm sure the fact that someone is a model or public figure (actor, athlete, etc) would come up in conversation. It seems sort of irresponsible if a tattoo artist knows their client is a model and says nothing about the legalities of the tattoo design and copyright.
I've heard the NFL advises all players to get releases for their tattoos. I guess it's just another thing photographers have to deal with, too, advising your models to get releases. Or in the case of a shoot for stock, you almost might as well not even do the shoot without tattoo releases since you have no idea if the tattoo artist will sign.
-
Can the people who voted my comment down explain to me why I am wrong? Honest question, because when its my design, on my skin, why shouldnt I hold copyright? Whats different from Mike having copyright to his design?
Can I really have permission to tell you, or are you just playing the poor misunderstood victim again?
First Negatives are not right or wrong it's opinion. But in fact you are so wrong it's funny, but you won't listen and just keep writing one argument after another that have nothing to do with the facts.
You don't understand but you keep arguing and defending. Then when you finally do shut up and read, after 14 argumentative replies, it's because someone told you nicely?
Oh right, it's always someone's fault but not The Almighty Ron who knows everything.
OK Ron That's Why people gave you a negative. Hope it helps you understand. You asked, I answered.
A Tattoo is a work for hire, therefore its not strange to think the person with the tattoo can sign a PR and MR and it would all hold up in court. Its the same as being a hired photographer and the photos are owned by the customer.
Yeah, thats obvious. I said its not strange to think I didnt say it was definite. But my tattoo on my back is my design and the artist tattooed it. Its unique, and I told what to tattoo, so technically I own the copyright to my own tattoo
I do if I told him what to tattoo.
Its my idea and design, the tattooist just uses a tool to translate it to my skin
If I set up a shot, place the people, dial the settings, and just ask someone to click the shutter, I own copyright to the shot
I agree with you and Paul about that, but if I sign a PR of my tattoo, I have every right to do so. If I sign the PR, shutterstock will accept it, in case the tattoo artist goes after SS, they will show the PR, the artist will come after me, and I will have no issue as I told him what I wanted and paid him to put it on me, so its fully mine. I am will even say this, if the artist chooses to put that tattoo on someone else he could well be copying my design.
Its different because its not work for hire. You take a photo and copy it. In this case the OP has a MR and the agency doesnt accept it. The model, who owns the tattoo, gave permission.
So what if the tattoo artists decides he doesnt want his work to be seen in public, does that mean he can demand me never to take my shirt of ever again when on the beach or in a swimming pool?
I was just asking a new question.
Anyway, it all seems simple to you, but if you search the internet its not so 'basic stuff'.
I dont want to get into a discussion where the one that shouts the loudest is right.
I dont agree with you, lets keep it at that.
I never said the agency cant make their own call, in fact I fully understand why they do it. But its not the law they uphold.
I mean, the agencies dont follow exact law, they are tougher then the law. Same with model releases. Not all images need a MR, but they do ask for it.
Funny fact. I was recently asked by a Dutch agency to remove the model release as it wasnt needed.
But that completely backs up my earlier statements. I told the artist what to tattoo on my back, so I own it.
So if I tell the artist what I want done, I tell him I want a tribal with a radioactive sign and he draws it for me, and I pay him for it, its his copyright?
Ok, thanks for taking the time explaining it to me in a decent way.
-
Yeah Pete, I join a discussion and I actually am capable of changing my opinion during a discussion. I actually was waiting for someone to waste time to dig up my comments, because I knew on MSG its not allowed to change your opinion. Once you say something here you need to stick by it until you die. I am not like that. Here is something new for you, outside the forum world its normal to have a discussion and when needed adjust an opinion based on what others might have to say. Thats how it works in my day job as well, where we have meetings and come to agreements. If everyone always would stick to their opinion when they are wrong, there wouldnt be many successful companies in the world.
Anyhoo, I am sure you will pick up a few hearts again, its the only reason you chose to attack me.
-
And something else. I am Dutch, live in Ireland, submitting to American agencies. Laws are different everywhere, in the Netherlands they are lenient towards portrait rights, its different in Ireland and in the USA. We dont have a DMCA act, etc. So if I am saying something thats wrong, it might still be right for where I live or where I am from. So in a discussion I am being explained how it works in the USA, is it that weird that I ask questions and picture different scenarios to get an understanding? If you were on a Dutch forum talking to Dutch photographers you would know jack all about our laws. So get off your high horse pretending you know it all.
-
Maybe you should add some water to whatever your drinking. Sounding off like a angry little man is not so good.
Peace man :)
-
I see, so your answer to living somewhere else and not knowing the laws was to write 14 replies, the same argument mostly, and disagree with everyone else who does?
Maybe you could think before you post some day?
Typical and expected response from you. Same as the entire thread. Attack people who try to answer or help you, because you know better. Then say you are Dutch and we don't understand you.
When someone points out that you are wrong, or misrepresenting something and you don't listen or take advise, you attack them personally. And finally (thanks for more laughs) "you will pick up a few hearts again, its the only reason you chose to attack me. "
Really? This is all about forum hearts? Holy cow, I thought it was about civilized discussions or information. I didn't attack you, I answered your question.
Enjoy watching your hearts count and have a nice long Easter weekend.
And something else. I am Dutch, live in Ireland, submitting to American agencies. Laws are different everywhere, in the Netherlands they are lenient towards portrait rights, its different in Ireland and in the USA. We dont have a DMCA act, etc. So if I am saying something thats wrong, it might still be right for where I live or where I am from. So in a discussion I am being explained how it works in the USA, is it that weird that I ask questions and picture different scenarios to get an understanding? If you were on a Dutch forum talking to Dutch photographers you would know jack all about our laws. So get off your high horse pretending you know it all.
-
There is not one attack from me on anyone in this thread. Just read my quotes you dug up.
-
Hey whats up? 8)
Just another day in paradise I see. 8)
It happens no matter what or where. 8)
Soon be beer O'clock around here. :) 8)
Nothing better to do then just ramble on today as I work away. 8)
-
5 more each to bury them. Come on, its Good Friday, I almost feel like Christus when he was crucified.
Edit: No no no, not this one, the other two !!!!
-
Yeah good Friday and so I had fish and left the ribs sitting there till tomorrow and in no time a post I put up gets a vote down sad it is.
Oh well remember tomorrow is Saturday! 8)
And the weekend has arrived for whatever that's worth anyhow? :)
-
Going on my next hike tomorrow. It turns out to be a fantastic way to come up with lots of sellable images and lose weight, 44lbs so far. Really getting into the heart of Wicklow Mountains. This is one of the latest shots, love it how the landscape is lit by the sun, when the rain is pouring down.
(http://semmickphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/symbiostock_rf_content/7425-sunlight-and-rain-falling-on-glen-of-the-downs.jpg)
-
Maybe this is the reason they want a release?
[url]http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-raustiala-tattoo-copyright-20131006,0,3026228.story#axzz2zAS0uKbC[/url] ([url]http://www.latimes.com/opinion/commentary/la-oe-raustiala-tattoo-copyright-20131006,0,3026228.story#axzz2zAS0uKbC[/url])
Very useful information.
-
I recently came across a dead sheep in a field - it had been savaged and killed by wolves - an increasing problem round here. Fairly generic dead sheep, green field, no buildings, nothing special. And FT wanted a property release!!!
yes, you would need a property release. Not for the sheep, but for the property the sheep was on. That has pretty much always been required. Most times the agencies are sticklers about that...sometimes, in the past, stuff got through with no property release required. I imagine as time goes on, they will want to cover their a$$ more and more.
That's different. A property release is really for creative content, but agencies use them to prove you had permission to be on a property. And a random field isn't going to incur the wrath of anyone, so that's kind of silly.
Of course it's different, and yes, having to prove you had permission to be on a property is why agencies have always asked for them. It has always been silly, especially for the conditions the poster described. I wonder why he/she, and anyone really, is so amazed by them asking for that when it has always been true.
-
I recently came across a dead sheep in a field - it had been savaged and killed by wolves - an increasing problem round here. Fairly generic dead sheep, green field, no buildings, nothing special. And FT wanted a property release!!!
yes, you would need a property release. Not for the sheep, but for the property the sheep was on. That has pretty much always been required. Most times the agencies are sticklers about that...sometimes, in the past, stuff got through with no property release required. I imagine as time goes on, they will want to cover their a$$ more and more.
That's different. A property release is really for creative content, but agencies use them to prove you had permission to be on a property. And a random field isn't going to incur the wrath of anyone, so that's kind of silly.
Of course it's different, and yes, having to prove you had permission to be on a property is why agencies have always asked for them. It has always been silly, especially for the conditions the poster described. I wonder why he/she, and anyone really, is so amazed by them asking for that when it has always been true.
Odd. I have never been asked for a property release from any agency for any shoot. Ever. I have shot in my chiropractor's office, at my church, both inside and out, in two different schools, on a farm, and in various other locations and never had to produce a release (although I could have provided them). Much less for some dead sheep in a random field.
-
IMO - the most likely reason for needing a property release for livestock would relate to identifiable coded tags or branding (including paint or dyes).
-
I recently came across a dead sheep in a field - it had been savaged and killed by wolves - an increasing problem round here. Fairly generic dead sheep, green field, no buildings, nothing special. And FT wanted a property release!!!
Will you please upload a copy of this image to the thread? It is all speculation at this point.
Thanks,
Mat
-
Odd. I have never been asked for a property release from any agency for any shoot. Ever. I have shot in my chiropractor's office, at my church, both inside and out, in two different schools, on a farm, and in various other locations and never had to produce a release (although I could have provided them). Much less for some dead sheep in a random field.
Right. I think it's odd that they picked a field to ask for a "permission release". For specific interiors, like a grocery store, I would be prepared.
-
I recently came across a dead sheep in a field - it had been savaged and killed by wolves - an increasing problem round here. Fairly generic dead sheep, green field, no buildings, nothing special. And FT wanted a property release!!!
yes, you would need a property release. Not for the sheep, but for the property the sheep was on. That has pretty much always been required. Most times the agencies are sticklers about that...sometimes, in the past, stuff got through with no property release required. I imagine as time goes on, they will want to cover their a$$ more and more.
That's different. A property release is really for creative content, but agencies use them to prove you had permission to be on a property. And a random field isn't going to incur the wrath of anyone, so that's kind of silly.
Of course it's different, and yes, having to prove you had permission to be on a property is why agencies have always asked for them. It has always been silly, especially for the conditions the poster described. I wonder why he/she, and anyone really, is so amazed by them asking for that when it has always been true.
Odd. I have never been asked for a property release from any agency for any shoot. Ever. I have shot in my chiropractor's office, at my church, both inside and out, in two different schools, on a farm, and in various other locations and never had to produce a release (although I could have provided them). Much less for some dead sheep in a random field.
Odd. When i first started uploading, some agencies did not ask for property releases at all. Since then, i have seen the whole "amazement at needing a property release for this" topic discussed here before. I think we all know that different agencies ask for different ridiculous things at different times. :)
-
I think these random silly rejections and demands for releases for pictures that obviously don't need them are more likely the result of newer, confused reviewers than company policy changes.