128
So do I own the copyrights of the picture and can I post it ?
You definitely own the copyright but you may not have the right to publicly display the image. Most photographers get a model release as a CYA, and it sounds like you don't have one. Given the sexually explicit nature of the photographs, your image may also be subject to revenge-porn laws in your ...
57
Legally, and in typical business practices, what the photographer told you is completely true — she has no obligation to give you RAW files, unless the contract says otherwise.
Presumably, the photographer will sell you prints of her work. This is how she makes her living, after all. Kind of harsh to discover after it is too late, but if you wanted ...
answered Dec 3 '13 at 3:59
Please Read My Profile
137k42 gold badges387 silver badges698 bronze badges
42
In general, the rule is simple: if you don't know you have the right to use an image, don't use it. It doesn't matter if it's all over the web, it could still be you that the copyright holder decides to sue - whereas with trademarks, it can be the case that if you don't defend the trademark, it can be deemed to have become "generic", nothing like that ...
36
Standard disclaimer for legal questions: I am not a lawyer, and therefore cannot offer any legal advice, other than to recommend you seek qualified legal advice from a lawyer. Don't rely on legal advice from random strangers on the Internet.
In the US (and Canada I believe), unless otherwise transferred or granted by explicit license or contract, copyright ...
33
The following is for entertainment purposes only. If you have a serious legal concern, contact a lawyer.
Having the "right" to do something, doesn't mean you have to do it. It was a jerk move for you to post intimate photos despite having been specifically asked not to.
Copyright and Rights of Publicity are separate issues. (This appears equivalent to the ...
32
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. The information below is general in nature and should not be taken as specific legal advice. If you have a specific legal question you should consult an attorney practicing in your jurisdiction that is familiar with the law and case history regarding the issues you wish to address.
The following general information is based on ...
31
Polaroid applied for a design mark apparently covering the shape of their prints, but that application was abandoned in 2000. That shape is distinctive, but, for example, Fujifilm Instax looks similar — not to mention Impossible Project film, which is actually made in a former Polaroid factory.
You're not using the Polaroid name, which does have a valid ...
answered Jan 5 '15 at 14:14
Please Read My Profile
137k42 gold badges387 silver badges698 bronze badges
30
Background: I write as a traveller and not a formal expert, but I have made 50+ flight "legs" on either international carriers or on local carriers within Asia in the last 4 or so years. I take many photos out of airline windows and make a point of reading the rules that each airline has established. I use both a DSLR and smaller point and shoot cameras - ...
26
She had given me verbal permission to use the photos for whatever I wanted, but now that we aren't close anymore, she has decided otherwise.
This comment makes the situation a bit more hairy legal-wise. The fact is that the copyright of a photograph always belongs to the photographer regardless of the photo's subject, apart from some edge cases that don't ...
23
Legally, can you? Probably, yes. By default, copyright belongs to the photographer and you don't seem to have any sort of contract which assigns the copyright to anyone else.
However... I'd strongly say that posting explicit photos of someone who has very clearly asked you not to post them makes you a bad sort. Consider why you're doing this and if that's ...
20
Legal Disclaimer
The following is for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular situation. If you have a specific concern you should consult with an attorney familiar with the relevant issues in the jurisdiction in question. Since the questioner indicated they were located in the U.S., this answer assumes ...
20
I can really only guess that they are early, or even home-made versions of a camera blimp, used to reduce the shutter noise.
They are predominantly used on movie/TV sets, by the show's stills photographer. Whilst few of them are truly 100% silent, they provide hopefully sufficient noise-reduction to satisfy the production's sound recordist.
I say '...
19
As somebody who is interested in photography as a hobby -- not a profession, and therefore not worried about making income from it -- I first consider who is asking. I've had a few requests from groups I am happy to support: mostly local parks and local wildlife preserves. I know they have a small budget but as I frequent them (often for free) and get lots ...
18
For commercial use, you have to pay. Period. Maybe not much.
If it's for commercial use, the "too poor to pay" line is fiction.
16
You absolutely should be paid. And not only that, you absolutely have the right to protect your work. There are dangers associated with offering "free use" of your work, as once you do, you can never really tell how far your work may be distributed "for free". The company you license it to may turn around and license another company to create some design ...
16
This varies widely based on jurisdiction, and there are widespread misconceptions about it. The photographer is normally the sole owner of the copyright in the photograph. However, local personality rights (aka right of publicity) may limit the use of an image without permission of the subject. Personality rights vary from nation to nation and even within a ...
13
Generally speaking, the US Copyright Office's terse answer is a complete reply: the copyright of the photo belongs to the photographer. The owner of the property may also have some rights which could limit the photographer's commercial use of the material (including, for example, selling it to you).
I know one old photo seems like a little thing and it ...
answered Nov 20 '12 at 18:14
Please Read My Profile
137k42 gold badges387 silver badges698 bronze badges
13
Don't know about the US in general and Florida specially, but in many jurisdictions, there are several different rights possible attached to a photo, including:
Copyright, which you hold if you are the one who took the pictures (including setting up, decor, lighting, asking for specific poses, make up and styling...), not as a salaried job, and you don't ...
12
I have a different take on this since I don't derive a living from photography. I do it for fun, personal enjoyment, having the pictures, the challenge, having other people like pictures I show them, etc.
What I insist on is being properly credited. I get satisfaction out of knowing other people liked a picture from me enough to publish it, and the ...
12
Legal Disclaimer
The following is for general information purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice for any particular situation. If you have a specific concern you should consult with an attorney familiar with the relevant issues in the jurisdiction in question.
The question includes the following and the answer below should be considered with ...
12
This seems likely to qualify as fair use, by several of the four factors used as tests.
"The purpose and character of your use" — educational and as part of commentary on educational article
"the nature of the copyrighted work" — the work itself was used as an educational illustration and you're extending that
"the amount and substantiality of the portion ...
answered Jan 9 '15 at 5:24
Please Read My Profile
137k42 gold badges387 silver badges698 bronze badges
11
There's four possible copy rights to consider here:
The Coca-Cola logo is a trademark, so reproduction is heavily restricted. A logo simply appearing in a photo doesn't necessarily mean you can't sell it, but if it's the primary subject then you're commercialising Coke's trademark.
The logo was hand-painted by someone, and either they or Coca-Cola (e.g. if ...
11
As you said in a comment:
the company now has the rights to the images
Therefore they're not your images any more, they are your client's - and therefore any use of them by you without permission from your client would be a copyright violation. If they're not happy with letting you use them on your website, there's probably not much you can do.
The ...
10
Legally, it may or may not — you'd probably have to have a court case to determine your particulars. (The law simply isn't clear-cut.) Strictly speaking, you'd probably make de minimis arguments (I just used a small part; it wasn't really important; there was no commercial impact; it's only used in a small way) rather than fair use. But the court cases for ...
answered Sep 26 '12 at 11:52
Please Read My Profile
137k42 gold badges387 silver badges698 bronze badges
10
A model release is a contract, a normal everyday contract, between two parties (usually the model and the photographer) - the fact someone (who is not you) signed a contract with someone else (who is also not you) does not grant you any rights what so ever.
It looks absurd if you try to apply the "but he signed a release with someone else" logic to other ...
10
Does the copyright get automatically transferred to me along with the
original film?
No
While you use those pictures for your own personal enjoyment, it probably does not matter.
However, as soon as you wish to publish them, especially, but not limited to for commercial gain, you need to secure written copyright release, because all museums, stock ...
10
It can't be a by-law, as it's private property; it can only be a 'management decision' & frankly they can be as capricious as they like.
I've been there with a full film crew & 100 movie extras... paying of course for the privilege of being able to set up wherever we needed & keep the public out while we did so.
In the end, it's down to ...
9
Creative works are automatically protected by copyright law. You don't have to register the work, put a copyright symbol on it or anything. By default, nobody can copy it (except for fair use). That means that if you see some creative work on the web and it is not accompanied by a copyright license or public domain waiver you pretty much by definition do not ...
9
Assuming you are in the United States, the photographer owns all rights to images they take unless they were done under a contract that assigns those rights to someone else or under a work-for-hire agreement. It doesn't sound like in this case there was any written agreement or that the person who took the photos was your employee with the specific job of ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
