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 ...
60
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 ...
45
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 ...
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 '...
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
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 ...
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
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 ...
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
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 ...
9
The general position under UK law is that you can take any photos you like if you are on public property - this is how all those long-lens paparazzi are legal. As you note, almost all the UK is owned by someone, but public highways definitely count as public property; other areas may be more complicated. There are only a few gotchas to this:
It is illegal ...
8
Yes, there is a breathtaking amount of copyright infringement going on on the internet.
The thing is: where it concerns images, most of it happens with the implicit approval of the copyright holders, who basically like to have their stuff shared and pinned and retweeted all over the internet (at least by consumers) because that gets them attention and ...
8
I don't think your jurisdiction even matters.
Let's take a common sense approach.
You have an image of yourself. It was taken by some photographer.
You think this is a very good image and you want to add it to your portfolio.
Here are the possible scenarios when adding the image:
You do not need the permission to do this, but the photographer does not ...
8
So who exactly do I have to get permisssion from to use photos froma shoot
Simply, the person who owns the rights to the image(s) under question.
The vast majority of the time, and absent contractual language otherwise, the photographer is the rights holder.
And in general, to determine who owns rights to individual photos, it's easiest to start with the ...
7
The answer to your question isn't yes or no to "legally, is this true?" because the contract you should have signed should spell out very clearly what you're entitled to with respect to the images.
In general, the vast majority of photographers will retain copyright over their images and restrict access to the raw files. Typically, as a result, the ...
7
You should take a little look back to your contract agreement, if there's any rule regarding that matter. But if there's none, these are the concern that you should raise on your employer:
Any photograph taken by you using your personal camera on the purpose of fulfilling your profession should be clearly stated on a legally-bounded agreement on whose ...
7
If photo is royalty-free and requires one-time purchase, can I take picture with camera of my screen and use it without paying for it?
No.
If stock and non-stock photo was taken from certain website and had title added to it, does that make it legit to use it?
No.
7
She took the photos. She owns them. She gave you a copy of them, but they're still her photos. If she were to use them for commercial purposes (your image in advertising) you might have more of a lever to stop her, but basically, she can do this. Whether she should over your objections is an ethical but not a legal question.
This is why things like this ...
7
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems unlikely that the photographer has a strong legal claim in the absence of special circumstances — just like the bride's hairdresser probably also can't demand credit. However, some of those circumstances may be part of the photographer's contract with your friend, and you may be placing your friend in awkward position by (even ...
7
This is largely a historical artifact. Older cameras not only had noticeable shutter sounds, but also an annoying ratcheting sound as the film was advanced, and due to poor low light ability they often required flash bulbs - which were not only visually distracting but in very old days filled the room with smoke.
Film movie cameras used film canisters ...
6
Sighting J Lance's answer from your previous question "Are photo releases necessary when using event photos in my portfolio?" The same holds true here. If in a public place, the "public" has no right to stop you from publishing work. Guardians of a minor may withhold names out of protection or fear, but you have every right to photograph them.
When I'm ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible
