Photographer rights vs. Model Rights

I had an incident a few years back and though I'm pretty much over it I was still curious what the crowd here has to say:

I had a fellow photographer friend and we did an implied nude shoot, where I modeled. Most of the shots my arms were up covering my chest but a few I had t my guard down, laughed or something and he got shots of me completely topless. I had no idea and in any case didn't think anything of it and just said, hey you know you can't use any shots that show everything. "Yea yea of course not".

Well a year later he sends me a link to his porn portfolio and I'm in it, totally topless. He also puts me on his model mayhem. I fought a huge battle on there trying to get him to take them down but the moderator of the site said they really had no authority to block the photos.

I asked him, several, several times to take them down to no avail, in fact he has hundreds of shots of ACTUAL porn stars and doesn't need my shots to beef up his portfolio and insists on keeping me up there, I think just to feel powerful. Obviously the guy is a total sociopath and I had no idea and now feel like an idiot for trusting him. I'm over it now (was very distraught at the time) but I still don't get the legal implications. I have asked photographers about this before and the answer I got was basically "well he's the photographer, and it looks like you willingly posed so he owns the photos and can do what he wants with them."

But if that's true, why bother to have model release forms? Which, for the record, I didn't sign any for him.

Yea, sorry for that long rant I just really wanted to ask people that might now more about the legalities of his actions.

You could try websites like ASMP or other professional photographers organizations that have some legal guidelines available. I don't know if there would have been anything else you could have done without having signed a release or contract, I suppose it would take consulting wth a lawyer to find out options.

It probably would depend too on the Terms & Conditions on a website like Model Mayhem. Once you've allowed your photos to go on a site, that often gives them unlimited usage, it depends on their terms. If the photographer has placed his photos on porn sites I wouldn't imagine those even follow any guidelines.

icepics wrote: You could try websites like ASMP or other professional photographers organizations that have some legal guidelines available. I don't know if there would have been anything else you could have done without having signed a release or contract, I suppose it would take consulting wth a lawyer to find out options.

It probably would depend too on the Terms & Conditions on a website like Model Mayhem. Once you've allowed your photos to go on a site, that often gives them unlimited usage, it depends on their terms. If the photographer has placed his photos on porn sites I wouldn't imagine those even follow any guidelines.

I should clarify that he didn't post them on porn sites (to my knowledge) he used them on his personal website in his porn portfolio. Which I just assumed not that many people would see anyway. If he was using them on actual porn sites, you bet your butt I'd get some lawyers involved.

To my knowledge without a Model Release he is limited to what he can do with them. Since he is using them to promote himself or his photography business then he is using them commercially. This is why most photographers in the business have contracts that are both agreement to pay, and a Model Release, so they can use their work to promote themselves. If you have any lawyer friends I would talk to them, and, or get one to write a take down and cease use order. Now if he was to say put them on his personal FB site then there is not much you can do about that, as long as he is not using his Disgracebook account for promotion as well.

Joves wrote: To my knowledge without a Model Release he is limited to what he can do with them. Since he is using them to promote himself or his photography business then he is using them commercially. This is why most photographers in the business have contracts that are both agreement to pay, and a Model Release, so they can use their work to promote themselves. If you have any lawyer friends I would talk to them, and, or get one to write a take down and cease use order. Now if he was to say put them on his personal FB site then there is not much you can do about that, as long as he is not using his Disgracebook account for promotion as well.

Not a good friend at all!

The model release is only needed if you are going to sell the photos for commercial use. If you are only displaying photos, that you took,If you took the photos, you own the copyright, and even without a release, you can use the images for self promotion, and other things, within some limitations..Hope that helps..

SPAM link removed - PT Admin

kraj8995 wrote: The model release is only needed if you are going to sell the photos for commercial use. If you are only displaying photos, that you took,If you took the photos, you own the copyright, and even without a release, you can use the images for self promotion, and other things, within some limitations..Hope that helps..

Um, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Release forms are not required for street photography used in editorial content. But they generally are required in a contest, for example. In a studio or posing situation, the photographer should get a signed release for any use of the photos, including self-promotion (which is a commercial endeavor), because that's not public, and therefore there's no "right to photograph".

The short of it is, if the OP is put out by these events, the OP should find a way to talk to a lawyer, at least to determine where she stands, and to hopefully get a cease and desist letter, because the guy doesn't have permission to do whatever he wants with those photos, period. And maybe not permission to do anything with them. And if the lawyer agrees that there's a problem, there's always civil court for damages and costs.

garyrhook wrote:

kraj8995 wrote: The model release is only needed if you are going to sell the photos for commercial use. If you are only displaying photos, that you took,If you took the photos, you own the copyright, and even without a release, you can use the images for self promotion, and other things, within some limitations..Hope that helps..

Um, I'm not sure that's entirely accurate. Release forms are not required for street photography used in editorial content. But they generally are required in a contest, for example. In a studio or posing situation, the photographer should get a signed release for any use of the photos, including self-promotion (which is a commercial endeavor), because that's not public, and therefore there's no "right to photograph".

The short of it is, if the OP is put out by these events, the OP should find a way to talk to a lawyer, at least to determine where she stands, and to hopefully get a cease and desist letter, because the guy doesn't have permission to do whatever he wants with those photos, period. And maybe not permission to do anything with them. And if the lawyer agrees that there's a problem, there's always civil court for damages and costs.

I wanted to actually when it first happened, get a lawyer that is. I was pissed distraught, and it came at a very bad time in my life. In any case I figured it would cost more than it would get me (money and stress). I basically just sent him a few emails letting him know he was the scum of the earth and was done with it pretty much. Actually a few months ago he emailed me to meet up and "burry the hatchet" despite that last I checked my photos were STILL up.

I told him where he could stick it. Sociopath.

So... there seems to be a bit of gray area here from the responses, which is pretty much what I figured.

There were two more girls on his site too that were def. not porn stars (one was a somewhat well known fashion model who had a nipple slip during his shoot that he used). I tried to contact them to let them know but I couldn't find one and never heard back from the other. Such a shame.

To me it seems we could stand on defamation of character couldn't we? Since it's not just his portfolio but his PORN portfolio? Seems like a special case above and beyond unauthorized use.

NikaTraveler wrote: So... there seems to be a bit of gray area here from the responses, which is pretty much what I figured.

There were two more girls on his site too that were def. not porn stars (one was a somewhat well known fashion model who had a nipple slip during his shoot that he used). I tried to contact them to let them know but I couldn't find one and never heard back from the other. Such a shame.

To me it seems we could stand on defamation of character couldn't we? Since it's not just his portfolio but his PORN portfolio? Seems like a special case above and beyond unauthorized use.

Actually he is using the photos for commercial gain as in self promotion to get gigs. That is where the problem is for him. As I said this is why a part of the portrait, wedding, and other commercial photogs have an MR in their contracts. Well the ones who know the business do, is so they can display peoples likenesses without fear of law suits to promote themselves through their work. I would still talk to a lawyer, and if you can get either of the other models to join in the better, especially if he had no release from them as well.

Joves wrote:

NikaTraveler wrote: So... there seems to be a bit of gray area here from the responses, which is pretty much what I figured.

There were two more girls on his site too that were def. not porn stars (one was a somewhat well known fashion model who had a nipple slip during his shoot that he used). I tried to contact them to let them know but I couldn't find one and never heard back from the other. Such a shame.

To me it seems we could stand on defamation of character couldn't we? Since it's not just his portfolio but his PORN portfolio? Seems like a special case above and beyond unauthorized use.

Actually he is using the photos for commercial gain as in self promotion to get gigs. That is where the problem is for him. As I said this is why a part of the portrait, wedding, and other commercial photogs have an MR in their contracts. Well the ones who know the business do, is so they can display peoples likenesses without fear of law suits to promote themselves through their work. I would still talk to a lawyer, and if you can get either of the other models to join in the better, especially if he had no release from them as well.

You have all clients sign a model release? I guess that makes sense. But what about trades? Most of the models I've shot were trade situations, I was really good about getting model releases for a while and then it just kinda fell to the wayside as it seemed unimportant as using them for my portfolio was implicit in the agreement. I guess I'm getting slightly off topic, but it was the same when I modeled for him. I wasn't paying him. But I also wasn't intentionally posing topless so...

Ugh lawyers. Like I said I am not going to bother with the headache of pursuing it I was just curious as to the legalities.

Even for trades you get a release. That way if they change their minds they cannot come back on you if you are using the images. I have not shot models or people in years, but I do know you need a release if you plan on using them in your advertising of your services. A release is merely a way to protect yourself, which in todays litigiuos society you need to do.

Well it's not like any of us are lawyers to know some of this type info. for sure (at least I don't think anyone on here is!). But I'd get a release signed, unless it was for editorial usage, getting published in a newspaper/magazine.

It's for the photographer's protection as well as the model's, so you each will agree to use the photos for the intended purpose. That will give you something in writing to fall back on if a problem develops later.

ASMP has a 'pocket' release to carry with you, and have longer forms that are available on their website, as do other professional photographers organizations. They have business resources online too that might give you some info. related to this.

icepics wrote: Well it's not like any of us are lawyers to know some of this type info. for sure (at least I don't think anyone on here is!). But I'd get a release signed, unless it was for editorial usage, getting published in a newspaper/magazine.

It's for the photographer's protection as well as the model's, so you each will agree to use the photos for the intended purpose. That will give you something in writing to fall back on if a problem develops later.

ASMP has a 'pocket' release to carry with you, and have longer forms that are available on their website, as do other professional photographers organizations. They have business resources online too that might give you some info. related to this.

Cool thanks for that. I think the biggest factor in me not keeping up with the releases was moving around so much. I didn't have a printer or easy access to where I kept the model releases stashed so I just kinda let it go to the wayside... Should start getting more adamant about that again. Thanks for the tip.