If the photographer doesnt have a model sign a release> wins money off the photo...

[thebanana]

roteague and blansky have both given you sound professional advice on this matter. There's not much more to be said.

 

[david b]

Let's all remember we are getting one side to the story.

 

[Claire Senft]

If commercial use is made of your image without your consent then you may well have grounds to sue both the photographer and the commercial user.

Is there a Legal Aid Society near you?

 

[Ed Sukach]

... In fact, I'm willing to bet that there is a disclaimer on the entry form stating that the photographer keeps all right to his image, but the magazine/competition holder shares those rights for any use they feel necessary in promoting themselves.

Not usually. Most of these "contests" have an agreement stating that all work submitted, and the RIGHTS accompanying that work, are the property of those conducting the Contest. These contests are a way of obtaining LOTS of images for a Stock Photograph outfit.

I think trying to get part of the prize money from the photographer would be difficult, although you may very well have a legal right to a fair share (usually something like 5 - 10%). Certainly it would be a "moral" thing to share ... I would have no problem with that. If those images are published, I think your chances of recovering for damages are greatly increased, from both the photographer and the Contest people.

 

[david b]

wow...aren't you glad you asked?

 

[Dave Parker]

Not usually. Most of these "contests" have an agreement stating that all work submitted, and the RIGHTS accompanying that work, are the property of those conducting the Contest. These contests are a way of obtaining LOTS of images for a Stock Photograph outfit.

Ed the many contests I have entered over the years have never required me to turn rights to the property of the company hosting the contest, most of the time, the agreements have stated that I retain the right to the photograph and they have the right for a certain period of time to use in their marketing, normally 6 months or a year, but again, I have never signed rights over and the few stock agencies I have entered photographs with have always paid me if they choose to use the picture after the contest.

Dave

 

[don sigl]

Sounds like a good twilight zone episode, to me.

She's got money. You want money. Therefore, she should give you money because she took your picture.

I wonder if your sentiments would be the same in 20 years or so if everyone recognizable in every photograph you ever took made a career of chasing you down for their cut every time one of your images won an award, was published somewhere or was displayed in a gallery.

I wonder if the the surviving solders in these Joe Rosenthal photographs of a flag raising on Mt. Suribachi at Iwo Jima spent much time tracking him (and now his estate) down over the years for their cut each time an image made a buck because they're recognizable in an image. I'd be willing to guess not, that they probably saw things in a little broader scope.

I wonder if the decendants of Lisa Gherardini ring up the estate of Leonardo DaVinci for a few Euro whenever an image of the Mona Lisa appears somewhere and they're a bit low on cash.

It would be one thing if you entered into a financial agreement with you as the model and she as the photographer, but since neither of you did so, it sounds like little more than envy and resentment to me.

-KwM-​

These examples are not really analogous to the situation here. Da Vinci was paid for the Mona Lisa painting and all financial reward ended post sale. I doubt if he saw any of it in a broader scope at the time, and his estate or family really didn't have anything to do with it.
The Iwo image is a little different. The people in the image were soldiers. This changes the rules. When you enlist or are drafted, you surrender some civilian rights for the term of the contract. A release was not required for the photo and the individuals in the image had no legal rights to the proceeds based on their enlistment as soldiers. This may not seem fair, but the military is not a democracy or a republic for that matter.

A lot of what I read in this thread wanders significantly from the central point; and that is whether the model in this situation has a legal right to any percentage of the proceeds awarded in the contest. The answer is "No". However there are many post conditions where the photographer can be liable, and at risk if the image is used for commercial gain. At that point the model SHOULD challenge the use and demand compensation. The photographer screwed up by not getting a release. In my mind, its wrong to defend him/her. People who are voicing this "let it slide" approach are condoning a level of unprofessionalism on the photographers part. And thats not a good reflection on professional photography in general. I care a lot about that. Granted the photographer was a student. There is an opportunity to provide a little education here. Granted, the model in this case may feel a little cheated and defensive. Again, nothing like getting burned a little to make you a little wiser next time.

 

[Charles Webb]

You have experienced a learning situation, cut your losses, move on!

But don't forget what you learned!

Charlie.....................................

 

[JohnArs]

Here in Switzerland normaly a model get 10 % of the money only very famous ones get a bit more!

 

[copake_ham]

At the end of the day, while I don't know your age, or that of the photog, I would guess you're both fairly young.

So, please do as I suggested and inform her that she should have gotten a release. Then drop it.

And let the both of you walk away, each of you having had a life lesson worth learning, while still young enough for it to not have had serious negative consequences to either party.

 

[gr82bart]

Reading this thread makes me sad for the future of phootography.

Regards, Art.

 

[firecracker]

yes she took the photo but if it was a photo of a crappy model it wouldnt have won. Out of all the photos shes taken she said the ones of me came out best, because I do most of the work and she just happened to get lucky.

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. Did you mean to say that for this particular photo session that you did to her, you did "most of the work" for her and that was good enough of work and won the contest, regardess of her ability and photgraphic skills? Or did you just say you felt you did the work and you deserve the reward, but she got all the sweets and wasn't or still isn't sharing them with you? Who took the shots?

I had a similar experience once or twice in the past, but because they were photo students and I didn't mind where the photos went and what they received. I'm not a model or in any good model-type of physical shape, but that sort of thing is not always the top priority. It all depends on your definition of what good models are, though.

Tell her jokingly that if she won the contest again with your images, she would owe you a little gift and see if she would be more willing to discuss about this issue or not.

 

[ron mcelroy]

Reading this thread makes me sad for the future of phootography.

Regards, Art.

I sadly have to agree with you Art. Yet another reason deal with the pinheads of the legal system.

 

[Nicole]

At our local college students are always photographing each other and using them in competitions and portfolios. I have never heard a single discussion about money being shared. You are mates and help each other out during the learning stages. Be happy for her. If she wants to photograph you again, then mention the model release and and money straight away. It sounds like she's sees you as a good friend instead of a paid model - a lesson to learn for both of you - but is it worth losing a friend over?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Reading this thread makes me sad for the future of phootography.

Regards, Art.

Dear Art,

Me too. Also, if this 'entitlement' attitude carries over into his professional life, I predict that the latter will be short and unprofitable.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

I sadly have to agree with you Art. Yet another reason deal with the pinheads of the legal system.

Dear Ron,

A decent lawyer -- and there are quite a few, despite the fact that there are also plenty of the other sort -- will normally advise avoiding the use of the law wherever possible. They know how much stress and expense is involved.

Very few clients listen. Barring the 'ambulance chasers' and the 'no win-no-fee' brigade (the latter was illegal in the UK when I read law some 35 years ago), it's greedy, stupid clients (and often, dishonest insurance companies) that drive the system.

There's also a lot of twaddle being talked about model releases. In this situation, the sort of model release most people would use would be the standard release of all rights in return for valuable consideration received (which can be almost anything, for example, a penny, a print, a beer or reciprocal agreement to be a model). Without valuable consideration a model release has no force, at least in any jurisdiction with which I am familiar, because it's not a valid contract, the elements of which are offer, acceptance and consideration. With the kind of release I describe, he wouldn't get anything anyway.

Sure, you could write a release with contingent clauses, such as 'ten per cent of any earnings from the picture' but as soon as you start getting legalistic you lay yourself open to legalistic counter-arguments, e.g. are prize winnings 'earnings'? I don't know the answer to that in any jurisdiction, but I could have fun finding out and demand a good deal more than $1000 for doing so. Wills are the great realm for this: people try to write clever wills, end up creating trusts, and most or all of the money goes to the lawyers unless the heirs can agree (which they are normally too greedy, stupid or pig-headed to do). In re Blackwell's Trusts is the most famous case in the UK in this area.

My own view -- with my LL.B. hat on -- is that this whole idea of 'entitlement' to part of someone's winnings is misguided, divisive and doomed to failure. Helping each other; rejoicing in (and envying) one another's successes; these are surely part of being a student, as Nicole says.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Ed Sukach]

Ed the many contests I have entered over the years have never required me to turn rights to the property of the company hosting the contest, most of the time, the agreements have stated that I retain the right to the photograph and they have the right for a certain period of time to use in their marketing, normally 6 months or a year, but again, I have never signed rights over and the few stock agencies I have entered photographs with have always paid me if they choose to use the picture after the contest.

Depends on the contest. Most of those advertised in the papers and magazines require surrender of all rights. "Juried" shows and probably others (local Chamber of Commerce, etc.) generally allow the photographer to retain those rights. Caveat: READ THE RULES.

One thing to avoid here ... "NEWS" is generally NOT protected by copyright, and Model Releases are not required. The idea is that "Freedom of the Press" is more important than Copyright Protection.

This whole subject is complicated - and really beyond the scope of messages here. My most useful reference book has been "Professional Photographer's Survival Guide", by Charles E. Rotkin. Somewhat dated now, but LOTS of useful information from someone who has "been through the flames."

 

[naturephoto1]

Depends on the contest. Most of those advertised in the papers and magazines require surrender of all rights. "Juried" shows and probably others (local Chamber of Commerce, etc.) generally allow the photographer to retain those rights. Caveat: READ THE RULES.

One thing to avoid here ... "NEWS" is generally NOT protected by copyright, and Model Releases are not required. The idea is that "Freedom of the Press" is more important than Copyright Protection.

This whole subject is complicated - and really beyond the scope of messages here. My most useful reference book has been "Professional Photographer's Survival Guide", by Charles E. Rotkin. Somewhat dated now, but LOTS of useful information from someone who has "been through the flames."

It is for this reason that I have not participated in these types of competitions. I did not want to give up my rights and have the images used in any way without my knowledge.

Rich

 

[MikeSeb]

that doesnt mean she cant share the wealth! i need to spend $$s on photo stuff , not that im bitching, im just saying she has money she should share it.

Of course you are bitching. The attitude embodied in this quote strikes me as selfish and sad, sorry to say, and smacks of envy.

You also stated in a subsequent post words to the effect that you did all the work as the model, and that the photographer just got lucky in shooting you. If you really believe that, as opposed to merely offering it up as ad hoc justification for your attitude, then you hold a low opinion of photographers for one who practices the art. May the refinement of your work approach that of your self-opinion.

It would have been courteous of the photographer to inform you of her intent to enter her photo of you in the contest, and maybe send you a print; and she should have obtained a release (though it's questionable whether one is legally required for a contest, as it certainly is required for commercial use of your image) if only to protect herself from grasping folk like yourself.

You've been given a boon--a chance to take the high road. Grasp that instead.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I couldn't even stand to read the entire thread. My comment below may already have been made, but here goes anyhow.

My answer to the OP is, if you feel that way go out and win a contest yourself. If you won't or can't then this answers a lot of questions for you. As for me, I would be happy to hear that you have won big!

PE

 

[Roger Hicks]

As for me, I would be happy to hear that you have won big!

Hear! Hear!

R

 

[copake_ham]

Dear Ron,

A decent lawyer -- and there are quite a few, despite the fact that there are also plenty of the other sort -- will normally advise avoiding the use of the law wherever possible. They know how much stress and expense is involved.


Cheers,

Roger

This was precisely my reasoning counselor - I am a lawyer - and as noted, advised the "client" to "work it out" amicably.

 

[roteague]

Depends on the contest. Most of those advertised in the papers and magazines require surrender of all rights. "Juried" shows and probably others (local Chamber of Commerce, etc.) generally allow the photographer to retain those rights. Caveat: READ THE RULES.

True!!! Recently, here a contest was held with the Hawaii Convention Authority and Hawaiian Airlines. The grand prize was a round trip ticket to LA, and use of the image by the convention/tourist board. However, to compete, you had to waive all rights, with no time restrictions. Needless, to say, I ignored the call for entries.

 

[firecracker]

True!!! Recently, here a contest was held with the Hawaii Convention Authority and Hawaiian Airlines. The grand prize was a round trip ticket to LA, and use of the image by the convention/tourist board. However, to compete, you had to waive all rights, with no time restrictions. Needless, to say, I ignored the call for entries.

In Japan, there are quite a few popular "big-buck" photo contests, and they are also the "give-away-all-of-your-rights-and-cost-and-effort-but-we-won't-even-return-your-prints" type. Besides, the juries and judges are always the same damn group of people (photographers as well as photo critics) from other contests, and it seems that they have been around for a long time.

I guess you can win their tastes...

 

[Ces1um]

that doesnt mean she cant share the wealth! i need to spend $$s on photo stuff , not that im bitching, im just saying she has money she should share it.

Having money and having to share it are two separate things. If you were letting her photograph at the time without asking for any compensation, why would you think you're entitled to it now that she's won a photo contest? Compensation for a job needs to be discussed prior to the shoot, not after. Seems to me if she hadn't won none of this conversation would be taking place.