I suspect this is the sort of image that is best realized in super high quality resolution on a museum wall, and probably loses impact viewed on a screen.

Allow me to clarify what is basically linguistic vagueness:

At the time of creation, the photo is automatically copyrighted. The creator need do nothing to legally retain copyright and hold all the rights therein.

HOWEVER, as a practical matter, to protect and enforce the copyright, the key is to timely register the image(s) with the copyright office. An unlimited number of unpublished images can be registered in a single registration, for which the cost is $35 or a little more, depending on whether you register online or using paper forms.

The confusion over terms probably results from sloppy language, referring to registration as "copyrighting"...

I hope I have clarified things and not obfuscated them further.

Good advice there, for anyone working with a lawyer. In almost any type of case, not just copyright.

If a copyright matter is involved, another bit of good advice is not to try to contact the thief yourself directly; it's best done by your lawyer.

Correction to above: You can register an UNLIMITED NUMBER of unpublished photos in a single registration with a single $35 fee.

There are several ways to register them; the above assumes you use the copyright office's online registration method. Doing it with paper forms carries a higher fee.

To copyright register images, go to www.copyright.gov and follow the instructions and use the forms there. You can register an unlimited number of unpublished images for a fee ranging from around $35 to slightly more.

Although you own copyright at the time of creation of the photo, timely registration is the key to protecting your copyright and to making thieves pay for their thievery.

With timely registration you can sue thieves for up to $150,000 for pirated image, and you don't have to prove the thief profited or that you were harmed. You also can make the thief pay your attorney's fees. Without timely registration you are limited to your actual damages or thieves profits, and you don't get your attorney's fees paid.

Sticking a copyright notice on the image has very little legal significance but may deter some thieves.

The USA lost the race by one addlebrained bad decision on the downwind leg. The single goof up took the race from neck and neck to a major NZ lead, and with nothing left but the rest of the downwind leg and a short reach to the finish, that was it.

I asked an attorney who confirmed my opinion which is that the original model release should be adequate. He also concurred with me that in general you want the model release to be as broad as possible to avoid issues later on. He also commented that no one would get any shooting done if they tried to have 50 or so model releases, or tailor one release to cover every peculiarity of individual state law.

The above is opinion and informal comment, not a legal conclusion or individual legal advice.

Here's a link to California's right of publicity law. Most states with ROP laws based them on California's, New York's, or both. ROP law is more developed in those two states than in most others because of the large number of celebrities in those states.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/CIV/5/d4/1/2/2/3/s3344

When you read the law (it's easy reading, don't worry) please note how BROADLY it defines the model's rights that are covered by the law. If you read the law I think you'll agree with me that it's best (certainly under CA law) to have a release for uses such as online portfolios.

[quote=SharpShooter]....

A few clarifications, correct me where I am wrong.
A "tight backside" I understand, but also can be identifying clothing. Such as an actress who has developed a unique trademark look. This could be an ROP without seeing and identifiable face or tattoos.

I REPLY: I can't say for sure as to "identifiable clothing." Not aware of any cases where this exact issue came up.

--------------------------------------


Many here think that "commercial purposes" is simply making money by selling their photos. Commercial use is more as in advertising a product. Such as selling Nike shoes or Rolex watches.

I RESPOND: The uses that require a release vary from state to state and according to precedent in particular states. But almost for sure, using a person's image to sell a product requires a release, in states with a Right of Publicity law.

-----------------------


I had not heard that it could include on-line portfolios without directly advertising a product.

I RESPOND: Advertising a SERVICE is normally included among the uses requiring a release. IMO use in online portfolios requires a release because the image is being used to advertise the quality of the photographer's work and services. This is my opinion, and I can't cite any specific cases on point. However, I feel strongly on this point, especially where the photographer is making money from his services.

-------------------------------------------

Also the use of trademarked products need releases from the manufacturers.

I RESPOND: That's a whole 'nother ball of wax. In general it's wise to avoid showing trademarks in images that might be used commercially, such as for stock. In fact, some stock agencies forbid recognizable logos in images submitted to them.

--------------------------------

I FURTHER COMMENT:
For a much better understanding of ROP law, read California's ROP statute: California Civil Code section 3344 and see how broadly it defines the purposes for which a release is needed.

One of the most amusing cases in ROP law involved a female skydiver who parachuted nude. The image at issue was taken of her backside, during freefall some miles above the ground. The woman claimed she was identifiable even though no face or distinctive mark or tattoo was evident. Tragically, I do not know the outcome of the case. I myself have parachuted, though no one has asked me to do so nude...

The subject is discussed here:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ03.pdf

And it refers to "visually perceptible." The copyright office does not appear to recognize EXIF or other "hidden" notices as valid notice. This makes logical as well as legal sense because many sites automatically strip away EXIF data anyhow.

I've never heard of a case where an EXIF notice is recognized by a court. But then, as I've mentioned, the notice has very little legal significance anyhow.

Got some messages encouraging me to post info on model releases, so here goes. Bear in mind that I'm talking about the USA law, and that the laws underlying the need for model releases (typically "right of publicity" laws) are state laws and vary from state to state.

IN A NUTSHELL: In most states a person has the right to control the commercial exploitation of his/her (herein "her") own image. This right is called "right of publicity" (herein "ROP") It can also extend to voice and other aspects. If she cannot be identified from the image, such as a tight shot of a backside with no tattoo, there is no ROP.

ROP laws exist at the state level. Some states have them. Some don't. The laws and penalties vary from state to state. Some states recognize spoken model releases (eg., CA). Others require they be in writing (eg. NY).

HOW DOES ROP LIMIT A PHOTOGRAPHER'S ABILITY TO MAKE USE OF AN IMAGE? In a state with a ROP law, the photographer can't use the image for commercial purposes without the model's permission. Commercial purposes is usually defined broadly, and in many states would arguably include online portfolios.

WHAT ARE THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING ROP LAWS? Typically around $750-$1,500 per violating image or incident, depending on the state and certain other factors. And that's even if the photographer didn't make money or intend to make money directly from the image. In the case of the image making a lot of money, the model can also sue for profits that resulted from the use of the image.

SO WHAT'S A MODEL RELEASE? The model release is a form which gives the photographer permission to do the usual things with the image, such as licensing it, selling it, using it to advertise himself or other products or services. The model is releasing her rights, so the photographer has permission to do things which otherwise would violate the model's ROP. Some states recognize "oral releases." (Get your mind out of the gutter, eh!) But even in those states, it is wise to get a written release to avoid a "he said/she said" contest.

A STUPID ISSUE, BUT HERE'S THE ANSWER. Some photographers argue over whether a model release is a contract or not. The answer is that depending on the release and the arrangement with the model, it is sometimes a contract and sometimes not.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON RELEASES: A release should be thorough and cover all possible uses in all possible media and avenues, existing and yet to be invented, everywhere, forever. It should be (duh!) in writing, and signed by the model. It should include a release of any model's claims to copyright.

WHAT ABOUT RIGHT OF PRIVACY? Right of publicity developed out of common law rights of privacy. A use without permission of a model's image may violate her right of privacy as well as ROP. This is especially so if nudity is involved. Right of privacy laws, like ROP, vary from state to state.

WHAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COPYRIGHT AND THE MODEL'S RIGHTS? In a nutshell, when the photo is made, there are two sets of rights. The photographer normally owns the copyright; the model has her own ROP. For the photographer to make full use of the images he should get a model release. If the model wants to make use of the images she should get a copyright license from the photographer.

WHERE TO GET MORE INFO ON YOUR OWN STATES RIGHT OF PUBLICITY AND RIGHT OF PRIVACY LAWS? Use a search engine to look for "right of publicity law" in your own state. Same with right of privacy law. For those in California, incidentally, the ROP law is found at California Civil Code section 3344.

Please bear in mind that the above is a simplification of some of the important points about this area of law. Also, I am not a lawyer, but have worked as a paralegal and legal secretary in cases involving right of publicity law. I hope the above is helpful.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER: If you might ever need a release, get it at the time of shooting.

[quote=Meives]

I plan to make a substantial post regarding copyright and a separate post regarding model releases. But a few comments regarding the above, for now. Everything I say unless stated otherwise applies to USA law.

The copyright notice has very little legal significance and is not required to protect your copyright. A proper notice includes the word "copyright" or "copr" or the copyright symbol; the copyright claimant's name; and the date of copyright.

As an informal matter a visible copyright notice may deter some thieves. Or it may not. If a thief crops out the notice, that's a separate crime and violation under copyright and increases penalties if a matter goes to court. And if a thief steals an image and reproduces it with notice intact, obviously that fact demolishes the credibility of any lies or excuses he comes up with.

A visible copyright notice also prevents a thief from claiming his infringement was "accidental" if the matter goes to court. Everything I've seen indicates that the notice must be visible; a notice within the EXIF data is not, to my understanding, a valid copyright notice.

For legal purposes, a discreet notice in the corner of the image is good enough; for legal purposes you don't have to deface the image with a giant watermarked notice in the middle of the image.

The most important points about a copyright notice:
1-You don't lose your rights under copyright if you don't have a notice;
2-There is very little legal significance to a notice or lack thereof.
3-The key to protecting copyright and/or going after thieves, is timely registration of copyright.

Hello, gentlemen and ladies.

I'm a very experienced photographer in Los Angeles. Have shot all kinds of stuff and been published a lot, but I don't make my living at it. Shooting these days is mostly portraits, headshots, and other people stuff in a comfortable home studio. I'm very at ease with studio strobes.

I have worked as a legal secretary and paralegal with particular experience with copyright issues and "Right of Publicity" law. Right of Publicity is the law that gets in play when model releases (or the lack of them) are at issue.

I'm looking forward to learning from my colleagues and occasionally providing some insight. Especially into those two legal areas which are so confusing to many photographers and other lay persons.