Photo Copyright question

[PushingTin]

If I take a photo at lets say a dog show or a dog training session, I take photos of other peoples dogs, I have copyright over the photo as I took it.

BUT - Do I have any authority to use these images without the dog owners permission? Do I need like a model release form in order for me to use these photos (even as part of my portfolio).

Am I allowed to sell these photos without permission of the owner? Can I sell the photos to the dogs owner?

How does it all work???

 

[skieur]

My understanding is that you can sell and use the photos without the permission of the owner within some limitations.

For example, portfolio use would be OK, but using the photo to advertise a certain dog food would be risking a lawsuit whether it was legally OK or not.

skieur

 

[mmphoto]

i just bought a book recently and from what i've read it's not truly copyrighted until you send the image in to the copyright office. whomever takes the picture owns the rights but when it comes to the law and people stealing your image, it would be disuputed and thus, the image would need to be on file in the copyright office.
as far as using the photo... as long as you took the picture you can use it however you want- as far as i know.
my bf works for a wedding studio and they have the rights to use whatever any of their photographers take for anything they wish, even advertising. and i'm pretty sure the clients aren't signing a release. but i'm sure there are many gray areas to this cause lets face it, if i took a picture of you naked without your permission and then sold it for a nudie mag- lol there would be a problem there! my advice is amazon for a book covering all the many topics of photography law. =)

 

[PushingTin]

Thx for the responses. I will look out for that book!

As for the nudie pics, if you took of me, the nudie mag would sell very well, but lets not divert from the original topic :lmao: :blushing:

 

[mmphoto]

As for the nudie pics, if you took of me, the nudie mag would sell very well, but lets not divert from the original topic :lmao: :blushing:

 

[skieur]

I should point out that copyright is automatic and no registration is required. Registration is just to make things easier to prove original ownership of the copyright.

skieur

 

[abraxas]

I should point out that copyright is automatic and no registration is required. Registration is just to make things easier to prove original ownership of the copyright.

skieur

From what I understand, registration also has the advantages of recovering more than just the actual damages in a lawsuit (think attorney fees and punitive damages).

 

[skieur]

From what I understand, registration also has the advantages of recovering more than just the actual damages in a lawsuit (think attorney fees and punitive damages).

You are probably correct. I would however encourage photographers to take action whether a photo is registered or not, against an infringer. One photographer sends them an invoice with a higher than normal price and a time limit to pay it. If not paid, he files suit in small claims court or sells the claim to a collection agency that he works with. It seems to work very well.

skieur

 

[The_Traveler]

my bf works for a wedding studio and they have the rights to use whatever any of their photographers take for anything they wish, even advertising. and i'm pretty sure the clients aren't signing a release.

I would bet that this isn't correct.
The photographer almost certainly has a contract that specifies who owns the images and their rights.

 

[Garbz]

I noticed you reside in South Africa so this may not apply.

In Australia the photographer has the rights to all images he takes and can do with it what he wishes except for cases where a) they violate obscenity laws, b) they are used for commercial interest, c) the subject is covered by some protection like witness protection, or d) you are directly identifying the subject, such as posting the picture with a name underneath.

Commercial interest in this case is defined as making the subject endorse a product. I could say take a picture of a girl drinking a coke and sell it and it would not be commercial interest. I could NOT put it in a coke advertisement. I could put it IN a magazine. I could NOT put it on the cover.

Now Model release forms sometimes cover the Commercial part, and the identifying the subject part, but there is also another problem that comes from some screwed mixup between rights, and contract law. If someone asks you to photograph them (wedding, portraits etc) then THEY own the rights to the photo. However this is easily circumvented with a model release form which always states who owns the picture.

Forgive me if this is wrong. I've done a lot of research on this at our uni library but I am no lawyer.