Saturday, February 16, 2008

A Model's rights with the Photographer's Images

Without going into to much detail about the apparent attitude of many "models", since I already touched on that quite enough in my post about Time For Print/CD, I would like to discuss an issue that has been brought to my attention a number of times recently by other photographers - some of whom have been in this business far longer than I!

Many many photographers feel that they are starting to witness the destruction of the creative process altogether. With digital technology becoming more easily available and the general public having tools at their disposal to provide an easy means for image manipulation on the computer, many models have taken it upon themselves to "Fix", as one photographer put it, their photographs to their liking.

I have even heard of models submitting a photograph as her own work of art under this reasoning:

[The Model] owned half of the copyright since she was there when the photo was taken and was the subject of the photo so it HAD to be a 50/50 collaboration. Then [The Model] altered the background and did some "artwork" to the photo which had to make it 100% her own.

It's a very complacent disregard and disrespectful attitude that I've seen in other aspects of society in recent years, avoiding a sociopolitical rant, however, let me just state as fact that this is NOT how the system works.

When a model is given payment in the form of monies or trade product (such as prints, images, or such) - that makes the service they provided nothing more than a work for hire. In Title 17 Chapter 1 §101 of the Copyright Law a work made for hire is the ownership of the employer. That is, if a model could lay any claim to copyright at all. For all technical purposes, a model is nothing more than a tool for the photographer in composition, just as paint and canvas are tools for the painter, and the release the model signs simply gives permission to the photographer to use the model's likeness (and other details depending on the agreement).

When a photographer releases a final print of any image, that image is to his liking. Everything from the retouching, the artwork he's done (physically or digitally), the composition of the subject matter in the image, it is all part of the photographer's creative process and we need to remember that the presentation of the photo is just as important as the image itself!

To quote directly from a personal journal of BillyD Photography:

The model has the right to not like the pose, not like the photo or not use the photo. During the photo shoot the model always has the last word and no is no. Once the photograph is taken, I believe they do not have the right to change the photograph to their liking. Especially if my name is on it as photographer. Butting their name on it, well, that's just plain thievery.

And he's right. No model has to use the final products they get from a photographer, I know many models who've hated the work they've gotten from a photographer and they've just pitched them and never worked with that photographer again. As for myself, I always make it a rule that I will not force a model to do something they don't want to do, and, if they do something they aren't sure about (say a nude pose) - if they aren't satisfied with the outcome of the final product, then I simply dispose of the image and neither of us will use those images ever. I would not want a model to feel shameful for taking part in creating something with me, and I have wasted hundreds of yards of film, and probably thousands of digital images that have never been seen because either the model, myself, or both of us did not like the final product.

That said, it still does not give the model, or anyone for that matter, the right to take the images of some photographer and alter them to their liking. Doing so is not flattery - it's thievery and it is illegal.

No comments: