photos - without release forms
A while back a friend of mine posed nude for pics. The photographer claimed the pics were for his private collection, that he doesn't show them to others, sell them, post them on the 'net, etc. etc. She normally wouldn't pose for naked pics, but was broke, needed the $, and trusted the guy.
Since these were supposedly for his eyes only, no model release form was ever signed, nor was there any other written agreement.
Go figure. The other day one of our mutual acquaintences (a guy who loves strip clubs/strippers) told me about the naked pics he bought of her.... from that photographer!
My friend would FLIP if she knew her pics are being distributed.
Does she have any legal recourse against the photographer? Or does he technically have the right to distribute the pics since she has no written proof of their agreement?
Any of you gals have experience with this? Please help!
She doesn't know yet that others have seen her pics, btw. I really want to say something to her....
Re: photos - without release forms
I used to do a little modeling. My understanding, and what I've always been told, is that she's much safer for NOT signing a release. He does not have the right to sell them. She never signed anything saying he owned the images of had the right to do that. Which means he probably doesn't even have proof that she was of legal age when he took the photos, which makes it a big legal no-no for him to be selling them.
Re: photos - without release forms
Cool, thanks for letting me know. What a bad mistake on his part, especially since he's a lawyer!
Re: photos - without release forms
tell her asap definitely! i would want to know!
Re: photos - without release forms
^^^ unlike just about every other matter involving a 'stripper' and the law, in the case of photo releases there is no situation of 'he said, she said'. The photographer either got the model to sign a photo release form or he didn't ! And without a signed photo release form, it is illegal for the photographer to sell or profit from the non-released pictures under US law.
However, where the internet is concerned, where many web servers are not located within the USA, it can sometimes be very difficult to make a case of copyright violation stick. For example, suppose that photographer X becomes a 'partner' in a website whose web server is located in a foreign country, and whose business is registered in that foreign country. Photographer X provides 1000 pictures of 100 different models. Programmer Y, who is also a 'partner' in the offshore web site, posts those pics in the pay area of that website. Paying 'members' then spend money to access the 'members' area of that website. At the end of the month, photographer X and programmer Y and other 'partners' pay the website bills and share the remaining profits.
In this scenario, there is no transaction to point to where photographer X was paid money for the specific sale of the pics that did not have a valid photo release. In this scenario, there is also no transaction to point to where photographer X or programmer Y specifically profited from the commercial use of the pics that did not have a valid photo release. Thus legally speaking there is no way for the model to prove any specific degree of damage. Even more frustrating is the fact that the website business probably operates under the law of the foreign country that hosts the web server, meaning that any attempt to bring action by the model may involve filing a complaint in Bucharest or the Cayman Islands !
I discovered these 'realities' because I was involved in an incident where some of my 'fans' informed me that one of my movies was playing on Romanian TV. I had no knowledge of this, and I had certainly not agreed to this or received payment from the Rumanian broadcasters. However, my only option for recourse was to file charges of copyright violation in a Rumanian court ... with an unspecifiable amount of monetary damages
Re: photos - without release forms
Wow, very interesting info Melonie, thanks!
Money/copyrights aside though, is it legal for him to be distributing nude pics of her (online or otherwise) though he specifically told her they were for his private collection only? He lead her to believe they would never be on public display, which is the only reason she posed for him.
Because she doesn't have it in writing that this was their agreement (but he ended up lying), is she legally screwed? Shes not the sort that would sue for money. But I know that if/when she finds out, she'd want the images taken down at the least.