Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

qman_of_texas · 07:40 PM

Make up artist has same rights of photos as photographers?

Not a person that likes to nag alot, but what I seen on craigslist made me say hmm.

Make up artist is looking to build her portfolio. She has one ad for photographers and another for models.

AD FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS:
------------------------
I am looking for photographers that are up and coming and trying to build your portfolio.
This is a trade service ad! I provide models and makeup you provide photography skills.
This is solely to help each other build our portfolios and not paid..........
If you are interested in building your portfolio please contact me!

AD FOR MODELS:
----------------
I am a Makeup artist in the Houston area, trying to build up my portfolio. I need models (male or female though I haven't done males before I can always learn) I am licensed in the state of Texas and have been doing freelance work for 8 years. I work with photographers that are trying to build their portfolios also.
This is at absolutely NO COST TO YOU except your TIME!
What do you get?
free makeup and hairdo (if you want) ~ I provide all cosmetics and hair tools but not hair accessories)
free photoshoot
free electronic copies of all of your photos from the shoot
What is required from you:
Wardrobe
Hair accessories (if you want)
Your time
and last you have to sign a consent form releasing all rights of the photos taken to me and the photographer
(meaning later you can't try to sue one of use for using your photo for our business purposes)

-free electronic copies of all of your photos from the shoot

-you have to sign a consent form releasing all rights of the photos taken to me and the photographer

Kind of similar to thread: Photography workshop question:
http://www.texasphotoforum.com/forum...-question.html

Phil · 12-13-2010, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by qman_of_texas

Make up artist has same rights of photos as photographers?

Only if they shoot the pictures using their own equipment.

Phil

hue-e · 12-13-2010, 02:13 PM

I would say they have rights to use the photo in their portfolio so they can market themselves, but they don't have any rights to distribute or sell it.

w9ctm · 12-13-2010, 02:37 PM

I would suggest it would depend if there is a contract or enforcable agreement of some type, as well as the specific language that was in the contract/agreement.

Tom · 12-13-2010, 03:43 PM

Fairly typical for TPF. Just write her a release allowing her to use the pictures for portfolio purposes only. Not a big deal. Don'g give them any more than portfolio rights.

mmuhlenkamp · 12-13-2010, 03:46 PM

Why shouldn't the make-up artist have rights to the images she helped create? I don't think anyone (photog, model, or MUA) should have rights to sell the images, but all should be able to have the freedom to use in their respective portfolios.

camera shy · 12-13-2010, 04:22 PM

So Paul Buff has rights to all my photos because his Alien Bee product contributed to my art ?

jeffkohn · 12-13-2010, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by camera shy

So Paul Buff has rights to all my photos because his Alien Bee product contributed to my art ?

Surely you can see that's not the same, as the lights are not actually providing any creative input to the shoot. Now if Paul came out and personally set up the lights for you, maybe....

Looking at the original post I'm not sure why anybody would object, unless you just want to nitpick the precise language of the CL ads. It seems obvious to me that the idea here is everybody collaborates (photog, MUA, and model), and everybody gets pictures that they can use for portfolio/promotion. As long as everybody understands the terms, and they're spelled out in the model/photo releases, what's the problem?

hue-e · 12-13-2010, 04:37 PM

I would never deny a partnering creative use of any work they colab on.

camera shy · 12-13-2010, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Surely you can see that's not the same, as the lights are not actually providing any creative input to the shoot. Now if Paul came out and personally set up the lights for you, maybe....

Looking at the original post I'm not sure why anybody would object, unless you just want to nitpick the precise language of the CL ads. It seems obvious to me that the idea here is everybody collaborates (photog, MUA, and model), and everybody gets pictures that they can use for portfolio/promotion. As long as everybody understands the terms, and they're spelled out in the model/photo releases, what's the problem?

I agree that if it's consensual it is fine.
I think I was put off by the OP original implication that the MUA automatically has rights to the photos the same as the photog. It's always a cooperative effort. The model certainly contributes to the image but she/he doesn't automatically get rights to the images unless the photographer agrees.
Put everything in writing and all should be OK.

texxter · 12-13-2010, 07:37 PM

Quote:

-you have to sign a consent form releasing all rights of the photos taken to me and the photographer

This does not make sense legally. The copyright owner for the images is the photographer. The model cannot grant the MUA a release of rights because the MUA does not own intellectual property over the images, unless granted by the photographer. The way to handle this is that the photographer gets a release from the model and the photographer grants a license to both the model and the MUA. The license to these two people could be the same or could be different. Some people confuse a release with a license - the release simply says that the model, in exchange for some consideration, agrees to give up some rights. The license, granted by the photographer, entitles the licensee to do certain things with the images.

daveb · 12-14-2010, 08:54 AM

Spot on Paco

Howard Barlow · 12-14-2010, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmuhlenkamp

I don't think anyone (photog, model, or MUA) should have rights to sell the images, but all should be able to have the freedom to use in their respective portfolios.

The federal government disagrees with you, hence 17 US Code - Copyright.

mmuhlenkamp · 12-14-2010, 02:58 PM

I wasn't getting into the legality, just what I would perceive as fair if fellow creatives get together and collaborate time to create images that benefit all parties. Paco wrote a much better explanation than I did.

Plus, I don't think the photographer can sell images without a model release first?

texxter · 12-14-2010, 03:10 PM

Melissa, I think your intent of your posting was right on - that people getting together to create something should have rights to the creation. The tricky part is that copyright law clearly states that the ownership of the creation is the photographer, regardless of how much help he or she got.

So the photographer owns the product of creation and he or she can decide how others share in that creation. Note that a release from the model is strictly not needed to use the images commercially, as the photographer truly owns that creation. The problem that a release tries to address is that people are entitled to control how their "likeness" is used for purposes of promoting a product, idea, political or religious view. A model release is used to acquire consent for a certain use.

So just because I own the object of creation doesn't mean that I can use it for whatever I want - as the people depicted on the image have certain rights.