Photographer's Opinon on Photography Contract?

Trying to recap.

You hire a photographer to shoot you and a model.

My understanding is that you either hired a model or used an employee to act as one.

If you hired the model as your contractual employee for that modeling session, then the implied contract between you and the model is that he or she transfered ownership of her likeliness to you according to usual standard. Mainly that they respect usual community and social standards expected by the photo shoot. He or she may represent an usual client of a lawyer, but if somehow you put an ad advertsing yourself as a porno performer lawyer then the standard is non-present and should have been agreed contractually before. IN WRITING.

If one of your employee is used, then standard labour laws of your juridisction applies. Unless coerced or harassed to do a non-usual duty, modeling being one of them, then you retain all rights to their likeliness which I would say most tribunal would agreed are eternally granted. A secretary asked to change a light bulb cannot sue you because you ask her to do so, an non-electrician employee that change a switch, cause a fire that destroy a skyscrapper cannot be sued either, but you will as his employer.

As a lawyer you must know that they are no layman's anwer. What laymen or photographers think is useless in court. Again, in Quebec, as we are a Civil Law juridisction in a Common Law geographical environnement in two countries, we thread very lightly on the matter.

Obviously I know a bit more than the layman on the issue. If the photog sues you asking for reasonable ownership as she is, there is not a judge that will not grant his or her wish to use her copyright for promotional reasons. It would not to a layman, you would be laughed out of court as a lawyer.

Finally a caveat applies in Quebec, usage of the likeness of someone REQUIRES that consent is transmitted clearly as in Aubry vs. Vice-Versa http://csc.lexum.org/decisia-scc-csc/scc-csc/scc-csc/fr/1608/1/document.do