Photographer's Opinon on Photography Contract?

decimusmaximus7 wrote:

Draek,

You are absolutely wrong on this issue. You should not be spreading this information.

Copyright is NOT the right to use the work in any fashion seen fit. Almost any fashion? Yes, I can concede that, but not if you are going to benefit financially without first getting permission from any private person whose identifiable likeness appears in the image.

Case to point from the Mississippi Court of Appeals: HARBIN v. JENNINGS HFAC NPF NPF

I'm going to link to the case on FindLaw instead of providing a proper citation. This is controlling law on this issue if you were to bring suit in the State of Mississippi.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ms-court-of-appeals/1056777.html

Here, a photographer took a senior portrait for a yearbook and then later sold the portrait for $100 to a frame company to be used as the stock photo in frames they sell. The jury found for the senior, awarding her $25,000 in damages plus an additional $25,000 against the photographer and $25,000 against the framing company in punitive damages. While the Court of Appeals did send this case back down to the trial court to retry the issue of damages, they did clearly hold that "Both defendants benefited economically from their actions and both may be made to answer for what is recognized as the willful tort of invasion of privacy."

As to your point about negotiating directly with the model, that is correct, but the only reason that I am involved is because the model has come to me because she does not want her image used in local advertising. She only wants her image used in nationally recognized campaigns.