Photoclubalpha

If I hand some one my camera and ask them to shoot a picture of me, do I have to ask for their permission to publish the picture. Keep in mind I do give them full credit in the publication.

wow theres a new question. Cable release from Hong Kong can be had for 6 bucks... a lot cheaper than the contract you could put out on whoever is claiming the rights to your portrait

You have already thanked him after he took your portrait with your camera

But if the photographer is a she and a beauty then she deserves a lot more

What if your art form is picking out good amateurs?

From a practical point of view, first, who will ever claim his rights, they don't even know who you are. Second, if the snapshot they take of you in front of the Louvre or whatever suddenly becomes famous, how can they proove they took it?

Edit:
Ops I didn't see you're going to publish these pics, giving credit to those took it. Well, then it's them who took the picture and they have the copyright. But is a snapshot like this really copyrightable? Will it be considered art because it's being publisched?

In any case be careful not to pick a lawyer . Maybe after the shot he will refuse to hand the camera back, because in it there is some of his own property . Anyway he can't use his picture commercially on his own unless you've signed a model release form him!

Let me clarify. I published a kayak fishing book. Some of my friends were handed my camera to take a picture of me in action. (example: I hook up with a nice redfish and hand over the camera to another angler to capture the moment, they snap a few pictures including the hero shot, the release, and then give me the camera back). I already have the release forms signed, I am just curious if this was necessary.

My publisher infrormed that a release is not necessary as the camera with which the photos were taken belongs to me.

If I borrowed your brushes and painted the next Mona Lisa with them I doubt the fact that you owned the brushes would mean you owned the art. unless you contracted me to paint the Mona Lisa (I'd call her Betty) on your behalf then it would definatly be your property

Javelin wrote: unless you contracted me to paint the Mona Lisa (I'd call her Betty) on your behalf then it would definatly be your property

What if I contract a photographer to photograph my wedding, with my camera, in a studio ? The photographer has still the copyright, I guess. Even I pay for the models, the environment, the dresses and the photographer & his studio.
He presses the shutter a few times (sorry if this sounds condescending), asks us into the same std poses as he has done before with hundreds other couples and then wants $75 for each print or so (I know I am touching a sensitive area and might be teared and feathered here).

What about the architect who I contracted to design my house and to supervise it's construction? Will he claim a copyright on my house? No, I paid him, that's it.

Soon my plumber will claim royalties each time I take a shower and use his artistic installations

You ask a friend to take your picture etc., etc., and he might ask for copyright? Some friend. If I made such a shot for a friend of mine and came out to be a GRAND PRIZE, believe me I'll be very very happy that I helped my friend.

Dr. Harout wrote:You ask a friend to take your picture etc., etc., and he might ask for copyright? Some friend. If I made such a shot for a friend of mine and came out to be a GRAND PRIZE, believe me I'll be very very happy that I helped my friend.

բարեւ
I think that is the right attitude
շնորհակալ եմ

bossel wrote: բարեւ
I think that is the right attitude
շնորհակալ եմ

Thanks to you my friend

Great conversation here, all of the said photographers are good freinds, and would not ask for a copyright. I think we did the releases just for courtesy.

Thanks for the input.