Rihanna vs Topshop
Sunday May 18 2013
Dear Diary,
So this week in fashion and celebrity music news Rihanna sues the UK store Topshop for $5 million in damages for selling a tank with her image on it. They offered to give her $5000 but she and her team declined. Apparently there is a loop hole that protects Topshop in this whole matter. They buy the images straight from the photographer so technically the artist has no rights to the picture. The photographer owns all licensing and copyrights to all their pictures, unless they decide to sell that to the artist or model. Most photographers I know do not sell the rigths to the models, but do sell the imagaes as art, prints or to commercial agencies to use for promotional work.
www.tuturial9.net (your rights as a photographer)
Different laws for different countries and may also vary from state to state. As a photographer know your rights and by all means stand your ground and protect your work. According to
"In most areas the main difference in your rights is depending on if the photograph is used commercially or not. If your photograph is not commercial, i.e. considered art, you have much more rights to publish and use your photograph. For example, in most countries you are allowed to publish and sell photographs that are considered art without a legal release from the model/person in the photo. This means that you can go around the city photographing people in everyday situations and sell the prints or have a show at a gallery without notifying the people you photograph.
However if you intend to use the photograph in any commercial situation you will need a model release from the model. An important note is that if you sell the photograph to a commercial agency they are responsible for getting the model release from both the model and you as the photographer. If they publish your photograph without a model release you are not to blame — however all serious agencies requires a model release for every photograph they buy."
So who is really to blame?
Dear Diary,
So this week in fashion and celebrity music news Rihanna sues the UK store Topshop for $5 million in damages for selling a tank with her image on it. They offered to give her $5000 but she and her team declined. Apparently there is a loop hole that protects Topshop in this whole matter. They buy the images straight from the photographer so technically the artist has no rights to the picture. The photographer owns all licensing and copyrights to all their pictures, unless they decide to sell that to the artist or model. Most photographers I know do not sell the rigths to the models, but do sell the imagaes as art, prints or to commercial agencies to use for promotional work.
www.tuturial9.net (your rights as a photographer)
"In most areas the main difference in your rights is depending on if the photograph is used commercially or not. If your photograph is not commercial, i.e. considered art, you have much more rights to publish and use your photograph. For example, in most countries you are allowed to publish and sell photographs that are considered art without a legal release from the model/person in the photo. This means that you can go around the city photographing people in everyday situations and sell the prints or have a show at a gallery without notifying the people you photograph.
However if you intend to use the photograph in any commercial situation you will need a model release from the model. An important note is that if you sell the photograph to a commercial agency they are responsible for getting the model release from both the model and you as the photographer. If they publish your photograph without a model release you are not to blame — however all serious agencies requires a model release for every photograph they buy."
So who is really to blame?
Comments
Post a Comment