Photo's Uploaded on Website, Who's Photo's are They Really?

[totalexp0sure]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia......I had a photographer take pictures of me at a studio for modeling. I wasn't the only model there neither, but he apparently ran out of modeling release forms so I never signed any paperwork with him on anything. I was wondering, since I never signed anything who's pictures are they, are they mine or his, as copyright stands. Why I'm asking is because he posted 5 pictures of me, a total of 7, two being photo shopped, and he placed the pictures on his own personal website. He runs his own photography business. He posted on the main page of his site plus two separate links of his site. I would consider this advertising wouldn't you. Now he also placed my photo up in collaboration of other models photos in one main picture set as his main photo on the facebook, I believe it to be advertising as well, because hundreds of millions of people can view it anytime and he has his phone number and address in the main photo itself also, this all photoshopped, and it also has seeking talent on the picture with other things dealing with photgraphy outlined around the border showing what all his company can do.

Well i made contact with him and said I would take him to small claims because since i didn't sign a modeling release form that the pictures where mine, but he believes that they are his, even though he posted up without my signed consent to do such. Once making contact with him and tellim him all that he immediately withrew all evidence of the photos on any of the sites, but i screen shot them with time and date as proof. Can I sue him for that>

Also i want to add, he called me up and used vulgar language on the phone, over the air way, which is illegal by our state law. But I want to know if I can sue him for that as well.

What all do you think I could possibly sue him for and what under terms and stuff in small claims court.

He even threatened to counter sue me for wasting his time and everything saying he has over 45 thousand he can use to whatever he wishes because he owns a business and is protected for people suing him. I'm already going to the magistrate office to have a warrant of his arrest for a class three misdemenor for the vulargity over the phone, even after I asked him to tone it down.

I need some opinion and help on this regard

Thanks To All Helps Assist Me

 

[quincy]

To address the "vulgar" phone call you received from the photographer first, in Virginia it could be a crime to communicate using obscene language over a computer or over the airways and you can be ticketed for using vulgar or obscene language in a public place where others can overhear. A phone call is not considered a computer or a public place, and the airways, while including under Virginia Code 18.2-427 a phone call, has a very specific application under the law and the proofs of "profane, threatening or indecent" language with "an intent to coerce, intimidate or harass" are hard to make (see Brian Allman v Commonwealth of Virginia).

A single phone call received by you (which was not recorded to prove content) in which "vulgar" language was used is not likely to be a crime in Virginia that would result in charges against the photographer. Although your local police will probably have no interest in pursuing charges against this photographer over a single phone call, the content of which is questionable, you can always file a complaint. I imagine, based on what you have posted here, that the complaint will go nowhere, as no crime (or even a civil infraction) appears to have been committed that would be upheld by a Virginia court.

Virginia has patterned their invasion of privacy/misappropriation of a name or likeness after New York's misappropriation rule. It could be considered a misappropriation of another's name or likeness if a photograph that is taken has no newsworthy value and/or the photograph does not picture something/someone of public interest or concern, and the name or likeness of the person in the photograph is used for an exploitative purpose - for advertising or another promotional use or in a commercial manner - AND there is no written consent to use the photograph from the person whose name or image appears. It can even be considered, in some cases, to be a misappropriation if there is no commercial use but the benefits of the use are realized only by the person who is using the name or image, not by the person whose name or image is being used.

Model releases are generally not required or necessary for most photographs or for most uses of most photographs. Release and consent forms are used primarily for the protection of the photographers, as a defense against suits such as the one you are considering here. That is why the smart photographer will obtain release and consent forms from those pictured in his photos. Consent, in the form of a signed release, is a pretty solid defense.

All of the photographs taken by the photographer belong to him. He owns the copyrights in the photos, absent any agreement to the contrary. However, even though a photographer holds the copyrights in the photos he takes, he does not necessarily have the right to do what he wants with these photos. He should not use a photograph of a person or the name of the person in any commercial manner (which could include aiding in the promotion of his website) without the express and explicit written consent of the person pictured.

Whether you have an invasion of privacy/misappropriation of a name or likeness action that you could take against this photographer would be something you would need to discuss with an attorney in your area. The attorney can review all of the facts and look over the screenshots taken from the website and he can access the website to review its content. It is a possibility, certainly, that you could have an actionable case (meeting all the elements of a misappropriation claim), although the costs involved in such a suit and the likelihood of enough damages being awarded to cover these costs, may not make it one worth pursuing - especially if the photos have already been deleted.

I recommend you see an attorney in your area, and go from there.

Good luck.

 

[Knowitall321]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Virginia......I had a photographer take pictures of me at a studio for modeling. I wasn't the only model there neither, but he apparently ran out of modeling release forms so I never signed any paperwork with him on anything. I was wondering, since I never signed anything who's pictures are they, are they mine or his, as copyright stands. Why I'm asking is because he posted 5 pictures of me, a total of 7, two being photo shopped, and he placed the pictures on his own personal website. He runs his own photography business. He posted on the main page of his site plus two separate links of his site. I would consider this advertising wouldn't you. Now he also placed my photo up in collaboration of other models photos in one main picture set as his main photo on the facebook, I believe it to be advertising as well, because hundreds of millions of people can view it anytime and he has his phone number and address in the main photo itself also, this all photoshopped, and it also has seeking talent on the picture with other things dealing with photgraphy outlined around the border showing what all his company can do.

Well i made contact with him and said I would take him to small claims because since i didn't sign a modeling release form that the pictures where mine, but he believes that they are his, even though he posted up without my signed consent to do such. Once making contact with him and tellim him all that he immediately withrew all evidence of the photos on any of the sites, but i screen shot them with time and date as proof. Can I sue him for that>

Also i want to add, he called me up and used vulgar language on the phone, over the air way, which is illegal by our state law. But I want to know if I can sue him for that as well.

What all do you think I could possibly sue him for and what under terms and stuff in small claims court.

He even threatened to counter sue me for wasting his time and everything saying he has over 45 thousand he can use to whatever he wishes because he owns a business and is protected for people suing him. I'm already going to the magistrate office to have a warrant of his arrest for a class three misdemenor for the vulargity over the phone, even after I asked him to tone it down.

I need some opinion and help on this regard

Thanks To All Helps Assist Me

So, if I read this correctly, he took your pic & posted it on his commercial website. You call him & he takes it off his website (and rather quickly). So your pic was on his website for a short time period. So, although he says he can use your photos, in reality, he doesn't. Even if you do have a case the payout would be very small I would think. Keep an eye on his site for further postings though; his reaction to your call could be seen as his agreeing to not use your likeness for commercial gain in the future. If this is the business you wish to go into, you should learn the laws involved. So use this incident as a reason why you should get on top of these things. Why did you go to this photographer - you could have hired one & owned the images?

 

[cosine]

And you are doing all this merely because you happened to not sign a modeling release form? What if you had signed such a form? Would it have bothered you that he used these photos of you, in that case?

Were you expecting him to use the pictures? Would you have expected it only if you had the release form? Did you compensate him for his work?

What you should have done when contacting him the very first time was tell him that you noticed he was using the pictures of you, and that you want to get the release form issue taken care of. At this point, now, that clearly won't happen. You now have one less area photographer to make pictures of you (I'm assuming you have the modeling looks).

At this point, you probably do have some small claims. Are they worth the trouble? Are they worth the effort of proving when he denies?

FYI, I know how to remake those web site photo captures look like they have any other pictures. In fact, something similar to that is how I won my very first case when I acted as a "student rep" for a friend of mine (the college's rules on student disciplinary actions allowed any charged student to have any other student as their representative to argue for them before the disciplinary committee, which also consisted of students supervised by a non-voting tenured faculty member). I won the case for my friend by showing that computer documents could be fabricated or altered to show anything. That was 30 years ago. It's much more widely known, today.

The captures you have "could be" photoshopped, and all evidence of any photoshopping removed. You need witnesses that saw the web site show your image on a computer you were not in control off ... if he challenges your evidence. Given that he is a photographer, you know he knows what PhotoShop can do (photography is a hobby for me, and I do know what it can do ... and have done it with some different tools ... I don't literally use PhotoShop itself).

 

[Rexlan]

Sick ... looking for a quick buck and trying to play the photographer.

Get a life and go make an honest living instead.

 

[Knowitall321]

Sick ... looking for a quick buck and trying to play the photographer.

Get a life and go make an honest living instead.

The photographer open the door to this type of inquiry though. Since he took them down, the OP case no major case here.