Is this legal????

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
Originally there was a verbal agreement to sell just the shots taken as a 1 time thing and split the earnings. Then (after the photos were taken) he decided he wanted to be an agent and have her sign a 1 year contract, which was not part of the initial agreement. Obviously this is not what she wanted and now she doesn't want to even sell the shots. The details (about where they were going to be sold to) were supposed to be worked out at a later date. Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the original question, which is that of whether or not a photographer can sell a model's photos without written permission.

The best she has is a verbal contract. Verbal contracts do not hold up very well in court.

 

[Maverick2002]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
Originally there was a verbal agreement to sell just the shots taken as a 1 time thing and split the earnings. Then (after the photos were taken) he decided he wanted to be an agent and have her sign a 1 year contract, which was not part of the initial agreement. Obviously this is not what she wanted and now she doesn't want to even sell the shots. The details (about where they were going to be sold to) were supposed to be worked out at a later date. Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the original question, which is that of whether or not a photographer can sell a model's photos without written permission.

The best she has is a verbal contract. Verbal contracts do not hold up very well in court.

But all he has is a verbal contract as well ... so how does that work? Or is that the extent of your commentary?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Gooberlx2
She *might* be able to get judgment in a civil suit for royalties.

Yup, that's about all I can think of - but I still highly doubt he can be completely prevented from selling them.

So what you're saying is a photographer can take pics of a "professional model" (one who has in the past been reimbursed monetarily for photos) and sell them without her signing a consent form/contract?

good luck having a 'pro' not have you sign something to at least cut them in.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
But all he has is a verbal contract as well ... so how does that work? Or is that the extent of your commentary?

In the court's eyes, a verbal contract is not a valid one.

So without the existence of a contract, the ownership of the images defaults to the photographer.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Maverick2002

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Maverick2002
Originally there was a verbal agreement to sell just the shots taken as a 1 time thing and split the earnings. Then (after the photos were taken) he decided he wanted to be an agent and have her sign a 1 year contract, which was not part of the initial agreement. Obviously this is not what she wanted and now she doesn't want to even sell the shots. The details (about where they were going to be sold to) were supposed to be worked out at a later date. Anyway, this doesn't have much to do with the original question, which is that of whether or not a photographer can sell a model's photos without written permission.

The best she has is a verbal contract. Verbal contracts do not hold up very well in court.

But all he has is a verbal contract as well ... so how does that work? Or is that the extent of your commentary?

As I said, I can't be sure. It may vary depending on state laws.

Usually the law leans towards the photographer when there is no written contract - especially since there was no money involved. Now if she had paid him, there could be the logical expectation of some sort of service provided for that payment, but also in photography it could be called a "sitting fee" which is quite common.

There's just too many if's here and though I have experience in the field, I have not nor will I ever do anything without a contract and model release, and have therefore not had to deal with anything like this. Also though I have a good idea about the legalities of certain things in this business, I couldn't tell you what sort of local state laws may offer protection or not.

Does she have any friends who are lawyers? A letter on the letterhead of a law firm could to wonders - nobody wants a hassle like that and I doubt that these photos are worth so much that it would be worth the trouble if the photographer thought she would pursue legal action against him, and might make him more cooperative towards some sort of deal.

I just don't know enough about the situation, nor the laws in your state to offer any more than suggestions or insight about what MAY or MAY NOT play out.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
In the court's eyes, a verbal contract is not a valid one.

A verbal contract is just as valid as a written contract.

The only difference is that it is more difficult to prove that it existed. There may be strong circumstantial evidence that such a contract may have existed (e.g. one of the parties has standard non-negotiable terms that they discuss up front, with evidence of having done this for multiple previous engagements).

 

[Aquaman]

I'm not a lawyer or professional photographer........ but I did stay at the Holiday Inn Express last night

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Anonemous]

TTIWWP