Some time ago Unbearable Lightness posted on What We Saw Today a piece entitled "What value a nude", about print publishing versus internet publishing. The comments it generated strayed into a discussion of model rights, copyright over images and reproduction rights. I wrote two lengthy comments to that post and then added a post of my own, which I reproduce below as it is one of those that had to be taken down due to the mess up with photographs. I feel compelled to do so in view of a very nice comment left last night on that post, months later, by rbeebephoto, in which he talks about his personal attitude to models and their contribution to the artwork. Most photographers, in my experience, are extremely fair and courteous with regard to their models. There are however, occasionally, misunderstandings.
Yesterday I had the very pleasant surprise of a message from a photographer, Michael Cheetham, who took pictures of me and model Linten Clarke as part of the Models of Diversity campaign. I had forgotten about those pictures, which had been taken without monetary compensation as we had agreed to support the campaign. Michael is now putting them in a West End gallery for an exhibition and has offered to split the profits. We did not have a written agreement, but Michael felt dutybound to make this offer out of respect for both his models. What I am trying to say is that despite everything one should take written agreements with a pinch of salt. If one is up to mischief he or she will do so with or without a written agreement. If one is fair, he or she will act with honesty with or without written agreement.
I would also like to say that my personal experience with photographers has always been very positive, despite one or two misunderstandings, which were eventually cleared. I hope it will remain so! I take this opportunity to apologise for any miscommunication generated in the past.
Be that as it may, I am reproducing below the old post, adding to it to make it more up to date.
When Unbearable Lightness posted a couple of days ago her piece about the value of a nude, I added a comment which touched on the issue of copyright and the contribution of the art model to the making of the art work, the photograph. Then Stephen Haynes responded in his blog, explaining why sharing copyright with a model would be unworkable for him - by the way Stephen, Alex IS my real name, just short for Alexandra, its English equivalent, no need to put it in inverted commas. Tonight Unbearable Lightness has posted a very impassioned plea for the right of models to be regarded as collaborators and have their work acknowledged.
Oh, this is a complex, vexed and vexing issue. Let's try to look at it from a different angle. I have already discussed, and so has Stephen, a parallel from dance, referring to the Martha Graham company and its litigation with Mr Ron Protas, Martha Graham's former lover, who inherited ownership of Graham's choreographies and proceeded to forbid the company to perform those dances and even teach the Graham technique - luckily he lost his case. I will not repeat all that in this post. Let me just state the basic proposition: the art nude photographic model - in fact, more generally, a model - is a performer. As such s/he has a considerable input in the making of the final art work, the photograph. Without model there would be no photograph, put it simply. I know, I know, if I decide I don't want to pose for a photographer s/he will quickly find another model - I am wholly disposable, the field is competitive and full of wannabes. But the fact remains that the photographer would need a model to create the art work, the photograph. So why should my contribution to the making of that art work not be recognised? It's already bad enough that some photographers are not willing to pay a fee or not willing to share a profit or a percentage of it, if the photograph is sold. Some, definitely not all. I am forced to look at negative behaviour here, in order to make my case.
Why not share the copyright?
Before you all jump up and say that such a request is outrageous, painters and sculptors certainly do not share their copyright with their models, let me make you aware of the current move in the UK to obtain official performer status for life models (or artist models, as they are also known) through getting an Equity card. Equity is the union of performers in Britain and membership of that union is very much sought after. Life models are campaigning for their right to be recognised as performers and enjoy the benefits that come with that official recognition. Of course artist models will not be able to share the copyright of the painting or the sculpture they pose for, but by obtaining the official status of performers they will be entitled to be treated like performers, on a par with dancers, actors and musicians. Therefore they will be named in catalogues as the models of the art work and have a minimum fee set by Equity and so on. (I am proud to add that soon after this post was published I did get my Equity card, as a life model and as an independent photographic art model and am contemplating taking a much more active role in the union, for a greater recognition of life models)
Let's go back to the world of photography. Most art nude photographers regard themselves as artists, and indeed they are, but photography is a very different art form from painting or sculpting. It really relies heavily on the active participation of another person, the model - unless of course the photographer only shoots landscapes or objects or is a street photographer, shooting subjects rather than models.
The input of the model is much more significantly tangible in an art photograph than it is in a painting. The photographic model has every right to be acknowledged, i.e., named. And yes, s/he should be entitled to share the copyright of the image or at least have some rights to its reproduction. All sorts of restrictions can be put in place, of course, so that the image is not further processed or manipulated by anyone else once it is finalised, but share of copyright simply means that the authorship is shared. And in answer to Stephen, copyright does not have to be passed on to someone else in case of death, clauses can be put in to specify its duration in time.
Unbearable Lightness talks about books whose authorship, hence copyright, is shared. When the books are published it certainly is not the case that one of the authors unilaterally decides to make changes to the book without the agreement of the other author. The same would apply to a photograph: any tampering with Photoshop by the "model's boyfriend", as Stephen discusses, would certainly not be admissible.
I did an interesting shoot with photographer Ashley Cameron. Ashley works in advertising. He is a photographer and he also provides a retouching service. In the advertising and commercial world more and more photographers do not process their images, they simply turn them over to a retouching service. Copyright law seems to be behind the times: the photograph is no longer the product of just one person. A whole team of people is involved. Who says that the retoucher, who also does photo manipulations - ads are full of them - is less of an author than the person who took the shot? Soon there will be a need to review copyright law so that such newer developments can be given greater legal protection.
Some art models, like the great Veruschka, have the power to call the shots, so to speak: Veruschka certainly shares ownership of her body art images. Her website specifies that her self portraits are performed by her, Vera Lehndorff (she no longer uses the name Veruschka) and photographed by Andreas Hubertus Ilse. A simple statement but so very telling: it makes no bones about who owns what. Let's face it: it is Veruschka who leads the dance. She is the star, a superstar in fact. She is someone to reckon with, not to mess about with. But it should not just be for übermodels like Vera Lehndorff to be able to assert their rights as performers and collaborators and be acknowledged as such. Every model should have the inalienable right to have that recognition. This is the 21st century, we really need to leave behind old ways of thinking and create fairer laws which match current situations.
Addendum:
The art nude world is full of very talented photographers and models who do not necessarily work as professionals i.e. making a living out of their art nude work. This inevitably leads to grey areas. Copyright and reproduction issues are negotiated on behalf of commercial and fashion models by their agencies and restrictions can be significant i.e. there are stringent rules on "testing" and so forth, as many photographers, who make most of their living out of non -nude, commercial work, have discussed with me.
Many photographers who do art nude are however very accomplished amateurs and will never publish, sell or exhibit any of their work, which they do for their own satisfaction. Many art nude models are not professional models, they do it out of passion, as a hobby. Model releases and written agreements seem wholly redundant in such cases.
I earn only a little portion of my income through modelling, primarily life modelling and in truth as an Equity member it is the plight of life models I am interested in championing . Life models often work long hours in appalling conditions and Local Authorities refuse to acknowledge their self employed status, leading to tax deduction problems.
Art nude models are often willing to work TFCD or TFP with a view to splitting profits if any image is sold. This can be put in writing in an agreement but realistically how can it be enforced? Litigation will often be too costly. What is the solution? Be sensible, be courteous, be respectful of the other. Say clearly what you are willing/unwilling to do. Acknowledge photographers, if you are a model. Acknowledge a model, if you are a photographer, unless she asks you not to reveal her name. Most of all let's be realistic. Art nude is not a multi-million dollar industry and never will be. Rather than fighting over wrongs or rights, let's work together, models and photographers, to make art nude better recognised as fine art photography.
(All photos, unless otherwise stated, are modelled by Alex B.)
Photographer: Michael Cheetham. Male model: Linten Clarke
Photographer: David Nuttall
Be that as it may, I am reproducing below the old post, adding to it to make it more up to date.
"Acknowledging a shared endeavour"
Photographer: Ashley Cameron
When Unbearable Lightness posted a couple of days ago her piece about the value of a nude, I added a comment which touched on the issue of copyright and the contribution of the art model to the making of the art work, the photograph. Then Stephen Haynes responded in his blog, explaining why sharing copyright with a model would be unworkable for him - by the way Stephen, Alex IS my real name, just short for Alexandra, its English equivalent, no need to put it in inverted commas. Tonight Unbearable Lightness has posted a very impassioned plea for the right of models to be regarded as collaborators and have their work acknowledged.
Why not share the copyright?
Photographer: Jan Murphy
Photographer: Marcello Pozzetti
Let's go back to the world of photography. Most art nude photographers regard themselves as artists, and indeed they are, but photography is a very different art form from painting or sculpting. It really relies heavily on the active participation of another person, the model - unless of course the photographer only shoots landscapes or objects or is a street photographer, shooting subjects rather than models.
The input of the model is much more significantly tangible in an art photograph than it is in a painting. The photographic model has every right to be acknowledged, i.e., named. And yes, s/he should be entitled to share the copyright of the image or at least have some rights to its reproduction. All sorts of restrictions can be put in place, of course, so that the image is not further processed or manipulated by anyone else once it is finalised, but share of copyright simply means that the authorship is shared. And in answer to Stephen, copyright does not have to be passed on to someone else in case of death, clauses can be put in to specify its duration in time.
Photographer: Owen Gruyfedd
Unbearable Lightness talks about books whose authorship, hence copyright, is shared. When the books are published it certainly is not the case that one of the authors unilaterally decides to make changes to the book without the agreement of the other author. The same would apply to a photograph: any tampering with Photoshop by the "model's boyfriend", as Stephen discusses, would certainly not be admissible.
I did an interesting shoot with photographer Ashley Cameron. Ashley works in advertising. He is a photographer and he also provides a retouching service. In the advertising and commercial world more and more photographers do not process their images, they simply turn them over to a retouching service. Copyright law seems to be behind the times: the photograph is no longer the product of just one person. A whole team of people is involved. Who says that the retoucher, who also does photo manipulations - ads are full of them - is less of an author than the person who took the shot? Soon there will be a need to review copyright law so that such newer developments can be given greater legal protection.
Photographer: Bob Adams
Addendum:
The art nude world is full of very talented photographers and models who do not necessarily work as professionals i.e. making a living out of their art nude work. This inevitably leads to grey areas. Copyright and reproduction issues are negotiated on behalf of commercial and fashion models by their agencies and restrictions can be significant i.e. there are stringent rules on "testing" and so forth, as many photographers, who make most of their living out of non -nude, commercial work, have discussed with me.
Many photographers who do art nude are however very accomplished amateurs and will never publish, sell or exhibit any of their work, which they do for their own satisfaction. Many art nude models are not professional models, they do it out of passion, as a hobby. Model releases and written agreements seem wholly redundant in such cases.
Photographer: Michael Culhane
Alex by Alex Rennie
(All photos, unless otherwise stated, are modelled by Alex B.)
You have spelled this out very clearly. It seems to me that it comes down to mutual respect. As you said, without a model there would be no photograph. Photographers should respect that. Make whatever agreement works for everyone involved, whether it be shared copyright, time for prints, cash, or whatever else works for everyone. The important thing would seem to be that there is a mutual agreement that everyone can live with.
ReplyDeleteYes Joe, that's all there is to it, really. The keyword is mutual respect and an agreement, written or verbal that suits all parties.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your summary and Joe's comments. It is all about mutual understanding, respect, and goals. All of these need to be understood and agreed on before the session. If the common agreement can not be reached, then don't take the photo or the photo assignment.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the addendum. That perfectly describes my situation. I pay all my models cash, unless they explicitly say they want WFP/CD, which is rare. I pay them because I value their time and know our work will probably never make a dime, but did make me a better artist.
One side note, out of a dozen nude and non-nude models I've worked with, only one has kept her/his copy of the model release. I always have a copy for them. I highly recommend both sides keep copies.