« Bad Shopper: UPDATE (and Jim Lager Leica Books) | Main | Claxton Print at the Center of L.A. Court Fight »

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

Comments

Is copyright a shared marital asset?

Just don't marry, problem solved.

Hmmm...seems that the kitchen remodeling has gotten Mike to thinking...

An informed opinion can only be elicited via a thorough study of the images in question.

Secondly, and most importantly, how on earth does a guy get his wife to pose like that? No, really. HOW?

Ouch! Who writes these headlines?

That would be moi.

Mike

"Secondly, and most importantly, how on earth does a guy get his wife to pose like that? No, really. HOW?"

I did it - twice.

A gentleman would destroy them.

I think that if pictures like that make their way into a courtroom as part of the proceedings, the court should be allowed to seize them. And then post them on the internet for others to criticize. I can't think of a worse punishment than having to endure comments like: 'nice capture,' 'What camera did you use,' or 'before taking any more pictures like this, I suggest you buy some books on lighting and posing models, and practice your technique.' And then make the (former) couple respond to each and every post! lol

Well I guess Ms. Gentile can thank her lucky stars that there is no technology that would allow her husband to duplicate photographic images ...

But...
it's not considered porn until there are grounds for divorce. Up to then, it's "art".

I wonder if that means that in a Community Property state each would own half of the pictures?

I'm of the opinion that posting these type of photos to the web without a signed model release is tacky, if not against the law.

Like Chuck, I need to see some samples though for a totally informed opinion...

;)

Rule #1 - Never allow yourself to be recorded or photographed saying or doing anything you don't want seen in publication.

Rule #2 - SEE RULE #1!!!!

Just before my marriage I made a small fire in the backyard and burned a stack of nude photos of old girlfriends. 30 years later I still regret that rash act.

In a community property state, usually one party will agree to sell one part of their intellectual property to buy out another part during a divorce. George Lucas is one famous example where he sold Pixar so he could keep Lucasfilm.

She made her bed so she can lie in it. Assuming she is an adult of sound mind what the h**l was she doing posing for porn picture. What were they intending to do with them. I mean presumably he/she had the real thing lying beside them every night so what the **** did they want a picture for?
Was he intending to carry one around in his wallet? Would give whole new meaning to the innocent question "Like to see a picture of my wife ? "

I would have thought this was straightforward - photographer owns the copyright of the images BUT without a model release there is not a lot he can do with them without risking a lawsuit.

But "straightforward" means no money for the lawyers :)

The judge should allow him to keep the photos of her, as long as he (Mr. Cajamarca, not the judge) agrees to pose nude so that she (Ms. Gentile, not the judge) can have some similar photos of him. Who knows, perhaps in this way their marriage could be saved.

It is not against the law if it is posted for editorial purposes, where one does not need a release. :)

I would say the law is clear that the photos as all photos taken are the property of the photographer. Posting them is another matter entirely, but we should be nervous if porn is treated in any way differently from any other sort of photography. That would be a rights grab and a slippery slope a starting.

I sympathize with the lady, to an extent anyways, but this is a larger issue, in which a photo is a photo - titillating or not.

I wonder who owns all those billions of Sextings?

Since the wife gets the house, the car, the holiday home, the children, the maintenance, the child support and the pension rights, I guess it's only fair that they get the pictures too. After all what is a homeless, broke man going to do with them?

Different countries, different laws...

In Germany every person basically owns the right of pictures that were taken of him or her. There are exceptions for "persons of public interest", and for when you are only by accident and not very prominent in the picture, but in general this principle holds true.

The photographer owns the copyright of the photos of course too, but that does not imply the right to publish the photos without consent of the person which is prominently in the picture. So in Germany she would probably have very good chances to win the case.

That's why every photographer who photographs models gets them to sign a model release contract regulating his or her rights.

I like this law very much.

Martin (from Germany)

If anyone has any pornographic pictures of my wife, I'd very much like to see them...

Steve

I think the second word in your headling is missing an "r"....

As holder of the copyright, he might be able to get away with displaying them in public, but he'd need a model release from her if he wanted to do anything more with them. Somehow, I doubt that she'd be willing to sign one.

The comments to this entry are closed.