Customer rights to images - Whiskey Bride

[CoolToolGuy]

I saw this article today:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2004-04-09-greeting-card-bride_x.htm
and it got me to wondering. The summary is that a photographer sold an image that he took as part of a wedding, and it became the image in a greeting card. The picture was used in a comical, unflattering way, and the subject saw it and had the company pull it.

So the question is - what rights should a customer as well as the photographer have to subsequent use of images used in another venue or in an embarrassing way in the future? This was a wedding, but the issue may apply to portraits, events, etc.

This is especially relevant in the digital age, where there can be hundreds or thousands of copies of 'original negatives' that can be provided, as opposed to film.

[IndyJeff]

Slow poke LOL

[CoolToolGuy]

Slow poke LOL

Hey, it takes time to dance these old fingers all over the keyboard - and spell-check it. Give me a break :!: :) :D :lol:

[Trunkmonkey]

Regardless of whether a photographer was hired or not, they need a model release in order to use the model's likeness for commercial purposes. If you can see the face, or any other affection that can identify the model, you must have a release. And, even if you have a release, you can't use a photo of the model in an embarrassing situation unless the model release specifically covers it.

There's plenty on the subject over at www.photo.net.

Edit: So, the photographer owns the copyright to the image. The model owns their likeness. The photographer has to compensate the model to sell the model's likeness.

Press photography is different; you don't need a model release to sell news photos. Again, there's a fine line, and there's plenty of articles on the subject that can go into more details than I actually know.