canada model release question.

do we still need model releases, Bill C-11 give the photographer the first copyright to an image now.
If a model looks and poses for the camera, is that enough to say she or he gives permission for their photo to be taken, and once the photo is taken, it belongs to the artist, the photographer. not the commissioner of the photo, assuming the photograph is not used in anything derogatory, we are free to sell the photo or the rights to anyone we desire.. within canada anyhow..

for the purpose of this question, I am not concerned about the moral implications. I would never do anything that would portray a model in a negative way.

i am thinking that the safe way is to get a release signed anyway. But I would like to understand the issue properly.

Strictly from the photographer point of view.
it always surprises me that a model would let herself be photographed without a signed release to protect her rights,.

Model releases have nothing to do with copyright (ownership of the image). They are to do with a person giving permission for their likeness to be used for "commercial use". That doesn't mean selling the photo, it means using it to advertise, market or promote a product, service or company.

Having said that I don't know if people have image rights in Canada, in the same way they do in the USA, so you may or may not legally require a release. Best to get one and best to talk to a local IP lawyer.

OK just dug through some stuff as I remembered there was a worrying case in Quebec where a magazine was sued for publishing a street photograph (not using it for advertising) which featured a woman in the street. They didn't get her permission/a release... and she won an invasion of privacy case (yes, while in public)! In fact that ruling has just been upheld by the Canadian Supreme Court - see http://csc.lexum.org …csc/en/item/160​8/index.do - don't know if that applies outside Quebec... again, best to talk to a lawyer.

Dan Marchant wrote in post #15348222
Model releases have nothing to do with copyright (ownership of the image). They are to do with a person giving permission for their likeness to be used for "commercial use". That doesn't mean selling the photo, it means using it to advertise, market or promote a product, service or company.

This answers my question, It clears up the reason for a model release, I was not clear on that.
I tried to read through the court case.
Quebec has different laws and a different attitude towards life than the rest of Canada. However this was the Canadian supreme court, so I imagine that decision applies to the whole country
thanks

Quebec`s laws have nothing to do with this case.
The copyright law is a federal law not provincial.

lui-même wrote in post #15349621
Quebec`s laws have nothing to do with this case.
The copyright law is a federal law not provincial.

I am sorry but I can only assume that you didn't bother to actually read the document I linked to before commenting, as Quebec law has everything to do with the case - a fact that is made clear in the judgement. In addition the case in question has nothing to do with copyright so federal law isn't the applicable law. The case is one of invasion of privacy.

Luckily the damages were 2,000$, so nobody went bankrupt.

I completely disagree with the judgment but do see some of its merits, now back on topic.

Our model releases (In canada) always had the copyright included in them, making them not only copyright contracts, but also model releases, you should keep using them and make sure the talent understands what she is allowed to do with the photos.

My invoice includes my contract and model release, theres also space for me to insert the rights they wish to purchase, making the entire thing a bit of an educational thing for first time clients but an important one.

Quebec is a whole different world when it comes to the rights afforded an individual over the use of their likeness.

Dan is very correct this would apply to the OP, in that in Quebec you really can't use a photo for anything without a release. Frankly Quebec laws are so insane that I would never shoot in that province.

I did some investigation into the case Dan mentioned a few years back, and I found it was only a Quebec thing. If I recall correctly it related to a Quebec law that grants all individuals the rights to protect the use of their image for all purposes without consent. The Supreme Court merely upheld the Quebec Law.

Getting a release is such a simple thing that you should always get one. heck it really isn't even a problem to get them from total strangers. just carry a few generic ones in your camera bag, if you get a shot that you really like, just ask, you would be surprised how many people say yes.

Not in Quebec they wouldn't, unless maybe youre a pretty girl to a young guy.

You'd have to carry twenties around.

i_am_cdn wrote in post #15353844
I did some investigation into the case Dan mentioned a few years back, and I found it was only a Quebec thing. If I recall correctly it related to a Quebec law that grants all individuals the rights to protect the use of their image for all purposes without consent. The Supreme Court merely upheld the Quebec Law.

Yes the judgement was based primarily on the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. I don't know enough about Candian law to know if other provinces have similar laws or if this is unique to Quebec.

Copyright law in all of Canada was severely biased anyways, the new bill is just a catch-up, i would play defensively since the general bias is against copyright in canada. On the flipside, even in the QC case, 2k$ isn't as scary as say the 200k$ that would be awarded in US.