Question about using photos in portfolio

[jdwalz]

I agree with elay.
Simply put; if you pay a professional photographer for portrait work then you can infer the reasonable expectation (in absence of a contract stating otherwise) that the product will exclusively belong to you, the buyer who contracted the work in the first place. Much in the same way that I might hire an artist to create a graphic logo for my company. Once the work is done the logo belongs to me, not to the graphic designer. The fulfillment of the contract is the completion of the work.

If I pay an artist or photographer for a specific assignment of work and later find that same work posted on the internet, then what exactly did I pay for? It might sound simplistic but it is a relevant question that goes to the many facets of contracts, whether actual or implied. The legal bias would favor commerce and not the artisit.

[jdepould]

It's completely unreasonable to expect to control something you didn't create, regardless of the context.

Copyright is designed to counteract the bias towards commerce and encourage people to actually create things.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by ph0t0grl

So are you saying that since I am not using the photos for commercial use then I don't need a release?

Just get a release, it's easier.

[ELAY]

Originally Posted by jdepould

It's completely unreasonable to expect to control something you didn't create, regardless of the context.

I am with you in the case of a photojournalist, a street photographer, etc., who is capturing what is found, without a client (subject to certain limits). But when someone pays you to create something, the rules change. It is possible for a client to purchase all, some or no control over an artwork.

Easy to figure out when it is spelled out in the contract -- a head-scratcher though when there is nothing addressing it in the contract.

[jdwalz]

Originally Posted by jdepould

It's completely unreasonable to expect to control something you didn't create, regardless of the context.

If I hired the services of a web designer to create some HTML pages with Flash embedded according to my needs and my own descriptive input - are you saying it would be unreasonable for the web designer to reliquish control over the final product after I had paid for said product and uploaded my own content?

I'd say that is .... er, ummmm, unrealistic. (to say the least.)

I admire your Randian support of the artist's right to his/her work but, alas, only in a novel does Howard Roarke get to dynamite the Cortland Buildings because society had no right to corrupt the vision of the pure artist.

I wish ours was such a world, but in our highly litigious society it is quite the opposite.