No. To my knowledge, they(we) mostly give licence that allows you to re-print photos, give them to friends, and do whatever you want, unless you want to use it commercially. If you do, photographer will most likely sue you.
...and he is saying that all along. :)

In the US it is by default considered not an exact replica. Typically it is considered a new creative work. Exceptions to this would be photographs meant to depict the subject as accurately as possible with no creative input of the photographer, e.g. pictures of a painting in museum guide (provided it's just the painting and doesn't include surroundings or lighting selection) would fall under non-creative photography. Everything else is considered "creative" by default, despite the inherent lack of skill most of us posses as photographers.
In the US or Serbia? I can only speak about wedding photography in my neck of the woods. I know several, but I don't know any world wide.

Precisely.

It's a pity the case isn't stronger - there is a whole extra issue at play but which wouldn't even get addressed until a fair use defence failed, and it is a lot more interesting.

Costin, as a public figure has publicity rights over the use of his image - including his tattoo. Therefore, to give the artist the right to demand fees or refuse a licence would be to rob Costin of his intellectual property rights.

Now that could make for a really interesting legal ball of knots

Worldwide AFAIK. To my knowledge, all good ones d0, and bad ones...well you don't want to use their photo commercially, do you. :) I'm quite sure for Serbia, but than again I don't do weddings so I might be mistaken.
I know that best gift to photographers is to publish their photo without consent. It usually means they are getting some new equipment. Seriously.

Ah, you're talking about what would be known around here as "dicks". I can assure you, photography is a cut throat business around here and the kinds you're speaking of simply don't find work anymore. While not anyone can do a good job photographing weddings and similar events, the supply far, far outstrips the demand. The response has been for private parties to simply not hire those sorts.

As for business arrangements, work for hire clauses are extremely common in the US, you will find such terms in the contracts of much of the commercial work around here.

The way photographers used to work with magazines and the like seem to be shrinking dramatically as the print business does likewise. In your area you might find it has not affected you, but I assure you, the way it works over there, as you describe it, is almost entirely unlike it works around here.

Ah, good. I thought you were arguing the other side of the case.

I was not really talking about wedding photography. Magazine and newspaper editors are dicks for trying to get away without paying 1$ for damn stock photo. They deserve to thousands for being assholes. And I assure you, most photographers will be happy with few bucks and credit for photo published in newspapers.

Trust me no one gives up copyright easy.

As for magazines, they mostly switched to stock photos, except for those that they can't possibly get like reportages, because it's cheaper that way. But as I said already, if they don't want to shell out few $ to get it proper way, or if it's not on stock, just ask for permission, they deserve to get their ass kicked. Same goes for websites and whatnot.
And I'm not talking about fair use here.

In the US Costin would have to trademark his likeness for that protection, it's not granted by default.

That article is terrible and doesn't mention any jurisdiction whatsoever so I can't even tell where any case was filed, if one was filed at all.
Well, that's an uphill battle too, but it's not anything remotely like what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something most "normal" people would consider to be a work for hire (taking pictures of them) finally being an actual work for hire. In said case, if I suddenly became famous and could sell my photos, I would have the rights and not the photographer. While this might not sit well with some photographers, it's not really at odds with common sense or how people desire the transaction to work. The photographer gets paid once, a rather hefty fee usually, for their work just as your plumber, your roofer, your surgeon and, in fact, most of the folks with which you interact get paid.

When you go out and speculate by taking 1000s of photographs and intend to pay for that work by selling a few of them to 1-n buyers, then and only then do you need copyright protection.

The only relevant term is "work for hire" and most contracts include that these days around here (not just for photography, for all kinds of "creative" work).

You see, work is only "creative" when it benefits big business around here, when it's a hindrance then it's not anymore, by fiat of law (usually contract law).

The only side benefit of all this is some terms, such as work for hire, are so well understood and entrenched that even normal people can use them.

I don't really need you to check into anything, I'm fairly aware of the state of the commercial creative market around here and that's mostly what I'm interested in and to what I'm referring.

Am I right in thinking that in such work for hire contracts, it is also the norm to include a licence for the photographer (for portfolio purposes)?

"Work for hire" simply means the party who commissions the creative work is automatically assigned copyright, that's about it. I don't know how the types that have portfolios negotiate the rights to use the work, in the "old days" it wasn't distributed so it was a non-issue (the items went in a physical book, for example), now days portfolios, or semblances of the work therein, can be transmitted electronically, which implies copying. I'm not sure how graphic artists and photographers manage that. Wedding photographers simply retain a license to advertise using work they did, commercially I've no idea whether folks handle it on a case by case or a standard basis.

My stuff is source code, which is somewhat fuzzy in many cases. Usually one is able to come up with some substantial examples without transmitting an entirety or significant portion of the work, what's more a model (such as a high level diagram) of said work will often suffice. Sometimes the finished product is available. Sometimes the source code is open source and viewable. We don't often keep portfolios in the sense other creative types do.

That(the article)s crazy. Or do plastic surgeons deserve a royalty in the same situation?





Every time they have a hot chick wear a motion capture suit or make a character based on some random model, and she has implants the surgeon and manufacturer of the medical grade waterballoons should both demand tit money or threaten to make them reduce her to an a cup until the contact is renegotiated with their involvement

Every videogame movie tshirt or bobble head of Michael Jackson should cite credit and send some coin to his plastic surgeon(the man was a butcher, but quality of work doesn't enter into it) as the sculptor; or if not they'd have to use his original nose and coloring.

What about Elvis's iconic hair, lady gaga's makeup artist, i don't know...can't think of a third tihng...obama's voice coach?

yeah, but even if the law says the tattoo guy owns carlos's abs now that he doodled on them and he can't appear in anything without a shirt unless he clears it with the tattoo owner that doesn't make it any better. It just makes the law retarded.
then again there are legal cases where some random guy copyrighted somebody else's liver cells so it already is, this wouldn't make it any worse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Regents_of_the_University_of_California


also this is funny http://www.businessinsider.com/chinese-house-in-the-middle-of-the-road-2012-11 and since i'm off topic anyway ;)

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them