Author Topic: Image refused for intellectual property, simple hand painting with Mehendi (Read 2939 times)

nadalbg · « **on:** January 28, 2017, 11:28 »

Intellectual Property -- Image potentially infringes on another partyâ€™s intellectual property rights (e.g., someone elseâ€™s artwork is visible in the image or an object's design is protected by copyright).

My image of model was refused for this reason. What release do I need to ask the author of this art to sign exactly? It is something like this on her hand but with face view, not from close up.

StanRohrer · « **Reply #1 on:** January 28, 2017, 11:36 »

The artist owns the Copyright to the art (in the USA at least). You need a release from the person who put the art on to the hand. You also need a release from the owner of the hand (person's body part, even though not a face). They may even wish for a release from the person who created the ring.

nadalbg · « **Reply #2 on:** January 28, 2017, 11:47 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on January 28, 2017, 11:36

The artist owns the Copyright to the art (in the USA at least). You need a release from the person who put the art on to the hand. You also need a release from the owner of the hand (person's body part, even though not a face). They may even wish for a release from the person who created the ring.

I have release for the model, it is body and face shot, I just put this picture to illustrate what she has on the hand.

DaRkWeeDo · « **Reply #3 on:** January 28, 2017, 11:55 »

You need 2 releases. Model release and property release. One for hand and one for art hand

ShadySue · « **Reply #4 on:** January 28, 2017, 21:16 »

Quote from: StanRohrer on January 28, 2017, 11:36

The artist owns the Copyright to the art (in the USA at least). You need a release from the person who put the art on to the hand.

Would that be the case even if a traditional, historic design had been copied, as is common. I suppose you'd need to somehow establish proof of that. I have seen books of mendhi designs with notes about their historical provenance. The artist would have no claim to copyright.
Not saying that applies in the OP's case, of course.

nadalbg · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2017, 10:20 »

Quote from: ShadySue on January 28, 2017, 21:16

Quote from: StanRohrer on January 28, 2017, 11:36
The artist owns the Copyright to the art (in the USA at least). You need a release from the person who put the art on to the hand.
Would that be the case even if a traditional, historic design had been copied, as is common. I suppose you'd need to somehow establish proof of that. I have seen books of mendhi designs with notes about their historical provenance. The artist would have no claim to copyright.
Not saying that applies in the OP's case, of course.

I think they are asking for releases for everything, my wife paid for this, anyway its only one photo. But lets say, everything which a model wears is also art, produced by someone, the clothes on your back, you need releases for the dresses, rings, jewelry and etc. There is always possibility that people in agencies will find something more requiring releases

disorderly · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2017, 10:34 »

Fashion is not subject to copyright protection, which is why there's such a good (and legal) market in knockoffs of designer clothing. It's also why many designers include their logos on their designs. Just have your models wear clothing that's free of logos and other copyright-protected graphics and clone out the ones that slip by you and you'll mostly be okay. I've never had a rejection for clothing, other than a logo or graphic I missed. Jewelry is generally the same story, aside from obvious trademark issues like the Playboy bunny on a necklace.