|
|
| *SoulEyes Photography>>>Advertising Photographer |
Will they still call it indecency?see details.? |
A photographer does a photoshoot of a female model wearing ,''mini skirt -short top'',''swim-wear''....for a brand of garments.She signs an agreement gets the full payment. Without any modification he further publishes the advertisement containing her photos in papers & magazines. She further sells & makes him owner of those negatives and photos. Here if he gives them to another person to advertise his shop, without asking her again, will they still call it ''indecent exposure''? I think it would depend on what kind of agreement you had with her. If she agreed to let you have all rights to the photos forever then you could give/sell them to anyone you liked. If she authorized the use of her image for one advertising campaign only, then maybe you could not. Is it just me or does this question have absolutely nothing to do with indecency? Source(s): Canadian Copper That has nothing to do with indecent exposure, its a copyright issue If the photographer has paid for the negatives and if the model makes him as the owner of the still ( by writing) , then I don't see any indecency in it. I see nothing here that pertains to indecent exposure. As you sure you know the definition of that? Or are you in India? tHE MATTER IS A CONCLUDED CONTRACT AND LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE BY THE PHOTGRAPHER. THE MODEL HAS NOTHING TO LOOSE.THERE IS NOTHING CALLED INDECENT EXPOSURE. THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED OBSCENE. IF SOMETHING IS OBSCENE AND RUFFLES THE MIND OF PERSONS BELOW THE AGE OF 21 YEARS, THEN IT IS PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC.292 -294 OF IPC.IN THIS CASE, NO OFFENCE IS MADE OUT AND NO CIVIL LIABILITY IS ATTRACTED. NO |
| Tags |
| Fashion Photographer Famous Photographers Family Photographer Child Photographer Bridal Photographer Advertising Photographer |
Photography Categories--Copyright/IP Policy--Contact Webmaster |