I was thinking of starting a discussion on the law after I saw waiting posted by Snoogie. The link to TheReason.org made me think that it might be a requirement.

Be careful and protect yourself. Photographers should ALWAYS have model release forms with them when they are shooting. Three or more persons is considered a crowd and a release is not required. Snoogie shot a crowd, but to be safe I would've asked for a release from the woman. You also need a release for any identifiable property when shooting landscapes and stills.

On a digital point of view, altering another artists work creates a new image and protects you from legal action by the artist. However, if that image contains a model and is identifiable, the new image violates the rights of the model. TheReason.org use of Carmen Electra's image is, in my opinion, illegal. Unless of course a release was obtained from Ms. Electra.

This doesn't mean you have to obtain a release for every image you create, only if that image is to be displayed publicly or you profit from the image (which includes putting it in your portfolio.)

I wish I had a reading list for you, this post was spur of the moment. If there are any legal types out there who can clarify or correct any of my comments, please do so.

The laws are different in different countries.

As far as I know what photok said is right, but I'll add the following:

Copyright
The copyright law in Canada is automatic and no copyright sign is need (though it is still a good idea especially if you have a international problem). Anything "artistic" is copyright for 50years after the artists death or 50years after publication which ever is longer. So if you find something that doesn't have a copyright symbol on it then it may still be copyright.

For more on Canadian copyright see www.cancopy.com

Altering work doesn't guarantee that the work is no longer copyright. It has to be altered in a way that is significantly different than the original. Who decides what is significantly different? The judge or jury when you get sued! So be very very careful. If used for private use then I would say no problem but if it's going to be displayed to the public or you make money off it then avoid the whole issue altogether it's not worth it.

Ohh and one more thing: If you create work while working for a company then that company get the copyright to that work but you still retain moral rights unless you specifically waive them. Moral right gives you protection from your work being distorted, mutilated, modified or used in a way that would hinder your reputation. Moral right lasts for the same length of time as copyright.


freakyclean

Good post, I didn't know about those release forms :)

In Denmark, it's 70 years after death or publication. And copyright is created automatically. Basically the same as in Canada. (according to freakyclean's post)

It is a common conception that an image must be altered at least 33% for it to become an original expression of the artist, however as with most things it comes down to the judge and jury. Better safe than sorry.

Most companies wont bother to sue joe average for doing something with their image unless of course it is libel or slanderous or generating profit. Normally they will simply send a cease and desist and if that is not followed further action may ensue, so yeah its a good idea to get someones permission first.

Copyright is a very tricky issue, especially when artistic expression is involved.

Yeah it is, the model release forms are even more important if your working with minors.
Given the fact that im only 18 and two of my friends are models who I shoot every now and again it becomes a bit of an issue for me. Especially more so as theyre only 17.
Basically i have to get release forms for everything, despite the fact that they say I can take the photos and use them etc etc.

Its really really really annoying.