Question Re the REVERSE of a Model Release...
 

Serious hypothetical question:

We all know that when a pornographer takes pics of a model, he pays her, and receives a signed model release enabling him to use the photos in whatever way he chooses... Also, that if a model pays a photographer to take pics of her, although she can use them herself, the photographer owns the copyright...

Well what would be the legal situation in the following example?

Husband shoots pics of his wife, for website that they run together.
Husband and wife get divorced. Wife continues on with control of her website. They agree verbally to split website revenue.

Couple of months later, EX wife decides she doesn't want to share revenue anymore.

Now, if like 85/90% of the photos that make up the content and the design of the site, (and I mean a good ten thousand or so photos) were taken by the husband, who technically (I think) owns the copyright to those photos...

Is the husband within his right to say that the ex wife can no longer use the photos he has taken to earn money for herself, as she is no longer splitting it with him, or does he not have a leg to stand on?

Im not saying that she wouldn't be allowed to continue her site... Just that she couldn't use any of the photos that he had taken of her as content within or as part of the design...

PS This really is just a hypothetical example, but Im interested in what the legalities would be... Thanks :)

For something which has not happened yet, I'd certainly recommend putting the agreement in writing. No fancy contract with legalese needed, just something in plain language, agreed to in writing by both parties.

For something which has already happened, sure the photographer can start a dispute, but the only guarantee is that it will be unpleasant for everyone involved. If she has nothing in writing saying she can use the images, she most likely can't keep using them. On the other hand, he probably can't either.

If they were married, and didn't sign contracts about it, they'd probably share the copyrights, and it would be illegal for either of them to use the pics without the other's permission (or perhaps fair compensation, depending on the mood the judge was in).

You ain't nothing but a stank ass bitch

OK, thanks to the above (Except to 'CashBot') for thier advice :)

good luck with your lawsuit :1orglaugh

I'd say this is a good assumption

Well, lets just expand a bit on this hypothetical situation...
Lets say that when they were together, the husband dealt with all the promo and the management of the website... Lets say that it had about 1000 members... Lets say that when they split, she let the site go to shit, didn't update, didn't promote etc etc... Pretty soon, (after a year or so...) the site has virtually no members and is financially screwed...

Now the husband is somewhat bitter about this (understandably) as its not just because he no longer benefits financially from the site, but because he has watch helplessly as a good five years or so's hard work, goes down the toilet...

Now the husband has no wish to use any content himself. Nor does he wish to be compensated for it. He looks at the site a bit like a dieing horse that needs to be put out of its misery...

So does he have the right to say. NO MORE USE OF THOSE PHOTOS. YOU EITHER START SHOOTING YOUR OWN STUFF, AND USE THAT INSTEAD!

?????

At this point you could say 'Don't be bitter, let it go etc etc, and that would make sense I suppose, but let me ask the same question using a different analogy...
Imagine a couple meet through a mutual love of customised modified cars... they marry, and over a period of seven years, they build their own car together. And its a good car. A VERY GOOD CAR... That car becomes their livelihood...

When they want money, they take that car out to a show, and people love it!
They say, hey can i take a picture of your lovely car?
I will pay you!
Can I interview you about your car? I will pay you!
Can I take a ride in you car? I will pay you!

Then they divorce. Obviously, the car cannot be cut in half, because then it would be worth nothing...
So the wife keeps the car, and promises to split the income it generates....

She fails to do so, but more importantly, she stops taking care of the car, and drives it carelessly causing bumps dents and scratches that dont get repaired...

Eventually the husband sees the car somewhere, basically on its last legs. The beautiful car he built and cared for is a worthless piece of junk, that hurts him to even look at....

In that scenario, would anyone blame him if he took a can of gas, covered the car, and set it alight?

Again, please remember this IS 100% HYPORTHETICAL...

"Again, please remember this IS 100% HYPORTHETICAL..."

Not really... I lived this. The numbers are almost perfect for what I went though. I was saved my my attorney, (Eric Bernstein) and some good contracts... HAVE everything in writing... let me say that once more for those that might have missed it...

HAVE EVERYTHING IN WRITING.

I won't address the husband and wife issue because that is more complicated, but if I model or a company hires a photographer, they should have them sign what is commonly called a work-for-hire agreement that spells out the fact that the photographer is just getting paid for his labor, and that the rights to the media are owned by the company or individual doing the hiring.

So hyperthetically the next step would be to get a laywer and send a C&D saying, you cant use the content, nahh nahh na nah nah... ?