Signed away any rights of images?

Having a sister who was quite a famous fashion model, this is something I actually DO know about. Standard practice as to who owns the image copyright usually devolves on either the photographer/and or studio/negative library (for instant Getty Images). The client - in this case your dance company - unless it has purchased the copyright from the photographer, cannot assert copyright over the images as they don't own them, even though they might have commissioned them. The models used by photographers usually have no copyright ownership over their own image as they are compensated directly for the use of their image. If the model wishes to obtain permission to use the image for personal use or be credited as the model in the photograph, then she must approach the photographer directly. He should then sign a release form allowing the model to have permission to use a copy from the negative/digital file of the photo and/or sell a credit to the model. It is with him/her that the model needs to negotiate, not the dance company/client, although they can object to publication of the photograph if they themselves have already published it (publishing means in this case if the image is used for commercial purposes by the dance company - in a brochure, flyer, webpage, magazine etc.) Complicated, but not impossible. Why does this dance company not want to release a copy of the image to the model? It seems like unusually meanspirited behaviour?

Thanks James for info, would be nice to have legal confirmation of statement -

"The client - in this case your dance company - unless it has purchased the copyright from the photographer, cannot assert copyright over the images as they don't own them, even though they might have commissioned them."

I understand that the contract between the apprentice photographer and the dance company had expired before the date of the 'shoot'.

Thanks James for your detailed response, much appreciated :) 

You mention that the contract between the dance company and the photographer had expired prior to the shoot taking place. In that case, why does the dance company believe they have any rights of assertion over copyright? In any case they could only purchase a copyright under license from the photographer which, depending on the terms of the license, would not exclude the photographer from selling the image to someone else - an example of this: a friend from school supplemented her income by working as a catalogue model - mostly for Littlewoods; one day she opened up the Daily Telegraph and there on the front page was a head shot of her - cropped from a Littlewoods shot - which was being used for an advert for Orange phones. She contacted her agency who then collected payment for use of her picture in the Orange ad from the photographer as the image which she had signed a release for was exclusively for Littlewoods. He was able to sell the image on to Orange's ad company because he owned the copyright. Where he was in breach of contract with her agency was in reisuing the image to a third party without compensation to her.  I still think you should approach the photographer as he owns the copyright to the images from the dance company shoot and negotiate directly with him for permission to obtain a copy.

Hi James, thanks for your response.

The photographer is more than happy for the 'model' to use the photograph - as long as credit given to photographer.

The issue is with the dance company owner who believes ownership of the copyright belongs to the company.  

If dance company decides to take legal action would the onus be on the dance company to prove ownership?

I suppose it would help to know (assuming you are the model we're discussing) what you intend to do with your copy of the photograph. You are perfectly entitled to use it in a portfolio if the photographer has released a copy to you. Where you might get into difficulties is if you want to publish the image commercially, if the dance company has already done so. They could argue that you are altering the perception of their brand image, if they've used it to identify their brand. But to recap, the photographer owns the copyright of the photos, not the client. They are released to the client on license, the photographer retains the universal copyright, after all it's his work, unless he sells the universal copyright to another person, or the dance company. If he wasn't under contract with his client at the time of the photoshoot, and wasn't remunerated for his work, technically the original images belong to him and the dance compaby has no right to use them at all unless he releases them to them. Hope that helps.

No I am not the model/dancer :)  

The image was taken more than a year and a half ago and the image has been used by the dance company and taken down and replaced by newer images.

The photographer who claims the copyright has given permission for the image to be used by the dancer in her online portfolio of her work.  

The dance company objected to the image being used and requested it be removed stating the dance company holds the copyright and not the photographer and that the image must be removed 'immediately'.  

The dancer, out of consideration for the photographer has removed the photo.

I think this takes us full circle, back to your remark about 'unusually meanspirited behaviour'.