Yet another my image was used without permission...yep here we go again ;)

Splinters

As the title suggests, seems its my time to be on the receiving end of this. I just wanted to pick a few of your brains as I've no doubt most of you are more in the know about the legality here.

I did a shoot with a model a few weeks back, no money involved, purely on a TF basis so she received images for her portfolio, as did I.

I remember thinking at the time I should have drawn up a quick contract to state the images were just for portfolio use and could not be used commercially by either myself of the model. Of course, it slipped my mind until the day and didn't want to spring this on the model without prior mention of it so let is pass.

So sure enough I've just seen her feauture on...from what I can see is a commercial website (they run advertisements and presumably collect revenue from them), and of course there are two of my images. I wasn't contacted in advance and didn't give permission for my images to be used. I don't know for a fact but I would be very suprised if this model wasn't paid for this feature.

What do you think? Should I invoice the site? I wasn't going to bother as I was half thinking I'd probably only be inviting a world of hassle from this model but I spotted shes in the paper again today promoting this website which has used my shots. I just thought it was pretty bad form of her not to run it by me, and obviously the website didn't bother to check if she had the rights to use those images too.

Kenny Logins

Contact the model first?

Paulw

Maybe she assumed she had the rights to use the images.

Your mistake was not having a model release contract in place to cover yourself. Also you should have verbally reminded her at the shoot what she can and can't do with images.

Contact the model first though.

Splinters

Without a doubt, I should have known better.

However not having a model release by no means implies she does have rights to use the images for commercial use.

I was thinking about contacting her, but I'm not sure what can be achieved as a result. The images have still been used.

bullpost

At a minimum you will find out what happened. Lesson learned and you can move on?

Splinters wrote: »

I was thinking about contacting her, but I'm not sure what can be achieved as a result. The images have still been used.

Paulw

Splinters wrote: »

However not having a model release by no means implies she does have rights to use the images for commercial use.

I was thinking about contacting her, but I'm not sure what can be achieved as a result. The images have still been used.

True, true. Was all your contact info and copyright info in the image EXIF?

Ask the model what happened, how they got the images, explain how she shouldn't have given them without your expressed permission and consideration (payment), and then you will know if you are in a position to invoice the magazine/website/paper or not.

AnCatDubh

Isn't this just a matter of copyright infringement (yes, yet again). I mean a model release in this instance means nothing as it wasn't you the photographer who was issuing the photographs to the web site to use. Assuming it was the model which gave the images to the website then the website in using such images should have checked with the model if they were their property or licenced from the photographer in question (you) - which obviously it wasn't.

Eitherways isn't it technically that it is the website who have published and thus breached your copyright, so i'm not sure what contacting the model will get you other than an "oh, i didn't realise, i am so sorry, can't we just be friends" conversation (that's if they understand the concept of who has ownership of the image).

Whether a contact in place or not you still have the copyright which is why i'm inclinded to think you should just deal with it as such.

That said find the nearest set of flogging equipment and turn it on yourself repeatedly saying "i will not ever take photos of a model again unless the basics of ownership are well covered". Don't stop until you see blood or it will be of no use. A good three and a half hours should do

Splinters

AnCatDubh wrote: »

Eitherways isn't it technically that it is the website who have published and thus breached your copyright, so i'm not sure what contacting the model will get you other than an "oh, i didn't realise, i am so sorry, can't we just be friends" conversation (that's if they understand the concept of who has ownership of the image).

Whether a contact in place or not you still have the copyright which is why i'm inclinded to think you should just deal with it as such.

Thats pretty much along the lines of what I was thinking. The images have already been used. They weren't published anywhere else that the website could have got them from (to the best of my knowledge) so I'm assuming it was a simple case of her providing them the images, possibly innocently too, thinking she had the right to do so. Its not just a feature on her, it also runs a column/article where she answers readers questions so it was clearly done with her coperation, and I would safely assume she was also paid for it too.

As a professional model I would have assumed she knew better then that, but I do fully accept thats my own fault for not being covering my ass and getting a contract signed.

AnCatDubh wrote: »

That said find the nearest set of flogging equipment and turn it on yourself repeatedly saying "i will not ever take photos of a model again unless the basics of ownership are well covered". Don't stop until you see blood or it will be of no use. A good three and a half hours should do

Again, I have to admit that would be fully justified.

pixbyjohn

Just a question as an aside of this thread. What would a professional model normally do with the photos you took, surely she would use them to further her career so she would pass them on to some other agency. Or am I wrong in my assumption?

Splinters

Anything she wanted except commercial use. I'd have been happy with her using them on her website, blog, in her model mayhem portfolio, in her print portfolio etc. Just as I have done with her images in my portfolio.

I have to draw the line at using them on a commercial website though. Its the equivelant of me letting an agency use them as part of an ad campaign without her permission, which I couldn't imagine her being too pleased about.

condra

I only give models low(ish) res files, i.e they could be used online but not printed. Personally, I'm happy for any model that gives me her time for free, to use these images for any self promotion, including interviews/articles.

The whole point of TF for me is that I can explore personal projects, or build up my portfolio, in exchange for high quality photos that the model can use to further his or her career.

I'm not interested in exploiting young people. If you don't want to give the model images, maybe you should pay them.

Splinters

Who said anything about exploiting young people?

Most photographers and models I know regard TF shoots as a very simple exchange of services. The payment for the model is the images for her portfolio. The payment for the photographer is the images for their portfolio. Unless ive missed something (its possible, its late and im tired) but where is anybody being taken advantage of in this situation.

Also where did I suggest I didnt want to give models images? I simply didnt think it very fair after this simple exchange of services to then find my images used on a commercial site after not being consulted. Would you regard this as fair? How about the reverse, if I was to then sell her images on to an ad agency or stock catalgue without her knowledge?

condra

That's not like for like.

If the model sold my images in a stock library, that would be of concern to me, and I wouldn't attempt to sell TF images as stock without a very clear release/contract.

I just think you should be happy to be part of something if you can help a model to progress her career.

Maybe we just have different approaches. You're entitled to be more controlled in your approach, but I genuinely want the very best of success for anyone who spends a day posing for me.

One thing I always say to models is "don't forget me when your name is up in lights". There is always a giggle, but in some ways I mean it. :pac:

Perhaps we should all be doing TF release forms if for no other reason than to clarify the agreement, and prevent any misunderstandings.

Splinters

condra wrote: »

That's not like for like.

Thats exactly what it is. Remember TF shoots are not free shoots. The payment for both parties providing their services is the pictures. So in this case the shoot has taken place, both parties have received the pictures and are happy with them. Both are using in their profiles to promote themselves and hopefully attract further work. Then one decides to use the images for commercial use without consulting the other. How is that not like for like?

condra wrote: »

I just think you should be happy to be part of something if you can help a model to progress her career.

Again where was there any mention of not wanting her to progress her career? You seem to be adding your own points in here. I'm more then happy for her to advance her career. However if she wishes to do so by using my images in a commercial setting then at the very least she should clear it with me first. Is that really so unreasonable?

condra

I'm more then happy for her to advance her career. However if she wishes to do so by using my images in a commercial setting then at the very least she should clear it with me first. Is that really so unreasonable?

Yes she should clear it with you first, and no, it's not unreasonable to expect that level of professionalism, but I don't think it's the end of the world either, assuming it's a relattively small website?

I'd rather be out taking pictures than getting into disputes with models, or indeed people on the internet for that matter, so let's agree to disagree.

I also just realised who you are.

I had wrongly assumed you were an amateur photographer who might be getting a bit ahead of himself.. (wipes egg off face) .. but you're the real deal so yeah, the stakes, and standard are definitely much higher than I thought.

nucker

Splinters wrote: »

As the title suggests, seems its my time to be on the receiving end of this. I just wanted to pick a few of your brains as I've no doubt most of you are more in the know about the legality here.

I did a shoot with a model a few weeks back, no money involved, purely on a TF basis so she received images for her portfolio, as did I.

I remember thinking at the time I should have drawn up a quick contract to state the images were just for portfolio use and could not be used commercially by either myself of the model. Of course, it slipped my mind until the day and didn't want to spring this on the model without prior mention of it so let is pass.

So sure enough I've just seen her feauture on...from what I can see is a commercial website (they run advertisements and presumably collect revenue from them), and of course there are two of my images. I wasn't contacted in advance and didn't give permission for my images to be used. I don't know for a fact but I would be very suprised if this model wasn't paid for this feature.

What do you think? Should I invoice the site? I wasn't going to bother as I was half thinking I'd probably only be inviting a world of hassle from this model but I spotted shes in the paper again today promoting this website which has used my shots. I just thought it was pretty bad form of her not to run it by me, and obviously the website didn't bother to check if she had the rights to use those images too.

It's your intellectual property, you are entitled to do with the photos whatever you deem is necessary. The model has no rights, even if it was on a TFp/d/t basis. They can't use it for commercial reasons, just for portfolio.

I would contact the model to withdraw the photo(s), and if they refuse, you have the rights to put any legal costs if it goes to court on to them as well as the amount they got from the images

Daveysil15

The same thing happened to me recently. I did a shoot with a glamour model and I later came across the photos on a men's magazine. I tried contacting both the model and the magazine and got no reply from either of them.

I don't mind the photos been used in the magazine as its nice to see my work out there, but I would have liked to have been credited for it.

nucker

Daveysil15 wrote: »

The same thing happened to me recently. I did a shoot with a glamour model and I later came across the photos on a men's magazine. I tried contacting both the model and the magazine and got no reply from either of them.

I don't mind the photos been used in the magazine as its nice to see my work out there, but I would have liked to have been credited for it.

And paid

Splinters

I hope its not coming across that I in any way enjoy having a dispute like this. Maybe I've been lucky but I've never had anything like happen before and really could do without the hassle.

Just a bit of an update. I contacted the model who was less then polite, word for word this is the response I got....."Excuse u I should have charged u for my time effort and images ... As I am a professional model .."

So then I emailed the website explaining the situation and asked where I could send them my invoice. To be fair they removed the images straight away, but then emailed me to say they only removed them as a courtesy and would not be paying any usage fee because I didn't own the copyright of the images, seeing as they were publically available on Facebook. I just replied and suggested if they really believed that to be true to try to steal an image thats "publicly available" from the Getty Images facebook page and see how that theory holds up.

Its by no means the end of the world, and not something I could be fecked loosing any sleep over. I just thought it showed a real lack of respect for the work photographers put into a shoot like this. I've delt with quite a few models and publications in recent years and haven't come across such unpleasant attitudes anywhere else.

nucker

Splinters wrote: »

I hope its not coming across that I in any way enjoy having a dispute like this. Maybe I've been lucky but I've never had anything like happen before and really could do without the hassle.

Just a bit of an update. I contacted the model who was less then polite, word for word this is the response I got....."Excuse u I should have charged u for my time effort and images ... As I am a professional model .."

So then I emailed the website explaining the situation and asked where I could send them my invoice. To be fair they removed the images straight away, but then emailed me to say they only removed them as a courtesy and would not be paying any usage fee because I didn't own the copyright of the images, seeing as they were publically available on Facebook. I just replied and suggested if they really believed that to be true to try to steal an image thats "publicly available" from the Getty Images facebook page and see how that theory holds up.

Its by no means the end of the world, and not something I could be fecked loosing any sleep over. I just thought it showed a real lack of respect for the work photographers put into a shoot like this. I've delt with quite a few models and publications in recent years and haven't come across such unpleasant attitudes anywhere else.

1. :pac:

2. Wrong, facebook says that you still own the copyright, the model is talking BS big time
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Splinters

nucker wrote: »

1. :pac:

2. Wrong, facebook says that you still own the copyright, the model is talking BS big time
https://www.facebook.com/legal/terms

Oh I'm well aware, but thats the level of ignorance im going up against.

sheesh

well at least the company took down the image and really it is the model's loss no more freebies from you! The company and the model need to learn about copyright

unpleasant, but I think that you did the right thing. I'm not a pro but I would be a bit miffed if my images were used without permission. The main thing is not to come off as egotistical but as a professional who takes pictures for a living. If they were good enough to use the company should pay just like they paid for their website.
If they think that all you do is push a button let them try and recreate it. we could do with a laugh!

dirtyghettokid

what disgusting attitudes from the model & website! lessons learned, you're right.. but jaysis.. leaves an awful taste in your mouth!

Splinters

Yep its far from ideal. The way I'm looking at it is if thats the kind of attitudes these people have then they're not the kind of people I'd have any interest in working with again anyway.

Its just a bit frustrating, more so with the website, as they appear to be quite professional. I did a quick whois search and they're owned by a pretty established company with a few offices around the city centre, who also seem to operate under quite a few different trading names. The guy I was dealing with is also listed as director so you'd imagine he'd be experienced enough to act a bit more professionally. It looks like I was assuming too much in this case.

magicbastarder

dirtyghettokid wrote: »

what disgusting attitudes from the model & website!

i'm going to stick up for the model here; i know it's been laboured a bit here above, but she was obviously given no guidance about usage of the shots, and thought it was a 'you scratch my back, i scratch yours' arrangement; so she got some free shots with no strings attached. and then the photographer attaches the strings after the event.

Splinters

Its hardly attaching strings. She recived images for her portfolio, I received images for mine. They weren't "free shots" as the images we both received for our portfolio were the payment. Thats the way TF shoots work and this is pretty clearly understood by most people I know who take part in TF shoots.

Aside from the fact shes an experienced full time professional model who really should know better, common sense alone should dictate that you don't then go on to use the images commercially. I also didn't specify she couldn't do any additional photoshopping to my images or credit them to another photographer but would you not agree these are implied by common sense? Or at the very least if she chose to do any of these it shouldn't be expecting too much to simply ask me first.

I fully admit it was stupid on my behalf not getting a quick contract drawn up to clarify it but there still some level of understanding expected dealing with people on this level. Honestly if it was a model just getting started with little experience of how these things work I really wouldn't have any issue with it.

As I said earlier, if I did the exact same thing with the images of her she'd be on another forum right now having the same conversation about me, or knowing this one on the phone to her solicitor.

dirtyghettokid

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm going to stick up for the model here; i know it's been laboured a bit here above, but she was obviously given no guidance about usage of the shots, and thought it was a 'you scratch my back, i scratch yours' arrangement; so she got some free shots with no strings attached. and then the photographer attaches the strings after the event.

true, but you (the model) don't need an attitude about it. you (the model) could say "oh jees sorry i didn't know" rather than than a snarly response

MarkyMark22

The attitude towards photographers and photo copyright worries me greatly. I think a lot of (ignorant) people see it as a person who is beneath them simply clicking on a button. They don't realise that photography is an art form and it takes an education and a lot of time and commitment to become good at.

I mean, would the website use a hit song from an artist without contacting their record label or IMRO?

Would they use clips from movies for commercial use without contacting the copyright holder?

If the website and model are as "professional" as they claim, then surely is their duty/responsibility to learn copyright law and how it may effect them.

magicbastarder

MarkyMark22 wrote: »

The attitude towards photographers and photo copyright worries me greatly. I think a lot of (ignorant) people see it as a person who is beneath them simply clicking on a button. They don't realise that photography is an art form and it takes an education and a lot of time and commitment to become good at.

and i can pretty much guarantee you that the majority of people posting to this forum have more than a few MP3s or torrents, etc., of intellectual property they have not paid for. not that this really illuminates the original point.

Scotty #

magicbastarder wrote: »

... she was obviously given no guidance about usage of the shots, and thought it was a 'you scratch my back, i scratch yours' arrangement; so she got some free shots with no strings attached. and then the photographer attaches the strings after the event.

Have to agree. The photographer deems himself a professional but yet does not provide any kind of contract. He has provided the model with the images with no terms and conditions attached whatsoever! ("Common sense" is no defence!)

Lesson learnt I hope.

nucker

I know it was a TFP/D, but you should always draw up a contract with the model(s) stating that they can't use the photos for commercial usage. If they want to use it on a website other than their portfolio, they should seek your permission first. They've agreed to have the shoot on the TFP/D basis so they shouldn't use them in the first place without permission

AnCatDubh

Scotty # wrote: »

The photographer deems himself a professional but yet does not provide any kind of contract.

For clarity I don't think the photographer has indicated he is a professional. He may be but the thread is on the basis that the photographer may or may not be a professional. On the other hand it has been indicated that the model is, and considers herself a professional model as does the website in question.

Being professional has no bearing on matters of copyright.

Splinters

I openly admit I SHOULD have got a contract drawn up, as already stated multiple times here.

However I don't accept that it excuses the model from not taking a few seconds to check it with me first if it was ok to use them commercially, instead taking the default position that she was entitled to.

I never said for one second I was a professional. However the model and website are. I made the mistake of not clarifying the usage but in no way does that default permission to them.

Safe to say lesson very much learnt anyway.

sheesh

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm going to stick up for the model here; i know it's been laboured a bit here above, but she was obviously given no guidance about usage of the shots, and thought it was a 'you scratch my back, i scratch yours' arrangement; so she got some free shots with no strings attached. and then the photographer attaches the strings after the event.

I would disagree that was exactly the arrangement the photographer could have the image in his portfolio and the model could have the image in her portfolio of images.

So they both get a Photograph for their respective portfolio. that is like for like.

the photographer cannot use the image commercially (legally) without a model release the model has an image of herself which she cannot gift or sell to another entity.

I think she should have known, unless she is brand new to modeling. The model needs to learn the business side of their profession or stop calling herself a professional.

gloobag

If the girl is a proper professional model, surely she is represented by an agency? If she is, complain her. None of the decent agencies in Dublin would tolerate that sort of carry on from their models.

nucker

Good point there

Splinters

Although I would totally agree with you I think what he means is that I didn't explicitly say "You cannot use this for commercial use". I (wrongly) assumed as a professional model she'd be well aware of this, but that was my mistake.

I honestly don't know many models who would need to be specifically told this. However I do accept that I shouldn't have left any possibility for it to be misinterpreted.

Corkbah

Splinters wrote: »

I honestly don't know many models who would need to be specifically told this. However I do accept that I shouldn't have left any possibility for it to be misinterpreted.

All of them .... and their bosses/agents.

Splinters

I guess I've just been lucky enough to work with very considerate people up until now then.