I took some photos of a model

iamstop

Long story short:
I took photos of a model.
We're both amatuer
We're both trying to break into our respective fields - no money changed hands, as agreed.
I said she could use a few of them for her model portfolio if she wanted.
I presented her with the photos, she was happy with most of them.
Weeks later she sends me a message requesting/expecting me to reprocess one of them and remove my watermark so she can use it for a flye rfor her radio show.
I consider that outside our initial agreement and extra work.
Work is a service, a service deserves some sort of compensation. However conceded that she may use the pic 'as is' if she so wished.
She disagrees and feels she is owed the 'small amount of work if would take' to do what she requested.
Then came back and said she had formatted the pic to her needs but was disappointed with my reply that she wanted the altered pic for commercial purposes.
I'm not going to lose sleep over her altering the pic and suing it anyway, whatever, but should she really expect me to rework the pic on her demand? As far as I know I own the photo and she shouldn't use it in any form commercially without my permission.
Any insights?

BreadnBuddha

iamstop wrote: »

Long story short:
I took photos of a model.
We're both amatuer
We're both trying to break into our respective fields - no money changed hands, as agreed.
I said she could use a few of them for her model portfolio if she wanted.
I presented her with the photos, she was happy with most of them.
Weeks later she sends me a message requesting/expecting me to reprocess one of them and remove my watermark so she can use it for a flye rfor her radio show.
I consider that outside our initial agreement and extra work.
Work is a service, a service deserves some sort of compensation. However conceded that she may use the pic 'as is' if she so wished.
She disagrees and feels she is owed the 'small amount of work if would take' to do what she requested.
Then came back and said she had formatted the pic to her needs but was disappointed with my reply that she wanted the altered pic for commercial purposes.
I'm not going to lose sleep over her altering the pic and suing it anyway, whatever, but should she really expect me to rework the pic on her demand? As far as I know I own the photo and she shouldn't use it in any form commercially without my permission.
Any insights?

Petty disagreement to be honest. It will take you next to no time to provide her with a copy without a watermark.

You're both amateurs so what's the point in being difficult?

LordSutch

I guess you could hide/disguise your initials (very small) within the photo unbeknown to the model, that way in the future you could always prove that you created the picture (if you needed to)?

Turquoise Hexagon Sun

I know you are being protective of your work as you should but from the outside, it does seems wee bit petty. She has a radio show and it's little acts like removing a watermark for her or retouching the image for her that will make you number 1 when she thinks to hire a photographer or someone she works with needs a photographer.

The other scenario could have went like this:

Model: Can you process the image again and retouch it, including the watermark?

You: Congrats on your radio show. I'm very busy with paid work lately but I will be delighted do that for you this time. And if anything paid work comes up, you'll keep me in mind?

Or maybe she would plug your services on her show?

Sorry if I'm coming off a bit too critical. There's no guidebook for these things really and the more people ask about these things the better. It's something we can all learn from.

I don't have statistics to back this up but I'm inclined to believe that's you're more likely to get work from a good client relationship with her than you are off the back of a flyer. Would anyone else agree?

Paulw

Always have a model release contract, which clearly states who does what and who gets what. So, you would specify that she models, you photograph, she gets images (watermarked) to use, and you retain copyright. Simple and clear.

Then there is no disagreement.

I think you are right not to allow her to commercially advertise using your image. You own the copyright, so if she does use it, you can contact the advertiser and inform them that they are in breach of copyright.

No matter what, in future, always have a basic contract. It only has to be a few lines, but have it signed and dated by you both.

golfman

Agree with BreadnBudda, petty if you ask me. The reality is you were both doing each other a favour. There was an agreement in place she would be using them in her portfolio, surely she wasn't going to have her portfolio daubed with watermarks?

I'd also agree with Turquoise. This has been an opportunity missed to create a great relationship with someone that could either pay for your services in the future or refer you paid business in the future.

Sleeper12

Seems a little unfair to me. She can't use the photos without the watermark but you can if you choose.

mrcheez

BreadnBuddha wrote: »

Petty disagreement to be honest. It will take you next to no time to provide her with a copy without a watermark.

You're both amateurs so what's the point in being difficult?

Huh? She's got a radio show so is a professional.

She should pay for any items she uses in a professional capacity that were created by a 3rd party. Simples.

twowheelsonly

We're both trying to break into our respective fields....

You've just made life a whole lot tougher for yourself.

I can understand your reluctance to remove your watermark to a degree but you should have negotiated a credit / mention on the flyer in lieu of a watermark and done so in an amicable way.

Building a business is all about contacts and relationships with people and building on that. You've just blown that with her and her circle of friends and possibly even the radio station. She / they may or may not have come back to you for some paid work but that's gone now IMO.

twowheelsonly

mrcheez wrote: »

Huh? She's got a radio show so is a professional.

She should pay for any items she uses in a professional capacity that were created by a 3rd party. Simples.

Not necessarily, she could be with any one of a multitude of small stations that use cheap / free presenters. 'Commercial Usage' is a very broad term and I'd personally consider flyers to be way down the end of the scale. There's a reason it's the cheapest form of print advertising !!

gloobag

iamstop wrote: »

As far as I know I own the photo and she shouldn't use it in any form commercially without my permission.

Yes, unless you agreed otherwise, this is what the law defaults to. If she wants to use this image to advertise something that will make her money, she needs your permission/you to grant her a licence to do so.

Whether or not you want to be paid for this licence is completely up to you. As others have said, if she is a person of influence somewhere it may come in handy to have her on your side.

By the way, a model release would not cover this. A model release is basically someone giving their permission for their likeness to be used for commercial purposes (print ads, TV ads, etc.). I work with models quite a bit in a professional capacity and model releases are close to non-existent in Ireland as far as I can tell. I could count on one hand the amount of times I've even heard mention of the words "model release", even on commercial shoots. Most people don't even know it's a thing that's supposed to happen. Even people who you would think really should know.

You could draw up a contract outlining what's what with usage of the images, but if the shoot is intended for personal/portfolio use, there's really no need. If situations like the one you've experienced come up, you just have to deal with them on a case by case basis.

A lot of photographers are met with similar dilemmas at some point in their careers, and a lot of them fly off the handle because they own the images, etc. I would advise to sit and think for a moment about who you are dealing with. Are these images and the work involved really worth the hassle of arguing with and probably making an enemy out of this person? Or, would doing this person a favour make you feel good, and maybe having this person on your side will benefit you somewhere down the line? There's no right answer really, it's all about what suits you.

Choose your battles wisely

CabanSail

I can see that you have the copyright and can control the legal use of the images you have created. It also seems apparent that you did not gain a model release either, so any use you make of those images would be non-commercial.

Why not be nice and negotiate an outcome which would be of benefit to both parties. I suggest offering to supply the image requested and a license for it's use in exchange for her providing a model release for the images you have taken. She gets what she wants and if she happens to become well known in the future then your images may be worth something.

Deadlie

I'm baffled by people going against the OP on this.

* They agreed to take photos for portfolio building exercises.
* She really liked the picture and now wants to use them on her radio show.
* This wasn't what was agreed, so the photographer - who had finished with the DJ at the point - says that a small amount of compensation is required now that it's being used for commercial gain on her side.
* The DJ gets angry and then edits the photo herself and uses it anyway, essentially breaking copyright.
* The photographer says he isn't angry and is correct in his assertion that the photo cannot be used without his consent.

Imagine if the photographer sold the image to a Stock photography site without her approval/consent and he made money off her face. There'd be murder. Identical issue, just reversed.

As someone who has shot for Radio and other Audio outlets many, many times*, I can tell you there is a budget there for photos. Giving away your images for free isn't going to put you 'at the top of the list the next time they want to pay for a photographer' - it's just going to put you at the top of the list the next time they want a free one.


*RTE Radio 1, 2FM, TXFM, Today Fm, Nova, BBC 5 Music, Radio Times, Headstuff Podcasts...

Mehaffey1

Disappointing thread, got a bit excited at the title

Sleeper12

Mehaffey1 wrote:

Disappointing thread, got a bit excited at the title

It's a bit of "it's my ball & I'm taking it home"

Water John

Sorry, misread the poster, thought it said Pistol Pete.

It's a bit of the Architect/Engineer claiming the house plans. In theory yes, but in reality.

iamstop

Thanks for all the replies to the thread. It really could have gone many different ways but in the end I explained I was new to the business side of things and if she still wanted I'll remove the watermark and make the edits she wanted if she credits me.
Personal relationship save I think.

Splinters

Turquoise Hexagon Sun wrote: »

I know you are being protective of your work as you should but from the outside, it does seems wee bit petty. She has a radio show and it's little acts like removing a watermark for her or retouching the image for her that will make you number 1 when she thinks to hire a photographer or someone she works with needs a photographer.

Nonsense, thats the kind of person who would never dream of hiring a photographer. She'll be expecting freebies and tfp from now on I assure you.

To the OP its quite simple. You legally own the pictures. She's using them for something beyond what you had agreed. You're perfectly entitled to not be happy about it. You're probably right about not pursuing it legally as thats getting into petty territory. However you're absolutely right not to bend over backwards for somebody who's clearly not showing any respect for the work you've already put in and the agreement you made.

Splinters

Oops I hadn't read the second page. Looks like you are bending over backwards for her. Its your call anyway.

Bluefoam

I don't have much input here, but it seems that the model benefited from the OP taking some decent photos & OP benefited from having a model to photograph... both ended up with some pictures they wanted... end of.

You should both use them as you wish. Next time when your a Pro, you can hire a model and all the photos can be yours... but it seems your first foray was a joint venture.

Well done OP on doing the right thing in the end.

ohnonotgmail

Bluefoam wrote: »

I don't have much input here, but it seems that the model benefited from the OP taking some decent photos & OP benefited from having a model to photograph... both ended up with some pictures they wanted... end of.

You should both use them as you wish. Next time when your a Pro, you can hire a model and all the photos can be yours... but it seems your first foray was a joint venture.

Well done OP on doing the right thing in the end.

absent any agreement to the contrary the photos are his. he owns the copyright.

iamstop

iamstop wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies to the thread. It really could have gone many different ways but in the end I explained I was new to the business side of things and if she still wanted I'll remove the watermark and make the edits she wanted if she credits me.
Personal relationship save I think.

The difference can be huge between being right, and doing the right thing. You'll be more prepared and professional next time- looks like a good outcome👍

mikeanywhere

mrcheez wrote: »

Huh? She's got a radio show so is a professional.

She should pay for any items she uses in a professional capacity that were created by a 3rd party. Simples.

Having a radio show or any type of job doesn't necessary make you a professional model

Sleeper12

mikeanywhere wrote:

Having a radio show or any type of job doesn't necessary make you a professional model

Agree. A face for radio is the saying

AnimalRights

SOFT OR HARDCORE?

georgefalls

Maybe I'm daft, but who's going to 'see' a picture on a 'radio' show