Asked to remove some images from my website..

snoop69 said:
As far as I understand it, a contract (written or verbal) is only valid if both
parties gain benefit.

If someone doesnt benefit in any way then there can be no contract.
Click to expand...

That would rule out most contracts ever written.
 
Just put a note below them saying the woman was also in attendance with the other photographer. If you were evil, you could make it sound like she was there to help you.
 
ryanyboy said:
Whatever, this is why some pro photographers are reluctant to offer second shooter opportunities to others. :(
Click to expand...

I always thought that it was because they didn't want more competition, or at least that's what I have been told.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
I always thought that it was because they didn't want more competition, or at least that's what I have been told.
Click to expand...

I know this is veering off topic but rather than being worried about competition my main issues with having an assistant/2nd tog is that it's something else I have to manage on the day. Will they be any good? Will they get in my way? Can I trust them to be professional/get good shots/not make mistakes/etc?

There are the odd instances where it would be handy to send someone back to my bag to collect something or set some light stands up for me, but it's rare and when I know I can do a decent job myself I can't see any great value to me by having someone else there.

Maybe if I tried it I'd think differently.
 
boyfalldown said:
Sorry Hoppy, don't understand your point, beneefits in many cases aren't financial, but both sides of a contract normally gain by it
Click to expand...

The point is, Snoop69 said that a contract wasn't valid if there was no benefit, which is clearly untrue.

A contract is an agreement, and presumably you wouldn't sign it if you didn't think there would be some benefit somewhere down the line, but there's absolutely no guarantee and very often things don't work out that way at all for one or any of the parties. Tough.

You can get a contract overturned if it can be shown to have been signed on the basis of misinformation, under duress or grossly unreasonable terms or whatever, but that's extremely rare. Eg pop bands that signed anything just to get a record deal and then got screwed over, but that kind of thing is extremely hard work, is usually very expensive and largely a waste of time since all the money has vanished anyway. If you sign a contract, or even agree verbally, you should not expect any going back.

Not getting at the OP specifically here (and certainly not you BFD) but TBH I'm a bit dismayed by the general lack of knowledge even amongst professionals and certainly amateur weekend warriors when it comes to things like copyright and model release and just general commercial terms of dealing.

People on here are often quick to criticise copyright abuse from clients or on FaceBook etc, when they don't even have a proper understanding of the law themselves. And the law is only a last resort, the final back-stop, when all moral principle and general common sense hasn't worked. You can do a heck of a lot and stay within the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it right. Talking to people directly and honestly usually does.

<rant off> :D
 
Harvey_nikon said:
I always thought that it was because they didn't want more competition, or at least that's what I have been told.
Click to expand...

That's what I meant. She has given the OP the opportunity to second shoot and now he is using the pictures taken to compete with her.
 
HoppyUK said:
The point is, Snoop69 said that a contract wasn't valid if there was no benefit, which is clearly untrue.

A contract is an agreement, and presumably you wouldn't sign it if you didn't think there would be some benefit somewhere down the line, but there's absolutely no guarantee and very often things don't work out that way at all for one or any of the parties. Tough.

You can get a contract overturned if it can be shown to have been signed on the basis of misinformation, under duress or grossly unreasonable terms or whatever, but that's extremely rare. Eg pop bands that signed anything just to get a record deal and then got screwed over, but that kind of thing is extremely hard work, is usually very expensive and largely a waste of time since all the money has vanished anyway. If you sign a contract, or even agree verbally, you should not expect any going back.

Not getting at the OP specifically here (and certainly not you BFD) but TBH I'm a bit dismayed by the general lack of knowledge even amongst professionals and certainly amateur weekend warriors when it comes to things like copyright and model release and just general commercial terms of dealing.

People on here are often quick to criticise copyright abuse from clients or on FaceBook etc, when they don't even have a proper understanding of the law themselves. And the law is only a last resort, the final back-stop, when all moral principle and general common sense hasn't worked. You can do a heck of a lot and stay within the letter of the law, but that doesn't make it right. Talking to people directly and honestly usually does.

<rant off> :D
Click to expand...

that makes a bit off sense :) and I have to agree with your rant. On consumer contracts, ie not business to business its worth having a basic understanding of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts act. You'd be amazed how many people don't and get done over as a result
 
At the end of the day it all depends what the OP wants to do. If there was any verbal / written agreement and how much those shots mean to him.

If he thinks they will get him more business and they are some of his best work then i would argue to keep them on the website.
 
You don't need a model release, some picture agencies will require them but theres no legal reason for you to have one here.
A wedding must by law be open to everybody, this make an exclusivity contract difficult to enforce.
For a start on church ground they can't really enfore it because they would have to get the landowners permission, and about the best they could do is ask people to leave if they took pictures, this then raises the legal question of the wedding being open to all (and I doubt many vicars would give consent to an exclusivity contract anyway)
It seems you were there to gain experience, you took the pictures which makes the copyright yours. personally I'd leave the images up and stand your ground.
 
unless there is an agreement to say you cant use them then she has no leg to stand on. I'd use them if it were me, in fact I'd not second shoot if someone told me I could not use the images in my portfolio.

I really don't see what the big deal is here
 
Last edited:
if you arent selling the stuff...and its yours... and there is no conflict with the subjects

what could be the problem
 
What happened regarding this, have been following and am quite interested in the final decision and why. Thanks
 
A contract only exists if consideration passes between the two parties to the contract. This doesn't have to be financial but something does need to pass from both parties to the other, usually money one way and goods the other. If this reciprical consideration doesn't take place, then a contract doesn't exist. It's at the root of UK contract law and initially ruled on in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.

I can't see that consideration passed both ways in this case, though I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Back to the original dilemma, I'd try and negotiate an agreement where you both use the images just to make life easier for both of you.
 
OneOffDave said:
A contract only exists if consideration passes between the two parties to the contract. This doesn't have to be financial but something does need to pass from both parties to the other, usually money one way and goods the other. If this reciprical consideration doesn't take place, then a contract doesn't exist. It's at the root of UK contract law and initially ruled on in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.

I can't see that consideration passed both ways in this case, though I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Back to the original dilemma, I'd try and negotiate an agreement where you both use the images just to make life easier for both of you.
Click to expand...

consideration passed as follows

The O/P helped his mate photographing her wedding.

The O/P gained valuable training and experience and by discussion images for his portfolio.
 
boyfalldown said:
consideration passed as follows

The O/P helped his mate photographing her wedding.

The O/P gained valuable training and experience and by discussion images for his portfolio.
Click to expand...


I must have misread as I took it that the OP gave his mate the photos after the fact, not as part of the arrangement.
 
OneOffDave said:
A contract only exists if consideration passes between the two parties to the contract. This doesn't have to be financial but something does need to pass from both parties to the other, usually money one way and goods the other. If this reciprical consideration doesn't take place, then a contract doesn't exist. It's at the root of UK contract law and initially ruled on in Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company.

I can't see that consideration passed both ways in this case, though I'm happy to be proved wrong.

Back to the original dilemma, I'd try and negotiate an agreement where you both use the images just to make life easier for both of you.
Click to expand...

I don't think that can be literally true, unless what it means is nothing more than the exchange of goods/services that is implied in any contract - you receive something in return for something else. That's what agreements are by definition.

However, most model release form do inlcude the phrase "for consideration of" or something, with a space to be filled in. This is usually an amount of money but it can be anything, like a set of prints or a CD. Anything of perceived value will do.

I'm not sure it has any legal significance, any more than the model release itself as any legal standing as such. It's just a very solid bit of evidence that an agreement exists, and the 'consideration' aspect gives it a bit more weight, and that some kind of 'deal' and mutual exchange was done.

When I was drawing up a set of super-simple model release forms, and cutting out the usual ton of legalese that nobody could understand, my legal advice was to leave the 'consideration' bit in because it is a legal sounding kind of term which adds substance, but it was not absolutely essential.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top