Client is asking for rejected files?

Erika Tanith

Erika Tanith

Suspended / Banned
Messages
21
Name
Erika Tanith
Edit My Images
No
I've been doing some work as a food photographer for a large café in my local city. In previous jobs I have always agreed on which images get retouched during the shoot, add in a few extras, and deliver the edited images in a timely fashion. Now however, they are asking for copies of the images that didn't make the cut. Obviously these are all the rejected images, the poor quality pictures, and the ones that just aren't quite as good as the ones I deliver. I'm reluctant to send these pictures as they are not representative of what I do, and I don't want people to think that's what I produce. They have even said that they will likely use some of these in their social media campaigns. I'm concerned that if I tell them my concerns and refuse to give them the images that they will not work with me again (they are are semi-regular and well paying client). I'm torn. Do I compromise my standards to pay my mortgage, or do I retain my integrity? Any insight or advice welcome.
 
Never do this as DemiLion says.

There's an old thread of mine that tells what can happen if you do. (Not that you'd do anything like the below).



My daughter got married and thought she'd get a good wedding photographer for £400.

Long story short she wasn't happy with the album so the "photographer" sent her every shot.

Unfortunately for him he forgot he'd been taking photos of the bridesmaid's bums and cleavage.

Small claims court, a good win and a photographer's business up in smoke.

Made the press in around 65 countries.
 
I take it there are pictures that were considered satisfactory for sharing with the customer - ie the 5* shots.... Then there was the not-quite shots, the ones that didn't make the cut - the 4*, the 3* and below you consider 'rejects' and deleted. As long as the 4* shots don't dilute your reputation I'd say yes you can have these but the other were deleted because they weren't up to standard and I don't want to embarrass myself.
 
Does your contract say anything about which images you supply?
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Never do this as DemiLion says.

There's an old thread of mine that tells what can happen if you do. (Not that you'd do anything like the below).



My daughter got married and thought she'd get a good wedding photographer for £400.

Long story short she wasn't happy with the album so the "photographer" sent her every shot.

Unfortunately for him he forgot he'd been taking photos of the bridesmaid's bums and cleavage.

Small claims court, a good win and a photographer's business up in smoke.

Made the press in around 65 countries.
Click to expand...
Didn't the bridesmaids notice at the time?
 
GreenNinja67 said:
Never do this as DemiLion says.

There's an old thread of mine that tells what can happen if you do. (Not that you'd do anything like the below).



My daughter got married and thought she'd get a good wedding photographer for £400.

Long story short she wasn't happy with the album so the "photographer" sent her every shot.

Unfortunately for him he forgot he'd been taking photos of the bridesmaid's bums and cleavage.

Small claims court, a good win and a photographer's business up in smoke.

Made the press in around 65 countries.
Click to expand...
How long ago did your daughter get married? As £400 even when I got married 21 years ago, wouldn't have got a good wedding photographer.
 
Last edited:
Erika Tanith said:
I've been doing some work as a food photographer for a large café in my local city. In previous jobs I have always agreed on which images get retouched during the shoot, add in a few extras, and deliver the edited images in a timely fashion. Now however, they are asking for copies of the images that didn't make the cut. Obviously these are all the rejected images, the poor quality pictures, and the ones that just aren't quite as good as the ones I deliver. I'm reluctant to send these pictures as they are not representative of what I do, and I don't want people to think that's what I produce. They have even said that they will likely use some of these in their social media campaigns. I'm concerned that if I tell them my concerns and refuse to give them the images that they will not work with me again (they are are semi-regular and well paying client). I'm torn. Do I compromise my standards to pay my mortgage, or do I retain my integrity? Any insight or advice welcome.
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
Never release sub-par images to a client. Ever.
Click to expand...

DemiLion said:
Only if they have actually been deleted. Otherwise you are lying to your customer.
Click to expand...
I wonder if this is 'mis-managed expectations' aspect of "what does it say in the contract to which both parties agreed".

E.g. in this case could the photographer explicitly state that they have full control over the the number and quality of the images that will be provided and any, at the photographers discretion will be deleted. Not those exact words..............but a form of words to mitigate for a client such @Erika Tanith is dealing with now?
 
Normally you would have stated what would be supplied and they were happy with that before proceeding with yourself?
If you did and fulfilled the agreement then I wouldn't be releasing anymore images unless they were up to 5* rating and then it'd be at extra cost.
 
It’s a straightforward polite No.

As my feminist friends assert ‘No is a complete sentence’.

Anything that sounds like an explanation or excuse is opening the door for negotiation.

Remember who holds control, and any shift in your position shifts that control.
 
To put a different view: why wouldn't you supply all the images, good or bad, having explained which ones you would recommend and which ones you consider failures?

Provided you have a good business relationship with the client, you can only lose by refusing their request.
 
For the same reason a café or restaurant wouldn't send out a burned steak.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
To put a different view: why wouldn't you supply all the images, good or bad, having explained which ones you would recommend and which ones you consider failures?

Provided you have a good business relationship with the client, you can only lose by refusing their request.
Click to expand...
If the client insists on receiving all images captured and subsequently chooses to use images that are not fully representative of the photographer’s standards and ability, then surely they would effectively be undermining the reputation of the photographer?

Unless the contract states that all captured images are to be provided, I’d say only provide those that meet the appropriate professional standard.
 
ecoleman said:
Jut tell them sorry but you have a reputation to uphold so don't release any images that you are not completely satisfied with.

Ask them if they would serve food that they weren't completely happy with?
Click to expand...

That made me laugh but some customers don't appreciate any back chat or questioning from suppliers. They might just hit the roof.
 
I have learnt to rename all of the photo files and find that telling a white lie should it come up, 'that was all the photos there were'. Certainly for Weddings if you miss a guest - as soon as the couple get the impression that there were more photos, they won't let it go. It's also in my contract that all photos taken won't be delivered - and the choice is my discretion.
 
Last edited:
welshwizard645 said:
I'd say yes you can have these but the other were deleted because they weren't up to standard and I don't want to embarrass myself.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want my clients to know I had taken pics so bad they would embarrass me.. I certainly wouldn't tell them I had :)
 
L320Rio said:
Surely it all comes down to what was actually written in the contract. And if the photographer was commissioned by the client, then the copyright of all the images, good and bad, belongs to the client, so the photographer would have to hand them over.

And the OP's website clearly states "Commission Prices"
Click to expand...


Probably best not to comment if you don't understand copyright. That has not been the case since 1988.
 
L320Rio said:
Surely it all comes down to what was actually written in the contract. And if the photographer was commissioned by the client, then the copyright of all the images, good and bad, belongs to the client, so the photographer would have to hand them over.

And the OP's website clearly states "Commission Prices"
Click to expand...

One thing I do know in photography is, if I take a photo of something I am the copyright owner and know one else.
 
As I understand things, "copyright" is to be read literally - the right to make copies of a work.

By default, this right is stated to pass automatically to the "author" as defined in sections 9,10 and 11 of the 1988 act. Section 11.2 of the act specifies that work made in the course of employment, the copyright defaults to the "employer".

The two gotchas of this are...
  1. Is a persion commisioning a work the "employer"?
  2. Does contract law over-ride the copyright act in the case Erika outlines?
I don't know the answers to either of these questions and I suspect no one posting here is likely to either.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
The two gotchas of this are...
  1. Is a persion commisioning a work the "employer"?
  2. Does contract law over-ride the copyright act in the case Erika outlines?
I don't know the answers to either of these questions and I suspect no one posting here is likely to either.
Click to expand...

The first one is easy to answer: Is there a contract of employment? If not, no employment exists. 'Work made for hire' is a US concept and not applicable in the UK.

Note that for an 'employer' to raise PAYE against a wage, a contract has to exist, albeit a verbal one.

Also an employer does not commission work from an employee.

Second, does contract over rule copyright? In some cases contracts can amend statutory rights if agreed by both parties (Sect 85 for one) but the conditions
of the statute law will normally have to be met; ie that an agreement is signed in writing in that case.

The reassignment of copyright is a contract in itself.
 
L320Rio said:
Surely it all comes down to what was actually written in the contract. And if the photographer was commissioned by the client, then the copyright of all the images, good and bad, belongs to the client, so the photographer would have to hand them over.

And the OP's website clearly states "Commission Prices"
Click to expand...
That's not true, and you frankly should be ashamed for offering it as advice whilst describing yourself as an ex professional.
 
Just for absolute clarity - as we appear to have invited a bit of a chimps tea party here - this is almost certainly not a copyright issue, but for clarity.

Copyright is automatically assigned to the content creator.

So the only way copyright gets assigned to a 3rd party is for that to happen as part of a contract. This is obviously common in a contract of employment, but rare in any other contract, for commissioned work, freelance work etc.

So back to the OP...
Erika Tanith said:
I've been doing some work as a food photographer for a large café in my local city
Click to expand...
Doesn't say 'I've been employed by...' the photographers website clearly shows she's not an employee.

The photographer clearly owns the commissioned work and the question is around customer relations.

And the answer is a resounding No
 
I’ll elaborate: the only reason these questions arise is because some ‘customers’ take advantage of photographers delicate egos in a ridiculous attempt to assert power.

If I’m a mechanic, the customer may have paid me to partially fit a new steering arm upside down, but has no interest in actually receiving my ‘workings out’, that’d make their journey dangerous.

As a restaurant customer I have paid for the potato peelings, meat off cuts, and even a proportion of the experimental dishes that failed, but it’s in no one’s interest for me to be served them, I paid only for my dinner, not the necessary bits that don’t need to be on my plate.

At work I make spreadsheets, who on earth thinks it’d be interesting to see all my failed iterations before I present a final report?

The finished product is the finished product; ordered and paid for. The ‘workings out’, surplus ingredients or failed attempts are part of the process that should never go near a customer.

Anyone arguing differently has a very skewed world view.
 
Phil V said:
Oh and @Erika Tanith
There’s some fab work on your website. Don’t get bogged down by morons. Rise above it and continue to produce great work.
Click to expand...
:agree: I looked especially at your 'food photography' and IMO and as I see things.....your results speak for themselves with imagery as good as the food that you photographed.
 
Erika Tanith said:
I've been doing some work as a food photographer for a large café in my local city. In previous jobs I have always agreed on which images get retouched during the shoot, add in a few extras, and deliver the edited images in a timely fashion. Now however, they are asking for copies of the images that didn't make the cut. Obviously these are all the rejected images, the poor quality pictures, and the ones that just aren't quite as good as the ones I deliver. I'm reluctant to send these pictures as they are not representative of what I do, and I don't want people to think that's what I produce. They have even said that they will likely use some of these in their social media campaigns. I'm concerned that if I tell them my concerns and refuse to give them the images that they will not work with me again (they are are semi-regular and well paying client). I'm torn. Do I compromise my standards to pay my mortgage, or do I retain my integrity? Any insight or advice welcome.
Click to expand...

Hi Erika, this sounds like they want more volume, and possibly variety, as they mention they want to use on social media? I would:
- delete all the images you're not happy with
- consider sharing any variations of the final selection you were happy with, subject to the client paying for retouching of those too
- ask them about expectations for future shoots - what is their additional need for social media and how much additional budget do they have for that?
 
Thank you everyone for all your help and advice, and for the kind comments about my work.

I have told the client that all the images that have not already been delivered on previous shoots have been deleted (which is the truth). I don't see the point in keeping RAW files of lighting test shots, set building, or the individual files that make up a focus stacked image. Storage space is expensive and I reserve it for high quality images.

I have asked them for clarification of what they mean by 'rejected shots' for the next shoot that is currently being negotiated.

I will take on all your advice and reject and delete anything under 4 star quality. Just in case.
I think what irks me most is that of the 200+ images I have supplied over the years they have maybe only used 5 in their social media campaigns. Why would they want poor versions of what they already possess!? I always supply for print and web usage, but typically the work I produce is used in magazines, and for in-store promotion such as video advertising boards, posters, coasters, that sort of thing. They already have numerous options to use, but are making quite an aggressive request for images that I don't think are representative of what I do.

I am also updating my T&Cs, and supplying them with a price list for requests that get bolted on to agreed jobs. You know the sort of thing I mean: "Can I just have black and white copies of these 40 images as well", "Can we just have six more...". "Can we just..." That way, everything is transparent, and expectations are being managed.
 
DemiLion said:
Whilst I'm sure that you are enjoying the gloating, I'm not sure what relevance this has to the original question.
Click to expand...

Sometimes threads go off at a tangent and sometimes people find these slightly off or even way off topic things interesting and sometimes other people get snotty and accuse others of gloating. Such is daily life on internet forums.
 
Phil V said:
I’ll elaborate: the only reason these questions arise is because some ‘customers’ take advantage of photographers delicate egos in a ridiculous attempt to assert power.

If I’m a mechanic, the customer may have paid me to partially fit a new steering arm upside down, but has no interest in actually receiving my ‘workings out’, that’d make their journey dangerous.

As a restaurant customer I have paid for the potato peelings, meat off cuts, and even a proportion of the experimental dishes that failed, but it’s in no one’s interest for me to be served them, I paid only for my dinner, not the necessary bits that don’t need to be on my plate.

At work I make spreadsheets, who on earth thinks it’d be interesting to see all my failed iterations before I present a final report?

The finished product is the finished product; ordered and paid for. The ‘workings out’, surplus ingredients or failed attempts are part of the process that should never go near a customer.

Anyone arguing differently has a very skewed world view.
Click to expand...
I absolutely love this analogy. Would it be okay to paraphrase this in explaining this to my client? Although if they don't understand this I don't think in all conscience I can continue to provide services for them.
 
Erika Tanith said:
I absolutely love this analogy. Would it be okay to paraphrase this in explaining this to my client? Although if they don't understand this I don't think in all conscience I can continue to provide services for them.
Click to expand...
Absolutely feel free.
TBH I’ve used the cooking analogy before when explaining what we deliver and why ‘having everything’ is worse than having the right thing.
 
L320Rio said:
Surely it all comes down to what was actually written in the contract. And if the photographer was commissioned by the client, then the copyright of all the images, good and bad, belongs to the client, so the photographer would have to hand them over.

And the OP's website clearly states "Commission Prices"
Click to expand...


DemiLion said:
Probably best not to comment if you don't understand copyright. That has not been the case since 1988.
Click to expand...



I'm aghast at the complete lack of understanding shown by L320Rio. :headbang:

DemiLion - you have been unusually polite!;)

Could I make a suggestion ?

A simple statement about copyright could be prepared and attached to the top of the business forum as a sticky along the lines of : "Copyright belongs to the photographer, not the client"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top