Getting asked by client to remove image from social media and website. Where do i stand?

Rich Wilts

Rich Wilts

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6
Name
Rich
Edit My Images
Yes
I worked with a client on a time for images shoot on the basis i got to use the images for my social media and website. Since giving the client all the Hi-res copies she is now asking me to remove the images. Where do i stand regarding this, as i still own full copyright of the images.

I didn't get a model release form signed as the client gave me their word and agreed to the conditions at the time.
 
IMO, take them down as requested and make sure you get written permission/model releases signed next time.
 
Nod said:
IMO, take them down as requested and make sure you get written permission/model releases signed next time.
Click to expand...

Plus......

What exactly did the contract/agreement state about each parties rights on the arrangement? You did get a signed contract, didn't you!

Without a written agreement I surmise it is all in the wind........though I do wonder if she is using the images without written permission, maybe appropriate to say to her that because she has reneged on the verbal arrangement she also has no rights to use the images other than display in her own home.

PS (added after @lindsay56 liked my post above) it strikes that a bit like the verbal agreement..........as she is not letting you use the images as agreed.......ask where you can send the bill for your time. The cynic in me makes me wonder if she responds by telling you she did not want them anyway and she has deleted them? If that transpires.....I would want her to sign a written statement that she had done that and the statement IMO should include a caveat re: should you in future discover that said images have been used in any form you will invoice as appropriate!
 
Last edited:
If it was TF I'd not call them a 'client', and regardless of a model release if there's any evidence of it being agreed it was TF and for social media usage then I'd say Sod'em

Spoken word creates contracts, written in emails etc. can be used to be a contract, so what can they argue against?

But yes, a model release in the future makes it easier to tell them to Sod Off

However, if they then wanted to spread word about you being a t*** they don't help then really

Sometimes being in the right isn't enough. So just weigh up how important the images are to you to display and if vital keep displaying them, if not vital taken them down and never work with them again (not that you would I guess)

Dave
 
The verbal contract was that i provided them with all the images and in return i could use on my website and social media.
 
Box Brownie said:
maybe appropriate to say to her that because she has reneged on the verbal arrangement she also has no rights to use the images other than display in her own home.
Click to expand...

True, but pointless as its pretty much unenforceable, at least without spending s***-loads of time and money

Dave
 
Rich Wilts said:
The verbal contract was that i provided them with all the images and in return i could use on my website and social media.
Click to expand...

Then you're in the right - you just can't prove it, but nor can the 'client' prove otherwise

So again - if it matters to you keep displaying them, if it doesn't take them down and forget it

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
If it was TF I'd not call them a 'client', and regardless of a model release if there's any evidence of it being agreed it was TF and for social media usage then I'd say Sod'em

Spoken word creates contracts, written in emails etc. can be used to be a contract, so what can they argue against?

But yes, a model release in the future makes it easier to tell them to Sod Off

However, if they then wanted to spread word about you being a t*** they don't help then really

Sometimes being in the right isn't enough. So just weigh up how important the images are to you to display and if vital keep displaying them, if not vital taken them down and never work with them again (not that you would I guess)

Dave
Click to expand...
Thanks, yes this is my mistake and learnt the hard way. I have asked them to delete at the images i have sent and then i will remove them, which is fair i think.
 
DG Phototraining said:
Then you're in the right - you just can't prove it, but nor can the 'client' prove otherwise

So again - if it matters to you keep displaying them, if it doesn't take them down and forget it

Dave
Click to expand...
Ok Thank you i really appreciate your support
 
Rich Wilts said:
I have asked them to delete at the images i have sent and then i will remove them, which is fair i think.
Click to expand...
How will you know they have been deleted?
Even if they are deleted how will you know that they have not been used for the purpose required, e.g. a portfolio of prints (they did get hi-res)?
 
gramps said:
How will you know they have been deleted?
Even if they are deleted how will you know that they have not been used for the purpose required, e.g. a portfolio of prints (they did get hi-res)?
Click to expand...
I don't and probably never will. Yes i have given them all the hi-res images
 
benc98 said:
If they're amzing images that will lead to more work, then i'd keep displaying them. You fufilled your end of the deal, so they do to.

If they're not amazing images, is it worth the hassle?
Click to expand...
They are and i spent 3 days work on editing them and 3 shoots
 
Rich Wilts said:
They are and i spent 3 days work on editing them and 3 shoots
Click to expand...

Then you have to decide whether you want to throw all that away.
Personally if someone asked me to give them 3 days of my life in return for 'x' and then decided to remove/not give 'x', I wouldn't take that lightly.
As said, a verbal contract is a valid contract ... the only issue is whether your keeping what was agreed to will result in damage to your name or reputation, only you know whether that is a reasonable possibility.
Alternatively you could tell the other party that in the absence of the agreed payment option of your use of the images, a payment for your time of £whatever your rate is will suffice.

Caveat, I am not a legal professional.
 
gramps said:
Then you have to decide whether you want to throw all that away.
Personally if someone asked me to give them 3 days of my life in return for 'x' and then decided to remove/not give 'x', I wouldn't take that lightly.
As said, a verbal contract is a valid contract ... the only issue is whether your keeping what was agreed to will result in damage to your name or reputation, only you know whether that is a reasonable possibility.
Alternatively you could tell the other party that in the absence of the agreed payment option of your use of the images, a payment for your time of £whatever your rate is will suffice.

Caveat, I am not a legal professional.
Click to expand...

That would be my stance too.
 
A while back I can remember someone saying that in the U.K a model release has zero legal standing so it may not have mattered if the o.p had one or not.

Take them down and learn the hard lesson that free work is something you should avoid.
 
You could, although weigh this option up, as the copyright holder ask them to remove them from where they have been used. It's a bit tit for tat though.
 
f/2.8 said:
Take them down and learn the hard lesson that free work is something you should avoid.
Click to expand...

Why does taking them down equal he learns the lesson, surely he's got that already just with the hassle ... and if he takes them down what lesson does it give the other party?
 
If as he says he owns copyright, their his to do as he wishes. I would leave them up.
 
forklift said:
If as he says he owns copyright, their his to do as he wishes. I would leave them up.
Click to expand...

That isn’t how copywrite works if they have asked them to be removed he has no choice but to do so.
 
DG Phototraining said:
However, if they then wanted to spread word about you being a t*** they don't help then really

Sometimes being in the right isn't enough. So just weigh up how important the images are to you to display and if vital keep displaying them, if not vital taken them down and never work with them again (not that you would I guess)
Click to expand...


These are the pertinent points. If you leave them up and she starts posting things about a nasty photographer on arseberk and t***ter, it could really screw your prospects of further work in the field.

I would chalk this one up to experience and make sure you get written (or at lest documented) permissions/releases in the future.
 
Rich Wilts said:
Thanks, yes this is my mistake and learnt the hard way. I have asked them to delete at the images i have sent and then i will remove them, which is fair i think.
Click to expand...
You can’t guarantee they’ll delete them.
You can expect them to pay for the exclusive right to use them.

But as above; is it worth the hassle.
 
It's 'Time For' so presumably the subject is a model/wannabe model.
In which case, presumably she /he was acting as a business acquiring portfolio material?

In which case:

DPA/GDPR doesn't apply because it is designed to protect only personal data.

As a business shoot Sect 85 CDPA doesn't apply.

It further doesn't apply because according to Trimingham v Assoc Newspapers "money or money's worth" must have
exchanged hands for the shoot to qualify as a commission.

In terms of asking you to 'unpublish' the images, there is no legal basis for it.
Whether your conscience dictates differently is another matter
 
Rich Wilts said:
The verbal contract
Click to expand...

Next time please don't.

And just because they don't have the contract either you can inform the agreement is null and void and instruct them to destroy all copies, and if they are using publicly it even call the lawyers.
 
Rich Wilts said:
Thanks, yes this is my mistake and learnt the hard way. I have asked them to delete at the images i have sent and then i will remove them, which is fair i think.
Click to expand...


I can't tell if you got paid? If you did then take them down move on you got paid...

If you didn't gte paid then I would explain to them the fee for those images was you using them.. If they want you to take them down and not use them then you will but you must revert to your standard rate and you will invoice them..
 
The onus is on the other party to take any legal action in an attempt to enforce their wishes and when faced with legal costs they may back down, unless they are Coca-Cola in which case expect some gentlemen in black suits knocking on your front door!

As others have said you have to weigh up the pros and cons regarding your professional reputation. If you charge money you may be termed as a professional.

So, how about informing us who/what the subject was please? And also whether your client was a company or an individual without specifically identifying them.

I am now wondering if your client/subject was a model girl who is now feeling uncomfortable with others (including you) publicly showing your photos of her.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
How does that work under UK law then?
Click to expand...

Tommy is referring to section 85(I think that' the right section number) of the copyright act which states if its a commissioned shoot the person who commissions the shoot can prevent publication. A TF shoot is not commissioned and the subject has not control of publication.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Tommy is referring to section 85(I think that' the right section number) of the copyright act which states if its a commissioned shoot the person who commissions the shoot can prevent publication. A TF shoot is not commissioned and the subject has not control of publication.
Click to expand...

.... But whatever the law is technically it is still up to either party to initiate a legal action and in this case the onus is on the client because they are the ones who want something done.

Unless you, the photographer, think that ignoring the client's latest wishes will badly damage your reputation I would ignore it. At least until you receive a solicitor's letter demanding to take the images down and then reconsider at that stage of the proceedings. If the client goes ahead with a court hearing against you without giving you a formal such letter first, the case is likely to be thrown out and your client told not to waste the court's time.

Can this client afford to take legal action against you?

I assume that there is no financial gain as a result of you publishing the images other than the general value of portfolio promotion.
 
kendo1 said:
Will Rich return... ?
Click to expand...

.... Only he knows but you appear to be implying that he won't.

People usually join an online forum because they have something specific to find out about and then may not post for a while - That's not unusual.

But I have just noticed your signature saying "I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member" so why are you still here? :D
 
RedRobin said:
.... Only he knows but you appear to be implying that he won't.

People usually join an online forum because they have something specific to find out about and then may not post for a while - That's not unusual.

But I have just noticed your signature saying "I wouldn't join a club that would have me as a member" so why are you still here? :D
Click to expand...
My point was that, as usual, members are responding to someone who isn't there...
Your second point-
You would have to ask Groucho...
 
boyfalldown said:
Tommy is referring to section 85(I think that' the right section number) of the copyright act which states if its a commissioned shoot the person who commissions the shoot can prevent publication. A TF shoot is not commissioned and the subject has not control of publication.
Click to expand...


You missed out a rather important part of the phrasing of Sect 85: "for private and domestic purposes".
 
Terribly terribly depressing, I used to be in a trade where "my word is my bond" and we seem to be drifting to a world where we need contracts for everything. As far as yr problem goes I'd either suck it up or get proper legal advice before taking her on.
 
dweeble said:
Terribly terribly depressing, I used to be in a trade where "my word is my bond" and we seem to be drifting to a world where we need contracts for everything. As far as yr problem goes I'd either suck it up or get proper legal advice before taking her on.
Click to expand...

Not a great bit of 'advice' given that there is no monetary value in the case.
 
Beg to differ. If she is a stroppy sort, as she sounds, and decides OP has damaged her brand or whatever nonsense and finds an ambulance chaser willing to take her on, you can be in for eye-watering legal fees before you know it. You need to knw how strong yr position is before deciding whether to chalk it up to experince or stand yr gorund.
 
dweeble said:
Beg to differ. If she is a stroppy sort, as she sounds, and decides OP has damaged her brand or whatever nonsense and finds an ambulance chaser willing to take her on, you can be in for eye-watering legal fees before you know it. You need to knw how strong yr position is before deciding whether to chalk it up to experince or stand yr gorund.
Click to expand...


If you'd noticed, I laid out the legal position 13 days ago, when the OP was still about to pay attention.

There is no legal case to answer.

Defamation would be a non-starter and there is no data protection issue if it is a model.

If it's a private 'client' then the images should be removed for the sake of form, but there is no legal obligation to do so as no commission was paid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top