model mayhem model issue

[Steve]

Are you talking about the photographer or the model here, they both fall into that category i think.

So you , a hobbyist, offered a time for cd shoot. Didnt bother with a contract and gave her some images. Whats wrong with the one you linked in post 2? It looks fine. How has she turned it to crap?

I do time for cd shoots all the time for fun. Hand over 50 or 60 images when im done and let them know they can do what the hell they want with them. My life isnt affected. Youve got the originals still to put in your portfolio should you wish to pursue a pro career, odds on she wont be heard from again in any capacity or in any way that will affect your work in future. Whats the issue here? Are you that ashamed by what she did? id love to see the original of the image that you posted as that must be mind blowing.

Can you link that one to show us how she has screwed your potential career over?

My thoughts exactly on reading this thread

 

[jamesLglass]

for weddings yeah i have done many shoots with models this is the 1st time this has happened i guess i am just peed off that after spending time editing 2 seconds in instagram and theres a stupid filter on it maybe i am getting carried away but hey i take my work seriously.Contract wise i never had any intention of using the images for profit so no need for one.

 

[Teflon-Mike]

Just playing devils advocate... but:
OK, you took the original picture, you own copy right to it, you own intelectual rights and can do what you wish with it.
Now she has taken your original image; deleted the water-mark, and buggered around with it to create a different image, that SHE likes.
She is not using it for commercial purposes... its a social networking avtar.....
So she's not profiting financially by the 'theft'.
Meanwhile, unatributed, it's not harming your reputation any, or harming your business or depriving you of revinue.
Right?
So what harm done?
Other than to annoy you?
On the other hand, getting into a heated flame war about it; on face book, on model-may, on here......
Sling mud, some sticks.
That harms both your reputations, surely.
Her opinion or word of mouth (or FB message!) could mean other models dont want to work with 'you', becouse they believe you were a bit of a dick to her.
Other photographers, likewise likely not to want to work with her, becouse she was a bit of a prima to you....
What 'good' can come out of any of it, for any-one?
Is it really worth getting wound up about, and risking your own reputation to stoop to her level?

 

[Keith W]

The model release thing is a red herring

You do not legally require a model release in the UK

 

[jamesLglass]

for weddings yeah i have done many shoots with models this is the 1st time this has happened i guess i am just peed off that after spending time editing 2 seconds in instagram and theres a stupid filter on it maybe i am getting carried away but hey i take my work seriously.Contract wise i never had any intention of using the images for profit so no need for one.

Just playing devils advocate... but:
OK, you took the original picture, you own copy right to it, you own intelectual rights and can do what you wish with it.
Now she has taken your original image; deleted the water-mark, and buggered around with it to create a different image, that SHE likes.
She is not using it for commercial purposes... its a social networking avtar.....
So she's not profiting financially by the 'theft'.
Meanwhile, unatributed, it's not harming your reputation any, or harming your business or depriving you of revinue.
Right?
So what harm done?
Other than to annoy you?
On the other hand, getting into a heated flame war about it; on face book, on model-may, on here......
Sling mud, some sticks.
That harms both your reputations, surely.
Her opinion or word of mouth (or FB message!) could mean other models dont want to work with 'you', becouse they believe you were a bit of a dick to her.
Other photographers, likewise likely not to want to work with her, becouse she was a bit of a prima to you....
What 'good' can come out of any of it, for any-one?
Is it really worth getting wound up about, and risking your own reputation to stoop to her level?

i agree mike i got carried away its over now.

 

[davecurley]

telfon-mike,

wow ! common sense, its refreshing.

 

[DemiLion]

You really do come across as professional as a wet paper bag.

Either TfCD the shoot and forget about the images you hand over or, pay the model, control the shoot and write the cost off as a business expense.

Whichever you decide, willy waving about which cameras you use is seriously infra-dig.

 

[BruceMo]

You really do come across as professional as a wet paper bag.

Either TfCD the shoot and forget about the images you hand over or, pay the model, control the shoot and write the cost off as a business expense.

Whichever you decide, willy waving about which cameras you use is seriously infra-dig.

Subtle

 

[fracster]

Jesus Christ Mark.............

 

[Donnie]

Ok so i had a TFCD shoot yesterday and got a couple of images emailed to the model that she liked next thing i see on facebook is that she has posted them after instagraming them and mucking up the tones and editing i had spent time on,not there was no written contract or model release as i am only using them on my flickr etc they are not for sale but i said to her about it and she said she likes the instagram flavour WTF! anyway i have not sent her any more this has left a sour taste in my mouth any advice?

Yes.

Use a contract.

 

[Keith W]

He did pay the model

Payment does not necessarily equal money

The CD of images is the payment and in a court of law it would also be considered a payment

 

[jamesLglass]

You really do come across as professional as a wet paper bag.

Either TfCD the shoot and forget about the images you hand over or, pay the model, control the shoot and write the cost off as a business expense.

Whichever you decide, willy waving about which cameras you use is seriously infra-dig.

[REMOVED] i am not willy waving about what i have what nonsense are you talking about?

 

[jon ryan]

as has been said before its the same with street photography if i go and capture a stranger the photograph belongs to me i hold the copyright correct me if i am wrong but i can use that photo on my website as long as i am not selling it etc but if i am making money using it in magazines or stock etc then a model release must be done.

No, not in the UK. If this was the case, press photography would be virtually impossible

Unless you are a bona fide member of the Media, I presume?

No such thing

sorry essex i make my living doing photography ...

Perhaps you should do a little research into the legal side of the profession?

 

[jamesLglass]

No, not in the UK. If this was the case, press photography would be virtually impossible



No such thing



Perhaps you should do a little research into the legal side of the profession?

i know enough that there has been a copyright infringement i am not a lawyer i am a photographer.

 

[jamesLglass]

Anyway i am ****ed off with it as i have said essexash you maybe happy to give them 50-60 images from a shoot you are either getting them into many different outfits or the shots are similar or its an all day shoot or your delivering half assed **** by your attitude who knows but you say you dont care what they do with them stupid attitude IMO i am just passionate about what i do lets say its used on facebook many others will see it and ask who the photographer was and secretly they will think what the **** is that colour all about why is it yellow?TFP or paid i put the same effort in and the editing is a serious part of the process,i have had work through facebook from TFP shoots this is what you have to be aware of.if you dont care about your work ash thats fine but i do.
demilion you seem to be a know it all get out with your camera more you are probably enjoying the face that other forum members think your chat is great and they are happy to lick your ring but just get out and shoot.Now enough is enough i missed the thatchers deed party in george square yesterday lol

 

[st599]

Excuse me asking, but I thought that a Model Release form had to be completed to confirm that the photographer was at liberty to use the images captured?

However James has said that there was no such form completed. Therefore, conversely, what right does James have to claim any control over the images?

Please understand that I am not trying to wind anyone up here; it really is a genuine query as to the rights of use by both/either parties if a Model Release form has not been completed.

A model release form is not needed under UK law. The photographer owns the copyright and can assert moral rights to be known as the author. He can't use them in a defamatory way.

 

[cymruchris]

Just playing devils advocate... but:
OK, you took the original picture, you own copy right to it, you own intelectual rights and can do what you wish with it.
Now she has taken your original image; deleted the water-mark, and buggered around with it to create a different image, that SHE likes.
She is not using it for commercial purposes... its a social networking avtar.....
So she's not profiting financially by the 'theft'.
Meanwhile, unatributed, it's not harming your reputation any, or harming your business or depriving you of revinue.
Right?
So what harm done?
Other than to annoy you?
On the other hand, getting into a heated flame war about it; on face book, on model-may, on here......
Sling mud, some sticks.
That harms both your reputations, surely.
Her opinion or word of mouth (or FB message!) could mean other models dont want to work with 'you', becouse they believe you were a bit of a dick to her.
Other photographers, likewise likely not to want to work with her, becouse she was a bit of a prima to you....
What 'good' can come out of any of it, for any-one?
Is it really worth getting wound up about, and risking your own reputation to stoop to her level?

As an outsider - I agree with this every step of the way... Mountain out of a molehill - storm in a teacup - both spring to mind.....

 

[Lyonspride]

Seems to me, these days if you want to stop people frigging with your images, you need to have them sign something legal and binding to that effect.

Basically so they can use the images, as long as it's not for commercial purposes, those images cannot be altered and water marks cannot be removed. Any/all without written permisson.

These days, when everyone has access to hatchet job photo editing tools, surely something like this is essential???
Your reputation is on the line as your work ends up instagramed all over the internet. I'm far from pro myself, but a close friend did this to some photo's I took of her and I was not happy at all......

But this also brings about another issue!!! There are people out there who get photoshoots done and then post the images on wide open social networking profiles and (especially) dating profiles in the hope of being picked up my modelling agencies (thus verging on "commercial purposes"), how can anyone control this without being able to prove their intentions???

 

[DemiLion]

For clarification (and not to extend the argument):

[REMOVED] i am not willy waving about what i have what nonsense are you talking about?

I was talking about your comments (since removed) where you derided Essexash and then suggested that maybe you should use an iPhone to shoot weddings and flog off your 5DIII and 1Dx.

That pretty much seemed to be a 'look I have shiny kit' post to me. AKA willy waving.


If you really are a professional, kit should be one of the concerns lowest down on your list.

A
demilion you seem to be a know it all get out with your camera more you are probably enjoying the face that other forum members think your chat is great and they are happy to lick your ring but just get out and shoot.Now enough is enough i missed the thatchers deed party in george square yesterday lol

For the record (and your information), I'm a staff photographer. That means that I am employed to take photographs, which also presupposes two things:

Firstly my photography is of a level where I have to be trusted to get the shot whenever required - no excuses, no fluff ups and no recourse to any kind of failure.

Secondly, in general terms, I do not own the copyright of the photos that I've taken, which is why I rarely post them on here any more. However if you have enough brains to work out where and how to look, you'll be able to find my stuff regularly in local newspapers, national press, trade publications and across most of the TV and Radio networks.


I am out taking photographs almost every day.

 

[Donnie]

Seems to me, these days if you want to stop people frigging with your images, you need to have them sign something legal and binding to that effect.

Basically so they can use the images, as long as it's not for commercial purposes, those images cannot be altered and water marks cannot be removed. Any/all without written permisson.

These days, when everyone has access to hatchet job photo editing tools, surely something like this is essential???
Your reputation is on the line as your work ends up instagramed all over the internet. I'm far from pro myself, but a close friend did this to some photo's I took of her and I was not happy at all......

But this also brings about another issue!!! There are people out there who get photoshoots done and then post the images on wide open social networking profiles and (especially) dating profiles in the hope of being picked up my modelling agencies (thus verging on "commercial purposes"), how can anyone control this without being able to prove their intentions???

Which goes back to my saying the OP should have used a contract, simple.

A time for shoot is usually just that, you get some practice / try out an idea or whatever and the model gets shots for their portfolio. But part of the deal should include what he/she may do with the shots ie editing etc If the model doesn't like that then you don't work together its quite straightforward.

Re the model release issue being a red herring and taking the street photography angle as mentioned in the thread, my understanding is if you took a street shot and the image was predominantly focused on a person AND you wanted to use it for commercial gain you'd need a release. If you never wanted to use it for commercial gain you wouldn't.

The same shot that doesn't concentrate on one particular person which you are going to use for commercial gain would not need a model release though.

The caveat being if you sell an image to an agency I was of the understanding they still want a model release anyway to just cover their backsides?

 

[Steve Smith]

A model release form is not needed under UK law. The photographer owns the copyright and can assert moral rights to be known as the author. He can't use them in a defamatory way.

The model also has moral rights that their image not be used commercially unless agreed upon (release).

Commercially does not include showing and selling prints.


Steve.

 

[Keith W]

As the OP has said the matter is over with and has also now been suspended then there seems little point in this thread continuing.