Models editing images

[krisuk2008]

As I've only just got into model photography I might be a bit nieve but i seem to be noticing that some models edit the images done by a photographer, me for one wouldn't dream of letting a model do this as it reflects on me if they do a bad job. Has anyone taken some photos for a mod or client to then see their work displayed on Facebook badly efitieedited

 

[krisuk2008]

Sorry about spelling mistakes post was made on iPhone and I was typing blind for the last few lines

 

[iamtheoneneo]

I havent but know someone who has - the editing was so bad it was unbelievable. It was a male model who wanted that plastic look but had gone a little bit too far in PS!

 

[Weetobix]

I shot someone's civil partnership last year and while they were thrilled with photos, I did see myself tagged in some of their facebook posts with rather blatant single colour selection done by them.

I subtley untagged myself.

 

[Bristolian]

My standard contract for all portraiture and wedding photography states that the copyright to the images remains with me and that the only alteration the client is permitted to make is cropping for print purposes.

I've had a number of clients ignore (or not appreciate the meaning of) this clause. I always politely approach them to remind them of the contract and ask they take the images down from FB, or wherever, and they've complied. I have actually been asked to do the edit for them on ocassion - extra money

 

[Pookeyhead]

My standard contract for all portraiture and wedding photography states that the copyright to the images remains with me and that the only alteration the client is permitted to make is cropping for print purposes.

Copyright does not protect you from the images being further edited by the client, even if you ask then not to. If you have a contract that they have signed stating that they can not further edit the photos, then that will be legally binding if you specify precisely what constitutes editing... just for legal clarity... but this is nothing to do with copyright. These are your moral rights, but you can not enforce moral rights unless you have asserted them in writing, usually by including the words "All moral rights asserted" in the contract, license to use or on the image itself.

You had a separate contract enforcing this and you are not really affected, but so many people assume that copyright protects the client further altering the images... and it just doesn't. You have to assert your moral rights, or as in your case, you produced a contract stipulating your requirements.

Copyright doesn't stop people editing your images, not does it grant you rights to attribution.

 

[GHP]

Copyright does not protect you from the images being further edited by the client, even if you ask then not to. If you have a contract that they have signed stating that they can not further edit the photos, then that will be legally binding if you specify precisely what constitutes editing... just for legal clarity... but this is nothing to do with copyright. These are your moral rights, but you can not enforce moral rights unless you have asserted them in writing, usually by including the words "All moral rights asserted" in the contract, license to use or on the image itself.

You had a separate contract enforcing this and you are not really affected, but so many people assume that copyright protects the client further altering the images... and it just doesn't. You have to assert your moral rights, or as in your case, you produced a contract stipulating your requirements.

Copyright doesn't stop people editing your images, not does it grant you rights to attribution.

Thanks for this post, I didn't know that.