What would you do - Remove post?

natjag

natjag

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,498
Name
Nathan Hulse
Edit My Images
Yes
I have recently posted a comment on my photoblog copied below:-

I wrote a post on Glamour model MODEL in 2009. At that time I was hoping to make available picture sets for sale to my usual agency for this type of shot. Unfortunately on this occasion no reasonable agreement was made between myself and the models manager at that time (her Mother) for a syndication split. I think her manager was getting confused between management percentages and syndication percentages. I spoke with much more established industry professionals than myself, to establish what is a reasonable split in the industry. Much glamour photography is done on this basis and the photographer and model would only receive money if the photos sell to magazines or similar. Some photographers even deduct a value for their expenses before any such split is made. Jeff Walker of Epic Pictures explains how syndication works on his website. In this instance no suitable agreement was reached. Such a shame as I've had a a lot of interest in the images from this shoot. They will now only be seen on flickr and this blog.


For which I got an email from the Models Mother:-


As the Mother mentioned in the post on your blog I think it's only fair that I have my say. I would like to highlight a couple of points.
Yes I may have been confused between management percentages and syndication fees but as I said at the time I was basing this on previous photos that MODEL had sold.
The shoot in question where these photos were taken was a pre arranged shoot by Studio Owner for photographers to add to their portfolios ONLY, they were NOT to be used for syndication or be sold.
So yes Model was paid for her time as is right, we turned down your offer for other reasons.
One of the things that annoyed me most is that you had these up on your site/blog/flicker with a "buy now and add to your cart" button next to them before even talking to either of us. [My website never had a facility to purchase, yet there was a button there, which I removed]
You tried to push syndication (trying to get us to sign a form there and then) while we were at the shoot which is why I suggested you email me, I do not make hasty decisions on the spot.
I still have all the original emails and have checked the details before I replied.
Could you please remove that post because it is putting Model's name (and yours) in a bad light and comes across as VERY unprofessional If you wanted to do a post about miscommunication you could have done it without having to use her name or even her photo!!



I then edited the blog post slightly removing a part which mentioned the model was paid for the shoot, and I was intending to earn the model extra income from this shoot. I sent an email back saying no offense was intended and that I'd removed some of the wording from the blog post.

I then got this email:-

I have just looked at the blog again, whilst I can see you have edited it I would rather you take out any reference to Model. I understand that you want to explain why some photos aren't available to purchase but I think this could be done without using MODEL's name and photo as an example.
It still portrays Model in a bad light and infers that she is difficult to work with on syndication which I don't think you really meant to infer.
Could you either take out all references to MODEL (and myself) please or remove the blog completely.
As we both know reputations are easily damaged and neither of us would want that.
Kind regards


What would you do. I could remove the post.

However I have and still get enquires about publishing these pictures, so a blog post referring to the original post is a good option to explain the reason for them not being available.

There is nothing malicious or libelous contained within it and I didn't mean to upset anyone. So I worded the blog in the best factual way I considered.

Sorry for long post, your thoughts or and suggestions please.
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest here, I have no idea what you are talking about lol
 
However I have and still get enquires about publishing these pictures, so a blog post referring to the original post is a good option to explain the reason for them not being available.
Click to expand...

Why not explain this to the mother and simply ask if she would be willing to go along with it now?
 
model was paid, was any contract signed saying what would happen to the images?

if there was no contract you can do what you want with the images
 
I don't fully follow it but it looks as if a studio owner arranged a group shoot for which you paid the studio and the studio paid the model, not a commercial shoot where arrangements were made in advance to get a model release so you could use the images as you wished?

If this is the case then I can understand the mother being upset that you are trying to commercially sell images of her daughter/model, or have I totally misunderstood?
 
Hi,

As fa as I can make out, as long as the mother/managers statement is true:

"The shoot in question where these photos were taken was a pre arranged shoot by Studio Owner for photographers to add to their portfolios ONLY, they were NOT to be used for syndication or be sold."

then you are going against the terms of the original shoot completely and yes I would remove the post completely.

If your blog was to make a point about misunderstanding's surrounding syndication then surely this is not a good example as it appears that it is you who have misunderstood the original terms of the shoot.

Of course if the mother/mangers statement is not correct then ignore the above :shrug:

Any future enquiries for the images should have a simple reply of 'portfolio only shoot'

Paul.

Just my thoughts..........sometimes they are lonely :)
 
PaulF said:
Hi,

As fa as I can make out, as long as the mother/managers statement is true:

"The shoot in question where these photos were taken was a pre arranged shoot by Studio Owner for photographers to add to their portfolios ONLY, they were NOT to be used for syndication or be sold.
Click to expand...



then why would the models have been paid?
 
As your blog is not a legal platform I would do as the mother wishes - remove the post.












Then rewrite a post saying that "Model" is great to work with but her management is ***** and that if you do have dealings with them don't expect to make money off them. At the end if the day it's freedom of speech... No contract was signed to say that you will nit bring the models name in to jeopardy and so you can say anything you damn well like.
 
I have no personal experience of this type of situation so am simply stating my own opinion after having read your original post and the various responses.

I agree with PaulF, if the content of the Mother's email is correct then I feel that you should remove the post from your blog. Marking the photographs as a portfolio only shoot would most likely avoid any further enquiries but it may just be simpler to remove the photographs as well.

Then maybe send a nice apologetic email to the Mother advising her that you have removed the post ( and the photographs ) and maybe suggesting that another shoot is arranged, with no charge or payment being made between the two of you, but which could be on a syndication split basis.
 
unless there is a contract in place saying what the photos are for between you and the model then you are free to do what you want.

Did you pay to shoot the models?
 
To be perfectly honest Nathan, I don't really understand why you posted it in the first place . . . it certainly reads like a concealed dig at the mother, which doesn't come across as particularly professional even though it may well be true.

I don't quite follow what's happened, but it seems to me that you wanted to include something to explain why particular images that you'd referred to on your blog are not available for commercial sale.

To me the situation is simple.
If as part of the shoot you agreed on terms of useage for the images and this excluded commercial sales, you just need a line saying that "Unfortunately the terms of the shoot stated that images were for portfolio use only, and these will not be made available for sale" or something to that effect.

If you did not agree on specific terms of use, the copyright is yours and no model release is required in the UK so you can do with them as you please as long as you're not selling them internationally :shrug:

The fact that she chose not to enter into a further syndication agreement (for whatever reason) is neither here nor there.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks to everyone for your replies. There does seem to be mixed response as to whether the post should remain. The shoot was in fact part of a group shoot. The studio Which I paid for and the studio owner paid the model, however, the studio owner did suggest I come along to the shoot as I would probably be able to syndicate my images afterwards, with permission from the model/management. Permission to use the images was granted pending an agreement on the percentage split, which was not anywhere close to the industry norm, so I didn't pursue any further.

So the original terms of the shoot to me by the studio owner that had arranged the shoot, was that I could probably syndicate those images with the correct permission of course. I never went to the shot as portfolio only. Had I have done that, the pictures would have been posted as that.

I have for now re-worded the blog post to say no agreement was made, then a separate bit on syndication.
 
Last edited:
if you paid the studio and the studio paid the model then sell the images.

natjag said:
Many thanks to everyone for your replies. There does seem to be mixed response as to whether the post should remain. The shoot was in fact part of a group shoot. The studio Which I paid for and the studio owner paid the model, however, the studio owner did suggest I come along to the shoot as I would probably be able to syndicate my images afterwards, with permission from the model/management. Permission to use the images was granted pending an agreement on the percentage split, which was not anywhere close to the industry norm, so I didn't pursue any further.

So the original terms of the shoot to me by the studio owner that had arranged the shoot, was that I could probably syndicate those images with the correct permission of course. I never went to the shot as portfolio only. Had I have done that, the pictures would have been posted as that.

I have for now re-worded the blog post to say no agreement was made, then a separate but on syndication.
Click to expand...
 
natjag said:
I have for now re-worded the blog post to say no agreement was made, then a separate but on syndication.
Click to expand...

I think that's the best decision.

Whether you want to take it further or not is up to you.
It seems like the mother is under a different impression than you as to the terms of the shoot. Personally, I'd give the studio a call to see whether they'd agreed to "portfolio only" when booking the model.

If they hadn't, then the mother is trying it on and although I appreciate that the lack of a model release may prevent any sales to agencies there's nothing stopping you making personal sales from them.

And if they did, but didn't mention it in the terms of your arrangement with them, then I think you'd be perfectly entitled to ask for your studio fee to be refunded as a minimum.
 
Why would she not want them sold? THere are enough shots out there of her, enough of her in the pages of Nuts on her website?
Suppose she may get paid more now for an origional shoot than for an older one, so she may be taking work from herself, but otherwise I don't get it!
 
why remove the name of the model, when you can see who it is on your blog lol

TBH I've never heard of jodie gasson
 
POAH said:
why remove the name of the model, when you can see who it is on your blog lol
Click to expand...

Google - Her Mother/manager googled her and found my blog post, or she follows my blog which is unlikely, so if I put her name on TP she is likely to see that I've asked more peoples opinions. I want to reduce that risk.

To other comments re being able to sell without a model release, yes this is true, although much glamour work is done on a syndication split. It's possible to pay a model £150 for 3 hours work and then make £1500, for which the model would loose out. Also if she was to date a footballer, pictures are worth more again and she would loose out, with an agreement, it is much fairer. Although syndication work is normally done so that if pictures don't sell both photographer and model loose out but reduce risk of loosing so much money.

On a different note on this I'm actually quite surprised the mother hasn't realised that if I've had interest in the photos, there is money to be made for both the model and myself. Interested is from outside of this country so a signed agreement would be beneficial. I wouldn't sell pictures behind someone's back.
 
it does not matter if its mostly done with syndication, if she chooses not to enter that type of a agreement then all the more money for you. Sell the photos, make some money and stuff the model/mother team TBH

natjag said:
Google - Her Mother/manager googled her and found my blog post, or she follows my blog which is unlikely, so if I put her name on TP she is likely to see that I've asked more peoples opinions. I want to reduce that risk.

To other comments re being able to sell without a model release, yes this is true, although much glamour work is done on a syndication split. It's possible to pay a model £150 for 3 hours work and then make £1500, for which the model would loose out. Also if she was to date a footballer, pictures are worth more again and she would loose out, with an agreement, it is much fairer. Although syndication work is normally done so that if pictures don't sell both photographer and model loose out but reduce risk of loosing so much money.

On a different note on this I'm actually quite surprised the mother hasn't realised that if I've had interest in the photos, there is money to be made for both the model and myself. Interested is from outside of this country so a signed agreement would be beneficial. I wouldn't sell pictures behind someone's back.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top