Update 5 Star Hotel Photographer Dilema

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I doubt you have read the whole saga, because you have it wrong 69ER. Tylor did not out anyone.

The photographer in question, goes by the trade name Rachel Stevens in the escort community. Tylor has never mentioned either this name or her real name, which presumably she uses in her other businesses. In fact, the reverse is true. Rachel accused Tylor of causing her to leave this business in a widely disseminated email.

But for clarity...Rachel didn't "out" Tylor either, at least according to my definition of "out."

I understand "out" to mean giving out personal information that would allow someone to identify another's real name, etc.

Rachel didn't identify Tylor as Jane Doe residing at 123 Main St....etc. etc. That is "outting"

All she did is take an (inappropriate) shot(s) at Tylor's professional persona. I'd say what happened is more akin to a bad review broadcast widely. This shot may or may not cause professional damage to Tylor & is a fair topic for discussion....but nobody outted anyone here.

I clarify this becuase in the minds of many, including my own, "outting" is one of the most serious of offenses because of the potential devestating consequenses to one's civilian life. It is not a term to be tossed around lightly.

[69er]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I doubt you have read the whole saga, because you have it wrong 69ER. Tylor did not out anyone.

Well... I did read the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have made such a statement.

Originally Posted by pjorourke

The photographer in question, goes by the trade name Rachel Stevens in the escort community. Tylor has never mentioned either this name or her real name, which presumably she uses in her other businesses. In fact, the reverse is true. Rachel accused Tylor of causing her to leave this business in a widely disseminated email.

That's the part I got wrong. I thought Rachel Stevens was the real world name she was going by.

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by AdelleAshcroft

To be honest with you I have never heard of a photographer who charges for a shoot and then say they own the photos. Tt is now how a reputable photographer works. The only instance where this is acceptable is if you are doing TFP (Trade For Photo) in which case the shoot is free. I would pass the responsibility to the company. There are laws that are in effect for photography as well as any other business and for her to run a company and not be aware of this seems ridiculous.A novice photographer knows better than that.

I agree with you that's the way it SHOULD be. I keep hearing horror stories about people who are blindsided and have, for instance, their wedding photos held hostage by a photographer they paid for a session. I've had this happen to several personal acquaintances. Or public figures who have embarassing old pictures from their wild youth dragged up by a slimebag photographer who tricked them into signing a "standard" release form.

"Professional" photographers are slowly getting better about this. There are many good, honest people out there.

I have no problem with a photographer who makes the client understand the process ahead of time.

I think any provider who lets the photographer have any rights to use her photos is being an idiot.

There are still lots snakes out there who call themselves professional photographers who charge for a photo shoot and then surprise their victim with the fact that they don't own the pictures.

[GneissGuy]

Originally Posted by Becky

I am sure that any photographer who cares about their reputation is going to want to keep the copyright to the photos they create.Owning the copyright does not make them con artists lol it just means they care about the images that they put out there.

Hogwash. They do it so they can get more money later for pictures they've already been paid for. Especially if the client becomes famous later.

If they charge money to a client for the session, the client should own the copyrights to everything. Unfortunately, the law may not work that way.

If the customer who pays for a photo shoot doesn't end up owning ALL the rights to the photos, the photographer should be sure the customer understands that. That means he knows that far enough ahead of the event to find another photographer. That doesn't mean handing them a legalese release form they don't understand.

Why would any honest business person NOT take the time to make the client understand what they are buying?

[tylorblake]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

I doubt you have read the whole saga, because you have it wrong 69ER. Tylor did not out anyone.

The photographer in question, goes by the trade name ******* in the escort community. Tylor has never mentioned either this name or her real name, which presumably she uses in her other businesses. In fact, the reverse is true. ****** accused Tylor of causing her to leave this business in a widely disseminated email.

Thanks for clearing that up PJ. And to Atlcomedys comment, yes you are correct she did not "out" me, I never stated that she did......I think somewhere within this thread the term "outed" came about. She just sent out an email saying negative things,untruths, and using my stagename "Tylor Blake" claiming I caused her retirement,when I had never brought up her name publicly.

I want to thank Ansley for being such a good friend,for listening and being there for me like no one else could. I want to also thank everyone that really listened to me,if only through here,and provided such compassion and insight.
I also want to thank Meeshee whose kindness is helping me through this.

Throughout the whole ordeal I have ONLY received kind heartfelt feedback.It has meant so much.....more than you could know.

And now I am ready to move forward.....certain things just need to be left behind.

[Katy Alexander]

Originally Posted by tylorblake

And now I am ready to move forward.....certain things just need to be left behind.

You really did handle this situation with a lot of class.As Lynette had mentioned in an earlier thread, Rachels poor treatment of others has been the elephant in the room for far too long.

Well I do believe that the elephant has finally left the building

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by 69er

Well... I did read the thread, otherwise I wouldn't have made such a statement.



That's the part I got wrong. I thought Rachel Stevens was the real world name she was going by.

I'm glad that got cleared up.

I think PJ meant "read" (with an implied comprehension attached to it).

Next time you might want to be a bit more precise PJ.

[pjorourke]

My mistake.

[charlestudor2005]

Not trying to start an argument or anything, but copyrights do have limitations. If you want to know more, start here: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_ copyright"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitations_and_exceptions_to_ copyright[/ame]. There is a lot more to be uncovered than just this short article.

Some of your examples are covered under the "fair use doctrine."

I don't know the particulars of how Ansel Adams set up his estate, but even his estate will lose the copyright on his pictures after a certain period of time, and will become public domain. The formula under the old copyright law was life + 75 years. But it depends on what device AA used. But he certainly cannot have the copyright in perpetuity.

As far as Grisham is concerned, he gets royalties on the first sale. It is ludicrous to think that he gets royalties on the sales of his used books.

Copyrights are very intricate rights, which is why copyright lawyers get paid big bucks. Photographers see only one thin slice of this intricate pie, and are not the ultimate word on copyrights...which is why they are (imagine this!)...photographers.

Originally Posted by Eve Hennessey

If I shoot a family and they purchase photos from me then they own the photos ... Not the copyright. If Aunt Sandy wants a copy of a shot of the baby (for example) 6 years after I did the shoot Aunt Sandy is not paying for an already paid for photo. She is purchasing a brand new photo and as such I deserve to be paid for Aunt Sandy's copy. If the family goes on over to wally world and makes a copy then they are stealing from me and I have the right collect damages assuming I know about. This is where it gets sticky because the family isn't making a profit off the photo or selling it they are merely giving a copy to Aunt Sandy. It's a fine line.

Don't you dare tell Ansel Adams estate that the his estate does not own the copyrights to his work. Don't even think for one minute that if you try to copy one of his works that you don't owe money to his estate for said photo. You may own the photo but you sure don't own the copyright. As an aside ... Mr. Adams had foresight that most never think about in that he set up a lab and taught them how to make prints he insured all the copyrights were filed and protected. He did this so that his estate could continue to produce his work and make money. He also insured the quality and upheld the standards. The copies his lab makes are less valuable than the copies he printed but valuable all the same. He was really a very smart man. Y'all should read about him he was amazing.

I sell my copyrights for several thousands of dollars. You are welcome to purchase should you want to but I do not sell my copyrights lightly. No photographer worth anything does. Did anyone read about Annie Leibovitz near loss of her entire catalog of work because she put her copyrights up as collateral on a several million dollar loan. She got real lucky that someone baled her hiney out and she saved her life's work. But, hey using some of the examples here she's already been paid once for her photos who the hell does she think she is.

If want to purchase a used copy of John Grisham's, A time to kill, he has a lot of nerve expecting to be paid for a copy of his book that he has already been paid for once. What a jerk! When in reality indeed a royalty is paid to him by the seller because ... All together now ... He still owns the copyright to his work.

Paul McCartney lost the copyrights to several of his songs to Michael Jackson in a bidding war for something like 42 million. Every time he sings one of those songs he has to pay Jackson's estate even though he wrote every word. Sucks big ass donkey dick for him.

Some of the comments about photographers and their copyrights are ridiculous.

Ladies try to think of it this way ... If a man pays you for an appointment (yes, I know time only) great. Let's say he would like to see you again he then doesn't owe you anything because, well, he has already paid you once. Using some of the examples above you have no right to charge yet again for something you have already been paid for. Of course, that's "HOGWASH" but you get the idea.

For all the lawyers out there, let's say you wrote whatever and it gets published. Then it gets republished 10 years later you have nothing owed to you because, well, you've already been paid for it once. Also "HOGWASH".

A lady asked me if I could make a copy of a photo of her husband taken when he was about a year old. I can make a copy no problem but I asked her if she would reach into a photographers pocket and steal 20 bucks. She was aghast and said, "Oh no"! But that was exactly what she was asking me to do by making a bootleg copy for her. I charge for copies and I charge for scanning and I even charge by the hour when I am reconstructing photos. Like I said, it's a fine line.

When someone hires me to do photos I am not their employee I am an independent contractor and as such I retain my rights.

Have a great day!

[Marcus Aurelius]

If you fail to copyright. You copy wrong.

[WTF]

MA...the new term for failed jokes is...."Come on in outta the rain"








Can I get you a towel?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by WTF

MA...the new term for failed jokes is...."Come on in outta the rain"








Can I get you a towel?

LOL.

[Guest083011]

Eve, Could a client, whether a provider or family portrait, purchase the prints, negatives/full res images, and the rights, from you and at what increase would be reasonable? For one of the ladies, it would be worth while in that should she change careers, she can control what happens to any prints and negatives/originals. All IMO, I do understand a photog controlling there artistic creative product. I guess each case/client is different.

[Katy Alexander]

Hi SR

I would think that a photographer owning the copyright to the photos would be the least of an escorts problems if she all of a sudden needed her photos down.As we all know once that photo is online it may stay there getting passed around long after she has moved on.That is why it is smart to only publish the photos that you feel comfortable with, because you never know how long they will be there, or who will end up seeing them.

Good question though , I am also curious about the cost of owning the copyright.

[Guest083011]

Yup, Edward could end up in the pages of Penthouse, with the arms of a beautiful woman wrapped around him (talk about a lucky dog both literally and figuratively!).

Yes, the internet doesn't seem to forget, but at least you can keep them from being re-released, and that's why to me ownership of the rights and the negatives and originals would be important to me if I was a provider. And yes, ladies, I do screen, require 24 hours notice, am available for travel, and any money paid is for conversation, and anything else is just between consenting adults.