Update 5 Star Hotel Photographer Dilema

[Ansley]

Hi ladies,


It is with sadness that I must announce our retirement from photographing companions. An unfortunate situation has transpired that has forced me into this decision that sadly affects all of us since I know most of you are repeat clients who were looking forward to enjoying a long term working relationship with us. "Tylor Blake" contacted me this morning informing us that the hotel where we shot her images discovered her website and told her to remove the images. She is citing that I did not sign a contract with the hotel expressly clearing a photo shoot for use on an escort website which as you know is ridiculous. To protect our clients, we never disclose the nature of their business with anyone. Many of you value our commitment to confidentiality and now that is being used against us as she has threatened lawsuit, outing me to hotels and slandering me on companion boards.


In our defense, we did do our best to make right on our end regarding this very unfortunate situation and spent 4 hours revising her images at no cost in an effort to obscure the background although that is not my expertise, I even provided her with all of the high resolution images from her session so that she had over 100 images to play with in recreating her website and you all know I never release high res images but I did try to make it right.


I know this is not your fight ladies but I felt you deserved to know why we cannot continue this work, not that we do not want to or that we have developed any prejudice against it. We are quite saddened by this and wanted you all to know the reason why directly from us before the rumor mill starts. When I have someone yelling at me saying "I want to know why you got me into this situation and what are you going to do about it." and threatening my anonymity and livelihood, I see no other alternative than to move on.


We respectfully ask that if you have my true name or a link to my main website on your site anywhere, please remove it. Unfortunately because of this situation, our lawyers will be doing inventory to ensure my true name and site are protected. If you have Seduire Photography credited on your site, you might as well remove it because the site is now down.


If you currently have a shoot scheduled, it will not be affected. Feel free to call us or email and we can address any concerns.


As companion business is no more than 10% of my business, I must protect my family and my reputation with my main business.


Thank you all for your most valued support, friendship and sisterhood over the years. It's true what they say about one bad apple. I sure am going to miss you ladies but I have three kids to feed and I'd rather do that than pay lawyers.


Best,


R

[AdelleAshcroft]

Originally Posted by GneissGuy

In the future, if you pay for a photoshoot, be sure you own all the copyrights to the pictures. Be sure the photographer has no rights at all to use your photographs. There's just too many ways for it to bite you in the ass. Do you really want a photographer to be able to sell your pictures to someone later in your life? Maybe with your real name attached?

Be sure it's in writing. In my opinion, any photographer who doesn't work this way is a scam artist.

The "photographer owns the photos" model is simply outmoded. There are too many good photographers who don't work this way to put up with it. It may cost you a little more up front, but it's probably cheaper in the long run.

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.

[charlestudor2005]

This seems to be kind of an intricate and complex issue involving (possibly), the following areas of law (not necessarily an inclusive list):

1. Contract Law.
2. Copyright Law.
3. Licenses.
4. Constitutional Law (free speech).
5. Contracts Against Public Policy.
6. Criminal Law (furthering a criminal enterprise).
7. Federal Criminal Law (using wires to further criminal enterprise).

This whole scenario would make a great law school final exam question, but I would be quite fearful if it ever made it up through the court system. The old adage is: bad cases make bad law. And I'm pretty sure this would wind up being a bad case. But interesting, nonetheless, from a theoretical standpoint.

[newalhobbyist]

AdelleAshcroft: Agreed! (including the quote from Gneissguy's post)

[Bella_HHD]

"The Copyright Act of 1976 made clear that photographers are the copyright owners of their images, except when those images were made as an employee, or when the photographer has conveyed the copyright to another party in a written and signed agreement."

What this means to anyone who hires a photographer is that the PHOTOGRAPHER (or their employer) owns the copyright - not you.

I know it doesn't make sense, but it IS the law. It's very easy to research across the Internet.

There are some who choose to give all legal rights to the people who hire them to take photographs or design a website (this same law applies to website designers), but that is NOT the norm.

FTR, I don't have a dog in this fight and I think Tylor is getting a bad deal from the photog in question.

B.

[charlestudor2005]

Originally Posted by Bella_HHD

I know it doesn't make sense, but it IS the law. It's very easy to research across the Internet.
B.

Actually, it makes total sense and goes along with intent of the copyright act. That Act's main intention was to take out all the formalities that previously existed to secure a copyright (filing with the copyright office, etc.). Under that Act, the artist (whether it be a writer, artist, photographer, etc.) secured his/her copyright at the time of the creation of the piece of art without the filing of previous (or any) formalities. In the event of a dispute, the person who created a work held the copyright (unless of course, it has been signed over in a writing). If an artist was worried, they could always create what used to be known as the "Poor Man's Copyright." Put the original in a package and send it to themselves through US Mail, Certified, Return Receipt Requested. The postmaster's stamp served as proof of the date of creation.

[Katy Alexander]

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.

Originally Posted by Bella_HHD

"The Copyright Act of 1976 made clear that photographers are the copyright owners of their images, except when those images were made as an employee, or when the photographer has conveyed the copyright to another party in a written and signed agreement."

What this means to anyone who hires a photographer is that the PHOTOGRAPHER (or their employer) owns the copyright - not you.

I know it doesn't make sense, but it IS the law. It's very easy to research across the Internet.

There are some who choose to give all legal rights to the people who hire them to take photographs or design a website (this same law applies to website designers), but that is NOT the norm.

FTR, I don't have a dog in this fight and I think Tylor is getting a bad deal from the photog in question.

B.

[guest051510-1]

If you hire the photographer, wouldn't that make you their employer for that job? Just asking.
As a model for xyz company, I would be required to sign a release so xyz could use the photos in their ad campaign. The release would be a general release and the company xyz could use my likeness any way they liked. The photographer and I, the model, would be considered the employees of xyz. XYZ would own the copyrights not the photographer. So, if I was the owner of xyz and model, I hired the photographer, then I should own the copyright.

Now, if the photographer as an artist was shooting photos around town for their portfolio. Those would be their personal property and they would own the copyright.

[newalhobbyist]

Apologies to Nicolette B for not shutting up and kissing her.

My point is that if you are paying a photographer for a set of photographs you should insist on owning all of the work product and have a written contract saying such.

Nicolette, they are not your employee but your vendor. This might be splitting hairs but.... Use the contract to have the same position: the person paying for the shoot owns the copyright. If anyone complains, I would just say that I am looking for photographs to which I own all the rights and have no use for other photographs.

I do not think much of the argument that the photographer owns the copyright in order to protect his work. The same argument would be valid and apply equally for any model, make-up person, lighting person, and the person paying for it all.

In the scenario that prompted all this, the model is the person paying for it all. That really doesnt change anything.

[atlcomedy]

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.

The point is not that one business model is better than the other. Each has pros/cons & you should find one that meets your needs. What is important is that each party understand their rights.

Unfortunately, all too often the subject doesn't read or fully comprehend what she's signing and naively assumes she holds all rights; afterall it only makes sense, right, its her image?

Originally Posted by Nicolette Bordeauxva

If you hire the photographer, wouldn't that make you their employer for that job? .

Briefly, no. Employer/employee mean specific things and the fact that you retain someone to take photos doesn't make them your employee just the same as if you retain some one to do a host of other things (e.g. the neighbor kid cutting your lawn) doesn't make them your employee.

[Katy Alexander]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

The point is not that one business model is better than the other. Each has pros/cons & you should find one that meets your needs. What is important is that each party understand their rights.

Unfortunately, all too often the subject doesn't read or fully comprehend what she's signing and naively assumes she holds all rights; afterall it only makes sense, right, its her image?

.

That is true, if nothing else this has been a good reminder to always read , and understand what you sign..Although in Tylors case this seemed to be more of an issue of poor customer sevice , and had little to do with copyright laws , or contracts.

[69er]

Originally Posted by tylorblake

It has been made aware to me by a kind fellow provider that she was sent an email announcing her retirement. She named me Tylor Blake as the"bad apple"......funny cause never once did I ever mention her name

It is ****** ******** for those that have yet to figure it out. She photographs many of the upcscale companions across the US......un freekin believable.

I feel like I tryed to handle this whole situation with tact and respect........now she is slandering me
A friend will be posting ******* email that I am sure has reached many

This concerns me. Tylor, this worries me that if you didn't like what I did, you would feel free to "Out" me as well. I believe there is at the very least an "unstated rule" that posting others "real world" identity is not tolerated.

Don't get me wrong... I understand why you are not happy with this photographer. What concerns me is that your reaction to lash out when you are unhappy, with any possible means of attack, would give pause to many of us who might avail ourselves of your services. I don't think I'll be taking the chance.

Guys, do any of you view this the same way?

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by 69er

This concerns me. Tylor, this worries me that if you didn't like what I did, you would feel free to "Out" me as well. I believe there is at the very least an "unstated rule" that posting others "real world" identity is not tolerated.

Don't get me wrong... I understand why you are not happy with this photographer. What concerns me is that your reaction to lash out when you are unhappy, with any possible means of attack, would give pause to many of us who might avail ourselves of your services. I don't think I'll be taking the chance.

Guys, do any of you view this the same way?

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.

[Ansley]

Thanks PJ.
Tylor is a friend of mine. I have always known her to be a very cool and calm person. I was with her through a lot of this and feel she handled herself well.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Dang. PJ beat me to it. Again.