Update 5 Star Hotel Photographer Dilema

[GneissGuy]

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!

HOGWASH!!!

If someone pays you to do a photo session of an event, they have every right to expect to own all the rights to the photos. (Even if the law doesn't say this.)

If you shoot some photos of the local scenery, and someone buys a print, they should not expect to own the rights to reproduce the photos.

However, I have no problem with you retaining the copyright to photos from a paid session as long as the client understands clearly that they don't get the rights to the photos. This means they understand, not that they signed a form they didn't understand. It also means you explained it to them when they scheduled the event, not at the last minute when it's too late to get another photographer.

I'll assume YOU are an honest photographer and make sure your clients clearly understand this ahead of time. I can't understand why some photographers will spring this surprise on their clients and then act innocent when the client doesn't understand after the fact. Why would any photographer not make sure their clients understand ahead of time unless they're deliberately planning to take advantage of their naive clients?

I'll say it again, any provider who pays for a photoshoot and doesn't insist on retaining all rights to the photos is an idiot.

[AdelleAshcroft]

I believe that it when a subcontractor is hired to do a job and then because they performed the task they were hired to do caused you legal liability and you suffered monetary loss because of their negligence has nothing whatsoever to do with copyright laws.
It appears to me the issue is that of negligence because the photographer was the one who was responsible for taking action to obtain permission to use the premises for the photoshoot you were harmed.
You had no reason to think this would happen. It is their reponsibility to know what laws pertain to their business not yours.
It's like hiring a contractor to do work on your home and the whole operation gets shut down and fines are ensued because they did not pull a permit.
As far as what the photos are for the only disclosure the hotel should have needed is it is for an online portfolio which it is, technically. If they were to ask about content it would have been best to move on if they would not sign the proper releases. But again that responsibility falls on the photographer not you.

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by GneissGuy

HOGWASH!!!

If someone pays you to do a photo session of an event, they have every right to expect to own all the rights to the photos. (Even if the law doesn't say this.)

If you shoot some photos of the local scenery, and someone buys a print, they should not expect to own the rights to reproduce the photos.

However, I have no problem with you retaining the copyright to photos from a paid session as long as the client understands clearly that they don't get the rights to the photos. This means they understand, not that they signed a form they didn't understand. It also means you explained it to them when they scheduled the event, not at the last minute when it's too late to get another photographer.

I'll assume YOU are an honest photographer and make sure your clients clearly understand this ahead of time. I can't understand why some photographers will spring this surprise on their clients and then act innocent when the client doesn't understand after the fact. Why would any photographer not make sure their clients understand ahead of time unless they're deliberately planning to take advantage of their naive clients?

I'll say it again, any provider who pays for a photoshoot and doesn't insist on retaining all rights to the photos is an idiot.

Sadly GG, most everyone does know this. Typically, the photographer owns the rights to the photos...not the subject. The architech owns the rights to the plans...not the homeowner. The designer owns the rights to the design...not the user.

It is not that these rights are never bestowed on the ultimate payer for the services rendered...but it is a separately negotiated item...and it generally involves additional payment.

The contract spells this out pretty clearly. I'm not sure why it is the responsibility of the provider of the service to make sure the payer reads it all. I've never had a car salesman sit me down and tell me to check the oil in my car either...but I know it is my responsibility or it may void my warranty.

Even the starter of this thread understood this. Her issue (which I thought was valid also) was something completely different.

[grtrader]

Is the guys work better than this person? http://www.jm-imaging.com/

Jase is a awesome photographer and plenty of friends love him. I think you will like his rates as well.

I personally would remove the images entirely and push the photographer. They probably think you won't go to court because of you being an escort. I bet they make a decent amount of money doing shoots at hotels. If the major hotels had their name and 86ed them that would probably hurt a lot.

Like someone else on her said tell them refund the money and you will keep them out of the issues with the hotel. If you removed the photos from the site the hotel probably isn't going to waste time with you either. Then just get someone else.

As for that I used to do weddings and other stuff. But no way would I claim to be as good as Jase. But, I would do it for free if you happen to be in the Houston area. Besides I could use the practice.

[pjorourke]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

I've never had a car salesman sit me down and tell me to check the oil in my car either...but I know it is my responsibility or it may void my warranty.

What do you have to check about the oil? Don't they do that when it goes in for check ups? Doesnt a light come on if something is wrong?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

What do you have to check about the oil? Don't they do that when it goes in for check ups? Doesnt a light come on if something is wrong?

Hmm. Maybe that's why there's an engine in the basement instead of in a car where it belongs.

[grtrader]

Originally Posted by SR Only

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.

It depends on the photographer. The way I used to handle it was the person paying for the shoot got primary ownership and copyright. I would retain a certain degree of limited copy right such as for promotion of the business or portfolio and so on.

That is one reason why you should seriously shop around for a photographer. There are some really good photographers out there that charge very reasonable prices.

Then you have to consider stuff like style, do you want a make up artist, quality level... As you can see below with these two things can range in style and pricing quite a lot.
http://www.jm-imaging.com/
http://www.lithiumpicnic.com/site/content/view/19/

[Guest083011]

Well, both those shoots require make up. I am just not enamored with the "lithi" site.

[Katy Alexander]

Originally Posted by pjorourke

What do you have to check about the oil? Don't they do that when it goes in for check ups? Doesnt a light come on if something is wrong?

Now you may laugh, but it took me over six years to figure out how to open up the hood on my car.I kept waiting for the light to come on to tell me what to do.I believe it was a regular client of mine who very kindly explained that the car would not tell me when it needed an oil change I had to keep track of that myself.Thank god he is a tough little car I have not killed him yet

[grtrader]

Originally Posted by GneissGuy

HOGWASH!!!

If someone pays you to do a photo session of an event, they have every right to expect to own all the rights to the photos. (Even if the law doesn't say this.)

If you shoot some photos of the local scenery, and someone buys a print, they should not expect to own the rights to reproduce the photos.

However, I have no problem with you retaining the copyright to photos from a paid session as long as the client understands clearly that they don't get the rights to the photos. This means they understand, not that they signed a form they didn't understand. It also means you explained it to them when they scheduled the event, not at the last minute when it's too late to get another photographer.

I'll assume YOU are an honest photographer and make sure your clients clearly understand this ahead of time. I can't understand why some photographers will spring this surprise on their clients and then act innocent when the client doesn't understand after the fact. Why would any photographer not make sure their clients understand ahead of time unless they're deliberately planning to take advantage of their naive clients?

I'll say it again, any provider who pays for a photoshoot and doesn't insist on retaining all rights to the photos is an idiot.

As a past photographer I happen to agree with you on this. I equate it to working for a company. If I worked for a company and while on the clock developed a device to do whatever and it was under their direction they own the rights to it. In fact in most cases even if they did not direct it and it was on the clock they would own it. If I developed something off the clock not related to my work they would have no claim on it. However, if you develop something off the clock based on your work for the company they tend to end up getting a claim to it.

I would say you taking a picture on their time, their pay, and at their direction unless they agree to it should give them full legal rights to the work. As I said unless they agree otherwise.

[grtrader]

Originally Posted by SR Only

Well, both those shoots require make up. I am just not enamored with the "lithi" site.

Most good photographers know someone or use someone for the make up and can get them on request. I think if one called JM you would find that to be the case.

I can understand not being enamored with Lith. People have different tastes in styles which was why I posted the two. Both are excellent photographers styles are quite different.

Depending on how a woman would like to portray herself to say clients she would want someone who can express that to the best extent.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Sadly GG, most everyone does know this. Typically, the photographer owns the rights to the photos...not the subject. The architech owns the rights to the plans...not the homeowner. The designer owns the rights to the design...not the user.

.....

The contract spells this out pretty clearly. I'm not sure why it is the responsibility of the provider of the service to make sure the payer reads it all.
.

I agree with one point; disagree with another...

I disagree that "most everyone knows this" if you are talking the average person on Main St. In fact I think the popular (mis) thinking is to the contrary. "Hey I paid the guy at WalMart to take pics of my kid for the X-Mas card -- of course I own the rights." or "I paid that bastard $20K for plans to my house I damn well better own them..." (Again just speculation on my part & again I'm referring to lay people & let's face it most escorts are "lay people" )

I agree that people should read the damn (written) contract. If they choose not to or can't understand it shame on them and they deserve what they get. If they do not like the terms go elsewhere or negotiate until the terms are satisfactory.

The only time I can see where there could be legitimate misunderstanding is in the case of an incomplete and/or oral contact. Like you are at an event, see someone taking pictures of you and your group. Your hand the photographer your card and some money and say, "I want those pictures."

He replies, "Ok." Subsequently he emails you a couple of digital images. 2 sentences exchanged; maybe some amibiguity about what was meant/intended. But I digress...

[Rudyard K]

Originally Posted by atlcomedy

I disagree that "most everyone knows this" if you are talking the average person on Main St. In fact I think the popular (mis) thinking is to the contrary. "Hey I paid the guy at WalMart to take pics of my kid for the X-Mas card -- of course I own the rights." or "I paid that bastard $20K for plans to my house I damn well better own them..." (Again just speculation on my part & again I'm referring to lay people & let's face it most escorts are "lay people" )

Fair enough. I guess I meant most people who accept personal responsibility. That probaby is not most people.

The situation at hand here has little to do with all this discussion. The gal engaged a photographer to provide usable photos for a certain purpose. We don't know for sure, but we can be pretty sure, that both parties knew that purpose. Once delivered, the pics were not suitable for that purpose, apparently due to the location of the picture taking.

Legally?...I'm not sure where all that would stand because I haven't seen all the agreements and I don't know what the case law would say about such a situation...who picked the location?...etc.

But morally, I think the photo shopping of the pictures should have been offered...as it was. If that satisfied the client, then done deal. If not, which it apparently did not (with justification, IMHO), then I think the a retake, at a suitable location, should have been offered. If I were the photographer, I'm not sure I would have offered any more than that. But I would have offered that.

Bad outcomes typically get resolved where both sides hurt a little...assuming both sidestake responsibility for their actions. From what I have heard here, it seems the little lady here got the short end of the stick, and it really didn't need to be that way. Just one man's opinion.

[atlcomedy]

Originally Posted by Rudyard K

The situation at hand here has little to do with all this discussion.

agree....this whole tangent on copyrights/ownership has little/nothing to do with the incident that started this and the related threads

[Katy Alexander]

Originally Posted by grtrader

I can understand not being enamored with Lith. People have different tastes in styles which was why I posted the two. Both are excellent photographers styles are quite different.

Depending on how a woman would like to portray herself to say clients she would want someone who can express that to the best extent.

http://www.lithiumpicnic.com/site/content/view/19/


I have to say that I really enjoyed looking at the Lith site.It is really quite sensual once you get past the Night of the living dead pics lol.I can understand why some of the pictures would not work on a vanilla escort site, but for someone who is into a fetish look his, or her work would be great.I thought I outgrew it , but I guess the gothic girl in me still lives on

Thanks for the link