# I'm really confused and upset right now.



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

So I had a photographer take some glamour shots of me.. And the "edits" turned out absolutely terrible. I paid $400 for the photos, and I'm very disappointed with them and the photographer for charging what she did.  I only got 11 edits by the way. For $400. Which is a good price, if they were actually good. 

How can it be possible that with _8 years of experience_ she is still absolutely terrible? There was nothing artistic about the photographs. They look terrible. I won't post them here, because it's a violation of her rights to her work. But still..

I don't know how to go about letting her know they are terrible. I don't really want to do another shoot with her, even though she offered. I really want to have at least $100 of my money refunded to me, if not all of it. 

Sadly, she was the best photographer available for the shoot. I'll learn next time to get a friend or a photographer I know and trust to take photographs of me... free of charge or for a lower price than this nonsense. 

What is everyone's thoughts? It's a tough call without seeing the photographs, but just trust me on this one...


----------



## SnappingShark (Jul 23, 2014)

You win some, you lose some.

Tell her that the work wasn't what you expected and was there any chance of a 25% refund.


----------



## sscarmack (Jul 23, 2014)

Didn't you just post a thread the other day about some shotty work you had done??? Or am I mistaken


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> So I had a photographer take some glamour shots of me.. And the "edits" turned out absolutely terrible. I paid $400 for the photos, and I'm very disappointed with them and the photographer for charging what she did. I only got 11 edits by the way. For $400. Which is a good price, if they were actually good.
> 
> How can it be possible that with _8 years of experience_ she is still absolutely terrible? There was nothing artistic about the photographs. They look terrible. I won't post them here, because it's a violation of her rights to her work. But still..
> 
> ...



Ok, well I guess my first question would be when you say "terrible" does there seem to be a consistent problem such as underexposure, over exposure, composition, etc etc that makes them "terrible"?    My next question would be what sort of agreement did you have with the photographer in question?


----------



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

sscarmack said:


> Didn't you just post a thread the other day about some shotty work you had done??? Or am I mistaken


But I've been in the business for 6 months, and I _know _I'm not good. She's been in the business 8 years and should be flawless by now. Let's be real.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> ..... She's been in the business 8 years and should be flawless by now. Let's be real.



Yes.  Let's be real:

Where is this 8-year rule written down?


----------



## sm4him (Jul 23, 2014)

sscarmack said:


> Didn't you just post a thread the other day about some shotty work you had done??? Or am I mistaken



You mean, this one?
I looked, because I was thinking the same thing.
Perhaps this was a different shoot, though, because in the thread I linked to above she says she thinks the photographer did a fairly decent job for the most part.

OP: Regardless of whether this is the same shoot as your other similar thread--are the pictures you received from her representative of the work you saw in her portfolio before you hired her?
If she showed you stellar, beautifully-processed images that she claimed as her own, and then presented you with substandard work, then I'd demand a reshoot or a refund, sure.
But if what she provided you is on par with her portfolio work--you know, the stuff you looked at before deciding if she was the right photographer for you--then you got what you bargained for.

If you didn't LOOK at her "body of work" and hired her on the basis of "she's got EIGHT entire whole years of experience so she MUST be awesome"--well, perhaps you've learned now NOT to do that. The best way to tell whether a photographer is going to take pictures you'll like is to look at the pictures they've already taken.

And by the way--eight years isn't really all that much.


----------



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

sm4him said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you just post a thread the other day about some shotty work you had done??? Or am I mistaken
> ...


Her body of work was very different from what she delivered.


----------



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

480sparky said:


> elizpage said:
> 
> 
> > ..... She's been in the business 8 years and should be flawless by now. Let's be real.
> ...



I guess it isn't anywhere. However, I would hope and pray than in 8 years I still won't make mistakes like this and be able to make people feel beautiful.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you just post a thread the other day about some shotty work you had done??? Or am I mistaken
> ...




You ARE joking, right?  Seriously.  PLEASE tell me you don't actually believe that a person should be a great photographer simply on the basis of the length of time they've been in "business." Some people will be producing incredible work after shooting for just a year or two--some may have a reasonable profitable business but NEVER produce anything more than mediocre work, if they know how to market themselves.


----------



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

sm4him said:


> elizpage said:
> 
> 
> > sscarmack said:
> ...



Yes, I suppose you are right. I'm just incredibly angry right now.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > sscarmack said:
> ...



Well if such is th4e case then yes, I'd request a refund on that basis alone.


----------



## JustJazzie (Jul 23, 2014)

If you want portraits done right, take a selfie. ;-)

Seriously though, I'm sorry you are so disappointed with what you received. I would probably let her try again. What could it hurt?


----------



## sm4him (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > sscarmack said:
> ...



Okay, if that's the case, then simply tell her. You say you don't know "how to go about" telling her. LEARN how. This is a business transaction, and you are not a satisfied customer. Simply email/call/contact her and say, "I was disappointed in the final photos I received. Based on what I'd seen in your portfolio, I expected&#8230;(I don't know WHAT you expected, but try to explain it if you can), and instead the photos seem to me&#8230;(again, I don't know what you don't like about them&#8230;underexposed, out of focus, flat, uncreative??)." Then state what sort of a resolution you'd like.  What does the contract you signed say about any sort of guarantee, like a reshoot?
You say you don't really *want* a reshoot, but depending on the contract you signed, that may be what you can get.


----------



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

sm4him said:


> elizpage said:
> 
> 
> > sm4him said:
> ...



There was no contract provided to me. And I don't really want a reshoot.


----------



## Aloicious (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> There was nothing _*artistic *_about the photographs.



well, there's your problem...if they weren't technically poor (exposure, focus, etc) it sounds like a simple conflict of taste....artistic is probably the most subjective term anyone can use for anything.


----------



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

Aloicious said:


> elizpage said:
> 
> 
> > There was nothing _*artistic *_about the photographs.
> ...



Yeah, I think it was just a simple conflict of taste, but it's very unfortunate.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you just post a thread the other day about some shotty work you had done??? Or am I mistaken
> ...



Welllllll....yeah, if she were working under a traditional guild style system, in which she began as an assistant, then an apprentice, then worked up to journeyman, then ,master, then grand master...but that ain't the way the world works these days in most crafts. Instead, we have people who just "start" in a craft or so-called profession, and have had no training except through trial and error, and these people often lack the guidance of a superior craftsperson to help them correct their deficiencies. For the mot part, "years spent doing something" doesn't correlate with skill development. Now, if she had been working as an assistant to a very skilled professional photographer who was also a good teacher, eight years would mean something. Instead, she is very likely one of the zillion people who hung out a shingle back in the era in which the d-slr dropped below $1,000; the world was flooded with brand-new, *instant* *perfesssh-un-lll fer-tog-raffffers* back then....she's probably one of that huge wave of noobs that entered the world of shooting for pay with the other zillions during the early years of the sub-$1k d-slr.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you just post a thread the other day about some shotty work you had done??? Or am I mistaken
> ...


Bloody hell... you don't want much do you?  I've been behind a camera for 30+ years, and I am still FAR from flawless!


----------



## sm4him (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > elizpage said:
> ...



Okay, so based on ANOTHER recent thread of yours, it sounds like you have now experienced firsthand, from BOTH sides of the situation, why a contract matters, and the negative consequences of not having one.  
Without a contract (even if it's an "understood" contract based on a series of emails), and given that what you dislike about the photos is that they are not "artistic" enough, you may be up the creek sans the proverbial paddle.

I'm still wondering whether you really saw a good representation of her work before choosing her. Did you like EVERYTHING you saw from her work before you chose her, or did you just REALLY like a FEW photos, enough that you maybe overlooked the fact that her work was 80% mediocre, 10% better than average and 10% really good?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 23, 2014)

I thought the same thing, that the photos had already been posted on here (but see now they were removed). Once you've used the photos by posting them on a website that's publicly viewable and asked for critique/suggestions on how they could be edited or improved, I don't know that you can now ask for money back - you've already used them. This is the reason contracts are beneficial as a customer and as a client, so there's something to refer back to that was in writing and mutually agreed upon.

I agree that I might ask for a reshoot or see about getting reedits of the original photos explaining how you expected them to look. Unfortunately there seem to be people who manage to stay in business without being all that good at what they do. Getting the photographer to process these differently and letting her know which of the images in her portfolio are closer to what you were expecting might be an option.


----------



## Designer (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > elizpage said:
> ...



Dang!  I've been at it for roughly 50 years, so that must mean that I couldn't possibly take a bad picture.  :raisedbrow:

But of course, I still take LOTS of bad pictures.  Maybe I'm just slow.  :violin:


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 23, 2014)

sm4him said:


> ... because in the thread I linked to above she says she thinks the photographer did a fairly decent job for the most part.



it took 9 days for it to finally sink in that the photo shoot was not very good ...
after the positive emotion wore off of receiving them ... and constant review ... and being a photographer oneself ... finally realizing that the 8 years of knowledge did not equate to actually creating beautiful pictures.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you just post a thread the other day about some shotty work you had done??? Or am I mistaken
> ...



8 years is nothing if she started charging after 6 months of having a camera, if i lived nearer i would have done them for free, here's one i did a few years ago for the barmaid at my local http://gsgary.smugmug.com/People/Tina-page-3-shoot/i-s92gPPZ/0/XL/Image00034-XL.jpg


----------



## Aloicious (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> Aloicious said:
> 
> 
> > elizpage said:
> ...



Unfortunate, sure...but if she didn't mis-represent herself (i.e. fraudulently using images that weren't hers in her portfolio), then no one is really at 'fault' and she probably doesn't deserve to be bashed as being 'terrible'. sure you could argue that you don't like her renditions, etc. but beauty and artistic-ness is really only in the eye of the beholder...

Have you asked her if she would be willing to do something? if I were in her shoes I wouldn't give you a cent of a refund based off of 'I don't like your artistic vision' argument. but if you were nice I might be willing to do a re-edit on some or all of them...you would need to be VERY VERY specific on what you're looking for though, perhaps share some examples of similar shots that convey what kind of look you were expecting (with the understanding that she won't and shouldn't copy those examples, but perhaps use them as inspiration for re-editing yours)


----------



## runnah (Jul 23, 2014)

I'd like to see the photos. PM me.

If they are technically good than the fault lies in the communication. If they have major technical issues than it's her fault.

I've had people say "take a nice photo of me". Fine, but do you want to wear a suit? Casual Clothes? Nude? Black and White? In an office? Outside? etc...

I've been told I communicate what I want too much, but I've also never have been disappointed when paying for something.


----------



## keyseddie (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sscarmack said:
> 
> 
> > Didn't you just post a thread the other day about some shotty work you had done??? Or am I mistaken
> ...



Shouldn't you be good before you are "in the business"? You complained because somebody didn't pay you, but there was no contract. So you acted unprofessionally, true? You posted that profile snapshot for comments that had focus flaws, mixed lighting, and posing flaws. Then you criticize another photographer who did work for you. Without a contract. And you did post them illegally anyway and I don't recall that they were terrible. And you are "in the business"?

Unless you see that the problems exist in that mirror you view, you won't change.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 23, 2014)

I met someone before who had more years experience than me as a photographer
After she saw my Flickr account she got intimidated and didn't talk to me for a month.

I saw her photography.  I never told her her photos stunk .. they were great to bring back one's own memory of something but didn't convey the breath of colors, ideas etc proper exposure (get out of matrix metering), focusing, etc that an image can contain.

length of time doing something has nothing to do with one's ability.


I see facebook all the time of someone putting up a photo of themselves and all their friends say "beautiful" et all.  even though the exposure is way off, colors off, WB off, you name it. For some it's the concept of a photo that is great.  For us here it's a lot more.


----------



## runnah (Jul 23, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> length of time doing something has nothing to do with one's ability.



Yep, just ask my wife.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 23, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> I met someone before who had more years experience than me as a photographer
> After she saw my Flickr account she got intimidated and didn't talk to me for a month.
> 
> I saw her photography.  I never told her her photos stunk ..



HEY!! You promised never to tell on me. :lmao:


----------



## tirediron (Jul 23, 2014)

gsgary said:


> elizpage said:
> 
> 
> > sscarmack said:
> ...


Dang... next time I'm in the UK, I'm coming to drink with you!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jul 23, 2014)

I dont see anything wrong to post a photo of yourself.  You paid for it.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 23, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> I dont see anything wrong to post a photo of yourself.  You paid for it.



That was my impression, that it was "work for hire", and that Elizabeth had the right to post the pics. Not sure if the resident copyright police took her in for questioning or what happened.


----------



## Tee (Jul 23, 2014)

Is this the same photographer you paid who gave you the "RAW's" the other week?  

Why do you deserve $100 back?  She gave you her rate, you paid it, you live with it.  As someone who is attempting to be a business, you need to see things from the business side and not from the emotional consumer looking for a hustle.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 23, 2014)

Tee said:


> Is this the same photographer you paid who gave you the "RAW's" the other week?
> 
> Why do you deserve $100 back?  She gave you her rate, you paid it, you live with it.  As someone who is attempting to be a business, you need to see things from the business side and not from the emotional consumer looking for a hustle.


The US is the return capital of the world.
Return policies of Europe are far different.

So why not return photos ... but probably for a reshoot.


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 23, 2014)

Robin Usagani said:


> I dont see anything wrong to post a photo of yourself.  You paid for it.




Upload to some on-line host site, post link here.


Everyone's legal.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 23, 2014)

It's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone who's been working at some fairly simple trade like photography should be able to produce acceptable work after eight years. That is, it's a fair expectation. From time to time, you will be disappointed.


----------



## KmH (Jul 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > I dont see anything wrong to post a photo of yourself.  You paid for it.
> ...


Commissioning having the shoot done does not make it "work for hire".
With no contract, the buyer has zero rights to usage of the images.

Here is what "Work For Hire" is in the US. http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf

Up until a few months ago Canada's copyright law gave copyright to whoever commissioned a shoot. unless a photographers contract stated otherwise.
But Canada changed their copyright law so it's much more like US copyright law now.

The purpose of a photographers portfolio is to show their _best_ work, not their average work.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 23, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> It's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone who's been working at *some fairly simple trade like photography* should be able to produce acceptable work after eight years. That is, it's a fair expectation. From time to time, you will be disappointed.


As compared to?


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 23, 2014)

tirediron said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > It's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone who's been working at *some fairly simple trade like photography* should be able to produce acceptable work after eight years. That is, it's a fair expectation. From time to time, you will be disappointed.
> ...



A really complex trade, like Walmart Door Greeter.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> So I had a photographer take some glamour shots of me.. And the "edits" turned out absolutely terrible. I paid $400 for the photos, and I'm very disappointed with them and the photographer for charging what she did.  I only got 11 edits by the way. For $400. Which is a good price, if they were actually good.
> 
> How can it be possible that with _8 years of experience_ she is still absolutely terrible? There was nothing artistic about the photographs. They look terrible.



So. I mean... Did you look at her *work* before you hired her to do this? Is her work on her website/portfolio consistent with what she gave you????

And dude. I know people who have "been in the business for 20 years" and they f***ing suck nutsack.

Just because you've been clicking a shutter button for X number of years doesn't make you good. That doesn't mean they spent that time learning and growing their craft.



> I won't post them here, because it's a violation of her rights to her work. But still..



This is just dumb. (Not you... whoever told you that you couldn't post them). Did she give you digitals or no? If she gave you digitals then 99.9999999999999% of photographers that *sell* digital photos, do so EXPECTING you to post them to your personal online medias, and will put that in their contract with you (and if it's not in her contract, she has a sh*tty contract that she needs to re-write). As long as you're not doing it for commercial gain, you're good. Unless all she sold you were prints. In which case, yes that would be a violation. :roll:



> I don't know how to go about letting her know they are terrible. I don't really want to do another shoot with her, even though she offered. I really want to have at least $100 of my money refunded to me, if not all of it.



See question 1.



> Sadly, she was the best photographer available for the shoot.


 
Why? What were your requirements? What was the situation here?



> I'll learn next time to get a friend or a photographer I know and trust to take photographs of me... free of charge or for a lower price than this nonsense.



THIS... is the statement that caused me to reply to this.

I like you. I really do. But... are you serious with this?

So you're upset with a photographer who charged you money and gave you sh*tty results, but you're going to be *that* person that goes to your friend who "can give it to me for free/cheap"? If anything, your issue is probably that you didn't pay enough. 

Full glamour shoot with 11 (I assume digital) images for $400? You made out like a bandit.

You would have paid $745 total, for a shoot, and 11 *web res* images with me. Forget about how much you would have paid for high res...  And maybe you don't like my work, so that's not a valid comparison for you... that's fine... however I still stand by the fact that you probably didn't invest enough in someone worth investing. That's how these things usually go down...



> It's a tough call without seeing the photographs, but just trust me on this one...



I still say you need to post them. And I wanna see this person's site. I want to see what you saw before hiring her, in comparison to what she gave you.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 23, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



come 'on ... be real

like a Copyright Lawyer !!

worth their weight in cow manure.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > sscarmack said:
> ...



So post the comparisons.

A link to her port and your photos.

Let unbiased eyes see if that's actually the case or if you're vision is colored because you're frustrated.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > sscarmack said:
> ...





Derrel said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > I dont see anything wrong to post a photo of yourself.  You paid for it.
> ...



I think that's EXACTLY what happened. :roll:


----------



## Designer (Jul 23, 2014)

e.rose said:


> I want to see what you saw before hiring her, in comparison to what she gave you.



I second that.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

Tee said:


> Is this the same photographer you paid who gave you the "RAW's" the other week?
> 
> Why do you deserve $100 back?  She gave you her rate, you paid it, you live with it.  As someone who is attempting to be a business, you need to see things from the business side and not from the emotional consumer looking for a hustle.



WAIT, wait, wait.

Are you kidding me?

She gave you ***RAW*** files... RAW files... for $400?!

1. She's an idiot. Why the f*** would she do that?

2. You have ZERO argument to complain about lack of artistic edits if she gave you ***RAW*** files.

This is a serious question, so please try to read this in as kind of a voice as possible but... Do you understand what RAW files are?

If not... let me try to give you a quick synopsis.

A RAW file is the equivalent to a film negative.

It is a DIGITAL NEGATIVE.

There are *NO EDITS* whatsoever on a RAW file.

So if that's what she told you she was going to give you, and that's what you paid for, that's what you GOT.

And the issue is not the photographer in the least bit... it's your lack of understanding of what you were asking for.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

tirediron said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > It's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone who's been working at *some fairly simple trade like photography* should be able to produce acceptable work after eight years. That is, it's a fair expectation. From time to time, you will be disappointed.
> ...



John, *as a moderator... *would you agree that it's okay for her to post her images? I'm just curious...


----------



## tirediron (Jul 23, 2014)

e.rose said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...


As a moderator, I have to say that the TPF rules are, "Thou shalt not post image to which thy do not hold rights", and I don't know enough about either US copyright, or the OPs situation to pass judgement.  I will say however that if they were hosted somewhere and linked to here in the the thread, that would be perfectly fine.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

tirediron said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



GREAT. Do that Elizabeth. There is always a way.

Upload your images to Flickr. Or Photobucket. Or whatever the heck you want to use.

Link them here.

And then link the photographer's site.

This discussion seriously shouldn't continue any further until we *SEE. SOME. IMAGES.* 

It's utterly and completely pointless, otherwise.

:addpics:


----------



## Designer (Jul 23, 2014)

IIRC, she posted some pictures in the original thread.  I don't know if they're still up.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

Designer said:


> IIRC, she posted some pictures in the original thread.  I don't know if they're still up.



I think while skimming this, I saw that they have been taken down.

If they're still up, someone needs to link it.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 23, 2014)

A photographer sold Elizabeth 11 raw files for $400, and the copyright police say it's not work for hire and that she has NO RIGHT to use the photos on-line. Ridiculous. As usual. Over and over and over. The photographer sent her full-rez raw files! OMFG...and she cannot use them. loling here.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> A photographer sold Elizabeth 11 raw files for $400, and the copyright police say it's not work for hire and that she has NO RIGHT to use the photos on-line. Ridiculous. As usual. Over and over and over. The photographer sent her full-rez raw files! OMFG...and she cannot use them. loling here.



You're Lawling and I'm over here :roll:ing my eyes. 

But still... John at least gave her an option.

So I think she should take it.

Cause I wanna see these. And I desperately want to know who this photographer is.


----------



## Designer (Jul 23, 2014)

e.rose said:


> And I desperately want to know who this photographer is.



The photographer is probably the one who posted the "my client from hell won't pay me for the pictures" thread.  :Joker:

almost forgot:  *JOKE*


----------



## Derrel (Jul 23, 2014)

e.rose said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > A photographer sold Elizabeth 11 raw files for $400, and the copyright police say it's not work for hire and that she has NO RIGHT to use the photos on-line. Ridiculous. As usual. Over and over and over. The photographer sent her full-rez raw files! OMFG...and she cannot use them. loling here.
> ...



Yes....some actual "photography" to discuss in, you know, a photography forum, would make this thread useful, and might provide some actual opportunity for learning and enlightenment. This thread is as is so often said, "*Worthless without pictures!*"

Please, Elizabeth, post some links, so we can see what the dealio is!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 23, 2014)

It is NOT "work for hire" in the legal sense.
The photographer retains copyright.
Paying somebody to make something sounds like "work for hire" in laymen's terms and understanding.
But it's not.

When you pay me to design and create a piece of jewelery, for you, it is not work for hire. You do not get copyright.
When I designed jewelery for customers of a business that I was working for, the company retained copyright. That is work for hire, according to the law.

The OP's photographer retains copyright, and would give the OP a print release.
While you could argue that having a print release would allow posting images, I would agree.
But the OP does not have copyrights, and that's the rule on this forum, to avoid any possible legal action.
And you're smart. You KNOW that.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 23, 2014)

Derrel said:


> A photographer sold Elizabeth 11 raw files for $400, and the copyright police say it's not work for hire and that she has NO RIGHT to use the photos on-line. Ridiculous. As usual. Over and over and over. The photographer sent her full-rez raw files! OMFG...and she cannot use them. loling here.


Maybe she needs to do a Dutch Tilt on all of them .... then they'll be unrecognizable from the originals.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 23, 2014)

The entirety of the Fair Use clause provisions that Elizabeth's incident carries, such as the use of one or two photos out of 11 in an educational use with public discussion easily overrides the BS being bandied about here. Yes...this is an educational discussion, and the work is not being used for profit and it is only a small percentage of the total work,and Elizabeth is not profiting, and the work is being held up for discussion and criticism. A number of factors are at play here regarding Fair Use. Yet, we have one person here who plays copyright cop constantly, in disregard for the way the courts and the laws regarding Fair USe are actually written, he loves playing lawyer.  When four or five Fair Use provisions are fulfilled, the copyright cop loves to come by and play wet blanket. Over and over and over. Power tripping is always amusing. But then, I don't expect much from this forum, so it's what we get.

This has NOTHING to do with jewelery. Not. Even. Close, Dude. Not even remotely in the same universe. At ALL.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 23, 2014)

The thread with the photos in question was already linked - in Sharon's post which is #7 in this thread. The photos have since been removed but some of us obviously saw them as there was some critique/comments given. 

Apparently there was no contract or copyright info./permission - or as Keith clarified, a print release - provided. The photos seem to have been referred to as Raw and as edits so to me it doesn't seem clear exactly which was provided. 

At this point I think it might be just as well that the photographer's info. isn't posted here because if nothing was in writing it doesn't seem clear if it would violate the photographer's copyright or not. (edit - Having read BJeweler's post I think he's right, that the photographer has the copyright - my instinct is it might be better that the photos were removed, especially since there are concerns to be addressed.)

Maybe being unhappy with the photos as a client is something that needs to be worked out directly with the photographer to get the situation resolved.


----------



## limr (Jul 23, 2014)

Well, the thing that muddies the waters of "the photographer owns the copyright" is that she sold the OP the RAW images. The implication is either that the photographer herself doesn't know better, or that the intention was to let the OP edit the images herself. A copyright also includes the ability to control whether or not the images are altered, not just "published," (note the quotation marks. The word "published" is not as clear as you might think) so if the intention was to let the OP alter them, then she is already giving the OP power over certain aspects of the copyright. So in short, in selling her photos in RAW form and not just prints, the photographer may very well have also sold the rights (license, if you will) to alter and _display those edits _&#8203;(i.e. publish) of those images.

Ultimately, no one can say yea or nay until the OP shows up again and explains the agreement in more detail.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 23, 2014)

And ANY edits made from the raw data would be DERIVATIVE works...so technically, the image KmH pulled from TPF, the one I created, the one that I edited, significantly, was copyrighted by me...

But yeah...so a customer PAYS money and buys RAW files...and apparently the customer has NO rights to use the images? In any way? Can not show them in any published format, for any purposes, even educational or for purposes of the discussion of artistic merit? Ridiculous,willful ignoring of the Fair Use clause of US Copyright and its actual implementation. Oh, I forgot...there is _that one case_, that oddball one that will be thrown out on appeal, which the copyright police might pull out of a pocket, as a strawman (I am expecting the link to be provided quoted here to prop up this strawman argument if this continues much longer) . Again, Fair Use clause. And...ridiculousness. Gotta love it! Logic took a holiday years ago. 

The entire situation here is out of hand. Oh well, I've had enough of this B.S. discussion.


----------



## limr (Jul 23, 2014)

Well, yeah - presumably the negatives would be used to print the images, so that's already permission to publish/display.

What I will say is that if the OP _does_ have the right to post the images, no one else should do any editing or sharing. The photographer may have licensed that right to the OP, but she did not license it to everyone else.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 23, 2014)

I think actually it _is_ in the same universe, I would have the rights to my photos or other artwork that I might create or design. At least if I remember correctly, I haven't looked at the US Copyright website recently but I think you can copyright other artwork besides photos.


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 23, 2014)

this is exactly why we never, and I mean _*ne-vah *_give out raw files to anyone. 
Its because someone takes those raw files, edits them totally differently than we would have, and then complains that their pictures don't look like what we have on the website. 
do the pictures you received not look up to the standards of the photographers portfolio due to a technical issue with the photographer, or an editing issue on your part?
since the photographer gave you unedited raw files, how can you expect them to look like that photographers work if you did the editing? Or did they provide finished hi-res JPEGs as well as the original raw files?

to be honest, im completely confuzzeled at the fact that you say you are "in business" as a photographer, yet did not get a signed contract outlining your rights to the photos, and what was to be delivered. 

(i did portraits for my boss and made her sign a contract. my _*boss*_...no contract = no shoot, and it would be the same if i were getting pictures done by someone else)

Unless this photographer is overly kind or sympathetic....I think you have little recourse but to grin, bear it, and consider it a lesson learned.


----------



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

Damn you guys, just logged on and saw this slew of comments. Was out all night teaching English. I'll link you guys via. PM for whoever wants to see. But I don't feel comfortable posting her website publicly.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> consider it a lesson learned.



Regardless of the reasoning or the result... it's definitely a lesson learned.

I'm still curious to find out the full linear details, because, quite frankly, I'm still really confused about all this.

Especially what you said, Pix... about whether she *only* has the RAW files... or RAW *and* edited JPEGs... or... I dunno.

I need a start to finish story with corresponding imagery.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> But I don't feel comfortable posting her website publicly.



That's totally understandable. 

I will, however, be PMing you in about 5 seconds...


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 23, 2014)

e.rose said:


> elizpage said:
> 
> 
> > But I don't feel comfortable posting her website publicly.
> ...



ditto!


----------



## tecboy (Jul 23, 2014)

pixmedic said:


> e.rose said:
> 
> 
> > elizpage said:
> ...



Well, what is the result?


----------



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

Ya'll, I'm an idiot.. I have unedited JPEGS, not RAWs... Thanks Emily for helping me realize this. I need to brush up on my vocab ovah here.


----------



## e.rose (Jul 23, 2014)

elizpage said:


> Ya'll, I'm an idiot.. I have unedited JPEGS, not RAWs... Thanks Emily for helping me realize this. I need to brush up on my vocab ovah here.



S'what I'm here for chica


----------



## Theo2 (Jul 23, 2014)

You should've bought a lens with that $400!


----------



## elizpage (Jul 23, 2014)

Theo2 said:


> You should've bought a lens with that $400!



Tell me about it


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 24, 2014)

even if you can't link your photos here .. you can still link the photogs website for review of their critically acclaimed portfolio ...


----------



## Didereaux (Jul 24, 2014)

elizpage said:


> sm4him said:
> 
> 
> > elizpage said:
> ...



Question, was the shoot important to you?  Were those pics to be used for some purpose other than private?  If so, and you say that the persons portfolio showed better work then take the re-shoot.  If you refuse then you had better re-examine your motivation for having the shoot done in the first place.

Lastly, and this is critique NOT personal slam:  I looked at your website, and you really need to step back and reassess your readiness to put yourself forward as a professional photographer.  Go out and do some serious practicing, and don't forget the all important post-processing.  It takes hours and hours of practice to acquire acceptable levels of skills.


----------



## jowensphoto (Jul 24, 2014)

So now you have been on both sides of the "cheap" line.

You did a $75 shoot and didn't get paid - you got ripped off because the market for a $75 photo shoot is a ****ty market. 

You paid $400 for a full glam session with 11 digital files - the photographer, with "8 years experience," knows or should know that this is dirt cheap (check out Emily's example, that's a good example of professional pricing). You, also as a photographer, should know that you get what you pay for. IMO, you got more than you paid for.

So now it's up to you to decide to continue running your business cheap, running into these types of issues forever, or raise the bar, both in terms of pricing and product.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 24, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...


Stand up philosopher... lol


----------



## tecboy (Jul 24, 2014)

Stop making money in photography and don't hire a photographer.  Things happen and there is nothing you can do about it. Forget about that eight years photographer and that client.  You are already have enough problems.  Move on and shoot what you like.  Since you like portraiture, stick with it and keep shooting.


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 24, 2014)

tirediron said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > It's perfectly reasonable to expect that someone who's been working at *some fairly simple trade like photography* should be able to produce acceptable work after eight years. That is, it's a fair expectation. From time to time, you will be disappointed.
> ...



Lots of things. Research chemist. University professor. Electrical engineer. Architect.

Basic commercial photography isn't that hard. You will continue to improve of course, but if you can't crank out acceptable basic work after a year or two of serious effort, you need to rethink your approach. Not so many other trades.


----------



## D-B-J (Jul 24, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



I disagree. Photography as a business and art is difficult. It's like any other job. You put in loads of effort and you may get better. It's not "easy."




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## limr (Jul 24, 2014)

Uh...not for nothin' but I believe the pictures on the OP's "About" page are two from this photographer that were in the other thread: Elizabeth Page Photography

And isn't one of those Derrel's edit?

So, yeah, now she's published them on a business website with no accreditation. Two words: commercial gain.

This means that posting the pictures here on TPF will be absolutely no problem whatsoever because the OP has permission to do the above, OR it means that there might be a cease-and-desist letter in her future.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 24, 2014)

photoguy99 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > photoguy99 said:
> ...



Since none of those are trades, I don't follow.  "Professor" is a position or title, and chemist, engineer and architect are academic professions.


----------



## mmaria (Jul 24, 2014)

*"I'm really confused and upset right now."*



... and I'm really confused by op and this thread... and from the first post.... that's all I have to say


----------



## photoguy99 (Jul 24, 2014)

I am not interested in semantic chopping over what the word 'trade' means. My usage was obviously casual, colloquial.

I am also not talking about art, I am talking, obviously and now explicitly, about basic commercial photography. If you are not able to produce solid respectable work after eight years, you're doing it wrong.

It is therefore reasonable to expect that someone who's been is business eight years is competent. Making that assumption does not make you stupid. Basic commercial photography is not some kind of necromancy that one never truly masters. It's more like plumbing. You learn what the usual problems are and what the usual solutions are and you apply them.

Well, ideally you do. Obviously not everyone does.

And that concludes my contributions to this thread. When the miss start actively picking fights with you it's time to move on, right?


----------



## cynicaster (Jul 24, 2014)

Six pages of blathering on about legalities and qualifications, and still, the thing Im most confused about is why the OP didnt just take her own camera and do a set of self-portraits.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 24, 2014)

limr said:


> Uh...not for nothin' but I believe the pictures on the OP's "About" page are two from this photographer that were in the other thread: Elizabeth Page Photography
> 
> And isn't one of those Derrel's edit?
> 
> ...



A cease and desist letter?  Lucky girl.  I love those things.  I use them for wallpaper collages.  It's pretty simple really, cease and desist letter, restraining order, cease and desist letter - you just layer them in and apply a clear coat and bam!  

Lol


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 24, 2014)

You got burned by a poser.  There is no set time for someone to become a photographer, some days it starts the moment the camera is taking out of the Best Buy box, and before the manual is read. Other times it's decades, and the end results could be the same.   If you're not happy as the client, then as a "professional" photographer of eight years, they should refund your money, offer to do it again with the conditions that if you're not happy the second time around, you get the money back. 

I know photographers that have been in the business for decades, and they still make a living at it, one guy is now teaching photography, but back in the pre-digital days he wasn't very good, and never got better.  Fortunately for him, peoples standards have dropped when it comes to quality pictures, and now he looks like a genius.  His mediocre work for years has now become good.  Thanks to digital and photoshop, fixing all his mistakes has become easy.  He's still producing mediocre, but that's ok, most people don't know the difference anymore.


----------



## Caymex (Jul 24, 2014)

I think that if this person was in the business for 8 years, then they should have had a pretty good portfolio that they could have showed you.  If you didn't ask to see a portfolio, then there is only so much responsibility that falls back on the photographer.  By looking at her portfolio in advance, you would have found out that she is not as good as she thinks she is and maybe would have been able to better pre-negotiate the shoot or maybe not use the photographer at all.  If your a professional photographer AND your a considered very good, then you usually have a portfolio.  If your new in the business, then you usually let your clients know that your new and then let them make their decision as to if they want to use you.  Only my opinion, but I think that this is a 50/50 fault and had you asked more questions in advance before forking over $400 you may have been able to make a better decision before the photo shoot.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 24, 2014)

tirediron said:


> photoguy99 said:
> 
> 
> > tirediron said:
> ...



Ok, but if you can't run around comparing apples to steam shovels then what the hell is the internet for exactly?  

Lol


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 24, 2014)

Wow!


----------



## Tee (Jul 24, 2014)

elizpage said:


> But I've been in the business for 6 months, and I _know _I'm not good.



I keep coming back to this statement as this sums up the cheapened state of photography services.  A "professional" photographer who's been in the game for 6 whopping months acknowledging their lack of ability...yet somehow ok with being a "professional" photographer.  

Somebody fire up the Bat Signal.  We need CGipson back.  He would have a field day with this.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 24, 2014)




----------



## astroNikon (Jul 24, 2014)

Tee said:


> Somebody fire up the Bat Signal.  We need CGipson back.  He would have a field day with this.



He disappeared from Flickr too ...


----------



## e.rose (Jul 24, 2014)

Tee said:


> elizpage said:
> 
> 
> > But I've been in the business for 6 months, and I _know _I'm not good.
> ...





astroNikon said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > Somebody fire up the Bat Signal.  We need CGipson back.  He would have a field day with this.
> ...



I know where to fiiiiiiind hiiiiiiiim. :sillysmi:


----------



## KmH (Jul 24, 2014)

Derrel said:


> And ANY edits made from the raw data would be DERIVATIVE works...so technically, the image KmH pulled from TPF, the one I created, the one that I edited, significantly, was copyrighted by me...


Yes, they are derivatives but the original copyright owner more than likely still owns the copyright:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf



> To be copyrightable, a derivative work must incorporate some or all of a preexisting work and add new original copyrightable authorship to that work.



Barack Obama "Hope" poster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> In January 2009, after Obama had won the election, Fairey's mixed-media stenciled portrait version of the image was acquired by the Smithsonian Institution for its National Portrait Gallery. Later in January 2009, the photograph on which Fairey based the poster was revealed: an April 2006 shot by former Associated Press freelance photographer Mannie Garcia. In response to claims by the Associated Press for compensation, Fairey sued for a declaratory judgment that his poster was a fair use of the original photograph. The parties settled out of court in January 2011, with details of the settlement remaining confidential.
> 
> On February 24, 2012, Fairey pleaded guilty in a New York federal court to destroying and fabricating documents during his legal battle with the Associated Press. Fairey had sued the news service in 2009 after it claimed that the famous poster was based on one of its photos. Fairey claimed that he used a different photograph for the poster. But he admitted that, in fact, he was wrong and tried to hide the error by destroying documents and manufacturing others, which is the source of the one count of criminal contempt to which he pleaded guilty.[SUP][4][/SUP] In September, Fairey was sentenced to two years of probation, 300 hours of community service, and a fine of $25,000.[SUP][5][/SUP]


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 24, 2014)

astroNikon said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > Somebody fire up the Bat Signal. We need CGipson back. He would have a field day with this.
> ...



Could actually be the OP.  I sometimes feel we are getting Punk'd.  A little shocked that the OP was not being hammered on the 6 month professional thing.  Folks are on good TPF behaviour (not me, I'm naughty).


----------



## Overread (Jul 24, 2014)

e.rose said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > elizpage said:
> ...



Gah you're not supposed to tell people about the secret prison!


----------



## sm4him (Jul 24, 2014)

e.rose said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> > elizpage said:
> ...



Me too, but I'm pretty sure he is just as happy NOT knowing about this&#8230; :lmao:


----------



## sm4him (Jul 24, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > Tee said:
> ...



Nah, the OP is *definitely* not Charlie. There is NO way Charlie would pose as a "pro" with six months of experience who knows they "aren't good." If he tried, I think he'd implode. :lmao:


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 24, 2014)

sm4him said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...



Right...Right, I could see him gagging at just the thought - even as a joke.


----------



## terri (Jul 24, 2014)

If the OP is satisfied with all of her replies, I'd be pleased to close this thread.    

Yes?


Please accept this suggestion as the act of kindness in which it is intended.


----------



## keyseddie (Jul 24, 2014)

Please.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 24, 2014)

You have had a good week so far going by your other thread


----------



## pgriz (Jul 24, 2014)

I'll second.  If it needs seconding.  And now for the next agenda item...  Firming up the tenuous link between skills and compensation.  Oh wait, we've already trashed THAT one.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 24, 2014)

pgriz said:


> I'll second.  If it needs seconding.  And now for the next agenda item...  Firming up the tenuous link between skills and compensation.  Oh wait, we've already trashed THAT one.



I'll thrice it .... lol


----------



## robbins.photo (Jul 24, 2014)

pgriz said:


> I'll second. If it needs seconding. And now for the next agenda item... Firming up the tenuous link between skills and compensation. Oh wait, we've already trashed THAT one.



Perhaps an in depth discussion of the joys of copyright law?

Ahh..crap.  Nope.  That's pretty much been beaten to death too.. sigh


----------



## sm4him (Jul 24, 2014)

Well, it's been motioned, seconded, thriced and thrashed. 

So, now we're all just trying to be the last one IBTL.


----------



## terri (Jul 24, 2014)

Well, I was trying to be polite and let the OP tell me to do it, but it might be up to 15 pages before she logs back in, so it's done.


----------

