# LEGAL QUESTION, and yes, I know I am asking for legal advice on the internet.



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

Here's the situation. 

I was hired by a family of three (two adults, one toddler) to do family/lifestyle photoshoot of them. It turns out that the husbands brother, who is divorced, wants photos of himself and his child shot as well in the same session. That's totally fine with me, so I adjusted the price accordingly. 

This morning, I received a text message from the ex-wife: 

_"Hello Tyler. I understand that you will be taking photos of [name redacted]. The point of this text is to let you know that I do not give you my permission for you to put pictures of [name redacted] on the Internet or use pictures of him in any way to represent your business. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me."
_
It is part of the agreement/contract with the father that I retain copyrights to the images for web usage and as part of my portfolio. They share joint custody of the child, and she is not involved with the shoot or paying for it in any way. She has not signed the agreement, but the husband has as he's the only one involved or paying for the shoot.

Does she have any leg to stand on if I tell her "Sorry, Ma'am, but I retain the copyrights and usage rights for social media or portfolio usage." I've put the shoot on hold due to the weather, and partly because of this reason. 

I would like nothing more than to be able to display the images on social media, or my portfolio, because frankly I hate his ex wife (past history with her). 

Any help or experience would be appreciated. Thank you all!


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 16, 2012)

If you are really concerned about litigation I strongly advise you sitting down with an attorney.

Is the ex-wife concerned about using pictures of the child or of her ex-husband?  I'm assuming the child?  If she has custody of the child I believe that her word may carry some weight.  If the ex-husband has custody maybe not so much.


----------



## fjrabon (Aug 16, 2012)

joint custody is tricky.  Mostly because in family court, the judges just do whatever the heck the judges want to do.  Since the individual in question is a minor, and she has joint custody, she does have a leg to stand on.  A pretty decently strong leg.  Likely the father can't completely release the child's rights by himself, ESPECIALLY if the mother has apprised you of her desires to not have the child's photographs released.  You would have probably been okay if she had only apprised you of her desire to not release the minor's rights until after the perfection of the terms of the contract.  But the fact that she indicated this desire prior to the perfection of the terms is problematic.  

Likely your options are comply or refuse the shoot.  

Or risk having her sue you on behalf of the child, as is her right by having joint custody.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 16, 2012)

Walk away!  You do NOT want to be part of this; it can go nowhere good.  

Even if the ex-wife doesn't have any legal right to do this, there's HUGE potential for badness.  I'm guessing that there are so many unknowns in the equation that even a lawyer probably could not give you a definite yes/no answer.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 16, 2012)

tirediron said:


> Walk away!  You do NOT want to be part of this; it can go nowhere good.
> 
> Even if the ex-wife doesn't have any legal right to do this, there's HUGE potential for badness.  I'm guessing that there are so many unknowns in the equation that even a lawyer probably could not give you a definite yes/no answer.


I am with tirediron on this one. Let the father know that you would prefer to decline this shoot over possible legal issues with the ex. 
OR... explain that you were contacted by Betty ***** and in light of the possible legal issues you have to decline the session. The original session was priced according to you being able to use the family portraits. Due to the fact that that is not possible at this point a full priced session would be $xxx.

It doesn't matter what legal leg she does or doesn't have to stand on, she is going to make the ex's life hell and in doing so is going to make yours hell no matter what. There is a premium fee for anyone dealing with that crap. 

I'd also send Betty B!tch back a note saying that you have been contracted by Joe Blow and due to that you decline to discuss the contract with her. She and her attorney can contact and deal with Joe as their divorce and custody is not your concern.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

Here is what I am leaning towards... 

I am strongly considering doing the shoot of both of them (more $$$ that way). Not posting photos of the said child in question on the internet, but also working into my usage rights that the ex-wife will have no printing rights, or access to any of the images by her or her family members. 

Does that sound like a good plan?


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 16, 2012)

I would put in the contract that you will not use the child's photographs in anyway.  Have it in writing because if you go forward with the shoot and she decides to sue you this may help CYA.

I mean I don't think she can prevent you from actually doing the shoot legally....but she may be able to get you on what you do with the images....I am just kind of guessing at this though as I am not an attorney.


----------



## fjrabon (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Here is what I am leaning towards...
> 
> I am strongly considering doing the shoot of both of them (more $$$ that way). Not posting photos of the said child in question on the internet, but also working into my usage rights that the ex-wife will have no printing rights, or access to any of the images by her or her family members.
> 
> Does that sound like a good plan?



if you go that route, make sure that you also explcitly state something like:

"(wife's name) and (named family members) have no rights to any usage, including but not limited to printing and digital download.  The prohibition of use by these named individuals in no way, shape, or form implies that usage rights are granted to any individual other than (dad's name). Tyler Drumm retains full rights to all images, but agrees to not use images containing (kids name) for publication on the internet or to promote Tyler Drumm Photography.  

Any violation of these terms will result in legal action taken by Tyler Drumm photography to the fullest extent of the law.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

Thanks everyone for your opinions and help. I think I will restrict printing rights to the one particular family and proceed that way.


----------



## tirediron (Aug 16, 2012)

The concern that I have about the restricted rights method (totally aside from the fact that I'm convinced that this is going to be like playing hopscotch on a minefield) is that you're setting a precedent for yourself.  Next client, "I don't want you to use these images of my family on your website".  "I'm sorry Ma'am, but that's my policy!"  "Well, you didn't do that for the Smith family, and they recommended you!"...


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

tirediron said:


> The concern that I have about the restricted rights method (totally aside from the fact that I'm convinced that this is going to be like playing hopscotch on a minefield) is that you're setting a precedent for yourself.  Next client, "I don't want you to use these images of my family on your website".  "I'm sorry Ma'am, but that's my policy!"  "Well, you didn't do that for the Smith family, and they recommended you!"...



Well, to be honest, I don't think that I will be doing a lot of photo sessions for divorced families. If another circumstance like this arises, and I get another text like the one I received in the first message, I will do the same thing. I'm not playing favorites. 

In any other case, the family will jointly sign a contract that establishes that I have usage rights to images on my website or social media. In this instance essentially a third party with legal grounds to dictate what is done with photos of their minor, but is not a participating party in the photoshoot. 

If she wants access to the photos, she should have something to do with the shoot. If she wants to restrict what I can do with the photos, then I can restrict what she does with images that I own the copyright to. No?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 16, 2012)

I wasn't thinking so much of more divorced families, rather just one that for whatever reason, didn't want you to be able to use their images.  

I think what it boils down to is that you're more adventorous than I am Tyler.  I hope it goes smoothly!


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

tirediron said:


> I wasn't thinking so much of more divorced families, rather just one that for whatever reason, didn't want you to be able to use their images.
> 
> I think what it boils down to is that you're more adventorous than I am Tyler.  I hope it goes smoothly!



Thanks for your thoughts John. I appreciate it!


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Aug 16, 2012)

I thought that releases/contracts were irrelevant if you were displaying the work in your own portfolio? I was always under the impression that the only time releases/contracts come into effect is when you have intentions on using the images commercially?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > The concern that I have about the restricted rights method (totally aside from the fact that I'm convinced that this is going to be like playing hopscotch on a minefield) is that you're setting a precedent for yourself.  Next client, "I don't want you to use these images of my family on your website".  "I'm sorry Ma'am, but that's my policy!"  "Well, you didn't do that for the Smith family, and they recommended you!"...
> ...


I think you are absolutely correct. However... Just keep in the back of your mind. There is a wedding photographer couple that are being sued for discrimination for turning down a gay wedding on the basis that it was against their personal faith. 
I think it's ludicrous, but it's just one example of how insane things wind up in court that shouldn't. I know that this and a few others are always floating in the back of my mind. I'd do exactly what you are doing, but be prepared if something insane happens too.
What is the stance of the father? Would he be willing to give the ex access to the images anyway? Or would he restrict her regardless of your print release, etc?


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 16, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> I thought that releases/contracts were irrelevant if you were displaying the work in your own portfolio? I was always under the impression that the only time releases/contracts come into effect is when you have intentions on using the images commercially?


You should have a contract for EVERYTHING, but that's a matter of legally CYA. However, at minimum a release for every model on your website is required.


----------



## CCericola (Aug 16, 2012)

I have lots of clients who do not want me to use their pictures on the Internet. No big deal to me. My contract has a part where they have to initial to have this happen. If you are so worried about having things for an online portfolio, hire models. 

I agree the ex wife will probably win if she got you involved in any legal action. 

It is not worth stressing over. I was watching that Joe Buissnick webinar last week and he has done shoots where he had to turn his film/memory cards over to a security team, never to be seen again. 

You will have plenty of other shoots to put on the Internet or use for marketing material. You have talent and not having this one kid on the Internet won't make or break you.

If she really is a witch then if she asks for print say, "sorry you will have to ask your ex husband"


----------



## fjrabon (Aug 16, 2012)

AaronLLockhart said:


> I thought that releases/contracts were irrelevant if you were displaying the work in your own portfolio? I was always under the impression that the only time releases/contracts come into effect is when you have intentions on using the images commercially?



A physical portfolio, he'd probably be fine.  However, as far as anybody can tell, the law makes no distinction between an online portfolio and publishing photos on the internet.  And whether they are for commercial or other purposes usually doesn't matter.  So, if the mother refuses to release the child's rights for using the child's image, then Tyler likely can't put the pictures on the internet at all.  

The reason you're okay with a personal, physical portfolio is that as long as Tyler doesn't give away his full rights, you usually retain rights to use the physical product as you wish, and that usage is usually inalienable in most states.  So even if Tyler wanted to give up his rights to use the physical copy of his picture, he wouldn't be able to give it up, no matter how he wrote the contract, unless he sold the actual original physical copy.  

For instance, in most states, even if you purchase a CD and sign a contract saying you will not re-sell the original physical CD, you actually still have the right to sell that physical CD, because no matter hwo the company words the EULA, you retain full ability to use the physical copy however you want, and re-sell it whenever you want, and it is usually inalienable in most states.  Same thing with photographs.  If you sell a physical print, or the right to make a physical print, you then are usually allowing them to use that physical print in any matter they please, regardless of what language is stipulated in the contract.  

Intellectual property law is so far behind the realities of modern digital intellectual property it's absurd.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> What is the stance of the father? Would he be willing to give the ex access to the images anyway? Or would he restrict her regardless of your print release, etc?



He would not give her any form of the images. They hate each other. I am more concerned with the wife of his brother giving images to her, but I am going to burn two separate DVDs of images so that they don't get each others files. 



MLeeK said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that releases/contracts were irrelevant if you were displaying the work in your own portfolio? I was always under the impression that the only time releases/contracts come into effect is when you have intentions on using the images commercially?
> ...



Agreed. Contracts are a mandatory thing. 



CCericola said:


> I have lots of clients who do not want me to use their pictures on the Internet. No big deal to me. My contract has a part where they have to initial to have this happen. If you are so worried about having things for an online portfolio, hire models.
> 
> I agree the ex wife will probably win if she got you involved in any legal action.
> 
> ...



Thanks for your thoughts, Christina. Good points.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 16, 2012)

I think you'll be fine, Tyler! You have a good plan. Hopefully the mother will see gorgeous images of her son in the ex's house and be jealous... and call you for copies at which time you can charge her a PREMIUM as a b!tch surcharge!


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> I think you'll be fine, Tyler! You have a good plan. Hopefully the mother will see gorgeous images of her son in the ex's house and be jealous... and call you for copies at which time you can charge her a PREMIUM as a b!tch surcharge!



Thanks MLeek. Yes, I will certainly charge her a considerable amount more than I would charge any other client if she wants images. She will just have to deal with it.


----------



## Heitz (Aug 16, 2012)

You know, regardless of what the contract says, and regardless of how tight it is, hell has no wrath like an angry divorced parent.  My wife is a teacher and got caught in the middle of a stupid dispute with two parents.  They threatened to sue and even tried to bring her to court (the reason doesn't matter - it was stupid and never materialized).  However, even though we knew nothing would come of it, the sheer possibility and worry that emerged from this was terrible.  My point being, why even bother with them?  If they act like this now, what next?  Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 16, 2012)

The personal vendetta's are a bit of a concern to me. It's a peculiar relationship triangle that's going on here between you and the father, you and the ex, and the ex and the father. 

I'm not enocouraging turning down work, but sometimes there are clear signs that your stepping into a mine-field. Is it worth it for what you're getting paid? I'm sure you've been compensated much better for far less hassle. I would set the pissing match thing aside, and just think of this from a business standpoint. Are you ready to lawyer up if she decides to come after you for whatever reason?


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> The personal vendetta's are a bit of a concern to me. It's a peculiar relationship triangle that's going on here between you and the father, you and the ex, and the ex and the father.
> 
> I'm not enocouraging turning down work, but sometimes there are clear signs that your stepping into a mine-field. Is it worth it for what you're getting paid? I'm sure you've been compensated much better for far less hassle. I would set the pissing match thing aside, and just think of this from a business standpoint. Are you ready to lawyer up if she decides to come after you for whatever reason?



She has no reason to come after me. I've informed her that she will not have any rights to the images, and she agreed that was OK. As long as I put none of the images on the web, it's all good.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 16, 2012)

Can I suggest writing the terms so it grants rights to the husband but does now explicitly deny rights to the ex wife?  If anything say the rights are non-transferable to any party.

While I totally understand the desire to swing back at her, the best you can hope for is that she doesn't then return the swing, and if she's as bitchy as she sounds, she likely will.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Aug 16, 2012)

manaheim said:


> *While I totally understand the desire to swing back at her, the best you can hope for is that she doesn't then return the swing, and if she's as bitchy as she sounds, she likely will*.



++++


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

manaheim said:


> Can I suggest writing the terms so it grants rights to the husband but does now explicitly deny rights to the ex wife?  If anything say the rights are non-transferable to any party.
> 
> While I totally understand the desire to swing back at her, the best you can hope for is that she doesn't then return the swing, and if she's as bitchy as she sounds, she likely will.



She has no reason to get bitchy. I explained the terms of the agreement that I have with the husband and she fully understand that she has no rights to the images as stated in the contract. There's really nothing she can do or say unless I put images on the web. Which I won't.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 16, 2012)

You need to also be a salesman, and talk her into getting some portraits done of her and the kid as well.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 16, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You need to also be a salesman, and talk her into getting some portraits done of her and the kid as well.


At a mega premium


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You need to also be a salesman, and talk her into getting some portraits done of her and the kid as well.



Yuck. I'd rather not have to associate with her at all. Unless she's paying me the obvious standard premium rate of $2,000/hr, you know... What everyone should charge.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

A responder on another forum suggested I get the mother to send a notarized letter stating her dissent. I kind of think that it would be a good idea, and at the very least entertaining for me to know that she had to go out of her way to get a notarized letter and send it to me. 

Any thoughts on this?


----------



## table1349 (Aug 16, 2012)

Maine Lawyer - Maine (ME) Attorney, Law Firm Directory | FindLaw


----------



## Alpha (Aug 16, 2012)

Why would you need to document her dissent? 

In any event, it sounds like you decided to not post the images online, in which case everything is cool.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

Alpha said:


> Why would you need to document her dissent?
> 
> In any event, it sounds like you decided to not post the images online, in which case everything is cool.



To coincide with the document that states because she has written dissent she won't be granted any usage rights. A Text message isn't really legally binding, or even necessarily sent by her. It could be anyone that grabbed her phone.


----------



## KmH (Aug 16, 2012)

It sounds like you've dug a hole, and keep finding ways to dig the hole even deeper. 

I see potential for this to cost you WAY more than a 30 minute consultation with a qualified attorney would cost.

Good luck. :thumbup:


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

KmH said:


> It sounds like you've dug a hole, and keep finding ways to dig the hole even deeper.
> 
> I see potential for this to cost you WAY more than a 30 minute consultation with a qualified attorney would cost.



Care to elaborate how I've 'dug a hole' and am 'digging the hole deeper'? 

I've notified her of the terms, and she agreed. End of story. There has been no further communication with her.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> A responder on another forum suggested I get the mother to send a notarized letter stating her dissent. I kind of think that it would be a good idea, and at the very least entertaining for me to know that she had to go out of her way to get a notarized letter and send it to me.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?



More and more I think you've got a chip on your shoulder and are looking to get into it with her.

I think you should take a step back and ask yourself what you really stand to gain in actions like this and what the pore tail causes are.

She's clearly being a bit edgy with you.  Making her do this kind of thing is going to be like throwing a rock at a hornets nest just because one of them stung you.  Not a good plan.  Just let it go.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

manaheim said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, I do indeed have a chip on my shoulder, and for good reason too. 

She bad mouths me behind my back 24/7 to her ex-husband, she says bad things about my girlfriend and I to her friends (that have made their way back to me), and she's only met my girlfriend once whilst attending her wedding as my guest. She spreads unfounded rumors, that granted, don't make it very far because they're simply not true. She probably even says bad things about my photographic business behind my back based on the things I've caught wind of.

She's aware that she will not have access to any of the images or printing rights, and I have no reason to suspect that she'll get her hands on them. There is going to be nothing further done in this regard.


----------



## orljustin (Aug 16, 2012)

What is with everyone here and this undying love of using client images to advertise themselves.  Try for a change, respecting the clients desires.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

orljustin said:


> What is with everyone here and this undying love of using client images to advertise themselves.  Try for a change, respecting the clients desires.



She's not a client. Clients pay you to take photos. Her ex-husband is the client, and has absolutely zero issue with me using the photos on the internet. 

She's not in any way related to the shoot other than being the mother in a shared custody divorce. 

It's amazing how in other forums on the internet, people actually take the time to read the thread and offer insightful and respectful opinions based on personal experience. 

I wonder why I post here sometimes.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 16, 2012)

orljustin said:


> What is with everyone here and this undying love of using client images to advertise themselves.  Try for a change, respecting the clients desires.



Well that really added some brilliance.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> A responder on another forum suggested I get the mother to send a notarized letter stating her dissent. I kind of think that it would be a good idea, and at the very least entertaining for me to know that she had to go out of her way to get a notarized letter and send it to me.
> 
> Any thoughts on this?


Why are you bothering with all of this? You have already decided you aren't going to bother to use the images in your portfolio. That's all she has asked. You aren't giving her rights to squat and you aren't allowing the client's rights to be transferred to anyone else. Why are you picking a bone with her? You are begging for her to pick a fight and make a big issue of this. Drop it. Let it all go. You're spoiling for a fight.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



In my experience chronic bad-mouthers wind up looking like serious asshats to anyone who knows them.  Take the moral(e) high road and odds are no one will take her very seriously.  

Regardless, you're looking for a fight where odds are she's on better ground than you.  I'd pick a different fight with her if I were you.


----------



## manaheim (Aug 16, 2012)

MLeeK said:


> orljustin said:
> 
> 
> > What is with everyone here and this undying love of using client images to advertise themselves.  Try for a change, respecting the clients desires.
> ...



Shiny.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> >SNIP>>*I would like nothing more than to be able to display the images on social media, or my portfolio, because frankly I hate his ex wife (past history with her)*.
> 
> Any help or experience would be appreciated. Thank you all!



That public comment establishes the basis for a willful and malicious act if she decides to sue you. *Intent* is a HUGE part in establishing guilt, and in awarding damages in defamation cases. And making the statement you made above establishes your douche credentials quite well. On TPF you have made a point of calling people douches, douche canoe, etc.,etc.,etc. I think you just earned yourself the stern seat in the canoe.

It's pretty stupid to tell a public forum that *you would LOVE to use your photography*, for-hire work you have done that includes a mom, and maybe her kids, *to help you settle some kind of personal vendetta* you have. How petty. How truly juvenile. Welcome to the canoe, oh great paddler! The most-honored seat is reserved for you!


----------



## manaheim (Aug 16, 2012)

mmm... kinda a good point.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...




You are just stooping to her level. In doing so you make yourself live up to all of her expectations and remarks. By being the bigger man and just keeping your mouth shut you look like, well... the bigger man. She's making the fool of herself and if her remarks aren't true? Then she's just discrediting herself in everyone's eyes who are hearing her.


----------



## o hey tyler (Aug 16, 2012)

Derrel said:


> On TPF you have made a point of calling people douches, douche canoe, etc.,etc.,etc. I think you just earned yourself the stern seat in the canoe.



*<Moderated>*   Remember when I said I don't value your input? Well, it still stands. You offer nothing but drivel and offensive remarks. 

Thanks for taking the time out of your miserable life to respond. At least you have experience with a divorce. GFYS (Good for you, sir).


----------



## IByte (Aug 16, 2012)

Whoa Tyler I think she is getting what she wants by pushing your buttons.  To be honest I know times maybe tough, but I think you may need to let this one go.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 16, 2012)

Tyler...bro...

Count to 10 and think about this. You're a talented professional, why would you let this spiteful b!tch get to you like this? From the sound of it, you guys have of bad history, and she showed her lack of character by gossiping, etc.

Doesn't make sense to me to "get back at her" by opening yourself up to a tremendous liability from a woman who's clearly not interested in keeping things adult.

I wouldn't go near her kid with my camera.....


----------



## manaheim (Aug 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > On TPF you have made a point of calling people douches, douche canoe, etc.,etc.,etc. I think you just earned yourself the stern seat in the canoe.
> ...





Wow.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Aug 16, 2012)

Oh no he di int!


----------



## table1349 (Aug 16, 2012)

I blame the drugs.  

Perhaps this should have been a considered forum for such questions. FreeAdvice Legal Forum


----------



## Derrel (Aug 16, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I blame the drugs.
> 
> Perhaps this should have been a considered forum for such questions. FreeAdvice Legal Forum



Yeah, smoking all that high-grade weed has made somebody a bit cranky!!! Well, nice to see the OP has managed to find another forum where his vast experience in photography and how to fulfill social vendettas against ex-girlfriends will make a big splash! I love the dramatic swan song exit and bold sig-file message. Door. Hit. Do not let. On way out. "eeere,eeere!"


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Aug 16, 2012)

Derrel said:
			
		

> Yeah, smoking all that high-grade weed has made somebody a bit cranky!!! Well, nice to see the OP has managed to find another forum where his vast experience in photography and how to fulfill social vendettas against ex-girlfriends will make a big splash! I love the dramatic swan song exit and bold sig-file message. Door. Hit. Do not let. On way out. "eeere,eeere!"



Yes, clearly FM fits that description. Guess it was too much to expect you to be civil, eh?


----------



## amolitor (Aug 17, 2012)

Having skimming the thread, it seems that the ex-wife is kind of unpleasant. It also looks like Tyler's found a good path through the minefield, no arguments there.

But. The ex-wife might not have a legal leg to stand on, but she has a moral one. The way these photoshoots work, the photographer is taking pictures of the people in exchange for:

- money
- _the subjects labor as models_

The second one is pretty minor, you certainly don't use every photo for promotional use, and honestly, how much is that worth anyways, in dollars? Still, it's a real component of the deal. The ex-wife has a right to be involved when her ex-husband puts the kid to work. I'm sure the ex-husband wasn't thinking of it in these terms, I'm certainly not accusing him of being a dick. Nonetheless, this is a the structure of the deal. The ex-wife was excluded from a decision she should have been a part of.

Something to keep in mind in future.

For instance, you might decide to add a small surcharge for minor children on the grounds that you -- as a policy -- do not use them for promotional purposes. If you think a kid is a good candidate, you might request that the parents (all of them) sign here, here, here in exchange for waiving the surcharge.


----------



## amolitor (Aug 17, 2012)

Tyler's dramatic exit, by the way, is termed a "flounce" in other forums.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 17, 2012)

... as I stated here


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 17, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Oh no he di int!




***** just took off her jewry and done got etnick up in hurr.......


----------



## rokvi (Aug 17, 2012)

That contract between 50% of the child's parents holds little ground when the other 50% has stated (only with proof), that the photographer was asked not to do something and went ahead and did it.


----------



## jowensphoto (Aug 17, 2012)

> Yeah, smoking all that high-grade weed has made somebody a bit cranky!!!



When is the last time you met a cranky pot-head?


----------



## JAC526 (Aug 17, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> > Yeah, smoking all that high-grade weed has made somebody a bit cranky!!!
> 
> 
> 
> When is the last time you met a cranky pot-head?



When they run out of pot.  Hahaha


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 17, 2012)

JAC526 said:


> When they run out of pot.  Hahaha





Or cheetos....


----------



## jowensphoto (Aug 17, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> JAC526 said:
> 
> 
> > When they run out of pot.  Hahaha
> ...




Touche! I was pretty cranky when I fat-fingered the buttons on the  vending machine the other day; got cinnamon-suger pita chips instead of  my Cheetos.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Aug 17, 2012)

jowensphoto said:


> Touche! I was pretty cranky when I fat-fingered the buttons on the  vending machine the other day; got cinnamon-suger pita chips instead of  my Cheetos.



I love Stacy's C&S pita chips....YUM!


----------



## jowensphoto (Aug 17, 2012)

ChristopherCoy said:


> jowensphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Touche! I was pretty cranky when I fat-fingered the buttons on the  vending machine the other day; got cinnamon-suger pita chips instead of  my Cheetos.
> ...



The very same! I was only disappointed until I ate the first one.


----------



## MLeeK (Aug 17, 2012)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Oh no he di int!


I can picture Bitter with his little bejeweled hand bag and go go boots doing the whole hand wave thing. 



It's not pretty. 


Tyler-nice flounce. You are great when the heat involves someone else, but when one thing is said you don't like you had a really immature temper tantrum. Makes me wonder if ***** ex-wife isn't so much talking smack as stating a fact?


----------



## tirediron (Aug 17, 2012)

Am I the only one who didn't see that coming????


----------



## Overread (Aug 17, 2012)

I didn't see it either, however since its happened and Tyler is off I think we are thus done with this thread.


----------

