# Erotic nude shoot: client wants unprocessed images to edit himself



## Plays_with_light (Jul 21, 2012)

Hi there,

I'm brand spanking new to this site but need some feedback in pretty short order and this seems like a pretty good, active forum.

Now I've spent the morning scouring the internet for some feedback on my question, but so far have only come across the regular discussions about the pros/cons of providing RAW images to clients and this situation seems to me to be a different one from the question of whether or not to provide RAW images to wedding and regular portrait clients, simply due to the highly intimate and private nature of the images to be created.

I have a couple interested in obtaining some erotic nude male images. After some extensive email discussions back and forth, primarily with the woman in the couple, the fellow has chimed in with, what is to me, a very reasonable and legitimate concern regarding his privacy and control over the images. He has asked whether I can provide the unedited images so he can edit them himself (and I'm assuming he'd want me to destroy all other copies on site.)

Now, typically I never provide unedited images to clients (clearly stated in my service contract) unless I'm doing work for another photographer, marketing firm or design studio (and even then, I do so very reluctantly.) So, my immediate response to this question is to say no (explaining why), while also elaborating on how important maintaining client privacy and respecting client wishes vis-a-vis the use of their images is to the reputation and success of my studio. I would also suggest the use of a written contract that clearly outlines the acceptable/restricted use of the images to be signed by all parties involved (ie. including the girlfriend...afterall, she will also have access to the images and is perhaps more likely than me to do something untoward with the images should they part ways...you know, "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"...lol)

Normally, after editing a collection, I would delete all the RAW images anyways, and would only like to keep a copy of the collection for my own archives. While there may be a few select images from the collection that I might want to use to show other prospective clients specifically interested in this type of imagery, I would only do so with this fellow's express written consent and in ways that he has granted permission (ie. not online and/or with his identity protected, etc.) If, at the end of the day, he decides that he does not want them used in any way, shape, or form, I would respect that.

I've done boudoir and pin-up photography, but these images are likely to involve full nudity and to be highly erotic in nature, so I can really understand where he's coming from with this, and wonder whether the response I've outlined above is unreasonable in any way. 

While I'm very much leaning towards NOT providing the unedited files, I would very much appreciate some feedback before I make my reply (later today.)

I would be particularly interested in thoughts/suggestions from other photographers who have experience with this genre of photography. How do you handle such requests? 

Many thanks and looking forward to your responses!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2012)

*"He who pays the fiddler calls the tune."*


----------



## unpopular (Jul 21, 2012)

No. It is inappropriate. I am also unsure why this is an unusual case.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 21, 2012)

Plays_with_light said:


> I'm brand *spanking* new to this site



If your business processes are more important to you than satisfying the concerns of this particular client, it might be advisable, even ethical, for you to suggest that the client go elsewhere so he can be comfortable and you can maintain your stance.

He has no reason to either doubt or believe in your ability or willingness to keep the files confidential.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 21, 2012)

Computers get stolen, people lose flash cards, computers get viruses, teenagers go through dad's computer while he's away for laughs, etc etc. If the guy has actual concerns about privacy, you might spend some time going over how you handle that. Do you encrypt your hard drives? How much effort do you go through to truly retain your data are private? Also, of course, what sort of contractual obligations to you have to do so? Make sure the guy really understands all this stuff, and see if his concerns go away.

It's possible that the guy is simply wigged out at the idea of having naked pictures of himself "out there" which I can understand, intellectually.

Photographers DO from time to time do, um, work for hire, isn't it called? You shoot some stuff, you turn it over, you're done. The copyrights and everything go to the client, you retain nothing. So, it's a real thing. Photographers hate it, I think, simply because the business models that have been developed are wrapped around retaining the copyrights. If he wants the RAWs to edit himself, and wants you to retain no copies, then the issue of who holds the copyright is arguably close to moot, so he's asking for something pretty close to "work for hire." Let's think about it in that light.

Things to consider: 

- is there a possibility of repeat business from the customer under your normal contract?
- how much will they give you, given that work for hire normally comes in at a substantially higher hourly rate than other work (or SHOULD at any rate)?
- are you ok with work for hire? Are you cash strapped?
- is this going to queer your business model going forward -- is this guy going to blab it around town that you can be had for hire, cheap, or what?

Ultiimately, it's up to you of course. If you want to work for free, keep the RAW but give the customer your camera, trade prints for chickens, it's all up to you, and it's all probably been done.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 21, 2012)

Welcome to the forum!

You refer to your contract in your post. It's there for a reason. If you value your business plan, I'd suggest sticking to it. Once this guy tells his friends what you did for him, you can't exactly refuse the next prospect who wants the same privileges.


----------



## MTVision (Jul 21, 2012)

amolitor said:
			
		

> Computers get stolen, people lose flash cards, computers get viruses, teenagers go through dad's computer while he's away for laughs, etc etc. If the guy has actual concerns about privacy, you might spend some time going over how you handle that. Do you encrypt your hard drives? How much effort do you go through to truly retain your data are private? Also, of course, what sort of contractual obligations to you have to do so? Make sure the guy really understands all this stuff, and see if his concerns go away.
> 
> It's possible that the guy is simply wigged out at the idea of having naked pictures of himself "out there" which I can understand, intellectually.
> 
> ...



OP's profile says they are in Canada so I believe, unless their contract states otherwise, copyright belongs to the buyer anyways. 

Is the Prospective customer aware of what unedited means? Do they know what Raw files are and that special software is needed to view/edit them? If you are willing to just give them the files without you editing them then you could just shoot in JPEG and give them those.


----------



## Tee (Jul 21, 2012)

Up your rate.  $100 per RAW file.  Shoot in burst mode.  Buy more gear.


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 21, 2012)

The client has a justified concern and a position as does the photographer.
There's no 'right' way here.

The only issue is whether this pair reach an agreement where both sides are satisfied.


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 21, 2012)

Charge extra , give them what they want...if you are a $ tog.


----------



## KmH (Jul 21, 2012)

I agree with The_Traveler (post #4 and post #9) and also recommend that an added PITA fee would likely be in order.

*All* the images I make include a discount based on the assumption the client will be granting me a release (it's part of the contract) to use any images I make to promote my business, which is mentioned in the terms and conditions portion of my contract.

I am quite happy to accommodate a client that does not wish to grant a release, but in doing so the client loses that standard discount, and may in fact incur an additional charge for the added paperwork.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 22, 2012)

LOL or be like the fly-by-night CL wedding shooters and give them the SD card when the shoot is over  "they're your problem now, *****!"


----------



## orljustin (Jul 23, 2012)

KmH said:


> I agree with The_Traveler (post #4 and post #9) and also recommend that an added PITA fee would likely be in order.
> 
> *All* the images I make include a discount based on the assumption the client will be granting me a release (it's part of the contract) to use any images I make to promote my business, which is mentioned in the terms and conditions portion of my contract.
> 
> I am quite happy to accommodate a client that does not wish to grant a release, but in doing so the client loses that standard discount, and may in fact incur an additional charge for the added paperwork.



That's pretty rude.  It isn't my job to provide you with advertising fodder.  If you want to promote your business so bad, hire some models and shoot them.

To the OP.  Either accommodate the request and get paid, or don't.  If your initial sitting fee doesn't cover what you normally make from prints or whatever, just raise your sitting fee.  Give him the shots and move on.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 23, 2012)

orljustin said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with The_Traveler (post #4 and post #9) and also recommend that an added PITA fee would likely be in order.
> ...



:raisedbrow: Huh??? How is it "rude" to showcase your own work?? That makes no sense to me.

OP: I have no experience in any of that whatsoever, but the advice from Traveler and KmH seems pretty solid to me.


----------



## orljustin (Jul 23, 2012)

It's rude because I'm paying you to take my photo, not to be your personal advertising model, and you want to charge higher than normal rates for "paperwork".  If you want to showcase your work, go shoot some landscapes or hire some models who want to do commercial work.


----------



## tirediron (Jul 23, 2012)

orljustin said:
			
		

> It's rude because I'm paying you to take my photo, not to be your personal advertising model, and you want to charge higher than normal rates for "paperwork".  If you want to showcase your work, go shoot some landscapes or hire some models who want to do commercial work.



Call me rude then. All of my contracts have a codicil which states that I retain copyright and the right to use all images for self-promotion, professional accreditation, etc. I think you'll find it's pretty standard.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 23, 2012)

Yeah. Even my contracts included this provision, and anyone who knows me knows how I feel about exclusive copyright holdings.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 23, 2012)

I'm fascinated by this use of the word "rude". It appears to mean "offering me a contract which is not to my liking"?

If you think that constitutes "rudeness" you must spend most of your life being annoyed.


----------



## unpopular (Jul 23, 2012)

... or violating contracts.


----------



## orljustin (Jul 23, 2012)

You can hold copyright all you like.  I'm still not patronizing a photographer who feels the need to use a client as their advertising fodder as a standard.  I'll pay an appropriate sitting fee for digital images.  I might even buy prints.  But you don't get to use me as your next facebook post.

Now, it might be different, if, after the fact, you came back and said "Hey, I have this one really amazing image - I'd like to use it in my portfolio.  Would that be ok?" And then I might agree.  But I'm not giving you cart blanche to take anything you like from our session for your own use.


----------



## sm4him (Jul 23, 2012)

orljustin said:


> *You can hold copyright all you like*.  I'm still not patronizing a photographer who feels the need to use a client as their advertising fodder as a standard.  I'll pay an appropriate sitting fee for digital images.  I might even buy prints.  But you don't get to use me as your next facebook post.
> 
> Now, it might be different, if, after the fact, you came back and said "Hey, I have this one really amazing image - I'd like to use it in my portfolio.  Would that be ok?" And then I might agree.  *But I'm not giving you cart blanche to take anything you like from our session for your own use.*



Again, HuH?? :scratch:

If I hold the copyright--which you admit that I would, and you have "no problem with"--then it is NOT yours to GIVE me "carte blanche" to use MY photo for MY own use.  Rather, the price I charge you gives YOu the rights I agree to. So, if you would like to have the right to keep ME from using my OWN photo...yeah, that's gonna cost you extra.

EDIT: OP, I apologize for the hijack. I'm probably gonna have to stop reading this thread to keep from hijacking it again.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 23, 2012)

orljustin said:
			
		

> It's rude because I'm paying you to take my photo, not to be your personal advertising model, and you want to charge higher than normal rates for "paperwork".  If you want to showcase your work, go shoot some landscapes or hire some models who want to do commercial work.



That's pretty much the most ridiculous thing I've read on here. EVERY creative professional I know (photog, graphic design, architect, etc.) uses their past successes to advertise for future clients. It's general practice and a basic fundamental of marketing.

If you want to deprive a photographer of the ability to showcase his/her work, that's fine. But you can damn well expect to pay for that privilege.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 23, 2012)

orljustin said:
			
		

> You can hold copyright all you like.  I'm still not patronizing a photographer who feels the need to use a client as their advertising fodder as a standard.  I'll pay an appropriate sitting fee for digital images.  I might even buy prints.  But you don't get to use me as your next facebook post.
> 
> Now, it might be different, if, after the fact, you came back and said "Hey, I have this one really amazing image - I'd like to use it in my portfolio.  Would that be ok?" And then I might agree.  But I'm not giving you cart blanche to take anything you like from our session for your own use.



I'm not sure your choice of words or your aggressive tone suggest you have any desire to talk about this reasonably. You're just pecking out irritated sounding talking points.

Simple fact is, if I hold the copyright to the images I produce for you, I don't need your permission to use them for marketing purposes. Now, it's common courtesy to alert a client of the PRIVILEGE of being featured in a marketing piece, but certainly not required.

So, you can drop the attitude and accept the norms of the industry, or just hire a pushover photog who values a few bucks more than their marketing freedom.

OP: sorry for the hijack. I couldn't let this nonsense go uncorrected.


----------



## orljustin (Jul 23, 2012)

sm4him said:


> orljustin said:
> 
> 
> > If I hold the copyright--which you admit that I would, and you have "no problem with"--then it is NOT yours to GIVE me "carte blanche" to use MY photo for MY own use.  Rather, the price I charge you gives YOu the rights I agree to. So, if you would like to have the right to keep ME from using my OWN photo...yeah, that's gonna cost you extra.
> ...


----------



## orljustin (Jul 23, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> orljustin said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 23, 2012)

Generally speaking, you are 100% incorrect. As a creative, I dictate to the client the rights they have with the image under my contract. 

If they want privileges that differ from my contract, they can pay for them. And, FYI an "exclusive" license just means that I agree not to license the image(s) to anyone else. It means nothing towards what I can use them for myself.

You might want to read up on copyright and licensing laws before you post more patently false statements.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 23, 2012)

I still don't see why it's "rude".


----------



## The_Traveler (Jul 23, 2012)

This is a silly argument between both sides who want to claim a right or privilege that doesn't exist in law until a contract is signed.
There is no 'right' to use the work you create, just a standard practice enforced by contract and, in the absence of written contract, by copyright law.
There is no right to pay for a service and to insist that the service product be the payor's exclusive property unless there is a specific arrangement reinforced by contract.

Photographers' standard  practice is to retain copyright ownership in return for a discounted rate.

If the payor does not want that standard practice, he or she is certainly free to contract for a work for hire or go to a different photographer.
There's no moral/ethical issue here.

The copyright law exists to clear up any ambiguity of ownership in favor of the creator as a sensible default - in the US and other countries.


----------



## rokvi (Jul 23, 2012)

amolitor said:


> I still don't see why it's "rude".



[/QUOTE]

That's pretty rude.  It isn't my job to provide you with advertising fodder.  If you want to promote your business so bad, hire some models and shoot them.
[/QUOTE]

You are the one who said it was rude. A "signed" contract is a contract either way. If you sign a contract saying that the photog has a right to use those images as he sees fit, then you are giving him the right to use them. If not. Don't sign! Also a lot of clients don't actually mind if their images are on a professional site. As for the reason why a photographer uses them is because using a payed model is just that. Any one can pay some models, and have a web page full of them. A happy client is also just that, and can be used as such.  Proof that the photog has happy customers.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 23, 2012)

Agree with Traveller's points 100%.

On rudeness... To the person who posed that concept, something to consider: most clients want to see that you have the actual situational experience for any given type of shoot.  Hiring a model (or anything like it) does not exactly reflect that. Losing the rights to showcase your work then becomes very painful for the photographer, thus the various positions to that effect.

I understand where you're coming from... It's just not anywhere near practical to think that way until the market expectations change.


----------



## KmH (Jul 23, 2012)

orljustin said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with The_Traveler (post #4 and post #9) and also recommend that an added PITA fee would likely be in order.
> ...


How can it be rude? If the client doesn't like the terms of the deal, they can choose to go to another photographer.

As mentioned by others, the chances are high they will encounter pretty much the same contract language with most other photographers.

Those that sign my model release *do* get paid for me to use their image, in the form of the discount they get. 

What country are you in?


----------



## cosmonaut (Jul 23, 2012)

The customer is always right. It's good business to be that way.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 23, 2012)

cosmonaut said:
			
		

> The customer is always right. It's good business to be that way.



That's a silly idealistic ideology that worked better in a time when customers were a little less inclined to make ridiculous business-ending requests.

What happens if your customer demands that you give them the camera the images were taken with, or requires you to travel 500 miles, or requires you to have a second shooter ... even though nothing like that was in the contract?  Is the customer always right then?

Stop wasting everyone's time with glib meaningless remarks.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 23, 2012)

I've only ever turned over my CF card once, and that came at a steep price that the client was willing to pay.

I would price this shoot far above a normal shoot, and I would explain why. If he has the RAW, unedited images, and asks you to destroy any and all copies, then that has to come at a price. I would do it, but it wouldn't be cheap...


----------



## CMfromIL (Jul 23, 2012)

I fail to see the quandry the OP appears to think that he's in?  Unless he's going to specialize in "nude males doing erotic things", I fail to see how these photographs could even be used (or would be used) in a portfolio.

Clearly the client wishes for the pictures, and wants to keep them private.  If the price is good, I don't see the harm in handing them all over.  This isn't a run of the mill request, for run of the mill pictures.

If anything the OP will still get the 'experience' of taking the shots, but just won't have the final product.  That doesn't detract from the real world experience of taking the shots.

Just settle on a good price, take the shots, turn over the files (even better have the client provide the memory card) and go home with some cash in your pocket.

I fail to see how that would result in the OP causing long term harm to his business model.  In fact, he might get more business if he is seen as 'discreet'.  Just my $.02


----------



## orljustin (Jul 25, 2012)

CMfromIL said:


> I fail to see the quandry the OP appears to think that he's in?  Unless he's going to specialize in "nude males doing erotic things", I fail to see how these photographs could even be used (or would be used) in a portfolio.
> 
> Clearly the client wishes for the pictures, and wants to keep them private.  If the price is good, I don't see the harm in handing them all over.  This isn't a run of the mill request, for run of the mill pictures.
> 
> ...



Apparently, I'm not the only person not interesting in being a promotional model:

Client asking for the Copyright to my pictures - Photo.net Forums


----------



## Studio7Four (Jul 26, 2012)

OP - welcome to the forum.  Hopefully the hijacking of your thread hasn't scared you away.

It seems to me that the relevant point to the OP's issue isn't that the customer retains the only copies of the images (the OP is only assuming, after all, that the customer will demand the OP destroy all other copies after handing them over), it's that the customer is asking to receive *unedited *images .  Unedited images are not representative of the quality of a photographer's work and are generally not something that a photographer wants out in public with his/her name attached...at the very least, because they'll appear soft.  I can certainly foresee situations in this kind of a shoot in which the photographer knows that editing will be needed (changing aperture on the fly for artistic DoF reasons, creating an improperly exposed image; changing shooting position which puts something in the background to be cloned out).

My first recommendation is to keep the lines of communication with the customer open - for example, clear up the assumption about deleting your copies (that's the only area in which the erotic nature of the shoot is relevant, IMO).  As for handing over unedited photos, which it sounds like you've done before, treat this just like any other work for hire situation you've been in.  Decide how much it's worth to you, and if you're worried about the quality of images should they get out to the public make sure there is language in the contract protecting you in that way.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 26, 2012)

cosmonaut said:
			
		

> The customer is always right. It's good business to be that way.



You are correct. However, there's an important difference between a customer and a CLIENT. A client is under contract, and the (well written) signed contract is always right.


----------



## bratkinson (Jul 27, 2012)

I'm not clear whether the customer what's the RAW images to do his own editing or simply to eliminate their improper distribution.

If the former, then I'd have to ask if he has appropriate software and skills and printing equipment to produce results as good as yours.  If the latter, I can fully understand his position.  He may be an executive of some well-known company and pictures like these could not only ruin his career, but also the public image of that company.

I'm going to assume he wants the 'full package', including prints, and maybe finished JPGs, but really wants to ensure that the images never get seen by anyone other than himself and his lady friend.  I really don't have a problem with that.  If you really would like to use a single image for potential advertising, let him choose it, and make sure it's a waist-up shot only...or in a swimsuit.  But he may still not want anything of the kind floating around in cyberspace.  

As noted earlier, what's there to ensure to him (the customer) that the pictures will never get (wrongfully) distributed, whether by intent or accident?  I think he has the right to guarantee that they NEVER go anywhere but home with him.  Even sample printouts the size of a contact print.  Think of it like government classified material on a computer.  All other hard drives must be locked out while processing classified data, and even impact printer ribbons must be securely stored after printing classified data.  In the case of a small photography business, what's to prevent your entire computer being stolen, or even your backup harddrive misplaced and falls into the wrong hands?

Part of me says take the pictures, take the money, give him the memory cards and be done with it.  Or, let him watch over your shoulder as you process the pictures and print them, make a CD of them, and then delete everything off your computer.  Note: a simple 'delete' doesn't erase them, you need a 'secure delete' capability to truly make them gone forever.  Alternatively, defrag your hard drive(s) after deleting them.

Lastly, as a former contract computer consultant for most of my lifetime, With rare exception, the contract specifically stated that everything I wrote was 'work made for hire' and was property of the customer.  The 'work made for hire' clause is big in legal terms which I don't fully understand.  At most, I may have kept a printout of some technical routine fragment, but that's about it.  I could really care less about keeping the guts of a city payroll calculation program or inventory system I wrote along the way.  

Maybe someday in the future, you'll get a good laugh telling friends or other clients about 'the guy who wanted to keep the RAW files' but didn't have any photo editing software or whatever.  For now, get it ALL in writing, do the shoot, give him the files, and keep the money.  Use some other pictures for advertising.


----------



## amolitor (Jul 27, 2012)

It's entirely possible the guy just can't bear the thought of the photographer laboring away in photoshop for hours and hours and hours airbrushing away on his (the customer's) penis.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 27, 2012)

I think OP may have bailed on this thread long ago...


----------

