# Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?



## DGMPhotography (Apr 18, 2017)

So, as the title says, a lady I did a headshot for has emailed me and asked me to take her photo off my website. 

I own the copyright to all the photos, and it's stated in the contract as such, and that any and all photos can be used for promotional purposes. 

I'm thinking I'll just take it down to avoid the hassle, but still... kind of annoying. Anyone have experience with situations like this?


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 18, 2017)

only had it happen once.
i would not take the pictures down.
sounds like a dick move, but heres why...

our contract stated that prices paid were based on us being able to use the pictures for promotional purposes, advertising, etc etc...
basically, it said that the clients got a discount because we placed a certain value on using those photos ourselves.
IF the client wanted exclusivity, then they had to pay a premium for that, forgoing the discounted price.
noone ever wanted to pay triple the price, so we used the photos.
the ONE time it actually came up, the client decided they didnt want their picture online and demanded I take it down.
I told them that was fine, all they had to do was pay me the money for non-usage as stated in their signed contract.
they didnt want to pay, so i left the photos up. simple as that.
explaining that we use the photos for promotions and advertising was always part of our pitch, so it shouldn't ever have been a surprise. 

in your case, I still wouldnt do it. you own the copyright.
if they want to buy that from you, decide on a number and get some more money since you will lose the pictures value as advertising.
if you do it for nothing, you are saying those pictures have no value to you...basically devaluing yourself.


----------



## Overread (Apr 18, 2017)

Life will throw you many challenges - sometimes you've got to learn where to and which fights it presents are worth fighting for. 

As said you've the full legal right to display the photos (as it sounds and according to common understanding of law - this doesn't mean actual law because that's slightly different); so legally you don't have to take it down.

Morally its up to you to decide. You can do as Pix said and take a hard line and turn it into a potential financial earner - that's not criminal although some might consider it a cheap move -but then it depends on how your business is structured and where you make your profits from. If its prints and sales then its a sensible management approach toward protecting YOUR legal rights whilst addressing the WISHES of your client.

Another angle is to ask what the reasoning is; many people might not be happy with their photo so you might turn it into a repeat client. Pitch to them that if they hate the photo that much they can get a shoot with you to correct it (maybe or maybe not at discount - if you do then make it clear its a once-off and not normal policy) - might be you do it at discount (encouraging them to part with money) or at full price or free (I wouldn't recommend the latter - if it gets out everyone will complain to get their free re-shoot)

Another angle would be to simply to remove the photo. 


Sometimes you have to ask yourself - is it WORTH the fight and the bad reputation (reputations are really odd - sometimes you can have insults left right and centre and do well = other times one bad comment in the right place at the right time can destroy a persons business). You can always make it clear that you don't have to; that you've no legal requirement , but that you are choosing to take it down. 

Really depends - just remember that whatever you decide its not just influencing this photo; but the next and the next and the next. A hard line can be more sensible to avoid having problems; but at the same time you've got to factor in how often this is likely to happen and if your method is good; if you have decent clients and if you pro-actively avoid signing with bad clients then you might only encounter this once or twice.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 18, 2017)

Looks like @Overread pretty much covered it.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 18, 2017)

I got a nickel that says she'd not hesitate one d*#&ed bit if she wanted to use the photo any d!@#ed way she wanted to.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 18, 2017)

Yeah, I want to stand my ground and say no... but on the other hand, she's actually a somewhat influential figure in the theatre community (which I'm trying to break into), so it's probably not worth the trouble.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 18, 2017)

_"If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."_ - Margaret Thatcher


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 18, 2017)

I say nuke her from orbit. its the only way to be sure.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 18, 2017)

If she requested nicely ... then what the hay ... I would take it down. If she's being a jerk ... most likely, I would not.  If you do remove it.  Do it nicely, (when they go low ... we go high), and remind her that, per the contract, you are not obligated to do so.  (Insert contract text.)


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2017)

Pick your battles carefully. 

       ~ Chandler Bing, from _Friends_


----------



## orljustin (Apr 18, 2017)

You know what's a good idea?  Not trying to get money out of people AND use them as advertising fodder at the same time.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 18, 2017)

orljustin said:


> You know what's a good idea?  Not trying to get money out of people AND use them as advertising fodder at the same time.



I think many people who make a living out of this would disagree with you.

In any event, I decided to take it down. It's not worth the trouble. And I'm not successful enough in photography yet to warrant making enemies at this time. 

Thanks for the thoughts and comments, everyone!


----------



## Scoody (Apr 19, 2017)

I am with pixmedic on this one.  My contracts always state that we can use OUR photos for promotional purposes.  If they don't agree, there is a premium to be paid for that.  I had also come across the odd client that wants every single photo from a shoot.  Even the out takes.  I never agree to this one for no amount of money.  When I hand over a DVD or prints, it has my best work from that particular shoot.  I do not leave anything that is not up to my standards out there.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 19, 2017)

orljustin said:


> You know what's a good idea?  Not trying to get money out of people AND use them as advertising fodder at the same time.


Or people could just read the contract they sign. 
Or pay the extra fee for the copyright. 

You just don't get it. 
This is how photography works. It's how it's always worked. 
that "client" seems like the kind of person that wants the premium service without having to pay for it.
The person that asks for all the extras after they have already paid for just the basic stuff, and actually expects it.

People like that should just get a Craigslist or FB photographer to do the work that will give them unlimited photos with copyrights for $40 and stop bothering real photographers.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk


----------



## tirediron (Apr 19, 2017)

orljustin said:


> You know what's a good idea?  Not trying to get money out of people AND use them as advertising fodder at the same time.


I've heard this comment before and it puzzles me... First and foremost, as a visual artist, how am I supposed to demonstrate my craft to potential clients without showing them examples?  Would you commission an artist, or a carpenter, or a mechanic without at least some evidence of his ability?  It might come down to a decision between photographer 'X' and photographer 'Y'.  They're both excellent, very skilled, and able to do the job, but have VERY different styles.  How would I, as a client, know which one I prefer?

Also, as do many (most), including the OP, I set my base rate contingent on the client's agreement to use their images in my portfolio.  If the client wants to pay 50% more, I'm happy to remove them, but if they choose the lower rate based on that condition, why should they have their cake and eat it to?

Now... that said:  This is a tricky one, because one word of mouth is HUGE, and people aren't going to hear your side of the issue when she complains about you.  Do you think this women can do you significant harm?  If not, ignore her.  If so, then contact her, ask her why she'd like her image removed, and explain that she agreed to this based on the price she paid.  My initial reaction would, I think, be to agree if she's willing to pay a bit more.  It doesn't have to be a lot, even 10%; just enough to get the message across.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 19, 2017)

I wonder how many times she's used it on facebook, instagram, or even some local publication, etc.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 19, 2017)

I see that the decision to take it down, has already been made.  I don't disagree with that, it's a tough spot to be in.

But I would hope that you used this as an opportunity to educate the client....Letting her know that you didn't have to take it down just because she asked.  You hold the rights to the image and you make the call.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 19, 2017)

See, if this was me, I'd go out of my way to put that same image on a billboard that you know she'll see...


----------



## table1349 (Apr 19, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Yeah, I want to stand my ground and say no... but on the other hand, she's actually a somewhat influential figure in the theatre community (which I'm trying to break into), so it's probably not worth the trouble.


Which is exactly why I would not take it down.  You have now set a precedent with an "Influential figure" in the market you want to enter.  Those in that market will now expect the same treatment as you gave her.  Will they choose to ask, that is unknown, but if they do you now have no argument but to bow to their wishes.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 19, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> DGMPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, I want to stand my ground and say no... but on the other hand, she's actually a somewhat influential figure in the theatre community (which I'm trying to break into), so it's probably not worth the trouble.
> ...


It is called 'retention'.  I don't think honoring a simple request which doesn't cost a dime, nor will the request, (most likely), cost him any future customers.  Potentially, leaving the image up, will have an adverse effect upon attracting new customers.

People believe they have a God given right to their likeness.  It doesn't matter what the contract states or where the image is captured (public) ... they feel it is their image and they should be able to decide the future of their image.  By not taking it down, you are pissing off the client, who will now go out and badmouth DGM Photography to other potential clients ... et cetera.  In a week, DGM Photography will be riding a rail out of town covered in tar and feathers. Why ... just so he can make a point that his will and contract is stronger than her will and desires. This is business, who gives a rat's about the size of one's will in business.

Derrel is right, "Pick your battles carefully."


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 19, 2017)

Yeah, I did make sure to educate her on the fact that I DO have the right to her photo, but decided to take it down. 

Like I said, my business isn't successful enough yet to make enemies.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 19, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> Derrel is right, "Pick your battles carefully."



Good business practices unfortunately dictate biting your tongue sometimes and giving a little to gain more.


----------



## limr (Apr 19, 2017)

And not for nothing, but business isn't always about sticking strictly to the letter of the contract and shoving it down the client's throat. Customer service and respecting clients is a part of the business as well. I understand the reasons why someone might want to stand their ground and keep the photo up, but I'm quite frankly disappointed in the suggestion that amounted to "Screw her, make her even more visible just out of spite!"

She may not have the legal right to insist on her image being removed from promotion materials, but as long as she's not being a jerk about the request, and it's not going to make a difference in terms of promoting the business, why not just accommodate her? (OP, I know you already did - that was a rhetorical question.) It's like a restaurant who will comp one meal, knowing it will satisfy an annoyed customer and increase the likelihood that those same customers will keep coming back and paying for many more meals than the one they complained about.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 19, 2017)

And you never know when/where you may run into someone again years down the road... I think your reputation depends a good bit on how you treat people.

If you try to be gracious and accommodating (within reason) while still providing guidelines and info. on usage etc. I find it can work to give a reminder, and figure out how to work something out for whatever circumstances.

Might be a good idea to look at the contract/info. on your website and clarify what is meant by promotional use. I think there may be more concern by people because of social media etc. - they can't be sure where their photo may be posted or shared or where it may end up or how it may be used.

(edit - If in the future someone asks about promotional use and pricing and it's different than what this woman may have told them, explain how procedures and prices are periodically updated and have changed since she had her portrait done.)


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 19, 2017)

Unfortunately... I have a juicy update for you all.

This was her response when I said I would take it down, but that I do - in fact- own the photo.

Hey CLIENT:

It's good to hear from you - thanks for your email! I hope all is well.

While I do retain the legal right to use any of our photos for promotional purposes, I don't mind taking it down for you since you asked.

Please let me know if there is anything else I can do for you.

Best wishes,

Daryll Morgan | Photographer
www.daryllmorgan.com

-
-
-


Hi Daryll,

Thank you for understanding.

THEATRE, one of the most hospitable theatres in the area, gives neophytes in every nook and cranny of the business an opportunity to learn and grow, including their own _volunteer _board and staff. I believe that THEATRE leadership naively mislead you as you navigate the ropes on the business end of your blossoming photography company. And I have addressed this issue with the THEATRE board.

THEATRE Theatre, "tagline" has no right to usurp the actor's ownership of his image, his stock-in-trade. I realize that THEATRE is not an AEA house, yet to put things in perspective, The Actors Equity Association (Article 52 in the AEA Rule Book) puts it this way:

_(F) The Producer must obtain the Actor's prior written authorization before the Actor's picture may be used in conjunction with a commercial product and said authorization must specify the commercial product involved._


_(1) If the Actor consents to the use of Actor's name, voice, or photographic likeness, as aforesaid, Actor shall be paid not less than $300 for said use. Actors called to a picture call for the purpose described above, whether said call is at the theatre or elsewhere, shall be paid not less than $200 per hour for said call, but shall be paid no additional sums for the use of pictures taken during said call. (See Rule 39(D)(1)(c) where still photos are utilized to make a commercial.)_


_(2) This requirement shall not apply to the so-called institutional ads similar in type to the department store ads on file at the offices of Equity and the League._


You can find the complete Article 52. PHOTOGRAPHS, PUBLICITY AND PROMOTION here: http://www.actorsequity.org/docs/rulebooks/Production_Rulebook_League_11-15.pdf



The phrase _"In conjunction with a commercial product"_ includes the "product" in a photographer's business. Most actors in RVA are more than happy to attend photo calls without financial compensation in exchange for the theatre company publicity that will entice audiences to see our work. When you see popular RVA Theatre headshot photographers NAMES, NAMES, NAMES, and others use a person's headshot in publicity for their own photography work, they use headshots for which they were contracted by and with permission from the actor.

I appreciate your kind response to my request, Daryll, and will enjoy following the growth and success of your photography business.

Best wishes,
~ CLIENT




Rather condescending, if you ask me.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 19, 2017)

Wait..  What?!?

They expect you to abide by a *third party's* rules? When did you agree to that?


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 19, 2017)

Then why did she sign the contract?  I think your contract may prevail in a court of law.  Next time you shoot an actor, add some verbiage that "this contract supersedes any existing personal/association/guild/union agreements, contracts and understandings."


----------



## table1349 (Apr 19, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Unfortunately... I have a juicy update for you all.
> 
> This was her response when I said I would take it down, but that I do - in fact- own the photo.
> 
> ...


Exactly the kind of reason for my two replies:
Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?
Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?

You have set a precedent to abide by their so called rules.

If it was I in that position I would immediately reply explaining that 
1.  What you did, was done out of kindness.
2.  That their guild and it's rules are totally meaningless to you and your profession.
3.  She signed a legally binding contract wherein she agreed that you as legal copyright holder could at your discretion use them for advertising purposes.
4.  If any image taken by you is used in any manner other than for personal, non professional/promotional use you as copyright holder will purse the matter without just compensation.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 19, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Exactly the kind of reason for my two replies:
> Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?
> Lady asked me to remove her photo from my site?
> 
> You have set a precedent to abide by their so called rules.



Not necessarily. I'm talking with the theatre, and we're going to make sure from here out that the actors know before they accept a role that their likeness can be used by me and the theatre indefinitely. I was under the impression the theatre was already communicating this, but it seems that wasn't the case.


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 19, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> Then why did she sign the contract?  I think your contract may prevail in a court of law.  Next time you shoot an actor, add some verbiage that "this contract supersedes any existing personal/association/guild/union agreements, contracts and understandings."



Why complicate a contract with, what seems to me, something that's unnecessary? Any agreement between the the OPs client and a third party does not extend to the OP and his client.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 19, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > Then why did she sign the contract?  I think your contract may prevail in a court of law.  Next time you shoot an actor, add some verbiage that "this contract supersedes any existing personal/association/guild/union agreements, contracts and understandings."
> ...



Yeah, I have no agreement with their union lol.


----------



## Derrel (Apr 19, 2017)

Wow...she replied in a most A-holeish manner.  What a *****g _*prima donna*_ she obviously is!

(prima donna: a temperamental person; a person who takes adulation and privileged treatment as a right and *reacts with petulance* to criticism or inconvenience.)


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 19, 2017)

Yeah, the theatre got back to me and apparently she was being rude with them too. They're a non-union theatre, so her union doesn't apply to ANYONE. LOL. We've just decided to say screw it and leave it alone, and make sure all future actors are compliant from the get-go.


----------



## Gary A. (Apr 19, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> > Then why did she sign the contract?  I think your contract may prevail in a court of law.  Next time you shoot an actor, add some verbiage that "this contract supersedes any existing personal/association/guild/union agreements, contracts and understandings."
> ...


You do that to be perfectly clear.  In attorney-speak, you tell them what you're going to say, say it, then tell them what you said.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 20, 2017)

If photos were done related to the theater production that's different than someone getting a portrait done for personal use. I know sports not theater but it sounds like you need to find out more about how you can use photos you're taking for the theater production or in their venue (if that's the case). In sports the team has the players' rights/contract, and rights to the team logo, team name, etc. and make the decisions on marketing, usage, etc. 

The client's interpretation of promotional use is probably different than yours. Seems like she's talking more about how a theater or producer can use actor's images and time, etc. Clarify the wording in your contract, and maybe it needs to be a different one for taking photos for the theater.


----------



## Light Guru (Apr 20, 2017)

Send her a copy of the contract she signed and put the photo back up on your website.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 20, 2017)

vintagesnaps said:


> If photos were done related to the theater production that's different than someone getting a portrait done for personal use. I know sports not theater but it sounds like you need to find out more about how you can use photos you're taking for the theater production or in their venue (if that's the case). In sports the team has the players' rights/contract, and rights to the team logo, team name, etc. and make the decisions on marketing, usage, etc.
> 
> The client's interpretation of promotional use is probably different than yours. Seems like she's talking more about how a theater or producer can use actor's images and time, etc. Clarify the wording in your contract, and maybe it needs to be a different one for taking photos for the theater.



Section 7 of my contract: 


7. Model Release


The Client hereby grants to the Photographer and its legal representatives and assigns, the irrevocable and unrestricted right to use and publish photographs of the Assignment, its guests, attendees, and officials for editorial, trade, advertising, stock, commercial and any other purpose and in any manner and medium; to alter the same without restriction; and to copyright the same. The Client hereby releases the Photographer and his legal representatives and assigns from all claims and liability relating to said photographs.


----------



## dnlphoto (Apr 20, 2017)

Words of mouth travel fast. Sometimes it doesn't matter much what is stated in the contract. Like many have said, "pick your battle". We have clients that prohibited us from using their photos on our websites, social media, and prints.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 20, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Yeah, the theatre got back to me and apparently she was being rude with them too. They're a non-union theatre, so her union doesn't apply to ANYONE. LOL. We've just decided to say screw it and leave it alone, and make sure all future actors are compliant from the get-go.


Sounds like an ego problem


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 20, 2017)

Gary A. said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Gary A. said:
> ...



Perfectly clear on what?  What already is perfectly clear without including a word about it?

Why not state that your contract supersedes any contract the client has with their bank?  Or their tax attorney?  How about the publisher they're contracted with for their biography?  Or any other contract the client has with someone else that has no bearing or legal weight with your own dealings?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 20, 2017)

the billboard just got 2 feet taller.


serious question:  were you hired by the actor directly, or through the theater?


----------



## JonA_CT (Apr 20, 2017)

Braineack said:


> the billboard just got 2 feet taller.
> 
> 
> serious question:  were you hired by the actor directly, or through the theater?



I was wondering the same thing. I'd guess it becomes stickier if the theater company hired you -- then, the actor didn't sign anything, right?


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 20, 2017)

All my contracts stipulate that the customer, and anyone associated or not associated with them, are liable for any and all expenses in relation to anything related to, or not related to, any claims against me or anyone else that I may or may not know.

kinda absurd at this point ...  just someone with a BIG ego.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 20, 2017)

My contract is with the theatre, not the actors individually. And part of that contract, since they're not paying me what I'd like to be paid, is that any of the photos we take (including headshots, and promotional/stage photos) are available for my portfolio and promotion.


----------



## tirediron (Apr 20, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> My contract is with the theatre, not the actors individually. And part of that contract, since they're not paying me what I'd like to be paid, is that any of the photos we take (including headshots, and promotional/stage photos) are available for my portfolio and promotion.


My earlier advice on the business side notwithstanding, having read the response from 'er nibs, I would say stick to that to the letter.


----------



## Light Guru (Apr 20, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> right to use and publish photographs of the Assignment, its guests, attendees, and officials





DGMPhotography said:


> My contract is with the theatre, not the actors individually



So she didn't sign it?  You cannot hold a guest or attendees who did not sign your contract to the contract!

Thats just like her trying to tell you you have to abide by her theatre association rules. 

I resend my previous comment.  Remove the photo from your website.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 20, 2017)

The theater should have an written agreement with the actors regarding use of their likeness for publicxity ourposes.
If not, in the future, the OP needs to establish a formal relationship with the subject just to protect himself.


----------



## weepete (Apr 20, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> _"If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."_ - Margaret Thatcher



Not the best person to quote. And if she wasn't that concered about being liked she wouldn't have got a voice coach  to help her being vocally more appealing.


----------



## weepete (Apr 20, 2017)

Ouch! A perfectly resonable reply from you granted their wishes and was met by an arsey veiled threat. 

Question: was the shot taken at a show where the public had access or at an event on the theature's premisis where other people were present?

Seems like they are trying to imply that by any use of their image it's advertising if it was in the UK and they are in a premisis that they are aware the public has access to you have every right to take and keep copyright. I would seriously fight this now.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 20, 2017)

weepete said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > _"If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."_ - Margaret Thatcher
> ...


I think the BBC summed it up quite nicely. 


_“Thatcher was Britain’s most important politician of the postwar era, her only rival for that title being Clement Attlee, creator of the welfare state. Her critics forget or ignore just how parlous was the state of Britain in 1979, and offer no credible policy alternatives about how the country could have been saved from union tyranny, hugely inefficient and loss-making state-owned industries, the stagnation of enterprise.

 Her contribution to making Britain once more a viable proposition is almost impossible to overstate, but nor will history ignore the brutality and insensitivity with which she imposed some of her policies, especially in Wales and Scotland."_
What is the nature of Margaret Thatcher's legacy?

Was she perfect?  No.  Was she influential?  Yes.  Did she leave her mark on Britain and the world.  Undoubtedly.


----------



## weepete (Apr 20, 2017)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I think the BBC summed it up quite nicely.
> 
> _“Thatcher was Britain’s most important politician of the postwar era, her only rival for that title being Clement Attlee, creator of the welfare state. Her critics forget or ignore just how parlous was the state of Britain in 1979, and offer no credible policy alternatives about how the country could have been saved from union tyranny, hugely inefficient and loss-making state-owned industries, the stagnation of enterprise.
> 
> ...



Aye and we are not allowed to do politics here bud. And aye, she did leave a stain on British politics forever. You must be too young to remenber.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 20, 2017)

The actors have an understanding with the theatre that any and all photos can be used for promotion.

I think the issue is between what the theatre has communicated to its actors, and I'm kind of stuck in the crossfire. Even so, I still retain the rights to my photos. 

But like I said, we will make sure to reinforce that with future actors so there's no confusion.

Oh, and look at this lovely "apology" she sent me the next day. 

-
-

Hi Daryll,

Please accept my apology. Since I wrote you last night, I learned that NAME did pay you for the opportunity to use the headshot you took of him. Unless he signed a release beforehand, requesting his permission to use his headshot in your ad would have been prudent, as he was surprised to see it show up there, yet it does open my eyes to the big picture. 

Having recognized NAME's photograph in your ad was the impetus for my checking out your website and - accidentally - discovering there my own headshot and some others in my PRODUCTION cast, and that's where the raising of my hackles began.

I stand by the other sentiments I expressed last night. I appreciate your positive and sincere attitude and, again, wish you well in your photography.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 21, 2017)

Apparently the actors DONT have an understanding with the theatre that any and all photos can be used for your own personal promotion (not the promotion of the theatre).

and it surely violates their union contract with the theatre.


----------



## pixmedic (Apr 21, 2017)

I don't blame you for taking the photos down.
sometimes its just not worth a fight. (sometimes it is though)


DGMPhotography said:


> The actors have an understanding with the theatre that any and all photos can be used for promotion.
> 
> I think the issue is between what the theatre has communicated to its actors, and I'm kind of stuck in the crossfire. Even so, I still retain the rights to my photos.
> 
> ...




she (they) obviously dont understand the photography business or how copyright applies to it. 
I guarantee they protect their own copyright privileges vigorously.  
I dont know what "sentiments" she expressed last night, but it sounds like she played the entitlement card. 
i hope whatever future business is gleaned from your relationship with her makes up for her disingenuous apology and snobbish demands. 

i know, i know...you wanted to play nice with the big shots...I can understand that. not even saying it was the wrong move. 
I just hope setting the precedent of immediately backing down when challenged, even when right, doesnt bite you in the arse with these people later.


----------



## table1349 (Apr 21, 2017)

weepete said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > I think the BBC summed it up quite nicely.
> ...



It is hard to be political when you are dead.  A part of history yes, but political, well even if you get elected you cannot serve. 

As for being too young, not hardly there youngun.  What I do remember however was that when she was elected Britain was a country that was in a permanent state of decline,  coal mining strikes, the three-day week, rolling blackouts, rubbish piling up in the streets and even the dead being left unburied. 

I watched nightly after coming home from work the swift victory in the Falklands.   I was intrigued with the right to buy that allowed some of the poorest, hard working people to improve their lot in life. 

I remember a British society that was threatened by a challenge to law and order itself that was transformed into a confident and well-ordered society Britain enjoys today. 

There were many changes under Thatchers watch that changed the history of Britain and in turn the world.  Some for the good, and as I said some for the bad.  However, it in undeniable that she left her mark on Britain and the world, otherwise you would not have such a feelings of dislike for her.   If she had not, no one would remember her name.


----------



## Overread (Apr 21, 2017)

If you want to talk politics please use the subscribers discussion section -  otherwise please refrain from continuing the political discussion.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 21, 2017)

Braineack said:


> and it surely violates their union contract with the theatre.



I already said that the theatre is a non-union theatre, and I believe the actress in question isn't actually even part of the union. She was just citing their mandates.

In any event, I'm over it.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 21, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > and it surely violates their union contract with the theatre.
> ...



fair nuff.     being hired by the theatre itself just throws a wrench into it, especially if there is some sort of rider/agreement with the actors and theatre directly.


----------



## KmH (Apr 21, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Hi Daryll,
> 
> Thank you for understanding.
> 
> The phrase _"In conjunction with a commercial product"_ includes the "product" in a photographer's business.


Nope.
Whoever wrote that clearly does not know WTF they are talking about.

The photographer can sell prints  to the general public all day long, because that is an editorial use, not a commercial use.
Any entity using the image for advertising or the promotion of a product is well advised to have a valid model release on file.

Photographers do not need a release to use images they have made for self-promotion nor self-advertising, unless the images were made under controlled conditions or in private.

Regardless, the model release you show you have in your contract has you covered 6 ways from Sunday.
However from a legal perspective, IMO, your model release clause has no need to mention your right to copyright images you make.
That's neither up to you nor the client, _unless_ the shoot was a 'work for hire' situation.
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ09.pdf


----------



## vintagesnaps (Apr 21, 2017)

A photographer retains copyright of images but this seems to be about usage - licensing usage with the theater if that's the client.

Next time maybe it would better if an actor has questions/concerns about usage of their images to be able to refer them back to the theater. I'd think the theater would have releases on file to use actors' images for publicity purposes in specific terms (such as for a specific production or season or the run of the play).

I would think any contract or release that the theater has with the actors might allow for any photographer they hire for publicity purposes being able to use the images to promote his/her photography business. But since it may not, I'd think it might be a good idea to make sure the theater has a copy of any contract/release up front that you will be using or will be asking the actors to sign. That way the actors would be aware that the photographer may use the images to promote his/her photography business. (And if an actor didn't read the contract or doesn't remember the specific terms, a reminder or copy of the contract could be provided to the actor as needed.) If it's covered in a contract, that could help prevent any surprises by actors seeing their photos turn up somewhere that hadn't been expected.

I don't think the model release necessarily covers the situation and the way it's worded to me sounds like it allows use of the images for stock photography and advertising in a way that could potentially allow a photographer to slap the photos on mugs and T shirts or stock sites or other commercial use. (Not that you would, but if the actors don't know a photographer, I can see why they'd have a problem agreeing to that model release - it seems too wide open.) Seems like it needs to be more specific to using photos from this production for marketing and promoting the photography business.

Here are a couple of examples including suggestions like writing releases and contracts in understandable language rather than legal sounding jargon. I have a book w/CD (an older version) that I found thru ASMP with sample forms (author is Tad Crawford). ASMP also has a 'paperwork share' section with a couple of sample contracts, etc. for actual jobs by photographers.

How to write a license | American Society of Media Photographers
The Big Picture: Collecting & Presenting Production Photos


----------



## DGMPhotography (Apr 21, 2017)

Well I never actually responded to her emails. I'm letting the theatre deal with her. 

And my contract certainly covers my usage, but I'm trying to convince the theatre to have the actors sign individual model releases that should prevent future issues.


----------



## Christie Photo (May 4, 2017)

I want to add one more thought.  Having the right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it's the right thing to do.


----------



## Light Guru (May 4, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> my contract certainly covers my usage, but I'm trying to convince the theatre to have the actors sign individual model releases that should prevent future issues.



Legally I don't think your contract would hold up as the individuals did not sign it.  You cannot hold someone accountable to a contract that the individual did not sign.  The theater cannot sign away rights for other people.


----------

