# Clients defacing images on social media



## BLPhotoMD (Sep 12, 2014)

Ok, so I recently photographed a portrait session for an awesome senior. We had a great connection, and had a blast together. I posted a couple of "sneak peeks" to facebook and instagram. My client has now taken these images and cropped my name out, and added ridiculous filters. She absolutely loves the images, and I know that she is simply naive...I dont want to ruin a good relationship, or damage my chances of getting good referrals, but it bothers the crap out of me to see this done to my images... i have attached the images that I am referring to...Any advice? Thanks!


----------



## tirediron (Sep 12, 2014)

Call (NOT e-mail, text, etc) but actually TALK to her and her parents.  Explain that you will be happy to re-process the images (within certain limits) once she's made her choice, but the images you posted were simply to allow her to have an advance look.  Also, explain very carefully to her and her parents that what she did was* illegal.*


----------



## frommrstomommy (Sep 12, 2014)

I voted yes because I see in your screen shot you don't have a disclaimer asking not to crop, edit, etc.. so unless you had in contract that the images were not to be altered I really don't see how you could say something. I understand the frustration plenty.. it has happened to me but I chose to let it go rather than potentially damage the relationship. The way I saw it was that the damage had already been done of people seeing the awful edited image they posted. lol


----------



## sscarmack (Sep 12, 2014)

Where is the holy hell **** no!!!!


----------



## Civchic (Sep 12, 2014)

My photographer has a "Images are the property of .... Do not crop, alter, or change them in any way.  Please link to ... when sharing on social media" disclaimer on each and every facebook "sneak peak" she gives us.


----------



## sm4him (Sep 12, 2014)

Civchic said:


> My photographer has a "Images are the property of .... Do not crop, alter, or change them in any way.  Please link to ... when sharing on social media" disclaimer on each and every facebook "sneak peak" she gives us.


^THAT. It won't stop everyone--especially teens--but it will "keep honest folks honest." 
I don't do a LOT of portrait work, but I *do* always, always make it very clear that the low-res images I give them to post online are not to be altered in any way, and that if they'd like a photo processed differently, I'll be happy to discuss that with them--though admittedly, there's not enough money on this planet to make me agree to put those filters on one of MY images.


----------



## pgriz (Sep 12, 2014)

I guess this is where an obstrusive watermark over the center of the image has a place.


----------



## enzodm (Sep 12, 2014)

Well, at least she cropped out your name, reputation is preserved


----------



## tirediron (Sep 12, 2014)

frommrstomommy said:


> I voted yes because I see in your screen shot you don't have a disclaimer asking not to crop, edit, etc.. so unless you had in contract that the images were not to be altered I really don't see how you could say something...


What's that old line about 'ignorance of the law'?


----------



## Surgikill (Sep 12, 2014)

If she is buying the images they are hers correct? Can she not also revoke your right to use them if she is in them?


----------



## tirediron (Sep 12, 2014)

Surgikill said:


> If she is buying the images they are hers correct? Can she not also revoke your right to use them if she is in them?


In order:  No, no, and no!  Buying images is the same as buying software.  You are paying for the right to use the image under an agreed-upon set of conditions.  The photographer [normally] retains copyright and control over the image.  The client, unless agreed to before hand has very little say.


----------



## Surgikill (Sep 12, 2014)

Legally, or in your opinion @tirediron


----------



## tirediron (Sep 12, 2014)

Surgikill said:


> Legally, or in your opinion @tirediron


Legally.  In North America (and more or less similarly in most countries whose legal system is based on British Common Law).  Subject to prior agreements to the contrary, in this sort of work (Not "work for hire"), the photographer owns the copyright of the image.  He or she can choose to relinquish that if desired, but not common.  The photographer grants the client certain usage rights, such as the right to print if the client is paying for digital files, or the right to copy, the right to display, etc.  The client is bound by various acts of IP law to adhere to those conditions, and cannot do with as they please.  The fact that it's an image of them means not a whit in law.


----------



## Surgikill (Sep 12, 2014)

I can understand that but what if the image of the person is used in a magazine article or something and the photographer gets paid for it? Do the people also get a percent of pay because it is a photo of them?


----------



## tirediron (Sep 12, 2014)

Wholllllllllllllllle different ball of wax, but the short answer is, very, very unlikely.  Read up on this famous landmark case from New York:  Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 12, 2014)

What was in the contract? If the seniors are under 18 does a parent sign it and receive a copy? That's what you'd need to refer the client back to as a reminder what was agreed on.

If this look is what's popular with seniors this year maybe you need to offer some options with frames/filters that are your style but have a look that would appeal to them, and provide a watermarked smaller sized low res copy for use on social media.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Sep 12, 2014)

Editorial use is newspaper/magazine publication and usually does not require a release but sometimes it may be requested; the subject isn't compensated unless it was a model who was paid to pose for photo sessions. Other retail or commercial use usually requires a signed release from any subject that is recognizable. 

There's info. about contracts, releases, etc. on American Society of Media Photographers or PPA's site.


----------



## waday (Sep 12, 2014)

tirediron said:


> Call (NOT e-mail, text, etc) but actually TALK to her and her parents.  Explain that you will be happy to re-process the images (within certain limits) once she's made her choice, but the images you posted were simply to allow her to have an advance look.  Also, explain very carefully to her and her parents that what she did was* illegal.*



I like this approach. Call them rather than email. 



vintagesnaps said:


> What was in the contract? If the seniors are under 18 does a parent sign it and receive a copy? That's what you'd need to refer the client back to as a reminder what was agreed on.
> 
> If this look is what's popular with seniors this year maybe you need to offer some options with frames/filters that are your style but have a look that would appeal to them, and provide a watermarked smaller sized low res copy for use on social media.



I also like this approach!



Surgikill said:


> If she is buying the images they are hers correct? Can she not also revoke your right to use them if she is in them?



If they signed a contract, good luck unsigning it.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 12, 2014)

I thought her "defacement" was actually pretty well-done, and did not hurt the images much if at all.


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 12, 2014)

This 'Photography and the Law: Understanding Copyright
with Ben Long and Carolyn E. Wright' pretty much takes care of most questions.

Watch the Online Video Course Photography and the Law: Understanding Copyright


----------



## frommrstomommy (Sep 12, 2014)

Legality of what she did aside.. I just don't see why its worth pursuing and potentially hurting the relationship and potentially losing out on referrals. I'm sure there are nice ways to phrase it but in the end any which way, IMO, its going to leave a bad taste in her mouth.


----------



## orljustin (Sep 13, 2014)

Exactly.  It's a teen who likes her pictures and wants to show them off.  She uses instagram and whatever every day.  She doesn't care about your thinking that she's an advertising pawn.  Her friends are going to like them because she likes them.  She doesn't want to show them off with your name on them.


----------



## Designer (Sep 13, 2014)

BLPhotoMD said:


> Any advice? Thanks!



You could learn to live with it.

I've had designs compromised by the contractor many times.  Yes, it bothered me a lot at first, then I just decided to get over it.  

This family is not using your images for commercial purposes, so what's the big deal?  Your pride?


----------



## tirediron (Sep 13, 2014)

frommrstomommy said:


> Legality of what she did aside.. I just don't see why its worth pursuing and potentially hurting the relationship and potentially losing out on referrals. I'm sure there are nice ways to phrase it but in the end any which way, IMO, its going to leave a bad taste in her mouth.


And this is why this problem is wide-spread; "Oh, it's just a couple of images, I don't want to lose her as a client."  Sorry, but IMO, this is wholly the wrong approach.  You certainly don't need to go in, guns blazing, but it's important for you, and everyone else in the industry to make the effort, where you can, to stop this.  Call her parents, explain to them how the law works, and that while you're mad, you don't want it to happen again.  You could even offer to process some prints for her in a more "trendy" style.

Nb.  This is NOT a problem when you sell prints!


----------



## photoguy99 (Sep 13, 2014)

I like hers better than yours, except for the ridiculous borders. Quite apart from the legality etc.


----------



## orljustin (Sep 13, 2014)

"Nb. This is NOT a problem when you sell prints! "

Wow, prints.  I'm sure she'd be thrilled to carry a 8x10 album around to show her friends.  Maybe she could mail it to her friends via post across town.

Welcome to today.  Learn to profit from it, or lose business.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 13, 2014)

orljustin said:


> "Nb. This is NOT a problem when you sell prints! "
> 
> Wow, prints.  I'm sure she'd be thrilled to carry a 8x10 album around to show her friends.  Maybe she could mail it to her friends via post across town.
> 
> Welcome to today.  Learn to profit from it, or lose business.


How many repeat orders do you get when you sell the digital files?


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 13, 2014)

tirediron said:


> What's that old line about 'ignorance of the law'?



"Is only a valid excuse until the local cattle baron shows up with 4 of his ranch hands and a hangmans noose".

Or something like that.  Lol


----------



## frommrstomommy (Sep 14, 2014)

tirediron said:


> How many repeat orders do you get when you sell the digital files?



Enough clients to balance the sales I guess.. lol In all seriousness though, I have started adding a few pro lab prints to my packages, along with the digital files and people have been coming back to me after the fact when they want more prints and have printed at random shops against my recommendation asking for more pro lab prints or telling me they were unhappy with whatever local print lab and telling me they have gone ahead and ordered through my recommendations instead. I want people to see the difference in quality and so far, it seems to be working. Can't speak for all but its working here for me.


----------



## Vince.1551 (Sep 14, 2014)

Don't post any online ...  Meet, select(from PC or iPad), pay deposit, deliver, collect full payment. Perhaps you are as eager as your client to post online? Just wondering...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gsgary (Sep 14, 2014)

Don't worry about it in the second shot she has made herself look larger


----------



## orljustin (Sep 14, 2014)

tirediron said:


> How many repeat orders do you get when you sell the digital files?



The plumber doesn't charge a quarter everytime you use the new faucet.  He charges appropriately for his service and moves on.


----------



## Rudipides (Sep 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I thought her "defacement" was actually pretty well-done, and did not hurt the images much if at all.



I agree with Derrel.  Looks like the girl has some artistic skills that could come in handy.  I like the fact that she picked some patterns that match her dress.  Looks good actually.  Heck, I might even use her ideas with some seniors I will be shooting soon.


----------



## pgriz (Sep 14, 2014)

tirediron said:


> And this is why this problem is wide-spread; "Oh, it's just a couple of images, I don't want to lose her as a client."  Sorry, but IMO, this is wholly the wrong approach.  You certainly don't need to go in, guns blazing, but it's important for you, and everyone else in the industry to make the effort, where you can, to stop this.  Call her parents, explain to them how the law works, and that while you're mad, you don't want it to happen again.  You could even offer to process some prints for her in a more "trendy" style.
> 
> Nb.  This is NOT a problem when you sell prints!





orljustin said:


> The plumber doesn't charge a quarter everytime you use the new faucet.  He charges appropriately for his service and moves on.



I am thinking the issue is whether the photographer is selling a service or a product (yes, I know it not so clean-cut, but bear with me for a moment). 

If it's a service, then the business challenge is to present the situation as one where unique skills, training and equipment are used to provide a service that is not easily reproducible.  Then the outcome of the service (in the form of digital files or paper prints) is irrelevant as it was the service that was being purchased.

If it's a product, then the ability to sell multiple copies or versions IS a key issue, and the product usually needs to be of a form that is not easily copied or reproduced.  In the digital age, the barrier to reproduction is essentially gone, so we rely on the law to discourage people from making illegal copies, and techniques such as watermarks, etc. 

This is in some ways similar to the way the music industry has evolved, with product sales (vinyl, tapes, and CDs) being make practically obsolete by the easy availability of digital files, whether official (ie, with digital right management) or unofficial (essentially pirated).  The law as written says the music companies are right, but that's not helping their bottom lines, and they are being forced to rethink the way music is packaged and distributed.  Image-making is about the same, with the arrival of digital files.

So the challenge for the musicians is to go back to live music shows as the primary revenue generator, with supplementary revenue from download rights.  The photographers may have to adopt a similar approach, in that the money is made at the "live" session, with some additional revenue possible from download rights and print sales after the fact.  I'm thinking that "prints" are fast becoming the thing that you put on a wall, or bind into a photobook, but I don't know who in this day and age actually has a photo album of individual prints.  So the print sale method of earning money may well be obsolete.


----------



## snowbear (Sep 14, 2014)

orljustin said:


> The plumber doesn't charge a quarter everytime you use the new faucet.  He charges appropriately for his service and moves on.


This is not a valid comparison - the plumber does not own the trademark on the faucet, he merely resells and installs it.  As it has been pointed out before, in most cases, the photographer owns the image via the copyright.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 14, 2014)

A brilliant response by pgriz in post #34; a post that reflects the realities of the digital age, and addresses the fact that current laws and the "old ways" of working by shooting cheaply then selling high mark-up prints have both lost a huge amount of traction.


----------



## pgriz (Sep 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> A brilliant response by pgriz in post #34; a post that reflects the realities of the digital age, and addresses the fact that current laws and the "old ways" of working by shooting cheaply then selling high mark-up prints have both lost a huge amount of traction.



Thank you, Derrel, but I think you're being kind.  However, if we pursue the basic idea that photographers now need to make money off the upfront session, then the way to distinguish oneself from the competition may be to package the session as an event, perhaps complete with makeup artist, fancy transportation to and from the shoot location, a special location that is usually NOT accessible to the public, a few refreshments along the way (and we're not talking water bottles here), and the kind of pampering that the "exclusive" shops know how to deliver.  Following this idea, why not prepare a set of images that you will finish editing WITH your customer, so they see the crazy-complex tools you use to bring out the best in the images?  Of course, I'd suggest you do a preliminary pass and get rid of all the clunkers and most of the so-so images, so that the editing exercise is looking at the best 100 or so.  I know this is not the way most photographers approach the editing, but why not get the client involved and set them to show you their preferences?  Then, they will definitely take "ownership" of the images.  And if the "final" versions are exported as images suitable for web display, then there's a good chance they'll come back for additional processing for the "print" versions, should they want to go that way.

I dunno.  I'm seeing all kind of opportunities here for the people who want to make an engaging experience for their customers that will bring in much in the way of word-of-mouth referrals.

In my contracting work, I sell the materials "at cost", but earn my money on the labour (ie, experience, skill, expertise, and competence).  When someone is underpricing me, it's pretty easy to point out that they are skimping on key details.  I will show them the estimating program, and go with them through the steps needed to achieve the end-result.  It becomes obvious where the time ISN'T being spent.  To the person looking for quality, those things become deal-breakers.  For the ones who just want the lowest price...  they get what they pay for.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 14, 2014)

I think the client's two dressed up images actually are improvements over the original images, at least in terms of the location the shots were shown (social media), and also for the demographic of the client (high school senior beginning her senior year, so 17- or 18 year-old female). The term "defacing images" doesn't really seem entirely accurate to me, but rather seems that the client took images that were not quite what she really, truly wanted, and modified them ever so slightly to be images more appropriate to a 2014, smartphone-era, twenty-first century high school girl's needs/wants. The original images are simply not in line with the photo sharing/display norms of this century, among young females. This is the era of custom, user-applied *bedazzling* on clothing, and fingernails with outlandish paint and jeweling, and custom everything. She took plain, unadorned images, and added some borders. She added some "fun" to the product. She took a bit of her own self, her own creativity, and put her own, personalized imprint on the images that represent HER or HER social media outlets...she didn't "deface" the images so much as customized them. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned from her actions?


----------



## orljustin (Sep 14, 2014)

Derrel said:


> I think the client's two dressed up images actually are improvements over the original images, at least in terms of the location the shots were shown (social media), and also for the demographic of the client (high school senior beginning her senior year, so 17- or 18 year-old female). The term "defacing images" doesn't really seem entirely accurate to me, but rather seems that the client took images that were not quite what she really, truly wanted, and modified them ever so slightly to be images more appropriate to a 2014, smartphone-era, twenty-first century high school girl's needs/wants. The original images are simply not in line with the photo sharing/display norms of this century, among young females. This is the era of custom, user-applied *bedazzling* on clothing, and fingernails with outlandish paint and jeweling, and custom everything. She took plain, unadorned images, and added some borders. She added some "fun" to the product. She took a bit of her own self, her own creativity, and put her own, personalized imprint on the images that represent HER or HER social media outlets...she didn't "deface" the images so much as customized them. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned from her actions?



Exactly.  It's getting to be the time where a portrait photographer needs to be able to give the clients what they want, which is material they can use as their facebook profile, filter it up a bit for instagram, put it in a shutterfly book for their senior year, etc.  But, but, I want to charge for ink on paper!  Well, today's generation doesn't care about carrying around paper, or keeping their images unadorned so you can find your next client.  Heck, why not give them a disk of images with a folder of created backgrounds and actions for photoshop that they can use to have fun?  They'll tell their friends and that's how you get business.  Not because your prints are semi-glossy small grained from mpix.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 14, 2014)

Surgikill said:


> If she is buying the images they are hers correct? Can she not also revoke your right to use them if she is in them?



I'm going to assume that you know absolutely nothing about copyrights, intellectual property or licensing, and refrain from railing on you for saying something completely idiotic.

OP, you should absolutely address this with the client. Diplomatically, of course. If your clients are at all reasonable people, they'll understand.

Cheers!


----------



## Surgikill (Sep 14, 2014)

jamesbjenkins said:


> I'm going to assume that you know absolutely nothing about copyrights, intellectual property or licensing, and refrain from railing on you for saying something completely idiotic.
> 
> OP, you should absolutely address this with the client. Diplomatically, of course. If your clients are at all reasonable people, they'll understand.
> 
> Cheers!


So rather than answering my question you just make a jack ass statement. Smooth.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Sep 15, 2014)

Surgikill said:


> So rather than answering my question you just make a jack ass statement. Smooth.



So, I take it you weren't being difficult, and in fact really don't know anything about the topic? If so, I offer my apologies. I read your post as being a smarmy sarcastic jab coming from the "how dare you market using the client's likeness and image" section of the photography community that I truly loathe.

Simply put, the photographer owns the image and all rights associated with the image as a unique work of art and intellectual property (as a creative work). The client is afforded whatever rights are laid out in the contract, assuming the photographer has a contract, and a well-written one reviewed by a contract attorney. Typically, the client is provided what's commonly called a "personal use license" which allows the client to reprint or reproduce the images however they like for their own usage and enjoyment. Many professionals include a "don't alter or screw with my pictures in any way" clause to avoid exactly the situation the OP is currently experiencing.

In most cases, redistribution or licensing the image(s) to a third party for commercial use or monetary gain to the client is strictly prohibited (assuming the client is an individual or family, and not a business or commercial entity).

In summary, if the Creative has a well-written contract, the client receives absolutely no rights or privileges not explicitly provided to them in the contract.


----------



## robbins.photo (Sep 15, 2014)

Surgikill said:


> So rather than answering my question you just make a jack ass statement. Smooth.



Umm, welcome to TPF?


----------

