# Client Editing Photos



## erphoto (Oct 17, 2009)

First time poster here.  Hopefully this will be a place for me to come with questions and "learning".  

Here's my dilemma.  The way I work is that when I shoot a wedding, I give them a dvd of the images and a rights to print release that states that I still hold the copy right, they only have the right to reprint for personal use.

I have someone who has taken my images, some of them the "original, optimized" version, but some of them the artistic changed version and has done her own things to them through Picnik.

I'm a bit offended and extremely p*ssed off about this. Do I have the right to be angry?  Or am I just overreacting?

Thanks!


----------



## SpeedTrap (Oct 17, 2009)

Did you tell your client up front that they can't edit the pictures you gave them on DVD?  I have found most client do not fully understand that although they have the images on DVD they are not theirs to do what they want with them. 
Have you spoken to them?  I think before you get upset you should talk to them and see it there are any services you can offer, or if there is a reason they want to change them.


----------



## erphoto (Oct 17, 2009)

On my Rights Release, it states:

3. Grant of Rights.  As per agreement, photographer grants client the following rights to the shoot stated above:

A.  Rights to copy, duplicate images through a printer or copy shop for personal usage only.

B.  Reservation of Rights.  All rights not expressly granted hereunder are reserved to the photographer.  

Pretty much, the client has only the right to print and/or copy the images.  Not change them.

What they did to the pictures looks cheap and very unprofessional (obviously, she was just playing around o picnik or whatever site she did the editing on.) I just don't want something that looks like that associated with my name.  

I only know she did this because they are posted on facebook, which she friended me on.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Oct 17, 2009)

Well you can nicely ask her to take them down, or you have to decide if you if it is worth it to have your pictures the way you wanted them or if you want a client pissed off at you and telling everyone they feel you are being unreasonable (even though you are not).
You need to make the decision of what is going to impact you more.


----------



## erphoto (Oct 17, 2009)

To be honest with you it's not worth the energy. The pictures were good pictures but my subjects were not.  Thanks!


----------



## Overread (Oct 17, 2009)

Did you tell her what the rights release says? Only its my experience in life that most people never read the fine print with things - and if they do it rarly sinks in or is remembered.
Its not about being harsh when telling as you hand over the prints, its just a reminder that whilst they have the images and the right to print they do not actually own the images themselves- something that most people (even in pre digital ages) often find hard to grasp - you can see this when people go to have a wedding or portait shot scanned and copied professionally and they don't have a signed release from the photographer - even though the shot might be 40 years old (something that can happen at funerals as people find good photos only to find that not only don't have have the rights but the photographer in question also long dead).

I would be polite about approaching your client in this respect and point out your reasons for having such a policy. Further since she has done this editing and liked the effect it might do you good to offer to touchup the shots she has editied in the manner which she has at a better level - that would help save any bad feelings she might have about this


----------



## ryan7783 (Oct 17, 2009)

erphoto said:


> To be honest with you it's not worth the energy. The pictures were good pictures but my subjects were not.  Thanks!



Until a potential customer sees HER version of the photos and is turned off because they think it's YOUR version of the photos. Her crappy edit job = less work for you


----------



## chakalakasp (Oct 17, 2009)

Overread said:


> Did you tell her what the rights release says? Only its my experience in life that most people never read the fine print with things - and if they do it rarly sinks in or is remembered.



The problem with doing this is that you might invalidate your contract.


----------



## Overread (Oct 17, 2009)

well you can still point them to key parts of the contract that they might overlook


----------



## KmH (Oct 17, 2009)

erphoto said:


> On my Rights Release, it states:
> 
> 3. Grant of Rights. As per agreement, photographer grants client the following rights to the shoot stated above:
> 
> ...


How about if you write this stuff in language they can easily understand. It works for me.

3. *I retain all rights to these images*. What follows is what this contract allows as far as what you can do with these images.
  a. I grant permission for you to make prints, or have prints made by an independent photo processor. I highly recommend www.mpix.com, a quality online consumer print lab.
   b. Here's what *you can't do* with these images:
       1. You're *not* allowed to change them *in any way* other than minor cropping to facilitate different print sizes (aspect ratios), *unless you get my written permission to do so*.
2. You're not allowed to use the images for commercial purposes, *unless you get my written permission to do so*.
3. You're not allowed to enter any of these images in any kind of contest, _*unless you get my written permission to do so*_.
4. Anything else I haven't mentioned is also not permitted, _*unless you get my written permission first*_.


----------



## bcshort (Oct 17, 2009)

I agree with Keith here,

Theres a common misconception by customers that if it is not written in the contract, then it must be OK. Sometimes you really need to spell it out to them what they can and can't do. If something goes wrong, you an then say "Well if you look at Item Number blah it clearly says"

Unfortunately my experience with contracts (not necessarily in photography) is that a customer will tend to exploit any grey area in the wording to their advantage.


----------



## skieur (Oct 17, 2009)

Editing your photos is a serious violation of your copyright under the circumstances mentioned and has a potentially negative effect on your business depending on who or how many people see the edits.

Depending on the variables in the situation, it is up to you to decide how to follow through. At the very least, I would explain the above and gage your client's reaction. I would also go after getting the edits back in your possession.

In a court situation it would revolve around what rights you gave to your client in the contract and if a well meaning client might assume that she had the right to edit them, given nothing in the contract to the contrary. There is some room for argument, depending on the skills of the lawyers.

skieur


----------



## erphoto (Oct 17, 2009)

This is what I wrote her:

_
First off, I apologize because what I am about to say is probably going to upset you.  However, when a photographer takes pictures and releases the RIGHTS to print to a client, it is just that. You do not own the images (or the rights to the images) which means you cannot alter or edit the images that "belong" to me creatively. It's comparable to someone painting you a picture and then you add something to it and call it your own or you writing a paper and then someone adding something to that paper and then them calling it theirs. It's wrong and it's a copyright infringement. Obviously I am concerned about the quality of the pictures you have altered and how it looks on me that I took those pictures and that they now look cheap and poorly edited (as opposed to how they look when I apply the same concepts and edits professionally). I would have hoped that you would have asked me to do what you did to those pictures. It would have cost a little extra, but I would not have minded doing those services for you. As a consumer, I also realize that it was probably totally innocent and you were bored and playing around online, and I understand that, and it's fine to do, but you just can't do it to the images that I provided to you. On the bottom of your release it states that you only have the right to print or copy or duplicate the images, not alter them in any way. If you want those rights, it will be a substantial fee. 

I have to request that you remove the images that you have edited.   

Thanks, and I'm really sorry. I have never, ever, had someone do this before and I was at a loss as to how I should handle it. I don't want you upset with me but I hope you can understand where I am coming from._


----------



## erphoto (Oct 17, 2009)

@KmH - thanks.  it's a great idea and I'll try to use that wording.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 19, 2009)

erphoto said:


> This is what I wrote her:
> 
> _
> First off, I apologize because what I am about to say is probably going to upset you.  However, when a photographer takes pictures and releases the RIGHTS to print to a client, it is just that. You do not own the images (or the rights to the images) which means you cannot alter or edit the images that "belong" to me creatively. It's comparable to someone painting you a picture and then you add something to it and call it your own or you writing a paper and then someone adding something to that paper and then them calling it theirs. It's wrong and it's a copyright infringement. Obviously I am concerned about the quality of the pictures you have altered and how it looks on me that I took those pictures and that they now look cheap and poorly edited (as opposed to how they look when I apply the same concepts and edits professionally). I would have hoped that you would have asked me to do what you did to those pictures. It would have cost a little extra, but I would not have minded doing those services for you. As a consumer, I also realize that it was probably totally innocent and you were bored and playing around online, and I understand that, and it's fine to do, but you just can't do it to the images that I provided to you. On the bottom of your release it states that you only have the right to print or copy or duplicate the images, not alter them in any way. If you want those rights, it will be a substantial fee.
> ...



I think a little more 'sugar coating' would be in order.  Right from the first sentence, it sets a bad tone and I cringed while reading it.


----------



## erphoto (Oct 19, 2009)

she removed the images.  but now, after raving on how much she loved them and loves them and how fab they were, all the sudden it's, "I edited the images because I wasn't happy with how they turned out."

I can't win.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 19, 2009)

> she removed the images. but now, after raving on how much she loved them and loves them and how fab they were, all the sudden it's, "I edited the images because I wasn't happy with how they turned out."
> 
> I can't win.


This goes back to reply #4, from SpeedTrap.  Sometimes it's just not worth it because even though you are in-the-right, you end up with P-ed off clients and bad word of mouth.  

As I see it, you have two option; 
Do everything you can to 'make this right' and satisfy the client.  This could mean a lot of work on your part.
Or...just live & learn and chalk this one up as experience.


----------



## Lyncca (Oct 19, 2009)

I had someone take off the copyright statement that is at the bottom of some of my images that I was allowing them to use on Facebook.  She loaded several with the copyright, then a month or so later, she loaded another that just had a black bar on the bottom of the image where the copyright info was. 

I was pretty ticked off, but calmly contacted her and told her that in order to use the "free" facebook pictures, she had to leave the logo on the image if she wanted to use it.  I was apologetic about being a tyrant.  She seemed to understand ok and apologized.  She still refers me, so I guess I was gentle enough with her not to embarrass her (which I think is what causes a lot of clients to act out once they are "caught") and she still talks to me and refers me.


----------



## Actor (Oct 19, 2009)

I&#8217;m not a lawyer, but then I don&#8217;t think anyone else who has responded to your original post is a lawyer either; at least no one has identified themselves as such.  That said, here&#8217;s my two cents.


You own the *copyright*.
You do not own the *image*, that is, you do not own the *copy* (or copies) of the image that you gave to your client.

Every contract implicitly assumes that the parties to it will end up in court, where you would be the injured party, i.e., the plaintiff, and the burden of proof (that you have been injured) would be yours.  What actions did your client take and which of these injured you?


She copied the file from the DVD to her computer.  Did this action violate your copyright?  No.  It&#8217;s reasonable use.  She had to do it in order to edit the file.  Furthermore, she has the right to maintain an archival copy.  If you claim "the DVD is the archival copy" then she has the right to make a working copy.  If you claim that your copy is the archival copy then you must make arrangements for that copy to be maintained in the event that you go out of business or die.  If you cannot prove that you are a reliable archivist then your copy cannot be the archive copy.
She altered the image.  She edited it.  Does this injure you?  No.  She has the right to alter the image, or rather, her copy of the image.  This point goes right to the heart of the copyright vs. ownership issue.  You own the copyright.  She owns one or more copies.  She can do whatever she wants with that copy or copies.
She put it on facebook.  Is this an injury?  Maybe.  Is posting on facebook &#8220;personal use?&#8221;  This is the point on which the lawyers will gird their loins and do battle.  I think the term "personal use" is terribly vague.

As for the &#8220;potentially negative effect on your business&#8221; I don&#8217;t think you have much of a case.  This is based on the perception that the defendant&#8217;s alterations degraded your work, a totally subjective judgment.  All the defendant&#8217;s lawyer has to do is claim that the alterations improved the picture and that&#8217;s the end of it. The courts have unequivocally stated that they are not critics.  For them to allow artistic criticism in court would be to invite a plethora of frivolous cases.

Your letter to the client should have been written by a lawyer.  Your letter makes assertions that are inaccurate from a legal point of view and could be viewed as an attempt to intimidate your client.  That cannot help your case.

Another point is that a jury is almost certain to be sympathetic to the defendant.  That&#8217;s the way juries are in civil cases.  They tend to favor the defendant over the plaintiff, the little guy over the big guy, the customer over the businessman.  Maybe it's not right but that's reality.

I must end by re-stating that I am not a lawyer.  Every opinion I have stated here could be wrong so you really should ask a lawyer.


----------



## Actor (Oct 19, 2009)

bcshort said:


> Unfortunately my experience with contracts (not necessarily in photography) is that a customer will tend to exploit any grey area in the wording to their advantage.


That's democracy.  That's capitalism.  That's free enterprise.  That's Darwinism.  Survival of the fittest interpreter (or misinterpreter).  :lmao:


----------



## erphoto (Oct 19, 2009)

Actor said:


> I&#8217;m not a lawyer, but then I don&#8217;t think anyone else who has responded to your original post is a lawyer either; at least no one has identified themselves as such.  That said, here&#8217;s my two cents.
> 
> 
> You own the *copyright*.
> ...




I don't even know where to begin with your lengthy post.  First, thanks for taking the time to type that and think it out.  

I have no intention of, or implied that I had the intention of, on here, or to her that I was going to take legal action.  No way.  It's not worth it... She has the right to copy, duplicate and all of that, it's in the contract.  I already knew her rights for that.  My only question was about editing an image that I took... and adding edits to a picture that I had already artistically altered.  I really don't see how this is "legal" seeing as it's akin to taking someone's painting and adding something to it and then displaying it.  I don't know and at this point I don't care as far as this case is concerned.  I have written it up to "experience" as someone suggested and I'm done worrying about it.  

Also, I don't have an issue with anyone posting anything to facebook.  I frequently upload to facebook and tag brides who are my friends on there (with the intention of tagging) and usually anyone who does upload the images will put my name, and refer to me.  I figure facebook is good for business, whether they refer back to me or not, because someone is going to ask them who did their pictures and my name is going to come up eventually.

Again, let me reiterate that I am NOT even thinking about pursuing any sort of legal action and the idea is ludicrous.  Thanks for all the information though, I really appreciate it.


----------



## Christie Photo (Oct 20, 2009)

Big Mike said:


> I think a little more 'sugar coating' would be in order.  Right from the first sentence, it sets a bad tone and I cringed while reading it.



Yeah...  I got that too.  But I don't think this is a time for "sugar coating."

It's nothing personal.  Don't bring emotions into it.  Speak absolutely.

No "probablys," or presumptions about why they did it.  Absolutely no attacks on their abilities or taste.  No hopes that they understand.  Definitely no smiley faces.

Simply, "Delete altered files and don't do it again."

Now, if they're are friends or even acquaintances, I suggest you give them a call to explain.

-Pete


----------



## epp_b (Oct 20, 2009)

> How about if you write this stuff in language they can easily understand. It works for me...


I think an easier way to write it would be: here's what *can* do.  If it's not on here, you can't do it.  You can't possibly predict future technology that may enable people to do new things.

I have to agree, this is a lose-lose situation for you.  Either you risk the negative reflection on you as the photographer for cheesy-looking edits or you risk an unhappy client that may spread negative and/or false information about you.

*Actor*, the problem is that she altered them _and _posted those altered copies.  This qualifies as a "derivative work", which is not applicable for a fair use defense.


----------



## Actor (Oct 20, 2009)

epp_b said:


> *Actor*, the problem is that she altered them _and _posted those altered copies.  This qualifies as a "derivative work", which is not applicable for a fair use defense.


Correct.  But she also included the words "personal use" in her contract.  Does "personal use" include the right to post on-line?  That's one for the lawyers to haggle over.


----------



## misol (Oct 21, 2009)

Ok, I admit to not having read through that all, but I just dont have that kiind of time 

I have the release that spells it out but I also started giving a sheet (and putting it on the CD) that gives printing "tips".  It tells them tips about cropping for different sizes, good places to print and why they should stick with good labs, types of paper and then reminds them NOT to edit my work.  It explains why too.  I havent gotten any actual feed back but I think its a good reminder and I think over all it should help with the situation.


----------

