I am a client and have a question regarding professionalism of a photographer

vintagesnaps · Jan 26, 2015

No contract/no releases doesn't seem like what would be expected of a professional photographer, but I don't think that a client would necessarily know to expect that's what should be done.

My background is in child development/early intervention, and I've been used to having parents participating with their child in class and at home visits. Having more than one adult giving a child directions at once can be distracting for a child but I'd expect a baby photographer or anyone that works with young children would know how to work with that.

I don't necessarily find it to be a problem to have another child participate in the session, the concern to me would be discouraging both parents from being at the session and not having the dad there to engage the child's attention or be involved in the photo shoot.

A young child should only be placed in/on equipment that's appropriate for that age; not up on something until they are able to climb down or turn and swing their legs around and come down feet first safely. Trust your instincts, if this situation didn't seem good for your child, you probably made a good decision to not to take him back.

I agree probably your best option is to get the refund, keep your communications brief and reasonable even if that's not what you've gotten in response, and request the photos not be used on the photographer's website or Facebook page.

I hadn't looked at the pictures yet, not necessarily the worst or the best I've seen but I don't know if that's saying a lot, considering what's 'out there'. And as photographers we're looking at the color and white balance issues etc., the parents might like the pictures, we just have a different perspective on it I think.

KmH · Jan 26, 2015

tirediron said:
KmH said:

It sounds like the photos were made in her home?

For the US - If the photos were made in private, in her home, she does indeed need your permission to use the photos she made to promote herself as a professional photographer or to advertise her business.
If the photos were made in a public park and any passerby could have stood there and watched, she would not need your permission.

But, it will likely cost you way more than $150 start legal action to force her to remove the photos from online.

Click to expand...

Interesting - so even if the house were a proper business premises (which seems unlikely based on what we've seen/heard) there's no inherent entitelment to self-promote?

If shot in private, or under controlled conditions, the photographer needs to have a valid model release on file to establish legal permission to use a person's likeness for self-publication and/or self-advertising.

Since the photographer in question didn't even use a contract. it's likely the photographer is also clueless about releases and copyright.

For those photographers subject to US laws:
A Digital Photographer's Guide to Model Releases: Making the Best Business Decisions with Your Photos of People, Places and Things