Sophie Thornton wrote:
Basically, I was asked to attend a test shoot in January for a bag company and was told by the photographer that if the owner of the company liked the pictures another shoot would be organised. I contacted the photographer several times to ask whether I had been successful or not, but he has never replied.

I found out today my pictures have been used on the bag company's website, and I have not signed a release form. Infact I'm pretty sure the photographer is a con-artist and has with held a payment to me.

I'm pretty sure this isn't legal, as my pictures have been used commericially to advertise the company's merchandise on their online store and I have not been compensated.

Does anyone have any advice on how I can resolve this issue?

be reay that it may be even legal in your country

Lumigraphics wrote:
What Studio36 said. I suppose there might be fraud statutes that come into play if you were promised payment and then not given it, but you'll need to get legal counsel from a solicitor to determine that.

That is the OP's decision to make but from experience I can tell her that a solicitor specialising in IP law is probably something she can not afford unless there is MAJOR money involved which I don't believe will be found to be the case here.

That is not to say that there is not more than one way to skin the cat... especially if there is an underlying contractual issue between her and the photographer. Not fraud necessarily, Lumi, but possibly a breach of contract. I can envision a claim along those lines for at least the amount she would have gotten paid had she been hired to do the work save for the test images being used instead of actually engaging her services for the purpose. See where I'm going with the thought?

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

That is the OP's decision to make but from experience I can tell her that a solicitor specialising in IP law is probably something she can not afford unless there is MAJOR money involved which I don't believe will be found to be the case here.

That is not to say that there is not more than one way to skin the cat... especially if there is an underlying contractual issue between her and the photographer. Not fraud necessarily, Lumi, but possibly a breach of contract. I can envision a claim along those lines for at least the amount she would have gotten paid had she been hired to do the work save for the test images being used instead of actually engaging her services for the purpose. See where I'm going with the thought?

Studio36

Yep, that was my thinking. They would have hired and paid you but instead got the images through false pretenses, by promising to pay you for the second shoot. Had you known, you could have refused to do the test shoot.

Lumigraphics wrote:
Yep, that was my thinking. They would have hired and paid you but instead got the images through false pretenses, by promising to pay you for the second shoot. Had you known, you could have refused to do the test shoot.

As the OP probably only dealt with the photographer it would be extremely interesting to also know if the company commissioned and paid them to shoot the images; or paid for the use of the images even if they were not commissioned. She needs to follow the money if there was any that changed hands.

Very interesting...... the shooter is no GWC who may not have known any better but a commercial photographer. Very, very interesting. The plot thickens.

Studio36

JLIEBERPhoto wrote:
Wow, a thread where most of the people stated to consult a lawyer and someone still comes in and says:  "Don't listen to the previous posters, you should contact me privately"....

Consult a lawyer, that's it, done.

Because the "contact me" person knows the relevant law better than lawyers in a different country.  Might even be able to advise her on WHICH "lawyers" to contact if any.

Art of the nude wrote:

JLIEBERPhoto wrote:
Wow, a thread where most of the people stated to consult a lawyer and someone still comes in and says:  "Don't listen to the previous posters, you should contact me privately"....

Consult a lawyer, that's it, done.

Because the "contact me" person knows the relevant law better than lawyers in a different country.  Might even be able to advise her on WHICH "lawyers" to contact if any.

And I can guarantee you that there is not enough money in this case to pay a solicitor with enough left over for a Big Mac and fries. But, as I work as a copyright and licensing agent I also know the relevant BRITISH law too. The OP may or may not even need a solicitor to move forward, but if she does I can recommend several local firms.

Studio36

JLIEBERPhoto wrote:
Wow, a thread where most of the people stated to consult a lawyer and someone still comes in and says:  "Don't listen to the previous posters, you should contact me privately"....

Consult a lawyer, that's it, done.

What do you think the chances of her contacting a lawyer are? Really?

JLIEBERPhoto wrote:
Wow, a thread where most of the people stated to consult a lawyer and someone still comes in and says:  "Don't listen to the previous posters, you should contact me privately"....

Consult a lawyer, that's it, done.

Wow a post by someone that posts without a clue of what they are saying.
FACE!

Davepit wrote:

JLIEBERPhoto wrote:
Wow, a thread where most of the people stated to consult a lawyer and someone still comes in and says:  "Don't listen to the previous posters, you should contact me privately"....

Consult a lawyer, that's it, done.

What do you think the chances of her contacting a lawyer are? Really?

This is the UK. We are not quite as sue/lawyer happy as you colonials. We're more likely to just send Vinnie and his cousin Vito around.

Studio36

Sophie Thornton wrote:
Basically, I was asked to attend a test shoot in January for a bag company and was told by the photographer that if the owner of the company liked the pictures another shoot would be organised. I contacted the photographer several times to ask whether I had been successful or not, but he has never replied.

I found out today my pictures have been used on the bag company's website, and I have not signed a release form. Infact I'm pretty sure the photographer is a con-artist and has with held a payment to me.

I'm pretty sure this isn't legal, as my pictures have been used commericially to advertise the company's merchandise on their online store and I have not been compensated.

Does anyone have any advice on how I can resolve this issue?

Contact the company that is using you pictures,, Not the photographer..  I have in some illeagel usage cases seent the culprit an invoice.  100%  of the time they paid..   I have caught a company lifting images from my origional company and posting them..and they paid me,  and the company they stole the images from..

     No need to go into long explanations.. best not to.. Just an invoice for the image..  You set the price.

Make these moves and if that doesn't work "then"  talk to legal help..

Harold Rose wrote:
Contact the company that is using you pictures,, Not the photographer..  I have in some illeagel usage cases seent the culprit an invoice.  100%  of the time they paid..   I have caught a company lifting images from my origional company and posting them..and they paid me,  and the company they stole the images from..

     No need to go into long explanations.. best not to.. Just an invoice for the image..  You set the price.

Make these moves and if that doesn't work "then"  talk to legal help..

Actually she can't/shouldn't do that in the UK... but she can send them what is called a "Letter Before Action" [without prejudice] offering to negotiate a settlement and setting a time limit to enter into negotiations, but not setting an amount. If she sets an amount it could prejudice any further claim(s) e.g. solicitors fees; filing fees; court costs; etc. that would accumulate if they refused and forced it into the courts.

Studio36

Nic wrote:
Contact the website where they are posted and get with their legal dept and explain there was no release signed or verbal agreement to publish the "Test" images and ask them how they want to handle it. I bet they settle very easily.

No counsel needed and everone is happy. No?

It doesn't work here the same was as in the US. You need to realise that no release would have been required here, even for this particular [commercial] use. So there is no traction at all in arguing that one does not exist.

Studio36

Mistur Photography wrote:
Getting a lawyer costs money, launching a civil law suit costs a boat load of money. How much do you feel you are owed for this image and then decide if it's worth it, it's usually not.

Small claims is usually cheap in the US, I assume it is cheap in the UK as well. Certainly a free 30 minute legal consult with a local solicitor won't hurt her any.

Marie gordon wrote:
Next time, get your payment and a signed release form first.

FIRST ^^^^ READ THE WHOLE THREAD preferably BEFORE posting.

There was NO payment offered. It was supposedly ONLY A TEST for the client;

and

In the UK we really don't "need" releases.

Studio36

Sophie Thornton wrote:
And to WG Retoucher, do you know how he was scamming model mayhemmers? Maybe it might be worth trying for some form of legal action against him? I don't know if you've met him in person, but there is no way he'd survive prison

I had a couple of pm's from other retouchers telling me they'd done a load of work for him and he hadn't paid, ignored emails & pm's etc....

I think one of them started a thread on here somewhere, but it got locked or deleted. As far as I know he's had 3 different alias on here and all are now no longer in use.

Liverpool is a 5 hour drive from here, so not worth me going to find him. I'm sure he'll end up scamming the wrong person sooner or later and get what's coming to him.

studio36uk wrote:
This is the UK. We are not quite as sue/lawyer happy as you colonials.

Studio36

And we saved you from the Nazis. So I guess that makes us even

Sterlin Images wrote:

And we saved you from the Nazis. So I guess that makes us even

studio36uk wrote:

Art of the nude wrote:

JLIEBERPhoto wrote:
Wow, a thread where most of the people stated to consult a lawyer and someone still comes in and says:  "Don't listen to the previous posters, you should contact me privately"....

Consult a lawyer, that's it, done.

Because the "contact me" person knows the relevant law better than lawyers in a different country.  Might even be able to advise her on WHICH "lawyers" to contact if any.

And I can guarantee you that there is not enough money in this case to pay a solicitor with enough left over for a Big Mac and fries. But, as I work as a copyright and licensing agent I also know the relevant BRITISH law too. The OP may or may not even need a solicitor to move forward, but if she does I can recommend several local firms.

Studio36

Well, what IS the "relevant British law?" Is there any sort of Right of Publicity analogous to laws like California Civil Code 3344?

glamour pics wrote:
Surely, somewhere on this fabled site, there is a UK solicitor who could give accurate info as to this situation. American law and practices is as different from those in the UK as our cuisine is from what the British humorously refer to as "food." Any solicitors, or even barristers out there?

Chips with everything!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Chips with everything!
Studio36

Yep! Fish and chips...with enough oil to soak through the Sunday London Times.

But seriously, is there an actual solicitor or barrister who'll comment on the OP's situation?

My prediction is that the alleged crook will eventually gyp a girlfriend of a Manchester United player, and a couple of midfielders will nut him and then put the old studded boot to the crook.  Or perhaps he'll wrong the wrong girl and a different sort of gentlemen will treat him to Doc Marten's leather.